Early Medieval Representation of Human Anatomy: A Case Study of Chamunda Stone Image from Dharamsala, Odisha

Abstract

The understanding of the human anatomy was a subject of an investigation of various civilizations for the purpose of varied reasons. However, in Indian tradition, it is often seen and discussed taking into consideration its religious background, and to some extent, it was a subject of magico-medicinal studies. Whereas, this traditional understanding of human anatomy is seen in various types of visuals since Early Historic period. In which most fascinating portrayal of human anatomy is noticed on stone sculptures. Especially, the Early Medieval depictions of some Brahmanical deities began to show with its anatomical details, in which the representation of goddess Chamunda took an important place where her skeletal features developed had become an identical norm. While making an image of Chamunda with all its anatomical details the sculptor requires the basic knowledge of the human anatomy. This knowledge may have been gained by these sculptors through the observation of actual human anatomy to achieve the certain perfection. This artistic perfection can be seen resulted in some of the sculptures found different parts of the country. However, such types of several stone images of Chamunda with its micro anatomical details are often noticed in the state of Odisha, which once was the primecenter of Shaktism. This paper discusses the results of a case study carried upon the stone image of Chamunda found at Dharamsala in order to understand the nature and accuracy of traditional knowledge of human anatomy.

Full text


EarlyMedievalRepresentationofHumanAnatomy:A
CaseStudyofChamundaStoneImagefromDharamsala,
Odisha

RushalUnkule1,GopalJoge1andVeenaMushrif‐Tripathy1

1. DepartmentofAncientIndianHistory,CultureandArchaeology,DeccanCollege
PostGraduateandResearchInstitute,DeemedtobeUniversity,Pune–411006,
Maharashtra,India(Email:unkule.rushal@gmail.com;gopaljoge@rediffmail.com;
vmushrif@gmail.com)


Received:17October2017;Revised:10November2017;Accepted:13December2017
Heritage:JournalofMultidisciplinaryStudiesinArchaeology5(2017):191‐200


Abstract:Theunderstandingofthehumananatomywasasubjectofaninvestigationofvarious
civilizationsforthepurposeofvariedreasons.However,inIndiantradition,itisoftenseenanddiscussed
takingintoconsiderationitsreligiousbackground,andtosomeextent,itwasasubjectofmagico‐
medicinalstudies.Whereas,thistraditionalunderstandingofhumananatomyisseeninvarioustypesof
visualssinceEarlyHistoricperiod.Inwhichmostfascinatingportrayalofhumananatomyisnoticedon
stonesculptures.Especially,theEarlyMedievaldepictionsofsomeBrahmanicaldeitiesbegantoshow
withitsanatomicaldetails,inwhichtherepresentationofgoddessChamundatookanimportantplace
whereherskeletalfeaturesdevelopedhadbecomeanidenticalnorm.Whilemakinganimageof
Chamundawithallitsanatomicaldetailsthesculptorrequiresthebasicknowledgeofthehuman
anatomy.Thisknowledgemayhavebeengainedbythesesculptorsthroughtheobservationofactual
humananatomytoachievethecertainperfection.Thisartisticperfectioncanbeseenresultedinsomeof
thesculpturesfounddifferentpartsofthecountry.However,suchtypesofseveralstoneimagesof
ChamundawithitsmicroanatomicaldetailsareoftennoticedinthestateofOdisha,whichoncewasthe
primecenterofShaktism.Thispaperdiscussestheresultsofacasestudycarrieduponthestoneimageof
ChamundafoundatDharamsalainordertounderstandthenatureandaccuracyoftraditionalknowledge
ofhumananatomy.


