You are on page 1of 15

Gandhara and Late Antique Art: The Buddha Image Author(s): Benjamin Rowland, Jr.

Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1942), pp. 223-236 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: . Accessed: 27/09/2013 04:42
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


Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.

This content downloaded from on Fri, 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Although it is undeniable that there is evidence for the existence of a provincial Hellenistic or Graeco-Parthian art in northern India in the second and first centuries B. the present essay will concern itself only with the Buddha image. was no more compatible with Oriental art and its endless yearnings after the other world than it was with the fantastic and dynamic imaginings of the barbarian soul in Gaul and Britain. And it is precisely as an exemplar of this universal process involving the death of classical art and the rebirth of spiritual and really traditional thought in art that the much-maligned Graeco-Buddhist school of Gandhara is of particularly vital import: to understand fully its r61lein the last great struggle between East and West we must first know its precise chronology and its relation to the world of western art in the early centuries of the Christian era. is sometimes considerable.204. "A Revised Chronology of Gandhara Sculpture. Herein lie the reasons why classical art could not survive in a world whose thoughts were beyond Nature and the accidental beauty of the human form. particularly in its provincial manifestations. friendly face of nature. as will be indicated in the course of this study. there is every indication that the Gandhara school of SB. pp. certain modifications of earlier hypotheses are in order.GANDHARA AND LATE ANTIQUE ART: THE BUDDHA IMAGE LATE Antique art. xviii. contrary to popular opinion. which. but also for its revelation of a period of culture when the old classic humanistic values were locked in a death struggle with the dynamic and overwhelming forces of Oriental and barbarian art." The Art Bulletin. In an earlier article on Gandhdra sculpture. a struggle that was to end with the victorious emergence of mighty and new spiritual forces that produced Mediaeval art in the West and the great and truly ghostly beauty of developed Buddhist art in India and the Far East. represents a phase of artistic expression significant not only for its intrinsic aesthetic merit. which held a mirror to catch the familiar. 1936. On the basis of actual inscribed fragments and remains found under reliable archaeological conditions.. Rowland. the writer has analyzed at considerable length the chronological and stylistic evolution of this hybrid school of Late Antique sculpture in northwestern India and Afghanistan.192.C. In Gandhara art we have the same spectacle of classical forms endeavoring vainly to express in material terms the ideals of an immaterial religion that we have in the attempts of the Early Christian sculptors to adopt the Graeco-Roman forms so unsuited to their spiritual ideals. 387-400. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . it appears more and more certain to the present writer that this final and slight legacy of Alexander's successors in Bactria had only a very minor influence on the later Graeco-Roman school of Gandhira. Classic art.' On the basis of further research it is now possible to consolidate the opinions expressed there on the relations between Gandhdra and the Roman Empire. although the author has in preparation for publication yet other striking similarities in types and techniques that confirm even more strongly the intimate relationship between the Graeco-Roman school in India and the art of the late classical world. For the sake of unity.85 on Fri. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL OF AMERICA INSTITUTE This content downloaded from 62.

" Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 3 2 This content downloaded from 62. are of the greatest significance for this investigation. Konow. illustrated in figs. All of the examples before this. Majumdar.. 1922.2 The two Buddha images. cit. An omnipresent factor in Gandhara sculpture is the necessarily non-realistic. which belong to this category. the "best" phase of this style corresponds to Roman and Syrian work of the time of Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus. op. 484. there is every reason to suppose that the great majority of these so-called Graeco-Buddhist carvings are the result of a sudden and intensive mass production that began no earlier than the second century A. decided that the idols were made in 4 B. the canon of the proportions. op. 259.. because we know the exact years of their dedication. respectively.C. cit. 9N.192. J.5 taking this to refer to the Seleucid era of 312 B. 1932. Before arriving at any definite conclusions. from the sites of Loriyan Tangai and Hashtnagar (Chdrsada). must have been something like five Rowland. 8 S. Delhi. have on their bases inscriptions referring to the 318th and 384th year of an unspecified era. p. 6 A. and was almost entirely the work of artisans imported from the Roman East.D.85 on Fri.D.9 I believe it will be demonstrated by the comparisons to be made with Late Antique sculpture that only the two last possibilities can be seriously considered in fixing a proper date for these statues. just as the ferocious and dynamic strength of barbarian design prevailed over antique naturalism in Europe. 4 Vogel..C. p. Annual Report. the fragment from Loriyan Tafigai. and they are few enough. 1995. Foucher. p. belong to an "archaic" phase of Gandhara art that was in a way simply an extension of the old Indian school of sculpture to the northwest frontier. 1903-04. Zur Datierung der GandhdraPlastik. has even suggested the possibility that we have to do with the Vikrama (iM'alava) era of 58 B.224 BENJAMIN ROWLAND.D. in Epigraphia Indica. let us first examine the style of the statues themselves. April. N. These statues.). "Kalawan Copperplate Inscription of the Year 134.' there is no foundation for the use of either of these methods of reckoning in Indian chronology and a more likely era would be the Saka era of 150 B. p. "Inscribed Gandhara sculpture. 5 L. so that the images could be dated in 168 and 234 A. 964 and ibid.. 391 ff.3 Vogel 4 and Bachhofer. JR. were the statue complete. Considered as part of the stylistic development of the Late Antique world. Bachhofer. 1932.. have dated them at 6 and 72 A. op. Vogel. we see a standing Buddha figure.: the two Buddhas would then be placed in 260 and 326 A. sculpture came into existence before the reign of Kaniska (198-160 A.D.. and ultimately it is reabsorbed into the Indian tradition. later. du Gandhdraii.204. p. Foucher.D.D. pp.C. abstract quality of Indian religious art which both contends with and ultimately supersedes the classical element. G. 1937." beginning in 3Q22B. lacking head and hands and otherwise badly damaged. pp.C. Paris. A Guideto the Sculptures in the Indian Museum. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 24. 244-245. it continues to reflect the final stages of classic sculpture in the fourth and fifth centuries. In figure 1. G. Part II.C." Archaeological Survey of India. I and Q. applying an otherwise unknown "Maurya era. pp.D. 19-20. and 62 A.6 As I have shown elsewhere. Majumdar. The first Buddha images to be made in northwestern India that are in every respect under Late Antique influence are dated in the late second and early third centuries A. 391. L'art Greco-Bouddhique 7 Rowland.8 A recent investigator of the problem. Ph. 259.. Munich. p. cit.

FIG.204.BUDDHA FROM LORIYXN TANIGAI DATED 168 A. CALCUTTA FIG. INDIAN MUSEUM. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 9.192.D.D. . This content downloaded from 62.85 on Fri. . .BUDDHA FROM CHARSADA DATED 934 A.

heads to the total height. the robe of the figure falls in a series of loops.BUDDHA.204. If we search for classical prototypes WORCESTER. hangs . which is sixty-four years later. 3). Taking into account the disparities arising from the way the This content downloaded from 62. rather. clinging togas of the Hellenistic and Augustan periods. trailing from the left shoulder in a series of curves across the chest and then in more deeply cut folds falling over the lower limbs in a monotonously repeated succession of ridges and depressions. even to the number of folds.226 BENJAMIN ROWLAND. FIG. The Gandhara sculptors seem to have elaborated a very rigid formula of drapery design: almost invariably.or. but have very little to do with any actual drapery. 3. it will be apparent at once that we have to do with a development beyond the naturalistic presentation of a garment with easy. WORCESTER ART MUSEUM. The garment has a hardness and stiffness that makes it look as though it had been hammered out of metal and is a far cry from the soft.85 on Fri.JR. is repeated over and over again so that.192. or compendiariae. for this treatment of drapery. although carved from stone. the draperies might have been cast from an identical mould. The most distinctive feature of the drapery of this and innumerable other Gandhara statues is the drapery of the upper robe which falls . free and form-revealing folds that is characteristic of the Hellenistic period and of the carving of drapery in Roman art of the first century of our era. This technique strongly suggests the presence of copy books. within the guilds that wrought these a stiff apron in front of the legs. This convention. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . as can be seen in the Charsada figure and in the almost identical figure in Worcester (fig. This part of the garment is carved in a definite formula of rigid folds that in cross-section form a billowing pattern. . or swags of drapery. MASS. the scheme of the folds is even more clearly readable. there is a series of five to eleven major folds of ridges below the waist that protrude like ribs against the dark background. In the other Buddha image.

