Archaeology of Religion in South Asia: Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres in Bihar and Bengal, c. AD 600–1200 9781032047119, 9781003194361

Citation preview

ARCHAEOLOGY OF RELIGION IN SOUTH ASIA In the religious landscape of early medieval (c. ad 600-1200) Bihar and Bengal, poly-religiousity was generally the norm than an exception, which entailed the evolution of complex patterns of interreligious equations. Buddhism, Brahmanism and Jainism not only coexisted but also competed for social patronage, forcing them to enter into complex interactions with social institutions and processes. Through an analysis of the published archaeological data, this work explores some aspects of the social history of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina temples and shrines, and Buddhist stūpas and monasteries in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. This archaeological history of religions questions many ‘established’ textual reconstructions, and enriches our understanding of the complex issue of the decline of Buddhism in this area. Birendra Nath Prasad is Assistant Professor at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, where he teaches social history of religion in India and Southeast Asia. His recent publications include Monasteries, Shrines and Society: Buddhist and Brahmanical Religious Institutions in India in their Socio-Economic Context (edited, Delhi, 2011); Rethinking Bihar and Bengal: History, Culture and Religion (Delhi, 2021); Social History of Indian Buddhism: New Researches (edited, Delhi, 2021, forthcoming), and many peerreviewed research articles in prestigious international journals such as Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies (Oxford), Buddhist Studies Review (London), Religions of South Asia (London/Sheffield) and Berlin Indological Studies.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres in Bihar and Bengal, c. AD 600-1200

B I REND RA NA T H PRA S AD

MANOHAR 2021

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Birendra Nath Prasad and Manohar Publishers & Distributors The right of Birendra Nath Prasad to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Print edition not for sale in South Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan or Bhutan) British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-032-04711-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-19436-1 (ebk) Typeset in Gentium Plus 11/13 by Ravi Shanker, Delhi 110095

Contents

1. Introduction

7

2. Geographical Background

54

3. Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts of Support Systems of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres in Early Medieval Bihar

83

4. Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts of Support Systems of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres in Early Medieval Bengal 143 5. Social Bases of Patronage to Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres: A Study of Dedicatory Inscriptions on Sculptures

231

6. Evolution of the Patronage Base of Buddhist and Brahmanical Religious Centres: A Study of Inscriptions on Copper Plates, Stone, Terracotta Seals and Sealings, and Metal Vases

381

7. Some Aspects of the Archaeology of Some Excavated Buddhist Sites of Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal

490

8. Concluison

602

6

Contents

Appendices 1. Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar having Structural or Sculptural Indications for the Presence of Religious Centres during the Early Historic and Early Medieval Periods

617

2. Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal (excluding Varendra) having Structural or Sculptural Indications for the Presence of Religious Centers during the Early Historic and Early Medieval Periods

667

3. Maps and Figures

701

Bibliography

723

Index

759

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Themes and Aims of Research Religion is something which people not only contemplate and philosophize about, but also something they actually ‘do’.1 The act of ‘doing’ religion by people, in many instances, includes making images of the deities in durable material; constructing shrines/temples for such deities; making pilgrimages to shrines/ temples/monasteries; dedicating material resources for arranging for their worship on a sustained basis; and leaving a permanent record of their patronage in the form of epigraphic records. To summarize, ‘doing’ religion by people often leaves important material traces in the form of archaeological records and imparts a certain degree of materiality to abstract religious thoughts. These archaeological records often provide important database to reconstruct some aspects of the religious practices and processes of the past. A study of the religious processes and practices of the past through an analysis of archaeological data may confirm, complement or contradict the existing text-based studies. Through an analysis of the published data, this work attempts an archaeological history of religious centres in early medieval (c. AD 600-1200) Bihar and Bengal. The area of study of this work consists of the Indian provinces of Bihar and West Bengal, and the Republic of Bangladesh. ‘Religious centres’ in this work stand for Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jaina temples and shrines, as well as for Buddhist stūpas and monasteries. The focus will be on Buddhist religious centres.

8

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

The intention is to study not only those religious centres whose structural remains have been found in archaeological explorations and excavations, but also those religious centres whose past existence is indicated by the presence of loose stone sculptures.2 By an ‘archaeological history’ of religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, it is basically intended to analyse the following issues: (a) The archaeological context of the area in which religious centres emerged, functioned and declined; (b) The archaeological data left behind by the religious centres with particular reference to their support systems and patterns of engagements with their devotees; and (c) The ritual and cultic developments taking place within the religious centres as discernible in the archaeological data. The first section will try to analyse how did religious centres interact with the social-economic and cultic processes in the locale in which they emerged, functioned and declined. In the second and third sections, main emphasis is on tracing the dialogues taking place within the religious centres, but here too, the emphasis has been on analysing the social history of these developments. So far, the focus has been generally on a single religious system of either Bihar or Bengal, generally from an art-historical perspective. A better approach may be to study religious centres as important elements of the overall social matrix, as institutions in dynamic interaction with other societal institutions and processes, acting and reacting with them, influencing them and getting influenced by them in turn. In the earlier reconstructions of social history of these religious centres, emphasis has been on literary sources, and insight from archaeological data has been largely neglected. This is despite the emphasizing of the need to correlate literary and archaeological data by many historians. R.S Sharma, for example, has emphasized the need to ‘marry’ history and archaeology for a proper understanding of religious processes of the past.3 In the case of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, this remains a sad desideratum.

Introduction

9

It is important to know why such a big area (Bihar and Bengal) has been taken up for for research here. A fundamental reason stems from the very nature of the present state of our main data base: early medieval archaeology. At the present state of archaeological research, in which, one will largely agree with B.D. Chattopadhyaya, ‘practically nothing is known of what is meant by “early medieval” archaeology’,4 studying a bigger area assumes the form of a compulsion to arrive at certain generalizations. Other reasons stem from some developments in the early medieval period. One of the most important developments was the evolution of ‘regions with their distinct cultural personalities’.5 It has been argued that this emergence of ‘regions with their distinct cultural personalities’ was facilitated by a number of factors: agrarian expansion, state formation and the spread of varṇa-jāti ideology in the areas that had hitherto remained peripheral to the middle and upper Ganga valley as well as some developments in the sphere of religion. In some significant studies, the role of Brahmanical temples and immigrant Brahmins in hastening the process of state formation and its consolidation, as well as the legitimation of new political elites in the hitherto peripheral areas, have been highlighted.6 How does the pattern, especially the functional role of religious centres, unfold when we move to Bengal from Bihar? Much of Bihar was, doubtlessly, one of the core areas in the early historic period. Bengal, on the other hand, is believed to have been a peripheral area in the same period in a significant section of existing scholarship.7 Do we also see functional differences in the role of religious centres during the early medieval period as we move from Bihar to Bengal? How does archaeological data reflect on this issue? In some aspects, Bihar and much of Bengal share many similarities, and in some other aspects, their historical trajectories are quite different. To have an idea of the elements of similarity, one may enumerate many things. Geographical proximity – a situation in which there is practically no geographical barrier between the Middle Ganga Plains and the

10

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Lower Ganga Plains – is probably the single biggest factor. These two valleys of the Ganga are connected through an intricate network of rivers, which facilitates easy communications. It was probably due to this reason that major political powers which had control in either part of the valley of the Ganga carried out expansion in the other part. Historical examples of this sort are provided by the Mauryas, the Guptas, the Pālas and the Senas. In the early medieval phase, larger parts of Bihar and Bengal were subject to the rule of the same dynasty under the Pālas and the Senas for at least 400 years. Much of Bihar and Bengal shared many cultural idioms (iconography, art, etc.) as well in this phase. Similarly, many Pāla period Buddhist monasteries in Bihar and Bengal functioned as closely linked institutions. Yet, despite these elements of similarity, we see some fundamental differences. By the end of this period, Bengal supposedly evolved into a distinct ‘cult region’.8 And, despite its supposed evolution as a ‘cult region’, we see a fundamental cultural shift – massive conversion to Islam in the areas that now constitute Bangladesh – that took place after the early medieval phase.9 Why was this cultural shift made possible? Was it due to the ‘fact’ that ‘in much of eastern Delta, rice agriculture and Islam were introduced simultaneously’,10 as eastern Bengal ‘experienced a transition to settled agriculture at the time that Islam took hold among common folk’?11 Or was it due to some particular aspects of the social history of the early medieval religious centres of this area? How does archaeological data reflect on this issue? To have a fuller understanding of these issues, it is imperative to contextualize the developments in early medieval Bengal in the backdrop of the developments in early medieval Bihar. This work hopes to be a humble attempt in that direction.

Review of Literature In the reconstruction of religious processes in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, a common tendency has been to rely on literary sources and neglect the insights from archaeological sources. If archaeological data is used, generally the emphasis

Introduction

11

happens to be on tracing the stylistic evolution of sculptures;12 or on tracing the architectural evolution of excavated Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres, but generally in isolation from the religious and socio-economic developments taking place in the broader area where these religious centres emerged, functioned and declined.13 Generally, the emphasis has been on ‘monumental’ religious centres: Buddhist monastic centres or big Brahmanical or Jaina temples. Not much attention has been paid to the more modest religious centres that dotted a significant part of the landscape. This neglect is despite the realization that religious centres functioned as parts of a hierarchical network.14 Not much attempt has been made to situate the ‘monument’ in the backdrop of socio-economic and cultic processes in a region or sub-region as reflected through archaeological data. Another common tendency in a major section of existing studies on this theme has been to study the developments in Buddhism, Brahmanism and Jainism in isolation from one another. That may not be a holistic approach. We have taken into account all major institutional religions of this period and we have also tried to see the developments taking place in Bengal in the backdrop of the same taking place in Bihar. Attempt has been made to analyse the cultic developments taking place in the ‘monumental’ religious centres in the backdrop of socio-economic and cultic processes in the area where they emerged, functioned and declined. The need for the kind of study attempted in this book stems from some significant gaps in existing scholarship related to the subject. In the context of early medieval Bihar, the focus in available writings is generally on tracing the archaeological personality of select portions of Bihar or on the art of some Buddhist monastic centres mainly on the basis of collating data from the available publications. In this category of works, we may include A.K. Singh (Archaeology of Magadha Region, Ramanand Vidya Bhavan, Delhi, 1991); B.K. Sinha (Archaeology of North Bihar, Ramanand Vidya Bhavan, Delhi, 1999); R.C. Prasad (Archaeology of Champa and Vikramashila, Ramanand Vidya Bhavan, Delhi, 1987); B.M. Kumar (Archaeology of Pataliputra and Nalanda,

12

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Ramanand Vidya Bhavan, Delhi, 1987); Kumar Anand ( Archaeology of Buxar, Bhojpur and Rohtas Regions, Ramanand Vidya Bhavan, Delhi, 1995); B.N. Mishra ( Nālandā, vols. I-III, D.K. Printworld, Delhi, 1998); Kiran Sahay (Vikramaśilā: Itihāsa Evam Purātattva, Bauddha Sanskriti Kendra, Patna, 1998); L.B. Swarnakar (The Historical Geography of Ancient Angadesa, Indian Publishers’ Distributors, Delhi, 2007); Rajiv Kumar Sinha and Om Prakash Pandey (eds), Aṅga Sanskriti: Vividha Āyāma, Indian Book Market, Bhagalpur, 2006; Ramnivas Singh (Pāṭaliputra: Purātātvika Avalokana, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 2008) and Rashmi Sinha (Uttara Bihār mein Purātattva kā Udbhava aur Vikāsa, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 2010). Even when new database is generated through archaeological fieldwork, we notice a reluctance to trace the shifts in the areas of occupation, if any; possible changes in the nature and extent of archaeological assemblage; and the location of the religious centres in the overall settlement matrix. We may note this trend in B.K. Chowdhary (The Archaeological Gazetteer of Vaishali District, K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 2015; The Archaeological Gazetteer of Nalanda District, K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 2015). In Bengal, reconstructions of the social history of religion for the whole of early medieval Bengal have generally relied on literary sources or literary sources in association with epigraphic sources. Archaeology has not formed the main prism through which the social history of religions is reconstructed. Available studies of this kind include Kunal Chakrabarti (Religious Process: The Purāṇas and the Making of a Regional Tradition, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2001); Rama Chatterjee (Religion in Bengal during Pāla and Sena Times: Mainly on the Basis of Epigraphic and Archaeological Sources, Punthi Pustaka, Calcutta, 1985); J. Bagchi (The History and Culture of the Palas of Bengal and Bihar: Cir. 750 A.D.1200 A.D., New Delhi, Abhinav Publications, 1993); Gayatri Sen Majumdar (Buddhism in Ancient Bengal, Navana, Calcutta, 1983); Puspa Niyogi;15 Debajani Mitra (A Survey of Jainism and Jaina Art of Eastern India with Special Emphasis on Bengal from the Earliest Period to the Thirteenth Century, Kolkata, 2004); R.B. Barua,16 Chitaranjan Patra17 and Paola Tinti.18 For early medieval Bengal, most of the

Introduction

13

available studies that attempt to theorize the functional roles of religious centres by situating them in the archaeological context of the area in which these religious centres emerged and functioned are largely confined to the Rāḍha sub-region.19 Such studies have generally concentrated on the role of Jaina religious centres in hastening the transition to a more complex economy and society in this sub-region of early medieval Bengal.20 Similar studies need to be undertaken in other sub-regions of Bengal as well.21 That will help to revisit some major limitations of some sweeping generalizations.22 There is also need to contrast the patterns observed in Bengal with the patterns observed in Bihar. This work attempts an archaeological history of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal in the backdrop of an analysis of some important studies that have been done on some other parts of India.

Archaeology of Religion in India: Some Emerging Paradigms For early historic and early medieval India, the implications of relying totally on literary sources for the study of religious process of the past have been noted well by Gregory Schopen. In the case of Indian Buddhism, nay Indian religions in general, this preference to the literary sources has been internalized to such an extent that even when archaeological data is used, archaeology is treated as ‘the handmaiden of history’, which creates many discrepancies.23 This particular development was most probably related to the way in which the study of Indian Buddhism as a discipline evolved in the West. Indian Buddhism has generally not been studied from an ‘emic’ perspective, may be due to the fact that when European scholars began to undertake a serious academic study of Indian Buddhism in the nineteenth century, they imposed a typical ‘Reformation’ and ‘Protestant Ethics’ on a tradition which was almost dead and spent in India by that time.24 When Indian scholars began to study it, they generally studied it through the methodology they were most familiar

14

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

with: treating the normative literary sources as narrative ones. Hardly any attempt was made to correlate the textual picture with the lived reality. This tendency produced some discrepancies. To quote Schopen: It is hardly revolutionary to suggest that, had the academic study of religion started quite literally on the ground, it would have been confronted with very different problems. It would have had to ask very different questions, and it would have produced very different solutions. It would, in short, have become not the History of Religions – which was and is essentially text bound – but the Archaeology of Religions. It would have used texts, of course, but only that could be shown to have been actually known or read at a given place at a given time, or to have governed or shaped the kind of religious behaviour that has left traces on the ground. In fact texts would have been judged significant only if they could be shown to be related to what religious people actually did. This Archaeology of Religion would have been primarily occupied with three broad subjects of study then: religious constructions and architectures, inscriptions and art historical remains. In a more general sense, though, it would have been preoccupied not with what small, literate, almost exclusively male and certainly atypical professionalized subgroups wrote, but rather, with what religious people of all segments of a given community actually did and how they lived.25

Of course, one of the things people actually did was to write religious texts and preserve them, and venerate them in some cases.26 The importance of textual tradition cannot be totally denied in the study of the religious processes of the past. But we need to take into account what archaeology had to say in this complicated issue. We need to contrast the pictures discernible in archaeological and literary sources, because, as has been rightly pointed out earlier, ‘archaeological material does not only confirm or deny a textual hypothesis but, at times, it also tells us new stories’.27 Some important studies along these lines have been undertaken in the recent past. Available studies include some macro theorizations for the whole of India, as well as more in-depth studies of select regions. Both Hinduism and Buddhism

Introduction

15

have attracted attention from these perspectives. One may mention D.K. Chakrabarti’s generalizations on the archaeology of Hinduism, in which he has emphasized on the archaeology of practices associated with Hinduism;28 largely a similar observation and theoretical approach of Robin Coningham’s generalizations on the archaeology of Buddhism;29 and H.P. Ray’s generalizations on the ‘archaeology of sacred space’.30 Ray argues for a multiplicity of the patronage base of religious centres and multiple roles performed by religious centres, not just their functioning as an instrument for royal legitimacy.31 She has, however, overlooked the implications of the geographical distribution pattern of religious centres and the role of religious centres in the complex process of transformation of vana to kṣetra; araṇya to janapada.32 As indicated by Talbot’s analysis of spatial variations in the functional roles of Kakatiya period Brahmanical temples,33 temples had to negotiate this spatial variation. For early historic and early medieval South Asia, archaeological history of Brahmanical, Buddhist or Jaina religious centres and their functional differentiations as per the variations in the geographical space have not been analysed much. These questions have been analysed in some studies in some parts of India and they have shown interesting results. One may begin with D.K. Chakrabarti’s pioneering study of Jaina temples at Pakbira in Purulia district of West Bengal. Chakrabarti has noted the largely Protohistoric nature of the area and has rightly postulated that Jainism was acting as a civilizing factor in this part of Bengal, aiding and abetting the transition to secondary state formation in Manbhum.34 This pioneering study, unfortunately, could not inspire any serious study of religious centres of early medieval Bengal from an archaeological perspective for a long time. In some other parts of early historic and early medieval India, implications of distribution pattern of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres as reflected in archaeological data has been analysed in some detail and they provide interesting inferences. One may mention the works of Susan Verma Mishra in this context.35 In her thesis, she has

16

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

basically concentrated on the chronological distribution pattern of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres from the third century BC to the eighth century AD by plotting them on the map of Gujarat and their socio-economic implications. A particular theme of enquiry is the socio-economic organization of settlements near which Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres emerged to infer the possible support system of these religious centres. A similar study of the relative distribution pattern of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres has been attempted by Anita R. for early historic and early medieval eastern Deccan.36 In tracing the socialization strategies of temples as reflected through archaeological data, she takes into account the area of temple (i.e. is it massive or modest in dimensions); the presence or absence of maṇḍapa (which explains whether or not the temple had facility for the congregation of the devotees); the degree of ornamentation; whether or not it was enclosed with a masonry enclosure (the presence of enclosure will indicate that a deliberate attempt was made to segregate the temple from the rest of the settlement); the presence or absence of varimārga; to understand the relationship between the temple and the community and the degree of the participation of the community in temple rituals.37 A similar methodology has been used by H.P. Ray in the archaeological study of temples in the Chalukyan regions in the Deccan.38 She has looked into the archaeological evidences of temples in the pre-Chalukyan phase, to argue that temple construction began much earlier than the Chalukyas, without any kind of royal patronage; and changes in the distribution pattern of temples over the centuries. Whether the Chalukya period temple sites had an earlier settlement history? In reconstructing the social history of temples, she has basically analysed the inscriptions on temples. S. Khamari (Archaeology of Early Orissan Temple, Delhi, 2012) largely following a similar methodology, and basing his study mainly on the analysis of copper-plate inscriptions, has looked into an additional issue: representation of the king in temple architecture. This type

Introduction

17

of study is difficult to undertake in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, basically due to the fact that there are a few surviving temples dating back to the early medieval times. Bihar and Bengal present a different kind of data base. In the case of archaeological studies of Buddhist religious centres, the focus has been mainly on the use of archaeological data (dedicatory inscriptions, votive stūpas, votive tablets, etc.) in tracing the support system;39 the socio-religious dimensions of architectural evolution;40 the pilgrimage geography of a particular Buddhist religious centre as reflected in archaeological data;41 or the settlement history of the landscape in which Buddhist religious centres emerged, functioned and declined.42 It must be stated here that we will not attempt a primary documentation of data in the archaeological landscape of any Buddhist monastic site due to personal limitations. Besides, it may be untenable to generalize the inferences obtained from the study of archaeological landscape of one monastery to the whole of Bihar and Bengal. Recently, Lars Fogelin has attempted to synthesize the published archaeological data to attempt a Pan-Indian archaeological history of Indian Buddhism.43 Much of his work is based on an analysis of monastic and stūpa architecture. He argues that in the initial phase (i.e. till the emergence of the Mahāyāna) the Saṅgha had greater ritual interaction with the laity. He arrives at this conclusion by ascertaining the extent to which ritual spots within Buddhist religious centres were made accessible to the laity by the Saṅgha. He argues that till the emergence of the Mahāyāna, most of the Buddhist religious centres that emerged near or at important pilgrimage centres, had an architectural programme that allowed the laity to access stūpas, undertake ritual activities there and make merit. Both the monks and laity shared the ritual space of the stūpas. As the Saṅgha did not receive any land grant from royal authorities, so it was forced to make this concession to the laity. But the pattern changed with the emergence of Mahāyāna. The Saṅgha not only initiated the cult of images, it also tried to use this new

18

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

development (cult of images) to enforce a kind of ritual segregation from the non-elite laity. Shrines to accommodate the images of the Buddha, etc., were constructed within the vihāras. These ‘in-house’ shrines were intended for the exclusive use of monks. ‘In-house’ shrines became the focus of the ritual activity of monks, not the stūpa that was located outside monastic enclosure. Monks were no longer required to share ritual space with the non-elite laity. The Saṅgha could afford it, because it was no longer dependent solely on the patronage provided by the laity: it was receiving land grants from the political elites. As the Saṅgha got relative freedom from dependence on the patronage provided by the laity, it turned into an increasing scholasticism. As the Saṅgha enforced a ritual isolation from the non-elite laity, the non-elite laity returned the favour by increasingly turning to rival religions (Hinduism, Jainism). This tendency of enforcing isolation increased in the early medieval phase. Hindu and Jaina religious centres, on the other hand, were more open in accommodating the ritual needs of their non-elite lay devotees. With the Turkic destruction of some Buddhist monastic centres, and the loss of revenue base in the wake of the foundation of the Turkic rule, monastic Buddhism gradually came to an end. It could not continue because it did not have any support base in the laity, which, for ritual needs, had already found solace in Hindu and Jaina traditions. In this aspect, his argument is remarkably similar to that of N.N. Bhattacharyya. His arguments are interesting but they have some gaps. His is a Saṅgha-centric work. He has not looked into the implications of the proliferation of settlement-shrines, differential alignments of votive stūpas vis-à-vis monastic religious space, or the dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures. The cult of images not only facilitated an ‘in-house’ worship of the Buddha or other Buddhist deities for the monks, but, as we shall see in this work, also the emergence of settlement-shrines and Buddhist temples not attached to any monastic centre. In other words, the proliferation of the cult of images ensured a spatial expansion of Buddhism and a kind of delinking of the fate of Buddhism with the fate of

Introduction

19

its monastic centres, at least in the context of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. It must also be stated that Fogelin has attempted blanket generalization regarding the issue of patterns of ritual interactions between the Saṅgha and the laity, but the very use of the term ‘archaeological history’ demands a more micro-handling of the data to understand the variations. As we shall see in this work, this was not the case that every single monastic centre of Bihar and Bengal enforced a deliberate policy of ritual isolation from the laity. Some monastic centres with big land-holdings (Nalanda Mahāvihāra, for example) took determined efforts to attract and retain patronage from the non-elite laity; some attempted to enforce total ritual segregation from the laity: there was no uniform pattern across early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Similarly, an analysis of the sociology of dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures may fetch an altogether different result than what has been argued by Fogelin. These archaeological studies of Brahmanical and Buddhist religious centres of other parts of India provide some interesting insights on the significance of archaeological data in tracing the social history of religions in different parts of India, but they are difficult to be replicated for early medieval Bihar and Bengal. This is due to some fundamental differences in the nature of the database. Surviving temples of early historic or early medieval origin in Bihar and Bengal are rare. What we have are some excavated Buddhist stūpas and monastic sites, some surviving temples mostly in ruins in a very small zone of Bihar and Bengal; 44 and hundreds, if not thousands, of loose stone sculptures. In contrast to many other parts of India, most of the Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal were made of bricks. The survival of such brick-built religious centres in a zone of heavy monsoon rainfall, frequent floods and intense population pressure is very difficult. In short, archaeology of religion in early medieval Bihar and Bengal requires a somewhat different kind of methodology than what has been employed in the study of some other parts of India. This also requires a broadening of archaeological

20

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

parameters of identifying Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. This is also required in treating big stone sculptures as archaeological markers of past existence of religious centres at the places where they were found or in their neighbourhood.

Brahmanical Stone Sculptures as Markers of the Past Existence of Temples/Shrines In the context of ancient and early medieval Bihar and Bengal, religious sculptures have been mainly used for art-historical purposes, generally in isolation from temple architecture. It is generally overlooked that they could have belonged to temples. This possibility was indeed pointed out by some early pioneers. Prof. S.K. Saraswati, for example, has noted that ‘architecture and sculpture go hand in hand’.45 In fact, ‘in India, the two should be regarded as but branches of the same art, the art of worship if one may be allowed to use to the term’.46 On the basis of analysis of some textual sources, he has rightly argued that, The doctrine of Bhakti lead to the creation of the plastic symbol of the god (deva), i.e. his image (aarchchā, pratimā). For the enshrinement of image was required the temple, as the canonical injunction prohibits the worship of images above a certain height in private chapels and prescribe public temples for their proper installation and construction. For the image was thus created the temple and for the temple, again, were required other images in plastic forms, as much for its embellishment and beautification as for the satisfaction of the canonical need for setting up, along with the presiding deity, attendant divinities (parivāra devatā, pārśva devtās), doorkeepers (dvārapālas) and the like in the different niches of the temple walls. Thus was the relationship of architecture and sculpture inseparable in India.47

If the pioneering scholarship of Prof. S.K. Saraswati arrived at this conclusion on the basis of textual sources, art-historians and archaeologists of later generations, working on Bihar and Bengal, arrived at a similar conclusion on the basis of art-historical and archaeological evidences. S.L. Huntington, for example, has noted in the context of the Pāla-Sena period sculptures that,

Introduction

21

Most of the images from Bihar and Bengal are in a stele format. They were invariably made as separate images to be set in to shrines or niches (presumably in brick temples which are, for the most part, now lost), and thus, they contrast to the architectural sculpture of other contemporary art schools in India, such as that of the Chandellas of Bundelakhand, where so many images were part of the actual fabric of the temple.48

That many ancient and early medieval Brahmanical temples of Bihar and Bengal were generally made of brick – stone was used only exceptionally – has been noted by many scholars.49 These brick structures were unlikely to survive the humid climate and floods of Bengal.50 We may extend the same logic to most of Bihar. This feature has been noted particularly in the case of Bangladesh. D.K. Chakrabarti has also argued that ‘treating sculptures as any other category of archaeological data may be significant in a region like Bangladesh where heavy rainfall combined with monsoon floods in many areas have possibly obliterated all other evidences of ancient settlements except sculptures’.51 One also largely agrees with his contention that ‘a detailed study of the distribution of sculptures in this period should throw a lot of light on the spread of settlements in different parts of Bangladesh: even the mere enumeration of number of sculptural pieces found in different areas is likely to provide some insights into the relative significance of different areas in different periods’.52 Sculptures are, of course, archaeological markers of past settlements. But they are more than that. They are primarily objects of worship, worshipped in brickbuilt religious centres, open air shrines, or, in some exceptional cases in the context of early medieval Bihar and Purulia area of Bengal, also in stone temples. Their chronological plotting on a map will provide important inferences regarding the spread of religious centres in Bengal. We will also like to point out that much of West Bengal and Bihar suffer from heavy rainfall and floods. There is no reason why the inferences arrived at in the case of Bangladesh may not be extended to Bihar and West Bengal. In fact, the fragility of

22

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

brick-built temples is evident even in the driest zone of Bihar: old Shahabad and Gaya districts. Colonial archaeologist (Cunningham, etc.) have left graphic details of some early medieval brick temples of this area, but these temples are now no more than mere mounds. If this is the case in the driest zone of Bihar, one may easily visualize the situation in more floodprone areas and zones of heavier rainfall. In such situations, stone sculptures would be often the only evidence to postulate the previous presence of Brahmanical temples in that area. It may also be noted that in many cases, many stone sculptures were enshrined in even more perishable structures or in open-air shrines. In this context, we may refer to D.K. Chakrabarti’s observations on a site called Ratan in the West Dinajpur district of West Bengal, where he found a mound, 100 m across and 8 m high. The eastern part of the mound has been dug into by local villagers, leading to the exposure of ‘what was possibly the major east-facing gateway entrance to the temple which was built on the top of a mud platform supported by a burnt brick retaining wall around it’.53 The staircase leading to the top of the platform through the eastern entrance was found to be destroyed. Two Viṣṇu sculptures were also found on this mound.54 All this made him conclude that One may think of small village temples of the type that we found at Ratan: a mud platform with a burnt brick retaining wall and steps to reach to the top of the platform on one side; the temple which possibly was not brick-built (it has left no trace) at the centre of the platform, and a couple of stone Viṣṇu images. One suspects that most of the images that we find in our study area came from village temples of this kind.55

Let’s sum up our arguments now. We are justified in treating the loose stone sculptures – especially those of the Pāla-Sena period coming in the stele format – as indicators of the past existence of Brahmanical temples – either brick built, or of the kind as noted by D.K. Chakrabarti for the site of Ratan – at a particular site or in its neighbourhood. This approach has indeed been adopted by Frederick Asher,56 S.L. Huntington,57 Claudine

Introduction

23

Bautze-Picron,58 Gautam Sengupta59 and S.K. Jha60 for Brahmanical stone sculptures for Bihar and Bengal. In the case of Jaina stone sculptures, Rupendra Kumar Chattopadhayay61 and Shubha Majumder62 have put forward similar arguments for the PuruliaBankura area of West Bengal. These studies give valuable insights. But we have yet to see a concerted study of distribution pattern of Brahmanical and Jaina sculptures as markers of past existence of Brahmanical and Jaina temples and shrines for the whole of Bihar and Bengal.

Archaeological Parameters of Identifying a ‘Buddhist’ Site: Some Methodological Issues While there is a general unanimity among scholars to treat Brahmanical religious sculptures of early medieval Bihar and Bengal as markers of past existence of a Brahmanical temple at a site, a similar unanimity eludes vis-à-vis loose Buddhist sculptures which are found away from reported monastic sites. This is due to some fundamental debate on defining the archaeological parameters of identifying a ‘Buddhist’ site. When should a site be called a Buddhist site? D.K. Chakrabarti has argued that architecturally, one or all of the following elements should be present at a Buddhist site: ‘the stūpa, the chaitya worship hall containing a stūpa, and the vihāra or the monastery’.63 Apart from the obvious limitations of ‘monumental’ archaeology, this tripartite scheme – the stūpa, the chaitya worship hall containing a stūpa, and the vihāra – generally represents a Saṅgha-centric attitude to Buddhism, what Robin Coninghum calls ‘the archaeology of “formal Buddhist sites”, generally directed to the interpretation of the smallest group within the Buddhist community, the Saṅgha’.64 This attitude is somewhat similar to those historiographical models which propound that Buddhism had no presence beyond the monastic walls. The lay practice of Buddhism might have centred on the worship of images enshrined in different sanctuaries and shrines. This perception has slowly started gaining acceptance. For example, Debala Mitra argues that in the Mahāyāna phase, the free

24

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

standing Buddhist images could have been enshrined in temples.65 What she has argued for the ‘Mahāyāna phase’ could be easily extended for the early medieval Bihar and Bengal when we see a massive proliferation in the number of loose sculptures. To this, one more thing may be added. Debala Mitra has stated that there was no difference in the treatment of Buddhist, Jain and Brahmanical temples produced in a particular zone at a given period.66 As most of the art historians (Asher, Huntington, etc.) have noted, Brahmanical temples of early medieval Bihar and Bengal were rarely made of stone. They were either made of burnt bricks, or of, as noted in the case of the site of Ratan, more perishable materials. They are unlikely to survive the vagaries of nature and time. We may, building on the arguments of Mitra, believe that this was also the case with Buddhist shrines, sanctuaries and temples in early medieval Bihar and Bengal: they too were made of burnt bricks; stone was generally not used. Buddhist sculptures are indeed one of the indicators of the past presence of a Buddhist religious centre at a particular site. This is also supported by the fact that on the prabhāvalī of many Pāla period sculptures – including Buddhist sculptures – a variety of temples or shrines has been depicted, which are, one will largely agree with Enamul Haque, in all likelihood, replicas of existing structures and as such help us in understanding elevation and superstructure of many of them’.67 The question that needs to be explored is: were all of them found within the monastic precincts only, or some of them were independent temples/shrines, existing independently at those places where monastic Buddhism was not present? To analyse this question, it is imperative to briefly discuss the complex relationship between Buddhist temples/shrines and Buddhist monasteries in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Within the Buddhist monasteries of Bihar and Bengal, temples became a regular feature of the monastic architecture, sixth-seventh centuries AD onwards.68 From this time onwards, temples rather than the caityas started occupying an important position within the monastery.69 As indicated by the example of

Introduction

25

Nalanda Temple Site 2, we see the emergence of at least one temple which was technically not within the monastic enclosure, yet very close to it. A similar pattern is seen in the context of a temple dedicated to Tārā at Satyapira Bhita, situated at a little distance from the monastic walls of Paharpur. Eighth-ninth centuries AD onwards, we see an important change: emergence of independent Buddhist temple/shrine not associated with any monastery. In the context of Bengal, this is best exemplified by the excavated site of Khodar Pathar mound, which is located within the fortification walls of the city of Mahasthan. Excavations at the site in 1970 resulted in the unearthing of a Buddhist temple and associated antiquities.70 The east facing temple was a rectangular brick shrine with stone pavement and foundation walls.71 The temple measured 24 × 15 ft and had stone foundation all round up to a height of 3 ft.72 On the top of this stone wall, the building was of brick-in-clay masonry, but the doorjambs, the lintels and the ornamental portions above the door were built of stone.73 The discovery of a stone sculpture depicting a figure of the Buddha in dhyāna mudrā flanked by two figures of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā in the excavation of this site, and the absence of any Brahmanical or Jaina sculptures or antiquities proved the Buddhist nature of this temple.74 It may also be noted that so far no Buddhist monastery has been reported from within the fortification walls of the city of Mahasthan. The nearest known monastic centres – the sites of Bihar and Vasu Bihar – are located at a distance of 4 and 5 miles respectively from the fortification walls of the city. All this proves that the site of Khodar Pathar mound represented a Buddhist temple independent of any monastic or stūpa centre.75 If the urbanites of Mahasthan could worship a Buddhist deity in a shrine not attached to any monastery, there is no reason to believe why their rural counterparts would not have constructed shrines. Similarly, there is no reason why this argument cannot be extended to early medieval Bihar. In fact, in the context of early medieval Gaya district, which witnessed a significant increase in

26

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

the number of sites bearing Buddhist stone sculptures, it has been claimed that such sculptures are the only surviving vestiges of the past existence of ‘settlement-shrines’ at those sites.76 The term ‘settlement-shrine’ has been used to describe those ‘small shrines with single or multiple sculptures that came up within or near the rural settlements throughout the area’. 77 The proliferation of ‘settlement-shrines’ ensured that devotees ‘could worship the Buddha (and related Buddhist deities) in their neighbourhood rather than going to the larger regional monastic centres or to Bodh Gaya’.78 It has also been rightly argued that ‘the heavy concentration of ‘settlement-shrines’ in the area demonstrates a substantial lay-following and the development of Buddhist piety away from the main centres’.79 It may also be noted that many eminent epigraphists have also recognized the existence of Buddhist shrines/ temples not attached to any monastic centre: D.C. Sircar;80 N.K. Bhattasali81 and N.G. Majumdar.82 Some art historians have also supported the theory of the existence of such Buddhist temples and shrines in early medieval Bengal through a combined analysis of sculptural and textual data.83 But the implications of the existence of Buddhist shrines and temples not attached to monastic centres in the history of religions in the Bihar-Bengal area were, unfortunately, not taken up for detailed analysis in later studies. Let us sum up our arguments now. The category of ‘Buddhist religious centres’ in early medieval Bihar and Bengal was not confined to monastic Buddhism. We need to take into consideration Buddhist ‘settlement-shrines’ and temples not attached to any monastery as well. We are not saying that every single loose Buddhist stone sculpture found away from the known monastic centres represents the past existence of a Buddhist temple/‘settlement-shrine’, but many of them did represent the same. Such stone sculptures, found away from the known monastic centres, were also objects of worship in some category of Buddhist religious centres. That should also be taken into account in formulating generalizations on the nature and

Introduction

27

spatial distribution pattern of Buddhist religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. If this approach is accepted, then sculptures provide another important database to reconstruct the social history of temples and ‘settlement-shrines’. When we study the cultic identity of sculptures, it will indicate what was the cultic focus of the religious centres where they were worshipped. A contextual and chronological analysis of comparative distribution pattern of sculptures belonging to different religious traditions (Buddhist, Brahmanical, Jaina) in an area will throw important light on the relative strength of these religions there. It will also throw valuable light on the patterns of interactions between these religions. An analysis of dedicatory inscriptions on such sculptures will indicate the social background of patrons who patronized such religious centres by installing the image therein after proper ritual process (Prāṇapratiṣṭhā). Bihar and Bengal have a large corpus of sculptures inscribed with the name of the donors who donated them either to an existing religious centre or to religious centres caused to be built by them. An analysis of the sociological aspects of such inscriptions will provide important glimpses of the social bases of patronage to such religious centres. These inscriptions have been generally used for art-historical studies or for the reconstruction of political history. We hope to use them for a reconstruction of the social history of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal.

Some Recent Studies and their Implications for our Study It may be noted that some impressive studies have been undertaken on some parts of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, as well as on Odisha, by using the distribution pattern of sculptures as well as their typology. We may mention the works of S.K. Jha,84 Ranjusri Ghosh,85 Eun-Su Lee86 and Umakant Mishra.87 As a significant portion of our work bears a fundamental

28

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

imprint of methodologies devised by these scholars, it is imperative to discuss their works in some detail. S.K. Jha, in many ways, may be regarded as a pioneer in developing this methodology. His study involved an intensive archaeological survey of the Darbhanga and Madhubani districts of north Bihar, which resulted in the discovery of 21 sites bearing sculptures or sculptures and other archaeological markers of past existence of religious centres. He analysed the implications of location of a particular kind of sculpture at a particular place.88 As a whole, his methodology largely involved plotting of sculptures on the map at the Block (modern administrative divisions consisting of many villages) level. In which Block, sculptures of which religious affiliation penetrated first? What kind of presence do they indicate for the religious centres of that tradition in that area: marginal or dominant? Which religion penetrated later? If Buddhism penetrated in an area of overwhelming Brahmanical presence and carved out small spheres of influence, what kind of Buddhism was followed by its adherents as indicated by the types of Buddhist sculptures found in that area? Do Brahmanical, Buddhist or Jaina sculptures tend to concentrate in any particular Block? How does the pattern evolve with time and what reflections do they have on the inter-religious equations in that area? He explored this question by taking into account the number and frequency of sculptures of a particular religion in the sites of the area and the average distance between two such sites having these sculptures. Thus, if the sculptures of a particular religious tradition are found in good numbers at different sites of a particular Block, and if they outnumber the sculptures of other religions consistently, then he assigns a dominant role to this religion in that particular area. It is on this basis that he argues for a dominant presence of Brahmanism in this entire tract. Within Brahmanical sculptures, sculptures of Viṣṇu had the most diffused presence. A relative paucity of early medieval Śākta sculptures in the area made him argue that the present day’s Śākta character of the area does not have much early medieval roots: this area became

Introduction

29

famous for its Śākta-Tantric tradition after the decline of Vajrayāna Buddhism in the area. Ranjusri Ghosh in her study of the religious centres of early historic and early medieval Varendra area (i.e. the tract of land bounded by the river Mahananda in the west, Ganga in the south, and Karatoya/Brahmaputra in the east) of Bengal, has adopted a similar methodology. The early medieval period has been divided into two phases: (1) the phase up to the end of the tenth century (i.e. post-Gupta and early Pāla period); (2) The period after the end of the tenth century. She has undertaken a locality-wise analysis (areas covered by the modern police stations) for both phases. What is the relative number of findings of sculptures (Buddhist, Jaina, Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, Śākta, Saura, different Brahmanical mother goddesses, etc.) in the first phase in a particular locality? Through this, she analyses: (1) which sect was having a dominant presence in locality? If the sculptures of a particular sect consistently outnumber sculptures of other religious denominations, then she assigns a dominant presence of a particular cult in that locality. (2) Which religion was only nominally present in a locality, and (3) which religion was practically absent in the same. What changes do we see in this pattern during the second phase? Her endeavour is based not on the primary documentation of sculptures and sites, but on the published data. Her analysis indicated a more diffused presence of Brahmanical religious centres in all parts of Varendra. Buddhism too had a diffused presence, and, as indicated by the proliferation of Buddhist sculptures in the Pāla period, it too was an expanding religion. But its expansion was overshadowed by a greater expansion of Brahmanism. In most of the cases, where Buddhist sculptures were discovered, they ‘tend to show the existence of some Buddhist shrines within an overwhelming Brahmanical presence’.89 Umakant Mishra, in the context of early medieval Odisha, has followed a similar methodology by analysing the distribution pattern of Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures. That helps him understand in which area Buddhism had early penetration, in

30

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

which area it penetrated late. Are Buddhist sculptures found at the sites that are quite close to the sites where Brahmanical sculptures are found? Whether, and in how many instances, Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures are found at the same site? If they are found at the same site, what is their relative proportion? Do Buddhist sculptures tend to concentrate in any particular area? Are they practically absent in any area? Sculptural plotting is correlated with extant ruins of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres (temples, stūpas and monastic ruins). On the basis of this exercise, he argues for a simultaneous expansion of both Buddhism and Brahmanism in most parts of early medieval Odisha and evolution of poly-religiosity in the same. Within Buddhist sculptures, an overwhelming category was formed by the sculptures of what he calls ‘instrumental deities’: those deities that were worshipped for the fulfilment of some laukika needs of devotees. Deities highlighting violent conflict with Brahmanism (Trailokyavijaya, Aparājitā, etc.) were practically absent, so were the deities that display explicit sexual imagery (Yab-yum deities). It is on this basis that he argues that Vajrayāna, as practiced away from monastic centres, was an ‘instrumental’ religion concerned with fulfilling the laukika needs of its devotees.90 Eun-Su Lee seems to have adopted a similar methodology. As per her analysis, miniature Buddhist sculptures (bronze and stone sculptures whose height range between 5 × 30 cm) were possibly worshipped in a more private setting, such as in a monastic cell or at the residence of the lay devotees.91 Sculptures above this height were large sculptures, meant for worship in public religious centres.92 A chronological plotting of both categories of sculptures by analysing their cultic affiliation and identity provided some interesting inferences. In the Dhaka area (including Vikrampur–Faridpur area), the earliest sculptures dated back to the ninth century, they were all large stone steles of Tantric Buddhist goddesses, most probably worshipped in public shrines. As indicated by the presence of large stone steles (about 80 to 150 cm in height) of Buddhist Tantric goddesses (Parṇaśabarī, Mārīcī, Mahāpratiśarā, etc.), these deities remained

Introduction

31

significant cult objects of worship in public religious centres.93 Other Buddhist deities (Buddha, Tārā, etc.) that are found so commonly in other parts of early medieval Bihar and Bengal could never match the popularity of the cult of these Tantric goddesses in the Vikrampur area.94 On this basis, she argues for the presence of a different kind of Buddhism in the Vikrampur area than what was present in Varendra or Samataṭa. This is an interesting method of using sculptures in reconstructing the forms of Buddhism practiced in a particular area. She has, unfortunately, not contextualized the developments in Buddhism in this area in the background of the data supplied by Brahmanical stone sculptures from the same area. These impressive studies motivate us to attempt similar studies in other parts of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. It must be put on record here that we will not attempt to study the distribution pattern of sculptures in Varendra. This is basically due to the fact that our methodology is largely similar to what has been adopted by Ranjusri Ghosh and, with largely the same set of data base; the results are unlikely to be different. In the Dhaka-Vikrampur area, we will try to contextualize the practice of Buddhism in the backdrop of the data supplied by Brahmanical stone sculptures from the same area. In all other parts of early medieval Bihar and Bengal – from Siwan and Shahabad in the west to Sylhet and Chittagong in the east – we will try to study the distribution pattern, cultic affiliations and spatial context of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina sculptures and we will try to correlate them with the data left by excavated/explored religious centres. This exercise will help us revisit many commonly held notions regarding the nature of Buddhism and its presence beyond the walls of its monastic centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. In the context of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, historical reconstructions of the social history of Buddhism show two extremes: a total lack of presence of Buddhism beyond its monastic walls95 and its very strong presence in society, especially in Bengal, where it allegedly became ‘too strong to survive’, that is to say, it became so strong that it invited concerted Brahmanical hostility and declined due to this very

32

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

reason during the Sena period.96 Our study will suggest that we should rather look for a madhyamamārga between these two extremes.

Reconstructions of the Form(s) of Buddhism Practiced in the Buddhist Religious Centres of Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal: Some Methodological Issues Related to the Typology of Buddhist Sculptures In a significant section of available scholarship on early medieval Bihar and Bengal, a general consensus is that Vajrayāna was the only form of Buddhism known and practiced in this period.97 These reconstructions are largely based on the analysis of the voluminous Vajrayāna literature produced in the monasteries of early medieval Bihar and Bengal as well as on the analysis of Tibetan accounts. Insights from archaeological data are generally neglected. An analysis of archaeological data may force us to modify some aspects of this commonly held notion. Let us begin with a very specific aspect: objects of worship which should remain central to any analysis of the kind or kinds of Buddhism practiced in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. One may reasonably assume that if the doctrinal aspects of any religion changed, it would also result in some changes in the objects of worship. An analysis of some Vajrayāna textual material has forced some scholars to conclude that a change did take place in the relative importance of deities in the ‘Vajrayāna phase’ in Bihar and Bengal. It has been argued that Vajrayāna tried to popularize the concept of Five Jina Buddhas (also called Dhyānī Buddhas or Paṅcatathāgatas).98 Dhyānī Buddhas, having their own consorts, became the Sire or Kuleśa of all other Buddhist deities including the Buddha Śākyamuni. It has also been argued that ‘except for some exceptional examples, few and far between, the figures of the Buddha, historical Śākyamuni, became rare during this period’.99 The Buddha Śākyamuni was ‘relegated to the position of the Mānuṣī Buddhas’ and lost his soteriological significance.100 It has been also argued that ‘in the medieval period, a great change took place in the Buddhist

Introduction

33

theological conception in Bihar-Bengal when Śākyamuni, the great monk, Mahāśramaṇa, lost his primary importance and became a family member of Akṣobhya like a Bodhisattva’.101 Is the marginalization of the Buddha Śākyamuni really reflected in the available archaeological data? Even if this marginalization took place, where did it exactly take place: inside some monasteries only or as a general trend across all Buddhist religious centres (monasteries, ‘settlement-shrines’, and Buddhist temples not attached to monasteries) of early medieval Bihar and Bengal? Or was this trend present in some parts and absent in others? Did the worship of the Buddha Śākyamuni really fall out of favour of non-monastic devotees? Do we see any cultic disjuncture taking place between the forms of Buddhism practiced within some monastic centres and the form of Buddhism practiced in ‘settlement-shrines’? Did any individual or a group construct independent shrine(s) to worship the Paṅcatathāgatas? In how many numbers? What was the social background of patrons who got such shrines constructed? These are some of the questions that need to be analyzed in the light of available archaeological data to trace the diversity in the forms of Buddhism practiced in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. We will look into these issues in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of this book.

Issues Probed in the Present Work The present book is concerned with an analysis of the published archaeological (architectural, sculptural and epigraphic) records associated with the Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. In an archaeological history of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, we will try to probe the following issues: 1. The pattern of expansion of these religions and their religious centres as indicated by archaeological records. 2. Chronological and geographical variations in the same. Where did religious centres emerge and function? With

34

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

what kind of socio-economic variables did they interact? Were they emerging in a virgin landscape? What was the spatial context of their support base? How did they interact with the neighbouring secular settlements? To give just one example, a Buddhist monastery emerging and functioning in the marshy landscape of Sylhet will have a different kind of resource mobilization strategy than a Buddhist monastery emerging and functioning at the port city of Tāmralipti or at the political and economic centre of Vaiśālī. A Jaina temple emerging and functioning in the ‘largely prehistoric landscape’ of Purulia district or in the western portions of Bardhaman district will have a different kind of support system and survival strategy than a Jaina temple emerging at Rajgir (in Magadha). 3. How were resources mobilized for the foundation of the religious centres? 4. Every religious centre has a life after its foundation. After the foundation of any religious centre, it would require economic resources to take care of the need of the monastic or priestly community, as well as to defray the costs associated with the performance of rituals on regular basis. How were they mobilized and which section of society provided resources for this? How did the pattern evolve over time? Are there any geographical variations in this? Do we have a similar pattern for all the three major religions (Buddhism, Brahmanism and Jainism) in this period in all sub-regions of Bihar and Bengal? These issues shall be analysed on the basis of the data contained in the royal copper-plate inscriptions and other inscriptions. 5. When a religious centre was founded, and was able to mobilize resources for the day-to-day needs of the priestly or monastic community associated with it, its survival depended on one more thing: its ability to command sanctity and worship from the society at large. One of the methods for the common persons to show their respect to and mark their worship at a particular religious centre was to install a

Introduction

35

sculpture of a particular deity at a particular religious centre. They could dedicate such sculptures to existing religious centres (generally to existing Buddhist monastic centres), or they could get a religious centre constructed and install the stone sculpture as an object of worship in the same. The second development mainly took place in the case of Brahmanical and Jaina temples, as well as in the contexts of Buddhist temples/shrines not associated with any monastery. Many donors inscribed their names and social background on such images. Which section of society took the lead in this? What was their social and religious identity? With what motive did they install sculptures in religious centres? These questions entail an analysis of dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures donated to different religious centres in the early medieval Bihar and Bengal. It is hoped that this analysis will provide a ‘from below’ perspective of social bases of patronage to Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. 6. What kind of religion was practiced in such religious centres, especially in the Buddhist ones? It is generally assumed that esoteric Vajrayāna was the only form of Buddhism practiced in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. It is also argued that ‘Vajrayāna excesses’ were one of the most significant factors in the decline of Buddhism in Bihar-Bengal area. This notion is based on the analysis of literary sources only. Is this notion supported by archaeological data? Do archaeological data give a picture of homogeneity in the practiced forms of Buddhism across Bihar and Bengal, or were there regional and sub-regional variations? Were the practiced forms of Buddhism same in its monasteries and those religious centres that were not attached to any monastery? If we see a divergence between the forms of Buddhism practiced in its monastic sites and non-monastic religious centres, what could have been the implications for the decline of Buddhism in Bihar and Bengal? 7. A functional analysis of the way in which excavated Buddhist

36

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

monasteries have evolved; the way in which space was organized within them, and their ritual and societal implications. 8. How did Buddhist monasteries interact with non-monastic devotees? 9. Rituals and religious interactions within excavated Buddhist monasteries, as revealed by archaeological data. Our primary emphasis will be on tracing the archaeology of interaction between Buddhism and Brahmanism within the monastic religious space. 10. How to explain the decline of Buddhist religious centres? How to explain the decline of Buddhism and the survival of Brahmanism? Could there be a uniform pattern of decline of monumental Buddhist monasteries and non-descript rural Buddhist shrines or small monasteries? In this section, our primary emphasis will be on tracing the diversity in the decline of Buddhist religious centres. Our study will be based on the analysis of the published archaeological data. For a better contextual analysis, we will also look into epigraphic data as they too form part of the archaeological data.102 We will analyze dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures, as well as royal copper-plates, stone inscriptions, inscriptions on terracotta seals and sealings, votive stūpas, votive terracotta plaques and tablets. Occasionally, we shall also look into textual sources, particularly the travelogues of the Chinese and Tibetan pilgrims to India (Faxian, Xuan Zang, Itsing, Dharmasvāmin), as well as the accounts of Tārānātha.

Chapterization This work has been divided into the following chapters: CHAPTER 2: GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

The basic objective of this chapter is to discuss the geographical background of Bihar and Bengal. Issues discussed include

Introduction

37

physiographic divisions, drainage patterns, patterns of rainfall and flooding, cropping patterns, degrees of forestation in different parts of Bihar and Bengal, fluvial volatility and their implications. This chapter forms the background in which we will try to study the archaeology of the distribution pattern and spatial contexts of the support systems of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal in the next two chapters. CHAPTER 3: DISTRIBUTION PATTERN AND SPATIAL CONTEXTS OF SUPPORT SYSTEMS OF BUDDHIST, BRAHMANICAL AND JAINA RELIGIOUS CENTRES IN EARLY MEDIEVAL BIHAR

This chapter is influenced by the methodologies adopted by S.K. Jha, Ranjusri Ghosh, Eun-Su Lee and Umakant Mishra as discussed above. We will take into account the distribution pattern of those religious centres whose structural remains have been excavated/explored, as well as those religious centres whose past existence is indicated by the discovery of sculptures. We will attempt a comparative study of the distribution patterns of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres in Bihar and the spatial contexts of their support systems. In which area Buddhism had a dominant presence, in which area it had a marginal presence, and in which area it was virtually absent? In which area and in how many instances did Buddhist religious centres tend to share the landscape with their Brahmanical or Jaina counterparts? What kind of Buddhist deities were worshipped beyond the walls of its monastic centres? Do they indicate the prevalence of the cult of those deities that highlight conflict with Brahmanism or explicit sexual imagery? Were Buddhist religious centres emerging near political centres, urban centres or away from them? How do they fare vis-à-vis Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres in these aspects? Do we really get the picture of replacement of Buddhism by Brahmanism or do we have a case of simultaneous proliferation of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres? We will analyse these issues at the level of the district (modern administrative division). The

38

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

results obtained through the analysis of different districts will be collated in the last section of the chapter to formulate some generalizations. CHAPTER 4: DISTRIBUTION PATTERN AND SPATIAL CONTEXTS OF SUPPORT SYSTEMS OF BUDDHIST, BRAHMANICAL AND JAINA RELIGIOUS CENTRES IN EARLY MEDIEVAL BENGAL

The issues probed in this chapter will be largely similar to the ones probed in the earlier chapter and the methodology too will be largely similar. One additional feature of this chapter will be the study of the distribution pattern of religious centres vis-à-vis the urban space and maritime trading centres. Compared to early medieval Bihar, early medieval Bengal offers greater evidence of urbanization. Analysing the distribution pattern of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres vis-à-vis the urban space and maritime trading centres will occupy a significant portion of this chapter. We will also look into the distribution pattern of these religious centres in the rural space. An additional issue of enquiry in this chapter will be the issue of patterns of interactions between the Jaina temples and socio-economic and political processes in the Purulia – Bankura area. This area did not have much early historic antecedents. Before the early medieval period, this area was heavily forested and its subsistence economy was not characterized by intensive agriculture. From the late eighth-early ninth centuries AD onwards, this area witnessed some largely coeval developments: the emergence of chiefdom like polities; large-scale construction of Jaina and Brahmanical temples; and large-scale construction of hero stones, many of which had complex linkages with Jaina and Brahmanical temples. Were these developments related? How did the Jaina and Brahmanical temples interact with the political processes in the area? No early medieval temple or sculpture of this area bears any epigraphic record. Due to this reason, we will analyse this theme through an analysis of two issues: (a) the spatial alignment of hero stones vis-à-vis Jaina and Brahmanical temples and (b) the spatial alignment of Jaina and

Introduction

39

Brahmanical temples vis-à-vis major political centres of this area. The next two chapters will analyse two different kinds of epigraphic sources to reconstruct some aspects of social bases of patronage to religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. CHAPTER 5: SOCIAL BASES OF PATRONAGE TO BUDDHIST, BRAHMANICAL AND JAINA RELIGIOUS CENTRES: A STUDY OF DEDICATORY INSCRIPTIONS ON SCULPTURES

A large number of stone and bronze sculptures inscribed with the name of donors have been reported and published from early medieval Bihar and Bengal. In many cases, they provide valuable details of the socio-religious background of the donors and their motive behind undertaking such donations. They provide an important database to reconstruct a ‘from below’ perspective of the evolving social bases of patronage to religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. In this chapter, through an analysis of dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures, we will try to trace the social bases of patronage to some of the religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. We will try to trace the social background (aristocratic or non-aristocratic, varṇa-jāti, gender, monk/nun or persons other than monk/nun category); economic background (peasant, mercantile, etc.); places donors came from, to analyse the nature of long distance pilgrimage, if any, to the religious centres; and religious identity (Buddhist, Brahmanical, etc.) of donors who donated images to religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. In other words, our core emphasis would be on tracing the question: which section of society donated what kind of sculptures to Buddhist and Brahmanical or Jaina religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, and with what motives? How did it reflect on the pilgrimage geography of these religious centres? We will also like to trace how the patterns of donations evolved across Bihar and Bengal and what implications it had in the process of decline of Buddhism? Did the Buddhist religious

40

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

centres of Bihar and Bengal display equal willingness to enter into ritual engagements with the non-monastic devotees by allowing them to install sculptures within the religious space of monastic centres or were there variations? A key thrust of our study will be on tracing the socioreligious identity of donors who donated Buddhist images by evolving a methodology on the basis of the presence or absence of certain characteristic terms in dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures. We will argue that an overwhelming percentage of donors was formed by ‘persons without expressed Buddhist identity’ category. We will look into the long-term implications of this particular development in the decline of Buddhism. We will also analyse if the donors who donated sculptures to Buddhist religious centres perceive these centres as institutional centres for esoteric Vajrayāna. CHAPTER 5: EVOLUTION OF THE PATRONAGE BASE OF BUDDHIST AND BRAHMANICAL RELIGIOUS CENTRES: A STUDY OF INSCRIPTIONS ON COPPER PLATES, STONE, TERRACOTTA SEALS AND SEALINGS, AND METAL VASES

An important development in early medieval Bihar and Bengal was the practice of grant of tax-free land with many immunities and privileges to Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres. This development brought them in complex interaction with the apparatus of the state, as making these kinds of land grants was mostly the privilege of the king. This was, however, just one aspect of their patronage base. In many cases, particularly in the case of Buddhist religious centres of Magadha, we see a concerted attempt on the part of the Buddhist Saṅgha to diversify its patronage base by attracting pilgrimage and patronage from non-aristocratic persons also. The basic aim of this chapter is to trace the evolution of the patronage base of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal as reflected in inscriptions other than dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures and votive stūpas. We have looked into copper-plate inscriptions, inscrip-

Introduction

41

tions on stones, terracotta seals and sealings found in excavations of Buddhist monastic sites, and stone pillars. We have also looked into two inscriptions on metal vases recording donations in favour of Buddhist monasteries in the coastal tracts of Chittagong. We will try to trace the similarities and differences between the patronage base of Buddhist religious centres of Magadha (Mahābodhi and Nalanda) on the one hand and those located to the east of Magadha (Vikramaśilā and monastic centres of Bengal) on the other. This will be contrasted with the evolution of the patronage base of Brahmanical temples in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. CHAPTER 7: SOME ASPECTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOME EXCAVATED BUDDHIST SITES OF EARLY MEDIEVAL BIHAR AND BENGAL

In this chapter, our emphasis is on tracing the complex interactions taking place within the religious space of important excavated Buddhist sites: interactions within Buddhism (between Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna; between the esoteric and exoteric aspects of Vajrayāna); interactions between Buddhist religious centres and their monastic and non-monastic devotees; interactions between Buddhism and Brahmanism. Our study would be based on the analysis of data from Mahābodhi, Nalanda, Antichak, Rajabadidanga, Paharpur, Jagaddala, Sitakot, Vasu Bihar, Bihar Dhap, Halud Vihara, Sabhar, excavated monasteries on the Mainamati ridge, and Moghalmari. In tracing the interactions taking place between Buddhist religious centres and non-monastic devotees, we will basically analyse the extent to which the monastic sites were willing to ‘open up’ to accommodate the ritual activities of devotees. We will try to see which area of the monastic religious space was made available to non-monastic devotees to perform ritual activities such as the installation of votive stūpas, votive terracotta plaques and tablets, and inscribed sculptures. Do we observe a similar trend in this pattern as we move from Bihar to Bengal? What kind of linkages did it have with the organization

42

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of religious space within the monastic religious space? We will also try to analyse the linkages between the degree to which monasteries were willing to accommodate the ritual needs of the non-monastic devotees and the kind of Buddhism that was practiced within these Buddhist religious centres. Was it essentially esoteric Vajrayāna? How does archaeological data reflect on this issue? How did the pattern evolve across Bihar and Bengal? Two other issues which will be analysed in some detail, are the political symbolism radiated by some monasteries through their maṇḍala scheme, and the kind of interactions taking place between Buddhism and Brahmanism within the monastic religious space. We will especially try to analyse if the pattern of interaction between Buddhism and Brahmanism, as well as the maṇḍala symbolism of some monastic centres, remained exactly as per the injunctions of Vajrayāna normative literature (Niṣpannayogāvalī, etc.) or was it a dynamic process evolving as per the larger socio-economic context. What was the perception of non-monastic devotees of this whole process and how was this process linked with the decline of Buddhism in the long run? What was the nature of decline: a sudden collapse or a protracted decline? Chapter 7 will be followed by Chapter 8, in which we will try to collate the findings of previous chapters to contextualize the decline of Buddhism in Bihar and Bengal after the early medieval period. We will try to highlight the diversity in this process. As this study is based almost solely on the use of the published archaeological data, it is but natural that this study will unravel only some aspects of the complexities involved with the religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. It does not claim to be a comprehensive study. The conclusions arrived at in this study need to be juxtaposed with those obtained from the analysis of literary sources. We are hopeful that this task may be attempted in future.

Introduction

43

NOTES 1. Lars Fogelin, ‘Delegitimizing Religion: The Archaeology of Religion as Archaeology’, in David S Whitley and Kelley Hays-Gilpin  (eds), Belief in the Past: Theoretical Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, Calif, 2008, p. 132. 2. See pp. 20-32 of the present book, as to why sculptures, especially the big sculptures in stone, may be treated as one of the archaeological markers of the existence of religious centres in the past. 3. R.S. Sharma, ‘Keynote Address’, in Amita Ray and S. Mukharjee (eds), Historical Archaeology in India: A Dialogue Between Historians and Archaeologists, Books and Books, Delhi, 1990, p. 12. For similar observations, see J.T. O’Connell, ‘Revisiting Art, Architecture and Archaeology as Sources for the History of Religion in Bengal’, Journal of Bengal Art [henceforth JBA], vol. 16, 2011, pp. 115-24. 4. B.D. Chattopadhyaya, Studying Early India: Archaeology, Texts and Historical Issues, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2003, p. 92. 5. B.D. Chattopadhyaya, The Making of Early Medieval India, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2012, pp. 35-6. 6. Ibid., pp. 1-38. 7. Kunal Chakrabarti, Religious Process: The Purāṇas and the Making of a Regional Tradition, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2001, p. 16; idem, ‘Cult Region: The Purāṇas and the Making of Cultural Territory of Bengal’, in Upinder Singh (ed.), Rethinking Early Medieval India: A Reader, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2011, pp. 233-51; idem, ‘A History of Intolerance: The Representation of Buddhists in the Bengal Purāṇas’, Social Scientist, vol. 44, nos. 5/6 (May–June 2016), p. 12. 8. For an analysis of this process, see Kunal Chakrabarti, Religious Process: The Purāṇas and the Making of a Regional Tradition, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2001. 9. The degree of Islamization of Bengal has been highlighted in some recent studies. See for example, Mohammad Yusuf Siddiq, ‘The Rise of Islam in Bengal and the Articulation of a New Order in the Light of Epigraphic Evidences’, Journal of Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Humanities , 45 (1), 2000, who has argued that ‘Islam is not only the religion of the majority of the two hundred million Bengalispeaking people inhabiting the eastern part of South Asia, it is also their predominant and primary culture’ (p. 2).

44

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

10. Richard Eaton, Essays on Islam and Indian History, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2001, p. 264. 11. Richard Eaton, ‘Shrines, Cultivators, and Muslim ‘Conversion’ in Punjab and Bengal, 1300–1700’, The Medieval History Journal, vol. 12 (2), 2009, p. 208. 12. S.L. Huntington, The ‘Pāla-Sena’ School of Sculptures, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1984; idem, ‘Epigraphy from Art History: Studies in the Art of the Pāla Period’, in Frederic Asher and G.S. Gai (eds), Indian Epigraphy: Its Bearing on the History of Art, Oxford & IBH Publishing Company, Delhi, 1985, pp. 177-84; C.P. Sinha, Early Sculptures of Bihar, Indological Book Corporation, Patna, 1980; Idem, ‘Evolution of Art in Bihar and Jharkhand’, JBA , vols. 9-10, 2004-5, pp. 111-18; Pushpa Sinha, Bihār kī Prāchīna Hindu Pratimāyen, Bihar Hindi Granth Academy, Patna, 2010 (in Hindi); Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures; Hindu Iconography Upto c. 1250 AD, Bangladesh National Museum, Dhaka, 1992; Anusua Sengupta, Buddhist Art of Bengal (From the 3rd Century BC to the 13th Century AD), Rahul Publishing Company, New Delhi, 1993; Malaysankar Bhattacharya, Glimpses of Buddhist Bengal, Indian institute of Oriental Studies and Research, Kolkata, 2008; idem, Art and Life: Bengal Art Through the Ages, Sagnik Books, Kolkata, 2013; Krishna Biswas, The Sculptural Art of Ancient Bengal: Vaṅga and Samataṭa, Ramanand Vidya Bhawan, Delhi, 1995; Arvind Kumar Sharma, The Pala Art in Bihar, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 2012; Sudhakar Sharma, The Heritage of Buddhist Pāla Art, Aryan Books International, Delhi, 2004; Asok K. Bhattacharya, ‘An Introspection on the Studies in the East Indian Art’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXIV, 2007-8, pp. 93-6; R.C. Sharma, ‘The Pala Idiom of Sculptural Art’, in Asok Datta (ed.), Studies in Archaeology: Essays in Memory of P.C. Dasgupta, Books and Books, New Delhi, 1991, pp. 209-15. 13. A recent manifestation of this trend may be seen in Bijoy Krishna Banik, Maināmatī: Sanskrit Inscriptional and Archaeological Study, Bhartiya Kala Prakashan, Delhi, 2009. In the context of some excavated monastic sites of Bihar, this approach may be seen in Akhaldev Prasad Srivastava, ‘Nālanda Kī Sthāpatya Kalā’, The Journal of the Bihar Purāvid Pariṣad [henceforth JBPP], vols. VII-VIII, 1983-4, pp. 255-61; idem, ‘Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra kī Kalā’, JBPP, vols. XIX –XX, 1995-2000, pp. 105-13. 14. James J. Preston, ‘Sacred Centres and Symbolic Networks in India’,

Introduction

15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

45

in S. Mahapatra (ed.), The Realm of the Sacred, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1992, pp. 79–112. See her Buddhism in Ancient Bengal, Jijnasa, Calcutta, 1967; ‘Buddhism and the Early Rulers of South-East Bengal’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. V, pts. 1-2, 1971-2, pp. 171-81; ‘Endowments in Favour of Early Buddhist Monasteries in Bengal and Bihar’, Journal of Ancient Indian History , vol. 6, 1972-3, pp. 160-5. She has offered an analysis of land grants to the monasteries but she has not looked into the spatial variations in the same. R.B. Barua, ‘Early History of the Spread of Buddhism in Bangladesh’, Bangladesh Historical Studies, vol. VII, 1983, pp. 1-9. Chitaranjan Patra, ‘Spread of Buddhism in Bengal’, in A. Dutta (ed.), History and Archaeology of Eastern India, Books and Books, Delhi, 1998, pp. 200-12. Paola G. Tinti, ‘Buddhism in Pre-Pala Eastern Bengal According to Chinese Sources’, JBA, vol. 16, 2011, pp. 289-98; idem, ‘The Origins of Buddhism in Bangladesh: Between History, Myth and Historical Inventions’, JBA , vol. 19, pp. 9-16. In an important study of the political geography of early medieval Bengal on the basis of analysis of copper-plate inscriptions, B.M. Morrison (B.M. Morrison, Political Centres and Cultural Regions in Early Bengal, Vikash Publishers, Jaipur, 1980, p. 38) has observed that early medieval Bengal had four sub-regions: Rāḍha (covering the areas to the west of the Bhagirathi- Hughali rivers); Varendra (covering the area of North Bengal, more appropriately the tract of land bounded by the Mahananda river in the west, Karatoya/ Brahmaputra in the east, and Padma in the south); Vaṅga (the tract of land lying to the south of the Padma river, bounded by the rivers Hughli in the west and Meghna in the east) and Samataṭa-Harikela (area lying to the east of the Surma-Meghna rivers: roughly corresponding to Sylhet, Comilla and Chittagong areas). We have largely followed the scheme of Morrison in delineating the boundaries of Rāḍha, Varendra, Vaṅga and Samataṭa-Harikela. Morrison has also argued that in central, northern and western sectors of Bengal, property relations were fully developed, and culturally they were more or less integrated with the culture of the Middle Ganga Valley. In fact, Varendra, Vaṅga and Rāḍha were ‘heartlands of Brahmanical culture in the Delta’ (ibid., p. 38). Samataṭa-Harikela had different orientations: economically,

46

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

politically and culturally. He, thus, attempts to homogenize the situation within each sub-region of early medieval Bengal. This attempt is open to questions. We will see in our work that there was considerable diversity within each sub-region. 20. D.K. Chakrabarti, ‘Pakbira – A Jaina Site in Purulia District, West Bengal’, in B.M. Pande and B.D. Chattopadhyaya (eds), Archaeology and History: Essays in Memory of Shri A. Ghosh, vol. I, Agam Kala Prakashana, Delhi, 1987, pp. 351-7; idem, Archaeology of Eastern India: Chhotanagpur Plateau and West Bengal, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1993; R.K. Chattopadhyay, ‘Contexts of Early Medieval Remains of Purulia: Researching Ideologies’, Pratnatattva, vol. 16, 2010, pp. 9-31; idem, Bankura: A Study of its Archaeological Sources, Platinum Publishers, Kolkata, 2010; Chitrarekha Gupta, ‘Jainism in Bengal: Beginning of the Study, Problems and Perspectives’, Pratna Samiksha, vols. 2-3, 1993-4, pp. 216-25; idem, ‘Bengal Art and Bengal Inscriptions: An Approach Towards Co-relation – A Case Study with Punchra, A Village in the Vardhaman District, West Bengal’, JBA, vol. 7, pp. 83-100. An important exception is Gautam Sengupta and Shambhu Chakraborty, ‘Locale, Material and Monuments: Begunia Group of Temples, Barakar, West Bengal’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), Archaeology of Eastern India, New Perspectives, Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Kolkata, 2002, pp. 389-418, which analyses the implications of the emergence of a Śaiva temple in a tribal portion of Bardhaman district. 21. B.M. Morrison, Lālmāi: A Cultural Centre in Early Bengal, University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1974, seems to be the only exception to some extent. His study is basically focused on tracing the architectural evolution of excavated monastic sites on the LalmaiMainamati ridge and their possible support systems on the basis of an analysis of epigraphic records associated with them. He has, though, neglected the archaeological situation in the plains of Comilla, which formed the hinterland of these monastic sites. 22. See, for example, H.P. Ray, ‘Archaeology of Bengal: Trading Linkages, Cultural Identities’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 49, no. 1, 2006, pp. 68-95. As per her analysis, all sub-regions of Bengal were under regular cultivation and human occupation by the early centuries of the Christian era, where Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres functioned to cater to the needs of the local society, and not as agents for the legitimation of royal power. She argues that even before the Gupta

Introduction

23. 24. 25.

26.

27. 28. 29. 30.

31. 32.

33.

47

period, the religious condition of all sub-regions of Bengal was similar to what prevailed in the Middle Ganga Valley. She arrives at this conclusion mainly on the basis of an analysis of the excavated data from four sites: Mangalkot in the Bardhaman district, Tāmralipti and Chandraketugarh in coastal West Bengal, and Mahasthan in Varendra. Two important sub-regions – Vaṅga and Samataṭa – do not find any place in her analysis. We will see later that the Mangalkot experience cannot be generalized even for the western portions of the Bardhaman district. Similarly, the Tāmralipti pattern cannot be generalized even for the West Medinipur district. Bengal is more diverse than what she argues. Similarly, she has totally overlooked the nature and impact of the emergence of Jaina religious centres in the Purulia-Bankura area. G. Schopen, ‘Archaeology and Protestant Presuppositions in the Study of Indian Buddhism’, History of Religions, 31(1), 1991, p. 4. Ibid., pp. 1-23. Gregory Schopen, ‘Burial Ad Sanctos and the Physical Presence of the Buddha in Early Indian Buddhism: A Study in the Archaeology of Religions’, Religion, vol. 17, 1987, p. 193. The depicted motifs on many votive tablets found in the Mahābodhi area include scenes in which people are shown venerating a book, which signified the textual tradition of the monastery. For details, see pp. 502-5 of the present book. V.K. Thakur, ‘Archaeology and the Writing of Ancient Indian History’, JBPP, vol. I, 1977, p. 103. D.K. Chakrabarti, ‘Archeology of Hinduism’, in Timothy Insoll (ed.), Archaeology and World Religions, Routledge, London, 2001, pp. 33-60. Robin Coningham, ‘The Archaeology of Buddhism’, in T. Insoll (ed.), op. cit., pp. 61-95. H.P. Ray, ‘The Archaeology of Scared Space: Introduction’, in H.P. Ray and Carla M. Sinopoli (eds), Archaeology as History in Early South Asia, Aryan Books International, Delhi, 2004, pp. 350-75. Ibid., pp. 360-1. B.D. Chattopadhyaya, ‘State Perception of the ‘Forest’ and the ‘Forest’ as State in Early Medieval India’, in B.B. Chaudhury and Arun Bandopadhyaya (eds), Tribes, Forests and Social Formations in Indian History, Manohar, Delhi, 2004, pp. 23-37. Cynthia Talbot, ‘Temples, Donors and Gifts: Patterns of Patronage in Thirteenth-Century South India’, Journal of Asian Studies, 50 (2), 1991, pp. 308-40; idem, Pre-Colonial India in Practice: Society, Religion

48

34. 35.

36. 37. 38.

39.

40.

41. 42.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia and Identity in Medieval Andhra, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2001, especially pp. 90-125. D.K. Chakrabarti, ‘Pakbira: A Jaina Site in Purulia District, West Bengal’, op. cit., pp. 351-7. Susan Verma, ‘Archaeology of Early Temples of Saurashtra’, in Ray and Sinopoli (eds), op. cit., pp. 411-25; Susan Verma Mishra, ‘Archaeology of Religion: A Study of Religious Diversity in Gujarat from the Ancient to the Early Medieval Times – Third Century BC to Eight Century AD’, unpublished PhD thesis, JNU, 2006. Anita R., ‘An Archaeological Study of Temples in Eastern Deccan’, in Ray and Sinopoli (eds), op. cit., pp. 426-3. Ibid., p. 428. H.P. Ray, ‘Archaeology of Early Temples in the Chalukyan Regions’, in Shonaleeka Kaul (ed.), Cultural History of Early South Asia, A Reader, Orient BlackSwan, Delhi, 2014, pp. 209-34. Upinder Singh, ‘Sanchi: The History of Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 33(1), 1996, pp. 1-35; H. P. Ray, ‘Providing for the Buddha: Monastic Centres in Eastern India’, Arts Asiatiques, Tome 63, 2008, pp. 119-38. ‘Eastern India’ in this paper stands for Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. She has not analysed Bihar and Bengal. S. Nagaraju, ‘From Spirituality to Power: A Millennium of Buddhist Monastic Architecture as a Mirror of Social History, in K. Sankarnarayan et al. (eds), Buddhism in India and Abroad: An Integrated Influence in Vedic and Post-Vedic Perspective, Somaiya Publishers, Mumbai, 1996, pp. 301-14. H. P. Ray, ‘Kanheri: The Archaeology of an Early Buddhist Pilgrimage Site in Western India’, World Archaeology, 26 (1), 1994, pp. 35-46. Julia Shaw and J. Sutcliffe, ‘Sanchi and its Archaeological Landscape: Buddhist Monasteries, Settlements and Irrigation Work in Central India’, Antiquity, vol. 74, 2000, pp. 775-96; idem, ‘Water Management, Patronage Networks and Religious Change: New Evidence from the Sanchi Dam Complex and Counterparts in Gujarat and Sri Lanka’, South Asian Studies, vol. 19, pp. 73-104; Lars Fogelin, ‘Sacred Architecture, Sacred Landscape: Early Buddhism in North Coastal Andhra Pradesh’, in Ray and Sinopoli (eds), op. cit., pp. 376-91; Jason Hawkes, ‘The Wider Archaeological Contexts of the Buddhist Stupa Site of Bharhut’, in Jason Hawkes and Akira Shimada (eds), Buddhist Stupas in South Asia: Recent Archaeological, Art-Historical and

Introduction

43. 44.

45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

50. 51. 52.

49

Historical Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2009, pp. 14676. Lars Fogelin, An Archaeological History of Indian Buddhism, Oxford University Press, New York, 2015. In Bihar, such temples are basically confined to the old Shahabad district (the tract between the Karmanasha and Sone rivers in south Bihar) and some parts of Magadha. B.K. Jamuar (The Ancient Temples of Bihar, Ramanand Vidya Bhavan, Delhi, 1985) has listed 11 such temples (both Buddhist and Brahmanical), of which 6 are in Shahabad district, 1 in Aurangabad district, 2 in Gaya district, 1 in Nawada district, 1 in Nalanda district. The superstructures of many temples explored by A. Cunningham, etc., have almost disappeared by now. In Bengal, they are mostly surviving in the border zone between the Jharkhand plateau and Rāḍha plains (in western part of Bardhaman district, Bankura and Purulia district). This area formed a different kind of locale and temples in this area functioned in a different kind of context than what was the case in much of alluvial Bengal. The patterns observed here may not be generalized for the whole of Bengal. S.K. Saraswati, Early Sculptures of Bengal, Sambodhi Publications, Calcutta, 1962 , p. 6. Ibid., p. 6. Ibid. Susan L. Huntington, The ‘Pāla-Sena’ Schools of Sculpture, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1984, p. 2. Frederick M. Asher, ‘Stone and Production of Images’, East and West, 48(3-4), 1998, p. 328. Asher has argued that the normal building material in eastern India was stucco-covered brick, not stone; ‘stone was reserved for sculptures, placed in niches in the walls of these temples and also on pedestals inside the temples’, because even brick temples enshrined stone images. (p. 328). For similar observations, also see Perween Hasan, ‘Reflections on Early Temple Forms of Eastern India’, JBA, vol. 2, 1997, p. 211; Enamul Haque, ‘The Early Phase of Architecture of Ancient Bengal as Redeemed from Terracotta Plaques’, JBA, vol. 4, 1999, p. 427. Perween Hasan, op. cit., p. 211; Haque, op. cit., p. 427. D.K. Chakrabarti, Ancient Bangladesh: A Study of the Archaeological Sources, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1992, p. 170. Ibid., p. 170.

50

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

53. D.K. Chakrabarti, Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain: The Lower and the Middle Ganga, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2001, p. 78. 54. Ibid., p. 78. 55. Ibid., p. 98. 56. Frederick M. Asher, op. cit., 1998, p. 328. 57. Susan L. Huntington, The ‘ Pāla-Sena’ School of Sculptures, op. cit., p. 2. 58. Claudine Bautze-Picron, ‘Lakhi Sarai: An Indian Site of Late Buddhist Iconography, and Its Position within the Asian Buddhist World’, Silk Road Art and Archaeology, vol. 2, Kamakura, 1991-92, pp. 239-41. 59. Gautam Sengupta, ‘Problem of Pala Art and a Derivative Style in Assam’, JBA, vol. 1, 1996, p. 157. He has argued that big-sized stone sculptures were meant to be enshrined in public temples and small ones in home shrines (p. 157). A similar argument has been articulated in Gautam Sengupta and Shambhu Chakraborty, ‘Locale, Material and Monuments: Begunia Group of Temples, Barakar, West Bengal’, in Gautam Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), Archaeology of Eastern India, New Perspectives’, Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, Kolkata, 2002, pp. 389-418. 60. S.K. Jha, ‘Problems of Identifying Pala Sculptures of Mithila in the Light of Recent Discoveries’, Proceedings of the Indian Art History Congress, Patna Session, 1996, pp. 134-50. 61. R.K. Chattopadhyay et al., ‘In Search of the Jaina Identity: A Study of the Sculptural Remains of the Vishnupur Region’, Journal of the Indian Society for Oriental Art, vol. XXVIII, 2012, p. 143. 62. Shubha Majumder, ‘Understating the Archaeological Contexts and Iconic Details of Jaina Antiquities from Rakṣatpura and Śaṅkā, District Puruliā, West Bengal’, International Journal of Jaina Studies, 10(1), 2014, p. 6. 63. D.K. Chakrabarti, ‘Location of Buddhist Sites as Influenced by Political and Economic Factors’, World Archaeology, 27(2), 1995, p. 192. 64. Robin Coningham, op. cit., p. 89. 65. Debala Mitra, ‘The Monuments, A Historical Survey’, in D.C. Ahir (ed.), A Panorama of Indian Buddhism, Sri Sataguru Publications, Delhi, 1995, p. 499. 66. Ibid., pp. 499-500.

Introduction

51

67. Enamul Haque, ‘The Early Phase of Architecture of Ancient Bengal As Redeemed from Terracotta Plaques’, JBA, vol. 4, 1999, p. 428. 68. Anusua Sengupta, Buddhist Art of Bengal (From the 3rd Century BC to the 13th Century AD), Rahul Publishing Company, Delhi, 1993, pp. 57-8. 69. Ibid., p. 58. 70. N. Ahmed, Mahasthan, Dept. of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 1981, p. 43. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid. 73. Ibid. 74. Ibid. 75. Ibid. A Pāla period Buddhist temple, located away from any known monastic centre, which was possibly transformed into a Śaiva temple at a later date, has been recently excavated at Bochaganj in the north-western part of Bangladesh (Swadhin Sen et al., Excavations at Bochaganj and Full Coverage Survey at Khansama: Preliminary Results, paper presented in the Seminar on Research funded by the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Govt. of Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh (https://www.academia.edu/23239947/ the_seminar_presentation_on_the_excavation_at_bochaganj_and_ full_coverage_survey_at_khansama_preliminary_results) 76. A.S. Amar, ‘Buddhist Response to Brāhmaṇa Challenge in Medieval India: Bodhgayā and Gayā’, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, London, Series 3, 22(1), 2012, p. 160. 77. Ibid., pp. 160-1. 78. Ibid. 79. Ibid., p. 161. 80. D.C. Sircar, ‘Kāndī Buddhist Image Inscription of Rāṇaka Samudrāditya’, Journal of the Bihar Research Society [henceforth JBRS], vol. XXVII, pts. 3-4, 1951, p. 9. 81. N.K. Bhattasali, ‘Vajrayogini Plate of Samalavarman’, Epigraphia Indica [henceforth EI], vol. XXX, 1953-4, p. 262. 82. N.G. Majumdar, ‘Nalanda Inscription of Vipulasrimitra’, EI, vol. XXI, 1930-1, pp. 97-101. This inscription refers to a ‘Mahā-Āyatana’ (great temple) of Khasarpaṇa Avalokiteśvara, where Vipulaśrīmitra donated a Mañjuṣā (casket). He also donated four sculptures (Pratimā) to the Sattra attached to this temple (ibid., verse 7, p. 99). This inscription does not indicate that this temple was attached to

52

83.

84.

85.

86. 87. 88. 89.

90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia any monastic centre. Even the place where this temple was located has not been recorded. Claudine Bautze-Picron, ‘Buddhist Paintings during the Reign of Harivarmadeva (End of the 11th Century) in Southeast Bangladesh’, JBA, vol. 4, pp. 159-97; Perween Hasan, ‘Reflections on Early Temple Forms of Eastern India’, JBA, vol. 2, 1997, pp. 213-14. S.K. Jha, ‘Problems of Identifying Pala Sculptures of Mithila in the Light of Recent Discoveries’, Proceedings of the Indian Art History Congress, Patna Session, 1996, pp. 134-50. Ranjusri Ghosh, ‘Puṇḍravardhana/Varendra: A Socio-Economic and Cultural Profile of a Sub-region of Early Medieval Bengal’, PhD thesis, JNU, 2003, pp. 191-202. This line of argument has been further developed in Ranjusri Ghosh, ‘Towards Understanding the Buddhist Environment in Two Brahmanical Settlement Zones from Some Unpublished Buddhist Antiquities of Erstwhile West Dinajpur, West Bengal’, JBA, vol. 17, 2012, pp. 17-38. Eun-Su Lee, ‘On Defining Buddhist Art in Bengal: The Dhaka Region’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin, 2009. Umakant Mishra, Vajrayāna Buddhism: Study in Social Iconography, Pratibha Prakashan, Delhi, 2009, pp. 43-76. S.K. Jha, op. cit., p. 137. Ranjusri Ghosh, ‘Puṇḍravardhana/Varendra: A Socio-Economic and Cultural Profile of a Sub-region of Early Medieval Bengal’, p. 194. Umakant Mishra, op. cit., pp. 32-4. Ibid.; Eun-Su Lee, op. cit., pp. 16 and 361-2. Ibid., p. 16. For similar observations, also see p. 362. Ibid., p. 363. Eun-Su Lee, ‘A Preliminary Note on Buddhist Sculptures from Dhaka Region’, JBA, vols. 11-12, 2006-7, p. 270. Among the scholars who argue for the absence of Buddhism beyond the walls of its monastic centres, N.N. Bhattacharyya appears to be the most articulate. He has argued that Buddhist monks were ‘parasites’ living on the financial support of kings and landlords and Buddhism in its later form was not an organized religion with a following among the masses, hence it perished all of a sudden when royal patronage was withdrawn (N.N. Bhattacharyya, Buddhism in the History of Indian Ideas, Manohar, Delhi, 1987, p. 15). For similar observations, also see Andre Wink, Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World, vol. II, Slave Kings and

Introduction

96.

97.

98.

99. 100. 101.

102.

53

the Islamic Conquest, 11th-13th Centuries, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1999, pp. 335-43. Wink has argued that Buddhism got contracted to monastic centres of Magadha and as ‘megamonasteries’ (Nalanda etc.) emerged, ‘economics of scale dictated the concentration of resources in a relatively small number of large academic centres or Mahaviharas, and the latter simply drove the smaller ones out of business’ (p. 343, emphasis added). Trevor Ling, ‘Buddhist Bengal and After’, in D.P. Chattopadhyaya (ed.), History and Society: Essays in Honour of Professor Nihar Ranjan Ray, K.P. Bagchi & Company, Calcutta, 1978, pp. 317-25. A recent example of this trend is K.T.S. Sarao. As per his observations, Vajrayāna and its various forms (Sahajayāna, Kālacakrayāna) constitute the history of Buddhism in Bengal and Odisha during the Pāla, Candra and Kamboj eras (K.T.S. Sarao, The Decline of Buddhism in India: A Fresh Perspective, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 2012, p. 140, emphasis added). L.M. Joshi, Studies in the Buddhist Culture of India during the Seventh and Eighth Centuries AD, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2002 (rpt.), p. 63; Seema Hoque and M.M. Hoque, ‘Understanding the Paharpur Temple Architecture in New Perspective’, in Dr. Md. Shafiqul Alam (ed.), Proceedings of the International Seminar on Elaboration of an Archaeological Research Strategy for Paharpur World Heritage Site and Its Environment (Bangladesh), 20-25 March 2004, Dhaka, Deptt. of Archaeology, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 2004, p. 60. L.M. Joshi, op. cit., p. 63. Ibid., p. 63. G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Buddhist Hindu Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, The International Centre for Study of Bengal Art [henceforth ICSBA], Dhaka, 2000, p. 34. For similar observations on the importance of inscriptions in historical archaeology, see D.K. Ganguly, Ancient India: History and Archaeology, Abhinav Publications, Delhi, 1994. He has rightly argued that ‘of what is called historical archaeology a major part is, doubtless, formed by inscriptions, shedding light upon various facets of the history and culture of Indian people during the ancient and medieval periods in such a manner as is hardly provided by literary or any other source’ (p. 122).

CHAPTER 2

Geographical Background

Some Preliminaries It is hoped that this chapter will provide the background in which we may undertake an in-depth study of the distribution pattern of religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, which will be attempted in the next two chapters. In this chapter, ‘Bihar’ will stand for today’s Bihar. We have not included its erstwhile Chhotanagpur plateau (i.e. today’s Jharkhand) in our analysis. ‘Bengal’ in this chapter will mean undivided Bengal, i.e. today’s Indian province of West Bengal and the Republic of Bangladesh. In Bengal, we have also included the Manbhum area (parts of Bankura district and the whole of Purulia district), which was, as observed by Arthur Geddes in the 1920s, ‘a debatable land, much of it jungle, half Bengali and half primitive in settlement and life’.1 In Bengal, we have included Sylhet district despite the fact that prior to 1947, it was a district of Assam. This is due to their geographical contiguity and cultural similarities. The geographical features of Bihar and Bengal have been studied systematically by Arthur Geddes, O.H.K. Spate and A.T.A. Learmonth, and R.L. Singh. We have also relied on H.E. Rashid’s study of the geography of Bangladesh. Colonial records too, particularly the Statistical Accounts of W.W. Hunter, and different ‘District Gazetteers’ throw important light on the natural and human geography of Bihar and Bengal. Statistical Accounts of Hunter are immensely useful in understanding the patterns of human negotiations of the physical geography of Bihar and

Geographical Background

55

Bengal, as well as in understanding micro variations within individual districts. We will attempt a combined analysis of these writings.

Geographical Features of Bihar The Middle Ganga Plains—an area which has ‘immense human, cultural and economic significance that makes it the heart region of India’2—include some portions of eastern Uttar Pradesh as well, but it is Bihar which may be regarded as the core area of the Middle Ganga Plains. Bihar shares an open border with Bengal, and as such, ‘it is a transitional region par excellence, interposed in the enormity of the Ganga valley’.3 Much of Gangetic Bihar falls under the Middle Ganga Plains, except Purnea and Kishanganj districts, which are in the Lower Ganga Plains.4 We can divide Bihar into two broad portions: the North Bihar Plains and the South Bihar Plains.5

North Bihar Plains Geographically, the North Bihar Plains offer a case of flat topography composed of old and new alluviums. The only exception to the monotony of this flat plain is provided by the intrusion of the Shivalik Hills in the northern part of the Champaran district. The Shivalik Hills in the Champaran district cover an area of 369 sq. miles.6 These ranges are the source of important rivers like the Burhi Gandak. These Hills provide connectivity to Nepal through three important passes: (a) The Sumeshvara Pass along the Juripani stream, (b) the Marwat Pass through the Marha river valley, and (c) the Bhiknathori Pass along the Kuddi river valley.7 The connectivity potentials of the Bhiknathori pass seems to have been utilized in the early historic period itself, as evidenced by the presence of Aśokan pillars in the neighbouring areas. Except this small intrusion of the Shivalik in the Champaran area, the rest of the North Bihar Plains is a remarkably flat plain from one end to another, so much so that ‘it is impossible to divide this region into physical

56

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

subunits on any prominent foundation of relief, except through the help of river systems’.8 One of the most important aspects of the geography of north Bihar is its intricate river system and the floods associated with these rivers. Important rivers of north Bihar which include the Ghaghara, Gandak, Burhi Gandak, Bagamati, Balan, the Adhwara group of rivers, Koshi, etc. – provide convenient access to the arterial route of the Ganga. But most of them have been sources of misery as well, due to their annual flooding and, occasionally, fluctuations in their courses. These rivers, by their distinct flooding patterns, have divided North Bihar into three fluvial zones: the Ghaghara-Gandak interfluve; the Gandak-Koshi interfluve; and the Koshi-Mahananda interfluve.9 In order to have a fuller understanding, we will attempt a detailed discussion on important rivers, soil types, flooding patterns, and agrarian potentials of each zone. The Ghaghra-Gandak interfluve is the smallest among these zones and it covers the whole of the old Saran district (i.e. modern Saran, Siwan and Gopalganj districts). The old Saran district is a wide alluvial plain, bounded by great rivers (Ganga in the south, Gandak in the east and Ghaghara in the west and north-west) and numerous water channels. The slope of the land is towards the southeast; hence all the channels of this district flow in a south-easterly direction and carry off the drainage of the country. They generally run along levels higher than the adjacent land, which is therefore liable to inundations. Beneath the high banks lie the basins in which the surface drainage primarily collects, to be discharged into the rivers in their lower reaches.10 Some parts of the district are subject to flooding either by the excessive local rainfall or by the spill waters of the three great rivers while in spate, but the ‘evil effects of floods are not as severe as those of droughts’.11 The rivers have one great thing to offer: connectivity to distant lands. O’Malley has noted that navigation in the Ghaghara, Gandak and Ganga was easy and ‘large river-borne trade is carried on; river steamers from Patna ply as far as Ajodhya calling at many places and competing to

Geographical Background

57

some extent with the railways for both goods and passenger traffic’.12 The Ghaghara was navigable as far as Ayodhya by the largest boats as well as by light draught steamers, and as far as Nepal by country boats of light and medium capacity, in the nineteenth century.13 In a nutshell, in terms of intensity and frequency of floods, the old Saran district appears to be least affected in the entire North Bihar. It is generally free from marshes.14 In the early twentieth century, it was densely populated and was ‘long known for the high stage of its cultivation’.15 In contemporary Bihar, the Ghaghara-Gandak interfluve forms the sugar belt of Bihar. The Gandak-Koshi interfluve roughly coincides with the historical Mithilā/Videha/Tīrabhukti area, and covers the modern districts of Champaran, Muzaffarpur, Vaishali, Samastipur, Darbhanga, Madhubani, Begusarai, Khagaria, and parts of Saharsa, Madhepura and Supaul districts. Important rivers – the Gandak, Burhi Gandak, Bagamati, Kamala, Balan, and the Adhawara group of rivers – have differential flooding patterns, and they divide this interfluve into important zones of fertility and human occupation. The Gandak enters north Bihar in Champaran district, and before joining the Ganga near Hajipur, it used to provide one of the most important waterways in north Bihar. In the late nineteenth century, Hunter has reported that among north Bihar rivers, only the Gandak was navigable for the whole year for large boats.16 Lalaganj, 15 km to the south of the ruins of Vaishali (Basarh), was one of the most important riverine ports on the Gandak, and it used to have direct riverine access up to Calcutta for cargo boats of large sizes.17 The Gandak does not have any significant tributary. In terms of ferocity and frequency of floods, the Gandak certainly ranked higher than the Ghaghara. Its gradient is higher than that of the Ghaghara, hence it is more notorious for floods and change in the river course.18 However, it is certainly less notorious for changing its river courses than the rivers to the east of it. The Burhi Gandak originates near Someshvara Hills in

58

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Champaran district, and joins the Ganga opposite Munger after passing through the districts of Champaran, Muzaffarpur, Samastipur, Begusarai and Khagaria. In the late nineteenth century, it used to provide connectivity as far as Motihari for cargo boats during the rainy season.19 The land between the Gandak and the Koshi, comprising colonial Tirhut district (i.e. modern Vaishali, Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and East and West Champaran districts), colonial Darbhanga (i.e modern Samastipur, Darbhanga and Madhubani districts), parts of old Munger district (i.e. modern Begusarai and Khagaria district including Gogri thana), northern parts of colonial Bhagalpur district (Saharsa and Naugachhia area), is a land of great geographical diversity, especially in terms of patterns of flooding. Flood patterns had a great influence in determining the cropping pattern and concentration of population in the entire tract by dividing it into important micro zones. In 1876, W.W. Hunter divided the district of Tirhut (i.e modern Vaishali, Muzaffarpur, Champaran, Samastipur and Darbhanga) into three zones in terms of flooding patterns: (a) The south-western portion (covering modern Vaishali district), which was the least flooded and highest elevated tract within the Tirhut district. It was least prone to floods and was most fertile.20 (b) The Gandak-Bagamati interfluve, which was a lowlying tract subject to inundations. Crops here were principally kharif, and (c) Trans-Bagamati region, which was very low and marshy.21 It may be noted that the Bihar District Gazetteer – Muzaffarpur (covering the contemporary districts of Muzaffarpur and Vaishali) has noted a similar pattern of flooding and fertility.22 The important early historic urban centre of Vaishali emerged in the least flooded and most fertile tract of Mithila/Videha/ Tīrabhukti. Important geographical variations have been noted in the case of old Darbhanga district (comprising modern Samastipur, Darbhanga and Madhubani districts). The tract in the extreme south-west (i.e. the tract to the south of the Burhi Gandak and areas around the Ganga, that is the thanas of Mohiuddinanagar,

Geographical Background

59

Samastipur and Dalasingsarai) consists of a large block of upland, with a ‘few marshes here and there’, and forms the richest and most fertile part of the district.23 The marshy doab between the Burhi Gandak and the Bagamati (corresponding roughly with Warisnagar thana) is the lowest part of the district, and is liable to inundations from the Bagamati.24 The rest of the district, covering Darbhanga and Madhubani subdivisions is a vast lowlying plain, intersected by numerous streams and marshes.25 The south-eastern portions, corresponding roughly with the thanas of Biroul, Singhia, Bahera and Rosera, is marked with a marshy landscape. In the rainy season, this tract becomes a ‘vast chain of temporary lakes, joined together by numerous streams’. In a vast portion of this tract, land does not dry well untill cold weather sets in, hence in some places, ‘communication is open only for three-four months in a year’.26 In Begusarai and Khagaria districts, the Burhi Gandak forms a great dividing line. Areas to the south of this river are generally elevated, less prone to floods, and well-cultivated.27 In modern Begusarai district, areas to the north of the Burhi Gandak are more low-lying and abounding in marshes than the areas to the south of it. The marshiest part of this tract is met with in the Pharkiya Pargana, covering an area of around 200 sq. miles (Gogri thana of modern Khagaria district), where ‘several hundred’ lakes and marshes have been enumerated.28 In the early twentieth century, due to the general marshy nature of the Pharkiya Pargana, not more than half of the land was under cultivation.29 Most of these marshes owe their origin to the changes in the course of rivers. In the east, they merge with the marshes of the Koshi region. The situation appears to be even worse in the Koshi plains (whole of Saharsa, Madhepura, Supaul, Purnea districts; and parts of Khagaria, Darbhanga and Madhubani districts). This area is a virtual playground for the chaotic Koshi and her tributaries. Koshi, which has historically oscillated between the TeestaBrahmaputra system and the Ganga system,30 has been a nightmare for north Bihar. It is also the ‘most wild and most devastating of Indian rivers’.31 With the frequent changes of its

60

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

river course, it has imparted a distinct instability to a significant part of north Bihar. In earlier recorded instances, it has generally moved towards the west, from the Purnea area to the Darbhanga area. The year 2008 saw a reversal of this trend, when it moved some hundred miles to the east of its erstwhile main channel. The Koshi valley is subject to continuous threat to crops and settlements, hence it has the lowest (below 60 per cent) percentage of net sown area in the entire Middle Ganga Plains, and it is also less densely populated.32 It has the least rate of urbanization in the entire Middle Ganga Plains, and it is less accessible due to frequent changes in the river courses, marshes and oxbow lakes. The Mithila plains, on the other hand, have the highest density of population in the entire Middle Ganga Valley.33 The Mithila plains support a dense cultivation of rice, and along with Saran Plains, they form the sugar belt of modern Bihar.

South Bihar Plains In many ways, the plains of South Bihar – stretching from the Karmanasha River in the west to Rajamahal in the east, bounded by the Ganga in the north and the Jharkhand plateau in the south, show a transitional character. In the south, they merge with the uplands of Jharkhand slowly. In the east, the Rajamahal area provides a narrow opening to the plains of Bengal. Towards the west, this region slowly merges with the highlands of central India through the Kaimur plateau. The South Bihar Plains have been broadly divided into two distinct zones, with the river Sone forming the great dividing line:34 (a) Bhojpur Plains (the land between the Karmnasha and the Sone) comprising the old Shahabad district (i.e. modern districts of Buxar, Bhojpur and Rohtas). This zone is located to the west of the Sone River. (b) The Magadha-Aṅga Plains: the land to the east of the Sone River. It must be noted that neither the Bhojpur Plains nor the Magadha-Aṅga Plains are homogenous. The land between the

Geographical Background

61

Karmanasha and the Sone has been divided into three different divisions:35 (a) alluvial plains near the Ganga, (b) the land between the active flood plains of the Ganga and the Kaimur range, and (c) the Kaimur range, which is found in the extreme south-western part of the district. Historically, the transitional nature of old Shahabad district, particularly of its southern and western hilly areas, has been manifested by its continuous oscillation between the polities based in the Ganga Valley and tribal polities based in the Palamau-Daltonganj area of Jharkhand. Magadha, comprising the Old Patna district (i.e. modern Patna and Nalanda districts) and old Gaya district (i.e. modern Gaya, Jehanabad, Aurangabad and Nawada districts) and parts of Munger district, is not a homogenous space. The Old Patna district comprises the hills of Rajgir in the south-eastern portion of the district. An isolated hill is seen near the town of Biharsharif as well. In the northern part of the district, there is a narrow strip of somewhat high ground about 4 to 5 miles in width. It runs parallel to the bank of the Ganga and consists of a ‘peculiarly fertile soil producing magnificent crops.’36 This strip of highland offers a great safety from the devastating floods of the Ganga. The rest of the district is a flat alluvial plain, well cultivated and supporting a dense population. On the whole, the impressive fertility, a good rainfall, and freedom from devastating floods in the larger part of the district makes the Old Patna district one of the most important ‘area of attraction’ within modern Bihar. In the old Gaya district, two broad geographical divisions with different characteristics have been noted in the early twentieth century:37 (a) The northern half of the district, as well as most of the Jehanabad subdivision, Aurangabad and Nawada subdivisions, which are well-irrigated, fertile, and densely cultivated and populated. (b) The southern part, which starts from about 10 km to the south of Gaya town. It was hilly, forested, ‘barren and incapable of cultivation’ and sparsely populated.38 In topography and culture, it was more similar to the

62

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia plateau area of Jharkhand than to the plains of Magadha. To quote O’Malley, it ‘was long the shelter of aboriginal tribes, and did not yield to the advance of civilisation till a late period in the history of the district’.39

The Aṅga plains consist of the modern districts of Munger and Bhagalpur.40 The Munger district, barring the forested and hilly tracts in the southern portions, is largely a flat alluvial plain. In and along the Ganga, there are many diaras which are noted for their fertility. But they are continuously subject to diluvion of the Ganga hence ‘cultivation on diaras is thus often a matter of speculation’.41 Just to the south of the Ganga is a quasidiara tract lying along the bank of the river, which bears rich rabi crops. Between the river and the East India loop line, from Jamalpur to Lakhisarai, there are excellent rice lands, which yield exceptional crops in seasons free from floods. Between this tract and the southern hilly portions, there is a rich alluvial land, generally free from floods, producing good crops.42 Small rivers for instance, Harohar and the Kiul, occasionally flood, either due to heavy rainfall in the catchment areas or due to their inability to debouch in the Ganga in spate, but these floods are never as devastating as we see in many parts of north Bihar. The Bhagalpur district, barring the Naugachhia segment which lies to the north of the Ganga, shows some important features. A broad and well-raised belt of limestone, around two miles broad, runs along the southern banks of the Ganga, from Munger to Colgong, and forms a natural barrier against the incursions of this river.43 This belt was densely wooded till the early twenteith century.44 The tract just to the south of this belt is lowland, which remains under water during the rainy season and wears only spring crops. Still further south, the land rises a few feet. It is very fertile and it produces abundant wheat, rice and other crops.45 In the extreme southern portion of the district, the country becomes undulating and merges with the hills and forests of the Santhal Pargana. This brief analysis of the South Bihar Plains underlines one important inference: the plains of South Bihar (i.e. Bhojpur-

Geographical Background

63

Magadha-Aṅga Plains) are generally not subject to the devastating floods of the type we frequently see in north Bihar. The southern bank of the Ganga is more stable and permanent than the northern one.46 Most of the rivers of south Bihar originate in the plateau areas of Jharkhand, except the Sone, which comes from central India. Most of them are the tributaries of the Ganga, and their bed is lower than that of the Ganga. When they are unable to empty their waters into the Ganga in spate, they inundate wide areas, but the destruction caused to property is much less compared to north Bihar floods. The Bhojpur Plains receive less rainfall than the Magadha-Aṅga Plains, hence they are more arid. The rainfall in the MagadhaAṅga plains is similar to that of the North Bihar Plains (122 cm annually). These favourable geographical conditions are reflected in the emergence of the Magadha-Aṅga plains as the heartland of modern Bihar. Today, they support the highest rate of urbanization in Bihar.47

Bengal: Physiographic Divisions The Bihar plains merge with the plains of Bengal through the narrow Rajamahal area as well as through the wider PurneaKatihar area. There is practically no geographical barrier between these two plains. Naturally, elements of geographical similarities are not absent, yet the elements of difference are not less important either. Two things which set the plains of Bengal apart from those of Bihar are: (a) proximity to the sea, which allows it to establish trade contacts with distant lands, and (b) a peculiar fluvial volatility, which imparts a distinct instability to a large part of the landscape. The fluvial volatility appears to be one of the most important factors in the history and geography of Bengal. Sometimes, this volatility is reflected in catastrophic calamities due to massive changes in the courses of the rivers, like the flooding – rather the deluge – of the Teesta in 1877, which killed around one-sixth of the population of the district of Rangpur.48 This volatility need not essentially be associated with calamities of this kind. Even

64

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

moderate floods and slow changes in the river courses had the potential to have important socio-economic repercussions. Fluvial volatility and the resultant instability has been an important feature of the geography of Bengal. This has been perceived to be so pronounced that it has induced sustained historical and anthropological researches on Bengal from a ‘frontier’ framework.49 Despite this, another dimension is provided by its history. Mughal records, travellers like Ibn Battuta, etc., generally attest to the great prosperity of the Bengal countryside. What could have been the situations in the early historic and early medieval period? Can these two aspects of Bengal be reconciled? Or should we believe that these two aspects of Bengal co-exist and thus provide uniqueness to Bengal? In the subsequent paragraphs, an attempt will be made to understand the geographical features of Bengal, with particular reference to its physiographic divisions, flooding patterns and riverine volatility, soil types and fertility, cropping pattern and rural settlement patterns. In contrast to the generally held notion of the land – ‘new mud, old mud and the marshes’ – a good deal of physiographic variation within the general pattern of alluvial and deltaic plains is discernible. These variations divide Bengal into important subdivisions. Following Spate and Leramonth, we may divide Bengal into the following subdivisions:50 1. The submontane terai (the Duars) 2. The Northern Paradelta or the Ganga-Brahmaputra doab and the Barind 3. The Eastern Margins: the Surma valley, the plains along the Meghna, and coastal plains of the Chittagong area. 4. The Western margins, which comprises two different parts: (a) The largely lateritic piedmont plains between the Bhagirathi-Hooghly and the peninsular flock ( Jharkhand Uplands), largely corresponding to the plains of Rarh, and (b) the Contai Coastal Plains. 5. The Ganga Delta proper between the Hooghly-Bhagirathi,

Geographical Background

65

the Padma-Meghna, and the sea. It is not a homogenous mass of land. It is further subdivided between the Active Delta, the Mature Delta and the Moribund Delta.

The Submontane Terai: The Duars This part is identical with what Rashid calls the Himalayan Piedmont plains.51 Boundaries of this subdivision are formed by the Mahananda River in the west and the Karatoya in the east. It is basically the alluvial cone of many Himalayan rivers; with a high gradient (0.91 km) towards the south. Soils are basically recent alluvial deposits, mostly sandy silt.52 This tract covers most of Jalpaiguri and Cooch Bihar districts and parts of Rangpur district. In terms of providing connectivity to Tibet and China (via the Assam plains and upper Burma), this region is strategically located. Rivers are swift, and due to the high gradient in this area, flooding takes place only in the lower valleys, not here.

The Ganga-Brahmaputra Doab and the Barind This doab, covering the old districts of most of Maldah, Dinajpur, Bogra, Rajshahi, Pabna, and parts of Murshidabad, is essentially a paradelta – a vast plain scarred by innumerable old river courses, and liable to disastrous floods. This tendency for sudden and disastrous floods is most marked with the Teesta, which, like the Koshi, is an ‘exceptionally violent stream’.53 In the heart of this doab lies the Barind (a corrupt form of Varendra), ‘the large island or terrace of older quasi-lateritic alluvium’.54 As per Spate and Learmonth’s observations, the Barind still carries much scrubs and degraded remnant forests, and ‘forms a marked negative tract on the population map of modern Bengal’.55 Its height is around 18 m above the valleys and surrounding plain areas.56 The Barind area seems to have undergone a fundamental change in its fortune. Geddes, quick to note that the Barind was ‘cultivated quite early and it was the seat of the Buddhist empire

66

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of the Pāla dynasty’ has also noted its ‘gradual lapse into jungle and waste’57 in the medieval times. In the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries, it was being cleared by the Santhal tribe from Jharkhand, as well as by the Koch tribe from Cooch Bihar area.58 Soils of the Barind tract are basically reddish and yellowish clay and they are known as khiar in local parlance. Soil fertility is generally poor, and in the ‘western Barind as a whole, the higher lands were practically useless in drought and their soil tended to become impoverished’.59 If that is the situation in the higher portions of Barind, the situation is not much better in the lower valleys either, which are in constant danger of floods.60 It is interesting to note that Varendra, which formed the most important zone of occupation in early historic and early medieval Bengal, was relegated to a marginal position during the medieval period. The processes that heralded this shift are yet to be explored in some detail. This marginalisation demonstrates some important features of the historical and geographical dynamics of Bengal. One core may become a periphery in time, or a frontier area may become the heartland of a new polity. This is somewhat different from the plains of Bihar. In Bihar, the plains of Magadha retained their dominance from a very early phase to the present age. W.W. Hunter’s records on the district of Mymensingh, which technically does not fall in the Ganga-Brahmaputra doab, throw some interesting lights. As per his observations, almost the whole of the Mymensingh district, except the Madhupur jungle and a portion of Ran Bhawal, was level and plain, covered with well-cultivated fields an intersected by numerous small channels and rivers.61A large portion of the western and south-eastern part of the district, comprising the colonial fiscal divisions of Juanshahi and Ran Bhawal used to be under water during the rainy season.62 Madhupur jungle extended from the northern part of Dhaka district to the very heart of Mymensingh district, almost as far as the Jamuna.63 The Madhupur jungle, with its average height around 60 ft above the level of the surrounding plains, was around 45 miles long and 6-7 miles wide. In Hunter’s

Geographical Background

67

time, it was covered with dense jungle, abounded in wild beasts, and was the ‘most unhealthy part of the district, especially during the rains and the summers’.64 This old alluvium tract east of the Jamuna-Brahmaputra, as noted by Geddes in the early twentieth century, ‘has resisted the cultivator quite long’.65 Its red clay soil, strongly impregnated with iron, was least suitable for agriculture, and this could be a factor in the general agriculture backwardness of the district and paucity of archaeological data.

Lands to the East of the Surma-Meghna: The ‘Eastern Margins’ As per Spate and Learmonth’s classification, the lands to the east of the Surma and the Meghna, that is the Surma valley, plains along the Meghna, and the plains along Chittagong coast, form a separate physiographic subdivision within Bengal.66 This tract includes Cachar district of Assam (which may be regarded as an extension of Surma Plains) and the districts of Sylhet, Comilla and Noakhali.67 It also includes the coastal plains of Chittagong. Barring the coastal plains of Chittagong, most of this tract formed a ‘great embayment of low land’.68 Within this general pattern, a differentiation exists: Sylhet district is certainly the most amphibious part, not only within the ‘Eastern Margins’, but practically within the entire Bengal. On the other hand, lands to the east of Noakhali, and the Chittagong plains are only partly deltaic. The Chittagong plains are in fact narrow coastal plains, and with a rainfall over more than 100 in., it is almost a rice monoculture. Sylhet, ‘the land of winding rivers, swamps and rice’,69 may be regarded as one of the marshiest districts of Bengal. Large swamps – locally known as hāor due to the fact that they resemble the sea during the rainy season – are one the most important characteristics of the landscape.70 This district consists of the lower valley of the Barak or the Surma. It is an open alluvial plain, about 70 miles wide, surrounded by hills in the north and south (Meghalaya and Tripura hills respectively). 71 In

68

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

the west, this district opens towards the delta of lower Bengal. The greater part of the district is a uniform plain, broken only by clusters of small sandy hillocks, and intersected by a large number of rivers, water courses, and drainage channels.72 During the rainy season, the ‘torrents that pour down in cataracts from the hills, together with the heavy local rainfall, convert the entire surface into a boundless sea of water’. 73 During the monsoons, ‘an immense area of the district goes under water; the villages are strung along the banks of the rivers, avoiding the marshes that lie behind; or they are aligned to the edges of Tripura ridges’.74 Villages tend to cluster on the levees of different rivers or khals because they provide the only strip of higher land in the entire district, and in the rainy season, they look like pearls of islands surrounded by sea-like hāors. In the late nineteenth century, the Kaibartas, the untouchable caste of fishermen and cultivators, formed the most numerous caste of the district, followed by the jugis or the weavers.75 Comilla and Noakhali districts – what Geddes calls ‘Tippera Submerged fans’ – appear to offer a little different picture. This tract offers tremendous resistance to the diluvion process of big rivers (the Meghna and the Padma) due to the nature of its soil. No rapid moving river is to be found in this plain and the main drainage is from the Meghna in the inundation season.76

The Western Margins: The Rarh Plains and the Contai Coastal Plains This portion is basically confined to the tract to the west of the Bhagirathi-Hooghly, and has a lot of internal variation. The Rarh plains are different from the Contai Coastal plains, and this is due to differences in soil composition and riverine fluctuations. The Rarh plains comprise the eastern parts of Birbhum, Bankura, Bardhaman and Medinipur districts. This lateritic region experiences a different climatic condition than the rest of the lower Ganga plains. It is a shelf of lateritic old alluvium, flanked by the coalesced fan of rivers draining the Jharkhand plateau – the Ajay, the Damodar and the Mayurakshi. All of them

Geographical Background

69

merge with the Bhagirathi-Hooghli in the Dead Delta zone. The lateritic areas are very poor in fertility, with a decidedly xerophytic aspect.77 Between the Damodar elbow and the Bhagirathi, is the ‘most typical dead deltaic zone’ where silted and stagnant bils are one of the most important aspects of the landscape.78 With rainfall ranging between 50 and 60 in., this is almost a land of rice monoculture. This sub-region, with its poor rainfall and poor fertility is ‘perhaps in general the most wretched and poverty-stricken part of Bengal’.79 However, it will be misleading to think of an overarching homogeneity within this subregion. A careful analysis of colonial records will force us to think of wide scale variations within individual districts in the Rarh plains. In the following pages, this analysis shall be attempted. A picture of ‘marked variations within individual districts’ come out sharply in Hunter’s Account of Birbhum district. In many ways, this district formed a kind of buffer between the plains of Bengal and the plateau areas of Jharkhand, and as such, till late medieval times, it was subject to continuous tribal incursions from Jharkhand.80 This district has important differentiations between its western portion and eastern potions. The eastern portion is ‘like ordinary alluvial plains of Lower Bengal’.81 But the lateritic and plateau-like western portion is an extension of the Jharkhand highlands, covered with jungle.82 Aman and aus rice were cultivated widely in the eastern segment. The western portion was more or less covered with jungle, but in Hunter’s time, ‘the areas under rice cultivation has greatly expanded in the last twenty years and large tracts of land formerly covered with jungle having been reclaimed and brought under rice cultivation’.83 This two-fold division, with marked physiographical differentiations, is a marked phenomenon in the case of Bardhaman district as well. The eastern part of the district, containing more than two-thirds of the total area of the district, is deltaic in nature, marked with abandoned channels of the Bhagirathi, bils and swamps. Densely populated and intensively-cultivated villages, generally situated on higher grounds, are marked

70

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

features of the tract. These villages had ‘abundance of artificial tanks, built by individuals, and used in the irrigation of the cultivated fields’.84 This segment used to grow all the three principal varieties of rice – aman, aus and the boro (in the marshy areas). But the ‘barren, rocking and rolling’ western segment, covering most of the pargana of Gopalpur, which was the seat of a medieval polity with tribal roots (i.e. Sadagopa dynasty), was ‘practically treeless’.85 Before the discovery of coal in the nineteenth century, this tract was a ‘tremendous wilderness dotted at long intervals by tiny clearings and settlements and intersected by no great road or route’.86

The Ganga Delta Proper In popular parlance, the entire Bengal is supposed to be a delta. This is not a sustainable position. In fact, the Ganga Delta Proper (hereafter ‘the Delta’) consists of the land between the HooghlyBhagirathi, Padma-Meghna and the sea.87 This is not a homogenous landmass, and it has been subdivided into the following subdivisions, primarily on account of differences in flooding patterns and water supply by the rivers:88 (a) The Moribund Delta: mainly in Nadia, Jessore and Murshidabad districts. (b) The Mature Delta: in the northern half of the 24-Parganas district, and northern half of Khulna district. (c) The Active Delta: consisting of the land between the Sundarbans (i.e. southern Khulna and southern 24Parganas) and the country between the Madhumati and the Meghna (i.e. Faridpur and Bakarganj districts). To the west of the fringe of the spill areas of the great active rivers, lie the area (moribund delta) to which flood waters no longer spread. Exhaustion of the soil, decreased fertility and poverty are the natural corollaries. This feature is quite discernible in Nadia, Jessore and Murshidabad districts. The north-eastern quadrilateral of the moribund delta region is bounded by the Bhagirathi, Padma and Madhumati rivers, and

Geographical Background

71

its southern boundary is marked by a line roughly along the boundaries of the districts of 24-Parganas and Khulna.89 Even during high floods, the country is rarely subject to inundations; hence an increasing exhaustion of the soil, and an increasing poverty.90 The off-takes of the old channels in the north have silted up, hence rivers (spill channels of the Ganga) are almost ‘dead’. Westward from Faridpur town (roughly 90o E) to the beginnings of the ‘dead’ river tract (near 88030′E), is an intermediate and transitional tract of ‘dying’ rivers (i.e. Mature Delta). Here rivers are not yet ‘dead’, some silting occurs along the larger rivers, but as a whole, health and productivity of this region have been badly affected by the deterioration of the rivers.91 The Western confine of this region is marked by the Hooghly and the eastern one by the Madhumati. The Active Delta region consists of the land between the Madhumati and the Meghna rivers (i.e. southern Khulna, southern 24-Parganas, Faridpur and Bakarganj districts, and parts of Dhaka district) and the Sundarbans.92 Here rivers are most active, continuously affecting alluvion and diluvion, and des-troying a lot of land and property. But not less marked is the revivifying impact of floods. An active contrast between the ‘active east’ (i.e. eastern delta) and ‘stagnant and decaying west’ (i.e. the western delta) in the first half of the twentieth century is supported by empirical data as well. In his study on the population geography of Bengal between the two World Wars, Arthur Geddes found that in the decade of 1911-21, increase in population occurred close to the eastern bank of the active rivers. In these areas, this increase was more than 10 per cent and population density was more than 2,500 persons/sq. km.93 In the ‘dying’ river tract, population grew by just 6 per cent. In the ‘dead’ river tract, population growth rate was negative.94 In Nadia and Murshidabad districts, it declined by 15 per cent.95 Colonial records highlight the generally ‘amphibian’ nature of many districts of the Active Delta and the socio-economic

72

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

impacts of fluvial volatility. Thus in the case of the Faridpur district, Hunter noted that during the height of inundations of the Ganga, ‘the whole district may be said to be under water, the artificially raised villages in the lowlands forming so many islands, and the people go about in boats to keep up communication between one quarter of the village and the other’.96 As per his observations, this swampy nature became more pronounced as one leaves the town of Faridpur to move towards the south, where ‘the ground slopes, until in the south, on the borders of Bakarganj, it becomes one immense swamp, never entirely dry’.97 In Hunter’s time, in this tract, ‘all communication is carried out by means of boats’.98 In this kind of extreme swampy situation, one may practically rule out any concentration of population. But a bigger surprise awaited Hunter: Census reports showed that this area was ‘teeming with human population’.99 But on the whole, this district has a volatile landscape due to the continuous alluvion and diluvion of the Padma, and changes in her course. This volatility was particularly marked in the whole tract to the south of Goalundo (where the Padma joined the Brahmaputra–Jamuna), so much so that ‘it was often difficult for the surveyor to recognize the country that had been surveyed by them only the year before’.100 This instability was also related to the general physiography on the other side (i.e on the Tippera side) of these big rivers (Padma and Meghna). On the Tippera side, the country down to the deltaic rivers being generally well-wooded and firm, offered considerable resistance to the actions of the tremendous floods of the Meghna and the Padma. It forced these rivers to cut new channels in the softer and more recent deposit of Faridpur and Bakarganj districts.101 A similar pattern has been noted in Bakarganj district as well. During the rains, ‘the whole district is under water and the same often occurs in many places during a spring tide’.102 During Hunter’s time, ‘every peasant has a boat, which he uses once or twice every week to take him to the market’.103 Riverine alluvion and diluvion were continuously taking place, leaving a trail of marshes (bils), chars and ruins of washed away villages. Somehow,

Geographical Background

73

the local population has learnt to utilise the (drying) marshes for agriculture by the cultivation of long-stemmed rice. The Dhaka district too suffers much of the typical instability affected by the rivers of the active delta, and contains a rather infertile tract of the Madhupur jungle in its northern part, yet it was able to emerge as one of the most important nuclei of population concentration in colonial Bengal.104 The northern part (i.e. the land to the north of the Dhaleshvari river) is rarely subject to floods, hence it is less fertile than the southern portion of the district, which is subject to regular inundations. The whole of the southern portion, by the middle of July, is practically under water and ‘presents the appearance of an extensive lake covered with growing rice, through which boats sail from one part of the country to another’.105 Much of this tract consists of low-lying land and villages are generally built on artificial mounds for safety from floods. Long-stemmed rice was cultivated pretty extensively in the marshes of the southern portion of the district.106 That this pattern of cultivation was a success is attested by the fact that the southern portion of the district, and not the generally flood-free and marsh-free northern portion, emerged as one of the most important zones of concentration of population in early twentieth century Bengal. Before we conclude our discussion on the Active Delta, let us recapitulate the main impression: riverine volatility has imparted a distinct instability to this entire region, but that has not resulted in population decline. Somehow the local population has learnt to live with the marshes, and to utilize the agrarian potential of the generally marshy and swampy landscape. Before we wrap up this chapter, it is imperative for us to have a brief look into another important aspect of the geography of Bengal: changes in the courses of major rivers.

Bengal: Riverine Fluctuations and their Impact It appears that much of the present riverine configuration of Bengal did not get its present shape before the late eighteenth

74

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

century. This process has been reconstructed brilliantly by S.C. Majumdar. As per his analysis, the Bhagirathi was the main channel of the Ganga till the end of the fifteenth century AD Somewhere in the beginning of the sixteenth century AD, its main channel moved to the east, through the present Padma.107 Before the shift of the main channel of the Ganga to the east through the Padma, there were two major river systems in Bengal, functioning more or less independently in building and raising up of the deltaic tract to the west of the Madhupur jungle: (a) The Ganga system operating in central Bengal, and (b) the Teesta system, operating in North Bengal.108 Earlier the Mahananda and the Koshi were part of the Teesta system. At an even earlier date, before its junction with the Tsangpo of Tibet, even the Brahmaputra, a much smaller stream then, used to join the Teesta. These North Bengal rivers had a combined outfall in the sea, probably near the present Meghna estuary.109 Gradually, the Koshi, and then the Mahananda, changed their allegiance to the Ganga. This reduced the flow of north Bengal rivers and created conditions for the shift of the main channel of the Ganga through the Padma in the sixteenth century. For the Teesta/Karatoya, the result of this whole process was disastrous. It entered into a phase of continuous reduction in water volume. In Hunter’s time, it was a ‘narrow, extremely shallow and almost stagnant stream’.110 Even in the time of the survey by Colonel Rennel (AD 1810), it used to be a ‘very considerable river of the greatest celebrity in Hindu fable’. In his maps, the upper portion of the Karatoya is called ‘Teesta’, showing that at the time he wrote, much of the water of the Teesta was carried away by the Karatoya.111 Even much after the shift of the main channel of the Ganga to the east through the Padma, the Ganga did not meet the Meghna about 20 miles north of Chandpur as she does now. She used to flow more or less parallel to the Meghna, practically right up to the sea. In Rennel’s time, one minor branch of the Padma used to fall in the Meghna estuary, but the main branch had a direct opening to the sea near the island of Dakhin Shabazpur.112 By AD 1870, the Padma started to join the Meghna

Geographical Background

75

by dividing the pargana of Bikrampur into two parts.113 The resultant destruction of property was so enormous that the Padma got a notorious name, Padma kīrtināṣa, meaning Padma, the destroyer of fame. 470 villages, hitherto part of Dhaka district, were transferred to Faridpur as they were cut from Dhaka district due to change in the river course. Much change has taken place since then. The Padma has moved further north, and now she meets the Meghna 20 miles to the north of Chandpur (near Goalundo). But that has not resulted in the end of riverine volatility. The areas near the confluence of the Padma and the Meghna can ‘very well be described as the playground of rivers’.114 The result of this riverine fluctuation had been fundamental. Central Bengal (i.e. the tract we referred to as ‘Dead Delta’) has declined considerably in terms of soil fertility.115 North Bengal had to suffer due to the diversification of the Teesta after the flood, rather the deluge of 1787, which killed one-sixth of the population of Rangpur.116 Eastern Mymensingh and eastern Dhaka districts had to suffer due to the diversion of the old Brahmaputra through the Jamuna in the early part of the nineteenth century.117 In short, riverine volatility, with fundamental socio-economic ramifications, has been a part of the history of Bengal. This volatility has imparted a chronic instability to a significant portion of Bengal. However, it will be hazardous to go by some simplistic generalizations. Within a single district – Dhaka for example – this volatility could be a mixed baggage. The northern and north-eastern parts of this district became ‘decadent’ after the shift of the Brahmaputra through the Jamuna, but the southern and the south-eastern parts of this district gained immensely, even after much destruction of manpower and property, due to the easterly shift of the Ganga. One more thing must be added. For early historic and early medieval Bengal, we are probably dealing with a situation in which the riverine configuration was different from what we see today. The Bhagirathi was the main channel of the Ganga, the Padma did not exist, the Brahmaputra had a more easterly

76

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

course, which supported riverine ports like Wari-Batesvara. In this kind of situation, it shall be hazardous to think of the ancient cultural regions in terms of today’s riverine divisions. B.M. Morrison has made an attempt on this line, but that is open to questions. It may also be added that with this kind of riverine volatility, high rainfall and wet monsoon climate, chances of the survival of archaeological materials of the past are difficult, especially in view of the fact that most of the rural architecture of Bengal was generally mud-built in pre-Colonial times; brick was used only exceptionally.118 We are right in treating loose stone sculptures as one of the markers of past existence of religious centres.

Concluding Observations We have seen that from the hills of Kaimur to the hills of Chittagong or from the fertile and largely marsh-free plains of Saran to the swamps of Sylhet, differentiations are very much discernible in terms of geographical variables as well as in historical trajectories. Riverine volatility and resultant socioeconomic changes are, indeed, historical realities for a significant portion of Bengal. So are the marshes. In contrast to a large part of Bihar where a relative stability prevailed, a large part of Bengal appears to have suffered riverine volatility. In Bengal, one historical core (Varendra, for example) may become a periphery in course of time; a fertile portion of the Delta may become ‘dead’ or ‘decadent’ due to riverine fluctuations; a devastating flood may wipe out the traces of kucca houses, which are predominant in the rural landscape ; or a significant section of the population may be forced to live near the marshes, growing different varieties of aman or boro. Yet, as we shall see in the subsequent chapters, this entire area of Bihar-Bengal came to share some common cultural elements in the early medieval period. How was this variation in geographical space negotiated by religious centres in the early historic and early medieval period? This is something we will enquire in the subsequent chapters.

Geographical Background

77

It must also be repeated that important differentiations are discernible within Bihar as well as in Bengal. In Bihar, the plains of Magadha and Aṅga have the potential to emerge as ‘areas of attractions’. The eastern and south-eastern parts of Mithila plains, as well as most of Koshi plains suffer from floods, marshes, and changes in river courses. They are more similar to the plains of deltaic Bengal or the low-lying areas of Sylhet than to the plains of Magadha. Within Bengal, the Varendra area, largely free from floods, supported by good rainfall and fed by the waters of important rivers, could have emerged as one of the most important nuclei of early historic and early medieval Bengal. We may visualize more or less the same thing for the Comilla area within early historic and early medieval Samataṭa. Much of Rarh (barring the portion that adjoined the Jharkhand plateau) could have also shared the same trait. In the deltaic portions, situations could have been more volatile. But that does not allow us to visualize the entire Bengal, or even the entire east Bengal, as a frontier that was opened by Islam for the first time as propagated by American historians and anthropologists. In formulating generalizations, we generally tend to follow a paradigm in which the entire Bihar is perceived to be a homogenous core and entire Bengal a periphery. We may rather visualize a paradigm of multiple cores and multiple peripheries within the macro region. Or in other words, important variations are discernible not only between Bihar and Bengal, but also within Bihar and Bengal. It shall be our endeavour to analyze the geographical distribution pattern of religious centres across this variegated space. This is something that has been attempted in the next two chapters.119

NOTES 1. Arthur Geddes, ‘Environmental Regions of Bengal and its Borderlands’, in Arthur Geddes, Man and Land in South Asia, edited with an Introduction by A.T.A. Learmonth et al., Concept Publishing Company, Delhi, 1982, p. 191.

78

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

2. R.L. Singh, India: A Regional Geography, National Geographical Society of India, Varanasi, 1971, p. 183. 3. Ibid., p. 183. 4. Ibid., p. 184. 5. See Appendix 3, Map 2. 6. R.L. Singh, op. cit., p. 189. 7. Ibid., p. 190. 8. Ibid., p. 191. 9. Ibid. 10. L.S.S. O’Malley, Bihar and Orissa District Gazetteers – Saran, Logos Press, Delhi, 2007, p. 2. 11. P.C. Roychaudhury, Bihar District Gazetteer – Saran, Secretariat Press, Patna, 1960, p. 131. 12. L.S.S. O’Malley, op. cit., p. 7. 13. Ibid., p. 7. 14. Ibid., pp. 10-11. 15. Ibid., p. 3. 16. W.W. Hunter, A Statistical Account of Bengal, vol. XIII: Districts of Tirhut and Champaran, Concept Publishing House, Delhi, 1976, p. 132. 17. Ibid., p. 132. 18. R.L. Singh, op. cit., p. 196. 19. W.W. Hunter, op. cit., pp. 130-1. 20. Ibid., p. 131 21. Ibid., p. 132. 22. P.C. Roychaudhury, Bihar District Gazetteer – Muzaffarpur, Secretariat Press, Patna, 1960, p. 2. 23. P.C. Roychaudhury, Bihar District Gazetteer – Darbhanga, Secretariat Press, Patna, 1964, p. 2. 24. Ibid., p. 2. 25. Ibid., p. 2. 26. Ibid. 27. L.S.S. O’Malley, Bihar and Orissa District Gazetteers – Monghyr, Logos Press, Delhi, 2007 (rpt.), pp. 1-2. 28. Ibid., p. 10. 29. Ibid., p. 3. 30. R.L. Singh, op. cit., p. 197. 31. Ibid., p. 196. 32. Ibid., p. 305. 33. Ibid., p. 247.

Geographical Background

79

34. Ibid., p. 246. 35. K. Anand, History and Archaeology of Buxar, Bhojpur and Rohtas Regions, Ramanand Vidya Bhavan, Delhi, 1995, p. 10. 36. P.C. Roychaudhury, Bihar District Gazetteers – Patna, Secretariat Press, Patna, 1970, p. 4. 37. L.S.S. O’ Malley, Bengal District Gazetteers – Gaya, Logos Press, Delhi, 2007 (rpt.), p. 2. 38. Ibid., p. 2. 39. Ibid., p. 3. 40. After 1990, Lakhisarai, Shekhpura and Jamui subdivisions of the Munger district were made separate districts. We are referring here to the pre-1990 Munger district. 41. L.S.S. O’Malley, Bihar and Orissa District Gazetteers – Monghyr, op. cit., p. 90. 42. Ibid., p. 91. 43. P.C. Roychaudhury, Bihar District Gazetteer –Bhagalpur, Secretariat Press, Patna, 1961, p. 5. 44. Ibid., p. 5. 45. Ibid. 46. R.L. Singh, op. cit., p. 194. 47. Ibid., p. 212. 48. S.C. Majumdar, ‘Rivers of the Bengal Delta’, in K.R. Biswas (ed.), Rivers of Bengal: A Compilation, Govt. of West Bengal, Higher Education Dept., Calcutta, 2001, p. 44. 49. Some important researches on Bengal from this perspective have been carried by Ralph Nicholas and Richard Eaton. See Ralph Nicholas, ‘Vaisnavism and Islam in the Environs of Rural Bengal’, in Rafiuddin Ahmed (ed.), Understanding Bengal Muslims, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2001, pp. 52-70; Richard Eaton, The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1994. 50. O.H.K. Spate and A.T.A. Learmonth, India and Pakistan: A General and Regional Geography, Methuen, London, 1967 (rpt.), p. 573. 51. Harun E. Rashid, Geography of Bangladesh, University Press Limited, Dahka, 1991, p. 12. 52. Ibid., p. 12. 53. O.H.K. Spate and A.T.A. Learmonth, op. cit ., p. 582. 54. See Appendix 3, Map 3. 55. O.H.K. Spate and A.T.A. Learmonth, op. cit ., p. 582.

80 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

67. 68. 69. 70.

71.

72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia A. Geddes, op. cit., p. 191. Ibid., p. 191. Ibid., p. 191. Ibid., p. 191. Ibid., p. 192. W.W. Hunter, A Statistical Account of Bengal, vol. V: Districts of Dacca, Bakarganj, Faridpur and Maimansinh, D.K. Publishing House, Delhi, 1973 (rpt.), p. 384. Ibid., p. 384. Ibid. Ibid. A. Geddes, op. cit., p. 192. Geddes has classified this portion of Bengal as ‘Eastern Bengal Border Plains’ and by that he means the areas lying to the east of the Surma-Meghna (Geddes, op. cit., p. 194). This zone roughly constituted the Samataṭa subregion of early medieval Bengal. O.H.K. Spate and A.T.A. Learmonth, op. cit., p. 583. A. Geddes, op. cit., p. 195. For a detailed analysis of the hāors of the Sylhet district, see Shamsul Alam et al. (‘Sylhet and its Evolving Geographical Environment’, in Sharif Uddin Ahmed, ed., Sylhet: History and Heritage, Bangladesh Itihas Samiti, Dhaka, 2008, pp. 73-6), who have claimed that out of a total area of 12,569 sq. km. of this district, around 6,000 sq. km. are covered by different hāors. Most of these hāors are perennial in nature. W.W. Hunter, A Statistical Account of Assam, vol. II: A Statistical Account of the District of Sylhet, Low Price Publications, Delhi, 1990 (rpt.), p. 262. Ibid. Ibid. A. Geddes, op. cit., p. 195. W.W. Hunter, op. cit., p. 279. A. Geddes, op. cit., p. 192. O.H.K. Spate and A.T.A. Learmonth, op. cit., p. 586. Ibid., p. 587. Ibid. In the seventeenth-eighteenth centuries this district was granted as a Zamindari to Asad-Ulah Khan, and his soldiers were granted lakhiraj or rent free grants, with a motive of checking tribal

Geographical Background

81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96.

97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104.

105. 106.

81

incursions form Jharkhand. See W.W. Hunter, A Statistical Account of Birbhum, Govt. of West Bengal, Calcutta, 2001 (rpt.), p. 2. W.W. Hunter, ibid., p. 8. Ibid.p. 8 Ibid., p. 43. J. Peterson, Bengal District Gazetteers – Burdwan, Govt. of West Bengal Press, Calcutta, 1997 (rpt.), p. 3 . Ibid., p. 4. Ibid. O.H.K. Spate and A.T.A. Learmonth, op. cit., p. 573. A. Geddes, op. cit., p. 192. Also see Appendix 3, Map 5 of the present book. O.H.K. Spate and A.T.A. Learmonth, op. cit., p. 588. Ibid., p. 588. A.Geddes, op. cit., p. 196. O.H.K. Spate and A.T.A. Learmonth, op. cit., p. 588. A. Geddes, op. cit., p. 196. Ibid. Ibid., p. 196. W.W. Hunter, A Statistical Account of Bengal, vol. V: Districts of Dacca, Bakarganj, Faridpur and Maimansinh, D.K. Publishing House, Delhi, 1973, p. 258. Ibid., p. 257. Ibid., p. 258. Ibid., p. 259. Ibid., p. 267. Ibid., p. 268. Ibid., p. 167. Ibid. In his doctoral research on the Population Geography of Bengal during the period between the two World Wars, Geddes noted that Bengal had two areas of attraction in terms of population concentration: Calcutta-Hooghly area and Dhaka-Vikramapur area. Within the Dhaka-Vikramapur area, ‘the greatest concentration of population is clustered upon the riversides and spread like a figure ‘X’ near Dacca and Padma-Meghna confluence’ (A. Geddes, op. cit., p. 194). W.W. Hunter, A Statistical Account of Bengal, vol. V: Districts of Dacca, Bakarganj, Faridpur and Maimansinh, op. cit., p. 19. Ibid., p. 25.

82

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

107. S.C. Majumdar, ‘Rivers of the Bengal Delta’, in K.R. Biswas (ed.), op. cit., p. 54. 108. Ibid., p. 58. 109. Ibid., p. 58. 110. W.W. Hunter, A Statistical Account of Bengal, Vol. VIII: Districts of Rajshahi and Bogra, D.K. Publishing House, Delhi, 1974 (rpt.), p. 142. 111. Ibid., p. 142. 112. S.C. Majumdar, op. cit., p. 60. 113. Ibid., p. 61. 114. Ibid. 115. Ibid., p. 45. 116. Ibid., p. 44. 117. Ibid. 118. Enamul Haque et al., ‘A Preliminary Report on Wari-Bateshwar Trial Excavation by ICSBA’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Excavations at Wari-Bateshwar: A Preliminary Study, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2001, pp. 34-5. 119. Throughout the book, we have not used diacritical marks for modern place and site names. We have used ‘Nalanda Mahāvihāra’ and not ‘Nālandā Mahāvihāra because ‘Nalanda’ is the name of a district in contemporary Bihar. Had this not been the case, we would have preferred ‘Nālandā Mahāvihāra’.

