Chapter 1: Introduction: The Archaeology of Buddhist Landscapes, Excerpt from "Buddhist Landscapes in Central India: Sanchi Hill and Archaeologies of Religious and Social Change, c. Third Century BC to Fifth Century AD"
by Julia Shaw
© 2007 Julia Shaw
CHAPTER 1
Introduction: The archaeology of Buddhist landscapes
The archaeology of Buddhism has generally been the study of stupas, monasteries, sculpture and epigraphy. The primary geographical focus of interest has been the Gangetic valley, where places such as Sarnath, Bodhgaya, Sravasti, Rajgir or Vaisali were closely connected to events relating to the life and teachings of the historical Buddha (Figure 1.1). Some of the best-preserved monastic sites, however, are situated beyond the cradle of Buddhism in central India and the Deccan. The establishment of Buddhism at sites such as Sanchi and Bharhut coincided in part with the westward expansion of the Mauryan empire in c. third century BC, with major building programmes taking place slightly later between the second century BC and early centuries AD. Some of the early rock-cut caityas and monasteries in the Deccan, such as Karle, Bhaja, Bedsa, and Pitalkhora, seem also to have been part of this 'second propagation' of Buddhism. All of these sites have generated a significant body of scholarship, largely because of their art-historical appeal. Sanchi has been of particular interest because of its continuous history of Buddhist occupation from c. third century BC to twelfth century AD. Its remarkably well-preserved monuments and sculptures have provided a kind of blueprint for the history of art and architecture over this period.
However, one of the major problems that this study seeks to address is that until recently scholars have rarely looked beyond the art-historical value of important ritual sites to their wider archaeological or cultural setting.1 Little consideration has been given to how Buddhist sites related to less tangible or 'monumental' aspects of the landscape, such as topography, local settlement patterns, water-resource structures or, indeed, sites belonging to other religious traditions.2 This lacuna reflects the fact that the archaeology of Indian religions has tended to focus on well-known monuments, with little reference to recent theoretical shifts, which amongst other things have led to the recognition of entire landscapes as foci of archaeological enquiry. This has obviously hampered our understanding of the early history of Buddhism and its relationship to other key processes taking place during the early-historic period such as state formation, urbanisation, population shifts, and changes in food production and consumption practices. Secondly, there is still little understanding of how the sangha aligned itself with the preexisting social, economic and religious infrastructure of the new areas into which it arrived. Further, although some scholars of Buddhist history have, through their use of secondary archaeological evidence, spearheaded a departure from the subject's traditional reliance on texts (Schopen 1997; Trainor 1997), the lack of coordination between active archaeological research and text-based analysis means that many received models of Buddhist history have gone unchallenged. A similar lack of integration between the methods and results of archaeology and history has also had a detrimental effect on the study of state formation and urbanisation in ancient India, something which is taken up for discussion at various points in this book.
The Sanchi Survey Project: a case study
In an attempt to redress some of these problems, it was decided to choose a relatively tightly focused area in which the archaeological setting of monastic sites could be studied in detail. The primary archaeological focus of the Sanchi Survey Project (SSP), which has undergone various stages of research since its inception in 1998, is the well-known monastic complex at Sanchi, a recently designated UNESCO World Heritage Site in Madhya Pradesh (Figures 1.1, 1.2). Its earliest documented history dates to c. third century BC and it is associated with the patronage of the Mauryan empire whose expanding boundaries mirrored in part the early movement of Buddhist monks from their base in the middle Gangetic plains. Both its distance from the 'cradle' of Buddhism and its proximity to the early-historic city of Vidisha make it an ideal case-study for examining the socio-economic and religious background of Buddhist propagation. Another reason for choosing Sanchi is that a number of well-preserved Buddhist sites were already known in the surrounding area: Satdhara, Morel khurd, Andher and Sonari. These are all situated within a radius of about 15 km from Sanchi and were originally documented in the mid-nineteenth century in Alexander Cunningham's (1854) famous monograph entitled The Bhilsa Topes; throughout this study these sites are referred to as the 'Bhilsa Tope' sites.
However, the way in which Sanchi has been studied acts as an exemplar for the theoretical and methodological problems already mentioned, relating to South Asian archaeology in general and the study of Buddhism in particular. Despite the large body of art-historical and epigraphical scholarship at Sanchi (notably Marshall 1940) prior to the present study, its relationship to neighbouring Buddhist sites, or to other aspects of the archaeological landscape, remained unexamined. Thus, the history of Sanchi has hitherto remained disconnected from other social and religious histories based on the distribution of local habitational settlements, agricultural systems and both Buddhist and non-Buddhist ritual sites.
The primary aim of the fieldwork that formed the basis of this book was to achieve a less fragmented picture of Buddhist history by combining the methods of landscape archaeology, and art and architectural history, while drawing on debates generated within religious studies and ancient Indian history. The field-based project consisted of a multi-stage archaeological survey carried out over 750 km2 with Sanchi roughly at its centre. The principal fieldwork was conducted over two six-month seasons between 1998 and 2000 (Shaw 2000a; 2000b; 2001; Shaw and Sutcliffe 2001), with several follow-up seasons in subsequent years (Shaw 2004a; 2004b; 2005; Shaw and Sutcliffe 2003a; 2003b; 2005; Shaw et al., 2007). The survey resulted in the documentation of over 35 Buddhist Sites, 145 settlements, 17 irrigation works and over 1000 sculpture and temple fragments. Each of these site categories provides valuable information relating to the history of Buddhist monasticism, settlement history, the changing configuration of the multi-layered ritual landscape, the development of new forms of land use and changing attitudes towards food during the early-historic period. However, one of the primary contentions of this study is that these sites do not exist in isolation from each other, but form integrated components of a series of what may be termed 'archaeological complexes' (Shaw and Sutcliffe 2001), or 'site groups ', as they are referred to in this book. An analysis of the internal spatial dynamics of these groups provides an empirical basis for assessing theories of social and religious change, and the emergence of exchange networks between monastic and nonmonastic sections of society, between c. third century BC and fifth century AD.