163. Milan. fig. In these.) in the Museo dei Conservatori in Rome. British Museum. with the border of the mantle raised so that it almost appears as a heavy swag separate from the rest of the garment. 4. the robes of the Gandhara Buddhas may be compared very well to the togas of the Roman Imperial statues. a feature that immediately suggests the deep trough of drapery that we have seen in the Gandhara statues. Wilson. M. The treatment of drapery as a sort of "shield" in front of the body is well illustrated in the various reliefs of the Nirvana.fig. Smith. i. fig.192. 188294).16 In all of these the drapery descends in a great cascade. I1 ritrattonell'arte antica. XXI. Berlin.12 The Charsada image may further. iii. as. Strong. Taking into consideration the differences in costumes (toga and saifghati).85 on Fri.Oxford. J. 1934. the conception of the drapery is in both cases totally different from the function of the garment in Hellenistic sculpture: in a statue like the Sophocles of the Lateran . 16 A. These tendencies become even more pronounced in the reliefs from the time of Septimius Severus (197-211 A. K. xlii. London. 12. 1906. ii.chosen as a typical Hellenistic draped figure.Baltimore. pl. H. Die antiken Grossbronzen ii-iii. 48. 1938. 13. ed. the folds of the robe are carved as for a standing figure. Florence.GANDHARA AND LATE ANTIQUE ART 227 costume was worn. 1904. A Catalogue of This content downloaded from 62. Tav.13 Indeed.1924. 11 Kluge and Lehmann-Hartleben. XIX-B). 12 Foucher the Ancient Sculptures Preservedin the Municipal Collectionsof Rome.the robe models and defines the body. it will be noted that the actual carving of the folds is remarkably similar: there is the same reduction of the garment to a series of ridges disposed in repeated parabolic loops. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . J. 15Cf. Lehmannder R6mischen Kaiserzeit. Stuart Jones. there is a continuation of the Greek tendency to consider the drapery as a separate volume.D.D. Tafel Hartleben.D. the crests of these ribs of drapery tend to be on the same plane. 14E. 1927. Stuttgart. Taf. however. especially the frag10 R. La Scultura Romana 2. 1926. 279. also a relief in the Palazzo Sacchetti (Strong. although it has a definite volume of its own. CLXVIII. no. In the first place. notably the panel on the interior jamb of the arch of the money-changers and in certain individual figures from the arch in the Forum. p.15 One could add to these a statue of Marcus Aurelius in the British Museum. TheRomanToga.'4 The schematization of the draperies in the figures of this relief is simply a further development of the tendencies already examined in the statues of the first century A. the Marcus Calatorius from Herculaneum and the bronze Mammius Maximus. In the portrait statues of the early Imperial period. 1aL. Tav. for example.1' The "Baroque" depth of the relief and the theatrical swing of the long. Kluge and K. 167. R6mische Ikonographie. something almost detached and playing little part in defining the body beneath: it is more like a deeply indented and dramatically arranged curtain hung in front of the figure. A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Departmentof Greekand Roman Antiquities. p. although the Buddha is in a recumbent position. H. 2. no. Paribeni. pl.204.. the earliest really close parallel for this detail of Gandhara art is to be found in the reliefs of the Monument of Marcus Aurelius (161-180 A. LXIII) and the carvings on the arch of Septimius Severus at Lepcis Magna (AJA. 1923.). be more directly compared to a second-century portrait in the Museo delle Terme in Rome. The Sculptures of the Palazzo dei Conservatori."1 It is precisely from Roman draped portraits such as these that the Buddhas of Charsada and Loriyan Tafigai ultimately derive. Grossbronzen XX. An even closer parallel can be found in the drapery of the figures on the Asiatic sarcophagi. 161. weighted folds reaches its culmination in a bronze statue from Ponte Sisto. Bernouilli.

