1898.] T. Bloch — Buddhistic statue from Cravasti. 287 
statue is made of stone ; and if we compare his account with the 
narrative of Fa-Hian (p. 75 of Beal’s translation), it becomes evident 
that both refer to the same statue. This was recognized origi¬ 
nally also by General Cunningham (see Arch. Surv. Rep., Vol. I, 
p. 340), but later on, he changed his opinion, and said (Arch. Surv. R., 
Vol. XI, p. 86) : “ When Hwen Thsang visited Sravasti in A.D. 636, 
he found the Jetavana so completely ruined, that nothing more than 
the foundations remained. ‘ One small brick temple containing a 
statue of Buddha rose alone amid the ruins.’ This solitary temple T 
have identified with No. 3, 1 because the Inscription which I found inside 
dates back to the early period of Indo-Scythian rule. The statue must , 
therefore , have been enshrined in this temple several centuries before the time 
of Hwen Thsang ; and as I found it inside the temple in 1863, it is certain 
that it must have been there in A.D. 636, when the Chinese pilgrim visited 
the Jetavana .” This rather bold statement has been accepted without 
hesitation by Dr. Fiihrer in his List of Antiquarian Remains, p. 310, 
where he says that “ this very statue of colossal size, ( i.e ., the statue 
seen by Hiuen Thsang) was found in 1863 by General Cunningham 
inside a small ruined brick temple.” We may, of course, admit an 
error on Hiuen Thsang’s side, but we have no reason whatever to do so. 
And, on the other hand, the fact that the statue does not seem to have 
been noticed by Hiuen Thsang, does not appear to me to value much. 
It may have been buried below the ground as early as in his time, and 
it may be owing merely to this fact that the statue has still been 
preserved to us in a country where stone material always, on account 
of its rarity, has been valued high and greatly demanded, while, on 
the other hand, further excavations conducted by General Cunningham 
and Dr. W. Hoey at the same site have been very resultless as to- 
ancient sculptures or inscriptions. 
While thus the accounts of the Chinese pilgrims become useless 
to us in deciding the question whether the image stood at Set- 
Mahet already at their time or not, we can, on the other hand, not 
derive an argument against the question at issue from the fact that the 
statue was made from the same material which was in use at the same 
time in Mathura. For, as General Cunningham rightly observes (Arch. 
Surv. Rep., Vol. I, p. 339), “ we know that the sculptor’s art was in a 
very flourishing state at Mathura during the first centuries of the 
Christian era ” and the same fact holds also good for a number of other 
ancient sculptures that have come to light in the country around 
Mathura. We are perfectly justified in putting all these sculptures, 
J This refers to Plate XXV, same Volume. 