Sanchi hill
Since its discovery almost 200 years ago, the Buddhist monuments on Sanchi hill have attracted considerable scholarly interest.3 The site was first noticed in 1818 by General Taylor of the Bengal Cavalry (Burgess 1902) and was revisited in the following year by Captain Edward Fell (1819). In subsequent years, the site was subjected to various bouts of haphazard digging, constituting little more than ill-conceived treasure hunts. The most ambitious project carried out in 1822 resulted in considerable damage to the site (Marshall 1940, 47), so much so that by the time J.D. Cunningham visited in 1847, many of the monuments were already in complete ruins (Cunningham 1847).
The first serious excavations were initiated in 1851 by Alexander Cunningham and F.C. Maisey and formed the primary focus of Cunningham's Bhilsa Topes (1854). These resulted in the retrieval of relics and inscribed reliquaries from Stupas 2 and 3; the former bear the names of the Hemavata school of monks (Willis 2000), thus providing a crucial framework for understanding the identity of early Buddhist schools in the area. Restoration work began in 1881 (Cole 1884), continuing in later years under John Marshall (1940), whose excavations between 1912 and 1919 represent the most comprehensive and authoritative study to date. Marshall's six-phase sequence between c. third century BC and twelfth century AD still provides the primary framework for ongoing studies, as does Foucher's art-historical analyses of the stupa railing carvings published in the same volume. Finally, N.G. Majumdar's chapter on the site's epigraphical record, including the Asokan edict, a large body of second-century-BC donative inscriptions and a later group of Gupta-period land-grants, provides the primary basis for ongoing scholarship on the history of patronage at Sanchi (Dehejia 1992; Singh 1996).
Table 1. John Marshall's phasing at Sanchi.
Phase / Date range / Monuments / Inscriptions / Sculptures
I / 3rd century BC / Stupa 1: brick core; Pillar 10; Temple 40 (apsidal); Temple 18 (apsidal) / Ashokan inscription (c. 269-232 BC) / Elephant capital from Temple 40 (?)Mauryan Period (3rd century BCE)
The Ashoka pillar at Sanchi.
The "Great Stupa" at Sanchi is the oldest structure and was originally commissioned by the emperor Ashoka the Great of the Maurya Empire in the 3rd century BCE. Its nucleus was a hemispherical brick structure built over the relics of the Buddha, with a raised terrace encompassing its base, and a railing and stone umbrella on the summit, the chatra, a parasol-like structure symbolizing high rank. The original Stupa only had about half the diameter of today's stupa, which is the result of enlargement by the Sungas.The Shunga Empire (IAST: Śuṅga) was an ancient Indian dynasty from Magadha that controlled areas of the central and eastern Indian subcontinent from around 184 to 75 BCE. The dynasty was established by Pushyamitra Shunga, after taking the throne of the Maurya Empire. Its capital was Pataliputra, but later emperors such as Bhagabhadra also held court at Besnagar (modern Vidisha) in eastern Malwa.
Pushyamitra Shunga ruled for 36 years and was succeeded by his son Agnimitra. There were ten Shunga rulers. However, after the death of Agnimitra, the second king of the dynasty, the empire rapidly disintegrated: inscriptions and coins indicate that much of northern and central India consisted of small kingdoms and city-states that were independent of any Shunga hegemony. The dynasty is noted for its numerous wars with both foreign and indigenous powers. They fought the Kalinga,...
(quote)>>> The Kalingas have been mentioned as a major tribe in the legendary text Mahabharata. In the 3rd century BCE, the region came under Mauryan control as a result of the Kalinga War.
-- Kalinga (historical region), by Wikipedia >>>(end quote)
... the Satavahana dynasty,...
(quote) >>>Information about the Satavahanas comes from the Puranas, some Buddhist and Jain texts, the dynasty's inscriptions and coins, and foreign (Greek and Roman) accounts that focus on trade. The information provided by these sources is not sufficient to reconstruct the dynasty's history with absolute certainty. As a result, there are multiple theories about the Satavahana chronology.
-- Satavahana dynasty, by Wikipedia>>>(end quote)
... the Indo-Greek Kingdom and possibly the Panchalas ...
(quote)>>>Drupada the king of Panchala fought for the Pandavas as he was their Father in law and also wanted to revenge his daughter's insult. Bhishma ranked him a Mighty Maharathi, his son Dhrishtadyumna as an Atirathi and Shikhandi his son as a Rathi. He provided 3 Akshauhinis armies to the Pandavas.
The Panchala janapada is believed to have been formed by multiple janas (tribes). The Shatapatha Brahmana suggests that Panchala was the later name of the Krivi tribe (who, according to Rigveda, lived on the bank of the Indus river).
(quote)>>>>>>The Shatapatha Brahmana is a commentary on the Śukla (white) Yajurveda. It is written by the Father of the Indian philosophy saint Yajnavalkya. Described as the most complete, systematic, and important of the Brahmanas (commentaries on the Vedas), it contains detailed explanations of Vedic sacrificial rituals, symbolism, and mythology.
-- Shatapatha Brahmana, by Wikipedia>>>>>>(end quote)
The later Vedic literature uses the term Panchala to describe the close associates of the Kurus...
(quote)>>>>>>The main contemporary sources for understanding the Kuru kingdom are the Vedas.
-- Kuru Kingdom, by Wikipedia>>>>>>(end quote)
The Mahabharata sometimes mentions the Saranjayas as a tribe or a family among the Panchalas, sometimes uses the two terms as synonyms, although it also mentions the two separately at some places. The Mahabharata further mentions that the Panchala country was divided into two territories: the northern Panchala with its capital at Ahichchhatra, and the southern Panchala with its capital at Kampilya.
-- Panchala, by Wikipedia>>>(end quote)
... and Mitras of Mathura.
(quote)>>>The Mitra dynasty refers to a group of local rulers whose name incorporated the suffix "-mitra" and who are thought to have ruled in the area of Mathura from around 150 BCE to 50 BCE, at the time of Indo-Greek hegemony over the region, and possibly in a tributary relationship with them. They are not known to have been satraps nor kings, and their coins only bear their name without any title, therefore they are sometimes simply called "the Mitra rulers of Mathura". Alternatively, they have been dated from 100 BCE to 20 BCE. The Mitra dynasty was replaced by the Indo-Scythian Northern Satraps from around 60 BCE.
