Some Remarks on the Preliminary Reports Published on the Shnaisha Excavations, Swat Author(s): Maurizio Taddei Source: East

and West, Vol. 48, No. 1/2 (June 1998), pp. 171-188 Published by: Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO) Stable URL: . Accessed: 10/04/2013 10:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact


Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to East and West.

This content downloaded from on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

according to Qamar (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 176) and Abdur Rahman (1993: 7) it is called ? to the best of my knowledge ? is the name given to a tributary Marghuz?r Khwar. and on the left of the Said? Khwar. now theDistrict headquarters. 1930: 43.Some Remarks on the Preliminary Reports Published on the Shnaisha Excavations. This seems to have escaped the attention of later scholars who have nevertheless recorded a considerable number of Buddhist rock-sculptures from the nearby village of Kukrai ? I reproduce here the image which was firstnoted (Abdur Rahman 1993: pis. On the other hand. Government of Pakistan. The sketchmap reproduced by Abdur Rahman (1993: fig. which seems to be sufficientlywell grounded and to reflect the actual present use. (Tucci pi.68. following the suggestion of Abdur Rahman (1993: 11-12).96. as Shanesha by Tucci. XX-XXII) by Tucci (Fig. on the slopes of themountain known as Tark?n? (orTarkh?na. The situation had considerably worsened when Tucci visited the site in 1958 ? he found the stupa 'greatly damaged' and was told that from it many images had been 'dug out by treasure-seekers'. Here I employ the form Shnaisha (i. or Tharkana). Stein found the stupa in a state of disrepair in its lower part.) believes that the whole Marghuz?r-Said? watercourse is called Said? Khwar. In more recent years the site was chosen for rescue excavation by the Department of Archaeology. The Buddhist remains there including a huge stupa ? were firstobserved in Sir Aurel Stein 1926 1929: 1) (Stein 73. Tucci (loc. while its lower course seems to be one with theMarghuz?r Khwar. 34. Snesa). 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .e. the former capital of the Swat State. Tucci (1958: 312-13). 339777 (surveyed 1926-27). by Giuseppe thirtyyears the one marked as 'Buddhist Ruins' in the Survey of Pakistan map.. Swat by Maurizio Taddei Shnaisha is a site located about six kilometres south of Said? Sharif. The form Shna-shah (Qamar & Ashraf 1991) is less satisfactory in my opinion. which running into the Said? near Kukrai. by then visited Tucci later 1958: The site is perhaps 313). (Fig. one inch sheet 43 B/6 second edition. 2). but the monument on the whole appeared to him 'fairlywell preserved'. as we can also appreciate from the nice photograph reproduced in theMASI Report. This disagreement may be due to the fact that Sir Aurel Stein did not survey the upper course of the Said? Khwar. close to the village of Kukrai. which therefore does not appear on his map (Stein 1930). Tucci also informs us that 'On a rock near the stupa an image of Lokesvara with a standing Bodhisattva on his left is carved'. cit. This has secured for science a great deal of precious data which would otherwise have been lost due to the intense activity of robbers in the [i] 171 This content downloaded from 111. just off themetalled road connecting Said? toMarghuz?r. The name of the rivulet. fig. is Said? Khwar. and in my own experience. The place-name was recorded as Shin?se or Shin?si-gumbat hy Stein.57 on Wed. according both to the Survey map and to G. a tributary (along with the ? J?mbil Khwar) of the Swat River. 1) is clearly based on Stein's map. 7).

1^ ^tJjfc Fig. Olivieri). 1 Shnaisha. Fig. P.57 on Wed. 2 Shnaisha. The Main Stupa as seen from the east. 1996).96. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Rock sculpture depictingLokesvara with a standing 172 [2] This content downloaded from 111. (PhotoL.68. CS Neg. L 18049/14 Bodhisattva. (Photo Dep. Callieri.

. site is now in a state of utter disrepair (Fig. theMain Stupa is preserved enough to allow us to reconstruct its whole outline. 4) has reproduced a drawing showing its elevation viewed from the south. [3] 173 This content downloaded from 111. Government of Pakistan. University This two-headed initiative of Peshawar. This is only too natural in the case of preliminary reports. 3). Of the three drums.area. I compared this drawing to the actual remains and was not fully convinced of its accuracy. Abdur Rahman (1993: fig. accounts for the unusual fact that two preliminary reports on the same excavation campaigns were published almost at the same Rahman 1993). Needless to say.68. The SW corner of theMain (Photo Dep. this may be a wrong impression due to the fact that it is based on naked-eye observation. L 18049/4 P. 3 Stupa. and some of the interpretations set forthby the authors appear to be subject to doubts.which are extremely useful precisely Abdur time (Qamar& Ashraf 1991 C1). and theDepartment of Archaeology. while a second one took place in 1990: this was a joint venture by the Department of Archaeology. CS Neg. A first campaign was thus conducted by Mr Nazir Khan in 1989 ('NK area'). 4). 1996). This is why ? before the colleagues at Shnaisha excavations for the responsible resume their diggings or publish a second ? I deem it useful to call their report attention to a few points which might hopefully be made clear by further research and scholarlydiscussion. because they provide data for discussion.57 on Wed. the uppermost one (the 'neck'.Shnaisha. while I have the impression ? (*) This paper contains a report on the excavations at Shnaisha and one on those at Baligr?m the latter is due toDr Ashraf. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . The Main Stupa Though badly damaged. Fig. without the help of any instrument. The reader will notice that some of the information provided by one report are contradicted by the other. Callieri. in Abdur Rahman's terminology) shows a straight vertical profile in the drawing (here. the formertoMr Qamar. inmost cases I shall only be putting forward It is regrettable that the excavation suggestions.96. The reader will not findmere corrections in the following pages ? some Fig. nevertheless I deem it useful to draw my colleagues' attention to these interesting details.

