Italian- tadai review on Rahman's report.pdf

Some Remarks on the Preliminary Reports Published on the Shnaisha Excavations, SwatAuthor(s): Maurizio TaddeiSource: East and West, Vol. 48, No. 1/2 (June 1998), pp. 171-188Published by: Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29757373 .

Accessed: 27/04/2013 13:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to East and West.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 111.68.96.57 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:30:29 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=isiao

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29757373?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Some Remarks on the Preliminary Reports Published on the Shnaisha Excavations, Swat

by Maurizio Taddei

Shnaisha is a site located about six kilometres south of Said? Sharif, the former capital of the Swat State, now the District headquarters, just off the metalled road connecting Said? to Marghuz?r, close to the village of Kukrai, on the slopes of the mountain known as Tark?n?

(or Tarkh?na, or Tharkana), and on the left of the Said? Khwar, a tributary (along with the

J?mbil Khwar) of the Swat River. The Buddhist remains there ? including a huge stupa (Fig. 1) ? were first observed by Sir Aurel Stein in 1926 (Stein 1929: 73; 1930: 43, fig. 34, pi. 7), then visited by Giuseppe Tucci thirty years later (Tucci 1958: 313). The site is perhaps the one marked as 'Buddhist Ruins' in the Survey of Pakistan map, one inch sheet 43 B/6 second edition, 339777 (surveyed 1926-27). The name of the rivulet, according both to the

Survey map and to G. Tucci (1958: 312-13), and in my own experience, is Said? Khwar; according to Qamar (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 176) and Abdur Rahman (1993: 7) it is called

Marghuz?r Khwar, which ? to the best of my knowledge ? is the name given to a tributary

running into the Said? near Kukrai. This disagreement may be due to the fact that Sir Aurel Stein did not survey the upper course of the Said? Khwar, which therefore does not appear on his map (Stein 1930), while its lower course seems to be one with the Marghuz?r Khwar. The sketch map reproduced by Abdur Rahman (1993: fig. 1) is clearly based on Stein's map. On the other hand, Tucci (loc. cit.) believes that the whole Marghuz?r-Said? watercourse is called Said? Khwar.

The place-name was recorded as Shin?se or Shin?si-gumbat hy Stein, as Shanesha by Tucci. Here I employ the form Shnaisha (i.e., Snesa), following the suggestion of Abdur Rahman

(1993: 11-12), which seems to be sufficiently well grounded and to reflect the actual present use. The form Shna-shah (Qamar & Ashraf 1991) is less satisfactory in my opinion.

Stein found the stupa in a state of disrepair in its lower part, but the monument on the whole appeared to him 'fairly well preserved', as we can also appreciate from the nice

photograph reproduced in the MASI Report. The situation had considerably worsened when Tucci visited the site in 1958 ? he found the stupa 'greatly damaged' and was told that from it many images had been 'dug out by treasure-seekers'. Tucci also informs us that 'On a rock near the stupa an image of Lokesvara with a standing Bodhisattva on his left is carved'. This seems to have escaped the attention of later scholars who have nevertheless recorded a considerable number of Buddhist rock-sculptures from the nearby village of Kukrai

(Abdur Rahman 1993: pis. XX-XXII) ? I reproduce here the image which was first noted

by Tucci (Fig. 2). In more recent years the site was chosen for rescue excavation by the Department of

Archaeology, Government of Pakistan. This has secured for science a great deal of precious data which would otherwise have been lost due to the intense activity of robbers in the

[i] 171



1^ ^tJjfc

Fig. 1 - Shnaisha. The Main Stupa as seen from the east. (Photo Dep. CS Neg. L 18049/14 -

P. Callieri, 1996).

Fig. 2 - Shnaisha. Rock sculpture depicting Lokesvara with a standing Bodhisattva. (Photo L. Olivieri).

172 [2]



area. A first campaign was thus conducted

by Mr Nazir Khan in 1989 ('NK area'), while a second one took place in 1990: this was a joint venture by the Department of

Archaeology, Government of Pakistan, and the Department of Archaeology, University of Peshawar. This two-headed initiative accounts for the unusual fact that two

preliminary reports on the same excavation

campaigns were published almost at the same time (Qamar & Ashraf 1991 C1); Abdur Rahman 1993). The reader will notice that some of the information provided by one

report are contradicted by the other, and some of the interpretations set forth by the authors appear to be subject to doubts. This is only too natural in the case of preliminary reports, which are extremely useful precisely because they provide data for discussion.

This is why ? before the colleagues

responsible for the excavations at Shnaisha resume their diggings or publish a second

report ? I deem it useful to call their

attention to a few points which might hopefully be made clear by further research and scholarly discussion. The reader will not

Fig. 3 - Shnaisha. The SW corner of the Main

Stupa. (Photo Dep. CS Neg. L 18049/4 -

P. Callieri, 1996).

find mere corrections in the following pages ? in most cases I shall only be putting forward

some suggestions. It is regrettable that the excavation site is now in a state of utter disrepair (Fig. 3).