Keywords:Medieval,HumanAnatomy,Chamunda,Dharamsala,Iconography,
Sculpture,Odisha


Introduction
Theinvestigationofthetraditionalknowledgesystem,throughitshistorical
perspective,isanimportantaspectofthehistoryofscienceandtechnology(Nanda
2017).Ithasdevelopedasanimportantdisciplineinthe20thcentury.Inthisdiscipline,
thesubjectsofinvestigationarediverseandvaried.Inwhichmainlyincludesthe
historyoftraditionalmedicine(Wujastyk2009),historyofnumeralsandmathematics
(Plofkeretal.2017),astrology(Mak2013),traditionalalchemy(White1996)etc.In

ISSN2347–5463Heritage:JournalofMultidisciplinaryStudiesinArchaeology5:2017

192

thesestudies,broadlytwoparadigmscanbeobservedregulatingtheprogressofthis
discipline.Inwhichfirstisanunderstandingofthereligiousdimensionforlooking
macroaspectsofparticularsectanditspractices(Dehejia1986;Padoux1990;Wilson
1995;White1996),secondtounderstandthedevelopmentofscientificideasthrough
theinvestigationofthesetraditionalknowledge(Zysk1986;Bhattacharya2008;
Wujastyk2009;Savage‐Smith1997).Thesestudiesaresignificantsinceitdiscussesthe
cross‐culturalrelationandmigrationofideasthroughwhichthisknowledgesystem
wasevolvedandspread(Nanda2017).

TheinvestigationofmedicinalpracticesinancientIndiasomescholarshasdiscussed
thetraditionalunderstandingofhumananatomy(Zysk1986;Wujastyk2009;Savage‐
Smith1997).Theknowledgeofhumananatomyisanessentialrequirementfora
medicalpractitionerinordertounderstandthefunctionofthebody,causesof
diseases,thecauseofdeathandalsoformedicinalexperiments.Asmentionedabove
allthesepreviousstudiesfocusingonthehistoryofmedicineingeneralandhuman
anatomyparticular.Thesestudiesaremainlybasedonthetextualsources.Thereis
anothersphereofinformationwhichcanbeacrucialsourcetolookinadifferentway
forthesame.AsdiscussedbyWujastyk(2009)whilediscussingthedevelopmentofthe
Ayurveda.Inthisdiscussion,hetookthereviewoflatemedievaltextsand
commentariesonAyurveda.Themainobjectiveofthisreviewwastoexaminethe
Indianunderstandingofhumananatomy.Sincesomeofthesetextscontainthe
illustrationsandpaintingsofthehumananatomytoserveasareferencetothestudent
ofAyurveda.Atlast,heremarkedthatinIndiantraditionduetosocio‐religiousfactors
theknowledgeandunderstandingofhumananatomywaslimitedandremained
stagnantafterPost‐Shushrutaperiod(Wujastyk2009).However,apartfromthis,there
isanotherstrongtraditionofvisualrepresentationthatisastonesculpturewhichis
completelymissedornottakeninconsiderationseriouslyinpreviousstudies.The
stonesculptureswhichdepictsthehumananatomywithitsmicrodetailsgivesa
differentimpressionofthetraditionalunderstandingofhumananatomy.Thesestone
sculptureshaveappreciatedbythearthistoriansforitsartisticexcellenceand
perfection.However,thesestonesculpturescanbeusefulforre‐examiningthe
traditionalknowledgeofhumananatomyinthepast.

ThedepictionofhumananatomyinIndianstonesculpturalartwasfirstseenduring
theEarlyHistoricperiod.InwhichtheimageofBuddhainitsemaciatedbodybegun
torepresent.ThistypeofimageswasfrequentlyobservedinGandharaschoolofart
(Huntington1985:142).SuchimagesofBuddhaweremadeforthecertainpurposes
oneofthepurposeswastoshowtheextremityofphysicalpenanceanditssavior
influenceoverthebody.InBuddhisticonographictradition,thiswastheonlyimageof
Buddhawhichisseeninskeletalform.SuchimageryofBuddhaisseeninconfined
periodandregion(Huntington1985).

However,inanotherhandwithinBrahmanicaliconographicaltraditionsomeofthe
divinecharactersarealwaysshownordescribedwithskeletalfeatures.Asdiscussed

Unkuleetal.2017:191‐200
193

andprescribedinmanualsoficonography(Rao1914).Inthesedeitiesincludes
Chamunda,BhringianardentdevoteeofShiva,thedeityKal,amalecounterpartof
Kaliandmale/femaleattendanceofBhairaviandBhairavatheseattendantdeities
categorizedasBhutaandPishaccha.Amongthesedivinities,Chamundaroseas
powerfulgoddessduetoherimportantpositionintothecultofgoddesses.
Subsequently,intantriccultsofShaktismgoddessChamundadevelopedaschiefdeity
ofworship(Hazra1963;Kinsley1975;Mukhopadhyay1984;Misra1989;Daniélou
1991).

