Upon reading Ian Alsop’s most recent article “The Standing Buddha of Guita Bahi,” (http://asianart.com/articles/guita/part1/index.html) I thought that I should write a constructive review of the work. I postponed the writing mainly because the second part of the article is not published yet. Meanwhile, Ian wrote to me requesting for a short comment on his study of the Guita Bahi Buddha. I am grateful to him for providing me with the excellent photographs of the Buddha image and newly discovered Licchavi inscription (dated 542 CE) together with the medieval period inscription (dated 1279 CE) carved on the same stone pedestal on which the Buddha image is currently standing.
In my opinion, the Guita Bahi Buddha cannot be the Buddha image described in the Licchavi inscription for two different reasons. First, the Licchavi inscription clearly states that the statue of Buddha that was erected in 542 CE was made of kāṅsya. Although the identity of the metal called kāṅsya in Sanskrit may be debatable, there is no reason to argue if kāṅsya is different from copper. The present image of the Guita Bahi Buddha is however made of copper. Due to the everyday bathing ritual, the gold paint of the head and shoulder of the image has been washed away. As a result, the red copper is exposed.
Second, in early Nepalese sculptures, Buddha is always shown holding the end of his robe (saṃghāti) with his half-bent left-hand, placed to the level of his waist. At the beginning of the seventh century CE, this style of holding saṃghāti was replaced by a new style in which Buddha is shown holding the end of saṃghāti with his left hand raised to the level of his shoulder. Although the earlier style continued even after the new style was introduced, prior to the seventh century CE, all Buddha images without any exception, are rendered in an earlier style. Thus, the Guita Bahi Buddha, which demonstrates a new way of holding saṃghāti, cannot be contemporaneous with the Licchavi inscription dated 542 CE.
Possibly, the Buddha image is contemporaneous to the abovementioned medieval period inscription, which does refer to the earthquake and rebuilding of the shrine and images. Unfortunately, however, the inscription does not clearly refer to the establishment of the new image of the Buddha. For this reason, the dating of the image, more or less, must be based on stylistic analysis, which is eagerly anticipated in the second part of the article.