Some sources consider that the Mitra dynasty ruled at a later date, during the 1st or 2nd century CE, and that they ruled from Mathura to Saketa, where they replaced the Deva dynasty.
(quote)>>>>>>The Deva dynasty of Saketa, was a dynasty of kings who ruled in the area of the city of Ayodhya, Kosala, in India from the 2nd century BCE until the end of 1st century BCE.
Five Deva kings are attested by their coins: Mula-deva, Vayu-deva, Vishakha-deva, Patha-deva, and Dhana-deva. Another king - Phalgudeva - is attested by the 1st century BCE Ayodhya inscription of his son Dhanadeva.
After the decline of the Maurya empire, Saketa (modern Ayodhya) appears to have come under the rule of the Shunga ruler Pushyamitra. One interpretation of Dhanadeva's inscription suggests that Pushyamitra appointed a Deva king as a governor at Saketa. This would mean that the Devas ruled as Shunga vassals. However, another interpretation suggests that the Devas ruled as sovereigns and considered themselves as legitimate heirs of the Shungas.
The Yuga Purana mentions Saketa as the residence of a governor, and describes it as being attacked by a combined force of Greeks, Mathuras, and Panchalas. Patanjali's commentary on Panini also refers to the Greek siege of Saketa. The Yuga Purana states that Saketa was ruled by seven powerful kings after the retreat of the Greeks. The Vayu Purana and the Brahmanda Purana also state that seven powerful kings ruled in the capital of Kosala. These kings appear to be same as the Deva kings: Dhanadeva's is described as the king of Kosala (Kosaladhipati) in his inscription...
The Deva dynasty was replaced by the Datta dynasty at the end of the 1st century BCE,...
(quote)>>>>>>>>>The Datta dynasty is a dynasty of ruler who flourished in the northern India in the areas of Mathura and Ayodhya around the 1st century BCE – 1st century CE. They are named after the "-datta" ending of their name, and essentially only known through their coins. [Vincent A. Smith - Catalogue Of The Coins In The Indian Museum Calcutta. Vol.1 by Smith, Vincent A. Publication date 1906] It is thought that they replaced the Deva dynasty, which had originated with the rise of Sunga Empire Pushyamitra, and that they were in turn replaced by the Mitra dynasty....
The Datta rulers are never mentioned as "king" or Raja on their coins, suggesting that they may only have been local rulers subservient to another king. Since the Indo-Greeks were in control of Mathura around the same time frame (150–50 BCE) according to the Yavanarajya inscription, it is thought that there may have been a sort of tributary relationship between the local Datta or Mitra dynasty and the Indo-Greek kings. Alternatively, the Datta and Mitra dynasties of rulers may simply have replaced Indo-Greek rule in the region, before the advent of the Indo-Scythian Northern Satraps and then the Kushans.
(quote)>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Alternatively, the Datta and Mitra dynasties of rulers may simply have replaced Indo-Greek rule in the region, before the advent of the Indo-Scythian Northern Satraps and then the Kushans." -- How to Get Your Foot in the Door of Indian History ("Myths R Us")>>>>>>>>>>>>(end quote)
-- Datta dynasty, by Wikipedia>>>>>>>>>(end quote)
... which itself was replaced by the Mitra dynasty in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, which also ruled in Mathura. It is thought that the Indo-Scythian Northern Satraps ultimately replaced these local kings, until the advent of the Kushan Empire.
-- Deva dynasty (Saketa), by Wikipedia>>>>>>(end quote)
In addition to the Mitra dynasties of Saketa (Kosala kingdom) and Mathura, there were Mitra dynasties in Ahichchhatra (Panchala kingdom) and Kaushambi (Vatsa kingdom). During the 1st century BCE to 2nd century CE, the Mitras of Kaushambi also appear to have extended their hegemony over Magadha (including Pataliputra), and possibly Kannauj as well.
-- Mitra dynasty (Mathura), by Wikipedia>>>(end quote)
Art, education, philosophy, and other forms of learning flowered during this period including small terracotta images, larger stone sculptures, and architectural monuments such as the stupa at Bharhut, and the renowned Great Stupa at Sanchi. Shunga rulers helped to establish the tradition of royal sponsorship of learning and art. The script used by the empire was a variant of Brahmi script and was used to write Sanskrit.
The Shunga Empire played an imperative role in patronising culture at a time when some of the most important developments in Hindu thought were taking place. Patanjali's Mahābhāṣya was composed in this period.
(quote)>>>Whether the two works, the Yoga Sutras and the Mahābhāṣya, are by the same author has been the subject of considerable debate. The authorship of the two is first attributed to the same person in Bhojadeva's Rajamartanda, a relatively late (10th century) commentary on the Yoga Sutras, as well as several subsequent texts. As for the texts themselves, the Yoga Sutra iii. cites a sutra as that from Patanjali by name, but this line itself is not from the Mahābhāṣya. This 10th-century legend of single-authorship is doubtful. The literary styles and contents of the Yogasūtras and the Mahābhāṣya are entirely different, and the only work on medicine attributed to Patañjali is lost. Sources of doubt include the lack of cross-references between the texts, and no mutual awareness of each other, unlike other cases of multiple works by (later) Sanskrit authors. Also, some elements in the Yoga Sutras may date from as late as the 4th century AD, but such changes may be due to divergent authorship, or due to later additions which are not atypical in the oral tradition. Most scholars refer to both works as "by Patanjali", without meaning that they are by the same author.
-- Patanjali, by Wikipedia>>>(end quote)
Artistry also progressed with the rise of the Mathura art style.
(quote)>>>Accounts describe Indo-Greek campaigns to Mathura, Panchala, Saketa, and potentially Pataliputra. The sage Patanjali around 150 BC, describes Menander campaigning as far as Mathura. The Hathigumpha inscription inscribed by Kharavela the King of Kalinga also places the Yavanas, or Indo-Greeks, in Mathura....
