Part 2 of 2
Standing at a point of such great commercial and strategical importance, at or near the confluence of all the five great rivers of Mid-India,2 [At Fa Hian's visit it was 1 yojan, or about 7 miles, below "the junction of the 5 rivers:" see Appendix IV.]
namely, the Ganges, the Gogra, the Rapti, the Gandak, and the Son, as seen in the accompanying map, and commanding the traffic of these great water-ways of the richest part of India, it quickly grew into a great city, as was predicted. Within about one generation after Buddha's visit the new monarch3 [ It was made the royal residence by Udayin, or Udayasva, or Udayana, grandson of Ajatasatru, according to the
Vayu Purana (Wilson, 467) and Sutta pitaka.]
left the old stronghold of Rajgir, on the eastern edge of the highlands of Central India, overlooking the rich Ganges Valley, and one of the hilly fastnesses to which the vigorous invading Aryans fondly clung, and transferred his seat of government out to the new city in the centre of the plain. Thus when the conquest of all the adjoining and upper provinces welded India for the first time into one great dominion, Pataliputra became the capital of that vast empire.Mahaparinibbana-SuttaIn tracing the history of the corporeal relics of Buddha, we naturally commence with the narrative, presented in the ancient Pali work entitled Mahaparinibbana-Sutta, and possibly dating back to B.C. 375 (see page 670 below), of the circumstances that attended the distribution of them and the building of Stupas or memorial mounds over them. And I prefix to that the account, given in the same work, of the cremation of the corpse of Buddha; because it includes several features of interest which may suitably be brought into relief, with some comments, from the artistic setting in which they stand in the original text.
The narrative runs as follows; see the text edited by Childers in this Journal, 1876, 250 ff., and by Davids and Carpenter in the Digha-Nikaya, part 2. 154 ff., and the translation by Davids in SBE, 11. 112 ff.:1 [Using Childers’ text, which is divided into rather long paragraphs, I found the translation very useful in leading me quickly to the points to be noted. The translation, however, cannot be followed as an infallible guide; and I have had to take my own line in interpreting the text at various places. While revising these proofs, I have seen for the first time Turnour’s article in JASB, 7, 1838. 991 ff., where he gave a translation of the sixth chapter (the one in which we are interested) of this Sutta, and an abstract of the preceding ones. By the later translator, Turnour’s work has been dismissed with the observation (SBE, 11. Introd., 31) that, “though a most valuable contribution for the time, now more than half a century ago,” it “has not been of much service for the present purpose.” Nevertheless, there are several details in which it contrasts very favourably with the later translation.]
***
Some remarks must be made here regarding the probable date and the value of the preceding narrative.
Reasons have been advanced by the translator of the Mahaparinibanna-Sutta for holding (trans., introd., 13) that the work cannot well have been composed very much later than the fourth century B.C. And , in the other direction, he has claimed (this Journal, 1901. 397) that substantially, as to not only ideas but also words, it can be dated approximately in the fifth century. That would tend to place the composition of its narrative within eight decades after the death of Buddha, for which event B.C. 482 seems to me the most probable and satisfactory date that we are likely to obtain. In view, however, of a certain prophecy which is placed by the Sutta in the mouth of Buddha, it does not appear likely that the work can be referred to quite so early a time as that.
In the course of his last journey, Buddha came to the village Pataligama (text, 60/84; trans., 15). At that time, we know from the commencement of the work, there was war, or a prospect of war, between Ajatasatta, king of Magadha, and the Vajji people. And, when Buddha was on this occasion at Pataligama, Sunidha and Vassakara, the Mahamattas or high ministers for Magadha, were laying out a regular city (nagara) at Pataligama, in order to ward off the Vajjis [NO CITATION!] (text, 62/86; trans., 18.)1 [Compare the story about the founding of Rajagriha which we shall meet with further on, under Hiuen Tsiang.] The place was haunted by many thousands of “fairies” (devata), who inhabited the plots of ground there. And it was by that spiritual influence that Sunidha and Vassakara had been led to select the site for the foundation of a city; the text says (trans., 18): “Wherever ground is so occupied by powerful fairies, they bend the hearts of the most powerful kings and ministers to build dwelling-places there, and fairies of middling and inferior power bend in a similar way the hearts of middling or inferior kings and ministers.” Buddha with his supernatural clear sight beheld the fairies. And, remarking to his companion, the venerable Ananda, that Sunidha and Vassakara were acting just as if they had taken counsel with the Tavatimsa “angels” (deva), he said (text, 63/87; trans., 18): -- “Inasmuch, O Ananda!, as it is an honourable place as well as a resort of merchants, this shall become a leading city (agga-nagara), Pataliputta (by name), a (?) great trading centre (putabhedana); but, O Ananda!, (one of) three dangers will befall Pataliputta, either from fire, or from water, or from dissension.” 2 [From the use of the particle va, ‘or,’ three times, the meaning seems clearly to be that only one of the three dangers should actually happen to the city. For the danger from fire, compare the story about Girivraja, under Hiuen Tsiang.]
Unless this passage is an interpolation, which does not seem probable, the work cannot have been composed until after the prophecy had been so far fulfilled that the village Pataligrama had become the leading city, the capital Pataliputra.Now, Hiuen Tsiang, in the account given by him under Rajagriha, has reported that a king Asoka, who, so far, might or might not be the promulgator of the well-known edicts, transferred his court to Pataliputra from Rajagriha; that is, that he, for the first time, made Pataliputra the capital. And, from the way in which mention is made of Pataliputta in the Girnar version of the fifth rock-edict (EI, 2. 453, line 7), we know that Pataliputra was certainly the capital of the promulgator of the edicts, Asoka the Maurya, who was anointed to the sovereignty in B.C. 264, when 218 years had elapsed after the death of Buddha.
