11.8 



V. A. Smith— Grfcco-Momm influence 



[No. 3, 



an earlj occupation of the site. It is no evidence of the date of a parti- 

 cular set of sculptures 



The discovery of coins of Kanishka in the superstructure of the 

 Jamalgarhi monastery, above the basement containing the sculptures, 

 is a much more weighty fact, and undoubtedly seems to warrant Major 

 Cole's inference that the sculptures are earlier than A. D. 100. Neverthe- 

 less, I am convinced that the inference is a mistaken one. I fully 

 accept Major Cole's account of what ho saw, but it is quite possible 

 that he did not see all that ought to have been observed. Ho is a 

 strong believer in Sir A. Cunningham's theory of the early date of the 

 Gaudhara sculptures, and may, like many other people, have been 

 unconsciously biassed by a prepossession. It is impossible for any one 

 who has not minute local knowledge to check the details of an observa- 

 tion as reported, but, while I cannot protend to point out the seat 

 of the error, I am fully persuaded that the discovery of the coins in 

 question is not to be explained by the theory that the sculptures photo- 

 graphed are earlier than the reign of Kanishka, but should be inter- 

 preted in some other way. 



My reasons for thus refusing to accept apparently clear external 

 evidence of date will, I hope, be sufficiently established by the discus- 

 sion of the internal evidence on which I am about to enter. For the 

 present, it will suffice to say that Major Cole's plate refutes his text. 

 The Sanghao sculptures belong to the same school as those of Nuttu, 

 though they may be a little later, and they bear throughout distinct 

 marks of the influence of Roman art of the third or fourth century. 

 They cannot possibly be anterior to A. D. 100, no matter what coins 

 •were found above or below them. 



The problem demanding solution may be conveniently stated by 

 placing in juxtaposition and contrast the opinions expressed by the two 

 scholars who have attacked it. 



Mr. Fergusson, after giving many reasons, some strong, and some 

 the reverse, for his opinion, came to the conclusion " that, though some 

 of these Gandhara sculptures probably are as early as the first century 

 of the Christian Era, the bulk of them at Jamalgiri, and more especially 

 those at Takht-i-Bahi, are subsequent to the third and fourth [centuries], 

 and that the series extends down to the eighth [century] ; till, in fact] 

 the time when Buddhism was obliterated in these countries."* 



Sir Alexander Cunningham expresses his views as follows :— 



" What 1 have called the Indo-Grecian style must have been intro- 

 duced by the Greeks who ruled the country; but the earliest specimens, 

 so far as can bo proved, belong to the time of Azes, I saw myself twelve 



* Indian and Eastern Architecture, p. 182. 



