Wooden idols have traditionally been made in India, as a tractable and commonly-available material to artists and craftsmen in architecture and sculpture. Few specimens survive of early works due to the perishable nature of wood, particularly in a hot and humid climate. However, other sources demonstrate the ancient use of woodcarving in Indian art.“...a motif was not necessarily invented or borrowed at the date of its first appearance in permanent material; indeed, a first appearance in stone is almost tantamount to proof of an earlier currency in wood.” – Ananda K Coomarswamy. see (1972). Introduction to Indian Art. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. p 17 This includes a tradition of making icons, often also of wood.see Dasgupta, Kalyan Kumar. (1990). Wood Carvings of Eastern India. Kolkata: Firma KLM Pvt. Ltd. p 13
Earliest Reference
The earliest reference to any wooden idol made in India goes to the legend of Jīvantasvāmī – a sandalwood image of Mahāvīra or Vardhamāna,Died in c. BC 527. the last Tīrthaṅkara of Jain pantheon. It is said that the idol was carved in his lifetime and worshiped by his followers.see ibid, p 11. In this connection, mention could be made of another old tradition that refers to a wooden effigy of Yakṣa Moggarāpāni in a shrine outside the city of Rājagṛha (modern Rajgir, dist Nalanda, Bihar). This myth, though not materially substantiated, is an obvious proof in favor of an artistic practice – prevailing in the sixth century BC. However, it was only after another seven centuries that we find the oldest literary mention of wood as a suitable plastic medium for the sculpting of cult-icons.The other mediums are gold, silver, copper, jewels, stone, iron and alloy (Ch 258, sūtra 20-1). [see Tarkaratna, Panchanan & Nyayateertha, Sreejib (tr. & ed.). (BS 1394). Matsyapurāṇam. Kolkata: Nava Bharat Publishers. p 892]
Textual References
The first concrete evidence to the tradition of making wooden idols comes in the form of an epigraph found in Andhra Pradesh. This inscription of Abhirā Vāsudeva, dated c. AD 278, describes an eight-armed wooden sculpture of Lord Viṣn̄u – named as Aṣṭabhujasvāmī. This effigy, said to have medicinal and energizing properties,see Chakraborty, Shyamal Kanti (ed.). (2001). Wood Carvings of Bengal in Gurusaday Museum. Kolkata: Gurusaday Museum. p 7; also see Dasgupta, Kalyan Kumar. (2000). Pratimāśilpe Hindu Devadevī. Kolkata: Paścimbaṅga Bāṅglā Ākādemi. pp 11-2 was installed on the Siddhalahari hill bordering Nagarjunikonda valley.
The specimen, however, is not available today; yet the reference indeed ensures a living tradition in the third century AD. The next thirteen hundred odd years saw the tradition continuing with its vitality and context – and being documented in a series of indigenous literature.
All these texts, variably dated c. second-sixteenth century AD, tell us about a prevailing convention for the classification of divine images – based on the materials used in making them. They also tell us, categorically, how each and every such classification has referred to wood as one of the most suitable medium for this purpose.
