Ajanta: History and Development 3. The Arrival of the Uninvited 9004148337, 9789004148338

Citation preview

AJANTA THE ARRIVAL OF THE UNINVITED

HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES HANDBUCH DER ORIENTALISTIK SECTION TWO

INDIA INDIEN edited by J. BRONKHORST

VOLUME 18/3 AJANTA: HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

THE ARRIVAL OF THE UNINVITED

AJANTA: HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT VOLUME THREE

THE ARRIVAL OF THE UNINVITED BY

WALTER M. SPINK

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2005

Cover illustration: Ajanta Cave 9, showing intrusive Buddha, 479. Published with courtesy of the Michigan Asian Art Archives. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISSN 0169-9377 ISBN 90 04 14833 7 © Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

AJANTA: THE ARRIVAL OF THE UNINVITED When the great “Vakataka” patrons had to flee from Ajanta during 478, a few months after Harisena’s death, as a result of the Asmakas’ takeover of the site, and then when the Asmakas themselves also had to leave because of the needs of war, the great phase of patronage ended at Ajanta. But now a host of pious intruders, mostly monks and devotees still living in the region, could make their own offerings. Remarkably, these new and “uninvited” paintings and sculptures appear on and/or in caves which had already been dedicated by the earlier patrons. By contrast, excavations where the Buddha image had not been completed, even though seemingly ideal in terms of having plenty of available space, were never utilized for such votive donations.

CONTENTS

Cave Cave Cave Cave

2 4 4 Upper 6

Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave Cave

7 9A–9D 10A 11 12A 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 26

Intrusions vs. programmed paintings .......... Intrusions in the porch .................................. Intrusions in the shrine ................................ Original and intrusive phases compared .... Srine antechamber and shrine ...................... Rear wall figures ............................................ Right front shrinelet ...................................... Right rear shrinelet ........................................ Court shrinelets (left and right) .................... Left court shrinelet ........................................ Right court shrinelet ...................................... The main shrine ............................................ Porch .............................................................. Intrusions ........................................................ Intrusive .......................................................... Intrusive .......................................................... Intrusions ........................................................ Intrusive .......................................................... Intrusions ........................................................ Intrusions ........................................................ Intrusions ........................................................ Intrusions ........................................................ Intrusions ........................................................ Intrusions ........................................................ Intrusions ........................................................ Intrusions (Court) .......................................... Intrusions (Court) .......................................... Intrusions ........................................................ Façade Intrusions .......................................... Ambulatory Intrusions .................................. Ghatotkacha vihara Intrusions ......................

1 5 15 20 26 41 65 72 75 77 79 83 86 98 99 105 111 116 117 122 126 131 161 168 172 189 200 206 226 261

CAVE 2

INTRUSIONS VS. PROGRAMMED PAINTINGS

This analysis, placed at the beginning of this volume on Ajanta’s intrusive phase, or Period of Disruption, is intended to show where and how the intrusions given by individual donors—donors quite different from the site’s original patrons—fit into the total development of the caves. In Cave 2, such an analysis clearly reveals how logically one can distinguish the “original” from the added (“intrusive”) programs, even though the latter are typically careless of the original patron’s well-laid plan of significant decoration. The following is excerpted from the author’s earlier Ajanta: A Brief History and Guide and has been written to guide students through the point by point development of the painting program in this splendid cave, which started in such an orderly fashion, and ended (as the site itself ended) so expediently. Entitled: DO YOUR OWN ANALYSIS, this is actually a stepby-step guide to understanding the relationships between “original” and “intrusive” work. Do your own Analysis! You may be interested in critically reviewing the manner in which the sequence of events claimed to underlie the “Short Chronology” is reflected in the development of work in the caves. If so, the paintings of Cave 2, all assigned here to the last four years of activity at the site (477–480), can provide you with a test case. In analyzing the progress of the painted decoration in Cave 2, you will probably want to estimate the number of painters involved, decide what might be a reasonable time span for the work accomplished, and note the character of the painting as well as how much of the cave was actually finished. Finally, decide if changes in the style and/or iconography reveal a relationship between the decoration of the cave and the historical circumstances that allegedly controlled it.

cave 2

2

477: Site still flourishing under Harisena’s overlordship, with feudatory control of the region by the Asmakas. Cave 2’s excavation having been essentially completed by 476, its plastering, and then its painting, began early in 477. All of the decoration of the porch and roughly half of the painting in the interior hall was accomplished during this final year of Harisena’s reign. Work on the beautifully organized ceiling proceeded generally rearward. As soon as these upper areas had been completed, the painting of the pillars and of the side aisle walls was started, working from the upper levels downward and from front to back. However, work on this carefully planned program was suddenly disrupted when Harisena died. On the left wall, the “narrative” decoration ends with the clearly unfinished Birth of the Buddha scene. At this point the wall beyond, although plastered, was still unpainted, as were all the walls in the rear aisle, as well as the dark front wall. As for the ceiling decoration, before its careful program was disrupted at the end of 477, the painters had already finished that of ‘the shrine antechamber as well as those in the adjacent Nidhi and Hariti shrinelets to left and right. Indeed, the latter shrinelet had just been fully decorated when Harisena died, but neither the main Buddha shrine, nor the walls of the shrine antechamber, nor the rest of the Nidhi shrinelet had been painted by this time. Early 478: The “Period of Anxious Consolidation”. Halting their overall programs, the site’s patrons rush to finish their main Buddhas. Aware that a war for the control of the empire was looming, patrons throughout the site were now rushing to finish only the most essential portions of their caves. Thus the patron of Cave 2, abandoning work on the lower priority narrative murals, concentrated on painting the shrine; this had not been possible before because the Buddha image had not yet been finished. The already carved shrine doorway would also have been finished by the painters, along with the shrine.l At the same time, the painters completed the all-too-hurried “Vajrapani” guarding the antechamber entrance at the right, as well as the similarly slap-dash paintings in the Nidhi shrinelet. Then, although the cave was still sadly incomplete, the involvement of the original patron came to an abrupt end.

1

Provide footnote text.

intrusions vs. programmed paintings

3

Mid-478: The “Period of Disruption” begins in the “Vakataka” section of the site, along the main scarp. The original “Vakataka” patrons, forced to leave the site, lose all control of their caves. New donors invade them with intrusions. By the end of 478, the Asmaka patrons, responsible for the caves in the site’s western extremity, were suddenly forced to leave also, their courtly support cut off by the demands of the developing insurrection led by the Asmakas against the Vakataka emperor. As the site’s economic base and its administrative controls collapsed, new donors, previously excluded from sharing in the site’s elitist patronage, “invaded” this and other caves with their own meritmaking votive images, placing them in the most desirable locations still available. Probably the first such intrusion made in Cave 2 was the Sravasti Miracle, so grandly disposed on the highly visible wall area of the rear wall just to the left of the antechamber entrance. Had his time not run out, the original patron would surely have put a “Padmapani” in this important area to match the “Vajrapani” to the right. The artist responsible for the Sravasti Miracle probably painted the small Eight Buddhas at the right of the shrine doorway, just at eye level, while another more ambitious “intruder” took over all the rest of these high priority wall surfaces for his Myriad Buddhas. This makes a veritable radiation chamber of the antechamber, the walls of which had already been plastered but were still not painted when Harisena died. Interestingly, the disposition of the Eight Buddhas’ inscription proves that it was not written until after the Myriad Buddhas were started. Thus both groups are essentially contemporaneous, surely dating early in the Period of Disruption, probably starting here in mid-478, when such high priority locations would still have been available. 480: The “Period of Disruption” continues, but it will soon rapidly end, leaving many available locations still untouched by intrusions. Cave 2’s antechamber pillar bases had already been plastered, in 477; and now an inscribed Buddha image was painted on one of them in the cursory style of the nearby Thousand Buddhas. The desirability of a location close to the shrine equally explains the addition of a similarly inscribed image in the unadorned corner of the left rear wall’s Sravasti Miracle, resulting in an intrusion being painted upon an intrusion! At the same time (in 480) an inscribed row of Buddhas was placed just below the much larger group painted (in 479) toward the rear of the already plastered left aisle wall. A few

4

cave 2

other areas in the cave (notably the front wall!) could have had similar intrusions; but here, as in all of the other caves at the site, time all too rapidly ran out. This concludes our “mini-survey” of four years of vigorous painting activity in one particular cave at the site—an analysis, allowed by Ajanta’s unique complexity, that could be paralleled by a study of developments in all of Ajanta’s other caves as well. It is only through such point by point considerations that one can rightly judge the validity of the so-called “Short Chronology”. If such tests are passed one can then declare that Ajanta’s Vakataka patronage provides us with the single most telling reflection of classical Indian culture at its apogee. And one can further say that this apogee was reached not under the Guptas but during the reign of the all-too-unsung Vakataka Emperor Harisena, who surely had no peer in his time. It was he and he alone who led that radiant world, reflected upon Ajanta’s walls, insistently up to the very farthest horizon of the Golden Age. It cannot be denied that these “monuments in the mountain” describe, with a remarkable resonance, this culminating moment in early Indian culture. However, at the same time they alone finally define the continent-shaking consequences, attendant upon Harisena’s death, which accrued, when the golden vessel that he had held aloft was so decisively shattered. This too is figured upon Ajanta’s walls— in the unfinished paintings, the half-cut images, and the abandoned dreams.

CAVE 4

INTRUSIONS IN PORCH

The largest excavation at the site, Cave 4 was the donation of the “viharaswamin” Mathura. (See Inscr #17) Not only because work stopped on it from 469 through 474 (Recession and Hiatus), but because a portion of the ceiling collapsed during that period, necessitating massive adjustments, the cave was still quite incomplete when Harisena died. However, early in 478, Mathura rushed the main image to an expedient completion and dedication, and it is for this reason—the cave now being “alive”—that it attracted various donors during the Period of Disruption, which began only a few months later, perhaps as early as mid-478. At this point new donors, enthused by the visibility, spaciousness, and previous smoothing of the space on either side of the porch door, added intrusive and no longer symmetrically disposed figures there, usurping the areas which were surely intended for the expected paintings of conventional paired bodhisattvas. The impressive Avalokitesvara Litany to the right of the Cave 4 porch doorway, and the carved bhadrasana Buddha panel to the left, are among the very first intrusions at the site. Considering the desirability of their highly visible locations, and the fact that the wall surfaces were already prepared, it is likely that both of these major intrusions were carved at the very start of the Period of Disruption; that is, relatively early in 479, or even in the latter part of 478, by which time Mathura, “the owner of the cave”, as he is referred to in his inscription, had had to renounce his control over the cave and to leave the region. Of different shapes, and asymmetrically placed, these two reliefs are typical of the intrusions which were made exclusively in the Period of Disruption. Their intrusive character also explains why they are the only features in the still somewhat unfinished porch which were plastered and painted. As is the case with the intrusive

6

cave 4

reliefs in Cave 22, Cave U6, and elsewhere, they are set off as distinct and separate votive offerings not only by the fact that they were thus finished, but by the fact that such plastering and painting extended onto a small area of ceiling immediately above each of them, which was plastered and painted to form a small honorific canopy. One can make out a lotus medallion supported by two nearly obliterated flying celestials painted with a characteristically lavish late use of intense blue; the red (ground brick) plaster beneath is also of a characteristically composition.1 The original patron’s plan for the porch decoration was of course quite different, and would almost certainly have included a pair of large painted bodhisattvas on either side of this important entrance doorway; but the later donors were not concerned with such things as decorative programs. The Litany scene—the identification usually assigned to the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara as Lord of Travelers—was an immensely popular theme throughout the Vakataka phase at Ajanta. Over twelve painted and/or sculpted versions of the subject appear, which is remarkable, since all other iconic images are of Buddha images or of stupas (which often function as Buddha substitutes). It is reasonable to assume that since Ajanta was a remote site and the roads in the Period of Disruption would be full of hazards, offerings to the Protector of Travelers were very appropriate. This Avalokitesvara Litany, the most impressive example of the many versions of this theme at the site, shows the compassionate lord as protecting his devotees from the dangers of travel—or perhaps from any journey into the unknown. The power of an invocation to Avalokitesvara, the Lord of Travelers, expressed here in stone, is revealed in the famous Saddharmapundarika (The Lotus Sutra): “Be not afraid” the Saddharma Pundarika (Lotus of the Good Law) proclaims, “be not frightened; invoke all of you, with one voice the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Avalokitesvara, the giver of safety; then you shall be delivered from this danger by which you are threatened at the hands of robbers and enemies; if then the whole caravan with one voice invoked Avalokitesvara with the words: Adoration, adoration be

1 Mere traces of plaster remain on the ceiling over the bhadrasana panel, which also would have had a canopy.

intrusions in porch

7

to the giver of safety, to Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva Mahasattva! Then, by the mere act of pronouncing that name, the caravan would be released from all danger.”2

On an esoteric level, the “bhayas” or fears represented may well have been intended as metaphors for various modes of wrong thinking or action, whereby fire = anger, drowning = desire, snakes = jealousy, etc., as suggested by John Huntington.3 However, the moment when so many representations such as this were carved at the site was a moment when thoughts of physical rather than spiritual salvation must have been paramount. A concern for Avalokitesvara’s protection—for acquiring some travel insurance—must have been particularly intensified in these dangerous years when the feudatory Asmakas, now in control of the Ajanta region, rejected the imperial overlordship of Sarvasena III, Harisena’s son. The Asmaka action, of course, was tantamount to a declaration of war—a war which was surely soon to come; and these “uninvited” donors may already have been anticipating the mounting dangers of travel, or even of continued residence at the site, which they might all too soon have to face. The different astabhayas or Eight dangers which could quite actually confront the traveler on the now increasingly dangerous nearby trade-route are quite conventional in their representation here. The whole configuration reflects the textual description of how travelers can be protected by the grace of the bodhisattva, invoked by the ritual formulae preserved in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Saddharma Pundarika: (5) . . . If one be thrown into a pit of fire, by a wicked enemy with the object of killing him, he has but to think of Avalokitesvara, and the fire shall be quenched as if sprinkled with water. (6) If one happens to fall into the dreadful ocean, the abode of Nagas, marine monsters, and demons, he has but to think of Avalokitesvara, and he shall never sink down in the king of waters . . . 2

Kern (trans.) 1884 (1963), 408. According to Huntington (1981, 55, note 29) “The salvations from external perils must be understood as popular level salvations while the freedom from internal fears is the technical soteriological level . . . These (fears), of course are none other than the fetters that, once cast off, allow one to reach enlightenment.” 3

cave 4

8

(9) If a man be surrounded by a host of enemies armed with swords, who have the intention of killing him, he has but to think of Avalokitesvara, and they shall instantaneously become kindhearted . . . (14) If a man is surrounded by fearful beasts with sharp teeth and claws, he has but to think of Avalokitesvara, and they shall quickly fly in all directions . . . (17) He (Avalokitesvara) with his powerful knowledge beholds all creatures who are beset with many hundreds of troubles and afflicted by many sorrows, and thereby is a saviour in the world, including the gods.4 The potential difficulties of the road revealed here can be listed as represented (counterclockwise from upper right): forest fire; encounter with snakes; attack on a couple (?);5 illegible;6 shipwreck (travelers often had to risk crossing various rivers; attack by brigands (?); attack by lions/tigers; attack by wild elephants.7 Avalokitesvara, assertively frontal, stands on a lotus pedestal, and once held a long-stemmed lotus with a “late” globular blossom in his now-broken proper left hand; the other hand (now missing) is in the expected abhaya mudra. The familiar Buddha Amitabha, seated in padmasana and with dharmacakra mudra, can be seen in the jatamukuta; Avalokitesvara represents the earthly emanation of this lord of the Western Paradise. However, it is of particular interest that another larger Buddha, presumably also Amitabha, appears in an arched niche above, seated in the bhadrasana pose, and also once in dharmacakra mudra (now broken).8 The emphasis accorded this “redundant” figure, and its very developed iconography, stresses the

4

Kern (trans.) 1884 (1963), 413–415; local travelers probably interpreted these “fears” somewhat differently, with fire being the danger from forest fire, drowning the danger from river crossings in the monsoon, etc. 5 The unusual amount of space at the right suggests that the stone broke in carving and that the attacker was painted in. 6 Possibly a woman holding an (eroded) baby, threatened by a demon(?), by analogy with the well preserved Litany Scene in Aurangabad Cave 7 (last half of sixth century). 7 For a rare “Tara Litany”, dating to the seventh century, see R. Sen Gupta, A Guide to the Buddhist Caves of Elura, Bombay 1958, Plate XVII; R. Gupte, Iconography of the Buddhist Caves of Ellora, Aurangabad, 1964, Plate 2C. 8 The bhadrasana figure in the arched recess probably dates from late 479, but small bhadrasana Buddhas in more conventional (square) formats probably were never carved until 480, judging from their contexts.

intrusions in porch

9

relatively late nature of the conception. Similarly, the incorporation of seated Buddhas (the left in dharmacakra, the right in bhumisparsa mudra) in each of the upper corners of the relief links the conception to panels R2, R3, R4, and L8, carved in the Cave 26 ambulatory in 478, as well as to various others in very late, generally intrusive, contexts at the site. The typically late framing demi-pillars further confirm the late date of the image, as does the fact that the rosette band on the right demi-pillar is cut right over the adjacent window frame at the lower left. Those concerned with geological matters—Cave 4 being of particular interest in this regard—should note the “fault” (between two sequential lava layers) that runs through the legs of the bodhisattva, and continues on its frustratingly undisciplined course along the porch wall on either side.9 One can see how the gasses, bubbling upward from the lower levels of the upper layer, have formed globular pockets (amygdaloids), once of course filled with different mineral deposits which by now are mostly eroded away by time. The bhadrasana Buddha to the left of the doorway rests its feet on the expected late lotus pedestal with wheel and deer crowded beneath. The image is seated on a throne supported by typically late leonine throne legs with the expected “structural” thrust-blocks carried on the animals’ heads and with capping nubs to cover and protect the legs where (at least in structural counterparts) they project up through the throne seat. Nearly all of the carved elements of the composition can be directly compared with those of “panel A” at the back of Cave 22’s antechamber, an intrusive donation of early 479. The only major difference is that the Cave 4 panel was provided with elaborate flanking pilasters, found in many such late contexts throughout the site.10 The attendant Avalokitesvara here holds an aksamala—also an appropriate attribute—instead of a kamandalu as in Cave 22. Actually, it seems likely that this less usual feature was used because the stone for the kamandalu broke in the cutting: one can see that the rosary 9 Far greater problems were caused by the major flaw which, clearly visible a few feet above the porch colonnade, nonetheless descended at an angle inside the cave, causing the great problems described elsewhere (see Volume I, Chapter 11). 10 See panels C, F, and H in Cave 22 itself; one of the intrusive panels in Cave 15; the intrusive panel at the left rear of Cave 20; a few within the projecting vault of the great chaitya arch of Cave 26; and one near the mid-point of the left facade frame of Cave 19.

10

cave 4

has a tellingly “kamandalu” shape. Unfortunately, the heads of the bodhisattvas, having been among the few at the site carved in essentially the full-round, have been broken off, either for profit or out of rival religious piety; but judging from a number of other related examples, there is no reason to think they differed from the norm. The presence of the antelope skin explains why Avalokitesvara’s proper left armpit was not cut very deeply. However, the details of the antelope’s head and feet must have been painted on, since no more than the outlines of the skin were revealed by the sculptor. Such a coordination of painted and carved details became increasingly common in the Period of Disruption, when speed was often necessary. The devotees are slightly different from Cave 22’s, since one on the right is shown bending over to touch the ground with his head— a unique position in this type of composition. It seems unlikely that this is a reference to the story of the Dipankara Buddha which had been represented various times at the site in earlier contexts, and which shows the worshipping Sumedha in this pose; but it may well be the case that the stone needed for the expected conventional type of devotee broke in the course of carving, and that the sculptor cleverly substituted the well-known Dipankara-devotee type, which could be revealed from the remaining matrix.11 Behind this unusual figure are very obscure traces of a normally kneeling one, looking upward and apparently proffering a rather large and ill-cut lotus. At the left, two small and once charming figures of kneeling devotees are crowded in, one behind the other, as if to satisfy the late compulsion for multiple devotees. Although the bodhisattvas do not have carved haloes here, as do their counterparts in Cave 22, these features were painted in, as is clear from traces remaining at the left, while a carved mandorla occupies the background. Furthermore, the makaras and vyalas, which had been carved in Cave 22, were also painted-in here, next to the sculptured bolster. Still clearly visible at the left, a leonine creature (also painted) leaps out of the makara’s mouth; this is the only instance at the site where the more conventional running dwarf, or

11 For Dipankara scenes at Ajanta, see Suresh Vasant, 1991, 151–155. For such iconographic adjustments due to breakage of the rock, see W. Spink, 1986.

intrusions in porch

11

lotus frond, or long-necked bird’s head is replaced by such a form. The fact that no other images at the site show similar creatures in this position suggests that the idea developed too late to come into common usage. It is interesting to note that similar forms are found in the Buddhist Cave 12 at Ellora; but this is more than two centuries later. The way in which the paws of the painted lions and vyalas are festooned is also a very late feature, at least in sculptured groups at the site.12 Instead of the carved nagas which often appear over the makaras in this type of composition here we have two bodhisattvas painted in behind the throne back, their position following the lead of the prestigious image in Cave 16, completed only some months before. As in that image, the bodhisattvas hold cauris (still visible here in the one on the left) but otherwise do not have distinctive and/or now-visible identifying attributes. A lotus medallion of an unusual design—not a flower, but a composite of petal or leaf forms, is painted on the ceiling of the panel, above the slightly raised painted halo; a painted medallion is also to be found in the central Cave 22 Buddha, but it was much more cursorily done, as was all of the painting on that image. The Buddha’s proper left knee was broken in the course of carving and shows evidence of a characteristic contemporary repair. Of particular interest is the fact that a fragment of wood remains in the lower hole. Thus both here and in the somewhat similarly repaired panel C in Cave 22, we have clear evidence that such repairs were made—at least in some instances—with wooden inserts; wood repairs were made in a number of cell doorway fittings too, in Caves 1 and 17, in cases where projections broke.13 For smaller repairs, iron was often used.14 The main lotus pedestal has a curious appearance, the central petal or petals being “bent back”, following the precedent of two of the lotus pedestals, carved in 478, under the great standing Buddhas

12 See for instance Cave 7’s Buddha (second phase: 477–478) Somewhat similar instances appear in the depictions of bracket figures on palaces on Cave 1’s left hall wall, painted in 477. 13 See Cave 1, Cell R4. 14 For instance, see double repair (with one inset) of two celestials over the main Buddha of Cave Upper 6, left side; also another small hole for a repair over the ruined portico of Cave 1, at the left.

12

cave 4

in the shrine antechamber of Cave U6, right side. Possibly the effect is exaggerated here, to better reveal the crowded wheel, because of the high placement of the relief. The panel was still quite unfinished when it was painted. Note the difference between the two pilasters—only that at the right has fully carved designs. The left pilaster’s shaft, being unfinished, reveals how the carvers facilitated the creation of cylindrical sections by first cutting it as an octagonal form. The fact that the left bodhisattva’s lotus pedestal is also unfinished supports the argument that the panel was not started until 480 and that it had to be finished in a rush. The panel’s inconvenient positioning might support such an assumption, but one must remember that even from the start this was a troubled period, when many donors and artists may have left rather precipitously, even in 479. There are various unfinished votive carvings which suggest this, since they are covered by (i.e. recut by) later finished images. The panel’s colors are limited, and would have been mostly local in origin: red, orange, green, white, and touches of lapis-blue, the latter presumably coming down to the site via the trade routes. Lapis lazuli was used most sparingly right up to the time of Harisena’s death, but was probably a bargain by the time this bhadrasana image was underway. We can assume that increasing amounts of it were brought in while Ajanta was flourishing, right up to the time of Harisena’s death, and that by the Period of Disruption the “importers” were stuck with a burdensome oversupply.15 Although much unused wall-space remains in Cave 4’s great porch, these two panels were the only ones carved there during the Period of Disruption. However, the enormous cave and its gigantic image are so impressive that it seems likely that it would have been attractive to donors during this Period of Disruption; so it might well be the case that other areas of the large porch wall were used for painted votive intrusions, and that all traces of plaster and paint have by now disappeared. This assumption is supported by the evidence that such a painted intrusion did indeed once appear in the area just beneath the bhadrasana Buddha panel. In fact, the location of the carved panel almost certainly reveals that the (hypothet-

15 This might well explain the lavish use of blue in the hypostyle of Cave 21, or on many intrusive Buddha images in Cave Upper 6, etc.

intrusions in porch

13

ical) painted panel below belonged to a patron who got there very shortly after Mathura had vacated the cave, perhaps as early as mid478, but certainly by early 479 after the cave’s patron no longer controlled the cave. The donor of the bhadrasana Buddha panel obviously got involved a little later, and was apparently willing to put his own panel at its inconvenient height, in order to have it near the doorway and the cave’s axis. Both the carved bhadrasana group and the Litany have pairs of holes (surely for garland hooks) just above the upper corners of the niches in which they appear. A similar pair of holes is seen beneath the bhadrasana panel, but garlands were never hung below such panels. It can be reasonably assumed that this pair was for the painted intrusion below, which had been placed there before the bhadrasana image was started. There were many such painted intrusive panels at the site, although often only traces, if anything at all, remains, other than revealing garland hooks or the holes in which such useful hooks once were fixed before being removed, presumably by nearby villagers. At the same time we must note that there do not seem to be other pairs of holes for garlands elsewhere on the wall. Although many intrusions do not have such holes, their absence hardly recommends the view that there were once other painted intrusions here. Besides the smaller holes which are found just above the Litany’s recessed panel, very much like those over the bhadrasana panel, there are two very large holes high up over the Litany scene. Much larger than would be required for garlands, they undoubtedly held a covering cloth for this important and well-placed image.16 This would have been in lieu of the double doors that sometimes protect such “shrines”.17 A hole to the left of the doorway, close to the right hole at the upper corner of our hypothetical painted panel, must have been intended for a garland hook or peg, placed there in 478, to provide for the decoration of this main doorway when the shrine Buddha was dedicated. This hole’s expected counterpart at the right was cut away because the Litany scene was carved so close to the right margin

16 The smaller holes above the bhadrasana panel were probably for garlands, not a cloth. 17 Cave 2, right façade; Cave 9 A, Cave 9 B.

14

cave 4

of the doorway; its traces can still be seen. The donor of the Litany scene obviously did not worry cutting away such an earlier fixture (dating to about 475) for it had no connection, other than proximity, with his own offering.

CAVE 4

INTRUSIONS IN INTERIOR

I have mentioned elsewhere, in discussing Cave 4’s main image— the largest at the site—that the Cave 4 shrine walls had only been smoothed at the highest levels (work proceeding downward) when the original patron’s involvement in the cave came to an end in 478.1 The same is true of the shrine doorway, which was neither fully carved nor fitted out with the necessary pivot holes, even though the patron, renouncing its earlier decorative schema, managed to cover it with a series of Buddha images before time ran out. It is hardly surprising that, during the Period of Disruption, Cave 4’s shrine walls, which were only roughly finished in the “original” (and aborted) phase of work in this area, attracted a number of individual donors. Of the images which they donated, all very haphazardly disposed, three are on the left front wall, eight on the forward part of the left side wall, and four on the forward part of the right front wall—a total of fifteen. There were certainly intrusive iconic paintings on the easy to reach and readily visible right front wall too; indeed traces of “intrusive” plastering remain on the still quite rough lower level here. The donors of this day had no interest whatsoever in completing or complementing any overall design program; convenience (and of course merit) was their preferred guide. Because the painted surfaces of the carvings have suffered so much over the course of time, if any of them once had painted inscriptions, they are now gone. It is of interest that there is one bhadrasana image here, on the right shrine wall, and that is a rather “developed” example of this late form. The overall composition is fairly standard, with flying dwarfs and flanking cauri-bearing bodhisattvas, typically distinguished by the jata headdress on the left and the crown on the right. However, the raising of the latter on high-stemmed lotus pedestals is a notably late feature. It appears in a number of instances in the Cave 26

1

Volume I, Chapter 11, Cave 4.

16

cave 4

complex, starting in 478, but is not found elsewhere at the site, in connection with bodhisattva attendants, until 480.2 The expected deer, a garlanded wheel (often used in late intrusions) and four lotusproffering devotees (so crowded that only their heads are shown) appear at the base, while makaras and a bolster are roughly defined at the throne back.3 All but three of the other intrusive panels in the shrine are standing figures of the “standard” type, showing varada mudra; unlike those non-intrusive images on the shrine doorway and on the shrine antechamber walls, which would date a year or two earlier, they stand on lotus pedestals.4 The double lotus pedestal under the padmasana image on the left wall has a long stem—a feature never found in connection with padmasana images until the Period of Disruption. Above, a standing Buddha is flanked by Avalokitesvara, with his jata headdress and a lotus, on the left, and a crowned attendant (perhaps Vajrapani, but with no vajra shown) on the right. Another fact suggesting the very late date of the various panels in the shrine is that even the painted ones have no holes for garland hooks, as if getting them done (and thus acquiring merit) was a more appropriate goal at this point than their actual worship. Because these often unfinished images were almost certainly being done at the very end of the Period of Disruption, when work was peremptorily abandoned, this may well explain why the holes never got cut. This could also explain the lack of such holes on the left and right portions of the porch wall, where (as suggested above) there may possibly have been now-missing painted intrusions.5 Still another significant consideration, suggesting a dating to 480 for all of these intrusions in the shrine, is that all of the padmasana images are shown with dharmacakra mudra. Were any of the padmasana Buddhas here shown with dhyana (or another) mudra it 2 See for instance some of the intrusive panels in Cave 22, or on the front wall of Cave Upper 6’s hall. Buddhas on raised lotus pedestals appear as attendants in Cave U6’s right front shrinelet in 479. 3 Nubs are omitted, which is unusual at this late date, although the omission occurs in a number of instances in Cave U6, following the treatment of the main image, the revised base of which uses the earlier image in the lower storey of the cave as its precedent. 4 One on the right wall, at the rear, was unfinished, or damaged, so lotus is not clear; but figure was painted. 5 This could equally explain the lack of hooks for garlands in various contexts; Cave 10A provides a striking example.

intrusions in interior

17

would be very surprising in a 480 context, at which point the dharmacakra mudra is used almost exclusively. In this regard it is significant that a pair of padmasana Buddhas showing dhyana mudra appear at the base of the shrine doorway, but these figures were carved in 478, when more of a choice of mudras could be made. This may explain why there was no compunction about putting the second figure on the left, among the “Eight Buddhas” on the shrine doorway lintel in dhyana mudra, when all of the others are in dharmacakra mudra. The choice here was probably urged by breakage in carving the delicate wheel-turning gesture, or by a flaw in the rock; but in any case these lintel figures, like the rest of the doorway, date from early 478, before this convention had been fixed. It is surprising to note the “mistaken” placement of Maitreya at the extreme left of the series, when he “should” be on the right. This can probably be explained by the likelihood that this iconographic peculiarity was merely “transferred” here from Cave 26, where we find a grander version of the same series, also done in 478; it seems to be the work of the same sculptor, or perhaps one of his sons (not a specialist in Buddhist iconography!) who merely copied his father’s work blindly. The shrine doorway of Cave 4 is of a surprisingly anomalous type. It must have been roughed out in 477, along with the colossal Six Buddhas and the main image itself. But when, in early 478, just after the death of Harisena, the focus of patrons turned dramatically to “things of the spirit”, the doorway was covered with an impressive array of seated and standing Buddhas instead; these were all hastily finished, along with the proximate colossi and of course the huge main Buddha; then Mathura must have hastily left, with little left from his vast endeavors except the merit acquired. The “iconic transformation” of the expected more “decorative” doorway has a telling counterpart in that of the shrine doorway of Cave 7 where, to add still further to his pious offerings, the patron carved a whole series of new Buddha images into his fine old doorway. In both cases, the actions typify the psychology of early 478, while it seems likely that the shrine doorway of the left wing of the Cave 26 complex was also replanned after being roughed out, to include a border of walking Buddhas.6 However, because this was an Asmaka

6

See Volume I, Chapter 12, Cave 26LW.

18

cave 4

dedication, the transformation may have taken place a little later, during the last months of 478. The state in which the intrusive images in Cave 4’s shrine have been left, when considered in conjunction with related situations in Cave Upper 6, Cave 26, and elsewhere, helps us to understand how and why Ajanta’s final burst of intrusive patronage ended precipitously at the end of 480. Only two of the fifteen figures were not fully carved and their carving, and then their painting, could surely have been hastily finished ain a single day or two. Five of the others were fully carved and could have been rapidly painted in a few hours, if the painter (who may in fact have carved them) had the will or opportunity or the promise of payment. The eight which were indeed painted were finished in the slack way characteristic of much intrusive work. That this was not done—that they were merely suddenly abandoned—suggests that a crisis occurred at just this point and that it was suddenly more important (perhaps especially for the artists) to flee from the site than to worry about getting the images done, even though their abandonment would mean the loss of the merit anticipated by the patron. In other words, we seem to be speaking of a drastic situation; and since this was the very period when the insurrection against the Vakataka empire was developing—and particularly in the territory of the Asmakas, which now included Ajanta—we can probably find the reason for the crisis in the usages of war. In fact, as suggested elsewhere, the combined forces of the insurrectionists may have been marching through this very area, on their way to the Narmada, when the artists and other workers made their startlingly sudden exit.7 It seems likely that any monks who were among the donors of the intrusive images Cave 4 would have remained at the site for some time after 480, having no better or other place to go in any case. If so, some of them may have lived in this very unfinished cave, since about six of the cells were sufficiently fitted out for use, even though only half this number show wear in their doorways’ pivot holes. Furthermore, of the nine cells in the cave fitted out with very deeply recessed D mode doorways, two have recessed niches in

7 See Volume I, Chapter 15, for this likely movement of Asmaka’s coalition forces.

intrusions in interior

19

the back wall; and this would suggest that these two may have been fitted out sometime in 476. It may well be that the other seven cells in the unfinished cave were not fitted out until 477, when niches went out of style.8 The fitted out cells all have holes for “clothespoles” or pegs, typically contracted for along with the door fittings. The fact that one of these cells has been plastered suggests that at least this one was still in used during the Period of Disruption, for this is when such plastering would have been done. The significant wear in the doorways of some of the others would further suggest this, as well as continued residence for a few years even after even the intrusive patrons had abandoned the site.

8 Cell R8 has a larger niche with a recessed frame, which is conceivably a later variant of such niches. In 477 one finds a number of much longer related types, which I call “shelves”.

CAVE UPPER 6

ORIGINAL AND INTRUSIVE PHASES COMPARED

Cave U6 contains a multitude of still visible carved Buddha images, many relief stupas, and four representations of the Avalokitesvara Litany , together with a myriad of now missing painted images whose earlier presence is proved by the traces of plastered and painted “canopies” applied to the ceiling areas above them. Yet only six of these many Buddha images in the cave were underway when the original phase of work broke off at the end of 478; and at that time only a single one—the main Buddha image—had been put into worship. The other five—the great standing Buddhas in the shrine antechamber—appear to have been largely carved for the original patron, along with the basic structure of the shrine doorway. However, except for the main image, hurriedly (and expediently) completed by mid-478, none of these images were plastered and painted until the cave had been taken over by host of new donors—perhaps in part by the very monks living in the two-storied cave at the time Harisena’s death. Although Cave U6 had been too incomplete for residence when its development was interrupted by the Recession in early 469, by 476, judging from the door fittings, monks were able to move into cells L2 and R2 (the two most forward simple cells) in 476; the niches at the rear were common features at the site in that year— but were seldom cut later. They had apparently moved into most of the other cells by the time that the patron lost control of the cave by mid 478.1 At this point—at the beginning of the Period of Disruption—the unfinished complex cell R1 (intended to be like L1) and the unfinished

1 The cells in the Lower Storey, which had been defined but never provided with fittings in the cave’s pre-Recession phase were now provided with efficient D mode fittings and holes for clothes poles and shelves. Since they all have niches we would probably be correct in dating this fitting out to 476 and not after; and since the inner recesses are very deep, they probably were not done in 475, when such work (as in Cave 1) was relatively tentative. Like most cells at the site, they were probably not plastered until the Period of Disruption.

original and intrusive phases compared

21

cell complex at the right rear had to be abandoned, along with much unfinished excavation work, particularly on the “slower” right side of the cave. Both of these two unfinished residence complexes would be converted into impressive “private” shrinelets during the Period of Disruption, even though the pillared fronts once planned for them were never finished. Since most of the cells were not occupied until 477, and since there is significant wear in their D-mode pivot holes, we can conclude that monks continued to use the cells during the Period of Disruption, and probably for a few years thereafter. And since we know that the great preponderance of “intrusive” donors at the site were monks, we might well assume that many or all of the resident monks who obviously tolerated the incessant hammering and chiseling and the chatter of painters that took place in the Period of Disruption were in fact themselves donors of much or all of this helter-skelter imagery. The fact that both extant donative inscriptions in the cave—many more must long since have fallen away—refer to monks as donors is suggestive evidence in this regard. That most of the cells were not ready until 477, judging from the general progress of work throughout the cave, helps us to understand its development—particularly in the shrine area, which was also underway so late that the cave’s original patron was not able to properly finish it before he had to flee the site in 478. And this of course opened the way to the subsequent intrusions which fill this area as well as the rest of the cave. The fact that much of the floor of the hall, many wall areas (especially the dark front wall) and some of the pillars were still not fully excavated when the patron had to give up his involvement, itself reveals the problems the patron had in getting his cave done. This situation was probably exacerbated by the pressures on the work force in this renewal of activity throughout the site from 475 on, when the planners of nearly twenty-five caves, old and new, would have been vying for workers. This count includes the Hinayana caves, at least three and probably all of which were being refurbished with plaster and paint, although probably not before 477. Only the caves of the defeated local king have not been counted, for they were no longer in the competition.

It is clear that until 475, the shrine and shrine antechamber area had not even been started, for the shrine antechamber pillars have strongly projecting brackets which would not even have been thought of at the time that work was interrupted in early 469. Even in

22

cave upper 6

Upendragupta’s caves, where work continued through 471, the shrine antechamber pillars remain bracketless. Only after 475 do they become conventional for major viharas.2 It is evident that if excavation work had progressed into—had penetrated—the shrine antechamber before work broke off in late 468, at the time of the Recession, the matrix needed for the present vyala brackets would have been cut away (as indeed happened in Cave 4), particularly since excavation would logically have started at that upper level. Thus we can be certain that the excavators had got no farther than the rear aisle by the time of the Recession. At the same time, it seems clear that when work started up again in 475, they rapidly reached this area, and defined the present vyala brackets at that time. In fact they are surely the first of all antechamber brackets in the Vakataka viharas, which could explain their difference from the more impressive salabhanjika brackets that soon appear in Cave 1, Cave 2, Cave 21 (unfinished), Banoti (unfinished) and Aurangabad 3.3 The character of these simpler vyala brackets in Cave Upper 6 was probably suggested by the brackets on pillars R1 and L1 in caitya halls 26 (blocked out by 468) and 19 (completed by 471). The fact that the Cave U6 brackets had little dwarfs under the vyalas (right one now missing) further links them to a post-Hiatus context, since vyalas on thrones do not have such dwarfs with them until the post-Hiatus phase. Indeed, it is evident that the rear wall of the hall had also not been fully exposed at the time of the Recession, for the two complex cells started at the rear are characteristic post-475 creations; the very incomplete right one (later converted to a shrinelet) would not even have been started until 477, judging from its state of completion. Had this rear wall been penetrated early, it would have had a far simpler arrangement, with four single cells, two on each side of the shrine antechamber. Thus we can conclude that this whole rear wall (and antechamber) area had not even been penetrated until the general renewal of activity at the site in 475. Thus it is not surprising that the main

2 There are precedents in Cave 26 and Cave 19, in both of which brackets would have been roughed out by 468; this is not surprising since vihara features often have their source in those of the chaitya halls. 3 See descriptions of Cave 21, probably Cave 23, and Banoti for the expedient cutting away of the brackets to save time.

original and intrusive phases compared

23

Buddha image did not get reached in the course of excavation until 477, a conclusion supported by the fact that the lintel of the shrine doorway is of a quasi-structural type which elsewhere at the site is found only in 477 contexts. The doorway jambs, if completed in 477, would definitely have had correspondingly complex panels, filled with conventional loving couples; but it was never finished as intended, being plastered and then provided with the hastiest possible decorative designs when work was renewed in the Period of Disruption. That the doorway was not designed to include tree goddesses, placed in carefully framed T-shaped projections at the upper corners—a convention developed only in 477 to facilitate the effect of trabeation—only confirms its late date (477).4 This is because in that same year the concept of the Six Buddhas had developed, and here, as in Cave 4, two of the Buddhas flank the shrine doorway, crowding out the females that one would otherwise expect. All such evidence proves that the main shrine Buddha in Cave 6 would not have been started until 477. Its iconography confirms this, for its elaborate throne back is the most developed of any done during the final heyday of the site, which ended with Harisena’s death at the end of that year. By the same token, it includes projecting flying couples, which never appear at the site until 477, and even adds other flying celestials, as in the similarly late shrine image in the Ghatotkacha vihara. But what is important to realize, as we try to piece out the complex development which take place in Cave Upper 6’s shrine area in 477, and then thereafter, is how the particularly splendid image loses its splendor by the time that its lower reaches were carved. At this point in time one would expect a series of large kneeling devotees ranged on either side of the base with a complex late wheel between them, as in Cave 1 or Cave 4, both well underway in 477. But it is clear that, to save time, the matrix reserved for these devotees has been cut away, trimmed back (unequally) to accommodate the feet of the attendant bodhisattvas, which had already taken their somewhat unequal positions during 477. They were planned with

4 The introduction of such trabeation, where the lintel is supported on the doorway’s pillars appear to have been introduced from Bagh after the Hiatus. The first example at Ajanta is probably the shrine doorway of Cave 1, where both the old mode and the new are anomalously incorporated.

24

cave upper 6

plenty of space behind the intended kneeling devotees, but when the matrix for the latter was cut away, the feet of the bodhisattva on the right are seen to project uncomfortably forward, which would not have been the case had they been intended to stand alone (and unencumbered) from the start, as they have ended up doing. Having cut away the devotees early in 478 to save time and trouble (and perhaps money too), the newly exposed frontal plane of the throne base was provided with much reduced base motifs. These are fairly directly copied from the older main image in the Lower Storey, as the most readily available model for the simplified program; it was perhaps recommended too by the likelihood that they both “belonged” to the same patron.5 So we have a situation here which is not at all uncommon during the rushed and difficult early months of 478, when the old “Vakataka” patrons had two essential things in mind: first, to get their main image finished and dedicated so that the merit could be gained, and second, to get out of the site. (In Caves 2, 4, 7, 11, 15, and 16, in various ways, the shrines were expediently finished, just as at an earlier crisis the shrines of Caves 17 and 20 were similarly rushed to “completion”, while at the very end of 478, the Asmaka caves show the same urgency.)6 At the same time, the simplified treatment of the base still, almost unconsciously, incorporates certain up to date features, appropriately non-time-consuming. The looped throne cloth, which has lost much of its original connection with the Buddha’s robe, is a case in point, as is the inclusion of the thin structural member over the lions’ heads. This suggests that the lions are now thought of as actual leonine throne legs, a characteristic of images in 477; but the expected late “nubs” used (in structural forms) to lock the legs in place are omitted from the top of the base. This is because this “expedient” throne base uses that of the early image in the lower storey as its model, and such nubs would have had no function in the earlier image, where the lions are conceived as under the throne, rather than supporting it. The order to use the image in the lower storey as the basic model also must account for the fact that no room was left

5 The anomalous development of this image is discussed in Volume I, Chapter 11, Cave Upper 6. 6 We could also note the manner in which Varahadeva sacrificed the pillar capitals in Cave 16, while the elaborate shrine antechamber brackets were sacrificed in Caves 21 and 23, and at Banoti.

original and intrusive phases compared

25

for at least smaller versions of the large devotees that had been so expediently sacrificed. Significantly, only some months later when a “copy” of the main image was carved in the intrusive shrinelet (R1) at the hall’s front right, tiny devotees were in fact squeezed in. With such evidence of a rush to get the Buddha image completed during the first months of 478, it is not surprising that the shrine itself—most particularly the low-priority front wall—had not been finished when the patron’s time was up. It seems likely, however, that having rushed the image to its expedient completion, the original patron did manage to get the double shrine doors hung, despite the unfinished character of the front wall; it is not the kind of thing that the new “intruders” were likely to trouble with, especially since most of their additions to the shrine were still unfinished when time ran out in 480. Despite the roughness of the matrix that surrounds them, the upper pivot holes show clear signs of significant wear, while a carefully cut door-stop hole and (often) a drop-slot would have secured the door when closed.7 Except for the painting of the completed image, the original patron appears to have done little more in the shrine than to plaster and paint a small area of ceiling directly over the image.8 However, again proving the patron’s concern to get the main image done, dedicated, and presumably into worship, he was careful to cut hook-holes (the hooks now gone), presumably for garlands, at the left and right corners of the rear wall, behind the image. He (or the sculptor) also saw to certain necessary repairs, such as those needed to replace the arms of two celestials (with one shared repair!) over the image at the left, as well as the proper left arm of the left bodhisattva, which might have been damaged by a flaw, but quite possibly by a workman who cut away too much when blocking the figure out. The arm has been repaired with a thick packing of mud; once painted, to problem would no longer show. 7 Drop-slots are never used until after 475, in connection with the D mode, since they are placed within the recess characteristic of that mode. 8 Most of the ceiling plaster has fallen, but it is likely that it was done early in the Period of Disruption along with the walls and ceiling of the antechamber, when the figures in that area were finally being surfaced and painted, and before the intrusive Buddhas in the shrine were even started. It seems less likely that it was done in connection with the six standing Buddhas in the shrine, since (at least on the left) they are unfinished; and if it were done when the three standing Buddhas on the right were completed, it is likely (but not certain) that the plastering of the ceiling would have been confined to the right side.

26

cave upper 6 Shrine Antechamber and Shrine

The evidence of rush, and of incompleteness, seen in the hurried completion of the shrine Buddha, helps to explain the related situation in the shrine antechamber. Here, in 477, the patron decided to fill this area with the most up to date iconic configuration, namely a group of six large standing Buddhas, one on either side of the shrine doorway, and two on each side wall. As was usual at the site in such closely adjacent figures, the two outer figures were started first, with plenty of room for the necessary scaffolding as long as the carving of the panel in between was put off until later. But as it turned out, “later” was too late; the center figure on the right was not fully completed, while the one on the left side was not even started, although it appears that the intended lower margin was trimmed just as work had to be given up. By examining this intriguing situation, we can get some idea of how far the original patron’s work in the shrine antechamber had progressed before he had to relinquish his exclusive patronage of the cave sometime late in 478, due to the Asmaka takeover. Here the “original” work can be clearly distinguished from certain revisions or additions made by another (new) donor or donors during the Period of Disruption. The first of these “intrusions” is the small seated Buddha next to the kneeling devotees between the two Buddhas on the right wall; it is clearly a later conception, for it takes the place of another such kneeling devotee for which matrix had been reserved (in 477) by the sculptor originally involved in carving the panel. However, the original sculptor had not had time to complete this kneeling devotee before his efforts were interrupted late in 478. In fact, he had probably abandoned it late in 477, when the crisis caused by Harisena’s death occurred, in order to concentrate on the great Buddha itself. The group of seated devotees under the adjacent Buddha would already have been carved but not painted by that time.9 It is evident that a later donor, in the Period of Disruption, when the focus was totally upon iconic images, transformed this block of roughed-out matrix into a little seated Buddha instead of a kneeling devotee. The appearance of a little Buddha figure in this area 9 See discussion of donors vs. devotees, with reference to Cave Upper 6 figures, in Volume II, Cave 10 Intrusions: Summary.

original and intrusive phases compared

27

would be hard to explain if we tried to assign it to the original phase of patronage at the site, but is quite characteristic of the Period of Disruption, when the focus had shifted to intensely to iconic images.10 Support for the conclusion that the whole group of small figures at this panel’s lower center had not been fully finished by the original sculptor is to be found in the treatment of the seated female devotee at the extreme right of the group. Her roughly finished head remains as it was when the crisis caused by Harisena’s death occurred, obviously because this whole group of little devotees was still being carved out when, in 478, the original sculptor either ran out of time or had to change his priorities and concentrate on more essential things. The later donor, in 479, not interested in such niceties, did not trouble to have the lady’s features properly carved, but merely had them finished with plaster and paint (traces of which remain) when the whole panel was finally completed. The same sense of haste, which characterized the task of completing much of the work in this area during the Period of Disruption, and this same concern for “subject” rather than “setting” is seen in the willingness to leave other portions of the panel (e.g. some devotees on lotus petals) quite rough, particularly in those areas (notably at the lower levels) which would have been the last to be fully defined in any case. We can safely assume that the large standing Buddhas on the right wall and on the adjacent front wall had been carved or nearly carved by the time original work broke off in 478, while the carving of the single large Buddha on the more problematic left wall would also have been done at this time; for these would have been priority concerns for the original patron, even though his plan for the Six Buddhas never got totally carried out. The kneeling devotees which attend them were probably completed by the end of 477 and certainly by early 478; otherwise they too might well have been converted into merit-making little Buddha images by the later donors.11

10

Precedents can be found in little Buddhas squeezed in below the great standing Buddhas in Cave 7, but these predict rather than parallel the Buddha figure here. 11 Understandably, there was less resistance, in the Period of Disruption, to completing original sculptures by means of painting. For the special case of the oftenpublished “worshipper with a censer” attending the left front standing Buddha, see Volume I, Chapter 11.

28

cave upper 6

An intriguingly instructive detail involves the nose of the standing Buddha at the front right; this minor area must have broken off during the course of cutting; but it was restored in mud, rather than with a more conventional pegged-on stone replacement. It seems right to suppose that the normal process of repair—something quite logically put off until last—had not been done when time ran out in 478, and that this “substitute” measure, which had the advantage of taking only a few minutes rather than a number of hours, was accomplished in the Period of Disruption, when the panel was finally plastered and painted; here again, expediency was the rule, for portions of this Buddha’s frame—note especially the surface near the adjacent antechamber pilaster—were still very rough indeed, when this plastering was done in 479. One other item of significance which should be noted is the small relief stupa at the center of the upper margin of the right shrine antechamber wall. This iconic motif, very commonly carved as a “substitute” for a Buddha in the Period of Disruption, would have been added in 479; even its unconventional placement supports such a dating. Just like the little padmasana Buddha, converted from the expected devotee at the base of the same panel, it is characteristically intrusive and “self-seeking”. On the other hand, the ritually “unnecessary” flying dwarf just below the stupa was surely carved in 478, while the panel was still underway, although it may still have been only roughly finished, before being plastered and painted along with the rest of the images in the antechamber in the Period of Disruption. It seems likely that a dwarf may also have been planned for the surprisingly empty upper right corner of the panel; but since the rock was very flawed in that area, it seems likely that a “replacement” would have been painted in. Such observations suggest that a slight bit of extra matrix must once have been left on the margin above, from which the slightly projecting stupa could be cut. In the same way, the lower panel area had not been fully finished, which allowed the creation of the justmentioned small seated Buddha. Or possibly the margin had not been smoothed down to its present (still somewhat rough) level at the margin of the wall. In any case, this low-relief stupa is a votive motif which is never found prior to the Period of Disruption, but one which is very common in 479 and 480 as an intrusive feature in this cave and elsewhere at the site. The one here, like the small seated Buddha at the bottom of the panel, was certainly carved

original and intrusive phases compared

29

before the panel was plastered and painted.12 And since both these unusual features cannot date from before 479, this is significant evidence that all of the plastering and painting in the antechamber belongs to the Period of Disruption too; indeed as we shall see, this is true of the entire cave, with the exception of the main shrine image. Since the carving of these Buddhas at the right of the shrine antechamber had still not been quite completed when the main phase of patronage in the cave broke off by mid-478, and since the area was not very extensive nor hard to carve, the assumption that work on them was undertaken sometime in 477 (but not before) seems very reasonable, and is in line with the creation of related Six Buddha groups in Cave 4 and Cave 7. This conclusion is of course supported by our arguments assigning the beginning of work on the main (shrine) Buddha to 477 as well, since it is reasonable to assume that the main image itself would have been begun at the same time or somewhat earlier than these “attendant” Buddha images. We can date the carving of the great standing Buddhas at the left of the antechamber to essentially the same span of time, for of course they all formed part of this newly conventional grouping. Of the projected six, those at either side of the shrine doorway would have been the first ones undertaken, because they are in the most important locations—closest to the shrine, and highly visible. Their carving (but not their painting) was essentially, even if hurriedly, finished when work was interrupted about mid-478. The fact that the arches over their heads were never decorated with carved ornamental motifs, and that, in the case of the left image, the wall surfaces beneath and to the right of the panel were never quite properly finished, is hardly surprising. The new donors who took them over in the Period of Disruption were uninterested in finishing such minor details, which they would sometimes hide beneath the coating of plaster and paint, when surfacing the rest of the image. 12 Despite bat damage, traces of plastering exist elsewhere in the antechamber at this level and are consistent with the surfacing elsewhere on the panels, so we can certainly assume that the margin was plastered along with the rest of the panel. Certainly the stupa was not added after the plastering was done, for this would not only go against general usage, but also the slight excess of matrix from which the stupa was cut would not have been left there if the plastering had been done first. The stupa must have been cut either before or at the same time that the surface was being leveled; not after.

30

cave upper 6

A study of the left antechamber wall clearly supports our view concerning how far work had progressed on these five great standing Buddhas by the end of 477, when the consistent development of such original features was interrupted by Harisena’s death. It is of course obvious that, like the right wall, or like the side walls in the similarly conceived antechamber of Cave 4, this area was intended to have two large Buddhas standing within a single recessed enframement, with two more Buddhas flanking the shrine doorway. But as explained earlier in discussing the related area on the right side of the antechamber, the Buddha at the left of the left wall and that at the left of the shrine doorway—would have been undertaken before the Buddha which was intended to occupy the space between them was begun. This sensible procedure, characteristic at the site, meant that the sculptors could work freely on their scaffolds or platforms, without getting in each other’s way or being encumbered by work being done on the Buddha planned for the area between them.13 Although for the above reasons it is evident that a two-Buddha panel was originally intended for Cave U6’s antechamber’s left wall proper, only the image at the left (along with the Buddha at the left of the shrine doorway) had been begun when the normal course of work was interrupted late in 477; for the reasons given above, the intended adjacent Buddha had not yet been started. Apparently, the original patron took stock of the situation when consistent work was interrupted at the end of 477 and decided that he would not have the time or funds to complete the intended sixth image, once the scaffolding for those on either side had been taken down. Therefore, during the course of 478, when he was trying to finish up whatever he could as expeditiously as possible, he concentrated on the other two alone. In fact, when the crisis caused by Harisena’s death occurred, it is likely that the left figure had not even been started, even though he was determined to finish it within the next few months. Thus it was decided to make it into a single panel, giving up the plan of carving the center Buddha of the triad.

13 In Cave 26, Panels R2–R4 and parts of the triforium carvings appear to have been done in this way, which also explains why the space between the great Dying Buddha and the Temptation Scene was only filled in (by intrusive panel L2) after they had been completed.

original and intrusive phases compared

31

He does appear to have made certain adjustments, possibly because this was the latest of the large images which he now planned to complete. He shifted the Buddha’s lotus pedestal to allow more room on the more “sacred” proper right for the small carved devotee. Since the times were troubled now, he may have already been planning, in the interest of time and cost, to add the painted counterpart, which in fact could not have been painted there until all of the plastering of the antechamber had been completed. The notably small size and rearward placement of the carved devotee might well argue he had reserved space for this rather uniquely detailed lay worshipper. If this was indeed the case we might believe that he had intentionally created and reserved the space for his own “portrait” as a “donor”, even though (or even because) he could not bring all of the great Buddhas to completion. This is of course unprovable in the absence of any extant inscription, but it is reasonably suggested by the curiously displaced positioning of the attended Buddha and by the surprising specificity with which the worshipper is described. What is clear is that it is, surprisingly, the only such painted addition to any of the large Buddhas, which otherwise were planned with sculptured devotees; and that, furthermore, even though painted after the large Buddhas had been plastered and themselves were being painted, it seems to have been planned for this space. Whether the patron himself was present at that later date, and could still be involved, along with the “uninvited” host of new donors who took over the cave, is impossible to know. If the patron himself were a monk, he may well have been able to stay; but if he, like the other “Vakataka” patrons, had had to flee, it is still possible that he had associates resident at the site, who would be willing to carry out his bidding. The assumption that the idea of painting rather than carving a figure such as the kneeling devotee supports our dating of the painting (as opposed to the sculpture) on this panel to the Period of Disruption, gains credence when we note that the flying figures flanking the arch of one of the nearby smaller intrusive images (that at the lower right) are also rendered with the brush rather than the chisel. It is also relevant to note that the combining of carved attendants and painted attendants is a feature of certain other monumental intrusive images—also dateable to the Period of Disruption—at least one of which was donated by the monk Gunakara on cave 26’s façade returns. Painted attendants often flank carved Buddhas in

32

cave upper 6

intrusive panels in Cave Upper 6’s front aisle, as well as in Cave 22 and many other contexts. The flying dwarf carved at the upper right of this single panel may also have been defined after the decision to carve only a single Buddha on the left wall had been made, since it is specifically focused on the present image; note how its counterpart on the right wall flies “forward”, since it is shared by both images there. Thus the dwarf in question (and quite possibly the dwarf in the upper left corner too) was not yet there when work on this left wall was interrupted by Harisena’s death, and subsequently adjusted. This gives us some idea of how far work had progressed, both on the left and right walls; for the positioning of the flying dwarfs, like the adjusting of the position of the standing Buddha itself, must belong to 478. The earliest examples of dwarfs holding cauris are in the small panels in Cave 26’s triforium, which may well date from 478 and in any case would not be earlier than 477. Thus the motif developed very late. As for the rest of the left wall, where the “sixth” image was to be, it seems not to have been smoothed down, even enough for a preliminary sketch to have been made. We can conclude this by noting the small area of still-rough stone at the lower right, which remained as evidence of the earlier conception, even after the new intrusive images above had been cut during the Period of Disruption. We should also note how rough and warped outward the whole lower margin of the left antechamber wall is, when compared with that on the right, again supporting the view that work on the left side of the antechamber lagged somewhat behind that on the right. Areas such as these margins can provide useful evidence, since (being very low-priority elements) they were probably not touched by the carvers during the anxious continuation of work in 478, or in the following Period of Disruption.14 It is hardly surprising that work on these three different wall areas—the priority front one, the right, and the left—would have proceeded at quite different rates, since such variations normally characterize excavation work in progress. It also seems likely, if we 14 It might be noted that the raised level at which this roughed-out margin is set may have been suggested by the arrangement in the antechamber of Cave 4, where the standing Buddha images must have been started at approximately the same date (in 477) as here.

original and intrusive phases compared

33

assume a reasonable rate of activity on these important images, that they had not been started prior to 477, for the work involved in getting them to that point of development was not particularly extensive, and of course a study of the development of the roughly contemporaneous groupings in Cave 4 and Cave 7 would support such timing, showing that this impressive combination of six Buddhas was a notably late development in the history of the site’s consistent patronage. Such a dating is further supported by a consideration of the state which the antechamber and shrine areas as a whole had reached when consistent work was interrupted at the time of Harisena’s death. The important shrine antechamber pillars had probably already been roughed out, and their axial faces smoothed, shortly after work on the cave was resumed in 475, for they are supplied with “modern” brackets, perhaps derived from the known wooden models seen in some of the Ajanta paintings (Cave 1, left wall), if not from precedents in Caves 26 and 19, as mentioned early. Yet their shafts are not wholly finished, nor are the related pilasters; it is clear throughout the cave that this patron had trouble getting his program completed, especially since (perhaps because of the pressure from the community) he concentrated on getting the cells ready for residence rather than finishing many architectural features such as floors, walls, and pillars. It seems evident that the carving of the Cave U6 shrine doorway, like the shrine image, must have been underway during 477, considering its importance as a feature in the shrine/shrine antechamber area. Indeed, judging from parallel situations in other caves where work was going on in this area at about this same time, it is reasonable to suppose that its design would have been established and that it would have been underway at approximately the same time as the main shrine image, and the great standing images on the shrine antechamber walls. It is hardly possible that the designing and carving of the doorway can be dated earlier than 477, considering its trabeated character and the complex “architectural” character of its lintel design.15 Therefore, this helps to confirm our assumption that neither the main image nor the antechamber’s standing Buddhas could have been started earlier than at this same date. 15 Compare the porch doorways of Caves 5, 14, 15 (recut), 22 Aurangabad 1, and the Aurangabad Cave 3 shrine doorway, all of which date from 477–478.

