The Rise of Mahasena: The Transformation of Skanda-Karttikeya in North India from the Kusana to Gupta Empires 9004217541, 9789004217546

Citation preview

The Rise of Mahāsena

Brill’s Indological Library Edited by

Johannes Bronkhorst In co-operation with

Richard Gombrich, Oskar von Hinüber, Katsumi Mimaki, Arvind Sharma

VOLUME 39

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/bil

On the cover: Statue of Skanda as Mahāsena from Gandhāra. Photograph: © Trustees of the British Museum This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mann, Richard D.   The rise of Mahasena : the transformation of Skanda-Karttikeya in North india from the Kusana to Gupta empires / By Richard D. Mann.    p. cm. — (Brill’s Indological library, ISSN 0925-2916 ; v. 39)   Revision of the author’s Ph. D. dissertation.   Includes bibliographical references and index.   ISBN 978-90-04-21754-6 (hardback : alk. paper)   1. Karttikeya (Hindu deity)—Cult—India, North—History. 2. Hinduism—India, North— History. I. Title.   BL1225.K382M36 2012   294.5’2113--dc23

2011035130

ISSN 0925-2916 ISBN 978 90 04 21754 6 Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC 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 Koninklijke Brill NV 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.

Contents List of Illustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   ix Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   xi List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xiii Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    1 1. Theories Related to the Origins of Skanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Supposed Indus Valley Skanda-Kārttikeya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Deification of Alexander the Great. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Vedic Amalgam of Kumāras. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Early Textual References to Skanda-Kārttikeya . . . . . . . . .

   5    5    7    8   10

2. The Early Traditions of Skanda-Kārttikeya from Epic, Medical and Ritual Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   15 Classifying and Dating the Mahābhārata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   15 The Account of Skanda’s Birth in the Āraṇyakaparvan . . . . . .   18 The Fierce Skanda: An Inauspicious Beginning and the   Appearance of Skanda the Warrior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   21 The Fierce Skanda: His Tie to Grahas, Kumāras and Mātṛs. . .    25 Grahas in the Āraṇyakaparvan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   26 Grahas in the Āyurvedic Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   28 Mātṛs in the Āraṇyakaparvan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   33 Kumāras in the Āraṇyakaparvan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   37 The Worship of Skanda-Kārttikeya and Grahas in the Āraṇya­ka­parvan and the Skandayāga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   40 Skanda the God of Thieves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   45 Conclusion to the Fierce Characterization of Skanda  Kārttikeya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   46 3. The Emergence of the Senāpati: The Narrative Conversion of the Warrior and Graha. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   49 The Frame Narratives in the Āraṇyakaparvan: The Hidden   Agni. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   49 The Frame Narratives in the Āraṇyakaparvan: The Rescue of   Devasenā.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   55

vi

contents The Ritual Taming of the Deity, Part One: The Brahmini­zation   of the Deity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   The Ritual Taming of the Deity, Part Two: The Inauguration   of the Senāpati. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   The Familial Theme Part One: The Fatherhood of Agni. . . . . .   The Familial Theme Part Two: Skanda’s Mothers and Wife. . .   The Familial Theme Part Three: The Fatherhood of Śiva . . . . .   The Distancing of Skanda-Deva from Skandagraha in the   Suśrutasaṃhitā. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   The Socio-Political context of the Āraṇyakaparvan. . . . . . . . . .  

4. The Birth of Skanda-Kārttikeya in the Śalyapar­van, Anuśāsanaparvan and Rāmāyaṇa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   The Śalyaparvan Account of Skanda-Kārttikeya’s Birth and   Deeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   The Parentage of Skanda in the Śalyaparvan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   The Auspicious Skanda in the Śalyaparvan: The Military   Ascetic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   Skanda’s Birth and Deeds in the Anuśāsanaparvan. . . . . . . . . .   The Parentage of Skanda in the Anuśāsanaparvan.. . . . . . . . . .   Agni’s Parentage of Skanda and Gold in the Anuśāsana­  parvan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   Furthering the Brahminical Context for Skanda: The Sacrifice   in the Anuśāsanaparvan.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   A Second Birth Story for Skanda in the Anuśāsanaparvan. . . .   Skanda-Kārttikeya in the Rāmāyaṇa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   Conclusion to the Epic Accounts of Skanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

57 58 62 65 68 73 75 79 79 79 81 85 86 90 93 95 97 98

5. Coins, Statuary and Skanda-Kārttikeya: The Earliest Depictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   101 The Yaudheyas and Their Coinage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   101 Yaudheya Class Three Coinage: Obverse Designs. . . . . . . . . . .   103 Yaudheya Class Three Coinage: Reverse Designs. . . . . . . . . . . .   107 Yaudheya Context and Chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   108 From Six Heads to One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   113 The Worship and Popularity of Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra and   Ṣaṣṭhī among the Yaudheyas during the Period of Class   Three Coinage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   115 The Kuṣāṇa-Era Mathurā Depictions of Skanda-Kārttikeya. . .   117

contents

vii

Concluding Remarks to the Mathurā Images of Skanda  Kārttikeya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   121 6. Skanda-Kārttikeya on Kuṣāṇa Coinage and Gandhāra Statuary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   123 Kuṣāṇa Era Gandhāra Statuary of Skanda-Kārttikeya. . . . . . . .   123 The Mahāsena Coin of Huviṣka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   129 The Skanda-Kumāra with Viśākha Coin Type of Huviṣka. . . .   135 The Skanda-Kumāra with Viśākha and Mahāsena Coins   of Huviṣka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   138 The Rise of Mahāsena. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   139 Skanda-Kārttikeya and Mars in Kuṣāṇa Era Material. . . . . . . .   140 Conclusion to the Kuṣāṇa Period Depictions of Skanda  Kārttikeya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   147 7. Developments in Skanda-Kārttikeya’s Cult between the Empires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   149 Yaudheya Coins: The Class Six Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   149 The Class Six Coinage: The Impact of Kuṣāṇa Design. . . . . . . .   151 The Context of the Yaudheyas and the ‘Popularity’ of Skanda  Kārttikeya at the Time of the Class Six Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . .   154 The Context of the Yaudheyas during the Class Six Period . . .   159 The Spread of Mahāsena in South Asia: Skanda in the Ikṣvāku   Kingdom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   161 Nāgārjunakoṇḍa: Geography, Background and Cultural   Influences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   162 Cultural Influences at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa: The Sāta­vāhanas. . . .   163 Cultural Influences at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa: The Western   Kṣatrapas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   165 Cultural Influences at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa: Trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . .   167 The Evidence for Devotion to Skanda Recovered from   Nāgār­juna­koṇḍa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   168 Inscriptions Related to Skanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   168 Statuary of Skanda from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   171 Other Potential Images of Skanda from Nāgārjuna­koṇḍa . . . .   172 Temples of Skanda and Śiva. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   174 Concluding Remarks on Skanda-Kārttikeya’s Cult at   Nāgārjuna­koṇḍa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   176

viii

contents

8. The Kumārasaṃbhava and Purāṇic Accounts of Skanda-Kārttikeya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   179 The Kumārasaṃbhava. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   180 Cantos 1-8, The Story of Śiva and Pārvatī. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   180 Cantos 9-17, The Birth and Deeds of Skanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   182 The Early Skandapurāṇa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   187 The Account of Skanda’s Birth and Deeds in the Early Skanda­  purāṇa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   187 The Relationship between the Mahābhārata and the Early   Skandapurāṇa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   192 The Early Skandapurāṇa and the Kumārasaṃbhava. . . . . . . . .   196 The Vāyupurāṇa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   197 The Birth of Skanda in the Vāyupurāṇa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   199 Concluding Remarks to the Post-Epic Accounts of Skanda  Kārttikeya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   201 9. The Material Culture of Skanda-Kārttikeya in the Gupta Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   203 Gupta Era Statuary of Skanda: Statues from the Eastern   Empire.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   203 Gupta Era Statuary of Skanda: Statues from the Western   Empire and Cave Shrines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   205 Gupta Era Terracottas of Skanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   216 Numismatic Representations of Skanda in the Gupta Era . . . .   218 Inscriptions Related to Skanda from the Gupta Era.. . . . . . . . .   224 The Relative Popularity of Skanda during the Gupta Era. . . . .   229 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  231   237   251   257

List of Illustrations   1. Indus Valley Seal   2. (a, b and c). Yaudheya class three coins (obverses) depicting Brah­maṇyadeva with a single head   3. (a, b and c). Yaudheya class three coins (obverses) depicting Brahmaṇyadeva with six heads   4. Yaudheya class three silver coin (obverse and reverse)   5. (a, b and c). Yaudheya class three coins (reverses) depicting a deer   6. Yaudheya class three coin (reverse) depicting Ṣaṣṭhī with six heads   7. Yaudheya class three coin (reverse) depicting Ṣaṣṭhī with a single head   8. Panel of the Ṣaṣṭhī Triad from Mathurā   9. Panel of Skanda with seven standing Mātṛs from Mathurā 10. Panel of Skanda with seated Mātṛs from Mathurā 11. Panel of Skanda with animal-headed Mātṛ from Mathurā 12. Panel of animal- and bird-headed Mātṛs from Mathurā 13. Panel of Skanda with animal- and bird-headed Mātṛs from Mathurā 14. Statue of Skanda as Mahāsena from Mathurā 15. Statue of Skanda as Mahāsena from Mathurā 16. Bronze of Skanda as Mahāsena from Sonkh 17. Statue of Skanda as Mahāsena from Gandhāra 18 (a and b). Gold coins of Huviṣka (reverses) depicting Mahāsena 19. Kuṣāṇa gold coin (reverse) depicting Orlagno 20. Kuṣāṇa gold coin (reverse) depicting Pharro 21. Gold coin of Huviṣka (obverse) depicting the king sitting with a bird standard 22 (a and b). Gold coins of Huviṣka (reverses) depicting Skanda-Kumāra and Viśākha 23. Gold coin of Huviṣka (reverse) depicting Skanda-Kumāra and Viśākha holding hands 24 (a and b). Gold coins of Huviṣka (reverses) depicting Mahāsena, Skanda-Kumāra and Viśākha 25 (a and b). Gandhāran seal and sealing depicting Kārttikeya

x

list of illustrations

26 (a – f). Yaudheya class six coins (obverses and reverses) 27. Statue of Skanda-Mahāsena from Mitawali, Morena District, Madhya Pradesh 28. Statue of Skanda-Mahāsena from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa 29. Front view of a potential bust of Skanda 30. Rear view of a potential bust of Skanda 31. Statue of Skanda-Kumāra from the eastern Gupta Empire 32. Panel of Skanda from Udayagiri, cave 3 33. Shrine of an Ithyphallic figure and Mātṛkās from Udayagiri 34. Ithyphallic figure from Udayagiri 35. Panel of Skanda ridding a peacock from Udayagiri 36. Panel depicting Skanda from Udayagiri, cave 7/outside cave 6 and part of Mātṛkā shrine 37. Panel depicting Skanda from figure 36 38. Skanda-Mahāsena from Śāmalājī 39. Panel from Elephanta depicting Skanda 40. Panel from Ellora depicting Skanda 41 (a and b). Gupta era terracotta figures of Skanda 42. Gupta era panel depicting the abhiṣeka of Skanda 43. Kumāragupta I gold coin depicting the king with peacock (obverse) and Kārttikeya ridding a peacock (reverse)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book is a revision of my Ph.D. dissertation. As such it owes a considerable debt to those who aided in my research and academic training. I would like to thank Ellen Raven at the Kern Institute of Indology, Leiden University, who first explained to me the importance of coinage for a study of this type. I would like to thank Joe Cribb and the other scholars and staff in the Coins and Medals Department of the British Museum. I am also greatly indebted to Dr. Jha and all the scholars and staff at the Indian Institute for Research in Numismatic Studies. I have benefited from the generosity of a number of scholars who have shared their knowledge and photography with me. In particular I am grateful to Wilfried Pieper, John Deyell, Katherine Anne Harper and Virjanand Devkarni. The staff at the Deccan College and the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute libraries in Pune were of great help to me. The Inter-library loan staff at Carleton University provided an indispensable service in tracking down my numerous requests for material. I am also grateful to Hans Bakker and his colleagues at Groningen for their assistance. I would also like to thank Brill’s anonymous peer-reviewer who made a number of valuable suggestions to an earlier draft of this book. I am hard pressed to express my gratitude to my Ph.D. supervisor, Dr. Phyllis Granoff. It was an honour to study with Phyllis at McMaster University, and I can only hope that this work displays the richness of my training. My parents and family have stood beside me throughout my studies and career and I thank them for a lifetime of financial and emotional support and encouragement. I would like to close by thanking my wife, Paula, and our sons, Gabe and Eli, both born while this book was being written. In many ways an academic book is a family affair dragging into it, often unwittingly, those closest to us. I am grateful to you, Paula, Gabe and Eli, for your patience, love and support.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AH

Uttara. The Uttaratantra of the Aṣṭaṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā

AV

Atharvaveda

AVP

Atharvaveda Pariśiṣṭa

HGS

Hiraṇyakeśi Gṛhyasūtra

Kb

Kādambarī

KS

Kāśyapasaṃhitā

KSB

Kumārasaṃbhava (translated by Smith 2005)

KSBb

Kumārasaṃbhava (translated by Devadhar 1985)

LP

Liṅga Purāṇa

MGS

Mānava Gṛhyasūtra

Mbh

Mahābhārata

MK

Mṛcchakaṭika

PGS

Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra

ṚV

Ṛgveda

ŚB

Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa

SP

Skanda Purāṇa

VP

Vāyu Purāṇa

YJ

Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja

INTRODUCTION This book is a study of the early stages and development of a Hindu deity commonly known as Kārttikeya (as well as Skanda, Kumāra, Mahāsena, Guha and Murukaṉ among others) in the north of India from approximately the fourth century bce to the seventh century ce.1 By the end of this chronological period most textual accounts of Skanda present him as the auspicious son of Śiva who serves the divine cohort as the general of the army of the gods. By the seventh century in both the material and written record of this deity found in the north he is presented as a secondary figure in Śaivism. This study argues, however, that the earlier traditions of the deity are much more diverse and important than the later record reveals. The evidence from preKuṣāṇa and Kuṣāṇa South Asia suggests that Kārttikeya was a central element in a propitiation tradition focused on appeasing Grahas.2 The tradition presents these spirits in an ambivalent manner. They are feared for their roles in failed pregnancy and infant mortality, but also, once properly propitiated, viewed as fierce protectors of those who worship them. I argue that Kumāra begins as a leader of these Grahas, viewed as both a terrible threat to mothers and children, and a powerful, though somewhat unpredictable, protector of his ­followers. Having argued for the early traditions of this deity, I then trace his transformation from a Graha-like being into an auspicious general and son of Śiva. This shift in characterization is an almost complete transformation of the deity over a period of three to four hundred years. I argue the transformation is brought about by two forces, which, while they rarely openly acknowledge the existence of the other, intersect in a dynamic process that changes not just Skanda, but Hinduism as a whole. One of these groups is primarily religious—the Brahminical community or communities that wrote Kumāra into the early literary works of Hinduism. The works in question are the Sans­ krit epics, the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa, as well as ritual texts like 1  This deity has a number of names and epithets. I will refer to the deity with a selection of names including Skanda, Kārttikeya, Kumāra and Skanda-Kārttikeya. 2   Graha (a ‘Grasper’ or ‘Seizer’) is both a term used to describe planets, which were understood in astrological texts to ‘grasp’ the futures of humans, and a term used here to describe a class of dangerous spirits that possessed pregnant women and young children.

2

introduction

the Atharvaveda Pariśiṣṭa and early Āyurvedic and astrological material. The stories of Kārttikeya in these texts are early attempts to place him into a frame of Brahminical orthodoxy, a frame that was largely antithetical to his Graha roots. These early stories of Skanda are, essentially, narratives of cultural assimilation, but they also leave important clues as to the origins of the deity. The second force of change is primarily political in nature and some aspects of it are not indigenous to India. Many of the changes I investigate occur during the Kuṣāṇa Empire.3 The Kuṣāṇas ruled over a cultur­ally and religiously heterogeneous empire that at its height stretched from the boarders of modern Iran to deep within northern India. They were foreign rulers of South Asia, and within their empire we find a complex cultural amalgam of Scythian, Parthian, Hellenistic and Indian groups and traditions. The Kuṣāṇa era was a fertile time for religious, economic and cultural development. Many of the early cults of Hinduism take on their first traceable and recognizable forms around this period. I argue that the Kuṣāṇas and the cultural heterogeneity found in their realm create important changes in early Hin­ duism, changes that are encapsulated in the history of Kārttikeya during their reign. The Brahminical textual tradition is, however, silent on the existence of the Kuṣāṇas. The evidence for them comes primarily from material culture: numismatics, statuary and epigraphy. This material evidence suggests that Kārttikeya and Śiva were among the first Hindu deities used by the Kuṣāṇas as part of their royal propaganda. Their interest, however, in Skanda was in his form as Mahāsena, the youthful general of the army of the gods, and not with Skanda as a Graha. It is the combination of this imperial agenda and that of the Brahminical adoption of Skanda and his assimilation into Śaivism that work to change this deity. Once this deity entered both the dominant religious and political spheres of his day, we might well expect some comments on the enduring popularity, if not dominance, of his cult in the north of India. Such is not the case, however. Skanda’s once widespread cult is much diminished by about the seventh century ce.4 Kārttikeya 3   The Kuṣāṇa Empire can be dated from the first century ce to the end of the fourth century ce (Falk 2001: 130; Cribb 1999: 191-193). The empire is, however, greatly reduced after the third century ce. 4   This decline is only a north Indian phenomenon. The southern cult of Kārttikeya, or Murukaṉ, maintains a high degree of popularity to this day. The

introduction

3

becomes little more then a footnote in Śaivism in the north when compared with the dynamic cults of his brother, Gaṇeśa, and his parents, Śiva and Pārvatī. The mechanics of this fall in popularity forms the final question this book addresses. I argue that the ‘golden age’ of this deity does not occur when it is typically suggested: during the Gupta period, but is found well before during the pre-Kuṣāṇa and Kuṣāṇa eras. The material evidence suggests that his cult was widespread and ‘popular’ when he was primarily recognized as a Graha because his cult dealt with concerns that cut across all sections of society: the health of children and mothers. The shift to a martial and Śaivite deity removes him from such broad religious and social contexts and places him in more elite circles of royal propaganda and Brahminical concerns for orthodoxy. With the collapse of the Kuṣāṇa and Gupta Empires his more elite cult disappears with them, and his depictions in texts are reduced to Brahminical agendas that present him as secondary to Śiva. The seeds of his decline have been presented as something of a mystery by other scholars, especially in light of the apparent popularity of his cult in the Gupta Empire and his enduring success in the south of India. I argue that the popularity of Kārttikeya is nothing more than ‘apparent’ in the Gupta era. Much of the Gupta use of this deity simply reinforces the elite social and religious context for his cult that developed earlier during the rule of the Kuṣāṇas. As the above suggests, this study’s methodological approach at­­ tempts to combine material and textual evidence to understand the context or contexts that generated religious, social and cultural shifts in India during the rule of the Kuṣāṇas and Guptas. Such an approach is not without its challenges. The two sources, textual and material, often appear to narrate differing characterizations of Kārttikeya, and we need to appreciate that the perspective of these sources and the stories they attempt to narrate differ, at times considerably. While we might hope that these various sources will help us to uncover ‘the’ story of Skanda, they instead demonstrate that there were several competing versions of the deity during the period of study examined here. The goal, then, of this study is to present all of these competing narratives with an attempt to understand the historical forces that promote some of them over others.

c­ urrent study limits itself to the northern Sanskrit tradition and does not engage the extensive Tamil tradition of Murukaṉ, a topic that I intend to treat elsewhere.

CHAPTER ONE

THEORIES RELATED to the ORIGINS of SKANDA The Supposed Indus Valley Skanda-Kārttikeya Before discussing the evidence for my arguments in the chapters to follow, I will briefly review some of the theories presented by other scholars who suggest much earlier origins for the deity. T. G. Arava­ muthan (1948), B. Y. Volchok (1970, 1972) and A. Parpola (1987, 1994) have suggested that scenes found on Indus Valley seals and sealings are related to the cult of Skanda. Aravamuthan argues on the basis of five related seals/sealings that one of Kumāra’s narratives from the Mahābhārata was known to the Indus people. One of these seals depicts seven females in the foreground and a tree in the background with a figure standing in the middle of its branches. There is also a kneeling figure before the tree, and what may be a severed head along with a bull-like animal behind the kneeling figure (fig. 1). The other related seals/sealings show six females and some do not show the apparently severed head. Aravamuthan suggests that the females are the Kṛttikās and the kneeling male Skanda (1948: 52, 54). As we shall see, the Kṛttikās (the Pleiades) play a significant role in birth stories of Kārttikeya. Aravamuthan also thinks the figure in the tree is the impersonal brahman (1948: 58-59), but others have suggested it represents Brahmā (Rana 1995: 3). He also claims that the bull is a composite bull-goat and represents Agni, and that the severed head is a trophy for vanquishing demons (Aravamuthan 1948: 52). The narrative Aravamuthan tries to read into these seals/sealings is found in the Āraṇyakaparvan of the Mahābhārata; a text we will examine in chapters two and three. While S. S. Rana accepts this theory (1995: 2-4), P. K. Agrawala is correct in rejecting it as “mere conjecture” (1967: xiii). There is a significant historical gap of at least one thousand to two thousand years between the production of these seals/sealings and the accounts of Skanda-Kārttikeya in the Mahābhārata, which makes any interpretation of these seals/sealings from the known mythology of Skanda difficult to establish with any certainty.

6

chapter one

B. Y. Volchok argues that these same seals/sealings represent the celebration of the birth year of Kārttikeya with its six seasons, represented by his six heads in later accounts. This birth year is supposed to have occurred during the new moon at the spring equinox when the sun was in the Pleiades. Volchok argues that Skanda’s birth commemorates a rare astrological occurrence that has Agni, in the form of the sun, enter the constellation, the Kṛttikās. This rare astrological event occurred, he claims, during the third millennium bce (Volchok cited in Doniger 1973: 100).1 The potential for archaic roots for Indian mythology related to astrological figures is possible. The study of the stars was primarily employed in Vedic texts as a means of maintaining the Vedic ritual calendar. By the texts of the late Vedic era a group of 27 to 28 Nakṣatras was being tracked through their lunar stations (Yano 2003: 378). The earliest of these texts begin counting the Nakṣatras, and hence mark the start of a year, from the Kṛttikās, but later texts commence the year with the Aśvinī. This shift is due to the procession of the equinoxes. The Kṛttikās would have been at the vernal equinox at about 2300 bce, which certainly allows for an archaic beginning to their mythology (Yano 2003: 378-379). As Michael Witzel has argued, however, the Kṛttikās remain close to the equator from 2900 bce to about 500 bce (1999: 17); hence, we need not look to the Indus Valley for the start of this mythology concerning the Kṛttikās. We cannot reject the idea that the known mythology related to the Kṛttikās dates back to the Indus Valley civilization, but it may also date to the Vedic period. As we shall see later, there are Vedic textual accounts of the Kṛttikās and their relationship with Agni, but no clear birth story of Skanda until the epics. Even though Volchok is able to supply evidence for this unusual astrological event, and others have argued for the centrality of astrological lore in interpreting Indus society (Parpola 1994), we have no way of confidently reading the Indus Valley script or interpreting these seals, which reduces these suggestions to speculations and academic guesses.2 1  Volchok’s argument concerning Skanda-Kārttikeya comes from a Russian article he published in 1972, “Protoindiiskie paralleli k mifu o Skande” in Proto-Indica (Akademiia Nauk, SSSR, 305-112). This article was summarized in English by Wendy Doniger (1973: 100; 1975: 104). It is her summaries of the article that I employ here. 2   In another article Volchok suggests that certain elements of Indus Valley art reflect notions found in Buddhist and Hindu cosmography, but these points are also speculative (1970: 29-53). He argues a group of seals depicting a buffalo being killed

theories related to the origins of skanda

7

Asko Parpola also argues for the existence of Skanda’s cult in the Indus Valley civilization. He relates finds of bangles at Indus Valley sites and an Indus Valley script sign found on them with the cult of Kārttikeya. The argument relies on the assumption that certain Indus Valley signs relate to heavenly bodies, and that the Indus script relates to Dravidian languages (1987: 265, 1994: 225-239). The author argues that a particular Indus sign corresponds to the Old Tamil word muruku, which is then related to the Tamil name Murukaṉ and to a Tamil term for ‘ring’ (1987: 270, 1994: 226-229). Parpola goes on to speculate, based primarily in modern usages of bangles in India, that these ancient bangles and the deity, whose name supposedly appears on them, were connected to pregnancy in the Indus Valley civilization (1987: 272-277). This argument is, however, built on a number of unsubstantiated hypotheses related to the Indus script and the relation of this culture to Vedic, Dravidian and Hindu cultures. Even Parpola acknowledges that much of what he suggests represent academic guesses (1994: 3-4). Hence, while I cannot disprove that Skanda-Kārttikeya, or some form of him, was worshiped in the Indus Valley, I also think that we lack the necessary concrete evidence to support arguments that he was worshiped in that civilization, or that any supposed Indus cult for the deity influenced the much later narratives of him in the epics. A Deification of Alexander the Great An argument that is occasionally explored is that Skanda is a deified form of Alexander the Great. This argument appears to originate with an article by N. G. Pillai (1937). The core of the argument is that the Persian and Arabic name for Alexander is Iskandar, which Pillai feels would morph into Iskanda and finally Skanda in a South Asian context (1937: 957). The linguistic chain here is dubious, as are a number of the other claims made in the paper. He argues that Candra Gupta, the Mauryan emperor, would have worshiped Alexander as a god by a human with a spear relate to Kārttikeya’s mythology. He suggests that this image mirrors the Āraṇyakaparvan account of Kārttikeya killing the demon Mahiṣa (1970: 45-46). His arguments for these seals are not well supported in part due to the unsupportable assumptions he brings to this Indus Valley evidence, and the considerable time gaps between the seals and the later evidence he employs to explain them.

8

chapter one

(1937: 961). There is no solid evidence for any South Asian worship of Alexander, and the argument seems based on an assumption that there is a “tendency to regard a great and strange foreigner as a god” (1937: 962). Questionable assumptions of this sort abound in Pillai’s dated paper and his thesis can be rejected. In relation to this supposed link between Skanda and Alexander, P. G. Paul and D. Paul (1989) argue that there may be a reference to a statue of Skanda-Kārttikeya in Quintus Curtius’ history of Alexander the Great. Curtius claims that an image of Heracles was carried in front of the army of King Porus during battle. Paul and Paul argue that this image could have been Skanda. They note that a large number of Kumāra statues have been recovered from the Gandhāra area and do not think that the discrepancy of attributes (Skanda’s spear and Hercles’ club) is problematic. They also claim that the image was made of wood, and that is why we have no surviving examples of this deity’s statuary from this period (1989: 114-116). I do, however, think that the discrepancy of attributes is a significant factor; the spear is one of the primary means we have of identifying early statuary of Skanda. While Kārttikeya does appear to have been popular with certain classes in Gandhāra, surviving statues of the deity from that region come 300 to 500 years after Alexander and do not provide a sound basis for their argument.3 Finally, their wooden statue argument only helps to underline the point that there is no physical evidence to support their claim, and it must be viewed as speculative. A Vedic Amalgam of Kumāras P. K. Agrawala presents a hypothesis that Skanda-Kārttikeya is a composite of various Vedic beings sharing the name Kumāra (1967: 1-11). His primary argument is that Skanda comes out of an Agni-Kumāra who has “an amazing array of Kumāras being conceived around him,” and who all share the common feature of “Kaumārya or celibacy” (1967: 11). One of Skanda’s main epithets is Kumāra, which provides the basis for the argument. Agrawala’s suggestion has some merit; Agni, who is presented as Kārttikeya’s father in some textual sources, is, at times, called Kumāra in the Vedas. There are also some suggestive usages of the name in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. I will discuss 3

six.

  The statues of Skanda from Gandhāra are discussed in more detail in chapter

theories related to the origins of skanda

9

these references in the third chapter, but for now I would note that most of the references to Kumāras in the Vedas need to be read within the context of those sources. Hence, references to Agni as Kumāra do not look ahead to Skanda, but simply describe Agni as a ‘young’ fire. Certainly, the Mahābhārata takes advantage of the similarity in epithets between the two deities to help present a Brahminical version of Kārttikeya, but, as we shall see, linking Skanda to Vedic sources is part of the Mahābhārata’s agenda. Agrawala has also missed some of the inauspicious references to Kumāras in the tradition; points that will be discussed in more detail in chapter two.4 While there has been a tendency among previous scholars to view Kārttikeya as a Vedic deity, there is minimal evidence to support such a claim, and some of these scholars follow the Mahāb­hārata’s agenda of linking Skanda to the Vedas in an uncritical manner. I would also question Agrawala’s point about Kumāra’s celibacy. Kārttikeya does become associated with celibacy, but it is a later Purāṇic tradition; we will find no explicit evidence of it in accounts from the epics.5 That Skanda-Kārttikeya is derived from Agni-Kumāra is only part of Agrawala’s thesis concerning the deity’s origins. While he appears to strongly favor a Vedic version of Skanda who develops into an epic version of the deity, he also states that the Kārttikeya found in the Mahābhārata and in archaeology is the product of a lengthy evolution 4   P. K. Agrawala argues that the origins of the name Skanda are also related to Agni. In the Paippalāda Saṃhitā (2.24.1-5) Agni is asked to drive away a demon, and the verb used to describe the action is apaskandayatu. Agrawala suggests that this aspect of Agni is easily named after the action as Apaskanda or Skanda (1967: 14). He argues that the root verb skandir means “‘to suck out’ or ‘to make dry’” (1967: 14). He feels this is related to Agni’s ability to make things dry “hence demons or disease-demons of a fiery nature were to be named Skanda. Thus, the diseasedemons or diseases were named Skanda owing to their fiery nature of śoṣaṇa. The fire god invoked against them was called Skanda” (1967: 14). There is, however, minimal evidence to support Agrawala’s claim that the verb apaskandayatu became a proper name, or that Skanda is a fire deity. 5   A. K. Chatterjee also suggests that Skanda’s “Kumāra”status implies a celibate status: “[a]s a true Kumāra and ascetic Skanda-Kārttikeya is often pictured as shunning the company of women” (1970: 103). He is not able, however, to cite many instances of this shunning and only one, Kālidāsa’s Vikramorvaśīyam, appears in be within the approximate time frame of this book. See the Brahma Purāṇa 81.1-6 for an account of Skanda-Kārttikeya taking a celebate life and Doniger (1973: 204) for a discussion of it. Also see Bṛhaddharma Purāṇa (2.60.107-108) and Śiva Purāṇa (2.4.20.23-37) for similar references. Shulman also lists some Tamil shrines where Skanda-Kārttikeya or Murukaṉ is worshipped as a brahmacārin (1980: 146). These references are all late relative to the time period covered in the present study.

10

chapter one

that drew together a number of “folk” cults. Among these he lists Grahas, his Vedic Kumāra, Dhūrta from the Dhūrtakalpa of the Atharvaveda Pariśiṣṭa, Kārttikeya as a “constellar concept,” Guha as a “hilly demon,” and Naigameṣa as “a deity of child-birth” among others (1967: xv).6 This is something of a ‘sum of various parts’ theory to which most other scholars who have studied the deity subscribe (Sinha 1979: 145; Thakur 1981: 14; Ghurye 1977: 92). This idea has merit, and I do not wish to completely contradict it. There is good evidence to suggest that a number of related deities are assimilated into the cult of Skanda. Where I differ from Agrawala and others is in their preference for a Skanda-Kārttikeya that comes out of a Vedic context and their rather vague understanding of Grahas and ideas of a ‘hilly demon’ and a ‘constellar concept’. While most scholars acknowledge a Graha element to Skanda, few recognize the importance of this element to their early traditions of this deity, and fewer still recognize his fierce past as the location of the popular aspect of his early cult. We are now in a much better position to accurately trace the development of this deity’s cult and to more clearly articulate the specific deities that are merged together. Finally, Agrawala and other scholars have failed to explain Kārttikeya’s transformation into a military deity or to completely understand the role of the Kuṣāṇas and other groups in bringing about this change. All of these issues are central to the arguments that follow. The Early Textual References to Skanda-Kārttikeya The earliest Vedic use of the name Skanda likely occurs in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad: “To such a man who has wiped away all stains Lord Sanatkumāra points out the way to cross beyond darkness. It is he whom people refer to as Skanda” (7.26.2, translated by Olivelle 1996: 273). Sanatkumāra is an important Upaniṣadic sage, and the relationship between Skanda and Sanatkumāra endures over time.7 It is unclear, however, just what the Chāndogya Upaniṣad understood by 6   The texts and deities mentioned in this list will be discussed in more detail in the chapters to follow. 7   The link is reaffirmed in the Śalyaparvan account of Kārttikeya’s birth studied in chapter four. The connection between the two is also a common element of Purāṇic narratives, see Vāyupurāṇa (Uttara. 5.24).

theories related to the origins of skanda

11

the name Skanda. Patrick Olivelle notes regarding this passage: “It is, however, unclear whether the term is used in this sense [as a reference to Skanda-Kārttikeya] in this early text” (1996: 354). This Upaniṣadic reference may indicate a late Vedic background to the name Skanda, but how the name was understood during that period is obscure. For now, we must acknowledge that Kārttikeya as a full-fledged character does not appear until the Mahābhārata and very late Vedic ancillary texts. He cannot be traced to the Vedas themselves as a well developed figure and cannot be traced beyond the approximate date of the fourth century bce from the evidence supplied by religious texts. Several scholars have argued that Kārttikeya is referred to in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra (Meyer 1977: 75-76; P. K. Agrawala 1967: 17; Chatterjee 1970: 30-31; Ghurye 1977: 118-119; Sinha 1979: 41-42). At 2.4.17 of Kauṭilya’s text he states that the king “should cause to be built in the centre of the city shrines for Aparājita, Apratihata, Jayanta and Vaijayanta as well as temples for Śiva, Vaiśravaṇa, the Aśvins, Śrī and Madirā” (Kangle 2010 II: 70). Kangle suggests that the names Aparājita, Apratihata, Jayanta and Vaijayanta all refer to spirits of victory (2010 II: 70). This suggestion seems reasonable, but Meyer regards at least one of the names to refer to Skanda (1977: 26). There is little direct evidence to support this claim, but there are later commentaries on the text that attribute at least one of the four to Kārttikeya (Chatterjee 1970: 30-31; Sinha 1979: 42). These names do not, however, appear as epithets of Skanda in other elements of the tradition, and it is clear from the above quotation that Kauṭilya knew the normative names of other deities and used them. I suspect that if Kauṭilya intended to mention Skanda he would have done so in an explicit manner, and I find Kangle’s suggestion to provide the most reasonable account of these names. Another potential reference to Kārttikeya is found in 2.4.19 of Kauṭilya’s text. Here he mentions that Brahmā, Indra, Yama and Senāpati should preside over the gates of a city. The scholars noted above suggest that Senāpati is a direct reference to Skanda-Kārttikeya, but some caution is required. While Skanda becomes a divine Senāpati, it is not clear to me that this understanding of the deity was current during the fourth century bce, one of the dates proposed by scholars for Kauṭilya’s text (Rangarajan 1992: 19).8 I will argue in this book that   There is debate over the date of Kauṭilya and his text. Some scholars date the text as late as 150 ce. For a summary of these views see Rangarajan (1992: 18-21). 8

12

chapter one

the understanding of Kārttikeya as a Senāpati is a later development in his cult that only really becomes evident in the first or second century ce. It is not clear, then, that Kauṭilya did mean Skanda by his reference to Senāpati. A more certain reference to Kārttikeya and a related deity named Viśākha can be found in Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya, a second century bce commentary on Pāṇini’s fifth century bce grammar (V. S. Agrawala 1963: 478). 9 In his commentary on Pāṇini’s 5.3.99, Patañjali mentions statues of Śiva, Skanda and Viśākha that he claims were used during the Mauryan Empire. Based on these comments we can date the appearance of statues of Skanda-Kārttikeya and Viśākha to Patañjali’s time and perhaps back to the Mauryan Empire, which could place the statues in the fourth century bce.10 We do, however, have to be cautious with Patañjali, and we can question his knowledge of the Mauryans or his desire to present an accurate history through his grammatical commentary. Patañjali is not trying to write a historical text. It is also difficult to speculate on Patañjali’s understanding of these gods from such a short reference other than to say that they were objects of worship from at least the second century bce and possibly back to the fourth century bce. These dates do correspond to the formative period of the development of the Mahābhārata and Patañjali’s comments may be reflective of the early stages of Skanda’s cult. We can, however, only speculate as to the apparent production of statues of these deities from this period because no statuary of Kārttikeya or Viśākha survives from it. There may also be an early reference to Skanda in the Deva Gāyatrīs found in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, a Vedic text. This short Gāyatrī summons Skanda, who is also referred to as Kārttikeya and Kumāra in the text (MS 2.9.1-2). The text has been dated to around the third century bce (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 12). The authenticity of these Deva Gāyatrīs as part of the original Saṃhitā has, however, been questioned (Chatterjee 1970: 2-3). Hence, conclusions drawn from these passages More recently Michael Willis has argued for a mid-fourth century ce date for the text (2009: 62). If these later dates are correct, I have fewer reservations about associating this Senāpati with Kārttikeya. 9   Viśākha will be discussed in more detail in chapter two, also see Mann (2007a: 453-459). 10   P. K. Agrawala has attempted to push back the date of Patañjali’s comments to Pāṇini himself in the fifth century bce (1967: 16). There is, however, no evidence to back such a claim.

theories related to the origins of skanda

13

regarding the dates associated with the early worship of Kārttikeya are not well supported. Generally speaking there is little solid evidence for the cult and characterization of Kārttikeya until we reach the epic and late Vedic ancillary traditions, which will be detailed in the following chapters.

CHAPTER TWO

THE EARLY TRadITIONS OF SKANDA-KĀRTTIKEYA FROM EPIC, MEDICAL AND RITUAL SOURceS This section of the text is dedicated to the formative period of SkandaKārttikeya’s mythology. This material tells us the most about his early cult, and how he was included into the Brahminical pantheon. It is also the most confused period of his development with numerous contradictory versions of his birth and actions being retold in the epics and other textual sources. The earliest detailed accounts of the deity are found in the Mahābhārata, but there are three versions of Kārttikeya’s birth and deeds in that text (3.213-221; 9.43-45; 13.83-86), and little agreement between them.1 Each of these narratives will be discussed in due course beginning with the Āraṇyakaparvan. The Forest Book’s account of Kārttikeya’s birth contains elements that reflect a propitiatory aspect to his cult, dealt with in this chapter, and parts that reflect a more martial and Śaiva cult, dealt with in chapter three. It is a rich narrative that shows the impact of extensive chronological development, and we will see more than one understanding of Kumāra emerge in the text. Before we enter into this account, however, some reflection on the context of the entire epic is required. Classifying and Dating the Mahābhārata The Mahābhārata is often called an ‘epic’ or ‘epic poem’ in western sources.2 It is a massive narrative with almost innumerable sub-narratives woven around its central plot. The text seems to revel in selfcontradiction, juxtapositions, and the insertion of seemingly pointless 1   There is also a brief narrative involving Skanda and Viṣṇu in the Śantiparvan (12.314.1-15). This narrative will not be discussed in the main body of this study. In the account an impetuous Kumāra drives his spear into a mountain and challenges Viṣṇu to pull it out. Viṣṇu ignores Skanda and the main narrative of that section moves on. This short narrative from the Śantiparvan may allude to an early sectarian rivalry. 2   In traditional sources the epic is called an itihāsa (‘thus it was’). The itihāsa category in Indian literature is viewed by religious sources as historical. While I will present the epic narratives as mythology, this view is not shared by some Hindus.

16

chapter two

interpolations. The size, complexity and apparent lack of a singular vision in the Mahābhārata is suggestive of a text composed by many hands that was edited and perhaps re-edited over a long period of time.3 The dominant view among scholars is to regard the period of composition and redaction of the text as long and involving many different groups. The earliest material in the text may date to the eighth or ninth century bce with the main period of composition and redaction stretching between 400 bce to 400 ce and perhaps on (van Buitenen 1975: xxiv-xxv; also see Hopkins 1978: 369-370, 397-398).4 Proponents of this theory often assume the text is based on an ‘original’ oral narrative that was steadily embellished over time; a process that created a chaotic text that attempted to be encyclopedic in its function. Often these theories postulate a warriors’ tale as the text’s historical core that was taken over by the Brahminical caste who altered the text to fit their own priestly and orthodox agendas (M. C. Smith 1992: 13-18, 54).5 Hence, we can imagine a final text that is influenced by warrior and priestly concerns in various differing time periods. The depth of 3   The text’s own myth-history of its production alludes to such a long development with numerous narrators. Traditionally, the text was first composed by a Brahmin Ṛṣi named Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana (Vyāsa). He is, by the standards of modern scholarship, a mythological figure. He is credited with compiling a number of other ancient texts, and in the Mahābhārata he is an immortal character who slips in and out of his own story in many cases to drive the plot forward. Vyāsa is not the primary narrator of the text, however. This honor is Vaiśaṃpāyana’s, Vyāsa’s student. Vaiśaṃpāyana narrates the epic in the presence of his master at a snake sacrifice conducted by Janamejaya. At this sacrifice a sūta, or bard, is present who then recites it to a number of Brahmins at a 12 year sacrifice conducted in the Naimiṣa forest. Hence, the text acknowledges various layers of narration in its opening sections and many more sub-layers of narration are introduced as the text continues. While the text’s own presentation of its composition and transmission must be regarded as legendary, it does suggest a self-understanding that assumes multiple voices in its production. 4   There is significant debate over the proposed dates for this text. Good summaries of proposed dates can be found in Brockington (1998: 130-186) and Hiltebeitel (2001: 10-31). For debates over the dates and development of the text see Fitzgerald (2003: 810-12, 2006: 257-84) and Hiltebeitel (2001: 18, 2006: 227). 5   Mary Carroll Smith argues that a Vedic core in the epic is found where triṣṭubh poetic meter is used. She suggests that triṣṭubh meter was standard for Vedic poets, but by the historical period when the Mahābhārata was being redacted triṣṭubh meter was replaced by ślokas (M. C. Smith 1992: 13-18). She argues that those verses in triṣṭubh meter that survived the redaction are a direct link to the oldest parts of the epic. As a group the triṣṭubh verses tell a story focused on the dynastic struggle between the Kurus and the Pāṇḍavas. Largely absent from the triṣṭubh meter sections are references to Brahmins, a situation that is reversed once the text has been

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

17

the text and its contradictions may well be a product of changing values and religious sensibilities over time and between groups. I will argue below that the Skanda narratives reflect this long process of development. The general period of the composition of the Mahābhārata is also a period of significant development within Hinduism. The time period that runs approximately from 500 bce to the end of the Gupta reign in 467 ce is variously referred to as the “Hindu synthesis,” or the “Brah­ manic synthesis,” or the “orthodox synthesis” (Hiltebeitel 2005: 3994). This period sees a shift from Vedic traditions and values to Hindu tradi­tions and values; the Mahābhārata is a central fixture in this development. A great deal of what appears to be disagreement over fundamental stories and ideas in the Mahābhārata may well have been just that—the tradition debating and arguing over the shape it should or could take (Reich 2001: 143). The stories of Kārttikeya are likely part of this debate, and, hence, there are multiple versions of him presented in the text. The situation in the epic may appear to be chaotic, but dominant voices do emerge from it. While there is scholarly debate concerning the date of this text and the circumstances of its composition, there is general agreement that the final version of the text is Brahminical. The text positions itself as anti-heterodox and as a defender of Brahminical orthodox religion (Hiltebeitel 2001: 17, 19; Fitzgerald 2003: 811, 2006: 259). As such, the epic’s understanding of orthodoxy looks to Vedic precedence for its authority and seeks to assimilate non-Vedic cults by connecting them to elements of the Vedic tradition; just how the text does so in the case of Skanda will become clearer in subsequent chapters. What this manipulation of the epic means for us is that we must closely read these stories with an eye for differing voices. There is a dominant view presented in the Mahābhārata stories about Kumāra and, as we shall see in chapter three, this view does fulfill certain Brahminical agendas. There are also differing views within the narration that will cause us to question the dominant portrayal of Kārttikeya and to recognize that other understandings of this deity existed that this text attempts to marginalize.6 The Brahminical and orthodox redacted by Brahmins and presented largely in śloka verses (M. C. Smith 1992: 7, 13, 54). For an opposing view see Hiltebeitel (2001: 18). 6   See Shulman (1992) and Gitomer (1992) for examples of scholarship on the epic that demonstrate a similar questioning of the epic’s redaction.

18

chapter two

stance of this text is significant for this study because the earliest versions of Skanda I argue for do not fit such Brahminical/orthodox models. Part of the Brahminical agenda of this text is to transform an unorthodox Skanda-Kārttikeya into an orthodox figure. By the end of the epic period almost all of Kārttikeya’s inauspicious roots have disappeared; they only survive in a few medical texts. I will discuss my understanding of orthodoxy and how it impacts the changes in Kārttikeya’s cult in chapter three. For now, I will only emphasize that what follows represents something of a mining out of sub-voices in the stories about Skanda, which, I argue, represent his pre-orthodox cult. The Account of Skanda’s Birth in the Āraṇyakaparvan Before entering into the argument, I will present a summary of the Āraṇyakaparvan’s account of the birth of Skanda in order to facilitate my discussion of it. The sage Mārkaṇḍeya is visiting the Pāṇḍava brothers, and Yudhiṣṭhira asks the sage about a narrative connected to Agni and the birth of Kārttikeya. The sage narrates a story where Agni abandons his duty as the sacred fire and takes to asceticism in the forest. The sage Aṅgiras takes the place of Agni and becomes known as a better fire than Agni. Eventually, Agni seeks to return to his former position, and, in return for having the sage end his role as the sacred fire, he allows Aṅgiras to become his first-born son. A long lineage derived from Agni and Aṅgiras is then narrated. Before the birth of Skanda is delivered as the final element of this genealogy, however, a second missing Agni story is inserted after which the birth of Kumāra as the son of Agni is presented. Mārkaṇḍeya explains that before Skanda was born the gods were being defeated by an army of demons. Indra retreats from the battle to contemplate how he can find a general for his army who will lead them to victory. While away from battle, he sees a young woman, Devasenā (literally, ‘The Army of the Gods’), being forcefully taken by a demon named Keśin. Indra defeats the demon and learns that Devasenā has received a boon that will grant her a husband of extraordinary powers. Indra knows that such a figure would lead his army to victory, but he also knows that no such deity exists to fulfil her boon. He then witnesses a remarkable confluence of astrological signs; based on these signs he realizes that if Agni has a child during this time he

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

19

would be the answer to the boon. The king of the gods then goes to Brahmā to have him create a son for Agni and a husband for Devasenā. The story continues with Agni acting as the sacred fire at a sacrifice performed by the Seven Ṛṣis. Just as the rite ends and Agni is leaving, he sees the wives of the Seven Seers bathing and falls hopelessly in love with them. He becomes so sick with love for them that he abandons his role as the sacred fire and retires to the forest. Svāhā, a daughter of Dakṣa, is in love with Agni. She realizes if she disguises herself as the wives of the Seers and visits Agni in the forest that he will make love to her. She performs this act of trickery six times. After each encounter with Agni she takes the form of a bird and flies to Mount Śveta where she drops Agni’s semen. These six units of semen develop into Skanda, who appears as a six-headed baby. He develops at a preternatural rate to form a massive child by the fifth day. This child proceeds to create havoc in the world. He destroys mountains and generally insights terror in all he meets. No one knows the identity of Skanda except for a great sage named Viśvāmitra, who followed Agni after the sacrifice of the Seven Seers and knows of Svāhā’s deception. He is the first to seek refuge with Skanda; he composes hymns of praise for him, conducts rites for him, and becomes the deity’s favourite. The gods, however, are terrified by this new force, and they instruct Indra to destroy Kārttikeya. Indra is afraid of him, though, and sends a group of Mātṛs (literally ‘Mothers’) to destroy Kumāra in his stead. When the Mothers see Kārttikeya, however, they do not think they can defeat him. Instead of fighting him, they join him by adopting him as their son. Agni also visits his son on the mountain, and the two play together. The Mothers’ failure to kill Kumāra forces Indra to march out with his army against Skanda. The young god stuns the divine army with his roar and scorches them with flames. His army in disarray, Indra attempts to battle Skanda himself, but when he strikes the youth another being named Viśākha springs from Kārttikeya’s side. Facing these two foes Indra surrenders and seeks the young god’s refuge. The narrative continues by explaining that other beings were created when Indra struck Skanda. One such group, the Kumārakas (the ‘Lesser Youths’), are described as robbing foetuses and newborns. A second group are called Kanyās (‘Maidens’), who are also associated with afflicting the young. These Kanyās appear to be seven in number and are described as another group of Mothers. We are also told that a

20

chapter two

group of eight spring from Skanda and the Mātṛs, who, along with a Goat-faced being, are called the Navaka (‘the Nine’). Kārttikeya is then visited by Śrī, a goddess of wealth and royalty. With Śrī by his side the gods offer Skanda the kingship of the deities. The young god is reluctant, however, and even rebuffs the counsel of Indra to take the position. Instead, Kārttikeya requests that Indra continue as king of the gods, and in return Indra makes him his Senāpati. Skanda takes a vow to destroy demons and protect the causes of the gods, Brahmins and cows, and is anointed as the general of the army of the gods. We are then told that he is really Rudra’s son. A variety of reasons are given for this shift in paternity. The text claims that some Brahmins call Agni ‘terrible’ (rudra), hence Agni is really Rudra. Another argument raised by the text is that Rudra’s seed was spilled on Mount Śveta where Skanda was born. The final argument is that Rudra had permeated Agni before the production of the child, so he is really Rudra’s son. Mahāsena, an epithet of Skanda literally meaning ‘having a great army’, then greets his army and is married to Devasenā. Kumāra is now approached by a series of female goddesses and beings who want to be his mothers. He accepts these various groups as his mothers, and, as above, some are called Mātṛs who rob other women of their children, a process Skanda seems to facilitate. To help these Mothers Skanda produces a terrible child called Skandāpasmāra from his own body. This child is identified as a Graha. A lengthy list of other Grahas is then given. These Graspers are like the Mātṛs, Kanyās and Kumārakas noted above; they feed on foetuses and young children. Collectively these beings are called Skanda’s Graspers in the text, and people are instructed to propitiate them through worship. Another list of Grahas is then given who afflict people over the age of sixteen with various mental aliments. At the end of this section we are told that no Graspers afflict those who are devoted to Śiva. After Skanda adopts a variety of female deities as his mothers, the gods instruct him to approach his father, Śiva. Skanda honours Śiva, who is described as loving his son, and the assembled group of gods begin their assent to heaven. Suddenly, they are attacked by the same demons who afflicted the gods at the beginning of the narrative. The leader of the demons, Mahiṣa, even attacks Śiva, who resists destroying the miscreant to allow his son the honour. Skanda kills Mahiṣa with his spear and proceeds to rout the demonic army. Śiva praises his son’s military prowess, tells the other gods to look on Kārttikeya as himself and returns to his heaven. Mārkaṇḍeya ends the narrative by

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

21

stating that anyone who reads the story aloud gains prosperity and the world of Skanda after death. In what follows, I will argue that Kumāra’s fierce character is presented in two ways in the Āraṇyakaparvan. First, his birth and early deeds are replete with images of sexual impropriety, violence and danger. This version of the deity presents him as a fierce warrior whose violence is controlled through propitiatory worship. Second, he is associated with a variety of Grahas and Mātṛs who all share a common trait of afflicting foetuses and children with disease. Much like the violent warrior figure, these Grahas and Mātṛs are controlled through propitiatory worship. The Fierce Skanda: An Inauspicious Beginning and the Appearance of Skanda the Warrior The manner of Skanda-Kārttikeya’s birth and the events that lead up to it are filled with inauspicious imagery. As we have seen, Agni falls in love with the wives of the Seven Seers.7 The fire-god is well aware that his desire for these women is improper. At one point he thinks to himself: “It is not right for me to be excited. I long for the chaste wives of the best among the Brahmins, and who are without desire” (3.213.45).8 For a while he is able to console himself by watching the wives all day in the form of their household fires. Eventually, he becomes sick with love, and, realizing that he cannot obtain these women, he retires to the forest apparently to kill himself (3.213.3545). Svāhā then enters the picture and begins assuming the shapes of the seven wives to fool Agni (3.213.50-52). She begins by taking the form of Śivā, the wife of the seer Aṅgiras. After her initial liaison with Agni she thinks to herself: “Those who see this form of me [as Śivā] in the forest, they will talk about the offence of the Brahmins’ wives with Agni, which would be a falsehood. Therefore, I will become Garuḍī [a bird] and prevent that [gossip] and my exit from the forests will be easy” (3.214.8-9). Svāhā repeats this episode five more times disguised as a different wife each time. 7   In the Vedic and Purāṇic traditions Agni is, at times, associated with adultery and seduction (Doniger 1973: 91-94). 8  Unless otherwise noted all quotations from primary Sanskrit sources are my own translations.

22

chapter two

This episode of the story begins with themes of infidelity, uncontrolled lust and deceit. Agni is aware of the impropriety of his desire for the wives of the Seers, and Svāhā is also aware of her own impropriety and the potential danger her actions may hold for the real wives of the Seers. The text highlights Svāhā’s immorality by telling us that she cannot take the form of Arundhatī, the seventh wife, “because of her austerity and her obedience to her husband” (3.214.14). Arundhatī becomes a model of marital fidelity within the Hindu tradition (Doniger 1973: 101), and a contrast is created in this text between the pure Arundhatī and the impure Svāhā.9 A further, more subtle, comparison is also made between order and disorder. The Seven Seers and their wives can be viewed as representative of a balance between Brahminic household order and ascetic prowess in the form of austerities, as the above quotation relating to Arundhatī suggests. Agni’s lust for the sages’ wives and his withdrawal from the sacrifice threaten this Vedic sense of order. The Vedic sacrificial system revolves around offerings made into Agni. Without his presence at these rites the entire Vedic structure of sacrifice and order comes to an end. Svāhā is also a threat to the domestic order represented by the sages and their wives. It is these forces that threaten Brahminical order that produce Kārttikeya.10 9   Wendy Doniger locates the origins of this Agni and Svāhā narrative in Vedic narratives of Agni uniting with the wives of Varuṇa. She also notes that Arundhatī remains chaste in the various accounts of the Śaivite Pine Forest story, while the other wives fall victim to the seduction of Śiva (1973: 94-101). Elements of the Pine Forest story and that of Skanda’s birth may have been woven together here in the account of the wives of the sages. 10   There is some additional background to this story regarding Agni’s love of these wives and Arundhatī’s role as a model of marital virtue. Later in this narrative the wives of the sages except for Arundhatī become the asterism the Kṛttikās. In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa the Kṛttikās are Agni’s asterism (2.1.2.1). The text notes that some people object to setting up ritual fires under the Kṛttikās because they are regarded as the wives of the Seven Sages, who are also depicted as an asterism (2.1.2.4). The text explains, however:

They [the Kṛttikās] were, however, precluded from intercourse (with their husbands), for the latter, the seven Ṛṣis, rise in the north, and they (the Kṛttikās) in the east. But he may nevertheless set up (his fire under the Kṛttikās); for Agni doubtless is their mate, and it is with Agni that they have intercourse: for this reason he may set up (the fire under the Kṛttikās). (2.1.2.4-5 translated by Eggeling 1882-1900 I: 282-283) The legend of Agni’s relationship with these women that we find in the epic text thus has a background in the Vedic tradition. The mythology of Arundhatī may also be rooted in an actual reduction in the number of stars that formed the Kṛttikās. The

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

23

After each encounter with Agni, Svāhā flew to Mount Śveta where she found a “mountain ridge that was very hard to reach,” on which she “quickly threw the semen into a golden pot” (3.214.12). We are told that this mountain is a terrifying place guarded “by supernatural seven-headed and venom-eyed snakes, and by Rākṣasas, Piśācas, and bands of violent ghosts, and that was also full of Rākṣasīs and many animals and birds” (3.214.11). The six units of semen that will form Kumāra are discarded in a dangerous place that lies distinctly outside of the ordered world of Arundhatī and the Brahminical Seers. Skanda will arise out of an area full of demonic and fearful beings, and by placing the young god in this context the text suggests that he shares much in common with the inauspicious circumstances and place of his birth. The semen is deposited into the golden pot on the first day of lunation.11 A baby is produced on the second day and is described as having six heads, twice as many ears, twelve eyes, arms, and feet, but one neck and one body (3.214.17). On the third day we are told he is already a child (śiśu) and on the fourth day Guha,12 as he is called here, has all his major and minor limbs. The first appearance and deeds of this deity are presented in a terrifying manner: Surrounded by a great red cloud with lightning, he shone like the rising sun in a very great red cloud. A terrifying and large bow, which cut the enemies of the gods to pieces and which was placed there by the Destroyer of Tripura [Śiva], was held by him. Then the powerful one, having grasped that most splendid bow, roared. [With that roar] he stupefied the three worlds with all its moving and still creatures. (3.214.19-21)

Vedas recognize a group of seven stars as making up the Kṛttikās, but by the epic the number has been reduced to six. The shift from seven to six stars also occurs in a number of other cultures as does a mythology of a lost Pleiad (Shulman 1980: 245; Harper 1989: 25). 11   Elements of this account may be borrowed from the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa (Shulman 1980: 65). In that text Uṣas appears before the gods causing them to shed their seed. Prajāpati then makes a sacrificial pot out of gold and puts the seed in it. From this golden pot full of semen Rudra is born (KB 6.1-2 cited in Shulman 1980: 65). 12   Guha is a common name for Skanda; it means ‘hidden’, or ‘reared in a secret place’. The name may bear some relation to Agni. While Guha is never used as an epithet of Agni, the term does occur in relation to him as part of hidden or missing Agni narratives (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 2).

24

chapter two

This roar causes two divine war elephants, Citra and Airāvata, to attack Kumāra, and he is described as holding these two elephants with one hand, a spear in another and a huge wild cock in another (3.214.22-24).13 He continues to emit terrifying roars and to frolic mightily. He pounds the air with one of his free hands and blows into a conch shell with another which “struck terror even in mighty creatures” (3.214.24-25). The text continues by describing the fear he inspires in other beings and the response of the frightened to him: That one of supernatural strength and immeasurable being sat on the summit of that mountain and looked at the region with his various heads. He saw the various sorts of beings and roared again. Having heard his cry, the creatures, who were crushed from anguish, repeatedly collapsed and went to him for refuge. Those creatures of various colours, who had sought the protection of that god, Brahmins call them the very powerful retinue of that god. That long-armed one stood up and comforted those creatures.... (3.214.27-30)

We get a sense of the relationship between god and devotee in this quotation. This dangerous god is worshipped because he is feared, but once worshipped he becomes protective. This propitiatory dynamic is, I think, central to the early cult of this deity. Kumāra does inspire fear in people, and accounts such as this make it clear that there is a great deal to be frightened of, but if approached and worshipped he can be benign. This god’s destructive acts, however, have only just begun. Next, he shoots arrows at Mount Śveta and cleaves off Mount Krauñca, which groans loudly with pain as it crashes to the earth. These mountains are understood to be living beings, and the violent destruction of one of them causes terror in the others. The other mountains groan with fear, but we are told: “That best of the strong, having heard the crying of the greatly afflicted, was not distressed and that immeasurable being lifted his spear and roared” (3.214.33). Skanda shows no concern for these mountains that have caused him no harm and proceeds by throwing his huge spear at Mount Śveta cutting off its top. Out of fear, Śveta and the other mountains leave the Earth, tearing her up and causing her great pain. The Earth seeks refuge with Kārttikeya and appears to regain her strength. The mountains also pay him homage and return. The chapter ends with “now the world honours Skanda on the fifth 13

  A rooster or cock and a spear are standard emblems of the deity.

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

25

day of the bright fortnight” (3.214.37). Kumāra’s violence in these episodes seems completely unprovoked and unpredictable. He strikes without remorse and appears to engender fear in others deliberately. Fear is, however, at the root of his worship at this stage of the narrative with creatures, mountains and the Earth all employing propitiatory worship to mollify this destructive new force. The next frightened group to respond to Skanda are the gods. They tell Indra to destroy this new force lest “that one of great strength subdues the three worlds, us, and you, O Śakra” (3.215.14). In their reaction to Kārttikeya the gods label him as an outsider to their divine cohort and as a threat. As we have seen, Indra initially sends out a group of Mothers to kill him, but they think he is invincible and seek his refuge (3.215.17). Indra then faces Skanda in battle, but with the appearance of Viśākha he surrenders to the young god (3.216.14-15).14 The implications of Indra’s defeat are several for this story. Indra, as the king of the gods, sits at the top of the Vedic hierarchy of deities. He attained this position by being a great warrior in Vedic texts. His defeat at the hands of Skanda is an indication that a new warrior god is replacing the old warrior god. If Indra can be viewed as a champion of Vedic order centred on a sacrificial cult, Kārttikeya can be viewed as representing a force that disrupts that order and draws his power from fierce, non-orthodox sources. He upsets the divine hierarchy, the earth and its creatures. He is a force of disorder and chaos thrown into a Vedic and Brahminic world that prides itself on being able to order and control the universe. From such a Brahminical perspective, he is a dangerous and outside force and chapters 214 to 216 seem to emphasize this aspect of his character. The initial appearance of this deity is as a youthful violent warrior who is controlled through propitiation. As we shall see in chapter five, this image of the deity correlates to that of some of his earliest iconography found on Yaudheya coinage and Mathurā statuary. The Fierce Skanda: His Tie to Grahas, Kumāras and Mātṛs Another aspect of Kārttikeya’s fierce image in this version of his birth is his association with three ghoulish types of beings: Grahas, Kumāras and Mātṛs. The preservation of an account of these beings in the 14

  For more on Viśākha see Mann (2007a: 453-457).

26

chapter two

Āraṇyakaparvan version of Skanda’s birth is of great importance because these beings and their relation to the god are edited out of the majority of epic and Purāṇic legends of him. As the Brahminical tradition absorbs Skanda it separates him from many of these inauspicious connotations. As potential clues to Kumāra’s early cult, however, an understanding of these beings is central to this discussion. Accounts of these beings are found in chapters 217 and 219 of the Āraṇyaka­ parvan.15 I will begin with a discussion of Skanda-Kārttikeya’s relationship with Grahas and then his relationship with Mātṛs and Kumā­­ras. Based on these relationships, I will argue that significant elements of Skanda’s origins are located with these fierce groups. Grahas in the Āraṇyakaparvan Grahas, or Bālagrahas (Child Graspers), are discussed in chapter 219 of the Āraṇyakaparvan. We are first introduced to a Graha through a discussion Skanda has with some Mātṛs. We enter the narrative with Kumāra cementing a deal with these Mātṛs to allow them to make a living by consuming children. Kārttikeya tells them: “Injure young children of people until they are sixteen years old with your different forms, and I will give you a violent being from myself. You, who are much worshipped, will dwell along with it in the best of happiness” (3.219.22-23). Then, we are told, a powerful, golden-hued spirit flew out of Skanda’s body to consume the offspring of mortals. Then that one who was senseless and hungry fell to the ground. That one of a terrible form was allowed by Skanda to become a Grasper. The Brahmins call that Grasper ‘Skandāpasmāra’. (3.219.24-25)

This sequence clearly demonstrates that Grahas and Mātṛs eat children, and they do so with Skanda’s permission. The Sanskrit verb bhuj, which I have translated as ‘consume’ in the above passage, also means to eat or to possess. The possession and consumption of children and foetuses is essentially what a Grasper does according to the epic and Āyurvedic traditions. The first named Graha here, Skandā­ pasmāra, comes directly from Skanda and appears to be named after 15   The demonic beings associated with Skanda in this account of his birth have been studied in detail by David G. White (2003: 27-66). I have also discussed some of these beings in a separate article (Mann 2007a).

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

27

him.16 The Graha in this passage is not alone in the Āraṇyakaparvan narrative of Kārttikeya, which presents a lengthy list of these beings in chapter 219 all of whom are linked to Skanda. A brief sample of these figures from the text should demonstrate their variety and the gravity with which people must have viewed these creatures. Vinatā is described as a horrible bird (śakuni) Grasper (3.219.26). Pūtanā Graha “is an horrible night-stalker, evil in her dreadful shape” (3.219.26-27).17 Śītapūtanā has a terrible shape and aborts the foetuses of women (3.219.27). Raivata is described as the Graha of Revatī and as a horrible afflicter of small children (3.219.28).18 Mukhamaṇḍikā “feasts gluttonously on children’s flesh” (3.219.29); a dog Graha named Saramā snatches away foetuses; a snake Graha named Kadrū is mentioned who subtly enters a pregnant woman, eats the foetus inside her and causes the mother to give birth to a snake (3.219.33, .36). More of these Graspers are mentioned, but their diversity of form belies their similar status as demonic forms of infanticides and abortionists. The text leaves no doubt concerning the connection of these creatures with Skanda by naming the group “Skanda’s Graspers” (3.219.42). While the evidence linking Kumāra to the Grahas seems clear, this connection has not been stressed by many previous scholars. Much of this inattention may be due to the disappearance of Grahas from the other epic narratives of him. As we shall see in chapter three, the textual strategy of the Āraṇyakaparvan is not to emphasize Skanda’s dangerous characteristics and associations, but to demonstrate his transformation into a figure of control over such malevolent forces. The other two narratives of Kārttikeya’s birth in the Mahābhārata largely eliminate references to Grahas in favour of promoting an image of the young god as auspicious from birth. Given the inattention to these figures in the majority of epic and Purāṇic narratives concerning Skanda, we might well conclude that the Āraṇyakaparvan material on the Grahas is an aberration in the tradition. We can, 16   I have discussed Skandāpasmāra and his appearance from Skanda in more detail in Mann (2007a: 453-457). 17   Pūtanā is probably best known as a demon who disguises herself as a wetnurse in an attempt to kill the infant Kṛṣṇa. Her efforts fail when Kṛṣṇa sucks the life out of her through her teat. White presents a summary of texts related to this figure (2003: 51-53). 18   Revatī is not mentioned much in the Mahābhārata, but she is a central Grasper in the Kāśyapasaṃhitā where an entire chapter, the Revatī Kalpa, is named after her. In Purāṇic accounts of Revatī and Raivata, she is married to Balarāma and is the daughter of a mountain named Raivata (White 2003: 50).

28

chapter two

­ owever, question such an assumption. There is another textual tradih tion, the Āyur­vedic tradition, that stresses Kārttikeya’s connection to Grahas and which endures overtime. Before continuing our examination of the propitiatory elements of Skanda in the Āraṇyakaparvan, I will briefly turn to the Āyurvedic tradition to place Graspers in a larger context. Grahas in the Āyurvedic Tradition The Suśrutasaṃhitā is an early text from the Āyurvedic tradition that devotes its final book to Skanda and the treatment of Grahas. This text likely fits into the general dates for the composition and redaction of the Mahābhārata, but dating this text is not without its challenges. Kenneth Zysk suggests that the Āyurvedic tradition develops between the second century bce and the second century ce (1991: 13), and parts of the Suśrutasaṃhitā may originate from this time period. The text itself, however, is a collection of material likely relating to several different time periods and the product of several different hands; as such, it is not unlike the probable development of the Mahābhārata (Meulenbeld 1999 IA: 348). There is general agreement that the Uttaratantra section of the text, with which we are primarily concerned, is a late addition, though just how late is not clear (Meulenbeld 1999 IA: 344, 348). Dominik Wujastyk suggests the following concerning the date of the text: ... in Suśruta’s text we have a work the kernel of which probably started some centuries bc in the form of a text mainly on surgery, but which was then heavily revised and added to in the centuries before ad 500. This is the form in which we have received the work in the oldest surviving manuscripts today. (2001: 106)19

I have little doubt that the sections we will examine here belong to this later revision. The mythology of Skanda-Kārttikeya in the Uttaratantra section of the Suśrutasaṃhitā shows some knowledge of the Mahābhā­ rata versions of the deeds of the deity. There is a strong correlation between the accounts of the Grahas in the Āraṇyakaparvan and the accounts of Grahas in the Suśrutasaṃhitā (Filliozat 1937: 77; F. Smith 19   Jan Meulenbeld supplies a brief survey of the dates for the Suśrutasaṃhitā as gleaned from scholarship on the text; these dates range between 3000 bce to the twelfth century ce (1999 IA: 342-344). The most popular dates for final compilation fall between the first and fourth century ce (Meulenbeld 1999 IA: 342-343).

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

29

2006: 273). The Suśrutasaṃhitā may have early material in it, but the text should be viewed as a contemporary of the Mahābhārata or as slightly post-epic. In either case, both the Suśrutasaṃhitā and the Mahābhārata present a final understanding of Skanda that is likely a Gupta era view of the deity, but with some valuable reflection of an earlier age. Another important aspect of the Suśrutasaṃhitā is its context. We should expect to see a different vision of Kārttikeya in this Āyurvedic text from that found in the Mahābhārata because they speak to and from different concerns and perspectives. To some degree the Suśrutasaṃhitā does not disappoint this expectation, but both texts also share a larger context of Brahminization. The impact of this shared context will be discussed in chapter three. The Suśrutasaṃhitā’s overriding concern is, however, with medical issues. Hence, the text devotes more attention to these dangerous spirits of disease causation and shows little of the broader tradition’s desire to write them out of the Skanda narrative. The Āyurvedic tradition maintains the link between Grahas and Skanda well into texts like the Aṣṭaṅgahṛdaya­ saṃhitā (c. 600 ce) and the Kāśyapasaṃhitā, a seventh century text (Wujastyk 2001: 211, 241; Meulenbeld 1999 1A: 631-635). A cursory reading of the birth narratives of Skanda in the Mahābhārata might lead to the conclusion that his relationship to Grahas is, at best, a minor aspect of his cult that quickly disappears. What these Āyurvedic texts suggest is that there was a significant culture of propitiatory worship towards these beings that endures for some time, and that Skanda was central to it. The rituals and treatments described in the Uttaratantra of the Suśrutasaṃhitā are primarily magico-religious.20 According to the text, diseases afflicting pregnant women and young children are caused by demonic possession and cured through ritual. In the case of an attack by Skandagraha, the text advises sprinkling the child with a decoction, smearing the child with medicated oils, feeding the child medicated ghee and the fumigation of the child’s body. The child also wears a garland or amulet made from the twigs, thorns and roots of various plants (Uttara. 28.7). The physician is also instructed to worship Skandagraha for three successive nights either in the child’s   This magico-religious view of disease causation and cure comes, in part, from a Vedic heritage (Zysk 1998: 7). 20

30

chapter two

house or at a crossroads. Offerings of red flowers, red flags, red ­perfumes and various foods and grains are made to Skandagraha at this ritual. A cock is to be given and offerings of butter made into a fire (Uttara. 28.8-9). The use of red offerings and the cock are in keeping with the devices used to signify Skanda-Kārttikeya, but the ritual use of a cock may suggest an unorthodox rite.21 The elements of the rite are all common to pūjās and protective rites belonging to the Āyur­ vedic and Atharvavedic traditions. While the practitioner of these rituals is called a bhiṣaj, healer or physician (Uttara. 28.10), the rites have little themselves to do with a proto-scientific form of healing. The rituals are designed to propitiate Skandagraha, and they rely on a magico-religious act to bring about a magico-religious result. The healer in this rite engages in a form of spiritual warfare where the attacking spirit receives a propitiatory form of worship. As we shall see, the magico-religious aspect of this text and in particular its treatment of Grahas relate to the rituals to propitiate Skanda and his Grahas in the Āraṇyakaparvan and a rite to the deity found in the Atharvaveda Pariśiṣṭa. The sense that Skan­ dagraha is dangerous and requires adoration to become benign best fits the characterization of Skanda we saw in chapters 214-216 of the Āraṇyakaparvan. The two images of the deity are, I think, intimately related. I will now turn to the Suśrutasaṃhitā’s description of Grahas. In general, Grahas are described as having superhuman powers (aiśvarya) and the ability to take on any form (viśvarūpa). They can enter a 21   Kārttikeya is associated with two birds: a cock and a peacock. While a cock plays a ritual role in the Suśrutasaṃhitā and is mentioned in passing as part of Skanda’s rites in the Āraṇyakaparvan (3.215.10), references to the ritual use of a cock in the Vedic Śrauta tradition are rare. Only the Aśvamedha sacrifice requires the use of a cock (kṛkavāku), and in accounts of that rite the animal is placed in a list of wild animals to be released as opposed to immolated (Bhide 1967: 1). Bhide notes that the cock does appear to have been domesticated by the Vedic period in India and was used in domestic rites like those of the Atharvaveda and particularly those involving “sorcery” (1967: 1). In Dharmasūtra texts cocks are always listed as banned food for Brahmins or as polluting (DA 1.17.32, 1.21.15; DV 14.48, 23.30; DG 17.29, 23.5; DB 1.12.3; see Olivelle 1999). In these texts cocks often appear in a list of other domesticated animals, and it is not clear whether the cock itself is the problem or its general class as domesticated. Bhide makes a similar point concerning Manu’s Dharmasūtra (1967: 2). Bhide suggests that the cock may have been used by non-Brahminical villagers as it is today by villagers as an offering to local non-Vedic deities (1967: 3). He also notes that a cock is used in Tantric rituals associated with Kārttikeya (1967: 5). There does appear to have been some inauspicious association with this bird, and the ritual use of a cock may point to non-Vedic origins for this deity and his rites.

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

31

child’s body without detection (Uttara. 27.7), and each Graha causes specific symptoms in a child (Uttara. 27.8-16). The text discusses a group called the Navagraha, the Nine Graspers. In order of ap­pearance, they are: Skanda, Skandāpasmāra, Śakunī, Revatī, Pūtanā, Andha­ pūtanā, Śītapūtanā, Mukhamaṇḍikā and Naigameṣa (Uttara. 27.4-5).22 Key to this list is its first Graha: Skanda. The Suśrutasaṃhitā is not alone in the Āyurvedic tradition in calling Skanda a Graha. The sixth century ce Aṣṭaṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā provides the following list of Bālagrahas: Skanda, Viśākha, Meṣa, Śvagraha, Pitṛgraha, Śakuni, Pūtanā, Śitapūtanā, Adṛṣṭipūtanā, Mukhamaṇḍitikā, Revatī and Śuṣ­ ka­revatī (Uttara. 3.1-3). The seventh century Kāśyapasaṃhitā also discusses a Skandagraha (Indriyasthāna 1.12). The Āyurvedic tradition leaves no doubt as to its understanding that a Bālagraha named Skanda exists and appears as the first Grasper in Āyurvedic lists of them. Not only is Skanda the first of the Grahas in these lists, but according to the Suśrutasaṃhitā he is the most dangerous of them. On this Grasper we read the following: Thus children who are known to be afflicted by a Grasper are very ­difficult to cure. In the case of an attack by Skandagraha it is known that permanent weakness and even death will occur. Of all of those Graspers, Skandagraha is known as the most dark and horrible, but an attack from another Grasper, who can take any form, is also not curable. (Uttara. 37.21-22)

The cause of an attack by a Bālagraha is accounted for in the Suśru­ tasaṃhitā with the following: “[the Graspers] can injure children for worship. They injure children who are hit, scolded, anxious or upset or for whom auspicious rituals are abandoned, or who are not kept clean, or whose mother or nurse exercises improper conduct relating to ordained acts” (Uttara. 27.6). Thus, a wife or nurse who has moral failings, or a poorly cared for child can bring about possession by a Graha,23 but the prime motive on the part of the Grahas is that they 22   The text states that Naigameṣa is also called Pitṛgraha (Uttara. 27.5). We might also note that the Graha depicted as springing from Kārttikeya’s body in chapter 219 of the Āraṇyakaparvan, Skandāpasmāra, also appears in this list. Later in the Suśrutasaṃhitā Skandāpasmāra is identified with Viśākha (Uttara. 37.7), the figure that sprang from Skanda’s body when he was struck by Indra in the Āraṇya­ kaparvan. 23   See Wujastyk (1999) for more on the tendency of this tradition to blame illness on moral failings.