But we know from Megasthenes, through Strabo.1 [See McCrindle in IA, 6.131, and Ancient India, 12 i.] that Pataliputra was the capital of also Chandragupta, the grandfather of the Asoka who promulgated the edicts. In his account of Pataliputra itself, Hiuen Tsiang has said, more specifically,2 [Julien, Memoires, 1. 414; Beal, Records, 2. 85; Watters, On Yuan Chwang, 2. 88. As a matter of fact, not even Kalasoka the Saisunaga was a great-grandson of Bimbisara. But this point is not a material one. Except perhaps in the passage mentioned just above, from the account given by Hiuen Tsiang under Rajagriha, where Julien has left the point undertermined, and except in the present passage, Hiuen Tsiang has, in the passages which I am using on this occasion, denoted his Asoka by the Chinese translation of the name, meaning (like the Indian name itself) ‘sorrowless,’ which has been transcribed by Julien as Wou-yeou, by Beal as Wu-yau, and by Watters as A-yu. It was A-yu who visited Ramagrama, and who opened the Stupas at Vaisali and Rajagriha and that in the Chan-chu kingdom over the earthen jar. Here, however, Hiuen Tsiang has denoted his Asoka by the Chinese transliteration of the name, which has been transcribed by Julien as ‘O-chou-kia, by Beal as ‘O-shu-kia, and by Watters as A-shu-ka. This detail is noteworthy: because Hiuen Tsiang has said in the immediately preceding sentence that it was A-yu who made the “hell” at Pataliputra; and, even closelyi after introducing the name A-shu-ka here, he has reverted to the other, and has said again that A-yu made the “hell” (Julien, ibid.) and that A-yu destroyed it (418), and also that it was A-yu who built one, or the first, of the 84,000 Stupas (417 f.). For reasons, however, which may be stated on another occasion, it cannot be said for certain from this passage that the king Asoka who made Pataliputra the capital was, at that place, expressly identified to Hiuen Tsiang as being not the Asoka who made the hell, opened the original Stupas, built 84,000 other ones, etc.] that in the first century, or in the year 100, after the death of Buddha, there was a king Asoka (A-shu-ka), a great-grandson of Bimbisara; and that he left Rajagriha, and transferred his court to Patali(putra), and caused a second wall to be made round the ancient town. And the Dipavamsa, in its first reference to Pataliputta, mentions it (5.26) as the capital of that Asoka, Kalasoka, son of Susunaga, who began to reign ninety years after the death of Buddha; mentioning, on the other hand, (3.52) Rajagaha (but ? rather Giribbaja) as the capital of Bodhisa (for Bhatiya) the father of Bimbisara.
Tradition thus seems to indicate, plainly enough, that it was by Kalasoka, who reigned for twenty-eight years,1 [So Buddhaghosha, in the introduction to his Samantapasadika; see the Vinayupitaka, ed. Oldenberg, 3. 321. So also the Mahavamsa, 15, line 7. Buddhaghosha has mentioned him as simply Asoka in that place, but as Kalasoka in passages on pages 293, 320.] B.C. 392-365, that Pataliputra was made the capital, and to make it practically certain that the Mahaparinibbana-Sutta cannot have been composed before about B.C. 375.
The Sutta may really have been written then. Or it may be of later origin; how much so, we cannot at present say.2 [The following suggests itself as a point that should be considered in any full inquiry. Does the appellation of the work really mean, as has been understood, “the book of the great decease”? If so, when did the terms mahabhinikkhamana, ‘the great going forth from worldly life,’ and mahaparinibbana, ‘the great decease,’ applied to those events in the case of Buddha as against nikkhamana and parinibbana in the case of ordinary people, first become established? Or does the appellation indicate only “the great(er) book of the decease,” as contrasted with some earlier and smaller work of the same kind? ] But it is certainly a very ancient work. The narrative presented all through it is so simple and dignified, and for the most part so free from miraculous interventions – (these occur chiefly, and not unnaturally so, in connexion with the death and cremation of Buddha) – and from extravagances of myth and absurdities of doctrine and practice, that it commands respect and belief. And so, in spite of the way in which (we know) history in India was liable to be somewhat quickly overlaid with imaginative and mythical details, I see no reason for regarding as otherwise than authentic the main facts asserted in the Sutta, including those attending the original disposal of the corporeal relics of Buddha.
-- The Tradition about the Corporeal Relics of Buddha, by J. F. Fleet, The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (Jul., 1906), pp. 655-671 (17 pages)
It is at this period, about 300—302 B.C., that we first get a trustworthy account of the city. This is from the pen of the Greek ambassador, and it is unique in supplying the first fixed date for ancient India by the contemporary references through Greek history. In this first authentic glimpse into ancient India, it is remarkable that the influence of the Greeks should be so manifest at its capital.