34

cave upper 6

The fact that the expected (by now conventional) figural carvings on the shrine doorway were never started further suggests that it could not have been underway before 477. In early 478, the patron must have decided to give up such unnecessary delights, and to plaster and very hastily paint the “unfinished” doorway to complement the expediently completed main image; but as it turned out, this may have been done later, along with the various antechamber figures, early in the Period of Disruption, when the whole antechamber was plastered and painted. When the trabeated doorway, with its “structural” character, became the type of choice in 477, the conventional goddesses were generally displaced to the sides—into the wings of a “T”. That this was not done here was surely because the great standing Buddhas were underway at the same time, and those flanking the door usurped the space normally reserved for the goddesses.16 This again confirms the dating of the design of the doorway to 477. The same “late” tendency toward dropping certain major established motifs may be revealed by the fact that no provision appears to have been made here to include projecting nagas at the door base. Such projecting figures, quite standard in 476, no longer are included in a number of shrine doorways whose layout was defined in 477.17 Furthermore, the fact that the doorway was obviously so very unfinished when work on it was interrupted at the time of Harisena’s death strongly suggests that it would hardly have been started prior to 477 considering the general pace of overall developments in this particular cave, and throughout the site in that final year of consistent activity. The fact that the shrine doorway was never conventionally finished with figural panels explains its unusual “imbalanced” design, where the lintel is very elaborately carved, but the jambs are surprisingly plain for such a late doorway. It does not look unfinished, because its framing pilasters had been carefully smoothed down in 477 in preparation for the cutting of the expected figural panels, but it is actually only “half-decorated”. The richly carved panels and mouldings which one would expect on such a late doorway are missing, the patron, in early 478, having settled for painted decoration instead, 16 This is true of the Cave 4 shrine doorway too; but that doorway was changed to focus on Buddha panels before its complex lintel was cut. 17 See Caves 2, 4, 26LW, and the Ghatotkacha vihara.

original and intrusive phases compared

35

even though (as noted above) this was apparently not accomplished until the whole shrine antechamber was plastered and (except for the plastered ceiling) hastily painted early in the Period of Disruption. The fact that the original donor, during the first months of 478, did not take the time and money to carve the conventional figural panels and molding on the shrine doorway shows—not surprisingly— that he was more interested in continuing work on the main image and the great standing Buddhas during that harried year than in completing things such as doorways and pillars. It is safe to assume that he was intending to plaster and paint it along with the large standing Buddhas as soon as their carving was completed; but as it turned out he himself was never able to see any of this work finished. He had to be satisfied with getting the main image done, even if not as he had originally conceived. Such observations provide useful evidence that the shrine doorway and the large standing Buddhas were not finally completed and the images put into worship until the Period of Disruption. But particularly striking proof that this whole crucial area in the cave was not plastered and painted until this same time is to be found by considering the six small images at the rear of the left wall in the shrine antechamber. As suggested above, all of these small images clearly belong to the Period of Disruption; their carving can be no means date prior to mid-478, and obviously their surfacing must be at least this late too. What is significant is that precisely the same mix of plaster which is used to surface these small intrusive panels continues without a break over the arch of the Buddha to the left of the doorway (lower down it has disappeared) and over the large standing Buddhas on the adjacent left wall—tying them all together as having been plastered (and presumably painted) at the same time. Furthermore it is likely (and reasonable) that the rest of the antechamber—using essentially the same mix—was also plastered at this same time.18 Thus, since all of these elements in the shrine antechamber

18 There may be a minor difference in shade (but not in composition) between the mix on the shrine doorway and that which covers the Buddha panels at either side of it. One might consider the possibility that the doorway was done before mid-478, when the main Buddha image was plastered and painted with what appears to be an identical mix. The original patrons, in 478, often attempted to finish the shrine doorways (even if hurriedly) at the same time as the image: see Caves 2, 4, 17, 20, 26LW.

36

cave upper 6

area appear to have been plastered (and painted) at the very same time as the six small intrusions, we can be sure that all of this finishing work was done in the Period of Disruption—i.e. after mid-478. It is possible that, of these six small intrusions, the small padmasana image near the upper left was added somewhat later and plastered separately. This is because the plaster, like that which extends over the arch of the large Buddha to the left of the doorway, appears to be of a somewhat browner mix, with poorer adherence. Note too that this is the only one of the six small intrusions without peg-holes (for garlands?); again this suggests that it may have been added in this area after the others were done, probably even in 480. Needless to say, it is essential for establishing the sequence of work in the shrine/shrine antechamber area, that we show why these six small images must belong to the Period of Disruption. The fact that they break the consistent program of imagery in the shrine antechamber, by “replacing” the missing sixth large Buddha, is nearly incontrovertible evidence bearing upon their intrusive character. However, a consideration of some of their iconographic peculiarities is equally telling. We might first note the unprecedented and somewhat “illogical” arrangement of the base of the lowest of the padmasana images on the left wall, where the deer and wheel are placed beneath the Buddha’s lotus pedestal rather than beneath his throne. Similar images can be found among the intrusive panels under the Cave 26 arch; and we would not find any counterparts in padmasana images before this time. Indeed, the ultimate source for the arrangement was probably the somewhat similar but more comprehensible organization of motifs at the base of the enthroned bhadrasana Buddhas, where the deer, wheel, and devotees are placed in front of (or just beneath) the Buddha’s feet, which in turn rest upon a lotus pedestal; the first relevant example in 478 would be panel R2 in Cave 26’s right ambulatory. Their new popularity probably was stimulated by their widespread use in the triforium panels of Cave 26 (they are not used on the slightly earlier Cave 26 façade), but until the Period of Disruption they are more often omitted than not. The iconography of the standing Buddha below the above-mentioned padmasana image is also unusual, and gives equally suggestive evidence bearing on the dating of the shrine antechamber panels.

original and intrusive phases compared

37

The latter Buddha has both hands raised; the proper right in abhaya mudra, while the left holds the garment slightly out from the shoulder. The type, further characterized by a directly frontal body presentation, rather than a fluid walking posture, is relatively rare at Ajanta, a surprising fact when we realize that it was originally introduced for the main Buddha in the sumptuous Caitya Cave 19— originally intended as the devotional focus of the site. Very shortly thereafter, in 470/471, the type is repeated a number of times on the shrine doorways of Cave 17 and 20, which might well be expected, since these caves were sponsored by the same royal donor—the king of Risika—as Cave 19. But then it is largely absent throughout the vigorous years from 475 through 477, when Asmaka, having defeated Risika, dominated the site. It only became popular again when the Asmakas’ control over the site had ended19 I have suggested elsewhere that this particularly authoritative iconographic image type was avoided for so many years during the very heyday of the site because of the Asmaka takeover.20 The manner in which this standing Buddha in the Cave U6 panel is raised up on a double lotus pedestal, over a group of devotees, also confirms its relatively late date, for one never finds devotees beneath the lotus pedestal of standing images prior to the Period of Disruption.21 One further feature which suggests the appropriateness of a very late date for these small figures on the left wall of Cave U6’s antechamber is the arched format of the padmasana panel at the upper left. This arched panel type may ultimately look back to the image “emerging” from the stupa in Cave 19, while richly decorated forms appear

19

However, there are a number ascribable to early 478 in the antechamber of Cave 7, their presence perhaps allowed by the breakdown of discipline in this troubled period. 20 An impressive example of the type appears at the left end of the porch of Cave 26RW. Two even more developed examples occupy panels L5 and L6 in the Cave 26 ambulatory, while minor examples can be found among the helter-skelter sculptures added in 479/480 to the façade returns of Caves 10, 19, and 26. Somewhat anomalous examples appear at the left side of the shrinelets in Cave 19; in these two instances the left hand may have been raised more for reasons of compositional symmetry than in emulation of the main Cave 19 image. See discussion with Cave 17 in Volume I, Chapter 15. 21 For parallels see Cave 17 intrusive panel at court left; Cave 26RW, small panel set into left frame of large Buddha at porch left; and Right Front shrinelet of Cave Upper 6 itself.

38

cave upper 6

in 477/478 in Cave 26; but in the Period of Disruption it is much simplified, as here and in other intrusive examples (e.g. large standing Buddhas on rear wall) in Cave Upper 6. Another consideration of very particular interest is that the character of the small images on the left wall of the shrine antechamber suggests that they are not only intrusive but that they can be assigned to the earlier part of the Period of Disruption, starting in mid-478, rather than to 480. Such a conclusion is important, since it helps to confirm the priority of the intrusive work in the antechamber, in relation to that in the rest of the cave. The “high-priority” location of these six intrusive images in the antechamber of course recommends such a relatively early dating, since the new intrusive donors, typically, would have selected the more desirable spots first. Furthermore, the fact that, unlike so many other intrusions in the cave, these were all fully plastered and painted, and also have been supplied with holes which once must have held garland hooks, also adds weight to such an assertion.22 Finally, the fact that the three seated images in the group are all seated in the padmasana mode is very suggestive: small seated intrusive images carved in other contexts at the site for a year or so after mid-478 are invariably in this mode, whereas during 480 the bhadrasana mode comes to be very popular for such small intrusions, being widely used both in Cave U6 itself, and throughout the site.23 Having established that this whole group of small images must be assigned to the period of Disruption—and probably were completed somewhat before 480—it is of particular interest to note that the dark gray plaster which covers nearly all of them is of a distinctive fine-grained mix, full of tiny elongated whitish seeds—as that which covers the shrine doorway, and nearly all of the large Buddha panels in the antechamber.24 And what is most significant is that it was

22 There is at least one broken iron hook (and one hole) remaining below the Buddha at the lower right. The position is untypical for garlands; could they have been used for incense? 23 Major bhadrasana figures, however, are carved from 477 onward. Small bhadrasana figures are found from this period too, but in formats other than intrusive panels. 24 At the upper level over the intrusive group, there is a different (browner) plaster, but this “patch” also extends in the area above the standing Buddha to the

original and intrusive phases compared

39

applied to all of these areas in one continuous application, even though a different mix appears to have been thickly applied to the antechamber ceiling, but without a discernable break.25 Thus if there should be any question about the assertion that the plastering over the great Buddha at the left of the shrine doorway was done in the Period of Disruption it need no longer be asked, since the surfacing applied over this panel and over the small intrusive images on the adjacent wall is so uniform that it must have been put on without a break. And as if to further confirm the fact that these two areas, whose carving was undertaken by different donors in different years, were surfaced at precisely the same time, during the Period of Disruption, each of them also has a small area which was covered with yet another distinctly browner, less seedy mix, with poorer adhesion—the latter perhaps reflecting the proximity of bats—at a higher level. Perhaps the finer seed-filled mix gave out before either of these separated areas had been completely plastered. Or possibly the little padmasana Buddha at this low-priority upper left was added slightly later by a different donor; this might explain the fact that it is the only one of the six small intrusions that does not have holes for garlands (or possibly a screening cloth) over it. The application of the fine seed-filled plaster continues without any discernible break over the whole of the shrine doorway and over the three large Buddhas and their enframements on the right side of the antechamber. We should also note that a simple painted design covers the plastered wall area which extends beneath the large Buddha at the right of the shrine doorway and the two-Buddha panel adjacent to it. Although evidence of its (presumed) continuation on the frames of the panels higher up is lacking because of surface damage, what we can still see on the base area reveals a simple geometric pattern similar to that still visible on parts of the shrine doorway. Particularly because the plaster on all these areas was applied all at

left of the shrine doorway, so it too covers both the “original” and the intrusive sculptures. 25 It should be noted that the plaster over the last-carved standing Buddha at the front of the left wall has a somewhat different mix of plaster. However, it is unlikely that it would have been finished in 478, when the four other standing Buddhas were not. It is more likely that a new mix was used here (as in the upper left rear corner of the antechamber) because the other mix had run out.

40

cave upper 6

once, there is every reason to believe that this painting represents part of the same single effort undertaken shortly after the beginning of the Period of Disruption in order to finish and decorate these features in the antechamber. At the same time we should note that the donor’s concern in the Period of Disruption was chiefly focused on the imagery rather than the architecture. They sometimes did decorate already-carved architectural features, particularly important ones like the shrine doorway, but the plastering and painting (and any necessary final carving) of the imagery obviously took precedence over finishing the cutting of elements such as the antechamber pillars and pilasters—a task which the hurried donors of this late period probably considered as beyond their time, means, and interest. Not surprisingly, the still rough fronting elements of the antechamber were apparently neither plastered nor painted—as was possibly also the case with the untrimmed base on the antechamber’s left side. These unfinished areas were of no interest to the new donors in the Period of Disruption. The large Buddha on the left wall of the antechamber is covered with plaster of a somewhat different color and texture; but this by no means suggests that it was plastered at a different time, since such variations often occurred when any extensive area was plastered. There are dozens of different mixes of plaster used at the site, of very different colors, textures, and compositions. Generally any given area was surfaced with a single mix or, particularly in the case of walls and ceilings, with two or three superimposed mixes, layered from a rough base plaster, to a fine surfacing, sometimes with a third layer in between. However, in some cases different mixes were used for a single task. The porch ceiling of Cave U6 is a case in point. It appears to have been done all at one time, and then extended down the main wall; but the ceiling’s surfacing, in particular, is composed of a number of differently colored and composed batches. Such differences in mix are not particularly telling (as this ceiling proves); but when the mixes used in any two or more areas proved to be identical, it strongly supports (even if it does not prove) the contemporaneity of the application. Surprisingly, this apparently well-coordinated effort—so untypical of donative activity in the Period of Disruption—extended even beyond the work so far described. It includes some significant carvings on the areas of the hall’s rear wall closest to the shrine antecham-

original and intrusive phases compared

41

ber entrance, as well as the plastering of the larger part of the related ceiling of the rear aisle. In fact, it would seem that the whole antechamber area was not plastered until the two large standing Buddhas at either side of the antechamber entrance, carved in the rear wall of the hall, were also being finished; this is suggested by the fact that the central portion of the rear aisle ceiling, which extends to the area over these two images and which (conventionally) would have been completed before the plastering of the walls (and images) below, appears to have been done at the same time as the ceiling of the antechamber. The fact that neither of these ceiling areas which, when decorated, would typically “honor” the images below, were ever painted, suggests that time or money or the lack of workmen frustrated such plans; for after all the important thing was to get the images finished (plastered and painted). Since these images presumably all were underway in late 478 or shortly after, when the intrusive work was going on vigorously throughout the site, the fact that expectations had to be thus curtailed suggests that the pressures in this particular cave were very great—an assumption clearly supported by the fact that (more than in any other vihara) the pace of work appears to have been quite turbulent, with dozens and dozens of images all underway at essentially the same time.

Rear Wall Figures In seeking to show the surprising extensiveness of the unified program of work which started in the shrine antechamber, and was occupying the new donors who took over Cave U6 early in the Period of Disruption, we shall start with a consideration of the two large standing Buddhas on the hall’s rear wall. These images, which are consciously disposed to form an effectively balanced pair, are extremely close in type to the pair flanking the shrine doorway, which had been carved at the behest of the original patron, and obviously served as their models. Possibly because they are at readily visible major points, the artist has made them particularly impressive. Almost identical with the shrine doorway pair in size and pose, they have similarly placed kneeling devotees, as well as clearly related arched and pilastered enframements. They were even plastered and

42

cave upper 6

painted, like the Buddhas flanking the shrine doorway, before both of them (see the left image) had been quite fully carved; this again links all of these figures—or at least their final stages—in time, and would further support our conclusion that they all formed part of a single work-program which was expediently completed well before the Period of Disruption had run its course. It was as if the donors were pressed for time; but not because time was running out. However, there are two minor, but nonetheless revealing, differences between the figures flanking the shrine doorway and those cut into the rear wall of the hall. The arches over the latter, instead of extending right up to the ceiling, are located well below it, which has the effect of reducing the size of the standing Buddhas. Furthermore, their arches—only the one over the figure at the right is complete— were not designed with “peaks” at the summit, which might be surprising considering the overall connection of these figures with those flanking the shrine doorway. The probable reason for these differences is that when these standing Buddhas were planned, the row of seated padmasana Buddhas just above must have already been carved, or at least underway, or the space reserved. These seated Buddhas are readily visible at the right of the shrine area, although a few (3, 6, 13 from the left) have still undefined faces. On the left of the shrine area, where the carving proceeded less expeditiously, their outlines were only lightly sketched in, but still their proximity to the big Buddha below was probably the reason that the “peaks” of the Buddha’s arch were omitted, in order to make the standing image as large as possible, as was also the case with its counterpart on the right. Because the repeated padmasana Buddhas at the top of the left and right rear walls are clearly intrusive figures, related to many others which were also added to the cave during the Period of Disruption, they could not have been carved prior to mid-478. And, assuming that the large Buddhas beneath were planned in such a way that room was left for the padmasana series, it is clear that these large standing Buddhas too must have been conceived and carved during the Period of Disruption; that is, they were not undertaken, or indeed even intended, by the cave’s original patron. This conclusion gains support from the fact that such standing Buddhas never appear in this position on the rear wall in the “original” program of work in other caves, although the idea of putting Buddha images in this position may have been initiated in Cave 16, where

original and intrusive phases compared

43

a seated Buddha, surrounded by devotees, was hurriedly painted in each of these same positions (flanking the antechamber) in Cave 16 in early 478. Another factor suggesting that these two large standing Buddhas were not undertaken until 479 involves the character of the wall surface in these areas. Particularly in the case of the left image, the rock surface into which it was cut was much rougher than would be expected if the panel had been done during the original phase of work; in the Period of Disruption, however, images were often cut into such previously unfinished areas, even though more desirable surfaces were of course preferred. On the left image, which is better preserved, we can see that its rough margins were first smoothed over with typically “late” red plaster, and then given a finishing coat of the same mix of fine many-seeded plaster as the main shrine image and most of the panels (and doorway) in the shrine antechamber. Thus it seems clear that these two large Buddhas were made as part of the overall program of finishing the shrine antechamber which a new donor or donors undertook in 479. A consideration of the plastering of the ceiling in this area further confirms the intrusive nature of these large standing Buddhas at the rear. During the consistent phase of activity at the site, the plastering of ceilings typically proceeded from front to back, following the course of the excavation-work. The fact that this procedure was not followed in Cave U6, but that the rear aisle ceiling was plastered at a time when the main hall ceiling still had not been done (and never was!), clearly shows that this was not part of the original program; furthermore, the fact that the central aisle ceiling area appears (from its different mix) to have been done before and independently from the plastering of the sides reinforces the point, for such “selective” plastering was never done during the heyday of work at the site. It is evident that the limited plastering of the rear aisle ceiling was done specifically in connection with the large standing Buddhas on the rear wall and the sacred areas beyond, since it only extends on either side for the length of those wall panels. Furthermore, the same plastering, which continues down over the wall surface below, is similarly limited there, for it covers only the portion of the rear wall into which these Buddha panels had been cut. The only other plastering on the hall and aisle ceilings involved narrow “honorific

44

cave upper 6

canopies” over the seemingly endless rows of now missing but once seated Buddhas along the top of the walls and above the beams over the hypostyle. Most of these “canopies” of plaster have fallen off, but we can tell they were once present by the “clean” condition of the ceiling which they once covered, affording (quite ingenuously) protection from smoke deposits and other grime until they eventually—perhaps only after some centuries—fell away. Significantly, plaster of precisely the same mix as that on the rear aisle ceiling—very different from the finer many-seeded mix on the panels—covers the whole shrine antechamber ceiling, while it appears that the same mix—also never completed with a painted surface— once covered most of the shrine ceiling too, even though most of the latter has now fallen away. Only in the more finely chiseled (but still unfinished) area over the image is the treatment different; as noted above, that small area was probably decorated in connection with the main image’s rushed completion before mid-478. The overall consistency in color, texture, and mode of application of the plastered ceiling areas suggests that they were all done at one and the same time. One can also assume that they must have been done somewhat before the decoration of the walls (and images) below, since this was normal procedure. However, they obviously would not have been plastered until the sculptures below them were well underway. In fact, as we have noted in the rear aisle, the extent of plastering done on the ceiling has been clearly determined by the presence of the new images there. Thus it seems certain that the ceilings in this rear area of the cave could not have been plastered prior to mid-478. They are very obviously an undertaking of the Period of Disruption, for the ceilings throughout the cave—which in normal times would have been finished sequentially from front to back— had never been touched at all at this time. Indeed, when Harisena died, not a single bit of plastering or painting had yet been accomplished in the cave. One of course must ask why the ceilings in the antechamber and the adjacent ones in the rear aisle were not painted, as they surely were intended to be; otherwise they would not have been plastered. The answer seems clearly to be that the donor or donors responsible for the fairly ambitious program of work underway in this area during the first part of the Period of Disruption must have run into problem of time, money, or help—problems which were all-toopressing during the troubled time, as the unfinished character of the whole cave proves.

original and intrusive phases compared

45

One would think that the two large standing Buddhas which flank the antechamber entrance would have been carved before the similar but smaller Buddha just to the right of the right rear wall image, but there is no certainty about this. However, even though work on the pair of large Buddhas may not have started immediately, these prime locations must have been spoken for by someone who could make his intentions hold. It is quite possible that the small image was started by a different donor at the same time, for the cave is flooded with intrusions started as soon as the cave was open to such an “invasion”. The very fact that it seems to violate the generally symmetrical (or we might better say, expedient) program which we have discussed above might support this view, rather than otherwise; for then the little image could be considered, like the six similarly small intrusions on the antechamber’s left wall, as a separate donation started at the very beginning of the Period of Disruption, fitted in a clearly desirable position. Supporting this notion that the little image was undertaken at the same time as the large one, or possibly even started before, is the fact that the large image on the right rear wall is much more cramped than its counterpart on the left rear wall; furthermore, its unavoidable proximity to the smaller image may have been the reason that the sculptors of the larger image destroyed their common margin in order to properly complete the pilaster; as their very narrow shared margin was worked on, it was decided to cut this margin away, and newly reveal the right edge of the pilaster. What is interesting is that this smaller image was not plastered and painted as part of the larger general program which we have described above, and which included the plastering and painting of the immediately adjacent large Buddha. The small image was quite consciously excluded from this program, for the margin of the plastered area done in connection with the larger program, lies just to its left, both on the wall and (a bit less precisely) on the ceiling above. By way of contrast, on the left rear wall, in the equivalent (although narrower) space next to the large standing Buddha, the final plastering (with the familiar fine white-seeded mix) extends all the way over to the pillared cell-complex.26 The elaborate but almost entirely obscured figure—only part of the yagnopavita can be seen—

26

Coarse red plaster, typical of the period of Disruption, has been used to first

46

cave upper 6

was probably part of the overall program too, since otherwise the plastered wall surface would have remained unpainted, and this (at such an important spot) would be hard to explain. The two other standing Buddhas on the right rear wall (one barely begun) which flank the doorway of the right rear shrinelet will be considered later. They almost certainly date to 480. Not having yet been started, they were not a factor when the general program in this area was being developed early in the Period of Disruption. The little padmasana images, seen at the top of the right rear wall, are another matter, however, because they certainly were started along with the large painted Buddha and the adjacent smaller one, which we have just described. As I have pointed out above, this “frieze” of thirteen small Buddhas must have been conceived at least as early as the large standing Buddha just below, because the latter’s positioning, and the form of its arch, have both been adjusted to make room for them. It is even likely that they were conceived and undertaken before the large Buddha, for if they had been conceived together, or if the padmasana images had been positioned after the large image, they might have been lined up with it better.27 The fact that they do not line up might be because the large image was started after both these padmasana images and the small Buddha panel to its right had been fixed in position. If so, we can see that the sculptor of the large image had to place it where it is, tightly fitted in between the shrine antechamber pilaster to the left and the smaller Buddha panel to the right. By contrast, we can see that the large Buddha on the left rear wall does line up with the sketchedin padmasana images above, and that even if it was laid out after they were, it could be adjusted in position, because there was no other adjacent panel in its way. No matter in what sequence these various images were begun, however, it is clear that they were all underway at the same time, and that work on all of them had ended by the time the extensive program of plastering and painting the two large standing Buddhas and the main features of the antechamber had been concluded. This

level the very rough wall surface both under the painted figure, and on the area around the carved image. 27 Such alignment is not the rule in the Period of Disruption, but often the artisans opted for it.

original and intrusive phases compared

47

is evident because, just as the paint on the large standing Buddha continues around the pilaster which it “shares” with the smaller standing Buddha (proving that the latter had been carved when the large image was painted), so also the plastering of the large standing Buddha was continued right over the three (or possibly four) padmasana images just above when it was joined up with related plastering on the ceiling above. The fact that these few padmasana images of the full row of thirteen were the only ones surfaced—as if their proximity warranted it—suggests that, like the smaller standing Buddha below, this whole row of padmasana images was not thought of as an essential part of the group of images chosen for plastering and painting at this time. The first four images (at the left end of the row) are the only ones fully carved—the pedestals of all of the others, and even the heads of the fifth, sixth, and thirteenth, are not quite finished. However, it is not likely that the somewhat unfinished state of this series is the reason that it was not painted as part of the larger program mentioned above, since a number of similarly unfinished motifs, in the shrine antechamber, were plastered and painted at that time. Of course it is possible that the carving of the four images at the left was hastily finished by those responsible for the plastering, or alternatively, that their finished state recommended them for the plastering, the remainder being “put on hold” until their carving was finished. It may be that this group of padmasana Buddhas, and possibly the smaller standing Buddha on this right rear wall, had been undertaken by a separate donor or donors who for some reason (not hard to imagine in this troubled period) had stopped work by the time the abovementioned painting program started. There are instances at the site where it is even more certain than here that certain donors had to give up their work for personal rather than more general political reasons, even before the site’s final collapse.28 Certainly little or no work was done on this row of images after 479, even though they could have been finished in a matter of days, and even though other carvings (on either side of the right rear shrinelet’s doorway

28 See the evidence in Cave 26’ right aisle and on Cave 9’s right façade area, where sketched-in icons were abandoned, and then recut, presumably by a different donor.

48

cave upper 6

as well as inside the shrinelet) were started in this same general area in 480. This again suggests that they had been abandoned by their sponsor fairly early in this Period of Disruption. The suggestion that work on this row of padmasana images had been abandoned even before the abovementioned program of plastering and painting had been begun seems quite convincingly confirmed by the parallel situation on the left rear wall. Here, most interestingly, we find a series of barely sketched-in padmasana images, all showing the teaching gesture, if given sufficient scrutiny. Although those at the left have been mostly obliterated by the superimposed bhadrasana images, traces of an eighth (and final) arch would seem to prove that they were planned as a familiar series of Eight Buddhas.29 It seems that they were conceived at the same time as the series of thirteen padmasana images on the right rear wall, and show a similar relationship (or lack of it) to the large standing Buddha below. Perhaps work on them got delayed because those on the right were being worked on instead; at least we can note that the large standing Buddha on the left is less finished than its counterpart on the right, quite possibly because it was started a bit later. The right standing Buddha could well have been given priority because the wall surface had been better prepared there before consistent work on the cave was abandoned. If the left Buddha was started slightly later than the right, this could account for the fact that its flanking pilasters are so clearly “reduced” versions of those flanking the right image, and that the arch was never defined at all. Whether the merely sketched-in padmasana images above were originally the responsibility of a separate donor who abandoned them, or whether (less likely) they and their more fully carved counterparts on the right were undertaken by the same donor(s) who gave the large Buddhas below, the result was the same: work on them was never continued after 479. But whereas if we were to consider the row on the right alone we could only say that work on them had stopped by the time that the major plastering program was undertaken in the general area, in the case of the row on the left the sequence of events is more specifically revealed.

29 The first seven Buddhas show dharmacakra mudra, the eighth (Maitreya) with abhaya. But Maitreya’s mudra is not invariable.

original and intrusive phases compared

49

We can no longer see if the sketched-in padmasana images directly over the large Buddha image were expediently covered with plaster when the latter image was itself surfaced—although this would seem likely—but we can see that those just beyond this point were quite literally disregarded when, shortly after their abandonment, the row of typically “later” bhadrasana images (plus a padmasana Maitreya) were superimposed directly upon them. This superimposition is fascinating, suggesting as it does some of the vagaries of patronage in this complex Period of Disruption. And it is significant too, in helping us to work out the chronology of developments in the cave, since it seems evident from a study of the imagery here, as well as in Cave 26 and various other excavations, that small carved bhadrasana Buddhas never appear in intrusive contexts until 480—that is, in the later part of the brief Period of Disruption. In fact, one can probably go even farther and assert that (except for the Maitreya in the left rear group) all of the thirty-eight padmasana figures, plus the eight sketched images of the same time, carved at the upper level of the main hall, and indeed all of the eleven stupas on the capitals, were started before any of the bhadrasana images which are found at the same upper levels. It is worth noting, in the interest of establishing a secure sequence of developments among these various intrusions in the cave, how the series of seven bhadrasana Buddhas plus Maitreya is positioned in relation to the large standing Buddha just at their right. Had the latter image (which we have dated to the earlier part of the Period of Disruption) not already been in position, we can be fairly sure that this later series would have been place more to the right, since closeness to the shrine was always a desirable feature. Indeed we can see that the sketched-in row of padmasana Buddhas did indeed extend up to the shrine antechamber entrance in just this way, but this was possible not only because they were smaller but because they were laid out either in conjunction with, or possibly just before, the large standing Buddha. The orderliness so far seen in the disposition of the intrusive images was surely more “expedient” than “esthetic”. Areas tended to be filled up according to the desirability of the areas involved, and this almost automatically imposed a kind of order on the arrangement. The same effect is given by the generally uniform character of the little images carved on the capitals of the hall pillars, although here too the arrangement is ruled by expediency. That these figures can

50

cave upper 6

be assigned a date quite early in the Period of Disruption is suggested by the fact that they occupy “high priority” locations—very visible and mostly well-illuminated. Equally suggestive is the fact that like the images being carved along the tops of the walls at this same time, they are all padmasana Buddhas, never the later bhadrasana type newly and widely used for small imagery in 480. The decoration of these capitals certainly is totally different from that once planned by the original patron, whose work program must have called for the much more elaborate and less “iconic” forms which were being carved on the capitals in late viharas right up until the moment of Harisena’s death. The pillars’ square bases and capitals with very “late” 3.5 ribs both reveal that the pillars were not fully defined until 475 or later.30 Indeed, most of Cave U6’s pillars and pillar capitals were still in quite a rough state when the consistent program of work on the cave was abandoned; and a few remain this way still today. This, however, did not faze the donors of the Period of Disruption, who cut images on most of the capitals, even on the extremely unfinished L3. Although, as mentioned above, most of these capital images are flanked by stupas, two of them—those on the two pillars to the right in the front row—show a kneeling devotee instead. It seems likely, considering the “high priority” position of these capitals, that these two may have been done first, before the idea of using flanking stupas had gained precedence. It may well be that this latter formula reflects developments in the prestigious Cave 1, where flanking stupas were introduced on the painted rear faces of the front center pillar capitals just prior to Harisena’s death. It is typical of work during the Period of Disruption that the decoration of the capitals of the pillars was not as consistently “programmed” as would have been the case in the site’s heyday, when gratuitous omissions would not have been allowed by the master planner. For instance, the important axial faces of the capitals of pillars R2 and R3 were not decorated; nor was the rear face of the capital of the right central pillar of the front row carved, even though its counterpart on the left central pillar was. Admittedly, this selec-

30 The relatively low square bases may have been necessitated by their being cut from roughed-out octagonal forms; Cave 5 has similar types, also defined in or after 475.

original and intrusive phases compared

51

tivity was probably determined by the relative condition of the available surfaces, for all of the above-mentioned undecorated capitals have flaws running through them; and even though these flaws are generally not very severe, one still can understand why the capitals with the more ideal surfaces would have been chosen first by these new and “uninvited” donors. The extremely faulty capital of R3 would have required repair with a mud-plaster or even stone fill, before it could be properly decorated; and this is hardly the kind of thing that donors in this hurried late phase of work wished to deal with. The “randomness” which can be noticed when we study the carving of these capitals—for instance, a Buddha was carved on the capital of the right front pilaster but not on that of the left front—is very typical of intrusive donations, as is the gratuitous breaking of convention which allowed one of the images to be cut on the aisle face of pillar L2; less important faces such as this sometimes were decorated with painted motifs during the heyday of the site, but carved motifs were never found on such minor faces then, when the guiding impulse was appropriate decoration rather than the “selfish” acquisition of merit.31 The fact that the faces of these capitals were all still available when this work was done; and the fact that all of the images carved on them were fully completed, not being merely carved but also painted: these are further significant pieces of evidence suggesting that a dating very early in the Period of Disruption is an appropriate one for these particular intrusions. Their “programming” may have involved the same donors who occupied themselves with the undertakings in the shrine antechamber, and in the rear of the main hall, starting as early as mid-478. Returning to our consideration of the small seated Buddha images which form (or formed) a kind of frieze around the wall of the cave, and considering the probable sequence of some of these undertakings, it seems likely that the rear wall padmasana images (carved on the right and sketched-in on the left) were begun earlier than those on the side walls, although they are obviously part of the same burst of intrusive activity, and might well be separated by no more than

31 The single exception involves the carving of the rear faces of the capitals of the highly decorated porch pillars and pilasters of Cave 20.

52

cave upper 6

a few months or weeks. The generally higher priority accorded the important rear wall of such caves recommends this conclusion, as does the fact that the whole series, as originally planned, was not interrupted by any bhadrasana images—a later type-such as appear on the left aisle wall. Of all the intrusive images on the left and right aisle walls, those visible at the ends of the front aisle may have had some priority, since they were much more readily visible when entered the cave, both by virtue of their placement and of their lighting from the large porch windows. Thus it seems reasonable to assume that the group over the shrinelet at the right end of the front aisle would be very early—in fact it is possible that it was carved there even before the previously unfinished cell (R1) was converted (in 479 or 480) into the present elaborate shrinelet. In any case, the row of padmasana Buddhas interspersed with low relief stupas was cut prior to the time when the front of the shrinelet, and the ceiling above, was painted (probably in 480), for they appear in the midst of this door and ceiling decoration, but are essentially unrelated to it.32 It is not always clear why low-relief stupas are interspersed among the seated Buddhas in certain groups such as this one, which incidentally extends a few feet onto the front wall with a padmasana Buddha “attended” by two stupas, just as on many of the cave’s capitals. Such a combination of Buddhas and stupas is seen in various contexts at the site. Sometimes, as is often the case in Cave U6, the stupas are placed in areas where the stone is flawed, and where it would have been harder to carve images proper, but sometimes the substitution may have been made merely to save time and/or money, or because of space considerations. It also seems that they are used more frequently in 480 than earlier, as if the convention of substituting them for seated Buddhas developed during the period. The case of the space over the pillared cell at the left end of the front aisle is somewhat different. Although this is an area which one would expect to have been used for intrusions very early, particularly since the narrow area over the pillared entrance was already decorated with the attractive elephant frieze, the stone had been left 32 The configuration of the painted area just over the left end of the doorway lintel suggests, as we would expect, that the painting of the door-front proper was done after the frieze had been carved.

original and intrusive phases compared

53

so rough when it was last worked on (in 468) that the haste-oriented later donors did not even try to carve images on it. Instead, at some time during the Period of Disruption, they covered it with a thick coating of mudplaster and applied imagery in paint. The designs are no longer legible, but it is reasonable to suppose that they followed the “standard” theme of a series of seated Buddhas, as did similarly decorated rough areas on the front wall. The ceiling in front was plastered, but it appears to be much more extensive than the small “canopy” expected for such a minor Buddha frieze. However, it may be that the faulted ceiling in this part of the front aisle, like the ceiling in front of the shrinelet at the right end, was filled in with mudplaster, and then more fully decorated to “honor” the images of the pillared cell L1, as well as those at the top of the adjacent front wall of the hall. It is interesting to compare this with a similar faulted ceiling plane in the left aisle of Cave 1. However, the latter was repaired as part of the original program of work, probably in 476, and far greater care was taken; iron pins can be seen, which must have held some kind of mesh to keep the plaster intact (even though it has fallen today). A combination of five padmasana images and three low-relief stupas such as appears at the right end of the front aisle also can be seen at the center of the left aisle wall; and again, perhaps significantly, the total adds up to eight. The arrangement here appears to be particularly haphazard, but this is by no means surprising in the Period of Disruption. Thus the space directly over the center of cell L3 is left completely blank, the reason certainly being that the rock is somewhat flawed at that point. The artists, instead of coping with the problem directly, merely by-passed it; it is just possible too that the donor did not wish to have a flawed benefaction, if it could be avoided. In the same way, the dividing “frame” between the last two padmasana images in the series is wider than the others, because the work was faulted there too. With something of the same unconcern for the niceties of architectonic arrangements, the artist, instead of centering the whole group over the pillared Cell L3, has shifted it somewhat to the right, the reason perhaps being that the large expanse of nicely smoothed wall space to the right had already been filled with (or reserved for) an intrusive painting—the Litany scene discussed below. Presumably the whole area above had been reserved for this Litany, and perhaps it had already been painted or at least the plaster applied

54

cave upper 6

when the figures above were started. But (if painted) there could not have been iconic forms in the upper (now illegible) area, since the four bhadrasana Buddhas to the left cut into the space. Like the five bhadrasana Buddhas at the farther end of this same wall, they would be later than the eight padmasana Buddhas-cum-stupas, both from their position and from their iconography. Indeed, throughout the hall, the bhadrasana Buddhas typically postdate the padmasana images, the “palimpsests” on the left rear wall being the most convincing example of all. In this same regard, one should note that there are no bhadrasana images among the relatively early intrusions in the shrine antechamber (which has four padmasana images, including the re-cut devotee), while the very late images carved at eyelevel on the front wall include only one padmasana Buddha but nine bhadrasana images! On the right aisle wall, a long series of sixteen padmasana images extends from over the central pillared cell (R3) all the way down to the rear pilaster. The fact that no low-relief stupas are interspersed with them could reflect the different attitudes or financial resources of the donors involved, for stupas (as we can infer from a study of the paintings in Cave 19’s vault) were cheaper than Buddhas.33 But the prime reason is probably due to the fact that the stone surface here is all very sound, so that Buddha images could be carved very expeditiously. In fact, no great labor was put into the task, for the unvaried carvings are quite summary—the ears, for instance, are hardly defined at all. The number of images in the series on this wall may or may not be significant; it perhaps can be thought of as comprising two groups of eight “historical” Buddhas each—eight (sometimes but not always with Maitreya as the eighth) being a popular grouping at the site.34 In fact, there were probably eight painted images of the same type in the space remaining between the end of the carved series and the right front pilaster; we cannot be sure of this, since whatever paintings were there have completely fallen away, but exactly the

33 In Cave 19, Buddhas alone are used at the front of the vault, and alternate with (presumably cheaper) stupas as one proceeds rearward. Similarly, in the redecoration of Cave 10’s aisle vaults, the Buddhas give was to simpler lotus medallions as one proceeds rearward. 34 There are various groups at the site where Maitreya (if intended)is not specifically distinguished.

original and intrusive phases compared

55

same mudplaster “canopy” once continued along the ceiling at this point, as on the ceiling above the carved images. This is revealed by the relatively clean “border” along the ceiling just above the wall; it shows that a rather consistently wide band of mudplaster must once have been there. However, this mostly fell away in later centuries, leaving the exposed rock surface far cleaner than in the “unprotected” areas where the ceiling area was exposed to the soot created by worship in the cave. This “honorific canopy” would (if finished) been painted with simple decorative motifs, like those still partially reserved over the intrusive Litany scene in the porch of Cave 4, or over various intrusive images in Cave 22 and elsewhere. As we might expect, a similar band appears over the eight images (seven bhadrasana Buddhas plus a padmasana Maitreya) carved at the left end of the rear wall. This proves that they too were once plastered, and (presumably) painted, and there is evidence of a similarly “conventional” plastering of the images and of the ceiling just above on the left wall of the cave too. In fact, there are few places in the main hall where such a ceiling band does not appear. There are a few exceptions. In the front aisle, at those points—such as the left end—where the whole ceiling was plastered, such a band cannot of course be seen, and the fact that the ceiling proper takes up the space, as well as the fact that the panels below were still in process when time ran out explains why there was never any painted area just above them. Nor would such a band have appeared at the right end; instead, a large expanse of ceiling was decorated to complement the elaborate right front shrinelet. Another more significant omission is at the right end of the rear wall where, as pointed out earlier, the row of padmasana Buddhas was apparently abandoned, in 479, before being even fully carved. The fact that these images were never plastered and painted would confirm our assumption that they (like the merely sketched-in padmasana Buddhas on the opposite left wall) had no such “canopies” because the images below never got fully carved. Continuing our observations, we should note that the ceiling above the three walls in the left rear shrinelet also has a “clean” exposed strip where plaster has fallen off, so that we can assume that those walls too once must have had images upon them—at least a frieze of painted Buddhas near their tops, even if nothing more. Thus even relatively minor areas of the cave were decorated with a veritable myriad of such multiple seated Buddha images during the Period of

56

cave upper 6

Disruption, suggesting that the various donors in the cave all had some interest in creating an almost continuous frieze of such figures along the tops of the various walls in the hall. Here again, as in the way the shrine antechamber area was finished, and more than in most caves which were used for donations during the Period of Disruption, there seems to be evidence of some quasi-programmatic intent, although it was hardly of a very rigid type. Perhaps there was also an interest in leaving the areas below for larger iconic paintings, although there is no evidence (either from traces of plaster or paint or holes for garland hooks) that such a “program”, if intended, was completed or even very much developed. Of further interest in this regard is the likelihood that a border of mudplaster went around the whole ceiling in the central area bounded by the interior pillars, as well as on the ceiling area adjacent to the pillars in the left, right, and front aisles; where it has been better protected, some of this border remains (but with no evidence of painting extant), as it does along the front edge of the central hall area, just over pillar LC of the front row. This may well mean that a frieze of painted Buddha images covered the edges of all the beams over the central hall pillars. Thus, although it is obvious that this cave was by no means fully or consistently decorated, it certainly had far more extensive painting added to it during the Period of Disruption than a cursory viewing would today suggest. This is perhaps partly because, although readily habitable, it had not been decorated at all prior to the Period of Disruption. It is clear from studying the evidence in the cells that many monks lived in it, so it may well have attracted large numbers of donors (many of them the monks themselves) for that reason. Many monks lived in caves such as 1, 2, and 17 also, but those caves had few areas available for intrusive imagery. Although it seems unlikely that all of the series of small padmasana images on Cave Upper 6 can be assigned to mid-478/479 alone, it does seem likely that all of the bhadrasana images belong to 480. Of this new type, the first may well be those over cell L2. This is suggested not only by their more forward placement as compared with the other bhadrasana group on the left aisle wall, but by their rather elaborate treatment; each of the four is seated on a welldefined throne and flanked by flying dwarfs. It may well be that with this new type of figure, which was so late in making its appearance in such contexts in any case, the artist who made this first

original and intrusive phases compared

57

group had not yet worked out a quick and appropriate formula for their repetitious presentation. Those over cell L4, by way of contrast, are much more simplified in type, as are those which cover over the padmasana sketches on the left rear wall—the latter perhaps being done last of all. The situation is somewhat different on the cave’s front wall (discussed below), which was utilized for a number of larger bhadrasana panels, all dating to 480, and some never finished. The walls near the front had already been smoothed at the upper level when the original patron’s work on the cave had been given up, so they would have been high priority spots for intrusions. If the large smoothed area between cells L2 and R2 had already been painted when the intrusions over cells L3 and R3 were carved, this would explain why such rows of intrusive carvings were not started farther forward. The carver of the four bhadrasana Buddhas over cell doorway L2 seems concerned about the integrity of the area below. This may be because the Litany Scene which occupies that area had already been drawn when the panel above was carved; if so the sculptor of the panel would have known how far he could extend it without cutting away any essential (i.e. iconic) parts of the Litany.35 Of course it is also possible that the Litany scene was started after the bhadrasana images, and composed accordingly; the loss of details at the upper levels makes it hard to decide. The area just above the inscribed Litany Scene (Inscr #18) has fallen away, so that it is impossible to now know how far its composition extended upward, if all, and with what motifs, although slight traces of plaster and paint remain. It seems likely that the area above was being (or had been) reserved for the seated Buddhas which border most of the interior at this level; the presence of what appears to be a hole for a garland hook (now capped with a white insect deposit) just below the “frieze” of seated Buddhas, approximately centered over the much-obscured Litany image would support such a conclusion. Traces of plaster and paint do suggest that such seated Buddhas may have indeed have been painted above; indeed, the

35 Donors would never destroy a previously completed iconic image, but floral or geometric motifs associated with such images could be cut away. The tree of the Parinirvana scene in Cave 26 is cut into, as are the lotuses in the Sravasti Miracle scene on Cave 2’s left rear wall. The Mahayana paintings in Cave 9 and 10 often partly cover earlier Hinayana narrative or floral/geometric motifs.

58

cave upper 6

imaginative eye can make out what may be traces of the white robe of a bhadrasana image near the center of this area, suggesting that it once contained three (or possibly two) painted images of this type. The Litany scene is very ruinous today, and in any case was originally only sketched; rather than painted. In the center of the composition only the great and two adjacent toes of Avalokitesvara’s right foot now remain, along with the sketched lotus pedestal beneath them, and the expected flourishing lotus spray rising just to the right. At the lower left a man, drawn with great freedom and assurance, hurriedly escapes from one of the conventional threats, but just which one cannot now be seen. Just above a man, also boldly drawn, is escaping from a serpent, while on the other (right) side a mother clutches her child and seeks salvation from one of the other dreads. The rather mannered sharpness of the skillfully drawn facial features relates them to similar preliminary drawing visible above the Parinirvana scene in Cave 26. This is hardly surprising, since the latter must have been drawn late in 478, and the intrusive Litany sometime after mid-478. It is of considerable interest to note that when the wall surface (already finely smoothed down in the original phase of work on the caves) was prepared for this composition, the plaster used was of the very same fine mix with small thin white seeds which was used when the main image and antechamber sculptures were completed in late 478, or 479; it may be that this plastering was done at the same time and by the same worker(s). Such a relatively early date is recommended too by the desirability of this location in terms of the wall’s preparation, position, and fairly good light. The fact that the essentially unpainted image was apparently (or expediently) considered as completed—for it is inscribed—may be ascribed to the troubled character of these times. Either the rushed donor intentionally opted for a merely drawn composition, or he decided once the drawing was underway, to give up any plan to color it. There are numerous other such “sketches” at Ajanta, but in every instance it is clear, as here, that the image in question was left unpainted not from intent but because time was running out.36 The image’s inscription,

36 See various details on Cave 1’s front wall, Cave 2’s left wall, and in Nidhi shrine, and over Cave 26 Parinirvana; but in the latter case the painted surface was probably lost.

original and intrusive phases compared

59

too, gives evidence of haste; it is written rather than incised (in itself not surprising) and is rather carelessly—hastily—positioned beneath the figure, angling somewhat upward. It is interesting that the donor was a private individual, the “Sakyabhiksu Gunakirtti”, who must have been one of the many donors who “took over” the cave in the Period of Disruption.37 The iconic rather than narrative nature of the image of course supports its ascription to the Period of Disruption, for such wall areas, in an earlier day, would generally have been used for Jataka scenes or the like; nor would they have been painted when the lower level of the wall was still rough, as it is here and indeed throughout much of the cave. The equivalent wall surface on the right side of the hall—the area between cell doorways R2 and R3—had also been nicely smoothed during the earlier course of work on the cave, even though it too remains rough near the floor level. It too would have been an ideal location for use during the Period of Disruption. It seems likely that it was once decorated with a major intrusion like the Litany scene on the left wall, but no traces of either plaster paint now remain. It seems right to conclude that, with the exception of the hastily completed shrine Buddha and the first stages of work on the large standing Buddhas in the shrine antechamber, all done by the original patron in 477 and 478, all of the other images or groups of images in the cave must, like the Litany scene, have been given by new donors. However, most were either not inscribed or have lost their painted epigraphs. Besides this record, only one other inscription, also donative (and intrusive), has been found in the cave. Noticed only recently, it appears beneath a much damaged painting of a bhadrasana Buddha painted close to the doorway of the Right Front Shrinelet and recording the “religious donation of the Sakyabhiksu Govinda”. It is discussed below. Where Cave U6’s walls were not so smooth, or present other problems, intrusive donations were generally not made, or were delayed, even where plenty of space was available. Thus the images on the side and front walls of the shrine itself are all very late, as

37

Cohen 1995, 337: Inscription #18: This is the religious donation of the Sakyabhiksu Gunakirtti. Whatever merit there is in it, [may that serve] all sentient beings’ [attainment] of unexcelled knowledge. Chhabra (Yazdani 1946, 88 #1A) translation: the “Sakya monk Tarana-kirttana. . . .”

60

cave upper 6

well as often unfinished, as are the two standing Buddha images (one very incomplete) which flank the doorway of Cave U6’s right rear shrinelet. Indeed, the barely-started state of the one on the right strongly suggests that it must date to the end of 480, when work on all such intrusive images was abruptly interrupted. That just to the left of the doorway, in a somewhat more desirable location, appears to have been undertaken first, but it too is somewhat unfinished; note, for instance the hair. It almost certainly belongs to 480 too. The anomalous position of the Buddha’s proper right hand is so unusual that it should be noted. Apparently the standard varada mudra was started when the rock broke, necessitating this surprising adjustment.38 The late dating of these two images can be explained in part by the fact that this wall area was still very rough when consistent work on the cave ended in 477; thus it was not immediately attractive to new donors in the Period of Disruption. Further, it shows a major flaw five to six feet up from the floor level, a feature which made the location even less desirable and indeed accounts for the reduced size of these two images as well as for the small size and leftward placement of the third small standing Buddha in this area. The latter, however, is a slightly earlier intrusive image, as we have noted earlier. The least ideal position for votive imagery in Cave U6 was the interior hall’s front wall—an area treated as a very low-priority one in other caves as well. Not only was this wall poorly lit and relatively far from the cave’s shrine, but in the case of Cave U6 it had not even been properly cut back and smoothed down before the course of the cave’s excavation was interrupted in 477. Thus even though there was more space available here than in most other areas, it is reasonable to assume that this dark stretch of rock was one of the last areas which the new donors, during the Period of Disruption, would choose for intrusive offering. The assumption that the carvings done here are indeed very late can be further substantiated by observing that three of them were never painted, while two others were not even fully carved. Furthermore, some of the available space still remains unused; this is surely because time ran out while this

38 The attendant Buddha on the proper right in the adjacent shrinelet has a similarly anomalous gesture; could one have copied the other?

original and intrusive phases compared

61

wall was still being worked on, at the end of 480, here in Cave U6 as in at the site in general. There are eleven haphazardly placed Buddha images on the front wall. One of them, a small padmasana image which appears along with two low-relief stupas high up on the right end, was carved along with the adjacent images (all once painted) over the highly decorated doorway of the front right shrinelet in late 479. Of the other ten, dating near the very last moment of the site’s anxious patronage, two are late padmasana types, all of the other eight being in the newly popular bhadrasana mode. All of these images were very hastily done. The wall areas around them were left in their earlier rough condition, while the margins of the reliefs, if decorated at all, were covered with a very thick layer of mudplaster, upon which motifs which might otherwise have been carved were often painted in. All of the bhadrasana Buddhas follow a somewhat standard compositional formula, as if one or two artists were turning out the same effectively ornate but somewhat crudely rendered types quickly and cheaply, and were able to accommodate more donors by utilizing a high and narrow format instead of the wider compositions which characterize the slightly earlier bhadrasana compositions such as we generally see elsewhere. In most of these bhadrasana panels, carved detail is reduced considerably, the legged throne in particular being relatively simple. In two panels at the extreme left all carved throne details, except the throne legs, are omitted—even the “nubs” are missing, as is often true in Cave U6, since the main image base copies that of the early image in the lower storey. Relatively simple dwarfs (rather than complex flying couples) fly above; beneath, only two deer and a latetype garlanded wheel are shown beneath the image, whose feet are planted upon a lotus pedestal—also a typically late motif. These figures, apparently done by the same artist, were never plastered or painted, nor was the wall around or above them. This, together with their low-priority position, suggests that they were being worked on at the very moment that all patronage in the cave ended. A pair of even simpler bhadrasana images at the extreme right (east) end of the wall must be almost equally late, for here again one was never painted, although both were plastered, as was the larger (still unpainted) padmasana image below. It seems evident that this plastering was indeed a last-minute effort, since in all three of these instances the details of the hair were never carved, and other

62

cave upper 6

normally-carved details such as the arches above the upper figures or throne and base details in the lower panel, either were left unfinished also, or were omitted altogether. The more ambitious bhadrasana compositions on this wall, of which there are four examples, were probably started some months earlier, since they are all more centrally located, and also have all been plastered, while three were fully painted. In these, particular attention was accorded the two nagas beneath, perhaps reflecting the influence of the ambulatory carvings in Cave 26, which can be dated between 478 and 480. Probably because of the constricted format, the attendant cauri-bearing bodhisattvas are relegated to the upper corners behind (or in one case standing on) the throne. This placement of the attendants behind the throne, as in the influential Cave 16 image, or in the later additions to the Cave 7 image, is a notably late device at the site; except for these two major examples, dating to 477/478, it appears only in a limited number of intrusive panels. The elliptical form of the halo, seen not only behind the bodhisattvas, but even behind the Buddha in the panel to the left of the right porch window, is another very late feature never found in sculpture prior to 477, and rare until the Period of Disruption.39 In these bhadrasana panels, just as in the Cave 16 image, flying figures are omitted, although they may have been shown on the plastered area of wall and ceiling above, since the total composition (now very obscured) continued above, beyond the bounds of the relief proper, as is so often the case with late intrusions at the site.40 The very similar paired images to the left (inside) of the porch doorway, like those at the extreme right end of the wall, were plastered at the same time, but only one ever got painted. Here again it seems that one is witnessing the very final moment of patronage in this cave, and indeed at the site. Incidentally, the plastering, which

39 The first example, in sculpture, of an elongated halo for frontally-positioned Buddha images is in Cave 7 (477/8); for bodhisattvas, in Cave 2 (477) But particularly for Buddhas the feature is rare until 479, as in Cave U6’s right front shrinelet, and even then its shape can often be explained as the result of “foreshortening”, due (as here) to the figures’ being somewhat angled in their positions. Even before the Hiatus, angled figures of the Buddha had such “foreshortened” halo, not only in painting, but in sculpture as well: se for instance the two Buddhas flanking Cave 19’s entrance. 40 On Cave Upper 6’s shrine antechamber’s left wall, there are painted flying figures over the intrusive standing Buddha at the lower right.

original and intrusive phases compared

63

extends over the wall and over both images too, is characteristically late, showing the bright red orange mix which appears to be used only in the site’s last three or four years, superimposed upon a graybrown layer; a similar two-layered treatment, with the red on top, is seen in various other late contexts. The other two bhadrasana images flank a padmasana Buddha; the three, all very elaborate, appear to have been planned and carved, and finally plastered (with a single consistent mix) and painted, as a group, quite possibly the work of the same sculptor. As if to confirm the balanced arrangement, only the central figure shows hook-holes (three) in its halo, while another garland hook was once placed under the paws of each of the throne’s makaras. Interestingly, in the case of the padmasana image, the now “necessary” attendants which accompany the carved central figure are painted, as in a number of other very late contexts too.41 However, these painted attendants are crowded onto the margins of the panel, perhaps as the result of a conscious plan to save space by keeping the format of the panel rather narrow. This padmasana image depends very directly upon the nearby image in the right front shrinelet, carved in mid 478/479, for a number of its features. It shows similar flying couples above—the male at the left holding a vina, as in the cave’s main image—as well as running nagas behind the throne. The base-motifs are also very similar, but more crowded and clumsily rendered. Because of the constricted space, the simple wheel has been lifted up on a lotus stem, to the point that it is above, rather than between, the deer; the most likely precedent for this “solution” is the panel probably carved only months earlier at the bottom of Cave 19’s right façade frame.42 No throne leg tops show above the lion-heads here, although the carver has at least summarily defined the nubs at the throne’s corners, as is so often the case in very late padmasana compositions, which were increasingly influenced by features commonly found in the newer bhadrasana reliefs. Another such feature, the conventionally “late” arcing throne-cloth has also been included here. 41 See panel G in Cave 22; also note the painted attendants behind the throne in the panel at the left of the porch doorway in Cave 4. R5 in Cave 26 must once have had painted attendants too. 42 The undecorated wheel could also have been “copied” from the Cave 19 panel. Such “early-type” wheels are occasionally found in late contexts; a few examples appear in Cave 26’s triforium panels.

64

cave upper 6

Also seen in this triad, and typical of very late imagery is the lavish use of blue pigment—perhaps of a cheaper grade than the lapis lazuli once used so sparingly, but probably cheap now because the trader’s market had by and large collapsed at the time of Harisena’s death.43 Also, a very thick white layer of lime plaster was used on many of the forms; it has been widely exposed by the loss of the surface colors. The same characteristic use of blue in the adjacent bhadrasana image, next to the window, and the nearly identical treatment of border motifs, shows that these two panels were almost certainly painted by the same artist; the other bhadrasana image, near the doorway, has a slightly different mode of paintings, so was probably painted by an associate. It remains to mention the curious deep (20”) recess located about mid-way on the thick (really unfinished) left front wall. This possibly was planned for an inset carving.44 It seems likely that it was fashioned to hold a freestanding image, but probably because of the very late date (480), it was never finished; no attachment holes or the like were ever made. In support of the view that an image was going to be carved within it, one can note that the impressive padmasana relief, which occupies more or less the same position on the right front wall, has quite a deep setback. The closest counterpart is on the right wall of the porch of Cave 25, where an unusual “niche” may have been planned as an anomalous shrine, to hold a similarly inserted image. It seems reasonable to assume that some of the completed images on this front wall once had dedicatory inscriptions in the “panels” perhaps provided for just such a purpose at the very bottom of the compositions; the assorted appearance of these sculptures strongly suggests that these carvings were gifts by different individuals. However, such inscriptions, at this very late moment, would almost certainly have been painted rather than carved, and in part for this reason may have been lost because of the extensive surface damage. Cave Upper 6 was still quite incomplete when the first phase of work on it was interrupted in 468, for although the interior hall had

43 As far as I can determine, the different-appearing blues had never been analyzed. 44 The recess’s positioning, so close to the present window, makes it quite impossible to believe that it represents the beginning of another window; it would not have been started from the back, in any case.

original and intrusive phases compared

65

been largely blocked out by that time, the rear areas of the cave had barely been penetrated; the arrangement of the cells at the rear and the design of the shrine antechamber pillars all bespeak a dating from 475 or later, as discussed earlier. But the progress of work after the Hiatus seems to have been relatively slow, perhaps because of the competition for workmen in this very busy period. As pointed out above, the shrine area itself had still not been completed in 477, when the consistent excavation program had to come to its abrupt end, so it is hardly surprising to find that many lesser areas were very unfinished too at this point; and of course they remained in this state in early 478, when the patron’s efforts were simply direct in trying to get his main image into worship. However by 479, as we have pointed out before, the situation had drastically changed, with the involvement of many new donors eager and now able to make their own gifts.