The Main Stupa

Though badly damaged, the Main Stupa is preserved enough to allow us to reconstruct its whole outline. Abdur Rahman (1993: fig. 4) has reproduced a drawing showing its elevation viewed from the south. I compared this drawing to the actual remains and was not fully convinced of its accuracy. Needless to say, this may be a wrong impression due to the fact that it is based on naked-eye observation, without the help of any instrument; nevertheless I deem it useful to draw my colleagues' attention to these interesting details.

Of the three drums, the uppermost one (the 'neck', in Abdur Rahman's terminology) shows a straight vertical profile in the drawing (here, Fig. 4), while I have the impression

(*) This paper contains a report on the excavations at Shnaisha and one on those at Baligr?m ? the latter is due to Dr Ashraf, the former to Mr Qamar.

[3] 173



Fig. 4 - Elevation of the Main Stupa viewed from the south. (After Abdur Rahman 1993: fig. 4).

that it is slightly receding ? or tapering

? in its upper part (Fig. 5; cf. Abdur Rahman 1993: pis. IIb, Via). On the other hand, it appears to the onlooker's eye that the anda is not perfectly hemispherical

? as shown in the drawing ? but starts with a vertical outline

at its foot and then takes on a hemispherical profile. This seems to be the rule also in many other stupas and stupa-shaped caskets in Swat ? e.g. Stupa no. 9 at P?nr (Faccenna et al. 1993: 157-59, fig. 27, pi. 52a; cf. Faccenna 1995: 502-66; Faccenna 1995a: passim, both

with many illustrations) or the Main Stupa at Gumbat?na (Ashraf 1996). Even the drawings in Stein's report show this peculiar outline in many stupa domes ? nevertheless it is also true that the section of Shnaisha stupa published by him (Stein 1930: pi. 3) shows a hemispherical dome, which is contradicted by his own photo on fig. 34.

If we now turn our attention to the lowermost drum, we see that the drawing shows the

capitals of the pilasters as composed of an echinus, a low smooth intermediate abacus, and a notched (or voluted) abacus ? but no intermediate abacus is actually visible on the spot, nor does Abdur Rahman himself (1993: 18) include it in his description.

I would also point out that the plinth of the Main Stupa is c. 0.35 m high (above the slab paving), according to the section (Abdur Rahman 1993: fig. 3; here, Fig. 8), and the

[4]



base moulding of the first storey is c. 0.56

m, while from pi. IVb it clearly appears that the plinth is higher than the moulding.

The Niche in the Stupa Wall

Abdur Rahman (1993: 18) describes a

niche on the east side of the Main Stupa:

The dome [...] stands upon a vertical

neck marked at the top by a shallow recess. In the neck area there is a small

niche on the side facing east.

I was not able to spot this small

niche, which is reproduced neither by Abdur Rahman nor by Qamar. There is nevertheless a niche-like recess on the west side of the Main Stupa (Fig. 6), more or less

facing Cell no. 1 and at the height of the second drum. A few clay tablets with the Buddhist creed were found in the 'niche', which is a rather interesting piece of information (Abdur Rahman 1993: 38); but

Qamar (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 197) tells us of 'the clay tablet<s> found in one of the niche<s> of the drum of the stupa'. It seems that there were more than one niche.

Fig. 5 - Shnaisha. A close-up view of the Main

Stupa, showing tapering profile of uppermost drum. (Photo Dep. CS Neg. L 18049/22

- P. Callieri, 1996).

Is the 'niche' still visible on the west side the one described by Abdur Rahman? If so, I wish to point out that it is no real niche, rather an inner recess, as shown by the fact that its side walls are interrupted in the front portion. It is highly probable that it was originally a walled up and inaccessible relic-recess which was later opened and used for offering the so-called ts'a-ts'a or clay tablets with the Buddhist creed. It seems that this is also the opinion of one of the excavators, though expressed as an afterthought (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 206) when he speaks of the 'clay seals found in a small square hole in the drum of the stupa*

?

small square hole, I emphasize, not really a niche. This kind of offering would point to a late date, presumably contemporary with the

worshipping of the stele in Cell no. 2. It is to be hoped that the final report will provide more precise information concerning

a detail which is of great importance from the point of view of the religious history of Swat (2).

(2) Clay tablets with the Buddhist 'profession of faith' are not so common in Swat: one was found by the Italian Archaeological Mission at Udegr?m, Raja Gira site (pers. comm. by Prof. U. Scerrato). For this type of devotional object, see Taddei 1970 and Vertogradova 1990.

[5] 175



Fig. 6 - Shnaisha. A recess in the west side of the Main Stupa. (Photo Dep. CS Neg. L 18049/23

-

P. Callieri, 1996).

The Two Late-Period Cells

Abdur Rahman (1993: 20) describes two 'cells' (see Fig. 7; cf. Fig. 8) belonging to a

period in which the area was already in a state of disrepair. Cell no. 2 ? which is described as no. 1 by Qamar (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 185) (3)

? was built, in Abdur Rahman's words, 'against the western wall of the main stupa in the southwest corner' and contained a standing image of Siva Mah?deva (according to Abdur Rahman, followed by Farooq Sw?ti 1997: 15, pi. 55), or a Bodhisattva (according to Qamar).

