Nana: The “Original” Goddess on the Lion
Madhuvanti Ghose
(School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London, UK)
Introduction
Many years ago, as a young student at SOAS, I was introduced
to a goddess called Nana by Professor A. D. H. Bivar. I was
immediately intrigued by the possibility of an ancient Near
Eastern goddess influencing the origins of the Great Indian
Goddess Durgā. It therefore gives me immense pleasure to
present some of my findings on this subject on the auspicious
occasion of Professor Bivar’s 80th birthday as well as the launch
of the CIAA’s new journal.1 This paper will reconsider our
existing knowledge on the cult of Nana in South Asia during
the pre-Kuṣāṇa and early Kuṣāṇa periods with the aid of some
new evidence that has emerged in recent years. It excludes
Nana’s impact upon the burgeoning iconography of Goddess
Durgā.2 The discussion will also be restricted to the Warrior
Goddess aspect of Nana and will not deal with her subsequent
syncretism with various goddesses of fecundity.3
A Goddess called Nana
In 1969 B. N. Mukherjee published the monograph Nanā on
Lion, in which he first proposed the idea that the aspect of
Durgā with lion, known as sim.havāhinī, was derived from the
Near Eastern goddess depicted on Kuṣāṇa coinage.4 Subse-
quent research has largely ignored Nana within the South
Asian context, except for some sporadic articles,5 which have
focussed primarily on her presence on Kuṣāṇa coinage.6 In
contrast, Nana’s role in Central Asia has been the subject of
much more painstaking research, aided by the fact that a quan-
tity of evidence pointing to her worship survives in that region,
particularly from the sixth to eighth centuries CE.7 Despite
the fact that numismatic scholars have noted the importance
of Nana during the Kuṣāṇa period, these ideas are far from
common knowledge outside their sphere. This paper attempts
to address this lacuna by re-evaluating the role played by this
significant Kuṣāṇa goddess in South Asia.
The Rabatak inscription
Until recently the only absolute evidence we had for Nana was
on Kuṣāṇa coins, where we find her inscribed anthropomor-
phic image. The few extant sculpted images published from
time to time were mostly of broken pieces where her identity
could not be completely determined. Other examples were
from periods after the fifth century or from Central, rather
than South Asia.8 As a consequence, evidence appeared
extremely limited. However, the discovery and subsequent
decipherment of the Rabatak inscription by Joe Cribb and
Nicholas Sims-Williams completely changed our perception
about Nana.9 Discovered in the Baghlan province of northern
Afghanistan, the Rabatak inscription is dated to the first year
of Kaniṣka I (c. 127/128 CE),10 and provides a list of those
divinities the Kuṣāṇas regarded as sacred; among them the
name of Nana figures prominently.11 The inscription states at
the very beginning that Kaniṣka derived his kingship from
Nana; she is, therefore, the most important deity in their pan-
theon.12 Given this, one then needs to ask the question that if
Goddess Nana was so important to the Kuṣāṇas during the
early years of Kaniṣka’s reign, where are her images? It would
seem that in South Asia only a handful of sculptures that could
represent Nana survive. She appears otherwise to have been
forgotten, perhaps as a result of her assimilation with the cult
of Durgā during the latter part of the Kuṣāṇa period.
Nana in the ancient Near East
Nana was of Near Eastern origin. She appeared during the Ur
III period (c. 2100-200 BCE) and was associated with the
great Sumerian goddess Inanna/Ištar,13 although they were
recognized as separate divinities.14 Her name appears in vari-
ous forms, such as Nanay, Nanaia and Nanaya. Despite her
many similarities with Inanna (Akkadian Ištar), Daniel Potts
cautions us against assumptions that they were the same.15 Ištar
was a warrior goddess, and, according to one tradition, as the
daughter of the moon god Nanna (Sīn), and sister of the sun
god Utu (Šamaš), the crescent was her attribute.16 She was also
associated with fertility, fecundity, love, and marriage and is
often depicted standing on top of a lion. Inanna/Ištar rose to
prominence at Uruk in southern Mesopotamia, and was very
important during the Old Babylonian period.17 At Susa, Nana
was the principal deity of the city.18 According to Azarpay,
Nana took on the lion attribute of Ištar and it became her most
enduring feature in Central and South Asian iconography.19
Potts records references to Nana’s lion imagery in the cunei-
form sources.20 Nana also acquired Ištar’s lunar aspect.21 In
Iran, the goddess Anāhitā, who is associated with the waters,
is also equated by some scholars with Nana.22 During the Hel-
lenistic period in Mesopotamia, Nana was frequently assimi-
lated into the cult of the Greek Artemis.23 A temple of
Artemis-Nana is known from Dura-Europos during the third-
second centuries BCE.24 At Hatra, a standing stone image
inscribed NANAI has been found dated about c. 100 CE.25 It
is obvious that different forms of syncretism melding Nana
with local goddesses evolved in different places. The local
divinities included the Phoenician Astarte, Arabian Allath,
Syrian Atargatis, the Phrygian Cybèle, Egyptian Hathor, Greek
Rhea, Artemis and Athena, and the Iranian goddesses Ārmaiti
and Anāhitā.26 These fusions may underlie the continuing wor-
ship of Nana in the Near East until the coming of Islam.
Evidence from the borderlands
Diffusion of the Nana cult from the Near East into the Bac-
trian region seems to have occurred first at the end of the
third millennium BCE.27 However, a second and more
important diffusion into Bactria of goddesses associated with
lions from the Near East and the Hellenistic worlds occurred
during the Seleucid period. This is suggested by a silver gilt
plaque from Aï Khanum in northern Afghanistan, from Sac-
risty 2 of the temple, which belonged to the early historical
period strata (Fig. 1).28 H.-P. Francfort dated the plaque to
the Seleucid era in the first half of the third century BCE,
during the reign of the first two Seleucids, when Bactria was
still part of their kingdom. It depicts a frontally facing stand-
ing goddess dressed in Greek style in chiton and himation,
wearing a polos on her head, being driven across a mountain-
ous landscape in a lion-drawn chariot by a winged Nike; an
attendant holds a crescent-shaped parasol over the goddess’s
head. Francfort interpreted this image as Cybele because of
the lion chariot (normally absent in Nana iconography), the
polos, and the mountainous landscape.29 An ecstatic cult had
developed around the great Anatolian mother goddess
Cybele, who was usually portrayed either accompanied by
lions or riding a chariot drawn by them. However, this plaque
shows an intermingling of the Phrygian Cybele cult with that
of an existing Nana one. Against the backdrop of the sky can
be seen a radiate sun, a crescent moon, and a star which link
this image to the triad of sun, moon, and star seen on Baby-
lonian kudurrus (boundary stones). As we have noted earlier,
in the ancient Near East, Ištar was often regarded as the
daughter of the Moon and sister of the Sun, and, as such, was
symbolized by the morning star Venus (as she was also associ-
ated with love) along with the images of the sun and moon.
Since Nana took over these attributes of Ištar,30 this icono-
graphic devise was derived from that of Ištar. While Cybele
was popular during the late Hellenistic and early Roman
periods, in the Indo-Iranian borderlands, it was the cult of
Nana which was better known, although the two cults had
98
fused in certain regions. Thus, the plaque represents a syncre-
tised image of an “orientalized” Cybele.31
Further evidence comes from the nearby Śaka burial site of
Tillya Tepe in northern Afghanistan (c. first century CE),
which yielded an elaborate gold braided belt, with nine medal-
lions each portraying in the roundel the identical image of a
woman riding on a lion and holding a Greek-style two-han-
dled vessel (Fig. 2).32 As noted by J. Davis-Kimball, in nomadic
society belts were an important element of tribal costume,
indicating a person’s position,33 and the high status of this
burial is clearly indicated by the richness of the finds.34 V. I.
Sarianidi, who excavated the belt from the fourth kurgan—the
only male burial at the site—interpreted the image on the belt
medallions as Nana rather than Cybele because he thought
that Cybele was less well known in the borderlands region.35
In Greek art, gods and goddesses were often shown riding
various animals, and Cybele has been frequently portrayed rid-
ing the lion in this manner; she is also known to have held a
libation cup in her hand. It is, of course, also possible that these
elements had already been incorporated into the Nana cult in