Right Front Shrinelet One of the first and most ambitious ofthe very late undertakings in Cave Upper 6 involved the conversion of cell R1 into a Buddha shrinelet.45 The little chamber has an unusual history. Like the now different Cell L1, it was started and essentially shaped as a plain residence cell just before the Recession, either with an A-mode doorway in 467, or a thin-walled B-mode doorway in 468. After the Hiatus, when work on the cave started up again, L1 was turned into a very up-to-date pillared complex with a D-mode inner doorway. However, L1’s single-cell origin is clearly revealed by the unavoidably deep shape of its vestibule and by the equally unavoidable thinness of its fronting pillars. (This thinness is responsible for causing these pillars to resound musically when pounded—a highly popular phenomenon which has in fact made a significant depression in the front of the pillars.)46

45 Both R1 and L1 were started either as A mode or (possibly B mode) cells just before the Recession; L1 was converted in or after 475 to a pillared complex (the conversion accounting for the thinness of its pillars), whereas in R1 only the vestibule was penetrated, with the space between the fronting pillars defined, but the neither the pillars for the intended inner cell started. 46 Such pounding must be discouraged. Children (and others) do not understand

66

cave upper 6

It is clear that a similar conversion was started (but discontinued) on R1, just as we would expect during the heyday of the site, when symmetrical architectural arrangements were desired and generally accomplished. The surprising width of R1’s present doorway (the original narrow cell doorway having been cut away) in fact reflects the initial stage of the cell’s conversion into a pillared complex. Whether or not an old cell was being converted or a new complex was being excavated from the start, standard excavating procedure was to define the space between the fronting pillars of such complexes before they were actually carved.47 This opened up the space (in new complexes) to facilitate the work of the excavators, and was a logical first step whether when making a new complex, or cutting away the original doorway in a cell undergoing conversion. The conversion of these two old (pre-Recession) cells apparently did not start until 477, the final year of untroubled patronage at the site, when everything was developing with exuberance and confidence. This late date is suggested in part by the fact that the placement of pillared complexes at these particular points appears to have been an innovation which had no progeny—because there was in fact no “future” to sponsor them. The assertive treatment of the D-mode doorway of the inner cell of the L1 complex would support such a late dating; at least in 475 (as in Cave 1) the D-mode fittings are far less well defined. But the fact that work on R1’s conversion never got past the cutting away of the old doorway and the definition of the space between the as-yet-undefined pillars is most convincing evidence of all bearing on a date of 477—and probably late 477. Incidentally, work was still going on in the converted L1 at this same point, as the presence of the red geometric designs drawn on its front attests; these were the sculptor’s guides for work he never was able to complete. So this work-in-progress links to the second stage in R1’s three-stage history: pre-Recession, post-Hiatus, and (starting perhaps as early as mid 478) its development in the Period of Disruption, when the incomplete complex was simple taken over for conversion into an intrusive shrine.

that the ringing is made possible by the thinness, and therefore sometimes go through the site pounding many other pillars, in a vain attempt to get a similar result. Needless to say, this does not help the surrounding painted surfaces. 47 See various examples: Cave Upper 6 right rear; Cave 7 left court; Cave 23 right rear, Cave 4 right rear, Cave 4 left court.

original and intrusive phases compared

67

The intrusive nature of this newly designed unit is clear; not only does it disrupt the carefully planned architectural symmetry of the cave, but it violates the previously intended (but never started) original painting program as well. This is because only a selected portion of the front aisle ceiling is painted, obviously as a pendant for the new shrinelet. The fact that the ceiling painting is more extensive than one might expect can be seen as attesting to the importance given by the donor to this particularly elaborate shrinelet. As noted below, the fact that he took care to inscribe his gift further emphasizes this point. The shrinelet’s façade and interior were very elaborately painted, even though most of the rest of the cave had not even been fully excavated. The doorway, with its rather plain carved format, is in fact a close copy of the cave’s main shrine doorway, which was probably plastered and painted at just about the same time, between mid 478 and 479.48 Since the carvers of the main doorway had not started the expected sculptured figural panels prior to the Period of Disruption, one can understand why they were also omitted by this timeconscious new (intrusive) donor. However, having more time than the cave’s anxious patron, it is interesting to note that he followed tradition, and included a fine group of lovely attended females and attendant bodhisattvas on the jambs; and since, not surprisingly, he did not try to get them carved but rendered them in paint, they would not have taken very long. The nature of the carved Buddha group in this shrinelet confirms the appropriateness of such a dating to late 479 or early 480. Very strongly influenced (like the doorway) by its counterpart in the main shrine, the image sits in padmasana on a throne similar to that of its prototype, the carving of which must have been finished hardly a few months before. It has the same constricted front, with a “late” arcing throne cloth, a “late” garlanded wheel, and a “late” mode of treating the lions as leonine throne legs, but with the expected nubs missing. However, as we have mentioned above, the artist has now “improved” upon his prototype, with the addition of six kneeling devotees, one crowded in directly behind each of the two deer, with

48 See above, for the possibility that the main shrine doorway was plastered and painted in early 478, along with the main image.

68

cave upper 6

the others fitted under the “late” lotus pedestals of the “late” attendant Buddhas. According to Cohen these “six nuns are sculpted as donor figures”; this highly dubious assumption is discussed below. The throne side and throne back motifs are less exuberant than those of the spacious main image, the upper levels of which were carved in the exuberant context of 477. However, they give a similar effect because they so energetically fill the whole space available. A particularly striking connection can be seen with the great image in Aurangabad Cave 3, which would hardly have been finished (in 478) before this shrinelet image was begun. The makaras with peculiarly “tasseled” lotus fronts arcing out of their mouths, the elephant heads below, the running nagas just above, and the vyalas with dwarfs not only on their backs but under their bellies, are all features which had been developed only in the past year or two. Of particular interest is the fact that the dwarf under the vyala on each side is four-armed; this too is a typically late feature. The inclusion of strongly projecting garland-bearing flying couples above further stresses this striking connection with the late Aurangabad Cave 3 image and with other late images at Ajanta, such as the main group in Cave 22 and the intrusive images in the shrinelets in Cave 19’s court. The attendant figures at the sides, however, are something quite new, for they are Buddhas rather than bodhisattvas. This is the first example at the site where Buddhas have replaced bodhisattvas at the sides of the main image. The development was of course anticipated (and probably initiated) from about 477 onward, by the appearance of impressive sculptured groups of standing Buddhas in the shrine antechamber of Cave 4 and in the shrine of Cave 7. However, such a direct attendance of standing Buddhas upon the main seated image was never established during the consistent phase of the site’s development. Even during the Period of Disruption, standing Buddhas never replace bodhisattvas in bhadrasana images (as opposed to the present padmasana types) until 480. Then, in the ambulatory sculptures of Cave 26, attendant standing Buddhas finally become conventional, normally showing the varada mudra, just as they do in the present shrinelet, which was probably completed early in 480. These “attendant” standing Buddhas in the Cave Upper 6 right front shrinelet are relatively small, probably because the area available for the total composition was quite limited. Perhaps in part to position them more ideally in relation to the main image, they are

original and intrusive phases compared

69

supplied with stemmed lotus pedestals, a type of pedestal never found at the site until 477/478, when one appears under the main image in Cave 26, and others appear under a few of the standing figures of bodhisattvas and Buddhas on the stupa base. The area beneath the lotus flowers here has been efficiently filled with small devotees, two beneath each flower, their attention carefully directed toward the main image. It is of interest to note that the haloes of the attendant Buddhas have the elliptical shape common for bodhisattvas from 477 on, as in the Cave 2 Buddha’s attendants. The shaping is almost certainly a convention “copied” from painted images, where it implies foreshortening; it is quite appropriate here, since these attendant Buddhas are turned slightly inward. However, the frontal central image also has a very slightly elliptical halo, for gradually, in both sculpture and painting, the new shape started to be used for central images too. The first example is probably that in Cave 7 (477/478), even though the halo, defined at this late date, has in fact been cut from the surface upon which an earlier (presumably round) one was originally painted in that image’s first form, in 469. A final suggestion of the very developed character of the present composition, as well as its derivation from the main image in the cave, is the inclusion of “extra” converging devotees—in the form of flying dwarfs—above the heads of the Buddha images. This doubling of the groups of flying attendants never occurs until very late in the Vakataka sequence. The first instance in other caves is found in the Ghatotkacha image, where the same combination occurs, although with the groups reversed. The mode in which the block of matrix upon which they are carved thrusts forward is also a characteristically late feature, both effective in its three-dimensional impact and at the same time as a “labor-saving” feature. These carvers, unlike those working a few years earlier, did not have to trouble to cut back the rock very much before carving the flying couples or for that matter the standing Buddhas below. The shrinelet’s interior is fully painted, with an elaborate medallioned ceiling and rows of Buddhas on the side walls. As we might expect, and as a few points of overlap confirm, the main image was painted before the images on the side walls. More surprisingly, it appears that the ceiling was painted after rather than before the image. Of course, we can assume that all of these areas are part of a more general single effort. The image group itself still shows traces

70

cave upper 6

of surface paint and of the thick white pigment characteristic of very late images in this and a few other caves. A considerable amount of soot appears to have darkened the painted surfaces, leading one to conclude that, even though so much of the rest of the cave is unfinished, this image was in worship for a least a short period. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the holes in the doorway’s pivot-pole projections show signs of wear.49 It is interesting to note, also in this regard, that two iron hooks—presumably to hold garlands—are still in place just behind the female’s back in each of the flying couples. Hidden from view, these are the only hooks in the shrinelet which have not been taken out (probably since 1819!) either for use or curiosity. However, there were once many more. Five carefully disposed hook-holes can be seen on the main Buddha’s halo, and two others on the halos of the Buddha attendants. There is also a hole—the hook again missing—at the center of the painted ceiling medallion; however, it is clear that a hook was once there, and that garlands were hung from it. This is because there is characteristic breakage at this point, caused by damage sustained by the mudplaster when the garlands were changed. This revealing breakage, as throughout Cave 2 and elsewhere, was clearly caused when the monk (?) who daily (?) changed the garlands carelessly hit the surrounding plaster with the end of the garland-changing pole. There is a now-ruinous bhadrasana Buddha painted near the top of the right face of the right front pilaster. It is of particular interest because it is inscribed: “This is the religious donation of the Sakyabhiksu Govinda. Whatever [merit there is] in it. . . .50 It seems almost certain that this bhadrasana image, and the inscription beneath it, were put there by the donor of the right front shrinelet, when the front of the shrinelet was being elaborately painted. And since both the shrinelet and the adjacent inscribed image are intrusive, it is reasonable to think that the inscription probably refers to the gift of the whole shrinelet, not just the small bhadrasana image under

49 This approximates the B (or C) mode, and avoids making a deep D mode recess in the (original cell’s) thin wall. But to make projections the ceiling level (if originally defined) would have to be cut back somewhat, as would the floor in this case. Quite apart from this, such projections, on either side of the opening, were often used, even very late, in shrinelets. 50 Cohen 1995, 337; inscription #19.

original and intrusive phases compared

71

which it is placed. Since the various surrounds of the doorway are narrow, this adjacent area would seem to have been the most convenient place to put the donative record. The very fact that this figure and the inscription were crowded on the side of the pilaster adjacent to the shrinelet’s entrance would seem to be significant. If the image and the inscription were “independent” of the shrinelet, one would expect them to have been placed on the more ample main pilaster surface. As it is, neither this main surface or the farther face of the panel appear to have had anything painted on them. One reason for making such a connection is that the simple red and white floral scroll painted just beneath did not continue all the way up, as one would expect it to. It appears that space was intentionally left for the inscribed Buddha when the door was being decorated, and in fact it shares the same red ground prepared for the scroll. That this decorative panel is to be seen as part of the decoration of the shrinelet’s doorway and not of the right front pilaster, the side face of which it decorates, is evidenced by the fact that a similar painted “panel” appears at the right of the doorway. Here again it is clear that it belongs to the door’s decoration and not to the carved Buddha image which it flanks, because the equivalent surface on the other side of the Buddha image is not painted at all. That is, the shrinelet’s doorway is framed by painted borders on both sides, and the presence of the bhadrasana image within one of them can best (or only?) be explained by recognizing that a special place was reserved for it, as would logically be the case if the inscription were the donor’s. Cohen (1995, 337, #19) says, as a note following his translation: “Spink has speculated that this record commemorates the conversion of Cell R1 into a shrine, but the placement of this record beneath a typical “intrusive” image as well as the fact that six nuns are sculpted as donor figures beneath R1’s main Buddha militate against Spink’s view.” However, these figures are surely conventional devotees, not donors, as is the case in most and probably all other such instances, as explained earlier.51 I assume that here, in a quite characteristic way, the sculptor, adhering to the conventions developed after 475 by which such devotees were required to be included

51

See Volume II, Cave 10 discussions.

72

cave upper 6

if at all possible, has crowded this disparate group below the image as mentioned above. It would be hard indeed to believe that six nuns donated this shrinelet, particularly since of the dozens of the site’s intrusive inscriptions, only a single one definitely refers to a female donor and she is certainly not a nun, being referred to as a sakya-upasaka rather than a sakyabhiksu (Inscr #13)

Right Rear Shrinelet Also quite early in the Period of Disruption, a shrinelet similar to that at the right front was started at the right rear, in lieu of the pillared cell complex which the original planner must have already begun in that position prior to Harisena’s death. However, the original cell complex—which would certainly have eventually been in symmetrical balance with its counterpart at the left rear—had not progressed nearly as far as the latter by 477, when the original program of excavation was broken off. The space between its intended pillars, cut out by 477, later became the shrinelet’s unconventionally wide doorway, and of course the intended inner chamber was never cut. The apparent delay in this shrinelet’s cutting may have been due in part to the serious fault in the rock—still evident today— in the cave’s right rear corner. In fact, it was probably much less fully penetrated by 477 than cell R1 which, as we have just noted, was similarly converted to an intrusive shrinelet. This may be why work on it, which must have begun quite early in the Period of Disruption, progressed much more slowly than on the front right shrinelet. In 480, it still had not been finished or put into use, as is evident from its remaining incomplete state today. The Buddha image on its rear wall, however, appears to have been fully carved, except at the floor level, where it is very rough. It copies—at least in its general format—the Buddha in the slightly earlier shrinelet at the right front. Although less constricted, it shows the same basic compositional arrangement, with standing Budhas in attendance, doubled groups of flying devotees above, and related throne motifs. A few minor changes occur: the makara has a garland hanging from its proboscis (as in the Cave 2 image, as well as in a number of very late examples) rather than a lotus frond springing from its mouth, while the elephant below has been omitted, as often was the case in very late images. The vyalas have garlands

original and intrusive phases compared

73

hanging from both their mouths and their paws; this is another very late feature, never occurring in sculpture prior to 477; the Cave 16 image may be the first where it appears. The wheel is not garlanded, as most later wheels are; this is probably the result of the artist’s decision to save space by crowding the deer (themselves made particularly small) against the wheel as closely as possible to keep them within the bounds of the throne cloth. Just as in the main image which it “copies”, devotees are omitted for lack of room. Since it appears that the very lowest part of the image group in this right rear shrinelet was not fully carved, it may be that the standing Buddha-attendants at the sides would have been supplied with lotus pedestals had work continued; indeed, such features appear to have been roughed out, as is particularly evident on the proper right. Such pedestals were, of course, quite conventional by this date. The fact that the lower margin of the image group (under the standing Buddhas at either side) was never quite finished makes it understandable that the image would never have been properly painted, while the total lack of any traces of plaster on the image group, or on the ceiling and side walls, reinforces this view. However, the Buddha image proper and the halo were painted very hurriedly, but with some concern for appropriate details, directly on the stone. It seems most likely that this was the result of an anxious effort to get the Buddha dedicated just as time was running out. It is interesting to note that the details of the throne back, and even the flanking Buddhas, show no coloring whatsoever, nor is there any plaster on the ceiling, nor any pivot holes in the projections cut for them (as in the Right Front Shrinelet) at the back of the doorway. The two carved standing Buddhas on the left side wall, like the main image, are also still a bit incomplete, although the more incomplete of the two shows traces of mudplaster on the panel back. Presumably it was the work of a separate donor, who like the donor of the main Buddha in this shrinelet was rushing to get his donative offering “completed” before patronage at the site had to end once and for all. With regard to the very late dating—i.e., the end of 480—which we would suggest for such final efforts, it is very significant that one of the most incomplete images in this shrinelet is a bhadrasana Buddha on the right wall. Since no separate bhadrasana images had been carved in this cave until after all of the best locations had been used for other types of intrusive images, it is almost certain that this relief

74

cave upper 6 should be assigned to 480. Its unfinished state of course supports such a view too, while the fact that it was to have had standing Buddhas rather than bodhisattvas as attendants even more decisively confirms such a dating, since all such groups in other contexts at the site also appear to belong to the very latest moment of activity.52 Although no standing Buddha has been started on the left in this group, it can be assumed that this is because work on the cave and at the site was drastically interrupted late in 480. All such evidence substantiates the hypothesis that this shrinelet, even though it must have been started in 479, progressed quite slowly, and was still waiting to be completed when time ran out.

One reason to think that this right rear shrinelet, although still not completed by 480, had been undertaken in 479, is that in the earlier part of the Period of Disruption patrons seem to have preferred padmasana images. However, by 480 bhadrasana images had become, by all counts, the most popular type, as evidence elsewhere in this cave, as well as evidence throughout the site, clearly shows. Furthermore, this image’s throne base, like that of the right front shrinelet’s image too, seems less well worked out than the throne bases of the images—probably datable to 480—at the ends of Cave Upper 6’s court. Another good reason to assign the beginning of the shrinelet to 479 is that it is hard to believe that such an important and available area would not have been appropriated for use as soon as separate donors started taking the cave over for their own votive purposes in that first year of the site’s disruption. In fact, the presence of a series of seated images above the doorway of the shrinelet supports this view. It seems clear, as we have pointed out earlier, that this row of seated Buddhas, even though it was never finished, was carved in 479, but that this was done only after the lotus-petal edging around the doorway of the shrinelet had already been carved. This is very evident when we study the adjustments made in the design of the lower frames of the six seated images which appear directly over the door. Note in particular the very different way that the lower edges of the lotus pedestals and the vertical dividers between them are treated in the six similar images just to the left. At the same time, we should note that other details of the doorway surrounds are still

52 Such groups appear in the latest Cave 26 ambulatory sculptures, and in Caves 9C, 9D, and 10A, among others.

original and intrusive phases compared

75

only half-carved; so it seems almost certain that this work and that on the padmasana images was essentially contemporaneous. Court Shrinelets (Left and Right) The character of the images in the shrinelets at either side of Cave Upper 6’s narrow court suggests that they were undertaken at about the same time, in late 479, or in 480. It would appear that they had been completed during 480, too, since the less exposed image in the left shrinelet still shows many traces of paint, and traces of plaster still remain on the ceiling of the much damaged right shrinelet. In the left shrinelet one can also see two holes for garland hooks (the hooks now missing) on each of the side walls, close to the flanking bodhisattvas, and within the smooth area connected with the fine image group. Furthermore, holes for the door-pivot poles have been drilled, suggesting that doors had been hung. The fact that the holes show no signs of wear whatsoever is understandable, when we realize that these images were probably not put into worship until very shortly before the time of the site’s collapse—if indeed they were put into worship at all. Here, just as in the case of the interior shrinelets, it is evident that cells had earlier been begun at these points, and were subsequently appropriated and enlarged during the Period of Disruption by the later donors, who put them to a different use than that originally intended. However, here the original cells were started very late, i.e. in 477 when, finally following the lead of Cave 1, patrons suddenly decided to add “court cells” to their caves wherever this was feasible. Whether they were truly needed, or whether the patrons were merely following fashion (as was so often the case in developments at Ajanta), nearly all suffered the same fate, being abandoned at Harisena’s death. However, as here in the court of Cave 6, these areas were often appropriated during the Period of Disruption for new private donations, even if they were unfinished. However, especially on the left, partly due to the prior presence of the yaksha “flag-bearer” there was not sufficient room to allow the original planner, in 477, to conceive the court cell as the pillared types generally placed in such positions. Thus a mere single cell had been started here in 477, and work on it was then (with Harisena’s death) suddenly broken off, well before the lower margin

76

cave upper 6

of the doorway had been fully defined; as discussed below, the excavators seem to have worked down to the level of a slightly angled major flaw—a logical place to stop—and then proceeded no further. At this point we can assume that the interior had been penetrated, but only shallowly. When, in the Period of Disruption, the abandoned cell was converted into the present shrinelet, the new excavators were concerned about the many serious flaws at the lower level, which would seriously affect the bhadrasana Buddha to be carved inside. Therefore they opted to extend the old cell upward to avoid difficulties, even though, as it turned out, the image still had to be raised up a bit more than normal. This accounts for the relatively inaccessible placement of the unit, for the original plan was to have the doorway threshold some 18” lower (on the average); this is evident from the cut visible at this point, which roughly matches the level of the right cell. The abnormally low ceiling level probably also reflects the fact that the revision of the interior was expedient, while this later upward process of excavation also facilitated the addition of the projecting door-pivot holders (typical for such double-doored shrinelets even in the late period). Had the ceiling level of the original cell already been defined, the matrix needed for the holders would have been already cut away; late single cells always had recessed door fittings. Indeed, this must have been the case in the “normally” placed right shrinelet, which has untypical (for shrinelets) recessed fittings, the matrix needed for projections having been cut away when the ceiling—at the expected level—was revealed. The doors of the right shrinelet were fitted into pivot holes in a simple recess, while those of the left shrinelet were provided with projecting pivot pole-holders both above and below. In the left chamber, this type of fitting (conventional for shrinelets) could be used, as mentioned earlier, because the ceiling level was raised, whereas in the right shrinelet, the fittings had to be expedient—even if of the familiar type (D mode) used in ordinary cells. The projecting holders below were included, quite probably, to compensate for the weakness caused by the troubling flow-lines at the floor level of this shrinelet; those above are fairly conventional in type, and made it unnecessary to deeply recess the back of the doorframe. Although such projections are not used for the door fittings of residence cells after the Hiatus, they are commonly used in shrinelets and cisterns, both of which normally have double swinging doors.

original and intrusive phases compared

77

Left Court Shrinelet The peculiarly trimmed area over the left shrinelet continued down to what was apparently the position of the “original” much narrowed doorway, and the consistency of its cutting appears to prove that it was cut back in part to reveal the proper left side of the naga above. Consequently, this fascinating figure (his outstretched arm now broken away), which together with the yaksha below (with a hole through its hand!), functioned to hold some kind of banner (probably with a flag) must be also dated to 477, at the peak of the site’s heyday. And the fact that the cutback was never completed, nor the original cell below ever finished, eloquently speaks of the collapse of “proper” patronage at the time of Harisena’s death. Typically, when the cell was converted, in the Period of Disruption, no heed was paid to the “irrelevant” unfinished area above. The surprisingly high placement of the left shrinelet—much higher than its “normally” placed counterpart at the right of the court—is almost certainly but one more example of the architect’s sense of expediency, when faced with geological problems. There are a number of heavy and closely spaced flow-lines beneath the present threshold level, while the seven or more feet above show rock of particularly good consistency on the face of the cell. Thus the whole was raised, and in fact the Buddha group at the rear was raised even higher, to get it all above a heavy flow-line which exists just above the floor level. This fault drops sharply downward at the right of the door, so the planners probably thought—wrongly as it turns out—that it would not be much of a problem inside. By the same token, the top of the Buddha’s head has now split (and the left bodhisattva’s is in danger of doing so) because of the vagaries of another flow-line, which is not at all evident on the face of this shrinelet. Similar flaws must have caused the breakage of the proper left leg and of the hands; the repair hole in the proper left arm dates from this period, as does another repair on the proper right shoulder. The chiseling on the chest was certainly willful, but is hard to explain; perhaps it had something to do with locking the replacement-hands into position, although part of it seems too high for that. The intrusive bhadrasana Buddha in the left shrinelet fits well into the context of other such impressive types which we have dated to late 479 or 480. As in the Cave 24 court shrinelet, the Buddha and

78

cave upper 6

accompanying bodhisattvas are rendered in assertively high relief, while the conventional throne side and base motifs are treated with a particularly vital touch. Somewhat like the very late Cave 24 court shrinelet image, naga couples instead of single nagas are carved above the throne top, while both the figures leaping out of the makaras’ mouths and the equally exuberant figures riding the vyalas are rendered with a special energy. The elephants are omitted, as is frequently the case in very late images. Even the conventional lions (really leonine throne legs) at the throne base now are teased by little figures, who pull their tails; the “lions”, in a remarkably vigorous and unprecedented response (perhaps suggested by the Cave 24 shrinelet image) twist violently around toward them. Because the Buddha’s feet and lotus pedestal are raised up very high off the floor—to get above the same troubling flow-line (which also defines the doorway’s threshold)—certain adjustments had to be made in the positioning of the lions, which are raised up on 8” pedestals.53 The tops of the throne legs, as is usual at this late date, appear over the lions’ heads, and the expected “late” nubs are seen above, on the throne seat. The bodhisattvas are hard to identify, but it is clear that the one on the left is not Avalokitesvara, who so often appears at this point; for he has none of the expected attributes. The motif in the left hand, for instance, is merely the end of a swath which goes across his hips; nor is it a vajra. In fact, the figure on the right—also uncertain of identification—has a much more jata-like headdress. The right bodhisattva also varies from the norm by holding his cauri over the proper left shoulder—although it is still grasped in the proper right hand. Such a peculiarity suggests an adjustment made to compensate for a break during the course of carving; for the stone is very faulted. As in many late examples, including those associated with the main image in Cave Upper 6 itself, the bodhisattvas have carved haloes and they are of the elongated type so often found at this late moment. Both stand on “late” lotus pedestals, which are in turn raised on platforms similar to those under the lions; this is probably because the bodhisattvas are relatively small, reflecting the limited space at the sides of the throne and the unusual throne base

53 For similar “pedestals” under the lions in a rather similar contemporary composition, see Cave 9, over Pillar R10.

original and intrusive phases compared

79

height caused by the need to elevate the seated image; thus some further means of elevation was needed. The expected lotus pedestal under the feet of the central image might once have been fronted by a projecting wheel and deer, but if so, they have broken away completely, probably because their positioning would have coincided exactly with the serious flow-line just above floor level. Thinking in this same vein, we can imagine why the expected flying couples are also missing from this otherwise conventional late composition. The same thin but very troublesome flowline which was responsible for the splitting off of the top of the Buddha’s head, angles right through the areas where such a flying couple would have appears; so the carvers wisely left these features out, although it seems likely that they were painted in, on the nicely prepared surface; such painted substitutes were often made in the Period of Disruption. As we have noted earlier, the first intrusive bhadrasana images were probably created no earlier than late 479, drawing (as this one does) upon both developed padmasana compositions and also using the major images in Caves 16, 26, and Aurangabad 3 as precedents. Needless to say, padmasana types continued to be donated throughout the Period of Disruption, but they were waning in popularity as that of the new type waxed.

Right Court Shrinelet The right court shrinelet, less constricted than the left, had probably also been started as a conventional late cell complex in 477, but just as in left court cells of Caves 4 and 7, only the space between the intended pillars had gotten cut before work broke off; then, when the very unfinished cell complex was converted into a shrinelet, this space became the wide door, just as in the front and rear right shrinelets of Cave Upper 6. The padmasana Buddha image in the right court shrinelet of Cave Upper 6 appears, from its location as well as from the character of its motifs, to have been undertaken at almost precisely the same time (say late 479) as the bhadrasana image in the left shrinelet, although the rough state of the shrinelet’s walls, and even the fact that it has no holes for garland hooks, suggests that it was finished even later, and that the image was painted and dedicated in a rush. It may be

80

cave upper 6

that we are witnessing here that moment when both types were in approximately equal favor. Here too, adjustments appear to have been made because of the flawed nature of the rock. Just as the left shrinelet was placed particularly high, probably to avoid the flaws below, this one (or one might better say, the cell which preceded it) was placed somewhat lower than might be expected, probably to avoid the weakening of the ceiling which would have resulted if it had been placed too close to the very obvious flaw which can be seen about four feet above the top of the doorway. In fact, this low placement resulted in the throne base encountering another serious flaw, but the planners, when they started the work, could hardly have anticipated this problem, to which we refer below. The right shrinelet image has a number of developed features which it clearly shares with images such as the bhadrasana Buddha at the rear of Cave 22, suggesting either a common source, or direct interaction. The same type of single running nagas appear above the throne back, while the makaras spout forth birds’ heads from which garlands depend, as they also do from the makaras’ proboscises. The vyalas too are quite similar, and elephants are again omitted. Although the Buddha’s pose is obviously different, the manner in which the deer and garlanded wheel, accompanied by devotees, projects, and the disposition of the leonine throne legs again shows how this padmasana type, like the quite similar image in Cave 26LW, appears to respond to current trends being manifested too in the new bhadrasana type compositions. Even the arc of the throne cloth may have been suggested by the disposition of the robes of the influential bhadrasana images in Caves 16 and 26.54 The strongly projecting “candrasila” in front of the image group was quite possibly suggested by the similarly pronounced one in Aurangabad Cave 3 and in Ajanta Cave 10A. Its inclusion here is anomalous, lending support to the suggestion that this image was originally planned as a bhadrasana type, mirroring that at the court left. At the same time, all of these throne base motifs bear some connection too with the nearly contemporaneous padmasana Buddha images in the shrine and shrinelets within this same cave, where one finds the strongly projecting flying couples above, among them the vina-playing male.

54 The unusual disposition of the upper garment, which covers both arms, finds a precedent in the first phase of work on the Cave 15 image, finished in 469.

original and intrusive phases compared

81

The placement of the Buddha image is surprisingly off-center, being somewhat to the left of the axis established by the positioning of the doorway in the front wall. It is reasonable to suppose that the original cell doorway (as in the opposite left cell) was enlarged as soon as the decision was made to convert the cell into a shrinelet, and the planner may not have noticed how this front wall angled outward in response to the side plane of the adjacent pilaster, which is skewed outward. But when the shrinelet’s left wall was cut, this angling was “corrected”, probably because the space in which the shrinelet was being placed was so constricted; the subsequent falling away of the shrinelet’s right wall eloquently attests to these constraints. The result was that the chamber was not precisely square, and consequently the center point of the rear wall was well to the left of the center of the doorway. Planners at Ajanta were quite concerned to have such images centered, and thus here they shifted the Buddha rightward, but at the same time made a kind of compromise. Already the shift crowds the throneback reliefs and the bodhisattva at the right and at the same time leaves too much space at the left where, as a consequence the images are more amply disposed. This accounts for the curious positioning (forward and angled) of the Avalokitesvara, which together with the super-flourishing lotus and his open stance, does much to mask the compositional problems in this area. This may have had the added benefit of keeping the Avalokitesvara image from being carved too close to the very thin front wall of the porch—the thinness of which was of course caused by the (interrupted) cutting of the original cell now converted into this very shrinelet. This is probably why such small shallow images were carved on this wall inside the porch; and would suggest that the shrinelet (responsible for the thinness of the wall) was already underway when these little Buddha images were carved in 480.55 The most crucial difference between this right court shrinelet image and the images in the two shrinelets within the cave, is that (like the left court shrinelet image too) it is flanked by conventional bodhisattvas, rather than attendant Buddhas. Here, the image on the

55 The much larger and more deeply-cut bhadrasana image in this area is placed well beyond the boundary of the right court shrinelet, so there would have been no concern about a breakthrough.

82

cave upper 6

left is almost certainly Avalokitesvara, with his lotus on a “late” long stem and his jatamukuta.56 The figure on the right, with the conventional princely crown, cannot be identified with assurance, particularly since the proper left side of the image is broken. We might be tempted to think that, since the substitution of attendant bodhisattvas by attendant Buddhas is a very late development at the site, that these court shrinelet images might therefore be earlier than those in the shrinelets inside the hall, but such an assumption need not be made, since bodhisattvas continue in general use right up until 480, apparently at the predilection of the patron. Furthermore, it should be noted that the “replacement” of bodhisattvas by standing Buddhas occurs much earlier in padmasana than in bhadrasana images—perhaps due to differences in the pose and consequent composition of the group. In bhadrasana images, Buddhas never appear as attendants until the last year of activity at the site—i.e. 480—and probably only in the last few months. Therefore, at least in the case of the left court shrinelet, which may have been conceived before the idea of associating attendant Buddhas with bhadrasana images had developed in sculptural formats, the use of bodhisattvas is just what one would expect. This being the case, it is hardly surprising to find that the more or less parallel right court shrinelet image, undoubtedly conceived at the same time, has similar attendants. In fact it seems possible—particularly considering the slightly uncharacteristic disposition of the base motifs, including the candrasila on the floor—that this right image was at first intended as a bhadrasana type and that, because of serious flaws discovered in the rock, where the proper left calf and foot would have been carved, it was changed in the course of excavation to a padmasana type. Such expedient adjustments of form (and consequently of iconography) are fairly common at the site. The problems caused by such a mid-course revision might explain the anomalous treatment of the throne base. Finally, we should note that the bodhisattvas are somewhat anomalous for this late period in not having lotus pedestals; again, this may be due to the unusual (and “adjusted?”) treatment of the throne

56 The plain crest could have been decorated with a painted Amitabha; for possible parallels see Cave 26, panels L2 and L7.

original and intrusive phases compared

83

base, which meets the angled rock under the bodhisattvas’ feet in an unusual way. More likely still, since work was rushed, the carving of the pedestals was omitted, although their later carving (or painting) may have been planned. The same haste explains why the lower legs and feet of the figure on the right were never fully defined, and why the expected haloes are missing. Of course, the “missing” haloes could have been painted in; the traces of plaster and paint on the group are so minimal that they yield no specific evidence.

The Main Shrine Intrusions The intrusive Buddha figures in the main shrine probably all date to 480, carved in a final (and finally abortive) rush for merit. Although the large standing Buddhas on the right wall were fully carved, and probably plastered and painted, those on the left were still being worked on when time ran out. Note, for instance, the unfinished hair (lacking the conventional curls) and the pedestal of the left Buddha. The fact that the side walls of the shrine had not been appropriated for intrusions earlier in the Period of Disruption must be because they were all in something of the same bad state that the front wall, like the lower level of the left side wall, still evidences today. This would have discouraged intrusive donations, particularly since there was an abundance of smoothed wall ready for use in both the main hall and the porch. The unfinished state of the chamber was certainly most evident on the front wall, which was still in an extremely rough and unfinished state when consistent excavation work on the cave was abandoned in 477. Except for the expedient recessing of the back of the doorway and the cutting of the pivot holes just before mid-478, when the main image was put into worship, the front wall was left very rough indeed. Then, at about the same time that the side wall Buddhas were being carved, during 480, four smaller standing Buddhas—two on either side, in separate panels, one above the other—were started in this area. Surely because this undesirable surface was utilized so late, these images were quite unfinished when time ran out at the end of 480. There is no evidence of plaster or paint on them, while the enframing pilasters of the lower panel at the (proper) right and the hair of the Buddha in this same position, were never carved.

84

cave upper 6

Although these four images are generally similar, and all show the pose so characteristic of such intrusive standing Buddhas, with the proper left hand holding the robe end at shoulder level and the proper right hand held downward in varada mudra, one (at the lower left) has an arched, instead of a plain, panel. Such inconsistencies suggest that they were probably separate donations, which would hardly be surprising at this time. By the same token, the larger standing Buddhas on the side walls show variations which suggest that they were not planned as a single unified representation of the Six Buddhas, despite the appropriateness (and conventionality) of associating such a grouping with the main image, even though the latter was completed earlier. Donors in this Period of Disruption were obviously more interested in the integrity of their own offerings than in “complementing” the main image, even though they would never have put their intrusions in a cave without such a dedicated image. Although the six (three on each side) “fit” so well onto the two side walls, their placement in the shrine was probably determined more by concerns of format and individual donative interests than of iconographic programming. Such a “selfish” focus may explain the motifs at the base level of the Buddhas on the right wall, where kneeling devotees— in two cases single figures and in one case a pair—are placed next to reserved and smoothed areas which once undoubtedly held donative inscriptions recording separate gifts. However, if such donative inscriptions indeed appeared here, they would have been painted rather than carved; as we know, the vast majority of inscriptions in the Period of Disruption were recorded in this quicker and cheaper way. We can only surmise that similar inscriptions might also have been intended for the three images at the left, for (although the space is sufficient) the rock beneath that group is still rough. At the same time it is interesting to note that the Buddhas on this left side are standing on lotus pedestals, suggesting that they were not planned with those on the right as part of a single unified group. This would support the hypothesis that they may well have been sponsored by a different donor or donors from those on the right. Indeed, this lack of unity is evident even within the left group itself, where the central figure appears to have been done first and somewhat independently of the other two. It is much more fully carved—the other two are both clearly unfinished—and obviously takes up more than

original and intrusive phases compared

85

its fair share of space. This is particularly evident at the base, where the lotus pedestal and pairs of kneeling devotees are so commodiously disposed that the other two bases (that at the left not yet carved) had to be constricted as a consequence. At the same time, the right Buddha’s base was probably already underway when the middle one’s base was being finished—which would hardly be surprising—if we can judge by the unusually cramped disposition of the farthest devotee on the right. The central Buddha on the left wall also crowds those which flank it by virtue of the fact that its shoulders are so excessively wide. This may be why the two other Buddhas are both placed higher, and it probably also accounts for the uncomfortable placement of the raised arm of the left figure. However, what is most surprising is that—because of this crowding by the central figure—the expected and wholly conventional varada mudra of the right Buddha’s proper right hand has been replaced by the abhaya gesture, while the other hand still holding the robe end, is lowered in a kind of reversed approximation of the familiar varada gesture. But it is clearly not making a gesture of offering. That would have been a highly inappropriate for the proper left hand which, holding an end of the robe, is carefully turned palm inward. This change in hand gestures, which certainly could have been avoided if the three Buddhas had been laid out at the same time, is indeed remarkable, for of all the hundreds of carved and/or painted standing Buddhas at the site, this is the only one with its hands disposed in this way. What is important (and instructive) to realize is that this particular change was generated and sanctioned not by any textual or ritual prescriptions, but merely because there was both a need and a willingness to change the hand positions due to the demands of the constricted format.57 Such observations—and there are many other similar iconographic “anomalies” at the site—serve as a fine corrective to a too purist approach to iconography and iconographic change in this period of continual ferment. Particularly during the site’s latest anxious years, expediency was often the rule, and confusion and carelessness came all too frequently into play. One need only look at the many varied and often “illegible” representations of mudras in the “1000 57 Compare Cave 19 court-cell intrusions, where the flanking attendant Buddhas have “balanced” gestures.

86

cave upper 6

Buddha” painting in the shrine antechamber of Cave 2, to realize that the artist was either not sure about the proper representation of the gestures, or could not care less. As mentioned above, it seems likely that different donors were responsible for the gift of these six Buddhas, all of which were probably to be inscribed separately. It also is likely that they had no great interest in the meaningful connection which such a conventional grouping could have with the main image, which of course had been completed and dedicated earlier. Such self-interest was of course characteristic of this late, anxious, and very egocentric phase of donations. It seems too that, in such late groups as these, the artist and the patron could decide between them just how their images would appear, without benefit of the controlling presence of any master planner. Of course we do not know if the same sculptor carved all six figures, but the consistency (one could say the consistent clumsiness) of the top-heavy figures suggests that this was the case. Indeed, the fact that the right group was completed, and the left not, might be due to a single artist’s having undertaken both groups, the one after the other, with his time running out before the latter group was done. However, if so, he certainly did not plot them out carefully; otherwise the more detailed central figure on the left wall—obviously the first carved—would not have usurped so much of the limited space. This suggests that the six figures, although ultimately forming a significant grouping, were ordered separately by different donors, and were worked on in sequence, with little concern for esthetic or compositional unity on the part of either the sculptor or the donors.

Cave U6 Porch Although the new donors taking over Cave Upper 6 after mid-478 may have been particularly drawn to working in the impressive shrine antechamber, there were enough already-smoothed areas throughout the cave to satisfy many new and eager donors, so that it is reasonable to suppose that work in various places began at the same time early in this troubled period. And certainly, the well-illuminated and airy porch of Cave U6, with its striking view and previously smoothed wall surfaces, attracted votive offerings right from the start. Even though absolute evidence for the priority given to the porch

original and intrusive phases compared

87

is limited, it is very suggestive, involving iconographic considerations which appear to be quite compelling. If we make a tally of the many small padmasana Buddhas (generally flanked by relief stupas) added to the previously undecorated capitals in the interior of Cave Upper 6 and carved (or sketched) in sequences at the upper levels of the walls of the hall, they number over sixty, not counting the myriad, but now illegible, counterparts once painted on the stone beams over the pillars at the top of nearly all of the walls, even in the left rear cell complex. Significantly, and perhaps surprisingly, they all show the dharmacakra mudra, as do the bhadrasana images with which they are sometimes interspersed in these upper “friezes”. The same teaching mudra applies to the four seated Buddhas found in the shrine antechamber, all of the distinctly late and often unfinished Buddhas on the hall’s front wall, the four late (i.e. 480) Buddha images in the cave’s intrusive shrinelets, and the one late Buddha (seated upon a “late” lotus pedestal) on the facade wall of the cave at the left. It is clear that the bhadrasana type became the Buddha “image of choice” throughout the site starting shortly after its introduction in the great Cave 26 caitya hall, and the Prime Minister’s Cave 16. This would seem to explain why the dharmacakra mudra, invariably used for the bhadrasana image type in the Vakataka caves, had dominated iconography by 480; the alternating mudra configurations found earlier in the Period of Disruption, surprisingly, had almost completely yielded to the teaching gesture by the time that patronage activity ended at the site. Notably, the similarly located Buddha images carved high up on the walls of Cave Upper 6’s porch—except for those which are almost certainly very late (as I shall explain)—show a very different iconography, which relates them to forms in other very early intrusive contexts at the site.58 They are carefully varied, alternating between dharmacakra mudra and dhyana mudra, the only exception being the image of Maitreya, as the last of the “Eight Buddhas” over the pillared cell complex at porch left. However, the unexpected dhyana gesture of the Maitreya is probably expedient, for remaining roughness on the stomach area (not seen in the other Buddhas with the dhyana mudra) strongly suggests 58 Cave 7, with its insistently alternating mudras, provides a powerful precedent; its shrine and shrine antechamber were completed by mid-478.

88

cave upper 6

that a break occurred when the dharmacakra mudra was being blocked out, and that the gesture was therefore changed. Such adjustments were common at the site where, whatever the “rules”, the donors were generally not overly doctrinaire when confronted with geological realities. An alternative explanation—namely, that Maitreya’s special character allowed or even demanded a special mudra, even if this involved breaking an established iconographic pattern—is hardly convincing, since his mudras at the site are by no means uniform. All in all there are thirty-four such padmasana Buddhas, in alternating mudras, at this level, while another group of eight, just below those on the right front wall, also are carefully alternated, except in one instance where dhyana mudra has been replaced by abhaya. But this latter variant is surely due to breakage during carving, as the anomalous character of the remaining lowered hand suggests. This group may in fact have been carved earlier than the padmasana Buddha frieze above, because when the nine latter Buddhas (with two relief stupas interspersed where the rock is bad near the right end), were finished, the space below the four at the left was filled at the left with painted “supporting” lotus stems. However, this could not be done at the right because the row of seven padmasana Buddhas beneath usurped too much of the necessary space; therefore a “Greek meander” motif was expediently added here. Had the top row been planned first, it is reasonable to assume that the lower one would not have been placed quite so high. Of course, it is quite possible that adding the painted motifs was an afterthought, aimed at usefully and quickly decorating this unused space, but even so we must ask why this clumsy intervening area came to be there. The likely answer again would support the priority of the row of seven Buddhas below. If, as I believe, these seven Buddhas were among the first intrusions in the porch, and if the beginning of work on intrusions in the porch slightly precedes the start of work on similar motifs in the main hall, it may well be that these were done before the “convention” of developing friezes of padmasana images along the tops of the wall had been established. That is, the carvers (and/or the donor) who made the row of seven may not have had any thought that a frieze of padmasana Buddhas would later be carved above this group, so they innocently and expediently located their seven images at whatever level was most convenient.

original and intrusive phases compared

89

One can see with what little trouble the artisans could have worked on these images—without any need for a scaffold—by laying a strong board across the top of the stairway’s rock-cut balustrade; for the heads of the Buddhas would then be only about 66” above the working platform. It would only be later on (perhaps a mere few weeks or months later) that the inconvenient intervening space would be created by the continuation of the porch’s upper padmasana Buddha sequences into this area. Had they been done first, it is unlikely that “waste” space would have been left by the workers making the seven Buddhas below, for it would not have been difficult at all to raise their work platform sufficiently to fill the wall space more economically—obviously a concern in this period when so many people wanted to put so many images in the limited number of ideal locations. The suggestion that this area above the stairwell was appropriated so early, when perhaps no other intrusions other than the Eight Buddha friezes over the porch’s pillared end cells had been begun, could also explain the anomalous sequence of seven much smaller padmasana Buddhas placed below the larger seven just discussed. Working from the same spot, this group could have been carved very easily. It seems clear that these seven padmasana Buddhas, crowded in between the left margin of the group above and the area to the right where the rock is corrupt, were started only after the seven just above were underway, for otherwise they would have been placed a few inches higher to lessen the problems presented by the flawed stone at their right end. We shall never know why, when there were what would seem to be better spaces still available, this particular one was chosen. Perhaps the donor was connected with the donor of the group just above, or perhaps the latter donor himself had this “extra” group—again of seven, which is not a usual sequence at Ajanta despite its Buddhist relevance—made for good measure. What almost certainly is the case is that these are among the very first intrusions anywhere in the cave, because they conform not at all to the conventions which developed so rapidly during the Period of Disruption. Whereas throughout the porch (except for this group and the two exceptions explained above) there are only two carefully alternated mudras used for carved padmasana Buddhas, and whereas throughout the rest of the cave, in slightly later contexts, there are (all told) seventy-two padmasana Buddhas, all invariably showing the single

90

cave upper 6

dharmacakra mudra, these seven little images show no less than four different gestures—dharmacakra, dhyana, bhumisparsa, and abhaya. It is as if this early donor as yet had no idea about how soon and how doctrinaire “rules” for mudras would become established. At a slightly lower level, another group of padmasana Buddhas has been started, with three completed, whereas a fourth (presumably of an intended seven or eight) has been barely begun at the right; the head, within its covering arch, is just blocked out. The fact that this series is unfinished, together with the significant usage of the dharmacakra mudra alone, surely allows their dating to 480. A small unfinished single padmasana Buddha to the left of this area must also logically be dated to this latest phase, along with the barely revealed large bhadrasana Buddha on the wall just to the right of the right pillared cell’s entrance. The fact that this still-rough figure is the only bhadrasana image in the porch would again seem to confirm its very late date, strongly suggesting that donations continued in the porch area right up to the sudden ending of such patronage activity at the site. Neither of the latter two intrusions were plastered and painted, because they were so unfinished; but it is of interest that the three Buddhas from the unfinished sequence did indeed get painted, suggesting that the donor was concerned to achieve whatever merit he could, while time remained. It is impossible to determine if this latter painting was done at the same time as that of the various earlier groups above, but it seems unlikely; they were probably completed sometime in 479. These carved images, just discussed, were by no means the only intrusions in the porch area. The major wall areas—already nicely smoothed during the heyday of the site—on either side of the porch doorway, were once filled with a series of painted images, almost all of which are long since eroded away. There is no question but that they are intrusive. Not only do they replace the expected welcoming bodhisattvas, but the plaster surfacing upon which they are painted extends over the abandoned and unfinished border of the doorway, and continues right up to the very rough and unfinished margins of the windows too, thus confirming the abandonment, indeed the corruption, of the original patron’s well-laid plans. It seems likely that these paintings, which could be accomplished very quickly, preceded the carving of the various sculptures we have just discussed, and that this priority is responsible for the location of the latter in somewhat less desirable locations.

original and intrusive phases compared

91

At the same time, it would appear that this ruinous group of paintings, apparently comprising a varied group of seated Buddha images, may have been sponsored by different donors. At least there appears to have been a number of different types of images involved, with a few areas between them which were never painted, even though the plaster was applied in a single campaign. The fact that the whole porch ceiling and the rear porch wall were plastered all at once suggests that it was sponsored by a single donor, or a connected group, even though their intended control appears to have been somewhat frustrated by the pressures of this disruptive period. It is not surprising to find the ceiling plastered in the same single campaign, even if the intended “honorific” decoration planned for it never got applied. Ceilings were always given low priority in times of crisis. All evidence has disappeared at the right of the doorway where the merest traces of plaster and paint remain. However, at the left we can see that the Buddha representations were divided by painted pillars (with pot-like bases) which perhaps have been better preserved than the images between because of the better adherence of the red pigment used extensively in their painting. Between the first two pillars traces of the two legs of a Buddha’s throne can still be seen. The next panel, of a different type, is now quite illegible, but the one beyond that again has traces of a single remaining throne leg. In the tier below, beneath the fourth painted pillar (or divider), one can make out two elliptical haloes which, because of their inward angling, probably belonged to two bodhisattvas who attended a nowmissing Buddha image.59 Farther to the left, another “late” elliptical halo encloses a Buddha’s head; the image, mostly lost, was apparently part of a rather large iconic composition. This is suggested by the fact that two rather large peg holes, probably for a covering cloth (considering their size) but possibly for garlands, have been drilled at what we can suppose were the upper corners of this group. Their placement is not quite symmetrical, but this may be because the left hole could not be placed farther over because of the location of the left window. There is only one sculptured intrusion on the porch wall to the left of the doorway—a strictly frontal Avalokitesvara holding a long 59 The design and coloring of the haloes can be compared to those in the Sravasti Miracle scene at the left rear of Cave 2, dateable late 478. See also the similarly closely placed haloes of attendants on the right wall of Cave 11.

92

cave upper 6

stemmed lotus in his left hand, with a kneeling devotee below at his right, while dwarfs converge overhead. It can probably be considered a simplified Litany scene, its strictly frontal pose relating it to many other such scenes at the site, although these others always include at least a few of the various “dangers” from which the Lord of Travelers offers protection; needless to say, there were good reasons to supplicate this auspicious protector in these turbulent latter days. Indeed, this is only one of four different intrusive “Litany” representations in the cave. The very late date of this Avalokitesvara carving may account for its simplified character, but it also seems clear that the space available for it was much constricted. This must be why it has been placed so surprisingly low; had there been room above, it could have been raised up a few inches to avoid the serious flaw which runs through its lower legs. This would support the assumption that the wall area above and to the right had already been filled with images, notably the large painted composition of which only the Buddha head remains, which was already “in the way” when the Avalokitesvara panel was carved. If, as seems likely, the related holes to the sides were drilled for pegs which held a covering cloth, this would be another reason that the Litany had to be placed so low. Furthermore, we should note that there is only one hole above the Litany itself, instead of the expected two. The other probably could not be cut without impinging on the painted Buddha group, again confirming the later date of the Litany; obviously this single hole would have had to be for a garland, not a covering, which would have required a corresponding hole at the right. No plaster or paint remains on the carved Avalokitesvara image, so it is conceivable that its painting, at such a late date, was never accomplished; but this is by no means certain, since the area was particularly exposed by the collapse of much of the porch (described below). The area to the left of the left porch window appears to have been painted, having first been plastered, probably along with the rest of the wall, and the vestibule of the left pillared cell. It may have shown a Buddha image seated within a pavilion, although the remaining roof-forms do not suggest that they displayed the distinctly symmetrical arrangement of the two very conventional iconic compositions in the adjacent pillared cell. In any case the painting would not have been of a “narrative” type, for such non-iconic works are

original and intrusive phases compared

93

found only during the site’s heyday. All we can assume is that it was probably a major single composition that filled up this apparently very desirable space next to the elaborate pillared cell and that, like the paintings therein was probably among the first of the cave’s intrusions, datable to late 468 or 479. The fact that it was done without regard to the unfinished window—any thought of finishing the latter now being inconceivable—typifies the urgent and expedient nature of all work during the Period of Disruption, and of course reinforces the conclusion that this composition, like all other paintings in the porch, has nothing to do with the patron’s original plans for decorating the cave. Cave Upper 6’s left cell complex’s pillared vestibule is the only such porch complex at the site which was ever painted during the Period of Disruption. This, like the plethora of intrusive images scattered throughout both the porch and the interior of the cave stresses its popularity as a devotional locus in the time of the site’s decline. The two very similar compositions on either side of the vestibule’s rear wall, flanking the doorway of the inner cell, elaborately honored the Buddha, traces of whose halo can still be seen at the center of the left panel. He was placed within a handsome “palace” structure, similar to the even more complex building shown in a similar iconic intrusion on the right rear wall of Cave 11. These edifices, surely based on contemporary wooden models, are supported by a complex group of beautiful pillars with “kumbha” capitals, and are hung with a rich array of flower garlands. There are holes for pegs or eye-hooks at the upper corners of each of these panels; they were probably for garlands but, since they are quite large, it is possible that they were used for covering cloths instead. On the right wall of this same chamber is a tantalizingly ruined painted Litany scene, even more complex than its sculptured counterpart in the porch of Cave 4. Avalokitesvara’s figure is most obliterated—touches of the jata headdress and locks on the shoulders remain—but the identification seems clear because one can still make out the figures of a few terrified travelers moving toward him for protection through a rocky landscape. The best preserved appears at the upper left where a pair of supplicants (one with arms raised up for help) appear to be fleeing from a serpent, one of the familiar eight “dreads”. Of particular interest is a paired standing figure at the right of the panel, also seen in a mountainous landscape where a kinnara pair and the traces of a few other figures can be seen.

94

cave upper 6

This equally ruinous figure has been reconstructed and described by Zin as a crowned bodhisattva king.60 Between and above both figures is a seated padmasana Buddha, reminding us of the similarly placed bhadrasana Buddha (probably Amitabha) in the famous Cave 4 Litany scene. This composition also once had, set into the holes at the upper corners, pegs or hooks for garlands, or for a covering cloth. The left hole obviously was shared with the right rear panel. It can be assumed that some major painting also filled the left wall of this vestibule, for a similar peg or hook arrangement is evident there too, although the composition has been totally obliterated by Time. The precedent for “decorating” this area is to be found in Cave 2, where for the first time the painting program for the cave was extended to include these attractive, accessible, and well-lit areas, which had never been decorated at the site before. However, in Cave 2, these were done under the order of the original patron, in 477, or possibly early 478, and are totally different in significance, being, as a number of inscriptional “labels” show, representations of Jatakas, rather than “selfishly” significant icons created in an attempt to acquire lastminute merit. One would like to think (rightly or not) that this elaborately (and uniquely) decorated cell complex may have been the residence of a particularly important monk. Since the excavation of the porch was very much in process when work on the cave was taken up again after 475 under the original patron, it is unlikely that either the vestibule or the inner (residence) cell would have been finished before 476 or even 477. (The main porch doorway and windows never did get finished!) However, a monk or monks could then have moved in, for the cell doorway has the expected D-mode fittings dateable between 475 and 477. From that point on until sometime in the 480s, when virtually everyone had vacated the site, this cell complex appears to have been used, since there is significant wear in the doorway’s excavated pivot hole, as well as in the still-surviving inserted teak pivot holder at the bottom of the doorway.

60 Zin 2003,18a: “Because this king (of a mountainous landscape) is equal in size to Avalokitesvara, one can conclude that he is also a Bodhisattva. This proves that all of the kings surrounded by mountainous landspaces and genies on various entrances in Ajanta were viewed as bodhisattvas as well.” I would prefer to say that the bodhisattvas were viewed as kings, rather than the other way around.

original and intrusive phases compared

95

It is remarkable that so much survives in the left porch end cell, since its structure has been disturbed by a major geological shift creating a wide (c. 4–6”) flaw (now cemented in). This wide flaw, which obviously did not open up until some time (perhaps centuries) after the porch was finished, can be seen in the cell, and continues through the middle of the cell doorway (visible at both the top and bottom) and then across the vestibule and between the pillars to cause a painful dislocation of the proper right shoulder of the fourth seated Buddha from the left in the sequence above the pillars. Out in the porch itself, it did far more damage, for the whole porch colonnade, except for the right pilaster and one pillar stump, was sheared away and is now reconstructed in cement. Fortunately it left the adjacent left court cell relatively intact, although the very flawed nature of the rock in this area is evident.61 The pillared cell complex at the right end of the porch, which is a favorite residence for bats, and probably has been so for centuries, shows no traces of either plaster or paint now, and quite possibly never had any, for unlike its counterpart of the left, the significant holes at the top of the walls were never cut. This is perhaps understandable, since it is hardly a desirable area, its access being partially blocked by the monolithic stair balustrade, and its location being so far back (to compensate for the placement of the stairs) that it is very dark.62 That the plans to fill the porch with imagery involved a concerted, hasty, and probably single, effort is proved by the fascinating evidence of the plastering of the ceiling, just as the fact that the ceiling surface was never painted reveals something of the mounting problems in this period. It is clear that workers using different mixes of plaster put this together piecemeal, ending up with a revealing patchwork of plaster of different colors and textures, the whole partially covered with a standard lime slip. This work, which surely could have been completed in a day or two with so many different workmen apparently in on the act, was done with the intent of providing 61 There is a long projection over the door, inside, like L2’s, though shallow; possibly left unfinished, as are the sides of the doorway. 62 There is a projecting block of stone at the floor level, which resembles those found in the C mode, although it never had a pivot hole, and would be hard to explain if it did, since C mode was only used in 470 and 471. Conceivably, when the D mode fitting was cut after 475, the excavator looked back to this type, possibly for support; but if so, he left it unused.

96

cave upper 6

a kind of appropriate “canopy” for the anticipated imagery on the high priority rear porch wall. Such painted ceiling “canopies” were almost conventional during the Period of Disruption for major wall images or series of images (either painted or sculpted), even though such honorific designs have little or nothing to do with the carefully planned and comprehensive ceiling designs executed during the site’s heyday. Cave Upper 6 is full of such expediently painted “canopies”, both very narrow and quite extensive. However, only one—fortunately a major one— still retains its painted designs. This extensive painted area was specifically created when the new shrinelet at the right end of the cave’s front aisle was being completed, and though it is of the “standard” beamed and cross- beamed design, it violates rather than inaugurates what must have been the originally planned decoration of the unfinished front aisle ceiling. An even closer example is in the shrine antechamber, where the ceiling was plastered, almost certainly along with the three major walls below during the Period of Disruption, but then, under the pressure of time, was never actually painted. During the heyday of the site it would have been almost unthinkable to have left an already plastered ceiling unfinished, except when times were suddenly worsening; then they were suddenly accorded low priority.63 In the Period of Disruption, ceilings are generally left bare, totally devoid of plaster; so the fact that in the Cave U6 porch the plastering work started on the ceiling and then (with the same mix) continued over the extensive rear porch wall and over the vestibule and pillars of the left porch cell complex shows a particular ambitiousness on the part of the donor or donors.64 The right end of the main (rear) wall was probably plastered at the same time as the central and left portions, but it surely had not been painted at that time, since carved images were subsequently added in this area, just as they were on the porch’s dark front wall, over the stairway. The intrusions within the very rough (and thus low priority) window frames must be among the latest of all the undertakings in the

63 See Cave 16 left and rear aisle (reflecting different crises), 21 porch, 17 shrine, 11 hall, 20 shrine antechamber; the Cave 26 Parinirvana was cut before the left aisle ceiling was plastered (and painted). 64 Apparently the ceiling of the left porch-end vestibule was not plastered; like the main hall ceiling, it was a low priority concern by this time.

original and intrusive phases compared

97

porch. We can assume this in part from the developed and/or unprecedented nature of their iconography—note, for instance, the relatively complex bhadrasana panel in the right frame of the right window, which because of its very hastily carved and painted character may well date from late 480. The padmasana figure opposite, better located and with a particularly developed double lotus seat for the central image and long connected lotus supports for the cauri bearing bodhisattvas is an unusual type found elsewhere only among the late intrusions under the caitya arch of Cave 26. The bodhisattva at the left also holds a “late” long-stemmed lotus. In the right frame of the left window, there is a slightly larger panel with a standing Buddha and two cauri-bearing bodhisattvas— all on lotus pedestals. Again, the left bodhisattva holds the kamandalu; the right had what appears to be a stupa in the crown, which many would see as specific attribute of Maitreya, although this is much disputed, considering the fluctuations of bodhisattva iconography at the site. All of these window figures, along with the surround-surfaces into which they are cut, were plastered and painted separately from the adjacent areas of the porch’s main (rear) wall; being less ideal locations—and on still very rough rock—they certainly postdate the nearby painted and/or carved rear wall images, and can surely be ascribed to 480. A few intrusive panels also appear on the outer end-walls of the porch. Located in hard-to-see spots, the late date of those at the left seems to be confirmed by the fact that one of them, a standing Buddha (with conventional varada mudra) at the top of the series of three images, is very unfinished. The two others comprise a teaching padmasana Buddha on a “late” lotus pedestal and a very shorthand representation of Avalokitesvara on a similar pedestal, with his long-stemmed lotus and jata headdress; a devotee kneels in supplication at his feet, suggesting that this is the familiar Litany scene, where Avalokitesvara is called upon to protect travelers from the dangers of the road. On the right end-wall, a relief stupa appears— a motif typical of the Period of Disruption, but not found at the site before.

CAVE 7

INTRUSIONS

Although anyone looking at the organized “clutter” of Buddha images in both the shrine and the shrine antechamber of Cave 7, would assume that those areas have been invaded by “intruders” who filled every available space with their votive offerings, a more persistent consideration would show that they are the result of the particular obsession of the cave’s patron, affected by the anxious and meritseeking psychology of early 478, to put images everywhere he could. As it turns out, the only intrusion in Cave 7 seems to be the iconic painting, showing two (ruinous) bhadrasana Buddha images, on the already expediently plastered wall of the porch.1 The painting has been much ruined by the effects of sadhus later using the porch for residence and cooking.2 By contrast with the narrative on the right, this would appear to be intrusive; a now illegible inscription must have been a donative record (Inscr #21). This is in fact the only extant intrusion in the cave; but this is hardly surprising since there was absolutely no room left in the shrine or shrine antechamber, and the only significant space in the porch is the wall toward the left front, which may have lost any painting due to its exposed position.