Strabo also suggests that Indo-Greek conquests went up to the Shunga capital Pataliputra in northeastern India (today Patna): "Those who came after Alexander went to the Ganges and Pataliputra." — Strabo, 15.698
The events and results of these campaigns are unknown.... Furthermore, numismatics from the Mitra dynasty are concurrently placed in Mathura during the time of Menander. Their relationship is unclear, but the Mithra may potentially be vassals.
-- Menander I, by Wikipedia>>>(end quote)
The last of the Shunga emperors was Devabhuti (83–73 BCE). He was assassinated by his minister (Vasudeva Kanva) and is said to have been overfond of the company of women. The Shunga dynasty was then replaced by the subsequent Kanvas. The Kanva dynasty succeeded the Shungas around 73 BCE.
Origins
The Shunga dynasty was a Brahmin dynasty, established in 184 BCE, about 50 years after Ashoka's death, when the emperor Brihadratha Maurya, the last ruler of the Maurya Empire, was assassinated by his Senānī or commander-in-chief, Pushyamitra Shunga, while he was reviewing the Guard of Honour of his forces. Pushyamitra Shunga then ascended the throne.
Pushyamitra Shunga became the ruler of Magadha and neighbouring territories. His realm essentially covered the central parts of the old Mauryan Empire. The Shunga definitely had control of the central city of Ayodhya in northern central India, as is proved by the Dhanadeva-Ayodhya inscription.
>>>(quote)
Ayodhya Inscription of Dhana
Ayodhya Inscription of Dhana is a stone inscription related to a Hindu Deva king named Dhana or Dhana–deva of the 1st-century BCE or 1st century CE. He ruled from the city of Ayodhya, Kosala, in India. His name is found in ancient coins and the inscription. According to P. L. Gupta, he was among the fifteen kings who ruled from Ayodhya between 130 BCE and 158 CE, and whose coins have been found: Muladeva, Vayudeva, Vishakadeva, Dhanadeva, Ajavarman, Sanghamirta, Vijayamitra, Satyamitra, Devamitra and Aryamitra. D.C. Sircar dates the inscription to 1st-century CE based on the epigraphical evidence. The paleography of the inscription is identical to that of the Northern Satraps in Mathura, which gives a 1st century CE date. The damaged inscription is notable for its mention of general Pushyamitra and his descendant Dhana–, his use of Vedic Ashvamedha horse to assert the range of his empire, and the building of a temple shrine.
Sunga inscription from Ayodhya
The Ayodhya inscription of the Sunga dynasty era was found by Babu Jagannath Das Ratnakara at the Ranopali monastery in Ayodhya. The inscription is in Sanskrit, written in Brahmi script, and the inscribed stone is found on a flat surface on a footstone at the eastern entrance to the samadhi (memorial) of Baba Sangat Bakhsh, of Udasi Sikhs. The Udasi trace their heritage to the eldest son of Guru Nanak. The samadhi monument is inside the Ranopali monastery of Udasi Sampradaya, also called Shri Udasin Rishi Ashram, in a section located to the west. It is believed to have been built during the time of Nawab Shuja-ud-daula, and the inscribed stone likely came from some ruins of the period.
According to Kunal Kishore, the inscription is not grammatically correct Sanskrit. Others scholars disagree and state that except for one minor scribe error, the inscription is in good Sanskrit.
Inscription
The discovered inscription is damaged and incomplete. It reads:
"1. Kosal-adhipena dvir-asvamedha-yajinah senapateh Pushyamitrasya shashthena Kausiki-putrena Dhana
2. Dharmarajna pituh Phalgudevasya ketanam karitam
– Shunga dynasty Ayodhya Inscription, 1st-century BCE – 1st century CE"
Translation
Sahni – a Sanskrit scholar, translates it as,
Dhana (deva, bhuti, etc), Lord of Kosala, son of Kausiki, the sixth of the Senapati Pushyamitra, who had performed the Ashvamedha twice, erected a shrine (or other memorial) in honor of Phalgudeva, the father of the Dharmaraja. – Dhana's Ayodhya inscription
Significance
The Sunga inscription is short but one that has attracted much debate. Scholars disagree on how to interpret Pushyamitrasya shashthena. It literally means the "sixth of Pushyamitra", which can be interpreted as "sixth son of Pushyamitra" or "sixth descendant of [generation after] Pushyamitra". The former interpretation would mean Dhana likely lived in early 1st-century BCE, the later would imply Dhana to be a great grandchild of a great grandchild through the father or mother side, and he lived in 1st-century CE.
According to Bhandare, there is uncertainty if there were more than one ancient kings named Dhanadeva. The inscription suggests there was one in the 1st century BCE, while the dating of the coins with Dhanadeva name range from 1st century BCE to 3rd century CE. Typically, both are considered to be the same. The coins with Dhanadeva were mold cast, were made from silver or copper, and show a bull with fodder tray in front. His name is in Brahmi script, and the coins also show swastika and Ujjayini signs.
The ancient Ayodhya inscription is significant also because it establishes that the Hindu Sungas dynasty was ruling Ayodhya around the 1st century BCE, that the custom of building temple shrines to popular leaders or famous kings was already in vogue by then, and that Phalgudeva may have been the same person as Pushyamitra. It is also the earliest epigraphical evidence that the general Pushyamitra Shunga founded a dynasty and performed the Vedic ritual Ashvamedha twice (it is unclear why he did it twice).
-- Ayodhya Inscription of Dhana, by Wikipedia>>>(end quote)
However, the city of Mathura further west never seems to have been under the direct control of the Shungas, as no archaeological evidence of a Shunga presence has ever been found in Mathura. On the contrary, according to the Yavanarajya inscription, Mathura was probably under the control of Indo-Greeks from some time between 180 BCE and 100 BCE, and remained so as late as 70 BCE.
