56 E. C. Bayley — On Hitman Sacrifices in Ancient India. [Marcii, 



ed in the fire at the Indian Department of the Ciystal Pahice) was not in- 

 deed found at Jamalgiri but at Peshawar, and was sent to him with most of 

 the other sculptures by the late Lieutenant S. W. Stokes, of the Bengal 

 Ai'tillery. But though not actually coming from the same place as the 

 other sculj)tu.res, it clearly was of the same class, both in general character, 

 design, and in many of the details, though of less skilful work and probably 

 therefore of rather later date. 



The centre figure in the group (which contains four persons), is repre- 

 sented with a closely shaven head. This is a frequent characteristic of 

 figu.res in the groups of Eusufzye sculptures and is supposed, with much 

 probability, by General Cunningham to indicate that the person intended to 

 be represented as a Buddhist monk. In this instance this person is the vic- 

 tim who is naked, and the others are represented in the act of binding 

 hmi down to a kind of altar of open stone or brick work. Of the threefold 

 cords, one is drawn across the victim's throat, another round his waist. The 

 feet apparently are still free, but the sculpture was in this part imperfect. 

 The victim is represented as struggling or remonstrating, and one of the 

 other figui'es appears, while restraining his struggles with his left hand, 

 to be in the act of striking with his right hand, in which apparently 

 some weapon was figured. 



The dress of the other figures is that ordinarily shown on the Eusofzye 

 sculptures and was, no doubt, the local costume of that day in the neighbour- 

 hood of Peshawar, as indeed in some respects it still is. 



It would be safe, therefore, Mr. Bayley thought, to take this sculpture 

 as representing the immolation of a ca])tive Buddhist monk by his Hindu 

 enemies.* 



Probably from its general resemblance to other sculptures undoiibtedly 

 Buddhist, it was of Buddhist origin, and was intended to represent the death 

 of some early martyi* to that faith. 



But at any rate there seemed no reason to doubt that it represented 

 an human sacrifice in a Hindu country, and that it is of early date. 



The only inscription yet found among the Eusofzye sculptui-es bears 

 a date which both General Cvmningham and Professor Dowson concur in 

 attributing to the middle of the first century of the Christian era. And 

 it is safe at least to assign the bulk of the Eusofzye sculp)tures to this date : 

 from internal evidence, Mr. Bayley would have been himself disposed to con- 

 sider them of somewhat earlier origin, but no doubt Mr. Pergusson on the 



* An instance, that is to say, of tlie sacrifice of a human captive the firstfruits of a 

 victory as Babu Eajendralala suggests either as an indication of gratitude or perhaps 

 rather in this instance as it seems to me, the immolations of one regarded by the gods 

 as hostile or in order to please or appease them. 



