Impact of Amarāvatī on early schools of art of South-East Asia

The aesthetic impact of Amarāvatī on early schools of art of South-East Asia is evident from a number of antiquities recovered from the region. This definitely indicates the interaction of cultural milieu keeping intact their individualistic trend of culture.

The influence of Amarāvatī school is visible in several Buddha images from different parts of South-East Asia. Among them the Dong Duong Buddha (Pl 50c) in the Cam province of Queng Nam, bronze Buddha in Celebes, bronze Buddha from Pong Tuk on the Kaburi river, Buddha from Chaiya and the Buddha from Korat image in North-East Siam is mentionworthy. In addition to these, the Buddha in the Southern Jember province of Eastern Java and another Buddha image in the hill of Seguntang at Palembang in the Eastern division of Sumatra showed Amarāvatī affiliation. Le May pointed out that in one of the sites on the Bujang river in Kedah was found a remarkable fine bronze image of Buddha^[1]. Its features exhibit closeness to the Amarāvatī idiom.

All the Buddhas mentioned above are characterized by the robe flowing over the left shoulder leaving the right shoulder bare. Its low uṣṇīṣa and folds of the garment along with other features indicate its close affiliation to the later Amarāvatī idiom.

Like later Amarāvatī Buddha images, the figure at Dong Duong shows pronounced forehead mark (ūrṇa), dignified head, a pronounced uṣṇīṣa and an erect and symmetrical body posture clad in elegantly pleated robes drawn diagonally across the body like Amarāvatī images. The Buddha is dated to the 3^rd century C.E by A.K Coomaraswamy. Coomaraswamy suggested that it was probably an imported image and the style is very near to that of Amarāvatī. However, in recent times the scholars date the image to the 8^th-9^th century C.E. Barrett argued that the Dong Duong Buddha was not a product of early Amarāvatī School but was dated much later^[2]. This type of images were imported either from South India or Sri Lanka and served as a source for South East Asian type of Buddha image. John Guy pointed out that there was no Buddha images of South Indian style that were exported to South East Asia before 8^th century C.E and these metal images were not directly related to the stone images of Amarāvatī of 2^nd Century-3^rd Century C.E.

The Pong Tuk image was more attenuated than Amarāvatī specimens and dated to 8^th century CE. By that time the ‘later Amarāvatī Style’ was perpetuated primarily in Sri Lanka^[3]. Sri Lanka was probably the source of Pong Tuk image of Buddha shown in rippled sanghati that was typical of Amarāvatī.

South Indian resonance also appears in a standing Buddha image recovered in Kutei, East Borneo^[4]. This figure exhibits post Amarāvatī style. The figure is in frontal symmetrical position with fluted robes worn with left shoulder bare. The hand is extended in the varada mudrā.

An Avolokitesvara image from Surat Thani province, Thailand^[5] is very similar to the Bodhisattva image from the Lower Kṛṣṇa valley preserved in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (Pl 50d). The image from Thailand exhibits the same thin cast copper alloy body as in the sculptures of the lower Kṛṣṇa valley. The rope is worn over the left shoulder in continuation of the Amarāvatī idiom. Echoes of the Andhra specimen is visible in the form, that is, broad shoulders, broad chest and slender waist. Another similarity is seen in the presence of jaṭāmukuṭa.

A bronze standing Buddha from Nakhon Si Thammarat again shares some characteristic with the Buddha figures of the Amarāvatī repertoire^[6]. The image is characterized by the prominent pleates of robe leaving the right shoulder bare and the left hand grasping one end of the robe like Amarāvatī Buddha figures.

Another image of Buddha in bronze discovered at Ban Fai in the Buri Ram Province, Thailand displays vitarka mudrā with both hands raised^[7]. This specimen is dated in the 8^th century C.E and is preserved in the Bangkok National Museum (Pl 51a). Similar image of Buddha with both hands raised in the vitarka mudrā is found at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa.(Pl 51b)

Iconographically the figure of Buddha on the reliefs of Borobudur is seated and standing like the Indian representation of the late Nāgārjunākoṇḍa and Amarāvatī reliefs^[8]. In the reliefs the Master is shown clad in saṅnghati, bearing uṣṇīṣa with little rounded curls and an ūrṇa on the forehead.

Another bronze Buddha from Sempaga on the western coast of Celebes also deserves special mention. The images from south Sulawasi in east Java shows Amarāvatī’s influence^[9]. The head of Romlok without usnisa display some similarity with some Buddha heads from Amarāvatī^[10].