ThegoddessChamundaisanintegralgoddessinagroupofSaptamatrakaplacedher
ontheseventhnumberinseveraltexts(Rao1914;Banerjea1956;Joshi1979;
Mukhopadhyay1984;Misra1989;Pannikar1997).Theiconographicdevelopmentof
thismatrakaimageryisdiscussedbyseveralscholars(Banerjea1956;Kinsley1975;
Joshi1979;Mukhopadhyay1984;Misra1989;Pannikar1997;Miester1987).However,
itsindividualiconicrepresentationsandpresenceinthegroupofmatrakasare
observedbeingprominentonwards4thcenturyCE.Theseveralfindingsoftheimages
ofSaptamatrakaafter4thcenturyCEinthroughoutIndiansubcontinentindicatesthat
theworshipofgoddesseswasprominentduringtheEarlyMedievalperiod(Kinsley
1975;Meister1978;Pannikar1997).Duringthisperiodthesegoddessesareseen
portrayedintwotypes.Inapanelwhichvariesinnumberssuchasseven,eightornine
andindividualdepictions.Itsmythsandlegends,thenumberofgoddesses,itsorigin
andfollowedbytheirinclusionandexclusionarediscussedinplentyoftexts.This
corpusoftextsalsoconveysthereligiousandsectarianimportance(Rao1914;
Kramrisch1974;Kinsley1975;Dehejia1986;White1996).Asmentionedabovethe
iconographicdepictionofChamundaalsoseenintwotypes.Inanearlyphaseofher
iconographicdepiction,sheisshowninferociousformbutwithusualfeminine
features.Inseveralinstances,samehascontinuedinthelatterperiodalso(Kinsley
1975;Meister1978;Joshi1979;Misra1989:102;Pannikar1997).However,thisscenario
graduallychangedsignificantlyandalongwiththis,thegoddessbegantobe
representedinskeletalform(Kinsley1975;Meister1978;Joshi1979;Misra1989;
Pannikar1997).Theseveralnamesofthegoddessalsomakesomeconfusionregarding
theexactnatureofthedeity.AssheisreferredasChamunda,Chandi,KaliandKalika.
However,thetextualtraditionisclearononeaspectthatthegoddessisamanifestation
ofgoddessDurga(Agrawala1963;Kinsley1975;Joshi1979).Whereas,itsmythological
backgroundstronglyconnectsherwiththeShivawhichisvividlydescribedinan
episodeofandhakasuravadhainAgniPurana(Agrawala1963;Hazra1963;Kinsley1975;
Misra1989).

ThepresentpaperfocusesontheChamundasculpturefoundatDharamsala,District
JajpurinOdisha(Fig.1a,Fig.1b).ThisimageofChamundaisnowdisplayedin
ArchaeologygalleryinOdishaStateMuseum,Bhubaneshwar.Thecloseobservationof
itsstylisticnatureitsuggeststhatitcanbeplacedaround9thcenturyCE.However,
similartypesofChamundaimagesareearlierreportedinOdisha.Theseimagesare
discussedbyscholarstakingintoconsiderationitʹsiconographicalaspects(Misra1989:

ISSN2347–5463Heritage:JournalofMultidisciplinaryStudiesinArchaeology5:2017

194

109‐110;Pannikar1997:146‐147).However,thispaperdealswiththeiconographical
portrayalofgoddessChamundawithreferencetoitsskeletalfeatures.Theimagesof
Chamundaarecommonlyrepresentedinemaciatedform.Thisiconicnatureofthe
deityisconsideredasheridenticalfeature.Suchformofthedeitywasimmensely
popularduringtheEarlyMedievalperiodinthroughoutthecountry.Herethefocusis
onunderstandingthetraditionalknowledgeofhumanskeletalanatomywithits
presentunderstandingofhumanskeletalanatomy.

