Journal of Bengal Art (ISSN 1607-1344), Vol. 22, 2017. Pp.

215-22
Editor: Prof Enamul Haque
Publisher: The International Centre for Studies in Bengal Art
Dhaka, Bangladesh © ICSBA (http://www.bengalart.org/)

Tracing the History of Wooden-dolls in Bengal:

a study of two specimens from Chandraketugarh

Sanjay Sen Gupta

Assistant Professor, School of Fine Arts, Amity University Kolkata, India

The folk-tribal genre of Bengal art – referring to that of today’s Bangladesh and the Indian-
state of West Bengal – had a rich and varied tradition of making wooden-dolls and toys.
These figurines were mostly of four-to-nine inches in height and were produced in large
numbers, up to the middle of the last-century, by the local Sūtradhara-artisans.1 Even today,
they could be traced being made around various corners of Bardhaman,2 Hooghly,3
Howrah,4 East-and-West Medinipur5 and Bankura6 in West Bengal; and Dhaka, Faridpur,
Maimansingha, Chattagram and Comilla in Bangladesh.
The subjects of these dolls mainly focus on human-figures and deities, like – Bau-
putula, Rājā-Rānī,8 Gaura-Nitāi, Śiva, Gaṇeśa, Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa-Rādhā, Kṛṣṇa-Kālī,
7

Balarāma-Subhadrā-Jagannātha etc. Animals and birds are also depicted, but mostly in
the toys made for children. However, exceptions are the famous owl-figures of
Natungram in Bardhaman and Sabalpur in Murshidabad – that are highly adored in
every other household as the divine-mount of goddess Lakṣmī.
These wooden-dolls of Bengal have a unique disposition, comprising their
simple construction, easy technique and colorful appearances. Their styles of carving
and painting, however, vary according to different localized-idioms and regional-
characteristics. Unfortunately, many of the Sūtradhara-artisans have left this trade and
shifted to other jobs, while people of other caste and lineage have replaced them by
learning and taking up this profession. A significant portion of this tradition is
surviving in their hands today around various places like Basirhat of North 24
Parganas, Nabadvip of Nadia and Ekchakra of Birbhum.

Early-account of Wooden-dolls in Bengal:

The earliest surviving-specimen of traditional wooden-dolls in Bengal could be traced

in the collections of Bangiya Sahitya Parishat Museum and Asutosh Museum of Indian
Art of Kolkata, Ananda Niketan Keertishala of Rajbalhat and Acharya Jogeshchandra
Purakriti Bhavan of Vishnupur. Among the individual enterprises, dolls collected by
the famous poet Jasimuddin9 from Jaidev of Kenduli, Birbhum, are worthy of mention.
But, the oldest of all these are the collections of Gurusaday Dutta10 – the eminent
folklorist, writer and social-activist – who gathered them all throughout the first-half
of last century from various rural-corners of undivided Bengal.
Journal of Bengal Art (ISSN 1607-1344), Vol. 22, 2017. Pp. 215-22

Historically, the wooden-dolls collected by Dutta could be dated to their time

of collection or a little earlier. Ancestry of tradition, in that case, could be pushed even
further – as it is customary in all forms of folk-tribal art – for a hundred years or so.
But even after that, the history of making wooden-dolls in Bengal cannot be traced
beyond the eighteenth or nineteenth century AD. The major reason behind is the
unavailability of older-specimens, none of which could be traced till date in any part of
this soil.
The now-lost early-pieces made in easily-available wood of Āmḍā11-Jiyala12-
Śyaoḍā13-Chātima14-Śimūla15 etc couldn’t survive the ravages of time due to the
perishable nature of the material and hot and humid climate of the region. As a result,
the historical overview of wooden-dolls in Bengal appears to us as unclear and
undecided.
Another reason behind this historical-ambiguity is the absolute dissimilarity in
form and approach between the wooden dolls produced in the last two centuries and
the earliest surviving-woodcarvings of undivided-Bengal. Although Nandalal Bose
pointed towards the structural resemblance of Mummy-Putula16 (see fig 4) and the
back of the stone-sculptures of Viṣṇu and other deities of the Pāla-Sena era17 – but the
twentieth-century wooden-dolls have no similarity with the style, technique and
aesthetics of the Tārā-image from Kanheri of Maharashtra18, the pillar-capital from
Sonarang of Dhaka19 or the pillars from Rampal and Kajikasba.20 The formal, structural,
decorative and technical differences beween the carvings of these two eras are so wide and
2
obvious that the Pāla-Sena figures can never be considered as traditional-ancestors of the
twentieth century figurines.
Hence, the tradition of wooden-dolls in Bengal seems to be less-antique in date and
more-modern in evolution. Or else, it might have passed through a major shift of paradigm –
in the last one-thousand odd years – the markers of which has remained unnoticed till date.