The then reigning king, Chandra-gupta, or 'Sandrakottos,'as the Greeks called him,1 [The identity of the 'Sandrakottos' of the Greeks with Chandra-gupta was first shown by Sir W. Jones, Asiatick Researches, IV, 11 (1795); and Wilford noticed (As. Res., V, 262) that the form used by Athenaeus was even closer, namely, 'Sandrakoptus.' The 'Androkottos' of Plutarch is also this same person.] had, it seems, early come into intimate contact with the Greeks and into immediate relations with Alexander-the-Great in the Panjab, during the latter's invasion of Northern India in 326 B.C. Now the age of Vicramaditya is given; and if we can fix on an Indian prince contemporary with Seleucus, we shall have three given points in the line of time between Rama, or the first Indian colony, and Chandrabija, the last Hindu monarch who reigned in Bahar; so that only eight hundred or a thousand years will remain almost wholly dark; and they must have been employed in raising empires or states, in framing laws, improving languages and arts, and in observing the apparent motions of the celestial bodies. A Sanscrit [Sanskrit] history of the celebrated Vicramaditya was inspected at Benares by a Pandit, who would not have deceived me, and could not himself have been deceived; but the owner of the book is dead, and his family dispersed; nor have my friends in that city been able, with all their exertions, to procure a copy of it. ...
I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, though my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Palibothra (for there may have been several of the name) which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem, for though it could not have been Prayaga, where no ancient metropolis ever stood, nor Canyacubja, which has no epithet at all resembling the word used by the Greeks; nor Gaur, otherwise called Lacshmanavati, which all know to be a town comparatively modern, yet we could not confidently decide that it was Pataliputra, though names and most circumstances nearly correspond, because that renowned capital extended from the confluence of the Sone and the Ganges to the site of Patna, while Palibothra stood at the junction of the Ganges and Erannoboas, which the accurate M. D'Anville had pronounced to be the Yamuna; but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur, was in fact another name for the Sona itself; though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment, for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became like Sandracottus the sovereign of Upper Hindustan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ, as two certain epochs between Rama, who conquered Silan a few centuries after the flood, and Vicramaditya, who died at Ujjayini fifty-seven years before the beginning of our era.
Since these discussions would lead us too far, I proceed to the History of Nature...
But I should be led beyond the limits assigned to me on this occasion, if I were to expatiate farther on the historical division of the knowledge comprised in the literature of Asia; and I must postpone till next year my remarks on Asiatic Philosophy, and on those arts which depend on imagination; promising you with confidence, that in the course of the present year, your inquiries into the civil and natural history of this eastern world will be greatly promoted by the learned labours of many among our associates and correspondents. -- Discourse X. Delivered February 28, 1793, P. 192, Excerpt from "Discourses Delivered Before the Asiatic Society: And Miscellaneous Papers, on The Religion, Poetry, Literature, Etc. of the Nations of India", by Sir William Jones
ADVERTISEMENT. The unfortunate Death of Sir William Jones, on the 27th April 1794, having deprived the Society of their Founder and President, a meeting of the Members was convened on the 1st May following, when it was unanimously agreed to appoint a Committee, consisting of Sir Robert Chambers, Mr. Justice Hyde, Colonel John Murray, John Bristow and Thomas Graham, Esqrs. to wait on Sir John Shore, and in the name of the Society, request his acceptance of the office of their President. With this request, he, in terms highly flattering to the Society, agreed to comply, and on the 22d May 1794, took his seat as President, and delivered the Discourse Number XII of this Volume.
EDMUND MORRIS, Secretary
***
I. The Tenth Anniversary Discourse, Delivered 28 February 1793 by The President on Asiatick History, Civil and NaturalBefore our entrance into the Disquisition promised at the close of my Ninth Annual Discourse, on the particular Advantages which may be derived from our concurrent Researches in Asia, it seems necessary to fix with precision the sense in which we mean to speak of advantage or utility.....--
Asiatick Researches: or, Transactions of the Society; Instituted in Bengal, For Inquiring Into The History and Antiquities, the Arts, Sciences, and Literature, of Asia, Volume IV, 1795
According to the historians of the Macedonian,2 [As noted in Plutarch's Life of Alexander under name of 'Androcottus,' also next note.] "this prince was of humble origin, but was called to royalty by the power of the gods; for having offended Alexander by his impertinent language he was ordered to be put to death and escaped only by flight and ... and collecting bands of robbers he roused the Indians to renew the empire. In the wars which he waged with the captains of Alexander he was distinguished in the van mounted or an elephant of great size and strength. Having thus acquired power Sandrakottos reigned at the same time that Seleukos laid the foundation of his dominion."3 [Justin, XV, 4.] And Buddhist tradition places the original home of his family, the Mora or Mayura (known to the Brahmans as 'Maurya') on the slopes of the Himalayas in Northern India;1 [
Mahavamso [Mahavamsa],
Turnour, Introd. XXXIX. Two of the rail-bars of the Bharhut stupa dating almost to Asoka's epoch are inscribed as the gifts of Thupadasa and "Ghatila's mother," both of 'Mora' hill.] whilst another legend associates the Mayura raja and a stupa-building prince of the Sakya race with the country over the Mora pass in the Swat Valley,2 [Hiuen Tsiang's Records (Beal) 1, 126.] whence I secured for the Indian Museum many Buddhist sculptures,3 [Actes du Onzieme Congres Internat. des Orientalistes, Paris, 1897, Sect. I, p. 245. See also Asiatic Quarterly Review (October 1895).] nearly all of which curiously bear the 'Mora' symbol (a peacock); and certainly in this region, as these sculptures show, Greek influence was predominant two or three centuries later. In keeping also with this alleged northern origin of Chandra-gupta are the Brahmanical accounts, which refer to him as an outsider who with the aid of 'armed bands of robbers' and associated with the Yavanas (or Westerns) overran and conquered India.4 [See footnote, p. 6.]