A large granite Buddha in Bukit Seguntang near Palembang in Sumatra wears a saṅghati covering both the shoulders^[11]. In one of the sites on the Bujang river in Kedah (Malaya) was found a fine bronze image of Buddha. Le May pointed out that this artifact exhibits a transition from Amarāvatī School to the Gupta School and can be ascribed to 4^th–5^th century C.E^[12]. Another standing Buddha near Sungei Golok, Pattani, Narathiwet province in Malaya border is noteworthy^[13]. It bears some resemblance to the Amarāvatī Buddha.

A bronze Buddha preserved in Prince Bhanubandhu collection shows the special paryankasana of the Amarāvatī repertoire. Same characteristic is viewed in an image of Buddha in bronze preserved in the National Museum. The various Buddha images in bronze and stone undoubtedly bear some resemblance to the Amarāvatī repertoire. French art historian P. Dupont is of the view that some Buddha images of late Amarāvatī style found in different South East Asian countries were made in Sri Lanka under Amarāvatī’s influences^[14]. Thus the Sri Lankan Buddha touched by Amarāvatī idiom was possibly the source of inspiration for the South-East-Asian Buddhas.

The representation of Nāga Muchalinda is found in several places of South-East-Asia. The depictions can be placed in the early phase of Buddhist art in SouthEast Asia. The reasons for the appeal are not clear but may be related to the preexisting religious belief in the power of water and the cult of nāga.

Among several Nāga Muchalinda depictions mention may be made of a representation on a votive tablet. In this regard, it may be stated that the earliest known votive tablets recovered in Thailand were discovered on the west coast of the peninsula at Krabi province. These tablets show strong influence of Indian art, especially from the South–East region. Among them one tablet from Wat Thum Suae illustrates seated Buddha in meditation sheltered by nāga hoods^[15] (Pl 51c). The style exhibits closeness to the lower Kṛṣṇa valley images in Andhra and can be compared to a relief from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa (Pl 51d) preserved in the Archaeological Museum, Nāgārjunākoṇḍa and another relief from Amarāvatī, preserved in the British Museum. The tablet from Thailand can be dated to the 7^th century C.E. Considering the closeness to the Andhra specimens it can be suggested that the votive tablet was probably produced by the monks of the Mahāsaṅghikā sect of Buddhism in Andhra Pradesh and possibly imported to Thailand by the pilgrims who visited the sacred Buddhist monuments in Andhra.

A fragment of a stucco sculpture in the Amarāvatī style from U-Thong again shows the Buddha seated on the coils of nāga^[16]. Unfortunately only the lower portion of the sculpture survives (Pl 52a). But the sitting posture on the coils of nāga resembles Nāga Muchalinda specimens of the Amarāvatī repertoire (Pl 52b). The stucco relief appears to have been made for architectural embellishment.

However, it is difficult to state whether it was made locally or imported from South–Eastern region of India.

A bronze from Wat Wiene Chaiya in Surat Thani shows Buddha with folded legs, the right on the left with the right hand showing Māra vijaya pose. The serpentine background is considered to be connected to the Nāga Muchalinda legend^[17]. The motif of Buddha protected by Nāga Muchalinda is frequently portrayed in the Amarāvatī art. It can be stated that Amarāvatī School provided the proto-type for Khmer Art which inspired the art of Śrī Vijaya in Thailand.

The Nāga Muchalinda representations in South -East Asia possibly owed its iconographic form to the Andhra art. In this regard it is interesting to note that as early as 484 C.E when Kauṇḍinya Jayavarman, the king of Funan sent Nāgasena, the Indian prince to the emperor of China asking for help against the kingdom of Champa, he said that if his request was granted he would sent among other things “an image of gold with the seat of the king of Dragons”. The reference here is possibly to the image of Buddha seated under the protection of Nāga Muchalinda^[18].

Quite a number of stone wheels of Dharma and figures of deer have been found in the Dvaravati art^[19]. The symbol stands for the first preaching of Buddha at Sarnath. They were made according to the ancient Indian conception that prevailed in India prior to the anthropomorphic depiction of Buddha. The style of the wheel closely resembles the one discovered from Lingarājapalli, very close to Amarāvatī.

Two terracotta reliefs found at U-Thong, Thailand display stylistic closeness to the specimens from the Andhra region. These can be dated to 2^nd–4^th century C.E. One of the reliefs depicts a kinnarī while another portrays a row of Buddhist monks dressed in heavy, voluminous robes like those of the Amarāvatī style^[20].