32

chapter two

want to be worshiped. This propitiatory nature of the cult is central to the Āyurvedic understanding of them. Clearly, elements of the Āyurvedic tradition view Skanda as a Graha. I would note here that the Suśrutasaṃhitā also spends some time arguing against such an idea, and I will discuss these points in chapter three. I find it hard, however, to escape the conclusion that at least part of the Āyurvedic tradition called its most dangerous Graha Skanda, and promoted a series of rites designed to propitiate the deity and to protect children from him. While the Mahābhārata never acknowledges the existence of a Grasper named Skanda, it seems clear from the Suśrutasaṃhitā that such a being was understood to have existed as the powerful leader of the Navagrahas.24 This list of the Navagrahas is also connected to the Āraṇyakaparvan account of Grahas (White 2003: 35, 61; F. Smith 2006: 272-274). There are direct references to all of the above Graspers in the Āraṇyakaparvan except for Andhapūtanā (the ‘dark’ Pūtanā), Śakunī and Naigameṣa. We may account for Śakunī, however, through the Āraṇyakaparvan’s description of Vinatā who is described as a “śakuni graha,” a BirdGrasper (3.219.26).25 Naigameṣa is a goat- or ram-headed Grasper and may be accounted for through a figure called Chāgavaktra, ‘goat-face’, who is mentioned in chapter 217 of the Āraṇyakaparvan (3.217.11).26 There may also be a reference in the Āraṇyakaparvan to the Nava­ grahas. In a discussion of Kārttikeya and a group of Mātṛs from   A similar conclusion is drawn by Michel Strickmann in his account of this deity from Chinese Buddhist texts. He argues: “Other mentions of his name [Kārttikeya’s] in Buddhist scriptures make it clear that he originally belonged to a particularly fearsome group of fifteen demon-thugs, a gang that attacked infants and young children” (2002: 219). He is eventually transformed into “the guardian par excellence of Chinese Buddhist monasteries” (2002: 219). Hence, the progression of his cult in India is mirrored in part by the progression of his cult in China within a Buddhist context. That Skanda first appears in China as a Graha-like being can be accounted for by the strong Indian influence on early Buddhism in China. 25   White suggests that almost all of Skanda’s Graspers are portrayed as a feral domestic animal or as a bird (2003: 58). 26   There are a number of references to a goat-headed figure in the Āraṇyaka­ parvan’s account of Skanda’s birth. Agni is described as becoming a goat-headed Naigameya (naigameyaś chāgavaktro) to amuse his child (3.215.23). J. A. B. van Buitenen translates naigameya as “trader” (1975: 652). I think van Buitenen may have missed the Graha allusion to the goat-headed figure. Hence, I think it best to understand the term as a proper name. Adding to the confusion is that one of Skanda’s six heads is also described as having a goat’s face (chāgamayam vaktraṃ) (3.217.12). Hence, we have several goat-faced figures in the text. 24

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

33

c­ hapter 217, the text states that the Mātṛs had: “a son, who was possessed of power, who was very terrible, who had terrible red eyes and who was a gift of Skanda. These are called the group of eight. They sprang from the Mātṛs and Skanda. Along with the goat-faced one [chāgavaktra], they are called the Navaka (‘Consisting of Nine’)” (3.217.10-11). This passage is somewhat obscure, but it does link a terrible group of nine with Skanda and likely alludes to the Āyurvedic tradition of the Navagrahas. The accounts of Graspers in the Suśrutasaṃhitā and the Āraṇyakaparvan are not identical, but it is clear that these texts are commentating on closely related cults. The Suśrutasaṃhitā helps us to understand that the appearance of these beings in the Āraṇyakaparvan and their intimate connection with Skanda is an acknowledgment, albeit a tacit one, by the epic tradition of an important early aspect of the Skanda cult. We leave the Āyurvedic tradition with a general understanding that there is a great deal of Skanda-Kārttikeya mythology that the Mahābhārata accounts of him ignore or marginalize. Given that the remainder of the epic and Purāṇic traditions attempt to uproot Kārttikeya from these dangerous Grahas suggests that the Brahminization of this deity made radical changes to his cult. Mātṛs in the Āraṇyakaparvan The Āraṇyakaparvan also discusses another group of Graha-like beings called Mātṛs. The Āyurvedic tradition makes no direct note of this class of spirit, but most of the Graspers in the Suśrutasaṃhitā are female, and these Mātṛs may allude to the predominantly female gender of those beings. The status and description of these ‘Mothers’ in the Āraṇyakaparvan are complex and deserves some detailed discussion. Skanda has numerous ‘mothers’ in this version of his birth. He is approached by a variety of female divinities who request to become his mother, and he accepts them all. Not all of these mothers are related to a Graha cult or a Mother/Mātṛ cult, and I will discuss some of the more auspicious ‘mothers’ in the next chapter. The Āraṇya­ kaparvan, however, leaves little doubt that some Mātṛs do belong with Grahas: “Those bands of Mothers [Mātṛs] that have been explained and those male Graspers are all always known by embodied creatures

34

chapter two

as the Skanda Graspers” (3.219.42). As this passage suggests, there is not just one group of Mātṛs in this text, but several. The first group of Mātṛs we can identify are those sent out by Indra to destroy Skanda in chapter 215 of the Āraṇyakaparvan.27 These ‘Mothers’ are clearly powerful beings to be given such a task, but they end up seeking Skanda’s refuge. While it might seem counterintuitive of Indra to send a band of Mothers to kill Kumāra, what becomes clear is that he has sent a group of female Grahas to destroy an infant. We get some clue as to their Graha natures through the brief descriptions we receive of them. One is described as the daughter of Wrath (krodha) who is a midwife, but who also holds an iron spike. Another is the cruel daughter of the Blood Ocean who feeds on blood herself (3.215.21-22). This same Mātṛ is also mentioned at the end of a list of Grahas in chapter 219: “That daughter of the Blood Ocean is known as the nurse of Skanda. She is worshipped in the Kadamba tree as ‘Lohitāyani’” (3.219.39). The dangerous nature of this first group of Mātṛs and their connection to Kārttikeya is clear. Another group of Mātṛs is presented in chapter 217. The exact nature of this group is harder to identify as certain elements of chapter 217 are obscure and difficult to follow. In this chapter a group of “powerful Maidens” (kanyāś mahābalāḥ) are described as also being born with Viśākha when Indra struck Skanda with his Vajra (3.217.2). They are also mentioned in the following: “The blessed one, having become goat-faced, protects in battle surrounded by the troops of maidens...” (3.217.3). If the blessed goat-faced one is Skanda,28 these 27   White (2003: 36-45) has examined these groups of Mātṛs from the Āraṇya­ kaparvan in detail. 28   What is also not clear from the above (3.217.3-4) is just who the “blessed one” (bhagavān) is. The whole section reads:

Very powerful maidens were also born from the thunderbolt strike, and the Kumāras settled on Viśākha as their father. That blessed one, having become goat-faced, protects in battle surrounded by the troops of maidens and all his sons and children, and Bhadraśākha [provides] prosperity to the Mothers as they look on. Thus, people in the world say Skanda is the father of boys (kumāras). (3.217.2-5) While Viśākha could be the ‘blessed lord’ and the Kumāras have claimed him as their father, which could account for the reference to sons, the text will go on to state that one of Kārttikeya’s six faces is a goat’s face and another head is called Bhadraśākha: “Know, O king, that the sixth face from among his [Skanda’s] six heads is like a goat’s face, which is always worshipped by the band of Mothers. Now, the best of his six heads is called Bhadraśākha with which he created the divine Śakti” (3.217.12-13).

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

35

Kanyās/Maidens are viewed as remaining close to him. The narrative goes on to identify these Maidens as Mātṛs: Those ones whom the oblation eater [Agni], ‘tapas’ by name produced, are those Maidens. They approached Skanda, and he asked: “What will I do?” The Mothers said: “We should be the first Mothers of the world and from your kindness we should be worshipped—you should do us this favour.” (3.217.6-7)

Chapter 217 equates these ‘Maidens’ (kanyā), with a group of Mātṛs who are involved with Skanda and Agni (White 2003: 38). Kārttikeya allows the Mothers in the above quotation to become the world’s Mātṛs, though it is not clear just what this means, and he separates them into aśiva (inauspicious) and śiva (auspicious) groups. The text states that these Mātṛs make Kārttikeya their son and are named Kākī, Halimā, Rudrā, Bṛhalī, Āryā, Palālā and Mitrā.29 This group is also called the “saptaitāḥ śiśumātaraḥ” (3.217.10), or ‘The Seven Mothers of New Born Sons’. This name suggests that the text may be trying to explain the origins of the Saptamātṛkās or Saptamātaras with this particular group.30 There is likely a second reference to these Kanyās that helps to illustrate the Graha nature of this group, or at least the aśiva members of the group. The reference comes up in chapter 219 where they are referred to as “Kumārīs,” ‘young girls, maidens, or pre-menstruation virgins’. The terms Kanyās and Kumārīs appear to refer to the same general class of being (Filliozat 1937: 74), but a clearer connection is that both groups are also linked to another class of beings called Kumāras. I will discuss these Kumāras, ‘boys, or youths’, in more detail below, but they are described as having been created with the Kanyās as a result of the strike by Indra’s weapon (3.217.1). In 219 the Given this passage, we might well assume that the ‘blessed lord’ in verse three is Skanda, but the text seems confused. The text is, I think, unsure of the relationship between Skanda, Viśākha, Naigameṣa and Bhadraśākha. I think most of these beings are Grahas whose characters and relationships are made clearer in medical texts. White appears to view the ‘goat-faced one’ above as Viśākha, which is a possibility (2003: 38). As White notes, however, of this section of the Mahābhārata, “the text becomes difficult to follow” (2003: 38). 29   David Gordon White is able to shed some light on these names. He notes that Halimā may be related to Halīmaka, a form of jaundice described in the Suśru­ tasaṃhitā; Palālā may be related to Palāla, a male demon in the Atharvaveda; and Kāki, ‘she-crow’, follows many of the bird-like features of these beings (2003: 39). 30   For more on the Saptamātṛkās see Kinsley (1986: 151-160), Harper (1989) and White (2003: 59).

36

chapter two

Kumārīs are described as being produced by Skanda along with “Kumāras” (3.219.30). The same verse goes on to describe Kumāras and Kumārīs as eaters of wombs and as Grahas. I suspect that the Kanyās of chapter 217 and the Kumārīs of chapter 219 are the same. These Kanyās/Kumārīs represent a second group of Skanda’s Mātṛs. A third group of Mātṛs also appears in chapter 219 of the text. In this chapter Kumāra is approached by a band of Mātṛs who tell him: “We are celebrated by sages as the Mothers of all the world. We want to be Mothers to you, honour us!” (3.219.14). Kārttikeya acknowledges that they are his mothers, and then they ask him: “These ones who were made the first Mothers of this world, that position should be ours and should not be theirs. Let them be not worshiped and let us be worshiped in the world, O best of the gods. Because of you they have taken away our offspring, give them back to us” (3.219.16-17). What is not clear is if these Mātṛs are the same or different from the Mātṛs encountered in chapter 215, or the Kanyā/Mātṛs from chapter 217 who asked to be the mothers of the world. This group from chapter 219 appear to be complaining about the Kanyā/Mātṛs from 217, and with David Gordon White (2003: 44) I suspect that this is a third group of Mothers. Skanda refuses to give back their progeny, but he will give them other offspring. The Mothers answer: “We want to eat the offspring of those Mothers; give them to us, those ones who are different from you and their lords” (3.219.19). With Jean Filliozat (1937: 74), I read the Mothers being complained about here to be human mothers. Hence, the request to consume offspring “different from you” is a request to eat mortal children, and their accompanying “lords” a request to destroy the human parents of these children. Skanda grants this, but requires: “... you must happily save their offspring who worship properly” (3.219.20). It is apparent that these Mothers are viewed as dangerous to children and that propitiation based on fear drives this cult. As discussed above, Skanda then produces Skandā­pasmāra from his body to help these Mothers attack infants (3.219.24-25). This material indicates that Skanda gives his direct support to the activities of these Mātṛs and produces a Graha version of himself to participate in their attacks on infants and­ parents.

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

37

Kumāras in the Āraṇyakaparvan A final dangerous group related to childhood illness in the Āraṇyaka­ parvan are the Kumāras. Chapter 217 begins by telling us that a group called the Kumārakas, or lesser Kumāras, was also produced when Indra’s Vajra hit Skanda’s side. These Kumārakas seem to be the same as Kumāras, the term used for them throughout the rest of the text. These beings are described as “the terrible attendants of Skanda who have a wonderful appearance.... They are the cruel ones who take children who are born and those still in the womb” (3.217.1). Their Graha nature is reconfirmed in chapter 219 (3.219.30). Just why these terrible beings are depicted as coming from Skanda is not stated by the text, but a clue may be found in one of the most common epithets of the deity, ‘Kumāra’. As we have seen, other scholars argue for a connection between Kārttikeya as Kumāra and several other auspicious Kumāras from the Vedic tradition. The epic hopes to endorse these more auspicious understandings of Kumāra in its accounts of Skanda, but I would like to suggest that the Kumāra epithet may have begun due to his similarity to these malevolent Kumāras. The Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra helps to confirm a Graha connotation to the name Kumāra (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 15). As part of the text’s description of various rites for a newborn son, it narrates a ritual “should a Kumāra attack” (kumāra upadravet) (PGS 1.16.24). This Kumāra may well be Skanda. The commentaries on the text make the Graha status of this Kumāra clear. Karka’s commentary states “Kumā­ ra­­graha is understood by the name Kumāra” (PGS 1917: 155); Jayarāma’s commentary calls Kumāra a “boy-grasper” (bālagraha) (PGS 1917: 157); Harihara gives Kumāragraha (PGS 1917: 160); Gadādhara identifies Kumāra as a Bālagraha (PGS 1917: 163) and Viśvanāth calls Kumāra a Graha (PGS 1917: 170). This passage and its commentaries leave little doubt as to the existence of a Kumāragraha. The passage also understands Kumāra to be a dog (śunaka). The Hiraṇyakeśi Gṛhyasūtra recounts a very similar ritual for a Śvagraha, a Dog Grasper (2.2.7.1-5). The Aṣṭaṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā also lists a Śvagraha in its Bālagraha section (AH Uttara. 3.1-3). The Hiraṇyakeśi Gṛhyasūtra does not name the Graha Kumāra, but the rituals prescribed in both Gṛhyasūtras are very similar and likely relate to the same type of Graha (White 1989: 294-300). In both Gṛhyasūtras the Śvagraha’s/Kumāra’s mother is Saramā, his father Sīsara (PGS 1.16.24;

38

chapter two

HGS 2.2.7.2) and in the Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra his brothers Śyāma and Śabala (1.16.24), all regarded as dogs in the tradition.31 Saramā is also mentioned in the Āraṇyakaparvan as a Grasper under the control of Skanda. She is the divine Mātṛ of dogs who takes the foetuses of people (3.219.33; White 2003: 53-54). These links between Saramā, Kumāra and Skanda-Kārttikeya do not appear to be arbitrary, and they suggest that the Kumāra of the Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra is related to the Skanda of the Āraṇyakaparvan. It may well be that Skanda’s original label as Kumāra lay in an understanding that he was one of these dangerous ‘Kumāras’. Certainly, such a previous existence would explain why the Mahābhārata views it as logical to have these Kumā­ rakas spring from him. The above material makes Skanda’s role in the activities of Grahas, Mātṛs and Kumāras clear; it is an apparent sub-voice in the text that closely mirrors the Āyurvedic understanding of the deity. Having stated this much, however, the remainder of the Mahābhārata works to progressively distance Skanda from any association with these beings. Of the three accounts of Skanda’s birth in the Mahābhārata only the Āraṇyakaparvan discusses the Skanda Graspers and references to them outside of Āyurvedic texts are rare. How the epic goes about distancing Skanda from the Grahas will be made clear in chapter three. The problem the orthodox Brahminical community had with Grahas was likely twofold: they perceived Grahas as essentially a demonic group of infanticides and abortionists, and the Graha/Mātṛ/ Kumāra cults likely originated in non-orthodox traditions. The orthodox tradition’s perception of beings and people who cause miscarriage and abortion is low to say the least. In the Dharmasūtras, there are few more pernicious categories than abortionist. As Patrick Olivelle notes, the Sanskrit term for abortionist, bhrūṇahan, is also the word for a killer of a learned Brahmin (1999: 363). This ambiguity is informative because it alludes to the gravity of these actions in the eyes of the orthodox Brahminical community that authored these texts. The 31   Sīsara is usually regarded as Saramā’s husband, and Śyāma and Śabala are guard dogs of Yama. These two dogs may be referred to in Ṛgveda 10.14.10-12, where they are described as sons of Saramā. Saramā is found in the Ṛgveda where she retrieves the gods’ cows who have been stolen by the Paṇis, a type of asura (10.108). Wendy Doniger argues that Saramā is also found in Vedic literature as a longtongued dog who defiles the sacrifice (1985: 100). Other details on Saramā can be found in White (1991: 90 n.8).

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

39

Dharmasūtra of Āpastamba claims that abortion is one of the acts resulting in a loss of caste (1.21.8 in Olivelle 1999: 32). In the same text the standards of a “heinous sinner” include killing a Brahmin’s foetus whose gender cannot be determined, killing a man of the first two castes who has studied the Vedas and killing an ordinary Brahmin (1.24.6-9 in Olivelle 1999: 34). Elements of the Vedic tradition are obsessed with successful human reproduction, especially the production of male offspring. The concern for abortion in these law texts may well reflect this focus on fertility and reproduction. Grahas and Bhrūṇahans are not necessarily the same, and I do not intend a direct comparison between the two here. What the above does demonstrate is the attitude of the orthodox tradition towards people and beings who were thought to have caused an unsuccessful pregnancy. From a classical Brahminical perspective the Graspers described in the narrative of Skanda’s birth are profoundly dangerous divinities that can be viewed as in opposition to Brahminical values as expressed in their texts. That aspects of the Brahminical textual tradition radically altered this element of Skanda’s cult over time should not surprise us. The apparent discomfort the text has in presenting Grahas, Mātṛs and Kumāras may also be due to their non-Vedic or “folk” origins (Bedekar 1975: 142). As I noted at the start of this chapter, the Mahābhā­rata is an anti-heterodox text, and its discomfort with Grahas and related beings is likely based in their non-orthodox origins. V. M. Bedekar argues that the Āraṇyakaparvan’s account of these beings is likely an attempt at assimilating a wide number of related local cults of non-Vedic origin into the cult of Kārttikeya that was itself also likely derived from non-orthodox sources (1975). Hence, part of the epic’s difficulty with this material lies in an attempt to assimilate non-orthodox cults into a text oriented towards protecting orthodoxy. We might well ask why the Mahābhārata addresses the issue of Grahas at all if it found them so problematic to its orthodox ideals. The answer to such a question is that the cults of Skanda, Grahas and Mātṛs were popular in South Asia. My argument for the popularity of these deities will become clearer in chapter five which examines the material record of these cults. For now, we need only note that issues of infertility, miscarriage and infant mortality are points of concern that transcend caste status and other social boundaries. The importance of Skanda’s early cult and the cult of Grahas in general is the

40

chapter two

probable social breadth of the cult itself. The first indication­ of worship to Skanda in the Āraṇyakaparvan comes from creatures (jana) who have various classes, or varṇa (nānāvarṇa) (3.214.29). Varṇa also means ‘caste’ and this passage may be an indication of the social breadth of this early cult to Skanda (Bedekar 1975: 157). If Kārttikeya’s cult was commonly practised in north India as a propitiatory cult oriented towards Grahas, as I argue it was, the base of its ‘popularity’ appears to have been socially quite broad. Hence, the epic’s need to include Grahas and Mātṛs in this account of Skanda’s birth is likely a response to the relative popularity of such cults.32 The Worship of Skanda-Kārttikeya and Grahas in the Āraṇyakaparvan and the Skandayāga The worship of these Grahas through Kārttikeya is presented in the Āraṇyakaparvan as the key to controlling them: Offerings of oblations and the worship of Skanda (skandasyejyā) in particular are to be performed. They [the Graspers] need to be pacified. They should be bathed, given incense and unguent, and offerings should be made. All of them, who are thus honored and properly offered obeisance and worship (pūjā), give prosperity and a vigorous long-life to people.... (3.219.43-44)

As with the violent Kārttikeya presented in the early chapters of this account, the key to controlling these fearful beings is through worship and especially the worship of Skanda. We cannot be sure of the exact nature of the “ijya” for Skanda, but it is described as a pūjā in the above quotation and is reminiscent of the rites described in the Āyur­ vedic tradition. Both the ‘worship of Skanda’ mentioned above and the rites described in the Suśrutasaṃhitā may be related to a ritual described in the Skandayāga chapter of the Atharvaveda Pariśiṣṭa. The Skandayāga, or, as it is also known, the Dhūrtakalpa, is book twenty of the Atharvaveda Pariśiṣṭa, which is part of the late Vedic ancillary textual tradition. The voice of this text differs from that of both the Suśrutasaṃhitā and the Āraṇyakaparvan. The Skandayāga is a ritual text that provides minimal commentary on who Skanda is or why 32   This appropriation of folk traditions by the orthodox epic tradition is not isolated to this account. As Frederick Smith argues, the Sanskrit literati continually co-opt from folk traditions. Smith also cites these narratives of Skanda and Grahas as examples of this process (2006: 3-13, 272-73, 425-26, 481).

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

41

the ritual it details is to be performed. As such it adds little to our knowledge­ of Kārttikeya’s mythology, but it does provide us with a different perspective on the deity’s traditions. The text is short, containing nine kaṇḍas and under fifty verses. The exact date of the text is not clear, but I do not think that it represents the earliest account of Kārttikeya. The text shows a clear knowledge of Kumāra’s multiple parents as well as his association with Mātṛs and Kanyās (20.2.6-7). It likely does not represent an account of the deity that predates the Mahābhārata. B. R. Modak proposes the beginning of the Common Era as a date for the text (1993: 473), and Michael Willis suggests a date from the fourth to the sixth centuries ce (2009: 315 n.48). Willis suggests such dates because of the text’s knowledge of Skanda’s narrative and its developed understanding of pūjā offerings. The text is, I suspect, a contemporary of the final redaction of the Mahābhārata, but we have no clear means of accurately dating it, and some caution is required when making chronological claims based on this text. I will proceed with a description of the ritual and an account of where it fits in the current discussion. The text begins by stating that the ritual should be done every four months, after a fast, and it should be performed in a northeast direction in a clean place that has no salt (AVP 20.1.3). A hut is made in which are placed a garland of leaves of all tress, bells, banners, wreaths, mirrors and an amulet (20.1.3). Then, the text states: “the one who is carried by white horses should be caused to be brought (invited, invoked) there” (20.1.3).33 As Dhūrta, the principle name for Skanda in this text, is invoked or brought in several verses of praise are recited. Once the deity is in the circle, offerings accompanied by more verses of praise are given. Water for a foot bath, perfumes, flowers, incense, a lamp, leaves and various types of food are offered. A fire is kindled   The next seven verses all mention an attribute of the deity and end in “I cause [Dhūrta] to be brought/ invoked (āvāhayāmyham)” (20.2.1). P. K. Agrawala assumes from these verses that a statue of the god is placed in the circle during these sections (1967: 107) and Modak suggests the same (1993: 296). There is, however, nothing within the Skandayāga that states a statue is to be used (Granoff 2004: 17). The opening verses of Atharvaveda Pariśiṣṭa 20 might be associated with bringing an image into the circle, but they may also be designed to invoke the deity into the ritual area. The verb ā-vah used in the verses can mean both ‘carry’ and ‘invoke’, and the exact intent of the passages is not clear to me. Phyllis Granoff notes that image worship does appear to have influenced the actions and mantras prescribed in the Skandayāga, but there is nothing explicit within the text to demonstrate the use of an image. She concludes that the details provided by the text suggest that no image was used in this rite (2004: 17). 33

42

chapter two

and consecrated after which more praise is given to Dhūrta and requests for specific goods and worldly prosperity are made. While reciting mantras and holding blossoms, incense and a garland, the priest turns to the right three times and ties the amulet. The protective properties of the amulet are eulogized, and we are told that Dhūrta leaves or is carried out of the circle. The production of a protective amulet is common in the Atharvavedic tradition and also links this rite to those found for Graspers in the Suśrutasaṃhitā. The ritual ends somewhat obscurely with the ritualist waiting for nightfall, entering his home, and, while looking at his wife, he says: “O wealthy one give me a gift” (20.6.10). Charles J. Goodwin is likely correct in describing the purpose of the rite in the following manner: “The general purport of the ceremony is to seek the fulfilment of wishes, the attainment of wealth and prosperity; and freedom from the maleficent deeds of demons and of men is sought by an amulet” (1893: vi). The request for wealth appears as a general list of worldly goods: I will praise the beautiful wish granter [the son] of the Kṛttikās, Agni and Śiva. He who is praised and who has all forms let him grant all my desires. May he grant me wealth, herds with grain and money, knowledge of words, male and female slaves, a house, a jewel, and divine ointment. Those who honour the Brahminic and beautiful Dhūrta with worship, they all should have wealth and beautiful children. (20.5.1-3)

These types of requests are not what we might expect from a ritual asso­ciated with Skanda as he appears in the Mahābhārata and Suśruta­ saṃhitā, but the attainment of wealth is, in the Atharvavedic tradition, simply another aspect of gaining a deity’s favor and protection. As the end of the above passage suggests, the production of children, especially male offspring, is also part of the ‘wealth’ sought through Vedic ritual. The rite closes with the tying of the amulet, and the production of this amulet may be the central point of the rite: ... with [the words beginning] ‘a thread, which is cut by the Ādityas’, he should tie the amulet.... “I bind this amulet which is a destroyer of all foes and a killer of the inauspicious, gives long life, confers fame and wealth. There is no fear from humans and Gandharvas, from Piśācas and Rakṣasas with it, and even from an evil action that has been done. He is released from the acts of others as well as his own. He has no fear from malevolent spells, from witches and from inauspiciousness due to the acts of women. There is no fear of that so long as he keeps

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

43

the thread. As long as the mountains and cows and waters remain, so long will he who keeps the thread have no fear.” (20.6.8, 20.7.2-6)

This amulet and its properties place this ritual firmly within the Atharvavedic magico-religious tradition that has some ties to the Āyurvedic material we have already examined (Zysk 1998: 14, 97). While the ritual itself lacks obvious links to Grahas and the other fierce traditions of Kumāra, a closer look at the rite does reveal some sinister aspects to it. In the opening lines of the text it refers to itself as the Dhūrtakapla (20.1.1). The word Dhūrta means a rogue, thief, or a cheat, and it is the primary name for Skanda in this text. In other texts, however, it is an unusual name for the deity.34 This text’s primary epithet of Skanda has led a number of scholars to suggest that SkandaDhūrta was a god of thieves (Goodwin 1893: vi; P. K. Agrawala 1967: 18, 20; Modak 1993: 296). Such may have been the case, but this idea will be explored in the next section. What can be stated for now is that the repeated reference to Kārttikeya as Dhūrta places this rite into a more sinister category than the actual actions of the ritual may suggest. That Skanda is primarily named or viewed as a cheater or thief in this text also speaks to his somewhat unorthodox roots and the Atharvaveda Pariśiṣṭa’s place within the tradition. Sections of the Atharvaveda Pariśiṣṭa form parts of early Śaiva Tantric texts that lie outside of the orthodox purview of the tradition of the epics (Bisschop and Griffiths 2003: 315-323). Michael Willis also argues for a link between the Skandayāga and rites performed by Atharvavedic Purohitas that may have been a nescient form of Kāpālika traditions (2009: 175-178).35 Hence, the Atharvaveda Pariśiṣṭa is more likely to 34   That Dhūrta is understood to be Skanda is made clear by the text in a number of places. He is also called: Kārttikeya (20.2.9), Skanda (20.4.2, 20.6.2, 20.6.3) and Kumāra (20.6.2). Many of Skanda’s attributes are also linked to Dhūrta (20.2.3, 20.2.5, 20.2.8, 20.6.3). Without doubt, the text understands Dhūrta to be Kārttikeya. 35   Willis notes that some of his arguments related to Purohitas and their relationships to the Kāpālika cult are contentious (2009: 175). He also argues for a link between the names Dhūrta and Kauṭilya (deceitful). He proposes that Kauṭilya, the author of the Arthaśāstra, is connected to unorthodox rites performed by Atharvavedic Purohitas designed to enhance a king’s power. The evidence for a link between Dhūrta and Kauṭilya is not, however, overwhelming. He also suggests that a cluster of Śaiva sites at Udayagiri was likely a ritual spot for Atharvavedic Purohitas and perhaps a place where the Skandayāga was performed (2009: 177). Willis’ arguments are strong enough to allow for such possible interpretations, but there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that the Skandayāga was performed at this site, or that it was a location of Atharvavedic Purohita rituals.

44

chapter two

represent an alternate understanding of Skanda than that found in aspects of the more orthodox tradition. There are no direct references to Grahas in this text, but the rite may be related to issues of infertility. I suspect that the somewhat confusing ending where the ritualist requests a “gift” from his wife has ties to concerns for reproduction. While the text does not engage in justifying this rite, or explaining what its use is, the request for this ‘gift’ at the end of a protective rite designed to appease Skanda implies a concern for overcoming the influence of Graspers. The rite also seems to assume that part of the difficulty may have been a previous inauspicious deed on the part of a woman, likely the wife of the ritualist, or an act performed by the ritualist himself. This tendency to blame the victim, or the parents of the victim, is a common theme within Āyurvedic accounts of the causes of a Graha attack (Wujastyk 1998: 153-160, 1999: 256-75). Other evidence of a Graha sub-text may be found with another obscure reference towards the end of the rite to a creature called Pramoda: “The wicked Gandharva Pramoda by name runs about. Remove sins, remove, remove, release!” (20.7.7-9). This Pramoda is also mentioned in the Śalyaparvan version of Skanda’s birth story. In that text Pramoda is part of a long list of names that are regarded as figures in Kārttikeya’s divine army (9.44.60). In the quotation above, however, Pramoda is clearly a wicked or bad (pradoṣa) creature, and this text acknowledges that Dhūrta is associated with such dangerous beings. The wording of the passage to “release” and “remove” is also suggestive of a cure for a Grasper attack; the victim wants to be released from the grasp of the Graha. The production of the amulet and its properties fit the Atharvavedic and Āyurvedic traditions and the general comments about propitiating Graspers made in chapter 219 of the Āraṇyakaparvan. In that chapter we are told that Grahas should be propitiated with gifts and the rite of Skanda. This rite in the Āraṇyakaparvan is described as a pūjā, which is what the Skandayāga is. Once propitiated, the Āraṇya­ ka­parvan states that these Grahas “give prosperity and a vigorous long-life to people” (3.219.44). The hoped for results of the ritual described in the Skandayāga are not far removed from those described in the Āraṇyakaparvan. The Skandayāga illustrates the diversity and complexity of SkandaKārttikeya’s cult. The text has underlying themes that link it to

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

45

t­ hievery, tantra and a potential Graha subtext. The ritual, however, does not allude to a moral judgment of Dhūrta; rather, it focuses on the protective aspect of the rite. As such it may fit within the general pattern I have argued for in relation to the early cult of Kumāra. He is a potentially dangerous deity who is associated with other threatening spirits, but once propitiated he can become a benign and protective deity. The pūjā of the Dhūrtakalpa and the rituals prescribed in the Suśrutasaṃhitā and the Āraṇyakaparvan all have the same orientation; they hope to harness a powerful, but dangerous, deity to a protective role. Once propitiated and transformed into a guardian spirit he becomes a danger only to those spirits and humans who threaten his devotees. Skanda the God of Thieves As already noted, a final aspect of Skanda’s fierce characterization that may be traced to the Dhūrtakalpa is a suggestion that he may have been a god of rogues and thieves. Based on the literal meaning of Dhūrta, P. K. Agrawala concludes that “He [Dhūrta] is revealed in this text [the Skandayāga] as the god of cunning and roguery” (1967: 18), and “A careful consideration of the text and the ceremony described leads to the conclusion that Skanda is here a god of rogues” (1967: 20). Modak comes to a similar conclusion (1993: 296). Beyond the name Dhūrta, however, it is difficult to see anything overtly related to thievery in the Dhūrtakalpa. This suggestion gains some credibility, though, once we examine other references to Kārttikeya as the patron deity of thieves from the tradition. Śūdraka’s comedic play, the Mṛcchakaṭika, The Little Clay Cart, pro­vides direct evidence for a connection between Skanda and thieves. Unfortunately, almost nothing is known of Śūdraka or the date of the Mṛcchakaṭika. In the Prologue to the play Śūdraka describes himself as a well educated king who is devoted to Śiva, but this king is not attested to in historical sources. A variety of suggestions have been made as to Śūdraka’s identity with two main theories rising to the fore­front. One theory has him as the founding king of the An­dhrabhṛtya dynasty at around 200 bce, and the other has him as a king of Ujjayinī at around 56 bce (Kale 2004: xxix). Neither theory can be substantiated with any certainty, but there is agreement that

46

chapter two

Śūdraka must have pre-dated Kālidāsa and the Gupta period (Burrow 1946: 46). As such, the Mṛcchakaṭika fits the general chronological range of this study. In the third scene of the play a thief attempts to break into a compound by breaching an outer wall. When he locates a weak spot in the wall he thanks Kārttikeya, literally describing thieves as the sons of Skanda (skandaputra), likely meaning they are followers of the deity (MK 3.13). He then enumerates four modes of making a breach in a wall as laid down by Kanakaśakti, The Golden-Speared One, an epithet of Skanda (MK 3.13). He begins his work on the wall with praises to Skanda: “Hail to Kumāra Kārttikeya, the granter of boons, hail to the Golden-Speared One, Brahmaṇyadeva, who is devoted to the gods (devavrata)” (MK 3.15). When he successfully breaches the wall he again praises Kārttikeya (namaḥ kārttikeyāya) (MK 3.18). The text leaves little doubt that this thief views Skanda as his patron deity. A much later text, the Ṣaṇmukhakalpa, The Practice of the SixFaced One, also attests to a thieves’ cult devoted to Kārttikeya. The Ṣaṇmukha­kalpa is the only surviving Sanskrit text on thievery and has been dated to the seventh or ninth century ce (George 1991). The Ṣaṇ­ mukha­kalpa is dedicated to Skanda, the six-faced god, and reads as something of a manual of sorcery for thieves containing such rites as a lock-opening spell (Passi 2005: 516). This text provides evidence that Kumāra was a patron deity of thieves, an idea that may date back to the Mṛcchakaṭika and perhaps the Dhūrtakalpa. How well known this thievery cult may have been is unclear with neither epic text alluding to it; hence, this aspect of Skanda’s characterization appears to be minor and likely localized to thieves or their brotherhoods, be they real or imagined. Conclusion to the Fierce Characterization of Skanda-Kārttikeya We leave this initial dangerous description of the deity with a few details that deserve emphasizing before we move on. His cult, as depicted thus far, is based on a mixture of fear and protection. He is terrifying in appearance, sounds and actions, and his initial actions seem deliberately designed to inspire fear. If approached, however, and sought out for refuge he becomes a protective and even playful deity. Propitiation is central to both the fierce warrior and Graha

the early traditions of skanda-kārttikeya

47

aspects of this deity. The concerns of the early cult are also socially broad. A concern for the health and protection of one’s children speaks to all levels of society. Finally, as I have stressed, this version of the god is not something the Brahminical writers and redactors of this text wish to support. Their goal is to transform this deity, and how this is accomplished will be discussed next.

CHAPTER THREE

THE EMERGENce OF THE SENĀPATI: THE NARRATIVE CONVERSION OF THE WARRIOR AND GRAHA The second image of Skanda the Āraṇyakaparvan presents is as the tamed son of Śiva and the general of the army of the gods. Both of these characterizations are strongly influenced by the Brahminical community and both come to eclipse the Graha and dangerous warrior personas of the deity. Among the strategies employed in this recharacterization is the narrative structure of the Āraṇyakaparvan. Two narratives frame the account of Skanda’s birth that work to ameliorate the appearance of the fierce Kārttikeya and to encourage the reader to watch for the emergence of the Brahminical Senāpati of the gods. Another strategy employed by the text is to demonstrate the power of Brahminical ritual over the deity. Much of the calming of the deity and his entrance into the hierarchy of the gods is brought about by his absorption into Brahminical ritual structures. Finally, Kumāra’s participation in various family structures work to construct hierarchies that also calm this young god. The Frame Narratives in the Āraṇyakaparvan: The Hidden Agni The hidden Agni theme is a Vedic narrative where the fire-god withdraws from his sacrificial duties and hides from the sages and gods. The redactors of the Mahābhārata employ this Vedic narrative extensively in their attempts to account for the terrestrial birth of Kārttikeya. While there is considerable variance between the three accounts of Skanda’s birth in the Mahābhārata, one element common to them, either as part of the primary or secondary plot of the birth, is the insertion of a hidden Agni narrative (Doniger 1973: 285; Feller 2004: 116). As Danielle Feller demonstrates, a reworking of the Vedic narrative of the hidden Agni occurs five times in the Mahābhārata (1.5-7; 3.207; 3.212.6-19; 9.46.12-20; 13.83-84) and four of those (3.207; 3.212.6-19; 9.46.12-20; 13.83-84) in connection with the birth of Skanda (2004: 49, 114-117). Clearly the epic redactors saw a link between the two

50

chapter three

narratives, but to completely understand the Mahābhārata’s use of this ancient narrative we must first examine its Vedic forms. An example of this theme from the Ṛgveda is hymn 10.51 part of a series of hymns (10.51-53) presented as a dialogue between Agni and another god.1 This hymn presents us with a time when Agni was mortal. To escape his eventual death if kindled as the sacrificial fire he hides himself from the gods only to be discovered by them. The Vedic gods lure him back with a promise of immortality. The hymn states: (Ein Gott:) “Groß, stark war jene Haut, in die eingehüllt du ins Wasser eingegangen bist. Ein Gott erschaute vielfach alle deine Leiber, o Agni Jātavedas.”[1] (Agni:) “Wer hat mich gesehen, welcher ist es unter den Göttern, der meine Leiber vielfach erschaut hat?...” [2] (Agni:) “Aus Furcht vor dem Hotṛ-Amt bin ich gegangen, Varuṇa, damit mich nicht die Götter daran einspannen können. So sind meine Leiber vielfach ins Wasser eingegangen....” [4] (Agni:) “Agni’s frühere Brüder haben dieses Geschäft hin und her besorgt, wie ein Wagenroß seinen Weg. Aus Furcht davor bin ich weit fortgegangen, Varuṇa. Wie der Gaurabüffel vor der Sehne des Jägers bin ich geflüchtet.” [6] (Die Götter:) Wir bereiten dir ein Leben, das alterlos ist, Agni, auf daß du eingespannt nicht zu Schaden kommest, o Jātavedas....” [7] (10.51.12,4,6- 7 translated by Geldner 1951 III: 212-213)

This quotation summarizes much of the hidden Agni theme: the deity hides in the waters from the gods because he fears his role as the Hotṛ priest. Agni appears to be mortal here and has already lost his brothers, presumably ritual fires that were allowed to go out. To draw the sacred fire back to his duties he is offered a long life, or immortality, as well as a share in the sacrifice itself. Divine birth and the hidden Agni theme are closely tied in the Ṛgveda. The imagery used to discuss the absence of Agni is a return to the womb. The opening verse of the above passage (RV 10.51) tells us that Agni has returned to the waters, his place of birth. The Haut (skin), or “membrane” (skt. ulba), in verse one is the covering of the embryo of the womb (Doniger 1983: 108-109; Feller 2004: 72). Agni has returned to his womb and refuses to be born, or kindled, to carry 1   The hymns comprising this dialogue (10.51-53) are collectively referred to as the Agni Saucīka. Agni is thought to speak the even stanzas, and, according to the later tradition, Varuṇa is thought to speak the uneven verses (Feller 2004: 52). I am unable here to recount all of the Vedic versions of this myth cycle. A more detailed study of them is provided by Feller (2004: 49-79).

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 51 out his role in the sacrifice. Issues related to how Agni is born, his periodic reluctance to be born, and his immortality all relate to broader Vedic concerns about fire and its fickle nature. Jan Heesterman suggests of such Vedic themes that they reflect fire’s impermanence and unreliability. There is an undercurrent of anxiety in the hidden Agni hymns that fire may indeed disappear (Heesterman 1983: 77, 1993: 117). This anxiety is reflected in the need of the gods for Agni to be born. The need for a divine birth is a constant theme in the missing Agni narratives that is transferred to accounts of Kārttikeya’s birth. Skanda's birth is rarely depicted as an accident; rather, he is usually born to fulfil a need of the gods. The hidden Agni theme also raises the issue of the fire-god’s multiple forms on earth. The above hymn states that Agni hid his bodies (Leiber, skt. tanvas) in various places (10.51.4), and that in the past his brothers carried out the function of carrying the sacrifice and presumably died as a result (10.51.6). In a later Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa account of this story the three brothers are returned to Agni and named as different Agnis used during various rites (ŚB 1.3.3.13-17 in Eggeling 1882-1900 I: 87-89).2 The issue for Vedic ritualists was not only that Agni was continually reborn and extinguished as a result of the sacrifice and other uses of fire, but that many sacrifices employed numerous sacred fires; Vedic texts routinely refer to Agnis at a rite. The Vedic hidden Agni theme attempts to explain how there is one Agni with many forms.3 Hence, I would suggest that the hidden Agni theme has two important aspects: it attempts to legitimate a divine terrestrial birth that comes about due to a need on the part of other deities, and it attempts to legitimate the notion of a deity having multiple forms. With this background into the Vedic pattern of the missing Agni theme, we can now examine its occurrence in relation to the birth narratives of Skanda found in the Mahābhārata. We are first introduced to the connection between Agni and Skanda in the Āraṇyakaparvan by a question Yudhiṣṭhira asks Mārkaṇḍeya: 2   Charles Malamoud has also discussed the topic of Agni’s bodies or forms. He points out that in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa Agni’s material body is understood as the sum total of the various fires ignited on the sacrificial ground, but each of these bodies is a person in its own right. Some are even depicted as arguing with each other (Malamoud 1998: 220-221). 3   Danielle Feller adds another dimension to a discussion of the hidden Agni narratives as a medium used to discuss Agni’s multiple forms. She points out that all of the sages and gods who find Agni are, through various Vedic equivalences, aspects or forms of the fire-god himself (2004: 65).

52

chapter three Tell me why Agni went to the forest, and why formerly the great sage Aṅgiras, when Agni had disappeared and having become Agni, carried the oblation? Though Agni is one, a multitude of fires are seen at rites. O holy one, all this I want to know: how was Kumāra born, and how did he become the son of Agni, and how was he born from Rudra by Gaṅgā and the Kṛttikās? 4 This I wish to hear from you, O gladdener of the Bhārgavas.... (3.207.2-5)

Yudhiṣṭhira’s question asks the sage Mārkaṇḍeya to narrate a hidden Agni story that the Pāṇḍava associates with Agni’s multiple forms and the birth of Skanda. While the connection Yudhiṣṭhira sees between these elements may seem obscure at first, his logic in connecting them is clear once we consider the function of the hidden Agni narratives I have outlined above. The borrowing of this Vedic narrative is designed to place the reader within a Vedic context of divine births and multiple forms. Kārttikeya’s terrestrial birth due to a need of the other gods and the appearance of his various forms (Viśākha and Skandāpasmāra) are presented as in keeping with the Vedic tradition through the precedent of the hidden Agni narrative. In adopting such a frame narrative the epic deals with at least one potential Brahminical or orthodox objection to Skanda and his cult: they are not well attested to in Vedic sources. Brahminical Hinduism, as it is presented in the Mahābhārata, tends to legitimate itself by claiming Vedic roots for its beliefs and practices. As Danielle Feller argues in her study of the representation of Vedic myths in the Sanskrit epics: “... the Mbh does not merely claim to follow the Vedic tradition, it even claims to be a Veda itself” (2004: 11; also see Fitzgerald 1985). Vedic precedence was important to the redactors of the epic, and there was significant reworking of Vedic material by them in their construction of the Mahābhārata (Feller 2004: 15). The lack of a clear Vedic past for Kārttikeya seems to have been a paramount concern for the writers of the Āraṇyakaparvan and much of the first frame narrative around Skanda’s birth is designed to link the deity with Vedic themes through the figure of Agni. Mārkaṇḍeya answers Yudhiṣṭhira by telling what he calls an “ancient tale” (itihāsaṃ purātanam) in which Agni abandons his role as fire to perform austerities in the forest (3.207.6). The sage’s 4   Gaṅgā is depicted as a mother of Skanda in most stories of his birth, but not in this one from the Āraṇyakaparvan. The mention of it here in the opening of the story suggests that this introduction was not part of the original narrative. It may have been added at a later period when the story of Kārttikeya’s birth had become more standardized.

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 53 ­ ualification that the story of Agni is ancient holds credibility, but it q also alludes to the epic redactors’ desire to construct Vedic roots for Skanda. Mārkaṇḍeya narrates that the sage Aṅgiras takes over as the god of fire and is described as surpassing the old Agni.5 Agni is troubled by the appearance of a better fire than himself and seeks to return to his former position. Aṅgiras has no objection to the return of Agni, but the old fire-god recognizes a problem in that the world now perceives Aṅgiras as the primary fire; even with his return the fire-god fears he will always be viewed as the secondary fire. To alleviate the situation Aṅgiras offers to become Agni’s first-born son; a position inherently junior to Agni. Aṅgiras then has his first-born son, Pra­ jāpati, who, in something of a contradictory move by the narrative, becomes Agni’s first-born son (3.207.17).6 The remainder of Mārkaṇ­ ḍeya’s answer (3.208-212.1-5) takes the form of a lengthy genealogy of fires, the offspring of either Agni or Aṅgiras. The natural flow of the story would then lead to the birth of Kumāra as Agni’s son, the final member of the genealogy. There is, however, a brief break in the flow of the narrative as Mārkaṇḍeya provides a second missing Agni story. In this account Agni first hides in the sea, and he asks the sage Atharvan to carry the oblation to the gods in his stead. Atharvan does so, but the fish betray Agni’s location to the gods after which Agni curses fish to become food for other creatures. Next Agni abandons his body and enters the earth creating various metals and gems in the process. He is caused to blaze forth out of the earth, however, by the combined austerities of several sages. Finally, Agni hides in the great ocean. The gods and sages turn to Atharvan to find Agni. The sage sees the fire-god and due to this vision he is able to create the worlds and churn the ocean. Agni is then called back by Atharvan to his duties as the oblation carrier for all creatures (3.212.6-19). The need for this second hidden Agni account is not completely apparent, but the double rendering of the narrative emphasizes its role as a Brahminical apology of sorts for Skanda’s birth and forms. The ultimate goal of the opening narrative is suggested by Mārkaṇḍeya in his closing remarks to it: The manifold genealogy of fires has been narrated by me, O faultless one. Now hear about the birth of wise Kārttikeya. I will proclaim the 5   The name Aṅgiras in the singular is also used for Agni in some Vedic contexts. The sage Aṅgiras and the family of seers of the same name are closely associated with the fire-god (Feller 2004: 62). 6   The contradiction being that Aṅgiras was to be the first-born son of Agni.

54

chapter three birth of the one of unbounded energy, the wonderful son of the wonderful one, who was born by the seven wives of the sages and who is Brahminic and an increaser of glory. (3.213.1-2)

The point of the stories of the hidden Agni and the resulting lineage is to try and establish that Agni’s son will be Brahmaṇya (Brahminic). Hence, this frame narrative works to soften the initially fierce ­characterization of Kārttikeya found in adhyāyas 214-217 of the Āraṇyakaparvan. Before discussing other elements of the Āraṇyakaparvan, it may be wise to briefly examine the hidden Agni narratives that occur in the other birth stories of Skanda found in the Mahābhārata. The broader context of Kumāra’s birth in the Śalyaparvan (9.43-45) is Balarāma’s tīrthayātrā, his tour of sacred places. Balarāma is on his way to the Agni-tīrtha, a place made sacred because it was a hiding place for Agni, when he stops at a Skanda-tīrtha where the birth and deeds of Kārttikeya are recounted to him. Following that he proceeds to the Agni-tīrtha where a version of the hidden Agni narrative is recounted (9.46.12-20).7 The connection between the two narratives is less overt in the Śalyaparvan than in the Āraṇyakaparvan, but the two are still located together in the text. The missing Agni theme is much more central to the birth of Skanda in the Anuśāsanaparvan (13.83-86). The context here is the aftermath of the wedding of Śiva and Umā. The two desire a sexual union, but the other gods ask Śiva to hold back his semen and to avoid having children; they fear that the product of Umā’s and Śiva’s union would destroy the worlds. Śiva agrees to this and becomes known as Ūrdhvaretas, ‘he who has drawn up his semen’. This makes Umā furious­, and she curses the gods to go without offspring themselves (13.83.40-50). Agni, though, is missing from the cohort of gods present and not subject to the curse. Some of Śiva’s semen has also already fallen to the earth and landed in Agni where it begins to grow. Brahmā tells the gods that Agni will pass Śiva’s semen onto Gaṅgā, and eventually a child will be born who can kill the demon Tāraka (13.83-84.12). Brahmā instructs the gods to find Agni beginning another hidden Agni narrative. First, Agni hides in waters, but is betrayed by a frog, whom he curses before hiding in an Aśvattha tree. Here, he is betrayed by an elephant; again, Agni curses the elephant   For further discussion of the hidden Agni theme in the Śalyaparvan see Feller (2004: 85-87). 7

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 55 and proceeds to hide in a Śamīgarbha tree. His last hiding place is revealed to the gods by a parrot, the subject of Agni’s final curse. The gods compensate the animals for their curses, and, after cornering the fire-god, they explain their need to Agni. The fire-god agrees to return and goes to Gaṅgā to produce the foetus of Skanda (13.84.22-52; also see Doniger 1973: 285). In the Anuśāsana­parvan Agni’s absence during Umā’s curse is a central element of the plot of the birth of Kārttikeya. As with the two hidden Agni stories from the Āraṇyakaparvan, the point of inserting the hidden Agni storyline into the birth narrative is to construct a Vedic precedence for the birth of Skanda. The Frame Narratives in the Āraṇyakaparvan: The Rescue of Devasenā The second frame narrative in the Āraṇyakaparvan occurs after Mārkaṇḍeya’s description of Agni’s lineage. Mārkaṇḍeya states that in the past the gods and asuras were fighting each other, and the asuras kept defeating the army of the gods. Indra goes to Mount Mānasa to think over where he can get a commander for his forces brave enough to rescue his army (3.213.2-6). While thinking, he hears the cries of a female and finds a demon, Keśin, trying to make off with a woman. Indra fights with him and is able to force Keśin to withdraw (3.213.7-14).8 The king of the gods discovers from the woman that she is a daughter of Prajāpati named Devasenā (3.213.15-16). This goddess’s name is a Sanskrit compound meaning “army of the gods.” She is the female personification of the divine army. In questioning her Indra discovers that she has received the following boon from Prajāpati: I am not strong, but, due to a boon from my father, my husband will be strong-armed and powerful. He will be honoured by the gods and 8   Keśin means “having fine or long hair” (Monier-Williams 1999: 310). The name is used in the Ṛgveda to describe an ascetic (10.136) and is also used to describe Rudra and his attendants. In the Atharvaveda the term is used in a hymn dedicated to Rudra, but it seems to be applied to a separate character: “We go forward (pūrva) to meet him of dark horses, black, swarthy, killing, fearful, making to fall the chariot of the hairy one (keśin); homage be to him” (XI.2.18 translated by Whitney 1962 II: 623). Phyllis Granoff notes AV 8.6.5 where Keśin is described as an asura who attacks foetuses, and he appears to be a child-attacking being in other accounts (Granoff 2002: 102, 105). He is also described as being born in a clump of reeds in AV 8.6.5 reminding one of narratives of Skanda’s birth (Granoff 2002: 102).

56

chapter three demons.... That very heroic and strong one will be considered a conqueror of rākṣasas, snakes, kiṃnaras, yakṣas, dānavas, gods and of the wicked. He will conquer all beings along with you. He will be my husband, who will be Brahminic and an increaser of fame. (3.213.21, 23-24)

This husband will be Skanda. The introduction to the second frame narrative tells us exactly how Kārttikeya will appear by the end of the story. He will be the general of the army of the gods, married to Devasenā and Brahminic (brahmaṇya). There is a sense of divine ordination in this introduction. Any other characterization of the god can be overlooked after these statements because now we know Kumāra’s divine purpose. We are being guided to read this story in a certain direction, and we need to be aware of this process and to question it. As we have seen, when Kārttikeya is first born he is not Brahminic, or immediately the general of the gods married to Deva­ senā. The story continues with Indra realizing that there is no such husband for Devasenā, but then he witnesses a powerful convergence of astrological and ritual power. He sees the moon entering the sun during a terrible hour on the New Moon Day. He also sees the gods and asuras fighting and the clouds and ocean a blood-red colour. Indra then observes Agni carrying the morning oblations into the sun. Finally, he sees the twenty-four moon-phase days gathered about the sun and the moon conjoint with the sun. Indra recognizes that this conjunction of powers is miraculous, and that if the moon or Agni were to have a son the child would make a suitable husband for Devasenā (3.213.25-33). He takes Devasenā to Brahmā and asks that such a husband be created for her. Brahmā answers: “O Destroyer of Dānavas, it will occur in the manner thought by you. Thus, a foetus will be made which will be mighty and of great strength. He will be the commander of the army, along with you, O One of the Hundred Sacrifices, and that heroic one will be the husband of this goddess” (3.213.35-36). Kārttikeya’s role and importance have already been predicted twice before his story actually begins. This introduction to the birth story works to establish that the only role of this god is as the general of the army of the gods. We leave the various layers of introductory material to this narrative with an understanding of what it was about Skanda’s character that made Brahminical redactors nervous, and how they hoped to steer the reader’s understanding of his character in this narrative. The introduction attempts to present Kārttikeya as a deity with strong

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 57 links to Vedic themes and deities. We are also repeatedly told that he is Brah­minic and the asura killing general of the army of the gods. In going to these lengths in the introduction of the story to shape the reader’s perception of the deity, however, the Brahminical redactors signal to us that these characteristics are points of concern for them. Because they have to argue for this characterization of the deity in the introduction, we might well imagine that there are other versions of him that deviate from that given here. We have already seen what the redactors are concerned about in the opening chapters to the birth story itself, but the image of the god in those opening chapters is already softened because this introduction denies the fierce characterizations of Kārttikeya. The Ritual Taming of the Deity, Part One: The Brahminization of the Deity Beyond the story’s introduction, the conversion of Kārttikeya into a Brahminical deity starts at the beginning of chapter 215. As we might recall, at this juncture of the birth narrative Skanda has already been born, destroyed Mount Krauñca, and the Earth along with its mountains have taken refuge with him. The first suggestion of how the text will go about taming this deity comes when we are told that the Vedic sages know of these events and take action: “The seers, who were promoters of the welfare of the world and anxious, having seen the sudden appearance of various very terrifying events boding calamity, performed expiatory rites” (3.215.1). The text continues by describing the confusion of the people concerning the source of Kārttikeya, who is regarded by them as a force of disaster: Those people who lived in that forest, which is called Caitraratha, said: “This great evil has been brought here by Agni, who united with the six wives of the seven seers.” Others, who had seen that goddess [Svāhā] leaving with her [Garuḍī’s] form, said to Garuḍī: “This evil has been brought here by you.” No person knew that the deed had been done by Svāhā. (3.215.2-3)

The result of these rumours has Garuḍī telling Skanda that she is his mother, the seers divorcing their wives except for Arundhatī, and Svāhā protesting that the new deity is her son. The only person who seems to know the truth is the sage Viśvāmitra, who has followed Agni since the oblation of the seven seers and knows the situation. He is the first to seek refuge with the new deity and also performs the saṃskāras

58

chapter three

pertaining to childhood for him. He composes a divine hymn of praise for Skanda, singing of “the majesty of his six faces and the ritual of the cock and the propitiation of the goddess, who is a spear, and also the attendants of the god. Viśvāmitra also did those rites for the welfare of the world. Due to all this the sage Viśvāmitra became beloved to Kumāra” (3.215.10-11). Through this account of Viśvāmitra and the other seers, we are reminded of the power of the Brahmins and sages to bring order to the world. They are depicted as the ‘prosperers of the world’ and capable of dealing with this situation through their knowledge of ritual. We are reminded that there is an order to the universe that Kārttikeya’s coming has disrupted, but the universe can be reordered again through the power of these seers/Brahmins. Worship is both at the centre of appeasing Skanda-Kārttikeya and one of the means of transforming his character. Viśvāmitra’s role in performing rites for Skanda speaks to the Brahminization of Kārttikeya and his rituals. Immediately following this account of Viśvāmitra is that of the gods pleading with Indra to destroy Kārttikeya, something he fails to do. The text subtly suggests that the real religious power in this story lies with the sages and not with the Vedic gods. The Ritual Taming of the Deity, Part Two: The Inauguration of the Senāpati There is a very clear demarcation between chapter 218 of the Āraṇya­ kaparvan and what comes before it. We have seen in earlier chapters a balance between a fierce depiction of the deity and forces that attempt to soften such an image. With this chapter the fierce Kārttikeya is all but gone, and the remainder of the story describes the auspicious Mahāsena. If I were to speculate on the various layers of this story, I would suggest that chapters 206-212, 214-216 represent one unit, chapter 217 a second unit and chapters 213, 218-222 a final unit. I make the above suggestion on the basis of the following. In chapters 206-212, 214-216 Agni is depicted as the father of Skanda, and Vedic precedent seems to be a key concern for this section. It also presents a fairly consistent image of Skanda as a dangerous deity who is associated with a cult of propitiation. Chapter 217 seems to disrupt the flow of the narrative and is a jumbled section. It also deals with material that is raised again in chapter 219. This repetition and the problems with the chapter itself flag it as an addition to the narrative. Chapters

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 59 213, 218-222 not only change the character of Kārttikeya, but also redefine who his father is. Śiva is Kārttikeya’s father in this section. While chapters 206-212, 214-216 look back to Vedic deities, chapters 218-222 look ahead to the classical Hindu pantheon.9 Chapter 218 begins the softening of Skanda’s character with a description of him after his battle with Indra: Śrī, herself, who had the bodily form of a lotus, honoured Skanda, who was seated and who had golden armour and a garland, a golden diadem, shining golden eyes, who was covered in red clothes, sharptoothed, beautiful, possessed all the auspicious marks, heroic and very dear to the three worlds, who was young, a granter of wishes and wore bright earrings. (3.218.1-3)

Based on the actions and description of Kumāra from chapters 214216 one cannot help but wonder who this charming, well-dressed and wealthy figure is, and what has become of the horrific six-headed figure who defeated Indra? Certainly, the text is dramatically changing its depiction of him. Kārttikeya is also attended by Śrī in the above quotation. Śrī is a goddess of wealth and glory in the Mahābhārata, and she also bestows royal power or kingship (Hiltebeitel 1976: 149, 153). In this scene she has chosen the next king, but, as we shall see, Skanda turns down the job. There is, however, a more subtle point being made in the opening of this chapter. Śrī and the description of Skanda place him into a royal and elite context. There was no suggestion of this in chapters 214-216. This royal theme will continue in the latter half of this story. The seers, who are described as “great-spirited Brahmins” (3.218.5), address Kārttikeya and ask him to become Indra. The new deity is not sure what Indra does and asks the seers: “Great ascetics, what does the Indra of the worlds do? Tell me, how does the lord of all the gods always protect the group of the gods” (3.218.8). The seers explain the job, but acknowledge in the end that the position goes to the best warrior (3.218.12). Indra even requests that Skanda takeover his role as 9   Most scholars who attempt to chronologically order the three versions of Kārttikeya’s birth recorded in the Mahābhārata regard the Āraṇyakaparvan as the oldest (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 24; Chatterjee 1970: 8; Sinha 1979: 22). I am inclined to agree that the sections that develop the Graha connections likely represent early accounts of Kārttikeya, but not all of the text strikes me as early. The sections that describe the fatherhood of Śiva may represent a later tradition and the Agni frame narrative also seems late. Hence, not all of the Āraṇyakaparvan can be spoken of as clearly earlier than other accounts of the deity.

60

chapter three

king of the gods. Skanda refuses the role and tells Indra: “I am your servant, O Śakra, my desire is not for Indrahood” (3.218.14). Indra still protests, but Kumāra demands he be assigned a different duty. Finally, Śakra concedes and tells him: “If these words spoken by you are from a conviction and true, and if, O Skanda, you desire to do as I instruct then listen to me. You must be anointed to the generalship of the gods, O one of great strength, from your command I will be Indra, O strong one” (3.218.20-21). Kārttikeya answers: “Consecrate me to the generalship for the purpose of protecting cows and Brahmins, and for the success of the gods and the destruction of Dānavas” (3.218.22). Kārttikeya has become a force of order and devoted to the cause of the gods. The predictions made of him in the frame narratives have come to fruition. Only a few chapters ago he appeared to be just like a Dānava tearing apart the ranks of the gods. Now he has duties under Indra and to Brahmins. The assignment of these obligations is a further attempt at categorizing Skanda within the orthodox system. He is being assigned specific roles in relation to existing hierarchies. Part of Kārttikeya’s promotion to the generalship of the army of the gods is his induction ceremony or abhiṣeka. This abhiṣeka is a much more developed theme in the Śalyaparvan version of his birth and deeds, and I will discuss it in more detail there. For now, I will state that abhiṣeka rites are closely tied to royal legitimacy and authority. It is a ritual largely reserved for deities and royalty, and within a royal or courtly context it is designed to mark someone off as different or special. It initiates someone into an elite circle of leadership and authority. I have raised the topic of a royal or courtly rite here because this abhiṣeka seems to participate in both a definition of a deity and a demarcation of a courtly duty in taking on the leadership of the army. An important element of this rite is that it separates Skanda from his potentially ignoble roots and places him within elite divine and social circles. The effect of the abhiṣeka on his appearance and characterization is dramatic: The son of Pāvakā [Agni] was clothed in a pair of red dustless clothes. His blazing and glorious body shone like the sun covered in two red clouds. The cock, which was given to him by Agni and which adorned his banner and which was raised over his chariot, shone red like the Doomsday fire. His armour entered his body, which was produced at his birth; it always becomes manifest when the god is fighting. Spear, armour, strength, splendour, beauty, truth, invulnerability, Brahminic faith, lack of confusion, protection of worshippers, and the destruction

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 61 of enemies, and the protection of all the worlds were all born with Skanda, O King. (3.218.31-35)

We have seen some of these images before, but the use of certain adjectives in this post-abhiṣeka description creates a different perception of the deity. His clothes are dustless; his shine majestic; the cock transformed into an ornamental standard, part of the pomp of his chariot. Our earlier introduction to Kārttikeya’s cock and spear tended to emphasize the horrific appearance and giant size of the new-born god: Having heard his roar, which had the sound of a mass of clouds, both the great elephants Citra and Airāvata jumped up. Having seen both elephants rushing towards him, he, whose radiance was equal to the newly risen sun, grasped the elephants with two hands, with another hand he held a spear and with another hand the son of Agni held a cock. Having grasped the huge bodied cock, which was brought near and was the best of the mighty, the very strong one bellowed and sported about terribly. (3.214.22-24)

In this earlier description the god’s red glow, giant cock and spear are all parts of his fearful appearance. After the abhiṣeka these elements point to his majesty and are signs of his status and authority. The point seems to be that while the emblems and might of the god have not changed, the manner in which we are to perceive the god and his attributes has changed, or, at least, such may be the hope of the redactors of this text. Regarding Mārkaṇḍeya’s statement that beauty, Brahminic faith, lack of confusion and defense of the worlds were created with Kārttikeya’s birth, we have seen from chapters 214-216 that very little of this statement is accurate, but such is this text’s remodeling of the deity in chapter 218. It may be more accurate to state that these qualities come about through the worship of this deity and his abhiṣeka. Following the abhiṣeka Skanda receives his army. The army worships and praises him and, in return, Kārttikeya gives them comfort (3.218.40-41). It was clear earlier in the text that people or creatures worshipped the deity because they feared him. Once he becomes the Surasenāpati, however, his unpredictability and dangerous nature are lost. He has become an auspicious protector of Brahminic values who exists to destroy demons. We might well question: what do people have to fear from this figure if they are following Brahminic ways or do not represent a threat to the gods? If fear was the basis of his worship, what reason is there to worship him now? His worship now

62

chapter three

comes from the army. As I will demonstrate in later chapters, a similar shift both in the representation of the deity and in his worship base can also be detected in the material record of his cult. The Familial Theme Part One: The Fatherhood of Agni As we have seen, part of this narrative presents the fire-god as the father of Skanda. The promotion of Agni as one of his fathers is made easier by certain connections between the two deities. As I noted in chapter one, P. K. Agrawala argues for a connection between the two deities on the basis of their shared name, Kumāra (1967: 1-11). While I have demonstrated my objections to Agrawala’s hypothesis, I would acknowledge the likelihood that the redactors of the Mahābhārata would have known of the Vedic use of the name Kumāra and presumably took advantage of this shared epithet in an attempt to connect the two deities in the post-Vedic era. Perhaps the strongest potential link between Kārttikeya and Agni that Agrawala discusses occurs in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (6.1.3.8-19). The text reads: Now, those beings are the seasons; and that lord of beings is the year; and that Ushas, the mistress, is the Dawn. And these same creatures, as well as the lord of beings, the year, laid seed into Ushas. There a boy (kumāra) was born in a year: he cried. Prajāpati said to him, ‘My boy, why criest thou, when thou art born out of labour and trouble?’He said, ‘Nay, but I am not freed from (guarded against) evil; I have no name given me: give me a name!’... He said to him, ‘Thou art Rudra.’ And because he gave him that name, Agni became such-like (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. (6.1.3.810 translated by Eggeling 1882-1900 III: 158-159)

This Kumāra keeps demanding names, and Prajāpati gives him seven more: Śarva, Paśupati, Ugra, Aśani, Bhava, Mahādeva and Īśāna (6.1.3.11-.17). The text concludes with: These then are the eight forms of Agni. Kumāra (the boy) is the ninth: that is Agni’s threefold state. And because there are eight forms of Agni—the Gāyatrī consisting of eight syllables—therefore they say, ‘Agni is Gāyatra.’ That boy entered into the forms one after another; for one never sees him as a mere boy (kumāra), but one sees those forms of his, for he assumed those forms one after another. (6.1.3.1819 translated by Eggeling 1882-1900 III: 160-161)

Based on these passages, Agrawala suggests a developing form of Agni called Kumāra who will eventually become Skanda (1967: 6-7). While

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 63 it would be easy to suggest that the Kumāra found in this passage is either a precursor to Skanda, or an actual Vedic manifestation of him, I would suggest that we cannot be sure of the intended meaning of the epithet in these Brāhmaṇa passages. The eight names given to AgniKumāra here are all also epithets of a specific form of Rudra-Śiva called the Aṣṭamūrti, the Eight-forms. The Aṣṭamūrti play significant roles in later Śaiva Purāṇic traditions particularly in creation narratives (see Liṅga Purāṇa 1.70.54-60 and 2.11-12 for examples). The context of the above passages may not be the creation of Kumāra, a precursor of Skanda; rather, it may be an attempt by the redactors of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa to argue that the forms of Rudra-Śiva are ultimately Agni because a form of Agni, the Kumāra form, dwells within them. The idea that Rudra is Agni is repeated in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (1.7.3.1-8, 5.2.4.13, 9.1.1.1), and the above passage seems to be designed to make the same point.10 Kumāra is not likely a separate deity here or a reference to Kārttikeya; it is a form of Agni that dwells in these other forms of Rudra to account for the equation Agni=Rudra. Having stated this much, however, it is not difficult to see how the epic redactors could have taken such a Vedic narrative as the basis of a claim that Skanda is Agni’s son. The fact that Skanda-Kārttikeya is presented as Agni’s son in the Mahābhārata also tells us something about Skanda’s character in the text particularly in the Āraṇyakaparvan and the Anuśāsanaparvan where Agni’s paternity is central to the birth narratives. The Vedic world did not hesitate to identify the father with the son: “the father is the same as the son, and the son is the same as the father” (ŚB 12.4.3.1, quoted in Gonda 1957: 10). The early parts of the Āraṇyakaparvan account of Kumāra expend a great deal of effort to establish that Agni is Skanda’s father; as does it imply that Kārttikeya shares in some of Agni’s essential qualities. Primarily, the text concentrates on Skanda’s shine, his visible fiery energy. A number of scholars have been mislead by the description of Kārttikeya as bright and shining into assuming that he is also a son of, or derived from, the sun (Chatterjee 1970: 22; Sinha 1979: 33; Thakur 1981: 8; Rana 1995: 27, 39).11 Certainly, his shine is often compared to that of the sun: 10   A similar equation between Agni and Rudra is made throughout the Vedic tradition (Feller 2004: 118). 11   There may be a solar or astrological connection for Kārttikeya, but I will argue in chapter six that these connections are supplied through Hellenistic influence and need not be read into these passages.

64

chapter three he shines like the sun rising in a very great red cloud. (3.214.19) ... he is as equal in radiance as the newly risen sun. (3.214.23) That inscrutable being was like the sun rising on a mountain top. (3.214.26) The son of Pāvakā [Agni] was clothed in a pair of dustless red clothes, and his blazing and glorious body shone like the sun covered by two red clouds. (3.218.31) The deities looked at Mahāsena who was anointed as the rising sun having destroyed the darkness there. (3.218.39) He shone on the golden mountain blazing accompanied by Śrī. That mountain, which has a beautiful forest, shone due to that hero like the way Mandara, which has lovely caves, shines due to the rays of the sun. (3.220.21-22) ... Mahāsena appeared blazing from anger like the sun. (3.221.62) ... the son of the Kṛttikās shone like the sun which has scattered sun beams. (3.221.71)

The point of this repeated simile need not, however, be read as establishing Skanda’s relationship with the sun, but as establishing his relationship with Agni. Kumāra looks like the sun because Agni also looks like the sun, and, in a sense, is the sun: “The leading ritualists and philosophers of ancient India were deeply convinced of the fundamental unity of fire (agni), light and the sun, the source of light and life” (Gonda 1991: 216). Agni’s brightness is dwelt upon in the Vedas, where he is also seen as the sun (MacDonell 1963: 90, 93). The point we should take from the likeness of Kārttikeya with the sun is that all three (Agni, the sun and Kumāra) share in the same essential nature. These references to Skanda’s brightness and sun-like splendour are simply reflections of his power and his shared nature with his father, Fire.12 Another link between Agni and Kārttikeya is as demon killers and generals. In some Vedic texts Agni is renowned as a killer of rākṣasas (ṚV 10.162.1; AV 8.2.28; ŚB 2.4.2.15; Gonda 1959: 91; Feller 2004: 110, 119). Kārttikeya will also take on a role as a demon killer. Agni is also occasionally associated with generalship of an army under the epithet Agni Anīkavat (‘having a face’, or ‘being in the front rank’), and his worship is advised for the defeat of one’s enemies (ŚB 2.5.3.2, 12   A similar connection is also made in the Anuśāsanaparvan. The Anuśāsa­ naparvan’s account of Skanda’s birth is also an account of the creation of gold. In the text the two, Skanda and gold, are identical and both are described as the sons of Agni (13.84.68-81; Doniger 1973: 108). This element of the Anuśāsanaparvan will be discussed in more detail in chapter four.

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 65 2.5.4.3). The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa draws a direct connection between Agni Anīkavat and a king’s Senāpati in its description of the Rājasūya rite. Part of this ritual involves the king going to the commander of the army with two fires and eight offering cakes for Agni Anīkavat: “for Agni is the head (anīka) of the gods, and the commander is the head of the army: hence for Agni Anīkavat” (5.3.1.1 translated by Eggeling 1882-1900 III: 58). Agni is also called the senānī of the gods in other Vedic texts (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 9). The versions of Skanda’s birth where Agni is presented as his father may also be attempting to suggest that his eventual role as the Senāpati of the gods is inherited from Agni providing another motivation for making Agni his father (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 9, 27), and a further link to Vedic authority for the young deity. There may also be a connection between the two that relates to Skanda’s Graha persona, though this particular aspect of Agni is not alluded to in the Mahābhārata. In some Vedic texts Agni is connected to fevers and illness as a fire within the sick. Agni Kravyād (‘consuming the flesh’) brought a deadly fire, or fever, to the ill (Geib 1976: 208209; Feller 2004: 119, n.117). There are, then, considerable con­nec­tions between the two deities that allow for a natural correspondence between them. The key issue in constructing a familial relationship between Agni and Kārttikeya for the redactors of the Mahābhārata is to help elevate Skanda’s status within the text. Similar to the way the hidden Agni theme links Skanda’s birth to Vedic precedent, the paternity of Agni imparts to Kumāra a level of Brahminical orthodoxy. The fire-god is viewed as auspicious, and his products or children are also auspicious. Hence, Agni provides a useful link for Kārttikeya to orthodox Vedic and Brahminical religion as well as explaining his terrestrial birth and multiple forms. The Familial Theme Part Two: Skanda’s Mothers and Wife Once Skanda is made the divine general, Indra remembers Devasenā and introduces her to him with the following: “‘O best of the Gods, this maiden was declared by the Self-existent One to be your wife, while you were unborn’” (3.218.44). The two are married; the story has almost come full-circle. The marriage to Devasenā is a reminder that this was part of the point of Kārttikeya’s birth, he is to marry the

66

chapter three

divine army and defeat demons. The horrific character that sprang from Mount Śveta can now be forgotten because the ‘true’ Mahāsena has appeared. We may also recall that the world of the married sages was earlier in the story presented as a component of an orderly Brahminical society. Kārttikeya is now a domesticated, Brahminical being who lives up to the duties of a son, husband and general. Chapter 218 ends with some interesting comments concerning Devasenā: “The wise know that Devasenā is the chief wife of Skanda, her whom the Brahmins call Ṣaṣṭhī, Lakṣmī, Āśā, Sukhapradā, Sinīvalī, Kuhū, Sadvṛtti and Aparājitā” (3.218.47). Six of these eight goddesses are separate goddesses in other texts.13 This passage amalgamates a number of similar goddesses; a typical strategy in the Mahābhārata in relation to Skanda’s cult. A similar fate awaits Skanda, Viśākha, Sākha and Naigameṣa in the Śalyaparvan.14 Much like the goddesses above in relation to Devasenā, these beings will eventually all become forms of Kārttikeya without separate identities. We can see in these attempts to amalgamate these deities the approach Brahminical writers took to non-Brahminical, or dangerous deities: similar gods and goddesses are fused together and placed into familial relationships with established deities, or presented as forms of more important deities. Small cults and local cults are rolled into a small number of larger cults primarily on the basis of family ties. The theme of family ties continues in the narrative with Skanda adopting various mothers. As I have noted, chapter 219 demonstrates some knowledge of Kārttikeya’s association with Grahas, but it also ties up some loose ends created by the deity’s birth largely in relation to his growing list of mothers. The six wives of the seers, who are described as “six Goddesses” (3.219.1), approach Kārttikeya. They explain that they were divorced through no fault of their own. They want him to affirm that he was not born from them, but also to acknowledge himself as their son (3.219.1-5). Kārttikeya agrees to 13   Ṣaṣṭhī is a goddess in medical literature who is usually connected with Skanda. She will be discussed in chapter five. Lakṣmī is a well known goddess of prosperity and Viṣṇu’s consort. Āśā is ‘Hope’, the personified wife of Vasu in the Harivaṃśa. Sinīvalī is a goddess of fertility and easy birth in the Ṛgveda (2.32.7). In the Atharvaveda she is worshipped for offspring and described as the wife of Viṣṇu (AV 7.46). In later Vedic texts she is also the presiding deity of the first day of the new moon (Monier-Williams 1999: 1217). Kuhū is also a goddess in the Atharvaveda (7.47) and was likely a goddess of the new moon (Monier-Williams 1999: 299). Aparājitā is also a name of Durgā (Monier-Williams 1999: 51). 14   This Śalyaparvan narrative will be discussed in chapter four.

