6. Jayavarman
(detail) |
The inscription (fig 7) , some 42 cm. in length, is written in Kushan
Brahmi script comparable to Kushan epigraphy found elsewhere, and can
be read as follows :
sam*vat a7 gri- pa 7 d(i)va pka maha-ra-jasya jaya varm(m)a(n*ah*)
Admitting that the exact reading and thus meaning of the inscription
is still subject to debate, we supply the following tentative translation:
(In) the (Shaka) year 107 (AD 185), (on) the 4th (lunar) day of the
7th fortnight of the summer (season) , of the great King Jaya Varman
This inscription is the earliest epigraphy of the Nepal Mandala. Prior
to this discovery, a broken pillar inscription of the year 381 [A.D. 459]
found in a Pashupati courtyard was the earliest known Licchavi inscription
(Rajbanshi, Shyam Sundar 1990. P. 1-2) Before the discovery of the Pashupati
inscription, Manadeva's Cangu Narayana pillar inscription of the year
386 [A.D. 464] was accepted as the earliest inscription for about a century.
The earliest inscribed and dated stone sculptures were the pair of Trivikrama
(Visnuvikranta) figures of A.D. 467, one from Dhobicaur, Lajimpat now
in the National Museum and the other at Tilganga, Pashupati.
7. Inscription
It is quite natural that the appearance of an inscription of such unprecedented
age would cause some controversy among scholars: the sculpture and its
inscription have attracted considerable notice among the scholarly community
in Nepal, and several articles in Nepali and English have been published.
There is no debate among the Nepali scholars that the date inscribed is
107, consisting of the letter "a", representing 100, followed
by the numeral 7. But a team of Italian scholars, Angelo Andrea Di Castro
and Riccardo Garbini, have suggested the date is actually 207. It is our
belief that this reading is due to damage that occurred to the inscription
after it was discovered, but further testing and examination may be needed.
Most scholars have accepted this date (107) to be in the same era as
other later inscriptions of the early Licchavi period, that is the Saka
samvat which began in A.D. 77/78 and is said to have been started by the
great Kushan emperor Kaniska. Almost all scholars except Regmi (1992)
agree with that the date is meant to be in the Saka samvat, which would
place the inscription in A.D. 185 - or 184 if certain interpretations
are followed (Regmi believes the era is a later one, and places the inscription
in the 4-5th century CE) (Regmi, 1992a. pp 42-46.)
It should however be noted that the Saka samvat in its earlier periods
is fraught with uncertainty. Although the era of the Saka samvat as employed
in later centuries has been determined with comfortable accuracy, it is
not entirely certain that the samvat in use in the early Kushan period
and employed during the period of Kaniska is the same samvat, and scholars
still debate the era of Kaniska's samvat. Estimates of the beginning of
that era range from the A.D. 77/78 of the Saka samvat to later beginnings,
as late as 128 or 144 A.D. (see Rosenfield, 1967, pp. 254 ff)
There are other differences in readings of this inscription. The phrase
we show here as gri- pa 7 d(i)va pka, following Garbini (Garbini, p. 13)
has been variously interpreted as sri paramadevanka, sri paramadevapka,
sri pancadevapka, sri pancadevanka (indeed we originally read it as paramadevapka).
This has resulted in various interpretations, leading to an identification
of the figure with a yaksa or lord of wealth, or another interpretation
of the month and day of the date.
While important, the variants in readings and interpretations
do not contest the date (with the exception of the Italian 207 reading)
or the mention of the "great king Jaya Varman".
8.Torso |
The area of Maligaon (Maligam or Maga in Newari) and Hadigaon (Narah
in Newari) in Kathmandu, where the sculpture was found, is considered
by most scholars to be the site of the ancient capital of Licchavi Nepal.
The present discovery of course lends further evidence to support this
view and to identify it further with pre-Licchavi Nepal. Several Licchavi
inscriptions have been found there. Thakur Lal Manandhar believed that
the words Magah or Magala (Newari) and Maligaon (Nepali) are derived from
the first Licchavi Royal Palace Managrha (Manandhar, 1977, 86-87). Several
hundred metres north of the find site of the Jaya Varman statue is the
famous Satya Narayana temple at Had*igaon. Excavations carried out just
outside of the temple compound by an IsMEO team in 1984-1988 revealed
several archaeological objects of the Kushan period (Verardi,1988) An
earlier excavation was also held in Hadigaon at the Manesvari- area in
1965, although no objects of the Kushan period were found at that site.