CHAPTER 3

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts of Support Systems of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres in Early Medieval Bihar

Some Preliminaries In the study of the archaeology of the distribution pattern and spatial contexts of support systems of religious centres in early medieval Bihar, one faces some genuine problems, mainly due to the state of the available database. In contrast to Bengal, where habitation sites such as Mahasthan and Bangarh have been excavated on a significant scale, the available database for early medieval Bihar mostly consists of different Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres. Magadha and Aṅga have attracted greater attention than North Bihar or the areas to the west of the Sone River in South Bihar. As the socio-economic life of the early medieval settlements of Bihar has not been adequately unraveled through archaeological excavations, it is difficult to trace the possible support systems of religious centres that emerged and functioned at/near such settlements.1 Similarly, only the bigger religious centres (Nalanda, Antichak, Kolhua, etc.) have invited the spade of the archaeologists. It is not sure if the pattern observed at such sites may be extended to smaller religious centres. To this may be added the great paucity of standing Brahmanical temples in Bihar. The published database

84

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

we have right now basically consists of loose stone and metal sculptures, data from some excavated Buddhist monastic/stūpa sites, and data from a few early medieval Brahmanical temples in ruins. As we will analyse the data from excavated Buddhist monastic sites in a separate chapter (Chapter 7), much of this chapter shall be concerned with the analysis of the distribution pattern of Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jaina sculptures and the possible spatial contexts of the support systems of those religious centres where they were enshrined as objects of worship. As very few early medieval Jaina sculptures from Bihar have been published, much of this chapter will be concerned with the study of distribution pattern of Buddhist and Brahmanical stone sculptures, and structural ruins of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres found in archaeological explorations. In the study of the distribution pattern of sculptures, our objective will basically be to make a comparative study of the number and types of Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures reported from an area – how many sites appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites, how many sites appear to be Buddhist mono-religious sites, and how many sites show the presence of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres?2 In which area did Buddhism have early penetration, in which area did it penetrate late vis-à-vis Brahmanism? Are Buddhist sculptures found at the sites that are quite close to the sites where Brahmanical sculpture are found? Whether, and in how many instances, Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures are found at the same site? If they are found at the same site, what is their relative proportion? Do Buddhist sculptures tend to concentrate in any particular area? Are they practically absent in any area? In which areas are they only marginally present? What kinds of Buddhist sculptures were present? Do the Buddhist sculptures display extreme practices of Vajrayāna? Among the Brahmanical sculptures, what is the relative presence of Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, Saura and Śākta sculptures? We will also study the distribution pattern of Jaina sculptures and other archaeological markers of the presence of Jaina religious centres from a similar perspective.

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

85

The study of the distribution pattern of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina sculptures will be correlated with the extant ruins of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres. However, a century-wise study of sculptures, especially for the Pāla period, shall be largely impossible in the case of Bihar, as most of the available documentation of sculptures in this area generally prefer to bracket the entire Pāla period (c. 750-1200) into one chronological rubric. To have a fuller understanding of the early medieval situation, we will begin with a brief review of the archaeology of the distribution pattern and spatial contexts of support systems of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres in the Gupta period Bihar. We will begin with an analysis of Buddhist religious centres.

The Gupta Period Background The excavated and explored data related to Buddhist religious centres of this period in Bihar is not profuse. The presence of Buddhist religious centres during this period may be inferred through architectural remains discovered in archaeological excavations/explorations, sculptural data, and epigraphic data. We may begin with an analysis of the architectural data found in archaeological excavations/explorations. Architectural remains are not evenly distributed across Bihar. We see their concentration in Magadha, where sites such as Kumrahar, Nalanda, Mahābodhi, Bakror and Telhara have been excavated. Reported sites from other parts of Bihar, where direct or indirect evidence of the presence of religious centres during the Gupta period is available, include the Kolhua area of Vaiśālī and Kesariya in North Bihar, and Sultanganj in Bhagalpur district. We will discuss Nalanda and Mahābodhi in some detail in Chapter 7 of the present book. At Kumrahar, archaeological excavations near the Pillared Hall area resulted in the unearthing of the remains of a Gupta period square stūpa (that emerged over the ruins of the Kuṣāṇa

86

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

period apsidal stūpa), and the remains of a Gupta period monastery.3 As indicated by the discovery of an inscribed terracotta seal with the legend Śrī Ārogyavihāre Bhikṣusaṅghasya in the fourth-fifth centuries AD characters,4 this was the site of a Gupta period monastery. No epigraphic evidence related to its support system could be unearthed, but we may assume that these Buddhist religious centres could have derived their main patronage base from the urban population of Pāṭaliputra. It may also be noted that these Buddhist religious centres could not continue in the post-Gupta period, a phase when the city of Pāṭaliputra had declined. It is apparent that these religious centres could not attract alternate bases of patronage other than their dependence on urban patronage; hence they could not survive the decline of the city of Pāṭaliputra. The pattern at Bakror, in the neighbourhood of the Mahābodhi, appears to be different. Excavations at this site in 1972-3 led to the unearthing of a stūpa, which displays three stages of construction.5 The earliest phase of the stūpa has been dated to the second or first century BC.6 It seems to have been under continuous occupation and expansion till at least the ninth century. From the Pāla period layers of this site, an inscribed plaque, representing the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā, with the legend Devapālarājasya Sujātā Gṛha in the ninth century AD characters was discovered.7 It thus confirmed that this site was believed to be the place where the Buddha was offered khīra by Sujātā. The association of this site with an important event of the life of the Buddha – thereby rendering it to be something like a pāribhogikadhātu8 – could have ensured lay patronage and pilgrimage. The legend Devapālarājasya Sujātā Gṛha may be taken to mean that this stūpa, at least in its last phase, was patronized by the ruling king, who probably undertook an expansion of the stūpa and gave it his own name. No evidence of royal patronage to this site in the earlier period has been found so far. The support system of another Buddhist site of Magadha – Dharawat, located five miles to the west of the Barabar hills – is not clear. Cunningham’s fieldwork at the site led to the discovery of the remains of a Gupta period Buddhist monastery and ruins

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

87

of a stūpa.9 As indicated by the discovery of a Pāla period stone sculpture of a 12-armed deity inscribed with the Buddhist creed formula;10 a headless stone sculpture inscribed with the Buddhist creed formula in the sixth century AD characters,11 and many more fragmented and unidentifiable sculptures of the Pāla period,12 this site continued in the post-Gupta period as well. No archaeological evidence of royal patronage to this site in any phase has come to light so far. In North Bihar, the presence of Buddhist religious centres during the Gupta period has been noted in the excavations at the sites of Kolhua (on the outskirts of Vaiśālī) and Kesariya. At Kolhua, recent excavations near the Aśokan pillar area indicate the continuation and expansion of a stūpa dating back to the Mauryan or Śuṅga-Kuṣāṇa period in the Gupta period. An interesting discovery in the same general area was a Gupta period nunnery.13 This nunnery possibly continued in the postGupta period as well.14 The data from Kolhua indicates that the Buddhist religious centres at this site were able to attract some additional sources of patronage, which allowed them to survive the declining urbanization of Vaiśālī. It may be noted that Vaiśālī had an important place in the Buddhist pilgrimage geography and it functioned as a Pāribhogikadhātu.15 The emergence of Buddhist religious centres at this site in the Mauryan period and their survival in the Gupta and post-Gupta periods may be seen in the context of the place of Vaiśālī in Buddhist pilgrimage. That is also reflected in the findings of as many as 330 votive stūpas in the area around the Aśokan pillar area and the adjoining stūpa.16 The case with Kesariya (in Champaran district) appears to be similar. This site is traditionally associated with the place where the Lichchhavīs were believed to have said the final goodbye to the Buddha in his Mahāparinirvāṇayātrā and the Buddha gave them his alms-bowl as a memorial.17 Excavations at this massive, terraced stūpa site indicate that the earliest stūpa, mud-built, was made in the Mauryan period.18 It was enlarged and encased with brick during the Kuṣāṇa period.19 The stūpa witnessed extensive vertical expansion and elaborate ornamentation during the late Gupta period.20 The late Gupta period appeared to be the most

88

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

prosperous phase of the site.21 Located away from known urban centres, its main patronage base was most probably in pilgrimage. The case with the site of Sultanganj (in Bhagalpur district) appears to be a bit different in the sense that it is not known to be associated with the life of the Buddha. A Gupta period Buddhist monastery and stūpa within the town of Sultanganj were discovered.22 That this monastery continued in the seventh century as well is indicated by the re-evaluation of the date of the life-sized bronze image of the standing Buddha that was discovered among the ruins of the monastery. Following Cunningham, this image is traditionally believed to be a work of the Gupta period. But a careful re-examination of its iconographical features has led Frederick Asher to argue for a seventh century AD dating for this sculpture.23 If such a massive sculpture was added to this monastery in the seventh century, that may be taken as an indication of not only the survival of the monastery in this period but also of its ability to attract patronage. So far, we have not got any evidence of royal patronage to this religious centre. The site is located on the Ganga and it is possible that it might have benefited from the riverine trade passing through the area, but no direct evidence to this effect is available. The distribution pattern of excavated Buddhist religious centres in the Gupta period Bihar needs to be juxtaposed with the distribution pattern of reported Buddhist stone sculptures of this period as they too indicate the functioning of Buddhist religious centres. Most of the reported Buddhist sculptures of the Gupta period in Bihar have been reported from sites like Nalanda, Mahābodhi or Sultanganj. They are generally not found away from known monastic centres. Two exceptions to this general pattern are the stone sculpture of the Buddha reported from Bihat in Begusarai district,24 and another stone sculpture of the Buddha from Pandaul in Madhubani district.25 A stūpa site with possible Gupta period antiquity has also been reported from the Hajipur district.26 Barring the Pandaul example, reported specimens are generally not found away from the arterial route of the Ganga. Let us sum up the distribution pattern of Buddhist religious

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

89

centres in the Gupta period Bihar. We see their presence near big urban centres (Kumrahar, Vaiśālī), along the important riverine route of the Ganga (Sultanganj, Bihat), or at/near sites that served as pāribhogikadhātu (Bakror, Mahābodhi, Nalanda).27 Only the sites of Telhara, Pandaul and Dharawat appear to be different from this general pattern. On the whole, the presence of Buddhist religious centres in Bihar in this period appears to be less diffused than what we see in the Pāla period. Compared to Buddhist religious centres, architectural remains associated with Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres in the Gupta period Bihar are few. At Chausa (in Buxar district), located on the junction of the river Karmanasa and Ganga, the possible existence of a Gupta period Brahmanical temple has been inferred on the basis of the finding of terracotta panels depicting religious figures and themes.28 On the outskirts of Rajgir, a big temple (locally called Maṇiyār Maṭha) dedicated to the worship of Śiva, but having significant association with the Nāga cult, was constructed in the late fifth or early sixth century AD.29 In North Bihar, the presence of a Gupta period temple at Changhama in the Bhaera PS area of the Darbhanga district is indicated by the finding of a Makaramukha and an image of Varāha of this period.30 Similarly, the Gupta period Caturmukha Mahādeva enshrined in a temple at Bania (near Basarh, Vaiśālī) indicates the presence of a Gupta period (fifth century) temple dedicated to Śiva in the city of Vaiśālī.31 This temple most probably derived its patronage from the residents of the city. In the Aṅga area, the emergence of Brahmanical temples is indicated by architectural, sculptural and epigraphic data. A fourth century (c. AD 349) rock inscription engraved below a rock-cut image of Narasiṁha in a cave on the Mandār Hill (in Banka district) refers to the dēvakula (shrine) and Sattra of VirajoGuhā-Swāmina (i.e. the image of the Narasiṁha worshipped in the cave where this inscription was engraved). This cave-shrine commanded considerable pilgrimage, most probably due to the legendary association of Mandār Hill with the Samudramanthana episode.32

90

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Other temple sites that emerged in the Gupta period in the Aṅga area could not claim this association. Cunningham’s excavations of a mound at the locality called Chowki in the neighbourhood of the village of Rajaona (near Lakhisarai) led to the unearthing of the remains of a Śiva temple and two stone pillars, which most likely formed part of the maṇḍapa of this temple, 16.5 sq. in. and containing base-reliefs (depicting Śiva on mount Kailāśa along with Pārvatī and Ganga, etc.) and inscriptions in the ‘shell script which was in use all over northern India during the seventh-eighth centuries AD’.33 Most of the inscriptions were illegible but some of them read Śrī BhīmaKṣudra, Ratan pra in the paleographic style of seventh-eighth centuries AD.34 They probably represent the names of the persons who could have been associated with this temple in some way. Or they could have been the names of pilgrims. These pillars have been dated to the fifth-sixth centuries AD on stylistic grounds by Frederick Asher and on this basis, he has argued for the presence of a Gupta period temple at the site.35 Due to the limited excavations at the site, it is difficult to analyse its patronage base. The Kiul-Lakhisarai area formed the nucleus of the Pāla period urban centre of Kṛmilā, but we don’t know if this was the case even in the Gupta period. Due to this reason, it is difficult to determine if this temple attracted any urban patronage. Reported evidences of the presence of Jaina religious centres in the Gupta period Bihar seem to be confined to Rajgir, indicating that Jainism could not become a mass religion in Bihar in this phase.36 Many fifth century Jaina images are carved on the Sone Bhandar cave at Rajgir.37 A fifth century inscribed sculpture of Neminātha has also been reported from Rajgir.38 Let us sum up the pattern in the Gupta period Bihar. Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres functioned in a variety of contexts. Their support base was also diversified. But it was only in the early medieval period in general and the Pāla period in particular when we see a significant proliferation of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in a major portion of Bihar.

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

91

This is indicated by a great increase in the number of sites from where Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures have been reported. This is a theme we will analyse now.

Archaeology of the Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts of Support Systems of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres in Early Medieval Bihar Reported data for the early medieval period in general and the Pāla period in particular is so profuse that we are forced to undertake a district-wise analysis. We will begin with an analysis of South Bihar. In South Bihar, we will move from west to east. We will begin with the area to the west of the Sone river, which will be followed by an analysis of Magadha (Patna, Jehanabad, Gaya, Aurangabad and Nawada districts) and Aṅga area (Shekhpura, Lakhisarai, Jamui, Munger and Bhagalpur districts). It will be followed by an analysis of North Bihar. In the final section of the chapter, we will try to formulate some generalizations.

The Land between the Rivers Karmanasa and Sone in South Bihar The portion of South Bihar between the rivers Karmanasa in the west and Sone in the east was known by the name of Karuṣadeśa in ancient Indian historical geography.39 In terms of geographical features, this area has been divided into three broad zones: alluvial plains along the Ganga, the Kaimur plateau in the south and the flat country consisting of tertiary rocks and old alluvium in between the two.40 Despite generally being part of polities based in Magadha, the geographical location of Karuṣadeśa made it vulnerable to influences from the Varanasi area of Uttar Pradesh and tribal influences from Palamau area of Jharkhand. Despite showing certain similarities with cultures of Magadha, this area had some peculiarities of its own. In contrast to the rest of Bihar, where

92

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

early medieval stone sculptures were generally made of black stone or its variants, the sculptural tradition of Karuṣadeśa generally favoured sandstone. But the most fundamental difference between this region and rest of Bihar was related to the penetration of Buddhism and emergence of Buddhist religious centres in the same. In contrast to the rest of Bihar in general and Magadha in particular, Buddhism could not find much foothold in this zone in either the early historic or the early medieval period. Archaeological markers of the presence of Buddhist religious centres in Karuṣadeśa have been encountered at only three sites. At the site of Atmi, located around three miles from Nasriganj in Rohtas district, T. Bloch reported the discovery of the remains of a stūpa ‘exactly like many at Sarnath’, on the ruins of which a Hindu temple was later built.41 In the absence of proper excavations, even the identification of the lower mound as a stūpa may not be beyond doubt. But the unmistakable evidence of the presence of Buddhism at two other sites – Jharpa and Tiwai in the Kaimur area – is supplied by the discovery of Buddhist stone sculptures at these sites. At Jharpa, Pāla period stone sculptures of Umāmaheśvara, Kubera, Buddha and ‘many other Buddhist deities’ have been discovered.42 At Tiwai, a life-size stone image of the Buddha and an image of Pārśvanātha have been discovered.43 At both sites, Buddhism shared the landscape with religious centres of other faiths. We have yet to come across any site that appears to be Buddhist mono-religious site in the tract between the rivers Karmanasa in the west and Sone in the east. It is apparent that Buddhism could never become a significant element of the cultural matrix of this area. This peculiar feature is difficult to explain because this tract covered a vital portion of route connecting the Buddhist religious centres of Magadha (Mahābodhi, Nalanda) to Sarnath and it must have been frequented by Buddhist pilgrims. The failure of Buddhism to become a major religion in this area even in the Pāla period, when it had an impressive expansion in much of Bihar and Bengal, is a significant aspect of the cultural history of this area. Jainism did not fare

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

93

better either. Barring the site of Tiwai referred to above, Jaina religious centres could not emerge in the district during the early medieval period. Brahmanical religious centres, on the other hand, had penetration in all the three geographical zones referred to above. This is indicated by both sculptural and structural data. Structural ruins of Brahmanical temples of the post-Gupta period have been noted at the sites of Mundesvari (in the Bhabhua area of old Rohtas district),44 Deo-Barunark (located 27 miles south-west of Arrah town), Mahadeopur45 (district Bhojour) and Deo-Markandey (44 miles south-west of Arrah town). In a way, they represent the emergence of big Brahmanical temples quite away from the arterial route of the Ganga. The concentration of these temples in an area that is not very far from the Palamau area of Jharkhand is significant. Within this group, the location of Mundesvari temple on a spot in a secluded part of the Kaimur range is especially interesting in view of the fact that the neighbouring Palamau area of Jharkhand was largely beyond the pale of the cultures based in Magadha or Karuṣadeśa.46 Brahmanical temples took a lead in penetrating this border zone. The greatly ruined condition of these temples does not allow us to read much social history from their architecture. The seventh century octagonal stone temple at Mundesvari, whose superstructure has completely collapsed, is represented only by its plinth.47 It originally supported a Śikhara type temple.48 This temple was originally dedicated to Śiva.49 The presence of a brick built shrine dedicated to Nārāyaṇa on the Mundesvari hill is supported by a seventh century AD stone inscription.50 The three other temples of the area – Deo Barunark, the Śiva temple at Mahadeopur and the temple at Deo-Markandeya – are brick temples, have almost totally disappeared now. The only source of information on them is the record left by colonial explorers. At Deo-Barunark, ruins of a temple consisting of a garbhagṛha 9 sq. ft internally and 24 sq. ft externally, with a large pillared hall in front with four highly ornamented pillars in the

94

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

middle of it, which once supported the roof of the maṇḍapa above, were discovered.51 On one of the four pillars, was found the inscription of Jīvitagupta II (seventh century) recording the grant of a village to the existing temple of Varuṇasvāmin.52 That indicates that a temple dedicated to Sūrya existed at the site prior to the period of Jīvitagupta II. Pāla period stone sculptures of Viṣṇu, Umāmaheśvara, Durgā and Gaṇeśa have also been discovered from the precincts of the ruined temple.53 It indicates that shrines dedicated to these deities were constructed in the premises of the earlier temple or its neighbourhood in the Pāla period. Another sixth-seventh century AD temple site of the area – Deo Markandey – appears to have been dedicated to Sūrya.54 The remains of a brick-built pyramidical shrine with a porch in front and placed on a terrace of no great extent has been discovered at this site.55 Nothing survives at the site now. Similarly, at the site of Mahadeopur, located 8 miles north of Deo-Markandey, a brick-built dodecagonal temple with a garbhagṛha of 8 ft 4 in., enshrining a small liṅga as the presiding deity have been noted.56 This temple had great architectural similarity with the Mahābodhi temple of Bodh Gaya and it could have had a similar dating (i.e. sixth century AD).57 No epigraphic evidence of the support system of this temple could be discovered. Besides the sites noted above, indications of the past existence of Brahmanical temples either through the findings of stone sculptures or architectural fragments is indicated at 25 other sites of Karuṣadeśa.58 These sites have been found in the tract along the Ganga (i.e. at the site of Masarh), in the Rohtas area, in the Bhabhua area, as well as in the Arrah area. That indicates the capacity of Brahmanical temples to adjust to a variety of ecological niches. Data from at least two sites – Mangraon and Baidyanath – indicates the flow of long distance pilgrimage to Śaiva temples of these sites. At Mangraon, a stone inscription of c. AD 700 records the pilgrimage of a pilgrim from Coorg area of Karnataka and his donation to a Śiva temple at the site.59 Similarly, at the

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

95

site of Baidyanath, the discovery of an inscription with the legend ‘Makaradhvaja Jogī 700’ indicates that the fame of a temple, ruins of which are represented by the excavation of a dilapidated temple at the site where this inscription was found, attracted a pilgrimage from this famous Śaiva pilgrim.60 Other sites of the area from where sculptures or structural ruins without any epigraphic record have been reported could have been patronized by the local community. To sum up, Brahmanical temples of the area to the west of the Sone River in South Bihar had a diverse patronage base, consisting of royal patronage, long distance pilgrimage and patronage by local community. Except at three sites, Buddhist religious centres failed to emerge in this area, which reflects the failure of Buddhism to attract substantial patronage. ARCHAEOLOGY OF DISTRIBUTION PATTERN OF BUDDHIST, BRAHMANICAL AND JAINA RELIGIOUS CENTRES IN EARLY MEDIEVAL MAGADHA

In terms of the findings of archaeological markers of the presence of Buddhist religious centres, we see an interesting pattern in early medieval Magadha. Such markers are virtually absent in two districts (Patna and Aurangabad)61 and had a very thin presence in one district (Nawada). In Gaya and Nalanda districts, a significant proliferation of Buddhist religious centres during the Pāla period took place in a milieu of equally significant proliferation of Brahmanical religious centres in these districts. Brahmanical religious centres lacked the monumentality of Nalanda, but they proliferated in all the districts referred to above. This will be clear in the district-wise analysis of the distribution pattern of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in early medieval Magadha. We will begin with an analysis of the Gaya district.

Gaya District To a significant extent, the areas covered by the modern Gaya district offer one of the best avenues for understanding the

96

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

evolving fortunes of Buddhism and Brahmanism in early medieval Bihar. This is mainly due to two important factors. This district has attracted considerable attention from archaeologists and art historians from the period of Major Kittoe onwards. Most recently, the archaeological records of the district have been intensively documented through a village to village survey by A.S. Amar for his doctoral research.62 In terms of archaeological data, this district, along with Nalanda district, is one of the most well-documented districts of Bihar. This greater availability of data allows us to attempt a comparative study of spatial distribution patterns of antiquities marking the past presence of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the district at the Block level.63 Besides, Gaya and Bodh Gaya area of the district had their own importance in the Brahmanical and Buddhist sacred geography. If Bodh Gaya functioned as (and continues to function as) the most sacred pilgrimage site in Buddhism, Gaya was one of the most important places for performing śrāddha rituals in Brahmanism. Due to this factor, it attracted considerable pilgrimage. We have some reason to believe that this district provided important avenues for Buddhist and Brahmanical pilgrimage. How did the fortunes of Buddhism and Brahmanism evolve in this important zone? A.S. Amar has published a contextual analysis of results of documentation of sites surveyed by him.64 He has noted that from the seventh century AD onwards, this area witnessed the expansion of older Buddhist sites like Bodh Gaya, Bakror and Hasra Kol; emergence of new sites like Kauwa-dol and Gurupa and the emergence of many ‘settlement-shrines’.65 All this made him argue for a significant expansion of Buddhism during the Pāla period.66 We largely agree with his analysis of the cultic dynamics of the Gaya district. He has, however, overlooked the patterns of interactions between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the district. This is something we will attempt to analyse. Besides taking into account the data generated by Amar, we have also added sites reported by earlier archaeologists (Cunningham, etc.).67 Our endeavour is to discuss the Block-wise distribution

97

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

pattern of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the district as indicated by sculptural or structural finds. The results are summarized in Table 2.1. This Block-wise analysis provides some interesting inferences. We see the presence of Buddhism in every Block of the district, even in the southern and south-eastern Blocks on the borders of Jharkhand. Its presence in the southern Blocks – in the areas which has been referred to as ‘barren and incapable of supporting cultivation’ in a colonial Gazetteer70 – is quite TABLE 2.1: BLOCK-WISE DISTRIBUTION PATTERN OF SITES IN THE GAYA DISTRICT

Name of the Block

Gaya Sadar and Bodh Gaya Guraru Konch Tekari Belaganj Atari Wazirganj68 Fatehpur Mohanpur and Barachatti Dobhi Gurua Amas Total

Sites which Sites which appear to be appear to be Buddhist Brahmanical monomonoreligious sites religious sites

Site having Sites Total the presence with of both Jaina Buddhism presence and Brahmanism

4 0 0 0 0 1 2 1

4 0 2 0 0 1 1 0

4 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

1 1 1 1

0 0 1 0

12

9

Source: Table prepared by the author.

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 2 4 1 1 4 4 2

2 1 3 0

0 0 169

3 2 5 2

19

2

42

98

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

interesting. We do not see the presence of Buddhism in the southern parts of any district of Bihar on the borders of Jharkhand (Nawada, Jamui, Bhagalpur-Godda, or even the southern portions of the Rajamahal district in Jharkhand). We do not see this in the entire area to the west of the Sone river. Clearly, the presence of important Buddhist religious centres in the district (Mahābodhi, Bakror, Kurkihar, Hasra Kol, Taradih, Gurupa hill) had a cascading impact in the southern portions of the district. Not only that, we see the penetration of Buddhism as far as Itakhori in the neighbouring Chatara district of Jharkhand.71 The line of penetration of Buddhism to the Chatara district could have passed through the southern portion of the Gaya district. The only Block where Buddhism seems to have had a minor presence was Konch. This Block served as a transitional zone between the districts of Gaya and northern Aurangabad district. It may be noted that the Aurangabad district has an impressive Pāla period temple dedicated to Sūrya (at the site of Deo Umga), but Buddhist presence is almost nil in the district. What kind of Buddhism was practiced in the Gaya district? That pilgrimage was an important factor in the life of Buddhist religious centres in the district is indicated by the presence of votive stūpas not only at more important religious centres like the Mahābodhi or Kurkihar, but also at smaller sites.72 As indicated by the discovery of miniature Maitreya sculptures in the south-eastern portions of the district, Buddhism had a futuristic element, at least in the personal worship of some individuals.73 Similarly, we also come across Tantric images (Kurukullā, Mahāśrī Tārā, etc.) in many parts of the district, and also the images displaying confrontation between Buddhism and Brahmanism at two sites in the district (Aparājitā images at Bodh Gaya and Pachar hill). But Buddhism, as a whole, preferred to present its moderate face in the countryside and generally avoided the sexually explicit imagery of Vajrayāna. Similarly, images displaying confrontation between Buddhism and Brahmanism could never become popular objects of worship in this area. That was natural in an area where Brahmanical

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

99

religious centres had an entrenched presence in practically all parts of the district. The proliferation of Buddhist religious centres in the Pāla period Gaya district was taking place in a milieu of an equally significant proliferation of Brahmanical religious centres in the district. Sculptures of all the major Brahmanical deities are represented: Viṣṇu; various aspects of Śiva, Sūrya, Durgā, etc., indicating that shrines/temples dedicated to these deities proliferated in the district during the Pāla period. The proliferation of Brahmanical religious centres is discernible in all the Blocks of the district during the Pāla period. Even in the Bodh Gaya and Gaya Sadar Block areas, that is to say, in the vicinity of the Mahābodhi, the proliferation of Brahmanical religious centres was not less marked than the Buddhist ones. Compared to the 12 sites that appear to be Buddhist monoreligious sites, 9 sites, which appear to be Brahmanical monoreligious sites, have also been recorded from the district. Brahmanical and Buddhist mono-religious sites generally existed in close proximity. Moreover, 19 sites appear to be poly-religious sites having the presence of both Buddhism and Brahmanism. To sum up, the landscape of the district was poly-religious and it was teeming with Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres during the Pāla period. The poly-religiosity of the landscape resulted in the evolution of an interesting dialogue between Buddhism and Brahmanism. At the major Brahmanical temple sites in Magadha (Konch in Gaya, Deo in Aurangabad district, Mira Bigaha in Jehanabad district, etc.), Buddhist presence is negligible if not totally nonexistent, indicating that the priesthood present at such temple sites generally did not favour the inclusion of Buddhist deities in its pantheon, even in a manner of subordinate union. The case with the Buddhist clergy at big monastic sites was different: it made a sustained effort of integrating Brahmanical deities in a manner of subordinate union by allowing the installation of Brahmanical deities. We will analyse the implications of this development in Chapter 7 of the book.

100

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Nalanda District When we move to the areas that constitute Nalanda district today, we get similar features. The Nalanda district, with many important monastic sites like Nalanda, Odantapura (generally believed to have been located somewhere near Bihar Sharif town, but yet to be identified in the ground) and Telāḍhaka (identified with the excavated site of Telhara) and stūpa sites like Juafardih (located 3 km away from the ruins of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra) and Giriak, has invited considerable archaeological fieldwork. In fact, in terms of sheer number of reported early medieval sites, this district appears to be one of the best documented districts in Bihar. The K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute has undertaken an intensive village to village survey in the district.74 219 sites display sculptural evidences of the presence of Pāla period religious centres in the district.75 We have summarized the data from these 219 sites in Table 2.2. An analysis of this table provides some interesting inferences. Jaina sculptures have been reported from just four sites of the district, indicating that it could not be a mass religion. At all the four reported sites, Jainism shared the landscape with either Brahmanism or Buddhism. We see a significant proliferation of Buddhist and Brahmanical sculpture-bearing sites, indicating that the Mahāvihāras like Nalanda and Odantapuri existed in a landscape dotted with the presence of other Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres. Buddhist stone sculptures have been reported from every Block of the district, forcing us to question those models which suggest that Buddhism got contracted to its monastic centres in the Pāla period. In terms of the diversity of the Buddhist pantheon in the reported Buddhist stone sculptures, we see a clear-cut predominance of the sculptures of the Buddha Śākyamuni in different mudrās. 140 big-sized stone sculptures of the Buddha Śākyamuni in different mudrās have been reported from the district. No Buddhist deity could rival his popularity in the district. Even some other Buddhist deities that were popular in other parts of early medieval Bihar and Bengal could not even

101

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts TABLE 2.2: BLOCK-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF SITES IN THE NALANDA DISTRICT

Name of the Block

Asthawan Ben Bihar Sharif Bind Chandi Ekangarsarai Giriak Harnaut Hilsa Islampur Karay Parsaray Katari Saray Nagarnausa Nur Sarai Parwalpur Rahui Rajgir Silao Tharthari Total

Sites which Sites which Sites having Sites with Total appear to appear to be the presence Jaina be Buddhist Brahmanical of both presence monomonoBuddhism religious religious and sites sites Brahmanism 1 6 5 1 3

1 1 1 7 2 1 2 4 35

1 7 1 4 13 8 1 11 13 9 3 4 5 1 5 4 3 2 2

2 8 6 4 3 6 4 4 1 4 3 1 4 6 2 4 12 9

97

83

1

1

2

4

4 21 12 8 18 17 5 15 14 15 7 5 6 12 13 7 11 18 11 219

Source: Table prepared by the author.

remotely match the popularity of the Buddha Śākyamuni in different mudrās: 13 stone sculptures of Tārā in different forms, 7 stone sculptures of Jambhala, 26 stone sculptures of Avalokiteśvara, 2 sculptures of different Bodhisattvas; 2 stone sculptures of Maitreya, and 6 stone sculptures of Mārīcī have been reported

102

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

in this survey. Four stone sculptures of the Crowned Buddha from different sites of the district have also been reported.76 The Crowned Buddha was regarded as a form of Vairocana in the Pāla period Bihar and Bengal.77 In other words, the cult of the Dhyānī Buddhas could never be popular in the district. Generally the Buddhist religious centres that cropped up in the district during the Pāla period preferred to worship the Buddha Śākyamuni in different mudrās and avoided the esoteric practices of Vajrayāna. The devotees, who venerated these sculptures, preferred to have a moderate version of Buddhism. In this area, Buddhism had to share a poly-religious landscape with Brahmanism, so it was perhaps a necessity. Deities highlighting explicit sexual imagery are absent. Deities highlighting violent and open confrontation with Brahmanism are rare: only one sculpture each of Aparājitā78 and Trailokyavijaya79 has been reported in this intensive village-to-village survey. To sum up, these particular aspects of Vajrayāna, to which the decline of Buddhism is so conveniently attributed to in a significant section of Buddhological historiography, are not prominent in the archaeological landscape of the Mahāvihāra. This Buddhist expansion was, however, taking place in a milieu of an impressive proliferation of Brahmanical religious centres in the district in the same period. An analysis of the table referred to above indicates that sites which appear to be Buddhist mono-religious sites were absent in five Blocks. In contrast, sites which appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites are reported from every Block. In fact, the largest chunk of reported sites in the district is formed by the sites which appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites: 97 such sites have been reported. Only in three Blocks (Bihar Sharif, Nursarai and Silao) of the district, the number of the sites which appear to be Buddhist mono-religious sites is more than the number of the sites which appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites. Even these Buddhist mono-religious sites are generally surrounded by Brahmanical mono-religious sites or sites having the presence of both Brahmanical and Buddhist sculptures. At 83 sites, we see the presence of both Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures.

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

103

Among the reported Pāla period Brahmanical stone sculptures, we see a significant presence of Umāmaheśvara (86 examples), Śivaliṅgas (62 examples), Gaṇeśa (42 examples), Viṣṇu (102 examples), Sūrya (46 examples), and different forms of Durgā (17 examples). In other words, Śaiva sculptures formed the single biggest group, indicating a diffused presence of Śaiva religious centres in the district. An important Mahāvihāra like Nalanda had to devise some mechanism to negotiate this Śaiva surge in its immediate backyard, a theme we will analyze in some detail in Chapter 7 of the book.

Patna District Compared to the neighbouring districts of Nalanda and Jehanabad, Pāla period Buddhist sculptures or structures have not been reported from the areas that constitute the Patna district today. Out of the four reported sites of the district, from where early medieval stone sculptures have been reported, 3 sites appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites.80 Among such sites, the site of Mera, located 70 km south-east of Patna, in the Pali Block, appears to have been a major temple site. Though no standing temple has been reported from this site, architectural fragments and an impressive collection of early medieval big-sized Brahmanical stone sculptures (Viṣṇu: 8 examples; Narasiṁha: 1 example; Umāmaheśvara: 3 examples; many fragments of Sūrya, Navagraha panel, Durgā, etc.) have been reported from the site.81 The only indication of the presence of a Jaina religious centre in the district is indicated by the discovery of an eleventh century image of Pārśvanātha from the Gulabighat area of Patna town.82 No evidence of royal patronage to religious centres of these sites has been reported so far.

Jehanabad District Out of the ten reported sites of this district, whose cultural materials have been published, four sites appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites. Four sites show the presence

104

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of both Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures. Only one site (Bhanebigha) appears to be a Buddhist mono-religious site.83 At least three sites (Dharawat including the adjoining site of Kunwa hill, Kauwa-Dol and Keur) appear to be major Buddhist monastic sites. At least one of them (Dharawat) functioned from the fourth century AD. All of them continued in the Pāla period and all of them show the presence of Brahmanical sculptures. In short, Buddhism appears to be an expanding religion during the early medieval phase. This expansion of Buddhism was, however, taking place in the milieu of a significant proliferation of Śaiva religious centres in the district in general. We may see this with particular reference to the site of Mira Bigaha (in the Makhdumpur Block), where we see the emergence of many Pāla period Śaiva temples. This site is located five kilometres to the north of the site of Dharawat.84 It may, thus, indicate the emergence of a Śaiva temple cluster in the neighbourhood of a Buddhist monastic site. From the available database, we have no evidence of royal patronage for any of these temples. At Mira Bigaha, ruins of 12 Pāla period temples have been discovered.85 Each temple contains a black basalt Śivaliṅga in its garbhagṛha. In terms of sculptural wealth, this village has reported sculptures dating from the pre-Pāla period to the Pāla period. Barring a sixth century Umāmaheśvara,86 all other sculptures are datable to the Pāla period. Sculptures of all major Brahmanical cults have been reported: Vaiṣṇava (Viṣṇu); Śaiva (Umāmaheśvara pieces; Śivaliṅgas); Saura (Sūrya: ); Śākta (Durgā, Matṛkā panel; Cāmuṇḍā; Durgā).87 It is apparent that the Śaiva temples (whose ruins are surviving now) were surrounded by subsidiary shrines of other Brahmanical deities. But, surprisingly, not a single Buddhist sculpture has been reported from this site till date. This stands in marked contrast with the neighboring site of Dharawat where Brahmanical sculptures have been reported even from the monastic area. Clearly, at Dharawat, as at many other important Buddhist monastic sites, Buddhism did feel the need to integrate other Brahmanical cults in a manner of subordinate union. This was one of the Buddhist responses to

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

105

an expanding Brahmanism. No such need was, apparently, felt by Brahmanism at Mira Bigaha. We see a similar feature at two other sites with ruins of Pāla period Śiva temples: Ner and Paibigha, both in the Makhdumpur Block.88 Here too, no evidence of the penetration of Buddhism is available.

Nawada District Out of the 39 published sites of the Nawada district which contain sculptures or architectural pieces, three sites appear to be Buddhist mono-religious sites. At six sites, we see the presence of both Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures.89 Twenty-eight sites appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites from where only Brahmanical sculptures have been reported. From one site, a sculpture of Pārśvanātha has been reported.90 This is the only archaeological evidence for the presence of a Jaina religious centre in the district. It is apparent that Jainism could never become a popular religion in the district. Buddhist sculptures are basically confined to the Nawada Sadar Block of the district, or to the sites located on the borders of the Nalanda district. That notwithstanding, a major portion of the Nawada district appears to be devoid of any kind of Buddhist presence. Buddhism was able to carve out a small zone of influence only in the central and northern portions of the district. But here too, it had to share the landscape with Brahmanical religious centres at many sites. If this was the position in the backyard of two most important areas of Buddhist presence in early medieval Bihar – Nalanda and Gaya districts – we may easily visualize the challenge Buddhism was facing in the face of a massive expansion of Brahmanism. In terms of the diversity of the pantheon within Buddhism, we see the presence of instrumental deities like Jambhala and Hārītī as well, but basically the images of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā predominate. We do not see the confrontational or sexually explicit imagery of Vajrayāna (Trailokyavijaya, Saṁvara, Aparājitā, Yab-Yum figures, etc.). That was natural in an area where Buddhism was not the dominant religion.

106

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Brahmanical sculptures, on the other hand, had a diffused presence in all portions of the district, even in the southern portion on the borders of Jharkhand. This expansion was the result of multiple factors: royal patronage as we see in the case of the Aphsad temple in the northern part of the district in the seventh century,91 as well as the patronage provided by the common population resulting in the emergence of various village shrines in the Pāla period, the only evidence for which now comes through loose sculptures. These village shrines, apparently, functioned without any kind of royal patronage. In terms of diversity of pantheon, we see the representation of all major Brahmanical deities: Sūrya, Viṣṇu, Śiva, Mahiṣāsuramardinī.

Aṅga Area It is believed that the river Kiul marked the natural demarcation line between Magadha and Aṅga.92 The Aṅga area basically consisted of the old Munger district (now divided into Lakhisarai, Shekhpura, Jamui and Munger districts) and Bhagalpur district, though it included some portions of Santhal Pargana in Jharkhand as well.93 The southern portions of this area gradually merged with the plateau area of Jharkhand. The northern portions, especially along the Ganga, are broadly alluvial. Across this variegated landmass, Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres proliferated in the early medieval period, which we shall analyse now.

Lakhisarai, Shekhpura, and Jamui Districts The reported early medieval sites of the Lakhisarai district may be grouped into two broad groups: sites found in/near the urban centre of Kṛmilā, which emerged as a significant administrative and urban centre during the Pāla period, and sites located away from it. It is generally believed that the Kiul-Lakhisarai area (from where sites like Chowki, Rajauna, Valgudar, GhoshkundiBridavan, Jayanagar, Kiul have been reported) of the district

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

107

formed the urban centre of Kṛmilā or its vicinity.94 The stūpacum-monastic site of Nongarh (now in Jamui district) formed part of the urban network of this city, but we have analysed that in the section on Jamui district. It may be inferred that even before the emergence of Kṛmilā as an urban and administrative centre under the Pālas, Brahmanical and Buddhist religious centres emerged in the locality almost simultaneously. The archaeological evidences of the presence of religious centres in the area during the pre-Pāla phase are available at two places: Nongarh and the Chowki area near Rajaona. Nongarh offers evidence of Buddhist penetration in the district and Rajaona presents a case of a Śaiva temple. Cunningham’s excavations of a mound at the locality called Chowki in the neighbourhood of the village of Rajaona led to the unearthing of the remains of a Gupta period Śiva temple at the site. Recently, more than 100 black stone pillars and 10 āmalakas of the śikharas of temples have been accidently discovered at Chowki. One will readily agree with Anil Kumar that they indicate the past existence of a temple complex at the site.95 A seventh-eighth centuries dating for these pillars has been proposed by Kumar.96 If a seventh-eighth centuries dating for the newly discovered pillars is accepted, we may infer that the Gupta period temple at the site was soon joined by a big temple complex in the seventh-eighth centuries. In the Pāla period, we see further proliferation of Brahmanical religious centres in the area. A recent documentation of data by R.K. Chattopadhyay and his team in Rajoana-Chowki area led to the discovery of around 40 Brahmanical stone sculptures and architectural pieces dating from the eighth-ninth centuries AD to the twelfth-early thirteenth centuries AD.97 Sculptures of all major Brahmanical deities (Viṣṇu, Śiva, Umāmaheśvara, Gaṇeśa, Mahiṣāsuramardinī) are represented in this documentation, including some stone sculptures of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas. That indicates the proliferation of Brahmanical and Buddhist religious centres in the area in this period. No epigraphic evidence to trace the support system of the religious centres in which these sculptures were enshrined as objects of worship has come to light so far. We may assume

108

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

that they were most probably patronized by the residents of the city. The proliferation of Buddhist religious centres in the city and its adjoining areas during the Pāla period was not less impressive either. This is reflected in both sculptural and structural records. Claudine Buatze-Picron’s study of Buddhist stone sculptures in the Rajoana-Lakhisarai-Kiul-GhoshkundiJayanagar area led to the documentation of 34 Buddhist sculptures, which made her argue for a significant expansion of Buddhism in this area in the late Pāla period.98 The vitality of Buddhism in this area is also reflected in its ability to integrate a local folk goddess, variously referred to as Puṇḍeśvarī/ Pūrṇeśvarī/Puṇyeśvarī in dedicatory inscriptions on her sculptures, into the institutional fabric of Mahāyāna Buddhism by the eleventh-twelfth centuries AD.99 Given the impressive size of some stone steles of this deity discovered in the Kiul-Lakhisarai area, she must have been a prominent object of worship in some Buddhist religious centres of this area.100 Buddhist expansion in the area is also indicated by the emergence of a stūpa-cum-monastic site in the area. Cunningham’s excavation at a 30 ft high mound at Kiul resulted in the discovery of the remains of a small chamber, containing a steatite relic casket, shaped like a stūpa, and a headless image of the Buddha made of steatite.101 In the eastern portion of this mound, he found the traces of an arched chamber containing 200-300 lac seals.102 Some of them bore the impression of the ascetic Buddha under the Bodhi tree, with rows of stūpas on both sides, and the Buddhist creed formula in tenth-eleventh centuries AD characters.103 He concluded that these seals were probably the official seal of the monastery, nearby to the west, now represented by a low mound of 150 ft long 160 ft wide. Of the four kinds of seals, one particular kind of seal was probably dated to an earlier period.104 That may indicate the presence of an earlier monastery, or an earlier dating of the same monastery. But further excavations and explorations are required to confirm this. In any case, Cunningham’s excavations at the site indicate

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

109

the functioning of a Buddhist establishment in the neighborhood of the city in the tenth-eleventh centuries. It most probably benefited from the patronage provided by the city populace. Some sites, located away from the city, seem to have derived their main patronage from pilgrimage. This is clear in the context of the sites of Uren and Jalpa (located in the foothills of Uren). On the basis of data provide by Xuan Zang, Uren has been identified with the place where the Śākyamuni Buddha tamed Yakṣa Bakula.105 In many ways, this site could have served as pāribhogikadhātu for the followers of Buddhism, ensuring pilgrimage for the site.106 Reported data from this site include a Buddhapada, a small brick mound representing the ruins of a stūpa, many figures of stūpas or chaityas engraved on the rocks, many inscriptions, some of which were engraved in the characters of seventh-eighth centuries AD, ruins of a Buddhist monastery at the north-eastern foot of the hill, many fragmented Buddhist sculptures, votive stūpas and some inscribed sculptures of the Pāla period, and Bhaikṣuki inscriptions of the Pāla period.107All this indicates that the Uren hill had some important Buddhist religious centre in the post-Gupta and Pāla periods. Yet, as indicated by the findings of three twelfth century Brahmanical stone sculptures (Kokamukhī Durgā; Caṇḍī; Umāmaheśvara),108 it came to have Brahmanical presence by this period. Brahmanical antiquities have also been found at Jalpa, which is located immediately at the foot of the hills, a few kilometres across the fields from Uren. This village still houses a Mahiṣāsuramardinī sculpture in black stone, datable to c. twelfth-thirteenth centuries AD.109 In a modern temple, among other objects, a few miscellaneous inscribed sculptural fragments, lintels and doorjambs have been noticed. One will not have any problem in accepting the hypothesis that there was an ancient temple at Jalpa.110 To sum up, the poly-religiosity of the landscape we have noted in and around the urban centre of Kṛmilā was visible at Uren and its neighbourhood as well. Both Buddhism and Brahmanism were expanding religions till the end of the Pāla

110

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

period and they generally shared the landscape in a significant part of the district of Lakhisarai. We see similar trends in the Jamui district. This district is a kind of bridge between the alluvial plains of the Lakhisarai district in the north and the hilly portions of the district of Deoghar in Jharkhand in the south. The northern part of this district is largely alluvial, but the southern portion is hilly and forested. At the available stage of our database, Buddhist religious centres seem to have been concentrated in the northern portion whereas Brahmanical religious centres had presence in both portions.111 Brahmanical religious centres seem to have emerged in the southern hilly portion of the district too by the tenth-eleventh centuries AD. In the southern hilly portion of the district, where Buddhist penetration is virtually absent, sites like Gridhesvara and Kagishvara display evidence for the presence of a tenth-eleventh century temple.112 Out of the five reported sites of the district, the presence of Buddhist religious centres is discernible at three sites. At two sites – Indape, situated 4 miles to the south of Jamui town, and Nongarh in the northern part of the district (on the borders of the Lakshisarai district, 6 miles to the south-east of the site of Jaynagar) – two big stūpa sites have been discovered, but their chronology is yet to be ascertained fully. What could have been the support system of the stūpa and monastery at the site? We don’t have any definite answer. It has been rightly noted that Nongarh was on the outskirts of the urban centre of Kṛmilā as Sāñcī was on the outskirts of Vidiśā.113 In the Pāla period, when Kṛmilā emerged as an important administrative and urban centre, this site might have attracted patronage from some residents of the city. At the site of Indape (also spelled as Indappe), Beglar saw the ruins of a ‘fort’, with two layers of fortification walls: outer and inner.114 Ruins of a big stūpa (125 ft in diameter, 35 ft in height at base; or 65 ft at a height of 20 ft above the ground) were found in the area enclosed by the inner fortification walls.115 The dating of this site has been recently proposed to be late Gupta or post-

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

111

Gupta period.116 A sixth-seventh centuries dating of the site is also supported by the discovery of three stone images of the Buddha of this period from this site.117 The location of the stūpa inside the inner fortified area indicates that it derived its main patronage from the political elites living inside the inner fort. It may be noted that Indape does not provide the only example of the functioning of a Buddhist stūpa inside the innermost part of a fortified site having many layers of fortification walls: a similar pattern has been noted at the seventh-eighth centuries AD site of Bhitargarh in the Panchagarh district of Bangladesh.118 It is interesting to note that besides two stone images of the seated Buddha of the tenth century AD, Pāla period Brahmanical stone sculptures (Baṭuk Bhairava of tenth-eleventh centuries, pedestal of a Viṣṇu image of c. twelfth century) have also been reported from the site of Indape.119 That indicates that Brahmanical religious centres either emerged in the neighbourhood of this site, or Brahmanical sculptures were added to the site in the Pāla period. On the whole, barring the southern hilly portions of the district, Buddhism was an expanding religion till the end of the Pāla period and it was capable of attracting patronage from a cross section of society.

Munger District No archaeological evidence of any pre-Pāla period religious centre in the district has come to light so far. That is indeed surprising as the Sultanganj area of Bhagalpur district in the east and Jamui district in the south have important pre-Pāla Buddhist religious centres. But in the Pāla period, we may discern a proliferation of Buddhist religious centres. This is indicated by the proliferation of sites bearing Buddhist sculptures. Pāla period Buddhist sculptures have been reported from four sites out of the total reported six sites of the district.120 Reported stone sculptures basically include the Buddha in different mudrās and Avalokiteśvara. We do not find the sculptures of those Buddhist

112

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

deities that display confrontation with Brahmanism or explicit sexual imagery. At one site, we see the coexistence of Buddhist and Brahmanical (Viṣṇu) sculptures. Two other reported ‘ancient’ sites of the district – Nandpur121 and Deoghar122 – appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites, though their dating is uncertain. On the whole, we see a proliferation of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the district during the Pāla period.

Bhagalpur District123 As we move to the Bhagalpur district, we see a similar pattern of coexistence and proliferation of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres during the Pāla period. At the site of Mandar hill, a recent documentation has revealed the presence of five sculptures of different forms of Śiva, all datable to the sixtheighth centuries;124 four rock-cut images of different forms of Viṣṇu;125 many images of Mahiṣāsuramardinī dated to the Pāla period;126 and images of Sūrya (eleventh-twelfth centuries) and Gaṇeśa (seventh-eighth centuries).127 Doorjambs and architectural fragments of temples have been noted from the different parts of the hill.128 It is apparent that the Narasiṁha shrine of the Gupta period at the hill was joined by many Śaiva and Śākta shrines in the post-Gupta period. So far, no Buddhist antiquity has been reported from the Mandar hill. The pattern is different from Buddhist religious centres like Antichak from where many Brahmanical sculptures are reported.129 The emergence of important Śaiva temples in the district during the early medieval period is indicated at the sites of Kahalgaon or Colgong from where ruins of a Śaiva temple have been found;130 Batesvarasthana-Patharghata near Antichak from where a eighth century inscription refers to the celebration of an annual festival in honour of Śiva; 131 and Kailasapahar from where Pāla period sculptures of Śiva, Pārvatī and Gaṇeśa have been reported.132 Vaiṣṇava presence is indicated at the sites of Jethur133 and Batesvarasthana-Patharghata. 134

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

113

Buddhist sculptures do not show that kind of proliferation as we see in the case of Brahmanical sculptures. Buddhist sculptures have been basically reported from some sites between Kahalgaon and Patharghata,135 and from the Olapur site in the Ghogha area, where a stone sculpture of the Buddha and two sculptures of Viṣṇu and one sculpture of Sūrya have been reported.136 Reported Buddhist antiquities from the Kahalgaon – Patharghata area include many votive stūpas and two tenth century stone sculptures of Avalokiteśvara from Kahalgaon;137 Pāla period Maitreya and many votive stūpas from a site near Oriup138 and many votive stūpas from some other sites in the zone.139 It is apparent that the predominance of the images of the Crowned Buddha that we see within the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra did not travel beyond the Mahāvihāra.140 Till now Jaina sculptures have been reported from the site of Karangarh or Champa mound only. One of them has been dated to the eighth century,141 many to the Pāla period and some to the medieval period.142 It is apparent that Jainism was confined to a very select area of the district and could never be a mass religion. Brahmanical religious centres, despite lacking the monumentality of Vikramaśilā, had a more diffused presence in the district.

NORTH BIHAR Compared to south Bihar, reported early medieval sculptural data and structural ruins of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres from North Bihar are few. This is probably a result of geographical conditions: much of north Bihar suffers from more intense floods than what we see in south Bihar. Besides, north Bihar plains have not invited that kind of archaeological fieldwork as is the case of south Bihar. This limitation notwithstanding, even the available state of database offers some interesting inferences regarding the distribution pattern of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres and their possible support systems, which we shall analyse in the following sections. We shall move from west to east.

114

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

The Area to the West of the Gandak River in North Bihar: Gopalaganj, Siwan and Saran Districts Out of the four reported sites of the Gopalganj district, one is a stūpa sites of uncertain date. No early medieval sculptures have been reported from this site. At two sites (Belwa and Thawe), indications of the presence of Brahmanical temples are quite apparent.143 On the whole, Brahmanical religious centres seem to have had a more diffused presence in the district during the early medieval period. In the Siwan district, 11 sites having Buddhist or Brahmanical religious centres have been discovered so far.144 Among the reported sites, preliminary explorations have suggested the presence of stūpa mounds of uncertain dates at three sites: Siwan,145 Bhantapokhara146 and Bhallua.147 B.P. Sinha has argued that these stūpa sites marked some of the places associated with the Mahāparinirvāṇayātrā of the Buddha.148 In the absence of proper excavations, this claim, at best, remains conjectural. It may also be noted that we do not come across the presence of early medieval Buddhist sculptures at these stūpa sites or anywhere else in the district. It indicates that whatever foothold Buddhism had in the district in the early historic phase, It could not be retained in the early medieval phase. Brahmanical sculptures have been noted at six sites. Among the Brahmanical sculptures, the sculptures of Viṣṇu appear to be most numerous (3 examples). Other stone sculptures include Gaṇeśa, Sūrya and an unidentified goddess. So far, we have not come across any direct evidence of royal patronage to any religious centre of the district during the early medieval period. The pattern in the Saran district appears to be different. Out of the reported 11 sites of the district that display evidences of the presence of Buddhist or Brahmanical religious centres in the early medieval period, at least three sites appear to be Buddhist mono-religious sites.149 At least two sites offer evidence of the presence of stūpas, which, in the absence of proper excavations, have not been properly dated so far. We find the presence of

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

115

Buddhist religious centres in almost all parts of the district during the Pāla period: south-eastern, southern, central and northern. At one site (Chirand), Buddhism shared the landscape with Brahmanism in the Pāla period. Buddhism offered its moderate face to devotees in the district: we get sculptures of either the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā or instrumental Buddhist deities (Hārītī and Tārā). It avoided sexually explicit or confrontational forms of Vajrayāna imagery (Aparājitā, Trailokyavijaya, Yab-Yum deities). So far, we have not come across any evidence of royal patronage to any of these sites. The monastic context of any Pāla period Buddhist sculpture in the district is not clear either. It may be noted that the proliferation of Buddhist religious centres in the district during the Pāla period was taking place in the backdrop of the decline of an earlier monastic centre in the district. From the excavated early historic urban centre of Chirand, which most probably served as a riverine port during the Kuṣāṇa and early Gupta periods,150 remains of a Kuṣāṇa period monastery have been excavated.151 No direct evidence of its support system could be discovered in the excavations, though it may be assumed that this monastery might have derived some patronage from the traders using this riverine port. It is apparent that the Buddhist monastery at the site could not devise alternate means of survival beyond the one devised in the Kuṣāṇa period. Hence it could not sustain after the Kuṣāṇa period. The pattern of settlement at the site after the Kuṣāṇa period is not very clear. Years of excavations at the site did not bring any evidence for the Gupta period strata at the site. Even the evidence for the Pāla-Kalachuri period occupation at the site could be encountered in only one session in which a Trimūrti image (representing Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśa) and some Kalachuri coins were discovered.152 Even in the Pāla period, when we see a significant expansion of Buddhism in many parts of Bihar and Bengal, the site of Chirand could witness only a very limited revival of Buddhism. The only evidence of the presence of Buddhism at the site during the Pāla period comes through an

116

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

eleventh century stone sculpture of Tārā.153 It has also been observed that some temple pillars, which were used in the construction of a mosque at the site, could have belonged to an earlier Buddhist temple or a Brahmanical temple at the site.154 But we have nothing categorical to attribute a specific Buddhist affiliation to these pillars. Pāla period sculptures at the site are mostly Brahmanical (Sūrya, Umāmaheśvara and Ekamukhaliṅga)155 and they indicate the functioning of one or more Brahmanical religious centres at the site. Early medieval Brahmanical presence in the district appears to be as diffused, if not more than the Buddhist one. In contrast to Buddhism, which had only three sites which appear to be Buddhist mono-religious sites in the district during the Pāla period, we see the functioning of at least six sites which appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites. We see the representation of all major Brahmanical deities in the district: Śaiva (Umāmaheśvara); Saura; Śākta (Mahiṣāsuramardinī) and Gaṇeśa.156 We have not yet come across any evidence of royal patronage to any religious centre in the district.

Vaishali District In a significant section of available studies on the district, a general focus has been on the early historic city of Vaiśālī (identifiable with the site of Basarh and its neighbourhood), but generally in isolation from the religious developments in the rest of the district.157 The focus has been generally on the early historic phase, and developments during the early medieval phase are neglected. This gives an incomplete picture. But this situation has changed significantly with the publication of the results of the intensive village to village survey in the district undertaken by the K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna.158 An analysis of the data from the village to village exploration of the district, as published by B.K. Choudhary, provides some interesting inferences.159 We see a total absence of Jaina sculptures or structures,

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

117

which seems quite odd, especially in view of the significant place of the site of Vaiśālī in Jaina pilgrimage. We may note an impressive concentration of early historic Buddhist stūpa mounds in the district: 13 such sites have been reported in this survey. That tallies well with the significant presence of Buddhism in the early historic city of Vaiśālī or its vicinity. What is difficult to explain is a paucity of Buddhist stone sculptures during the early medieval period in general and the Pāla period in particular: only six stone sculptures have been documented in this intensive survey, which includes two sculptures of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā from Chechar. Of the remaining four Buddhist sculptures, two sculptures of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā have been reported from a single site (Gorual);160 and a sculpture of Tārā has been reported from the site of Dabhaichh in the Patepur Block.161 This paucity looks odd, especially in view of the significant expansion of the Kolhua complex during the early medieval period. It is apparent that, away from the Kolhua complex, Buddhist ‘settlements-shrines’ did not emerge in any significant number in the district during the early medieval period. Brahmanical religious centres, in contrast, had a significant proliferation during the early medieval period. During this period, 29 sites, which appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites (from where only Brahmanical stone sculptures have been reported), have been reported from the district so far. Brahmanical religious centres shared the landscape with Buddhist religious centres at nine other sites. Among the sites which appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites, 25 sites appear to be Śaiva sites from where only Śaiva sculptures have been reported. In other words, Śaiva religious centres had the most impressive proliferation in the district during the early medieval period.

East and West Champaran Districts These districts have been surveyed quite inadequately. In fact, our database has not improved much beyond the one created in

118

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

the colonial period. The reported data from these district has been catalogued in Appendix 1, pp. 656-7. We have included only those sites which show either structural or sculptural evidence for the presence of Buddhist or Brahmanical religious centres. Only six sites have been reported from the districts as yet. Out of that, at least four sites – Kesariya, Bisa-Sagar, Beidi, Sagardih – indicate the presence of big stūpas. A ‘massive stūpa site deserving excavation’ of uncertain dating has been discovered at the site of Bisa-Sagar as well, which lies between Kesariya and Pipara Chauk.162 A similar stūpa mound of uncertain dating has been discovered at the site of Beidi.163 Similarly, excavations at the site of Sagardih led to the discovery of a ninth-tenth centuries stūpa built on the remains of a much older stūpa.164 What was the support base of these stūpa sites? It may be noted that years of excavations at Kesariya failed to bring any evidence of any kind of royal patronage to the stūpa and the adjoining monastery. Besides, no early historic or early medieval urban settlement has been reported in the neighbourhood of the site. It appears that Buddhist pilgrimage had a role in the expansion of the stūpa at Kesariya during the Gupta period. Similar could have been the case with other excavated and explored stūpa sites of the district. The presence of Brahmanical religious centres in the district appears to be less monumental than the stūpa sites of the same. Pāla period Brahmanical sculptures have been reported from only two sites. No Jaina sculpture or structure has been reported from the district so far.

Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and Sheohar Districts In terms of sculptural or structural findings related to Buddhism, Jainism or Brahmanism, Muzaffarpur district has provided very poor material. No stūpa or temple site has been reported in the archaeological excavations/explorations from this district. So far, only three Pāla period Brahmanical sculptures have been reported from the district of Muzaffarpur: Viṣṇu from Turkee,165

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

119

and Sūrya and Gaṇeśa from Kataragarh.166 Epigraphic sources indicate that a big temple of Cāmuṇḍā existed at the site of Kataragarh during the seventh-eighth centuries, and this temple was significant enough to lend its name to an entire viṣaya of Tīrabhukti (i.e. Cāmuṇḍāviṣaya).167 Even today, Kataragarh is known by the name of Camundagarh.168 On the whole, on the basis of whatever cultural material we get in the district, the religious fervour during the early medieval phase appears to be predominantly Brahmanical. We see a resounding absence of Buddhist antiquity of any kind in the district. The case with Sitamarhi and Sheohar districts appears to be similar. Out of the four published sites of these districts, three sites (Deokuli,169 Hirauta,170 Birakh171) appear to be Pāla period Brahmanical temple sites without any presence of Buddhism. Deokuli and Hirouta appear to be Śaiva temple sites, while, as indicated by the discovery of an eleventh century stone sculpture of Viṣṇu,172 Birakh appears to be a temple dedicated to Viṣṇu. These sites are located away from any known early medieval urban centre. No evidence of royal patronage to these sites has been reported as yet. Do far, no Buddhist sculpture or structural ruins of any Buddhist religious centre has been reported from the district. Jaina structures and sculptures are also absent in both districts.

Darbhanga, Madhubani and Samastipur Districts From the Darbhanga district, indications of the presence of Buddhist or Brahmanical religious centres in the Pāla period have been reported from 15 sites, out of which six (Bahera, Ahilyasthan, Shivasinghgarh, Miran Thana, Puranadih, Tattail) appear to be Buddhist mono-religious sites.173 At two sites (Kapilesvara, Chaugama), Buddhism shared the landscape with Brahmanical religions. While sites like Bahera, Ahilyasthan and Shivasinghgarh have produced Buddhist sculptures,174 impressive stūpa mounds have been noticed at the sites of Miran Thana175 and Puranadih.176 Indications of the presence of an impressive Pāla period

120

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Buddhist religious centre in the district has been supplied by the discovery of a massive (more than life size) stone image of the Buddha (c. tenth-twelfth centuries) and a large, two metre high, ornamental pillar of black stone from the site of Tattaiya/Tattail, now kept in the Chandradhari Museum, Darbhanga.177 One will readily agree with D.K. Chakrabarti that this image indicates the presence of an impressive Pāla period Buddhist complex in the area.178 Brahmanical temples too seem to have had a diffused presence in the Pāla period, indicated by the discovery of ruins of Pāla period temples as well as by loose stone sculptures in almost all Blocks of the district. At six sites, architectural fragments of Brahmanical temples or Brahmanical stone sculptures have been found without any association with Buddhist sculptures, which indicates that they were Brahmanical mono-religious sites. Reported stone sculptures from different sites of the district include Gaṇeśa (c. eleventh century); Durgā inscribed with the year 147 of Lakṣamaṇasena Era;179 Sūrya, a tenth century Rūdra and a twelfth century Viṣṇu.180 No direct evidence of royal patronage to any religious centre of the district has been reported so far. In the Madhubani district too, we see a proliferation of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres during the Pāla period. Out of the 34 reported Pāla period sites where sculptural or structural indications of the presence of Buddhist or Brahmanical religious centres have been reported, 16 sites appear to be Buddhist mono-religious sites and 11 sites appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites. Six sites show the presence of both Buddhism and Brahmanism.181 Both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres seem to be present in all Blocks of the district. The significant presence of Buddhism in the district is also indicated by the presence of three stūpa mounds at the site of Pastan.182 As indicated by the finding of the stone torso of the Buddha, c. tenth century AD,183 we may assume that these stūpas were in a functional state till at least this period. It may be added

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

121

that Pāla period black stone sculptures of Sūrya and Viṣṇu have also been reported from this site.184 That may indicate either the penetration of Brahmanical cults at this Buddhist site or the attempt of Buddhism to integrate the cult of these Brahmanical deities in a manner of subordinate union. Among the Brahmanical sculptures, we see the presence of stone sculptures of Viṣṇu at six sites, various forms of Śiva (Umāmaheśvara, Śivaliṅga, etc.) at eight sites, Sūrya at three sites and Durgā at two sites. To sum up the pattern in the district during the Pāla period, we see a simultaneous proliferation of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres. In the most of the cases, evidences of sectarian conflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism are not forthcoming. That should, however, not make us believe that Buddhist-Brahmanical relations in the district always remained free from conflict. At Mangarauni (near Madhubani town), the presence of the Pāla period miniature sculpture of Trailokyavijaya indicates the presence of some sectarian tension between Buddhism and Śaivism. As this sculpture is a miniature (18.5 × 10 cm),185 it was unlikely to have been the main object of worship in a Buddhist religious centre. It was most probably worshipped in a private context. The monastic context, if any, of the site (Mangarauni ) where it was found is not clear. From Samastipur district, barring one exception (unidentified ‘Pāla period stone sculptures’ at Karian186), sculptural or structural data related to the presence of Buddhist, Brahmanical or Jaina religious centres have not been reported. This could be due to inadequate archaeological explorations in the district.

Begusarai and Khagaria Districts Out of the 22 reported sites of the Begusarai district from where Pāla period Buddhist or Brahmanical sculptures have been reported, 5 sites appear to be Buddhist mono-religious sites, 10 sites appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites, and 5 sites show the presence of both Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures.187 The cultic affiliation (Buddhist or Brahmanical) of

122

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

sculptures reported from two sites has not been recorded properly. The expansion of Buddhism in the Pāla period in the district is indicated by the emergence of big stūpa sites such as Sanghaul and Gododih.188 At both sites, we see the presence of Brahmanical sculptures also: Gaṇeśa at Sanghaul; and Sūrya, Varāha, Umāmaheśvara at Gododih.189 The discovery of votive stūpas near the accidentally exposed stūpa site of Sanghaul190 and a sculpture of the Buddha inscribed with the name of the donor191 indicates that this site commanded pilgrimage, yet it came to have a Brahmanical presence. The same poly-religiosity marked the landscape of the Pāla period urban site of Naulagarh, where epigraphic evidences indicate the presence of a Brahmanical temple192 and a Buddhist religious centre.193 In the reported assemblage of Buddhist sculptures, we do not see sculptures of those deities that highlight confrontation with Brahmanism (Aparājitā, etc.). We also do not see sculptures displaying explicit sexual imagery (Yab-yum deities). We mostly get the sculptures of the Buddha, Avalokiteśvara, Tārā and Mārīcī. It is apparent that the followers of Buddhism in this zone generally avoided the cult of those deities (i.e. Trailokyavijaya, Aparājitā, etc.) which indicated confrontation with Brahmanism. They also avoided the sexually explicit imagery of Vajrayāna. Among the reported Brahmanical sculptures, we see the presence of Sūrya (5 examples), Viṣṇu (5 examples), Cāmuṇḍā (2 examples), Umāmaheśvara (2 examples) and Śivaliṅgas (2 examples). To sum up, we see a proliferation of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the district during the Pāla period. Both religions seem to have maintained their distinct identity. As one moves to the east – to the areas that constitute Khagaria district now – one becomes aware of the paucity of the archaeological material. This area is prone to floods and is a playground of many volatile rivers, which has disturbed its archaeological material. The only reported Pāla period (c. tenth

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

123

century) site (Jhikatiya) of the district appears to be a settlement site which, as indicated by the in situ presence of burnt brick walls of the sanctum, lintel and door-frames decorated with vegetal and floral motifs, also had a temple. 194 Sculptures belonging to the temple have not been properly reported in the exploration report. So it is difficult to ascertain the sectarian affiliation of this Brahmanical temple. No Buddhist sculpture has been published from the district so far.

Saharsa, Madhepura and Supaul Districts As one moves to the north and north-east of the Khagaria district, one enters into an area of even more riverine volatility. The area that comprise the Saharsa, Purnia, Katihar, Araria, Supaul and Madhepura districts today are the virtual playground of the Koshi, one of the wildest among Indian rivers. Floods, massive silting, sudden shifts in riverine courses obliterating traces of human occupation are quite common in the area. These factors have disturbed the archaeological sequence of the area. Nevertheless, some important archaeological material has survived and they throw interesting light on the archaeology of religion in the area. We shall begin with the analysis of Saharsa district. All reported Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptural material from the Saharsa district date to the Pāla period. Among the 11 reported sites of the district, five sites appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites; three sites appear to be Buddhist monoreligious sites; and two sites show the presence of both Buddhism and Brahmanical sculptures.195 Due to the fragmented nature of sculptural assemblage, the cultic affiliations of two sites remain unknown. As was the case in most of north Bihar, Jaina sculptures are absent. Two sites – Bangaon and Mahishi – seem to have been major Buddhist religious centres in the Pāla period. At Bangaon, the massive structural mound spread over an area of around 25 bigha with a maximum height of 10 ft, is supposed to ‘represent the remains of a large stūpa with some monastic buildings attached

124

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

to it’.196 At Mahishi, on the top of a large structural mound, a modern temple enshrines a big Pāla period image of Tārā in its sanctum sanctorum.197 Many intact and fragmented Buddhist sculptures in black stone are kept in the precincts of the modern temple. Reported stone sculptures from this site include a sculpture representing the Mahāparinirvāṇa scene of the Buddha; 198 a Pāla period Buddha (now kept in the Patna Museum);199 Buddha in standing posture; two examples of a seated Buddha and at least two Śivaliṅgas.200 In the absence of any epigraphic record, it is difficult to determine how this big Buddhist centre was founded and what its resource base was. But here too it shared sacred space with Śaivism. Buddhism in this district was not a monolithic faith. We see Buddhist stone sculptures with overt Tantric connections: the Crowned Buddha and Mārīcī. Buddhism also offered different forms of the Buddha and Tārā to its devotees. It avoided the sculptures displaying confrontation with Brahmanism (Trailokyavijaya, Saṁvara, Aparājitā) or explicit sexual imagery (yab-yum figures). In the Madhepura district, out of the six reported sites, two appear to be Buddhist mono-religious sites. All other sites have either Śaiva presence or Śākta presence.201 As a whole, the religious fervour of this district appears to be predominantly Śaiva. Amidst this Śaiva predominance, we also see the emergence of a small zone of Buddhist influence in the north-eastern part of the district. As we move to the north of Madhepura, to the areas that constitute Supaul district today, we observe similar trends.202 Out of the five reported Pāla period sites of the district, only one site (having a stone sculpture of Tārā) appears to be a Buddhist mono-religious site. At another site, a sculpture of Tārā has been found along with a Navagraha panel and Viṣṇu. All other sites appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites having Śākta, Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava and Saura sculptures (Devī, Varāha-Viṣṇu, Śivaliṅga, Navagraha panel). The only kind of Buddhist sculpture reported so far is that of Tārā, indicating her popularity among

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

125

the followers of Buddhism in the district. We have seen that Mahishi was an important centre for Tārā worship in the Saharsa area and it could have been one of the factors in the spread of the cult of Tārā in the Supaul district. In fact, a close iconographic similarity has been noted between the Tārā image reported from this district and the same from Mahishi.203 So far, we have not come across architectural remains related to Buddhism in this district, but on the basis of the morphology of the mound at the site of Dharahara, the presence of a stūpa has been postulated.204 In short, this district witnessed the expansion of both Buddhism and Brahmanism in the Pāla period.

Kishanganj, Katihar, Purnea and Araria Districts Out of the 12 reported sites of the Kishanganj district, the presence of Buddhist stūpas have been claimed for at least five sites (Thakurganj, Andhasura, Bandarajhula, Bhimatakia, Kalasingia).205 This may be taken as an indication of an impressive expansion of Buddhism in the district during the Pāla period. In the Thakuraganja area, on the basis of the morphology of the mound, the past presence of an early medieval stūpa has been postulated. 206Yet the mound area has also preserved the sculptures of Umāmaheśvara and Ekamukhaliṅga of c. ninth century AD,207 again indicating the co-existence of Buddhism and Śaivism. Similar was the case with the stūpa site of Bandarajhula, from where a Pāla period black stone image of Viṣṇu has been reported.208 All other reported Buddhist stūpa sites seem to be Buddhist mono-religious sites. Sculptural evidence for the penetration of Buddhism is limited to just one site (Ikara in the northern portion of the district), where two inscribed Buddhist images have been discovered along with images of Gaṇeśa, Umāmaheśvara and Viṣṇu.209 The exact identification of the Buddhist images and deciphering the inscription on them has not been attempted so far. This site indicates a coexistence of Buddhism and Brahmanism in the landscape in the northern portion of the district.

126

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Brahmanical religions seem to have had an equally significant expansion in the district during the Pāla period. Besides the three sites mentioned above, where Brahmanism shared the landscape with Buddhism, we see the emergence of Brahmanical religious centres at seven other sites where it did not share the landscape with any other religion. At least at two sites, we have architectural evidences of the presence of Pāla period Brahmanical temples (at Borijangarh and Daula), while at other sites, its presence is indicated by the discovery of loose sculptures.210 In terms of sectarian affiliation, we see the presence of all major Brahmanical cults: Śaiva (4 sculptures); Vaiṣṇava (6 sculptures); Sūrya (1 sculpture) and Gaṇeśa (1 sculpture). No Śākta sculpture has been reported from the district so far. To sum up the Kishanaganj experience, we see a proliferation of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres during the Pāla period. Reported sites in the Katihar district are quite less than what we see in the case of neighbouring areas (Purnia and Madhepura districts in Bihar and Dinajapur district in Bengal). The paucity of reported archaeological material in the district may be due to the inadequate archaeological explorations.211 Of the four reported sites of the district, two appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites, having sculptures of Umāmaheśvara and Viṣṇu respectively. The cultic affiliation of sculptures discovered at the site of Kasba near Manihari remains unknown. This site has several large tanks from the beds of which, as well as from other places in the village, images carved in stone and other architectural remains have been obtained.212 The only trace of Buddhism in the district is supplied through the discovery of 7 miniature bronze images (Buddha wearing a crown, Lokanātha, Sadakaṣarī Lokeśvara, Mahāśrī Tārā and Hārītī) found in association with 8 Brahmanical images (Viṣṇu with Lakṣmī and Sarasvatī, Gaṇeśa, Indra on Airāvata, Umāmaheśvara, Daksiṇamūrti Śiva, Vaiṣṇavī, Kumārī) at the site of Kataghara-Durgapur in the Pranapur Block of the district.213 All of them have been dated to the Pāla period. As all of them are

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

127

portable, we are not sure if they represent local development or they were objects in transit. So far only four sites have been reported from the Purnia district. We are not sure if it is due to the genuine absence of archaeological material in the district or inadequate archaeological excavations and explorations. Whatever be the situation, a total absence of Buddhism stands out. We have architectural evidences of the emergence of two Pāla period temple sites in the district: in the central-northern part (at Gangasagar and Jivia), which has been perceived to be a Pāla period temple site associated with two large tanks;214 as well as in the central part of the district (at Mahendragarh, 4-5 km south of Purnia town, ‘a Pāla period settlement and temple site’215). Unfortunately, the sectarian affiliation of these temples remains unknown due to the inconclusive nature of the archaeological material. However, the Vaiṣṇava context of the site of Ramabagh locality of the Purnia town is clear, from where many stone images of Viṣṇu, c. twelfth century AD, have been reported.216 So far, no Buddhist, Brahmanical or Jaina sculpture has been reported from Araria and Jogbani districts. That may be due to inadequate explorations in the area.

Summing up the Pattern in North Bihar To sum up the pattern in north Bihar during the early medieval period, we see the expansion of both Buddhism and Brahmanism during the Pāla period. Brahmanical religious centres lacked the monumentality of Kesariya, but they had more diffused presence. They appear to be present in almost every district of north Bihar. Early medieval Buddhist religious centres, at the available state of database, seem to be absent in some districts (Gopalganj, Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi, Khagaria, Purnea, Araria, Jogbani). Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres emerged and functioned at the same sites in many instances or at neighbouring sites. Generally they shared the same general area. We do not have much evidence of sectarian confrontation between

128

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Buddhism and Brahmanism. We also see the ability of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres to adjust to a variety of landscapes: from the flooded zones of Koshi and DarbhangaMadhubani to the drier zones of Saran and Siwan.

Concluding Observations An analysis of reported data from different districts of Bihar provides some interesting inferences regarding interreligious equations, patterns of proliferation of Buddhism and Brahmanism across the variegated landmass of Bihar, and the possible support systems of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres. This study also makes us question some commonly held notions that have become almost axiomatic by now. The first such notion, which has influenced scholarly opinion for a long time is that in early medieval Bihar (and Bengal as well), Buddhism got contracted to some big royally-sponsored monumental monastic centres and it did not have any presence beyond the monastic walls of such monastic centres.217 Second, and an equally influential notion is that Tantric Buddhism was the only form of Buddhism known and practiced in early medieval Bihar (and Bengal as well).218 It has also been argued that as royal patronage to monumental monastic centres was withdrawn under diverse historical circumstances, Buddhism ceased to exist almost immediately after this.219 These inferences are mainly based on the analysis of textual sources and they have not taken into account the archaeological material found away from the important monastic centres. Our study reveals a different pattern. Buddhism was an expanding religion but this expansion was not evenly distributed across Bihar. In early medieval Bihar in general and the Pāla period in particular, we see a significant proliferation of Buddhist religious centres in a major portion of Bihar. The range of Buddhist religious centres included modest ‘settlement-shrines’ at one end of the spectrum and monumental monastic and stūpa centres on the other end of the same. The modest ‘settlementshrines’, whose only vestige is supplied by the discovery of loose

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

129

stone sculptures, most probably owed their foundation and survival to the residents of the rural settlements who established and patronized such ‘settlement-shrines’. The fortune of these ‘settlement-shrines’ does not seem to have been tied to fluctuations in royal patronage. So far, we have not got any archaeological evidence to reconstruct the relationship these ‘settlement-shrines’ had, if any, with the major monastic centres. And, contrary to the received wisdom, we do not see the proliferation of those Buddhist deities that highlighted the confrontational aspects of Vajrayāna (Trailokyavijaya, Aparājitā, Heruka, Saṁvara, etc.) or explicit sexual imagery. Barring a few examples, we do not find the images of the Paṅcatathāgatas as independent worship objects either. Devotees generally preferred to worship the Buddha in different mudrās, different forms of Avalokiteśvara, Tārā or other ‘instrumental’ deities of Vajrayāna. For the devotees, these deities marked a continuation of Mahāyāna. In Chapter 5, we have shown that Vajrayāna as a marker of social and religious identity was a non-existent phenomenon for the donors of Buddhist sculptures in early medieval Bihar and Bengal: whenever a person has claimed to be a follower of any sect of Buddhism in the dedicatory inscription on the donated Buddhist sculpture, that sect happened to Mahāyāna. This Buddhist expansion was, however, not evenly distributed and wherever this expansion was taking place, it was taking place in the shadow of an equally impressive, if not more, proliferation of Brahmanical religious centres, which basically consisted of brick-built shrines or temples enshrining stone sculptures of different deities. In certain zones, such as the areas to the west of the Sone river in South Bihar, Buddhist religious centres were virtually absent. Brahmanical religious centres, on the other hand, were the ‘universal’ feature of early medieval Bihar in general and Pāla period Bihar in particular. Even in Magadha, the most important stronghold of Buddhism, we see an interesting pattern. Buddhism had a massive expansion during the Pāla period in most of the Nalanda district as well as in most of the Gaya district. In the old Gaya district, there were,

130

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

however, certain areas where it was virtually absent (i.e. in the Aurangabad subdivision, now a separate district). In the Nawada division of the old Gaya district, it was present in some pockets in the Nawada Sadar Block as well as in the areas on the borders of the Nalanda district. In all other Blocks of this district, especially in the southern hilly part, it was absent. In Jehanabad district, it expanded in the shadow of proliferation of Śaiva religious centres. Similar was the case in Nalanda district. As a whole, Brahmanical religious centres had a very impressive proliferation in most of Magadha, even in the vicinity of major Buddhist centres of Nalanda, Bodh Gaya or Udantapuri. In the Nalanda district, sites which appear to be Buddhist monoreligious sites are rare and in overwhelming numbers of sites, Buddhist and Brahmanical stone sculptures are found at the same site. Even if some Buddhist mono-religious sites were present, they were generally surrounded by those sites which were either Brahmanical mono-religious sites or were polyreligious sites (having the presence of both Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures). The situation in other parts of south Bihar was not much different. In and around the urban centre of Kṛmilā, we see the proliferation of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres. A more or less similar situation prevailed in Jamui, Munger and Bhagalpur districts. But in contrast to Brahmanical religious centres, the examples of the emergence of Buddhist religious centres in the border zones of Jharkhand from Kaimur to Banka (south of Bhagalpur district) are very limited. Buddhist religious centres preferred to concentrate in the more settled areas of south Bihar and did not make much attempt of penetrating into the more forested and hilly border zone between south Bihar and Jharkhand. In North Bihar plains as well, we see an impressive expansion of Buddhism. This expansion ranged from impressive stūpa sites like Kesariya, Sagardih, Pastan, Sanghaul, Gododih, etc., to numerous sites where only loose Buddhist sculptures are found. But here too, it was expanding in the shadow of an expanding Brahmanism.

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

131

Jaina sculptures are, on the other hand, rare, indicating that Jainism was confined to some pockets and did not form an important element of the cultural matrix of early medieval Bihar. To sum up. Barring a few zones, Pāla period Bihar witnessed the proliferation of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres. This inference forces us to look into three related issues. Do we see a similar pattern in early medieval Bengal? How did the Buddhist clergy in Bihar seek to negotiate the Brahmanical ascendance? And what was the support base of these Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres? These are some of the issues we will analyze in the next four chapters.

NOTES 1. This point was hinted indirectly by Kameshvar Prasad (‘Bihar kā Ārambhika Itihāsa: Samasyāen Aur Sambhāvanāyen’, JBPP, vols. XIII-XIV, 1989-90, p. 162), who rightly argued that despite the proliferation of sites bearing sculptures, Buddhist monasteries and temples in Bihar during the Pāla period, we do not have adequate database to reconstruct the material culture of Pāla period Bihar. 2. By ‘Brahmanical mono-religious sites’, we mean those sites where archaeological (sculptural or architectural) markers of the presence of only Brahmanical religious centres are available; by ‘Buddhist mono-religious sites’, we mean those sites where archaeological markers of the presence of only Buddhist religious centres are available. 3. Indian Archaeology – A Review (henceforth IAR), 1954-5, pp. 18-19. For similar observations, see Nisar Ahmad, ‘Profile of the Stūpas of Bihar: Excavated Since Independence’, JBPP, vols. XIII-XIV, 198990, p. 71; Kameshwar Prasad, ‘The Architectural Heritage of Pāṭaliputra’, JBPP, vols. XXI-XXII, 2010, p. 196. 4. A.S. Altekar and Vijaykant Mishra, Report on Kumrahar Excavations (1951-55), K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1959, p. 103. 5. K.M. Srivastava, ‘The Place of Buddha’s Sujata Discovered’, JBPP, vol. I, 1977, p. 137. 6. IAR, 1973-4, p. 10. 7. K.M. Srivastava, op. cit., p. 136.

132

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

8. In Buddhist pilgrimage, relics (dhātu) of the Buddha had a significant role. These relics need not essentially be the physical remains of the Buddha. Even the places associated with the Buddha – the places where he was born, gained enlightenment, taught, or performed some important miracles – were believed to be a particular kind of dhātu: pāribhogikadhātu (Julia Shaw ‘Stupas, Monasteries and Relics in the Landscape: Typological, Spatial, and Temporal Patterns in the Sanchi Area’, in Jason Hawkes and Akira Shimada (eds), Buddhist Stupas in South Asia: Recent Archaeological, Art-Historical and Historical Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2009, p. 129). 9. A. Cunningham, Archaeological Survey of India Report (henceforth ASIR), vol. XVI, Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi, 2000 (rpt.), pp. 39-45. 10. Ibid., p. 42. This image was subsequently identified with Avalokiteśvara and dated to the eleventh century (J. Leoshko, ‘A Matter of Perspective in the Study of Buddhist Art’, JBA, vol. 2, 1996, p. 79). 11. A. Cunningham, op. cit., pp. 42-3. 12. Ibid., p. 43. 13. S.K. Manjul, Revealing Vaiśālī: Excavations at Kolhua, ASI Excavations Branch III, Patna, 2011, p. 7. 14. G.C. Chauley, ‘The Recent Outstanding Archaeological Excavations in the State of Bihar’, JBA, vol. 6, 2001, pp. 212-13. 15. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Urbanisation at Early Historic Vaiśālī, c. BCE 600–CE 400’, in D.N. Jha (ed.), The Complex Heritage of Early India: Essays in Memory of R.S. Sharma, Manohar, Delhi, 2014, p. 220. 16. An art-historical analysis of these stūpas has been attempted by Kameshwar Prasad, The Glory that was Vaiśālī (From the Earliest Times to c. 600 CE), K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 2015, p. 40. He has not treated them as archaeological markers of pilgrimage. 17. D.N. Sinha, ‘Recently Excavated Stūpa at Kesariya’, JBPP, vols. XVXVI, 1991-2, p. 130. 18. Ibid., p. 135. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid. 22. A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. XV, pp. 25-30. 23. Frederick Asher, The Art of Eastern India, 300-800, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1980, pp. 57-8.

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

133

24. J. Mishra, A History of Buddhist Iconography in Bihar, AD 600-1200, Prabhavati Prakashana, Patna, 1992, p. 180. 25. Ibid., p. 181. 26. B.K. Choudhary, Archaeological Gazeteer of Vaishali District, K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute,, Patna, 2015, p. 31. 27. See pp. 509-10 of the present book as to why Nalanda was regarded as a pāribhogikadhātu. 28. K. Anand, History and Archaeology of Buxar, Bhojpur and Rohtas Regions, Ramanand Vidya Bhavan, Delhi, 1995, p. 22. 29. Frederick Asher, The Art of Eastern India, 300-800, op. cit., p. 25. 30. R.K. Choudhary, ‘Some Recent Discoveries in North Bihar’, JBRS, vol. XLII, nos. 3-4, 1957, p. 365. 31. For the Gupta period dating and iconography of this Caturmukha Mahādeva, see Dilip Kumar, ‘Stone and Metal Images from the Old District of Muzaffarpur’, JBPP, vol. II, 1978, p. 201; Gautam Sengupta, ‘East Indian Sculptures: Formative Centuries’, in Debala Mitra (ed.), Explorations in the Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays in Memory of N.G. Majumdar, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal, Calcutta, 1996, p. 303. 32. For an analysis of the priestly contestation over the pilgrim’s offerings to this cave-shrine, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Evolution of the Sacred Complex of Mandāra Hill: An Inscriptional Enquiry’, JBPP, 2010, pp. 30-7. 33. A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. III, p. 154. 34. Ibid., pp. 154-5. 35. Frederick Asher, ‘Sculptures from Rajaona, Valgudar and Jayanagar: Evidences for an Urban Centre’, East and West, vol. 36, nos. 1-3, 1986, pp. 227-8. 36. Sixteen miniature bronze Jaina images have been reported from Chausa, located on the junction of the river Karmanasha and Ganga. Seven images belong to the Kuṣāṇa period and nine to the Gupta period (Kamini Sinha, The Early Bronzes of Bihar, Ramanand Vidya Bhawan, Delhi, 1983, pp. 37-8). As these images are portable, we are not sure if they represent the existence of a Jaina religious centre at Chausa or they are leftovers by some non-local persons at this site. 37. For the iconography of these pieces, see Asher, op. cit., p. 22. 38. For the iconography of these pieces, see ibid., p. 22. For the analysis of dedicatory inscription on this sculpture, see pp. 261-2 of the present book.

134

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

39. K. Anand, History and Archaeology of Buxar, Bhojpur and Rohtas Regions, Ramanand Vidya Bhawan, Delhi, 1995, p. 1. 40. Ibid., p. 10. 41. T. Bloch, Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India (henceforth ARASI), Eastern Circle, 1906-7, p. 17. 42. K. Anand, ‘Early Medieval Sculptural Art of Kaimur’, JBPP, vols. XVIIXVIII, 1993-4, p. 210. 43. Ibid., p. 210. 44. Bhabhua is a separate district now. 45. B.K. Jamuar, op. cit., pp. 72-4. 46. No archaeological settlement dating before the fifteenth-sixteenth centuries AD has been found in the Palamau area so far, indicating that the area remained dominated by tribal cultures for a long time (D.K. Chakrabarti, Archaeology of Eastern India: Chhotanagpur Plateau and West Bengal, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1993, p. 210.) 47. Frederick Asher, op. cit., pp. 38-9. 48. Ibid., p. 39. 49. Ibid., p. 38 50. Ibid., p. 40. 51. ASIR, vol. XVI, Delhi, 2000 (rpt.), pp. 65-8. 52. Ibid., p. 68. 53. B.K. Jamuar, op. cit., p. 59. 54. A. Cunningham, ASIR, XVI, p. 59, 61. 55. Ibid., p. 63. 56. Ibid.,p. 62. 57. B.K. Jamuar, op. cit., p. 73. 58. For a cataloguing of data from these sites, Appendix 1, pp. 618-20. 59. For an analysis of this inscription, see p. 437 of the present book. 60. For the details of excavations at this site, see ASIR, XIX, p. 30; Anand, op. cit., p. 63. 61. The only reported site in the Aurangabad district is the site of Umga, which appears to be a Brahmanical mono-religious site. In recent explorations in the neighborhood of this site, only the ruins of Pāla period Brahmanical temples and sculptures have been reported (Kumar Anand, ‘Exploration Report of Umga, District Aurangabad, Bihar’, JBPP, vols. XIX-XX, 1995-2000, pp. 326-8). 62. A.S. Amar, ‘Contextualizing the Navel of the Earth: Emergence, Sustenance and Religious Transformation of Buddhism in the Bodhgaya Region (circa. 300 BCE-1200 CE)’, unpublished PhD thesis,

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

63. 64.

65. 66. 67.

68. 69. 70. 71.

72. 73. 74.

75.

76.

77. 78.

135

SOAS, University of London, 2009. I am thankful to Dr. Amar for sending the Chapter 3 of his thesis that contains the data on the sites explored by him. In contemporary Bihar, a Block is an administrative division comprising several villages. A.S. Amar, ‘Buddhist Response to Brāhmaṇa Challenge in Medieval India: Bodhgayā and Gayā’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, vol. 22, no. 1, 2012, pp. 155-85. Ibid., p. 160. Ibid., pp. 160-1. For a catalogue of sites of Gaya district where early medieval Buddhist or Brahmanical materials have been found, see Appendix 1, pp. 620-5. Including the Kurkihar area. This site has Brahmanical and Buddhist presence as well. L.S.S. O’Malley, Bengal District Gazetteers – Gaya, Logos Press, Delhi, 2007 (rpt.), p. 2. Ruins of a temple on a structural mound (which is at least 100 meter in diameter), many votive stūpas and a ninth century stone sculpture of Tārā have been discovered at this site (D.K. Chakrabarti, Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain: The Lower and the Middle Ganga, Delhi, Permanent Black, 2001, p. 184). See Appendix 1, pp. 620-5. For the reported Maitreya sculptures from this area, see Appendix 1, pp. 620-5. For details of this survey, see B.K. Choudhary, The Archaeological Gazetteer of Nalanda District, K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 2015. For details of reported data from these sites, see Appendix 1, pp. 629-45 of the present book. We have basically relied on B.K. Choudhary, op. cit. He has, besides recording the data from the recently documented sites, also included data on those sites that were recorded in earlier publications. These sites are: Dhurgaon (B.K. Choudhary, op. cit., pp. 66-7, two sculptures reported from this site); Ghosrawan (ibid., pp. 79-80); Mitawan (ibid., p. 201). Claudine Bautze-Picron, The Bejeweled Buddha: From India to Burma, Sanctum Books, New Delhi, 2010, p. 141. This stone sculpture, measuring 75 × 38 × 13 cm, has been discovered

136

79.

80. 81. 82. 83. 84.

85. 86.

87. 88. 89. 90. 91.

92. 93.

94.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia at the site of Tungi in the Tetrawan Block (B.K. Choudhary, op. cit., p. 41). Its size indicates that it was a major worship-object in a public religious centre; it was not an object of private worship. This fragmented stone sculpture, measuring 70 × 38 × 13 cm, has been discovered at the site of Maghara in the Bihar Sharif Block (B.K. Choudhary, op. cit., p. 37). The original sculpture could have been bigger. For a cataloguing of reported early medieval data from this district, see Appendix 1, p. 645 of the present book. Jalaj Kumar Tiwari, ‘Village Mera in Archaeological Perspective’, JBPP, vols. XVII- XVIII, 1993-4, pp. 195-203. Pravin Kumar, ‘An image of Pārśvanātha at Patna’, JBPP, vol. II, 1978, pp. 231-3. For details of reported data from this district, see Appendix 1, pp. 625-6. Atul Kumar Verma, ‘The Discovery of a Temple Complex in the Village Mira Bigaha’, in Dr. Chandrika Prasad Yadav (ed.), Mīrā Bigahā: Ek Purātātvika Khoj, Bihar Hindi Granth Academy, Patna, 2002, p. 39. Ibid., p. 40. M.R. Manbansh, ‘A Report of Archaeological Exploration and Documentation of Stone Sculptures of Mira Bigaha Village of Jahanabad District’, in Dr. Chandrika Prasad Yadav (ed.), op. cit., p. 44. M.R. Manbansh, op. cit., pp. 40-4. A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. VIII, Delhi, 2000 (rpt.), pp. 63-5. For a cataloguing of data from the sites of this district, see Appendix 1, pp. 627-9. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 183. For an analysis of the inscription found at this place, recording the construction of this temple by the ruling king and the construction of some additional structures by his mother and wife, see p. 438 of the present book. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 186. L.B. Swarnakar, The Historical Geography of Ancient Angadesa, Indian Publishers’ Distributors, Delhi, 2007, p. 2. An analysis of Santhal Pargana is beyond the scope of our work. Frederick Asher, ‘Sculptures from Rajona, Valgudar and Jaynagar: Evidence for an Urban Centre’, East and West, 36(1/3), 1986, pp. 227-46; Anil Kumar, ‘Kṛimilā: A Forgotten Adhiṣṭhāna of Early

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

95. 96. 97.

98.

99.

100.

101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106.

107.

137

Medieval Eastern India’, Indian Historical Review, 38(1), 2011, pp. 23-50. Anil Kumar, op. cit., p. 34. Ibid., p. 37. R.K. Chattopadhyay et al., ‘Recent Study of Sculptural and Architectural Remains from the South Bihar Plain: A Case Study of Rajoana- Chowki Region’, JBA, vol. 20, 2015, pp. 205-28. Claudine Bautze-Picron, ‘Lakhi Sarai, An Indian Site of Late Buddhist Iconography, and Its Position within the Asian Buddhist World’, Silk Road Art and Archaeology, vol. 2, Kamakura, 1991-2, pp. 242-63. Discovered sculptures show the following break-up: the Buddha in different mudrās (6); Crowned Buddha (3); Avalokiteśvara (8); goddess with child (3); Tārā (1); Mahāśrī Tārā (1); Jambhala (4); Mahākāla (2); Krodha (1); Siṁhanāda Avalokiteśvara (1); Vajratārā (1); Uṣṇīṣavijaya (1); Mārīcī (1); fragmented Buddhist sculpture (1) For an analysis of this process, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘A Folk Tradition Integrated into Mahāyāna Buddhism: Some Observations on the Votive Inscriptions on Sculptures of Puṇḍeśvarī/ Pūrṇeśvarī/Puṇyeśvarī Discovered in the Kiul-Lakhisarai Area, Bihar’, Berlin Indological Studies, vol. 21, 2013, pp. 299-306. For an analysis of iconography and size of some sculptures of this deity, see Frederick Asher, ‘An Image at Lakhi Serai and its Implications’, Artibus Asiae, 59(3-4), 2000, pp. 296-302. A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. III, Delhi, 2000 (rpt.), p. 157. Ibid., pp. 157-8. Ibid., p. 158. Ibid., p. 158. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 172. In fact, many Burmese inscriptions of the tenth-twelfth century are reported from this site, but not fully published. On this basis, it has been claimed recently that pilgrims from Burma sailing up the Ganges to Bodh Gaya via Pāṭaliputra must have halted at Uren to visit its shrines (S. Dhammika, Navel of the Earth: The History and Significance of Bodh Gaya, Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society, Singapore, 1996, pp. 5-6). For a summary of data from this site, see D.R. Patil, The Antiquarian Remains in Bihar, K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1963, pp. 583-6; B.P. Sinha, Directory of Bihar Archaeology, Bihar Purāvid Pariṣad, Patna, p. 308.

138 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116.

117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123.

124.

125. 126. 127. 128. 129.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 171. Ibid., p. 172. Ibid., p. 172. It is apparent that the pattern here is different from the one observed in the district of Gaya. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 175. Frederick Asher, ‘Sculptures from Rajona, Valgudar and Jaynagar: Evidence for an Urban Centre’, East and West, 36(1/3), 1986, p. 227. A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. VIII, Delhi, 2000 (rpt.), p. 120. Ibid. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 175. Recently, it has been proposed that Indape was a fortified settlement of the Pāla period (R.K. Sinha, ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra: The Last Beacon of Buddhist Philosophy, Bharati Prakashan, Varanasi, 2015, p. 7). This site continued in the Pāla period, but it was founded earlier. These images are kept in the Jamui Museum. For dating, see Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 175. For an analysis of the site of Bhitargarh, see pp. 152-4 of the present book. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 75. For details, see Appendix 1, pp. 646-7. D.R. Patil, The Antiquarian Remains in Bihar, K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1963, p. 336. Ibid., p. 103. At present, this district includes some areas to the north of the Ganga river as well. As the situation in the areas to the north of the Ganga river of this district will be discussed in the section on North Bihar, we will analyse the situation to the south of the Ganga only. We have also included erstwhile Banka subdivision of the district, which is now a separate district. Kumkum Bandyopadhyay, ‘Recent Archaeological Investigations in and Around the Mandar Hill, District Banka, South Bihar’, Pratna Samiksha, New Series, vol. 4, 2013, pp. 109-12. Ibid., pp. 112-15. Ibid., p. 107. Ibid., pp. 111-14. Ibid., pp. 115-17. The significance of findings of Brahmanical sculptures from this site is analysed in Chapter 7.

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts 130. 131. 132. 133. 134.

135.

136.

137. 138. 139. 140.

141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150.

151. 152.

139

A. Cunningham, ASI, XV, pp. 34-5; T. Bloch, ARASI, BC, 1903, p. 8. For an analysis of this inscription, see p. 439 of the present book. IAR, 1983-4, p. 12. J.D. Beglar, CASI, VIII, p. 130. A Viṣṇupada was found here. Along with the Śaiva antiquity referred to above, this site also contains tenth-twelfth century AD sculptures of Manasā, Viṣṇu, and Avalokiteśvara (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 165). Vinay Prasad Gupt, ‘Kahalgāon Kṣetra Kī Prācīna Bauddha Kalā’, in R.K.Sinha and O.P. Pandey (eds), Aṅga Sanskriti: Vividha Āyāma, Indian Book Market, Bhagalpur, 2006, pp. 45-52. Kumkum Bandopadhyaya, ‘A Note on the Newly Reported Sculptures from Olpura, District Bhagalpur, South Bihar’, JBA, vol. 18, 2013, pp. 185-92. Ibid., p. 47 Ibid., p. 48. Ibid., pp. 49-50. For an analysis of the significant presence of the cult of the Crowned Buddha at this site, who may be regarded as a form of Vairocana, see pp. 536-7 of the present book. Frederick Asher, op. cit., p. 89. Seema Mumtaz Minj, ‘Jaina Art in the Border Place of Anga Region’, in R.K. Sinha and Om Prakash Pandey (eds), op. cit., p. 26. For a catalogue of reported data from this district, see Appendix 1, p. 649. For a cataloguing of the the published data from the district of Siwan, see Appendix 1, pp. 649-50. B.P. Sinha, Directory of Bihar Archaeology, Bihar Purāvid Pariṣad, Patna, p. 301. Ibid., pp. 233-4 Ibid., p. 233. Ibid., p. 301. Also see ibid., pp. 233-4. For a cataloguing of the published data from the district of Saran, see Appendix 1, pp. 650-1. For the role of Chirand as an important riverine port participating in the riverine trade of Ghaghara and Ganga in the Kuṣāṇa and early Gupta periods, see K. Prasad, ‘Transition from Rural to Urban Settlement: A Case Study of Chirand’, in V.K. Thakur (ed.), Towns in Pre-Modern India, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 1994, p. 70. IAR, 1963-4, p. 8. IAR, 1968-9, p. 6.

140

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

153. B.K. Sinha, Archaeology of North Bihar, Ramanand Vidya Bhawan, Delhi, 1999, p. 138. 154. Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 93. 155. Ibid. 156. For a cataloguing of reported sculptural data from these sites, see see Appendix 1, pp. 650-1 of the present book. 157. See for example, Dilip Kumar, Archaeology of Vaiśālī, Ramanand Vidya Bhawan, Delhi, 1986; Kameshwar Prasad, The Glory That Was Vaiśālī (From the Earliest Times to c. 600 CE), K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 2015. 158. B.K. Choudhary, Archaeological Gazetteer of Vaishali District, K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 2016. 159. For a catalogue of reported sculptural data from the Vaishali district, see Appendix 1, pp. 651-6. 160. B.K. Choudhary, op. cit., p. 55. 161. Ibid., p. 131. 162. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 203. 163. Ibid., p. 203. 164. A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. XVI, pp. 20-2. 165. Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 236. 166. J. Karyyi and K.J. Mayank, Chāmuṇḍāgarh: Itihās Evam Āsthā, Shloka Prakashan, Darbhanga, 2013, p. 45. 167. For details, see pp. 438-9 of the present book. 168. Karyyi and Mayank., op. cit., pp. 7-14. 169. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 200. 170. Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 203. 171. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 200. 172. Ibid., p. 200. 173. For a cataloguing of reported data from this district, see Appendix 1, pp. 657-8. 174. J. Mishra, The Buddhist Iconography of Bihar, Prabhavati Prakashana, Patna, 1992, p. 184. Mishra has not specified the number or identification of Buddhist sculptures discovered at these sites. 175. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 199. 176. Ibid., p. 200. 177. Ibid.,p. 198. 178. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 198. 179. For an analysis of this inscription, see p. 308 of the present book. 180. Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 189.

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

141

181. For a catalogue of reported data from the Madhubani district, see Appendix 1, pp. 658-60. 182. For a description of ruins at this site, see D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 199. 183. Ibid., p. 199. 184. Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., pp. 221-2. 185. For the measurement and art-historical analysis of this image, see J. Mishra, op. cit., p. 183. 186. S.R. Roy, Karian Excavations 1955, K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1965, p. 13. 187. For details, see Appendix 1, pp. 661-2. 188. For the description of the site, see Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 201. 189. Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 210. 190. Mishra, op. cit., p. 188. 191. For details, see p. 307 of the present book. 192. For details, see p. 447 of the present book. 193. For details, see p. 307 of the present book. 194. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 196. 195. For a cataloguing of reported data from this district, see Appendix 1, p. 663. 196. D.R. Patil, The Antiquarian Remains in Bihar, K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1963, p. 14. 197. Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 215; D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 195. 198. Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 215. 199. Ibid. 200. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 195. He has dated these images to c. tenth century. 201. For a cataloguing of reported data from this district, see Appendix 1, p. 664. 202. For a cataloguing of reported data from this district, see Appendix 1, p. 664. 203. Rashmi Sinha, op. cit.,p. 185. 204. Ibid., p. 199. 205. For details, see Appendix 1, pp. 664-5. 206. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 192. 207. Ibid. 208. Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 183. 209. Ibid., p. 186. 210. For a cataloguing of reported data from these sites, see Appendix 1, pp. 664-5.

142

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

211. For a cataloguing of reported data from these sites, see Appendix 1, p. 665. 212. D.R. Patil, op. cit., p. 195. 213. Ajoy Kumar Sinha, ‘The Bronzes from Pranpur (Katihar)’, JBPP, vols. VII-VIII, 1983-4, p. 265. 214. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 191. 215. Ibid., p. 194. 216. Ibid., p. 194. 217. N.N. Bhattacharyya, Buddhism in the History of Indian Ideas, Manohar, Delhi, 1987, p. 15. 218. K.T.S. Sarao, The Decline of Buddhism in India: A Fresh Perspective, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 2012, p. 140. 219. N.N. Bhattacharyya, op. cit., p. 15.

CHAPTER 4

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts of Support Systems of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres in Early Medieval Bengal

Some Preliminaries This chapter aims to explore the archaeology of the distribution pattern and spatial contexts of support systems of religious centres in early medieval Bengal. We will analyse the distribution pattern of those religious centres which have left architectural evidences as well as those religious centres whose past existence is indicated by sculptures only. Our main focus is not on the architectural analysis of monumental religious sites, but on the analysis of the evolution of regional distribution pattern of monumental and non-monumental religious centres and how this distribution pattern reflects on the social bases of patronage to these religious centres. We will also undertake an analysis of archaeological data left by these religious centres with particular reference to their support system and religious dialogues taking places within them. To have a contextual understanding of the developments during the early medieval period, we will begin with an analysis of the Gupta period.

144

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Archaeology of Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts of Support System of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres in the Gupta Period In Bengal, we do not get structural or epigraphic evidences for the presence of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres during the Maurya or Kuṣāṇa period.1 We do not get such evidences for the presence of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres even at/in the vicinity of urban centres (Mahasthan, Tāmralipti, Chandraketugarh or Wari-Bateshvar). We see some fundamental changes in the Gupta period in which, barring Dakṣiṇa Rāḍha, we see the emergence and functioning of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in almost all zones of Bengal. They functioned in many kinds of landscapes and had diverse resource mobilization strategies. Let us see the situation in Varendra first. As we shall analyse the Gupta period inscriptions recording endowments in favour of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres in a separate chapter, we shall examine other archaeological markers of the presence of religious centres in this area. Archaeological excavations within the city of Mahasthan and explorations in its neighborhood indicate the presence of religious centres datable to c. fifth century AD. Within the city, a square brick platform, datable to the fourth-fifth century, of uncertain religious affiliation has been reported. Though it was an example of religious architecture, the excavators were not sure if indicated a stūpa.2 But in the neighbourhood of the city, at the site of Bara Tangra in the Namuja division (located 6 miles north-west of Mahasthan), the presence of a fairly big (102 × 58 × 20 cm) buff sandstone image of the Buddha, made in the typical Gupta period Sarnath style, indicates that a Buddhist temple emerged to enshrine this image.3 This image is slightly earlier than the Buddha image from Biharail in Rajashahi district.4 So it is apparent that the first import of a Buddhist sculpture to Varendra went to the Mahasthangarh area. But despite this, a Buddhist monastery did not emerge in the neighbourhood of the city in the fifth century, but at Biharail (in Rajshahi district),

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

145

where the ruins of a fifth century monastery have been noted, which functioned, most probably, in a non-urban context.5 When we move to Uttara Rāḍha, we see Buddhist monasteries emerging in the neighbourhood of the capital city of a regional state and most probably deriving their main patronage from the urban population at the sites of Rajabadidanga and Rakshasidanga. We do not have categorical evidences of the foundation of these monasteries through royal munificence. Similarly, available data does not indicate the flow of royal patronage to these monasteries even after their foundation. In the case of Rajabadidanga, we have argued elsewhere that this site was also patronized by maritime traders who used the arterial route of the Ganga to join the South-East Asian or Roman trade via Tāmralipti or Chandraketugarh.6 A somewhat different pattern is seen in the district of Birbhum. Here Buddhist monasteries did emerge in the Gupta period, but away from any known urban or administrative centre. Ruins of Gupta period Buddhist monasteries have been reported from Beluti, 15 km to the northeast of Bolpur;7and at the site of Chandra Hazrar Danga (in the village of Bahiri). 8 Incomplete excavation at Bahiri and wanton destruction of accidently exposed ruins at Beluti do not give any indication of the kind of Buddhism practiced there, the support base of these monasteries, or the period till which they survived. Both sites are located in the alluvial south-western portion of the district. We do not see the emergence of any Buddhist religious centre in the lateritic part of the district, either in this phase or later. In Dakṣiṇa Rāḍha, we don’t have categorical evidences for the emergence of religious centres during the Gupta period either in or near excavated urban centres or in the rural space. But we see the presence of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in coastal West Bengal (districts of 24-Parganas and West Medinipur) at the port cities as well as in rural space during the Gupta period. Excavations of a structural mound at the site of Dhosa (located in the tract of land between Kolkata in the north to Sagar island in the south), led to the unearthing of a structure with the brick paved floor and pathway all around,

146

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

perhaps indicative of its religious nature.9 This structure has been dated to the period from the first century AD to the sixth century AD.10 Due to the limited nature of excavations at the site, we are not sure of either the cultic affiliation of the site (Brahmanical, Buddhist or Jaina) or its patronage base. In the ‘country of Tāmralipti’, Faxian has described the functioning of 22 monasteries;11 their number had dwindled to ten during the time of visit of Xuan Zang;12 and by the time of Itsing’s visit, not more than five or six monasteries were in functional state. Structural evidence for these monasteries is yet to be encountered at the site of Tamluk, which is generally believed to be the site of ancient Tāmralipti.13 It may be noted that ancient Tāmralipti might not have been confined to the modern site of Tamluk.14 In any case, repeated references to the presence of Buddhist monasteries at Tāmralipti by Chinese pilgrims for at least three centuries may not be easily doubted. These monasteries seem to have derived their main patronage from the maritime traders passing through the port city and fluctuations in maritime trade impacted the fate of monasteries fundamentally. Another important port centre in the area – Chandraketugarh – offers evidences for the presence of an impressive brickbuilt temple at the site of Khana Mihirer Dhipi. In plan, this temple appear to be square, each side 63 ft long, with an external projection in the middle of the each of the three sides – eastern, southern and the western and a vestibule, 45 ft square attached to the middle of the northern side. Its foundation was laid more than 10 ft below the contemporary occupation level.15 Unfortunately, no categorical evidence of the cultic affiliation of the temple could be found.16 In the early medieval period, another temple emerged near the Gupta period temple. What was the support base of the Gupta period temple at Chandraketugarh? We don’t have any epigraphic or literary record to ascertain who actually founded it, and how did this temple mobilize resources after its foundation. We can offer only some contextual inferences. For that, we will have to look into

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

147

the economic situation that prevailed at Chandraketugarh during the Gupta period. In a recent study based on analysis of literary (Greco-Roman sources) and archaeological findings, it has been convincingly shown that in the context of Chandraketugarh (identifiable with the Gangābandar of the Classical sources), the period of operation of the port stretched from the third century BC to the early fourth century AD.17 Port related activities and long distance trade came to an end at this site by the beginning of the Gupta period.18 The pattern is different from what we see at Tāmralipti that was used for voyages to Southeast Asia at least till the late seventh century AD. In this kind of milieu, it is unlikely that the Gupta period temple at Khana-Mihirer-Dhipi owed its foundation to mercantile patronage. It may also be noted that in the post-Gupta and Pāla periods, when we have practically no archaeological marker of long-distance trade, commerce and urbanization at Chandraketugarh, we see further structural activities at Khana-Mihirer-Dhipi. In the post-Gupta period, a small brick temple (5.94 sq. m) and circular brick basements (possibly the remains of votive stūpas) emerged at this site.19 In the Pāla period, this site (Khana-Mihirer-Dhipi) witnessed the renovation of the upper part of the massive wall of the Gupta period sarvato-bhadra temple.20 Remains of the plinth of a huge brick-built temple (15.75 × 29.58 m) of the Pāla period were also discovered at Khana-Mihirer-Dhipi.21 All this indicates that these temples did not depend on mercantile and urban patronage but some other source of patronage, which we are unable to trace due to lack of data. A similar picture emerges when we move to the Bangladesh side of Vaṅga. At the site of Bharata Bhayana (Kesabpur, Jessore), where a cruciform Buddhist temple, possibly dating back to the fifth century, has been found,22 we do not have evidence of any urban or political centre in the neighbourhood. Compared to Vaṅga, the Comilla area of Samataṭa offers clearer evidences to reconstruct the patterns of patronage to many Gupta period Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres.

148

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

An early sixth century copper-plate inscription from Gunaighar, located 12 miles north of Mainamati, refers to the presence of at least three Buddhist monasteries and a Brahmanical temple enshrining the image of Pradyumneśvara in the area. Mahāyāna was the practiced form of Buddhism in at least one monastery.23 This inscription contained provisions for repairing cracks in a Buddhist monastery, which indicates that it was a brick structure. Remains of none of the monasteries referred to in this copperplate have survived, though ruins of a Gupta period brick temple, ‘removed brick by brick by local villagers’ have been discovered at the village of Gunaighar itself.24 The village itself rests on an extensive Gupta period mound.25 It is likely that these mounds conceal the remains of the monasteries referred to in this copper-plate. Out of the three monasteries referred to in the copper-plate inscription, only two display evidence of royal patronage. The temple of Pradyumneśvara, on the other hand, was most probably constructed and patronized by the Brahmanical Agrahāra population that existed in the neighbourhood of the village. So this temple owed its origin to royal patronage, at least indirectly.26 Let us sum up the situation in the Gupta period Bengal. We infer the emergence of Buddhist religious centres in a variety of spaces: near urban centres (Rajabadidanga, Rakshasidanga), near rural centres (Beluti in Birbhum, Bharata Bhayana); near functional riverine or maritime port centres (i.e. Rajabadidanga, Rakshasidanga, Tāmralipti). We also infer the coexistence of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the more wet environment of Comilla. The evidence of royal patronage is limited to just one Vihāra in Comilla. It appears that Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres had diverse patronage base, which indicates their capacity to attract patronage from a cross section of society. These inferences need to be juxtaposed with the same obtained from the distribution pattern of the Gupta period sculptures, which we shall do so in the following section. Only 16 Gupta period stone sculptures have been reported from different parts of Bengal so far.27 We infer a marked

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

149

absence of Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures in Rāḍha. Even the Gupta period Jaina sculptures have not been reported from either Uttara Rāḍha or Dakṣiṇa Rāḍha. That was despite an early penetration of Jainism in Dakṣiṇa Rāḍha: a terracotta Naigameṣa has been reported from the Kuṣāṇa strata of Mangalkot.28 All reported examples of Viṣṇu sculptures are made of stone, a rare material to carve sculptures in the Gupta period Bengal. They are not only numerically most dominant (7 of 16 reported pieces), but they are also found distributed across a wide area. They have been reported from Varendra, Vaṅga and Samataṭa, a feature not achieved by any other Brahmanical or Buddhist deity till the end of the Gupta period. In a way, they herald an important trend – dominance of the cult of Viṣṇu – that culminated in the late Pāla period Bengal. All reported Viṣṇu sculptures from Gupta period Bengal appear in a non-urban context, without any apparent royal patronage. Mātṛkā stone sculptures and terracotta pieces seem to have been concentrated in West Medinipur and Khulna. In the Khulna area, we also see the sculptural representation of a goddess of obscure origin (Nyagsadhya Parimandala), which, at the available stage of our information, was one of the earliest sculptures in Khulna. That has rightly prompted a scholar to argue that the earliest settlers in Khulna ‘were the devotees of the mothergoddess cult and their faith were successively supplanted by the Mahāyāna theory of Buddhism, Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism’.29 Buddhist sculptures appear to be rare and the available pieces may not reflect developments of local ateliers. The stone image from Biharail was made at Sarnath and the finished product was transported to Biharail.30 Ruins of an early historic monastery have been noted at Biharail.31 This image most probably functioned as an object of worship in this monastery. This image was most probably associated with the Sarvāstivādin sect.32 The image of the Buddha found at Bara Tangra, in Namuja division (6 miles north-west of Mahasthan), slightly earlier than Biharail Buddha, was also an import from Sarnath. This image was, it has been rightly argued, enshrined in an independent

150

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

temple (i.e. a temple not associated with any monastery).33 The Bara Tangra piece may indicate the emergence of a Buddhist temple on the outskirts of Mahasthan. The Biharail monastery, on the other hand, was not on the outskirts of any reported urban centre. The Avalokiteśvara image discovered in the AgraKapilmuni area of Khulna may also indicate the emergence of a Buddhist religious centre in a non-urban context. It may also be noted that the Gunaighar inscription refers to the functioning of many monasteries in Comilla that existed in a rural landscape. On the whole, we infer the functioning of Buddhist religious centres in a variety of landscapes, subsisting on diverse forms of patronage.

Archaeology of the Distribution Pattern of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres in Bengal in the Seventh-Eighth Centuries Period and the Spatial Contexts of their Support Systems In the seventh-eighth century Bengal, we see the continuation of trends seen in the Gupta period, but on a much larger scale. We infer the presence of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres near thriving urban centres, near declining urban centres, near abandoned urban centres, away from any known urban centre but possibly along a trade route. We, of course, see the expansion of both Buddhism and Brahmanism in the rural landscape. In this section, we will attempt to see their distribution pattern with reference to both urban and non-urban space, in all sub-regions of seventh-eighth century Bengal. In the alignment of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres vis-à-vis urban centres, we find two kinds of scenarios: (1) emergence/functioning of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres within thriving urban centres or in their neighbourhoods, and (2) emergence/functioning of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres within declining urban centres or in their neighbourhoods. Religious centres of Mahasthangarh, Rajabadidanga and Sabhar may be included in the first category. In the second category, we may include the

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

151

Buddhist stūpa centre of Bharatpur in Bardhaman district; Buddhist monasteries of Tāmralipti and Brahmanical temples of Chandraketugarh. Let us begin with an analysis of the situation in Mahasthangarh. If the archaeological data till the end of the fifth century give a picture of the absence of Buddhist or Brahmanical religious centres within the city, and the presence of just one Buddhist religious centre (a temple) in the neighbourhood of the city, the pattern in the post-Gupta period appears to be different. Xuan Zang refers to the functioning of a big Buddhist monastic centre (Po-chi-po Sanghārāma) on the outskirts of the city.34 We have no information as to when this monastery was actually founded and by whom. In the same period (seventh century) or slightly earlier, we also see the emergence of a big stūpa or Buddhist shrine at the site of Laksindarer Medh Gokul (situated about 2 km south-west of the Mahasthangarh citadel).35 This site was converted into a Śaiva shrine during the Sena period.36 Slightly later (in the eighth century), we see the emergence of an independent (i.e. not attached to any monastery or stūpa) Buddhist shrine at the excavated site of Khodar Pathar mound within the fortification walls of the city. None of them has left any epigraphic evidence to ascertain the social background of their founders. We may argue that, after their foundation, they derived their main patronage from the population of the city. Brahmanical presence in the neighbourhood of the Mahasthangarh citadel area in this period is indicated by the discovery of a labeled terracotta panel, depicting scenes from the Rāmāyaṇa, at the site of Bamunpara. As suggested by Enamul Haque, the artists and their patrons were conscious of the unfamiliarity of the masses with even the principal characters of the epics such as the Rāmāyaṇa.37 Hence the need for descriptive labels was felt. One will largely agree with Prof. Haque that labeled art materials from Bamunpara, the first of its kind from Bengal, and also in terracotta, were probably made at a comparatively initial stage of the introduction of this Brahmanical epic in the region.38 Like the previous centuries, seventh-eighth centuries AD

152

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

sculptures seem to be rare in the city and its neighbourhood, so much so that a new image of the Buddha was carved on the back side of the fifth century Buddha image that was discovered at Bara Tangra in Namuja division, somewhere between the seventh and the ninth centuries AD.39 This was probably due to the scarcity of stone in the Mahasthangarh area. This rarity of sculptures, if compared to the profusion with which they occur in the Pāla-Sena period in the same general area, would indicate that the shrines that accommodated them were much less in the pre-Pāla period than what we may infer for the Pāla period. If Mahasthan indicates a thin presence of Buddhist religious centres within the city ramparts in the seventh-eighth century, Bhitargarh offers a case of the presence of Buddhist religious centres in the innermost and most secured part of the city. That again highlights a considerable diversity in the distribution pattern of Buddhist religious centres vis-à-vis urban centres in Bengal. The site of Bhitargarh is located about 16 km northeast of Panchagarh town, the administrative headquarters of the district of the same name in the northernmost part of Bangladesh.40 It is not very far from the southern borders of the Indian district of New Jalpaigudi. It is one of the 15 fortified recorded settlements in the district of Panchagarh.41 These fortified settlements came up in this district, most probably, to take advantage of the increasing trade and cultural contacts between Bengal and Tibet. Bhitargarh, situated in the midst of a dense forest, and extending over an area about 25 sq. km, is one of the largest fortified settlements, if not the largest one, discovered so far in Bangladesh.42 Located on one of the main channels of the Karatoya, it most probably acted as a riverine port, as well as a nodal centre on an important trade route connecting Varendra and Magadha to Tibet, the Brahmaputra valley of Assam and beyond to the Yunnan area of China.43 The site of Bhitargarh is enclosed within four concentric quadrangles created with burnt brick ramparts. Excavations in the two mounds in the innermost quadrangle led to the unearthing of a baked-brick built cruciform temple (measuring

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

153

22 × 27 m) and a stūpa, both starting in the seventh-eighth centuries and continuing till the early thirteenth century.44 Except a few potsherds, excavations at this temple mound did not result in the discovery of any antiquity. In particular, the absence of any Buddhist sculpture at this site made the excavator reluctant to term it as a Buddhist temple. We will like to point out that this temple occurs in the close proximity of a stūpa (located at a distance of 120 m southwest from the temple), and barring a black basalt stone sculpture of Manasā discovered in surface exploration in the first quadrangle,45 we do not have any marker of non-Buddhist presence here. Brahmanical sculptures are frequently found in Buddhist temples and monasteries of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, and the finding of a single piece of Manasā may not be a sufficient ground to attribute a Brahmanical affiliation to this temple.46 Like the temple, the stūpa too, flanked by a two pillared verandah, was made of burnt bricks of various sizes.47 Like the adjoining temple, the stūpa area too did not report any Buddhist sculpture.48 Probably the kind of Buddhism practiced at this site did not favor the worship of sculptures. Antiquities excavated were red and grey potsherds, fragments of iron objects, a rim of iron vessel, and a copper bangle.49 No inscribed sculpture, seal/ sealings, or inscription has been reported form the site. The second, third and fourth quadrangles of Bhitargarh revealed the presence of secular architecture: ramparts, moats, water bodies (dīghis).50 Shahnaj Husne Jahan, the excavator of this site, has maintained that this city closely resembles many norms provided in the Arthaśāstra in the construction of moats and ramparts, internal lay out of the city with gates, streets, etc.51 So most probably, this city was founded by a political authority as a planned city. The political authority that planned and executed the foundation of the city of Bhitargarh, also, apparently, got the Buddhist stūpa and temple constructed in the most secured part of this city. As the Buddhist stūpa and temple were located in the innermost and most-secured part of the city, it is likely that they were not easily accessible by the ordinary

154

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

residents of this city. That indicates that the Buddhist stūpa and temple derived their primary patronage from the political powers that controlled this city. Another example of the emergence of many Buddhist religious centres (at least one monastery and many stūpas) in this period near an important urban and administrative centre, which most probably also served as a riverine port, is discernible at Sabhar in the Dhaka district of Bangladesh. We shall discuss this site in some detail in Chapter 7. The only thing we will like to point out here is that an intensive village-to-village archaeological exploration in the neighbouring Dhamrai area along both banks of the river Bangshi resulted in the discovery of sites contemporary with Sabhar, but marked with extreme rural character.52 None of the explored sites reported any coinage, sculpture, inscription or any indication of long distance trade.53 No evidence of the presence of any religious centre was found at any of the sites in the Dhamrai area. Arguably, the monastery and stūpas at Sabhar were, most probably, the only set of available religious centres for the urban population of Sabhar as well as for the rural population of Dhamrai area. When we move to the Rāḍha area, we see two divergent patterns in the alignment of Buddhist religious centers vis-à-vis urban centres. The monastic centre of Rajabadidanga, located on the outskirts of Karṇasuvarṇa, expanded in this phase. But probably more important than this is the trend represented by the big stūpa-cum-monastic site of Bharatpur in Bardhaman district.54 As we move from the eastern alluvial section of the district to the west, Bharatpur, in the central parts of the district, appears to be the westernmost outpost of Buddhism. Buddhism did not try to penetrate into the plateau portions in the western part of the district in this phase or even later: a task which was later attempted by Jaina and Brahmanical religious centers. Nevertheless, the site of Bharatpur represents the penetration of Buddhism in the more inner parts of Dakṣina Rāḍha. Bharatpur is on the banks of river Damodar.55 The site of Pakhanna, in the district of Bankura, is on the opposite side of

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

155

the same river.56 Pakhanna has been found to be an early historic urban centre of ‘modest dimensions’.57 This urban centre was past its prime after the Gupta period.58 Obviously, Bharatpur indicates a case of emergence of a big stūpa-cum-monastic centre near a city past its prime. With the nearest urban centre in decline, the source of patronage of this big Buddhist religious centre was most probably not from the urban population but somewhere else. Excavations at the site indicate a long history of occupation. A four-fold cultural sequence was encountered at the site, starting from the Neolithic-Chalcolithic period.59 That was followed by the early Iron Age culture at the site, characterized by NBPW from the upper level.60 After this, there was a gap of occupation at the site: the site was occupied only in the Gupta age, in which a baked-brick structure, of which only a few corners were intact, was found.61 This was followed by the remains of a dilapidated stūpa of square plan of pancaratha type.62 The ornamental facade of the stūpa was embellished with a number of niches on each side which contained beautiful sculptures of the seated Buddha in Bhūmisparśamudrā, stylistically belonging to the ninth-tenth centuries AD.63 This stūpa was constructed between the seventh and ninth century and the ground plan of this pancaratha stūpa resembled that of the Buddhist stūpa of Ratnagiri in Odisha.64 This stūpa was most probably identical with the Tulākṣetre Vardhamāna Stūpa mentioned in the Aṣṭasahasrikā Prajñāpāramitā manuscript of the eleventh century.65 We may infer that after its construction in the seventh-ninth centuries AD period, this stūpa remained as a functional site even in the eleventh century, famous enough to be illustrated in the said manuscript. No urban centre was in existence in its neighbourhood, or even in the district of Bardhaman. No evidence of royal patronage to this site has been discovered as yet. We may infer that the patronage to this site was, most probably, community generated. Its illustration in the Aṣṭasahasrikā Prajñāpāramitā manuscript may indicate that it was a famous

156

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

pilgrimage site, though we have yet to come across archaeological markers of long distance pilgrimage (inscribed votive stūpas, sculptures donated by non-local pilgrims, etc.). It may also be added that the practice of Buddhism at Bharatpur remained focussed on the worship of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā. This site was not receptive to esoteric Vajrayāna gods and goddesses. Another example of the emergence of a Buddhist monastery near a declined urban centre is discernible at the site of Ashrafpur, which is hardly 6 km away from Wari-Bateshvar.66 Excavations at the site resulted in the unearthing of the base ruins of a brick-built structure datable to the seventh-eighth centuries AD.67 Besides, a seventh century bronze votive stūpa and two copper-plate inscriptions recording endowment in favour of Buddhist monasteries have also been reported from the same site. All this indicates that a Buddhist monastic centre was in existence at this site during the seventh century. By this time, we do not have any indication of urbanization or maritime trade-related activities at the neighbouring site of WariBateshvar. No other contemporary urban centre or port centre has been reported in this area either. The Ashrafpur monastery, then, apparently depended on a different kind of resource base than exclusive dependence on patronage coming from the urban and mercantile population. Reported sculptural data of the seventh century also indicates the emergence and functioning of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in non-urban contexts.68 Even in this phase, we see a dominance of Viṣṇu (3 out of five reported pieces). Barring the Śarvvāṇī image from Deulbadi, Comilla, none of them has any apparent royal patronage.69 Even in the case of the Śarvvāṇī image, the dedicatory inscription indicates that the queen gilded a pre-existing image in an existing temple.70 The paucity of Buddhist stone sculptures in this century appears to be a marked feature. Barring the early seventh century image of Śyāma Tārā, discovered at Lajjair, Comilla district, no Buddhist stone sculpture has been reported, not even

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

157

in the vicinity of big centres such as Bharatpur, Rajabadidanga or Sabhar. That may indicate that the foundation of these big centres did not result in the proliferation of smaller Buddhist religious centres (shrines/temples) in their neighbourhood. The sculpture of Śyāma Tārā from Lajjair, on the other hand, may represent the emergence of a non-monastic Buddhist religious centre, most probably a temple, away from the monasteries on the Mainamati ridge. We get similar inferences when we study the distribution pattern of sculptures datable to the eighth century.71 In the case of Buddhist metal sculptures found in the neighbouring sites of Mahasthangarh, it may be argued that they were worshipped either by the monks as private objects of worship in monasteries or as household worship objects by lay followers. It may also be noted that within the city of Mahasthangarh, as indicated by the evidence of Khodar-Pathar mound, an independent Buddhist temple (temple not attached to any monastery) emerged in this century. In the previous century, we have inferred the functioning of a Buddhist temple at Bara Tangra. The paucity of Buddhist stone sculptures in this century indicates that the construction of Buddhist temples away from the monastic centres had not yet become a regular phenomenon in the landscape. In Samataṭa, as indicated by the discovery of the big bronze image of Lokanātha at Bandarbazar (a locality within modern Sylhet town), we may infer the emergence of a Buddhist monastery in the marshy and forested landscape of Sylhet, maintaining contacts with the cities and monasteries of Comilla through the Meghna River.72 The Śiva-Lokeśvara image from some part of Barisal, indicating a Buddhist attempt of subordinate integration of Śaivism to Buddhism, could have been a worship object in a Buddhist religious centre.73 On the whole, we infer the emergence of Buddhist religious centres in almost all zones of Bengal in this century. Buddhist religious centres negotiated diverse kinds of landscapes and socio-economic systems: in the drier zones of Dakṣiṇa Rāḍha

158

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

near a declining urban centre (i.e. Bharatpur near Pakhanna); in the Pleistocene uplands of Varendra (monasteries in the vicinity of Mahasthangarh); in the Pleistocene uplands of Sabhar near an urban centre and riverine port; in the marshy and forested lands of Sylhet; in the lowlands of Barisal; as well as in the more developed areas of Comilla (i.e. monasteries on the MainamatiLalmai ridge). In short, we see their presence in all sub-regions of Bengal. Brahmanical sculptures seem to concentrate in Varendra. Within Brahmanical sculptures, Viṣṇu sculptures dominate in this century too. Barring the sculptures reported in the neighbourhood of Mahasthangarh, the urban context of religious centres which enshrined these sculptures is not clear.

Alignment of Buddhist and Brahmanical Religious Centres vis-à-vis Excavated Urban Centres during the Pāla-Sena Period We will look into this issue with reference to the excavated urban centres of Mahasthangarh and Bangarh in Varendra and Kotasura in Uttara Rāḍha. In Varendra, we have already discussed the data from Bhitargarh. Urban centres of Dakṣiṇa Rāḍha – Mangalkot and Pakhanna – declined in the post-Gupta phase. In coastal West Bengal, we have already seen the situation at Chandraketugarh. In the Bangladesh side of Vaṅga, the archaeological material of Vikrampur has been so badly destroyed by the fluctuations of the Padma that it is very difficult to arrive at even the approximate boundaries of this city. Nevertheless, the implications of chronological distribution pattern and cultic affiliations of sculptures discovered in this general area will be analysed in a separate section. Agreeing with Abu Imam74 and B.D. Chattopadhyaya,75 we have not included Mainamati in the category of ‘urban centre’. In the Pāla period Mahasthangarh, we see a proliferation of Brahmanical temples within the city walls. Barring the Buddhist temple excavated at Khodar-Pathar mound, we have not much evidence of the presence of Buddhism within the city ramparts.76

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

159

Excavations at the mound locally known as Bairagi Bhita (within the north-eastern sectors of the citadel) led to the discovery of the remains of two big temples, one datable to the early Pāla period (eighth century) but using material of a sixth-seventh centuries AD temple, and the other to the late Pāla period (eleventh century AD).77 The eighth century AD temple, measuring 98 ft (E-W) × 42 ft (N-S), was made of building materials (pillars) of an earlier temple. In the north-western side of the Bairagi Bhita temple mound, a small shrine, datable eighth-ninth centuries AD, was excavated. About 200 yards south-east of Bairagi Bhita, remains of a small temple, datable to the ninthtenth century, but using stones from an earlier building, were also excavated.78 Neither any sculpture nor any inscription indicating the cultic affiliation of the temple was found in the whole area. So we have no information regarding the founders of these temples. But we may reasonably assume that they were patronized by the urban community, including the political elites, living within the fortification walls of the city. In the excavations carried out in 1961, near the gateway of the citadel on the northwest, remains of an eighth century AD temple complex, but having several building phases, were found.79 A black stone image of Nandī was also discovered from the pradakṣiṇāpatha of the temple.80 That may indicate that the temple was probably Śaiva in affiliation. That this temple site was accessible to, and attracted patronage from, the common section of society is indicated by the discovery of an unidentifiable headless image near the temple site. This black stone image is inscribed with the legend ‘Devadharmaye Bindakasya’,81 indicating that it was donated by a person called Bindaka. Ruins of another Brahmanical temple within the fortification walls of the city were found in the Mankalir Kunda mound area, which is located 100 yards north of the Khodar Pathar mound.82 This indicates that a Brahmanical temple emerged in the close proximity of a Buddhist temple. No epigraphic data regarding the support system of this temple has come to light. We may assume that this temple was also patronized by the residents of the city.

160

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Brahmanical dominance within the city is also reflected in the reported sculptural assemblage from the city. Only two Buddhist sculptures have been reported so far: a crudely executed standing sandstone figure, probably of the Buddha and the fragment of a black stone statue depicting a stūpa..83 Brahmanical sculptures are more profuse: a small sandstone image of Gaṇeśa, a mutilated image of Narasimha, an incarnation of Viṣṇu in black stone, a fragmentary black stone Viṣṇupaṭṭa; and an image of Nandī in black stone.84 From the Mazar area, a black stone Gaurīpaṭṭa, without the phallus but with the usual channel attached to it, and a battered Jaina Tīrthaṅkara image were discovered.85 This is the only example of Jaina presence within the city. Due to limited excavations at the site of Bangarh, the pattern of alignment of religious centres vis-à-vis the urban space is not clear. Excavations at the site resulted in the unearthing of the remains of a kuṇḍa within a decorated pillared hall.86 This kuṇḍa had some religious significance.87 But the cultic affiliation (Buddhist, Brahmanical or Jaina) of this kuṇḍa and the decorated pillared hall remains unknown due to a singular lack of sculptures or inscriptions from the excavated area. The presence of Brahmanical religious centres at Bangarh or its vicinity is indicated by the presence of sculptures and architectural fragments that were discovered during explorations: a sandstone pillar crowned by a black basalt image of Garuḍa;88 a stone image of Sadāśiva;89 and a stone image of Nandī.90 A significant presence of Śaivism in the neighbourhood of the city is also indicated by the inscription on a stone image of a Śaivācārya.91 In terms of the explored Pāla period sculptural assemblage reported from the site of Bangarh and its vicinity, the Buddhist presence is rather thin: out of the reported 47 sculptures reported from the area, only six are Buddhist, the rest are Brahmanical.92 That may indicate that Brahmanical religious centres had a more significant presence in the city and its vicinity during the Pāla period. Urban centres of Rāḍha have not been excavated extensively, so we may offer only preliminary observations. At Kotasur in

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

161

Birbhum district, Pāla period sculptures of Sūrya and Viṣṇu have been found near the 6 m high mound in the central part of the site.93 That may indicate the presence of a Brahmanical temple at the site. No indication of Buddhist presence could be encountered here. At Mangalkot, post-Gupta layers are highly disturbed, so we are not sure of the urban character of this site in this period. Remains of an early medieval Brahmanical temple have been found at the neighbouring Thanagora mound.94 That may indicate the emergence of a Brahmanical temple in the neighbourhood of this declining town. Similarly, ten Pāla period Jaina sculptures have been discovered around the locality of Mangalkot.95 It may indicate the emergence of some Jaina temples there in that period. Buddhist antiquities are conspicuously absent.

Archaeology of the Distribution Pattern of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres in the Pāla Period Bengal and the Spatial Context of their Support Systems: Inferences from the Distribution Pattern of Sculptures and Other Markers of Past Existence of Religious Centres Compared to the previous periods, the Pāla period heralded some fundamental changes in the sphere of religion in Bihar and Bengal. This period was marked with a voluminous proliferation of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina stone sculptures. We have noted earlier that most of such Brahmanical and Jaina sculptures were objects of worship, most probably in brick-built temples, or in shrines with even more perishable materials. We have also noted that Buddhist stone sculptures found away from known monastic centres also indicate the past existence of Buddhist temples/shrines. The proliferation of Buddhist and Brahmanical stone sculptures in most of the Pāla period Bengal and Jaina sculptures mainly in Dakṣiṇa Rāḍha is so voluminous that we are forced to undertake a district-wise analysis of their distribution pattern and spatial contexts of their support systems. We will, of course, also undertake an analysis of surviving temples of Pāla

162

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

period origin, but our emphasis will be mainly on the distribution pattern of sculptures. As this exercise has already been attempted with reference to Pāla period Varendra by Ranjusri Ghosh, we will concentrate on Rāḍha, Suhma, Vaṅga and Samataṭa Harikela. We shall begin with Rāḍha.

Rāḍha This zone covered most of the district of Murshidabad, the whole of the districts of Bardhaman and Birbhum, and most of the district of Bankura (excluding its western portion).96 It is not clear if the district of Purulia was a part of this sub-region of Bengal or not, but due to geographical contiguity, we will include this district in Rāḍha. The river Ajay acted as the natural line of demarcation between Uttara Rāḍha and Daksina Rāḍha.97 The river BhagirathiHooghli formed the eastern boundary of Rāḍha.98 In many ways, Rāḍha is a transitional zone between the plateau of Jharkhand in the west and the plains of the Ganga in the east. Its western portions are virtually extension of the Jharkhand plateau but in the central and eastern portions, its flora and fauna is similar to what we find in the lower Ganga valley. It shall be our endeavour to study the distribution pattern of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres across this variegated space.