[4] This content downloaded from 111.57 on Wed. I would also point out that the plinth of theMain Stupa is c. we see that the drawing shows the capitals of the pilasters as composed of an echinus.g. cf. and a notched (or voluted) abacus ? but no intermediate abacus is actually visible on the spot. 4). 52a. (After 1993: 157-59. Abdur Rahman that it is slightly receding ? 1993: pis. Stupa no. Even the drawings in Stein's report show this peculiar outline inmany stupa domes ? nevertheless it is also true that the section of Shnaisha stupa published by him (Stein 1930: pi. Fig.35 m high (above the slab paving). 0. according to the section (Abdur Rahman 1993: fig. fig. Via). IIb. nor does Abdur Rahman himself (1993: 18) include it in his description. 3. Ifwe now turn our attention to the lowermost drum. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . it appears to the onlooker's eye that the anda is as shown in the drawing ? not perfectly hemispherical ? but startswith a vertical outline at its foot and then takes on a hemispherical profile. a low smooth intermediate abacus. 4 Elevation of theMain Stupa viewed from the south.96. 27. 8). Faccenna 1995a: passim. 5. pi. This seems to be the rule also inmany other stupas and stupa-shaped caskets in Swat ? e.Abdur Rahman 1993: fig.68. On the other hand. 34. both with many illustrations) or theMain Stupa at Gumbat?na (Ashraf 1996). 9 at P?nr (Faccenna et al. Fig. 3) shows a hemispherical dome. Faccenna 1995: 502-66. cf. which is contradicted by his own photo on fig. here. and the or tapering ? in its upper part (Fig.

It seems that this is also the opinion of one of the excavators. of faith' are not so common in Swat: one was found (2) Clay tabletswith theBuddhist 'profession by the Italian Archaeological Mission at Udegr?m. Stupa. Scerrato). [5] 175 This content downloaded from 111. not really a niche. as shown by the fact that its side walls are interrupted in the front portion. presumably contemporary with the worshipping of the stele in Cell no. A close-up view of theMain drum. I was not able to spot this small niche. CS Neg.68. There is nevertheless a niche-like recess on the west Main Stupa (Fig. Callieri. For this typeof devotional object. I wish to point out that it is no real niche. Is the 'niche' still visible on thewest side the one described by Abdur Rahman? If so. It niche<s> seems that therewere more than one niche. 5 Shnaisha. U.57 on Wed. IVb it clearly appears that the plinth is higher than the moulding. comm.. more or less side of the facing Cell no. though expressed as an afterthought (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 206) when he speaks of the 'clay seals found in a small square hole in the drum of the stupa*? small square hole.96.base moulding of the first storey is c. of the drum of the stupa'. 6). It is highly probable that itwas originally a walled up and inaccessible relic-recess which was later opened and used for offering the so-called ts'a-ts'a or clay tablets with the Buddhist creed. Raja Gira site (pers. I emphasize. 0. A few clay tablets with the Buddhist creed were found in the 'niche'. In the neck there is a small niche on the side facing east. It is to be hoped that the final report will provide more precise information concerning a detail which is of great importance from the point of view of the religious history of Swat (2). showingtapering profileof uppermost (Photo Dep. L 18049/22 . 1996). 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 1 and at the height of the second drum.. while from pi. by Prof.56 m. which is a rather interesting piece of information (Abdur Rahman 1993: 38). This kind of offering would point to a late date. 2.] stands area upon a vertical neck marked at the top by a shallow recess.P. which is reproduced neither by Abdur Rahman nor by Qamar. rather an inner recess. but Qamar (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 197) tells us of 'the clay tablet<s> found in one of the Fig. The Niche in the Stupa Wall Abdur Rahman (1993: 18) describes a niche on the east side of theMain Stupa: The dome [. see Taddei 1970 and Vertogradova 1990.