Abdur Rahman attributes the two cells to Period II, which he does not date precisely ? he only hints at a date after A.D. 360, when 'cultural activity was vigorously revived' at Shnaisha (Abdur Rahman 1993: 46). This is confirmed by Qamar (Qamar & Ashraf 1991:

179-80) who points to a date 'from 4th to 5th century A.D.' for Period II. Period I ? to which the main stupa belongs

? dates back to the period of the great Kushans (see infra, under 'Chronological Outline').

(3) It should be noted, however, that also Abdur Rahman is not wholly consistent in the numbering of the two cells ? on p. 15 of his report he refers to 'Cell 1' instead of Cell 2.

176 [6]



N

Fig. 7 - Shnaisha. Plan of the excavation. (After Abdur Rahman 1993: fig. 5).

Qamar (ibid.) informs us that the image was found along with 'a heavy pedestal made in sandstone', that 'the pedestal depicted figures of lions being fed by amorini', and that the feet of the image 'were broken and missing'; Abdur Rahman, in describing the 'cell', is silent about the pedestal but states that the image was placed against the stupa wall 'and fixed to it by iron clamps'; elsewhere (Abdur Rahman 1993: 32-33) he describes both the image and the pedestal. The image

? Abdur Rahman says ? is made of 'stone' (no other information

is provided here), while the pedestal is made of limestone; nevertheless the captions of pis. XXVIIb and XXVIIIa (respectively the image and the pedestal) state that both pieces are

made of 'brownish schist' (Figs. 9-10). I do not intend to discuss the iconographic problem, as it has already been dealt with

by Dr Anna Filigenzi in a paper she read at the 14th International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists (Rome, July 1997; for the time being, see Filigenzi 1997: 628) ? the Shnaisha image represents the Bodhisattva Maitreya, not Siva Mah?deva. It is also clear that Qamar's description of the pedestal has been inadvertently based on other

pieces from the same site (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: fig. on p. 218 bottom, fig. on p. 219 top), which actually depict lions being fed by amorini: the pedestal in question is not reproduced by Qamar

? he probably had no photograph of it and only trusted to his memory, as there are lions in it but they are not being fed by anybody.

From an archaeological point of view it would be even more important to know what

kind(s) of stone the two pieces are made of; it is particularly relevant to know whether they

[7] 177



^\ * x scale 3210_*m

y .^O / (K \. & "/IS & IM/14 3m/'3

?~?o _^ P _i_:_I_Z_?_*_io ii_it_~i_I*_*_-.t_i7__i_ u

OATUM LINE T' >^ ~ "~~ ??

? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I

VIR6IN

SOIL

~~

k-?-?- Mm-'-'

Fig. 8 - Shnaisha. Section between Main Stupa

and Monastery wall. (After Abdur Rahman 1993: fig. 3).



are made of the same kind of stone, whatever it is. In 1996 I had the privilege of viewing the two pieces thanks to the courtesy of Dr

Taj Ali, at the time Head of the Department of Archaeology, University of Peshawar, where they are now kept: my impression is that they are actually made of the same

stone, and that this stone is a kind of schist. But more precise information from the excavators about this point would be really welcome.

Another interesting point which needs clarification is the cavity on the upper surface of the pedestal. Abdur Rahman

(1993: 33) says that 'no traces of feet were

found' and 'the pedestal has a deep slot 0.80 x 0.15 x 0.45 m\ Since the pedestal is

only 60 cm long (ibid.), the cavity cannot be 80 cm (actually it seems to be only c. 40 cm). In any case, it is an important fact that the

cavity is a fairly long one, apparently too long to be meant to hold a tenon below the feet of the image; Abdur Rahman is perhaps right when he states that it was 'meant to receive the legs of the [...] image' (but the present width of the stele, broken at shin-height, is c. 60 cm!). If this is true, one further

important point must be clarified: was the

cavity made larger as a consequence of the loss of the feet, or was the pedestal specially

^^^^^ ?P^B ^^B^ ^^^^H

Fig. 9 - Shnaisha. Cult image from Cell no. 2. De/tf

of Archaeology, University of Peshawar. (Photo by courtesy of the Department).

made in order to receive an already footless image? Are there any details ? apart from the nature of stone ? which can help us to establish whether image and pedestal belong together or not?