Murshidabad and Birbhum Districts The river Bhagirathi divides the district of Murshidabad into two broad geographical zones: Rāḍha area to the west of the river and Bagdi to the east.99 All reported sites of the district are found in the Rāḍha tract.100 The river Bhagirathi, which used to be the main flow of the Ganga before the shift of the main channel to the Padma in the sixteenth century seems to have provided the axis along which religions of the middle Ganga valley expanded in the district. As indicated by the discovery of a Maurya- Śuṅga period Jaina terracotta votive plaque from Farakka,101 Jainism

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

163

seems to have had an early penetration in this district. This was followed by the emergence of Brahmanical temple at Nilkuthi in the second-third centuries AD,102 and slightly later, by the emergence of the Raktamṛttikā Mahāvihāra in the Gupta period. Possibly another monastic site emerged at Rakshasidanga in the Gupta period.103 These sites benefited from their location along the Bhagirathi. The Rajbadidanga Buddhist establishment was in a flourishing state till at least ninth-tenth centuries AD. In the early medieval period, probably a monastery-cum-stūpa-cum Panchāyatan temple site emerged at the site of Panchathupi in the south-western corner of the district.104 This indicates the emergence of a monastic site away from the arterial route of the Bhagirathi. We do not have direct epigraphic or literary evidence of any kind of royal patronage to either Rajbadidanga or Panchathupi. While Rajbadidanga, located along the Bhagirathi, attracted mercantile patronage at least till seventh-eighth centuries AD,105 no evidence of this kind has come for the site of Panchathupi located away from the flow of the Bhagirathi. The site of Panchathupi seems to have depended more on the patronage provided by the local community. The presence of at least three Buddhist monastic centres in the district during the early medieval period should not make us believe that Buddhism was the dominant religion in every part of the district. An analysis of the distribution pattern of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the district would give an altogether different picture. Barring the site of Rajbadidanga, Rakshasidanga and Panchthupi, Buddhist sculptures have been reported from only eight sites.106 None of these sites appears to be a Buddhist mono-religious site (where only Buddhist sculptures have been found). We see a great variety in the range of Buddhist deities which were worshipped in the religious centres where these images were enshrined. The reported assemblage of Buddhist sculptures from the district includes Buddha Śākyamuni in different mudrās, Avalokiteśvara, Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara, Mārīcī and Hevajra.107 The two reported examples of Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara images indicate Buddhist

164

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

attempts of subordinate integration of the cult of Viṣṇu, a deity whose sculptures are most numerous in the Pāla-Sena period Bengal. The Hevajra image, on the other hand, was, most probably, intended to represent a Buddhist victory over Brahmanism after a violent conflict. This duality in the Buddhist response to Brahmanism may be seen in the context of a great proliferation of Brahmanical sculptures in general and Viṣṇu sculptures in particular in the district, eighth-ninth centuries AD onwards.108 This indicates that temples/shrines dedicated to Viṣṇu had the most diffused presence in the district. It may be noted that in western Bankura, western Bardhaman, and western part of West Medinipur district, where we see a marked influence of the cultural traditions of the Chhotanagpur plateau, Jainism has a significant presence during the early medieval period, but not in the Murshidabad district. Buddhism, as indicated by the example of Panchthupi, was also present in the south-western part of the district. But Brahmanism had a more diffused presence in all parts of the district. The pattern is not much different when we analyse the situation in the Birbhum district.109 In Chapter 2, we have noted the geographical differentiation between the lateritic western – south-western part of the district and alluvial eastern and south-eastern part. We have also noted the emergence of two Buddhist monasteries in the alluvial south-eastern part of the district (at Beluti and Bahiri), away from any known urban or administrative centre.110As indicated by the Bahiri and Beluti examples, Buddhist religious centres emerged in the district earlier than Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres. But Buddhism could not take advantage of this early penetration. In Birbhum too, Buddhist religious centres seem to have followed the trend which they, apparently, did in much of Rāḍha: concentration in the alluvial tracts, as if carefully avoiding the lateritic tracts. Its presence in the district during the early medieval phase appears to be quite thin. Only two Pāla period stone sculptures have been reported from the district so far: a tenth-eleventh centuries Vajratārā from the village Bara in

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

165

Nalhati P.S. area in the northern part of the district;111 and an image of Mañjuvara from an unidentified site of the district.112 Jainism seems to have been confined to the lateritic part in the south-western part of the district. There too, as indicated by the finding of just one stone image of a Tīrthaṅkara,113 its presence seems to be quite marginal. It appears that Jainism could never become an important element of the cultural matrix of this district. In contrast, Brahmanical stone steles of the Pāla-Sena period are found in all parts of the district, indicating that Brahmanical religious centres had a more diffused presence in the same. Among the Brahmanical sculptures, we see a dominant presence of sculptures related to Viṣṇu.114 While the dominance of Viṣṇu in this district is a continuation of the common trend that we see in most of late Pāla-Sena period Bengal, the popularity of different mother goddesses is quite apparent. One may, in particular, highlight the strong presence of the cult of Mahiṣāsuramardinī in this district. What was the support base of the religious centres where the Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina sculptures were enshrined? Barring the example of the Paikore pillar inscription, which records the installation of a female deity through royal patronage by a Cedi king,115 we do not have any direct evidence of royal patronage to any religious centre. They most probably functioned through the patronage provided by the local community.

Bardhaman District Before analysing the distribution pattern of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres in the district of Bardhaman, let us see, very briefly, the archaeological context in which they emerged and functioned. Archaeologists working on this district generally divide it into three zones: (a) new alluvium in the eastern and central parts of the district, which, in fertility and topography, is similar to other parts of deltaic Bengal, (b) lateritic and hilly zone in the western part of the district, and (c) old alluvium zone in between the two.116 Barring

166

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

the hilly area, BRW sites have been found in all parts of the district, indicating that early village farming communities have emerged there. But early historic sites are absent in the hilly area and lateritic area. They are rarely found even in the zone of old alluvium.117 In the first zone, BRW phase is succeeded directly by the Pāla period Jaina and Brahmanical remains. That makes us largely agree with Chitrarekha Gupta’s assertion that in the western part of the district, ‘possibly the settlements which developed in the BRW culture phase continued the same primitive existence by hunting-fishing and incipient cultivation in the same area or retreated to denser congenial forest habitat’.118 That is to say, the survival strategy of Jaina and Brahmanical religious centres in this zone was bound to be different from what they had in the alluvial parts. Most of the reported early historic sites are concentrated in the zone of new alluvium: the only excavated urban centre of the district – Mangalkot – belongs to this tract. No early historic Buddhist, Jaina or Brahmanical religious centre seems to have emerged at this urban centre. In this zone, Buddhist religious centres seem to have emerged earlier than Brahmanical religious centres. Jaina religious centres seem to be absent in the new alluvium zone as well as in the zone of old alluvium. By the ninth century AD, Brahmanical religious centres seem to have emerged in all the three zones and gradually established the dominance of Brahmanism in the district. We will like to begin with an analysis of the spatial distribution pattern of Buddhist religious centres in the district. The presence of Buddhist religious centres in the district is indicated by both structural and sculptural remains. Sculptural sites have been basically reported in the new alluvium section of the district, concentrating in and around the town of Bardhaman.119 The only exception is the big stūpa-cum-monastic site of Bharatpur, which is located on the Older Flood Plain bordering the Younger Flood Plain.120 It may be pointed out that the eighth century AD image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā from Mandalagrama, Bardhaman,

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

167

as well as Tathāgatas represented on a stūpa, appear to be the earliest sculptures from the district. Roughly in the same time, we see the emergence of the stūpa-cum-monastic site of Bharatpur. These two sites antedate most of the reported Brahmanical sculptures in the district. In a way, the earliest archaeological markers of the presence of religious centres in the district are concerned with Buddhism. But Buddhism could not retain its early advantage, nor could it expand to the western part of the district. It basically remained confined to the alluvial eastern and central part of the district. What kind of Buddhism was practiced in the Buddhist religious centres of the district? This issue may be analysed through an analysis of sculptures reported from the district. Eleven Buddhist sculptures have been reported from the district so far.121 The reported eighth century AD sculptures include the Buddha in Bhūmisparśamudrā (one example) and Tathāgatas depicted on a miniature stūpa. Pāla period (ninth-twelfth centuries) sculptures include five specimens of the Buddha Śākyamuni in different mudrās, and one example each of Hārītī and Tara, two examples of Jambhala. We may infer that Vajrayāna deities, particularly the ferocious ones, were not popular deities to be enshrined in Buddhist religious centres in the district. As far as the distribution pattern of Jaina structures and sculptures, ninth-tenth centuries AD onwards, is concerned, we see their occurrence both in the eastern part and the western part of the district, which indicates the ability of Jaina religious centres to adjust to a variety of subsistence patterns. One area of concentration was around the declining city of Mangalkot: ten Jaina sculptures have been reported from the neighbourhhod of Mangalkot.122 So far, only two Jaina sites have been reported from the western part of the district. At the site of Sata Deulia (the site of a tenth-eleventh centuries AD brick-built Jaina temple) many Jaina images, including a life-size image of Ṛṣabhanātha of c. tenth century AD have been reported.123 At the site of Punchara in Asansol subdivision of Bardhaman district, a ruined temple complex in the southern part of the village, and 21

168

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

sculptures datable to the ninth-twelfth centuries have been found.124 Out of 21 discovered sculptures, 15 are Jaina sculptures depicting various Tīrthaṅkaras, five are of Viṣṇu and one sculpture is unidentified.125 This sculptural finding indicates that early medieval Punchara was predominantly a Jaina site, but with some presence of Vaiṣṇavism.126 What was the patronage base of the Jaina and Brahmanical religious centres at Sat Deulia and Punchara? It may be noted that at Punchara, the BRW phase is followed directly by the Jaina and Brahmanical remains of the Pāla period.127 It indicates when the Jainas entered in to this area; they had to deal with a community practicing Chalcolithic hunting-gathering and incipient agriculture. A similar pattern of patronage may be visualized for the Jaina temple site of Sat Deulia as no antecedent occupation has been found there. Compared to Jaina and Buddhist religious centres, Brahmanical religious centres had a more diffused presence, and they were greater in number. They are found in all parts, including the western hilly part of the district. This is indicated by both sculptural and structural data. An analysis of the sectarian affiliations of reported Brahmanical stone sculptures of the Pāla-Sena period indicates a dominance of Viṣṇu. Out of the reported 84 examples, 52 pieces are Vaiṣṇava in nature (Viṣṇu: 48; Varāha: 4).128 As far as standing Brahmanical temples/Brahmanical temple ruins are concerned, we see their presence in the western-most part of the district (at Barakar), as well as in the Indrani Pargun area, where ruined foundations of a Pāla period temple have been found.129 Similarly, at the site of Reigram, where Pāla period ornamental stone pillars, pillar bases, and a sculpture of the Varāha avatar of Viṣṇu have been found,130 the presence of a Pāla period temple, most probably a Vaiṣṇava one, may be inferred. Similarly, excavations at Goswamikhanda have unearthed a structure made of large lateritic blocks.131 Most probably it indicates the remains of a temple of unknown cultic affiliation at the site132 An extant early medieval temple in the plateau portion of

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

169

the district has been noted at the Begunia group of temples at Barakar.133 This site is famous for four surviving temples: the Siddhesvara temple dedicated to Śiva (eighth-ninth centuries AD), and the rest to the fifteenth-sixteenth centuries AD.134 This site seems to have served initially as a tribal cult spot centring on the worship of a natural projection of sandstone.135 By the eighth-ninth centuries AD, Śaivism penetrated here; a natural sandstone structure assumed the status of a Śivaliṅga, which is now enshrined in the temple.136 As A. Eschmann has shown, the process of transformation of a local tribal cult spot into a Brahmanical temple site, involving the transition from ‘sign to icon’, entailed a permanent priesthood and regular temple rituals.137 All this entailed some fundamental changes in the local tribal society where the gradual ‘Hinduization’ of the tribal cult spots as well as of the whole tribe was a concomitant process.138 This was bound to generate tensions between those who stood for the change and those who opposed it. We shall see later, in our analysis of hero stones that were found within the Siddhesvara temple complex, that the temple was one of the avenues which provided legitimacy to those who stood for change. Sculptures kept in the precincts of the Siddhesvara temple complex indicate three phases of sculptural activities. The first group of stone sculptures, datable to ninth-tenth centuries AD, consisted of fragments of Gaṇeśa and Sūrya sculptures.139 Two hero stones also dated to this period.140 All were made of locally available shale and limestone.141 The occurrence of hero stones in the very first phase of the temple indicates that the temple served as an avenue for the legitimation of the local heroes: a pattern similar to what we will note in the context of Purulia temples later. In Purulia, as we shall see later, Jaina temples provided the preferred and primary avenue for the legitimation of local heroes. This function was performed by a Śaiva temple in the extreme western portion of Bardhaman district. The second group of sculptures, mostly consisting of a group of Mātṛkās, Gaṇeśa, Śiva and single piece of hero stone, was also made in the ninth-tenth centuries AD.142 Sengupta and

170

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Chakraborty have opined that the Mātṛkā images along with Gaṇeśa and Śiva-Vīrabhadra were sculpted for a Mātṛkā shrine, ‘which never took shape’.143 The third group of sculptures, datable to the twelfththirteenth centuries AD, consisted of Gaṇeśa, Sūrya, Umāmaheśvara, Garuḍārūḍha Viṣṇu, Śiva-Naṭarāja, Indra, Yama, Agni, Vāyu, Varuṇa and Chandra. Indra, Yama, Agni, Vāyu, Varuṇa and Chandra are Dikpāla figures, generally installed in different directions (dika) of a temple structure.144 On this basis, Sengupta and Chakraborty argue that these sculptures were also conceived and executed as a component of a building program sometime in the twelfth-thirteenth centuries AD, but the shrines that were intended to enshrine them, were not constructed: 145 ‘it remains problematic as to why the sculptures were carved out, but the temples were not constructed at the site’.146 As no trace whatever of these shrines that were intended to be constructed, but could not be constructed due to diverse factors, has been found within the precincts of the Siddhesvara temple, so we agree with Sengupta and Chakraborty that these shrines were not constructed. Why did that happen? Sengupta and Chakraborty have not looked into this issue. We will like to contrast the situation with the Liṅgarāja temple (built in the eleventh century) of Odisha. When the temple was constructed, it was only a Rekha Vimāna with Pīḍha Jagamohana. As the fame of the temple expanded to new quarters and its pilgrimage network increased, it began to be frequented by local and extra-local pilgrims. Many pilgrims were not necessarily Śaiva, hence the temple authorities had to undertake architectural alteration as a survival strategy.147 They allowed the construction of shrines of many deities – Pārvatī, Viṣṇu, Gaṇeśa, Narsiṁha, Devī, etc. – within the premises of the main temple. Within the temple premises over a period of time 115 shrines were constructed, of which 79 were dedicated to Śiva, eight each to Viṣṇu and Śakti, three to Gaṇeśa and one each to Sūrya and Yama.148 The construction of new shrines within the Liṅgarāja temple premises served multiple purposes. It helped in the subordinate integration of non-Śaiva sects and cults to

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

171

Śaivism in general and to the cult of the Liṅgarāja in particular. This process, in the long run, ensured the generation of additional revenue for the Liṅgarāja temple. Besides, it also helped in gaining social legitimacy for the patrons who got these shrines constructed in the Liṅgarāja temple premises. A similar process was apparently underway in the precincts of the Siddhesvara temple as well, but on a much lesser scale. The Liṅgarāja temple was a pan-Indian pilgrimage centre, situated in the very core of a pan-Indian pilgrimage kṣetra (ekāmra-kṣetra). Ekāmra-kṣetra been eulogized in pan-Indian Sanskrit texts (the Mahābhārata and many mahāpurāṇas), as well as in the local sthalapurāṇas.149 Its location in the nuclear area of a regional state of early medieval Odisha was also helpful in mobilizing resources on a sustained basis for the temple. To sum up, the addition of 115 shrines within the precincts of the Liṅgarāja temple complex was a reflection of its ability to command patronage and pilgrimage on a sustained basis. The Siddeshvara temple, on the other hand, was, at best, a local institution, functioning in society where the process of detribalization was underway. No epigraphic or literary evidence indicating its extra-local linkages and pilgrimage has come to light so far. It was located in a remote area, away from trunk routes of communication. Here, additional shrines were planned, but they could not be executed, most probably due to lack of sustained flow of resources. Nevertheless, as we have seen, this temple served as an avenue for the legitimation of local heroes. The role of temples in hastening the transition to a more complex society is also discernible in early medieval Purulia and Bankura districts. Here Jaina and Brahmanical temples had complex interactions with political processes, a theme we will explore in some detail now.

Purulia District In Chapter 2, we noted the forested nature of practically the whole of the district, which is basically an extension of the Chhotanagpur plateau. This district was bound to have a different

172

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

kind of historical personality than what we see in the alluvial portions of West Bengal. This is reflected in the evolution of the archaeological sequence of the district. Here, the PaleolithicMesolithic phase is followed directly by the early medieval (eighth-ninth centuries onwards) archaeological material.150 Not a single Neolithic, Chalcolithic or early historic site has been reported in the district so far.151 More or less the same feature has been observed in the cases of the western portions of the districts of Bankura, Bardhaman and Birbhum. This has made one scholar conclude that ‘these regions could go on housing their hunter-gatherers’ till the advent of Brahmanical and Jaina temples in the area. 152 The district of Purulia abounds in early medieval (eighthninth centuries AD onwards) materials: Jaina and Brahmanical temples ruins and associated structural presence; hero and Sati stones; and loose sculptures, which too indicate the past existence of temples in the district.153 Despite the presence of Brahmanical temples and sculptures, Jainism, it has been rightly claimed, formed the core of the cultural personality of early medieval Purulia.154 Jaina penetration was most probably a collateral development of trade passing through a trade route that connected Varanasi-Rajgir to coastal West Bengal and Odisha via Hazaribagh ( Jharkhand) and Purulia.155 With no tradition of settled domesticated agriculture in the background, it is apparent that the subsistence strategy of temples in this district was bound to be different from their counterparts in alluvial Bengal. We agree with D.K. Chakrabarti’s inference that ‘as the district did not witness any significant development of the Protohistoric and early historic stages, the Jainas during the early medieval period penetrated in an area that was essentially prehistoric in its cultural character’.156 But this penetration resulted in some far-reaching changes in the society and economy of this area. From the eighth-ninth centuries AD onwards, we see three inter-related developments in the district: emergence of Jaina and Brahmanical temples, emergence of hero stones, and the emergence of a local state in the area with its nucleus in the Panchkot-Telkupi area. What was

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

173

the role of Jaina and Brahmanical temples in this matrix? How did the Jaina and Brahmanical (primarily Śaiva) temples of Purulia interact with the political processes? As we have already analysed these questions in some detail elsewhere,157 we will just summarize our conclusions here. In the absence of epigraphic records categorically attributing the foundation of any temple (Brahmanical or Jaina) to any political power or epigraphic records categorically recording endowments to existing temples by political elites, we explored the abovementioned questions by looking into two issues: the location of Brahmanical and Jaina temples vis-à-vis some important political centres of the district; and the location of these temples vis-à-vis hero stones, which are found frequently in the district. Our study indicates that the political headquarter of the Āṭavika Sāmanta Rudraśikhara, the ‘ruler’ of Tailakampī (identifiable with modern Telkupi), had important clusterization of temples dedicated to Śiva.158 These temples could have been patronized by the political elites of the administrative headquarter. That made us infer that the Śaiva temples of Telkupi had some role in the legitimation of the political elites of the administrative headquarter of an āṭavika sāmanta in an area over which the Pālas had no effective control. This, however, did not result in a state-sponsored planting of Śaiva temples in other parts of the state.159 That there was unlikely to have been a large scale statesponsored planting of Brahmanical temples in the areas away from the administrative headquarters of Tailakampī is also indicated by the distribution pattern of hero stones vis-à-vis Jaina and Brahmanical temples in Purulia. Our study indicated that the Jaina temples provided the preferred avenue for the erection of hero stones, either within the precincts of the temples or in their neighbourhood. Brahmanical temples too performed this function, but on a much lesser scale. Jaina temples, in other words, served as the primary and most preferred institution for those dead heroes who were immortalized in hero stones. Our study indicated one more trend: an almost total failure

174

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of Buddhism on this forested and tribal frontier. No Buddhist religious centre could emerge here. We cannot rule out the possibility that some Buddhist monks from Magadha might have travelled to Odisha through Purulia, but they failed to connect with the local population and could not establish any foothold in the district. How does the Purulia pattern contrast with the one observed in the neighbouring district of Bankura? We will analyse this theme now.

Bankura District The district of Bankura, in many ways, may be treated as a transitional zone between the Purulia plateau in the west and the alluvial plains of the Bhagirathi-Hooghli in the east. This transitional character is also reflected in the geographical features of the district: plateau portions in the west, an undulating plain with lateritic gravel beads and rocky outcrops in the middle, and an alluvial stretch in the north-east and east.160 This geographical diversity is also reflected in the evolution of the archaeological personality of the district, which we shall summarize briefly: Palaeolithic presence mainly concentrating in the western and south-western part of the district; Chalcolithic early village farming communities in all parts of the districts, but most of them could not continue in the subsequent early historic phase; a very thin early historic occupation in the district, particularly in its western, southwestern and southern parts.161 Yet we see the emergence of a local state with its headquarters at Puṣkaraṇa (modern Pakhanna) in the northern part of the district. Pakhanna, identifiable with ‘Puṣkaraṇa’ mentioned in the Susunia rock inscription (fourth century AD), was the capital of a local state headed by Candravarman. This state included the plain portions of Bankura and Bardhaman.162 But its network might have extended to the plateau portions of Bankura and beyond.163 The Susunia rock inscription indicates that Candravarmana was devoted to Viṣṇu.164 Pakhanna was an early historic ‘urban centre of modest

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

175

dimensions’.165 Despite it, we do not get any evidence of the emergence of any Buddhist, Brahmanical or Jaina religious centre either at the political centre of this local state or in its neighbourhood in this period. In the early medieval period, more appropriately, ninth century AD onwards, we see a significant expansion in the number of settlements in all segments of the district, and most of them had Brahmanical, Jaina or both Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres.166 This process was coeval with the evolution of a local state in the Vishnupur area of the district. But we do not know the exact relationship between the local state and the large-scale temple construction activities in the district. In the following sections, we will attempt a comparative study of the distribution pattern of Brahmanical, Jaina, and Buddhist religious centres in the district and the possible sources of patronage to them. Let us begin with an analysis of the reported sites in the Bankura Sadar subdivision, which covers much of the western, south-western and north-western portions of the district. Here, we see a clearcut dominance of Jaina religious centres, though with a significant presence of Brahmanical religious centres. Forty sites have been reported from the Bankura Sadar subdivision, of which 15 sites appear to be Jaina mono-religious sites (where only Jaina antiquities have been found); ten sites appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites (where only Brahmanical antiquities have been found); 11 sites have both Brahmanical and Jaina antiquities; and two sites are of unknown cultic affiliation. Among the sites which had both Brahmanical and Jaina presence, the number of sites where Jainism was dominant is more than the number of sites where Brahmanism was dominant.167 As we move towards the southern and southwestern parts of the district, Jaina dominance increases, though Brahmanical presence is not insignificant. Sites which appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites have been found in this portion as well, but their number is much less than the number of sites which appear to be Jaina mono-religious sites. In fact, in the whole of the district, Jaina religious centres seem to have

176

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

most significant clusterization in the western, south-western and southern parts of the district. These areas remained dominated by tribal cultures till the recent past, and this dominance could have been more in the early medieval period. When we move to the areas covered by Vishnupur Subdivision, the Jaina presence lessens and Brahmanical presence increases. Compared to 13 sites which appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites, only five sites which appear to be Jaina mono-religious sites have been reported here. Four sites appear to be poly-religious sites, having the presence of both Brahmanical and Jaina antiquities. Among such sites, the Jaina character is dominant only at the Jaina temple site of Dharapat; at other sites, the Brahmanical character in general and the Śaiva character in particular seems to be dominant. It may be noted that the major standing early medieval temples in the district – Dihar temples and Ekatesvara temple – are basically Śaiva in affiliation. The temple site of Bahulara was initially Jaina in affiliation, but was later transformed into a Śaiva temple in the late twelfth or thirteenth century.168 All this indicates an active role of Śaiva temples on this tribal frontier. How to explain the emergence of Jaina and Brahmanical temples in the district? What was the patronage base of these temples? What was the relationship between the large-scale temple building programme and the political processes in the area? It may be noted that this district covered a vital segment of route connecting Varanasi-Gaya to Odisha. In the wake of trade passing through this area, there could have been a significant movement of Jaina and Brahmanical groups. They settled here themselves, or the local population adopted the cultural symbols and values associated with them. In the long run, these developments resulted in the emergence of temples. The large-scale construction of Brahmanical and Jaina temples and the formation of a local state in the forested areas of the district were coeval processes. In the Rāmacarita of Sandhyākara Nandī, we get references to an āṭavika sāmanta (sāmanta of a forested zone) Vīraguṇa, who was an ally of the

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

177

Pāla king Rāmapāla in quelling the Kaivartta rebellion in the latter half of the eleventh century. Vīraguṇa ruled from Koṭāṭavi169 which has been identified with Kotesvara in Bishnupur area.170 We do not have any direct evidence of state patronage to the construction or functioning of temples in any part of the district. But we will try to trace the nature of the relationship between the local political processes and Brahmanical and Jaina temples by looking into two issues: the nature of the association between hero stones and temples, and the spatial location of Brahmanical and Jaina temples vis-à-vis the political centre of this āṭavika sāmanta. The reported instances of the association of hero stones with the temples in the district are much less compared to Purulia. R.K. Chattopadhyay’s survey has resulted in the discovery of only four hero stones at the temple sites: Bahulara171 (originally a Jaina site, gradually transformed into a Śaiva temple site), Thumkara172 (appears to be a Brahmanical mono-religious site), Sarengarh (a poly-religious site having the dominant presence of Jainism) and Raipur173 (appears to be a Brahmanical monoreligious site). The association of hero-stones with Jaina temples in Bankura is not as marked as we see in Purulia. So Jaina temples were, most probably, not the dominant avenue for the legitimation of local heroes. Similarly, the Vishnupur area, where the seat of the local state was located, did not have much Jaina presence. So it is unlikely that the state would have derived its legitimacy primarily through patronage to Jaina temples. The recorded instances of state patronage to even Brahmanical temples in any part of the district are absent. Patronage to the Brahmanical and Jaina temples was most probably community generated. Before we wrap up, let us see the nature and extent of the Buddhist presence in the district. Some stray Buddhist sculptures have been noted from the sites of Deulbhira and Brahmandiha (both in PS Indpur area), but they were most probably imports from Odisha; they do not reflect local religious dynamics.174 Similarly, findings of some Buddhist sculptures at the site of

178

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Pakhanna may be due to its proximity to the stūpa site of Bharatpur, which is located on the opposite side of the Damodar in the district of Bardhaman.175 Many sculptures of ViṣṇuLokeśvara have been reported from the district, but they may not necessarily represent the enshrinement of a syncretic Buddhist deity in public religious centres.176 To sum up, Buddhist religious centres seem to have largely failed to establish much foothold in the district. The pattern is similar to what we have observed in the western portions of Bardhaman district and the whole of Purulia district. These developments indicate a structural problem in the Buddhist negotiation of tribal and forested portions of Rāḍha. We see a similar pattern of the failure of Buddhist religious centres to emerge in the western portions of Medinipur district, a theme we shall analyze in some detail in the following sections.

Medinipur (East and West) The old Medinipur district is a land of great geographical diversity. Its eastern part (now a separate district with the name of Medinipur East) is largely alluvial and receives good rainfall. Its western part (now a separate district with the name of Medinipur West) is considered to be ‘the southern-most extension of the Chhotanagpur plateau’.177 The eastern part, located on the mouth of the old branches of the Ganga, was connected to the developments in the middle Ganga valley and came to have elements (NBPW, etc.) associated with the middle Ganga valley. In fact, the port centre of Tāmralipti, generally identified with the modern site of Tamluk, provided the major outlet to the sea for the entire middle Ganga valley till at least the middle of the eighth century.178 It was possibly through these contacts that many Buddhist monasteries emerged in the ‘country of Tāmralipti’, whose graphic descriptions have been provided by Faxian, Xuan Zang and Itsing. The pattern in the West Medinipur district, on the other hand, appears to be fundamentally different. In the Tarafeni and Suvarnarekha valleys of the district, many prehistoric sites have

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

179

been found and some Chalcolithic sites have also been reported from some parts of the district.179 But not a single early historic site has so far been reported from the district.180 So the pattern in this district appears to be similar to what we have observed in Bankura: direct transition from the Chalcolithic to the early medieval phase without an intervening early historic phase. Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres emerged in the district in this kind of archaeological context. In other words, what we observe in the East Medinipur district may not be generalized for the West Medinipur district. Here Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres functioned in a different kind of material milieu. We will begin with an analysis of the markers of the presence of Buddhist religious centres in East and West Medinipur districts during the early medieval period. The material remains of Buddhist monasteries referred to by Chinese pilgrims is yet to be encountered in archaeological fieldwork at Tāmralipti or in its neighbourhood. Similarly, sculptural markers of the presence of Buddhism at and in the neighbourhood of Tamluk during the early medieval period are very thin: the only stone sculpture reported so far is the head of a broken stone image of the Buddha.181 By the sixth century, as indicated by the excavations at the Buddhist monastic site of Moghalmari (located in the Dantan PS area), we see the emergence of a Buddhist monastic site in the West Medinipur district as well.182 This monastic site remained in occupation till the early thirteenth century.183 As this site was located on an important trade route linking Magadha and Tāmralipti to Odisha,184 the main support base of this monastery could have been mercantile. What is interesting is that the foundation and functioning of this monastery did not result in the proliferation of Buddhist ‘settlement-shrines’ in its neighbourhood. An intensive survey in the neighbourhood of this monastic site resulted in the discovery of many fragmented Brahmanical sculptures from different sites, but no Buddhist sculpture was found.185 The pattern appears to be different from what we have seen in the case of the neighbourhood of the

180

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Nalanda Mahāvihāra. If Buddhist ‘settlement-shrines’ are not present in the neighbourhood of Moghalmari, it is unlikely that they would be present on the borders of Bankura, Purulia and East Singhbhum district (of Jharkhand). In contrast, Brahmanical stone sculptures show diffused presence in both East and West Medinipur district during the Pāla-Sena period. In both districts, Viṣṇu sculptures were most numerous. This feature is discernible even in the neighbourhood of Tamluk from where five Pāla period stone sculptures of Viṣṇu have been reported.186 The presence of Brahmanical religious centres in both districts is also indicated by the discovery of architectural fragments of temples.187

Coastal West Bengal: 24-Parganas, Haora and Hooghly Districts Like the early historical period, structural indications for the presence of Buddhist religious centres in 24-Parganas are rare for the early medieval period also. At the site of Mathabari near Ghoser Chak, two large circular mounds, the larger one having a height of about 6 m and circumference of about 15 m, are believed to represent two stūpas of c. tenth-eleventh centuries AD.188 Citing some literary sources, Gourisankar De has tried to show that Bālāndā Mahāvihāra, referred to in some Pāla period Buddhist manuscripts, was located in the 24-Parganas district.189 He has identified this place with modern Bālāndā in P.S. Haroa, Basirahat subdivision.190 In his opinion, this claim is supported by the discovery of a 3.1 ft high stone image of Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī of the tenth-eleventh century from the neighbouring site of Bhangor: ‘it is probable that this Mañjuśrī was the presiding deity of the Bālāndā Mahāvihāra dedicated to his Śakti Prajñā Pāramitā’.191 In the absence of any epigraphic evidence, one may not be categorical in this identification. But this sculpture does indicate the presence of some Buddhist religious centre in the area in this period. At the available state of our database, evidences of the

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

181

presence of Buddhist religious centres in 24-Parganas generally come through loose Buddhist sculptures found in archaeological explorations. Gourisankar De has reported the discovery of 15 Pāla-Sena period Buddhist sculptures (2 in metal, 13 in stone) from the district. Out of these 15 sculptures, 13 represent the Buddha Śākyamuni in different mudrās; one represents Tārā, and one Hārītī.192 One more image of the Buddha Śākyamuni has been reported from the Raidighi area.193 It appears that Buddhist religious centres in the district remained primarily concerned with the Buddha Śākyamuni; ferocious deities of Vajrayāna did not find any place here. This argument is further supported by the discovery of a big (7 ft 6 in. × 12 ft 6 in.) stone sculpture discovered at Khalisady. This tenth century sculpture depicts the Mahāparinirvāṇa scene of the Buddha.194 This big sculpture must have belonged to a public religious centre, most probably to a monastery. What was the support base of these Buddhist religious centres? We have no evidence of royal patronage to them. In a phase when the maritime focus of Bengal has shifted towards Samataṭa-Harikela, it may not be plausible to visualise patronage by maritime traders either. Most probably they were supported by the local community. The presence of Jaina religious centres in the 24-Parganas as indicated by the findings of sculptures is much less compared to Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres. Only eight sites of the district are known to have reported Jaina sculptures datable to the tenth-thirteenth centuries AD period.195 This was in a phase when Jainism was the dominant religion in Purulia and much of Bankura. Jaina penetration in south-western Rāḍha was most probably the result of trade passing through that area along a route connecting Varanasi-Gaya to coastal Bengal and coastal Odisha. We may visualize a similar pattern in the 24-Parganas as well, though on a much lesser scale. Jainism most probably penetrated to this area in the wake of trade, but could never become dominant due to the absence of a large-scale mass or royal patronage.

182

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

During the Pāla-Sena period, we see a great proliferation of Brahmanical stone sculptures in the districts of 24-Parganas, Haora and Hooghly.196 As reflected in a great proliferation in the number of sites bearing Brahmanical sculptures, Brahmanical religious centres seem to have established their dominance in the study area. Loose Brahmanical sculptures were also, presumably, enshrined in brick temples/shrines which have disappeared due to natural and human factors. Among the Brahmanical temples/shrines, those dedicated to Viṣṇu appear to be most numerous in the Pāla-Sena period. This is in sync with the developments in most of Bengal in the Pāla-Sena period. It may be noted that some of the earliest archaeological markers of presence of any Brahmanical cult in the district relate to Śaivism. D.K. Chakrabarti refers to the discovery of ‘a remarkably interesting piece of phallus which will bear detailed iconographic investigations in the future, c. first-second centuries AD’ from the temple ruins of a temple at Mandirtala, Sagar island.197 Śaiva symbols have been depicted on an inscribed bone piece (late first century AD) obtained from the site of Natashal in the neighbouring district of East Medinipur.198 A terracotta figure from the Chandraketugarh area, datable to the early centuries of the Christian era, in which a lady is shown embracing a phallus-shaped terracotta figure, has been identified as the symbolic depiction of Śiva and Pārvatī.199 Despite an early penetration in coastal Bengal, Śaivism failed to retain its edge during the early medieval period. Brahmanical dominance in the district is also reflected in the findings of many temple ruins, especially in the tract of land from Kolkata to Sagar island along the course of old Ganga.200 So far, we have not come across any evidence of patronage by local dynasties to these temples. Similar was the case with those sites where past existence of temples is indicated by the presence of loose sculptures. Their foundation and main support base may be attributed to the local community. Some of these temples might have been patronized by the pilgrims who frequented the Gangāsāgaratīrtha.201

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

183

Nadia District When we move to the areas that constitute Nadia district, we see some fundamental changes vis-à-vis neighbouring districts of West Bengal (Bardhaman and North 24-Parganas). This is reflected in two aspects: an apparent absence of Jaina sculptures, indicating that Jaina religious centres probably did not emerge in this district; and a very meagre presence of both Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures.202 So far only one Buddhist sculpture (Buddha in Bhūmisparśamudrā) of the eleventh century has been reported from this district.203 This big (69 × 35 cm) stone sculpture must have been an important worship object of a public Buddhist religious centre. Among the Brahmanical stone sculptures of the Pāla period from the district, we see the representation of all major cults (Viṣṇu 2; Navagraha panel 1; Daśāvatara panel 1; Sadāśiva 1). We infer a marked absence of Śākta sculptures, indicating that Śākta temples probably did not emerge in the district. If sculpture-bearing sites are so meagre in the district, then how to explain the emergence of a big temple at the site of Ballal Dhipi, datable to the tenth-twelfth century ? What was its main base of patronage? Before exploring that question, let us see the reported data from the site. Located at a place close to the Ganga, the site of Ballal Dhipi contains a big mound covering an area of 128 × 100 m. Excavations revealed the remains of a massive brick wall measuring 4.10 m in width and 3.48 m in height from the original ground level.204 The wall was repaired twice after its initial construction with bricks of different sizes. The wall was exposed to a length of 22.70 m on the eastern periphery of the mound and 50 m on the southern side.205 At a later stage (contemporary to the second phase of the wall mentioned above) an outer wall of 1.68 m thickness was added. It ran parallel to the older wall. These walls were probably meant for enclosing the settlement.206 In one of the trenches, remains of an 8 m high cruciform temple were found. Excavations revealed that the exposed structure was a Paṅcaratha temple located within a walled enclosure.207 The

184

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

width of the outer wall was 1.90 m. The intervening space between the outer wall of the structure and the inner wall was 1.76 m in width.208 This space probably served as a pradakṣiṇāpatha. The interior of the structure was also Paṅcaratha in plan.209 In the overall analysis of excavators, ‘the character of this massive structure, which in its exposed parts represented a cruciform plan inside a bigger cross, was ambiguous as the projected walls did not have superstructure over them’.210 Some clues to the cultic affiliation of the temple are provided by a basalt sculpture of a male ‘with the characteristic features of a Gaṇa’ and a stucco head having a deep depression on the forehead indicative of a third eye’. 211 Both have been dated to the tenth-twelfth centuries AD period.212 They most probably indicate a Śaiva affiliation of the site. What was the patronage base of this temple? We need to take into account two issues here: the conscious decision to restrict access to this temple by enclosing it within a brick wall and the overall location of the temple within the settlement. Limited excavations at the site have not been helpful in understanding the basic nature and function of the settlement. It is however, unlikely that the brick walls that surrounded the main settlement could be anything but fortification walls. This fortification could not have taken place without the patronage, or at least the consent of the ruling political power. A Paṅcaratha temple, enclosed by a brick wall, came up within the fortification walls of the settlement. The situation at Ballal Dhipi reminds us of a similar pattern at Bhitargarh, where a stūpa was constructed in the innermost and most protected part of the fortified settlement. Like the Bhitargarh stūpa, the Ballal Dhipi temple was most probably erected or at least patronized by the political elites of this settlement, who most probably took the decision to restrict access to this temple by enclosing it by a brick wall.

Jessore District The presence of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres is discernible in the Jessore district. 213 Both seem to have

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

185

penetrated into this area almost simultaneously, without any kind of state support and both expanded till the very end of our study period, again without any kind of state support. A large Buddhist religious centre has been excavated at the site of Bharata Bhayana in the district. Besides the stūpa site at Bharata Bhayana, another site which probably had a significant Buddhist presence was the site of Barobajara where many mounds, tanks, and architectural fragments with reliefs of scenes from the Jātaka stories were discovered.214 No Brahmanical image or temple has been reported from here. At the site of Murali Kasbah, ruins of a small brick stūpa, as well as ruins of a small brick temple and sculptures of Lakṣmī, Gangā, and a huge image of Viṣṇu in black basalt (1.74 × 0.83 m) have been reported.215 This site had a poly-religious landscape, having the presence of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres. An eleventh century Brahmanical temple existed at the site of Damdama Peerthan.216 No Buddhist presence has been reported from this site. Available sculptural data from the district consist of Pāla period sculptures of Viṣṇu, Devi and Manasā. Buddhist sculptures have not been reported from the district, not even from the site of Bharata Bhayana. We may conclude with the observation that the monumentality of Bharata Bhayana should not make us overlook the presence of Brahmanical religious centres in the district.

Khulna-Bagerhat We have noted earlier that the Kapilmuni area of the Khulna district had a significant concentration of Gupta period stone sculptures. During the Pāla period, we see a great spurt in the construction of big Buddhist and Brahmanical stone steles, which were most probably worshipped in public religious centres. Reported Pāla period (ninth-tenth century) Buddhist stone sculptures include a Buddha Śākyamuni from an unspecified site of the district;217 a big-sized (102 × 52 cm) Mārīcī, c. eleventh-twelfth centuries, from Kachhua (now in Bagerhat

186

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

district);218 a Saṁkṣiptamārīcī (a Mahāyāna goddess of fortune) of the ninth-eleventh centuries from an unspecified site of the Khulna district;219 and an Aṣṭamahāpratihārya stele (depicting the eight great events of the life of the Buddha Śākyamuni), measuring 106 × 30 cm from Śivabati village, 8 km away from the Bagerhat town.220 This image must have been the main worship object of a public religious centre, most probably of the temple whose śikhara has been depicted in the upper part of the stele. Similar could have been the case with the Mārīcī sculpture from Kachhua. On the whole, the practice of Buddhism in its religious centres in Khulna-Bagerhat area during the Pāla-Sena phase shows a considerable diversity: worship objects ranged from the traditional Mahayanist Aṣṭamahāpratihārya to the Tantric warrior goddess Mārīcī. We see a similar diversity in the reported Brahmanical sculptures in the Khulna-Bagerhat districts. Śākta cults seem to have made some early penetration. This is indicated by the discovery of a seventh-eighth century sandstone pillar shaft carved with Mahiṣāsuramardinī in low relief at Jahajghata,221 which most probably formed part of a temple in the past; as well as by a pre-Pāla sandstone image of a four-handed female deity, which was either a variety of Chaurāsī-Yoginī or Cāmuṇḍā.222 Before the proliferation of Viṣṇu steles in the eleventh century, Śākta sculptures seem to have formed the most popular objects of worship in Brahmanical temples of the area. Viṣṇu sculptures dominated the scene in the eleventh-twelfth centuries AD. So far, we have not come across any evidence of royal patronage to any religious centre in the area. In the absence of categorical references to royal patronage, we may assume that patronage to Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres was community-generated. The case with many Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres of the Dhaka-Vikrampur-Faridpur area appears to be similar: a theme we will explore in some detail now.

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

187

Dhaka-Vikrampur-Faridpur We will like to study the developments in the area by undertaking a separate analysis of the Vikrampur area (corresponding to the present Munshiganj district and northern parts of Faridpur, Madaripur, and Shariatpur districts of Bangladesh223), and Dhaka and Faridpur districts. In the Dhaka-Vikrampur-Faridpur area, the gradual shift of focus of occupation from the Wari-Bateshvar area (c. 300 BCAD 300) in the fringes of the Madhupur tract to the Kotalipada area (in the Faridpur district) in the fifth-sixth centuries AD and then again to the fringes of the Madhupur tract in the Sabhar area in the seventh century is well documented.224 Despite having a complex mercantile and urban economy, no Buddhist religious centre seems to have emerged at early historic WariBateshvar. The same appears to be the case with the Kotalipada area. At least one Buddhist monastery and some stūpas emerged at Sabhar in the seventh-ninth centuries AD period and they drew their patronage from the residents of this riverine port, which probably also served as a political centre.225 After the decline of Sabhar, the focus of occupation shifted to the Vikrampur area. This development coincided with the emergence of Vikrampur as the most important political centre, first of entire South-east Bengal under the Candra rulers of Samataṭa-Harikela, and later of the whole Delta under the Sena rulers. The data on large Buddhist sculptures from the Vikrampur area, as catalogued by Lee, provides some interesting inferences.226 In the Dhaka-Vikrampur-Faridpur area, the earliest (c. ninth century) stone steles are of Buddhist Tantric goddesses: Bhṛukuṭī (1 example) and a three-headed and six-armed goddess (2 examples).227 For the next two centuries, Buddhist or Brahmanical stone sculptures have not been reported from this area. Stone sculptures of Brahmanical deities do not appear in the Dhaka-Vikrampur area before the beginning of the eleventh century.228 It appears that Buddhist religious centres antedated the emergence of Brahmanical religious centres by at least two centuries. Taking into account the large size of the sculptures

188

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of Bhṛukuṭī and a three-headed and six-armed goddess, Lee has rightly argued that they were principal worship objects enshrined in public temples.229 These two sculptures were recovered from two different localities – Vajrayogini and Paschimpada – of Vikrampur, so we may infer that they were most probably worshipped in two independent public temples. The next phase of sculptural activities in the Vikrampur area started in the eleventh century. That is to say, at least for two centuries, the temples enshrining the above mentioned Buddhist goddesses were probably the only available religious centres for this area. In the eleventh century, these two temples seem to have been joined by other Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres. In the eleventh century Buddhist sculptures of the Vikrampur area, we infer a marginal presence of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā: out of the 33 large stone and wooden sculptures discovered from the different parts of Vikrampur, only three sculptures represent the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā. In some of such steles, the Buddha is depicted as seated inside a templelike structure. These shrines in the stele most probably depict the actual temples where the Buddha image was worshipped.230 To sum up, these images of the Buddha were most probably enshrined in impressive temples, but the number of such temples appears to be few. The most preferred deities for worship in the Buddhist religious centres of Vikrampur in the eleventh century seem to be the large stone steles of Tantric goddesses: Hārītī, Parṇaśabarī, Mārīcī, and Mahāpratiśarā (a Paṅcarakṣā deity).231 Some of these Vajrayāna deities (Parṇaśabarī, Mahāpratiśarā) never appear as independent objects of worship in other parts of Pāla-Sena period Bihar and Bengal. This appears to be a peculiar feature of Buddhist practices in the Vikrampur area.232 The general Tantric character of the area is further indicated by the discovery of two large stone sculptures of Heruka, which were also objects of worship in public Buddhist religious centre(s).233 When we analyse the large Buddhist sculptures of Dhaka

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

189

district, the pattern appears to be different from the Vikrampur area. Here the Buddha Śākyamuni appears to be the most preferred object of worship: five out of the six reported large stone sculptures depict the Buddha in different mudrās. It appears that Tantric goddesses could not find foothold in the Buddhist religious centres of this area. But in the Faridpur area, we infer a marked concentration of large stone steles of Mārīcī, a Buddhist warrior goddess worshipped for rapid enlightenment by devotees.234 Such images must have been the major worship objects in public religious centres. What was the patronage base of the Buddhist religious centres in the Sabhar-Dhaka-Vikrampur-Faridpur area? For the Sabhar sites, we do not have any direct evidence of royal patronage; they might have benefited from the riverine and overland trade passing through the area. In the Dhaka-VikrampurFaridpur area, proliferation of Buddhist sculpture-bearing sites largely coincided with the Candra and Sena rule in the same. Neither the Candras nor the Senas are known to have issued any land grant in favour of any Buddhist religious centre anywhere in their regime. In the absence of direct evidences of royal patronage to these religious centres, we may assume that their support base was derived from other sections of the society. We will like to conclude with tracing the changes in the nature of Buddhism in this area. In the Sabhar area, the Tantric form of Buddhism does not appear to be dominant.235 In the Vikrampur area, it did assume a distinct Tantric colour, but the same can not be said of the Dhaka area. The practiced form of Buddhism in the Sabhar-Dhaka-Vikrampur-Faridpur area was not homogenous. Nor was it a religion in decline: after the decline of Sabhar, Buddhist religious centres emerged in other parts of the area. Sculptural proliferation till the end of the twelfth century indicates that it was an expanding religion, not a religion in any ‘systemic crisis’. How does it tally with the nature of Brahmanical presence in the area? We have seen that none of the large Brahmanical images in the area are datable before the eleventh century,

190

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

indicating that archaeological markers of the presence of Brahmanical temples in the same cannot be dated before that period. What is their distribution pattern vis-à-vis Buddhist sculptures? If they are found in the same general area in the same period, then what are the implications for the BrahmanicalBuddhist relationship? An analysis of the reported Brahmanical stone sculptures from the Dhaka – Vikrampur area offers some interesting inferences.236 We infer a clear-cut dominance of Viṣṇu and associated deities in the whole area (76 out of 127 reported stone sculptures). Even before the appearance of stone sculptures of Viṣṇu in the Dhaka – Vikrampur area, terracotta seals having the impression of Viṣṇu and the legend Om Namaḥ Bhagvate Vāsudevāya found their way to the monastery-cum-stūpa site of Sabhar.237 Most probably, there was an undercurrent of Vaiṣṇava influence in the area, which Buddhism tried to negotiate in the seventh-eight centuries AD. This influence increased tremendously in the eleventh-twelfth centuries. This expansion had significant implications for Buddhism: the terracotta seal from Sabhar as well as the Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara image from Sonarang were reflections of Buddhist attempts of subordinate integration of Viṣṇu to Buddhism. Common persons might have seen it as a reflection of the erasure of cultic boundaries between Buddhism and Vaiṣṇavism, especially in a phase when Vaiṣṇavism too was trying to appropriate Buddhism. Bhattasali has referred to the findings of many viṣṇupaṭṭas from the Dhaka-Vikrampur area in which the Buddha is depicted as an avatar of Viṣṇu.238 These viṣṇupaṭṭas were most probably sold/gifted to the pilgrims by temple authorities, to be carried as mementos by pilgrims.239 Buddhist attempts of subordinate integration of Vaiṣṇavism resulted in the blurring of boundaries between the two for the common masses. We find the manifestations of this trend in the Vajrayogini shell inscription, in which the Buddha and Viṣṇu were invoked simultaneously.240 Buddhism did not try to resist this development. When it did try – the impressive steles

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

191

depicting Heruka were most probably intended to represent a violent victory of Buddhism over the rival cult – it was too late. The Vikrampur–Dhaka area Brahmanical sculptures show another important trend: marginalization of the different forms of goddesses. Out of 127 reported Brahmanical sculptures, only 13 are formed by different forms of Devī (Mahiṣāsuramardinī, Śaṣṭhī, Gaurī, Saraswatī etc.). That is to say they appear to be less preferred objects of worship in temples. The situation looks peculiar, especially in view of the fact that in the Buddhist religious centers of the Vikrampur area, Tantric goddesses had a predominant presence.

Barisal District Despite the claim that the district of Barisal ‘is not known to possess any pre-Muslim site’,241 we have indirect evidences of the presence of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the district during the early medieval period.242 The emergence of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the district during the early medieval period could have been an indirect outcome of the economic contacts this district maintained with some other parts of Bengal. That it maintained some sort of economic relationship with Gauḍa in the post-Gupta period is indicated by the discovery of a gold coin of Śaśānka at the site of Chakhar in the district.243 It was also frequented by some Buddhist monks and that could have also resulted in the emergence of Buddhist religious centres in the district. Puspa Niyogi, citing some Tibetan sources, has shown that the famous monk-grammarian Candragomin lived in Candradvīpa, where he established stone images of Tārā and Avalokiteśvara, most probably in a shrine.244 From there, he moved to South India and Ceylon.245 She has identified Candradvīpa with Bakla-Sandvip in the Barisal district.246 No pre-Pāla period Buddhist or Brahmanical sculpture in stone has been reported from the district so far. As indicated by the findings of sculptures in different parts of the district, the

192

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Pāla period seems to have marked the proliferation of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the district. It appears that Brahmanism had a more pronounced expansion than Buddhism: Brahmanical sculptures have been discovered from eleven sites compared to just three sites for Buddhist sculptures. In the Buddhist sculptures, we infer all major religious trends: a warrior Tantric deity (Mārīcī) from an unspecified site of the district;247 an Aṣṭamahāpratihārya image having the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā as the central worship object from the site of Betagi in the district;248 as well as a bronze image of Śiva-Lokeśvara,249 indicating Buddhist attempts of subordinate integration of Śaivism. As a whole, Buddhist religious centres in the district did not have any single sectarian focus. They offered avenues for the worship of a warrior Tantric deity (Mārīcī), which was worshipped by Tantric followers for rapid enlightenment;250 as well as for the worship of an Aṣṭamahāpratihārya image highlighting episodes of the life of the Buddha Śākyamuni, and offering its devotees an opportunity to undertake ‘visual pilgrimage’ of the sites associated with his life. Both images are big stone steles, indicating that they were the central worship objects of public religious centres. As regards Brahmanical sculptures which were also objects of worship in religious centres, we infer a clearcut dominance of Vaiṣṇavism in the district. Vaiṣṇava sculptures of the Pāla-Sena period have been reported from six sites of the district, Śaiva sculptures from three sites, and Śākta and Saura sculptures from one site each.251 All sites bearing Brahmanical sculptures appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites. In this aspect, the pattern appears to be different from what we see in Dhaka and Comilla districts.

Samataṭa-Harikela In a significant section of historiography of the socio-economic and religious history of early medieval Bengal, the SamataṭaHarikela area (Cachar plains of southern Assam, Sylhet and some portions of adjoining Mymensingh, Comilla, Noakhali, and the

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

193

coastal tracts of Chittagong) have been treated as a separate and distinct sub-region of early medieval Bengal.252 These impressive studies, however, somehow tend to homogenize the situation in the tract located to the east of the Meghna. The tremendous geographical diversity in this tract is generally overlooked. This approach is problematic. As we have seen in Chapter 2, much of Sylhet district is marshy, harbouring one hāor or other. Within Samataṭa-Harikela, Sylhet probably had the most sustained interactions with tribal cultures of the north (Meghalaya and its foothills in the Jayantipur area), east (Barak valley area of southern Assam) and south (Tripura). It shared a kind of open frontier with these tribal areas in the three sides.253 The marshy and forested nature of the landscape in much of Sylhet ensured a different kind of culture in the early medieval period from what prevailed in the Comilla or Chittagong area. To conclude, before offering some generalizations for the entire SamataṭaHarikela, we need to take into account the historical and geographical heterogeneity of the sub-region. That forces us to attempt a district-level study of this tract, which we shall attempt now. There are some other gaps in the existing studies on this sub-region. In the available studies on the archaeology of cultic dynamics in the Comilla district,254 the focus has been generally on the Buddhist monasteries and stūpas that dotted the Mainamati-Lalmai ridge.255 Not much attempt has been made to contextualize the developments on the ridge to the same in the plains of the district. Plains of the district provided resources for the monasteries and stūpas on the hills, as well as for the political centre of some kings that was located on some portion of the ridge. What was the cultic situation in the plains of Comilla? What kind of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres functioned there? What was their cultic focus? What bearing did they have on the monasteries and stūpas located on the Mainamati-Lalmai ridge? These questions force us to attempt an analysis of the cultic situations in the plains of the Comilla district. The situation on the Mainamati-Lalmai ridge will be analysed in Chapter 7.

194

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

PLAINS OF COMILLA

The situation in the plains of Comilla may be discussed in three chronological phases: (a) The period up to the end of the sixth century AD: Buddhist monasteries and stūpas had yet to emerge on the Mainamati-Lalmai ridge in this phase. (b) seventh-eighth century: it was the phase in which the central shrine of the Salban Vihara (seventh century) and Salban Vihara (eighth century) were founded.256 (c) ninth-twelfth century: a phase when a sustained decline set in in the Salban Vihara, but as marked by a great increase in the number of sculpture-bearing sites in the rest of the district, there was a proliferation of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the same. It shall be particularly interesting to see if the cultic orientations of Buddhist religious centres in the plains show any similarity with their counterparts on the ridge. That will be helpful in tracing the extent to which, if any, the ritual practices in the monasteries – most of which were patronized by kings – influenced the ritual practices in the hinterland. As we have already seen the situation in the first two phases in the beginning of this chapter, we will concentrate on the ninth-twelfth centuries AD period here. An analysis of the data reported from this district suggests that out of the 49 reported sites, three sites appear to be polyreligious sites (where archaeological markers of the presence of both Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres are found), 32 sites appear to be Brahmanical mono-religious sites (where archaeological markers of presence of only Brahmanical religious centres are found) and 14 sites appear to be Buddhist monoreligious sites (where archaeological markers of presence of only Buddhist religious centres are found).257 In the first phase (up to the end of the sixth century), the only reported site (Gunaighar) was poly-religious. In the second phase, we see the emergence of a Buddhist mono-religious site (Naoapara) and a Brahmanical

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

195

mono-religious site (Deulbadi) in close proximity to each other.258 The feature of mono-religiosity got accentuated in the third phase. A great proliferation in the number of sculpture-bearing sites is seen in the next phase (ninth-twelfth centuries AD). Within this phase, a general spurt in the number of such sites is seen after the tenth century. All this indicates the proliferation of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the district in this phase.259 No Jaina sculpture, either of this period, or of earlier period, has been reported from the district so far. It may be noted that some monasteries such as Salban Vihara headed towards a slow decline after the eighth century.260 Apparently, this was due to problems in mobilising resources for these monasteries. A great paucity of sculptures in the Mainamati monasteries has been noted for the ninth-twelfth centuries AD period. But it was in this period, more specifically, after the tenth century, that we see a great proliferation of Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures in the plains of the Comilla district. The support system of such religious centres where such images were enshrined was, apparently, different from the same for Buddhist religious centres situated on the Mainamati hills. In terms of worship objects in the Buddhist religious centres in the Comilla plains, one may discern some broad trends: an apparent rarity of the cult of the Buddha in bhūmisparśamudrā (only one sculpture has been reported so far), which tallies well with the predominance of the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas in the monastic sites on the Mainamati-Lalmai ridge;261 and a gradual marginalization of the cult of Tārā and her different forms (two in seventh-eighth centuries period; only one in ninth-twelfth centuries AD period). The Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā and Tārā were popular Buddhist deities in many parts of Pāla period Bihar and Bengal. In terms of sheer number, as well as in the size of steles, Heruka images stand out. Numerically, they form the single biggest group (3 steles). Enamul Haque has reported the discovery of only six images of Heruka from eastern Bengal, out

196

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of which three belong to the sites in the plains of Comilla.262 Besides these stone images, two wooden images of Heruka are reported to be stored in the reserve collection of the Mainamati museum.263 Their provenance is not known. As most of the items in the Mainamati museum are from different sites of Comilla, one may assume that the wooden images of Heruka stored in the reserve collection of the Mainamati Museum could have been from some sites of Comilla district. At the available stage of our data base, the biggest concentration of Heruka images in early medieval Bihar and Bengal is discenible in the plains of Comilla district. Among the reported sculptures of Heruka from Comilla, the eleventh century stone stele from Shubhapur, 151 × 81 cm high, stands out. It is ‘possibly one of the largest known sculptures in Bengal’.264 Given its impressive size, this image must have been the central worship object in a public Buddhist religious centre. No less impressive was the eleventh century stone stele from Lajjair (102 × 61 cm).265 These two sculptures have been found in two different contexts. Shubhpur (to the west of the Biharamandala village), is located among a cluster of sites stretching from Badkamta-Belasa-Biharamandala to Bagherpar.266 As noted by Bhattasali, the tract around Badkamata was a strong Buddhist centre.267 As the very name – Biharamandala – suggests, we may not rule out the possibility of the presence of a Buddhist monastery at this place in the past. But no inference of this kind is possible in the context of the site of Lajjair. The Lajjair piece could have been worshipped in a temple not attached to any monastery. Heruka, a ferocious warrior god, who ‘bestows Buddha-hood to worshippers and protects the world from Māra’,268 was also intended to signify the victory of Buddhism over rival religions in general and Śaivism in particular.269 Heruka and Cakrasaṁvara (a form of Heruka) were known in the textual tradition of the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra in the ninth century AD itself.270 But independent stone images of this deity are not found before the tenth-eleventh centuries. In the whole of Bihar and Bengal, the

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

197

biggest concentration of available Heruka images is discenible in the Buddhist religious centres of Comilla area. This concentration in Comilla area demands some explanation. It may be noted that the iconography of the Heruka/Cakrasaṁvara images and the Cakrasaṁvaratantra were products of a phase when was Buddhism was lodged in a very tough competition with Brahmanical cults in general and Śaivism in particular in many parts of the Indian subcontinent.271 In this rivalry, barring some portions of Bihar, Bengal and Odisha, Buddhism was a religion in retreat. In these tough times, the Buddhists envisaged a god (Heruka/Cakrasaṁvara) who would defeat Śaivism-Śāktism decisively, drive Śiva and his Śakti out of all principal Śaiva-Śākta pīṭhas throughout the length and breadth of Jambudvīpa and convert such pīṭhas into Cakrasaṁvara pīthas.272 But it was more a wish to be realized in future; a mechanism to console the faithful in a moment of Buddhist retreat.273 Can we visualise a similar pattern for Comilla? In other words, was the proliferation of Buddhist images in Comilla, which were, apparently, worshipped in some Buddhist religious centres, products of a general Buddhist retreat in the area? Do we see any difference in the trajectories of the fate of Buddhist religious centres in the plains of Comilla and the ones located on the hills in the tenth-twelfth centuries AD period? In the plains of Comilla, as indicated by the increase in the number of sites bearing Buddhist sculptures, one may argue that new shrines, enshrining these images, came up. As the number of sites bearing Brahmanical sculptures is more than the number of sites bearing Buddhist sculptures, so we may argue that the proliferation of Buddhist religious centres took place in the shadow of a greater proliferation of Brahmanical religious centres. Nonetheless, a picture of the decline of Buddhism may not be visualized in the plains of Comilla. This inference, however, needs to be contrasted with the situation on the Mainamati-Lalmai ridge. Buddhist monasteries on the ridge headed towards an irreversible decline in the Candra period.274 The proliferation of Buddhist shrines in the countryside could

198

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

not compensate for the decline of monumental monasteries on the ridge as it was the monasteries which formed the institutional nuclei of Buddhism. Heruka shrines of Comilla were products of this tough phase.275 Finally, before we wrap up the analysis of the kind of Buddhism practiced in the Buddhist religious centers of the Comilla plains, we will like to contrast the situation with the Dhaka-Vikrampur-Faridpur area as well as Chittagong area. In the Dhaka-Vikrampur-Faridpur area, public worship seems to have been basically directed towards large stone steles of Buddhist Tantric goddesses of wisdom, fertility and protection. In the Chittagong area, public worship basically centred on the sculptures of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā, though other Mahāyāna deities were also present. In the sites on the Mainamati-Lalmai ridge, the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas had a significant presence.276 Situations in the Buddhist religious centres in the plains of Comilla appear to be different from these areas. It shared the feature of the marginal presence of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā with the Dhaka-VikramapurFaridpur area, but Buddhist religious centres in the plains of Comilla did not show much enthusiasm for the Buddhist Tantric goddesses of wisdom, fertility and protection. Besides, the degree of importance given to the cult of Heruka in this area remains somewhat unparalleled vis-à-vis the rest of Bengal. We get some interesting inferences when we juxtapose the nature and extent of Buddhist presence with the same of Brahmanical religious centres. In terms of sheer number, the reported assemblage of just 19 Buddhist sculptures from the plains of Comilla is half of the number of reported Brahmanical sculptures from the same (38). It appears that despite the monumentality of monasteries on the Mainamati-Lalmai ridge, Brahmanical religious centres had a more diffused presence in the plains of Comilla. That was despite the fact that Comilla was the core area of many Buddhist dynasties of Samataṭa. Out of the 38 reported Brahmanical sculptures of the district, only two (metal images of Sūrya and Śarvvāṇī from Deulbadi) date to the seventh-eighth century period, the rest to the ninth-

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

199

twelfth centuries period.277 The cult of Durgā and Sūrya seem to have remained important in the ninth-twelfth centuries period as well, which is indicated by the discovery of five sculptures of different forms of Durgā (including Mahiṣāsuramardinī and Caṇḍī) and four stone sculptures of Sūrya. Śaiva sculptures (Śiva Naṭarāja: 4 examples; Umāmaheśvara: 5 examples; Gaṇeśa: 4 examples) also appear to have been popular. As in many other parts of Bengal, Viṣṇu steles in stone (12 examples) were also quite popular during the ninth-twelfth centuries AD period. This feature was more marked in the eleventh-twelfth centuries AD period. We do not see any Brahmanical deity trampling over Buddhist ones. This was not required for a religion (Brahmanism) that had a confident expansion in this phase.

Sylhet District Despite the epigraphic references to the presence of many Brahmanical temples in the seventh century (in the Nidhanpur, Tippera and Kalapur copper-plates), and some temples, many maṭhas and a Buddhist establishment in the tenth century (Pashchimbhag copper-plate), and at least two Brahmanical temples in the eleventh century (in the Bhatera copper-plate), the structural presence of any Buddhist or Brahmanical religious centre in the district is yet to come across in archaeological explorations. This is due to the geographical conditions of the district: heavy rainfall, floods and hāors hamper the chances of survival of any religious centre, even in the ruined form, in the district. In terms of sculptural findings as well, this district lags far behind Comilla or even Chittagong. Only two Viṣṇu sculptures have been documented from the district so far.278 Buddhist penetration in the central parts of the district is indicated by the discovery of an octo-alloy image of Bodhisattva Lokanātha at Bandarbazar, inscribed with the Buddhist creed formula in the eighth-ninth centuries AD characters.279 Given the size of the sculpture (2 ft 8 in. high, 11 in. thick),280 it was unlikely to be a private worship object of any monk or lay devotee. It may also be noted that the Paschimabhaga copper-plate refers to a tract

200

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of land in possession of a Buddhist establishment in the Sylhet district.281 One wonders if this Lokanātha image belonged to that Buddhist establishment. Moving west of the district of Sylhet, a great paucity – rather the absence – of Brahmanical or Buddhist sculptures have been noted in the district of Mymensingh. In fact the entire tract of land stretching from the eastern banks of the Jamuna in the west to the hāors of Sylhet in the east appears to be almost a blank zone in terms of finding of sculptures.282 This paucity is marked even in the northern parts of Dhaka district (in the Tangail area). This paucity in the Dhaka area was noted for the first time by Bhattasali.283 The situation has not changed much even today. Enamul Haque refers to just one stone sculpture of Viṣṇu from Tangail.284 This paucity of sculptures propelled Bhattasali to argue that ‘Aryan colonizers in this area were few and far between’ and this district began to be peopled by people of the Brahmanical faith only under the pressure of Muslim aggression’.285 Probably the lateritic Pleistocene uplands of this portion of Madhupur Jungle tract could not sustain intensive agriculture. The resultant bottlenecks in resource production and mobilization did not allow the emergence of any Buddhist or Brahmanical religious centre in the early medieval period.

Noakhali District We infer a similar paucity of sculptures in the Noakhali district. It may be due to the fact that a significant portion of the district was submerged under the sea till a recent past.286 The past existence of at least one Buddhist religious centre in the district is indicated by the discovery of a stone image of Mañjuśrī (tentheleventh century) at the site of Hatpukuria in the district.287 Brahmanical penetration in the district is indicated by the discovery of an image of Sūrya from the Hatiya, Sandwip Island in Noakhali district. It has an inscription of the 12th year of Govindacandra and can thus be dated to the first half of the eleventh century.288 Its impressive height (99 cm)289 indicates that it must have been the central worship object of a Brahmanical

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

201

temple. Taken together, these two images indicate a nearsimultaneous establishment of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the district.290

Coastal Tracts of Chittagong The earliest sculptures from the district have been dated to the ninth-tenth centuries. Dedicatory inscriptions on bronze sculptures discovered at Jhewari (datable to c. AD 850-950) as well as inscriptions on metal vases (dated to the early eighth and tenth century respectively) indicate patronage to Mahāyāna monasteries in the coastal tracts of Chittagong from a crosssection of society.291 All this roughly coincided with the shift of the maritime focus of Bengal from Tāmralipti-Chandraketugarh to south-eastern Bengal in general and towards the Chittagong coast in particular, where the port of Samandar became very important from the ninth century AD onwards.292 Samanadar was located somewhere near Chittagong.293 The site of Jhewari, from where a hoard of miniature bronze Buddhist sculptures has been reported, was situated in the same geographical area. The penetration of Buddhism in this area and the shift of maritime focus of Bengal to the same were, arguably, largely coeval. These two developments could not have been unrelated. The pattern in this area reminds us of the same at Tāmralipti where too the fate of Buddhist monasteries, despite having agrarian linkages, was closely linked to the fluctuations in maritime trade. And, like Tāmralipti, we have yet to come across the structural presence of any monastery in the area.294 An indirect evidence of the presence of Buddhist religious centers in the district comes through the chance discovery of bronze and stone sculptures in different parts of the district. We notice two areas of concentration of Buddhist sculptures in the district: Jhewari (in Anwara upazila) and the Patiya PS area (now an upazila of the same name). Both areas are not far from the Karnaphulli River, which most probably provided vital communication between the port city on the sea and the mountainous area in the east.

202

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Miniature bronze sculptures from Jhewari have been studied by Debala Mitra, mainly from an art-historical perspective.295 Her study indicates the profusion of sculptures during the ninthtenth centuries, their total absence during the twelfth century, and the predominant Mahāyāna character of the sculptures. Fifty-eight out of the sixty-four (i.e. 90.6 per cent) sculptures have been dated to the ninth-tenth centuries. We see a similar trend in the images kept in the temple–monastery at Chittagong. We infer a total absence of ferocious Vajrayāna deities (Aparājitā, Heruka, Trailokyavijaya, Saṁvara). Images of the Buddha Śākyamuni predominate. Out of the 58 reported sculptures from Jhewari datable to the ninth century, 32 images are of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā, seven are of the Buddha in abhaya mudrā, and one image is of the Buddha in preaching posture.296 Images of the Paṅcatathāgatas are rare: the two reported pieces of Amitābha and Vairocana could have been, as per the opinion of Debala Mitra, Buddha Śākyamuni as well.297 As has been noted by Kinnard, images of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā had certain sectarian significance: they signified the Enlightenment of the Buddha and represented a continuation of Mahāyāna.298 We see a similar trend in Chittagong in the ninth-tenth centuries, which largely remained unchanged in the subsequent centuries. We infer a similar trend in the sculptures kept in the modern temple-monastery of Chittagong. Besides, Zakariah has identified one black stone sculpture of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā in the Ramkot Vihara, about 4 km to the south of Ramu upazila Sadar, in the southern part of the district.299 In a nutshell, the practiced form of Buddhism in Chittagong appears to be fundamentally different from the ones practiced in Comilla (plains of Comilla as well as Mainamati-Lalmai ridge). All this indicates a tremendous diversity in the practiced form of Buddhism in Samataṭa-Harikela. The Brahmanical presence in the district appears to be in-significant. So far, only two Brahmanical stone sculptures have been reported from the district: Garuḍāsana Viṣṇu,300 and Naṭarāja Śiva.301 The pattern appears to be different from the

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

203

plains of Comilla where we infer a diffused presence of Brahmanical religious centres.

Some Concluding Observations Our study of the archaeology of distribution pattern and spatial context of support systems of religious centres in early medieval Bengal forces us to question many commonly held generalizations. We see Jainism, ‘an exclusive, or perhaps more, a merchant religion as was Judaism in the Occident’,302 entering into the forested areas of Rāḍha (whole of Purulia, much of Bankura, western portions of Bardhaman) and establishing itself by entering into symbiotic relationship with the local tribal society. Here Jaina temples seem to have functioned as one of the most important institutional avenues for inducing a transition towards a more complex socio-economic and cultural system in the area. Yet we infer a resounding absence of Jainism – a few sculptures from Varendra area notwithstanding – in the urban centres of early medieval Bengal. Jainism seems to have remained something like a specialist of negotiating the tribal cultures of south-western Bengal. Brahmanical temples too had a similar function in this area, but this role of the Jaina temple appears to be more marked. Similarly, a great variation is seen in the support systems of Buddhist religious centres. It seems to have conceded totally the tribal areas of Rāḍha to Jainism and Brahmanism. In the marshy and forested landscape of Sylhet, it penetrated without any kind of state patronage, yet it failed to enter into institutional collaboration with the state in the state-sponsored colonization project of this area. A great diversity is discernible even in the pattern of the presence of Buddhist religious centres in the excavated urban centres of Bengal. In Varendra, a Buddhist stūpa had a dominant presence in the fortified city of Bhitargarh; but the space within the enclosure walls of Mahasthangarh was dominated by Brahmanical temples. Buddhist monasteries and stūpas emerged

204

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

away from the city, and at least one of them (Gokula Medh) was converted into a Śaiva shrine in the eleventh-twelfth centuries AD period. Within the excavated portions of Bangarh, we do not have categorical evidence of the presence of any Buddhist religious centre. The case in its neighbourhood was not much different either. This diversity is seen in Rāḍha as well. Excavations at Rajbadidanga reveal the presence of a Buddhist monastery on the outskirts of Karṇasuvarṇa. A big stūpa-cum-monastic site (Bharatpur) came up in the neighbourhood of a declined city (Pakhanna); but no Buddhist religious centre could emerge at Mangalkot, Kotasur or Dihar. In the coastal parts of West Bengal, Buddhist religious centres could not emerge at Chandraketugarh either in the Kuṣāṇa period or later, the presence of some votive stūpas at Khana-Mihirer-Dhipi notwithstanding. But as indicated by the narratives of Chinese pilgrims, they were present at the port city of Tāmralipti during the Gupta and post-Gupta periods. At least one of the Tāmralipti monasteries held land in the seventh century, yet none of the monasteries could survive the decline of maritime activities at the site in the long run. In the Bangladesh side of Vaṅga as well, we see a great variation in the pattern of association of Buddhist religious centres with the port centres and other urban centres. In the Maurya-Kuṣāṇa period, they could not emerge at the maritime port centre of Wari-Bateshvar, nor could they emerge at Kotalipada, which too has been identified as a probable maritime port centre.303 But in the seventh century, we do see their emergence at the riverine port-cum-administrative centre of Sabhar. At the political centre of Vikrampur, at least one Buddhist religious centre (temple of Bhṛkuṭi) seems to have emerged earlier than all reported Brahmanical religious centres. Buddhist sculptures continued to be made till the late eleventh or twelfth century. But Brahmanical religious centres established their clear-cult dominance by the eleventh century. In Samataṭa-Harikela, we see the emergence of Buddhist monasteries and stūpas at the political centre-cumriverine port centre of Devaparvata, as well as near the port

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

205

centre of Chittagong. In short, there was no fixed pattern of alignment of Buddhist religious centres vis-à-vis port centres and urban centres. Buddhist religious centres were able to adjust to a variety of locales. We see the same diversity in the emergence of Buddhist religious centres in the non-urban space. In the previous pages, we have seen a general absence of Buddhist, Brahmanical or Jaina sculptures in the vast tract of land starting from the northern parts of Dhaka district and extending up to the Meghalaya foothills, bounded by the river Jamuna in the west and marshes of Sylhet in the east and we have argued that no significant Buddhist, Brahmanical or Jaina religious centre could emerge in this tract. Barring this tract, the district of Purulia, and the districts in the terai area (Darjeeling, Jalpaigudi and Cooch Behar), Pāla-Sena period Buddhist sculptures have been reported from almost all districts of West Bengal and Bangladesh. In short, Buddhism was an expanding religion in the rural landscape of much of Bengal till the very end of our study period; it was not a religion witnessing any ‘systemic crisis’. It may also be noted that Buddhist religious centres were able to negotiate a variety of landscapes ranging from the dry areas of Bankura and Pleistocene uplands of Varendra to the marshes of Sylhet and lowlands of Noakhali. In the archaeology of religion in Bangladesh, it is generally believed that most of the religious structures of the Buddhists were built on the Pleistocene terrace, whereas the Hindus and the Muslims tended to prefer plain land.304 This inference is a product of reducing the presence of Buddhism to its monumental structures. If inferences from the distribution pattern of stone sculptures – which too were worshipped objects in modest religious centres – are taken into account, we get a different picture. We discern a great diversity in the form of Buddhism practiced in these religious centres. We have nothing to suggest that Buddhism was dominated by Tantric practices everywhere. In the distribution pattern of sculptures in different parts of early medieval Bengal, we infer that images signifying con-

206

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

frontation with Brahmanism became significant cult figures in the plains of Comilla only, where the cult of Heruka became very significant. Similarly, sculptures of the Paṅcatathāgatas as independent cult-figures are rare in non-monastic centres. That needs to be contrasted with the dominance of the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas in the excavated monasteries of east Bengal, especially those centering around a central cruciform structure (i.e. Paharpur and many monasteries on the Mainamati ridge).305 Non-monastic Buddhist religious centres, represented by the discovery of sculptures at those sites where no trace of any monastery is visible, generally preferred to enshrine the images of the Buddha in different mudrās; Tārā and other gods and goddesses associated with fertility, wisdom and wealth. That propels us to infer that a disjuncture developed between the kinds of Buddhism practiced by the monks within its great monasteries and the ones practiced by the masses in nonmonastic religious centres in eastern Bengal. How did this development play out in the decline of Buddhism in Bengal? Obviously, there cannot be a single cause of decline of these two kinds of Buddhist religious centres (i.e. monastic centres and non-monastic centres) whose nature, support systems and cultic foci were different. That brings us to a related issue. Buddhism was an expanding religion and it was generally not dominated by esoteric Vajrayāna in its non-monastic centres. But how did this Buddhist expansion negotiate a more profound proliferation of Brahmanical religious centres in Bengal? We have seen that in almost every district of Bengal, Pāla-Sena period Brahmanical stone sculptures far outnumbered Buddhist sculptures. This feature is discernible even in the vicinity of monumental Buddhist monasteries: in the archaeological landscape of Paharpur or in the plains of Comilla. Within Brahmanical stone sculptures, Viṣṇu sculptures became most prominent from the eleventh century AD onwards. How did Buddhist religious centres negotiate the proliferation of Brahmanical temples in general and Viṣṇu temples in particular? To summarize this complex issue, we may state that the Buddhist

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

207

response consisted of peaceful coexistence, attempts of inducing subordinate integration of Brahmanical religions, and attempts of display of outright confrontation in some of its religious imagery. We will explore the issue in the excavated monastic centres of Bengal in a different chapter of this book. How does one explain the significance of the great increase in the number of stone sculptures of Viṣṇu in the late Pāla period? One would readily agree with Asok Bhattacharya that ‘among the stone and bronze sculptures of early medieval Bengal, the most dominant are the images of Viṣṇu: they are overwhelming not only for their numerical superiority, but also for artistic excellence’.306 Apparently, among the Brahmanical temples/shrines, those dedicated to Viṣṇu were most numerous.307 Was it just due to some specific soteriology radiated by this deity? Or was it related to some larger social processes? It may be noted that among the stone sculptures of Viṣṇu, the most common form was Trivikrama: Trivikrama images outnumber all other forms of Viṣṇu in available specimens from Bengal in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.308 Asok Bhattacharya, on the basis of analysis of some normative textual material, which prescribes the worship of the Trivikrama form of Viṣṇu by the Vaiśya varṇa for material benefits and prosperity, has argued that the great popularity of the Trivikrama form of Viṣṇu in the eleventh-twelfth centuries Bengal might be an indication of the emergence of the Vaiśya community as a powerful social force, aspiring to gain in status in a caste-ridden society by patronizing the enshrinement of such images in temples and shrines.309 Could this theory be accepted? We will explore this issue by analyzing some epigraphic sources in the next two chapters. What were the social bases of patronage to the Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina religious centres discussed in this chapter? We have arrived at some generalizations by analysing their spatial distribution pattern vis-à-vis administrative centres, trading centres and rural centres. We have also attempted to arrive at some generalizations by analysing the socio-economic

208

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

background of the locale in which they emerged and functioned. To have a more in-depth analysis of the issue of patronage, we will look into dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures, as well as other inscriptions recording donations in favour of religious centres. That shall be attempted in the next two chapters.

NOTES 1. Whether or not the Brahmi inscription at Mahasthangarh indicates the presence of monks of a Buddhist sect at the city of Puṇḍranagara during the Maurya period remains a debatable issue. For differing perspectives, see R.B. Barua (‘Early History of the Spread of Buddhism in Bangladesh’, Bangladesh Historical Studies, vol. VII, 1983, p. 4) and Paola G. Tinti (‘On the Brāhmī Inscription of Mahāsthān, JBA, vol. 1, 1996, p. 35; ‘The Origins of Buddhism in Bangladesh: Between History, Myth and Historical Inventions’, JBA, Dhaka, vol. 19, 2014, pp. 10-12.). Barua has argued for the presence of a group of Buddhist monks at the city of Puṇḍranagara. Paola Tinti, on the other hand, has argued that this inscription is a record of loan granted to some local tribes by some authority, at some time not earlier than the second century BC. Whatever might have been the case, no structural evidence for the presence of a Buddhist monastery or stūpa datable to the Maurya or even Kuṣāṇa period has been unearthed either at Mahasthangarh or its neighbourhood. 2. Sandrine Gill, ‘Mahasthangarh: A Riverine Port in Ancient Bengal’, in H.P. Ray (ed.), Archaeology of Seafaring: Indian Ocean in the Ancient Period, Pragati Publications, Delhi, 1999, p. 159. 3. Sandrine Gill, ‘Two Notes on Chronology and Style: Evidences from Mahasthan’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), Archaeology of Eastern India, New Perspectives, Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, Kolkata, 2002, p. 45. 4. Ibid., p. 42. 5. Ibid., p. 45. 6. For details, see pp. 425-6 of the present book. 7. D.K. Chakrabarti et al., ‘An Archaeological Reconnaissance in Birbhum’, Puratattva, vol. 10, 1978-9, p. 28. 8. D.K. Chakrabarti, Archaeology of Eastern India: Chhotanagpur Plateau and West Bengal, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1993, p. 181. 9. Bishnupriya Basak, ‘Interpreting Historical Archaeology of Coastal

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

15. 16. 17.

209

Bengal: Possibilities and Limitations’, in D.N. Jha (ed.), The Complex Heritage of Early India: Essays in Memory of R.S. Sharma, Manohar, Delhi, 2014, p. 171. Ibid., p. 171. James Legge, A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms: Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hein of Travels in India and Ceylon (AD 399-414) in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1991, p. 100. S. Beal, Si-Yu-Ki, Buddhist Records of the Western World: Translated from the Chinese of Hieun Tsiang, vol. II, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1981, p 201. The site of Tamluk and its neighbourhood have been recently surveyed by Kaushik Gangopadhyaya with the aim of comprehending the size and layout of the site during the early historic period and its long-term settlement history. He too did not find any trace of monasteries referred to by Chinese pilgrims (Kaushik Gangopadhyay, ‘Archaeological Investigations at Tamluk: An Early Historical Settlement in Coastal West Bengal’, Pratna Samiksha, new series, vol. 1, 2010, pp. 53-63). In recent years, there had been a debate on the generally accepted identification of Tamluk with ancient Tāmralipti. See for example, Asok Datta, ‘Art and Archaeology of Natsal’, Journal of Bengal Art, vol. 2, 1997, pp. 25-36. He proposed to identify the site of Natasal, located 10 km south of Tamluk, with ancient Tāmralipti (p. 28). Another scholar has proposed that the ‘strip of land between the present Tamluk and Natashal along the river Rupanarayana perhaps indicates the probable core territory of the ancient port city’ (Rangan Kanti Jana, ‘The Location of Ancient Tāmralipti’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XX, 1996-7, p. 77). Shahnaj Husne Jahan, on the other hand, asserts that the site of Tāmralipti may be identified with modern Tamluk, but she too did not find any archaeological evidence of presence of Buddhist monasteries referred to by Chinese pilgrims (Shahnaj Husne Jahan, ‘Location of the Port of Tāmralipti and Condition of the Harbour’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (Humanities), 49(2), 2004, pp. 199-220). IAR, 1958-9, pp. 55-6. Ibid. Shahnaj Husne Jahan, Excavating Waves and Winds of (Ex)change: A Study of Maritime Trade in Early Bengal, BAR International Series 1533, London, 2006, p. 25.

210 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24.

25. 26. 27.

28.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Ibid., p. 25. Ibid., p. 24. Ibid. Ibid. Md. Abu Musa, ‘A Prototype Cruciform Temple of the Buddhist Pantheon in Bangladesh’, JBA, vol. 4, 1999, pp. 387-99. The dating of the monument suggested by Musa is tentative. For an analysis of the cultic situation as reflected in this copperplate inscription, see pp. 407-10 of the present book. M. Harunur Rashid, ‘Bangladesh: A Profile In the Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries’, Bangladesh Historical Studies, vol. III, 1978, p. 5. Ibid., p. 5. See pp. 407-10 of the present book. Reported stone sculptures from Varendra are: Viṣṇu from Hankrail in Maldah district, fourth century AD; Sūrya from Kumarpur, Rajshahi district, fourth century AD; Sūrya from Niyamatpur, Rajshahi district, fourth century AD (F. Asher, The Art of Eastern India 300-800, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1980, p. 21); Buddha from Biharail, Rajshahi district, fifth century AD; Viṣṇu, Narhatta, Bogra, fifth century AD; Cakrapuruṣa, Salar, Murshidabad district, early sixth century (F. Asher, op. cit., pp. 30-2). Reported sculptures from the Agra-Kapilmuni area of Khulna district include three sculptures of Viṣṇu, Avalokiteśvara, a symbolic prototype small Mātṛkā, and a terracotta sculpture of Nyagsadhya Parimandala (Md. Mosharraf Hossain, ‘A Study on the Iconography and Art of the Recently Discovered Sculptures form the Greater Khulna District’, Pratnatattva, vol. 12, 2006, pp. 13-22). A Garuḍāsana Viṣṇu has been reported from Lakshmanakati in the Backerganj district (N.K. Bhattasali, Iconography of Buddhist and Brahmanical Sculptures in the Dacca Museum,Indological Book House, Varanasi and Delhi, 1972, p. XIX.). In Comilla, only reported example is a small image of Viṣṇu, sixth century AD, from Haluapara (F. Asher, op. cit., p. 33). In coastal West Bengal, only terracotta sculptures of the Buddha in dharmacakrapravartana mudrā (F. Asher, op. cit., p. 33) as well as life-size Vārāhī and Cāmuṇḍā have been reported (Sima Roy Chowdhury, ‘Terracotta Sculptures from Panna: A Preliminary Survey’, Pratna Samiksha, vols. 6-8, 1997-9, pp. 29-43). Chitrarekha Gupta, ‘Jainism in Bengal: Beginning of the Study,

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

29. 30. 31.

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

211

Problems and Perspectives’, Pratna Samiksha, vols. 2-3, 1993-4, p. 219. Md. Mosharraf Hossain, op. cit., pp. 20-1. Frederick Asher, op. cit., pp. 30-1. Sandrine Gill, ‘Two Notes on Chronology and Style: Evidence from Mahasthan’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), Archaeology of Eastern India: New Perspectives, Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, Kolkata, 2002, p. 45. Ibid., p. 43. Ibid., p. 45. S. Beal, op. cit., p. 195. N. Ahmed, Mahasthan, Deptt. of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 1981, p. 50. Ibid., p. 51. Enamul Haque, ‘Reflections on the Early Art of Bengal’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Hakim Habibur Rahman Khan Commemoration Volume, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2001, p. 186. Ibid., p.,187. Sandrine Gill, ‘Two Notes on Chronology and Style’, op. cit., p. 45. Shahnaz Husne Jahan, ‘Archaeological Investigations at Bhitargarh in Panchagarh District’, JBA, vol. 15, 2010, p. 173. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 196. Ibid., p. 195. Ibid., pp. 187, 195. At least one inscribed image of Manasā has been reported from the excavated Buddhist monastic site of Antichak (B.S. Verma, Antichak Excavations Part-2 (1971–81), Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi, 2011, p. 178). That indicates that images of this deity were found in Buddhist contexts as well. Shahnaz Husne Jahan, op. cit., p. 186. Ibid., p. 186. Ibid., p. 185. Ibid., pp. 188-95. Ibid., pp. 195-6. Asit Boran Paul, ‘Recent Discoveries of Archaeological Sites at Dhamrai: A Preliminary Report’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Humanities, 46(2), 2001, p. 268.

212

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

53. Ibid., p. 271. 54. This site is generally treated as a stūpa site. However, an associated monastic structure was also partially exposed in excavations (IAR, 1971-2, p. 50), hence we have treated it as a stūpa-cum-monastic site. 55. IAR, 1971-2, p. 50. 56. Sharmi Chakraborty, op. cit., p. 75. 57. B.D. Chattopadhyaya, ‘Urban Centres in Early Bengal: Archaeological Perspectives’, Pratna Samiksha, vols. 2-3, 1993-4, p. 179. 58. In the excavations of the Gader Danga mound of the site, no evidence of early medieval occupation has been found (IAR, 1996-7, p. 178), indicating that its urban status did not continue in the early medieval phase. 59. IAR, 1973-4, p. 33. 60. Ibid. 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid., p. 50. 64. Bhaskar Chattopadhyaya and Rangan Kanti Jana, Descriptive Catalogue of Sculptures in the Museum and Art Gallery, Burdwan University, The University of Burdwan, Burdwan, 2001, pp. III-IV. 65. Rangan Kanti Jana, ‘Tracing the Archaeology of Buddhism in the Early Medieval Bardhman, West Bengal’, Pratna Samiksha, vol. 2, new series, 2011, p. 116. 66. A.K.M. Zakariah, The Archaeological Heritage of Bangladesh, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 2011, p. 546. 67. Ibid., p. 543. 68. Reported seventh century stone and metal sculptures from Bengal include: Viṣṇu, Chaitanpur, Bardhaman district; Sūrya, Kasipur in 24-Parganas district; Sūrya, Deora, Bogra district, Viṣṇu riding on Garuḍa, unknown provenance of Bengal (Asher, op. cit., pp. 160-1). From Comilla area, Śarvvāṇī and Sūrya have been reported (Bhattasali, op. cit., p. 172). Recently, Abu Imam (‘Samataṭa, Mainamati: Some Observations’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (ed.), Archaeology of Eastern India, New Perspectives’, Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, Kolkata, 2002, p. 619) has reported a stone sculpture of Śyāma Tārā from Lajjair, Comilla district. Only reported stone sculpture from coastal West Bengal is the bust of a Viṣṇu image from the Behala area of Kolkata

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

69. 70. 71.

72. 73. 74.

75. 76.

77.

213

(D.K. Chakrabarti, Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain: The Lower and the Middle Ganga, Delhi, Permanent Black, 2001, p. 142). For an analysis of the dedicatory inscription on the Śarvvāṇī image from Deulbadi, see p. 333 of the present book. See p. 333 of the present book. Reported examples from Varendra include: Standing Buddha; Bhasu Vihara, near Mahasthan; Gajalakṣmī, Namuja, 7 miles away from Mahasthan; Viṣṇu, Khiramahmudpur, Dinajpur; Vishnu, small sculpture, Kakadighi, Dinajpur dist.; a small sculpture of Viṣṇu, unknown provenance of Rangpur dist.; Garuḍāsana Viṣṇu, Agradigun, West Dinajpur dist.; Cakrapuruṣa, which was most probably used for the capital of the dhvajastambha for a Viṣṇu temple from Enda (a mile west of Agradigun), Dinajpur dist.; Mahiṣasuramardinī, Gangaramapur, dt. Maldah; Viṣṇu, Gazole, dist. Maldah (F. Asher, op. cit., pp. 95-7). Reported miniature metal images from Varendra include heavily corroded Buddhist sculptures from the monastic site of Bhasu Vihara in the vicinity of Mahasthan; and two pieces of Viṣṇu and one of Sūrya from the vicinity of Mahasthan (ibid., pp. 94-6). A miniature metal image of Śiva from Manirhat, 24-Parganas dist.; and Viṣṇu from some part of Khulna have also been reported (ibid., pp. 98-9). For an iconographic analysis of this sculpture, see F. Asher, op. cit., p. 100. For the iconography an dating of this image, see ibid., p. 99. Abu Imam, op. cit., p. 617. Imam has rightly pointed out that at Mainamati, ‘it was not the case that gigantic Buddhist establishments developed centering a capital city; it was rather that among the innumerable monasteries some area was put aside for some kind of local administration and for occasional jayaskandhavaras of kings’ (p. 617). B.D. Chattopadhyaya, ‘Urban Centres in Early Bengal: Archaeological Perspectives’, Pratna Samiksha, vols. 2-3, 1993-4, p. 170. Buddhist stūpas and monasteries are found not within the city, but at a distance from the city walls: Laksindarer Medh Gokul at a distance of 2 km, Bihar at a distance of 4 miles, and Bhasu Vihar at a distance of 5 miles. We will analyse the data from these sites in Chapter 7 of the book. N. Ahmed, Mahasthan, Dept. of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 1981, p. 25.

214 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92.

93. 94.

95. 96.

97. 98. 99.

100.

101.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Ibid., p. 27. Ibid., p. 40. Ibid. Ibid., p. 42 Ibid., pp. 43-4. Ibid., p. 36. Ibid. Ibid., p. 39. K.G. Goswami, Excavations at Bangarh, University of Calcutta, Calcutta, 1948, pp. 6-7. Ibid., p. 7. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid. Ibid. For an analysis of the inscription on this image, see pp. 255-6 of the present book. Ranjusri Ghosh, ‘Puṇḍravardhana/Varendra: A Socio-Economic and Cultural Profile of a Sub-Region of Early Bengal (c. BC 300 to Mid-12th Century)’, unpublished PhD thesis, JNU, 2003, p. 193. D.K. Chakrabarti et al., ‘An Archaeological Reconnaissance in Birbhum’, Puratattva, vol. 10, 1978-9, p. 30. R.K. Chattopadhyay et al., ‘Archaeology of the Lower Ganga Valley: Some Aspects of Cultural Sequence’, in Vibha Tripathi and Prabhakar Upadhyaya (eds), Archaeology of the Ganga Valley, Paradigm Shift, vol. II, Sharada Publishing House, Delhi, 2010, p. 322. Ibid., p. 331. R.K. Jana, ‘Tracing the Archaeology of Buddhism in the Early Medieval Bardhman, West Bengal, Pratna Samiksha, vol. 2, New Series, 2011, pp. 115-16. Ibid., p. 116. Ibid. Sudhir Ranjan Das, Rājbāḍīḍāngā: 1962 (Chiruti: Jadupur), An Interim Report on Excavations at Rājbāḍīḍāngā and Terracotta Seals and Sealings, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1968, p. 3. Sudhir Ranjan Das, Archaeological Discoveries from Murshidabad District (West Bengal), Part One, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1971, p. 15. Chitrarekha Gupta, ‘Jainism in Bengal: Beginning of the Study,

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

102.

103. 104.

105. 106.

107. 108.

109. 110. 111.

112.

113. 114.

215

Problems and Perspectives’, Pratna Samiksha, vols. 2-3, 1993-4, p. 219. Bimal Bandyopadhyay, ‘A Note on Some Recently Discovered Sculptures in Stone and Terracotta from Excavation at Nilkuthi Mound, Karnasuvarna’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXIV, 2007-8, pp. 54-5. ARASI, 1928-9, pp. 98-100; Anusua Sengupta, op. cit., pp. 63-4. Sudhir Ranjan Das, Archaeological Discoveries from Murshidabad District (West Bengal), Part One, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1971, p. 16. For details, see p. 426 of the present book. For a catalogue of published sculptures and other markers of past existence of religious centers in the Murshidabad district, see Appendix 2, pp. 667-9. See Appendix 2, pp. 667-9. The reported assemblage of early medieval Brahmanical stone sculptures of the district includes the 22 examples of Viṣṇu, 1 of Narasiṁha, 2 examples of Varāha, 3 examples of Mahiṣāsuramardinī, 2 examples of Sūrya, 3 examples of different forms of Śivaliṅgas with or without Yonipaṭṭa, 1 example of Umāmaheśvara, 3 examples of Lakṣmī, and one example each of Lalitā, Cāmuṇḍā and Gaṇeśa. For details, see Appendix 2, pp. 667-9 of the present book. For a cataloguing of published data from the district of Birbhum, see Appendix 2, pp. 670-2. For details, see p. 145 of the present book. Saktirani Chakrabarti, Buddhist Art-Objects in the Museums of West Bengal, R.N. Bhattacharya, Kolkata, 2014, p. 36; Gautam Sengupta et al., Vibrant Rock: A Catalogue of Stone Sculptures in the State Archaeological Museum, West Bengal, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, 2014, p. 209. S.K. Saraswati, Tantrayana Art an Album with Introduction and Notes, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1977, p. XXV; Anusua Sengupta, Buddhist Art of Bengal, Rahul Publishing Company, Delhi, 1993, p. 140. D.K. Chakrabarti et al., ‘An Archaeological Reconnaissance in Birbhum’, Puratattva, vol. 10, 1978-9, p. 29. The reported Pāla-Sena period stone sculptures from this district consist of 21 sculptures of Viṣṇu; 2 of Narasiṁha; 6 of Sūrya; 1 Navagraha panel; 1 sculpture each of Revanta, Devī; 4 of Gaurī;

216

115. 116.

117.

118.

119. 120. 121. 122.

123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128.

129. 130. 131. 132. 133.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia 9 of Mahiṣāsuramardinī; 2 of Cāmuṇḍā; 3 of Manasā; 8 of Umāmaheśvara; 3 of Bhairava; 3 of Brahma; and 1 Manasā pillar. For details, see Appendix 2, pp. 670-1. Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1921-2, p. 80. Sharmi Chakraborty, ‘Resource Base and Consumer Sites: Tracing Early Historic Networks in the Damodar Valley’, Pratna Samiksha, New Series, vol. 1, 2010, pp. 71-2. A recent survey in the tract of land from Bharatpur ‘located on older flood plain bordering the younger flood plain’ to Asansol could find only one early historic site in the whole area at the site of Bharatpur, where too the pattern of occupation was marked with many breaks (Ibid., pp. 72-5). Chitrarekha Gupta, ‘Bengal Art and Bengal Inscriptions: An Approach Towards Co-relation – A Case Study with Punchra, A Village in the Vardhaman District, West Bengal’, JBA, vol. 7, 2002, p. 87. For a catalogue of reported Buddhist sculptures from the district of Bardhaman, see Appendix 2, pp. 672-4. Sharmi Chakraborty, op. cit., p. 72. For details, see Appendix 2, pp. 672-4. R.K. Chattopadhyay et al., ‘Archaeology of the Lower Ganga Valley: Some Aspects of Cultural Sequence’, in Vibha Tripathi and Prabhakar Upadhyaya (eds), op. cit., p. 331. IAR 1975-6, p. 78. Chitrarekha Gupta, op. cit., p. 89. Ibid., pp. 89- 91. Ibid., pp. 97-8. Ibid., p. 87. Other reported Brahmanical stone sculptures are: Harihara: 1; Śivaliṅgas: 4; Umāmaheśvara: 3; Gaṇeśa: 2; Pārvatī: 1; Sūrya: 7; Durgā/Siṁhavāhinī: 1; Cāmuṇḍā: 5; Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara: 7; Manasā: 1. See Appendix 2, pp. 672-4. IAR, 1967-8, p. 44. IAR, 1983-4, p. 172. D.K. Chakrabarti, Archaeology of Eastern India: Chhotanagpur Plateau and West Bengal, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1993, p. 165. Ibid., p. 165; Vijay Kumar Thakur, ‘Archaeology of Early Medieval Towns in Bengal’, Puratattva, no. 12, 1980-1, p. 141. Earlier the temple of Icchai Ghosher Deul near Shyamrupagarh in

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

134.

135. 136. 137.

138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147.

148. 149.

217

the western portion of the district was also attributed to the early medieval period (Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 211). However, in some recent architectural re-examinations of the dating of the temple, a sixteenth century AD dating has been proposed for the temple as well as for the adjoining settlement site of Shyamrupagarh (D.R. Das, ‘Islamic Heritage of Bengal Temples’, JBA, vols. 11-12, 2006-7, p. 119; Sharmila Saha, ‘In Search of a Legitimate Identity: The Enigma of Ichai Ghosher Deul’, JBA, vol. 19, 2014, pp. 201-16). We have followed Das and Saha and not included this temple in our discussion. Gautam Sengupta and Sambhu Chakraborty, ‘Locale, Material and Monuments: Begunia Group of Temples, West Bengal’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), Archaeology of Eastern India, New Perspectives, Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, Kolkata, 2002, p. 398. Ibid., p. 406. Ibid. A. Eschmann, ‘Sign and Icon: Symbolism in the Indian Folk Religion’, in G.C. Tripathi and H. Kulke (eds), Religion and Society in Eastern India, Manohar, Delhi, 1994, pp. 211-326. Ibid., p. 213-14. Gautam Sengupta and Sambhu Chakraborty, op. cit., p. 398. Ibid. Ibid., p. 398-9. Ibid., p. 399. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 406. S. Khamari, Archaeology of Early Orissan Temple: Spatial Context, Patronage and Survival, Pratibha Prakashan, Delhi, 2012, pp. 208-10; idem, ‘Survival of the Liṅgarāja Temple: A Study of Spatial Context, Linkage and Patronage’, in Birendra Nath Prasad (ed.), Monasteries, Shrines and Society: Buddhist and Brahmanical Religious Institutions in India in their Socio-Economic Context, Manak Publications, Delhi, 2011, pp. 289-90. S. Khamari, Archaeology of Early Orissan Temple: Spatial Context, Patronage and Survival, Pratibha Prakashan, Delhi, 2012, p. 209. Ibid., pp. 208-9.

218

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

150. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 122; R.K. Chattopadhyay, ‘Contexts of Early Medieval Remains of Purulia: Researching Ideologies’, Pratnatattva, vol. 16, 2010, pp. 9-10. 151. R.K. Chattopadhyay, ibid., pp. 9-10. 152. Ibid., p. 208. 153. For a cataloguing of reported early medieval data from this district, see Appendix 2, p. 678. 154. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 211. 155. R.K. Chattopadhyay, op. cit., p. 10. 156. D.K. Chakrabarti, ‘Pakabir: A Jaina Site in Purulia Ditrict’, in B.M. Pandey and B.D. Chattopadhyaya (eds), Archaeology and History: Essays in Honour of Shri A. Ghosh, vol. II, Agam Kala Prakashana, Delhi, 1987, p. 356. 157. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Jaina and Brahmanical Temples and Political Processes in a Forested Frontier of Early Medieval SouthWestern Bengal: A Study of Purulia’, Religions of South Asia (forthcoming). 158. Āṭavika Sāmanta Rudraśikhara fought the Kaivarttas as an ally of the Pāla king Rāmapāla in the last quarter of the eleventh century. For details, see R.C. Majumdar (ed.), The History of Bengal, vol. 1: Hindu Period, University of Dacca, Dacca, 1943, pp. 156-7. 159. The pattern in early medieval Purulia is, thus, different from what we see in the case of the Malla state that emerged in the Bankura area during the medieval period. The Malla state followed a policy of patronizing the construction of temples in the areas beyond their capital in an attempt of ‘geographical extension of the political control’ as the foundation of temples was ‘one of the methods through which the ruling power tried to extend its control in a forested area that was rich in mineral and forest resources’ (Sharmila Saha and Rajat Sanyal, ‘Templescape and Culture under the Mallas of Medieval Bengal: A Case Study’, in Ratnabali Chatterjee (ed.), Urbanity and Economy: The Pre-Modern Dynamics in Eastern India, Setu Prakashani, Kolkata, 2013, p. 174). 160. D.K. Chakrabarti, Archaeology of Eastern India: Chhotanagpur Plateau and West Bengal, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1993, p. 138. 161. R.K. Chattopadhyay, Bankura: A Study of Its Archaeological Sources, Platinum Publishers, Kolkata, 2010, p. 135. In the early historic phase, we have evidence of habitational occupation at two sites only: Dihar in the Vishnupur area and Pakhanna (R.K.

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167.

168.

169.

170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175.

176. 177.

219

Chattopadhyay et al., ‘Dihar Excavations: An Interim Report’, Pratna Samiksha, new series, vol. 1, 2010, pp. 9-33; R.K. Chattopadhyay et al., ‘Excavations at Dihar 2012-13: An Interim Report’, Prāgdhārā, vol. 23, 2012-13, pp. 95- 141). G. Sengupta, ‘Hero-Stone of West Bengal: A Preliminary Study’, op. cit., p. 93. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 209. H.P. Sastri, ‘The Susunia Rock Inscription of Chandravarman’, EI, vol. XIII, p. 133. B.D. Chattopadhyaya, ‘Urban Centres of Early Bengal: Archaeological Perspectives’, p. 179. For a catalogue of reported data from the district of Bankura, see Appendix 2, pp. 674-8. Among such poly-religious sites where Jainism was dominant, we may count the sites of Ambikanagar, Biharinath, Jumbediya, Jiroda, Sarengarh, and Chitagiri. For a brief summary of the reported data from such sites, see Appendix 2, pp. 674-8 of the present book. Sharmila Saha, ‘Context of Architecture in Archaeology: A Case Study with the Siddheśvara Temple at Bahulara’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXV, 2008-9, pp. 122-31. R.C. Majumdar, op. cit., pp. 156-7; R.K. Chattopadhyay, Bankura: A Study of Its Archaeological Sources, Platinum Publishers, Kolkata, 2010, p. 207. R.K. Chattopadhyay, op. cit., p. 207. Ibid., p. 156. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 164-5. Ibid., p. 207. At the site of Pakhanna, among the identifiable Pāla-Sena period stone sculptures documented by Mallar Mitra, fifteen are Brahmanical and only two (Avalokiteśvara; head of a broken image of the Buddha) are Buddhist. For details, see Mallar Mitra, ‘Notes on Some Sculptures Located at Pakhanna, District Bankura’, Pratna Samiksha, vols. 6-8, 1997-9, pp. 50-8. For details, see p. 592 of the present book. Sayan Bhattacharya and Sharmistha Chatterjee, ‘A Preliminary Note on Archaeological Investigation in Dantan and Adjoining Region, West Medinipur’, in Shahnaj Husne Jahan (ed.), Abhijñāna:

220

178.

179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185.

186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Studies in South Asian Archaeology and Art History of Artefacts Felicitating A.K.M. Zakariah, BAR International Series, London, 2009, p. 21. Ranabir Chakravarti, ‘Vaṅgasāgara-saṁbhāṇḍāriyaka: A Riverine Trade-centre of Early Medieval Bengal’, in Debala Mitra (ed.), Explorations in Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays Dedicated to N.G. Majumdar, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal, Calcutta, 1996, p. 567. Sayan Bhattacharya and Sharmistha Chatterjee, op. cit., p. 21. Ibid. Manoranjan Bhaumick, History, Culture and Antiquities of Tamralipta, Punthi Pustak, Kolkata, 2001, p. 51. Asok Datta, ‘Excavations at Moghalmari: A Pre-Pāla Buddhist Monastic Complex’, JBA, vol. 15, 2010, pp. 277, 284. Ibid., p. 284. Ibid., p. 277. Sayan Bhattacharya and Sharmistha Chatterjee, op. cit., pp. 21-7. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Sūrya has also been reported from the Dantan area (Sharmila Saha, ‘Another Image of the Sun God with Planetary Deities from South-Western Bengal’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXVI, 2009-10, pp. 152-62). Manoranjan Bhaumick, op. cit., p. 52. See Appendix 2, pp. 679-81 of the present book. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 243. Gourisankar De, Vaṅga Down the Ages: Cults, Icons and Temples, Sagnik Books, Kolkata, 2008, pp. 124-5. Ibid. Ibid. For details of data from 24-Parganas, Howrah and Hooghly districts, see Appendix 2, pp. 680-7 of the present book. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 144. Gourisankar De, op. cit., pp. 126-7. Shubha Majumdar, ‘A Unique Jaina Caumukha/Caumukhi or Caturmukha or Sarvatobhadra Pratima from Sundarban, District South 24-Parganas, West Bengal’, History Today, vol. 13, 2012, pp. 33-6. Majumdar has reported the discovery of sculptures of different Tīrthaṅkaras, Ambikā, etc., from the sites of Jamtala, Ghatesvara, Raidighi, Kanvandighi, Nalagora and Kantabenia. Goursisankar De (op. cit., p. 123) has also reported the discovery

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

196.

197. 198.

199.

200.

201.

221

of stone images of Pārśvanātha from Bolbamni and Dakshin Barasat. From this tract, Viṣṇu sculptures have been reported from 52 sites; Umāmaheśvara from 6 sites; Gaṇeśa from 5 sites; Cāmuṇḍā from 2 sites; Durgā including Mahiṣāsuramardinī from 6 sites; Naṭarāja from 5 sites; Manasā from 1 site; Caṇḍī from 1 site; Cāmuṇḍā from 2 sites; Narasiṁha from 1 site; Sūrya from 7 sites; Śivaliṅga from 3 sites; different forms of Bhairava from 5 sites; Vaiṣṇavī from 3 sites; anthropomorphic figures of Śiva (including Ardhanārīśvara) from 2 sites. For details, see Appendix 2, pp. 6806, of the present book. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 148. B.N. Mukherjee, ‘Natashal Fragmentary Inscription Referring to King Pupṭhuhata’, Pratna Samiksha, vols. 2 and 3, 1993-4, pp. 226-7. Written in the mixed Brahmi-Kharoshṭī script, this inscription records the legend: ‘to (or for) the patron king Pupṭhuhata’ (p. 226). Prof. Mukherjee has rightly opined that a king called Pupṭhuhata reigned in a part of the territory of ancient Vaṅga, now included in the Medinipur district, in late first century AD. A piece of artefact made of bone was dedicated or presented to him. The appearance of a trident and drum, which are ‘cognizances of Śiva, may indicate the affiliation of the king or of the donor to this deity’. This inscription, thus, indicates the popularity of Śaivism in this part of Vaṅga (pp. 226-7). B.N. Mukherjee, ‘An Early Syncretic Icon’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Hakim Habibur Rahman Khan Commemoration Volume, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2001, pp. 63-4. Standing temples, temple ruins of the Pāla-Sena periods, or modern temples standing on the ruins of older temples have been noted at the following sites: Jatar Deul, Chhatrabhog, Katanadighi, Delbari, Bhuvaneshwari, Mahadevatala of Kakadwipa area, Mandiratala area of Sagar island, Kulpi, Saptagrama (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., pp. 143-8). Besides, at the site of Brahmaban near Sarberia, a post-Gupta period temple possibly used the material of a Gupta period temple at the same site (IAR, 1971-2, p. 51). Kalidas Datta (cf. D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 145) refers to the discovery of a copper-plate inscription recovered from the neighbourhood of Jatar Deul temple. As per Datta, this inscription

222

202. 203.

204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217.

218.

219.

220.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia recorded the construction of the temple now known as Jatar Deul by a king called Jayachandradeva in AD 975. As no king of this name is known to have ruled in Bihar-Bengal area in this period, so he may be a non-local king, most probably coming to this area for a pilgrimage to the Gangāsāgaratīrtha. For a cataloguing of reported data from the district of Nadia, see Appendix 2, p. 687. G. Sengupta et al., Vibrant Rock: A Catalogue of Stone Sculptures in the State Archaeological Museum, West Bengal, Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, Kolkata, 2014, p. 208. IAR, 1982-3, p. 105. Ibid., p. 105. IAR, 1982-3, p. 105. IAR, 1983-4, p. 94. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 95. Ibid. For a cataloguing of reported data from this district, see Appendix 2, pp. 687-8. A.K.M. Zakariah, The Archaeological Heritage of Bangladesh, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 2011, p. 401. Ibid., pp. 438-9. Ibid., p. 449. Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, Sculptures in Bangladesh, An Inventory of Select Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina Stone and Bronze Images in Museums and Collections of Bangladesh (Up to the 13th Century), ICSBA, Dhaka, 2008, pp. 270-71. G.J.R. Mevissen, ‘Two Unpublished Mārīcī Sculptures in the Khulna Museum, Bangladesh, and Related Images from Mainamati’, in Devangana Desai and Arundhati Banerji (eds), Kalādarpaṇa, The Mirror of Indian Art, Essays in Memory of Shri Krishnadeva, Aryan Books International, Delhi, 2009, p. 277. Md. Mosharraf Hossain, ‘A Study on the Iconography and Art of the Recently Discovered Sculptures from the Greater Khulna District’, Pratnatattva, vol. 12, 2006, p. 15. Ibid., pp. 19-20. This image was subsequently shifted to the Kamlapur Buddha Vihara in the Dhaka Metropolitan area. For the measurement of the image, see A.K.M. Zakariah, op. cit., p. 469.

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

223

221. Md. Mosharraf Hossain, op. cit., p. 19. 222. Ibid. 223. Due to fluvial volatility of the area, it is difficult to be sure of the boundaries of Vikrampur area. We have followed the recent study of Lee, who has arrived at this conclusion by the study of old maps as well as by tracing the stylistic similarities of sculptures discovered in the above-mentioned areas. For details, see Eun-Su Lee, ‘On Defining Buddhist Art in Bengal: The Dhaka Region’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 2009, pp. 35-6. 224. Eun-Su Lee, op. cit., pp. 37-8. 225. For a more detailed analysis, see pp. 572-3 of the present book. 226. Lee has included all previous reported sculptures (reported by Bhattasali etc.), sculptures kept in the reserve section of Dhaka museum, as well as sculptures documented by her in fieldwork, in her catalogue. At present, this is the best available cataloguing of data for Savar-Dhaka-Vikrampur-Faridpur area. Due to this reason, we have relied on her thesis. For measurement of sculptures, see Appendix 1 of her thesis (pp. 473-81). For a brief narration of dating of sculptures and their photographs, see pp. 379-439. For the short summary, see Appendix 2, pp. 689-94 of the present book. 227. Eun-Su Lee, op. cit., p. 38. 228. Ibid., pp. 38-9. 229. Ibid., p. 362. 230. Perween Hasan ‘Reflections on Early Temple Forms of Eastern India’, JBA, vol. 2, 1997, p. 213. 231. Eun-Su Lee, ‘A Preliminary Note on Buddhist Sculptures from Dhaka Region’, JBA, vols. 11-12, 2006-07, p. 271. 232. Eun-Su Lee, ‘On Defining Buddhist Art in Bengal: The Dhaka Region’, op. cit., p. 363. 233. Recently, a miniature tenth or eleventh century image of Trilokyakṣepa-Prajñā, a consort of Heruka, has been discovered from the Tungibari area of Munshiganj district (Md. Mosharraf Hossain, ‘An Iconographical and Sculptural Appraisals of Four Newly Discovered Rare Sculptures’, in Shahnaz Husne Jahan (ed.), Abhijñāna: Studies in South Asian Archaeology and Art History of Artefacts Felicitating A.K.M. Zakariah, BAR International Series, London, 2009, pp. 114-15).

224

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

234. For a catalogue of reported Buddhist sculptures from this area, see Appendix 2, pp. 694-5. 235. No big stone sculpture has been reported from this site. Only miniature bronze sculptures have been reported, in which the sculptures of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā predominate. 236. For a catalogue of reported Brahmanical sculptures from this area, see Appendix 2, pp. 692-4. 237. N. K. Bhattasali, op. cit., p. vii. 238. Ibid., pp. 90-1. 239. Ibid., p. 89. 240. D.C. Sircar, Studies in the Religious Life of Ancient and Medieval India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1971, pp. 189-200. 241. D.K. Chakrabarti, Ancient Bangladesh: A Study of Its Archaeological Sources, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1992, p. 158. 242. Reported sculptural data from this district has been summarized in Appendix 2, p. 695. 243. For an analysis of this coin, see Bijay Krishna Banik, ‘Sundarbans: An Archaeological Exploration’, in M.M. Hoque et al. (eds), Selected Essays on History and Archaeology: Papers Presented in Memory of Prof. Abu Imam, Centre for Archaeology and Heritage Research, Dhaka, 2010, p. 334. 244. Puspa Niyogi, ‘Candragomin’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. X, 1976-77, p. 124. 245. Ibid. 246. Ibid., p. 129. 247. G.J.R. Mevissen, ‘Two Unpublished Mārīcī Sculptures in the Khulna Museum, Bangladesh, and Related Images from Mainamati’, in Devangana Desai and Arundhati Banerji (ed.), Kalādarpaṇa, the Mirror of Indian Art: Essays in Memory of Shri Krishnadeva, Aryan Books International, Delhi, 2009, p. 273. 248. For an iconographical analysis of this image, see Enamul Haque and Adalbert J. Gail (eds), op. cit., p. 116. 249. Rama Chatterjee, ‘Syncretism as Found in Some Composite Images from Bengal’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. X, 1976-7, p. 152. 250. Jinah Kim, ‘Emergence of a Buddhist Warrior Goddess and the Historical Development of Tantric Buddhism: The Case of Mārīcī’, Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art, new series, vol. XXVIII, 2012, pp. 50-1. 251. For details, see Appendix 2, p. 695. 252. B.M. Morrison, Political Centres and Cultural Regions in Early Bengal,

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

253.

254.

255.

256.

257. 258.

259.

260. 261. 262.

225

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1970, pp. 115-19; idem, Lalmai: A Cultural Centre in Early Medieval Bengal, University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1974, p. 119; Suchandra Ghosh, ‘The Trans-Meghna Region: Making of a Sub-Regional Identity’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXVII, 2010-11, pp. 220-31. For an analysis of this process, see David Ludden, ‘The First Boundary of Bangladesh on Sylhet’s Northern Frontiers,’ Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, 48(1), 2003, pp. 1-54; idem, ‘Investing in Nature around Sylhet: An Excursion into Geographical History’, Economic and Political Weekly, 38(48), 2003, pp. 5080-8. Here ‘Comilla district’ stands for the pre-1984 district of Comilla. In 1984, Chandpur and Brahmanbaria subdivisions of this district were made separate districts. M. Harunur Rashid, The Early History of South-East Bengal in the Light of Recent Archaeological Material, Itihas Academy, Dhaka, 2008; Abu Imam, ‘Samataṭa, Mainamati: Some Observations’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), op. cit., pp. 613-23. The eighth century marked the most prosperous phase in the history of the Salban Vihara. For details, see pp. 573-4 of the present book. For a catalogue of reported data from the district of Comilla, see Appendix 2, pp. 695-9. M. Harunur Rashid, ‘Bangladesh: A Profile in the Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries’, Bangladesh Historical Studies, vol. III, 1978, pp. 8-9. This period also marked the emergence of many Buddhist religious centres in the neighbouring areas of Tripura, which may be treated as an indication of proliferation of Buddhist religious centres in Samataṭa. For details of some sites of Tripura, see Debala Mitra, ‘Antiquities from Pilak and Jolaibari, Tripura’, Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. XVIII, nos. 1-4, 1976, pp. 56-77; S. Jamal Hasan, ‘Buddhist Remains in Tripura, JBA, vol.7, 2002, pp. 223-35; R.D. Singh and Bimal Sinha, ‘Buddhist Remains at Boxnagar’, in Jahar Acharjee (ed.), History, Culture and Coinage of Samatata and Harikela, Rajkusum Prakashini, Agartala, 2006, pp. 30-5. For details, see pp. 573-4 of of the present book. For an analysis of the cultic foci of monasteries on the Mainamati ridge, see pp. 532-6 of the present book. Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, op. cit., p. 118.

226

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

263. Mallar Mitra, ‘Two-Armed images of Heruka from Bangladesh: An Iconographic Study’, JBA, vol. 2, 1996, p. 158 264. Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail,op. cit., p. 118. 265. For the measurement and iconographic features of this image, see Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, op. cit., p. 279. 266. N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., pp. 6-7. 267. Ibid. 268. Ibid., p. 118. 269. Adelheid Hermann-Pfandt, ‘Cakrasaṃvara Iconography and Buddhist Religious Politics in Medieval Bengal’, JBA, vols. 11-12, 2006-7, pp. 9-20. 270. Andrea Loseries,‘Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra and the ‘Bowdlerization’ of Tantric Culture: A Case Study of Cakrasaṁvara Tantra’, in R.K. Sinha (ed.), Studies in History and Archaeology of Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra, The Last Beacon of Buddhist Philosophy, Bharati Prakashan, Varanasi, 2015, p. 144. 271. For an analysis of this issue, see Adelheid Hermann-Pfandt, op. cit., pp. 9-20. 272. Ibid., pp. 15-16. 273. Ibid. 274. For details, see pp. 573-6 of the present book. 275. In a recent paper, the proliferation of Heruka images in Bengal has been linked to the hardships Buddhism faced here after the foundation of Sena rule in Bengal (Md. Mosharraf Hossain, ‘An Iconographical and Sculptural Appraisals of Four Newly Discovered Rare Sculptures’, in Shahnaz Husne Jahan (ed.), Abhijñāna, p. 115). In Comilla, however, religious centres enshrining such images emerged before the Senas, during the regime of the Buddhist Candra rulers. 276. For details, see pp. 535-7 of the present book. 277. For details, see Appendix 2, pp. 695-9. 278. For details, see Appendix 2, p. 699. 279. N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., p. 25. 280. Ibid., p. 25. 281. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Brahmanical Temples, Maṭhas, Agrahāras and a Buddhist Establishment in a Marshy and Forested Periphery of Two ‘Frontier’ States: Early Medieval Surma Valley (Sylhet and Cachar), c.600 CE-1100 CE’, Religions of South Asia, London, 6(1), 2012, pp. 50-2. 282. N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., p. XXVIII.

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

227

283. Ibid. 284. Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures: Hindu Iconography Upto c. 1250 A.D, Bangladesh National Museum, Dhaka, 1992, p. 338. 285. N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., p. XXVIII. 286. Adhir Chakravarti, ‘Harikela’s Contacts with the Outside World’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, 14(1-2), 1989-90, p. 4. 287. Mallar Mitra, ‘An Image of Mañjuśrī in the Company of Jālinīprabha and Candraprabha Preserved in the Bangladesh National Museum’, JBA, vol. 4, 1999, pp. 497-514. 288. Gerd J.R. Mevissen, Ādityas, Grahas, and other Deities of Time and Space on Surya Sculptures, Predominantly from Bengal, fourth Sarat Kumar Ray Memorial Lecture, Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, Kolkata, 2006, p. 10. 289. Ibid., p. VII. 290. At the site of Silua (now in Feni district), a big sandstone image of an unidentified cultic affiliation has been discovered. D.K. Chakrabarti (Ancient Bangladesh: A Study of Its Archaeological Sources, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1992, p. 161) has dated this image to the early medieval period. A.K.M. Zakariah (op. cit., p. 777) dates it to the second century BC. This image is too badly broken to allow any proper dating on stylistic grounds and the badly worn out inscription on it is illegible. Such an early date cannot be proposed merely on the basis of the building material (sandstone) as black stone sculptures in the Comilla-Noakhali area began to be made only with the expansion of the Pāla power in the same (Frederick Asher, ‘The Effect of Pāla Rule: A Transition in Art’, Journal of Indian Society for Oriental Art, vols. XII-XIII, 1981-3, pp. 1-7). Due to this reason, we agree with D.K. Chakrabarti. 291. For the analysis of dedicatory inscriptions on the Buddhist bronze sculptures of Jhewari, see pp. 336-41 of the present book. For an analysis of inscriptions on metal vases from this area, see pp. 41619 of the present book. 292. Ranabir Chakravarti, ‘Vaṅgasāgara-saṁbhāṇḍāriyaka: A Riverine Trade-centre of Early Medieval Bengal’, p. 567. 293. Ibid., p. 567. 294. A.K.M. Zakariah (op. cit., p. 779) has reported ancient bricks, brickbats and other cultural materials scattered over a large part of the village of Jhewari. He opines that the site of Paṇḍita Vihāra referred to in Tibetan accounts was most probably located at Jhewari . In the absence of any direct epigraphic evidence, this

228

295. 296.

297. 298.

299. 300. 301. 302.

303.

304.

305. 306.

307.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia identification remains unsubstantiated, though one cannot deny that Jhewari was most probably the site of an impressive monastery. Debala Mitra, Bronzes from Bangladesh: A Study of Buddhist Images from District Chittagong, Agam Kala Prakashan, Delhi, 1982. Recently, a black basalt image of the Buddha in dhyāna mudrā has been discovered from the bed of the Karnaphully river near Chittagong (Shamsul Hossain, ‘Buddhist and Hindu Monuments of Chittagong’, JBA, vol. 8, 2003, p. 228). Debala Mitra, op. cit., pp. 57-8. Jacob N. Kinnard, ‘Reevaluating the 8th-9th Century Pāla Milieu: Icono-Conservatism and the Persistence of Śākyamuni’, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 19(2), 1996, pp. 290-2. A.K.M. Zakariah, op. cit., pp. 787-9. This vihāra is a modern vihara. Gautam Sengupta, ‘Art of South-Eastern Bengal’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. 14, 1989-90, pp. 134-5. Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures: Hindu Iconography Upto c. 1250 AD, Bangladesh National Museum, Dhaka, 1992, p. 388. Max Weber, The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism, ed. and tr. H.H. Gerth and Martindale D., Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1992 (rpt.), p. 193. For some interesting observations on the role of Kotalipara as a maritime port centre from the second century AD to the middle of the eighth century AD, see Shahnaz Husne Jahan, op. cit., pp. 29-35. D.K. Chakrabarti, Ancient Bangladesh: A Study of Its Archaeological Sources, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1992, p. 188; Nasir Uddin Mobin, ‘The Pre-Muslim Landscape of Savar and the Nature of Buddhist Settlements of Bangladesh’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Hakim Habibur Rahman Khan Commemoration Volume, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2001, p. 251. For a detailed analysis of this theme, see pp. 532-8 of the present book. Asok K. Bhattacharya, ‘The Pancharatra Concept and the Vishnu Images of Bengal’, in Asok Datta (ed.), Studies in Archaeology: Essays in Memory of P.C. Dasgupta, Books and Books, Delhi, 1991, p. 319. It is apparent that archaeological data gives us a different kind of picture of cultic dynamics in early medieval Bengal than what has been reconstructed solely on the basis of textual sources. One

Distribution Pattern and Spatial Contexts

229

may, in particular, mention the writings of Kunal Chakrabarti and highlight some methodological inadequacies and factual discrepancies in the same. He bases his reconstruction solely on the textual analysis of some Upapurāṇas. Frequent references to the cult of the goddess in these Upapurāṇas make him argue for a ‘pervasive presence’ of the cult of goddess ‘among the local people’, which Brahmanism tried to appropriate, systemize and Brahmanize through the cult of Durgā (Kunal Chakrabarti, ‘Cult Region: The Purāṇas and the Making of Cultural Territory of Bengal’, in Upinder Singh (ed.), Rethinking Early Medieval India: A Reader, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2011, p. 236). Since the ‘pervasive presence’ of the cult of goddess is discernible in the Upapurāṇas, so, as per Kunal Chakrabarti, this must have been the situation in the ground as well. But this assumption of the ‘pervasive presence’ of the cult of goddess is not supported by archaeological data of early historic or early medieval Bengal, so he uses Colonial Census records and projects the picture backwards to early medieval Bengal. It is doubtful if the use of Colonial Census records will do justice to the cultic complexities of early medieval Bengal. Similarly, Kunal Chakrabarti has argued that Buddhism in early medieval Bengal was dominated by esoteric Tantric practices, which became a factor in precipitating its decline, after which Brahmanism established its dominance in Bengal (Kunal Chakrabarti, Religious Process: The Purāṇas and the Making of a Regional Tradition, Delhi, 2001, pp. 132-42). As we have seen, this was not the case. Archaeological data indicates that Buddhism was an expanding religion in the non-monastic religious space and this remained the situation till the very end of the early medieval period. In the non-monastic religious pace, Buddhism was generally not dominated by esoteric practices. Archaeological data gives a picture of simultaneous expansion of both Buddhism and Brahmanism till the very end of the early medieval period. It does not support the notion of the replacement of Buddhism by Brahmanism. So it is highly unlikely that the transformation of Bengal into a ‘cult region’ centring on the cult of Durgā could have been actualized till the very end of the early medieval period. In the early thirteenth century, Turkic rule was established in Bengal and the socio-religious context of Bengal started changing. In the long run, Islam became the predominant and primary

230

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

element of the culture of Bengal. Ralph Nicholas, using some recent Census reports, has rightly claimed that in the combined population of West Bengal and Bangladesh, Muslims constitute 68 per cent of population; only 32 per cent practice other religions (Ralph Nicholas, Thirteen Festivals: A Ritual Year in Bengal, Orient BlackSwan, Delhi, 2015, p. 4). This degree of Islamization belies Kunal Chakrabarti’s claim that ‘the annual worship of Durgā, also repeatedly mentioned in the Bengal Purāṇas, but not popularised before the late medieval period, now functions as the supreme signifier of Bengali religious culture to the “outsider”’ (Kunal Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 309). Now Islam, being the religion of the majority population of Bengal, serves as the supreme signifier of Bengali religious culture to the ‘outsider’, not the cult of Durgā. It may also be pointed out that Kunal Chakrabarti does not say a word on the role of Jainism in the cultic dynamics of early medieval Bengal. In Rāḍha, especially in Purulia, Bankura, and western parts of the Bardhaman district, Brahmanism had to compete with a significant presence of Jainism. 308. Asok K. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 323. 309. Ibid.

CHAPTER 5

Social Bases of Patronage to Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres: A Study of Dedicatory Inscriptions on Sculptures

Some Preliminaries Though votive inscriptions on parts of Buddhist monastic architecture and sculptures have been studied earlier also to look into some aspects of socio-religious history, such studies are generally confined to the early historic northern and central India, and the Deccan.1 In some cases, dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures have been used to reconstruct religious affiliations, identities and expectations of donors of sculptures.2 We also see an interesting use of dedicatory inscriptions in tracing the evolution of a particular cult or tradition within Buddhism.3 Similar studies have not been undertaken in any detail in the context of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Whenever such studies have been attempted, the focus has been on those inscribed sculptures that contain the regnal year of the ruling king. But they have been mainly analysed for art-historical purposes4 or for reconstructing fluctuations in political history. Their potential in reconstructing the social history of religions and religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal is underutilized. In this chapter, through an analysis of the published dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures, we will try to trace the

232

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

social bases of patronage of some of the religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. We will also try to trace the social background (aristocratic or non-aristocratic, varṇa-jāti, gender, monk/nun or persons other than monk/nun category), economic background (peasant, mercantile, etc.), and religious identity (Buddhist, Brahmanical, etc.) of donors who donated sculptures to religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. In other words, our core emphasis would be on tracing the question: which section of society donated what kind of sculptures to which religious centre of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, and with what motives? How did it reflect on the pilgrimage geography of these religious centres? We will also trace how the patterns of donations evolved across Bihar and Bengal and what implications it had in the process of the decline of Buddhism in the study area and period. Before delving into details, some limitations of our study must be put on record here. A tiny percentage of the published inscriptions records the regnal year of the king ruling when the donations took place. Only these inscriptions can be dated on a surer footing. Most of the inscriptions do not record the regnal year of the king ruling. They follow a very short dedicatory format. They mostly record that the image was the deyadharma of a particular donor. In many cases, they are inscribed only with the name of the donors, even the word deyadharma is not used. As they are not inscribed with the regnal year of the ruling king, only their approximate (i.e. century-wise) dating could be attempted by epigraphists on the basis of palaeographic features. In such cases, epigraphists could assign only some broad (i.e. century-wise) dating to such inscriptions. So when we analyse such inscriptions from a particular century, we have nothing to ascertain if these donations of sculptures were spaced by days, months, years or decades. This hampers our attempts of tracking transitions taking place within a century, which will nevertheless be attempted whenever our database allows. We will be in a much better situation in tracing transitions taking place across centuries.

Social Bases of Patronage

233

It may also be added that an overwhelming percentage of inscriptions on sculptures do not contain the name of the religious centre (temple, monastery, etc.) where the image was installed. In this kind of situation, we may arrive at some tentative generalizations only, mainly on the basis of find spots of such sculptures. Similarly, not much data is available to ascertain if donors donated sculptures to an existing religious centre (a temple, shrine, gaṅdhakuṭi within a monastery, etc., functioning prior to the act of donation) or to a ‘new’ religious centre (i.e. a temple, shrine, monasteries, gaṅdhakuṭi, etc., caused to be built by the donor, who then donated the image to it as an object of worship). Barring one or two inscribed Jaina sculptures that contain the names of donors, most of the dedicatory inscriptions discussed in this chapter are concerned with the donation of Brahmanical and Buddhist sculptures.

Some Methodological Issues (a) Epigraphy and the Question of Sectarian Affiliation of the Donors of Buddhist Sculptures The introduction of the cult of images in Indian Buddhism is generally associated with the emergence of the Mahāyāna. It is also believed that the emergence of this cult of images was due to pressure from the laity, which wanted to worship the Buddha and other Buddhist deities in sculptural form. Schopen’s recent researches in votive inscriptions on early historic Buddhist sculptures from different parts of the Indian subcontinent have changed the picture fundamentally. As per his analysis, this cult was initiated by monks, and ‘the sectarian affiliation of these monks and nuns has little, if any, bearing on their association with the image cult’.5 While the monks promoting this cult in the fourth to fifth centuries at Ajantā, Sārnāth or Mathurā were predominantly Mahāyāna monks, those involved in the same

234

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

cult at Śrāvastī, Kauśāmbī, Mathurā, etc., in the Kuṣāṇa period almost certainly were not.6 There should be little doubt in his overall assessment that ‘the widespread assumption that connects the image cult with the Mahāyāna is simply not well founded’.7 There cannot be any doubt in his assertion that the cult of images was not the exclusive property of Mahāyāna monks and lay believers of both Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna were involved in the donation of images. Each sect devised its own donative formula to be recorded in the votive inscriptions on sculptures. In an interesting study on Mahāyāna in early historical and early medieval Indian inscriptions on sculptures, Schopen has argued that the term ‘Mahāyāna’ was not directly referred to by name in every instance. He could find only 14 inscriptions ranging from the sixth to the late twelfth century in which Mahāyāna has been referred to by name.8 But in 80 other inscriptions dating from the fourth century AD onwards, Mahāyāna affiliation may be reasonably attributed either on the basis of the presence of a particular form of votive formula or on the basis of some characteristic titles adopted by the donors. The votive formula, with some variations, generally appears in any of the following formats:9 1. Deyadharmmoyama – (of, title + name) – Yad–Atra Puṇyama Tada Bhavatu Mātāpitṛipurvāgamakṛtvā Sakalasattvānāma Anuttara Jñānāvāptaye 2. Deyadharmmoyama – (of, title + name) – Yad–Atra Puṇyama Tada Bhavatu Sarvasattvānāma. Sometimes, Anuttara Jñānāvāptaye is added to this formula. 3. Deyadharmmoyama – (of, title + name) – Yad–Atra Puṇyama Tada Bhavatu Mātāpitarebhyaḥ. 4. Deyadharmmoyama – (of, title + name) – Yad–Atra Puṇyama Tada Bhavatu Mātāpitroḥ Sarvasattvānāma ca Anuttara Jñānāvāptaye. 5. Deyadharmmoyama – (of, title + name) – Yad–Atra Puṇyama Tada Bhavatu Upādhyāyācārya -pūrvāgamakṛtvā Sakalasattva-rāśera Anuttara Jñānāvāptaye. These formulas may appear with some variations also, but as a

Social Bases of Patronage

235

whole, ‘the formula Yad–Atra Puṇyama, etc., is virtually the exclusive property of Mahāyāna’.10 The Mahāyāna affiliation of donors may be inferred through the identification of some titles adopted by the donors of sculptures. Schopen has identified two such titles – Śākyabhikṣu/ Śākyabhikṣuṇī and Paramopāsaka/Paramopāsikā – as one of the surest markers of the Mahāyāna affiliation of the donor. In none of the inscriptions that refer to Mahāyāna by name, does the name Mahāyāna occur alone: with one exception, it is always joined either with Śākyabhikṣu/Śākyabhikṣuṇī or Paramopāsaka/ Paramopāsikā.11 Similarly, in none of the approximately forty inscriptions in which the names of various non-Mahāyāna schools – Sarvāstivādina, Mahāsānghika, etc. – occur, does the title Śākyabhikṣu/Śākyabhikṣuṇī or Paramopāsaka/Paramopāsikā occur.12 This forces him to conclude that the term ‘Śākyabhikṣu/Śākyabhikṣuṇī must be a title used to designate a member of the Mahāyāna community who was also a member of the monastic community.13 Similarly, the term ‘Paramopāsaka/Paramopāsikā’ must be a title used to designate a member of the Mahāyāna community who was a layman or laywoman.14 To put the matter simply, Śākyabhikṣu referred to a Mahāyāna monk, Śākyabhikṣuṇī to a Mahāyāna nun, Paramopāsaka to a Mahāyāna male lay follower, and Paramopāsikā to a Mahāyāna female lay follower. A different perspective has been claimed by L. Cousins.15 He has attempted to question the thesis of Schopen on the basis of analysis of some Buddhist Pali texts, Brahmanical Sanskrit texts, some other Sanskrit works such as Varāhamihira’s Bṛhatsaṁhitā and Mattavilāsaprahasana written by a Pallava ruler of south India, as well as some inscriptions. His emphasis is more on the pre-Pāla period. He argues that the terms Paramopāsaka/ Paramopāsikā and Śākyabhikṣu/Śākyabhikṣuṇi ‘do not in themselves carry any Mahāyānist meaning’.16 Paramopāsaka referred to a ‘committed lay supporter of high standing’ of any sect of Buddhism, and not just Mahāyāna Buddhism.17 Similarly, the term Śākyabhikṣu referred to a Buddhist monk in general, and not just to a Mahāyāna monk: this term was used ‘regularly by non-Buddhists (and sometimes by the Buddhists too) to refer to

236

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

members of the Buddhist monastic order.18 His assertion, though quite interesting, has some gaps. Relying on Brahmanical Sanskrit works may not give a correct picture as we do not know the extent to which these works were aware of, or willing to acknowledge, the sectarian differences within Buddhism. Besides, Cousins largely ignores two major kinds of sources: Mahāyāna Sanskrit literature and dedicatory inscriptions on Buddhist sculptures. Had he taken into account the significance of these terms in the Mahāyāna Sanskrit literature, his analysis would have been more convincing. Similarly, he does provide tabulation of inscriptions in which the term Paramopāsaka/ Paramopāsikā occurs, but without mentioning the cultic affiliation and identity of sculptures on which these inscriptions are inscribed. That gives an incomplete picture. In this chapter, we will see that in the dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, whenever a Paramopāsaka/ Paramopāsikā donor claimed to be a follower of any Buddhist sect, that sect happened to be Mahāyāna. Similarly, whenever a Śākyabhikṣu/Śākyabhikṣuṇi donor claimed to be a follower of any Buddhist sect, that sect happened to be Mahāyāna. In all such cases, the general dedicatory format is something like this: ‘this (image) is the Deyadharma of Pravara-Mahāyāna-Anuyāyina – Paramopāsaka/Paramopāsikā/Śākyabhikṣu/Śākyabhikṣuṇī so and so’ (with or without the wish for the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all sentient creatures). Till date, we have not come across any dedicatory inscription on any Buddhist image in which a Paramopāsaka/Paramopāsikā/Śākyabhikṣu/Śākyabhikṣuṇi donor has claimed to the follower of any other Buddhist sect. It may also be noted that Cousins too could not refute the applicability of Schopen’s thesis for the Pāla period Bihar and Bengal: ‘Mahāyānists in the Pāla period regularly refer to themselves as Śākyabhikṣus and occasionally as Paramopāsakas’.19 Whatever be his position for the significance of these terms for the pre-Pāla times, he has accepted their Mahāyānist identity for the Pāla period. Most of the inscribed sculptures dealt with in this chapter are of the Pāla period only.20At the available stage of our data base, Schopen’s thesis remains valid for dedicatory

Social Bases of Patronage

237

inscriptions on sculptures of early medieval Bihar and Bengal and we are justified in relying on his generalizations. Keeping these issues in mind, we have classified the donors of Buddhist sculptures into six broad categories: 1. Buddhist monk: Identifiable by the use of the terms Śākyabhikṣu/Bhikṣu/Sthavira. 2. Buddhist nun: Identifiable by the use of the terms Śākyabhikṣuṇī/bhikṣuṇī/Śākyasthavirā. 3. Non-monastic man with expressed Buddhist identity: In this category, we have included those non-monastic male donors who had an expressed Mahāyāna identity, identifiable by the use of the term Paramopāsaka. If a male donor has claimed the status of Pravara-Mahāyāna-Anuyāyinaḥ without explicitly using the term Paramopāsaka, and his identity as a monk is not clear, then also we will treat him as a non-monastic man with expressed Mahāyāna identity.21 We will attribute the ‘non-monastic man with expressed Buddhist identity’ to such donors as well. 4. Non-monastic woman with expressed Buddhist identity: In this category, we have included those non-monastic female donors who had an expressed Mahāyāna identity, identifiable by the use of the term Paramopāsikā. If a female donor has claimed the status of Pravara-Mahāyāna-Anuyāyinaḥ without explicitly using the term Paramopāsikā, and her identity as a nun is not clear, then also we will treat her as a female Mahāyāna lay follower. We will attribute the ‘non-monastic woman with expressed Buddhist identity’ to such donors as well. 5. Non-monastic man without expressed Buddhist identity: In this category, we have included male donors those whose identity as a monk or male Mahāyāna lay follower is not expressed in the dedicatory inscription. In other words, we have included those donors in this category who were neither monks nor ‘non-monastic men with expressed Buddhist identity’. That is to say, in this category, we have included those men who have not claimed Śākyabhikṣu/

238

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Śākyabhikṣuṇī/Bhikṣu/Sthavira/Paramopāsaka/PravaraMahāyāna-Anuyāyina status for themselves in dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures. 6. Non-monastic woman without expressed Buddhist identity: In this category, we have included those female donors whose identity as a nun or female Mahāyāna lay follower is not expressed in the dedicatory inscription. In other words, we have included those donors in this category who were neither nuns nor ‘non-monastic women with expressed Buddhist identity’. That is to say, in this category, we have included those women who have not claimed Śākyabhikṣuṇī/ Bhikṣuṇī/Paramopāsikā/Pravara-Mahāyāna-Anuyāyin status for themselves in dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures. In any inscription, if the stated motive for donating the image was the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all sentient beings, the donor’s parents, or the donor himself/herself, we will also attribute a Mahāyāna Buddhist identity for the donor, even if other characteristic terms (Śākyabhikṣu/Śākyabhikṣuṇī/Bhikṣu/ Sthavira/Paramopāsaka/Paramopāsikā/Pravara-MahāyānaAnuyāyina) are absent. Similarly, if a donor has used the formula or Yad –Atra Puṇyama etc. – ‘which was virtually the exclusive property of Mahāyāna’22 – or its variant, we will also attribute a Mahāyāna identity to him. In such cases, we will attempt to determine whether the donor was a monk, nun or Paramopāsaka/ Paramopāsikā if we can find any trace to this effect in such inscriptions. One additional category will be used in this chapter – ‘unknown donors’ – to denote those donors whose social or religious background could not be ascertained because of the highly damaged nature of inscriptions in which their name figures. One may have some reservations in our approach of identifying ‘male donor without expressed Buddhist identity’ and ‘female donor without expressed Buddhist identity’ categories. That they have taken the trouble of donating Buddhist

Social Bases of Patronage

239

sculptures should have been, normally, enough to attribute a Buddhist identity to them. Our approach is mainly motivated by some peculiar features of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. In the previous two chapters, we have seen how the poly-religiosity of the landscape was generally the norm, not exception. A vast section of the population had no fixed religious identity. The same villager who worshipped an image of a Brahmanical deity in some temple of his village would also pay reverence to some sculpture of a Buddhist deity, and would invite a Brahmin priest for conducting rites de passage.23 In this kind of flux, it was quite possible for a common person to worship the Buddha or other Buddhist deities and donate the sculptures of such deities to a Buddhist establishment, without ever formally becoming ‘Buddhist’. That should not, however, make us infer that Mahāyāna Buddhism as a marker of social and religious identity of some persons was totally non-existent. Some persons, as we will see in this chapter, did use some characteristic words in the dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures donated by them to claim a Mahāyāna Buddhist identity. Those who did not use such terms did it deliberately, and that was not without significance. The raw material (stone) for most of the discovered sculptures of our study area and period was procured from a very limited zone.24 Procuring stone for such sculptures and finding a sculptor and scribe to carve out the image and engrave a dedicatory inscription on it must have been a painstaking task for the devotees who commissioned the production of sculptures and donated them either to an existing religious centre or a religious centre caused to be constructed by them. Besides, the devotee who undertook the donation of the image also had to find a monk or priest to perform Prāṇapratiṣṭhā rituals for the image he/she would like to donate.25 For that as well, he/she would provide some kind of dakṣīṇā to the officiating monk or priest. Any donor who undertook the donation of the image was, in short, ready for this lengthy process that also involved monetary expenses. In this kind of situation, if the donor of sculpture did not wish to record some definitive declaration of his/her Buddhist identity in the

240

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

dedicatory inscription, even at the major Buddhist pilgrimage centres like Bodh Gaya or Kurkihar, that was a calibrated decision on the part of the donor. Either Buddhism was not part of the religious identity of such donors, or, even if it was, they did not want to express it publicly and record it for posterity by getting this engraved in the inscription. Most probably they were persons with multiple, or at least fluid, religious identities. We are justified in attributing a ‘person without expressed Buddhist identity’ category to such persons. We need to explain one more issue. In attributing a Buddhist identity, we have generally derived our arguments by determining whether or not a person has claimed a Mahāyāna identity (as a lay follower or as a monk/nun) for himself/herself in the dedicatory inscription on sculpture. This was due to the fact that in the published dedicatory inscriptions on the Buddhist sculptures of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, generally whenever a donor wished to identify himself/herself with any tradition of Buddhism, that tradition happened to be Mahāyāna. That remained the case till the very end of this period even in the case of the donation of those sculptures which may be technically designated as Vajrayāna sculptures. This peculiar feature has been noted earlier by G. Bhattacharya26 and Jinah Kim,27 but without offering any explanation for the same. The word Vajrayāna does not occur even once in the corpus of dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, nor could a ‘Vajrayāna dedicatory formula’ in dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures ever evolve. That has some fundamental implications for the perception of the nature of Buddhist religious centres by non-monastic devotees, as well as for the evolving cultic relationship between Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. These issues have been discussed in some detail elsewhere in the present chapter.28 Here, we will just like to conclude that we are not unjustified in attributing a Buddhist identity to a particular donor by determining whether or not a person has claimed a Mahāyāna identity (as a lay follower or as a monk/nun) for himself/herself in the dedicatory inscription on sculpture.