CS Neg. cf. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .D. L 18049/23 The Two Late-Period Cells Abdur Rahman (1993: 20) describes two 'cells' (see Fig. This is confirmed by Qamar (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: to for Period II. Fig. Cell no. 1996).D. followed by Farooq Sw?ti 1997: 15. when 'cultural activity was vigorously revived' at Shnaisha (Abdur Rahman 1993: 46).96.Main Stupa. 55). 6 Shnaisha. 2 ? as no. A recess in thewest side of the P. pi. Abdur Rahman attributes the two cells to Period II. under 'Chronological Outline').68. (PhotoDep. 176 [6] This content downloaded from 111. thatalsoAbdur Rahman is notwholly consistent in thenumbering of the two cells? on p. Callieri. however. 8) belonging to a ? which is described period inwhich the area was already in a state of disrepair. Fig.' ? which the main stupa belongs dates back to the period of the great Kushans (see infra. (3) It shouldbe noted. 15 of his reporthe refers to 'Cell 1' instead of Cell 2. 1 by Qamar (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 185) (3) was built. 'against thewestern wall of themain stupa in the southwest corner' and contained a standing image of Siva Mah?deva (according toAbdur Rahman. 7.57 on Wed. Period I? 179-80) who points to a date 'from 4th to 5th century A. inAbdur Rahman's words. or a Bodhisattva (according to Qamar). 360. which he does not date precisely ? he only hints at a date after A.

I do not intend to discuss the iconographic problem. 219 top). is silent about the pedestal but states that the image was placed against the stupa wall 'and fixed to it by iron clamps'. 7 Shnaisha. that 'the pedestal depicted figures of lions being fed by amorini'. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 5). 9-10). The image? Abdur Rahman says? is provided here). From an archaeological point of view itwould be even more important to know what kind(s) of stone the two pieces are made of.68.) informs us that the image was found along with 'a heavy pedestal made in sandstone'. 218 bottom. July 1997. fig. it is particularly relevant to know whether they [7] 177 This content downloaded from 111. while the pedestal ismade of limestone. (After Qamar (ibid. Abdur Rahman.57 on Wed. nevertheless the captions of pis. Fig. on p. in describing the 'cell'. as there are lions in it but they are not being fed by anybody.N Abdur Rahman 1993: fig. XXVIIb and XXVIIIa (respectively the image and the pedestal) state that both pieces are made of 'brownish schist' (Figs. which actually depict lions being fed by amorini: the pedestal in question is not reproduced ? he by Qamar probably had no photograph of it and only trusted to his memory. see Filigenzi 1997: 628) ? the Shnaisha image represents the Bodhisattva Maitreya. It is also clear thatQamar's description of the pedestal has been inadvertently based on other pieces from the same site (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: fig. elsewhere (Abdur Rahman 1993: 32-33) he describes both the image and ismade of 'stone' (no other information the pedestal.96. and that the feet of the image 'were broken and missing'. for the time being. on p. Plan of the excavation. not Siva Mah?deva. as it has already been dealt with Dr Anna Filigenzi in a paper she read at the 14th International Conference of the European by Association of South Asian Archaeologists (Rome.

68.Shnaisha._^ _i_:_I_Z_?_*_io ?~?o P ii_it_~i_I*_*_-.96.57 on Wed. 8 . & "/IS & IM/14 3m/'3 OATUM LINE ~ "~~ T' >^ ?? This content downloaded from 111. (Aft and k-?-?Mm-'-' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ? I ^\ * 3210_*m scale x .^O y / (K \. Section between Main Stupa Monastery wall. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .t_i7__i_ u Fig.

width of the stele..45 m\ Since the pedestal is ^^^^^ ?P^B ^^B^ ^^^^H the legs of the [.57 on Wed. where they are now kept: my impression is that they are actually made of the same stone. 1 (i.University c. 8) shows a structure made of fairly regular diaper masonry but provides no indication as far as a possible foundation trench is concerned. The stratigraphic correspondence between the two cells is not clear. important point must be clarified: was the cavity made larger as a consequence of the loss of the feet. It is surprising that the west wall of Cell no. De/tf Fig. one further courtesy of the Department).96. From the photographs one gets the impression that Cell [9] 179 This content downloaded from 111. A better description ofAbdur Rahman's Cell no. If this is true. In 1996 I had the privilege of viewing the two pieces thanks to the courtesy of Dr Taj Ali. But more precise information from the excavators about this point would be really welcome. 9 Shnaisha.80 x 0. apparently too long to be meant to hold a tenon below the feet of the image. while the east wall (the one towards the stupa.aremade of the same kind of stone. being the rear wall) cuts into layer 9 and almost reaches down to the Paved Floor. the entrance wall) only reaches the top of layer 8.). 3 ? the diaper masonry is not so regular as it appears in the section drawing and the bottom outline of the structure is quite different. 60 cm!). is ofPeshawar. (Photo by ofArchaeology. VIb and Vila show a substantially different structure if compared with the section of fig. University of Peshawar. VIb and Vila and in the section of fig. The section (here.Abdur Rahman is perhaps right when he states that itwas 'meant to receive only 60 cm long (ibid. broken at shin-height. and that this stone is a kind of schist. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . or was the pedestal specially made in order to receive an already footless image? Are there any details ? apart from the nature of stone? which can help us to establish whether image and pedestal belong together or not? The chronological frame is not fullyconvincing. Abdur Rahman (1993: 33) says that 'no traces of feetwere found' and 'the pedestal has a deep slot 0. it is an important fact that the Another interesting point which needs clarification is the cavity on the upper surface of the pedestal. at the timeHead of theDepartment of Archaeology.e. 2. cavity is a fairly long one. the cavity cannot be 80 cm (actually it seems to be only c. 3 ? would perhaps help a lot..whatever it is. 40 cm).15 x 0. In any case. Fig.] image' (but the present Cult image from Cell no.68. 1? which is visible in the photographs in his pis. The photographs reproduced in Abdur Rahman's pis.