The chronological frame is not fully convincing. A better description of Abdur Rahman's Cell no. 1 ? which is visible in the photographs in his pis. VIb and Vila and in the section of fig. 3

? would perhaps help a lot. The section (here, Fig. 8) shows a structure made of fairly regular diaper masonry but

provides no indication as far as a possible foundation trench is concerned. The stratigraphic correspondence between the two cells is not clear. The photographs reproduced in Abdur Rahman's pis. VIb and Vila show a substantially different structure if compared with the section of fig. 3

? the diaper masonry is not so regular as it appears in the section

drawing and the bottom outline of the structure is quite different. It is surprising that the west wall of Cell no. 1 (i.e. the entrance wall) only reaches the top of layer 8, while the east wall (the one towards the stupa, being the rear wall) cuts into layer 9 and almost reaches down to the Paved Floor. From the photographs one gets the impression that Cell

[9] 179



Fig. 10 - Shnaisha. Pedestal of cult image from Cell no. 2. Dept of Archaeology, University of Peshawar. (Photo by courtesy of the Department).

no. 1 was built on a slope, perhaps with very poor foundations. Abdur Rahman (1993: 15) states that

Layer 8 is composed of a thick deposit of gravels and sandy streaks brought down by torrential rains from the hill side with occasional potsherds. It slopes from west to east and decreases in thickness as it approaches the Main Stupa. It marks another floor level (Floor II) as observed in trenches laid against the foundations of the Cells 1 and 2. Layer 7 is a thin

deposit and accumulated when Cell 1 was in use.

One should therefore infer that Abdur Rahman's Cell no. 1 is later than no. 2, a

circumstance which was kindly confirmed to me by Mr Mian Said Qamar (pers. comm.), though he did not include this piece of information in his report. Nor did Abdur Rahman

say anything about the relative chronology of the two cells, though he aptly observes that Cell no. 1

shows what may be called a rougher type of diaper masonry of a somewhat nondescript character, in which relatively thick stones are freely used, as they are used in semi-ashlar, for

filling up the interstices between the boulders (Abdur Rahman 1993: 20).

The caption of pi. Vllb provides some more information:

[10]



Showing paved floor (Floor 1) in the

foreground and a slab representing Floor 2. Between the two floors passes

layer 9 under the Mahadeva Shrine.

It seems therefore that Cell no. 2 was built when layer 9 had already accumulated, Cell no. 1 when also layer 8 had accumulated, Cell no. 2 being in connection with Floor 2. Was then Cell no. 2 built without foundations?

In any case a somewhat more precise dating can be attempted on stylistic grounds for the image and the pedestal. The lions with wig-like manes on either side of a cloth panel in front of the throne are

strongly reminiscent of the clay pedestals at Tapa Sard?r, Ghazni, which are to be dated to c. the 8th century A.D. (Taddei & Verardi 1985: pi. 9) or, even more, of some bronze images presumably from the Swat Valley, attributed to the 8th-9th

century A.D. (Pal 1975: nos. 75, 76; here, Fig. 11; cf. Ashraf 1993: 38, who rightly assigns the end of the sacred area to the 10th century).

The Images Flanking Cell No. 2

Fig. 11 - Bodhisattva Maitreya, from Swat. The

British Museum. (After Pal 1975: no. 75).

The accurate digging by Abdur Rahman (1993: 46) allowed him to clarify a very interesting circumstance:

?

Flanking the shrine [Cell no. 2] on the north were found four Bodhisattva figures in a row on the base moulding of the stupa. To the south came to light two much damaged (Buddha) figures in stucco seated at the same level. All these sculptures together with at least two Bodhisattvas from the upper circumambulation path belong to the time of Floor II, which

yielded late Kushan copper coins of Vasudeva III. That the Bodhisattva figures were fresh addition to the sculptural wealth of the main stupa, and not simply materials from an earlier

period reused afresh, is made clear by (I) their better state of preservation which makes them stand out prominently in the whole collection particularly when compared to the time ridden older panel reliefs found in a deplorable condition, (II) their placement on the base moulding not used for this purpose at any other time and (III) their grouping near the Mahadeva shrine

suggesting contemporaneity with the latter.

I would raise some doubts about this interpretation, as the nice photographs reproduced by Abdur Rahman as pis. Xllb, XIIIa-b and XIVa, show three of the four Bodhisattvas resting

[in 181



on the moulding to the north of Cell no. 2, which appear to have been already damaged when they were placed there ? the ends of the stool legs of the image in pi. XHIa are

missing, the halo of the Maitreya image in pi. XHIb is broken and its seat is also badly damaged, the stem of the lotus on which the Bodhisattva of pi. XlVa is seated, is broken, etc. All this damage could not have occurred after the images were placed on the moulding, if they were actually found in that particular position

? they were already damaged and

then reused close to Cell no. 2, which appears to have remained as the focus of Buddhist devotion when the sanctuary was almost abandoned. I agree with Abdur Rahman in

considering these images as comparatively late, though certainly not so late as the stele in Cell no. 2; they can be compared with the two Bodhisattvas from a stratified inhabited area at Bir-kot-ghwandai (Callieri et al. 1992: 35, pi. XVIII. 1-2) which are to be dated mid-2nd to late 3rd century A.D. The Shnaisha images were presumably placed there

along with the stucco images reproduced by Abdur Rahman as pis. XIVb and XVa (which are attributable to c. the 4th century A.D.), or even at a later time. It would be greatly helpful it we knew whether these stucco images decorated the entire perimeter of the stupa or were only limited to a small area south of Cell no. 2.