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 67 this, and these six goddesses become the Kṛttikās, an asterism (3.219.711). Hence, one of Skanda’s most common names: Kārttikeya, the son of the Kṛttikās. The addition of the Kṛttikās to the list of Skanda’s mothers is somewhat awkward here with their simultaneous denial of, and demands for, maternal recognition. There are, however, a number of connections between this asterism and Skanda that help to explain their connection in this text. They are both associated with the number six, and in later accounts the appearance of Kārttikeya’s six-heads is explained by his desire to suckle from the six Kṛttikās simultaneously.15 The Kṛttikās also reside over the month of Kārttika, a month traditionally viewed as an auspicious time to begin military campaigns. It does not seem a coincidence that the god of war should be tied to this month through one group of his mothers. The wives of the seers also represent a group whose reputation was tarnished when the violent Skanda first appeared in chapters 214-216. While the text repeatedly argues for their innocence (3.215.5, 3.215.12; also see Doniger 1973: 90-103), they are divorced by their husbands. Kārttikeya’s reformed character after the abhiṣeka makes him a suitable vehicle for the rehabilitation of these goddesses. A similar elevation of status and return to propriety may also be applied to the case of Svāhā and her claim of maternity (3.220.1). Chapter 220 opens with Svāhā informing Skanda that he is “the child of my womb” (3.220.1). As his mother, she asks him for a substantial gift. She tells him that she loves Agni and wants to dwell with him forever. Kumāra fulfils her wish by telling her that priests will always say svāhā when offering an oblation into the fire, and in that way she will always dwell with Agni (3.220.1-6). Skanda’s entrance into familial roles does calm him and draws him closer to Brahminical expectations of propriety, but a similar effect can be detected in the mothers he attracts to himself. Perhaps this reciprocal relationship between mothers and son is most clearly demonstrated in the case of the Graha-like Mātṛs. As we have seen in the previous chapter, there are several bands of Graha-Mātṛs who adopt Skanda as their son. This adoption does, however, have a remarkable impact on the Mātṛs’ characterization in the text. As we might recall, initially Indra sends a band of Mothers to kill the infant deity. When they realize that they cannot kill him they ask him to become their   See, for instance, the translation of the vulgate Mahābhārata (Roy 1963 VII: 131). 15

68

chapter three

son. This shift from Graha-Mātṛs to maternal Mātṛs results in the following description: They [the Mātṛs] said: “You are our son. The world is held by us. Welcome all of us, we are yielding milk, overcome with love.” Mahāsena, the strong of the strong, having honoured them and having granted their desires, saw his father Agni approaching. He [Agni] was honoured by him [Skanda] along with the band of Mothers and remained around the steady Mahāsena protecting him. That one woman of all of the Mothers who arose from Wrath, she, who holds an iron spike, and who is a midwife, protected Skanda as a mother would guard her son. The cruel daughter of the Blood Ocean, who feeds on blood, having embraced Mahāsena, protected him like a son. Agni having become Naigameya, the goat-faced one with many children, delighted the boy on the mountain as with toys. (3.215.18-23)

Once the Mātṛs become maternal mothers they are presented through a juxtaposition of blood-thirsty and maternal imagery. These Mātṛs shift between dangerous and protective depending on the context of the narrative; once placed in a maternal role the Mātṛs start to act like ‘mothers’. Agni is also swayed in the passage to take on the role of a protective and playful father. There is also a shift in Kārttikeya. He has just destroyed the mountains and in the next chapter (3.216) he will defeat Indra; as I have already suggested, he is depicted as having little respect for hierarchy and order before chapter 218. In the above quotation, however, Skanda honours the Mātṛs and fulfills their desires. When he is approached by Agni, he also begins by honouring him. Within a familial context Skanda appears to both recognize and respond to hierarchies in an appropriate manner that acknowledges his junior status. Certainly, there are cultural assumptions related to how parents and children interact with each other in historical South Asia that influence this narrative. The redactors of this text appear to have taken advantage of such assumptions as a central means of softening not only Kumāra’s characterization, but also that of the Mātṛs and other beings associated with him. The Familial Theme Part Three: The Fatherhood of Śiva The fatherhood of Śiva in the Āraṇyakaparvan is first established in the pivotal chapter 218. Just after the performance of the abhiṣeka the gods give Kārttikeya various gifts. When it is Śiva’s turn to give a gift we are told the following:

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 69 The Brahmins declare that Rudra is Agni; hence, he is the son of Rudra. Mount Śveta was produced from the poured out semen of Rudra, and it was on Mount Śveta that the semen of Agni was cultivated by the Kṛttikās.16 All the deities, having seen the honouring [of Skanda] by Rudra, called Guha, who is the best of the excellent, the son of Rudra; this boy was born by Rudra entering into Agni. Therefore, Skanda was born the son of Rudra. Hence, Skanda, who is the best of the gods, was born the son of Rudra by the splendour of Rudra, Agni, Svāhā and the six women. (3.218.27-30)

While the transference of paternity from Agni to Śiva in this account is somewhat awkward, we have seen that the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa equates Rudra with Agni, so the claims here are not without a Vedic basis. Śiva does become the recognized father of Skanda in most of the post-epic accounts of his birth. As with the case of Agni, we can expect that Skanda will embody some of the characteristics of his other father, Rudra (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 9-10). I will briefly outline Rudra’s character to illustrate how father and son are linked.17 In the Ṛgveda Rudra possesses numerous malevolent characteristics as well as benevolent characteristics. In the earliest Veda Rudra is a cause of healing and a dispenser of medicines (ṚV 2.33.2, 4, 7, 12; 1.114.5). While Rudra is often called upon to heal, in other verses from the same hymns he is described as a cause of death (ṚV 2.33.11,14-15; 1.114.7-8). The hymns also make it clear that while all people are subject to Rudra’s wrath, the young are frequently singled out as targets of this deity (ṚV 2.33.14; 1.114.8). Due to the malevolent and unpredictable nature of Rudra he is worshiped out of fear (ṚV 2.33.4-5, 8; 1.114.3). He seems to show great kindness to those who are devoted to him and great malevolence to those who are not. The Atharvaveda and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa relate similar points about Rudra.18 16   While it is a common feature in other accounts of the birth of Skanda that he is initially nursed by the Kṛttikās, that element is absent from the earlier sections of the Āraṇyakaparvan; this passage may be a later addition to the episode. 17   A more detailed discussion of Rudra-Śiva may be found in Arbman (1922) and Doniger O’Flaherty (1973, 1975: 116-174). 18   Not many hymns are solely devoted to Rudra in the Atharvaveda, but those that are note his ability to cause disease. In that text (6.90.1-3) Rudra’s arrows represent the diseases he inflicts upon people, and, as with the Ṛgveda examples, Rudra is praised and worshiped due to fear. There are also elements within the Atharvaveda (7.42.1-2) that suggest Rudra attacks with disease due to the moral failings of his victims. Rudra’s characterization in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa shares much with what I have discussed above. He is described as causing harm to cattle and to households

70

chapter three

A great deal of Rudra’s character reemerges in the cult of Kārttikeya, particularly as he is described in the opening chapters of his birth story in the Āraṇyakaparvan. Rudra’s ambivalent nature, his role as a healer and a cause of illness, and the idea that he is worshiped out of fear all resurface in the character and cult of Kārttikeya and the Grahas. As I suggested earlier, the Vedic tradition understood sons to be manifestations of their fathers’ characteristics, and Kumāra before his abhiṣeka can be viewed as a manifestation of Rudra’s character. What is also apparent is that both Śiva’s and Kārttikeya’s cults are moving in similar directions. Both of their characters are being softened; Śiva, the auspicious one, is a more complex character in epic and Purāṇic sources than the Vedic Rudra. As we have also seen, Skanda moves away from his Graha persona in this account. While there are reasons to associate the two deities as Rudra and SkandaGraha, we must also look to other reasons as to why the text so forcefully establishes Śiva as the primary father of Skanda once the young god has been distanced from his more terrible persona. I have already suggested that Kārttikeya’s cult expands by absorbing similar cult figures either by establishing a familial relationship with them or by describing the other deity as a form of Kārttikeya. Śaivism expands in a similar manner with Śiva gaining forms, wives and sons. Key to the Āraṇyakaparvan account of Skanda from chapter 218 and on is that the young god is being absorbed into Śiva’s larger tradition and not the other way around. There is another stage in Rudra-Śiva’s absorption of Kumāra’s cult in this story. In relation to Grahas that afflict people over the age of 16 the Āraṇyakaparvan states the following: “... no Grahas touch those who are devoted to god Maheśvara” (3.219.58). This quotation suggests that all of the worship and propitiation towards Skanda and the Grahas can be avoided if one simply worships Śiva. In this very brief statement we see something of the end of Kārttikeya’s ritual cult as it (1.7.3.21, 1.7.4.12), and his attacks seem to affect everyone, even the unborn (2.6.2.2). One group of libations called the Tryambaka are offered to Rudra for the protection of one’s children (Arbman 1922: 48-63). The text tells us that in giving the offering the ritualist “delivers from Rudra’s power both the descendants that are born unto him and those that are unborn; and his offspring is brought forth without disease and blemish” (2.6.2.2 translated by Eggeling 1882-1900 I: 438). Rudra is worshiped out of fear in this text. While worshiped to prevent his anger, the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa also acknowledges that Rudra is associated with healing and medicine. The Tryambaka rite is, in part, designed to remove Rudra’s darts and create medicine.

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 71 relates to Grahas and propitiation at least in epic and Purāṇic sources. He has been softened, which removes him from the initial point of worshiping him in the first place, and now devotees are told that worship of his more powerful father is more efficacious. Once acknowledged as the son of Śiva and placed in a subservient role to that deity, the point of worshiping Skanda at all is diminished. We might well argue that the reason Śiva and Skanda are associated in this text is to advance the worship of Śiva at Kārttikeya’s expense. These points become apparent when Skanda is told by Brahmā and Prajāpati: “‘Go to Mahādeva, the Destroyer of Tripura, your father. You, the unconquered one, have been born for the sake of the welfare of all the worlds by Rudra entering Agni and by Umā taking possession of Svāhā’” (3.220.8-9). He is also told by them: “‘Your horrible and flesh-eating retinue, they are understood by the wise to be Gaṇas, who have various forms’” (3.220.12). Not only is the text claiming that Kārttikeya is the son of Śiva, but that the Grahas are really part of Śiva’s ghoulish cohort, the Gaṇas. The propitiatory base of Skanda’s tradition is steadily being removed as his cult is absorbed into Śaivism. The text continues to disassociate Skanda from his Graha cult by advising those who want to be cured from a disease or who want wealth to worship the five Gaṇas. Those who are concerned for the well-being of the young should worship Miñjika and Miñjikā, “who were born from Rudra” (3.220.15). Those who want sons should worship “the man-eating women called Vṛddhikās by name, who are born from trees” (3.220.16). In short, one need not worship Dhūrta for protection and wealth, or Skandagraha for the health of the young because those roles are fulfilled by other members of Śiva’s entourage. The only meaningful role left for Kārttikeya is as the Senāpati, and in this text that role is not one based in a ritual cult except within the army itself. Kumāra’s secondary status in relation to Śiva is also found on the battlefield. Chapter 221 primarily concerns a battle between the army of the gods and the Dānavas. It begins with a lengthy description of Śiva in all his majesty leading the gods back to heaven. It reads as a glorification of Śiva, and the description of him reminds us who controls the gods and where Kārttikeya sits in relation to him: There that god [Śiva], who was accompanied by them, went along pleasantly in the front and in the back because his path is not fixed. Mortals worship the divine Rudra with virtuous rites. The one they call Lord Rudra, who carries a bow, he is Śiva. They honour Maheśvara

72

chapter three with various objects. Thus the husband of Devasenā, who was surrounded by the armies of the gods, the brahminic son of the Kṛttikās, followed the lord of the gods. (3.221.23-25)

The glory and worship of Śiva are made clear in the above as is Skanda’s role under him as the general of the army of the gods. Even as the general of the army of the gods, however, his role is diminished by Śiva: Then Mahādeva said these great words to Mahāsena: “Always alertly protect the seventh division of the Maruts.” Skanda said: “I will, O Rudra, watch the seventh division of the Maruts. Tell me quickly, O god, what else am I to do?” Rudra said: “Son, I am always to be looked to in your duties. You will obtain the supreme good by devotion to me and by looking to me.” (3.221.26-28)

This quotation gives us the sense that the better general is Śiva, and, again, Kārttikeya’s role as subservient to his father in all matters is emphasized. There may also be some significance in the procession to heaven in that it leads Skanda away from the terrestrial realm. The ritual described in the Skandayāga is concerned with human and earthly matters. The Āyurveda and Gṛhyasūtra texts also had a household and earthly context to them. One gets the impression from these texts that Kumāra is engaged in the world as a deity who requires propitiation. The same may be said for the image of the deity presented in the first few chapters of his story in the Āraṇyakaparvan. He is given an earthly birth, and the first elements of his ritual cult concern his actions on the earth. The parentage of Agni made sense in such a context because he is also closely associated with the terrestrial realm. Once made the general of the gods and the son of Maheśvara-Śiva, however, he is drawn away from earthly concerns. The march to heaven is a sign of his new status and realm of action. These shifts in both realm of action and persona do, though, raise the question of what becomes of his cult that seemed based on his terrestrial and dangerous nature— a point with which much of the rest of this book will deal. The eventual battle between Skanda and various demons occurs as the gods travel to heaven. The gods do poorly in the battle and are routed by a particularly powerful demon named Mahiṣa. Kārttikeya is able, however, to kill this demon and defeat the rest of the demonic army. Perhaps the most interesting element of this battle is the appearance and defeat of Mahiṣa. One of the most prominent narratives in

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 73 Hinduism and an important subject for artists is the defeat of this demon by Durgā, but here the role is given to Kārttikeya. The role is quite literally ‘given’ to Skanda because the text makes it clear that Śiva could have done the job himself. According to the story, the gods are losing to Mahiṣa and the demon attacks Śiva’s chariot. Then, we are told: “But, the Lord did not lie in wait for Mahiṣa in battle, and he remembered that Skanda was to be the death of this wicked one” (3.221.60). At the end of the battle Skanda is praised by Śiva, part of which reads: “You are unconquerable in battle by your enemies like the husband of Umā. This, your first deed, O god, will be celebrated. Your renown will be imperishable in the three worlds...” (3.221.7576). This series of quotations suggests two main points. First, Skanda’s military prowess is either mediated or secondary to that of Śiva’s; the son’s power never supersedes the father’s. Second, Kārttikeya’s “renown” is as the general of the army of the gods. The end goal of this story is to make him famed for his martial character and as the son of Śiva. The Distancing of Skanda-Deva from Skandagraha in the Suśrutasaṃhitā Before progressing on to the other epic accounts of Skanda’s birth, we must briefly return to the Suśrutasaṃhitā to examine how it deals with the distancing of Skanda from the Graha tradition. The Suśrutasaṃhitā and other Āyurvedic texts are influenced by broader developments in the Brahminical tradition and did not ignore the shifts in the depictions of Kārttikeya. While we can reasonably suggest that the Āyurvedic writers knew of the Mahābhārata (Filliozat 1937: 77; F. Smith 2006: 273), they appear to be far more reluctant to elide Skandagraha from their accounts of Grahas. The authors of the Suśrutasaṃhitā present an interesting solution to the problem of how to integrate the epic and Āyurvedic versions of Skanda by arguing for the existence of two different Skandas in their text: one a Graha and the other a deity. For the most part, the Suśrutasaṃhitā does not acknowledge the existence of two figures both called Skanda. It is only in chapter 37 of the Uttaratantra that some suggestion of a difference is first made: The Nine who are those graspers of children are proclaimed beginning with Skanda. The glorious ones of divine form are divided into male

74

chapter three and female. They were created by Śūlin [Śiva], Agni, Umā, and the Kṛttikās for the protection of Guha, who, while abiding in the thicket of reeds, was protected by his own energy. (37.2-4)

This passage demonstrates an understanding of most accounts of Kārttikeya’s multiple parentage and his eventual birth in a thicket of reeds. The passage also indicates that the Navagraha, of which Skandagraha is the first, where made by Guha’s parents to protect the young god. Such logic suggests that the son of Śiva and the other deities is different than the Skanda of the nine child graspers. This chapter of the text advances such an understanding with the following statement: Skanda was created by the glorious god, the destroyer of the triple cities [Śiva]. That grasper (graha), bears another name, “Kumāra.” The one who engages in child’s play, that god (deva) was born from Rudra and Agni. The glorious one cannot himself be occupied in improper conduct. Regarding this matter, because of Kumāra’s similarity to Skanda, physicians who have little knowledge, who have no learning whatsoever, declare: “He grasps.” (37.8-10)

This quotation, albeit somewhat awkwardly, makes a distinction between a Graha created by Śiva who has two names, Skanda and Kumāra, and a god born from Śiva and Agni who is called Kumāra. The son of Śiva and Agni cannot perform negative acts and engages in the play of a child according to this section of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. The similarity between the two figures has led some ill-informed doctors to claim that the god Kumāra is a Graha; a claim this passage appears to caution against. As far as I am aware, the Suśrutasaṃhitā is unique in presenting this account of two Skandas. It is also localized in the text to these passages from chapter 37 of the Uttaratantra of the text (Filliozat 1937: 44-45). It is not, then, the main thrust of the text nor are there other suggestions in the text that correlate with it. I suspect it was added to the text to accommodate for the rise of Skanda-Mahāsena in other textual traditions, but I must acknowledge that this is an educated guess on my part. The Suśrutasaṃhitā continues by explaining that once the god Skanda was made the Surasenāpati the Nine Grahas approach him and ask for a livelihood. Skanda turns to Śiva to decide the issue. The father of the young god instructs the Grahas to attack the children of those who do not worship the gods and ancestors properly, and they will live from pūjā offerings made to them (Uttara. 37.11-20). The

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 75 chapter closes with an affirmation of the subservient place of Kārttikeya relative to Śiva and a further distancing of the young god from the Grahas. As such, it seems to follow here the agenda of the Āraṇyakaparvan and the transformations Kārttikeya undergoes in that text. The Socio-Political Context of the Āraṇyakaparvan I would like to comment on the potential socio-political context of the Āraṇyakaparvan narrative before discussing the other accounts of the deity in the epics. I have relied on an assumption that is held by most epic scholars that the authors and redactors of the Mahābhārata are Brahmins. A second assumption made by most scholars is that these Brahmins must have received some support from royal or wealthy patrons. The size of the text suggests that its redactors were not engaged in other professions and likely received financial support from kings or members of a royal court so that they could devote themselves to this task. In Vedic texts priests are a major recipient of kingly gifts, and the idea of royal patronage seems well established before the epic period begins. There are a number of theories regarding the identity of the sponsoring kings, and just when the final version of the Mahābhārata was produced. Various dynasties have been suggested from the Mauryans and Śūṅgas to the Guptas, but there is little academic consensus on this point. 19 I do not hope to promote one of these suggestions over 19   N. Sutton argues for a final redaction of the Mahābhārata during Mauryan rule, and that the figure of Yudhiṣṭhira could have been modelled after Aśoka or Candragupta (1997: 334-339). Most scholars, however, reject this possibility because of the Mauryans apparent support of what the Brahminical tradition would view as heresies. Hence, most scholars think it is unlikely that an emperor like Aśoka would have sponsored a text that was critical of his support of heterodox traditions (Hiltebeitel 2001: 17). Hiltebeitel points to E. Hopkins as originating the idea that the Śūṅgas supported the final redaction (2001: 16). Hopkins argued that the text may have been redacted during the second century ce, and he notes that these rulers were Brahminical and anti-Buddhist; they would have sponsored the epics to defend their religion (1978: 398-400). Alf Hiltebeitel notes, however, that Puṣyamitra was a Brahmin king, and that the Mahābhārata is very critical of Brahmin kings, hence: “it should be difficult to maintain that Brahman kings would patronize epics that disqualified them from ruling” (2001: 16-17). Hiltebeitel suggests that the epic could have been produced during the Śūṅga period, but not in the Śūṅga court itself. He suggests composition dates of 200 bce to the year zero (2001: 18), and proposes “that the Mahābhārata was written by ‘out of sorts’ Brahmans who may have had some

76

chapter three

the others. What I hope to emphasize is that royal patronage of the production of the Mahābhārata is a widely accepted notion that emphasizes a backdrop of imperial formations along with a defense of orthodox Brahminical religion (Hiltebeitel 2001: 17). It is the idea of imperial formations that I will focus on here. The essential plot of the Mahābhārata is a royal drama, and it is not surprising that a sponsoring ruler would take an interest in such a text. While there is no doubt that not all of the Mahābhārata relates to royal concerns, the Āraṇyakaparvan version of Skanda’s birth and deeds does reflect on royal or courtly themes that are worthy of note. It may reflect actual socio-political concerns regarding this narrative and the developing cult of Kārttikeya. Tied to this reflection of royal and state concerns is how the text goes about legitimating Kārttikeya as a Brahminical deity through ­lineage and ritual. The first means of legitimating Skanda, as we have seen, is through lineage; he is the son of Agni, Śiva and a host of ­goddesses. This type of legitimation through lineage is described by Romila Thapar as related to pre-state forms of government (2000: 8, 11). Ritual as a form of legitimation is still important in such a society, but genealogical connections, be they real or not, are the focus of such societies seeking to legitimate their elite members. Hence, this form of legitimation is not likely reflective of state concerns. The second form of legitimation employed by this text is primarily through ritual. I have suggested that the abhiṣeka of Skanda is a ritual of legitimacy connected to royalty. Thapar regards this type of legitimation to be reflective of a state (2000: 172). In such a state, she argues, there is a focus on the obedience of officials in running the state, the state controls succession to high office, justifies social divisions and supports religious systems where of use (2000: 12-13). Lineage connections in such a state are still important, but often fabricated, particularly in court members who have no obvious link to the ruling clan. An abhiṣeka initiating a new Senāpati is an example of the kind minor king’s or merchant’s patronage, but, probably for personal reasons, show a deep appreciation of, and indeed exalt, Brahmans who practice the ‘way of gleaning’: that is, uñchavṛtti Brahmans...” (2001: 19). T. Oberlies (1998: 128) and J. Fitzgerald have suggested Gupta dates. Fitzgerald argues for a Gupta era redaction because an undertaking of this size and the promotion of it would have taken the support of a major dynasty (1991: 154; Hiltebeitel 2001: 25-26). Hiltebeitel does not regard the evidence for a Gupta date as very strong, and does not feel we need the Guptas to explain the diversity and complexity of the text (2001: 26).

the narrative conversion of the warrior and graha 77 of religious rite Thapar may have in mind. Certainly, a king with a standing army that has a permanent Senāpati is reflective of a state with a centralized political machinery. This centralized machinery is basically the depiction of the socio-political circumstances in these epic stories once Kārttikeya is made a general and domesticated. Kārttikeya’s eventual characterization as an auspicious general who maintains order, respects hierarchy and is powerful but subservient to Indra and Śiva is an appropriate model image of what a king might hope for in his administrators. The violent and dangerous image of Skanda who defeats Indra, the king, and has no respect for order is not an image with which a real king would find a great deal of comfort. The transformation of Skanda from inauspicious to auspicious and from rogue to general maybe reflective of some Brahminical concerns about him, but it may also reflect the concerns of sponsoring kings. The character of the deity is developed to be a support for his king and to bring order and prosperity to the realm for the greater glory of his elders. Clearly, I do not think that the final depiction of Kārttikeya as an idealized general is brought about without motivations or agendas. One such motivation may have been a desire by real kings to have a divine general portrayed who met their own standards of an ideal general. I will acknowledge that much of this is speculation, but as we shall see, kings and emperors in India did play significant roles in the development of Kārttikeya’s cult. I would like to raise here the possibility that Kumāra’s narrative in the Āraṇyakaparvan is influenced by such sources.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE BIRTH OF SKANDA-KĀRTTIKEYA IN THE ŚALYAPARVAN, ANUŚĀSANAPARVAN AND RĀMĀYAṆA The Śalyaparvan Account of Skanda-Kārttikeya’s Birth and Deeds The Śalyaparvan account of the birth of Skanda is almost entirely focused on depicting him as the Surasenāpati whose duty is to destroy demons. One of this version’s important elements is how it deals with the multiple parentage of Kārttikeya. The text is inclined to elevate Śiva above the other parents of Skanda, but it does not make him the primary parent of him. This version of the birth narrative also presents Skanda as an ascetic or yogin. Finally, the text suggests a shift in the rituals associated with Kārttikeya from those concerned with propitiation to those concerned with initiation and legitimacy. The Parentage of Skanda in the Śalyaparvan As in most early accounts of Skanda-Kārttikeya, his parentage is a central issue in this story. Vaiśaṃpāyana, who narrates this account to Janamejaya, states that the semen or energy (tejas) of Maheśvara falls (skanna) into Agni (9.43.6).1 Agni is not able to handle the energy of this tejas and passes it to Gaṅgā. She is also not able to sustain the energy of Śiva’s tejas and drops it on the Himalayas (9.43.7-9). The text begins, then, by acknowledging several parents for Kārttikeya, but by also demonstrating the power of Śiva through the potency of his tejas. Once cast onto the mountain, Vaiśaṃpāyana states, “the son of fire” (jvalanātmaja) begins to grow (9.43.10). The six Kṛttikās come 1   Tejas may be translated in a number of ways. It is a type of energy that makes things glow and is often associated with the divine and glorious humans. It can also mean semen, but still carries the sense of a fiery energy when used to refer to semen. Skanna is often used to provide a folk etymology for Skanda, which can also mean “spurting, effusing, spilling, shedding” (Monier-Williams 1999: 1256). As we shall see, in these versions the claim is made that the deity is called Skanda because he results from the skanna of Śiva’s tejas.

80

chapter four

across the child, and each claims him as her own by calling out: “This one is mine” (9.43.11). To satisfy them Kārttikeya suckles from each of them with his six heads.2 Shortly after this scene Vaiśaṃpāyana reports that Skanda-Kārttikeya is also known as “Kārttikeya,” which suggests he is the son of the Kṛttikās and “Gāṅgeya,” which suggests he is the son of Gaṅgā (9.43.16). The story presents us with Śiva, Agni, Gaṅgā and the Kṛttikās as possible parents for Skanda, and while the text suggests that Śiva is the most powerful of them, it does not decide on one of these as his dominant parent. Later in the text Vaiśaṃpāyana narrates that Kārttikeya approaches Śiva, Umā, Agni and Gaṅgā. Each of these deities hopes that Skanda will greet them first, and, in so doing, acknowledge one of them as his ‘true’ parent. To deal with this problem Skanda creates three additional forms (mūrti) and greets the four ‘parents’ simultaneously (9.43.33-38).3 Hence, the text avoids singling out one of these parents as Kārttikeya’s ‘real’ parent. The Kṛttikās have been dropped from the list, but we have already seen that the text accepts them as mothers of Skanda-Kārttikeya (9.43.12). Umā has been added, but she is the consort of Śiva, and the text seems to assume that if he is Skanda’s father, then she must also be his mother.4 Chapter 45 of this text ends with speculation concerning the parentage of this deity: “Some say that Skanda is the son of Maheśvara, others claim he is the son of Agni, or   Some scholars claim that Kārttikeya creates his six heads in order to suckle from the six Kṛttikās at once. This is the sense of one manuscript version of this story from the Śalyaparvan that is translated as follows: “Understanding the state of mind of those six mothers, the adorable lord Skanda sucked the breasts of all having assumed six mouths” (Roy 1963 VII: 131). The Sanskrit of the critical edition does not, however, suggest that Kārttikeya gains his six heads here, but already has them at birth: “tāsāṃ viditvā bhāvaṃ taṃ mātṛṇāṃ bhagavān prabhuḥ prasnutānāṃ payaḥ ṣaḍbhir vadanair apibattadā” or “Then, the glorious Lord, having understood the affection of those mothers, drank the milk of their milk yielding breasts with [his] six mouths” (9.43.12). The Sanskrit makes it clear that the Kṛttikās are regarded as his mothers, and that he suckles from them with his six heads, but the passage does not indicate that his six heads are created at this moment. 3   The other forms he creates are Viśākha, Śākha and Naigameṣa (9.43.37). 4   Wendy Doniger regards the parentage of Pārvatī as the hardest for these stories to establish because in many of the later versions of the story, and in the Anuśāsanaparvan, Śiva gives a boon to the gods that he will not have a child with her. She states that the parentage of Śiva and Pārvatī leads to more complex rationalizations as they replace the seven wives of the seers (1973: 103-105). We have seen some of this rationalization already in the Āraṇyakaparvan concerning the parentage of Śiva, but the Mahābhārata seems ready to accept Pārvatī’s parentage without explanation. It is only in Purāṇic accounts that her parentage seems to become an issue. 2

the birth of skanda-kārttikeya in other epic sources

81

of Umā, or of the Kṛttikās, or of Gaṅgā” (9.45.86). While Śiva appears to be singled out as the progenitor of Kārttikeya at the start of this narrative, as the story progresses he is reduced to one of four or five parents. We have yet to reach a stage in the narratives of Kārttikeya where the point of his birth is to demonstrate the power of Śiva, but we are likely moving in that direction with this account of his birth, and that provided in the latter sections of the Āraṇyakaparvan.5 The Auspicious Skanda in the Śalyaparvan: The Military Ascetic The fierce attributes of Skanda are largely ignored by this version of his birth; he is presented as a military deity born to kill the asura named Tāraka. This context for Kārttikeya is introduced well before the story of his birth begins. The larger context of this narrative is Vaiśaṃpāyana describing various tīrthas to Janamejaya. At the end of chapter 42 Vaiśaṃpāyana describes a tīrtha on the Sarasvatī where Skanda dwells permanently in a bodily form. He explains that at this location a great battle took place between the gods and demons at which Kārttikeya killed Tāraka. It is also the site where the young god was consecrated as the Senāpati (9.42.40-41).6 The story of Kumāra’s birth is introduced through this frame that emphasizes his role as Mahāsena. The power of the tīrtha and its association with Kārttikeya are based on his military exploits. Janamejaya’s question, which follows up on Vaiśaṃpāyana’s statements, echoes similar themes: Janamejaya said: “O first among the twice born, that excellence of Sarasvatī has been described by you. Now, O Brahman, please explain the anointment of Kumāra. O most excellent of speakers, tell how, where, when and by whom the blessed lord was installed and by what

  There has been debate over who was the original father of Skanda, Agni or Śiva (see P. K. Agrawala 1967: 1-11; Bedekar 1975: 168; Mukhopadhyay 1931: 316). I am inclined to side with Danielle Fuller who states: “... the new god absorbs all the powers of the elements or gods whose son he is. Viewed from this perspective, it is perhaps futile to argue which god, Śiva or Agni, is the original father of Skanda. The multiple origins of this god are probably from the start ingrained in the myth of his birth...” (2004: 118-119). 6   The full passage reads: “Near which there was the great battle, called the Tāraka battle, between the gods and the demons in which Skanda killed Tāraka, and where the destroyer of the Daityas was consecrated. Where Kārttikeya, the young one, dwells by the Fig Tree.” 5

82

chapter four ritual, and, O great one, how Skanda carried out the destruction of the Daityas. My curiosity is great, tell it all to me.” (9.43.1-3)

The introduction of this story makes it clear that Skanda becomes a general through an abhiṣeka, and he destroys demons. There is no mention of a wife for Skanda in this text and very little of the domestication or familial theme that was present in the Āraṇyakaparvan. The Śalyaparvan account never acknowledges a propitiatory aspect to Kārttikeya’s cult and disposes of much of the material used to explain his transformation from inauspiciousness to auspiciousness found in the Āraṇyakaparvan. This text, we might speculate, is either later than the Āraṇyakaparvan, and the deity is now regarded primarily as the Senāpati of the gods, or the group(s) this version of the story addresses ignore the Graha aspect of his mythology. In the Āraṇyakaparvan it was Kārttikeya’s initial outsider and dangerous image that made him powerful and a threat to deities like Indra. As the Śalyaparvan never acknowledges this dangerous side of the deity, it must find a way to account for his power and maintain his auspicious characterization. The means this version employs to account for his power is to present Skanda as full of ascetic power. Vaiśaṃpāyana repeatedly calls Kārttikeya “mahātman,” ‘great souled’, or ‘great being’ (9.43.5, 9.43.11, 9.44.19, 9.44.37, 9.44.108), and also calls him “mahāyoga,” ‘great yogin’ (9.43.16, 9.43.33), “yogīnām īśvara,” ‘lord of the yogis’ (9.45.87), and “samanvitaḥ tapasā,” ‘full with ascetic energy’ (9.43.17). It is his “yoga,” we are told, that allows him to appear to his parents in four forms at once (9.43.36). There are other adjectives that describe his great strength, energy and valor, but this version’s stress on the young god as a yogi endowed with great ascetic power is unusual relative to the other accounts of him in the epics. I suggest it is an attempt to explain Skanda’s power in an auspicious manner. There may also be a suggestion of his relationship to Śiva in this description of Kārttikeya; Śiva is more typically described as the great ascetic and the lord of yogins. Skanda’s yogic powers are not described as the result of lengthy asceticism or practice, and we may assume that his yogic ability is inherited from his father. Śiva’s tejas is described as having a great energy and causing Agni, while he held it, to also have great energy and splendor (9.43.67). Likewise, Śiva’s tejas also seems to transfer his ascetic energy to Kārttikeya. A final link the text may be trying to make by presenting Kārttikeya as a yogin is to the sage Sanatkumāra. As already noted, chapter 45

the birth of skanda-kārttikeya in other epic sources

83

ends with speculation concerning Skanda’s parentage. One of these verses is as follows: “There are some who claim that he is the lord Sanatkumāra, who is the supreme first born of the sacred source of all, who is the son of the paternal grandfather” (9.45.85). This passage echoes one from the Chandogya Upaniṣad noted in chapter one where the sage Sanatkumāra is equated with Skanda (CU 7.26.2 in Olivelle 1996: 166). In the Śalyaparvan the suggested identification seems particularly well placed because of the connections drawn in this text between Kārttikeya, asceticism and yogic powers. There may be an old, but largely undeveloped, connection between Skanda-Kumāra and Sanatkumāra, though the exact nature of the relationship, other than the shared name, remains obscure. Another inauspicious link to Kārttikeya in the Āraṇyakaparvan is his associations with ghoulish creatures. The Śalyaparvan does ack­ nowledge various ghoulish creatures who are under Kārttikeya’s leadership, but in this version they are all in the divine army. This text provides long lists of companions who are given to Skanda by the gods to be part of his army. They are described as having various animal faces and other terrifying anatomical features, but the text makes it clear that these companions are benign with one group being described as “constantly absorbed in yoga, great-souled and friendly to Brahmins” (9.44.72).7 While these beings are also described as carrying terrible weapons and being mighty, the text makes it clear that these characteristics are associated with their martial role. The beings themselves are also not referred to as Grahas, nor do they behave like Grahas in being part of a propitiatory cult. The text does have a long list of Mātṛs who are also part of his troop, but they hold no Graha attributes. Most of them are described as having a terrible appearance, but they are also, as a group, called yaśasvin, ‘beautiful or famous’ and kalyaṇī ‘beautiful, virtuous or auspicious’ (9.45.2). Here, the Mātṛs are instruments of divine order and not obviously connected with harming infants and children. Kārttikeya’s birth is also presented in a different fashion by the Śalyaparvan. In the Āraṇyakaparvan his birth caused great disruption and fear, in the Śalyaparvan his birth brings beauty and happiness to the world and the gods. He is described as being so full of luster that

7

  Similar comments are made about these beings at 9.44.106.

84

chapter four

he causes the mountains to be transformed into gold (9.43.14).8 The whole earth is described as becoming beautiful, and the appearance of Kārttikeya is the reason mountains produce gold (9.43.15). He is described as growing up to be as handsome as the moon itself. He is praised by Gandharvas and sages, danced to by celestial girls and attended by a lengthy list of gods and other divinities (9.43.17-32). These gods ask Brahmā what role should be given to this new deity. He tells them to make him their Senāpati (9.43.48). Skanda’s appointment to the generalship is a formal affair in the Śalyaparvan. The gods, led by Brahmā, take Skanda to Śailendra, the Himālayas, for the abhiṣeka ceremony and select a tīrtha called Saman­ta­pañcaka on the Sarasvatī as the spot to perform the rite (9.43.49-52). The description of the ritual indicates that it follows Brahminical norms and is a costly affair. All the necessary equipment for the abhiṣeka is collected according to the scriptures. Bṛhaspati performs the necessary rites (9.44.1). Himavat gives jewels to Kārttikeya, and he is seated in a divine gem-filled seat (9.44.2). The gods ensure that all the materials relating to the rite are present, and that the rite is conducted in accordance with orthodox ritual (9.44.3). All manner of gods, sages and supernatural beings attend the rite (9.44.4-16). The rite itself involves pouring water over Skanda, but even this is described as relating to wealth and auspiciousness. The water pots are gold, full of divine materials, and the water used is the sacred water of the Sarasvatī (9.44.18). As I have discussed earlier, the abhiṣeka rite is a form of legitimation that relates to the state and a king’s court. This version of Kārttikeya’s birth and deeds focuses on this ritual as the event that demarcates him as a general. The abhiṣeka is also unlike the Skan­ dayāga or the skandasyejyā, which were designed to propitiate the deity and may have been sponsored by any class of human. The abhiṣeka is a one time event designed to initiate Kārttikeya into a specifically martial and courtly class. The ritual emphasizes his role as a general and removes him from the ritual milieu of Grahas and Dhūrta. I have already suggested that the Mahābhārata should be understood as developed through the sponsorship of a royal court. The image of Skanda presented in the Śalyaparvan, who never attacks Indra, and who performs his military duties without threat to the rest of the   The connection between Skanda and gold will be explored in more detail in the discussion of the Anuśāsanaparvan. 8

the birth of skanda-kārttikeya in other epic sources

85

administration of the state, would very likely meet with the approval of a sponsoring king. The story ends with a description of Kārttikeya defeating various demons in battle. There are a number of famous demons he kills in this version including Tāraka (9.45.65), Skanda’s main foe in most other accounts of him.9 One account that is of interest in these battles is his destruction of Mount Krauñca. In the Āraṇyakaparvan Skanda destroys Mount Krauñca in a moment of mindless violence. It is one of his early acts that makes him worthy of propitiatory worship. In this text, however, Vaiśaṃpāyana explains that a demon named Bāṇa hid in the mountain, and that Kārttikeya pierced the mountain to destroy that demon. Various animals and supernatural creatures are described as running from the mountain as do hundreds of demons who are killed by Kārttikeya and his army (9.45.71-81). The destruction of Krauñca is presented in the Śalyaparvan as an example of ‘friendly fire’ and not as an example of the fear this deity can cause. The Śalyaparvan presents us with a Kārttikeya who bears little resemblance to the dangerous figure described in part of the Āraṇ­ yakaparvan and Āyurvedic texts. The view that Skanda is auspicious, a general and part of ‘royal’ society is the dominant version of his characterization in the Śalyaparvan and in much of the rest of the textual tradition for the deity. Skanda’s Birth and Deeds in the Anuśāsanaparvan Of the epic versions of the deity’s birth the Anuśāsanaparvan (13.8386) is the most convoluted, and sections of it are likely interpolations (Feller 2004: 117). One could argue that there are five or six separate narratives held in these three chapters: 1) the birth of gold from Agni, 2) Śiva’s vow to become Ūrdhvaretas and Umā’s curse of the gods to go without children, 3) a missing Agni story, 4) Skanda’s birth as the son of Agni by passing his tejas/semen to Gaṅgā and the eventual nurturing of the child by the Kṛttikās, 5) an account of a Vedic sacrifice, and 6) a retelling of Skanda’s birth from Agni and the Kṛttikās. The Anuśāsanaparvan’s account of Kārttikeya’s birth is, then, complex containing a number of differing versions of the birth and a number of lengthy side narratives. The end point of these narratives is, how  In this version Kārttikeya kills the following demons: Tāraka (9.45.64), Mahiṣa (9.45.65), Tripāda (9.45.65), Hṛdodara (9.45.66) and Bāṇa (9.45.71-81). 9

86

chapter four

ever, clear: the birth of Kārttikeya is largely presented as a vehicle for the praise of Agni and the urging of gifts of gold to the Brahminical caste. I will demonstrate that this account is heavily influenced by Brahminical redactors who have used legends drawn largely from the Brāhmaṇa tradition to place Kārttikeya within their frame of reference. This story also presents Skanda as auspicious from birth and gives no sense of the danger associated with him from the Āraṇya­ kaparvan. The Parentage of Skanda in the Anuśāsanaparvan The story of Skanda in the Anuśāsanaparvan has several layers of narration. The immediate narrator of the text is Bhīṣma, who tells the account to Yudhiṣṭhira, but he presents it as originally told by Vasiṣṭha to Paraśurāma in the past. Bhīṣma’s discussion comes about due to a question from Yudhiṣṭhira concerning the origin of gold, and why gold is viewed as the best dakṣiṇā. Bhīṣma responds by telling the king that gold is the offspring of Agni. It is the best priestly gift because it contains some of Agni’s essence and cleanses the giver of all faults; it is the purest of all gifts to give (13.83.10-36). Both Agni and gold are praised by Bhīṣma after which he abruptly begins a discussion of Śiva and Umā. The narrative starts after the wedding of Śiva and Umā with their desire for a sexual union (13.83.40-41). The rest of the gods find the prospect of this union disturbing. They approach Śiva and explain that the product of a union of Śiva’s tapas with Umā’s tapas, and of Śiva’s tejas with Umā’s tejas (13.83.43) would be more than the three worlds could sustain: “‘O god, the offspring of you both would be powerful, O lord. This offspring will not spare anything in the three worlds’” (13.83.44). They ask Śiva for a boon that he will hold back his semen and restrain from having offspring (13.83.45). Śiva agrees and becomes known as Ūrdhvaretas (13.83.46-47). Śiva’s boon makes Umā angry, and she curses the gods to go without offspring themselves (13.83.48-50). Agni, however, was not part of the group who were cursed and, even though Śiva is trying to hold in his semen, some of it spills and falls to the earth and into Agni where it begins to grow (13.83.51-53). In the mean time, the gods are being defeated by the asura Tāraka and go to Brahmā to request that he ordain his death (13.83.54-57, 13.84.1-2). Brahmā sees that the Vedas and duties (dharmāḥ) are threatened by this demon and ordains his

the birth of skanda-kārttikeya in other epic sources

87

death (13.84.3-4). He already knows that some of Śiva’s semen has landed in Agni and predicts that Agni will pass the seed onto Gaṅgā. Bhīṣma states that eventually a child, who he describes as “like a second Agni” (13.84.12), will be born, and he will kill Tāraka (13.84.1112). The story continues as Brahmā describes the virtues of Agni to the gods: Let Agni be sought out, and let him be employed in this task. The death of Tāraka has been narrated by me O faultless ones.... He [Agni] is the indescribable lord of the world. He is all pervading and all creating. He abides in the heart of all creatures, and the powerful one is better than Rudra. Let him, who is the oblation eater and a mass of splendor, be quickly sought out. That god will accomplish the desire which is in your minds. (13.84.14, 17-18)

This passage displays a shift in the narrative that is sustained for much of the remainder of it. At the start of the birth narrative Śiva and Umā are the powerful couple whose actions dictate the flow of the story, now Agni emerges as the all powerful deity in the narrative. The god of fire is praised as superior to Rudra, and Agni’s absence now drives the plot. The praise delivered to Agni in this quotation echo aspects of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. That text refers to Agni and his forms as the lord of the earth and the lord of beings (ŚB 1.3.3.16), and it frequently presents Agni as the world itself, the source of all things and within all things: “Agni (the fire), assuredly, represents all the deities, since it is in the fire that they make offering to all deities...” (ŚB 1.6.2.8 translated by Eggeling 1882-1900 I: 163), and “He then makes offering to Agni, the householder. Agni, indeed, is this world...” (ŚB 1.9.2.13 translated by Eggeling 1882-1900 I: 259).10 He is also described as the first thing created and as the basis of the material and Vedic (spiritual) worlds. Section 2.2.2.8-20 of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa states that the gods internalize Agni because he is the immortal element that they place in their innermost being. Humans, the text states, can also internalize Agni and place him in their innermost being. The Anuśāsanaparvan’s description of Agni appears to come out of a priestly and sacrificial milieu similar to that of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, but the underlying point of the quotation (Mbh 13.84.14, 17-18) is to elevate Agni above Rudra.   A similar point is made in ŚB 6.1.1.1-11 where Agni is equated with Prajāpati and the Vedas. 10

88

chapter four

The elevation of Agni is also a priestly device used to elevate their own status through their position as close to Agni. Several verses from the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa state that Agni is a Brahmin or like a Brahmin (2.1.4.10, 3.2.2.7, 6.1.1.10). Agni is also described as the ancestral Hotṛ priest in both the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Ṛgveda (ṚV 1.77.1; ŚB 1.4.2.3). Hence, I would argue that the elevation of Agni in the Anuśāsanaparvan is a reflection of Brahminical agendas in this account. The above quotation from the Anuśāsanaparvan ends with Brahmā instructing the gods to find Agni. From here the narrative shifts to a topic with which we are familiar: the hidden Agni theme (13.84.2246). Eventually, the gods do find Agni and ask him to produce a child. I have discussed earlier the missing Agni theme, and how it relates to the birth of Kārttikeya. As in the Āraṇyakaparvan, Agni is employed here as a medium through which Kumāra’s birth can be explained and set within Vedic and Brahminical contexts. Once the gods locate Agni, they explain the problems Tāraka is causing and the curse of Pārvatī. They plead with Agni to produce a son, and he agrees placing his tejas into Gaṅgā (13.84.48-53). Once again, we may note the shift the narrative has taken. The agent of action is now Agni. The text appears to forget that the tejas transferred from Agni to Gaṅgā originated with Śiva. For lengthy stretches of the narrative the tejas is simply described as Agni’s. As we saw in the Śalyaparvan and as we will see in the post-epic accounts of Skanda’s birth, the transfer of Śiva’s tejas to Agni and onto Gaṅgā causes great pain for the two recipients. This overpowering semen is an emblem of Rudra’s supremacy in those other accounts. In the Anuśāsanaparvan, however, Agni is unharmed by Śiva’s tejas, and it appears to be Agni’s tejas that now burns the river goddess. In the Anuśāsanaparvan Gaṅgā is greatly afflicted by the developing foetus and harassed by an asura (13.84.53-57). She goes to Agni to tell him she must release his tejas (13.84.58-61). The fire-god tries to dissuade her reminding her that she is able to carry the world (13.84.62-63). Gaṅgā can no longer bear to carry the foetus, however, and casts it off. The energy of the seed and Gaṅgā’s trouble with it are well described when she releases it: Then that best of rivers, while impeded by Agni and by the gods, discharged that foetus onto Meru, the best of mountains. Although she was able to bear it, she was overwhelmed by the splendor [tejas] of Rudra and was unable to endure that foetus with such energy [ojas].

the birth of skanda-kārttikeya in other epic sources

89

In pain she discharged that powerful foetus that was like a blazing fire.... (13.84.64-66)

This passage is one of the few occasions in chapter 84 where the text recalls that the tejas originates with Rudra. Even here, though, the text undercuts Rudra’s power in the last line. The term for “fire” here is vaiśvānara, which means ‘fire’, but more specifically refers to a form of Agni called Vaiśvānara (‘belonging to all men’, or ‘omnipresent’). The text seems to combine the energies of Rudra and Agni in this foetus as we are told that Gaṅgā cannot withstand the tejas of Rudra that is like the powerful blaze of Vaiśvānara. While the text can be viewed as glorifying both Śiva and Agni through the collective might of their tejas, the narrative’s selective amnesia in terms of the origin of the tejas tends to privilege Agni over Rudra. Once released, Gaṅgā describes the appearance of the foetus to Agni in the following manner: Gaṅgā said: “That foetus just born is golden, it is like you, O Fire, in its energy. It is golden, pure and blazing, and it illuminated the mountain. O best one, that smell of him is cool, like that of lakes together with water lilies and lotuses, and equal to Kadamba blossoms, O best of those who burn. By the energy of that shining foetus, just like the rays of the sun, those objects on the earth or on the mountain which are touched appeared to be golden from his contact.” (13.84.68-70)

While the previous section potentially praises both the power of Śiva and Agni, this section regards Kārttikeya as a version of Agni. Gaṅgā repeatedly refers to the foetus as golden and as very bright due to its tejas or energy. It glows so much it is described as being like the sun (sūrya) or a second moon (soma) (13.84.72). Once the foetus is produced Agni and Gaṅgā leave (13.84.72-73), and the foetus, which is called “pāvakodbhavaḥ,” or ‘born from Agni’ and “gāṅgeyaḥ,” or ‘from Gaṅgā’, develops in a divine forest of reeds (13.84.75).11 There he is found by the Kṛttikās who raise him as their son. Hence, we are told, he is called Kārttikeya after the Kṛttikās (13.84.76). The text then explains the origins of the names Skanda and Guha; Skanda because 11   A foetus developing in reeds is also linked to Agni. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa describes reeds as a womb for Agni (6.3.1.26), but a number of other plants are also described as Agni’s garbha (womb) in this and other texts (Gonda 1957: 93-94). Agni himself is also described as a garbha in some texts (Gonda 1957: 94). Doniger regards Kārttikeya’s birth in reeds as part of Agni’s mythology. She notes that a reed is also a hiding place for Agni and Indra in several stories (1973: 97-98).

90

chapter four

he arose due to the falling (skanna) of tejas, and Guha because his birth took place in a forest of reeds hidden (guha) from view (13.84.7677). Agni’s Parentage of Skanda and Gold in the Anuśāsanaparvan The close of chapter 84 involves an awkward shift from the birth of Skanda to the production of gold from the same event. Just after the section explaining the various names of the young god Bhīṣma states: Thus, there was formed gold, the son of Agni. Of all forms of gold the most splendid one is from Jāmbūnada, which is even the decoration of the gods.12 From that time on it was called ‘just born’. That which is gold is the glorious Agni, who is the supreme one, the Prajāpati. Gold is the purifier of purifiers, O best of the twice born. It contains the nature of Agni and Soma, and is known as Jātarūpa. It is the best of jewels, the best of ornaments, and the purest of the pure, the most auspicious of the auspicious. (13.84.78-81)

The transition from explaining Skanda’s names to an account of the nature and wonder of gold is abrupt in this text. We might view Skanda as gold, which is the sense Wendy Doniger takes from the above (1973: 108). This attempt to link the births of Kārttikeya and gold at this stage of the story may simply be an apologetic to account for the unusual flow of the narrative. Chapter 83 begins, after all, as an account of the glory of gold and shifts rather awkwardly into an account of Kumāra’s birth, and now it recovers the thread and returns to its initial theme. Agni’s connection to gold is archaic in the tradition with references going back to the Ṛgveda (ṚV 4.10.6, 6.16.13; Gonda 1991: 14). The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa also contains an account of the birth of gold from Agni and an exploration of this story helps us to understand elements of the Anuśāsanaparvan. In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa we are told that when setting up the fires one must equip Agni with objects which have some of his nature; specifically, the text advises supplying the fire with splendor, cattle and a mate (ŚB 2.1.1.1). The mate is water; the splendor is gold (ŚB 2.1.1.4-5). To explain the use of these substances the text states: “Now Agni at one time cast his eyes on the waters: ‘May I pair with them,’ he thought. He came together with   The word jāmbūnada means coming from the river Jāmbū, but it also refers to gold obtained from that river. 12

the birth of skanda-kārttikeya in other epic sources

91

them; and his seed became gold. For this reason the latter shines like fire, it being Agni’s seed” (ŚB 2.1.1.5 translated by Eggeling 1882-1900 I: 277-278).13 The text continues to explain that this is why gold is found in water (2.1.1.5). This production of gold through the pairing of Agni and the waters is reproduced in the Anuśāsanaparvan with another product of Agni’s semen—Skanda. As we have seen in the Anuśāsanaparvan, Agni places his golden tejas in Gaṅgā to produce gold’s sibling, Kārttikeya. Much of the logic of the Anuśāsanaparvan’s account of Skanda’s birth is based in the Brāhmaṇa textual tradition and as such it bears the imprint of Brahminical orthodoxy. As brothers of sorts, the Anuśāsanaparvan establishes a relationship between gold and the young god. Kārttikeya and gold are described as pure, auspicious sons of Agni. They are physically like fire in their brilliance and remarkable shine. Gold is described as having the essence of Soma and Agni, and Kārttikeya is also described as being like these gods (13.84.72, 13.84.68). The two are related and, we are to understand, of the same stuff, the same tejas. There is little ambiguity in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa or in the Anuśāsanaparvan concerning Agni’s characterization. He is good, holy and auspicious, and his sons contain these same virtuous qualities. The result in the Anuśāsanaparvan is a specific version of Kumāra who is unambiguously good and auspicious because he is the son of Agni and not because he is worshiped or propitiated. We must recall that part of Kārttikeya’s ritual cult as displayed in the Āraṇyakaparvan was designed to transform an inauspicious deity into an auspicious one. This version of his birth does not need such a ritual transformation because the deity is born auspicious; the implications of this will be discussed in more detail below.14 13   The point that Agni’s seed is gold is repeated in ŚB 3.2.4.8-9, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.2, 4.5.1.14, 5.2.3.6, 5.5.1.8, 7.4.1.15 and 14.1.3.14. A similar myth is recounted in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (1.1.3.8), where the waters are called Varuṇa’s wives (Gonda 1991: 16). Gonda also notes that gold is identified with Agni’s semen or retas in other Brāhmaṇas (1991: 16). 14   Wendy Doniger argues for the origin of the ‘golden seed’ in narratives of the hiraṇyagarbha (golden germ) of Brahmā/Prajāpati (1973: 107). The concept of hiraṇyagarbha has a long history in South Asian thought beginning with the Ṛgveda (10.121). Jan Gonda has a detailed study of the term that largely agrees with Doniger’s summary above, except he also stresses the identification of Prajāpati with Agni, and that is how Agni becomes associated with the golden seed (1991: 216-246). Doniger also argues that “gold forms a constant tie between Agni and Śiva in the Skanda story;” she regards a number of Śaivite stories involving gold to be “multiforms of the Skanda myth” (1973: 108). The golden seed remains an important con-

92

chapter four

I would like to comment on the choice of gold as Skanda’s colour as opposed to red, the colour of his skin in many Purāṇic and Āyurvedic accounts. All three versions of his birth and deeds from the Mahābhā­ rata make some reference to this deity as golden or wearing gold. The Skandayāga also describes him as “golden coloured” (suvarṇavarṇa) (20.2.8), but also states he is “red limbed” (lohitagātra) (20.4.2). The Mahābhārata does associate him with red (3.214.19, 3.218.2), but never acknowledges it as his skin colour. The Suśrutasaṃhitā calls Kārttikeya red and mentions that his clothes and ornaments are also red (Uttara. 28.14). The Mahābhārata’s choice of gold as the deity’s colour may not be random because gold is an auspicious colour and red is often inauspicious. We have already seen that gold is auspicious in the Anuśāsanaparvan. Gold is also a royal colour. Being hiraṇya­ varṇa or suvarṇavarṇa (gold-coloured) “is considered to be one of the characteristics of a nobleman or royal personage” (Gonda 1991: 21). As with the abhiṣeka rite, being gold-coloured has an elite and royal connotation, and Skanda’s status as the material or like it connects him to royal and wealthy circles. Red, on the other hand, places Kārttikeya into rather a suspect context. Red is often associated with impurity and danger. In the Athar­ vaveda Pariśiṣṭa when one is casting a malicious spell the rules of the ritual as regards purity and auspiciousness are inverted from the normal procedures. One selects an inauspicious day and time for the rite. Offerings are made with the left hand while facing south, and the priest should wear black or red clothes (AVP 31.9.3; Modak 1993: 315). Here, wearing red is connected with a number of ritual taboos. Gonda also notes that a number of Gṛhyasūtra rites employ red in rituals with malevolent intents (1980: 45). Red objects like blood (Gonda 1980: 45), and red beings like ‘Fever’ in the Mahābhārata are regarded as impure and dangerous (Doniger 1973: 284). The point is clear: red is often associated with impure substances and dangerous beings. Skanda as a red-coloured being fits his Graha-like character, but not his auspicious Senāpati character; this may be behind the Mahābhārata’s choice of gold for his skin colour.15 In the Anuśāsanaparvan gifts of gold are described as attaining for the giver heaven, protection from evil foreshadowed in dreams, cept in Purāṇic accounts of this birth story where it is Śiva’s seed that is golden (Doniger 1973: 108). 15   Red is not always inauspicious, however. Gonda also notes that red is a colour of fertility, sexual love and reproduction in Gṛhya rites (1980: 45).

the birth of skanda-kārttikeya in other epic sources

93

destruction of future misdeeds, residence with Brahmā, Vāyu, Agni and Soma, great fame, glory and the fruition of wishes (13.85.59-66). The ability of gold to bring about these fantastic returns if given away as a priestly gift is justified by its close association with Agni. The point of these passages is to re-enforce the idea that gold is the best gift to give to a priest. Certainly we can see the redactive hand of the Brahminical caste behind this account. Furthering the Brahminical Context for Skanda: The Sacrifice in the Anuśāsanaparvan Chapter 85 is rarely discussed by other scholars because it does not immediately continue the story of the birth. It makes no mention of Kārttikeya’s birth and appears as an awkward interruption in the narrative. I think, however, it functions in a similar manner as chapters 207 to 212 of the Āraṇyakaparvan. It is designed to explain multiple parentage, divine birth and creation through the Vedic example of Agni. Chapter 85 begins when Vasiṣṭha tells Paraśurāma that in former times Rudra, who had taken the form of Varuṇa, held a grand sacrifice that all the gods and sages attended. Even personified forms of the Vedas and elements of the sacrifice are present at the rite (13.85.2-6). The wives, daughters and mothers of the gods are also present, and, on seeing them, some of Brahmā’s semen falls on the earth. The Vedic deity Pūṣan picks up the semen, mixes it with soil and throws it into Agni. Some of this semen is also ladled into the fire as part of the offering of the rite (13.85.7-11). A number of the elements of this account have a Vedic background. The narrative of Brahmā dropping some semen that is added to the sacrificial fire is likely rooted in Vedic accounts of Prajāpati. In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa Prajāpati has sex with his daughter Uṣas. The gods ask Rudra to punish him, and Rudra hits him with an arrow causing some of his semen to fall to the ground (1.7.4.1-3). Various deities try to deal with the semen so that it can be made a part of the sacrifice. Pūṣan is one such deity; he tries to eat the semen, but it knocks his teeth out (1.7.4.7). The Anuśāsanaparvan account of Brahmā’s semen is likely a modified version of such earlier accounts. The ladling of semen into the fire is also a common metaphor in the

94

chapter four

Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa that evokes the reproductive theme of the sacrificial cult (1.7.2.11, 6.2.2.27, 6.3.3.18). The products of this sacrifice in the Anuśāsanaparvan are the guṇas, the three elements that make up the universe in Saṃkhyā philosophy. The passages are not in complete agreement with Saṃkhyā thought in that only tamas and sattva are explicitly mentioned, though the place of rajas may be taken by tejas in this text (13.85.12-14). Vasiṣṭha then states that three ancient sages, Bhṛgu, Aṅgiras and Kavi, are produced from the sacrificial fire. Other famous sages and deities are also produced after these three from the ashes of Agni. The Aśvins appear from Agni’s eyes, from his ears the Prajāpatis, from his pores the Ṛṣis and from his sweat the Chandas, a Vedic meter. The list continues until most of the Vedic sages and minor divinities are described as originating from parts of Agni’s body (13.85.15-24). Due to all of this, Paraśurāma is told: “For this reason, sages, who are accomplished in sacred knowledge due to an examination of evidence from the Vedas, say that Agni is all the divinities” (13.85.20). While the text does not draw a direct analogy to the birth of Kārttikeya in this section, there are connections we can draw between the two narratives. Kumāra’s birth as the result of semen being dropped into Agni is given a Vedic precedent by this account. Skanda’s birth is presented as part of normal creation consistent with Vedic accounts. The use of these precedents once more demonstrate the influence of Brāhmaṇa thought on this text in an attempt to place Skanda within a framework familiar to the orthodox Brahminical community. There is, however, in the narrative some dispute over who owns the products of this sacrifice. Varuṇa claims that it is his sacrifice, and the products of it and resulting offspring should be regarded as his (13.85.25-26). Agni claims that they are his offspring because they came from him (13.85.27), and Brahmā claims it was his semen so they belong to him (13.85.28-29). Eventually, Bhṛgu is given to Varuṇa, Aṅgiras to Agni and Kavi to Brahmā (13.85.30-35). The sons of the sages are then listed and described as forming the first families and tribes. They are destined to populate the world and become great men who are learned in the Vedas (13.85.37-53).16 Again, elements of the narrative can be connected to Kumāra’s birth story and his   These lineages of sages and gods are reminiscent of the Āraṇyakaparvan and its lineage derived from Agni and Aṅgiras. 16

the birth of skanda-kārttikeya in other epic sources

95

multiple­ parents. The text is attempting to deal with the issue of Kārttikeya’s multiple parentage by supplying a myth that demonstrates a similar scenario of multiple claims to parenthood; a scenario that is legitimated through the context of the sacrifice. The text makes the disagreement between these gods over possession of the products of the sacrifice moot, however, when it ends this section with: “Thus it happened at the sacrifice of that great-souled one, the best of gods who had taken the form of Varuṇa. Agni is Brahmā, he is Paśupati, he is Śarva, he is Rudra, and he is Prajāpati” (13.85.53-54a-b). The text establishes that Agni really is Rudra and a variety of other gods. I have already noted a tendency in Vedic texts to assimilate Agni with other deities particularly Rudra. It is Agni, the text concludes, who is the source of all this creation; a view which is likely strongly influenced by the Brahminical tradition. We have seen the equation Agni = Rudra-Śiva in the Āraṇyakaparvan, but the point in that text was the opposite of what we have here. In that text the equation was to promote the idea that Śiva was the real father of Kārttikeya, who was working through the person of Agni. In the Anuśāsanaparvan, however, the equation is used to establish Agni’s supremacy. Here, it is Agni who works through Rudra and others. The role played by Agni in this text indicates that the cult of the fire god was the preferred medium through which Skanda’s birth was viewed by some Brahminical writers during the epic period. While Śiva will ultimately replace Agni as the ultimate father of Kārttikeya, and part of that process is already underway in these texts, Agni is clearly viewed as a useful means of explaining Kumāra’s birth and multiple parentage. A Second Birth Story for Skanda in the Anuśāsanaparvan An argument can be made that the Anuśāsanaparvan account of Kumāra’s birth contains two or three different versions of the story. We might view the Rudra and Umā episode as one version (13.83.4013.84.12); the Agni, Gaṅgā and Kṛttikā episode as another (13.84.4877) and the account from chapter 86 we are about to examine as a third. The account from chapter 86 changes aspects of the birth story presented earlier in the Anuśāsanaparvan and unnecessarily repeats information from earlier sections. Much like the Śalyaparvan, the Anuśāsanaparvan seems to be actively working out who Skanda is and

96

chapter four

who his parents are. The Anuśāsanaparvan demonstrates that the narratives of Kārttikeya’s birth are unstable in the Mahābhārata and a number of competing versions of the same event can occur within a single narrative. Chapter 86 begins with Yudhiṣṭhira asking Bhīṣma to narrate the killing of Tāraka (13.86.1-4), and this version of Skanda’s deeds is entirely focused on this single act. The text picks up the birth story with the gods and Ṛṣis asking the six Kṛttikās to incubate the foetus because no other divinity was capable of carrying it (13.86.5-6). Bhīṣma then states that Agni had released his semen (13.86.7), and the six Kṛttikās nourished it (13.86.7-8).17 Here the text emphasizes the role of Agni as the father of the child over Śiva. The text is clear in stating it is Agni’s tejas that the Kṛttikās nourish. The foetus is nurtured by these six even though the developing foetus and its tejas make them unable to find comfort anywhere (13.86.8-9). Eventually, the child is born to the Kṛttikās (13.86.11). Kārttikeya is honoured (pūjayitvā)18 by being given the generalship and then told of the gods’ trouble with Tāraka (13.86.26-27). Dutifully, Kārttikeya kills the demon with his spear and is able to re-establish Indra as the ruler of the three worlds. In the closing verses we are told: That Skanda, who was that general, was resplendent. He was full of valor, a lord, the protector of the gods and pleasing to Śiva. He is of golden form, the blessed one, that son of Agni, ever youthful, he obtained the position of lord of the army of the gods. Therefore gold is auspicious, the best, indestructible gem, born together with Kārttikeya the best vital energy of fire. Thus, O descendant of Kuru, Vasiṣṭha narrated to Rāma in the past and from it you, O king of men, must give gold as a gift. By giving gold Rāma was set free from all of his offences and attained a high place which is rare and difficult to attain by men in the third heaven. (13.86.30-34)

Skanda is glorified in this closing section, but so is gold and its value when given as a priestly gift. As the story closes we are reminded again of the Brahminical hand in the production of the narrative and the link between the dual products of Agni’s tejas: the pure and auspicious gold and, by extension, the equally pure Skanda-Kārttikeya. Central to understanding the Anuśāsanaparvan’s account of Kumāra is the rather secondary role he plays in it. Much of the 17   Here the text seems to forget that Agni has already discharged his or Śiva’s semen into Gaṅgā, and that a foetus has already been produced and left in the reeds. 18   There is no suggestion here of the abhiṣeka rite described in the Śalyaparvan.

the birth of skanda-kārttikeya in other epic sources

97

­ arrative glorifies Agni as a type of supreme deity and justifies gold as n the best priestly gift. The story looks back to the Brāhmaṇa textual tradition for its authority and helps to illustrate the orthodox Brahminical perception of Kārttikeya. For such groups the deity’s connections to Grahas and Mātṛs are ignored perhaps because they originate from outside of their particular Brahminical tradition. In the Anuśāsana­parvan Kumāra is only ever depicted as a Senāpati whose specific mission is to kill Tāraka. This account also demonstrates that a retelling of Skanda’s birth has become a vehicle for advancing the popularity and prestige of the deity’s parents or parent rather than that of the deity himself. Finally, the Anuśāsanaparvan and its multiple versions of Skanda’s birth appears to freeze a moment where Kumāra’s narratives were in flux; a moment where we see the tradition debating the status and parentage of this deity. Skanda-Kārttikeya in the Rāmāyaṇa In this section I will briefly discuss the story of Skanda as it appears in the Rāmāyaṇa (1.35-36). The narrative begins with the story of Umā’s marriage to Śiva. The two have yet to have children, but the gods are anxious about the potential power of their offspring. They are able to convince Śiva to retire to a life of penance with Umā (1.35.1-16). Some of Śiva’s semen does, however, spill and falls to the earth, and, we are told: Then the gods spoke to Agni, the eater of oblations, “You and Vāyu must enter Rudra’s abundant semen.” Permeated by Agni, it was transformed into a white mountain on which there was a celestial thicket of white reeds that looked like the sun surrounded by fire. It was there that Kārtikeya came into being, born from fire. (1.35.17-18 translated by Goldman 1984 I: 192)

The chapter ends with a very angry Umā cursing the gods to go without offspring themselves. The next chapter begins, having apparently forgotten that Skanda has already been born, with the gods asking Brahmā for help because Śiva has left them to do penances. Specifically, the gods need a leader for their army because, according to this text, that was the role Śiva fulfilled (1.36.3). The solution Brahmā offers is to have Agni and Gaṅgā bear a son “who will be a foe-conquering commander for the army of the gods” (1.36.7 translated by Goldman 1984 I: 194). Things

98

chapter four

proceed as predicted, but Gaṅgā is unable to bear the splendour of Agni and cannot hold the embryo. Agni has her drop the embryo on the Himalayas; this birth is also described as the birth of gold and other minerals through contact with the embryo: “Thus, when it touched the earth, it turned into the various elements. The moment the embryo was set down, the whole mountain forest was pervaded by its splendor and turned to gold” (1.36.20-21 translated by Goldman 1984 I: 194-95). From this splendour Kārttikeya is born who is given to the care of the Kṛttikās. In a short time he defeats demons in battle and is made the general of the army of the gods (1.36.22-30). This version of the birth story goes into minimal detail on these points, but it is clearly related to the Anuśāsanaparvan version. Both begin with the marriage of Umā and Śiva, and have the creation of Skanda derive from the spilling of Śiva’s semen. Both versions then forget these events and have the child become the product of Agni and Gaṅgā, a union that also produces gold. The point of both birth stories is also similar. They are focused on using the birth of Kārttikeya to demonstrate the power of Umā, Śiva and Agni. He is also born to become the divine general in order to defeat the enemies of the gods. Any connection he may have to Grahas or Mātṛs is ignored. It is, however, instructive to note that the Śaivite version of the story has yet to dominate the narratives of this deity as they will in texts like the Kumārasaṃbhava. The narrative has a final step to take, but for our purposes the story of an auspicious divine general whose birth illustrates the power of his parents has taken root and, with the exception of a few Āyurvedic accounts of the deity, will not change significantly. Skanda has settled into the spot created for him by Brahminical redactors. Conclusion to the Epic Accounts of Skanda The epic accounts of Skanda can be read as an extended conversion narrative. The focus of each account is to depict an auspicious deity, who is both a good son and good general. I have argued that two groups or forces bring about this change: Brahmins and royality. Part of the auspicious characterization of Skanda comes about with a shift in his associations with social groups. He moves from being an everyman type of deity to one associated with elite duties. This shift is, in part, made possible through the Brahminization of the deity. His

the birth of skanda-kārttikeya in other epic sources

99

image as an ideal general and as subservient to his superiors is one, I have suggested, that may even have been influenced by the sociopolitical concerns of the kings who sponsored the Mahābhārata. This shift in characterization also affects Kārttikeya’s realm of action. As a dangerous deity his realm of action is on the earth; he is a house­hold deity who reflects household concerns. Texts like the Āra­ ṇya­kaparvan, Skandayāga, Suśrutasaṃhitā and Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra demon­strate this household nature of the deity and the terrestrial aspect of his cult. Once made the divine general of the gods, however, his realm of action becomes heaven and to some degree the elite context of a royal court. The strongest evidence of a ritual cult for this deity in any of these texts depicts a propitiatory cult. Once removed from a terrestrial and Graha context, I would argue, his cult will eventually erode. The evidence of this erosion will become clearer in later chapters. The end process, and this is likely the key to the development of his cult, is the creation of a subservient god, who is always secondary to another deity. While Skanda can be viewed as secondary to Indra and Agni in some of these epic narratives, Śiva is the key figure in this process of creating a secondary god. As I have already noted, most later accounts of Kārttikeya present Śiva is his true father and use the birth and deeds of his son to elevate the stature of the father. We have already seen some of this process in the Āraṇyakaparvan. I would argue that the transformation of Skanda from dangerous to auspicious, the shift in why he was worshiped and who worshiped him, his separation from his Graha cult, and the assimilation of his cult into Śaivism began a steady process towards obscurity within the Śaivism of north India by the middle ages. Most Skanda-Kārttikeya scholars argue, however, that the narratives in the epics point to his increased popularity in South Asia and his adoption by ‘high’ religion from some lowly source is part of this process (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 27-28; Chatterjee 1970: 14; Sinha 1979: 24-25; Gupta 1988: 22; Rana 1995: 23).19 No scholar has, in fact, viewed 19   An extreme example is Chatterjee, who claims that “by the time the two Epics were compiled Skanda became a favourite god of the Indians” (1970: 14). He cites as evidence “more verses have been devoted to him in the Great Epic than to any other god (Viṣṇu and Śiva excepted)” (1970: 14). What Chatterjee fails to acknowledge is that many of the verses devoted to Skanda are, in fact, indirect praise for Agni and Śiva. It is wise that he lists Viṣṇu and Śiva as excepted from his popularity count because most of the epic makes it clear that Kārttikeya is beneath Śiva in stature and cannot be compared with that god. Sinha makes similar claims concerning the length

100

chapter four

the assimilation of his cult into Śaivism and his transformation into an auspicious martial figure as having a negative impact on his cult. All of the scholars cited above regard these elements as increasing his popularity until his ‘golden age’ in the Gupta era. What I question here is the dominant scholarly view that the movement to ‘high’ religion or elite religion from ‘low’ religion is proof of Kārttikeya’s popularity and the success of his cult. The treatment of this deity in the epics is not a sign of his growth and success, but actually an indication that his cult faltered over time as it is transformed through texts and, as we shall see, other sources. Certainly, Skanda-Kārttikeya must have been popular with some groups, but what we have to question is what version of the deity was popular and with whom. These questions will be addressed in my section on coinage and statuary. In those sections I will also argue that the development of his cult that is outlined in these epic narratives is also echoed in the ancient lived tradition of Skanda’s cult.

of the accounts in the Mahābhārata as reflective of Skanda’s popularity (1979: 24-25). He also argues that the association between Skanda and Śiva “paved way for the growth and popularity of Kārttikeya” (1979: 25).