21. Wilson. "Chronology.. 21 Rowland. Pt.20 Are the Afghan statues as late as this." 22 It is still customary to date the majority of the finds at Hadda on the basis of the fifth-century Byzantinecoinsfound there a hundredyearsago by CharlesMasson (H. 109 ff. 399. p.D. Rowland. XI: C. Central Asia. pl.228 BENJAMIN ROWLAND. This content downloaded from 62.D." Eastern Art i. Masson. 96. XXXI. 1930. c. pl.85 on Fri. 1928.D. ment from Sagalassos 17dated in the late second century A. and in every case suggesting more a surface ornament than the definition of a real garment and its structure. Princeton. 1. both of these premises are true. 4). pp.D. Morey. This second type of drapery mentioned above is represented by a large number of Gandhara statues: in these the folds are reduced to a series of strings.p. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Sardis v. A. and Ceylon. 16." fig. pls. 17 18 XII. . Godard.ArianaAntiqua . R. Hackin. Paris. As will be apparent in the examination of a second type of Gandhara drapery. IX. 1931. With this latter comparison.204." fig. Vogel. sometimes falling in a succession of loops down the median line of the body. J. witha Memoiron theBuildingsCalledTopes. 1-5. Hackin. the evidence Dheri for dating all of the Afghan sites is extremely fragmentary and unsatisfactory: 22 the reliefs at Begram were found together with large quantities of Syrian glass of C. I. 396. 1928. p. from Mamane of almost show this type string drapery fully evolved. in the vicinity of the ancient Kdpi'a in central Afghanistan. La sculpture Indienne et Tibetaine au Musee Guimet. "Chronology. X. 19 J. In this we have a specimen of ribbed drapery. Les antiquites bouddhiques de Bamiydn.21 However. or is there any evidence for dating them earlier than the appearance of this form in Indian art? Both the Charsada Buddha of 234 A. "La sculpture de Mathuri. 19. and another dated statue of Q?16 A. VI. sometimes radiating from the left shoulder." Revuedes Arts Asiatiques xii. A good example of this linear representation is to be seen in a Buddha in the Yale Gallery of Fine Arts inscribed "Gift of Eni. "Les travaux de la D•legation archeologique franqaise en Afghanistan. Paris. "The Colossal Buddhas at Bamiyan and their Influence on Buddhist Sculpture.London." Ars Asiatica xv.19 We do know that this type of drapery found its way into the sculpture of the Gupta period at Mathura. fig. JR. and Y. Hackin. The principal specimens of this type have been found at Paitavi and Begram (fig. H. There is nothing in the art of northwestern India of the first century A.s" To this class of sculpture there belongs also the 175foot Buddha at BBamiyan. both the style of carving the toga in Imperial Rome of the second century and the even more abstract formulae developed in Asia Minor and Syria were introduced almost simultaneously -introduced presumably at a time when Roman trade with India was flourishing and to meet the demands for imagery in the revived Buddhism of Gandhara. 19q4. a. very close indeed to the Graeco-Buddhist convention. Boston. 20 J. as evidenced by a dated image in the museum at Lucknow: the statue is from the Katra mound at Mathura and is dated in the 230th year of Gupta or 549-550 A. Ph.D. the question is raised for the first time whether or not Gandhara art is an offshoot of Hellenistic sculpture in the East or whether we can say that it was influenced by Roman Imperial art.192. The Wall-Paintings of India. to indicate an independent development towards either of the two forms in question: in other words. 1938. It was apparently from prototypes such as these that the first generations of Eurasian craftsmen in Gandhara developed the peculiarly limited formula that has been described above. 110).. Rowland. pl. figs. 1938. fig. J.1841.

