128 V.A.Smith—Gra'co-Roman hifliirnre [No. 3, 



The foregoing- descriptions prove that during the most flourishing 

 period of Gandhara art, which I assign to the years between A. D. 200 

 and 350, the conventional representation of Buddha had not been finally 

 determined, and that it was legitimate to make his imago either with 

 or without moustaches, and with the right shoulder either bare or 

 draped. The figure of Buddha on the Amaravati slab No. 11 exhibited 

 on the British Museum staircase has both shoulders draped, but iu 

 Buddhist art, as a rule, the founder of the religion is represented with 

 the right shoulder uncovered, and without moustaches. 



It has also been shown that the artists of Gandhara were at liberty 

 to give Buddha either the formally curled hair, which in later times> 

 became an indispensable attribute, or to carve his hair artistically in 

 accordance with nature. 



The treatment of the hair both of Bnddha and other personages in 

 most of the good sculptures from Gandhara is so artistic, and so far 

 superior to the feeble conventionalism of ordinary Indian art, that it may 

 be well to dwell on the subject for a moment. 



I agree with Dr. Anderson, in the opinion expressed by him that 

 the woolly hair like that of a negro, arranged in stiff, formal, little curls 

 which is characteristic of the Jain images executed in the tenth and 

 subsequent centuries, and of many Buddhist statues of earlier date, does 

 not indicate, as has been supposed, any racial peculiarity of the Jain 

 and Buddhist saints, but is purely conventional. 



Dr. Anderson suggests that this mode of representing the hair is 

 merely an archaistic survival, and that " the hair of the Blessed One 

 having once been carved in this depraved fashion, it was slavishly 

 followed after, with a few exceptions, among which were the sculptors 

 of Gandhara."* 



The exact origin of this archaistic treatment of the hair does not 

 at present appear to be traceable, but, whether it be ever discovered or 

 not, it is probable that the explanation suggested above, is, in general 

 terms, the correct one, and that there is no occasion for holding with 

 Mr. Fergusson, that " it has ever been one of the puzzles of Buddhism 

 that the founder of the religion should always have been represented in 

 sculpture with woolly hair like that of a negro."f 



As a matter of fact he is not always so represented, nor is the 

 woolly hair peculiar to his images. The puzzle, if it be a puzzle, is one 

 in the history of art, not in the history of religion. 



The archaic ' wiry ' style of representing the hair was maintained 



* Anderson's Catalogue, Part I, p. 259. Cf. ibid., p. 175; and Indian Antiquary, 

 Vol. IX, p. no. 



f Tree and Serpent Worship, 2nd ed., p. 135. 