SourceDateClassificationMatsya Purāṇasee the Preface of Agrawala, Vasudeva S. (1963). Matsya Purana: A Study. Benares: All India Kashiraj (Ch 258, sūtra 20–21)c. late-second / late-fourth / sixth century ADGold, silver, copper, jewels, stone, iron, wood and alloysee Tarkaratna & Nyayateertha (tr & ed) BS 1394: p 892Mānasara Śilpaśāstrasee Acharya, Prasanna Kumar. (1934/1981). Manasara Series. Vol. II (Indian Architecture According to Manasara – Silpasastra). New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation. p 70 (ch 51)c. fifth century ADsee Mitra, A (ed.). (undated). Census 1951, West Bengal – The Tribes and Castes of West Bengal. p 352Gold, silver, copper, stone, wood, sudhā (stucco, also mortar and plaster), śarkarā (gravel or grit), ābhāsa (paintingPrasanna Kumar Acharya has described ābhāsa as marble (!) and has subdivided it into three kinds: citra, ardha-citra and ābhāsa (i.e., citrābhāsa). According to him, Citra is sarvānga-dṛśyamāna hence transparent (!), while the other two are half-transparent and partially (one-fourth) transparent [see Acharya 1934/1981 (vol. II): pp 70-1]. But, it seems that ābhāsa has nothing to do with marble, but painting; and its classification is purely on the basis of form. Hence, they should be defined as full-figure (sarvānga-dṛśyamāna), three-quarter and portrait.) and earthHayaśīrṣa Pan̄carātrama (ādi kānḍa, ch 15, sūtra 1–2)see Sankhyateertha, Pandit Bhuban Mohan (ed.). (1952). Hayasirsa Pancharatram. (vol. II). Rajshahi: Varendra Research Society. p 1c. fifth-eleventh / seventh-eighth century / AD 800see An Introductory Note by Ksitish Chandra Sarkar (pp ix-x) and the Foreword by Prof Dines Ch Bhattacharya (pp v-vi) [Sankhyateertha (ed.) 1952: (vol. I)]; see Dasgupta 2000: p 25; also see Smith, H Daniel. (1975). A Descriptive Bibliography of the Printed Texts of the Pancaratragrama. Vol. I. Baroda: Oriental Institute. p 550Mṛnmayī (clay), dārughaṭitā (wood), lohajā (iron), ratnajā (jewels), gandhajā (fragrance), śailajā (stone) and kousumī (flowers)Devī Purāṇa (ch 22, sūtra 9–10)see Tarkaratna, Acharya Panchanan & Nyayateertha, Sreejib (tr.). (BS 1384). Devīpurāṇam: Maharṣi Vedavyāsa-Viracitam. Kolkata: Nava Bharat Publishers. p 143c. fifth / eleventh century ADibid (see the Preface)Svarṇamayī (gold), rajatamayī (silver), mṛnmayī and dārumayīVṛhat Saṁhitā (ch 60, sūtra 4–5)see Bhat, M Ramakrishna (tr.). (1982). Varahamihira's Brhat Samhita. (part II). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp 568-9c. early-sixth century ADDārumayī, mṛnmayī, maṇimayī (jewels), sauvarṇī, rajatamayī, tāmramayī (bronze) and śailīŚāmba Purāṇa (ch 30, sūtra 2)see Goswami, Bijan Bihari (tr. & ed.). (BS 1390). Vaśiṣṭha-viracitam Śrī Śāmba Purāṇam. Kolkata: Nava Bharat Publishers. p 177c. AD 500-800 / 500-900see Rocher, Ludo. (1986). A History of Indian Literature. Vol. II, Fasc. 3 (The Puranas, ed. Jan Gonda. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. p 219Svarṇamayī, raupyamayī (silver), tāmrī, pārthivi (clay), prastaramayī (of stone), vārkṣi (wood) and ālekhya (painting)Bhaviṣya Purāṇa (vol. I, ch 131, sūtra 5–8)see Arora, Raj Kumar. (1972). Historical and Cultural Data from the Bhavisya Purana. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers (P) Ltd. p 198c. AD 500–1500Wood, clay, jewel, gold, silver, copper and stoneŚukranītisāra (ch 4, sec 4, sūtra 147–151)see Sarkar, Benoy Kumar (tr.). (1914). The Sacred Books of the Hindus. Vol. XII (The Sukraniti). Allahabad: The Panini Office, Bhuvaneswari Asrama, Bahadurgunj. pp 167-8 --Sand, paste, paint, enamel, earth, wood, stone and metal
In brief, all these scriptures proclaim in favor of seven major varieties – while each list contains wood as one of the most common phenomenon.
