Object as a Window to a Culture?
Object
as a Window to a Culture?
Aishwarya Walvekar
Introduction
As centuries
go by with time and a civilization and its culture is taken over by the other,
syncretize with other or simply live alongside the other; we see various
patterns of lifestyle and culture mainly through the remnants like the
architecture, sculptures, edicts, texts, etc. An object is produced in a certain
time to project one’s ideas and may or may not be in daily use. Each carries
its own objectivity and subjectivity. But as we have travelled through the time
and cannot go back into the time realms, all we are left with are objects from
the past. The objects are reduced to mere things and their interpretations can
vary. But more so than ever, rather than living with the abstraction of the
past, they may provide us with some insights from our subjective knowledge. The
science and technology has provided us with dating systems; so now we can at
least know when the object belonged from.
According
to Heidegger’s distinction between ‘thing’ and ‘object’, which forms the basis
of the Thing Theory by Bill Brown, he argues that an object becomes a thing
when it ceases to exercise its common function. Bill Brown in his essay Thing Theory says, ‘We begin to confront the thingness of objects when
they stop working for us: when the drill breaks, when the car stalls, when the
window gets filthy, when their flow within the circuits of production and
distribution, consumption and exhibition, has been arrested, however
momentarily. The story of objects asserting themselves as things, then, is the
story of a changed relationship to the human subject and thus the story of how
the thing really names less an object than a particular subject-object relation.’
Thus, when we study an artifact to dig deeper into the past, the artifact is
merely a ‘thing’ that has come across to us (as it ceases to exercise its
common function), but it assumes the persona of an ‘object’ when it reaches the
historian, as it might disclose some sort of narratives from the past.
The formulation of these narratives is both objective and
subjective. Objective because of the strong evidences by scientific
technologies. And subjective, as we study or correlate the object by diving
into the knowledge which has been passed down to us through centuries or is
found as yet another object, which itself can be subjective. More or less, it
can be said that an object cannot be entirely the window to study a culture. It
may be merely an insight but not the wholesome understanding of one.
Nevertheless, it provides us with information through the
patterns of art and architectural remains. Many of which disclose the religious
practices (specifically talking about Indic culture), regional myths, might of
the ruler at that time, etc. We shall look two examples – The Megathenes’
accounts of India during Maurya period and The Lion Capital Pillar erected by
Asoka.
Megasthenes’
Accounts of Ancient India
Manlike monsters
after description by Megasthenes of Solinus (circa 350 - 290 BC), woodcut
In 321 B.C.,
Candragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya Dynasty in Magadha (contemporary
Bihar), defeated the Nanda king Mahapadma. In his rule, he unified the Indian
subcontinent politically. At around the same time in the western region of the
ancient subcontinent, Achaemenid Persians annexed portions of the north-west
region. Alexander of Macedon (Alexander, The Great) defeated the Achaemenid
king – Darius III in 330 B.C. and established Greek colonies. After the death
of Alexander in 323 B.C., his established empire began to fall apart. Seleucus
I Nicator, a general to Alexander and later assumed himself the Seleucid
Empire, tried annexing the Greek territories which were already conquered by
Candragupta Maurya. Candragupta defeated him in 305 B.C. and an agreement was
signed with a matrimonial contract. Megathenes, a Greek ambassador was sent to
the capital city of Pataliputra in Magadha to the Mauryan Court. His records of the ancient India called Indika are lost to time, but fragments
of it exist in the accounts of other Greek writers of the time. He records the
various social aspects like religion, myths, geography, social structures,
gender relations, etc. His records are highly debated by the scholars. He
recorded what he saw and heard without critically analyzing it. Nor did he
adhere to the ethos of the Mauryan culture.
Megasthenes
states that the Indian caste system had a hierarchy of seven castes: Philosophers,
Husbandmen, herdsmen and hunters, artisans, fighter men, overseers and
councilors and assessors. Romila Thapar argues that this account of Megasthenes
was from an Aristotelian perspective and not authentic to the Indian caste
system. Discarding the Varna system,
he simply divided the castes on the basis of their profession and occupation
which was similar to his native caste system. In spite of his perspective, we
do get an idea of the kind of people living at that point of time and their
importance in the society.
Megasthenes’
account on religion becomes interesting and at the same time dubious. His
knowledge of Indian religion may not be termed as first hand, as he mentions
that he has ‘heard from ancient scholars’. His mentions Krishna and Siva assumes
the Greek gods Hercules and Dionysus. His accounts on religion as historical
evidence cannot be taken as authentic, as he directly talks about the Greek
religion being prevalent in India, to which no material evidence can be found.
Also, due to the fragmented nature of his accounts we cannot come to a conclusion
on his accounts. He records marriage in India as an institution to find help
mates and for joy making. He mentions of polygamy being in practice, but looks
at it through his own west gaze. He did not search into the depth of the
thought behind marriage union in India.