Another point of some interest is to know the exact location and appearance of the capital of pi. XVb when it was found. The plate's caption reads, 'Soapstone capital on plinth moulding of the Main Stupa', but there seems to be a few-centimetres thick layer of soil between the

plinth and the capital. In any case, this capital (also reproduced in pi. XXIXb) was re-used in an obviously improper position (cf. Abdur Rahman 1993a: 107), just like the above

mentioned images resting on the plinth. Actually, the re-use of earlier sculptures in late Buddhist buildings seems to have been

a fairly widespread practice in Gandh?ra ? there are examples at Butkara I (e.g. Faccenna 1962: pi. XVIIa-b; 1964: 47, pi. IX), at Said? Sharif I (Callieri 1989: 20, fig. 20), at Marjanai (Shah Nazar Khan 1995: 10, pis. 3b, 8a), and elsewhere.

A question which will remain unanswered unless the excavators provide more detailed information on the circumstances of the finding is the chronological relationship between the stucco images and Cell no. 2 ? was this built against a stucco plastering connected with the stucco images? The stucco Buddha of pi. XVa seems to be connected with plastering

? does this plastering reach down to Floor II only?

The Sculptures

These are a few minor observations concerning some of the sculptures found at Shnaisha and reproduced by Professor Abdur Rahman in his report.

Abdur Rahman (1993: 53, pis. LVIII and LIX) describes five triangular panels depicting fabulous winged animals and reproduces three of them. He labels them as 'brackets'; the three reproduced are described as 'triangular brackets'. Insofar as the latter are concerned, I wish to suggest that they are no brackets. They belong to a class of reliefs which have only one side sculptured, the other being flat, a detail that does not fit at all with their being used as brackets. I would rather think that they are the side-pieces of stair-risers (cf. Marshall 1960:

37, fig. 48) ?

'string panels of stairs' in Zwalf's terminology (Zwalf 1996: nos. 340-341). (See infra, under 'The Eastern Platform').

182 [12]



One of the stucco fragments is labelled by Abdur Rahman (1993: 33, pi. XLVa) as a

'bust of Bodhisattva' which 'appears to be a prototype for bejewelled Buddha'. This seems too cautious a description

? it is actually a bejewelled Buddha, quite similar to the one found at Hadda (Taddei 1992: fig. 55.2).

The two fragments of beamed lotus-shaped discs reproduced as pi. LVIIa-b by Abdur Rahman are labelled in the captions as 'fragments of haloes'. I do not find any more detailed

description in the text, but I am inclined to suggest that those discs are rather parts of a

chattr?vali (cf. Faccenna et al. 1993: 285-355, esp. fig. Ill, pi. 156a; Zwalf 1996: 476): the smooth central surface of the disc in pi. LVIIb is strongly suggestive of this interpretation.

A relief containing three panels from a frieze with stories of the Buddha Siddh?rtha is

reproduced as pi. XXXVIb by Abdur Rahman, as pi. 26 by Qamar. Abdur Rahman (1993: 31) writes that the panel on the left

cannot be the usual wrestling scene for the combatants here do not wear the shorts of

professional athletes. Moreover one of them is striking with a sword.

Qamar (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 193) merely speaks of 'a contest of arms'. The identification of the scene is made certain thanks to its position in the frieze ? it undoubtedly represents the Contest for the Buddha's relics, before the intervention of Drona (or Dh?mragotra) reinstated peace. Other examples of the same scene are not so numerous ? suffice it to recall the two fragments in Japanese private collections reproduced by Kurita (1988: nos. 518-519).

Reg. no. 1 (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 193, pi. 27; Abdur Rahman 1993: 27, pi. XLb) is a puzzling relief from the point of view of iconography. A horse-driven chariot has been

stopped by a bearded 'Herculean' character who catches the charioteer by his hair and is about to kill him presumably with a sword. The other two occupants of the chariot, both much defaced, 'throw their hands up in the air in horror' (Abdur Rahman). The assailant wears a dhoti and an upper garment rolled round his waist. This redoubtable character is called a 'giant' by both Qamar and Abdur Rahman ? the latter also labels it as 'a jina figure' in the plate's caption, which sounds rather disconcerting unless we surmise that it is just a misprint in the place of jinn 'sprite or goblin'. Though the assailant's head is badly defaced, one can vaguely recognize a kind of crown made of leaf-like segments on it ? if my impression is not wrong, this might induce us to believe that our relief from Shnaisha depicts one of the thousand murders Ahimsaka/Angulim?la was compelled to commit

by order of his guru (4). It is highly probable that the 'panel relief depicting a lotus flower' (Abdur Rahman 1993:

27, pi. LVa; Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 195, pi. 33) is part of a hannik?. An examination of the rear side of the panel could easily remove all doubts (cf., e.g., Farooq Sw?ti 1997:

14, pi. 50).

(4) In this case the relief would prove to be unique, as the story of Angulim?la in Gandharan art is usually restricted to its conclusion, when Angulim?la is about to kill his own mother and/or the Buddha himself. Moreover, he is depicted in the known specimens as a beardless young man. But I do not know

of any other villain in Buddhist literature who might match this depiction. For the iconography of

Angulim?la, see Taddei (1969: 63-64); Dr Pia Brancaccio has prepared an article on the iconography of Angulim?la soon to be published in this Journal.

