Interpretation of the art of the past in subsequent periods depends on the quantity and kind of works that are in effect handed down; obviously, this is a universal issue. Absences result not only from natural wasting away and destruction, but may also be due to specific choices or inclinations of the predecessors, or even to the directions of research being pursued by the moderns. There is always the need to reflect on the relation between presences and absences and what lies behind them if we are to interpret aright the message that earlier civilisations – indeed, all civilisations – meant to convey by means of their visual arts.

With respect to this issue, Indian art offers a somewhat peculiar case. As all scholars are well aware, the figurative and architectural heritage that has come down to us from ancient India represents only a partial comment on the country's long centuries of cultural history. And, obviously, in the case of India, too, there is a limit to the gaps that can be filled. However, it is also true that at times the gaps in Indian art seem to cry out, to the extent that one feels duty bound to delve deeper. On the one hand, there are reasons that seem to have excluded the production of works and monuments in various periods and phases, while on the other, there are the many factors that spelt oblivion for the heritage that had been created.