.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Establishing an accurate chronology for Gandharan art has been one of the great challenges for South Asian art historians. Many of the most important archaeological sites were excavated in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, with methods far from the professional standards of contemporary archaeology. Even those few works that bear dated inscriptions are far from conclusive; the grey schist triad sold at Christie’s New York on 23 September 2020, lot 609, for example, bears an inscription dated to ‘year 5,’ which has led scholars to propose dates as early as the first century CE and as late as the fifth. In “The Site of Sahri-Bahlol in Gandhara (Part III),” published in South Asian Archaeology 1987, Rome, 1990, p. 762, the scholar Francine Tissot proposes that the current figure represents “a Kidarite or Hephthalite donor…wearing the tunic and breeches of a horsemen.” The Kidarites, also known as the Kidara Huns or Chionites, and the Hephthalites, who were also called the White Huns, were semi-nomadic Central Asian tribes that came to rule the region of Gandhara following the decline of the Kushans. If the present figure represents a Kidarite chief or nobleman, it was likely to have been carved in the late fourth or even early fifth century, when the Kidarites assumed control of the region; a Hephthalite attribution would push the date of the present figure firmly into the fifth or sixth century. However, Tissot notes the close stylistic similarities between the present figure and that of a female donor discovered at the monastery of Sahri Bahlol, now in the Peshawar Museum; the female donor figure was found alongside coins dating to the reign of the Sasanian king Shapur II (r. 309-379), thus suggesting a firm fourth-century dating. If one assumes the present figure is roughly contemporaneous to the female donor figure from Sahri Bahlol, then a fourth-century date and attribution of either a Kushan or Kidarite nobleman or chief would be likely.
The present figure supports an arched shrine facing outwards on his left hand at the center of his torso. Although the right arm is missing, the rough surface to the right of the shrine (and comparison with other known Gandharan donor figures) indicates that the right hand would have likely vertically supported the right side of the shrine; see, for example, a donor figure in the collection of the British Museum, acc. no. 1899,0609.2 illustrated by W. Zwalf in A Catalogue of Gandhara Sculpture in the British Museum, London, 1996, vol. II, fig. 433, or the Peshawar Museum female donor, in which the fingers of the right hand rest on the proper right side of the shrine. Within the Gandharan context, donor figures are shown to be holding a few different objects: some, such as the British Museum example, hold spherical boxes and covers probably representing reliquaries; others hold bunches of flowers; and others, such as the present figure and the Peshawar Museum female figure, hold niched shrines. While the shrine of the present figure is mostly missing, it would have likely resembled that on the Peshawar Museum female figure, which is carved to resemble a chaitya arch.
Although the exact function of the shrine itself is unknown, the fact that the Peshawar Museum female donor figure was found in a Buddhist monastery indicates makes it highly likely that both that figure and the present figure were practitioners of the Buddhist faith, rather than Brahminism or Zoroastrianism. The monumental size of the present figure indicates it was likely a high-level commission, and demonstrates the commitment to the faith by the ruling class. It is known that many of the Kushan rulers adopted Buddhism, including Kanishka I, who was said to have convened the Fourth Buddhist Council. The Kushan rule was apparently marked by an attitude of religious tolerance, which, considering the various religions which were fervently practiced in the region, was perhaps a wise policy choice.
As briefly mentioned previously, the present figure is dressed in the traditional garb of a Central Asian horseman, be it Kushan or Huna: a long tunic falling to the knees, over britches cinched at the ankles, and boots suitable for riding a horse. In “A Gandharan Donor on Sale by Sotheby’s New York,” published in East and West, December 2000, vol. 50, no. 1/4, p. 523, the scholar Anna Maria Quagliotti consciously adopts the term ‘Northern style’ to refer to this outfit, as the previously common term, ‘Kushan style’ precluded the continuation of the style into the Kidarite and Hephthalite periods. The ‘Northern style’ dress is in stark contrast to the traditional costume of a local Indian prince or nobleman, who would have worn loose robes over a dhoti tied at the waist, and open-toed sandals. The distinctive outfit indicates that the conquering Kushans and Huns, rather than adopt the local trappings of nobility (with the possible exception of some jewelry, as discussed later), adhered to the traditions of their equestrian warrior past. The presence of figures dressed in both the ‘Northern style’ and the local Indian style in a relief in the Museo d’Arte Orientale in Turin, demonstrates that, far from the local nobility (and their attendant traditional dress) being exterminated by the invading tribes, they lived alongside one another, with the Kushans and Huns in an elevated stature. The ‘Northern style’ dress served to distinguish the ruling elite from the locals.