[13] 183



Reg. no. 67 is a fragment of a relief depicting the Bodhisattva Maitreya. Abdur Rahman

(1993: 31, pis. XXIIIb-XXIV) suggests that this is to be joined to two other fragments (Reg. nos. 66 and 80): an attempt to piece the various fragments together is illustrated by Farooq Sw?ti (1997: 15, pi. 56), but the result is not fully satisfactory

? the fragment on the left (Reg. no. 80, including Brahma and a flying amorino) is to be shifted to the left and below.

Lastly I have to point out a minor oversight which might cause some confusion. The

caption of pi. XXVIIa in Abdur Rahman's report describes a 'headless figure of Bodhisattva

Maitreya (Reg. no. 148, green schist)' from NK area, which is also listed (though with no reference to any illustration) on p. 54. The photograph of pi. XXVIIa actually reproduces a Maitreya complete with his head, apparently the same Maitreya as the one reproduced in

pi. XXVb, being Reg. no. 84, described on p. 32. The difference between the two plates consists in pi. XXVb depicting the image no. 84 as it was before restoration, pi. XXVIIa

showing it (not no. 148) after the joining of left forearm and right leg to the Bodhisattva's

body. The description on p. 32 refers to the image before restoration. A similar oversight is found in the report by Qamar where the same Bodhisattva is

described and reproduced twice ? before restoration (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 190, pi. 17) and after restoration {ibid.: 187, pi. 11).

The Eastern Platform

This very interesting building (Fig. 7) was mainly brought to the light by treasure-seekers. Both Qamar (Qamar & Ashraf 1991: 183-84, pis. 6-7) and Abdur Rahman (1993: 19, pis. XVIa-XVIIIa) give a very succinct description of it. It is to be hoped that further research

may lead to a better knowledge of this structure, as it seems to fall within a class of monuments still awaiting a satisfactory explanation of their cultural function (presumably vih?ras). I refer to the so-called 'Great Building' of Butkara I (Faccenna 1980-81: 151-60, pis. 350-64) and

cognate monuments at Gumbat and Abbas?hebchina (Swat), Takht-i-B?hi, Taxila, and Hadda

(ibid.: 160, n. 3) ? it is also to be noted that large pots were found embedded in the floor both at Shnaisha (Abdur Rahman 1993: 19, pi. XVIb) and Butkara I (Faccenna 1980-81: 158, pis. 353a, 358a).

The exquisitely carved reliefs decorating the lowermost step of the platform's stair deserve a special mention, as the palmettes and other devices on them seem to point to a fairly early date (Abdur Rahman 1993: 19 and pis. LIII-LIVb).

The base moulding and dividing panels of this stair-riser clearly link it to other pieces from Shnaisha, such as those reproduced by Abdur Rahman on pis. XXXIVa-b, XXXVIIIb,

XLVIIa-b, and XLVIIIa-b. All of them are 18 cm high, and most of them were found in the NK area, which 'comprises of the front side (north) of the main stupa [...] and the front side of the eastern platform' (Abdur Rahman 1993: 46; here, Fig. 7).

Abdur Rahman (1993: 46-47) very aptly hypothesizes that some of the reliefs found in the area (the above-mentioned ones, I presume) 'were probably used as stair risers' in the Eastern Platform and the Main Stupa. The number of fragments available, including the

triangular 'string panels' described above (also from the NK area), will certainly allow the excavators to provide a partial reconstruction of the stairway decorations in their final report. Unfortunately no reliable data are available from the NK area, which was excavated by

184 [14]



Mr Nazir Khan in 1989 ? it will therefore prove very difficult to tell with any certainty which stair-risers (and string panels) belong to which of the two monumental buildings.

The only fragment of stair-riser which does not appear to have been found in the NK area is the one reproduced by Abdur Rahman on pi. XXXVIIIb (Reg. no. 73, as stated in the text p. 29, not 13, as in the caption). However, both dimensions and subject matter make it highly probable that it also belongs to the stairway of the Eastern Platform.

Chronological Outline

The archaeological evidence has allowed the excavators to propose a subdivision of the structural activity at Shnaisha into three periods

? Period I, including the Main Stupa, the Monastery wall and flight of steps, the Eastern Platform (NK area), three votive stupas (nos. 1-3) in NK area, the Tank (NK area); period II, being represented by the two cells, nos. 1 and 2; Period III, consisting of a foundation wall yet to be investigated (Abdur Rahman 1993: 16-17).

Curiously enough, pi. XVIIIb in the same report (caption: 'Votive stupas in the NK area') shows more stupas than are visible in the plan (fig. 5; here, Fig. 7), though stupa no. 3, which is described as 'circular in plan' (ibid.: 19) cannot be recognized in any of the votive stupas visible in the plate itself. No votive stupa preserving square base and drum is described either

by Qamar or Abdur Rahman, but one such stupa is distinctly visible in pi. XVIIIb of Abdur Rahman's report. The photograph reproduced does not depict Shnaisha ? it is a detail of the excavations of the Italian Archaeological Mission at P?nr (cf. Faccenna et al. 1993: pi. 33).