the region, which the Scythians could have identified with due
to its ecstatic qualities, as well as because of Nana’s significance
as a bestower of kingly powers.
The reference to Nana in the Rabatak inscription must have
reflected her active cult in the region where the Kuṣāṇas first
settled in the borderlands of northern Afghanistan before they
penetrated into the subcontinent. This is the very region that
has yielded these Nana-related finds from the pre-Kuṣāṇa
period. It is also worth noting that this same region continued
to reveal the presence of the Nana cult during the Kuṣāṇa
period as well.36 Additionally, from the same area, we have fur-
ther evidence in the silver and copper coins inscribed NAN-
AIA in Greek issued by a pre-Kuṣāṇa local ruler called
Sapadbizes or Sapadphises (also known as Sapalaises), a little
known Yüeh-chih chief of Tou-mi, who ruled in western Bac-
tria (including the Balkh and Shiberghan oases) and the Amu
Darya valley west of Termez, and could have been a dependant
of the Indo-Parthian kings.37 In an example from the Ash-
molean Museum, Oxford, the obverse portrays the king turned
to the right and wearing a Macedonian helmet in Graeco-Bac-
trian style (Fig. 3a).38 The reverse depicts a crescent symbol
together with a letter and a lion standing facing to the right
with NANAIA written on either side. According to O. Bope-
arachchi, these coins should be dated just before those of Her-
aeus, that is, towards the beginning of the first century BCE
(c. 20-0 BCE).39 One of Sapadbizes’s coins, overstruck on a
drachm of the Parthian king Phraates IV (38-2 BCE), was also
found at Tillya Tepe. Moreover, similar coins were also issued
by other kings ruling in the same region who might have been
successors to Sapadbizes or his contemporaries. The identical
reverses belonged to Agesiles or Arseiles (Fig. 3b)40 and Pulages
(Fig. 3c).41
 Evidence from MāT.
From the Rabatak inscription, we have noted that around
127/128 CE Nana was regarded as the supreme deity by the
Kuṣāṇa emperors to whom they owed their sovereignty. There-
fore it was but natural to find evidence of her cult from the
Amu Darya region from where the Kuṣāṇas penetrated into
the subcontinent. The inscription also tells us that an image of
Nana was set up at the sanctuary, but such an icon has not yet
been found.42 Nana’s supremacy is further corroborated by the
finds from the Kuṣāṇa dynastic site at Māt., near Mathurā,
which is generally regarded as the Kuṣāṇa’s second capital. The
Māt. devakula (house of gods) yielded along with portrait stat-
ues of the Kuṣāṇa emperors, the lower part of a small female
figure depicted frontally, with her left hand holding the end of
her scarf arranged in front of her legs, and with the head of a
couchant lion just visible behind them (Fig. 4).43 The reverse
of this sculpture is carved in shallow relief, but shows quite
clearly the outline of the body of the lion behind the female
with its mane well defined. J. M. Rosenfield was the first to
suggest that this could be a statue of Nana.44 The figure
undoubtedly takes on more meaning following the decipher-
ment of the Rabatak inscription. From the inscriptions recov-
ered from the site, we know that the site was founded at the
time of Vima Taktu and repaired during Huveṣka’s reign.45
This, therefore, suggests that Goddess Nana was still wor-
shipped in her own right during the second half of the second
century CE.
The numismatic evidence
This fact is completely borne out by the evidence of the Kuṣāṇa
coins. Nana is especially prevalent on the coins of Kaniṣka (c.
127-153CE) and Huveṣka (c. 153-191CE).46 They follow the
example of the somewhat obscure Bactrian rulers whose coins
we have discussed above, but now with the addition of the
anthropomorphic image of the goddess. One may speculate
that in Bactria, where the cult of Nana was known, the lion
and the crescent were sufficient to associate the coins with the
goddess; in the rest of the newly acquired Kuṣāṇa dominions,
in the far flung corners of the new empire, the introduction of
the anthropomorphic image of the goddess on coins was a way
to popularize her. The earliest examples so far found are on the
reverses of the Kuṣāṇa emperor, Vima Kadphises, where we
first encounter the standing haloed figure of the goddess
turned to the right; it is labelled NANAŠAO (Fig. 5).47 On
the reverses of the coins of Kaniṣka, Huveṣka, and Vāsudeva
I, Nana is variously depicted; the accompanying legends refer
to her as NANA, NANAIA or NANAŠAO. She is usually
portrayed walking to the right (as in the Vima coin),48 with a
halo and crescent over her head, wearing a diadem whose rib-
bons can be discerned at her back, dressed in a long robe and
holding in her right hand a sceptre with a lion protome
(Fig. 6).49 The crescent and the lion protome refer to her Mes-
opotamian roots. On some coins, she holds a patera (bowl) in
her left hand (Fig. 7a).50 K. Tanabe has suggested that it con-
nects her to the waters.51 It might also derive from Cybele’s
libation cup and so refer to the more ecstatic elements of her
worship. On a series with the legend NANAŠAO, she also
carries a sword at her side (Fig. 7b).52
On the reverses of Huveṣka, other variations can be noted
that are unique to the coins of this ruler. Here Nana sits side
saddle on a lion (Fig. 8).53 She and the lion face right. She holds
a sceptre with her right hand and a bowl in her left and, above
her head, is a halo with a crescent. This characteristic feature
of her iconography—being seated on a lion—is clearly derived
from that of the Phrygian Cybele and demonstrates the syn-
cretism that had taken place between the Cybele and Nana
cults.54 A rare Huveṣka coin’s reverse depicts standing Nana to
the left facing Oēšo (later to be identified with Śiva) to the
right (Fig. 9a).55 She is rendered in her popular type of walking
to the right, with halo and diadem, and holding a sceptre in
her right hand. Oēšo has been portrayed wearing a dhoti and
has four arms: an inverted vase and antelope can be clearly seen
in his lowered hands; the attributes in his upper hands are not
so clear but could possibly be the thunderbolt and trident. It
is interesting to note that Huveṣka issued another unique series
on which the goddess Ommo has been coupled with Oēšo
(Fig. 9b).56 Ommo, who, as Umma, also appears in the Raba-
tak inscription, has been portrayed almost identically to Nana,
except that she holds out a flower to the four-armed Oēšo to
her left, who is clearly rendered with a halo, wearing a dhoti,
and bearing a water pot, elephant goad, and antelope in his
lowered hands, while holding aloft a trident and thunderbolt.57
This rare combination of Nana and Ommo with Oēšo has led
to speculation about a possible syncretism between Oēšo and
the Hindu god Śiva whose consort is Umā or Pārvatī/Durgā,
as well as between Nana and Umā, which has been further
strengthened by the evidence of the Rabatak inscription in
which Umma and Nana are once again coupled.58 Despite the
linguistic problems noted by Sims-Williams, it is quite clear
that two goddesses, who were very distinct at the time of the
Rabatak inscription in Year 1 of the Kuṣāṇa era (c. 127/128 CE),
had begun to be loosely associated with each other by the end
of the second century during the reign of Huveṣka.
Some other variations also exist on these coins, notably
those that show Nana holding a bow and taking an arrow from
a quiver, which seem clearly to be derived from the iconogra-
phy of Artemis, the goddess of hunting (Fig. 7c).59 The coin
types of Nana with the sword and bow and arrow, as also her
lion, emphasize her as a Warrior Goddess, noted perceptively
by Mukherjee, and is ultimately derived from the Mesopota-
mian Ištar.60 It is this martial aspect of the Kuṣāṇa goddess
inherited from the Near Eastern world, particularly in her
form of investing rulers with kingship, which explains Nana’s
popularity with the Kuṣāṇas. This was the reason behind her
being referred to as NANAŠAO or ŠAONANA (Royal Nana
99
or Queen Nana) in Kuṣāṇa coin legends, a fact further cor-
roborated by the Rabatak inscription, which confirms her
special role as bestower of kingship to the Kuṣāṇa emperors.61
Two exceptional Huveṣka issues actually depict Nana blessing
the kneeling king with her sceptre (Fig. 7d).62 They thus
present Nana in her role as the foremost goddess from whom
the emperors were vested with the right to rule; this also
explains her presence at the Māt. devakula. The coins therefore
emphasize her unique role during the reign of the Kuṣāṇas.
Evidence from seals
In addition to the coin images, a few rare seals from the north-
west depict Nana. A chalcedony bezel displays the same ico-
nography as the standing images of Nana on Kuṣāṇa coins (Fig.