1 The wall was hastily plastered by the original patron in early 478, as explained in Volume I, Chapter 11; Cave 7. 2 Cave 11’s porch was smoked up for the same reason; there we find a few Saivite symbols painted on the wall.

CAVE 9A–9D

INTRUSIONS

The very limited space available between Cave 9 and Cave 10 had not been used for excavations during the site’s heyday. Possibly this was because the integrity of those old monuments was respected during the years (462–477) when the site was under strong administrative controls. However, the fact is that the old Hinayana caves appear to have been neglected until about the very year that Harisena died. We might better say that the great patrons—no more than a dozen— who clearly “ruled” the exclusive site while it was flourishing, were uninterested in such a restricted area. Their aims were more ambitious. However, when controls were finally relaxed, new “intrusive” donors eagerly took over these limited but now very desirable locations for the creation of four small shrinelets. As we might expect at this late and straitened moment, they are far from elaborate in architectural terms, but they are filled with imagery of a very “developed” character, very consistent with a date in the Period of Disruption; the lower pair in the group were surely begun in 479, while the later niches above belong to 480. For clarity, I have numbered these four small relatively shallow shrinelets, all located close together between Caves 9 and 10, as follows: 9A (lower left); 9B (lower right); 9C (upper left); 9D (upper right). Those at the lower level, and more immediately accessible, were undertaken slightly before those in the relatively inconvenient area above, which logically was utilized last. The fact that the latter contain bhadrasana rather than padmasana Buddhas helps to establish their slightly later date, but still more suggestive is the fact that the image in one of the upper shrinelets (9D) was never quite finished. The treatment of the imagery in 9A and 9B is so similar, that the two shrinelets appear to have been the work of both the same planner and the same sculptor. Taking the latter as an example, we can see a number of notably developed features. The image, in padmasana pose, is seated upon a throne base of a strikingly late type, showing the scalloped throne-cloth known from many examples during the period of Disruption, and throne legs whose lower portions

100

cave 9a‒9d

are in the form of supporting lions, “secured” by nubs at the front corners of the throne base. Neither of these features appears in sculptures at the site before 477.1 The conventional late nubs, present in the throne seat of 9A, for some reason have been omitted from 9B, even though the two groups were virtually identical in every other way. The explanation may simply be that by 479 “nubs” were not so insistently standard as a year or two before, their precedence having been violated during the expedient rush to complete the shrine image of Cave Upper 6 in 478.2 Their occasional omission may be also be due to the fact that in padmasana images (as opposed to those in bhadrasana), the throne pad, and/or the image’s knees, sometimes extend out to the corners of the throne base, making the positioning of the nubs difficult.3 The throne base pedestal in 9B appears to be more complex, but this is probably only because that in 9A has been obscured by a deep layer of cement on the floor.4 Above, flying couples bearing lotuses converge upon the figure. Such flying couples never appear until at least 477, starting with the influential Cave 26 main image, and become increasingly popular after that. The “extra” cauri-bearing flying nagas just beneath—very ruinous in 9B and lost completely in 9A—are an added feature never found in images finished prior to 478. The throne sides of 9B are totally fallen away—the rock being very friable here—but one would probably be right in assuming that they were once virtually identical with those of 9A, where the expected elephants, vyalas with riders (cramped here but in such late images expected) and makaras are still somewhat intact. Perhaps the most suggestively developed feature of all is the manner in which the image is flanked by standing Buddha-figures on

1 The scalloped form of the throne cloth—actually the dependent portion of the Buddha’s robe—may have been suggested by the fact that in bhadrasana images, the cloth falls down in loops between the Buddha’s legs. 2 As explained in Volume I Chapter 11, the nubs are omitted from the main image of Cave Upper 6 because its expediently added base followed the lead of the image in the lower story; they are also omitted in the later (intrusive) images which copy the main image. 3 However in both Cave 7 and Cave 15, nubs were “squeezed in” when those images were revised early in 478. 4 The complex pedestal at the bottom of 9D’s throne base is similar to that of the similarly intrusive padmasana Buddha on the left rear wall of Cave 15.

intrusions

101

either side, while small seated Buddhas also appear just above. The earliest shrinelet where the image is flanked by Buddhas rather than by bodhisattvas is at the front right of Cave Upper 6. That image was not undertaken until at least mid-478—and the present example goes even beyond that in the complexity of the arrangement. We should also note that large standing Buddhas attended by flying dwarfs (some now missing) appeared in their own panels on the side walls of these shrinelets too. The latter standing Buddhas in 9A appears to have been flanked by two kneeling devotees (mostly obliterated); only the example at the left in 9B had such attending figures, now much damaged. All of these larger standing Buddhas stood on lotus pedestals (merest traces remain in 9A), but the two smaller standing Buddhas in 9B (those on the rear wall) did not, probably because a flaw runs along at this level. However, this nowexpected feature may have been painted in. Here as well as elsewhere, when little flanking pillars appear, they are very developed in type. Thus there was a total of six subsidiary Buddhas in the shrinelet, and perhaps this was intended as a way of incorporating the Six Buddhas of the Past, which became a new and significant grouping introduced in Caves 4, 7 and Upper 6; admittedly, the varied arrangement found here would be uncharacteristic, but Ajanta was never averse to change. However, the reduction to, or emphasis on, two attendant Buddhas (as opposed to six) does not occur until the Period of Disruption, so this formulation was developed when the feature was in a state of flux.5 The shrinelet fronts of 9A and 9B were fitted with double swinging doors—the large (4” diameter) pivot holes at the upper corners of the opening show clear signs of wear. Those which received the lower pivots are now obscured by cement “restorations”. Two other large holes, under the lintel and carefully rounded, show no evidence of having been worn by turning pivots. It is clear from their positioning that they were not for doors; instead, wooden (presumably) pillars must have been fitted into them, while angled brackets would have sprung from the pillars and locked into the small square

5 In painting, both attendant Buddhas and bhadrasana images appear on walls of Cave 9 (and elsewhere) a decade earlier. This difference between painted and sculptural forms has not been explained.

102

cave 9a‒9d

holes nearby. By fixing such pillars and bracket pillars to the front of the niches, just beyond the swing of the double doors, the new donors were able to add to the decorative—and sacred—impact of their offerings, and simultaneously keep up with the times. The palaces painted in Cave 1 (e.g. Mahajanaka Jataka) sometimes show wooden brackets at the pillar tops, and of course monolithic brackets are a common feature on shrine antechamber pillars after 475. Iron eye hooks for garlands were once inserted into four holes drilled at the four corners of the ceiling of 9A, and two of these, at the rear corners, still remain today. 9B had the very same arrangement, although only a single eye-hook, at front left, now remains. Related holes, in both shrinelets, appear on the ceiling over the heads of the flying couples (fragments of the hooks remain in 9A) while holes were also cut at the centers of the largely missing painted ceiling medallions in both shrinelets. The mere stub of an iron hook (one of a number that can be found) still remains at this point in 9B. In 9A one can easily see the paired holes over the standing Buddhas at the rear, for insects have capped them to protect their larvae with a distinctive white “plaster”. A pair of hook-holes also appears near the upper corners of the right standing Buddha in 9A and must have also been present above its counterpart on the now-ruinous right side. Both pairs of holes appear in 9B, the front left one still with its eye-hook while the other has been obscured by a conservator’s cement. Since these hooks must have been intended for the hanging of garlands, their lavish presence gives us a good idea of the richness which must have attended these areas when they were in worship. The impact must have been intentionally “palatial”; one need only look at the many representations of palaces in Ajanta’s murals, to see garlands, looped or dependant, everywhere. That such fixtures were indeed for garlands rather than lamps is evident throughout the site from the fact that the ceiling above never shows localized smoke deposits. But one might ask, nonetheless, why they are almost always eye hooks instead of open hooks upon which the garlands might more easily have been hung? It is of course possible that some of the hooks in other caves or placed along the tops of image panels could have been used for curtains or cloths to shield the images. Such ceremonious protection was often used, at least for major figures, despite the fact that shrines upon which work had to break off often did not get their doors

intrusions

103

fitted. That such fixtures were never intended for lamps is evident throughout the site from the fact that the ceiling above them never shows localized smoke deposits. Lamps for lighting or for worship must have been set on the floor. The shrinelets at the upper level (9C and 9D) are somewhat shallower than those below. If they had provisions for swinging doors or covering cloths, any evidence has by now been eroded away. Both show large bhadrasana Buddhas seated on conventional late thrones with leonine legs. The expected nubs appear on the throne seat of 9D, but not on 9C, where they may have broken away—the corners of the thrones show considerable damage. The deer and wheel which we would expect at this date in front of the Buddha’s feet are not present here, but the smoothed area at the base of 9C may have been prepared for the more hurried painting of these motifs. On either side of 9C’s base area one can still make out traces of groups of carved devotees, such as are now generally associated with the deer and wheel in developed bhadrasana images. The same area in 9D is unfinished, but was perhaps going to be treated in a similar fashion. The throne back is of a rather developed and similar type in both 9C and 9D. In 9C, dwarfs leap out from beneath the vyalas as in the late (478) additions to the Cave 15 main image. In 9D the dwarfs ride the vyalas. Dwarfs never accompany the vyalas until at least 477. Above the makaras, from whose proboscises garlands depend, one sees the running figures familiar from various late examples in intrusions in Cave 26 and elsewhere. The cauri-bearing bodhisattvas are the conventional pair, with Avalokitesvara holding the kamandalu. In the better-preserved 9D Amitabha appears in the Avalokitesvara’s jata headdress and the antelope-skin can be seen over the proper left shoulder. The more princely attendant on the right holds the expected vajra, at least in 9C. The bodhisattvas have typically the elliptical haloes often found in late sculptures.6 In 9D it looks as if they would have been provided with lotus pedestals had work continued. In 9D, one should note, a pair of standing Buddhas appeared at either side of the niche; this incorporation of “redundant” attending

6

Such haloes appear in painting as early as Cave 19.

104

cave 9a‒9d

Buddhas is of course a notably late device. Since it seems very likely that these adjacent images, with their many comparable details in figure treatment, costume, and other features were done by the same artist, it may well be that this more developed iconography in the still unfinished 9D reflects the way in which he was responding to the surge of changes characteristic of this intensely creative—even if doomed—final phase of work at the site. There is no evidence that 9C and 9D were painted, and the fact that 9D has various unfinished carved details suggests that time ran out before the final decoration could be accomplished; even holes for hooks were never cut. Only the slightly earlier lower shrinelets surely got painted, as their slight remaining traces of plaster and pigment prove.

CAVE 10A

INTRUSIONS

The shrinelet between Cave 10 and Cave 11 (called 10A) bears many relationships with 9A and 9B, but is even more elaborate and ambitious in its complex grouping of imagery. It is a veritable repository of highly developed motifs, which must have been conceived by one of the most “progressive” of the artists seeking out work from the new “intrusive” donors during the Period of Disruption. The central image is an assertively posed bhadrasana image on a conventionally late lion throne. His feet are placed on a high and “late” double lotus pedestal, somewhat reminiscent of that in Aurangabad Cave 3, which was finished only a year or so earlier, in 478. In front of this a very impressive candrasila, again similar to that in the shrine antechamber of Aurangabad 3, spreads out with elaborate floral scrolls extending right up to the right and left shrinelet walls. The expected deer and wheel were apparently never carved; possibly the expedient positioning necessitated by the bhadrasana mode made the planners think they would be “in the way” in this small ceremonial space. But surely they were painted on the available smoothed flat surface below the lotus pedestal. Above the image, strongly projecting flying couples converge with their offerings, as in so many very late examples. The running nagas at the top of the quasi-structural frame of the otherwise ruinous throne back are also comparable to very late examples, springing outward and holding both cauries and multiple scarves. The throneback, though clear quasi-structural details remain at the top, is badly eroded. The expected makaras can still be seen, with strings of beads hanging from their mouths. The left makara has his foot on an intermediary cross-beam in the throne structure, confirming its very late “structured” character. But nothing more can be made out. One would expect nubs on the throne seat of such a developed image; the fact that they are not visible today is certainly due to the fact that the upper surface of the throne seat is much eroded. Even the associated throne leg tops, once assertively rendered, are hard to see today, but are clearly set above the lions’ heads.

106

cave 10a

As in 9A and 9B a pair of standing Buddhas and a pair of padmasana Buddhas flank the image below and above respectively. Again, as in those same shrinelets the figures are all placed in a rather complex architectural setting. The two seated images, following a widespread late convention, are seated on lotuses. This is somewhat surprising in the case of the one on the right, for other images at the site which show the bhumisparsa (earth touching) gesture make contact with the “earth” directly. Curiously, as in the image in Cave 26’s splendid Mara scene, the proper right hand is lowered with the palm out, rather than in. Possibly this is a local—and provincial— idiosyncrasy, for it occurs in the painted representation in Cave 1’s shrine antechamber too. In the painting in the antechamber of Cave L6 the lowered hand, touching the head of the earth goddess, is shown in side view—again an unexpected variant. Despite the complexity of this once-impressive image group, it was clearly carved in haste. The padmasana Buddha at the upper left has not been supplied with a triad of arches above, even though the otherwise carefully balanced design of the total grouping makes it clear that this must have been planned. One might also note how roughly the reveals of the main panel were cut, prior to plastering and painting. On the right wall of 10A, what once was a very impressive representation of Avalokitesvara as Lord of Travelers is now in ruinous condition. The main figure’s head appears to have been intentionally and harshly chiseled away, but a crown held by a pair of flying dwarfs is still intact at the top of the panel, while the “late” globular lotus which he holds has survived at the proper left. Representations of a number of the perils of the road are fortunately still visible at the sides. A roaring forest fire and a shipwreck (much more carefully depicted than usual, with even the fittings of the ship being carefully shown), can be made out at the left, while a fearsome cobra with expanded hood and a snarling (much broken) lion appear at the right. Just above the shipwreck what is probably a demoness, (now obscured but apparently a female with dependent breasts) attacks a kneeling mother, who holds her child out to Avalokitesvara for protection. Of particular interest is the inclusion of a small bhadrasana image on a nubbed lion throne at the upper right, paired with a padmasana image at the upper left, both showing dharmacakra mudra. That a small bhadrasana image would be used in this way, to “attend”

intrusions

107

the central bodhisattva, is surely a sign of very late date. The halo of the image shows a degree of elongation, often a feature of late images. The bhadrasana panel, although very small, is surprisingly detailed, with its bench-like throne supported by tiny lions, above whose heads the “late” throne nubs are defined. The arcing throne cloth is also a late feature. The attendant bodhisattvas hold cauries, but other attributes were probably finally defined when the panel was plastered and painted; traces of this surfacing are still visible. The treatment of the left wall of shrinelet 10A is equally unusual. It is decorated with a variety of small padmasana Buddhas, ranged above a somewhat larger padmasana Buddha seated on a nowruinous lotus pedestal and attended by two surprisingly small nowruinous haloed attendants, the left now nearly gone.1 The smaller seated Buddhas above have no obvious compositional or iconographic connection with the larger image below, and may well have been independent donations by another donor or donors. At the upper level a unified group of four images, all of the same size, are separated by assertively carved demi-pillars, whose large fluted capitals bear certain connections with the similarly stressed forms found in Traikutaka and Early Kalacuri monuments dating from the late fifth and early sixth centuries.2 Needless to say, Ajanta’s craftsmen, and/or their sons, must have worked at such sites after all work stopped here at the end of 480. The small candrasalas carved on the vault-motif above the demipillars contain smaller padmasana Buddhas, with the exception of that at the far left. There, perhaps because the rock was so badly flawed, a lower priority dancing dwarf was carved instead—an “irrelevancy” unusual in the Period of Disruption. The fact that the small images and the larger are aligned would appear to be an outcome of the design, rather than to have any particular iconographic significance.3 The placement of Buddhas at so many points surely reflects the compulsion, so familiar in the Period of Disruption, to donate more and more images. By the same token, the nearly

1

Compare with 480 image on right wall of shrine of cave 4. Such attenuated pillars with expansive cushion capitals appear a decade earlier in Ajanta’s paintings, obviously reflecting familiar wooden forms. 3 Although there are eight figures here, they surely do not represent the popular “Eight Buddhas” (actually seven plus Maitreya) as their different sizes alone would prove. 2

108

cave 10a

obliterated row of five seated Buddhas just beneath appears to have been squeezed in to utilize that still-available space. However, reflecting the pillared format of the row above, this constricted (and probably just slightly later) row is not aligned “structurally” with the group above, and so would seem to represent a separate donation. It is interesting to note how the planners of the upper group of Buddhas fitted the larger panels in between the parallel flow-lines (from the lava) near the upper part of the wall. Similarly the carver of the large image near the center of the wall took care to have the top of his panel coincide with the third parallel flow line. The ruinous intermediate group had to be placed in the space left, and whereas the sculptor seems to have taken care to locate the faces of his images where the rock was not flawed, the legs could not be kept out of harm’s way so well and have indeed suffered as a result. The flawed nature of the rock on this wall, besides determining to some degree the disposition of these figures, has affected their iconography in even more specific ways. For instance, in the upper row of large seated Buddhas, one shows dhyana mudra, instead of dharmacakra mudra like the other three. The explanation for this need not be sought in the particular identification of the Buddhas involved; the reason for the difference would seem to be that there is a vertical flaw which runs through the chest of the third image from the left, making it advisable to place the hands upon the lap rather than higher up. Similarly, the surprisingly informal pose of the second Buddha, who sits with his ankles crossed, would seem to result from nothing more esoteric than the fact that the particularly pronounced impurities in the rock below the image’s proper right knee recommended the unusual positioning of the legs. At the same time, the sculptor might not have felt justified in using such an unconventional and “informal” pose, if it was unprecedented. However, it can be found (though perhaps not well explained) in at least three painted images at the site, all among the groups of seated Buddhas painted on the shrine walls of Cave 2, and datable to early 478. All of the latter, incidentally, show different mudras, only one being dharmacakra, which was perhaps intended for this carved example and was the mudra of choice in the Period of Disruption; however, the unusual gesture seen in the latter can hardly be read as that. The variety of imagery seen in Cave 10A would seem to suggest that although the small cave or shrinelet was probably carved by the donor who gave the elaborate bhadrasana Buddha composition

intrusions

109

at the rear, he did not have an overall unified program for the cave’s decoration, but may well have allowed other donors to make their own independent offerings. Although all of the donations which we have so far discussed have unusual and obviously very late features, the most remarkable of all is a standing female figure, holding a long-stemmed lotus and standing on a double lotus pedestal in the lower rear corner of the left wall. This figure, which bears no particular compositional connection with the other images on either the left wall, or the rear wall, was apparently an independent image, and would seem to represent the female bodhisattva, Tara. As such, it would be the first independent representation of this soon-to-be very important and popular female divinity. Indeed, in sculptural contexts, “Tara” makes only one prior appearance at the site, even as an attendant figure. This is also in a relatively late context—in the upper right corner of panel L8 of Cave 26’s ambulatory, a composition sponsored by Buddhabhadra which can be dated to 478.4 “Replacing” her male counterpart Avalokitesvara, she is paired with an attendant Vajrapani on the right. The ceiling of Cave 10A has been plastered and rapidly painted with a single simple composition comprising a nearly-lost medallion within a floral-scroll border. As we would expect, this was done after the main image was carved, since the plaster ground continues over the latter’s head. The same plaster appears to have been used around the Avalokitesvara on the right wall, although the small Buddhas above, like those flanking the main image and those on the right wall, show a different and finer mix, as do portions of the main image. All in all, it appears that the whole shrine was plastered at one time (with at least two mixes) and painted at one and the same time; at least the same simple pigments and brush techniques seem to have been used on the main and right walls, and on the ceiling. Mere traces of plaster remain on the more exposed left wall. The two pivot holes in the entrance lintel could hardly have been to affix a pair of doors, for they are positioned more than a foot in from either side. Although the related lower sockets have long since broken away, these holes were surely used for setting in little wooden

4 It is possible that standing attendant females in groups like that of the great bodhisattva on the left rear wall of Cave 1 may be representations of Tara, but this is not certain.

110

cave 10a

pillar—a simpler version of those found in shrinelets 9A and 9B. Quite conceivably these were once fronted by double doors, whose pivot holes have disappeared due to damage to the facade. Considering the treatment of so many other intrusions at the site, it is particularly surprising that there is not a single hole for garland hooks or the like anywhere in this little shrinelet. This may well suggest that the whole was plastered and painted in a last-minute rush, before there was time to first chisel the holes in question. The plastering and painting is indeed simple enough to have been accomplished very quickly. The cursory character of the details on the fragments of paint left both on the ceiling and on the bhumisparsa Buddha in the right rear corner support such a conclusion. Nor would the plastering beneath have taken very long; the plasterers covered the somewhat rougher underlayer with a fine red plaster mixed with tiny white seeds—a type of plaster found only in very late contexts at the site. We can assume that the image or images in the shrinelet were dedicated, since its painting was apparently fully accomplished. But if it was used at all, it was not used for long, or worshippers might themselves have applied hooks for garlands, at least in the center of the now-ruinous ceiling medallion. Furthermore, its remaining paint shows no evidence of soot deposits, as a result of worship.

CAVE 11

INTRUSIONS

Cave 11’s troubled history resulted in its being a happy hunting ground for devotees in the Period of Disruption, for it presented a wide array of surfaces in both the porch and interior which had been plastered just before the Recession, but never painted either at that time, or during the vigorous years of work at the site from 475 until mid-478, when the “Vakataka” patrons had to leave the site. During the Period of Disruption, starting in mid-478, the new donors appear to have taken over the interior hall first; at least this is suggested by the fact that all of the padmasana Buddhas (except for the many tiny images in the right wall myriad Buddha composition) show dhyana mudra, while the more “up-to-date dharmacakra for padmasana Buddhas is favored in the porch. Furthermore, the interior hall was an ideal location, not only because it was so close to the Buddha, but because its wall surfaces were unobstructed by carvings or paintings from the original phase of the cave’s patronage. On the other hand, these plastered surfaces had remained untouched for a decade, and it may because of this that they required refurbishment in places. Whatever the reason, before painting the intrusions in many areas, the workers applied large pieces of cotton cloth to a number of areas at the right rear, and on the left wall, and then went on to paint over them; they did not paint the cloth first and then apply it, because as we can see on the left wall, the heads of the painted images extend up beyond the cloth’s margin. This is very clear where, between the second and third cell doorways, one can the shape of the applied cloth, which became detached (fell off or was pulled off ) at some point, probably well after the site was abandoned. Impressions of the fabric on the plaster remain in a few patches, while along the margins one could once see the traces of the raveled edges, although unfortunately these have now been masked by (unnecessary) filleting.1 This effort at conservation is unfortunate;

1

This is almost impossible to see today. But see Spink 1968.

112

cave 11

but it is nothing to compare with what was done on the right rear wall, at the right of the shrine doorway. Here a major composition with two bhadrasana images, also painted on fragile old cloth, was literally wiped away by a worker who received the orders to clean the deep soot off of the area but was not told that the images were painted on cloth; although it may be hard to believe, that was something he himself never discovered in the process of cleaning. Since the old paint was essentially on the top of the old woven surface it was unable to survive this assault; mere traces can be seen today. To get a better idea of what used to be there, one must refer to photographs in my article (Spink 1968), which I had sent to the authorities to apprise them of this fascinating situation, which had never been noticed before. The heavy burden of soot, which proved impossible to remove from the cloth without consequent damage, at least provides us with a certain amount of useful information. It would seem that the cave, with its remarkable Buddha image (backed by an unfinished stupa!), remained in worship from the time that the image was finished in early 469; the cells (all but one) were fitted out for the monks in 468 or early 469. The cave’s use for worship from this time explains the smoke damage to the painted surfaces.2 The porch (particularly the ceiling) is also very smoked-up, but this was apparently due to the presence of a sadhu (as a few painted tridents suggest) who moved into the cell at the left end of the porch in some future century and apparently warmed himself or cooked in the porch area. There is unhappy evidence on the beautiful ceiling composition that someone tried to clean it with a broom. The paintings (there are no sculptures) in the interior are so ruinous, and so many, even if not ruined, are missing (especially at the lower levels) that they threaten to elude detailed discussion.3 Images never were painted at all on the typically low-priority front wall, but all the other walls were filled. Starting near the front left, we find, beneath a repetitive series of painted standing Buddhas, two splendid renderings (the lower portions now missing) of enthroned (bhadrasana) Buddhas attended by cauri-bearing bodhisattvas. The Buddhas’ haloes

2 For the Buddha image and stupa, and the development of the cave, see Volume I, Chapter 11, Cave 11. 3 Unfortunate, only the porch paintings of Cave 11 are covered in Zin 2003.

intrusions

113

have the “late” elliptical shape popular in the Period of Disruption, as well as thrones with “late” quasi-structural frameworks. From the conventional makara mouths, assertive bird’s heads emerge. The general style, together with the typically “late” coloring—with blue and orange predominating —suggests that these adjacent images, quite understandably, were painted by the same artist. Beyond, at the top of the wall, the repetitive sequence of begrimed painted Buddhas continues, but now they are all seated, and show dhyana mudra. Just to the left of the fallen cloth (and the doorway of cell L2), there is a ruined standing image of Buddha or Avalokitesvara, and beyond that, over the pattern left by the cloth, the top of the heads of a few smaller standing figures remain; they were clearly painted after the cloth was applied, for the heads still remain, since they exceed its boundaries. Near the left end of the rear wall, there was once a standing Buddha, with bodhisattva attendants, and flying dwarfs above. This group, except for the very upper portions is obliterated, but one can still make out the jata headdress of Avalokitesvara at the left of the ruined main image. Farther to the right, just to the left of the shrine doorway, the area is filled with many seated Buddhas (possibly a Sravasti Miracle), but those which can be seen show the dharmacakra rather than dhyana mudra. The most visible row, at eye level, comprises seven seated (dharmacakra) Buddha with a painted stupa at either end, as if enclosing the series. No other such stupas are visible. To the right of the shrine doorway, where the images are particularly blackened, but were once more fully preserved, there are major bhadrasana figures, with (mostly lost) fine bodhisattva attendants and characteristic “late” throne features. One of these typically developed formulations—that at the right—has an inscription, now greatly damaged. It records the gift of the upasaka (layman) Mitradharma. (Inscr #64).4 Cohen records another previously unnoticed inscription (Inscr #65) at the feet of another large and very similar Buddha just to the left. A few seated figures—nothing much more than traces of their umbrellas remain—are painted along the lower level beneath these figures.

4

See also Dhavalikar 1968.

114

cave 11

At the farther end of the right rear wall there was once a splendid and very detailed pavilion, which must have framed a seated (?) Buddha; it reminds one of the fine pavilion, also intrusive, on the left rear wall of the vestibule of the left porch cell of Cave Upper 6. A similar ambitiousness invests the single unified composition on the cave’s right wall. It is a representation of the “Thousand Buddhas” (not in fact that number) centered upon a very damaged standing Buddha in a white robe, and flanked by two bodhisattvas—if they are indeed bodhisattvas?—playing musical instruments. A single remaining cauri, flying dwarfs, and kneeling attendants (essentially invisible after cleaning) emphasize this significant focus of the composition, which of course is a formulation popular in the Period of Disruption. The quickly painted (really drawn) tiny Buddhas have suffered many losses, exacerbated in the left half by particularly unfortunate attempts at conservation. Like all of these paintings, they can be better seen in the published article of 1968, written prior to conservation. There are equally interesting intrusions in the porch, where by 468 only the ceiling, some “supporting” dwarfs on the wall, and the splendid but sadly ruinous bodhisattvas on either side of the hastily painted doorway had been completed. Many areas are illegible today, but at the left of the left porch cell doorway there is a large, even if obscured, Avalokitesvara Litany with a donative inscription below, recording the gift of an unnamed Upasaka (layman) (Inscr #63). On the adjacent portion of the rear wall, at the left, there is an equally large but better preserved “flaming Buddha”, which has been associated with the Dipankara Jataka so popular at the site.5 Such flaming Buddhas, in various emanations, appear throughout the site, being particularly popular during the Period of Disruption. Just to the right, at the top of the wall, there is a series of painted padmasana Buddhas, invariably with dharmacakra mudra, suggesting that they may well have been painted in 480, when this mudra, at least in sculpture, was the gesture of choice. Some of these continue over the right window beyond the earlier bodhisattva. Beyond the window, below more intrusive padmasana Buddhas, the painted surfaces are so damaged that virtually nothing can be seen, even though there may well have been a another large standing figure—also an

5

See Suresh Vasant 1991.

intrusions

115

intrusion—to the left of the right cell doorway; traces of the halo can still be made out. A series of equally damaged seated Buddhas were ranged along the upper levels of the right wall, with perhaps three larger seated Buddhas below, essentially illegible. Below these there are three intrusive carvings. The first and more elaborate panel at the center shows a bhadrasana Buddha on the now-conventional lion throne, with bodhisattva attendants, flying dwarfs above, and kneeling devotees, three on each side, flanking the deer and wheel below. The bhadrasana Buddha panel just to the left is very similar, although the kneeling devotees now flank the double lotus pedestal, for the steps leading into the adjacent porch cell block the lower part of the panel. The third panel is much constricted, surely because this space was all that was left; it shows a standing Buddha, flanked by two bodhisattvas and two small kneeling devotees. Because there was not enough room to include Avalokitesvara’s kamandalu next to the standing Buddha’s lowered hand in varada mudra, the bodhisattvas was expediently moved to the opposite side—a surprising but not totally untypical adjustment. At the same time, it was hard to fit in the Vajrapani, now at the left of the composition; so his upper arm “usurps” part of the frame separating the images.6 There are numerous hooks and holes both in the porch and in the interior hall, although none appear in the shrine. The ruined condition of the plastered surfaces, particularly near the ceiling level, makes it hard to determine if the hooks were put in before the porch and hall were fully plastered in preparation for the painting which was surely envisaged in 468, before the Recession aborted such plans for decoration. However, this was almost always the case prior to the Period of Disruption, especially for garland hooks. It was probably the case with the many larger holes here also, which may have been used for some other kind of hangings. In one instance, however, the holes clearly are “intrusive”: three small holes have been carefully cut under the central Buddha-cum-musicians painted on the right wall during the Period of Disruption; despite their unusual location below the Buddha rather than above, we may imagine that they were cut for garland hooks, or possibly for incense holders.

6

See Spink Flaws, 1986.

CAVE 12A

INTRUSIVE The very large and extremely unfinished figure of a bhadrasana image above Cave 12, close to the porch cells at the left of Cave 11, must have been among the last undertakings in the Period of Disruption. Because it occupies the space above the old Cave 12, we have called it 12A. All other figures of bhadrasana images in separate shrinelets can be assigned to mid 478 through 480, and the very incomplete state of this particular one would suggest that it must be among the latest of the type. We might also note that the other intrusive shrinelets (9A–D; 10A) in this part of the site, near the old Hinayana nucleus, also are very late in date. The positions which they occupy were probably not utilized during the site’s heyday because they were not large enough for normal-sized caves.

CAVE 15

INTRUSIONS

An intrusive bhadrasana Buddha and a similarly late padmasana Buddha, in a rather haphazard arrangement, were carved on the left rear wall of Cave 15 during the Period of Disruption, after the original patron had finally abandoned work on the cave in 478. At that point excavation work on all of the walls of the cave had been essentially finished, so that there was much space which could be utilized for intrusive donations, now that the old controls over the cave were gone. However, donors during the Period of Disruption took little advantage of this availability, quite possibly because the Buddha image and the whole shrine area had been so expediently completed, not being properly decorated nor even supplied with doors to close off the image. Furthermore, the hall was completely undecorated too, only adding to the undesirability of the location, even though it is clear that the main image, having been dedicated, was “alive”. Analogous situations are seen in the equally “available” but little utilized Caves 21 and 4, or the lower right wing of the Cave 26 complex. Admittedly, there may once have been intrusive paintings (as opposed to the extant sculptures) on some of the walls. There is, however, no proof of this, for if they once existed, such painted iconic panels, particularly at the more desirable lower levels, were destroyed when debris built up in the cave. We know (from old records) that such debris filled this hall very deeply—so deeply that even today there is still some of it filling the door latches inside the cells. It is also possible that donors turned to such caves as Cave 15 only when more ideal locations, during the Period of Disruption, were filled up or spoken for. This would support the assumption that the carved panels here are relatively late intrusions, as were the intrusive plastered (and probably once painted) areas in the porch, where the typically late red plaster has left its stain on the rock. The padmasana Buddha, the left panel on the left rear wall, can reasonably be dated to 480, given its notably late features. The

118

cave 15

elaborate makara-arch beneath which the image sits links this image with numerous late examples created prior to the Period of Disruption, but is a relatively rare feature for intrusions. Beneath the arch, flying dwarfs hold a crown over the Buddha’s head, as if to honor him with the very things which he had earlier renounced; surely, the impulse came not from the sage himself, but from his devotees. The complex manner in which a frontally placed dwarf is shown along with the other two, suggests that their source was probably the slightly earlier (478) and very elaborate panels R2, R3, and R4 on the right wall of the ambulatory of Cave 26. Shown with his (damaged) hands in the now expected dharmacakra mudra, the padmasana Buddha is seated upon a lotus pedestal, a mode of placement which is common in painted examples from a very early date. The earliest occurrences appear to be the tiny Buddhas on the Cave 17 shrine doorway. It seems likely (even if surprising) that the lotus pedestals first evolved in sculpture at the site as “space-fillers” beneath the seated Buddhas on the sides (not the top) of the doorway, since it appears that the planners had opted for inconveniently tall narrow panels, not taking into account the problems this would cause with seated images on the jambs. Although used much earlier in painting on the Cave 17 shrine doorway, it did not become conventional for sculptured images until about 477, notably on the capitals and triforium of Cave 26. The flanking bodhisattvas are relatively small in size, due to the arched format, and perhaps for this reason do not have lotus pedestals. They do, however, like so many other very late carved examples, have elliptical halos. Both of these attendants are badly broken, but traces of a typically late long-stemmed lotus would seem to be sufficient evidence that the figure at the left is Avalokitesvara, as expected. The placement of the whole group upon a carved pedestal equally suggests its very late date; the pedestal is almost identical with that in the very developed shrinelet 9D. The flanking pilasters too are a feature not commonly found in connection with seated Buddhas until relatively late in the Period of Disruption.1 The ultimate prototype for such arch-protected images is of course the earlier Buddha fronting the stupa in Cave 19, the format of which is repeated in a number of the original panels elsewhere on the facade; and in the interior of that cave. 1

See Panels C and F in Cave 22, and on the left facade frame of Cave 19.

intrusions

119

The adjacent bhadrasana Buddha (to the right) must be essentially contemporary with the padmasana Buddha, but almost certainly was started first, since it occupies the more coveted position next to the entrance to the shrine. It appears to be somewhat crowded to the right, probably to keep the major vertical flaw at the left in an innocuous position. The larger size of the bhadrasana Buddha panel can be explained by the simple and sensible decision of its sculptors to adjust its height so that the two other bad flaws would run just above and just below the head of the right bodhisattva, rather than damaging its face. Except for the exclusion of carved throneback details, the bhadrasana Buddha closely follows precedents developed in 479 in Cave 22, or in the intrusive panel to the left of Cave 4’s porch doorway, even though it is smaller and does not have the elaborate framing pilasters. A minor difference is that the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara (whose head, with its jatamukuta, is still intact here) had a kamandalu instead of the somewhat less common aksamala. As is often the case, the bodhisattva on the right apparently had the vajra as an attribute, although absolute identification is difficult because of breakage. As expected at this late date, the bodhisattvas stand on lotus pedestals, while converging flying couples—never carved earlier than 477— soar over their heads. The nubbed leonine-legs of the throne are also a characteristically late feature. As we might expect, there was once a wheel in front of the Buddha’s lotus pedestal; however, like the flanking deer (and kneeling devotees?) it is hardly legible today. The plain treatment of the area behind the bhadrasana Buddha’s throne strongly suggests that this area was plastered and painted with expected motifs, in lieu of their carving. This appears to have been increasingly the case with such images in this late and anxious period, and would help to support the view that the image should probably be assigned to the later rather than the earlier part of the Period of Disruption—that is, to 480.2 No traces of either plaster or of painted decoration remain on the image today, which is hardly surprising, given the massive accumulation of debris, which would have literally “melted” away any such surfacing to within a few feet of the ceiling. However, higher up,

2 See Cave 4 porch panel, left of doorway; Cave 20 left rear; Cave 22, Panel H, and Cave 19 left court shrinelet.

120

cave 15

significant traces of plastering remain on both the wall and ceiling. This could have been used, as in Cave 4’s porch and elsewhere, for a painted “canopy” which would extend onto the ceiling above the image was planned. The fact that no traces of paint remain in this area might suggest that time ran out, as did often happen at the site at the very end of 480 before any such painting was accomplished. Even though the painting could have been done very quickly, what could you do if the painter had suddenly taken flight from the site at this moment of crisis? The ceiling of the main hall had been fully plastered (but not painted) before consistent work broke off on the cave in 477; and there is evidence (toward the front of the left wall) that all or at least part of the hall’s walls were plastered too, although never painted. This would strongly suggest that the plaster above the carved reliefs at the rear is indeed this same plaster, and had been there a year or two before the images below were started. The fact that the plastering actually extends, at the left, beyond the panels, further suggests that it was applied as part of the original and ultimately unrealized mural program. It should be added that there were no hooks for garlands or cloths in the area immediately above these two reliefs, an omission which may suggest the haste with which they were carved, painted, and dedicated.3 The ceiling of the porch still retains much of its surfacing of red plaster made of ground brick with the addition of many tiny white seeds)—a typically late type. There is a red stain on the right rear wall which suggests that it too was once covered with a similar surfacing. This could suggest that the porch was painted, or prepared for painting in 478; but no trace of such painting exists, and it may well be that when work on the cave began again in 477, the patron opted for the (never completed)e decoration of the interior, just as was done in Cave 21 in 478. Although red plaster was sometimes used even as early as 477 to surface walls and ceilings in normal course, the fact that both the hall ceiling and the somewhat subsequent surfacing (478) in the shrine and shrine antechamber area was not of this type, would support the view that the plastering of the porch was done even later, in the Period of Disruption, when this

3 For the many earlier hooks (or holes) at the very top of the walls, see Volume I, Chapter 11, Cave 15.

intrusions

121

type of mix was very common, and when this porch wall would have been a very desirable location for intrusions.4 The absence of holes for garland hooks or for a cloth covering hardly argues for such intrusive imagery in the porch, even though such accoutrements are not always present. There are, in fact, two large holes at either end of the left rear wall, well above eye level. Their function is hard to ascertain, for they are too large for mere garlands. They are functionally aligned with the broken pillars, so might have held poles which traversed the porch; but this hardly explains their presence.

4 Full plastering (and painting?) of the ceiling would be unusual in this final period, but a somewhat parallel situation can be seen in the Cave U6 porch.

CAVE 16

INTRUSIONS

Cave 16, the Prime Minister Varahadeva’s great vihara, has few intrusions, all in the interior on the left and right walls, and all painted. When work first broke off on the cave in 469, due to the Recession, the whole left wall had already been plastered, even though the painting of the Nanda scene had only progressed up to Cell L4, at which point the story abruptly breaks off. Possibly because of his ministerial commitments, Varahadeva did not take up work again on the cave until after 475, in fact probably not until as late as 477; and in that year his planners were clearly occupied—or preoccupied—with the problem of converting the original shrine area into a palatial setting for his new and dramatic bhadrasana Buddha. That dramatically innovative work was still going on in the unhappy context of 478—by which time no one at the site—including Varahadeva himself, had the time or money or interest needed to complete their original decoration programs. However, Varahadeva did authorize the splendid iconic paintings on the rear wall, along with vigorous processional scenes between them, as complements to his great image, but no further programmed work was done for the minister on the cave’s side walls, where the earlier narrative paintings (of 469) had broken off. Because the already (conveniently) plastered rearward portion of the left wall was still available for intrusions when in mid 478 (along the main scarp) the Period of Disruption started, the monk Dharmadatta availed himself of the opportunity to order and to inscribe votive offerings there. (Inscr #70, 71, 72) He ordered the painting of four seated Buddhas in the most forward area available, above the doorway of Cell L4, and to their left had a “donor” figure depicted, possibly intended as his own portrait.1 It seems reasonable to

1 For the difficulty of seeing such attendant figures as “donors”, see Volume II, Cave 10 intrusions.

intrusions

123

suppose that this Dharmadatta is the same Dharmadatta whom Buddhabhadra thanks as having “completed (Cave 26) on his behalf ”.2 (Cave 26 inscription, verse 14) Perhaps he took particular satisfaction in putting his intrusive imagery in the cave of the now-ejected Vakataka minister. And since he, like many other monks, may have remained at the site—probably with nowhere else to go—he would have had the opportunity. Indeed, even if he had to depart with the Asmaka contingent at the end of 478, Asmaka involvement in the site was still intense until the end of that year 478, so he could have added his intrusions anytime between mid-478 (when Varahadeva had to leave) and the year’s end. But it is probably more reasonable to assume that he was still at the site, with so many other monks, throughout the Period of Disruption. That Dharmadatta did indeed order these intrusions early in the Period of Disruption is not only suggested by their positioning nearest to the front of the cave but by the fact that their hand gestures alternate: the first and third show dharmacakra mudra, the second and fourth abhaya. At least in sculpture, groups of intrusive seated Buddhas prior to 480 are typically alternated, while those carved during 480 are typically shown with dharmacakra.3 Surprisingly— almost compulsively—he not only put a dedicatory inscription under each pair of images (i.e. under 1 and 2, and 3 and 4), assigning the ámerit to his “mother and father and all sentient beings”, but he also put brief labels (three now lost) on each of lotus thrones of the four Buddhas, using the formula bhadantadharmadattasya (“belonging to Reverend Dharmadatta”).4

2 Cohen, 1995, 357 argues that “there is little basis for this identification, Dharmadatta being a “John Doe” kind of name.” But his point would be more convincing if in all of the dozens of inscriptions at the site, this “John Doe” could be found again. Cohen also suggests that this cell may have been Dharmadatta’s, despite the fact that it is the only cell in the cave without a provision for a door. The assumption that the cell was Dharmadatta’s is gratuitous. Why would such an important monk opt for the “worst” cell in the cave? I would suggest that the paintings appear where they do (above the doorway of Cell L4) because this was the most “desirable” wall area, starting (typically) where the original painting ended and thus as far forward and as well lit as possible, and with a previously prepared plastered surface. 3 See Volume III (Cave Upper 6). 4 Yazdani 1946, 95 says that Dharmadatta’s name is “still wholly or partly visible on the pedestals of all four figures. For fuller discussion see Cohen 1995, 363–365; inscriptions 70, 71, 72.

124

cave 16

The monk Bapuka located four rather similarly inscribed seated Buddhas directly above those of Dharmadatta, but in this case they were apparently part of a conventional group of eight (the eighth being Maitreya), although only six are now visible. Judging from their connections in style and iconography, as well as their adjacency, it is probably right to assume that they were done at the same time as those of Dharmadatta. (See Inscr #73, 74) Cohen (1995, 366–7; inscr #75 and 76) has commented on the great number of illegible graffiti, often in a yellow pigment “more like chalk than paint” on the old plastered surface just below and beyond these groups. Cohen suggests that, if they are from the Vakataka period—admitting that they might have been written by somewhat later visitor—they might be artists’ guides or artists’ names. This seems to me unlikely, since they are in areas “covered by graffiti, some of it from the fifth century” and these areas would have now been used only for intrusions, for which advance planning was unlikely to be a factor, particularly considering the confusion of the records. It seems more likely that, like the plethora of graffiti written in the caves in recent centuries, they were records of visitors, perhaps while there were still monks in attendance at the site. Somewhat farther down the left aisle wall, a large “Sravasti Miracle” composition was painted, either at this same time or perhaps a year or so later. If once inscribed, there is no trace now, because the lower portions have suffered greatly. Above, there were the conventional soaring figures, now also badly damaged; generally identified as single celestials, closer examination proves that they were actually converging couples. There is a row of four (remaining) intrusive Buddhas on Cave 16’s already plastered right wall, toward the rear, and above the earlier narrative paintings of the Buddha legend. Like the offerings of Dharmadatta and Bapuka, these Buddhas are seated in padmasana, and show different mudras. The painting is so damaged that if there were any dedicatory record, it has long since vanished. Just as the original painting programs totally broke down in the Period of Disruption, the fitting out of number of still unprepared cells toward the left rear area of the cave, shows a similar breakdown of earlier disciplines. Monks were probably already living in the cave when, sometime in 477, the Prime Minister “presented (the cave) with devotion to the Community of Monks” (Cave 16 inscrip-

intrusions

125

tion, verse 30).5 Then, just after Harisena died, it seems likely that, while so much other anxious work was continuing on the shrine, doors were roughly and expediently fitted in Cells L5, L6, and in the two extreme cells opening from the left and right ends of the rear wall. The fast and effective—but clumsy looking—new “E mode” got this final project accomplished with expediency, but would hardly have passed muster a year before.6 The plastering of the cells belongs, typically, to the Period of Disruption. Perhaps there were constraints of time and/or money when this was done, for in four of the cells at the rear the walls but not the ceilings were plastered, while (if our observations are correct) cells L6 and R5 have no plaster at all.7

5 Actually the cave (even the great image) could not have been ready in 477, at the time when the inscription was incised, since it mentions Harisena as ruling at that time. But none of the major inscribed caves (4, 17, 20, 26) had been fully finished when their records were written. Obviously their incising was part of the whole organized program; at least this was true in Cave 16. 6 See Volume I, Chapter 3, re: doorfittings. 7 See Spink 1975, 168 (text figure 4).

CAVE 17

INTRUSIONS

The elaborate panel at the left of Cave 17’s courtyard, which shows a padmasana Buddha flanked by standing Buddhas (only the standing figures at the right is still preserved), may be closely related in terms of both patronage and date to the Cave 19 court shrinelet Buddhas and that at the left rear of Cave 20. Like the even more ambitious latter images, it was fronted by some sort of constructed low platform—surely of wood—which probably served as a type of altar for offerings or devotional ceremony. In all of these examples, traces of the fitting arrangements—sockets and recesses—remain. It is intriguing that these major intrusions fronted by platforms appear in the three main caves of Upendragupta’s complex, but nowhere else at the site. Is it possible that, with the disruption of Asmaka control over the site, Upendragupta or some member of his family took up this final hasty phase of work in the king’s old complex, as if they could claim it for their own again, after nearly a decade of abandonment? We know from Dandin’s Visrutacarita that the “king of Risika” joined in the rebellion against the Vakataka empire in the early 480s, which might suggest that the power of Upendragupta (or his successor) over the region had been restored in some manner or to some degree, and this might explain some restoration of his involvement in the site and in his own caves in particular. But this must remain hypothetical, particularly since we know of another ruler, one Maharaja Gomika, who was ruling in Khandesh as a contemporary of Upendragupta in the “third year of Harisena’s reign”, according to the Thalner inscription.1 Whereas Khandesh (roughly, ancient Risika) was extensive enough to contain two separate kingdoms (the rulers of which could well be related) there is as yet no way of knowing which of these kings (or their successors) Dandin has identified as the “king of Risika”. 1 See also Volume I, Chapter 15. For Thalner inscription see Mirashi 1982, article #7.

intrusions

127

The intrusive nature of this important panel, located (perhaps significantly?) directly beneath Upendragupta’s donative record, is very clear from various features of its iconography, which relate it to other images created during the Period of Disruption. Only its setting is relatively early; it is fitted, now of course at a late date, into an area which had been prepared—partly by cutting into the adjacent pilaster—when Upendragupta’s dedicatory inscription had been hastily carved there in 471 A.D. The hasty cutting back of the left side of the adjacent main porch pilaster has nothing to do with making any extra space for this late intrusion. Instead it was done to insure that the whole inscription (dating to the year of Upendragupta’s departure in 471) could be placed beneath the projecting eave to protect it from the rain. It is probably correct to assume that the inscription (with its verse form) had been “formatted” in the capital, with insufficient thought or knowledge of the need to protect it from the elements. Thus, since the record’s format was essentially fixed, and its importance very great, it was the cave (and the already defined pilaster) rather than the inscription that had to give way. Indeed, the expedient nature of the pilaster’s cutback is very characteristic of the increasingly hasty carving and painting which characterizes the last (often unfinished) phases of work in Upendragupta’s caves in general, standing in harsh contrast to the fine quality work done in the king’s happier days. The later intrusion merely is a beneficiary of the expediently cut extra space. The central padmasana image, originally showing dharmacakra mudra, sits beneath a decorated arch which was derived from the available earlier models in Cave 19 and is popular throughout the site in this late period.2 The arcing throne cloth which falls over the throne base is a type, never found until 477, which becomes increasingly common during the Period of Disruption; related examples can be found in connection with intrusive padmasana images on the frames of Cave 19’s facade. The peculiar form of the longstemmed lotus which supports the wheel also has a counterpart, probably datable to 479, on the Cave 19 facade frame, although in the Cave 17 example the deer directly (and conventionally) confront the wheel. 2 These arches, in the Period of Disruption, are generally plain (or were painted). That this has carved decoration might hint at the status of its donor.

128

cave 17

Finally, one should note the nub on the throne seat, over the remaining lion (really a leonine throne-leg). Such nubs, which in actuality would have capped the upright of the leg, are found only in late sculptured images, starting with the influential bhadrasana Buddhas in Caves 16 and 26, both of which were underway in 477.3 In 478 these “structural” nubs were clumsily added to the thrones of both the Cave 7 and the Cave 15 images, when those conceptions were revised and hastily completed in 477–478; but they do not appear in other carved padmasana images until 479 and 480, and even then are used only infrequently in such forms.4 Only one lion—that at the right—now remains on the throne base, but it is clearly of the late type, which appears to function as an elaborate throne leg. Although the top of the throne leg is not seen just above the lion’s head, as is so often the case with such late thrones, the nub is clearly aligned with the supporting lion below. The throne back shows a simple combination of bolster and makaras, the latter with rather conventional garlanded snouts. The manner in which the makaras rest their paws on the structure of the throne is a another hallmark of late date, despite the simplicity of the arrangement here. The idea of flanking the central Buddha with a pair of subsidiary standing Buddhas is of course also a very late concept, reflecting the similar use of subsidiary Buddhas throughout the site in the last few years of patronage activity. Prior to 477 or 478 one would never find attendant Buddhas—instead of bodhisattvas—in such a position, although by 479 and 480 they become very common, as toward the rear of the ambulatory in Cave 26.5

3 Like so many other motifs they appear somewhat earlier in paintings; e.g. Cave 17 antechamber of 471. 4 They generally, but not invariably appear in the latest imagery. But if they are present (in sculptured forms) they invariably must date to 477 or later. The Cave 4 main image does not have them because, although completed in 478, it may have been begun as early as 476, as a “copy” of that in Cave 1, just as the image of Cave Upper 6, in its final 478 stage, is a copy of the earlier image in the lower storey; similarly, the Upper 6 image is copied, in the Period of Disruption by the images in the right front and right rear shrinelets. 5 The Six Buddha concept may have come first, as in the shrine of Cave 7 and in the antechambers of Caves 4 and Upper 6. The smaller size and different positioning of the standing Buddhas nearest to the main image in Cave 7 (explained in Volume I, Chapter 11: Cave 7) may actually suggested the idea of two as attendants.

intrusions

129

Both standing Buddhas here were lifted up on a double-lotus pedestal with devotees beneath, but only the right one has survived the breakage of the front part of the wall of the cistern chamber (Cave 18) into which the panel was cut. The earliest example of such an arrangement is found in 479, in one of the intrusions on the left wall of Cave Upper 6’s shrine antechamber, and then again flanking the Right Front shrinelet image. Another, probably dating to 480, is found in the small panel set in the left frame of the intrusive recessed composition at the left porch-end of Cave 26RW. At about this same time, in Cave 26’s ambulatory, somewhat similar standing Buddhas are raised up over supporting nagas. Standing images thus lifted up, but without devotees beneath, first occur on the drum of the stupa in Cave 26; they must date to 477 or early 478. The only other carved intrusions at Cave 17—which of course had little available space remaining for such additions—are the multiple padmasana images, most of which are carved on the wall surface which once appeared above the cistern opening, but has now fallen down onto the cistern’s low balustrade. A few other similar images appear at the left of the cistern opening. We would assume that these intrusive images, all very simple, all padmasana types, and placed in what was surely seen as a very desirable position, were started very early in the Period of Disruption, for they appear to be high priority positions. The images sit on lotus pedestals, as we might expect at this date, since the type (in Cave 26) had become conventional by 478, even if not before.6 The remaining upper five show the common alternation of dhyana and dharmacakra mudra, typical of intrusions done prior to 480, while the rest are all in dharmacakra mudra. It is conceivable that the latter, being higher up and smaller, show the dharmacakra mudra exclusively because they were not done until 480, by which time this type had gained almost total precedence.7 Except for the walls, and most of the ceiling, of the shrine, where work finally had to be abandoned, Cave 17 is completely painted. Therefore it is somewhat surprising to find what appears to be an

6

For earlier forms on Cave 17’s shrine door, see Cave 17 intrusions discussion. For the shift from alternating mudras to dharmacakra alone, see discussion in Volume III: Upper 6 Intrusions. 7

130

cave 15

intrusion—for it violates the cave’s decorative program—on the lower front face of the left front pilaster. The iconic representation is of a bhadrasana Buddha. Were it a sculptured panel we could be sure it dated to the Period of Disruption, because such sculptured figures are always very late, but the motif had appeared in painting by the time that Cave 17 was decorated, so the iconography alone can hardly determine the date. Instead, its anomalous character suggests this, as does the apparent presence of a differently painted lower border, which perhaps covers an earlier missing or damaged design, of the type expected on pilaster bases in about 470, when this would have been painted, if not intrusive.8 It seems certain that some “intrusive” donor wished to put an offering in this rather desirable position, and had no compunctions about doing so, since there was no iconic imagery on this surface, judging from what we can see on the other three pilaster faces.

8 Wood (2005) agrees that this is an intrusive figure, and the only one inside the hall. Zin (2003, 33A) agrees: “the Buddha was evidently added in a space originally intended to accommodate genies”. She sees the kneeling figures below as “probably the donors of the picture”; I would term them generic devotees, not donors, as explained in Volume II, Cave 10.

CAVE 19

INTRUSIONS

Cave 19’s intrusions, mostly located on the facade frames and in the court area, are interesting not only for themselves, but because they help to illuminate the situation in which the rebellious Asmakas found themselves after the death of the great emperor Harisena in 477. As we know, the Asmakas, as feudatories of Harisena, had taken over control of the site when they defeated the local king, Upendragupta, in the early 470s; and at that time they disallowed any worship in his beautiful caitya hall, surely because of its association with their defeated enemy. Indeed, they violated Upendragupta’s hall by cutting a path right through its front court cells, in order to make a more convenient passage to their own rival ceremonial center, the great Caitya hall Cave 26. However, it is clear that Cave 19 had already been dedicated before the Asmakas took over, even though Upendragupta’s laudatory inscription—planned for a recessed panel on the cave’s front wall over the doorway—never got incised during the troubled last year (471) of Upendragupta’s rule over the site. Since such elaborate inscriptions were surely composed by Brahmins in the capital, it is likely that the long poetic record failed to reach the site, or reached it too late, before the king’s precipitous departure. Or, if by chance it had reached the site and had (most inappropriately) been hurriedly painted on, all traces of it have long since been lost. By the same token, various areas around the cave’s courtyard were never finished; and furthermore the beautifully painted cave gives no evidence whatsoever of ritual usage; it has no soot deposits and shows no damage caused by usage around the garland-hook holes above the pillar capitals, a few of which were never even drilled out—such omissions being a likely sign of rush. (The chipping— quite different from wear—around the holes appears to have been occurred when people pulled out the useful iron hooks in later times.) The only hook hole which clearly shows usage is in the front aisle ceiling, between pillars L1 and R1; but since the caitya hall was in

132

cave 19

active use during the brief Period of Disruption, the damage might have been caused then 1991.1 Such observations strongly suggest that Cave 19, although not quite finished, was in fact dedicated.2 This is no more than we would expect, considering Upendragupta’s fervent piety and his natural compulsion to obtain the merit from his efforts by completing the required ceremonies, as is clear from his dedicatory inscription. Even in the times of mounting troubles in 471, it is surely reasonable to think that the fervently pious king would have resorted to the most expedient measures to get the image in the cave dedicated, and to gain the merit therefrom. It seems clear from their long inscriptions that the major donors at Ajanta were providing “all sentient beings” with long-term spiritual benefits which would accrue not only from the power of the central image in each of their caves but from the caves themselves. Upendragupta ends his elaborate prasasti with a characteristic global flourish: “May this hall, out of affection . . . cause the attainment of well-being by good people as long as the sun dispels darkness by its rays!” (Ajanta 17 inscription, verse 29). The emperor’s Prime Minister, Varahadeva, offers his Cave 16—“resembling the palaces of the lord of gods”—with the trust that “as long as the sun (shines) with rays reddish like fresh red arsenic—even so long may this spotless cave . . . dedicated to the three ratnas, be enjoyed!” (Ajanta 16 inscription, verses 29, 31). And, not to be outdone, the great monk Buddhabhadra, close friend of the minister of Asmaka, declares when he sets up his “memorial on the mountains that will endure for as long as the moon and the sun continue”: “Whatever merit is here, may that be for the attainment of . . . supreme knowledge . . . by (all the beings in all the three) worlds.” (Ajanta 26 inscription, verses 8, 15) Quite apart from the significance of such prasastis, the best and surest proof that the beautiful caitya hall was dedicated lies in the fact that later donors, in the Period of Disruption, covered its available outer areas with intrusions; for such intrusions never appear in 1 Unfortunately, like so many of these revealing garland hook areas in other caves, this area was “conserved” by being filled in with plaster. At my request, an attempt was made to expose the hole again, but the result hardly looks “original”. 2 In fact, no cave at the site was ever fully finished, although Cave Lower 6 appears to lack only a certain amount of painting in its shrine. Usage obviously did not depend upon completion; in fact usage (for residence purposes) did not even depend upon the image’s being dedicated.

intrusions

133

caves where the main image had not been dedicated. No matter how much prime space an undedicated cave might have, it was not “alive” without a sanctified image; without such a functional image, these latter-day donors would consequently entirely avoid the cave as a location for their own helter-skelter dedications. Another significant conclusion emerges from the fact that Cave 19 once again became a focus of devotional attention from mid-478 through 480—the Period of Disruption—after so many years of abandonment. It is evident from this change in the sumptuous hall’s fortunes that the powerful Asmakas, obsessed with destroying the empire, had now renounced or released their control over the site, surely because of the totally demanding priorities of the war for which they were preparing. This sudden disruption of Asmaka control over the site—suggesting that an order came from above—cutting off all support and perhaps reflecting a pressing need for funds and for men—equally affected all of the caves at the site. Thus the site’s long established patronage, within the course of a single year (478), was totally disrupted. By mid-478, the previously elitist and exclusive caves lying in the main (“Vakataka”) section of the site were open to a host of new donors, while the caves of the Asmakas, by the end of that same year, were also open to the pious depredations of these new and eager donors. As we know from their donative inscriptions, these “uninvited” donors were mostly the monks who must have still been resident at the site. And they made no particular distinction as to which caves they put their new votive offerings in, except that such caves had to be “alive”—that is, the shrine Buddhas in them had to have been dedicated. Understandably, the two great Vakataka caitya halls were particular foci of this new donative activity, the long rejection of Cave 19 now being a thing of the past. Nor was this startling shift in patronage—this irreparable break in intended development—confined to Ajanta alone. All of the other Vakataka caves in this general region— the Ghatotkacha vihara, Aurangabad Caves 1 and 3, and the small excavation at Banoti—were similarly “turned over to the Medes and the Persians”. Typically, the votive donations which the new donors added to Cave 19, as in so many other caves, starting in 479 (or more probably after mid-478) follow no overall program, but are scattered helterskelter upon available areas. There were, however, definite priorities

134

cave 19

which controlled the choice of location, and by considering these, as well as the changes in iconography which took place even within the compass of this brief Period of Disruption, we can explicate the course of developments therein. As is understandable, the highest priority locations were those where the stone surfaces had already been previously smoothed, where the new donations would be readily visible, easily reached by the sculptors, well-protected from the elements, and well-lit, and where the rock was not overly corrupted by flaws. At the same time, both here and in Caitya Cave 26, proximity to the facade—closeness to the sacred cave itself—was clearly a desideratum, which could override some of the other priorities; in both Cave 19 and Cave 26 the areas closest to or even framing the facade were generally chosen first. The small standing Buddhas carved in panels at the bases of the four large pilasters on Cave 19’s facade must have been among the first of the intrusive donations, for these positions were not only very accessible and very visible, but were readily available insofar as they had been carefully smoothed down during the original program of work on the cave. If, after a decade, these pillars had still retained some of their painted decoration—unlikely considering the fact that these areas along the lower margin of the facade are very exposed to both rain and sun—it seems certain that their original motifs were ornamental rather than iconic and so could be cut away with impunity. These small standing Buddhas, as we would expect, follow established convention, with the proper right hand in varada mudra, while the other hand holds the robe near the shoulder. As is usual at this late date, they stand upon double lotus pedestals. Although their empanelment is absolutely plain—quite out of context with the overall ornateness of the original facade motifs—they are fairly consistently disposed; such consistency is of course rather uncharacteristic of work in the Period of Disruption, but this was of course the only logical way to position them; in this period there was seldom any “esthetic” concern for balanced arrangements, even though sometimes chance or expediency, as here, led in this direction. In fact, another image of the same type, placed on the edge of the facade frame adjacent to the far right pilaster, does indeed disrupt the symmetry of the rest of this group which, whether or not donated by the same donor, appears to have been carved by the same sculptor. Not only is this standing Buddha put in a different position but, apparently in order to avoid a bad flaw just below, is

intrusions

135

placed higher up. The same flaw—less severely—runs through the figure on the pilaster base, but of course that one could not be placed higher without willfully damaging the carved medallion design above. Although intrusive donors were generally not deterred by such destructive actions (as long as sacred images were not cut into), it was hardly necessary here. As we might expect from its lower priority positioning, the less visible figure was carved only after the similar intrusive image on the adjacent pilaster had been completed. It is of course possible that a painted (seated) Buddha had already been painted over the flawed area (which would equally have forced the standing image to be at a higher level), or even that such a Buddha was painted over this flawed area later, for the whole façade was obviously a highly desirable location and paintings were often put where sculptures could not be. Needless to say, the life expectancy of the painted surfaces—and the sculptures were painted too—was not very long, given the realities of the monsoon; but this did not seem to deter the new donors in making their offerings. The symmetry of the facade design is further violated by the addition of three small padmasana images beneath the large “walking” Buddha at the left of the doorway. No such seated figures were carved under the Buddha at the right of the doorway, surely because the rock is so faulted just below that figure; late donors were of course not concerned about the resulting disruption of the overall balanced design of the facade, about which the original planners had taken such trouble. These three small seated Buddhas sit on lotus pedestals—hardly visible today because of surface damage—which again supports their very late dating, since lotus pedestals are rare prior to the Period of Disruption.3 Even the fact that so fragile a margin—insufficient from an esthetic point of view—has been left between them and the large Buddha above bespeaks their late and intrusive character. Of course, the very fact that space had been left below this standing (really walking) Buddha attests to the very different concern for symmetry in the cave’s original phase. The Buddha at the left of the doorway, instead of having his feet placed at the base of the potential panel

3 They do appear, however, on the Cave 17 and Cave 20 shrine doorways, probably to expediently fill the too-vertical panels in which they appear.