The tunic of the present figure is distinguished by the M-shaped beaded hem that runs from both shoulders to the center of the chest beneath the shrine. Quagliotti, in ibid., understood this as a mantle or cape worn over the tunic, similar to a Latin casula or traveling cape. The M-shaped mantle can be seen on a diminutive donor figure in a sculpture of Panchika in the Lahore Museum, illustrated by H. Ingholt, in Gandharan Art in Pakistan, New York, 1957, pl. 338; the mantle is rendered with a different texture than that of the tunic below, suggesting two distinct fabric types. However, the line of the hem on the present figure is very narrow on the chest, and if it were a traveling cape, it would not have been effective in keeping the figure warm; furthermore, the texture of the surface above and below the hem is almost identical. It seems more plausible, then, to consider it as a decorative beaded hem stitched into the fabric of the tunic itself. Such beaded hems can be seen in the tunic of one of the figures depicted in a painted textile, apparently found in Xinjiang in China and carbon-dated to the late first century to mid-third century CE, illustrated by Frantz Grenet in ibid. The painting, which Grenet also suggests depicts Huvishka and attendants, conforms to the depictions of Kushans or Huns found in sculpture; the standing figure at center wears a tunic with what looks like stitched beads running down the center of the tunic and down both arms. The M-shaped hem continued to be a popular stylistic element of dress for centuries in the Gandharan region, Kashmir, and Central Asia, as evidenced by the numerous Buddhist images decorated with the motif; see, for example, the terracotta figure of Buddha from Fondukistan in the collection of the Musée Guimet.
Another characteristic of the ‘Northern style’ is the conspicuous near lack of jewelry and other forms of adornment, in contrast to the richly adorned Indian princes. The necklace of the present figure is considerably worn, but is discernable as a relatively simple torq or collar, commonly found in the art of Gandhara, both on bodhisattvas garbed in the local dress of an Indian prince, and on figures dressed as Kushans or Huns. Another male donor figure in the ‘Northern style’ in the Peshawar Museum, illustrated by H. Ingholt in ibid., pl. 417, also bears a collar necklace. Such a necklace can also be found in a depiction of Hariti on a silver roundel dated to the circa first century CE in the collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art (acc. no. 1981.460.2), suggesting the necklace style was popular among the local nobility and perhaps adopted by the conquering Kushans, Kidarites, and Hephthalites.
The other element of adornment found on the present donor figure is the clasped belt just below the waist. Thanks to its excellent preservation, the decorative motifs, a series of geometric and foliate designs bordered by beaded rectangles, are clearly discernable. The belt sits high on the donor’s hips, but dips at the center, where two semi-circular clasps join and are secured by a pendent chain or tie. The form is almost identical to the belt found on the male donor figure in the Peshawar Museum illustrated by Ingholt, and is similar to those worn by the figures dressed in the ‘Northern style’ in the relief in the Museo d’Arte Orientale in Turin.
The present figure supports an arched shrine facing outwards on his left hand at the center of his torso. Although the right arm is missing, the rough surface to the right of the shrine (and comparison with other known Gandharan donor figures) indicates that the right hand would have likely vertically supported the right side of the shrine; see, for example, a donor figure in the collection of the British Museum, acc. no. 1899,0609.2 illustrated by W. Zwalf in A Catalogue of Gandhara Sculpture in the British Museum, London, 1996, vol. II, fig. 433, or the Peshawar Museum female donor, in which the fingers of the right hand rest on the proper right side of the shrine. Within the Gandharan context, donor figures are shown to be holding a few different objects: some, such as the British Museum example, hold spherical boxes and covers probably representing reliquaries; others hold bunches of flowers; and others, such as the present figure and the Peshawar Museum female figure, hold niched shrines. While the shrine of the present figure is mostly missing, it would have likely resembled that on the Peshawar Museum female figure, which is carved to resemble a chaitya arch.
Although the exact function of the shrine itself is unknown, the fact that the Peshawar Museum female donor figure was found in a Buddhist monastery indicates makes it highly likely that both that figure and the present figure were practitioners of the Buddhist faith, rather than Brahminism or Zoroastrianism. The monumental size of the present figure indicates it was likely a high-level commission, and demonstrates the commitment to the faith by the ruling class. It is known that many of the Kushan rulers adopted Buddhism, including Kanishka I, who was said to have convened the Fourth Buddhist Council. The Kushan rule was apparently marked by an attitude of religious tolerance, which, considering the various religions which were fervently practiced in the region, was perhaps a wise policy choice.