10a).63 The goddess stands in profile facing to the left. In her
left hand she clasps a sceptre with a lion protome, while hold-
ing a bowl in her right hand. She clearly has a crescent on her
head and the ribbons from her diadem float behind her. The
seal can be dated to the second century, given its proximity to
Kuṣāṇa coin examples. A later Sogdian inscription supplies the
name of the owner of the seal and of his father who has the
theophoric name Nanai-vandak (slave of Nanai).64 A garnet
seal also depicts an image similar to that on the coins (Fig.
10b).65 Nana sits side saddle on the lion, facing left while the
lion faces to our right. She holds out a sceptre in her left hand
and a bowl in her right. A crescent appears on her head. The
seal bears a personal name in Bactrian. Again it should be
dated to the second half of the second century CE, due to its
closeness to the Huveṣka gold issue discussed above (Fig. 8).
The visual evidence from Gandhāra
In comparison to the wealth of numismatic evidence, few
sculptures from the Kuṣāṇa period have been identified. As
noted earlier, many of the images published originally were of
broken and incomplete examples; while some turned out to be
later than the Kuṣāṇa period, others came from Central Asia.66
Only four certain images were known until now. We have
already discussed the headless image from the Māt. sanctuary
(Fig. 4). Besides this, A. Foucher published a headless female
figure with a sword strapped to her waist from Sikri (Fig. 11).67
She has generally been referred to as Nanaia or Ambhā; 68 H.
Ingholt first identified her as Nanaia due to the Nana images
on coins, which portray her sometimes with a sword at her
side.69 However, because of its present incomplete state, it is
probably more prudent to treat this woman from Sikri as a
typical scene divider between narrative friezes, or as an attend-
ant figure.70 We should refrain from labelling her as Ambhā or
Ambā/Ambika as iconographically this figure does not por-
tray a mother. Moreover, although Nana carries the sword on
certain coins (Fig. 7b), we are able to distinguish a distinct
100
iconography by this time which is not revealed by this sculp-
ture.
Another published sculpture, which is now in Chandigarh,
depicts an enthroned goddess (Fig. 12).71 Dressed in a long
robe with a scarf over her left shoulder and a wreath in her hair,
her bare feet adorned with heavy anklets, a large halo appears
behind her head and shoulders. She holds a bowl in her right
hand, while she cradles an animal head in her left which rests
on her lap. She is flanked on either side by what may be lions
(albeit poorly executed), though the animals could be dogs or
jackals. S. Paul and P. Khanna proposed that she was Durgā/
Shivānī/Shibā, an aspect of Durgā, whose attributes included
jackals, bowl in hand and an animal head;72 D. M. Srinivasan
suggested considering it from a Mithraic perspective. 73
Another, somewhat similar image, now in Kyoto and pub-
lished by M. Taddei, shows the seated goddess again holding
a bowl in her right hand and clasping a ram’s head in her left.74
In place of the flanking animals, a headless figure of a worship-
per on the goddess’s right appears at the base of the throne.
According to Taddei, a lion’s head was visible on the deity’s
right temple, which led him to suggest identification with an
aspect of Durgā.75 There are at least five other enthroned god-
desses from Gandhāra which may be compared with the Chan-
digarh and Kyoto examples. One, in a private Japanese
collection, seems stylistically later than all the other examples
and depicts the seated goddess holding a beaker and an animal
head while a small bull-like animal rests by her right side. 76
Another enthroned goddess in the Russek Collection has ani-
mals similar to the Chandigarh sculpture positioned by the
base of the throne, though the hand attributes are not clear. 77
However the Russek Collection goddess has an animal head,
which is closely comparable to an animal-headed figure in the
collection of the British Museum.78 The British Museum
enthroned goddess holds a tall beaker in her right hand while
she clasps an animal head in her left.
Two other similar animal-headed enthroned goddesses with
haloes are known from private collections: the closest to the
British Museum sculpture is in a private collection in Pakistan
and displays a remarkably similar goat-like head with a wreath
around it;79 the goddess holds a cup close to her chest in her
right hand, while holding an unidentifiable object in her right.
The other enthroned goddess, in the Sherrier Collection,
sports a similar ram-like head and holds a beaker in her right
hand and a lion’s head in her left (Fig. 13).80 There is much
speculation as to the identity of these enthroned goddesses:
they all clearly show certain common features, such as their
enthroned positions, the cup in the right hand, and the severed
animal head usually cradled in the left, and, on at least four
examples, the goddess sports an animal head. I agree with
Zwalf that we should not see in this animal-headed deity a
connection with the goat-headed Naigameśa, so popular in
Mathurā, who is often viewed as a protector of children, due
to the complete absence of children in these sculptures.81
Whether she forms a different aspect of Nana as Mukherjee
first proposed, or represents the tantric divinity Durgā/
Shivānī/Shibā as suggested by Paul and Khanna, or even
reveals Mithraic qualities as noted by Srinivasan, all scholars
agree with Taddei that this goddess was related to Durgā. They
all share aspects of Nana’s known iconography, namely the cup
in the right hand, and occasionally the lion. It is tempting to
see in her Cybele, who can be portrayed enthroned, flanked by
lions or with a lion in her lap, and holding the libation cup, but
this does not fully explain the animal-headed deities. It is only
possible to suggest at this stage of our understanding that this
category of goddesses can be loosely associated with Goddess
Nana, and perhaps points to some of her more esoteric cult
practices linked to her mysteries.
A previously known fourth image of the goddess from the
Peshawar Museum was published by Ingholt (Fig. 14).82 The
figure of the deity is completely missing and only the ends of
her garment and shoes are still visible. She was clearly either
sitting or standing on the lion which is shown lying on a ped-
estal. The lion’s head is turned to the left looking up at the
missing goddess. It is worth noting its realistic appearance. The
feet of the goddess are clad in closed shoes or boots. This stucco
could have been a representation of Nana. Thus out of the four
known and previously published images, only two, that is the
Māt. and Peshawar ones, can be called Nana with any certainty
because of the presence of the lion. However the absence of
the goddess on both examples makes an absolute identification
impossible. However, of the two images, that of Māt. appears
to be more certain since it originates from the Kuṣāṇa dynastic
site. It therefore appears to have the most secure Nana connec-
tion due to the attested reverence with which she was held by
the Kuṣāṇa royal family; but unfortunately, even this image is
mutilated.
To this exceedingly small corpus of Nana images can be
added a few slightly more intact examples. The goddess can be
seen seated with her left leg dangling down and right leg resting
on the back of a lion on a small bone or ivory plaque that is
today in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Fig. 15).83 She raises
her right hand to her face, while her left lies casually in her lap.
She is draped completely and wears a wreath in her hair. It is
interesting to note the schematic form of her lion in compari-
son to the one from Peshawar (Fig. 14). This is surely Nana
seated on her lion, although looking somewhat indigenized.
A relief in schist in the Sherrier Collection provides us with
another example (Fig. 16).84 Here we have an enthroned god-
dess with a halo around her head that may be compared loosely
to the one from Chandigarh (Fig. 12). The goddess sits with
her feet resting on the hind quarters of the lion, which turns
back to look towards her in the manner of the lion from Pesha-
war (Fig. 14), but it is not as realistically rendered. Nana is
dressed in a more Indianized manner, a wreath with a central
lotus bud crowning her hair in a similar arrangement to the
one from the Ashmolean. Across her body, she grasps a sceptre
with both hands.
A third image may be found in a typical Gandhāran narra-
tive scene divider, published by I. Kurita from a private Japa-
nese collection (Fig. 17).85 We see a śālabhañjikā, holding on
to the leaves of a tree with her raised right hand, while clasping
her necklace with her left. What is most intriguing about her
is that she stands with legs crossed at the ankles in a manner