Social Bases of Patronage

241

(b) Epigraphy and the Question of Sectarian Affiliation of the Donors of Brahmanical Sculptures in Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal Could a similar attempt be made for donors of Brahmanical sculptures? We are not sure of any methodology that has been attempted in any previous study in this direction. In the context of dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, only three donors – two in Aṅga and one in Samataṭa (Comilla) – have used epithets (Paramavaiṣṇava) that signified their affiliation to a particular sect of Brahmanism. In this kind of situation, it becomes diffiuclt to attribute a particular religious (Brahmanical) or sectarian (Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, Saura, etc.) identity to a vast section of donors of Brahmanical sculptures. Ideally, we should have used the phrase ‘persons without expressed religious identity’ for such donors. But we have avoided it because this issue is unnecessary in the context of donors of Brahmanical sculptures in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Brahmanism had a monopoly over rites de passage and Brahmanism formed the residual identity: only some persons would emphasize their Mahāyāna Buddhist identity. A Brahmanical identity was probably considered to be such an a priori identity that donors did not even bother to record it in the dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures donated by them. It may also be added that most of the devotees of Buddhism most probably followed Brahmanical rites de passage and codes of social conduct.29 Indian Buddhist clergy did not make any serious attempt of devising a code of social conduct and rites de passage for its non-monastic devotees.30 Brahmanism provided the ideology and institutions for the maintenance of the social order. It was probably due to this reason that even some Paramasaugata Pāla kings claimed to be upholders of Varṇāśramadharma in their copper-plate inscriptions.31 Finally, before we move ahead, we will also like to explain the terms ‘aristocratic’ and ‘non-aristocratic’, which we have used in this chapter quite frequently. The term ‘aristocratic’ has been used in a very lose sense: it signifies those persons who were associated with the state apparatus in some way. It is used

242

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

for kings and his family members, persons belonging to the class of subordinate rulers (Sāmanta, Rāṇaka, etc.) or members of the bureaucracy/army of the state, as well as their family members. All other donors have been categorized as ‘non-aristocratic’. We will begin with an analysis of Bihar. As no sculpture inscribed with the name of the donor has been published from the area located to the west of the Sone River in south Bihar, so our analysis will be confined to Magadha, Aṅga and north Bihar. In Magadha, most of the reported inscribed sculptures are confined to Gaya and Nalanda districts. We see their absence in Nawada, Jehanabad and Patna districts. We will begin with an analysis of the Gaya district. In this district, they have been reported from three areas: (a) from Bodh Gaya, (b) from Kurkihar, and (c) elsewhere in Gaya district. As we have already published a detailed analysis of socio-religious dimensions of dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of Kurkihar elsewhere,32 that shall be avoided in this chapter. But we will frequently juxtapose the pattern observed at Kurkihar with the same from other sites in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. It may also be noted that barring the donation of a Daśāvatāra relief that was found embedded on the walls of a modern Śiva temple at Ramgaya by a non-aristocratic person (Sahadeva, the son of Ṛṣi Sauḍi or Sauri) in the eighth regnal year of Mahendrapāla33 (in the sixth decade of the ninth century), we have not come across inscribed Brahmanical sculptures containing the names of donors away from Bodh Gaya and Kurkihar.34 So for all practical purpose, we will analyse dedicatory inscriptions on Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures of Bodh Gaya and dedicatory inscriptions on Buddhist sculptures found away from Bodh Gaya and Kurkihar in the Gaya district. Deities and Donors: Dedicatory Inscriptions on Sculptures from Bodh Gaya Area during the pre-Pāla Period As we attempt to study the socio-religious dimensions of votive inscriptions on the sculptures that were discovered at Bodh Gaya or in its immediate neighbourhood in the pre-Pāla and Pāla

Social Bases of Patronage

243

periods, we are confronted with some uncomfortable questions. We may see, for example, the sheer number of such sculptures at Bodh Gaya till the end of the Pāla period – just 15 – which does not match its stature as the most important Buddhist pilgrimage centre. This number is less than what we see in the cases of inscribed sculptures donated to the Nalanda Mahāvihāra (17 sculptures) or Kurkihar (72 sculptures). It is difficult to explain the relative paucity of sculptures inscribed with the names of donors at Bodh Gaya, especially in view of the fact that this site has produced the largest recorded corpus of votive stūpas, votive terracotta plaques and tablets in all early medieval Bihar and Bengal.35 Votive stūpas, votive terracotta plaques and tablets, as we have analyzed in the latter part of this book, are other archaeological markers of pilgrimage to Buddhist sites.36 We are not sure if this is due to a particular form of Buddhism practiced at Bodh Gaya that discouraged the dedication of sculptures inscribed with the name of the donors. The chronology of available pieces presents another problem. Out of these 15 sculptures, eight are datable to the pre-Pāla phase and seven to the Pāla phase. This pattern is again different from the rest of early medieval Bihar and Bengal where we see a significant proliferation of inscribed sculptures in the Pāla phase. We see a high representation of monks as donors of inscribed sculptures in the pre-Pāla phase: six out of the eight available examples record the donation by monks themselves. Among the two remaining examples of the pre-Pāla phase, we see two Vinayadhara monks making one non-monastic devotee donate an image of the Buddha in one case. In other words, monks are directly or indirectly associated with the donation of sculptures inscribed with the name of donors in seven out of the eight available examples in the pre-Pāla period. This kind of dominance of monks in the donation of sculptures in the prePāla period remains somewhat unparalleled in entire Bihar and Bengal. At least three monks have categorically recorded that they came from outside Magadha and none of the donors has categorically recorded that they were from within Magadha. All

244

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

this indicates that in the early phase (till the end of the Gupta period) at least, Bodh Gaya did not have much local patronage to the donation of inscribed sculptures. The data from dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of the pre-Pāla phase at Bodh Gaya or in its close neighbourhood is summarized in Table 5.1. The first example of inscribed sculpture containing the name of the donor at Bodh Gaya is provided by a much mutilated inscription, dated to the year 64 of Mahārāja Trikamala of an unknown dynasty, on a stone image of the seated Buddha. The imagery of this image was heavily influenced by the art idioms of the Kuṣāṇa period Mathura.37 Although, as analysed by Asher, it was made locally at Bodh Gaya by local sculptors.38 Despite that, even the terminology of the inscription was heavily influenced by the Mathurā idiom: the Buddha has been referred to as Bodhisattva in the inscription. In this inscription, we are informed that a Vinayadhara (‘expounder of the Vinaya’) Bhikṣu, who was the companion of another Vinayadhara Bhikṣu, caused one Siṁharatha to dedicate this image of the Bodhisattva in the year 64 of Mahārāja Trikamala.39 Names of these Vinayadhara Bhikṣus are not recorded in the inscription. This inscription also refers to an Upāsikā, whose name is also not recorded, and another Vinayadhara Bhikṣu.40 These two persons, apparently, helped Siṁharatha in the dedication of the image. This image was donated for the purpose of Mātā-pitunāma – Pujāye Bhavatu Upādhyāy.41 This donative formula is generally found associated with the donation of sculptures by persons associated with some sect of Hīnayāna.42 As this inscription is fragmented at vital places so it offers considerable problems in analysing the socio-religious dimensions of the same. The reference to the term upāsikā in this inscription will indicate that the lady had an expressed Buddhist identity. Siṁharatha has not been referred to as an upāsaka, yet the adoption of a donative formula characteristic of some sect of Hīnayāna would indicate that he was a man of expressed Hīnayāna identity. But it is certainly very interesting to note

Śākyabhikṣu Mahānāma

In the precincts of the Mahābodhi temple Black basalt Do headless image

Pedestal of a broken Buddha image

Mahāyāna monk

A non-aristocratic non-monastic man without expressed Mahāyāna identity monk

Siṁharatha in the company of some monks Bodhisena

Buddha

Do

Social background of the donor

The place where Donor and his/ the image was her gender discovered

Cultic identity of the image

Expressed motive behind donation

Not For the religious mentioned merit of the parents and teacher of the donor Dattagalla emancipation of his parents and also of his teacher and inhabitants of Ahavāgra Sri Lanka For the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all living beings

Places where donors came from

TABLE 5.1: INSCRIBED PRE-PĀLA SCULPTURES, BODH GAYA AREA

(contd.)

Sixth century AD (AD 588-9)

Fourth century AD

Fourth century AD

Period

Do

Bodh Gaya

Do

Do

Bull couchant

Vajrapāṇi

Cuṇḍā

Tārā

Śākyabhikṣu Mahāyāna monk Dharmagupta and Śākyabhikṣu Damastrasena Suphaṇḍī non-monastic, Bhaṭṭāraka aristocratic man without any expressed Mahāyāna identity Sthavira monk Aniruddhavarmana Sthavira monk Aniruddhavarmana Nattukā A merchant’s wife, without expressed Mahāyāna identity

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Do

Broken stone pedestal

TABLE 5.1 (CONTD.)

725 AD

early eighth century early eighth century early eighth century

for the purpose of Not mentioned getting progeny

Not Not mentioned mentioned

Not Not mentio-ned mentioned

Not mentioned Not mentioned

Last quarter of the sixth century AD

Tiṣyāmratīrtha

Social Bases of Patronage

247

that the first recorded instance of donation of an image at Bodh Gaya displays an active role of two Vinayadhara monks. Schopen has noted that in the introduction of the cult of images in Indian Buddhism, monks of highest ritual training in the Vinaya tradition took an active part.43 This phenomenon occurs with such a striking regularity in the major parts of early historic India that he was forced to conclude that the introduction of the cult of images in Indian Buddhism was monastically initiated.44 At Bodh Gaya, we may assume that this cult began with an active involvement of the monks of the highest training in the Vinaya tradition. One more thing needs to be noted here. These two Vinayadhara monks were content with just causing one lay believer to donate the image and ensure that their name is recorded in the dedicatory inscription. This pattern is different from later examples at Bodh Gaya and Kurkihar, where monks are seen donating images themselves. Perhaps these two monks took the Vinaya injunctions on the non-possession of property by the monks too seriously. Other monks had direct access to resources, so they could donate images independently. The second recorded example of the donation of an image at Bodh Gaya comes through the votive inscription on the base of a black basalt headless statue that was exhumed at one of the cells in front of the Mahābodhi temple in 1863. The image is missing now. In this inscription, we are informed of a monk Bodhisena, an inhabitant of Dattagalla, who donated an image of the Buddha for the emancipation from worldly trammel of his parents, Upādhayāya and the inhabitants of Āhavāgra.45 So far, ‘Dattagalla’ and ‘Ahavāgra’ have not been identified so we are not sure if this monk came from within Magadha. Similarly, we are not much sure of the sectarian affiliation – Theravāda or Mahāyāna – of Bodhisena, though the desire for the transfer of the merit of the donation of the image for the emancipation of parents and teachers later frequently occurs in the Mahāyāna dedicatory formula on sculptures. The Mahāyāna affiliation of the donor of an image donated by him appears more explicitly in the dedicatory inscription on

248

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

the pedestal of a broken Buddha image that was donated by Śākyabhikṣu Mahānāma, an inhabitant of Āmradvīpa. This image was donated for the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all living beings.46 The attainment of Anuttara Jñāna is, as we have seen above, a common feature of the Mahāyāna dedicatory formula. Similarly, the two Śākyabhikṣu monks (Dharmagupta and Daṁashtṛasena), whose names figure in the inscription on the pedestal of a broken image, would appear to be Mahāyāna monks. This inscription informs that this image was the Deyadharma of Śākyabhikṣu Dharmagupta and Daṁashtṛasena, residents of Tiṣyāmratīrtha, for the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna of all sentient beings, but firstly for their ācārya and upādhyāya.47 The role of monks as donors of images continued in the eighth century as well. The votive inscription on an eighth century image of Vajrapāṇi, informs us that this image was the Deyadharma of Sthavira Aniruddhavarmana, a resident of the Āryamahāvihāra.48 As per Bhattacharya’s translation, Āryamahāvihāra may mean ‘the noble great monastery’.49 But it might have referred to the name of a monastery as well. This inscription may be contrasted with the votive inscription on an eighth century image of Cuṇḍā, with a Bodh Gaya provenance, now kept in the National Museum Delhi. In this inscription, the Buddhist creed formula is followed by the legend that this image was the Deyadharma of Aniruddha.50 As per Bhattacharya’s analysis, the ‘Aniruddha’ of this inscription was identical to the Sthavira Aniruddhavarmana of the previous inscription as both inscriptions have similar grammatical errors; characters of the letters are same in both inscriptions; and, in the case of the Cuṇḍā image inscription, perhaps there was no space for the engraver to write down the full name of the donor.51 We have no reason to disagree with his analysis. Sthavira Aniruddhavarmana has, unfortunately, not recorded the place he came from, or his varṇa/jāti status, or the motive behind the donation (attainment of Anuttara Jñāna, etc.). The donation of the images of Vajrapāṇi and Cuṇḍā by a monk at the Mahābodhi in the early eighth century raises some

Social Bases of Patronage

249

important questions. If literary sources are to be believed, Bodh Gaya had a significant presence of Sinhala monks, fourth-fifth century AD onwards.52 Tārānātha has recorded that during the regime of Dharmapāla, Śrāvakas (Theravāda monks) from Sri Lanka, who were the predominant group at Vajrāsana, burnt Vajrayāna books, condemning them to be the creation of Māra, destroyed a silver image of Heruka and told pilgrims not to follow the Mahāyāna.53 The Tibetan monk Dharmasvāmin, during his visit to Bodh Gaya in AD 1235, experienced a similar hostility of Sinhala monks to Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna at Bodh Gaya.54 The donation of images of Vajrapāṇi and Cuṇḍā by Sthavira Aniruddhavarmana in the early eighth century indicates that at least till this period, the monastic community at Bodh Gaya was not homogenous. Despite the predominance of the Sinhala monks at Vajrāsana, Sthavira Aniruddhavarmana could worship and install Vajrayāna images. And, despite the exhortations of the Sinhala monks to the pilgrims not to worship the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna deities, we see the donation of an image of Tārā by a non-monastic member (Vaṇijakī Nattukā) in the eighth century itself. We also see the donation of an image of the Crowned Buddha – an image having clear Tantric connection – at Bodh Gaya during the eleventh century.55 The propaganda by the Sinhala monks, clearly, did not have much impact on the religious behaviour of non-monastic devotees. If we look into the sectarian affiliations of monk donors at Bodh Gaya in the pre-Pāla phase, we see the representation of both Theravāda and Mahāyāna traditions. The Vinayadhara monks mentioned in the inscription dated to the year 64th of Mahārāja Trikamala would appear to be Theravāda monks. The two Śākyabhikṣus mentioned in the inscription on a broken stone pedestal were Mahāyāna monks, so was Sthavira Mahānāma from Sri Lanka. Sthavira Aniruddhavarmana followed Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna. Before we wrap up our discussion of the socio-religious dimensions of votive inscriptions on the pre-Pāla sculptures at Bodh Gaya, let us see the same on the images donated by non-

250

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

monastic donors. We have two examples of this sort and both are datable to the eighth century. The dedicatory inscription on an image of Tārā, whose provenance has been attributed to the Bodh Gaya area on stylistic grounds, records that this image was the Deyadharma of Vaṇijakī (merchant’s wife) Nattukā.56 This is the only epigraphically recorded example of feminine participation in the donation of image at Bodh Gaya. At the available stage of the database, this is also the only example of mercantile patronage in the donation of sculptures at Bodh Gaya in the pre-Pāla phase. The votive inscription on an image of bull couchant that was discovered in the precincts of the Mahābodhi raises some important questions regarding the patterns of interaction between Buddhism and Śaivism within the religious space of the Mahābodhi complex – the holiest site of Buddhism – and the perception of a section of devotees for the very ‘Buddhist’ identity of the site. In this short dedicatory inscription, we are informed that Śrī Suphaṇḍī Bhaṭṭāraka, son of Bhīmaka-ullā, donated the image of Vṛṣabha-Bhaṭṭāraka for the purpose of securing progeny in the Samvata year 781, i.e. AD 725.57 That the sculpture of the bull was not just that of an animal but of a deified being is indicated by the use of the term Bhaṭṭāraka for it. Analysing the significance of the inscription, R.L. Mitra has noted that The practice of dedicating bulls, either alive or in effigy, to secure progeny is common enough among the Hindus, but I am not aware of its having been observed also by the Buddhists. The fact of the bull coming from Buddha Gaya would suggest that it was. The evidence, however, is not satisfactory as there is nothing in the inscription to show that it is a Buddhist record.58

That the merit of donating sculptures of bull to temples of Śiva was extolled in some Śaiva Tantric works has been noted by another scholar.59 There should not be any doubt that there is nothing in the inscription to denote that the donative inscription on this sculpture is a Buddhist record. It does not use Buddhist creed formula (Ye-Dharmahetu Prabhavā . . . ) or donative formula

Social Bases of Patronage

251

of any Buddhist tradition. Nor does the name of the donor show any Buddhist influence. When non-Buddhist images are donated as ‘Buddhist’ sculptures, Buddhist dedicatory formulas are generally inscribed on them.60 Nothing of this sort is visible in the dedicatory inscription on this sculpture, forcing us to conclude that the donor Śrī Suphaṇḍī Bhaṭṭāraka did not donate it as a Buddhist sculpture, but as a Śaiva sculpture to what he believe to be an important temple dedicated to Śiva. Śrī Suphaṇḍī, as indicated by his title (Bhaṭṭāraka) was a man of aristocratic background. He could have worshipped Hārītī or some other ‘instrumental’ Buddhist deity for the fulfilment of his wish of having progeny. Were Buddhist deities, at least in the eyes of a section of population, believed to be incapable of solving such mundane problems at this stage, even at the holiest Buddhist religious centre: Mahābodhi? He opted for the donation of an image of a bull couchant instead, to what he perceived to be an important temple dedicated to Śiva. The question that needs to be explained is: how did Śrī Suphaṇḍī Bhaṭṭāraka come to perceive the Mahābodhi as a temple dedicated to Śiva? Even if he perceived it as a temple dedicated to Śiva, why did the authorities of the Mahābodhi allow him to donate this image to the Mahābodhi? These questions need to be analysed in the backdrop of the complex relationship that developed between Buddhism and Śaivism in early medieval Magadha. Buddhism attempted to integrate Śaivism in a manner of subordinate union. For that, it needed to prove that Śiva was one of the biggest devotees of the Buddha.61 In the seventh century, Xuan Zang noted the widespread legend in the Mahābodhi area that the Mahābodhi temple was founded by a Brahmin on the exhortation of Śiva.62 This was a method to reduce Śiva as a devotee of the Buddha. The Saṅgha had no problem in the perpetuation of this legend because it attracted devotees like Śrī Suphaṇḍī Bhaṭṭāraka. But some non-monastic devotees like Śrī Suphaṇḍī Bhaṭṭāraka could have taken this legend literally, ending up perceiving the Mahābodhi as a temple dedicated to Śiva.

252

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

This process finds a fuller manifestation in the dedicatory inscription on a sculpted lintel, dated to the period of Dharmapāla, which was found amidst the ruins of the Mahābodhi. This inscription indicates that the blurring of boundaries between Buddhism and Śaivism was not confined to the aristocratic section of the society. We will analyse the significance of this inscription along with dedicatory inscriptions on other sculptures of the Pāla period that were found at Bodh Gaya.

Votive Inscriptions on the Pāla Period Sculptures at Bodh Gaya So far, seven inscribed sculptures containing the name of the donors have been reported for this phase at Bodh Gaya. One inscribed slab with the representation of the Buddha flanked by the images of Māricī or Vajravārāhī (c. AD 1021) records the donation of this piece by a Chinese pilgrim. None of the donors has referred to his varṇa/jāti status. We do not come across any woman donor in this period. A brief summary of data from such inscribed images has been provided in Table 5.2. The earliest sculpture of this period, inscribed with the name of the donor is a sculpted lintel that was discovered amidst the ruins of the Mahābodhi by Alexander Cunningham. This lintel contained depictions of Sūrya, Viṣṇu and Lakuliśa, so we may assume that this might have formed part of a Brahmanical temple. This inscription is dated to the 26th regnal year of the Pāla king Dharmapāla. It records that for the endless virtue, and for the good of theSnātakas of the Mahābodhi (Mahābodhinivāsinaṁ), an image of the four-faced Mahādeva was consecrated by Śaka, the son of the noble sculptor Sāyanabhara (?).63 A tank, holy as the river born of the feet of Viṣṇu (Viṣṇupadīsamā), was also excavated by him at a cost of three thousand dramas, in the 26th year of the great king Dharmapāla.64 As per Cunningham ‘the dramma was a silver coin, the descendant of the Greek drachma, and of the same weight’.65 As per his observations, as the sum of 3,000 drammas was a small amount so the tank excavated by Saka

Not clear

Not clear

Sthavira Vīryendra

Pūrṇabhadra

Probably from a monastic background Non-monastic nonaristocratic man Non-monastic nonaristocratic man with an expressed Mahāyāna identity Monk with an expressed Mahāyāna identity

Non-monastic nonaristocratic man without an expressed Mahāyāna identity

Dharmabhīma.

Buddhamitra Yun Shu

Non-monastic nonaristocratic man without an expressed Mahāyāna identity

Social background of the donor

Śaka

Donor and his/her gender

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Buddha

Slab engraved with a figure of Buddha pedestal of a stone image of the Buddha

The Crowned Buddha

A sculpted lintel containing Śiva, Sūrya, Viṣṇu and Lakuliśa Stone slab, which served as a footstool of an image of the Buddha Buddha in BSM

Cultic affiliation of the image

Samataṭa

Sindh

Not mentioned China

Not clear

Sindh (?)

Not mentioned

Places where donors came from

AD

Tenth century

c. AD 80910

Period

Attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by the whole world. Attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all sentient beings

Samyaka-Sambodhi of all beings.

AD

Tenth century

AD

Twelfth century

Eleventh century AD 1021

AD

For the benefit of the Eleventh parents of the donor. century

‘annihilation of the sorrow of the entire world’

For the good of the inhabitants of the Mahābodhi

Expressed motive behind donation

TABLE 5.2: INSCRIBED PĀLA PERIOD SCULPTURES, BODH GAYA

254

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

‘must have been a mere pond’.66 This inscription, as a whole, attests to the ability of Brahmanical cults to attract small-scale patronage from a person from a humble background, and the willingness of the Buddhist Saṅgha to accept the donation of inscribed Brahmanical sculptures from him, basically to induce a subordinate integration of Śaivism to Buddhism. But for the donor, it might have heralded a blurring of boundaries between Buddhism and Śaivism. Other Pāla period sculptures inscribed with the names of the donors do not show this kind of complex interaction between Buddhism and Brahmanism. An inscribed stone slab, which served as a footstool of an image of the Buddha records the dedication of this image at the command of one Śakrasena by one Dharmabhīma, ‘a man born in the family of Sindhus’ (Sindh?) during the reign of the Pāla king Gopāladeva, identifiable with Gopāladeva II.67 Due to the fragmented nature of the inscription on an image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā, the name of the donor or his socio-religious background is not clear. All that survives in the dedicatory inscription is that this image was donated for the benefit of the parents of the donor in the regime of Paramasaugata Mahipāladeva.68 The capacity of the Mahābodhi temple to attract long distance pilgrimage is indicated in three dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures. The inscription on a slab having the depiction of the Buddha and two representations of Vajravārāhī or Mārīcī, dated to c. AD 1021, records the various acts of worship by a Chinese pilgrim at Mahābodhi.69 The fragmentary inscription on the pedestal of a stone image of the Buddha records that it was donated by Pūrṇabhadra, son of Śrisāmanta, from Sindh for the attainment of ‘supreme knowledge’ for the whole world.70 We may not attribute an aristocratic background for the donor merely on the basis of the name of his father (Śrisāmanta) as it is unlikely that a Sāmanta stratum would have survived in Sindh in the heyday of Arab rule. The donor appears to be a Mahāyāna Upāsaka from Sindh who came to the Mahābodhi on a pilgrimage.

Social Bases of Patronage

255

This inscription indicates the survival of lay Buddhism in Sindh almost 400 years after the establishment of the Arab rule in the same area. The only evidence of pilgrimage from Bengal to Mahābodhi is indicated by the tenth century dedicatory inscription on an image of the Buddha, which records that this image was the donation of Pravara-Mahāyānayāyin – Sthavira Vīryendra, who was born in Samataṭa, and was an inmate of the Somapura Mahāvihāra.71 This image was donated for the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all sentient beings but firstly by the ācārya, upādhyāya and parents of the donor.72 The Mahābodhi was the site of the Enlightenment of the Buddha Śākyamuni and it also had a significant presence of Theravāda monks from Sri Lanka who advocated Theravāda orthodoxy. That, however, should not make us conclude that the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas was totally absent at Mahābodhi. We infer that through the analysis of the dedicatory inscription written in the eleventh century AD characters on a big (1.95 m high) stone image of the Crowned Buddha, which records that this image was donated by Buddhamitra for the attainment of Samyaka-Sambodhi of all beings.73 The Crowned Buddha was regarded as a form of Vairocana.74 The significant size (1.95 m high) of this stone stele may indicate that the image must have been a prominent object of worship in some public temple at the site. Mahābodhi was a cosmopolitan Buddhist religious centre and despite the significant presence of Sinhala monks, it provided space for the ritual needs of other traditions of Buddhism as well. Away from the Mahābodhi, we see a general paucity of Pāla period sculptures inscribed with the names of the donors. The only example is an image of the seated Buddha that was discovered at Guneri. In this inscription, we are informed that this image was the Deyadharma of Paramopāsaka Śrīpā(la), son of Vaṇika Haridatta.75 This image was donated in the ninth regnal year of Mahendrapāla at the illustrious Guṇacarita (ŚrīGuṇacarita).76 Guṇacarita was apparently the name of the

256

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Buddhist establishment where this image was donated. The modern name of the place (Guneri) is obviously derived from that.

Dedicatory Inscriptions on Buddhist Sculptures of Unspecified Provenance in Magadha The data from dedicatory inscriptions on such sculptures of Magadha has been summarized in Table 5.3. An analysis of the data in this table provides some interesting inferences. Barring a monk, none of the donors has claimed an expressed Mahāyāna identity. Non-monastic women donors are absent, so are nuns. None of the dedicatory inscriptions indicates long distance pilgrimage. The only definite example of donation by a Buddhist monk comes through the votive inscription, datable to the eighth century AD on palaeographic grounds, on an image of Tārā discovered from ‘somewhere in Patna district’.77 It records that this image was the Deyadharma of Sthavira Śākyamitra.78 We do not know if he hailed from within Magadha or came from outside. An evidence of artisanal patronage to the dedication of a Buddhist image is supplied through the dedicatory inscription on an image of Khasarpaṇa Avalokiteśvara, attributable to the Kurkihar-Bodh Gaya region on stylistic grounds.79 It records that in the 25th regnal year of the Pāla king Devapāla, this image was donated as the Deyadharma of a Tailika (oilman) Parama-bhaktivatsala Mūseka, the son of Dāmūka.80 This inscription is basically Mahayanist in nature. It wishes to transfer the merit of the donation ‘keeping the parents in front’ (Parama-bhakti-vatsalaTailika-Mūseka-Dāmūka-putrasya Mātāpitrau Purvvāngamakritvā Deyadharmoyama).81 Analysing the significance of the epithet Parama-bhaktivatsala used for the donor, Bhattacharya has argued that ‘perhaps the donor was not a Buddhist at all’.82 We have noted that the dedicatory formula on this image was basically Mahayanist in nature so it may not be tenable to claim that the donor was not

Buddhacandra. Sādhu Chamvivra Vekuṭhṇaka

Krodhanandina

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Magadha or Aṅga Mahāśrī Tārā Magadha

Magadha

Tārā

Maitreya

Magadha

Aparājitā

Khasarpaṇa Avalokiteśvara

somewhere in Sthavira Patna district Śākyamitra Magadha Parama-bhaktivatsala Mūseka

Tārā

Donor and his/ her gender

Place where the image was discovered

Cultic identity of the image

Do

Do

Do

a non-aristocratic, non-monastic man without expressed Mahāyāna identity Do

monk

Social back-ground of the donor None expressed Transfer of religious merit to the parents None expressed

Expressed motive behind donation

Not mentioned Do

Do

Do

Colika-Viṣaya Do

Do

Not mentioned Do

Place where donors came from

TABLE 5.3: INSCRIBED SCULPTURES OF UNSPECIFIED PROVENANCE IN MAGADHA

Ninth or tenth century Early 9th century Twelfth century Twelfth century

Eighth century AD 835

Period

258

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

a Buddhist. But it is certainly difficult to explain the significance of the term parama-bhakti-vatsala used for the oilman who donated this image. Could it mean that the donor was a great devotee (parama-bhakta) of Khasarpaṇa Avalokiteśvara, whose image he installed in some religious centre? If that were the case, then it would indicate some developments in Buddhist ritual practices and soteriology that had some long-term implications. We have seen that there was hardly any difference in the basic architecture of Buddhist and Brahmanical temples. In Chapter 6, we will see that the rituals associated with pūjā of different Buddhist deities in Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal too used the terms (bali, caru, dhūpa, dīpa, etc.) that were also commonly used for rituals in Brahmanical religious centres. The dedicatory inscriptions on the sculpture of Khasarpaṇa Avalokiteśvara donated by Tailika Mūseka may indicate that even in basic soteriology, a great blurring of boundaries appears to have taken place between Mahāyāna/ Vajrayāna Buddhism and Purāṇic Brahmanism in Magadha. Buddhist religious centres, by allowing the installation of such inscribed sculptures, hastened this process. This was, though, not the only trend in Magadha. A different trend is seen in the dedicatory inscription on a big stone sculpture of Aparājitā, which was most probably an object of worship in a public religious centre (i.e. not just an object of worship in a home shrine). This image, has been attributed to the late ninth or early tenth century Magadha on stylistic grounds as well as on the basis of paleographic features.83 In this inscription, the Buddhist Creed Formula is followed by the legend that this image was the Deyadharma of Krodhanandin, son of Vaṇika-Śreṣṭhi Kalyānandin.84 Bhattacharya has opined that the expression ‘Vaṇika-Śreṣṭhi’ indicates that Kalyānaṇdin was probably a leading merchant of his times of the area’.85 As has been noted in the case of Gupta period seals at Basarh (Vaiśālī), Śreṣṭhis also functioned as bankers.86 A similar possibility cannot be ruled out for Kalyānaṇdin. He was not just a leading merchant of his times but most probably also a leading banker. His son

Social Bases of Patronage

259

donated an image that symbolized the triumph of Buddhism over Brahmanism after a violent conflict. This inscription needs to be situated in the evolving relationship between Buddhism and Brahmanism in early medieval Magadha. Why would the son of a leading merchant and banker sponsor the dedication of a stone sculpture that displayed an open triumph of Buddhism over Śaivism, especially in Magadha where Śaivism had an entrenched presence? Inscribed Aparājitā images are rare in early medieval Bihar and Bengal and it is rarer to find somebody owning it by inscribing his name and family background on the same.87 We do see the flow of mercantile patronage to the dedication of Buddhist images in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, but Krodhanandin remains somewhat unparalleled. We need to analyse his donation in the backdrop of the evolution of the cult of Aparājitā and other Buddhist deities trampling on Brahmanical deities. We need to analyse this inscription to analyse the issue of the nature of mercantile patronage to Buddhism in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. An analysis of the Vajrayāna textual material has made one scholar conclude that the sculptures of Buddhist deities (Aparājitā, Trailokyavijaya, Saṁvara) trampling upon Brahmanical deities and thus openly displaying the triumph of Buddhism over Brahmanism were intended to be shown only to the practioners who have gone through elaborate and secret initiations from a master.88 These images were ‘intended only for the eyes of the only advanced initiates, who would have understood the underlying meaning to the juxtaposition of Hindu and Buddhist personages’.89 They were ‘not set up for general public worship in a temple, the way Hindu deities were and are’.90 It was probably due to this reason, it has been claimed, that such images are confined to the large monastic centres of Nalanda, Ratnagiri and Bodh Gaya and the targeted audience was the Buddhist monks themselves.91 Here, a note of caution must be put on record. The Aparājitā sculpture donated by Krodhanandin or one of the massive

260

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Heruka images discovered in the Comilla district92 do not give the indication that they were intended for worship within the confines of the religious space of Buddhist monasteries. All images of ‘confrontational’ Buddhist deities were not confined to the religious space of Buddhist monasteries; some of these images could have been worshipped in independent shrines/ temples by committed lay followers of Buddhism. The Aparājitā image donated by Krodhanandin was most probably intended for one such shrine of Magadha. The donor – the son of a wealthy merchant-banker – does not appear to be a person who has ‘gone through elaborate and secret initiations from a master’. This inscription does not provide any categorical evidence to suggest that this image was installed for the ‘eyes of the only advanced initiates’. Krodhanandin appears as a committed follower of esoteric Vajrayāna. A wealthy follower of Vajrayāna was aware of the sectarian conflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism and was willing to throw his weight behind his chosen faith. That sums up the significance of this inscription. Two other images inscribed with the names of donors and discovered from unknown provenances of Magadha are dated to the twelfth century. We see the donation of an image of Mahāśrī Tārā by Vekuṭhṇaka, son of Dānapati Śohicca.93 In Buddhist Sanskrit, as rightly observed by D.C. Sircar, the word dānapati occurs in the context of a person who had installed an image for worship for the fulfilment of a vow.94 A person would aspire for something; he would pray to a chosen deity that if his wish were fulfilled by the deity, he would install the image of the deity in some religious centre. Once his wish was fulfilled, it was his obligation to install the image of the deity, and in such cases, he would use the technical term dānapati for himself.95 In some cases, when a man was not able to fulfil this obligation due to some reasons, it would be fulfilled by his wife or son. 96 It is apparent that Dānapati Śohicca’s obligation was fulfilled by his son by installing this sculpture of Mahāśrī Tārā. Another twelfth century inscribed miniature metal image of Maitreya, either from southern Magadha or Aṅga area of south Bihar97 is inscribed with the legend Paṁsthasādhu Chamvivrasya’.98

Social Bases of Patronage

261

As per Huntington, this inscription records the gift of this image by Sādhu Chamvivra who either stayed at a place called Paṁs or was a follower of a sect called Paṁstha.99 Huntington has taken the word sādhu in the sense of a saint.100 That may not necessarily be the case. Even merchants adopted this term as an honorific in the late Pāla period Magadha in the dedicatory inscription on the sculptures donated by them.101 As this is a miniature metal image, it is unlikely to have served as the main object of worship in a public religious centre.

Deities and Donors: The Evolving Pattern in the Nalanda-Rajgir Area In Magadha, another important centre of sculptural production was the Nalanda-Rajgir area from where many sculptures inscribed with the names of donors have been reported. In this area, we get Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures inscribed with the names of donors in two broad contexts: (a) Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures found in the excavations of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra, or found elsewhere in the district, but whose provenance may be traced to the Nalanda Mahāvihāra (b) Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures found elsewhere in the district. In the second category, we have also included a particular genre of Buddhist sculptures – Aṣṭamahāpratihārya – ‘which can be viewed as an epitome of the cult of pilgrimage’.102 We will analyse the early medieval developments in the backdrop of the socio-religious dimensions of dedicatory inscription on an early historic sculpture that was discovered in the same general area. The only reported early historic inscribed sculpture from this general area is a stone image of Neminātha, discovered at Rajgir. Due to the fragmentary nature of inscription on this sculpture, it is difficult to ascertain the name of the donor. As per Chanda’s reading, it referred to ‘Mahārājādhiraja–ŚrīCandra’.103 Hence he dated this image and the votive inscription on the same to the reign of Chandragupta II of Gupta dynasty (latter half of the fourth century), and assumed that the donor

262

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

was the Gupta emperor Candragupta II.104 As per Asher’s revised reading, this inscription does not seem to contain the name of this emperor, though it does refer to some royal personage.105 Asher has assigned an early fifth century AD date to this inscription on palaeographical and iconographic lines. 106 Whether or not this image was donated by the Gupta emperor Candragupta II will remain unknown due to the damaged nature of the inscription. We will just like to add that this inscription indicates the presence of some Jaina religious centre in this area in this period. We have no other reported specimen of inscribed Jaina sculpture in Magadha after this period.

Deities and Donors: Socio-religious Dimensions of Dedicatory Inscriptions on Sculptures Associated with the Nalanda Mahāvihāra Seventeen sculptures, directly or indirectly associated with the Nalanda Mahāvihāra, and containing the name of donors, have been reported so far. The data from them is summarized in Table 5.4. Table 5.5 summarizes the socio-religious background of donors. Out of 17 such sculptures reported from Nalanda, three are basically Brahmanical in nature (stone image of Sūrya of the seventh century, two metal image of Balarāma of the ninth century). Barring the ninth century bronze images of Pancika, Hārītī, and the 18-armed Cuṇḍā, all other Buddhist sculptures are of stone. The miniature bronze images were unlikely to have been major objects of public worship. It may also be added that these ninth century bronze sculptures (two metal image of Balarāma; one image each of Pancika, Hārītī, and 18-armed Cuṇḍā) were not discovered from any excavated Temple Site of Nalanda (Temple Site 2, 3, 12, 13, 14) but from the area of different monasteries. That also supports our inference that they were unlikely to have been major objects of public worship. They appear to have been objects of personal worship of monks. An analysis of the reported data offers some interesting

Nalanda

Nalanda

Pancika, Bronze

Hārītī, bronze

Not clear

Vikhākā (Viśākhā?), a woman

probably from aristocratic background, without expressed Buddhist identity Aristocratic?

non-monastic nonaristocratic man with expressed Mahāyāna identity

Bhaṭṭa Māṇikya

A small shrine near Nalanda temple site 3

Social back-ground of the donor

Nāgarāja, stone

Donor and his/ her gender

A royal official, without expressed Mahāyāna identity

Place where the image was discovered

Sūrya, stone Shahpur, in the Balādhikṛta old Patna Sālapakṣa district107

Cultic identity of the image

expressed motive behind donation religious merit of himself and his parents Anuttara Jñāna by all sentient beings

not clear

Not clear.

village Purika None in the Viṣaya expressed of Rājagṛha

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

Place where donors came from

TABLE 5.4: INSCRIBED SCULPTURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NALANDA MAHĀVIHĀRA

(contd.)

c. AD 813

First half of the eighth century AD

c. AD 672-3

Period

Probably from Nalanda

Site 4 of Nalanda

Nalanda

Seated Tārā

18- armed Cuṇḍā, bronze

Buddha in BSM, stone

Name not inferable due to the broken nature of the inscription Paramopāsikā Gangākā, a woman

Paramopāsaka Aryyaka

Hilsa in Nalanda Paramodistrict pāsaka Gaṅgādhara

Tārā, stone

non-monastic, nonaristocratic, with expressed Mahāyāna identity

non-monastic, nonaristocratic, with expressed Mahāyāna identity

A man, non-monastic, non-aristocratic, with expressed Mahāyāna identity Do

Mahāthera Da A Buddhist monk or Ujjaka

Nalanda

Balarāma, bronze

TABLE 5.4 (CONTD.)

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures

None expressed

None expressed

Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures

None expressed

Eoghth or ninth century AD

First half of the ninth century First half of the ninth century First half of the ninth century Second half the of the ninth century AD

Nalanda

Nalanda

Avalokiteśvara

Trailokyavijaya, stone

Vāgīśvarī, stone

Probably non-monastic, non-aristocratic, without expressed Mahāyāna identity Apparikā, A woman, non-monastic, daughter of non-aristocratic, without Rambhu expressed Mahāyāna identity Udayabhadra A man, non-monastic, non-aristocratic, without expressed Mahāyāna identity

Northern veranda of Monastery Site No. 1, Nalanda Nalanda Not (Kapatiya) mentioned

Balarāma, bronze

Do

Do

Not mentioned

Kālaśukā, wife A woman, non-monastic, Not of Gaudūvā non-aristocratic, without mentioned Kuṭṭa expressed Mahāyāna identity Nisiṅghikā, Do Mallapore wife of Śauje

Nalanda

Unknown, probably stone

Second half of the Ninth century AD Late tenth or eleventh century AD Late tenth or eleventh century AD

Do

Do

(contd.)

Ninth century AD

Do

Do

Ninth century AD

None expressed

Nalanda, on stylistic grounds.

Śilākūṭa Vājeka

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Buddha in BSM.

MahāvaiNalanda Vairocana rocana, stone Yamā-ntaka, Nalanda Temple Paramostone. Site 3 pāsaka Śrī-Nāga

TABLE 5.4 (CONTD.)

Do

Do

A man, non-monastic, non-aristocratic, with expressed Mahāyāna identity Non-aristocratic man, without expressed Mahāyāna identity

Not mentioned

Do

Do

Do

None expressed

Twelfth century AD

Eleventh century AD

‘Pāla period’

267

Social Bases of Patronage TABLE 5.5: SOCIO-RELIGIOUS BACKGROUNDS OF DONORS OF SCULPTURES, NALANDA MAHĀVIHĀRA

Century

Seventh Eighth Ninth

Monks

1 1108

Tenth Eleventh Twelfth ‘Pāla period’ Total

NonNonNonNon- Total monastic monastic monastic monastic male male female female donors donors donors donors with without with without expressed expressed expressed expressed Buddhist Buddhist Buddhist Buddhist identity identity identity identity 1 3

1

1

1

3 1

2 1 1 2

4

17

1 1 2 1

5

6

1

1 1 9

Source: Table prepared by the author.

inferences. Only one woman donor had an expressed Buddhist identity. Non-monastic male donors with expressed Buddhist identity (6 donations) and non-monastic male donors without expressed Buddhist identity (6 donations) formed the biggest category of donors. Nuns are absent. The only donation by a monk (by Mahāthera Da or Ujjaka) was not an independent donation. It was donated for one Padmadānasiṁha, a nonmonastic donor without an expressed Buddhist identity.109 And, significantly, the donated miniature image was of Balarāma.110 On the whole, we may infer that the male and female donors without expressed Buddhist identity formed the predominant category of donors, making 9 out of 17 recorded donations (i.e. 52 per cent of recorded donations). Male and female donors with expressed Buddhist identity, including a monk, were only slightly behind, making 8 out of 17 recorded donations (i.e. 47 per cent of recorded donations). The high representation of

268

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

donors with expressed Buddhist identity (monk or male/female donors with expressed Buddhist identity) at Nalanda is somewhat exceptional in all early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Besides, barring Kurkihar, the single largest corpus of inscribed images donated by non-monastic donors with or without expressed Buddhist identity has been reported from Nalanda. This indicates that the monastic authorities of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra made available sacred spots within the religious space of the Mahāvihāra to its non-monastic devotees. At least in one instance, as indicated by the dedicatory inscription on a stone sculpture, a non-monastic person with expressed Buddhist identity had a privileged access to the most sacred spot within the Mahāvihāra – Temple/Stūpa site 3.111 The dedicatory inscription on a stone sculpture of Nāgarāja, dated to the first half of the eighth century, throws some interesting light on this aspect.112 Initially, this stone sculpture, which was found in a shrine near the Temple/Stūpa site 3, was believed to be a deified form of Ācārya Nāgārjuna, the founder of Mahāyāna.113 But in view of the absence of Ācārya Nāgārjuna in any known stone sculpture of India, identification of the deity was revised to be Nāgarāja.114 As has been rightly pointed out by A.J. Bernet Kempers, this deity had a special significance within the Mahāvihāra: it was the tutelary deity of the Mahāvihāra.115 The prominence given to this image was a manifestation of what has been called an ‘open frontier between Buddhism and Animism’116 Buddhism negotiated the Nāga cult at many monastic sites of early historic India. At Ajantā and Sāñcī, Nāga sculptures are found on the outer area of the monastic complex.117 At Nalanda, a Nāga sculpture made its way to the most sacred spot within the Mahāvihāra and functioned as the tutelary deity of the site. The dedicatory inscription on the Nalanda Nāgarāja records that this image was the Deyadharmma of Bhaṭṭa-Māṇikya, which was donated for the religious merit of all sentient beings including his parents.118 The wish for the transfer of merit to all sentient beings indicate that Bhaṭṭa-Māṇikya was a Mahāyāna lay follower, and, as indicated by the use of the title Bhaṭṭa, which was commonly used by Brahmins, he was from a Brahmin background.

Social Bases of Patronage

269

This Brahmin lay follower of Mahāyāna, from a non-aristocratic background, was given the privilege of installing the tutelary deity of the site. This particular development had some fundamental importance in the evolving cultic encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the religious space of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra: a theme we have analysed in some detail in Chapter 7 of this work.119 The case with the massive (almost 6 ft high) stone image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā, locally known as Dhelvā Bābā, could have been similar. This massive image is now kept in the open amidst the excavated ruins of the Mahāvihāra. Its exact find spot within the Mahāvihāra is not known. The dedicatory inscription on this image, which has been dated to the eighth or ninth century AD on palaeographic grounds,120 besides recording the Buddhist creed formula, records the names of Ārya Śāriputra, Ārya Mahāmaudgalyāyana, Ārya Maitreyanātha and Ārya Vasumitra. The final portions of this inscription record that this image was the Deyadharma of Paramopāsikā Gangākā.121 Ārya Maitreyanātha was the founder of the Yogācāra or Vijñānavāda school of Mahāyāna and Ārya Vasumitra was the founder of the Vaibhāśika school of Mahāyāna. Similarly, Ārya Śāriputra and Ārya Mahāmaudgalyāyana were the two chief disciples (Aggaśāvakas) of the Śākyamuni Buddha. It is interesting to note that Paramopāsikā Gangākā was not only aware of their names but also took care to get their names inscribed in the dedicatory inscription. Elsewhere in the book, we have argued that one of the factors behind the establishment of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra at the place where it was established was the desire to tap the existing sacrality of the area due to its perceived association with Ārya Śāriputra.122 That these aggaśāvakas, as well as some famous Mahāyāna ācāryas, continued to have influence among the Mahāyāna lay followers till the eighth-ninth century AD is indicated by this inscription. The donor of this massive stone sculpture has not referred to the name of her father. We have nothing to suggest that she was married at the time of donation of this image as she has not recorded the name of her husband in the inscription. In all

270

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

probability, this donation was the result of her independent initiative. Donation of this massive stone sculpture must have involved a considerable mobilization of resources on the part of the donor. Given its massive size, it must have been enshrined in some important place of public worship within the Mahāvihāra. The Mahāvihāra offered this opportunity to a non-monastic non-aristocratic woman lay follower of Mahāyāna, which is a reflection of the willingness of the Mahāvihāra to enter into ritual engagements with this category of donors and accept patronage from them. The exact find spot of other inscribed sculptures within the religious space of the Mahāvihāra is not very clear. These inscribed sculptures, though, give an interesting glimpse of social segments that donated sculptures. In the ninth century, besides the sculptures discussed above, we see the donation of two sculptures of Tārā, and one each of Cuṇḍā, the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā, Vāgīśvarī, and one piece of unidentified sculpture. The votive inscription on the stone sculpture of Tārā discovered at Hilsa, dated to the 35th regnal year of Devapāla, besides containing the Buddhist creed formula and Tārā Dhāraṇī (Om Tāre Tuttāre Ture Swāhā), refers to the learned and illustrious Mañjuśrīdēva of Nalanda Mahāvihāra and records that this image was the gift of Paramopāsaka Gangādhara for the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures, having in front rank the ācārya, mother and father of the donor.123 The reference to a monk of Nalanda in this inscription indicates that it was originally donated to the Nalanda Mahāvihāra. This image has been identified with Khadiravaṇī Tārā.124 Similarly, the votive inscription (datable to c. AD 841) on another image of Tārā, attributable to Nalanda on stylistic grounds, records that it was the Deyadharma of Paramopāsaka Aryyaka.125 Nalanda was most probably the centre from where the cult of Tārā as an independent goddess, worthy of worship on her own rather than just being the attendant deity of some other deity, began.126 Given her reputation as a ‘saviour deity’,127 it is quite natural that Tārā attracted patronage from these non-monastic donors with expressed Buddhist identity.

Social Bases of Patronage

271

The evidences of aristocratic patronage to the donation of images to the Nalanda Mahāvihāra in the ninth century are supplied by dedicatory inscriptions on the metal sculptures of Pancika and Hārītī, both dated to the regime of the Pāla king Devapāladeva. In the inscription on the image of Pancika, we are informed that ‘in the third regnal year of Devapāla, Vikhākā (Viśākhā), the sole wife of the “destroyer of the Kalchuris”, and a resident of the village of Purikā in Rājagṛha Viṣaya, together with the people, set up this image at the famous Nalanda’.128 In this inscription, the husband of Vikhākā has been referred to as the ‘destroyer of the Kalchurīs’, but no political epithets (Sāmanta, Mahāsāmanta, etc.) has been used for him. He had some military role but we are not sure of its nature. The donation of this image to Nalanda by his wife provided an opportunity to her to display her faith as well as to announce that she was the sole wife of this hero. Another instance of aristocratic patronage in the donation of an image to the Mahāvihāra is discernible in the case of an inscribed metal image of Hārītī, dated to the regime of Devapāla. The name of the donor or his family background is not clear in this inscription, but the donor has claimed to be the son of ‘Kumhāra’. Sastri has rightly opined that ‘Kumhāra’ of this inscription may be a corrupt form of ‘Kumāra’ (prince).129 The donor was, thus, most probably from an aristocratic background. The dedicatory inscription, datable to the ninth century, on a fragmented unidentified image, records that this gift (of the image on which this inscription is inscribed) was caused to be made by Kālaśukā, wife of Gaudūvā Kuṭṭa, at Talahaṭṭaka in the illustrious Nalanda (Śrī-Nālandāya Talahaṭṭake) during the reign of the illustrious Surapāladeva’.130 The donor, as indicated by the absence of any claim to aristocracy in the inscription, was from a non-aristocratic background. It is interesting to note that the donor has suffixed the term talahaṭṭake to Nalanda. The exact significance of the word talahaṭṭake is not clear. It may be assumed that the presence of a large number of monks in the Mahāvihāra, as well as the flow of pilgrimage to the same, induced market related activities in the

272

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

neighbourhood of the Mahāvihāra, hence this appellation was used for the Mahāvihāra.131 It may be added here that a sixth century stone inscription from Nalanda also records that the donor purchased everything (i.e. the items donated in this inscription) from the Saṅgha and gave them back to the monks after proper rites.132All this indicates that a market centre existed in the neighbourhood of the Mahāvihāra, on which it had some sort of control. The instances of donation of sculptures to the Mahāvihāra decrease considerably after the ninth century. The only available example of the tenth century is the inscription on a stone slab, which formed the footrest of an image of the Buddhist deity Vāgiśvarī. It provides an interesting glimpse of some of the ritual practices associated with some worshipped images. This inscription informs that during the reign of Gopāla (identifiable with Gopāla II, c. AD 967-87), at Nalanda, this image of Vāgiśvarī was provided with Suvarṇavrīhi (Śrī-Nālandāyāma-Śrī Vāgiśvarī Suvarṇavrīhi Saktā).133 Drawing parallel from some contemporary ritual practices in South-East Asia, G. Bhattacharya has suggested that this phrase ‘Suvarṇa-Vrīhi-Saktā’ meant that fine gold leafs were pressed or fixed to the stone image of the goddess.134 The pattern was somewhat similar to what has been recorded in the dedicatory inscription on a metal image of Śarvvāṇī from Comilla.135 But unlike the Śarvvāṇī image of Comilla, the name and the social background of the donor have not been recorded in this piece. The two reported inscribed sculptures of the eleventh century – Yamāntaka and Avalokiteśvara – represent donations from two segments of society. The inscribed stone image of Yamāntaka was excavated out of the Temple Site 3, which indicates that the monastic authorities of the Mahāvihāra continued to provide access to this site to the devotees. The short dedicatory inscription on it records that the image was the Deyadharmma of Paramopāsaka Śrī-Nāga.136 This image had some special significance in cultic encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism, which has been analysed in Chapter 7 of the present book.137

Social Bases of Patronage

273

The big stone sculpture of standing Avalokiteśvara, whose exact find spot within the Mahāvihāra has not been provided, was donated by a non-monastic non-aristocratic woman donor without an expressed Buddhist identity: Apparīkā, daughter of Rambhu.138 It has been rightly argued that the donation of this exquisitely carved big stone sculpture must have involved considerable mobilization of resources.139 It is certainly interesting to see the continuation of donation of images by women donors to the Mahāvihāra as late as the eleventh century. The examples of women donors like Paramopāsikā Gangākā and Apparīkā indicate that they had access to wealth and they could utilise that wealth in donating images to the Nalanda Mahāvihāra. The only reported inscribed sculpture of the twelfth century represents the donation of an image of the Buddha in Bbhūmisparśa mudrā by a śilākūṭa (stone mason) Vājeka, a person without any expressed Buddhist identity.140 It may be added here that a votive inscription on a stone sculpture of a seated Avalokiteśvara, kept in the Patna Museum, informs that this image was the Deyadharma of Vājuka, son of Dānapati Cīkakiṭhaṇa.141 The exact provenance of this image is not recorded, so despite its general similarity to the twelfth century sculptures of the Nalanda district, we are not sure if this image was donated to the Nalanda Mahāvihāra. G. Bhattacharya has rightly pointed out that ‘Vājuka’ of this inscription was identical with the ‘Vājeka’ of the Nalanda inscription.142 These two inscriptions represent two different patterns of donation of sculptures by the same donor Vājuka or Vājeka. While the image of Avalokiteśvara was most probably donated to fulfil the religious vow of the father of the donor, the Nalanda Buddha piece was donated by him on his own volition. On the whole, these inscriptions indicate the ability of Buddhism to attract patronage from a person from an artisanal background till its last phase in Magadha. Before we wrap up the analysis of inscribed sculptures associated with the Nalanda Mahāvihāra, we will look into the dedicatory inscriptions on the ‘Pāla period’ stone images of Trailokyavijaya and Vairocana. The image of Trailokyavijaya was donated by one Udayabhadra.143 The donor did not have any

274

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

expressed Mahāyāna identity. Similar was the case with the inscription on an image of Mahāvairocana, which is inscribed with the word ‘Vairocana’.144 Debajani Paul has rightly argued that as this word (Vairocana) is not followed by an honorific epithet, so it may be taken as the name of the donor.145 This donor too, from a non-aristocratic background, has not used any characteristic word in the inscription signifying his association with Vajrayāna. These images were, needless to say, Vajrayanist in nature. Nalanda was a cosmopolitan Buddhist religious centre and it had provided space to followers of many traditions (Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna) for the installation of images. To sum up, dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures associated with the Nalanda Mahāvihāra indicate a diversified patronage base of the Mahāvihāra. This diversity is largely absent in the dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures donated to the monastic centers of Aṅga and Bengal.

Dedicatory Inscriptions on Buddhist Sculptures (other than those belonging to the Aṣṭamahāpratihārya genre) Found Elsewhere in the Nalanda District The reported corpus of dedicatory inscription found in the rest of the Nalanda district (i.e. those sculptures not associated with the Nalanda Mahāvihāra) is summarized in the Table 5.6. It is interesting to note that available dedicatory inscriptions on Buddhist sculptures (other than Aṣṭamahāpratihārya) found away from the Nalanda Mahāvihāra do not indicate donation of sculpture by any category of woman: nuns, as well as woman donors from aristocratic and non-aristocratic backgrounds. The pattern is fundamentally different from the one seen in the Nalanda Mahāvihāra. The socio-religious background of donors of Buddhist sculptures in this area is summarized in Table 5.7. As in the case of the donation of images to the Nalanda Mahāvihāra, non-monastic male donors with or without expressed Buddhist identity formed the largest category of donors, donating 56 per cent of reported inscribed sculptures. Monks

Bihar Sharif area

Bihar Sharif area

Silao

Some-where in Magadha

Some-where in Nalanda district

Pedestal of an image

Kāśyapa

Tārā

Tārā

The place where the image was discovered

Seated Buddha

Identity of the image

Places where donors came from None expressed.

Expressed motive behind donation

Buddhacandra Non-monastic, nonaristocratic man without expressed Mahāyāna identity Paramopāsaka Non-monastic, nonNot Aryyaka aristocratic man with mentioned expressed Mahāyāna identity

Do

Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures Not None mentioned expressed Colika-Viṣaya Do

Non-monastic, nonProbably from aristocratic man without Sindh expressed Mahāyāna identity A Mahāyāna monk Āndhra country

Social back-ground of the donor

ŚākyabhikṣuSthavira Dharmamitra Not mentioned Not mentioned

Kumārabhadra

Donor and his/ her gender

TABLE 5.6: INSCRIBED BUDDHIST SCULPTURES, ELSEWHERE IN NALANDA DISTRICT

(contd.)

Middle of the ninth century

Ninth century Early ninth century

c. AD 875-932

Middle of the ninth century

Period

Bhikṣu Kusumaśrīcandra Kāyastha Parvaka

Khasarpa-ṇa Chandi-mou Avalokiteśvara.

Khadiravanī Tetrawan Tārā

Paramopāsaka PravaraMahāyāna– Anuyāyina Bhaṭṭa Īśvara Paramopāsaka PravaraMahāyāna– Anuyāyina Vaṇika Sādhu Saharaṇa

Stone image Tetrawan or Not clear of Nāgas Ghora-katora

Pedestal of a Bihar Sharif. broken image Some site of Vajrapāṇi Nalanda district

TABLE 5.6 (CONTD.)

c. AD 1129 Do Rājagṛha

c. AD 1053

Do

Not mentioned

Do

Late tenth century146

Not clear

Not clear

Tenth century

Do

Non-monastic, nonaristocratic man without expressed Mahāyāna identity Person(s) associated with the Mūlasarvāstivādina sect of Buddhism Non-monastic, nonaristocratic man with expressed Mahāyāna identity

c. AD 850

Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures None expressed

Not mentioned

A Mahāyāna monk

Dānapati Sādhu Śrīkara and Sādhu Dāgon-mata Probably from Vājuka, son of the Nalanda Dānapati area of Cīka-kiṭhaṇa Magadha

Not known148

Bihar Sharif

Giriyek

Not known

Tetrawan

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Seated Avalokiteśvara

Khasarpaṇa Avalokiteśvara.

Buddha, colossal image 147 Buddha Do

Do

Non-monastic, nonMathura. aristocratic man without expressed Mahāyāna identity Do Not mentioned

Not known

Not known

Do

None expressed

Do

Not known

Twelfth century

first quarter of the twelfth century

First half of the eleventh century Latter half of eleventh century149

278

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

had a marginal presence. Royalty are conspicuous by their absence in recorded donations of sculptures in this area. Barring one donor, none has referred to his varṇa/jāti status. It may be, though, assumed that Bhaṭṭa Īśvara, who donated an image of Khadiravanī Tārā in the eleventh century, was probably from a Brahmin background. For other donors, religious centres where these images were donated provided an opportunity for the marginalization of varṇa/jāti identities, not important enough to be mentioned in the dedicatory inscriptions. In terms of cultic preferences of donors, Tārā was the most preferred deity with three donations (including an image of Khadiravanī Tārā), followed by the Buddha and Khasarpaṇa Avalokiteśvara (2 images each). The most productive period for the donation of sculptures was the ninth century, which attracted donations from all categories (monks, non-monastic male donors with or without expressed Mahāyāna identity, unknown donors whose identity remains unknown due to the fragmented nature of inscriptions). This was the only century which records pilgrimages from distant places to some Buddhist religious centres of the district located away from the Nalanda Mahāvihāra. The dedicatory TABLE 5.7: SOCIO-RELIGIOUS BACKGROUNDS OF DONORS OF SCULPTURES, ELSEWHERE IN NALANDA DISTRICT

Century

Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelfth Total

Monks

Non-monastic male donors with expressed Buddhist identity

2

1 1(?) 2

Non-monastic Unknown Total male donors donors without expressed Buddhist identity 2 1

1 2

2 2 (14%)

3+ 1(?) = 4 (28 %) Source: Table prepared by the author.

4 (28%)

3 (21%)

6 2 4 2 14

Social Bases of Patronage

279

inscription on an image of a seated Buddha, discovered from the Bihar Sharif area, dated to the fourth regnal year of the Pāla king Mahendrapāla (probably in the sixth decade of the ninth century), records that this image was set up by Kumārabhadra as a gift of the Saindhavas (i.e. residents of Sindh).150 It may be noted that this donation took place almost 150 years after the foundation of Arab rule in Sindh, and he donated this image as a symbolic gift from other devotees of Sindh. This indicates the presence of a non-monastic tradition of Buddhism in that area, which survived the destruction of Buddhist monastic centres in that area after the foundation of Arab rule. It is interesting to note that the donor who took so much trouble to come to the Bihar Sharif area to visit some holy Buddhist religious centre did not record any hint to his Mahāyāna identity in that inscription. The Mahāyāna identity of another pilgrim – Śākyabhikṣusthavira Dharmamitra – who donated an image, whose pedestal only has survived, is clearer. The dedicatory inscription on this image records that this Mahāyāna monk, hailing from Āndhradeśa, donated this image for the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures, but firstly by his ācārya, upādhyāya and parents, in the ninth regnal year of the Pāla king Nārāyaṇapāla.151 Some 20 years earlier, the mother of this monk, who recorded herself as the mother of Bhikṣu Dharmamitra (Bhikṣu Dharmamitra-mātā– Gautamā) in the dedicatory inscription on the image donated by her, had donated a sculpture of the Aṣṭamahāpratihārya genre in the same general area.152 We may infer that Gautamā visited Magadha to meet her son Bhikṣu Dharmamitra. This is another indication that some monks from south India stayed in the monastic centers of early medieval Magadha for a long time. They did not go back immediately after making pilgrimage.153 Some twenty years later after the donation of the image by Gautamā, her son had risen in the ecclesiastical hierarchy: he has been referred to as Sthavira in the sculpture donated by him. When Śākyabhikṣu Sthavira Dharmamitra donated an image, he did not forget to express his desire to transfer the puṇya of this donation to his mother and father. In India, we have a long history of Buddhist monks donating images for the welfare of their parents, arguably to sooth the anxiety for their parents in

280

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

the minds of those monks who have abandoned their household life.154 Dedicatory inscriptions on other ninth century Buddhist sculptures from this area throw some interesting light on the social bases of patronage to Buddhist religious centers in the same. The inscription on a stone image depicting Kāśyapa, one of the most important monks associated with the Buddha Śākyamuni, in a worshipful attitude, may not be taken as a dedicatory inscription in the strict sense of the term as the name of the donor is not inscribed. The inscription on this image records the spiritual qualities of this great monk only.155 It has been rightly argued that that this image could have been installed next to the statue of the Buddha in a shrine.156 Despite the absence of the name of the donor and of the religious centre in which this image was enshrined, the inscription on this image is not without significance. It indicates the continuing importance of the Buddha Śākyamuni and a prominent monk associated with him in the cultic life in this area: the pattern is somewhat similar to what we have seen in the case of the Dhelvā Bābā inscription. Coupled with the marked absence of images of the Paṅcatathāgatas in the area away from the Nalanda Mahāvihāra in the modern Nalanda district, and a very marginal presence of the Paṅcatathāgatas within the Mahāvihāra,157 the Silao Kāśyapa image inscription and the Dhelvā Bābā inscription indicate that the cult of the cosmic Buddhas could never be very popular in this area. The inscription on an early ninth century image of Tārā records the donation of this image by Buddhacandra, who hailed from Colika-Viṣaya.158 Though the name of the donor shows an unmistakable Buddhist influence, he has not claimed any expressed Mahāyāna identity. On the other hand, the votive inscription on an image of a seated Tārā, attributable to the Nalanda district on stylistic grounds, records that it was the Deyadharma of Paramopāsaka Aryyaka.159 The image was donated in the 31st regnal year of the Pāla king Devapāla,160 i.e. in c. AD 843. This donor had an expressed Buddhist identity despite having a name that does not show any kind of Buddhist influence.

Social Bases of Patronage

281

The only example of a donation by a monk in the ninth century is discernible in the dedicatory inscription on the pedestal of a broken, unidentifiable, image. It records that this image was the Deyadharma of Pravara-Mahāyāna-yāyina ŚākyaBhikṣu Kusumaśrīcandra, for the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all sentient beings keeping his preceptor, teacher and parents in the front.161 Kusumaśrīcandra has not recorded the place he came from. He was a disciple of Sthavira Śāriputra.162 It is interesting to note that as late as the middle of the ninth century, a Buddhist sthavira styled his name on the name of an Aggaśāvaka of the Buddha. Only two inscribed images have been published for the tenth century in this area. The short dedicatory inscription on an image of Vajrapāṇi records that this image was the Deyadharma of Kāyastha Parvaka.163 Other details of his social background, the place he came from, or the expressed motive behind the donation are not recorded, which forces us to infer that he was a non-monastic non-aristocratic man without an expressed Mahāyāna identity. On stylistic grounds, the provenance of this image has been traced to the Nalanda area. 164 The second probable example from this century is a fragmentary inscription of the period of Mahipāla I, engraved on a stone image of Nāgas, recovered either at Tetrawan or Ghorakatora in Nalanda district. Due to the fragmentary nature of the inscription, it is difficult to analyse the socio-religious background of the donor. In this inscription, we come across a Mūlasarvāstivādin Ācārya, Madrarūdra by name, and his disciple. Surviving portions of the inscription refer to the setting up of this image and mentions in that connection the name of the Ācārya and his disciple.165 We should not have any problem in accepting the hypothesis of P.L. Gupta that this image was set up by somebody who was closely associated with the Mūlasarvāstivādin sect of Buddhism.166 Buddhism had a close association with the Nāga cult in different parts of India.167 This image inscription largely conforms to this trend. Among the four reported inscribed sculptures of the eleventh century from this area, full inscriptions on two images of the

282

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Buddha have not been published, so we are unable to look into the socio-religious background of their donors. The remaining two inscriptions indicate the donations by non-monastic nonaristocratic male donors with expressed Buddhist identity. An inscription on an image of Tārā, discovered at Tetravan, dated to the 2nd or 3rd regnal year of the Pāla king Rāmapāla (i.e. c. AD 1090) records that this image was the Deyadharma of Paramopāsaka Bhaṭṭa Īśvara, son of Mahāyāna Anuyāyina Bhaṭṭanābha.168 It is interesting to note that a Mahāyāna identity has been claimed for both father and son, who, as indicated by the title Bhaṭṭa for both, were from a Brahmin background. The Mahāyāna identity of this Brahmin family continued for at least two generations.169 This clearly contradicts a recent claim that ‘it is hard to find single minded allegiance towards Buddhism either running through a family for several generations or for the matter all the members of a family owing allegiance to Buddhism collectively’.170 It is still more interesting to note that Paramopāsaka Bhaṭṭa Īśvara used the standardized form of the Mahāyāna dedicatory format (securing Anuttara Jñāna for all creatures, keeping his ācārya, upādhyāya and parents in the forefront) in recording the donation of an overtly Vajrayanist image that symbolized confrontation with Brahmanism. Padmapāṇi, as a warrior god, was believed to have defeated Nārāyaṇa, Kumāra, Brahmā, Śakra, Agni, Yama and Gaṇeśa, converted them to Buddhism, and assigned them the status of protector deities of Buddhism.171 Another example of this sort comes through the votive inscription on an inscribed stone image of Khasarpaṇa Avalokiteśvara, discovered at Chandimou in Nalanda district. The inscription on the image begins with quoting the usual Buddhist creed formula and records the donation of this image in the 42nd regnal year of Rāmapāla (i.e. c. AD 1129) by a merchant (vaṇika) Sādhu Saharaṇa, son of Sādhu Bhādūlva, for the attainment of secure anuttara jñāna for all creatures, keeping his ācārya, teacher (upādhyāya) and parents in the forefront.172 Sādhu Saharaṇa was originally an inhabitant of Rājagṛha and in this

Social Bases of Patronage

283

inscription; he has claimed to be Pravara-Mahāyāna- Anuyāyinaḥ’.173 Here we are seeing the installation of a Vajrayāna image, probably in a monastic establishment, through the patronage of a trader with an expressed Mahāyāna identity. Studied together, these inscriptions indicate the capacity of Mahāyāna Buddhism to attract patronage from two different sections of the society: a Brahmin and a merchant. The only reported inscribed sculpture for the twelfth century is an image of the Buddha donated by Vājuka, son of Dānapati Cīkakiṭhaṇa, which we have already analyzed.

Developments within the Buddhist Theory of Pilgrimage and the Cult of the Aṣṭamahāprātihārya: An Analysis with Reference to Votive Inscriptions on the Sculptures Forming Part of the Aṣṭamahāprātihārya Imagery in the Nalanda-Bihar Sharif Area To have a contextual understating of the socio-religious dimensions of dedicatory inscriptions on Aṣṭamahāprātihārya sculptures discovered in the Nalanda-Bihar Sharif area, we will briefly look into the thematic evolution of this imagery and its significance in the Buddhist theory and praxis of pilgrimage, to which this imagery was closely linked. In Buddhist pilgrimage, places associated with eight great events of the life of the Buddha Śākyamuni had great sanctity. These places were Lumbini (place of the birth of the Buddha Śākyamuni), Bodh Gaya (Enlightenment), Sārnāth (first sermon), Kuśīnagara (Mahāparinirvāṇa), Śrāvastī (place of the Twin Miracle, showing his supernatural abilities in performance of miracles); Rājagṛha (place of the subduing of the wild elephant Nalagiri through friendliness); Sānkāsya (place of descending to the earth from the Trāyatrimśa heaven after teaching Abhidhamma to his mother in the said heaven for three months); and Vaiśālī (place of receiving an offering of honey from a monkey). Every Buddhist devotee was supposed to undertake pilgrimage to these eight great pilgrimage sites (Aṣṭamahāprātihārya). But given the

284

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

dangers (robbery, wild animals, disease, implications of political fluctuations in the journey area, etc.) associated with a long distance journey, it was not possible for a great majority of devotees to undertake a physical pilgrimage to these sites. A substitute for this was devised through the practice of engraving the eight great events of the life of the Buddha Śākyamuni in stone reliefs and sculptures. Even seeing these sculptures would be tantamount to having performed pilgrimage, though on a lesser scale.174 The person who faithfully sees this sculpture will be entitled to get merit (puṇya) but greater puṇya would accrue to a person who actually undertakes a physical pilgrimage to the eight great pilgrimage sites.175 For the non-monastic devotees, the Aṣṭamahāprātihārya images (images depicting the eight great events of the life of the Buddha Śākyamuni) offered a great opportunity. If they were unable to physically visit the pilgrimage centers associated with these events of the life of Śākyamuni, they could undertake a visual pilgrimage. We may assume that such images were kept in important Buddhist religious centres, where the devotees would come to have darśana of the image, and make some offerings. In the Gupta period, Sārnāth emerged as an important centre of the production of images depicting the life of the Śākyamuni Buddha. All available (12 in number) Gupta period images of this category are confined to Sārnāth.176 Despite this early occurrence of the Aṣṭamahāprātihārya imagery at Sārnāth, this imagery was standardized in the early Pāla period Magadha, more particularly, in the ninth and tenth centuries.177 Besides offering the devotees the convenience of making visual pilgrimage, these images had a soteriological significance also, which may be seen in the backdrop of emergence of the esoteric Vajrayāna. The textual tradition of esoteric Vajrayāna was trying to popularize the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas by marginalizing the cult of the Buddha Śākyamuni. The Aṣṭamahāprātihārya imagery attempted to bring the focus back to the Buddha Śākyamuni and kept the Mahāyāna relevant to the masses. In a nutshell, these images presented a different kind of Buddhism than what was

Social Bases of Patronage

285

propagated through the Maṇḍala-based Vajrayāna centering upon the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas. One of the best examples of the Aṣṭamahāprātihārya imagery comes through the great stone stele (approximate height: 3 m) at Jagadishpur in the neighbourhood of the excavated remains of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra.178 One would fully agree with John Huntington that ‘an image of so large a scale documents the centre of the cult’.179 The great mound at Jagadishpur probably formed part of the ancient structures of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra.180 We may infer that this image was associated with the Nalanda Mahāvihāra in some way and it was one of the ways through which the Mahāvihāra attracted devotees and generated some resources. This stele, unfortunately, does not contain any dedicatory inscription so we are not sure who actually commissioned and installed this image. That the Nalanda area was the locus of this cult is indicated by one more fact: in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, all the four available inscribed images forming part of the Aṣṭamahāprātihārya imagery have been reported from the modern Nalanda district only. Three sculptures were donated in the ninth century and one in the tenth century. We do not know why we don’t get inscribed images of this genre after the tenth century. Genderwise, we have four male donors and one female donor. A short summary of votive inscriptions on these images has been provided in Table 5.8. The earliest such inscribed image that might have formed part of a larger Aṣṭamahāprātihārya stele, is a stone image of the Buddha taming Nalagiri, dated to the fourth regnal year of the Pāla king Mahendrapāla (i.e. the sixth decade of the ninth century), probably discovered in or around Bihar Sharif. The dedicatory inscription on this image records that this image was the Devadharma (correct: Deyadharmma) of Gautamā, who was the mother of Bhikṣu Dharmamitra (Bhikṣu Dharmamitra-mātā – Gautamā Dēvadharmoyama).182 We have already analysed the dedicatory inscription on the image donated by her son. Gautamā has not recorded the place she came from, or the social status of

Some unknown Bhikṣu site of Magadha Guṇākarasena

Deheka

Rohoi (Nalanda district)

Source: Table prepared by the author.

A broken image

Uddaṇḍa Cūḍa

Uddaṇḍapura (Bihar Sharif)

Uddaṇḍa Cūḍa

Uddaṇḍapura (Bihar Sharif)

Buddha’s descent from Trayatriṁśa heaven Miracle of Śrāvastī

Gautamā

Probably at Bihar Sharif

Buddha taming Nalagiri Buddha taming Nalagiri

Donor

The place where the image was discovered

Identity of the image

Non-monastic, nonaristocratic, without expressed Mahāyāna identity A monk

Mother of a monk, non-monastic, non-aristocratic Non-monastic, nonaristocratic, with expressed Mahāyāna identity Do

Social background of the donor

Do

Do

Do

Not mentioned

Andhra Pradesh

Places where donors came from

None expressed

None expressed

Do

Anuttara Jnāna by all creatures

None expressed

expressed motive behind donation

TABLE 5.8: INSCRIBED AṢṬAMAHĀPRĀTIHĀRYA SCULPTURES, NALANDA DISTRICT

Late ninth or early tenth century AD

c. AD 999181

Second half of the ninth century

Middle of the ninth century Second half of the ninth century

Period

Social Bases of Patronage

287

her husband or parents, or their varṇa-jāti status. We may assume that she was from the non-aristocratic section of society and, like her son, came from Āndhradeśa. The Mahayanist nature of such images appears more prominently in the two inscriptions on the images of the Buddha’s descent from Trāyatriṁśa heaven and the Buddha taming Nalagiri. Both images were discovered at Uḍḍanḍapura (Bihar Sharif, Nalanda district) and they were the result of the patronage of a person called Uddaṇḍa Cūḍa. As per S.L. Huntington’s analysis, both images belonged to a set of stelae, probably 8, each one showing one of the major scenes of the life of the Śākyamuni.183 The inscription on the first image, dated to the 2nd regnal year of the Pāla king Surapāla (c. AD 864), records that the fortunate Uddaṇḍa Cūḍa had the image of the Lord (Buddha) placed in a caitya which he himself caused to be made, by Sthavira Pūrṇadāsa who was in the vihāra there, who was the oldest person in the Pāḍikramaṇa Vihāra.184 Sthavira Pūrṇadāsa helped him in the installation of this image in the said vihāra for the religious merit of Uddaṇḍa Cūḍa. The inscription on the second image donated by Uddaṇḍa Cūḍa has identical words. Probably both inscriptions refer to the same caitya, which Uddaṇḍa Cūḍa got constructed and placed these images through the help of Sthavira Pūrṇadāsa. These two inscriptions offer some interesting inferences. A non-monastic non-aristocratic donor, with the help and motivation of the senior-most monk in the Pāḍikramaṇa Vihāra, got a caitya constructed in the same and installed therein images forming part of the Aṣṭamahāprātihārya. These images, then, would have attracted other lay devotees to this vihāra. Many monks could have looked for royal and aristocratic patronage, but for monks like Pūrṇadāsa, securing the patronage of a nondescript lay members like Uddaṇḍa Cūḍa was not a less serious business. This was probably also related to the nature of the religious centre where the analysed images were donated: in contrast to many Mahāvihāras of the Nalanda district – Nalanda, Odantapuri, Telāḍhaka, etc. – Pāḍikramaṇa was just a vihāra. Many Mahavihāras could have attracted significant royal

288

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

patronage but smaller monasteries like Pāḍikramaṇa Vihāra had to depend largely on non-aristocratic patronage. Actively helping a non-monastic devotee, as did Pūrṇadāsa, in installation of a caitya within the vihāra was a reflection of this attempt. Another example of non-monastic, non-aristocratic patronage to the cult of the Aṣṭamahāprātihārya is supplied by the votive inscription (datable to c. AD 999) on a stone image depicting the ‘Miracle of Śrāvastī’ scene. This image was discovered at Rohoi in Nalanda district. The dedicatory inscription on it records that this image was the Deyadharma of the goldsmith (suvarṇakāra) Deheka, son of Sāhe and the gift was made during the 13th regnal year of the king Vigrahapāladeva.185 This image must have been installed in some Buddhist religious centre. This is an example of artisanal patronage to a Buddhist religious centre in the Nalanda area. This image inscription may be contrasted with a broken bronze sculpture (13.5 cm in height), whose surviving portions depict the scenes of Dharmacakrapravartana at Sārnāth, Miracle of Śrāvastī, Birth at Lumbini and Miracle of Vaiśālī.186 It has been rightly claimed that this sculpture belongs to the genre of Aṣṭamahāpratihārya.187The short inscription on it, datable to late ninth or early tenth century on palaeographical grounds, is inscribed with the legend ‘Bhikṣu Guṇākarasenasya’.188 This has been taken to indicate that this image was the personal property of this monk, who worshipped it inside his monastic cell. He did not actually donate this image to some religious centre.189 This may not be a valid argument as many dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of early medieval Bihar and Bengal are inscribed just with the name of the non-monastic donors, but they have been found in the monastic contexts as well, indicating their donation by non-monastic donors.190 On the whole, reported inscriptions on these sculptures indicate the installation of the Aṣṭamahāpratihārya images in Buddhist religious centres of Magadha through the patronage of a cross-section of society: monks, mother of a monk, artisan, and another person from a non-monastic non-aristocratic background.

Social Bases of Patronage

289

Dedicatory Inscriptions on Brahmanical Sculptures of Nalanda District (found away from the Nalanda Mahāvihāra) Four inscribed Brahmanical sculptures have been reported from the Nalanda district (excluding the Nalanda Mahāvihāra). The data from them is summarized in Table 5.9. Among the four reported inscribed sculptures, the names of the donors is not clear in two cases. The remaining two inscriptions indicate aristocratic patronage.191 The votive inscription, dated to the 54th regnal year of Nārāyaṇapāla on an image of Pārvatī with Kārttikeya that was discovered at Uddaṇḍapura (Bihar Sharif), records that this image was the Deyadharma of Rāṇaka Ṭhāruka, son of Rāṇaka Ucha, a resident of Uddaṇḍapura.192 This image was probably installed in some religious centre in the Uddaṇḍapura area. The votive inscription on another image of Pārvatī with Kārttikeya records that in the 3rd regnal year of Madanapāla, this image was donated as the Deyadharma of Dānapati Māmayika, ‘whose power lay in having possessed naval boats and chariots in equal number’.193 As the donor has referred to the regnal year of the ruling Pāla king, so he was not an independent power. Probably he held some military power, but we are not sure if he was a subordinate ruler in the Pāla state as he has not claimed to be a Rāṇaka, Sāmanta, etc., in the inscription. The name of the donors of two Brahmanical sculptures in the area is not clear. The dedicatory inscription on a sculpture of Balarāma records that a person whose name is not clear due to the fragmented nature of the inscription, donated this image in the 37th regnal year of Rājyapāla.194 The donor was a resident of Bhaṭa Jīvalagrama in Rājagṛha Viṣaya. Similarly, due to the fragmentary nature of the inscription, the name of the donor of the sculpture of Ṣaṣṭhī, discovered in the Bihar Sharif area, could not be deciphered. The donor claimed to be a Dānapati.195 That is to say, he donated this sculpture as a religious vow after the fulfilment of a worldly wish. The discovery of just four inscribed Brahmanical sculptures in the district (away from the Nalanda Mahāvihāra) looks quite

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Pārvatī with Kārttikeya Ṣaṣṭhī

Uddaṇḍapura (Bihar Sharif)

Pārvatī with Kārttikeya Balarāma

Rāṇaka Ṭhāruka, Aristocratic a resident of Not mentioned son of Rāṇaka Uddaṇḍapura Ucha Some site of the Name not clear Not clear Bhaṭa JīvalaNot clear Nalanda district grāma in Rājagṛha Viṣaya Bihar Sharif Dānapati Aristocratic Not mentioned Not mentioned Māmayika Bihar Sharif Not clear Not clear Not clear

The place where Donor and his/her Social Places where Expressed motive the image was gender background donors came from behind donation discovered of the donor

Identity of the image

TABLE 5.9: INSCRIBED BRAHMANICAL SCULPTURES, NALANDA DISTRICT, FOUND AWAY FROM THE NALANDA MAHĀVIHĀRA

mid-twelfth century

c. AD 1161

the year 54 of Nārāyaṇapāla191 (c. AD 830) c. AD 935

Period

Social Bases of Patronage

291

odd, especially in view of the fact that the district witnessed a great proliferation of Brahmanical sculptures in the Pāla period. The proliferation of Brahmanical sculptures in the district, as we have seen in Chapter 3, was certainly not less impressive than the proliferation of Buddhist sculptures. Only thing we can say in this regard is that donors of Buddhist sculptures took greater care in inscribing their acts of donations of sculptures.

The Pattern in the Dedicatory Inscriptions on Buddhist Sculptures of Aṅga Compared to Magadha, the reported Buddhist and Brahmanical inscribed sculptures of Aṅga are less in number. So far, not a single pre-Pāla period inscribed image has been reported from the Aṅga plains. In this area, we get dedicatory inscriptions on three types of sculptures: Buddhist, Brahmanical, and those sculptures whose cultic affiliation (Buddhist or Brahmanical) is difficult to determine due to the highly fragmented nature of the sculpture. Inscribed Brahmanical sculptures discovered in the area date from the late eighth-ninth centuries to the end of the twelfth century. In contrast, none of the inscribed Buddhist sculptures discovered so far in Aṅga dates earlier than the eleventh century. In the paragraphs that follow, we will first analyze the dedicatory inscriptions on Buddhist sculptures of this area. It will be followed by an analysis of dedicatory inscriptions on Brahmanical and unidentified sculptures. Buddhist sculptures inscribed with the names of donors have been reported either from the neighborhood of KiulLakhisarai or from the excavated monastic site of Antichak, which is generally identified with the site of the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra. Their concentration in the area of Kiul-Lakhisarai and its neighbourhood in the eleventh century may be due to the fact that it was in the eleventh century when Buddhist sculptures witnessed a great proliferation in this area. Even with this late emergence, Buddhist religious centres of the Kiul-Lakhisarai area, as indicated by dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures, show a distinct vibrancy in the eleventh-twelfth centuries AD period.

292

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

This is also indicated by the ability of Mahāyāna Buddhism to integrate the cult of a local goddess into its institutional fabric in this area.196 Buddhist sculptures inscribed with the names of the donors and reported from the Kiul-Lakhisarai area generally do not mention the varṇa/jāti identities of donors, the places they came from, or the names of the religious centres where these images were donated. Barring a nun, the donation of identifiable inscribed Buddhist sculptures by women is not recorded. Inscribed sculptures of Buddhist deities highlighting confrontation with Brahmanism (Aparājitā, etc.) are also not reported. The data from dedicatory inscriptions on Buddhist sculptures is summarized in Table 5.10. In terms of the number of inscribed Buddhist sculptures, the twelfth century appears to be the most significant, recording five of the seven reported images. This increase in the number of inscribed sculptures in the twelfth century in this area appears to be markedly different from the pattern at Kurkihar where there was a sharp decline in the number of donations in the same century.197 This tallied with the general proliferation of Buddhist religious centres in the Kiul-Lahisarai area and its neighborhood in the eleventh-twelfth century AD period, as noted in Chapter 2. It again highlights the need to see local developments in Buddhism instead of seeing everything from the theoretical prism of ‘systemic crisis’ in early medieval Buddhism in Bihar. The vibrancy of Buddhist religious centres where these images were installed as objects of worship is also reflected in the ability of these religious centers to attract the installation of images from a cross-section of society. In the seven inscribed Buddhist sculptures from this area for the eleventh-thirteenth centuries period, we see donations by monks, a nun, and nonmonastic persons from aristocratic and non-aristocratic backgrounds, which included merchants also. Among the nonmonastic donors, only one had an expressed Mahāyāna identity:

Kiul

Lakhisarai

Avalokiteśvara

Mahāśrī Tārā

GopālaVadhākiyā

Śrī Yāyaka

Donor

A man, non-monastic, non-aristocratic, with expressed Mahāyāna identity A man, non-monastic, non-aristocratic, without expressed Mahāyāna identity Do

The socio-religious background of the donor

Jaśadevaka, son of merchant Cāju An unidentifi- Kandi, Munger Rāṇaka A man, aristocratic, nonable sculptural district Samudrāditya monastic, with expressed fragment Mahāyāna identity Pedestal of a Jayanagar, Not clear Not clear due to the Buddhist Munger district. fragmented nature of image inscription

Rajauna

The place where the image was discovered

Buddha, broken image

Identity of the image Fourth quarter of the eleventh century Twelfth century

Period

(contd.)

Twelfth century Attainment of Twelfth Anuttara jnāna by century all sentient beings None expressed Latter half of the twelfth century

None expressed

Attainment of Anuttara jñāna by all sentient beings None expressed

Expressed motive behind donation

TABLE 5.10: INSCRIBED BUDDHIST SCULPTURES, AṄGA EXCLUDING ANTICHAK

Monk Jayasena

Ghoshkundi, near Lakhisarai

Source: Table prepared by the author.

A monk

Uren

A fragmented Buddhist image Jambhala

Śākya-Sthavirā Vijayaśrībhadrā

Kiul-Lakhisarai area

Khasarpaṇa Avalokiteśvara

TABLE 5.10 (CONTD.)

Monastic

Monastic

A nun with expressed Mahāyāna identity

Not known.198

Do

None expressed

c. AD 1249

‘Pāla period’

Twelfth century

Social Bases of Patronage

295

an inscription on a broken image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā, dated to the fourth quarter of the eleventh century, records that this image was donated as the Deyadharma of Pravara-Mahajāna-Jāyina Paramopāsaka Śrī Yāyaka for the attainment of Anuttara-Jñāna of all sentient beings, but firstly for his preceptor (ācārya), teacher (upādhyāya) and parents.199 An interesting feature was the donation of Buddhist sculptures either by dānapati donors themselves, or by some members of their family on their behalf. Thus, the short dedicatory inscription on an image of Mahāśrī Tārā discovered at Lakhisarai, datable to c. twelfth century, records that the image was donated by the merchant Jaśadevaka, son of MāthuraDānapati Cāju, who has also been referred to as a merchant (vaṇika).200 It is apparent that Jaśadevaka donated this image to some Buddhist religious centre in the Kiul-Lakhisarai area to fulfil the religious vow of his father. Bhattacharya has opined that the term ‘Māthura’ may mean either a person from Mathurā or it may indicate the Kāyastha caste of the donor.201 In any case, this inscription is an important evidence of the continuation of mercantile patronage to Buddhism in the Kiul-Lakhisarai area as late as the twelfth century. Another dānapati (Dānapati Gopāla-Vadhākiyā) who donated a stone image of Avalokiteśvara, which was discovered at Kiul, seems to be a donor from non-monastic non-aristocratic background. He seems to have donated this image on his own behalf. As per G. Bhattacharya’s revised reading, the dedicatory inscription on this image reads ‘Siddhama Dānapati GopālaVadhākiyā.202 So we may infer that this image was donated by a person named Gopāla-Vadhākiyā as a religious vow after the fulfilment of some wish. R.K. Chaudhary,203 who originally edited the record, and S.L. Huntington,204 who later studied the iconography of the image and attributed it to the second quarter of the twelfth century on stylistic grounds, identified the ‘Gopāla’ mentioned in this inscription with the Pāla ruler Gopāla III. But G. Bhattacharya has rightly pointed out that the name of a Pāla ruler does not occur in a record without any honorific title.205 So far, we have not come across any image donated by any

296

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Pāla ruler himself. We fully agree with Bhattacharya’s inference that this Gopāla was just an ordinary devotee and no royal personage.206 The only instance of aristocratic patronage to the installation of a Buddhist sculpture in the Aṅga area is indicated by the inscription on an unidentifiable sculptural fragment that was discovered at Kandi. Sircar has rightly inferred that this image must have been installed in a temple in the village of Kandi where it was found.207 The dedicatory inscription on it records that this image was donated by Rāṇaka Samudrāditya, son of Paramopāsaka Rāṇaka Nanda for the attainment of Anuttara Jnāna by all sentient beings, but firstly by his ācārya, upādhyāya and parents.208 The donated image was, arguably, Buddhist. The Buddhist identity of Rāṇaka Samudrāditya is indicated by the use of the Mahāyāna dedicatory formula in the dedicatory inscription on the sculpture donated by him. The same of his father is indicated by the use of the term Paramopāsaka. The social background of the donor of a Buddhist image, datable to c. twelfth century, discovered at Jayanagar, is not clear. As only the pedestal of the image has survived, so its identification is difficult. The inscription on it, dated to the 19th regnal year of Madanapāladeva, begins with the Buddhist Creed Formula.209 It is, thus, apparent that it was engraved on a Buddhist image. The name of the donor, his social background, and the motive behind the dedication of this image are not provided. Other discovered Buddhist images inscribed with the names of donors in the Kiul-Lahisarai-Uren area are mostly records of donations by monks or, at least in one case, of a nun. The donation of an image by a nun is significant. It is generally believed that by the seventh-eighth centuries, the order of nuns within Buddhism almost disappeared throughout north India.210 That may not be fully correct as we see donation of an image of Tārā by Śākyabhikṣuṇī (Mahāyāna nun) Guṇamati at Kurkihar in the ninth century.211 But even at Kurkihar, we have no evidence of a donation by any nun beyond the ninth century. In this context, it is interesting to see the donation of a Buddhist image

Social Bases of Patronage

297

by a nun in the Lakhisarai area. The inscription (datable to c. AD 1150) on an image of Simhanāda Avalokiteśvara that was discovered at Jaianagar near Lakhisarai, records that this image was the Deyadharmma of Śākya-Sthavirā Vijayaśrībhadrā belonging to the branch (viṭapi) of Mallikādevī (Mallikādevī-Viṭovi-SthitāŚākya-Sthavirā Vijayaśrībhadrāya Deyadharmmoyama).212 Though J. Kim takes the term ‘Śākya-Sthavirā’ in the sense of ‘elderly Buddhist nun’, but, on the analogy of Śākyabhikṣuṇī, we infer that this term might have been used in the sense of a Mahāyāna nun as well. It has been rightly argued that the ‘Viṭovi’ mentioned in this inscription is the incorrect rendering of viṭapi.213 Mallikādevī was the head of a Bhikṣuṇisaṅgha and Vijayaśrībhadrā belonged to that Bhikṣuṇisaṅgha. At the available state of our database, it is difficult to determine if this Bhikṣuṇisaṅgha was situated in the Kiul-Lakhisarai area or this Mahāyāna nun was a non-local pilgrim, who donated this image to some Buddhist religious centre in this area. Some monks from distant parts of India did make pilgrimage to some Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Magadha.214 We have also noted that the mother of a monk (Gautamā) did visit Magadha from Āndhradeśa. The possibility cannot be ruled out that Vijayaśrībhadrā could have been a non-local nun. Inscriptions written in the Bhaikṣuki script on Buddhist sculptures donated by monks that were discovered in the KiulLakhisarai-Uren area provide some interesting inferences. The Bhaikṣuki script was used by the Buddhist monks in the monasteries of early medieval eastern India during the Pāla period (ninth-twelfth centuries). Most of them fall in the latter half of this period.215 As this script was not commonly used by the common people there, so it is apparent that if a monk opted to inscribe the donation of an image in this script, the targeted audience was not the common population but the community of monks. This becomes amply clear in the case of the Bhaikṣuki inscriptions on three badly fragmented Buddhist images discovered at Uren. All of them, in Pali, heavily corrupted with Sanskrit, are the exposition of the Buddhist creed formula.216 The first inscription was addressed to the community of

298

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

monks: ‘brethren; the lord teaches the doctrine of origination as a necessary result from an antecedent cause’.217 This inscription ends with referring to ‘Pratinava Śrādatapala’, that is, this image was the gift of Pratinava Śrādatapala. Sircar has observed that ‘Pratinava’ means ‘fresh’ or ‘new’ and ‘śrādata’ is an incorrect form of ‘śrāvita’, which might have meant religious instructions.218 Sircar has rightly argued that the donor of the image was a newly ordained monk, or a monk whose understanding of religion was fresh.219 Installation of this image, apparently in a Buddhist religious centre of Uren with an inscription in a script which could be understood only by the monks, was one of the means through which this monk could ‘advertise’ his position and communicate his faith to other fellow monks. 220 This inscription does not provide any information about whether he was a local monk or an extra-local monk on a pilgrimage. Similar could have been the case with an image of Jambhala discovered at Ghoshkundi near Lakhisarai, inscribed with a dedicatory inscription in the Bhaikṣuki script. G. Bhattacharya has, unfortunately, provided only a short summary, the full inscription has not been published. This inscription, datable to c. AD 1249, records the donation of this image to a religious centre called Simhanāga by a monk Jayasena during the regime of one Mahārājā Pūrṇavikrama.221 So far, Simhanāga has not been identified in the ground, nor do we know anything about Mahārājā Pūrṇavikrama. Pūrṇavikrama could have been a local ruler of the Kiul-Lakhisarai area. This inscription indicates that at least one Buddhist religious centre was active in the Lakhisarai area till this time and Buddhism did not collapse all of a sudden due to Turkic invasions. To sum up, the social background of the donors of Buddhist sculptures in the Kiul-Lahisarai-Uren area indicates certain diversity. This diversity in the range of donors is, however, not discernible in the case of inscribed images that were discovered in the excavations of the Buddhist monastic site of Antichak, which we shall analyse now. No inscribed metal sculpture has been reported from the site

Social Bases of Patronage

299

so far. The data from dedicatory inscriptions on stone sculptures/ sculptural fragments, discovered in Antichak excavations is summarized in Table 5.11. None of the donors has recorded his varṇa/jāti background or the place he came from, the name of the deity whose image was donated. The name of the religious centre where this image was installed has not been mentioned either. We do not have any evidence of the donation of any image by any woman. Two eleventh century inscriptions on sculpted fragments record the legend Sonar Mañcikā, which, as per B.S. Verma, ‘probably means goldsmith’s throne’.222 These images were probably donated to some shrine within the Mahāvihāra through the patronage of one or more goldsmiths, and may, thus, indicate the flow of mercantile/artisanal patronage to the Mahāvihāra in this century. A twelfth century inscription on an image of Tārā records that this image was the Deyadharma of Mahāyāna-AnuyāyinaParamopāsaka Pratihāra Śrī Udayavāra for the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures keeping his ācārya, upādhyāya and parents in the front rank.223 This is the only example of a donation by a person, from aristocratic background, who has claimed a Mahāyāna identity for himself. Dedicatory inscriptions on other sculptures of the twelfth century do not provide much useful information. An inscription on an image of Manasā records the legend Chandra which was probably the name of the donor.224 The donor has not recorded his varṇa/jāti background, the place he came from, or the motive behind the donation. The name of the deity whose image was donated or the name of the religious centre where this image was installed has not been mentioned in this case either. It may be noted that inscribed images of Manasā – a folk deity associated with the worship and propitiation of snakes, who made her way into institutional forms of Brahmanism only gradually – are rare in early medieval Bihar and Bengal.225 It is even rarer to see the donation of an inscribed image of this deity to a Mahāvihāra. By accepting the donation of this image, the Mahāvihāra authorities

300

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia TABLE 5.11: INSCRIBED SCULPTURES, ANTICHAK

Identity of the image

Donor

The socio-religious Expressed background of the motive donor behind donation

Unidentifiable A goldsmith? Non-monastic, None broken image non-aristocratic, expressed without expressed Mahāyāna identity Do A goldsmith? Do None expressed

Period

Eleventh century AD

Eleventh century AD

Manasā

Chandra

Do

None Twelfth expressed century

Tārā

Pratihāra Śrī Udayavāra

Non-monastic, aristocratic, with expressed Mahāyāna identity

For the attainment of anuttara jñāna

AD

Twelfth century AD

Source: Table prepared by the author.

attempted to effect a subordinate integration of this folk cult into institutional forms of Buddhism. But the donor, who has not claimed any Buddhist identity for himself or for the donated image, most probably donated this image as an independent cult figure, and not as a deity who was, or to be, integrated to Buddhism in a manner of subordinate union. Before we wrap up the analysis of sculptures inscribed with the names of donors discovered in the Antichak excavations, we need to explain their paucity. The discovery of just four sculptures inscribed with the names of donors presents a different kind of picture from what we see in the cases of Mahābodhi, Nalanda or Kurkihar. We will point out later that

Social Bases of Patronage

301

this Mahāvihāra radiated some particular political and religious symbolism and, consequently, did not show much enthusiasm in ritual engagements with non-monastic devotees.226 It was also reflected in the paucity of sculptures inscribed with the names of donors discovered in the excavations of this site.

Dedicatory Inscriptions on Brahmanical Sculptures and Unidentifiable Fragmented Sculptures of Aṅga The data from such inscribed sculptures from Aṅga, datable from the ninth to the twelfth century, has been summarized in Table 5.12. All such sculptures are in stone. Of the six sculptures referred to above, the cultic affiliation of three sculptures remains unknown, either due to the broken nature of the sculpture or their absence in the literature on Brahmanical or Buddhist iconography. This is best reflected in the inscription on a pedestal of an image, which informs that this image of the (deity) Madhuśrēṇika (was installed) at the city of Kṛmilā during the reign of the illustrious Dharmpāladeva as the Deyadharmma of Ajhuka, the wife of Sālo.227 Nothing beyond the pedestal of the image has survived, and, as such, the cultic affiliation (Brahmanical or Buddhist) of the deity remains unknown. One may assume that she might have been a local goddess like Puṇḍeśvarī, whose sculptures are also found in the Kiul-Lakhisarai area. We may infer that this image might have been installed in a temple in the city of Kṛmilā. The votive inscription on the pedestal of a broken stone image, dated to the 26th regnal year of Rāmapāla (c. AD 1123) discovered at the village of Arma in Munger district, records that this image was the gift of Sonikā, wife of the merchant Vāmbha.228 Due to the fragmented nature of the image, it is not possible to identify the cultic affiliation of this image. But this is a case of mercantile patronage to the installation of an image in some religious centre. Two more inscriptions on unidentifiable images, both dating to the twelfth century, record donations by women from both non-aristocratic and aristocratic sections of society. The votive

302

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

inscription on the pedestal of a broken unidentifiable stone image records that this image was installed at a place called Ḍakā during the regime of Madanapāla by Aśokā, wife of Dānapati Śeja.229 It has been rightly pointed out by Sircar that the expression dānapati indicated a person who took a vow to get an image of a particular deity made and installed in a shrine on the fulfillment of his desire.230 Dānapati Śeja took a vow, but he could not fulfill it, so this task was completed by his wife. The case with Dānapati Rāṇaka Yaśapāla, whose name figures in the dedicatory inscription on the broken pedestal of a lost image, dated to the second half of the twelfth century AD, that was found at the village of Lai (10 miles to the east of Lakhisarai). It records that this image was caused to be made by Vikramadevī, the chief queen (Paṭarājñī) of Rāṇaka Yaśapāla. Rāṇaka Yaśapāla has been described as dānapati and vāsāgārika (i.e. officer in charge of the bed chamber or inner part of the palace of a king).231 Dedicatory inscriptions on those sculptures whose Brahmanical identity is certain reveal some interesting inferences. The votive inscription (datable to the second half of the ninth century) on a stone image of Dvādaśāditya, discovered at Rajauna or Valgudar near Lakhisarai records that ‘these Dvādaśāditya were set up by Ranoka, son of Vaṇika Śrīdhara, a resident of Kṛmilā, during the fifth regnal year of the illustrious Surapāla’.232 This image must have been installed in some temple through mercantile patronage, most probably to gain social prestige. This image inscription may be contrasted with the inscription on a fragmented image of Vasudhārā, which was discovered at Naulagarh in Begusarai district. This inscription records that this image was donated by Āśokā, the wife of Dhāmmajī, and the daughter of Mahāmati, in the 24th regnal year of the Pāla king Vigrahapāla (latter half of the eleventh century).233 Mahāmati has been described as a śaunḍika (vintner) of Kṛmilā.234 The donation of this Buddhist image by the daughter of a merchant of Kṛmilā may indicate that her father too might have been influenced by Buddhism. Clearly, the mercantile class in the city of Kṛmilā was not homogenous in terms of patronage

Arma in Munger district Nongadh, Jamui district

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Pedestal of an image Valagudar, of Nārāyaṇa Munger district Sūrya Sanokhar

Pedestal of an unidentified image

Pedestal of an unidentified image

Maṭhapati Chihoka

Non-aristocratic men; probably from Brahmin background Non-aristocratic man

Aśoka, wife of Dānapati Śeja

Bhaṭṭa Abhi and Bhaṭṭa Indra

Non-aristocratic woman

Sonikā, wife of a merchant

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Ranoka, son of Vaṇika Srīdhara

Rajauna or Valagudar

Non-aristocratic man; from a mercantile background Non-aristocratic woman

None expressed

Ajhuka, the wife of Non-aristocratic Sālō woman

expressed motive behind donation

Valgudar

Social back-ground of the donor

Madhuśrēṇika, unknown cultic affiliation. Dvādaśāditya

Donor and his/her gender

Place where the image was discovered

Cultic affiliation of the image

Twelfth century

Twelfth century

Twelfth century

Eleventh century

Late eigth or early ninbth century Ninth century

Period

TABLE 5.12: INSCRIBED BRAHMANICAL SCULPTURES/UNIDENTIFIABLE SCULPTURAL FRAGMENTS, AṄGA

304

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

to religious centres: some patronized Buddhism, some patronized Brahmanism. A twelfth century votive inscription on an image of Nārāyaṇa, that was discovered at Valgudar, records that in the 18th regnal year of the king Madanapāla, an image of the god Nārāyaṇa was installed at Kṛmilā by two Paramavaiṣṇava brothers Bhaṭṭa Abhi and Bhaṭṭa Inda (Indra?), who were the sons of Bhaṭṭa-Paṇdiṭa Śrī-Vyāsa and brothers of Bhaṭṭa Śrī-Suki(kṛi)trima.235 This is a case of the patronage to the cult of Nārāyaṇa by donors from a Brahmin background. Most of the inscriptions on the sculptures discussed above were either discovered in the Kiul-Lakhisarai area or its neighbourhood, i.e. in the area that was in the orbit of the Pāla period urban centre of Kṛmilā. A different pattern is seen in the case of the image inscription of the period of Ballālasena, dated to c. AD 1166. This inscription is on an inscribed cover, made of copper, meant to cover an image of Sūrya.236 The language is in highly corrupt Sanskrit. This inscription was discovered at Sanokhar, a village on Kahalgaon–Bellingarh road, approximately 10 miles south of Kahalgaon. This place falls in Godda district of Jharkhand now, but it is very close to the Bihar border. As per Sircar’s reading, this inscription records that in the 9th regnal year of the illustrious ‘Balalasena’ (i.e. Ballālasena), who is endowed with imperial titles beginning with ‘Paramesara’ (i.e. Parameśvara), a copper cover belonging to (i.e. caused to be made by) Maṭhapati Chihoka, was granted in favour of the illustrious lord Śrī Damachāditya.237 Sircar has convincingly argued that ‘there is, however, little doubt that the name “Śrī Damachāditya” refers to the image of the sun god found at Sanokhar, of which the object granted, viz., the Tāmbar Kholī (i.e. the copper cover on which this inscription is inscribed) was meant to cover.’238 He has understood maṭhapati in the sense of the ‘chief priest’ of a temple.239 Here, two things must be taken into account: the distinctly non-Sanskritic name ‘Chihoka’; and the use of a highly corrupt Sanskrit – so much so that even the name of the deity (Āditya or Sūrya), whose image was meant to be covered by this inscribed

Social Bases of Patronage

305

copper cover, is written as Damachāditya, which is unexpected from the head of a Brahmanical temple in normal circumstances. We may infer that he was probably not from a Brahmin background. This temple functioned in an area which had a marked tribal influence till the recent past. Let us sum up the social bases of patronage to Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres of the Aṅga area as reflected in dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures. Both Buddhism and Brahmanism were expanding religions and both attracted donation of sculptures from a cross-section of society. As indicated by the absence of references to the varṇa/jāti status of donors in most of the inscribed sculptures that were discovered in this area, Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres also provided avenues for the marginalization of varṇa/jāti-based identities. The Buddhism practiced through the donation of images was not futuristic: images of the Paṅcatathāgatas and Maitreya are absent. So are the sexually explicit forms of Vajrayāna imagery. This is the situation to the very end of the early medieval phase. All this ensured the survival of at least one Buddhist religious centre in the Aṅga area till at least c. AD 1249. Compared to the votive inscriptions on the sculptures of early medieval Magadha, the same from Aṅga do not show evidences for extra-local pilgrimage. Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres seem to have depended more on local patrons.

Votive Inscriptions on the Buddhist and Brahmanical Sculptures of North Bihar If contrasted with the Magadha and Aṅga plains, the paucity of inscribed sculptures in north Bihar is quite marked. This paucity may stem from several factors: inadequate archaeological explorations and excavations in this area; the disturbed nature of archaeological material from the area due to recurring floods. Alternatively, it may reflect some deeper historical realities of this area. In Table 5.13, we have summarized the published inscriptions on Buddhist sculptures from North Bihar.

Kolhua, Vaishali district

Sanghaul, Begusarai district

Manpur, Madhubani district

Naualagarh, Begusarai district

The Crowned Buddha in BSM240

Buddha in BSM

Buddha in BSM

Vasudhārā

Expressed motive behind donation Eighth-ninth century

Period

Āśokā, wife of Do Dhāmmajī

Eleventh century AD Latter half of the eleventh century

Do

Do

Non-monastic, non-aristocratic, None expressed ‘Pāla period’ without expressed Mahāyāna identity

Non-monastic, non-aristocratic, Anuttara Jñāna with expressed Mahāyāna for all sentient identity beings

The socio-religious background of the donor

Dharmadatta, Do male

Virūpa, male

Utsāha, male

Donor and his/ her gender

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Place where the image was discovered

Identity of the image

TABLE 5.13: INSCRIBED SCULPTURES, NORTH BIHAR

Social Bases of Patronage

307

Barring Parama-Mahāyāna-Anuyāyina Utsāha, who donated an image of the Crowned Buddha at Kolhua for the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all sentient beings, but firstly by his ācārya, upādhyāya and parents,241 none of the reported donors of Buddhist sculptures of this area had an expressed Mahāyāna identity. All donors of Buddhist sculptures belong to the nonmonastic non-aristocratic category. None of them has recorded the name of the religious centre where the image was donated. None of them has left any detail of his/her varṇa/jāti identity. The only exception could have been the image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā, discovered at Manpur, Madhubani district, with the legend Yena–Dharmadatta Koirī.242 It has been argued by a scholar that the donor Dharmadatta belonged to the Koirī caste.243 That might not have necessarily been the case. None of the donors of Buddhist sculptures has left any detail of the place they came from. In terms of cultic preference, the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā appears to be the most preferred deity (2 examples). We see the donation of images of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā by a donor called Utsāha in the eighthninth century AD at Kolhua;244 by a donor called Virūpa in the Sanghaul area of Begusarai district;245 and by a person called Dharmadatta. We see the absence of the donation of the image of those deities that signify confrontational aspects of Vajrayāna (Trailokyavijaya, etc.), or its explicit sexual imagery (yab-yum deities). The only example of a donation of a Buddhist sculpture by a woman is supplied through the dedicatory inscription on the pedestal of a broken image, probably of the Vajrayāna goddess Vasudharā, discovered at Naulagarh, which we have already discussed.246 Inscribed Brahmanical sculptures have been reported from Mithila plains as well as Koshi plains. The image of Viṣṇu from Katihar district is engraved with the word ‘Śrī Śrīpāla’.247 That indicates that it was the donation of a person called Śrīpāla, who belonged to the non-aristocratic section of society. In the northern parts of the Mithila plains, the Karṇāṭa dynasty was established by Nānyadeva in AD 1097. Being warrior

308

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

immigrants from south India, the Karṇāṭa dynasty generally supported Brahmanism. Two inscribed Brahmanical images associated with this dynasty have been reported so far: from Andharatharhi and Bhitabhagavanpur. Both inscriptions record the donation of these images through aristocratic patronage: by a minister of the ruling king in the first case, and by a king himself in the second case. The inscribed image of Viṣṇu that was discovered at Andharatharhi records the donation of this image by one Śrīdharaṇadāsa, a minister of Nānyadeva.248 At Bhitabhagavanpur, an inscribed image of Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa containing the legend Om Śrī Malladevasya has been discovered.249 This, undoubtedly, records the donation of the image by king Śrī Malladeva, the successor of Nānyadeva. That the installation of Brahmanical sculptures continued to invite patronage by persons associated with the state in the thirteenth century as well is indicated by the fragmentary inscription on a stone image of Durgā, discovered at Khojpur on the outskirts of Darbhanga town. This inscription, written in corrupt Sanskrit and dated to AD 1255, refers to one Māṇḍavika Bhondeśvara, who probably caused the image to be made.250 It has been argued that the official designation Māṇḍavika is the same as Sanskrit Māṇḍapika¸ generally explained as ‘the officer in charge of a Maṇḍapikā or custom house’, i.e. ‘a collector of tolls’.251 This inscription also refers to a village called Rakaperī, but it is not clear if Bhondeśvara was a Māṇḍavika at Rakaperī or this village was granted to the (temple of the) deity for maintenance.252 This inscription indicates the capacity of a Brahmanical temple to attract aristocratic patronage in Mithilā well after the establishment of Turkic rule in a significant portion of the Gangetic plains. That is an important aspect of this inscription.

Votive Inscriptions on the Sculptures of Varendra In early medieval Bengal, the biggest corpus of sculptures inscribed with the names of donors has been reported from the Varendra area. That is quite natural as Varendra was one of the

Social Bases of Patronage

309

most important zones of early historic and early medieval occupation in Bengal. So far, five Buddhist, one Jaina and 44 Brahmanical stone sculptures inscribed with the names of donors have been published from this area. Despite the presence of monumental monastic centres like Paharpur and Jagaddala, Buddhism could never compete with Brahmanism in attracting the donation of inscribed sculptures, which were, arguably, enshrined in religious centres. In fact, we see a remarkable absence of donation of sculptures to any Buddhist monastic centre in Varendra, indicating the reluctance of the monasteries to enter into ritual engagements with non-monastic donors; a pattern fundamentally different from Magadha.253 Jainism, as indicated by the discovery of just one inscribed sculpture (of Candraprabha), could never be a mass religion in this area.254 Brahmanical religious centres, on the other hand, as indicated by their capacity to attract the donation of images, were able to command patronage from diverse sections of society. Most of the dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of this area are inscribed with the bare minimum information regarding the donors: they mostly record that they were the Deyadharma of so and so donor. In many cases, they just contain the name of the donor, even the word Deyadharma is not used. In this kind of situation, it is difficult to read much social history in such inscriptions, which will nevertheless be attempted in the paragraphs that follow. We will begin with an analysis of dedicatory inscriptions on Buddhist sculptures, all of which are in stone. Dedicatory Inscriptions on Buddhist Sculptures of Varendra The data from dedicatory inscriptions on Buddhist sculptures from this area is summarized in Table 5.14. Despite the limited inventory of Buddhist sculptures inscribed with the names of donors from this area, we see the representation of a cross-section of society: non-monastic nonaristocratic man and woman, and a monk from Burma. One

Somewhere in Varendra

Do

Somewhere in Varendra

Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur

Buddhist Tantric Siddhāchārya

Avalokiteśvara

Lokanātha

Tārā

Bhadanta Buddhapālita Śihara Dānapatī

Dānapati Śauavāḍika

Ālasī

Donor

Places where donors came from

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Expressed motive behind donation

Ninthtwelfth centuries Twelfth century

Twelfth century

Eleventh century

Period

Anuttara Jñāna Late tenth by all sentient or eleventh beings century

Do

Non-monastic nonNot mentioned None aristocratic woman expressed without expressed Mahāyāna identity Non-monastic, nonDo Do aristocratic man without expressed Mahāyāna identity Buddhist Monk Burma Do

Social back-ground of the donor

Non-monastic nonNot mentioned aristocratic man without expressed Mahāyāna identity Bejeweled Shantipur, P.S. Name not Non-monastic donor Do Buddha in BSM Malda readable with expressed Mahāyāna identity

Place where the image was discovered

Cultic affiliation of the image

TABLE 5.14: INSCRIBED BUDDHIST SCULPTURES, VARENDRA

Social Bases of Patronage

311

donor (Śihara255) has claimed to be a Dānapati, indicating that he installed this image as a religious vow after the fulfilment of a worldly wish. The dedicatory inscription on the stone image of a Buddhist Siddhācārya throws an interesting light on some sectarian developments within Buddhism in eleventh century Bengal and its social bases. This image is now kept in a museum at Berlin and its provenance has been traced to Varendra.256 In this image, a central male figure, almost nude, is surrounded by subsidiary figures. A seated Tārā image is shown on the top of the relief. The dedicatory inscription on the pedestal of the relief records that this image was the gift of a lady called Ālasī.257 G. Bhattacharya has rightly observed that the central figure, representing a Tantric ācārya or siddha, was the preceptor of the donor (Ālasī), and this ācārya, as indicated by the depiction of Tārā in the upper portion of the sculpture, was a devotee of Tārā.258 The dedicatory inscription on an image of Avalokiteśvara Lokanātha, from an unspecified site of Varendra, provides the only example of donation of an image by a long distance pilgrim. This inscription in the Bhaikṣuki script, besides recording the Buddhist creed formula, records that this image was the deyadharma of Bhadanta Buddhapālita, an ācārya belonging to Bhakōkkā Saṅgha.259 Here, the word ‘Saṅgha’ should not be confused with the Arya Caturadiśa Bhikṣu Saṅgha. It meant a particular monastery to which Bhadanta Buddhapālita originally belonged. One will also agree with Sircar that ‘Bhakōkkā’ may be the incorrect engraving of Pakōkku, a famous monastery 30 miles to the north of Mandalay in upper Burma.260 It is, thus, apparent that Buddhapālita came to Varendra from northern Burma, a region where Theravāda was well-entrenched by this time. But after his arrival to Varendra, the donation of an image of Avalokiteśvara Lokanātha and its installation in some Buddhist religious centres provided him an opportunity to show his reverence to the strong Mahāyāna tradition of this area. The only evidence of the donation of an image of a Paṅcatathāgata deity is supplied through the dedicatory inscription on

312

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

a stone image of the bejeweled Buddha, which records that during the regime of the Pāla king Mahipāladeva, this image was donated for the attainment of anuttara jñāna by all sentient beings but firstly by the ācārya, upādhyāya, mother and father of the donor.261 Due to the fragmentary nature of the inscription, the name of the donor or the regnal year of the king when this image was donated is not clear, but the available portions of the inscription record that the donor was a follower of ‘excellent Mahāyāna’.262 The figure of the donor is also depicted on the sculpture, in which he is seen adorned with ornaments, thus indicating that he was wealthy and he was not a monk.263 As noted by Claudine Bautze-Picron, the bejeweled Buddha was regarded as a form of Vairocana,264 so it is likely that this image was donated as an image of Vairocana.

Dedicatory Inscriptions on Brahmanical Sculptures of Varendra Dedicatory inscriptions on 44 Brahmanical sculptures of this area have been published so far. Barring the donor (a nonaristocratic man called Kalīśra265) of a bronze image of Trimātrikās surrounded by Vīrabhadra, who claims to have belonged to a place called Kevaṭila in Vilāspura, none of the donors has recorded the place he/she came from. All donors appear to be from within Varendra. No donor has recorded the motive behind his/her donation. The data from dedicatory inscriptions on Brahmanical sculptures of Varendra is summarized in Table 5.15. An analysis of the above table gives us some interesting inferences regarding the social background of the donors of Brahmanical sculptures in Varendra. It is summarized in Table 5.16. The donation of inscribed Brahmanical sculptures, which were, ostensibly, enshrined in different Brahmanical temples, was overwhelmingly through the patronage of male and female donors of the non-aristocratic category. They, together, contributed around 82 per cent of reported sculptures inscribed with the name of the donor. The contribution of aristocratic men

Gangaramapur, South Dinajpur Mahisantosh, West Dinajpur Manaiari, Bogra district Kosama Shahara, Bogra district. Nahatta, Rajshahi district Deopara, Rajshahi district Shihandi, Rajshahi district Bangadh

Mahiṣāsuramardinī Sūrya

Śaivācārya Mūrtiśiva

Viṣṇu

Viṣṇu

Viṣṇu

Sadyojāta

Dancing Śiva.

Place where the image was discovered

Identity of the image

Dahilā Dā[napati]267 Nakeyina, son of Viṣṭudāsa.268 Nānoka, wife of Sri Narasimha269 Rūpaśiva

Catuhasamā

A Śaiva monk

A non-aristocratic woman

(contd.)

Eleventh century

Tenth century

Tenth century

Tenth century

A non-aristocratic man A non-aristocratic man

Tenth century

Tenth century

Seventh century c. AD 862

Period

A lady from an aristocratic background, Kāyastha by caste Do

A non-aristocratic man

Lokanandi266 Catuhasamā

An aristocratic man

Social back-ground of the donor

Rājaputra Śrī Ṭikkuka Bhaṭṭāraka.

Donor

TABLE 5.15: INSCRIBED BRAHMANICAL SCULPTURES, VARENDRA

Trimātrikās

Mahiṣamardini.

Svamgā Manasā

Mahadevapur, Rajshahi district. Chopra, Uttar Dinajpur

Kalyananagar, Bogra district Somewhere in Varendra Do

Viṣṇu

Sūrya

Tapan, Dakhin Dinajpur district

Nimadighi in Rajshahi district Mandoil in Rajshahi district. Nishinta, Dakshin Dinajpur district Do

Viṣṇu

Viṣṇu

Viṣṇu

Viṣṇu

Viṣṇu

TABLE 5.15 (CONTD.)

Kalīśra275

Viṣayavārika Gangā274

Mahatā

Suśilpina Amṛta

Suśilpina Amṛta

Trilocana273

Dānapati Dānoha.272

Uttama271

Not mentioned270

Bhaṭṭa Jaṭila.

A non-aristocratic man

Aristocratic man

A non-aristocratic woman

A non-aristocratic man with an artisanal background Do

A non-aristocratic man

A non-aristocratic man with a Brahmin background A non-aristocratic man

A non-aristocratic man with a Brahmin background non-aristocratic

Eleventh century Eleventh century Eleventh century Eleventh century Tenth-eleventh century

Eleventh century Eleventh century Eleventh century Eleventh century Eleventh century

Some site of Varendra Darjeeling

Viṣṇu

Tapan, Dakshin Dinajpur district Some site of Varendra

Tapan, Dakshin Dinajpur district

Viṣṇu fragment

Viṣṇu fragment

Viṣṇu fragment

Viṣṇu

Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur district Do

Viṣṇu

Viṣṇu

Viṣṇu

Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur Do

Viṣṇu

(contd.)

Paṇḍita Dharmadeva A non-aristocratic Brahmin man. Eleventh century Keśava A non-aristocratic man Eleventh century An aristocratic man Eleventh Sandhi bha century Śrīpadmarūp276 277 A non-aristocratic man Eleventh Śrīvasanta century 278 A non-aristocratic Brahmin man Eleventh Bhaṭṭaprabhākara century Jayamānavāsa A non-aristocratic man Twelfth century Śriindrapāṇiḥ279 280 A non-aristocratic man EleventhMahīdasa twelfth century ŚrīkalahasomA non-aristocratic man Eleventhtwelfth amādhava281 century Bhaṭṭi – - śvara cā A woman donor from Brahmin Twelfth background? century kāyā282

Rajibpur, Dinajpur district Deopara, Rajshahi district Nahet, Dinajpur district Surohar, North Dinajpur district Palashahar, Dinajpur district

Sadāśiva

Viṣṇu

Viṣṇu

Viṣṇu

Viṣṇu

Navagraha panel

Cāmuṇḍā fragment

Bangarh, Dakshin Dinajpur district Panchagrama, Dakshin Dinajpur district Bangarh, Dakshin Dinajpur district

Snake goddess

TABLE 5.15 (CONTD.)

Bhaṭṭini Bahalakā289

Dānapati Mādho288

Dānapati Ādeśa287

Śrī Maka

Puruṣottama

Dānapati Āryo(?)285

Sidharadhaka284

Śrīkrṣṇakāyā283

A Brahmin lady from a nonaristocratic background

A non-aristocratic man

A non-aristocratic man

Described as Saṅdhi-sa, which may mean ‘a minister’286 non-aristocratic man

A non-aristocratic man?

A non-aristocratic man

A non-aristocratic woman?

Eleventhtwelfth centuries Eleventhtwelfth centuries Eleventhtwelfth centuries Twelfth century Twelfth century Twelfth century Twelfth century Twelfth century

Do

Shahapur, Naogaon district Tapan, South Dinajpur district Badbadalpur, West Dinajpur district Belamla, Jaipurhat, Bogra Kumarapara, Rajshahi district

Viṣṇu

Sadāśiva

Bogra

Sadāśiva.

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Paharpur

Viṣṇu

Sculptural fragment

Gaurī

Manasā

Umāmaheśvara

Do

Viṣṇu

A disciple of Magaradhvaja Yogī295 A disciple of Magaradhvaja Yogī296 A disciple of Magaradhvaja Yogī297

Rājñī Śrī Gītā Lalitā

Śrīnāvaka294

Bhaṭṭini, wife of Jājjo291 Dānapati Tamvamamna292 Dānapati Āchali Jechaka293

Dānapati Śalaba290

Do

Most probably from nonaristocratic background

Not mentioned

An aristocratic lady

A non-aristocratic man

A non-aristocratic man

A Brahmin lady from nonaristocratic background A non-aristocratic man

A non-aristocratic man

Twelfth century

Twelfth century

Twelfth century Twelfth century Twelfth century Twelfth century Twelfth century Twelfth century Twelfth century

318

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

TABLE 5.16: SOCIAL BACKGROUNDS OF DONORS OF BRAHMANICAL SCULPTURES, VARENDRA

Century

Aristocratic man

Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth

1

Eleventh Twelfth

3 1 5 (11.35%)

Total

Aristocratic Nonwoman aristocratic man

Nonaristocratic woman

Total

2

1 3

1

1 3 1 6

1

14 12

2 3

18 15

3 (6.81%)

30 (68.1%)

6 (13.82%)

44

Source: Table prepared by the author.

and women (11.35 per cent and 6.81 per cent respectively of reported sculptures) was quite meagre. Even this meagre contribution, though, is the highest in all sub-regions of early medieval Bengal, indicating the capacity of Brahmanical religious centres of this area to command patronage from patrons of diverse social background. We will begin with an analysis of donations of sculptures made by aristocratic donors. The earliest dated instance of the donation of a Brahmanical stone sculpture – Mahiṣāsuramardinī donated by Rājaputra Śrī Ṭikkuka Bhaṭṭāraka in the seventh century298 – as indicated by the titles used by the donor (Rājaputra and Bhaṭṭāraka) – was a man of high political standing. The donation of the stone sculpture must have involved considerable expenditure on the part of the donor and it is not surprising if we see a Rājaputra taking the lead in this act. By the tenth century AD, we see women donors from aristocratic background making donations of Brahmanical sculptures. Two available examples of this category in this century record the patronage by a lady Catuhasamā, wife of Śrī Līlānandin and daughter-in-law of Śrīmana Vāyilanandin. Śrī Līlānandin was the treasurer of the Pāla king Vigrahapāla and

Social Bases of Patronage

319

Śrīmana Vayilanandin was the minister of war and peace (Sandhivigrahika) of the Pāla king Rājyapāla.299 We are also informed that her father was Śrī Sumaṅgaladatta, a Kāyastha, and her mother was Sumānuṣi.300 Though the high bureaucratic positions of her husband and father-in-law have been recorded, nothing of this sort is available for her father, indicating that her father did not have any aristocratic background. A woman from a not-so-distinguished parental background could get married into a high aristocratic family and donate images in the tenth century Varendra. In the first instance, she donated an image of Gaurī Sadyojāta, referred to as Gaurī Śilāmayī in the inscription.301 Catuhasamā is seen as the donor of an image of Dancing Śiva also.302 These two stone images must have been installed in some Śaiva religious centre(s). Later examples of the donation of Brahmanical stone sculptures through aristocratic patronage are provided by the donation of an image of Mahiṣāsuramardinī through the patronage of Viṣayavārika Gangā (eleventh century),303 Viṣṇu donated by Sandhi bha Śrīpadmarūpa,304 Sadāśiva donated by Saṅdhi-sa Puruṣottama (twelfth century),305 and Gaurī or Lalitā donated by Rājñī Śrī Gītā (twelfth century).306 When we analyse the reported dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of Viṣṇu, we get some interesting inferences. It appears that the donation of sculptures of Viṣṇu did not invite significant aristocratic patronage: the only available example is the sculpture donated by Sandhivigrahika Śrīpadmarūpa in the eleventh century. Aristocratic patronage seems to have flowed mostly to the donation of Śaiva sculptures (4 examples) followed by Śākta sculptures (Mahiṣāsuramardinī: 2 examples). In fact, we have yet to come across any inscribed sculpture of Mahiṣāsuramardinī donated by a non-aristocratic person in early medieval Varendra. Yet, the donation of Viṣṇu sculptures by non-aristocratic donors, obviously to the temples dedicated to this deity, formed the largest segment of the reported inscribed sculptures in Varendra (24 out of the 36 reported inscribed sculptures). It appears that the inscribed sculptures of Viṣṇu began to be donated late: no such donation seems to have been made in

320

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

seventh, eighth and ninth century. When their donation started in the tenth century, they dominated the scene rapidly. No other deity could rival it even remotely in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In fact, the popularity of this deity was so high that it commanded donation even from a disciple of Makaradhvaja Yogī, a famous Śaivācārya of early medieval India, who travelled a vast distance covering Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand and left inscriptions in those areas, generally with the legend ‘Śrī Makaradhvaja Yogī 700’.307 An inscription on an eleventh-twelfth centuries image of Viṣṇu kept in the Paharpur museum, found from Paharpur itself, is inscribed with the legend ‘Magaradhvaja Jogī Śīṣā’.308 It has been rightly argued that ‘Śīṣā’ of this inscription is an incorrect rendering of Śīṣya.309 The donor has, thus, not inscribed his/her name on this sculpture, rather he or she ‘preferred to be identified as a disciple of Magaradhvaja Jogī which seems to be prestigious’.310 The donor was a disciple of Makaradhvaja Yogī, yet he donated an image of Viṣṇu. Was this popularity of Viṣṇu a reflection of some particular soteriology this deity radiated or was it also related to some social processes of eleventh-twelfth century Varendra? A clue to this vexed issue is provided by some dedicatory inscriptions on the sculptures of Viṣṇu from this area. Many inscriptions on the images of Viṣṇu from Varendra follow a peculiar format, which has not yet been reported in dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of any other part of Bengal, or, for that matter, Bihar. In such inscriptions, not even the word Deyadharma is used, just the name of the deity (Mādhava) is prefixed by the name of the donor. Examples of this sort include: Bhaṭṭa Jaṭilamādhava,311 Paṁśrīdharmadevamādhavaḥ,312 Keśavamādhava,313 Śrīvasantamādhavaḥ,314 Śrīkalahasomamādhava,315 and Śrī-Makamādhava.316 This feature has not been noted in the cases of Śaiva, Śākta, Saura or Buddhist sculptures of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. G. Bhattacharya, in his analysis of the Viṣṇu image inscribed with the legend ‘Bhaṭṭa Jaṭilamādhava’, has rightly argued that It is quite interesting to point out that a Viṣṇu image was called Jaṭila-

Social Bases of Patronage

321

Mādhava after the name of the donor. One should compare in this connection that a Viṣṇu image called Laḍaha-Mādhava which was installed by the Candra king Laḍahacandra (c.1000-1020) at Paṭṭikera in the Comilla district of Bengal.317

This is an interesting analysis, which indicates some aspects of the significance the donation of images of Viṣṇu by the donors. The inscriptions cited above in which the word Mādhava is prefixed by the name of the donor (Paṁ Śrīdharmadeva, Keśava, Śrīvasanta, Śrīkalahasoma, Śrī Maka) referred to those nonaristocratic donors, who installed images of Viṣṇu (Mādhava) and the installed image was known by the name of the donor. This feature was not confined to the core areas of Varendra, but diffused as far as the terai/Himalayan area in the north: this is the inference we draw from the discovery of an image of Viṣṇu inscribed with the legend Śrīvasantamādhavaḥ from the Darjeeling area. Due to their very nature, these big stone sculptures were not meant for worship in a private setting, but for worship in public shrines/temples. It may be inferred that the brick temples/shrines in which these images were enshrined as objects of public worship were also known by the name of the donor who got these images enshrined in such temples/shrines. In this connection, we may cite the example of Rajabhita stone inscription (c. tenth century), which refers to some land in the possession of Śrī-Sonnakādevīmādhava (i.e. a temple of Mādhava named after the founder Śrī-Sonnakādevī) that was leased out to some merchants.318 Donors of such inscribed sculptures preferred to get their names engraved on stone sculptures and not on the walls of the brick temples/shrines, as stone was more durable than brick. The Viṣṇu temples/shrines they constructed and enshrined images in them stood as the kīrtti of their founders, serving as a public statement of their social prestige. Through these acts of religious patronage, donors sought to enhance their social prestige. For a king like Laḍahacandra, enshrining an image in a big temple constructed by him and christening the deity after his own name could have been one of the means for the pro-

322

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

pagation of royal glory. Non-aristocratic donors like Bhaṭṭa Śrī Jaṭila, Paṁ Śrīdharmadeva, Keśava, Śrīvasanta, Śrīkalahasoma, Śrī Maka could also hope for the propagation of their name by naming the deity after their own name. Only Viṣṇu temples offered this avenue of social prestige for its founder patrons/ those patrons who got images enshrined in such temples.319 That at least one donor of a sculpture of Viṣṇu did cause the construction of a shrine to enshrine the image donated by him is indicated by the dedicatory inscription on an image of Viṣṇu donated by one Nakeyin, son of Viṣṭhudāsa, who has not even used the honorific Śrī either for himself or for his father.320 We cannot rule out this possibility for those donors who used honorifics like Śrī, Bhaṭṭa, Bhaṭṭini. Similarly, we cannot rule out this possibility for donors of other Brahmanical images also. What was the varṇa/jāti background of the donors of Viṣṇu sculptures of Varendra? Only some donors have left clues to their varṇa/jāti background. Many donors who got their varṇa/ jāti backgrounds inscribed were probably from Brahmin background: Bhaṭṭaśrītrilocana,321 Bhaṭṭaprabhākara,322 Paṇḍita Dharmadeva,323 Dvija-Uttama,324 Bhaṭṭini325 Bahalakā326 and Bhaṭṭa Jaṭila. The Brahmins seem to be very careful in recording their varṇa/jāti identity. Catuhasamā too recorded her Kāyastha background. A suśilpi (skilled artisan) named Amṛta is seen as the donor of an image of Viṣṇu and an image of Sūrya but he has not mentioned his varṇa/jāti background.327 Other donors are silent on their varṇa/jāti or occupational background. We may wrap up the analysis of the socio-religious dimensions of dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of Varendra with an analysis of dedicatory inscriptions on Śaiva sculptures. Early (i.e. tenth century) examples of donation of Śaiva sculptures are basically the result of the patronage of aristocratic donors: the dancing Śiva and Sadyojāta donated by lady Catuhasamā in the tenth century. In the eleventh century, a long Praśasti on a sculpted stone piece that was discovered at Bangarh indicates the functioning of a line of Śaiva monastics in this area of Varendra, who seem to have enjoyed Pāla royal patronage. This inscription is a

Social Bases of Patronage

323

Praśasti of Śaivācārya Mūrtiśiva and his lineage and it provides significant information regarding the activities of the Śaiva monastic order of the Durvāsā sect in Varendra. The inscription, beginning with a praise of goddess Carcā or Carcikā (i.e. Cāmuṇḍā), gives a history of this monastic order. Probably the original seat of this order was at Vārāṇasī where a maṭha was constructed.328 Śaivācārya Vidyāśiva belonged to this maṭha.329 His disciple Dharmaśiva got a temple constructed in honour of Trilocanaguru (i.e. Śiva ) as ‘an ornament of Vārāṇasī’. This inscription does not tell us from where did he mobilize resources for the construction of the temple. With Indraśiva, the disciple of Dharmaśiva, this sect spread its wings to north Bengal. Indraśiva was able to enlist the patronage of the Pāla king Mahipāla I, who got a maṭha constructed at Bangarh and dedicated it in the honour of Indraśiva.330 It is claimed in the inscription that his disciple Sarvaśiva became the guru or spiritual guide of the Pāla king Nayapāla.331 Later, Sarvaśiva retired to the forests for penance and his younger brother Mūrtiśiva became the head of this order in north Bengal. He also became the Guru of Nayapāla. Mūrtiśiva was famous for his erudition and he defeated sectarian rivals in debates. He also undertook the excavation of several tanks and the plantation of ‘hundreds of gardens’.332 He also added several structures to the temple of Bhavānī (Pārvatī) and Śambhu. This temple was, G. Bhattacharya has rightly argued, most probably constructed by Mahipāla and donated to Indraśiva earlier.333 During Mūrtiśiva’s times, this temple was big enough to require the services of ‘thousands of” devadāsīs, who were attached to it.334 All this indicates that this temple must have had considerable resources under its command, indicating its capacity to attract royal patronage. Later, Rūpaśiva, another disciple of Sarvaśiva, and a close associate of Mūrtiśiva, got the image of Mūrtiśiva sculpted by the sculptor Sala-Śrīdhara and got the Praśasti engraved on the same by the engraver Lakṣmidhara of Magadha.335 To sum up, the Mūrtiśiva Praśasti indicates that Śaivism received considerable royal patronage in the eleventh century Varendra. In the twelfth century, as indicated by the discovery

324

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of the inscribed sculpture of Sadāśiva donated by Saṅdhi-sa Puruṣottama336and Gaurī or Lalitā donated by Rājñī Śrī Gītā,337 it continued to enjoy aristocratic patronage. The Sena rulers, who established their rule in the second half of the twelfth century, were also devoted to Śiva. Yet, the donation of Śaiva sculptures by the non-aristocratic section of society could never attain the popularity commanded by the sculptures of Viṣṇu. The three available examples of donation of Śaiva sculptures by nonaristocratic donors are all dated to the twelfth century and they include Umāmaheśvara donated by Dānapati Āchali Jechaka,338 Sadāśiva donated by Dānapati Tamvamamna339 and another image of Sadāśiva by a disciple of Magaradhvaja Yogī. The last image does not contain the name of the donor, it merely records the legend ‘Magaradhvaja Jogī Śīṣā’, indicating that the donor was a disciple of Magaradhvaja Yogī.340 To sum up, an overwhelming portion of the non-aristocratic section of society preferred to cause the construction of Viṣṇu temples/shrines and install Viṣṇu sculptures in them as objects of public worship irrespective of the shifts in the patterns of royal patronage.