TheIconographyofChamunda
ThegoddesswasinstrumentaltokillthedemonsChandaandMundahenceshe
namedasChamunda.Thedeityisknownforherferociousnatureandmentionedasa
consortofBhairavawhoalsobearsferociouscharacter.Thedeityisalsoconsideredasa
goddessofdeathandtime(Kinsley1975).Therearemultipleaspectswhichare
discussedinthetextsduetothisthefearfulnatureofthedeitydevelopedasits
identicalelement.Thisferociouselementseenrepresentedthroughtheskeletalbody,
withaterrifyingface,sunkeneyes,gapingmouth,pendulousbreasts,longnailsanda
sunkenbellysurroundedbyfleshandbloodthirstywildanimals.Themountofthe
deityisapreta(corpse).Someopinionsvarywhichclaimsthatitisnotapretaratherit
ishimselfShivawholaidbeneathherinordertogethertocalmdownfromangerafter
killingademon(Soundarajan2003:267‐71).

ThereareeightprincipleformsofthegoddessChamunda.Inthesemostcommonly
observediconographicfeaturesofChamundacanbeextractedthroughthetextsofthe
iconography.Thatisthegoddessshouldwearagarlandofskulls(mundamala),with
jatamukutaformedofmattedhair,tiedwithasnakeorskullornament.Thegoddess
holdsabowlinherhandfilledwithbloodorwine.Thedeityshouldbeshown
surroundedbyaskeleton,flesh‐eatingjackals,corpse,snake,eagleandscorpion.The
mountofthedeityprescribedvariesaccordingtoitsregionalaffiliationandtextual
tradition(Mukhopadhyay1984;Misra1989;Pannikar1997).Someofthetexts
prescribedowlasamountofthegoddess.Whereas,mostcommonlymentionedand
noticedmountisacorpse.ThegoddessiscalledYogeshwariwhenthedeityisdepicted
withthreeeyesandfourhands(Rao1914;Misra1989).Theattributesofthegoddess
areprescribedasfollows,thetridentordagger,kapala,damaru,andnarmunda.
Sometimesascorpioncanbeseendepictedonhernaveloftennoticedwhenthedeity
isshowninadancingposture.Theornamentsofthedeityarementionedtobemadeof
bones,serpent,skullsandothersymbolsofdiseaseanddeath.Thedeityshoulddepict
wearingayajnapovita,madeofskulls(Rao1914;Banerjea1956;Joshi1979;Pannikar
1997).

DescriptionofImage
ThisimageofChamundaisubhayanvarticarvedequallyfromfrontandbacksidesuch
typeofimagessuggeststhatitwouldbemadeforsanctumsanctorum.Sincetheimage
isdisplayedinthemuseumitwasdifficulttodocumentthebackportionoftheimage.
Hencetheauthortriedtomakeavideoputtingthecameraonitsbackfor

Unkuleetal.2017:191‐200
195

documentation.Theimagemeasuresroughlyaround2’6”×1’6”.Deityisseatedin
lalitasanahasfourhands(Figures1aand1b).Thelowerrightandupperhandare
mutilated.Whereas,theremainingportionofupperrighthandwhichisseenatthe
chestofdeityholdsaKapal.Theupperlefthandalsoiscompletelybroken.However,
thelowerlefthandholdsseveredhead(narmunda).

Figure1a:GoddessChamundaFigure1b:IllustrationofChamunda

Thegoddessisshownseatedonobsessedboy(CorpseorPreta).Thecorpseisplaced
onapedestal.Thedeityhasaskeletalbody,veinscanbeseenclearly.Itsfaceis
ferociousandwrathful;eyesarepoppingoutwithopenmouthandfrownonface.This
maybeinfluencedbytheconceptofYogeshvariasthirdeyeshownprominentlyover
theforehead.Thehairstandsareerected(urdhvakesha)whichlooklikefireflames
(jvalakesha)(Rao1989).Thehairsaretiedfirmlywithasnakeandskull.Ontheright
sideofheadgearasmallhandinabhayamudraisdepicted;samefeaturecanbeseenon
leftbutitisanerodedcondition.Thegoddessiswearingaskullgarland,mundamala
consistof44skullsandsarpakundalasinears.Asnakeencirclingaroundtheneck.The
deityisshownwearingabajubandhmadebythedesignofsnake,Sameornamentsare
replicatedatwristandankle.Itisanartisticexcellencewheresnakeisshownholding