The Greek account of him and of the military despotism which he established thus pithily describes his relations with Seleukos Nikator, the immediate successor of Alexander:—
"Seleukos Nikator first seizing Babylon, then reducing Baktriane, his power being increased by the first success: thereafter he passed into India, which since Alexander's death killed its governors, thinking thereby to shake off from its neck the yoke of slavery. Sandrakottos (i.e., Chandra-gupta) had made it free, but when victory was gained, he changed the name of freedom to that of bondage, for he himself oppressed with servitude the very people which he had rescued from foreign dominion. Sandrakottos having thus gained the crown held India at the time when Seleukos was laying the foundations of his future greatness. Seleukos ... waged war on Sandrakottos5 [Justinus, XV, 4. This must hare been in 313 B.C., as Seleukos returned to Babylon in 312 B.C., thus giving Chandra-gupta's accession as about 315 or 316 B.C., which is the first fixed date for Indian history. Cf, also Dr. Hoernle's note in Centenary Rept. As. Socy. (Beng.), 87.] ... "until he made friends and entered into relations of marriage with him,"6 [Appianus (Syriake, c. 55).] and "receiving in return five hundred elephants"1 [Strabo, Grog. XV, 724, Bohn's trans.] "and settling affairs on this side of India directed his march against Antigonus."2 [Justin XV, 4.]
Seleukos sent his personal friend Megasthenes as ambassador to Chandra-gupta's court at Pataliputra. That historian describes the city3 [Megasthenis Indica, a critical collection of translations from the Greek and Latin fragments of Megasthenes' lost work by Schwanbeck, Bonn, 1846, and partly translated into English by J. W. McCrindle in his Ancient India, 1877 and 1893. Megasthenes died 291 B.C.] as being about 9 miles in length. It was surrounded by a wooden wall, pierced by many towered gateways, and with numerous openings in front for the discharge of arrows, and in front a ditch for defence and as a city sewer. It had a population of about 400,000, and the retinue of the king numbered many thousands. It is remarkable that in describing in considerable detail the religion of the people he makes no reference to Buddhism,4 [The 'Sarmania' clad in the bark of trees were clearly Brahmanist Sramana ascetics as Lassen recognised by Indisch. Alt., ii, 700.] although Buddha had died about a century before; and the Sanskritic way in which he spells the proper names, especially in the retention of the letter r, seems to show that the Pali form of dialect was not in use, and presumably was later in origin, although it is customary to represent Buddha as speaking always in this dialect.
This intercourse with the Greeks appears to have been closely maintained, for it is recorded that the son of Sandrakottos, "Amitrochates (? Amitroghata),5 [Strabo gives this name as Allitrochades — it was probably meant for the Sanskrit title Amitra-ghata or 'Enemy-slayer.' Cf. Wilford As, Res., v, 286.] and 'Sophaga-senas'6 [If this be intended for Subhaga-sena, it also would be an official title and not a personal name. — Lassen, Ind. Alt., ii, 273.] reinforced the armies of Antiochos, the son of Seleukos, and of Antigonus-the-Great with elephants" in their wars with the Persians. The Greek account relates that this king of Pataliputra, Amitrochates, wrote to Antiochos asking the latter to buy and send him sweet wine, dried figs and a sophist; and that Antiochos replied: "We shall send you the figs and the wine, but in Greece the laws forbid a sophist to be sold."7 [Athenaios, XIV, 67.— Ancient India, ed. 1893, p. 409.]
The pomp and chivalry, the intrigues at court and the battles fought around the strong fortifications of Pataliputra in these early days are vividly pictured in an Indian drama, which, although only composed about the middle ages, seems to have been based on earlier books now lost.1 [The Mudra Rakshasa, translated by Dr. H. H. Wilson, of the Indian Medical Service, in his Hindu Theatre.]
It was, however, at the splendid capital of the celebrated warrior-prince, Asoka (about B.C. 250), the grandson of Chandra-gupta, that it is most widely known. This greatest of Indian emperors, the Constantine of Buddhism, may almost be said to have made Buddhism a religion, that is to say, a real religion of the people. For previous to his day it seems to have been little more than a struggling order of mendicant monks, so few apparently in number about 300 B.C. that, as we have seen, the Greek historian does not even refer to them. When, however, Asoka was converted to this faith in his later life he made it the state-religion, and of a more objective and less abstract character, so that it appealed to the people in general, and he actively propagated it by missionaries and otherwise even beyond his own dominions. He was one of the most lavish devotees the world has ever seen. He covered his mighty kingdom, from Afghanistan to Mysore, from Nepal to Gujerat, with stately Buddhist monuments and buildings of vast size, regardless of expense. With his truly imperial and artistic instincts, so clearly derived more or less directly from the Greeks and Assyrians, his monuments were of the stateliest kind. His stupendous stupas or mounds of solid masonry to enshrine Buddha's relics or to mark some sacred spot are found all over India, and are almost like Egyptian pyramids in size. His colossal edict-pillars, single shafts of stone, thirty to forty feet in length and beautifully polished and sculptured, still excite the wonder and admiration of all who see them. How magnificent, then, must have been the capital of this great Indian monarch, who, as we learn from some of his stonecut edicts in the remoter parts of his empire, was the ally of the Greek kings Antiochus II of Syria, Ptolemy of Egypt, Antigonos Gonatus of Macedon, Magas of Cyrene, and Alexander of Epirus, and how important for historical purposes are likely to be his edicts and other inscriptions in his own capital, which were seen there in the early part of our era, and are now in all probability buried in the ruins of the old metropolis.
