'Indian sculpture was mostly meant for temple ornamentation', justify in brief.
Answers
Answer:
The Sculpture in the Indian subcontinent, partly because of the climate of the Indian subcontinent making the long-term survival of organic materials difficult, essentially consiste in sculpture of stone, metal or terracotta. It is clear there was a great deal of painting, and sculpture in wood and ivory, during these periods, but there are only a few survivals. The main Indian religions had all, after hesitant starts, developed the use of religious sculpture by around the start of the Common Era, and the use of stone was becoming increasingly widespread.The first known sculpture in the Indian subcontinent is from the Indus Valley civilization, and a more widespread tradition of small terracotta figures, mostly either of women or animals, which predates it.[1] After the collapse of the Indus Valley civilization there is little record of larger sculpture until the Buddhist era, apart from a hoard of copper figures of (somewhat controversially) c. 1500 BCE from Daimabad.[2] Thus the great tradition of Indian monumental sculpture in stone appears to begin relatively late, with the reign of Asoka from 270 to 232 BCE, and the Pillars of Ashoka he erected around India, carrying his edicts and topped by famous sculptures of animals, mostly lions, of which six survive.[3] Large amounts of figurative sculpture, mostly in relief, survive from Early Buddhist pilgrimage stupas, above all Sanchi; these probably developed out of a tradition using wood that also embraced Hinduism.[4]
Answer:
The sculpture in the Indian subcontinent party because of the climate of Indian subcontinent making the long term survival of organic material difficult in censure leaf consists in sculpture of stone, metal for terracotta. Developing the sculpture by around the start of the common era and the use of the stone was becoming increasingly widespread.The first sculpture in the Indian subcontinent is Indus valley civilization.