9. Torso (rear
view) |
The area of Maligaon-Hadigaon is a rich source of sculptural remains.
Lain Singh Bangdel identifies some 40 sculptures of the Kushan period
in Nepal among which eight are from the Hadigaon -Maligaon area (Bangdel,
1982). Among these eight images is the one which most closely resembles
the Jaya Varman sculpture, and which most clearly shows the Kushan antecedents
of the early Nepalese material. This image - a sandstone torso - is also
now in the Nepal Museum in Chhauni (fig. 8, 9). Until the discovery of
the Jaya Varma, there had been varying views on the identification and
dating of this sculpture, with most scholars referring to it either as
a yaksha or a bodhisattva figure, and assigning a date within the first
two centuries of the millenium.The discovery of the Jaya Varman sculpture
introduces the possibility that the torso is also a royal portrait.
A comparison with Kushan figures of yakshas on the one hand and bodhisattvas
on the other reveals the arguments for each (figs 4, 5). The lack of jewelry
and the inclusion of the sash over the shoulder would argue for the bodhisattva
identification. It is also worth noting that the yaksha as a sculptural
type in the Indian tradition is generally earlier than the bodhisattva,
which is relatively more common during the 2nd century, when we can surmise
the torso was made; but as Bangdel has pointed out, Buddhist images of
any type are strangely lacking in the earliest periods of Nepalese sculptural
history, so this remark is valid primarily in the Indian context. (Bangdel,
1982b).
The torso was first seen by Ramesh Jung Thapa and Tara Nanda Mishra in
1965, laid in a ditch on the way to Sano Gaucar from Manes'vari-. Mr.
Mishra in a recent communication informed the authors that the image was
found at an area called Macagal in Maligaon some fifty yards from where
the Jaya Varman statue was found. We confirmed the yaksha find spot with
local people who remembered the statue, which, when Thapa and Mishra first
discovered it, was being stoned by the children of the locality as a headless
ghost. Locally the image is still remembered as Murkat*t*a Murti (headless
image).
It is certainly noteworthy that the torso and the Jaya Varman sculpture
were found so close together; as in addition they are both made of a similar
pale sandstone and are stylistically linked, we may well assume that they
belong to the same period and context of manufacture. The stone used is
referred to in Newari as "sakva lvaham", that is "Sankhu
stone", after the locality of Sankhu where it is found; it is not
generally used in Nepalese sculpture of later periods, which is usually
of a darker, denser stone known in Newari as "kotakha lvaham".
That both of these sculptures were carved in a lighter sandstone might
indicate that they were manufactured by or under the direction of carvers
from the Indian Kushan tradition who favored sandstone as a material.
Previously the "yaksha/bodhisattva" torso held the peculiar
fascination of an enigma. As Banerjee and Rijal put it:
" It is difficult indeed in the present state of our knowledge to
account for its presence in Nepal, especially because of the existence
of...a yawning gap in style and chronological affiliation between it and
the earliest dated sculptural pieces known". (Banerjee, N.R. and
B.K. Rijal 1968, p. 38 )
When Banerjee and Rijal wrote in 1968, little did they suspect that barely
50 meters from the ditch where the yaksha was found lay an even more impressive
sculpture from the same tradition, The Jaya Varman sculpture, which was
most likely in the same complex.
Now that we have the figure of Jaya Varman with which we can compare
the torso, it seems possible that a very similar figure was intended,
and we may call it a "royal torso" in the same mold as the figure
of Jaya Varman. The jewelry and adornments, more worn in the torso, relate
closely to the similar features in the Jaya Varman. The modeling of the
torso is more pronounced than the full figure, showing a full and pronounced
belly, similar is many ways to early Kushan figures of yakshas or bodhisattvas.
We might surmise that this is another, later portrait of the same king,
or a portrait of another king.
One of the fascinating possibilities raised by the discovery of the Jayavarman
sculpture in a spot so close to the spot of the torso, is that both may
have been part of a gallery of royal portraits or chitrasala (Misra 2000,
p.2). We know that this was a Kushan custom. The possibility of the existence
of such a gallery, originally suggested by Pal in 1974, cannot be ruled
out, though we must agree with Di Castro and Garbini that this "intriguing
hypothesis" still lacks "any definitive proof". (DiCastro
and Garbini, 1996, p. 17).