I shall abstain from any chronological consideration based on masonry technique due to the uncertainty of the information provided.

The sculptures allow for some safer considerations to be put forth. I have already observed that the green-schist decoration of the lowermost stair-riser of the Eastern Platform

appears to be fairly early. It is characterized by palmette devices which disappear from the later production, though they undoubtedly represent a development from those depicted in

Stupas 14, 17 and 27 at Butkara I (Faccenna 1974: 172-75, fig. 34). This decoration is attributed to Period I which, on the grounds of the numismatic evidence,

can be referred to the early Kushan period insofar as the construction of the Main Stupa is concerned. This falls in with the circumstance that no reliefs (but see infra) were found at Shnaisha belonging to the early group recognized at Butkara I (Faccenna 1974: 172-75; van Lohuizen-de Leeuw 1981; Huntington 1985: 119-22; Fabregues 1987; Zwalf 1996: 96-97). Nevertheless I wish to point out that the numismatic evidence available is not enough to allow us to say (as Abdur Rahman says) that the Main Stupa dates back to the time of Huviska. The only really significant coin is the one 'found under the paved floor in the foundation trench near the west side of the main stupa' (Abdur Rahman 1993: 39, no. 4), but we know too little of this foundation trench, which is not even indicated in the section

(fig. 3; here, Fig. 8). It is possible that the time of Huviska saw the completion of the area round the Main Stupa, the construction of which presumably took place at an earlier date. In any case, it is interesting to note that the figured Corinthian capitals of the Great Stupa appear to be later ? on the grounds of their stylistic peculiarities

? than the decoration of the stairway of the Eastern Platform and possibly that of the Main Stupa itself. This might suggest that the Main Stupa was completed at a comparatively later date.

[15] 185



A frieze decorated with carinated toranas (or 'cattya arches') is also attributed by Abdur Rahman (1993: 26-27, pis. XLIXa-La) to Period I ? this is in agreement with the evidence from other sites, as this kind of frieze seems to disappear in the late Kushan period. The

specimens from Shnaisha are certainly later than such pieces as the famous ones from Butkara I (Faccenna 1962: pis. CLXVI-CLXIII; Faccenna 1974: figs. 39-40); a date within the 1st

century A.D. can reasonably be attributed to these reliefs from Shnaisha and cognate pieces (cf. Taddei 1990: 46-47).

A group of images characterized by flat drapery and heavy eye-lids are attributed by Abdur Rahman (1993: pis. XXIIIa-b, XXVa-b, XXVIIa, XLVb) to Period II ? this is in

agreement with the evidence from other sites, as I have suggested supra (under The Images Flanking Cell No. 2'). Other sculptures as well are attributed to Period II by Abdur Rahman

(e.g. pi. XLVIa-b) with no apparent reason. In particular, the male head on pi. XLVIb is never referred to in the text, but its caption reads, 'A much damaged head (Reg. no. 208, green schist). Period IF ? in spite of its poor state of preservation and the unsatisfactory quality of the reproduction, I have the impression that its eyes with incised irises provide a link with the heads belonging to the proto-Gandharan group referred to above. If this is not

merely due to my wrong evaluation, the head no. 208 should not be assigned to Period II, but would belong to the very earliest sculptural activity at Shnaisha.

This sculptural 'Period II', as I have already emphasized, can in no way be identified with the structural Period II, as described by Abdur Rahman (i.e. Cells nos. 1 and 2), active when the sacred area was already in a state of disrepair. I would rather suggest that it is styled 'Period I, Phase 2', as it does not seem to correspond to any consistent change in the layout of the sacred area, unless fresh research provides better information about the connection between the main buildings and the slab pavement, etc.

REFERENCES

Abdur Rahman (1993) Shnaisha Gumbat: First Preliminary Excavation Report. In Abdur Rahman, ed., Professor A.H. Dani Felicitation Volume ( = Ancient Pakistan, VIII), pp. 1-124. Peshawar.

Abdur Rahman (1993a) Recent Developments in Buddhist Archaeology in Pakistan. SAS, 9, pp. 105-8. Ashraf Khan, M. (1993) Buddhist Shrines in Swat. Saidu Sharif.

Ashraf Khan, Md. (1996) Excavation at Gumbatuna Stupa (Swat). Archaeological Reconnaissances in

Gandhara 1996, ed. Saeed-ur-Rehman, pp. 96-106. Karachi.

Callieri, P. (1989) Saidu Sharif I {Swat, Pakistan), 1. The Buddhist Sacred Area, The Monastery. RepMem, XXIII 1. Rome.

Callieri, P., P. Brocato, A. Filigenzi, M. Nascari & L.M. Olivieri (1992) Bir-kot-ghwandai 1990-1992.

A Preliminary Report on the Excavations of the Italian Archaeological Mission, IsMEO. Suppl. no. 73 to AION, 52/4. Napoli.