CHAPTER FIVE

COINS, STATUARY AND SKANDA-KĀRTTIKEYA: THE EARLIEST DEPICTIONS What follows builds on the textual analysis I have presented and attempts to ground my argument in the tradition of material culture related to Skanda-Kārttikeya as revealed by coinage, statuary and epigraphy. It is through an analysis of these non-textual sources that we can witness firsthand the transformation of Kārttikeya to which the textual sources allude. In this chapter we will examine two aspects of material culture related to Skanda. First, we will examine preKuṣāṇa, or early Kuṣāṇa, coins from a group named the Yaudheyas. Second, we will examine Kuṣāṇa era statues and panels from the region of Mathurā. These panels depict Skanda with an assortment of figures who are likely Grahas and Mātṛs. Together these sources demonstrate that Skandagraha and the Mātṛs were significant foci of worship in north India from the period of the first to the third centuries ce. While the textual traditions we examined in chapter two linking Skanda to Graha and Mātṛ traditions were minor relative to the dominant textual depictions of him, the material evidence suggests that the characterization of Skanda as a fierce warrior and as associated with Grahas was the focus of worship to him in this area at this time. The Yaudheyas and Their Coinage The Yaudheyas are commonly referred to as a tribal republic who occupied various regions of the modern Indian states of Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan between the second century bce and the fourth century ce. In this study I will not refer to the Yaudheyas as a tribe or as a republic. I think both of these terms are misleading and suggest a great deal more about the Yaudheyas than the limited historical evidence for the group supports.1 I will use their name and 1   The term ‘tribal’ has been critiqued by a number of scholars who contributed to the book Seminar Papers on the Tribal Coins of Ancient India (c. 200 bc to 400 ad), I would direct readers to that text for more details (Ahmad and Singh 1977). An understanding of the Yaudheyas as practicing a republican form of government

102

chapter five

the terms ‘state’ or ‘group’ when referring to the Yaudheyas. In his catalogue of ancient Indian coins in the British Museum, John Allan places the Yaudheya numismatic issues into six main classes with some of these classes having numerous varieties (1936: cxlvii-cli). Other scholars, most notably K. K. Dasgupta (1974: 201-211), K. D. Bajpai (1973: 90-94) and N. Ahmad with M. Kumar (1993: 49), have attempted to revise Allan’s classification with limited success. Allan’s classification is the one most commonly used by scholars, and it is the classification system I will use with some qualifications.2 seems to be rooted in references to them by Pāṇini. In his Aṣṭādhyāyī Pāṇini refers to the Yaudheyas as an āyudhajīvī saṃgha (V.3.114-117) (a community who live by weapons or who are warriors). The term saṃgha has been taken to mean a form of government by many scholars (V. S. Agrawala 1963: 428). Such scholars base their argument in Aṣṭādhyāyī III.3.86 where Pāṇini uses saṃgha and gaṇa synonymously. The term gaṇa, as a political term, translates: “any assemblage or association of men formed for the attainment of the same aims” (Monier-Williams 1999: 343). Pāṇini calls the Yaudheyas a saṃgha, and, as we shall see, the Yaudheyas call themselves a gaṇa on their class six coinage. These comments of Pāṇini combined with the class six Yaudheya coin legend have lead many scholars to refer to the Yaudheyas as practicing a republican form of government (V. S. Agrawala 1963: 432; P. K. Agrawala 1967: 42; Thakur 1981: 91; Rana 1995: 161; O. P. Singh 1978: 73; S. M. Gupta 1988: 8; Navaratnam 1973: 101; Chatterjee 1970: 37; Ahmad and Kumar 1993: 53; B. P. Roy 1984: 76; U. S. Rao 1962: 139; A. S. Altekar 1949: 50; J. Prakash 1965: 135). What is not clear, however, is just what many of these writers understand a republican government to be, and if republican is the best translation of such terms as saṃgha and gaṇa. In its most general sense the term republic means: “A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler” (O.E.D. 1985 II: 491); such a general understanding of the term may well apply to the Yaudheyas. Some nationalistic historians likely go too far, however, in presenting this Yaudheya ‘republic’ as the equivalent of a modern democracy (Jayaswal 1933: 148; Sharan 1972: 79). We lack the evidence to form such a conclusion. Some scholars have presented qualifications for their use of the term or have rigorously assessed the arguments of Jayaswal and Altekar, who first began to use the term in connection with the Yaudheyas. In this vein, see B. P. Mazumdar (1969: 307-310) and J. P. Singh (1977: 6-9). I think the evidence from coins, texts and seals does not clearly demonstrate that the Yaudheyas were a republic in the manner that Jayaswal and others understand the term. I also do not think that we should translate the words gaṇa and saṃgha with republican or democratic. The best, I think, that can be said is that there is minimal indication that the Yaudheyas had a monarchical form of government, and that they appeared to have ruled with some sort of an assembly, but the membership and nature of that assembly remains a mystery to us. Perhaps the wisest course of action is the one Sinha takes, which is to make no reference to the word republican and to simply refer to the Yaudheyas as a gaṇa (1979: 147). 2   These qualifications are largely supplied by the scholars listed above who have tried to revise Allan’s initial attempt. Most scholars (Bajpai 1973: 90; Dasgupta 1974: 200-201; Ahmed 1988: 67-68; Handa 1991: 69; Ahmed and Kumar 1993: 49; Bopearachchi and Pieper 1998: 51) now reject Allan’s attribution (1936: cxlvii) of his class

coins, statuary and skanda-kārttikeya

103

Allan’s classification is somewhat misleading because it is not chronologically based. The Yaudheya coin classes that depict Kārttikeya are Allan’s class three and six, and these are the last two coin types issued by the group. There is a wide chronological gap between the class three coins and class six coins. The class three coins are either preKuṣāṇa issues, or they are issued in the immediate aftermath of the Kuṣāṇa invasion of north India. The coins can be dated to around the end of the first century ce to the early part of the second century ce before the solidification of Kuṣāṇa rule in India under Kaniṣka (Mann 2007b: 48, 104-105). The Yaudheya class six coins are post-Kuṣāṇa issues dated to the third or fourth century ce (Allan 1936: cl; Dasgupta 1974: 209-213). There is, then, an approximate 200 year gap between the last two classes of Yaudheya coinage during which the Kuṣāṇas ruled much of north India. Most scholarship on Skanda-Kārttikeya does not view this gap as significant, if it is acknowledged at all. Most scholars only note some of the iconographic differences between the two coin types and regard the circumstances and understanding of the deity in the two numismatic issues as the same. I will present a significantly different argument. I regard the iconographic changes this deity undergoes on coinage to be full of implications concerning how he was characterized and understood. The period of Kuṣāṇa rule following Yaudheya class three coin production sees some dramatic shifts in the understanding of this deity that are carried over into Yaudheya class six coinage. Before such shifts can be appreciated, however, a clear understanding of Yaudheya class three coinage must be attained. Yaudheya Class Three Coinage: Obverse Designs There is wide variety in Yaudheya class three coinage. It is unlikely that the Yaudheyas used stringent mint controls or that they employed particularly skilled numismatic craftsmen during the period of class three production. As I will discuss in more detail below, most of the one coinage to the Yaudheyas. These so called ‘class one’ coins do not depict Skanda and are not of great consequence for this study. The coins of Allan’s class four have been identified as issues of local rulers of Garhwal in Uttar Pradesh and should also not be considered as issues of the Yaudheyas (Ahmad 1985: 110-111; Handa 1991: 72-73). Coins of Allan’s class two and five (second and first century bce) are the earliest Yaudheya issues, but they do not present images of the deity and will not be discussed in detail (Allan 1936: cxlix, cl).

104

chapter five

evidence suggests that the political and economic fortunes of the Yaudheyas were in serious decline during this period. The variance in class three coinage is not a deliberate attempt at numismatic variety, but more likely a result of insufficient resources in the Yaudheya state to produce consistent currency. While we can identify at least twelve different obverse styles on these class three issues (Mann 2003: 134145), they can be generally broken down into two major stylistic differences: they either depict a male with a single head (fig. 2a-c) or with six heads (figs. 3a-c).3 In both cases, the male stands facing the front holding a large spear in his right hand. Beyond the iconic spear and six heads, the inscription on the coins may help to identify the figure as Kārttikeya, but deciphering the legend is a challenging exercise. No single copper class three coin has come down to us with a complete legend. All of the copper coins are well worn and usually only a fraction of the legend can be seen on any one of them. John Allan made one of the first attempts at reconstructing the legend; he reads it as: “Bhāgavata-svamino Brahmaṇyadevasya (or sa) Kuma­rāsya (or sa)” or “Of Kumāra the divine lord Brahmaṇyadeva” (1936: cl). None of the copper issues have the name ‘Yaudheya’ on them, and their exact identity would be a mystery were it not for the discovery of a single silver class three coin (fig. 4). The obverse of this silver coin depicts a six-headed male holding a spear in his right hand; he is clearly related to the figure on the copper coinage. The legend on the silver coin is read by Allan as: “Yaudheya-bhāgavatasvamino Brah­maṇya (sa or sya)” or “Of Brahmaṇya (a name of Kārttikeya), the divine lord of the Yaudheyas” (1936: cxlix).4 This coin 3   The other stylistic differences relate to the ornamentation around the head or heads of the figure. Some have horizontal bars over the head(s), others a series of balls around the head(s), others T-shaped devices around the head(s), others depict rays and still others the head(s) without any ornamentation. 4   Allan was not the first scholar to attempt to read these legends. Among the earlier scholars the two most important are Cunningham and Smith. Cunningham read the silver legend as “Bhāgavato Swāmina Brāhmana Yaudheya” and the copper legend as “Bhāgavata Swāmina Brāhmana Devasya” (1963: 78). Cunningham also notes that the silver issue allows him to attribute the copper coins to the Yaudheyas (1963: 78-79). Smith describes the Indian Museum collection of copper Yaudheya coins and reconstructs the legend to read: “Bhāgavataḥ svāmino Brahmaṇya devasya” or, as he translates it, “(‘coin) of Svāmī (a title) Brahmaṇya-deva worshipper of Vishṇu’” (1972: 182). He also notes the appearance of the words “drama” and “Kumāra” on the coins, but he is unable to explain them. He does suggest that Kumāra may represent “a chief distinct from Brahmaṇya-deva” (1972: 182). Clearly, however, Smith makes an error in assuming that ‘Brahmaṇyadeva’ refers to a chief “who calls himself Svāmi Brahmaṇya Yaudheya” (1972: 165). It is generally agreed

coins, statuary and skanda-kārttikeya

105

and its legend allow us to connect the Brahmaṇyadeva copper coins to the Yau­dheyas.5 Not all scholars, however, concur with Allan’s reading of these legends. J. N. Banerjea reads the legend on the silver coin as: “Bhagavata (ḥ or to) svāmino Brahmaṇya (sa or sya) Yaudheya (sa or sya),” which would mean “‘of the worshipful lord Brahmaṇya-deva Yaudheya’” (1951: 161). He reconstructs the copper legend as: “Bhagavata (ḥ or to) svāmino Brahmaṇya-devasya (or sa) Kumārasya (or sa),” which translates as, “‘of (really, ‘coin of’) the worshipful lord Brahmaṇyadeva Kumāra’” (1951: 161). On the basis of this reading Banerjea that Allan’s readings of these legends represents an improvement over these two earlier efforts. 5   Some scholars have questioned the presumed relationship between the single silver issue and the coppers attributed to the Yaudheyas. The issue has been debated by four scholars: N. Ahmad, P. L. Gupta, D. Handa and A. M. Shastri. The debate was initiated by Ahmad who argued that the copper coins of Allan’s class three were issued by a tribe called Kumāra, and only the silver coin of class three actually belongs to the Yaudheyas (1977: 186). Shastri countered these claims by arguing that for ‘Kumāra’ to be a state’s name it would have to appear in the plural as on contemporaneous tribal and state coinage. Kumāra appears in the singular and is, then, an adjective of Brahmaṇyadeva (1987: 40). Defending Ahmad’s argument and countering Shastri was P. L. Gupta, who takes Ahmad’s argument a step further. He argues that Allan’s reading of ‘Yaudheya’ on the silver coin is conjecture. He feels that this coin may have been issued by the Kuṇindas or by a group near them (1987: 28-29). He also argues that Kumāra does not stand for Skanda or Brahmaṇyadeva on these coins (1987: 29-30). In response to Shastri’s grammatical concern for Kumāra being the name of a state, Gupta acknowledges the problem but asks: “can not there be any exception?” (1987: 30). Gupta does not, however, present any evidence to allow for such an exception. Handa argues against Gupta and Ahmad. He begins by stating, with reference to Gupta’s doubt concerning the existence of the word ‘Yaudheya’ on the silver coin, that: “The illustrations in Cunningham’s Coins of Ancient India, Pl. VI.9 and Mitchiner’s Types 598 and 940 are so clear that they do not leave even an iota of doubt regarding the existence of the name of the tribe on the said coin between III o’clock and VI o’clock” (1991: 71). Concerning Ahmad’s argument for the Kumāra tribe and Gupta’s support of it, he notes that literary references to the Kumāras indicate that they lived in Dakṣiṇāpatha far from the area where these coins were found. He also argues that there is enough literary evidence to link the Yaudheyas with Kārttikeya (1991: 72). Thus, Handa regards Allan’s attribution of these copper issues to the Yaudheyas as correct. There are other articles put forth by these scholars debating these points, but the main points have been summarized above. More recently W. Pieper has reviewed this debate and concludes: “Typologically, however, at least the Karttikeya/Lakshmi specimens are so closely connected with the silver type that in this case this can reasonably be taken as the decisive argument. And in spite of design varieties, all other class 3 coppers likewise show the same inscription, they should as well be regarded as Yaudheya emissions” (Bopearachchi and Pieper 1998: 52). I think that Shastri’s, Handa’s and Pieper’s arguments carry the most conviction, and the copper coins and silver coin must be considered as issues of the Yaudheya state.

106

chapter five

regards Skanda as the Yaudheya par excellence. He claims the Yaudheya state was dedicated to the deity, and that Kumāra was regarded by the group as their spiritual and temporal lord (1951: 162, 1956: 142, 1960: 43). We must, however, be cautious in interpreting these legends. The legend does imply a special place for Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra within Yaudheya society, but we lack a clear archaeological or textual context for this group that would help us in determining the exact nature of this deity’s role. We must also consider that the Yaudheyas and other local groups like the Kuṇindas borrowed their style of coin legend from the Indo-Greeks and Indo-Scythians, who usually placed the name of their ruler in the genitive on their coins. The Yaudheyas do not appear to have had a monarchy at this stage of history and may have placed Brahmaṇyadeva’s name in the genitive in an attempt to copy a recognized currency. Such a placement of the name could imply an understanding of Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra as a divine-king, but I think it is safer to argue that Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra was simply revered by the Yaudheyas at this time. It may also be the case that he and the goddess found on the reverse of the coins to be discussed below were viewed as the tutelary deities of the group.6 These debates over the legend do not change the argument that the Yaudheyas called the single- and six-headed male on their coins Brah­ maṇyadeva-Kumāra, and I suggest this is a form of Skanda. The name Kumāra certainly links the numismatic image to Skanda. As we will also see in the next chapter, when the Kuṣāṇas place Skanda on their coinage the legend identifies the figure as Skanda-Kumāra. The addition of Kumāra to the legend in both the Yaudheya and Kuṣāṇa cases may have been a numismatic device designed to more clearly identify the deity portrayed on the coin. The name Brahmaṇya is less ­commonly employed as an epithet of the deity in the early tradition. The term Brahmaṇya occurs in relation to Kārttikeya in the Āraṇya­ 6   Banerjea’s comments have had a significant impact on those who followed him with most scholars agreeing with his idea of a theocratic government. Those in general agreement are Dasgupta (1974: 216), A. M. Shastri (1977: 93), P. L. Gupta (1977: 63), J. P. Singh (1977: 6), P. K. Agrawala (1967: 42), Chatterjee (1970: 35-36), Navaratnam (1973: 100), O. P. Singh (1978: 71-72), Sinha (1979: 77), Thakur (1981: 48-49), Mani (1990: 70) and Rana (1995: 22). J. Prakash does not regard Banerjea’s reading of the legend as convincing (1965: 134). He argues that the silver and copper coins are designed to eulogize the deity. He translates the copper legend as: “(In the name or in honour) of the worshipful (or divine) lord, Brahmaṇyadeva Kumāra, (of the) Yaudheyas” (1965: 134).

coins, statuary and skanda-kārttikeya

107

kaparvan, but in that text it is not obviously an epithet of the deity; I have largely taken it as an adjective meaning ‘Brahminical’ in that context. Brahmaṇya is clearly used as an epithet of Kārttikeya in other texts like the Skandayāga where it is an epithet of Dhūrta (dhūrtaṃ brahmaṇyaṃ) (AVP 20.5.3), and the Mṛcchakaṭika where it occurs as part of a series of epithets praising the deity (namaḥ kanakaśaktaye brahmaṇyadevāya devavratāya) (3.15). Hence, I would suggest the Yaudheyas venerated a figure called Brahmaṇyadeva, and they indicate that it is a form of Skanda through the addition of Kumāra to the legend. Certainly, the iconography of the image solidifies the identification of it as Kārttikeya. There is no other six-headed male deity depicted with a spear in the tradition other than Kumāra. Yaudheya Class Three Coinage: Reverse Designs The reverse designs of class three coinage also show some diversity. There are three general reverse designs with a number of sub-variations found in them. One type presents a deer facing the right towards what appears to be a building (fig. 5 a-c). The other two types feature a female figure with either six heads (fig. 6) or a single head (fig. 7). She stands facing the front with her left hand on her hip and her right hand raised in what is likely an abhayamudrā. All of the reverse patterns also employ a variety of symbols derived from South Asian currency common to this era such as a tree-in-railing device, a three- and six-arched device topped by a nandipada, and a double ‘S’ device and so on (Mann 2007b: 64-65). There is no legend on the reverse of these coins that could help identify these figures.7 While the lack of a clear legend generates some interpretive problems, V. S. Agrawala presents a strong argument that the female on the reverse represents Ṣaṣṭhī (1943: 29-32). In a later publication Agrawala discusses passages from the Kāśyapasaṃhitā that describe Ṣaṣṭhī as six-faced as further evidence for his identification of her on

7  On variety h of Allan’s class three the word “darma” appears on the reverse of the coin, which Allan thinks is “presumably for dharma” (1936: cl). This legend appears on only a small number of the reverse class three coin types. Other scholars have argued it may mean dramma for the Greek coin denomination drachma (Dasgupta 1974: 217; Shastri 1987: 41-42). The intended meaning of this reverse legend remains uncertain.

108

chapter five

these coins (1970: 92-93).8 The role played by Ṣaṣṭhī on these coins will be discussed further below. Yaudheya Context and Chronology Before we attempt to analyse these numismatic issues for what they may tell us about Skanda, we must first attempt to place the Yaudheyas into a clearer context. Textual and epigraphic evidence for the Yaudheyas is not extensive, but it all implies an association between the group and warrior ideals. Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī provides the earliest textual reference to the group calling them an āyudhajīvī saṃgha, a group living by arms (V.3.114-117). The Mahābhārata speaks of them in relation to war, and Arjuna is said to have defeated them in battle (7.18.16 and 8.4.46).9 A second century ce inscription of the Western Kṣatrapa Rudradāman also makes mention of the Yaudheyas. Rudradāman claims to defeat the Yaudheyas and describes them as “rendered proud as they were by having manifested their title of heroes among all Kshatriyas” (Kielhorn 1905-06b: 47). The name of the group may also be related to the verb yudh, to fight, or the noun yudh, a warrior. While these references do not come from the Yaudheyas themselves, it seems clear that others viewed them as a group of warriors. A comparison of find site locations between the Yaudheya class two and class three coinage provides some additional context for the 8   A number of early scholars presented no clear identification of this figure. Alexander Cunningham calls her a “six-headed figure” (1963: 78). Vincent Smith refers to her as a “goddess” (1972: 181-182). Allan identified her as Lakṣmī (1936: cxlix-cl). He may have been influenced by the similarity between the Yaudheya reverse female and females found on the reverse of Kuṇinda and Mathurā coinage. The six-headed feature is, though, unique to Yaudheya coinage. Not all later scholars agree with Agrawala’s identification. Banerjea identifies her as Lakṣmī (1956: 141, 1960: 45). D. Pandey suggests that the goddess on these coins is Kṛttikā (1967: 7). Most scholars, however, support Agrawala’s hypothesis that the six-headed figure is Ṣaṣṭhī ( R. C. Agrawala 1968: 181-182; P. K. Agrawala 1967: 41-42; Dasgupta 1974: 222; Shastri 1977: 92-93; Ahmad 1977: 159; O. P. Singh 1977: 134, 1978: 24). 9   Some scholars also include the section from the digvijaya section of the Mahābhā­rata where Nakula conquers Rohītaka in their discussion of this topic (2.29.5-6). The land is described as “beloved of Kārttikeya,” but the people of the land are called “Mattamayūraka,” and the word Yaudheya does not occur in the section (2.29.5-6). Certainly the western travel of Nakula, the name Rohītaka (much like Rohtak) and the association with Skanda-Kārttikeya are suggestive of the Yaudheyas, but the lack of their name in this section leaves the matter open to question.

coins, statuary and skanda-kārttikeya

109

period of class three coin production. The class two coins pre-date the class three issues and may be dated to the first century bce; they likely remained in circulation until the first century ce (Mann 2007b: 58-60). The find site locations of the class two coins situate the Yaudheyas primarily in the modern state of Haryana near the towns of Rohtak and Naurangabad (Handa 1991: 67). Class two coins have also been found in limited numbers to the northeast of these towns in Jagadhri, Behat and further east in Meerut in the modern state of Uttar Pradesh (Handa 1991: 67). The class two coins themselves do not tell us a great deal concerning Kārttikeya. On the obverse of them is a bull standing to the left or right of a railing with a curved object. Some scholars feel the curved object represents a yūpa. The legend reads in Prakrit: “Yaudheyānāṃ Bahudhañake” or in Sanskrit: “Yaudheyānāṃ Bahudhānyaka” (Das­ gupta 1974: 215). The legend may be translated: “(coin) of the Yaudheyas (living) at Bahudhānyaka” (Dasgupta 1974: 215). Bahu­ dhānyaka seems to refer to a place and has been taken to mean: “a fertile land rich in corn” (Dasgupta 1974: 215). The precise location of Bahudhānyaka is a point of debate (Dasgupta 1974: 215), but it is likely in the general area of Rohtak-Naurangabad. The reverse shows an elephant to the right, a nandipada symbol above and an uncertain pennon-like object behind the elephant (Dasgupta 1974: 202). Another variety shows a horse instead of the bull on the reverse (Das­ gupta 1974: 202). Neither variety of class two coin reflects Yaudheya class three issues, indeed there is a remarkable iconographic shift between the coin types. With this dramatic shift in coin style from class two to class three comes a shift in geographical location. The find sites that have been recorded for Yaudheya class three coins are Tehri, Dehradun, Jagadhri, Kangra and Behat all in Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal in the foothills of the Himalayas (Handa 1991: 68; Mann 2007b: 60-63).10 The Yaudheyas have been pushed out of the planes of Haryana north to the foothills of the Himalayas. As I have suggested, these class three coins are poorly made, of inconsistent style and their design radically altered from the class two types. Inconsistent and low quality coin production are signs of a state undergoing economic or political 10   It should be noted, however, that Allan notes a lack of accuracy in recording the find sites of Yaudheya currency in general (1936: cli). The above locations only reflect find sites that have been accurately recorded.

110

chapter five

­turmoil. Hence, the class three coins suggest difficult times for the Yaudheyas. It is probable that another group forced the Yaudheyas out of their base in Haryana at around the beginning of class three production, and the introduction of the class three coin design is something of a response to these changed circumstances. Just which group forced the Yaudheyas north is not recorded by historical sources, but archaeological digs at Khokhrakot, a mound near modern Rohtak, suggest that the Kuṣāṇas control this area after the Yaudheyas of the class two coinage era (Kumar 1996: 96-102). The Kuṣāṇas are the most probable group to have pushed the Yaudheyas north. The first Kuṣāṇa to invade as far south as Mathurā, and, hence, through the Rohtak-Naurangabad region on route, was likely Soter Megas (MacDowall 1989: 155; Cribb 1999: 188). Soter Megas, or Vima I Takto as he is identified on the Rabatak inscription (Sims-Williams and Cribb 1995/96),11 likely rules the Kuṣāṇa Empire from 78-112/13 ce (Falk 2001: 130).12 He may have forced the Yaudheyas out of Rohtak-Naurangabad towards the northeast. Either in the reign of Wima II Kadphises (112/13-126 ce) or Kaniṣka I (126/27-152 ce) the Yaudheyas are completely subsumed within the Kuṣāṇa Empire, and they stop producing coinage until the fall of the Kuṣāṇas in that region in the third century ce (Mann 2007b: 68-92).13 11   While most scholars agree that the figure identified on Kuṣāṇa numismatics as Soter Megas is the Vima I Takto of the Rabatak inscription, Osmund Bopearachchi (2007) has argued that Soter Megas is an usurper. According to Bopearachchi, Soter Megas was a general of Kujula Kadphises who took control of the Kuṣāṇa territory in India. Hence, he argues, Soter Megas and Vima I Takto are not the same figures. Bopearachchi’s observations are worthy of consideration in this matter, but it still remains more likely that the two names/titles belong to the same historical figure. 12   These dates are based Harry Falk’s (2001) proposed date for Kaniṣka’s year one. While I think Falk’s dates present us with the most reasonable hypothesis, there remain some gaps in our understanding of this period of history that prevent us from absolute certainty on the dates of the Kuṣāṇas. The following dates for Kaniṣka’s year one have also been proposed by other scholars: 58 bce, 78 ce, 103, 128, 132, 144, 232 and 278 ce (Basham 1968; Rosenfield 1993: 253-258; Errington 1992: 17). 13   Most scholars dealing with the poor quality of the class three issues attribute the Yaudheya decline to a military defeat at the hands of Rudradāman (Allan 1936: cliii; Banerjea 1951: 160-163). The evidence for Rudradāman’s defeat of the Yaudheyas comes from the Junagadh inscription that records the repair of a dam by one of Rudradāman’s governor’s in that region in 151/52 ce (Kielhorn 1905-06b: 41, 47). There are, however, a number of problems in attributing the defeat and relocation of the Yaudheyas to Rudradāman. The Kṣatrapa’s kingdom as identified on the inscription is well to the west of the find sites of Yaudheya class two and three coinage. If Rudradāman defeated the Yaudheyas, it seems unlikely that he established any

coins, statuary and skanda-kārttikeya

111

The numismatic shift in designs between the Yaudheya class two coins and the class three coins reflects more then a simple change in state iconography. The adoption of Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra and Ṣaṣṭhī as the numismatic emblems of the Yaudheyas occurs during a period of crisis for the group. Given the apparent Yaudheya identity as a warrior group their military loss or losses to the Kuṣāṇas or other groups likely motivated their adoption of Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra as one of their emblems. We can reasonably hypothesize that the Yaudheyas attempt to strengthen or recapture their reputation as warriors by placing Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra on their coinage. Hence, the deity was likely perceived as a warrior figure during the early and preKuṣāṇa era in north India. The question for us, however, is just what sort of warrior was he understood to be—the untamed figure with connections to Grahas and Mātṛs from the early sections of the Āraṇyakaparvan who becomes protective once propitiated, or the controlled general of the army of the gods and son of Śiva that emerges after chapter 218 of the Āraṇyakaparvan. To come to a clear resolution of this issue we must delve further into the iconography of the figures on Yaudheya class three coinage. As important as the obverse images of Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra on these coins are, it is the reverse images of Ṣaṣṭhī that helps us to locate the likely context of these coins. While the obverse image likely depicts Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra as a warrior, the reverse image of Ṣaṣṭhī adds a Graha and Mātṛ context to the coins. Ṣaṣṭhī, literally ‘Sixth’, is a Mātṛ/Graha with close associations to rites conducted on the sixth day after an infant’s birth (Tewari 1996: 171). In the Kāśyapasaṃhitā she is described as having six faces (Tewari 1996: 171). Infant mortality in the ancient and not so ancient world was high, especially during a administration in the Rohtak-Naurangabad region. Hence, there is no evidence to suggest that Rudradāman forced the Yaudheyas out of their homeland during the period of class two coin production. The proposed date of the inscription, 151/2 ce, also poses a chronological problem in that it falls in the midst of Kuṣāṇa supremacy in north India. Kaniṣka, likely the most powerful of the Kuṣāṇa emperors, rules 127153 ce (Sims-Williams and Cribb 1995/96: 106; Falk 2001: 130), and he is followed by Huviṣka, 153-191 ce (Sims-Williams and Cribb 1995/96: 106; Falk 2001: 130). Rudradāman’s inscription makes no reference to the Kuṣāṇas, but it seems highly improbable that he would march through their kingdom to attack the Yaudheyas. Hence, we are either faced with faulty dates for the inscription, or for Kuṣāṇa rule, or Rudradāman’s governor boasts of events on his master’s behalf that never transpired. We cannot eliminate the possibility that it was Rudradāman who forced the Yaudheyas north, but, given the problems of chronology and geography I have suggested here, it seems best to give credit to the Kuṣāṇas.

112

chapter five

child’s first few days of life. The cult of Ṣaṣṭhī seems to be tied to this early and dangerous period of a child’s life. While there are some positive sentiments expressed about her in the Kāśyapasaṃhitā, there is also an underside of negativity. Her worship day is after the sixth day of delivery and every sixth day of every fortnight; she is also described as killing on the sixth day after delivery (Tewari 1996: 171). While the text does not explicitly state it, her worship on the sixth day of a child’s life seems designed to prevent her from killing new born children. Ṣaṣṭhī is also linked to Kārttikeya in the Kāśyapasaṃhitā; she is described as a sister of Skanda and as deserving the same worship as he (Tewari 1996: 169-170). The two are also described as poisoning breast-milk together as a form of Graha attack (Tewari 1996: 9) and as afflicting wet-nurses with disease (Tewari 1996: 252). Hence, it seems probable that Skanda-Brahmaṇyadeva and Ṣaṣṭhī are depicted together on these coins because they were viewed as coming from the same Graha/Mātṛ context.14 Once we examine the combined evidence for these coins, they suggest that the Yaudheyas viewed Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra as a protective fierce warrior figure with close associations to a Graha/Mātṛ deity. As such, the Yaudheya class three coins correlate with the depiction of Skanda found in chapters 214-217 of the Āraṇyakaparvan. While the depiction of Skanda as an uncontrolled warrior with close associations with Grahas is a minor one in the textual tradition, it does appear to have been a characterization of the deity current among some of his devotees in South Asia during the first to second centuries ce. The context of these coins also implies a political use of BrahmaṇyadevaKumāra and Ṣaṣṭhī by the Yaudheyas. Whether or not the group perceived Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra as their ruler is not clear, but it might be reasonable to assume that the Yaudheyas viewed themselves as under the protection of the deities found on their coins. The portrayal of Grahas and Mātṛs from the textual tradition implies that their cult was localized to the protection of pregnant women and young children. These Yaudheya coins and their political use of these deities suggest, however, that the sense of protection they were thought to deliver

14   There is in the Mānava Gṛhyasūtra a description of the Ṣaṣṭhīkalpa, the ritual of Ṣaṣṭhī (MGS 2.13). The description of this rite does not present her as a Graha/ Mātṛ nor does it mention Skanda. The context of the rite, however, appears to have nothing to do with rites for newborn children or fertility. It simply asks for great treasures in return for the oblation made to her (MGS 2.13.6).

coins, statuary and skanda-kārttikeya

113

once propitiated could be extended to a state or other large political group. From Six Heads to One The depiction of Skanda, or Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra, with six heads is something of a Yaudheya innovation when it comes to artistic representations of the deity.15 While the texts we have examined thus far frequently refer to Kārttikeya as six-headed, artistic representations of Kumāra with six heads from the Kuṣāṇa and Gupta eras are limited to these Yaudheya class three coins. R. C. Agrawala argues that the numismatic presentation of six heads as two rows of three heads on a deity is a Yaudheya innovation. He notes that the earliest Mathurā sculptures depicting Kārttikeya show him with a single head (1966a: 200). He also states that the first available six-headed statues of this deity from the Punjab and Kashmir regions are post-Gupta (1967: 41). From this evidence Agrawala thinks the Yaudheyas introduced this particular six-headed trait (1966a: 201-202). My sections on statuary in this and the next chapter will confirm Agrawala’s observations here. That this six-headed convention is likely indigenous to the Yaudheyas is important because, as I have argued elsewhere (Mann 2003: 152-174), many of the single-headed Brahmaṇyadeva coin features of this period are borrowed from Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian sources. The placement of balls and dots around a single head on ­coinage as seen in some of the Yaudheya single-headed depictions of Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra is a common Hellenistic convention 15   The appearance in Indian art of multiple limbs and heads has been a topic of some scholarly discussion. One of the most important of these publications is D. M. Srinivasan’s Many Heads, Arms and Eyes: Origin, Meaning and Form of Multiplicity in Indian Art. One of Srinivasan’s main arguments is that the depiction of multiple heads and arms in statuary is based on a Vedic theory of numbers. Specifically, she argues that the numbers four, five and eight have special ‘symbolic’ meaning in the Vedas and related ritual texts, and this ‘symbolic’ significance is the basis of what she calls the multiplicity convention in emerging Hindu art (1997: 162-175). She regards six as outside of this Vedic symbolic number system and states: “‘Six’ is used as a mathematical, not symbolic number” (1997: 293). Kārttikeya’s six-headedness does not fit into Srinivasan’s Vedic model, and she suggests that there is no special meaning behind his number of heads. She also attempts to explain Kārtti­ keya’s six heads in relation to legends about him. She regards his six heads as a result of being suckled by the six Kṛttikās (1997: 333). In a similar fashion she regards Ṣaṣṭhī’s multi-headedness to be a reference to her worship, which occurs on the sixth day of the lunar month (1997: 333).

114

chapter five

em­ployed by Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian rulers to depict a deity with a wreath around its head. Such numismatic borrowing is a standard feature of coinage in the ancient world. Indo-Greek coinage set the standard for numismatics in north India and all of the groups in the region borrow from it to a greater or lesser degree. Mimicking the coinage of successful groups like the Indo-Greeks was an attempt to have one’s own currency valued as equivalent to the dominant currency of the day. Hellenistic coinage also tended to feature anthropomorphic representations of deities. Depictions of deities with multiple heads was not part of the Indo-Greek numismatic repertoire, and its appearance on Yaudheya class three coins appears to place us within an indigenous religious and numismatic context; in short, the Yaudheyas understood the deity to appear with six heads and only produce single-headed versions of the deity in an attempt to fit more normative depictions of deities current in South Asian numismatics during the first and second centuries ce. This type of iconographic shifting is, I suggest, significant because iconographic representations can impact the understanding of a deity’s character. As John Kieschnick suggests in the case of material culture and Chinese Buddhism: “... at times internal developments in the history of objects provoke doctrinal changes, and not the other way around. To paraphrase Zhuangzi, it is often the objects that manipulate us rather than we who manipulate them” (2003: 14). A depiction of a six-headed deity and a depiction of the same deity as singleheaded express or emphasize different things and understandings of the deity. I do not think that these points would have been lost on the everyday Yaudheya populace who used these coins. The single-headed type is a much more human and softer depiction than the six-headed figure. While I cannot claim to know exactly what South Asians living in north India during the first and second centuries ce would have understood from these images, the six-headed image likely inspired more awe and trepidation than the single-headed image.16 The sixheaded Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra and Ṣaṣṭhī also have closer associations with a propitiation based Graha milieu. Given that part of Skanda’s and Ṣaṣṭhī’s appeal to such a propitiation cult was their

16   In the epics and Purāṇas multiple heads are most often associated with demons. When they are associated with gods it is often to reinforce a fearful or aweinspiring aspect of them.

coins, statuary and skanda-kārttikeya

115

potentially horrific nature, this softening of their appearance is an important development. That both the single- and six-headed forms seem to exist at the same time also suggests that Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra’s iconographic form was malleable during this period, as may have been his character. As we shall see, the exclusive adoption of the single-headed representation of the deity comes about under Kuṣāṇa rule and results in a very different understanding of the deity than that depicted in the sixheaded variety of class three coinage. The final Yaudheya issues, Allan’s class six, are post-Kuṣāṇa and all show Brahmaṇyadeva as a youthful figure with one head. This process of iconographic humanization and beautification seems to begin here with these class three coins. The Worship and Popularity of Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra and Ṣaṣṭhī among the Yaudheyas during the Period of Class Three Coinage We do have to assume that the Yaudheyas of the period of class three coin production worshiped Brahmaṇyadeva and Ṣaṣṭhī, and that these deities held some special place for them. The worship of them may have been some sort of state sponsored cult, or a reflection of more popularist sentiment. Yaudheya class three coinage was produced almost exclusively in copper, a low denomination and, therefore, accessible to a wide spectrum of society. Hence, the images on these coins were likely selected because they were recognizable and meaningful to the majority of the moneyed members of Yaudheya society. It seems reasonable to suggest that at least some elements within Yaudheya society were devotees of Skanda and Ṣaṣṭhī during this time. A potential clue for the worship of Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra by the Yaudheyas is the device which looks like a building on the reverse of some of the class three issues. A number of scholars have claimed that these buildings are temples and indicate the worship of Skanda. Thakur suggests primarily from Yaudheya coinage, but also from non-Yaudheya inscriptions, that “... it may be presumed that the area [Rohtak] probably abounded in shrines dedicated to him and the cult image enshrined in them was used as a coin-device” (1974: 305; also see Thakur 1981: 49). A variety of other scholars reach similar conclu-

116

chapter five

sions (Chatterjee 1970: 38; Ghurye 1977: 138; A. M. Shastri 1977: 93; Sinha 1979: 79; D. Mukherjee 1983: 21). There is, however, no physical evidence for these temples other than these coins.17 The temple or building is also always associated with the deer on the reverse of these coins and never directly with Brahmaṇyadeva or Ṣaṣṭhī.18 Who or what this deer represents is not clear. J. N. Banerjea suggests that a similar stag or deer on Kuṇinda coinage is a theriomorphic representation of Lakṣmī (1956: 134). Other scholars have disagreed with this assessment because a female figure, whom many scholars understand to be Lakṣmī, appears on these Kuṇinda coins with the deer, and some scholars will not accept the double representation of the goddess on the same coin (Ahmad 1977: 159). A very similar building also appears on Audumbara coinage, where it is largely understood to be a Śaivite temple because of a trident and battle axe device placed before it (Dasgupta 1974: 62-63). The Yaudheyas only place this deer or stag before their building, and we are not sure what the animal is meant to signify. Texts like the Skandayāga and the Suśrutasaṃhitā also do not require the use of a temple or shrine for worship of the deity. While these buildings or temples on class three coinage are often used to demonstrate Yaudheya devotion to Skanda-Kārttikeya, we have to be cautious about their meaning. We may presume that the Yaudheyas, or at least some aspects of their society, worshipped Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra and Ṣaṣṭhī, and felt that their violent power was on their side. Part of the message of these coins implies that the Yaudheyas or their leadership have harnessed the power of these deities through worship of them. I must stress, however, we have no physical evidence of this worship. No Yaudheya inscriptions make reference to the deities and no statues of the deities have been recovered from known Yaudheya sites. We can only create a hypothesis based on the limited evidence of the coins themselves.

17   Some scholars have suggested that the temples represented on Yaudheya coins were made of wood and thus would have not survived (Kumar and Singh 1978: 3-5), but how one determines the building material of these structures based on these coins is not clear to me. 18  O. P. Singh regards the temples on the reverse of the class three coins to be shrines for the goddess also shown on the reverse (1977: 135).

coins, statuary and skanda-kārttikeya

117

The Kuṣāṇa-Era Mathurā Depictions of Skanda-Kārttikeya The Kuṣāṇas were a group who were foreign to South Asia, but who ruled over a large empire within South Asia from approximately the first century of the Common Era to the end of the fourth century, though the empire was greatly reduced after the third century ce (Cribb 1999: 191-193). While statues existed in India well before the Kuṣāṇas, they become much more common in India during their rule, and a number of new depictions of deities are introduced during this period. The Kuṣāṇas are also significant because they assimilated a number of cultural traditions into their art work and royal regalia.19 Hence, they display a complex amalgam of Hellenistic, Parthian, Scythian and Indian cultures in their art and politics. As we shall see, the wide variety of cultures that influenced the Kuṣāṇas will play a significant role in their understanding and use of Kārttikeya. Generally, there are two styles of depiction of Skanda in statues and panels from Kuṣāṇa South Asia. The two types can be geographically separated into those from Mathurā and those from Gandhāra. Mathurā and Gandhāra represent different cultural zones within the Kuṣāṇa Empire. Gandhāra is closer to boarder regions with Parthia and was ruled before the Kuṣāṇas by a series of Indo-Greek, IndoParthian and Indo-Scythian rulers. The region might best be described as a cultural hybrid of these various influences. Mathurā lies further into India proper and, while it also displays elements of cultural hybridity and was ruled at times by Indo-Scythians and Indo-Par­ thians, its art work represents a more indigenously Indian product. In what follows I will argue that the Mathurā depictions of Skanda are similar to the Yaudheya class three numismatic depictions of the deity in that they present him as closely affiliated with Grahas and Mātṛs,

  The Kuṣāṇas are first mentioned in Chinese reports of their migrations from western China to the southeast regions of the modern countries of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the second century bce. They appear to have been a nomadic group speaking an ancient Iranian dialect. During the first century bce they extend their kingdom into southern Bactria and beyond the Hindu Kush into Indo-Greek territories. Here they borrow coin designs from the Bactrian Greeks and Indo-Greeks. As the kingdom expands into an empire it absorbs regions ruled by Indo-Parthians and Indo-Scythians and, again, the Kuṣāṇas begin to mimic aspects of these cultures. Trade also lead them to absorb elements of Roman and broader Hellenistic traditions. Finally, Parthian culture appears to have been particularly influential on Kaniṣka and Huviṣka (Cribb 2007: 364-367). 19

118

chapter five

and as something of an Indian warrior figure. In the next chapter I will deal with the Gandhāran depictions of the deity. The Mathurā statues of Kārttikeya can be sub-divided into three classes: a Ṣaṣṭhī triad, a Mātṛ type, and a warrior or Mahāsena type. The Mathurā Ṣaṣṭhī triad (fig. 8) bears the closest relationship to Yaudheya numismatics. Here two identical male figures stand on either side of a female. The two males hold large spears in their left hands and have their right hands raised in an abhayamudrā. They both wear dhotīs and appear to have their hair tied into a bun. The female holds a bag in her left hand and raises her right in an abhayamudrā. Five smaller heads are arranged in an arch over her larger central head. Based largely on the presence of the female figure with six heads, the panel has been identified as Ṣaṣṭhī flanked by Skanda and Viśākha (P. K. Agrawala 1971: 326-327; R. C. Agrawala 1971: 83; Joshi 1986: 11; Härtel 1987: 155-157). An exact identification of the two males is not completely certain, but the similarity between these male figures and those illustrated below with Mātṛs and the textual relationships between Skanda, Viśākha and Ṣaṣṭhī support the identification.20 The depiction of Skanda and Viśākha with Ṣaṣṭhī suggests a devotional cult associated with Grahas and Mātṛs similar to that seen on Yaudheya class three coinage. The two males in the panel, however, also project a warrior image through their spears. While the warrior sensibility is not as clear in the panel as it was on Yaudheya coinage, one can still suggest that these panels present a mixture of protective deities related to Graha, Mātṛ and warrior characteristics. Mathurā panels from this period also depict Kārttikeya with Mātṛs (figs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13). The panel illustrated in figure 9 is worn, but shows a single male to the far right holding a spear in his left hand and his right held up in an abhayamudrā. He appears to be dressed in a dhotī. To his left is a row of seven standing females. They are all dressed in the same manner and have no distinguishing features. Each raises her right arm in an abhayamudrā and her left rests by her side. The male has been identified as Skanda and the females as Mātṛs or 20   This type of panel is also closely related to panels from Mathurā depicting a Vṛṣṇi triad. See André Couture and Charlotte Schmid for a detailed study of these Vṛṣṇi panels (2001). This type of panel was also misidentified by Cunningham, Vogel, A. K. Coomaraswamy and V. S. Agrawala as a representation of a Nāgī or a Queen of the Nāgās, but a number of scholars have since corrected this mistake (P. K. Agrawala 1971: 325; R. C. Agrawala 1971: 82; Härtel 1987: 153). Joshi claims that there are four existing examples of this panel from Kuṣāṇa era Mathurā (1986: 126-128).

coins, statuary and skanda-kārttikeya

119

the Saptamātṛkās (R. C. Agrawala 1971: 79-80; Joshi 1986: 7-9; Harper 1989: 68). N. P. Joshi describes ten surviving examples of these panels from the Kuṣāṇa period in Mathurā (1986: 8), and Sara Schastok reports knowing of eighteen (1985: 63). While the depiction of Kārttikeya on these panels is consistent, the number and depiction of the Mātṛs, or Mātṛkās, varies. Some are depicted as seated (fig. 10), in which case only as many as five females are shown. Schastok speculates that the seated variety have links to fertility and Mātṛ traditions, while the standing figures may represent the wives of the Saptaṛṣis or the Kṛttikās (1985: 64-65). Some are shown with human faces, but others with animal and bird faces (figs 11, 12 and 13). Figure 11 depicts one unusual panel. Here four devotees are in the far right. Next to them is a jar with an animal shaped head. Next to that is Skanda in his usual Mathurā depiction and next to him is an animal shaped female with a baby cradled in her left arm. Her right arm is raised in an abhayamudrā. She is likely a Mātṛ (R. C. Agrawala 1971: 81; Joshi 1986: 8; Harper 1989: 68).21 The presence of the animal-headed female figure cradling an infant does much to forward a Graha or Mātṛ context for the panel. As with the previous Ṣaṣṭhī triad panels, the depiction of Skanda here combines an image of a youthful warrior with a Mātṛ/Graha context. The general appearance of these figures and the repeated use of the abhayamudrā also suggest that these figures are presented in a benign aspect. While there are potentially sinister aspects to the iconography of some of the Mātṛs such as animal and bird features, they are mostly depicted as smiling and calm. Those cradling infants do not appear in a threatening posture and may be understood to be enacting a protective role. These panels present an understanding that these figures have been propitiated and appear in their protective and benign countenances.

21   Joshi regards this panel as a depiction of Skanda-Kārttikeya’s birth from the Āraṇyakaparvan. According to him the pot represents the golden pot into which Svāhā dropped Agni’s semen. The animal head on the pot represents a ram’s head and is meant to depict Agni. The Mātṛ represents Lohitāyanī who protects the new born (1986: 8, 20). While Harper agrees with this analysis (1989: 69), I am not convinced, and some of his identifications seem arbitrary. The panel certainly suggests that Kārttikeya is associated with some form of horrific female who is associated with children. The pot may also represent a Mātṛ figure or some form of fertility motif. Pots and pot-shaped females were used in South Asian art to evoke an idea of fertility (Shulman 1980: 250; Srinivasan 1997: 190-192).

120

chapter five

The warrior or Mahāsena statues (figs. 14 and 15) depict the deity standing alone holding a large spear in one hand with the other raised in an abhayamudrā; he wears a dhotī, and his hair is arranged into a top knot, or he wears a crown-like headdress. Figure 15 illustrates an important statue of this type because it carries an inscription. Here Kārttikeya holds a large spear in his left hand and raises his right hand in an abhayamudrā. He wears a dhotī, ornamented headdress, earrings, armlets and bracelets. The inscription on the base reads: “in the eleventh year, fourth month of winter, on the last day, was installed the image of Kārttikeya by the brothers Viśvadeva, Viśvasoma, Viśvabhava and Viśvāvasu, the sons of Viśvila, the Kṣatriyas, in their own home...” (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 47). There is debate over the era referred to by the date mentioned in the inscription,22 but there is no doubt that it is Kuṣāṇa era piece. The inscription is of value to us for several reasons. First, it clearly identifies the figure as Kārttikeya. No other panel or statue depicting Skanda from Gandhāra or Mathurā comes with an inscription identifying the image, so the existence of this single inscription gives us some confidence in our identifications of Skanda from other statues and panels. Second, the brothers clearly identify themselves as kṣatriyas, warriors, and their caste helps us to understand who was worshipping this form of the deity during the Kuṣāṇa era. The military background of the worshippers leads me to call this type of representation a Mahāsena statue. These depictions of Skanda-Kārttikeya are more suggestive of the deity’s role as the Sura­ se­nāpati than his fierce warrior and Graha personas. The deity also stands alone without any reference to Grahas or Mātṛs; the statues express an exclusively military identity for Kārttikeya. Some of these Mahāsena statues can also be differentiated from the Ṣaṣṭhī and Mātṛ panels in that they are modelled after Bodhisattvas (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 84; Rosenfield 1993: 295), an aspect of their iconography that further distances them from a Graha/Mātṛ context. The Māhasena type is also less frequently found than the Mātṛ type with only five certain Kuṣāṇa examples of it.23 22   P. K. Agrawala regards the year 11 to refer to the Śaka era and supplies the date of 89 ce for it (1967: 47). It may also refer to the Kaniṣka era, which would place it in c. 138 ce. Others have argued that the date belongs to the second Kaniṣka era and have assigned to it a much later date (Czuma and Morris 1985: 115). 23   The third example is illustrated in figure 16. This small bronze (9.3 cm high) was excavated from Sonkh near Mathurā (Härtel 1993: 281). It has been dated to 100 ce by the excavators of Sonkh (Härtel 1993: 281). The fourth example is held by the National Museum in New Delhi and the fifth by the State Museum in Mathurā.

coins, statuary and skanda-kārttikeya

121

Concluding Remarks to the Mathurā Images of Skanda-Kārttikeya As the above demonstrates, the Kuṣāṇa panels of Skanda with Ṣaṣṭhī and Mātṛs from the Mathurā area are iconographically related to each other in terms of their depiction of Kārttikeya. These panels appear to be closely related to the Yaudheya class three coins in that they present the deity in close association with Grahas/Mātṛs. The statues of Mahāsena differ slightly in iconography and show no obvious connection to Graha cults. We can, then, speak of two devotional traditions to Kārttikeya in Kuṣāṇa era Mathurā: one that favoured his military persona and the other that favoured his warrior/Graha persona. Finds of panels of Skanda in association with Mātṛs far exceed those of the lone warrior statues in Kuṣāṇa era Mathurā. The Mahāsena tradition appears to have been the less popular of the two forms of devotion to the deity at this time and place. The combination of the material evidence from the Yaudheyas and Mathurā suggests that the textual image of Skanda as a Graha or as connected to Grahas and Mātṛs reflects aspects of his lived cult during this era in north India. The popular devotional tradition to Skanda during this era was likely focused on Graha and Mātṛ cults and the broader protective aspect implied by such cults. This protective aspect may have extended well beyond the Āyurvedic concerns for the health of infants and mothers. The Yaudheya use of Brahmaṇyadeva and Ṣaṣṭhī implies a broad understanding of the protective role these ­deities were perceived to enact. While the evidence from the material traditions of Skanda-Kārttikeya from Mathurā do not correlate com­ pletely with the textual accounts of Grahas and Mātṛs, they do support the argument that an important aspect of Kārttikeya’s early cult was oriented towards propitiating these figures.

. .

CHAPTER SIX

SKANDA-KĀRTTIKEYA ON KUṢĀṆA COINAGE AND GANDHĀRA STATUARY In this chapter I will argue that the Gandhāran statues of Kārttikeya can best be described as images of Mahāsena, the martial epithet of the deity. They depict the deity without reference to Graha or Mātṛ iconography, and, as I will argue, they borrow their iconography in part from Parthian and Scythian sources. The Mahāsena image is also adopted by Huviṣka, a second century ce Kuṣāṇa emperor, on his gold coinage. This ruler also produces a gold coin depicting SkandaKumāra with Viśākha, and another depicting all three (Mahāsena, Skanda and Viśākha) on the same coin. Here I will argue that the Mahāsena depiction of the deity dominates the others and employs the same Parthian and Scythian iconography as the Gandhāran statues. The evidence demonstrates an imperial interest in the deity, but an interest that comes at the expense of his Graha/Mātṛ traditions localized in Mathurā. Kuṣāṇa Era Gandhāra Statuary of Skanda-Kārttikeya Figure 17 is typical of Gandhāran depictions of Skanda. Here the deity stands in a frontal posture and is dressed in Scythian-style armour with a dhotī beneath. He holds a spear with his right hand and a bird in his left hand. The bird is a cock (Czuma and Morris 1985: 180; Zwalf 1996: 121). He wears an ornamented turban and a short sword on his left leg. There is also a halo around his head. This piece is from Kāfir-koṭ (Zwalf 1996: 121) and has been dated to the Kuṣāṇa period at around the late first to early second century ce (Czuma and Morris 1985: 180). Doris Srinivasan (1997/98) presents a detailed study of Skanda statuary from this region and time-period; it is clear from her article that far northwest Kuṣāṇa statues of the deity all represent him in a fashion similar to figure 17.1   Srinivasan discusses sixteen examples of her “warrior god” type of Kārttikeya from the first to seventh centuries ce from the far northwest (1997/98). About eleven 1

124

chapter six

The iconography of these Gandhāran statues differ significantly from the Mathurā panels and statues previously examined. While the Mathurā and Yaudheya images of Skanda did not ignore a warrior aspect to him, the Gandhāran depictions of the deity dressed in armour accentuate such an understanding of the deity.2 The armour is of Scythian origin. Srinivasan notes schists that depict Scythian warriors in a similar posture and dress as Kārttikeya in this statue (1997/98: 239; also see Goetz 1948: 18, and Pal 1977: 22). There have also been archaeological finds of plate armour that may have been models for the appearance of Skanda’s armour (Srinivasan 1997/98: 239-240, 253-254). Srinivasan relates the appearance of Kārttikeya’s armour to his potential cult base in this region. She comments: “This figure dressed in the Scythian garb, implies that the god had followers among foreigners” (1997/98: 237), and “dressed in the manner of his foreign devotees suggests that the god, too, may have a foreign component in his make-up” (1997/98: 238). I think this idea of a ‘foreign’ component in the cult of this deity is correct, but I will also argue that this foreign interest in the deity is much more significant than most scholars have acknowledged. The other major iconographic feature added to the Gandhāran statues is the appearance of the bird, likely a cock or chicken.3 Regarding the cock Srinivasan suggests: “The cock may have been incorporated into Skanda/Kārttikeya’s iconography because of its maneuverability; cocks jump with agility when fighting and this habit may be symbolic of these examples come from the Kuṣāṇa era. The number of examples may be slightly smaller or higher depending on what we consider to be enough evidence for a positive identification. There are, for instance, a number of broken statues that are dressed as Skanda, but the spear or cock has, presumably, been broken off. There are also Kārttikeya-like statues that do not depict the bird. These have been variously identified as a warrior or as Skanda by various writers. For discussions of this issue see Goetz (1948), Zwalf (1996: 284) and Srinivasan (1997/98: 252). 2   The short sword also implies a soldier ready for battle. The sword is missing from the Mathurā and Yaudheya depictions of the deity and may represent another Gandhāran innovation. 3   Srinivasan states that the earliest depiction of Kārttikeya with a cock comes from Mathurā and dates to the Kuṣāṇa era (1997/98: 236). She cites Chatterjee to back her point, but Chatterjee regards the Kuṣāṇa date for it as doubtful (1970: 115). The Kuṣāṇa date comes from V. S. Agrawala, and R. C. Kar also doubts it: “It may be a century or two later, though no definite opinion should be passed regarding its age in view of its very worn condition” (1954: 82). The photograph Chaterjee supplies of this statue (figure four in Chatterjee 1970) depicts a very worn piece. I do not think that we can safely include this statue among the Kuṣāṇa era statues. Hence, I think we can suggest that the use of the cock in statuary is limited to the far northwest ­during this period.

skanda-kārttikeya on kus. ān. a coinage

125

of the military prowess of the warrior god” (1997/98: 246; also see Willis 2009: 174). This suggestion is certainly reasonable, but there is only limited evidence for such an understanding of the cock in South Asia from this time period. I will argue that the cock points to a nonIndian influence particularly given the martial appearance of the statues. I suggest that the cock points to Parthian iconographic influence. A bird is often associated with warrior-gods in Iranian literature, and this association is also used in the Kuṣāṇa numismatic representation of Mahāsena (fig. 18 a-b). This Huviṣka gold coin presents the deity facing the front holding a bird-topped standard in his right hand. The exact type of bird is unclear. He wears a dhotī and cloak; he holds his left hand on the handle of a sword attached to his hip. He is nimbate and has fillets or locks of hair coming down from a topknot on his head. The Bactrian legend in Greek script identifies the figure as Mahāsena. I will discuss this coin in more detail below; for now I wish to concentrate on the use of birds on Kuṣāṇa numismatics. The use of birds as emblems is borrowed by Kuṣāṇa rulers from Parthian coinage. As Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis demonstrates, bird ima­ gery on Parthian coinage should be understood as an emblem of khvarenah/xvarǝnah (Avestan) or khvarrah (Pahlavi). Khvarenah is an Iranian concept of god-given glory bestowed upon a legitimate king. A common emblem of such royal glory and legitimacy of rule was bird iconography (Curtis 2007: 422-423; also see Rosenfield 1993: 95-96 and Granoff 1970: 163). Parthian coins employing Veragna, the royal falcon, or bird iconography in relation to the king, such as feathered headdresses, should be read as emblems of khvarenah. The goal of such iconography, argues Curtis, was to send a message to other Parthian noble families and aristocracy that the king was legitimate. The iconography signalled a ruler who had received god-given glory from the yazatas (Curtis 2007: 422, 429).4 Iranian imagery and concepts become particularly important on Kuṣāṇa coinage with the rule of Kaniṣka, a trend that is maintained by Huviṣka. As Joe Cribb demonstrates, Kaniṣka transforms Kuṣāṇa coinage to identify more with Iranian traditions (2007: 366-367). Part of this shift towards Parthian numismatic patterns is the appearance of emblematic bird iconography on Kuṣāṇa coins depicting the   Yazatas are divine beings within Zoroastrianism some of whom are charged with protecting khvarenah and ensuring that only rightful kings possess it. 4

126

chapter six

Parthian deities Orlagno (fig. 19) and Pharro (fig. 20). Orlagno appears on gold coins of Kaniṣka, where he is depicted with a bird in his headdress and a sword with a bird-like hilt. Orlagno is Bactrian for the Avestan deity Verethraghna (Pahlavi Vārahrān/Bahram), who was the national lord of Iranians in arms. He has ten forms that symbolize victory, one of which is a bird form. His association with bird imagery is particularly strong: “With regard to the bird or falcon, it is possible to give a more specific association, namely with the yazata Verethraga [Verethraghna], who can take the shape of a bird and is told by Ahura Mazda to use the feather of the Veragna bird at times of trouble with a demon” (Curtis 2007: 424-425). In the later Sasanian period he was worshipped by the martial classes as a god of victory and was viewed as an emblem of god-given glory (Rosenfield 1993: 95; Cutis 2007: 428). Indeed, in this later period Mary Boyce and Frantz Grenet claim: “[he] has become one of the most beloved and often invoked of all Zoroastrian deities” (1991: 65). In the case of the second numismatic example, Pharro appears on coins of Kaniṣka and Huviṣka where he is depicted with a small winged ornament on his helmet. He is the personification of khvarenah (Rosenfield 1993: 96). Bird imagery is, then, a significant means of depicting khvarenah in Kuṣāṇa numismatics. This information should change our view of Mahāsena’s bird standard on Huviṣka’s coin and the depiction of a bird with Kārttikeya in the statuary of Gandhāra. The bird presented with Skanda is likely used in the manner of Orlagno’s and Pharro’s bird imagery as an Iranian influenced Kuṣāṇa sign of divine support for a ruler. Mahāsena on Huviṣka’s coin is treated much like a Parthian yazata, a deity charged with distributing and defending khvarenah. All of these statues with the bird/cock from the Kuṣāṇa era come from an area geographically close to Parthia where Scythian and Parthian culture spread. I think it owes its presence on these statues to the influence of those cultures. As Goetz (1948: 19-20) and Pal (1977: 21, 26) note, there is a blending of foreign and indigenous characteristics and iconography in the Kuṣāṇa art of the far northwest; Kārttikeya may be part of this “assimilative attitude” (Pal 1977: 21). The cock itself also relates these images of Mahāsena directly to another Iranian martial deity, Sraoša. S. Sen (1950) was the first scholar to note a connection between Sraoša and Skanda. Sraoša is a protective martial deity in Zoroastrianism,5 and in Pahlavi texts he is described as repelling evil powers at night with the help of a cock: 5

  For more details on the cult of Sraoša see Kreyenboek (1985).

skanda-kārttikeya on kus. ān. a coinage

127

The cock is created to oppose the demons and sorcerers, as a collaborator of the dog. As He says in the Religion: among the material creatures, those are the collaborators of Srōš [Sraoša], the dog and the cock.... for that cock they call the bird of righteous Srōš. And when it crows, it keeps misfortune away from the creation of Ohrmazd. (Gbd. XXIV.48 and Jfr.II.25 translated by Kreyenbroek 1985: 118)

Sraoša’s role as a martial protector of the righteous is well attested to in the Zoroastrian tradition (Kreyenbroek 1985: 164-183). It is also clear a cock is associated with his protective and martial role. Sraoša was assimilated with Kārttikeya in the Indian Upapurāṇa textual tradition. In the Sāmba Purāṇa the figures Piṅgala, Daṇḍa­ nāyaka, Rājña and Stoṣa are described as standing on either side of Sūrya. R. C. Hazra notes that in the almost identical Bhaviṣya Purāṇa Rājña and Stoṣa are called Rājā and Śroṣa, as well as Rājña and Srauṣa (1958 I: 39). In the Avesta Mithra is described as flanked by Rašnu and Sraoša, which appears to be where these Purāṇic passages find their origin (Hazra 1958 I: 39). The Sanskrit Srauṣa or Śrauṣa is the same figure as the Avesta’s Sraoša. Later in these Upapurāṇas the following equivalences are made: Daṇḍanāyaka is Indra, Piṅgala is Agni, and Rājña and Stoṣa/Śrauṣa are Hara (Śiva) and Skanda, though which Iranian deity is equated with which Hindu deity is not made clear with this last couple (Hazra 1958 I: 44-45). I suggest it is likely Śrauṣa who is equated with Kārttikeya. A passage from the 12th century text, the Ṭīkāsarvasa of Sarvānanda, supports this point. The text reads: “yamo’pi dakṣiṇe pārśve khyāto māṭhara saṃjñāya pūrvadvāre haraguhau rājaśrauṣau krameṇa tau” (Sen 1950: 27). Sen regards the compound rājaśrauṣau to be a single name, however, meaning “obedient messengers of the king” (1950: 27). It is much more likely that this passage resembles the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa that gives Rājā as a name for Rājña (Hazra 1958 I: 39). Hence, the section should read as “Rāja/ Rājña and Śrauṣa, who are Hara and Guha.” Thus, I suggest, it is Sraoša/Śrauṣa who is assimilated with Guha-Kārttikeya in these Upa­ purāṇas. There is also an epigraphic link between Sraoša/Śrauṣa and Kārtti­ keya. This connection relates directly to the Kuṣāṇas, who likely first utilized the connection between the two deities. The link is found on the Rabatak inscription that lists a series of Iranian deities who were installed at this shrine belonging to the Kuṣāṇa king Kaniṣka (Cribb and Sims-Williams 1995/96: 77-79; Sims-Williams 2004). The Zoro­ astrian deities listed on the Bactrian inscription are Nana, Umma,

128

chapter six

Aurmuzd, Sroshard, Narasa and Mihir (Sims-Williams 2004: 56), but there is an interlinear inscription that reads: “—who in Indian is called Mahāsena and is called Viśākha—” (Sims-Williams 2004: 56).6 While Cribb and Sims-Williams were initially unsure as to which deities from the main inscription Mahāsena and Viśākha were assimilated (1995/96: 79), Sims-Williams is now confident in reporting: “The placing of this interlinear addition, which begins over the initial letter of the name Narasa and immediately after the last letter of the name Sroshard, strongly suggests that the gloss is intended to refer to one of these two gods—most likely Sroshard” (2004: 64). I came to a similar conclusion that the Bactrian Sroshard, cognate with the Avestian Sraošō, the Sraoša/Śrauṣa we have examined above, is the figure to whom Mahāsena is assimilated in the Rabatak inscription (Mann 2001: 121). There is, then, evidence to suggest some level of assimilation between Kārttikeya and Sraoša/Śrauṣa. On the basis of the above, I would argue that there is more than an iconographic borrowing of a cock between Sroaša and Skanda in the far northwest of the subcontinent. We should see here either a deliberate attempt at assimilation on the part of the Kuṣāṇas, or an unintended assimilation of the two brought about by the heterogeneous context of Bactria and Gandhāra. We might also well question the identity of the deity presented in figure 17. While it and others like it have always been identified as Skanda-Kārttikeya by modern scholars, it may well also represent Sraoša. I would like to suggest, particularly given the religious eclecticism of the Kuṣāṇas, that both Mahāsena and Sroaša may be intended by the statues. It may be a case of deliberate ambiguity, or hybridity, designed to allow a single figure to appeal to a wide range of people within the Kuṣāṇa Empire. It is probable that the two deities were assimilated to each other, and the links between the two were their shared emblem of a cock and their martial persona. It is also possible that Mahāsena is assimilated to some extent with Verethraghna. I have already noted this deity’s association with birds. B. I. Maršak demonstrates that Vahrām (Verethraghna) and 6   Nicholas Sims-Williams has been the primary translator of this inscription and has gone through a number of revisions since his original in 1995/96. His initial reading of this interlinear inscription differs slightly from the quotation supplied above (1995/96: 79), but these previous readings were based on photographs of the inscription (Sims-Williams 2004: 53). Since then, Sims-Williams has been able to inspect the original inscription in Kabul on which the above (2004) is based.

skanda-kārttikeya on kus. ān. a coinage

129

­ ārtti­keya­ were assimilated in Sogdian Zoroastrianism, though K likely in the post-Kuṣāṇa era (Grenet 1994: 45). Like Kārttikeya, Verethraghna has multiple forms one of which is “a youth of fifteen” and another is a ram (Curtis 2007: 423), both of which are also associated with Skanda. The two deities may be connected as martial deities sharing a bird as an emblem and similar forms. I think it is probable that the Kuṣāṇas used martial figures like Sraoša, Orlagno/ Verethraghna and Pharro, as well as concepts like khvarenah in their understanding and representation of Kārttikeya in the Gandhāra region and throughout their empire on coinage.7 The result is the production of a deity who favours the Mahāsena aspect of Skanda, and whose iconography is linked to Parthian martial devices. These various assimilations and the connection to khvarenah also redefine Skanda-Mahāsena’s role and potential worship base. The Gandhāran statues make few allusions to Grahas or Mātṛs;8 Mahāsena is presented as a divine supporter of the ruler, a defender of the monarch’s right to rule. The material from the Rabatak inscription suggests that he participates in a state lead cult oriented towards the support of the Kuṣāṇa emperor. Much of this imperial use of the deity separates SkandaMahāsena from the Graha and Mātṛ cult based in and around Mathurā. The Mahāsena Coin of Huviṣka As we have seen, Huviṣka mints a gold coin depicting Mahāsena (fig. 18 a-b).9 Göbl identifies five other versions of the Mahāsena die type, but there are no significant variations between these versions (1984: 22). The Mahāsena coin is unusual within the extensive Kuṣāṇa coin 7   I am certainly not the first scholar to note a considerable degree of hybridity and multiple identities for one figure when examining artifacts from the Gandhāran region, also see Gnoli (1963, 1992), R. C. Agrawala (1966b), M. Taddei (1966) and Grenet (1993, 1994) for other cases of Hindu-Buddhist-Parthian-Hellenistic syncretism in this region. 8   R. C. Agrawala discusses a Gandhāran diptych and a Gandhāran relief that do appear to depict Skanda and Ṣaṣṭhī (1993, 1995). No date is offered for the relief, but he places the diptych in the second to third century ce (1993: 271). Hence, there may have been some presence of the Skanda-Ṣaṣṭhī cult in Gandhāra towards the end of the Kuṣāṇa era. 9   While Kuṣāṇa kings represent a wide variety of deities from various cultures on their coins, only Huviṣka makes use of Skanda-Kārttikeya on his currency. Compared with other gold coin types of Huviṣka, finds of these coins are modest, which suggests that they were not minted in great numbers and may well represent a minor interest for Huviṣka.

130

chapter six

collection in that the deity is presented facing the front (Cribb 1985: 67, 1997: 32). Based on this “rigid frontality,” Joe Cribb argues that the numismatic portrayal of Mahāsena is copied from contemporary statues of Kārttikeya (1985: 67, 1997: 32).10 Borrowing from contemporary sculpture was an unusual practice in Kuṣāṇa coin design and is only found on coins representing Mahāsena, the Buddha and Heracles (Cribb 1997: 32). The image of Mahāsena on these coins may be one of the few Kuṣāṇa coin images that directly relates to cultic images. Such cult images are of Mahāsena from Gandhāra. The potential correlation between the coins and statues suggests that Huviṣka or some member of his court wanted to promote the martial version of Skanda perhaps over other versions of the deity. The martial version of the deity also has clearer connections to khvarenah, and acts as a better sign of royal glory than Skandagraha. The emperor likely wanted to be connected to the military version of Skanda on these particular Mahāsena coins, and, in turn, may have hoped to be connected to the cult of Mahāsena found in Gandhāra. Before moving on, however, we do need to discuss other potential numismatic prototypes that could account for the frontal posture of Mahāsena. There are three potential numismatic forerunners to this Mahāsena type. The first coin is from the Indo-Scythian king Azilises depicting a single Dioscuri (see Gardner 1886: pl. 20, fig. 8 for an illustration).11 This Dioscuri stands frontally holding a spear in his right hand, his left hand rests on his sword on his hip. The presentation of a single Dioscuri, if that is what is represented on these coins, is unusual and unlikely to be a candidate for imitation. The second coin is of king Hyrcodes (see Gardner 1886: pl. 24, fig. 10 for an illustration). The reverse shows a figure standing frontally in a similar posture as Mahāsena. The identity of this reverse figure is not clear, and Gardner describes him as follows: “Figure of a Deity (?), facing; holds   In his paper, “A Re-Examination of the Buddha Images on the Coins of King Kaniṣka: New Light on the Origins of the Buddha Image in Gandharan Art,” Cribb convincingly argues that the iconography of the Buddha on Kaniṣka’s coinage was inspired by sculptural prototypes. He mentions as an aside that Huviṣka’s Mahāsena coin fits the same frontal conventions as the Kaniṣka Buddha type of coin, and that sculptural images could have also provided the prototype for the Huviṣka coin (1985: 67). 11   The Dioscuri were twin gods and to have only one appear on coinage is unusual. Azilises’ dates are not clear, though he was likely ruling in Gandhāra and the Western Punjab from the middle of the first century bce to approximately 30 bce (Mitchiner 1976 V: 481). 10

skanda-kārttikeya on kus. ān. a coinage

131

spear in r. hand; flames on shoulders” (1886: 117).12 Just who Hyrcodes was, though, and where he ruled are not clear.13 The obscurity of Hyrcodes makes his coinage an improbable choice for numismatic borrowing. The third potential prototypes are the Yaudheya class three issues. The six-headed Yaudheya style is never used by the Kuṣāṇas. The Kuṣāṇas promoted the depiction of anthropomorphic deities and this may lie behind their rejection of the six-headed type. The singleheaded Brahmaṇyadeva type, however, may have influenced the Kuṣāṇa coin in question. Both Brahmaṇyadeva and Mahāsena stand frontally in a similar posture. Beyond the similar posture, however, the two figures have little else in common, and the iconography of Brahmaṇyadeva and that of Mahāsena have an important difference: Brahmaṇyadeva has no bird iconography. If we cannot suggest that the specific iconography of Mahāsena was taken from Brahma­ ṇyadeva, then what we can suggest is that the idea to depict Skanda on coinage belongs to the Yaudheyas. It is likely the Yaudheya use of this deity on their class three coinage that inspires Huviṣka and his mint masters to produce a series of coins depicting the deity. One might also speculate that the employment of Skanda for political ends is also an aspect of Yaudheya numismatics that interests Huviṣka. The existence of these other potential numismatic prototypes of front-facing deities does force us to qualify Cribb’s hypothesis, but whether or not the Kuṣāṇas borrowed stylistic traits from these other numismatic issues must be left open to conjecture. The economic value of Kuṣāṇa gold coinage also provides some additional context for these images. The Kuṣāṇas primarily issued copper and gold coins;14 the gold coins were of considerable value

12   Some numismatic depictions of Kuṣāṇa kings also show the king with flames coming from his shoulder. It may well be that this figure on the Hyrcodes’ coin is meant to represent the king. Rosenfield notes that the figure may represent Pharro (1993: 17). Cribb also discusses the coins of Hyrcodes and describes the reverse image as “a standing spear-man” (2007: 364). 13   Gardner places him with late Indo-Scythian rulers in Bactria, but makes no direct claims concerning the identity of this ruler (1966: xlviii). Rosenfield places him in the period of the rise of the Kuṣāṇa dynasty, but notes that this is tenuous due to the paucity of information we have on the figure (1993: 17). Cribb places him in Sogdia (2007: 364). 14   For an argument for the existence of Kuṣāṇa silver coinage see B. N. Mukherjee (2004).