D. p.192. 59-9Q53. was flourishing at the time of Hstian-tsang's visit to the holy land of Buddhism in 639 A. Buddhist Recordsof the Western World. 54-67. 1. 1938. Rev. 1939. 1938. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . August 6. MUSEE DE CABOUL. des Arts Asiatiques xii.204. KiBUL the second or third century A.85 on Fri.GANDHARA AND LATE ANTIQUE ART 229 FIG. 23 beyond this we know that Kapiia. 4. DAR-UL-AMAN. 10. J. London. and ivory boxes of Indian Gupta workmanship. pls.D. 1906. - BUDDHA FROM BEGRAM. i. pp. Hackin. pp. Recherchesarchdologiques a Begram: M6moires de la D6lgation archdologique frangaise en Afghanistan ix. Beal. the ancient Buddhist capital on the site of the modern Begram.24 There are indications that stone sculpture was often replaced by work in stucco both in India and Afghanistan at a time probably no later 23 J. This content downloaded from 62. Hackin. 24 S. and ILN. I-IV.

D. must then date from this same period. 6 and 7.3A The reduction of the classic drapery to a web of parallel padded pleats." Journal Asiatique ccii. pl.. 32 W.D. since both in style and in the concept of the gigantic Buddha as Mahapurusa.21 and in the attendant figures in Cave 18 and Cave 99 at Yiin Kang. Boston. than the mid-fourth century A.204. pl. no. XV. :29 the Begram and Paitaivd figures. of course. no. LXXXVIII. however. and it may be that we should tentatively take the year 350 A. frequently in bifurcated formations. from the parallel toward the centre of the breast to curve upward and return toward the right shoulder. It is not without relation to the statues of Loriydn Tanigai and Chdrsada. 1925. pp. In the spots where this support still remains. diverging. as a terminus post quem for all the carvings in slate. 1937. 30 Foucher dates the colossi at Bamiyan later than the huge stucco images of Takht-i-Bahi (secondthird century A. "Notice archeologique de la vallee de Bamian. The statue in Cave 18 at Ytiin Kang is dated 489 A. 109. Cords were stretched from one peg to the next and these cords are still to be seen in places."string" drapery. it must be assumed that these latter must be earlier than 450 A. 208.) (A.D. These pegs and cords served as a support for the lime mortar coating. By comparison with Gandhara statues. How much earlier they could be is a vexing question. indicating the original course of the folds of the monastic nothing new in the Middle East: it makes its appearance in a terracotta by the artist Menophilos. pl. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . however. Marshall. 1923. 27 B. including. 54." 26 What appear to be Chinese imitations of this system of drapery are found in dated bronze images of 443 and 486 A.D.3'1 Something of the same system may be seen in the figurines from Seleucia. and the standing Bodhisattva of Cave 22 is probably to be dated shortly after the beginning of Tan Yao's activity in 454 A. This content downloaded from 62. 31 D. for. Vienna.28 although in these the actual folds are flat and ribbon-like and not padded as in the Indian examples. Memoirs. Hackin has described it: "On the right thigh of the great Buddha the holes for the wooden pegs which supported the mortar (of which the drapery was made) still form a dotted line.) and earlier than the giant Buddhas of Yiin Kang (fifth century A. 43 (Cave 18. the colossi of Yiin Kang are modelled on the great statues at Bdmiydn. literally . figs.D.192. Hackin. Rowland. which have been dated in the first century of our era and later. Burr.Q30 BENJAMIN ROWLAND. 7. 25 489 A." The Art Bulletin xix. 26 J. that is so popular in Gandhara sculpture.32 It seems unlikely. equivalent to the universe itself. 2. "The Colossal Buddhas at 20-21. 28 0." p. which may be dated in the first century A. 1939.. which are identical in style with the larger Buddha at Bimiyan. 358). 11.D. Siren. Therefore.D. no. April-June.D.iA"A rchaeological Survey of India. "Notes on the Dated Statues of the Northern Wei Dynasty and the Beginnings of Buddhist Sculpture in China.. 106. The larger (175-foot) colossus at Bamiya-n is the largest specimen of this . p. the smaller figure might be as early as the third century. Ann Arbor. JR. p.D. 1934. "Excavations at Taxila: The Stfipas and Monasteries at Jaulifi. Figurines from Seleucia on the Tigris. 29 The author is preparing a separate publication on the iconographical aspects of the colossal images at Bamiyin. Terra-Cottas from Myrina in the Museum of Fine Arts.) and pl.25 The colossi at Bamiyan are certainly earlier than Hstian-tsang's visit in 632 A.D. 644.85 on Fri. Van Ingen. the drapery resembles padded ridges arranged in parallel lines from the left shoulder.D. that the style should have had its origin Sir J. 1652. Foucher. the pieces in question from Paitava and Begram. as M. Chinese Sculpturefrom the Fifth to the FourteenthCentury.

1937. 129-131.GANDHARA AND LATE ANTIQUE ART 231 in works of minor art. which is further supported by the style of dress and the resemblance of the work as a whole to the few known examples of Parthian relief sculpture. 34 Sir This content downloaded from 62. and Picard have all attributed these monumental bronzes to the Parthian period: certainly the resemblances of the head of the largest statue to the coin portraits of the Arsacid rulers seems to confirm such an attribution. pl. A. Postponing for the moment the instances of this technique in Palmyra. 37 H.204. Tav. Stein. p. 115117. by M. etc. Godard. 285-305. A possible additional evidence for the dating of the Shami bronzes was the discovery with these Parthian royal statues of a Roman bronze head in a style strongly suggesting the portraiture characteristic of the period from the Republic to Augustus . 34-36. in the monument of Nimrud Dagh 33and again in the Parthian bronze statues recently discovered at Shami in southwestern Iran. XXXIX. KASR-EL-ABIAD. fig.35 This type of drapery is not present in the sculptures of 39 A. dated 100150 A. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . pp.D. pp. C." Syria xviii. 38 Strong 2.D. I.C.37 it ultiFIG. 1939. 1938. 9... Puchstein.85 on Fri.D. op. pp. and we are therefore minded to search for its appearance in monumental statuary. 2. figs. 36 Cf. fig. "Antiquites Syriennes. 324. 5. XXXV.SYRIA K.38 33 TORSO. "Courrierde l'art antique." Athdr-e Irdn 2. Ingholt.on the frieze of the temple of Bel at Palmyra. Godard. Copenhagen. Taf. 1937. cit.mately appears in Rome itself on the reliefs of the Arch of Constantine of 315 A. "An archaeological journey in western Iran." Geographical Journal 92. 5). but examples of it become more and more numerous in the grave reliefs of the first and second centuries from this site:36" 1 mention only a fragment from Kasr-el-Abiad. A. Humann und 0.192." GBA. 10. Berlin. 232-234. 1928. 1890. we may find a suggestion of the familiar padded loops as early as the first century B. 35Stein. Seyrig (fig. pl. XI. 4.34 Stein. Picard. M. H. 2. Reisen in Kleinasien. Seyrig. Studier OverPalmyrensk Skulptur. LXVIII. "Les statues Parthes de Shami.approximately the time of the birth of Christ.