In addition to the Buddhist images, some Visnu images from Thailand contain echoes of the Amarāvatī idiom^[21]. In this context mention may be made of the Visnu from Chaiya, district Ligon dated to the 4^th century C.E. This image can be considered as the earliest Brāhmaṇical statue of the region. Stylistically this image shows influences of the art of Amarāvatī. Two more images of Viṣṇu may be mentioned which display influences of the Amarāvatī art. The first image is found from Takuapa and the second from Vieng Sra from southern Thailand. Both the images are ascribed to the 7th -8th century C.E^[22]. The cylindrical mitre or kiriṭamukuṭa of these Viṣṇu images can be cited as a derivative of the Pallava style. But it is important to recall that such headdresses are seen in the pre-Pallava Amarāvatī and Nāgārjunākoṇḍa art.

The figures of apsaras, celestial nymphs are carved at Angkor. The slender and pliable bodies with attenuated waist are reminiscent of the Amarāvatī female figures. Despite this external commonness, the figures are definitely shaped according to the aesthetic identity of the land.

Some architectural decoration reveals features similar to that of the Amarāvatī art. In U-Thong in Suphanburi province, among several finds mention may be made of a beautiful stucco and terracotta architectural decoration in the Amarāvatī style^[23]. It may be pointed out that Meklong River was participating in trade. So transportation of artistic impulses from the lower Kṛṣṇa valley was possible considering the close proximity.

In addition to Thailand, several brick structures of Beikhano city of Burma again show the influence of the monuments of Nāgārjunākoṇḍa. Beikthano city in the Irrawaddy valley and about 100 miles north of Śrīkṣetra is considered to be the earliest of the three Pyo capitals. Within the city wall brick structures like the palace site, monasteries and stūpa with four āyaka platforms and several structures associated with burial urns have been discovered. The monastic buildings and stūpa show links with Nāgārjunākoṇḍa and Amarāvatī^[24]. Aung Thaw excavated the remains of Beikthano. Later Paul Wheatley suggested that the architectural structures of Beikthano, especially of the sites KKG2, KKG3 and KKG21 were introduced by Aparamahāvinaseliyes and Mahiśasaka Buddhist sects of Nāgārjunākoṇḍa. A stūpa with a stele decoration at Hmawza city of Burma was in all probability stylistically close to Amarāvatī^[25]. The Buddhist bronzes discovered from the stūpas near Hmawza show stylistic relationship with the late Andhra style.

Stylistic akinness is also visible in few coins from South-East-Asia. In this regard it may be noted that the most extensive and varied numismatic production is from Dvaravatī, situated in the central part of Thailand. A silver coin weighing 89 gm, 28 -30 mm from U Thong illustrates a hybrid conch/ srivatsa type. The precise meaning of these symbols is uncertain. Bhadrapitha on coins is similar to that found on Buddhapada from Amarāvatī pointing once again to the South Indian connection^[26]. Another coin from Dvaravatī is mentionworthy. The obverse of the coin consists of an elephant chasing a lion. The riverse show a female on a makara holding a vase. The treatment of the figure of the female and the elephant is quite similar to the Amarāvatī art^[27] (Pl 52c).

Attention may be drawn to a copper coin illustrating a stylized double masted ship on one side and the figure of a humped bull on another side. It was found at Khuan Luk Pat in the Krabi province, South Thailand. The image of the ship resembles those on the coins of the Sātavāhanas from the Andhra region. According to N. Karashima Khuan Luk Pat was an important centre of manufacture and some Indians were included among the artisans. Tamils were definitely included among the artisans.If there were people from Tamilnadu, there could be people from Andhra as well residing at Khuan Luk Pat. This possibly explains the affiliation of ship type of coin at Khuan Luk Pat to Andhra^[28].

A pottery sherd recovered from Pyeh (Prome) on the Irrawaddy near Śrīkṣetra of Burma resembles Andhra affiliation. A large srivatsa with lotus below partly broken is found. The sherd is in clay with cream and buff coloured outside and darker inside. It measures 53 x 44 x 77 mm^[29].

A rod shaped dice of bone with black patches from Burma deserves special mention. It measures 37 x 12 x 12 mm. This dice has been cut in half and was originally twice thin length. Similar dice (aksa in Sanskrit) were found at Nāgārjunākoṇḍa and Taxila^[30].