Antiquity of Bengal-woodcarving:

The earliest reference to Bengal woodcarving could be traced around c. third century
BC, during the rule of Mauryan emperor Aśoka.21 The mammoth-project taken-up by him
after the Kalinga-war – to erect eighty-four thousand Stūpas across the subcontinent – was
mostly executed with the help of bamboo, wood and thatch.22 This mode of construction was
already mastered by the highly skilled architects of Bengal, who were thence in great demand
for this project.
Although the works executed by those early-woodcarvers are not available today, but
their endeavour has established the traditional-woodwork and cottage-architecture of ancient-
Bengal in the mainland for ever. Their visual-impact and aesthetic-influence could be traced
even today on the early rock-cut caves of western and central India.23
However, three specimen of woodcarvings executed a century later are worthy of
mention in this regard. These figurines were retrieved from Chandraketugarh of North 24
Parganas, West Bengal, and are kept today at the State Archaeological Museum, Kolkata.24
Stylistically, they represent the second-phase of Chandraketugarh-site – c. second-first
Journal of Bengal Art (ISSN 1607-1344), Vol. 22, 2017. Pp. 215-22

century BC – and are undoubedly the oldest available woodcarvings till-date ever found in
Bengal.

The human-figurines from Chandraketugarh:

Two out of three figurines from Chandraketugarh, mentioned above, represent

humans – one male and another female (fig 1 & 2).25 The third one is of a toy-fish, the
account of which is not related to our present study on wooden-dolls.
The anthropological-character and formal-appearance of the two human-
figurines refer them to be contemporaneous to the Shunga-era – i.e., c. BC 185-75.
Even their facial-features, physical-gestures, dressing-styles and design of ornaments
also bear a striking resemblance with the other Shunga-sculptures in clay and stone.
Especially the female-figurine – with all her hairstyle, earrings, necklace, bangles and
girdle – reminds us of the terracotta-plates from the same site and the elaborate stone-
railings of Bharhut Stūpa.
In terms of idea, technique and style – all these specimens in terracotta, wood
and stone belong to the same school of Indian art. Even all the three mediums might
have been handled by the same artist – as it was customary in the age-old tradition of
this subcontinent. Such multidisciplinary-practices were prevalent both in the folk-
tribal and hieratic genre – inheritance of which could also be traced in the Sūtradhara-
artisans of Bengal.26 The legacy in its early-stage is also advocated by the shallow and
3
stiff figures of Bharhut, where the ancient Indian woodcarvers began to try their hands
on stone for the first time.27

Fig 1. Male-figurine from Chandraketugarh Fig 2. Fenale-figurine from Chandraketugarh

Journal of Bengal Art (ISSN 1607-1344), Vol. 22, 2017. Pp. 215-22

. It means, even before the Shunga-era – during the Mauryas or even prior to
that – the artists of India already acquired a high-skill in woodwork, the practice of
which must had been promoted by some form of organized-resources. The folk-tribal
society, on the other hand, couldn’t afford expensive materials like wood or stone. In
that early-stage of Indian art, they were rather spontaneous, convenient and
habituated to make images in clay or other pulps.
Hence, all forms of wooden-sculptures – be it small or big – were initiated in
the hieratic tradition of finer-arts, supported by the riches of the ancient Indian-
society. The history of wooden-dolls, in that case, might have been something similar,
though no archeological or epigraphic evidences are available till date in favor of this
idea. We do not know if anything like wooden-dolls were produced at all in the
earliest-past of hieratic-Bengal. Even if it was so, we do not know how did they look
like. Similar small figurines, whatsoever, could only be traced much later – during the
era of Shunga-dynasty – represented in the form of two specimens found from
Chandraketugarh.
The reason and purpose behind the making of these figurines –
contemporaneous to the Bharhut-sculptures – is unspecified till date. But they were
certainly sculpted as unique pieces, not as a part or accessory of any other bigger work.
Especially the hint of pedestal near the feet of the male-figure proves it to be placed
separately on a flat-surface, while the now-lost feet of the female-figure must have
been added with something similar.
4
In any case, it appears by looking at the shape, form, structure and character of
the figurines that the wooden-dolls of Bengal during the Shunga-era might have
looked somewhat similar to them. Perhaps dolls like these were the early-ancestors of
the twentieth-century Mummy-putula or Kalighat-putula – though the two genres
hardly have anything common in terms of form, spirit, style and aesthetics.