132

chapter six

(MacDowall 1960: 68; Holt 1999: 116-117).15 These coins were likely produced for, and circulated among, people of substantial wealth with enough education to identify the deity by the Bactrian legend inscribed in Greek letters. Unlike the copper Yaudheya class three issues, these Skanda-Kārttikeya gold coins issued by Huviṣka were designed to send a message to members of the aristocracy rather than members of the general populace. While we are looking for religious figures on the reverses of Kuṣāṇa currency, contemporary users of the coinage likely also saw political and social statements in them as well as religious themes. As Joe Cribb and Elizabeth Errington suggest regarding the devices used on South Asian coinage of this period: Another important factor could be the need to present through the coin designs the political power and public image of the ruler by whose authority the coins are issued.... The divine images and divine symbols used within this tradition were, like the royal portraits, intimately related to the intentions of presenting a public statement about the ruler and his authority. (1992: 49-50)

Curtis comes to similar conclusions with respect to high denomination Parthian coinage. She suggests Parthian gold coinage rarely, if ever, reached the hands of ordinary people. They were possessed by nobles, local kings and neighbouring rulers who would have understood the iconography and very likely interpreted its message (Curtis 2007: 413-414). Given this perspective on gold coinage, it seems reasonable to conclude that Huviṣka’s Mahāsena gold coins circulated in elite sections of Kuṣāṇa society and were designed to deliver specific messages to them about their emperor. One of these messages would have been that Huviṣka had been granted khvarenah, and this khvarenah was protected by the deity holding the bird-topped standard. Such a message was, perhaps, a cautionary one to Huviṣka’s governors, generals and the nobles within his realm not to challenge his authority. The precise reading of the coin’s iconography may well have also been dependent on the geographical and cultural location of the viewer. Nobles in Parthian, Bactria, Gandhāra and other regions where Iranian traditions were present would likely have recognized the 15   MacDowall argues that the Kuṣāṇa gold coins were worth about the same as Roman gold coins of the time period, and that they “would probably be exchanged principally in large scale commercial transactions by international traders” (1960: 68).

skanda-kārttikeya on kus. ān. a coinage

133

a­ llusion to khvarenah and perhaps would have recognized similarities between Sroaša or Verethraghna and Mahāsena. Other nobles in Mathurā or farther east along the Gangetic basin may not have recognized the emblem as one indicating khvarenah, but they may well have understood that Mahāsena was a martial form of Skanda presented on these coins as one of the protectors or supporters of Huviṣka. The ease with which Mahāsena could present multiple personalities to differing constituents in this empire likely made the deity a useful figure for imperial propaganda. Most studies of Kārttikeya assume that Huviṣka’s coins demonstrate the wide spread popularity of the god during this period (Banerjea 1956: 140; Gupta 1988: 6; Rana 1995: 21). These gold coins do not, however, in and of themselves, relate to the widespread popularity of the deities on them. The limited circulation of gold coinage and the martial and elite message of the iconography probably limited the worship of this deity to military and elite figures. It is more likely that the copper coinage of the Kuṣāṇas reflected more directly images of widespread popularity, and Mahāsena/Skanda did not appear on Kuṣāṇa copper coinage. Some also argue based on these coins that Huviṣka must have been a special devotee of Skanda (Chatterjee 1970: 33; Navaratnam 1973: 99; Ghurye 1977: 137; Gupta 1988: 6; Rana 1995: 21). Both Kaniṣka and Huviṣka, however, depict at least 28 deities on their coinage from a host of Hellenistic, Roman, Indian and Iranian religious traditions (Rosenfield 1993: 72). It seems improbable that each divinity on Huviṣka’s coinage represents his personal devotional sentiments. To select one deity of the dozens that appear on his coinage as special to the emperor without further evidence represents an arbitrary choice. Other scholars have been misled by an obverse coin pattern that appears to show Huviṣka holding a cock standard. This obverse image has lead O. P. Singh (1978: 76) and U. Thakur (1981: 53) to argue that the king is trying to depict himself as Mahāsena, and that this imitation shows his devotion to the god. The appearance of this cock standard is, however, the result of a damaged die and forgery (Rosenfield 1993: 64; Göbl 1984: 129). It is this flawed and forged coin to which Thakur and Singh refer, lending little credence to their arguments. Potentially more accurate are the arguments presented by Chatto­ padhyay (1967: 91) and Sinha (1979: 83). Sinha’s argument comes primarily from Chattopadhyay’s, and I will only discuss Chattopadhyay’s views here. He argues that Huviṣka was probably a devotee of

134

chapter six

­ ārtti­keya because he represents himself as Mahāsena on the obverse K of some of his coins, but he does not appear to be referring to the damaged/forged die discussed above. Chattopadhyay provides no illustration, but he seems to refer to an obverse type illustrated in figure 21. This obverse die is genuine. Huviṣka appears in a seated position and holds a staff in his right hand “with apparently bird insignia at the top” (Rosenfield 1993: 62).16 The reverse types that go along with this obverse type either depict Nana or Ardoksho, Parthian goddesses of prosperity. The staffs of Huviṣka and Mahāsena are not identical, but there is reason to believe that Huviṣka holds a bird-topped standard similar to Mahāsena’s. We do, however, have to be cautious when coming to conclusions regarding this obverse type. We must also consider the reverse depictions associated with it. If the king really wanted to draw a clear comparison between himself and the god it would have made more sense for him to place this obverse type with a Mahāsena reverse. This obverse die type is also only one of thirty obverse types used for the king’s coinage and not a common one (Göbl 1984: 36-37). The vast majority of Huviṣka’s obverse dies show a bust of the king from the chest up. This unusual sitting die type seems to refer back to earlier Kuṣāṇa obverse coin dies of Kujula Kadphises, one of the first rulers of the Kuṣāṇas, and the still earlier Śaka issues of Maues and Azes II (Rosenfield 1993: 62). Huviṣka may use this obverse die type to link himself to one of the founders of the Kuṣāṇa Empire, and, hence, the coin may speak to Huviṣka’s right to rule through such a connection. We can also present a reasonable argument that another objective of this obverse die is to associate the king with khvarenah. Both potential aspects of the coin, the link to Kujula Kadphises and that to khvarenah, relate to concerns over royal authority and Huviṣka’s right to rule. This die type may simply tell us that the bird-topped standard was a symbol of the emperor’s god-given glory. This obverse die type need not, then, imply Huviṣka’s devotion to Mahāsena. To conclude this section on Skanda’s popularity as Mahāsena, I do not wish to contend that the deity was not popular during this period, but only that these coins are not clear evidence of the extent of the deity’s popularity. The elite aspect of the use of these coins suggests that they have more to do with the intersection of religion and politics   Göbl is, however, unsure of what sits on top of the staff, calling it simply a “Tierszepter” (1984: 36). 16

skanda-kārttikeya on kus. ān. a coinage

135

than with broad-based popular religion or devotion to the military deity placed on them. We may, then, hypothesize that Mahāsena’s ‘popularity’ is limited to a royal, elite and military clientele and did not have the widespread support of Skanda-Kārttikeya as a Graha, or as a figure with close ties to Mātṛs. The material evidence from Gan­ dhāra and on this coin type suggest that Mahāsena’s popularity was a highly circumscribed one. The Skanda-Kumāra with Viśākha Coin Type of Huviṣka Another gold issue of Huviṣka depicts Skanda-Kumāra with Viśākha (figs. 22a-b and 23). In the coin illustrated in figure 22b, SkandaKumāra stands to the right of the coin and is identified by the Bactrian inscription that reads Skando-Komaro, or the Sanskrit: SkandaKumāra. He is turned towards Viśākha, with both of his hands on his hips. He holds a staff that rests in the crook of his right arm, and a sword is on his left hip.17 He is nimbate and dressed in a dhotī, cloak and what appears to be a skull cap. He is well ornamented with bracelets on his wrists and biceps and two necklaces. Viśākha stands to the left of the coin. He is identified by the Bactrian inscription that reads Bizago, or the Sanskrit Viśākha. He is turned towards Skanda-Kumāra with his right hand on his hip; his left hand holds a spear, and a sword is on his left hip. He is nimbate and wears a dhotī and cloak. He is adorned with bracelets on his wrists and biceps and two necklaces. He may have a moustache and sideburns. He also appears to have some sort of headdress that may be a wreath or band with small fillets. Göbl identifies a second and third type of this issue (1984: 13).18 One of these coin types depicts the two figures holding hands (fig. 23). In it Skanda-Kumāra’s right hand holds Viśākha’s right hand. His left hand is outstretched and rests on Viśākha’s hip.19   Gardner (1886: 149), Chattopadhyay (1967: 80), P. K. Agrawala (1967: 43), Chatterjee (1970: 32), Singh (1978: 74), Sinha (1979: 82) and Thakur (1981: 51) all describe, or cite, Gardner’s description of Skanda-Kumāra as carrying a standard surmounted by a bird, though Sinha acknowledges some doubt on the point. I, however, agree with Banerjea, who argues that what appears to be a bird is actually part of the letter M and part of the headdress of the deity (1956: 145). Other examples of this coin type certainly do not depict the deity with a bird standard. 18   Göbl also illustrates three types of half stater gold issues (1984: 14). These die types are basically the same as in the coins illustrated in figures 22 and 23. 19   Robert Göbl has convincingly argued that one source of inspiration for Kuṣāṇa numismatics comes from Roman imperial coinage produced in Alexandria. He 17

136

chapter six

The comments of other scholars on this coin type relate to questions over whether it depicts two separate deities or two forms of the same deity. As we have seen, the Mahābhārata tends to assimilate Skanda and Viśākha and eventually Viśākha is little more than an epithet of Skanda. In the Āyurvedic tradition, however, Viśākha and Skanda remain separate Grahas. While they are viewed as closely related in Āyurvedic texts, they are never presented as forms of the same figure in those texts. Hence, if we view the two figures on Huviṣka’s coin as separate entities we might hypothesize that they represent Grahas; whereas, if we view them as two forms of the same deity we might hypothesize that they represent one martial persona. Regarding these coins most scholars follow J. N. Banerjea who argues the coins depict two separate deities (1956: 145).20 Only D. R. Bhan­ darkar argues that the figures on these coins represent forms of a single deity (1990: 22-23). The numismatic evidence is too limited to allow for a conclusive statement on this issue, but there is epigraphic evidence from the Rabatak inscription to suggest that various figures in Skanda’s cult are assimilated into one form during the Kuṣāṇa era. As noted above, the Rabatak inscription has an interlinear section that reads “Sroshard—who in Indian is called Mahāsena and is called Viśākha—” (Sims-Williams 2004: 56). Sims-Williams notes that the grammar presented in the singular rather than plural in this section “makes it impossible to suppose that the Indian gods Mahāsena and Viśākha are identified with two different divinities” (2004: 64). In other words, both Mahāsena and Viśākha are identified with one figure, Sroshard. It may also be possible that the inscription understands itself to be identifying one Indian deity named Mahāsena who is also called Viśākha. The inscription may not understand itself to be assimilating two Indian deities with Sroshard, rather it may understand the assimilation to involve one Indian deity who happens to have two names. I think a conclusive statement on the intended meaning of the interlinear passage on the Rabatak inscription is difficult to arrive at. What I think the inscription does do is raise the possibility that the various names of Grahas from the tradition were already being regards the handshaking image found on this die type of the Skanda-Kumāra with Viśākha coin to be borrowed from these Roman sources (1960: 75-96, 1984: 174). 20   Those agreeing with Banerjea include Chattopadhyay (1967: 179), P. K. Agra­ wala (1967: 43), Chatterjee (1970: 33), Singh (1978: 75-76), Sinha (1979: 83), Thakur (1981: 53), Gupta (1988: 6), Mani (1990: 69), Rosenfield (1993: 100) and Shastri (1997: 47-50).

skanda-kārttikeya on kus. ān. a coinage

137

assimilated­into one military figure during the early stages of Kaniṣka’s reign decades before Huviṣka takes the throne.21 The evidence from the inscription raises the possibility that the gold issue of Huviṣka depicts two forms of one god, and that the next coin we will discuss depicting all three deities actually displays an understanding of three forms of one deity. I must acknowledge, however, that the evidence for both arguments, separate deities or forms of one deity, is not overwhelming in either case. Perhaps the most significant aspect of these coins is not what is depicted on them, but what is absent from them: an image of Ṣaṣṭhī. As we have seen from Mathurā panels, only one other Kuṣāṇa era form of art depicts Skanda and Viśākha together and that is on the Ṣaṣṭhī triads.22 We cannot be sure if the Mathurā panels inspired the Huviṣka coin type. While Skanda-Kumāra’s and Viśākha’s mode of dress on the coins is more recognizably Indian than that of Mahāsena, neither numismatic figure closely resembles the images of Skanda and Viśākha found on panels from Mathurā. Having stated this much, however, the absence of Ṣaṣṭhī from this coin type is instructive. It is her image on the Mathurā panel that allows for a clear reference to Graha and Mātṛ cults. Without her it is only an image of two warrior figures without obvious connections to a Graha/Mātṛ tradition. The same is true of the Yaudheya class three coins and the other Mathurā Mātṛ panels; it is the presence of the female figure or figures that allow us to read the male figures as Grahas. The absence of Ṣaṣṭhī or another Mātṛ from this coin’s iconography distances the male figures on it from a Graha or Mātṛ context.23 As we have seen in Gandhāran statuary of Kārttikeya and in some Mathurā examples of the Mahāsenatype of image, the absence of these female figures correlates to a more martial understanding of the deity. The uncoupling of these images from the cues provided by Mātṛs and Ṣaṣṭhī changes the perception of the figures on them and suggests an attempt by Huviṣka or his mint masters to distance them from their Graha and Mātṛ associations. 21   The inscription appears to date to the founding of a temple commemorated by this epigraphic account in Kaniṣka’s year one (Sims-Williams 2004: 57). When the interlinear inscription was added, however, is not clear. 22   Here I must note that we cannot be absolutely sure that the Ṣaṣṭhī triad does depict Skanda and Viśākha, though, I do think that such an identification is the most defensible argument. 23   The Kuṣāṇas do place goddesses on their coinage, but they prefer figures like Ardoxsho, an embodiment of prosperity similar to Lakṣmī (Rosenfield 1993: 74). The Graha Ṣaṣṭhī likely does not fit such a model of abundance.

138

chapter six

I would conclude by suggesting that the representation of SkandaKumāra is greatly softened from that found on the Yaudheya sixheaded coins of Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra. Earlier, I suggested that the Yaudheya six-headed issues reflected a more threatening image of Skanda than did the single-headed version of the deity. These coins of Huviṣka remove both the Graha/Mātṛ aspect of Skanda’s iconography as well as his more horrific depiction as six-headed. The appearance of Skanda is more anthropomorphic and softer on these coin issues. We have seen a similar softening of his character in the Mahābhārata. It is possible that the single-headed Yaudheya class three coins are evidence of a similar and earlier shift in the understanding of the character of this deity. I would venture to argue that the softening of Skanda’s appearance begins with the Yaudheyas and reaches its fruition under the Kuṣāṇas. The Skanda-Kumāra with Viśākha and Mahāsena Coins of Huviṣka Huviṣka also depicts a triad involving Skanda and Viśākha on his coins, but here the central role is given to Mahāsena rather than Ṣaṣṭhī (fig. 24 a-b). Mahāsena stands in the centre of the coin (fig. 24a) facing the front. He has a large nimbus, and his turban or top knot from the previous coin appears to have been replaced by a crown. He has both of his hands on his hips and appears to carry a sword on his left hip. Due to wear on the coin it is difficult to tell if he wears a dhotī, or has changed into a tunic, which would be more indicative of a Scythian warrior. A Bactrian inscription identifies him as Mahāsena. Viśākha stands to Mahāsena’s proper left. His body and head are turned towards Mahāsena. He is not nimbate; his left hand holds a spear, while his right hand is on his hip. The Bactrian inscription identifies him as Viśākha. To Mahāsena’s proper right is Skanda-Kumāra. Skanda-Kumāra’s body and head also face towards Mahāsena. He is not nimbate. Both of his hands are on his hips, and he has a sword on his left hip. The Bactrian inscription identifies him as Skanda-Kumāra. The three deities stand on a two layered decorated platform and are enclosed by what may be a structure of some sort. In another version of this coin (fig. 24b) Mahāsena holds a spear in his right hand and may wear a turban. Viśākha appears to be essentially the same, but a small nimbus has been added. Skanda-Kumāra

skanda-kārttikeya on kus. ān. a coinage

139

holds a spear or staff in his right hand, and he is also depicted with a nimbus. Both Viśākha’s and Skanda-Kumāra’s nimbuses are smaller than that of Mahāsena. The inscriptions are arranged differently around the coin, and the structure looks much more like a building or shrine with pillars topped with fillets. Göbl has demonstrated that this coin may be inspired by Roman prototypes (1984: 174). The Rise of Mahāsena The appearance of three deities on one coin and the appearance of a shrine-like structure are unique elements for the Kuṣāṇa numismatic catalogue. While this shrine is of interest, my immediate purpose is to suggest that these coins do not present an image of three equals, but elevate Mahāsena above the other deities. The central position of Mahāsena on the coins and the image of the other two deities facing towards him imply his superiority. Mahāsena’s potential crown and clear nimbus and the absence of these features on the other figures on the first coin, and Mahāsena’s larger nimbus on the second coin suggest an attempt to elevate his status above the other two gods. The potential implications of representing Mahāsena on these coins becomes clearer once we consider the argument I have been making that the focus of the Kuṣāṇa Mahāsena cult was elitist and centred on the military aspect of the deity at the expense of his forms associated with Grahas and Mātṛs. Mahāsena provided Huviṣka with a valuable tool for royal propaganda. His placement on the coins of Huviṣka lent the support of a divine general to the king. He was elevated above Skanda-Kumāra and Viśākha on the coin depicting all three deities because this purely military figure was of greater political use for the king. The context of the Rabatak inscription is also instructive in this matter. The site appears to have been a royal shrine combined with a divine sanctuary similar to those found at Surkh Kotal and Mat (Cribb and Sims-Williams 1995/96: 109). Regarding the divine images re­ferred to in the inscription Cribb states, “the Rabatak inscription shows that they are represented as the source of Kushan kingship” (1995/96: 110). The combination of a royal family shrine and a divine shrine suggests such a conclusion. Mahāsena’s and Viśākha’s inclusion on this inscription, even though an after-thought, suggests their

140

chapter six

participation in a royal and elite cult. The other material I have presented in combination with this inscription all point towards a Kuṣāṇa interest and use of Mahāsena as part of elite and royal cults based within Iranian and Hellenized traditions. As I have already suggested in my discussion of textual representations of the deity, it is this elite and martial characterization of the deity that significantly removes him from his initial base of popular worship. Huviṣka’s Skanda-Kārt­ tikeya coin types demonstrate that the transformation from Graha to military deity seen in textual sources can be correlated to a definite political and religious context during the Kuṣāṇa era. Skanda-Kārttikeya and Mars in Kuṣāṇa Era Material An aspect of Skanda’s character to which I have only alluded is related to astrology and astrological deities. Some Skanda-Kārttikeya scholars have argued that the only way to explain Kumāra’s association with the Kṛttikās is to suggest that his background is as an astrological deity. Indeed, most scholars who subscribe to the ‘sum of various parts’ theory of Skanda-Kārttikeya’s origins usually regard Kārttikeya as an originally separate astrological deity who is amalgamated into Skanda’s cult (P. K. Agrawala 1967: xv; Thakur 1981: 10-11).24 The weakness in this line of reasoning is that no text or inscription ever actually claims that Kārttikeya is or was an astrological deity. That the name Kārttikeya is likely derived from the name Kṛttikā seems likely, but this in and of itself does not make Kārttikeya an astrological deity. The involvement of the Kṛttikās in Skanda’s birth narrative may also be explained through their connection with Agni found in the Śata­ patha Brāhmaṇa rather than as an attempt to link Skanda with some astrological origin.25 It is just as possible to suggest that the name came about as a means of justifying the inclusion of the Kṛttikās in the birth story of Skanda-Kārttikeya. I do not want to completely discredit the idea that Skanda has some astrological connection within indigenous Indian traditions. The names Kārttikeya and Viśākha (likely derived from the nakṣatra Viśākhā) may be suggestive of such a background, but I do not yet see enough evidence to argue for such a point.

24   There are also scholars who trace the astrological origins of the deity to the Indus Valley Civilization. I have already discussed these arguments in chapter one. 25  On this subject see note ten in chapter two.

skanda-kārttikeya on kus. ān. a coinage

141

Another potential link between Skanda and astrology may be found in the term ‘graha’. The Sanskrit term for planets is graha. As we have already seen, this is also the name given to child snatching disease demons. That the two types of grahas might be related is a tempting interpretation, but it is one that Dominik Wujastyk rejects outright (1999: 259). Michio Yano briefly examines the relationship between the two groups of grahas. He notes that the Navagrahas of the Suśruta­ saṃhitā and the Navagrahas of astrological and astronomical traditions appear to have nothing to do with each other (2003: 380). He does demonstrate that the Suśrutasaṃhitā and Carakasaṃhitā use graha and other astrological terms in reference to heavenly bodies on occasion, but he regards this as an indication of the complex nature of Sanskrit texts and how they were complied over time (2003: 381). While the sharing of terminology between heavenly Grahas and childsnatching Grahas is tantalizing, the literature for the two groups does not invite any direct comparison between them, and we must view the shared name as more coincidence than deliberate allusion to ­similarity. While I am cautious in seeing an astrological deity in the name Kārttikeya, I would like to suggest that the strongest evidence for a link between Skanda and astrology is a Kuṣāṇa and Western Kṣatrapa understanding that he was, or was like, Mars/Ares. To date only two scholars have recognized this link between Skanda-Kārttikeya and Mars,26 and no scholar has recognized the involvement of non-Indian powers in bringing it about, so I will briefly explore the evidence that supports my hypothesis here. As I have already noted, Vedic astrologers were primarily concerned with the movements of the moon and stars so that they knew when to begin certain sacrificial rites (Kaye 1998: 33; Yano 2003: 377). There is only a limited sense within the Vedic tradition that the Nakṣa­ tras were deities worthy of independent worship. The Vedic people were also not interested in the movements of the planets (Kaye 1998: 33). There is, however, a significant shift in astrological texts in India between the second century ce and the seventh century ce. Between approximately 200 bce and 200 ce astrological texts called Vedāṅgas were produced that largely follow the astrological traditions of the 26   P. Pal and D. C. Bhattacharyya (1969) mention the possibility that Kārttikeya’s iconography may have been influenced by that of Mars. These points will be given in more detail below.

142

chapter six

Vedas (Kaye 1998: 7-8). In the seventh to eighth century ce astrological texts called Siddhāntas emerged. Between the end of the Vedāṅgas and the beginning of the Siddhāntas, “the old methods and rules were discarded and new methods were introduced and new phenomena treated” (Kaye 1998: 7). During this period Greek astrology and astron­omy entered India; also during this time the planets and their movements became a topic of study.27 The study of Mars/Ares was not something that the indigenous Indian tradition developed independently, rather it was borrowed from Hellenistic sources. Textual references that link Skanda and Mars/Ares are first found in the Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja, or The Greek (or foreign) Horis­ copy of Sphujidhvaja. This text is also our earliest record of a Sanskrit translation of a Greek text on astronomy (Pingree 1964/65: 250). The text itself gives us its history describing its initial translation from Greek into Sanskrit by Yavaneśvara (Lord of the Greeks) in 149/150 ce, and then its rendering into verse form by Sphujidhvara in 269/270 ce (Pingree 1964/65: 250; YJ 1978 I: 60-62). It is Sphujidhvara’s text that survives today. Other than their brief mention in this text, however, history does not record either of these figures, but, on the basis of their names, they were likely sub-kings of the Western Kṣatrapas (Pingree 1978 I: 3-4).28 While we must exercise some caution in accepting this text’s own version of its history, the first appearance of this text in 149/150 places it near the reign of Huviṣka, whose rule likely has a dramatic impact on the cult of Kārttikeya. This text may be another example of how foreign powers in India perceived the deity. The Yavanajātaka links Skanda-Kārttikeya with Ares/Mars in two ways. First, it characterizes them in a similar fashion and even points out this similarity. Second, it describes Skanda as the divine ruler of the planet. The description of Mars in the text makes a direct comparison with Skanda-Kumāra: Mars is a hot and passionate man with flaming curly hair and a terrible red body. The corners of his eyes are bloodshot, and he shines like blazing fire; he is powerful in his vehemence and terrifying like Kumāra.... He is a hero, used to killing, taking and opposing; clothed

27   Yano notes that only after the Greek settlement of Bactria in the third century bce do we see explicit references to planets in Sanskrit texts (2003: 382). Hence, some understanding and use of the planets in South Asian texts likely occurs earlier than the transmission of these ideas to Indian horiscopy. 28   The Western Kṣatrapas will be discussed in more detail in chapter seven.

skanda-kārttikeya on kus. ān. a coinage

143

in red, he commits acts of violence and strength. (YJ 1.133-134 translated by Pingree 1978 II: 11)

The text explicitly compares Mars with Kumāra and seems to understand them both as frightening and violent. Certainly, the physical description of the two figures is similar: they are both associated with fire, described as bright or shining, clothed in red, quick to anger, violent, strong and heroic, and the text seems to be well aware of the similarity and encourages the link between the two figures. I would also suggest that the particularly fierce personas of Mars and Kumāra given here best fit Skanda’s image from the early chapters of the Āraṇyaka­ parvan and not the later domesticated figure. The text has a number of other links between the physical appearance and characterization of the two figures. In describing the first Horā of Aries we are told the following:29 [he] wears red clothes and is flaming like the sun at Doomsday. He holds a sword and a firebrand in his hands. His hair is tawny and sticks up, and his ear-rings are of gold. He is a fierce man who has raised the staff of Death for the sake of protection. This is a man shaped creature whose cry is loud and who has a long, thin face. Standing in the midst of flocks of goats and sheep, and mounted on a goat, he rules his host. (YJ 2.2-3 translated by Pingree 1978 II: 11-12)

This Horā is something of the product of both Aries and Mars, but it is clearly influenced by the characterization of Mars and may be considered a form of the planet/deity. The above description of the Horā is not unlike that of Viśākha and Skanda from the Āraṇyakaparvan. Viśākha is described in that text as having the glow of the Doomsday fire (3.216.15), as wearing earrings and as wearing gold (3.216.13-14). The loud cry as well as the fierce and protective character of the Horā are also reminiscent of Kārttikeya’s depiction from that text. The association with sheep and goats also fits with Skanda from the epic. A similar description is made for the first Drekāṇa of Aries: “... a man garbed in red and having a red complexion, a fierce man whose limbs and hands are wounded and who attacks in anger. He bears golden mail and bright arrows, and his hand is upraised with an axe” (YJ 3.2 29   There are 24 Horās in this text. A Horā is associated with the rising of a sign and the decline of the sign, hence each sign has two Horās. One Horā rules over 15° of the zodiac and each has a lord. In the case above the first lord of the first Horā of Aries is Mars; the conjunction of the two produces this creature or Horā described in the quotation (Pingree 1978 II: 209).

144

chapter six

translated Pingree 1978 II: 15).30 Not everything about these astrological figures can be linked to Skanda, but there are the repeated themes of a red colour, golden adornments (in this case golden armour that can be linked to Skanda in MBh 3.218.1) and violence. Another common topic for this text is predicting the character of people based on the conjunction of a planet with a sign of the zodiac. As we might expect, the appearance of Mars in a particular sign produces a certain type of person: “One should know that a man born under sunaphā of Mars is fierce and strong, often engaging in battle and thievery and devoted to riot and enmity, the destructive but rich leader of an army or tribe” (YJ 10.11 translated by Pingree 1978 II: 33).31 Many of these aspects of people born under the influence of Mars also relate to aspects of Skanda-Kārttikeya’s character. Mars is also viewed as a lord of armies (YJ 4.32) and as a general (YJ 1.116). While Mars, particularly under the influence of Aries, is associated with wealth, gold, and military leadership, it is understood as an inauspicious planet. The description of a year lorded over by Mars demonstrates the dangerous nature of this planet/deity: “A year of Mars involves kings fierce in battle; a scarcity of grain; dried up and waterless trees, flowers and shrubs; many snakes and fires; it is ruined by diseases, thieves, hunger, and misfortunes” (YJ 78.13 translated by Pingree 1978 II: 186). Like the early version of Kārttikeya, Mars is something to be feared. This text also comments on an association between childbirth, ­disease, and planets. It suggests that the conception and birth of a child and the safety of the mother are all influenced by the planets. Mars, along with the Sun, Venus and the Moon all produce a strong foetus if they were in their own vargas during intercourse. If these planets are in a malignant sign during intercourse the semen will die. The same is true for the survival of the foetus and mother at birth. If one of the above planets is in a bad sign the result is viewed as disastrous for both child and mother (YJ 5-6). The causes of disease are also traced back to the influence of planets on people, but it appears that all of the planets could cause disease if in the right sign, and the ability of Mars to cause illness is not unique. Thus, Kārttikeya and Mars do 30   There are 36 Drekāṇas in this system, three for each sign. As with the Horās, Drekāṇas produce a being that is influenced by the lord of the particular Drekāṇa in question. The lord of the first Drekāṇa of Aries is Mars, which produces the being described above (Pingree 1978 II: 209). 31   Similar comments may be found at YJ 15.1-2, 20.6, 33.1, 70.2.

skanda-kārttikeya on kus. ān. a coinage

145

share some aspects of their characters that relate to child birth and disease, but these links appear to be indirect. The Yavanajātaka also regards Skanda as the regent or deity of the planet Mars. We learn of this when the text suggests performing sacrifices to the gods of the planets who are listed as: “Jala (Water), Vahni (Fire), Viṣṇu, Prajāpati, Skanda, Mahendra, and Devī—in signs which belong respectively to the Moon, the Sun, Mercury, Saturn, Mars, Jupiter and Venus” (YJ 77.1 translated by Pingree 1978 II: 183). Here Skanda is the god of Mars. Pingree argues that the names of the Indian gods/goddesses associated with each planet are based on the characters of the Greek gods whose names are given to these planets (1978 II: 404). In other words, ‘Skanda’ is chosen as the god of Mars because he reminded the Yavanajātaka authors of the Greek martial deity Ares or the Roman Mars.32 The characterization of Ares/Mars in the Yavanajātaka is in keeping with Greek views on Ares. In Greek mythology Ares is presented as the god of war, but he is a brutal and ferocious figure who delights in destruction. He is also implicated in various illicit affairs and is described as not well liked by other deities. Ares was not a major figure for the Greeks, who preferred Athena, the armed goddess of wisdom, as their ideal of military prowess. The Romans, however, did elevate Mars as one of the chief gods within their pantheon praising his military ability and glory. Little of this sense of Mars as an auspicious deity is evoked in this text. The Yavanajātaka helps us to understand how Hellenized Scythian and Parthian groups in the west of India understood Kārttikeya during the Kuṣāṇa era. He was like Ares, a red, fiery military figure who was known for his brutality and violence. Elements of a cause of disease or infertility are part of this characterization, but they are minor points in comparison to the violent aspect of Ares/Mars/Skanda. Hence, part of Kumāra’s transformation into a military figure may be located in the resemblance Hellenized rulers in India saw between the two violent figures. The association between Kumāra and Ares/Mars does not endure, however, in these texts. Later Indian astrology texts will not copy the Yavanajātaka’s understanding of Mars as Kārttikeya-like. Even 32   Above I suggested that Skanda may also be assimilated with the Iranian yazata Verethraghna. Another aspect of this potential relationship is that Verethraghna is also the deity of Mars in the Iranian tradition (Boyce and Grenet 1991: 324).

146

chapter six

though Mars remains an inauspicious planet, red and associated with violence, Skanda does not. The epic texts and most later Purāṇic traditions do not represent Kārttikeya as like Mars. Some Purāṇic texts do maintain the link, but only as a passing reference (LP 1.60.2). The dominant characterization of Skanda-Kārttikeya becomes that of the auspicious martial son of Śiva, and Mars does not play a role in this characterization. The association between Skanda and Ares/Mars is not just an anomaly found in the Yavanajātaka, however. Kuṣāṇa era seals and sealings from Gandhāra and Bactria also attest to a link between Mars and Skanda forged by Hellenized groups in that region. Figure 25 (a-b) illustrates a seal and its sealing from Kuṣāṇa era Gandhāra (Callieri 1997: 191). The seal depicts a standing male deity holding a spear in his right hand and a shield in his left. His dress is foreign, and he may wear a Roman-style tunic and breastplate. Standing on the shield is a cock. Callieri has tentatively identified this figure as “Kārttikeya” (1997: 191). I think Callieri is right; the figure is likely a representation of Skanda-Kārttikeya, but just as important is Callieri’s suggestion that the figure on the Kuṣāṇa seal is borrowed from Roman depictions of Mars (1997: 191). The only element that is different between the two seal styles (Roman Mars and Gandhāran Kārttikeya) is the addition of the cock on the Kuṣāṇa version. Callieri also illustrates a number of other seals that likely depict Skanda. In another example he illustrates, Kārttikeya stands in a similar posture as that found in figure 25, though this figure has a more rigid stance. His hair is arranged into a bun with loose locks hanging down. He is dressed in a tunic, breastplate and high boots. In his right hand he holds a spear and in his left a cock that faces him (Callieri 1997: 106). Callieri also notes that this type of seal is typical of northwestern Kuṣāṇa era seals from the Gandhāra region which depict tutelary deities (1997: 106).33 The relationship between Mars and Skanda is well demonstrated by these seals. The Yavanajātaka is not an anomaly, but likely a representation­ of common perceptions of Kārttikeya by Hellenized groups in South Asia. That these seals, which were likely produced for officials in the northwest of the Kuṣāṇa Empire, represent specifically Mars and not 33   Callieri illustrates ten seals which may depict Skanda-Kārttikeya from this region and time period. Srinivasan also illustrates a single sealing of this type from the same area and era (1997/98: 264, figure 8).

skanda-kārttikeya on kus. ān. a coinage

147

Ares is also significant. Mars is a more appropriate official image because the Roman deity was more closely associated with state politics and symbols than Ares. The Roman Mars is closer in characterization to Skanda as Mahāsena in that they are both martial figures who played a role in state/elite driven cults. While Ares and the dangerous Skanda of the Āraṇyakaparvan are linked and this may have provided the initial connection between the cults, Mars and Skanda-Mahāsena are also connected. The Roman Mars may have been one of the deities the Imperial Kuṣāṇas drew upon when they encountered SkandaKārttikeya. The iconographic association between Kārttikeya and Mars, or the Sanskrit Maṅgala, does not die out completely with the fall of the Kuṣāṇa Empire. Sculptural images of Maṅgala resemble Skanda, and some are clear copies of later images of Skanda-Kārttikeya. P. Pal and D. C. Bhattacharyya have also noted the similarity between the figures. They think the images of Maṅgala are taken from those of Skanda (1969: 36, 45-46). In this context they also suggests the following: It may be of interest here to recall that Mars in Classical mythology is considered a war-god and his attribute often is a spear. Kārttikeya, the adhidevatā of Maṅgala, is also a war-god, with the spear as his emblem, and possibly the concept of Mars had somewhat influenced the iconic type of both Maṅgala and Kārttikeya. (1969: 45-46)

Pal and Bhattacharyya do not develop this idea, but I certainly think their idea has merit. While these images of Maṅgala are late relative to the time period studied here, they do suggest that some association between Skanda and Mars/Maṅgala endured over time. Conclusion to the Kuṣāṇa Period Depictions of Skanda-Kārttikeya If we are to seek out a popular, widespread devotional tradition to Skanda then we should look to his associations with Graha and Mātṛ cults, and the political use of him as a protective figure on Yaudheya coinage. Aspects of this tradition are also present in textual sources like the Āraṇyakaparvan and the Suśrutasaṃhitā. This chapter has demonstrated that this tradition undergoes a dramatic shift during the period of Kuṣāṇa rule in north India. The dominant depiction of Skanda on Gandhāra statuary and on Kuṣāṇa coinage is as Mahāsena. Elements of this same tradition can be found in Mathurā, but that tradition appears to have been minor in that region. The transformation

148

chapter six

of Skanda into Mahāsena is brought about in part by the assimilation of the deity with Hellenistic and Parthian martial figures and iconography that had few links to the protection of mothers and children from disease. We might also argue that Huviṣka’s use of the deity as a source of support for his rule shifts the understanding of Kārttikeya’s protective cult. The Yaudheyas make no mention of a king or ruler on their class three coinage, and it seems reasonable to conclude that the appearance of Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra and Ṣaṣṭhī on their coins implies that they protected the entire Yaudheya group. Huviṣka’s use of Mahāsena is related to his attempts to connect himself to the ideal of khvarenah and his right to rule. The shift in political usage of the deity from protecting an entire state or group to the individual support of a ruler implies a significant narrowing of the protective aspect of Skanda’s tradition. This decoupling from what I have argued was his popular devotional base in Graha/Mātṛ traditions and broad-based protective cults has a dramatic impact on devotion to him in the postKuṣāṇa and Gupta eras to be explored in the following chapters. While the evidence from the material tradition does not mirror the textual evidence completely, the transformation of Skanda-Kārttikeya in the Brahminical textual tradition is mirrored by shifts in the material culture of his cult from the Kuṣāṇa era.

CHAPTER SEVEN

DEVELOPMENTS IN SKANDA-KĀRTTIKEYA’S CULT BETWEEN THE EMPIRES This chapter examines the impact of the Kuṣāṇa era changes to Kārtti­ keya’s cult during the period of that empire’s collapse in the third century ce through to the rise of the next major empire in the north, the Gupta Empire, in the fourth century ce. The moment is a pivotal one in the history of Skanda’s cult because two directions for the tradition are open. One could have the Mathurā-based Mātṛ and Graha traditions establish themselves as the ‘Indian’ version of Skanda’s cult and dominate the tradition related to this figure. The other has the Mahā­ sena version of the deity and its appeal to political and military leaders come to dominance during this period. The evidence from the material culture for this period all suggest that the Mahāsena cult rises to prominence. The martial and political use of the deity spreads across India largely at the expense of the Graha and Mātṛ cults. During the period between the Kuṣāṇa and Gupta Empires a number of smaller kingdoms and states develop in north India. The Yaudheyas return to rule a large region in the north. The Western Kṣatrapas continue to rule in the Malwā region and in Gujarat. The Sātavāhana Empire, that existed to the south of the Kuṣāṇa Empire, begins to disintegrate and is replaced by several independent kingdoms. The Ikṣvāku dynasty in Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, Andhra Pradesh, is one such kingdom. We will explore each of these groups for evidence of Kārttikeya’s cult with a particular focus on the Yaudheyas and Ikṣvākus. Yaudheya Coins: The Class Six Issues Yaudheya class six coin issues are post-Kuṣāṇa. There is something of a normative pattern of numismatic stylistic borrowing as one political group replaces another in north India. The incoming power usually borrows from the coin designs of the previous rulers to maintain an already accepted currency for trade. What is clear from Yaudheya coinage is that their class three issues do not borrow from Kuṣāṇa

150

chapter seven

coinage, while their class six coinage does (Allan 1936: cl; Dasgupta 1974: 212).1 Class six coinage is usually dated to the third or fourth century ce (Allan 1936: cl). The re-birth of the Yaudheya state seems to come just after the decline of the Kuṣāṇa Empire, and their class six coinage provides us with the next step in the development of this deity before the rise of the Gupta Empire. Archaeological sites suggest that the Yaudheya state reaches its height during this period with finds in the Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (Mann 2007b: 92-101). Yaudheya class six coinage is much more uniform than their class three issues and has sparked less debate among scholars. The obverse of the coins illustrated in figures 26 a, c and e depict a single-headed deity holding a spear in his right hand and his left hand on his hip. There are small oblongs on either side of his head that probably represent ears and below these dots that represent earrings. He wears a headdress that appears as a horizontal bar over his head, above which is a triangle-shaped object resting on the bar on one of its points. The headdress may represent a turban or top knot. He also wears a necklace, and there is a sash around his waist that runs down between his legs. There are circles just above his feet that either represents the bottom of his clothing, or the top of boots. To his left is a bird that faces him. The bird has been variously identified as a cock or a peacock. There is a Brāhmī legend around the outer edge which reads: “Yaudheya­gaṇasya jaya” (Dasgupta 1974: 209), which I take to mean ‘glory to the Yaudheya assembly (or group)’. With Prakash (1965: 136-137), I take jaya to be a general term for benediction among warriors and not to refer to an actual victory.2 The reverse of the coin shows a single-headed female figure who stands frontally and looks to the right. Her right arm is raised, and her fingers are arranged to have 1   There are also Yaudheya class six over-strikes and re-strikes of original Kuṣāṇa copper currency. Such over-strikes suggest that the Yaudheyas were the immediate successors of the Kuṣāṇas in this region. Yaudheya coins of this type have been discussed by Handa (1982), Kumar (1991) and by Kumar and Ahmad (1993). Overstruck coins take an original issue, heat it and hammer it with a new die (Kumar and Ahmad 1993: 50). A re-struck coin has part of its original metal shaved off and new metal added, forming a new blank coin. 2   Altekar champions an understanding of jaya as a marker of a victory over the Kuṣāṇas (1967: 30). He hypothesizes: “The credit of giving the first blow to the Kushāṇa empire really belongs to the Yaudheyas” (1967: 28). It seems reasonable to assume that the Yaudheyas played some role in the fall of the Kuṣāṇas in this region, but the dynamics of the fall of this empire remain obscure.

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

151

a claw-like look to them. Her left hand rests on her hip. She wears a necklace, and the pleats and end of her garment are visible around her legs. There is a beaded boarder around the outside of the coin (fig. 26 b, d and f). There are two other varieties of the obverse inscription; one variety has “dvi” attached to the legend, and the other variety adds “tṛ.”3 There are also other varieties of the reverse design, but the differences are minor. Some depict the same female with an inverted nandipada device to her left and a pot with plant to her right. Another reverse places a double S device to the left of the figure and a sankh shell to her right. A final reverse variety also places a double S to her left. All of the class six coins are copper. The Class Six Coinage: The Impact of Kuṣāṇa Design These coins differ in a number of ways from the class three issues. Their uniformity of type and quality is suggestive of a more controlled minting process, which in turn is suggestive of a more centralized and prosperous state administration. The six-headed figures on the obverse and reverse are gone and have been replaced by attractive singleheaded figures. I have suggested above that the switch to a singleheaded deity has certain religious implications as well as being sug­gestive of borrowing from Hellenistic iconographic sources. The general appearance of these coins is based on Kuṣāṇa numismatics, but the obverse image of Kārttikeya does not have an exact

3   The terms dvi and tṛ have caused significant debate, but their meaning on these coins remains obscure. Cunningham suggests: “the coins of the Yaudheyas show that they were divided into three tribes” (1962: 76). Allan thinks the terms refer to the second and third sections of the group (1936: cli), but like Cunningham he has no evidence to support such an idea. Altekar initially suggests that the terms refer to different units of a Yaudheya federation of republics (1962: 52, also see Dasgupta 1974: 218; Lahiri 1974: 212, and Ahmad and Kumar 1993: 53). U. S. Rao suggests that the coins demonstrate three consecutive Yaudheya republics, and because there are so few of the tṛ coins that this third republic was short lived (1962: 139). J. P. Singh suggests the terms refer to separate Yaudheya mints (1977: 11). Handa argues that the three separate coin legends refer to three separate units of the Yaudheyas in three separate regions (1978/79: 30-33, 1983: 7). He uses the evidence of coin moulds from Sunet to demonstrate that all three legend types were cast simultaneously working against the idea that the terms dvi and tṛ refer to separate victories, republics and mints as others have argued (1983: 7, 1991: 73).

152

chapter seven

Kuṣāṇa prototype.4 There are, though, some similarities between the Huviṣka Mahāsena issue and the Yaudheya class six Skanda. Both figures stand frontally with similar hand positions. Both are associated with birds, but the Yaudheya version carries a spear as opposed to a bird-standard.5 They also both wear a headdress that may be a turban or top knot. While the two figures are similar, Mahāsena is not an exact match for the class six Skanda. The reverse image is more directly influenced by Kuṣāṇa representations of deities. Her general posture is borrowed from Kuṣāṇa images of Helios, Mithra and Mao (Lahiri 1974: 205; Kumar and Ahmad 1993: 50). The borrowing of numismatic styles from previous rulers may well be rooted in economic necessity. Kuṣāṇa coinage was successful, and the Yaudheyas may have sought initial acceptance of their new coinage by borrowing from established Kuṣāṇa currency. In doing so, they present a very ‘Kuṣāṇized’ or ‘Hellenized’ representation of this deity. His single-headed appearance would have been embraced by Hellenized groups, and this iconographic shift away from the sixheaded form implies the growing influence of Scythian or Kuṣāṇa society on how this deity is perceived and represented. While the single-headed depiction may have been adopted for economic reasons, the exclusive use of it by the Yaudheyas helps to assert it as the dominant representation of the deity in the post-Kuṣāṇa era. The sixheaded horrific Graha-warrior from Yaudheya class three coinage has been transformed into an approachable, human figure who does not, at least in appearance, inspire fear. The diminishing of a sense of awe in the iconography of the deity from the class three to the class six coinage is significant. It implies a movement away from the propitiation cult presumably found in Yaudheya territories at an earlier stage of their history. The reverse image also now appears exclusively as single-headed. While a sound argument can be made to identify the six-headed 4   The inscriptions on these coins do not identify the deity, and I will refer to him as Skanda-Kārttikeya, Kumāra and so on. He can be identified as such because of his spear, bird and on the strength of his resemblance to the single-headed figure in past Yaudheya issues. It is not clear, however, if his name is left off because it is assumed that people will know who he is, or if a considerable degree of amalgamation has taken place between figures like Brahmaṇyadeva, Mahāsena, Skanda-Kumāra, Viśākha and so on, and the name is absent so that this one figure can be seen as representing them all. 5   The representation of Mahāsena from figure 24b does show the deity with a spear.

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

153

reverse image on the class three coins as Ṣaṣṭhī, this figure is much more ambiguous and harder to identify. The textual tradition does amalgamate various goddesses into one generic form (MBh 3.218.47); a similar pattern may be present on these coins. The ambiguity of this reverse figure may be a reflection of a similar numismatic trend towards presenting generic goddesses of prosperity on coinage. P. Callieri observes a similar trend in seals and sealings of the northwest and Gandhāra at approximately this time. He points out the popularity of Ardoxšo on these seals and argues that a number of female deities, whose main characteristic is fertility, have been merged into this single iconographic type (1997: 254). The later Kuṣāṇas also stop producing coinage with a wide variety of deities on them and start to produce coinage that only depicts Śiva/Oēšo and Ardoxšo. Their use of Ardoxšo is an example of the stereotypical use of such a fertility/ prosperity goddess on coinage. Ṣaṣṭhī’s once fearful six-headed appearance has been replaced by a more generalized feminine prosperity figure that had become stereotypical on South Asian numismatics. This process towards amalgamation and generalization seems to have resulted in the loss of what made Ṣaṣṭhī a recognizable goddess with links to Graha and Mātṛ cults. The absence of a clearly identifiable Ṣaṣṭhī figure may also signal that the obverse single-headed Skanda-Kārttikeya has undergone a similar transformation from a Graha to a more benign protective figure. As I have noted above, it is the female figures that allow us to connect the image of Skanda to Graha and Mātṛ traditions on Mathurā panels and Yaudheya class three currency, but the shift in the female’s iconography on these class six coins no longer allows us to make such a link. The addition of the bird to the class six issues may also show the influence of Kuṣāṇa numismatics. The bird on Yaudheya coinage has usually been identified as a peacock and in some cases a cock.6 I think it may be a cock in part because the Yaudheya coin appears to show the deity with a smaller bird. As we have also seen, the Kuṣāṇa era statuary from Gandhāra shows Kārttikeya with a cock. The appearance of the peacock in statuary can be traced to the Gupta period (Srinivasan 1997/98: 240). This class six coinage is close to the 6   Most scholars have followed Allan who identifies the bird as a peacock (1936: cl; Banerjea 1956: 143; Sinha 1979: 80; Thakur 1981: 49; Gupta 1988: 7; Rana 1995: 22). Dasgupta states that in most cases the bird is a peacock, but in some cases may be a cock (1974: 220-221), and Mani states it may be a cock or peacock (1990: 70).

154

chapter seven

­ eginning of the Gupta era, and we should not dismiss the possibility b that the bird could be a peacock on these coins. Most of what we have seen, however, from Yaudheya class six coinage looks back to the influence of the Kuṣāṇas and not ahead to the Guptas. The addition of this bird indicates that the changes seen in the character of Skanda in the Kuṣāṇa era were not just limited to Huviṣka’s rule, but were part of, or influenced, a much larger shift in the depiction and characterization of Kumāra in the north of India. What we must now question is whether or not these iconographic shifts on Yaudheya coinage indicate a shift in Skanda’s popularity and worship base. The Context of the Yaudheyas and the ‘Popularity’ of Skanda-Kārttikeya at the Time of the Class Six Issues The majority of historians reviewing this period have come to the conclusion that the deity was popular amongst indigenous groups in India and especially with the Yaudheyas (V. S. Agrawala: 1943: 31-32; Altekar 1962: 119; P. K. Agrawala 1967: 42; Chatterjee 1970: 35-38; Navaratnam 1973: 100; Dasgupta 1974: 216, 220; Ghurye 1977: 134135; Sinha 1979: 76-80; A. M. Shastri 1977: 92; J. P. Singh 1977: 6; O. P. Singh 1977: 136, 1978: 71; Roy 1984: 76; Gupta 1988: 7; Mani 1990: 70; Rana 1995: 22; Ahmad and Kumar 1993: 51). I will argue here that this is not supported by archaeological evidence for the Yaudheyas at the time of the class six coins. Only a small fraction of Yaudheya seals and inscriptions of this period make indisputable direct reference to the deity, no Yaudheya statuary depicting the deity has come to light; no Yaudheya temples to the god have ever been unearthed. Outside of the Yaudheya coinage, Skanda is a virtual non-entity in the archaeological sources for this group. Having stated this, however, I must admit that there is not a great deal of archaeological work being done on this group, and we must proceed with some caution. Artifacts that have been recovered in some numbers are seals and sealings, some of which present us with an idea of popular religious devotion during this period. A major site for the discovery of Yaudheya seals and sealings is Sunet, a village approximately five kilometres west of Ludhiana in the Punjab. The site was excavated in 1983-84, but not all of the findings of the dig have been well documented. Unfortunately, the mound at the site contained a large quantity of Kuṣāṇa bricks that were dug-out

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

155

and hauled away by the British to be used as ballast in railroad construction projects (Handa 1987: 334).7 The result, I suspect, is that many of the artifacts from the site were long gone by the time of the excavation. Cunningham, a nineteenth century archaeologist, found about one-thousand Yaudheya class six coins at the site. He also found a single coin of Hermaeus, 269 coins of earlier Indo-Scythian kings, 132 coins of later Indo-Scythian kings, one Gupta coin and 126 coins from the Indo-Sassanian period (Handa 1987: 333). In the more recent excavation a number of seals, sealings, beads and other artifacts were recovered along with a female terracotta and fragments of other statuary (Handa 1987: 333-334). Many of the seals and sealings recovered from the site belong to the Vṛṣṇis, who appear to have ruled the region before the Kuṣāṇa era.8 Sunet was founded at the close of the first quarter of the second millennium bce and reached its peak during Kuṣāṇa rule (Handa 1987: 333-334). The Yaudheyas occupy the site during the period of their class six coin production. Approximately 30, 000 coin moulds of class six Yaudheya coinage have been recovered from Sunet along with seals and sealings demonstrating the presence of Yaudheya administration in the town during the third and fourth centuries ce (Handa 1984: 155, 1988: 132, 1991: 73). Devendra Handa suggests that Sunet may have been the Yaudheya capital during this time period (1991: 73). In the town 212 seals and sealings have been found (Handa 1985: 99-112). Among the numerous seals and sealings recovered from the site are those that reflect religious concepts. A number of these seals and sealings, for instance, depict the Śaivite device of a trident/axe with legends like Maheśvara that are likely reflective of Śaivia religious groups or devotees (Handa 1984: 161). Other seals and sealings from the site use Śaiva devices such as tridents (41 seals/sealings) and bulls   Bricks measuring 32x22x5 cm are typical of the Kuṣāṇa era and are often called Kuṣāṇa bricks. 8   There are numerous mythological references involving a group of people called Vṛṣṇis. Whether or not this historical group is related to the mythical group is not clear to me, but many scholars assume that both the historical and mythical Vṛṣṇis are one and the same (Dasgupta 1974: 188-189). Only one coin from the group has been recovered (Dasgupta 1974: 189), but numerous seals and sealings from Sunet use the name Vṛṣṇi and use similar devices as found on the coin suggesting that the same group issued both and were located in Sunet. I think it likely that the Vṛṣṇis ruled the area before the Common Era and lost the land to successive waves of invading Indo-Greeks and Indo-Scythians. The group may have briefly re-emerged after the Kuṣāṇas, but could not have ruled for a long period before the Yaudheyas control the area. 7

156

chapter seven

(12 seals/sealings), suggesting an active Śaiva cult in Sunet (Handa 1985: 99-112). A number of the legends on these seals/sealings end in -īśvara like “Śrī-Kundeśvarasya” and “Śrī-Yyaumīśvarasya” (Handa 1984: 161-162). Handa thinks such legends are suggestive of sealings issued from Śaivite shrines (1984: 161-162). He also notes that a number of personal names reflect a Śaivite background, such as seal 106 in his catalogue with the legend “Bhavadeva” and sealing 168 with the legend “Rudra” (1985: 133).9 Regarding personal names he comments: They [names] certainly have a socio-cultural background. Children are named on the basis of their physical traits and other characteristics or according to the religious beliefs, socio-economic and/or political status, educational background, avocations, likes and dislikes of the parent or guardians.... As elsewhere in India, children in Punjab also seem to have been named after favourite deities, rivers, heroes, sages, saints, sacred objects, etc. (1985: 132)

In other words, the use of divine names as personal names is suggestive of a deity’s popularity.10 There are at least twelve seals and sealings with Śaivite names listed by Handa in his catalogue (1985: 133). The example of the seals and sealings featuring Śaivite names and symbols demonstrates that we can use this evidence to indicate the popularity of a cult in this area. Only a few seals and sealings from Sunet allude to the existence of a cult of Skanda in this area. The only name of the deity to appear on these seals and sealings is Kumāra. Sealing 66 in Handa’s catalogue is one such possible reference to the deity. This single sealing carries the legend: “Kumāra-Kumāra” with no device on it (Handa 1985: 100). It may be intended as laudatory praise for Skanda-Kumāra. There are six sealings bearing the name Kumāra, but it is not clear if all refer to the deity.11 Another sealing that Handa mentions as possibly connected to 9   Handa has published two versions of this catalogue, one in 1984 and another in 1985. I have provided the catalogue numbers from the 1985 edition. 10   V. S. Agrawala (1943: 31) and Thaplyal (1972: 10, 136-137) make similar suggestions concerning the use of divine names for personal names. 11  Other sealings with the name Kumāra are: 47 which reads “devabhadrasa Kāṇdelaka Kuṃārasa” with no device; 127 and 128 which read “Śrī-Kumāra” with no device; 129 which reads “Śrī-Kumārabodhi” with a crescent device; and 131 which reads “Śrī-Kumāraśarma” with a lion device (1985: 99-104). It is unlikely that any of these refers to a shine. The term ‘Kumāra’ can mean a prince or other official. When the issuer of the inscription, coin or seal wished to specifically indicate Skanda they often used Kumāra with another epithet of the deity to make the meaning clear. Certainly, the few devices placed on these sealings do not link the name Kumāra

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

157

Skanda is a sealing (number 229) depicting a dancing peacock (1985: 111). This sealing does not, however, have any legend on it. Given that the peacock is an emblem of Kārttikeya we may assume that it relates to his cult. Thaplyal mentions two sealings from Sunet depicting a female standing by a tree feeding a bird at her feet. Thaplyal suggests that the tree may represent Śiva, the female Pārvatī and “the bird may be a cock. Its presence in the composition may be easily explained. The bird is a favourite of Kārttikeya, son of Pārvatī, and what is dear to him is equally dear to her” (1972: 175-176). While creative, Thaplyal’s argument is speculative. What these sealings suggest is that the cult of Skanda-Kumāra does exist among the Yaudheyas in Sunet, but is only a minor cult when compared with other cults from the same site. I have already discussed seals and sealings from Sunet suggestive of Śaivite leanings. There are also numerous seals and sealings from Sunet that suggest Vaiṣṇava leanings. Handa argues for a shrine devoted to the five Vṛṣṇi heroes at Sunet, based on a single seal with a Kharoṣṭhī legend which reads: “Jaya-Pachalaya.” The seal also has a half elephant and half lion on post and discus as its motifs (1984: 163). Handa interprets the frequent use of the half-elephant and half-lion motif along with the use of the pestle, mace and discus on seals and sealings as an indication of the worship of Viṣṇu and related cults (1984: 163). There are also thirty-one personal names on sealings that relate to Viṣṇu or his avatāras. At least thirty-four seals and sealings make use of the name Viṣṇu or an epithet of the deity like: “Jitaṃ Bhagavatā” and “Jitaṃ Bhagavatā Svāmi Nārāyaṇena” accompanied by Vaiṣṇavite devices (1984: 163). All of these suggest to Handa the existence of Vaiṣṇavite shrines in Sunet from the second century bce to the fourth century ce and on (1984: 163-164). Another important cult at Sunet involved Mātṛs. The existence of a Mātṛ cult at Sunet may point to additional evidence of Kārttikeya worship. There are ten seals and sealings that make use of “Mātṛ” in their legend. Two (numbers 73 and 74) have only “mātṛḥ” with a trident device (Handa 1984: 147). Five seals/sealings use some form of mātṛśarma with either a Nandi device or a trident device, and other seals/sealings use a combination of Mātṛ with soma or bhūta (Handa

with a shrine to Kārttikeya. These sealings are regarded by Handa as possible indications of Skanda devotion (1985: 124).

158

chapter seven

1985: 99-112).12 Handa regards all these Mātṛ seals and sealings to indicate Śaivite associations (1984: 165), and I agree with him based on their use of Śaivite devices. These Mātṛ seals and sealings do not provide evidence of a cult of Skanda, but suggest that the Mātṛ cult has been absorbed into the cult of Śiva. As we have seen, Kuṣāṇa era sculptures from Mathurā depict Mātṛs with Skanda, but, as we shall see in chapter nine, by the end of the Gupta period Skanda-Kārttikeya has been largely replaced by Śiva and Gaṇeśa in depictions of Mātṛs. With these seals and sealings we may be witnessing the same pattern. We must also consider the possibility that the cult of Kārttikeya has been absorbed into the cult of Śiva, and that is why we find so few epigraphic references to him at this site; people had replaced worship of Kumāra with worship of his more powerful father. Thus, Sunet, a town that produced class six coins depicting Kārtti­ keya by the thousands, issued by a group who were supposed to have had a special devotion to the deity in question, has revealed only a small number of seals that could be linked to the cult of Kārttikeya. This situation is not unique to Sunet; there are no known Yaudheya seals, sealings, inscriptions, statues or temples that depict the deity or make direct references to Brahmaṇyadeva or Kārttikeya. Only the term Kumāra is met with on a small number of sealings from Sunet.13 I am not the first person to observe the paucity of seals and sealings associated with this deity from Yaudheya sources. Thaplyal, after making such comments as “The Yaudheyas worshipped Kārttikeya, the general of the gods, whose name and figure occur on some of their coins” (1972: 21), and “he [Kārttikeya] was a favourite deity of illustrious kings like Huvishka and Kumāragupta and of the Yaudheya tribe” (1972: 194-195), comments in a footnote: “We would have expected the representation of the deity on the seals of the Yaudheyas whose   These seals and sealings are number 75, which reads: “mātṛśarma” with a Nandi device; number 76, which reads: “mātṛśarma” with a trident device; number 92, which reads: “śrī mātṛśarmaṇaḥ“ with no device; number 163, which reads: “śrīr mātṛśarmasya” with no device; number 165, which reads “śrīr mātṛśarmasa” with a trident device; number 133, which reads “śrī mātṛsomasya” with a lion before a tree device; number 134, which reads “śrīr mātṛsomasya” with a trident and lion device; and number 164, which reads “śrīr mātṛbhūtasya” with no device (Handa 1985: 99-112). 13   Not all of the glyptics from centres like Rohtak have been recorded, and Handa does not attempt to date many of the seals and sealings he discusses. It may be that the ‘Kumāra’ seals I have referred to above do not come from the Yaudheyas or that other seals from Rohtak might suggest more about Yaudheya devotional practice than is currently known. 12

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

159

coins portray his figures, but no such examples are met with” (1972: 195). Such an expectation is only created if we assume, as Thaplyal does, that the class six coins of the Yaudheyas are a reflection of popular and widespread religious sentiment. I have already argued in relation to Kuṣāṇa numismatics that coinage does not always reflect wide spread ‘popular’ devotion, and I will not repeat those arguments here. It does, however, seem clear from the evidence of the seals and sealings from Sunet that the apparent special devotion many scholars attribute to the Yaudheyas on the basis of their coinage is not well supported in the case of the class six issues. The Context of the Yaudheyas during the Class Six Period We might well question why Skanda is represented on these Yaudheya class six coins at all if, as I have argued, his cult was in decline by this period. I have suggested that Kārttikeya, or Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra, was popular among the Yaudheyas during the period of their class three coin production. It may have been the case that part of this group’s sense of identity was tied to the cult of Skanda. If we accept Banerjea’s argument that the class three coin legends indicate the deity was regarded as the ruler of the Yaudheyas, then Skanda’s position as a sign of the group becomes more important. While the popularity of Skanda-Kārttikeya may have faded among non-elite sections of society over the period between class three and class six coin production, the deity may still have acted as a sign of the group’s sense of identity and remained a useful reminder of the group’s past. While the evidence is limited, it may also be the case that the ­leaders of the Yaudheyas during this period were drawn from their military. If that is the case, then the transformation of Kumāra into Mahā­sena in certain regions of the Kuṣāṇa Empire may have appealed to this group and inspired them to keep the deity on their coinage. There are two seals from this time period that may shed some light on the role of the military in the Yaudheya leadership. The first seal is a controversial one because it is grammatically flawed and difficult to read. The seal reads: “Yaudheya-gaṇa-puraskritasya Śaṅkararāja Mahāk­shatrapa Ma­hā­senā­paterindramitra-grīhītasya Mahārāja Mahākshatrapa Se­na­­pateraprati-hata Śasanasya Dharmamitra Nandavarmmaṇaḥ” (Saras­wati 1970: 154). The legend has been translated as: “(the seal is of) Mahārāja Mahākshatrapa Senāpati Dharmamitranandavarman,

160

chapter seven

who was made the ruler of the Yaudheya gaṇa (and) adopted by Mahārāja Mahākshatrapa Mahāsenāpati Indramitra (and) whose rule was undisputed” (Shastri 1974: 117).14 According to this seal, a new Yaudheya leader was appointed through adoption by the leader he was to replace. The seal also suggests that the Yaudheya leader was called a great king (mahārāja), which does not seem to fit with what we understand of this group, but we cannot be certain of the intended meaning of this legend. What the seal does suggest is that the Yaudheya leadership was drawn from its generals (mahāsenāpati/senāpati). The language of the inscription also indicates the influence of Scythian and Kuṣāṇa cultures on this group. The term Mahākṣatrapa is borrowed from Parthian and Scythian titles for rulers and governors. This borrowing of administrative titles along with the evidence from class six coinage indicates that the Yaudheyas assimilated a number of aspects of Kuṣāṇa and Kṣatrapa culture. Another sealing found at both Sunet and Naurangabad also relates to how the Yaudheyas administered their state. The sealing reads: “Yaudheyānāṃ Jaya-mantradharānāṃ” (Handa 1988: 131). Ahmad and Nadooshan argue that this seal “likely hints at the existence of the permanent war operational organization formed as the council consisting of the Generals of the tribe,” and they read the legend as: “‘of the war-ministers of the Yaudheyas’” (1993: 153). Such an interpretation seems probable.15 While the meaning of this sealing is not completely clear, military officials may have played an important role in governing the Yaudheya gaṇa and the transformation of Brahma­ ṇyadeva into a Mahāsena-like figure may have been of political use for 14   There have been a number of attempts to translate this grammatically defective legend (see Saraswati 1970: 154-157 and Shastri 1974: 115-116); Shastri seems to provide the best attempt. 15   The last part of the legend has been read in a number of ways. K. P. Jayaswal feels mantradharas refer to a Yaudheya inner cabinet or executive committee (1955: 145). Allan reads the word as “councillors of victory” (1936: clii). Altekar thinks it refers to a “mystic formula” which won victory (1967: 30), and Sircar thought it meant “victory charm” (1960: 166-167). Prakash rejects Allan’s, Altekar’s and Sircar’s readings and agrees with Jayaswal that the term likely denotes the “mantriparishad” of the Yaudheyas, that is the upholders of the secret of victory, with the secret referring to the nature of the deliberations carried out by these counsellors (1965: 137-138; also see Handa 1988: 132). There are several versions of this sealing, and Ahmad and Nadooshan note that small differences in the palaeolography of the legends suggests that “they appear to have been issued in distinct periods” that they feel stretches between the second and third century ce (1993: 153; also see Handa 1988: 132).

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

161

these leaders. Skanda or Brahmaṇyadeva is, however, not mentioned on these seals/sealings in relation to the official administration of the Yaudheya state during this period. If Brahmaṇyadeva was the tutelary ruler of the Yaudheyas in the class three era, then that understanding of the deity has changed by the class six era. As I have suggested above, the class six coins and the limited evidence from seals suggest that far from reacting against the iconographic and ideological shifts brought in by the Kuṣāṇas and others, the Yaudheyas embraced certain aspects of these changes. We should not underestimate the overall impact that Greek, Scythian, Parthian and Kuṣāṇa culture had on the Yaudheyas and other indigenous groups in north India in general. The titles of their leaders, their coinage and how they choose to represent Ṣaṣṭhī and Kārttikeya are all heavily influenced by these sources. The Yaudheyas had exposure to foreign groups for over 400 years by the time of their class six coinage. We can only speculate as to just how much of this foreign culture the Yaudheyas assimilated, but the evidence that remains suggests that they absorbed a great deal. The evidence from Sunet and Yaudheya class six coins document a continuing separation between Skanda and the traditions of Grahas and Mātṛs. The Yaudheyas do not appear to completely adopt an image of Mahāsena on their class six coins, but they have moved considerably from the iconography of their class three issues. The class three coins spoke, at least in part, to a Graha and Mātṛ context. The iconographic shift to a more handsome and human image for both deities on class six coinage implies a movement away from the propitiation aspect of the deity’s cult and an absorption of Huviṣka’s largely political use of the deity as Mahāsena. The Spread of Mahāsena in South Asia: Skanda in the Ikṣvāku Kingdom The Ikṣvāku dynasty (c. 225-300 ce) ruled a kingdom in the modern state of Andhra Pradesh centred at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa.16 The Ikṣvākus provide us with a glimpse of the transition of Skanda’s cult from the 16   Elizabeth Rosen Stone proposes a slightly longer ruling era beginning at c. 225 ce and running to 315 or 325 ce. Her arguments for extending the period of rule are based in art history and Purāṇic evidence. She acknowledges, however, that both of these sources are somewhat tentative (1994: 7).

162

chapter seven

Kuṣāṇa/Sātavāhana era to the Gupta/Vākāṭaka era. The power of the Kuṣāṇas is much reduced by the early third century ce (Falk 2001: 130), and the Sātavāhanas in the Deccan also fade early in the third century (Shastri 1998: 79-80). The rise of the Ikṣvākus in the wake of the decline of those empires provides a useful account of how Kārtti­ keya’s cult spread to the south of India, and what form that cult took. I will argue that Skanda’s tradition spreads to Nāgārjunakoṇḍa as the cult of Skanda Mahāsena as opposed to Skandagraha. Much like the Mahāsena tradition that developed in certain regions of the Kuṣāṇa Empire, the Ikṣvāku cult to this deity was driven by royal and military concerns. Nāgārjunakoṇḍa: Geography, Background and Cultural Influences Nāgārjunakoṇḍa is a valley in the Palnāḍ Taluk of Guṇṭūr District, Andhra Pradesh. In the third and fourth centuries ce it was known as Vijayapurī and served as the capital of the Ikṣvāku dynasty. The rise and fall of the Ikṣvākus covers a short span of about 75 years and four kings (Cāṃtamūla I, Vīrapuruṣadatta, Ehuvala Cāṃtamūla and Rudra­puruṣadatta) in the third century ce. The relative obscurity of this short-lived kingdom is countered by the richness of the archaeological record for them that was recovered during the 20th century. From the perspective of the historian of religion, Nāgārjunakoṇḍa had the good fortune to be largely forgotten and the site mostly reduced to uninhabited jungle.17 The site remained largely undisturbed until its rediscovery in the 1920s when the first of a series of archaeological digs was conducted.18 The result of these digs has lead to a remarkable state of knowledge related to the Ikṣvāku kingdom and its capital. The evidence from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa indicates that the cult of Mahā­ sena found there was not a reflection of local traditions, but the result of larger cultural and artistic forces impacting the Ikṣvāku Kingdom. While there are some innovative aspects of Ikṣvāku religious life, 17   A more comprehensive account of the pre- and post-Ikṣvāku Nāgārjunakoṇḍa may be found in Nagarjunakonda (Sarkar and Misra 1972). 18   An initial archaeological dig was conducted at the site by A. H. Longhurst in 1927-31 (Longhurst 1999), and a second dig was conducted in 1938 by T. N. Ramachandran (Ramachandran 1999). Both of these early digs revealed extensive Buddhist remains at the site. The site did not receive a full archaeological dig until the 1950s which is when most of the Brahminical remains were discovered on the eastern side of the Krishna River.

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

163

much of what has been discovered at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa speaks to a cosmopolitan kingdom that drew from a variety of sources and cultures. As Elizabeth Rosen Stone suggests (1994: 100), the diversity of cultures embraced by the Ikṣvākus may be best illustrated by a decorative pillar found on the site. One side of the pillar depicts a guard in Scythian dress; another side depicts a togate figure with something of a Roman appearance; the third side depicts a classically dressed Hel­ lenistic figure holding a rhyton, and the fourth side depicts an Indian Yakṣī. The pillar, in turn, hails from Buddhist remains at the site. A similar blending of religious and cultural forces informs the cult of Kārttikeya at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa. We can trace three main cultural forces impacting the Ikṣvākus that have some bearing on the cult of Skanda at this site: the Sātavāhana Empire, the Western Kṣatrapas and broader South Asian and international influences linked to Nāgārjuna­ koṇḍa via trade networks. Cultural Influences at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa: The Sātavāhanas The Sātavāhana Empire (c. second century bce to second century ce), flourished in the Deccan and further south. The Ikṣvākus were likely feudatories of the Sātavāhanas and become an independent kingdom with the fall of Vāsiṣṭhīputra Puḷumāvi at around 225 to 230 ce (Mirashi 1981: 44; Stone 1994: 5; Shastri 1998: 79). Vijayapurī may have been founded by the Sātavāhana king Gautamīputra Vijaya Sātakarṇi (rules c. 199-204 ce) (Mirashi 1981: 43; Shastri 1998: 78). The Ikṣvākus mimic a number of the religious and political practices of the Imperial Sātavāhanas. The Sātavāhanas were a religiously heterogeneous group, and a similar attitude is found with the Ikṣvākus. The inscriptions of the Sātavāhanas primarily come in the form of records of gifts given to Buddhist centres. While the Sātavāhanas appear to have been great patrons of Buddhism (Mirashi 1981: 136-148), they also participated in a variety of Vedic Śrauta rituals and some of their personal names, Kṛṣṇa, Śiva and Skanda, are suggestive of an adherence to Hinduism (Mirashi 1981: 131-136; Shastri 1998: 25-26). The Imperial Sātavāhanas and members of their court tended to use Vedic rituals as a means of legitimation, while their more popular religious sympathies appear to have run towards Buddhism and formative Hinduism.

164

chapter seven

A similar situation is found at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa. Most of the records of the Ikṣvākus are found on Buddhist donative inscriptions, but these same Buddhist inscriptions make references to royal patronage of Vedic rites and Hinduism. A memorial pillar to Cāṃtamūla I, the first Ikṣvāku king, provides a suitable example. The pillar depicts four scenes and contains an inscription and was located within a Buddhist monastic complex. While the context of the Prakrit inscription seems to suggest that Cāṃtamūla was a great patron of Buddhism, he is also described as performing the Aśvamedha rite and as a devotee of Mahāsena. The top panel may also depict a liṅga within a shrine (Stone 1994: 33-34). I will deal with the reference to Mahāsena below; for now it is important to note the inclusive nature of official Ikṣvāku religious patronage and practice, a tradition likely inherited from the Sātavāhanas. While we might be able to attribute the Ikṣvāku religious eclecticism to the Sātavāhanas, it is less likely that the cult of Mahāsena at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa is influenced by the Sātavāhanas. Direct evidence of Hinduism from Sātavāhana inscriptions and statuary is not overwhelming and little evidence for Śaivism had been recovered. Some evidence of devotion to Skanda and Śiva is suggested in some of the personal names of Sātavāhana royality, but occurrences of this are not common.19 The larger Nāṇeghāṭ inscription of Nāganikā mentions Skanda under the name of Kumāra-vara (Shastri 1998: 59), but this appears in a list of a variety of Vedic and Purāṇic deities and may not be taken as an indication of special devotion to him. Hence, it seems unlikely that the cult of Skanda found at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa owes much to the Sātavāhanas.20 19   A. M. Shastri argues that the Sātavāhana rulers Śaktikumāra and Vāśiṣṭhīputra Śivaskanda Sātakarṇi were named after Skanda (1998: 33, 76). Shastri also argues that Puḷumāvi, the name of some Sātavāhana rulers, may also be a name for Skanda. He suggests that the Telugu pulu means grass and māvi refers to part of a mother’s womb. Shastri attempts to connect this to Skanda’s birth in reeds (1998: 10). I am unsure of this argument. 20   Nāṇeghāṭ is a Sātavāhana site at Junnar in the modern state of Maharashtra. The inscriptions from this site shed some light on how the word ‘kumāra’ was used by this dynasty. As we have seen, Kumāra is a common epithet for Skanda as well as carrying a general meaning of ‘boy’ or ‘youth’. At some point kumāra also becomes a title meaning ‘prince’. It is in this context that Kumāra is used to identify three princes in the statue gallery from this site: Kumāra Bhāya, Kumāra Hukusiri and Kumāra Sātavāhana (Shastri 1998: 60). A similar use of kumāra is also employed by the Western Kṣatrapas and the Ikṣvākus. The title kumāra is used in the Kṣatrapa inscription of Rupiaṃma from Pauni, likely a third century ce inscription (Salomon

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

165

Cultural Influences at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa: The Western Kṣatrapas While the Kuṣāṇas rule the north and the Sātavāhanas rule the Deccan, the Western Kṣatrapas rule in the west of India in the regions of Malwā, Ujjain and Gujarat from approximately the second century to the fourth century ce. The Sātavāhanas and Western Kṣatrapas had marriage alliances (Sarma 1982: 83-84, 100; Shastri 1998: 73-74), and this same pattern is found between the Ikṣvāku ruling family and Kṣatrapa noble families. Two Ikṣvāku kings, Vīrapuruṣadatta and Ehuvala Cāṃtamūla, married Kṣatrapa princesses, and at least one of these kings, Vīrapuruṣadatta, gave one of his daughters in marriage to a Kṣatrapa ruler of Ujjain (Sarkar and Misra 1972: 15). The Western Kṣatrapas had a significant impact on Ikṣvāku art, culture and religion (Ramachandran 1961: 20; Soundara Rajan 1961: 23; Sarkar and Misra 1972: 15-16; Sarma 1982 :99; Sarkar 1985: 32). The Western Kṣatrapas were also important vectors for the transmission of Hellenistic, Parthian and Kuṣāṇa art and ideas into the subcontinent. Elizabeth Rosen Stone (1994) and others have demonstrated the influence of Hellenistic and Kuṣāṇa era art on the art at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, some of which is due to close relations of the Kṣatrapas and the Ikṣvākus. Western Kṣatrapa devotion to Skanda is found in two sources: epigraphy and statuary. A single inscription of the Kṣatrapas makes direct reference to Kārttikeya. The inscription by an otherwise un­known figure, Mahādaṇanāyaka Śrīdharavarman Śaka, reads: “Per­ fection of the Lord, the great Kumāra, the divine lord Mahāsena, whose army has never been vanquished and who by his celestial prowess attained victories” (Sinha 1979: 91). The inscription was discovered in Kānākherā near Sanchi and is dated to śaka year 201 (c. 279 ce) (Chatterjee 1970: 40). This inscription leaves little doubt that for 1974: 21; Shastri 1998: 66). An Ikṣvāku inscription dated to the 16th year of Ehavala Cāṃtamūla’s reign records the construction of a temple to Śiva. The temple (devakula) and flagstaff (dhvaja-stambha) were built by Hāritīputra Vīrapuruṣadatta, a son of Ehavala Cāṃtamūla. The Sanskrit inscription describes Hāritīputra Vīrapuruṣa­datta as a Mahārājakumāra and as a Mahāsenāpati (a general) (Sircar and Krishnan 1961-62: 18, 19). Mahārājakumāra can be read as ‘son, or prince, of the great king’, or ‘great royal prince’. Whether or not the two usages (as a name of Skanda and as a royal title) of kumāra are related is unclear. We might speculate that the junior status of both (god and prince) to their respective fathers (Agni/Śiva and the king) allows for some deliberate blurring between the two. Such may be the case with the Gupta ruler, Kumāragupta I, to be discussed in chapter nine. I would, though, emphasize that a relationship between the royal title and divine name is speculation on my part.