The buildings previous to his epoch, as well as the walls of the city, seem all to have been of wood, like most of the palaces, temples and stockades of Burma and Japan in the present day. The change which he effected to hewn stone1 [See Appendix I.] was so sudden and impressive and the stones which he used were so colossal that he came latterly to be associated in popular tales with the giants or genii (yaksha)2 [The Asoka-avadana, Burnouf's Introd a l'Hist. du Buddhisme Indien, 373.] by whose superhuman agency it was alleged he had reared his monuments; and a fabulous romantic origin was invented for his marvellous capital.3 [Appendix II.]
It was possibly owing to Asoka's gigantic stone buildings that the Greeks ascribed the building of the city to Hercules, for they had several accounts of it subsequent to the time of Megasthenes.4 [Diodorus, writing in the 1st Century B.C., bases part of his account on the narrative of Jambulus, who after being seven years in Ceylon was wrecked "upon the Sandy shallows of India and forthwith carried away to the King, then at the city of 'Polybothia' many days' journey from the sea, where he was kindly received by the King who has a great love for the Grecians. * * * This Jambulus committed all these adventures to writing." — Sic. Hist. I, II, c. 4.] It is also possible that this legend of the giants may have partly arisen through Asoka having made use of sculptured figures of the giants to adorn his buildings. The two colossal statues of these 'builders' of his monuments, now in the Indian Museum, were unearthed in his capital, and bear their names inscribed in characters only a little later than his epoch.5 [Appendix III.] The stone out of which they are carved is identical with that of his pillars, and they exhibit the same high polish which is found on few Indian sculptures of a subsequent era.
The influence of the West upon the Indian art of his time is especially conspicuous in the classic Assyrian and Greek conventional designs sculptured on his pillars; for example, the anthemion and honeysuckle friezes on the capitals. Indeed, this fact, coupled with the excellence of the workmanship, although these are the very first examples of stone sculpture found in India, leads to the probability that he employed Greek or Syrian artists in this work. Personally too he is said by a quasi-historic Buddhist legend1 [Asoka-avadana and the Tibetan Vinaya, III, 92, state that 'Jivaka,' a natural son of Bimbasara (that is, about five generations before Asoka) went from Rajgir to Taxila to study medicine.] to have been governor for some years of Taxila — that old city of the Panjab, three marches east of the Indus, where Greek influence was strongly established at Alexander's day.
But before the dawn of our era the great city Pataliputra had decayed with the downfall of Asoka's dynasty and the transfer of the capital elsewhere, and the influence doubtless of some of the three 'perils' predicted for it — 'fire, water, and internal strife' — for such purported prophecies often embody historical facts, recorded after the events have happened; and this might easily be the case in the present instance, as the earliest date for the very earliest extant Buddhist scripture is only about 24 B.C.2 [This is usually given as 88 — 76 B.C. by Max Muller and others, calculating from the Ceylonese data supplied by Turnour; but Turnour in his table (Makavamso, p. lx) gives the date on which the scriptures were first reduced to writing in Ceylon as 218 years after Buddhism was introduced into that country by Asoka's mission. This mission, he shows, was sent in the 17th year of Asoka's reign. Now Asoka's reign is usually taken as beginning about 260 B.C., and the mission must have taken the greater part of the year to reach Ceylon. Thus we get the date 24 B.C. for the first manuscript copy of the Buddhist scriptures in Ceylon, and this is the source of the very earliest Pali versions now extant.]
Its position peculiarly exposed it to destruction by water. The fickle rivers, which called it into being, are ever shifting their channels in their oscillations through the broad plain. At one time caressing the banks, at another they tear the latter furiously to pieces, and then desert the place for many miles. Plague also may have played some part in the ruin of the old capital, as it seems to have done at Gaur and other of the later 'dead cities' of the Ganges during the middle ages. Glimmerings of internal strife tempting foreign devastation seem to be had in the invasions from the south and by Scythians from the north about the beginning of our era.
In the third to the fifth centuries A.D. it seems to have been, for a time at least, the capital of the Imperial Gupta dynasty, several members of which patronised Buddhism.1 [The true date of these Guptas was discovered by Prinsep Jour. Asiatic Socy. (Beng.), III, 115;. VII, 975, 679, and has since been established by Fleet and others. They were of the 'Lunar' race (the Mauryas were of the 'Solar'), and latterly changed the capital from Pataliputra to Kanauj (Prinsep I. c., III, 115).] In the fifth century, the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim, Fa Hian, found it still a large town with many of Asoka's buildings in good preservation, and he gives a glowing account of their marvellously "elegant carving and inlaid sculpture work."2 [Legge's Travels of Fa Hien, p. 77. Appendix IV.] It was still a seat of Buddhist learning with 'six or seven hundred monks/ and he resided there for three years, copying rare scriptures which he had searched for in vain in Upper India.
The next two centuries witnessed a rapid change for the worse. The Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsiang about 635 A.D. found the city and its buildings a mass of crumbling ruins and "long deserted;"3 [See Appendix IV.] though he notes that the monasteries, Hindu temples and "stupas, which lie in ruins, may be counted by hundreds. There are only two or three remaining entire."4 [Idem.] These latter also would seem even to have fallen into ruins, and on the extinction of Buddhism in India by the Muhammadan invasion in the twelfth century, even the very site and name of the city seem to have been generally forgotten.
Thus, when European enquirers towards the end of the eighteenth century began unearthing the lost history of India, none even of the most learned natives could give any clue to its whereabouts. In this state of uncertainty many conflicting conjectures were hazarded as to its location.