There is not enough room here to embark on a comparison of this sculpture
with the other early sculptures from the Kathmandu Valley which appear
to be datable to the first two or three centuries of the first millenium.
Lain Singh Bangdel has already embarked on this in a recent study of the
early iconography of the valley (Bangdel, 1996), and hopefully more will
be done in this area in the future to more firmly fix the chronology of
this earliest period of Nepalese art
Most of the Nepali scholars who have discussed this image have assumed
that the image is that of the king Jaya Varman himself, based obviously
on the inscription. In a recent publication, however, Mohan Prasad Khanal
vigorously challenged this view, claiming the image to be "indisputably"
that of a yaksha (Khanal, 1995, p. 261-8). He cites strong stylistic evidence
for this view, noting that the jewelry, stance and coiffure of the image
are comparable with yaksha figures from Pre-Kushan periods and the Kushan
period in India (see figs 3 and 4) . Khanal's stylistic analysis is well-taken,
as comparison with Kushan yaksha figures do show many similarities. Furthermore,
the present sculpture shows none of the royal accoutrements found in other
known Kushan portrait figures (fig 10). In these portrait figures, the
sculpture is normally fully clothed and booted, and bears royal arms.
This figure shows none of these royal characteristics.
Khanal's interpretation is based partially on his interpretation of a
reading of the inscription which varies somewhat from ours, by substituting
"sri pancadevapka" for the seasonal dates first suggested by
Garbini, which we have now accepted as the most likely reading. Khanal
explains the pancadeva and maharaja of his reading of the inscription
as references to Kubera, Lord of the Yakshas, with pancadeva interpreted
as a variant of pacika (pancika). We find his interpretation somewhat
tortured, and flawed by his failure to discuss or explain the reference
to the name Jaya Varman; in addition, we do not agree with his reading
of the inscription. But his stylistic arguments for identifying the figure
as a yaksha are reasoned and not to be dismissed out of hand. In this
context it should be noted that in many respects the figure bears an equally
strong resemblance to Kushan bodhisattva images. A brief examination of
a few Indian Kushan images of yakshas and bodhisattvas show the obvious
similarities to the Jaya Varman sculpture (figs 3, 4).
10. Statue
of Kaniska |
Despite Khanal's arguments to the contrary, it is still possible - in
our opinion likely - that the image is indeed intended to represent the
king Jaya Varman, so clearly mentioned in the inscription. It is however
unusual to portray a king - when a true portrait is intended - barefoot
and without some royal accouterment, often a sword. The famous sculpture
of Kanishka, is shown with a long sword, clad in royal robes, and impressively
booted (fig 10). But in weighing the dissimilarities to other known Kushan
royal portraits we should consider the dangers inherent in using prior
Indian traditions to interpret contemporary conventions in Nepal. Certainly
the boots and greatcoats of most of the known Kushan royal portraits were
themselves foreign in the Indian context and equally so in Nepal, and
we should not necessarily be suspicious of the idea of a barefoot monarch
unencumbered by the heavy clothing of these other portraits.
It is not unknown for a king to pose in the form of a god, particularly
in Nepal. Mary Slusser and Gautamvajra Vajracharya, in one of their ground-breaking
articles on Nepalese art within the historical context, showed an image
of Visnu with two attendant figures on the grounds of Pashupatinath to
be a portrait of the early 7th century Lichhavi-period monarch Visnugupta
with his two sons (Slusser and Vajracarya, 1973). It is worth noting that
this portrait clearly shows the king in divine guise, and barefoot. So
this may be Jayavarman in guise of a Yaksha.
Who was Jaya Varman?
There is no inscriptional evidence in Nepal between this second century
inscription and the fifth century inscription of Pashupati, a span of
some 274 years. So to interpret this inscription, we must turn to later
documentary references to this earlier, previously undocumented period
of Licchavi or pre-Licchavi rule. Among the most important of these later
references is a genealogy in Jayadeva II's Pashupati inscription of A.D.
733. In that inscription another Jayadeva ("Jayadeva I") is
described as twelve generations before king Vrisadeva, the great-grandfather
of the historical king Manadeva.
Dhanavajra Vajracarya surmised that Jayadeva I was the king who established
the Licchavis as the ruling house in Nepal as there is a qualifying 'vijayino'
(victorious) before Jayadeva's name in this genealogy (although as we
shall see below the most important Nepali chronicle lists several predecessors
to this king) (Vajaracarya, 1973, no. 148, p.548 ff). It seems likely
that the Jaya Varman of our inscription is in fact the same king mentioned
by the later Jayadeva.
