490 THE RUINS OF AK-SIPIL AND RAWAK [Chap. XIV
arm or indications of it (R. 1v, lvii, lix, lxi, lxiii, lxvi ; see Pl. XV I I. a, b, c) seem likewise to suggest this attitude. Of the size in which the statue R. i was modelled, the measurement of 5 ft. 3 in. from the level of the feet to the bent elbow, which also marks approximately the waist, may afford an indication 2. The feet rested on a very flat semicircular base of plaster about 3 ft. wide, which on its edges showed traces of having been decorated with lotus-petals in low relief. The robe, judging from surviving traces of colour, appears to have been painted white originally ; but almost the whole of the paint had peeled off and thus the surface showed the uniform red colour of the clay.
The most remarkable feature in R. i and its replicas, which we note with minor modifications also in the rest of the Rawak statuary, is the treatment of the drapery. This is almost as Grecian as in the standing Buddha figures of Gandhâra sculpture, and betrays its derivation from the latter in every detail. In order to realize this remarkable agreement, it is sufficient to compare our statues, e. g., with the relief representations of Gautama Buddha from Takht-i-Bahi quoted below, or indeed with any of the finer Gandhâra figures showing Buddha standing in the Abhaya posture 3. The robe, which covered both shoulders, is laid round the body so as clearly to show its contours. The folds, which are marked with boldly projecting edges, are gracefully disposed and hang in a natural way from the limbs that catch their lines. The shape of the body beneath the robe is in these statues of the inner south-west wall, as well as in the colossal images of the inner south-east face, displayed in a more pronounced fashion than in the Gandhâra sculptures referred to. But the identical arrangement of the drapery is in no way affected thereby. A comparison of the folds gathered over the outstretched left arm (see R. v, ix), or falling from the bent right forearm, both in our statues and in the Gandhâra examples will illustrate this. The ` wonderful tenacity ' with which ` the ancient Chinese and Japanese Buddha-figures have preserved the " draping " of the Gandhâra figures in a peculiar way', as duly emphasized by Dr. Grünwedel4, can no longer surprise us when we see how faithfully old Khotan art in this as in many other respects reproduced its Gandhâra models.
Next to R. i. on the right proper we have a small statue, R. ii (see Figs. 6i, 69), which was found intact and measured 4 ft. 2 in. to the top of the head. The latter soon became insecure through the force of the winds, and had to be taken off. Though its interior had become hollow owing to the rotting of the wood frame, this head has survived its subsequent transport to London very well, as seen from its reproduction in Plate LX X XI I. It measures i o in. from the chin to the small top-knob, and retains, besides plenty of the original whitewash, traces of black for the eyelashes and of a red tad. Much of the whitewash also adhered to the drapery. The latter, by its curious arrangement in several vertical bands of conventional wave lines, strikingly contrasts with the Grecian drapery of the neighbouring colossal statues. The same treatment appears in the lower garment of the Bodhisattva figures R. iv and in R. viii. It strongly recalls the wave lines of the drapery folds seen in a typical Chinese representation of Udayana's Buddha statue referred to in the preceding note, and the explanatory
2 Here, as in all other photographs of Rawak sculptures, the 3 ft. measure placed against the wall indicates the scale.
3 See Griinwedel-Burgess, Buddhist art, Figs. 118, z22; Foucher, L'Art du Gandhdra, Figs. 258, 261, 262, 264, &c.
' See Buddhist art, p. 17o. It is interesting to note that a Chinese wooden figure of a standing Buddha, which the above scholar has reproduced for its characteristic drapery, is recognized as ' a replica of a copy which has been preserved in China and is traced back, according
to the Chinese tradition, to Udayana's sandal-wood figure of the master' ; see ibid., with Fig. 125. The posture of this figure is the same as that of most of our colossal statues (see especially R. xxxvi, xl, xli, where the left hand was slightly more detached from the drapery). Is it possible to suppose that these, too, were intended to reproduce the type of Udayana's image of which, as we have seen (above, P. 455), a miracle-working representative was worshipped at P`i-mo ?