This lost city of the Ganges was supposed by some, from the meagre Greek accounts,1 [Megasthenes in his itinerary placed it at 475 miles down the Ganges from its junction with the Jamuna (i.e., at Allahabad) and 635 miles (6,000 stadia) from the mouth of the Ganges— Pliny as analysed by M. V. de St. Martin in Etude sur le Geographie Grecque, & c., 132.] to be at such widely distant places as Allahabad,2 [D'Anville — vide V. de St. Martin, op. cit.] Rajmahal near the junction of the Kusi River,3 [Wilford, Asiatick Researches, V (1798) and XIV, 380 (1822).] Bhagalpur,4 [W. Francklin, Inquiry Concerning the Site of the Ancient Palibothra: London, 1815.] and elsewhere. Its true position seems first to have been indicated in a general way by Major Rennell about 1783,5 [Memoir of a Map of Hindustan, 1783.] as being near the modern Patna; and Dr. Buchanan-Hamilton, of the Indian Medical Service, in his admirable survey of Patna about 1808 ascertained that the local priests of the place retained the oral tradition that the ancient name of the place was 'Pataliputra,' though they could give no material proof for this, and even with their aid he failed to find any physical trace of that ancient city6 [Eastern India I, 87.] after diligent search. This position for it was confirmed by the discovery in China of those remarkably detailed itineraries of the two Chinese Buddhist monks above mentioned, who in their pilgrimages had visited the town in the fifth and seventh centuries A.D., and had left descriptions of the chief sites in it and its neighbourhood.
The geographical details supplied by these narratives7 [Translated into English and French by Julien, Klaproth, Beal, and others.] clearly showed that the lost city must have been situated at or near Patna;8 [V. St. Martin op. cit. and in Julien's 'Memoires,' 1857, III 372.] and a local survey of the topography of that neighbourhood disclosed the fact that the river Son had formerly joined the Ganges there, and Mr. Ravenshaw9 [Jour. Asiatic Soc. (Beng.) (1845), XIV, 137.] believed that the mounds of Panch-Pahari were the ruined bastions of the old city, of which last, however, he could find no trace. Then the staff of the Archaeological Survey reported as the result of their search for it that "Modern Patna consequently does not stand on the site of old Pataliputra, but very close to it, the old city having occupied what is now the bed of the Ganges and perhaps part of the great islands between Patna and Hajipur, on the opposite side of the river. All or almost all traces of the ancient city must long since have been swept away by the Ganges."1 ["Archaeological Survey of India" Report, VIII, 24, 1878.] Latterly, in 1878, the director of the archaeological survey, General Cunningham himself, to whose unique knowledge of Indian antiquities we owe so much and who collected in his reports many references concerning Pataliputra, expressed his belief, as a result of his subsequent visits to Patna, that remains of the old city still existed at Chhoti and Panch Pahari, to the south of the railway; and within the manifestly too narrow limits of these mounds he thrust all Asoka's palaces, the monuments and monasteries of the great city.2 [Idem— Reports XI, 151—160 (1881), and XV, pp. 1—3 (1882).] The general opinion, however, prevalent amongst the local officers and other residents, who had deliberately searched for it, was that the site of the old city had been entirely washed away by the Ganges, and that not a trace of it remained.
It was at this stage that I, impressed with the importance of recovering, if possible, for science and the history of civilization, some of the monuments and records of this great lost city, took advantage of a hurried visit to Patna in 1892 to satisfy myself as to the real state of matters. On exploring the place I was surprised to find that not only was the ancient site practically unencroached on by the Ganges, but that most of the leading landmarks of Asoka's palaces, monasteries, and other monuments remained so very obvious that I was able in the short space of one day to identify many of them beyond all doubt, by taking the itineraries of the Chinese pilgrims as my guide.
These itineraries of devoted Chinese Buddhist monks, Fa Hian, Hiuen Tsiang, and others, which were originally intended as guide-books to their fellow-countrymen in visiting the various sacred Buddhist spots, have afforded us the chief clue to recovering the ancient geography of India, Although they were written by simple pilgrims unprovided with a compass, their descriptions, distances, and directions have generally turned out to be marvellously trustworthy. Personally, after having tracked these itineraries for many hundreds of miles in the adjoining and other parts of India, I had come to place much trust in their general accuracy.
On piecing together, then, these Chinese topographical accounts of Pataliputra (the texts of which are herewith attached for reference, as Appendix IV), and on projecting the details upon paper, we get the annexed rough plan of the great capital.
From it we see that all the chief monuments and palaces lay to the south of the old city, which itself fringed the right bank of the Ganges. It also is evident that the area of the chief monuments was bounded on the north and on the south by two great artificial mounds "like little mountains," The most northerly of these artificial hills was the hermitage "mountain" raised by Asoka for his young and sole surviving brother, Prince Mahendra, who had become a Buddhist recluse and dwelt in Buddha's old cave in the "Vulture's Peak" in the far off hills of Rajgir. Asoka in order to keep his brother near him built for him, with gigantic stones, as reported in the pilgrim's accounts, an artificial hill with a cell in a 'solitude' to the north of and near the palace. The most southerly of these great mounds was that formed by the clustered ruins of the five great stupas which Asoka built to enshrine Buddha's relics, and which Hiuen Tsiano described as "lofty ... at a distance they look like little hills."