ISSN2347–5463Heritage:JournalofMultidisciplinaryStudiesinArchaeology5:2017

196

itsowntailinmouthwhichhasformedabeautifulcircle.Thedeityisshownwearing
ornatemekhala.Theparikaraoftheimageisornatedepictingtheelephantskininlow
relief.Therepresentationsofpairofowlscarryinggarlandisshownonportionof
elephant’searonaleftside.Thedepictionofpeacock,bellandconchshellcanbe
observedonarightside.Thedepictionofdevoteeisseenbesidetherightfootofthe
deity.Thedevoteeisshownsittinginvajrasanahasaprominentheadgearwithcircular
karnakundalas.Itisholdingaswordinitsrightarmshownwearinganornate
bajubandhaandkeyur.Thedevoteeisinnamaskarmudra,headisshownslightlyraised
upwardswatchingadivineappearanceofthegoddess.Thefivejackalsareshown
fetchingfleshfromcorpsewhichisbeneathofthedeity.Thesmallfemaleattendant
(11.5cm)ofthegoddessisshownonaleftsideofthepedestalbelowtheleftfootofthe
corpse.Thisfemaleattendancereplicatesthemaingoddessshowninskeletalform
holdingdaggerandkapalainrightandlefthandrespectively.

Figure2:DetailsofFaceFigure3:TheRightRibCage

ExaminationofSkeletalAnatomyoftheSculpture
Thebranchofmorphologythatdealswiththestructureoforganismsareknownas
anatomy(Websterdictionary).ThephysiognomicfeaturesofChamundainthis
sculpturelookslikeaskeletonandtheseskeletalfeaturesareeasilyidentifiable.The
wrinklesonthefaceandthesuperficialveinspopping‐outdenotesthefierceaspectof
theChamunda.Theeyeorbitsaresymmetricalinnature.Thenasalcavity(Nose)

Unkuleetal.2017:191‐200
197

cannotbeseenduetoweatheringofthesculpture.Thecheekbone(zygomaticbone)is
prominent.Also,thezygomaticarchgroovecanbeclearlyseen.Themandibleisalso
projectingandpresentedwithasharpgonialangle(Figure2).Thesupraorbitalridgeis
visiblebutnotmuchprotuberance.Theoccipitalregioniscarvedflat.


Figure4:TheCarpalBonesofPosteriorLeftHand

Figure5:MusclesandVeinsDepictedin
RightLowerExtremity
Figure6:Boneswithits
RespectiveLabels