a circumstance which was kindly confirmed to me by Mr Mian Said Qamar (pers. (Photo by courtesy of theDepartment). It marks another floor level (Floor II) as observed in trenches laid against the foundations of the Cells 1 and 2.).96.Cell no. as they are used in semi-ashlar. Pedestal of cult image from ofPeshawar. Nor did Abdur Rahman say anything about the relative chronology of the two cells. for The caption of pi. 1 was built on a slope. 2. in which between the boulders (AbdurRahman 1993: 20). though he did not include this piece of information in his report. Vllb [10] This content downloaded from 111.68. Layer 7 is a thin deposit and accumulated when Cell 1 was in use. 2. no. Dept ofArchaeology.57 on Wed. 1 is later than no. perhaps with very poor foundations. Abdur Rahman states that (1993: 15) Layer 8 is composed of a thickdeposit of gravels and sandy streaks broughtdown by torrential west to east and decreases rains from thehill sidewith occasional potsherds. One should therefore infer that Abdur Rahman's Cell no. comm.University Fig. fillingup the interstices provides some more information: relatively thick stones are freely used. 1 shows what may be called a rougher type of diaper masonry of a somewhat nondescript character. 10 Shnaisha. It slopes from in thickness as it approaches theMain Stupa. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . though he aptly observes that Cell no.

(Taddei & Verardi 1985: pi. 11. 2 built when layer 9 had already no. Cell no.68. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 11 -Bodhisattva British Museum.D.Showing paved floor (Floor 1) in the and foreground Floor 2. of some bronze images presumably from the Swat Valley. cf. To the south came to light twomuch damaged (Buddha) with at least two figures in stucco seated at the same level. 2] on the northwere found fourBodhisattva figures in a row on thebase moulding of the stupa. who rightly assigns the end of the sacred area to the 10th century). (AfterPal 1975: no. 2 built without foundations? In any case a somewhat more precise dating can be attempted on stylisticgrounds for the image and the pedestal. The The Images Flanking Cell No. All these sculptures together Bodhisattvas from the upper circumambulationpath belong to the time of Floor II. Fig. attributed to the 8th-9th (Pal 1975: nos. Ghazni. which were fresh yielded lateKushan copper coins of Vasudeva III.96. the 8th century A. That theBodhisattva figures materials froman earlier addition to the sculptural wealth of themain stupa. The lions with wig-like manes on either side of a cloth panel in front of the throne are strongly reminiscent of the clay pedestals at Tapa Sard?r. which are to be dated to c. here. 9) or. even more. century A. from Swat. ismade clear by (I) their stand out prominentlyin thewhole collection particularly when compared to the time ridden older panel reliefsfound in a deplorable condition. 2 being in connection with Floor 2. the Mahadeva a was It seems therefore that Cell no. 75). had accumulated. Fig. 75. 2 The accurate digging by Abdur Rahman circumstance: ? (1993: 46) allowed him to clarify a very interesting Flanking the shrine [Cell no. Xllb. as the nice photographs reproduced Rahman as pis. XIIIa-b and XIVa. show three of the fourBodhisattvas resting Abdur by [in 181 This content downloaded from 111. Between layer 9 under slab representing the two floors passes Shrine. (II) theirplacement on thebase moulding not used for thispurpose at any other time and (III) theirgroupingnear the Mahadeva shrine suggesting contemporaneity with the latter. 76.57 on Wed. Maitreya. Ashraf 1993: 38. I would raise some doubts about this interpretation. 1 when also layer 8 Cell accumulated. Was then Cell no. and not simply better state of preservation which makes them period reused afresh.D.