Dedicatory Inscriptions on Buddhist and Brahmanical Sculptures of Rāḍha and Coastal West Bengal The reported corpus of sculptures inscribed with the names of donors from Rāḍha and coastal West Bengal is very limited. So far, only four such sculptures have been reported from this area. This paucity is difficult to explain, especially in the PuruliaBankura area as these two districts witnessed large scale construction of Jaina and Brahmanical temples in the ninthtwelfth centuries AD period. Out of the four reported sculptures inscribed with the names of donors from this area, two are unmistakably Buddhist. The Buddhist identity of the image of Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara from Sardanga, Bardhaman district may not be beyond questioning.341 None of the donors of the Buddhist images has claimed any expressed Buddhist identity. Inscribed Jaina images have not

Social Bases of Patronage

325

been reported so far. We see the concentration of inscribed images in the plains of Bardhaman, from where two out of the four reported images have been found. No image inscribed with the name of the donor has been reported from the plateau portions of Bardhaman, Purulia, Bankura and West Medinipur districts. The earliest dated inscribed image that contains the name of the donor was found during the excavation of the monastic site of Moghalmari, which records the donation of an image of the Buddha by Mātṛcanra.342 The donor has not left any detail of his social background, the place he came from or the motive behind the donation. Nor has he left any claim of an expressed Mahāyāna identity. It may be noted that this is the only example of a stone image inscribed with the name of a donor found in any monastic site of Bengal. From the Becharhat village in Bardhaman Sadar, an image of a ‘Dhyānī Buddha’ inscribed with the legend ‘Dāna Śrī Pāvaka Āṇaka’ in eleventh century AD characters has been reported.343 The exact identification of this image (Akṣobhya, Vairocana, etc.) is not yet known. It has been argued that this legend is an incorrect rendering of Dānam Śrī Pāvakasya Āṇakasya’ indicating that it was the gift of the ‘illustrious saint Āṇaka’.344 This inference is, however, debatable. The word ‘dāna’ used in this inscription may simply be an abbreviated form of dānapati. The third example of the donation of a ‘Buddhist’ image is supplied through the dedicatory inscription on an image of Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara from Sardanga, 12 miles from the town of Bardhaman.345 The dedicatory inscription on this image is damaged, which has obliterated vital information regarding the donor. The decipherable legend in late eleventh century characters is ‘Dharmadāna Sa – Iyani Pratimā’.346 It is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusion regarding the name, social background and religious identity of the donor. It may be noted that the donor did not have an expressed Mahāyāna identity, nor does the dedicatory inscription on this image show any kind of Buddhist influence (use of Buddhist creed formula etc.). It is unlikely that the donor donated it as a ‘Buddhist’ deity.

326

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

The only reported stone sculpture of a non-Buddhist deity inscribed with the name of the donor is a Manasā-like goddess. The much mutilated inscription on an image of a snake goddess found at Mandalgram in Bardhaman district indicates that the image was donated during the regime of the Pāla king Nayapāladeva (eleventh century), probably by a donor whose name was Māgadhakkabdāka and the name of the goddess whose image was donated was Śekāpaṇi.347 It has been rightly argued that the snake goddess was worshipped in various local names in different parts of eastern India; it was only in the Mangalakāvyas of medieval Bengal in which her cult was systematized in the form of Manasā.348 In the case of the image from Mandalgram, the donation of a stone image of this deity through the patronage of a person who opted to get his name inscribed on the sculpture may be taken as an indication that this deity was an object of public worship in a public shrine: hardly anybody would take the trouble of finding an engraver to inscribe his name on the image of a deity that was an object of worship within his own home shrine. No stone or metal sculpture inscribed with the name of the donor has been reported from coastal West Bengal so far. Even the inscribed black stone image of Śaivācarya Mūrtiśiva, found at Dogachia, Hooghly district, and datable to the mid-eleventh century on palaeographic grounds, does not contain the name of the donor.349 As we have seen earlier, the Bangarh area was an important centre of the Śaivācaryas belonging to the tradition of Mūrtiśiva. This image inscription may indicate the spread of their influence to this part of coastal West Bengal.

Dedicatory Inscriptions on Buddhist and Brahmanical Sculptures of Vaṅga Area In Chapter 4, as mentioned, there was a significant proliferation of Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures in the Dhaka-Vikrampur area in the tenth-eleventh centuries period. We have also noted their proliferation in the Barisal, Faridpur, Jessore and Khulna

Social Bases of Patronage

327

districts, though on a lesser scale than what was the case in the Dhaka-Vikrampur area. Compared to the sculptures that have been documented in the Vaṅga area, the number of sculptures inscribed with the names of the donors is quite less. So far, four Buddhist and four Brahmanical sculptures have been discovered in the area. None of them date prior to the eleventh century. None of the donors of Buddhist sculptures had any expressed Mahāyāna identity. Also none of the donors has mentioned his varna/jāti status. The data from votive inscriptions on sculptures of Vaṅga is summarized in Table 5.17. In Vaṅga, the earliest example of a Buddhist sculpture in stone, inscribed with the name of the donor, has been reported from an unspecified site of Khulna district. The dedicatory inscription on an image of Buddha Śākyamuni, inscribed in the ninth or tenth century AD characters, records that this image was the Deyadharma of Śrī-Devaka.350 He appears to be from a nonmonastic non-aristocratic background. The dedicatory inscription on a big (105 × 54 cm) stone sculpture of Akṣobhya, discovered at Madhyapara, Vikramapur, just records the name of its donor – Dānapati-Śrī Nirupama – in eleventh century AD characters.351 It is apparent that this image was installed in some Buddhist religious centre through the patronage of this non-monastic non-aristocratic Dānapati donor without any expressed Mahāyāna identity as a religious obligation after the fulfilment of a worldly desire. It is also apparent that Akṣobhya was an independent cult figure in the Vikramapur area and his cult attracted patronage from a non-monastic donor. In Chapter 4, we have noted that the religious fervour of Vikrmapur Buddhism was generally dominated by Tantric Buddhism. This image inscription tallies well with the general character of Buddhism in this area. The poly-religiosity of the Dhaka-Vikrampur area finds manifestation in an inscribed Buddhist image discovered in this general area. The dedicatory inscription on an eleventh-twelfth century stone sculpture of Mañjuśrī that was discovered at

Place where the image was discovered

Madhyapara, Vikramapur

Do

Do

Pāttaka

Do

Do

Do

Kāyastha Śrī Sangheṣagup[ta] Śrī-Devaka

Non-aristocratic man with a Brahmin background.

Aristocratic Do (an officer of the state) Non-monastic, nonDo aristocratic man without expressed Buddhist identity Do Do

Adhikṛta Dāmodara and his younger brother Dānapati-Śrī Nirupama

Name not clear

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Eleventhtwelfth centuries Twelfth century AD Ninth or tenth centuries AD Eleventh or twelfth century

Eleventh century

c. 1181-2

Places where Expressed Period donors came motive from behind the donation Not None c. AD 1032 mentioned expressed Do Do c. AD 1043

Gangādāsa

Social back-ground of the donor

Non-aristocratic

Donor

Lakṣmīdīna

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Jalakundi, Nārāyaṇaganj district Śyāma Tārā Somapara, near Vajrayogini Khulna district Buddha Śākyamuni Durgā Khulna district Mahiṣmardinī

Mañjuśrī

Akṣobhya

Kulkudi, Faridpur district Viṣṇu Betka (Paikpara) (Vāsudeva) in Dhaka district Caṇḍī Ramapala area of Dhaka

Cultic identity of the image Sūrya

TABLE 5.17: INSCRIBED SCULPTURES, VAṄGA

Social Bases of Patronage

329

Jalakundi, Nārāyaṇaganj district, records the legend Siddhama Mahāmāṃ-śrī-śrī Caṇḍī-prasādīya–mahārā[ja]–śrī-jāmamaeraena kārita.352 As per Bhattasali, ‘this is certainly a record of dedication, but it is difficult to understand what this short label exactly means.’353 It has been rightly opined that the abbreviation Mahāmāṃ most probably stood for Mahāmāṇḍalika, and this Mahāmāṇḍalika, whose name is either not read correctly or incorrectly recorded in the inscription, also claimed the status of mahārāja.354 This is, then, a case of donation of a Buddhist image through the patronage of a subordinate ruler. The use of the term Caṇḍī-prasādīya in this inscription may indicate that this subordinate ruler was especially devoted to Caṇḍī and, despite this, he donated an image of Mañjuśrī. That should not come as any surprise. We see so many Paramasaugata rulers patronizing Brahmanical institutions through royal edicts recorded in copper-plate inscriptions. In Bihar and Bengal, we also see so many persons without any expressed Buddhist identity donating Buddhist images. And, in the case of Nalanda Mahāvihāra, some rulers with the expressed claim of being varṇāśrāma-vyavasthā-pravṛta, patronized this Mahāvihāra.355 We see the donation of a 4 ft high stone sculpture of Śyāma Tārā through the patronage of a Kāyastha Śrī Sangheṣagup[ta].356 The donation of this big stone sculpture must have involved considerable expenses on the part of the donor and it must have been an object of public worship. The donation of Brahmanical sculptures too attracted nonaristocratic and aristocratic patronage in Vaṅga. The inscription on a stone image of Sūrya discovered at Kulkudi, Faridpur district, records that this image was donated by Lakṣmīdīna in the 12th regnal year of Govindacandra.357 The dedicatory inscription on a stone image of Viṣṇu that was discovered at Betka in Dhaka district records that in the 23rd regnal year of Govindacandra, the image of Vāsudeva was caused to be made by Gangādāsa, son of Pāradāsa.358 These two images, donated through non-aristocratic patronage, were most probably installed in some Brahmanical temples. Similarly, the stone

330

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

sculpture of Durgā Mahiṣāsuramardinī, discovered from some unspecified site of Khulna district, records the legend Siddhma Brāhmaṇa Pāttakena,359 indicating that this image was donated by Brāhmaṇa Pāttaka, who appears to be from a non-aristocratic background. The only example of aristocratic patronage in the dedication of a Brahmanical image in the Dhaka-Vikrampur area is provided by the dedicatory inscription on the image of Caṇḍī, discovered in the Rampal area. As per a revised reading by G. Bhattacharya, it records that the image of Caṇḍīdevī, begun by officer (Adhikṛta) Dāmodara, and installed by his younger brother Nārāyaṇa in the 3rd regnal year of Lakṣmaṇasena.360

Votive Inscriptions on Buddhist and Brahmanical Sculptures of Samataṭa-Harikela In Samataṭa-Harikela, reported examples are from Comilla district as well as from the site of Jhewari in Chittagong. Within Comilla, their presence is very poor in the excavated monastic/ stūpa sites on the Mainamati-Lalmai ridge. In the paragraphs that follow, we will discuss the situation on the MainamatiLalmai ridge and plains of Comilla separately. We will contrast the Comilla pattern with the one observed through the analysis of dedicatory inscriptions on bronze sculptures of Jhewari.

The Pattern in the Buddhist Religious Centres on the Mainamati-Lalmai Ridge Among all the excavated and explored sites on the MainamatiLalmai ridge, sculptures inscribed with the name of donors have been reported from the site of Salban Vihara only. Reported inscribed sculptures, in which names of donors are recorded, from excavations at the site of Salban Vihara include an eighth century image of Mañjuśrī, donated by Sthavira Dhyānabhadra/ Jñānabhadra;361 an eighth-ninth century image of Tārā, donated by a person whose name cannot be fully deciphered;362 and a

Social Bases of Patronage

331

tenth-eleventh centuries image of Dhyānī Buddha Amoghasiddhi, donated by a person called Bhava or Bhavalavdha.363 Barring Sthavira Dhyānabhadra, none had an expressed Buddhist identity. No donor has recorded any reference to the place he came from. Women donors are absent. Barring Sthavira Dhyānabhadra/Jñānabhadra, all donors belonged to the category of ‘non-monastic non-aristocratic man without expressed Buddhist identity’. None of them seems to be a long-distance pilgrim. None of them had an expressed mercantile background (vaṇika, sārthavāha, etc.). This was the case with the monastery from where the biggest corpus of gold and silver coins has been reported in the entire early medieval Bihar and Bengal.364 In fact, we see a resounding absence of epigraphically recorded instances of any kind of donation (of sculptures or material endowments) by merchants to any Buddhist religious centre on the MainamatiLalmai ridge. In terms of the find spots of inscribed sculptures within the monastic religious space, the Salban Vihara pattern shows some fundamental difference vis-à-vis Nalanda. All such reported sculptures have been found from different monastic cells, none from the central cruciform shrine area, the most sacred spot within the Mahāvihāra. All reported examples are miniature bronze images. They are unlikely to have been objects of public worship. Most probably, they served as the personal worshipobjects of monks, in whose cells they were found. The pattern is different from Nalanda where the most sacred spot (Temple/ Stūpa site 3) was not only made available to the non-monastic devotees, but a non-monastic devotee also had the honour to install the tutelary deity of the site. In terms of sheer number too, the donation of just three inscribed sculptures from Salban Vihara raises some fundamental questions regarding the extent to which the Mahāvihāra was willing to enter into ritual engagement with the non-monastic devotees and the implications this process had in the decline of the site. We have analyzed this issue in some detail in Chapter 7.

332

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

The Evolving Pattern in the Plains of Comilla The data from the plains of Comilla is summarized in Table 5.18. An analysis of the reported dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of the plains of Comilla provides some interesting inferences. Out of the five reported sculptures inscribed with the names of the donors, merchants appear as donors in three instances. This feature seems to be in sync with some significant developments in South-eastern Bengal during the early medieval period: the shift of the maritime focus of Bengal to south-eastern Bengal in the eighth-ninth centuries after the decline of the old port centre of Tāmralipti and the active participation of South-eastern Bengal in the Bay of Bengal trade. 365 Some merchants must have benefited in this economic scenario and they invested some part of their wealth in dedicating sculptures either in pre-existing religious centres or in religious centres caused to be constructed by them to gain social prestige. We will see their sectarian preference (Buddhist or Brahmanical) later. Let us first analyse the pattern of donation by aristocratic donors. It is interesting to note that all recorded instances of aristo-cratic patronage in the donation of images in dedicatory inscriptions are concerned with Brahmanical images. Among the aristocratic donors, the earliest example, not only in Comilla, but also in the whole Samataṭa-Harikela, is the votive inscription on a metal image of Śarvvāṇī (a form of Durgā), which was recovered at Deulbadi in Comilla district. This image inscription is dated to the reign of the Khaḍga king Dēvakhaḍga, that is, to the latter half of the seventh century AD366 Bhattasali has not provided the Romanized transliteration of this inscription. A brief translation of this inscription, as given by him, reads that ‘Prabhāvatī, the queen consort of Dēvakhaḍga, out of reverence for Śarvvāṇī, covered this image with gold’.367 It appears that the queen gilded a pre-existing image in an existing temple. In any case, this is a case of royal patronage in favour of a Śākta deity in early medieval Samataṭa. In Varendra too, we have seen that the earliest recorded donation of an image was that of

Deulbadi

Mandhuk

Baghaura

Narayanpur

Bharella

Śarvvāṇī

Gaṇeśa

Viṣṇu

Vināyaka.

Śiva Naṭarāja

Mercantile

Karmānta in Comilla

Bilakandhaka in Samataṭa

Samataṭa

Period

for the increase of religious merit of his parents and himself for the religious merit of his parents and himself Not mentioned

around AD 1018

c. AD 996

c. AD 995

Second half of the 7th century AD Anuttara Jñāna by c. AD 967 all creatures

Expressed motive behind donation

Not mentioned None expressed

Places where donors came from

Mercantile, with Apparently an expressed from Samataṭa Mahāyāna identity

queen consort of the ruling king

Social back-ground of the donor

BuddhaMercantile mitra, son of Jambhalamitra Bhāvudeva Aristocratic

Lokadatta

Vṛddha Sārtha Jambhalamitra

Prabhāvatī, female

Donor

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Place where the image was discovered

Cultic identity of the image

TABLE 5.18: INSCRIBED SCULPTURES, PLAINS OF COMILLA

334

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Mahiṣāsuramardinī, donated through the patronage of Rājaputra Śrī Ṭikkuka Bhaṭṭāraka in the seventh century. It is interesting to note that in two sub-regions of early medieval Bengal, the earliest recorded donors of sculptures of different forms of Durgā were from such aristocratic backgrounds. The second example of aristocratic patronage in the installation of an image is indicated in a votive inscription on an image of Śiva Naṭarāja, which was discovered at Bharella in Comilla district. This inscription informs us that ‘Bhāvudeva, son of Kusumadeva, lord of Karmānta, caused to be made (i.e. installed or dedicated) Lord Nartteśvara in the eighteenth regnal year of king Laḍahacandra’.368 As the reign of this king is believed to be between c. AD 1000 and 1020, so this installation was done around AD 1018. There should not be any doubt that ‘Lord Nartteśvara’ in this inscription stands for the image of Śiva Naṭarāja, on which this inscription is engraved. Bhāvudeva was probably a local ruler of Badkamta area of Comilla and he patronized the dedication of this image of Śiva, apparently to a temple of the same deity. The three recorded instances of mercantile patronage in the tenth century show the evolution of an interesting pattern. In the earliest example of this century, we see the donation of an image of Gaṇeśa (discovered at Mandhuk) in the first regnal year of the Pāla king Gopāla II (i.e. c. AD 967) by Vṛddha Sārtha Jambhalamitra for the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures but firstly by his parents’.369 The word ‘sārtha’ in this inscription was, obviously, an abbreviated form of sārthavaha, which roughly means the leader of the caravan of merchants. Jambhalamitra was a senior (vṛddha) leader of the caravan of merchants. It may be noted that the big (measuring 143 × 103 cm)370 stone sculpture of Gaṇeśa donated by him is not portable so it is quite likely that this image was enshrined in some religious centres in the plains of Comilla. As the dedicatory inscription on this image follows the developed format of the Mahāyāna dedicatory formula, so we have some reasons to infer that the donor Jambhalamitra was a person with an expressed Buddhist identity and the image of Gaṇeśa he donated was also

Social Bases of Patronage

335

Buddhist.370 It may be pointed out that Jambhalamitra appears in another image inscription on a stone image of Gaṇeśa, dated to the 4th regnal year of the Pāla king Mahipāla I (i.e. c. AD 996), which was discovered at Narayanapur in Comilla district. The votive inscription on this image records that this image of Vināyaka was caused to be established by the merchant (vaṇika) Buddhamitra, son of Vaṇika Jambhalamitra, for the religious merit of his parents and himself.371 Sircar has rightly pointed out that the Jambhalamitra mentioned in this inscription is identical with the one mentioned in the Mandhuk image inscription.372 A combined reading of these two inscriptions provides some interesting inferences. The names of these two merchants (Buddhamitra and Jambhalamitra) appear to be influenced by Buddhism, but a subtle transformation seems to have taken place in these thirty years. Buddhamitra, in contrast to his father, did not use a Mahāyāna dedicatory format in the dedicatory inscription on the sculpture. We have nothing to suggest that he was a Buddhist or the image donated by him was a Buddhist one. The fortune of this merchant family also seems to have dwindled: the Sārthavāha Jambhalamitra of the earlier inscription was now just a vaṇika. This was not just a reflection of his advancing age: his son too was a vaṇika, not a sārthavaha. His son did not claim Mahāyāna-Anuyāyina or Paramopāsaka status either for himself or for his father. We wonder if the declining fortune of this family made it less emphatic in claiming a Buddhist identity. Another recorded instance of the donation of a Brahmanical deity through mercantile patronage in the tenth century Comilla is provided by the votive inscription on a stone image of Viṣṇu (discovered at Baghaura), dated to the 3rd regnal year of the Pāla king Mahipāla I (i.e. c. AD 995). This inscription informs that this image was donated by the Paramavaiṣṇava merchant Lokadatta, residing in the village Vilakīndaka in Samataṭa, in the kingdom of Śrī Mahipāladeva, for the increase of the religious merit of his parents and himself.373 It may be noted that Vaṇika Buddhamitra of the Narayanapur image inscription too belonged to the village Vilikandhaka of Samatatạ.374 His father Jambhalamitra too,

336

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

arguably, belonged to the same village. It has rightly been pointed out by D.C. Sircar that Vilakīndaka and Vilikandhaka referred to the same village.375 Merchants of this village had diverse religious affiliations. Jambhalamitra was a person with expressed Buddhist identity, his son did not claim any such identity, and another merchant from the same village was a proud Paramavaiṣṇava. The images donated by them were also diverse: a Buddhist Gaṇeśa, a Brahmanical Gaṇeśa and a Brahmanical Viṣṇu. In a way, these inscriptions corroborate the inference we have drawn in the previous chapter: poly-religiosity of the landscape and coexistence of Buddhism and Brahmanism at many sites of Bengal. And, yet, the largest stone image of Heruka – one of the Buddhist deities that signified confrontation with Brahmanism – discovered so far in the Indian subcontinent, has been reported from a site in the plains of Comilla. This image was most probably enshrined in a non-monastic context, as an object of public worship in a temple.376 All these are indications of the multi-layered relationship that existed between Buddhism and Brahmanism in Comilla. Before we wrap up the analysis of patterns of donation of sculptures in the plains of Comilla, we will like to highlight two more things: the decreasing participation of women; and the absence of sculptures of the Buddha, Tārā, Prajñāpāramitā, and Avalokiteśvara inscribed with the names of donors.377 Barring a queen in the seventh century, we do not see any woman of any social background donating Buddhist or Brahmanical sculptures in this area. Donation of sculptures was a religious activity in the public domain. If women are not seen donating inscribed images, that raises some fundamental questions regarding their access to property and the nature of their participation in public religious activities.

Evolving Pattern in the Chittagong Coastal Tracts The available corpus of dedicatory inscriptions of this area is confined to short dedicatory inscriptions on bronze sculptures that were accidently discovered at Jhewari. Most of them are

Social Bases of Patronage

337

inscribed with the Buddhist creed formula only. Only a few contain names of donors. Our analysis shall be confined to those inscriptions on Jhewari bronze sculptures that contain names of donors. Before we proceed to analyze the socio-religious dimensions of votive inscriptions on these images, it is pertinent to give a brief description of the dating of these images and inscriptions. These sculptures, though related to the general art-historical trends of Bihar and Bengal, have an individuality of their own and they indicate the existence of a distinctly local school of art in the Chittagong area.378 The most flourishing phase of this school was during the ninth and tenth centuries AD, though images continued to be made long afterwards.379 D.C. Sircar’s analysis of the paleography of inscriptions has suggested that these inscriptions are products of some one hundred years (AD 850-950).380 Debala Mitra has rightly argued that that these images were donated to some Buddhist religious centre through the patronage of devotees.381 To sum up, the most flourishing phase of this centre was the period when the maritime focus of Bengal had shifted to the Chittagong coast. Even a cursory look at the very geographical location of Jhewari – about 7 km east of the mouth of the Karnaphulli River and 8 km east of the Bay of Bengal – will make us assume that this centre could have participated in the Indian Ocean trading network. It could have interacted with the hill tracts of Chittagong through the Karnaphulli River. The data from dedicatory inscriptions on the Jhewari bronze sculptures are summarized in Table 5.19. None of the donors has recorded the place he/she came from. In the inscriptions on bronze sculptures of Jhewari, we see a resounding absence of any category (with or without expressed Buddhist identity) of women. In Samataṭa-Harikela as a whole, women donors do not figure prominently, but their absence in the coastal tracts of Chittagong is more pronounced than what we see in even Comilla. Similarly, none of the inscriptions gives any indication of mercantile background of any donor; a pattern different from what we see in the plains of Comilla. In the votive

TABLE 5.19: INSCRIBED BUDDHIST SCULPTURES, JHEWARI

Identity of the image

Donor and his/ her gender

Social background of the donor

Buddha in BSM382

Sthavira Śubhadatta

Mahāyāna Monk

Buddha in BSM

Sthavira Kumārabhadra

Mahāyāna Monk

Buddha in BSM

Śākyabhikṣu Guṇadatta

Mahāyāna Monk

Buddha in BSM

Śubhadatta and Saṅghasena Not available

Śubhadatta appears to be a Mahāyāna Monk A non-monastic non-aristocratic person with expressed Mahāyāna identity Do

Buddha in BSM

Buddha in BSM

son of Candravijaya

Tārā

Paramopāsaka Kadainda

Do

Padmapāṇi

Śrī Haritika

Buddha in BSM

Vimalaśīla

A non-monastic non-aristocratic man without expressed Mahāyāna identity Do

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Expressed motive behind donation Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures Not mentioned Do

Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures

for the religious merit of the parents of the donor Not mentioned Not mentioned

None expressed.

Social Bases of Patronage

339

inscriptions on images from the plains of Comilla, we have at least one example of the donation of a Buddhistic image (Gaṇeśa) by a merchant. In the case of available votive inscriptions on images from the Chittagong area, merchants are simply absent. That makes us infer that Buddhism was most probably not successful in attracting mercantile patronage in the coastal tracts of Chittagong.383 That is significant as the emergence of this school of Buddhist art coincided with the shift of the maritime focus of Bengal to this area. The dedicatory inscriptions on seven out of nine images directly or indirectly attest to the Mahāyāna identity of the donor. None of the non-monastic donors has claimed to be from the aristocratic section. Mahāyāna monks figure prominently as donors of images of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā. Thus, an inscription on an image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā records that this image was the deyadharma of venerable (vandya) Sthavira Śubhadatta, for the purpose of the attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures, but firstly by his parents.384 Another inscription on an image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā records that this image was the Deyadharma of the venerable Sthavira Kumārabhadra, who was a follower of the excellent Mahāyāna (Pravara-Mahāyāna-Yāyinaḥ), for the purpose of attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures, but firstly by his parents and his ācārya.385 Another inscription on an image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā records that this image was the deyadharma of Śākyabhikṣu Sthavira Guṇadatta.386 Similarly, an inscription on an image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā has a legend engraved on it which reads ‘Subhadatta Saṅghaseṇi’.387 As per D.C. Sircar, they are the incorrect renderings of the names of two individuals – Śubhadatta and Saṅghasena – and this Śubhadatta was most likely to be identical with the Sthavira Śubhadatta mentioned above.388 So this is also a case of donation of an image by a monk, in the company of another person, whose name (Saṅghasena) shows Buddhist influence. No motive (attainment of Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures, etc.) has been mentioned here. But Sthavira Śubhadatta has been seen donating an image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā with the Mahāyāna

340

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

dedicatory formula. So we may infer that he followed Mahāyāna and this possibility cannot be ruled out for his companion (Saṅghasena). A fragmentary inscription on an image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā records that this image was donated for securing Anuttara Jñāna by all creatures.389 That indicates that the donor was a person with an expressed Mahāyāna identity. We have some other evidences of donations by non-monastic donors as well. A fragmentary inscription on an image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā records that this image was the Deyadharma of a person who has been described as PravaraMahāyāna-Yāyinaḥ and son of Candravijaya.390 The name of the donor is lost, and so are some portions of the passage which deals with the motive behind undertaking this gift. Available portions suggest that this image was granted for the religious merit of the parents of the donor.391 This reminds us once again that as a religion, despite its emphasis on monkhood and renunciation, Buddhism did cater to some worldly needs of its followers. We have evidences of donations of some Vajrayāna gods and goddesses as well, but the inscriptions on these images are very short and they do not provide any information regarding the social background of the donor or the motives behind the donation of that particular image. Thus an inscription on an image of Tārā, containing the usual Buddhist creed formula in the first five lines, records that this image was the religious gift of Paramopāsaka Kadainda.392The use of the title Paramopāsaka for the donor will indicate that he was a person with expressed Buddhist identity. We have two instances of donation of images of Padmapāṇi Avalokiteśvara. The inscription on an image of this deity records that this image was the Deyadharma of Śrī Haritika.393 An inscription on another image of the same deity records that this image was the Deyadharma of Nagirika.394No other detail has been provided in these inscriptions. None of the donors in early medieval Samataṭa-Harikela (Comilla and Chittagong coastal tracts) has recorded his varṇa/

Social Bases of Patronage

341

jāti status in the reported votive inscriptions. In the Comilla area, three out of the six reported donors have recorded that they were vaṇika or sārtha (i.e. sārthavāha), but none of them have recorded categorically that they belonged to the Vaiśya varṇa. Vaṇika and sārthavāhas need not necessarily belong to the Vaiśya varṇa. In the reported dedicatory inscriptions from the Chittagong area, none of the non-monastic donors has recorded his profession either. Our impression is that in early medieval Samataṭa-Harikela, religious centres provided an avenue for the marginalization of these identities as they were not important enough to be recorded in votive inscriptions on the sculptures donated to these religious centres by the donors. If we look into the place names mentioned in the reported votive inscriptions on images, it is apparent that no place outside Samataṭa-Harikela has been mentioned. The Jhewari image-inscriptions share this feature with their Comilla counterparts. In Magadha, we have many evidences of pilgrims from Sri Lanka, Sindh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu donating images to different Buddhist establishments. Similarly, in the Varendra area in north Bengal, we see the donation of an image by a Buddhist monk who came from the Mandalay area in upper Burma to this part of Bengal.395 In contrast, most of the inscribed sculptures in Samataṭa-Harikela appear to have been donated by local devotees. The spatial range of the sacred geography of religious centers of Samataṭa-Harikela appears to be quite limited.

Some Concluding Observations As we approach the end of this chapter, we are left with some unanswered questions, especially vis-à-vis the tricky issue of the decline of Buddhism. In a significant section of existing historiography, a general attitude has been to treat early medieval Buddhism in Bihar and Bengal as a non-existing phenomenon beyond the monastic walls of its big, ‘parasitic’ monastic centres which depended solely on royal patronage for their survival.396 Similarly, the role of royal patronage in deter-

342

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

mining the fates of Brahmanical religious centres has been highlighted in a significant section of historiography. Our study, while not denying the role of royal/aristocratic patronage in the lives of big monastic centres of Buddhism or big Brahmanical temples, tried to highlight the role of other segments of society that patronized Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres, however modest that might have been, through the dedication of sculptures. Inscribed Brahmanical sculptures discussed in this chapter were most probably enshrined as objects of public worship in public temples caused to be constructed by the donors of such sculptures. Inscribed Buddhist sculptures, on the other hand, were donated to existing religious centres, as well as to the religious centres caused to be constructed by donors. We cannot claim that the patterns we observed in the analysis of the socio-religious dimensions of dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of this area sums up all patterns that were in operation in the period of our study. That is due to the fact that only a tiny percentage of sculptures of this area are inscribed with the name of the donor. They, nevertheless, offer some useful glimpses to draw some broad, tentative, inferences, which will be attempted in the paragraphs that follow. (a) The Long-term Implications of the Marginalization of Monks and Predominance of ‘Non-monastic Non-aristocratic Donors without Expressed Buddhist Identity’ in the Reported Dedicatory Inscriptions on Buddhist Sculptures The role of Buddhist monks (and nuns) in the donation of Buddhist images has remained a debatable issue in modern scholarly writings, basically due to the fact that it raises some fundamental issues regarding the access of monks and nuns to property, as well as their overall roles in some sectarian developments within Buddhism. Two themes that we will like to look into to analyse this issue in early medieval Bihar and Bengal are: (1) Buddhist monks and nuns as donors of sculptures and, (2) the role of Buddhist monks and nuns in the donation of sculptures by non-monastic devotees. We will like to analyse the pattern in

Social Bases of Patronage

343

early medieval Bihar and Bengal in the backdrop of some longterm developments in early historic and early medieval northern India. Schopen’s recent researches in the epigraphic records associated with the donation of images have highlighted the role of Buddhist monks as donors of images in early historic northern, central and north-western India. As per his analysis, monks (including nuns) formed the single biggest category of donors of Buddhist images in the early historic period and their role increased with time. In the Kharosthi inscriptions concerned with the cult of stūpa or images, more than 40 per cent donors were monks which included one Vaineyika (one who knows the Vinaya) and Traipeṭika (one who knows the Tripiṭaka).397 On the basis of the analysis of inscriptions on the Buddhist sculptures of Mathura, he has calculated that well over 50 per cent donors were monks or nuns.398 His analysis of 80 Mahāyāna inscriptions fetched similar results: in these inscriptions, the donors in more than 70 per cent of the cases were monks or nuns, mostly the former.399 All this led him to conclude that ‘from its very appearance in inscriptions, the Mahāyāna was a monk dominated movement, and that it continued to be so until the 13th century, the date of our last known Mahāyāna inscription’.400 In the context of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, the questions that need to be analysed are: was the Mahāyāna of this area a ‘monk dominated movement’? Did the donation of images remain dominated by monks? Let’s see the century-wise donation of images by monks in Table 5.20. An analysis of the above table indicates that the pattern in early medieval Bihar and Bengal was fundamentally different from what has been argued by Gregory Schopen. In fact we see a progressive marginalization of monks. One of the best examples of this trend is seen in the case of the Mahābodhi. Till the eighth century, 6 out of the reported 8 (i.e. 75 per cent) sculptures inscribed with the name of donors were donated by monks, and 1 sculpture (i.e. the Buddha or Bodhisattva of the period of Mahārāja Trikamala) was donated by a non-monastic donor with the active help of many Vinayadhara monks. That is to say,

Varendra Vaṅga Salban Vihara Plains of Comilla Jhewari

Thirteenth century

Aṅga North Bihar Rāḍha and Coastal West Bengal

Twelfth century

404

Eleventh century

Bodh Gaya Kurkihar Unspecified sites of Magadha Nalanda Mahāvihāra Elsewhere in the Nalanda district403 Aṣṭamahāpratihārya sculptures from the Nalanda district

Up to the end of the eighth century

6

0 6

1 9

0 2

0 0

0 0

Total no. of inscribed Buddhist sculptures donated at the site/in the area401 13 72

1

0

0

0

0

0

6

16.66%

0

1

0

0

0

0

17

5.88%

2

1

14

21.42%

0

0

1

0

0

0

5

20%

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 0

0 0

1 0

11 4

18.18% 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

4 4 3

25% 0 0

Ninth century

Site/area

Tenth century

TABLE 5.20: CENTURY-WISE DONATION OF SCULPTURES BY MONKS

405

0 1

1 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4406

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Overall % of Buddhist images donated by monks402 46.15% 23.61%

0

0

9

44.44%

Social Bases of Patronage

345

monks were involved with the donation of 87.5 per cent of the recorded cases in the pre-Pāla Bodh Gaya. In the Pāla period, we see the progressive marginalization of monks as donors of sculptures. Except Kurkihar, the sheer number of reported sculptures donated by them in any part of Pāla period Bihar and Bengal was never more than four. Even at the monastic sites like Antichak and Salban Vihara – ‘Maṇḍala monasteries’ that did not favour much ritual engagement with non-monastic devotees407 – monks did not form the dominant category of donors. In every part of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, the epigraphically recorded instances of donation of images were dominated by non-monastic persons. A bigger marginalization of monks was in the dedicatory inscriptions on images donated by non-monastic devotees in the sense that barring four examples confined to Magadha,408 monks are invisible. That could not have been without significant consequences, basically due to the very rituals associated with the donation of images. These inscribed images, now almost totally divorced of the ritual contexts in which they once functioned as objects of worship, are now studied as objects de art. But they were basically intended to be objects of worship. Before being installed in some religious centre as objects of worship, a ritual sacralization was necessary and that must have required the services of someone specializing in the ritual of prāṇapratiṣṭhā.409 Who performed these rituals and why are their names not recorded in dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures? That some monks did perform the rituals of prāṇapratiṣṭhā of images is indicated in the accounts of Tārānātha. He informs us of Ācārya Vāgiśvarakīrti, the western gatekeeper of Vikramaśilā: ‘when he consecrated (literally infused life or prāṇapratiṣṭhā) an image, it used to move’.410 We cannot rule out that many images donated by non-monastic devotees would have attracted the services of monks for prāṇapratiṣṭhā. Why are they not recorded in the dedicatory inscriptions? Even if they performed an important task, they were not important enough to be recorded in dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures. In this aspect, they share a similar fate with the priests associated with Brahmanical

346

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

temples. They too, presumably, performed prāṇapratiṣṭhā rituals but were not important enough to be recorded even in a single dedicatory inscription. Compared to monks, nuns fared even worse. In entire early medieval Bihar and Bengal, we come across only two donations of sculptures by nuns: an image of Tārā donated by Śākyabhikṣuṇī Guṇamati (discovered at Kurkihar);411 and an image of Siṁhanāda Avalokiteśvara donated by a Śākya-Sthavirā Vijayaśrībhadrā in the Kiul-Lakhisarai area in c. AD 1150. On the whole, the Bhikṣuṇīsaṅgha, contrary to the generally accepted theories, did not disappear from the scene till the late twelfth century, but nuns could never form a significant category of donors. In the reported inventory of Buddhist sculptures inscribed with the names of donors, the donation of Buddhist sculptures was dominated by non-monastic non-aristocratic donors in all parts of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Within this category, donors with expressed Buddhist identity formed a tiny proportion. This tiny proportion was, though, much better than the frequency of the use of some characteristic terms that signified the sectarian affiliation of donors of Brahmanical sculptures to some particular sects within Brahmanism. We have seen that only three donors – two paramavaiṣṇava brothers Bhaṭṭa Abhi and Bhaṭṭa Inda who donated an image of Nārāyaṇa in the twelfth century in the Kiul-Lakhisarai area, and a Paramavaiṣṇava merchant Lokadatta in the tenth century, who donated an image of Viṣṇu in tenth century Comilla – have used characteristic terms in the dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures donated by them to signify their sectarian affiliation. Despite this, Brahmanism survived in the medieval period but Buddhism could not. This was despite the fact that Buddhist sculptures continued to be donated till the very end of the early medieval period by persons with expressed Buddhist identity. At least one of such donor (i.e. Rāṇaka Samudrāditya in the Kandi image inscription in the Jamui area of Bihar; latter half of the twelfth century) was the son of a person with expressed Buddhist identity. If Buddhism declined despite having this kind of a patron, it demands some explanation.

Social Bases of Patronage

347

Some clues to this vexed issue may be found in the analysis of the religious identity of donors who contributed the largest share in the donation of the reported images inscribed with the names of the donors. The biggest category of donors of such Buddhist sculptures was formed by non-monastic nonaristocratic persons without expressed Buddhist identity. This was the case even at the biggest pilgrimage centres of early medieval Indian Buddhism: Bodh Gaya, Nalanda, Kurkihar. Most probably they were persons with multiple, or at least fluid, religious identities. The situation at the modest village shrines could not have been different. That forces us to infer that the expansion of Buddhism in early medieval Bihar and Bengal was propelled by the patronage of persons with multiple, or at least fluid, religious identities. That was bound to have some fundamental implications especially in a phase when most of the Buddhist religious centres existed in a poly-religious landscape. Buddhist religious centres accepted patronage from such donors, most probably to diversify their own patronage base. But when they started to accept Brahmanical sculptures from persons without expressed Buddhist identity, they inadvertently began to erode the ritual and institutional boundaries between Buddhism and Brahmanism. (b) Marginalization of the Cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas and Deities Marking Violent Conflict with Brahmanism In the ‘Introduction’ of this book, we have reviewed the debate regarding the ‘marginalization of the Buddha Śākyamuni and his replacement by the Paṅcatathāgatas in the ‘Vajrayāna phase’ in Bihar and Bengal.412 In Chapter 7, we will try to show that a marginalization of the Buddha Śākyamuni did take place in the Paharpur-type maṇḍala monasteries, which were built and patronized by political elites as monuments dedicated to the worship of the Paṅcatathāgatas headed by Vairocana, radiating some particular kind of political symbolism. The question that needs to be explored in this context is: do we see the marginalization of the Buddha Śākyamuni in all Buddhist religious

348

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal? How did the nonmonastic non-aristocratic devotees perceive this process? Did they also participate in the process of marginalization of the Śākyamuni? In other words, did they actively donate sculptures of the Paṅcatathāgatas? If they did, where did this donation take place? Did the donation of the images of the Buddha Śākyamuni fall out of favour of the non-monastic devotees? These are some of the issues that need to be analysed through an analysis of dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures found at different Buddhist religious centers. An analysis of data from inscribed sculptures from different sites of early medieval Bihar and Bengal indicates that there was no uniform pattern. At Kurkihar, we do see a progressive decline in the number of inscribed images of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā (seven in the ninth century, two in the tenth, one in the eleventh and none in the twelfth) and Dharmacakrapravartana mudrā (one in the ninth century and none subsequently).413 This visible decline in the donation of such images at Kurkihar did not result in a corresponding increase in the donation of inscribed images of the Paṅcatathāgatas (Vairocana, Akṣobhya, Amoghasiddhi, Ratnasaṁbhava, Amitābha) and Maitreya. Till date, not a single inscribed image of Vairocana, Akṣobhya, Amoghasiddhi, Ratnasaṁbhava, Amitābha or Maitreya has been reported from Kurkihar.414 At Kurkihar, the cult of Vairocana seems to have made its way not through the imagery of Vairocana, but through the imagery of the Crowned Buddha. The Crowned Buddha was regarded as a form of Mahāvairocana or Vairocana.415 Despite this, as indicated by an analysis of the reported data, the cultic life of Kurkihar remained dominated by the Buddha Śākyamuni in different mudrās or ‘instrumental’ Vajrayāna deities associated with the laukika needs of devotees.416 At no other monastic site of early medieval Bihar, inscribed sculptures of the Paṅcatathāgatas (including the Crowned Buddha) were donated in any significant number. At Nalanda, the only example was the donation of a stone sculpture of Vairocana by a non-monastic non-aristocratic donor of the same

Social Bases of Patronage

349

name. At Bodh Gaya, no inscribed image of Vairocana, Akṣobhya, Amoghasiddhi, Ratnasaṁbhava, or Amitābha has been reported so far, though many un-inscribed images of the Crowned Buddha (datable to the tenth-twelfth centuries AD period), are found at the site.417 The votive inscription on the only inscribed image of the Crowned Buddha at this site records the donation by a nonmonastic non-aristocratic donor without expressed Buddhist identity. Here too, the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas or the Crowned Buddha could never become prominent among the donors of sculptures. Similarly, in the Kiul-Lakhisarai area, no sculpture of the Paṅcatathāgatas or the Crowned Buddha inscribed with the name of the donor has been reported so far. At Antichak, un-inscribed stone sculptures of the Crowned Buddha formed the single largest group within the reported sculptural assemblage.418 But we have yet to come across any image of this deity or any of the Paṅcatathāgatas inscribed with the name of the donor at this site. In north Bihar, such inscribed images are absent. In Bengal, we do not see non-monastic devotees donating images of Paṅcatathāgatas in general and Vairocana in particular to even ‘Paharpur-type Maṇḍala monasteries’. The monastic context of other inscribed stone images of some Paṅcatathāgata – a ‘Dhyānī Buddha’ – from Bardhaman and an image of Akṣobhya donated by a Dānapati donor (found at Madhyapara, Vikramapur) – is not clear.419 Available data indicates that the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas did not attract much patronage from the non-monastic devotees in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. That generally matches well with the paucity of even un-inscribed stone images of the Paṅcatathāgatas from non-monastic sites of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. To sum up, non-monastic donors, and even monk-donors, of Buddhist sculptures in early medieval Bihar and Bengal continued to patronize the donation of traditional Mahāyāna deities (Buddha Śākyamuni in different mudrās, Tārā, different Bodhisattvas, etc.) in far greater numbers than what they did for the Paṅcatathāgatas. Even if Vajrayāna deities were donated, they

350

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

were mostly ‘instrumental’ deities that were supposed to take care of the laukika needs of devotees. Similarly, monastic and non-monastic donors generally avoided the donation of ferocious Vajrayāna deities trampling on Brahmanical deities (Trailokyavijaya, Aparājitā, etc.) or deities associated with explicit sexual imagery (yab-yum deities). Krodhanandin and Udayabhadra, who donated stone sculptures of Aparājitā and Trailokyavijaya respectively in Magadha, and publicly owned it by inscribing their names on the sculptures, were exceptions. Such exceptions were confined to Magadha. (c) Did the Non-monastic Donors Perceive Buddhist Religious Centres where they Donated Sculptures as Centres of Esoteric, Tantric Buddhism? The Implications of the Epigraphic Invisibility of Vajrayāna as a Marker of the Social and Religious Identity of Donors of Sculptures in the Reported Dedicatory Inscriptions The pattern noted above needs to be seen in the backdrop of a peculiar feature in early medieval Bihar and Bengal: the invisibility of the term ‘Vajrayāna’ in the dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures – rather in any kind of inscription – and the nonevolution of anything like ‘Vajrayāna dedicatory formula’ in donative inscriptions on sculptures. Even a donor like Krodhanandin, who donated a stone sculpture of Aparājitā in Magadha, did not claim to be a Vajrayāna-Anuyāyin in the dedicatory inscription in the way so many donors of sculptures have claimed to be Mahāyāna-Anuyāyin. Even the Kāñcī monks at Kurkihar, who were the earliest recorded donors of images of the Crowned Buddha, did not claim to be Vajrayāna-Anuyāyin or Vajrayāna-Paramopāsaka.420 The invisibility of the term ‘Vajrayāna’ in inscriptions and the non-evolution of anything like a ‘Vajrayāna dedicatory formula’ in donative inscriptions on sculptures remains a puzzle in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, especially in view of the fact that the non-monastic devotees were aware of sectarian differences within Buddhism and they have recorded it epigraphically in at least two instances. We have seen that at

Social Bases of Patronage

351

least one donor in the Kiul-Lakhisarai area was aware of the differences between the community of the Siddhas and the Saṅgha of Buddhist monks.421 In the next chapter we will see how a minister of horses in the thirteenth century Comilla claimed to be a follower of Sahajayāna. If the non-monastic donors were aware of sectarian differences within Buddhism, why did they not record their affiliation to Vajrayāna even when they donated sculptures of Aparājitā, Trailokyavijaya, Akṣobhya, the Crowned Buddha or Vairocana? This feature has troubled scholars for a long time. We may see, for example, G. Bhattacharya’s analysis: It is known to the students of Buddhism that in Eastern India during the Pāla period the Mahāyāna form of Buddhism developed into the Vajrayāna form. But strangely enough, invariably in all the dedicatory inscriptions the donor is described as the follower of excellent Mahāyāna (Pravara-Mahāyāna) Buddhism. We, therefore, think that the expression Pravara-Mahāyāna most probably refers to Vajrayāna. But still one may ask what was the harm to call it as such?422

So even for the donors who carefully avoided the term ‘Vajrayāna’ for the religion they practiced and images they donated, Dr. Bhattacharya attributes such features for the donors. More recently, Jinah Kim too has noted that ‘the epigraphic evidence from the ninth through the thirteenth centuries demonstrate the continued use of the term “Mahāyāna” in dedicatory inscriptions and colophons even when the image and the texts seem to belong to the Tantric Buddhist schools’.423 She too, does not offer any tenable explanation. We are afraid that we too do not have any convincing explanation for this peculiar feature but only some broad inferences. In this context, we need to take into account the social ramifications – or the lack of the same – of the textual traditions that developed in the confines of Buddhist monastic centres. The Vajrayāna tradition has, no doubt, produced a vast literary corpus in the early medieval period. Any study of early medieval Indian Buddhism solely on the basis of these texts will give an impression that Vajrayāna with its derivative traditions (Sahajayāna and Kālacakrayāna) was the only form of Buddhism

352

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

known to the people –laity and monks alike – of early medieval Bihar and Bengal.424 But the term ‘Vajrayāna’ did not get any currency among the donors of sculptures till the very end of the early medieval period. If this pattern is contrasted with Schopen’s analysis of dedicatory formulas on images from early historic Mathurā and elsewhere, we get some interesting inferences. He has noted that even when the Mahāyāna textual tradition began to be produced in the monasteries by the first century AD, the term ‘Mahāyāna’ was not used in the dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures for the next four hundred years. All this forced him to conclude that ‘the group which we are in the habit of calling Mahāyāna apparently came to use the term epigraphically only very gradually and rather late’.425 In the developed form of the ‘Mahāyāna dedicatory formula’, the term Pravara-MahāyānaAnuyāyina begin to appear in the dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures by the early sixth century.426 That is to say, there was a time lag in the appearance of Mahāyāna in the textual tradition developing within the monastic centres and its social practice as a living religion by the non-monastic devotees.427 Could we argue for a similar situation in early medieval Bihar and Bengal? Could we argue that when Vajrayāna appeared in the textual tradition of monastic centres, its tenets took some time to travel to the non-monastic devotees? One additional factor needs to be taken into account in this context. The Buddhist religious centres which attracted pilgrimage and patronage from non-monastic devotees on a sustained basis – Mahābodhi and Nalanda – undertook determined efforts to ensure that esoteric practices remained invisible or least visible to non-monastic devotees.428 Non-monastic donors too kept a distance from the ‘Paharpur-type Maṇḍala monasteries’ (Paharpur, Antichak, almost all monasteries on the Mainamati ridge), where esoteric Vajrayāna seems to have been more prominent. In other religious centres as well, non-monastic donors generally avoided the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas and deities with violent and explicit sexual imagery. Hence they had some reasons not to use the term Vajrayāna. Even if they

Social Bases of Patronage

353

unconsciously practiced Vajrayāna, they practiced its exoteric aspect, which had a very thin dividing line with Mahāyāna. It was probably due to these reasons that they believed that they were Mahāyāna-Anuyāyin. (d) Aristocratic Patronage in the Donation of Images Finally, before we wrap up this chapter, we will like to make a comparative study of the nature of aristocratic patronage in the donation of Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures. In this chapter, we have discussed 19 reported instances of donation of Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures by such donors. This number is insignificant compared to the number of donations of sculptures by non-aristocratic donors. This indicates that aristocratic donors could never form the dominant category of donors of sculptures in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Out of the 19 reported instances, aristocratic patronage was directed to the donation of Brahmanical sculptures in fourteen cases, which included the solitary example of donations by a king (Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa donated by the ruling king Malladeva in Mithilā, twelfth century) and one example of a donation by a queen (Śarvvāṇī donated by Prabhāvatī in the seventh century Comilla). It also included the donation of an image of Gaurī donated by Rājñī Śrī Gītā Lalitā in the twelfth century Varendra. We occasionally see donors with the title Bhaṭṭāraka donating Śaiva or Śākta sculptures: Śrī Suphaṇḍī Bhaṭṭāraka, who donated an image of Nandī to the Mahābodhi to beget progeny in the eighth century; and Rājaputra Śrī Ṭikkuka Bhaṭṭāraka, who donated an image of Mahiṣāsuramardinī in seventh century Varendra. All other examples of aristocratic patronage in the donation of Brahmanical sculptures record donations by officers of the state (Adhikṛta, etc.) or subordinate rulers (Rāṇaka, etc.). In other words, we see a marginalization of kings and their family members as donors of Brahmanical sculptures. The role of aristocratic donors in the donation of Buddhist sculptures appears to be even more marginal. Out of the five reported instances of donations of inscribed Buddhist sculptures

354

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

through aristocratic patronage, we see the donation of a miniature bronze image of Pancika by Vikhākā, a sole wife of the ‘destroyer of the Kalachuris’ at Nalanda (ninth century). Her husband had some military power, but it is difficult to ascertain his relationship with the Pāla state. The donor of a miniature bronze image of Hārītī at Nalanda (ninth century) could have been a prince. The other two examples of donations included a stone sculpture of Tārā donated by Pratihāra Śrī Udayavāra in the twelfth century (Antichak); an unidentifiable Buddhist image donated by Rāṇaka Samudrāditya in the twelfth century Jamui area of Bihar; and a stone image of Mañjuśrī donated by a Mahāmāṇḍalika in the twelfth century Vaṅga (Narayanaganj district). In the reported inventory of Buddhist sculptures inscribed with the names of donors, we see a pronounced absence of kings and their family members as donors of Buddhist sculptures. This appears a bit strange as most of the major ruling dynasties of early medieval Bihar and Bengal claimed to be Paramasaugata in their official records. The marginalization of kings and their family members in the process of the donation of Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures should not make us underestimate their role in the patronage to Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres because providing some particular types of patronage, especially the grant of tax free land to Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres, was the prerogative of the king. That is one of the themes we will discuss in some detail in the next chapter.

NOTES 1. Kumkum Roy, ‘Women and Men Donors at Sāñcī: A Study of the Inscriptional Evidence’, in L.K. Tripathi (ed.), Position and Status of Women in Ancient India, BHU, Varanasi, 1988, pp. 209-23; Vidya Dehejia, ‘The Collective and Popular Basis of Early Buddhist Patronage: Sacred Monuments, BC 100-AD 250’, in Barbara S. Miller (ed.), The Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian Culture, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1992, pp. 35-50; Romila Thapar, ‘Patronage and Community’, in Miller (ed.), op. cit., pp. 19-34; Gregory Schopen,

Social Bases of Patronage

2.

3.

4.

5.

355

‘Filial Piety and the Monk in the Practice of Indian Buddhism: A Question of “Sinicization” Viewed from the Other Side,’ T’oung Pao, Second Series, vol. 70, livr. 1/3, 1984, pp. 110-26; idem, ‘On Monks, Nuns and “Vulgar” Practices: The Introduction of the Image Cult into Indian Buddhism’, Artibus Asiae, vol. 49, nos. 1/2, 1988-9, pp. 153-68; Upinder Singh, ‘Sanchi: The History of Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 33(1), 1996, pp. 1-35; Sima Roychowdhury, ‘Patterns of Patronage and Early Buddhist Art of Amaravati’, in G. Sengupta and S. Chakraborty (eds), Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia, Pragati Publications, Delhi, 2008, pp. 477-94; G. Bhattacharya, ‘Who Were the Donors of Early Mathurā Sculptures? What Was Their Social Status?’, in Sengupta and Chakraborty (eds), op. cit., pp. 494-502. J. Kim, ‘Unheard Voices: Women’s Roles in Medieval Buddhist Artistic Production and Religious Practices in South Asia’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 80(1), 2012, pp. 200-32. G. Schopen, ‘The Inscription on the Kuṣāṇ Image of Amitābha and the Character of Early Mahāyāna in India’, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 10, 1987, pp. 99-137. G. Sengupta, ‘Epigraphy and Art History: On Some Inscribed Sculptures of Eastern India’, Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India, vol. XVI, 1990, pp. 112-18; S.L. Huntington, The ‘Pāla-Sena’ Schools of Sculpture, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1984. Huntington’s study begins with an art- historical analysis of images dated with the regnal year of different kings, but she has not looked into the socio-religious dimensions of dedicatory inscriptions on such sculptures. G. Schopen, ‘On Monks, Nuns and Vulgar Practice: The Introduction of Image Cult into Indian Buddhism’, in idem, Indian Monastic Buddhism: Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional and Archaeological Evidence, pt. I , Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2010, p. 256. My analysis of the use of epigraphy in ascertaining the sectarian affiliations of the donors of Buddhist sculptures in the present book (pp. 233-37) is based on, and similar to, the one proffered in Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Cultic Relationships Between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the “Last Stronghold” of Indian Buddhism: An Analysis with Particular Reference to Votive Inscriptions on Brahmanical Sculptures Donated to Buddhist Religious Centres in Early Medieval Magadha’, Buddhist Studies Review, London, vol. 30, no. 2, 2013, pp. 186-9.

356

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. G. Schopen, ‘Mahāyāna in Indian Inscriptions’, Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 21, 1979, p. 1. 9. Ibid., pp. 4-6; Birendra Nath Prasad, op. cit., pp. 186-9. 10. G. Schopen, op. cit., p. 12. 11. Ibid., p. 11. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. L.S. Cousins, ‘Sākiyabhikkhu/Sakyabhikkhu/Śākyabhikṣu: A Mistaken Link to the Mahāyāna?’, Nagoya Studies in Indian Culture and Buddhism, vol. 23, 2003, pp. 1–27. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid. 20. ‘The Pāla period’ has been used in a very loose sense throughout the chapter. It includes the Sena period as well. To be more specific, it covers the period from the late eighth to early ninth centuries AD to the early thirteenth century AD. 21. These terms were used by persons who wished to claim the status of Mahāyāna lay followers for themselves not only in dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures, but also on stone inscriptions recording their patronage to Buddhist religious centres. See for example Paramopāsaka Pravara-Mahāyāna-Anuyāyin Mahārāja Aśokacalladeva mentioned in an inscription discovered at Bodh Gaya and Paramopāsaka Pravara Mahāyāna Anuyāyina Bālāditya mentioned in an inscription discovered at Nalanda. For a detailed analysis of these inscriptions, see Chapter 6 of the present book. 22. G. Schopen, ‘Mahāyāna in Indian Inscriptions’, op. cit., p. 12. 23. A similar feature of mono-religious shrines commanding ‘multireligious pilgrimage’ has been noted in an anthropological study as well. See Surinder M. Bhardwaj, ‘Single Religious Shrines, Multireligious Pilgrimage’, National Geographical Journal of India, 33(4), 1987, pp. 457-68. 24. Frederick Asher’s recent study indicates that the stone quarry at the village Matadih, near Jamalpur in Munger district, was the source of much of the rocks used in the Pāla period sculptures in Bihar and Bengal. This claim has been made after microscopic

Social Bases of Patronage

25.

26. 27.

28. 29. 30.

31. 32.

33. 34.

357

study of rocks from this place and many Pāla period sculptures (Frederick Asher, ‘Ancient Slate Quarry Revisited: A Source Located’, JBA, vol. 4, p. 264). The stones quarried at this site were transported to different places of Bihar and Bengal through the Ganga and other rivers. For an analysis of the role of Buddhist monks in officiating Prāṇapratiṣṭhā rituals of sculptures donated to some Buddhist religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, see pp. 345-6 of the present book. G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Buddhist Hindu Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2000, p. 53. J. Kim, ‘Emergence of a Buddhist Warrior Goddess and the Historical Development of Tantric Buddhism: The Case of Mārīcī’, Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art, N.S., vol. XXVIII, 2012, p. 60, fn. 2. See pp. 350-3 of the present book. K.T.S. Sarao, The Decline of Buddhism in India: A Fresh Perspective, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 2012, p. 130. This failure has been highlighted by P.S. Jaini. He has highlighted the fundamentally different approaches of the Jaina and Buddhist monks in devising codes of social conduct for non-monastic devotees. Jaina clerics wrote many codes of social conduct for the laity and tried to ensure that the Jaina upāsaka/upāsikā did not have to seek the services of Brahmanical priesthood for rites de passage. Indian Buddhist monks did not write such codes. Besides, they were generally reluctant to officiate as priests for rites de passage of the non-monastic devotees. It was only in the eleventh century when one such code – Upāsakajanālankāra – was written in south India. It was not written by any Indian monk but by a Sinhala monk, in the Pali language (P.S. Jaini, Collected Papers on Buddhist Studies, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2001, p. 144). Suvira Jaiswal, ‘Caste, Gender and Ideology in the Making of India’, Social Scientist, 36(1-2), 2008, p. 16. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘The Socio-Religious Dimensions of Dedicatory Inscriptions on Sculptures Donated to a Buddhist Establishment in Early Medieval Magadha: Kurkihar, c. 800-1200 CE’, Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol. 7, 2014, pp. 11652. R.D. Banerji, The Pālas of Bengal (vol. 3), Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1915, p. 64. Two twelfth century inscribed Brahmanical sculptures have been

358

35.

36. 37. 38.

39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

46. 47.

48. 49. 50.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia reported from Gaya: an inscribed sculpture of Gadādhara recording the patronage of a local ruler of Gaya to a temple and an inscribed image of Pārvatī recording the patronage to a temple by a nonaristocratic person. These inscriptions are not concerned with the donation of images but with patronage to temples. They will be discussed in the next chapter. For my earlier analysis of votive inscriptions on the sculptures of Bodh Gaya, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Dedicatory Inscriptions on the Early Historic and Early Medieval Sculptures of Bodh Gaya: Explorations in Socio-religious History’, Journal of Bengal Art, Dhaka, vol. 24, 2019, pp. 91-101. My analysis of these inscriptions in the present book (pp. 242-56) is based on, and similar to, the one offered in my 2019 paper on this theme. See pp. 490-7 of the present book. S.L. Huntington, The ‘Pāla-Sena’ Schools of Sculpture, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1984, p. 14. Frederick Asher, ‘The Bodh Gaya Image of the Year 64: A Reconsideration’, JBRS, vol. LVIII, 1972, pp. 151-7; idem, The Art of Eastern India 300-800, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1980, p. 19. S.L. Huntington, op. cit., p. 204. Ibid. Ibid. G. Schopen, Indian Monastic Buddhism, op. cit., p. 37. Ibid., p. 31. Ibid., p. 32. A. Cunningham, Mahābodhi or the Great Buddhist Temple under the Bodhi Tree at Buddha-Gaya, Indological Book House, Varanasi, undated, p. 62; R.L. Mitra, Buddha Gaya: The Great Buddhist Temple, The Hermitage of Sakyamuni, Indological Book House, Varanasi, 1972 (rpt.), p. 192. A. Cunningham, op. cit., p. 62. J.F. Fleet, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. III: Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and their Successors, Superintendent of Govt. Printing, India, Calcutta, 1888, pp. 281-2. G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Buddhist Hindu Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2000, p. 114. Ibid. S. Asthana, ‘A Rare Image of Cunda in the National Museum Collection’, in G. Bhattacharya (ed.), Akṣyanīvi: Essays Presented to

Social Bases of Patronage

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

61. 62.

63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

68. 69. 70. 71.

359

Dr. Debala Mitra in Admiration of Her Scholarly Contributions, Sri Sataguru Publications, Delhi, 1991, pp. 269-73. G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 114. S. Dhammika, Navel of the Earth: The History and Significance of Bodh Gaya, Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society, Singapore, 1996, pp. 26-7. Lama Chimpa and A. Chattopadhyaya (tr.), Tārānātha’s History of Buddhism in India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2010 (rpt.), p. 279. G.N. Roerich, Biography of Dharmasvāmin, K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1959, pp. 73-4. For details, see p. 255 of the present book. G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 464. R.L. Mitra, op. cit., p. 193. Ibid., p. 193. Gourisankar De, Vaṅga Down the Ages: Cults, Icons and Temples, Sagnik Books, Kolkata, 2008, p. 116. Chandreyi Basu, ‘Patronage and Representation at the Huvishka Vihāra, A Kuṣāṇa Period Buddhist Monastery’, Studies in History, 22(2), 2006, p. 174; Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Cultic Relationships between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the “Last Stronghold” of Indian Buddhism: An Analysis with Particular Reference to Votive Inscriptions on the Brahmanical Sculptures Donated to Buddhist Religious Centres in Early Medieval Magadha’, Buddhist Studies Review, London, vol. 30, no. 2, 2013, p. 188. This theme has been analysed in some detail in Chapter 7 of the book. S. Beal, Si-Yu-Ki, Buddhist Records of the Western World: Translated from the Chinese of Hieun Tsiang, vol. II, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1981, pp. 118-19. A. Cunningham, op. cit., p. 63. Ibid., p. 64. Ibid. Ibid. R.R. Mukherji and S.K. Maity, Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions Bearing on History and Civilization of Bengal, Firma KLM, Calcutta, 1967, pp. 184-7. R.L. Mitra, op. cit., pp. 197-8. S.L. Huntington, op. cit., pp. 246-8. A. Cunningham, op. cit., pp. 63-4. D.C. Sircar, Select Inscriptions bearing on Indian History and Civilization:

360

72. 73.

74.

75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

86.

87.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia From the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century AD, vol. II, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1983, p. 59. Ibid., p. 59; Birendra Nath Prasad, op. cit., pp. 98-9. Debala Mitra, ‘A Crowned Image of the Buddha in the British Museum’, in C.P. Sinha (ed.), Art, Archaeology and Culture of Eastern India, Dr. B.S. Verma Felicitation Volume, Bihar Purāvid Pariṣad, Patna, 1997, p. 183. Hiram W. Woodward Jr., ‘The Life of the Buddha in the Pāla Monastic Environment’, Journal of Walters Art Gallery, vol. 48, 1990, p. 20; Claudine Bautze-Picron, The Bejewelled Buddha: From India to Burma, Sanctum Books, Delhi, 2010, p. 141. R.D. Banerji, Pālas of Bengal (vol. 3), Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1915, p. 110. Ibid., p. 110. As the old Patna district included modern Nalanda district also, we may not rule out its discovery from the Nalanda district. G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 462. Claudine Bautze-Picron, ‘Some Aspects of the Iconography of Avalokiteśvara in the “Pāla-Sena” Period’, in K. Frifelt et al. (eds), South Asian Archaeology 1985, Curzon Press, London, 1989, p. 337. G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 143. Ibid. Ibid. G. Bhattacharya, ‘An inscribed Stone Image of the Buddhist Deity Aparājitā’, JBA, vol. 8, 2003, pp. 95-101. Ibid., p. 99. For my earlier analysis of the dedicatory inscription on the image donated by Krodhanandin, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Some Observations on the Inscribed Stone Sculptures of Aparājitā and Trailokyavijaya from Early Medieval Magadha’, Kalā, vol. XXV, 2019-20, pp. 77-82. My analysis of the said inscription in the present book (pp. 258-60) is based on, and similar to, this paper. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Urbanization at Early Historic Vaiśālī, c. BCE 600-CE 400’, in D.N. Jha (ed.), The Complex Heritage of Early India: Essays in Memory of R.S. Sharma, Manohar, Delhi, 2014, pp. 229-31. In fact, even un-inscribed stone steles of Aparājitā are rare in early medieval Bihar, Bengal and Odisha. Mallar Mitra has reported the discovery of the following nine sculptures of this deity from different parts of early medieval Bihar, Bengal and Odisha: (1) from some unrecorded place of eastern India, (2) from Jagdishpur near

Social Bases of Patronage

88.

89. 90. 91.

92.

93.

94. 95. 96. 97.

98. 99.

361

Nalanda, tenth century AD, (3) from Lalitagiri in Odisha, (4) from Bihar Sharif, (5) from Nalanda, (6) from Nalanda, now in the Nalanda Museum, (7) from Pachar Hill (Gaya district), (8) from Antichak, (9) from English Bazar, Malda district (Mallar Mitra, ‘Note on an Aparājitā Image’, Pratna Samiksha, vol. 1, 1992, pp. 1758). Among these sculptures, the one from Pachar hill is inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula in the eighth century AD characters. The donor has not inscribed his/her name on it (Frederick Asher, The Art of Eastern India 300-800, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1980, pp. 45, 77). Rob Linrothe, ‘Beyond Sectarianism: Towards Reinterpreting the Iconography of Esoteric Buddhist Deities Trampling on Hindu Gods’, in C.P. Sinha (ed.), Art, Archaeology and Culture of Eastern India, Dr. B. S. Verma Felicitation Volume, Bihar Purāvid Pariṣad, Patna, 1997, p. 194. Ibid., p. 197. Ibid., p. 194. Ibid., p. 193. Linrothe bases his arguments on the analogy of the worship of such images in the Tibetan monastic centres of the modern period: ‘even in the Tibetan monasteries today, such images are kept in a special chamber and are often veiled’ (p. 194). For an analysis of the iconographic features of these images, see Mallar Mitra, ‘Two-Armed images of Heruka from Bangladesh: An Iconographic Study’, JBA, vol. 2, 1996, p. 155. For a contextual analysis of these sculptures in the evolving relationship between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the plains of Comilla, see pp. 194-9 of the present book. G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Hindu Buddhist and Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, op. cit., p. 467. Dr. Bhattacharya has not mentioned if this is a stone image or metal image. D.C. Sircar, ‘Lai Inscription of Vikramadevi’, EI, vol. XXX, p. 85. D.C. Sircar, ‘Nongadh Inscription of Madanapala’s Time, Vikrama 1201’, EI, XXXVI, 1965-6, p. 41; G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., pp. 226-7. D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 41; G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 227. S.L. Huntington and John. C. Huntington, Leaves from the Bodhi Tree: The Art of Pāla India (8th-12th Centuries) and Its International Legacy, Dayton Art Institute in association with the University of Washington Press, Dayton, Ohio, 1990, pp. 176-7. Ibid., p. 177. Ibid.

362

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

100. Ibid. 101. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Merchants and Their Family Members as Donors of Inscribed Sculptures in Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal’, Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol. 18, 2020, p. 134. 102. Pran Gopal Paul, ‘Monk Guṇākarasena’s Homage to the Tathāgata: Reflections on an Inscribed Pāla Icon from Magadha’, in Indo-KokoKenkyu – Indian Archaeological Studies, no. 18, 1996-7, p. 28. My analysis of the dedicatory inscriptions on the Aṣṭamahāpratihārya sculptures discovered in the Nalanda district in the present book (pp. 283-8) is based on, and similar to, the one offered in Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Social Bases of Patronage to the Cult of the Aṣṭamahāpratihārya in the Early Medieval Nālandā Area: An Epigraphical Enquiry’, in C.P. Sinha (ed.), India and Southeast Asia – Art, Culture and Religion: A Felicitation Volume in Honour of Prof. Sacchidananda Sahai, vol. 2, B.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi, 2016, pp. 348-54. 103. R.P. Chanda, ‘Jaina Remains at Rajgir’, Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1925-6, p. 125. 104. Ibid., p. 125. 105. Frederick Asher, op. cit., p. 22. 106. Ibid. 107. The old Patna district has been bifurcated into Patna and Nalanda districts. Though the exact provenance of this image has not been provided, we may assume its provenance in the Nalanda district. 108. On the behalf of a non-monastic donor. 109. For the inscription on this image, see H. Sastri, Nalanda and Its Epigraphic Material, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 66, Delhi, 1942, pp. 88-9. 110. Ibid. 111. The significance of Temple/Stūpa site 3 within the Nalanda Mahāvihāra has been analysed in Chapter 6. 112. In the dating of this sculpture, we have followed Debajani Paul, The Art of Nālandā: Development of Buddhist Sculpture AD 600-1200, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1995, pp. 21-2. 113. A. Ghosh, A Guide to Nālandā, Manager of Publications, Delhi, 1939, p. 4. 114. A. J. Bernet Kempers, The Bronzes of Nālandā and Hindu-Javanese Art, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1933, pp. 39-40; Debajani Paul, op. cit., pp. 21-2; Frederick Asher, Nalanda: Situating the Great Monastery, The Marg

Social Bases of Patronage

115. 116. 117.

118. 119. 120. 121.

122. 123. 124. 125. 126.

127.

128. 129. 130.

363

Foundation, Mumbai, 2015, p. 80; Sudipa Ray Bandyopadhyay and Noor Bano Sattar, ‘Nāga Images from Bihar With Special Reference to Muchalinda Buddha and Nāgarāja Images’, Journal of Bengal Art, Dhaka, vol. 20, 2015, p. 54. A.J. Bernet Kempers, op. cit., pp. 39-40. For similar views, see Debajani Paul, op. cit.,p. 21. Trevor Ling, Buddha, Marx and God: Some Aspects of Religion in the Modern World, Macmillan, London, 1979, p. 74. Richard S. Cohen, ‘Nāga, Yakṣiṇi, the Buddha: Local Deities and Local Buddhism at Ajantā’, History of Religions, 37.4, May 1998, pp. 366-8. For the Sanchi area, see Julia Shaw, ‘Nāga Sculptures in Sāñcī’s Archaeological Landscape: Buddhism, Vaiṣṇavism and Local Agricultural Cults in Central India, First Century BCE to Fifth Century CE’, Artibus Asiae, vol. LXIV(1), 2004, pp. 5-59. A. Ghosh, op. cit., p. 4. See p. 552 of the present book. B. Sahai, The Inscriptions of Bihar (From Earliest Times to the Middle of the 13th century AD), Ramananda Vidya Bhavan, Delhi, 1983, p. 126. C.S. Upasaka, Nalanda: Past and Present, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda, 1977, p. 180; Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Women as Donors of Inscribed Buddhist Sculptures in Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal’, Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol. 18, 2020, p. 145. For details, see pp. 509-10 of the present book. P.L. Gupta, Patna Museum Catalogue of Antiquities, Patna Museum, Patna, 1965, pp. 63-4. G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Buddhist, Hindu, Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, op. cit., p. 463. Ibid. Debajani Paul, op. cit., p. 102; Mallar Ghosh, Development of Buddhist Iconography in Eastern India: A Study of Tārā, Prajñās of Five Tathāgatas and Bhrikuṭi, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1980, p. 31. Both Paul and Ghosh argue that this development took place in the sixth century AD. N.N. Bhattacharyya, ‘The Cult of Tara in Historical Perspective’, in idem (ed.), Tantric Buddhism: Centennial Tribute to Dr. Benoytosh Bhattacharya, Manohar, Delhi, 2005, p. 204. H. Sastri, Nalanda and Its Epigraphic Material, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 66, Delhi, 1942, p. 87. Ibid., p. 88. Ibid., p. 113.

364

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

131. In the context of the Mahābodhi as well, it has been rightly observed that the phenomenon of thousands of pilgrims visiting the Mahābodhi and requiring flowers, ghee and other objects for offering pūjā must have stimulated the economy of Magadha (S. Dhammika, Navel of the Earth: The History and Significance of Bodh Gaya, Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society, Singapore, 1996, p. 50). 132. H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 46. 133. R.R. Mukherji and S.K. Maity, op. cit., p. 188. Dating of this king is as per the table supplied by Ronald Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement, Columbia University Press, New York, 2002, p. 52. He has taken into account the regimes of two previously unreported kings: Mahendrapāla and Gopāla II . 134. G. Bhattacharya, ‘Suvarṇa Vrīhi (The Golden Rice Grain?)’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Hakim Habibur Rahman Khan Commemoration Volume, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2001, pp. 130-1. 135. For details, see p. 333 of the present book. 136. Debajani Paul, op. cit., p. 104. 137. For details, see pp. 562-3 of the present book. 138. Jinah Kim, ‘Unheard Voices: Women’s Roles in Medieval Buddhist Artistic Production and Religious Practices in South Asia’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 80(1), 2012, pp. 218-19. 139. Ibid., p. 218. 140. A. Ghosh, op. cit., p.28; Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Some Observations on the Inscribed Stone Sculptures of Aparājitā and Trailokyavijaya from Early Medieval Magadha’, Kalā , vol. XXV, 2019-20, p. 80. 141. Ibid., p. 53. 142. Ibid., p. 62. 143. A. Ghosh, op. cit., p. 28. 144. Debajani Paul, op. cit., p. 104. 145. Ibid. 146. This image could have belonged to the early eleventh century as well. 147. The inscription is in a worn out condition, only the word ‘Mahipāla’ is legible, the rest is illegible. B. Sahai (op. cit., pp. 88-9) has argued that this image was most probably donated in the period of the Pāla king Mahipāla I (first half of the eleventh century). 148. This image is untraceable and the inscription on it was never fully

Social Bases of Patronage

149. 150. 151. 152. 153.

154.

155. 156. 157.

158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167.

168.

365

published (B. Sahai, op. cit., p. 93). Due to this reason, we are unable to ascertain the name and social background of the donor. 12th regnal year of Vigrahapāla III. H.Sastri, op. cit., pp. 105-6. R.D. Banerji, The Pālas of Bengal, Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. V, no. 3, Calcutta, 1915, p. 62. For details, see p. 285 of the present book. For a similar practice of prolonged stay of some monks from Tamilnadu at Kurkihar, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘The SocioReligious Dimensions of Dedicatory Inscriptions on Sculptures Donated to a Buddhist Establishment in Early Medieval Magadha: Kurkihar, c.800-1200 CE’, p. 129. Gregory Schopen, ‘Filial Piety and the Monk in the Practice of Indian Buddhism: A Question of ‘Sinicization’ Viewed from the Other Side’, T’oung Pao, Second Series, vol. 70, livr. 1/3 (1984), pp. 110-26; idem, ‘On Monks, Nuns and ‘Vulgar’ Practices: The Introduction of the Image Cult into Indian Buddhism’ Artibus Asiae, 49(1/2) (1988-1989), pp. 153-68. B.C. Chhabra, ‘Kāśyapa Image Inscription from Silao, Nalanda District’, EI, vol. XXV, 1939-40, pp. 327-34. Ibid., p. 327. Only three sculptures of Vairocana, one in bronze and two in stone, have been reported by Debjani Paul from Nalanda Mahāvihāra (Debjani Paul, op. cit., p. 104). G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Buddhist Hindu Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, op. cit., p. 464. Ibid., p. 463. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 427-8. Ibid. Ibid., p. 116. Ibid. P.L. Gupta, Patna Museum Catalogue of Antiquities, Patna Museum, Patna, 1965, pp. 75-6. Ibid., p. 76. Richard S. Cohen, ‘Naga, Yakshini, the Buddha: Local Deities and Local Buddhism at Ajanta’, History of Religions, 37(4), 1998, pp. 360400. S.L. Huntington, op. cit., p. 232.

366

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

169. For a similar example from the Jamui aera of Aṅga, see D.C. Sircar, ‘Kāndī Buddhist Image Inscription of Rāṇaka Samudrāditya’, Journal of Bihar Research Society, vol. XXXVII,1951, pp. 7-10. 170. K.T.S Sarao, The Decline of Buddhism in India: A Fresh Perspective, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 2012, pp. 208-9. 171. Adelheid Hermann-Pfandt, ‘The Maṇḍala Temples in Pāhārpur, Maināmatī and Vikramaśilā: A New Interpretation’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Pāhārpur alias Somapura Mahāvihāra: A World Cultural Heritage Site, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2014, p. 489. 172. R.D. Banerji, ‘Four Inscriptions from Chandimou’, Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1911-12, pp. 161-2. 173. Ibid., pp. 161-2. 174. John Huntington, ‘Pilgrimage as Image: The Cult of the Aṣṭamahāprātihārya, Part I’, Orientations, April 1987, p. 55. 175. Ibid., p. 55. 176. H. Poell, ‘The Evolution of the Ashta-Maha-Pratiharya Iconography and Its Impact on Later Buddhist Art’, Journal of Bengal Art, vol. 16, 2011, p. 15. 177. Jacob N. Kinnard, ‘Reevaluating the 8th-9th Century Pāla Milieu: Icono-Conservatism and the Persistence of Śākyamuni’, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 19(2), 1996, p. 295. 178. John C. Huntington, ‘Pilgrimage as Image: the Cult of the Aṣṭamahāprātihārya, Part II’, Orientations, August 1987, pp. 55-68. 179. Ibid., p. 57. 180. Ibid.; Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Social Bases of Patronage to the Cult of the Aṣṭamahāpratihārya in the Early Medieval Nālandā Area: An Epigraphical Enquiry’, p. 349. 181. As per the chronology provided by Ronald Davidson, op. cit, p. 52. 182. S.L. Huntington, The “Pāla-Sena” Schools of Sculpture, op. cit., p. 240. 183. Ibid., p. 45. 184. Ibid., p. 210. 185. R.D. Banerji, op. cit., p. 112. 186. Pran Gopal Paul, ‘Monk Guṇākarasena’s Homage to the Tathāgata: Reflections on an Inscribed Pala Icon from Magadha’, Indo-Koko – Kenkyu – Indian Archaeological Studies, no. 18, 1996-7, p. 28. 187. Ibid. 188. Ibid., p. 30. 189. Ibid., p. 31. 190. One of the best examples of this phenomenon has been noted in

Social Bases of Patronage

191. 192. 193.

194. 195.

196.

197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204.

205.

367

the context of inscribed sculptures of Kurkihar. This practice continued in the twelfth century as well. Unless otherwise stated, we have followed the revised chronology of the Pāla dynasty as argued by Ronald Davidson, op. cit., p. 52. S.L. Huntington, op. cit., p. 213. Priyatosh Banerjee, ‘Two Medieval Inscriptions’, Journal of Asiatic Society Letters, vol. XIX, 1953, pp. 105-6. Text of the inscription is reprinted in S.L. Huntington, op. cit., p. 236. S.L. Huntington, op. cit., p. 216. B. Sahai, The Inscriptions of Bihar (From Earliest Times to the Middle of 13th Century AD), Ramanand Vidya Bhavan, Delhi, 1983, p. 101. The image is untraceable now. For an analysis of the process of the integration of a folk deity with a child in her lap, variously referred to as Gausavā, Puṇḍeśvarī, Puṇyeśvarī or Pūrṇeśvarī in the dedicatory inscriptions on the sculptures of this deity, in the Kiul-Lakhisarai area into Mahāyāna Buddhism by the eleventh-twelfth century AD, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘A Folk Tradition Integrated into Mahāyāna Buddhism: Some Observations on the Votive Inscriptions on Sculptures of Puṇḍeśvarī/Pūrṇeśvarī/Puṇyeśvarī Discovered in the KiulLakhisarai Area, Bihar’, in G. Mevissen (ed.), Berlin Indological Studies, vol.21, 2013, pp. 299-306. For the twelfth century pattern at Kurkihar, see Prasad, op. cit., pp. 139-41. Full text of the inscription is not published. Rajat Sanyal, ‘Another Inscribed Image of the Reign of Rāmapāla from South Bihar’, Pratna Samiksha, N.S., vol. 2, 2011, p. 141. G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Hindu Buddhist and Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2000, p. 467. Ibid., p. 467. Ibid., p. 224. R.K. Chaudhary, ‘Lakhisarai Inscription’, G.D. College Bulletin Series, vol. 2, 1952, pp. 23-5. S.L. Huntington, The ‘Pāla-Sena’ Schools of Sculpture, op. cit., p. 234; idem ‘Epigraphy from Art History: Studies in the Art of the Pāla Period’, in Frederick M. Asher and G.S. Gai (eds), Indian Epigraphy, its Bearings on the History of Art, Oxford & IBH, New Delhi, 1985, p. 178. G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 224.

368

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

206. Ibid. 207. D.C. Sircar, ‘Kāndī Buddhist Image Inscription of Rāṇaka Samudrāditya’, JBRS, vol. XXVII, pts. 3-4, 1951, p. 9. 208. Ibid., p. 10. 209. A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. III, Delhi, 2000 (rpt.), p. 125. 210. Ronald Davidson, op. cit., p. 91. 211. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘The Socio-Religious Dimensions of Dedicatory Inscriptions on Sculptures Donated to a Buddhist Establishment in Early Medieval Magadha: Kurkihar, c.800-1200 CE’, Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol. 7, 2014, p. 121. 212. J. Kim, ‘Unheard Voices: Women’s role in Medieval Buddhist Artistic Production and Religious Practice in South Asia’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 80(1), 2012, p. 207. 213. Ibid., pp. 207-10; Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Women as Donors of Inscribed Buddhist Sculptures in Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal’, Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol. 18, 2020, p. 149. 214. In the case of Kurkihar, we see donation of images by not less than 15 monks from Kāñcī (Tamil Nadu) in the ninth-tenth centuries AD period. For details, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘The SocioReligious Dimensions of Dedicatory Inscriptions on Sculptures Donated to a Buddhist Establishment in Early Medieval Magadha: Kurkihar, c. 800-1200 CE’, pp. 120-8. For an analysis of pilgrimage to Kurkihar from Kerala, see Pratapaditya Pal, ‘A Forgotten Monastery of Ancient Bihar’, South Asian Studies, vol. 4, 1988, p. 85. 215. D.C. Sircar, ‘Three Buddhist Inscriptions from Uren’, EI, vol. XXVIII, 1949-50, p. 220. 216. Ibid., p. 221. 217. Ibid., p. 223. 218. Ibid., p. 224. 219. Ibid. 220. The presence of some important Buddhist religious centres at Uren is also indicated by the discovery of some inscribed votive stūpas. An inscription, datable to the second half of the eleventh century or early twelfth century, on a votive stūpa discovered at Uren, records that this was the Deyadharmma of Śrī Sumāka. This stūpa was donated in the reign of the king Rāmapāladeva (Priyatosh Banerjee, ‘Some Inscriptions from Bihar’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, VII(1-2), 1973-4, p. 111.

Social Bases of Patronage

369

221. G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Hindu Buddhist Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, op. cit., p. 467. 222. B.S. Verma, Antichak Excavations-2 (1971-1981), Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, 2011, p. 175. My analysis of the dedicatory inscriptions on the sculptures of Antichak in the present book (pp. 299-301) is similar to the one offered in Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘The Social Bases of Patronage to the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra: An Epigraphic Enquiry’, in S. Nag and Ishrat Alam (eds), Blending Nation and Region: Essays in Memory of Late Professor Amalendu Guha, Primus Books, Delhi, 2018, pp. 38-40. 223. B.S. Verma, p. 171. 224. Birendra Nath Prasad, op. cit., p. 39. 225. Recently, an inscribed image of this deity has been discovered in the Bardhaman district of West Bengal (Rajat Sanyal, ‘Two Recently Discovered Inscriptions from West Bengal’, Journal of the Asiatic Society, XLVIII(2), 2006, pp. 91-104). 226. This theme has been analysed in some detail in Chapter 7. 227. D.C. Sircar, ‘Three Inscriptions from Valgudar’, EI, XXVIII, 3, 194950, p. 140. 228. IAR, 1960-1, p. 44. The full inscription has not been published. Only the summary of the same is available, so a fuller analysis is difficult. 229. D.C. Sircar, ‘Nongadh Inscription of Madanapala’s Time, Vikrama 1201’, EI, XXXVI, 1965-6, pp. 41-2. 230. Ibid., p. 41. 231. D.C. Sircar, ‘Lai Inscription of Vikramadevi’, EI, XXX, 1953-4, p. 85. 232. Priyatosh Banerjee, ‘Some Inscriptions from Bihar’,Journal of Ancient Indian History, VII(1-2), 1973-4, pp. 107-8. 233. D.C. Sircar, ‘Some inscriptions from Bihar’, JBRS, XXXVII, 3-4, 1951, p. 4. 234. Ibid., p. 4; Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Merchants and Their Family Members as Donors of Inscribed Sculptures in Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal’, Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol. 18, 2020, p. 131. 235. D.C. Sircar, ‘Three Inscriptions from Valgudar’, EI, XX VIII, 194950, p. 141. 236. D.C. Sircar, ‘Sanokhar Inscription of the Time of Ballālasena’, EI, XXX, 1953-4, p. 82.

370 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254.

255.

256. 257. 258.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Ibid., p. 82. Ibid., p. 80. Ibid. BSM is an abbreviated form of Bhūmisparśamudrā. Dilip Kumar, ‘Stone and Metal Images from the Old District of Muzaffarpur’, JBPP, vol. II, 1978, pp. 197-8. J. Mishra, A History of Buddhist Iconography in Bihar, Prabhavati Prakashana, Patna, 1992, p. 183. Ibid., p. 183. A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. I, Delhi, 2000 (rpt.), pp. 58-64. Rashmi Sinha, Uttarī Bihār Mein Purātattva Kā Udbhava Aur Vikāsa, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 2010, p. 228. For details, see p. 302 of the present book. Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 186. B. Sahai, The Inscriptions of Bihar (From Earliest Times to the Middle of 13th Century AD), op. cit., p. 134. Ibid., pp. 134-5. D.C. Sircar, Some Epigraphic Records of the Medieval Period from Eastern India, Abhinav Publications, Delhi, 1979, p. 40. Ibid., p. 40. Ibid., pp. 40-1. This issue has been analysed in some detail in Chapter 7. This image, discovered at Govindapur, Dinajpur district, was donated by Dānapati Cācadeva in the eleventh-twelfth centuries (Enamul Haque and A. J. Gail, Sculptures in Bangladesh, An Inventory of Select Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina Stone and Bronze Images in Museums and Collections of Bangladesh (Up to the 13th Century), ICSBA, Dhaka, 2008, p. 133). As indicated by the use of the term ‘dānapati’ for the donor, the image was donated as a religious vow after the fulfilment of a worldly wish of the donor. For the inscription (‘Śihara Dānapatī’ ) on this piece, see Rajat Sanyal, ‘Appendix 1: Inscribed Sculptures’, in Gautam Sengupta and Sharmila Saha (eds), Vibrant Rock: A Catalogue of Stone Sculptures in the State Archaeological Museum, West Bengal, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, 2014, p. 274. G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 380. Ibid., p. 380. Ibid., p. 380. For similar observations, see Birendra Nath Prasad,

Social Bases of Patronage

259.

260. 261.

262. 263. 264. 265.

266. 267.

268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275.

371

‘Women as Donors of Inscribed Buddhist Sculptures in Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal’, op. cit., p. 149. D.C. Sircar, ‘A Buddhist Inscription from Maldah Museum’, EI, vol. 28, p. 226. Sircar has not provided the dating of this inscription or the sculpture on which it was engraved. But elsewhere, he has opined that this script was used by the monks in Buddhist monasteries of eastern India between the ninth and twelfth centuries, preferably from the latter half of this period (D.C. Sircar, ‘Three Buddhist Inscriptions from Uren’, EI, vol. XXVIII, 1949-50, p. 223). The same dating may be assigned to the Maldah museum piece as well. D.C. Sircar, ‘A Buddhist Inscription from Maldah Museum’, EI, vol. XXVIII, 1949-50, p. 226. Debala Mitra, ‘A Fragmentary Bejewelled Image of Buddha of the Time of Mahīpāla from Shantipur’, Pratna Samiksha, vols. 4 and 5, 1995-6, p. 168. Ibid. Ibid.,p. 189. Claudine Bautze-Picron, The Bejewelled Buddha: From India to Burma, Sanctum Books, Delhi, 2010, p. 141. For the text and dating of the inscription, see Sayantani Pal, ‘The Chopra Image Inscription of the Time of Mahīpāla’, Pratna Samiksha, N.S., vol. 1, 2010, p. 95. S.L. Huntington, The ‘Pāla-Sena’ Schools of Sculptures, op. cit., p. 242. For the legend – Dahilā Dā[napati] – in this inscription, see Ranjusri Ghosh, ‘Puṇḍravardhana/Varendra: A Socio-Economic and Cultural Profile of a Sub-Region of Early Bengal (c. 300 BC to Midtwelfth Century)’, unpublished PhD thesis, JNU, 2003, p. 277. For the text and dating of the inscription, see Ranjusri Ghosh, op. cit., p. 277. Ibid., p. 277. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 278. Ibid., p. 280. For the text and dating of the inscription, see Sayantani Pal, ‘The Chopra Image Inscription of the Time of Mahīpāla’, Pratna Samiksha, N.S., vol. 1, 2010, p. 95.

372

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

276. For the text and dating of the short inscription, see Rajat Sanyal, ‘Appendix 1: Inscribed Sculptures’, in Gautam Sengupta and Sharmila Saha (eds), Vibrant Rock: A Catalogue of Stone Sculptures in the State Archaeological Museum, West Bengal, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, 2014, p. 256. 277. For the text (Śrīvasantamādhavaḥ) and dating of this inscription, see Rajat Sanyal, op. cit., p. 257. 278. For the text and dating of the short inscription, see Rajat Sanyal, ibid., p. 258. 279. Ibid., p. 259. 280. Ibid., p. 262. 281. Ibid., p. 263. 282. Ibid., p. 264. 283. Ibid., p. 267. 284. Ibid., p. 269. 285. Ibid., p. 270. 286. N.K. Bhattasali, ‘Two Inscriptions of Gopāla III of Bengal’, Indian Historical Quarterly, XVII, 1947, p. 219. 287. For the legend in this inscription and its dating, see Ranjusri Ghosh, op. cit., p. 277. 288. Ibid. 289. Ibid., p. 279. 290. Ibid., p. 277. 291. Ibid. 292. Ibid., p. 279. 293. Ibid. 294. Ibid., p. 279. 295. Instead of the name of the donor, the term Magaradhvaja Jogī Śīṣā is inscribed. For the text and dating of the inscription, see Susmita Basu Majumdar and Vishi Upadhyay, ‘Did Magaradhvaja Yogī Ever Visit Bengal? A Case Study of Three image Inscriptions from Bangladesh’, JBA, vol. 17, 2012, pp. 177-8. 296. For the text and dating of the inscription, see ibid., p. 180. 297. Ibid. 298. Ranjusri Ghosh, op. cit., p. 280. 299. G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Buddhist Hindu Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, op. cit., pp. 285-6. 300. Ibid., pp. 285-6. 301. Ibid., p. 286.

Social Bases of Patronage

373

302. Ibid., p. 283. 303. Ranjusri Ghosh, op. cit., p. 280. 304. Rajat Sanyal, op. cit., p. 256. Rajat Sanyal has argued that Saṅdhi bha is an incorrect abbreviated rendering of Saṅdhivigrahika, minister of foreign affairs (p. 256). 305. N.K. Bhattasali, ‘Two Inscriptions of Gopāla III of Bengal’, Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. XVII, 1941, p. 218. Bhattasali has argued that the abbreviation Saṅdhi-sa indicates that the donor was a minister (pp. 218-19). 306. This sculpture is inscribed with the legend ‘Rājñī Śrī Gītā Lalitā’, which, as per Enamul Haque (Bengal Sculptures: Hindu Iconography Upto c. 1250 AD, Bangladesh National Museum, Dhaka, p. 235), indicates that this image of Lalitā was donated by Rājñī (queen) Gītā. 307. Susmita Basu Majumdar and Vishi Upadhyaya, ‘Did Magaradhvaja Yogī Ever Visit Bengal? A Case Study of Three image Inscriptions from Bangladesh’, JBA, vol. 17, 2012, p. 177. 308. Ibid., p. 179. 309. Ibid., p. 177. 310. Ibid., p. 186. Susmita Basu Majumdar and Vishi Upadhyaya have not mentioned if this inscribed piece was found in the excavation of the Paharpur monastic site. K.N.Dikshit’s excavation report does not mention this image. It is apparent that this image was not found in the excavation of the Paharpur monastic site. Whatever be the case, it refers to the presence of some follower(s) of Magaradhvaja Yogī in the vicinity of the famous Buddhist monastic site. 311. G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Hindu Buddhist and Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, op. cit., p. 497. 312. Rajat Sanyal, op. cit., p. 254. Sanyal has rightly noted that the word Paṁ is an abbreviated form of Paṇdita (p. 254). 313. Ibid., p. 255. Sanyal translates this legend as ‘this is the Mādhava of Keśava’ (p. 255). 314. Ibid., p. 257. Sanyal translates this legend as ‘this is the Mādhava of Vasanta (p. 257). 315. Ibid., p. 263. Sanyal translates this legend as ‘[this is] the Mādhava of illustrious Kalahasoma’ (p. 263). 316. Ranjusri Ghosh, op. cit., p. 277. 317. G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 497.

374

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

318. For a detailed analysis of this inscription, see pp. 456-7 of the present book. 319. In Bengal, Buddhist religious centres, on the other hand, extended this privilege only to the most important political patrons, who founded big monasteries: kings (Bhavadeva, Ānandadeva, Dharmapāla), Senāpati (Vajradeva), etc. 320. Ranjusri Ghosh, op. cit., p. 277. As per her reading the short dedicatory inscription on this image records that ‘this auspicious image of Viṣṇu as well as its white shrine were made by Nakeyin, son of Viṣṭhudāsa, to last as long as the sun and moon endure (p. 277). 321. Rajat Sanyal, op. cit., p. 261. 322. The legend on this image is ‘Bhaṭṭa Prabhākarasya’ which has been interpreted as ‘this image is the donation of Bhaṭṭa (Brāhmaṇa) Prabhākara’ (Rajat Sanyal, op. cit., p. 258). 323. The legend on this image is ‘Paṁ śrīdharmadevamādhavaḥ’, which has been interpreted as ‘this is the Mādhava of Paṇḍita Dharmadeva’ (Rajat Sanyal, op. cit., p. 254). 324. Ranjusri Ghosh, op. cit., p. 277. 325. The title Bhaṭṭa is generally used by Brahmins. So we may assume that the donor was from a Brahmin background. 326. Ranjusri Ghosh, op. cit., p. 279. 327. G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Hindu Buddhist and Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, op. cit., pp. 363-5. 328. Ibid., p. 309. 329. Ibid. 330. Ibid., p. 310. 331. Ibid. 332. Ibid. 333. Ibid. 334. Ibid. 335. Ibid. 336. N.K. Bhattasali, ‘Two Inscriptions of Gopāla III of Bengal’, Indian Historical Quarterly, XVII, 1941, p. 218. Bhattasali has argued that the abbreviation Saṅdhi-sa indicates that the donor was a minister (pp. 218-19). 337. Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 235. 338. For the legend in this inscription and its dating, see Ghosh, op. cit., p. 279. 339. For the legend in this inscription and its dating, see Ibid., p. 279.

Social Bases of Patronage 340. 341. 342. 343.

375

Susmita Basu Majumdar and Vishi Upadhyay, op. cit., p. 180. For details, see p. 592 of the present book. Rajat Sanyal, op. cit., p. 274. Rangan Kanti Jana, ‘A Note on an Inscribed Image of Dhyānī Buddha’, Journal of the Asiatic Society, 45(1), 2003, p. 46. 344. Ibid., p. 47. 345. Rama Chatterjee, ‘Syncretism as Found in Some Composite Images from Bengal’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. X, 1976-7, p. 158. 346. Ibid., p. 158. 347. Rajat Sanyal, ‘Two Recently Discovered Inscriptions from West Bengal’, Journal of the Asiatic Society, XLVIII(2), 2006, p. 93. 348. Ibid., p. 97. 349. Niranjan Goswami, ‘A Note on an Inscribed Portrait-Statue of Mūrtiśiva from West Bengal’, in Debala Mitra (ed.), Exploration in the Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays Dedicated to N.G. Majumdar, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal, Calcutta, 1996, pp. 267-75. 350. Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, op. cit., pp. 270-1. 351. Ibid., pp. 128-9. 352. N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., p. 28. For some iconographic observations on this piece, see Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, op. cit., p. 132. 353. N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., p. 28. 354. Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, op. cit., p. 132. 355. For details, see p. 392 of the present book. 356. N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., p. 57. 357. D.C. Sircar, ‘Epigraphic Notes: Kulkuri and Betka inscriptions’, EI, vol. XXVIII, 1949-50, pp. 339-40. 358. D.C. Sircar, ‘Paikpara Vāsudeva Image Inscription of King Govindacandra of Bengal, Regnal Year 23’, Indian Culture, vol. VIII, 1940-1, p. 416. 359. Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, op. cit., pp. 276-7. 360. G. Bhattacharya, ‘The Inscribed Stone Image of Caṇḍī from Rampal and the Iconographic Problems Connected With It’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXIV, 2007-8, p. 88. 361. M. Harunur Rashid, The Early History of South-East Bengal in the Light of Recent Archaeological Material, Itihas Academy, Dhaka, 2008, p. 90. 362. Ibid., p. 90. 363. For my earlier analysis of votive inscriptions on the sculptures of early medieval Samataṭa-Harikela, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Votive Inscriptions on Sculptures of Early Medieval Samataṭa –

376

364.

365.

366. 367. 368.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Harikela, Bengal: Explorations in Socio-religious History’, Religions of South Asia, London, vol. 4, no. 1, 2010, pp. 27-43. This paper does not have any analysis of dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures discovered in the excavations of Salban Vihara, as they were not known to me then. My analysis of the dedicatory inscriptions on the sculptures discovered in the plains of Comilla in the present book is different from the one attempted in 2010. My analysis of dedicatory inscriptions on the bronze sculptures of Jhewari in the present book is also slightly different from the one attempted in 2010. For an analysis of the significance of findings of silver and gold coinage from Salban Vihara, especially in the context of long distance trade of Samataṭa, see M.R. Tarafdar, Trade, Technology and Society in Medieval Bengal, University Press Limited, Dhaka, 1995, pp. 12-18. For an earlier analysis of the significance of the high quality of silver coinage of Samataṭa, see B.N. Mukherjee, ‘Commerce and Money in the Western and Central Sectors of Eastern India (c. AD 750-1200)’, Indian Museum Bulletin, vol. XVII, 1982, p. 73. For a recent analysis, see Susmita Basu Majumdar, ‘Monetary History of Bengal: Issues and Non-Issues’, in D.N. Jha (ed.), The Complex Heritage of Early India: Essays in Memory of R.S. Sharma, Manohar, Delhi, 2014, pp. 590-2. Majumdar treats Samataṭa as ‘an independent monetary zone and as a distinct sub-zone’ having a vibrant tradition of long-distance trade and commerce (p. 592). For a different perspective, see V.K. Thakur, ‘Trade and Towns in Early Medieval Bengal’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. XXX, 1987, pp. 197-9. Thakur argues that the finding of just 350 coins does not indicate even a fluctuating money-economy in Samataṭa (p. 197). Whatever be the case, we do not have epigraphically recorded instances of monetary endowments to Buddhist monasteries on the LalmaiMainamati ridge by merchants in early medieval Samataṭa. For an analysis of the linkages between the decline of Tamralipti seventh-eighth century onwards and the shift of maritime focus of Bengal to its south-eastern part, see Ranabir Chakravarti, Trade and Traders in Early Indian Society, Manohar, Delhi, 2002, pp. 153-4. N.K. Bhattasali, ‘Some Image Inscriptions from East Bengal’, EI, XVII, 1923-4, p. 359. Ibid., p. 359. Ibid., p. 352.

Social Bases of Patronage

377

369. D.C. Sircar, ‘Pāla Rule in the Tippera District’, Indian Historical Quarterly, vol., XXVIII, 1952, p. 57. 370. For an analysis of dual role of Gaṇeśa in late Indian Buddhism, see G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Buddhist Hindu Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, op. cit., pp. 97-106. He has argued that in the Buddhist art of the subcontinent, Gaṇeśa was worshipped as the remover of obstacles (vighna-hartā) and at the same time as the creator of obstacles (vighna-kartā) or the obstacle incarnate (vighna). 371. D.C. Sircar, ‘Narayanpur Vināyaka Image Inscription of King Mahipāla, Regnal Year 4’, Indian Culture, vol. IX, 1942-3, p. 125. 372. D.C. Sircar, ‘Pāla Rule in the Tippera District’, op. cit., p. 57. 373. N.K. Bhattasali, ‘Some Image Inscriptions from East Bengal’, op. cit., p. 355. 374. D.C. Sircar, ‘Narayanpur Vināyaka Image Inscription of King Mahipāla, Regnal Year 4’, op. cit., p. 125. 375. Ibid.,p. 123. 376. For details, see pp. 195-8 of the present book. 377. N.N. Law has published an inscribed sculpture of Tārā, which, as per his readings, dated to Śaka 1308, AD 1386. This piece was discovered from the Udaipur Hill, Comilla (N.N. Law: Some Images and Traces of Mahāyāna Buddhism in Chittagong,’ Indian Historical Quarterly, VIII (2), 1932, p. 334). He has, unfortunately, not provided the full text of the inscription so we are unable to trace the social background of the donor. An iconographic analysis of this piece suggests a ninth-tenth century AD date for the image (S.L. Huntington, The ‘Pāla-Sena’ Schools of Sculpture, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1984, p. 79). It may be a case of re-use of a ninth-tenth centuries AD sculpture in a different context in the late fourteenth century. If an early Pāla period image was re-used in the late fourteenth century, that may be taken as an indication of survival of Buddhism in this area as late as this period. That may also indicate that sculptors familiar with the iconography of Tārā were not available, so an earlier image was re-used. 378. Debala Mitra, Bronzes From Bangladesh: A Study of Buddhist Images from District Chittagong, Agam Kala Prakashana, Delhi, 1982, p. VII. 379. Ibid., p. VII. 380. D.C. Sircar, ‘Indological Notes- Inscriptions on the Bronze Images from Jhewari in the Indian Museum’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. X, 1976-7, pp. 111-12. 381. Debala Mitra, op. cit., p. VII.

378

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

382. The abbreviation ‘BSM’ stands for Bhūmisparśamudrā. 383. A similar inference is discernible from the two vase inscriptions that belonged to the coastal tracts of Chittagong. Vaṇika and Sārthavāha are absent in these inscriptions. Nor do we come across any Mahānāvika Buddhagupta of the type we see in the case of the Raktamṛtikā Vihāra. For an analysis of these inscriptions, see pp. 416-19 of the present book. 384. Debala Mitra, op. cit., p. 39. 385. Ibid., p. 43. 386. Ibid., p. 18. 387. Ibid., p. 53; Birendra Nath Prasad, op. cit., p. 37. 388. D.C. Sircar, ‘Indological Notes- Inscriptions on the Bronze Images from Jhewari in the Indian Museum’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. X, 1976-7, p. 112. 389. Debala Mitra, op. cit., p. 42. 390. Ibid., p. 20. 391. Ibid. 392. Ibid., p. 21. 393. Ibid. 394. Ibid., p. 20. 395. D.C. Sircar, ‘A Buddhist Inscription from Maldah Museum’, EI, vol. XXVIII, 1949-50, p. 226. 396. R.S. Sharma, Urban Decay, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1987, p. 131. 397. G. Schopen, Indian monastic Buddhism: Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional and Archaeological Evidence, pt. I, Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi, 2010, p. 31. 398. Ibid. 399. Ibid. 400. Ibid., p. 32. 401. Here we are referring to the total number of sculptures donated by monks as well as non-monastic donors from the earliest recorded evidence to the early thirteenth century. 402. From the earliest recorded evidence to the early thirteenth century. 403. Other than Aṣṭamahāpratihārya sculptures. 404. Including Antichak. 405. Donated by a Burmese monk in the ninth-twelfth centuries AD. 406. All reported inscribed sculptures of Jhewari are datable to c. 850950.

Social Bases of Patronage

379

407. This theme has been analysed in some detail in Chapter 7. 408. I.e. dedicatory inscription on the Buddha/Bodhisattva image of the period of Mahārāja Trikamala at Bodh Gaya (fourth century AD); two images donated by Uddaṇḍa Cūḍa in the Pāḍikramaṇa Vihāra in the Bihar Sharif area (second half of the ninth century); and an image of Balarāma donated by Mahāthera Da or Ujjaka for a non-monastic devotee called Padmadānasiṁha in the Nalanda Mahāvihāra (first half of the ninth century). 409. Even in a predominantly Theravāda country like Sri Lanka, anthropological studies have indicated that ‘only when a statue has been consecrated can it be an object of worship’; as ‘before consecration, a statue is treated with no more respect than one would give the materials of which it is composed; afterwards, it may not be moved and must be treated with all decorum’ (Richard Gombrich, ‘The Consecration of a Buddhist Image’, Journal of Asian Studies, vol. XXVI, 1966, p. 24). Gombrich has also noted that the ritual of consecration of images was a very sensitive process; any slight mistake would have ominous portents, so it would be performed only by highly skilled monks with the assistance of some other persons (pp. 25-30). 410. Lama Chimpa and Alka Chattopadhyaya, Tārānātha’s History of Buddhism in India, Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi, 2010, p. 298. 411. G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 463. 412. For details, see pp. 32-3 of the present book. 413. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘The Socio-Religious Dimensions of Dedicatory Inscriptions on Sculptures Donated to a Buddhist Establishment in Early Medieval Magadha: Kurkihar, c.800 CE-1200 CE’, Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol. 7, 2014, p. 146. 414. Ibid., p. 146. 415. Hiram W. Woodward Jr., ‘The Life of the Buddha in the Pāla Monastic Environment’, Journal of Walters Art Gallery, vol. 48, 1990, p. 20; Claudine Bautze-Picron, The Bejewelled Buddha: From India to Burma, Sanctum Books, Delhi, 2010, p. 141. 416. Birendra Nath Prasad, op. cit., pp. 146-7. 417. Frederick Asher, Bodh Gaya: Monumental Legacy, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2008, pp. 68-9. 418. For details, see p. 416 of the present book. 419. In the case of the ‘Akṣobhya’ image found at Madhyapara, Vikramapur, the identification of the image has remained a

380

420.

421.

422. 423.

424.

425. 426. 427.

428.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia debatable issue. G. Bhattacharya believes that the central figure in the relief is actually that of the Buddha Śākyamuni with Akṣobhya as his Kuleśa (G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 35). Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, on the other hand, identify it with Akṣobhya (Enamul Haque and A.J.Gail, op. cit., pp. 128-9). Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘The Socio-Religious Dimensions of Dedicatory Inscriptions on Sculptures Donated to a Buddhist Establishment in Early Medieval Magadha: Kurkihar, c.800 CE1200 CE’, op. cit., pp. 141-2. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘A Folk Tradition Integrated into Mahāyāna Buddhism: Some Observations on the Votive Inscriptions on Sculptures of Puṇdeśvarī/Pūrṇeśvarī/Puṇyeśvarī Discovered in the Kiul-Lakhisarai Area, Bihar’, Berlin Indological Studies, vol. 21, 2013, pp. 303-5. G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 53. J. Kim, ‘Emergence of a Buddhist Warrior Goddess and the Historical Development of Tantric Buddhism: The Case of Mārīcī’, Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art, N.S., vol. XXVIII, 2012, p. 60, fn. 2. This theory developed in the early part of the twentieth century by B. Bhattacharya and others, has stubbornly survived till date. See K.T.S. Sarao, The Decline of Buddhism in India: A Fresh Perspective, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 2012, p. 140. G. Schopen, ‘Mahāyāna in Indian Inscriptions’, Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 21, 1979, p. 14. Ibid., pp. 14-15. For an interesting analysis of this process in the context of early historic Mathurā, see G. Schopen, ‘The Inscription on the Kuṣāṇ Image of Amitābha and the Character of the Early Mahāyāna in India’, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 10(2), 1987, pp. 99-137. This theme has been analysed in Chapter 7. We may add here that the pattern at Kurkihar – another important pilgrimage site in early medieval Magadha – could have been similar.

CHAPTER 6

Evolution of the Patronage Base of Buddhist and Brahmanical Religious Centres: A Study of Inscriptions on Copper Plates, Stone, Terracotta Seals and Sealings, and Metal Vases

In the present chapter, our aim is to analyse the evolving patronage base of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal as reflected in royal copperplate inscriptions, inscriptions on stone slabs and pillars, and inscriptions on terracotta seals and sealings. We will also look into two metallic vase inscriptions that have been reported from the Chittagong area. We will begin with an analysis of the evolving patronage base of Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bihar. It will be followed by an analysis of the evolving patronage base of Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bengal. In the next section, we will try to analyse the evolving patronage base of Brahmanical religious centres of Bihar and Bengal. In the final section, before wrapping up this chapter, we will try to figure out the differences and similarities in the patterns observed in Bihar and Bengal in the social bases of patronage to Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres.

382

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Evolution of the Patronage Base of Buddhist Religious Centres in Early Medieval Bihar: Some Preliminaries In the analysis of inscriptions (on stone, stone pillars, copperplates, and terracotta seals and sealings) recording patronage to Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bihar, we notice their absence in a significant part of Bihar. They are absent in the entire north Bihar and in the entire area to the west of the Sone River in south Bihar: in short, they are found only in Magadha and Aṅga. Within Magadha and Aṅga as well, they are reported basically near big religious centres such as Mahābodhi, Nalanda and Vikramaśilā. Within Magadha too, they are absent in Nawada and Patna districts. The Arma pillar inscription (in Lakhisarai district) provides the only example of donation to a Buddhist monastery located away from Mahābodhi, Nalanda or Vikramaśilā. So far, we have found no evidence of endowment even in favour of any Vihārikā or Vihārī beyond these three big centres. If this pattern is contrasted with dedicatory inscriptions on Buddhist sculptures, the results are not much different. Barring some examples from North Bihar (in the neighbourhood of the Buddhist religious centres of Kolhua, Sanghaul and Kesariya), they too concentrate in Magadha and Aṅga: generally in or in the neighbourhood of the Mahābodhi, Nalanda, Uddaṇḍapur (Bihar Sharif), Kurkihar, in the neighbourhood of the unexcavated Buddhist religious centres of Kiul-Lakhisarai area, and Vikramaśilā. Inscriptions on Brahmanical images or stone and copper-plate concerned with Brahmanical religious centres, in contrast, have a more diffused presence. They are found in all zones of Bihar: north Bihar, the area to the west of the Sone river in south Bihar, Magadha, and Aṅga. So, for all practical purposes, our analysis of the evolving patronage base of Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bihar will be confined to three big centres: Mahābodhi, Nalanda and Vikramaśilā. Before delving in to details, we need to take into account the differentiation in the nature of Buddhist sites in the study area. Broadly speaking, we may divide the Buddhist religious centres

Evolution of the Patronage Base

383

into two categories: (1) sites, which were primarily pilgrimage sites (serving as Pāribhogikadhātu), but had monasteries as well, and (2) sites that were primarily monastic sites, but also commanded some degree of pilgrimage. In the second category of sites, we may include Nalanda and Vikramaśilā. Bodh Gaya is the representative site of the first category. We will begin with an analysis of the evolving patronage base of Bodh Gaya. To have a contextual understanding of the early medieval pattern at the site, we will also analyze the reported early historic inscriptions.

The Evolving Patronage Base of the Most Sacred Buddhist Pilgrimage Site: An Analysis of Bodh Gaya Inscriptions The earliest inscriptions at Bodh Gaya date to the Śuṅga period and they record the erection of railing-pillars by three women. Fifteen inscriptions engraved on fifteen railing-pillars record that they were the dānaṃ of Ayāye (noble lady) Kuruṅgi.1 In some inscriptions, she has been described as the sister-in-law of Indrāgnimitra.2 Another inscription on a mutilated pillar of the stone railing records that it was donated by Sirimā, a female donor (chetikā) from the palace of Rāño Indrāgnimitra.3 The word chetikā has been used either as an equivalent of the Jaina Prakrit word chedigā meaning ‘a female donor’ or an equivalent of the Pali word cheṭikā meaning a ‘maid-servant’ or a ‘female attendant’.4 Another inscription on a pillar of the stone railing records that it was the gift of Nāgadevi, the wife of king Brahmamitra.5 In a way, all the three ladies were associated with the Śuṅga royal house in some way; a dynasty that is depicted in an altogether different image in some Buddhist literary texts. In the Śuṅga period, the sacred complex of Bodh Gaya attracted pilgrimage and patronage from persons from a nonroyal background as well. A Śuṅga period (second-first century BC) inscription on a rail-bar of the old stone railing record it to be the gift of a person called Amogha.6 Amogha appears to be from a ‘non-monastic, non-aristocratic’ background. Another

384

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

inscription (second-first century BC) on a rail-bar records that it was a gift of a person called Bodhirakṣita, hailing from Tāmraparṇī (Sri Lanka or Tinnevelly region of Tamil Nadu).7 His name indicates that Bodhirakṣita was most probably a monk. In the subsequent centuries, the focus of ritual activities shifted to some temple(s) at the Mahābodhi. A fragmented inscription, dated ‘not earlier than 2nd century AD’, engraved on the lower edge of a coping stone of a pillar, records that an ācārya, whose name is missing, made a gift of money (amount not specified) for a lamp for the teacher (i.e. the Buddha).8 That is to say, this inscription was concerned with the donation of some amount of money for providing ghee for keeping a lamp burning in a temple dedicated to the Buddha. This concern is also discernible in a Gupta period (fourth-fifth centuries) inscription on the lower edge of a coping stone of an Aśokan railing. Due to the badly fragmented nature of the inscription, the name of the donor and his/her social background or the exact date of the inscription is not clear. This inscription records the donation of an unspecified sum of money to defray the cost of keeping a lamp of ghee (ghṛta-pradīpa) lightened at the vṛhatagaṅdhakuṭi at Vajrāsana in honour of the Buddha as long as the moon and stars last.9 That subsidiary shrines existed in the Vajrāsana precincts and many of them were caused to be constructed by pilgrims is indicated in some other inscriptions.10 An inscription on a stone slab found near the Mahābodhi temple, datable to c. AD 597, records that Mahānāma, a resident of Āmradvīpa and a member of the royal family of Lankādvīpa (Sri Lanka), caused to construct a ‘beautiful mansion’ with open pavilion on all sides for the Buddha at Bodhimaṇḍa, that is, the Mahābodhi area.11 A tenth or eleventh century inscription on a black stone slab records that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Tunga caused to erect a gaṅdhakuṭi.12 These two inscriptions indicate the widespread pilgrimage network of the Mahābodhi complex. Pilgrimage from Sri Lanka is indicated by another inscription, palaeographically datable to the sixth-seventh centuries AD, on one face of the fragment of a coping stone of the old stone railing

Evolution of the Patronage Base

385

of the Mahābodhi temple. It records that the virtuous Śramaṇa Prakhyātakīrti, a descendant of the rulers of the island of Sri Lanka, desirous of attaining Buddhahood, caused to be performed acts of worship at ratnatraya for the peace of mankind.13 The above-mentioned three inscriptions are silent on the material endowments made to the Mahābodhi complex. That, however, should not make us believe that no such endowment was made by pilgrims. A sixth-seventh centuries AD inscription on a coping stone of the old stone railing records the various donations by a pilgrim at the vṛhata-vajrāsana-gaṅdhakuṭi. The name and social background of the donor are lost due to the fragmentary nature of the inscription. Available portions of the inscription, however, do not indicate any kind of royal connection for the donor. This inscription informs that the pilgrim adorned the vṛhata-vajrāsana-gaṅdhakuṭi with a new coating of plaster and paint at the cost of 250 dīnāras; and to keep a lamp of ghee perpetually lighted in the said temple, he donated a hundred cows.14 A hundred more cows were donated to meet the cost of repairs of the temple as well as for lighting another ghṛta-pradīpa daily before the image of the Buddha inside the temple. Besides, a hundred more cows were donated for lighting a ghṛta-pradīpa daily before the image of the Buddha in a vihāra.15 The name of the vihāra where this donation was made has not been recorded, but it is apparent that it was in the neighbourhood of the Vajrāsana. This inscription also records that for the use of the residents of the vihāra, a large water reservoir was dug, and to the east of it a new field was laid out.16 These donations (300 cows, 250 dīnāras, a cultivated field and digging a pond) must have involved considerable expenses for the donor. They must have generated substantial income for the authorities of the Mahābodhi. Only a small portion of ghee made of the milk of the donated cows would have been required for lightning the three lamps; the rest might have been sold in the market or consumed by monks. Calves would have been born of the donated cows each year, providing additional income for the Mahābodhi. Out of these livestock, oxen would have been supplied to the tenant cultivators to till the land in the possession of the Mahābodhi.

386

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Besides, harvest from the cultivated field would have also provided resources to the authorities of the Mahābodhi. So far, no inscription recording a grant of land to any religious establishment of the Mahābodhi complex by any ruler of the Pāla dynasty has come to light. Nor do we have any specific record of the construction of any gaṅdhakuṭi within the Mahābodhi by any ruler of this dynasty; a situation different from the Nalanda Mahāvihāra. The only instance of Pāla patronage to Buddhism in the neighbourhood of the Mahābodhi is the enlargement of the existing Sujātā stūpa through the patronage of Devapāla.17 Reported epigraphic data of the Pāla period from Mahābodhi mostly consist of dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures and votive stūpas. The widespread pilgrimage network of the Mahābodhi is indicated by the Chinese and Burmese inscriptions found at the site. All available Chinese inscriptions are datable to the eleventh century AD.18 Six Chinese inscriptions from the Mahābodhi have been reported by Cunningham, out of which two record the dedication of gold embroidered kāṣāyas to the ‘throne of the Buddha’ (i.e. Vajrāsana) and the erection of stūpas by Buddhist monks from China;19 another inscription records the pilgrimage to the Mahābodhi by some monks.20 An inscription on a sculpted panel containing the depiction of Vajravārāhī records the pilgrimage to and acts of worship at the Mahābodhi by a monk called Yun Shu.21 An inscription records the erection of a stūpa beside the Bodhimaṇḍa by a Buddhist monk on behalf of the Sunga Emperor and Empress of China.22 Mahābodhi attracted patronage from the Burmese kings as well. An eleventh century Burmese inscription discovered at the site records the repair of the Mahābodhi temple on the orders of the Burmese king by his son and a minister, which began in AD 1079 and was finished in AD 1086.23 This inscription also records two previous instances of repair of the temple carried out on the orders of the Burmese kings.24 In the thirteenth century, Mahābodhi benefited from the patronage provided by rulers of the Kumaon-Garhwal area of Uttarakhand, as well as by local Pīṭhipati rulers. Thus an

Evolution of the Patronage Base

387

inscription dated to the year 51 of the Lakṣmaṇasena era (i.e. AD 1230)25 records the erection of a vihārī and installation of an image of the Buddha therein as the Deyadharma of Paramopāsaka Pravara-Mahāyāna-Anuyāyin Mahārāja Aśokacalladeva for the religious merit of all sentient beings but firstly for the parents of the donor.26 This inscription also records the names of BhaṭṭaDāmodara, Bhaṭṭa-Paduma and Rājaguru Paṇḍita Mūśala.27 They probably assisted the king in the process of the erection of the Vihārī and the installation of the image of the Buddha in the same. This inscription also records that provisions were made for naivedya along with lamps (dīpasahita) in three chaityas by certain officials of the king, to be offered to the god daily by the members of the Singhalasaṅgha (Saṅgha of the Sri Lankan monks) at Mahābodhi.28 This inscription, unfortunately, does not record how resources were provided to the Singhalasaṅgha for making these offerings: by providing land grants with the consent of a local king or by creating an Akṣhayanīvi through the deposition of some money? That the association of Mahāyāna upāsakas and monks from the Kumaon-Garhwal area with the Mahābodhi continued after AD 1230 as well is indicated in some other stone inscriptions. An inscription dated to the year 74 of the Lakṣmaṇasena era (i.e. AD 1253) records the dedication of some votive offerings, not specified in the inscription, by Pravara-Mahāyānayāyin Paramopāsaka Sahaṇapāla, a bhāṇḍāgārika (treasurer) of Daśaratha, who was the younger brother of Rājādhirāja Aśokacalladeva, ruler of the Khasa country in the Sapādalakṣha mountains.29 Another inscription dated to the year 83 of the Lakṣmaṇasena era (i.e. AD 1262) provides some interesting details regarding the management of the landed property of the Mahābodhi, the influential position of the Singhalasaṅgha at Bodh Gaya, the contest that developed between the Singhalasaṅgha and a monk belonging to the Kumaon area of Uttarakhand, and the resolution of the contest by a local state. This inscription, being a royal decree of the local Pīṭhipati king Ācārya Buddhasena, commands the inhabitants and peasants attached to the rent free property of the Mahābodhi to be submissive to the donee Bhikṣhupaṇḍita

388

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Dharmarakṣhita and pay him proper dues.30 Bhikṣhupaṇḍita Dharmarakṣhita has been described as the rājaguru of the Kāma country (i.e. Kumaon).31 He was probably the chief preceptor of king Aśokacalladeva.32 Pīṭhipati Ācārya Buddhasena commanded that Bhikṣhupaṇḍita Dharmarakṣhita had to arrange for the rehabilitation of those Sri Lankan monks who were just then in Sri Lanka and those monks of the same country who were still at Mahābodhi, in accordance with an arrangement that have been made previously.33 The terms and conditions of the previous arrangement referred to in the inscription have not been specified. It was further decreed that the property of the Singhalasaṅgha at Mahābodhi would be handed over to the Singhalasaṅgha by Bhikṣhupaṇḍita Dharmarakṣhita; and the property belonging to the Singhalasaṅgha would not revert to the state.34 This inscription offers some interesting inferences. We may infer the absence of local monks (i.e. monks of Magadha or some other part of Bihar) and upāsakas in the inscription who, if they existed at all, do not seem to have played any role in the management of the landed property of the Mahābodhi. It is also interesting to note the possession of landed property by the Singhalasaṅgha as late as this period in the area. We do not know how Bhikṣhupaṇḍita Dharmarakṣhita came to command so much influence in the Mahābodhi area. It is also interesting to note that the cultivators (karṣaka) cultivating the rent free property of the Mahābodhi have been told in no uncertain terms to be submissive to the donee: probably the state was apprehensive of some unrest among them. That the Singhalasaṅgha continued to exist at Mahābodhi and received further land grants after the regime of Buddhasena as well is indicated by the Jani Bigha stone inscription. This inscription records the grant of a village named Koṭṭahalā in the Saptaghaṭṭa Viṣaya to a Singhala monk named Maṅgalasvāmin for the maintenance of the Vajrāsana and the monastery attached with it by the Pīṭhipati Ācārya Jayasena, successor of Ācārya Buddhasena in the year 83 of the Lakṣmaṇasena era.35 The village and viṣaya mentioned in the inscription are not yet identified,

Evolution of the Patronage Base

389

but they were most likely to be either in Magadha or the western part of the Munger district; which together formed the realm of the Pīṭhipati rulers. In a phase when the flow of pilgrimage to the Mahābodhi had significantly dwindled due to the disturbed political conditions in the wake of the Turkic conquest of northern India, it was probably natural for the Mahābodhi to have greater reliance on land grants. Let us sum up the Mahābodhi experience now. It was the biggest Buddhist pilgrimage center, commanding patronage from a variety of sources. Yet land holding became important for it. It was basically due to the fact that running monasteries required mobilization of resources on a significant scale on a sustained basis.

The Evolving Patronage Base of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra: inferences from Inscriptions on Terracotta Seals and Sealings Among the excavated Buddhist sites of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, Nalanda has produced the highest number of inscriptions. Epigraphic data recovered in the Nalanda excavations include stone and copper-plate inscriptions, inscriptions on dedicatory stūpas and sculptures, and inscriptions on terracotta seals/ sealings and plaques. The most numerous are inscriptions on terracotta seals and sealings, which throw interesting light on the internal administrative mechanism of the Mahāvihāra, the range of its royal patrons, its relationship with the villages granted to it, its relationship with other Buddhist monasteries, and the nature of ritual interaction the Mahāvihāra had with its non-monastic devotees. We will begin with an analysis of inscriptions on terracotta seals/sealings and plaques. Inscriptions on sculptures have already been analyzed in the previous chapter. Among the inscriptions on terracotta seals/sealings and plaques, the most numerous are the inscriptions which record either the Buddhist Creed Formula or some Buddhist texts which are so minutely written that they defy decipherment.36 None of

390

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

such seals/sealings/plaques is reported to have contained any hole or deep groove.37 Sastri has rightly argued that this was most probably due to the fact they were primarily cult-objects, they were not intended to be tied to official documents and letters.38 These inscriptions are not much helpful in tracing the social background of the persons who used them, but they provide some interesting glimpses of some cultic practices taking places within the Mahāvihāra. It has been rightly argued that many such seals/sealings and plaques were intended to be given to the pilgrims by the authorities of the Mahāvihāra as prasāda, to be taken back to the pilgrim’s home as mementoes.39 It is quite likely that before being given to the pilgrims, they underwent some sort of ritual sacralization by some monks of the Mahāvihāra, though this process is not recorded in any inscription of Nalanda.40 Many of them could have been intended to be dedicated to some sacred site within the Mahāvihāra as votive offerings as well. The sheer number of such seals/ sealings/plaques found in the Nalanda excavations indicates the scale of pilgrimage commanded by the site.41 Other epigraphic records in terracotta seals/sealings may be divided into the following categories: (a) seals/sealings of different kings, (b) seals/sealings of different offices of the state, (c) seals/sealings of villages or their administrative bodies that were granted to the Mahāvihāra and the Mahāvihāra had some sort of administrative control over them, (d) seals/sealings of some private individuals who were not monks, (e) monastic seals/sealings: those seals/sealings that were issued by various Bhikṣusaṅghas of Nalanda; many of them (Bhikṣusaṅghas) were entrusted with specialized responsibilities through association with a specific vārika. In the category of monastic seals/sealings, we have also included seals/sealings belonging to those monasteries that functioned under the administrative control of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra as a subordinate or affiliated monastery. In this category, we have also included those ‘composite’ seals/ sealings that contain the official insignia and legend of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra on the one side and the official legend of the villages or their administrative bodies (jānapada) that were

Evolution of the Patronage Base

391

officially granted to the Mahāvihāra and the Mahāvihāra had administrative control over them. Seals/sealings of all the categories mentioned above were usually marked with grooves in the backside as they were intended to be fastened to official letters and documents sent to and from the Mahāvihāra.42 Such official letters and documents were tied to the seal/sealing either with cloths, remains of which have been found in many seals/sealings or with tāḍī leaves, which served the purpose of modern ‘tape’. 43 The official documents made of perishable materials, and tied to such seals and sealings, have disappeared so we cannot determine what was being corresponded to. But we may certainly analyze the individuals and institutions the Mahāvihāra corresponded with. The sheer number of seals and sealings discovered in the Nalanda excavations indicates the widespread patronage base this Mahāvihāra enjoyed. Reported seals/sealings of kings contain their genealogy only. No seal/sealing dating prior to the Gupta emperor Buddhagupta, the son and successor of Kumāragupta, has been reported.44 Other Gupta Mahārājādhirājas whose seals/sealings have been reported are Narasimhagupta and Vaiṇyagupta.45 Seals/sealings of other known rulers include different Maukhari chiefs, Harṣavardhana, Bhāṣkarvarman of Kāmarūpa and Samācāradeva of Samataṭa.46 Two Mahārājādhirājas – Mitya47 and Vitavva48 – have not been identified as yet. Only one seal that can be definitely attributed to any Pāla ruler – the seal of Devapāladeva – has been reported so far.49 That, however, may not be taken as an indication of declining Pāla patronage to this site. Two Pāla rulers – Dharmapāla and Devapāla – besides issuing two copperplate inscriptions, also added Gaṅdhakuṭis to the Mahāvihāra. This is indicated by the findings of seals with the legends ŚrīNālandā Dharmapāladeva-Gaṅdhakuṭi-Vāsika Bhikṣunām 50 and Śrī-Devapāla-Gandhakuṭyam.51 It is interesting to note that barring Samācāradeva and Devapāladeva, none of the rulers whose seals have been found in the Nalanda excavations has claimed any kind of Buddhist identity (Paramasaugata, Mahāyāna-anuyāyin, Paramopāsaka, etc.).

392

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Seals of Mahārājādhirāja Mitya and Vitavva in fact claim that they were ‘Varṇāśrama-vyvasthā-pravṛta’.52 The Mahāvihāra had to deal with and accept patronage from such patrons, who probably patronized it more as a centre for higher learning than as a Buddhist religious centre. Accepting patronage from such patrons was normal on the part of the Mahāvihāra as it was functioning in a poly-religious landscape; a situation in which the religious milieu of many villages that were officially granted to the Mahāvihāra was dominated by Brahmanical religions. This becomes quite apparent when we analyze the motifs and figures depicted in various jānapada seals/sealings, village seals/sealings and some seals jointly issued by the Mahāvihāra and jānapadas. The word ‘jānapada’ in the context of the Nalanda seals have been taken in the sense of an office or ‘corporate body’ of a village.53 When such villages were granted to the Mahāvihāra, the Mahāvihāra exercised administrative control over such villages, most probably with the help of their respective jānapadas. We may infer that the deities depicted in the jānapada seals/ sealings or village seals/ sealings were the prominent or titulary deities of such villages or their jānapadas; or, at least, the village or its jānapadas wished to be identified with such deities, hence put a figure of the same in its official seal/sealing. Sastri has reported the discovery of 16 inscribed jānapada seals/sealings.54 Barring the seal of the jānapada of Daṇthagrāma, which contains the depiction of a stūpa,55 none of the jānapada seals contain any categorical Buddhist symbolism. Different mother goddesses in general and Durgā in her various forms in particular are depicted frequently in such seals/sealings.56 In one seal, we also get Śaiva symbols.57 We may gauge the complexity of the situation if we analyze the legend and depicted motif on the seal of the jānapada of a village called Angāmigrāma. The legend on it (Śrīnālandāpratibaddha-Angāmigrāma-Vihārastha-jānapadasya58) indicates that this village was officially pratibaddha to the Nalanda Mahāvihāra. This village had a functional vihāra and the office of

Evolution of the Patronage Base

393

the jānapada of the village was most probably situated in the local vihāra, hence the legend Angāmigrāma-Vihārasthajānapadasya was recorded in the seal. Even in this seal, the depicted motif is a four armed female figure seated on a crocodile (Gangā?), and not on any Buddhist deity.59 The Mahāvihāra derived its revenue from such villages and exercised administrative control over them. Similar appears to be the case with the depicted deities/ motifs on what has been called ‘combined tokens’, i.e. those seals and sealings that contain more than one legend.60 In such seals, one part of the seal contained the official insignia of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra (Śrī-Nālandā-Mahāvihāre-CaturdiśaĀryabhikṣusaṅghasya engraved below a dharmacakra flanked by a deer on each side) and another part of the seal contained the name of the village below or adjacent to a certain deity or motif. Fourteen such seals have been found in the Nalanda excavations, and barring a ‘combined token’ mentioning the name of Pādapāga-grāma which contains the depiction of a stūpa,61 no ‘combined token’ has any kind of Buddhist symbolism. In the seven other seals of ‘combined tokens’ category, the name of some Bhikṣusaṅgha either associated with some monastery or gaṅdhakuṭi of Nalanda Mahāvihāra or some other monastery are mentioned. They indicate complex patterns of interactions between the Nalanda Mahāvihāra and some other monasteries, a theme we will analyze now. Regarding the names of the Bhikṣusaṅghas that find mention in these ‘combined tokens’, the following legends have been found: Śrī-Nālandā Dharmapāladeva-Gaṅdhakuṭi-Vāsika Bhikṣunām;62 Śrī Somapāla-kārita-Kammeyikāviharīya-Bhikṣusaṅghasya; 63 Śrī-Prathama-Śivapura-Mahāvihārīya-Ārya-Bhikṣusaṅghasya;64 ŚrīSaṅghasya;65 Śrī-Nālandā-Mahāvihārīya-Vṛddha-Bhikṣunāma;66 and another Ārya-Bhikṣusaṅghasya, the full name could not be read due to the fragmentary nature of the seal.67 The seal with the legend ‘Śrī-Nālandā Dharmapāladeva-Gaṅdhakuṭi-Vāsika Bhikṣunām’ indicates that the Pāla Emperor Dharmapāla added a gaṅdhakuṭi to the Nalanda Mahāvihāra and a specific congregation of monks

394

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

was associated with its running. We may also infer that the Mahāvihāra had a Bhikṣusaṅgha of senior monks (vṛddha-bhikṣu). We may also infer that the other Bhikṣusaṅghas mentioned in these seals were related to the monasteries situated away from Nalanda Mahāvihāra. The question that needs to be explored is: why did the Nalanda Mahāvihāra issue joint seals with some villages and other monasteries? We may infer that the Mahāvihāra had some kind of administrative authority over these village and monasteries, hence the official correspondence of these villages and monasteries needed to be validated by putting the official insignia of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra. Such monasteries most probably served as subordinate/affiliated monasteries of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra, and at least one of them was a Mahāvihāra (Śrī-Prathama-Śivapura-Mahāvihāra). Some seals discovered in excavations throw some interesting light on the internal administrative management of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra. The seals containing the legend ŚrīNālandā-Mahāvihāre-Caturdiśa-Āryabhikṣusaṅghasya represented the association of all monks living within the Mahāvihāra. But there were other associations of monks as well, charged with specific responsibilities or associated with some particular monastery or shrine within the Mahāvihāra. In this category, we may include seals containing the legend Śrī-NālandāMūlanavakarmmavārika-Bhikṣunāṁ;68 Śrī-Nālandā-Cakrāre Vārika Bhikṣunāṁ; 69 Śrī-Nālandāyam Śrī-Śakrāditya-kārita-[vi]hāre caturdisiya-ārya-mahābhikṣusaṅghasya70 (seal of the Bhikṣusaṅgha of the Vihāra caused to be constructed by Śrī-Śakrāditya at Nalanda); Śrī-Nālandā-Catur-bhagavatām-Āsana-Vārika-Bhikṣunāṁ 71; ŚrīNālandāyam-Bālāditya-Gaṅdhakuṭi-Vārika-Bhikṣunāṁ72 (association of monks in charge of Gaṅdhakuṭi caused to be built by Bālāditya); Śrī-Nālandā-chatturdisika-Samvārika-bhikṣusaṅghasya;73 Śrī-NālandāSatraka-Samvārika-bhikṣunām;74 Śrī-Devapāla-Gandhakuṭyam75 (seal of the Gaṅdhakuṭi caused to be built by Devapāla, probably the Pāla ruler); Śrī-Nālandā-Mahāvihārīya-Vṛddha-Bhikṣunāṁa76 (seal of the association of senior monks of the Nālandā-Mahāvihāra); and Śrī-Nālandā-Cīvara-[jyāpana]-ārya-bhikṣusaṅghasya (association of

Evolution of the Patronage Base

395

monks in charge of supply of cīvara and other garments to the monks of the Mahāvihāra).77 This kind of arrangement is not discernible in the available epigraphic records associated with other monasteries of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Before we wrap up our analysis of seals and sealings reported in the Nalanda excavations, let us analyse those seals that just record the names of individual persons. A large number of seals and sealings, mainly serving as the identity tokens of various individuals have been reported from the various excavated sites within the Nalanda Mahāvihāra. Some seals contain only legends and some contain legends as well as symbols/designs. In the category of seals only with legends, Sastri has published 61 seals from the Monastery site 978 and 29 from the monastery site 1.79 Published seals of the second category (having both legends and designs/symbols) include 50 seals from Temple/Stūpa site 380 and 24 from the Monastery site 1.81 Table 6.1 summarizes the social background of persons whose names are engraved on seals of Nalanda. Those persons who have used titles suggesting their identity as monks (Sthavira, Bhikṣu, Śramaṇa, etc.) are categorized as monks, and those who have not used such titles are categorized as non-monks. TABLE 6.1: SOCIAL BACKGROUND OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONS MENTIONED IN NALANDA SEALS

Category Monks Non-monks Total

Monastery site 9 383 58 61

Monastery site 182 284 51 53

Temple/Stūpa site 3 485 46 50

Total 9 155 164

Source: Table prepared by the author.