similar to the Sikri figure, but on a lion. It is difficult to decide,
due to its iconographic rarity, whether this figure should be
viewed as Nana standing on her lion, since she does not carry
the usual attributes associated with the goddess in her hands,
or simply as a yakṣī standing on an animal, in the manner of
the Bhārhut yakṣīs.86 Its representation like a Gandhāran fertil-
ity deity might suggest a link being established with the repro-
ductive aspects of Nana’s persona.
Yet another image may be identified from the excavations at
Ranigat, which have revealed the damaged section of a seated
Buddha image (Fig. 18).87 On its base, which is also greatly
mutilated, can just be discerned a female seated on a lion facing
to the right, whose tail and hind quarters remain visible. If one
looks closely, one can determine a crescent moon behind the
goddess’ shoulders. That this is not the Moon Goddess Mao is
clear from the bowl that the goddess cradles in her left hand in
her lap. Her right hand is raised in a gesture of blessing. To her
left is the damaged figure of a person with raised right hand
holding aloft what looks to be a bowl, possibly making an offer-
ing to her. On her right can be seen the end of a rhyton being
raised by a figure that has now disappeared, while an amphora
can be seen in front of her. We are clearly witnessing the pro-
pitiation of Goddess Nana with libations which gives us an
insight into her worship; what is remarkable is that it features
on the base of a seated Buddha.88
The evidence from northern India
It is not only from Gandhāra that we now find the Goddess on
the lion. The site of Ropar on the left bank of the Sutlej river
in Punjab has revealed in a broken terracotta plaque the god-
dess seated side saddle on a lion and facing frontally (Fig. 19).89
Unfortunately, her head and the upper part of the plaque have
broken off, but the identity of the goddess dressed in Indian
style is quite clear. The lion has become a shadow of itself and
is now almost cat-like. Even eastern India has exposed a few
exceptional examples. A small ivory container from Chan-
draketugarh in eastern India provides another rare glimpse
(Fig. 20).90 All around it is carved a row of standing female
figures dressed identically. One woman is depicted with her
right hand on her hip; other women appear with their hands
by their sides; another figure cups her left breast with her left
hand. The most interesting feature is that on one side of the
container a woman appears with a lion by her side. She rests
her right hand on the lion’s head, while her left is on her left
hip. It is quite clear that this represents a further portrayal of
this elusive deity. On another terracotta plaque from the same
101
region can be seen the standing figure of an imposing goddess,
elaborately bejewelled in characteristic Chandraketugarh fash-
ion, with weapon-shaped pins emerging from both sides of her
bicornate hairstyle, and enormous bolster shaped earrings (Fig.
21).91 She stands casually with her head slightly tilted and her
feet crossed at the ankles, as she raises her left hand in a gesture
towards her ear, while touching a garland on an offering plate
with her right. By her feet can be seen a cat-like creature who
may be identified as the goddess’s lion. A diminutive attendant
on her left raises a plate of floral offerings. In other words, these
objects probably represent the importation of Goddess Nana
into eastern India where her iconography is incorporated into
objects of local manufacture. The Rabatak inscription informs
us that the Kuṣāṇa empire had already spread to eastern India
by the beginning of Kaniṣka’s reign, and thus it is clear that the
Nana cult spread with the Kuṣāṇas to the farthermost corners
of their empire.92 That these are not isolated finds has been
proved by the discovery of a terracotta object with a seal
engraving published by Mukherjee from Chandraketugarh.93
Inside a border of dots can be seen a female figure wearing a
long garment, who stands facing to the right. In her half-raised
hands she holds what could be an animal-headed standard
similar to those on the Kuṣāṇa coins. An animal, possibly a
lion, stands near her feet. There could be a canopy over her
head. According to Mukherjee, we have here the depiction of
Nana on inscribed terracotta. It is also worth noting in this
regard the recovery of a gold Huveṣka coin with Nana standing
facing to the right from Dewan Ati, a village near Chan-
draketugarh, by Dr G. S. De in 1972.94 The discovery of these
objects from Punjab and eastern India demonstrates that the
cult of Nana spread throughout the Kuṣāṇa dominions with
such sealings, seals and coins; all may be assigned to the second
century CE.
. havāhinī
Transformation into Durgā SiM
The attributes and aspects that seem to embody Nana from the
visual evidence presented are the crescent on her head, the lion
on which she stands or sits or with which she is associated, the
cup or bowl usually in her right hand, and her sceptre. In the
sculpture from Māt. we see the lion which stands behind the
goddess. Since the statue stems from the Kuṣāṇa dynastic
shrine, I believe that it is definitely of Nana, given this god-
dess’s special link with this dynasty. All the other images pre-
sented here share some elements of Nana’s iconography as it is
established earlier in the Near East or much later from Central
Asia between the sixth to eighth centuries. I am convinced that
they represent the goddess known as Nana and not Durgā.
During the latter part of the second century, towards the
end of Huveṣka’s reign, the process that saw the assimilation
of Nana into the iconography of Durgā begins. A very impor-
tant relief from Mathurā reveals the transformation that must
have taken place in turning images from Nana to Durgā and
102
demonstrates that this syncretism probably took place in that
city (Fig. 22).95 The goddess stands frontally on a lion in the
manner of Near Eastern Ištar and Nana images. However, the
image is at the same time thoroughly Indianized and has
become that of a typical Mathurā goddess, for example, in her
frontal aspect. She wears a lower garment with a scarf-like sash
tied at her waist. Her upper body is bare except for an uttarīya
which is draped loosely over her shoulders and falls in a loop
over her left arm. The arrangement of her elaborately dressed
hair would point to a date around the second century CE.96
Her right palm is turned slightly inward in the vyāvrtta mudrā.
However, in her left hand she holds what looks to be a triśūla
which becomes an attribute of Śiva after its introduction in the
Oēšo coin images from the northwest. She holds this triśūla
across her body in the way that Nana had earlier held the scep-
tre. Härtel has noted most observantly that the head of this
triśūla was a later addition on an existing staff or sceptre, along
with a third hand holding a dagger, as well as the scratching of
a fourth arm on the right outer side holding a shield, to an
originally two-armed image of a goddess standing on a lion.97
This goddess, with the addition of the triśūla attribute, at a
later date was transformed from a Nana into a Durgā image. It
could originally have depicted Nana standing frontally on a
lion in the manner of the Māt. image. The origins of the pose
in Nana iconography are betrayed by the manner in which the
lion has been depicted below the goddess’s feet: its body is to
the right but, at the same time, it turns its head backwards to
look at her. The lion is no longer realistic; it has become com-
pletely stylized. The transformation of the goddess’s lion from
the realistic depictions as seen in the Peshawar example to
these schematic ones can only be explained by the lack of
familiarity with lions in northern and eastern India. Thus, this
sculpture reflects the assimilation taking place from Nana on
Lion into Durgā sim.havāhinī, or the Durgā on the Lion icon-
ographic type towards the end of the second and early third
century CE.
Conclusion
It is clear that the popularity of Goddess Nana in the Amu
Darya region from where the Kuṣāṇas rose to power, and her
role as bestower of kingship, led to her being recognized as the
supreme divinity under the Kuṣāṇas. Her popularity seems to
have reached its greatest heights under Kaniṣka and Huveṣka
in the second century CE. From the evidence of the Māt.
devakula and the unique varieties of Huveṣka’s coinage, we can
surmize that Nana was very much in worship during the latter
part of the second century CE, and had not yet been subsumed
into the developing cult of the goddess Durgā. Contrary to the
evidence of the Rabatak inscription and Kuṣāṇa coinage, one
is struck by the few sculptures that have so far come to light,
and by their relatively small size, which belie Nana’s role as the
