India, Bihar, 11^th-12^th century. Cast standing atop a small plinth, the hands held in abhaya mudra, wearing a diaphanous cape with sampot and adorned with a sumptuous belt as well as large earrings and a tall pointed crown.

Provenance: From a French private collection.
Condition: Extensive wear, losses, signs of weathering and erosion, remnants of gilt, nicks and scratches, the back with old fills. Fine, naturally grown, dark patina, with areas of cuprite and malachite encrustations. Note the deep vertical incisions to the legs and torso, indicating that silver inlays may once have been in place here.

Weight: 550.7 g (incl. base)
Dimensions: Height 20 cm (excl. base) and 24.8 cm (incl. base)

Mounted on a wood base of square form. (2)

In 1930, nearly 150 sculptures, aka the ‘Kurkihar hoard’, were excavated in Kurkihar in the Gaya region of present day Bihar, all of which have been preserved in the Patna Museum, India. Among these excavated works, almost a hundred bear inscriptions, dating them to the 10th to 12th century, later than those found in Nalanda. Materials used in Kurkihar sculptures are mostly brass and bronze, rarely gilt copper. Also different from Nalanda bronzes is the frequent use of silver and copper inlay by Kurkihar artists. Inset stones and glasses would probably have also been popular decorations for works from both sites, though many of them are now missing from the surviving sculptures.

The history of Kurkihar remains a point of dispute. The name Kurkihar bares similarity to the historical site Kukkutarama Vihara, recorded by Xuanzang as a place close to Patiliputra (present day Patna), therefore the two may well refer to the same location. However, renowned archaeologist Alexander Cunningham associated Kurkihar with a famous Buddhist site at Kukkutapada Mountain, where Mahakasyapa’s body is said to be enshrined until the appearance of Maitreya. Not far from Bodh Gaya, Kukkutapada Mountain had also appeared in Xuanzang’s account. While archeology has yet to prove if Cunningham’s theory is correct, it would explain why such a rich hoard of sculptures were to be found at Kurkihar.

Second Scholarly Opinion: An alternative theory of origin dates the buddha statue to the 12^th and 13^th century in Southeast Asia, based on its stylistic affinities to other statues from the pre-Sukhothai tradition in Thailand. The buddha is holding both hands in a symmetrical posture in abhaya mudra, a typical style found among Southeast Asian statues: vitarka in the Dvaravati period and abhaya in the Khmer period and later in Thailand and Laos. An article on the origin of symmetrical mudras in the catalog “Dvaravati: aux sources du bouddhisme en Thaïlande: établissement public du musée des Arts asiatiques Guimet” (10.02-25.05.2009) suggests that the combination of abhaya and kataka mudras (with the left hand holding a corner of the cloak at shoulder height) was the basis for the emergence of the double vitarka mudra in Dvaravati culture.

Further, according to Hiram Woodward in “The Art and Architecture of Thailand” (2005), the double abhaya mudra originated in the late 12th or 13th century in central Thailand as a variant of the double vitarka mudra, initially in Khmer style. Another indicator for its Southeast Asian origin is the headpiece, that can arguably be described as high ushnisha, which is often found among statues of that region especially during the 13^th century.

Auction result comparison: Compare a closely related Kurkihar-style bronze of a crowned Buddha, sold in these rooms, in Fine Chinese Art, Buddhism and Hinduism on 11 May 2019, lot 303, sold for EUR 6,320.