asianart.com | articles

Back to Comments page

GUITA BAHI BUDDHA
Ulrich von Schroeder
16 July 2020


Why I believe that the tall copper Buddha of the Guita Bahi Monastery, now worshipped as Dīpaṅkara, dates from Nepāla Saṃvat [n.s.] 399/1279 and not from the Śaka Saṃvat [s.s.] 464/542.

If the original Buddha had survived, the pedestal would never have been turned around to replace the 542 AD inscription with the 1279 AD inscription. Ian Alsop assumes that the original Buddha was removed from the stand and then, after turning the inscription to the back, mounted again in the opposite orientation.

Stylistic features:
All Nepalese stone and metal Buddha images dating from the early Licchavi Period are characterized by massive chests with prana and a firm stance, something absolutely missing from the elongated Guita Bahi Buddha. The hair of Nepalese Buddha images manufactured during the Licchavi Period are rendered with few large curls. The tiny curls of the Guita Bahi Buddha are a feature that would be conforming to a 13th century image. The lips are too thin for a 6th century Buddha, and the uṣṇīṣa or cranial protuberance proportionally too tall, but in both cases conform to an image cast in the 13th century. If the collar is part of the original casting, then the lines are much too thin if this was a 6th century image.

Ian Alsop believes the Guita Bahi Buddha to date from 542 AD. But as he pointed out himself: “But perhaps it could be an unprecedented masterpiece from this period: after all the late 13th century was one of the most glorious eras in the history of Nepalese art.” To this I would add that it has been amply documented that the Newar artists would often be requested to copy older images. However, usually they added contemporary stylistic components, fashionable at the time of manufacture. But in the case of the Guita Bahi image, I cannot detect any stylistic elements that would indicate that an earlier Buddha image had been copied. My personal conclusion is that the Guita Bahi Buddha dates from 1279 AD.



Back to Comments page

asianart.com | articles