Problems of history – some important queries:

In terms of visual-appearance and aesthetic-approach, the minute-carvings of the

Chandraketugarh-specimens are widely different in comparison to the spontaneous and
simple expressions of the nineeenth-twentieth century pieces. While the earlier-figurines
followed the classical pattern of pan-Indian idiom, the latter in turn represented the traditional
genre of folk-tribal culture. Hence its indeed a big question whether the former could be
assumed as the ancestor of the latter. Even if it is so, in that case should we consider the
earliest-source of this folk-tribal tradition to be hidden in the ancient art-practices of the
hieratic idiom? Historical-evidences in favour of such trends have already been produced in
the making of wooden-deities in Bengal;28 but did something similar happened to the
wooden-dolls as well? Apart from a few exceptions – did they in general appear as mere
elements of interior-decoration for the elite or playthings for their children? Is it only after
many centuries of gradual emergence that the tradition got eolved and embodied into the
daily-life of the rural and tribal folk? Is it for this reason such dolls, made of wood, have
Journal of Bengal Art (ISSN 1607-1344), Vol. 22, 2017. Pp. 215-22

mostly remained ornamental – without being directly connected with any occasion, custom or
religious practice?

Fig 3. Saṅkarṣaṇa-Balarāma of Boro, c. fourteenth-fifteenth century AD.

If it is so, then should we surmise that since second century BC to eithteenth century
AD the tradition of Bengal-woodcarving as a whole has moved into the similar direction?
From hieratic to the folk-tribal – is this the very special aesthetic-journey that guided the
historical-evolution of both dolls and deities made of wood? Is this the way that the long flow
of politics, economy, sociology and religion has paved the way of art-history in Bengal? If it
is so, then what was its actual form?
The questions remain, unanswered. Along with these, remain a few possible
assumptions, around which the work of tracing the historical sources of wooden-dolls in
Bengal is wandering till date.

Epilogue – tracing the outline of an aristic-evolution:

In its earliest phase, the wooden-dolls of Bengal might have been fed by – and have
nourished in turn – the unified classical-idiom of the Indian subcontinent. This
mutual exchange resulted into the development of a capitalist art-practice, the nature
of which came into the fore during the rule of the Shungas. The specimens from
Chandraketugarh are examples of that hieratic art-practice, which continued till c.
twelfth century AD.
Journal of Bengal Art (ISSN 1607-1344), Vol. 22, 2017. Pp. 215-22

Fig 4. Bau-putula of Natungram, Bardhaman – collected from Kalighat of Kolkata; c. early-twentieth

century AD; now at Gurusaday Museum, Joka.

The political, economic and social crises in the following century, resulted by 6
the Turk-invasion in Bengal, compelled most of the hieratic-artists to seek refuge to
the neighboring Hindu-states. Those who didn’t go, or couldn’t, either were forced to
serve the new royal-patrons or had to shift to a different profession.
In these circumstances, their empty places were to be filled by the folk-tribal
artisans – who hardly had any knowledge and skill in the art of woodcarving. Getting
the desired images carved by them, following the prevailing norms and idioms of the
hieratic-genre, was not very easy. However, both the parallels took up this opportunity
and tried to evolve into a philosophical-unity and aesthetic-synthesis – that continued
for the next three centuries.
In these new circumstances, the folk-tribal artisans strived to be competent in
order to befit with the new-requirements, while their technical-limitations were tried
to be adjusted with the theory and imagination of the hieratic-iconographers. Bearing
the witness of this spectacular-history, an eleven-foot wooden-sculpture of
Saṅkarṣaṇa-Balarāma (fig 3) is still standing tall in Boro of Bardhaman.29 Howeer, no
seperate indication is available regarding the prevailing trend, nature and form of the
wooden-dolls during that era.
In any case, this long synthesis of three-hundred odd years resulted into a third form
of artistic-excellence, very much of Bengal-origin, that evolved in the hands of the folk-tribal
artisans. What we understand today as Bengal-art, Bengal-sculpture, Bengal-dolls etc – with
a typically spontaneous, plumpy and simplistic appearance – was born in this way, during the
first-half of sixteenth century AD. This progression as a whole was catalysed by the Gauḍīya-
Journal of Bengal Art (ISSN 1607-1344), Vol. 22, 2017. Pp. 215-22

Vaiṣṇava movement under the leadership of Nitāi-Gaura and the revived Śākta-philosophy
initiated by Kṛṣṇānanda Āgamabāgīśa.
In this new mainstream of Bengal-art, the position and function of the rural
folk and tribal artisans became extremely important and inevitable. By exploring clay,
wood, stone, paint and every other possible medium – they continued to render and
express a unified form of Bengal-culture, encompassing all of its thoughts, philosophy,
skill and aesthetics.
Throughout the next two centuries, this unique art-form was explored
relentlessly and applied in multiples in various mediums all around Bengal. The same
form inevitably got reflected in the now-lost wooden-dolls and the available wooden-
idols of that era. Both the expressions must have been carved and painted in a similar
aesthetic-perception, followed by the Sūtradharas with their regional stylistic
variations.
The legacy continued in the following centuries – evidences of which could be
traced today in the existing specimens of both the genres. Perhaps in this way, the
hieratic and exclusive wooden-dolls from Chandraketugarh gradually got evolved into
a typically general folk-tribal expression, whose earliest-examples available are kept in
the collection of Gurusaday Museum.

