Mauryan Pillars – Differences

The influence of West Asian factors on the art and culture of the time cannot be seriously denied in view of the close contact that existed at the time between India and other West Asian countries. But it is quite difficult to consider 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 function of the Mauryan pillars is totally different, a difference that is also reflected in their design and form. The Mauryan pillar, unlike the Achaemenid, is not supported by any base, nor does it exhibit the channeling or grooving that is invariably characteristic of the latter. Furthermore, the shaft of the Mauryan pillar is, without exception, monolithic; the Achaemenian 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 wood carver 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 Mauryan pillars as free in space. The supposed similarity of the so-called ‘bell’ of the Indian pillar with 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 animal sculptures in the round rather exemplify a new capital order that is distinctive only to India. This lotiform limb, which represents an inverted lotus or a purna-ghata, is fully in accordance with Indian tradition and it would be useless not to acknowledge 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 account for Indo-Iranian affinities. India has long been part of the West Asian cultural complex and the key to 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 Mauryan art is therefore undeniable. Equally undeniable is also the fact that by their glossy varnish, by the adoption and adaptation of the flared capital, by the loftiest place of conception and driving idea, and by the general monumentality and dignity and appearance which 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 overall effect. However, the twisted rope design, the bead reel design, etc. to mark the 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.