136

cave 19

area, has been raised up, rather grudgingly, to better match the mirroring image at the right of the doorway, with its badly flawed area below. It seems almost certain that intrusive Buddhas were painted at this desirable, even if badly faulted spot, but any evidence of such paintings has long been washed away. It is also of interest to note that the two large “walking” Buddhas flanking the cave’s entrance are both narrative compositions—the Dipankara Jataka on the left, and the Offering of the Inheritance on the right. They are of course part of the original conception. Buddha imagery in the Period of Disruption eschewed such storytelling, concentrating solely on iconic formulations. The simple small figures in plain recessed panels high up on either side of the facade set-backs also must be intrusive carvings, dating close to the beginning of the Period of Disruption. Not only their asymmetrical disposition, but the fact that (especially at the right) they “crowd against” the roof motifs of the earlier image below confirms their intrusive character. As we would expect at this early date (i.e., 479) they are all either standing or padmasana images, and it is typical of such intrusions that their arrangement is far from strict; one need only view the carefully disposed images in the panels over the pillars of the interior to realize how different were the compulsions of the original planner of the cave and those of these “uninvited” donors. There are four standing Buddhas in slightly different sized panels on the right wall, while on the left wall there are two padmasana Buddhas and two standing images. The lower padmasana image shows the somewhat unusual detached hand holding a cauri, probably following the lead of the main-phase panel just below. One of the standing figures is a representation of Avalokitesvara, identifiable by his jatamukuta, antelope skin, and kamandalu, as well as by the aksamala combined with abhaya mudra in the proper right hand. Considering the placement of these various figures along the front and rear edges of the walls in question, it seems quite evident that they once flanked now-lost standing Buddha (or bodhisattva) images, which would have been painted on the carefully prepared surface as part of the original program of the cave’s decoration.4 Although 4 It is just possible that the large figures were the familiar bodhisattvas Avalokitesvara and Vajrapani, who had become popular as attendants of the Buddha at just this time.

intrusions

137

later (intrusive) donors would never cut away or cover over such sacred forms, they could repaint or re-cut surrounding floral forms or the like with impunity.5 Here it would seem that this has indeed been done, while the wider area higher up may have been preserved because of important associated celestials or the like, who were honoring the larger figures and were therefore preserved. These (presumed) paintings must have been part of the cave’s original program, given the importance of these highly visible positions. However, any certain evidence has long since been washed away due to exposed character of these surfaces. The disposition of the pairs of original carved panels at the tops and bottoms of these facade setbacks also suggests that the intermediate area once was filled with large standing Buddha images. Indeed, the (presumed) presence of such impressive and important figures might be seen as the immediate source for the monumental pairs of carved standing Buddhas which later donors carved on the facades of Cave 26 and Cave 9, and at the right of Cave 19 itself. The function of the square socket holes in these setback areas and elsewhere on the façade eludes absolute explanation. They obviously were not for garlands at such a level, and are too large in any case. They appear to have been for the insertion of wooden (rather than metal) fittings, which may have held flags or protective awnings. However, since at least some of them have been filled up with lime plaster (probably in the original phase of work) their intended function may possibly have been sacrificed in favor of the large (presumed) paintings in these areas.6 Judging from their iconography, I would place the figures on the lower parts of Cave 19’s facade frames among the first of the intrusions added to the cave, dating them all to mid-478 or 479.7 It is quite understandable that work on this area would have been started very early, since these frames would certainly have been considered

5

A later intrusion cuts away “inessential” portions of the earlier (also intrusive) “Sravasti Miracle” scene at the left rear of Cave 2; the tree at the right of the Parinirvana in Cave 26 is cut into by the nearby intrusions. The non-iconic Hinayana paintings in Cave 9 and Cave 10 are often partly (or wholly) covered with intrusions; see Volume II. 6 The oft-expressed notion that such holes were used to hold scaffolding makes little sense, as any architect will confirm. 7 Perhaps 479 is more likely, since new donors were may not have been attracted to Upendragupta’s disfavored caves while the Asmakas still controlled the site.

138

cave 19

as most desirable spots from the point of view of the new donors. Not only were these frames highly visible, but the splendor and sanctity of this centrally located caitya hall must have attracted them too. Furthermore, these particular areas had already been smoothed down by the time of the cave’s abandonment at the end of 471, so there was little surface preparation to be done before the new intrusive donations could be made. Even though the cave may have been in political disrepute and its use prohibited by the Asmaka conquerors after Upendragupta’s overthrow, this was obviously no longer the case during the Period of Disruption. The panels on these facade frames are all either padmasana Buddhas or standing Buddhas; the fact that no bhadrasana Buddhas are found here supports our hypothesis that these panels were carved prior to those on the responds of the cave, where a number of such images are to be found. As an analysis of the intrusions throughout the site (see esp. Cave Upper 6) shows, small carved bhadrasana Buddhas were never used in intrusive contexts until 480. All of the attendant flying figures on these façade frames are converging dwarfs, even though converging flying couples appear (for the first time) in 477, in a number of shrine images (U6, 26, Aurangabad 3, Ghatotkacha vihara). These flying couples become the motif of choice during the Period of Disruption in the many shrinelets added by different donors at that time. However, they never appear over the many standing Buddhas donated in the latter period. Although the span of time between 477, when the motif was first conceived, and the Period of Disruption, is very short, normally important new features at the site are picked up almost immediately. The apparent resistance to their inclusion above the many standing Buddhas is hard to explain. Perhaps it was considered inappropriate to have female figures flying above such isolated Buddhas, even though they are not rejected in other contexts. The very fact that, compared to the treatment of the main part of the facade, the frames present somewhat of a hodgepodge of images—on the left frame the different images are not even in a consistent vertical alignment—clearly suggests their intrusive nature, and there are a number of specific iconographic features which further confirm this. For instance, the throne cloths under a number of these images have the characteristic arcing profile familiar in other very late sculptured images, none of which date prior to 477. Other padmasana Buddhas such as the small ones at the center of the left

intrusions

139

frame are seated not on thrones but on lotus pedestals, an equally late feature, seen also in the standing Buddhas between them. Near the bottom of the left frame, another padmasana image, also placed on such a lotus seat, has two cauri-bearing bodhisattvas behind the throne. Such a positioning of the bodhisattvas, first found in major contexts in the expediently composed Cave 16 shrine Buddha, started in 477, is never used in carved panel compositions until the Period of Disruption.8 One might also note that, after being used briefly in connection with the first three main images carved at the site in 468/469, lions are not found beneath the Buddha’s throne again until the last few years of activity, where in fact they function not as the “real” lions shown in the main Buddha images carved in 469, but as leonine throne-legs.9 Therefore the presence of such leonine throne-legs on certain facade frame images further confirms their very late date. No such developed motifs are found on the throne bases of any of the dozens of original images (either carved or painted) on the facade or in the interior of Cave 19 whereas, by contrast, they do appear, nearly a decade later, in the friezes above the pillars in Cave 26. The garlanded wheel, seen in the two padmasana Buddhas at the upper part of the both the left and right facade frames, is also a type which is never found in early contexts, but which is quite common in intrusive contexts. It first appears in the Cave U6 main image, the throne base of which can be assigned to 478, having been expediently redesigned in the interest of speed. This type of garlanded wheel could be thought of as a reduced version of the elaborately festooned wheel which becomes popular in main images at the site just after the Hiatus (see Cave 1, 4, 15’s later phase.) Or, since it was already known in earlier contexts elsewhere in India, perhaps it is better to call it a “substitute” for the festooned type. 8 This is yet another convention which appears relatively early in painting (Cave 19’s aisles) but is resisted in sculpture until “validated?” by its use in Cave 16, where the now-necessary bodhisattvas did not have any standing room, because of the manner in which that image was cut from an abandoned mass of matrix left when work was interrupted in 469. Admittedly, a few of Cave 1’s capitals do place figures behind the Buddha image, but this seems to have been due to crowding rather than convention; in any case it is conceivable that they were not carved until the Cave 16 image had been started, or its format known. 9 The “thrust-blocks” just above the lions’ heads, and the nubs which cap the top of the throne legs after it comes through the seat, are seldom seen, almost certainly because of size considerations. These features are generally found in larger images, and sometimes in smaller.

140

cave 19

The plain hubbed wheel, typical of pre-Hiatus imagery, does continue to be used in late contexts too, particularly (although not exclusively) in small or crowded panels, where wheels decorated with garlands or festoons would crowd the compositions. One such example appears in the padmasana image a few feet from the bottom of the right frame. This image is of particular interest because of its anomalous base arrangement; the deer, instead of being placed in their accustomed positions flanking the wheel, are placed in a separate tier below, flanking the stem of the wheel’s lotus pedestal. The arrangement—in which the deer do not even attend the wheel itself— is so unique, and so clumsy and hasty, that it would appear to be an attempt to rectify a stupid mistake by an artist who neglected to include the deer at their accustomed point.10 It would not be surprising to see devotees, such as those shown here, put in such a subsidiary position, but here such a possible arrangement is reversed. Since, in terms of its location this can be considered one of the first intrusions on the façade—and no others have both devotees and deer—perhaps the artist got confused, due to inexperience. In any case, the portion with the deer is clearly an “extension”, and the evidence that it was added later is given by the fact that a portion of its matrix was used to carve a tiny kneeling devotee who (surprisingly) attends the adjacent image on the left frame of the large bhadrasana Buddha on the cave’s right respond.11 This of course links all of these interconnected images closely in time: the little bhadrasana panel, itself later than its large counterpart (whose frame it cuts into) must have already been completed, or underway, when the deer (and devotees) were added to the padmasana image on the facade frame. Thus the padmasana image, carved in 479, was not actually completed (with the deer) until the significantly later (i.e. 480) bhadrasana panels adjacent to it were underway. Such observations about interconnections clearly support the assertion that all of the intrusions on the facade and in the court area

10 The anomalous Cave 15 shrine image also appears to have no deer, but small ones could have been painted in; there was insufficient space to carve them because the height of the base (added in 478) required oversize lions. 11 The tiny devotee might actually have been carved along with the deer, rather than after they were already there; this would help to explain why it has a bit more room than would probably have been the case, if the deer had been carved earlier.

intrusions

141

of Cave 19 belong to the very brief span of the Period of Disruption from mid-478 or (perhaps better, 479) through 480. A similarly tiny kneeling devotee, positioned in the same way, appears a couple of meters above, but it is clearly cut from the pre-existing base of the large standing Buddha, even more surely confirming the late date of the latter panel. No matter why it was utilized, the device of raising a supporting lotus up on a high stem, as in the anomalous panel near the base of the right façade frame, was in any case one which came into common currency only very late, the first example being that in the main Cave 26 image, underway in 477, where nagas hold the stemmed lotus beneath the Buddha’s feet; the wheel is not combined with the stem until 478, in the earliest Cave 26 ambulatory images and in the main Cave 26RW image, while the wheel is never raised up above the stem in any image carved prior to the Period of Disruption, during which it becomes common. The two panels at the very bottom of the right facade frame were probably not undertaken until 480, perhaps at the same time that the similar padmasana images at the bottom level of the adjacent right respond. Like the latter they show the problems and adjustments of program which the serious flaws in this whole general area caused for the carvers both during the original phase of work on the cave and in the intrusive phase. For this reason, one of the two panels was never completed, either because the problems were too severe, or because (not anticipating such problems) it was started too late in 480 to be able to be finished before the site’s patronage collapsed completely. The padmasana Buddha panel near the bottom of the left facade frame, like that just discussed on the lower part of the right frame, is probably also a relatively early intrusion. This is suggested not only by its conveniently low and readily visible location, but also because, like its counterpart on the right, it is a somewhat anomalous type, like a number of the earliest intrusions at the site. (In this regard we might note that the padmasana Buddhas, slightly later in date, near the top of the facade frames are all much more conventionalized in type.) The two standing Buddhas in the single panel just below are also probably very early intrusions, since they also occupy a very desirable location. They are very close in type, and also probably in date, to the intrusive Buddhas cut into the bases of the facade pilasters.

142

cave 19

The fact that the two on the left frame do not have lotus pedestals may be because this would have necessitated making them smaller in size; at least this would have been the case if the more important padmasana Buddha just above had been started first, as we assume it was. The large standing Buddha just above the latter image may have been planned in conjunction with it, but it seems equally likely that it was started first, since it is in an equally desirable and convenient location, and was obviously done at a time when it could be as spaciously conceived as the sculptor wished. Interestingly, the sculptor has taken the time and trouble to “extend” the main facade’s roof motif over the head of this figure. Admittedly, the resulting forms could hardly be confused as part of the original feature, especially since it is done on the left side only and thus is unbalanced; apparently the patron, or the carver, was making some attempt to integrate his new donation with the previously decorated facade. There is a standing Buddha in the roughly equivalent position on the right facade frame, but it is obvious that it was not in any way “paired” with the one on the left frame, for it is not only somewhat larger, but it is placed at a slightly higher level, almost certainly to avoid a serious rock flaw in the area just under its feet. There was obviously little or no concern that the main facade’s “roof-motif ” be extended above it (as was done on the left) or it would not have been placed as it is. All in all, it is evident that when it was carved, in the Period of Disruption, there was no interest in developing an overall balanced design; such “esthetic” concerns were a thing of the past. Like a number of other intrusive standing Buddhas, whether done in 479 or 480, it stands on a double lotus pedestal, and is attended by devotees—in this case one on either side. Characteristically, for such large standing images, flying dwarfs converge overhead, carrying flower garlands. It might be noted that the standing Buddha somewhat higher up on this facade frame is attended by flying dwarfs holding cauris rather than the flower garlands conventional in earlier contexts. This is a late development, which is often seen in image groups of various types from about 477 on, but never before.12

12 See for instance Cave 26 triforium (e.g. over pillar R5). There are slightly later examples in Cave 26’s facade intrusions.

intrusions

143

The three very small Buddhas—two seated with one standing between them, and all on “late” lotus pedestals, just above the standing Buddha on the left frame—were obviously fitted in after the faces-in-arches just below them were carved, for their placement clearly responds to the prior presence of the latter motifs. This sequence of carving is what we would expect, since normally the more readily accessible areas were chosen first by donors during the Period of Disruption. The seating of the padmasana images on lotus pedestals and the addition of a kneeling devotee at one side of each, below the seat, are common features in the Period of Disruption. The flat areas which the kneeling devotees face may once have had painted inscriptions, but no trace remains today. The larger padmasana Buddha at about the mid-point of the left facade frame along with all of the carved panels above it, have been “shifted” slightly to the right to compensate for the “warping” of the left facade respond. It may seem surprising that the throneback of the lowest of these panels is not fully carved; this should not suggest that the image was unfinished, however, since the desired motifs (makaras, etc.) were probably painted in, as was often done in the Period of Disruption, though more often in 480 than in 479. The use of framing pilasters for the padmasana panel below also suggests that this image may not have been carved until 480, when we find such framing pilasters in a number of other instances.13 They do not seem to have been used for intrusive padmasana (or bhadrasana) panels in 479, even though they were common in panels done during the original program of work in this and other caves. In fact, it seems likely that the general format of this present panel was copied rather directly from such earlier panels—most particularly those at the top of the left and right set-back walls, where one finds similar enframing pilasters, roof-motifs, throne seat, and bolster. Possibly flying dwarfs, as well as makaras at the throne backs were once painted in, although this must remain a conjecture. One should note too the ruffled robe-end in front of the figure’s crossed legs. Since such motifs were seldom used in the Period of Disruption, we can perhaps see this as yet another sign of this particular carver’s penchant for borrowing motifs from earlier images on this same facade. It appears to be the case that many images on the facade frames 13

480.

See Cave 15 left rear wall; also Cave 22 panels C and F. All may date from

144

cave 19

are particularly dependent on such past forms, presumably because the artists had not yet developed clear conventions for such new compositions. If the latter panel is indeed to be dated to 480, it would follow that those at higher levels on the left and right frames probably belong to 480 too. This seems perfectly reasonable, particularly since the very top parts of the frames were not decorated (at least with sculptures) presumably because time ran out before all of the available space on the frames had been utilized. For instance, the rightward shifting of the upper panels of the left facade frame, mentioned above, was probably not anticipated when work began. Or, in this Period of Disruption, no one cared. These slightly later padmasana panels at higher levels have a more established and somewhat more complex format than those below, since conventions for such reliefs were rapidly developing; or perhaps they all are the work of an artist who was particularly “up-todate.” All four of these panels show arcing or scalloped throne cloths which derive from the newly developed types found first in about 477/478 in the main images of Cave U6 and 15. They also incorporate leonine throne-legs at the throne base corners, as do so many other images from 477 on. Finally, they all have roof-motifs with decorative arches at their upper borders—features which become increasingly common in the Period of Disruption but are not used for such panels in the pre-Hiatus period. For instance, they are not found over carved images which formed elements of the original design of the main facade, or of the interior, of Cave 19. Precedents can, however, be found in the post-Hiatus decorations of Cave 26, where they are done with considerably more care, as we might expect. Needless to say, it was hard to reach the very highest levels of the facade frames, and so it is hardly surprising that they had not been utilized—except possibly for painted panels—when work finally ended at the site. In the meantime, quite understandably, patrons had started donating panels on the cave’s facade returns, probably even before 480. Because so much of the area has long since fallen away, there are very few intrusive panels now on the left return; once, of course, there must have been many more. At a high level, similar to but hardly paralleling a similar figure on the right return, there is a large standing Buddha—a very conventional motif for this late period.

intrusions

145

Beneath, a single padmasana image remains. The wheel beneath is of the early plain-lugged type still often found in minor panels in this late period. By way of contrast, the form of the throne leg confirms the distinctly late date of the image, since nubs are shown on the front corners of the throne seat, a feature which never occurs in sculpture until at least 477, appearing first in Cave 26’s main image. Furthermore, the (now much eroded) smoothed area below, with an attendant devotee at the right, may well once have been used for a painted donative inscription (now washed away), as was often the case with such separate votive panels carved during the Period of Disruption. The most impressive intrusions associated with Cave 19 are the large panels preserved on the better preserved right return. Some of these panels may date fairly early in the Period of Disruption, for their positioning, even if to the side of the main facade, was obviously still quite desirable, and the space available was still sufficient to allow the donation of very large images indeed. The huge standing Buddha, in particular, was a popular type, found as intrusive imagery in a number of prime positions. It was probably done early in the Period of Disruption, while pious energies, and funding, were still equal to the task, and workmen still readily available. Even its high placement may not necessarily suggest a late dating in this case, but may have been chosen in order to give prominence to the figure; Cave 26 has very early (479) intrusive standing Buddhas placed in this same general position, and this may have suggested a similar placement here—and equally in Cave 9. Like many (but not all) such large standing Buddhas, beginning with those in the shrine antechamber of Cave 4, neither this figure nor the somewhat smaller ones on the facade frames, nor those on the opposite return—the latter very ruinous—stand on lotus pedestals. The presence of kneeling devotees—generally carved but sometimes painted in—is very characteristic, as are the by now quite conventional garland-bearing dwarfs above; as mentioned earlier, in the case of standing images the flying couples which are so commonly found associated with late padmasana and/or bhadrasana images never appear in the Vakataka caves.14 14 Subsequent to the Vakataka phase, of course, this is no longer the case. For instance, couples appear over the colossal Buddhas, dating to the last decade of the fifth century, at the porch ends of Kanheri Cave 3.

146

cave 19

The group just below this large standing Buddha is an unusual type, but is a characteristic production of the Period of Disruption insofar as it combines relief stupas with Buddhas, as if they were essentially interchangeable motifs. Similar conjunctions can be found among the intrusions of Cave U6, under the arch of Cave 26, in the Ghatotkacha vihara, and elsewhere, but the particular significance of the striking arrangement here has never been satisfactorily explained. As a mere guess, we might suggest that the four stupas and two Buddhas might represent the six Buddhas of the past, which appear in a conventional manner in the shrine areas of Cave 4, U6, 7 and elsewhere. A devotee kneels beneath each of the Buddha images, one on the left, one on the right. It is interesting to note that the left image has only one garland-bearing dwarf flying toward it; on the other side we see a detached hand holding a cauri, a motif already used in this cave a number of times in earlier contexts, both in sculpture (on façade setback panels done in about 470) and paintings. The “substitution” was due to the bad flaw which runs through this area, making it impossible to carve the expected dwarf figure. This expedient solution was acceptable because already by 477–478, flying dwarfs sometimes carry cauries, even though earlier they had garlands. By the same token, the upper corners above the right Buddha are left blank, for the flaw-line in the rock is particularly pronounced just where the missing dwarfs might have been carved; almost certainly they were painted in, after the flaw had been plastered. Such examples are instructive, since it is important to remember the effects which, throughout the site, geological factors have had on iconography. Similarly, it is clear that the reason the lower pair of stupas in this panel have the expected triple umbrellas, while those above have only one, is because the latter were positioned above the serious flaw which runs across the panel somewhat above its center Another interesting example where “geology is affecting iconography” involves the lower of the two small standing Buddhas to the left of the large Bhadrasana image. Its proper right hand is in the abhaya mudra instead of the expected varada mudra and this expedient conversion was surely made because the matrix from which the lowered hand was to be carved broke in the course of carving; the evidence can be seen in a large chip in the images proper right

intrusions

147

thigh. There are a number of other similar conversions at the site, mostly due to similar problems with the stone.15 Next to the large standing Buddha on the right return there is a deep niche with a most interesting combination of images; a larger central standing Buddha, in the accustomed pose, is flanked by four similar smaller images, all standing on lotus pedestals. Here again the iconography has never been satisfactorily explained, but seems very much in line with the tendency to multiply Buddha groups, which developed very late at the site. The fact that this striking iconographic configuration is not repeated elsewhere at the site would seem to support the assumption that it is a very late intrusion indeed, and this is even more surely suggested by its location. It is the only intrusion on the respond which lies beyond the cave’s protecting eave, and which is not cut into the part of the wall smoothed down some years before as part of the original program of work on the cave. Thus it seems reasonable to date it to 480 and to consider it one of the very last of the array of donations made just before the site’s collapse. If this were not the case, the right respond would certainly have been more fully filled up with intrusive panels, despite the fact that it shows a number of serious rock flaws. In fact, it was probably the presence of the deep flaws which can be seen just below the present relief that was responsible for its high and “inconvenient” placement. The small standing Buddha cut into the left side wall of the niche under discussion is clearly an “intrusion upon an intrusion”. It must have been added, presumably by another donor, at about the time the large niche was being finished. Such instances, where a later intrusion is placed within the limits of an earlier already completed one, are rare; however, see the panel at the left end of the porch of Cave 26RW, and the painting on the left rear wall of Cave 2. The most intriguing image among all of the intrusions of Cave 19 is the large but unusually simple bhadrasana Buddha near the lower left corner of the right respond. Its presence here is unexpected, for convention would dictate that a yaksha figure, or possibly the yakshi Hariti would be placed across from the naga in the same position on the left respond. The fact that it is “missing” further

15

See Spink 1986.

148

cave 19

evidences the fact that Upendragupta’s time ran out, in 471, when a number of the intended features in the courtyard area had still not been finished. In this case, we can see that a simple honorific roof-form had in fact been started over the intended yaksha; it would probably have been made more elaborate once work was started, in order to match or rival that over the nagaraja. Holes, probably for garland hooks, have been expediently cut into it to serve for the present bhadrasana Buddha image, but this is only because the roofform was an “abandoned” motif; had the (missing) yaksha been finished we would expect to find the holes at either side. This clearly suggests that the roof-form had actually been begun a decade earlier. As if this modest violation of the integrity of the roof form ( just noted) was not enough, the sculptor of the still later small standing Buddha panel at the upper left expediently cut the left end of the same roof-form away in the course of his carving. In fact, although these little lateral panels must be almost contemporary with the large bhadrasana Buddha, there is evidence (hardly surprising) that the latter was essentially finished before the little panels were begun. This is because the present garland hook hole, near the left end of the roof-form is not the one originally drilled in conjunction with the bhadrasana panel, and explains the surprising asymmetry of the pair. The original hole at the left was indeed originally balanced with that at the right, but was sacrificed when the little standing Buddha was cut; by looking carefully, we can still see it tucked in uselessly in the bend of the little Buddha’s proper left arm. Conventionally, the two original garland hooks (which alternatively might have been for a covering curtain) would have been inserted before the bhadrasana image was plastered and painted; and it seems likely (but not certain) that the repositioning of the left hook was also done prior to the finishing of the large image below. If so, this would suggest that the small lateral figures, with their expedient and practical positioning, were already underway before the large bhadrasana Buddha was completed. This again would make all of these images closely contemporaneous, just as we would expect. The plain but impressive figure of the bhadrasana Buddha, like the slightly earlier main Cave 26 image from which it derives, is very foreshortened (i.e. not deeply carved), probably because this is may be the first intrusive bhadrasana Buddha panel at Ajanta, composed before conventions for such panels had become well established. It may date as early as late 478 or early 479, only a few

intrusions

149

months later than the earlier intrusions on the facade frames; this is suggested by the fact that it omits so many expected later features, as well as because such a tempting location—despite the flaws in the rock and its lateral position—was likely to have been utilized relatively early. The surprising omission of the expected standing attendants would appear to confirm this panel’s “undeveloped” character, but possibly also the immediate influence of the highly important Buddha image on the Cave 26 stupa, where there was no room for the bodhisattvas, which had to be relegated to obscured positions on the drum. However, it is possible that this, along with the omission of vyalas and lions from the throne, might be equally due to the constricted format of the relief, which the sculptor kept within the protected space under the eave. Actually, the throne back arrangement parallels—and probably depended upon—the simplified arrangement consisting only of a large bolster and makara heads above, which was used in most of the padmasana images on the facade frames; the first of these images probably were carved some months before, at the very beginning of the Period of Disruption. We should also point out that the nubs are present at the corners of the throne seat, as we would expect in any major Buddha panel carved after 477. The presence of dwarfs instead of flying couples above would further argue for a relatively early dating, but this is not a sufficiently reliable criterion, since dwarfs do sometimes continue in use even when couples have gained priority during the last years of activity at the site. The unusually extended form of the lotus pedestal is also worth mentioning. It appears to derive directly from those in the “original” panels (R2–R4; L8) in the Cave 26 ambulatory, where the lotuses are widened to fill up the border separating the upper part of the panel from its base motifs. By the time, over a year later—say by early 480—that more compact pedestals had become standard, this image had probably already been finished. We might assume that the base area below, if indeed the donor planned to utilize it, had been intended for a lotus stem and supporting nagas—perhaps they were to have been painted in because of the particularly flawed nature of the rock at that point. The fact that they were never carved—and probably never painted, since later intrusions appear in the area—suggests that the donor who started the image never completed these apparently subsidiary details, yielding

150

cave 19

the space (if he had not already abandoned the project) to other donors who quickly appropriated the area around the image for their own offerings. These interconnections—surely not desirable or anticipated from the point of view of the donor of the great image—suggests the close contemporaneousness of the major and minor offerings. This might equally explain why the roof-motif above, in fact carved nearly a decade before for a never-completed yaksha, was cut away at its left end, as noted above. We can assume that neither it, nor the wide borders around the large image had been painted at this time; for if this had been the case, one can hardly believe that they would have been so peremptorily destroyed after having been decorated only a few months earlier. Of course it is also possible, perhaps even likely, that the donor of the large bhadrasana image had abandoned it before any bordering motifs—if indeed planned—were completed; he may have run out of funds, or died, or suddenly left the region; this was, after all a moment of extreme instability in the history of the now dramatically declining site. Since by this point in time the main concern of donors was certainly to make merit rather than to develop pleasing compositions, we need hardly be surprised at the disorganized appearance of the small and varied little panels which were added at either side of the larger bhadrasana relief on the right respond. The large bhadrasana image, like all of the intrusive panels under consideration, was presumably planned without a border (unless an “inessential” painted border), so its margins could be freely used for further intrusions. All of these little images sit or stand on lotus pedestals, just as we might expect at this late date; the little bhadrasana Buddhas, in fact, show a very “developed” lotus-stem and-flower configuration, flanked by kneeling devotees, on their bases. Here again one feels the influence of the Cave 26 stupa image, as well as the figures on its drum. In the lowest of these, the base (badly flawed at the left in any case) was somewhat cut away by the sculptor who carved the padmasana Buddha just below; this would seem to prove that the latter was the later undertaking, even though they must be roughly contemporary.16 Furthermore, had the small bhadrasana Buddha

16 It looks at first as if the padmasana image’s sculptor cut away part of the base motif beneath the small bhadrasana Buddha—which would be unusual. But this was almost certainly not the case, for that base appears to have been “bordered”

intrusions

151

image not already been underway (or possibly completed) when the padmasana Buddha on the base was carved, the latter (and the adjacent padmasana Buddha) would almost certainly have been placed higher up, like the two at the left where the positions are carefully adjusted to avoid the worst flaws below and also to avoid the flaws running though the faces. In fact, since elsewhere at the site, small intrusive bhadrasana Buddhas never date prior to 480, it seems likely that those here, and consequently the padmasana Buddhas just below—along with the two similar padmasana images (one very unfinished) in the very flawed rock at the foot of the right facade frame—all date to that same year. Along with the large bhadrasana Buddha, they were probably hastily painted and decorated just as time ran out. The fact that some of the flying dwarfs that attend these images have cauris rather than garlands further confirms a date to 480. Evidence that the images around the large bhadrasana Buddha are later than the majority of those on the facade frame—the more conveniently located panels of which would have been begun very early in the Period of Disruption (i.e., 479)—is clearly revealed by the fact that at least one of them (the lowest standing Buddha at the left of the large bhadrasana Buddha) is carved in a panel which is set in so far to the left that it could only have been cut after the adjacent padmasana Buddha on the right facade frame was already well underway.17 Even more striking, the small padmasana Buddha just above this little standing Buddha has a kneeling attendant which is carved on the revealed side-wall of the panel of the same larger padmasana Buddha on the right facade frame. Two other such kneeling devotees have equally revealing positions close to the bottom of the right facade frame, where they must have been cut only after the small intrusive panels around the large bhadrasana Buddha were finished, since they attend the images in those small panels. It seems conceivable that the deer and the central lotus shaft beneath the panel close to the bottom of the right façade frame were carved somewhat after the upper half of the base, at the same time that the padmasana figures at the bottom of the right façade return by the flaw; note that the small devotee at the left had been squeezed into the area defined by the flaw. 17 Here abhaya has replaced varada mudra because the matrix at thigh level chipped off during the course of carving.

152

cave 19

were carved; the delay would have been due to the extremely flawed nature of the rock in this general area. Thus the tiny kneeling devotees which face the images on the façade return might actually have been carved along with the above-mentioned deer, rather than after they were already there. This would help to explain why the little kneeling figure next to the right deer appears to have a bit more room than would probably have been the case if the deer had been carved earlier. Another possibility is that the juncture of the walls where this little kneeling devotee is carved was originally left illdefined, not being finished until the nearby padmasana Buddhas were started in this very flawed area; if so, the deer might have been carved earlier, with their whole panel being slightly shafted leftward, thus avoiding the more flawed few inches near the wall juncture. We can conclude from such analyses that the carving of all of the intrusive motifs on Cave 19 was part and parcel of a very urgent, but disorganized, process which started at the beginning of the Period of Disruption, perhaps as early as mid-478 (or perhaps better, early 479) with the more established padmasana and standing forms, and then continued on into 480 with little or no interruption. The fact that considerable space on the upper parts of the facade frames and on the outer part of the right respond was never used suggests that this work continued right up until the end of 480, and that time ran out before such areas could be utilized.18 We have already pointed out how the small kneeling devotees which attend certain of the images in the left frame of the large bhadrasana Buddha are cut into the panels on the right facade frame and thus must postdate them. It seems likely that the latter would not yet have been painted when these kneeling devotees were cut on or in them; and this would of course place the two groups (and a fortiori the large bhadrasana Buddha) into essentially the same work-period. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that the whole intrusive phase of undertakings here in Cave 19 (as indeed elsewhere at the site) was completed in a single short burst of anxious and somewhat hit-or-miss activity, which was developed expediently as time, money, and the availability of workmen in these difficult and urgent latter days allowed. 18 Of course some high areas could have had now-lost paintings; but they equally could have had sculptures. Once the high scaffolding was up, it was as easy to make sculptures as paintings.

intrusions

153

The two most ambitious intrusions associated with Cave 19 are found in the pillared complexes on either side of the court, where they are set into the rear walls of the intermediate chambers or “vestibules”. Since each of the panels is placed at a focal point in these complexes, in a nearly symmetrical arrangement, one might at first be led to think that the two image groups form part of the original conception and that for this reason (since the images are very late in type) the pillared complexes themselves should be dated to the last years of activity at the site. However, this was certainly not the case. It is conceivable that these spaces at the rear were indeed reserved for some kind of (probably painted) images when the complexes were excavated—this would explain the otherwise surprising absence of cells at these convenient central points—but if so the images could hardly have been of this late type, for it is very evident that the complexes date from the original phase of work on the cave, which ended just prior to the Hiatus. This is revealed by the doorway fittings of the associated cells, which were carved in the C-mode, with the door pivots set into projections both above and below. The excavated niches in the left complex also can be specifically dated to 471, at which point such niches came into fashion in all of the royal caves—the only excavations upon which work continued in the Recession.19 It is certain, however, that these pillared complexes were among the last things started by the original patron, for they were never quite finished. The left cell complex’s left fronting pilaster was not fully carved, and the interior walls (especially in Cell LF) are extremely rough.20 The apparent haste is explained by the troubled situation of 471, by the end of which Cave 19s’ patron had lost all control of the cave, and presumably of the region as well. Monks may have occupied these cells by 471, for the excavated niches in the cells of the left complex and the C-mode door fittings (which went totally out of style after 471) were generally prepared as part of the same contract. But it is unlikely that they would have

19 The rear right cell, completed just before those on the left, had an anomalous (presumably wooden) shelf instead of a niche. This and the probable conversion of the front right cell into a cistern sometime before the Hiatus, are referred to in Volume I, Chapter 15. 20 The left complex had recently (and unnecessarily) been much reconstructed with cement, obscuring much evidence.

154

cave 19

lived here (as they did in Upendragupta’s Cave 17) after the Asmakas forbade worship in the caitya hall from 475 on. Such an assumption is supported by the fact that the Asmakas, when they took over the site, assertively destroyed the left front cell to make a convenient passage to their own caves at the western extremity.21 Presumably, however, monks did live here during the Period of Disruption, for the plastering of cells throughout the site is almost totally confined to the Period of Disruption; and this appears to have been done only in cells which could be occupied.22 Since the plaster mix in the central vestibule of the better-preserved right complex appears to be the same as that in the cells, and since the painting on it appears to be associated with the bhadrasana Buddha panel, it is clear that the bhadrasana Buddhas in the two complexes belong to the Period of Disruption, an unsurprising conclusion which their iconography fully supports. Such observations make it clear that this surfacing must date from the Period of Disruption, when the concern would have been to decorate the area to complement the new reliefs, as well as to “improve” the cells, in which the monks could now live again. This would explain why the intrusive reliefs could be placed where they are; if these areas had already been plastered and painted in 471 with the iconic forms expected in a caitya hall, they could not have been appropriated by the later donors, who in effect turned these original “vestibules” for the attached cells into private “intrusive” shrinelets somewhat like Cave 10A, the court shrinelet of Cave 24, the right front shrinelet of Cave U6, and the like. The evidence of the remaining plastering in the protected right shrinelet further confirms this, for the image has a final coat of the same thin fine mudplaster which

21 Certain critics of my interpretation of this passage have claimed that the cuts through both the front cells were made by the Archaeological Department. However, a photograph of a nineteenth century painting in the India Office Library (ACSAA Ajanta fiche 41:15) appears to show (with many liberties) a view past the remaining wall at the front of Cave 19’s court, looking through the passage into the cell (= cistern chamber?) at the right front, with the caves to the east in the distance. One can see the right end of the right court shrinelet, and to its left no cell wall, but a clear opening apparently still partially filled with debris. The artist also roughly sketches in, apparently from rough field notes, but in its correct position, the vague image of the great standing naga guarding the approach to the cave. The label information on the fiche misinterprets the image. 22 The wear in the pivot holes presumably dates from the Period of Disruption, or some years thereafter.

intrusions

155

was used to “finish” the thicker and somewhat coarser ceilings of the chamber, prior to its painting. As mentioned above, this appears to be the same mix with which the typically late plastering of the cells was accomplished. Thus we must date the plastering of the cells too, to the Period of Disruption, at which time the abandoned hall could once again be used for worship, as well as a locus for intrusions. Such worship in the once rejected cave would now hardly be surprising, since the hall had already been dedicated nearly a decade earlier. As we might expect in the Period of Disruption, the painting of the walls and ceilings in this “new shrinelet” was done hastily. This is particularly evident in the now ruinous ceiling design where the central elephant panel copies that in the front aisle of the main hall, but is done with less care. Similarly, the plastered area behind the beam over the fronting pillars of the right shrinelet was never decorated; this too is much more characteristic of the expedient approach typical of the Period of Disruption than it would be of earlier work, particularly in Upendragupta’s focal cave. The designs on the walls are too damaged to be identified now, but the relatively ample use of blue pigment—in contrast to the limited use of that expensive or then-scarce color in the main cave—is typical of very late donations, as is the wide use of a high-keyed orange. It is of interest too that a painted inscription appears (written on what appears to be a painted roof ) on the left wall.23 Such records, often of about the length of this one, are of course very common in the Period of Disruption, so even though the present one is too damaged to be legible, it may have originally recorded the donation of the intrusive image in this shrinelet. By contrast, painted as opposed to incised records are very rare during the consistent phase of activity at the site, and even then refer only to the stories, not the donors. Although both of these very similar groups in the court shrinelets are very complex compositions, the sculptor—it seems likely that both were done by the same man—has not taken advantage of the whole wall surface. This is also true of the similar image at the rear of Cave 22, and may well reflect economic realities which had to be considered by the patron in these troubled times. But we can

23 This has not been previously noticed, and is so unclear that it needs to be confirmed.

156

cave 19

assume that the surrounding areas had painted border motifs. One can also note a pair of holes, one on either side, at positions appropriate for garlands. Both of these Buddha groups appear to have been treated as very particular objects of worship, since there is evidence that platforms— presumably altar platforms (now missing) of wood were fitted into the area in front of them. One can still see where the rock—quite eroded now—was cut away to provide for their insertion; the fact that such “altars” were not cut from the rock itself further helps confirm the intrusive nature of the images above them.24 It is of interest to note that both the roughly contemporary intrusive images at the left of Cave 17’s court and at the left rear in Cave 20, had similar wooden “altar-platforms”, while the panel with two padmasana Buddhas just outside Cave 19’s court on the left, appears to have some similar fixture (described below). Thus there are no less than five examples of such fitted-in “altars” at the site, and it is remarkable that they all appear in the caves originally donated by the Risika king Upendragupta. One might well ask again (as in the Cave 17 discussion) if, during the Period of Disruption, when Asmaka control over the site suddenly declined or disappeared, Upendragupta himself or some member of his family was able to renew their connection with the site and to donate the relatively ambitious Buddha groups in question. Needless to say, in the absence of any further evidence, this can be no more than a conjecture. We might rather note, however, that the small intrusive padmasana Buddhas which were carved on the right return of Cave 17’s facade (around the fallen wall once located above the cistern) also have analogues at Cave 19, in the two just-mentioned images outside the courtyard; here again they might be the donations of the same patron. In each of the two very similar court shrinelets of Cave 19, the central bhadrasana Buddha is flanked by cauri-bearing bodhisattvas and strongly projecting garland-bearing flying couples. The throne 24 Further discussed under Cave 17, where there is a related form. The only rock-cut “altar” in the Vakataka caves is to be found associated with the intrusive triad of standing Buddhas at the right end of the Ghatotkacha vihara’s front wall. However, this “altar” was created almost by chance, since the lower portion of the wall angled strongly outward due to its excavation having been earlier abandoned. Therefore, when the upper part of the wall was trimmed back to define the plane of the Buddha panels, the lower margin automatically became a functional platform.

intrusions

157

(at the back of which a plump bolster appears) is supported by lions that carry the tops of the throne legs on their heads in the familiar “late” fashion; the expected “late” nubs appear at the corners of the seat. In both images, the Buddha has his feet firmly planted on a projecting “late” lotus pedestal, now extremely worn. Behind the Buddha in the right shrinelet makaras, vyalas, and running nagas are carved, all of them very similar in type to those in the closely contemporaneous image at the rear of the antechamber in Cave 22. These same areas in the left image are not carved but, probably because of the pressure of time, the same or similar motifs may have been hastily painted in, as in various other groups of this late type to be found elsewhere. A significant difference between these images and the related Cave 22 or Cave 4 porch examples is that the wheel with deer is omitted here. Nagas supporting the lotus pedestal are included instead; at least this is evident in the right court image whose base is the better preserved. This variation looks back to the major Cave 26 image as its ultimate sculptural model, and reflects the late shift in the site’s iconography toward a particular interest in making reference to the Buddha’s Sravasti Miracle, where supporting nagas were more relevant than the attending deer from Sarnath, even though both nagas and deer are sometimes represented on the image bases. As in most large bhadrasana Buddhas done in the Period of Disruption, the lotus pedestal is attended; generally there are two (or more) devotees kneeling at either side, but here in the right shrinelet’s image there is only a figure at the right, probably because a serious flaw appears at the left. Presumably there would have been two kneeling devotees flanking the wheel of the left shrinelet’s image, but the evidence has long since eroded away, presumably due to the debris with which this left area was filled when the site came to light in the nineteenth century. The bodhisattva at the left (proper right) in both the left and right shrinelet groups is Avalokitesvara, identifiable by his jatamukuta with a figure of Amitabha (very eroded) in the crown; the example in the right shrinelet, wearing the yajnopavita, a bracelet, and large necklace, is without specific identifying attributes, although that in the left shrinelet (without the yajnopavita) holds an aksamala. The right bodhisattvas are, as is so often the case, not clearly identifiable, although they have the conventional princely garb and also wear the yajnopavita. They may be representations of Vajrapani, but without

158

cave 19

the vajra. All of these bodhisattvas hold cauries in the accustomed fashion, and have the elliptical halos which come into fashion in the Period of Disruption. They do not stand on lotus pedestals, but this feature is often omitted, even in such late images; it is conceivable that the motif was painted on the plinth-like area upon which they stand. It is particularly noteworthy that the artist has now developed a very ingenious way of providing the enthroned Buddha with a deep space in which the three-dimensional quality of the figures can be stressed, and that a very effective way of integrating the newly popular attendant standing Buddhas—suggestive of the Sravasti Miracle— into the composition has been found. In effect, the artist has created a “niche within a niche”, using the standing Buddhas (who from 477 on often appear on the walls of shrine antechambers and shrines) as “frames” which flank the central group, the lower portion of which is allowed to come well forward between them. Quite remarkably, the left Buddha in each group shows abhaya mudra instead of the expected varada gesture. The latter is almost invariably used for standing Buddhas when, as here, they attend another image. It is evident (and surprising) that the unexpected use of the abhaya gesture, where the proper right hand is upright, has apparently been done entirely for “esthetic” reasons, so that these framing figures form a balanced pair. Such concerns are seldom of such obvious importance during the Period of Disruption, but perhaps the significance of the splendid locations which these figures occupy in the courtyard of this great caitya hall explains their special treatment.25 In these well thought out arrangements the artist now includes flying dwarfs at the upper corners, and kneeling devotees at the corners below, again responding to the trend, which has become more and more pronounced in late developments, toward including and multiplying such figures. As mentioned earlier, even the minor panel, containing two padmasana Buddhas, just outside and to the left (west) of the nowcement wall at the front of the court was apparently fitted with a platform for offerings or worship; the slot is much worn away but still visible. The Buddhas are of the simple type carved more numer-

25 The “balancing” is so surprising in the Period of Disruption that one suspects that it was an idea of the artist himself.

intrusions

159

ously at the right of the courtyard of Cave 17 and, as mentioned, might possibly be offerings of the same donor. These Cave 19 images were well fitted out for ritual attention: There is a hole for pegs or hooks on either side of each of the haloes, pairs of holes for each image in the left and right sides of the frame, and three holes along the top, the disposition of the holes suggesting that they were for garlands, not to hold a covering cloth. That this two-Buddha panel was thus fitted out for worship would seem to serve as evidence that one could originally approach it either from the courtyard, or as one came up from the river; apparently a kind of stone approach, still somewhat evident, led over to it. Furthermore there is host of tiny images—Buddhas and stupas—rather imprecisely carved in the area above the two main images, further suggesting that this was once a very accessible sacred spot, even though access is impossible today. If so, it is obvious that great amounts of the rock have fallen in this area—an assumption that the lack of any trace of the old stairway up from the river helps to confirm.26 A pair of fine life-size nagas—part of the cave’s original plan—must have guarded the stairs, but only the one at the right remains. Since devotees worshipping these images had to have some place to stand, this little “altar” can help us understand that the original passage to Cave 20 must have gone past this area, and around the large block of matrix into which it is cut. Nothing of it can be seen today, because major portions of the scarp have fallen in this area, but we would suggest that as one came straight to Cave 19 from the river—no such stairs could possibly be made today because the angle is now so steep—one could take another path to the left, probably close to these two images, and so go to Cave 20. On the other side, the presence of a railing motif on the outer face of the remaining wall between Cave 18 and Cave 19, strongly suggests that there was a walkway here as well, which would lead to the court entrance with its great naga guardians (one only survives). At this point it would link up with the stairs from the river, so that access to the courtyard could be gained either from the path along the scarp or from the one coming up from below. Indeed,

26 The panel with these two Buddhas was in imminent danger of falling away, adding further to the losses of rock in the area. It has been recently secured by filling the area below with cement.

160

cave 19

before the right front monk’s cell was converted (as I believe) to a cistern chamber with a connection to Cave 18, this proposed path would have been the only possible connection between Upendragupta’s Caves 17 and 19. It is clear, of course, that the right front cell was indeed originally planned for use as a residence, since it has monolithic doorway fittings like the other three court cells.27 However, although the pivot hole at the top was cut, unlike the other three cells, it shows no evidence of use, and this is even more obvious when we realize that it is provided with no latch or related features whatsoever. This must be explained, presumably by its conversion to a cistern chamber, or at least to a convenient “walk-through” area connecting the Cave 18 cistern with the Caitya hall. Had it been planned as a cistern from the start (rather than, as I suggest, later converted to such a use), the doorway leading into the court would have been more conveniently positioned, and (as in all cisterns) would have had double doors. It seems evident, therefore, that the conversion of this cell into a cistern chamber was due to Upendragupta’s own decision; not only was the cell extended on the east side to make a characteristic (even if low) raised cistern platform, but it is likely that a cut was made at this time in the south side of the east wall, to provide ready access to the large cistern in Cave 18. Water could then be brought through the abandoned cell doorway for the use of the caitya and the resident monks; of course the bhadrasana image was not there at this early date. As for the other cut, opening directly (and destructively) onto the courtyard, it is most unlikely that it was done at this point, for there would have been little point in any case. That, like the cutting through of Cell RF must have been done by the Asmakas.

27 It seems likely that the front right cell was planned, like the other three, with a C mode fitting. However, the lower projection is not to be seen. Possibly it was cut off, to get it out of the way, when the cell was converted and it was decided that a door was not needed in the doorway. Or possibly, since this was quite possibly the first of the four cells to have been started, it was underway in 469, rather than 470, and thus had a B mode instead of a C mode. One other matter should be noted; throughout the site, it seems characteristic that the pivot holes (and related features) were not cut until it was time to hand the doors and (presumably) to put the cell into use. The situation here would be anomalous, unless it happened that the decision to convert the cell was made even as the fitting-out of the doorway (never completed) had been started.

CAVE 20

INTRUSIONS

Cave 20’s history parallels that of Cave 19 and Cave 17, because they were all started by Upendragupta, the local king, with great expectations. However, when Upendragupta expelled the Asmakas from the region at the end of 468, it is clear that he expected trouble to come in the near future. Although he did not very much reduce his efforts in the two larger caves until shortly after 470— when war was imminent—Cave 20, for all of its beautiful beginnings, was treated as a country cousin increasingly during the years of the Recession. When the Asmakas took over the region, Cave 20 (like Cave 19) appears to have been abandoned completely. However, its main Buddha had been expediently completed and dedicated in 471, so it became, in the Period of Disruption, an appropriate ground for intrusions, and probably (limited) residence as well. The bhadrasana image in the left rear corner of the interior of Cave 20 is an intrusive image which bears particularly close connections with the intrusive bhadrasana panel in the porch of Cave 4, and that at the rear of Cave 22. Judging from the very hurried manner in which it was finished, it seems proper to date it to 480. It may be just slightly posterior to the court shrinelet images in Cave 19, which were not only less hurried in execution, but were more ideally located. The bhadrasana Buddha is seated in the characteristic position, on a throne with “late” leonine throne legs. It has the “structural” separators between the lions’ heads and the throne seat common in this late period. However, surprisingly, the similarly “structural” capping nubs are absent; they are normally present in large late images, except where they expediently copy earlier forms.1 The familiar wheel

1 In Cave Upper 6, the hurried throne base of the shrine image copies that in the lower storey, while it in turn influences the treatment of the images in the intrusive right front and right rear shrinelets.

162

cave 20

and deer appear beneath, as in other very late bhadrasana compositions. The flanking pilasters are also a very late feature; in intrusive panels which showed seated (as opposed to standing) images they apparently are not introduced until at least late 479.2 The bodhisattva on the left wears the expected jatamukuta, and is probably identifiable as Avalokitesvara, but he has no other distinguishing attributes; perhaps a figure of Amitabha would have been painted on the small plaque at the center of the headdress. The bodhisattva on the right is of the familiar princely type, but this figure too is of a rather general variety. Both hold cauris, have elongated haloes of the type common at this late date, and stand on roughly defined “late” lotus pedestals. Flying couples converge from above, as we would expect in such a late composition, while a devotee kneels at each side (broken) below the throne, as in many other late compositions of this type. Another kneeling devotee appears in front of the left lion; its expected counterpart on the right perhaps could not be carved because of breakage. It is evident that the image was finished with great haste, and that many of the details which might have been among the last completed in any case (such as the pilasters) were very ill-defined. As in a number of other very late compositions, carved throneback details are omitted; this too suggests that time may have been running out. The whole composition was very summarily painted, after certain areas—notably the image itself and the area above the throne—had been thinly mud-plastered and then prepared with a slip of lime plaster, sometimes quite thickly. Quickly and carelessly drawn lines define details of the flying couples. The halo is drawn, with extreme haste and simplicity, directly on the still rather rough stone, as are certain details of the pilaster’s decoration. These lines might at first be taken as guidelines for later cutting, but on examination they prove not to be; for instance, the halo of the right bodhisattva is edged with a simple white line, but it was obviously drawn in after the halo was (roughly) carved, rather than as a guide to its definition. Nor does the painting seem to be from some later period, since the treatment of the left pilaster’s capital, although very sloppy, follows the expected canons. What we are seeing seems to be clear evidence of a rush. 2 See Cave 4 porch, Cave 22 panels C and F, some panels under Cave 26’s main projecting arch, etc.

intrusions

163

In the original plans for the cave, cells were going to open from the rear wall, both on the left side and the right side of the hall; the outline of the projecting doorframe can still be seen at the right rear, and a similar one must have appeared at the left rear, before being cut away in order to make the intrusive image. However, since Upendragupta’s time was running out by 471, the walls and ceiling throughout the hall were summarily plastered over at this point. In this left rear area, the floor had not even been fully cut down at this time, and remains rough still today. The fact that the plastering of the interior was done before this floor was finished, or before the abandoned doorframe at the right rear was cut away, or many other details properly completed again reveals the rush.3 This confirms that the struggle to get the cave’s decoration done, no matter how expediently, reflects the desperately declining situation of the proud local king in 471. It may well be that the shrinelet-like shape of this already largely prepared area attracted the attention of the late donor. It is interesting to note that he also appears to have added a wooden platform beneath the image; of course missing today, it would have been similar to those added in front of the Cave 19 court shrinelets and in front of the panel at the left of the court of Cave 17.4 Traces of sockets for wooden fittings can be seen below, which would not only have held the platform but would have hidden the rough unfinished floor. Two large holes above the upper corners of the panel must have held pegs, perhaps to hang a cloth with which the image could have been covered when not in use. Two other even larger holes on either side of the “entrance” to this set-back area perhaps held some type of protective barrier. There are two intrusive images carved in the porch, which itself had still not been painted when, around 470, Upendragupta, made his abortive attempt to hastily decorate the higher-priority interior before the expected strife with the Asmakas. Both of these padmasana images, placed in the haphazard manner typical of the Period of Disruption, have a number of surprisingly unusual features, at least

3

For the development of the cave, see Volume I, Chapter 11, Cave 20. See Cave 17 discussion for the suggestion (not an assertion!) that perhaps someone connected with Upendragupta added these ritual platforms to “his” cave after the Asmaka control over the site had ended. 4

164

cave 20

some of which seem to be assignable either to the artist’s inexperience or his ineptness. This may well explain the curious and clumsy treatment of the throne beneath the seated Buddha carved over the cell doorway at the left end of the porch. The lions are neither under the throne, as in very early images, nor do they function as leonine throne legs, as in most images begun after 477. It is neither this nor that. It also appears that the sculptor of this panel has used the halo, which is surprisingly large, as a space filler, instead of taking advantage of the area to add further significant motifs. A similar confusion seems to invest the treatment of the surprisingly unconventional hand-positions. Here, however, the treatment is so unusual that the variant may be due to breakage. Perhaps dhyana mudra was intended, but rendered impossible when the clearly flawed rock between the two hands caused problems. Not only is breakage clear at this point, but the proper left hand has fingers which appear to have been re-cut for the same reason. The likelihood that this image was never intended to show dharmacakra mudra lends support to its dating to 479 rather than to 480, for dharmacakra mudra is almost universally shown in that latter year, having become the type of choice. Even the clearly expedient (if not particularly unusual) placement of the small kneeling devotee at the lower right suggests a lack of more integrated models upon which the sculptor could depend. The area below the image and to the left of the devotee (after having been properly plastered) may once have had a painted donative inscription, although no trace of it remains today. The other intrusive image on the porch, located over the left window, may well have been made by the same worker; this would hardly be surprising. The connection is suggested by numerous similarities in the carving of the faces and bodies, even though the form of the makaras and bolsters behind the images are somewhat different. We might note, too, that the halo-type is very similar and again is just as large as possible, even though here the format of the panel limits its size more than in the other example. Finally, the palette used was apparently just the same, judging from the traces of the orange, green and blue pigments remaining on both panels. If the lions in the first of these two intrusions were anomalous in type, the same can be said of the deer here, for instead of facing the wheel, they assume the opposite positions, and then have to twist

intrusions

165

their heads around to see it. Again, the sculptor is certainly not drawing upon established conventions for his compositions, which may suggest that the panel is one of the earliest of these new intrusions. Even the wheel is unique, being a kind of cross between the highly complex wheel motifs so popular in main images (Cave 1, Cave 4, etc.) during the post-Hiatus period and the very simple “garlanded” wheel which (derived from that in the cave below) first appears in the main image of Cave U6. Although the throne base is surprisingly undefined—again suggesting inexperience and lack of ready models—the throne cloth is of a familiar late type, showing a scalloped profile like that first seen in the main image in Cave 15, where the “late” base was roughly created in early 478, or in certain triforium panels of Cave 26, probably completed at that same time. The white pearl-strands decorating the green cloth recall precedents on the Cave 2 image’s throne base, which was painted in 478; the motif remains popular thereafter. It should be noted that both of these images in the porch, like that inside at the left rear, were supplied with holes above the upper corners of the panels, into which hooks or pegs must once have been inserted, either to hold garlands, or a covering cloth. Because of these intrusions, it is clear that Cave 20 was again a focus of worship in the Period of Disruption, and presumably its usage continued for at least a few years in the 480s. It is evident, too, that the cave was used as a residence in this same period, since Cell R2, the walls and doorway of which were never properly trimmed, was provided with a clumsy E mode fitting, a type never found at the site before 478. Although the B mode fitting of the right porch cell apparently broke away early and was never used, it is likely (and reasonable to assume) that the left porch cell (PL), fitted out ten years earlier but probably never used during the period of Asmaka control, also did service for residence in the Period of Disruption. The distinct wear in its pivot holes logically dates from that period rather than from the years when the whole cave was under excavation, and then abandoned. It is quite possible that, in late 478 or 479, when the important intrusive Buddha was cut in the hall’s left rear corner, and when cell R2 was being so expediently fitted out, it was decided to fit out the long abandoned Cells R1 and L1, and to repair the never-used Cell PR, so that they could finally be used

166

cave 20

by monks for residence in this newly active cave. (Cell L2, placed further to the rear and barely penetrated when Upendragupta’s patronage was cut off, remained hopelessly unfinished). Cells R1 and L1 at the front of the hall had originally been cut as A mode doorways in about 466, and have the very thin front walls characteristic at that date—so different from the thick walls that increasingly came into fashion after 475, in part to better accommodate the recessed D mode.5 And the same is true of the almost equally early Cell PR, where the B mode fitting, cut in 468, broke and was early abandoned.6 However, since both of these old cells were essentially finished, it was only sensible to supply them with doors. This required, however, making the D mode recesses very shallow, which was in fact asking for trouble as soon as pivot holes would be added and the doors set in place; for the swinging of the doors could exert a significant pull on the fragile stone fitting. However, this was indeed done in Cell R1, and the pivot hole may have been in use, without breaking, for a number of years, given the significant wear in the pivot hole. It was also done in Cell PR, which only required that the new pivot hole be cut on the “wrong” side, as was often done at the site when door fitting adjustments were necessary. As for Cell L1, the D mode recess was made, but the pivot hole never cut, possibly because of a fear that it would break, but more likely because during the Period of Disruption people and workers came and went more at their own behest than in the years before, when such developments were under strong control. Perhaps the workman who was to cut the pivot hole was planning to come back, but never did. Admittedly, it was unusual for doorways to be refitted in the Period of Disruption, when the focus of concern was hardly on “development”. However, since such D mode recessing would never have been done prior to 475 and since we could hardly ascribe it to the

5

The excavators in Cave 1 encountered the same problem when they converted the old cell doorways into the D mode. Concerned about breakage, because the new pivot holes were put in such shallow recesses, they left the old monolithic projections as strengtheners. That was not possible in Cave 20. 6 We know that it once had a B mode fitting because of the appropriate pivot hole in the floor. The projection might have been cut away at the time of the conversion in the Period of Disruption; but breakage seems more likely. Even though it would now have no use as a strengthener for the new pivot hole, there would be no particular reason to take the trouble and expense to cut it away.

intrusions

167

period of Asmaka rule, when even the great 17 was left unimproved by the conquerors, we can be fairly confident that the fitting out of all of Cave 20’s habitable cells (PL, PR, and R1), speaks of the cave’s occupation in the Period of Disruption. Of course the presence of the very late E mode fitting in R2, apparently also (hastily!) fitted out in the Period of Disruption, stands as confirmation of this.

