Mauryan Pillars – Differences

The influence of West Asian factors on the art and culture of the time cannot seriously be denied in view of the close contact that existed at that time between India and other West Asian countries. But it is quite difficult to regard the Mauryan pillars simply as imitations or adaptations of the Achaemenid prototypes. There are tangible differences between the two in their respective functions, as well as their designs and styles. Unfortunately, such differences have generally been ignored. Not belonging to any architectural composition, the Mauryan pillars have a totally different function, a difference that is also reflected in their design and shape. The Mauryan pillar, unlike the Achaemenid, does not rest on any base, nor does it exhibit the channeling or fluting that is invariably characteristic of the latter. Furthermore, the shaft of the Maurya pillar is, without exception, monolithic; the achaemenic invariably consists of separate segments of stone added one on top of the other.

Again, in technique, the Mauryan pillars partake of the character of the work of a woodcarver or carpenter, the Achaemenid, that of a mason. Finally, both the design and the shape of the capitals are different, undoubtedly due to the new conception of the Maurya pillars as free in space. The supposed resemblance of the so-called ‘bell’ of the Indian pillar to that of the Persepolitan is merely superficial. It should also be remembered that the member, with which the analogy is drawn, usually appears in the Achaemenid column at the base and not as a capital, as in the Indian pillars. The double curves of the Indian limb surmounted by round animal sculptures rather exemplify a new order of capital that is distinctive only to India. This lotiform member, representing an inverted lotus or a purna-ghata, is fully in accordance with Indian tradition and it would be useless not to recognize its Indian origin. The true affinities with the West are recognized in the use of decorative motifs such as honeysuckle, acanthus, the ‘knop and flower’ pattern, etc. But in view of the wide divergences in form, design, and conception, a borrowing from the Achaemenid pillar design cannot truly explain the Indo-Iranian affinities. India has long been part of the West Asian cultural complex, and the crux of the problem lies, as Coomaraswamy observes, in the “inheritance of common artistic traditions.”

Finally we can conclude by saying that the indigenous and original contribution to the creation of this piece of Maurya art is therefore undeniable. Equally undeniable is also the fact that because of their lustrous varnish, because of the adoption and adaptation of the bell-shaped capital, because of the highest place of conception and motive idea, and because of the general monumentality and dignity and appearance that they exhibit, the Mauryan columns seem to reveal clearly the debt they owe to Achaemenid art as well as to Hellenistic art as regards the crowning member of the columns and part of the general effect. However, the twisted rope design, bead spool design, etc. to mark transitions, the acanthus leaf and palmette and other designs to decorate the abacus may have been derived from the oldest and most common artistic heritage of West Asia.