PLAN I. Location of Monuments according to Chinese descriptions. 1. Prince Mahendra's Hermitage Hill
2. 'Nili-' or Hell-Pillar
3. Alms-Trough
4. 'Old Palace'
5. Great Relic-Stupa
6. World-Gift Pillar
7. Foot-Print Stone and Temple
8. Previous Buddha's Sitting Place
9. Upagupta's Hermitage Hill
10. Sacred Pond
11. Residuary Relic-Stupas
12-13. Monasteries
14. Cock Monastery (Kukkutarama)
15. Amla-Fruit Offering Stupa
16. Stupa in Gong Monastery
17. Site of 'Devil-Inspired' Heretic.
-- L.A. Waddell
The first spot, therefore, to which I hastened on my first visit to Patna was the most northerly of the large mounds in that town, especially as it bore the highly suggestive title of 'the hill of the Buddhist mendicant monk,' namely, 'Bhikna Pahari.'
This 'hill' I found to be an artificial mound about twenty feet high and about a quarter of a mile in circuit, but consisting apparently of brick ruins, not stone, although three large blocks of stone, nearly a cubic yard each, lay on the surface, about a hundred yards to the north-east, and other large stones near its eastern base. But the most curious thing which I found was that a rude image which stood on the top of the great mound is called 'The mendicant Prince' (Bhikna Kunwar).
This image is over six feet high, and differs from the ordinary conical mound-idols of India not only in its great size, but also in that it has the shape of an elongated hillock deeply scooped out on its southern face to form two masses — a larger and smaller — with a deeper recess between them near the centre, from which latter point a track runs obliquely down to the bottom. The whole contour conveys the impression of a two-peaked hill with a path running up obliquely from the left to a cell between the two peaks, and it recalled to my mind the topography of the identical cave where Prince Mahendra had lived in the Rajgir hills, namely, the cave of the "Vulture's Peak " in the Rajgir hills. Indeed, it seemed as if not only did the tradition of the Prince's artificial hill still cling to this mound, but the Prince himself under the form of his hermitage was still actively worshipped by the people of Patna, in the same way as their ancestors in the Buddhist period must have worshipped or reverenced the actual hill and its princely recluse in Asoka's day.1 [The offerings made in front are milk, rice, flowers and silk-thread.] This would be a remarkable fact in the history of image-worship if it proved true— namely, that the leading topographical features of the hill have been retained in a mud model after so many centuries, notwithstanding that its mud requires frequent repair, and its present-day worshippers do not recognise that their image represents a hill at ail; though this latter consideration counts for very little, as we know the tendency in Indian worship to blindly perpetuate a form or rite mechanically once it has become stereotyped.
Be this as it may, the important fact remained that I found here, to the north of the other great mounds at Patna, an artificial 'hill' with some huge blocks of stone near its base, retaining in its names vestiges of the Buddhist period; and the names themselves denoting 'the hill of the Buddhist Mendicant' and 'the Mendicant Prince;' the historical mendicant prince of Pataliputra having been, as we have seen, Asoka's brother, Prince Mahendra, whose artificial hermitage 'hill' lay to the north of all the other great monuments of Asoka.
From here I made my way, as straight as possible, to the great mound on the south of Patna, bearing the highly suggestive title of 'the five hills' (Panch Pahari, see map also plan II), as it will be remembered that the most southerly of all the monuments of the ancient city was the group of the five great stupas of Asoka, the ruins of which were described in the seventh century as being like 'little hills;' and I found that they by their position, form, and traditions were without doubt the ruins of these very identical five 'stupas.'
In this way, having fixed beyond doubt the fact that the most southerly mass of ruins of Asoka's capital still existed in much the same condition as in Hiuen Tsiang's day, and that the tradition of a mendicant prince still lingered in the neighbourhood of the most northerly of the extant mounds about two miles distant, and the intervening area, I saw, contained numerous mounds, with several sculptured slabs of Asoka's epoch lying about, under trees, or at wells, or plastered into the walls of buildings, it was clear that the chief sites within the limits of the old city were still practically intact, and had not been washed away by the Ganges or other river, as generally supposed, and that many structural remains of Asoka's city still existed. And as positive proof that this was indeed the old city, I discovered within the Jain temple (21 on map) an inscription (see plate VII) giving 'Padali-pura' as the name of the place,1 [Padali is the current Hindi form for the name of the flower 'Patali;' the t is replaced by d. For further details see Appendix IX, p. 83.] This seems the first occasion on which the actual ancient name had been found at or near Patna.
Next day, I found that portions of the old wooden walls of the city as described by Megasthenes still existed in this area2 [The existence of some beams several miles away within the city of Patna had been recorded by Mr. McCrindle in 1877— see p. 21.] actually in situ! The great beams are found buried fifteen to twenty feet below the present surface level, when the villagers dig wells in particular places. On striking these great beams standing erect so many feet below the surface, the superstitious villagers, unable to account for the presence of the huge posts, usually abandon their attempted wells. But although the local tradition has thus been lost, I noticed the curious fact that the caste which occupies the small wards adjoining these old wooden walls are almost exclusively the Bow-men ('Dhanuk'), probably the descendants of the old soldiery who kept watch and ward over these battlements in ancient times!
I also by a hurried inspection of several of the mounds and villages found various fragments of sculptures and other confirmatory details which led me to conclude that the modern village of Kumrahar (17 on map) covered the site of the greater part of the old palace, the remains of which latter were deeply buried twelve to twenty feet below the surface; and that the ruins of others of the ancient buildings existed at the various spots numbered on the accompanying map. As to the identity of some of these, I hazarded a few provisional conjectures, but I expressly added, "the real nature of most of these mounds can only be revealed by actual excavation." At the same time, I pointed out that the necessary exploratory excavation must inevitably be very difficult and costly owing to the fact that most of the likely sites are largely built over or covered by Muhammadan graves, and because the old ruins lie deeply buried down in the debris of over twenty centuries, often with little or no surface-marking to indicate their presence.
