Understanding the history of archaeology and art history in India involves looking at the work of early scholars and administrators. These individuals played a crucial role in documenting ancient sites and interpreting their findings, often without the complete knowledge that is available today. The question focuses on an early modern art historian who studied the Sanchi Stupa and proposed an interpretation based on his visual understanding, which, lacking familiarity with Buddhist literature, led him to see elements of tree and serpent worship rather than their Buddhist symbolism.

Identifying Early Art Historians of India

During the 19th century, several European scholars and officials worked on documenting and understanding India's vast historical and archaeological heritage. They often approached these sites with perspectives shaped by their own cultural backgrounds and limited access to local textual traditions, especially in the early stages of discovery and translation.

Sanchi Stupa and Early Interpretations

The Great Stupa at Sanchi is one of India's most important Buddhist sites. Its gateways are covered with intricate carvings depicting stories and symbols. Early scholars attempted to interpret these carvings. Without a deep understanding of Buddhist texts like the Jataka tales (stories of the Buddha's previous lives) or the specific iconography, interpreting these symbols could be challenging and sometimes led to misinterpretations.

James Fergusson's Contribution and Perspective

James Fergusson (1808–1886) was a prominent Scottish architectural historian and critic. He published extensively on Indian architecture, including detailed studies of Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain sites. His work was pioneering, but his interpretations were sometimes limited by the available knowledge of the time. He focused heavily on architectural styles and visual evidence. When studying sites like Sanchi, before the full significance of Buddhist symbols and narratives was widely understood through texts, he interpreted certain motifs, like trees and nagas (serpents), based on more generic or non-Buddhist frameworks, suggesting links to ancient nature worship rather than specific Buddhist contexts.

Analyzing the Options

Let's look at the provided options:

• Colin Mackenzie: A Surveyor General of Bengal, known for extensive surveys and collecting manuscripts and antiquities, particularly in South India. While important for documentation, he is less known specifically as an art historian misinterpreting Sanchi in this particular way.
• James Prinsep: A scholar and administrator who famously deciphered the Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts, unlocking ancient Indian inscriptions, including Ashokan edicts (some found near Sanchi). His contribution was pivotal for reading texts, not primarily for art historical interpretation of symbols at Sanchi, though his work aided later understanding.
• James Fergusson: As discussed, he was a major figure in the study of Indian architecture and art history. His early interpretations, including those related to Sanchi, sometimes focused on elements like trees and serpents, viewing them through a lens that predated a comprehensive understanding of Buddhist iconography derived from translated texts. This aligns with the description in the question.
• H.H. Cole: Henry Hardy Cole was a curator and conservationist in the British Raj, known for advocating for the preservation of ancient monuments. While involved with sites like Sanchi through conservation efforts, he is not the historian noted for this specific misinterpretation of tree and serpent worship.

Based on the historical accounts of early art historical studies of Sanchi and the individuals involved, James Fergusson is the scholar whose work fits the description of interpreting Sanchi based on visual forms like trees and serpents, leading him to consider it a center of such worship due to a lack of familiarity with the specific Buddhist literary context that explained these symbols within the faith.

Conclusion

The historian who considered Sanchi a centre of tree and serpent worship due to unfamiliarity with Buddhist literature was James Fergusson. His work was influential but reflected the limitations of early studies before Buddhist texts and iconography were fully deciphered and understood.

Revision Table: Sanchi Art History & Early Scholars

Additional Information: Studying Ancient Indian Art

Studying ancient Indian art, especially Buddhist art from sites like Sanchi, requires a multidisciplinary approach. Visual analysis of sculptures, architecture, and paintings is essential. However, it must be complemented by understanding the historical context, religious beliefs, and the literature associated with the art. Early scholars faced challenges because many texts were not yet translated or fully understood. The decipherment of scripts like Brahmi and Kharosthi by scholars like James Prinsep was a monumental step, allowing access to inscriptions that sometimes shed light on the purpose and context of monuments.

For example, trees in Buddhist art often represent the Bodhi tree, under which the Buddha attained enlightenment. Serpents (Nagas) often appear as protectors of the Buddha or Buddhist sites. Without knowing the Jataka tales or specific Buddhist symbolism, an observer might interpret these based on general knowledge of nature or pre-Buddhist religious practices, leading to conclusions like the site being primarily for tree or serpent worship rather than Buddhist veneration incorporating these symbols within its own framework.

The work of pioneers like James Fergusson, despite some early misinterpretations, was crucial for bringing these sites to global attention and laying the groundwork for future, more textually informed scholarship. The evolution of the understanding of sites like Sanchi highlights the importance of combining archaeological findings with textual evidence for accurate historical and art historical interpretation.