2. Abdur Rahman 1993a: 107). 3b. the 4th century A. Abdur Rahman (1993: 53. XVIIa-b. XVIII. In any case. 8a). 1-2) which are to be dated mid-2nd to late 3rd century A. LVIII and LIX) describes five triangular panels depicting fabulous winged animals and reproduces three of them.D. A question which will remain unanswered unless the excavators provide more detailed information on the circumstances of the finding is the chronological relationship between the stucco images and Cell no. XXIXb) was re-used in an obviously improper position (cf. fig. as these images considering comparatively late. They belong to a class of reliefswhich have only one side sculptured. fig.on the moulding to the north of Cell no. All this damage could not have occurred after the images were placed on themoulding. Another point of some interest is to know the exact location and appearance of the capital of pi. XHIa they were placed there seat in the of the halo XHIb is its is broken and also missing. a detail that does not fit at all with their being used as brackets.57 on Wed. 2 ? was this built against a stucco plastering connected with the stucco images? The stucco Buddha of pi. I wish to suggest that they are no brackets. pis. I would rather think that they are the side-pieces of stair-risers (cf. 1992: 35. this capital (also reproduced in pi. pis. Marshall 1960: ? nos. The plate's caption reads. Actually. or even at a later time. the other being flat. XlVa is seated. if they were actually found in that particular position ? they were already damaged and then reused close to Cell no.g. the stem of the lotus on which the Bodhisattva of pi. but there seems to be a few-centimetres thick layer of soil between the plinth and the capital. 'Soapstone capital on plinthmoulding of theMain Stupa'. Platform'). Said? Sharif I (Callieri 1989: 20. badly damaged.). 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Maitreya image pi. 1964: 47.D. Insofar as the latter are concerned. pi. they can be compared with the two Bodhisattvas from a stratified inhabited area at Bir-kot-ghwandai (Callieri et al. which appear to have been already damaged ? are the ends of the stool legs of the image in pi. though certainly not so late as the stele in Cell no. the three reproduced are described as 'triangular brackets'.68. atMarjanai (Shah Nazar Khan 1995: 10. pi. He labels them as 'brackets'.96. 2. The Shnaisha images were presumably placed there stucco the with images reproduced by Abdur Rahman as pis. and elsewhere. XIVb and XVa (which along are attributable to c. is broken. IX). Faccenna at 1962: pi. It would be greatly devotion when The Sculptures These are a fewminor observations concerning some of the sculptures found at Shnaisha and reproduced by Professor Abdur Rahman in his report. XVa seems to be connected with plastering ? does this plastering reach down to Floor II only? I agree with Abdur Rahman in the sanctuary was almost abandoned. just like the above mentioned images resting on the plinth. when etc. 48) 'string panels terminology (Zwalf under 'The Eastern (See infra. the re-use of earlier sculptures in late Buddhist buildings seems to have been a fairlywidespread practice in Gandh?ra ? there are examples at Butkara I (e. XVb when itwas found. which appears to have remained as the focus of Buddhist helpful itwe knew whether these stucco images decorated the entire perimeter of the stupa or were only limited to a small area south of Cell no. 2. in stairs' of Zwalf's 1996: 37. 182 [12] This content downloaded from 111. 20). 340-341). 2.

he is depicted in the known specimens as a beardless young man. Reg. The other two occupants of the chariot. one can vaguely recognize a kind of crown made of leaf-like segments on ifmy impression is not wrong. 55. The assailant wears a dhoti and an upper garment rolled round his waist. pi. but I am inclined to suggest that those discs are rather parts of a chattr?vali (cf. A relief containing three panels from a frieze with stories of the Buddha Siddh?rtha is by Abdur Rahman. 26 by Qamar. no. Moreover. quite similar to the one found at Hadda (Taddei 1992: fig. For the iconographyof of any other villain in Buddhist literature see Dr Pia Taddei Brancaccio has prepared an article on the iconography (1969: 63-64). LVIIa-b by Abdur Rahman are labelled in the captions as 'fragments of haloes'. as pi. It is highly probable that the 'panel relief depicting a lotus flower' (Abdur Rahman 1993: 27. e. 518-519). 33) is part of a hannik?. pi. An examination of the rear side of the panel could easily remove all doubts (cf. Abdur Rahman (1993: reproduced as pi. Though the assailant's head is badly defaced. pi. who might match this depiction. esp. Angulim?la. wrestling Moreover scene one for the combatants of them here do not wear the shorts of professional is striking with a sword. 1993: 285-355. as the storyof Angulim?la inGandharan art (4) In this case the relief isusually restrictedto itsconclusion. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . XXXVIb on writes that the the left 31) panel cannot be the usual athletes. This seems too cautious a description ? it is actually a bejewelled Buddha. But I do not know [13] 183 This content downloaded from 111. Qamar (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 193) merely speaks of 'a contest of arms'. 1 (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 193. pi. ofAngulim?la soon to be published in thisJournal.68. XLVa) as a 'bust of Bodhisattva' which 'appears to be a prototype for bejewelled Buddha'. before the intervention of Drona (or Dh?mragotra) reinstated peace.g. Farooq Sw?ti 1997: 14..One of the stucco fragments is labelled by Abdur Rahman (1993: 33. fig. 50). Other examples of the same scene are not so numerous ? suffice it to recall the two fragments in Japanese private collections reproduced by Kurita (1988: nos. This redoubtable the latter also labels it as character is called a 'giant' by both Qamar and Abdur Rahman ? 'a jina figure' in the plate's caption. both much defaced. A horse-driven chariot has been stopped by a bearded 'Herculean' character who catches the charioteer by his hair and is about to kill him presumably with a sword. this might induce us to believe that our relief from it? Shnaisha depicts one of the thousand murders Ahimsaka/Angulim?la was compelled to commit by order of his guru (4). LVa.when Angulim?la is about to kill his ownmother and/ortheBuddha himself.96. Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 195. The two fragments of beamed lotus-shaped discs reproduced as pi. 156a. Ill. I do not find any more detailed description in the text. pi. would prove to be unique. LVIIb is strongly suggestive of this interpretation. which sounds rather disconcerting unless we surmise that it is just a misprint in the place of jinn 'sprite or goblin'. Zwalf 1996: 476): the smooth central surface of the disc in pi..2). Faccenna et al. 27.57 on Wed. pi. pi. XLb) is a puzzling relief from the point of view of iconography. The identification it undoubtedly represents of the scene ismade certain thanks to its position in the frieze? the Contest for the Buddha's relics. Abdur Rahman 1993: 27. 'throw their hands up in the air in horror' (Abdur Rahman).