These important results of my hurried two days' visit I reported at once to the Government of Bengal, who forthwith printed and published my rough notes on the subject.1 [Discovery of the exact site of Pataliputra and description of the superficial remains, 1892.] The great interest thus excited amongst European orientalists by the discovery that the exact site of Asoka's classic capital was still extant, and contained structural remains and probably invaluable historical inscriptions earlier than any hitherto known, led to an influential request being addressed to Government to make the necessary excavations at the spots indicated by me.
To this, Government generously assented, and granted funds for the work. Unfortunately, however, these primary excavations, begun in 1894, when I was absent on sick leave, were misdirected. They nevertheless confirmed my identification of the Panch Pahari as being the ruins of great stupas, and also the already known fact that at the Chhoti Pahari was a great stupa,2 [Cunningham Arch. S. Rept., XI, 158.] which from my later inspection in 1892 I was inclined to think might be the celebrated first and greatest of all the relic-stupas erected by Asoka, as General Cunningham had latterly supposed.
Colossal Capital Quasi-Persepolitan, Photo by L.A. Waddell, Photogravure, Survey of India Offices, Calcutta, April, 190_In 1895 Government asked me to direct and supervise the excavations which they wished to be made at the sites which I had indicated as lying within 'the old palace,' that is, the palace of the kings of the Maurya dynasty. Such excavations can only be done during the dry season, as it is only then that the level of the ground-water at most of the sites falls sufficiently to allow of the necessary deep digging. On visiting Patna for this purpose, I secured for the Calcutta museum all the various portions of Buddhist railings and other important pieces of sculptures which were lying about or fixed in buildings in accessible positions, after I had gained the consent of their owners. I was fortunate also in obtaining for the local supervision of the proposed excavations, as I could not be present personally, the active assistance of Mr. C. A. Mills, of the Public Works Department, who was then stationed at Patna.
In May 1896 the exploratory trenches were commenced at the various spots pointed out by me at Kumrahar, Bulandhi, Bahadurpur, and Rampur. Within a few days so many important sculptures and other objects were unearthed that I was telegraphed for to visit the excavations and advise further proceedings.
Mr. Mills' telegram dated 22nd May 1896 was: —
"Have found stone carvings, beams, one coin supposed to be Chinese, images, foundation of buildings, moulded bricks, stone pebbles, etc. Please come by Saturday's mail if possible, as your advice as to further excavation is urgently needed."
These sculptures, on inspection, I found included the magnificent colossal capital of a distinctly Greek type — quasi-Ionic, figured in plate II. It was found twelve feet below the surface, on digging at a spot indicated by me in the Bulandhi grove of mango trees, where there was no surface-marking to guide me except a large rough stone with a peculiar legend attached to it like that related by Hiuen Tsiang in regard to Buddha's footprint stone. This huge capital by its beautiful workmanship, material, and the depth at which it was found amongst ruined walls seemed manifestly of Asoka's period or very soon after it. And the immense importance of this find is that it is the most Grecian sculpture yet found in India, excepting the capitals of Asoka's pillars and the 'Indo-Grecian' statues and friezes of the Panjab; and that it is found within the palace precincts of Asoka's own capital, and is probably of Asoka's own age!
The other 'finds' thus brought to light were portions of old brick walls ten to fifteen feet below the surface, also ancient wooden bridges and piers or 'ghats' along the ancient moats. These remains afforded clues to further promising sites for exploratory trenches. And in one of these positions, which I had thus indicated, Mr. Mills, assisted by his surveyor, Ahmed Hossain, had the rare good fortune in June 1896 to find (at 16 on map), about ten feet below the surface, the broken fragments of a gigantic pillar of Asoka, one of those polished colossal monoliths which that emperor set up and inscribed with his edicts when no rocks were near, and of which two existed in his capital at the time it was visited by the Chinese pilgrims. Fragments of nearly half of the whole pillar were recovered, but these unfortunately bore no trace of the inscription. This missing portion or fragments of it will probably be found by further excavation near this place, for this seems to be the original situation of the pillar, because the exposed fragments lie in the centre of a court bordered by rows of monastic cells, built of massive bricks of the old Buddhist period. The expense, however, of the deep excavations necessary for this purpose is almost prohibitive.
The discovery of this pillar of Asoka supplied another most important clue to the topography of the ancient palace and city. But this could not be followed up immediately, owing to the onset of the rainy season and the occurrence of famine in another part of the province withdrawing Mr. Mills from this work. Ultimately about the beginning of 1897 a subordinate of the Public Works Department was sent to carry out my instructions, but he only very partially followed them, and so advanced the research very little.
In March last (1899) I was permitted by Government to visit Patna for a few days to report upon the whole question of the excavations there, and especially to show what had been achieved and what still remained to be done in the way of practicable excavation at the site of the old palace of Asoka and the Mauryas. I went very carefully over the whole ground several times; and this in itself was no easy matter, as the old site extends over several square miles, and is thickly built over in great part, freely intersected with tortuous stretches of water— old channels of the river Son — and barred by groves and clumps of trees which cut off the view.
The result of this review of the situation, whilst confirming broadly and in most particulars my original identifications, as made at my two visits in 1892, extends considerably our knowledge of several important details, and especially so of the limits of the palace and the position of its chief monuments, as will be seen, in the accompanying map, plans, and photographs.
In detailing these particulars I shall first consider the question as to the boundaries of the old city, then the extent and boundaries of the palace, and afterwards the sites of the chief individual monuments as far as can be ascertained at present.