the Gandhaira figures are wearing jewelry of a completely Palmyrene type. p. 41 Mere inadequacy and nai'vet6 is offered as an explanation for this type of drapery by G." Revue des Arts Asiatiques 7. XV. but generally. 1937). Such schematic and ordered interpretations were at once readable and more final than imitations of the casual and accidental shapes of actuality. Before taking up the question of the relation of the Near Eastern monuments just mentioned to the reliefs of Gandhqra. Schematizations like the striations. but are really concentrated and clarified mental images or mental creations of ideal schemes of folds which. 1927. Some recollection of the original function of this ridged drap)ery seems to survive in India and Syria. Later GreekSculpture. In the beginning. are not the result of ineptness in "naturalistic" portrayal of actuality. n. Combaz in his L'Inde et l'Orient Classique (Paris. 120: "Le parallklisme et la convergence des plis sont This content downloaded from 62. even though they do not exactly follow any real drapery or garment. "L'art greco-iranien. we would get something like the familiar Late Antique formula of surface-carving in loops and padded "U's" that are found in Palmyra and Gandhdra. 208. indicating the drapery folds by lines incised on the surface of the body. 1931-32. No. are a continuation of the types of Graeco-Parthian jewelry found at Sirkap (Taxila). M. 1927. 433). As the present writer sees it.204. such an abstraction was part of the tradition of non-representational art in the Orient. Rostovtzeff. 1. for reasons in part religious and in part technical. frequently in the depression between the padded loops. in that. nature. Rodenwaldt."" If only the system of portraying the outer robe were retained and the carving of the undergarment suppressed. like the latter convention. suggest what we could term a more or less universal or absolute system of folds . the profile of the folds would be alternately round and sharp. "Bagel-falte. this particular style represents a reversion to what could be called ancient Oriental forms. then. that we see in "archaic" periods of art. 50). pl. Such a development as this could be said to go hand in hand with the general this case. without regard for the volume and substance of the garment. the crest of which parallels the direction of the enclosing string folds: in cross-section. p. Lawrence. Die Kunst der Antike. it is necessary to say something of the history of this peculiar drapery form. the adornments of others. 106. transparent upper garment by a series of ridges that still reveal the arrangement of the heavier dress below. in which almost mathematical rhythms in line and shape were used as substitutes for. W.232 BENJAMIN ROWLAND. It seems to me quite possible that the string drapery is a misunderstood development from the Hellenistic method of representing a thin. and cf. or improvements on. now in the museum of Constantinople (A. a return to the tendency to revert to ancient Oriental techniques-in method practiced in all archaic art. 209. Cf. especially the torques. forms extremely beautiful in themselves.iii. Berlin. the drapery is carved into a sharp but low ridge. JR. it seems a mere surface decoration with no real functional purpose whatever.more final in the unity and perfection of its abstract arrangement than could be achieved by the imitation of an actual model.40 It seems not unlikely that the purpose of the subsidiary ridge was to indicate the presence of a garment underneath the outer robe represented by the padded folds. pl. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and chevron patterns. Van Ingen.85 on Fri. or in a third-century draped figure from Magnesia.192. PropyldienKunstgeschichte. 40 This technical parallel with Palmyra is corroborated by the fact that in numberless examples.41 The "ineptness" in such a system of representing drapery lies not in the 1" As on the Skopaic reliefs of the column drums in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus (G." omega-folds. New York.

This date fits in well with its appearance in GCandhiiraimages which. pl. but also a not unconscious return to the abstractions of earlier periods. like so many other authorities. N." MiinchinerJahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst. an verschiedenen Orten auf dieselbe Darstellung selbsthindig verfallen ist. and Gandhara. organization. is due to the confusion of the traditional systems of abstraction with the naturalistic tendencies inherent in classical art everywhere. when we may imagine the Greek style introduced by Alexander's successors was being gradually absorbed by the still vital tradition of the ancient Orient. we may be sure. together with other types and techniques of Late Antique art around 200 A. form . the imlpassive.F. Seleucia." This author. like the whole civilization of this desert city. again. as in the Palmyra heads. v. "Die iiltesten Buddhadarstellungen des Miinchener Museums fiir Vilkerkunde. 49. but rather in the relative success or failure to suggest within the limits of the self-imposed abstract formulae the essential nature. of course. Dr. hard portrait sculpture of the Constantinian period.GANDHARA AND LATE ANTIQUE ART 233 failure to copy nature. 112. be admitted that in many of the cruder examples of Late Antique carving. the analogy extends to the technical device of representing the eyeball as slanting upward and outward under the lid. rather than copy nature. The identity of the Palmyrene and Gandharan drapery technique seems to exclude the )possibility that the latter was developed independently: it appears on the contrary much more likely that this drapery formula was introduced ready-made. are mannerisms that again make their appearance in the clear. cannot be dated earlier than the first half of the third century A. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Although the so-called loop or string drapery is already prophesied in Parthia and in the terracottas of Myrina and Seleucia. the methods of incision and linear stylization are just as often the result of technical incompetence as they are caused by the artist's deliberate purpose. the type of hair treatment in individual curls was so universal in India and the ancient Orient that it cannot justly be ascribed exclusively to Palmyra. 44 L.85 on Fri. les caractbres essentiels des premiers essais de draperie chez tous les peuples.42 The ineptness or crudity of this. fails to see the aesthetic and philosophic reasons behind such forms which made men seek to improve and organize. Combaz.D." 4 Although possibly the Indian traffic with Palmyra may have been responsible for a revival of this formula. in the sculpture of Palmyra which was. surely represents not only a technical evolution from earlier classic types. The linear drapery of the Late Antique period. Cf. I need hardly point out. like other phases of Late Antique art. Scherman raises the question whether the "snail shell" curls that become part of the standard iconography of later Gandhara Buddhas is an indication of Palmyrene influence "oder oh man .41 These. the I)upil is more frequently than not incised. indebted equally to Rome and Parthia. There is no more likely moment for the development of this peculiarly hybrid technique to have taken place than the epoch of the Arsacids. 43 The eyes of many of the Gandhdiraimages are of the completely Indian "lotus-petal" shape. luminous beauty of the Palmyrene adolescents. 42It must. Heft 3. p.D. .204.D. The great majority of the Gandhiara Buddhas have the sharply-cut features. 1928. on other grounds. This content downloaded from 62. Scherman. 68.192. . it does not attain its final development until the second century A.of the object by the realization of the mental image in the material. fully evolvetd. p.structure. as exemplified by the sculpture of Palmyra.

