The early phase of Amarāvatī art (2nd-1st century BCE)

From the survey of the Amarāvatī sculptures it can be surmised that the first phase of the Amarāvatī sculptures reveal archaic and flattened figure. This is seen in the reliefs from early phase of Amarāvatī and Jāggayyapeṭa and is quite similar to that of the Bhārhut tradition. However, technically the Amarāvatī reliefs exhibit a developed sense of form. The attempt towards dynamic compositional unity which started at Bhārhut in a hesitating manner reached its maturity in the Amarāvatī reliefs. The iconoplastic language slowly developed into a mature form in the Amarāvatī art. Thus the Amarāvatī reliefs are more pleasing to the onlookers. In comparison to the rigid frontality of the Bhārhut figures, the figures at Amarāvatī illustrate back view, side view, three quarter view and frontal view. However, at Amarāvatī the compositional element showed a preference for diagonal movement which was also seen in some Sāñchī reliefs^[1]. Illusion of space is also provided by the Amarāvatī artists for creating perspective and depth. This is not seen in the reliefs at Bhārhut, Bodhgayā and early reliefs at Sāñchī. The overcrowding of composition by cramping figures in every space in Bhārhut, Bodhgayā and early narratives at Sāñchī stops overlapping of figures which is considered a visual reality. Overlapping of figures, depth extension and matured linearism was successfully achieved in the Amarāvatī atelier.

Some architectural commonness is also viewed in the stūpas at Bhārhut, Sāñchī and Amarāvatī. These stūpas exhibit a solid core. Like Sāñchī, the Amarāvatī stūpa had an upper processional path on the drum of the superstructure. This path also had upright joined by solid rectangular panels. The domes of all the stūpas are decorated with festoons and medallions in the lime plaster^[2]. The stūpas at Bhārhut, Sāñchī, Amarāvatī and Nāgārjunākoṇḍa have their platforms a bit away from the central dome. However, the stūpas of Amarāvatī repertoire are much more ornamental as compared to those of Bhārhut and Sāñchī.

The ornamentation of the uprights of the railing is more decorative than those of Bhārhut and Sāñchī. They appear to be octagonal showing half lotus medallion on top and bottom and full medallion in the middle containing scenes pertaining to some Jātakas and life scenes of Buddha.

It appears that the Amarāvatī railing usually assigned to the 2^nd century C.E is a logical development of the earlier style of Bhārhut and Sāñchī. The wooden ground railing of Stūpa 1 at Sāñchī served as the model for the granite railing of the Amarāvatī stūpa^[3]. The cross bars of the railings of the Sāñchī Stūpa II and the Bhārhut stūpa was chiseled like that of Amarāvatī.

It may be pointed out that though the early phase of Amarāvatī art (2^nd -1st century B.C.E) was marked by its distinctive traits and idioms shaped by the local character, the art cannot be disassociated with the contemporary art movement prevalent in India. This is proven by the linkages visible in the art motifs and content in the Amarāvatī art and the early narrative art tradition of India.

The resemblance witnessed in the early phase of Amarāvatī art and the contemporary early narrative art tradition in Bhārhut, Bodhgayā, Sāñchī and other parts of India is possibly due to the fact that they were the political successors of the imperial Mauryas^[4] and carried the artistic heritage to their respective area. It can be further suggested that the early phase of the Amarāvatī art owed its inspiration to Bhārhut and Sāñchī. However, as mentioned earlier in Amarāvatī art one notices marked progress both intellectually and technically.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Saraswati S.K, 1975, A Survey of Indian Sculpture, Calcutta, p 85.

[2]:

Prof Rao Manjushree, 2000 ‘Impact of Sāñchī and Bhārhut Art on Amarāvatī and Nāgārjunākoṇḍa Art, (Stupas and Chaitya Grihas) in Kamalakar G, Veerendar N and Babu Vijaya Kumar, South Indian Archaeology, Delhi, p 118.

[3]:

Ibid, p 124.

[4]:

Sivaramamurti C, Op.cit, p 44.