being Reg. LIII-LIVb). I presume) 'were probably used as stair risers' in the Eastern Platform and the Main Stupa. as the palmettes and other devices on them seem to point to a fairly early date (Abdur Rahman 1993: 19 and pis. 80. no. pis. pis. pi. The inAbdur Rahman's report describes a 'headless figure of Bodhisattva caption of pi. All of them are 18 cm high. 7) was mainly brought to the lightby treasure-seekers.. here. 11).] and the front side of the eastern platform' (Abdur Rahman 1993: 46. XXXIVa-b. pis. I refer to the so-called 'Great Building' of Butkara I (Faccenna 1980-81: 151-60. reference to any illustration) on p. XXVIIa showing it (not no. 84. Abdur Rahman (1993: 31. 56). which was excavated by 184 [14] This content downloaded from 111. as it seems to fallwithin a class of monuments still awaiting a satisfactory explanation of their cultural function (presumably vih?ras). the NK area. including Brahma and a flying amorino) is to be shifted to the left and below. 32. The photograph of pi. pi. pis. will certainly allow the excavators to provide a partial reconstruction of the stairway decorations in their final report. Fig. no. Lastly I have to point out a minor oversight which might cause some confusion. 148. Both Qamar (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 183-84. 350-64) and cognate monuments at Gumbat and Abbas?hebchina (Swat). The difference between the two plates consists in pi. XXIIIb-XXIV) suggests that this is to be joined to two other fragments (Reg. 3) large pots were found embedded in the floor both at Shnaisha (Abdur Rahman 1993: 19. such as those reproduced by Abdur Rahman on pis. 54. including the triangular 'string panels' described above (also from the NK area). XLVIIa-b. 7). pi. Takht-i-B?hi. XXVb depicting the image no. pis.68. Abdur Rahman (1993: 46-47) very aptly hypothesizes that some of the reliefs found in the area (the above-mentioned ones. and Hadda ? n.96.: 160. apparently the same Maitreya as the one reproduced in pi. pi. A similar oversight is found in the report by Qamar where the same Bodhisattva is described and reproduced twice ? before restoration (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 190. The exquisitely carved reliefs decorating the lowermost step of the platform's stair deserve a special mention. The number of fragments available. pi. described on p. and most of them were found in and XLVIIIa-b. Taxila. XXVIIa actually reproduces a Maitreya complete with his head.Reg. but the result is not fully satisfactory on the left (Reg.: 187. 32 refers to the image before restoration. XVIa-XVIIIa) give a very succinct description of it. 358a). 66 and 80): an attempt to piece the various fragments together is illustrated by ? the fragment Farooq Sw?ti (1997: 15. The description on p. XXVb. to it be is also noted that (ibid. which 'comprises of the front side (north) of the main stupa [.57 on Wed. 6-7) and Abdur Rahman (1993: 19. 67 is a fragment of a relief depicting the Bodhisattva Maitreya. green schist)' fromNK area. XXVIIa no. 17) and after restoration {ibid. The Eastern Platform This very interestingbuilding (Fig. It is to be hoped that further research a to lead better may knowledge of this structure. 148) after the joining of left forearm and right leg to the Bodhisattva's body. 84 as it was before restoration. XVIb) and Butkara I (Faccenna 1980-81: 158. Unfortunately no reliable data are available from the NK area. The base moulding and dividing panels of this stair-riser clearly link it to other pieces from Shnaisha. 353a. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . no. XXXVIIIb. nos. which is also listed (though with no Maitreya (Reg..