NOTES & REFERENCES:

1
Ancient artisan-caste of Bengal – who used to work (even a few generations before) in all the
four mediums of clay, wood, stone and paint.
2
Natungram, Dainhat, Patuli, Kasthashali.
3
Srirampur, Chandannagar.
4
Hale-Raspur.
5
Bakshi-bajar, Karnagarh, Okulshanra, Kanashol, Daspur, Jharbani, Humgarh, Raulia.
6
Vishnupur, Beleorh.
7
Woman-figurine – also known as Kālīghāṭa-putula, as were sold near the famous Kali-temple
in Kolkata.
8
King-and-Queen.
9
1903-1976
10
1882–1941
11
Spondias mombin
12
Odina wodier
13
Sand paper tree (Streblus asper)
14
Alstonia scholaris
15
Silk cotton (Bombax)
16
Dolls made in the shape of Egyptian-mummy.
17
Jasimuddin. Save Traditional Bengali Dolls Our National Heritage. www.Jasimuddin.org
(http://sos-arsenic.net/lovingbengal/patchitra.html)
18
Sankalia, H. D.. (December, 1982). A Unique Wooden Image of the Buddhist Goddess Tara
from the Kanheri Caves. Marg, Vol. 36 (No. 1), p. 84; Sen Gupta, Sanjay. (2013). Pāla-yugera
Journal of Bengal Art (ISSN 1607-1344), Vol. 22, 2017. Pp. 215-22

Dāruvigrahe Bauddha Devadevī. Ebaṁ Āmrā, 8/1, pp. 313-25; Sen Gupta, Sanjay. (2016). Wooden
Idols of India: the antiquity of a traditional excellence. Chitrolekha International Magazine on
Art and Design, Vol. 6 (No. 1), p. 79 (URL of the Issue: www.chitrolekha.com/v6n1)
19
Bhattashali, Nalini Kanta. (1929/2008). Iconography of Buddhist and Brahmanical Sculptures
in the Dacca Museum. Dhaka: Bangladesh National Museum. p. 228; see Dasgupta, Kalyan
Kumar. (1990). Wood Carvings of Eastern India. Kolkata: Firma KLM Pvt Ltd. pp. 53-4; Banu,
Zinat Mahrookh. (2003). Bāṁlādeśera Dāruśilpa. Dhaka: Bangladesh National Museum, p. 97
20
Bhattashali, (1929/2008). Iconography of… . pp. 273-4; Dasgupta, (1990). Wood Carvings of… .
pp. 54, 66, 74, 144; Santra, Tarapada. (2003). Bāṁlāra Kāṭhera Kāja. Kolkata: Centre for
Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, fig 158-9; Banu, (2003). Bāṁlādeśera Dāruśilpa,
pp. 100-2, fig 217
21
c. BC 274-237
22
Havell, E. B. (1978). Indian Architecture Through The Ages. New Delhi: Asian Publication
Services. P. 47
23
Havell, E B. (1915). The Ancient and Medieval Architecture of India. London: John Murray, p.
55 & fig 17; also see Craven, Roy C. (2001). Indian Art: A Concise History. London: Thames and
Hudson, p. 48 & pl. 24
24
Accession No. AX/SC/98
25
The first-one measures 6¼” x 1¼” x 1¼’ and the second-one is of 6” x 1” x ½”.
26
Census 1951: Tribes and Castes of West Bengal. pp. 321-328
27
Havell, E B. (1928). Indian Sculpture and Painting. London. pp. 90-91
28
Sen Gupta, Sanjay. (2012, May 16). Wooden Idols of West Bengal: an aesthetic approach.
Kolkata, PhD Thesis (University of Calcutta)
29
Sen Gupta, Sanjay. (2016). Balarāma of Boro: a Unique Specimen of Bengal Sculpture.
Chitrolekha International Magazine on Art and Design, Vol. 6 (No. 2), pp. 77-85
(DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21659/chitro.v6n2.08) 8

PHOTO-CREDIT:
Gurusaday Museum, Joka: http://www.gurusadaymuseum.org/col_dol_wood.html (Fig 4)
State Archaeological Museum, Kolkata (Fig 1 & 2)