Only 9 seals can be categorically attributed to monks (i.e. 5.48 per cent of published seals). But the actual number of monks finding mention in these seals is lesser: Sthavira Bhānudeva is referred to in three seals, and Sthavira Mañjukīrtti in three seals. In total, only six monks find mention in these seals. It may also be noted that names of monks (Sthavira or its abbreviated form

396

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Stha) are found, but not of nuns, indicating that their order was not in existence at the Mahāvihāra and it also did not attract pilgrimage from nuns from other parts of India. As a whole, reported personal seals from Nalanda are overwhelmingly dominated by persons from ‘non-monk’ background. Within this group, only three seals with the following legends may be attributed to kings: Śrī-Devapāladevasya,86 ŚrīNārāyaṇapāladevasya,87and Śrī-Yaśovarmmadevaḥ.88 The only seal that may refer to a person with some association with the bureaucracy of the state is the one with the legend ‘Sthānikasya’, probably referring to a person in charge of a ‘Sthāna’, i.e. police station.89 All other seals may be included in the category of ‘nonmonastic non-aristocratic’. Within this category too, only two seals bearing the names of women have been reported so far: Śrī-Ijjādevī,90 ŚrīmatSiyādevī.91 As indicated by their very names, these ladies were from respectable social background. Seals/sealings of Śreṣṭhi, Sārthavāha, Kulika or their guilds of the kind we see in Gupta period Vaiśālī (Basarh) are singularly absent.92 Stray evidences of mercantile patronage to the site are supplied through the findings of seals with the legend Haṭṭa-Mahājanasya and Rājavaiśya. All reported seals with the legend Haṭṭa-Mahājanasya and Rājavaiśya are associated with a particular village called Vallādihīya. Seals bearing the legends Vallādihīya-grāmasya, Vallādihīya-agrahārasya, Vallādihīya-haṭṭa-mahājanasya and Vallādihīya-Rājavaiśyānām have been reported in the Nalanda excavations.93 It is apparent that even if some kind of mercantile patronage flowed to the Mahāvihāra, it was not from big urban centres. What could have been the function of the seals of ‘nonmonastic non-aristocratic’ persons? One may argue that seals found from Monastery sites 1 and 9 may represent some kind of material patronage to the monks of these monasteries. But this argument may not be pertinent for the seals excavated out of the Temple/Stūpa site 3, which was the holiest spot within the Mahāvihāra, the very nucleus of its potential to attract pilgrimage?94 Long back, Prof. S.R. Das, in the context of seals

Evolution of the Patronage Base

397

and sealings reported from Rajabadidanga, has argued that such seals and sealings sometimes also served as votive offerings with the names of the devotee or pilgrim stamped on them.95 It may be noted that a similar function of inscriptions containing the names of donors has been noted in the context of early historical Buddhist sites (Sanchi, etc.): in such cases, the name functions as the ‘active representative of the person’.96 The act of inscribing one’s name in a part of a Buddhist religious centre was motivated by the desire of the lay believers to be permanently in the company of the Buddha, in life as well as after death.97 This could have been quite applicable in the case of seals reported from the Temple/Stūpa site 3 of Nalanda. These seals/sealings indicate the willingness of the authorities of Mahāvihāra to make available the holiest spot within the Mahāvihāra to the non-monastic devotees for an important ritual activity: dedication of seals/ sealings with the intention of being in the company of their chosen deity even after death. On the whole, we see a certain kind of diversity in the patronage base of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra as reflected in inscriptions on terracotta seals and sealings. We see the Mahāvihāra attracting pilgrimage from non-monastic nonaristocratic pilgrims as well as from monks, getting land donations from political elites on a substantial scale,98 and having a complex relationship with the villages granted to it and the other monastic sites affiliated to it.

Evolving Patronage Base of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra as Reflected in Stone and Copper-plate Inscriptions In contrast to the profusion with which inscribed seals and sealings are reported in the Nalanda excavations, epigraphic data in stone slabs and copper-plate inscriptions are few. Available epigraphic data in this category includes a stone inscription of the sixth century AD, recording patronage by Mālāda; a stone inscription of a king of Mathurā in the seventh-eighth centuries AD; a fragmented copper-plate of the Pāla king Dharmapāla; a copper-plate of the Pāla king Devapāla; two stone inscriptions

398

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of the twelfth century recording patronage by a MahāyānaParamopāsaka and a monk of Somapura Mahāvihāra respectively. On the whole, we see a great paucity of epigraphic records in stone slabs left by persons of ‘non-monastic non-aristocratic background’, who seem to have concentrated their energies in donating inscribed sculptures, inscribed seals and sealings, as well as inscribed and un-inscribed votive stūpas. The earliest dating (sixth century) stone inscription found in the Nalanda excavations pertains to the region of the king Yaśovarmmādeva. It was found in the ruins of the verandah of Monastery Site 1.99 This inscription records that Mālāda, son of a minister of Yaśovarmmādeva, made certain gifts to a temple (prāsāda) caused to be made by Nṛpa Bālāditya in honour of the son of Śuddodhana, i.e. the Buddha.100 Mālāda’s father was probably of Central Asian origin and he served as a mārgapati (literally meaning guardian of road or roads, but, contextually, guardian of the passes or frontiers).101 We are informed that Mālāda created a permanent endowment (akṣhayanīvi), the nature of which has not been specified in the inscription.102 It may be assumed that Mālāda donated a certain sum of money to the authorities of the Mahāvihāra, the annual interest of which was probably to be used for certain charitable activities within the Mahāvihāra. He also made arrangements for the daily distribution of rice, curd and ghee to the monks, and also gave to the assembly of monks pure and highly fragrant water perfumed with four scents.103 It is also claimed that ‘he distributed daily at the sattra’,104 which most probably indicates that he shared the cost of free distribution of food to the needy and the destitute at the sattra attached to the Mahāvihāra. It is also recorded that Mālāda purchased everything (i.e. the items donated in this inscription) from the Saṅgha and gave them back to the monks after proper rites.105 This inscription provides some interesting inferences regarding the life of a temple within the Mahāvihāra after its foundation through political patronage (by Nṛpa Bālāditya). After its foundation, it needed to generate additional sources of

Evolution of the Patronage Base

399

income to keep it running, in which, as indicated by the inscription under study, it was successful in the sixth century AD. This temple was dedicated to Buddha Śākyamuni and not any Dhyānī Buddha. Patronage to it did not necessarily involve the grant of land: an akṣhayanīvi could be created to perform certain ritual services to the temple. It is also interesting to note the reference to a sattra in this inscription, which was attached to the Mahāvihāra. That some monks were involved in a managerial capacity in the running of at least one sattra attached to the Mahāvihāra is indicated by an inscribed seal of Nalanda as well.106 It is also interesting to note that Mālāda purchased everything (i.e., the items he donated to the monks) from the Saṅgha and gave them back to the Saṅgha. The exact significance of this expression is not clear, but it could have been the case that some shops or a market centre came up either within the precincts of the Mahāvihāra or in its neighbourhood, on which the Saṅgha had some sort of control. This market could have taken care of the needs of the resident monks as well as the pilgrims who thronged to the Mahāvihāra.107 That Nalanda attracted patronage from another ruler of northern India is indicated by an inscribed stone slab of c. eighth century that was found fixed in a niche of the wall of the temple excavated at the Sarai mound. This inscription records the installation of a big image of the Buddha by an independent ruler Prathamaśiva, a member of a dynasty established by Bhāśiva, ruling in the Mathurā area.108 This family was originally Brahmin, but had taken up the work of a Kṣatriya, i.e. ruling and statecraft.109 Bhāśiva flourished in the beginning of the eighth century and Prathamaśiva towards the close of the same century.110 The installation of the sculpture of the Buddha might have taken place either towards the close of the eighth century or in the beginning of the next century, but it is interesting to note that no reference to the ruling Pāla king is made in this inscription. The image was installed in Yativara-Āvāse: ‘abode of the Ascetic (Buddha) or of the monks’.111 It is apparent that it was installed in some temple of Nalanda. This inscription is silent if

400

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

the king granted some land or created an akṣhayanīvi for the regular performance of rituals in the temple or for its maintenance. This inscription is greatly influenced by Brahmanical motifs: Bhāśiva has been compared to Hari (i.e. Vāsudeva Kṛṣṇa) born in the same city of Mathurā; Prathamaśiva’s heroic exploits have been compared to those of Rāma and Arjuna.112 In short, Prathamaśiva appears to be similar to those royal patrons of Nalanda – the Gupta rulers, Maukhari kings, Bhāskaravarmana – who patronized the Mahāvihāra without ever-becoming, formally, Buddhist.113 The available instances of land grants to the Mahāvihāra through royal copper-plate inscriptions are confined to the early Pāla period. A badly damaged copper-plate inscription of the Pāla king Dharmapāla, recovered from the ruins of the verandah of Monastery site 1 is too damaged to ascertain the name of the gift village(s), though the gift property was situated in the Gayā Viṣaya of Nagara Bhukti.114 Due to the damaged nature of the inscription, it is also difficult to determine the name of the donee. We also do not know what kind of relationship the donee had, if any, with the Mahāvihāra . The South-East Asian connection of the Mahāvihāra is reflected in the copper-plate inscription of the Pāla king Devapāla, which records the grant of five villages – four in the Rājagṛha Viṣaya and one in the Gayā Viṣaya – along with some administrative immunities and privileges (soparikara, sadasāparādha, sacauroddhana, acāṭabhāṭa-praveśa, parihṛta-sarvvapīḍā, etc.) to the community of monks of a monastery caused to be built by Bālaputradeva, the ruler of Suvarṇadvīpa (Java) at Nalanda.115 As per the request of Bālaputradeva, these villages were granted to provide for bali, caru, sattra, cīvara, piṇḍapata, śayana, and requisites for the sick (glāna-pratyaya-bhaiṣajyārtha), copying of manuscripts, as well as for the upkeep and repair of a monastery.116 That Nalanda developed complex linkages with the monks of distant regions is indicated by two stone inscriptions: the Ghosrawan stone inscription of the period of Devapāla, recording

Evolution of the Patronage Base

401

the praśasti of a monk called Vīradeva; and the Praśasti of Vipulaśrīmitra, a monk of Somapura Mahāvihāra, found in the latest strata of Monastery site 7 of the Mahāvihāra. In the first inscription, we are informed of a monk Vīradeva, who, born in a Brahmin family of Nāgarhār (Jalalabad area of Afghanistan), became a monk by becoming a disciple of Ācārya Sarvajñaśānti, made a pilgrimage to the Mahābodhi, and later, by the decree of assembly of monks, was appointed to ‘govern’ Nalanda.117 This inscription also claims that the Pāla king Devapāla treated him with great respect.118 In the second inscription, datable to c. twelfth century, we are informed that Vipulaśrīmitra, a monk originally hailing from Somapura Mahāvihāra, visited some other Buddhist religious centres, and came to Nalanda Mahāvihāra. He claims to have erected a vihārikā at an unspecified place, but arguably within the Nalanda Mahāvihāra, which he handed over to the Mitra lineage of monks, the lineage to which he belonged.119 A tenth century inscription on a stone pillar records the flow of mercantile patronage to the Mahāvihāra. This inscription, dated to the 24th regnal year of the Pāla king Rājyapāla (i.e. in the sixth decade of the tenth century), records that Śrī Vaidyanāthadeva, son of Manoratha, set up this pillar.120 Śrī Vaidyanāthadeva claims to have been born in a vaṇika-kula (i.e. family of merchants).121 This pillar was found inside a modern Jaina temple at Bargaon (in the neighbourhood of the Mahāvihāra), which led Sircar to argue that this pillar could have been ‘installed at a Jaina religious establishment at Nalanda’.122 There is nothing in this inscription to support his claim. Bargaon is quite close to the site of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra and it is quite possible that after the decline of the Mahāvihāra, some material might have been shifted to the modern Jaina temple at Bargaon from the ruins of the Mahāvihāra. Our inference is supported by the fact that no early medieval Jaina sculptural or structural presence has been discovered so far either at Bargaon or its neighbourhood. That the patronage by the community of lay worshippers was important for the survival of even a big Mahāvihāra like

402

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Nalanda; and also that Nalanda attracted such patronage; is indicated by the votive inscription on the sculpted doorframe of the Temple site 12 of Nalanda Mahāvihāra. In this inscription, datable to c. AD 1003, we are informed that when this place was destroyed by conflagration, Paramopāsaka Pravara Mahāyāna Anuyāyina Bālāditya, the son of Gurudatta, restored it in the 11th regnal year of the Pāla king Mahipāladeva.123 Bālāditya was originally from Kauśāmbī but he later settled in Telāḍhaka (i.e. modern Telhara in the Nalanda district).124 As far as the causes of conflagration in the Mahāvihāra are concerned, this inscription does not throw any light. Many ‘Paharpur-type maṇḍala monasteries’ acted as monuments where rituals for the protection of the patron state were performed and they invited religio-political violence due to this reason.125 But Nalanda Mahāvihāra most probably did not have this kind of fame.126 Due to this factor, it is difficult to attribute this conflagration to a political violence. Whatever might have been the cause of this conflagration, restoration of this site (Temple site 12) provided an opportunity to a Mahāyāna upāsaka to display his commitment to his chosen faith and get his name recorded at an important monastic centre. A combined analysis of inscriptions on terracotta seals and sealings, and those on stone, copper-plates, etc., will make us conclude that Nalanda had diversity in its patronage base, which is not discernible in most of the other monastic centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. With the possible exclusion of the maṭhas of Sylhet mentioned in the Paschimbhag copper-plate inscription of Śrīcandra,127 Nalanda was the single biggest landed magnate among the religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Its royal patrons included Prathamaśiva in the Mathurā area in the west to Bhāṣkaravarmana of Kāmrūpa in the east and Bālaputradeva of Java in the south-east. Yet, Nalanda was not oblivious of the need to attract small-scale patronage from persons from non-monastic, non-aristocratic backgrounds. An analysis of inscriptions on images, votive stūpas, seals and sealings, royal copper-plate inscriptions, and stone slabs testifies to its ability to attract patronage from diverse sources till the

Evolution of the Patronage Base

403

end of the twelfth century. It was probably this diversity which allowed it to linger for quite some time well after the Turkic destruction of the Mahāvihāra in the early thirteenth century. Its survival till at least the middle of the thirteenth century is indicated by the accounts of the Tibetan pilgrim Dharmasvāmin.

The Patronage Base of the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra as Reflected in Inscriptions on Terracotta Seals/ Sealings and a Stone Pillar Compared to Nalanda, epigraphic material recovered in the Antichak (the site of Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra) excavations are not as profuse as we see in the case of Nalanda Mahāvihāra. It may be noted that the site of Antichak suffered Turkic vandalization in the early thirteenth century.128 It is possible that the epigraphic material of the site might have got disturbed in this vandalization. Epigraphic data discovered at the site include 33 inscribed seals and sealings mostly dating to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, dedicatory inscriptions on votive stūpas and sculptures, and a pillar inscription (found in the central cruciform shrine area of the site) recording the installation of an image by a local king in the twelfth century. So far, no copper-plate or other inscriptions recording the grant of land to this Mahāvihāra by any Pāla ruler have been discovered. As a detailed analysis of the epigraphic material from Antichak excavations has been attempted by us elsewhere,129 we will not attempt a detailed analysis here. Here, our attempt will be to contrast the Vikramaśilā pattern with Nalanda. Compared to epigraphic material found during the excavations of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra, the same from Antichak show some fundamental differences, forcing us to conclude that the Nalanda experience cannot be generalized for other monastic sites of early medieval Bihar. We do not get the seals/sealings of kings; any person from a mercantile background, officials associated with state, or seals/sealings of offices of the state (seals of commanding officers of districts, provinces, etc.). We do not get seal/sealing of any Vihāra officially subordinate to this

404

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Mahāvihāra. Seals and sealings of monks and nuns are also largely absent. Nor do we get seal/sealing of any woman. None of the Antichak seals categorically records the extra-local origins of any of the persons mentioned in the seals and sealings. Unlike Nalanda, we do not get the seal of any village officially granted to this Mahāvihāra. Seals and sealings discovered at the site are mostly the identity tokens of individuals, belonging mostly to non-monastic non-aristocratic section.130 The excavators of the site have not published the exact find-spots of such seals and sealings, so we do not know if any of them were found from the central cruciform-shrine area. Due to this reason, we cannot determine if they were also dedicated as votive offerings.

Inscriptions Associated with Other Buddhist Religious Centres of Early Medieval Bihar A pillar inscription discovered at the village Arma (in the neighbourhood of the Kiul railway station) throws some important light on the support system of a Buddhist religious centre of this area during the twelfth century. This inscription, dated to the 14th regnal year of the Pāla king Madanapāla (i.e. c. AD 1172), records the grant of a village (Khaṇḍapāṭakagrāma) by Sārthadevikā, the rājñī (queen) of Mahāmāṇḍalika Jaṣkapāla in favour of Dhavalasaṅgha.131 It has been rightly argued that Dhavalasaṅgha was the name of the Bhikṣusaṅgha of a monastery that existed in the neighbourhood of the findspot of the inscription.132 This inscription does not record any administrative immunity or privilege granted to the donee. This inscription indicates the ability of a Buddhist religious centre of the Kiul-Lakhisarai area to attract patronage from the wife of a local chief. That sums up its significance.

Summing Up the Patterns of Patronage to Buddhist Religious Centres in Early Medieval Bihar Let us sum up the patterns of patronage to Buddhist religious centres in early medieval Magadha and Aṅga. We discern

Evolution of the Patronage Base

405

diversity in the social background of donors that donated in favour of Buddhist religious centres. Even the biggest pilgrimage centre – Mahābodhi – could not function without land grants, which, at the available stage of our database, were mostly donated by local rulers of Bodh Gaya area, not by the Pāla rulers. The biggest landed magnate – Nalanda Mahāvihāra – on the other hand, rather than depending entirely on royal land grants, was forced to attract other sources of patronage as well. No evidence of a land grant to the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra has come to light so far, but that might have been due to the disturbed nature of the site. No Buddhist religious centre of Bihar seems to have matched the scale of landholding by the Nalanda Mahāvihāra. Compared to Mahābodhi and Nalanda, epigraphic records of donations by common section of population are much less at Antichak. That was due to the fact that in terms of functional implications of site typology and ritual focus, Vikramaśilā had fundamental differences with Mahābodhi and Nalanda, rendering it almost reluctant to attract or engage pilgrimage on the scale noticeable at Mahābodhi and Nalanda.133

Patterns of Patronage to Buddhist Religious Centres in Early Medieval Bengal Compared to the pattern of social bases of patronage to Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bihar, we see some fundamental differences in the same of Buddhist religious centres of Bengal. In Bihar, a cross section of society patronized Buddhist religious centres, even in the cases of those religious centres that were primarily monastic sites but also came to command a considerable pilgrimage (Nalanda for example). Pilgrimage was substantial in the cases of sites that were part of the aṣṭamahāpratihārya circuit (Mahābodhi) or somehow functioned as pāribhogikadhātu (Kurkihar). As we have seen in the case of the Nalanda inscriptions, despite the substantial landholding by the Mahāvihāra, it tried to diversify its patronage base. It could also claim association with the two aggasāvaka of the Buddha Śākyamuni, if not with the Śākyamuni.134 In contrast,

406

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

none of the Buddhist religious centres of Bengal could claim a place in the aṣṭamahāpratihārya scheme. None of them could genuinely claim the honour of functioning as a pāribhogikadhātu. And in terms of attempting ritual engagements with the nonmonastic devotees too, they were not as enthusiastic as was the case with the Buddhist religious centres of Bihar.135 All this somewhat ensured that the reliance of most of the Buddhist monasteries of Bengal on income from the land granted to them during the early medieval period was much higher than what could have been the case with the monasteries of early medieval Bihar. We do not have any epigraphically recorded evidence of long distance pilgrimage to Buddhist religious centres of Bengal. The diversity in the social background of patrons that we see in Mahābodhi, Nalanda, Kurkihar, or even Antichak to some extent, is largely absent in the case of most of the Buddhist religious centres of Bengal. Their patronage base mostly consisted of land grants made by kings. Land-holding by Buddhist monasteries is indicated in the case of a monastery located at even the port centre of Tāmralipti, which served as the most important maritime port for the whole of the Middle Ganga valley till at least the end of the seventh century. Itsing’s account indicates that at least one monastery of Tāmralipti held land and got it cultivated by tenants in the seventh century.136 Itsing has not recorded the flow of any kind of mercantile patronage to any monastery at Tāmralipti. This was the case at even the most important maritime port centre of Bengal in the seventh century. The pattern was different from a monastic center like Kanheri in the western coast that benefited from the presence of maritime port centres in its vicinity (Chaul, Sopora, Kalyan, etc.), as well as from pilgrimage from distant lands including Sind and Bengal, and depended primarily on patronage provided by traders and pilgrims.137 If this was the case with a monastery at a big maritime port of Bengal, we may easily visualize the condition of monasteries located at inland centres. As most of the published copper-plate and stone inscriptions recording patronage to Buddhist religious centres of Bengal are

Evolution of the Patronage Base

407

concerned with grant of land to them, our analysis will basically focus on the shifts, if any, that took place in the patterns of land grants.138 We will like to see the social background of persons, who took the lead in establishing Buddhist religious centres and securing land grants for the same. We will also analyse the chronological and sub-regional variations, if any, in this pattern. We will contrast the pattern with the inferences drawn from the analysis of inscriptions on seals and seals discovered in the excavations of some Buddhist monastic sites. The data from the published inscriptions on stone, copperplate and metal vases from early medieval Bengal is summarized in Table 6.2. This table indicates an important trend that continued right till the end of the early medieval period: a clear-cut predominance of political elites (kings, subordinate rulers, high-ranking officials of the state) as patrons. Within this class, the class of subordinate rulers (Mahārāja, Mahāsāmanta, etc.) is met with most frequently, who took the lead in establishing a vihāra and then approached the king to make land grant with many administrative immunities and privileges in favour of the vihāra. In some cases, some subordinate rulers approached the king to make this kind of land grants in favour of existing vihāras. In Bengal, the earliest epigraphic evidence of the active role of the class of subordinate rulers is supplied by the Gunaighar copper-plate inscription (c. AD 507) in which we see one Mahārāja Rudradatta, who was a subordinate ruler under Mahārāja Vainyagupta, petitioning Mahārāja Vainyagupta (a semi-independent local ruler functioning within an overall Gupta suzerainty) to grant land to a vihāra (named Āśrama Vihāra), which he (Mahārāja Rudradatta) was causing to be constructed.139 This Vihāra was dedicated to Ārya-Avalokiteśvara and headed by Śākyabhikṣu Ācārya Śāntideva. As per his request, Mahārāja Vainyagupta granted eleven pāṭakas of khila (fallow) land divided in five plots in the village named Kānteḍadaka-grāma situated in Uttaramaṇḍala in the Comilla area of Samataṭa.140 This monastery was granted low-lying, water-logged and marshy

TABLE 6.2: BENGAL INSCRIPTIONS RECORDING PATRONAGE TO BUDDHIST RELIGIOUS CENTRES

Sl. No. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Name and date of the inscription

Sub-region of Bengal

Nature of patronage

A subordinate ruler caused the construction of a vihāra and secured a land grant for it from the king Grant of cultivated land to Samataṭa (Comilla) four vihāras and vihārikās by king Devakhaḍga to secure the longevity of his son Rājarāja Bhaṭṭa Grant of cultivated land to Samataṭa Ashrafpur coppera vihāra by prince Rājarāja (Comilla) plate inscription of Bhaṭṭa Devakhaḍga, year 13 Vibhūtidāsa, probably Devaparvata grant of Samataṭa a high-ranking (Comilla) Bhavadeva (eighth official, through century) Mahāsāmantādhipati Nandadhara, requested the king Bhavadeva to grant 7.5 pāṭakas of land in favour of Ratnatraya of Veṇḍamatīvihārikā, which the king granted Patronage by the Devātideva’s copper Harikela (Chittagong community including a vase inscription, minister coastal c. AD 715 tracts) Murshidabad copper- Varendra A subordinate ruler caused the construction of a vihāra plate inscription of and secured a land grant Dharmapāla for it from the king Jagajjibanpur copper- Varendra A general of the Pāla army caused the construction of plate inscription of a vihāra and secured a land Mahendrapāla, year grant for it from the king 7 (latter half of the ninth century) Kailan copperplate inscription of Śrīdhāraṇa Rāta, year 8, c. AD 665-75 Ashrafpur copperplate inscription of Devakhaḍga, year 7, (c. AD 665)

Samataṭa (Comilla)

Evolution of the Patronage Base 8

Metal vase inscription Harikela of Aṭṭākaradeva, early (Chittagong coastal tenth century AD tracts)

9

Mohipur copper-plate Varendra Inscription of Gopāla II (tenth century AD)

10 Chaprakot Stone Inscription of the period of Gopāla IV

Varendra

11 Vajrayogini copperplate inscription Sāmalavarman, c. twelfth century AD 12 Mainamati copperplate inscription of Harikāladeva, c. AD 1220

Vaṅga (Vikramapur area) Samataṭa (Comilla)

409

Praāpta-Paṅca-Mahāśabda Mahāpratihāra Sahadeva caused to construct a cell (Maṭhikā) in an existing Buddhist monastery called Vela Vihāra and secured a land grant for it A general of the Pāla army caused the construction of a vihāra and secured a land grant for it from the king A sthavira added a gate to a Mahāvihāra built by a subordinate ruler three generations earlier Royal donation of land to a temple of Prajñāpāramitā built by a person of nonaristocratic background A minister of horses under king Harikāladeva granted some land to a vihārī

Source: Table prepared by the author.

land.141 Obviously the monastery was expected to undertake agrarian expansion in the donated land. The landscape surrounding the donated land was polyreligious. The first plot of land, measuring seven pāṭakas and nine droṇavāpas was, besides being bordered by the cultivated fields belonging to various individuals, bordered in the east by the borders of a Brahmanical agrahāra – Guṇikāgrahāra – as well by the cultivated land in the possession of a Rājavihāra (Rājavihāra-kṣetra).142 The second plot of land, measuring 28 droṇavāpas, was bordered in the west by the Rājavihāra-kṣetra.143 The low lands (talabhūmi) belonging to the Āśrama Vihāra were bordered in the west by the kṣetra belonging to the temple (devakula) of Pradyumneśvara.144 A plot of land granted to the Āśrama Vihāra has been referred to as śūnya-pratikara-hajika-

410

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

khila-bhūmi,145 probably to denote a water-logged uncultivated land yielding no revenue to the state. This śūnya-pratikara-hajikakhila-bhūmi was bordered in the southern side by the cultivated land (kṣetra) in possession of a vihāra headed by Śākyabhikṣu Ācārya Jitasena and in the eastern side by the kṣetra belonging to the devakula of Pradyumneśvara.146 References to jolā, naukhāta and nauyogakhāta147 (probably used in the sense of boat parking stations) in this inscription will make us conclude that the locality in which land was granted bordered some river and it was low lying and marshy. Despite this general watery environment, the locality in which land was granted was cultivated by various individuals. At least two Buddhist monasteries (a rājavihāra and a vihāra headed by Śākyabhikṣu Ācārya Jitasena148) and a temple of Pradyumneśvara possessed land prior to the grant of land to the Āśrama Vihāra. Besides, an agrahāra settlement (Guṇikāgrahāra) was already present. At least two vihāras had clearcut political connections: Rājavihāra, which was most probably established through royal patronage, or at least received royal patronage; and Āśrama Vihāra that was being constructed by Mahārāja Rudradatta. These developments may be seen in the backdrop of the grant of various plots of land to a Saṅgha of the Ājīvikas residing in the shrine of Yakṣa Maṇibhadra originally issued in c. AD 409-10 by a local king Mahārāja Maheśvara Nāthacandra and re-issued by Vainyagupta in AD 502-3.149 The location of the granted land was somewhere in the district of Comilla.150 All this indicates that the local semi-independent rulers of Comilla (Nāthacandra and Vainyagupta), despite formally claiming to be devoted to Śiva in the copper-plate inscriptions issued by them,151 were eclectic in extending patronage to religious institutions. Yet, only a Buddhist monastery attracted the attention of a ruler of this area to emerge as a Rājavihāra, and another monastery (Āśrama Vihāra) attracted the patronage of a subordinate ruler (Mahārāja Rudradatta). In a nutshell, the Gunaighar copper-plate inscription indicates two tendencies that found fuller manifestations in later times: (1) the direct royal association with Buddhist monasteries, a trend that later culminated in the

Evolution of the Patronage Base

411

in the foundation of monasteries named after individual kings (such as Bhavadeva Vihāra and Ānanda Vihāra in the Mainamati Complex and Somapura Mahāvihāra in Varendra), and (2) the role of subordinate rulers (Mahārāja, Mahāsāmanta, etc.) in establishing Buddhist monasteries. The question that needs to be explored is: was the patronage of subordinate rulers motivated by just religious piety or were there some political motives as well in this process? Did they establish vihāras to augment their own authority vis-à-vis the king? An analysis of many inscriptions recording patronage to Buddhist religious centres in early medieval Bengal by persons belonging to this class has led one scholar to argue that this indeed was the case.152 Generally, a subordinate ruler would establish a vihāra within the area over which he had some influence. Then he would petition the king to grant land to the vihāra with administrative immunities and privileges. As the founder of the vihāra – as the vihārasvāmin – he would retain some kind of control over the management of the vihāra and landed property granted to the vihāra.153 As the land was donated to religious centres, donated land would be free from interference by state authorities.154 In a nutshell, in the garb of establishing Buddhist vihāras as an act of religious piety, he would try to enhance his own authority and encroach upon the same of the state in the donated tract of land.155 This pattern, which began in the sixth century Samataṭa (Comilla) continued not only in the seventh century Samataṭa, but also in Pāla period Varendra. The trends we observed in the Gunaighar copper-plate inscription are discernible in the Kailan copper-plate inscription (c. AD 665-75) as well. In the Kailan copper-plate inscription, which was discovered at the village Kailan under the Chandina PS area of Comilla district, we see Jayanātha, who was serving as Mahāsāndhivigrahika (minister of war and peace) under Prāptapaṅca-Mahāśabda Śrīdhāraṇa Rāta, petitioning Śrīdhāraṇa Rāta to grant some land, which he (Jayanātha) wanted to dedicate to Bhagavata Tathāgataratna (i.e. the Buddha) for providing for gaṅdha-puṣpa-dīpa-dhūpa, etc., cīvara, piṇḍapāta, as well as for providing for the reading and writing of Buddhist texts in the

412

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

monastery.156 Jayanātha also wanted to donate some land to some Brahmins for the performance of their paṅcamahāyajña.157 Śrīdhāraṇa Rāta, theoretically subordinate to some overlord, yet independent enough to make a land grant on his own without referring to the overlord even once in the copper-plate inscription, agreed to his demand and made the grant.158 It is not clear if this monastery was caused to be constructed by Jayanātha or he tried to secure grant of land for an existing monastery. A total of 25 pāṭakas of land were granted by Śrīdhāraṇa, out of which the biggest plot measuring 18 pāṭakas at Tratuvāpāṭaka in the Khaḍobbālikā subdivision of Guptīnāṭana Viṣaya was granted to the 13 Brahmins. Out of these 18 pāṭakas, Jayanātha retained 5 pāṭakas.159 The ratnatraya (i.e. the Buddhist establishment) got 5 pāṭakas at a place called Raṅkupottaka, out of which ½ pāṭaka was retained by Jayanātha’ as the alms-giver (bhikṣdā=bhikṣādātā).160 Besides, Jayanātha also got two pāṭakas of bahiḥkṣetra or outlying land belonging to the Karalakoṭṭa subdivision of the Paṭalāyikā Viṣaya.161 Thus the biggest chunk of land (13 pāṭakas) went to 13 Brahmins. Jayanātha himself got 7.5 pāṭakas, and the Buddhist establishment got only 4.5 pāṭakas. In the garb of securing land for the vihāra and Brahmins, he secured significant land for himself: his share was bigger than that of the vihāra. As the person who secured the land grant for the community of 13 Brahmins as well as for the Buddhist establishment through this copper-plate inscription, Jayanātha could have hoped to have a continuing influence among them (community of 13 Brahmins and the Buddhist establishment). It is also interesting to note that Jayanātha – a person without an expressed Buddhist identity (paramasaugata, etc.) – patronized Brahmins and a Buddhist establishment simultaneously and the ratnatraya establishment mentioned in this inscription accepted patronage from such a person. This was most probably a reflection of the sharing of a poly-religious landscape by Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres in the landscape. This will be clear when we analyse the boundary markers of the tracts of land granted through this copper-plate charter. As indicated by the frequent use of the terms billa, naudaṇḍa,

Evolution of the Patronage Base

413

naupṛthvī, nausthiravegā, nauśivabhoga for the land that bordered the donated tracts of land, the area in which land was granted was marshy.162 Yet a complicated pattern of land-holding was in existence in the area. This inscription displays two types of land held by different land-holders in the area that bordered the land donated through this royal charter: tāmram land (i.e. the land apparently held on the strength of copper-plate charters) and kṣetra land (land other than tāmram land).163 Both types of land were held by different individuals as well institutions.164 Thus Bahiḥkṣetra – pāṭaka land which Jayanātha got was bordered by a Devīmaṭha-tāmram in the east165 and a Mitrabala-vihāra-tāmram in the west.166 Devīmaṭha most probably referred to a temple/shrine dedicated to devī. The kṣetra land held by Karala-vihāra also bordered the bahiḥkṣetra-pāṭaka on one side.167 In other words, there were multiple patterns of landholdings by Buddhist monasteries in this area, indicating that they derived patronage from persons from diverse social backgrounds. Buddhist monasteries co-existed with Brahmanical religious centres in the same area. In this kind of situation, it was not something unusual for Jayanātha to patronize both Buddhism and Brahmanism. The simultaneous patronage extended to Buddhism and Brahmanism by Jayanātha has been interpreted by Sircar as an indication that ‘Buddhist laymen were gradually nearing absorption into Brahmanical society’ in the seventh century Bengal.168 This inscription, on the other hand, indicates the capacity of a Buddhist monastery to attract patronage from a person ( Jayanātha) without expressed Buddhist identity. In some cases, the donation of land to a Buddhist monastery in an agriculturally well-settled poly-religious area had the potential of inducing religious conflict in the long run. This pattern is seen in the two copper-plate inscriptions that were discovered at Ashrafpur, located about 30 miles north-east of Dhaka. In the first plate, 9 pāṭakas and 10 droṇas of land were granted by Devakhaḍga desirous to secure the longevity of his son Rājarāja Bhaṭṭa to four vihāras and vihārikās.169 These vihāras and vihārikās were under the supervision of ‘revered preceptor’ (acārya-vandya) Saṅghamitra.170 In the second plate, 6 pāṭakas and

414

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

10 droṇas of land were granted by Rājarāja Bhaṭṭa to a vihāra headed by Ācārya Saṅghamitra.171 It is not sure if the vihāra referred to in the second copper-plate was also included in the list of the four vihāras that received land through the first copper-plate inscription. Both copper-plates indicate complex agrarian relationships in the area in which land were granted. Some portion of land were ‘enjoyed’ by some, but cultivated by somebody else, and the king had the supreme authority to take the land from the present ‘enjoyers’ and transfer the right of ‘enjoyment’ (i.e. the revenue of the tract) to new donees. The actual cultivator would, on the other hand, keep on cultivating for the new ‘enjoyer’ after the transfer of land to the new donee. Thus in the first plate, the tracts of land that were transferred to the four vihāras and vihārikās included two Pāṭakas ‘enjoyed’ by Mahādevī (queenconsort) Śrī-Prabhāvatī;172 one and a-half pāṭaka of Śrī-Mitrāvali ‘enjoyed’ by Sāmanta Vaṇitoyaka173; one (?) pāṭaka ‘enjoyed’ by Sri- Śarvāntara and cultivated by Mahattara Śikhara, etc.174 The king, through this charter, took away the 9 pāṭakas and 10 droṇas of land from their ‘present enjoyers’ and gave them to the four vihāras and vihārikās headed by Saṅghamitra.175 In the second plate also, we see similar trends. The land that was transferred to the vihāra headed by Saṅghamitra included 20 droṇavāpa of land ‘formerly enjoyed by upāsaka and now enjoyed by Svastiyoka’.176 Through this royal charter, 6 pāṭakas and 10 droṇas of land were taken away from their ‘enjoyers’ and given to the vihāra headed by Saṅghamitra.177 In earlier studies, these copper-plate inscriptions have been basically analysed to trace the complex agrarian relationships that developed in this part of Bengal in the period in which they were issued.178 These issues have been well-analysed by some other scholars and they need not detain us here. What has been overlooked in these studies is the complex relationship the vihāras and vihārikās headed by Ācārya Saṅghamitra had to enter with other Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres already present in the area. The first inscription also refers to at least two Buddhist vihāras179 and a droṇimaṭhikā.180 Two Buddhist

Evolution of the Patronage Base

415

vihāras were ‘enjoying’ one pāṭaka of land, and the droṇimaṭhikā (most probably a Brahmanical shrine) was also ‘enjoying’ one pāṭaka of land. The land enjoyed by them were also transferred to the vihāras and vihārikās headed by Ācārya Saṅghamitra. That Ācārya Saṅghamitra had some special significance in the Khaḍga domain is indicated by the fact that even the land ‘enjoyed’ by the queen-consort Prabhāvatī was also transferred to him. Even then, it was really exceptional to transfer the land already being enjoyed by some other religious centres. In many epigraphic records of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, we see kings taking care not to transgress the land already under the possession of some religious institution.181 This was not the case in the first Ashrafpur copper-plate inscription. This practice was likely to create strife in the long run. The next available copper-plate grant recording patronage to a Buddhist monastery in early medieval Bengal is the Devaparvata grant of Bhavadeva, datable to the eighth century. We are informed that Vibhūtidāsa approached Mahāsāmantādhipati Nandadhara with a request to submit his prayer to Parameśvara, Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja Bhavadeva to grant 7.5 pāṭakas of land in favour of the Ratnatraya of VeṇḍamatīVihārikā.182 This inscription does not contain any categorical information if this vihārikā was caused to be constructed by Vibhūtidāsa. Agreeing to his request, the king granted 7.5 pāṭakas of land in four different plots in the Peranāṭana Viṣaya in favour of the said Ratnatraya.183 As the boundaries of the donated tract have not been mentioned in the inscription, so we are unable to reconstruct the socio-economic and cultic context of the locale in which this vihārikā was granted land. Similarly, as the inscription is fragmented at vital spots, so it is difficult to determine if Vibhūtidāsa belonged to the class of subordinate rulers. It is, though, apparent that he must have been a man of high standing: members of three generations of Vibhūtidāsa’s family have been referred to by name in the inscription. D.C. Sircar has suggested that Vibhūtidāsa was most probably an officer under the king who had great confidence in the former.184 On this basis, Sircar has suggested that Vibhūtidāsa’s position in

416

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

respect of the grant was similar to that of Jayanātha of the Kailan copper-plate.185 If his argument is accepted then this copperplate may indicate the patronage to a Buddhist religious centre through the initiative of a high-ranking official. Compared to the seventh-eighth century copper-plate inscriptions of the Rāta, Khaḍga and Deva rulers of the Comilla area, in which we see the grant of land to Buddhist religious centres through the initiative of a king (as in the first Ashrafpur copper-plate), a prince (as in the second Ashrafpur copperplate), a high-ranking official (Jayanātha of the Kailan copper-plate) and another high-ranking official (Vibhūtidāsa, in the Devaparvata grant), the pattern in the early eighth century Chittagong coastal tracts appears to be slightly different. A metallic vase inscription from this area, datable to c. AD 715 records the grant of a land to a Buddhist monastery not only by the mantrimukhya (chief minister) of a local state but by other sections of society as well. This inscription refers to Devātideva Bhaṭṭāraka, who ruled over the Chittagong area.186 He belonged to the Khasa tribe and the area over which he ruled has been referred to as Khasa-maka.187In this single inscription, many instances of transfer of land to a Buddhist monastery (HaritikaDharmasabha-Vihāra) by different persons are recorded. The transfers of land to this Buddhist monastery were executed on different days. The first grant was made by the mantrimukhya and chief administrator (mahāpradhāna) Nayaparākramagomin, who purchased 33 pāṭakas of land from different persons at a ‘good price’ (sukrayeṇa-kṛtvā) and donated it to the said vihāra.188 A second donation was made by Pṛthudāma, Mahābalādhikṛta Śambhudāma, Mahābalādhikṛta Viṣṇudāma and Gaurīdāma.189 This inscription records the donation of land to the HaritikaDharmasabha-Vihāra by the non-aristocratic section of the population also. We see the donation of 60 droṇavāpa of land from the shares of two goldsmiths (suvarṇakāra): Kulacandra and Ratnacandra. 190 In this connection, the names of Ācārya Śāntibhadra, the abbot of the monastery, and karaṇī (clerk) Hastirūdra are also mentioned.191 Hastirūdra, along with some

Evolution of the Patronage Base

417

other persons, is also seen purchasing 60 droṇavāpa of khila land from the residents of the Chandrabhaṭṭārikāgrāma situated in the Khasa-maka belonging to Harikela.192 The donation of khila land to the monastery indicates that the monastery was supposed to bring this uncultivated land under the plough in the long run. This inscription records the donation of land to the HaritikaDharmasabha-Vihāra by some other non-aristocratic persons. We see the transfer of 28 pāṭakas of land after purchasing that with 58 taṇḍaka (a type of coin).193 In this connection, the name of Mahāvārika Sahadeva, who probably had some role in executing the transfer of land to the monastery, is mentioned.194 We also see the donation of land by one Dharmadatta and his son Bhadradatta. The donated land was bordered in the east by a mahāyāna-vihāra-kṣetra195 (cultivated lands in the possession of a Buddhist monastery belonging to the Mahāyāna sect). That is significant as it indicates the existence of a land owning Buddhist monastery in the area prior to the donation of land to the Haritika-Dharmasabha-Vihāra. This inscription does not contain any information as to how this Mahāyāna-Vihāra came to possess land. In the case of the Haritika-Dharmasabha-Vihāra, we see the flow of both aristocratic and non-aristocratic patronage. A similar possibility cannot be ruled out for the MahāyānaVihāra. Before we proceed to analyze the political dimensions of patronage to Buddhist monasteries in Pāla period Varendra, we will like to discuss another metal vase inscription from the Chittagong area, datable to the early tenth century AD. That will be helpful in tracing the changes, if any, in the patterns of patronage to Buddhist religious centres in this area in a span of two centuries. This inscription of the period of Rajādhirāja Aṭṭākaradeva (c. early tenth century AD), who probably belonged to the dynasty of Devātideva Bhaṭṭākaradeva, shows some changes in the pattern of endowment to Buddhist religious centres in the costal tracts of Chittagong.196 Some lines of this inscription are greatly damaged, probably due to intentional hammering of the vase, resulting in the loss of vital data

418

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

regarding the boundaries of the donated land.197 This inscription informs that Prāpta-Paṅca-Mahāśabda Mahāpratihāra, Sahadeva caused to construct a cell (maṭhikā) in a Buddhist monastery called Vela Vihāra, in honour of Munīndra Bhaṭṭāraka (i.e., the Buddha) for the attainment of perfect knowledge (SamyakaSambodhi) and religious merit of his own self, his parents and all sentient beings.198 Sahadeva, with the consent of the ruling king, granted some land for providing for food, clothing, bed and medicines for the monks residing in the monastery as well as for the worship of Tathāgata-Bhaṭṭāraka, i.e. the Buddha.199 Sthavira Dharmadatta, probably the chief monk of Vela Vihāra, received the land-grant on behalf of the vihāra.200 It is interesting to note that land was granted to the monastery on two separate occasions, details of which were inscribed on the main body and rim of the vase respectively. On the first occasion of the grant of land, whose description has got blurred due to the hammering of the vase, we are informed of land plots belonging to Kārada Indranātha and Bhārada Amhela, which were donated to the vihāra.201 The exact significance of the terms Kārada and Bhārada prefixed before the names of Indranātha and Amhela is not clear. They probably indicate that Indranātha was paying taxes and Amhela was contributing labour.202 So it may be inferred that the monastery received the grant of a settled tract. The land granted to the monastery on the first occasion was bounded in the east by Kuvāsī Jolā, i.e. a canal named Kuvāsī.203 The land granted to the monastery on the second occasion consisted of a small garden of betel tree and some other tree in possession of an individual called Nāgabhaṭṭa.204 In the vase inscription of the period of DevātidevaBhaṭṭāraka, land was donated to a monastery after purchasing them from their original owners at a ‘good price’ by many donors. In the second vase inscription, on the other hand, individuals whose lands were transferred to a Buddhist monastery were not even informed of this transfer, indicating that the coercive power of the state had increased by this time and this power was used to facilitate the transfer of land to a

Evolution of the Patronage Base

419

monastery patronized by a politically powerful subordinate ruler. A comparative study of the two vase inscriptions has led one scholar to suggest that the first inscription indicates a community-based patronage to a Buddhist vihāra in coastal tracts of Chittagong, and the second inscription indicates the patronage provided by a powerful officer ‘supporting his own institution with the approval of the state’.205 As per her arguments, the process was somewhat similar to the transition observed in Varendra between the Gupta period and the postGupta period in the patterns of patronage to religious centres: replacement of community-based patronage by patronage provided by political elites (kings and their officers, persons belonging to the Sāmanta class, etc.).206 Evidences are, however, not sufficient to be categorical in this regard. Praāpta-PaṅcaMahāśabda Mahāpratihāra, Sahadeva just added a cell to an existing monastery, for which donation by one person could have been adequate. We have nothing to suggest that Vela Vihāra was caused to be constructed by any political elite. Similarly, inscriptions on the Jhevari bronze images, datable to c. AD 850950 on paleographic grounds, indicate donations of Buddhist images by non-monastic, non-aristocratic sections of population, which again forces us to question the notion of the decline of community-based patronage to Buddhism in the coastal tracts of Chittagong in the tenth century.

Patronage to Buddhist Monasteries and its Linkages with Political Processes in the Pāla Period Varendra All discovered copper-plate and stone inscriptions from Pāla period Varendra recording patronage in favour of Buddhist religious centres record the construction of Buddhist monasteries in Varendra either by the commanders of the Pāla army or by the subordinate rulers, indicating that the pattern observed in these inscriptions was part of some common trend. It has been rightly argued that the basic motive on the part of such patrons was to enhance their own authority by encroaching upon the

420

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

authority of the state in the tract of land granted to the Buddhist religious centres.207 In the Indian Museum Copper Plate inscription of Dharmapāla, year 26, we see one Mahāsāmanta Bhadranāga petitioning the Pāla emperor for granting some land for the Buddhist religious centres caused to be established by him (Bhadranāga) and his wife. In the village called Antarāvanikā, Bhadranāga established a vihāra.208 He also added a gaṅdhakuṭi to the Somapura Mahāvihāra and his wife (rājñikā) Saṇhāyikā constructed a vihārikā (a small Buddhist monastery) at the same Mahāvihāra.209 Separate Bhikṣusangha were attached to all the three (vihāra at Antarāvanikā, gaṅdhakuṭi and vihārikā at Somapura Mahāvihāra).210 That a gandhakuṭi added to the Mahāvihāra had a separate Bhikṣusangha should not come as any surprise: we have, in the case of Nalanda, analysed the seal of a Bhikṣusangha attached to the gandhakuṭi caused to be established by the Pāla emperor Dharmapāladeva. Similarly, Nalanda allowed the construction of a vihārikā within its precincts by a monk called Vipulaśrīmitra that was handed over to the lineage of Mitra monks present at Nalanda Mahāvihāra.211 But, in the case of Somapura Mahāvihāra, the permission granted to Mahāsāmanta Bhadranāga and his wife to construct these additional facilities (gandhakuṭi and a vihārikā) looks somewhat exceptional. Especially in view of the fact that compared to Nalanda or Antichak, epigraphic records associated with Paharpur do not give any evidence of the construction or reconstruction of additional structures (gaṅdhakuṭi, vihārī, vihārikā, etc.) by any other person. This Mahāvihāra had certain specific symbolism, which generally did not encourage this kind of addition.212 If Bhadranāga and his wife were permitted to add a gaṅdhakuṭi and a vihārikā to the Mahāvihāra, that was most probably due to their influence in the Pāla state at that time. The vihāra established at Antarāvanikā, and the gaṅdhakuṭi and vihārikā established within Somapura Mahāvihāra were granted land with many administrative immunities and privileges as per the petition of Mahāsāmanta Bhadranāga.213

Evolution of the Patronage Base

421

Land was granted for arranging for cloth (cīvara), food (piṇḍapāta), bedding (śayana), seating (āsana), and preparation for disease (glāna-pratyaya), medicine (bhaiṣajya) and so on, for the practice of bali, caru, and satra, as well as for the repair of torn and opened parts (khaṇḍa-sphuṭita-ghaṭaka).214 In the next available copper-plate inscription (i.e., the Jagajjibanpur copper-plate inscription of Mahendrapāla) recording patronage in favour of a Buddhist monastery, we see a similar trend. Mahāsenāpati Vajradeva caused the construction of a Buddhist vihāra called Nandadīrghikā-Vihāra and then petitioned the Pāla ruler to grant land to Nandadīrghikā-Vihāra for arranging the worship of the Buddha, Prajñāpāramitā and other Buddhist deities, for the repairs and renovation in the vihāra, as well as for arranging food, bed, cīvara, glāna-pratyaya, bhaiṣajya and copying of manuscripts for the resident monks.215 The king granted the Nandadīrghikā-Udraṅga to the NandadīrghikāVihāra along with the immunities and privileges that we generally met in the Pāla period land transfer charters in favour of religious centres. An analysis of this copper-plate inscription has made one scholar conclude that Vajradeva exercised administrative control over the donated land, thus virtually using this vihāra to augment his own authority in the donated area at the expense of the authority of state.216 We see a similar process in the Mohipur copper-plate inscription of Gopāla II.217 Mahāsainyapati Kokkāka portioned the king that that he had constructed a vihāra at Kaṅkā-vāsaka and asked for the donation of a village .218 This was for providing for pujā-bali-caru-satra-naivedya (apparently for the deities installed in the vihāra), repairs of broken parts of the vihāra, and provision of clothing, food, bedding, seating, preparation for disease, medicine and utensils for the monks of the vihāra.219 Significantly, Kokkāka also requested that others wished (i.e. designated) by the petitioner should also be given (a part of) the village for their unobjectionable enjoyment (anavadya-bhoga) in the proportions decided by him.220 That has been taken as indication that Kokkāka wanted to retain administrative control

422

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

over the donated land.221 As per his request, the entire village was granted by the king with many administrative immunities and privileges. A similar pattern might have been in operation in the Mahāvihāra referred to in the Chaprakot stone inscription of the time of Gopāla IV (c. twelfth century). This inscription, discovered at Chaprakot in the district of Rangpur contains the eulogy of three generations of a family beginning with Kalyāṇavardhana, who established a Mahāvihāra at a place called Kuṭumva-villa, most probably in the last decade of the eleventh century, that is, in the period when the Pāla dynasty re-established its power after crushing the Kaivartta rebellion.222 To this Mahāvihāra, a ‘great gate’ (mahādvāra) was added by Sthavira Mañjuśrīmitra.223 Though it has not been directly mentioned in the inscription, Kalyāṇavardhana seems to be a subordinate ruler, who became powerful enough to establish a Mahāvihāra. The very fact that this inscription contains the eulogy of three generations of Kalyāṇavardhana’s family has been taken as an indication of continuing association of this family with the Mahāvihāra.224 This inscription, basically recording the adding of a gate by a senior monk, is silent on the issue of land held by the Mahāvihāra, but it is very much likely that this Mahāvihāra possessed land.

Patterns of Patronage to Buddhist Religious Centres in the Twelfth-early Thirteenth Century Vaṅga and Samataṭa For early medieval Bengal, it was not the case that kings would grant land only to the Vihāras/Mahāvihāra constructed by a mahāsainyapati, mahāsāmanta or such political elites. A person not belonging to this category could also construct a temple dedicated to some Buddhist deity and request the king to grant some land to the same. An indication to this effect is supplied by the Vajrayogini copper-plate inscription, datable to c. twelfth century AD, discovered in the Vajrayogini area of Vikramapur.225 It informs that Paramavaiṣṇava Mahārajādhirāja Sāmalavarmana, to gain religious merit for his parents and his own self as well

Evolution of the Patronage Base

423

as to please his patron deity Viṣṇu, granted some land to a Buddhist religious centre dedicated to Prajñāpāramitā, caused to be built by Śrī-Bhīmadeva.226 Śrī-Bhīmadeva did not belong to the Sāmanta class nor did he have any recorded affiliation with the bureaucracy of the state. Due to the fragmented nature of the copper-plate – not more than a quarter of the whole plate allowed decipherment – it is difficult to ascertain what exactly was donated: an entire village, some plot(s) of land in a well-settled village or plots spread across many well- settled villages. The gift land was granted with many administrative immunities and privileges (acāṭabhāṭapraveśa, sadaśāparādha, parihṛtasarvvapīḍā, etc.).The Buddhist religious centre dedicated to Prajñāpāramitā to whom land was granted in this inscription was, as per the analysis of Bhattasali, a temple whose ruins have been identified near the find spot of the inscription.227 It is interesting to note that while the donor king was proud of his Vaiṣṇava identity, no Mahāyāna identity has been recorded for Bhīmadeva who built this temple and probably received the land-grant on behalf of the deity. Compared to the copper-plate inscription referred to above, a different pattern is seen in a copper-plate inscription dated to the year 1141 of the Śaka era, in the 17th regnal year of Raṇavaṅkamalla Harikāladeva (c. AD 1220). This inscription records the grant of 20 droṇa of land in the village Bejakhaṇḍa in favour of a vihārī dedicated to goddess Durgottārā (a form of Tārā) by Śrī Dhadi Eba, who was in charge of horses (mahāśvanibandhika) under king Raṇavaṅkamalla Harikāladeva.228 The vihārī of the goddess was located in the city of Paṭṭikera.229 Dhadi Eba has been described as a follower of sahajadharma,230 that is, of sahajayāna. No detail of the granted land has been recorded in the inscription, though the village of Bejakhaṇḍa in which the land was granted has been identified with the village of Bejabadi lying near the western foot of the Lalmai-Mainamati hills; and the city of Paṭṭikera, in which the vihārī was situated, has been argued to be located on the Mainamati-Lalmai ridge, more probably on the eastern side near the northern end of the range.231 It is interesting to note that the land to the vihārī was

424

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

granted not by the ruling king after the petition of Śrī Dhadi Eba, but by Śrī Dhadi Eba himself. As has been pointed out earlier, there is nothing in the inscription, which suggests that he secured the permission of the king for donating land.232 Probably the granted land was under his hereditary control and he did not need the permission of the ruling king.233 The vihārī referred to in this inscription, on the analogy of Aśokacalladeva inscription of Mahābodhi, was most probably a Buddhist shrine. The reference to a vihārī of Durgottārā in Paṭṭikera in this inscription may be juxtaposed with the reference to a famous temple of Cuṇḍā in the same city in the eleventh century Nepalese manuscript of Aṣṭasahasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. An increasing importance of Buddhist temples/shrines dedicated to Vajrayāna goddesses, distinct from the monumental monasteries generally focusing on the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas on the Mainamati hills may be, thus, inferred.

Patterns of Patronage to Buddhist Monasteries in Early Medieval Bengal: Gleanings from Inscriptions on Terracotta Seals and Sealings Compared to Nalanda, published inscriptions on terracotta seals and sealings found in the excavation of monastic sites of early medieval Bengal are not that profuse. From none of the excavated sites of Bengal, do we get village seals, Jānapada seals, seals of different offices of the state, seals of distant kings, indicating that the Nalanda pattern could not be repeated in any monastic site of Bengal. In the terracotta seals/sealings from the excavated monastic sites of Bengal, we mostly get the names of individuals, which included some monks in some cases, and the name of the monastery and the name of the founder king or patron in many cases: Dharmapāladeva for Somapura Mahāvihāra, Bhavadeva for Salban Vihara, Ānandadeva for Ānanda Vihāra, and Vajradeva for Jagajjibanpur.234 Though inscribed seals and sealings have been reported from many excavated monastic sites of Bengal, only the data from Rajabadidanga, Jagajjibanpur and Paharpur has been

Evolution of the Patronage Base

425

published in some detail.235 Our analysis shall be mainly concerned with them. We will begin with Rajabadidanga. Excavations at Rajabadidanga led to the discovery of 98 seals, out of which only 41 seals/sealings have readable inscriptions and devices.236 Four seals, having the depiction of dharmacakra flanked by a deer on each side, and the legend Śrī-RaktamṛttikāMahāvihārika-ārya-Bhikṣu-saṅghasya confirmed that Rajabadidanga was the site of Raktamṛttikā Vihāra described by Xuan Zang.237 Out of the 19 seals that contain the name of different persons, only three are datable to the fifth-sixth centuries AD, the rest to the seventh-eighth century. No seal is dateable after the eighth century AD. 238 Out of the 19 seals/sealings discovered in the Rajabadidanga excavations, 17 seals appear to have belonged to the persons with ‘non-monastic, non-aristocratic’ background. These seals and sealings are, one would agree with S.R. Das, basically identity tokens, intended to establish the identity of the person.239 Sometime, they also served as votive offerings with the name of the devotee or pilgrim stamped on them.240 The only hint of some persons associated with the apparatus of the state comes through the inscriptions on a seal having one narrow and two oblong channel-cut inscribed impressions. As per Das’s reading, the legends in the first and second impressions are Guṇākarasena and Śrī Vīravainyadatta.241 The legend inside the narrow channel cut reads Sāśanayashṭhī, which may mean the rod of punishment.242 As per Das, it may perhaps refer to a police official as well.243 If this is the case, then this inscription is the only sealing with some association with the state bureaucracy. None of the persons mentioned in the seals and sealings of Rajabadidanga has an expressed Buddhist identity. None of the persons referred to in the seals and sealings appear to be from a mercantile background, though we have some reasons to infer that this monastery benefited from trade passing through the Bhagirathi. Through this river, this site was connected to the port centres of coastal West Bengal. That the Rajabadidanga monastery did have involvement with maritime traders and benefited from them is indicated by two inscriptions:

426

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

a fragmentary slate inscription dated to c. AD 400 on palaeographic grounds, referring to Mahānāvika Buddhagupta of Raktamṛttikā found from the Malay peninsula; and an inscribed sealing from Rajabadidanga excavations containing the legend ‘Horae’ in Greek letters. In the first inscription, below the depiction of a stūpa and a Buddhist sūtra, the legend Mahānāvikabuddhaguptasya Raktamṛttikā vās[tavyasya?] is engraved, indicating that the great navigator Buddhagupta belonged to Raktamṛttikā.244 It has been rightly argued that the Buddhist sūtra inscribed in this inscription had a magical import and the navigator Buddhagupta, a native of Raktamṛttikā, had the blessings of the Buddhist Saṅgha for his safe journey and success.245 Clearly, this voyage could have been conducted through Tāmralipti. That makes us infer that many monasteries of Tāmralipti could have performed similar roles. That maritime links were maintained till the sixth-eighth centuries AD period and the Rajabadidanga monastery benefited from it is indicated by an inscribed seal containing the legend ‘Horae’ in Greek letters in sixth-eighth centuries AD characters.246 ‘Horae’ were mainly deities of seasons and nature order and they were invoked by Greek and Roman mariners for safe voyages.247 This sealing, it has been rightly argued, indicates that a Greek or Roman mariner visited this site in the sixtheighth centuries AD period.248 Let us summarize our inferences on the probable patronage bases of the Buddhist establishment at Rajabadidanga. At the available stage of our data base, it seems to have functioned without any kind of royal patronage. It may be argued that its location on the outskirts of the capital city (i.e. Karnasuvarṇa) of the first regional state of Bengal could have resulted in the flow of patronage by some residents of this city. But we do not have any direct evidence for it in the available epigraphic record. This Buddhist establishment survived the decline of the city, indicating that it had other sources of patronage as well. This monastery also benefited from the riverine trade passing through the Bhagirathi. Paharpur and Jagajjibanpur indicate a somewhat different pattern. Out of the total 35 inscribed seals/sealings reported

Evolution of the Patronage Base

427

from the Paharpur excavations, six specimens represent the official seal/sealing of the monastery (Śrī-Somapure-Śrī-Dharmapāladeva-mahāvihāriyārya-Bhikṣu-saṅghasya); 27 sealings are inscribed with the name of a person called Dharmasena and two sealings with the name of a person called Sīhasena.249 It has been also claimed that Dharmasena and Sīhasena were ‘important dignitaries in the first Pāla Empire’.250 In this context, it may be noted that these two persons have not claimed any association with the Pāla state apparatus as such, nor they have any expressed Buddhist identity (monk, or Mahāyāna upāsaka), nor do the sealings on which their names are engraved have any specific Buddhist symbolism (stūpa, dharmacakra, etc.). In 26 of the 27 reported sealings, only a conch is engraved, and one sealing does not contain even that.251 Based on these inferences, we may attribute a ‘non-monastic non-aristocratic’ category to Dharmasena and Sīhasena. On the whole, the social background of persons that found mention in terracotta seals and sealings of Paharpur appears to be less diversified than the same from even Rajabadidanga. Twelve seals and 70 sealings have been found so far from the excavations of the site of Jagajjibanpur.252 Legends on 28 inscribed seals/sealings were later published, out of which 15 seals directly or indirectly refer to the legend Śrīvajradeva Kārita Nandadīrghī Vihāriyārya Bhikṣusaṅghasya in full or fragmented form.253 The excavator has not offered a century-wise dating of these seals/ sealings, though it may be inferred that they were all of the Pāla period, as Jagajjibanpur is a Pāla period mono-cultural site. Barring one seal with the legend Bhikṣu Dharmabhadraḥ,254 none of the persons that found mention in the seals/sealings has an expressed Buddhist identity (monk, nun or upāsaka). Barring the case of Vajradeva, the Mahāsainyapati of the Pāla army during the period of Mahendrapāla, all other persons belong to the ‘nonaristocratic’ section of society. Seals of women are, as was the case with Rajabadidanga and Paharpur, absent. We do not have any evidence of seal/sealing of any person from a mercantile background. Long distance pilgrimage or patronage from nonlocal persons is not discernible.

428

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Patterns of Patronage to Buddhist Monasteries in Early Medieval Bengal: Gleanings from Inscriptions on Pillars Found in the Excavations of Some Monastic Sites Inscribed pillars have been reported from only two monastic sites: Paharpur and Jagaddala. Dikshit has reported the discovery of four inscribed pillars from Paharpur. Three of them were donated by monks. The fragmented nature of the fourth pillar-inscription does not allow us to reconstruct the social background of the donor fully. The earliest of them (dated to the 5th regnal year of the Pāla king Mahendrapāla; latter half of the ninth century) found in the north maṇḍapa of the central cruciform shrine records that the pillar on which the inscription is engraved (stambhoyama) was donated by Bhikṣu Ajayagarbha in the name of Buddha Bhaṭṭāraka.255 An inscribed pillar, discovered in the same northern maṇḍapa area, datable to the tenth century AD on paleographic grounds, records the donation of the pillar by Sthavira Śrīgarbha.256 It is apparent that this monk belonged to the intellectual lineage of Bhikṣu Ajayagarbha, and this lineage survived in Paharpur monastery for at least one century. Another inscribed pillar, found in the south-western portion of the monastery, records the donation of a pillar by another monk – Daśabalagarbha – of the same lineage.257 Another inscribed pillar, inscribed in the twelfth century AD characters, is too fragmented to draw any meaningful inference except that the scribe (lekhaka) of the inscription could have been from a place called Gangapura or Gangāpur. The last word of the inscription records the name of some person whose name might have been Arkkanandin’.258 It is interesting to note that the excavations at Jagaddala monastery have led to the discovery of a pillar inscribed in twelfth century AD characters. The full text of the inscription has not been published. The excavator of the site claims that this inscription ‘records the name of one Makka Nandī (of Gangapur)’, who was a Kāyastha and he could have also belonged to the Nandī family mentioned in the inscribed stone pillar discovered in the courtyard of the Paharpur monastic site close to its

Evolution of the Patronage Base

429

eastern wing.259 It has also been argued that Makka Nandī could have belonged to the family of Sandhyākara Nandī, the author of the Rāmacarita, and, thus, could have been associated with the Pāla state in some way.260 In view of the badly fragmented nature of the Paharpur piece, we are unable to support or contradict this view, though this possibility cannot be ruled out. It may be noted that all inscriptions recovered from the central cruciform shrine area of Paharpur record donations by monks belonging to a single lineage. That the Somapura Mahāvihāra had at least two lineages of monks was first noted by Dikshit: (1) monks whose name ended with the term garbha (Ajayagarbha, etc.) (2) Monks whose name ended in mitra (Karuṇāśrīmitra, Maitriśrīmitra and Vipulaśrīmitra). Besides, there were monks who did not belong to any of the two, such as Sthavira Vīryendra, who, originally hailing from Samataṭa, stayed in Somapura Mahāvihāra for some time, and later donated a stone sculpture to the Mahābodhi.261 Dikshit has, however, not analyzed their relative importance within the Mahāvihāra. Only the members of the garbha lineage are seen to have donated pillars to the central shrine area. Only that lineage seems to have had a privileged access to the cruciform shrine area. To this, we may add that archaeological markers of ritual activities (inscribed votive stūpas, inscribed sculptures, inscribed votive tablets and plaques) by non-monastic devotees have not been reported from the central cruciform shrine area. It appears that non-monastic devotees were not encouraged to undertake ritual activities in the cruciform shrine area of Paharpur. The pattern is, thus, different from Nalanda site 3 where we see the donation of the stone sculpture of Nāgarāja, which most probably served as the tutelary deity of the site, by a Brahmin Mahāyāna upāsaka from a non-aristocratic background. We need to look into one more issue. Why were only pillars allowed to be installed in the central shrine area of Paharpur? Why are there no evidences of the installation of some additional sculptures (other than those of the Paṅcatathāgatas that were, arguably, installed during the period of the original construction) in the cruciform shrine area?262 Was the iconographic programme

430

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of the central shrine a much regulated programme, so much so that any haphazard installation of additional sculpture would disturb some specific symbolism of the original programme? We will look into this issue in Chapter 7 of the book.

Summing up the Patterns of Patronage to Buddhist Religious Centres in Early Medieval Bengal as Reflected in Inscriptions on Copper-plate, Stone, Terracotta Seals and Sealings, and Pillars Let’s sum up the social bases of patterns of patronage to Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bengal as reflected in copper-plate and stone inscriptions. Eight out of 12 inscriptions record the patronage to the vihāras by subordinate rulers, mahāsenāpatis or ministers associated with the state. Barring Sthavira Mañjuvarman who constructed a gate for a Mahāvihāra established by a subordinate ruler, all other records are associated with the grant of land to vihāras. On the whole, we see a clearcut predominance of patronage provided by political elites in the copper-plate and stone inscriptions. Published inscriptions on terracotta seals and sealings discovered from excavated monastic sites of Bengal are basically in the nature of identity tokens of the mainly ‘non-monastic nonaristocratic’ category of individuals. The number of such seals and sealings do not match the scale of seals/sealings reported from Nalanda. Barring the case of Rajabadidanga, where some seals and sealings indicate patronage provided to the site by maritime traders, we do not have any epigraphic evidence of mercantile patronage to any other excavated site of Bengal.263 From most of the excavated monastic sites of Bengal (Paharpur, Jagajjibanpur, Vasu Bihar, Salban Vihara, Ananda Vihara, etc., on the Mainamati ridge, Sabhar, etc.), inscribed sculptures donated by ‘non-monastic non-aristocratic’ category of donors are rare, a pattern fundamentally different from the Magadha sites. We will also see in the next chapter that the excavated monastic sites of Bengal were somewhat reluctant to offer ritual engagements with non-monastic devotees, a pattern again different from

Evolution of the Patronage Base

431

Magadha sites. All this ensured a greater dependence on political patronage for many monastic sites of Bengal, a pattern that had some fundamental implications for the process of the decline of monastic Buddhism in this area. Having analysed the patterns of patronage to Buddhist religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, let us now analyse the same for Brahmanical religious centres (temples and maṭhas) of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. We will begin with an analysis of the pattern in early medieval Bihar.

The Social Bases of Patronage to Brahmanical Temples in Early Medieval Bihar as Reflected in Epigraphic Records Sixteen inscriptions record patronage in favour of Brahmanical religious centres (temples and maṭhas) in early medieval (seventh century AD to early thirteenth century AD) Bihar. The data from them is summarized in Table 6.3. We may begin with an analysis of the pattern of patronage in the seventh-eighth centuries. Among the six reported inscriptions of the seventh-eighth centuries AD period, three belong to the area to the west of the Sone river. Three donors have a royal background. Among the royal donations, only one (i.e. the Aphsad inscription) was concerned with the construction of a new temple; the other two inscriptions in this category are concerned with making donations to existing temples, probably with the aim of bringing them within the network of the state. Two inscriptions are concerned with donations to the temples of Viṣṇu, one to Cāmuṇḍā, one to Sūrya, and one to Śiva. In all instances, donations were made directly to the deity of the temple and not to any priest associated with the temple. Brahmins are not shown to be associated with any temple in a priestly capacity. The Muṇḍeśvarī inscription of the Harṣa year 30, discovered among the debris that has accumulated around the temple of Muṇḍeśvarī in the Bhabhua district of Bihar, throws some interesting light on the patronage base and management of

The Muṇḍeśvarī temple inscription of the time of king Udayasena (seventh century AD) The Deo-Barunark inscription of Jīvitagupta II (seventh century AD) The Aphsad stone inscription of Ādityasena (seventh century AD) The Mangaraon stone inscription of the time of Viṣṇugupta II (c. AD 702-25)

1

4

3

2

Name and period of the inscription

Sl. No.

Nature of patronage

Aphsad, 24 km to the north-east of Nawada in Nawada district Mangaraon, 23 km SW of Buxar in the district of Bhojpur

40 km south-west of Arrah town

Social background of the donor Non-royal

Construction of a temple by king Ādityasena; and construction of a religious college or monastery (maṭha) by his mother; and construction of a tank by his wife Gift of a pala of oil for lighting lamp before the image of Subhadreśvara by one Avimuktajña.

A non-royal pilgrim from Karnataka.

Royal

Grant of a village to an existing temple of Sūrya Royal by the king

Muṇḍeśvarī temple Erection of a temple of Nārāyaṇa near an area, Bhabua, Bihar existing temple of Sūrya and provision of some money for rituals

Location of the temple

TABLE 6.3: BIHAR INSCRIPTIONS RECORDING PATRONAGE TO BRAHMANICAL TEMPLES/MAṬHAS

9

8

7

6

5

The Katara copperplate inscription of Jivagupta (first half of the eighth century AD) Batesvarasthana stone inscription (eighthninth centuries AD) The Bhagalpur CP of Nārāyaṇapāla, regnal year 17 (latter half of the ninth century Gaya stone inscription of the time of Nārāyaṇapāla, regnal year 7 The Munger stone inscription of Bhagīratha, ninthtenth centuries AD (contd.)

A king of unknown dynasty

Donation of an unspecified sum for the conversion of a cave (gumphā) to the abode (i.e. temple of the god) Śiva by a king named Bhagīratha

Munger

Gaya

Construction of a temple of Śiva by the king and Royal grant of a village for its maintenance as well as for a Pāśupata-Ācarya-Pariṣada attached to the temple, probably in Kakṣa Viṣaya of Tīrabhukti Dedication of a vāsa at Gaya for housing the yatis Non-royal or ascetics by one Bhānudēva

Probably in Tīrabhukti (North Bihar).

Grant of three villages in favour of (an existing Royal Katara, temple of) goddess Cāmuṇḍā Bhaṭṭārikā. Muzaffarpur district in North Bihar Near Kahalgaon in Not mentioned; just refers to the celebration of Not mentioned Bhagalpur district a temple festival

14

13

12

11

10

Krishna-Dwaraka temple inscription of the period of Nayapāla (c. AD 1042-58) Narasimha temple inscription of the period of Nayapāla, Gaya (1042-58) The Gaya (Akṣayavaṭa) temple inscription of the period of Vigrahapāla III (c. AD 1058-85) The Gaya image Inscription of the time of Govindapāla (c. AD 1176-80) Mera Viṣṇu temple inscription of Haridharman

TABLE 6.3 (CONTD.)

Construction of temples by many local rulers of A local ruler a single lineage

Deposition of some money by one Ḍallana for Non-royal feeding Brahmins at the temple of Gadādhara on the fixed day of a year every year

Gaya

Somewhere in Magadha

Erection of the Prapitāmaheśvara (a form of Śiva) A local ruler and Vaṭeśa temples by Viśvarūpa

Gaya

A local ruler

A local ruler

Erection of a temple of the god Gadādhara and some other unnamed shrines by Viśvarūpa

Completion of the construction of a temple of the god Janārdana by Viśvāditya

Gaya

Gaya

The Teghra terracotta plaque inscription of Śrī Suhmaka c. AD 1175-8 The Silsila Rock inscription of the time of Aṅgasimha, AD 1106

Probably at Naulagarh in the Begusarai district of Bihar Probably in the Bhabhua district of Bihar

Source: Table prepared by the author.

16

15

Donation of a plot of land in favour of an existing temple of Śiva by a person named Vimurti, who purchased the plot from Nāyaka (local chief) Aṅgasimha

Non-royal

Donation a flower probably made of gold by Non-royal three individuals to an existing temple of Keśava

436

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

some Brahmanical temples in seventh century south-western Bihar. This inscription is fragmented, resulting in the loss of vital data. Nor does it supply any categorical information regarding the location of temples referred to in this inscription, though it may be presumed that they were located on the Muṇḍeṡvarī hill from where this inscription was found. In this inscription, we are informed of one Kulapati Bhāgudalana, who having applied to a Devanikāya through Daṇḍanāyaka Gomibhaṭṭa, caused to construct a temple (maṭha) of Nārāyaṇa near an existing temple of Viniteśvara (i.e. Sūrya) for the increase of religious merit of his parents and his own self.264 Kulapati Bhāgudalana also made arrangements for the dedication of two prasthas of rice for naivedya and one pala of oil for dīpa in the temple of Nārāyaṇa every day.265 The damaged nature of the inscription obfuscates vital information as to how arrangements were made for the offerings of naivedya of rice, and lighting of a lamp in the temple every day, but available data indicates that it was through the creation of an akṣayanīvi consisting of 50 dīnāras.266 As regards the social background of kulapati Bhāgudalana, it has been argued that the word ‘kulapati’ referred to a ‘teacher who maintained ten thousand students at his own cost’.267 If this was indeed the case with Bhāgudalana, then the construction of a temple by him in the neighbourhood of an existing temple was most probably intended to enhance his social prestige further. It is interesting to note that even a person of his standing had to approach the devanikāya (probably an administrative body concerned with the management of the temple) through a daṇḍanāyaka. It appears that a devanikāya had some administrative authority over the temples of this area and its permission was required to construct a temple in the neighbourhood of an existing temple. Probably the daṇḍanāyaka too had some role in the devanikāya but the fragmented nature of the inscription does not allow us to ascertain if the devanikāya was functioning as a state-sponsored or controlled administrative authority. Two other inscriptions discovered in the area to the west of the Sone river in South Bihar indicate two different patterns. The Deo-Barunark stone inscription of Jīvitagupta II (c. AD 700-10)

Evolution of the Patronage Base

437

that was found engraved on a pillar in the maṇḍapa of the DeoBarunark temple, records the grant of a village called Varuṇikā belonging to the Vālavī-Viṣaya in the Nagarabhukti in favour of the (temple of the) deity Varuṇavāsibhaṭṭāraka.268 The highly fragmented nature of the grant portion of the inscription does not allow us to read much social history of this temple, but it is clear that the grant was made to an existing temple and the gift village was granted with many administrative privileges (udraṅga, uparikara, daśāparādha).269 Through the grant of this village, the king sought to bring a pre-existing temple to the royal network. The Mangraon inscribed tablet of the period of the later Gupta king Viṣṇugupta (c. AD 702-25), on the other hand, highlights the role of pilgrimage in the life of a temple. This inscription refers to itself as kraya-chīrikā or a ‘purchase document’ in the last line.270 In this inscription, we are informed of a person named Avimuktajña, who was born in the Kuṭukkadeśa – identifiable with the Coorg area of Karnataka.271 Avimuktajña appears as a devout Śaiva pilgrim who undertook pilgrimage to many holy Śaiva places: in this inscription, he claims that his body had been sanctified by visiting many Śiva temples and tīrthas, where he took holy bath.272 Probably it was on one such pilgrimage that he came to the village of Aṅgāra and made arrangements with all the kuṭumbinas of this village for the offering of one pala of oil (for lighting a lamp) at the shrine of Bhagavaṭa-Śrī-Subhadreśvara perpetually.273 Altekar, who edited this inscription, rightly argued that Avimuktajña probably donated a certain sum of money to the corporate body of the kuṭumbinas of this villages, which, in turn, agreed to offer one pala of oil to the lamp of the shrine everyday out of the interest accruing to this sum.274 Avimuktajña thus ‘managed to purchase for perpetuity one pala of oil every day: his tablet has therefore been fittingly described as a kraya-chīrikā, ‘a purchase document’, in the last line.275 On the whole, this inscription indicates that the temple at this site was important enough to attract pilgrimage from a pilgrim from Karnataka. The only available example from Magadha in this period

438

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

indicates the foundation of a Viṣṇu temple through the patronage of the later Gupta king Ādityasena. In the Aphsad stone inscription, we are informed that the king caused to construct a temple of Viṣṇu, his mother added a maṭha (probably used in the sense of a Brahmanical monastery) to the same, and his wife caused to be excavated a tank near the temple.276 This inscription does not contain any information regarding the support base of the temple, its priesthood or the persons associated with its management. No evidence of a grant of land, etc., has come to light for this temple so far, though it is quite likely that a royal temple might have received a tax-free land grant. The only example from the eighth century north Bihar, as indicated in the Katara copper-plate inscription of Paramabhaṭṭāraka–Mahārajādhirāja-Paramēśvara Jīvagupta (probably a king of the later Gupta dynasty), indicates royal patronage to an existing temple of Cāmuṇḍā Bhaṭṭārikā through the grant of three well-settled villages.277 On paleographic grounds, this inscription is datable to the first half of the eighth century.278 The order of the king Jīvagupta in respect of the grant was addressed to a number of his officers and subordinates as well as the residents of the localities called Surabhākra, Yāmyā and Harigrāmaka situated in the northeastern part of Tisṭihalapāṭaka in the Cāmuṇḍāviṣaya of Tīrabhukti.279 The donated villages have not been identified in the ground so far, we may assume that they could have been in the neighbourhood of Katara, the find spot of this copper-plate. In this context, it may be noted that even today, Katara, the find spot of this copperplate inscription, is known by the name of Camundagarh.280 These villages were granted by the king in favour of (the temple of goddess) Cāmuṇḍā Bhaṭṭārikā for the merit and fame of his parents. They were granted as a permanent gift together with land and water, with the mango and madhūka trees, with pits and barren lands, with the lands up to their boundaries (i.e. boundaries of these villages, entire villages were granted), with all their hamlets, with all their metal and salt mines, with udraṅga, with the space above the ground and with all the dues

Evolution of the Patronage Base

439

payable to the king (rāja-pratyādāya).281A damaged passage in this section seems to suggest that this temple was located at a particular place, the name of which is lost.282 A lady of the same locality, whose name may have been Suprabhā, is mentioned in the same context.283 Sircar has rightly argued that the name ‘Cāmuṇḍā Viṣaya’ was derived from the temple of Cāmuṇḍā Bhaṭṭārikā mentioned in this copper-plate.284 This temple was important enough to lend its name to an entire Viṣaya, and the king, through this land grant, sought to bring it within the royal network, to appropriate it for his own advantage. It appears that some temples in this period were centres for public festivals. Thus a very short inscription on stone discovered at Batesvarasthana (located near Patharghata, not far from the Buddhist monastic site of Antichak) informs us of a ceremony called Varṣavardhana in honour of the god Vaḍḍeśvara (i.e. Vaṭeśvara) in the fourth quarter of the puṇaravasu-nakṣatra in the bright second (i.e. second day of the śuklapakṣa) of Āṣāḍha.285 Varṣavardhana probably referred to an annual festival or anniversary, or birthday ceremony.286 It was probably celebrated every year on the above mentioned days in the honour of god Vaṭeśvara. This short inscription is silent about the resource mobilization aspect of this ceremony, or that of the temple, but this inscription does not record even the regnal year of any ruling king. D.C. Sircar has identified the modern Vaṭeśvarasthāna with the Pāla Jayaskandhavāra called Vaṭa-parvataka (also spelt Vaṭa-parvatikā by some other scholars) whence the Jajalipara copper-plate inscription of the Pāla king Gopāla II was issued.287 So this temple offers an example of the functioning of a temple near a Pāla administrative centre, though the inscription itself may represent a phase prior to the Pāla conquest of eastern Bihar. Nor does it show any trace of affiliation to any political elite. Let us sum up the patterns of patronage to Brahmanical temples in the seventh-eighth centuries inscriptions of Bihar. We see diversity in patterns of patronage to temples, indicating their capacity to attract patronage from a cross-section of

440

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

society. A Śiva temple was famous enough to attract pilgrimage from Karnataka, and one temple of Cāmuṇḍā was famous enough to lend its name to an entire Viṣaya in north Bihar. The same diversity is seen in the three reported inscriptions of ninth century. In the Bhagalpur copper-plate inscription of Nārāyaṇapāla, we are informed that for the religious merit of his parents and his humble self, the king, in his 17th regnal year, granted the village of Makutikā in the kakṣa viṣaya of Tīrabhukti in favour of the god Śiva-Bhaṭṭāraka installed in a Sahṣra-Āyatana temple established by the king himself at a place called Kalaśapota, as well as in favour of a congregation of Śaiva ācāryas belonging to the Pāśupata sect (Pāśupata-Ācarya-Pariṣada).288 The exact significance of the term ‘sahṣra-āyatana’ used for the temple is not clear. Some scholars have taken it in the sense that this temple had one thousand rooms or cells.289 That may be a literal interpretation of the term. There should not be, however, any doubt that it must have been a huge structure, founded by the ruling king himself. It is also apparent that a Pāśupata maṭha was attached to this temple and it shared the gift land with the temple. This donation was made for ensuring the observations of pūjā, bali, caru, sattra at the temple, as well as for arranging for the navakarmma (repairs and renovations) of the temple and the maṭha. This was also for providing for medicines (bhaiṣajya), bed (śayanāsana) and glāna-pratyaya for the monastics. This village was granted to the deity in the temple as well as to the Pāśupata-Ācarya-Pariṣada with its land and water, with pits and barren lands, with the land up to its boundaries.290 The same village was shared between the temple and the maṭha, yet both were separately named for donation. The donor probably wanted to ensure that the temple too get continuous resources for its rituals as well as for repairs and renovations and everything was not appropriated by the monastics attached to the temple. It may also be noted that the donation was made directly in the name of the deity of the temple: no priest or even the Pāśupata-Ācarya-Pariṣada received it on behalf of the deity of the temple. The donees were also

Evolution of the Patronage Base

441

granted many privileges and administrative immunities (uparikara, daśāpacāra, cauroddharaṇa, samasta-bhāga-bhogahiraṇyādi-pratyaya-sameta, acāṭa-bhaṭa-pravesah).291 Where were this temple and the maṭha located? The donation of a village in the Kakṣa Viṣaya of Tīrabhukti to the temple and the Śaiva maṭha may indicate that the temple and the maṭha might have been located somewhere in Tīrabhukti in north Bihar. The evidence from the Bhagalpur copper-plate inscription may not be generalized to postulate an active role of the state in the creation and management of maṭhas (Brahmanical monasteries) in all parts of Bihar in the ninth century. A different pattern is seen in the Gaya Inscription of the 7th regnal year of Nārāyaṇapāla, engraved on a wall of the Mahādeva shrine in the compound of the modern Vishnupada temple at Gaya. This inscription is Vaiṣṇava in orientation and concerned with the functioning of a maṭha for the ascetics. We are informed that Bhānudēva, son of Bappadēva and grandson of Bhaṭṭa Vāmadēva, dedicated a vāsa at Gaya for housing the yatis or ascetics.292 Verse 9 contains a prayer of the maunin (one who has taken the vow of silence), apparently meaning Bhānudeva, in which people are requested to see to the well-being of the nivāsa or house.293 This vāsa is also referred to as an āśrama of the brahmacārins.294 Verse 11 of this inscription states that as ordained by the vratachārins (persons engaged in religious observances or austerities), only ascetics (tapodhana-jana) who are not deformed and are respectable should stay in the āśrama and Brāhmaṇas of Gaya should see that there is no transgression of this rule.295 The real nature of this vāsa or nivāsa for housing the ascetics, called an āśrama again in verse 11, becomes apparent in the concluding verse of the inscription (verse 13), which calls it a maṭha.296 There is no trace of any royal connection whatsoever in this entire epigraph. Bhānudeva himself was probably a religious leader and he built this maṭha. Even when this inscription urges that no transgression should take place as regards who could be allowed to reside in this maṭha, the responsibility is entrusted to the

442

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Brahmins of Gaya, and not to any office of the state. Probably some Brahmins of Gaya had devised their own mechanism to administer such institutions. The third inscription from this period records a royal donation. An inscription on an image of Sadāśiva kept in the open corridor of the modern temple of the goddess Kastaharini on the bank of the Ganga at Munger town, records the donation of an unspecified sum for the conversion of a cave (gumphā) to the abode (i.e. temple of the god) by a king named Bhagīratha, for the increase of the religious merit of the donor’s father and himself.297 Probably the image on which this inscription was inscribed was the presiding deity of the shrine referred to in this inscription. On paleographic grounds, this inscription has been dated to the ninth or early tenth century.298 This ruler is not met in any other epigraphic record of ninth-tenth centuries Bihar or Bengal. This inscription does not throw any light on the rituals, priesthood or architecture of the temple either. All reported inscriptions in favour of Brahmanical temples in the eleventh century AD have been reported from Gaya. The Gaya-Bodh Gaya area witnessed important political developments eleventh century AD onwards. Within an overall Pāla hegemony, this area witnessed the emergence of two political powers in the area. In the Bodh Gaya area, we see the emergence of Pīṭhīpati rulers. ‘Pīṭhi’ referred to the Vajrāsana Pīṭha.299 All epigraphic records associated with the Pīṭhīpati rulers are concerned with patronage to Buddhism. The Gaya area witnessed the emergence of the rule of a line of Brahmins who probably belonged to the lineage of Gayāla Brahmins specializing in śrāddha rites.300 Emerging from this humble background, they gradually established their power in the Gaya area. The Gaya Brahmin rulers patronized the construction of temples. This could have been a reflection of their personal faith, but this could also have been a political statement to highlight their distinction from the Buddhist Pāla overlords and the Pīṭhīpati rulers, who generally patronized Buddhism.301 We have at least five examples of the construction of Brahmanical temples by this family. These inscriptions are, however, more in the form of the praśasti of the

Evolution of the Patronage Base

443

donors. They contain vivid details of the political careers of these rulers. Barring the idealized descriptions of the temples in some of these inscriptions, they contain very little data regarding the patronage base or ritual aspects of these temples. Thus the inscription found at the gate of the modern Krishna-Dwaraka temple at Gaya records the completion of the construction of a temple of the god Janārdana (a form of Viṣṇu) by Viśvāditya, the son of Śūdraka and the grandson of Paritoṣa. Śūdraka – ‘whom the lord of Gauḍa, almost equal to Indra, honoured of his own accord with the honour that was the mark of royalty’302 – seems to be quite powerful in his times and he has established his own rule in the Gaya area within an overall Pāla suzerainty. The only indication that Viśvāditya functioned within an overall Pāla suzerainty is provided in the last verse of the inscription which states that the construction of the temple was completed in the 15th regnal year of Nayapāla.303 The inscription engraved inside the small shrine of Narasiṁha in the court of the Viṣṇupāda temple of Gaya records the erection of the temple of the god Gadādhara and some other unnamed shrines by Viśvarūpa, son of Śūdraka and the grandson of Paritoṣa in the 15th regnal year of the Pāla king Nayapāla.304 It is apparent that the Viśvarūpa of this inscription is identical to the Viśvāditya of the previous inscription. Similar is the case with the inscription affixed to the wall of a small shrine under the Akṣaya-Vaṭa at Gaya, recording the erection of the Prapitāmaheśvara (a form of Śiva) and Vaṭeśa temples and some other shrines by the same Viśvarūpa in the 5th regnal year of the Pāla king Vigrahapāla (c. AD 1055-70).305 The inscription on a slab under the image of the god Gadādhara also refers to Viśvarupa and probably records the erection of a temple or the installation of an image in the same by him. We have already discussed this inscription in our chapter on dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures. We get largely the same inference in the inscription on the wall of the modern Śītalā temple at Gaya, recording the erection of the temples for housing the gods Mauanāditya (Sūrya), Sahsraliṅga (Śiva), Kamalā (Lakṣmī), Ardhāngina (Ardhanāriśvara

444

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Śiva), Nārāyaṇa, two Someśvaras, Falgunātha, Vijayāditya and Kedāreśvara by Yakṣapāla, a later ruler of the family of Śūdraka.306 We are also informed that Yakṣapāla caused to be excavated a lake – Uttaramānasa by name – and also established a sattra at akṣayavata.307 This inscription too has not left any detail regarding the resource base of these temples (grant of the revenue of villages, etc.). We also do not know how the free feeding at the sattra attached to these temples was arranged. It must be noted that every temple has a life after its construction. These temples were constructed by local rulers, but royal patronage might not have flown uninterruptedly: we have nothing categorical to suggest that later kings patronized these temples. Yet an inscription of c. AD 1240, recording the performance of śrāddha at Gaya by a pilgrim from western India counts prapitāmaha, i.e. the god Prapitāmaheśvara of Gayā, as witness to the act.308 The Prapitāmaheśvara temple was surviving in this period as well, arguably by mobilizing additional resources through pilgrimage and patronage by non-royal patrons. Epigraphic records recording patronage to the Brahmanical temples in the twelfth century Bihar are more diffused. Of the four inscriptions reported for this century, two record patronage to existing temples by common devotees; one records the establishment of a new temple by a person who seems to have acquired some political power at the local level in some part of Magadha; and one rock inscription of the Bhabhua area in southwestern Bihar records the donation of a plot of land in favour of an existing temple of Śiva by a person named Vimūrti, who purchased the plot from a local nāyaka (ruling chief). Three inscriptions are concerned with donations to temples related to Viṣṇu, one to Śiva. Two donations took place in Magadha, one in north Bihar (Begusarai district) and one in the Bhabhua area in southwestern Bihar. On the whole, these inscriptions attest to the ability of Brahmanical temples to attract patronage from a cross-section of society in different parts of Bihar. We may begin with an analysis of the inscription dated to VS 1162 (AD 1106), engraved on a stone boulder that was discovered at the village Silsila, about 10 miles to the south of Bhabhua in

Evolution of the Patronage Base

445

the old Shahabad district of Bihar. This boulder contains two inscriptions.309 Owing to the badly fragmented nature of the first inscription, we do not know what kind of relationship it had with the second inscription. The first inscription most probably referred to the bali (sacrifice) of pigs in favour of a deity.310 The name of the persons who offered this sacrifice, or of the deity to whom this was offered, is difficult to determine.311 In the second inscription, we are informed of a Nāyaka Aṅgasiṁha, ruling from Vaṇṭhiāṁ-Patharpura, who possessed some land in Amarameṭhagrāma in the Kasaramola pattalā.312 This land was granted as a Śiva-śasana by a person named Vimūrti after purchasing it from Nāyaka Aṅgasiṁha.313 It is apparent that a temple of Śiva was granted land through the patronage of Vimūrti. His social background is not mentioned in the inscription. As no claim has been made that Vimūrti belonged to a royal family or to the sāmanta stratum, so it may be inferred that he was from a nonaristocratic background. He was wealthy enough to purchase land from the ruling Nāyaka. That a temple of Gaya was able to attract patronage from a non-aristocratic person is indicated by the inscription on a stone slab that was found embedded in the wall of a small shrine close to the Gadādhara temple below the courtyard of the Viṣṇupāda temple at Gaya in Bihar, datable to the 14th regnal year of Govindapāla and VS 1232 ( AD 1175), informs that guggulin Vidyādhara, who was the son of a Brahmin named Ḍallaṇa, created an endowment at the temple (maṭha) of Gadābhṛta (i.e. Gadādhara) at Gaya by donating a sum of 50 kārṣāpaṇa to the temple authorities. The annual interest on this sum was 16 kārṣāpaṇa, which was to be used in feeding some Brahmins at this temple on the Āśvina-sudi 5 every year.314 Sircar has rightly opined that, as indicated by the title guggulin, Vidyādhara was an incense burner in a temple at Gaya.315 A rock inscription discovered somewhere in the Jehanabad district in Magadha, on the other hand, indicates the ability of a Brahmanical temple to attract patronage from locally powerful subordinate rulers of Magadha who took advantage of the decline of Pāla control in the area in the latter half of the twelfth

446

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

century. This inscription is more in the form of a praśasti of a Brahmin family that had acquired political power. We are informed of a Brahmin family that began with one Medhīpati, whose grandson Lokānanda became a warrior and won many battles for a king whose name is not mentioned.316 Jñānanda, son of Lokānanda, caused the construction of a Śiva temple with a satra, and Haridharman, the son of Jñānanda, caused the construction of a Śiva temple and a Viṣṇu temple.317 The Viṣṇu temple was established at a village called Merā, which remains unidentified on the ground.318 A tank was added to the Viṣṇu temple by the mother of Haridharman.319 A village called Vasudhārā was dedicated to Viṣṇu, i.e. to the Viṣṇu temple caused to be constructed by Haridharman.320 It is interesting to note that the donation of a village was made without any reference to the ruling king, indicating that Haridharman was locally very powerful. Even the name of the ruling king has not been mentioned in the inscription. Some cows were also donated to the temple of Viṣṇu.321 The location of these temples is not mentioned in this inscription, but they were presumably somewhere in Magadha. This inscription does not provide any information regarding the priesthood and rituals of the temples. We may, though, infer that the donation of cows was intended to keep a lamp lighted in the temple. A satra was attached to a temple, which distributed free food to the needy. It may also be mentioned that the donation of a village and cows was made directly in the name of the deity, not in the name of any priest, indicating that the priest(s) attached with this temple were either unwilling to be named in the inscription or they were not significant enough to be named in the same. The remaining two inscriptions of this period indicate the ability of Brahmanical temples to attract patronage from nonaristocratic devotees. The short inscription on the obverse of a terracotta plaque that was discovered in some village in Teghara Police Station (Begusarai district), dated to the last quarter of the twelfth century on palaeographic grounds (most probably between c. AD 1175 and 1178),322 records that three persons named Śādhi, Īchi and Āka made a gift of lotus at the feet of god

Evolution of the Patronage Base

447

Kēśava at a place called Nāgalḍāmaka.323 The reverse portion of the plaque has a particular legend – ‘Śrī Suhmakasya’ – engraved on it twice, so it is apparent that this sealing belonged to a person named Suhmaka. Sircar has opined that Suhmaka could have been the chief priest of the temple of the deity in question or a royal official whose seal was required to impart required authenticity to the deed of gift.324 He has also rightly opined that the offering of a lotus to the deity was regarded as important enough to be recorded in an inscription, albeit on a plaque made of terracotta, suggests that the flower was not an ordinary one; it was probably made of gold or silver.325 He has noted a parallel between the offerings of lotus mentioned in this terracotta sealing inscription many inscriptions from south India in which offerings of flowers made of gold or silver were recorded.326 That the donors of this lotus at the feet of god Kēśava, that is, in some temple of the said god, were from the common section of the society is indicated by the fact that no aristocratic title has been used for them. Sircar has not been able to identify the location of Nāgalḍāmaka, but on the grounds of phonetic similarity, we may assume that it could have been the ancient name of Naulagarh (about 10 km to the north of Begusarai and about 10 km to the north-east of Teghara), where the remains of a big early historic urban centre has been found.327 In Chapter 5, we have already analysed the dedicatory inscription on an image of Vasudhārā (datable to the latter half of the eleventh century) that was discovered at this site. All this indicates that this temple functioned in a city that had a Buddhist religious centre as well. Let us sum up the patterns of endowments to Brahmanical temples/maṭhas in early medieval Bihar. Out of the 16 inscriptions, 8 were donated by kings or their families and 8 from persons of non-royal background. Only two inscriptions (one by a later Gupta king, another by a Pāla ruler) are copper-plate inscriptions, indicating that the practice of granting villages or plots of lands to Brahmanical temples through royal copperplate charters was not very popular in Bihar. Out of the other six royal donations, only one records the grant of land to a temple. If seen in the backdrop of possession of more than 200 villages

448

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

by the Nalanda Mahāvihāra as referred to by Itsing,328 it becomes apparent that Brahmanical temples in early medieval Bihar did not attract royal patronage as significantly as was the case with some Buddhist monasteries. Yet they had a more diffused presence in the landscape. In four instances, the king caused the construction of temples. In four other instances, he made donations to existing temples, probably with the aim of bringing them within the royal network.

Evolving Patterns of Patronage to Brahmanical Temples in Early Medieval Bengal Ten copper-plate inscriptions and six inscriptions on stone/ pillars recording patronage in favour of Brahmanical temples in early medieval Bengal have been published. The data from them is summarized in Table 6.4. Samataṭa (Sylhet and Comilla) shows a great concentration of inscriptions in favour of Brahmanical religious centres, followed by Varendra. Such inscriptions are generally absent in Vaṅga, Rāḍha and the coastal tracts of Chittagong. The absence of copper-plate or stone inscriptions recording patronage in favour of Brahmanical religious centres in Vaṅga, Rāḍha and the coastal tracts of Chittagong may not be taken as an indication of absence of social patronage to such religious centres: dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of Vaṅga and Rāḍha show complex patterns of patronage to them. In the following paragraphs, instead of attempting a centurywise analysis of copper-plate and stone inscriptions, we will attempt their analysis on a sub-regional basis. This is basically due to the fact that Brahmanical religious centres emerged in different environmental zones of Bengal and they negotiated different socio-economic and political contexts. The pattern observed in a particular area of Bengal – Sylhet for example – in a particular century may not be generalized for other areas in the same century. We will begin with an analysis of Varendra, which will be followed by an analysis of Comilla and Sylhet.

Evolution of the Patronage Base

449

Patterns in the Pāla Period Varendra The patterns of patronage to Brahmanical religious centres in Pāla period Varendra need to be analysed in the context of the same during the Gupta period. The Gupta period Varendra shows a distinct pattern of patronage to Brahmanical and Buddhist religious centres. Some non-aristocratic person(s) would petition some particular adhikaraṇa of the state to purchase some plots of land as per the rates prevalent in those times. After securing the permission of the state and depositing the required sum of money to some particular adhikaraṇa, some land would be purchased, which would be donated in favour of Brahmanical, Buddhist or Jaina religious centres. Evidence to this effect is supplied through the Baigram copperplate inscription, c. AD 448 (recording patronage to a temple of Govindasvāmin by two Kuṭumbin brothers; the temple was built by their father); Jagadishpur copper-plate inscription, c. AD 447 (recording patronage to a vihāra, vihārikā and a temple of Sūrya by three individuals – Kuṭumbika Kṣemaka, Goyila and Mahidāsa); Paharpur copper-plate of the period of Buddhagupta (recording patronage by a Brahmin and his wife to a Jaina vihāra of the Pañcastūpanikāyika sect); Damodarpur copperplate of the period of Buddhagupta (recording patronage by nagaraśreṣṭhin Ribhupāla to the temples of Kokāmukhasvāmin and Śvetavarāhasvāmin; both temples were constructed by him in a mountainous area); and Damodarpur copper-plate of the Gupta era 224 (recording patronage by Amṛtadeva, a kulaputra – ‘son of a noble family’ – from Ayodhyā to the shrine of Śvetavarāhasvāmin). A crosssection of society patronized Brahmanical and Buddhist religious centres. As these inscriptions have been analysed earlier, we may not undertake a detailed analysis of the same here.330 In the Pāla period, patronage from political elites (kings, subordinate rulers or state officials) assumed great significance in copper-plate and stone inscriptions. In at least three cases, we see the persons from the sāmanta class/high officials in the Pāla state constructing temples on their own initiative. These temples

6

5

4

Varendra

Varendra

Varendra

Grant of marshy and forested land by Sāmanta Maruṇḍanātha to a temple of Bhagavata Ananta Nārāyaṇa caused to be built by a Brahmin Jayasvāmin Mahāsāmantādhipati Nārayāṇavarman caused the construction of a temple and secured a land grant for it from the ruling king A subordinate ruler constructed a maṭha for the Vaiṣṇava recluses. No evidence of grant of land to it by the Pāla king A subordinate ruler got a temple constructed and secured a land grant for it from the ruling Pāla king

Samataṭa (Sylhet area)

Kalapur copper-plate inscription of Maruṇḍanātha (latter half of the seventh century) Khalimpur copper-plate inscription of Dharmapāladeva, year 32, c. AD 802 Bangladesh National Museum Inscription of Pāhila (first half of the ninth century AD) Bhaturiya stone inscription (first half of tenth century)

3

2

Samataṭa A temple, part of an Agrahāra settlement, was granted (Sylhet area)329 some land along with Brahmin donees by a king of Kāmarūpa Samataṭa Construction of a temple by a subordinate ruler and (Cachar area) grant of a forested tract to it by Sāmanta Lokanatha

Nidhanpur copper-plate inscription of Bhāskaravarman (First half of the seventh century) Tippera copper-plate inscription of Lokanatha, year 44, c. AD 664

Nature of patronage

1

Sub-region of Bengal

Name and date of the inscription

Sl. No.

TABLE 6.4: BENGAL INSCRIPTIONS RECORDING PATRONAGE TO BRAHMANICAL TEMPLES/MAṬHAS

12

11

10

Samataṭa (Comilla area)

Samataṭa (Comilla area)

Samataṭa (Comilla area)

Samataṭa/ Harikela (Sylhet area) Varendra

Samataṭa Mainamati copper-plate inscription of Vīradharadeva, year (Comilla area) 15 (eleventh-twelfth century)

Mainamati copper-plate inscription of Laḍahacandra, year 6 (no. 1) (early eleventh century) Mainamati copper-plate inscription of Laḍahacandra year 6 (no. 2) (early eleventh century) Mainamati copper-plate inscription of Govindacandra (c. AD 1020-56)

9

8

Paschimbhag copper-plate inscription of Śrīcandra, year 5, c. AD 930 Rajbhita stone inscription (latter half of the tenth century AD)

7

(contd.)

Mahārajādhirāja Govindacandra donated two pāṭakas of land in favour of the temple of god Naṭṭeśvara Bhaṭṭāraka for the religious merit and fame of his parents Some land was granted in favour of the god VāsudevaBhaṭṭāraka under the name Laḍahamādhava-Bhaṭṭāraka by Śrī-Vīradharadeva, a local king

A temple built by a non-royal lady was granted śāsana land, some of which was leased out to merchants. The temple received a certain some of money from the merchants in lieu of that King Laḍahacandra caused the construction of a temple of Laḍahamādhava Bhaṭṭāraka and granted it a plot of land and two villages Grant of a settled village to the Laḍahamādhava Bhaṭṭāraka temple by king Laḍahacandra

Grant of three Viṣayas to a congregation of 6,000 Brahmins, many temples and maṭhas by king Śrīcandra

Silimpur stone inscription, eleventh century

Siyan pillar inscription, eleventh century Vijayasena’s Deopara Praśasti (twelfth century)

14

15

Source: Table prepared by the author.

16

Bhatera copper-plate inscription of Govindakesavadeva, c. AD 1049

13

TABLE 6.4 (CONTD.)

Varendra

Samataṭa/ Harikela (Sylhet area) Varendra Construction and renovation of temples, as well as patronage to the sattra attached to a temple, by many members of a Brahmin family, without any kind of royal patronage Construction of temples by the Pāla king Nayapāla at many places including Devīkoṭa and Gangāsāgara The Sena king Vijayasena got constructed a temple of Śiva and provided it with a grant of land and some other items

Grant of many halas of land along with kuṭis by the king to a temple of Śiva

Evolution of the Patronage Base

453

built by sāmantas/high-ranking officials in the Pāla state were later patronized by the state either through the grant of a whole village with extensive administrative immunities and privileges (as in the Khalimpur copper-plate); or the grant of a village without administrative immunities and privileges (as in the Bhaturiya stone inscription). In another case (as in the Pāhila Praśasti), a subordinate ruler constructed a maṭha for the Vaiṣṇava recluses, but did not seek any land grant from the state. At least in two cases (Siyan and Deopara inscriptions), we see the construction of temples through the initiative of kings. The high representation of aristocrats (kings, their subordinate rulers or high-ranking officials), should not, however, make us overlook the patronage provided by the non-aristocratic section of population. We see members of a Brahmin family constructing many temples for many generations without any kind of royal patronage (Silimpur stone inscription). Yet, another temple built by a lady, who did not claim to be the wife of any king/sāmanta/high-ranking state official got śāsana land from the state, which was leased out to some merchants to ensure a regular source of income to the temple. To sum up, six out of the reported seven inscriptions on stone, pillars or copper-plate, involved the apparatus of the state in some way. Most of the dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of this area, on the other hand, indicate patronage provided by the common section of society without any kind of help or patronage of the state. We may, thus, visualize the multiple sources of patronage commanded by Brahmanical temples in the Pāla period Varendra. Let us begin with an analysis of the patronage provided by the persons from the sāmanta class/ high ranking state officials of the state. That some members of this class undertook the construction of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres and attempted to secure tax-free land grants along with many administrative immunities and privileges for the donee with a motive of augmenting their own authority in the granted area through the network of the religious centres that they established is well-analysed.331 It is also important to see the impact of the evolution of complicated relations between the kings and

454

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

subordinate rulers/high ranking state officials on the patterns of patronage to temples in Varendra. In Varendra, the first recorded instance of this kind is provided by the Khalimpur copper-plate inscription of the period of Dharmapāla, year 32, c. AD 802. In this inscription, we are informed that Mahāsāmantādhipati Nārayāṇavarman caused the construction of a temple (devakula) of Bhagavata Nunna-Nārāyaṅa-Bhaṭṭāraka at a place called Śubhasthalī for the increase of religious merit of his parents and his own self.332 Some Brahmins from Lāṭa (i.e. Gujarat) were also attached to this temple in a priestly capacity.333 Through his dūtaka Yuvarāja Śrī-Tribhuvanapāla, Nārayāṇavarman requested the Pāla king to grant four villages along with their talapāṭaka334 and haṭṭikās (market place).335 Accordingly, four villages – Gopipallī in the Āmraṣaṇḍikā-Maṇḍala in the Sthālīkkaṭa-Viṣaya, and the villages of Krauncaśvabhra, Māḍhāśālmalī and Pālitaka in the Mahantaprakāśa-Viṣaya of Vyāghrataṭī-Maṇḍala of Puṇḍravardhanabhukti – along with haṭṭikā and talapāṭaka, were granted to the temple.336 They were granted with many privileges: Sva-sīmā (as far as own borders), raised ground (s-oddeśa), sa-daś-apacāra (right to levy fines on ten offences), akiñcita-pragrāhya (nothing should be taken from them), parihṛta-sarva-pīḍa (exempted from all the labours), and eternally.337 All villages were well-settled and substantial wealth must have flown to the temple set up by the Mahāsāmantādhipati Nārayāṇavarman that was later patronized by the state with the grant of these villages. This temple must have functioned as a standing statement of the social prestige of the donor. It may be, though, noted that this was not the only pattern of emergence and survival of Brahmanical temples in this area. In the same Khalimpur inscription, we are informed of a devakulikā (shrine) of Kādambarī that, along with a date-palm tree, formed the northern boundary of the grant village of Krauñcaśvabhra.338 This inscription does not refer to any land in the possession of the devakulikā of Kādambarī. That makes us infer that this shrine was a village shrine, erected, worshipped and maintained by the local villagers, without any kind of aid from the state: a situation very similar to what we have noted in

Evolution of the Patronage Base

455

the case of many dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures. This shrine most probably did not possess land. It may also be added among the four villages that were granted in the Khalimpur copper-plate inscription, the shrine of only one village is referred to. Could we infer that shrines/temples were not essential elements of the geography of every village in this part of Varendra in this period? It may also be added that no presence of any Buddhist religious centre is alluded to in any of the granted villages in this inscription. That every religious centre established through sāmanta patronage did not invite/require the grant of land from the state is indicated by a stone inscription in praise of Pāhila, which was discovered at Nimagachhi in the Pabna district (now Sirajganj district) of Bangladesh. Working within the overall Pāla rule, Pāhila seems to have had significant authority in the Bhaṭṭalamaṇḍala of Puṇḍravardhanabhukti. Pāhila’s ancestors seem to be quite powerful in the area: Karkarāja, one of his ancestors, has been described as ‘the lord (adhīpa) of Bhaṭṭaladeśa’,339 who entered into an subordinate alliance with Yaśovarmaṇ (c. AD 72553) of Kannauj. When the Pālas established their rule in Varendra, this family entered into the Pāla service. We are informed that the Pāla ruler Devapāla ‘having entrusted the burden of his kingdom to Pāhila, used to enjoy material comfort’.340 Pāhila, ‘realizing the transitoriness of wealth, life and youth, but the steadfastness of Dharma’ donated a cloister (maṭha) to the Vaiṣṇava recluses.341 No other detail of the maṭha has been provided in the inscription. Whether Pāhila sought a land grant from the state or the state granted one for the maintenance of this maṭha and persons associated with it, is also not recorded in the inscription. An example of the establishment of a Brahmanical temple through the initiative of a high official of the Pāla state, and its patronage by the Pāla king by means of a land grant, comes through a stone slab inscription found at Bhaturiya, Rajshahi district, Bangladesh.342 This inscription, datable to c. tenth century, is basically a praśasti recording the achievements of Yaśodāsa and his ancestors. Yaśodāsa served as the mantrī and

456

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

saciva of the Pāla king Rājyapāla, and was later raised to the status of tantrādhikārin, ‘an officer in charge of administration’.343 In verses 9-10 (ll. 12-14), we are informed of the works of public charity undertaken by Yaśodāsa, which include the construction of a maṭha (probably used in the sense of a temple), maṇḍapa, satra, prāsāda and jalāśaya.344 He claims to have built one more temple: a huge temple enshrining Śaṅkara in his liṅga form, surrounded by eight other temples.345 Though it is not explicitly stated in the inscription, Yaśodāsa might have approached the king to grant a village with administrative immunity and privileges of the kind we see in the Khalimpur copper-plate or Jagajjibanpur copper-plate to the temple.346 The king granted the village Madhuśrava to god Vṛṣabhadhvaja (i.e. Śiva, enshrined in the temple caused to be built by Yaśodāsa).347 No administrative immunity and privileges granted to the donee are referred to in the inscription. The village was granted but the king retained the right to exact 100 purāṇas as nikara from the village.348 It was due to this reason that this inscription has been classified as a karaśāsana.349 The word nikara was used in the sense of a small, symbolic kara fixed to the gift land.350 This inscription records the grant of land (a village) but is silent on how the temple derived its income from the gift land. Was the gift land rented out to tenants, a feature we have noted in the context of land held by a Buddhist monastery in the seventh century Tāmralipti? The recently deciphered Rajbhita stone inscription indicates that this indeed was the case with at least one temple in the tenth century Varendra. This inscription is dated to the 33rd regnal year of the Pāla king Mahipāla I (i.e. latter part of the tenth century AD). It was found at Rajbhita in the Hatpada mauja within the Zabarhat Union of the Piraganj P.S., district Thakurganj, Bangladesh.351 In this inscription we are informed of a mercantile body called vanigadhama, which seems to have been in some sort of control of three rural market places (haṭṭas) at three different villages: deśihatṭa, jayahatṭa and gauḍahatṭa.352 This inscription also refers to four villages – dhātrīpura, saptakhātaka, khanitrapallī and lakkhunnagrāma – which

Evolution of the Patronage Base

457

were held by the [temple of the] deity Śrī-Sonnakādevīmādhava as śāsana land.353 This inscription is silent as to how this temple came to possess four villages, though the grant of four villages as śāsana property to the temple could not have been possible without the consent of the state. The temple leased out some plots in these villages to some merchants associated with the three haṭṭas referred to above, who, in turn, cultivated areca nut and coconut trees in their own small gardens and vājyabhūmis in the four villages belonging to the donated tract of the deity (Sonnnakādevīmādhava).354 Through this inscription, an arrangement was made that these merchants would annually pay in cash (hiraṇya) 3 paṇas per coconut tree and 1 paṇa per areca nut tree for worship of the deity.355 It has been argued that the vaṇiggrāma mentioned in this inscription may be same with the mercantile guild of a similar name in western India.356 It has also been rightly argued that the deity Sonnakādevīmādhava referred to a form of Viṣṇu named after a woman called Sonnakā.357 This lady most probably caused the construction of a temple of Mādhava in which this image was enshrined. The enshrined image and probably temple too was known by her name. It was one of the means through which this lady sought social prestige. The inscription is silent on her social background, due to which we are not sure if she belonged to the family of any high state official or the sāmanta class. Four villages were granted to the temple of the deity as śāsana land. But just a few decades back, the Pāla state did not grant even the full revenue of a village to a temple established by the tantrādhikārin of the state. There was no uniform pattern. In some cases, we have examples of kings causing the construction of temples. Thus the fragmentary Siyan inscription (discovered in Birbhum district, eleventh century) refers to the construction of temples by the Pāla king Nayapāla at Devīkoṭa358 (i.e. Koṭivarṣa or Bangarh in Varendra), Gangāsāgara and some other places.359In the Deopara stone inscription of the Sena king Vijayasena, we are also informed of a magnificent temple (prāsāda) of Pradyumneśvara caused to be established by the

458

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

king, who also caused the excavation of a tank in its vicinity, and granted one hundred beautiful female attendants to this temple.360 Let us sum up the pattern in Varendra. In five out of the seven reported inscriptions from this area that record the construction of temples/endowments to existing temples, we see the direct or indirect role of the king. In the Pāhila praśasti, we see the patronage of a subordinate ruler. These examples, however, should not make us infer the absence of patronage by persons not associated with state. In the Silimpur inscription (c. eleventh century), recording the praśasti of a Brahmin family for seven generations settled at the village Śīyavaka in Varendra, we are informed of many members of this family who constructed temples for the religious merit of their deceased parents without any kind of patronage from the state.361 Sāhila, born in the second generation of this family, constructed a temple of Viṣṇu named Sāhilāditya for his late father.362 The enshrined deity in the temple was, apparently, known by the name of the patron (Sāhila) who caused its construction. Prahāsa, famous for his knowledge of logic, tantra and dharmaśāstras, was born in the third generation of this family. He was invited by the Kāmarūpa king Jayapāla to perform Tulāpuruṣa ritual, for which he was offered 900 pieces of gold and a śāsana land.363 He did not accept this offer. For the religious merit of his late father, he installed an image of Viṣṇu Trivikrama, and got two ponds excavated for his mother after renovating two existing temples in the village.364 Prahāsa made provisions for providing anna-sattra in a temple and dedicated an image of god Amaranātha (i.e. Śiva) in one of the temples, and granted seven droṇas of land to Vāsudeva (i.e. to the temple of this god) in the village called Śirīṣapuñja and a garden in Śīyava.365 One more inference may be added here. Through an analysis of some Brahmanical normative texts, some scholars have arrived at the conclusion that the great proliferation of images of Viṣṇu Trivikrama in Bengal in the eleventh-twelfth centuries was the result of patronage by persons belonging to the Vaiśya varṇa, who, through patronizing the worship of this deity,

Evolution of the Patronage Base

459

arguably in temples caused to be constructed by them, hoped to gain in status in caste ridden society.366 The great popularity of the images of Viṣṇu Trivikrama in the eleventh-twelfth century Bengal has been, thus, taken as an indication of ‘the emergence of a Vaiśya community as a powerful social force’.367 We will just like to add that the only epigraphic instance in which the deity is referred to by his name (Viṣṇu Trivikrama) records the construction of a temple of this deity through the patronage of a Brahmin. This is a significant inference we draw from the Silimpur inscription. To conclude, we see persons from diverse social backgrounds extending patronage to Brahmanical temples in Varendra: a feature which is not seen in the case of Buddhist monasteries of this area.

Evolving Patronage Base of Brahmanical Temples in Early Medieval Samataṭa: The Case of Comilla Inscriptions recording donations in favour of Buddhist monasteries by local kings of Samataṭa are not reported after the eighth century.368 A ruler like Śrīcandra did claim to be Paramasaugata in his inscriptions, but did not issue any copperplate in favour of Buddhist monasteries, not even in Sylhet. After him, some rulers of this dynasty issued copper-plate inscriptions in favour of Brahmanical temples in Comilla, which shall be analyzed in the paragraphs that follow. We will begin with the two copper-plates issued by Laḍahacandra (c. AD 1000-20), which were discovered at the Carapatra Mura area, Mainamati complex. In the first grant, a plot of land and two villages were donated in the name of the god Vāsudeva-Bhaṭṭāraka in favour of the (temple of the) deity Laḍahamādhava Bhaṭṭāraka caused to be constructed by the king himself (Asmatkārita-Śrī-Laḍahamādhava Bhaṭṭārakāya).369 The king caused the construction of this temple of Mādhava (a form of Viṣṇu) and christened the enshrined deity after his own name. This was done for the religious merit of his parents and his own self.370 Land was granted with the usual

460

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

administrative immunities and privileges.371 It may be noted that even in this plate, the grant was made directly in the name of the deity: we do not see any high class Brahmin or a temple priest receiving it on behalf of the deity. Even if śāsana Brahmins were associated with this royal temple, they were unwilling to be named in the inscription. The first plot called Campavani and measuring 5.75 droṇa was attached to Phullahaḍā in Paṭṭikeraka within the SamataṭaMaṇḍala of Puṇḍra-bhukti. The second tract of granted land was Bappasiṁhavorakagrāma, measuring 8 pāṭaka, 4.75 droṇas, 5 yaṣṭis, 3 kākas and 2 bindus, attached to Ḍollavāyikā in the same area. Such small measurements of lands show that the area in which the temple was granted land was well-settled. Another village – Mahādevagrāma, measuring 3 pāṭaka, 9 droṇa and 1 kāka – that was granted to the temple was granted with a haṭṭikā (market place).372 In both instances, boundaries of the donated land are expressed in terms of elements of human geography.373 All this indicates that the temple received land in a well-settled area. It may also be noted that the land under the enjoyment of the deity Śankara-Bhaṭṭāraka (i.e., the land in the possession of a Śiva temple) formed the northern boundary of the granted land of Mahādevagrāma.374 This temple antedated the foundation of Laḍahamādhava-Bhaṭṭāraka temple. We have nothing categorical to show that this temple of Śankara-Bhaṭṭāraka owed its foundation or land to any royal patronage. The word śāsanabhūmi has not been used for the land under the possession of this temple, a case fundamentally different from the second plate of the same king that records the śāsana-bhūmi in possession of the Buddhist deity Lokanātha-Bhaṭṭāraka. The state was aware of the differences in the nature of land-holding by the temple of Śiva and the Buddhist religious centre (probably a temple) dedicated to the worship of Lokanātha-Bhaṭṭāraka. It appears that the land held by the temple of Śiva was not a śāsana-bhūmi and the land under its possession might not have been the result of royal patronage. As we have seen in the case of the Silimpur stone

Evolution of the Patronage Base

461

inscription, even a non-royal person (a Brahmin not associated with the state in any way) could grant land to a temple. If this plate indicates the grant of well-settled land to a royal Vaiṣṇava temple caused to be constructed by the ruling king, and the functioning and land holding by a pre-existing temple of Śiva in the neighbourhood of granted land, the second Charapatra Mura plate of the same king indicates the functioning of a Buddhist shrine/temple in the neighbourhood of the donated area. Taken together, these two plates may indicate a diffused presence of both Buddhism and Brahmanism in the same general area. In the second plate, Laḍahacandra granted land in the name of Vāsudeva Bhaṭṭāraka, in favour of the deity LaḍahamādhavaBhaṭṭāraka installed by the king at Paṭṭikera.375 It is apparent that the deity referred to here was the same that finds mention in the first copper-plate of the king discussed above. The gift village Suravorakagrāma measured 8 pāṭakas, 1.5 droṇas and 29 yaṣṭis, was in the Peranāṭana Viṣaya of Samataṭa-maṇḍala within the Puṇḍra-bhukti.376 It was donated with the similar immunities and privileges that we see in the previous inscription.377The gift land was bordered on the eastern side by the western demarcating border of the śāsana-bhūmi of Lokanātha-Bhaṭṭāraka (i.e. the Buddhist deity Lokanātha) situated in Māyupāṭaka.378 On the southern side, it was bordered by the northern demarcating boundaries of the śāsana-bhūmi of the same deity (LokanāthaBhaṭṭāraka).379 It is apparent that a Buddhist shrine/temple centering on the worship of this deity existed in this area and it received tax-free land holding from the state. Royal patronage to Brahmanical temples in Comilla continued after Laḍahacandra also. We see his son and successor Paramasaugata Paramabhaṭṭāraka Mahārajādhirāja Govindaandra donating two pāṭakas of land at a locality called Sāharatalāka within the Peranātana viṣaya in favour of (the temple of) god Naṭṭeśvara Bhaṭṭāraka (an aspect of Śiva) for the religious merit and fame of his parents.380 The boundaries of the donated land have not been provided. The inscription is also

462

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

silent about the nature of the granted land, though the immunities and privileges granted to the donee is similar to what we see in the first grant of Laḍahacandra, making us infer that the granted land was in a well-settled tract.381 In this inscription too, the grant was made directly in the name of the deity of the temple: no śāsana Brahmin or a temple priest from high class Brahmin background received the grant on behalf of the deity. That the temple of Laḍahamādhava Bhaṭṭāraka attracted patronage from a local king in the eleventh-twelfth centuries as well is indicated by the two copper-plate inscriptions of Vīradharadeva, found during the excavations of the Charapatra Mura area of the Mainamati complex. In the first copper-plate, which has been dated to the eleventh-twelfth centuries on paleographic grounds by Sircar,382 some land was granted in favour of the god Vāsudeva-Bhaṭṭāraka under the name Laḍahamādhava-Bhaṭṭāraka by Śrī-Vīradharadeva. 383 The donated land was situated in the Vātagangā Viṣaya of Samataṭamaṇḍala, probably in a village called Svāñcā in an area called Sāima.384 As this inscription is only partially published, we do not have details of the nature of the donated land, its boundaries, or the immunities and privileges granted to the donee, if any. In the second copper-plate inscription, we see one Vīradharadeva, whose genealogy has not been provided, donating some land in his fifteenth regnal year in favour of (the temple of ) Laḍahamādhava-Bhaṭṭāraka. Due to unsatisfactory editing of the paper and considerable problems in the use of diacritical marks in the published piece, it is difficult to analyse the significance of the inscription fully. The editor of the plate has suggested a thirteenth century dating for the same.385 In the absence of genealogy of the donor, the editor concludes that ‘the Vīradharadeva of the copper-plate remains unspecified’. 386 Though no epithets suggesting his independent status (Mahārajādhirāja, etc.) has been used for the donor, the kind of immunities and privileges granted to the donee in the inscription is generally met with in the land donations made by other kings, so we may be sure of the royal status of Vīradharadeva. In that

Evolution of the Patronage Base

463

case, he can be no other than the Vīradharadeva mentioned in the previous inscription. In the second grant, the temple of LaḍahamādhavaBhaṭṭāraka received land spread across many villages. It received 12 pāṭaka of land in the villages of Meshabarttā and Adhabasā in the Vātagangā Viṣaya of Samataṭa-maṇḍala, along with a rural market (haṭṭa).387 In the Gangamaṇḍala-Viṣaya, it received 5 pāṭaka of land along with a haṭṭa in the first instance and 17 pāṭaka of land along with a haṭṭa in the second instance.388 The names of the villages where these plots were located have not been recorded in the inscription. The shift of royal patronage to Brahmanical temples in Comilla, eleventh century onwards, however, as we have seen in the case of the inscription of the period of Raṇavaṅkamalla Harikāladeva, did not lead to an end of Buddhism in the area.

Patronage to Brahmanical Temples and Maṭhas in the Early Medieval Sylhet Area: The Evolving Pattern In Chapter 2, we have noted the generally marshy and forested nature of Sylhet. It may also be assumed that in the past, the forest cover of this area with heavy monsoon rainfall must have been substantially higher than what it is today. In fact, an analysis of early medieval inscriptions of this area has made some scholars conclude that Sylhet was the most forested part of early medieval Bengal.389 Here Brahmanical temples and maṭhas became one of the most important institutional elements in negotiating the marshy and forested nature of the landscape. Due to this factor, they received substantial patronage by the state seventh century onwards. Sylhet formed a marshy and forested periphery of either Comilla-based kingdoms or the Brahmaputra valley of Assam-based kingdoms in the initial phase. Here Brahmanical temples and maṭhas played an important role in hastening the transition to a more complex society, which ultimately paved the way for the emergence of a local state in the area by the eleventh century. As we have already discussed this process in some detail elsewhere,390 we will discuss it only

464

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

briefly here, basically to look for similarities and differences with other parts of early medieval Bengal. The earliest available instance of patronage in favour of a Brahmanical religious centre in the Sylhet area is the Nidhanpur copper-plate inscription of the Kāmarūpa king Bhāskaravarman (c. 600–50 CE), to renew a grant originally made by Bhūtivarman (c. AD 518–54), the great-great grandfather of Bhāskaravarman. This copper-plate was basically concerned with the creation of a Brahmanical agrahāra settlement, including a temple, through royal patronage in this area. The temple received the highest share of land in this copper-plate inscription, indicating that the temple was the nucleus around which this agrahāra settlement grew.391 In the latter half of the seventh century, as indicated in the Tippera and Kalapur copper-plates, Viṣṇu temples, constructed by subordinate rulers, became the institutional nuclei for reclaiming a forested, marshy zone.392 A similar pattern was seen in the first half of the tenth century (in the Paschimbhag copper-plate inscription) when the Candra king Śrīcandra planted a huge congregation of Brahmins and many maṭhas and granted it perhaps the largest recorded land grant in early medieval Bengal: covering around 1,000 sq. km of the southern parts of modern Sylhet district.393 This programme was carefully planned and executed by the king, with the motive of effecting the integration of this forested periphery to the core areas of the Candra state.394 A landholding Buddhist establishment was already present in the area, penetrating and surviving in this area without any kind of recorded state patronage.395 But Buddhist religious centres failed to enter into institutional collaboration with the state in colonizing this marshy and forested periphery.396 This state-sponsored planting of a huge congregation of Brahmins and many maṭhas in this area had some significant long-term consequences, which culminated in the emergence of a local state in the eleventh century, which too patronized Brahmanical temples in inducing agrarian expansion and detribalization.397 The failure of Buddhist religious centres in entering into institutional collaboration with the state in the process of

Evolution of the Patronage Base

465

agrarian expansion in this area stands out as a marked feature. The pattern is different from Pagan Burma, where Buddhist monasteries formed the institutional nucleus for agrarian expansion, creation and management of hydraulic resources, detribalizatation and integration of turbulent tribal frontiers into the body politic of the Pagan state.398

Concluding Observations In the patterns of patronage to Buddhist religious centres of Bihar and Bengal, we see some important differences. In Bihar, barring the single example of Arma pillar inscriptions, all available epigraphic records are confined to Nalanda, Mahābodhi and Antichak. For Antichak, commonly identified with the site of Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra, no categorical evidence of land granted has been reported so far. That may be due to the disturbed nature of the site. We do not get evidences of land holding by smaller monasteries of Bihar: a pattern different from complex patterns of land holdings by Buddhist monasteries in many parts of Bengal. But this paucity of land grants to Buddhist religious of Bihar (other than Nalanda and Mahābodhi), or the non-availability of epigraphic records in copper-plates, stone, and pillars other than Nalanda, Mahābodhi and Antichak, is, to some extent, compensated by the profusion with which we get dedicatory inscriptions on Buddhist sculptures in Magadha and Aṅga. In Bengal, inscriptions on Buddhist sculptures are much fewer compared to Magadha and Aṅga. But evidences of landholdings by Buddhist monasteries are found more profusely than what we see in Bihar. Epigraphs recording donation of land in favour of Buddhist religious centres (monasteries and temples) have been reported from Varendra, Vajrayogini area of Vaṅga (i.e. as in the Śāmalavarman inscription), Comilla (where they show a great profusion in the seventh-eighth centuries, after which they are reported only in the early thirteenth century), and Chittagong coastal plains. In the published inscriptions of the early medieval period, donations were basically made by

466

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

political elites. In Varendra, it was dominated by the sāmanta class/high-ranking officials of the Pāla state, who got vihāras constructed and attempted to secure tax-free land grants for these vihāras from the king, basically to use the vihāras to augment their own authority in the area where land was donated. As discernible in the Gunaighar copper-plate inscription, this pattern began in the sixth century Comilla, but found greater manifestation in the Pāla period Varendra. This kind of evidence is singularly lacking in Bihar. In Comilla too, the earliest recorded evidences of patronage to Buddhist monasteries were from the subordinate rulers (sāmantas), but gradually kings started to dominate the scene. In Chittagong, the eighth century plate indicates a community-based patronage to Buddhist vihāras, but the next available vase inscription again indicates patronage by a politically powerful person. To some extent, the Vajrayogini plate of Śāmalavarmana in Vaṅga offers the only exception: a non-aristocratic person constructed a temple of Prajñāpāramitā and secured some land from the ruling king for the maintenance of the temple. Barring the pillar inscription from Paharpur and Chaprakot stone inscriptions, all available inscriptions on stone and copper-plates are concerned with donation of land only. The pattern is again different from Mahābodhi, Nalanda, or even Antichak. In Bengal, another evidence of land holding by Buddhist religious centres comes through those copper-plate inscriptions in which land held by pre-existing Buddhist religious centres figure as one of the boundaries of land that were donated to Buddhist or Brahmanical religious centres or individual Brahmins by copper-plate charters. Among such landowning Buddhist religious centres, we may include many monasteries referred to in the Gunaighar copper-plate; a Mahāyāna vihāra referred to in the eighth century vase inscription of Chittagong; the Ratnatraya establishment mentioned in the Paschimbhag copper-plate; another Ratnatraya establishment that found mention in the Manhali copper-plate of Madanapāladeva;399 and a Buddha-vihārī in Varendra that finds mention in the Tarapandighi copper-plate of Lakṣmaṇasena.400 Such epigraphic evidences have been

Evolution of the Patronage Base

467

reported from Varendra and Samataṭa-Harikela (i.e. Sylhet, Comilla and Chittagong area). If we include Itsing’s accounts of landholding by a Tāmralipti monastery in the seventh century, we may infer substantial landholding by Buddhist religious centres in many parts of Bengal, perhaps excluding Rāḍha, right to the end of our study period. No inscription recording the grant of land to any Buddhist religious centre in Rāḍha has come to light so far. Despite evidences of substantial landholdings by Buddhist religious centres in Bengal, inscriptions recording monetary endowments to the same are singularly lacking, even in the case of Mainamati monasteries. Similarly, we do not have any epigraphic record on stone, copper-plate, pillars or vases to argue for a long distance pilgrimage to the Buddhist religious centres of Bengal. Sthavira Vīryendra or Vipulaśrīmitra would visit holy centres of Magadha, and the non-monastic pilgrims, who made a pilgrimage to Magadha, would return with votive stūpas as pilgrim’s souvenir,401 but we would hardly find anybody from Magadha or even Pagan recording his/her pilgrimage to the Buddhist religious centres of Bengal. In the available epigraphic records, most of the Buddhist religious centres of Bengal appear to be institutions with limited pilgrimage geography, mainly subsisting on land granted to them through political patrons. The question that needs to be looked into is: is this pattern also reflected in the data from the excavated monastic sites of early medieval Bengal? This issue will be looked into in the next chapter. In the case of patterns of patronage to Brahmanical religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, we see some important trends. In Bihar, inscriptions recording patronage to such centres are more diffused, found in all zones of Bihar: areas to the west of the Sone river; Magadha and Aṅga in south Bihar; as well as in north Bihar. They derived patronage from a crosssection of society. In the case of copper-plate and stone inscriptions of Bengal, this kind of diversity of patronage base of Brahmanical temples is seen only in the context of Varendra. Elsewhere, patronage from political elites was more important,

468

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

particularly from the subordinate rulers who established temples, attempted to secure land grants with many immunities and privileges from the ruling king, in an attempt of using such temples in augmenting their own power in the donated area. This trend began in the seventh century AD Sylhet and found manifestation in the Pāla period Varendra. In Sylhet, Brahmanical religious centres were persistently patronized by political elites, including a Paramasaugata king (Śrīcandra), to facilitate agrarian expansion. On the whole, a combined reading of Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this book would make us conclude that Brahmanical religious centres had a more diffused presence in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Their patronage base was more diversified. Buddhism too was an expanding religion, but this expansion took place in a milieu of a more pronounced expansion of Brahmanism. Did this feature find manifestation in the data from the excavated monastic centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal? How did the Buddhist monastic centres attempt to negotiate Brahmanism within the religious space of monasteries? What did they do to attract and retain the patronage of non-monastic devotees? Did every monastic centre have the same strategy or were there differences? Was there a uniform pattern of decline of monastic Buddhism across Bihar and Bengal or were there differences? These are some of the issues that we will analyse in the next chapter.

NOTES 1. B.M. Barua, Gaya and Bodh Gaya, Early History of the Holy Land, Book III, Bharatiya Publication House, Varanasi, n.d., pp. 60-1. 2. B.M. Barua, ‘Old Buddhist Shrines at Bodh Gaya Inscriptions’ Indian Historical Quarterly, VI(1), March 1930, p. 18; B.M. Barua, Gaya and Bodh Gaya, Early History of the Holy Land, Book III, Bharatiya Publication House, Varanasi, n.d., p. 69. 3. B.M. Barua, op. cit., p. 67. 4. Ibid., p. 67. 5. Ibid. 6. B.M. Barua, op. cit., p. 68.

Evolution of the Patronage Base

469

7. Ibid. 8. R.L. Mitra, Buddha Gaya, the Great Buddhist Temple, the Hermitage of Śākyamuni, Indological Book House, Delhi & Varanasi, 1972 (rpt.), pp. 191-2. 9. Ibid., p. 102. 10. Similar would have been the case with the images donated to the Mahābodhi complex. They were most probably enshrined within subsidiary shrines. 11. A. Cunningham, op. cit., p. 61. 12. R.L. Mitra, op. cit., pp. 195-6; A. Cunningham, op. cit., p. 66. 13. B. Sahai, The Inscriptions of Bihar from Earliest Times to the Middle of 13th Century AD, Ramanand Vidya Bhavan, Delhi, 1983, pp. 59-60. 14. B.M. Barua, ‘Old Buddhist Shrines at Bodh Gaya Inscriptions’, Indian Historical Quarterly, VI(1), 1930, p. 27. 15. Ibid., p. 27. 16. Ibid., pp. 27-8. 17. K.M. Srivastava, ‘The Place of Buddha’s Sujata Discovered’, JBPP, vol. 1, 1977, p. 136. 18. A. Cunningham, op. cit., p. 68. 19. Ibid., p. 72. 20. Ibid., pp. 73-4. 21. Ibid., pp. 69-71. 22. Ibid., pp. 72-3. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid., p. 77. 25. A. Cunningham, who originally noticed this inscription, dated it to AD 1157 (A. Cunningham, op. cit., p. 78). Vinoda Vihari Vidyavinoda, who edited and published this inscription, has also assigned a twelfth century dating to it on palaeographic grounds (EI, XXII, 1913-14, p. 28). Later, D.C. Sircar, on the basis of a thorough analysis of many inscriptions that refer to this era, argued that the Lakṣamaṇasena era was originally counted from the accession of Lakṣmaṇasena c. AD 1179 (D.C. Sircar, Some Epigraphic Records of the Medieval Period from Eastern India, Abhinav Publications, Delhi, 1979, p. 30). In dating this inscription to c. AD 1230, we have followed Sircar. 26. Vinoda Vihari Vidyavinoda, ‘Two Inscriptions from Bodh Gaya’, EI, vol. XII, 1913-14, p. 29. The term vihārī has been used in the sense of a Buddhist shrine by the editor of the inscription (p. 28). 27. Ibid., p. 29.

470

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

28. Vinoda Vihari Vidyavinoda, op. cit., p. 28. 29. Ibid., p. 30. This area has been identified with the Kumaon-Garhwal area in Uttarakhand (D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 32). 30. D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 32. 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid., pp. 32-3. 34. Ibid., p. 33. 35. B. Sahai, op. cit., p. 142. 36. H. Sastri, Nalanda and Its Epigraphic Material, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 66, Delhi, 1942, pp. 26-7. 37. Ibid., p. 27. 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid., p. 26. 40. A similar possibility has been noted in the context of terracotta plaques found in the Buddhist monasteries of early medieval Odisha (Umakant Mishra, Vajrayāna Buddhism: Study in Social Iconography, Pratibha Prakashan, Delhi, 2009, p. 142). 41. H. Sastri has reported ‘thousands of seals and sealings in our excavations during the last twenty years or so’ at Nalanda (H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 20). Among the reported sealings, the most numerous were seals and sealings showing the Dharmacakra with the gazelle at the sides and the name of the Saṅgha of the venerable monks of the Mahāvihāra of Nalanda (p. 20). He has also reported a ‘large number’ of seals/sealings or plaques inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula or some Buddhist text (pp. 26-7). 42. H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 27. 43. Ibid., p. 27. 44. Ibid., p. 28. 45. Ibid., p. 29. 46. Ibid., pp. 31-2. 47. Ibid., p. 31. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid., p. 32. 50. Ibid., p. 43, seal no. S, 1, 730. 51. Ibid., p. 40, seal no. S, IA, 357. 52. Ibid., p. 31. 53. H. Sastri, Nālandā and Its Epigraphic Material, Delhi, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 66, 1942, p. 32. 54. Ibid., pp. 45-8.

Evolution of the Patronage Base

471

55. Ibid., p. 47; seal no. S. 9, R, 56. 56. Seal no. S.9, R. 19 (ibid., p. 46); seal no. S.9, R.IA (ibid., p. 48); seal no. S.9, R.IA (ibid., p. 48); seal no. S.9, R.92 (ibid., p. 45). 57. See for example, seal no. S.1, 780 (ibid., p. 48), which has the depiction of a liṅga with a bull in the right and a triśūla in the left. 58. Ibid., p. 47; seal no. S.9, R, 144. 59. A similar feature of poly-religiosity has been noted in the context of another village officially donated to the Nalanda Mahāvihāra: Vārakīya, identifiable with the site of Bara in the Ben Block of Nalanda district. For details, see Birendra Nath Prasad et al., ‘Bārā: A Recently Discovered Site in Nalanda District and Its Bearings on the Decline of Indian Buddhism’, in B. Labh (ed.), The Ocean of Buddhist Wisdom, vol. 4, Delhi, 2009, pp. 225-34. 60. Sastri, op. cit., p. 41. 61. Ibid., seal no. S.1, 348. 62. Ibid., p. 43., seal no. S.1, 730. 63. Ibid., p. 44, seal no. S.1, 1006. 64. Ibid. 65. Ibid., p. 44, seal no. S.1, 912. 66. Ibid., p. 44, seal no. S.1, 411, 412. Two seals with this legend were found. 67. Ibid., p. 45, seal no. S.1A, 342. 68. H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 37; seal no. A.1, 1005; S.4, 40. As per a recent analysis, it was an administrative body of some monks entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing repairs and renovations. It was probably also entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing new constructions within the Mahāvihāra ( J. Silk, Managing Monks: Administrators and Administrative Roles in Indian Buddhist Monasticism, Oxford University Press, New York, 2008, pp. 93-4). 69. H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 37; seal no. S.1,1005. The exact significance of this particular legend is unclear. As per J. Silk, the word cakrāre could have been an incorrect rendering of cakrārāma, which meant a type of monastic structure or plan ( J. Silk, op. cit., p. 120). 70. H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 38, seal no. S.1, 848. 71. Ibid., p. 38, seal no. S.1, 919. This association of monks was entrusted with the responsibility of arrangement of bedding for the resident monks of the Mahāvihāra ( J. Silk, op. cit., p. 120). 72. Ibid., p. 38, seal no. S.1, 675. 73. Ibid., p. 39, seal no. S.1, 912. 74. Ibid., seal no. S.9, R.91. This seal indicates that the Nalanda

472

75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

84.

