The Takuapa Vishnu: a further note
S.J. O’Connor’s brief note responds to H.G. Quaritch Wales’ critique of O’Connor’s proposed dating for the Takuapa Vishnu sculpture in the Bangkok Museum, defending a late seventh- or eighth-century attribution based on typological parallels with Chen-la “mited Vishnu” images (p. 205).
Summary
O’Connor rebuts Wales’ two principal objections. First, Wales had claimed the Takuapa image was unique among long-robed Vishnus in having upper arms free of any supporting arch or framework; O’Connor demonstrates this is inaccurate, showing that virtually all four-armed long-robed Vishnus in Thailand share this feature, in contrast to their Chen-la counterparts which consistently had reserves linking the arms to the headdress (pp. 205–206). Second, Wales had objected that O’Connor linked images of differing quality; O’Connor argues this is unrealistic given the geographic separation of workshops and the variability of individual skill (p. 206).
O’Connor further reports the discovery of a Vishnu from Si Chon, virtually identical in type to the Takuapa image, which reinforces the argument for a developmental sequence analogous to that Dupont traced for Cambodian long-robed Vishnus. The note concludes that Wales’ reservations rest on an unfounded premise regarding the uniqueness of the Takuapa arm configuration or a confusion between type and quality (p. 207).