>>>(quote)
Yavanarajya inscription
The Yavanarajya inscription, also called the Maghera Well Stone Inscription, was discovered in the village of Maghera, 17 kilometers north of Mathura, India in 1988. The Sanskrit inscription, carved on a block of red sandstone, is dated to the 1st century BCE, and is currently located at the Mathura Museum in Mathura. The inscription notes the donation of a water well and tank to the community in 1st century BCE, built by a Brahmin.
The inscription was published and analysed by French indologist Gérard Fussman in 1993. The inscription is in Brahmi script, and is significant because it mentions that it was made in Year 116 of the Yavanarajya ("Kingdom of the Yavanas"), and proves the existence of a "Yavana era" in ancient India. It may mean that Mathura was a part of a Yavana dominion, probably Indo-Greek, at the time the inscription was created.
Inscription
The Yavanarajya inscription is in Brahmi script and describes a dedication for a well and a tank in Mathura on "The last day of year 116 of Yavana dominion (Brahmi script: [x] Yavanarajya)". Although the term "Yavanas" can sometimes mean "westerners" in general, inscriptions made at this early period generally use the term Yavana to refer to the Indo-Greeks, and known inscriptions referring to the Indo-Parthians or Indo-Scythians in Mathura never use the term Yavana. The date mentioned on the stone was the Hindu festival day of Holi, according to the Hindu calendar.
Date
The year 116 probably refers to the Yavana era (yonana vasaye), thought to begin in 186-185 BCE based on Bajaur reliquary inscription which gives an equivalence between the Yavana era and the Azes era. The inscription would thus have a date of 70 or 69 BCE. Some other authors have also suggested the date is counted in the Maues era (circa 80 BCE) or the Azes era (circa 57 BCE), but these have never been referred to as "Yavana era" in any other inscription.
Harry Falk and others have suggested that the Yavana era actually started in 174 BCE, based on a reevaluation of the Azes era which is now thought to have started in 47/46 BCE. This reevaluation of the start of the Yavana era means that the Yavanarajya inscription dates to 58 BCE.
Content
The Yavanarajya inscription, written in elegant Sanskrit, reads:
"On this day, the year one hundred sixteen, 116, of the Yavana kingdom, in the fourth month of winter on the thirtieth day...
[This is] the well and tank of Ahogani, the mother of the merchant Virabala, who was the son of Ghosadatta, a Brahmin of the Maitreya clan (gotra), with [her] son Virabala, daughter-in-law Bhaguri, and grandsons Suradatta, Rsabhadeva, and Viraddata.
May (their) merit increase
— Mathura Yavanarajya inscription, Translated by Sonya Rhie Quintanilla"
Interpretation
The Indo-Greek king Menander I.
The Yavanarajya inscription, states Sonya Rhie Quintanilla, mentions year 116 of the yavana hegemony (yavanarajya), attesting to the 2nd-century and 1st-century BCE Indo-Greek presence. This makes the inscription unique in that it mentions the Indo-Greeks, and it "may confirm" the numismatic and literary evidence which suggests that Mathura was under the ruler of the Indo-Greeks during the period between 185 BCE-85 BCE....
Quintanilla states that the nearly contemporaneous coinage of Menander I (165-135 BCE) and his successors found in the Mathura region, in combination with this inscription, suggests the hypothesis that there was a tributary style relationship between the Indo-Greek suzerains and the Mitra dynasty that ruled that region at the time.
-- Yavanarajya inscription, by Wikipedia>>>(end quote)
Some ancient sources however claim a greater extent for the Shunga Empire: the Asokavadana account of the Divyavadana claims ...
(quote)>>>The Ashokavadana (Sanskrit: [x] IAST: Aśokāvadāna; "Narrative of Ashoka") is an Indian Sanskrit-language text that describes the birth and reign of the Maurya Emperor Ashoka. It contains legends as well as historical narratives, and glorifies Ashoka as a Buddhist emperor whose only ambition was to spread Buddhism far and wide.
Ashokavadana, also known as Ashokarajavadana, is one of the avadana texts contained in the Divyavadana (Divyāvadāna, "Divine Narrative"), an anthology of several Buddhist legends and narratives. According to Jean Przyluski, the text was composed by the Buddhist monks of the Mathura region, as it highly praises the city of Mathura, its monasteries and its monks.
There are several versions of Ashokavadana, dating from 5th century CE to 16th century CE.
-- Ashokavadana, by Wikipedia>>>(end quote)
(quote)>>>The Divyāvadāna or Divine narratives is a Sanskrit anthology of Buddhist avadana tales, many originating in Mūlasarvāstivādin vinaya texts.... This particular collection of them is not attested prior to the seventeenth century. Typically, the stories involve the Buddha explaining to a group of disciples how a particular individual, through actions in a previous life, came to have a particular karmic result in the present. A predominant theme is the vast merit (puṇya) accrued from making offerings to enlightened beings or at stupas and other holy sites related to the Buddha.
-- Divyavadana, by Wikipedia>>>(end quote)
... that the Shungas sent an army to persecute Buddhist monks as far as Sakala (Sialkot) in the Punjab region in the northwest...
Also, the Malavikagnimitra claims ...
(quote)>>>The Mālavikāgnimitram (Sanskrit, meaning Mālavikā and Agnimitra) is a Sanskrit play by Kālidāsa. Based on some events of the reign of Pushyamitra Shunga, it is his first play.
Mālavikāgnimitram tells the story of the love of Agnimitra, the Shunga Emperor at Vidisha, for the beautiful handmaiden of his chief queen. He falls in love with the picture of an exiled servant girl named Mālavikā. He must resort to the help of his jester and play a game of subterfuge merely to look at the new girl. When the queen discovers her husband's passion for this girl, she becomes infuriated and has Mālavikā imprisoned, but as fate would have it, in the end she is discovered to be of royal birth and is accepted as one of his queens.
The play contains an account of the Rajasuya sacrifice performed by Pushyamitra Shunga and an elaborate exposition of a theory on music and acting.
-- Mālavikāgnimitram, by Wikipedia>>>(end quote)
... that the empire of Pushyamitra extended to the Narmada River in the south. They may also have controlled the city of Ujjain. Meanwhile, Kabul and much of the Punjab passed into the hands of the Indo-Greeks and the Deccan Plateau to the Satavahana dynasty.
