166 Report of the Archeological Survey. [No. 3, 
smaller figures, and on the back a group of four figures of half life-size. 
In the front group the principal figure is a stout, half naked man 
‘resting on a low seat, with ivy or vine-crowned brow, and outstretched 
arms, which appear to be supported by the figures, male and female, 
standing one on each side. The dress of the female is most certainly 
not Indian, and is almost as certainly Greek. The dress of the male 
figure also appears to be Greek. Colonel Stacy describes it as “a 
kerchief round the neck with a tie in front as worn by sailors ;’”’ but 
as it widens as it approaches the shoulders, I presume that it must be 
the short cloak of the Greeks which was fastened in front in the very 
same manner as represented in this sculpture. Prinsep agrees with 
Stacy in considering the principal figure to be Silenus: “his portly 
carcass, drunken lassitude, and vine-wreathed forehead, stamp the 
individual, while the drapery of his attendants pronounces them at 
least to be foreign to India, whatever may be thought of Silenus’s 
own costume, which is certainly highly orthodox and Brahmanical. 
Tf the sculptor were a Greek, his taste had been somewhat tainted by 
the Indian beau-ideal of female beauty. In other respects his 
proportions and attitudes are good; nay, superior to any specimen 
of pure Hindu sculpture we possess; and considering the object of 
the group, to support a sacrificial vase (probably of the juice of 
the grape), it is excellent.” Of the group on the back I have but 
little to say: the two female figures and one of the men are dressed 
in the same Greek costume as the figures of the other group, 
but the fourth figure, male, is dressed in a long turi>, which is 
certainly not Greek, and cannot well be Indian. The religious 
Buddhist would have his right shoulder bare, and the layman would 
have the dhoti, or waist-cloth. The Greek-clad male figure may 
possibly be Silenus, but Iam unable to offer even a conjecture as to 
the figure in the tunic. 
184. The question now arises, how is the presence of this piece of 
Greek sculpture to be accounted for? Perhaps the most reasonable 
solution is to assume the presence of a small body of Bactrian Greek 
sculptors who would have found ready employment for their services | 
amongst the wealthy Buddhists, just in the same way as goldsmiths 
and artillerymen afterwards found service with the Mogul Emperors. 
It must be remembered that Mathura is close to the great sandstone — 

