Szilágyi András (szerk.): Ars Decorativa 14. (Budapest, 1994)

RENNER Zsuzsanna: A Pála-korszak szobrászatának emlékei a Hopp Ferenc Kelet-Ázsiai Művészeti Múzeum indiai gyűjteményében

The fragment consisting of the head, the top part of the body and the truncated upper arm of a sculpture (plate 2), was probably the representation of a bodhisattva. This is suggested by the jewellery of the figure, typically worn by a bodhisattva: the large round earrings, the elaborately ornamented necklace, the three-pointed diadem, both lateral elements of which are broken off. The central element, the one above the forehead, might have been adorned, in the usual fashion, with the depicition of he dhyäni bodhisattva associated with the bodhisattva represented here. Unfortunately, even this cannot be ascertained positively, since the diadem, along with the face, is so severely damaged that the original features cannot be recognized. The bent upper body suggests that originally the deity was depicted in the tribhanga posture. On the basis of the hairstyle and the jewellery, the fragment's eleventh-century (or perhaps twelfth-century) origin seems probable;

13 the question of the place of its origin remains, however, open. There have been several attempts at identifying the head shown on plate 3.

14 The hair, piled up and tied with ribbons, resembles that of the previous example, although here it is more lavishly decorated and amply endowed with strings of pearls and pendants. The jewellery is fashioned in great detail and accuracy, and so are the curls of hair on the forehead, to the extent that almost every single hair is discernible. It is precisely these curls which make us believe that, contrary to previous assumptions, the deity in question is a female, rather than a male one, since such a feminine hair-style is only very rarely seen in male sculptures. The diadem originally had five points; by today, only the truncated lower parts remain over the ears and on the two sides of the forehead. The section of the diadem over the forehead is decorated with a kirttimukha, with strings of pearls starting out from the mouth. The most perplexing feature of the sculpture is the two birds placed above the ears. For all we are able to see, they could equally be geese or peacocks; it is impossible to tell, as the tail feathers have broken off. Judging from the facial type and the ornaments, the head could have belonged to a twelfth-century sculpture made in Bengal; as to the identity of the goddess (?), the puzzle remains to be solved. The third fragment (plate 4) is a smallsized male figure. Its hair is arranged into neat curls, piled up and tied with a ribbon; the decoration over the forehead resembles a sankha. The right hand, originally raised, is missing. To the right, the feet and the shins of an even smaller figure are seen. The figure, together with the gnome standing next to it, was most probably a minor figure in a larger composition, accompanying the central figure of some deity. For comparison, there is an eleventh- or twelfth-century Harihara representation from Central India, in which the arrangement, postures and proportions of the minor figures which stand next to the Visnu side of the central figure are strikingly similar.

15 In the Central Indian sculpture, the dwarf holds the cakra in his left hand, which identifies him as a cakrapurusa, the personification of Visnu'

s weapon. The figure next to him wears an ornament on his forehead, which is identical with the one seen in our example; he holds a caurf (?) in his raised right hand and, according to the description, points to Visnu's sankha. Therefore, he could simply be a cm<n-bearer, who often appears in the company of deities, so as to emphasize their sovereign power. We are, however, of the opinion that the figure in question is another äyudhapurusa, that is. a sahkhapurusa in this case. The assumption is supported by the appearance of the sankha on his forehead, along with the fact that in this case both the disc and the conch, once held in Visnu's natural and upper hand respectively, are repeated by these personifications. In our view we witness a similar situation here: the fragment in question could once depict some attendant figures, or perhaps âyudhapurusas

, of a Visnu representation which might as well have been the Visnu half of a Harihara representation. The gno-