goddess who invested the Kuṣāṇa emperors with the authority
to rule and who was called ŠAONANA. One can speculate
that more sculptures lie unnoticed in dusty museum reserve
collections, or have been labelled as Durgā and are thus uni-
dentified. But it is puzzling to note that no monumental
images have so far surfaced. This leads to the conclusion that
perhaps Nana remained a dynastic cult goddess with esoteric
practices which were never adopted by the masses. Just as in
the Near East, she was assimilated into the cults of local god-
desses who shared certain aspects and attributes with her. It
seems that it is perhaps through her assimilation with the cult
Notes
1
An earlier incarnation of this paper was presented at the First Interna-
tional Symposium on Latest Discoveries in the Cultural Heritage of Ancient
Gandhara and Other Parts of Pakistan in Swat (Pakistan) in September 2005.
I take this opportunity to thank Professor M. Farooq Swati and Dr. M.
Nasim Khan for their hospitality and kindness on the occasion. I would also
like to acknowledge my gratitude to K. Abdullaev, H. Alam, G. Azarpay, S.
Bhandare, O. Bopearachchi, M. Carter, J. Cribb, G. S. De, E. Errington, J.
Eskenazi, H. Falk, R. Gadebusch, F. Grenet, S. Kapoor, F. Khan, N. Kreit-
man, J. A. Lerner, B. R. Mani, B. I. Marshak, B. N. Mukherjee, N. Odani, E.
Raven, E. Rtveladze, L. Russell-Smith, R. Senior, N. Sims-Williams, J. Sher-
rier, H. A. Smith, D. M. Srinivasan, K. Tanabe, A. Topsfield, H. Tsuchiya,
M. Willis, B. K. Waghmar, and M. Yaldiz for their advice and assistance with
different aspects of this paper.
2
This is dealt with in the forthcoming book, M. Ghose, The Origins of
Indian Cult Images. A Study in the Development of Early Indian Iconography
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2007).
3
Some aspects of this discussion can be found in M. Ghose, “A Rare
Image of the Goddess Nanā from Afghanistan,” in Afghanistan, Ancien Car-
refour Entre l’Est et l’Ouest, eds. O. Bopearachchi and M.- F. Boussac (Turn-
hout: Brepols, 2005), 259-70. A more detailed study on all aspects of Nana
is forthcoming in my book.
4
B. N. Mukherjee, Nanā on Lion. A Study in Kushāṇa Numismatic Art
(Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1969), 19. See also A. D. H. Bivar, “A review
of B. N. Mukherjee: Nanā on Lion: A Study in Kushāṇa Numismatic Art,”
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 34 (1971), 615-16.
5
See, for example, B. N. Mukherjee, “Foreign Elements in Iconography
of Mahishāsuramardinī: The War Goddess of India,” Zeitschrift der Deut-
schen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 6, 22 (1985), 404-14; A. C.
Deb Munshi, “The Origin and Development of Nana—the Popular Kuṣāṇa
Mother-Goddess,” Journal of the Oriental Institute 35, nos. 3/4 (1986), 249-
56; and B. N. Mukherjee, “The Discovery of a Bactrian Inscription in Eastern
India,” Circle of Inner Asian Art Newsletter 16 (2002), 6-8.
6
For example, B. Saraswati, “Ambā-Nana-Durgā,” Journal of the Asiatic
Society 7 (1965), 95-8; Mukherjee, Nanā on Lion; and K. Tanabe, “Earliest
Aspect of Kanīṣka I’s Religious Ideology. A Numismatic Approach,” in In
the Land of the Gryphons. Papers on Central Asian Archaeology in Antiquity,
ed. A. Invernizzi (Firenze: Casa Editrice Le Lettere, 1995), 203-215. Note also
the relevant sections of J. M. Rosenfield, The Dynastic Arts of the Kushans
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967); R. Göbl, System und Chro-
nologie der Münzprägung des Kušānreiches (Wien: Verlag der Österreichi-
schen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1984), and M. L. Carter, “Some
Preliminary Notes on the Gods of the Rabatak Inscription,” South Asian
Archaeology 1999 (forthcoming).
of Durgā, who took over her martial role, and the syncretiza-
tion of her more fertile aspects with a growing body of god-
desses such as Ardoxšo, Hāritī, Lakṣmī, Ambikā and Umā, that
she became popular with the people and spread throughout
northern India. In subsequent periods, she continues to make
an occasional appearance from Central Asia, while lingering
traces of her iconography can be discerned in later goddesses,
for example, from Kashmir and the Northwest in the sixth to
eighth centuries.
7
Once again, however, the results are largely in the form of articles in
scattered volumes. See, for example, N. V. Dyakonova and O. I. Smirnova,
“K voprosu o kul’te Nany (Anahity) v Sogde” [About the question of Nana’s
(Anahita’s) cult in Sogdiana], Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 1 (1967), 74-83; G.
Azarpay, “Nine Inscribed Choresmian Bowls,” Artibus Asiae XXXI (1969),
185-203; G. Azarpay, “The Four-armed Goddess: A Kushan Survival in the
Early Medieval Art of Transoxiana?” in Central Asia in the Kushan Period.
Proceedings of the International Conference on the History, Archaeology and
Culture of Central Asia in the Kushan Period, Dushanbe, September 27 – Octo-
ber 6, 1968, 2, [in Russian] eds. B. G. Gafurov et al. (Moscow: Nauk, 1975),
387-91; G. Azarpay, “Iranian Divinities in Sogdian Painting,” Monumentum
H. S. Nyberg, (“Hommages et opera minora,” Deuxième série 1); Acta Iranica
4 (Tehran: Bibliothèque Pahlavi and Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), 19-29; G. Azar-
pay, “Nanā, the Sumero-Akkadian Goddess of Transoxiana,” Journal of the
American Oriental Society 96 (1976), 536–42; K. Tanabe, “Nana on Lion.
East and West in Sogdian art,” Orient 30-31 (1995), 309-34; F. Grenet and B.
Marshak, “Le mythe de Nana dans l’art de la Sogdiane,” Arts Asiatiques 53
(1998), 5-18; D. T. Potts, “Nana in Bactria,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 7
(2001), 23-35; and K. Abdullaev, “Nana in Bactrian Art. New Data on
Kushan Religious Iconography Based on the Material of Payonkurgan in
Northern Bactria,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 9 (2003), 15-38.
8
See Mukherjee, Nanā on Lion, pls. 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, which also
include later Durgā images.
9
N. Sims-Williams and J. Cribb, “A New Bactrian Inscription of Kan-
ishka the Great,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 4 (1996), 75-142; N. Sims-
Williams, “Further Notes on the Bactrian Inscription of Rabatak, with an
Appendix on the Names of Kujula Kadphises and Vima Taktu in Chinese,”
in Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies held in
Cambridge, 11-15 September 1995, 1, Old and Middle Iranian Studies, ed. N.
Sims-Williams (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1998), 79-92; J. Cribb, “The Evidence
of Greek Coinage in Bactria and India and Its Evidence for the Kushan
Coinage System,” in Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin
Jessop Price, eds. R. Ashton and S. Hunter (London: Spink, 1998), 83-98; J.
Cribb, “The Early Kushan Kings: New Evidence for Chronology: Evidence
from the Rabatak Inscription of Kaniṣka I,” in Coins, Art, and Chronology.
Essays on the Pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, eds. M.
Alram and D. Klimburg-Salter (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akade-
mie der Wissenschaften, 1999), 177-205. See also Carter, “Some Preliminary
Notes.”
10
Sims-Williams and Cribb, “A New Bactrian Inscription,” 78, lines 2, 4;
81, line 20. The Year 1 of Kaniṣka I is now generally accepted in the scholarly
community to have begun in c. 127/128 CE. See H. Falk, “The Yuga of Sphu-
jiddhvaja and the Era of the Kuṣâṇas,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 7
103
(2001), 121-36, and also H. Falk, “The Kaniṣka Era in Gupta Records,” Silk
Road Art and Archaeology 10 (2004), 167-76.
11
Sims-Williams and Cribb, “A New Bactrian Inscription,” 79, line 9.
12
Sims-Williams and Cribb, “A New Bactrian Inscription,” 78, line 2: “
[…] who has obtained the kingship from Nana and from all the gods […].”
See also Carter, “Some Preliminary Notes,” 2.
13
Inanna was the most important goddess in the Sumerian pantheon. A
variant of her name was Ninanna (Mistress of Heaven). She was identified
with Venus, and thus with fertility and love.
14
Azarpay, “Nanā, the Sumero-Akkadian Goddess,” 536; Potts, “Nana in
Bactria,” 24.
15
Potts, “Nana in Bactria,” 23-24. Similar distinctions are noted by Azar-
pay, “Nanā, the Sumero-Akkadian Goddess”, 536, and Grenet and Marshak,
“Le mythe de Nana,” 7.
16
In a Sumero-Akkadian hymn, Nanā regards herself as the daughter of
Sin and sister of Šamaš. See Azarpay, “Nanā, the Sumero-Akkadian God-
dess,” 536.
17
Potts, “Nana in Bactria,” 25.
18
Potts, “Nana in Bactria,” 28-30.
19
Azarpay, “Nanā, the Sumero-Akkadian Goddess,” 539.
20
Potts, “Nana in Bactria,” 25.
21
Mukherjee, Nanā on Lion, 11.
22
Grenet and Marshak, “Le mythe de Nana,” 8; Potts, “Nana in Bactria,”
26. See also J. Kellens, “Le problème avec Anāhitā,” Orientalia Suecana 51-52
(2002-2003), 317-26.
23