ISSN2347–5463Heritage:JournalofMultidisciplinaryStudiesinArchaeology5:2017

198

Thereare24pre‐sacralvertebraspresentinhumanbody.Inthissculpture,thereare
around17‐18bodiesofvertebraswhichcanbevisibleatbackinerodedcondition.The
lastthreecervicalvertebrae(fromneckregion)canbespottedonthebackoftheneck.
Totaleightvertebraearticulatewithribsattheback.Hencethereareeightthoracic
vertebrae.Remainingsixareinthelowerbackandtheyarebadlyeroded.Numbersof
vertebraecarvedisnotclear,only17‐18bodieswerenoticeable.Bothclaviclesare
presentandplacedincorrectposition.Inthisimage,therearetotal28ribsrepresented
onthesculptureinsteadof24.Whereas,only16ribsarearticulatingwitheight
vertebras,eightoneachsiderightandleft.Thedistributionofribsisuneven.Thereare
15ribsonrightsideand13onleft.However,inthehumanbody,thereare12ribson
eachside.Inthehumanbody,thereare24ribsarticulatingto12thoracicvertebraeon
bothsidesofvertebraebodyrespectively(Figure3).Sternumandmanubriumare
absent.Theimagehasfourhands.Theyhavebeengivenfollowingdenominationfor
identification:R1andL1tohandsonthefrontonbothsides;R2andL2tohandson
theposteriorside.ThehumeralheadisvisibleonR1.RadiusandUlnahavenotbeen
presenteddistinctly.Thedorsumorbacksideiswithflesh,butphalangescanbe
observed.Olecranonisvisibleonbothelbows(R2andL2).Mostprobablytrapezium
boneisvisibleontheL1wrist.Thecarpalbonescannotbeseen.BothR1&L1hands
havefivemetacarpals.Thenailsarevisibleatfingertipsofbothhandandfeet.InR1
therearetotalelevenphalangescanbeidentifiable.Inwhichthreephalangesare
brokenfromthedistalend.Allfivefingerscanbespottedwithnotrouble.Incaseof
L2,onlysevenphalangesareunspoiledoutofwhichonlyfivearecompleteandtwo
arehalfwasbroken(Figure4).Thelowerlimbhasbeenillustratedlikeanormalhuman
thighandleg.Veinshavebeendepictedonhands,legs,andtorso(Figure5).Onlytalus
boneisvisibleoutofalltarsalbones.Therightfootofthedeityhasfivemetatarsals
andtenphalanges.Thetoeofthisfootisdamaged.Thetenphalangesofthisfootarein
goodpreservation.Whereas,theleftfootofthedeityisbrokenfrommetatarsals
(Figure6).

Discussion
Thedetailedstudyofthisimagerevealsthatthesculptor/sculptorsofthisimagewere
quitefamiliarwiththefeaturesofhumananatomy.Asobservedthroughimagethey
werequiteprecisewhiledepictingtheanatomicalfeaturesinasculptureofChamunda.
Especially,inadepictionofphalanges,ithasbeendepictedfairlyaccurateonboth
handsandfeet.Inotherimportantfeatures,thevertebraearedepictedwithelevated
portionsonthebackofthefigure.Thesculptordidn’tseemtohaveaccurate
knowledgeabouttheribcage.Thesefeatureswithitscertainaccuracyshowthe
perfectionoftheskillofsculptingbythesculptor.Thisperfectionofcarvingthehuman
skeletalanatomywithitsmajorphysiognomicfeaturesseemstobedevelopedbythe
strongbackgroundofindividualvisualpracticalandthroughtheobservationsof
existinghumananatomyofthatperiod.Thispracticalunderstandingofhuman
skeletalanatomymayhavecometoknowtotheclassofthesculptorsthroughthe
contemporarypracticeoftantricreligioningeneralandtheShaktisminparticular.This

Unkuleetal.2017:191‐200
199

particularaspectofthetantrisminwhichthehumanskeletalisrequiredforritual
purposeneedstofurtherinvestigatetounderstandsuchtypesculptural
representations.Thepresentimagewhichisoneoftheexceptionalexamplesofthe
contemporarycraftsmanshipalsoneedstobefurtherstudiedincomparisontothe
otherimagesofChamundaofthatperiodinsameandanotherregion.

Thisimagebearssomeothermicrodetailsofthehumananatomysuchasmusclesand
veins.Thesefeatureswillbedealtseparatelyinasubsequentpaperbytheauthors.
Otherthanthis,alongwithmicrodetailsofanatomicalfeaturesofChamunda,there
aresomeimportantdepictions.Thesedepictionsincludeelephant,peacock,fox,apair
ofanowl,snake,maledevoteeanddancingfemaleattendancewithemaciatebodyalso
needtofurtherinvestigatetounderstanditsactualfunctionalnature.

Acknowledgements
TheauthorsarethankfultotheauthorityofstatemuseumofBhubaneshwar,Odisha
forgrantingthepermissiontostudyanddocumentthissculptureindetail.Theauthors
arealsothankfultoourstudentSushantwhopreparedabeautifulandaccurate
illustrationofthisimage.TheauthorsarethankfultoAakankshaandRahulVerma
whowereaccompaniedwhilefieldvisitandhelpedfordocumentationoftheimage.