As briefly mentioned previously, the present figure is dressed in the traditional garb of a Central Asian horseman, be it Kushan or Huna: a long tunic falling to the knees, over britches cinched at the ankles, and boots suitable for riding a horse. In “A Gandharan Donor on Sale by Sotheby’s New York,” published in East and West, December 2000, vol. 50, no. 1/4, p. 523, the scholar Anna Maria Quagliotti consciously adopts the term ‘Northern style’ to refer to this outfit, as the previously common term, ‘Kushan style’ precluded the continuation of the style into the Kidarite and Hephthalite periods. The ‘Northern style’ dress is in stark contrast to the traditional costume of a local Indian prince or nobleman, who would have worn loose robes over a dhoti tied at the waist, and open-toed sandals. The distinctive outfit indicates that the conquering Kushans and Huns, rather than adopt the local trappings of nobility (with the possible exception of some jewelry, as discussed later), adhered to the traditions of their equestrian warrior past. The presence of figures dressed in both the ‘Northern style’ and the local Indian style in a relief in the Museo d’Arte Orientale in Turin, demonstrates that, far from the local nobility (and their attendant traditional dress) being exterminated by the invading tribes, they lived alongside one another, with the Kushans and Huns in an elevated stature. The ‘Northern style’ dress served to distinguish the ruling elite from the locals.
The tunic of the present figure is distinguished by the M-shaped beaded hem that runs from both shoulders to the center of the chest beneath the shrine. Quagliotti, in ibid., understood this as a mantle or cape worn over the tunic, similar to a Latin casula or traveling cape. The M-shaped mantle can be seen on a diminutive donor figure in a sculpture of Panchika in the Lahore Museum, illustrated by H. Ingholt, in Gandharan Art in Pakistan, New York, 1957, pl. 338; the mantle is rendered with a different texture than that of the tunic below, suggesting two distinct fabric types. However, the line of the hem on the present figure is very narrow on the chest, and if it were a traveling cape, it would not have been effective in keeping the figure warm; furthermore, the texture of the surface above and below the hem is almost identical. It seems more plausible, then, to consider it as a decorative beaded hem stitched into the fabric of the tunic itself. Such beaded hems can be seen in the tunic of one of the figures depicted in a painted textile, apparently found in Xinjiang in China and carbon-dated to the late first century to mid-third century CE, illustrated by Frantz Grenet in ibid. The painting, which Grenet also suggests depicts Huvishka and attendants, conforms to the depictions of Kushans or Huns found in sculpture; the standing figure at center wears a tunic with what looks like stitched beads running down the center of the tunic and down both arms. The M-shaped hem continued to be a popular stylistic element of dress for centuries in the Gandharan region, Kashmir, and Central Asia, as evidenced by the numerous Buddhist images decorated with the motif; see, for example, the terracotta figure of Buddha from Fondukistan in the collection of the Musée Guimet.
Another characteristic of the ‘Northern style’ is the conspicuous near lack of jewelry and other forms of adornment, in contrast to the richly adorned Indian princes. The necklace of the present figure is considerably worn, but is discernable as a relatively simple torq or collar, commonly found in the art of Gandhara, both on bodhisattvas garbed in the local dress of an Indian prince, and on figures dressed as Kushans or Huns. Another male donor figure in the ‘Northern style’ in the Peshawar Museum, illustrated by H. Ingholt in ibid., pl. 417, also bears a collar necklace. Such a necklace can also be found in a depiction of Hariti on a silver roundel dated to the circa first century CE in the collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art (acc. no. 1981.460.2), suggesting the necklace style was popular among the local nobility and perhaps adopted by the conquering Kushans, Kidarites, and Hephthalites.
The other element of adornment found on the present donor figure is the clasped belt just below the waist. Thanks to its excellent preservation, the decorative motifs, a series of geometric and foliate designs bordered by beaded rectangles, are clearly discernable. The belt sits high on the donor’s hips, but dips at the center, where two semi-circular clasps join and are secured by a pendent chain or tie. The form is almost identical to the belt found on the male donor figure in the Peshawar Museum illustrated by Ingholt, and is similar to those worn by the figures dressed in the ‘Northern style’ in the relief in the Museo d’Arte Orientale in Turin.
.jpg?w=1)