In the articles "Early Buddhist Art and the Theory of Aniconism (Huntington 1990)'' by

(Dehejia 1991)
Susan L. Huntington and "Aniconism and the Multivalence of Emblems '' by

Vidya Dehejia, we are presented with two different interpretations of early Buddhist art and

the use of aniconic imagery in early Buddhist sites such as Sanchi. The traditional theory of

aniconism suggests that early Buddhist art avoided direct depictions of Buddha, replacing

them with symbolic representations of his presence instead. This theory is substantiated by art

such as The Great Departure at Sanchi (figure 1) where scenes from Buddha's life are

depicted with a parasol instead of an anthropomorphic image of the Buddha. Buddhist

teachings have also been cited as evidence for aniconism. For instance, it has been suggested
(Richard F. Gombrich 1971)
that the absence of the Buddha in certain depictions symbolizes

his state of "extinguishment," a concept known as nibutta.

Huntington challenges this theory suggesting instead that these reliefs are essentially

“portraits” of sacred sites and depict adoration at these sites rather than events in the

Buddha's life. She contends that the Buddha's relics (cetiya) left after his death are culturally

significant and, their presence in Buddhist art is not to serve as a placeholder for the Buddha

but to celebrate the relics themselves. She also argues that the figures depicted in these

artworks are worshipping the relic itself.

Dehejia, while agreeing with the absence of an aniconic phase in Buddhist history, disagrees

with Huntington's explanation for the presence of these relics in Buddhist art. She finds

Huntington's explanation too rigid and simplistic. She instead advocates for recognizing and

accepting the multiplicity of meanings apparent in early Buddhist sculpture and paintings.

She emphasizes the need to appreciate the manifold religious interpretations that may be

suggested by any single artwork. She uses artwork such as the Prasemjit pillar at Bharut
(figure 2) as evidence for her reasoning. On the pillar, there is a synoptic sculpture depicting

King Prasenajit visiting the shrine he built to honor the Buddha. The depiction of the wheel in

this panel serves two purposes; to remind the reader of the first sermon given by the Buddha

and to portray the wheel as an object of worship. This is one of several examples that

demonstrate that Buddhist art contains multiple layers of meaning and that a singular and

exclusive explanation is insufficient.

After examining both articles, I find myself agreeing more with Dehejia than Huntington.

Dehejia's suggestion that these reliefs have several layers of meaning accommodates the

personal touch of an artist, recognizing that these reliefs have independent identities as well. I

find Huntington’s attempt to mass apply a site-oriented interpretation to artwork in this era

problematic. Making sweeping characterizations of a period of art denies the individual

elements of the art and the artist who made it. This disregard for individuality lends a serious

weakness in Huntington's case where her interpretations, while accurate in many cases, seem

outrageous in others. The central panel of the Prasenajit pillar (figure 3) is a great example of

this. In this panel, the Bodhi tree is clearly used to represent the Buddha. This is evident in

the wording of the panel's inscription which reads “Erapato Nagaraja Bhagavato Vadate” or

“Serpent King Erapata adores the Holy One.” Since there is no anthropomorphic image of the

Buddha, it can only be concluded that the Bodhi tree is the “Holy one” (the Buddha), thus

providing a clear instance of aniconism. Suggesting that the Bodhi tree is not an aniconic

image in this instance is foolish. Similarly, Huntington's explanation for ‘The Great

Departure at Sanchi’ seems farfetched. I, like Dahejia, find it implausible that the artisans of

Sanchi would depict themselves worshipping at the stupa, as proposed by Huntington. These

criticisms highlight that, while Huntington's analysis may offer valuable insights, it cannot

fully explain the multifaceted nature of the artwork from this era. They demonstrate that a
nuanced approach that does not attempt to characterize a large breadth of art under a single

label or interpretation, but one that considers artworks individually is necessary for a holistic

understanding.

In conclusion, the discourse between Huntington and Dehejia sheds light on the complexity

of interpreting early Buddhist art and the varied meanings embedded within it. While both

scholars offer compelling arguments, Dehejia's emphasis on the multiplicity of interpretations

and the need for nuanced analysis resonates with me, challenging the notion of a singular

narrative in understanding these artworks. By constantly engaging in similar discourse, we

can deepen our understanding and knowledge of early Buddhist art.

Figure 1 The Great Departure at Sanchi, Mauryan period, 3rd century BCE, Stone sculpture, Sanchi Stupa, Sanchi, Madhya
Pradesh, India.

Figure 2 Visit of King Prasenjit to Kosala for Shrine of Buddha, Kosola Dynasty, 6th Century BCE, sculpture, American
Institute for Indian Studies, Bharut, Madhya Pradesh, India.
 Figure 3 Story of Serpent King Erapata, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), sculpture, Bharhut, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Bibliography

Dehejia, Vidya. 1991. “Aniconism and the Multivalence of Emblems.” Ars Orientalis 21: 45–66.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629413.
Huntington, Susan L. 1990. “Early Buddhist Art and the Theory of Aniconism.” Art Journal 49
(4): 401. https://doi.org/10.2307/777142.
Richard F. Gombrich. 1971. Precept and Practice: Traditional Buddhism in the Rural Highlands
of Ceylon. Oxford:ClarendonPress.