(quote)>>>The Satavahanas (Sādavāhana or Sātavāhana, IAST: Sātavāhana), also referred to as the Andhras in the Puranas, were an ancient Indian dynasty based in the Deccan region. Most modern scholars believe that the Satavahana rule began in the late second century BCE and lasted until the early third century CE, although some assign the beginning of their rule to as early as the 3rd century BCE based on the Puranas, but uncorroborated by archaeological evidence. The Satavahana kingdom mainly comprised the present-day Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Maharashtra. At different times, their rule extended to parts of modern Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka. The dynasty had different capital cities at different times, including Pratishthana (Paithan) and Amaravati (Dharanikota).
The origin of the dynasty is uncertain, but according to the Puranas, their first king overthrew the Kanva dynasty. In the post-Maurya era, the Satavahanas established peace in the Deccan region and resisted the onslaught of foreign invaders. In particular their struggles with the Saka Western Satraps went on for a long time. The dynasty reached its zenith under the rule of Gautamiputra Satakarni and his successor Vasisthiputra Pulamavi. The kingdom fragmented into smaller states by the early 3rd century CE....
History
Information about the Satavahanas comes from the Puranas, some Buddhist and Jain texts, the dynasty's inscriptions and coins, and foreign (Greek and Roman) accounts that focus on trade. The information provided by these sources is not sufficient to reconstruct the dynasty's history with absolute certainty. As a result, there are multiple theories about the Satavahana chronology.
-- Satavahana dynasty, by Wikipedia>>>(end quote)
Pushyamitra died after ruling for 36 years (187–151 BCE). He was succeeded by son Agnimitra. This prince is the hero of a famous drama by one of India's greatest playwrights, Kālidāsa. Agnimitra was viceroy of Vidisha when the story takes place.
-- Shunga Empire, by Wikipedia
It was covered in brick, in contrast to the stones that now cover it.
According to one version of the Mahavamsa, the Buddhist chronicle of Sri Lanka, Ashoka was closely connected to the region of Sanchi.[The Mahavamsa] is very important in dating the consecration of the Maurya Emperor Ashoka…
The Mahavamsa first came to the attention of Western readers around 1809 CE, when Sir Alexander Johnston, Chief Justice of the British colony in Ceylon, sent manuscripts of it and other Sri Lankan chronicles to Europe for publication. Eugène Burnouf produced a Romanized transliteration and translation into Latin in 1826... Working from Johnston's manuscripts, Edward Upham published an English translation in 1833, but it was marked by a number of errors in translation and interpretation, among them suggesting that the Buddha was born in Sri Lanka and built a monastery atop Adam's Peak. The first printed edition and widely read English translation was published in 1837 by George Turnour, an historian and officer of the Ceylon Civil Service…
Historiographical sources are rare in much of South Asia…
Early Western scholars like Otto Franke dismissed the possibility that the Mahavamsa contained reliable historical content…
The Chinese pilgrims Fa Hsien and Hsuan Tsang both recorded myths of the origins of the Sinhala people in their travels that varied significantly from the versions recorded in the Mahavamsa…
Moreover, the genealogy of the Buddha recorded in the Mahavamsa describes him as being the product of four cross cousin marriages. Cross-cousin marriage is associated historically with the Dravidian people of southern India -- both Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhala practiced cross-cousin marriage historically -- but exogamous marriage was the norm in the regions of northern India associated with the life of the Buddha. No mention of cross-cousin marriage is found in earlier Buddhist sources…
The historical accuracy of Mahinda converting the Sri Lankan king to Buddhism is also debated. Hermann Oldenberg, a German scholar of Indology who has published studies on the Buddha and translated many Pali texts, considers this story a "pure invention". V. A. Smith (Author of Ashoka and Early history of India) also refers to this story as "a tissue of absurdities". V. A. Smith and Professor Hermann came to this conclusion due to Ashoka not mentioning the handing over of his son, Mahinda, to the temple to become a Buddhist missionary and Mahinda's role in converting the Sri Lankan king to Buddhism, in his 13th year Rock Edicts, particularly Rock-Edict XIII. Sources outside of Sri Lanka and the Mahavamsa tradition do not mention Mahinda as Ashoka's son….
The Mahavamsa is believed to have originated from an earlier chronicle known as the Dipavamsa... The Dipavamsa is much simpler and contains less information than the Mahavamsa and probably served as the nucleus of an oral tradition that was eventually incorporated into the written Mahavamsa.
(quote)>>>Regarding the Vijaya legend, Dipavamsa has tried to be less super-natural than the later work, Mahavamsa in referring to the husband of the Kalinga-Vanga princess, ancestor of Vijya, as a man named Sinha who was an outlaw that attacked caravans en route. In the meantime, Sinha-bahu and Sinhasivali, as king and queen of the kingdom of Lala (Lata), "gave birth to twin sons, sixteen times." The eldest was Vijaya and the second was Sumitta. As Vijaya was of cruel and unseemly conduct, the enraged people requested the king to kill his son. But the king caused him and his seven hundred followers to leave the kingdom, and they landed in Sri Lanka, at a place called Tamba-panni, on the exact day when the Buddha passed into Maha Parinibbana.
-- Dipavamsa, by Wikipedia>>>(end quote)
The Dipavamsa is believed to have been the first Pali text composed entirely in Ceylon.
-- Mahavamsa, by Wikipedia
When he was heir-apparent and was journeying as Viceroy to Ujjain, he is said to have halted at Vidisha (10 kilometers from Sanchi), and there married the daughter of a local banker. She was called Devi and later gave Ashoka two sons, Ujjeniya and Mahendra, and a daughter Sanghamitta. After Ashoka's accession, Mahendra headed a Buddhist mission, sent probably under the auspices of the Emperor, to Sri Lanka, and that before setting out to the island he visited his mother at Chetiyagiri near Vidisa, thought to be Sanchi. He was lodged there in a sumptuous vihara or monastery, which she herself is said to have had erected.
