Indian Art history.cdr - Journal of Art Historiography

A History of Art History: The Indian Context 25
http://www.vijayanagara.org/HTML/
Publications.html
36 A collaborative project between Cardiff
University, the School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS) and The British Museum, “The
Indian Temple: Production, Place, Patronage,”
which is ongoing since 2006, with Adam Hardy
(Cardiff), Michael Willis (British Museum) and
Daud Ali (SOAS) as the chief collaborators,
follows an interdisciplinary approach to the study
of the Indian temple. See http://
www.prasada.org.uk/ for details.
37 Several significant works on Sultanate and
Mughal architecture, most notably by R. Nath and
Catherine Asher, as also city architecture, forts
and palaces, and water architecture (notably the
works of Giles Tillotson , George Michell, and
Jutta Jain) have enriched the scope of research
writings in Indian architectural history. It has
unfortunately not been possible to discuss these
here due to limitations of space.
38 For more details on the Historiography of Indian
temples, see P. Chandra 1975 and Dhar 2009.
39 For a detailed discussion on this early phase, see
P. Chandra 1983: 83-112.
40 References to the works of scholars cited in this
paragraph are listed at the end of Mandira
Sharma’s paper in this Volume, “Disquisitions on
the Paintings of Ajanta.”
41 References to the works of scholars cited in this
paragraph are listed at the end of my paper in this
Volume, “Understanding ‘Jaina Art’ of Karnataka:
Shifting Perspectives.” Though not specific to
Karnataka, it would also be pertinent here to
mention a recent paper on methodological issues
by John Cort, which discusses the importance of
Jaina art and material culture in the study of Jaina
religious history (Cort 1996).
42 The issue of portraiture in south Indian sculpture,
for example, has received attention from T.G.
Aruvamuthan and Padma Kaimal.
43 For more details, see under the sub-head, “Image
and Iconography: The Pan-Indian Context,” in my
paper, “Understanding ‘Jaina Art’ of Karnataka:
Changing Perspectives,” in this Volume.
44 Style in Indian sculpture as approached by Stella
Kramrisch has been detailed in Ratan Parimoo’s
paper in this Volume, “Stella Kramrisch’s
Approach to Indian Art History.”
45 For methodological approaches and a discussion
of key terms in Western art history, see Preziosi
1998, and Nelson and Schiff eds. 2003.
46 For a very useful list of publications by John C.
Huntington, see the following web link: http://
huntingtonarchive.osu.edu/resources/
JCHPublications.html . Several of the papers are
also accessible online at this site.
47 See also Luczanits 2004.
48 As regards archaeological excavations, the option
of international collaborations for Indian sites is
not a long term solution to the prevailing
problems faced in implementing projects. India
does have the human, scientific, and technological
wherewithal. However, implementation
procedures are severely wanting for various
reasons. More research initiatives in science and
technology need to be channelized to enhance
research in the humanities in India and their
precise and careful implementation needs to be
ensured to cope with the changing face of research
in social sciences and humanities, including
disciplines like art history. It is pertinent to
highlight these seemingly practical issues as they
directly impact methodology.
49 For references to the works of scholars engaged
with Mughal art history, notably A.K. Das, Ziyaud-din
Desai, Barbara Schmitz, Ebba Koch,
Richard Ettinghausen, Milo Beach, Gavin Bailey,
Rosemary Crill, Susan Stronge, Andrew Topsfield,
John Seyller, S.K. Verma, and some others, see the
Bibliography at the end of Ursula Weekes’ paper,
“Rethinking the Historiography of Imperial
Mughal Painting and its Encounters with
Europe,” in this Volume.
50 More details may be accessed through the
Universitas 21 webpage, http://
www.universitas21.com/.
51 The interpretation of the ‘Paçupati seal,’ however,
continues to remain debatable since Marshall’s
time. It has been variously interpreted as ‘proto-
Çiva,’ ‘yogic deity,’ and ‘archetypal mother.’ The
interpretation of mythological motifs on Cemetery
H pottery on the basis of ideas of death and afterlife
in the Vedas also cannot escape the limitations
of speculation.
52 Some historians of South and Southeast Asian art,
from Europe however, are engaged in fruitful
research on the subject. For example, the Indology
and Indian Art History scholars from Germany,
notably T.S. Maxwell, Adalbert Gail, and Claudine
Bautze-Picron are doing significant work on the