Such evidences are available also in other medieval writings like Vṛhat SaṁhitāWritten by Varāhamihira in c. sixth century AD. See Ch XLIII, LIII and LIX [Bhat, M Ramakrishna (tr.) 1982 (part II): pp 564-7] and Viṣn̄udharmottaram.Dated abruptly c. AD 400-500/450-650/600-900/600-1000. See Khanda III, ch 89 [Shah, Priyabala (tr.). (2002). Sri Visnudharmottara Purana. Third Khanda. Delhi: Parimal Publications. pp 214-6] They have discussed in length about all the intricate details on the ways and means of procuring suitable timber for the fashioning of divine images. Both have emphasized, in particular, on four significant aspects: suitability of different varieties of wood, trees that should be considered as forbidden, and suitable time for entering the forest, and technique of cutting down the required tree/s. Similar instructions could also be traced in other texts like Viśvakarmā Prakāśasee Dasgupta 1990: p 7 and Rājaballabhava.see ibid
Mention could be made, in this connection, about the historical accounts by Huen Tsang or Hiuen Tsang,Also known as Hiuen Tsiang, Hsuan-tsang, Yuan Chwang and Xuanzang. the Chinese pilgrim, who came to India in the first half of the ninth century AD. During his visit, he encountered a reference to – or the actual specimen of – a wooden idol of Kuan-tzu-tsai Pusa.
“According to the Life the marvelous image of the Kuan-tzu-tsai Pusa was made of sandal wood, and it was enclosed by railings...”see Waters, Thomas. (1961). On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India. Vol. II. Delhi: Munshi Ram Manohar Lal. p 175
Here, Kuan-tzu-tsai Pusa is none other than Avalokiteśvara, one of the sixteen forms of Bodhisattva; and it's a sandal-wood image of him that the author has written about. The actual specimen, however, is not available today. But the reference advocates in favor of wood, as a useful material for the making of Buddhist-icons during late-eighth or early-ninth century AD.
This phenomenon has also been substantiated by the freestanding sculpture of Tārā,In Mahāyāna Buddhism Tārā is a female Bodhisattva, who appears as a female Buddha in the Vajrayāna branch of the religion. She is known as the ‘mother-of-liberation’, and represents the virtues of success in work and achievements. In the Indian subcontinent, Tārā is a Tantric meditation deity, whose practice is used by devotees of the Tibetan branch of Vajrayāna-Buddhism in order to develop certain inner qualities related to compassion and emptiness. However, Tārā is actually the generic name for a set of Buddhas or Bodhisattvas of similar aspect. These may be understood as different aspects of the same quality, as Bodhisattvas are often considered metaphoric for Buddhist virtues. the Buddhist goddess (see Figure 1), discovered by late (Dr) Moreshwar Dikshit. In terms of iconography and style, it belongs to c. ninth-tenth century AD and is considered to be an import from Eastern India. Similar Buddhist icons – collected in a monastery at Chittagong, Bangladesh – ranging in date from about ninth to twelfth-thirteenth century AD,see Spooner, D Brainerd (ed.). (1923/1990). Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report, 1921-22. Delhi: Swati Publications. p 81 could also be mentioned in this connection.
Earliest Specimen
Most Indian wooden idols of perceptible antiquity and aesthetic excellence – either originate, or belong to the eastern region of this country. Earliest of this genre is the Tārā-image mentioned above, hailed from the debris of cave XXX-I at Kanheri, near Mumbai of Maharashtra. But unfortunately, its present location is yet unknown. A photograph – published in Marg (36/1, 1982) – remains the only evidence, reminding about the Pāla-figures from Bihar and Bengal.Here ‘Bengal’ refers to the region, comprising today's West Bengal (the Indian state) and Bangladesh (the neighboring country).
Among the surviving specimens, Bodhisattva LokanāthaIn general, all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can be called as Lokanātha, i.e., lord of the world; but in a more specific sense of the iconography, he should be considered as one of the forms of Avalokiteśvara. Generally, the lord is represented alone and is occasionally accompanied by Tārā and Hayagrīva. (see Figure 2) from Tongibari of Munshigunj, Dhaka (in today's Bangladesh), is considered to be the oldest one. Both in terms of form and style, it bears a striking similarity with the figure from Kanheri; and hence could be assigned to c. ninth-tenth century AD. Yet official records have opted for a much later date – i.e., the eleventhAccording to the record of BNM. – making it contemporaneous with another specimen from Rampal, also of Munshigunj. This latter one is of Sthiracakra Man̄juśrī (see Figure 3), which in that case has also its share of the claim. However, both the specimens are presently on display at Bangladesh National Museum (E-189 and E-188) at Dhaka.