Ashoka pillar
The capital of the Sanchi pillar of Ashoka, as discovered (left), and simulation of original appearance (right). It is very similar to the Lion Capital of Ashoka at Sarnath, except for the abacus, here adorned with flame palmettes and facing geese, 250 BCE. Sanchi Archaeological Museum.
A pillar of finely polished sandstone, one of the Pillars of Ashoka, was also erected on the side of the main Torana gateway. The bottom part of the pillar still stands. The upper parts of the pillar are at the nearby Sanchi Archaeological Museum. The capital consists in four lions, which probably supported a Wheel of Law, as also suggested by later illustrations among the Sanchi reliefs. The pillar has an Ashokan inscription (Schism Edict)...The Schism Edicts
Sanchi Schism Edict[/b]
Remains of the Ashokan Pillar in polished stone at Sanchi, with its Schism Edict (detail).
Asoka’s injunction against shism in the Samgha. Found on the Sarnath, Sanchi and Allahabad pillars. These are among the earliest inscriptions of Ashoka, at a time when inscription techniques in India where not yet mature. In contrast, the lion capitals crowning these edicts (Sarnath and Sanchi) are the most refined of those produced during the time of Ashoka.
All the Schism edits are rather fragmentary, but the similarity of their messages permit a clear reconstruction:
"The Beloved of the Gods orders the officers of Kauśāmbī/ Pāṭa(liputra) thus: No one is to cause dissention in the Order. The Order of monks and nuns has been united, and this unity should last for as long as my sons and great grandsons, and the moon and the sun. Whoever creates a schism in the Order, whether monk or nun, is to be dressed in white garments, and to be put in a place not inhabited by monks or nuns. For it is my wish that the Order should remain united and endure for long. This is to be made known to the Order of monks and the Order of nuns."
-- Minor Pillar Edicts, by WikipediaThe inscription technique is generally very poor compared for example to the later Major Pillar Edicts, however the Minor Pillar Edicts are often associated with some of the artistically most sophisticated pillar capitals of Ashoka, such as the renowned Lion Capital of Ashoka which crowned the Sarnath Minor Pillar Edict, or the very similar, but less well preserved Sanchi lion capital which crowned the very clumsily inscribed Schism Edict of Sanchi. According to Irwin, the Brahmi inscriptions on the Sarnath and Sanchi pillars were made by inexperienced Indian engravers at a time when stone engraving was still new in India, whereas the very refined Sarnath capital itself was made under the tutelage of craftsmen from the former Achaemenid Empire, trained in Perso-Hellenistic statuary and employed by Ashoka. This suggests that the most sophisticated capitals were actually the earliest in the sequence of Ashokan pillars and that style degraded over a short period of time.
-- Edicts of Ashoka, by Wikipedia
Fig. 17. The 'Schism Edict', found as the only inscription on the Sanchi pillar when excavated in 1913.
Students of ancient India have been brought up in the belief that the nation's earliest sculptured monuments -- so-called 'Asokan' pillars -- have been inspired and erected by Asoka, first Buddhist ruler of a united India. This belief continues to be perpetuated up to the present day by leaders of the Archaeological Survey of India, fully aware that it was born and nurtured under the British raj over the last 150 years. From the very first moment of Independence, official opinion in India has clung tenaciously to the old beliefs, reluctant to think the problem afresh. The first Indian Director -- the late N.P. Chakravarty -- set the tone in 1947 by declaring that 'it is impossible to suppose that the pillars were raised by anyone except Asoka'.1 [N.P. Chakravarty, 'The Rock-edicts of Asoka and some connected problems', Ancient India, Bulletin of Archaeological Survey of India, no. 4, 1947-48, p. 25. The author added: 'There is no room to doubt that the pillars are Buddhistic and were therefore set up by Asoka himself and no other ruler' (ibid., p. 25).] Twenty years later, the same opinion was repeated by his successor A. Ghosh, who insisted that any other conclusion was 'unthinkable'2 [A. Ghosh, 'The Pillars of Asoka -- Their Purpose', East and West, Is. M.E.O., Rome, Vol. 17, 1967, pp. 273-75.] -- a statement apparently intended to silence those independent scholars who had vaguely mooted the possibility that some of the pillars might have been already standing without inscriptions before Asoka came to the throne. None, however, had offered, or even dreamt of the possibility that some pillars eventually bearing Asokan inscriptions had been standing with plain shafts before he ruled. This is surprising, for in the first Minor Rock Edict, at Rupnath and at Sahasram, attributed to the eleventh year of his reign, Asoka ordered that his edicts should be engraved on stone pillars if there were stone pillars (available). In the seventh Pillar Edict, issued in the 26th year, he makes two separate references to pillars: in line 23 saying that for the purpose of propagating his Law (dhamma), he has erected Pillars of Law (dhammathambani); and in line 32, that in order that his message should endure it should be engraved wherever pillars or stone slabs are available. Here it is important to recognize that two unrelated things are being said: in line 23 that for the purpose of spreading his message he has erected a certain type of pillar (without saying how many, or where, or when); and in line 32, that quite apart from those pillars that he himself has erected, he wants his edicts engraved on stone pillars already existing -- by implication, not erected by himself.
Soon after beginning research in the 1960s on the origin and meaning of the so-called Asokan pillars, I reached the conclusion that there was no rational basis to the claim that all of them were Asokan, or even Buddhist monuments, but much evidence to the contrary.3 [Those ideas were first publicly advanced in my series of Lowell Institute Lectures on 'The Foundations of Indian Art' delivered at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, in 1973, and later summarized in four successive issues of the Burlington Magazine, London, vols. 115-118, 1973-76, under the title '"Asokan" Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence.'] Among the sculptures so mis-attributed was the great Bull capital (fig. 1) excavated at Rampurva in 1908, which had been characterised by Sir John Marshall, the Director of Archaeology at that time, as 'an inferior piece of sculpture', and as 'wholly alien to the spirit of Indian art'.4 [Sir John Marshall and Alfred Foucher, The Monuments of Sanchi, vol. I, Calcutta, 1939, pp. 89-90; and J.H. Marshall, 'Archaeological Exploration in India 1907-08', Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1908, esp. p. 1088.]