The ritual deposits like reliquaries, a common accessory of all the Buddhist centres of Andhradeśa were discovered in all the Buddhist monuments of Java, Malay, Thailand, Burma (Pl 52d), Combodia and Vietnam^[31].

From the above discussion it is evident that the interchanges of art forms between Amarāvatī and Sri Lanka and countries of South-East Asia have always been active. The diffusion of artifacts of the Amarāvatī School is suggested by scholars. The Buddhist missionaries and migrants played a significant role in the transmission of artifacts. However, the major stimulus in the earliest contact between India and parts of Sri Lanka and South East Asia was trade and commerce^[32]. Trade acted as an agent of the shared culture. In fact the Indian merchants were attracted to South-East Asia as it was the gateway to trade with China^[33]. The Buddhist missionaries often accompanied Indian seamen on lengthy voyages. Amarāvatī was a sacred Buddhist international centre and hence Buddhist missionaries visited the region from various parts of India and abroad. The region was conducive to trade and hence the trading community also played a significant role in the upkeep of the Buddhist establishment. Thus, it was highly probable that the Buddhist missionaries, pilgrims and traders often carried souvenirs to the sacred Buddhist sites in Andhra and back to their homelands. In this act the Indian merchants along with the Buddhists from Andhra also played an important role in the dissemination of Andhra culture. Thus it is to Amarāvatī repertoire that the earliest impulsions of artistic styles in Sri Lanka and parts of South-East-Asia are manifestly owed. However, it may be added that the later influences came from the classical idiom of the Guptas and post Guptas. In fact it is pointed out by H.G.Q Wales that the influences of Indan culture flowed to South East Asia in successive waves:-1) Amarāvatī, (2^nd -3^rd Century C.E), 2) Gupta (4^th–6^th Century C.E), 3) Pallava (C 550–750 C.E), 4) Pala (C 750-900 C.E), 5) Later Pala (12^th-13^th Century C.E)^[34]. These artistic ingredients were absorbed and reinterpreted according to the aesthetic culture of its respective regions.

From the vast survey of archaeological antiquities in India, Sri Lanka and South-East Asia which show similarities to the Amarāvatī idiom, it can be surmised that Amarāvatī Art continued to exert its impact over a wide geographical terrain. The art of Amarāvatī proceeded along its traditional lines and gradually developed its own iconoplastic language in such a way that the treatment of lithic surface surpassed the contemporary relief sculptures. In fact what Amarāvatī acquired from early schools was modified according to the local aesthetic requirement and gradually evolved its own distinctive idiom. The “Amarāvatī School” which saw its efflorescence under the later Sātavāhana transmitted its artistic trait to the later art idioms. The common physiognomical features, identical poses, similar iconographic and decorative motifs viewed in artistic production of later dynasties definitely signals Amarāvatī’s continuing impact on later art traditions. Even the Gupta art derived its inspiration from the art of Amarāvatī. The Pallava and Chola art display strands of influences from the Amarāvatī repertoire. However, these influences were assimilated and reinterpreted according to the aesthetic requirement of their respective idiom. The diffusion and adaptation of Amarāvatī’s traits can be viewed in some Chalukyan specimen. This again indicates the continuing impact of Amarāvatī art in the later period. Thus it can be suggested that even after the Sātavāhana period, the artistic impulsions of Amarāvatī survived for long time span contributing greatly to the development of aesthetics in Indian art tradition.

Amarāvatī’s impact radiated to art centres of Sri Lanka and South-East Asia. It can be suggested that some Buddhist iconographic form owed its inspiration to the Andhra art. These images support the notion that Amarāvatī idiom continued to influence the production centre for Buddhist images in Sri Lanka and places of South East Asia. Imitation of artistic concepts from Andhra to the foreign land can also be clearly seen. However, Amarāvatī’s artistic influences were absorbed and this absorptive syncretic quality of the art traditions of South and South East Asia enriched its culture without losing its distinctive identity.

Thus, it can be postulated that the art of Amarāvatī greatly contributed to the development and enrichment of art tradition in India, Sri Lanka and South East Asia. Artistic impulses viewed by the linkages between Amarāvatī and other art traditions of India, Sri Lanka and parts of South East Asia points to the survival of Amarāvatī art over a longer time frame and extensive geographical terrain. This definitely assigns a premiere position for the art of Amarāvatī which continued to contribute in the development and enrichment of the early pan Asiatic art tradition.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Sarkar H.B, 1985, Cultural Relations Between India and South East Asian Countries, Delhi, p 326.