166

chapter seven

this Kṣatrapa figure Skanda was Mahāsena, a divine general. It adds support to my suggestion that among Hellenized Scythian groups Skanda was primarily recognized as Mahāsena.21 Statues of Skanda from the region of Western Kṣatrapa rule have not been well catalogued, but those that I have seen are modelled after the Gandhāran statues of Mahāsena (fig. 27). This statue comes from Mitawali in the district of Morena and has been dated to the first century ce by the curators of the Indian Archaeological Survey Museum at Gwalior. I am unsure of this date, but a date between the first and fourth centuries ce seems reasonable. The statue is worn, but it clearly shows a figure cradling a cock in his left hand. He likely holds a spear in his right hand, but the upper half of the spear is broken off. He is dressed in a dhotī and traces of decorations such as arm bands can be seen. His hair is tied into a top knot with two tendrils of hair coming down either side of his head. He stands facing the front. While this image shares much with the Gandhāran images we have examined in terms of posture and the attributes held by the deity, it has also been ‘Indianized’. The Scythian armour is gone and has been replaced by a dhotī. It is often argued by scholars that the Kṣatrapas become fully Indian over time, but I tend to view them as more of a hybrid group blending Scythian, Indian and Hellenistic cultures. I would suggest that the influence of Scythian/Parthian depictions of Skanda can be seen in the posture and attributes of this statue, particularly the cock he holds, but the style of dress is much closer to Mathurā artistic models. The Kṣatrapa patron of the statue and the audience viewing it may also have had a similar hybridity to them. The Gandhāran image of Mahāsena either spread to the Western Kṣatrapa territory through direct interaction with related Kṣatrapa groups in the northwest, or simply as a product of interaction with the Kuṣāṇas during their period of rule. The Kṣatrapas are of Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian heritage and would likely have understood the bird iconography from within a Scythian and Parthian context, though this point is uncertain. While the evidence is limited, it does point towards devotion to Skanda as Mahāsena in Kṣatrapa controlled areas. The 21   Another inscription can be mentioned that demonstrates devotion to this deity from Indo-Parthian nobles during this period. The inscription was recovered from Abbottabad, Hazara District, Pakistan and has been dated to the third century ce on the basis of palaeography (Chatterjee 1970: 39; Sinha 1979: 90). The inscription records the construction of a temple to Kumāra (kumārasthanaṃ) by Gaśura Ṣāphara, likely an Indo-Parthian name (Sinha 1979: 90).

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

167

statuary suggests that the understanding of Skanda-Mahāsena received by this group is mediated by the Gandhāran cult to this deity, but the image of the deity is less overtly non-Indian in appearance; the Mahāsena image is being assimilated into an Indian form. As we shall see, the appearance of the Ikṣvāku statues of Skanda owes much to the Western Kṣatrapa/Gandhāra iconography of the deity. Cultural Influences at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa: Trade The Ikṣvākus appear to be well connected with the rest of South Asia and the Roman Empire through trade. Some of this trade was likely facilitated by their connections to the Kṣatrapas and pre-existent Sātavāhana trade networks.22 The digs at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa have revealed Roman coinage and jewellery and imitations of Roman art (Stone 1994: 29-30, 77-80). Epigraphic and artistic evidence recovered from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa suggest that the Ikṣvākus knew of and had some contact with most of the subcontinent. Two Buddhist inscriptions demonstrate the potential for travel across South Asia during the third century well. One records the donation of a caitya hall for a group of Theravādin monks originally from Taṃbapaṃṇa (Sri Lanka). These monks are described as having converted people form “Kashmir, Gandhāra, Chīna, Chilāta (=Skt. Kirāta), Tosali, Avaraṃta (=Skt. Apa­rānta), Vaṇga, Vanavāsi, Yavana (?), Damila (?), Palura (?) And the Isle of Taṃbapaṃṇi” (Vogel 1929-30: 23, parentheses in the original ). A second inscription found on a footprint slab of the Buddha’s feet seems to refer to the same group of Theravādin monastics, and also presents them as having travelled all over India converting people (Sircar and Lahiri 1959-60: 248). Even if these inscriptions contain some level of hyperbole in relation to the travels of these monks, they still suggest that extensive travel around South Asia was possible 22   Trade was an important aspect of Sātavāhana wealth and power (Mirashi 1981: 171-173; Singh 1999: 195-196). Their wealth was largely a function of trade between the Deccan and coastal areas partially controlled by the Western Kṣatrapas. The Kṣatrapas were an important link with trade headed west to the Roman Empire. A considerable amount of the luxury goods produced in the Sātavāhana Empire found its way west through ports in Gujarat, and, in turn, a considerable amount of Roman coinage and luxury goods as well as Kṣatrapa coinage found their way into the Sātavāhana Empire (Gupta 1965, 1999; Irani 1998: 295). It is possible, if not probable, that the Ikṣvākus inherit some of their trade partners from their former overlords.

168

chapter seven

­ uring this period, and, I would suggest, most of this travel was likely d along trade routes. The evidence from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa suggests that its rulers were well aware of a broader South Asian and international context. The art and architecture of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa borrows from a variety of South Asian sources and Hellenistic sources. The Ikṣvāku kingdom was not isolated or insular. If any word could be used to describe the kingdom it would be cosmopolitan (Stone 1994: 100). It is this broader cosmopolitan vision that appears to have had a significant impact on the Skanda cult at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa. The Evidence for Devotion to Skanda Recovered from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa Most scholars regard Kārttikeya as the pre-eminent Brahminical deity at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa during the rule of the Ikṣvākus. I. K. Sarma states that for the Ikṣvākus “The most favoured and revered God was Mahāsena” (1982: 104). Similar claims of Skanda’s supremacy and importance at this site are echoed by a variety of scholars (Ramachan­ dran 1961: 19; Sarkar 1985: 32; Raghunath 2001: 49). My goal is not to deny such comments, I do think that Skanda received considerable attention from Ikṣvāku rulers, but I also think these comments need to be tempered to more accurately reflect the archaeological evidence available to us. I will discuss this evidence below beginning with the clearest evidence of devotion to Kārttikeya: inscriptions. Inscriptions Related to Skanda The vast majority of the inscriptions recovered from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa record donations by Buddhist devotees. On a number of these inscriptions the founding member of the Ikṣvāku lineage, Cāṃtamūla I, is eulogized. While the list of his achievements tends to differ slightly from inscription to inscription, one common component to all of them is the following Prakrit phrase: “Virūpākhapati mahāsenaparigahitasa” (Vogel 1929-30: 6, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23; Raghunath 2001: 72). Rendered into Sanskrit it reads: “virūpākṣapati mahāsena pari­ gṛhī­tasya” and in English: “the one favoured (parigṛhīta) by Mahāsena,

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

169

who has the one with deformed eyes (virūpākṣa) as his lord.”23 Virūpākṣa is an epithet of Śiva, so the inscription likely means Cāṃ­ tamūla is favoured by Mahāsena, whose lord is Śiva. If this reading is correct, it provides our first epigraphic evidence of a link between Mahāsena and Śiva. Given that the first inscriptions to directly state that Kārttikeya is Śiva’s son appear in the seventh century ce (Chatterjee 1970: 48), this third century inscription that implies such a relationship is significant. On another inscription from Nāgār­ junakoṇḍa to be discussed below, Kārttikeya is called the son of Agni; so, a paternal relationship between Śiva and Skanda still appears open to debate during this period. What the above inscription does suggest is that Kārttikeya was being connected to Śiva in the tradition by the third century ce, and that Cāṃtamūla I, or his royal descendants, preferred the name Mahāsena over the other epithets available for Skanda. I would suggest that Cāṃtamūla’s choice of Mahāsena on these inscriptions is likely not arbitrary, but more probably a borrowing of royal strategies either directly from the Kuṣāṇas, or, more probably, mediated through the Western Kṣatrapas. We shall return to Cāṃtamūla’s use of Mahāsena and its links to the Kuṣāṇas and Kṣatrapas below, but there is another aspect of Ikṣvāku society revealed in inscriptions that suggests a broader sympathy towards the martial form of Skanda. Ikṣvāku inscriptions demonstrate that a prominent role was played by military figures in this kingdom. The majority of donors noted on inscriptions are women most of whom are the wives of Mahāsenāpatis (Vogel 1929-30: 6). Ikṣvāku society also used memorial stones for the dead, a number of which record soldiers lost in battle (Sarkar and Misra 1972: 43-44). The inscriptional evidence indicates that military figures held an important role in public Ikṣvāku culture and court life. Hence, if, as I will argue, we can read something of a royal martial cult in the repeated use of Mahāsena on memorials to Cāṃtamūla, then that places these memorials within the broader martial context of Ikṣvāku society. A second group of inscriptions also shed some light on devotion to Skanda during this period. There are six to seven inscriptions all recording the same event: the erection of a temple to Sarvadeva, likely a form of Śiva. None of these inscriptions has survived intact, but the reading of the inscriptions has been pieced together from the available remains (Chhabra 1959-60: 147-149). The inscription is from year 11 23

  I am grateful to Phyllis Granoff for suggesting this reading to me.

170

chapter seven

of Ehuvala Cāṃtamūla’s reign and records the building of this temple by a Talavara named Ēliśri.24 This Sanskrit inscription describes Ēliśri as intensely devoted (atibhakti) to the god (deva) Kumāra who is the son of Agni (hutavaha tanaya) and who wields the terrible spear, or who has terrible power (chaṇḍa śakti) (Chhabra 1959-60: 149). Ēliśri also describes himself as the grandson of Aṇikki, a Senapati, who, according to the inscription, won great fame and victories on the battlefield. Finally, he claims that the temple to Sarvadeva was built through the grace (prasāda) of Kārttikeya (Chhabra 1959-60: 149). Ēliśri’s inscription provides us with additional evidence of devotion to Skanda, here called Kumāra and Kārttikeya. While the term Mahāsena is not employed here, the context of the inscription is, in part, martial. Ēliśri is a Talavara, and he memorializes his grandfather for his role as a military leader. While one cannot be sure if his devotion to Skanda is based in such a martial context, his devotion does not appear to suggest any Graha associations and leaves open the idea that he views Skanda as a military deity. The inscription also suggests an assimilation of Skanda’s cult into Śaivism. It features a devotee of Skanda building a temple for Śiva. While the evidence here is indirect because the inscription does not explicitly indicate a relationship between Śiva and Kārttikeya, we can add this inscription to that of Cāṃtamūla I’s discussed above as evidence of a merging of the two cults at this site. We might view the phrase hutavaha tanaya, son of Agni, as evidence that Ēliśri did not view Skanda as Śiva’s son, but such an assumption does not hold once we examine the narrative contexts from which the phrase originates. As I have discussed in relation to the Āraṇyakaparvan’s and the Anuśāsanaparvan’s accounts of Skanda’s birth, they both feature Agni and Śiva as fathers of the deity. Hence, the appearance of hutavaha tanaya on this inscription need not imply an exclusive statement of paternity. The two inscriptions discussed above indicate that there was devotion to Skanda at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa and that this devotion is expressed by elite members of Ikṣvāku society. The inscriptional evidence, all be it limited, implies a royal or court cult for Skanda that may have viewed him primarily as a military deity. 24   Talavara and Mahātalavara are classifications found on a number of Ikṣvāku inscriptions. The precise meaning of this term is not completely clear (Vogel 192930: 6-7), but some Mahātalavaras are married into the royal household (Sarkar and Misra 1972: 14). Mahātalavara and Talavara may indicate a martial and noble class of considerable standing in the Ikṣvāku court structure (Sircar 1993 I: 229).

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

171

Statuary of Skanda from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa I. K. Sarma suggests that there are six stone images of Skanda and one bronze from this site (1982: 105); a similar claim is echoed by K. Raghunath (2001: 49). I am going to suggest that there is only one certain stone statue of the deity and another two that may be of the deity. Other remains from the site are either so badly decayed that they defy accurate identification or they have been misidentified. Many of the comments related to the importance of Skanda at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa are based on overly generous attributions of statuary to him; a situation I hope to correct in what follows. This first statue (fig. 28) represents a probable depiction of Skanda from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa. While it is damaged with much of the upper right side of his body and head missing, the certainty of the identification lies in the object held in the left hand—a small bird, most probably a cock. During this period no other deity is represented holding this bird except Skanda. As I have argued, images of Skanda holding a cock from pre-Gupta India are best identified as Mahāsena. K. V. Soun­dara Rajan suggests that the Nāgārjunakoṇḍa statue of Skanda is borrowed from Western Kṣatrapa images of the deity stored at the Baroda Museum (1961: 23-24, also see Goetz 1948; Sarma 1982: 104; R. C. Agrawala 1992; Raghunath 2001: 49). The statue Soundara Rajan and others have in mind, however, is a sixth century ce image from Śāmalājī. I will discuss Śāmalājī in the final chapter, but its late date does not support Soundara Rajan’s point well. I think, however, the scholar is correct in arguing for iconographic borrowing from the Western Kṣatrapas to the Ikṣvākus in the case of Mahāsena. As I have noted above, the cult of Kārttikeya does spread into Western Kṣatrapa regions, where he is depicted alone, holding a spear in his right hand and cradling a bird/cock in his left hand. It is unclear if the Ikṣvākus would have viewed the bird held by Skanda Mahāsena in the same manner as the Kṣatrapas, Kuṣāṇas and Parthians before them. What is clear, however, is that the Ikṣvākus continue a style of representing the deity that has links to his role as a means of legitimizing royalty and emphasizing military prowess as opposed to his status as a Graha. We also might briefly return to the inscriptions memorializing Cāṃtamūla. He exclusively uses the name Mahāsena for Skanda, and I suggest that this choice of name may not be arbitrary. The iconography of Skanda used by the Ikṣvākus speaks to his persona as Mahāsena,

172

chapter seven

an aspect of his personality promoted by Huviṣka as a means of emphasizing his own royal glory and right to rule. The repeated reference to Mahāsena in relation to Cāṃtamūla may function in a similar manner to emphasize his royal glory and legitimacy of rule as the Ikṣvākus’ founding king. The inscriptions mentioning Cāṃtamūla recovered from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa are all posthumous, and they all seem particularly concerned with demonstrating the legitimacy and glory of the progenitor of the Ikṣvāku lineage. He is repeatedly referenced as a performer of the Agnihotra, Agniṣṭoma, Vājapeya and Aśvamedha Vedic rites (Vogel 1929-30: 3-4). I suggest that the repeated association between the king and Mahāsena may function in a similar manner. His association with the divine general emphasizes his own military prowess and provides legitimacy to his reign and those that follow him.25 Other Potential Images of Skanda from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa A second image (fig. 29) recovered from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa also may represent Kumāra. The image is badly damaged, but it was recovered from site 82, the same location as the previous image. The most suggestive aspect of the image is found at the back of the head. Here we find a hair design of three strands pulled back into a bun (fig. 30). This coiffure known as triśikhin becomes typical of representations of Skanda during the Gupta era in the north of India. While there is simply too little left of the piece to allow for a certain assessment, its find site location and this suggestive hair style present us with a potential image of Skanda-Kārttikeya. A third potential image of the deity has been recovered from site 123. This image is similar to that illustrated in image figure 29 and is not illustrated here. It is a severed head with a similar hair style as that illustrated above. It is likely this relationship between these two images that convinces most scholars of the identification of the current image as Skanda. Nothing else from site 123 has been recovered, however, that could be an aide in determining the identity of this figure. Much

25   My comments here do not negate the idea that Cāṃtamūla may have been a genuine devotee of Mahāsena. I simply wish to illustrate how such devotion may have also functioned as propaganda for the Ikṣvāku lineage.

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

173

like in the previous figure, then, we must remain tentative in our attribution of it.26 A final category of statuary of Skanda that requires discussion relates to reports of terracottas of the deity recovered from the site (Ghosh IAR 1956-57: 38). The report of these terracottas has led a number of scholars to claim that the worship of Skanda was very popular among common people during this period (Sarma 1982: 105; Raghunath 2001: 49). Indeed, if these terracottas existed I would also argue that they indicate widespread worship of the deity across class boundaries, and I would be inclined to modify my hypothesis that Kumāra’s cult spreads through elite networks as a royal and military cult. The problem with the terracottas is that no visual record of them has ever been made. They are briefly mentioned in the 1956-57 Indian Archaeological Review, but they are not illustrated and no record of their number or appearance is made.27 The two previous archaeological dig reports do have photographs of terracottas, but none of Skanda and no mention of him is made in either of those reports (Longhurst 1999: Plate VII; Ramachandran 1999: PlateXXVI). It is not clear to me if the terracottas simply did not exist and the excavators of the third dig at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa erred in reporting them, or if the terracottas 26   Some of the statues recovered from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa have, I think, been misidentified as Skanda by scholars. A small panel labelled as Skanda at the Nāgārjuna­ koṇḍa Museum depicts a figure holding a bow in his right hand. Such iconography for Skanda would be unique. Typically, he is always presented with a spear and a cock or peacock. The absence of either of these features leaves the identification of the figure on this panel open to question. A small bronze image recovered from the site may bear some relation to the previous image (see Sarma 1982 for an illustration). The figure appears to hold an arrow in his right hand and a bow in his left hand. Some have suggested that it represents an utsava (festival) image of Skanda (Sarma 1982: 105; Raghunath 2001: 49). I. K. Sarma acknowledges, however, that Skanda’s iconography does not allow for the bow and arrow (1982: 106). Other scholars have suggested alternate interpretations of the bronze including Prince Siddhārtha (Ghosh IAR 1956-57: 38), or Rāma (Sarma 1982: 106). I would also suggest that the arrow and bow holding images may represent Śiva. Śaiva mythology depicts Śiva as the wielder of the Pināka bow either as Kirāta (MBh. 3.39-42), or as the Destroyer of the Triple City (MBh 8.24). While we are certain from inscriptions that Nāgārjunakoṇḍa had two to three temples to Śiva, scholars seem reluctant to suggest that some of the images recovered from the site might represent Śiva. It seems reasonable, however, to add Śiva to the list of deities these bow-holding images may represent. 27   I have visited the museums that hold the pieces recovered from the digs at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa and none holds the reported terracottas of Skanda. I have also had the opportunity to examine the Archaeological Survey of India’s photographic library for the Nāgārjunakoṇḍa digs and can find no record of these terracottas.

174

chapter seven

were incorrectly reported, stored or catalogued. Certainly, if they did exist they were insufficiently documented. Based on the problematic nature of these supposed terracottas, I cannot speculate as to the popularity of Kārttikeya amongst the common people during the period of Ikṣvāku rule. Temples of Skanda and Śiva Nāgārjunakoṇḍa had a variety of structures that have been identified as Brahminical temples. H. Sarkar and B. N. Misra note that these temples are mostly found around the citadel with some on the river bank. They report nine temples around the citadel and five on the river with “no less than ten further upstream” (1972: 24). Just as with the over attribution of images to Skanda, there has also been significant over attribution of temples to the deity at this site. Some scholars like H. Sarkar are measured in their appraisal of the temples to Kumāra; of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa he states “…temples of Kārttikeya perhaps occupied a special place” (1985: 32). Others, however, are less measured in claiming that temples to Skanda outnumbered those to all others at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa (Sarma 1982: 104). Without question Skanda is an important feature of the Brahminical remains at Nāgār­ junakoṇḍa, but the epigraphic evidence suggests that temples to Śiva hold greater prominence. We have seen one of these already in relation to Ēliśri’s inscription establishing the Sarvadeva temple (Chhabra 1959-60: 147-149; Sarkar and Misra 1972: 27). Another inscription records the founding of a Devakula to Mahādeva Puṣ­pabha­drasvāmi, also likely a temple to Śiva. Like the Sarvadeva temple the Puṣpabha­ drasvāmi temple was built during the reign of Ehuvala Cāṃtamūla (Sircar and Krishnan 1961-62: 17-19; Soundara Rajan 1965: 14; Sarkar and Misra 1972: 26). A final inscription records a shrine to Noḍa­ gīśvarasvāmin (Sircar 1963-64: 4-7). Most scholars view Noḍa­ gīśvarasvāmin as a form of Śiva, but this remains uncertain (Sarkar and Misra 1972: 15, 25). As with the other inscriptions recovered from the Brahminical sites, the Noḍagīśvarasvāmin shrine was constructed during the reign of Ehuvala (Sircar 1963-64: 4). While there are a number of potential temples at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa only these three can be certainly identified, and they suggest that Śiva was the main Brah­ minical deity at the site.

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

175

While we have clear inscriptional evidence for temples to Śiva, no inscription records the erection of a Skanda temple; we cannot be certain as to which if any of the structures identified as temples at the site were devoted to Kārttikeya. Having stated this much, however, the most probable candidate for a temple of Skanda at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa is site 82. The partially destroyed image of Kumāra holding the cock was recovered from this site as well as the partially mutilated head that potentially represents the deity. The identification of this site as a temple to Skanda is reasonable (Sarkar and Misra 1972: 27; Sarma 1982: 117-118). Some scholars have suggested that site 123 located very close to the Puṣpabhadrasvāmi temple (site 34) was a temple for Skanda-Kārtti­ keya. This identification is based; however, on the recovery of the partially destroyed lime-stone head of what might be Skanda (Sarkar and Misra 1972: 26; Sarma 1982: 114; Raghunatha 2001: 50). This head may be that of Kārttikeya, but it alone does not allow for certain identification. No other icon or inscription has been recovered from this site; hence, we cannot be sure of the identification of it.28 Finally, site 39 has been attributed to Devasenā, Skanda’s consort from the Āraṇyakaparvan account of his birth. The identification is based on a statue recovered from the site (see Sarma 1982 for an illustration). While most scholars regard the identification of this image as Devasenā to be without doubt (Sarkar and Misra 1972: 28; Sarma 1982: 108), I am less certain. The image represents a female holding a śaṅkha, or horn-like object, and a trident; just how this makes for a certain identification of Devasenā is unclear. I suspect that this identification is based on the assertions of other scholars that temples of Skanda occupied a special place at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa (Sarma 1982: 104; Sarkar 1985: 32; Raghunatha 2001: 48). I have suggested that we have only one probable and one possible temple for Skanda, but no certain   Sarkar and Misra also state that at site 57 there are three to four shrines dedicated to Skanda (1972: 29). No evidence or reasoning for these attributions is supplied, however, leaving this claim unattested. I. K. Sarma also views site 57 as a temple to Skanda suggesting that the bronze image discussed in note 26 was recovered near this site (1982: 124-125). As I have discussed above, the bronze in question does not likely represent Skanda, and the find site of this bronze is not as certain as Sarma suggests. Sarma also states that site 77 is a temple to the deity based on the find of a sculptural head their. The head is not illustrated, however, and is not mentioned in the Archaeological Survey account of the site (Sarkar and Misra 1972). Without an illustration of the head or further details we cannot evaluate Sarma’s claim for this site. 28

176

chapter seven

evidence of further temples to the deity. I suspect the ease with which scholars identify the statue of the trident holding female as Devasenā is based in an assumption that Skanda is the central Brahminical deity at this site and that most of the finds at the site are associated with his cult. The epigraphic evidence suggests that temples to Śiva hold greater prominence than those to Skanda. Hence, the trident holding female is more likely directly related to Śiva than Kumāra. Thus, the identification of a temple to Devasenā at this site is questionable. Concluding Remarks on Skanda-Kārttikeya’s Cult at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa The evidence from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa suggests that the transformation of Skanda seen under the reign of the Kuṣāṇas continues after their empire begins to falter. The Ikṣvākus at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa adopt an iconographic form of Skanda as Mahāsena. There is no iconographical record to suggest a link between Kumāra and Grahas or Mātṛs at the site. The inscriptional evidence also appears to present Mahāsena as part of a royal and military cult. For both Huviṣka and Cāṃtamūla the most important persona of Skanda is Mahāsena, and, as I have suggested, the use of that name for Skanda evokes a series of royal and martial connotations. This understanding of Kārttikeya as Mahāsena is likely transferred to the Ikṣvākus by the Western Kṣatrapas. The debatable evidence of the terracottas aside, the cult also comes to Nāgārjunakoṇḍa through elite circles. It does not appear to have been a cult oriented towards the concerns of the masses as indeed the Graha cult may have been. This is not to say that the royal support of this cult did not generate devotion to this deity within the realm, but, once that royal support for the deity is removed with the fall of the Ikṣvākus the legacy of devotion to Skanda as Mahāsena does not endure in the area.29 The understanding that Skanda was the most favoured Brahmi­ nical deity of the Ikṣvākus requires some re-evaluation to better fit the data recovered from the site. While Kārttikeya was important to Ēliśri and to the memorials of Cāṃtamūla I, neither appears to have built a temple for the deity, nor is it clear that their devotion to the deity was widespread. There is only one probable statue of Skanda from the site and only one probable temple dedicated to him. Based on the epi  The first temple built after the fall of the Ikṣvākus is devoted to Viṣṇu (Sircar 1961-62). 29

skanda-kārttikeya’s cult between the empires

177

graphic evidence I would suggest that Śiva was the primary Brahmi­ nical deity at this site, and much of the devotion to this deity appears in a concrete form during the reign of Ehuvala Cāṃtamūla. One potential link for the spread of the cult of Śiva to this region specifically during the reign of Ehuvala Cāṃtamūla may have been the Western Kṣatrapas. The presence of Kṣatrapas in the royal household would have been well established by the time of the building of these temples to Śiva. Vīrapuruṣadatta and Ehuvala Cāṃtamūla both married Kṣatrapa princesses. Ehuvala and his Kṣatrapa wife, Vaṃ­ mabhaṭṭā, produce the final Ikṣvāku king, Rudrapuruṣadatta. Of this final king’s name Sarkar notes it “signifies, as it were, the fusion of the two dynasties and their cultures” (1985:32). Sarkar’s comment is justified because Rudra as a personal name is predominantly employed by Kṣatrapa families. The language of the inscriptions at the Brahmi­nical sites at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa also suggests the influence of the Western Kṣatrapas. The Puṣpabhadrasvāmi and Sarvadeva temple inscriptions are in Sanskrit. All the other inscriptions at the site are in Prakrit. All the known Sātavāhana inscriptions are also in Prakrit. The Kṣatrapas, however, did use Sanskrit on some of their inscriptions, most famously in the case of Rudradāman’s Junāgaḍh inscription. The inclination to use Sanskrit as well as the appearance of temples to Śiva appear at a time when the influence of the Western Kṣatrapas was at or nearing its height at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa. It may well be that the two cults, that of Śiva and that of Skanda-Mahāsena, arrive together from Western Kṣatrapa sources during this period suggesting a link between them by the third century ce.

.

.

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE KUMĀRASAṂBHAVA AND PURĀṆIC ACCOUNTS OF SKANDA-KĀRTTIKEYA Selecting texts describing the birth and deeds of Kārttikeya in the post-epic period in India represents a significant challenge. At the heart of the issue is our inability to accurately date much of the Purāṇic corpus. Only a few critical editions of the extensive Purāṇic tradition have been completed making the task of dating even harder. While there might be general scholarly agreement on the relative age of a certain Purāṇa, one can never be sure if the printed edition one has comes from a manuscript closely linked to the ‘original’, or if the manuscript represents a late account of the text. As Hans Bakker notes: From what we know of the fluidity of the transmission of Puranic literature, and the divergencies between different manuscripts purportedly of the selfsame work, it is realistic to say that, unless we have such firm evidence as a testimonium in a dated text, a given verse or passage in a published Puranic text can rarely if ever be assigned with confidence to a date much earlier than the earliest manuscript used for the edition. (2004: 1)

The goal of this study is to trace the history of Kārttikeya in north India to the seventh century ce. Most Purāṇas are not dated to before the seventh century, and, given the problems of accurate dating, even those that are may not actually date to the proposed terminus of this study. To solve this issue I have selected three texts that may fit the general chronological period of the fourth to seventh century ce. The first is the Kumārasaṃbhava, a poetic work generally attributed to the Gupta era.1 The second is the Skandapurāṇasya Ambikākhaṇḍaḥ edited by Kṛṣṇaprasāda Bhaṭṭarāī (1988). This Skandapurāṇa is based on an early dated manuscript and a critical edition of the text is currently under preparation by a team of scholars based in Groningen. The combination of the dated manuscript and the work of the critical editors allow us to establish a sixth century date for this text with some   There are some issues with the dating and authorship of this text that will be discussed below. 1

180

chapter eight

confidence. Finally, I have selected the Vāyupurāṇa largely because it is ascribed an early date by most scholars, and it provides a useful counterpoint to the Skandapurāṇa. The Vāyupurāṇa has not, however, been critically edited nor is the printed edition based on an old manuscript; the problems this may create are discussed below. The Kumārasaṃbhava The Kumārasaṃbhava, or The Birth of Kumāra, is a kāvya work attributed, at least in part, to Kālidāsa. The poet’s dates are not certain, but there is general scholarly consensus that he wrote during the reign of the imperial Guptas in the fourth or fifth century ce (Heifetz 1985: 3). As such, the text may provide some direct insight into the tradition of Skanda during the Gupta Empire. The problem we face, however, is that most scholars do not think the poet wrote the entire work. There is historical and literary evidence to suggest that Kālidāsa only wrote the first eight of the seventeen sargas, or cantos, in the text (Heifetz 1985: 4). Most western translators of the text only translate the first eight cantos leaving the remaining nine that are generally viewed as the work of an inferior poet.2 The division is significant because the actual birth and deeds of Kumāra are only recorded in cantos 9-17. The original eight cantos “have a completeness of their own” (Heifetz 1985: 5), and tell the story of Śiva and Pārvatī’s courtship and marriage. As such, we cannot be certain of dates for the Kārttikeya narrative in the Kumārasaṃbhava. Even if we have some uncertainty about the dates from the second half of the composition, an examination of the poem does provide some insights into developments in the deity’s representation from in and around the Gupta era. Cantos 1-8, The Story of Śiva and Pārvatī The story of Śiva and Pārvatī as recounted in the first eight cantos of the Kumārasaṃbhava may be summarized as follows: Himālaya marries Menā, and they begin to have children. One of their daughters is Pārvatī, the incarnation of Satī, the first wife of Śiva. Mahādeva comes to the mountain to practice asceticism; Himālaya honours Śiva and   For a summary of opinions on the authorship of the Kumārasaṃbhava see Bandyopadhyay (1986). 2

kumārasam. bhava and purān. ic accounts

181

has Pārvatī along with two of her friends attend him. In the meantime, the gods are oppressed by the demon Tāraka. They approach Brahmā to ask that he create a Senānī, a General, capable of defeating their enemy. Brahmā replies that only a son of Śiva could perform such a deed. The gods decide to use the beautiful Pārvatī to draw Śiva away from yoga and towards procreation. Indra then goes to the god of love, Kāma, in the hopes that he can shake Śiva from his meditation to take notice of Umā. Kāma, along with his wife, Rati, and Spring, approach the area where the deity sits in yogic practice. Śiva becomes aware of the presence of Kāma, however, and incinerates him with his third eye. He then disappears from the mountain, and Pārvatī, who had hoped Śiva would take note of her, returns to her father humiliated. Rati then sings a long lament to her lost husband, but a disembodied voice tells her that when Pārvatī and Śiva marry her husband will regain his body. Umā now begins to practice severe asceticism in an attempt to attract Śiva. In the midst of her rigorous practice she is approached by another renunciant who praises her, and asks her why she engages in such a difficult regimen; who does she wish to marry? One of her friends tells the ascetic that Pārvatī hopes to win Śiva. The ascetic proceeds into a tirade about Śiva, and Pārvatī comes to the deity’s defence. With this test over, the ascetic reveals himself to be Śiva in disguise. The two greet each other, and Śiva sends his representatives to Himā­ laya to request the hand of his daughter. The final two cantos describe their marriage and passionate consummation of it. The first eight cantos of the poem illustrate a theme that initially developed in the Mahābhārata: Skanda’s birth is a pretext to celebrate the power of his parents. The first half of the Kumārasaṃbhava presents Kārttikeya’s story as secondary to that of Śiva and Pārvatī. If Kālidāsa did intend the poem to stop at canto eight, the birth of Skanda has been reduced to a foil used to explain why Śiva, the great ascetic, abandons his lone yogic disciplines to marry Pārvatī. From canto two on the entire poem is predicated on the gods’ need for a general (2.51), and Brahmā’s prediction that only a son of Śiva will do (2.57-58). Even Śiva seems well aware that the point of his marriage is to produce a son: “Hence I wish to take Parvati/ as my wife for the birth/ of myself in the form of a son,/...” (KSB 6.28, translated by Smith 2005: 219). The gods’ need for a general, and hence a son from Śiva, is repeated throughout the first half of the poem (KSB 2.51, 2.57,

182

chapter eight

2.61, 3.15).3 This focus on why Kumāra is needed also has the effect of limiting his role to that of the slayer of Tāraka; there is no hint in the first half of the Kumārasaṃbhava of a Graha cult associated with Kārttikeya or that the deity could play any role other than as a Senāpati. The poem also presents Śiva as the most powerful deity in the trimūrti. Brahmā even describes Śiva as the best of them: “For that god is the supreme light/ established beyond darkness,/ and neither I nor Vishnu/ can measure the extent of his power” (KSB 2.58, translated by Smith 2005: 83). The point of the first half of the Kumārasaṃbhava is to praise Śiva and to explain developments in his cult. Perhaps, Kālidāsa stops the story at the consummation of their marriage because the marriage is the point of the story for the poet. The Kumā­ rasaṃbhava also demonstrates that the tradition as a whole has developed beyond a reliance on Vedic precedence to establish the authority of a particular figure. In the Mahābhārata we saw a concerted effort to link Skanda to Vedic patterns of birth primarily through the paternity of Agni. The fire god is largely absent from the first half of Kumāra­ saṃbhava, however. This text assumes that Kārttikeya is part of the tradition and no apologetic for his place in Brahminical Hinduism is required. A new vision of Brahminical Hinduism is expressed by this post-epic text in which Kārttikeya is a secondary figure within the broader traditions of Śaivism. Cantos 9-17, The Birth and Deeds of Skanda The remaining nine cantos of the Kumārasaṃbhava can be summarized as follows: Agni, disguised as a pigeon, enters the bedchamber of Śiva and Pārvatī. He has been sent in by the gods who hope to disrupt the couple to remind them of the need for a son. The fire-god is able to distract Śiva and asks for a son who will become the commander of Indra’s army. Śiva responds by depositing his semen in Agni and cursing him to be omnivorous. Agni returns to the other gods suffering greatly due to the power of Śiva’s seed. Indra instructs him to go to Gaṅgā; she will take the semen from Agni. He does so, but now Gaṅgā suffers terribly due to the heat of the seed. The six Kṛttikās then approach Gaṅgā to worship her and to bathe in her. During this proc3   Given that the first half of the poem is predicated on the birth of Kārttikeya, it seems less problematic that the second half of the poem may not be original to it for this study.

kumārasam. bhava and purān. ic accounts

183

ess the semen of Śiva is transferred to them. It develops into a foetus, but they are also unable to bear it. Worried about the reactions of their husbands, they abandon the foetus in a forest of reeds where the sixheaded deity takes full form. Once produced, Gaṅgā, the Kṛttikās and Agni each claim Kumāra as their own. Śiva and Pārvatī then arrive on the scene. Śiva tells his wife that the child belongs to her; she immediately claims him and the couple return to their palace with him. The palace celebrates the birth of a son and the parents are charmed by Skanda’s childhood play. Indra arrives and asks that Kārttikeya be named the general of his army. Śiva tells the king of the gods that he married Pārvatī for that very purpose. He gives his permission to have the six day old Kumāra anointed as the general and instructs him to kill Tāraka. Kārttikeya takes leave of his parents and marches with the gods to their destroyed heaven; from there he and the army of the gods march out to face Tāraka. The demon assembles his army and, despite seeing signs foreboding disaster and hearing a voice warning him to surrender, rides out to face Skanda. There is a colossal battle culminating in Kumāra killing Tāraka with his spear. Even though we cannot be certain of the date of the second half of the poem, we can delineate certain aspects of Skanda’s characterization from it. The basic characterization of Kārttikeya in both parts of the poem is similar; he is to be the general of the army of the gods born to kill Tāraka. The second half of the poem contains numerous reminders that Kumāra’s birth is required to fulfil the specific need for a new Senānī. Agni reminds Śiva of this when he steals into his bedchamber (KSBb 9.11); Indra reminds Śiva of this when he directly requests the installation of the young deity as his commander-in-chief (senānī) (KSBb 12.49); Śiva even acknowledges that he married Pārvatī just for this purpose (KSBb 12.55). That Skanda’s primary role is as the general of the army of the gods is assumed throughout the poem. At no point does the Kumārasaṃbhava state that Kumāra is a Graha or associated directly with them. There are a number of minor references to Mātṛs in the poem, but they are largely associated with Śiva. They are mentioned in canto seven where they are engaged in plans for the wedding: Meanwhile, on Kubera’s mountain/ for the bridegroom Shiva,/ Destroyer of the demon cities,/ the Mothers respectfully laid out/ in front of him/ adornments like those he’d had/ for his first marriage.... As the Mothers followed the God,/ their earrings swinging to and fro/

184

chapter eight with the shaking of their mounts,/ they made the sky seem a lotus pool/ with their faces white with powder/ amid the surrounding radiance of their nimbuses. (KSB 7.30-7.38, translated by Smith 2005: 263, 267)

As we shall see in chapter nine, the material record of the cult of Mātṛs from the Gupta era indicates that they are progressively absorbed into Śaivism. The above passage also suggests that the Mātṛs are viewed as members of Śiva’s entourage. The Mātṛs do reappear once Kārttikeya is born, but only as one of many groups presenting gifts at his birth celebration (KSBb 11.35). The Saptamātṛkās also approach Kumāra as he tours the destroyed heaven of the gods (KSBb 13.49). A connection between Skanda and the Mātṛs is not completely lost in the poem, but it is much muted, and there are no allusions to the propitiatory traditions Kumāra once shared with these figures. The primacy of Śiva also remains a theme in the second half of the poem. The Kumārasaṃbhava includes a scene similar to that found in the Śalyaparvan that has several deities vying to be recognized as the principle parent of the child-god. In the Śalyaparvan, as we have seen, Kārttikeya is approached by Śiva, Umā, Agni and Gaṅgā, and he splits himself into four forms to greet them simultaneously. In that version of the deity’s birth Śiva and Pārvatī are not made the primary parents of the deity. In the Kumārasaṃbhava Agni, Gaṅgā and the Kṛttikās argue over who is the parent of Skanda, but the conflict is resolved by Śiva’s statements: “This hero, giving delight to the three worlds, blessed one [Pārvatī], is your son; he is the giver of delight to gods; who else could give birth to this child? Oh Goddess, thou art the cause of the birth of this child...” (KSBb 11.10-11, translated by Devadhar 1985: 172). The claims on Kārttikeya of the other deities are eclipsed in the Kumārasaṃbhava by that of Śiva and Umā. We might suggest that Umā does not have much of a claim on the child; the arguments of Agni, Gaṅgā and the Kṛttikās appear stronger because they actually carried the semen and foetus that produced the child. Umā was unaware of the existence of the child until she was brought to him by Śiva. The point of the story is not, however, who has the best case for a claim of parentage, rather, the point of the story is that Śiva is all powerful; if he states that Umā is the mother of the child no one protests, and she becomes his sole mother to the exclusion of others. The sequence of events that culminates in Śiva and Umā taking Skanda back to their palace as their son also emphasizes Kārttikeya’s lack of agency in this account. In the Śalyaparvan Skanda acts by

kumārasam. bhava and purān. ic accounts

185

himself­ in creating his four forms used to greet his parents; Śiva and Umā are silent on the issue. In the Kumārasaṃbhava the young god is inactive and silent while Śiva decides the issue. In the Āraṇyakaparvan Kārttikeya is asked directly by Indra to become his commander-inchief and the young god decides to do so himself. In the Kumāra­ saṃbhava Indra does not speak directly to Kumāra, but asks Śiva who decides for his son (KSBb 11.25-56). This pattern of Śiva as the agent of action and Skanda’s passive, junior status is not invented by the Kumārasaṃbhava. We have already seen such a pattern in the latter stages of the Āraṇyakaparvan account of Skanda. What is new is a complete adoption of this secondary and inactive role for SkandaKārttikeya from the very beginning of the text. A final related characterization of Kumāra in this text is his role as a young child or infant. In canto eleven a description of Skanda’s childish play is described that brings great joy to his parents (KSBb 11:40-50). We have already discussed a scene from the Āraṇyakaparvan where Skanda plays with Agni while a group of Mātṛs looks on. That scene was, though, full of ambiguity between the familial roles played by the Mātṛs, Agni and Skanda, and the horrific Graha sub-text of the characterization of those Mātṛs and the violence of the young god. This tension between violence and innocent play is lost in the Kumā­ rasaṃbhava. Here, Kumāra is an innocent child with no suggestion of a propitiation cult attached to him. His violence now is solely focussed on the destruction of demons and subordinated to the will of his father. This theme of Skanda acting like a very young child is employed in much of the post-epic tradition. As we shall see, the Skandapurāṇa employs it to explain away some of Kārttikeya’s violent behaviour. A similar idea is presented in the Kāśyapasaṃhitā, a seventh century Āyurvedic text. In it a number of Grahas appear from Kumāra and often the text uses the deity’s status as a young child as an apologetic for his connection to these beings. The birth story of the Graha Mukhamaṇḍikā provides us with one example. The text presents a scene just after Skanda’s birth. He plays with various Gaṇas, Apsaras, and Gandharvas, while his charmed parents, Umā and Śiva, look on. The text describes the decorations on the baby god’s faces in the following manner: “an arrow-like mark was on his forehead and eye and various other marks were on his face, chin, cheeks, nose, eyes, and

186

chapter eight

forehead” (KS 71).4 Skanda then childishly (bālabhāva) asks his mother for the ornament found in Śiva’s hair, the moon. He repeatedly tries to get the moon, but is unable to do so. He becomes enraged by this, but this is described as unusual for the child because the text states he is normally always playful or innocent (lalitaḥ sadā). In his anger he rubs off the decorations from his face and throws them down. From those decorations discarded in anger arises Mukhamaṇḍikā; a cruel (krodha) Graha who is instructed by the angry Kumāra to “make your food those whose appearances and actions are polluted” (KS 71). The implications of this scene of juvenile behaviour from the Āyurvedic text are certainly far darker than that from the Kumāra­ saṃbhava, but the point of the comparison is to illustrate the apologetic of childish behaviour in accounts of Skanda. The child deity does not consciously intend to create Mukhamaṇḍikā, rather she is an accident of an infantile tantrum. This childish depiction of Kārttikeya emphasizes his junior position relative to his parents and the need for Śiva and Pārvatī to control and direct their son. While in the Kumārasaṃbhava the child god’s playful actions evoke great charm, they also lead to Śiva taking charge of the child and to Kārttikeya taking a subordinate role to his father. For instance, after Śiva tells Indra that Kumāra will be his general and orders him to kill Tāraka, we are told: “Kumāra accepted the command of his father, with his bent head; this is indeed, the nature of those devoted to their fathers” (12.58, translated by Devadhar 1985: 195). A similar scene is reflected when Kārttikeya takes leave of his parents to lead the army of the gods (KSBb 13.1-5). With the exception of leading the divine army and the killing of Tāraka itself, Skanda does not speak or act for himself in the text. Any sense of an independent cult for Skanda other than a martial one based in Śaivism is lost in this text. We can view the Kumārasaṃbhava as indicating the end of Kumāra’s conversion into Brahminical Hinduism, but this conversion leaves him largely separated from his earlier propitiatory cult and likely limits his following to those of a martial caste. Even in an account named after his birth, he is a secondary figure and, we might well assume, a secondary figure in Śaiva devotional practices in the north of India. 4   The Cikitsitasthāna of the Kāśyapasaṃhitā is poorly preserved and does not appear with chapter and verse numbers in the 1938 printed edition. Hence, my references here are to the page numbers in the 1938 edition.

kumārasam. bhava and purān. ic accounts

187

The Early Skandapurāṇa There are a number of texts and manuscripts bearing the title Skan­ dapurāṇa, but one in particular has recently attracted the attention of scholars due to its early date. The “early” (Törzsök 2004: 17), or sometimes called “original” (Adriaensen, Bakker and Isaacson 1998: 4), Skandapurāṇa relates to the earliest surviving text carrying such a title. The oldest manuscript of the text dates to 810 ce (Adriaensen, Bakker and Isaacson 1998: 4) with versions of the text presumably predating this date. Most scholars working on the text suggest dates in the sixth century ce for it (Yokochi 2004: 26; Bakker 2004: 4; Bakker and Isaacson 2004: 52).5 As such, the Purāṇa is likely a little later than the Kumārasaṃbhava, at least the part attributed to Kālidāsa, but, as we shall see, this edition of the Skandapurāṇa shows more direct influence from the Mahābhārata than does the Kumārasaṃbhava. The editors of the critical edition view the Mahābhārata as well established by the period of the redaction of the early Skandapurāṇa. The composers of the Purāṇa undoubtedly borrowed, consciously or unconsciously, from the Mahābhārata. This is particularly true of passages from the inauguration of Skanda to be discussed below (Adriaen­ sen, Bakker and Isaacson 1998: 25-26). Stylistically, the Skandapurāṇa and the Mahābhārata share a considerable relationship. They employ similar stock phrases and compounds that are not shared between the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa, or the Skandapurāṇa and Rāmāyaṇa ((Adriaensen, Bakker and Isaacson 1998: 29-31). Hence, while we can view the early Skandapurāṇa as slightly later than the Kumāra­ saṃbhava, its narrative and stylistic closeness to the Mahābhārata positions it as something of a transitional text from the epic accounts of Skanda to the later Purāṇic accounts of the deity. The Account of Skanda’s Birth and Deeds in the Early Skandapurāṇa The significance of the early Skandapurāṇa for this study is its similarity to the accounts of the deity found in the Āraṇyakaparvan and the Śalyaparvan and the modifications to these accounts found in the Purāṇa. The early Skandapurāṇa’s account of Kārttikeya begins in 5

  Yokochi specifically suggests c. 550-650 ce (2004: 26).

188

chapter eight

Adhyāya 72 of the text and is interrupted by a lengthy account of the destruction of the demon Andhaka and a series of related narratives. Skanda’s birth narrative re-emerges in Adhyāyas 163-165. An account of Skanda’s destruction of Mount Krauñca is also found in Adhyāya 171.6 An abbreviated account of the birth is as follows. Śiva and Pārvatī roam about Mount Mandara during the Spring enjoying its beauty (72.1-10). Perhaps inspired by the fecundity of the season, Umā speaks to Śiva about her desire to have a son. Devadeva consents to her request, but stipulates that to receive this boon (vara) she must undertake austerities (tapas); only after this will he grant her wish for a son (72.11-17). Accompanied by Nandin, the divine couple travel to the highest peak of the Vindhya Mountains where Mahādeva emits a divine fortress (72.18-22ab). Before entering the fortress Devī instructs Nandin to stand guard by the door. He is not to allow anyone to enter the enclosure, not even a feeble breeze. The divine couple enter the fortress; Nandin firmly closes the door behind them and carries out the order to stand guard (72.22cd-25). Śiva and Pārvatī, who are described as the wombs of the entire world, become deeply immersed in yoga for 1000 years. The withdrawal of the divine couple causes the 6   As I have noted above, a team of scholars based primarily in Groningen are currently producing a critical edition of the early Skandapurāṇa. This team has yet to edit the chapters of the text dealing with the birth and deeds of Kārttikeya. Unless otherwise noted, the early Skandapurāṇa cited in this section refers to Bhaṭṭarāī’s 1988 edition based on the Nepalese manuscript dated to 810 ce. The absence of a complete critical edition to the text may be significant. The critical edition brings together various Nepalese palm-leaf manuscripts all related to the earliest manuscript with two major recensions of the text respectfully labelled R (for Revākhaṇḍa) and A (for Ambikākhaṇḍa) (Adriaensen, Bakker and Isaacson 1998: 4). Most of the major additions found in R and A occur after adhyāya 162 in the Bhaṭṭarāī edition (Bakker 2004: 3; Törzsök 2004: 17-18; Harimoto 2004: 42). Given that the account of Skanda’s birth and deeds occur in adhyāyas 163-165 of Bhaṭṭarāī’s text, the additions to the manuscript traditions may be important for this study. Kengo Harimoto has studied some of the changes found in the other recensions of the text. He notes that adhyāyas 163 and 164 are expanded to eight adhyāyas in the A and R recensions. Elements of the story also differ with Devasenā appearing in the account and Vināyaka (Gaṇeśa) appearing in the text as Skanda’s older brother (Harimoto 2004: 46). Gaṇeśa even attempts to prevent Skanda’s consecration as the divine Senāpati and only relents when Kumāra worships him (Törzsök 2004: 19-20). Adhyāya 165, where Skanda kills the demon Tāraka, is also expanded to four adhyāyas in R and A (Harimoto 2004: 46). These shifts in the manuscript traditions of the Skandapurāṇa are certainly of interest, but they all occur after 810 ce, well after the period studied in this book. A detailed analysis of these changes must wait, then, for a separate publication on Skanda in the early Skandapurāṇa that I hope to prepare in the near future. There is also an account of Kārttikeya defeating the demon Kokavakya (Wolfmouth) in Adhyāya 108 that will not be discussed here.

kumārasam. bhava and purān. ic accounts

189

world to become unstable. The earth shakes, rivers dry up, terrible meteors fall from the sky causing concern for all who witness these events. Eventually the gods assemble before Viṣṇu to discuss the situation (72.26-35). Agni explains that these terrible signs are due to the divine couple’s withdrawal into yoga. He suggests they all go to Śiva to praise him, which, according to Agni, will result in the production of Śiva’s son (72.36-40ab).7 Viṣṇu agrees with the fire-god and suggests that all of the gods go to Devadeva to appease him and ask for a boon. He specifically requests that Agni be the one to enter Śiva’s home to ask the god to come out and greet the gods (72.52-58). The gods are happy with Viṣṇu’s plan, and they all journey to the mountain where the couple are engaged in asceticism (72.59-65). Once there, the fire-god goes to Śiva’s dwelling and sees Nandin guarding the door. He begins singing praises to Śiva celebrating the names of the deity, after which he explains to Nandin that he has come to seek a boon (72.69-75). The guard is pleased with Fire’s expression of devotion and asks what gift he wants. Agni responds that he would like entrance into Hara’s abode. Nandin states that even though no one is supposed to enter, he will grant the request of the fire-god (72.76-80). Agni takes on a subtle form and enters the door. Even thought he has taken on this minute form his presence causes a crystal column in the dwelling to shine. The shining column allows the firegod to see the god and goddess there, and he begins to praise them in his mind (72.81-84). Devadeva sees the illuminated column and becomes aware of the praises. He tells Umā that he must grant a boon. The goddess agrees, and Śiva asks what Agni would like as a gift. The Fire requests that Hara go outside to greet the gods. He does so and is praised by them (72.85-98). Satisfied by the praise he receives, Devadeva asks the gods what they would like from him. The gods ask for his offspring as a boon. They explain the problems caused by the withdrawal of the divine couple and the need for the birth of a son to bring the tapas to an end. Śiva agrees to the boon, but also wonders who can withstand his tejas. Agni steps forward and suggests that Bhava sacrifice his tejas into him. Śiva does so and is pleased with the fire-god prompting him to ask Fire to take another boon (72.99-110). Agni presents a long list of requests including that Śiva’s son be named 7   While Agni never states this logic, we may assume that the birth of a son would end the need for Śiva and Pārvatī to engage in tapas returning the world to normal. After Agni’s speech recorded above, Vaivasvata (Yama) argues against Agni’s suggestion, but Viṣṇu rejects these arguments (72.40cd-51).

190

chapter eight

after him, that he become immune to curses, that he not be defiled by his omnivorous state and so on. Devadeva grants all of Agni’s requests, releases the gods and returns to his home (72.111-116ab). Once home, a very angry Pārvatī demands to know where he has been and what he did. He is somewhat evasive simply stating that he met the gods who were full of devotion, but also greatly afflicted. Devī pushes him for more information.8 The goddess asks Śiva about the gods and what need they had for a boon. He explains the problems caused by their pursuit of yoga and the nature of the boon he granted to them that resulted in him abandoning his tejas in Agni. He finishes by stating: “Your son is glorious; (he has) six heads and twelve eyes” (72.137). Upon hearing this Pārvatī curses the gods so that their wives will never have sons (72.138-139). After this the narrative transitions to the story of Andhaka and his destruction. The birth story continues at Adhyāya 163 with Vyāsa asking Sanat­ ku­māra: Tell (me) how Skanda, who has great splendour, was born, and where he was born. What did Agni do once he had taken the splendour (tejas) of Śiva. Tell how he was enthroned as the general by the chiefs of the gods, O Prabhu; why and where was he enthroned? O great sage, tell how Tāraka was killed by him in battle. I wish to know this through your kindness. (163.1-3)

Sanatkumāra reports that even though Agni is of the nature of fire, he was burnt by that tejas of Śiva. The fire-god approaches Gaṅgā who agrees to take the tejas. She begins to show the signs of pregnancy, but she also cannot withstand the heat of that splendour; Gaṅgā abandons the tejas in a clump of reeds. From these reeds Kumāra appears as a six-faced newborn with the radiance of a billion suns (163.4-15). Viśvāmitra conducts the birth ceremony for him. The Kṛttikās attend to him as do a whole host of deities and personified concepts like Kṣānti (Patience) and Prajñā (Wisdom) (163.17-19). 8   There is more to this argument between the divine couple than alluded to above. In response to Devī, Śiva reminds her that is was Agni and his praise that caused him to go out to the gods, and that she gave her permission to grant Agni a boon. The goddess is, however, furious and asks Nandin how Fire was allowed to enter their home in the first place. The conflict between Devī and Nandin leads Śaṅkara to proclaim: “Nandīśvara is to be killed” (72.125). With this, the goddess calms down, bemoans the power of anger to create evil and states that Nandin is not to be destroyed (72.127). At this point in the story, Pārvatī takes a lotus from Śiva and throws it. The spot where it lands is transformed into a lake. The lake’s beauty and powers are described (72.128-132ab).

kumārasam. bhava and purān. ic accounts

191

Following this, Kārttikeya picks up his bow and playfully (līlā) shots an arrow at Mount Giri. The highest peak of the mountain is struck and falls. Indra sees this and thinks the new being is a threat to him. He sends out the Mothers to destroy him, but when they encounter him they enter into his protection, “their minds overcome by his splendour” (163.24). Indra and the gods then march out to battle Skanda. The young god stupefies the divine army with his roar and scorches them with rays of light and flames. Indra hurls his Vajra at Kumāra, but its impact splits Kārttikeya into two figures, and both these young warriors charge at the king of the gods. Indra surrenders to Kārttikeya and offers him his kingship twice; Skanda refuses both times. Next, Indra asks him to be consecrated as the general of the army of the gods. Kārttikeya responds by saying he is under the command of Śiva; he will offer that great one worship and enact whatever he commands (163.25-48). Perceiving Skanda’s wish, Śiva appears with Pārvatī to see their son. At the same moment Agni, Gaṅgā, Svāhā and the Kṛttikās come to Mount Śveta, and each thinks “which of us will Skanda pick to approach?” (163.51). Kārttikeya knows what is on each of their minds and splits himself into six to greet them simultaneously. Skanda and Viśākha approach Śiva and Umā, Naigameṣa goes to Gaṅgā, Guha to Svāhā, Śākha to Agni, and the six-faced one, as the text calls him, rushes to the Kṛttikās (163.52-54). His parents present him with various gifts after which the gods assemble to honour and address Śiva (163.55-65). They explain to him the destruction Tāraka has caused and their need to make Skanda their Senāpati to defeat the demon. They request Śiva’s permission to undertake the inauguration, and he grants their request (163.66-74). A lengthy description of the abhiṣeka is then narrated in Adhyāya 164. The entire Adhyāya is largely a description of the various gods, sages and other beings attending the event, the gifts each gives to Skanda, the instruments used in the rite and a lengthy list of the members of Skanda’s divine army. A brief account of the killing of Tāraka is provided in Adhyāya 165. Skanda’s narrative picks up again in Adhyāya 171 with a story of the destruction of Mount Krauñca. Sanatkumāra tells Vyāsa that Indra comes across Skanda in the mountains and asks him why he does not honour the king of the gods? Kumāra answers by questioning Indra’s assumption of superiority. The king of the gods becomes irritated and challenges the young god to a contest to determine which of them is the best. The contest will be to run around Mount Krauñca

192

chapter eight

with the winner declared the superior of the two (171.1-13). They go together to Krauñca, and Kārttikeya easily wins the race by riding his peacock around the mountain. The two argue, however, over who the victor was with both claiming the prize. Krauñca then approaches them to see what they are arguing about. With the mountain present Indra suggests that Krauñca tell them who won claiming that a son of Himālaya could not speak falsely (171.1420). The mountain does, however, report the wrong winner: “Thus, Mount Krauñca, who was foolish-minded, having thought it over for a long time, (said) ‘This one, the Lord of Might (Indra), circumambulated me here first’” (171.22). This statement makes Kārttikeya very angry; he throws his spear at the mountain and kills him (171.23-29). The other mountains arrive on the spot pained by the loss of Krauñca. Pārvatī, the daughter of Himālaya and the sister of Krauñca, also appears on the scene with Śiva (171.30-37). Himavat tells Śiva of his grief brought about by the rivalry between Indra and Kumāra, and the pride of the young god. The grief of others including Pārvatī is narrated until Śiva addresses his son. The god reminds Kumāra that Krauñca is his close relative referring to them as brothers, and that he should not prize his honour above all else (171.38-48). Kārttikeya explains that he destroyed the mountain due to the bad conduct of Śakra, but he will restore the mountain to life. Sanatkumāra then narrates: “Thus, Ṣaṇmukha said to (his) brother Krauñca, ‘arise’. Imme­ diately, Krauñca, the chief mountain, was possessed of his body as before” (171.52). There is then a debate by the gods over the actions of Indra and his right to continue as the king of the gods. He is chastised for his transgression against the young god (171.53-70). Kumāra is then described as releasing his anger against Śakra and the king of the gods honours him (171.71-72). The Relationship between the Mahābhārata and the Early Skandapurāṇa The early Skandapurāṇa account of the birth of Kumāra and his early deeds owes much to the narratives of the deity found in both the Āraṇyakaparvan and Śalyaparvan. The account of Skanda destroying Mount Giri, the involvement of Viśvāmitra in Kārttikeya’s birth rites, Indra sending the Mātṛs to kill him, the battle between Skanda and Indra and the production of a second Kumāra caused by the Vajra

kumārasam. bhava and purān. ic accounts

193

strike all bear some similarity to the account of the deity found in the Āraṇyakaparvan.9 To my knowledge, no other account of Skanda includes all of these elements of plot together other than these two. The Āraṇyakaparvan version of the early deeds of Skanda may appear as aberrant relative to the more standard accounts of the deity, but this material from the early Skandapurāṇa suggests that these accounts had resonance with at least some elements of the broader Śaiva community in the post-epic era. The early Skandapurāṇa account also assumes some prior knowledge on the part of its readership of the Āraṇyakaparvan. The Purāṇic text does not, for instance, explain why Svāhā might have a maternal claim on Skanda; Svāhā’s affair with Agni is never alluded to in this account. Someone with a knowledge of the Āraṇyakaparvan would be familiar with Svāhā’s role in that text, and the writers of the Skandapurāṇa may have assumed such a knowledge on the part of their readership. Having stated this much, however, the tone of these events is significantly softened in the early Skandapurāṇa. In the Āraṇyakaparvan Skanda’s destruction of Mount Krauñca, shooting arrows and his spear at Mount Śveta, as well as his other violent actions immediately following his birth characterize him as dangerous and in need of propitiation. In the early Skandapurāṇa the deity’s actions are not presented as intentionally inspiring fear in onlookers; there is only a limited sense in the Purāṇa of a need to propitiate the deity. His destruction of Mount Giri is presented as child’s play that inadvertently results in fear and awe in onlookers, as opposed to actions designed to engender fear: Now, he of marvellous strength having taken a divine bow and having placed an arrow in it playfully let it fly at the mountain Giri.10 The highest peak of the Mountain was broken suddenly by that arrow. It fell quickly, terrifying and frightening the birds which flew up. Wonder and fear simultaneously came together in those creatures who dwelled there and saw that great wonder. (163.20-22)

This event inspires awe in those that witness it, but there is no mention of these beings honouring Skanda out of fear as there is in the Āraṇyakaparvan. A more impetuous and dangerous vision of Kārtti­ 9   In the Āraṇyakaparvan (3.216.13) the second figure produced by the Vajra strike is named Viśākha. The figure is not named in the Skandapurāṇa. 10   In Bhaṭṭarāī’s printed edition of the manuscript part of the final word or compound of this verse (163.20) is missing.

194

chapter eight

keya does emerge with the early Skandapurāṇa’s account of the death of Krauñca. Even here, however, the narrative clearly illustrates that Kumāra was wronged by Indra and Krauñca, as does it provide the young god with an opportunity to redeem his character through the resurrection of the mountain. Skanda remains a violent figure in this narrative, but his dangerous characteristics are not linked to a propitiation cult or to Grahas, his violence is mitigated through other means here. The association between Skanda and the Mātṛs is also diminished in this text. No description of the appearance of the Mātṛs is provided by the narrative, and they are never explicitly linked to Grahas. The only sense we have that they might be Graspers is Indra’s instinct to send them against the newborn god. No lists of Grahas are provided in the text, figures like Skandāpasmāra do not appear from Kārttikeya’s body, and the text never prescribes the worship of Skanda as a means of controlling other dangerous spirits. The early Skandapurāṇa preserves a memory of an association between Kārttikeya and Mātṛs, but does little more than allude to their relationship. Hence, the Skanda­ purāṇa maintains some aspects of Kumāra’s dangerous characterization, but his depiction is much gentler and not overtly propitiatory in this text. The early Skandapurāṇa also draws on the Śalyaparvan account of Kārttikeya. The Śalyaparvan presents Skanda as someone imbued with yogic powers, and it is these powers that allow him to split himself into various forms to greet his respective parents simultaneously. A similar approach is taken by the Skandapurāṇa. During the scene where the deity splits himself into six forms he is described as “the lord of yogins” twice (163.52, 163.55). The splitting scene in the Purāṇa is similar to that of the Śalyaparvan except six versions of Skanda appear as opposed to four. We might hypothesize that the number of forms with which Skanda is assimilated has increased overtime, but another possibility is to view the text as attempting to in­­ corporate the number six into the narrative. The presentation of Kārtti­­­­keya as a great yogin was something of an unusual element of the Śalyaparvan account of the deity relative to the other accounts of him in the epics. The re-emergence of this theme in this Purāṇa suggests that the image of Skanda as a yogin had some appeal in the postepic period in some Śaiva traditions. The influence of the Śalyaparvan account of Skanda’s inauguration as the general of the army of the gods is direct in the early Skanda­

kumārasam. bhava and purān. ic accounts

195

purāṇa. As the editors of the critical edition of the Purāṇa note, direct borrowing between the Mahābhārata and the early Skandapurāṇa is rare, but the largest section of direct borrowing occurs between Śalya­ parvan chapter 44 and Skandapurāṇa Adhyāya 164, both accounts of the abhiṣeka (Adriaensen, Bakker and Isaacson 1998: 26).11 The shared items largely relate to lengthy lists of those attending the rite and the members of Kumāra’s divine army. There can be no doubt that the Śalyaparvan account of Kārttikeya’s abhiṣeka had a direct influence on the early Skandapurāṇa’s account of the same event. The early Skandapurāṇa can, then, be viewed as something of an intermediary text between the epic accounts of Skanda and the later Purāṇic accounts. It preserves more of the Āraṇyakaparvan account than any other Purāṇa I know of, and it shows extensive direct borrowing from the Śalyaparvan, to my knowledge an element not found in other Purāṇas.12 Hence, this early Purāṇic text gives us some sense of what aspects of the epic accounts of the deity were maintained in the early post-epic era and what elements were changed. One significant change between the accounts of Skanda from the Mahābhārata and this Purāṇa is the transformation of the missing Agni theme into a missing Śiva and Pārvatī theme. Just as Agni’s absence threatened the stability of the world in the Mahābhārata, the retreat and tapas of the divine couple threatens the order of the world in the Skandapurāṇa. It is likely no coincidence that Agni is the deity charged with seeking out the divine couple and luring Śiva out to see the gods. The inversion of his role from ‘the one hiding’ to ‘the one seeking’ highlights the transference and transformation of his narratives to a Śaiva context. This Purāṇic narrative illustrates that part of the development of Śaivism in narrative sources in the post-epic period features Śiva taking on the functions and narratives once held by the fire-god. To some degree, the emergence of Śiva and Pārvatī as the principle parents of Kumāra is part of this co-option of Agni’s narratives, though, as we have seen, this process dates back to the earliest narratives of Skanda in the epics.13 11   Specifically, Adriaensen et al note the following rough correspondences: SP 164.64-86=MBh 9.44.24cd-48, SP 164.87-107 = MBh 9.44.52-72ab, SP 164.113-140 = MBh 9.44.74-107 (1998: 26). 12   I hesitate to make definitive claims about the Purāṇic corpus because so few critical editions exist for them. 13   I do not intend here to suggest that I view Agni as the original father of Kārttikeya. I merely hope to emphasize that the fire-god’s role in the birth of Kumāra

196

chapter eight The Early Skandapurāṇa and the Kumārasaṃbhava

The account from the early Skandapurāṇa also demonstrates some similarity with the developments seen in the Kumārasaṃbhava. The account of the parentage of Skanda is similar in both texts. A plot line that has Śiva’s semen pass to Agni, then to Gaṅgā and finally to the Kṛttikās (either as semen, or as the first mothers to encounter the child) has developed with few alterations in it. This basic sequence becomes a standard element in most accounts of the deity’s birth in the post-epic period. The importance of Śiva as the supreme divinity is also found in both texts, but with much more emphasis in the Kumārasaṃbhava. Following the Śalyaparvan, the early Skandapurāṇa seems ambivalent in regards to proclaiming Śiva’s the young deity’s primary parent. On the one hand, the text undercuts Śiva’s status as supreme parent by having Kārttikeya produce six versions of himself to greet his six parents simultaneously. On the other hand, Śiva’s power over Skanda is emphasized when Kumāra refuses to decide his own future and defers the decision to Śiva (163.48). The other deities in the text also treat Śiva as supreme in agreeing to ask his permission to inaugurate Kārttikeya as the general of their army (163.62-75). The material from Adhyāya 72 is also replete with verses of praise for Śiva. While the early Skandapurāṇa seems reluctant to present Śiva and Umā as the primary parents of Skanda, it is a sectarian text that views Śiva as the supreme deity. As such, it presents Kārttikeya as secondary to his father and as ultimately under his control. There are also a number of differences between the Kumārasaṃbhava and the early Skandapurāṇa not all of which can be discussed here, but a central one for the purposes of this study is a relative lack of emphasis in the Skandapurāṇa on characterizing Kumāra as the Senāpati born to kill Tāraka. As I have noted, the gods’ need for a general is a constant point of reference in the Kumārasaṃbhava. The early Skandapurāṇa does not, however, introduce the divine need for a Senāpati until well after the birth of Kumāra. Rather, the motivation on the part of the gods to see Śiva produce a son is based in the chaos caused by the asceticism of the divine couple. The account of the destruction of Tāraka is also rather brief in this narrative and inspires little of the praise of Skanda found in other textual sources. The defeat is progressively diminished and his role transferred to Śiva and Pārvatī, which is part of a broader shift in narratives in Purāṇic sources.

kumārasam. bhava and purān. ic accounts

197

of this demon does remain the central act of Skanda-Kārttikeya in this text, but the narrative tends to diminish the importance of this deed relative to the Kumārasaṃbhava. This shift in emphasis does, once more, diminish Kārttikeya’s prestige next to his father. His single act of heroism is marginal here and replaced by an account of the power of the divine couple. As I have suggested in relation to the Kumārasaṃbhava, an indicator of the relative importance and power of a character in the text is the level of agency that character is given by the authors of the text. In the early Skandapurāṇa Kārttikeya has agency until the appearance of Śiva, then agency completely shifts away from Skanda and to his father. If we hypothesize a narrative, though not necessarily chronological, flow from the Mahābhārata to the early Skandapurāṇa and then on to the Kumārasaṃbhava, we see a progressive dominance of Śiva in these narratives that steadily removes agency from Kumāra. This diminished agency works to limit the role of Kārttikeya to that of the Senāpati of the gods born specifically to kill Tāraka, but even this role is presented as a side narrative in some versions. His diminished agency also places his devotional cult in jeopardy. Kārttikeya’s limited realm of action and the power of Śiva relative to him all suggest that devotees of Kumāra would do better to worship Śiva unless their specific context was as a warrior. The propitiation cult to the deity found in certain sections of the Āraṇyakaparvan become the unpredictable līlā of a child in the early Skandapurāṇa and disappear in the Kumāra­ saṃbhava all together. At least in textual accounts of the deity from outside of the Āyurvedic tradition, his propitiation cult and links to Grahas have all but disappeared. The Vāyupurāṇa The Purāṇic corpus is massive and there is not time here to recount all of the versions of the birth and deeds of Skanda in them. It is also the case that the account of the deity found in the Kumārasaṃbhava becomes the normative version of the deity’s narrative. Whether or not that version of the deity originates in the Kumārasaṃbhava is open to question, but there is little need for a detailed exploration of the Purāṇas simply because their accounts of the deity become generic. I have selected the Vāyu from a host of other Purāṇas for two reasons: first, it is typically viewed as one of the older Purāṇas and it fits the

198

chapter eight

general era (fourth to seventh century ce) explored in this chapter; second, it may have been mentioned in the early Skandapurāṇa and provides a counterpoint to the representation of Skanda in that text. The Vāyupurāṇa has generally been recognized as one of the oldest if not the oldest of the Purāṇas. Dates between the fourth and fifth centuries ce have been proposed for the text (Rocher 1986: 245). Such dates would place it within the height of the Gupta Empire, the subject of the next chapter, and hence ideally suited for this study. As I note above, however, no critical edition of the text has yet to appear. Hence, we need to approach this text with some caution; much like the second half of the Kumārasaṃbhava, we hope it is reflective of a tradition from the Gupta era, but we cannot prove this with certainty. The Skandapurāṇa may make reference to the Vāyu and appears to contrast itself with it. The Skandapurāṇa begins with a group of Ṛṣis asking Sūta to narrate the story of Skanda’s birth: Formerly, O sage, at the occasion of Brahmā’s sacrifice, the story of the Bhāratas and after that (param) the Purāṇa has been told by you to the inhabitants of the Naimiśa forest. [...] (Now) we ask you about the birth of the clever Kārttikeya, (a story) equal to that of the Bhāratas and which excels the Purāṇa. (SP 1.8cd-9ab, 11, translated by Adriaensen, Bakker and Isaacson 1998: 20, square brackets in the original)

This quotation establishes a familiarity with the story of the Bhāratas (the Mahābhārata) and signals to us that the Skandapurāṇa and the other Purāṇa mentioned above are viewed as coming just after the epic or at around the time of the epic itself. The quotation also only mentions “a” Purāṇa, as opposed to Purāṇas. The implication being that only one other Purāṇa was known to the authors of the Skanda­ purāṇa. This other Purāṇa is never named, but the editors of the critical edition of the Skandapurāṇa argue that the reference may be to the Vāyupurāṇa (Adriaensen, Bakker and Isaacson 1998: 20-22). If that is the case, the above passage also indicates that the Skandapu­rāṇa deals more with accounts of Skanda than the other ‘Purāṇa’. As we shall see, this is indeed the case with the Vāyu providing a very brief account of the birth of Kumāra. There is good reason, then, to view the Vāyupu­ rāṇa and early Skandapurāṇa as contemporaries that take differing approaches to the story of Kārttikeya’s birth. The birth story of Skanda is found in the second book of the Purāṇa in chapter eleven (VP 2.11.1-50). The account of the birth is awkwardly placed into the text. Chapters ten through sixteen of book two present a lengthy discussion of the Śrāddha rite, ancestor worship,

kumārasam. bhava and purān. ic accounts

199

and related subjects like the identity of Pitṛs (ancestors). The birth of Kārttikeya is placed in this section with an awkward link formed between an account of seven groups of Pitṛs and their creative acts in the world. These Pitṛs have daughters in the world, one of whom is Menā, the wife of Himālaya (VP 2.11.1-5). The story then discusses Umā, the daughter of Menā and Himālaya, and on to the birth of Kārttikeya. After narrating the birth the text abruptly switches back to an account of Śrāddha without further reference to the birth of the god.14 The implication of the above passage (SP 1.8cd-9ab, 11) from the Skandapurāṇa is that the ‘other’ Purāṇa did not have an account of Skanda’s birth in it. The version of the Vāyupurāṇa that we have today does contain an account of the deity’s birth, but the awkward nature of the insertion of it in the Vāyupurāṇa may indeed suggest that it was not part of the original. Having stated this much, however, without a critical edition of the text this is speculation on my part. The Birth of Skanda in the Vāyupurāṇa The story tells us that Menā and Himālaya have one son, Maināka, and his son is Krauñca. Menā and Himālaya also have three daughters: Aparṇa (No Leaf), Ekaparṇa (One Leaf) and Ekapāṭalā (One Trumpet Flower). Each practices austerities with Ekaparṇa dwelling in a Nyagrodha tree and eating a single leaf every thousand years; Ekapāṭalā dwells in a Pāṭalā tree and also eats one Pāṭalā flower every thousand years, and Aparṇa never eats and has no permanent dwelling place. Aparṇa also becomes known as Umā. Due to her exceptional yogic powers Umā gains Śiva as her husband. The story then recounts the marriage partners and offspring of Ekaparṇa and Ekapāṭalā before returning to Umā and Śiva. The two deities are consummating their marriage when a nervous Indra asks Agni to create an impediment to their sexual intercourse. The king of the gods fears the power of the child that could be produced by the couple. We are not told how, but Agni does interfere with their sexual intercourse and Śiva’s semen lands on the ground. Pārvatī then curses Agni to carry the foetus that should have been hers to carry.

14   While far less awkward in its transitions, the Anuśāsanaparvan also has a similar śraddha context in Bhiṣma’s introduction to the theme of why gold is the best priestly gift that ultimately leads to a discussion of Skanda’s birth.