He also
records women working in state owned spinning and weaving factories, which is
also reconfirmed in Arthasastra. He
also provides with the geographical boundaries of what he knows of India that
he has seen and heard of, describing lands and rivers. Though the numbers
aren’t accurate as he was no geographer, nor a social scientist, it provides
with insights of the spread of Indic culture at that period. Megasthenes also
gives description about the different tribes of India and their practices,
about the animals especially elephants and horses, etc.
We do
not have direct accounts as recorded by Megasthenes, but through the mentions
of him in the writings of the subsequent writers like Strabo and Arrian. His
writings on India have been held important in the study of ancient India,
though they always remain speculative as all other remains.
Megasthenes
Lion Capital, Sarnath, Uttar
Pradesh
Lion Capital, Ashokan Pillar at
Sarnath, c. 250 B.C.E., polished sandstone, Sarnath Museum
Asoka,
was the third emperor of the Mauryan Empire and ruled from 279 B.C.E to 232
B.C.E. He was the first ruler to accept Buddhism and one of the major patrons
of the Buddhist art and architecture. Asoka adopted the teachings of Buddha
known as the dharma (the law) or The
Four Noble Truths. We know of his valor and personality through the edicts and
inscriptions on the pillars and other monuments like stupas erected by him. The
inscriptions propagate the Buddhist compassion along with the praise of Asoka often
mentioned as Priyadarsin (Beloved of
Gods). He was keen on the spread of Buddhism (inscriptions found from
Afghanistan to Southern India). He also sent his daughter to Ceylon (now Sri
Lanka) with a branch from the Enlightenment Tree under which Sakyamuni Buddha
attained enlightenment, to propagate the religion.
The most
interesting of his architecture and art that he provided patronage for are the
pillars that were erected throughout the Magadha in North India. Buddhist
literature mentions around fourty pillars erected during Asoka’s time, but
today only half of them survive. While studying Mauryan art and architecture,
we must also take into account what Susan Huntington has stated in her book Art of Ancient India, that the Mauryan
art and architecture had influences of the western Asiatic world, the
Achaemenid and Greek (vast use of stone in art and architecture, idea of
inscribing edicts and epithets on monuments, polished surface of the stone).
The
pillars that exist are not made in the same stone and not all bear Asokan
inscriptions. Hence, we cannot conclude that all pillars were erected by him
and nor can we claim that Asoka started the tradition of building pillars.
Instead, it may be speculated that pillar tradition originated in wood and then
were used in stone, as many other art and architecture of that period.
The most
spectacular of the pillars is that which was found at Sarnath, with the lion
capital. The capital is now archived the Sarnath Museum. The appearances of the
pillars emphasize on the Buddhist doctrines. Most of them were topped by animal
capitals. The lion capital has three parts – base of the inverted lotus flower,
topped by the drum, on which stand the four lions facing the four directions.
The motif of the lotus is most common to Buddhism. The drum has four animals
(horse, ox, elephant, lion) facing the four directions (west, east, south,
north) respectively. Each have a wheel or cakra
placed between them. The moving animals follow each other as if turning the
wheel of the existence or samsara.
The four lions stand atop as if roaring (propagating religion in all four
directions). The symbol of lion may represent to Buddha as he belonged to the Sakya clan, Sakya translated as lion. Lion also represents royalty and leadership,
so it may also represent the royal empire and the emperor. There was a wheel
atop the four lions indicated towards the heavenly thrust, which is now
missing. The pillar structure resembles the mundi seen in stupas, which is the
axis on which the world spins (given in Buddhist literature).
Sarnath
is the place where Buddha first gave sermon. Asoka visited and erected pillars
at most of the holy sites of Buddhism. The pillar edict inscribed by Asoka
urges all the Buddhist monastic community to unite. The pillars and the Asokan
art and architecture are of great importance and a landmark in the study of
ancient India. They provide us insights about the artistic influences from the
western Asia hinting that there might have been contact, either through trade
or warfare. They also cater to understanding of the ruler at that period in
time and also the practice of religion itself.
Brahmi inscription on the pillar
at Sarnath
Conclusion
Objects
cannot give an entire view of the culture at a certain period in history, but
can provide objective as well as subjective insights, as we have seen with the
two examples. There is always a scope for speculation. Though, objects reveal a
certain sense and understanding about a few aspects of the concerned culture.
Sources
·
Thing Theory, Bill Brown, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 28, No. 1,
Things. (Autumn, 2001), pp. 1-22.
·
The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist,
Hindu, Jain, by
Susan L. Huntington, with contributions by John C. Huntington
·
Early Indian Society As Reflected
In Indica Of Megasthenes, Manjeet
Singh, International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies
(IJIRAS) Volume 2 Issue 3, March 2015
·
The Indika of Megasthenes, Author(s): R. C. Majumdar Source:
Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1958),
pp. 273-276
Picture Sources
Comments
Post a Comment