pl. on the one hand. the figure of Aphlad likewise from Dura (Excavations at Dura-Europos. JR. for the Palmyra figures. disembodiment of form. This much is clear from the arguments advanced above. Recherches archdologiques a Begram. Hackin.85 on Fri. pl. in accordance with the oriental tendency towards coloristic effects. a survival of the archaic spirit in regions never completely dominated by Hellenic ideals. a luminous. But something remains to be said about the spiritual forces-really of international character-that were active in Gandhara. op. spiritual quality animates mask-like faces with enormous eyes. its purpose was to concentrate attention on the head as the most important part . The changes that took place in late Roman art are attributed to the so-called "Orientalizing" tendencies already initiated in the Parthian period but temporarily arrested by the revival of Hellenism under Roman protection. the creation of figures with large heads was part of the general tendency toward spiritualization in the art of the Late Antique world. or. 1931-32. 2 and 3. hypnotic eyes which were about the only device known to the classic world. Hackin at Begram. the Christ in the Psamatia sarcophagus about 52. seems like a return to the archaic. p. Afghanistan ix.204. measurement includes the usnisa. for example.192.likewise adopted from earlier Oriental sources to the Fayuim portraits-for expressing an other-worldly. in certain aspects. All these changes were obviously due more to change in point of view than to what is usually called "decadence.9234 BENJAMIN ROWLAND. the drapery is hardly more than a mesh of ornamental striations that. Again. and. Mgmoires de la Dglegation archdologique franqaise en 1928. perhaps. 45 The 46 XIII).47 In closing. these same peoples. The stylistic connections between Gandhdra and Syria seem to be more than amply confirmed by the new evidence of actual importations of Syrian glass discovered by M.perhaps as part of the new interest in the individual . 7 J. the result of the transformation of Hellenistic art in the hands of peoples used to thinking of art in terms of textiles or metal work. cit. 1. 1).45This is again the norm for the standing figures in the grave stelae and memorials of Palmyra and Dura-Europos: it applies likewise to the figure sculpture of the Constantinian period in Rome.46Originally a form of expressionism." These tendencies toward loss of plasticity.. Venice. In this process of disintegration the classic forms came to be conceived in a linear. measure 51 heads high. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 1939. See. figures become isolated in their own atmosphere and take on an inhuman rigor. It is apparent that the art of Gandhara was affected by waves of influences coming from the West -from Rome itself and the Eastern Roman Empire. the figures in the Memesis relief from Dura-Europos (Excavations at Dura-Europos. Ingholt. linear organization and the great feeling for flat color and surface decoration are. Paris. frontal style that. it seems due to something more than accident that practically every known example of the standing Buddha in Gandhara is carved in the proportion of five heads to the total height. focus particularly on the huge. it will be appropriate to summarize the results to be derived from the comparisons made in the preceding paragraphs and to draw some general conclusions on the place of Gandhara in the twilight of the Hellenic world. This content downloaded from 62. as in all the territories of Rome. is reduced to a design of sharp lights and darks. IV. ghostly feeling and one that contributes largely to the radiant quality of some of the better adolescent heads from Palmyra. pls. The figures of Tetrarchs at San Marco. 10.