200

chapter eight

The fire-god carries the foetus for several years before asking Gaṅgā to take it from him due to the distress it causes him. She accepts the foetus, but is also burnt by it and eventually abandons it in a forest of reeds on the Himālaya. Kārttikeya, described as the son of Śiva, Agni and Gaṅgā, is born there. The Kṛttikās come across the child and nurse him, and as a result he becomes known as Kārttikeya. The gods then present him with gifts: Viṣṇu and Garuḍa give him a cock and peacock. Vāyu his banner, Sarasvatī a lute, Brahmā a goat and Śiva a ram. In a single verse we are told that he destroyed Mount Krauñca out of the play (līlā) of his creative power, or illusion (māyā), and in the very next verse that he killed Tāraka and was made the Senāpati of the gods (2.11.47-48). The final lines of the account are missing in the printed edition, but there is a brief mention of the Mātṛs in a list of beings who appear to greet him by calling out his various names. This account is remarkably short in all of its aspects from describing the courtship of Śiva and Umā (two verses) to the defeat of Tāraka (half a verse) and Skanda’s inauguration as the Senāpati (half a verse). It dwells for relatively longer periods on the austerities of Umā and her sisters and the cosmic celebration at the birth of the deity. It does share some plot similarities with other post-epic accounts of the deity, such as the movement of Śiva’s semen/tejas from himself to Agni and on to Gaṅgā. The eventual birth in a forest of reeds and the role of the Kṛttikās as wet nurses and first mothers are also common elements. Kārttikeya is only marginally associated with Mātṛs in this account and no allusions to a Graha cult are provided. Less typical is a lack of presenting Śiva and Pārvatī as the primary parents of the deity. Much like the Śalyaparvan’s account of Skanda’s birth, Śiva is presented as just one parent along with Agni, Gaṅgā and the Kṛttikās. Umā is not, in this account, described as a mother of Kārttikeya nor does she re-enter the narrative after his birth. Somewhat like the Skandapurāṇa, the Vāyupurāṇa invites us to imagine a time when Skanda is being absorbed into Śaivism, but that process is only partially complete. Finally, the Vāyu provides no apology or argument for the need for the divine birth. The destruction of Tāraka is only mentioned towards the end of the narrative and the need to destroy him is not tied to the preamble of the story; Kārttikeya’s birth, it seems, is here something of an accident. While the length of the narratives related to Kārttikeya in the Mahābhārata and Skandapurāṇa suggest Brahminical and textual communities that were interested in this deity and specifically interested in promoting a particular form of the

kumārasam. bhava and purān. ic accounts

201

deity, the Vāyupurāṇa suggests that not all Brahminical textual communities found the deity particularly significant, or worthy of lengthy discussion. While the Vāyupurāṇa seems rather disinterested in the birth and deeds of Kārttikeya and has some unusual aspects to it, the narrative still maintains some key ingredients of the post-epic era. Skanda is not to be feared in this account; there is no hint of a propitiation cult associated with him. His destruction of Mount Krauñca is again presented as child’s play, and, even though Indra fears his arrival, he represents no threat to the gods or established order. While the text does not stress this aspect of his character, he has one role to play in killing Tāraka and one position to fill as the Senāpati of the gods. Even in this rather cursory account of the deity, we see that much of the basic form of the narrative remains intact suggesting a routinization of the story. Concluding Remarks to the Post-Epic Accounts of Skanda-Kārttikeya The texts produced in the post-epic period from approximately the fourth to seventh century ce demonstrate a diminished status for Skanda and a shift in his cult towards an exclusive focus on the deity as the Surasenāpati born to kill Tāraka. A prominent theme in at least two of the accounts is the junior status of Kārttikeya relative to Śiva. All three accounts suggest that Kumāra’s independent cult is much diminished by this point in the textual tradition. These texts do not make mention of rituals performed to Skanda by devotees, nor do they allude to a propitiatory cult. Only the early Skandapurāṇa retains aspects of a fierce characterization of Kārttikeya, though, in a much muted form. The shift away from his propitiation tradition and towards a characterization that limits him to a martial role is also modelled in the material culture we examined in chapters six and seven. While the shifts in material culture appear to be driven by political elites, the textual shifts, at least in the case of the Purāṇas, are likely brought about primarily by religious groups. The two (politics and religion) do not operate in isolation. Kings and emperors likely sponsored Kālidāsa and the Purāṇic authors, and priests likely facilitated royal interest in various religious rituals and traditions. While the two groups rarely make direct reference to each other, they both appear to agree that

202

chapter eight

Kārttikeya needs to be removed from his Mātṛ/Graha context. The kings are likely motivated to do so because such a cult did little to add to their royal persona. The religious tradition draws Kumāra away from the Graha cult seemingly because they viewed it as lacking an orthodoxy they sought in their textual traditions and because much of Skanda’s cult is relocated and transformed in other aspects of Śaivism. To some degree, these texts illustrate the rise of medieval Hinduism out of the epic era and the prominent rise of Śiva in that era. Part of that rise was the use of Skanda as a means to forward Śiva’s cult and fame.

CHAPTER NINE

THE MATERIAL CULTURE OF SKANDA-KĀRTTIKEYA IN THE GUPTA EMPIRE Much is made of the cult of Skanda in the Gupta Empire. The empire was at its height for much of the fourth and fifth centuries ce and stretched from modern day Bengal and Assam to Gujarat. The Gupta era or age also refers to a broader period of artistic production from the fourth to sixth or seventh centuries ce in north India (Biswas and Jha 1985: vi).1 For many scholars the Gupta period is regarded as the ‘golden age’ of India and Hinduism (Smith 1983: xiii; Basham 1974: i; 1983: 1; Khandalavala 1991: viii). While the use of the term golden age is problematic (see Willis 2005: 142-143), the Gupta Empire inaugurates an artistic tradition that lasts for 200 to 300 years and provides us with a ground against which we can trace developments in Kārttikeya’s tradition. The impact of this period on the material traditions of India was significant. The material culture of this age provides a wealth of information on the development of Hinduism and for Skanda’s cult within that tradition. The Gupta era material evidence of the cult of Kumāra can be traced through three main sources: statuary, numismatics and inscriptions, each of which will be examined in what follows. Gupta Era Statuary of Skanda: Statues from the Eastern Empire While there are various ways of categorizing Gupta art, I will present three basic representations of Skanda: an eastern Gupta form, a western/cave-shrine Gupta form, and Gupta era terracottas of the deity. Typical of the eastern form is an image of the deity from Gayāghat, Vārāṇasī (fig. 31). Here, Kārttikeya is depicted in a seated posture with his left hand holding a spear and his right hand holding an object, possibly fruit. The neck and head of a peacock emerge from between his legs; the bird appears to be eating the fruit held in Skanda’s right hand. The feathers of the bird are shown behind the deity. Kumāra 1

  For more on the nature of Gupta art see Harle (1974) and Williams (1982).

204

chapter nine

wears a dhotī and likely has a triśikhin coiffure. He is also adorned with a necklace, earrings and arm bracelets. Joanna Williams regards this Vārāṇasī piece as typical of eastern reliefs. She notes its simple subject and absence of references to mythology as typical of this regional form (1982: 81). This eastern image of the deity can be compared and contrasted to the Kuṣāṇa statues and panels previously discussed. The addition of the peacock to the Gupta era pieces represents a shift from the known Kuṣāṇa era depictions.2 As we have seen, the vast majority of the panels and statues from Kuṣāṇa era Mathurā did not depict the deity with any bird, while the Gandhāra statues and Huviṣka’s Mahāsena coin add a bird to the iconography. A bird then becomes a standard feature of the deity’s iconography beginning with the class six coins of the Yaudheyas. The Gupta use of the peacock does not have clear links to Kuṣāṇa era iconography for the deity, but it may have links to earlier Indian imperial devices. The Mauryans may have used the bird as an emblem of their imperial rule (Nair 1974: 115).3 P. Thankappan Nair also suggests that the Guptas employed the peacock as a similar emblem of their empire (1974: 124). Michael Willis argues that the Gupta’s not only knew the history of the Mauryans, but deliberately appropriated Mauryan forms for their own political purposes (2009: 63). Such may have been the case with the Gupta era adoption of the peacock as Kārttikeya’s main vehicle in these eastern depictions. As we shall see, Kumāragupta I also makes use of the peacock on his gold and silver coinage. An imperial context for the peacock is particularly strong in the numismatic images he employs. Hence, the addition of the peacock may link these statues of Skanda with an imperial ­agenda.4 The eastern Gupta images of Kārttikeya also present the image of a calm youthful deity (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 85). There is very little in   Whether or not Gupta era artists invent the addition of the peacock or if it predates the Gupta era is unclear. The bird depicted on Yaudheya class six coins may be a peacock. Herbert Härtel also reports: “One fragmentary and mutilated plaque” depicting Skanda riding a peacock recovered from the Kuṣāṇa levels at Sonkh (2007: 334). The plaque is not illustrated, however, and it is difficult to judge the report. 3   The Mauryans ruled from the fourth to second century bce. The name of the dynasty may be derived from the Sanskrit word for peacock, mayūra. For arguments from South Asian texts for this attribution and other accounts of the origins of the dynasty’s name see Willis (2009: 201-202). 4   Certainly, there would have been ample textual precedent to allow for the addition of the peacock to the deity’s iconography. 2

skanda in the gupta empire

205

the iconography of the deity itself that inspires fear or alludes to a propitiation cult. The deity is also depicted in figure 31 with a necklace that features two tiger claws common on depictions of boys (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 85).5 The triśikhin or śikhaṇḍin attribute of the deity is also associated with youth. Hence, the peacock and the appearance of the deity speak more to youth and beauty than to fear and violence. We can also note the absence of a clear reference to Graha and Mātṛ cults in this statue. We will see some references to Skanda with Mātṛs in other Gupta contexts, but these images from the east tend not to evoke any connection with such a tradition. These eastern depictions of the deity might best be labelled the Kumāra statues of Skanda because they emphasize his youth over the Mahāsena or Graha attributes of the deity. Gupta Era Statuary of Skanda: Statues from the Western Empire and Cave Shrines The images of Kārttikeya from the western regions of the Gupta Empire are closely associated with Mātṛ/Mātṛkā shrines and Śaiva sites. Before discussing the context of such sites I will briefly discuss the dominant form of the deity from this region.6 Figure 38 depicts Kārttikeya from Śāmalājī which dates to the early sixth century ce (Schastok 1985: 14; Harper 1989: 108). Here the deity stands facing the front holding a cock in his left hand and a spear in his right hand. He wears a crown or ornamented headdress, a necklace, arm bands and dhotī. The figure is also nimbate; his hair is likely in a triśikhin style. This statue is related to the Gandhāra Kuṣāṇa era statues of Mahāsena and, in particular, to the Western Kṣatrapa and Ikṣvāku depictions of the deity. Śāmalājī lies in the former territory of the Kṣatra­pas; hence, it is not surprising to see this iconography here. While the iconography of the Kṣatrapa/Ikṣvāku Mahāsena form of the deity remains stable in the west, the context of such depictions has shifted to Śaiva and Mātṛ cave shrines. During the Gupta and postGupta era a number of Hindu cave temples and Mātṛ shrines are 5   Such a necklace is also found on images of Kṛṣṇa from this period when depicted as a youth. 6   This distinction between western and eastern depictions is more of a general separation than an absolute one. Statues depicting the ‘eastern’ variety are found in the west, but with less frequency than those I have labelled ‘western’.

206

chapter nine

developed in the central and western sections of north India. It may be the case that these Mātṛ and Kumāra sites from the west represent a fusion of the Mathurā influenced Skanda with Mātṛs cult together with the Mahāsena traditions of the Kṣatrapas and Ikṣvākus. Joanna Williams has argued that Kuṣāṇa era Mathurā art was central to the development of Gupta art (1982: 5). She goes as far as to claim that Kuṣāṇa Mathurā art was the sole origin of Gupta art rejecting any influence from the Sātavāhanas, Ikṣvākus or other pre-Gupta groups (1982: 9). Williams may push this argument too far, and I am inclined to agree with J. C. Harle who suggests that most aspects of Gupta style derive from Kuṣāṇa era Mathurā and the art that flourished in Kṣatra­pa dominated western areas (1974: 7). I noted in chapter seven that the cult of Kārttikeya spreads to the Kṣatrapas and Ikṣvākus as the cult of Mahāsena without clear iconographic reference to Mātṛs or Grahas. The spread of Mathurā art into the west during the period of Gupta rule transports images of Mātṛs to that region and, in all probability, their earlier connection to Skanda. The Gupta era material evidence from the west of India indicates the spread of a strong devotional cult towards the Mātṛs, or Mātṛkās as they become known. The form of Kārttikeya standing holding a cock becomes linked to the spread of this Mātṛ/Mātṛkā devotional tradition. The Gupta conquest of the regions once dominated by the Kṣatrapas allows for a re-emergence of the Skanda/Mātṛ traditions of Kuṣāṇa era Mathurā, but, as we shall see, this tradition is quickly superseded by a Śiva/Gaṇeśa/Mātṛkā tradition. An important site for tracing such Gupta era developments in the west of India is Udayagiri, located near Sāñcī in the eastern Malwā region. Michael Willis has convincingly argued that this site was a centre for time-keeping and astronomical observation in the preGupta era. The site was then transformed primarily under Candragupta II into a centre of imperial ritual (2009: 10-12, 18).7 The site represents an example of the intersection of imperial ideology and religion in the Gupta era and helps us to understand the position of Kārttikeya at an imperial site. Having stated this much, however, there is some debate over the depictions of Skanda at the site. Let us begin with the least problematic of the images of Kārttikeya from the site found in cave three (fig. 32). This damaged depiction of the deity presents him   The re-visioning of the site was designed to present Candragupta II as a cakravartin and as the paramabhāgavata (Willis 2009: 3, 41). 7

skanda in the gupta empire

207

standing frontally and holding a large spear with his hair arranged in a triśikhin. There are no signs of a peacock present, but the left hand is missing and “a cock may be surmised” (Harle 1974: 34). The image may date to the early part of the fifth century ce (Willis 2009: 177). No other remains survive from cave three, hence it appears to borrow from the Kṣatrapa/Ikṣvāku tradition of presenting Skanda as Mahā­ sena without direct reference to a Mātṛ/Mātṛkā tradition. If, however, we take into account the broader context of cave three’s position at Udayagiri, there is some possibility of viewing this cave as part of a broader Śaiva and Mātṛkā context. Willis proposes a reading that takes into account cave three’s position relative to cave four, which houses a liṅga, and a niche just to the right of this cave containing a relief of Mātṛkās perhaps with Kārttikeya (2009: 177).8 It seems reasonable to view the clustering of these sites as representing a Śaiva group. Hence, cave three could be read as belonging to the Śaiva tradition at this site as opposed to evidence for an independent cult to Kārttikeya. While the statue of Skanda found in cave three presents few issues related to its identification, the attribution of potential images of Skanda to various Mātṛkā shrines at the site is a more difficult question. There are three Mātṛ/Mātṛkā shrines at Udayagiri. One, as noted, is adjacent to cave four. The other two are side by side adjacent cave six (Harper 2002: 117; Willis 2009: 315, n.43). The scene adjacent cave four (figs. 33 and 34) is described by Willis with the following: Immediately to the right of this cave is a shallow rectangular niche containing six damaged female figures. These are identifiable as the six Kṛttikās who nourished Skanda in his youth. Beside them is a male figure, now very mutilated. Although little more than the torso is left, he is clearly ithyphallic and has a banner at his side. This identifies the sculpture as Skanda.... (2009: 177)9

  Willis suggests of this cluster of shrines that it was “a likely cult spot for the Atharvavedic purohita. Some indication of the religious services performed there can be gleaned from the Skandayāga...” (2009: 177). While I find much of Willis’s work on Udayagiri to be of considerable scholarly value, I find these comments difficult to support. I cannot prove that Atharvavedic purohitas did not perform the Skandayāga or a like rite at this site, but I also find little positive evidence from the site to support such a suggestion. 9   Katherine Anne Harper’s description of the same site differs. She notes that the badly mutilated seated male also wears a sacred thread. She also states that there are seven seated goddesses and a badly mutilated figure on the right chapel wall (1989: 76). 8

208

chapter nine

He goes on to cite the Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa, a medieval text, in support of his identification of the male figure through the presence of the banner (2009: 315, n.46). Katherine Anne Harper also identifies the male as Skanda, noting he is “identifiable by his banner displaying his emblem, the cock” (2002: 121, also see Harper 1989: 76). While I cannot conclusively argue against an identification of Kārtti­keya on this relief, I would like to stress that the evidence for the identification by both Willis and Harper is open to question. Willis bases his identification on the likely post-Gupta Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa. The date of this text is not completely certain, but I do not think it provides a certain means of interpreting this Udayagiri niche. The image of the male with the females in this niche is also so badly eroded that detecting a cock or any other device on the banner is uncertain, leaving Harper’s attribution in doubt. Another line of inquiry is to search for Gupta era reliefs of the Mātṛkās with another ithyphallic figure. We find one such panel near Badoh-Paṭhārī, a site iconographically related to Udayagiri that may date to the first half of the fifth century (Harle 1974: 13, 39; Shastok 1985: 67; Harper 1989: 81). Carved into the side of a cliff near BadohPaṭhārī is a damaged group of seven Mātṛkās with a seated ithyphallic figure to their right. Damage to the male figure is minimal, and it likely depicts Śiva. While the panels from Udayagiri and BadohPaṭhārī are not identical, I would argue that we need to add Śiva to the list of potential candidates represented by the ithyphallic male in the Udayagiri panel. The Udayagiri figure may be Kārttikeya, but, I wish to stress, we cannot be certain of this given the evidence from other Gupta era sites in the west of India. The other two Mātṛkā panels at Udayagiri are found near cave six. To the right of the two doorway guardians at the entrance of cave six are three figures (Viṣṇu, Durgā Mahiṣāsuramardinī and Kārttikeya) carved on the exterior wall of the cave.10 At a right angle to these are two Mātṛkā shrines, one next to the other. A short wall separates the first shrine from the three images found on the exterior of cave six (Harper 1989: 76-77). The first shrine depicts six seated Mātṛkās “flanked by two male figures, again much damaged, but apparently Vīrabhadra and Kārttikeya” (Willis 2009: 142). Harper suggests the first figure may be Śiva, but regards the end flanking figure as so eroded that it defies identification (1989: 77). The damage to the male 10

  The image of Kārttikeya in this group will be discussed below.

skanda in the gupta empire

209

figures is so extensive that any certain identification is impossible. All that remains of the flanking figures is from the torso down. One cannot dismiss the possibility that one of these figures could represent Kumāra and the other Śiva, but we cannot be certain of this. The final Mātṛkā panel from Udayagiri depicts eight Mātṛkās seated on a bench with a damaged image of a figure riding a peacock on a higher level (fig. 35). While the image of the peacock riding figure is worn, there is little doubt that it represents Skanda (Harper 1989: 77). Other images of Kārttikeya riding a peacock in such a fashion are also found in Gupta era art. Hence, we leave the Mātṛkā panels at Udayagiri with one certain identification of Kumāra with the Mothers and two possible identifications. The evidence from this site as well as at Badoh-Paṭhārī suggest that the Mātṛkā cult spread west from Mathurā and environs during the Gupta era, but that the iconography of the cult was also shifting at this time. The evidence from this site indicates that Skanda was still associated with the Mātṛs/Mātṛkās, but it is also likely that Śiva has joined the iconography of these figures at Udayagiri. It is no longer a given as it was in the Kuṣāṇa era that the male depicted with these females is Skanda-Kārttikeya. The Mātṛs are also becoming the Mātṛkās with those at Badoh-Paṭhārī appearing as the śaktis of various male deities (Shastok 1985: 67).11 Whether or not these śaktis are directly related to the Graha/Mātṛ cult is uncertain. Hence, the connection between Kumāra and Mātṛs endures into the Gupta era, but one could not suggest that it emerges unchanged from its earlier form in the Kuṣāṇa era.12 As already noted, there is another image of Kumāra at this site on the wall outside cave six (figs. 36 and 37), and Willis has a particular argument for its significance at the site. He argues that key Vaiṣṇava reliefs at the site were installed in such a manner as to receive direct sunlight only on certain days of the year. Central to this Gupta era design was the image of a recumbent Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa that only received direct sunlight during the summer solstice (Willis 2009: 18, 31). Willis argues that the summer solstice signalled the start of the Vaiṣṇava-Bhāgavata rite of varṣāmāsavrata, where Viṣṇu is ritually put to sleep for the rainy season and woken four months later 11   The surviving record at Badoh-Paṭhārī provides no evidence of an image of Skanda at the site. One of the seated female figures holds what may be a spear and has a śikhāṇḍaka hair design; she may be Kaumārī (Shastok 1985: 67). 12   Harper surveys a number of other fifth century sites containing Mātṛkā statues and shrines none of which contain images of Kumāra (1989: 81-89).

210

chapter nine

(2009: 31-33). This awakening occurs on the eleventh day of the bright fortnight of Kārttika. On this day, states Willis, “the rising sun illuminated the figure of Kārttikeya in Cave 7...” (2009: 68).13 The placement of this image of Kumāra and the coordinated solar timing were designed, he suggests, to bolster Candragupta II’s claim to have come to Udayagiri to begin his conquest of the world (2009: 68).14 The timing of such an expedition would likely fall in Kārttika, traditionally the auspicious period for military campaigns. As we also know, the Kṛttikās have a clear link to Kārttikeya, the god of war. Hence, Willis sees a number of interrelated phenomena at Udayagiri in relation to this depiction of Kārttikeya all of which seem tied to the advent of war. Willis’ arguments seem plausible, though the link between Candragupta’s claim to begin his campaign from Udayagiri and the image of Kārttikeya found in cave seven/outside cave six is difficult to prove outright. What can be taken from his argument is that this image of Skanda is likely tied to his role as the Mahāsenapati; it reflects an imperial use of the deity as a military figure. The various usages and depictions of Skanda-Kārttikeya from Udayagiri are, then, complex. The caves and shrines together suggest that his cult is being absorbed, or is fully absorbed, into Śaivism by this point. They also suggest that his former links to Mātṛ cults survive, but these links may also be shifting to a Śaivite focus by the early fifth century ce. Finally, the iconography found in cave three and the implications for the solar and ritual timing of cave seven/the exterior of cave six suggest that the Guptas also view Kārttikeya in a similar manner as the Kuṣāṇas; he is Mahāsena, a military deity used at imperial sites to bolster the status of the emperor.15 The next important western sites for tracing developments in the cult of Kumāra are Śāmalājī and Tanesara, both early sixth century sites. Eleven female figures, a single figure of Skanda, an unidentified male figure and a fragmentary Gaṇeśa have been recovered from Tanesara (Harper 1989: 101). The statue of Kārttikeya is damaged with the upper portion of his spear missing, but he clearly holds a cock 13   I assume that Willis’ reference to cave seven refers to the three figures on the outside wall of cave six. 14   Cave eight at Udayagiri contains an inscription written by Vīrasena, a minister of Candragupta II, mentioning that he and the king came to Udayagiri out of a desire to conquer the world (Fleet/Bhandarkar 1981: 257). It may be the case that Candragupta II selected Udayagiri as the place to begin his cakravartin campaign. 15   We shall return to these images from Udayagiri in my discussion of inscriptions below.

skanda in the gupta empire

211

in his left hand. Harper argues that the unidentified male figure may also represent Kumāra, but she acknowledges that this assessment is uncertain (1989:102). Closely tied to Tanesara chronologically is Śāmalājī, which is known primarily for three groups of Mātṛkās recovered from it. Sara Schastok argues that the earliest of the three groups can be associated with the statue of Kārttikeya discussed above on the basis of style (fig. 38). She dates this first grouping to c. 520 ce (1985: 14). The other two groups of Mātṛkās are associated with other Śaiva figures: a Gaṇeśa and two four-armed Śivas. Schastok dates these other figures to c. 540 ce (1985: 22). If we accept Schastok’s dates, Śāmalājī appears to record a rapid progression from depicting Kārttikeya with Mātṛkās to the replacement of Kumāra by Śiva and Gaṇeśa in the first half of the sixth century. The circumstances of this rapid shift are uncertain, but Schastok (1985: 93) and Williams (1982: 101-102) note that the Hūṇa Toramāṇa and his son Mihiragula invade Malwā early in the sixth century. The Hūṇas defeat the Guptas in Malwā by c. 510 ce (Gupta 1974 I: 51; Schastok 1985: 93).16 The Hūṇas are, in turn, defeated by Yaśodharman, who claims in his c. 533 ce Mandasor inscription to now rule over much of the western regions of the Gupta and Hūṇa territories (Gupta 1974 I: 51-52; Williams 1982: 102). Mihiragula appears to have been a Śaiva (Williams 1982: 102), and the rule of Yaśodharman signals the emergence “of a sophisticated mātṛkā-Śiva patronage with stylistic links to Mandasor after ad 520...” (Schastok 1985: 93). The suggestion appears to be that with the accession of Yaśodharman in this region we witness a shift from Mātṛkā panels with Skanda to Mātṛkā panels with Śiva. As we have seen from other sites that pre-date Śāmalājī and Yaśodharman, this shift may already be underway in western India by the fifth century ce.17

  We know from epigraphical evidence from Eraṇ that the site is still ruled at least in a tutelary manner by Budhagupta in the late fifth century ce (Gupta 1974 I: 46, 353-354). His inscription is then followed by one referencing Toramāṇa as the ruler of the region at the same site (Gupta 1974 I: 51). 17   Schastok also notes a shift from stiff and angular forms to softer and fleshier forms in Gupta art. There is also more variation in these depictions of Mātṛkās and the children depicted with them are livelier (1985: 68). She claims of these changes: “The smiling tranquillity of these figures seems to partake of a Gupta intention to use physical well-being as a metaphor for spiritual riches” (1985: 68). These artistic changes in the Gupta period may add to the progressive softening of Skanda and his related traditions since the Kuṣāṇa period. 16

212

chapter nine

This hypothesis presented by Williams and Schastok is, however, difficult to prove. Schastok’s rather tight chronology for Śāmalājī is also open to question. Harper is critical of Schastok’s dates for these figures; she regards the Śāmalājī figures to represent a single stylistic group that were created at the same time (1989: 105, n.17). Harper provides a review of various dates proposed by scholars for Śāmalājī, and suggests that they date to the early sixth century (1989: 107-108). One cannot dismiss Schastok’s arguments, but some caution is required in employing them. What can be safely stated for Tanesara and Śāmalājī is that both of these early sixth century sites continue to depict Skanda with Mātṛkās. They also include other Śaiva figures including Śiva and Gaṇeśa suggesting that the shift for which Schastok argues may be underway. We lack, however, enough evidence to definitively discuss the context of these sites or the role Skanda, Śiva, Gaṇeśa or the Mātṛkās had at them. Deogarh is another site in the west of India worthy of a brief mention more for the absence of Kārttikeya at it rather than the positive evidence of his cult it provides. Deogarh is likely a sixth century site just to the north of Badoh-Paṭhārī (Schastok 1985: 71).18 Two Mātṛkā panels have been recovered from the site that also includes ŚivaVīṇādhara and Gaṇeśa with the Saptamātṛkās. This site tends to indicate that this depiction of the Saptamātṛkās without Kārttikeya became common by the sixth century.19

18   There is some controversy over the dates for this site, see Schastok (1985: 71) for more details. 19   Besnagar is another related site from this general region. Seven seated Mātṛkās have been recovered from this site, but no male deity has been found. As this site gives no direct information on Skanda I will not discuss it here, see Harle (1974: 13), Williams (1982: 51), Schastok (1985: 67) and Harper (1989: 84-85) for more details on Besnagar. Williams argues that images of Skanda and Ṣaṣṭhī appear at Pawaya also in the general region of Malwā (1982: 54). She refers to a lintel of a gate that depicts on one side the story of Vāmana and Bali. The reverse depicts the churning of the Milk Ocean narrative with an emphasis on Vaiṣṇava and royal themes (Williams 1982: 53-54). Williams claims to identify a six-headed and six-handed image of Kārttikeya on the far right of the lintel (1982: 54). The illustrated piece (Pl. 52 in Williams) is damaged with the left side of the image missing; it only appears to show a two-headed figure with six-arms on the right. No other iconography associated with Kārttikeya (a spear, cock or peacock) is present and Williams’ identification is questionable. She also argues that another fragment makes up the opposite end of the lintel (Pl. 53 in Williams). It is also broken with only the right side of a figure visible. It depicts a six-armed figure with only one head visible. Williams argues that this figure is Ṣaṣṭhī (1982: 54). Again, I find this suggestion speculative.

skanda in the gupta empire

213

A series of other sixth century cave sites, Elephanta, Jogeśwarī and Ellora, are all situated to the south of Malwā; they all contain some panels depicting Kārttikeya. Elephanta is a major Śaiva cave centre on an island in the harbour of Mumbai. It may date to 575-600 ce and was primarily patronised by the Kalacuri king Śaṅkaragaṇa and also perhaps under the rule of Kṛṣṇarāja (Collins 1988: 15).20 In the east wing of the structure is an Aṣṭamātṛkā panel flanked by images of Śiva and Gaṇeśa (Schastok 1985: 86; Collins 1988: 142); a presentation of the Mātṛkās devoid of Skanda that becomes increasingly common towards the end of the sixth century. On the south wall of this cave is an image of Gaṇeśa and on the north wall one of Kārttikeya (fig. 39). This panel depicts Skanda holding a spear in his right hand, his left hand is missing, but it appears to hold a cock. There is an image of Brahmā to his right and one of Viṣṇu riding Garuḍa to his left. On the ground are attendants holding staffs and a Mātṛ/Mātṛkā holding a child. In the upper sections of the panel there are Vidyādharas and garland bearers. This panel is difficult to interpret. It appears to depict Skanda as the lord of the universe, the centre of all things, but Elephanta is a Śaiva site and one would expect to see Śiva depicted in such a manner. Indeed, the site is full of panels and statues presenting Śiva as the ultimate deity of the tradition. Recognizing the same problem Sara Schastok suggests that “Skanda is Śiva” in this panel, the son fulfils the role of the father here (1985: 86). Whatever the intended meaning of this panel was, it clearly separates Kārttikeya from representations of the Mātṛkās as a group, but it maintains some relationship between the deity and a child-bearing Mātṛ. The panel seems to look back to the Kuṣāṇa era Mathurā cult of Skanda with Mātṛs, but also recognizes some fundamental shifts in that tradition and the status of this deity relative to Śiva. The cave’s placement within the overall structure of Elephanta implies its secondary status in relation to the main shrines for Śiva. Such a status would be in keeping with the developments we have traced thus far. Related to Elephanta is Jogeśwarī, a Śaiva cave temple now located in the suburbs of Mumbai. The site is likely from the sixth century ce (c. 525 ce) and pre-dates Elephanta (Spink 1983: 243). The Kārttikeya panel at this site is badly decayed, but it appears to show the deity with   Walter Spink argues for a mid-sixth century date for the site and views the most probable main sponsor to be Kṛṣṇarāja (1983: 241-242). 20

214

chapter nine

a goat- or ram-headed figure to his right. There are traces of a second attendant to Skanda’s left, but this figure is too worn to allow for identification. Two flying figures are also visible in the upper corners of the panel. Schastok views this image as looking back to the depiction of Skanda from Elephanta and ahead to the image of the deity at Ellora (1985: 87). I find the image too worn to allow for much comment, other than to suggest that the main shrine at the site is the Śiva shrine; hence, this shrine to Kumāra is secondary and adds to the evidence for the absorption of Skanda’s cult into Śaivism. Cave 21 at Ellora in the porch left end cell has a panel depicting Kārttikeya (fig. 40) holding a cock in his left hand; he does not appear to hold a spear and his right hand rests on his hip. To his right is a ram-headed attendant. To his left may be a peacock, but the panel is damaged here; further left there is another ram- or goat-headed figure. In the upper corners are three flying beings. Ellora has a number of other reliefs that help us to place this panel within a Śaiva context. A separate relief at the site depicts the marriage of Śiva and Pārvatī that also contains images of Gaṇeśa and Kārttikeya followed by a panel depicting Brahmā. Schastok speculates that this series of panels illustrates the granting of the birth of a son to destroy Tāraka (1985: 88). Another panel depicts the Saptamātṛkās with Gaṇeśa and Śiva. A final panel depicts Skanda as a chubby child with Śiva and Umā. As Schastok suggests of these panels, they remove Kārttikeya from an association with the Mātṛkās and the arrangement of panels and caves “makes explicit the diminution of Skanda’s role as an independent cult figure” (1985: 87). I would only add by noting that this diminution has its roots in the Kuṣāṇa period. Much like the panel from Elephanta that depicts a child-holding female with Skanda, the panel from cave 21 at Ellora may also reflect something of Kumāra’s Graha/Mātṛ cult. The two goat- or ramheaded figures are suggestive of such an interpretation. As we have seen, one of Skanda’s Grahas in Āyurvedic sources is Naigameṣa, a ram-headed figure. In the Āraṇyakaparvan one of Kārttikeya’s heads is described as goat-headed, and in the Śalyaparvan and early Skan­dapurāṇa one of Skanda’s forms is Naigameṣa.21 A fertility and infant protection cult centred on ram- and goat-headed figures is well 21   The goat- or ram-headed figures, or at least one of them, may also be attempts to represent Agni who transforms himself into a goat-headed figure to play with Skanda in the Āraṇyakaparvan.

skanda in the gupta empire

215

­documented in Hindu and Jain sources (Winternitz 1895). Hence, there are hints in these late panels that elements of Skanda’s former Graha/Mātṛ cult endure. The Śaiva cave temples and related Mātṛ sites from the early fifth century to the late sixth century ce in the west of India present a consistent pattern of development for Skanda and his tradition. The Mātṛ/ Mātṛkā tradition is a prominent aspect of Gupta era statuary in this region, but Kārttikeya’s association with this cult progressively fades over the Gupta era. His role with the Mātṛ/Mātṛkā tradition is steadily taken over by Śiva and Gaṇeśa. The Kṣatrapa depiction of Skanda holding a cock is maintained, but this image is increasingly associated with Śaiva sites. In many of these cave sites the positioning of Kārttikeya’s shrine or panel is secondary to those of Śiva. The caves illustrate that Skanda’s cult has been absorbed into Śaivism by the fifth or sixth centuries ce, and there is little evidence from these sites for an independent cult for the deity. A final aspect to note in relation to these shrines and cave sites is their predominantly elite context. Most were developed by kings, emperors or their ministers. Michael Willis’ study of Udayagiri (2009) is instructive in this matter because it demonstrates the use of religious ritual and iconography to further imperial agendas. These sites are as much about the deities depicted in them as they are about the political messages these sites where intended to deliver. Much like the transformations in Skanda-Kārttikeya’s cult that I have traced to the rule of Huviṣka, it is unclear if the depictions of Kārttikeya at these royally sponsored sites are reflective of popular shifts in the deity’s cult or elite manipulations of it. The appearance of Skanda at these cave shrines may not, then, speak to the ‘popularity’ of his cult in northern and western India; rather, it repeats a pattern of royal and imperial appropriation of his protection and military cult to further the reputations of royalty and their courtiers. It may be the case that some of these elite figures placed images of Skanda at these sites out of genuine devotion to the deity, but this broader politicization of the deity’s cult continues a trend that likely removes him from close associations with his once broad-based propitiation cult.

216

chapter nine Gupta Era Terracottas of Skanda

Terracottas of Skanda also appear during the Gupta era (fig. 41 a and b). Finds of these terracottas are rare, but they depict the deity straddling a peacock. Both face the front; the peacock’s wings are spread out and Kārttikeya holds a spear in his hand. Unlike the other Gupta images of Skanda with a peacock from the eastern empire, these terracottas depict the deity in an active, energetic posture. We have already seen a similar depiction of the deity above a Mātṛkā panel at Udayagiri. There is also a small Gupta era stone relief held at the Mathurā Museum depicting the deity straddling a peacock while two figures pour fluid over him from jugs (fig. 42). The Udayagiri image appears to be connected to the Mātṛkā tradition, and the Mathurā image invokes an abhiṣeka with its connotation of Skanda’s rise to the captaincy of the army of the gods. The terracottas, however, seem to project a different understanding of the deity than those we have seen in other aspects of Gupta art; I will suggest below that they may be related to a Graha context. The emergence of these terracottas is significant because they likely derive from a different ritual and social setting than the large panels and statues we have examined thus far. Examples of these terracottas are worn, but they likely represent images that were easy and inexpensive to make and may, therefore, be more reflective of everyday devotion to the deity. As I noted above, the inscriptions at Udayagiri and other sites speak to the involvement of governors, kings, ministers and other officials in establishing these costly shrines. These terracottas, on the other hand, require no such official approval or financial commitment; they likely reflect household or similar small scale use. The terracottas suggest that Kārttikeya’s tradition still functioned in some aspects of the non-elite tradition in the Gupta period. A post-Gupta text, Bāṇabhaṭṭa’s Kādambarī, may provide some insight into the context in which these terracottas were used. Bāṇa can be safely dated to the rule of king Harṣavardhana (c. 606-647 ce).22 Part of the Kādambarī narrates a birth in the royal house of its fictional characters. A lengthy description of the queen’s birthing room includes the following:

  Harṣa ruled a kingdom in the wake of the Gupta collapse that stretched from Bengal to Gujarat at its height. His capital was in Kanauj in modern Uttar Pradesh. 22

skanda in the gupta empire

217

... which were decked with bits of cotton... charming on account of their being dyed with various colours and placed upon then at intervals, and which ... looked red as they lay in contact with bits of the (red) filaments of kusumbha flowers (or saffron); who (the ladies) were fashioning (the image of) the divine Shashṭhī, the goddess presiding over the sixth day... who were preparing (an image of) Kārttikeya, seated on the expanse of the back of his peacock looking formidable with his wings fully spread out, having his fluttering banner fashioned out of a piece of reddish cloth; and appearing fierce with his (weapon) Śakti held aloft by him.... (trans. Kale 1968: 98-99)

This seventh century text depicts various women in a birthing room preparing an image of Ṣaṣṭhī from bits of cotton as well as an image of Skanda; a Graha propitiatory context is apparent given the preparation of these items for the birth of a child. While the image of Ṣaṣṭhī is made of cloth, it is not clear if cotton is also used to make the image of Kārttikeya. Only the banner is clearly made of cloth. The image described above also matches the terracotta depictions of Kārttikeya: they both present the deity on the peacock with its wings spread out and Skanda holding a spear. Only the banner is missing from the terracotta, but if that item was made of cloth it would not have survived. If images of Ṣaṣṭhī were made of cloth it would explain why so few images of her survive from the Gupta era. While the evidence from the Kādambarī is not conclusive in this matter, it does suggest that temporary images of Ṣaṣṭhī and Skanda were made for the specific context of birth. These small terracottas of Skanda may allude to such a context. Hence, while we can see a progressive alienation of Skanda from his Graha and Mātṛ cult in both the textual tradition and the more elite material tradition, the record from the less elite aspects of religious practice suggest that elements of his Graha tradition endured. While the Graha and Mātṛ traditions of Kārttikeya may endure at a more popular level, the paucity of textual and material evidence for this aspect of the cult in the Gupta era suggests its diminished status. The Gupta era statues and panels of Kārttikeya leave us with something of a mixed message. The eastern statues appear to present a gentle Kumāra figure with no clear link to Śaivism or Mātṛ/Graha cults. The western images are linked to the Mahāsena iconography of the Western Kṣatrapas and some allude to a martial persona. They are more closely affiliated with Śaivism and some retain connections to Mātṛ traditions. The western statues and panels make a strong statement that much of the Mātṛ/Mātṛkā tradition is being absorbed by Śaivism largely to the exclusion of Kumāra by the close of the sixth

218

chapter nine

century. The deity’s independent cult is also noticeably reduced as he is absorbed into Śaivism. Finally, the terracottas and textual references like the Kādambarī imply that not all of Skanda’s Graha and Mātṛ popular propitiation cult has disappeared. Numismatic Representations of Skanda in the Gupta Era Kumāragupta I introduces a gold class of coinage called the peacock type (Allan 1914: xcii) or the Kārttikeya type (Altekar 1954: ci-cii) to the Gupta numismatic catalogue. Allan identifies two varieties of this class of coinage (1914: 84-86). The obverse of the variety labelled ‘a’ by Allan (fig. 43) depicts the king nimbate standing to the left feeding a peacock a bunch of fruit, possibly grapes (Chhabra 1986: xxxiv), held in his right hand. His left hand is behind him; he is also well adorned with jewellery. The obverse legend reads: “Jayati svaguṇairguṇarāśi Mahendra Kumāraḥ,” or “Victorious by his own merit, is Mahendra Kumāra, who has abundance of virtues” (Gupta 1974 I: 86). The reverse (fig. 43) depicts Skanda riding a peacock with a spear in his left hand; his right hand is held up and open perhaps sprinkling something into an altar, but this is unclear. The reverse legend reads: “Mahendrakumāraḥ,” or “Mahendra Kumāra” (Chatterjee 1970: 42).23 Allan’s variety ‘b’ is similar to ‘a’; it only differs in the obverse by depicting the king empty-handed and the peacock facing the front (Allan 1914: 86). The inscription on the ‘b’ variety is the same as on the ‘a’. The king also depicts a peacock on his ‘Horseman’. ‘Elephant-Rider and Lion-Slayer’ and ‘Tiger-slayer’ gold coin types (Allan 1914: 73-76, 81-83; Chatterjee 1970: 42). On the reverse of the ‘Horseman’ type the goddess Lakṣmī sits on a wicker stool turned to her right. Her left hand is on her waist and holds a lotus with a long stalk; she holds fruit, perhaps grapes, in her right hand that she feeds to a peacock in the lower proper right of the coin. The peacock appears with its plumage spread out. The goddess is nimbate and wears a sārī. On the reverse of an ‘Elephant-Rider and Lion-Slayer’ type the goddess stands facing the proper right of the coin. Her right hand appears to be petting, or reaching out to, the head of a peacock standing facing her in the right 23   Kumāragupta I uses the epithet Mahendra (literally ‘Great Indra’, but here likely ‘great leader’) on the reverse of most of his gold coinage; for further comments on Kumāragupta and this epithet see Bakker (2006: 172).

skanda in the gupta empire

219

of the coin. She stands on a lotus and also holds a lotus in her left hand. She is nimbate, wears a sārī, earrings, necklace, armbands and bangles (see Chhabra 1986: Pl. XXX.10 for an illustration). The reverse of the ‘Tiger-slayer’ type depicts a standing nimbate female.24 She is turned slightly to the left and bends over; she feeds a peacock a piece of fruit with her right hand and her left holds a lotus and rests on her lap. She appears to stand on a crocodile with an open snout. She is dressed and adorned in a similar manner as in the above types (see Chhabra 1986: Pl. XLI.12-18 for illustrations). Kumāragupta I also introduced a silver coin with a reverse depicting a peacock with outspread wings and its tail spread out behind it. This coin type replaces an earlier coin of his father depicting Garuḍa, the vahana of Viṣṇu (Allan 1914: 107-110; Gupta 1974 I: 99). Silver coinage was first adopted by Candragupta II for circulation in the former territories of the Western Kṣatrapas. The Gupta silvers mimic the silver issues of the Kṣatrapas closely with a bust of the king and Greek legend on the obverse, as well as a date of issue for the coin (Gupta 1974 I: 97-98). The legend on the Kumāragupta silvers reads as “Para­ mabhāgavata Mahārājādhirāja Śrī Kumāra Gupta Mahendrā­dityaḥ” (Gupta 1974 I: 99).25 This legend largely follows the pattern established by Candragupta II. Skandagupta, who rules after Kumāra, does not continue the Kārttikeya gold coin of his predecessor, but does maintain the silver issues for circulation in western and central India. He also adds two silver types, a bull type and an altar type (Gupta 1974 I: 99).26 The introduction of the Kārttikeya gold coins and the peacock silver coins represent numismatic innovations by Kumāra and his minters. I have argued above that the message gold coinage was designed to deliver was for an elite audience; those with the wealth and power to see and examine these coins were few in number. This particular coin type is also rare relative to finds of other Kumāragupta I coinage (Chatterjee 1970: 42). Most scholars of Skanda who examine these coins assume that Kumāragupta was a devotee of the deity and issued 24   The identity of this female is unclear. Altekar argues she is Gaṅgā (1957: 70), Chhabra seems to concur (1986: 97), but Gupta rejects this suggestion and argues she likely represents Kumāragupta’s queen (1974 I: 78). 25   Gupta notes that on some coin legends parama is absent and rājādhirāja replaces Mahārājādhirāja. He also notes a legend used in the middle region of the empire that reads: “Vijitavanir avanipatiḥ Kumāra Gupta divaṃ jayati” (1974 I: 99). 26   The reverse of the bull type depicts a recumbent bull; the altar type depicts an altar with three flames coming from it (Gupta 1974 I: 99).

220

chapter nine

his Kārttikeya coin type as homage to him (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 75; Chatterjee 1970: 42; Thakur 1974: 306-307; Sinha 1979: 85). There is also a general understanding among many scholars that these coins were issued by Kumāragupta towards the end of his reign in response to the invasions of the Hūṇas and the Puṣyamitras (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 77; Chatterjee 1970: 44; Thakur 1974: 307; Sinha 1979: 85). Much of this, I hasten to note, is speculation on the part of these scholars. The coins themselves do not necessarily correspond to the devotional tendencies of Kumāragupta, nor does the occasion of their issue necessarily relate to some historical event; the information found on the coins does not allow for such surety of interpretation. We cannot eliminate these potential readings of the coins, but we must also admit an inability to prove any one of them due to a lack of supporting evidence. What the coins do potentially demonstrate is an attempt by Kumāragupta to draw the obvious comparison between himself as king Kumāra and the deity Skanda-Kumāra. Kumāragupta is noticeably nimbate on the obverse of these coins as is Kārttikeya on the reverse. Depicting a king as nimbate on Gupta coins is not without precedent, but the goal on these coins appears to be to inspire comparison. The king is also feeding the peacock on the obverse of the coins. As we have seen from statuary from the eastern part of the Gupta Empire, Skanda is often shown feeding his peacock some sort of fruit. Just how far the king hoped his audience of nobles and wealthy traders would take the comparison is not clear. He may simply imply that he enjoys the particular favour of the deity after whom he is named, or he may imply that he is divine like the deity, a sort of incarnation of Skanda-Kumāra. There is, however, a broader context for understanding these coin issues of Kumāragupta. The Gupta kings, and Kumāragupta in particular, seemed preoccupied with depicting themselves as remarkable individuals, as the very best figures in their realm. Much like Huviṣka’s coinage, Kumāragupta’s coinage attempts to present him as a legitimate and martially powerful ruler. Along with the Kārttikeya coin type he issues an Aśvamedha type with an inscription that reads in part: “King Kumāra Gupta, supreme lord, who has conquered his enemies” (Gupta 1974 I: 86); similar statements of the king’s power are found on the legends of his other coins. He produces several varieties

skanda in the gupta empire

221

of the Lion-slayer type of coin, as well as Swordsman, Archer, Horseman and Rhinoceros-slayer types (Gupta 1974 I: 85-86).27 The king expends considerable energy in a numismatic propaganda campaign that presents him as the best archer, swordsman, horseman, slayer of lions and rhinoceroses in his kingdom. Kumāragupta is not alone in presenting himself on coinage as an ideal hunter and warrior; the Archer, Lion-slayer, Horseman and Aśvamedha coin types are all borrowed from the coinage of Samudragupta and Candragupta II. These other kings also employ such legends on their coins as: “King Chandra Gupta, who is pre-eminent on the earth among unrivalled chariot-warriors, is the destroyer of chariot-warriors” (Gupta 1974 I: 83), and “Wielding the battle-axe of Kṛitānta, the unconquered conqueror [Samudragupta] of (till then) unconquered kings, is victorious” (Gupta 1974 I: 81-82). The prevalent theme on Gupta gold coinage is the military dominance of the king.28 While birthright and lineage appear as a means of legitimacy on Gupta era inscriptions for kings (see Gupta 1974 I: 3-56), these coins make the claim that the Gupta monarchs are kings not by accident of birth, but because they are the best warriors and military leaders in their realm. To some extent these coins express through their emphasis on the prowess of the emperor an anxiety related to the emperor’s right to rule; they seem to envision those who would argue against the birthright of the current ruler. Such anxiety may be well placed: “Indian polity envisages the monarchical rule as hereditary. And the succession was guided by the primogeniture. But in practice, we know, any powerful man could occupy anyone’s throne” (Gupta 1979 II: 13). There is some suggestion that succession in the Gupta court was not directly through the first-born son; rather, the next king was selected on the basis of merit by the sitting ruler. Samudragupta’s Allahābād inscription implies as much: Who, being looked at (with envy) by the faces melancholy (through rejection of themselves) of others of equal birth, while the attendants of the court breathed forth deep sighs (of happiness), was bidden by (his) father—who exclaiming “verily (he is) worthy”, embraced (him) with the hairs of (his) body standing erect (through pleasure) (and   Kumāragupta I produced 14 gold coin types (Chhabra 1986: xxi).  Other themes are present on the coins that relate to non-martial themes. See the lyrist type of coin issued by Samudragupta and Kumāragupta I as an example. These other themes on coinage are, however, vastly outnumbered by the martial theme outlined above. 27 28

222

chapter nine thus) indicative of (his) sentiments... (and) perceptive of (his noble) nature,—(to govern of a surety) the whole world. (Gupta 1974 I: 9; also see Fleet/Bhandarkar 1981: 8-11, 215-216)

This inscription does not indicate that Samudragupta came to power because he was the eldest son of Candragupta I; it suggests, rather, that he was selected from amongst others of equal birth to rule after his father. A similar scenario is suggested on an inscription of Candragupta II with Samudra selecting him as his successor (Gupta 1979 II: 14). These lines of succession may not have been smooth or unchallenged. There is evidence of a power struggle between Rāma­ gupta, a son of Samudragupta, and his younger brother Candra­gupta II. Rāmagupta appears to have ruled briefly after Samudragupta and issued his own coinage before he was deposed by Candra (Gupta 1974 I: 295; Bakker 2006: 169-170). Similar struggles for power likely brought Kumāragupta I and Skandagupta to power. The heir apparent during the reign of Candra­ gupta II may have been Govindagupta, son of the king through his chief queen, and the ruler’s viceroy in Videśā. It is probable that he and Kumāragupta battled for power with Kumāra ultimately emerging as victorious (Bakker 2006: 170-172). The rise of Skandagupta is even more complex with this bastard son of Kumāra beating out Pūrugupta, Kumāra’s legitimate son, and Ghaṭotkaca, Kumāra’s younger brother, for the kingship (Bakker 2006:178-179; Willis 2005: 136-137).29 The transition from one Gupta emperor to the next was rarely smooth, and the process may have created an ample pool of disgruntled relatives each with some claim to the throne as one “of equal birth” to the king. Hence, the potential message on these coins that the ruling king was the best swordsman, archer, lion-slayer and so on in the realm was aimed largely at nobles and courtiers who, at least by birth, had an equal claim to the throne. The Kārttikeya gold coins of Kumāragupta can be understood from within this larger numismatic context. They may reflect some personal devotion on the part of the king, but they more clearly speak to his attempts to present himself as a militarily superior ruler. He is like the god in the sense that he is also a heroic warrior and capable of defending both himself and his kingdom. The prevalent military context of Gupta coinage matches well with the martial characterization of   See Willis (2005) for more on the history of the later Guptas and their lines of succession. 29

skanda in the gupta empire

223

Skanda; he is on the coins to amplify the martial propaganda of the king. Kumāragupta’s use of Kārttikeya on coinage is, then, similar to that of Huviṣka’s. Both are primarily interested in the martial version of the deity, and both employ that image to deliver a message to other elites in their kingdom. Iconographically, the numismatic depictions of Skanda bear little resemblance to the statues found in the western region of the Gupta Empire that featured the deity standing facing the front and holding a cock. The images on these gold coins seem more influenced by the seated images of Skanda with a peacock found in the eastern parts of the empire as well as the images of the deity riding his peacock. The deity is presented as a strong youth; his appearance does not allude to a propitiatory tradition for him. His iconography is softened, but not at the expense of losing some of his martial vigour. The coins lack any obvious reference to a Mātṛ/Mātṛkā context or a Graha context, likely because such contexts have little use on imperial imagery designed to display one’s power and right to rule. Moving on to the silver peacock coins of Kumāragupta, the sub­ stitution of the Garuḍa design for the peacock design may have re­presented a significant shift in imperial emblems. Garuḍa likely func­tioned as the official emblem of the Gupta dynasty. The mythical bird appears at the top of a banner on a number of Gupta gold coins (Raven 1994), and may have been the standard carried by the royal vanguard of the Gupta army (Willis 2005: 131-132). Hence, Kumā­ ragupta’s adoption of the peacock on silver coinage may also indicate a shift in royal and military iconography during his rule from Garuḍa to Skanda and his peacock. Here, however, I must acknowledge a lack of additional evidence to help support this conjecture. The coinage of Skandagupta is difficult to evaluate. It is notable that he does not reissue the Kārttikeya gold coins of Kumāragupta. He issues very few varieties of gold coinage producing several varieties of the Archer type of coinage and a Chhatra type of coin.30 His coin legends are also muted relative to his predecessors. Only two full coin legends survive from the Archer series: “Skanda Gupta, the excellent archer, conquests the earth,” and “The Kramāditya, the benefactor of the others, wins the [sic.] heaven” (Gupta 1974 I: 87). The empire is 30   The Chhatra type of coin depicts the ruler standing to make an offering into an altar. Behind the king stands a dwarf holding an umbrella (a chhatra) over the king’s head.

224

chapter nine

beginning to decline at around the rule of Skandagupta and this lack of coin variety and the modesty of the legends may be reflective of diminished circumstances. Just why he does not continue the Kārtti­ keya gold coinage when it would likely provide him with an obvious tool for propaganda is unclear. He does maintain the silver peacock issues for circulation in the central and western regions of the empire. Also here, however, he introduces two new varieties of silver coinage that appear to have nothing to do with his namesake. The use of Skanda-Kārttikeya as a political emblem during the Gupta period is, then, largely limited to Kumāragupta I, and even here the small number of surviving ‘Kārttikeya’ type coins suggests a small mint run. What Kumāragupta’s use of Skanda on his coinage suggests is a continued manipulation of the deity by elite sections of society. I suggested in the case of Huviṣka’s similar use of the deity that such an elite context does more to limit his cult base and weaken his broader propitiatory and protection cult than it does to strengthen his devotional following. The same is likely the case here with Kumāra­ gupta. Inscriptions Related to Skanda from the Gupta Era A small number of Gupta era inscriptions attest to temples devoted to Kārttikeya. The Bilsad pillar inscription is dated to the reign of Kumāragupta in the year ninety-six (415-16 ce). It records the building of a gateway, a sattra (almshouse), and the erection of the column on which the inscription is written by a figure named Dhruvaśarman (Fleet/Bhandarkar 1981: 269).31 The temple to which Dhruvaśarman donates these items is dedicated to Svāmi Mahāsena: “At this temple of Lord Mahāsēna, the divine (one), whose wondrous body is produced out of the mass of the lustre [tejas] of the three worlds; who is the god Brahmaṇya;...” (Fleet/Bhandarkar 1981: 270). While the evidence is limited, the inscription suggests that the temple was dedicated to the military persona of the deity, as does it link that persona to the epithet Brahmaṇyadeva, the Yaudheya name for Skanda on their class three coins. This inscription may imply that the Yaudheya vision of the deity as Brahmaṇyadeva and the Kuṣāṇa view of him as Mahāsena were merged by the Gupta era. 31

  For more detail on sattras in Gupta era inscriptions see Willis (2009: 204-208).

skanda in the gupta empire

225

Another temple dedicated to Mahāsena is found in the Valkhā kingdom, a central Indian tributary state of the Guptas. A copperplate inscription of Mahārāja Bhuluṇḍa, who may have ruled at the same time as Samudragupta (Ramesh and Tewari 1990: viii), describes a land grant donated to support a temple to the deity. It reads: “May it be known to you that we have granted, to the god Mahāsēnadēva installed by us, the three villages of Bhēravāṭaka, Bēṭṭapahaka and Pukaga...” (Ramesh and Tewari 1990: 20-21). The use of Mahāsena as the main epithet of Skanda in this inscription may suggest that the shrine was dedicated to the martial persona of the deity. The Valkhā royal sponsorship of this Mahāsena temple implies a political dynamic similar to Kumāragupta’s support of Kārttikeya and Huviṣka’s of Mahāsena; the military deity is a component of Valkhā royal propaganda. The remainder of the Valkhā copper-plate inscriptions suggest, however, that Mahāsena was not the focal point of royal sponsorship or devotion in this kingdom. A number of the inscriptions record devotion to Bappapiśāchadeva, a form of Śiva, and Nārāyaṇa (Ramesh and Tewari 1990: 1-10, 12-14, 26-29). While Mahāsena is part of the pantheon sponsored by the Valkhā’s, he appears to be a minor concern relative to these other divinities in this kingdom. The Sohawal (Baghelkhand) copper plate inscription also makes direct reference to a temple dedicated to Kārttikeya (Halder 1927-28: 127, 129). This inscription states that a king named Sarvanātha, an Uchchhakalpa ruler, donated a village to Viśākhadatta and Śakti for the maintenance of a temple to “bhagavatasvāmī kārttikeyasvāmī” (Halder 1927-28: 129). The inscription likely dates to 510-11 ce (Halder 1927-28: 128).32 This early sixth century inscription demonstrates the existence of temples dedicated to Kārttikeya run by devotees with personal names related to the deity.33 Unlike the inscriptions above, the Sohawal inscription is not suggestive of a martial persona for the deity. Only one inscription of the Gupta Empire alludes to Skanda and Mātṛs together. The Bihar stone pillar inscription of Budhagupta was likely installed during the reign of Skandagupta (Fleet/Bhandarkar 32   There has been debate over the date for this inscription. It is dated to the year 191 of an unspecified era (Halder 1927-28: 128). Most scholars of Skanda who discuss the piece follow R. R. Halder in arguing that the era belongs to the Guptas (Chatterjee 1970: 44-45; Sinha 1979: 95). 33   Viśākhadatta means servant of Viśākha and Śakti may refer to Skanda’s emblematic spear.

226

chapter nine

1981: 346). The pillar and inscription are damaged, but it makes a clear reference to Skanda and the Mātṛs: “Skanda-prādhanair-bhuvi mātṛbhis,” or “headed by (the god) Skanda, and by the divine Mothers, on the earth” (Fleet/Bhandarkar 1981: 347, 349). The damaged state of the inscription does not allow for a complete understanding of the reference, but it suggests that Skanda was still associated on occasion with the Mātṛs into the latter half of the fifth century, and that this cult was also found in the eastern region of the Gupta Empire. Most of the other epigraphic references to Mātṛs from the Gupta Empire do not mention Kumāra. A Gangdhar (Western Malwā) stone inscription of Viśvavarman records the building of a temple to Viṣṇu and another to the Mātṛs. Viśvavarman was a feudatory of Kumāra­ gupta I (Fleet 1970: 72-78). Any mention of Skanda-Kārttikeya is noticeably absent from the record of this Gupta era temple.34 The Supia inscription also mentions the consecration of an image of Ṣaṣṭhī by a figure named Chandaka during the reign of Skandagupta (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 77; Sinha 1979: 94). No mention of Kārttikeya is given in this inscription either. The evidence from Gupta inscriptions suggests that Skanda is predominantly portrayed through his martial persona and that his ties to the Mātṛ cult have weakened. Having stated this much, however, the Gupta era inscriptions need to be evaluated against a broader epigraphic backdrop that is suggestive of an enduring connection between Skanda and Mātṛs in the Gupta and post-Gupta eras. The Kadamba Kingdom flourished in the south of India and in the Deccan from the fourth to sixth centuries ce. The kings of Kadamba repeatedly invoke Skanda with the Mātṛs in their inscriptions. The Talagunda inscription of Kakusthavarman, a Kadamba king, describes the deeds of the founding king, Mayūraśarman, and his lineage. Part of the inscription reads: Of him [Mayūraśarman]—whom Shaḍānana, whose lotus-feet are polished by the crowns of the assembly of the gods, anointed, after meditating on Sênâpati with the Mothers—the son was Kaṅgavarman, who performed lofty great exploits in terrible wars, (and) whose diadem was shaken by the white chowries of all the chiefs of districts who bowed down (before him). (Kielhorn 1905-06a: 35) 34   It is Mayūrākṣaka, a minister of Viśvavarman, who actually builds the two temples along with a drinking well. Willis argues that the minister’s name, Mayūrākṣaka (literally, ‘Peacock-eye’), implies he represented himself as “the watchful support of Skanda” (2009: 178-179). I am unsure of this argument.

skanda in the gupta empire

227

Other parts of the inscription also present Mayūraśarman as a great general (Kielhorn 1905-06a: 29). That the founding king, a great military leader, meditates on the six-mouthed Senāpati (Skanda) with the Mātṛs fits the royal agenda I have argued for in relation to Skanda’s transformation into Mahāsena. It seems here that this same martial transformation is carried over to the Mātṛs as well. A reference to Skanda and the Mātṛs becomes a stock phrase in Kadamba inscriptions. In the Sangoli plates of Harivarman, for instance, we read: “Success! In the victorious (city of) Vaijayanti, (in the family) of the Kadambas, who were consecrated in meditation upon the Lord Kārttikeya [svāmi mahāsena] and the host of (his) mothers;...” (Dikshit 1917-18: 167).35 The phrase svāmi mahāsena mātṛgaṇānuddhyānābhiṣiktānām, or something close to it, reoccurs in a number of Kadamba inscriptions. Skanda and the Mātṛs are not the only deities mentioned in these inscriptions. Another stock phrase that opens many of the Kadamba inscriptions praises Śiva (see Kielhorn 1905-06a: 31; Dikshit 1917-18: 166). The Kadambas are not exclusively devoted to Mahāsena and the Mātṛs, and one gets little sense of a wide-spread devotional cult beyond the royal lineage to these figures from these inscriptions. It may also not be a coincidence that Mahāsena and the Mātṛs are repeatedly invoked in the Kadamba inscriptions in relation to the abhiṣekas of their kings. As I noted in my discussion of Skanda’s abhiṣeka rites in the Āraṇyakaparvan and the Śalyaparvan, the ritual marks the deity as a full member of the divine royal court as the general of the army of the gods. Through these inscriptions, the Kadamba kings seem to recognize the legitimating nature of the abhiṣeka and apply it to their own right to rule; a rule made legitimate, in part, through the example of, and their devotion to, Mahāsena. The Kadamba material gives us a glimpse of a kingdom operating during the period of Gupta rule who link a martial form of Kārttikeya with the Mātṛs as a formal aspect of their royal public image. The Kadamba use of Mahāsena and the Mātṛs suggests that their cult and perceived role became increasingly the purview of royal figures. A very similar stock phrase is also found on Cāḷukya inscriptions. The Cāḷukyas depose the Kadambas in the Deccan during the sixth

  K. N. Dikshit’s translation is somewhat misleading in that the Sanskrit reads “svāmi-mahāsena” as opposed to ‘svāmi-kārttikeya’ as implied by his translation. 35

228

chapter nine

century ce. The Sanjan copper-plates of Buddhavarsa provide a suitable example of their use of Skanda and the Mātṛs: ... the glorious Chalukyas, who belong to the Mānavya gōtra, which is praised by the whole world; the Hārīti-people; who have been anointed by the seven (divine) mothers [saptamātar]; who meditate on the feet of the illustrious Mahāsena (Kārttikeya); who through the protection of Kārttikeya have obtained continuous prosperity.... (Konow 1917-18: 151)

The Cāḷukya example shows some similarities to the Kadamba inscriptions. Both link the Mātṛs with Mahāsena and both mention meditating on Skanda in relation to their royal lineage. An important shift may be the reference to the Saptamātars found in the Cāḷukya text. The Kadambas only refer to the group of Mothers, the Mātṛgaṇa; the movement to the Seven Mothers is part of that group’s progressive separation from Skanda in Gupta era iconography. As the Mothers become the Śaktis of various male deities they appear in iconographic sources as seven or eight goddesses flanked by a form of Śiva and Gaṇeśa by at least the sixth century (Harper 1989: 127-128). Hence, this seventh century inscription recognizes the emergence of the Saptamātara tradition, and, at least in this context, continues to link it to Skanda.36 The Cāḷukya inscription also more clearly identifies Mahāsena/ Kārttikeya with the protection of the ruling family, its broader gotra and its population as a whole. This protection is, in turn, equated with bringing prosperity to these various familial and political divisions. A dynamic is constructed that sees the Mātṛs and Mahāsena oversee the protection and prosperity of the realm in part through their human representative, the legitimate king. Protection was likely a central element of Skanda-Kārttikeya’s early cult, but with these inscriptions much of this tradition has been transferred to a political message in connecting the royal family to these deities. As with the Kadambas, it is important to acknowledge that the Cāḷukyas mention a number of other deities in their inscriptions. Varāha seems to have been a particularly prominent emblem of the ruling dynasty, as do they display devotion to Nārāyaṇa and Śiva (Konow 1917-18: 151; Sircar 1957-58: 178, 182; Willis 2009: 96). As Michael Willis notes, this combination of deities (Śiva, Skanda, Mātṛs,   Konow proposes a late seventh century date for the inscription, see his article (1917-18: 146) for issues related to the date of this inscription. 36

skanda in the gupta empire

229

Varāha and Nārāyaṇa) is also found at Udayagiri as part of the imperial message of that site (2009: 96). The Kadamba and Cāḷukya inscriptions may help to explain the Gupta use of the Mātṛ shrines at Udayagiri. The shrines coalesce around caves for Skanda and Śiva and may depict both deities in the Mātṛ shrines themselves. If the Guptas thought of Mahāsena and the Mātṛs in a similar manner as the Kadam­ bas, then they likely viewed them in association with their royal lineage, military campaigns and the protection of the kingdom/empire (Willis 2009: 96). Katherine Anne Harper also views the Udayagiri Mātṛ shrines as having martial associations. She points to the banners held by the goddesses and connects them to battle standards (2002: 125). We lack an inscription at Udayagiri that would clearly illustrate the Gupta perception of the Mātṛ shrines and their link to Mahāsena, but there does appear to have been a royal cult to Mahāsena and the Mātṛs in the Kadamba and Cāḷukya kingdoms, which suggests the Guptas may have employed a similar royal cult at Udayagiri. The relative absence of Gupta inscriptions relating to Skanda-Kāttikeya and the Mātṛs needs to be understood from this larger perspective. Skanda likely maintained a protective role in association with the Mātṛs/ Mātṛkās in the Gupta Empire, a political aspect of the deity likely first employed by the Yaudheyas in the first century ce. These protective aspects of the deity and his cult have become closely tied to royal and imperial imagery and propaganda by the Gupta era. The Kadamba and Cāḷukya inscriptions, the coins of Kumāragupta and the remains at Udayagiri are all designed to advance the prestige of the ruler through the support of Mahāsena and other figures. The largely nonelite aspects of Skanda’s tradition become harder to trace by the Gupta era and may have become minor aspects of his cult due to the political appropriation of his protection and military traditions and an apparent lack of royal interest in the Graha aspects of his cult. The Relative Popularity of Skanda during the Gupta Era A number of scholars refer to the Gupta period as the “golden age of Kārttikeya worship” (P. K. Agrawala 1967: 75; also see Chatterjee 1970: 41; Thakur 1974: 306-307). I will attempt to question this assump­tion in what follows. The majority of the Gupta emperors appear to have been followers of Vaiṣṇavism with some calling themselves parama bhāgavatas (Chatterjee 1970: 41). This phrase may

230

chapter nine

indicate that they were members of a Vaiṣṇava sect named the Bhā­ gavatas (Gupta 1979 II: 148-155). The material record of Can­dragupta II strongly supports his use of Vaiṣṇavism as part of his imperial ideology and rhetoric (Harle 1974: 5). Udayagiri does much to support an argument for the Vaiṣṇava leanings of the Guptas (Willis 2009: 10-78; also see Asher 1983: 55-56 and Williams 1982: 45-46). Inter­ pretations of the Vaiṣṇava images at Udayagiri differ, but the site clearly illustrates that the Guptas employed Hindu religious imagery as part of their ruling ideology. Kārttikeya was part of this political adoption of religious imagery during the Gupta era, but relative to the use of Vaiṣṇava imagery, Skanda’s role in Gupta ideology seems minor and largely focused in the rule of Kumāragupta I. It is also clear from the examination of cave temples and other western sites that there is a progressive distancing of Skanda-Kārtti­ keya from the Mātṛ tradition as both are absorbed into Śaivism. By the sixth century the sculptural record associates the Mātṛs/Mātṛkās almost exclusively with Gaṇeśa and Śiva. Even at sites where Skanda and Mātṛs or potential Grahas are found together, those same sites present Kārttikeya as a secondary element of Śaivism. Elements of the inscriptional evidence also suggest that the Mātṛs may have been separated from their Graha roots and transformed into royal and imperial martial figures with Mahāsena. Kumāra’s independent cult does not disappear with mention of some temples dedicated to the deity, but his status as a more minor figure becomes clear once we examine all of the evidence. I suspect the claims for a golden era of Kārttikeya worship in the Gupta era are based in a general perception that this era was a golden age of all things Hindu. The evidence from the Gupta era, however, depicts a cult in decline. His absorption into Śaivism and the progressive separation of him from his Mātṛ tradition as well as the transformation of that aspect of his cult removes him from his former cult base. As a Śaiva figure he is always presented as secondary to Śiva and Pārvatī. His role has also been limited during the rule of Kumāragupta to a martial deity and a divine support to the ruling emperor. There is little evidence for a broad-based, popular and independent cult to Kumāra during the period of Gupta rule. The evidence of Skanda’s cult in the Gupta period does not suggest a golden age of devotion; rather, it indicates a tradition undergoing significant transformation that results in a secondary Śaiva figure by the sixth century ce.

CONCLUSION This study has argued that Skanda-Kārttikeya’s propitiation cult was likely the ‘popular’ version of his worship in north India in the early centuries of the Common Era. His cult was likely designed to keep Grahas and Mātṛs away from children and pregnant women, but also to have some of these figures take on protective roles with infants, foetuses, pregnant women and, perhaps, even entire political groups like the Yaudheyas. While Skanda and his Grahas may have been worshipped out of fear in the context of fertility, this worship was likely extensive and shared by all sections of society. The barriers of social class, caste and religious affiliation were likely overcome by this tradition because unsuccessful pregnancy and infant mortality were events that presumably occurred in all sections of ancient Indian society. The class three coinage of the Yaudheyas and the material traditions of Mathurā during the period of Kuṣāṇa rule suggest that the Graha and Mātṛ centred tradition was more than a cult oriented towards the protection of pregnant women and young children. The protective role of these figures once propitiated was likely expanded to a political role with the Yaudheyas and, as evidenced by the panels from Mathurā, probably expressed in a public context beyond the private devotion of human mothers. Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra and Ṣaṣṭhī may have been perceived as the tutelary deities of the Yaudheya people. The breadth of Skanda’s propitiation and protection cult was likely broad both in terms of personal devotion related to fertility and in the larger political usage of the deity by groups like the Yaudheyas. The shift from Skandagraha and Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra to Mahā­ sena that comes to dominate the orthodox Hindu tradition appears to originate in Kuṣāṇa Gandhāra where an exclusively martial form of the deity emerged in statuary. The Rabatak inscription and the coinage of Huviṣka suggest that Mahāsena became part of an imperially sanctioned cult designed to support the ruling monarch. The Graha cult had no place in such a program of imperial propaganda. I would also suggest that these imperial designs on Kārttikeya’s cult shift the emphasis of his politically based protection tradition from one focused on the state as a whole to that of the head of the state. The Yaudheyas of the class three coinage era do not appear to have a monarch; it is a

232

conclusion

simple step to suggest that Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra was the tutelary deity of the entire Yaudheya group. Huviṣka’s use of the deity speaks more to his personal authority as emperor rather than the broader protection of the people in his realm.1 These largely politically motivated shifts in the cult endure past the Kuṣāṇa era with political groups and individual monarchs such as the Ikṣvākus and Kumāragupta repeating the political use of the deity as a martial supporter of the ruling class. These shifts in Kārttikeya’s cult work to separate him from his Graha and Mātṛ contexts particularly as a broad-based protective deity. After the Yaudheyas of the first and second centuries ce, no other political group depicts the deity on coinage in association with Grahas or Mātṛs. Statues and panels of the deity related to the Graha and Mātṛ traditions also become progressively rare after the Kuṣāṇa period. The martial and political image of the deity probably limited his once broad-based devotional cult to those directly engaged in court life and military service. Signs that Kumāra’s Graha connections endure are found in the Gupta and post-Gupta eras, but this aspect of the deity’s tradition is much reduced by this period and increasingly compartmentalized to issues of human reproduction. This limiting of Kārttikeya’s sphere of action to martial themes focused on the person of the ruler does much, I suggest, to damage his once popular propitiatory and protective cult. These politically driven shifts in Kumāra’s cult are also mirrored by religious shifts recorded primarily in the textual tradition. The Brahminical tradition is also interested in developing the cult of Kārttikeya, but largely to the exclusion of the Graha aspect of it. The Āraṇyakaparvan can be read as something of a summary of the Brahminical approach to this deity. He begins as powerful figure, but is also a danger to the established order of the Vedic world. He is converted to a more orthodox characterization by being made subject to Brahminical ritual, and by being placed in a variety of familial roles. Once he is ritually converted into the Senāpati of the gods, he is largely separated from his former dangerous persona. Finally, once he is 1   It may well be the case that the person of the emperor and the state were viewed as profoundly interrelated categories in the ancient world. The legitimacy of the ruler and the legitimacy of the state may not have been easily distinguished in the minds of Kuṣāṇa nobility and perhaps among the everyday populace. Having stated this much, however, the differences between Yaudheya political expression and its use of Kārttikeya and those of Huviṣka are different and support the argument made above.

conclusion

233

­recognized as the son of Śiva, other powerful aspects of his cult like the Mātṛs are siphoned off into Śaivism. His role within textual Hinduism becomes limited to the slayer of Tāraka and son of Śiva without reference to other aspects of his cult. While exceptions to this can be found in certain texts from the Āyurvedic corpus, the dominant textual tradition comes to present him as a secondary figure within Śaivism who fulfils one martial role in the universe. The cult of Śiva grew by absorbing other cults into itself each designed and modified to further the greatness of Śiva. In Skanda’s case this meant the eventual loss of his Mātṛ cult and taking on the same role he had with human emperors and kings; he was there to support and amplify the greatness of the leader rather than to increase his own cult base. The almost complete transference of Brahminical discussion of Skanda­ graha to Āyurvedic texts also speaks to the compartmentalization of that aspect of his tradition. The previous breadth of the protective aspect of his cult in everyday society becomes limited to fertility and protection from childhood illness. These developments all weaken Kārttikeya’s cult base in the postKuṣāṇa era until it is difficult to describe him as ‘popular’ in a broad sense of the term by the Gupta era. In suggesting this I argue against most scholars who see a progressive rise in the popularity of SkandaKārttikeya’s cult from the Kuṣāṇa period to his supposed golden era of devotion in the Gupta period. The sudden decline of Skanda’s cult in the north by the seventh century is presented as a mystery by most scholars tracing the history of this tradition.2 I have argued for an inverse trajectory. The Kuṣāṇa era witnesses the height of this cult in northern India. It is during this era that the Mathurā panels depicting Skanda with Ṣaṣṭhī and Mātṛs appear in some abundance. It is also during this era that the cults of Skanda-Mahāsena and Skandagraha appear to coexist in the material record of the Kuṣāṇa Empire. The shifts that occur in the Kuṣāṇa era, however, permanently change Kumāra’s cult and lead to a steady erosion of his propitiatory cult base until it becomes a minor tradition by the Gupta era. This is not to say that Skanda had no following during this period or that he was 2   For instance, it comes as something of a surprise in Chatterjee’s The Cult of Skanda-Kārttikeya in Ancient India when he reports, “Skanda’s popularity in Northern India seems to have declined after the Gupta age” (1970: 48). The surprise for the reader comes from Chatterjee’s extended attempt to demonstrate the deity’s popularity during the Gupta era; the author is simply unable to explain what appears to him to be a sudden drop in the deity’s popularity by the seventh century ce.