Azarpay, “Nanā, the Sumero-Akkadian Goddess,” 537; Abdullaev,
“Nana in Bactrian Art,” 22. See also Potts, “Nana in Bactria,” 26, where he
questions the assimilation theory.
24
Azarpay, “Nanā, the Sumero-Akkadian Goddess,” 537.
25
S. Fukai, “The Artifacts of Hatra and Parthian Art,” East and West 2
(1960), 135-181, pl. 24.
26
See, for example, J. Przyluski, “The Great Goddess in India and Iran;”
The Indian Historical Quarterly 10 (1934), 405-30; Rosenfield, Dynastic Arts,
85-88; Mukherjee, Nanā on Lion; Azarpay, “Nanā, the Sumero-Akkadian
Goddess,” 536-542; and Mukherjee, “Foreign Elements,” 404-14.
27
See Potts, “Nana in Bactria,” 28. See also Ghose, The Origins of Indian
Cult Images where this is discussed further with a review of the visual evi-
dence.
28
It is 25 cm in diameter, with a thickness between 0.1–0.2 cm. It was in
the Kabul Museum, Afghanistan. See H. -P. Francfort, Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum
III. Le Sanctuaire du Temple a Niches Indentées, Mémoires de la Délégation
Archéeologique Française en Afghanistan (Paris: Diffusion de Boccard,
1984).
29
Francfort, Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, 95.
30
Azarpay, “Nanā, the Sumero-Akkadian Goddess,” 536-7. See also Carter,
“Some Preliminary Notes,” 3.
31
Francfort, Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum, 97-100.
32
See V. I. Sarianidi, The Golden Hoard of Bactria. From the Tillya-tepe
Excavations in Northern Afghanistan (Leningrad and New York: Aurora Art
Publishers/Harry N. Abrams Publications, 1985), 34-38, 246-47, pls. 88-97.
The belt’s length is 97.6 cm and width 2 cm, and the diameter of the plaque
is 4 cm. It is supposed to be in the reserves of the President’s Palace in Kabul,
Afghanistan.
33
J. Davis-Kimball, “Enarees and Women of High Status. Evidence of
Ritual at Tillya Tepe (Northern Afghanistan),” in Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and
Settlements. Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age, eds. J. Davis-Kimball, E. M. Mur-
phy, L. Koryakova and L.T. Yablonsky (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2000), 227.
34
See Davis-Kimball, “Enarees and Women of High Status,” 228 where
she suggests that the male burial was of a eunuch warrior priest. Tombs of
five females were also excavated. The seventh burial was uncovered but left
unexcavated due to lack of time.
35
Sarianidi, The Golden Hoard of Bactria, 38.
36
There is some speculation that the temple discovered at Dal’verzintepe
in Uzbekistan was dedicated to Nana and dated to the first centuries CE.
See Abdullaev, “Nana in Bactrian Art,” 24, for evidence from Dal’verzintepe,
104
as well as Payonkurgan. See also E. V. Rtveladze, “Coins of the Yuezhi Rulers
of Northern Bactria,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3 (1993/1994), 85.
37
See Mukherjee, Nanā on Lion, 12, figs. 8 and 8a; M. Mitchener, Indo–
Greek and Indo–Scythian Coinage 4 (London: Hawkins Publishers, 1976),
Type 509; Rtveladze “Coins of the Yuezhi Rulers,” 81-96.
38
This particular coin comes from the Senior Collection (no. 4804),
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, UK.
39
In a personal communication (May 2002).
40
It is in the Senior Collection (no. 4797) in the Ashmolean Museum,
Oxford, UK. See Mitchiner Indo–Greek, Type 510.
41
This particular example comes from the Senior Collection (no. 4799)
in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, UK.
42
See Sims-Williams and Cribb, “A New Bactrian Inscription,” 79, line 11,
which informs us that images of all the gods were to be set up at the sanctu-
ary. It is also worth noting in this regard that the inscription was found
together with the fragments of a lion. See Sims-Williams and Cribb, “A New
Bactrian Inscription,” 75.
43
It is in the Government Museum, Mathurā, Uttar Pradesh, India (Acc.
no. 214/A). Its height is 30.5 cm (45.8 cm including the tenon). It was com-
pletely ignored in the text of the original excavation report. See J. P. Vogel,
“Explorations at Mathurā,” Archaeological Survey of India, Annual report
1911-12 (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1915), 120-27.
44
Dynastic Arts, 150. Interestingly it was originally identified as Durgā
because of her lion vehicle by V. S. Agrawala, “A Catalogue of the Brahman-
ical Images in Mathura art,” The Journal of the United Provinces Historical
Society 22 (1949), 152. See Rosenfield for his criticism of this interpretation.
A similar but much larger male figure minus its head and torso, but with a
lion, was also found at the site (GMM 214; Rosenfield, Dynastic Arts, fig. 10);
this has generally been identified as an image of Śiva.
45
See H. Lüders, Mathurā Inscriptions (Göttingen: Van den Hoeck and
Ruprecht, 1961), 134-45, nos. 98 and 99. The year of the renovation is not
mentioned.
46
The numismatic evidence is dealt with in brief as it has been the subject
of much research already. See note 6 above for further details.
47
This particular example comes from the collection of R. Senior in the
UK. I am most grateful to him for sharing this information with me.
48
Nana can occasionally be seen facing to the left as well. See, for example,
Göbl, System und Chronologie, nos. 282 or 329, or 358.
49
This particular coin is from the collection of the British Museum, Lon-
don, UK (Acc. no. 1929–7–25–1).
50
See Göbl, System und Chronologie, for details of the different types of
Nana coins. For Nana holding a bowl, see Göbl nos. 215, 283, 326, 328, 329
for example.
51
Tanabe, “Earliest Aspect of Kanīṣka I’s Religious Ideology,” 209.
52
See Göbl, System und Chronologie, nos. 36, 44, 54, 152, 165, for exam-
ple.
53
This particular example is from the British Museum, London, UK (Acc.
no. 1888–12–8–555). Göbl, System und Chronologie, no. 359.
54
The Nana seated on lion coin type continues in the coins of the later
Kuṣāṇas and Guptas. A unique gold coin first published by Mukherjee
(Nanā on Lion, 9, 47, pl. 1a) shows a frontally facing goddess seated on a lion
who is walking to the left. She has a halo with a crescent at her back, and she
holds a ribbon in her right hand while holding a fillet in her left. Her feet
rest on a lotus. See also Göbl, System und Chronologie, 154, no. 660. Mukher-
jee had assigned it to the reign of Kaniṣka III, while Göbl suggested that it
was an issue of Kaniṣka II. According to J. Cribb, it should be assigned to
the imitation Vāsudeva I series, issued probably as a result of a minor reas-
sertion by Kaniṣka II in the Kuṣāṇo-Sasanian territories. He dates it c. 240
CE (in personal communication, June 2006). Since these later coin issues
show a marked assimilation with various Iranian and Indian goddesses of
fertility, they are not being dealt with in this article.
55
This example is from the British Museum, London, UK (Acc. no.
1894–5–6–60). Göbl, System und Chronologie, no. 167.
56
This example is from the British Museum, London, UK (Acc. no.
1888–12–8–557). Göbl, System und Chronologie, no. 310.
 57
Cribb suggests that Umā holds a lotus, while Śiva is carrying an elephant
goad in addition to the waterpot in his lowered right hand. See J. Cribb,
“Shiva Images on Kushan and Kushano–Sasanian Coins,” in Studies in Silk
Road Coins and Culture: Papers in Honour of Professor Ikuo Hirayama on his
65th birthday, eds. K. Tanabe, J. Cribb, and H. Wang (Kamakura: The Insti-
tute of Silk Road Studies, 1997), 15, 51, 58, nos. G8 and G9.
58
See Mukherjee, Nanā on Lion, 14, 16 regarding possible connections
and further details; and also Mukherjee, “Foreign Elements,” 411. See also
Sims-Williams and Cribb, “A New Bactrian Inscription,” 84-5, 108 and lines
9 and 10, which mention that the glorious Umma leads the service to all the
gods at the site, along with the lady Nana. Carter, “Some Preliminary Notes,”
3-5, discusses some of the problems with identifying Ommo.
59
Rosenfield, Dynastic Arts, 85. For example, see Göbl, System und Chro-
nologie, no. 234. Various explanations have been proposed about how this
iconographic type penetrated Kuṣāṇa coinage. Azarpay suggested that the
type originated from the Parthian period coins of Elymais showing Artemis-
Nana as a huntress in Greek dress (“Nanā, the Sumero-Akkadian Goddess,”
538, fig. 3). Mukherjee noted that the coins of the Indo-Greek king Artemi-
dorus show Artemis drawing an arrow from the quiver at her back (Nanā on
Lion, 12). It is particularly apparent in Series 7, 8 and especially Series 9
(which has a lion on the reverse) of the square bronze issues of Artemidorus,
who ruled in c. 85 BCE in western Punjab. See O. Bopearachchi, Monnaies
Gréco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques: Catalogue Raisonné (Paris: Bibliothèque
Nationale, 1991), 318, pl. 50. Göbl, who studied the Roman Imperial and
Alexandrine iconographic influences on Kuṣāṇa reverses, proposed that the