85.

86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92.

93. 94.

95.

96.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Mahāvihāra had at least one Sattra where free food was distributed to the poor and the needy. An association of monks was entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the sattra of the Mahāvihāra. H. Sastri, op. cit, p. 40, seal no. S, 1A, 357. Ibid., p. 40, seal no. S,9, R.15. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 58-60. Ibid., pp. 60-1. Ibid., pp. 61-3. Ibid., pp. 63-4. Including both categories of seals: seals with legends only, and seals with legends and symbols. Monks finding mentions in the seals of this site are: Sthavira Yakṣapāla, Sthavira Bhānudeva and Sthavira Mañjukīrtti (H. Sastri, op. cit., pp. 58-60). Monks finding mentions in the seals of this site are: Sthavira Bhānudeva (H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 61), Sthavira Dānava (H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 63). Monks finding mentions in the seals of this site are: Sthavira Bhānudeva (H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 61), Sthavira Mañjukīrtti (H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 62), Sthavira Rāhulamati (ibid., p. 62), Sthavira Guṇākarabodhi (Ibid.). H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 59. Ibid., p. 60. Ibid. Ibid., p. 62. Ibid., p. 61. Ibid., p. 59. For an analysis of seals and sealings reported from Basarh, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Urbanization at Early Historic Vaiśālī, c. 600 BCE-CE 400’, in D.N. Jha (ed.), The Complex Heritage of Early India: Essays in Memory of R.S. Sharma, Manohar, Delhi, 2015, pp. 227-32. H.Sastri, op. cit., p. 34. For an analysis of the role of Temple/Stūpa Site 3 within the Mahāvihāra, particularly its role as a popular avenue for pilgrimage, see pp. 507-11 of the present book. S.R. Das, Rājbāḍīḍāngā: 1962 (Chiruti: Jadupur), An Interim Report on Excavations At Rājbāḍīḍāngā and Terracotta Seals and Sealings, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1968, p. 64. G. Schopen, Indian Monastic Buddhism: Collected Papers on Textual,

Evolution of the Patronage Base

97. 98.

99.

100.

101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106.

107.

108.

109.

473

Inscriptional and Archaeological Evidence, pt. II: Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2010, p. 391. Ibid., p. 392. With regards to land holding by the Nalanda Mahāvihāra, Itsing has recorded that in the latter half of the seventh century, ‘the land in its possession contains more than 200 villages’, which was granted by kings of many generations ( J. Takakusu, A Record of Buddhist Religion as Practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago (AD 671-695) by I-Tsing, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1982, p. 65). This is largely corroborated by the discovery of many seals of different villages, Adhikaraṇas, etc., from Nalanda. H. Sastri, ‘Nalanda Stone Inscription of the Reign of Yaśovarmmādeva’, EI, vol. XX, 1929-30, p. 37. Sastri has identified this ruler with the king Yaśovarmā of Malva and attributed a sixth century dating to him (p. 40). Ibid., p. 45. It is interesting that the word Nṛpa has been used for Bālāditya, not Mahārājādhirāja, indicating that he was not an independent ruler. Sastri has opined that Yaśovarmmadeva was his suzerain (p. 40). Ibid., p 41. Ibid., p. 39. Ibid., p. 45. Ibid. Ibid., p. 46. See for example, the seal containing the legend Śrī-NālandāSattraka-Samvārika-bhikṣunam (seal no. S.9, R.91, in H. Sastri, Nalanda and Its Epigraphic Material, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 66, Delhi, 1942, p. 39). The role of pilgrimage in inducing market related activities has been highlighted in the case of the Mahābodhi as well (S. Dhammika, Navel of the Earth: The History and Significance of Bodh Gaya, Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society, Singapore, 1996, p. 50). D.C. Sircar, ‘Nalanda Inscription of King Prathamaśiva’, EI, vol. XXXIX, 1971-2, pp. 117-19. No title (Mahārājadhirāja, etc.) suggesting the independent status of Prathamaśiva has been used in the inscription. But D.C. Sircar has rightly suggested that the Mahāsāndhivigrahika of Prathamaśiva enjoyed the title Mahārāja, so Prathamaśiva was most probably an independent monarch (p. 121). Ibid., p. 121.

474 110. 111. 112. 113.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Ibid., p. 119. Ibid., p. 122. Ibid., p. 118. D.C. Sircar has noted the profusion of Brahmanical motifs in this inscription and he found it strange that ‘there is no such influence of Buddhist mythology on this eulogy of a Buddhist king set up at a Buddhist place of pilgrimage’ (op. cit., p. 121). He relates it to the fact the composer of this praśasti was a Brahmanical Hindu (p. 121). That might not have been the case. Nowhere in the inscription, a Buddhist identity (Paramasaugata, Paramopāsaka, Mahāyāna-Anuyāyin, etc.) has been claimed for the king. Nor does the inscription follow any form of Mahāyāna dedicatory format (Yadatra-Puṇyama-Bhavatu, etc.). 114. H. Satri, Nālandā and Its Epigraphic Material, op. cit., p. 84. 115. H. Sastri, ‘The Nalanda Copper Plate Inscription of Devapaladedva’, EI, vol. XVII, 1923-4, pp. 321-2, 325. 116. Ibid., p. 322. 117. H. Sastri, Nālandā and Its Epigraphic Material, op. cit., pp. 90-1. 118. Ibid., p. 91. 119. N.G. Majumdar ‘Nalanda Inscription of Vipulaśrīmitra’, EI, vol. XXI, 1930-1, p. 99, verse 11. 120. D.C. Sircar, ‘Two Pillar Inscriptions’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal – Letters, XV(1), 1949, p. 8. 121. Ibid., p. 8. 122. Ibid., p. 7. 123. H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 107; C.S. Upasaka, Nalanda: Past and Present, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda, 1977, pp. 176-7. 124. H. Sastri, op. cit., p. 107. 125. For details, see pp. 532-43 of the present book. 126. For details, see pp. 532-43 of the present book. 127. For an analysis of the pattern of landholding by these maṭhas, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Brahmanical Temples, Maṭhas, Agrahāras and a Buddhist Establishment in a Marshy and Forested Periphery of Two ‘Frontier’ States: Early Medieval Surma Valley (Sylhet and Cachar), c.600 CE -1100 CE’, Religions of South Asia, London, 6(1), 2012, pp. 37-40; idem, ‘Marsh, Rice, Faith: Aspects of Environmental and Religious Changes in the Early Medieval Surma- Barak Valley’, in Sajal Nag (ed.), Playing with Nature: History and Politics of Environment in North-eastern India, Manohar, Delhi, 2017, pp. 20-50. 128. For details, see pp. 569-70 of the present book.

Evolution of the Patronage Base

475

129. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘The Social Bases of Patronage to the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra: An Epigraphic Enquiry’, in Sajal Nag and Ishrat Alam (eds), Blending Nation and Region: Essays in Honour of Amalendu Guha, Primus Books, Delhi, 2018, pp. 310-24. 130. Ibid. 131. D.C. Sircar, ‘The Ārmā Inscription of Madanapala’ Time, Year 14’, EI, vol. XXXVI, 1965-6, p. 42. 132. Ibid., p. 42. 133. This issue has been analyzed in some detail in Chapter 7. 134. For details, see pp. 509-10 of the present book. 135. This theme has been analyzed in some detail in Chapter 7 of the present book. 136. J. Takakusu (tr.), A Record of Buddhist Religion as Practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago (AD 671-695) by I-Tsing, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1982, p. 62. 137. H.P. Ray, ‘Kanheri: The Archaeology of an Early Buddhist Pilgrimage Site in Western India’, World Archaeology, 26(1), 1994, pp. 37-9. 138. We have included only those inscriptions that have been professionally edited and published. Many inscriptions from Mainamati are not yet published. K.K.Gupta published Salban Vihara Copper Plate Inscription of Balabhaṭṭa, Salban Vihara Copper Plate Inscription of Ānandadeva, year 39; and Salban Vihara Copper Plate Inscription Bhavadeva, year 2, in Bangladesh Archaeology, vol. 1, pp. 141-8. His publication, however, seems unreliable, especially in view of the fact that he has not used diacritical marks. 139. D.C. Bhattacharya, ‘A Newly Discovered Copperplate from Tippera (The Gunaighar Grant of Vainyagupta: The Year 188 Current (Gupta Era), The Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 1, 1930, p. 53. For my earlier analysis of this inscription, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Monarchs, Monasteries and Trade on an “Agrarian Frontier”: Early Medieval Samataṭa –Harikela Region, Bangladesh’, South and Southeast Asia: Culture and Religion, vol. 2, 2008, pp. 166-8. My analysis of this inscription in the present book (pp. 407-11) is based on, and similar to, what I have argued in my 2008 paper. 140. D.C. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 54. 141. Ibid., p. 49. 142. Ibid., p. 55, l. 19.

476 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149.

150. 151.

152.

153. 154. 155. 156.

157. 158.

159. 160. 161.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Ibid., p. 56, l. 22. Ibid., p. 56, l. 27. Ibid., p. 56, ll. 29-30 Ibid., p. 56, ll. 30-1. D.C. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 56, ll. 28-30; Birendra Nath Prasad, op. cit., p. 171. The use of the term Śākyabhikṣu for Ācārya Jitasena indicates that this vihāra too, like the Āśrama Vihāra, was a Mahāyāna Vihāra. R. Furui, ‘Variegated Adaptations: State Formation in Bengal from the Fifth to the Seventh Century’, in B.P. Sahu and H. Kulke (eds), Interrogating Political Systems: Integrative Processes and State in PreModern India, Manohar, Delhi, 2015, pp. 261-2. Ibid., p. 261. This is indicated by the use of the term ‘Mahārāja Maheśvara Nāthacandra’ for Nāthacandra and Mahādeva-pādānudhyātā for Vainyagupta (R. Furui, op. cit., p. 261). R. Furui, ‘A New Copper Plate Inscription of Gopāla II’, South Asian Studies, 24(1), 2008, p. 71; idem, ‘Indian Museum Copper Plate Inscription of Dharmapāla, Year 26: Tentative Reading and Study,’ South Asian Studies, 27(2), 2011, p. 151; Idem, ‘Chaprakot Stone Inscription of the Time of Gopāla IV, Year 19’, in P.C. Das (ed.), Bangladesh National Museum Centenary Commemorative Volume (1913-2013), Bangladesh National Museum, Dhaka, 2013, p. 114; idem, ‘Variegated Adaptations’, pp. 266-7. R. Furui, ‘Indian Museum Copper Plate Inscription of Dharmapāla, Year 26’, op. cit., p. 151. Ibid. Ibid., p. 15. D.C. Sircar, ‘The Kailan Copper-plate Inscription of King Śrīdhāraṇa Rāta of Samataṭa’, Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. XXIII, 1947, p. 239, ll. 22-3. Ibid., p. 239, ll. 23-4. For the reconstruction of the political history of the Rāta rulers as discernible in this inscription, see D.C.Sircar, op. cit., pp. 221-32. Sircar has basically argued that both the Rātas and Sāmanta Lokanātha of the Tippera copper-plate were subordinate to the king of Gauḍa (p. 232). Ibid., p. 241, l. 45. Ibid. Ibid., p. 240.

Evolution of the Patronage Base

477

162. For an analysis of the significance of these terms, see D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 237. As per Sircar, billa is apparently similar to the Bengali word bil (lake) and naudaṇḍa ‘seems to be the same as nāodārā used now in central Bengal in the sense of path for boats made on the moss-covered waters of the bil, etc.’ (p. 237). 163. R. Furui, ‘Rural Society and Social Networks in Early Bengal from the Fifth to the Thirteenth Century AD’, unpublished PhD thesis, JNU, 2007, p. 143. 164. Ibid., p. 143. 165. D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 240, l. 35. 166. Ibid., p. 240, ll. 35-6. 167. Ibid., p. 240, ll. 38-9. 168. Ibid., p. 235. 169. G.M. Lashkar, ‘Ashrafpur Copper-Plate Grants of Devakhaḍga’, Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1(6), 1906, p. 85. 170. Ibid. 171. Ibid. 172. Śrī-Prabhāvatya Bhujyamāṇaka (G.M. Lashkar, op. cit., p. 90, l. 4) 173. Sāmanta Vaṇitoyokena Bhujyamāṇaka (Ibid., p. 90, l. 5) 174. Sri- Śarvāntarena Bhujyamāṇaka Mahattara Śikharādibhiḥ Kṛṣymā (p. 90, l. 8). 175. Ibid., p. 88. 176. Ibid., p. 90, ll. 8-9. 177. Ibid., p. 90, ll. 15-17. 178. For some recent analysis of the agrarian relations as reflected in the Ashrafpur copper-plate inscriptions, see R. Furui, op. cit., pp. 144-6; idem, ‘Expansion of Agrarian Economy and Local Power Relations in the Seventh and Eighth Century Eastern Bengal: A Study of Copper Plate Inscriptions’, in Ratnabali Chatterjee (ed.), Urbanity and Economy: The Pre-Modern Dynamics in Eastern India, Setu Prakashani, Kolkata, 2013, pp. 100-1; Sayantani Pal,  ‘Some Observations on the Ashrafpur Plates of Devakhaḍga’, in G.J.R. Mevvissen (ed.), Kalhar: Studies in Art, Iconography, Architecture and Archaeology of India and Bangladesh: Prof. Enamul Haque Felicitation Volume, Kaveri Books, Delhi, 2007, pp. 314-17. 179. G.M. Lashkar, op. cit., p. 90, l. 9. 180. Ibid., p. 90, l. 10. 181. See for example, Paschimbhag copper-plate inscription which categorically mentions that the land granted to Brahmanical Maṭhas was to exclude the land in the possession of a Ratnatraya

478

182. 183. 184. 185. 186.

187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196.

197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202.

203.

204. 205.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia establishment (D.C. Sircar, Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization: From the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century AD, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1983, p. 98). D.C. Sircar, ‘Copper-Plate Inscription of King Bhavadeva of Devaparvata’, Journal of Asiatic Society, Letters, VXVII(2), 1951, p. 88. Ibid., p. 88. Ibid., p. 87. Ibid. G. Bhattacharya, ‘A preliminary report on the inscribed metal vase from the National Museum of Bangladesh’, in Debala Mitra (ed.), Explorations in the Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays Dedicated to N.G. Majumdar, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal, Calcutta, 1996, p. 239. Ibid., p. 239. Ibid., pp. 240-1. Ibid., p. 241. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. The early tenth century dating of this inscription has been proposed by G. Bhattacharya, ‘An Inscribed Metal Vase, Most Probably from Chittagong, Bangladesh’, South Asian Archaeology 1991, Franze Steiner Verlag Sttutgart 1993, p. 323. Ibid., p. 324. Ibid., p. 329. Ibid., p. 335, ll. 8-9. Ibid., p. 329. Ibid., p. 335, l. 14. R. Furui, ‘Rural Society and Social Networks in Early Bengal from the Fifth to the Thirteenth Century AD’, unpublished PhD thesis, JNU, 2007, p. 176. G. Bhattacharya, ‘An Inscribed Metal Vase, Most Probably from Chittagong, Bangladesh’, South Asian Archaeology 1991, Franz Steiner Verlag Sttutgart 1993, p. 335, l. 9. G. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 336, l. 2. Sayantani Pal, ‘Religious Patronage in the Land-Grant Charters of Early Bengal’, Indian Historical Review, 41(2), 2014, p. 191.

Evolution of the Patronage Base

479

206. Ibid., p. 191. 207. R. Furui, ‘Indian Museum Copper Plate Inscription of Dharmapala, Year 26: Tentative Reading and Study’, South Asian Studies, 27(2), 2011, pp. 150-1. 208. Ibid., p. 150. 209. Ibid., p. 150. 210. Ibid., p. 151. 211. For details, see p. 401 of the present book. 212. For details, see pp. 532-43 of the present book. A monk named Vipulaśrīmitra did undertake some construction work here, but that was only after the destruction of the Mahāvihāra by an army of Vangāla. 213. These included: accompanied by the land belonging to itself (svasambaddha-bhūmi-sameta); with lowland (sa-tala); with raised ground (s-oddeśa); with additional tax (s-oparikara); with fines from ten offences (sa-daśāpacāra); with the right to catch thieves (sa-cauroddharaṇa); exempted from all the burdens (parihṛta-sarvapīḍa); without entrance of cāṭas and bhaṭas (a-cāṭa-bhaṭa-praveśa); without anything taken (akiñcit-pragrāhya); accompanied by all the contributions supposed to go to the royal family (rājakulābhāvya- sarva-pratyāya-sameta); by the rule of land reclamation (bhūmicchidra-nyāyena); and as long as the moon, the sun, and the earth exist (ā-candr-ārka-kṣitisamakālaṃ). The donated land was also granted the status of agrahāra (R. Furui, op. cit., p. 150). 214. Ibid. 215. S.C. Mukherji, ‘The Jagajibanapur Copper Plate Inscription of King Mahendrapāla (of the Pāla Dynasty), Regnal Year 7, Pratna Samiksha, vols. 6-8, 1997-9, p. 60. 216. R. Furui, ‘Indian Museum Copper Plate Inscription of Dharmapāla, Year 26’, p. 151. 217. As per the chronology provided by Ronald Davidson (Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement, Columbia University Press, New York, 2002, p. 52), the regime of this king could have been in c. 967-87. 218. R. Furui, ‘A New Copper Plate Inscription of Gopāla II’, South Asian Studies, 24.1, 2008, p. 70. 219. Ibid. 220. Ibid. 221. Ibid., p. 71.

480

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

222. R. Furui, ‘Chaprakot Stone Inscription of the Time of Gopāla IV, Year 19’, pp. 110-17. 223. Ibid., p. 115. 224. Ibid., p. 114. 225. This copper-plate inscription has been dated differently. N.K. Bhattasali, who originally edited and published this inscription, assigned it to eleventh-twelfth century AD on palaeographic grounds (N.K. Bhattasali, Vajrayogini Plate of Samalavarman, EI, XXX, 1953-4, p. 259). Later scholars are more inclined to place it in the twelfth century (B.M. Morrison, Political Centres and Cultural Regions in Early Bengal, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1970, pp. 48-9; Sayantani Pal, ‘Religious Patronage in the Land-Grant Charters of Early Bengal’, Indian Historical Review, 41(2), 2014, p. 201). Sayantani Pal places this inscription between AD 1127 and 1137. 226. N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., p. 263. 227. Ibid., p. 262. 228. D.C. Bhattacharya, ‘The Mainamati Copper Plate of Raṇavaṅkamalla Harikāladeva: 1141 Saka’, Varendra Research Society Monographs No. 5, Rajshahi, 1934, pp. 11-12. 229. Ibid., p. 12. 230. Ibid., p. 14. 231. B.M. Morrison, op. cit., p. 52. 232. B.M. Morrison, Lalmai, A Cultural Centre of Early Bengal: An Archaeological Report and Historical Analysis, University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1974, p. 107. 233. Ibid., p. 107. 234. In this section, we have not included those seals and sealings that contain only the Buddhist Creed Formula. 235. More than 250 inscribed baked clay sealings have been found in the Vasu Bihar excavations, out of which more than 100 were ‘still well-preserved and decipherable’ (N. Ahmed, ‘Vasu Bihar Excavations’, Bangladesh Archaeology, 1(1), 1979, p. 64). Specimens reported by Ahmed include around 12 pieces of ‘monastic sealings’ (a Dharmacakra flanked by a deer on each side) with undecipherable legends; many sealings bearing the names of individuals, out of which only two names – Jinarakṣita, Dharmadeva – have been published; 2 sealings inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula; and many un-inscribed sealings (pp. 64-5). But the legends on

Evolution of the Patronage Base

236.

237. 238.

239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252.

253.

481

them have not been fully published. Due to this reason, we have not analysed the data from this site. S.R. Das, Rājbāḍīḍāngā: 1962 (Chiruti: Jadupur), An Interim Report on Excavations At Rājbāḍīḍāngā and Terracotta Seals and Sealings, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1968, p. 49. Ibid., pp. 56-7. Legends on the fifth-sixth century seals/sealings include: Layasa, Dhiruḥ. Legends on the seventh-eighth century seals/sealings include: Guhyāchakral, Īśvarasya, Bhramarasya, Vīrabuddhi, Īśvarasya, Vṛddhavala, Vyausakasaya, Jātarudra, Apradā, Haramadara-de[va], Sarabha, Chandramukha or Sa, Baladeva, Dayaya, Śrīvarṇavarmma; a two-line inscription containing the legend ‘Guṇākarasena’ and ‘Śrī Vīravainyadatta’ in the first line, Sāśanayashṭhī in the second line; and a sealing containing the legend ‘Horae’ in Greek letters. For details, see S. R. Das, op. cit., pp. 59-60. Ibid., p. 64. Ibid. Ibid., p. 60. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 57. Ibid., pp. 57-8. Ibid., p. 60. Ibid. Ibid., p. 61. K.N. Dikshit, Excavations at Paharpur, Bengal, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 55, Delhi, 1999 (rpt.), p. 90. Ibid., pp. 19-20. Ibid., p. 90. Amal Roy, ‘Nandadirghi-Vihāra: A Newly Discovered Buddhist Monastery at Jagajjivanpur, West Bengal’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), Archaeology of Eastern India: New Perspectives, Kolkata, Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, 2002, p. 566. Barring the 15 examples of the official seal of the monastery in full or fragmented form, the following legends have been published by Amal Roy, Jagjivanpur 1996-2005: Excavation Report, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, 2012, pp. 33-4: Hamarchandrasya (fragmented), Rmmagupta (fragmented) Bhikṣu Dharmabhadrah, Sri Tvarama [sya],

482

254. 255.

256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262.

263.

264. 265. 266. 267. 268.

269. 270. 271.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Dharmaguptasya, Savasi[ddhe], Suvadataha[sya], Janakarakshitasya, a combined seal (fragmented) having the legend ‘Angapalah’ on one side and ‘Palah’ on the other, Tathagupta, Samghabhadrah, Dharmagupta, Uchhikasya. The excavator has not used diacritical marks in the text of legends on terracotta seals and sealings. Amal Roy, op. cit., p. 34. K.N. Dikshit, op. cit., p. 74. In Dikshit’s time, the Pāla ruler Mahendrapāla was not known, so he has erroneously dated this inscription to the tenth century. This inscription should be dated to the ninth century. Ibid., p. 75. Ibid., pp. 74-5. Ibid., p. 75. Md. Abul Hashem Miah, ‘Archaeological Excavations at Jagaddala Vihāra: A Preliminary Report’, JBA, vol. 8, 2003, pp. 154-5. Ibid., pp. 154-5. K.N. Dikshit., op. cit., p. 74. For an analysis of the association of the central cruciform shrine of Paharpur with the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas, see pp. 532-8 of the present book. Whether or not the gold and silver coinage reported from Mainamati sites indicate mercantile patronage to Buddhist monasteries on the Mainamati ridge has been analyzed in the next chapter. We have argued that it does not necessarily indicate mercantile patronage, especially in view of the fact there is a resounding absence of any epigraphically recorded example of monetary donation to any Buddhist religious centre on the Mainamati ridge by any merchant. R.D. Banerji, ‘Mundesvari Inscription of Udayasena, The (Harsha) Year 30, EI, vol. IX, pp. 289-90. Ibid., p. 290. Ibid. Ibid. D.C. Sircar, Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization, vol. II: From the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1983, p. 50. Ibid., p. 52. A.S. Altekar, ‘Mangraon Inscription of the time of Vishnugupta, the year 17’, EI, XXVI, 1941-2, pp. 244-5. Ibid., p. 244, fn. 4.

Evolution of the Patronage Base

483

272. Ibid., p. 246. 273. Ibid., p. 246. Aṅgāra has been identified with the modern village of Mangraon, where the author has noted a 15 ft high mound – probably representing the ruins of an older temple – on which the modern temple stands (ibid., p. 246). 274. Ibid., p. 244. 275. Ibid., pp. 244-5. 276. D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 48. 277. D.C. Sircar, ‘Grant of Jīvagupta’, EI, XXXV(35), 1963-4, p. 125. 278. Ibid., p. 126. 279. Ibid., p. 127. 280. J. Karyyi and Dr. K. J. Mayank, Chāmuṇḍāgarh: Itihās Evam Āsthā, Shloka Prakashan, Darbhanga, 2013, pp. 7-14. 281. D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 127. 282. Ibid., p. 127. 283. Ibid. 284. Ibid., p. 129. 285. D.C. Sircar, ‘Some Inscriptions from Bihar’, The Journal of the Bihar Research Society, XXVII, pts. 3-4, September-December 1951, pp. 6-7. 286. Ibid., pp. 5-6. 287. Ibid., p. 4. 288. D.C. Sircar, ‘Bhagalpur Copper-plate Inscription of Nārāyaṇapāla (c. AD 855-910), Regnal Year 17’, in Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization, vol. II, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1983, pp. 80, 84. 289. Bhagwant Sahai, ‘The Pāśupatas in Bihar’, The Journal of the Bihar Purāvid Pariṣad, vols. IV-V, 1980-1, p. 327; Anjani Kumar, ‘Pālakālīna Bihar Mein Śaivadharma: Abhilekhiya Sākṣyon Evam Mūrtikalā Ke Namuno Par Ādhārita Ek Samkikṣātmaka Adhyayana’, The Journal of the Bihar Purāvid Pariṣad, vols. XI-XII, 1987-8, p. 121. 290. D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 84. 291. Ibid. 292. D.C. Sircar, ‘Gaya Inscription of the Time of Nārāyaṇapāla, Regnal Year 7’, EI, vol. XXXV, 1963-4, p. 226. 293. Ibid. 294. Ibid. 295. Ibid. 296. Ibid., p. 227. 297. Rajat Sanyal, ‘A Note on the Munger Sadāśiva (?) Image Inscription

484

298. 299. 300. 301.

302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308.

309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia of Year 3 of King Bhagīratha, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXVI, 2009-10, p. 145. Ibid, p. 144. D.C. Sircar, ‘Inscriptions of the Two Brahmin Rulers of Gaya’, EI,XXVI, 1965-6, pp. 82-3. Ibid., pp. 83-4. For a recent reconstruction of the political history of the Pīṭhīpati family, see G. Bhattacharya, ‘A New Pīṭhīpati’, Pratna Samiksha, vols. 4 and 5, 1995-6, pp. 178-9. D.C.Sircar, ‘Inscriptions of the Two Brahmin Rulers of Gaya’, EI, XXVI, 1965-6, p. 82. Ibid., p. 86. Ibid., p. 81. Ibid., p. 89. Ibid., p. 92. Ibid., p. 92. D.C. Sircar, Some Epigraphic Records of the Medieval Period from Eastern India, Abhinav Publications, Delhi, 1979, p. 39; Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Pilgrimage to Medieval Gaya’, Anusandhanika, vol. VIII, no. 1, pp. 8-12. D.C. Sircar, ‘Silsilā Inscription of Aṅgasiṁha’s Time, Vikrama 1162’, EI, vol. XXVI, p. 39. Ibid., p. 39. Ibid., p. 39. Ibid., pp. 40-1. Ibid., p. 41. D.C. Sircar, ‘Gaya Inscription Mentioning Govindapala, Vikrama 1232, EI, XXV, 1963-4, p. 236. Ibid., p. 236. M.P.N. Sharma, ‘Merā Viṣṇu Temple Inscription of Haridharman (AD 1175), Journal of Bihar Research Society, vol. LIII, 1967, p. 62. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 68. Ibid. D.C. Sircar, ‘An Inscribed Terracotta Plaque from Teghra’, EI, XXX, 1953-4, pp. 85-6. Ibid., p. 86. Ibid.

Evolution of the Patronage Base

485

325. Ibid. 326. Ibid. 327. D.K. Chakrabarti, The Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain: The Lower and the Middle Ganga, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2001, p. 205. Interestingly, D.K. Chakrabarti has also reported two large temple doorway pillars of c. eleventh century from Naulagarh (ibid., p. 196). 328. J. Takakusu, A Record of Buddhist Religion as Practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago (AD 671-695) by I-Tsing, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1982, p. 65. 329. In not assigning Sylhet to Harikela in the pre-Candra period, we have followed B.N. Mukherjee, who has rightly argued that ‘Harikela might not have originally included the Sylhet region’, as ‘the name of Harikela was applied to this area possibly by or during the time of Śrīcandra, who had under him Śrīhaṭṭa as well as the territory earlier included in Harikela’ (B.N. Mukherjee, ‘The Original Territory of Harikela’, Bangladesh Lalit Kalā, 1(2), 1975, p. 119). 330. For an analysis of these inscriptions, see Sayantani Pal, ‘Religious Patronage in Land Grant Charters of Early Bengal (Fifth-Thirteenth Century)’, Indian Historical Review, 41(2), 2014, pp. 186-7. 331. R. Furui, ‘Variegated Adaptations: State Formation in Bengal from the Fifth to the Seventh Century’, in B.P. Sahu and H. Kulke (eds), Interrogating Political Systems: Integrative Processes and State in PreModern India, Manohar, Delhi, 2015, pp. 261-2. 332. D.C. Sircar, ‘Khālimpur Copper Plate Inscription of Dharmapāla (c. AD 775-812), Regnal Year 32’, in Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization, vol. II, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1983, p. 68, ll. 49-50. 333. Ibid., p. 68, l. 51. 334. As per Sircar, this term referred to ‘adjacent land for maintenance’ (ibid., p. 64). 335. Ibid., p. 68, ll. 51-2. 336. Ibid., pp. 67-8. 337. Ibid., p. 68, ll. 52-4. For the English translation of these legal terms, we have relied on R. Furui, ‘Rural Society and Social Networks in Early Bengal from the Fifth to the Thirteenth Century AD’, unpublished PhD thesis, JNU, 2007, p. 166. 338. D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 67, l. 32.

486

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

339. G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Buddhist Hindu Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2000, p. 484. 340. Ibid.,p. 483. 341. Ibid., 483. 342. D.C.Sircar, ‘Bhaturiya Inscription of Rajyapala’, EI, vol. XXXIII, 1959-60, p. 150. 343. Ibid., p. 151. 344. Ibid., p. 154, l. 13. 345. Ibid., ll. 14-15. 346. This possibility has been rightly hinted earlier by Ryosuke Furui, ‘A New Copper Plate Inscription of Gopāla II’, South Asian Studies, 24(1), 2008, p. 71. 347. Ibid., p. 154, l. 348. Ibid., p. 154, l.16. 349. Ibid., p. 153. Kara-śāsana was an administrative arrangement through which a plot of land or village was granted by the king with the condition that the king would continue to receive a fixed amount of tax from the granted land (D.C. Sircar, Studies in the Political and Administrative Systems in Ancient and Medieval India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1974, pp. 74-5). 350. D.C. Sircar, ‘Bhaturiya Inscription of Rajyapala’, EI, vol. XXXIII, 1959-60, p. 153. 351. This inscription has been read and analysed differently by Krishnendu Ray (‘Socio-economic and Cultural Study of the Rajabhita [Greater Dinajpur District, Bangladesh] Stone Slab Inscription of the Time of Mahipala (I), Regnal Year 33’, JBA, vols. 13-14, 2008-9, pp. 271-7) and R. Furui (‘Merchant Groups in Early Medieval Bengal: With special Reference to the Rajbhita Stone Inscription of the time of Mahīpāla I, Year 33, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 76, 2013, pp. 391-412). We have relied on Furui. 352. R. Furui, op. cit., p. 395. 353. Ibid., p. 395. 354. Ibid., pp. 395-6. 355. Ibid. 356. Ibid., p. 396. 357. Ibid., p. 397. 358. EI, XXXIX, p. 53, l. 18. 359. EI, XXXIX, p. 54, l. 25 ; p. 55, ll. 28-9.

Evolution of the Patronage Base

487

360. N.G. Majumdar, Inscriptions of Bengal, Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, Kolkata, 2003 (rpt.), pp. 49 and 55-6. 361. R.G. Basak, ‘Silimpur Inscription of the time of Jayapala of Kamarupa’, EI, vol. XXIII, pp. 283-95. 362. Ibid., p. 291, ll. 8-10. 363. Ibid., p. 292, v.22, ll. 19-20. 364. Ibid., pp. 23-4, ll. 20-1. 365. Ibid., pp. 25-6, ll. 21-3. 366. Asok K. Bhattacharya, ‘The Pancharatra Concept and the Vishnu Images of Bengal’, in Asok Datta (ed.), Studies in Archaeology: Essays in Memory of P.C. Dasgupta, Books and Books, Delhi, 1991, p. 323. 367. Ibid., p. 323. 368. Only exception is the Mainamati grant of the period of Raṇavaṅkamalla Harikāladeva (early 13th century). That too is not by the king but by his minister. For a fuller analysis of the copper-plate inscriptions of Comilla recording patronage in favour of Brahmanical temples, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘A Viṣṇu Temple and Its Social Linkages in 11th-12th Century AD Comilla, Bangladesh: A Study in Some Copper-Plate Inscriptions’, in D.P. Dubey (ed.), Epigraphy: Select Papers on Epigraphy at the 16th World Sanskrit Conference, Bangkok, 2015, D.K. Publishers, Delhi, 2019, pp. 139-48. My analysis of these inscriptions in the present book (pp. 459-63) is based on, and similar to, my 2019 paper on this theme. 369. D.C. Sircar, ‘Mainamati Plate (No. 1) of Laḍahacandra, Regnal Year 6’, in Epigraphic Discoveries in Eastern Pakistan, Sanskrit College, Calcutta, 1973, p. 74, l. 54. 370. Ibid., p. 74, l. 54. 371. They are: Sva-sīmā-tṛṇa-pūti-gocara-paryanta, sa-tala, s-oddeśa, s-āmra –panasaṃ, sa-jalasthala, sa-gartta- oṣara, sa-daś-aparāradhaṃ, sa-caur-oddharana, parihṛta-sarva-pīḍa, a- Cāṭas- Bhaṭa-praveśa, akiñcita-pragrāhya, Samasta-rāja-bhoga-kara-hiraṇya-pratyāya-sahita. This plate also records the grant of betel and coconut tree of the granted land to the donee (ibid., p. 74, ll. 51-3). 372. D.C. Sircar, op. cit., pp. 47, 74, ll. 45-6. 373. For an analysis, see D.C. Sircar, op. cit., pp. 47, 73-4. 374. Ibid., p. 74, l. 44. 375. D.C. Sircar, Epigraphic Discoveries in Eastern Pakistan, Sanskrit College, Calcutta, 1973, p. 76, l. 20.

488

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

376. Ibid., pp. 75-6, ll. 8-11. 377. For the list of immunities and privileges, see ibid. p. 76, ll. 17-20. ‘a- Cāṭa- Bhaṭa-praveśa’ is not recorded in this inscription. 378. Ibid., p. 75, ll. 8-9. 379. Ibid., p. 75, l. 9. 380. D.C. Sircar, Epigraphic Discoveries in East Pakistan, Sanskrit College, Calcutta, 1973, p. 80, ll. 47-8. 381. For the list of immunities and privileges, see ibid., p. 80, ll. 43-6. 382. Ibid., p. 58. Only some portions of this inscription have been published. 383. Ibid., p. 81, ll. 1-5. 384. Ibid., p. 59. 385. S.B. Bhattacharjee, ‘Mainamati Copper Plate of Śrī-Vīradharadeva’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Humanities, 39(2), 1994, p. 70. 386. Ibid., p. 72. 387. Ibid., p. 74. 388. Ibid.; Birendra Nath Prasad, op. cit., p. 148. 389. B.M. Morrison, Lalmai, A Cultural Centre of Early Bengal: An Archaeological Report and Historical Analysis, University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1974, pp. 117-18. For similar observations, also see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Brahmanical Temples, Maṭhas, Agrahāras and a Buddhist Establishment in a Marshy and Forested Periphery of Two “Frontier” States: Early Medieval Surma Valley (Sylhet and Cachar), c. 600 CE -1100 CE”, Religions of South Asia, London, 6(1), 2012, pp. 37-40; idem, ‘Marsh, Rice, Faith: Aspects of Environmental and Religious Changes in the Early Medieval Surma-Barak Valley’, op. cit., pp. 20-50. 390. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Brahmanical Temples, Maṭhas, Agrahāras’, ibid., pp. 33-60. 391. Ibid., p. 41. 392. Ibid., pp. 42-5. 393. Ibid., pp. 45-52. 394. Ibid., p. 47. 395. Ibid., pp. 50-1. 396. Ibid., pp. 50-2. 397. Ibid., pp. 52-5. 398. Kenneth R. Hall, ‘Buddhism as an Economic Force in Pagan Burma,’ in Nicholas Tarling (ed.), The Cambridge History of South

Evolution of the Patronage Base

489

East Asia, vol. I, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 240–5. 399. In this copper-plate inscription, the land that was granted to a Brahmin as a reward for the recital of the Mahābhārata, was to exclude the tract of land in the possession of a Ratnatraya establishment (R.R. Mukherji and S.K. Maity, Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions Bearing on History and Civilization of Bengal, Firma KLM, Calcutta, 1967, p. 215). 400. N.G. Majumdar, op. cit., p. 102. 401. At least one such bronze votive stūpa has been reported from south Tripura, close to the Comilla district of Bangladesh (Amarendra Nath, ‘A Portable Stūpa in Magadha Style’, in C. Mani (ed.), The Heritage of Nalanda, Aryan Books International, Delhi, 2008, pp. 38-41).

CHAPTER 7

Some Aspects of the Archaeology of Some Excavated Buddhist Sites of Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal

Some Preliminaries In contrast to the generally preferred approach of treating Buddhist monastic centres as static monuments, as mere repositories of ‘art and architecture’, the key thrust of the previous two chapters was on analysing their varied socioeconomic interactions by perceiving them as institutions in dynamic interactions with other social institutions. These interactions also entailed the evolution of a complex pattern of interactions between these Buddhist religious centres and their aristocratic and non-aristocratic patrons. Many such religious centres also became one of the avenues where complex dialogues evolved: dialogues within Buddhism (i.e., between Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna; between esoteric and exoteric aspects of Vajrayāna); dialogue with Brahmanism. The contours of these dialogues may be traced through an analysis of some archaeological records that have been unearthed at many excavated Buddhist religious centres of Bihar and Bengal. They are the subject matter of this chapter. Through an analysis of the published archaeological data from some excavated Buddhist sites of early medieval Bihar and Bengal (Mahābodhi, Nalanda, Antichak, Rajabadidanga, Paharpur, Jagaddala, Sitakot, Vasu Vihāra, Bihar Dhap, Halud Vihāra, Sabhar, excavated monasteries on the Mainamati ridge, and Moghalmari), this chapter aims to understand the following issues:

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

491

1. What kind of ritual engagements did these Buddhist religious centres have, if any, with the non-monastic devotees? How did the pattern evolve across time and space? What kind of linkages did it have with the organization of religious space within the monasteries? 2. What kind of Buddhism was practiced within these Buddhist religious centres? Was it essentially esoteric Vajrayāna? How did the pattern evolve across Bihar and Bengal? 3. Why did some rulers devote considerable resources in building monumental monasteries like Paharpur or many monasteries on the Mainamati ridge? Did some monastic centres offer some political symbolism for their royal patrons? How did the pattern evolve across Bihar and Bengal? 4. What kind of interactions took place between Buddhism and Brahmanism within the religious space of these Buddhist religious centres? Is it just a case of coexistence or something more than that? Coexistence does not rule out contestation, conflict, or subordinate integration. Do we see the presence of more than one trend? How did the pattern (s) evolve cross time and space and how does that reflect upon the issue of decline of these religious centres? 5. How to explain the decline of these religious centres? Can the decline of these religious centres be attributed to a single factor across the sites of Bihar and Bengal or are there several reasons?

Patterns of Ritual Engagements between Buddhist Religious Centres and Non-monastic Devotees in Some Excavated Sites of Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal and its Relationship with the Organization of Religious Space within the Buddhist Religious Centres: An Analysis with Particular Reference to the Cult of Votive Stūpas, Votive Terracotta Plaques and Votive Tablets In many available studies on the Buddhist religious centers of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, one generally encounters an a priori assumption that esoteric Vajrayāna was the only practiced

492

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

form of Buddhism in such religious centres.1 It is also assumed that these religious centres did not make any attempt of ritual engagements with the non-monastic devotees.2 The question that needs to be explored is: is this ‘institutional esoterism’ also reflected in the archaeological records? Vajrayāna was not a homogenous religious system and it needed to keep a distinction between the extreme esoteric practices that were to be practiced by its advanced initiates (monks) and those aspects of its ritual practices that were to be offered to the masses for attracting mass patronage. Because, in the long run, it was only the patronage from, and association with, the masses that was to ensure the survival of its religious centres. An open display of extreme practices might turn away devotees, resulting in the shrinkage of the patronage base of the Buddhist religious centres. In the context of monasteries of early medieval Odisha, it has been found that the introduction of esoteric practices in monastic Buddhism entailed a neat segregation of the sacred space of Buddhist monasteries into ‘restricted space’ (where secret esoteric rituals were/could be performed), and the ‘unrestricted space’ where the lay devotees had unrestricted access to undertake their own ritual activities.3 Do we see a similar arrangement of monastic space in early medieval Bihar and Bengal? Esoteric Vajrayāna did involve some extreme esoteric rites, some explicit sexual imagery (Yab-yum deities) and sometimes, open display of confrontation in some sculptures (Trailokyavijaya, Aparājitā, Heruka/Cakrasaṁvara, etc.). Did the non-monastic devotees have unrestricted access to such places within the monasteries where such rites took place and such imagery was worshipped/ displayed? In other words, what did the monks practice in private and what did they intend to display to the public at large? How many excavated monastic centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal show evidences of the practice of extreme forms of Vajrayāna? How does the excavated data from monastic sites of Bihar and Bengal reflect on this issue? Which part of the monastery was made available to the non-monastic devotees to undertake rituals? Which part of the monastic space was not accessible by them? In the space

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

493

available to non-monastic devotees for their ritual activities, did the monastic authorities devise any special mechanism to monitor their activities? Did the monastic authorities undertake any special measures for the protection of relics and/or some specific cult objects in its sacred spots?4 Let us begin with an analysis of an issue that is quite fundamental to the issues raised above: accessibility of the religious space within the religious centres by non-monastic devotees. Which part of the religious space of a particular religious centre was accessible by the non-monastic devotees, and what was the importance of that part in the overall religious personality of that particular religious centre? Did that part have a significant role in forming the ‘core personality’ of that particular religious centre? An analysis of this issue will provide some important clues to the extent to which a particular Buddhist religious centre was willing to ‘open up’ to its nonmonastic devotees. It may be added that no monastic centre would provide unrestricted access to the monastic cell area for the nonmonastic devotees. Our prime avenue of enquiry in this section would be, thus, access to the sacred spots within the monastic establishments in general and temples within the monastic establishments in particular. We will begin with an analysis of some excavated sites of Magadha (Mahābodhi and Nalanda), and would then move to Aṅga (Antichak), sites in Rāḍha, Varendra, Vaṅga and Samataṭa-Harikela. We will begin our analysis with an analysis of the alignment of votive stūpas vis-à-vis the religious space of the main Buddhist religious centres of our study area. We will also look into votive terracotta plaques and tablets, and seals and sealings inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula in understanding this issue. There have been heated debates on the basic nature and function of these miniature stūpas. In many cases, as Schopen has shown, many of them were meant to be ‘burial ad sanctos’, intended to contain the bodily relics of important monks/nuns or important non-monastic devotees.5 By allowing the common devotees to bury the relics of their loved one within the

494

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

monastery or inside the compound of a Buddhist temple site, the monastic authorities granted them a chance to be near to the Buddha even after their death, as the Buddha was believed to be physically present inside the stūpa or monastery in many parts of India.6 But in many other cases, these stūpas might have been purely dedicatory in nature, made and donated to acquire religious merit. Cunningham, on the basis of observations on this practice in living Buddhist traditions of South-East Asia in the nineteenth century, as well as on the basis of analysis of votive stūpas, votive tablets and plaques that were found at the Buddhist sites excavated/explored by him within India, provides some interesting observations in this regard. He has noted that whenever Buddhist pilgrims visited any famous Buddhist religious centre, it was their inevitable custom to make some offerings, no matter how small or poor, to the shrine and, at the same time, to set up some memorials of their visit.7 For the rich, offerings included money, precious stones, vessels, costly cloths, and they installed big stūpas or temples as memorials. For the poor devotees, offerings generally took the form of flowers and fruits, and their memorials included small stūpas and small inscribed seals and sealings.8 Generally, both categories of devotees took some mementoes with them to be installed in their village/city shrines or to be kept in their homes as objects to ward off evil and ensure good luck. Such mementoes included miniature replicas of some famous Buddhist temples, or seals carrying the official emblem of the monastery (to which they made pilgrimage) inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula. They also included seals and sealings and terracotta tablets stamped with the figure of some particular Buddhist deity, with or without the Buddhist Creed Formula.9 Seals and sealings inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula were also offered to important Buddhist religious centres as votive offerings.10 Before being dedicated to important religious centres by the pilgrims, or to be carried back as mementoes, they were sacralized by the monks/priests though some particular ritual process.11 This

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

495

process, then, involved a close ritual interface between the monks and non-monastic devotees. It may be noted that Cunningham’s observations are largely corroborated by the writings of the seventh century Chinese pilgrims to India, who observed the cult of votive stūpas minutely. Itsing, in the context of eastern India (Bihar and Bengal) recorded that The priests and laymen in India make chaityas or images with earth, or impress the Buddha’s image on silk and paper, and worship it with offerings wherever they go. Sometime they build stūpas of the Buddha by making a pile and surrounding it with bricks. They sometime form these stūpas in lonely fields, and leave them to fall in ruins. Anyone may thus employ himself in making the objects for worship. Again, when the people make images and chaityas which consist of gold, silver, copper, iron, earth, lacquer, bricks, and stone, or when they heap up the snowy sand (lit. sand-snow), they put in images or chaityas two kinds of śarīras: 1. The relic of Great Teacher; 2. The gāthā of the Chain of Causation.12

And If we put these two [śarīras] in the images or chaityas, the blessings derived from them are abundant. This is the reason why the sūtras praise in parables the merit of making images or chaityas as unspeakable. Even if a man make an image as small as a grain of barley, or a chaitya the size of a small jujube, placing on it a round figure, or a staff like a small pin, a special cause for good birth is obtained thereby, and will be as limitless as seven seas, and good rewards will last as long as the coming four births.13

Making images and donating them to some Buddhist monastic/ stūpa centre could have been a costly affair, but the miniature stūpas could have provided an easier and cheaper alternative. Many lay devotees could have acquired religious merit by making and donating them. As per Xuan Zang It is a custom in India to make little stūpas of powdered scent made into paste; their height is about 6 or 7 in., and they place inside them some written from a sūtra; this they call a dharma-śarīra. When the number

496

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of these becomes large, they then build a great stūpa and collect all other within it, and continually offer to it religious offerings.14

This practice ensured a closer interface between such devotees and the Saṅgha. Xuan Zang, with reference to Jayasena, a Kṣhatriya upāsaka, originally from western India, but settled near Yaṣṭivana (modern Jethian on the borders of Gaya and Nalanda districts in Bihar) has also noted that During thirty years, he had made seven koṭis of these dharma-śarīrastūpas, and for every koṭi that he made he built a great stūpa and placed them in it. When full, he presented his religious offerings and invited the priests; whilst they, on their part, offered him their congratulations. On these occasions, a divine light shone around and spiritual wonders exhibited themselves; and from that time forth the miraculous light has continued to be seen’.15

Leaving aside the exaggeration (appearance of miracles, divine light, etc., at the time of installation of such miniature stūpas) in Xuan Zang’s narratives, we may infer that many such devotees did offer some gifts to monks when they installed such stūpas. This could have been, then, another important source through which the Saṅgha mobilized resources and ensured closer interaction with its common devotees. These objects – votive stūpas, seals and sealings inscribed with Buddhist Creed Formula, terracotta votive tablets inscribed with or without Buddhist Creed Formula – are important archaeological markers of pilgrimage to Buddhist religious centres.16 Their study may unravel some important aspects of the pilgrimage network of Buddhist religious centres. Such kind of study has been attempted in the cases of Buddhist monasteries of early medieval Odisha and coastal Andhra Pradesh.17 Despite some early observations by Cunningham on the importance of votive stūpas of Bodh Gaya in the reconstruction of its pilgrimage history, this line of enquiry has not been pursued in tracing the patronage aspect of Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. One notes this gap particularly in the study of votive stūpas, which have been rightly termed as ‘archaeological

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

497

barometer of pilgrim flow’.18 The issues to be probed in this connection are: which spot within the Buddhist religious centres were made available to the devotees to install dedicatory stūpas? Did they have access to the most sacred spots within the religious centres for this purpose? How did the pattern evolve across Bihar and Bengal? Do we see any difference in the spatial alignment of votive stūpas vis-à-vis sacred spots within the religious centres as we move to Bengal from Bihar? To what extent was the cult of votive stūpas monastically controlled or regulated? Which section of society took the lead in donating votive stūpas? An enquiry into this issue will involve an analysis of published dedicatory inscriptions on votive stūpas. We shall begin with an analysis of votive stūpas of the Mahābodhi complex, the biggest pilgrimage centre of Buddhism.

Spatial Alignment of Votive Stūpas within the Mahābodhi Complex and its Implications for the Organization of Religious Space In terms of the findings of votive stūpas, the Mahābodhi complex, being the holiest centre for Buddhist pilgrimage, emerges as the most important centre. The actual findings of votive stūpas from this site largely corroborates Xuan Zang’s statement on the findings of such objects within the Mahābodhi complex: ‘within the surrounding wall the sacred traces touch one another in all directions. Here there are stūpas, in other places, vihāras. The kings, princes, and great personages have erected these memorials’.19 These stūpas, as well as terracotta votive plaques containing the figure of some Buddhist deity and generally inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula, were dedicated to the Mahābodhi temple complex by pilgrims to earn merit. They also served the purpose of pilgrims’ mementoes.20 In the excavations of the Mahābodhi complex by Cunningham, three types of votive stūpas were unearthed: (A) Structural stūpas built up of separate stones and bricks: in this category, he includes around 200 stūpas in the courtyard

498

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of the Mahābodhi temple, which shows only the lower stratum of earlier stūpas. Above these, he found four tiers of similar monuments in a still more ruinous condition from their exposure to the ravages of the villagers.21 The finding of ‘four tiers of similar monuments in a still more ruinous condition’ indicates that the actual number of even these structural stūpas built up of separate stones and bricks must have been much bigger than the 200 pieces that survived till the time of Cunningham. This category of votive stūpas was generally donated by more well-to-do devotees.22 (B) ‘Thousands of monolithic stūpas of all sizes, their diameter ranging from 2 ft to 2 in.’23 (C) The most numerous were little clay stūpas, baked and unbaked. Cunningham found ‘hundreds and thousands’ of such stūpas, their size ranging from ‘2 to 3 in. in height to the size of a walnut’.24 In excavations at the site, ‘hundreds of such clay stūpas were found inside the larger stūpas, enclosing small clay seals inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula’.25 It has rightly been noted that these miniature clay votive stūpas were the common form of memorial for the poor pilgrims.26 Cunningham’s excavations indicate that the courtyard near the Mahābodhi temple was made available to the devotees to install votive stūpas. In other words, the authorities of the Mahābodhi allowed the non-monastic devotees to undertake some of their ritual activities in the precincts of the Mahābodhi and devotees took full advantage of this. Cunningham has observed that ‘carved stones of an early date were frequently found in the bases of later monuments, and as the soil got silted up, the general level of the courtyard was gradually raised, and the later stūpas were built over the tops of the earlier ones in successive tiers of different ages’.27 And ‘so great was the number of these successive monuments, and so rapid was the accumulation of stones and earth that the general level of the courtyard was raised above 20 ft above the floor of the Great Temple’.28 All this indicates that the Mahābodhi attracted

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

499

pilgrimage on a substantial scale and pilgrims installed stūpas within the precincts of the Mahābodhi in a sustained manner. Most of the surviving pieces in the Mahābodhi complex have been dated to the Pāla period.29 But the accounts of Xuan Zang indicate that such objects were dedicated at Mahābodhi in the earlier period on a significant scale as well. We infer that this trend continued in a significant manner in the Pāla period as well. What was the social background of persons who installed dedicatory stūpas in the precincts of the Mahābodhi? Some clues to this question are provided by dedicatory inscriptions on some votive stūpas from this site. We shall begin with an analysis of those inscribed dedicatory stūpas that contain the name of the donor. We shall base our analysis mainly on the catalogue provided by Claudine Bautze-Picron.

The Social Background and Expectations of Donors who Donated Votive Stūpas at the Mahābodhi as Gleaned from Analysis of Dedicatory Inscriptions 12 votive stūpas inscribed with the names of donors have been reported from Bodh Gaya by Claudine Bautze-Picron and others. The data from them are summarized in Table 7.1. In terms of sheer number, evidences of votive stūpas inscribed with the name of the donor are much less than what we see in the case of inscribed sculptures. Most of the pieces published by Claudine Bautze-Picron are inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula only. Probably that had much to do with the devotee’s perception of the nature of these stūpas. As Itsing has narrated, inscribing the Buddhist Creed Formula was believed to be sufficient to ensure a great religious merit. It was probably due to this reason that only a few donors inscribed their name on such stūpas. Fewer have left details of their social background. As we have noted in our section on dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures, all those persons who have not left any detail of their social background and have not claimed to be a monk/nun, were most probably from the ‘non-monastic non-

TABLE 7.1: DONORS OF VOTIVE STŪPAS, MAHĀBODHI

Donated by

Social background of the donor Jaya Non-monastic, non-aristocratic man Sabhokā Non-monastic and nonaristocratic woman GeghāNon-monastic, ḍharaka non-aristocratic man Rāṇaka Śrī Non-monastic, Golika aristocratic man Vaṇika Mercantile Ajhuka Dhamma- Non-monastic, jīva non-aristocratic man Semideva Do Dānapati Maṇo Mahādevī

Dākokā

Do Non-monastic and nonaristocratic woman Do

Expressed motive Period behind donation None expressed Tenth century

Reference30 Ibid., p. 56

Do

Tenth or Ibid., p. 55 eleventh century

Do

Tenth or eleventh century Eleventh century Eleventh century Eleventh century

Do Do Do

Ibid., p. 58

Ibid., p. 53 Ibid., p. 54 Ibid., p. 56

Do

Eleventh Ibid., p. 57 century Donated to fulfil Eleventh Ibid., p. 58 a religious vow century None expressed Eleventh Ibid., p. 57 -twelfth century Do

Twelfth century Dānapati Non-monastic, donated to fulfil Twelfth Māvuka non-aristocratic a religious vow century man SaḍhalaQueen of a local None expressed Twelfth devī state in the Bodh century Gaya area Source: Table prepared by the auhtor.

Ibid., p. 66 Ibid., p. 66

G. Bhattacharya31

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

501

aristocratic’ section of society. Accordingly, in the tenth century, we see three men and one women donor, all belonging to the non-monastic non-aristocratic category. None of the donors had any expressed Buddhist identity (Pravara-Mahāyāna-Anuyāyin, Paramopāsaka, etc.) in the epigraphic record left by them. None of the donors in any century has any expressed motive behind donation. So far we have also not come across the donation of any inscribed stūpa by any monk or nun at Bodh Gaya in this century or any other century. In the eleventh century, we see a diversification in the social background of donors: this century witnessed donation not only by a rāṇaka, but also by a merchant (vaṇika). Donation of a votive stūpa by a dānapati donor indicates that this particular piece was donated as a religious vow after the fulfilment of some desired worldly wish of the donor. In this century, we do not see donation by any woman. Three male donors belonged to the non-monastic non-aristocratic category. In the twelfth century, we see women from two different sections of society donating such stūpas: Saḍhaladevī was the queen of the local Pīṭhipati dynasty, but Mahādevī, the donor of another inscribed votive stūpa has not claimed any such pedigree for herself. The Buddha in different mudrās was the most preferred deity to be depicted on the votive stūpas. We do not see the depiction of Paṅcatathāgatas on them. We do not see the depiction of ferocious Vajrayāna deities (Aparājitā, Trailokyavijaya, Saṁvara, Heruka, etc.) in the niches or pedestal of votive stūpas, either in this century or in any other century. Even Tārā is rare. So far, we have not come across any example of depiction of any Brahmanical deity in the niches or pedestal of votive stūpas. Bodh Gaya, the site of Enlightenment of the Buddha, continued to be identified predominantly with the Buddha by devotees who donated votive stūpas. None of the donors have mentioned their extra-local origin, if any, though this possibility cannot be ruled out. Let us sum up the situation now. The Mahābodhi complex was able to attract patronage from a cross section of society till the end of the twelfth century. Women donors, barring the

502

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

eleventh century, had a significant presence. Barring one queen and one rāṇaka, all other donors belonged to the common section of society. Monks are not met with in the reported corpus of inscribed votive stūpas. We see a similar pattern in the donation of inscribed votive tablets in the Mahābodhi area, a theme we shall turn to now.

Inscriptions on Terracotta Votive Tablets from Bodh Gaya and the Social Background of Some Pilgrims to the Mahābodhi Twelve inscribed terracotta votive tablets have been reported from Bodh Gaya by Claudine Bautze-Picron.32 No donor has recorded any motive behind donation. The data from them is summarized in Table 7.2. In the inscriptions on votive tablets, we get some interesting glimpses of the social background of devotees that who attracted to the Mahābodhi, and also of the kind of offerings they made to the same. The first thing to be noted is that many donors have used the term ‘deyadharma’, thus indicating that the tablets were actually donated. These tablets were not just pilgrim’s memento to be carried back to home after their pilgrimage to the Mahābodhi. In terms of the depiction of offerings on such tablets, we see the evolution of an interesting pattern. No such inscribed piece, datable before the tenth century has been reported so far. In the tenth century, and also in most of the inscribed tablets of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, we generally see a devotee or more than one devotee kneeling in front of the offerings made by them. Occasionally, we also see the depiction of donors in anjali mudrā in front of offerings made by them. Depicted offerings are basically the objects associated with their pūjā or ritual offerings: flowers, garlands, lamp stands, cakes, incense braziers, conic cups placed on large jars, etc. Generally the figure of the Buddha in dhyāna mudrā or samādhi mudrā, or one or more monk is depicted in the upper or lower part of the tablet. Till date, we have not come across any other Buddhist or Brahmanical

Donated by

Vovāṇatārakā

Paramopāsaka Thaku

Sādhunī Śrīsomaṇo, wife of Sādhu Śrī Siṁharatna

A priest and offerings

Offerings and devotee

Offerings34 in the lower part, row of eleven seated Buddha in the upper part

Devotee kneeling in front of Śaumanaratha offerings: two cones on small cups, flowers on a high and circular stand, a garland, a lamp stand Devotees kneeling in front of – offerings: flowers and cakes. No depiction of any monk or deity A priest and offerings Dānapati Bhalaka

Depicted deities and motifs

Eleventh century Eleventh century

A Mahāyāna lay follower (Pravara-Mahāyāna-Anuyāyina) A man, non-monastic and non-aristocratic, with expressed Mahāyāna identity A woman, non-monastic and non-aristocratic, without expressed Mahāyāna identity A man, non-monastic and non-aristocratic, with expressed Mahāyāna identity A woman, non-monastic and non-aristocratic, without expressed Mahāyāna identity

Eleventh century

Eleventh century

Eleventh century

Tenth century

Period

A man, non-monastic and non-aristocratic, without expressed Mahāyāna identity

Social background of the donor

TABLE 7.2: DONORS OF VOTIVE TABLETS, MAHĀBODHI

(contd.)

p. 75, item no. 196

p. 75, item no. 193

p. 74, item no. 188

p. 74, item no. 187

p. 73, item no. 183

p. 73, item no. 184

Reference33

Nīsohacikā

Ratanadevikā, wife of Raṇa-ŚrīJakhvāla Svahādevī, wife of Bhadū

Source: Table prepared by the auhtor.

– Devotees, offerings including Saptaratna displayed on either side of a manuscript – In the upper portion: row of 15 seated Buddhas, all in samādhi mudrā. In the lower part: a Burmese inscription Dānapati A priest and offerings Gopadevasāmī

In the upper part: row of seated Buddhas, all in samādhi mudrā. In the lower part: Saptaratna. Devotees kneeling in front of offerings : flowers and cakes. No depiction of any monk or deity Offerings and devotee

TABLE 7.2 (CONTD.)

Eleventh – p. 74, item twelfth no. 189 centuries

p. 76, item no. 197

A donor from non-monastic and Twelfth non-aristocratic background, century from Burma A man, non-monastic and non-aristocratic, without expressed Mahāyāna identity

p. 75, item no. 195 Twelfth century

p. 73, item Eleventh or twelfth no. 182 century p. 75, item Twelfth no. 194 century

A woman, non-monastic and non-aristocratic, without expressed Mahāyāna identity A woman, non-monastic and non-aristocratic, without expressed Mahāyāna identity Mahāyāna lay follower (a monk?)

p. 76, item nos. 198-9

Eleventh century

Wife of an officer, without expressed Mahāyāna identity.

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

505

deity depicted on such tablets from Bodh Gaya. Bodh Gaya primarily remained the seat of the Enlightenment of the Buddha till the twelfth century, at least for such common devotees. In the eleventh and the twelfth centuries, we also see devotees paying their respect to a manuscript, which is generally prominently displayed in the tablet. Preserving, copying and study of manuscripts were important functions undertaken by monks in Buddhist monasteries, so the depiction of common devotees making offerings to the manuscripts was a symbolic depiction of their respect to the textual tradition of the Buddhist Saṅgha. On the whole, we see a great diversity in the social background of donors. During the tenth century, we see the donation by a man without any expressed Mahāyāna identity, belonging to the non-monastic, non-aristocratic section of society. In the eleventh century, we see a significant diversification in the social background of donors, which now included three men with expressed Mahāyāna identity in the epigraphic records, indicated by the use of the Buddhist Creed Formula or some characteristic definitional term: Pravara-Mahāyāna-Anuyāyina, etc. Women donors occupy a significant place in this century (four out of the seven recorded instances) and their background ranges from the wife of an officer (Ratanadevikā, wife of Raṇa Śrī Jakhvāla; we may assume that Raṇa was an incorrect rendering of rāṇaka) to two women donors from non-aristocratic background (Vovāṇatārakā, who has not mentioned the name of her husband or father, and Svahādevī, wife of Bhadū). The case of Sādhunī Śrīsomaṇo, wife of Sādhu Śrī Siṁharatna, as pointed out by Bautze-Picron, indicates the donation by the wife of a merchant.35 As we have seen in the case of the donation of an image of Khasarapaṇa Avalokiteśvara, by Vaṇika Sādhu Saharaṇa, son of Sādhu Bhadulva in the eleventh century, sādhu was one of the titles used by merchants in this century in Magadha.36 Sādhunī Śrīsomaṇo’s husband was a dānapati, who probably undertook the vow of making offerings to the Mahābodhi complex and its monastic community for the fulfilment of a worldly wish. Similar

506

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

was the case with another dānapati donor: Dānapati Gopadevasāmī. In the twelfth century, female patronage continued, but on a much lesser scale (only one example). As indicated by Burmese inscriptions on two votive tablets, two donors came from Burma. One of them has recorded that at the place of the liberation (i.e. Enlightenment) of the Buddha, he/she donated an umbrella.37 The name of the donor has not been recorded, so we are not sure if he was a man or a woman. That he was not from an aristocratic background is indicated by the fact that he could donate an umbrella only, for which much resources were not required. Priests of the Mahābodhi were open to accept even such small donations. Contrary to the opinion of Bautze-Picron,38 we have nothing to suggest that the donor was a monk. The case with the donor of another terracotta votive tablet appears to be similar. Due to the highly fragmented nature of the inscription, the name and title of the donor is not clear, though the surviving portion indicates that the donor was a follower of Mahāyāna. Bautze-Picron has claimed that the donor was a monk. 39 But in the absence of any categorical evidence, this claim is questionable. Barring the wife of a rāṇaka, all other donors appear to be from non-aristocratic backgrounds. The Mahābodhi complex attracted patronage from such donors and accepted their donations. By depicting the priests or manuscript on these tablets, male and female donors paid their respect to the textual tradition of Buddhist monasteries. Monks could never become the dominant donors at Bodh Gaya and nuns are totally absent. This practice remained dominated by non-monastic donors. None of the donors mentioned his/her varṇa or jāti status, indicating that the Mahābodhi complex provided an avenue for the marginalization of these social categories. Similarly, an increase in the number of donors in the late Pāla period (eleventh and twelfth centuries) indicates a spurt in pilgrimage to this site in these centuries.

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

507

Pilgrims’ Mementoes: The Case of the Miniature Models of the Mahābodhi Temple Many terracotta votive tablets inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula could have been taken back to their homes by pilgrims as mementoes or talismans.40 Many miniature votive stūpas would have served the same purpose. But the Mahābodhi complex specialized in the production of a specialized kind of memento that were sold to the pilgrims: the miniature models (average height 20 cm) of the Mahābodhi temple that have been found in different parts of India, South-East Asia, Tibet and China. In an interesting study, 20 such models kept in different museums have been noted.41 The actual number (i.e. those that got destroyed due to vagaries of time or other factors) could have been much more. These models, made of dark grey schist or graphitic phyllite, were made in the Gaya-Bodh Gaya area, with the motive of selling them to pilgrims.42 They ‘served not only as souvenirs but as proof of the journey successfully completed’.43 We are not sure if the authorities of the Mahābodhi had any control over the production and sale of these mementoes. But it can not be ruled out that many of them could have been sacralized through some ritual by some monk or priest of the Mahābodhi area. The chronology of the surviving pieces is significant: ‘all belong to the late Pāla-Sena period (tenth-twelfth centuries)’.44 We have also noted the spurt in the donation of inscribed votive stūpas and terracotta tablets in this period. They are all indicators of increasing pilgrimage to the Mahābodhi. In other words, at least in the case of the Mahābodhi complex, we need to question those theories that postulate a ‘systemic crisis’ in Buddhism in the late Pāla-Sena period.

Spatial Alignment of Votive Stūpas and the Articulation of Monastic Religious Space within the Nalanda Mahāvihāra Compared to Mahābodhi, the evidence of the cult of votive stūpas at Nalanda is less, but it is much more than any other monastic

508

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

site of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Before analysing the alignment of votive stūpas vis-à-vis the religious space of this monastic site, let us first briefly analyse the spatial alignment of the main monuments of the site. That will provide the context to understand the alignment of votive stūpas. It may be assumed that the excavated ruins of Nalanda do not represent the full extent of the site in the past. Excavated ruins reveal the presence of eleven monasteries (numbered 1B, 1A, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)45 and six temples (numbered 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, Sarai mound).46 The numbering of sites (i.e. monastery site 4, 5, 6, etc., or Temple Site 2, 3, 12, etc.) is not as per their chronology but as per the sequence of excavations by the ASI. Nalanda was not a single, unified monastery centering on a single shrine like later monasteries of Paharpur, Antichak or Salban Vihāra. Unlike Paharpur, Antichak or Salban Vihāra, no trace of any enclosure wall enclosing all the monasteries and temples of Nalanda has been found so far. At the available stage of our data base, none of the monasteries antedate the fifth century and none of them seems to have continued beyond the early decades of the thirteenth century. Barring Temple/Stūpa Site 3 and the Sarai mound temple/ temples generally face east and are in alignment with the monastery sites that generally face west.47 It may be taken as an indication of the intent of the monastic authorities to keep a watch on the devotees visiting the temple sites. Similarly, if it is proved that temple sites were frequently visited by non-monastic devotees, then we may infer that the monks might have been forced to ensure that their practice of extreme forms of Vajrayāna, if any, remained either invisible to non-monastic pilgrims or remained visible to least number of non-monastic devotees: too explicit a display of such practices may turn away the non-monastic devotees, resulting in loss of patronage from such devotees. As seen in Chapters 5 and 6 that unlike most of the monasteries of Bengal, Nalanda did try to attract non-royal patronage on a sustained basis. The question that needs to be explored, then, is: did the

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

509

monastic authorities of Nalanda allow non-monastic devotees to undertake ritual activities in or near important temple sites within the Mahāvihāra? We shall analyse this question with special reference to Temple/Stūpa Sites 3 and 12. It may be inferred that the Temple/Stūpa Site 3 was the most ancient, most important and most sacred site among the excavated ruins of Nalanda.48 This site is the tallest surviving monument among the excavated edifices of Nalanda. It formed the node in the neighbourhood of which different monasteries and temples/stūpas of Nalanda emerged and developed in the later phase. Excavations indicates that the Site 3 represents the result of seven accumulations, the earliest three of modest dimensions being buried deep under the later ones. The temple of the fifth stage, with four corner towers, had its facade ornamented with stucco figures of Buddha and Bodhisattvas in Gupta tradition, which were encased within the extension of the sixth stage. The level of the shrine at the top rose with each reconstruction with a resultant higher flight of each stage. The ruins of the shrine of the last stage with a pedestal for the installed Buddha image are seen at the top. Each stage had its own votive stūpas all around, often engulfed in the latter’s extensions. One of such stūpas, of the fifth stage contained in its core a clay tablet inscribed with the sacred text Pratītya Samutpādasūtra and dated AD 516-17. Another manifestation of devotion is the enshrinement within votive stūpas of clay lumps or miniature clay stūpas, each having in its core two clay tablets impressed with the Buddhist creed.49

The earliest phase of the occupation of this site, as recently argued by B.R. Mani, could go back to the Mauryan period, marked with the presence of a square brick-stūpa.50 It may be noted that the early phases of Site 3 antedate the earliest monasteries of Nalanda by many centuries. The earliest phase (Mauryan period) of structural activities at Site 3 could very well have been the stūpa built in the memory of Śāriputra as referred to by Faxian.51 Site 3 of Nalanda, presumably associated with the memory of Śāriputra, continued for almost one millennium after the Maurya period.52 In effect, if Nalanda could not claim direct

510

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

association with the Buddha, it could claim association with his some aggasāvakas. It could have, thus, claimed to be a Pāribhogikadhātu. If the Mahāvihāra was founded at the place where it was in the fifth century, it was, presumably, to take advantage of the established sanctity of the Site 3. The earliest monastic site that emerged at Nalanda – 1B – faced Temple Site 3.53 The emergence of this monastery in the close proximity of Site 3 suggests that it wanted to take advantage of the pre-existing sacrality of Site 3. As indicated by alignment of votive stūpas, Site 3 was the most popular pilgrimage destination within the Mahāvihāra, even before emergence of any monastery at the site. The central shrine area of Salban Vihāra in Mainamati also attracted the installation of votive stūpas in the phase before the emergence of the monastery, but this practice came to an end with the foundation of the monastery that eventually enclosed the central shrine area.54 This kind of situation did not develop at Temple Site 3 of Nalanda, indicating that it remained accessible to the non-monastic devotees. We may explore the question of accessibility through one more perspective. If Site 3 was regarded as the holiest centre within the Mahāvihāra and was the most popular pilgrimage destination within the same, then its overall location within the Mahāvihāra must have had a special significance. As regards its overall location within the Mahāvihāra, we may point out its location at the southern end of the excavated ruins of the Mahāvihāra. Even when monastic sites emerged at the Mahāvihāra, no attempt was made to enclose the Site 3 by monastic cells. The pattern is, thus, fundamentally different from the pattern observed at later monasteries such as Antichak, Paharpur, Salban Vihāra, Ananda Vihāra and Bhoj Vihāra, where central shrines are located in the centre of a courtyard enclosed by a number of monastic cells. So far, we have not come across any evidence of enclosing this site by a boundary wall either. All this indicates that the authorities of the Mahāvihāra did not want to put much restriction on the access of the site by monastic and non-monastic devotees. Site 3 of Nalanda was

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

511

certainly more accessible by non-monastic devotees than what was the case in the central cruciform shrines of Antichak, Paharpur, Salban Vihāra, Ananda Vihāra and Bhoj Vihāra. Available data indicates that this site received votive stūpas in a considerable number on a sustained basis. This is indicated by the fact that as the main monument increased in size with each addition, the level of the court gradually rose, and many small votive stūpas are found in several places completely or partially buried under the different floors and walls that have been exposed.55 Not only the area round the main monument, but also the area around a subsidiary shrine (the shrine of Avalokiteśvara, at the northeast corner of the main monument) shows the evidence of donation of votive stūpas.56 None of the votive stūpas reported in the neighbourhood of the site is inscribed with the names of the donor, so it is difficult to ascertain if they were donated by the non-monastic devotees only or some monks were also involved in the process. It may be noted that the authorities of the Mahāvihāra allowed the installation of not only the votive stūpas, but also of sculptures by non-monastic devotees in or in the immediate neighborhood of the Temple Site 3. One such sculpture (Nāgarāja) donated by a Mahāyāna upāsaka was, as we have analysed earlier, the tutelary deity of the site.57 In other words, non-monastic devotees not only had access to this most sacred spot within the Mahāvihāra, sometime they had a privileged access: they could even install the tutelary deity of the site to earn merit. In the analysis of inscribed terracotta seals and sealings from Site 3, we have seen an overwhelming dominance of persons of ‘nonmonastic non-aristocratic’ category. 58 The case with votive stūpas at this site was unlikely to have been fundamentally different. A similar process, though on a much lesser scale, appears to have been in operation at the Temple Site 12, where ruins of a very big temple (plinth: 52 50 m.), built in two phases, have been found. The original temple, most probably similar to the Mahābodhi temple in design, was built in the late sixth or early seventh century, and was contemporary to the fifth phase of

512

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Site 3.59 The main shrine and subsidiary shrines were enclosed by a boundary wall.60 That indicates that the authorities of the Mahāvihāra wanted to regulate access to the temple. That does not seem to have had much impact: a large number of votive stūpas were dedicated in the compound of the temple.61 That indicates pilgrimage and patronage by non-monastic devotees. The second phase temple, built over the ruins of the temple of the first phase after its destruction by a fire, was built through the patronage of a Mahāyāna upāsaka, Bālāditya, a person from Kauśāmbī, who had settled at Telāḍhaka (modern Telhara).62 The very fact that the second phase of this temple was constructed through the patronage of a Mahāyāna upāsaka indicates that it was accessible by non-monastic devotees. We may infer the same pattern for Temple Site 13. A large fore-court to the east of this temple contained many votive stūpas.63 Before we conclude our analysis of the alignment of votive stūpas vis-à-vis the monastic religious space, we need to highlight two broad features: (1) their absence in the area adjacent to the ‘outer’ structures such as Nalanda Temple Site 2 and Sarai mound temple, and (2) their concentration near the sacred centers in the ‘inner’ parts: near Temple/Stūpa Sites 3, 12 and 13. The most remarkable concentration is seen near the Temple/ Stūpa Site 3 and Temple Site 12. If we take into account the fact that Site 3 was the holiest spot within the Mahāvihāra and Site 12 was probably its loftiest temple, we may easily infer that even the most sacred spots within the Mahāvihāra were accessible by the monastic and non-monastic devotees for the installation of votive stūpas. The pattern is, thus, similar to the Mahābodhi and different from Antichak, Paharpur and monasteries on the Mainamati ridge. That may also partially explain why we see their absence from Nalanda Temple Site 2 and Sarai mound area. When the most sacred spots were made available to devotees to install votive stūpas, they probably did not have much motivation left to undertake this act in the neighbourhood of Temple Site 2 and Sarai mound area. Additionally, the non-monastic devotees might have wanted to keep a distance from the contentious

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

513

attempt of subordinate integration of Brahmanical deities to Buddhism.64 Let us sum up the pattern at Nalanda. Every temple of Nalanda seems to be accessible to non-monastic devotees. At the available stage of our data base, none of the temples indicates the performance of any secret, esoteric rite within their religious space. If all temples were accessible to non-monastic devotees, then it was unlikely that esoteric Vajrayāna rituals, if practiced within the confines of the monastic sites that generally face the temple sites, were intended to be publicly visible to the nonmonastic devotees.

Pilgrims’ Mementos or Dedications: The Case of Votive Terracotta Plaques from Nalanda Votive terracotta plaques dedicated by pilgrims or to be carried by them back to their homes as mementoes have not been reported as profusely as we see in the case of the Mahābodhi. Such plaques reported from Nalanda basically represent Aṣṭamahābodhisattva-maṇḍala: a maṇḍala on a plaque in which the central figure of the Buddha is surrounded by eight different Bodhisattvas.65 It is not clear if the central figure in the plaque is that of the Buddha Śākyamuni or Vairocana, but Debala Mitra is more inclined to identify it with Buddha Śākyamuni.66 Her inference is supported by some circumstantial evidences. In early medieval Bihar and Bengal, some Buddhist religious centres were famous for some particular deities that were supposed to be especially attached to that particular religious centre. That found manifestation in the terracotta plaques to be distributed to/purchased by the pilgrims as mementos. Thus the terracotta plaques from Bodh Gaya generally highlighted the Māravijaya episode or the miniature image of the Mahābodhi temple; both symbolizing the Enlightenment of the Buddha. Terracotta plaques from the Tārā temple at Satyapir Bhita (Paharpur) depicted some form of Tārā for which this temple seems to have been especially famous.67 In the available data from Nalanda,

514

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Vairocana does not appear to be the main cult figure of the Mahāvihāra: only three sculptures (one in bronze, two in stone) of this deity has been reported so far and sculptures of other Paṅcatathāgatas are equally rare.68 In contrast, big, rather, colossal images of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā (Dhelvā Bābā, Teliyā Bābā, Jagadishpur Buddha, etc.) were the most important sculptures for public display and worship. All this makes us conclude that the figures depicted in the centre of the Aṣṭa-mahābodhisattva-maṇḍala plaques from Nalanda were most probably Buddha Śākyamuni. It may also be added that Nalanda was most probably the centre where Tārā emerged as an independent object of worship in the sixth century AD.69 Yet Tārā did not find depiction in the available assemblage of terracotta votive plaques of Nalanda. Buddha Śākyamuni in Aṣṭa-mahābodhisattva-maṇḍala remained the popular theme in the plaques.

Spatial Alignment of Votive Stūpas and the Question of Accessibility of Monastic Religious Space by Non-monastic Devotees at Antichak As we move to the east of Magadha, archaeological markers of access to the inner parts of the monasteries by non-monastic devotees decrease considerably at most of the excavated sites. In general, we may infer the reluctance of the monastic authorities to allow the installation of votive stūpas in the ‘inner space’ of monasteries. This was most probably related to the basic difference in the nature of excavated Buddhist sites of Magadha (Mahābodhi, Nalanda) and the sites located to the east of it in Aṅga (Antichak), Varendra ( Jagajjibanpur, Paharpur, Sitakot, Jagaddala, etc.) and Samataṭa (monasteries on the Mainamati ridge). Mahābodhi was the holiest Buddhist pilgrimage centres. The monastic site of Nalanda, though established through royal patronage, took steps to attract ‘nonmonastic non-aristocratic’ pilgrimage on a substantial scale. Sites like Antichak, Paharpur or monasteries on the Mainamati

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

515

ridge, on the other hand, radiated some particular political and religious symbolism.70 They did not feel much need of entering into ritual engagement with the non-monastic devotees. This pattern is reflected in site morphology as well, an issue we will turn to now. That will form the backdrop in which we will analyze the alignment of votive stūpas vis-à-vis the arrangement of monastic religious space. We will begin with Antichak, commonly identified with the site of the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra founded by the Pāla king Dharmapāla.71 In basic plan, this monastery consists of a central cruciform shrine set in the middle of the monastic courtyard, surrounded by a series of monastic cells numbering approximately 208.72 With this basic plan, this site had a marked emphasis on security: in fact it gives an impression of being a ‘fort-monastery’. The outer walls of the monastery are marked with circular projections alternately with rectangular projections at regular intervals. The corner projections are larger in size.73 Apart from the circular corner projection, each side has yielded four circular and four corner projections. They have been constructed alternately at a distance of about 22 to 23 m from each other.74 These bastionlike features imparted a distinct fort-like look to the monastery; a feature observed on a lesser scale in the later monastery of Jagajjibanpur. This ‘fort-like’ look was further accentuated by the imposing gateway complex on the northern side of the monastery guarding the main entrance to the same, and also by the double layers of enclosure walls.75 Traces of an enclosure wall were found beyond the northern gateway complex of the monastery, thus confirming the Tibetan sources which record that the whole monastery was surrounded by a massive enclosure wall.76 This enclosure wall was also provided with a small gateway complex, which was paved with stone slabs with the provision for sockets on either side.77 This small gate was in alignment with the central shrine and the north gate of the Mahāvihāra. On either side of this small gate complex, remnants of a defense wall 1.5 m thick and about eight courses of bricks were found running in the eastward direction.78

516

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

The available data indicates that this monastery put a great emphasis on regulating the access of non-monastic devotees to the inner parts of the monastery. Crossing two gateway complexes to reach to the inner parts of the monastery would never have been an easy task for an outsider. Within the monastery too, there seems to have been a great emphasis on the privacy of monks. Excavations in the inner part of the monastery led to the discovery of 12 monastic cells with underground chambers. The maximum depth of these underground chambers was about 1 m.79 The single point of access to these underground chambers was through a narrow manhole in one of the corners of the cells through which one would have to drop him into them.80 Though the excavator has not attributed any particular function to them, but, taking into account the reputation of Vikramaśilā as one of the most renowned centres of esoteric Vajrayāna, we may infer that these underground cells were used for some secret rites. In literary sources, Vikramaśilā is depicted as one of the most renowned centres for esoteric Vajrayāna.81 This inference is also supported by the features of monastic religious space noted above. If this was the case then it was but natural for the monastic authorities of Vikramaśilā to discourage the access of non-monastic devotees to the area enclosed by monastic cells. That the common devotees did not have any access to the area enclosed by the inner enclosure wall is indicated by the absence of archaeological markers of pilgrimage to that area: votive stūpas, votive tablets, inscribed seals and sealings, etc., a theme we will analyse now. The pattern of alignment of votive stūpas at Antichak displays a transitional trait between Magadha and Varendra/Samataṭa. Here votive stūpas were not allowed inside the monastery: either near the central shrine or in the monastic courtyard. The votive stūpa complex of this site is just in front of the main gate of the monastery: 150 votive stūpas (40 in stone, 110 in brick) were found located on either side of the passage leading to the main gate.82 As indicated by two floorings on which they were built;

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

517

they show at least two phases of construction.83 It has been rightly claimed that these stūpas were raised by devotees who intended to earn merit by installing them near the main gate of the monastery, suggesting that the site was held in high veneration.84 Even in the first phase; the monastic authorities of Vikramaśilā seem to have imposed some regulations on the practice of installation of votive stūpas. This is indicated by the finding of an enclosure wall, which was provided with a small entrance (measuring 3.30 × 1.90 m) with a door-sill, about 2 m wide.85 The gate of this enclosure wall corresponded to the main gateway of the monastery. The provision for enclosure did not dent the spirits of non-monastic devotees, which is reflected in the increase in the number of votive stūpas in the next phase. In the first phase, votive stūpas were constructed following a plan in rows but when the paucity of space was felt, they were constructed at a convenient point, i.e. wherever the space was available, overlooking the arrangement of rows.86 The pattern is somewhat similar to Ratnagiri, where too the paucity of space resulted in the similar placing of votive stūpas wherever space was available.87 Only four inscribed votive stūpas, all datable to the twelfth century AD on paleographic grounds, have been reported from this site. Three of them just contain the names of donors: Śrīdhamma,88 Hadrava,89 and Śrīdha.90 Their social backgrounds are not recorded, but we may infer that they were from the nonmonastic, non-aristocratic segment. Their varṇa and jāti status, professional occupation, gender, places they came from are not recorded. None of them had any expressed Buddhist identity. Women donors are not met with in the available corpus of inscribed votive stūpas. Nor do we see any donation by a person from a mercantile background at Antichak. One stūpa has a legend in Bhikuni characters.91 This script was used by Buddhist monks only, so we may infer that this stūpa was donated by a monk.

518

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Spatial Alignment of Votive Stūpas and the Question of Accessibility of Monastic Religious Space by Non-monastic Devotees in Varendra Monasteries (other than Paharpur) As we move from Antichak to the Varendra sites, the distance between the spot where votive stūpas were allowed to be installed and the monastery increased. That may indicate a lesser ritual engagement between the monasteries and their non-monastic devotees. At the ‘fort-like’ monastery of Jagajjibanpur, having a moat all around the monastery with the circular bastions at the corners and the wide enclosure wall,92 established through the initiative of a Pāla commander (Vajradeva) with clearcut political motives, we have nothing to suggest that non-monastic devotees had any kind of access to any part of the monastery. Throughout its life, it seems to have remained a ‘fort-monastery’, with very little recorded attempts to attract additional sources of patronage. Instances of the donation of inscribed sculptures and inscribed terracotta plaques by non-monastic devotees have not been reported from the site so far. So far, only one terracotta votive stūpa has been reported from the site.93 We have nothing to suggest that it was donated by a non-monastic devotee. Sitakot, another ‘fort-like’ monastery,94 having its earliest phase of occupation in the seventh-eighth centuries AD, had a massive gateway complex with an 82 ft wide frontage, which was guarded by two big guard rooms, each measuring 27 ft x 24 ft 6 in.95 The monastic courtyard area, the cellas in the middle of the eastern, western and southern wings of the monastery, or the area just adjacent to the outer walls of the monastery do not show any evidence of ritual engagement with the non-monastic devotees. In the excavations at the site, votive stūpas, inscribed sculptures donated by any non-monastic devotee, seals/sealings inscribed with the name of non-monastic devotees have not been reported. In the case of the excavated sites of Bihar Dhap, which most probably represented the ruins of the Po-shi-Po monastery seen

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

519

by Xuan Zang on the outskirts of the urban centre of Mahasthan, a monumental gateway complex set in the middle of the eastern wing of a monastery, flanked by guard rooms, has been reported.96 In its heavily guarded nature, this monastery anticipated the later monasteries of Antichak, Paharpur, Jagajjibanpur, Jagaddala and many monasteries on the Mainamati ridge. The inner parts of this monastery were not easily accessible to outsiders, resulting in the absence of archaeological markers of pilgrimage to this site. This is, to some extent, intriguing, because the monastery was located on the outskirts of the city of Mahasthan and one would have ideally expected the flow of patronage from the residents of the city to the monastery. The case with the site of Vasu Vihāra, located 4 miles northwest of the Mahasthangarh citadel, was not much different. Excavations at this site resulted in the unearthing of two monasteries and a cruciform shrine that served as the common shrine of both monasteries.97 Unfortunately, excavations at the site were confined to the upper level of the site (datable to c. tenth-eleventh centuries AD).98 Due to this reason, we are not sure of the earlier levels of occupation, if any, of the monastery. The first monastery at the site had 26 cells of largely uniform size (12 × 11 ft, separated from one another by partition walls) enclosing a courtyard.99 This monastery had an impressive gateway complex (75 × 25 ft 6 in.) set in the middle of the eastern wing, projecting outwards.100 In the outer side, the entrance complex was guarded by two guard rooms, each 10 sq. ft.101 This monastery does not seem to have any shrine. It did not have any other entrance, and the presence of a massive gateway complex and guard rooms indicate that the non-monastic devotees could have but regulated access to the inner parts of the monastery. In the case of the second excavated monastery at the site, bigger than the first one, the single entrance to the monastery was provided through an impressive gateway complex (72 × 21 ft) projecting outward in the middle of the southern wing.102 Some terracotta seals and sealings, inscribed with the names of nonmonastic individuals, serve as the only archaeological marker of

520

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

ritual interface with non-monastic devotees. No votive stūpa has been reported either from the inner parts of the monastery or in the area adjacent to it. The sites analysed above give the impression that Varendra monasteries did not have much ritual engagements with nonmonastic devotees. This feature is also apparent in the recently excavated monastic site at the village Jagaddala (located 20 km to the north-west of Paharpur) in Dhamoirhat Upazila of Bangladesh. It is claimed to be the ruins of the site of Jagaddala Mahāvihāra established by the Pāla ruler Rāmapāla in the eleventh century after the Kaivartta rebellion.103 Excavations at the site have exposed the remains of a monastery with 32 cells, a shrine with maṇḍapa in the western wing of the monastery, a gateway complex in the middle of the eastern wing; and bastions at the four corners of the monastery.104 Excavations at this site are incomplete and they are limited to the latest occupation phase of the site.105 Excavations also revealed the presence of four bastions at the four corners of the monastery. The entrance to these bastions was from inside the monastery through the narrow passages that spring from the corner cells.106 The excavator has rightly argued that these bastions probably served the purpose of watch towers intended to keep watch on the enemies or outsiders who might approach the site and cause harm to it. 107 This was probably natural for a monastery established by a dynasty that had just recovered from a serious rebellion, especially in a phase when we get at least one epigraphically recorded example of the plundering of a ‘royal monastery’ by a political rival.108 These bastions, along with the massive gateway complex in the eastern wing of the monastery, gave a ‘fort-like’ look to the monastery. It would not have been an easy task for the common devotes to access the inner shrine of the monastery. This monastery, like Jagajjibanpur monastery, seems to have retained its core character of being a ‘fortmonastery’ built through state patronage and surviving largely on state patronage, with minimum interaction with the nonmonastic non-aristocratic devotees. In terms of its cultic focus too, this monastery had some uniqueness in the whole of early

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

521

medieval Bihar and Bengal through the provision of large image pedestals in every single cell of the monastery, converting the cells, in effect, to shrines. We have treated this as an indication of some sort of deification of monks, with which non-aristocratic non-monastic devotees had little concern.109 Due to the incomplete nature of excavations at the sites of Rajabadidanga, it is difficult to ascertain the question of accessibility of non-monastic devotees to the inner parts of the monastery by analyzing the spatial alignment of votive stūpas vis-à-vis monastic religious space.

Spatial Alignment of Votive Stūpas and the Question of Accessibility of Monastic Religious Space by Non-monastic Devotees at Paharpur Among Varendra sites, votive stūpas in any significant number have been reported from the neighbourhood of Paharpur only. In terms of architecture, this site shares great similarity with the site of Antichak: a central cruciform shrine surrounded by a number of monastic cells, with a monumental gateway complex set in the middle of the northern wing of the monastery, guarding access to the inner parts of the monastery.110 We have nothing to suggest that the non-monastic non-aristocratic segment of society had access to the area enclosed by monastic cells. Like Antichak, votive stūpas are absent in the area enclosed by monastic walls at Paharpur as well. They have not been reported from the area near the central cruciform shrine, in the monastic courtyard, or even near the later period cells containing ornamental pedestals. Only two circular structures, which were most probably votive stūpas, have been reported from the area outside the northern gateway of the monastery.111 At Paharapur, the concentration of votive stūpas is seen at the site of a temple dedicated to some form of Tārā at Satyapir Bhita, which is located at a distance of about 300 yards from the eastern exterior wall of the Mahāvihāra. At the available stage of our data base, we don’t know the exact relationship this site had, if any, with the Mahāvihāra, though a monk of Somapura

522

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Mahāvihāra (Vipulaśrīmitra) did repair it in the later phase. Dikshit’s excavations at this site led to the unearthing of an oblong temple (80 × 48 ft) facing south, with at least two phases of structural activities.112 The original plan of this temple consisted of a sanctum and a pillared hall surrounded by an ambulatory path, and an entrance hall that provided passage to the whole complex.113 This temple stood in the midst of a courtyard. This structure, as indicated by the discovery of a large quantity of charcoal lying on the floor at the north-eastern end of the floor of the first period, was destroyed by fire.114 This temple was rebuilt, most probably in the middle of the eleventh century.115 In this phase, a buttress wall enveloping the walls of the original temple on the sides and carrying the projection in front of the temple still farther, thereby covering the earlier flight of steps was added. In course of this reconstruction a fresh concrete floor was laid almost throughout the courtyard and over the main temple.116 As indicated by the discovery of around 50 circular terracotta plaques depicting either Aṣṭamahābhaya Tārā or Sitātapatrā and inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula in the eleventh century AD characters in different places in the courtyard in the south and south-west of the main temple, the temple was dedicated to some form of Tārā, most probably to her Aṣṭamahābhaya form.117 This temple attracted considerable pilgrimage in both phases of its history, which is indicated by the discovery of structural votive stūpas. 132 structural votive stūpas of various shapes and sizes (ranging from 25 ft in diameter to 2 ft 9 in.) have been discovered in the courtyard of the temple.118 Votive stūpas of the earlier period are simpler in plan, but the ones of the later period are ornate in design.119 The only inscribed votive stūpa of this site, which contains the name of the donor in eleventh century AD characters, records the donation of the stūpa by Sthavira Praśāntamati.120 That indicates that some votive stūpas were donated by monks as well, though, as in the Mahābodhi and Nalanda, we may assume that non-monastic devotees might have formed a significant portion of donors. It is interesting to note that in the relic chamber of a square

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

523

votive stūpa, which was positioned close to the main temple in the south-eastern section, a thick deposit of miniature votive clay stūpas ‘numbering several thousands’ was found.121 Two tiny circular clay tablets, inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula, were also found inside the chamber.122 Dikshit has rightly treated these materials as archaeological markers of the significant scale of pilgrimage commanded by the Tārā temple.123 We agree with his basic contention that the Tārā temple at Satyapira Bhita commanded considerable pilgrimage. But how did that impact the Somapura Mahāvihāra? His observations force us to explore the ‘exact relation of the Tārā temple in the general layout of the site’ of Paharpur.124 Technically speaking, it was outside the monastic enclosure, and, thus, not a part of the Somapura Mahāvihāra. Yet, being in close proximity to the Mahāvihāra, it could not have been totally immune to the developments in the Mahāvihāra. In fact, when the Mahāvihāra was burnt down by the army of Vaṅgāla in the middle of the eleventh century, the Tārā temple also bore the brunt. Later, it was rebuilt by the monk Vipulaśrīmitra of Somapura Mahāvihāra. That, however, does not fully explain the nature of the institutional relationship between the Mahāvihāra and the Tārā temple. Available epigraphic data from the Mahāvihāra does not throw any light on this issue. We have no evidence to suggest that this temple was founded by the same patron who founded the Mahāvihāra. Some aspects of this complex question may be explored by looking into two issues: (a) Do we see any kind of cultic parallelism between the Mahāvihāra and the Tārā temple at Satyapira Bhita? That is to say, if the ritual focus of the Satyapira Bhita temple was on the worship of Tārā the saviour, did the monastery too show the same feature? (b) If the monastery did not show the same feature, then did it make any attempt to appropriate the pilgrimage potential of the temple of Tārā for increasing its own patronage base? Available data indicates that a disjuncture did exist between the ritual focus of the temple of Tārā and the same of the Mahāvihāra. The Mahāvihāra focused more on the things with

524

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

which non-monastic devotees had little concern: the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas in its central cruciform shrine; attempt to integrate Brahmanism in a manner or subordinate union in its central cruciform shrine; and, later, through the attempted deification of some monks, approximating as an architectural Vajradhātumaṇḍala.125 It basically functioned as a state-sponsored monument, intended to offer magical protection to the state.126 It was probably due to this reason that this Mahāvihāra did not make much effort to attract lay patronage and pilgrimage. The Tārā temple at Satyapir Bhita does not seem to have formed part of its functional or ritual matrix. That the Mahāvihāra was reluctant to be associated with, or appropriate the popularity of, the Tārā temple at Satyapira Bhita becomes quite apparent when we contrast the situation with Ratnagiri in Odisha, where a conscious attempt was made to associate the Ratnagiri Mahāvihāra with the cult of Tārā.127 Ratnagiri was a great centre for the cult of Tārā and it attracted considerable number of pilgrims due to this factor. Many monastic seals of Ratnagiri contain the legend Tārāśraya, which were considered to be some sort of amulet or talisman. 128 However, when the sealings with the Tārāśraya legend were struck with the monastic sealing of Ratnagiri, it indicated that there was a conscious attempt on the part of the monastic establishment to associate this monastery as an important cult centre of Tārā’.129 This sort of evidence has not come to light from Paharpur as yet, forcing us to conclude that the monastic authorities maintained a deliberate policy of not appropriating the popularity of the Satyapira Bhita Tārā temple for its own advantage. An individual monk (Vipulaśrīmitra) repaired this temple after its destruction, but the monastery did not lend its institutional name either to the Satyapira Bhita temple or to the cult of Tārā: no seal or sealing recording that the Tārā temple was officially the part of the Somapura Mahāvihāra (or this temple was under the official control of the monastic authorities of Somapura) has been found so far. Similarly, no Tārā plaque of the type discovered within the Satyapira Bhita complex has been reported from the Mahāvihāra. Nor do we see any non-monastic devotee donating any inscribed sculpture of Tārā within the

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

525

Mahāvihāra. That also indicates that those pilgrims who thronged to the Tārā temple most probably did not visit the inner parts of the monastery. Even if they made a visit, the Mahāvihāra authorities did not allow them to undertake those rituals that would survive in archaeological records: donation of structural and clay votive stūpas or donation of inscribed sculptures. The Nalanda Temple Site 3 kind of pattern did not develop here.130

Spatial Alignment of Votive Stūpas and the Question of Accessibility of Monastic Religious Space by Non-monastic Devotees at Moghalmari At Moghalmari, five small votive stūpas were discovered at MGM 2 mound.131 This mound is a little away from the main mound where the monastery was excavated. A votive stūpa has been discovered in the Pradakṣiṇāpatha, which is located in the southern part of the monastery.132 As none of the discovered pieces are inscribed with the names of donors, it is difficult to ascertain whether they were donated by monks or non-monastic devotees. That some of them could have been donated by nonmonastic devotees cannot be ruled out, especially in view of the fact that in its basic characteristic, Moghalmari is different from the ‘fort-like’ monasteries of Bangladesh. 17 terracotta votive tablets have also been discovered from the site. They basically represent the Buddha Śākyamuni in different mudrās, and a stūpa surrounded by many other miniature stūpas.133 They indicate the basic Mahayanist character of this site. They most probably served as pilgrim’s mementos.

Spatial Alignment of Votive Stūpas and the Question of Accessibility of Monastic Religious Space by Non-monastic Devotees in the Case of Buddhist Monasteries on the Mainamati-Lalmai Ridge In the case of Buddhist monasteries on the Mainamati-Lalmai ridge, we see a tendency of enforcing a deliberate isolation from the non-monastic devotees. This tendency is quite marked at the

526

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

site of Salban Vihāra. Among the Mainamati monastic sites, the highest number of copper-plate inscriptions, silver and gold coins have been reported from the site of Salban Vihāra. All this indicate that, at the available stage of our database, it was the most important Buddhist establishment on the Mainamati ridge, despite being smaller in size than Ananda Vihāra. As indicated by the discovery of terracotta sealings inscribed with the legend Śrī-Bhavadeva-Mahāvihāra-Ārya Bhikṣusaṅghasya,134 this monastery seems to have been founded in the eighth century by the Deva ruler Bhavadeva. This monastery developed around a shrine that antedated the monastery. Later, the shrine was rebuilt at the time of the foundation of the monastery, as a part of the monastery. In plan and features, this monastery antedated the plans of Paharpur and Antichak monasteries.135 The structural remains at the central shrine area of this site indicate a series of structures built over the remains of previous structures. Five such structures have been unearthed in excavations.136 Each phase of occupation at the central shrine is represented by a separate structure. At the beginning of the new phase of occupation, a new structure covered the significant portions of the older structure. In the Period II (later part of seventh century AD) of the central shrine of Salban Vihāra, ‘no less than 15 basketfuls of clay votive stūpas, sealings and a number of Buddhist images were recovered’ from the shrine area.137 No trace of any monastery associated with the shrine has been found in this period.138 In this aspect, the shrine area of Salban Vihāra offers a striking parallel to the Nalanda Temple/ Stūpa Site 3, which commanded sanctity even before the emergence of any monastery in the neighbourhood. As the monastery had yet to emerge in this phase at Salban Vihāra, we may infer that these votive objects were donated by nonmonastic devotees. In the next period (eighth century AD), the shape of the shrine was converted into cruciform: it was built with the monastery as a single complex, and on the same stupendous scale.139 Two clear phases of occupation, associated with two distinct floors have been found in this period: below the original brick-floor, a layer of earth-filling, masses of clay

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

527

votive stūpas, seals and sealings and Buddhist images were discovered, which were apparently deposited before the laying of the foundation of the shrine.140 The floor of the second phase in this period, constructed with reddish brick concrete with surkhi plaster, was built over the floor of the first floor.141 We have no categorical information as to who were the donors of the clay votive stūpas, seals and sealings inscribed with the Buddhist Creed Formula but it may not be ruled out that some of them could have been from a non-monastic background. In the Period III (latter part of the eighth century AD), a decrease in the number of unbaked clay votive stūpas, seals and images has been noted.142 A total absence of such materials in the next period (Period IV, roughly ninth century) in the shine area was quite pronounced.143 All this indicates that as the monastic cells emerged around the central shrine and enclosed it from all sides, that heralded a lesser ritual interface with the non-monastic devotees. Even this decreased interface ceased to survive in the next period (i.e. the Candra period). Votive stūpas were not allowed to be installed inside the area enclosed by monastic cells (either near the central shrine or in the verandah that separated the central shrine from monastic cells) or just outside the monumental northern gateway complex, or at a little distance from the monastic site. No Antichak or Satyapira Bhita like pattern could emerge here. This was most probably related to the way the monastery evolved at this site. From the very beginning of the monastery (eighth century), we see a great emphasis on the security of the monastery. The only point of entry to the monastery was through a monumental gateway complex set in the middle of the northern wing. Guarded by four guard rooms, this monumental gateway complex imparted a distinct ‘citadel-like look’ to the monastery.144 In other words, the access to the inner parts of the monastery was regulated by the monastic authorities. It would not have been an easy task for the non-monastic devotees to enter into the monastery. A related feature was a great emphasis on ensuring the privacy of monks. In every cell of the monastery, there was no arrangement of window or any other kind of

528

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

ventilation. The door served the purpose of light, ventilation and entrance and exit. Moreover, most of the cells had provisions for cooking, indicated by the findings of fire places associated with large quantities of household pottery, grinding stones, pestles and ashes.145 This feature emerged in the very first phase of the monastery. Occasionally, a separate portion within the cell was earmarked for hearth and kitchen material by erecting a low partition wall.146 Though traces of a community kitchen have been found in the archaeological excavations of the site, most of the monks preferred to cook their own meals.147 It seems that the monks of this monastery had very little interaction with one another. If they maintained a deliberate distance from nonmonastic devotees, that should not come as any surprise. In the case of other excavated monastic sites on the Mainamati-Lalmai ridge – Ananda Vihāra, Rupaban Mura Vihāra, Itakhola Mura Vihāra, and Bhoja Vihāra – evidences of ritual engagements between the monasteries and their non-monastic devotees are less than what we see in the case of Salban Vihāra. All of them had monumental gateway complexes guarding access to the inner parts of the monastery.148 None of these monasteries developed around a shrine that antedated the foundation of the monastery. Votive stūpas were not allowed to be installed inside the area enclosed by monastic cells (either near the central shrine or in the verandah that separated the central shrine from monastic cells) or just outside the monumental northern gateway complex, or at a little distance from the monastic site. Nor do we get any evidence of dedication of inscribed sculptures by non-monastic devotees. Similarly, terracotta seals/sealings inscribed with the names of nonmonastic devotees and votive plaques inscribed with the names of non-monastic devotees or with the Buddhist Creed Formula have not been reported from these sites. These evidences, though, should not make us infer that the entire Mainamati-Lalmai ridge was out of bounds for the nonmonastic devotees. A separate site – Kutila Mura – away from monastic centres, was earmarked for this purpose. The site of Kutila Mura, located about 3 miles north of Salban Vihāra and

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

529

nearly 1 mile to the north of Ananda Vihāra offers an evidence of considerable ritual engagements with non-monastic devotees. Before analysing the pattern of this engagement, we will see the general features of this site to understand the context.149 Kutila Mura basically contains three stūpas in a row, on a common plinth. In each stūpa, the drum in cylindrical shape supports the hemispherical dome.150 The ground plan of the central stūpa is in the shape of a Dharmacakra or Wheel of Law. The hub of the Dharmacakra is represented by a deep central shaft and spokes by brick walls which have formed eight cells or box-chambers.151 The two other stūpas are believed to symbolically represent the Buddha and the Saṅgha, and, as such, the three stūpas are together referred to as Triratna stūpas.152 These stūpas are surrounded by other stūpas and structures spread over an area measuring about 280 ft from north to south and 225 ft from east to west. The entire area is enclosed by a massive boundary wall decorated with recessed panels.153 That indicates that the access to this area was sought to be regulated by some authority. Despite the enclosure, the three stūpas seem to have provided avenues for ritual activities by the non-monastic devotees. This aspect is most clear in the central stūpa, which, instead of being solid, is hollow inside, the radiating eight partition walls meeting the circular wall.154 The cells thus created are filled with stone and clay sculptures and numerous miniature stūpas of unbaked clay, produced from moulds.155 The chambers also contains minute round sealings impressed with the Buddhist creed.156 The other two stūpas, representing the Buddha and the Saṅgha, are made of solid brick masonry. Each stūpa has a deep central shaft which also contained a large number of clay miniature stūpas and terracotta sealings.157 Moreover, the nine brick stūpas, that were found to the west of the Triratna stūpas, also contained many miniature clay stūpas in their central shafts.158 These are all indicators of the flow of pilgrimage to these stūpas. In sun-baked clay votive stūpas found in the Triratna stūpas as well as in the nine other stūpas referred to above, figures of

530

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

the eight-handed Tārā (i.e. Aṣṭamahābhaya Tārā) and Jambhala occur frequently.159 That is an indication of the cult preference of lay devotees, as well as of the emergence of this site as a great centre for the worship of Aṣṭamahābhaya Tārā. One more thing may be added here. A disjuncture seems to have developed between the cultic practices observed by the devotees who donated votive stūpas to the sites of Kutila Mura and Satyapira Bhita and the kind of Buddhism practiced within the monasteries of Paharpur and monasteries in the neighborhood of Kutila Mura. At both Kutila Mura and Satyapira Bhita, Aṣṭamahābhaya Tārā was the most preferred deity for depiction on votive stūpas and plaques. In many Mainamati monasteries with central cruciform shrines, the cultic focus was on the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas.160 Similar was the case with Paharpur.161 It could have been one of the reasons why the non-monastic devotees generally kept a distance from such monasteries.

Summing Up: Differential Patterns of Alignment of Votive Stūpas in Bihar and Bengal and Their Implications Let us sum up the patterns of alignment of votive stūpas vis-à-vis the main religious monuments from Magadha to Bengal. We notice some fundamental differences in the pattern as we move from Magadha to Bengal. Within Magadha, lay donors could install stone, terracotta or sun-baked clay votive stūpas in the courtyard of the Mahābodhi temple, the holiest Buddhist site. They could also do the same in or near the most sacred site within the Nalanda Mahāvihāra: the Temple/Stūpa Site 3, as well as in the courtyard of the loftiest temple of Nalanda (Site 12). That is to say, the most sacred avenues located in the inner parts of the Mahāvihāra were made available to the non-monastic devotees for the dedication of votive stūpas. These votive stūpas were, in other words, parts of the monastic fabric: a pattern fundamentally different from Paharpur and Mainamati monasteries. They testify the willingness and enthusiasm of

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

531

monastic authorities of Nalanda to enter into ritual engagements with their non-monastic devotees. The pattern changes when we move to Antichak. At Antichak, no votive stūpa has been reported from within the area enclosed by monastic cells. They are, rather, found just outside the northern gate of the monastery. There too, a separate area was earmarked by an enclosure wall with a gate for the dedication of votive stūpas by the non-monastic devotees. The distance between the main monastery and votive stūpas increases as we move to Bengal. The monastic authorities of Paharpur seem to have taken a determined decision of not allowing the erection of votive stūpas anywhere within the monastic enclosure or just out of its northern gate. This was allowed at Satyapira Bhita (located 270 m to the east of the monastery) but we do not know what kind of relationship the monastery had with the Tārā temple at Satyapira Bhita. The monastery did not attempt to appropriate the cult of Tārā at Satyapira Bhita. In other Varendra monasteries, votive stūpas have generally not been reported either from inside the monasteries or just near it. Nor could a Satyapir Bhita kind of phenomenon ever evolve in the neighbourhood of any excavated monastic site of Varendra. Barring the Period II shrine of Salbana Vihāra, more or less similar was the case with the Mainamati monasteries. Here, Kutila Mura seems to have offered the only avenue for the installation of dedicatory stūpas. The nearest known monastic centre is at least one mile away from Kutila Mura. In other words, a distinction was maintained between the main monasteries (which generally did not favour installation of votive stūpas by the non-monastic devotees within the space enclosed by the monastic walls or the area adjacent to the outer walls of the monasteries) and Kutila Mura, which was made available to the non-monastic devotees for the dedication of votive stūpas. Like Satyapira Bhita Tārā temple, Aṣṭamahābhaya Tārā was the main cult figure at Kutila Mura. No monastery on the Mainamati ridge seems to have attempted to appropriate the

532

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

popularity of the cult of Aṣṭamahābhaya Tārā at Kutila Mura to augment its own patronage and pilgrimage base. All this indicates that monasteries of Bengal had lesser ritual interface with the non-monastic devotees than what we see in the case of Bihar monasteries. The patronage provided by pilgrims does not seem to have formed the main component of their resource base. We have noted a similar trend in epigraphic records recording endowments in favour of Buddhist monasteries in early medieval Bengal in Chapter 6 of the presemt book. The question, which needs to be explored, then, is: why did such monastic sites that did not have much ritual interface with non-monastic devotees receive substantial royal patronage? Did they radiate some particular political and religious symbolism useful for political patrons? We will analyze this issue now.

Esoteric Vajrayāna as a Religious System for the Magico-ritual Protection of the State: The Cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas in Some Buddhist Monastic Centres and Their Political Ramifications Over the years, one has seen a welcome paradigm shift in studies in the evolving functional roles of Brahmanical religious centres in early medieval India as per their interactions with early medieval political processes.162 Generally, it is believed that many of them became deeply involved with the mechanism through which a local, sub-regional or regional state attempted to integrate its peripheral area and tried to evolve into a more centralized polity.163 These brilliant studies have, undoubtedly, widened our understanding of the political contexts of Brahmanical religious centres in many parts of early medieval India. Unfortunately, these studies somehow give an impression that similar roles were not attempted by Buddhist religious centers in any part of early medieval India. The question that needs to be explored is: did Buddhism also attempt to undertake a similar role in early medieval Bihar and Bengal? If new local states in Samataṭa (i.e. some Comilla-based

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

533

dynasties in the seventh-eighth century) or some rulers of the Pāla dynasty patronized Buddhism and constructed a particular type of monumental monastic architecture – a central terraced cruciform shrine with a walled-in (inaccessible) central shaft and four similarly-sized shrine halls in four cardinal directions surrounded by a number of monastic cells as we see in the cases of Paharpur, Antichak, Salban Vihāra, Ananda Vihāra, Bhoj Vihāra, etc. – were they just reflections of the religious zeal of their Paramasaugata patrons or something more was in operation? An enquiry into this question forces us to briefly look into the vexed issue of Vajrayāna Buddhism and its relationship with the state and political processes in early medieval India in general and the Bihar-Bengal area in particular. Vajrayāna Buddhism emerged in a certain political context: its emergence coincided with the collapse of older (early historical) political structures and the evolution of a new kind of early medieval political structure. Its ideology, symbolism, metaphors and institutions show such a fundamental imprint of this context that Ronald Davidson was forced to conclude that ‘in short, esoteric Buddhism is the form of medieval Buddhism that internalized, appropriated, reaffirmed, and rearranged the structures most closely associated with the systems of power relations, ritual authentication, aesthetics, gift-giving, clan associations, and sense of dominion that defined post-Gupta Indian polities’.164 If this was the situation then it was but natural that Vajrayāna endeavoured to provide some ideological and institutional support to its political patrons in some forms. In a recent study on the nature of the relationship between Vajrayāna Buddhism and the state in early medieval India, it has been argued that ‘Buddhist monasticism, heavily dependent in the South Asian context on support from the state, increasingly found ways to present the power of the Buddha as relevant to and available for the new conception of state’.165It has also been rightly argued that to compete with Brahmanical cults which were gaining ascendency in royal courts due to their perceived magical

534

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

powers of protection of the state, the Buddhists needed to generate a symbolic representation of imperial power that could rival and surpass such figures.166 The response of the Buddhist clergy assumed two forms. In the first pattern, certain monasteries became institutional centers where magico-religious rituals for the protection of the patron state were performed. In the Indian context, the best recorded example of this sort is provided by the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra.167 Citing some Vajrayāna texts, Alexis Sanderson has shown that rituals for the protection of the state on the behalf of the monarch were performed by the Tantric masters of Vikramaśilā.168 A similar impression is conveyed by Tārānātha. As per his records, Mahācārya Buddhajñānapāda of Vikramaśilā, who became the preceptor of the Pāla Emperor Dharmapāla, predicted to the emperor that his (Dharmapāla’s) dynasty would be ruined during the regime of his grandson.169 To avoid that crisis, a homa lasting for many years was performed at Vikramaśilā, in which Buddhajñānapāda acted as the chief priest. 170 After the successful completion of this homa, Buddhajñānapāda predicted that Dharmapāla’s dynasty would last for twelve generations.171 That Vikramaśilā remained a centre for such ‘stateprotection’ rituals for a long time after Dharmapāla is also indicated in Tārānātha’s writings. He informs that during the regime of a later Pāla king, the Bhaṃgalas once revolted and came to wage war in Magadha. To quell that, bali ācārya of Vikramaśilā prepared mahā-bali for Acala, as a result of which the Turuṣkas from Bhaṃgala were drowned in the Ganga, the Pāla king won the war and restored peace in the kingdom.172 At another level, the Buddhist Saṅgha came up with the theory of the Paṅcatathāgatas (Vairocana, Ratnasaṁbhava, Amitābha, Amoghasiddhi and Akṣobhya) headed by the supreme Buddha Vairocana and attended by his entourage of eight Bodhisattvas. 173 The symbolism of Vairocana was not just religious: ‘the Buddha as Vairocana, located at the centre of the universe (maṇḍala) just as the ruler is at the kingdom’. 174 Monuments which had Vairocana as the presiding deity came to

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

535

be seen not just as grand symbolic manifestations of the supreme overlordship of the ruler who built or patronized them, but also as monuments offering magical protection to the state.175 The best manifestation of this trend has been noted in the context of the Javanese sites of Chandi Mendut and Chandi Borobudur, brilliantly analysed by Lokesh Chandra.176 Chandi Mendut was an architectural manifestation of the Garbhadhātumaṇḍala of the Mahāvairocana-sūtra and Chandi Borobudur of Vajradhātumaṇḍala of the Tattva-saṅgraha-sūtra; both being the twin maṇḍalas of Vairocana, built before AD 824 by the Śailendra dynasty, in a moment of great political instability.177 He has argued that the instability must have been felt quite early, and the Chandi Mendut and Chandi Borobudur would have been erected to anticipate any such eventuality, ‘to fully sanction and stabilize the Cakravartin sovereignty of the Śailendras in a sacred syndrome of philosophy, cosmology, aesthetics and hieratics of the twin maṇḍalas of Vairocana’.178 It may be noted that Paharpur served as the architectural prototype of Borobudur. Antichak has great architectural similarity with Paharpur. In terms of basic architecture, both Antichak and Paharpur owe their inspiration to many monasteries on the Mainamati ridge (in particular, Salban Vihāra and Ananda Vihāra) where this architecture seems to have germinated first. We have seen above how Vikramaśilā served as a monument offering ritual protection to the state. A similar function for other monasteries having a central cruciform shrine (i.e. Salban Vihāra, Ananda Vihāra, etc.) is quite plausible. Before we proceed further, we need to ascertain if the cultic focus of Antichak, Paharpur, Halud Vihāra, Salban Vihāra, Ananda Vihāra, Bhoj Vihāra, Itakhola Mura Vihāra, Rupaban Mura and other monasteries on the Mainamati ridge converged on the worship of one or more than one, or all the five Paṅcatathāgatas. Seema Hoque and M.M. Hoque’s study has shown that this indeed was the case with Paharpur, Salban Vihāra, Ananda Vihāra, Bhoj Vihāra and Rupaban Mura: in the centre of the central cruciform shrine, Vairocana was most probably the main worship object and four shrines in the four

536

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

cardinal directions of the central cruciform shrine enshrined images of other ‘Dhyānī Buddhhas’.179 At Itakhola Mura, an image of Dhyānī Buddha Akṣobhya was found in front of the stūpa facing east.180 When Akṣobhya is installed in the stūpa, he is always in front of the stūpa facing east.181 A similarity in the ground plans of Itakhola Mura and Halud Vihāra made them conclude that Halud Vihāra was a temple dedicated to the worship of Akṣobhya.182 At Bhoja Vihāra, whose ground plan is similar to that of Paharpur, images of Amitābha and Akṣobhya were found in the western chapel of the central cruciform shrine and a colossal bronze image of Vajrasattva was found in the northern chapel of the central shrine.183 The ninth-tenth centuries image of Vajrasattva is probably the single biggest bronze image discovered in the Indian subcontinent so far.184 It has been rightly argued that, given the colossal size of the enshrined sculpture, Vajrasattva was the presiding deity of Bhoja Vihāra.185 Vajrasattva was the sixth Dhyānī Buddha representing the five Dhyānī Buddhas collectively.186 In Salban Vihāra, no big stone or bronze sculpture has survived, but that should not make us question the centrality of the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas in its central cruciform shrine. Among the miniature bronze sculptures discovered from monastic cells of this site, Akṣobhya forms the single largest group.187 That may be taken as indication of the prevalence of the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas at the site. At Antichak, we do not have any definite information regarding the cult images in the four shrines facing four cardinal directions in the central cruciform shrine in the early phase, that is, at the time of the foundation of the Mahāvihāra. A magnificent stone image (c. twelfth century) of the Crowned Buddha was discovered in the northern chapel of the central cruciform shrine.188 This could have been a continuation of an earlier practice: after the restoration of the central cruciform shrine in the twelfth century, it was most likely that the earlier theme was continued. Similarly, stone images of the Crowned Buddha seem to have formed the single largest group in the available sculptural assemblage of Vikramaśilā, indicating the

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

537

prevalence of this cult at Vikramaśilā.189 From the tenth century AD onwards, the Crowned Buddha was believed to be a form of Mahāvairocana and the imagery of the Crowned Buddha had a certain Tantric connotation.190 This indicates that the cultic focus of the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra too was on the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas. But at Nalanda, due to the general paucity of big stone steles of any Paṅcatathāgata, we are not sure if the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas enjoyed a similar prominence.191 Even if the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas was prominent at some site of Nalanda, that did not result in the reluctance on the part of the Mahāvihāra to offer avenues to the non-monastic devotees for the performance of ritual activities. Nalanda retained its basic Mahayanist orientation and the big stone steles of the Śākyamuni Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā (Teliyā Bābā, Dhelvā Bābā, or the magnificent Aṣṭamahāpratihārya stele of the Jagadishpur Buddha) remained the main foci of publicly visible cult-objects. In the previous paras, we have seen how this Mahāvihāra made sustained attempts of attracting and retaining patronage from non-monastic non-aristocratic persons. Its cultic focus and patterns of interactions with non-monastic non-aristocratic persons were different from what we see in the cases of Antichak, Paharpur or monasteries on the Mainamati ridge. It never gained fame as a centre where Tantric rituals for the protection of the state were undertaken, and, consequently, did not invite religio-political violence of the kind we see in the cases of Antichak and Paharpur.192 Let us sum up our arguments now. Those monasteries that developed around a central cruciform shrine were most probably dedicated to the worship of the Paṅcatathāgatas and they had a certain political function (magical protection of the patron state) through their esoteric rituals. That was probably one of the reasons why they did not display much enthusiasm in entering into ritual engagements with non-monastic non-aristocratic devotees. Does that mean that all of them were architectural embodiments of some particular maṇḍala? Even if many of them were planned like one, did their character remain the same throughout their lives? Did those monasteries of Bengal which

538

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

did not have this kind of architecture not perform the task of offering magical protection to the state? We will look into this issue now.

Paharpur and other ‘Paharpur-type Maṇḍala Monasteries’ as ‘Architectural Vajradhātu-maṇḍala’? A Review of Archaeological Data Recently, it has been claimed that Paharpur monastery and other ‘Paharpur-type’ monasteries were architectural Vajradhātumaṇḍala. This claim, initially made by Mizanur Rashid,193 was later conceptually developed by Adelheid Hermann-Pfandt,194 who extended this line of argument to Antichak and many monasteries on the Mainamati ridge. It has been, thus, indirectly claimed that these monasteries had some basic similarity with Chandi Borobudur of Java, which is one of the best known examples of this maṇḍala. As Hermann-Pfandt’s study has some fundamental implications for arriving at some generalizations regarding the functional role of these monasteries, let us discuss it in some detail. We will like to see if his model can be applied to Paharpur itself. If yes, to what extent can it be extended to other ‘Paharpur-type monasteries’? By ‘Paharpur- type monasteries’, he means those monasteries of Bihar and Bengal (Antichak, Paharpur, Salban Vihāra, Ananda Vihāra, Bhoja Vihāra, Maināmatī Ranir Bungalow) in which a central cruciform shrine with four or five cult-chambers is surrounded by a number of monastic cells, with a single entrance guarded by a monumental gateway complex in the northern part of the site.195 He notes an additional feature: terracotta plaques with non-Buddhist motifs in all such monasteries.196 Through an analysis of textual sources, arrangement of space in the Buddhist establishment of Borobudur, and Tibetan and Japanese paintings of the Vajradhātu-maṇḍala, Hermann-Pfandt argues for the following iconographic programme of this maṇḍala: 1. The five Dhyānī Buddhas and their retinues at the core of the maṇḍala: the five Dhyānī Buddhas and their retinues are surrounded by the 12 attendant goddesses.197

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

539

2. The five Dhyānī Buddhas and their retinues are fenced by an assembly of the 1,000 Buddhas of the Bhadrakalpa. The five Dhyānī Buddhas and their retinues, the 12 attendant goddesses and the assembly of the thousand Buddhas of the Bhadrakalpa are in the section inside the Vajra.198 3. The so-called ‘sections outside the Vajra’, the outermost layer of the central maṇḍala just beyond the 1,000 Buddhas, is the abode of 20 Hindu deities including Nārāyaṇa, Kumāra, Brahmā, Śakra, Agni, Yama and Gaṇeśa.199 Citing Amoghavajra, he argues that these deities became protectors of Buddhism after being defeated and then converted to Buddhism by Bodhisattva Vajrapāṇi.200 He then argues that the cruciform shrine with four cult-chambers facing cardinal directions (plus a possible additional central chamber, dedicated to Vairocana) in Paharpur was dedicated to the worship of the five Dhyānī Buddhas.201 As regards the depiction of the 12 attendant goddesses, he argues that at Pāhārpur, the 12 attendant goddesses of this maṇḍala, four of the 12 goddesses were most probably placed in the outside corners of the cruciform temple and the remaining eight between the 1,000 Buddhas.202 That these 12 goddesses have not been found in archaeological excavations at the site should not make us question his basic argument. The survival of archaeological material, including sculptures, depends on many factors: even the big images of the Dhyānī Buddhas that were worshipped in the cult chambers of the central cruciform shrine have not been found in the Paharpur excavations. Through an analogy with many sites on the Mainamati ridge, we have tried to show that the five Dhyānī Buddhas did form the main cult-object in the cult-chambers of the central cruciform shrine of Paharpur and Antichak. The most contentious aspect of his argument is concerned with the treatment of the thousand Buddhas of the Bhadrakalpa. The author argues that the number 1,000 should not be taken literally: the number 1,000 is certainly, like the 500 in Buddhist narrative literature, a symbolical number for ‘a great many’.203 Thus he argues that the monks’ cells in the outer walls of the Pāhārpur-type monasteries are a symbolic equivalent to the

540

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

thousand Buddhas of the Vajradhātu-maṇḍala, the more so as the monks’ cabin were at least partially used as shrine rooms, most probably containing Buddha sculptures.204 His inference is mainly based on the fact that ornamented stone pedestals of big images have been discovered in situ in a majority of monastic cells of Paharpur.205 If many monks were equated with the Buddhas of the Bhadrakalpa, that, as per Hermann-Pfandt’s observations, indicates some sort of deification of some monks at Paharpur. Here his argument has some fundamental implications, which we will review in detail later. As per normative literature, in the case of Pāhārpur, Hindu deities should have been on the outside of the enclosure wall (i.e. on the outer walls of monastic cells), within the ring of the 1,000 Buddhas. But they have been found on the basement wall of the central cruciform temple, that is, in the inner portion of the Vajra.206 But Hermann-Pfandt has argued that ‘in view of many correspondences between the Vajradhātu-maṇḍala and the Pāhārpur-type monastery, this seems to be a minor deviation from the maṇḍala layout’.207 As per his analysis, it simply had a practical reason: ‘near the Pradakṣiṇāpatha round the temple, many more pilgrims would have seen and enjoyed the artistic accomplishments of the bas-reliefs and terracotta plaques’.208 This argument is not tenable. We have seen that the central shrine area of Paharpur was not easily accessible by nonmonastic devotees. Any archaeological marker of pilgrimage (votive stūpas, votive terracotta plaques and tablets, inscribed sculptures, etc.) by non-monastic devotees to the central shrine area, or anywhere within the Mahāvihāra has not been reported so far. His handling of Brahmanical sculptures is another contentious aspect of his arguments. Similar is the case with some other scholars who explain the findings of Brahmanical sculptures from Buddhist religious centres in terms of mere maṇḍalic appropriation of Brahmanism by Buddhism. We have devoted an entire section of the present chapter to this theme. Let us turn to another contentious aspect of his argument: the treatment of the thousand Buddhas of the Bhadrakalpa at

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

541

Paharpur. This program involves some kind of deification of monks: ‘replacing the 1,000 Buddhas of the Bhadrakalpa by monks ensured that the monks were trained to perceive themselves and act as Buddhas’.209 This assumes significance in the light of the fact that big ornamented pedestals were discovered in as many as 92 cells of Paharpur, datable to the late tenth or early eleventh century.210 The exact functions of these pedestals largely remain unknown as no in situ image has been reported on them in any cell. Similar pedestals are simply absent in other ‘Paharpur-type’ monasteries. But in the case of Jagaddala Vihāra, concrete platforms for placing large stone images were discovered in every single monastic cell.211 If we argue that these cells of Jagaddala Vihāra were meant to enshrine big images in the cells, converting them to shrine-rooms, and not for the residence of monks, then we will have to argue that Jagaddala was not a monastery basically intended to provide accommodation to monks as such but a complex of shrines. That is not the case: excavated data does indicate that these cells were used for the residence of monks of Jagaddala, but monks who were deified to a certain extent. Paharpur may have had a similar pattern, but with a difference: not all monks were deified.212 The question that needs to be explored is: why did this deification develop only in the late tenth or early eleventh century, why not at the time of foundation of the Mahāvihāra? The ‘thousand Buddhas of the Bhadrakalpa’ were an essential ingredient of the Vajradhātu-maṇḍala. In other words, even if the Paharpur monastery served as an architectural Vajradhātumaṇḍala at some point of time in its life, it was not initially planned like one. If we were to believe that Paharpur was converted into a Vajradhātu-maṇḍala in the late tenth-eleventh centuries, in what political context was it done? HermannPfandt has indeed argued that this deification of monks was not transferred to even Chandi Sewu which is the only temple outside India with a degree of similarity to Pāhārpur: ‘was it held to be too disrespectful to treat average monks as Buddhas, even if only Buddhas-to-be?’.213 But contrary to his assertions, this programme was not transferred to any other ‘Paharpur-type’

542

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

monastery within early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Paradoxically, deification of monks found a fuller manifestation at Jagaddala Vihāra, which was, technically speaking, not a ‘Paharpur-type’ monastery. Before we wrap up our analysis of Paharpur, we need to explore one more issue: how did the non-monastic nonaristocratic devotees perceive the process of deification of monks? Did this result in greater pilgrimage to the site? We have no evidence to this effect. The entire monastic complex of Paharpur (excluding Tārā temple at Satyapir Bhita) offered little space, if at all, for the ritual needs of such devotees. We do not even see the emergence of the ‘cult of amulets’ of these deified, and, presumably, charismatic monks.214 Non-monastic nonaristocratic devotees seem to have kept a distance from such contentious practice: the Tārā of Satyapira Bhita was a more potent, and more easily accessible, embodiment of charisma for such devotees. The terracotta plaques dedicated to her temple by pilgrims or carried back to their homes as talismans by pilgrims were believed to be more potent embodiments of charisma. This makes us conclude that instead of macro theorizations, a better approach may be to look for a more in-depth study of local factors that entailed this kind of micro differences in the ‘Paharpur-type’ monasteries. It may be ahistorical to expect text-bookish manifestation of some particular maṇḍala in the architectural programme of Buddhist monasteries of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. They were not static pieces of architecture but institutions in dynamic interaction with political, economic and social institutions and processes. That perhaps explains the decline of the symbolism of the central cruciform shrines of many ‘Paharpur-type’ monasteries. The central cruciform shrine of Salban Vihāra was converted to an oblong one in the Period IV of the site (roughly ninth century).215 At the available state of our data base, we do not see the flow of Candra patronage to any Buddhist site on the Mainamati ridge, rather anywhere in the state. They, rather, depended on Śāntivārika Brahmins in their quest for magico-ritual protection

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

543

of their realm.216 Similarly, in Varendra, when the Pāla state recovered from the Kaivartta rebellion, the ruling king constructed a new Mahāvihāra (Jagaddala Mahāvihāra), identifiable with the recently excavated site of the same name, that centred not on the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas, but on Tārā and Avalokiteśvara, who was the presiding deity of the site.217 This monastery was not built around a central cruciform shrine. The shrine of this monastery was located in the middle of the western wing of the monastery and it had provisions for a pillared maṇḍapa hall in front of the shrine, a 2.50 m wide circumambulatory passage and an image chamber.218 Let us summarize our arguments now. Instead of perceiving monastic sites as static architectural monuments – as manifestations of some particular maṇḍala – we need to analyse them as functional institutions responding to socio-economic and political stimuli. This approach propels us to look into a related issue: do the patterns of interactions between Buddhism and Brahmanism within the religious space of some excavated Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal also faithfully follow the maṇḍalic scheme or do they show varied evolution as per site specific exigencies? This is something we will look into now.

Something More than Mere Maṇḍalic Appropriation of Brahmanism? Buddhist Religious Centres as Avenues for Attempted Subordinate Integration of Brahmanism and Perils Associated with this Process. In Chapter 3 and 4, we have noted that across a significant portion of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, Buddhist religious centres had to share the landscape with Brahmanical religious centres, which imparted a poly-religious character to the landscape. We have noted this feature in the neighbourhood of important Buddhist religious centres such as Bodh Gaya, Nalanda, Paharpur, Sabhar and Mainamati monasteries. This trend, in some way, penetrated to many Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Brahmanical

544

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

sculptures have been reported from Bodh Gaya, Nalanda, Kurkihar, Antichak, Rajabadidanga, Jagaddala, Paharpur and Mainamati monasteries in varying degrees. How does this development reflect on the issue of interactions between Buddhism and Brahmanism? Why did the Buddhist monks allow the installation of these sculptures? How did it impact the decline of Buddhism in the long run? And how to locate these sculptures in the complex encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism when the same centuries produced those Buddhist sculptures (Trailokyavijaya, Aparājitā, etc.) that mark the overt triumph of Buddhism over Brahmanism? One of the first scholars to note this ‘intriguing’ pattern was A. Ghosh, who, in the context of Nalanda, observed that The presence of not a negligible number of Brahmanical images in the centre of Buddhist theology and ritual is intriguing. Probably their introduction and existence were tolerated, but it must be remembered that this was the age when the Buddhists were conceiving and erecting such deities as Trailokyavijaya trampling on Śiva and Pārvatī, Aparājitā trampling on Gaṇeśa, and Vidyujjvālākarālī whose vāhana consists of such mighty Brahmanical gods as Indra, Brahmā and Viṣṇu, who also carries the severed head of Brahmā in one of her hands. It is no doubt true that there were mutual exchange and borrowing of deities, but it is not possible to think that the Brahmanical deities whose images are found at Nālandā, viz., Viṣṇu, Balarāma, Śiva-Pārvatī, Gaṇeśa, etc., were ever absorbed in the Buddhist pantheon.219

His observations are largely true: these Brahmanical deities could never be absorbed into Buddhism on any significant scale, but that does not mean that Buddhism did not make this kind of effort. As indicated by Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara sculptures that have been found in different parts of Bengal, Buddhism did attempt the absorption of the most popular deity of early medieval Bengal (i.e. Viṣṇu) at least in Varendra, even if not on a big scale.220 None of such sculptures has been reported from any definite monastic context. In many excavated monastic sites, Brahmanical sculptures do occur, but without having the representation of any Kuleśa Buddhist deity in their tiara. In

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

545

other words, their absorption into Buddhism was not the aim of the Buddhist Saṅgha, but something else, at least in the contexts of excavated monastic sites of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. That the Saṅgha did not try for their absorption into Buddhism was also inspired by some realities to which the Saṅgha must have been aware of: a more diffused presence of Brahmanical religious centres in almost all parts of early medieval Bihar and Bengal; and almost a total monopoly of the Brahmanical priesthood in rites de passage for the masses. This was coupled with the fact that in the non-monastic space, most of the proliferation of Buddhist ‘settlement-shrines’ in different parts of early medieval Bihar and Bengal was dependent on the patronage from persons without expressed Buddhist identity as recorded in dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures donated by them. In this kind of situation, how to explain the findings of Brahmanical sculptures in many excavated monastic sites of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, especially in the contexts of the findings of Trailokyavijaya, Aparājitā, Saṁvara, Heruka: the deities that signify the victory of Buddhism over Brahmanism after a violent conflict? We will look into this question after briefly reviewing the existing theoretical debates on this theme.

Theorizing the Findings of Brahmanical Sculptures in Buddhist Religious Centres Oof Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal: A Review of Some Recent Debates The findings of Brahmanical sculptures from Buddhist religious centres have been interpreted variously: as a manifestation of peaceful coexistence between Buddhism and Brahmanism; 221 as a kind of antagonistic tolerance;222 as an indication of nonexclusive Buddhist identity of these religious centres; 223 and as an attempt by the Buddhist Saṅgha of maṇḍalic appropriation of Brahmanical deities in a manner of subordinate union.224 It has also been interpreted as a clever opportunism by the Buddhists, bereft of ideological moorings: ‘the Buddhists adopted many Brahmanical deities to popularize their religion among the

546

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

masses’;225 but ‘at the same time, they also introduced such deities as Trailokyavijaya and Aparājitā to impress upon the masses that Buddhism was superior to Brahmanism’.226 It may be noted that Brahmanical sculptures are regularly found in Buddhist religious centres, but we have seen a resounding absence of Buddhist sculptures in Brahmanical religious centres in these centuries. If it was just a case of peaceful coexistence, this should have been reflected at the both ends of the spectrum, it could not have been one way traffic. Coexistence does not rule out hierarchy, conflict and contestation. The theory of ‘peaceful coexistence between Buddhism and Brahmanism’ does not fully explain the complexity of Buddhist-Brahmanical encounters within the monastic space of early medieval eastern India. These scholars, who argue for the multi-religious character of major Buddhist religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, rule out the possibility of the integration of Brahmanical deities to Buddhism in a manner of subordinate union. It is probably due to this factor that they rule out a ‘Buddhist’ character to even the holiest site of Buddhism: Mahābodhi. These arguments are not tenable. We may analyze this issue through a different paradigm. Every religious centre would have a ‘core’ character, and it would add additional features to its ‘core’ in the course of time, basically to negotiate changing socio-economic and religious situations. Nobody will deny that Buddhism formed the ‘core’ of the religious personality of Nalanda, Bodh Gayā, Kurkihār, Antichak, Paharpur, and other excavated Buddhist monastic sites of early medieval Bihar and Bengal. Brahmanical deities were added to this ‘core’ personality under different circumstances and with different motives. The intended relationship between the ‘core’ and add-ons, at least from the perspective of the Buddhist Saṅgha, was not that of equality. From the perspectives of the Buddhist Saṅgha, the add-ons were expected to be subordinate to the core personality of these Buddhist religious centres, to serve some particular purpose. Once integrated to the Buddhist pantheon in a subordinate

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

547

capacity, these Brahmanical deities are expected to perform an important function in Buddhism: The Hindu gods are perceived as demons and as such they are conquered by the Buddha, which allows them to go back to their original divine nature. They go through a similar experience when they are trampled by Buddhist ferocious deities who assimilate their divine power by mastering them: their destruction becomes positive inasmuch as they are assimilated by the one who tramples them and inasmuch as their dark aspects are destroyed. For the frightening and eventful sculptures of great Buddhist gods lead the path to and open the ways to Enlightenment. These Hindu gods thus share an ambivalent nature. They are at the threshold of two worlds: the one being the Buddhist way, symbolized by the inner mansions of the maṇḍalas which they have to protect from the second where chaos rules. Similarly the Hindu gods occupy the outer mansions of the maṇḍalas and combine both the wildness and ignorance of the external world and peace of the inner world.227

As to which Brahmanical deity would be peacefully made the attendant of some Buddhist deity, and which deity would be made to submit to Buddhism after a violent conflict, would depend upon the popularity of the cult of the particular deity in the area. So in the Buddhist sculptures of south-eastern Bengal, where the Durgā cult was very strong, ‘Durgā is included among the Hindu deities that attack the Buddha’.228 In early medieval Magadha, where Śaivism was very strong, it is the family of Śiva (Śiva, Pārvatī or Gaṇeśa) that is shown to be trampled by Buddhist deities (Trailokyavijaya, Saṁvara or Aparājitā). In fact, it was with Śaivism that Buddhism developed the most complicated, multi-layered relationship. At one level, the Buddhist Saṅgha attempted to show Śiva as the biggest devotee of the Buddha. Legends developed that the Mahābodhi temple, the holiest Buddhist religious centre, was founded by a Brahmin on the exhortation of Śiva, which was faithfully recorded by Xuan Zang.229 At another level, the most ferocious aspect of Śiva – Mahākāla – was reduced to the status of the presiding deity of the kitchen in Buddhist monasteries.230 And, at another level,

548

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

there was the violent imagery of Trailokyavijaya and Aparājitā, displaying the open triumph of Buddhism over Śaivism after a violent conflict. A combined reading of A.S. Amar and BautzePicron may indicate that these were all reflections of the attempts by the Buddhist Saṅgha to effect a subordinate integration of Śaivism to Buddhism. To summarize, these studies expect us to believe that whenever a non-Buddhist deity was installed in a Buddhist religious centre, and whenever the Saṅgha accepted such a donation, that was generally motivated by the desire of Buddhist maṇḍalic appropriation of rival cults. To what extent may this model be applied to the excavated Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal? A basic assumption in such writings is that if Brahmanical deities were attempted to be integrated to Buddhism in a manner of subordinate union, they would always remain in the position wished by the Saṅgha. The scheme would unfold exactly in the way the Saṅgha wanted it to be. Brahmanical deities integrated to Buddhism in a manner of subordinate union would always retain the character that the Saṅgha designed for them. If they were transformed into ‘protector deities’ of Buddhism after their defeat and subsequent revival by a Buddhist deity, their attributed character would never change. They would remain on the ‘outer mansions of the maṇḍalas’ forever. Forever, they would have an ‘ambivalent nature’ occupying the ‘threshold of two worlds’. These assumptions are not tenable. Because, like every other kind of religious change, it was susceptible to changes in the material domain. Buddhism, it has been rightly argued, contains a hierarchy of teachings and it has co-existed with other religious systems in a structured hierarchy.231 The relative positioning of elements in this ‘structured hierarchy’ and fluctuations in this evolved with the interplay of various interrelated processes: socioeconomic, religious and political. Even if the Saṅgha inducted Brahmanical deities as subsidiary ‘Buddhist’ deities, the pattern would not have remained static. The relative positioning of Buddhism and Brahmanism in the ‘structured hierarchy’

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

549

visualized by the Saṅgha within the monastic space would not have remained immune to socio-economic, religious and political developments taking place in the non-monastic space. To give just one example, in the complex matrix of appropriation and counter-appropriation, the Buddha ended up as an avatar of Viṣṇu in India, but in Sri Lanka, where the Saṅgha had a different kind of linkage with political and socio-economic processes and institutions than what it could ever establish in any part of India in any period, the result was just the opposite: in Sri Lanka Viṣṇu became a minor Buddhist deity, devoid of any soteriological significance, performing some mundane tasks (cure of snakebites, granting progeny, etc.) for the Buddhist lay devotees.232 In Sri Lanka, this attempt was successful because the Saṅgha controlled a significant section of the agrarian sector and served as the only institutional repository for the legitimacy of the king.233 In Bengal, in contrast, a Paramasaugata king (Śrīcandra) relied on a huge congregation of Brahmins and Brahmanical maṭhas in colonizing a marshy and forested periphery of the state (i.e. Sylhet area) in an attempt to effect the socio-economic integration of this area to the core areas of the state, while totally ignoring a Buddhist establishment that was already present in the same area.234 In no part of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, Buddhism had a more significant proliferation than Brahmanism. Wherever it expanded, it expanded in the shadow of an expanding Brahmanism, which had a more diversified patronage base.235 In this kind of situation, the end-result was bound to be different from what the Saṅgha aimed at. In the paragraphs that follow, we will examine the issue of complex dialogues taking place between Buddhism and Brahmanism in early medieval Bihar and Bengal as reflected in archaeological data from some excavated Buddhist religious centres of this area. We will analyze this question at two levels. At one level, we will try to situate the implications of the actual findings of Brahmanical sculptures in the monastic religious space vis-à-vis the designs of the Saṅgha. At another level, we will try to situate this development in the complex triangle involving Buddhism, Brahmanism and the common devotees, a

550

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

vast majority of which did not have any fixed religious identity. We will explore the following issues: 1. In which part of the monastery are Brahmanical sculptures found: inside the monastic cells; on the outer walls of the central cruciform shrine; or on the outer walls of monastic cells? This question assumes significance because monastic architecture most probably served as one of the avenues through which the subordinate integration of Brahmanism to Buddhism was attempted.236 2. Are the Brahmanical sculptures miniature figures (i.e. personal worship objects of monks) or big stone sculptures, serving as the main objects of public worship? Were they easily visible to the non-monastic devotees, or were they primarily meant to be seen by monks only? Is the Maṇḍalic appropriation a statement to the public at large or is it a preaching to the converted: to the monks? Did those portions of Buddhist monasteries; where subordinate integration of Brahmanism was attempted, form a popular pilgrimage avenue? 3. What kinds of Brahmanical sculptures/terracotta plaques are found: Vaiṣṇava or Śaiva? Do they have any convergence with the pattern of findings of Brahmanical sculptures in the general area? In other words, was the monastery responding only to local situations or to distant challenges as well? 4. One more theme in the study of negotiations between Buddhism and Brahmanism within the Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal may be the cult of those deities that highlight the violent triumph of Buddhism over Brahmanism: Aparājitā, Trailokyavijaya, Saṁvara, Heruka, etc. From which part of the monastery have they been found? Are the large stone sculptures meant for public display or were they meant for secret worship by monks? Were there any dedicatory inscription on them? Which section of society patronized their cult? 5. We also need to assess the perception of the common devotees of this whole process. Buddhism and Brahmanism

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

551

attempted to appropriate each other, and Buddhist sculptures depicted Brahmanical deities in an attendant position or as trampled upon figures. Buddhist institutions also accepted the donation of Brahmanical sculptures from common persons to effect a subordinate integration of these cults into Buddhism. But what was the perception of the non-monastic person who actually donated these sculptures? Did he/she donate these sculptures as representatives of a subordinated/to be subordinated cult? Or did he/she donate these sculptures as representatives of independent cults? 6. What was the impact of this whole process in inducing the eventual Brahmanical appropriation of Buddhism? Were there variations in the end result across Bihar and Bengal? Let us begin with the issue of spatial location of Brahmanical sculptures within the Buddhist monasteries. We will analyse two kinds of Brahmanical sculptures: (1) Brahmanical sculptures found in situ, as part of the monastic architecture, such as sculptures on the plinth of Nalanda Temple Site 2; on the outer side of the basement wall of the central cruciform shrines of Antichak and Paharpur; or on the basement walls of a subsidiary shrine near the central shrine of Salban Vihāra, and; (2) loose sculptures found from different parts of Buddhist religious centres. We will first analyze the Brahmanical sculptures found in situ as part of the monastic architecture.