CAVE 21

INTRUSIONS

The treatment of Cave 21 during the Period of Disruption is surprising, since it contains a mere three intrusions—a major painting of a bhadrasana Buddha on the left wall of the hall, a large unfinished sculpture of a similar image in Cell PLA, and a small padmasana Buddha panel in the porch. Furthermore, careful examination shows that other intrusive paintings (which might now be missing) never existed. Yet the cave, part of the Asmaka western complex which the great monk Buddhabhadra controlled until Asmaka patronage was broken off in 478, was well on its way to completion; many of the wall surfaces had even been hurriedly plastered in that year. Therefore there was a great deal of seemingly good space available for the use of new donors, and the fact that the image had been hurriedly dedicated before time ran out meant that it was an appropriate location for intrusions. That the intrusive donors paid so little attention to the cave may possibly be due to the fact that its crucial shrine area (unlike most of the rest of the excavation) was particularly unfinished when time ran out. Even the Buddha image—never fully carved—was “finished” in a most expedient fashion, while the expected imagery in the shrine antechamber is missing, as is any decoration of the abandoned shrine doorway. In fact, the shrine doors were never even hung, for the doorway has no pivot holes. Thus the image, unlike most of the other shrine Buddhas at the site, could not be properly closed off, and this may have lowered the cave’s desirability as a place for worship, and consequently as an attractive location for intrusions. What rather tellingly supports such a conclusion is that the situation here parallels that in three other caves at the site, where there was a great deal of available space, but where the Buddha images had also been expediently finished in a great rush and the shrine doors never hung. In Cave 15 there are only two intrusions (at least carved ones) in the whole spacious and “available” interior; in Cave 20 only three; and in Cave 4, there are only two carved intrusions

intrusions

169

and one (now-missing) painted intrusion in the vast porch area, which one would think a most attractive location.1 The painted bhadrasana Buddha on Cave 21’s left hall wall, a quite isolated intrusion, has nothing to do with the cave’s original program of decoration. It was painted in an area where the light was particularly good, and where the surface had already been nicely smoothed (by 477) and then hurriedly plastered in 478. Iconographically, its developed character is revealed by the fact that it is flanked not only by the expected bodhisattvas, but by a complex grouping of other figures, being somewhat comparable to the large intrusive painting above the pillars near the rear of Cave 9, or the slightly earlier (478) paintings on the rear wall of Cave 16. The probable presence of a (much obscured) standing Buddha at the left is a particularly developed feature. Of the two carved intrusive Buddhas, the one just to the left of the left porch window, is a small padmasana image in dharmacakra mudra, attended by converging dwarfs above. The elongated carved halos behind the attendant bodhisattvas and the double lotus pedestals on which they stand are both very late features, as is the central image’s double lotus seat. The bodhisattva at the left, with the kamandalu, may be Avalokitesvara, with his hair probably intended to be in the jata mode. The other figure is Vajrapani, for he has a tiny vajra as a crown ornament, a form unique at the site. The other carved intrusion is a large bhadrasana Buddha seated on an unfinished lion throne, with unfinished flying dwarfs above and unfinished cauri-bearing bodhisattvas at either side. The left bodhisattva has a jata headdress, with what appears to be a projection for an Amitabha image (not defined); other attributes are missing. The right bodhisattva, similarly unfinished, has a stupa in the crown; scholars normally identify this attribute as Maitreya’s, but iconography at Ajanta is often developing the rules rather than reflecting them, so it is conceivable that it represents an “unorthodox” Vajrapani. This large Buddha panel is cut into the right wall of the vestibule of the pillared cell at the left end of the porch. Like the little padmasana Buddha, this unfinished image was placed there after the 1 The vihara at Ghatotkacha, again without shrine doorway fittings, also has relatively few intrusions, except in the special “stupa shrine” at the right end of the front aisle.

170

cave 21

wall upon which it appears had been already finished with plaster; the same mix of plaster was used (in 478) to surface the vestibule of the left cell as well as the main wall and ceiling of the porch. In fact, the unfinished walls of the vestibule of the right porch cell were also expediently plastered, but this was a necessarily thick mix, since by 478 the final completion of such “inessential” areas had been abandoned. We can easily understand how the donor of the large intrusion would choose the left porch cell, with its fully smoothed wall, for his image. Much revealing evidence in the interior (discussed at length in Volume I, Chapter 12, Cave 21) proves that the patron was making a valiant (but ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to get his whole cave plastered and then painted in 478, even though he was all too aware that time was so fast running out. But, even though he did get his image hastily dedicated, and thus achieve the merit, his work benefited the later “intruders”, more than the “original” devotees. The Buddha in the cell at the left end of the porch, being a bhadrasana Buddha, probably would not date before the latter part of 479 at the earliest, since such images are usually not carved in intrusive contexts elsewhere at the site until that time.2 In fact, it can more reasonably be dated to 480, for being so unfinished, it was probably not begun until patronage at the site was nearing its moment of ultimate collapse. That it is attended by bodhisattvas rather than standing Buddhas might suggest that it was planned and/or begun late in 479, even though the shift to standing Buddha attendants after 479 was never an absolute one. Another consideration at least suggestive of a dating to 480 is the fact that the porch’s padmasana Buddha shows dharmacakra mudra, used so universally in 480. The very fact that there are only three intrusions in the whole cave further suggests, although by no means proves, that all of them are relatively late. Perhaps, as suggested above, the expedient finishing of the shrine Buddha and the attendant bodhisattvas, and of the whole shrine and shrine antechamber, discouraged donations until other more desirable contexts at the site were essentially filled up. 2 The first example may be that on the left return of Cave 26’s facade, which probably antedates the many intrusive Buddhas in the ambulatory; for the facade appears to have been treated as the priority area by donors in 479–480. The large image on the right court wall of Cave 19 may be equally early.

intrusions

171

It is true, too, that there are fewer intrusions in caves where, although the main Buddhas were dedicated, the shrine doors were never fitted; quite possibly this had the effect of discouraging the rituals of worship in such caves, notably Caves 4, 15, 21, and the Ghatotkacha vihara. The heads of both of these intrusive Buddhas and the arms and lower legs of the smaller one have traces of white paint remaining on them. The roughly defined white halo—the paint having been applied directly to the still rough stone—was obviously done at the same time. One might surmise that this surfacing is ancient, its rushed character understandable at the end of the Period of Disruption.3 However, both intrusive images also have a blood-red surface coloring on the body, which does not stop at the edges of the carved robe in either case. Instead, it is rather indiscriminately applied, even over the previously painted hands and feet of the smaller image; it is clearly a relatively recent addition, quite possibly applied by someone worshipping the image, if not as a Buddha, as a Hindu or Jain god or folk deity. Cave 21, like a number of the other caves, has “inscriptions” (or graffiti) written or scrawled, generally in red pigment or chalk, on their plastered wall surfaces or (in Cave 17) over some of the paintings. Because their paleography is of the “nail-headed” type, they are generally thought to be close in date to, or contemporary with, the Vakataka caves. No one has translated them convincingly, and suggestions about their purpose range from instructions to the artist, to the names of the artists themselves; neither suggestion convinces. It seems more likely that they are visitors’ scrawls, possibly with a pious import. Is it conceivable that the red used to “redecorate” the little Buddha near the left window of Cave 21 is also the pigment used for the red lettering on the porch wall?4 There is one curious feature in Cave 21 which eludes easy explanation. This involves a teaching Buddha, which some have suggested is intrusive, in the anomalous panel at the right rear. An explanation of why the Buddha is “relegated” to the side is attempted elsewhere.5 3

Compare the hastily painted Buddha at the left rear in Cave 20. For fuller discussion see Cohen 1995, 368, inscriptions 86 and 87 for Cave 21; and commentary on 366–7 re related Cave 17 graffiti. 5 See Volume I, Chapter 12, Cave 21. 4

CAVE 22

INTRUSIONS

The tiny Cave 22 must have been one of the last excavations sponsored by or overseen by the monk Buddhabhadra in the Asmaka’s western extremity of the site. Since by this time—477—space was not available at the “normal” level, Cave 22 was placed up above and between Caves 21 and 23, well over the cell complexes at the porch ends of those somewhat earlier caves.1 The very developed (trabeated) features of Cave 22’s porch doorway clearly assign it to 477; and being started so late, it is not surprising that little more than the porch and the small interior hall been finished by the time that Harisena died. The cave’s four cells had been barely started, while the shrine antechamber and the antechamber pillars were merely roughed out; the shrine was not even started. It is conceivable that desultory work continued in the troubled year of 478, but this is unlikely, since there seems to have been no particular effort to get the shrine itself done. Buddhabhadra’s efforts seem to have been directed to the more important donations, in particular his great caitya hall. During the ensuing Period of Disruption, it appears that this little cave at first lay totally unattended by the eager new donors who now took over the site for their own pious purposes. This is hardly surprising, since these new donors never placed their images in caves in which the shrine Buddha had not been dedicated; such caves were ritually “dead”. However, by 480, instead of concentrating on the donation of separate images, added helter-skelter throughout the site, donors were more and more involved in making separate shrinelets, either by converting some of the more desirable cells within the caves, or by taking over many of the complex court cells which had

1

Just as Cave 22 was started above the abutting porch end cells of Caves 21 and 23, another small cave was started below them in 477 and (being very unfinished) was abandoned. Unfortunately, it has been almost entirely filled in with cement, as have some of the cisterns in this area.

intrusions

173

made their dramatic appearance at the site during 477, the very year of Harisena’s death. Needless to say, most of the latter were not even fully excavated, but they still could be easily converted to the new devotional uses. The new donors did not seem to have any compunction about using such court shrinelets even in caves which had not been dedicated (such as Caves 23 and 24) as if they were thought of as independent entities. And perhaps it was this kind of takeover of such minor units which caused them to break the “rule” in Cave 22 as well, for the little cave has something of the character of these small and relatively independent shrinelets. Perhaps the new donors in the Period of Disruption resisted taking over whole unfinished caves, even if they could themselves make the shrine and put their image in it; perhaps they felt that a large cave, if unfinished, was inappropriate for a “resident” Buddha, and that a small cave like Cave 22 would provide their image or images with a more congenial setting. Whatever the reason this is the single example of such an “unorthodox” appropriation of a whole—even if very minor— cave at the site. To discuss the numerous images in Cave 22 more conveniently, I have identified them by the letters A through I on a plan of the cave. All of the panels are intrusions, and all of the plastering and painting in the cave is connected with these added images. The fact that some are either unfinished or very hastily finished, together with the developed character of their iconography, suggests that the little unfinished cave was not taken over by “intruders” until 480, and perhaps appropriated at the time because good spaces for such votive images were becoming increasingly scarce at this time. Panel A appears to be the “central” image in the cave, being highly visible and amply composed. It was almost certainly the first panel started; when first viewed, it seems to occupy the conventional position of a standard shrine Buddha. However, the observer soon realizes that it actually has been cut into the rear wall of the antechamber, where the shrine doorway would have been placed, had the excavation of the cave not been interrupted at the time of Harisena’s death. Its immediate source may have been the shrine image of Cave 26RW, carved in 478; both are more developed, and more comfortably composed than the related bhadrasana images in Caves 16 and 26. As will be noted below, it was not plastered and painted until the even more obviously intrusive small bhadrasana images just to its right were being hastily finished.

174

cave 22

Panel A’s composition is a prime example of the developed iconography of the Period of Disruption, and perhaps particularly of the year 480, even though its patron preferred flanking bodhisattvas rather than the flanking Buddhas which characterize some (by no means all) of the latest image groups. The bhadrasana pose is now the pose of choice, and here shows the expected leonine thronelegs beneath, with the thrust-blocks and nubs revealing the throne’s structure. Beneath, the kneeling devotees, almost required in the latest compositions, flank the conventional deer and wheel. The bodhisattvas are now raised upon “late” double lotus pedestals, and have ovoid halos. Avalokitesvara, at the left, with Amitabha in his headdress, holds the kamandalu, while the figure on the right can be identified as the expected Vajrapani by the broken vajra in his hand. Both hold cauris. As is often the case in late compositions, the elephants are omitted from the throne back; the vyalas and makaras spouting bird’s heads are conventional for late throne backs, as are the active nagas just above. Higher still, typically late strongly projecting flying couples converge upon the image. Panel B contains two very incomplete standing Buddhas on the adjacent left wall. By this time, “extra” Buddha images—generally (six) standing figures attendant upon the main image in the shrine— have come into wide usage. However, since it seems from the various inscriptions in the cave that the various intrusions were mostly given by separate donors, it is likely that this panel should be thought of as an independent composition. It must have been underway late in 480, and was so unfinished that no attempt was made to hastily plaster and paint it. Quite possibly, work on it had been delayed because the workmen were busy on the central image (A) and the elaborate image on the right side (C). Panels D and E, both small bhadrasana panels, were cut into the space remaining on the wall just to the right of panel A, and thus were obviously carved subsequently to it. When they were undertaken, the larger panel C (on the right wall) must also have been underway, for if this had not been the case, it seems evident that they, rather than the latter, would have been placed on the right wall. At the same time, they were certainly not started after panel C was finished, since they were painted at one and the same time. Thus they must be contemporaneous with it. It is relevant to note that small bhadrasana panels such as D and E never were carved elsewhere at the site in intrusive contexts until 480. This clearly sup-

intrusions

175

ports the view that panel C (a very “developed” composition in any case) should also be assigned to 480. It seems clear that all of these panels—A, B, C, D, E—were part of the same short and somewhat abortive burst of patronage, in which only panel D (including the painted Buddhas and ceiling directly above it) was really properly completed. The finishing of panels D and E was, like that of panels A and B, apparently a by-product of the work done on panel C, for their surfacing appears to have been hastily done along with the much more careful program of work on the latter. Naturally, it is not possible to be sure why the patron or patrons who sponsored panels D and E did not see to their proper completion, but considering the apparently late date of all of the intrusions in Cave 22, it seems likely that it was due to mounting economic and political problems and quite possibly military pressures on the Asmaka patrons just antecedent to the total collapse of patronage at the site in the same year (480) that they were underway. It appears that the donor of the well-finished panel C, who also must have been responsible for the donation of the painted group of eight Buddhas just above and for the small related area of ceiling painting, was probably himself responsible for the hasty surfacing of the other panels—to make them somewhat more presentable—even though the time and money he spent on the task was minimal; the application of the plaster, slip, and final “detailing” with red paint to panels A, C, D, and E could hardly have taken more than a few hours at most, but it still could have been sufficient to qualify them for dedication—a crucial concern. Had time not been so quickly running out, it seems reasonable to assume that more care would have been taken, not only on the surfacing of these panels, but in finishing panel B. The fact that a few of the intrusive panels—notably panel I, in particular, and to a lesser degree panels G and H—were also surfaced before being properly carved, and that (as pointed out below) this was apparently done at the same time as the surfacing of panels A-E, further suggests that the artists and patrons in the cave were forced by circumstances to rush their works to a most expedient conclusion; it would appear that the site’s patronage ended with great abruptness indeed. And if this is evident here, it is over and over revealed elsewhere at the site (e.g. caves 26, Upper 6, and 4), where often no attempt at all was made to plaster and paint late and unfinished carvings.

176

cave 22

That A, B, D, and E were surfaced at one and the same time is evident from the fact that the very same mix of brown plaster appears on the cut-back surface directly above the head of both the image in panel A, and that in panel D, and also on the frame surrounding both panel A and on that surrounding panel B. In fact, this same brown plaster—much of which has apparently fallen away wherever it was applied—was used to hastily surface the very roughly cut shrine antechamber pillars and pilasters (except where the right pilaster meets the more carefully plastered adjacent paintings) and also (after a preliminary application of slip as on panel A) to summarily cover the very incomplete bhadrasana image (Panel I) at the left rear of the hall. This is further evidence that this work was part of an attempt to hastily surface the various roughly carved areas of the cave just as time was running out, when it was obvious that they would never be finished in any better fashion. In fact, the walls of the main hall were hastily plastered in the same brown mudplaster—presumably at this same time—while a few hurried sketches in the red paint used on panel A and elsewhere also appear on these walls. Typically, in this rushed period the ceiling was not plastered at all, whereas in the site’s heyday, ceilings were always plastered before the walls. It is very significant to note that the brown mudplaster on the frame over panel A meets the very different (more seedy) plaster which covers the surface above panel C (and extends over portions of panel C itself ) and that they are both covered by the same slip. The slip also extends without a break from panel C onto the similarly plastered area just below panel E, while it is evident that the painting on panel C was done at the same time as that on panels D and E; even though the latter painting is limited to a very simple system of red highlighting, it connects with that of panel C with no discernible break. The same simple addition of red outlines for the halos and red coloring for the Buddha’s robe is seen on panel A, and it is evident that this red (which appears to be identical with that on the other panels in any case) is not of recent date because wherever the original white slip is gone the red is absent too; in other words it was painted directly on the slip rather than ever appearing on the stone from which the slip had fallen away, as would be the case if it (i.e. the red) were a recent addition, as is sometimes the case at the site. We should also note that the red covers the brown mudplaster

intrusions

177

over the panel A Buddha’s head—where it defines a sloppily rendered lotus—and is painted over the plaster on panel A’s frame and on the beam over the fronting shrine antechamber pillars too. This further confirms the anteriority of the plastering of all of these images to their “completion” by means of the red paint, which appears to be exactly the same as that used—but more carefully—on the elaborately finished panel C. Thus again we have confirmation of the fact that all of these panels in the shrine antechamber were plastered and painted in one single phase of activity, even though only panel C was treated with any particular care. One further point must still be mentioned. It is evident, on careful examination, that the brown mud-plaster on the cut-back surface over the head of the Buddha in panel A was applied after the white slip was put on that panel—whereas the white slip on panel C extends over the same plaster on the frame above panel A. Thus we must conclude that panel A (but not the adjacent panels D and E) had been covered with a slip before the other panels in the (intended) shrine antechamber, and that the brown mudplaster over the Buddha’s head, and the various areas of red paint which “finish” the panel were subsequent additions. This is not particularly surprising; it would appear that panel A received its white surfacing while panel C was being plastered—the plaster extending beneath panel E too—and that it was only after this that the decision was made to add mudplaster to the still-rough area over the Buddha’s head, and on the surrounding frame, and then to finish the panel (albeit very poorly) with the same red paint currently being used more carefully on panel C. As for panel B, there are no traces of white slip whatsoever on those unfinished images. It seems clear that no attempt was made to finish (and then to dedicate) that incomplete pair of standing Buddhas, although they may have been surfaced with the brown mudplaster which still clings to parts of the surrounding frame; if so, it has since fallen away. (The unfinished bhadrasana Buddha at the left rear of the hall was covered in this way, and probably was never given any further surfacing of either slip or paint.) To sum up, it seems evident that all of the panels in the (intended) shrine antechamber were surfaced at the same time by the donor of Panel C, the only panel which was plastered and painted with any particular care, and even inscribed. Since all of these panels appear to be among the latest at the site, and thus datable to 480,

178

cave 22

it may well be that the haste with which they were finished was due to the fact that time was running out. A similar situation exists with regard to the completed images (Panels F and H) on the rear wall of Cave 22’s hall proper. It is clear that they had been finished prior to the time that the images in the antechamber were plastered, for the brown mudplaster put over some of the latter is not used to cover them, but appears on unfinished areas (the lower image in the left rear, and on the pillars) instead. These images (Panels F and H) were sponsored, like panel C, by donors who did not encounter the difficulties which apparently confronted the donor(s) involved in donating panels A, B, D, and E. Like panel C, both of them are complemented by the decoration of the ceiling areas above them, even though such areas are very limited ones, as is quite characteristic for intrusive imagery. Although both panels F and H were completed before time ran out, their various features are so developed that they must be assigned to 480, like the intrusive panels in the shrine antechamber. This assumption is enhanced by the fact that panel H shows signs of hasty completion, as will be mentioned below; furthermore the adjacent panel I, quite possibly underway at the same time, was still very unfinished late in 480 when time finally ran out. The unfinished bhadrasana Buddha (panel I) at the left rear of the hall is probably the latest undertaking of all, considering its position, which is later than that of the completed panel H just above, and the fact that it was barely started. The fact that it is surfaced with the same brown mudplaster as appears on portions of, or around, panels A, B, D, and E again supports the conclusion that all of those were hurried to at least some kind of expedient completion just as time ran out. The painting of the porch doorway, which had not been quite fully carved when the original program of work was cut off late in 478, was now hurriedly painted, probably in 480, as a complement to the very late images in the cave. The bhadrasana panel F on the right rear wall of Cave 22’s hall was, as already pointed out, one of the first intrusive images undertaken in the cave; this is of course hardly surprising when we note its “high-priority” location on the highly visible and relatively welllit rear wall. However, even though it may well have been among the earlier of the panels in the cave, it is such a highly developed conception that it seems very unlikely that it can be dated prior to

intrusions

179

480, which of course supports the dating of all of the panels to that same final year of patronage activity at the site. It obviously relates closely to the panel A image, although adds certain notably late elements as we shall see. Although neither the plaster nor the painted surface of panel F connects with the surfacing of panel C—which might allow us to ascertain their relative dates by examining their juncture—the mode of carving and also of painting is very much like that of panel C, suggesting that they may well have been done by the same artists at approximately the same time. This would hardly be surprising— in fact it might be expected—considering the relatively small amount of such work in the cave, and the evidence which we have studied before, suggesting that intrusive work in the cave did not start until almost the final moment of activity at the site in any case. We might further note that this panel (F) not only has flanking pilasters very much like those of panel C, and the same addition of “late” long stems to the double lotus pedestals which support the bodhisattvas, but that like panel C the carved panel is intimately connected with a painted area on the wall directly above as well as with a decorated patch on the adjacent ceiling area. In fact, the damaged painted area directly above panel F still shows traces of two makaras with arcing forms centering upon a crown—the very type of motifs carved above panel C, even though they are somewhat differently composed. Furthermore, a series of eight painted Buddhas appears above both panels—in the case of panel F, the last one of the series had to be placed on the adjacent wall. The ceiling patches are quite different in design, although both are notably simple in type; furthermore, it is relevant to note that they appear to have been prepared, at least in part, with the same mix of fine gray plaster. This particular mix covers the whole of panel F and the areas above it, as well as the adjacent decorated area on the side wall of the hall just to the right; and it was also used to “piece out”—or at least was combined with—the blacker, very seedy plaster which covers most of panel C’s ceiling patch and which is also used on the surfaces above and to the right of Panel C and on the connecting edge of the adjacent antechamber pilaster. It seems correct to conclude from these observations that panel F must have been plastered before panel C and the intimately related decoration of the same wall was painted, and that panel C must have been carved before panel F

180

cave 22

was plastered; all of which only further confirms the view that both of these, and indeed all of the intrusive compositions in the cave, are essentially contemporaneous. The most striking feature of panel F’s composition is the manner in which the central Buddha is elevated upon a high stemmed lotus supported by nagas, and in which the attendant bodhisttvas are similarly raised up on connected flowers. This change from the more usual format is a notably late one, found elsewhere at the site only in images carved during the Period of Disruption, and indeed almost certainly assignable to 480, the very last year of activity at the site. Comparable examples with nagas under a tall stemmed lotus are to be found in the later ambulatory panels of Cave 26, and in the very late front aisle panels in Cave Upper 6. Perhaps because the arrangement was still so new, the sculptor seems to have been at something of a loss when it came to disposing the conventional kneeling devotees, three of which are consequently squeezed in the lower corners of the composition, while a fourth is skillfully poised on one of the rising lotus leaves. The deer are also quite expediently located; in fact they are almost pushed off their perches by the nagas, while the wheel (which they should flank) has not been carved at all.2 It seems likely that the uncut part of the composition’s base was reserved for a donative record—perhaps to be incised; however, if so, it was never realized, for the patron’s dedication appears in the form of a rather carelessly painted record placed in two sections on the small green painted areas adjacent to the nagas’ hoods. Like so many of the inscriptions connected with intrusive images at the site, it records the gift of a monk, in this case the Sakya bhiksu Dhar(ma)deva, and the merit accruing was meant “for the attainment of the supreme knowledge by all sentient beings including his parents and others.”3 Needless to say, this inscription, like the similar donative inscription under the Buddha supported by painted nagas on the adjacent wall (panel G) and the inscription connected with panel C, accords with the intrusive character of the related image. It seems reasonable to assume that another such inscription once appeared beneath panel H, since that was also carefully completed; but no trace of the latter remains.

2 Possibly the thickened base of the lotus stem once had a wheel painted on it; in Cave 26’s ambulatory below panels the stem and the wheel are often combined. 3 Inscr #89; Dhavalikar 1968, 151.

intrusions

181

The upper part of panel F corresponds closely to panel A, although the cauri-bearing bodhisattvas are necessarily smaller, and perhaps for this reason, together with the severe damage they have sustained, show no clearly identifying attributes. The cramped position of the lions (really leonine throne legs) may account for the absence of the conventional throne-leg top above their heads, although the expected throne seat nubs are assertively present. The throne back motifs are very much the same as in panel A, except that the vyalas each have a rider, as is so often the case in late compositions. The flanking pilasters are also very late features and are discussed below. It is a matter of interest, and sadness, to note that the heads of the bodhisattvas in panel F have been knocked off. Here again we are reminded of the panel’s similarity to that at the left of the porch doorway in Cave 4, for both show how the skill of the sculptors had developed in terms of representing figures in high relief. Of course it is this very achievement that made such heads subject to destruction, either by religious zealots or zealous amateurs. In general, Ajanta’s sculptures, especially in the years prior to the Period of Disruption, were carved quite close to the wall, and were happily protected by this fact. The adjacent panel (panel G) shows a very simple padmasana Buddha seated (as is common in very late images) on a lotus seat, and flanked by paintings of cauri-bearing bodhisattvas, also lotussupported and haloes. The figure at the left, with his jata headdress and simple robe, must be Avalokitesvara; the figure on the right, as we would expect, is a more princely type, although shows no specific identifying attributes. The extremely late date of the panel is suggested by the fact that nagas (painted) support the padmasana image; prior to 480 they are only found in association with bhadrasana images. The late date of the group could also be confirmed by the observation that the plastering and painting was obviously done with the same materials and at essentially the same time as that of the adjacent panel F. As noted earlier, the eighth Buddha in the row above panel F was placed on the already plastered and prepared wall surface above panel G, so it is obvious that panel G had already been cut by that time. On the other hand, as we would expect from its less visible position, panel G was apparently not fully completed until after panel F; for instance, only a portion of the body of panel G’s Avalokitesvara is shown, because the adjacent pilaster (part of panel F’s composition) had already been painted when this figure was started.

182

cave 22

Above the carved padmasana image, there is a row of three painted padmasana images “attended” by detached cauris; these images appear to have been laid out after the main (carved) panel was painted, which is hardly surprising: note how the lotus seat of the left image is slightly compressed against the boundary line just beneath it, whereas the jata headdress of Avalokitesvara suffers no such constraints. Higher up still, and much damaged, one finds a corpulent painted yakshini (Zin 2003, 36–37) crowned and seated at ease, with a pile of offerings below. The subject, at this late date, when generally only Buddhas (and occasionally bodhisattvas) were donated, is unusual, but this can probably be explained by recognizing that it is not a separate donation, but rather is part of the overall composition of panel G—indeed, almost a space filler. It seems evident that it was painted at the same time as the padmasana Buddhas just beneath, since they share the same pigments, even to the point that the green around the yakshini is used to color one of the Buddha’s halo; they also show mutual compositional adjustments at their common edge. (The dark filler between the Buddhas’ halos does not come up to the halos’ crests, and thus the lower “frame” for the yakshini is better revealed.) It is very evident that the padmasana Buddha above the yakshini, which forms the eighth of the series started on the adjacent wall, was painted at the same time and with exactly the same pigments as the yakshini itself; they must be part of one and the same effort, and this only further confirms our assertion that panel F and panel G and indeed all of the panels in Cave 22, are very closely contemporaneous. We would assume that they were all painted within the period of a very few days, after having been carved and then plastered shortly before. As pointed out above, panel C on the right wall of the shrine antechamber was almost certainly contemporaneous with the adjacent little bhadrasana images (panels D and E), which themselves can hardly be dated prior to 480. Again, as pointed out above, panel C was the only image in the shrine area to have been completed at all carefully. Indeed, it would appear that the donor of panel C was responsible for the much more hurried finishing up of all of the other panels in the antechamber (as well as other last minute efforts in the main hall), for it is evident that the very summary plastering and painting of those panels was underway at precisely the same time that panel C, including the connected painting of the wall and patch of ceiling above it, was being completed.

intrusions

183

Our assertion that all of the intrusive work in Cave 22 can be assigned to 480 is supported by a study of panel C’s arrangement and its unusual iconographic features—in particular their incorporation of the makara-arch, the devotees converging with a crown, and the elaborately molded plinth under the Buddha’s lotus seat. Its closest counterpart is the remarkably similar composition on the left rear wall of Cave 15, which we have also assigned to 480; if anything, panel C could be considered the slightly more “developed” of the two, since its bodhisattvas are raised up on long-stemmed lotus pedestals—a feature which was not even found at the site (at least in sculpture) until 478.4 It then becomes common for both Buddhas and bodhisattvas in the Period of Disruption. It seems likely that both the Cave 15 panel and panel C in Cave 22 have their ultimate source in the Cave 26 ambulatory panels, not only because it is only here (and in the Cave 26 stupa drum and the Cave 26RW image) that one finds bodhisattvas raised up on long-stemmed lotuses, but also because it is only there (in panels R2–R4 and L8) that one finds a direct precedent for the striking makara-arch motif combined with flying devotees carrying a crown which distinguishes these two intrusive panels. This is found nowhere else at the site, except of course in Cave 22’s contemporaneous panel F, where the latter motif has been painted in. It need hardly surprise us that there is a gap of a year or more between the Cave 26 ambulatory prototypes and the derivative compositions in Cave 22 and Cave 15, particularly since the features under discussion were transferred from bhadrasana to padmasana compositions. We could also suggest that, in further support of the very late dating of the new and impressive panel type, its very rarity suggests that it was not developed until it was too late for it to have any significant progeny at the site. Another feature of both panel C and the related Cave 15 panel which suggests their very late date is their pilaster-enframement. This is notably absent in the otherwise influential Cave 26 ambulatory panels (R2–R4 and L8) of 478, nor does it appear in any generally comparable intrusive panels which appear to date from 479. On the

4 See Cave 26 stupa drum, Cave 26RW image and Cave 26 ambulatory panels R2–R4, although the latter do not actually show stems under the high lotus pedestals.

184

cave 22

other hand a number of other panels assignable to 480 show the feature: the Cave 20 left rear image, both of the Cave 4 porch intrusions, panels F and H in Cave 22 itself, and various panels on the rear frame under the great arch of Cave 26. The only seated Buddha (as opposed to standing Buddhas) from the Period of Disruption, which has a pilaster-enframement and which in our opinion could possibly date from as early as 479 is one rather high up among the intrusions on the left façade frame of Cave 19; and this one too is likely to date from 480 rather than from 479, judging from its relatively inaccessible position. The immediate prototypes for such seated images enframed by pilasters would appear to be the central Buddha of Cave 26 (477–478) and the derivative main image in Cave 26RW (478) while less directly related panels can be found in various caves at a slightly earlier date too. But, as was often the case in the development of intrusive votive panels, these precedents were not followed immediately, during the Period of Disruption.5 The painting of panel C, which had beeb quite carefully carved, was done directly on the stone (after the application of a thin slip) but the surrounding areas (notably at the right and above) were heavily plastered. It is clear that this was done prior to the time that the panel proper was painted, for the surface decoration continued without a break over both the panel and the adjacent areas. The area at the right, which includes part of the shrine antechamber’s right pilaster, is covered with a geometric-floral pattern quite similar (but not identical with) that at the edge of panel F. It continues above panel C too, and was obviously completed at the same time as the row of eight Buddhas at the next higher level, since exactly the same pattern is to be seen above them, as well as on the decorated patch of ceiling which “completes” the decoration of this right side of the antechamber. Each of the eight Buddhas (properly seven plus Maitreya, distinguished from them by his crown) was once named in brief accompanying inscriptions.6 Above, the Buddhas’ trees were once identified, 5

The case is different with standing Buddha panels, where pilaster-enframed images do seem to have been carved in 479; see Cave Upper 6 rear wall of hall, and shrine antechamber; Ghatotkacha vihara front aisle, right end. 6 See Zin 2003, 37a, Yazdani 1955, 111–112. Cohen 1995, 377 Inscription #91. The name of the fourth is entirely lost. Four of the trees are also identified by inscriptions.

intrusions

185

but most names are now lost.7 Another longer inscription, written by what (not surprisingly) appears to be the same hand, is seen below the lower patterned border which separates the eight Buddha group from the carved panel below, and presumably refers to the carved image in particular, but to the whole composition in general. As we would expect from an intrusive image it states that the donation was made by a single individual; and again, as in the great majority of similarly late records datable to the Period of Disruption, it refers to the donor as a monk, one Sakyabhiksu Aparasaila.8 There are two other intrusive inscriptions in the cave, making a total of five.9 The ceiling above, plastered largely with the same mix as the wall just below, although with a section of the mix apparently used on panel F too (as we have pointed out above) completes the decoration of this right side of the antechamber in an effective but extremely simple fashion. It alternates summarily painted animal forms with a geometric pattern of the same type used as frame-motifs around the painted and carved compositions below. It is of particular interest to note that only the right antechamber wall painting is complemented by such a related ceiling design, showing that when this wall was decorated, it was the prime focus of attention. Although the panels on the main (rear) wall were hastily finished with a rather slap-dash application of paint at this same time, and probably by the donor responsible for panel C, no trouble was taken to extend the ceiling design to cover the whole area, even though this would certainly not have taken more than a few hours to do. It is of interest to note that during the course of carving, or so it would appear, the proper right knee of the Buddha image broke, and was repaired in a characteristic fashion by re-attaching the broken portion (or a replacement) using wooden dowels to make the connection; portions of the old wood still remain in the holes drilled to secure them, although as we might expect the attached piece of knee is now missing.

7

Zin 2003, 37a, Cohen 1995, 378, Inscription #92. See Cohen 1995, 376–7 Inscription #90. Also Yazdani 1955, 112. See also Burgess “Inscriptions from the Cave Temples of Western India”, 1881 (ASWI #10) for an alternative earlier reading. 9 See Cohen 1995, 376–378; inscriptions #88–#92. 8

186

cave 22

Panel H, at the upper level of the left rear wall of the hall, was painted with a modest degree of care, like panels C, F, and G, being essentially contemporaneous with them. It must have been finished just before panel I, which was hurriedly plastered (despite its extremely incomplete state) just as time was running out, for it is covered with a different mix of plaster and so was not part of the general “finishingup” process we have spoken of earlier. If it once had its own donative record, like panels C, F, and G, there is no evidence of it today, because the painted surfacing along the panel’s base, where the record would probably have appeared, has all fallen away. The placement of panel H’s Buddha, as well as the attendant cauri-bearing bodhisattvas, upon lotus pedestals, and the provision of halos (of an elongated “late” type) for the latter, are conventional features of any relatively late image. The converging dwarfs above are quite usual motifs as well. The flanking pilasters, on the other hand, would seem to allow us a greater precision in fixing the panel’s date, since they apparently were never used in panels at the site until 480; and this of course supports our overall conclusion about the very late dating of all of the intrusions in the cave. Perhaps in part because the panel is so small in size, but even more probably because all of the intrusions in the cave were treated in a rather summary fashion, the various motifs on the typically late “structural” throne back, have been merely painted in. (A similar saving of effort characterizes a number of other very late and intrusive images at the site: Cave 20 left rear, Cave 19 left court shrinelet, Cave 15 rear wall, Cave 4 porch left rear wall, Cave Upper 6 left window edge.) In fact, the treatment of the rearing vyalas, and of the makaras spouting “late” bird’s heads, is so simplified that the painted additions—like the similarly simple painted flames and floral motifs behind the throne in panel C—could hardly have occupied a competent painter for more than an hour or two. However, it should be noted that the painter has at least taken the trouble to festoon the vyalas’ paws; in sculptural groups this is a notably late feature, never appearing earlier than 478. The decorated patch of ceiling above must have been done with equal speed, for it is very limited in area and is composed of a notably simple geometric pattern. The likelihood that time was running out, and that a sense of urgency was already being felt when panel H was underway, is suggested not only by these simplifications, but by the fact that the

intrusions

187

panel’s left pilaster broke during carving and no attempt was made to repair it, the break being merely plastered over and painted. Although painted details were often used together with or even in lieu of carved motifs in the composition of sculptured Buddha groups at the site, the manner in which the whole wall surface above a carved panel was decorated with related paintings, and with small complementary patches of painting on the ceiling above, is specifically connected with intrusive work, where such sections of wall and ceiling were appropriated by individual donors eager to make as much merit as quickly and as cheaply as possible. The gratuitous combining of large painted panels with more time consuming carved ones—the former generally at the higher level of the walls in question—seems particularly characteristic of the latter part of the Period of Disruption, namely 480 instead of 479, apparently as a result of changing fashions. Such new conceptions, very evident in Cave 22, are particularly noticeable in areas such as the front wall of the interior of Cave Upper 6—the last area to be used for intrusions in that cave—while a fairly extensive area of wall, together with an area of ceiling, over the intrusions in the otherwise unpainted porch of Cave 4 once was plastered and then covered with associated paintings. It is interesting to note that the whole area of wall just above the intrusions in Cave 15 was once plastered—obviously for this same purpose—but if any paint was applied it cannot be seen today. This might lend support to our assumption that the Cave 15 intrusions were very late indeed; it could well be that the work was never finished because—just as in Cave 22—time ran out all too soon. The two small bhadrasana Buddhas (panels D and E) between panel A and panel C are very simplified types. Both sit against a bolster on plain legged thrones, and have lotus pedestals under their feet, while the lower composition includes the conventional deer and wheel beneath. The compositions, being cut back into the “frame” on the right side of panel A, show by their positioning that they were undertaken subsequent to panel A, and this is confirmed by the fact that the proper left arm of panel A’s adjacent bodhisattva is very rough along its more rearward edge. This is because at the time it was cut the adjacent frame was still intact; had the little bhadrasana panels already been cut, the panel A sculptor would have been able to carve this arm more fully, as he did other parts of the relief where he could work up to the background without constraints.

188

cave 22

Since little bhadrasana images do not appear in intrusive contexts elsewhere at the site until 480, this further supports our view that these figures—panels D and E—were very late donations indeed. They must have been painted—in the very same summary fashion along with panel A—when panel C was being brought to completion, as we have pointed out above. It would appear that the barely-begun bhadrasana image (panel I) on the left rear wall of the main hall—certainly started after the completed padmasana image just above, which itself would appear to be a product of 480—received a coating of brown mudplaster and then a surface slip at the same time as panels A, D, and E. Indeed, it was much more fully plastered than any of the latter; in the panel A and panel D Buddhas the plaster appears only on the frame and on the rough cut-back over the heads—presumably because it was extremely unfinished. Possibly the patron (presumably the sponsor of panel D) who did this intended to have further details added in red, but either these have now been lost or—as seems to be the case—they were never added, things being so rushed late in 480.

CAVE 24

COURT CELL INTRUSIONS

The intrusive image at the back of the pillared cell complex at the left of the court of Cave 24 is an impressively developed example of the bhadrasana type. The chamber which houses it, however, was not originally intended for this use. Like the similarly placed complexes at either end of the court of Cave 7, or that started at the left of Cave 4’s court, it had been started in 477, perhaps as a highpriority residence cell during the heyday of activity at Ajanta, when work on Cave 24 was flourishing. The ultimate source for such new units was probably the pillared court complexes of the imperial Cave 1, a cave continually drawn upon as a model by other planners at the site.1 Similar, but simpler, units at the more constricted right end of the court of Cave 16 and at either end of the court of Cave U6 (also later converted to shrinelets) appear to have been undertaken at the same moment—the vigorous last year of Harisena’s reign.2 Never started before 477, these complexes were very practical additions, in the sense that they take advantage of still-available space—the usage of which was not conceived earlier except for occasional cistern chambers. Unfortunately, however, the new concept struck the patrons at the site a bit too late, for not a single one had been completed as planned by the time of Harisena’s sudden and disrupting death.3 It is important to recognize that the Cave 24 court chamber, now housing a fine Buddha image, was not originally cut as a shrinelet, but was already well underway as a pillared cell complex when consistent work on both it and the related main cave suddenly broke

1 It would appear that these units were part of the original plan of the uniquely grand façade of Cave 1; however they were not finished until 477, and even then not totally. 2 One is reminded of the “sudden” decision, in 465–6, to add porch end cells to the plain porch ends wherever possible. 3 Possibly Cave 7’s right court cell was completed, but its broken state obscures the evidence. The matching left court cell is quite incomplete.

190

cave 24

off with Harisena’s death, at the end of 477. It is also important to recognize that the once-superb Buddha group within it is an intrusion, probably dating to 480. This is evident not only from its highly developed iconography, but by the fact that the shrinelet’s double doors were never hung, and that the associated “six standing Buddhas” (four in the inner chamber, two in the vestibule) remain unfinished. The now much reconstructed fronting pillars also were still unfinished in 477. So we know what happened in 477, and we know what happened in the Period of Disruption (particularly in 480), following the pattern of development throughout the site. What is crucial, however, for our understanding of the course of Asmaka patronage, as opposed to that of “Vakataka” patronage, is what happened in 478; and this is both remarkable and remarkably clear. In fact, it provides one of the most crucial key to our understanding of both the artistic and the political situation in these troubled late years of Ajanta’s active history. The situation of the Asmakas in 478, as reflected in their interrelated excavations at the site’s western extremity, was very different from that in what we call the “Vakataka” caves, which comprised all of those along the “main” area of the scarp (other than the Hinayana excavations). These “Vakataka” caves were made by donors from or faithful to the Vakataka court, so they were immediately in jeopardy when, in about mid-478, the Asmakas, taking advantage of the great Harisena’s sudden death, rejected their old feudatory connection, and declared their independent status. This of course meant war, or demanded a preparation for war, because Asmaka had long been part of the Vakataka domains. The expectation of this crisis apparently affected the loyal “Vakataka” patrons almost immediately after Harisena’s death at the end of 477. This is why they now, early in 478, abandoned the most unfinished caves (3, 5, 14) and, in other caves, rushed the shrines alone to an expedient completion. By mid-478, when, as we can assume from Buddhabhra’s Cave 26 inscription, the declaration of Asmaka independence had been declared, they had already fled from the site. No work was done by the original patrons after that time; for if the Asmakas had had only a feudatory control over the Ajanta region before, they were now the sole—and ominous—lords of the region. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the Asmaka caves were not so traumatically or so suddenly affected by the declaration

court cell intrusions

191

of independence; and this is of course understandable, since they were the donations of the new self-declared rulers of the site. It is not that the death of Harisena, and the anticipated problems which it precipitated, did not affect the Asmaka donors also. The huge caves, like 24 and 28, which were very incomplete at this time, appear to have been abandoned completely at this time, as if in these critical times there was no point in trying to finish them.4 In the Asmaka caves upon which work continued, it went on in what could be called a “normal course”, with attention, even if often most expediently, being given to the decoration of the halls. Although quality now is often compromised, as if neither time nor money was as abundant as before, there is nothing here of the anxious urgency in rushing the shrines alone to completion, that we see in the Vakataka caves. Cave 21 is a particularly telling example; for although Buddhabhadra or a donor under his aegis clearly ordered uncharacteristically hasty work throughout the cave in 478, he was still confident about the future, and was apparently not worried about getting the shrine area completed. Thus when the crisis did occur, the Buddha image, still only partially carved, had to be expediently completed with plaster and paint. The shrine antechamber pillars (the expected brackets being cut away to save time) and the elaborate doorway had to be left unfinished and the shrine doors never fitted.5 Evidence involving the “abandoned” Cave 24 shrinelet, and its connection with the right wings of the Cave 26 caitya complex, is equally telling. Buddhabhadra had in effect sacrificed these two early and already obsolete little wings when, in about 466, he decided to allow their precincts to be invaded by the newly planned Cave 24. Cave 24 was a grand conception about which he was as rightfully proud as he was rightfully disenchanted by the embarrassingly old fashioned neighbors at its immediate left. This is why he made the startling decision to penetrate deeply (at least twenty feet in the cave of the left porch cell complex) deep into the area of the wings,

4 It is conceivable that some work did go on in 24, 28, 22, 23A, and 24A in 478, but their very unfinished state makes it hard to distinguish any such work from the other early stages of their excavation. The clear evidence of rush in the other Asmaka caves suggests that work did indeed stop with Harisena’s death in these where there was little hope of completion. 5 See Cave 21 discussion. The situation in the even more incomplete Cave 23 is analogous.

192

cave 24

destroying any possibility of their normal development.6 Thus the cutting down of Cave 25’s hall floor had to be abandoned, since if work had continued, the anticipated cells of the more important Cave 24 would never have been able to have been cut, since they would occupy the very same area. By the same token, Cave 24’s court shrinelet, dating to 477, even though somewhat unfinished, penetrated so deeply under the unfinished court area of Cave 25, that Cave 25’s court floor, worked on subsequently, could never be cut down to the intended level. Nonetheless, in 478, probably urged on by the knowledge that time was so clearly running out, Buddhabhadra decided—probably to gain even more merit from his “memorial in the mountains”— to get a shrine completed in each of the four wings of his great caitya complex.7 Although these were finally able to be completed only in Cave 26 LW and 26 RW, he had ordered the upgrading of Cave 25 (and 27) as well in 478. Continuing to excavate Cave 25’s half completed main hall was useless, but nonetheless he ordered the doorway decorated in a characteristically late manner; the rough and cursory lintel design follows a structural pattern not introduced to the site until 477. He also “upgraded” the early unfinished porch pillars—once planned as simple “early” octagonal types—in a haphazard and again unfinished way. It is almost as if he gave the order to finally bring Cave 25 “up to code” and then, being almost totally uninterested in anything other than making a somewhat acceptable location for the new shrine, allowed a few of his lesser workmen to take the responsibility for the work. The task the workmen faced, even when they tried to complete the Cave 25 porch, was quite impossible, for although they cut the porch floor down to some degree, they had to give it up at the right, lest they break into the now-completed left porch complex of Cave 24. The situation in the rather constricted courtyard was even more impossible. The floor could be cut down to the desired level at the

6

The courtyard of Cave 24, already started in 466, was cut down to such a level that cells (or later a shrine) could not be cut in Cave 25RW’s rear wall without a breakthrough. See Cave 25RW discussion. 7 Cave 26 inscription, verse 8: “A man continued to enjoy himself in paradise as long as his memory is green in the world. One should (therefore) set up a memorial on the mountains that will endure for as long as the moon and the sun continue.”

court cell intrusions

193

center and at the left, but at the right they had to leave a high platform, because Cave 24’s pillared court cell, already mostly roughed out the year before (477) and then abandoned, was obviously in the way. Its presence may have been justified as an expedient “offering platform” for a loose Buddha image which presumably was to reside in the otherwise unexplainable deep niche in the wall which the platform faces.8 If so, it seems clear that an image was never installed there, since the niche is only roughly cut. Whatever the use of the platform, the point is that it directly reflects the presence of the Cave 24 court cell beneath; and since the latter was abandoned at the end of 477, this late work in Cave 25 could only have been done afterwards, namely in 478. In fact, the floor of the platform, which the workers tried to make as small as possible, has broken through into the earlier cell complex (now a shrinelet) below and has been recently repaired with cement. They obviously made both the floor and the two exposed walls of the platform much too thin for safety, in their aim at cutting this obtrusive area down as much as possible. Again, it seems that the workmen here were very much on their own; their unhappy accomplishments stand in direct contrast to the superb carvings being made in the adjacent caitya hall’s ambulatory at precisely this same time; but that would appear to be where Buddhabhadra’s true affections lay. It was only during the Period of Disruption—probably in 480— that the fine intrusive Buddha was carved in the abandoned court cell complex. The “takeover” of complex cells (both in the courts and in the caves) by “uninvited” donors was a common and understandable feature of the devotional surge in these anxious later years (479–480). Four examples are found in Cave Upper 6 alone, two in Cave 19 and one each in Cave 21 and 23.9 Even the unfinished Cave 22 appears to have been wholly taken over in this way. The very positioning of the splendid image which now occupies the old Cave 24 court cell reveals the problems involved by its proximity to Cave 25. The sculptors were not able to set it back at a normal depth for the simple reason that the year before, in 478, the aforementioned platform in Cave 25’s court had been cut as close

8 9

A similar niche is seen in the front wall of Cave Upper 6. For a cell taken over as a shrine, see Volume I Chapter 12, Cave 27, Cell R1.

194

cave 24

to the still-unfinished (i.e. shallow) cell complex below as possible. Thus the bhadrasana image is so squeezed in that the accompanying “six standing Buddhas” had to be portioned out between the shrine itself and its vestibule. At the same time the great Buddhas halo had to be somewhat compressed, again because of the restrictions imposed by the 478 platform above, while the shrine ceiling, reflecting the same concerns, is (unconventionally) lower than that of the less threatened vestibule. Furthermore, to make the image as large as they could, the excavators’ only alternative—a quite unconventional one—was to lower the floor. However, even this adjustment had to be done with discretion, to avoid breakage into Cave 26RW’s cell L1, which is located below. In fact, the whole court cell complex had been raised up particularly high when undertaken in 477 for this very reason; note that the floor of its antechamber is some 20” up above the level of the adjacent courtyard. A date of 479 for the beginning of work on the bhadrasana Buddha under consideration is clearly supported by a study of its many points of connection with a number of earlier images of the type at the site, but perhaps most particularly with the great conception at Aurangabad Cave 3, a major undertaking—finished in 478—which must have attracted immediate emulation. The Buddha image is much damaged, but it was seated in a generally conventional way, on an unusually wide throne with an assertive double lotus for a pedestal beneath the feet. A simply garlanded wheel of the type commonly used in such late bhadrasana Buddhas is carved, in quite suppressed relief and small in size, against the lotus. Just beyond the deer, but provided with more space, there are traces of the now-conventional devotees, which have largely broken away. The lions (really “late” leonine throne legs) which support the throne seat are posed with a tremendous vigor, reflecting the energies which had been developing at the site just before its consistent patronage was so sadly and decisively cut off. Although their heads are hard to make out because of much damage, they appear to have been twisted around like those similarly late examples in the left court shrinelet of Cave U6. Their freer movement, as compared to those supporting the thrones in Caves 16, 26, and Aurangabad Cave 3, was allowed by the fact that the whole throne is now considerably widened, being more like those of contemporary padmasana

court cell intrusions

195

images in this regard. As in other examples, beginning in 477, the tops of the throne legs were apparently shown above the lions’ heads, for although broken, there is sufficient space for their easy inclusion. Nubs must have been present also, even though they are not visible today; this may be because a major flaw appears just at this level, and has resulted in considerable breakage. As in Aurangabad Cave 3, the new idea of placing the bodhisattvas upon double lotus pedestals was used here, as it was in nearly all subsequent major groups. The bodhisattvas do not appear to have had halos, but the almost complete breakage of the figures makes it difficult to be sure. All identifying attributes have also been obliterated; only their cauris, conventionally held over the proper right shoulder, remain. As in Cave U6’s left court shrinelet, where the image has a number of close connections with this group but was probably influenced by it rather than vice versa, the bodhisattvas are relatively small in size, are placed well forward, turn inward at a striking angle, and are elevated upon rather high “cylinders,” which lift up their lotus pedestals. The latter treatment was probably not anticipated, however; it appears to have been an expedient way of avoiding the serious flaw which runs along somewhat above the floor level. Above the bodhisattvas, in dramatically high relief, garland-bearing flying couples converge on either side; the female at the extreme left has the loop of cloth over her head just as in the main images in Aurangabad Cave 3, Cave U6, Cave 22, and in even more nearly contemporaneous examples in the ambulatory of Cave 26. The dramatic projection of these aerial figures compares with the similar manner in which these same motifs are treated in various other very late Ajanta contexts, as well as in Aurangabad Cave 3. As with the two bodhisattvas, the projecting sections which support these figures have been carefully hidden from view, so that they give the impression of fully detached three-dimensional figures. The connection with the Cave U6 main image is particularly evident in the treatment of areas at either side of the image; for whereas they are by no means identical, there are no others which relate so closely in the development of the particular features stressed in these two examples. In both, the area utilized here is particularly wide, perhaps because the mode of placing the bodhisattvas in these two examples resulted in there being more space available for it than usual. At the same time, here in the Cave 24 example, the unnecessary

196

cave 24

length of the throne seat is also responsible for the situation; most examples are more compactly composed.10 In both throne backs the makara is particularly stressed, and the figures sporting around it, or placed near it, are remarkably multiplied. In the Cave U6 main image four such dwarfs exuberantly play around each of the floriated beasts, from whose mouths similar lotus fronds emerge, but in the Cave 24 shrinelet example there are (or were, before breakage) no less than eleven in various positions, on either side of the upper throne back! Not only does a dwarf emerge from the mouth of each of the makaras, below which are two other dwarfs, but others (four on each side) sport under the curve of the lotus frond, while loving naga couples (reminiscent of the ruinous painted forms in this position in the Cave 2 image and seen in another rare instance, in carving, in the Cave U6 left court shrinelet) appear above the head, next to the Buddha’s halo. Furthermore, above the arcing lotus frond musicians appear, their inclusion perhaps suggested by the placing of similar flying devotees in Cave U6’s composition; as in the latter design, the pair on the right has a zither while that on the left has a flute. Near these musicians, at the top of the arc, on each side, a dwarf is wildly dancing, his arms raised over his head, while two smaller figures, apparently percussionists, beat the rhythm. The closest counterparts to these figures are found in one of the rather similar and closely contemporaneous images in the right aisle of Cave 26; the latter (Panel R7) may have provided a precedent, since it was carved only about a year earlier, in 478. The lower portion of the throne back is sadly damaged, particularly on the left, but it is clear that it had the same pillared structure as that behind the Cave U6 image. Perhaps because more space was available or perhaps because it represents a slightly more developed conception, the Cave 24 shrinelet throne back structure is somewhat more elaborately compartmented than that of Cave U6’s image. Similar vyalas, each ridden by a dwarf and with another dwarf (or possibly two) underfoot, were carved in the larger outer compartments, judging from that on the partly preserved left side. Elephants appear to have been omitted, as often in late groups. The com-

10 The relatively complex structure of the throneback of the Aurangabad Cave 4A image—datable to 478, with a few intrusive additions—provides another parallel.

court cell intrusions

197

partments (one above the other) nearer the image apparently both contained small standing male figures, although the upper one is by and large obliterated. The lower one has the general appearance of a bodhisattva, accompanied by a small standing attendant. It is of interest to note that the decoration of the doorway leading into this shrinelet is nearly identical with that of the right rear shrinelet and court shrinelets in Cave U6, which from their general context and the character of the images within, appear to have been underway at almost exactly this same time, during the Period of Disruption. Such detailing would hardly be expected in connection with the originally intended residence cell, nor is it likely to have been started when the fronting pillars (now much restored) were still so rough. So it is surely not part of the 477 phase of excavation, but is part of the later work. In fact, this whole shrine doorway represents a significant enlargement of the original doorway intended for the complex’s inner cell, which must have been at least roughly cut out here in 477. If finished, it would of course have had a characteristically recessed D-mode doorway, with the door being pivoted on the left (as viewed from inside). But, as finally developed, it had two projections above, such as were often used for double doors in a number of such shrinelets, even during the last years of work at the site.11 Why the old conventions were retained in so many late instances, by which time the major shrine doorways were simply recessed (as in the D mode) is hard to explain, except as an example of the retention of an earlier established convention.12 These projections, which typically do not project forward (as in B mode doorways) but rather downward from the ceiling, were defined by raising the original ceiling level when work on the shrine was underway in 479–480. It would appear that in somewhat similar shrinelets in Cave U6 (left court, right front and right rear) the ceilings

11

Often these doors appear in re-designed units, which had relatively thin “early” walls. See Cave Upper 6 right front shrinelet for instance. 12 Cave 1’s pillared court cell at the right, perhaps still underway in 477, since it is somewhat unfinished, also has such door fittings; the doorway is much larger than for a cell, and its dimensions greater, so it must have been destined for some special use. The small chamber at the left of Cave 16’s narrow court, although half broken, also apparently had a wide doorway with two such projecting fittings, one of which remains. It appears to have been used as a convenient place to get water from the nearby system, with which it was connected by a narrow tunnel.

198

cave 24

were also raised higher than originally intended in order to effect this kind of double-door fitting. Just as the lower surface of these projections probably defines the original (unfinished) cell’s ceiling level, so the upper surface of the inner step probably defines the original floor level, retained here to make entrance more convenient. After the elaborate image in the Cave 24 shrinelet had been carved, work continued in the shallow inner chamber of the shrinelet and in the equally shallow antechamber. In the latter, a standing Buddha, under a “late” arch, was apparently to be placed on each of the side walls; only the image on the better lit and less flawed right wall was started, however, and it is quite unfinished. It is of considerable interest to see that the flanking pilasters have merely been sketched in, in the expected red pigment, preliminary to their carving. In the inner chamber itself, there were two more standing Buddhas on each side wall—thus the total number of these and the ones to be carved in the vestibule would make the conventional grouping of six. Judging from traces beneath the farther one at the left in the shrine, we can probably assume that all stood on lotus pedestals, and like the shrine’s bodhisattvas were raised up higher than expected to avoid the aforementioned flaw. Where their haloes are still somewhat intact, they show a characteristically late elliptical shape. A few kneeling devotees (typically late features) are in ruins near the Buddhas’ feet, while flying dwarfs appear in the corners of the shared panels nearest the throne. That on the right has progressed no further than the blocking out stage, while the more forward Buddha on this right side is also still unfinished. We know that as the patronage situation during the site’s Period of Disruption gradually worsened, work on such votive offerings often progressed very slowly, if at all. Thus at the time when all such work was finally abandoned at the site, it seems likely that the shrinelet’s main image had still not been put into worship; at least there are no extant traces of original plaster and painting on it. Indeed, probably because time ran out, the upper left part of the halo was never quite fully carved, and this probably explains the various other unfinished features—the fronting pillars, the left edge of the doorway, along with much work on the six standing Buddhas and the flying dwarfs above them. Equally telling, no shrine door was ever hung, as the absence of appropriate holes for the necessary pivot poles and of doorstop holes on the threshold makes evident. Thus it may be quite reasonable to assume that this whole shrinelet,

court cell intrusions

199

although quite possibly started in 479, was still unfinished when time ran out at the end of 480. The characteristic red pigment used to sketch in the frame of the unfinished Buddha panel on the right wall of the antechamber also appears (barely visible) on this Buddha’s neck and lips, and would seem to be original; at least it does not appear where the lips have been later broken. This same red covers the robe of the rear figure on the right shrine wall (where it is clearly visible). There are suggestions of painting still remaining on the main image’s halo, while a yellow ochre pigment can be seen here and there on the associated standing Buddhas too, even thought some were very incomplete. The face of the front Buddha image—only roughed out—on the shrine’s right wall still shows traces of this pigment, which is also seen on the belts of both flying couples. The mere traces of gold leaf or paint on the forehead of the farther standing Buddha at the right are modern devotional applications, which appear on a few other Buddhas at the site as well. All of this painting (as opposed to the red sculptor’s sketches connected with the front right Buddha) appears to belong to more recent times.