Nana type as huntress were strikingly similar to the Alexandrine coinage
issues of the ninth year of the Roman emperor Hadrian (c. 125 CE). He
demonstrated the relation of the type to Artemis-Diana: it was equivalent
to the lunar aspect of Diana. The lunar crescent on Nana’s head is probably
derived from the iconography of Artemis-Selene as huntress. See R. Göbl,
“Roman Patterns for Kushāṇa coins,” Journal of the Numismatic Society of
India 22 (1960), 85, 87, 93.
60
Mukherjee, Nanā on Lion, 11, 12, 22, en. 28a.
61
Sims-Williams and Cribb, “A New Bactrian Inscription,” 78, line 2; 108.
62
These two extremely rare copper coins are now lost. See A. Cunning-
ham, “Coins of the Kushâns, or Great Yue-ti,” The Numismatic Chronicle,
3rd series, 12 (1892), 117-8, 151, pl. 12, nos. 21, 22. See also Göbl, System und
Chronologie, 87, nos. 844, 845, 846.
63
See P. F. Callieri, Seals and Sealings from the North-west of the Indian
subcontinent and Afghanistan (4th century BC – 11th century AD). Local,
Indian, Sasanian, Graeco-Persian, Sogdian, Roman (Naples: Istituto Univer-
sitario Orientale di Napoli, 1998), 196-7, Cat. U 7.21, pl. 61. It is in the British
Museum, London (1892.11–3.186); its size is L.19 x 14 x 6 mm.
64
Aw-xsarth (the son of ) Nanai-vandak. See Callieri, Seals and Sealings
from the North-west, 197.
65
Callieri, Seals and Sealings from the North-west, 197-8, Cat. U 7.23, pl.
61. It is in the British Museum, London (Cunningham 1892.11–3.100). Its
dimensions are L.20 x 17 x 5 mm. See Cunningham, “Coins of the Kushâns,”
116, where he notes that a duplicate seal in red carnelian was in the collection
of General Pearse. The present whereabouts of this seal are unknown. It
should be noted that as a seal, the impressed image would be seen in its
reverse: that is, the goddess would be facing left.
66
For Mukherjee, see n. 8 above. Also see Rosenfield, Dynastic Arts, 89.
67
A. Foucher, L’art Greco-Bouddhique du Gandhāra. Étude sur les Origins
de l’Influence Classique dans l’art Bouddhique de l’Inde et de l’Extrême-Orient,
2, first fascicule (Paris: Publications de l’École Française de l’Extrême-Orient
6, 1928), 77, fig. 343. He called it a yavanī (foreigner). It is today in the Lahore
Museum, Pakistan (Acc. no. 2264/1481/G 357/GR 1391). It has a height of
17.8 cm.
68
See, for example, S. R. Dar, “The Sikri Sculptures: Prolegomena on an
Exceptional, but Unstudied, Collection of Gandhāran Art in the Lahore
Museum,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology (Papers in Honour of Francine Tis-
sot) 6 (2000), 35, fig. 36.
69
See H. Ingholt, Gandhāran Art in Pakistan (New York: Pantheon
Books, 1957), 168, no. 442.
70
See, for example, I. Kurita, Gandharan Art 1 (Tokyo: Nigensha, 2003),
no. 510 from a private Japanese collection, depicting two women guarding
the urn.
71
Mukherjee, Nanā on Lion, 23, n. 44, pl. III, no. 6; Rosenfield, Dynastic
Arts, 89; M. Taddei, “Non-Buddhist Deities in Gandharan Art: Some New
Evidence,” in Investigating Indian Art, eds. M. Yaldiz and W. Lobo (Berlin:
Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz, 1987), 358, fig. 12. It had been
in the Lahore Museum, Pakistan, but is now in the Government Museum
and Art Gallery, Chandigarh, India (Acc. no. 94). It is 31.7 x 22.7 cm. Its
precise provenance is unknown.
72
“Non-Buddhist sculptures from Gandhāra,” in Gandhāra Sculpture in
the Government Museum and Art Gallery (In the Light of the International
Colloquium Held in 1998 at Chandigarh), ed. D. C. Bhattacharyya (Chandi-
garh: Government Museum and Art Gallery, 2002), 75, 76, no. 15; 85, no.
24. She helped Vasudevā escape the clutches of the tyrannical king of
Mathurā, Kaṃṣa.
73
D. M. Srinivasan, Many Heads, Arms and Eyes: Origin, Meaning and
Form of Multiplicity in Indian Art (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), 300-1.
74
It is in the Fujii-Yūrinkan Museum of Chinese Art, Kyoto, Japan. See
Taddei, “Non-Buddhist Deities in Gandharan Art,” 357-9; figs. 9, 10, 11. It is
17 x 9 cm.
75
See Taddei, “Non-Buddhist Deities in Gandharan Art,” 358-59. I find
it difficult to see this from the published picture. However, if it is the case,
it is worth noting that Matar (Mother), the great Anatolian divinity, dis-
played lions’ paws on her head in her role as Mistress of Animals. See Davis-
Kimball. “Enarees and Women of High Status,” 224-5.
76
See Kurita, Gandharan Art 2, 166, no. 483. It has a height of 19 cm.
77
R. Russek, Buddha zwischen Ost und West. Skulpturen aus Gandhāra/
Pakistan (Zürich: Museum Rietberg, 1987), 81, fig. 94. She is called Sṛgalā.
It has a height of 25.5 cm.
78
W. Zwalf, A Catalogue of the Gandhāra Sculpture in the British Museum,
2 volumes (London: British Museum Press, 1996), 123, cat. no. 105 (Acc. no.
OA1939.1 – 19.19). It is 24.2 x 13 cm.
79
See Kurita, Gandharan Art 2, no. 750.
80
It is said to come from near Swabi. It is 20.5 x 12 cm and is of a brownish
coloured stone.
81
Zwalf, Catalogue of Gandhāra Sculpture, 123.
82
Ingholt, Gandhāran Art, 195, fig. 577. It is in the Peshawar Museum,
Pakistan (Acc. no. W.U. 577). It is of stucco and the remaining section has a
height of 29 cm. It has been difficult to locate this sculpture in the reserves
of the Peshawar Museum or in its computerized database.
83
It is in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, UK (Acc. no. 1997.255). It is
only 7 cm in height, with a maximum width of 2.5 cm.
84
It is in the Sherrier Collection, London, UK. It is 23.2 x 12 cm and is of
grey schist.
85
I. Kurita, Gandharan Art 2 (Tokyo: Nigensha, 2003), 153, no. 440. It
has a height of 32.5 cm, which suggests that it might have been a scene divider
between narrative friezes. Its original provenance is unknown as I have not
personally examined the object.
86
For example, see Culaloka devata, or Canda yakṣīņī. A. Cunningham,
The Stûpa of Bharhut: A Buddhist Monument Ornamented with Numerous
Sculptures Illustrative of Buddhist Legend and History in the Third Century
B.C. (London: W. H. Allen and Company, 1879), pl. 22, no. 3; pl. 23, no. 3.
87
See K. Nishikawa, ed., Ranigat. A Buddhist Site in Gandhara, Pakistan
Surveyed 1983 –1992, 2 (Kyoto: Kyoto University Press, 1994), pl. 101, fig. 6.
It comes from Room 301 east, from the Southwest Stupa 301. It is 19 x 24 cm.
I am grateful to Prof. Nakao Odani for bringing this object to my attention
at the South Asian Archaeology Conference held in London in July 2005 and
for allowing me to publish his drawing.
88
For a detailed study of this sculpture and its base, see N. Odani, “A
Banquet Scene on the Pedestal of a Seated Buddha in Gandharan Art,” Bul-
letin of the Society for Western and Southern Asiatic Studies, Kyoto University
61 (September 2004), 1-19.
89
It is today in the Archaeological Museum, Rupnagar (Ropar), India
(Acc. no. 340). I am extremely grateful to Dr. B. R. Mani for his help in
105
securing this picture and relevant information. It comes from the Period IV
strata of the site (200 BCE-700 CE). See Y. D. Sharma, “Past Patterns in
Living as Unfolded by Excavations at Rupar,” Lalit Kalā 1-2 (1955-56), 121-
29.
90
It is in a private collection in London, UK. It has a height of 2.5 cm and
a diameter of 4.5 cm, and is made of ivory.
91
This plaque is in a private collection in the USA. It is 15.55 x 7.62 cm.
92
See Sims-Williams and Cribb, “A New Bactrian Inscription,” 78, line 5
where it is stated that by Year 1, the Kuṣāṇa realm had spread as far east as
Pāṭaliputra and Śrī Campā. See in this connection, B. N. Mukherjee, “The
Impact of Gandhara on the Art of Ancient Vanga: A Case of an Eastern
Response,” in Gandharan Art in Context. East-West Exchanges at the Cross-
roads of Asia, eds. R. Allchin, B. Allchin, N. Kreitman and E. Errington
(New Delhi: Regency Publications, 1997), 173-88.
93
It is in the collection of Dr G. S. De of Habra (West Bengal). See
Mukherjee, “The Discovery of a Bactrian Inscription,” 6-8.
106
94
G. S. De and S. De, Chandraketugarh. A Lost Civilization, 1 (Kolkata:
Sagnik Books, 2004), 18, fig. 1A. It has a loop at the top indicating that it
would have been worn as a neck ornament.
95
This image is today at the Museum für Indische Kunst, Berlin (Acc. no.
MIK I 5894). It is 27.5 cm in height.
96
R. Morris dates this hair style to c. first-second century CE: “Roman
Hairstyle in Kuṣāṇa-period Art of Mathurā?” South Asian Archaeology 1987,
2, ed. M. Taddei with P. F. Callieri (Rome: IsMEO, 1990), 787-800.
97
See H. Härtel, “Early Durgā Mahiṣāsuramardinī Images: A Fresh
Appraisal,” in Eastern Approaches: Essays on Asian Art and Archaeology, ed.
T. S. Maxwell (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1992), 88, n. 9. This is difficult
to see in a frontal photograph. Mukherjee had originally interpreted the
dagger as a drum or damaru on a two-armed Durgā sim  havāhinī. See
Mukherjee, Nanā on Lion, 19-20, fig. 43.
 Fig. 2