Fabregues, Ch. (1987) The Indo-Parthian Beginnings of Gandhara Sculpture. Bulletin of the Asia Institute, 1, pp. 33-43.

186 [16]



Faccenna, D. (1962) Sculptures from the Sacred Area of Butkara I (Swat, W. Pakistan), 2. Plates I-CCCXXXV.

RepMem, II 2. Roma.

Faccenna, D. (1964) A Guide to the Excavations in Swat (Pakistan) 1956-1962 (Department of Archaeology of Pakistan and IsMEO). Roma.

Faccenna, D. (1974) Excavations of the Italian Archaeological Mission (IsMEO) in Pakistan: Some Problems of Gandharan Art and Architecture. In Central'naja Azija v kusanskuju epohu / Central Asia in the Kushan Period. Proceedings of the International Conference on the History, Archaeology and Culture of Central Asia in the Kushan Period, Dushanbe, September 27-October 6, 1968, pp. 126-76. Moskva.

Faccenna, D. (1980-81) Butkara I (Sw?t, Pakistan) 1956-1962, Part 1. Text; Part 5.1. Plates. RepMem, III 1, III 5.1. Rome.

Faccenna, D. (1995) Saidu Sharif I (Swat, Pakistan), 2. The Buddhist Sacred Area ? The St?pa Terrace, 2 vols. RepMem, XXIII 2. Rome.

Faccenna, D. (1995a) A Relief in the Lahore Museum Showing a Columned St?pa. Lahore Museum Bulletin, VIII 2, pp. 1-13.

Faccenna, D., A.N. Khan & I.H. Nadiem (1993) P?nr I (Swat, Pakistan), 1. RepMem, XXVI 1. Rome.

Farooq Sw?ti, Md. (1997) Special Features of the Buddhist Art in the Sw?t Valley. ?th?riyy?t (Archaeology), 1, pp. 1-60. Peshawar.

Filigenzi, A. (1997) Buddhist Rock Sculptures in Swat, North West Pakistan. In R. Allchin & B. Allchin, eds., South Asian Archaeology 1995, pp. 625-35. New Delhi.

Huntington, S.L. & J.C. (1985) The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain. New York-Tokyo.

Kurita, I. (1988) Gandharan Art, I. The Buddha's Life Story [in Japanese]. Tokyo. Lohuizen-de Leeuw, J.E. van (1981) New Evidence with Regard to the Origin of the Buddha Image.

In H. H?rtel, ed., South Asian Archaeology 1979, pp. 377-400. Berlin.

Marshall, Sir J. (1960) The Buddhist Art of Gandhara. Memoirs of the Department of Archaeology in

Pakistan, I. Cambridge.

Pal, P. (1975) Bronzes of Kashmir. Graz.

Qamar, Mian Said & Md. Ashraf Khan (1991) Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Excavations of Buddhist Sites in Swat, N.W.F.P., 1989-90. Journal of Central Asia, XXIV 2, pp. 173-234.

Shah Nazar Khan (1995) Preliminary Report of Excavations at Marjanai, Kabal, Swat. Ancient Pakistan, XI, pp. 1-74.

Stein, Sir A. (1929) On Alexander's Track to the Indus. Personal Narrative of Explorations on the North West Frontier of India. London.

Stein, Sir A. (1930) An Archaeological Tour in Upper Sw?t and Adjacent Hill Tracts. MASI, 42. Calcutta.

Taddei, M. (1969) The Hariscandra Seal from M?hra Mor?du. An Iconographical Note. AION, n.s., XIX, pp. 57-68.

Taddei, M. (1970) Inscribed Clay Tablets and Miniature St?pas from Gazni. EW, 20, pp. 70-86.

Taddei, M. (1990) A Flaming Buddha and His Devotees from Far-away Countries. In C. Bautze-Picron,

ed., Makaranda. Essays in honour of Dr. James C. Harle, pp. 43-50. Delhi.

Taddei, M. (1992) The Bejewelled Buddha and the Mahis?suramardini: Religion and Political Ideology in Pre-Muslim Afghanistan. In C. Jarrige, ed., South Asian Archaeology 1989, pp. 457-64. Madison,

Wise.

[17] 187



Taddei, M. & G. Verardi (1985) Clay Stupas and Thrones at Tapa Sard?r, Ghazni (Afghanistan). Zinbun: Memoirs of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University, 20, pp. 17-32.

Tucci, G. (1958) Preliminary Report on an Archaeological Survey in Swat. EW, 9, pp. 279-328 (repr. in G. Tucci, On Sw?t: Historical and Archaeological Notes, Rome 1997, pp. 59-113).

Vertogradova, V. (1990) Clay Tablets with Indian Texts from Khisht-tepa. IASCCA Information Bulletin, 17, pp. 25-31.

Zwalf, W. (1996) A Catalogue of the Gandh?ra Sculpture in the British Museum. London.

188 [18]



Italian- tadai review on Rahman's report.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Italian- tadai review on Rahman's report.pdf