This falls in with the circumstance that no reliefs (but see infra)were found at Shnaisha belonging to the early group recognized at Butkara I (Faccenna 1974: 172-75. 3. three votive stupas (nos. being represented by the two cells. 5. However. 17 and 27 at Butkara I (Faccenna 1974: 172-75. including the Main Stupa. Zwalf 1996: 96-97). I shall abstain from any chronological consideration based on masonry technique due to the uncertainty of the information provided. Fabregues 1987. The sculptures allow for some safer considerations to be put forth. nos. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw 1981. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Huntington 1985: 119-22. 33). It is characterized by palmette devices which disappear from the later production. XXXVIIIb (Reg. The only fragment of stair-riserwhich does not appear to have been found in the NK area is the one reproduced by Abdur Rahman on pi. 1 and 2. Period III. it is interesting to note that the figured Corinthian capitals of the Great Stupa ? on the grounds of their stylistic peculiarities ? than the decoration of appear to be later the stairway of the Eastern Platform and possibly that of theMain Stupa itself. though they undoubtedly represent a development from those depicted in Stupas 14. structural activity at Shnaisha into three periods ? theMonastery wall and flight of steps. but we know too little of this foundation trench.96. not 13. no. both dimensions and subject matter make it highly probable that it also belongs to the stairway of the Eastern Platform. in the same report (caption: 'Votive stupas in theNK area') Curiously enough. Nevertheless I wish to point out that the numismatic evidence available is not enough to allow us to say (as Abdur Rahman says) that the Main Stupa dates back to the time of Huviska. 34). 29. here. I have already observed that the green-schist decoration of the lowermost stair-riser of the Eastern Platform appears to be fairly early. 73. The only really significant coin is the one 'found under the paved floor in the foundation trench near the west side of the main stupa' (Abdur Rahman 1993: 39. 1-3) in NK area. which is described as 'circular in plan' (ibid. on the grounds of the numismatic evidence. as stated in the text p. No votive stupa preserving square base and drum is described either by Qamar or Abdur Rahman. 7). 1993: pi. period II. pi. This decoration is attributed to Period I which. XVIIIb of Abdur it is a detail of Rahman's report. Fig. consisting of a foundation wall yet to be investigated (Abdur Rahman 1993: 16-17). 4). here. can be referred to the early Kushan period insofar as the construction of theMain Stupa is concerned. Faccenna et al. the construction of which presumably took place at an earlier date.: 19) cannot be recognized in any of the votive stupas visible in the plate itself. In any case. It is possible that the time of Huviska saw the completion of the area round theMain Stupa. as in the caption).itwill thereforeprove very difficult to tellwith any certaintywhich Mr Nazir Khan in 1989 ? stair-risers (and string panels) belong to which of the two monumental buildings.57 on Wed. XVIIIb shows more stupas than are visible in the plan (fig. the Eastern Platform (NK area). though stupa no. The photograph reproduced does not depict Shnaisha ? the excavations of the Italian Archaeological Mission at P?nr (cf. Fig. which is not even indicated in the section (fig.68. but one such stupa is distinctly visible in pi. 8). the Tank (NK area). no. fig. This might suggest that theMain Stupa was completed at a comparatively later date. [15] 185 This content downloaded from 111. Chronological Outline The archaeological evidence has allowed the excavators to propose a subdivision of the Period I. 3.

as described by Abdur Rahman (i. 1 and 2). as this kind of frieze seems to disappear in the late Kushan period. TheMonastery. Ashraf Khan. Napoli. IsMEO. 1. ed. Pakistan).96. Period IF I the of quality reproduction. but its caption reads. 208. pp. 52/4. Archaeological Reconnaissances in Callieri. 'A much damaged head (Reg. the head no.D. Taddei 1990: 46-47). The BuddhistSacredArea. (1996) ed.M. as I have already emphasized. CLXVI-CLXIII. Cells nos. Gandhara Md. Faccenna 1974: figs. Ashraf Khan. have the impression that its eyes with incised irises provide a linkwith the heads belonging to the proto-Gandharan group referred to above. Suppl. pis. 1-124. In particular. InAbdur Rahman. This sculptural 'Period II'. a date within the 1st century A. (1987) The Indo-Parthian BeginningsofGandhara Sculpture. I would rather suggest that it is styled 'Period I. VIII). active when the sacred area was already in a state of disrepair. XLVIb never referred to in the text. Fabregues.68. can in no way be identified with the structural Period II. as it does not seem to correspond to any consistent change in the layout of the sacred area. pp. but would belong to the very earliest sculptural activity at Shnaisha. XXVIIa.g. XXIII Callieri. XLVb) this is in as I the evidence from have The with other sites.e. unless fresh research provides better information about the connection between the main buildings and the slab pavement. P. M.. pi. The specimens from Shnaisha are certainly later than such pieces as the famous ones fromButkara I (Faccenna 1962: pis. Excavation at Gumbatuna pp. agreement Images suggested supra (under Flanking Cell No. 1996. Phase 2'.A frieze decorated with carinated toranas (or 'cattya arches') is also attributed by Abdur to Period I? Rahman (1993: 26-27. 1. Olivieri (1992) Bir-kot-ghwandai 1990-1992. 1. etc. Professor A. XLVIa-b) with no apparent reason. Asia Institute. 105-8. P. P. can reasonably be attributed to these reliefs from Shnaisha and cognate pieces (cf. (1989) Saidu SharifI {Swat.. Brocato. no. Saeed-ur-Rehman. Other sculptures as well are attributed to Period II by Abdur Rahman is (e. A group of images characterized by flat drapery and heavy eye-lids are attributed by to Period II ? Abdur Rahman (1993: pis. Abdur Rahman (1993a) Recent Developments inBuddhist Archaeology inPakistan. Filigenzi. 208 should not be assigned to Period II. 96-106. XXIIIa-b. no. 9. XXVa-b. the male head on pi. (Swat). Rome. Dani Felicitation Volume ( = Ancient Pakistan. REFERENCES Abdur Rahman (1993) ShnaishaGumbat: First Preliminary Excavation Report. ? in spite of its poor state of preservation and the unsatisfactory green schist). 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 39-40). RepMem.H. Stupa Karachi. pp. Nascari & L. 2'). SAS. 33-43. (1993) Buddhist Shrines in Swat. M. A Preliminary Report on theExcavations of the ItalianArchaeologicalMission.57 on Wed. If this is not merely due to my wrong evaluation. XLIXa-La) this is in agreement with the evidence from other sites. 73 toAION. A. Peshawar. Ch. Bulletinof the 186 [16] This content downloaded from 111. Saidu Sharif.