In previous work with the Gopalaraja vams'avali- (GV), Nepal's treasured
and unique early chronicle, Mary Slusser and Gautamvajra Vajracarya have
shown its unexpected accuracy in matters of ancient history (Slusser and
Vajracarya, 1973). It is thus of interest to note that GV records the
twelfth king preceding vis'vadeva (for vrisadeva) as Jaya Varman, (Vajracarya
and Malla, 1985, p. 28) while Jayadeva II's geneology in the Pashupati
stele separates Jayadeva I from Vrisadeva by the same number of kings.
It is also of interest that the GV uses Varma as the name of many of the
kings before Vrisadeva; the name is also found in the later Bhasa vams'avali-s.
This interpolation of fourteen monarchs between Jaya Varman/ Jayadeva
I and Manadeva of Changu Narayan, a span of some 280 years, results in
a reign span of twenty years per king, a not entirely unreasonable figure,
although it is a longer reign period than the succeeding period between
Manadeva and Jayadeva II, when 22 kings reigned in a period of some 270
years, only some 12 years per king. It is perhaps worth mentioning that
the GV assigns reigns of varying length to the early Licchavi monarchs,
the least being 37 years. It is also worth noting that adopting the Garbini
reading of the inscription reduces the reign period to a perhaps more
reasonable 13 years per king, which is in line with the firmly historical
succeeding period. But since the list of fourteen kings is unsupported
by any other evidence and may be incomplete, this is conjectural.
We cannot say for sure whether Jaya Varman was a member of the later
Licchavi dynasty, or another ruling clan entirely. It is worthy of note
that the GV does include him as a Licchavi, and we have learned to respect
this almost uncanny -if late - chronicle.
It should be emphasized that name and dynasty are often not too closely
linked. Most of the post 5th c. Licchavi monarchs had the name -deva and
some -gupta. The dynasty name Licchavi is mentioned only occasionally
in their epithets, and the first use of "Licchavi" in an inscription
occurs in the early 6th century.
Tarananada Misra has recently published and extensive study of the earlier
cultural relations between Nepal and the Kushana empire. Drawing on epigraphical,
numismatic, taxinomic and archeological evidence, he makes a powerful
case for a strong relationship between Kushan Indian and Nepal. (Misra,
2000). He further analyzes the name Varma to suggest that the term denoted
a family other than the Licchavi. He shows the presence of various high
personages in Licchavi inscriptions, who "played very important roles
in the society" but "were a different… people than the
Licchavis". One of those he cites is the great king Amsuvarma of
the early 7th century. Could it be that this king represents a resurgence
of the ancient Varman clan, reimposing their power briefly in the midst
of another clan's ascendancy?
Misra also surmises that the "Licchavis of Vaisali might have entered
the Nepal Valley around 410 AD", citing evidence against an earlier
entry. But this evidence is uncertain and seems to be based on the assumption
that the Licchavis, who were well known in India at the time of Jayavarman,
could not have moved to Nepal without dying out in India.
It will take more research to determine the political and dynastic identity
of the Varmas and Jayavarman, but it is clear that the culture this king
ruled over was strongly allied to the great Kushan empire then on the
wane in India. Whether they were a clan distinct from the later Licchavi
kings, or whether they were the earliest of the Licchavis, is still uncertain.
The implications of this sculpture for our assessment of the artistic
traditions of the Kathmandu Valley are profound. Previously, the various
clearly pre-Gupta sculptures that have been found in the valley were considered
as puzzling precursors to the voluminous sculptural remains from the fifth
century onwards. Early Nepalese art was considered largely in the context
of the art of the Guptas, and rightly so, for the majority of the early
sculpture which has come down to us clearly shows a relationship to the
Gupta style.
A sculpture such as the headless sandstone torso of the National Museum
could only be the subject of conjecture: clearly Kushan in style and materials,
it had no closely related, similar examples with which it could be compared.
The Jaya Varman sculpture now provides a previously missing context for
the small and scattered group of sculptures that can clearly be seen to
be pre-Gupta. Our conception of the sculpture of Nepal must now stretch
back farther in time than we had once believed. The second century, not
the fifth, must now be our starting point for charting the history of
Nepal's sculptural traditions. The Kushan tradition, not the Gupta, must
be seen as the tradition in which Nepalese sculpture first arose and developed.
all images © Orientations
magazine
|