CAVE 26

INTRUSIONS

An analysis of Cave 26’s various intrusive panels can be particularly useful for our study of developments in the Period of Disruption. Particularly with the ambulatory sculptures, one can establish a continuum which clearly reveals that the earliest panels—the most important of which are not intrusive but were carved during the consistent phase of work in the cave—occupy the best positions, are most impressive in terms of size and quality of workmanship, are fully finished, and have “earlier” (by a mere year or two) iconographic features. In contrast, the latest panels are relegated to less ideal positions, are more hastily conceived and carved, are often unfinished, and include some of the most developed iconographic details found at the site. As we might expect, those images in the ambulatory which belong to the Period of Disruption are quite different from those carved during the period when the cave was consistently developing. One need only look at the main portion of the façade to see how striking the contrast can be. Whereas the majority of the important images in the ambulatory are of the bhadrasana type, all of the Buddhas on the main part of the façade, without exception, are either padmasana images of a relatively simple type, with cauri-bearing bodhisattvas, or else are standing Buddhas showing the standard varada mudra. Furthermore, as we might expect, the original part of the façade, like that of the other Mahayana caitya hall, Cave 19, shows a very carefully organized decorative program, which incorporates numbers of exuberantly realized dwarfs, loving couples, elaborate architectural enframements, and floral and geometric additions. In striking contrast to this, the exterior sculptures done during the Period of Disruption are solely iconic in nature—no time, space, or money is wasted on decorative niceties. They appear, both on the façade returns and in the ambulatory, in an increasingly helter-skelter hodgepodge of panels, reflecting the fact that space, especially in desirable locations, got harder and harder to come by as the months

intrusions

201

went on, and that both time and money were all too quickly running out. The situation in the interior is similar. The programmed decoration of the pillars, “triforium”, and stupa follows a very ornate and tightly disciplined schema, similar to that in cave 19, but far more elaborate—even fussy. The individual details are now often so many and so small that they read less well than in the earlier Cave 19; but the organizational control on the part of a master planner is still everywhere evident. Iconography has of course developed from the time of cave 19’s carvings; we now can find many recently introduced features in the Buddha images and in their elaborate surrounding forms. Needless to say, many of these—for instance the double-lotus seat so generally used for even the original patron’s padmasana images in Cave 26’s interior (but not on its slightly earlier facade), or the arched enframements over so many of the small seated images are features familiar in the Period of Disruption as well, where they were often treated with less care and elaboration. It is evident that bhadrasana images had not yet come into common usage when the carved decoration on the main area of the caves 26 façade was finished in 477. This is hardly surprising, since the new type had not been introduced at the site until that very year with the creation of the impressive image in cave 16 and of the central image of Cave 26 itself. Even in 478, when the decoration of the triforium and of the cave’s central stupa was brought to completion, such images were only sparingly used, as we have shown in our discussion of the main images and of the original work programs in this cave and in Aurangabad. Although four major panels (R2, R3, R4, L8) of the bhadrasana type were carved in Cave 26’s ambulatory before consistent work on the cave ended late in 478, bhadrasana images were never carved in intrusive contexts at the cave until late in 479, as we shall see. The first of these were fairly major conceptions, as if the routine votive use of the type had not yet gained currency. The widespread offering of smaller bhadrasana reliefs on, or in, Cave 26, in intrusive contexts, did not begin until the very year of the collapse of patronage of the site, namely 480. We have seen a parallel situation in Cave Upper 6, where there is an equally revealing continuum of images available for analysis. The fact that the new type of image took three or four years to become established at the site is hardly surprising, however; as many

202

cave 26

examples show, there was often a time lag separating the introduction of any new form at the site and its appearance in different contexts. In this same regard, it is relevant to note that bhadrasana images had been shown in paintings at the site nearly a decade before they appeared in sculpted form. As in cave 19, the returns of Cave 26’s façade—which we shall discuss, along with the areas showing carved Buddhas under the great arch, before taking up the intrusive ambulatory sculptures— had not been decorated when consistent work on the cave ended. All of the sculptures in these important areas are intrusive, given by donors who took over the available space after the original patron, Buddhabhadra, was no longer actively involved in the cave’s development. The fact that so many areas of this great cave were still undecorated when the original patron ended his own involvement in its development is a matter of considerable significance for anyone seeking to analyze the history of the site and to reconstruct, at least in general terms, the historical developments which may have been taking place. I have shown elsewhere that the writing of the dedicatory inscription, and the cave’s dedication, must have occurred about midway in 478, by which time the most important parts of the façade had been completed.1 Thus the whole main surface of the façade had been decorated with its well organized series of Buddha images and other motifs at this time, and both the great arch and the completed porch (now much broken) had been plastered and painted. In the interior, all of the pillars, the elaborate carving on the triforium and on the stupa itself, a few particularly impressive panels in the ambulatory, the painting of the main vault, and of the ambulatory ceiling, had been finished. Thus the excavation and decoration of the main cave had been at least “respectably” finished when Buddhabhadra’s time ran out. The great monk must have left the site distressed that so much was still undone, even though it seems most likely that he was planning to return once the Asmakas had won their war. After all, the spacious returns of the façade, and the more rearward walls of the ambulatory, had not been decorated at all, at least with sculpture, while at least three of the four “wings” of the great cave complex

1

See Volume I, Chapter 12 for the date of cave 26 inscription to mid-478.

intrusions

203

(cave 25, cave 27, and Cave 26 RW) were still far from completely excavated when the original patron, and his developing dreams, so suddenly came to an end.2 Particularly when we realize that throughout 478, work had been proceeding with some vigor on the now unfinished wings of the cave, and that this work was then suddenly summarily abandoned, we can sense that there must have been crucial external pressure affecting the internal development of the site. Why else was this great cave complex, intimately associated with the ruling regional powers, left so unfinished? And why, at precisely the same time, did the programmed development of a great number of other caves at the site, and at Ghatotkacha and Aurangabad too, then finally end completely, after what was clearly a year (478) of hurried and anxious activity? The answer must lie in the political situation, and its economic concomitants. Fortunately we know something of the future conXict which was in the making and which was to involve the regional rulers (the Asmakas) and their overlords (the Vakatakas). Thus we can recognize, in the sudden stoppage of the old patronage programs late in 478, a clear sign of crisis. It seems evident that at this moment the Asmakas, already fomenting an insurrection against the Vakataka empire, ordered a shift of interest (which is to say, in effect, funds) away from any further sponsorship of these pious undertakings, in order to use all available funds for the purposes of war. This suddenly left the site without official support, or even official approval of private support. The extent of these sanctions is clear from the fact that when work so abruptly ended on Cave 26—fortunately not before it had been enough finished to be an operable entity—work also ended on all of the other caves which had (which varying degrees of success) been developing along with the great caitya hall during late 478.3 Some official pronouncement, some pressure from on high, must have been involved, although for most of the patrons who cut caves

2

For the development of the Cave 26 complex, see forthcoming volume. Caves 24, 28, 23A, 24A, and 22 were so unfinished that they were abandoned when Harisena died. Besides Cave 26 and its four wings, Buddhabhadra’s Caves 21 and (probably) Cave 23 were worked on right until the end of 478. In the main part of the site, the original patrons’ involvement invariably ended by the middle of 478, when the Asmakas rejected the Vakataka overlordship. 3

204

cave 26

along the main scarp and rushed their Buddha images to completion in the first months of 478, the pressure may have been fear, since they were partisans of the Vakatakas rather than of the Asmakas. This explains why they had to so rapidly sever their own involvement, even though work continued until the year’s end in the caves at the site’s western end. After this moment, the whole site was abandoned, as far as any further serious work by the very elite group of original patrons was involved. The donations which were made during the next two years (479–480), in what we have called the Period of Disruption, were clearly intrusive and were entirely the doing of latter day devotees, who were interested only in their own individual merit-making offerings rather than in seeing that the great caves or even their shrines were completed.4 Thus the end of 478 is a crucial times in Ajanta’s development. It represented the moment of shift from a committed involvement on the part of the people most concerned with the consistent growth of the site, to a selfish and disruptive interest manifested not in continuing programs, but purely in the donation of personal and intrusive offerings. This late and spastic flowering was very brief, blasted by the worm of war. By the end of 480 it was over, for it had no source of continued sustenance. From the point of view of the regional rulers, the urgent donative activity of the last two years (479 and 480) of the site’s now crippled growth must have been merely permitted rather than happily approved. Its continuance can be explained in part by the fact that the latter-day sponsors were primarily monks, as an analysis of the many inscriptions on the intrusive carvings and paintings proves.5 It is reasonable to assume that these monks were mostly those still resident at the site in this troubled period; for it was hardly a time either to come to the site or to leave it. We can well imagine that the monks (as well as local devotees) who had lived at Ajanta for many years without the right to donate anything, were now eager to make their own offerings, and could conveniently use the now-

4 I have mentioned earlier that the inscriptions never assign the merit to the donor himself, but (typically) to his mother and father and to “all sentient beings”. 5 For a count of those known from inscriptions, see Cohen 1995, 412. There obviously were many monks who did not make votive offerings, or did not inscribe them, or whose inscriptions are no longer extant.

intrusions

205

idled artisans to do this, paying them very little or perhaps even “trading” their work for prayers. Of course we have no sure way of knowing how many monks resided at the site during its heyday, or how many stayed on when the site was collapsing. Even if we count the cells which show clear signs of use, it is hard to determine which ones continued in use after the site’s active patronage ended. However, we do know that Dharmadatta, one of the two bhikshus who assisted Buddhabhadra in making Cave 26, also gave (and inscribed) four intrusive painted images in Cave 16. So, at least in this one case, we can be sure that Dharmadatta resided at the site in good times as well as bad, and it seems logical to believe that he was not the only one. Indeed, there are a number of cells which had not been fitted out until very late (477 or 478) which nonetheless show enough wear in their door fittings to allow us to conclude that monks have must have been using them for at least a few years thereafter. As we might imagine, the earliest donations of this intrusive type are generally more ambitious (and of course generally more fully finished) than the later ones. We can assume that there was more money, more energy, more room, and more hope at the beginning of this Period of Disruption than at its end. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there must have been great numbers of suddenly unemployed artists and craftsmen seeking work now, for it would necessarily have taken some time and thought before such workers would or could migrate to other areas, as they certainly must have done over the course of the coming years. Their services, now that the large scale projects of the past few years had been suddenly terminated, must have been obtainable for next to nothing, their situation being worsened by the fact that, in the wake of the great Vakataka empire’s collapse, there was probably no other or better place to go.

CAVE 26

FAÇADE The first instances of intrusions on the returns of Cave 26 were undoubtedly the colossal standing Buddhas which appear in very prominent positions, high up, at either side. These prime areas, which must have been among the first chosen for such intrusions in caves 9 and 19 also, had the desirable quality of being both very close to the main façade and very readily visible. At the time the great standing Buddhas were carved, similar space was available on either side, so that they are symmetrically disposed, almost as if they formed part of the carefully worked out master plan for the façade. However, they are definitely intrusive, for they have incised donative inscriptions beneath. Although the donor’s name has broken away from the inscription at the right, it appears to have been almost identical to that at the left, which records the gift of the Sakya monk, the reverend Gunakara. This striking similarity in wording and placement of the two records, and the fact that only one other intrusive inscription at the site is incised, would suggest that they are a donative pair. This assumption would seem to be confirmed by the striking similarity between the two great images themselves, not only with regard to their size and shape but also considering their enviably high-priority placement. It would appear that Gunakara “got there very early” and had enough money, or clout, to accomplish the making of this unique and impressive pair.1 Both of these great images show the conventional flying dwarfs converging from above; flying couples were never used above standing Buddhas, even in the very latest contexts, although they were quite commonly used with seated images from 477 on. This is perhaps because such flying couples first came to be used in late shrine groups, and thus were associated specifically with seated images, but not with standing ones.

1

Cohen 1995, 381–2 inscriptions 94, 95. Cohen does not discuss their similarities.

façade

207

Beneath these images, again following conventions which had started developing as early as 477, carved kneeling devotees appear. The great image on the right had two such figures, one of them (at the left) a female. The similar great image on the left had only one such carving; the other devotee was painted in, although it is now nearly obliterated. The common assumption that such attendant figures are “donors” is countered by the evidence here that the panel was given by a monk, yet one of the attendants is female! The first intrusions on the caitya hall exterior, like the first ones in the ambulatory, are much more ambitious and much more carefully placed than subsequent ones. It is as if, in 479, when they were done, there was still some effective control over such productions, despite the troubles in which the site was so clearly involved; as we have seen, this appears to have been true of many of the other undertakings at Ajanta too. Gunakara may well have been on good terms with the monk Buddhabhadra and his two fellow monks. In fact, Buddhabhadra had only recently (a few months earlier, in 478) dedicated the main hall in honor of the Asmaka minister. One might fairly speculate that Gunakara had the same scribe compose his inscription, since both records contain the same revealingly wrong form in referring to the donor’s mother and father.2 Perhaps the incising of his record(s) was also accomplished by the same skilled (presumably literate) workman responsible for the long inscription in the porch below. One can work out the sequence in which the intrusions directly below Gunakara’s Buddha were added, by studying the manner in which they are placed in relation to each other. Such an analysis proves that work proceeded gradually downward and from front to back. This turns out to be very reasonable in terms of the visibility of the different panels, for when the porch roof was intact, a person standing in the courtyard would not have been able to see the lowest and most rearward images from the courtyard, and this obviously made those positions the least desirable. Thus the padmasana Buddha group with the bodhisattva attendants was the first to have been done of those located directly beneath Gunakara’s Buddha.

2 Yazdani 1955, page 119: “Curiously enough, the same wrong form mata-pitaram occurs in verse 13 of (Buddhabhadra’s) inscription.” Cohen 1995, 380, note 21 refers to the matter but does not comment.

208

cave 26

Such a panel would presumably have been cut swiftly, partly because the sculptures were by now highly skilled and surely done by contract, but also because of the considerable sense of urgency felt by donors in the Period of Disruption. Since this image, well placed, carefully conceived, and fully finished, certainly belongs relatively early in the two year (479–480) sequence of Cave 26’s intrusions, it seems likely that it should be dated to 479 also. Its overall character recommends such a dating too, for it is of the more “old-fashioned” padmasana type, which was soon to lose precedence to the bhadrasana type. This padmasana image has cauri-bearing bodhisattvas Avalokitesvara with jata, lotus, and antelope skin on the left and his princely counterpart with a vajra on the right. Both attendants are posed upon their own lotus pedestals— a late feature—and both supplied with carved haloes of the late elliptical type. Dwarfs converge with garlands above; they are often used instead of the more up-to-date couples in late images where space is limited. The throne back shows running nagas above the makaras, and vyalas with simple scrolls. The customary elephants are omitted, as is sometimes the case in late groups when the format is constricted. As is sometimes the case with padmasana images, even at this late date, nubs are not shown on the corners of the throne seat, while the tops of the throne legs, generally shown over the leonine supports, are omitted, as in a few other very late images (e.g. main images in caves 15 and 16).3 The presence of a large arcing throne cloth is also consistent with a dating to the Period of Disruption, as is the pronouncedly heightened lotus pedestal beneath the wheel. The wheel itself, by contrast, is of the undecorated type seen in the earliest images at the site; this old fashioned type, which had not been used for nearly a decade (since cave 20’s image) does appear again fairly often in the Period of Disruption, almost always, as here, where the base motifs are rather crowded.4 The next panel undertaken in this area was undoubtedly the standing Buddha just to the right of this padmasana group. The space available, although limited, was excellently situated in terms of visibility from the courtyard below. The later date of this panel as com3 Such omissions are common in relatively small images. The essential thing is that in these late conceptions, the lion supports the throne, functioning as a structural (leonine) throne-leg. 4 See examples on lower right façade frame of Cave 19; also the large padmasana image in Cave U6 front wall.

façade

209

pared to the adjacent padmasana one is proved by the fact that the flying and kneeling devotees to the left of the standing Buddha are cut, in part, out of a surface which would not have been revealed until the padmasana panel had been carved. Thus the sequence of work is clear. The small stupa just beneath this latter Buddha was probably carved at this same time, utilizing the space left at that point. The stupa is attended by hands holding cauris, an unusual motif found first in various sculptures and paintings of about 470, in and on Cave 19. The fact that the panels here intrude upon the carefully organized façade was of no concern to these late donors. The sequence of the panels just below seems evident too. The large bhadrasana panel had clearly been displaced to the right, because the two small standing Buddha panels just to its left were undertaken first. Although these two latter panels were in less ideal positions than the panels higher up, the sculptor made them as readily visible from the courtyard below as possible by placing them as far toward the front edge of the return as he could. This left insufficient space for the bhadrasana group, but the sculptor, influenced by the way in which the available strip of stone at the junction with the main façade had been utilized just above, took the rather unusual step of bending the bhadrasana panel around the corner where the return meets the main part of the façade; thus the attendant vajrapani is set (surprisingly) at a ninety degree angle to the rest of the group—a surprising and perhaps unique compositional adjustment. This bhadrasana Buddha group is of particular interest because it is the first intrusion of this type on the cave front. As we have pointed out, its positioning suggests that it is clearly later than the padmasana image above, and also later than the two standing Buddha panels at the left, but this is not to suggest that they would be separated by any long span of time; indeed, work probably proceeded on all of this group in one continuous program of carving and finally of painting.5 This would of course have been practical since special 5 Curiously, this bhadrasana image was replastered after having been painted. Conceivably, it was refurbished when, during the following year, some of the figures under the arch were finished. Its original surfacing may have been damaged after only such a short time because it is so far below the projecting eaves above; thus monsoonal rains may have been swept onto it, or (in heavy downpours) may have splashed up onto it after falling upon the top of the porch roof, which abuts this image.

210

cave 26

arrangements (ladders and/or scaffolding) had to be provided when work was done in this area. To support this view, there is evidence that the original plan was to place the bhadrasana panel in the more logical position directly beneath the padmasana image just above. One can see a thin incised line, running horizontally over the little standing Buddha near the bhadrasana group’s upper left corner, and continuing the line of the latter’s upper margin. This line appears to have been cut there when the bhadrasana panel was to have been placed more normally. However, between the time when this edge of the anticipated panel was incised, and the time when the carving of the panel actually began, the little standing Buddhas to the left were themselves started and usurped the expected position. It is characteristic of attitudes in this unruly period that the sculptor of the standing Buddha paid no particular heed to this previously incised line as he probably would have done if he himself, rather than the carver of the adjacent panel, had made it. As we might expect, the bhadrasana panel, so tied in with the complex of images around it, has many features in common with the padmasana image directly above. Yet it was almost certainly the last of the intrusive panels in this group on the left return. A date of late 479 or even early 480 seems appropriate, not only because it had many features in common with other intrusive bhadrasana images which appear to date to that same time, but because it is clearly earlier than certain of the bhadrasana panels in the ambulatory which must have been underway by the middle of 480. In the latter, such as R7, R8, and R9, Buddhas replace the flanking bodhisattvas which always appear in earlier bhadrasana groups. The bodhisattvas here are readily identifiable. Avalokitesvara, with jata mukuta, Amitabha in crown, and the antelope skin, stands on the left; a princely Vajrapani, holding the vajra, appears on the right. As in the image just above, the bodhisattvas have elliptical haloes, and (like the seated Buddha) apparently had their feet on “late” lotus pedestals, although these are now obscured by breakage. Perhaps because the sculptor of the bhadrasana image opted to make his flying dwarfs much larger than those in the panel above, he “simplified” the consequently crowded running figures over the makaras by omitting their snake hoods. There does not seem to have been any standard “rule” at this time about the characterization of these particular throne back figures; in the contemporary ambula-

façade

211

tory sculptures, and elsewhere at the site, they are sometimes nagas and sometimes not, sometimes single figures, seated or even dancing, and sometimes couples or groups. As in the padmasana group just above, and in most of the ambulatory panels, the once conventional elephants are omitted from the throneback, where simple scrolling “fillers” are carved beneath the vyalas. There are various symmetrically disposed pairs of holes above these various panels, showing that they were at least prepared for worship, and for the hanging of garlands from the generally nowmissing hooks. How the placement of the garlands in such locations was achieved is uncertain, if indeed the hooks were for flowers. On the opposite side of the cave (at the right of the facade) a few related Buddha images once existed. Old photographs show, in the area above the right porch pilaster, a padmasana group (since fallen away) which was quite similar to that beneath Gunakara’s colossus.6 Beneath this was a standing Buddha in an arched frame; today only the very bottom portion of this panel showing the Buddha’s feet on a double-lotus pedestal, along with attendant kneeling worshippers, remains. Higher up, and closer to cave 25, another much damaged image can be seen. It is of a quite developed type in terms of its iconography, for the cauri bearing bodhisattvas are not standing, but are seated on separate stemmed lotus seats at the upper corners. This quite unique feature already anticipates later developments of the late fifth to the early 6th century, at Kanheri The central garland bearing dwarf above relates to similar figures carved in the ambulatory panels R2, R4 and L8, all of which can be dated to 478, and which probably provided the immediate precedent for the similar figure here. There are a few other votive panels on the Cave 26 façade and in the right wing (Cave 26 RW), all of which were probably done in 479, somewhat before the-hard-to see bhadrasana Buddha on the left return, for donors must have been very eager to utilize such prime locations. The two Avalokitesvara Litany panels on the wall between the main part of Cave 26 and its right wing reflect a theme which was very popular in this troubled period, when the need for the bodhisattva’s protection for pilgrims, traders and others hurrying

6

See ACSAA Ajanta fiche 53:40.

212

cave 26

away from the site may have been felt with a particular acuteness. Presumably the more accessible lower one was the first to have been begun, and if so this could account for the fact that its lotus pedestal is less developed than that of the one above. However this, as well as the notable differences between them, could easily be due to the predilections of the patron or the artist. That this lower image was indeed put into worship is shown by the fact that it was once supplied with double doors, fixed into the four pivot holes in the shallow setback. There are also two holes for (now-missing) garland hooks just above, while a curious slot under the row of lion-heads may have held a wooden projection to protect the image from rain.7 Interestingly, an insert, presumably a figure of Amitabha, perhaps of some precious material and now missing, must once have adorned the headdress. Significantly, the well preserved upper pivot holes show distinct signs of wear, as do the pivot holes in the late (D-mode, converted from A mode) doorways of many of the cells in the cave. This must be ascribed to usage in the 480s, when monks continued to reside at the site. The lower panel is somewhat unusual in being carefully framed by a decorative border, like a few other “special” late panels at the site.8 Avalokitesvara holds the long-stemmed padma and kamadalu in his proper left hand, and an aksamala in his right (which shows abhaya mudra). At the left, above a broken scene of shipwreck (conventionally placed in this lower left position), attacks by snake and elephant, and brigand and bhut, are represented, with lion and forest fire identifiable at the right. Two pairs of converging figures above include a flying naga on the left and a sword-bearing dwarf at the right. With the flourishing trade routes now either closed or increasingly dangerous, devotion to the “Lord of Travelers” may have seemed particularly desirable, and could well account for the large number of such images done during the Period of Disruption. There are three in the Cave 26 complex alone: the two just described on the right façade frame and one at the mid-point under front of the vault.

7 Friezes of lion heads are particularly common on royal monuments—rare otherwise. Is it conceivable that this well-placed figure, with something obviously special (and expensive?) in its headdress, might be a royal donation? In any case, its inscription (if once present) is now gone. 8 E.g. the intrusive Buddha at Cave 2’s court right.

façade

213

There is also one in the frieze above the left aisle pillars, but this was part of Buddhabhadra’s program, and was carved in 477 or 478. An impressive standing Buddha with cauri bearing bodhisattva attendants was cut into the plain end wall at the left of the porch of Cave 26 RW and the barest traces of another (similar) group are to be seen in ruins at the right. Since neither the porch doorway nor the porch pilasters of Cave 26 RW had been finished during the consistent phase of work on the caitya hall complex, and since they (rather than such added panels) would have been finished first in the normal and consistent course of work, the panels must be intrusive. Indeed, the placement of votive images at such points, while completely characteristic of work done during the Period of Disruption, would be hard to imagine before that time. The fact that the bodhisattvas (Avalokitesvara with jata and kamandalu on the left and the princely vajra-holder on the right) have carved haloes and stand on their own lotus pedestals also supports a late dating. The presence of a haphazardly placed smaller standing Buddha on the left reveal of the panel at the left end of Cave 26 RW’s porch stresses the fact that separate donors were indeed utilizing available areas of this cave for their own votive purposes. This little standing Buddha is certainly later than the larger group into whose panel it is fitted; it might even have been cut there after the larger group had been painted, since there would probably not have been any significant painted motifs on the wall it occupies. Thus it could well date to 480, even though the larger group, in its high priority position, was presumably carved early in the Period of Disruption (i.e. in 479). The presence of devotees beneath the lotus pedestal of the small standing Buddha also confirms its dating to 479 or 480, for this is a “late” arrangement.9 In type, the large standing Buddha at the left end of Cave 26 RW’s porch ultimately derives from the earlier standing Buddha in Cave 19’s stupa. This particular iconographic form appears to have been almost entirely avoided at the site during the period of strong Asmaka control, just possibly because it was associated with the central image in the former (Risika) ruler’s caitya hall, Cave 19. It gains

9 See also the intrusive small standing Buddha in Cave U6’s shrine antechamber, left wall; also Cave 17 intrusive court image.

214

cave 26

currency, however, during the Period of Disruption; see, for instance, the naga-supported images datable to 480 in panels L5 and L6 in the Cave 26 ambulatory. The fact that the present image is not as complex as the latter might be another reason to date it to 479 instead of 480. It should be noted that Cave 26 RW is the only one of the four wings of the Cave 26 complex which had intrusive images added to it. This surely reveals that even though portions of the cave are quite incomplete, the cave’s anomalous shrine image—completed only in 478—had been dedicated. By contrast, the lack of such intrusions in Cave 26 LW—although its image must have been fully carved by 478—might make one think that its dedication had not been accomplished, since caves where the image was dedicated almost always have intrusions. But this was surely not the case. It is far more likely, given the urgencies of 478, that the walls of the cave were painted in that troubled year with the now desired iconic (as opposed to narrative) paintings, which were of course particularly appropriate in such a caitya hall complex. Considering the exposure of the much damaged hall one can understand why there are no traces left on the walls today. This is probably why, both here and in Cave 26 RW, intrusive sculptures were not later put on the walls, since such iconic images would never be violated, even in the Period of Disruption. A further suggestion that even later intrusive paintings were not applied in these wings is the fact that there are no holes where garland hooks would have been applied. During the flurry of intrusive donative activity which went on throughout 479, most of the more desirable spaces on either side of Cave 26 must all have been taken up very quickly. Painted images, too, were probably placed at various points, such as the now blank areas high up on the left façade frame, where the rock had been smoothed, but was very flawed and thus less well suited to carved imagery. Presumably these flaws would have been filled in with lime or mud plaster prior to painting, but of course this plaster has by now washed out, since the breakage of the cave’s overhang has increased to exposure of such surfaces. The damaged sculptured frieze running along the very top of the façade’s strongly projecting outer frame is of course part of the original decoration of the cave’s eave, but all of the panels at the lower level are intrusive. Those in the locations which were both readily available and not too hard to reach were probably started fairly early

façade

215

in 479, but the padmasana Buddha in the bottom panel, like the adjacent bhadrasana panel to the right, on the façade setback, was probably not begun until late 479 or even early 480, for, obscured by the roof of the porch, it could not even be seen from the courtyard below. The iconography of this panel, in which the expected bodhisattvas are “replaced” by stupas, is unusual; one is reminded of the intrusive Buddha/stupa combinations on the capitals of the interior pillars of Cave U6 (479) or in the large intrusive panel on the right façade return of cave 19 (480). The two Buddhas, one standing and one seated, just above on this left façade frame were probably started just slightly earlier. It is quite characteristic of the Period of Disruption that they are not a matched pair, for balance in design was far from a major concern in the minds of the donors who gave such intrusive panels. Here, it would seem, the decision to put a seated figure, rather than a standing one, at the left was made because of the bad flaw which runs across the uncut area beneath the left image.10 The arched frame of the standing image has its ultimate prototype in the main image of cave 19, done a decade earlier, but the use of an arched frame over the head of padmasana images develops much later. Although the treatment of the motif is much simplified in this padmasana image on the left frame and in the closely related images on the adjacent façade extension, its immediate source must be the elaborated frames of certain padmasana figures on the triforium inside the cave (477/478) where, incidentally, the images also have typically late lotus seats.11 The padmasana image still slightly higher up on the left façade frame is of particular interest because its attendant bodhisattvas are placed behind the throne, a notably late feature. Perhaps because of the relatively small size of the relief, or perhaps because of time and money problems, the bodhisattvas are carved in very low relief, and appear to have been left unfinished. Perhaps they were afterthoughts, which could explain both their necessary disposition behind the throne, and the fact that they are only shallowly carved. They

10 For a similar reason, the higher-placed padmasana image on the adjacent façade extension is smaller in size than the padmasana image just beneath it. 11 The earliest Buddha under an arch is in the frieze at the left rear of Cave 21 (477); however, here the arch encloses the whole image, and there is no lotus seat.

216

cave 26

follow the expedient placement of the bodhisattvas attending the great Cave 16 image, undertaken in 477. It seems likely that, over the course of 479, the convenient areas on the façade returns had been all filled up with the various panels which we have so far discussed. Admittedly there were a few blank areas still available, but they were either very high up, very flawed, or had never been fully smoothed down in the original phase of work on the cave. Some of these were surely used for (now-vanished) paintings, or for hastily (shallowly carved) reliefs, but otherwise these remaining surfaces of the returns were now disregarded in favor of the more accessible or attractive areas still available. The first of these more desirable areas to have been utilized— probably already well before the end of 479, while work on the returns was still going on—was the long strip of already smoothed stone which formed the front frame beneath the arch. This area was central, readily accessible, easy to work on without scaffolding, since it abuts the porch roof, and (being “invisible”) surely had no painting other than perhaps a simple colored surfacing.12 Admittedly it could not be seen (when the now broken porch was intact) except from the cave’s upper wings (i.e. caves 25 and 27) which, because they had not reached the point by late 478 where they could be dedicated, had already been abandoned by this time. However, the fact that their offerings would not be able to be seen was not a totally deterring consideration in the minds of these late donors, and would certainly have been outweighed by the location’s other advantages, not the least of which was the sanctity of the great hall itself. The fact that all of the sculptured figures here are either standing Buddhas or Buddhas seated in the padmasana pose supports our assumption that they were done quite early. There is a major group of four padmasana Buddhas (all showing the conventional dharmacakra mudra) near either end of the series. The two groups are quite different in their details, again revealing how careless of esthetic considerations these “uninvited” donors generally were. The left group comprises a series of relatively elaborate panels, whose framing pilasters and crowning arches suggest that their prece12 It was impractical to paint areas which could not been seen, in the original phase of work. The lowest reaches of the vault were similarly left bare, or painted without designs. Obviously, had they been painted with Buddha images, they would not have been covered over (as was the case) in the Period of Disruption.

façade

217

dents are certain panels in this cave’s triforium frieze, which was carved only a year or two earlier. Like the Buddhas in the latter, these are seated on double lotus pedestals, but they also show wheels flanked by (eroded) deer beneath—a very late feature perhaps first introduced here, and in any case never found prior to 479 in padmasana images. The fact that little stupas appear between the arches also suggests the relatively late date of this group, since here again we have a combination which did not come into currency until the Period of Disruption. To add to the complexity, tiny flying dwarfs can be seen on either side of the stupas. The right group is simpler; all four images are contained within a single recess, which was cut quite heedlessly into the base of the arch at this point. The disturbance which such variations created in terms of the final overall design of this front frame of the arch was exacerbated by the asymmetrical disposition of the various other groups of intrusive motifs on its more central section. Such a lack of a proper programming would have greatly disturbed the original planners of the great cave, even though such figures could not be readily seen. It seems reasonable to assume that the intrusive sculptures in the areas directly under the arch would have been begun shortly after those on the front frame, and quite possibly while the latter (which were never quite finished) were still underway. One is able to follow the general sequence of this work fairly well, from its inception either late in 479 or early in 480, to its interruption some months later, when time ran out. It would appear that the first of the intrados groups to have been begun were the padmasana Buddhas carved at the base level, on either side, where there was a stone panel readymade for such use. Because they were not at all visible from the courtyard below, these lower levels of the intrados had not been painted with images during the consistent phase of work on the cave, and therefore they could be carved without concern.13 The seven Buddhas plus Maitreya carved on the base of the right intrados was perhaps begun before the carvings on the base of the left intrados, for the former are simpler in type and furthermore appear to have been carved without being interrupted in mid-course, as happened

13 At higher and more visible levels, there are alternating seated Buddhas and lotuses—part of the original program.

218

cave 26

on the left. But they are certainly very close in date, as is suggested too by the fact that they are painted in precisely the same way, again suggesting that they were done at approximately the some moment. Perhaps considering their mode of carving too, we could assign them to the very same artist.14 Sometime after these groups were begun (quite likely before they were even finished) the typically intrusive hodge-podge of sculptured panels, of all shapes and sizes, on the lower back frame of the projecting vault was also underway.15 We cannot tell precisely when this group as a whole was begun, since work probably started at the center, but we can say that the reliefs at the ends of this frame were carved after the above-mentioned intrados groups. This is very clear at the right, where the pair of stupas which carry out the design arrangement (such as it is) of the arch’s lower back frame, are clearly cut from the edging left over after the Eight Buddhas were finished. This explains their crowding, particularly near the bottom, where the lower stupa’s obvious compression has resulted from the fact that so little space had been left here when the row of seated Buddhas was cut. At the left, one can reach a similar conclusion. It appears that the padmasana Buddha panel nearest the rear of the intrados was cut while the adjacent wall (which is somewhat out of plumb) was still intact. This is why the panel is narrower at the top than at the bottom; had the adjacent standing Buddha already been carved, there would have been a little extra space available for straightening and widening the cramped intrados panel. At the same time, because of its more rearward position, we would expect this intrados panel to be later than the naga-supported Buddha just to its left, and this assumption is supported by the fact that the latter is much more comfortably composed. Thus the sequence of work on this intrados panel seems to have started with the five small Buddhas, continued (but with a distinct 14 Both Maitreya images show abhaya mudra, possibly copying the impressive group (of 478) in Cave 26’s right ambulatory. 15 Figures under projecting vault. 24 padmasana Buddhas with dharmacakra and 2 bhadrasana Buddhas with dharmacakra; 2 abhaya standing Buddhas; 2 abhaya Maitreyas, at end of sequence of 7 seated Buddhas plus Maitreya; 7 varada standing Buddhas, and 26 (?) tiny stupas. The top row on the right of 5 padmasana Buddhas is (significantly) unfinished, since these images were probably all done in 480.

façade

219

change of conception) with the carving of the naga-supported one (which was painted rather differently) and to have ended with the more rearward one. But then we must note that the base-motif of the more rearward Buddha on the intrados impinges slightly on the space reserved for the naga-supported Buddha’s base motif, showing that although the naga-supported Buddha was positioned first, work on the two must have been going on simultaneously—hardly surprising in a period of such intense activity. Further evidence of the likelihood that work on these various Buddhas was by and large all contemporaneous can be seen when we realize that the figures at the right end of the row of five teaching Buddhas at the base of the left intrados are distinctly cramped for space; note the deer whose rump is hidden behind that of the right-hand deer under the fourth Buddha. This suggests that the larger naga-supported panel may have been laid out and started at a time when work (proceeding from left back toward the right) had already been begun on the five Buddha group, and that it caused this consequent cramping. Indeed it seems quite likely that the original plan may have been to have a more conventional group of seven or eight similar images here, but that these plans could not be realized because of the decision by another donor (who managed to get his way) to carve the large naga-supported Buddha panel, despite the problems this caused. It is also clear that the standing Buddha (together with the smaller one just below it) at the extreme left end of the arch’s back-frame was painted with the same pigments and almost certainly at the same time as the more rearward seated intrados Buddha, which is adjacent to the standing Buddha images. These two standing Buddhas, in their cramped position at the extreme end of the arch’s back frame, like the constricted stupas at the other end of this frame (as well as the multiple stupas which fill in the space over the various panels) must be among the very latest parts of this frame to have been carved. On the other hand, the spaciously composed Avalokitesvara Litany at the exact center and the three large padmasana Buddha panels and the two larger standing Buddhas toward the left were certainly among the earliest parts of the total conception. Finally, the various smaller figures clustered around the larger central panels can logically be assigned to the last period of work on the highly (if somewhat haphazardly) decorated frame.

220

cave 26

This is not to suggest that the total decoration of the frame extended over a very long period. In fact, quite the opposite was the case, for it is very clear from studying the interrelationships between the variously placed stupas and the roofs of the pavilions which house the seated Buddhas at the right, that all of these motifs had to be planned at the same time. Thus we would say that the whole frame, as well as the two larger seated Buddha panels and the five smaller ones on the left intrados, were “all of a piece”. From start to finish, the work probably occupied no more than a few weeks or months. An analysis of the now much damaged painted surfaces supports this view, since many of the panels appear to have been painted with the same type of pigments and colors. The next matter for consideration is: where do we locate the rear frame decoration in time? Here the presence of two bhadrasana Buddhas among the little panels which were placed between the Litany scene and the larger padmasana Buddha panels, may well give us a significant clue. Such little bhadrasana sculptures do not appear in intrusive contexts at the site until 480, judging from the sequences which one can establish quite reasonably in other caves and in the ambulatory of Cave 26 itself. A dating of 480-probably early 480—seems very appropriate here on various grounds. First, the arch’s rear frame reliefs are certainly later—even if only a little later—than the small seated Buddha groups at the base of the intrados and probably also later than the figures on the arch’s front frame, while they are certainly later than the two colossal Buddhas occupying the prime positions on the returns. As we have determined from our review of the history of the cave’s development, none of these figures can date earlier than 479–480, for all are intrusions. Second, the iconographic character of the forms which we have put into the same work-context as the bhadrasana images supports a dating of 480. The only other Litany scene at the site where a crown is held over Avalokitesvara’s head is in Cave 10A, where the central Buddha (which would have been carved first) can hardly date before this time. The padmasana Buddha to the right of the Litany scene has a tri-stemmed lotus holding up the main image, while the two bodhisattvas are a feature found elsewhere at the site in this particular form in extremely late contexts only: e.g., in the Cave upper 6 right window surround, and (in a rather elaborate version)

façade

221

on the right rear wall of cave 22. Both of these latter images surely date to 480. Finally there are two padmasana Buddhas on this rear frame where the Buddha is shown with wheel and deer, but is seated upon a lotus pedestal rather than the expected throne. This type, which first appears among the shrine antechamber intrusions in Cave Upper 6 (as early as 479) appears to have derived from recently developed bhadrasana Buddha compositions, the first being panel R2, of late 478, in Cave 26’s ambulatory. As we have noted, a similar panel is crowded into the extreme lower rear corner of Cave 26’s left intrados, while a group of four others appears on the front frame of the great arch, at the left. The immediately adjacent padmasana image on the left intrados, which we have already described as a “naga-supported” Buddha, is something of a curiosity: it actually directly anticipates sixth century Lakulisa images, which are invariably seated in this meditation asana. All but one other naga-supported Buddha at the site are in the bhadrasana pose. The other exception is in cave 22, at the rear of the right side wall, where, interestingly, the nagas are painted in; like the adjacent panel with the tri-stemmed lotus, it almost certainly dates from 480, since it is among the last undertakings in that cave. The small carved stupas, which are used almost as if they are space-fillers here, are another feature never found prior to the Period of Disruption, even though painted stupas were used about a decade earlier in the vault of Cave 19. Small and repetitive carved stupas first appear on some of the capitals and (interspersed with padmasana Buddhas) in some of the intrusive groups along the tops of the walls in Cave Upper 6; the latter are somewhat different in type, being larger, less attenuated, and in much lower relief. The difference is possibly due to the fact that the Cave Upper 6 images are in apparently slightly earlier intrusive contexts; they can be dated to 479. Four which are more similar to those in Cave 26 are to be found in a somewhat later (i.e., probably 480) intrusive context on the right return of Cave 19. Four others of this more developed type, reasonably assigned to 480, are found associated with the intrusive triple Buddha altar on the right front wall in the Ghatotkacha vihara. All in all, it seems most appropriate to assign all of the panels on the arch’s rear frame to 480, the year in which all donations of

222

cave 26

images at the site completely ended. However—and this might explain why the number of bhadrasana panels (which were among the last motifs added to the rear frame) is so limited in this area compared with their number in the ambulatory—it is clear that all these rear frame images had been finished well before all patronage collapsed, since the convenient areas had been all completely filled up with these carvings, and all of the carvings had been painted. Thus the whole may have been done rather early in 480, rather than late in that year. In this same regard, it might be noted that holes (for hooks) over the central Litany scene and certain other panels here (as well as on the façade returns) suggests that they were actually worshipped for at least some time, perhaps even after the traumatic collapse of active artistic patronage at the site. Evidence for this is that various late cell doorways, not fitted out until as late as 477 and 478, or (rarely) 479, show distinct signs of wear in their rock-cut pivot holes. By contrast, a number of seated padmasana groups, located higher up on the intrados than the completed intrados images which we have already discussed, are not painted; and in fact they are not even fully carved. These groups apparently were still underway at the very time when work broke off late in 480; and it is significant to note that there is indeed proof that they post-date the other sculptures in this arch area. This can be seen by analyzing the placement of the Maitreya image which forms the conventional end figure of the group of eight images which have been recessed into the previously prepared wall of the vault just above the previously discussed groups at the left. There was no room for the Maitreya within the intrados proper, so he was placed in the area just above the standing image at the extreme left end of the arch’s back frame. But his lotus seat had to be put at a slightly higher level than would have been the case had not the standing Buddha already been cut. Thus we can say that the intrados group now under discussion was underway later than the final stages of work on the decoration of the arch’s back frame. This does not of course prove when it was started, but the fact that it was never finished, and the realization that any competent artist could certainly have carved that whole group of eight within a matter of days or weeks strongly argues that we should place it in 480 rather than earlier. Exactly the same point can be made about the other scattered and unfinished padmasana

façade

223

images at the somewhat higher levels of both this left intrados and its counterpart on the right. Two points should be considered with regard to these padmasana groups which we date to the last half of the site’s final year of patronage, 480. It might at first seem surprising that, at such a late date, they do not include any images of the bhadrasana type which was so frequently (although by no means exclusively) chosen for use in 480. However, this can be explained by noting that the space into which they had to fit, between the stone beams, was of a shape more appropriate to the less extended padmasana images. Perhaps also relevant as a consideration is the fact that the painted decoration of the intrados, which had been done as part of the consistent decoration of the cave a few years previously, involved only padmasana images, while the groups carved at the lower level in 479 also were of this type. The original painting of the intrados was done during the original phase of work on the cave and was probably completed in about 477. Not surprisingly, the later intrusions, even though they “invade” this area, did not cut away any of the Buddha images which had been painted in that phase of work. Such respect for previous imagery is only to be expected; there is not a single instance at the site where intrusions are cut into or painted over previously finished figures. However, it is not uncommon to have non-iconic motifs covered with later intrusions, and this is exactly what happened here. The intrusions at both the highest levels of the left intrados and the right intrados are carved at points where we can determine that floral forms rather than Buddha images appeared. Even in the fourth row up on the left at the front, where we see a surprisingly wide composition with a pair of padmasana Buddhas attended by flanking bodhisattvas, careful examination proves they were confined within the area originally occupied by a floral panel, as was the single padmasana Buddha at the opposite (right) end. The area between held the original painted Buddha, but because of a major flaw in the arch, it was once painted over an original mud plaster repair, which has since fallen away. The case of the two lower levels of Buddha images is more problematic, since those levels are now completely filled with carved images, and none of the original paint remains. However, it seems clear that no painted images would have earlier (say in 477) appeared here, an assumption supported by the fact that these areas were

224

cave 26

originally obscured from view by the extension of the (now-broken) porch below. As we know from many examples from the original phase of activity at the site, decorators very often gave up the painting of images in areas where they were either impossible to see, or hard to see: the mode in which the aisle ceilings of cave 10 and the vault of cave 19 were decorated might be considered as a case in point.16 Thus it seems reasonable to assume that these lower areas had merely been decorated with purely ornamental motifs or (more likely) nothing more than a plain color in the original phase. In fact, careful examination of the very few fragments of original mudplaster and painting which remain between the base panel and the first beam, and between the base panel and the first beam, and between the first beam and the second beam on either side of the intrados suggests that those areas may have been covered with nothing more than an economical white slip when the upper levels of the vault were being painted with alternating padmasana Buddhas and floral motifs. This would seem to explain the readiness with which they were taken over for intrusions in the Period of Disruption. It may seem surprising that portions of the original painting and plastering still are intact around these later carvings, but many other examples at the site confirm the adhering powers of such plaster and paint, even when chiseling went on very close to it. The very fact the none of the plaster or paint is to be found upon the carved images themselves, or in protected spots such as their armpits, where paint so often survives when it has fallen from all exposed areas, makes it very clear that the surrounding paint and plaster does indeed antedate the figures cut into these earlier painted surfaces, and confirms the fact they were never finished, because time ran out. Finally, lest the suggestion be made that the painted Buddhas in the intrados might date from the Period of Disruption, we should note the carefully organized character of the painted decoration of the whole projecting vault, where seated Buddhas alternate with floral panels. This is readily evident despite the great losses of the decorated surface and is completely in character when considered as part of the original program for the cave’s decoration. By contrast, such

16 The Buddha images painted toward the front of the vault gradually gave up their places to lotuses in Cave 10 or shared it with stupas in Cave 19, as work progressed rearward.

façade

225

a conscientiously laid-out scheme of painting would have been quite out of character in the Period of Disruption, when disorderliness in design had become the general rule, and when people no longer had any patience with pattern.

CAVE 26

AMBULATORY

An analysis of the increasingly troubled sculptural program—one hardly should use the word “program”—of Cave 26’s ambulatory intrusions provides a revealing picture of Ajanta’s declining patronage during its very final years of artistic activity, in 479 and 480. Just as in the case of the intrusions on the front of the cave, the first donations in the new phase are relatively ambitious, being composed and positioned rather carefully. But before very long—certainly before the year 480 was very far advanced—the panels appear to be much more hastily rendered, generally smaller in size (partly due to the fact that space was rapidly being used up) and disposed in an increasingly haphazard manner. At the same time, this shift is accompanied by certain telling iconographic changes. Needless to say, many of these reliefs, particularly those in the less desirable locations where the light was bad or the rock was flawed, or where the remaining space was limited or was at an inconvenient level, are quite unfinished. This is simply because they were being worked on at the end of the Period of Disruption, when time finally (and very suddenly) ran out. As we have pointed out above, it seems evident that the still available areas on the front of the cave, notably the façade returns and the surfaces under the great arch, were the first to attract the attention of donors during the Period of Disruption. Apparently, intrusive donations were not carved in the ambulatory until after some six months or more. This may have been due to the fact that, at least at first, there were enough highly visible spots available on the façade to satisfy the demands of the new donors, whereas most of the better illuminated areas in the ambulatory had been used up during the original phase of work on the cave in 478. By the time that work was beginning on the less visible and/or less accessible areas outside the cave, such as those on the façade returns which were hidden from view by the projection of the cave’s porch, or the undersurface of the great arch, it seems likely that intrusive work

ambulatory

227

had indeed also begun in the still available parts of the ambulatory. But by then it must have been middle or late 479. In support of the conclusion that there is a definable sequence in the imagery added to Cave 26 during the Period of Disruption, we should refer again to our observation that only padmasana and standing Buddhas were carved anywhere on the façade returns or under the arch, during the first stages of intrusive work in these areas. It would appear that, even though a few bhadrasana panels (R2–4, L8) had been carved in Cave 26’s ambulatory and at a few points in the cave during 478, as part of the original program of work, such images did not catch on for use as individual donative offerings, either in Cave 26 or elsewhere at the site, until about the second half of 479. Therefore, for the first half year or so of activity during the Period of Disruption, donations were limited exclusively to established standing Buddha types or to the padmasana images with which the craftsmen were more familiar. Such conservatism is not surprising, since the whole course of iconographic development at the site proves that there was often a considerable delay between the time when a given image type, or an individual feature of it, first appeared in one context, and the time when it was used in a new one. To emphasize this point, we need only point out that bhadrasana images had been used in paintings at Ajanta for at least a decade before they first made their appearance and then gained such rapid popularity as sculptures. And even in the latter contexts, one can find a quite consistent pattern in the way their type and usage changes, with large bhadrasana intrusions popular by late 479, but small ones never made until 480.1 A study of the overall development of the imagery in Cave 26’S ambulatory lends convincing support to the suggestion that all of the intrusive carvings there were done in about eighteen months, between mid-or even late 479 and the end of 480. Since all of the unfinished images in the ambulatory are in positions which (unlike those occupied by the finished images) can be considered to be very late, and since as a group these unfinished images are characterized by notably

1 Could the explanation for the time-lag lie in something as simple as a resistance on the part of sculptors to making the bhadrasana type, with its projecting knees, within the format of small carved reliefs?

228

cave 26

late iconographic features, it seems reasonable to assume that they were all being worked on simultaneously when patronage at the site abruptly ended, leaving them in their various stages of completion.2 It this is indeed the case, it is evident that, judging on the basis of square footage, roughly 25% of the total intrusive imagery in the ambulatory was underway simultaneously, with perhaps a dozen different artists actively involved in carving them at this final moment. Since it seems most unlikely that it would have taken more than a few weeks for a competent craftsman (added by a son or two?) to complete an image—depending on the size—this makes our assumption that the carving of the total body of intrusive panels in the ambulatory occupied no more than eighteen months (late 479 and 480) reasonable. When the late (i.e. intrusive) work in the ambulatory was finally taken up, presumably during the last half of 479—at about the same time that the single bhadrasana panel was being carved just when intrusive work on the façade was ending—it seems evident that panel R6 was the first to have been begun on the right wall. However, it is likely that L7 was also underway at that time. Certainly the panels are nearly contemporaneous. The location of panel L7 was apparently considered a relatively desirable one, judging from the early date at which it was begun. This can be explained by the fact that, like Buddhabhadra’s panel L8, but not to nearly the same degree, it receives fairly good illumination from the light entering through the caitya arch and streaming past the left side of the stupa, which was displaced to the right when the order came down—a bit too late!—to align the cave’s stupa with the solstitial axis.3 As I have explained in the discussion of panel L8, the consequent off-center positioning of the stupa, and the disposition of the apsidal pillars resulted in this limited rear area always receiving a strong light. Indeed, it is evident that in the fifth century the light falling on panels L8 and L7 would have been even

2 The unfinished images in the ambulatory are: R1, R11, R14, R15, L9, bhadrasana image over L9, little standing Buddha on frame between R10 and R11, and little standing Buddha on frame between R9 and R10. The unfinished images in the projecting vault’s intrados (discussed above) were also underway at this same late point in the Period of Disruption. 3 For “solstitial adjustments” to Caves 26 and Cave 19, see forthcoming volume. See also Spink 1985, where the general interpretation is, I believe, correct, but the calculations are not.

ambulatory

229

better than today, because now the screening of the great arch, to say nothing of the loss of most of the bright interior painting, reduces the total illumination considerably. Panel L7 had many connections with L8, which is hardly surprising when we consider that L8 (along with panels R2–R4) would by all counts have been its most immediate prototype. Needless to say, their proximity, both in space and time, further explains this very close connection; however, L7, being a production of the troubled Period of Disruption, is treated much less ambitiously than the slightly earlier panel L8. It has no elaborate carved motifs above other than two conventional flying couples. Quite possibly an arch and other motifs were painted in, although no evidence of any painting today survives on the smoothed area above. The throne motifs are of the expected types, showing running nagas above and makaras and vyalas at the throne sides, with leonine legs supporting the nubbed seat.4 The sculptor carving L7 obviously had much difficulty with serious faults in the rock near the base, and this certainly accounts for the unusually cursory way that the whole composition, but especially the bottom area, has been treated. It includes only the six (four large and two tiny) kneeling devotees, along with a central pair of very simple (now damaged) lotus leaves. It seems likely that the deer (and possibly the nagas) were omitted due to the faults in this area. Note also the evidence of a repair to the proper right knee; this repair, like a similar one in panel R4, must have been made when breakage occurred at the time of carving. The aspect of L7 that appears to locate it in time most precisely is its inclusion of the conventional bodhisattvas—a crowned Vajrapani on the right and Avalokitesvara, with jata headdress, antelope skin, and possible traces of a kamandalu on the left. Had L7 been conceived much later, standing Buddhas would have served as attendants instead, as in other large intrusive panels at the rear of the ambulatory. Interesting too is the fact that only one of the cauribearing bodhisattvas has a halo, and it is small and hard to see, as

4 As in a few other ambulatory panels, the nubs capping the throne legs are not shown here, even though they are conventional in sculpture from 477 on. Perhaps this reflects the treatment of important shrine and shrinelet images in Cave Upper 6 (q.v.), and the great image in Cave 16. Also, as is often the case in the Period of Disruption, floral scrolls instead of elephants appear under the vyalas.

230

cave 26

if we are here at a transitional point between the “original” images, such as R2–4 and L8, which have none, and other later panels. The panels toward the front of the ambulatory walls, by way of contrast, depend in large part on light coming through the aisle doorways for effective illumination. When we realize that in the fifth century the presence of the cave’s porch, now broken almost completely away, would have greatly cut down on the intensity of the light entering through the aisle doorways, and that the aisle doors would often have been closed in any case, we can readily see why the wall surfaces even as far forward as that used for panel R6 were hardly very ideal ones. Even a few years ago, before the installation of electric lighting, the attendants had to open the aisle doorways, and then flash light from reflectors down the corridors, if the reliefs in this area were to be seen to advantage. Although there are a few exceptions which we will note, it is evident that the larger panels on the right wall were done, by and large, in a sequence from front to back, the more forward positions being more desirable because they were much better illuminated by the limited light coming through the aisle doorways. However, the sculptors at Ajanta were always necessarily concerned about problems caused by the many flaws in the rock; and since this was a serious difficulty in the area of the wall just beyond R4 and since at this time there was still space to spare in the ambulatory, they located their next major right-wall panel (R6) a few feet farther back. Thus the diagonally oriented flaw, which would have run straight through the Buddha’s face if this large panel had been located right up against R4, merely touches the upper right corner of the panel; it then continues harmlessly on up to the left, where there is no carving. It seems clear that when panel R6 was laid out, panels R7 and perhaps R8 and R9 were laid out with it, or that they directly followed its lead. They are very similar in conception and carving, and are consciously organized so that their tops as well as their elaborately carved bases are all at exactly the same level, and so that the dividers between them are of approximately the same width. Such relationships were probably not developed for aesthetic ends, however, since donors and artists in these latter days were not interested in “decorating” the ambulatory in a particularly impressive way, as the original donors had been. It is more likely that artists now charged for their work according to a relief ’s size and type, which would

ambulatory

231

make for a certain degree of standardization in their productions. Furthermore, individual donors may have had certain constraints imposed upon them by their associates with regard to the width of wall space which they could use for any particular votive relief; this might explain why narrower reliefs started to be carved in the ambulatory when space was running out in this desirable location. As a group, panels R6 and R7, together with R8 and R9, form an interesting subject for comparison with the slightly earlier “triad” of panels R2–R4, which were done in 478, during the period of the cave’s original development. They are strikingly less elaborate because, except for the hastily done flying couples in their upper corners, they completely lack the rich overlay of forms which adorns the upper levels of R2–R4; and it is clear, since other sculptures are placed above them, that such motifs were not painted in, as might have been the case in the roughly contemporary L7. Such a reduction in the ambitiousness of conceptions, even more evident in still later panels, pointedly reveals how clearly and how rapidly Ajanta’s patronage was declining in this last troubled period of its active history.5 At the same time there are interesting connections between these panels (R6–R9) and those done a year earlier in 478, as well as significant iconographical changes. It is immediately obvious—and hardly surprising—that the later panels derive in many respects from the earlier ones. In fact it is only reasonable to assume that some of the same artists worked on both groups. This would explain certain striking similarities in the treatment of the Buddhas, the throne back and the throne base motifs, the flying couples, and the base panels; in the latter, one even finds (in R6 and R7) the same fusion of wheel and lotus stem which we have seen in R2. Indeed, R6 could well have been done by the artist who worked on R2, but on a “bad day”; or perhaps it was hastily carved for a new donor who wanted results very quickly and cheaply in this time of increasing troubles. Even its throne back motifs—the same simple bolster with relatively plain makaras and running figures above—are qualitatively reduced, as is the base panel; note for instance how the beautiful, and expected, figures of the nagas Nanda and Upananda have been omitted from R6.

5

For instance, the throne-backs of R7 and R8 are greatly simplified.

232

cave 26

We might also note how closely the innovative feature of dwarfs holding up the throne in panel R2 is copied in panel R6, and how this feature develops very slightly later in panels R8 and R15, where the dwarfs are standing, and have an even more active supporting function. This probably explains the unexpected omission in R8 and R15 of the revealed portions of the throne legs which are normally seen, at this late date, over the heads of such supporting figures, whether they be dwarfs or the more conventional supporting lions. It is probably significant too that only in R2 and R6—among the various panels in the ambulatory—does Avalokitesvara wear a knotted scarf rather than an antelope skin. Furthermore, although Avaloktesvara in R2 now holds a lotus rather than a kamandalu (as in R6) this is only because this area broke during the course of cutting, making such a change advisable. Panel R8, which we could reasonably suppose was finished slightly later than panel R6, judging from its position, has a few other innovative features too. The base panel has an unconventional and rather playful representation of a yaksha (?) supported by two attendants, at the right, while another yaksha (?) instead of a naga, is placed near the central lotus stem. However, the four much damaged devotees at the left do not appear to be yakshas, for they are very thin. Equally interesting, a preaching padmasana Buddha appears at the top center of the relief, reminding one of the placement of the small bhadrasana Buddha over the figure of Avalokitesvara in the intrusive Litany scene in the porch of Cave 4, a conception which is almost exactly contemporaneous with this panel. Among the reasons for the inclusion of this extra Buddha in panel R8 we could cite the fact that in this late phase the multiplication of Buddha images within the same composition becomes increasingly common. Besides, there may be a particular justification from the point of view of the subject, which can probably be considered as having reference to the Miracle at Sravasti when the Buddha duplicated himself within the skies; perhaps the yakshas on the base panel are among the amazed observers of the latter scene. But perhaps most important, there appears to be a good technical explanation, which is that a serious fault appears at just the point where the Buddha’s face would have been carved, if R8 had been composed exactly like R7 and R6. Apparently, in order to avoid this problem, the artist greatly reduced the size of R8’s main image (which in consequence is disproportionately small) so that its head

ambulatory

233

is mostly below the fault.6 Then, in order to fill all the extra space above the fault, he conceived of using the extra seated Buddha. A further consequence of reducing the size of the Buddha, and consequently of his attendants, was that the panel was made somewhat narrower. There is a possibility the R8’s narrowness might have been caused by R9’s having been started first, but it is more likely that R9’s positioning suggests its posteriority to R8, since otherwise we would expect the space between them to be wider. Indeed, there is fairly clear evidence that the carver of R8 had originally intended for it to be larger than it now is, for an incised line continues upward from its right edge; this line must have defined the right edge of the panel as originally intended. That R8 was not extended to this height is almost certainly because a bad fault appears at this level, which would have made carving of the upper right couple very difficult. Thus, again because of the problems suggested by the presence of flaws, an adjustment was made. It is interesting to note, however, that this unused line proves the priority of R8 to the standing Buddha above it, since R8 would not have been planned as such a tall panel if that standing Buddha had already been laid out. Of course, the very fact that the standing Buddha above is unfinished (and also in a less accessible position) would seem to confirm its slightly later date. The most striking and significant difference between R8 (as well as R7) and R6 is in the central Buddha’s attendants. R6, like the other panels, all datable to late 479, which we have so far discussed, had the conventional bodhisattvas at either side; Avalokitesvara is on the left with jatamukata, antelope skin, kamandalu, and Amitabha in the headdress, while a ruinous Vajrapani, clearly crowned and holding a vajra, is on the right. However, R7 and R8 have standing Buddhas rather than bodhisattvas as attendants. This is a particularly significant and very late iconographic development, which appears at almost this same time in connection with the impressive padmasana Buddha in cave upper 6’s right front shrinelet.7 But here

6 The fault still affected the top of the head, which broke as a consequence. Perhaps in blocking out the figure, the sculptor misjudged the direction of the flaw. 7 Such grouping appeared slightly earlier in attached groupings in Bagh Cave 3; see Spink 1976–77. As is often the case, the development appears in Ajanta’s paintings (see Cave 19 right wall, c. 470) earlier than in sculpture.