(1960) The BuddhistArt ofGandhara. 1-13. Part 1. South Asian Archaeology 1995. (1997) Special Features of the Buddhist Art in the Sw?t Valley. Cambridge. 1-60. The Buddha's Life Story [in Japanese]. Pakistan). In Central'najaAzija v kusanskuju epohu /Central Asia in the Kushan Moskva. (1975) Bronzes ofKashmir. I. New York-Tokyo. Roma. Wise. ?th?riyy?t 1. AncientPakistan. Period. and Culture of Central Asia in theKushan Period. Faccenna.W. Makaranda. XIX. New Delhi. Archaeology Faccenna. SirA. Marshall. Jarrige. Sir A. London. Pakistan).E. The St?pa Terrace. 625-35. (1985) The Art ofAncient India: Buddhist.. Rome. Delhi. 377-400. M. In R. (1997) Buddhist Rock Sculptures in Swat. D. Proceedings of the International Conference on the History. 126-76.L. In H. 42. Nadiem (1993) P?nr I (Swat. I. Berlin. Faccenna.H. Ashraf Khan (1991) Preliminary Report on theArchaeological Excavations of Buddhist Sites in Swat.s.F. J. pp. Qamar. of Pakistan II 2. van (1981) New Evidence with Regard to theOrigin of the Buddha Image. Tokyo. XI. H?rtel. Pakistan) 1956-1962. I (Sw?t. I. Sir J. Journal of Central Asia. Filigenzi. Shah Nazar Khan (1995) Preliminary Report ofExcavations atMarjanai. Sacred Area ofButkaraI (Swat. Mian Said & Md. pp. Kabal. Roma. RepMem. C. ? (1995) Saidu SharifI (Swat. M. Faccenna.D. D. pp. 173-234... eds. Plates. RepMem. September 27-October 6. (1974) Excavations of the Italian Archaeological Mission (IsMEO) in Pakistan: Some Problems ofGandharan Art and Architecture. III 5. Rome. 1.D. Madison. Hindu. An IconographicalNote. ed. Khan & Rome. 2 vols. Jain. North Stein. (1988) Gandharan Art. James EW. 57-68. Lahore VIII 2. (1964)A Guide to the and IsMEO). pp. (1969) The Hariscandra Seal from pp. Md.A.N. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Devotees from Far-away Countries. pp. (1970) Inscribed Clay Tablets andMiniature St?pas from Buddha in honour and His of Dr. Farooq Sw?ti.P. Text. AION. Huntington. XXIV 2. III 1.57 on Wed. Gazni. pp. 43-50.68. [17] 187 This content downloaded from 111.1. Kurita. D. 2. Bautze-Picron.NorthWest Pakistan. ed. XXVI 1. S. pp. RepMem. Allchin & B.Pakistan). Butkara (1980-81) Faccenna.C. Taddei. (1995a)A Relief in theLahoreMuseum Showinga Columned St?pa. (1930) An Archaeological Tour in Upper Sw?t and Adjacent Hill Tracts.2. Plates I-CCCXXXV. (1992) The Bejewelled Buddha and the inPre-MuslimAfghanistan. 1989-90. M. (Archaeology). 1-74. (1929) On Alexander's Track to theIndus.1. P. I. 457-64. pp. 1968. Swat. Graz. Faccenna. A. pp. Memoirs of theDepartment of Archaeology in Pakistan. MASI. ed. M?hra Mor?du. (1962) Sculptures from the RepMem. Part 5. Pal.96. M..W. 20. PersonalNarrative ofExplorations on the West Frontier of India. n. & J. Dushanbe. In C. Museum Bulletin.. SouthAsian Archaeology 1979. Stein. In C.. Peshawar. SouthAsian Archaeology 1989. Calcutta. Essays Mahis?suramardini: Religion and Political Ideology Taddei. Allchin. Harle. D. (1990) A Flaming Taddei. The BuddhistSacredArea XXIII 2. pp.. 70-86. N. D. Excavations inSwat (Pakistan)1956-1962 (DepartmentofArchaeology Faccenna. Lohuizen-de Leeuw. Taddei.

9. pp. 59-113).Zinbun: Taddei. 279-328 (repr. IASCCA Information 17. & G. (1990) Clay Tablets with IndianTexts from Khisht-tepa. (1996) A Catalogue of theGandh?ra Sculpture in theBritish 188 [18] This content downloaded from 111. G.57 on Wed. EW. Vertogradova. Rome 1997. pp. inG. pp. Kyoto University. Tucci.W. Bulletin. Verardi (1985) Clay Stupas and Thrones at Tapa Sard?r.Ghazni (Afghanistan). Tucci. (1958) Preliminary Report on an Archaeological Survey in Swat. Zwalf. On Sw?t: Historical and Archaeological Notes. Memoirs of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies. pp.96. London. 25-31. M. 10 Apr 2013 10:10:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 20.V. 17-32.68. Museum.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.