234

conclusion

c­ ompletely removed from his propitiation cult, but it is clear that his independent cult base is significantly diminished by the seventh century. The appearance of a popular cult in the Gupta era is just that, the appearance of popularity through royal and ministerial sponsorship rather than evidence of widespread worship. With the disappearance of the Guptas and the Cāḷukyas in the north his cult does virtually disappear because much of his protective and propitiatory cult base was long ago eroded and transferred to other sources, or it became hidden from textual and artistic aspects of the tradition surviving in the largely undocumented rites of women in pregnancy and childbirth. For an example of this process in the post-Gupta era we can briefly return to the Kādambarī. Bāṇa’s poem situates Graha and Mātṛ worship within a royal household, but does not connect it to the military or political power of the king. In this text a king hopes to have children, but his initial attempts to have a child with his queen have been unsuccessful. The queen fears their efforts are fruitless because she has been possessed by a Great Grasper (mahāgraha); she has been to see an exorcist (narendra) of Grahas, but without result (Kb in Kale 1968: 104).3 Among her practices designed to ensure a successful pregnancy she conducts rituals with great magicians (mahānarendra) at crossroads at night. She goes to the local shrines for Mātṛs, and she wears amulets made of medical plants and amulets with mantras written on them (Kb in Kale 1968: 108-109). All of these activities correlate to elements of the rites for Skandagraha and Dhūrta we have examined. Finally, I have already cited the scene from the birthing room where older ladies of the household prepare a cloth image of Ṣaṣṭhī and an image of Skanda on his peacock. Cloth images of the Mātṛs are also made by these women and worshipped by the nurses who will care for the mother and son (Kb in Kale 1968: 98-99). While it is difficult to know with certainty if Bāṇa’s narrative is an accurate reflection of life in a seventh century palace, it certainly suggests that the cult of Skanda, Ṣaṣṭhī and Mātṛs was practised in an elite context. There is value in noting, however, that most of the Graha and Mātṛ rites and references occur outside of what might be termed orthodox Brahminical religion. The magicians or physicians (narendra) the queen seeks out are not described by the text as Brahmins. 3

  The page references are to the Sanskrit text in Kale.

conclusion

235

The preparations and worship made in the birthing room are carried out by older palace women and nurses. The king and male members of his court never seem to participate in the rites to Grahas and Mātṛs. When the king first hears of his wife’s concern that she is possessed by a Graha his response is to blame their lack of a child on daiva (‘fate’, or ‘the will of the gods’) (Kb in Kale 1968: 105); he does not seem willing to entertain the idea that a Graha attack might be behind their problems. He plays no role in his queen’s devotional practices to Grahas and Mātṛs and never appears in the birthing room where the images of Skanda, Ṣaṣṭhī and Mātṛs are prepared and honoured. Hence, while the context of this devotion to Skanda is elite, the figures sponsoring and performing the rites are not members of a religious or political elite either by virtue of their gender or their status as Narendras.4 The Kādambarī illustrates that Skanda’s Graha cult endures, but only within the rites of women surrounding pregnancy and birth; that aspect of the tradition seems largely unacknowledged by the elite male political and religious tradition for whom Skanda-Kārttikeya has a completely different role to play. Such a pattern is also reflected in the rest of the textual tradition. References to Grahas and accounts of rituals to them continue to occur in Āyurvedic texts, arguably the texts of magicians/physicians, only in relation to issues of fertility and pregnancy. Much of the remainder of the textual tradition, as we have seen, ignores this Graha cult in relation to Kumāra, but the elite Brahminical textual tradition rarely addresses the rites of women and practices of those it views as outside of its orthodoxy. Indeed, while it is difficult to trace the historical development of this ‘folk’ or ‘subaltern’ tradition, the fertility traditions of Skanda and Ṣaṣṭhī remain active today in certain regions of South Asia. The Bengali traditions of Kārtik (Kārttikeya) and Ṣaṣṭhī continue today as part of women’s rites related to pregnancy and the protection of the young. Writing some forty years ago, Edward C. Dimock notes that many villages in Bengal have a Ṣaṣṭhītolā, a place where the goddess is thought to reside (1969: 217). He states in his study of seventeenth century Bengali Maṅgal stories of the goddess that her history in that region is obscure and cannot be traced beyond the early sixteenth century (1969: 218, 221). The Ṣaṣṭhīmaṅgal presents the   Narendra can mean a king, but given the context of these sections of the Kādambarī it is best translated as magician or physician. 4

236

conclusion

g­ oddess as basically a merciful deity. Her vahana, a cat, steals children from new mothers and through propitiation Ṣaṣṭhī returns them. She has twelve forms corresponding to the twelve months. Each form is to be worshipped in the appropriate month on the sixth day (Dimock 1969: 221-226). Skanda is only mentioned once in the story and not in connection to Ṣaṣṭhī’s Graha-like activities: “Pay careful attention to [this description of] the greatness of Ṣaṣṭhī. She saved the life of Kārtik in battle, and because of this the three worlds resound with shouts of gladness” (Dimock 1969: 226, square parentheses in the original). One of her twelve forms is also known as Skandaṣaṣṭhī (Dimock 1969: 221). Hence, the traditions of Ṣaṣṭhī endure as does her connection to Kārttikeya, but he is not explicitly referred to as a Graha. Tony K. Stewart has studied the modern Bengali narratives of Ṣaṣṭhī in connection with vratas. He notes that these vows are undertaken by younger married women. Men are not involved in the practice of them, and the tradition is basically an oral one transferred from older to younger women. References to Kārttikeya are absent from the stories that explain these vratas (Stewart 1995: 352-355). I have, however, encountered stories of vratas in Bengal where Kārtik was the focus of the vow designed to produce a son.5 The Graha traditions never leave Hinduism, rather this aspect of Kumāra’s personality is elided from the vast majority of textual and material sources of the tradition. This paucity of sources makes tracing the tradition in the north of India beyond the seventh century ce difficult, if not impossible. One can only state that a fertility and protective tradition for the deity is still practised in the modern era presumably transmitted from generation to generation of women through informal channels and Āyurvedic traditions for over a millennia.

5   Dr. P. B. Mukharji has recounted to me stories of vratas for Kārtik conducted by women experiencing fertility problems. He notes that these rites appear to have been practised by middle class Bengali women, but are becoming much less common in the contemporary era.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adriaensen, R., H. T. Bakker, and H. Isaacson. 1998. “Prolegomena.” In The Skanda­ purāṇa. Vol. 1. Adhyāyas 1-25. Critically Edited with Prolegomena and English Synopsis, eds. R. Adriaensen, H. T. Bakker, and H. Isaacson, 3-56. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Agrawala, P. K. 1967. Skanda-Kārttikeya [A Study in the Origin and Development]. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. ———. 1971. “Identification of the so-called Nāgī Figures as Goddess Ṣaṣṭhī.” East and West 21: 325-329. Agrawala, R. C. 1966a. “Six Headed Skanda on Yaudheya Coins.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 28: 200-202. ———. 1966b. “An Interesting Relief from the Swat Valley.” East and West 16: 82-83. ———. 1967. “Six Headed Skanda.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 29: 41. ———. 1968. “Six Headed Goddess on Yaudheya Coins.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 30: 181-183. ———. 1971. “Mother and child sculptures from Śāmalāji and Rajasthan.” Bulletin of the Museum and Picture Gallery, Baroda 23:101-115. ———. 1992. “Skanda with Cock and Peacock: A Rare Device in Gandhara Art.” In Eastern Approaches: Essays on Asian Art and Archaeology, ed. T. S. Maxwell, 130132. Delhi: Oxford University Press. ———. 1993. “Ṣaṣṭhī in Gandharan Art.” East and West 43: 271-275. ———. 1995. “Skanda-Ṣaṣṭhī in Gandharan Reliefs—A Review.” East and West 45: 329-332. Agrawala, V. S. 1943. “Goddess Shashṭhī on the Yaudheya Coins.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 5: 29-32. ———. 1961. “Fire in the Ṛidveda.” East and West 11: 28-32. ———. 1963. India as Known to Pāṇini. 2nd rev. ed. Varanasi: Prithvi Prakashan. ———. 1965. Indian Epigraphy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ———. 1970. Ancient Indian Folk Cults. Varanasi: Prithivi Prakashan. Ahmad, Nisar. 1977. “The Kumāras—A Forgotten Ancient Indian Tribe.” In Seminar Papers on the Tribal Coins of Ancient India (c. 200 bc to 400 ad), eds. Jai Prakash Singh and Nisar Ahmad, 154-192. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. ———. 1985. “Two Local Rulers of Garhwal (U.P.).” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 47: 106-112. ———. 1988. “The Coins of the Regal Titled Janapadas.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 50: 64-70. Ahmad, Nisar and M. Kumar. 1993. “The Reminted Type IV Coins of the Yaudheyas.” Numismatic Studies 3: 49-54. Ahmad, Nisar and Farhang K. Nadooshan. 1993. “A Lead Signet of the Yaudheyas and Reappraisal of their Certain Published Seals.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 55: 152-154. Ahmad, Nisar and Jai Prakash Singh, eds. 1977. Seminar Papers on the Tribal Coins of Ancient India (c. 200 bc to 400 ad). Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. Allan, John. 1914. Catalogue of the Coins of Gupta dynasties and of Śaśāṅka, king of Gauḍa (in the British Museum). London: The British Museum. ———. 1936. Catalogue of the Coins of Ancient India. London: Trustees of the British Museum.

238

bibliography

Altekar, A. S. 1949. “Some Rare and Unique Coins in the Prince of Wales Museum, Bombay.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 11: 44-63. ———. 1962 (1949). State and Government in Ancient India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ———. 1954. Catalogue of the Gupta Gold Coins in the Bayana Hoard. Bombay: Numismatic Society of India. ———. 1957. The Coinage of the Gupta Empire and Its Imitations. Corpus of Indian Coins, IV. Varanasi: Numismatic Society of India. Aravamuthan, T. G. 1948. “More Gods of Harappa.” Journal of the Bihar Research Society 34: 31-82. Arbman, Ernst. 1922. Rudra; untersuchungen zum altindischen glauben und kultus. Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandehn. Asher, Frederick M. 1983. “Historical and Political Allegory in Gupta Art.” In Essays on Gupta Culture, ed. Bardwell Smith, 53-66. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Ashṭadhyāyī of Pānini. 1962 (1891). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Atharvavediya Paippalādasaṃhitā. 1964. Ed. D. Bhattacharya. Calcutta: Sanskrit College. Atharvavedapariśiṣṭa. Chaukhambha Prachyavidya Granthamala. No. 1. 1976. Eds. George Melville Bolling, Julius von Negelein and Ram Kumar Rai. Varanasi: Chau­khambha Orientalia. Bajpai, K. D. 1973. “Yaudheya Coins—A Critical Study.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 35: 90-94. Bakker, Hans T. 2004. “The Structure of the Vārāṇasīmāhātmya in Skandapurāṇa 26-31.” In Origin and Growth of the Purāṇic Text Corpus with Special Reference to the Skandapurāṇa. Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference. Vol. 3.2, ed. Hans T. Bakker, 1-16. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ———. 2006. “A Theatre of Broken Dreams: Vidiśā in the Days of Gupta Hegemony.” In Interrogating History: Essays for Hermann Kulke, eds. Martin Brandtner and Shishir Kumar Panda, 165-188. New Delhi: Manohar. Bakker, Hans T. and Harunaga Isaacson. 2004. “A Sketch of the Religious History of Vārāṇasī up to the Islamic Conquest and the New Beginning.” In The Skanda­ purāṇa. Volume IIA. Adhyāyas 26-31.14. The Vārāṇasī Cycle. Critical Edition with an Introduction, English Synopsis and Philological and Historical Commentary, eds. Hans T. Bakker and Harunaga Isaacson, 19-82. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Bāṇa’s Kādambarī. Edited with New Sanskrit Commentary Tattvaprakāśikā, Intro­ duction, Notes and a literal English Translation. 1968. Trans. M. R. Kāle. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Bandyopadhyay, Pratap. 1986. “Did Kālidāsa Complete the Kumārasambhava?” Jour­ nal of the American Oriental Society 106: 559-564. Banerjea, J. N. 1951. “The Reading and Interpretation of Some Yaudheya Coin Legends.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 13: 160-163. ———. 1956. The Development of Hindu Iconography. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. ———. 1960. “Interpretation of a few symbols on some tribal coins of ancient India.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 22: 43-46. Basham, A. L., ed. 1968. Papers on the date of Kanishka. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1974. “Forward.” In The Imperial Guptas. Vol. 1. Varanasi: Vishwavidyalaya Prakashan, i-ii. ———. 1983. “Introduction.” In Essays on Gupta Culture, ed. Bardwell L. Smith, 1-13. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Bedekar, V. M. 1975. “Kārttikeya (Skanda) in Sanskrit Literature, with Special Refer­ ence to the Mahābhārata: From A Folk Spirit to the Chief War-God.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 56: 141-177.

bibliography

239

Bhandarkar, D. R. 1990 (1921). Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. Bhide, V. V. 1967. “Cock in Vedic Literature.” Bhāratīya Vidyā 27: 1-6. Bisschop, Peter and Arlo Griffiths. 2003. “The Pāśupata Observance (Atharvaveda­ pariśiṣṭa 40).” Indo-Iranian Journal 46: 315-348. Biswas, T. K., and Bhogendra Jha. 1985. “Forward.” In Gupta Sculptures: Bharat Kala Bhavan, vi-viii. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. Bopearachchi, Osmund. 2007. “Some Observations on the Chronology of the Early Kushans.” In Des Indo-Grecs aux Sassanides: Donnés pour l’Histoire et la Géo­ graphie Historique. Res Orientales. Vol. XVII, ed. Rika Gyselen, 41-52. Bures-surYvette: Groupe pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient. Bopearachchi, Osmund and W. Pieper. 1998. Ancient Indian Coins. Turnhout: Brepols. Boyce, Mary and Frantz Grenet. 1991. A History of Zoroastrianism. Volume Three: Zoro­astrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill. Brahma Purāṇa. Gurumaṇḍala Series 11. 1954. 2 vols. Calcutta: Manasukharāya Mora. Bṛhaddharma Purāṇa. 1974. Ed. Haraprasad Shastri. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Ama­ rabharati. Brockington, John. 1998. The Sanskrit Epics. Handbuch der Orientalistik, 2.12. Leiden: Brill. van Buitenen, J. A. B., trans. 1973-78. The Mahābhārata. 3 Vols. Chicago: The Uni­ versity of Chicago Press. Burrow, T. 1946. “The Date of Śyāmilaka’s ‘Pādatāditaka.’” The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1: 46-53. Callieri, P. 1997. Seals and Sealings from the North-West of the Indian Subcontinent and Afghanistan (4th Century bc—11th Century ad). Local, Indian, Sasanian, Graeco-Persian, Sogdian, Roman. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale Istituto Italiano Per L’Africa e L’Oriente. Chakravarty, B. 1987. “A Study in the Chemical Compositions of Copper-Based Yaudheya Coins.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 49: 148-152. Chatterjee, Asim Kumar. 1970. The Cult of Skanda-Kārttikeya in Ancient India. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak. Chattopadhyay, B. 1967. The Age of the Kushāṇas—A Numismatic Study. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak. Chhabra, Bahadur Chand. 1959-60. “Nagarjunakonda Inscription of Ehavalasri’s Time, Year 11.” Epigraphia Indica 33: 147-149. ———. 1986. Catalogue of the Gupta Gold Coins of the Bayana Hoard in the National Museum. New Delhi: National Museum. Clothey, F. W. 1978. The Many Faces of Murukaṉ: The History and Meaning of a South Indian God. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Collins, Charles Dillard. 1988. The Iconography and Ritual of Śiva at Elephanta. Albany: State University of New York Press. Couture, André and Charlotte Schmid. 2001. “The Harivaṃśa, The Goddess Ekā­ naṃśā, and the Iconography of the Vṛṣṇi Triads.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 121: 173-192. Cribb, Joe. 1985. “A Re-Examination of the Buddha Images on the Coins of King Kaniṣka: New Light on the Origins of the Buddha Image in Gandharan Art.” In Studies in Buddhist Art of South Asia, ed. A. K. Narain, 59-87. New Delhi: Kanak Publications.

240

bibliography

———. 1997. “Shiva images on Kushan and Kushano-Sasanian coins.” In Studies in Silk Road Coins and Culture: Papers in honour of Professor Ikuo Hirayama on his 65th birthday, eds. Katsumi Tanabe, Joe Cribb and Helen Wang, 11-66. Kamakura: The Institute of Silk Road Studies. 1999. ———. “The early Kushan kings: new evidence for chronology. Evidence from the Rabatak Inscription of Kanishka I.” In Coins, Art, and Chronology. Essays on the pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, eds. M. Alram and D. E. Klimburg-Salter, 177-205. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ———. 2007. “Money as a Marker of Cultural Continuity and Change in Central Asia.” In After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam. Proceedings of the British Academy, 133, eds. Joe Cribb and Georgina Herrmann, 333-375. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cribb, Joe and Nicholas Sims-Williams. 1995/96. “A New Bactrian Inscription of Kanishka the Great.” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 4: 75-142. Cunningham, A. 1963 (1899). Coins of Ancient India from the Earliest Times Down to the Seventh Century ad. Varanasi: Indological Book House. Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh. 2007. “Religious Iconography on Ancient Iranian Coins.” In After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam. Proceedings of the British Academy, 133, eds. Joe Cribb and Georgina Herrmann, 413-434. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Czuma, Stanislaw J. and Rekha Morris. 1985. Kushan Sculpture: Images from early India. Cleveland, Ohio: Cleveland Museum of Art. Dasgupta, K. K. 1974. A Tribal History of Ancient India. Calcutta: Nababharat Publishers. Devadhar, C. R., trans. 1997 (1985). Kumārasambhava of Kālidāsa. Edited with introduction and English translation. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Dikshit, K. N. 1917-18. “Sangoli Plates or Hari-Varman: the 8th year.” Epigraphica Indica 14: 163-168. Dimock, Edward C., Jr. 1969. “Manasā, Goddess of Snakes: The Ṣaṣṭhī Myth.” In Myths and Symbols: Studies in Honor of Mircea Eliade, eds. Joseph M. Kitagawa and Charles H. Long, 217-226. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Doniger O’Flaherty, Wendy. 1973. Asceticism and Eroticism in the Mythology of Śiva. London: Oxford University Press. _____. trans. 1975. Hindu Myths. London: Penguin. _____. trans. 1983. The Rig Veda: An Anthology. London: Penguin. ———. 1985. Tales of Sex and Violence: Folklore, Sacrifice, and Danger in the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eggeling, Julius, trans. 1882-1900. The Śatapathabrāhmaṇa According to the Text of the Mādhyandina School. 5 vols. Sacred Books of the East. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Errington, Elizabeth, Joe Cribb, and E. Claringbull, eds. 1992. The Crossroads of Asia: Transformation in Image and Symbol in the Art of Ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan. Cambridge: The Ancient India and Iran Trust. Errington, Elizabeth and Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis. 2007. From Persepolis to the Punjab: Exploring Ancient Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, ed. Elizabeth Errington. London: The British Museum Press. Falk, Harry. 2001. “The yuga of Sphujiddhvaja and the Era of the Kuṣâṇas.” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 7: 121-136. Feller, Danielle. 2004. The Sanskrit Epics’ Representation of Vedic Myths. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

bibliography

241

Filliozat, Jean. 1937. Étude de démonologie indienne: Le Kumāratantra de Rāvaṇa et les texts parallèles Indiens, Tibétains, Chinois, Cambodgien et Arabe. Paris: Impri­ merie Nationale. Fitzgerald, James. 1985. “India’s Fifth Veda: The Mahābhārata’s Presentation of Itself.” Journal of South Asian Literature 20: 125-140. ———. 1991. “India’s Fifth Veda: The Mahābhārata’s Presentation of Itself.” In Essays on the Mahābhārata, ed. Arvind Sharma, 150-170. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2003. “The Many Voices of the Mahābhārata.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 123: 803-818. _____, trans. 2004. The Mahābhārata, vol. 7: 11, The Book of the Women; 12, The Book of Peace, part one. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 2006. “Negotiating the Shape of ‘Scripture’: New Perspectives on the Develop­ ment and Growth of the Mahābhārata between the Empires.” In Between the Empires: Society in India 300 bce to 400 ce, ed. Patrick Olivelle, 257-285. New York: Oxford University Press. Fleet, John Fithfull. 1970 (1888). Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and their Successors. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum. Volume 3. 3rd rev. ed. Varanasi: Indological Book House. Fleet, John Fithfull, revised by D. R. Bhandarkar. 1981. Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and their Successors. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum. Volume 3. Eds. B. Chhabra and G. S. Gai. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Gardner, P. 1886. Catalogue of Indian Coins in The British Museum. Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and India. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Geib, R. 1976. “Agni Kravyād das Fleisch fressende Feuer im Ṛg- und Atharvavaeda.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 2: 198-220. Geldner, K. F., trans. 1951. Der Rig-Veda. Aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche Übersetzt und mit einem Laufenden Kommentar Versehen. 3 Vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Ghosh, A. 1956-57. Indian Archaeology: A Review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Ghurye, G. S. 1977. Indian Acculturation: Agastya and Skanda. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. Gitomer, David. 1992. “King Duryodhana: The Mahābhārata Discourse of Sinning and Virtue in Epic and Drama.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112: 222232. Gnoli, G. 1963. “The Tyche and the Dioscuri in Ancient Sculptures from the Valley of Swat.” East and West 14: 29-37. ———. 1992. “The Tyche and the Dioscuri in Gandharan Sculptures: A Retrospect.” In Eastern Approaches: Essays on Asian Art and Archaeology, ed. T. S. Maxwell, 30-37. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Göbl, R. 1960. “Roman Patterns for Kushana Coins.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 22: 75-96. ———. 1984. System und Chronologie der Münzprägung des Kušānreiches. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Goetz, H. 1948. “Iranian or Buddhist Deity? A Gandhāra Statuette and Its Problems.” Bulletin of the Baroda State Museum and Picture Gallery 3: 17-22. Goodwin, Charles J. 1893. “The Skandayāga, text and translation.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 15: v-xiii. Gonda, Jan. 1957. Some Observations on the Relations between ‘Gods’ and ‘Powers’ in the Veda, A Propos of the Phrase Sūnuḥ Sahasaḥ. The Hague: Mouton. ———. 1959. Epithets in the Ṛgveda. The Hague: Mouton.

242

bibliography

———. 1977. The Ritual Sūtras. A History of Indian Literature. Vol. 1, Fasc. 2. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. ———. 1980. Vedic Ritual: The Non-Solemn Rites. Leiden-Köln: Brill. ———. 1991. The Functions and Significance of Gold in the Veda. Leiden: Brill. Granoff, Phyllis. 1970. “Tobatsu Bishamon: Three Japanese Statues in the United States and an Outline of the Rise of This Cult in East Asia.” East and West 20: 144167. ———. 2002. “Paradigms of Protection in early Indian religious texts, or an essay on what to do with your demons.” In Essays in Jaina Philosophy and Religion, ed. Piotr Balcerowicz, 97-128. Delhi—Warszawa: Motilal Banarsidass. ———. 2004. “Images and Their Ritual Use in Medieval India: Hesitations and Contradictions.” In Images in Asian Religions: Texts and Contexts, eds. Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara, 19-55. Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press. Grenet, Frantz. 1993. “Bāmiyān and the Mihr Yašt.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 7: 87-94. ———. 1994. “The Second of Three Encounters Between Zoroastrianism and Hin­ duism: Plastic Influences in Bactria and Sogdiana (2nd—8th c. ad).” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay 41-57. Gupta, Parmeshwari Lal. 1965. Roman Coins from Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh Government Museum Series No. 10. Hyderabad: The Government of Andhra Pradesh. ———. 1974-79. The Imperial Guptas. 2 vols. Varanasi: Vishwavidyalaya Prakashan. ———. 1977. “Geographical Distribution of the Tribal Coins.” In Seminar Papers on the Tribal Coins of Ancient India (c. 200 bc to 400 ad), eds. Jai Prakash Singh and Nisar Ahmad, 49-69. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. ———. 1987. “The Brahmanya Coins.” Numismatic Digest 11: 28-39. ———. 1999. “A Sātavāhana Ivory Comb Found in Hungary.” In The Age of the Sāta­ vāhanas, vol. 2, ed. Ajay Mitra Shastri, 480-483. New Delhi: Aryan Books Inter­ national. Gupta, S. M. 1988. Karttikeya the Son of Shiva. Bombay: Somaiya Publications. Halder, R. R. 1927-28. “The Sohawal Copper-Plate Inscription of Maharaja Sarva­ natha—the year 191.” Epigraphica Indica 19: 127-131. Handa, Devendra. 1978/79. “Sectional Yaudheya Coins.” The Journal of the Academy of Indian Numismatics and Sigillography 2: 30-33. ———. 1982. “A Note on Re-struck and Re-used Kushāṇa and Yaudheya Coins.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 44: 46-47. ———. 1983. “The Bearing of the Yaudheya Coinmoulds from Sunet on Sectional Yaudheya Coins.” Panjab University Research Bulletin (Arts) 14: 3-9. ———. 1984. “Seals and Sealings from Punjab—A Study.” Punjab University Research Bulletin (Arts) 15: 143-184. ———. 1985. “Seals and Sealings from Punjab—A Study.” In Studies in Indian Coins and Seals, ed. Devendra Handa, 93-138. Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan. ———. 1987. “Some Ancient Cities and Towns of Punjab.” In Indological Studies (Essays in Memory of Shri S. P. Singhal), ed. Devendra Handa, 303-345. Delhi: Caxton Publications. ———. 1988. “The Yaudheya Sealings—A Review.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 50: 130-133. ———. 1991. “The Yaudheyas and their Coins.” Numismatic Studies. I: 63-78. Harimoto, Kengo. 2004. “Some Observations on the Revā- and the Ambikākhaṇḍa Recensions of the Skandapurāṇa.” In Origin and Growth of the Purāṇic Text

bibliography

243

Corpus with Special Reference to the Skandapurāṇa. Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference. Vol. 3.2, ed. Hans Bakker, 41-64. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Harle, J. C. 1974. Gupta Sculpture: Indian Sculpture of the Fourth to the Sixth Centuries ad. London: Oxford University Press. Harper, K. A. 1989. Seven Hindu Goddesses of Spiritual Transformation. The Icono­ graphy of the Saptamatrikas. Studies in Women and Religion vol. 28. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen. ———. 2002. “The Warring Śaktis: A Paradigm for Gupta Conquests.” In The Roots of Tantra, eds. Katherine Anne Harper and Robert L. Brown, 115-131. Albany: State University of New York Press. Härtel, Herbert. 1987. “die Kuṣāṇa—Göttin Ṣaṣṭhī.” In Hinduismus und Buddhismus: Festschrift für Ulrich Schneider, ed. Harry Falk, 152-162. Freiburg: Hedwig Falk. ———. 1993. Excavations at Sonkh. 2500 Years of a Town in Mathura District. With contributions by Hans-Jürgen Paech and Rolf Weber. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. ———. 2007. “The Pre-Kuṣāṇa and Early Kuṣāṇa Levels at Sonkh.” In On the Cusp of an Era: Art in the Pre-Kuṣāṇa World, ed. Doris Meth Srinivasan, 319-350. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Hazra, R. C. 1958. Studies in the Upapurāṇas. 2 vols. Calcutta: Sanskrit College. Heesterman, Jan C. 1983. “Other Folk’s Fire.” In Agni, vol. 2, ed. Frits Staal, 76-94. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press. ———. 1993. The Broken World of Sacrifice. An Essay in Ancient Indian Ritual. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Heifetz, Hank. 1985. “Introduction.” In The Origin of the Young God: Kālidāsa’s Kumārasaṃbhava. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hiltebeitel, Alf. 1976. The Ritual of Battle: Krishna in the Mahābhārata. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ———. 2001. Rethinking the Mahābhārata: A Reader’s Guide to the Education of the Dharma King. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ———. 2005. “Hinduism.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed, vol. 6, ed. Lindsay Jones, 3988-4009. New York: Macmillan Reference. ———. 2006. “The Nārāyaṇīya and the Early Reading Communities of the Mahābhā­ rata.” In Between the Empires: Society in India 300 bce to 400 ce, ed. Patrick Olivelle, 227-255. New York: Oxford University Press. Hiraṇyakeśingṛhyasūtram. With Extracts from the Commentary of Mātṛidatta. 1889. Ed. J. Kirste. Vienna: Alfred Hölder. Holt, F. L. 1999. Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria. Berkeley: Uni­ versity of California Press. Hopkins, E. W. 1977 (1901). The Great Epic of India. Its Character and Origin. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak. Irani, Atusha Bharucha. 1998. “History of the Western Kshatrapas of Gujarat.” Journal of the Oriental Institute, Vadodara [Baroda] 47: 289-296. Jayaswal, Kashi Prasad. 1933. History of India, 150 ad to 350 ad. Lahore: Motilal Banarsidass. ———. 1955 (1927). Hindu Polity: A constitutional history of India in Hindu Times. Bangalore City: Bangalore Printing and Publishing. Joshi, N. P. 1986. Mātṛkās Mothers in Kuṣāṇa Art. New Delhi: Kanak Publications. Kale, M. R., trans. 1968 (1895). Bana’s Kādambarī, 4th rev. ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ———. 2004 (1924). “Introduction.” In Mṛichchhakaṭika of Śūdraka. Edited with the Commentary of Pṛithvidhara (enlarged where necessary), Various Readings, A

244

bibliography

Literal English Translation, Notes, and an exhaustive Introduction, trans. and ed. M. R. Kale, ix-lxx. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Kangle, R. P. 2010 (1960). The Arthaśastra: A critical edition with a glossary. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Kar, R. C. 1954. “An Early Image of Kārttikeya from Taxila.” Indian Historical Quarterly 30: 81-85. Kāśyapasaṃhitā (or Vṛddhajīvakīya Tantra) by Vṛddhajīvaka and Revised by Vātsya with an Introduction by Nepāl Rājguru Paṇḍit Hemrāj Śarmā. 1938. Eds. Vaidya Jādavjī Trikamjī Āchārya and Somanāth Śarmā. Nepāl Sanskrit Series, no. 1. Bombay: Jadavji Trikamji Acharya. Kaye, G. R. 1998 (1924). Hindu Astronomy. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 18. New Delhi: The Director General Archaeological Survey of India. Khandalavala, Karl. 1991. “Editorial.” In The Golden Age: Gupta Art—Empire, Province and Influence, ed. Karl Khandalavala, vii-xvi. Bombay: Marg. Kielhorn, F. 1905-6a. “Talagunda Pillar Inscription of Kakusthavarman.” Epigraphica Indica 8: 24-36. ———. 1905-06b. “Junagadh Rock Inscription of Rudradaman; The Year 72.” Epigraphica Indica 8: 41-47. Kieschnick, John. 2003. The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kinsley, David R. 1986. Hindu Goddesses: Visions of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press. Konow, Stan. 1917-18. “Sanjan Plates of Buddhavarasa.” Epigraphica Indica 14: 144155. Kreyenbroek, G. 1985. Sraoša in the Zoroastrian Tradition. Orientalia RhenoTraiectina. Ed. J. Gonda. Leiden: Brill. Kumar, M. 1991. “Yaudheya Coin Hoard from Bishan (Rohtak).” Numismatic Studies 1: 79-98. ———. 1996. “Ancient Mint at Rohtak.” In Numismatic Panorama: Essays in Memory of Late Shri S. M. Shukl, eds. K. K. Maheshwari and B. Rath, 95-114. New Delhi: Harnam. Kumar, M. and N. Ahmad. 1993. “The Reminted Type IV Coins of the Yaudheyas.” Numismatic Studies 3: 49-54. Kumar, M. and S. B. Singh. 1978. “A Note on Temple Architecture as Gleaned from Coins.” Kurukshetra University Research Journal (Arts and Humanities) 12: 1-5. Kumārasambhava of Kālidāsa. Edited with introduction and English translation. 1997 (1985). Ed. and trans. C. R. Devadhar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Lahiri, B. 1974. Indigenous States of Northern India (Circa 200 B. C. To 320 A. D.). Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Liṅgapurāṇa. 1966. Bombay: Veṅkaṭeśvara Press. Longhurst, A. H. 1999 (1938). The Buddhist Antiquities of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, Madras Presidency. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 54. New Delhi: Director General, Archaeological Survey of India. MacDonell, A. A. 1963 (1897). The Vedic Mythology. Varanasi: Indological Book House. MacDowell, David W. 1960. “The Weight Standards of the Gold and Copper Coinages of the Kushana Dynasty from Vima Kadphises to Vasudeva.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 22: 63-74. ———. 1987. “Impact of Alexander the Great on the Coinage of Afghanistan and North West India.” Numismatic Digest 11: 5-12.

bibliography

245

———. 1989. “The Pattern of the Kuṣāṇa Copper Coinage and the Role of Mathurā.” In Mathurā: The Cultural Heritage, ed. Doris M. Srinivasan, 153-161. Columbia, MO: South Asia Books. Mahābhārata. For the First Time Critically Edited. 1927-59. Eds. V. S. Sukthankar and S. K. Belvalkar. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Mānavagṛhyasūtra of the Mitrāyaṇīya Śākhā. 1926. Ed. Ramakrishna Harshaji Sastri. Baroda: Central Library. Mani, V. R. 1990. Sons of Śiva: A Study in the Religious Cults of Gaṇeśa and Kārttikeya. Delhi: Sharada Prakashan. Mann, Richard D. 2001. “Parthian and Hellenistic Influences on the Development of Skanda’s Cult in North India: Evidence from Kuṣāṇa-Era Art and Coins.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 15: 111-128. ———. 2003. “The Early Cult of Skanda in North India: From Demon to Divine Son.” PhD diss., McMaster University. ———. 2007a. “The Splitting of Skanda: Distancing and Assimilation Narratives in the Mahābhārata and Ayurvedic Sources.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 127: 447-470. ———. 2007b. “Yaudheya Chronology and Coinage: An Analysis.” Numismatic Digest 31: 47-113. Malamoud, C. 1998. “Bricks and Words: Observations on the Bodies of the Gods in Vedic India.” In Cooking the World: Ritual and Thought in Ancient India, trans. David White, 207-225. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Mazumdar, B. P. 1969. “Political Theory and Practice in the Mālava and Yaudheya Republics.” Journal of Indian History 47: 303-311. Meulenbeld, G. Jan. 1999-2002. A History of Indian Medical Literature. Groningen Oriental Studies. Volume XV, ed. H. T. Bakker. 3 Vols. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Meyer, J. J. 1977 (1926). Das Altindische Buch Vom Welt—und Staatsleben, Das Arthaçāstra Des Kauṭilya. Graz: Akademische Druck—u. Verlagsanstalt. Mirashi, Vasudev Vishnu. 1981. The History and Inscriptions of the Sātavāhanas and the Western Kshatrapas. Bombay: Maharashtra State Board for Literature and Culture. Mitchiner, M. 1976. Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage. Vol. 5. London: Hawkins. Modak, B. R. 1993. The Ancillary Literature of the Atharva-Veda. A Study with special reference to The Pariśiṣṭas. New Delhi: Rashriya Veda Vidya Pratishthan. Monier-Williams, M. 1999 (1899). A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Mṛichchhakaṭika of Śūdraka. Edited with the Commentary of Pṛithvidhara (enlarged where necessary), Various Readings, A Literal English Translation, Notes, and an exhaustive Introduction. 2004 (1924). Trans. M. R. Kale. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Mukherjee, B. N. 2004 (1982). Kushāṇa Silver Coinage. Kolkata: Indian Museum. Mukherjee, D. 1983. “A Note on Some New Coins of the Audumbaras and the Yaudheyas.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 45: 20-22. Mukhopadhyay, M. 1931. “Some Notes on Skanda-Karttikeya.” The Indian Historical Quarterly 7: 309-318. Nair, P. Thankappan. 1974. “The Peacock Cult in Asia.” Asian Folklore Studies 33: 93-170. Navaratnam, R. 1973. Karttikeya: The Divine Child. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Oberlies, Thomas. 1998. Die Religion des Ṛgveda. Erster Teil. Das Religiöse System des Ṛgveda. Nobili Research Library, vol. 26, ed. G. Oberhammer. Wien: Gerold. Olivelle, Patrick, trans. 1996. Upaniṣads. New York: Oxford University Press. _____, trans. 1999. Dharmasūtras: The Law Codes of Ancient India. New York: Oxford University Press.

246

bibliography

Pal, P. and D. C. Bhattacharyya. 1969. The Astral Divinities of Nepal. Varanasi: Prithivi Prakashan. ———. 1977. “dhanada-Kubera of the Vishṇudharmottara Purāṇa and some images from North-West India.” Lalit Kalā 18: 13-26. Pandey, D. 1967. “Six-headed Krittika on Yaudheya Coins.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 29: 5-8. Paraskara-Grihyasutra, with the commentaries of Karkopadhyaya, Jayaramā, Hari­ harā­charya, Gadadhara and Dikshita. 1895. Kāshi: Medical Hall Press. Parpola, A. 1987. “Bangles, Sacred Trees and Fertility Interpretations of the Indus script relating to the cult of Skanda-Kumāra.” South Asian Archaeology 1: 263-284. ———. 1994. Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Passi, A. 2005. “Perverted Dharma Ethics of Thievery in the Dharmacauryarasāyana.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 33: 513-528. Paul, P. G. and D. Paul. 1989. “Brahmanical Imagery in the Kuṣāṇa Art of Mathurā: Tradition and Innovations.” East and West 39: 111-143. Pieper, W. and O. Bopearachchi. 1998. Ancient Indian Coins. Turnhout: Brepols. Pillai, N. Gopala. 1937. “Skanda: The Alexander Romance in India.” In Proceedings of the All-India Oriental Conference, Vol. IX, 955-977. Trivandrum: Government Press. Pingree, David. 1964/65. “Representation of the Planets in Indian Astrology.” IndoIranian Journal 8: 249-267. ———. 1978. “Introduction.” In The Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja, 2 Vols., ed. and trans. David Pingree. Harvard Oriental Series, ed. Daniel H. H. Ingalls, Vol. 48. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978. Prakash, J. 1965. “Observations on the Tribal Coinages of Ancient India.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 27: 123-141. Raghunath, K. 2001. The Ikṣvākus of Vijayapuri: A Study of the Nagarjunakonda Inscriptions. Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers. Ramachandran, T. N. 1999 (1953). Nāgārjunakoṇḍa 1938. Memoirs of the Archaeo­ logical Survey of India, No. 71. New Delhi: Director General, Archaeological Survey of India. ———. 1961. “The Art of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa.” Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 11: 19-20. The Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki: An Epic of Ancient India. Vol. 1, Bālakāṇḍa. 1984. Trans. Robert P. Goldman. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ramesh, K. V., and S. P. Tewari. 1990. A Copper-Plate Hoard of the Gupta Period From Bagh, Madhya Pradesh. New Delhi: Director General, Archaeological Survey of India. Rana, S. S. 1995. A Study of Skanda Cult. Delhi: Nag Publishers. Rangarajan, L. N. 1992. The Arthashastra, edited, rearranged, translated and introduced. New Delhi: Penguin Books. Rao, U. S. 1962. “The Yaudheya Coins.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 24: 138-139. Raven, Ellen M. 1994. Gupta Gold Coins with a Garuḍa-banner: Samudragupta— Skandagupta. Gonda Indological Studies Vol. 1. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Reich, Tamar, C. 2001. “Sacrificial Violence and Textual Battles: Inner Textual Inter­ pretation in the Sanskrit Mahābhārata.” History of Religions 41:142-169. Rig Veda. A Metrically Restored Text with an Introduction and Notes. 1994. Eds. B. A. van Nooten and G. B. Holland. Cambridge, Mass.: The Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University. Rocher, Ludo. 1986. The Purāṇas. A History of Indian Literature, Vol. 2.3, ed. Jan Gonda. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

bibliography

247

Rosenfield, John M. 1993 (1967). The Dynastic Arts of the Kushans. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Roy, B. P. 1984. “Bearing of the Mahābhārata on the Yaudheya Coins.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 46: 75-77. Roy, Pratap Chandra, trans. 1963. The Mahabharata of Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa, 2nd edition. New Delhi: Oriental Publishing. Salomon, Richard. 1974. “The Kṣatrapas and Mahākṣatrapas in India.” Wiener Zeitschrift für Die Kunde Südasiens und Archiv für Indische 18: 5-25. Ṣaṇmukhakalpa: Ein Lehrbuch Der Zauberei Und Diebeskunst Aus Dem Indischen Mittelalter. 1991. Trans. Dieter George. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Saraswati, Swami, O. 1970. “Yaudheyagaṇa kī kuch mahatnapūrṇ muhareṃ.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 32: 154-157. Sarkar, H. 1985. “The Nāgārjunakoṇḍa Phase of the Lower Kṛṣṇā Valley Art: A Study Based on Epigraphical Data.” In Indian Epigraphy: Its Bearing on the History of Art, eds. Frederick M. Asher and G. S. Gai, 29-40. New Delhi: Oxford and the American Institute of Indian Studies. Sarkar, H. and B. N. Misra. 1972 (1966). Nagarjunakonda. New Delhi: Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India. Sarma, I. K. 1982. The Development of Early Śaiva Art and Architecture (With Special Reference to Āndhradēśa). Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan. Śatapatha brahmana in the Kāṇvīya recension. Panjab Sanskrit Series 10. 1926. Ed. W. Caland. Lahore: Motilalbanarsidas. Schastok, Sara L. 1985. The Śāmalājī Sculptures and 6th Century Art in Western India. Studies in South Asian Culture, Volume XI, series ed. J. E. Van Lohuizen de Leeuw. Leiden: Brill. Sen, S. 1950. “Iranian Śraoša and Indian Skanda.” Indo-Iranica 4: 27. Sharan, M. K. 1972. Tribal Coins--A Study (The Yaudheyas, the Mālavas, the Audum­ baras and the Kuṇindas). New Delhi: Abhinav Publications. Shastri, A. M. 1974. “Note of a Yaudheya Seal.” Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 36: 114-118. ———. 1977. “Symbols on Tribal Coins: An Interpretative Study.” In Seminar Papers on the Tribal Coins of Ancient India (c. 200 bc to 400 ad), eds. Jai Prakash Singh and Nisar Ahmad, 87-101. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. ———. 1987. “Some Observations on the ‘Mandi’ Hoard of Yaudheya and Kuninda Coins.” Numismatic Digest 11: 40-43. ———. 1997. “Skanda-Kumāra on Huvishka Coins.” Numismatic Studies 5: 47-51. ———. 1998. The Sātavāhanas and the Western Kshatrapas: A Historical Framework. Nagpur: Dattsons. Shulman, David. 1980. Tamil Temple Myths: Sacrifice and Divine Marriage in the South Indian Śaiva Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ———. 1992. “Devana and Daiva.” In Ritual, State and History in South Asia: Essays in Honour of J. C. Heesterman, eds. A. W. Van Der Hock, D. H. A. Kilff, M. S. Oort, 350-365. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2001. “The Yakṣa’s Questions.” In The Wisdom of Poets: Studies in Tamil, Telugu and Sanskrit, 40-62. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 2004. “The Bactrian Inscription of Rabatak: A New Reading.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 18: 53-68. Sims-Williams, Nicholas and Joe Cribb. 1995/96. “A New Bactrian Inscription of Kanishka the Great.” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 4: 75-142. Singh, Jai Prakash and Nisar Ahmad, eds. 1977. Seminar Papers on the Tribal Coins of Ancient India (c. 200 bc to 400 ad). Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University.

248

bibliography

———. 1977. “Coinage of the Tribal Republics.” In Seminar Papers on the Tribal Coins of Ancient India (c. 200 bc to 400 ad), eds. Jai Prakash Singh and Nisar Ahmad, 1-20. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. Singh, O. P. 1977. “Some Syncretic Gleanings from the Coins of the Kunindas and the Yaudheyas.” In Seminar Papers on the Tribal Coins of Ancient India (c. 200 bc to 400 ad), eds. Jai Prakash Singh and Nisar Ahmad, 110-111. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. ———. 1978. Religion and Iconography on Early Indian Coins. Varanasi: Bharati Prakashan. Singh, Y. B. 1999. “Commerce of Jammū under the Kushāṇas—Possibility of Sātavāhana Context Analysed.” In The Age of the Sātavāhanas, ed. Ajay Mitra Shastri, Vol. I, 190-198. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. Sinha, K. 1979. Kārttikeya in Indian Art and Literature. Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan. Sircar, D. C. 1993 (1942). Select Inscription Bearing on Indian History and Civilization. 2 vols. New Delhi: V. K. Publishing House. ———. 1957-58. “Amudalapadu Plates of Vikramaditya I, Year 5.” Epigraphica Indica 32: 175-184. ———. 1960. Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medeival India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ———. 1961-62. “Nagarjunakonda Inscription of the Time of Abhira Vasushena, Year 30.” Epigraphia Indica 34: 197-204. ———. 1963-64. “More Inscriptions from Nagarjunakonda.” Epigraphia Indica 35: 1-36. ———. 1965. Indian Epigraphy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ———. 1968. Studies in Indian Coins. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sircar, D. C., and K. G. Krishnan. 1961-62. “Two Inscriptions from Nagarjunakonda.” Epigraphia Indica 34: 17-22. Sircar, D. C., and L. N. Lahiri. 1959-60. “Footprint Slab Inscription from Nagarjuna­ konda.” Epigraphia Indica 33: 247-250. Śiva Purāṇa. 1963. Kāśī: Paṇḍitapustakālaya. Skandapurāṇa. Vol. 1, Adhyāyas 1-25. Critically Edited with Prolegomena and English Synopsis. 1998. Eds. R. Adriaensen, H. T. Bakker, H. Isaacson. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. The Skandapurāṇa. Vol. 2A. Adhyāyas 26-31.14. The Vārāṇasī Cycle. Critical Edition with an Introduction, English Synopsis and Philological and Historical Commen­ tary. 2004. Eds. Hans T. Bakker and Harunaga Isaacson. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Skandapurāṇasya Ambikākāṇḍaḥ. 1988. Ed. Kṛṣṇaprasāda Bhaṭṭarāī. Kathmandu. Smith, Bardwell L. 1983. “Preface.” In Essays on Gupta Culture, ed. Bardwell L. Smith, xiii-xvii. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983. Smith, David, trans. 2005. The Birth of Kumāra. New York: New York University Press. Smith, Fredrick M. 2006. The Self Possessed: Deity and Spirit Possession in South Asian Literature and Civilization. New York: Columbia University Press. Smith, Mary Carroll. 1992. The Warrior Code of India’s Sacred Song. New York: Garland. Smith, Vincent. A. 1972 (1906). Coins of ancient India; catalogue of the coins in the Indian Museum Calcutta. Vol. 1. Delhi: Indological Book House. Soundara Rajan, K. V. 1961. “Early Temple Origins in Lower Deccan with Special Reference to Nāgārjunakoṇḍa.” Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 11: 21-25.

bibliography

249

———. 1965. Architecture of the Early Hindu Temples of Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh Government Archaeology Series No. 21. Hyderabad: The Government of Andhra Pradesh. Spink, Walter M. 1983. “The Great Cave at Elephanta: A Study of Sources.” In Essays on Gupta Culture, ed. Bardwell L. Smith, 235-282. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Srinivasan, Doris. M. 1997. Many Heads, Arms and Eyes: Origin, Meaning and Form of Multiplicity in Indian Art. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1997/98. “Skanda/Kārttikeya in the Early Art of the Northwest.” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 5: 233-264. Stewart, Tony K. 1995. “The Goddess Ṣaṣṭhī Protects Children.” In Religions of India in Practice, ed. Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 352-366. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Stone, Elizabeth Rosen. 1994. The Buddhist Art of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Strickmann, Michel. 2002. Chinese Magical Medicine. Ed. Bernard Faure. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Sukthankar, Vishnu S. 1936. “Epic Studies VI. The Bhṛgus and the Bhārata: A TextHistorical Study.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 18: 1-76. Suśrutasaṃhitā of Suśruta with the Nibandhasañgraha Commentary of Śrī Dalhanā­ chārya and the Nyāyachandrikā Pañjikā of Śrī Gayadāsāchārya on Nidānasthāna. Rev. 3rd ed. 1938. Eds. Vaidya Jādavji Trikamji Āchārya and Nārāyan Rām Āchārya. Bombay: Nirnaya Sāgar. Sutton, N. 1997. “Aśoka and Yudhiṣṭhira: A historical setting for the ideological tensions if the Mahābhārata?” Religion 27: 331-41. Taddei, M. 1966. “An Interesting Relief from the Swat Valley.” East and West 16: 84-88. Tewari, P. V., trans. 1996. Kāśyapa-Saṃhitā or Vṛddhajīvakīya Tantra (Text with English Translation and Commentary). With N. Kumar, R. D. Sharma and A. Kumar. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Visvabharati. Thakur, U. 1974. “Kārttikeya in Literature, Art and Coins.” East and West 24: 297310. ———. 1981. On Kārttikeya. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Orientalia. Thapar, Romila. 2000 (1984). From Lineage to State: Social Formations in the MidFirst Millennium bc in the Ganga Valley. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Thaplyal, K. K. 1972. Studies in Ancient Indian Seals. A Study of North Indian Seals and Sealings from circa Third Century bc to Mid-Seventh Century ad. Lucknow: Akhila Bharatiya Sanskrit Parishad. The Birth of Kumāra by Kālidāsa. The Clay Sanskrit Library. 2005. Trans. David Smith. New York: New York University Press. Törzsök, Judit. 2004. “Three Chapters of Śaiva Material Added to the Earliest Known Recension of the Skandapurāṇa.” In Origin and Growth of the Purāṇic Text Corpus with Special Reference to the Skandapurāṇa. Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference. Vol. 3.2, ed. Hans Bakker, 17-39. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Vāgbhaṭa’s Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā. The Romanised Text Accompanied by Line and Word Indexes. 1998. Eds. Rahul Peter Das and Ronald Eric Emmerick. Groningen Oriental Studies, vol. 13. Groningen: Edbert Forsten. Vāyupurāṇa. 2 vols. 1895. Ed. Rājendralāla Mitra. Bombay: Veṅkaṭeśvara Press. Vogel, J. Ph. 1929-30. “Prakrit Inscriptions from a Buddhist Site at Nagarjunakonda.” Epigraphia Indica 20:1-36. Volchok, B. Y. 1970. “Towards an Interpretation of Proto-Indian Pictures.” Journal of Tamil Studies 2: 29-53.

250

bibliography

———. 1972. “Protoindiiskie paralleli k mifu o Skande.” In Proto-Indica, eds. N. V. Gurov, Yu. V. Knorozov and B. Ya. Volchok, 305-312. SSSR: Akademiia Nauk. White, David Gordon. 1989. “Dogs Die.” History of Religions 28: 283-303. ———. 1991. Myths of the Dog-man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 2003. Kiss of the Yoginī: “Tantric Sex” in Its South Asian Contexts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Whitney, W. D., trans. 1962 (1905). Atharva-veda Saṃhitā. 2 Vols. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Williams, Joanna Gottfried. 1982. The Art of Gupta India, Empire and Province. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Willis, Michael. 2005. “Later Gupta History: Inscriptions, Coins and Historical Ideology.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 15:131-150. ———. 2009. The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the Establishment of the Gods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Winternitz, M. 1895. “Nejamesha, Naigamesha, Nemeso.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 27: 149-155. Witzel, Michael. 1999. “The Pleiades and the Bears viewed from inside the Vedic texts.” Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 5: 13-22. Wujastyk, Dominik. 1998. “Medical Demonology in the Kasyapasamhita.” In Holistic Life and Medicine, eds. T. S. Murali, C. Ramankutty, K. V. Ramachandran, and P. K. Warrier, 153-160. Kottakkal: Arya Vaidya Sala. ———. 1999. “Miscarriages of justice: demonic vengeance in classical Indian medicine.” In Religion, health, and suffering, eds. John Hinnells and Roy Porter, 256-75. London: Kegan Paul International. ———. 2001 (1998). The Roots of Ayurveda. Selections from Sanskrit Medical Writings. New Delhi: Penguin Books India. Yano, Michio. 2003. “Chapter 18: Calendar, Astrology, and Astronomy.” In The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, ed. Gavin Flood, 376-392. Oxford: Blackwell. The Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja. 1978. Ed. and trans. David Pingree. Harvard Oriental Series. Ed. Daniel H. H. Ingalls. Volume 48. 2 Vols. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. Yokochi, Yuko. 2004. “The Rise of the Warrior Goddess in Ancient India: A Study of the Myth Cycle of Kauśikī-Vindhyavāsinī in the Skandapurāṇa.” PhD diss., Gro­ ningen. Zwalf, W. 1996. A Catalogue of the Gandhāra Sculpture in the British Museum. 2 Vols. London: British Museum Press. Zysk, Kenneth G. 1991. Asceticism and Healing in Ancient India. Medicine in the Buddhist Monastery. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 1998 (1985). Medicine in the Veda. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Index Abortionist. See bhrūṇahan Agni in accounts of Skanda’s birth, 21-22, 49-55 as Agni Anīkavat, 65 as Agni Kravyād, 65 as Agni Kumāra, 8-9 as Agni Vaiśvānara, 89 as the father of gold, 90-93 as father of Skanda, 62-66, 79-80, 170 the hidden Agni theme, 49-55 in Indus Valley seals, 5-6 in the Ṛgveda, 50 in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, 51, 6263, 87-88 and Śiva/Rudra, 63 Agrawala, P. K. on Skanda in the Indus Valley, 5 on Skanda as a good of thieves, 45 sum of various parts theory, 9-10 Vedic amalgam of Kumāras theory, 8-9, 62 Agrawala, R. C., 113 Alexander the Great, 7-8 Andhapūtanā, 31, 32 Aṅgiras, 53 Anuśāsanaparvan birth of Skanda in, 86-90, 95-97 gold in, 90-93 hidden Agni theme in, 54-55 Vedic sacrifice in, 93-95 Āraṇyakaparvan abhiṣeka in, 58-62 account of Skanda’s birth, 18-21 frame narratives in, 49-57 and Grahas, see Grahas hidden Agni theme in, 49-54 and Indus Valley seals, 5 relationship to the Suśrutasaṃhitā, 32-33 Socio-political context of, 75-77 worship of Skanda in, 40, 57-58 Aravamuthan, T. G., 5 Ares. See Mars Arundhatī, 22, 58 Atharvan, 53, 54

Arthaśāstra, 11-12 Aṣṭādhyāyī, 108 Aṣṭaṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā, 29, 31, 37 Astrology in the Indus Valley Civilization, 6-7 in relation to Skanda’s cult, 140-145 at Udayagiri, 206 See also Mars; Skanda, as an astrological deity; Skanda and Mars Atharvaveda Pariśiṣṭa. See Skandayāga. Azes II, 134 Azilises, 130 Bālagraha. See Grahas. Bāṇabhaṭṭa. See Kādambarī Banerjea, J. N., 136, 159 Bedekar, V. M., 39 Bhandarkar, D. R., 136 Bhattacharyya, D. C., 147 Bhaṭṭarāī, Kṛṣṇaprasāda. See Skandapurāṇasya Ambikākhaṇḍaḥ Bhaviṣya Purāṇa, 127 bhrūṇahan, 38-39 Badoh-Paṭhārī, 208 Brahmaṇyadeva-Kumāra. See Yaudheya coinage, obverse class three coin designs Callieri, P., 146, 153 Cāḷukya kingdom, 227-228 Candragupta II, 222 Cāṃtamūla I, 164 Chāgavaktra, 32, 33 Chāndogya Upaniṣad, 10-11, 83 Cock, emblem, 24, 30, 123, 124-127, 146, 171 Cribb, Joe, 130, 131 Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh, 125, 132 Deogarh, 212 Devasenā, 55-57, 66, 175-176 Dhūrta. See Skanda, as a god of thieves Dhūrtakalpa. See Skandayāga Dioscuri, 130 Dimock, Edward C., 235-236

252

index

Elephanta, 213 Ēliśri. See Ikṣvāku Kingdom, inscriptions related to Skanda Ellora, 214-215 Feller, Danielle, 52 Gaṅgā, 80-81, 88, 89, 97, 98 Gӧbl, Robert, 135, 139 Gold. See Agni, as the father of gold; Anuśāsanaparvan, gold in; Skanda, and gold Grahas in the Āraṇyakaparvan, 26-28 in Āyurvedic material, 28-33, 141, 185-186 distanced from Skanda, 139-140, 176, 183 at Elephanta and Ellora, 213, 214 in the Kādambarī, 217-218 relationship to astrology, 141 and Śiva, 71-72 Gupta Empire coinage of Kumāragupta I, 218-224. See also Kumāragupta I inscriptions related to Skanda, 224226 royal context of Skanda worship, 215 royal succession in, 221-223 Skanda and royal propaganda, 222223 Skanda at Udayagiri, 206-210 statues of Skanda from the eastern Gupta Empire, 203-205 statues and panels of Skanda from the western Gupta Empire, 205-215 terracottas of Skanda in, 216-218 Handa, Devendra, 156 Harle, J. C., 206 Harper, Katherine Anne, 208, 209, 212, 229 Hazra, R. C., 127 Hiraṇyakeśi Gṛhyasūtra, 37 Huviṣka and a bird standard, 133-134 coin forgery, 133 coinage depicting Mahāsena, 125, 129-135 coinage depicting Mahāsena with Skanda-Kumāra and Viśākha, 138139

coinage depicting Skanda-Kumāra with Viśākha, 135-138 as a devotee of Skanda-Mahāsena, 133-135 and khvarenah, 125, 134 Hyrcodes, 130-131 Ikṣvāku Kingdom inscriptions related to Skanda, 164, 168-170 religious heterogeneity in, 164 Śaivism at, 169-170 Sātavāhana influence on, 163-164 Skanda’s royal and military cult, 169172 statuary related to Skanda, 171-174 temples related to Skanda, 174-176 and terracottas, 173-174 trade links, 167-168 Western Kṣatrapa influence on, 165167, 177 Indra, 25, 55, 56, 60, 191 Indus Valley, 5-7 Jogeśwarī, 213-214 Joshi, N. P., 119 Kādambarī, 216-218 Kadrū, 27 Kāfir-koṭ, 123 Kālidāsa. See the Kumārasaṃbhava Kangle, R. P., 11 Kaniṣka, 110, 125, 126, 127 Kanyās, 34-36 Kāśyapasaṃhitā, 29, 31, 111-112, 185186 Kauṭilya. See Arthaśāstra Keśin, 18, 55 khvarenah/xvarǝnah, 125-126, 129, 132 Kṛttikās in Indus Valley Seals, 5-6 as mothers of Kārttikeya, 67, 79-80, 96, 140 on Kuṣāṇa panels, 119 as the wives of the Seven Seers, 2122, 67 Kujula Kadphises, 134 Kumāragupta I compared to Skanda, 220 gold coinage depicting a peacock, 218-219 gold coinage depicting Skanda, 218

index silver coinage depicting a peacock, 219, 223 Kumāras, 35, 37-38 Kumārasaṃbhava authorship of, 180 birth of Skanda in, 182-183 dates for, 180 narrative of Śiva and Pārvatī, 180-182 Skanda’s role in, 183-185 Kumārīs. See Kanyās Kuṣāṇa Empire cultural hybridity in, 117 dates of, 110, 117 depictions of Skanda from Gandhāra, 123-125 depictions of Skanda from Mathurā, 117-121 value of coinage, 131-132 See also Huviṣka Mahābhārata classifying and dating, 15-18 Vedic precedence in, 52 See also Āraṇyakaparvan; Śalyaparvan; Anuśāsanaparvan Mahābhāṣya, 12 Mahāsena depicted on Huviṣka’s coinage, 125, 129-135, 138-140 as an elite Kuṣāṇa tradition, 139-140 in Gandhāra statuary, 123-129 in Mathurā statuary, 120 Mahiṣa, 73 Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, 12-13 Maṅgala. See Skanda, and Mars Mars on Bactrian seals, 146-147 and childbirth and disease, 144-145 as an inauspicious planet, 144 in the Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja, 142-146 See also Skanda, and Mars Mātṛs absorbed into Śaivism, 158, 183-184 in the Āraṇyakaparvan, 32, 33, 34-36, 68-69 at Bodah-Paṭhārī, 208 on Cāḷukya inscriptions, 228-229 at Deogarh, 212 distanced from Skanda in eastern Gupta statuary, 205 distanced from Skanda in the

253

Kumārasaṃbhava, 183-184 distanced from Skanda on Kuṣāṇa coinage, 137, 139 distanced from Skanda at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, 176 distanced from Skanda in the Skandapurāṇasya Ambikākhaṇḍaḥ, 194 distanced from Skanda in the western Gupta Empire, 215 distanced from Skanda on Yaudheya coinage, 161 in the Gupta Empire, 205-206 on Kadamba inscriptions, 226-227 in the Kādambarī, 234 in Kuṣāṇa panels, 118-119 in the Śalyaparvan, 83 at Śāmalājī, 211-212 on seals and sealings from Sunet, 157-158 at Tanesara, 210-211 at Udayagiri, 207-209, 229 Mauryan Empire, 12 Maues, 134 Modak, B. R., 41, 45 Mothers. See Mātṛs Mount Krauñca, 85, 191-192 Mount Śveta, 23, 24 Mṛcchakaṭika, the, 45-46 Mukhamaṇḍikā, 27, 31, 185-186 Murukaṉ, 7 Nāgārjunakoṇḍa. See Ikṣvāku Kingdom Naigameṣa, 31, 32 Nair, P. K., 204 Nakṣatras, 6, 141. See also astrology Naurangabad, 109 Navagraha, 31, 32, 33, 74, 75 Olivelle, Patrick, 11, 38 Orlagno, 126 Pal, P., 147 Pāṇini. See Aṣṭādhyāyī Pāraskara Gṛhyasūtra, 37 Parpola, A., 7 Pārvatī. See Umā Patañjali. See Mahābhāṣya Peacock emblem, 204, 216 Pharro, 126 Pingree, David, 145 Pramoda, 44

254

index

Pūtanā, 27, 31 Rabatak inscription, 127-128, 136, 139 Raivata, 27 Rāmagupta, 222 Rāmāyaṇa birth of Skanda in, 97-98 relationship to the Anuśāsanaparvan account of Skanda, 98 Revatī, 27, 31 Ṛgveda, 50, 69-70, 90 Rohtak, 109 Rudradāman, 108 Śaivism seals related to from Sunet, 155-156 at Udayagiri, 207, 208 Śakunī, 31, 32 Śalyaparvan abhiṣeka of Skanda in, 84-85 birth of Skanda in, 79-81 hidden Agni theme in, 54 parentage of Skanda in, 79-81 Śāmalājī, 211-212 Sāmba Purāṇa, 127 Samudragupta, 221-222 Sanatkumāra, 10, 82-83 Ṣaṇmukhakalpa, 46 Saramā, 27, 37-38 Ṣaṣṭhī in the Āraṇyakaparvan, 66 in Bengal, 235-236 in the Kādambarī, 217 on panels from Mathurā, 118 vratas to, 236 on Yaudheya class three coinage, 107, 111 on Yaudheya class six coinage, 153 Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, 51, 87-88, 90-91, 93 Sātavāhanas, 163-164 Schastok, Sara, 119, 211, 212, 214 Scythian iconography, 123, 124 Seals/Sealings from Bactria and Gandhāra, 146-147 in the Indus Valley, 5-7 from Naurangabad, 160-161 from Sunet, 154-159, 160-161 Sen, S., 126, 127 Sims-Williams, N., 128, 136 Śītapūtanā, 27, 31 Śiva

and Agni, 63 as the father of Skanda, 69-73, 80-81, 97-98, 195, 200 in the Kumārasaṃbhava, 180-182, 184 in the Ṛgveda, 69-70 in the Skandapurāṇasya Ambikākhaṇḍaḥ, 188-190 as Ūrdhvaretas, 86 Skanda absorbed into Śaivism, 183-184 assimilated with Parthian deities, 125-129 assimilated with Viśākha, 136-137 in the Anuśāsanaparvan (see Anuśāsanaparvan) in the Āraṇyakaparvan (see Āraṇyakaparvan) in Arthaśāstra, 11-12 as an astrological deity, 140-141. See also Mars in Āyurvedic material, 29-32, 73-75 in Bengal, 235-236 as Brahmaṇya (brahminic), 54, 56, 61, 104-107, 112 on Cāḷukya inscriptions, 227-229 and childish behaviour, 185-186 and the colour red, 30, 92 compared with Kumāragupta I, 220 compared with the sun, 64-65 as derived from Agni Kumāra, 8-9 in the eastern Gupta Empire, 203-205 at Elephanta, 213 at Ellora, 214-215 as a fierce warrior, 23-25 ‘folk origins’ of, 39 on Gandhāra statuary, 123-125 as a god of thieves, 45-46 and gold, 91-92 on Huviṣka’s coinage, 125, 129-140 in the Indus Valley Civilization, 5-7 on inscriptions, 120, 156-159, 168170, 224-229 at Jogeśwarī, 213-214 in the Kādambarī, 216-218, 234 on Kumāragupta’s coinage, 218-224 in the Kumārasaṃbhava, 180-186 on Kuṣāṇa statuary and panels, 117121, 123-129 in the Kāśyapasaṃhitā, 112, 185-186 in Mahābhāṣya, 12

index as Mahāsena. See Mahāsena in Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, 12-13 and Mars, 142-147. See also Mars and Mātṛs (see Mātṛs) as a military ascetic, 81-85 at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, 161-177 political use of, 111-112, 126-129, 132-133, 139-140, 159-161, 171172, 176-177, 210, 215, 219-223, 226-229 propitiation of, 24, 25, 30 ‘popularity’ of, 39-40, 99-100, 115116, 133-135, 154-159, 219-220, 229-230 in the Rāmāyaṇa, 97-98 in the Śalyaparvan, 79-85 at Śāmalājī, 211-212 on seals and sealings, 156-157 as secondary to Śiva, 70-72, 181-182, 196 as single-headed, 114, 138, 151 as six-headed, 113-115 as Skandagraha, 29-33 in the Skandapurāṇasya Ambikākhaṇḍaḥ, 187-197 in the Skandayāga, 40-45 at Tanesara, 210-211 terracottas of, 216-218 at Udayagiri, 206-210, 229 in the Vāyupurāṇa, 197-201 in the western Gupta Empire, 205215 worship of, 40-45 on Yaudheya coinage. See Yaudheya coinage on Yaudheya seals, 156-157 in the Yavanajātaka, 142-146 Skandāpasmāra, 26, 31, 36 Skandapurāṇasya Ambikākhaṇḍaḥ (early Skandapurāṇa) dates for, 179 relationship to the Kumārasaṃbhava, 196-197 relationship to the Mahābhārata, 187, 192-195 Skanda’s birth and deeds in, 187-192 Skandayāga date of, 41 Graha subtext in, 44 worship of Skanda in, 41-43 Soter Megas. See Vima I Takto Sraoša, 126-128

255

Srauṣa/Śrauṣa. See Sraoša Śrī, 59-60 Srinivasan, Doris, 123, 124 Sroshard. See Sraoša Stewart, Tony K., 236 Stone, Elizabeth Rosen, 165 Śūdraka. See the Mṛcchakaṭika Suśrutasaṃhitā dates for, 28-29 distancing of Skanda from Grahas in, 73-75 relationship to the Āraṇyakaparvan, 32 worship of Skandagraha in, 29-30 Śvagraha, 37 Svāhā, 21-23, 58, 67-68 Tanesara, 210-211 Tāraka, 81, 85 Thapar, Romila, 76-77 Thaplyal, K. K., 157, 158 Udayagiri. See Skanda, at Udayagiri Umā, 80-81, 180-182, 188-190, 199 Vaiṣṇavism in seals from Sunet, 157 at Udayagiri, 209-210 Valkhā, 225 Vāyupurāṇa birth and deeds of Skanda in, 199200 dates for, 197-198 possible reference in the Skandapurāṇa, 198 Verethraghna (Vārahrān/Bahram), 126, 128-129 Vijayapurī. See Ikṣvāku Kingdom Vima I Takto, 110 Vinatā, 32 Viśākha, 25, 34, 118, 128, 135-136, 138, 140, 143 Viśvāmitra, 58 Volchok, B. Y., 6 Western Kṣatrapas, 142, 165-167, 177 inscriptions mentioning Skanda, 165 statuary of Skanda, 166-167 White, David Gordon, 36 Williams, Joanna, 204, 211 Willis, Michael, 41, 43, 204, 206, 209, 228-229

256

index

Witzel, Michael, 6 Wujastyk, Dominik, 28, 141 Yano, Michio, 141 Yaudheyas, the context and chronology, 108-112, 149-150 military leadership of, 159-161 seals and sealings, 154-161 Yaudheya coinage building on class three coins, 115-116 class two coinage, 109 class three coin legend, 104-106 class six coin legend, 150-151 Graha and Mātṛ context, 111-112, 114

influence of Kuṣāṇa numismatic designs, 151-152, 153 obverse class three coin designs, 103104, 131 obverse class six coin design, 150 relationship to Mathurā statuary, 118, 121 reverse class three coin designs, 107108 reverse class six coin designs, 150151, 153 Ṣaṣṭhī on. See Ṣaṣṭhī Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja, 142-146 Yazata, 125, 126 Zysk, Kenneth, 28

plates

259

Figure 1. Indus Valley Seal. Photograph: © J. M. Kenoyer/Harappa.com, courtesy of the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan.

a

b

c

Figure 2 (a, b and c). Yaudheya class three coins (obverses) depicting Brahmaṇyadeva and with a single head. Photographs: Courtesy of John Deyell from the ex-Deyell collection.

260

a

b

c

Figure 3 (a, b and c). Yaudheya class three coins (obverses) depicting Brahmaṇyadeva with six heads. Photographs a and b: The author, courtesy of the Gurukul Jhajjar ke Purātattv Saṅgrahālay; c: The author, courtesy of the National Museum, New Delhi.

Figure 4. Yaudheya class three silver coin (obverse and reverse). Photograph: © Trustees of the British Museum.

a

b

c

Figure 5 (a, b and c). Yaudheya class three coins (reverses) depicting a deer and building. Photographs a: The author, courtesy of the National Museum, New Delhi; b and c: Courtesy of John Deyell from the ex-Deyell collection.

261

Figure 6. Yaudheya class three coin (reverse) depicting Ṣaṣṭhī with six heads. Photograph: The author, courtesy of the Gurukul Jhajjar ke Purātattv Saṅgrahālay.

Figure 7. Yaudheya class three coin (reverse) depicting Ṣaṣṭhī with a single head. Photograph: Courtesy of John Deyell from the ex-Deyell collection.

Figure 8. Panel of the Ṣaṣṭhī Triad from Mathurā. Photograph: Courtesy of Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Staatliche Museen, Berlin, Germany/Art Resourse, NY.

262

Figure 9. Panel of Skanda with seven standing Mātṛs from Mathurā. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute for Indian Studies and the Mathura Government Museum.

Figure 10. Panel of Skanda with seated Mātṛs from Mathurā. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute for Indian Studies and the Mathura Government Museum.

263

Figure 11. Panel of Skanda with animal-headed Mātṛ from Mathurā. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute for Indian Studies and the State Museum, Lucknow.

Figure 12. Panel of Animal- and bird-headed Mātṛs from Mathurā. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute for Indian Studies and the Mathura Government Museum.

264

Figure 13. Panel of Skanda with Animal- and bird-headed Mātṛs from Mathurā. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute for Indian Studies and the Mathura Government Museum.

Figure 14. Statue of Skanda as Mahāsena from Mathurā. Photograph: The author, courtesy of the State Museum, Lucknow.

265

Figure 15. Statue of Skanda as Mahāsena from Mathurā. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute for Indian Studies and the Mathura Government Museum.

266

Figure 16. Bronze of Skanda as Mahāsena from Sonkh. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute for Indian Studies and the Mathura Government Museum.

267

Figure 17. Statue of Skanda as Mahāsena from Gandhāra. Photograph: © Trustees of the British Museum.

268

a

b

Figure 18 (a and b) . Gold coins of Huviṣka (reverses) depicting Mahāsena. Photograph a: Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society; b: © Trustees of the British Museum.

Figure 19. Kuṣāṇa gold coin (reverse) depicting Orlagno. Photograph: © Trustees of the British Museum.

Figure 20. Kuṣāṇa gold coin (reverse) depicting Pharro. Photograph: © Trustees of the British Museum.

Figure 21. Gold coin of Huviṣka (obverse) depicting the king sitting with a bird standard. Photograph: © Trustees of the British Museum.

269

a

b

Figure 22 (a and b). Gold coin of Huviṣka (reverse) depicting Skanda-Kumāra and Viśākha. Photograph a: Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society; b: Courtesy of the American Institute for Indian Studies.

Figure 23. Gold coin of Huviṣka (reverse) depicting Skanda-Kumāra and Viśākha holding hands. Photograph: © Trustees of the British Museum.

a

b

Figure 24 (a and b). Gold coins of Huviṣka (reverses) depicting Mahāsena, Skanda-Kumāra and Viśākha. Photograph a: © Trustees of the British Museum; b: Courtesy of the Indian Institute for Research in Numismatic Studies.

270

a

b

Figure 25. Gandhāran seal and sealing depicting Kārttikeya. Photograph a: After Callieri (1997 Pl. 19, Fig. U 7.5); b: © Trustees of the British Museum.

a

b

e

c

d

f

Figure 26 (a, b, c, d, e, f). Yaudheya class six coins (obverses a, c, and e; reverses b, d, and f). Photographs a-d: The author, courtesy of the Gurukul Jhajjar ke Purātattv Saṅgrahālay; e and f: Courtesy of John Deyell from the ex-Deyell collection.

271

Figure 27. Statue of Skanda-Mahāsena from Mitawali, Morena District, Madhya Pradesh. Photograph: The author, courtesy of the Indian Archaeological Survey.

272

Figure 29. Front view of a potential bust of Skanda. Photograph: The author, courtesy of the Indian Archaeological Survey.

Figure 28. Statue of Skanda-Mahāsena from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa. Photograph: The author, courtesy of the Indian Archaeological Survey.

Figure 30. Rear view of a potential bust of Skanda. Photograph: The author, courtesy of the Indian Archaeological Survey.

273

Figure 31. Statue of Skanda-Kumāra from the eastern Gupta Empire. Photograph: The author, courtesy of Bharat Kala Bhavan.

274

Figure 32. Panel of Skanda from Udayagiri, cave 3. Photograph: Courtesy of Katherine Anne Harper.

275

Figure 33. Shrine of an Ithyphallic figure and Mātṛkās from Udayagiri. Photograph: Courtesy of Katherine Anne Harper.

Figure 34. Ithyphallic figure from Udayagiri. Photograph: Courtesy of Katherine Anne Harper.

276

Figure 35. Panel of Skanda ridding a peacock from Udayagiri. Photograph: Courtesy of Katherine Anne Harper.

277

Figure 36. Panel depicting Skanda from Udayagiri, cave 7/outside cave 6 (on the left) and part of Mātṛkā shrine (on the right). Photograph: Courtesy of Katherine Anne Harper.

Figure 37. Panel depicting Skanda from figure 36. Photograph: Courtesy of Katherine Anne Harper.

278

Figure 38. Skanda-Mahāsena from Śāmalājī. Photograph: The author, courtesy of the Baroda Museum and Picture Gallery.

279

Figure 39. Panel from Elephanta (main cave, east wing, western chapel) depicting Skanda. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute for Indian Studies.

280

Figure 40. Panel from Ellora (cave 21, west wall, northern chapel) depicting Skanda. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute for Indian Studies.

281

a

b Figure 41 (a and b). Gupta era terracotta figures of Skanda. Photograph a: Courtesy of the State Museum, Chennai; b: The author, courtesy of the Mathura Government Museum.

282

Figure 42. Gupta era panel depicting the abhiṣeka of Skanda. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies and the Mathura Government Museum.

Figure 43. Kumāragupta I gold coin depicting the king with peacock (obverse) and Kārttikeya ridding a peacock (reverse). Photograph: © Trustees of the British Museum.