DOI Heft:
Nr. 4
DOI Artikel:Sieradzki, Wojciech: Yaksha or not Yaksha?
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18860#0147
A. D.). The interpretation of these relics causes a little more difficulty. The above-cited confor-
mable statements of L. Sternbach and D.H. Gordon identifying the terracotta images of monkeys
from the last century B.C. and the first centuries A.D. as yakshas cannot be accepted at present.
The yakshas were anthropomorphic personifications of certain powers of nature (e.g. tree-
-spirits). They were also worshipped as guardians of the mineral treasures hidden in the earth13.
Belonging by then (II part of the first millenium B.C.) to the Aryan pantheon they undoubtedly
go back with their origin to the pre-Aryan, Dravidian period. As such they could survive in the
beliefs of the lowei classes of the Western Indian society (the classes among which the Dravidian
element still played a certain role) for which the primitive, such as in question, terracotta images
were made.
However, theie have not been found representations in terracotta plastics allowing to determine
them as the yakshas on the basis of signed analogies in the monumental Indian art. The repre-
sentation of the yakshas in relief and statuary sculpture comprise only male, scantily dressed
figures with arms put together on the chest and hands folded in prayer11 (fig. 13). It should be
stressed that repi esentations of the yakshas in the form of a monkey are not found.
A thorough study of the iconography of monkeys in the Indian small sculptures in antiquity
can be helpful in this attempt of interpretation. In the Western part of India the images of
monkeys made of clay or more frequently of faience have been known since the third millenium
B. C.1'. They are qualified as ex-votive offerings or toys16 without an exact division into these
13. B. Rowland, The Art and Architecture of Indict, Harniondsworth, 1959, p. 24.
14. B. Rowland, The Art..., op. it., compare with pi. 12 A and 13.
15. E. J. H. Mackay, Further Excavations at Mohenjo-Daro, New Delhi, 1937, p. 293, p. LXXI, 27. LXXIII, 1, 2, 8, LXXIV.
14, 16, 23, 24, LXXV, 2. 3, 7, LXXVIII, 4, 8, 9, LXXX, 1, 2, 3, LXXXI 18, 19, as well as LXXXII, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10,
16. E. J. II. Mackay, Further..., op. cit., p. 294.
129
mable statements of L. Sternbach and D.H. Gordon identifying the terracotta images of monkeys
from the last century B.C. and the first centuries A.D. as yakshas cannot be accepted at present.
The yakshas were anthropomorphic personifications of certain powers of nature (e.g. tree-
-spirits). They were also worshipped as guardians of the mineral treasures hidden in the earth13.
Belonging by then (II part of the first millenium B.C.) to the Aryan pantheon they undoubtedly
go back with their origin to the pre-Aryan, Dravidian period. As such they could survive in the
beliefs of the lowei classes of the Western Indian society (the classes among which the Dravidian
element still played a certain role) for which the primitive, such as in question, terracotta images
were made.
However, theie have not been found representations in terracotta plastics allowing to determine
them as the yakshas on the basis of signed analogies in the monumental Indian art. The repre-
sentation of the yakshas in relief and statuary sculpture comprise only male, scantily dressed
figures with arms put together on the chest and hands folded in prayer11 (fig. 13). It should be
stressed that repi esentations of the yakshas in the form of a monkey are not found.
A thorough study of the iconography of monkeys in the Indian small sculptures in antiquity
can be helpful in this attempt of interpretation. In the Western part of India the images of
monkeys made of clay or more frequently of faience have been known since the third millenium
B. C.1'. They are qualified as ex-votive offerings or toys16 without an exact division into these
13. B. Rowland, The Art and Architecture of Indict, Harniondsworth, 1959, p. 24.
14. B. Rowland, The Art..., op. it., compare with pi. 12 A and 13.
15. E. J. H. Mackay, Further Excavations at Mohenjo-Daro, New Delhi, 1937, p. 293, p. LXXI, 27. LXXIII, 1, 2, 8, LXXIV.
14, 16, 23, 24, LXXV, 2. 3, 7, LXXVIII, 4, 8, 9, LXXX, 1, 2, 3, LXXXI 18, 19, as well as LXXXII, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10,
16. E. J. II. Mackay, Further..., op. cit., p. 294.
129