[2]:

Brown Robert L, 2011, ‘The importance of Gupta-period Sculpture in Southeast Asian Art History’ in Manguine Pierre Yues, Mani A and Wade Geoff (ed) Early Interactions between South and South East Asia, Singapore, p 321.

[3]:

Gosling Betty, 2004, Origins of Thai Art, U.S.A, p 76.

[4]:

Guy John, 2004, ‘South Indian Buddhism and its South East Asian Legacy’ in Pande Anupa and Pandya Dhar Parul (ed), Cultural Interface of India with Asia, New Delhi, p 163.

[5]:

Ibid, p 164.

[6]:

Tettoni Luca Invernizzi and Beek Steve Van, 2000, Arts of Thailand, Singapore, p 56.

[7]:

Ibid, p 56.

[8]:

Gupta S.K, 2006, ‘Borobudur-Climax of Buddhist Art’ in Pande G.C (ed), India’s Interaction with South East Asia, History of Science, Philosophy and culture in Indian Civilization, Vol 1, Part 3, New Delhi, P 406.

[9]:

Gupta Sunil, 2008, Op.cit, p 103.

[10]:

Dupont Pierre, 2006, Op.cit, p 190.

[11]:

Sastri K.A Nilakanta, 1950, Andhra Influence in the Far East, Rao M. Rama (ed), Sātavāhana Commemoration Volume, Vol-V, Journal of Andhra History and Culture, Guntur, p 85.

[12]:

Sarkar H.B, 1986, Trade and Commercial Activities in Malayo-Indonesian World, Calcutta, p 63.

[13]:

Ramachandran A, Op.cit, p 194.

[14]:

Ibid, p 193.

[15]:

Pattaratorn M.L Chirapravati, 1999, ‘Buddhist Votive Tablets and Amulets from Thailand’ in Brown Robert L (ed), Art of Thailand, Marg, Mumbai, p 81.

[16]:

Indrawooth Phasook, 2004, Art Religious beliefs in Dvaravati Kingdom, (C Thailand) in Kumar Bachchan (ed), The Art of Indonesia, Delhi, Pl 16.5

[17]:

Bhattacharya A.K, 2007, Buddhist Iconography in Thailand. A South East Asian Perspective, Kolkata, p 45.

[18]:

Le May Reginald, 2004 (reprint), Buddhist art in South East Asia, The Indian Influence on the Art of Thailand, Bombay, p 33.

[19]:

Thepsawasdi Nonglukana, 2004, ‘Cultural links between Thailand and India’ in Cultural interface of India with Asia, Op.cit, p 201.

[20]:

Gosling Betty, 2004, Op.cit, p 45.

[21]:

Ramachandran A, 1996, Op.cit, p 194.

[22]:

Dofflemyer Virginia, 1999, Viṣṇu images from ancient Thailand and concept of Kingship’ in Art of Thailand, Marg, pp 39-40, Fig 6, Fig 7.

[23]:

Ghosh Suchandra, 2012 ‘Exploring Early India’s Trade Linkages with Thailand-A Priliminary Survey, ‘in Ray Bandyopadhyay Sudipa, Chowdhuri Rita, and Chakrabarty Mohua, (ed), Aspects of Indian History and Culture, New Delhi, p 70.

[24]:

Middleton Shiela E. Hoey, 2005, Intaglios Cameos, Rings and Related objects from Burma and Java, England, p 12

[25]:

Ramachandran A, 1996, Op.cit, p 196.

[26]:

Wicks Robert S, 1999, ‘Indian Symbols in South East Asian Setting: Coins and medals of Ancient Dvaravati’ in Art of Thailand, Op.cit, p 8, Fig 10.

[27]:

Ibid, p 16, Fig 11.

[28]:

Ghosh Suchandra, 2012, Op.cit, p 70.

[29]:

Middleton Shiela E. Hoey, 2005, Op.cit, Appendix 66, p 117.

[30]:

Ibid, p 114

[31]:

Ramachandran A, 1996, Op.cit, p 195.

[32]:

Dube R.K, 2012, (reprint),’South East Asia as the Indian El Dorado’, in Ray Himanshu Prabha and Salles Jean Francois, Tradition and Archaeology Early Maritime Contact with Indian Ocean, Delhi, p 88.

[33]:

Guy John, 2004, Op.cit, p 157.

[34]:

Khanna Amarnath, 2008, Hindu and Buddhist Monument and Remains in South East Asia, New Delhi, p 1.