A chance to make my indignation felt came in 1947-48 when, in a junior role as organising secretary of the British Royal Academy's great Winter Exhibition of The Art of India and Pakistan (the first major exhibition of Indian art ever held, intended in this case to celebrated the handing over of power), I was able to use what influence I could to ensure that the Bull capital was included among loans from India.
Moreover, I was even able to ensure that it had pride of place at the entrance to the exhibition. A pre-Asokan attribution was rejected for the catalogue;5 [The Art of India and Pakistan (edited by Leigh Ashton), being the Commemorative Catalogue of that Exhibition, compiled jointly by K. de B. Codrington, Basil Gray and John Irwin, London, 1950.] but it gave me pleasure when, on the return of the sculpture to India, it was singled out by the new Government for an honoured place in the portico of the President's Palace at Delhi, where it remains up to the present day -- still displayed as an 'Asokan capital'!
A second masterpiece belonging to the same art historical category, but less honoured in position, is the Sankisa Elephant (fig. 2) -- now imprisoned behind iron bars at its original site of excavation in 1862,6 [The original excavation report appears in Alexander Cunningham's article on 'Sankisa', Archaeological Survey Reports for the period 1862-65 (Calcutta 1871), vol. I, pp. xl-xli.] where its quality eludes the camera (hence my dependence at fig. 2 on a faded photography taken at the time of discovery, damaged and incomplete).
Both the Rampurva Bull and the Sankisa Elephant are, in my opinion, masterpieces of underestimated antiquity and importance. Both sculptures are unquestionably of pre-Asokan and even pre-Buddhist origin, as I suggested a decade ago in my Burlington Magazine series (see fn. 3, above). Since then, these conclusions have met with opposition in the West as well as in India; from Buddhists as well as non-Buddhists (although none has stated a case for his opposition). It is only now that public opinion is ready to listen. A decisive moment of change coincided with the publication in Berlin of my 1979 address to the Fifth Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, where I read a paper offering firm proof that the Allahabad/Prayaga (formerly, 'Allahabad-Kosam') Pillar -- shown here in its present-day form at fig. 3) had been another pre-Asokan Bull-pillar like the one found at Rampurva (fig. 1)....
It is no surprise to us that the Sanchi monument was yet another 'Schism Pillar', inscribed when it was already standing, and before the existence of any of Asoka's Six-Edict Pillars. [It is very much to the credit of H. Cousens, as an officer in the Archaeological Survey of Western India, that he commented in 1900: 'I think the (Sanchi) Pillar must have been engraved long after it was set up, the pillar simply offering a suitable surface for it. The lines are slanting and it is not by any means neatly engraved as it would have been in connection with the setting up of the pillar' (see fig. 17). H. Cousens, Progress Report of the Archaeological Survey of Western India, Government of Bombay, for the year ending June, 1900, p. 4.
-- The True Chronology of Aśokan Pillars, by John Irwin
... and an inscription in the ornamental Sankha Lipi from the Gupta period. The Ashokan inscription is engraved in early Brahmi characters. It is unfortunately much damaged, but the commands it contains appear to be the same as those recorded in the Sarnath and Kausambi edicts, which together form the three known instances of Ashoka's "Schism Edict". It relates to the penalties for schism in the Buddhist sangha:... the path is prescribed both for the monks and for the nuns. As long as (my) sons and great-grandsons (shall reign; and) as long as the Moon and the Sun (shall endure), the monk or nun who shall cause divisions in the Sangha, shall be compelled to put on white robes and to reside apart. For what is my desire? That the Sangha may be united and may long endure.
— Edict of Ashoka on the Sanchi pillar.
The pillar, when intact, was about 42 feet in height and consisted of round and slightly tapering monolithic shaft, with bell-shaped capital surmounted by an abacus and a crowning ornament of four lions, set back to back, the whole finely finished and polished to a remarkable luster from top to bottom. The abacus is adorned with four flame palmette designs separated one from the other by pairs of geese, symbolical perhaps of the flock of the Buddha's disciples. The lions from the summit, though now quite disfigured, still testify to the skills of the sculptors.
-- A Guide to Sanchi, by Sir John Marshall, K.T., C.I.E., M.A., Director General of Archaeology in India
The sandstone out of which the pillar is carved came from the quarries of Chunar several hundred miles away, implying that the builders were able to transport a block of stone over forty feet in length and weighing almost as many tons over such a distance. They probably used water transport, using rafts during the rainy season up until the Ganges, Jumna and Betwa rivers.
-- Sanchi, by Wikipedia
II / 2nd-1st century BC / Stupas 2, 3, 4; Stupa 1: casing and railings; Temples 18 and 40 (enlargements); Building 8 (platformed monastery) / Donative inscriptions on Stupa 1, 2, and 3 railings; reliquary inscriptions from Stupas 2 and 3. / Pillar by Stupa 2; Pillar 25.
III / 1st-3rd century AD / Stupa 1: gateway carvings. / Southern gateway inscription of Shatakarni (c. AD 25)
IV / 4th-6th century AD / Temples 17 and 19; Stupas 28 and 29. / Inscription of Chandragupta II (Gupta year 131, or AD 450-1) / Stupa 1 pradaksinapatha Buddha images; Pillar 25 and crowning Vajrapani image; two Padmapani to the north Stupa 1; Naga, Nagini, and yaksa sculptures. Various others now in the SAM.
V / 7th-8th century AD / Stupas 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16. Temples 18 and 40 (additions); Temples 20, 22 and 31. Monastery complex beneath Building 43; Monasteries 36, 37 and 38, and other newly excavated structures in the southern area; Monastery 51 (?); / -- / --
VI / 9th-12th century AD / Eastern platform, surmounting monasteries (46 and 47), and temple (45), and boundary wall; Building 43. / Building 43 inscription (mid' to late 9th century AD). / Buddha and Bodhisattva images from Temple 45. Numerous other images in SAM.
-- Sanchi as an archaeological area, by Julia Shaw, 2013