References
Agrawala,R.C.1971.MātṛakaReliefsinEarlyIndianArt.EastandWest,XXI,pp.78‐89.
Agrawala,V.S.1963.Devi‐Mahatmyam,TheGlorificationoftheGreatGoddess.Varanasi:
Ch.VIII.
Banerjea,J.N.1956.DevelopmentofHinduIconography.Calcutta.
Bhattacharya,Jayanta.2008.EncounterinAnatomicalKnowledge.EastandWest.
IndianJournalofHistoryofScience43,2:163–209.
Breton,Peter.1825.AVocabularyoftheNamesoftheVariousPartsoftheHumanBodyand
ofMedicalandTechnicalTermsinEnglish,Arabic,Persian,HindeeandSanscrit
fortheUseoftheMembersoftheMedicalDepartmentinIndia.Calcutta:
GovernmentLithographicPress.
Daniélou,Alain.1991[1964].TheMythsandGodsofIndia:TheClassicWorkonHindu
Polytheism.Rochester:InnerTraditions.
Dehejia,Vidya.1986.YoginiCultandTemples.NewDelhi:NationalMuseum.
Hazra,R.C.1963.StudiesintheUpapuranas.vol.2,Calcutta:p.40.
Huntington,Susan.1985.AncientIndia.NewYork:WeatherHill.
Kinsley,David.1975.FreedomfromDeathintheWorshipofKālī.Brill:Numen,Vol.22,
Fasc.3,pp.183‐207.
Kramrisch,Stella1975.TheIndianGreatGoddess.HistoryofReligion,14,4p.262.
Mak,BillM.2013.TheTransmissionofGreekAstralScienceintoIndiaReconsidered.
CriticalRemarksontheContentsandtheNewlyDiscoveredManuscriptof
theYavanajātaka.HistoryofScienceinSouthAsia1.
Meister,MichaelW.1986.RegionalVariationsinMātṛkā Conventions.ArtibusAsiae,
Vol.47,No.3/4,pp.233‐262.

ISSN2347–5463Heritage:JournalofMultidisciplinaryStudiesinArchaeology5:2017

200

Mukhopadhyay,Somnath1984.CaṇḍīinArtandIconography.Delhi:AgamKala
Prakashan.
Nanda,Meera.2016.ScienceinSaffron.Gurgaon:ThreeEssaysCollective.
Padoux,André.1990.TheBodyinTantricRitual:TheCaseoftheMudras.InTeun
Goudriaan,ed.,TheSanskritTraditionandTantrism,66–75.Leiden:E.J.Brill.
Plofker,Kimetal.2017.TheBakhshālī Manuscript:AResponsetotheBodleian
Library’sRadiocarbonDating.HistoryofScienceinSouthAsia,5.1,134–150.
Rao,GopinathaT.A.1914.ElementsofHinduIconographyvol.II.Madras:p.506.
Savage‐Smith,Emilie.1997.TheDepictionofHumanAnatomyintheIslamicWorld.In
FrancisMaddison,ed.,Science,Tools&Magic,14–24.London:TheNour
FoundationinassociationwithAzimuthEditionsandOxfordUniversity
Press.
Soundarajan,J.2003.ARareImageofDancingKālī.EastandWest,Vol.53,No.1/4,Pp.
267‐71.
White,DavidGordon.1996.KissoftheYogini:TantricSexinitsSouthAsianContexts.
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
White,DavidGordon.1996.TheAlchemicalBody:SiddhaTraditionsinMedievalIndia.
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Wilson,Elizabeth.1995.TheFemaleBodyasaSourceofHorrorandInsightinPost‐
AshokanIndianBuddhism.InJaneMarieLaw,Ed.ReligiousReflectionson
theHumanBody,76–99.Indianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress.
Wujastyk,Dominik.2009.InterpretingtheImageoftheHumanBodyinPremodern
India.InternationalJournalofHinduStudies13,2:189–228.
Zysk,KennethG.1986.TheEvolutionofAnatomicalKnowledgeinAncientIndiawith
SpecialReferencetoCross‐culturalInfluences.JournaloftheAmerican
OrientalSociety106,4:687–705.