Fig. 1

Fig. 4

Fig. 1. Cybele plaque, c. third century BCE, Aï Khanum, silver gilt, D: 25cm,
originally in Kabul Museum, Afghanistan. (Photo courtesy: O. Bopearach-
chi).

Fig. 2. Braided belt plaque, c. first century CE, Tillya Tepe, gold, D: 4cm,
originally in Kabul Museum, Afghanistan. (After Sarianidi, The Golden
Hoard of Bactria).

Fig. 3a. (Top row) Obverse and reverse of coin of Sapadbizes, c. first century
BCE, Bactria, silver, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, UK (Senior Collection
no. 4804). (Photo courtesy: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford).
Fig. 3b. (Middle row) Obverse and reverse of coin of Arseiles, c. first century
BCE, Bactria, silver, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, UK (Senior Collection
no. 4797). (Photo courtesy: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford).
Fig. 3c. (Bottom row) Obverse and reverse of coin of Pulages, c. first century
BCE, Bactria, silver, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, UK (Senior Collection
no. 4799). (Photo courtesy: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford).

Fig. 4. Front and back of the headless Nana, c. second century CE, Māṭ, red
sandstone, H: 45.8cm, Government Museum, Mathurā, India (Acc. no. 214/
A).
Fig. 3
107
Fig. 5
Fig. 8

Fig. 9
Fig. 6

Fig. 5. Obverse and reverse of Vima Kadphises coin depicting Nanašao, c. sec-
ond century CE, Senior Collection, UK. (Photo courtesy: R Senior).

Fig. 6. Nanaia walking to the right on the reverse of a Kaniṣka I coin, c. second
century CE, gold, The British Museum, London, UK (Acc. no. 1929–7–25–
1). (© The Trustees of The British Museum).

Fig. 7a. (Top left) Nana holding bowl and sceptre on the reverse of a Kaniṣka
I coin, c. second century CE. (After Göbl, System und Chronologie, no. 35).
Fig. 7b. (Top right) Nana with bowl, sceptre and sword on the reverse of a
Kaniṣka I coin, c. second century CE. (After Göbl, System und Chronologie,
no. 60).
Fig. 7c. (Bottom left) Nana hunting with bow and arrow on the reverse of a
Huveṣka coin, c. second century CE. (After Göbl, System und Chronologie,
no. 260).
Fig. 7d. (Bottom right) Nana blessing the king on the reverse of a Huveṣka
coin, c. second century CE. (After Cunningham, “Coins of the Kushâns”, no.
22).

Fig. 8. Goddess Nana seated on a lion on the reverse of a Huveṣka coin, c. second
century CE, gold, The British Museum, London, UK (Acc. no. 1888–12–8–
555). (© The Trustees of The British Museum).
Fig. 7
Fig. 9a. (Left) Nana facing the Kuṣāņa deity Oēšo on the reverse of a Huveṣka
coin, c. second century CE, gold, The British Museum, London, UK (Acc.
no. 1894–5–6–60). (© The Trustees of The British Museum).
Fig. 9b. (Right) Kuṣāņa deity Ommo facing Oēšo on the reverse of a Huveṣka
coin, c. second century CE, gold, The British Museum, London, UK (Acc.
no. 1888–12–8–557). (© The Trustees of The British Museum).

108
Fig. 10

Fig. 12

Fig. 10a. (Left) Seal portraying Nana standing turned to the left, c. second
century CE, Gandhāra, chalcedony, L:19x14x6mm, The British Museum,
London, UK (Acc. no. 1892.11–3.186). (© The Trustees of The British
Museum).
Fig. 10b. (Right) Seal depicting Nana seated on a lion, c.second century CE,
Gandhāra, garnet, L:20x17x5mm, The British Museum, London, UK (Acc.
no. 1892.11–3.100). (© The Trustees of The British Museum).

Fig. 11. Headless woman bearing a sword, c. second century CE, Sikri, stone,
H: 17.8cm, Lahore Museum, Pakistan (Acc. no. 2264/1481/G357/GR1391).
(Photo courtesy: Lahore Museum, Pakistan).

Fig. 12. Enthroned goddess holding cup, c. second century CE, Gandhāra,
schist, 31.7x22.7cm. Government Museum and Art Gallery, Chandigarh,
India (Acc. no. 94). (Photo courtesy: Government Museum and Art Gallery,
Chandigarh).
Fig. 11
109
Fig. 13

Fig. 15

Fig. 13. Animal-headed enthroned goddess, c. second century CE, Gandhāra,

stone, 20.5x12cm, Sherrier Collection, UK.

Fig. 14. Lion with missing goddess on its back, c. second century CE, Gandhāra,
stucco, H: 29cm, Peshawar Museum, Pakistan. (After Ingholt, Gandhāran
Art, no. 577).

Fig. 15. Nana seated on the back of a lion, c. second century CE, Gandhāra,
bone or ivory, H: 7cm, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, UK (Acc. no. 1997.255).
(Photo courtesy: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford).
Fig. 14
110
Fig. 16 Fig. 17

Fig. 16. Enthroned goddess seated on a lion, c. second century CE, Gandhāra,
schist, 23.2x12cm, Sherrier Collection, UK.

Fig. 17. Woman grasping the branches of a tree while standing on a lion, c.
Fig. 18 second century CE, Gandhāra, schist, H: 32.5cm, Private Collection, Japan.
(After Kurita, Gandharan art, no. 440).

Fig. 18. Base of a damaged Buddha depicting the veneration of Nana, c. second
century CE, Ranigat, schist, 19x24cm, Taxila Museum, Pakistan. (Drawing
courtesy: N. Odani).

111
Fig. 19 Fig. 20

Fig. 21 Fig. 22

Fig. 19. Plaque portraying a headless goddess riding a lion, c. second century Fig. 21. Plaque depicting a goddess standing with a lion by her feet, c. second
CE, Ropar, terracotta, Archaeological Museum, Rupnagar, India (Acc. no. century CE, Chandraketugarh region, terracotta, 15.5x7.62cm, Private Col-
94). (Photo courtesy: Archaeological Survey of India). lection, USA.

Fig. 20. Small container with a goddess standing beside a lion, c. second cen- Fig. 22. Goddess standing on a lion, c. second/third century CE, Mathurā, red
tury CE, Chandraketugarh region, ivory, H: 2.5cm, D: 4.5cm, Private Col- sandstone, H: 27.5cm, Museum für Indische Kunst, Berlin, Germany (MIK
lection, UK. I 5894). (Photo courtesy: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin–Preußischer Kultur-
besitz, Museum für Indische Kunst, Berlin).

112