234

cave 26

in panels R7 and R8 as well as in panel L2, which will be discussed below, Buddhas as attendants make their first appearance in the context of panels and in association with bhadrasana images. From now on this feature, which may have been suggested by the slightly earlier (477–8) conjunction of the shrine Buddha with the “Six Buddhas” in Cave 7, becomes conventional for all of the major bhadrasana panels in the ambulatory. Although the division is admittedly arbitrary, we could say that the shift from the use of bodhisattvas to the use of standing Buddhas as attendants in the major ambulatory panels distinguishes those done in late 479 from those done in 480. The fact that panels R6, R7 and R8 form such a close-knit triad in other ways is of course significant, because it shows how rapidly this change took place within the context of Cave 26’s intrusive carvings. In other words, this change took place while this one group of panels, which could not have taken more than a few months to carve, was underway. It was very clearly a decisive shift, since if we are correct in our analysis of the sequence of undertakings, all later major panels in the cave include only standing Buddhas as attendants. By contrast, bodhisattvas continue more generally in use as attendants in small size panels throughout 480, not just in Cave 26, but elsewhere at the site also. One panel is of very special interest with regard to this change— namely the bhadrasana Buddha panel (L2) which fills the space earlier left between the Parinirvana and the Temptation scenes in the left aisle. It is almost certain that the space had been left between Buddhabhadra’s two great reliefs because massive scaffolding would have been required to cut them, surely blocking the area between. That is, it was left for expedient reasons, although we must believe that Buddhabhadra would have filled it in—along with the rest of the ambulatory—had time not run out. There are many examples at Ajanta (including panels R2–R4 here) where scaffolding played such a role.8 It is hardly surprising that this fairly spacious and well illuminated location should have been utilized relatively early in the Period of Disruption. In fact, this does seem to have been the case, at least if we can judge from the unusual combination of attendants that this panel (L2) includes: the figure on the left is a conventional standing Buddha like those late panels, whereas the figures on the right is a 8

See discussion of Cave Upper 6 shrine antechamber; Volume I, Chapter 11.

ambulatory

235

conventional bodhisattva like those in all early panels. Thus it seems reasonable to place this panel at approximately the same date as the R6–R8 group, namely late 479/early 480. It is curious to note that although the bodhisattva, with the long stemmed lotus (unfinished) and antelope skin, is surely intended to be Avalokitesvara, it is placed on the right, rather than in the conventional left position. In the few other sculptured panels at the site where the positioning of the bodhisattva is similarly reversed the change was probably made because of technical considerations.9 Here, however, in L2, the iconographic situation is different, because a standing Buddha was included as an “attendant”, and it seems evident that he was assigned the more significant or “priestly” position at the proper right.10 The carving of this bodhisattva is so rough that it is hard to be sure if the headdress was intended to be of the jata type, as we would expect if the figure is indeed Avalokitesvara. It is clear that the sculptor had not finished the piece, for the throne seat is quite rough, and neither the top of the throne legs nor the nubs have been defined, nor was the throne back finished very well. Perhaps the artist was rushed in his work, as was not unusual at Ajanta at this time, and quite possibly he depended upon the subsequent plastering and painting of the image to hide his hasty chiseling. A rather similar situation is evident in panel L7, where various details, most notably on the base, have something of the same appearance as the hastily carved L2 motifs. Yet L7, certainly one of the relatively early undertakings in the ambulatory, was clearly finished, and indeed retains traces of plaster. Actually, there is a good possibility that the same artist planned and perhaps carved both L2 and L7. The unusually slack and flat treatment of the bases connects them, as does the surprising omission of nagas in favor of deer (without a wheel) in L2 and of mere leaves in L7.11

9

See Cave 11 porch right wall, where there was not sufficient room for the bodhisattva’s kamandalu on the proper right. Similar reversals appear more frequently in paintings. See the painted group on Cave 17’s left front pilaster; the panel is almost certainly intrusive. See also the bodhisattva attendants in the paintings on the left rear porch wall of Cave 16, on the left rear hall wall in Cave 2, and on the left rear hall wall of Cave 11 (fragmentary). 10 J. Huntington has pointed out that, conventionally, one figure is associated with karuna, and the other with prajna. See Huntington 1981, 47–56. 11 Perhaps the wheel was painted on the carved lotus stem; carved wheels are combined with the stems in panels R2, R5, and R6.

236

cave 26

The choice and treatment of the various throne motifs—the running nagas, makaras, vyalas and supporting lions—is notably close too. Even the flying couples are rather similar, although the different shaping of their supports tends to hide the connection. The strikingly reduced size of the carved haloes behind the attendant figures’ heads might be noted as one more rather idiosyncratic point of connection between the two reliefs. We should also note, in both, how the throne appears to rest directly upon the lions heads without any evidence of the top of the throne leg between; what makes this admittedly minor detail another point of relationship worth noting is that it is practically never seen in other representations in the cave, most of which follow the more established convention. Finally, in both, the central motifs in the bodhisattvas’ crowns appears to have been left uncarved—almost certainly because they were to be painted. Thus we would put these two panels very close in date, shortly after L1, L3, R2, R3, R4, and L8 and probably contemporary with the R6–R8 group. Of the two, L7 would have been underway first since it has two bodhisattvas whereas L2 already is shifting toward the point where standing Buddhas will be used instead. A factor which may have slightly delayed the decision to place a panel between the Parinirvana and Temptation scenes, despite the desirability of such a well-lit spot, was the fact that a significant corner of this space (at the lower left) had already been usurped by a small padmasana Buddha panel. It is obvious that it was there before panel L2 was started. We can see how L2’S sculptor has reacted to the presence of the little panel by shortening the body of the left deer and by making its nose almost touch the lotus stalk. The left lotus leaf is displaced for the same reason, as is the lotus pedestal at the left. What this conjunction proves is that even in 479 minor (smaller) intrusive reliefs—of which there are many scattered throughout the ambulatory—were already being donated, along with the larger and more impressive intrusive panels. Often it is impossible to tell when any given one of these minor panels may have been carved, but whatever evidence we do have supports a “rule” which we proposed earlier: namely, that no small bhadrasana (as opposed to padmasana) images were carved at the site until 480. This holds as true in the ambulatory as it does on the façade, and indeed throughout the rest of the site.

ambulatory

237

Undoubtedly the huge Parinirvana scene had a particular attraction to devotees of that day, just as it has to visitors today, and this was probably the reason that the small padmasana panel which we have been discussing was placed near it at such a relatively early date. We can assign a similar date to the other small padmasana Buddha panel located in the narrow space which was still available at the front end of the great relief, and to the three panels in the narrow space between the aisle doorway and the Parinirvana panel. All of these images are similar in size and pose, and all are seated on the double lotus pedestals so common during the Period of Disruption. The topmost of the three panels next to the aisle doorway has the simple arched frame so familiar from images datable to 479 and 480 in various other contexts at the site. Its immediate source may be in the panels in the frieze over Cave 26’s pillars. Presumably this image, located at the most convenient height for carving, was the first of the three undertaken, since there was no room for such arched frames for the other two—although a halfhearted attempt to squeeze one in is evident in the case of the middle image. The smaller images (all on lotus pedestals) at a higher, and thus somewhat less accessible, level over panel L2 are, on the other hand, later than the large L2 relief, and can be confidently assigned to 480. The first undertaken would probably have been the larger (padmasana) image at the right. The reason it did not occupy more of the then available area, but was crowded over to the right against the Temptation panel, is due to the significant vertical crack in the rock visible along its left edge; this limited both its size and placement. Another reason that it might be considered quite close to panel L2 in date is that in this smaller panel too we find the quite unusual placement of Avalokitesvara (holding a lotus only, as an attribute) on the Buddha’s proper left. Consequently, Vajrapani, holding the vajra in the “wrong” hand, stands on the Buddha’s proper right.12 Furthermore, as in L2, the detailing of the throne and the crowns

12 This shifting of the vajra may have been due to a flaw; see Panel R3 for a similar instance. Curiously, neither bodhisattva holds a cauri; one may have broken in cutting, so perhaps both were omitted, for reasons of balance, which would not be surprising in these panels made for Buddhabhadra.

238

cave 26

seems quite unfinished, although they were plastered, and (presumably) painted and dedicated. Perhaps the same patron and/or artist was responsible for both. The prior placement of the latter padmasana panel probably accounts for the more cramped positioning of the four panels just to the left.13 The fact that three of them are in the bhadrasana mode only enhances this assumption, since small scale images of this type appear so particularly late in our sequence. Note, too, that the bodhisattvas stand upon lotus pedestals in panels L2d and L2e, but not in L2a. This is as we might expect, since the use of lotus pedestals for attendants, a feature not found anywhere at the site prior to 478, becomes more and more common as work progresses during the Period of Disruption. The usage, common among large images in 478, was perhaps suggested by the use of lotus pedestals under the “detached” bodhisattvas which are associated with Cave 26’s main image. The cauri bearing bodhisattvas flanking both L2d and L2e are of the expected types. In each case Avalokitesvara with his kamandalu and jatamukuta stands on the left, while a crowned figure with the vajra stands on the right. The smaller adjacent panels L2b and L2c omit the bodhisattvas, but include flying dwarfs above; as is often the case in very late images, they no longer hold garlands. It is worth noting that, despite the very small size of these two panels, the artist carefully defined the nubbed lion thrones. The manner in which the kneeling devotees, placed at either side of panel L2d, show a lack of concern with design balance is also quite characteristic of the way carvings were planned during the Period of Disruption. It seems evident that the positioning of the bhadrasana image at the lower left of this group of four reflects the prior presence of the larger panel L2, since if space had not been at a premium, it is unlikely that either it or the little padmasana panel just above it would have cut into the precisely carved foliage of the sal tree.14

13 We assume that the lower right panel (L2a), because of its more spacious positioning, and its more convenient (lower) location, was started before the panel just above (L2e) Of course L2b, c, d, and e were probably all underway at the same time, possibly while L2a was still in process too. See pattern below E B A D C 14 Intrusions do sometimes cut away foliage and other “non-iconic” details, but

ambulatory

239

Furthermore, the little kneeling devotee at the right (compare the other two at the left) is placed at a slightly higher level than expected, almost certainly to avoid too close a proximity to the upper edge of L2, where the rock is somewhat flawed. The two little bhadrasana panels at the right of this intrusive group also seem to reflect, in their positioning, the prior presence of panel L2, since their left edges line up precisely with the left edge of the latter. It is as if, at the time they were conceived, the artist considered the bounds of the adjacent Parinirvana scene to come up to this point, even though, like Ajanta’s murals, it was not rigorously “framed”. Thus it seems logical to assume that of the four little reliefs, the two on the right were done first, since they in no way intrude upon the Parinirvana’s space, as do the left ones. Furthermore, it is easier to believe that the little devotee at the right of the lower left panel (L2e) was carved after the lower right bhadrasana image (L2c) rather than the other way around; if the latter had been the case, the sculptor of the lower right panel (L2c) would have left a wider frame beneath, by positioning it slightly higher, or reducing its size. It might also be noted that the small padmasana panel in the extreme upper left (L2e) had a considerably more “developed” base arrangement (with devotees beneath, and a heightened lotus pedestal) than that of any of the other small padmasana images in this area, all of which may be very slightly (i.e. some months) earlier. The extreme upper left panel’s base arrangement would seem to show the direct influence of very recent bhadrasana compositions, such as those in R2–R6, dating from late 478 onward. Needless to say, one would expect some delay before the latter base arrangements would appear in association with padmasana images.15 Such detailed analyses may weary the reader, but they are important if we are to be able to establish that the small bhadrasana panels are indeed later than L2, a conclusion which would allow us to assign them with confidence to 480, since L2 itself was probably underway at the beginning of that same final year of the site’s artistic activity. This in turn has implications for our analysis of such

it was easier to work on a plain smooth surface. As an example, see Cave 2, rear wall at left, where a small inscribed Buddha covers some of the lotus stems and leaves of the larger Sravasti Miracle. Both are intrusive. 15 This “elevated” padmasana type first appears on the left wall of the antechamber of Cave Upper 6; but that is a considerably less complex conception that this.

240

cave 26

reliefs in other contexts, for it is only by a persistent accumulation of such evidence that we can show that such small bhadrasana Buddhas, when in intrusive contexts, never date prior to the last year of activity at the site. However, it is of interest to note that even in Cave 26’s ambulatory, where by 480 standing Buddhas are invariably used as attendants in large bhadrasana panels, bodhisattvas still remain as the conventional attendants in the smaller panels. This is not surprising when we consider that often different (usually more conservative) conventions at Ajanta were in use at a given time for sculpture as opposed to painting, or for images in intrusive as opposed to consistently-programmed (i.e. “original”) contexts. We need only remember that bhadrasana images were never used in any sculptural contexts whatsoever prior to 477, nor in intrusive contexts prior to late 478, to get some insight into the remarkable dynamics of these developments. Since we have now shown that in at least one instance—panel L1b, and probably L1a, and the three similar little padmasana panels on the front wall as well—minor images were already being carved in the ambulatory in 479; and since we know that such minor intrusive images were also being carved elsewhere at the site at this time, we might reasonably expect to find contemporaneous little images on the right side of the ambulatory too. And if our “rule” is correct, the earliest of the seated images—i.e. those which we might date prior to 480—would all have to be padmasana rather than bhadrasana Buddhas. This does indeed appear to be the case, as we can tell by studying the lesser figures which appear in available spaces in the more forward parts of the ambulatory, the areas which in general would have been utilized first. Many of these figures are clearly “fillers”, cut into the frames which separate the larger panels; and it is significant that although there are many such figures, we find no bhadrasana images on these frames anywhere on the long stretch of wall as far down as panel R10. By that time we are in areas which were not being decorated until 480, as we shall see. Similarly, the small seated Buddhas at the upper corners of the early and elaborate panels R2, R3 and R4, as well as in these same positions in the related R8, are all in the padmasana mode, as are the seven Buddhas plus Maitreya which are cut along the top of the wall above panels R5–R7. There is one small bhadrasana panel fairly near the front end of

ambulatory

241

the right wall which requires discussion, in order to explain why, despite its location, it must be dated relatively late. This image, quite similar to the little panel L2d, datable to 480, was certainly done after the group of Eight Buddhas just above, as seems clear from their positions vis-à-vis each other. Had the eight Buddhas not already been carved, or at least anticipated, the bhadrasana group would certainly have been placed higher up, in order to better avoid the rock flaws which now run through its lower portion. Indeed, we can see that, because of this flaw, the three kneeling devotees at the right have been located (otherwise very surprisingly) near the top rather than near the bottom margin of the panel. This bhadrasana panel also had a pair of kneeling devotees to the left, at a more conventional lower level. By contrast with those at the upper right they are small and crowded, and it is interesting to speculate that the reason may be that panel L6, finished a few months earlier, had probably already been supplied with the three eye hooks which are seen above it at center, left, and right. The presence of the right hook, if it was already fixed in place, would have constrained the sculptor of the later bhadrasana image to reduce the size of the crowded lower-left devotees, as we have suggested. A fair number, but by no means a majority of the completed panels in the ambulatory have holes for hooks, as do so many other images at the site; and as elsewhere the hooks are more often than not missing. Presumably, most were used for garlands or (possibly) for the attachment of a covering cloth. The later date of this bhadrasana panel as compared to the Eight Buddhas would not alone be sufficient evidence to date it to 480, since if we are correct, the eight Buddhas group was done in 478, before the ambulatory’s intrusive phase even started. Nor can we be sure of the relationship between the bhadrasana panel and the nearly obliterated painted motifs which appear to the left. It is not clear if the latter work belongs to the same time as the eight Buddhas, or whether it too is intrusive; the fragments which remain show a sequence of standing Buddhas framed by architectural elements, but are extremely damaged. The relationship of the small bhadrasana panel to the larger panel R5 just below confirms, much more surely, the dating of the small panel to 480. The latter would hardly have been placed in its present position if R5 had not already occupied the space below, and R5, as we shall see, must date from early 480 or very close to it.

242

cave 26

We can say this with some certainty because it so clearly postdates the nearby panels R6 and R7, which themselves were probably not finished until 480. As we pointed out, panels R6–R7 were placed far enough down the aisle to avoid contact with the fault which runs just above R5. This was a very reasonable action when they were conceived, because at that time there was plenty of wall space available. But as such space became dearer and dearer, patrons and artists became less fussy, so that at some point after R6 and R7 were underway some donor opted for the R5 area. He compensated for the problem of the flaws (one of which would have gone right through the Buddha’s head if it had been located at the normal level) by lowering the whole panel. At the same time other adjustments had to be made, which show that the artist was very much constrained by having to compose his panel within the constricted space which now remained between R4 and R6; it was quite narrow because the donor of R6 made no allowance for anything that might be put in this unused area later on. Indeed, the space available was even further reduced by the extension of R4’s base panel an extra seventeen inches or so to the left, to (surprisingly) accommodate some extra devotees. This forced him to have a margin of that width on the right. When a roughly equivalent margin was established on the left, it was clear that if the main Buddha image itself was going to be kept as large as possible, there was no possibility of carving the expected attendants—which at this point in time would surely have been Buddhas. However, knowing how often such attendants were painted on the reveals of such panels (in Cave U6 and elsewhere) we can believe that they were painted here as well; it is almost certain that they would be included. Needless to say, if panel R6 had not already been started to the left, the artist who carved panel R5 would have been able to have widened his composition and thus to have carved it with both the expected standing attendants and also to have created a more spaciously composed base panel—a feature invariably found in the fourteen other major bhadrasana Buddha panels in the ambulatory. The omission of such carved attendants here clearly proves that R5 was crowded in at a later date, out of the expected sequence. However, this is not to say that it is significantly later than R6–R8, for its location, like that of L2’s must have early been recognized as a fairly ideal one despite the flawed rock. The fact that panel R5 is very

ambulatory

243

well carved, and that it was fully finished, also suggests that it must have been done before many of the still rough images farther back in the ambulatory, which were incomplete when time ran out. It could be noted that, with its running nagas, makaras with hanging garlands, “tassled” lotus fronds, vyalas, and supporting lions, R5 bears many connections with various other panels, but these motifs were so conventional throughout the whole phase of work in the ambulatory that one would hesitate to date the relief precisely on such grounds. More suggestive is the fact that the little figures which are cut into its frames include no bhadrasana images. This in itself is no proof that they belong to 479 or early in 480 rather than closer to the end of work in the cave, but it is suggestive, for we can presume that they were carved at the same time as the very similar ones which line the frames of panels R6, R7, R8 and R9— all of which were being finished at this time. One of these little panels, on the frame between R4 and R5, is of particular interest, since a small standing Buddha, inscribed as the gift of the monk Sanghamitra (Inscr #96), has been cut over the sketched outline of an abandoned padmasana image. One can see that the unfinished padmasana image must have been placed there after panel R5 was already either completed or underway, since it is carefully composed within the space left as a frame after the latter was positioned. Thus the sketch could hardly date much if at all prior to 480, while the inscribed standing Buddha must obviously be somewhat later still. It is of interest to note that the incised line defining the upper margin of this sketch extends over to Panel R4, taking no account of what must (or may) have been that earlier panel’s painted margin. Of course we cannot be sure why work on the padmasana image was given up, but it is more likely that it was because the donor either died or (in these troubled times) suddenly found himself insolvent or in haste to get away than because of a change of conception in mid-course. We would support this surmise by pointing out that the standing Buddha cut over it seems to be distinctly later than those on the other (left) frame of R5, and indeed later than any of those on the frames of panels R6, R7, R8 and R9. We make this judgment because all of the standing Buddhas except this one, which appear on the frames of panels R5 through R8 have lotus pedestals, as do the little standing Buddhas which, even earlier, were carved over the arch in panel L2.

244

cave 26

Whereas one cannot make a clear distinction between early and late intrusive standing Buddhas on this same specific basis elsewhere in the cave, or for the site as a whole, it does seem to hold true here. Even if it is no more than the personal idiosyncrasy of a single sculptor or the group of sculptors who did the little images, it clearly separates the “re-cut” standing Buddha from its counterparts on the frames from here through R8, and links it with the few small standing Buddhas (e.g., on the frames of R10) which appear beyond that point, as well as with the larger standing Buddhas which, considering their locations (and sometimes their unfinished states as well) are clearly to be dated among the latest sculptures in the ambulatory. Thus, it would seem that after the sketched out padmasana image was abandoned, no attempt was made at first either to complete it or to start the new carving which now appears there. This is understandable, since as long as there were other spots available, why would a sensible donor opt for this one? However, as good spaces came to be scarcer and scarcer during the course of 480, this “unused” space may have seemed to look better and better, at which point (we can surmise) Sanghamitra ordered the little standing Buddha to be carved, and had his inscription incised below it. Incidentally, we cannot effectively explain the omission of the lotus pedestal by saying that the space below was reserved for the inscription, because the placement of the kneeling devotees, directly at the level of the Buddha’s feet, shows that, from the time of the image’s conception, it was planned without the pedestal. In any case, it would have been a simple matter to have planned for both the inscription and the pedestal, had concern for the latter been a factor. On the basis of these considerations, the little standing Buddha in question should probably be dated some weeks or months later than its relatively modest counterparts along the right wall, up as far as panel R10. Although certainly earlier than some of the unfinished panels toward the rear of the ambulatory, it can hardly be placed before mid-480. Consequently, its inscription must be the latest incised donative record at the site. It is of interest in other respects too. Like Gunakara’s record(s) on the façade, dateable to early 479, it supports our assumption that all of these intrusive sculptures in Cave 26, and elsewhere at the site, were the donations of separate individuals not necessarily connected with the patronage of the caves in which their intrusive donations appear. Neither Sanghamitra nor Gunakara is mentioned in the dedicatory inscription of Cave 26,

ambulatory

245

while the monk Dharmadatta, who was indeed one of those monks who had “seen to the excavation and completion of (Cave 26)” (Cave 26 inscription, verse 14)16 obviously had nothing to do with the creation of Varahadeva’s Cave 16, where his intrusive donations appear.17 It is also of interest to realize that here once again, as so often at the site, it was a monk who made (and was able to make) the donation. A great number of the intrusive painted Buddhas on the pillars and elsewhere in caves 9 and 10, which were redecorated in the Vakataka period, also refer to monks as donors.18 Thus they must still have been receiving offerings of money, food, clothes, and the like. It is quite possible that, in these hard times, the monks might have been able to “trade” prayers and rituals to pay the workmen who would make votive images for them. It is also of interest to note that most of the plastering of monks’ cells throughout the site was done after Harisena’s death, suggesting that this work too may have been specifically intended as pious offerings to the monks by separate individuals rather than by the caves’ original donors. The evidence of the many donative inscriptions in caves 2, Upper 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 22 proves that donors (perhaps resignedly) expected to have their records painted on instead of cut into the rock during the anxious last years of activity at the site from mid478 through 480, the period to which all such private donate inscriptions belong. Consequently, it seems reasonable to believe that many of the ambulatory sculptures may once have had such records, which have long since disappeared. Certainly all of them at least all of the completed sculptures were once plastered and painted, as we can tell by remaining traces at the higher levels; the debris which filled the lower four to six feet quickly dissolved any plastered surfaces that it touched, along with any painted inscriptions on them. The situation would have been exacerbated by the fact that most inscriptions would have been written beneath the images. Such plastering, incidentally, would certainly have been used to hide the sketched in padmasana Buddha over which Sanghamitra’s 16 Cohen 1995, 381, #93, verses 14, 15 reads “Thanks are due to the monk Dharmadatta as well as to my excellent student Bhadrabandhu, as these two completed this temple on my behalf. Whatever merit there is here, may that be for them and for the world . . .” 17 Inscr #70, 71, 72. 18 See Cohen 1995, 412.

246

cave 26

image was cut; indeed, this was probably why the artist who cut the standing Buddha did not bother to erase the remains of the sketchedin Buddha at the right. Although Sanghamitra’s image had lost all of its paint and plaster, the fact that there are hook-holes (presumably for garlands) suggests that it was probably completed and dedicated. The unusual placement of the little standing Buddha, very close against the left edge of the frame between panel R4 and panel R5 can be readily explained by noting the faults in the rock. By locating the panel to the left the sculptor was able to make the Buddha as large as possible and at the same time keep its head below the angled fault line (now obscured by inept cementing). The flawed quality of the rock also explains why no other images were carved higher up on this frame, despite the fact that it is both quite wide and well illuminated. It does, of course, seem likely that similarly intrusive images would have been painted in such an area, even if the artists hesitated to carve them. Continuing our discussion of the larger panels in the ambulatory, it seems reasonable to place panel R15 close to the period when R6-R8 were being done. It is positioned very much like panel L8, but because of the slightly asymmetrical disposition of the cave’s stupa and of the cave’s rear pillars, it is much less well lit, and furthermore the rock in this area is extremely faulted. Thus R15’s area, although certainly more desirable than most others in the apse, was certainly not as ideal as that where the very elaborate L8 is located, so it is not surprising that it was done somewhat later, and consequently shows standing Buddhas as attendants instead of bodhisattvas. Like L7, L2, and R5–R8 it has no arches or other motifs above. However, it does, like all of them (but unlike later panels) have a carved base with nagas and devotees. The fact that there are only two devotees on each side may be because of the panel’s rather small size. This might also explain why the nagas have their lower legs submerged—a convention that may have begun at Ajanta, and becomes increasingly common in the sixth century. The throne motifs, by and large of the conventional type, include the somewhat unusual motif of dwarfs supporting the throne; the motif is not found in most other sculptures at the site, but does appear in R2, R6 and R8. Panels R9 and L4, the next in the expected sequence as one progresses down the aisles, were probably done at approximately the same time as R15—relatively late in 480 but not so late that they

ambulatory

247

could not be finished before time ran out. Just as R15’s upper margin may have been lowered because of the serious rock flaws just above, R9’s may have been slightly raised for the same reason, so that the flying couples at the upper right would not be affected. Panels R9 and L4 are the standard types for this period, with standing Buddhas as attendants, flying couples above, running nagas above the makaras, vyalas, and supporting lions for the throne. In R9 these lions twist their heads back, somewhat in the very developed manner of a few other particularly late examples; e.g. left court shrine of Cave Upper 6. R9 also has, in place of elephants or running figures beneath the vyalas, simple scrolling forms, as in the single bhadrasana image on Cave 26’s left return. L4’s large running figures beneath the vyalas are also a very late feature. In both R9 and L4 nagas support the lotus stem, with devotees on either side. L4 shows a seated Buddha here, with five attendant seated devotees, while R9 has four seated figures, perhaps influenced in this regard by the closely contemporary R15. It also seems evident that the padmasana Buddha on the lower left frame of R9 was carved before R9’s base motifs, thus reducing available space. It clearly “usurps” some of the space which they would normally occupy. That the base panel would be the last part of the composition to be carved is generally the case; in panels R11 and R15, which were still incomplete when work in the ambulatory came to a halt, the bases have not even been started. This strongly confirms what we have already hypothesized from the evidence of panel L2 and its earlier lower left padmasana “inset”, L1b: namely, that the little panels in the ambulatory were being done in the same phase of work as the larger ones. This conclusion is supported by the fact that there is no disproportionate number of unfinished small panels, as would have been the case if they had been, in general, the products of a distinctly subsequent phase. We could also point out that the two little standing Buddhas on the left frame of R9 were almost certainly laid out at the same time as the padmasana image below; otherwise we would expect them to be centered in the frame rather than lined up on axis with the lower image. This means that they probably were being cut before R9 was much underway, or at least before its base panel had been completed. In fact, it looks very much as if R9’s carver, through oversight or lack of concern, carved the left margin of his relief in response to the prior presence of the little panels on R9’s left frame, rather

248

cave 26

than keeping the margin in a disciplined vertical alignment. Finally, since the upper little panel (like three of the small panels nearby on the left of R10) was never finished, it seems reasonable to conclude that both R9 and R10 must have been among the very last large panels in the ambulatory to have been finished. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the next large panel beyond them (R11) is particularly unfinished, as are numerous other panels even farther to the rear. We might expect that panels R8 and R9 were both finished with plaster and paint, although none of the paint now remains. The top of the frame of R9 preserved some of its original plaster surfacing, while traces of mud—presumably mudplaster—can be seen under the proper right arm of the attendant Buddha on the left in panel R8; a few other images at the rear, such as R15, not surprisingly also have traces of mudplaster in such protected area. Toward the rear of the left aisle, L4 retains a considerable portion of the simple but colorful ceiling pattern which decorated the setback of the frame over the Buddha’s head, and further traces appear on the halo and elsewhere; much of the original surface design, however, has been lost. This is even more the case in R5, where only a very small area of painted plaster remains over the Buddha’s head. The small panels on the frame between R9 and R8 are of interest as typically late conceptions. The padmasana Buddha at the high level sits within a plain arched frame of the type which comes into common use in 479 and 480, but not before.19 The padmasana figure below sits on a raised lotus pedestal with devotees beneath, an arrangement never found at the site until at least 479.20 It becomes more common in 480, the date to which both of these images must be assigned, since they are clearly subsequent to the two large panels between which they are squeezed. It seems clear that R10 was not positioned until after the padmasana Buddha on the lower part of the frame which it shares with R9 was laid out; had this padmasana Buddha not been there, panel R10 would have been placed closer to the little standing Buddhas just above. While R10 was, as we would expect, certainly started

19

More elaborated precedents are in the frieze over the Cave 26 pillars. See left wall of Cave U6 antechamber, for elevated padmasana image, dating to 479. 20

ambulatory

249

after R9, it could nonetheless have been underway while the latter was still being finished. This seems likely, not only because it must be clear by now how compact and overlapping this whole sequence of various Buddhas is, but also because one standing Buddha on its left frame was finished, and so probably relates closely in date to the right frame’s finished one, which as we have pointed out was underway at the same time as panel R9. Panel R10, a standing Buddhas on a lotus pedestal supported by two nagas (its size adjusted to keep it below a bad fault just above its head) is a new type of image at the site, and of course one of the latest iconographic forms developed, since it does not appear until the last few months of activity. By this time the opposite (left) wall of the ambulatory was all but filled, the only remaining areas being a small space between L4 and L7 and another small space at the rear, just to the right of L8. Two images of a very similar type (except for the proper right hand’s position), namely L5 and L6, were fitted into the first available space, while another (L9), apparently planned to be of the same type, was begun at the rear. The new format, which so efficiently makes reference to celestial, earthly, and aquatic devotees, may have seemed particularly attractive at this time, since it took up less of the by now precious space. Furthermore, while very impressive, such figures, which probably should also be considered as referring to the Sravasti Miracle, were certainly faster and cheaper to create than large bhadrasana compositions. Such factors probably assumed particular importance at this time, for it is evident that by the time these three images were underway, patronage in this cave and (a fortiori) throughout the site was about to collapse completely. This had of course not yet happened, for it is clear that most and perhaps all of the major images which had been started by the time that R10, L5 and L6 did indeed reach completion successfully. In fact, the dramatic quality of these new standing Buddhas bears witness to the continuing high level of energy—augmented by anxiety—which fueled donations so intensely right up to the end of 480. It is also of interest to note that the proper right hand’s position in the standing Buddhas L5 and L6 is quite uncommon at the site. This abhaya mudra—the gesture of reassurance—was used for the standing Buddha in Upendragupta’s Cave 19, intended originally as the focal image at the site, as well as on the shrine doorways of the same king’s Caves 17 and 20. However, it is rarely found during

250

cave 26

the period from 475–478, when the Asmakas were ruling the site; its use may have been discouraged because of its association with the defeated king. It is only when the Asmaka’s control over the site was broken, starting in 479, that this Buddha type gains wide currency once again.21 By the same token, the Asmakas disallowed worship in Upendragupta’s splendid caitya hall while they actively controlled the site. The next images to have been conceived and started when panels R10, L5, L6, and L9 were just in the beginning stages, may well have been the series of standing Buddhas which filled up the still available space of R10 itself, and (probably a bit later) above the adjacent R9 and R8, over which they are placed without any particular attempt at a balanced design nor with any direct compositional connection with the panels below. They form part of a fairly large number of relatively large standing images (including R12, R13, R14, and finally R1) which occupy the last-available spaces in the ambulatory; and the same factors (space-saving format, speed, and low cost) which may have recommended R10, L5, L6, and L9, might well explain why the eleventh-hour donors chose these forms. It is probably a sign of the rapidly declining times that they are notably simpler than the more ambitious R10, L5, and L6; none of them have nagas beneath, and even lotus pedestals are now omitted. They do all have devotees, at least near the Buddha’s feet, but this might well be because the donors identified themselves, even if only in a very general way, with these small kneeling figures, and thus were loathe to omit them, even in the interest of saving time and money. Of the figures over R8–R10, the one over R10 (no. I) may have been underway first, for it is a relatively ambitious conception, with its two devotees both shown above and below and its fairly large size. Unlike others around it, it was fully finished. Also it is centered above R10, suggesting that it was related to that panel and that its position was established before other intrusive panels could dislodge it. The pair of standing Buddhas (D, E) in the hastily outlined pavilion may have been started at this very same time too; not only are they nearer the front of the cave, but they are more carefully finished than the next group, just to the left; they are also somewhat more

21 For discussion, see Volume I, Chapter 12, Cave 26LW. See also Cave 7’s antechamber for exceptions.

ambulatory

251

elaborate, with two devotees each instead of one, and with architectural frames. The group over R9 (F, G, H,) was conceived as a triad, as is clear from their placement within a single recessed area, and from the “balanced” arrangement of the two outer devotees in the lower corners. The manner in which the right edge of the recess cuts so “dangerously” close to the incised edge of the adjacent “pavilion” makes it clear that the recessed area was cut later, while the fact that one of the three Buddhas—that at the right—was never quite fully carved (note his hair, ear, and adjacent matrix) also argues strongly for this group’s relative lateness. It is particularly interesting to note that, although not fully carved, this triad was nonetheless painted, like the finished Buddhas on either side. (This is clear, since traces of paint remain.) This was certainly done because patronage was in a state of imminent collapse at just this time, so that the group had to be rushed to completion, to get it dedicated. As we can see, the standing Buddhas (C and J) at either end of the series we have been discussing were so extremely unfinished that it is not surprising that they show no traces of paint at all. Panel C, the panel nearest the front of the cave in this series of disparate standing Buddhas, poses a special problem. Even though it is very simple, like those which form the triad, from its position one might well expect it to have been started before the pair in the pavilion (D, E). Indeed, the right edging of the pavilion (unlike the left edging) with its straight outline has a character which might well be explained by the prior presence of an adjacent recess. Or perhaps it is a relatively early undertaking in the series, but because of problems affecting the donor or the artist, work on it got delayed. We have already mentioned that the little standing Buddha—the upper one of the two—on the frame between R9 and R10 (= R9a) was never quite finished, and this is equally true of the very flawed padmasana Buddha (R10a) on the opposite side of R10, and of the small bhadrasana panel (R10c) just below. Interestingly, the small standing Buddhas, R9a and R10a are finished; their positions, not too high up and not too low down on the frame, were probably the first to be selected. It is important to note that R10C is the first of these very late small bhadrasana images to have been carved on the right wall. Its position well toward the rear provides us with further evidence of the fact that it took a long time for such small bhadrasana images

252

cave 26

to come into general use. As we have noted, there are only a few other small images of this type in the whole ambulatory and none of them would seem to date from much before mid-480. This one is probably the latest of all, as both its position and its unfinished state would argue. It is worth nothing that, even though at this late date it was customary for standing Buddhas to attend bhadrasana images in larger panels, in small panels such as this or those over R5 and L2 and elsewhere at the site, bodhisattvas continue to be used and Buddhas never are. This is but one more example of the way in which iconographic changes proceed at a different pace in compositions of different size just as they often proceed at different rates in sculpture as opposed to painting and in bhadrasana images as opposed to padmasana types. The small padmasana image (R10a) is of particular interest because it shows the rather uncommon scalloped treatment of the throne cloth, which is found only in very late contexts. The earliest example, not as pronounced as this, is perhaps one in the frieze over Cave 26’s pillars, or the main image in cave 15—both images finished in late 477 or (in the case of the Cave 15 image) 478.22 It is intriguing to note that the surprising omission of the deer in R10a also relates this image’s base to that in cave 15. Understandably, only in very rare instances at the site are deer omitted from compositions which show the wheel, since the two forms together symbolize the first preaching. Whether or not this image, which appears to have been unfinished—the rock is so terribly flawed here that it might just have been abandoned—was painted, we cannot now determine. No paint remains today, but this in itself is not surprising, since only the very upper levels in the ambulatory retain very many traces of paint; debris destroyed all traces at the lower level. For the same reason we do not know if the little bhadrasana Buddha (R10c) or the unfinished standing image (R9a) on the other side of R10, were once painted. However, judging from evidence of the slightly unfinished image in the triad over R9, it would not be surprising if they were, since completion rather than finish must have been what was wanted in those last days when the site’s patronage was irreparably collapsing.

22 The wheel in R10a is of the “garlanded” type first found on the anomalous base of the main image of Cave Upper 6.

ambulatory

253

It seems likely, considering the size and the height of the base area of the standing Buddha, Panel L9, that it was planned to be one of the very late impressive naga-supported types, like R10, L5 and L6. Located at what might have been considered a relatively desirable, even if very dark, position just behind the stupa, it may have been started soon after them, at the moment when the carving of the bases was first given up, possibly with the idea that the nagas could be painted in.23 As in still later standing Buddha panels, the kneeling devotees are placed at the level of the feet rather than at that of the lotus pedestal. The latter motif may have been started here and then abandoned because of the very flawed nature of the rock. This might also account for the higher positioning of the devotees, which becomes standard during the remaining few months of work in the cave. (See panels R12–R14 and the figures above panels R8–R10.) It is just conceivable that the whole image was abandoned because of early breakage in the very flawed head area and in the space where the flying devotee should be, just to the left. It is evident that the image could have been finished, since the little bhadrasana panel at its lower left, which itself is completed, must have been started after L9 was underway. Panel L9a is carved on the lower level of the frame that panel L9 shares with L8. Such small bhadrasana Buddhas, as we have pointed out earlier, are not found elsewhere in the ambulatory until well into 480, and this panel, although it was fully carved, would also seem to be a very late one. Since it cuts to a degree into the base area of panel L9, it was certainly not started until the latter had been begun, and until any idea of carving the L9 base (if ever conceived) had been abandoned. Had L9 been started later than L9a, it would have been placed more to the right; and in any case, the very positioning of L9a, cramped between L8 and L9, suggests that it was fitted between two already-present compositions. L9a was probably not placed at a more convenient higher level because the extra width, achieved by cutting into L9’s base, was needed; also there is a serious flaw in the frame, at the level of the L9 Buddha’s lowered hand. Thus the little L9a must date very late in 480, being

23 The tendency to leave the bases uncarved in most of the latest large panels in the ambulatory suggests that patrons were feeling very rushed; or possibly in some cases the bases were left for now long-vanished painted inscriptions.

254

cave 26

roughly contemporaneous with work on L9. It is worth noting too that the plain arched frame, which is used elsewhere with bhadrasana images only in very late contexts, is used with L9a also.24 The adjacent bhadrasana panel, R15, is similarly unfinished; as in L9, the couples above are not quite completely carved, while the base panel (including the standard lotus pedestals) is untouched. The throne back and the halo of the central Buddha are also undefined.25 It is conceivable that these two very late images (L9, R15) were hastily completed with plaster and paint, but if so, not a trace remains today. Four other large panels (R11–R14) toward the rear of the right aisle must also have been started very shortly after L9 and R15. They are all in poorly lit positions, where the rock is particularly flawed, this being the reason this area of the wall was chosen for panels so late. This is probably why the bhadrasana panel R11, despite its more forward position along the aisle wall, is even less completed that R15, with only the main Buddha and the standing Buddha attendants yet defined at all. R12 and R13, by contrast, are fully cut, but being standing Buddhas of the “late” type, without nagas, they are much simpler compositions, and relatively small in size, which is probably why they progressed faster. R14, a standing Buddha of the same type, even further to the rear, is very incomplete indeed. Whether or not R12 and R13, which were fully carved, were ever painted cannot now be determined. One might assume that they would have been painted, even though no evidence of this remains today. Even an image like R14 might also have been hastily readied for worship in this way, although it is so unfinished that this was probably not the case. The increasingly hasty quality of the work on these very late images might well reflect an awareness on the part of the donors that time was running out—at least that the economic situation was deteriorating. This, rather than the assumption that they are not quite fully carved, probably accounts for the omission of the lotus pedestal, which had become standard features only a short time before, from these latest images: R11, R12, R13, R14,

24 See Cave U6, where a series of such images in the rear and side walls of the interior can be dated to 480. 25 The throne is nubbed, but as in L2 and L7, the related structure is not revealed over the lion’s heads.

ambulatory

255

R15 and L9, together with similarly late figures above panels R8–R10 and finally the very unfinished R1. Quite possibly the pedestals were painted in, or would have been, in most of these cases. However, in the case of R1, perhaps the latest conception of all, it is clear that even this could not have been done, for no space is reserved for such base motifs. Three extremely incomplete seated Buddhas carved at the upper level of the wall over R14, R15, and L9 complete the record of unfinished work toward the back of the ambulatory. Of the three, that over R15 is the most nearly finished, which is perhaps not surprising since, even though located farther down the wall than that over R14, it received better light because of the positioning of the cave’s apsidal pillars. The image over L9 would have been started next, and is also more complete than that over R14; this may be because, like L9 (which is more finished than R14) it occupies the mid point position in the apse, behind the stupa. Considering how late most of the lower panels in this area are, we would surely be justified in ascribing these three images (K, L, M) to the last few weeks of the hall’s patronage. It is hardly surprising to find that one of them (over L9) is a bhadrasana image. The other two are both padmasana images, and although both are extremely unfinished, one of them (panel K, over R15) has a new feature of particular interest: the roughed-out attendant figure at the left (that at the right is not even started) is clearly a standing Buddha rather than a bodhisattva. This is unusual, since bodhisattvas are used in all other small or relatively small sculptured panels not only in this cave but throughout the site. Thus this is but one further example of an iconographic development which, begun earlier in more major contexts, was then later taken over for use in minor contexts too. Admittedly the process, here as in the case of a number of other features seen in this cave alone, took place in no more than a matter of months, but it is a specific example of a development nonetheless. It is perhaps of even greater interest to see how conceptions develop over the course of a very short period than it is to analyze iconographic changes which may occur over the course of years or decades or centuries. When we realize how densely most of the whole wall surface of the Cave 26’s ambulatory had been filled up, either with sculptures or (particularly in the more flawed areas) with paintings during the course of the activity which we have been analyzing, it seems clear

256

cave 26

that the remaining “free” areas of wall along some of the upper levels at the rear of the cave would surely have been filled with intrusive imagery too, had activity at the site continued even a few weeks or months more. However, of course this did not happen, either in Cave 26 or in any other cave at the site. We assume that, because panels K, L, and M are still so unfinished, they must still have been in the process of being carved when all work suddenly ended. Therefore, it seems most unlikely that the spaces between them were filled with painted imagery, which would have been very hard to see in any case. However, such painted imagery is found in some of the forward areas of the ambulatory, notably in the wall surface just above panels R6 and R7. Where this area widens, over panel R5, a small panel (#A: discussed earlier) was carved in about mid-480, although the greater constriction of the rest of the area apparently discouraged further carved donations. Instead, what appears to have been a series of small Buddhas, associated with some kind of pillared structures, was painted on the long narrow strip. The whole painting is almost obliterated today, but one can see that it comprised a sequence of repetitive images somewhat analogous to the equally ruinous grouping done at about the same time (480) and still barely visible on the left side of Cave U6’s main porch wall. Since the traces of plaster and paint from this painted composition continue right up to the edge of the carved panel A, it seems evident that they could only have been painted after it was cut; and in any case, the carver of Panel A would not have cut away previously painted Buddha images to make his own panel. Thus the painted Panel B must post-date the carved Panel A, even if perhaps only very slightly. Equally, it cannot have any connection with the Eight Buddhas above, since their lengths are not consistent. It seems appropriate to date it to the last half of 480, as a hasty late donation, perhaps reflecting a concern about the temper of the times. It seems rather likely that most of the very late images toward the rear of the hall, like R1 at the front, never were painted at all, simply because time suddenly ran out. There are no traces of either plaster or paint on any of those which, for the various reasons cited, appear to be particularly late, whereas a few earlier panels (L7, L8, etc.) which are also at the rear of the apse, do have remaining traces of plastering and coloring. This makes it clear that the very late images were never painted; otherwise, traces would remain. Admittedly

ambulatory

257

L9’s surface is almost completely obliterated, which is quite understandable, since the dark areas in the back of the apse must have once been filled with bats and other creatures. This may also be why no traces of decoration whatsoever remain on R15, which (like R12 and R13) was probably finished some weeks or months before the ultimate collapse of patronage in the cave. The very latest image of all in Cave 26’s ambulatory could well be the barely-begun standing Buddha (R1) at the very front of the right aisle. It is located in what would appear to be a high priority position until one realizes that it occupies the area of wall against which the (single-paneled) right aisle door would swing when opened. It is for this very reason that, slightly over two years before, when Buddhabhadra’s triad of Panels R2–4 was begun, they were positioned some four feet away from the front wall of the cave. Thus the space at the right of R2 was still available when Panel R1 was donated, late in 480. Actually the space left when the Buddha triad R2–R4 was started was considerably more than sufficient; but at that time there was space to spare, so “economy” was not a concern. By contrast, the Parinirvana scene on the opposite wall was set quite close to the front wall, the trunk of the sal tree occupying the area to the left of the Buddha’s head. But here the aisle door, conventionally, also swung (as was conventional) from a pivot on the left, as viewed from inside the cave; thus the door’s opening did not present a problem. The R1 Buddha is a standing image of a very “late” type within the context of ambulatory sculptures in general, for it was to have no carved lotus pedestal, nor did it have space provided for a painted one. Kneeling devotees, for which stone had been reserved at the lower left and right, would have been carved directly adjacent to the feet. Above, stone was apparently also reserved for the expected flying dwarfs. It might be noted that the sculptor carefully avoided the flaw above the Buddha’s head, even though this meant that the figure had to be somewhat shorter than would probably have been desired. Having been worked on for no more than a day or two at the most, R1 stands, still today, as a mute witness to the collapse of the site at the end of the brief and troubled period when the sculptures in the ambulatory were all created. Besides the various panels we have been discussing in our review of ambulatory intrusions, one other carving was added to the ambulatory

258

cave 26

during the Period of Disruption. This is a small Buddha image carved on the rear face of the capital of pillar R3. It is clearly not part of an extended program of capital decoration, since no counterparts appear either on pillar L3 or on any other pillars; this is hardly surprising in the Period of Disruption, where such different “rules” apply. As is invariably the case with capital decorations, even in 480, the image is in the padmasana rather than the bhadrasana mode, probably because the former format fitted better; and, as is quite typical of intrusive padmasana images, particularly by 480, the little figure is seated on a lotus pedestal rather than upon a throne. The flanking bodhisattvas, presumably Avalokitesvara and Vajrapani, appear to have the expected jata and kirita mukuta on the left and right respectively. Both bodhisattvas hold cauries; and curiously, other cauries, held aloft by detached hands, also appear on either side of the Buddha’s head. The latter motif is a familiar one at the site, but it is obviously redundant here, and hints at the lack of disciplined planning so often encountered at this very late date. It seems clear that this rear surface of the capital must have been plastered before consistent work on the cave had been abandoned in 478, but it apparently had not yet been painted at that time, and so the later sculptor would have had no compunction about utilizing the space. We can see traces of apparently undecorated plaster on the capitals of the adjacent pillars R4, R5, and R6 too; probably all of the ambulatory capitals were once plastered, but no further traces are readily visible. The walls of the ambulatory, on the other hand, probably had not been plastered when the original program of work ended in 478, since they were then being decorated with sculptured panels as part of Buddhabhadra’s program. (L1, L3, L8, R2–R4, and the Eight-Buddha panel in the right aisle.) It is evident that such work was going to continue, had not Buddhabhadra lost his control over the cave at the end of 478. The front wall of Cave 26 is surfaced with mudplaster rather than with the apparently later lime plaster used along the ambulatory walls. This strongly suggests that (quite conventionally) the front wall was plastered along with the front ceiling, which in turn is consistent in its plastering with the traces remaining on the aisle ceilings. In other words they were all part of Buddhabhadra’s overall program of decoration for the cave, which aimed at getting the whole thing done in normal course—in a consistent manner. The beautiful painted design on the ceiling of the front aisle, which is alone

ambulatory

259

preserved, would never have been done in this thoroughgoing and “irrelevant” way in the Period of Disruption, so it clearly belongs to the work done under Buddhabhadra’s aegis. It must have been one of the last things done when the cave was under Buddhabhadra’s control. At the same time, it seems likely that Buddhabhadra’s painters were not responsible for the decoration of the low-priority front wall, even though it had already been plastered. Although multiple Buddha compositions, Sravasti Miracle or otherwise, are common during the consistent phase of Ajanta’s patronage, these all involve relatively large Buddha figures. Compositions with multiple tiny Buddhas, on the other hand, are seen in Caves 2, Upper 6, and 11 in the Period of Disruption; and it seems likely that this is the period to which the now-ruinous multiple Buddhas on Cave 26’s front wall belong.26 When we consider that evidence that can be drawn from Buddhabhadra’s consistent plastering of Cave 26, what is particularly important to note is that the mudplaster which was applied to the aisle ceilings as part of Buddhabhadra’s original program penetrates into the revealed precincts of the carved Parinirvana scene. The evidence is subtle, because of so many losses; but it is also clear. What it proves is that the great Dying Buddha had to have been cut, or at least started, before the ceiling was plastered, and thus belongs to the same period of Buddhabhadra’s patronage—namely, 478. Of course we should assume in any case that this fantastic image, like the Temptation by Mara beyond, belongs to Buddhabhadra’s program, and has nothing to do with the intrusions cut (sometimes into the very leaves of the sal tree under which the Buddha died) during the Period of Disruption. The smooth lime plaster surfacing of the great image, used to complete the composition, has a number of fine red sketches drawn upon it. These appear to have been revealed when the final painted surface, due to poor adherence, fell away. That the whole great scene was painted seems clear from the fact that the framing tree at the left still shows traces of green paint, which survived because they were protected by the deep cutting of the leaves. 26 Cave 2’s multiple Buddha compositions add up to more than one thousand (in the shrine antechamber alone); Cave Upper 6 porch and Cave 11 had considerably less. The Cave 26 composition is mostly obliterated, but surely numbered a few hundred.

260

cave 26

Cohen’s view that the same lime plaster “was also slathered over the several haphazardly placed ‘intrusive’ panels to the right” (Cohen 1995, 190), and that therefore the Dying Buddha was not finally finished by Buddhabhadra cannot be sustained. In fact the surfacing is totally different, the Parinirvana surface applied upon a mudplaster base, and therefore totally different from that of the intrusions.27 Were the Parinirvana and the intrusions “finished” at the same time, it would totally disturb our view of developments not only in the cave but in the whole site.28 Such observations, if they could be sustained, would imply that Buddhabhadra remained after 478, rather than having been forced by the circumstances of politics and war to have exited the site before those uninvited devotees took over his beautiful cave.

27

Refer to discussion in Volume I, Chapter 12. I am indebted to Mr. Manager Singh, chief conservator, for his analysis of the significant differences in the plastering of these two phases. 28

GHATOTKACHA VIHARA INTRUSIONS The history of the Ghatotkacha vihara’s final years clearly parallels the contemporary situation at Ajanta where, shortly after the death of the great emperor Harisena, the deteriorating situation had completely disrupted the original patronage of the site. By 479, even in a vihara such as this, sponsored (like Cave 16 at Ajanta) by the powerful Prime Minister Varahadeva, new donors were freely utilizing available space in the caves for a generally haphazard array of intrusive votive donations, taking no account whatsoever of the now-abandoned original program of decoration. As we have pointed out, these later donors invariably placed their intrusive donations in caves where the main image was already under worship—only caves where the Buddha image had been dedicated were “alive”.1 The fact that they utilized the Ghatotkacha vihara for their offerings substantiates our assertion that the image had been completed and the cave dedicated by mid-478, before the “Vakataka” patrons hastily left Ajanta and related sitese, leaving their caves open to the pious depredations of eager new devotees in the Period of Disruption. Two of the intrusions in the Ghatotkacha vihara are found in the shrine antechamber, just to the left of the shrine doorway, an area desirable because of its proximity to the shrine. Both of these images are standing Buddhas, in panels bordered by pilasters.2 The upper image is placed beneath the familiar makara arch found sometimes at Ajanta during the Period of Disruption. The lower image, located in a spot where the wall had not even been properly smoothed—a fact which reflects the expedient and hasty nature of offerings made at this late date—stands upon a “late” double lotus pedestal. In early 469, the Prime Minister Varahadeva realized that, because of the mounting Asmaka/Risika crisis, he either could not or should not try to complete this huge excavation, which was only about half done at this time. Therefore, perhaps to satisfy local devotees, he 1 Cave 22, an apparent exception to this “rule”, requires discussion: see Cave 22 Intrusions, above. 2 Compare intrusive images in Cave Upper 6’s rear wall of hall, and in shrine antechamber.

262

ghatotkacha vihara intrusions

ordered a relief stupa carved from the still-available matrix at the right end of the front aisle. It seems certain that this would have been dedicated at the time, and presumably was still in worship in 475, when the excavating activity in the cave was renewed. In any case, this stupa apparently had a particular sanctity, for it became a particularly attractive locus for intrusive offerings during the Period of Disruption. Indeed, the stupa itself participated in this process, for the teaching padmasana Buddha carved upon it is clearly an addition of the Period of Disruption. In order to include the standing attendants and the groups of devotees almost demanded at such a late date, the original “framework” of the stupa drum has been quite heedlessly cut into. By way of contrast, the supporting yaksha below is part of the carefully carved original conception. Opposite the stupa, the donors of this late period took advantage of the excessive thickness of the cave’s front wall in this area to cut a kind of 3—Buddhas altar.3 This effective group is clearly very late in type. It bears some connection with the similar “altar” at the left of Cave 17’s court, which is also an intrusive addition, carved at this same time—479 or 480. However, whereas the central image is seated in the Cave 17 example, it is standing here. The “redundant” standing Buddhas at the sides are each raised up decisively on very developed (i.e., stem-supported) double lotus pedestals, like those in the Cave 17 panel too. Such “redundancy”—where Buddhas are attendant upon the Buddha—is a distinctly late iconographic feature, as is the inclusion of the seated Buddhas at either side of the central arch. The images above must have been done after the set-back altar was itself completed, or at least underway. They comprise a small standing Buddha, one large and two small stupas, and five padmasana Buddhas, all showing dharmacakra mudra. Two of the latter, at the higher level and therefore probably the latest of the group, are seated on lotus pedestals, which can probably be considered as a slightly “developed” feature. All of these images above the three standing Buddhas show the random placement (expediently avoiding flawed areas of rock) and the variety so characteristic of the scattered imagery of the Period of Disruption at Ajanta too. The carefully

3 The front wall was never fully trimmed back; like various front walls at Ajanta, this is generally the last to be done, and therefore often remained incomplete.

ghatotkacha vihara intrusions

263

smoothed-down quarter-round forms at the upper corners of some of the panels were probably painted with converging dwarfs or decorative motifs. Since it is evident that these were not to be carved, it seems reasonable to assume that all of the images on this front wall were finished. For this reason we might presume to date all of them (with the possible exception of those at the highest level) to 479, considering the images on the adjacent wall to the left to belong to 480, since many of the latter were still unfinished when this intrusive phase came to an end. In this regard it is worth noting that there are a number of small bhadrasana images on this “later” wall, while all of the simpler padmasana images on this wall either have lotus pedestals, or would have had them when completed, as we would expect at a very late date. One other padmasana image, the largest of the group, shows the Buddha on a lion throne and omits the lotus pedestal, having the deer and wheel below instead. This panel shows a curiously confused (and unique) base arrangement. One devotee actually crowds in between the left deer and the wheel, while two other devotees below occupy positions where, in bhadrasana compositions, one might find nagas supporting lotus shafts; the result is surprisingly inept, perhaps suggesting a degree of “provincialism”, even though it the site is only eleven miles from Ajanta.4 On the wall in which the relief stupa is carved, there is another padmasana image, perhaps cut in 479, since it was apparently not provided with a lotus seat, and since its location both close to the stupa and relatively well-lit may have been considered particularly desirable. Like the similarly early intrusive padmasana images on the opposite (front) wall, it has “quarter-rounds” in its upper corners. This idiosyncrasy may well have been the hallmark of a particular sculptor, or his boss, since this image and the three padmasana images at the middle level of the front wall are all very similar in type.5 Above it, and probably later both because of its position and its iconography, is a bhadrasana image, apparently planned in conjunction with the low-relief stupa dome just above—as if it is being

4 It is eleven miles “as the crow flies”; by car (or jeep during the monsoon) it takes about two hours, with a half hour hike. 5 By contrast, the two padmasana Buddhas at the upper level of the front wall not only sit above lotus pedestals, but have much reduced “quarter-round” elements in the upper corners of their panels.

264

ghatotkacha vihara intrusions

revealed in the stupa’s drum. The fact that, judging from developments at Ajanta, such small bhadrasana images were never carved in intrusive contexts until 480, would suggest this as its likely date, even though its finished condition (and perhaps its placement next to the large stupa) would lead one to believe it was probably finished before most of the images on the adjacent wall were very much underway. The very disorderly arrangement of this whole complex of varied panels at the right end of the front aisle strongly suggests that they were donated by a number of different individuals, but no inscriptions remain on them today; this is hardly surprising, since such inscriptions, in this late phase, were normally painted, and practically all traces of paint from those images which were finished have vanished today. I have suggested that a few of the images in this area may date from the earlier part of the Period of Disruption, but the evidence for this is not particularly compelling. What is sure, on the other hand, is that the majority of images here belong to 480, as the presence of small bhadrasana figures would lead us to believe, since such small images of this type do not appear at Ajanta until 480. It should also be noted that the seated images here invariably show the dharmacakra mudra, which was definitely the mudra of choice in 480. It is just possible that intrusions did not make their appearance at this somewhat isolated site as early as at Ajanta, where Varahadeva’s cave, along with other “Vakataka” excavations were probably open to “intruders” as early as mid-478. There is, indeed, one inscribed intrusive image in the cave. This is a rather crudely done (perhaps unfinished) attended Buddha seated on a “late” lotus pedestal and showing the bhumisparsa mudra: this appears on the cave’s left front pilaster. However, the inscription does not refer to a donor, but only reproduces the well-known Buddhist creed, “ye dharma hetu-prabhava . . .” which can be translated “The Tathagata teaches the cause of those things that arise from a cause, and also their extinction. Such is the great Sramana’s doctrine”.6 Beneath this image are traces of another smaller one— a standing Buddha which has been just barely started, and which

6 See Cohen 1995, 386, Sreenivasachar, 1952, p. i. Sentaro Sawamura, 1918, says it is “impossible to date by the style of writing”.

ghatotkacha vihara intrusions

265

was possibly abandoned in favor of the larger seated figure above. A mere preliminary sketch for another standing Buddha can be seen on the main face of the opposite (i.e., right front) pilaster; it too was interrupted in mid-course. Thus it may well date to the very end of 480, along with the unfinished figures on the left pilaster. Admittedly, the inscription on the left pilaster is generally considered as belonging to the eighth century, but there is little reason to think that it was associated, as a gift, with the Buddha image, particularly since the image is below the inscription, rather than above it, as was conventional in the Vakataka period. Furthermore, one could hardly expect that an eighth century traveler to the site would have had the services of a sculptor available, and that even if he did, the sculptor would have left his commission unfinished; that surprising feature can best be explained by the political situation that dominated the Vakataka sites at the time when the empire was under threat in this Period of Disruption. Thus I would be tempted (without excessive conviction) to ascribe the two unfinished images, and the very clumsy and not quite completed earth-touching Buddha to late 480, already reflecting in their confusion the developing problems in the area. The large number of unfinished intrusive images in the Ghatotkacha vihara is itself evident to support the assumption that a variety of individuals were involved in these donations and that their efforts were interrupted very suddenly. The fact that unfinished images form a very significant percentage of the total number of panels started— even though most of these panels were relatively minor—confirms the hypothesis that this whole period of intrusive activity was a very brief one. In other words, the evidence at Ghatotkacha completely confirms the conclusions that we have reached from a study of this same phase at Ajanta: namely, that it probably lasted only a couple or years, and ended suddenly and unexpectedly, leaving a surprising number of images unfinished and undedicated, even though completing them would not have taken more than a few days or hours, judging from the state in which they were left. It would seem these “abandoned” images directly reflect the last of the many traumas which, over the years, the caves of the Vakatakas endured.