395. S. reliefs from Sofia and Skoplje. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ." Since these tendencies can be seen alike in Dura-Europos.85 on Fri. perfect types of classicism. that appear almost as works of the same school. the Danube. much earlier. figures 556-558. 39W. but littleknown works on Roman art on the Rhine and the Danube. and Roman Britain. Scythian. and Indian. 7. stelae from Spalato and Aquileia. 1933. the Indus. Trier. the attempts to express new life and action. The resemblance in the spiritualized "immaterial" look of Palmyra reliefs and the sculpture of the Danubian provinces is to be explained by just such a parallel in religious points of view. pp. for the racial and religious reasons outlined 48 It will be recalled that. Gandhara. Celtic. One may compare with these carvings. London. 1931.192. Ferri. as in the Germanic colonies.204. 19Cf. figs. might at first be regarded as deceptively "Mediaeval. and.394. this point of view was held by Plotinus who preferred rude life to "marble beauty " (Enneadies vi. and India. Ferri. partially on the mistrust of the pagan gods or "'demons. Milan. one notices that the work is at once unified and diverse in quality: the crudeness. 1935. 49 In a funerary statue at Este we find the same bifurcated folds that are so marked a feature of late Gandhara and early Chinese sculpture. Arte romana sul Reno. 34-35). That this movement was already well under way in the East in the third century is exemplified by the fragment of the draped figure from Shapur.50 In looking through the plates of publications like Ferri's admirable.and this is true of certain G'andhra Buddhas: the classic drapery has been reduced to the "archaic" Oriental pattern: the same dualism exists in "Graeco-Buddhist" sculpture.GANDHARA AND LATE ANTIQUE ART 235 Semitic. that is. S. with the living ethnic portrait heads of Hadda and the usually cold masks of the Gandhara Buddhas." Indeed. as noted by Hinks (Carolingian Art. What may seem crudeness and ugliness in these works is due more to a change in point of view than to decadence: the preference for recording things seen and known by these various "barbarian" peoples. most strongly of all. 78. but rather to the reaction to classic art by "barbarian" peoples on the Rhine. symbolic rather than concrete. This content downloaded from 62. the processes mentioned above were quickened by the existence of religious and racial temperaments that conceived their deities in abstract rather than representational. to namnie but a few centres . since it seems to record the discovery of the "soul" in Christian art. and Baalbek. L'Arte romana sul Danubio. The passage from Plotinus. it represents a unity in which classic art. but really a persistence of the archaic or "traditional" point of view of some of the sculpture.does give a foretaste of the Mediaeval spirit. In Gandhara and Iran. 50 Cf. mitigated against the continuation of the cold. terms. Bulgaria. Sofia.48When these latter are attempted. in the sculpture of the school that was most largely responsible for the transformation: the Syrian centres of Palmyra. Milan. is of supreme importance. Germanic. Dura.the best in Germany. a seeming technical incompetence. they are obviously adapted to artistic formulae intuitively known to their makers: the Palmyra reliefs are often strong and vital as spiritualized portraits . 77. by the reliefs on the arch of Galerius. all of this provincial work . there is no ground for attributing them entirely to "Oriental" influences. were not originally accustomed to think of their gods in the anthropomorphic terms of the Greeks. In the Christian world the opposition to naturalistic images was based partially on the Mosaic law. ?2).

be explained by trade and the rapidity of communications down the arteries of the Empire. in part. 27 Sep 2013 04:42:59 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Mazdaean and Dravidian tendencies: actually. has been transformed purposefully into very much the abstract formulae for space and the human figure that distinguishes western religious art at its moment of greatest tension . it is a case of the barbaric mind of the races in the Roman Empire and the Oriental mind producing the same result within the fabric of late classic art. Palmyra. think of this as a struggle between Northern and Southern. or.192. One can.236 BENJAMIN ROWLAND. the mentality of Mediaeval art was already fully evolved. When these ideas of Roman Imperial art. Roman provincial art. at least. The same luxurious Syrian emperors who installed the Oriental gods in the temples of Rome were also responsible for the introduction of ateliers of craftsmen from the same eastern provinces. JR. The activity of Syrian workers in Gaul and Italy is well known. since the characteristics later defined by these terms in Western European art had already come into being in these artistic provinces of the Roman Empire. That they were due in part to similar spiritual forces at work on the boundaries of Imperial Rome has been suggested. above. BENJAMIN FOGG MUSEUM OF ART ROWLAND. This content downloaded from 62.85 on Fri. and Gaul must. triumphed even in Rome itself and Byzantium. I have mentioned the part they played in the development of the Gandhara school.the Romanesque and Gothic periods. The resemblance between sculpture and sculptural patterns in Gandhara. better. JR. if one insists on using the terminology of Strzygowski. It is not in the least startling to find parallels or prototypes of "Romanesque" or " Gothic" in the sculpture of Armenia and Gandhara.204.