Evolution of the Patterns of Cultic Encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism within the Monastic Religious Space of Nalanda: Inferences from Temple Sites 3 and 2 Let us begin with an analysis of Nalanda, where the pattern of encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism show an interesting evolution. Some temples and monasteries of Nalanda were used to display the superiority of Buddhism over Brahmanism, either directly or through the attempt of subordinate integration of Brahmanism by allowing the

552

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

installation of Brahmanical images. We may point out some broad stages of this process. In the first stage, which is discernible in the depiction of the Dīpaṅkara Jātaka in a stucco image (datable to the first half of the seventh century) of the fifth integument of Nalanda Temple Site 3, it was not as direct as we see in later stages, but it was deliberate.237 Site 3, as we have seen earlier, was the holiest monument of Nalanda, the very nucleus of its potential to attract non-monastic pilgrimage. A scene from the Dīpaṅkara Jātaka was depicted here.238 The depiction of the Dīpaṅkara Jātaka was significant: when the Buddha in his previous life as Dīpaṅkara was walking on a muddy road, a devout Brahmin who had become a hermit laid his long locks of hair on the ground so that Dīpaṅkara would walk on them and would not muddy his feet. Dīpaṅkara predicted that this Brahmin would be born as Sākyamuni Buddha.239 The depiction of the Dīpaṅkara Jātaka in the stucco imagery on the outer walls of Temple Site 3 was a public statement that Brahmins had been devotees of Buddhism for a long time. It could not have been a mere coincidence that the eighth century AD stone sculpture of Nāgarāja, which was most probably the tutelary deity of the Temple Site 3 at least in the phase when it was donated, was donated by a Mahāyāna upāsaka, Bhaṭṭa-Māṇikya.240 As indicated by his very title (Bhaṭṭa) which was commonly used by the Brahmins, Māṇikya was probably from this background. In other words, depiction of the Dīpaṅkara Jātaka and allowing the installation of the tutelary deity of the site by a Mahāyāna upāsaka from a Brahmin background were strategies adopted by the monastic authorities to indicate the superiority of Buddhism over Brahmanism in a persuasive way, without employing the confrontationist imagery of Aparājitā, Trailokyavijaya, Saṁvara or Heruka of the later period. The depiction of Brahmanical deities on the outer walls of the plinth of the Temple Site 2 (dated to the later part of the seventh century) of Nalanda may be also interpreted as a Buddhist attempt of subordinate integration of Brahmanism to Buddhism without employing any confrontationist imagery.241

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

553

Out of the 220 stone panels on the plinth of this site, only 22 represent Brahmanical themes, in which Śiva and his different aspects are more predominant. 242 Buddhist deities are conspicuous by their absence in this seventh century structure, so much so that some scholars have even doubted the very Buddhist identity of the same.243 The presence of Brahmanical themes in only 10 per cent of the reported panels is not a sufficient ground to term this site as a temple dedicated to Śiva, especially when a much bigger percentage of reported sculptures on the outer walls of the central shrine of the unmistakably Buddhist religious centre of Paharpur depict Brahmanical themes. We will rather treat Nalanda Temple Site 2 as a maṇḍalic structure intended to effect a subordinate integration of Śiva and other Brahmanical deities to Buddhism. An important fact to be taken into account in this context is the very location of the Temple Site 2. It was not located inside the monastic enclosure, but was technically outside the monastery. A common devotee need not enter the monasteries to see them. In other words, it was a public statement of the subordinate integration of Brahmanical deities in general and Śaivism in particular to Buddhism, intended to be visible to the maximum number of non-monastic devotees. Monks would have seen it of course, but the primary targeted audience was the class of non-monastic devotees. This imagery was a kind of afterthought: as per B.N. Mishra, in contrast to the niches of Site 3 of Nalanda, which were integral parts of the monument, the niches of the Temple 2, which contain the Brahmanical imagery, are separate parts joined together with the help of iron clamps.244 His observations leave no doubt that these niches, which also contained Brahmanical imagery, were inserted in the outer walls of the Temple Site 2 at a later date, to offer a public view of the process of subordinate integration of Brahmanism to Buddhism. It may also be noted that from Nalanda, a miniature replica of the ‘Mahābodhi temple’ decorated with hundreds of liṅgas on its outer wall and Umāmaheśvara aspect within its niches has been reported.245 Since the now disappeared superstructure of

554

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Nalanda Temple Site 12 was most probably similar to the Mahābodhi temple of Bodh Gaya,246 this miniature replica could well have been a replica of the Nalanda Temple Site 12, to be distributed to pilgrims as mementos. This is not to suggest that the original temple too necessarily contained hundreds of liṅgas on its outer wall and the Umāmaheśvara aspect within its niches. Whether or not the original temple contained this feature cannot be ascertained. The miniature piece might have been made intentionally to be distributed to the pilgrims, who would have carried it back to their villages, and would have, thus propagated the idea of Śiva and Pārvatī being the biggest devotees of the Buddha even in distant areas. This development may be explained as a Buddhist response to the great popularity the cult of Umāmaheśvara enjoyed in the neighbourhood of Nalanda, which we have highlighted in Chapter 3. But some devotees might have ended up with visualizing this site as a Śiva temple. What was the perception of non-monastic devotees to the whole process of the subordinate integration of Śaivism to Buddhism at Nalanda? It may be noted that at Temple Site 3, the holiest spot within the Mahāvihāra, Brahmanical deities were not depicted on any part of the monument in any phase, nor was the installation of any stone or bronze sculpture of any Brahmanical deity allowed here. Yet it was the most preferred destination of pilgrimage, despite being located in the inner part of the Mahāvihāra. Temple Site 2 was located out of the Mahāvihāra, yet non-monastic devotees seem to have maintained a distance from it. This is indicated by a pronounced absence of votive stūpas from the vicinity of Temple site 2. Was that an indication that this site was not considered to be ‘Buddhist’ enough to command the dedication of votive stūpas? Or did the pilgrims simply not want to get involved in a contentious process? Some ‘non-aristocratic non-monastic’ devotees did donate inscribed Brahmanical sculptures to the Mahāvihāra, and an inscribed image of Balarāma found its way to a monastery of Nalanda through such patronage. But we don’t know why nobody installed a votive stūpa in the vicinity of Temple Site 2.

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

555

Patterns of Cultic Encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism as Reflected in the Central Cruciform Shrine of Antichak Compared to Nalanda, three ‘Paharpur-type monasteries’ – Antichak, Paharpur and Salban Vihāra – show some fundamental differences. At these sites, Brahmanical themes, either in terracotta plaques or in stone panels, penetrated to the inner parts of the monastic fabric, in varying degrees, in different contexts, and with different outcomes. In terms of sheer number of Brahmanical sculpted stone panels and terracotta plaques, Paharpur stands out. At both Paharpur and Antichak, this process of subordinate integration of Brahmanical religions to Buddhism was mainly attempted through the depiction of Brahmanical themes on the plinth of the central cruciform shrine. In Salban Vihāra, this was done not on the plinth of the central shrine, but on a shrine in its neighbourhood. At both Paharpur and Salban Vihāra, scenes associated with the childhood heroics of Kṛṣṇa formed the primary theme, but they are simply absent at Antichak. In all the three sites, it was very difficult, if not practically impossible, for the non-monastic devotees to gain access to the central shrine area. So for all practical purposes, the depiction of Brahmanical themes was a kind of preaching to the converted: the targeted audience was monks living within the monastery and not the non-monastic devotees. The pattern was, thus, fundamentally different from what we have seen in the cases of Nalanda Temple sites 3, 2 and 12. On the plinth of the lower terrace of the central cruciform shrine of Antichak, a variety of secular and religious themes has been depicted in terracotta plaques. They are roughly of the same size (13 × 11 in.) as at Paharpur and approximately of the same period.247 In contrast to Nalanda Temple Site 2, the Brahmanical presence is very thin in terracotta plaques: only three plaques – Varāha-Viṣṇu, Ardhanārīśvara, Hanumān – have been reported. 248 Other depicted figures include figures associated with the Buddha Śākyamuni, which form the single

556

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

biggest group of reported religious plaques. Plaques with Buddhist themes include the Buddha Śākyamuni in different mudrās,249 the Buddha’s descent from Trayatriṁśa heaven, the Buddha taming Nalagiri, Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, Mañjuśrī, Maitreya, Padmapāṇi, Jambhala, Tārā and Mārīcī.250 Male yogīs, preachers and hunters, males and females engaged in dancing and engaged in playing musical instruments are also depicted on plaques.251 The finding of Brahmanical sculptures here has been taken as an indication of the ‘absorption’ of these deities into Buddhism.252 This was, rather, an attempt at subordinate integration. Barring one or two instances, where three adjacent panels illustrate a Buddha with his attendant Bodhisattvas at each side, there was no fixed pattern in the thematic arrangement of plaques: ‘the artists did not care for any sequential arrangement to them, and it was nothing but chance that determined if a plaque with human figures was to be followed by a striding monkey, a goose or a conch’.253 Unlike Nalanda Temple Site 2, these plaques were not fixed to the central cruciform shrine at a later date. In contrast to stone sculptures in the plinth of the central shrine of Paharpur, no terracotta plaque of Antichak seems to antedate the central shrine.

Pattern of Cultic Encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the Central Cruciform Shrine of Paharpur One of the best examples of complex encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism within the monastic space of early medieval Bihar and Bengal is reflected in the sculpted stone panels found in the basement of the central cruciform shrine of Paharpur. Dikshit’s excavations at this site unearthed 63 stone sculptures out of which 17 depict scenes associated with Kṛṣṇa; 5 depict scenes associated with the Rāmāyaṇa, 7 depict Śiva in his various forms, and 2 depict Gaṇeśa. It cannot be denied that the Brahmanical sculptures were placed on the basement walls of the central cruciform temple of Paharpur deliberately to induce

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

557

subordinate integration of these deities to Buddhism. But this pattern shows an interesting evolution, which we will try to trace in the paragraphs that follow. The first thing to be noted in this context is that most of the Brahmanical sculptures depicted on the basement wall of the central cruciform shrine antedate the shrine. One of the earliest scholars to notice this discrepancy was Prof. S.K. Saraswati, who, on the basis of the types of stones used in construction of sculptures, their art-historical features, and discrepancy between the size of some sculptures and niches that contained them, divided these sculptures into three groups. The first group, largely made of grey sandstone, possibly dating to the late Gupta period or a little before the late Gupta period, consisted of mostly Brahmanical sculptures. 254 The second group of sculptures, mostly made of a kind of bluish basalt stone, represented the intermediary phase of sculptural activities, represented by some 15 specimens.255 The third group of sculptures, made of black basalt, represented the largest number of sculptures. Probably only the third group was coterminous with the foundation of the Mahāvihāra in the latter half of the eighth century.256 They mostly depicted popular narrative themes with hardly any cultic significance.257 If the Brahmanical sculptures were not part of the original fabric of the temple then how to explain their fixing to this Buddhist temple? He believes that these sculptures were fixed to the basement of the Paharpur temple much after its original date of construction. They were, he argues, collected and gathered, in all probability, from the earlier edifices in the neighbourhood.258 Prof. Saraswati’s arguments have been criticized mainly on the ground that no archaeological marker of the existence of so many edifices in the neighbourhood has been found so far.259 That may not be a valid proposition as the survival of temples depends on many factors. We will just like to add that the sixthseventh centuries Varendra, as indicated by the findings of inscribed terracotta plaques depicting scenes from the Rāmāyaṇa at the site of Palashbari/Bamunpara in the neighbourhhod of Mahasthan, did have a tradition of terracotta plaques depicting

558

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

scenes from the Epics.260 It has been rightly pointed out that the Palashbari plaques were used to decorate the outer walls of one or more Brahmanical temples, no trace of which exists at the site or its immediate neighbourhood. 261 A similar situation for Paharpur may not be totally ruled out.262 Brahmanical sculpted panels on the central cruciform shrine are generally found randomly, but they do seem to follow a pattern. As the devotee would enter from the northern gateway of the monastic complex and start the circumambulation of the central shrine from the northern side, the first image he would encounter in the central shrine would be Gaṇeśa, the god who is offered prayer at the beginning of any propitious act. Just before, he would encounter an image of Śiva on the north-eastern corner, probably in his form as Īśāna. As he would move further in the Pradakṣiṇāpatha, he would notice Kṛṣṇa, scenes from the Rāmāyaṇa, etc. His circumambulation would end with two images of Śiva. In a nutshell, despite the preponderance of sculptures associated with the Epics (scenes associated with the exploits of Kṛṣṇa and the Rāmāyaṇa), Śaiva symbolism was not insignificant. Śaiva symbolism is more prominent in the terracotta plaques of the central cruciform shrine. Here terracotta plaques associated with different forms of Śiva are so numerous that Dikshit was forced to conclude that ‘the contribution of Paharpur to the iconography of Śaivism is not inconsiderable’.263 In this aspect, the Paharpur pattern looks similar to the ones observed at Nalanda and Bodh Gaya where Buddhism had to spend a considerable energy in negotiating the Śaiva challenge. Paharpur was a very important Buddhist religious centre in early medieval Bihar and Bengal and it should not be a matter of any surprise if we see the negotiation of both Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism at this site. The frequency with which Brahmanical themes appear in the stone and terracotta imagery of the central cruciform shrine of Paharpur should not lead us to believe that the monastic authorities of the Somapura Mahāvihāra were totally oblivious of the need to safeguard the core Buddhist identity of the monument. They, rather, took significant steps to retain this

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

559

identity, which is also reflected in the sculptural and terracotta iconographic programme of the site. Among the terracotta plaques, the Buddha in the bhūmisparśa mudrā occupied a prominent position – in the centre of the main eastern wall – and was easily accessible for the worship of the circumambulating devotees.264 Among the stone sculptures in the basement, the positioning of the sculpture of Padmapāṇi (datable to the eighthninth centuries265) – in the middle of the southern side of the basement – had some special significance.266 Dikshit has rightly noted that this image – ‘the only undoubted Buddhist image among the reliefs fixed in the basement wall of the Paharpur temple’ – was ‘singled out for ill-treatment by invaders of an antagonistic faith’.267 That this sculpture of Padmapāṇi had some special significance and the area around the kuṇḍa, as indicated by the discovery of a stūpa and a small temple in front of it, on the south-western side, was an area of intense ritual activities, has been noted by another scholar, but without offering any explanation for the same.268 It is also not explained why this image was targeted for special violence. The reasons may be found in the symbolism of the central cruciform shrine and the overall significance of the image of Padmapāṇi in the same. We have seen that the central cruciform shrine, with an emphasis on the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas in general and Vairocana in particular was perceived to offer magical protection to the patron king. Besides, it also radiated the claim of the king for universal overlordship. It should not be of any surprise if this monument was subjected to a planned attack by a rival king of a different faith. Similarly, Padmapāṇi, being the only categorically Buddhist deity amidst a multitude of Brahmanical deities depicted on the basement wall, could have been perceived something like a deity presiding over Brahmanical deities depicted on the wall. So it should not be surprising if it was targeted for special violence by the invading army of a king of different faith. The Buddhist Saṅgha of Paharpur seems to have realized the perils associated with the imagery of the basement wall of the central cruciform shrine at a later date. Besides inviting hostility

560

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

from hostile external powers, it was also quite probable that too close an engagement with the attempted subordinate integration of Brahmanical deities might result in too deep a penetration of Brahmanism into the ritual life of the establishment. Ultimately, the authorities of the Mahāvihāra took a decision of making the iconographic programme of the basement of the central cruciform shrine invisible. This is indicated by some architectural changes around the central shrine, in the monastic courtyard. Dikshit has referred to the presence of two stūpas to the north of the staircase that have their lower courses laid on top of the inner enclosure wall (i.e. the enclosure wall delimiting the circumambulatory pathway around the temple).269 This development has rightly been interpreted as an indication that in a later phase, when Paharpur was still used a Buddhist monument, the monastic courtyard was filled up, rendering Brahmanical sculptures on the basement wall of the central cruciform shrine almost invisible.270 It has been rightly concluded that ‘before the final abandonment of the monastery, the monks had decided that the Hindu sculptures adorning their sculptures were, if not embarrassing, at least unnecessary for their rituals’.271 Probably the monks of the Mahāvihāra wanted to obviate the likely emergence of what was happening in the Salban Vihāra roughly in the same period: blurring of ritual boundaries between Buddhism and Brahmanism, so much so that the Buddha ended up wearing yajñopavīta, worshipped in that form by some monks in their monastic cells.272

Pattern of Interactions between Buddhism and Brahmanism Near the Central Shrine of Salban Vihāra Recently, excavations at a structure located to the south-west of the central shrine of Salban Vihāra led to the unearthing of a pillared shrine, roughly square in shape with recessed or indented corners.273 Its ground plan ‘appears to represent a modified version of the cruciform shape, probably representing an intermediary stage, from which the latter form developed’.274 This building was constructed in the early Deva period (early

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

561

eighth century AD ), that is, in the earliest phase of the monastery.275 On the basement wall of this pillared shrine, 63 terracotta plaques were found out of which 18 depict legends associated with the childhood of Kṛṣṇa.276 Beginning with the birth of Kṛṣṇa and ending with the killing of Kansa, they ‘more or less follow the storyline of Krishna’s childhood legends as described in Bhāgavata Purāṇa and Harivamsa’.277 It is on this basis that the excavators proposed a tenth-eleventh centuries dating of these plaques.278 If the tenth-eleventh centuries dating of these plaques is accepted, then what are the implications? If the pillared temple was constructed in the eighth century at the time of the foundation of the Bhavadeva Mahāvihāra, and these plaques were added at least two centuries later, that will indicate that that this programme was a kind of after-thought. Even when terracotta plaques with Kṛṣṇa legends were added, they were not added to the basement wall of the central shrine, but on a subsidiary shrine near to it. This may be understood in the context of the increasing popularity of Brahmanical deities in general and Viṣṇu in particular in the plains of Comilla by the tenth century. This was happening roughly in the same period when Aparājitā and Yamāntaka were added to Nalanda Site 3; and Buddhist monks of Paharpur covered up the Brahmanical sculptures in the central cruciform shrine. But Salban Vihāra added Kṛṣṇa plaques. There was no concerted, uniform pattern across Bihar and Bengal; local factors were also important.

Patterns of Cultic Encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism within the Monastic Religious Space of Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal: Inferences from Loose Sculptures Found in the Excavations of Some Buddhist Monastic Centres Some aspects of the patterns of encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism within the monastic religious space of different monastic centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal may be unraveled by analysing the find spots and types of Brahmanical

562

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

sculptures and those sculptures that highlight confrontation between Buddhism and Brahmanism (Aparājitā, etc.). In the context of Nalanda, the Pāla period heralds a mixed pattern for encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism within the monastic space of Nalanda Mahāvihāra. At one level, many Brahmanical sculptures made their way to the inner parts of the monastery. At another level, this was also a period when sculptures of deities like Aparājitā were constructed. Pāla period Brahmanical sculptures reported from Nalanda are mostly miniature metal images found in the excavations of different monastic sites. As rightly pointed out by Debajani Paul, they are generally free-standing and non-architectural, and the small size of most of the extant pieces suggests that these were especially used for personal worship by the resident monks’.279 They were unlikely to have been the main cult images for public display and worship. None of them have been reported in situ from any temple site. One may, in fact, highlight their absence from Temple Site 3. The monastic authorities of the Mahāvihāra did not allow the installation of any kind of Brahmanical sculpture here in any period. This site was provided with a stone sculpture of Aparājitā in the ninth century AD,280 displaying the violent triumph of Buddhism over Śaivism. In a way, the pattern at this site was different from what we see in the seventh-eighth centuries. This stone image must have been visible to the nonmonastic pilgrims at the biggest spot of pilgrimage within the Mahāvihāra. This was one of the ways through which the Mahāvihāra sought to retain its core Buddhist character, especially in a phase when Brahmanism was having a significant expansion in much of Bihar and Bengal. The finding of a stone sculpture of Yamāntaka (c. ninthtenth centuries)281 from Temple Site 3 may be interpreted in a similar way. At this site, the installation of this deity served a dual purpose. Yamāntaka, at one level, was considered to be a krodha, a terrifying emanation of Bodhisattva, possessing a wrathful character and protecting the inner space of a maṇḍala by destroying or subduing demons before bringing them, transformed, inside the inner circle.282 It is apparent that the site

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

563

was considered to be a maṇḍala by this time and the installation of the sculpture of this deity was motivated by the desire of guarding the core Buddhist identity of the site. But this deity had one more function: Yamāntaka also served as a rescuer of the pretas.283 The conception of Yamāntaka as a deity to help the preta become an ancestor was most probably a Buddhist response to the popularity of Gaya as the most sacred centre for śrāddha rites.284 In other words, pilgrims who thronged to the Temple Site 3 could have expected the release of their ancestors by the worship of Yamāntaka. In a way, the installation of the sculpture of this deity in Nalanda Temple Site 3 may be seen in the context of the dialectic of Buddhist-Brahmanical encounters taking place in Magadha, motivated not only by the desire of retaining the core Buddhist identity of the most sacred site within the Mahāvihāra, but also as a method of wresting some pilgrimage from Brahmanism by helping a pilgrim in one of his/her most essential duties: release of ancestors. That the Mahāvihāra offered its most sacred spot to the pilgrims for this important task reflects the seriousness through which it tried to cater to an important ritual need of its devotees. At Antichak, it is difficult to analyses the patterns of interactions between Buddhism and Brahmanism as reflected through the find spot and kind of Brahmanical sculptures discovered in excavations, mainly due to the disturbed nature of the site owing to the vandalism it suffered. In contrast to Nalanda, all discovered Brahmanical images in the Antichak excavations are big stone pieces.285 No Brahmanical sculpture in bronze has been reported so far.286 These stone images were unlikely to have been the personal objects of worship of monks. Most of them have been reported from the later shrine area. These shrines, made of materials taken from the vandalized monastery, emerged after the destruction of the Mahāvihāra.287 Many Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures were found concealed in the core of a flimsy wall, erected to save them from the rage of the invaders.288 Due to these reasons, it is difficult to reconstruct the original location of Brahmanical sculptures vis-à-vis the monastic religious space and their significance in reconstructing Buddhist-

564

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Brahmanical encounters at this site.289 B.S. Verma has not attempted a century-wise dating of ‘Pāla-Sena’ period sculptures discovered at the site and that renders our task more difficult. In the context of Antichak, one thing must be added. Excavations at this site unearthed not only loose Brahmanical sculptures but also disjointed stone pieces of temples carved with the figures of Brahmanical deities. Such reported pieces include two disjointed stone piece of temples representing the figure of Pārvatī in relief;290 a disjointed stone piece of a temple representing the figure of a standing Kārttikeya;291 and two disjointed stone pieces of a temple representing the figure of Sūrya.292 We are not sure if they were originally placed on the outer side of some Buddhist structure(s) or they represented independent Brahmanical temples in close proximity of the Mahāvihāra. That at least one Brahmanical temple was probably present in the neighbourhood of the Mahāvihāra is also indicated by a twelfth century fragmented inscription on a stone slab, referring to a Śrī Śodhila Maṭha.293 The probable functioning of a Brahmanical temple in the close proximity of the Mahāvihāra reminds us of a similar situation at Mahābodhi, where a Caturmukha Mahādeva was installed by the son of a sculptor in the regime of Dharmapāla. As we move to Bengal monasteries, sculptural findings (Buddhist and Brahmanical) decrease. From many monasteries of Bengal, Brahmanical sculptures have been reported in varying quantities. In the Rajabadidanga excavations, a seventh-eighth centuries miniature bronze image of Gaṇeśa, was ‘found in close association with two other metal images of the Buddha embedded in a huge pottery deposition’.294 That forced the excavator to conclude that ‘the Gaṇeśa and Buddha images were most probably taken out of the same shrine and they were worshipped together’.295 In terms of iconography, this image of Gaṇeśa displayed some Tantric affiliation, forcing the excavator to argue for not only a ‘synthesis created by the Buddhists’ but also for increasing influence of Tantricism in Buddhism in this time.296 If the Buddha and Gaṇeśa were worshipped together in the same shrine, that was quite likely to producing a gradual blurring of

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

565

cultic boundaries between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the long run. In terms of the findings of Brahmanical deities in bronze or stone sculptures, or in terracotta plaques, Varendra monasteries show a mixed pattern. No such finding has been reported from the excavated sites of Bihar Dhap, Vasu Vihāra and Sitakot. At Paharpur, the profusion of Brahmanical sculptures in the basement wall of the central cruciform shrine or in the terracotta plaques on the outer walls of the first terrace of the central cruciform shrine is quite marked. The same inference may be made in the case of miniature bronze sculptures as well: out of the five images published by Dikshit, four images are Brahmanical, representing Haragaurī (i.e. Umāmaheśvara), Gaṇeśa and Kubera.297 These miniature images could have been the personal worship objects of monks, forcing us to conclude that the penetration of Brahmanism to Paharpur was not confined to the outer walls of the central cruciform shrine, it penetrated into monastic cells as well. From the Halud Vihāra mound, a c. eighth-ninth centuries miniature (2.5 in.) image of Gaṇeśa was discovered in an accidental digging.298 At Jagajjibanpur, Brahmanical presence is confined to terracotta plaques not found in situ, consisting of Śiva (four plaques, forming the single largest group), Sūrya, Agni, Varuṇa and Rāhu.299 When we move to Vaṅga and Samataṭa, the pattern is not fundamentally different. Two seventh-eighth centuries sealings, having the impression of an image of Viṣṇu and inscribed with the legend Om Namo Bhagavate Vāsudevāya, have been found in the excavations of the Rajasana mound at Sabhar. 300 Two miniature bronze images of Viṣṇu, datable to the eighth-ninth centuries, have also been reported from excavations of the neighboring Harishchandrarajar mound.301 It has been noted that all reported big stone steles of Viṣṇu or other Brahmanical deities from the Dhaka-Vikrampur area post-date these Sabhar pieces by at least two centuries. In other words, there was an undercurrent of Vaiṣṇavism in this area seventh-eighth century AD onwards, which Buddhist sites of Sabhar attempted to

566

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

negotiate by accepting these sculptures even before the proliferation of Brahmanical temples in the Dhaka-Vikrampur area. This proactive accommodation of Vaiṣṇavism by Buddhist religious centres at Sabhar seventh-eighth centuries onwards was somewhat similar to what we see in the case of the acceptance of an inscribed image of Sūrya (donated by Balādhikṛta Sālapakṣa) by the Nalanda Mahāvihāra in the seventh century.302 In Samataṭa, available examples of Brahmanical sculptures finding their way to Buddhist religious centers are confined to some miniature bronze sculptures found in the monastic cells of Salban Vihāra. Such reported sculptures include single pieces of Śarvvāṇī, seventh-eighth centuries (found in Cell no. 19); 303 Gaṇeśa, seventh-eighth centuries (found in Cell no. 53); 304 and Sūrya (ninth century AD, found in Cell no. 41).305 We may conclude this survey by figuring out the implications the penetration of Brahmanical deities entailed for monastic Buddhism in the long run. We have seen that most of the reported pieces were miniature bronze sculptures, which, as indicated by the Salban Vihāra example, mainly served as the objects of personal worship of monks in their cells. That does not mean that such practices remained confined to the cells of some ‘eclectic’ monks. This had the potential of blurring the cultic boundaries between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the long run. Rashid has referred to some later miniature bronze sculptures of the Buddha found from different cells of Salban Vihāra, which wear yajñopavīta.306 He has rightly linked it to the increasing influence of Brahmanism in the monastery.307 The Buddha wearing yajñopavīta and worshipped by monks in their monastic cells indicates the extent to which the character of the deity was undergoing slow metamorphosis in one of the most important monasteries of Samataṭa. But that was just one trajectory. In another case, as indicated by the finding of a big (65 × 9 cm, eleventh century) broken black stone image of Viṣṇu recovered from the southern wing of the Jagaddala Vihāra, 308 Viṣṇu emerged as a major and independent cult figure within a monastery of Bengal. If Vāsudeva and the Buddha were invoked

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

567

together in a Vajrayogini tortoise-shell inscription of c. eleventh century AD,309 that was not a disjointed development; but a continuation of what was happening inside the monastic religious space. Before we wrap up this section, we will like to briefly look into one more issue. So far, we have been trying to analyse the patterns of encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism through the monastic prism. Our emphasis was on tracing the motive (subordinate integration of Brahmanical deities) for which the Saṅgha accepted Brahmanical sculptures. We have argued that this endeavour produced some unintended consequences in the long run: Brahmanical sculptures did not remain confined to the ‘outer mansions of the maṇḍalas’, but moved to the inner parts of the monastic religious space and fundamentally impacted the character of some major Buddhist deities (like the sculpture of the Buddha wearing yajñopavīta in a monatic cell of Salban Vihāra). The long-term implications of this development need to be analysed through another prism: non-monastic devotees. Did they perceive this process as the subordinate integration of Brahmanical deities to Buddhism? Or did the donors donate them as representatives of independent cults? In other words, did a disjuncture develop between the designs of the Saṅgha and the perception of the common masses? This issue was analysed by us earlier through an analysis of dedicatory inscriptions on Brahmanical sculptures donated to Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Magadha.310 Barring an inscribed image of Gaṇeśa from Mandhuk (Comilla), all such examples are confined to Magadha. Our analysis indicated that barring a monk, who undertook the donation of an image of Balarāma to the Nalanda Mahāvihāra on behalf of a non-monastic devotee, none of the donors has claimed a Buddhist identity. Most probably, these donors were persons with a fluid religious identity. For them, there was hardly any perceived institutional and cultic differentiation between Buddhism and Brahmanical cults. They donated these sculptures as independent cult figures and not as representative of cults that were/were to be integrated into Buddhism in a manner of subordinate union.311 In the long

568

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

run, the end result was the blurring of ritual and institutional boundaries between Buddhism and Brahmanism for such donors.

The Process of Decline of Buddhist Monastic Sites in Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal: Perspectives from Archaeological Data In the previous pages, our analysis has highlighted the tremendous diversity in monastic Buddhism in early medieval Bihar and Bengal: diversity in terms of their foundation, morphology, patronage base, ritual engagements with nonmonastic devotees, political and religious symbolism. We have also noted that the practice of Buddhism as reflected in archaeological data from these sites was not homogenous. Given this kind of diversity in monastic Buddhism in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, it was but natural that there was no uniform pattern of decline of these religious centres. On the whole, we see two broad patterns: religio-political violence as a factor in the decline of monasteries; and a slow, protracted, decline due to problems in mobilizing resources. In the first pattern, religio-political violence did not result in immediate abandonment of the site in at least one case: Paharpur. Many monasteries attracted violent attacks due to diverse factors. In the case of Paharpur, it appears to have been mainly due to the political symbolism radiated by the site. In the previous pages, we have seen how this site was most probably established as a ‘royal monument’, which was believed to offer magico-ritual protection to the patron state. In this kind of scenario, a planned attack on it by a ruler of Vaṅgāla in the mideleventh century and its destruction by fire should not come as any surprise. This attack, though, did not result in the end of occupation of the site, which continued till the thirteenth century.312 Available data does not indicate a violent end of the site in the thirteenth century due to Turkic raids, though it is quite likely that the monastery was abandoned either before the foundation of the Turkic rule in Bengal or after that.313

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

569

In the case of the excavated site of Jagaddala, the monastery that was established in the eleventh century, seems to have met a violent end. This is indicated by the fact that the headless male deity, which was most probably the presiding deity of the monastery, was the object of targeted violence: ‘by means of hard attack, the head, hands and lower parts of the big sculpture were cut off by people obviously hostile to the Buddhist faith’.314 This again seems to have been an indirect result of the symbolism this site represented. With a ‘fort-like’ structure, accompanied with bastions on the four sides of the monastery,315 deification of every single monk within the monastic cells, and minimum interaction with the non-monastic devotees, it radiated a symbolism that was quite different from a monastery serving as an abode of world-renouncing monks. One of the best examples of violent destruction of a monastic centre in early medieval Bihar and Bengal is seen in the case of Antichak. This was probably due to the symbolism this site radiated: a monastery with a pronounced ‘fort-like’ look, with the fame of being a centre offering magico-ritual protection to the state. That this monastery suffered a violent end is indicated by the excavated data from the central shrine area as well as from the area of monastic cells. From both areas, remains of the fallen and broken stone pillars disjointed from their bases, traces of robbing of courses of bricks and extensive deposits of an ashy layer have been reported.316 That has forced the excavator to conclude that ‘the destruction of the monastery was completed by a planned attack by some outer elements’.317 B.S. Verma, citing some Tibetan sources, has claimed that that the monastery was destroyed in the beginning of the thirteenth century due to Turkic raids.318 He has cited some Tibetan sources to the effect that the Turks, after destroying the Mahāvihāra, built a fort out of the plundered material and stayed there for some time.319 Remains of one such fort, made of the materials taken from the vandalized monastery have been found at a distance of 1 km towards the west of the monastery at the site of Dharoharsthan mound near Jangalisthan.320 Excavations at this mound brought

570

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

to light a rampart wall built of bricks and stone sculpted pieces undoubtedly robbed from the monastery, Muslim glazed ware, as well as a beautiful navagraha stone panel in the core of the rampart wall.321 Faces of the deities in the navagraha panel were found to be intentionally chiseled out,322 indicating religious animosity of the invaders. It may be noted that the destruction of the monastery in Turkic raids did not lead to an immediate end of Buddhism at the site. A flimsy wall running south-to-north up to a distance of 15 m at a distance of around 150 m north of the main gate of the monastery was erected, in the core of which Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures (Mahākāla, Tārā, Buddha, Mahācaṇḍaroṣana, Aparājitā, Avalokiteśvara, Śiva, Gaṇeśa) were concealed to save them from the fury of the invaders.323 Shrines, made of materials taken out of the vandalized monastery, came up in the same area.324 In one of the shrines in this area, a broken figure of Tārā has been discovered.325 This shrine was surrounded by many votive stūpas made of bricks robbed from the monastery.326 It is apparent that this shrine was a Buddhist shrine, constructed after the destruction of the monastery. Probably Tārā, whose broken sculpture has been found here, was the presiding deity of this shrine, in whose honour votive stūpas were dedicated. Tārā was a saviour deity and it was but natural that devotees worshipped her in a milieu of great crisis. A layer of silt deposit was found in the area where later shrines were built, indicating that this area was within the flood zone.327 It has been rightly argued that flooding could have been one of the factors in the final abandonment of the site.328 In the case of other monasteries, a process of slow, protracted decline is discernible. The vihāra excavated at Jagajjibanpur was founded by Vajradeva, the commander of the Pāla royal army under Mahendrapāla. It was granted an udraṅga as its resource base with many immunities and privileges. The basic motive of Vajradeva in establishing this vihāra and securing the grant of an udraṅga was to augment his own authority vis-à-vis the same of the state in the area where this grant took place.329 We have also seen that this ‘fort-like’ monastery offered very little recorded

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

571

evidences of ritual engagement with non-monastic devotees. Due to this factor this monastery largely failed to attract additional sources of patronage. Throughout its life, it seems to have remained a ‘fort-monastery’. Despite that, we don’t have any evidence of the violent end of occupation at the site, either in the first phase or in the second. The first phase of occupation at this site came to an end due to floods.330 The second phase occupation at the site too does not show any evidence of violence, but of problems in resource mobilization. In the first phase, when the patronage by the Pāla state was substantial, structures are much better than the same of the second phase, in which the monastery was probably facing some financial hardship.331 In the second phase, the bricks used for the structures of the second phase are irregular in shape and size and even the bricks and brick-bats of the earlier phase have been re-used.332 Unlike other monasteries of eastern India, the courtyard is not paved with stone or terracotta tiles but with rammed brick-bats with uneven and rough surface.333 In a nutshell, it could never outgrow its basic character of being a ‘fort-monastery’ mostly dependent upon state patronage for its survival. That patronage was, however, susceptible to fluctuations and such fluctuations led to its decline. Other excavated monastic sites of Varendra also do not indicate a violent end of these sites. In the case of Sitakot Vihāra, another monastery with a monumental gateway complex, having very little recorded evidence of ritual engagements with non-monastic devotees, a process of slow decline has been noted. This, coupled with the absence of any evidence of violence forced the excavator to conclude that ‘the paucity of antiquities from the site and the comparative absence of occupation debris and cultural materials, together with the absence of any sign of devastation in the later phases of its occupation, clearly indicates that this large establishment was abandoned normally and gradually after only two periods of occupation and probably quite some time before its final collapse’.334 Similarly, at the site of Bihar Dhap, where three monasteries and remains of a temple or stūpa similar to Gokul Medh were excavated, evidences of the

572

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

violent end of any monument have not been reported. This site was located on the outskirts of Mahasthan and one would have ideally expected the flow of patronage from the residents of the city to the site. That is, however, not reflected in the available archaeological data. Nor do we have any recorded evidence of long distance pilgrimage to this site. Archaeological markers of ritual engagement between the monastery and non-monastic devotees have not been reported either. On the whole, one may infer that this establishment had some problems in resource mobilization that led to its slow decline. Similar would have been the case at the neighbouring site of Vasu Vihar, where too no evidence of the violent end of the site has been reported. In the case of the excavated Buddhist site of Sabhar in Vaṅga, no evidence of a violent end has been reported so far. To understand the process of decline of this site, we need to take into account the processes that helped the emergence of Buddhist religious centres at this site. Located on a vital node that connected Varendra to Vaṅga and Samataṭa, Buddhist religious centres emerged at this site in the seventh-eighth centuries and continued to be in a flourishing phase till the late tenth or early eleventh century.335 The Buddhist religious centres of this site emerged and functioned as parts of a settlement complex. M.M. Hoque, who excavated the Harishchandra Rajar Bari mound, has opined that the Savar area contained three kinds of sites:336 (a) Administrative site: Kotbari, from where a mud fort has been reported, (b) Buddhist religious sites: Harishchandra Rajar Bari, Rajasana, Dagarmura, Kalma, and (c) Pottery manufacturing and residential sites: Karnapara, Saila, Madanpur, Phulabari, Konda. Administrative and secular habitation sites are found close to the Bangshi River.337 That was probably intended to take advantage of trade passing through the river. Buddhist monuments were located at a distance from the river, probably as a measure of safety against floods.338 In a tenth century copper-plate inscription, we get the impression that the Sabhar area was an urban centre where some sites offered warehousing facilities for the storage of goods to be traded through the Bay of Bengal.339 The emergence of

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

573

Buddhist religious centres at this riverine port reminds us of the emergence of Buddhist monasteries at the riverine ports of Chirand, Vaiśālī, Pāṭaliputra, Sultanganj of the earlier Kuṣāṇa or Gupta period in Bihar. In Bengal, the closest parallel is provided by the monastic site of Rajabadidanga, which too gained from the riverine trade passing through the Ganga. The decline of the site could have been due to the disruption of the riverine trade passing through this area or the settlement shift towards the Vikrampur area that took place in the late tenth-eleventh centuries AD. One of the best examples of slow decline of a Buddhist monastic centre is reflected in the case of the excavated data from Salban Vihāra. In the previous pages, we have seen how this monastery developed around a pre-existing shrine that attracted the installation of votive stūpas on a considerable scale. When the monastery was established and the monastic cells enclosed the shrine, the practice of donating votive stūpas to the same came to an end, indicating lesser ritual interface with the non-monastic devotees. We have also seen how this monastery placed great emphasis on securing the privacy of monks and their individual cooking arrangement. This emphasis on cooking inside most of the monastic cells ensured that the monastery suffered repeated conflagrations. This emphasis on privacy, individualism, coupled with the general reluctance to offer space to, and ritual engagements with, the non-monastic devotees retarded the chances of diversification of the patronage base of this monastery. This is reflected in the progressive decline of the monastery after Period III. Both in terms of antiquarian findings (coins, copper-plates) and structural remains, the Period III (eighth century AD) seems to be the most prosperous phase of the monastery.340 Most of the reported coins date to the eighth-ninth centuries.341 Similarly, none of the retrieved copper-plate inscriptions from this site post-date the eighth century. All this indicates that the site had some fundamental problems in mobilizing resources after this century. Period IV was marked with a sharp decrease in the number and quality of antiquities: no copper-plates were reported from the cells, and votive

574

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

materials ceased to be donated to the central cruciform shrine. The monastery also suffered from frequent outbreaks of fire in this phase, some of which were quite devastating.342 One such outbreak was so severe that the monastery suffered a partial collapse.343 The next phase of occupation at the site (Period V: tenth-eleventh centuries AD) began with substantial repairs and rebuilding of the monastery without changing its basic plan.344 This attempt, though, proved to be futile in the long run. The monastery was already in an advanced stage of decay and its full restoration was almost impossible, especially in a phase when the capacity of the monastery to attract patronage, even from the Buddhist rulers of the Candra dynasty, seems to have shrunk considerably.345 Reported antiquities of this period consist mostly of potsherds, iron nails, fragmentary terracotta plaques and carved bricks only.346 For all practical purpose, the Candra period marked an irreversible decline of the monastery. It may be noted that in the ninth-twelfth centuries, Buddhism witnessed an expansion in the plains of Comilla.347 The Salban Vihāra monastery was unable to take advantage of this expansion, which again indicates its weakness in attracting patronage from non-royal sources. By the end of the Candra period, large parts of the monastery were abandoned. In the Period VI (twelfththirteenth centuries), only the western half of the northern wing of the monastery was in occupation.348 Except for fallen material, very few objects of archaeological interest have been reported from this period. Even the width of the back-wall of cells was reduced from the original 16.5 to 10 ft.349 By the end of this period, the monastery was finally abandoned. No evidence of the violent end of the monastery has come to light so far. Due to intermittent brick-hunting and the considerably disturbed nature of the site, the process of decline of Ananda Vihāra is not as well-documented as was the case with Salban Vihāra, but here too, no evidence of a violent end of the monastery or its central cruciform shrine could be found. At Ananda Vihāra too, we may infer a slow decline. Both the monastery and the central cruciform shrine show two phases of occupation.350 In some of the monastic cells in the northern

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

575

wing, the building remains, particularly in the lower levels are well constructed with better materials than what has been observed in the later level.351 All this indicates that the monastery received more patronage in the first phase of occupation than the second one. In this aspect too, it appears to be similar to Salban Vihāra. As excavations at the site of Bhoj Vihāra are not complete, so it is difficult to assess the support system and patterns of association of non-monastic devotees, if any, to the site. In terms of basic architecture (a central cruciform shrine surrounded by a number of monastic cells, separated from the shrine area by a common verandah), this site is similar to Ananda Vihāra and Salban Vihāra. It is unlikely that it would have had a different process of end than what we see in the case of Ananda Vihāra and Salban Vihāra. The site of Rupabana Mura, located about 2 km north-west of Salban Vihāra and 3 km south of Kutila Mura, presents a different kind of architecture than most of the excavated monastic sites on the Mainamati ridge. Here, the cruciform shrine is not enclosed by monastic cells. The detached monastery is located at a distance of 30 m from the cruciform shrine. Both the temple and the monastery show three phases of building activities.352 This site was constructed in the seventh century and continued till the twelfth century.353 Despite the fact that monastic cells did not enclose the cruciform shrine area in the way we see at Antichak and other monastic sites on the Mainamati ridge, it would not have been an easy task for a nonmonastic devotee to enter into the shrine area easily. The absence of markers of ritual engagements with the non-monastic devotees in any phase of the temple or the monastery is a marked feature at this site. So far, no votive stūpa in stone or brick, votive clay stūpas, terracotta votive tablets and plaques, or sculpture inscribed with the name of any non-monastic donor has been reported from any area of the site. A correlated phenomenon was the rather small number, and limited time span, of coin findings from the site. All reported coins (four debased gold coins of king Balabhaṭṭa and three silver coins of

576

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

‘Paṭṭikera type’) are datable to the seventh century.354 It indicates that the establishment, after its foundation in the seventh century, could not attract monetary endowments in any significant scale either in the seventh century or later. Available data does not indicate any violent end of the establishment. It seems to have declined only gradually. Similar was the case with some other Mainamati sites: Kutila Mura and Itakhola Mura. The sites on the Mainamati ridge were in an advanced stage of decline before the foundation of Muslim rule in the area. On the whole, the continued survival of monastic Buddhism was greatly influenced by its capacity to ensure sustained and smooth mobilization of resources. This was true even in the case of the biggest Buddhist pilgrimage centres like Mahābodhi or Nalanda that attracted considerable pilgrimage. At both sites, income from land granted to them played a significant role in their survival. In moments of political uncertainties, it would have been difficult to ensure sustained and smooth mobilization of resources. This would have been felt more acutely in the case of those monasteries that did not have a diversified patronage base. So even if Turkic raids were directly responsible for the violent end of only one site – Antichak – the indirect impact of the foundation of the Turkic rule in the plains of Bihar and Bengal must have had some fundamental ramifications in hastening the decline of many monastic centres. In understanding the process of decline of Buddhist monasteries of Bengal, especially of the ‘Paharpur-type Maṇḍalamonasteries’ emphasizing on the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas, we need to take into account one more factor: the cultic disjuncture that seems to have developed between the forms of Buddhism practiced within the monastery and the one practiced by the masses out of the monastic religious space, generally emphasizing on the cult of Buddha Śākyamuni and different ‘instrumental’ deities of Vajrayāna. It is yet to be worked out what kind of role did this disjuncture play in the decline of Buddhism in the long run. We will like to conclude with the observation that monastic Buddhism did not disappear in Bengal immediately after the

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

577

foundation of the Turkic rule. Recent small scale excavations at the site of Bathabhita, located at village Tilla in Magura Sadar Upazila of Magura district of Bangladesh, provide some interesting inferences in this regard. The first phase of occupation at this site began in the second or first century BC and continued for the next few centuries.355 After that, this site was deserted for a long period, to be occupied only in the twelfththirteenth centuries AD. The second phase of occupation at the site began in the twelfth-thirteenth century AD and continued till the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries AD.356 It was in the second phase of occupation when a north-facing vihāra was established at the site.357 Due to the limited nature of excavations, only seven cells of the vihāra, a shrine that existed in the middle of the excavated wing of the vihāra, and some terracotta votive stūpas could be discovered.358 It has been argued that ‘after the disappearance of Buddhism from the Puṇḍra-Varendra and Lalmai-Mainamati regions in the twelfth-thirteenth centuries AD, it continued in a small-scale in the south-western region of Bangladesh till the sixteenth century AD.’359 We, though, cannot rule out the possibility that future excavations in other parts of Bengal (West Bengal and Bangladesh) as well as in Bihar may throw similar results. An analysis of literary sources has forced many scholars to argue for the survival of Buddhism in Bengal till the sixteenth century AD, till its final assimilation into Chaitanya Vaiṣṇavism.360 The Bathbhita example corroborates the literary evidences. The Bathbhita monastery emerged and functioned in a different kind of political context and its survival strategy must have been different from what was the case with the monumental monasteries of the Pāla-Sena period. If a monastery could emerge in the twelfth-thirteenth centuries AD and function for the next three hundred years in Bengal, chances of the survival of non-monastic Buddhist religious centres (i.e. Buddhist ‘settlement-shrines’ functioning independently of any monastery) in the medieval period are even more probable, because they needed much less resources for their survival than even a small monastery like the one discovered at Bathbhita. The

578

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

decline of Buddhism in Bengal may not be perceived as a cataclysmic collapse. If it was not a cataclysmic collapse, then it could have been, most probably, a protracted metamorphosis. Situations in Bihar could not have been much different. We argue for a similar situation in Bihar basically due to some inferences we arrived at in the previous two chapters. In the analysis of the patterns of ritual interface between the excavated Buddhist religious centres and their non-monastic devotees, we have noted that such Buddhist religious centres of Magadha and north Bihar were willing to ‘open up’ to their non-monastic devotees to a considerable extent. Non-monastic devotees had access to the most sacred spots within such religious centres. In the spatial alignment of votive stūpas vis-àvis the monastic religious space, we have noted that Antichak, a ‘Paharpur-type maṇḍala monastery’, had greater ritual interface with non-monastic devotees than what was the case with the similar maṇḍala monasteries in Bengal. In the chapter on dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures, we have inferred that the Buddhist religious centres of Bihar had a more diversified base of patronage than what was the case with their Bengal counterparts. We arrived at a similar inference through the analysis of copper-plate inscriptions and stone inscriptions. In this kind of situation, it is highly unlikely that Buddhism would have disappeared all of a sudden after the foundation of the Turkic rule in Bihar. This is corroborated by some archaeological and literary evidences. In the Kiul-Lakhisarai area, we have an epigraphically recorded instance of the donation of a stone sculpture of Jambhala by a Buddhist monk in c.1249 AD to a religious centre called Simhanāga during the regime of one Mahārājā Pūrṇavikrama.361 Similarly, an analysis of literary sources has made one scholar argue for a simmering conflict between Brahmanism and Buddhism in the Mithila area of north Bihar even in the fourteenth century.362 These evidences indicate the survival of Buddhism in Bihar for a longer period than what is generally presented in a significant section of available scholarship.

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

579

NOTES 1. See for example, Ronald M. Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement, Columbia University Press, New York, 2002, pp. 114-15, who believes that all monasteries of early medieval Bihar and Bengal served as nuclei for ‘institutional esoterism’. 2. N.N. Bhattacharyya, Buddhism in the History of Indian Ideas, Manohar, Delhi, 1987, p. 15. For a recent articulation of similar arguments, see K.T.S. Sarao, The Decline of Buddhism in India: A Fresh Perspective, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 2012, pp. 205-7. Sarao treats it as a long term failure of the Buddhist Saṅgha, which, as per his analysis, did not care to establish a mutually supportive relationship with non-monastic devotees in any period in India. 3. Umakant Mishra, Vajrayāna Buddhism: Study in Social Iconography, Pratibha Prakashan, Delhi, 2009, pp. 151-2. 4. For an interesting analysis of this issue in the case of early medieval Buddhist monasteries in the Sanchi area, see Julia Shaw, ‘Stūpas , Monasteries and Relics in the Landscape: Typological, Spatial , and Temporal Patterns in the Sanchi Area’, in Jason Hawkes and Akira Shimada (eds), Buddhist Stūpas in South Asia: Recent Archaeological, Art-Historical and Historical Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2009, pp. 131-2. She has argued that ‘the need to protect the relics by regulating access to the stūpa and maintaining close surveillance on them is also a factor in the positioning of the monuments’ (p. 132). 5. G. Schopen, ‘Burial Ad Sanctos and the Physical Presence of the Buddha in Early Indian Buddhism: A Study in the Archaeology of Religions’, in idem, Indian Monastic Buddhism: Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional and Archaeological Evidence, pt. 1, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2010, pp. 119-20. 6. G. Schopen, ‘The Buddha as an Owner of Property and Permanent Resident in Medieval Indian Monasteries’, in ibid., pp. 258-89. For my earlier analysis of the patterns of ritual engagements between Buddhist religious centres of early medieval Bihar and Bengal and their non-monastic devotees, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Patterns of Ritual Engagements between Buddhist Religious Centres and Their Non-monastic Devotees in the Religious Space of Some Excavated Buddhist Sites of Early Medieval Bihar and

580

7.

8. 9.

10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Bengal: A Study with Particular Reference to the Cult of Votive Stūpas, Votive Terracotta Plaques and Votive Tablets’, Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol. 17, 2019, pp. 144-92. My analysis of this theme in the present book (pp. 491-532) is based on, and similar to, the one proffered in my 2019 paper. Alexander Cunningham, Mahābodhi or the Great Buddhist Temple under the Bodhi Tree at Buddha Gaya, Indological Book House, Varanasi, 1972, p. 46. This book was originally published in 1892 by W.H. Allen, London. Ibid., p. 46. The significance of these objects in the archaeology of Buddhist pilgrimage has been re-affirmed by John Guy, ‘The Mahābodhi Temple: Pilgrim Souvenirs of Buddhist India’, The Burlington Magazine, 133(1059), 1991, p. 356. Sudhir Ranjan Das, Rājbāḍīḍāngā: 1962 (Chiruti: Jadupur), An Interim Report on Excavations At Rājbāḍīḍāngā and Terracotta Seals and Sealings, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1968, p. 64; A. Cunningham, op. cit., p. 52 . Umakant Mishra, op. cit., p. 142. J. Takakusu (tr.), A Record of Buddhist Religion as Practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago (AD 671-695) by I-Tsing, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1982, p. 151. Ibid., p. 151. S. Beal, Si-Yu-Ki, Buddhist Records of the Western World: Translated from the Chinese of Hieun Tsiang, vol. II, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1981, pp. 146-7. Ibid., p. 147. Umakant Mishra, op. cit., p. 142; Michael Willis, ‘Relics of the Buddha: Body, Essence, Text’, in C. Mani (ed.), The Heritage of Nalanda, Aryan Books International, Delhi, 2008, pp. 139-40. For Odisha, see Debala Mitra, Ratnāgiri (1958-1961), Memoirs of Archaeological Survey of India, no. 80, vol. 2, Delhi, 1981. She has taken into account the number of votive stūpas in Ratnagiri to highlight its role as a significant pilgrimage centre (p. 31). This work was carried forward by Umakant Mishra (op. cit., pp. 141-6), who has concentrated more on the spatial alignment of votive stūpas vis-à-vis the Mahāstūpa area of Ratnagiri, Udayagiri, Khandagiri and Langudi, to arrive at some generalizations regarding the differential access lay devotees had to the most sacred spots within these religious centres. H.P. Ray (‘Providing for

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

31. 33. 34. 32.

35. 36.

37. 38. 39. 40.

581

the Buddha: Monastic Centres in Eastern India’, Arts Asiatiques, Tome 63, 2008, pp. 119-38) has extended the same exercise to the early medieval monasteries of Odisha and coastal Andhra Pradesh. ‘Eastern India’ in her paper does not include Bihar and Bengal. Umakant Mishra, op. cit., p. 82. S. Beal, op. cit., p. 215. Simon Lawson, ‘Votive Objects from Bodh Gaya’, in Janice Leoshko (ed.), Bodhgaya: The Site of Enlightenment’, The Marg Foundation, Mumbai, 1988, p. 64. Alexander Cunningham, op. cit., p. 46. Simon Lawson, op. cit., pp. 63-4. Alexander Cunningham, op. cit., p. 46. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.; Simon Lawson, op. cit., pp. 63-4. Alexander Cunningham, op. cit., p. 49. Ibid., p. 49. Simon Lawson, op. cit., pp. 64-5. Unless otherwise stated, all references in this table are from Claudine Bautze-Picron, The Art of Eastern India in the Collection of the Museum Für Indische Kurst, Berlin: Stone and Terracotta Sculptures, D.R. Verlag, Berlin, 1998. G. Bhattacharya, ‘A New Pīṭhīpati’, Pratna Samiksha, vols. 4 and 5, 1995-6, pp. 178-9. Unless otherwise stated, all references in this table are from Claudine Bautze-Picron, op. cit. Incense brazier in front of a lamp, a bowl with offerings, a stand on which a manuscript and some flowers are depicted. We have not taken into account those inscribed terracotta votive tablet that contain the Buddhist Creed Formula only as no information about the donor is available in them. Claudine Bautze-Picron , op. cit., p. 75. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Merchants and Their Family Members as Donors of Inscribed Sculptures in Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal’, Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol. 18, 2020, p. 134. Claudine Bautze-Picron, op. cit., p. 76. Ibid., p. 76. Ibid., p. 75. John Guy, ‘The Mahābodhi Temple: Pilgrim Souvenirs of Buddhist India’, The Burlington Magazine, 133(1059), 1991, p. 356.

582

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

41. Ibid., pp. 356-67. For an earlier discussion of this theme, see C.P. Sinha, ‘Models of the Mahābodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya’, JBPP, vol. 1, 1977, pp. 159-64. Sinha has also reported discovery of such items in Burma and Thailand, as well as at many sites of Bihar. 42. John Guy, op. cit., p. 362. 43. Ibid., p. 362. 44. Ibid., p. 364. 45. Frederick Asher, Nalanda: Situating the Great Monastery, The Marg Foundation, Mumbai, 2015, p. 42. 46. Ibid., p. 42. 47. See Appendix 3, Figure 1. 48. As the superstructure of the site is collapsed, so it is difficult to determine whether it was a stūpa, a stūpa-shrine or a stūpa site that evolved into a temple site at a later date. Shrine-like structures have been found at the top of the fifth, sixth and seventh phase of the site (B.R. Mani, ‘Excavations of Stupa Site No.3 at Nalanda and Early Chronological Evidence’, in C. Mani (ed.), The Heritage of Nalanda, Aryan Books International, Delhi, 2008, p. 15). So we cannot rule out that in some phase of its life, this monument served as a temple. 49. ARASI 1925-26, rpt., Delhi, 2002, p. 101. Emphasis added. 50. B.R. Mani, op. cit., pp. 18-19. 51. James Legge, A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms: Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hein of Travels in India and Ceylon (AD 399-414) In Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1991, p. 81. 52. Recently, another stūpa site associated with another aggasāvaka of the Buddha (Maudgalyāyana) has been excavated at the neighboring village of Juafardih, located at a distance of 3 km from the excavated ruins of Nalanda. The mud stūpa at Juafardih, founded in the Mauryan period , was in visible decline in the Śuṅga period. It does not seem to have continued beyond that period. For details of this site, see S.C. Saran et al., ‘Excavations at Juafardih and Its Identification with Kulika’, Purātattva, no. 38, 2008, pp. 59-73. 53. Frederick Asher, op. cit., p. 69. 54. For an analysis of the pattern at Salban Vihāra, see pp. 525-8 of the present book. 55. A. Ghosh ,A Guide to Nāandā, Manager of Publications, Delhi, 1939 , p. 4. 56. Ibid., p. 4.

Some Aspects of the Archaeology 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

65.

66. 67. 68.

69.

70. 71. 72.

73.

583

See p. 268 of the present book. See pp. 395-6 of the present book. A. Ghosh, op. cit., p. 17; Frederick Asher, op. cit., pp. 53-4. A. Ghosh, op. cit., p. 17. Ibid., p. 17. For details, see p. 402 of the present book. A. Ghosh, op. cit., p. 18. Temple Site 2 was a site where Buddhism attempted a subordinate integration of Śaivism. For details, see pp. 552-3 of the present book. Debala Mitra, ‘Representation of Aṣṭa-mahābodhisattvas from Nalanda: An Iconographic Study’, in N.N. Bhattacharyya (ed.), Tantric Buddhism: Centennial Tribute to Dr. Benoytosh Bhattacharya, Manohar, Delhi, 2005, p. 32. Dr. Mitra has rightly highlighted that ‘evidently, such inexpensive plaques were in great demand among the devotees and pilgrims of meagre and moderate means, desirous of earning merit by their gifts at Buddhist centres and also carrying these portable objects to their countries’ (p. 32). Ibid., p. 32. For details, see p. 522 of the present book. Debajani Paul, The Art of Nālandā: Development of Buddhist Sculpture AD 600-1200, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1995, p. 104. Paul has noted the paucity of the sculptures of the Crowned Buddha at the site as well (p. 91). Tenth century onwards, the Crowned Buddha was regarded as a form of Mahāvairocana (H. Woodward, ‘The Life of the Buddha in the Pāla Monastic Environment’, The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, vol. 48, 1990, p. 20). That also indicates that the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas could never be very important at Nalanda. Mallar Ghosh, Development of Buddhist Iconography in Eastern India: A Study of Tārā, Prajñās of Five Tathāgatas and Bhrikuṭi, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1980, p. 31; Debajani Paul, op. cit., p. 102. For details, see pp. 532-8 of the present book. See Appendix 3, Figure 2. B.S. Verma, ‘Excavations at Antichak (A Probable Site of the Ancient Vikramasila University)’, in R.K. Sinha (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra: The Last Beacon of Buddhist Philosophy, Bharati Prakashan, Varanasi, 2015, pp. 77-8. This paper was originally published in JBPP, vol. 1, 1977. Ibid., p. 78.

584

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

74. Ibid. 75. For an analysis of the architecture of the gateway complex, see B.S. Verma, Antichak Exacvations-2 (1971-1981), Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi, 2011, p. 9. 76. B.S. Verma, ‘Further Excavations at Antichak’, in R.K. Sinha (ed.), op. cit., p. 83. This paper was Originally published in JBPP, vol. II, 1978. All references are from the reprint edition. 77. Ibid., p. 83. 78. Ibid. 79. Ibid., p. 7. 80. Ibid. 81. In Tibetan accounts, Vikramaśilā stands out as the most important institutional centre from where the Tibetans received a significant part of their Tantric leanings. It became one of the most renowned centres of the Cakrasaṁvara Tantra and took determined efforts of purging every kind of Śaiva influence out of this text, another reflection of its esoteric Vajrayāna orthodoxy (Andrea Loseries, ‘Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra and the “Bowdlerization” of Tantric Culture: A Case Study of Cakrasaṁvara Tantra’, in R.K. Sinha (ed.), op. cit., pp. 142-55). 82. B.S. Verma, Antichak Exacvations-2 (1971-1981), op. cit., pp. 65-6. 83. Ibid., p. 65. 84. Ibid. 85. Ibid., p. 66. 86. Ibid. 87. For an analysis of this feature at Ratnagiri, see Umakant Mishra, op. cit., p. 146. 88. B.S. Verma, Antichak Exacvations-2 (1971-1981), op. cit., p. 171. 89. Ibid. 90. Ibid., As the stūpa is partially broken, so we cannot determine if the original legend referred to Śrīdhamma , though it cannot be ruled out. 91. Ibid., p. 171. The reading of this inscription has not been provided by the excavator. 92. Amal Roy, ‘Nandadirghi-Vihāra: A Newly Discovered Buddhist Monastery at Jagajjivanpur, West Bengal’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), Archaeology of Eastern India: New Perspectives, Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, Kolkata, 2002, p. 576. For site plan, see Appendix 3, Figure 6 of the present book.

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

585

93. Amal Roy, Jagjivanpur 1996-2005: Excavation Report, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, 2012, p. 94. 94. ‘Sitakot Excavations, Bangladesh Archaeology, 1(1), 1979, p. 27. For site plan, see Appendix 3, Figure 5 of the present book. 95. Ibid., p. 25. 96. Md. Shafiqul Alam et al., Excavations at Bihar Dhap, Bogra, Deptt. of Archaeology, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 2000, p. 11. For site plan, see Appendix 3, Figure 7 of the present book. 97. For details, see ‘Vasu Bihar Excavations’, Bangladesh Archaeology, 1(1), 1979, pp. 40-5. For site plan, see Appendix 3, Figure 8 of the present book. 98. D.K. Chakrabarti, Ancient Bangladesh: A Study of the Archaeological Sources, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1992, p. 101. 99. ‘Vasu Bihar Excavations’, Bangladesh Archaeology, 1(1), 1979, pp. 40-1. 100. Ibid., p. 40. 101. Ibid. 102. Ibid., p. 42. 103. Md. Abul Hashem Miah, ‘Archaeological Excavations at Jagaddala Vihāra: A Preliminary Report’, JBA, vol. 8, 2003, pp. 147-66. For Miah’s arguments on the identification of this site with the Jagaddala Mahāvihāra established by the Pāla king Rāmapāla, see p. 147 of his paper. For site plan, see Appendix 3, Figure 9 of the present book. 104. Md. Abul Hashem Miah, op. cit., 147-166. 105. Ibid., p. 149. 106. Ibid., p. 156. 107. Ibid. 108. See Vipulaśrīmitra inscription found at Nalanda, which informs us that a monk Karuṇāśrīmitra of Somapura, who died in the attack on the Somapura Mahāvihāra by an army of Vaṅgāla (N.G. Majumdar, ‘Nalanda Inscription of Vipulasrimitra’, EI, vol. 21, 1930-1, p. 97). 109. For details, see p. 541 of the present book. 110. For site plan, see Appendix 3, Figure 3 of the present book. 111. K.N. Dikshit, Excavations at Paharpur, Bengal, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 55, New Delhi, 1999 (rpt.), p. 18.

586

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

112. K.N. Dikshit, op. cit., pp. 80-1. For site plan, see Appendix 3, Figure 4 of the present book. 113. Ibid., p. 81. 114. Ibid. 115. Anusua Sengupta, Buddhist Art of Bengal (From the 3rd Century BC to the 13th Century AD), Rahul Publishing Company, Delhi, 1993, p. 75; Sandrine Gill, ‘Spatial Organization of the Paharpur Buddhist Establishment’, in H.P. Ray (ed.), Sacred Landscapes in Asia: Shared Traditions, Multiple Histories, Manohar, 2007, p. 177. 116. K.N. Dikshit, op. cit., p. 81. 117. Ibid., p. 82. 118. Ibid. 119. Ibid., pp. 82-3. 120. Ibid., p. 83. 121. Ibid. 122. Ibid., p. 84. 123. Ibid. 124. The need to analyse the ‘exact relation of the Tārā temple in the general layout of the site of Paharpur’ has been recently pointed out by Sandrine Gill (op. cit., p. 181). She has, unfortunately, not looked into this issue in her paper. 125. For details, see pp. 538-42 of the present book. 126. For details, see pp. 532-8 of the present book. 127. For an analysis of this process at Ratnagiri, see Umakant Mishra, op. cit., p. 150. 128. Ibid. 129. Ibid. 130. All reported inscriptions from the central shrine area of this site are related to a particular lineage of monks only. For details, see pp. 428-9 of the present book. 131. Asok Datta, ‘Excavations at Moghalmari: A Pre-Pala Buddhist Monastic Complex’, JBA, vol. 15, 2010, p. 281; Sreecheta Mukherjee and Tarun Tapas Mukherjee, ‘Discovery of a Buddhist Monastery at Moghalmari, Paschim Medinipur’, Chitrolekha , 4(1), 2014, p. 4. 132. Sreecheta Mukherjee and Tarun Tapas Mukherjee, op. cit., p. 8. 133. Ibid., pp. 9-10. 134. M. Harunur Rashid, The Early History of South-East Bengal in the Light of Archaeological Material, Itihas Academy, Dhaka, 2008, p. 104. 135. For site plan, see Appendix 3, Figure 11 of the present book. 136. M. Harunur Rashid, op. cit., p. 64.

Some Aspects of the Archaeology 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148.

149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162.

587

Ibid., p. 66. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 67. Ibid. Ibid., p. 68. Ibid. Ibid., p. 43. Ibid., p. 46. Ibid. Ibid. For a general review of architecture of these sites, see Enamul Haque, ‘The Buddhist Art at Mainamati: A Parallel to Nalanda’, in C. Mani (ed.), The Heritage of Nalanda, Aryan Books International, Delhi, 2008, pp. 27-37. For Ananda Vihāra, see ‘Ananda Vihāra Excavations, Mainamati’, Bangladesh Archaeology, 1(1), 1979, pp. 6891; Md. Shafiqul Alam and Md. Abul Hashem Miah, Excavations at Ananda Vihāra, Mainamati, Comilla, 1979-82, Deptt. of Archaeology, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 1999. For Rupaban Mura, see Md. Shafiqul Alam, ‘Buddhist Establishment at Rupban Mura, Mainamati, Bangladesh’, East and West, 42(2/4), 1992, pp. 281-300; Md. Shafiqul Alam et al., Excavation at Rupban Mura, Mainamati, Comilla, op. cit. For site plans of these sites, see Appendix 3, Figures 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the present book. For site plan, see Appendix 3, Figure 15 the present book. Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 34. A.K.M. Shamsul Alam, Mainamati, Dhaka, 1982, p. 47. Ibid., p. 47; Enamul Haque, op. cit., pp. 33-4. A.K.M. Shamsul Alam, ibid., p. 47. Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 33. Ibid., pp. 33-4. Ibid. A.K.M. Shamsul Alam, op. cit., p. 47. Ibid., p. 48. Ibid., p. 59. Birendra Nath Prasad, op. cit., p. 183. Ibid. For a historiographical survey, see Birendra Nath Prasad (ed.), Monasteries, Shrines and Society: Buddhist and Brahmanical Religious

588

163.

164.

165.

166. 167.

168.

169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174.

175. 176.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Institutions in India in their Socio-Economic Context, Manak Publications, Delhi, 2011, pp. 5-25. B.D. Chattopadhyaya, ‘Historiography, History and Religious Centres: Early Medieval North India, circa AD 700–1200’, in Visakha N. Desai and D. Mason (eds), Gods, Guardians and Lovers: Temple Sculptures from North India, AD 700–1200, Mapin Publishing Company, Ahmedabad, 1993, pp. 33-47; Cynthia Talbot, Pre-Colonial India in Practice: Society, Religion and Identity in Medieval Andhra, Oxford University Press , Delhi, 2001, pp. 94-125. Ronald Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement, Columbia University Press, New York, 2002, p. 115. Geoffrey Samuel, ‘Ritual Technology and the State: The MaṇḍalaForm Buddhist Temples of Bangladesh’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Pāhārpur alias Somapura Mahāvihāra: A World Cultural Heritage Site, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2014, p. 403. Ibid., p. 404. The political linkages and symbolism of the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra has not been analyzed in some studies that claim to study the ‘material milieu’ of this Mahāvihāra. We may see this trend in Rajiva Kumar Sinha, ‘The Material Milieu of the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra’, JBPP, vols. XIX-XX, 1995-2000, pp. 114-20. Alexis Sanderson, ‘The Śaiva Age – the Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During the Early Medieval Period’, in Shingo Einoo (ed.), Genesis and Development of Tantrism, Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 2009, pp. 107-8. Lama Chimpa and Alka Chattopadhyaya (tr.), Tārānātha’s History of Buddhism in India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2010 (rpt.), p. 278. Ibid., p. 278. Ibid., pp. 278-9. Ibid., pp. 294-5. Geoffrey Samuel, op. cit., p. 404. Claudine Bautze-Picron, The Bejewelled Buddha: From India to Burma, Sanctum Books, Delhi, 2010, p. 141. It was probably due to this reason that the cult of the Crowned Buddha with definite Vajrayāna roots was patronized even in the decidedly Theravāda cultural milieu of Pagan Burma. Geoffrey Samuel , op. cit., pp. 388-9. Lokesh Chandra, ‘Chandi Mendut and Pawon: A New Inter-

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

177. 178. 179.

180. 181. 182. 183. 184.

185.

186. 187.

589

pretation’, in Bijdragen tot de Taal- Land-en Volkenkunde 136, nos. 2/3, Leiden, 1980, pp. 313-20. Ibid., p. 319. Ibid. Seema Hoque and M.M. Hoque, ‘Understanding the Paharpur Temple Architecture in New Perspective’, in Dr. Md. Shafiqul Alam (ed.), Proceedings of the International Seminar on Elaboration of an Archaeological Research Strategy for Paharpur World Heritage Site and Its Environment (Bangladesh), 20-25 March 2004, Dhaka, Deptt. of Archaeology, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh Dhaka, 2004, pp. 59-66. They call this particular type of architecture as ‘Vajrayani temple’ meant for the worship of all Paṅcatathāgatas in a single structure (p. 64). That the central cruciform shrine of Paharpur was dedicated to the worship of the Jina Buddhas (i.e. Paṅcatathāgatas) was highlighted earlier by Prudence Myer (‘Stupas and Stupa-Shrines’, Artibus Asiae, 24(1), 1961, pp. 29-33). He has, unfortunately, not looked into the political symbolism of this development. Seema Hoque and M.M. Hoque too display the same trend. Semma Hoque and M.M. Hoque, op. cit., p. 63. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 60. Enamul Haque and Adalbert J. Gail, Sculptures in Bangladesh, An Inventory of Select Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina Stone and Bronze Images in Museums and Collections of Bangladesh (Up to the 13th Century), ICSBA, Dhaka, 2008, pp. 118-119. Mokammal H. Bhuiyan, ‘A Study of Buddhist Gods and Goddesses in Mainamati Museum’, Pratnatattva, vol. 12, 2006, p. 41; Mokammal H. Bhuiyan, ‘The Wooden Sadakshari Lokesshvara (?) Image of Mainamati Museum’, in M.M. Hoque et al. (eds), Selected Essays on History and Archaeology: Papers Presented in Memory of Professor Abu Imam, Centre for Archaeology and Heritage Research, Dhaka, 2010, p. 161. Seema Hoque and M.M. Hoque, op. cit., p. 60; Enamul Haque and Adalbert J. Gail, op. cit., pp. 118-19. M. Harunur Rashid, The Early History of South-East Bengal in the Light of Archaeological Material, Itihas Academy, Dhaka, 2008, pp. 109-10. Other reported miniature pieces in bronze are the five Dhyānī

590

188. 189.

190. 191.

192. 193.

194.

195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201.

202.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Buddha and their emanations, as well as some Brahmanical deities ( Śūrya, Śarvvāṇī and Gaṇeśa) (p. 109). B.K. Jamuar, The Ancient Temples of Bihar, Ramanand Vidya Bhavan, Delhi, 1985, p. 87. With 20 reported examples, stone sculptures of the Crowned Buddha seem to have formed the single largest group at Antichak (B.S. Verma, Antichak Excavations-2 (1971-1981), Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi, 2011, pp. 240-301). Hiram Woodward Jr., op. cit., p. 20; Claudine Bautze-Picron, op. cit., p. 141. Frederick Asher has argued that the Temple Site 12 of Nalanda was probably dedicated to the worship of the Paṅcatathāgatas. He has argued that Vairocana could have been the main cult-object in the sanctum and four corner shrines might have enshrined other Dhyānī Buddhas (Frederick Asher, Nalanda: Situating the Great Monastery, The Marg Foundation, Mumbai, 2015, p. 53). This situation cannot be ruled out, though it must be added that Temple Site 3 was the most important temple of Nalanda where we have yet to get any evidence for the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas. For details, see pp. 568-70 and 598-9 of the present book. M. Mizanur Rashid, ‘The Conception of the Architectural Layout of Somapura Mahavihara: An Analysis of Cultural and Religious Symbolism’, JBA, vols. 9-10, 2004-5, pp. 97-110. Adelheid Hermann-Pfandt, ‘The Maṇḍala Temples in Pāhārpur, Maināmatī and Vikramaśilā: A New Interpretation’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Pāhārpur alias Somapura Mahāvihāra: A World Cultural Heritage Site, ICSBA, Dhaka , 2014, pp. 470-97. Adelheid Hermann-Pfandt, op. cit., pp. 481-2. Ibid., p. 482. Ibid., p. 487. Ibid., pp. 487-9. Ibid., p. 489. Ibid. Ibid., p. 487. It may be added that in many stūpas, Vairocana is believed to reside in the very inner core of the centre of the monument, so his sculpture or chamber is often not depicted. The presence of just four cult-chambers in the cruciform shrine of any ‘Paharpur-type’ monastery should not make us believe the absence of Vairocana there. Ibid., pp. 487-8.

Some Aspects of the Archaeology 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212.

213. 214.

215.

216

217. 218. 219.

591

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 489. Adelheid Hermann-Pfandt, op. cit., p. 488. For the dating of these pedestals and their general features, see K.N. Dikshit, op. cit., pp. 20-3. Md. Abul Hashem Miah, ‘Archaeological Excavations at Jagaddala Vihāra: A Preliminary Report’, JBA, vol. 8, 2003, pp. 150-1. In the context of deification of monks, Paharpur and Jagaddala are not the only examples in the Indian subcontinent. S. Nagaraju has noted the emergence of differentiation within the monks in some monastic sites of early medieval western Deccan, with some of them getting deified and sharing the same precinct with the Buddha (S. Nagaraju, ‘From Spirituality to Power: A Millennium of Buddhist Monastic Architecture as A Mirror of Social History’, in K. Sankarnarayan et al. (eds), Buddhism in India and Abroad: An Integrated Influence in Vedic and Post Vedic Perspective, Somaiya Publishers, Mumbai and Delhi, 1996, p. 307). Adelheid Hermann-Pfandt, op. cit., p. 489. The cult of amulets of charismatic monks has been studied in the context of contemporary Thailand. See S.J. Tambiah, The Buddhist Saints of Forests and the Cult of Amulets: A Study in Charisma, Hagiography, Sectarianism, and Millennial Buddhism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984. A.K.M. Shamsul Alam, Mainamati, op. cit., p. 38; M. Harunur Rashid, The Early History of South-East Bengal in the Light of Archaeological Material, Itihas Academy, Dhaka, 2008, p. 68. For an analysis of shift of royal patronage to the Brahmins under the Candra dynasty, see Suchandra Ghosh, ‘Nature of Royal Patronage in South-eastern Bengal: 507 AD-1250 AD’, JBA, vols. 13-14, 2008-9, pp. 16-18. Md. Abul Hashem Miah, op. cit., p. 147. Ibid., pp. 151-2. A. Ghosh, A Guide to Nālandā , Manager of Publications, Delhi, 1939, p. 22. For my fuller analysis of the evolution of the patterns of cultic encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the Buddhist

592

220.

221.

222. 223.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia monastic religious space in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Evolution of the Patterns of Cultic Encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the Religious Space of Some Excavated Buddhist Religious Centres of Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal: A Study Based on an Analysis of the Published Archaeological Data’, Religions of South Asia, vol. 12, no. 3, 2018, pp. 314-50. My analysis of this theme in the present book (pp. 543-68) is based on, and similar to, the one proffered in my 2018 paper. For a recent study of the cult of Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara in Bengal, see R.K. Chattopadhyay and Dipasikha Acharya, ‘Interpreting the “Viṣṇu Lokeśvara” – Viṣṇu Identity: A Study of “His Iconic Forms” from Eastern India and Bangladesh’, Berlin Indological Studies, vol. 23, 2017, pp. 157-210. In this paper, a comprehensive list of all reported sculptures of this deity from Bengal with provenance/ find spots has been provided. As per this cataloguing, all such sculptures have been reported either from Varendra or Rāḍha. Within Rāḍha, the biggest concentration is to be seen in the Bankura district, followed by Bardhaman. Only one specimen has been reported from Purulia district so far. In the context of Varendra, the authors treat this sculpture as a manifestation of Buddhist attempts of absorption of the cult of Viṣṇu. But in Rāḍha, where Buddhism could never be a significant element of the cultural matrix of the area, they hint to the possibility of forced Brahmanical transformation of Jaina images to a form which resembles ‘Viṣṇu- Lokeśvara’. In the context of Rāḍha, thus, these sculptures may rather indicate the decline of Jainism in some cases than attempted Buddhist appropriation of Vaiṣṇavism. Rama Chatterji, Religion in Bengal during Pāla and Sena Times: Mainly on the Basis of Epigraphic and Archaeological Sources, Punthi Pustaka, Calcutta, 1985; R.R. Mukherji and S.K. Maity, op. cit., pp. 112-13 (in the context of Bodh Gaya) ; S.K. Saraswati , Early Sculptures of Bengal, Sambodhi Publications, Calcutta, 1962, p. 50 (in the context of Paharpur). A. Ghosh, op. cit., p. 22. This has been highlighted in some recent works in the context of Bodh Gaya, the holiest centre of Buddhism. Frederick Asher (The Art of Eastern India, 300–800, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1980, p. 79) has argued that even Bodh Gaya was not an exclusively Buddhist site. For similar opinions, see Nayanjot

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

224.

225. 226. 227.

228. 229. 230.

231. 232.

233.

234.

593

Lahiri and Elisabeth A. Bacus, ‘Exploring the Archaeology of Hinduism’, World Archaeology, 36(3), 2004, pp. 321-2; H.P. Ray, ‘From Multi-Religious Sites to Mono-religious Monuments in South Asia: The Colonial Legacy of Heritage Management’, in P. Daly and Tim Winter (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia, Routledge, London, 2012, p. 77. Rob Linrothe, ‘Beyond Sectarianism: Towards Reinterpreting the Iconography of Esoteric Buddhist Deities Trampling on Hindu Gods’, in C.P. Sinha (ed.), Art, Archaeology and Culture of Eastern India, Dr. B.S. Verma Felicitation Volume, Bihar Purāvid Pariṣad, Patna, 1997, pp. 193-8; Claudine Bautze-Picron, ‘From God to Demon, from Demon to God: Brahmā and Other Brahmanical Divinities in the Late Buddhist Art of Eastern India’, JBA, vol. 1, 1996, pp. 109-35; A.S. Amar, ‘Buddhist Responses to Brāhmaṇa Challenges in Medieval India: Bodhgayā and Gayā’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, vol. 22(1), 2012, pp. 155-85. B.S. Verma, Antichak Excavations-2 (1971-1981), op. cit., p. 10. Ibid., p. 16. Claudine Bautze-Picron, ‘From God to Demon, from Demon to God: Brahmā and Other Brahmanical Divinities in the Late Buddhist Art of Eastern India’, JBA, vol. 1, 1996, p. 131. Ibid., p. 129. S. Beal, op. cit.,pp. 118-19. For the functioning of Mahākāla as the presiding deity of the kitchen in Buddhist monasteries in India as narrated by Itsing, see J. Takakusu (tr.), A Record of Buddhist Religion as Practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago (AD 671-695) by I-Tsing, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1982, p. 38. David N. Gellner, The Anthropology of Buddhism and Hinduism, Weberian Themes, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2003, p. 51. For an analysis of this process, see John Clifford Holt, The Buddhist Viṣṇu: Religious Transformation, Politics and Culture, Columbia University Press, New York, 2005. For an analysis of the process through which the Saṅgha came to control a significant portion of the agrarian sector in early medieval Sri Lanka, see R.A.L.H. Gunawardana, Robe and Plough: Monasticism and Economic Interest in Early Medieval Sri Lanka, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1979. For an analysis of this process, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Brahmanical Temples, Maṭhas, Agrahāras and a Buddhist

594

235. 236.

237.

238. 239. 240.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Establishment in a Marshy and Forested Periphery of Two “Frontier” States: Early Medieval Surma Valley (Sylhet and Cachar), c. 600 CE-1200 CE’, Religions of South Asia, London, vol. 6.1, 2012, pp. 33-60. This is the inference we got in Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the present book. This feature has been noted in the context of some contemporary Buddhist monasteries of Nepal as well. In an interesting anthropological study of the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism in the Lalitpur area of Nepal, it has been noted that the Buddhist monastic architecture was an avenue through which the subordination of Hindu deities to Buddhism was attempted. Nārāyaṇa and Mahādeva are deliberately displayed on the struts at the entrance of the Kwā Bāhah monastery, but they are not displayed in the inner parts of the monastery. Clearly, this is a reflection of the Saṅgha’s attempt of the subordination of Hindu deities to Buddhism. The Brahmins of this area also perceive the display of Nārāyaṇa and Mahādeva on the struts at the entrance of the Kwā Bāhah monastery as an attempted subordinate integration of these Brahmanical deities to Buddhism. This has induced an interesting reaction among the Brahmins of this area. It has been noted that the Brahmins never enter the Kwā Bāhah monastery through the main door; if they had to enter the Kwā Bāhah on some special occasion, they would do so through the back door (David N. Gellner, Monk, Householder and Tantric Priest: Newar Buddhism and Its Hierarchy of Ritual, Cambridge University Press, Delhi, 2009, pp. 96-97). The stucco images of Nalanda Temple Site 3 have been dated variously. A. Ghosh (op. cit., p. 3) dated the fifth integument of the monument as well stucco images of this phase to the sixth century AD. Recently, Frederick Asher (Nalanda: Situating the Great Monastery, The Marg Foundation, Mumbai, 2015, p. 71) has dated them to the first half of the seventh century. We have followed Asher because he has arrived at this conclusion by correlating the Nalanda pieces with other newly discovered pieces from other sites: a database that was not available in Ghosh’s period. Frederick Asher, op. cit., pp. 73-4. Ibid., pp. 73-4. For details, see pp. 268-9 of the present book.

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

595

241. In dating this temple to the seventh century, we have followed Frederick Asher, op. cit., pp. 81-2. 242. Ibid., pp. 82-3. 243. Krishna Deva and V.S. Agrawala, ‘The Stone Temple at Nalanda’, Journal of the Uttar Pradesh Historical Society, vol. XXIII, 1950, pp. 198212. B.N. Mishra (Nālandā, vol. 3, D.K. Printworld, Delhi, 1998, pp. 263-4) has similar opinion. 244. B.N. Mishra, Nālandā , vol. 2, D.K. Printworld, Delhi, 1998, p. 81. 245. G.C. Chauley, ‘Sculptural Remains at Nalanda’, in C.S. Upasaka (ed.), Nalanda: Past and Present, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda, 1977, p. 117. Chauley has not mentioned if this piece was found in the regular excavation or it was reported from exploration in some neighbouring village of Nalanda. 246. Frederick Asher, op. cit., p. 55; Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Evolution of the Patterns of Cultic Encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the Religious Space of Some Excavated Buddhist Religious Centres of Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal: A Study Based on an Analysis of the Published Archaeological Data’, Religions of South Asia, vol. 12, no. 3, 2018, p. 329. 247. Frederick Asher, ‘Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Pāhārpur alias Somapura Mahāvihāra: A World Cultural Heritage Site, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2014 (reprint), p. 336. 248. Bhagwant Sahai, ‘Terracotta Plaques from Antichak’, in B.S. Verma, Antīchak Excavations-2 (1971-1981), op. cit., p. 411. 249. Ibid., p. 400. 250. Ibid., pp. 400-2. 251. Ibid., pp. 411-14. 252. Ibid., p. 411. 253. Ibid., pp. 399-400. 254. S.K. Saraswati, Early Sculptures of Bengal, Sambodhi Publications, Calcutta, 1962, pp. 39-41. 255. Ibid., p. 41. 256. Ibid., pp. 43-4. 257. Ibid., p. 44. 258. Ibid. 259. Sandrine Gill, ‘Spatial Organization of the Paharpur Buddhist Establishment’, in H.P. Ray (ed.), Sacred Landscapes in Asia: Shared Traditions, Multiple Histories, Manohar, Delhi, 2007, p. 186. 260. For an analysis of these plaques, see Amita Ray, ‘Some Reflections

596

261. 262.

263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia on the Terracotta Art of Bangladesh on the Basis of Archaeological Evidence, from the Third Century BC to the Eleventh Century AD’, in Debala Mitra (ed.), Explorations in the Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays in Memory of N.G. Majumdar, Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal, Calcutta, 1996, pp. 286-7; Enamul Haque, ‘Reflections on the Early Art of Bengal’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Hakim Habibur Rahman Khan Commemoration Volume, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2001, pp. 186-7. Afroza Akmam, Mahasthan, Dhaka, 2006, p. 94. Recently, Vincent Lefevre has argued that Paharpur may not have been conceived as a Buddhist or Jaina establishment, but as a Hindu (Vaiṣṇava) temple, sometime around the sixth or, more likely, the seventh century. This temple was probably left unfinished. It was then taken over and turned into a Buddhist monastery; the monks then decided to interpret the Hindu reliefs as proto-Maṇḍala. He draws parallel from the example of Borobudur in Indonesia. Borobudur monument was started as a Hindu temple under the Sanjaya dynasty. But later, under the Śailendra dynasty, it was transformed into a stūpa and a maṇḍala (Vincent Lefevre, ‘The Hindu Sculptures form Pāhārpur Reconsidered’, in Deborah Kilmberg-Salter and Linda Lojda (eds), South Asian Archaeology and Art: Papers from the 20th Conference of the European Association for South Asian Archaeology and Art Held in Vienna from 4th to 9th July 2010, Brepols Publishers, Turnhout, Belgium, 2014, p. 138). Much before Lefevre, Benjamin Rowland (The Art and Architecture of India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jaina, Penguin Books, 1967, p. 257) has argued that Paharpur was originally a Brahmanical institution taken over by the Buddhists. It is an interesting proposition, but cannot be confirmed or denied till deeper excavations are conducted than what was done by Dikshit. K.N. Dikshit, Excavations at Paharpur, Bengal, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 55, Delhi, 1999 (rpt.), p. 59. Ibid., p. 60. K.N. Dikshit, op. cit., p. 59. Ibid., pp. 49-50. Ibid. Sandrine Gill, op. cit., p. 177. K.N. Dikshit, op. cit., p. 11. Vincent Lefevre, op. cit., p. 135.

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

597

271. Ibid. 272. For details, see p. 566 of the present book. 273. Mohammed Shohrabuddin and Sharmin Rezowana, ‘The Portrayal of Krishna Legend in Terracotta Plaques of Recently Excavated Temple in Bhabodeva Vihāra’, JBA, vol. 20, 2015, p. 288. 274. Ibid., p. 288. 275. Ibid. 276. Ibid., p. 298. 277. Ibid. 278. Ibid., p. 299. 279. Debajani Paul, op. cit.,p. 66. 280. For the iconography and dating of this image, see Debajani Paul, op. cit., p. 49. 281. H. Sastri, ‘Excavations at Nalanda’, ASIAR , 1919-20, p. 39. This image is kept in the Nalanda Museum (accession no. 10722). 282. Claudine Bautze-Picron, ‘The Hidden God: Some Remarks on Yama and the Protectors of the Sacred Space in Buddhist Art’, in G. Bhattacharya et al (eds), Kalhar (White Water-Lily), Studies in Art, Iconography, Architecture and Archaeology of India and Bangladesh (Prof. Enamul Haque Felicitation Volume), Kaveri Books, Delhi, 2007, p. 83. 283. Ibid., pp. 88-9. 284. Ibid. 285. B.S. Verma, Antichak Excavations-2 (1971-1981), op. cit., p. 10. 286. Ibid. 287. Ibid., pp. 68-71. 288. Ibid., p. 68. 289. For an enumeration of sculptures found in the Antichak excavations, see ibid., pp. 240-321. 290. Ibid., pp. 283, 301. 291. Ibid., p. 283. 292. Ibid., p. 285. 293. Ibid., p. 175. 294. S.R. Das, Archaeological Discoveries from Murshidabad District (West Bengal), Part One, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1971, p. 46. 295. Ibid., p. 47. 296. Ibid., p. 48. 297. K.N. Dikshit, op. cit., p. 76. He has provided the exact find spot of these sculptures.

598

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

298. Md. Abul Hashem Miah and Md. Abu Musa, A Preliminary Report on Excavations at Halud Vihāra, Naogaon, Deptt. of Archaeology, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 2001, pp. 1-2. 299. Amal Roy, ‘Nandadirghi-Vihāra: A Newly Discovered Buddhist Monastery at Jagajivanpur, West Bengal’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), Archaeology of Eastern India: New Perspectives, Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, Kolkata, 2002, p. 568. The total number of reported terracotta plaques from the site is 15. Buddhist deities finding representation in them are Avalokiteśvara, Mañjuśrī and Maitreya (p. 568). 300. Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures: Hindu Iconography up to c.1250 AD, Bangladesh National Museum, Dhaka, 1992, p. 80. 301. Eun-Su Lee, ‘On Defining Buddhist Art in Bengal: The Dhaka Region’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 2009, p. 451. 302. For details, see p. 263 of the present book. 303. Harunur Rashid, Early History of Southeast Bengal in the Light of Archaeological Material, Itihas Academy, Dhaka, 2008, p. 54. 304. Ibid., p. 58. 305. Ibid., p. 57. 306. Ibid., p. 110. 307. Ibid. 308. For the dating and iconography of this image of Viṣṇu, see Md. Abul Hashem Miah, ‘Archaeological Excavations at Jagaddala Vihāra: A Preliminary Report’, JBA, vol. 8, 2003, pp. 159-60. 309. For the dating and significance of the Vajrayogini tortoise-shell inscriptions, see D.C. Sircar, Studies in the Religious Life of Ancient and Medieval India, Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi, 1971, pp. 189-200. An analysis of the text of the second inscription made him conclude that ‘Vāsudeva is given more prominence than the Buddha or Jina; at least the former is not subordinated to the latter’ (p. 193). 310. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Cultic Relationships between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the ‘Last Stronghold’ of Indian Buddhism: An Analysis with Particular Reference to Votive Inscriptions on the Brahmanical Sculptures Donated to Buddhist Religious Centres in Early Medieval Magadha’, Buddhist Studies Review, London, 30(2), 2013, pp. 181-99. 311. Ibid., pp. 195-6. 312. At Nalanda too, there are evidences of severe outbreaks of fire,

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

313. 314.

315. 316.

317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322.

599

but it is difficult to determine if they were due to planned violence or results of accidental outbreaks of fire. It has been noted that ‘abundant signs left in the ruins of brunt wooden beams, doors, images, grains, etc., to prove that there was a general outbreak of fire at Nālalndā at least once, from which all the buildings existing at that time suffered more or less’ (A. Ghosh, A Guide to Nālandā, Manager of Publications, Delhi, 1939, p. 16). This damage is particularly marked in the case of the Monastery Site 1, where charred bricks almost melted by intense heat, have been reported (Frederick Asher, Nalanda: Situating the Great Monastery, The Marg Foundation, Mumbai, 2015, pp. 65-6). But this, it has been pointed out, could be purely accidental: ‘if the monasteries were illuminated at night by oil lamps, as surely they were, then the risk of fire was high, as it were for so many buildings elsewhere in the world – for example European cathedrals that also needed to be rebuilt after fire damage’ (Frederick Asher, op. cit., pp. 65-6). No site of Nalanda was, however, finally abandoned due to such outbreaks of fire: ‘the site of the Mahāvihāra was, however, not abandoned and the people soon after this returned to the old centre of learning’ (A.Ghosh, op. cit., p. 16). In any case, Nalanda did not radiate the political symbolism of the kind done by Paharpur or Antichak. Sandrine Gill, ‘Spatial Organization of the Paharpur Buddhist Establishment’, p. 172. Md. Abul Hashem Miah, ‘Archaeological Excavations at Jagaddala Vihāra: A Preliminary Report’, JBA, vol. 8, 2003, p. 160. The excavator could not find any specific evidence to link this violence to Turkic raids. Ibid., p. 156 B.S. Verma, ‘Excavations at Antichak (A Probable Site of the Ancient Vikramasila University)’, in R.K. Sinha (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra: The Last Beacon of Buddhist Philosophy, Varanasi, 2015, p. 81; B.S. Verma, Antichak Excavations-2 (1971-1981), op cit., 2011, p. 10. B.S. Verma, Antichak Excavations-2 (1971-1981), ibid., p. 10. Ibid. Ibid., p. 71. Ibid., p. 10. Ibid., p. 75. Ibid.

600

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

323. Ibid., p. 68. 324. Ibid. 325. B.S. Verma , ‘Further Excavations at Antichak’, in R.K. Sinha (ed.), op. cit., p. 85. 326. Ibid., p. 85. 327. B.S. Verma, Antichak Excavations-2 (1971-1981), op. cit., p. 71. 328. Ibid., p. 71. 329. See p. 421 of the present book. 330. Amal Roy, ‘Nandadirghi-Vihāra: A Newly Discovered Buddhist Monastery at Jagajivanpur, West Bengal’, op. cit., pp. 576-7. 331. Ibid. 332. Ibid. 333. Ibid., p. 577. 334. Sitakot Excavations, Bangladesh Archaeology, vol. 1, n. 1, 1979, p. 32. 335. For an analysis of the role of Sabhar as an important node in maintaining contacts between Varendra on the one hand and Vaṅga-Samataṭa on the other, see Nasir Uddin Mobin, ‘The PreMuslim Landscape of Savar and the Nature Of Buddhist Settlements of Bangladesh’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Hakim Habibur Rahman Khan Commemoration Volume, op. cit., p. 251. 336. M.M. Hoque et al., ‘Pre-Muslim Settlement and Chronology of Savar Region’, Pratnatattva, vol. 3, 1996, p. 12. 337. M.M. Hoque et al., op. cit., p. 12 ; Nasir Uddin Mobin, op. cit., p. 257. 338. M.M. Hoque et al., op. cit., p. 12 . 339. Ranabir Chakravarti, Trade and Traders in Early Indian Society, Manohar, Delhi, 2002, pp. 142–69. 340. M. Harunur Rashid, The Early History of South-East Bengal in the Light of Recent Archaeological Material, op. cit., p. 48. 341. A.K.M. Shamsul Alam, Mainamati, Deptt. of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 1982, pp. 58-9. 342. M. Harunur Rashid, op. cit., p. 49. 343. Ibid., p. 49. 344. Ibid., p. 49. 345. As per M. Harunur Rashid, Candra period (tenth-eleventh centuries) gold, silver and copper coins have not been found from any part of the Comilla district or elsewhere in Bengal. He refutes the claims of A.H. Dani, who has attributed a large number of Arakan type silver coins recovered from the eighth-ninth century

Some Aspects of the Archaeology

346. 347. 348. 349. 350. 351. 352. 353. 354. 355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360.

361. 362.

601

levels of Salban Vihāra to the Bengal Candras of tenth-eleventh centuries AD. Rashid has claimed that Dani’s views were based on incorrect stratigraphical information of Salban Vihāra supplied by the then Department of Archaeology of Pakistan ( M. Harunur Rashid, ‘The Mainamati Gold Coins’, Bangladesh Lalit Kalā, vol. 1, no. 1, 1975, pp. 44-6). As Rashid had a prolonged field association with the excavation of some Mainamti sites, so he had better first hand knowledge. Due to this, we have preferred Rashid’s views to that of Dani. A.K.M. Shamsul Alam (op. cit., pp. 58-9) too supports this view. M. Harunur Rashid, The Early History of South-East Bengal in the Light of Recent Archaeological Material, op. cit., p. 50. See pp. 194-9 of the present book. M. Harunur Rashid, op. cit., p. 50. Ibid., p. 50. Md. Shafiqul Alam and Md. Abul Hashem Miah, Excavations at Ananda Vihāra, Mainamati, Comilla, 1979-82, op. cit., p. 23. Harunur Rashid, ‘Ananda Vihāra Excavations, Mainamati’, Bangladesh Archaeology, 1(1), 1979, p. 90. Md. Shafiqul Alam et al., Excavation at Rupban Mura, Mainamati, Comilla, op. cit., p. 7. Ibid., p. 25. Ibid., pp. 18-20. Bulbul Ahmed (ed.), Buddhist Heritage of Bangladesh, Nymphea Publications, Dhaka, 2015, pp. 107-8. Ibid., p. 108. Ibid., p. 107. Ibid., pp. 107-8. Ibid., p. 108. H.P. Sastri, ‘Buddhism in Bengal Since the Muhammadan Conquest’, in B. Ghosh (ed.), Biṣaya: Bouddhadharma, Karuna Prakashani, Kolkata, 2002, pp. 202-8; G.Verardi, Hardships and Downfall of Buddhism in India, Manohar, Delhi, 2011, pp. 378-9. G. Bhattacharya, Essays on Hindu Buddhist Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy, ICSBA, Dhaka, 2000, p. 467. Upendra Thakur, Studies in Jainism and Buddhism in Mithilā, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi, 1964, p. 125.

CHAPTER 8

Conclusion

Contextualizing the Decline of Buddhism in Bihar and Bengal after the Early Medieval Period As we approach the end of the book, we are left with certain important questions. Why did Buddhism decline after this period, even when most of the ruling dynasties of early medieval Bihar and Bengal claimed to be Buddhist in their official records? If that was the case, then do we need to revisit some of the generally accepted notions regarding the nature of the relationship between state patronage and the fate of a particular religion in an area? What was the nature of the decline of Buddhism: a sudden collapse or a protracted metamorphosis? One of our basic arguments was to treat big stone sculptures as an archaeological marker of the existence of a religious centre in the past, either at the place of the discovery of the sculpture or in its neighbourhood. That propelled us to argue for a significant diversity within the category of Buddhist religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal. We have argued that the category of ‘Buddhist religious centres’ was not confined to monumental monastic centres. This category also included those Buddhist temples and modest ‘settlement-shrines’ that existed independently of Buddhist monastic centres. As the basic nature and character of these categories of Buddhist religious centres were different, so were their patronage base and survival strategies; so no uniform pattern of decline of all categories of Buddhist religious centres may logically be argued. Nor can we

Conclusion

603

argue that the different categories of Buddhist religious centres declined simultaneously. Many Buddhist monastic centres declined by the end of the twelfth century, and some even before that, but many ‘settlement-shrines’ continued to proliferate even in the twelfth century. The proliferation of those Buddhist religious centres whose only vestiges are left by loose stone sculptures, was, however, unevenly distributed across early medieval Bihar and Bengal in general and the Pāla-Sena period in particular. In Chapter 3, we have inferred that in at least one zone of Bihar – the land between the rivers Sone and Karmanasha in south Bihar – Buddhist sculptures or structural ruins of Buddhist religious centres seem to have been largely absent. Barring the southern portions of Gaya district, we infer similar absence of Buddhist sculptures or structural ruins of Buddhist religious centres on the Bihar-Jharkhand border. In Bengal too, Buddhist sculptures or structural ruins of Buddhist religious centres have not been reported from the western portions of Bardhaman and West Medinipur districts. Similar was the case in the whole of Purulia and much of Bankura districts. In the rest of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, Buddhism was an expanding religion till the very end of the early medieval period. Its ‘settlement-shrines’ generally preferred to enshrine Buddha Śakyamuni in different forms and different ‘instrumental’ deities of exoteric Vajrayāna. They seem to have generally avoided the cult of the Paṅcatathāgatas and the cult of those deities which highlighted the violent triumph of Buddhism over Brahmanism (Aparājitā, etc.) or the explicit sexual imagery of esoteric Vajrayāna. In some ways, this development indicates that a kind of cultic disjuncture emerged between the forms of Buddhism practiced within the monastic religious space of ‘Paharpur-type Maṇḍala-monasteries’ and the Buddhism practiced in ‘settlement-shrines’. These developments took place in the backdrop of a more pronounced proliferation of Brahmanical religious centres in the Pāla period Bihar and Bengal. Brahmanical stone sculptures, in sheer number and frequency, outnumbered Buddhist sculptures almost everywhere. Buddhism was expanding in the shadow

604

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of a greater expansion of Brahmanism. Despite the presence of some syncretic images (Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara, Śiva-Lokeśvara) in some parts of Bengal, both religions expanded as independent religions. In Chapters 3 and 4, we have inferred how the PālaSena period marked a kind of ‘universalization’ of Brahmanical religious centres: Brahmanical stone sculptures have been reported from all zones of Bihar and Bengal. The only zone of Bengal from where Brahmanical stone sculptures have not been reported is the tract starting from the river Jamuna in the west to the marshes of Sylhet in the east, bounded by the Meghalaya foothills in the north and northern portions of Dhaka district in the south. Buddhist or Jaina sculptures have also not been reported from this tract. Copper plate inscriptions recording land grants to Brahmins or other donees have also not been reported from this zone. This zone seems to have remained isolated from developments taking place in the rest of Bengal. To sum up, Brahmanical religious centres lacked the monumentality of Nalanda, Antichak, Paharpur or Salban Vihara, but they had a more diffused presence in the landscape. Buddhism does not appear to be the only, not even dominant, religion in any part of Bihar and Bengal, the monumentality of its Mahāvihāras notwithstanding. The patronage base of Buddhist and Brahmanical religious centres was not uniform. As we have seen in Chapters 5 and 6, there were some fundamental differences in the social bases of patronage to Buddhist religious centres as we move from Bihar to Bengal. In Bihar (Magadha, Aṅga and Mithila plains), a crosssection of society donated Buddhist images. In Bengal too, we see the donation of Buddhist images by a cross-section of society. That notwithstanding, a fundamental difference seems to have existed between the monastic centres of Bihar (Magadha and North Bihar) and those of Bengal as regards the extent to which Buddhist monastic centres were willing to enter into ritual engagements with non-monastic devotees. In Magadha, even the most sacred spot within the Nalanda Mahāvihāra (Temple Site 3) was made available to the non-monastic non-aristocratic category of donors, indicating the willingness of the Buddhist

Conclusion

605

religious centres of Magadha to enter into ritual engagements with such a category of devotees. In Bengal, monastic centres seem to be generally reluctant to allow the donation/installation of sculptures within the monastic religious space by nonmonastic devotees. Antichak displayed a transitional trait. We noted a similar pattern in another archaeological indicator of ritual engagements between major Buddhist religious centres and their non-monastic devotees: votive stūpas. In Magadha and north Bihar, even the most sacred spots within the monastic centres were made available to the non-monastic devotees for the installation of votive stūpas. In Bengal, this facility was generally not provided to the non-monastic devotees, which indicates the reluctance of the monastic centres to enter into ritual engagements with such devotees. This difference was most probably related to the patterns of evolution of the support systems of major Buddhist religious centres (i.e. main monastic and pilgrimage centres) and the functions they offered to their patrons. In Bihar, we have seen that those copper-plate inscriptions, stone inscriptions and inscriptions on terracotta seals and sealings that record patronage in favour of Buddhist religious centres were largely confined to three main Buddhist religious centres: Mahābodhi, Nalanda and Antichak. Yet they indicate a certain kind of diversity in the patronage base of these religious centres. We see patronage by kings, persons from Sāmanta stratum, merchants, and local and non-local pilgrims from non-aristocratic background. Despite receiving substantial royal patronage, a monastic centre like Nalanda attempted to diversify its patronage base by attracting pilgrimage and patronage from pilgrims. In Bengal, on the other hand, in the available corpus of inscriptions on copper-plate, stone and metal vases, we see a great predominance of persons from aristocratic backgrounds: kings, ministers, persons from Sāmanta stratum. As we noted in Chapter 6, such individuals patronized Buddhist monasteries with clear-cut political motives. This was also related to the symbolism radiated by many such monastic centres. In Chapter 7, we have noted that many ‘Paharpur-type maṇḍala monasteries’

606

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

radiated the symbolism of functioning as monuments offering magical protection to the state, hence received state patronage. The case of Paharpur is perhaps one of the best examples of this process. It largely functioned as a monument offering magical protection to the state, received state patronage, and hence did not feel any need to enter into ritual engagement with the non-aristocratic donors. It did not even try to appropriate the pilgrimage potential of the Tārā temple at Satyapir Bhita to diversify its patronage base. Its specific symbolism attracted targeted religio-political violence from a rival king. Even the less monumental monasteries like Jagajjibanpur, established by a Pāla senāpati, failed to diversify its patronage base and suffered a slow decline due to this very reason. Many other monastic centres also failed to diversify their patronage base and suffered a slow decline due to this very reason. Brahmanical religious centres, in contrast, had a more diversified patronage base in Bihar and Bengal. In Bengal, some Brahmanical temples that were established through the patronage by the class of subordinate rulers (Sāmanta, etc.), who secured tax-free land grants with many immunities and privileges for these temples from the state, also served as the institution through which these subordinate rulers tried to augment their own power by undermining the authority of the state. But, on the whole, they were useful to the state. In the marshy and forested landscape of Sylhet, Brahmanical religious centres (temples and maṭhas) served as the institutional nuclei for state-sponsored agrarian expansion and detribaliation. But patronage provided by kings and subordinate rulers was not the only pattern of patronage available to Brahmanical temples in Bengal. They were also constructed by ladies like Sonnakādevī or, as reflected in the Silimpur inscription, members of many generations of a Brahmin family without any kind of state patronage. In other words, Brahmanical temples of early medieval Bengal display a certain kind of diversity in their patronage base which is not seen in the case of Buddhist monasteries. In Bengal, we observed one more trend: at the available stage of our database, only Viṣṇu temples seem to have provided the opportunity to name

Conclusion

607

the enshrined deity after the name of the patron who caused the construction of the temple or enshrined an image in the existing temple, not only for the king (cf. Laḍahamādhava-bhaṭṭāraka for Laḍahacandra in Comilla), but also for the common section of society (cf. Sonnakādevīmādhava in Rajabhita inscription; Jaṭilamādhava, etc., in dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of Varendra). This feature is discernible in all kinds of inscriptions: stone inscriptions, royal copper-plates, and dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures, indicating that it was a fairly wellestablished phenomenon across many social segments. Naming the enshrined deity on the name of the patron must have been a matter of great social prestige for the patron. This could have been one of the factors in the great proliferation of Viṣṇu sculptures, which were, arguably, enshrined in different temples/shrines, in the late Pāla period Bengal. This feature is not recorded in the cases of Śaiva or Śākta temples/shrines. Buddhism seems to have provided this opportunity only to kings (Bhavadeva Mahāvihāra, Ānanda Vihāra, etc.) or high-ranking state officials (Śrī-Vajradevakārita-Nandadīrghi-Vihāra). It is also apparent that this opportunity was provided only in the cases of monastic centres, not for Buddhist temples and shrines. Yet, as we have seen in the case of the recently excavated site of Bathbhita, at least one vihāra emerged in Bengal in the twelfth-thirteenth centuries AD and continued till at least sixteenth century AD. Future excavations may throw similar results from other parts of Bengal. A similar situation may not be ruled out for Bihar. It may also be added that the chances of the survival of many non-monastic Buddhist religious centres (‘settlement-shrines’ and temples) in the medieval period are even more plausible, because they needed much less resources than what was required for even a small monastic centre like Bathbhita. Clearly the social bases of patronage to Buddhism in Bengal and Bihar, and the process of the decline of Buddhism, were more complex than what is presented in a significant section of existing scholarship. This study brings us face to face with a fundamentally important question: if monastic Buddhism was not the only form

608

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

of Buddhist religious centres in early medieval Bihar and Bengal, then how to explain the decline of Buddhism after this period? What happened to its non-monastic religious centres? Royal patronage to big monasteries could have stopped under different circumstances. But the hundreds of Buddhist ‘settlementshrines’ would have hardly experienced any adverse impact of fluctuations in royal patronage as their foundation or survival did not owe much, if anything at all, to royal patronage as such. These shrines functioned in a poly-religious landscape, and got patronage from a society in which a microscopic minority had an expressed Buddhist identity. On the whole, we see a sustained Buddhist attempt of negotiating the poly-religious landscape of Bihar and Bengal in which Brahmanical religious centres had a more diffused presence. In short, the theory of ‘systemic crisis’ of Buddhism as propagated by Ronald Davidson and Andre Wink, could be applied, at best, to some monastic centres of Buddhism, not to its non-monastic religious centres. But that creates a bigger conceptual problem in understanding the decline of Buddhism. Why did the decline of monastic Buddhism induce an end of Buddhism in Bihar and Bengal in the long term? This question becomes valid because the destruction/decline of monasteries may not necessarily have lead to an immediate end of Buddhism. To have some examples from early medieval Bengal, if the Paharpur monastery faced religio-political violence heralding a process that precipitated its decline in the long run, and monks had to abandon it in the wake of establishment of Turkic rule in Bengal, what happened to those devotees, who used to throng to the Tārā temple at Satyapira Bhita? We have seen that the devotees of the Tārā temple at Satyapira Bhita did not have much institutional interaction with the monks of Paharpur, nor did the monks of Paharpur make any serious attempt to appropriate the popularity of the cult of Tārā at the Satyapira Bhita temple to diversify their own patronage base. The pilgrimage potential of this Tārā temple does not appear to be the result of its location near a big Mahāvihāra (Somapura Mahāvihāra) but due to some other factor(s). Why could this temple not continue

Conclusion

609

as a living institution? Why could the Buddhist shrines that came up after the destruction of Antichak not ensure the survival of Buddhism in that area? Salban Vihāra witnessed an irreversible decline in the early Candra period itself, but a temple of Cuṇḍā in the city of Paṭṭikera became such a famous pilgrimage site that it found mention in the Nepalese manuscript of Aṣṭasahaṣrikā Prajñāpāramitā. What happened to her devotees? What happened to the devotees of the temple of Bhṛkuṭi of the Vikrampur area? What happened to the devotees of the Mahā-āyatana of Khasarpaṇa Avalokiteśvara, which was visited by Vipulaśrīmitra? This temple was not part of any monastic structure nor was it located near any known monastic centre, but an independent temple: a temple serving as a community centre, which had a sattra attached to it, where festivals used to take place. Similar roles could have been performed by more modest rural Buddhist shrines as well, even if on a smaller scale. In other words, we are grappling with a fundamental question in the history of religions in Bihar-Bengal, thirteenth century AD onwards: monastic Buddhism declined due to various reasons, but why don’t we see a continued survival of Buddhism centered on its ‘settlement-shrines’ and temples functioning independent of monastic centres after the decline/destruction of its monastic centres? The functioning of most of such ‘settlement-shrines’ and temples did not owe much, if at all, to royal patronage, and they required much less resources than monastic centres. These temples could not have disappeared overnight after the establishment of Turkic rule in Bihar and Bengal and their devotees could not have dissipated all of a sudden. Why could they not ensure the survival of Buddhism as an institutional religion in Bihar and Bengal after the establishment of Turkic rule? Did these ‘settlement-shrines’ and temples impart a certain kind of vulnerability to the structure of Buddhism as an institutional religion? Was it due to the fact that in the very architecture and ritual functions, hardly any fundamental difference existed between Buddhist and Brahmanical temples in the early medieval period itself? The only differentiating element was the cultic identity (Brahmanical or Buddhist) of the

610

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

enshrined image. For the common devotees, this identity was not static but an identity in flux. Or should we think of a paradigm of monumental monasteries leaving an institutional void too fundamental to be overcome by these modest ‘settlementshrines’ and temples? In other words, was monastic Buddhism too central for the survival of Buddhism as an institutionally distinct religion? These issues force us to analyse the role of the Buddhist Saṅgha in the continued survival of Buddhism as an institutional religion in India in general and Bihar-Bengal area in particular. To have a fuller understanding, we will like to see the early medieval pattern in the backdrop of developments in the early historical phase. It may be noted that the earliest non-monastic form of Buddhism – Pure Land Buddhism – centering on the devotional worship of Amitābha emerged in north-western India in the Kuṣāṇa period, but it could never be very popular in India. From here, it travelled to China, Korea and Japan and gained great popularity in these countries. That ensured the survival of Buddhism as a mass-religion in these areas even after repeated attempts by the state to liquidate monastic Buddhism and laicization of monks. A similar phenomenon did not happen in India. In explaining the failure of Pure Land Buddhism to emerge as a mass-religion in India, it has been argued that The explanation for the marginalisation of Indian Pure Land is probably socio-political: Pure Land Teachings tended to bypass not only the authority of Hindu Brahmins, but even the authority of Buddhist renunciate orders. Indian social history did not produce any significant middle elites concerned with such non-guru–centric religious authority.1

And Compared to Hinduism, Buddhism began even more unambiguously with a Śramaṇa model sharply defined by the myth of the Śākyamuni; thereafter the specialist model of Buddhist practice was not challenged, as in the case of Bhakti tradition, by popular energies originating

Conclusion

611

from outside the system clamouring to be recognised in terms of elite specialists of the system. Monastic Buddhism was vigorous and dominated Buddhism much more than any single mythic format dominated Hinduism. The bipolar mythic structure of Pure Land remained clearly subordinate to the mythic model of emulating Śākyamuni.2

Though a detailed analysis of the ‘politics’ of Pure Land Buddhism had not been our aim in this book, but we may point out some broad implications of G. Amstutz’s interesting study for early medieval Bihar and Bengal. In early medieval Bihar and Bengal, monastic Buddhism was, no doubt, quite vigorous, but it was not the only format of Buddhism available to the masses. If the roles and functions of other forms of Buddhism have not been adequately addressed in modern historiographical reconstructions, that should not make us believe that nonmonastic forms of Buddhism were not present. It is, rather, a reflection of a peculiar tendency of prioritizing the textual material produced within the monasteries to the archaeological material found within and outside such monasteries. In the case of historiographical reconstructions of Indian Buddhism, to borrow Reginald Ray’s apt words, ‘monasteries form the prism through which much of history of Indian Buddhism is cast’.3 A too much focus on this prism obfuscates our vision and makes us neglect the non-monastic forms of Buddhism. It must be added here that despite the monumentality of its monastic centres, it was only in the Pāla period Bihar and Bengal where the domination of monastic Buddhism within Buddhism faced some serious challenges. Within Buddhism, its domination was challenged not only by the Siddhas, who often challenged the hegemony of monks but were frequently co-opted by the monasteries;4 but also by Gṛhasthācāryas, married laypersons who, in many cases, commanded veneration from monks and were invited by monastic authorities for the consecration of monasteries.5 An analysis of the role of the Gṛhasthācāryas as depicted in some Vajrayāna texts forced Alexis Sanderson to conclude that it was only in Vajrayāna in which the traditional

612

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

superiority of monks over laymen was undermined.6 Besides, Buddhist temples/shrines functioning independently of monastic centres also provided some religious space autonomous of the domination of monastic Buddhism to the common masses. It may be noted that in the whole of early medieval Bihar and Bengal, instances of a non-monastic donor donating an image, even to renowned monastic centres such Nalanda or Kurkihar, in the guidance of a monk is rare, if not totally absent. At least they have not been recorded in more than 95 per cent of dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures. In the case of Buddhist images donated to/installed at non-monastic religious centres, the marginalization of monks is even more pronounced. The donors of such sculptures most probably formed ‘significant middle elites concerned with such non-guru-centric religious authority’. This development most probably represented a kind of Buddhism practiced by the common people and autonomous of the domination of monastic Buddhism. Yet, this Buddhism could not survive the decline of monastic Buddhism in the long run. Why did it happen? For early medieval Buddhism in Bihar and Bengal, a big problem was related to the social and religious identity of a significant section of ‘non-monastic and non-aristocratic’ category of donors, who formed the mainstay of the proliferation of Buddhist religious centres in the rural and urban space. This category most probably formed a significant portion of ‘middle elites concerned with such non-guru–centric religious authority’. In the dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures, we have seen that an overwhelming majority of such donors belonged to ‘persons without expressed Buddhist identity’: a development which must have had ominous portents for a religion which was functioning in the shadow of expanding Brahmanism. These patrons were persons with multiple, or at least, fluid religious identities. Even an institution like Nalanda Mahāvihāra had to derive its revenue from those villages in which Buddhism was not the dominant religion. In such a milieu, Buddhist religious centres did not or could not impose an ‘exclusive Buddhist identity’ on an overwhelming majority of its supporters. They

Conclusion

613

were forced to attempt a subordinate integration of Brahmanical deities as outright rejection was dangerous and unaffordable.7 This attempt of subordinate integration was also made in important monastic centres: Nalanda, Paharpur, Salban Vihāra, etc. This attempted subordinate integration had some concomitant risks. When the authorities of the Mahābodhi allowed a person without expressed Buddhist identity to install a sculpture of a bull within its premises to beget progeny, or when they allowed another person without expressed Buddhist identity (the son of a sculptor) to construct a Śiva temple in the vicinity of the Mahābodhi, their intention was to reduce Śiva as one of the subsidiary gods of Buddhism. The result was just the opposite for such persons without expressed Buddhist identity: it confirmed their perception of the character of the Mahābodhi as a Śaiva temple site.8 Gradually, Brahmanical deities got so deeply embedded in the religious character of the Mahābodhi that its core Buddhist character was compromised in the long run.9 All this heralded a process that culminated in the Śaiva control of the site sometime during the medieval period. The Mahābodhi area became a property of a Śaiva Mahantha. Even today, Buddhists do not have an exclusive control over the Mahābodhi.10 All this indicates that Buddhism could have but a slow metamorphosis, and not a sudden collapse. Many Buddhist temples and shrines could have continued intact and even the deity enshrined in them would have remained, theoretically at least, Buddhist, but the common population might have slowly started worshipping the deity as a folk or Brahmanical deity. After the collapse of monasteries, which formed the institutional nuclei of the Great Tradition of Buddhism, nothing was left to resist the protracted transformation of Buddhism into various folk and Brahmanical cults, because, for centuries, institutional and ritual boundaries between Buddhism and Brahmanism were progressively blurred.11 Buddhist temples/shrines that were not attached to monastic centres could not halt this process. All this precipitated an irreversible metamorphosis of Buddhism. Anyone who visits the neighbourhood of important

614

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Buddhist monastic sites in Bihar and Bengal becomes aware of the extent to which this metamorphosis has taken place. Votive stūpas have ended up as Śivaliṅga in the neighbourhood of the Mahābodhi or Nalanda. The magnificent Aṣṭamahāpratihārya stele of Jagadishpur in the neighbourhood of Nalanda has ended up as Rukmini Māī, worshipped by the neighbouring villagers, especially by the newly married couples, to beget marital bliss and progeny. The gigantic statues of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā, kept in the premises of the excavated ruins of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra, have ended up as Dhelvā Bābā and Teliyā Bābā. An image of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā at the village of Telhara receives full-fledged pūjā as Hanumān during Rāmanavamī.12 The magnificent Tārā image at Bara (in Nalanda district) has ended up as ‘Bhagavatī Ugratārā, an avatar of Durgā’.13 A sculpture of the Buddha has ended up as Vāsudeva at Gunaighar in Comilla.14 How did these metamorphoses evolve after the decline of the monastic centres of Buddhism? What were their contours? What kind of linkages, if any, did this process have with the Islamization of the territory that now constitutes Bangladesh? As of now, these questions remain largely unanswered. They require a different kind of study than what we could attempt in this book.

NOTES 1. G. Amstutz, ‘The Politics of Pure Land Buddhism in India’, Numen, vol. 45 , fasc. 1, 1998, p. 69. 2. Ibid., pp. 83-4. Emphasis added. 3. Reginald A. Ray, Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, p.vii. 4. For an analysis of complex relationship between the Siddhas and monastic Buddhism, see Ronald Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement, Columbia University Press, New York, 2002, pp. 169-233. 5. Alexis Sanderson, ‘Vajrayana: Origin and Function’, in M. Bhikkhu et al. (eds), Buddhism into the Year 2000, Dhammakaya Foundation, Bangkok and Los Angeles, 1994, p. 92. 6. Ibid., p. 92.

Conclusion

615

7. Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Evolution of the Patterns of Cultic Encounters between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the Religious Space of Some Excavated Buddhist Religious Centres of Early Medieval Bihar and Bengal: A Study Based on an Analysis of the Published Archaeological Data’, Religions of South Asia, vol. 12, no. 3, 2018, p. 344. 8. Ibid., p. 345. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. In April 2011, when I participated in the excavations of the monastic site of Telhara, I noticed the ceremonial worship of an image of the Buddha as Hanumān on the day of Rāmanavamī by the villagers at Telhara. This image was kept in the precincts of the village temple. The temple priest presided over the pūjā, which was performed by chanting Sanskrit ślokas and Hanumān Chālisā. A big crowd of villagers participated in the ceremony. Villagers informed me that they perform such pūjā every year on the day of Rāmanavamī. 13. For an analysis of this process at this village, see Birendra Nath Prasad et al., ‘Bārā: A Recently Discovered Site in Nalanda District and Its Bearings on the Decline of Indian Buddhism’, in B. Labh (ed.), The Ocean of Buddhist Wisdom, vol. IV, New Bharatiya Book Corporation, Delhi, 2010, pp. 225-33. 14. This has been noticed by Mokammal H. Bhuiyan, ‘Buddha Survived as Vāsudeva’, JBA, vols. 13-14, 2008-9, pp. 229-36.

APPENDIX 1

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar having Structural or Sculptural Indications for the Presence of Religious Centres during the Early Historic and Early Medieval Periods

Karuṣadeśa: The Tract between the Karmanasha and Sone Rivers 1. Chausa. 18 miniature bronze images (Jaina and Brahmanical), datable to the Kuṣāṇa and Gupta periods, have been reported from the site. A total absence of Buddhist images is a marked feature (IAR, 1974-5, p. 9; K. Anand, History and Archaeology of Buxar, Bhojpur and Rohtas Regions, Delhi, 1995, p. 22). 2. Gumharia in Rohtas district. Architectural fragments and carved pillars, one of them showing Gaṇeśa and other a female figure (IAR, 1981-2, p. 13). 3. Jharpa in Rohtas district. Remains of a stone temple with carved architectural members, carved panels and images (IAR, 1981-2, p. 13). Stone images of Umāmaheśvara, Kubera, Buddha and many other Buddhist deities. All antiquities are datable to the early medieval period (Kumar Anand, ‘Early Medieval Sculptural Art of Kaimur’, JBPP, vols. XVII-XVIII, 1993-4, p. 210). 4. Tiwai, district Bhabhua. Stone sculptures: life-size image of the Buddha; an image of Pārśvanātha (Kumar Anand, op. cit., p. 210) . 5. Jhorghar in Rohtas district. Remains of a stone temple with carved architectural members, carved panels and images (IAR, 1981-2, p. 13).

618

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

6. Kanhenar. Remains of a stone temple with carved architectural members, carved panels and images. A stone slab inscribed in early Devanagari script (IAR, 1981-2, p. 13). 7. Karkar. Stone sculptured panel depicting Gaṇeśa, some female deities (IAR, 81-2, p. 13). 8. Atmi in Rohtas district. Remains of a stūpa ‘exactly like many at Sarnath’. No dating provided. On the ruins of the earlier stūpa, a Hindu temple was built later on (T. Bloch, ARASI, EC, 1906-7, p. 17; K. Anand, History and Archaeology of Buxar, Bhojpur and Rohtas Regions, p. 17). 9. Baidyanath, in Bhabhua subdivision of Rohtas district. Many mounds at the site. Excavations at a mound led to the discovery of a ruined temple, sculptures, three inscriptions and 22 stone obelisks (square in section, tapering towards the top and mostly covered with a circular ornament). Many scenes are carved on the obelisks : mother suckling a child; a female churning butter; a man riding a snake, etc. Most of them seem to have been associated with the life of Kṛṣṇa (K. Anand, op. cit., p. 63). 10. Dawath. Discovery of a single stone sculpture of a nude mother goddess in child birth pose (ibid., p. 23). 11. Deo-Barunark. This site has remains of a large ancient settlement, the most prominent of which is the widespread debris of a temple mound. On the top of this mound, the remains of the burnt brick walls of tenth-eleventh centuries AD temple with a stone image of Sūrya in situ were discovered. Many pre-Pāla temple pillars on the mound, as well as in the village, have also been reported (D.K. Chakrabarti, Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain: The Lower and the Middle Ganga, Delhi, 2001, pp. 178-9). 12. Deo-Markandeya. A big mound, with an area around 300 acres. The ancient temple is destroyed, but its site is marked with a 5 m high structural mound with a circumference around 75 m. Regular findings of stray sculptures in the fields. Ancient sculptures which are kept in the adjoining modern temples: Chaturmukha liṅga and plain liṅga; Sūrya probably belonging to the original Sūrya temple; 6 images of Viṣṇu; a few Brahmanical images datable to tenth-twelfth centuries AD (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 178). 13. Garohat, near Mundeswari. Presence of tanks, reservoirs and remains of brick buildings at this place. Stone sculptures: images of Gaṇeśa, Haragauri; Viṣṇu riding Garuda (Louis O’Malley, Bihar District Gazetteer—Shahabad, Patna, 1924, p. 169).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

619

14. Jamhauli, 20 miles from Buxar. A stone sculpture, probably of Ganga or Yamuna. Dating uncertain (K. Anand, op. cit., p. 27). 15. Kaithi, in Brahmapura block of Buxar subdivision. A prominent mound. A number of pillars and plasters with beautiful human figures carved on the lower portions are lying on this mound. Stone sculptures: a sandstone image of Viṣṇu; Daśāvatāra panel; Viṣṇu; Umāmaheśvara; Kalyānasundaramūrti of Śiva, etc. Existence of an earlier temple is indicated by the presence of carved pillars and sculptures. Dating: either to the Gupta or post-Gupta period (ibid., p. 27; K. Anand, ‘Stone Sculptures from Kaithi’, JBPP, vols. VII-VIII, 1983-4, pp. 315-21). 16. Kesath, Bhojpur district. The whole village is situated on a big mound, which indicates an earlier habitation site. Some Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva stone sculptures have been reported from the site. No dating provided (K. Anand, op. cit., pp. 27-8) 17. Mahadeopur in Bhojpur district. Remains of a dodecagonal temple, similar to the Mahābodhi in style and dating, were found at the site. A total absence of sculptures (A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. XVI, pp. 62-3; ASIR, XXII, pp. 14-17). 18. Nindaur/ Srirampur near Bhabhua. An early historic city site with evidences of fortification walls of early centuries AD. Many early medieval ruined temples and sculptures including a Jaina figure have been reported from the site (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 180). 19. Mangraon, 14 miles southwest of Buxar. A stone inscription refers to the presence of a Śiva temple at the site (c. AD 700) (K. Anand, op. cit., pp. 29-30). 20. Masar, 6 miles to the west of Arrah town. Reported antiquities from the site: a big stone image of Viṣṇu, sixth-seventh century AD; many other sculptures of Viṣṇu, Śiva; Pārvatī, Sūrya, Nandī, Navagraha, Śivaliṅga; architectural fragments of temples (A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. III, pp. 66-71; K. Anand, op. cit., pp. 30-1). In recent excavations, terracotta figurines of Mahiṣāsuramardinī and Gaṇeśa from the Gupta period layer of the site have been reported (A.K. Sinha, ‘Masar Excavations’, JBPP, vols. XXI-XXII, 2010, p. 202). 21. Mer. Ruins of a later Gupta or early medieval temple consisting only of a platform with the debris of numerous carved stones, images, etc., lying on it were discovered from the site. Stone sculptures: life size image of Kubera, an image of Narasiṁha (K. Anand, op. cit., p. 33). 22. Mundesvari. The site of a seventh century Śiva temple, with the

620

23.

24.

25.

26. 27. 28. 29.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia possible existence of a Viṣṇu temple nearby (F. Asher, The Art of Eastern India, Delhi, 1980, pp. 38-40). Tutrahi. The site of Nāyaka Pratapadhavala rock inscription recording his pilgrimage to a small shrine of goddess Mahiṣāsuramardinī or Jagatadhātri. A small statue of goddess Mahiṣāsuramardinī has been found near the find spot of the inscription on the hill (K. Anand, op. cit., p. 37). Darauli, Rohtas district. Reported antiquities from the site: ruins of two small temples; a large mound; stone sculptures of Varāha, Pārvatī, Gaṇeśa, Liṅga (K. Anannd, op. cit., pp. 22-3); an inscription referring to Makaradhvaja Jogi 700 (K. Anand, op. cit., p. 63). Patesar in Bhabhua district. Reported antiquities from the site: a decorated stone pillar which most probably served as the Dhvjastaṁbha of a temple; stone sculptures of Mahiṣāsuramardinī, Cāmuṇḍā (K. Anand, ‘Early Medieval Sculptural Art of Kaimur’, JBPP, vols. XVII- XVIII, 1993-4, p. 209). Dharhara. Stone images of Varāha, Viṣṇu and other Brahmanical deities (K. Anand, op. cit., p. 210) Madurna. Stone images of Durgā, Viṣṇu, Navagraha, Umāmaheśvara (K. Anand, op. cit., p. 210). Amaon. Stone images of Sūrya, Gaṇeśa (K. Anand, op. cit., p. 210) . Kaser. Stone images of Gaṇeśa, Viṣṇu, Sūrya, Durgā, Dhvajastambha (K. Anand, op. cit., p. 210).

Gaya district BODH GAYA/GAYA SADAR BLOCK

1. Bodh Gaya. Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures, monastic ruins, Buddhist temple (A. Cunningham, ASIR, XI, pp. 141-51). 2. Babhini Ghat area of Gaya town. Stone sculptures: Sūrya, stone, eleventh-twelfth century AD; another stone image of Sūrya of the same period from the Viṣṇupada temple area (B.K. Sahay, ‘Two Rare Images of Sūrya from Gaya’, JBPP, vols. IX-X, 1985-6, p. 276). 3. Bakror. A stūpa site beginning in the second century BC, last phase datable to the Pāla period (IAR, 1973-4, pp. 9-10; K.M. Srivastava, ‘The Place of Buddha’s Sujata Discovered’, JBPP, vol. 1, 1977, pp. 133-7). 4. Mora hills, 3 miles to the north-east of Bodh Gaya. Seven stūpas, a

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

5. 6.

7.

8. 9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

621

broken stone image of an 8-armed goddess inscribed with ninthtenth century AD characters (D.R. Patil, op. cit., pp. 289-90). Janibigha. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Mahiṣāsuramardinī (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 183). Ghamandisthan. Reported antiquities: a few liṅgas and fragments of miniature stone stūpas. No mound (A.S. Amar, ‘Contextualizing The Navel of the Earth: Emergence, Sustenance and Religious Transformation of Buddhism in the Bodhgaya Region (circa. 300 BCE-1200 CE)’, unpublished PhD thesis, SOAS, 2009, p. 124). Amwan. Reported antiquities: a Pāla period stone sculpture of the Buddha; remains of a few miniature stone stūpas; all datable to the eighth-ninth century AD (A.S. Amar, ibid., pp. 124-5). Kendua. A small mound. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Viṣṇu. (A.S. Amar, ibid., pp. 124-5). Ghughritand. A Pāla period (tenth century) stone sculpture of Umā-Maheśvara installed within a ruined early medieval temple (A.S. Amar, ibid., p. 125). Badki Babhani. Reported antiquities: Pāla period stone sculpture of the Buddha in Bhūmisparśamudrā (2 examples); miniature stone stūpa of the Pāla period (A.S. Amar, ibid., p. 129). Silaunja. Reported antiquities: a mound under active occupation; Pāla period stone sculptures of Umāmaheśvara and Viṣṇu (A.S. Amar, ibid, pp. 130-1). Pretshila hills near Gaya town. Reported antiquities: Pāla period stone sculptures of Gaṇeśa, Śiva, Pārvatī, standing Viṣṇu, Umāmaheśvara, the Buddha in BSM; a ruined temple and many sculptures (IAR, 1974-5, p. 9). Brahmayoni hills near Gaya town. Reported antiquities: Pāla period stone sculptures of standing Viṣṇu, Kārtikeya, Mahiṣāsuramardinī, two Bodhisattva images; votive stūpas with inscriptions in protoBengali script (IAR, 1974-5, p. 9).

GURARU BLOCK

14. Mangrawan. Pāla period stone sculptures: three Viṣṇu images (ninth-tenth centuries), Umāmaheśvara, a liṇga, two miniature stone stūpas (all of the tenth century), a Bhairav and a Gaṇeśa of eleventh century AD (A.S. Amar, op. cit., p. 138-39). 15. Cheon, near Pachar Hills. Pāla period stone sculptures: Harihara, Pārśvanātha (D.R. Patil, op. cit., p. 84).

622

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

KONCH BLOCK

16. Kabar. Reported antiquities: an extensive mound, 5 m in height and more than 1/2 km in area; many Pāla period stone images (a Śivaliṅga, two Viṣṇu images, a Nṛsiṁha image, a Mahiṣāsuramardinī image, a goddess image, an Umāmaheśvara image); a Pāla period ruined temple; miniature stone stūpas (A.S. Amar, op. cit., pp. 1412). 17. Konch, a temple site. Pāla period stone sculptures: Viṣṇu, mid-sixth century AD; Viṣṇu-daśāvatāra panel; Ekamukhī Śivaliṅga; Lakuliśa; Sūrya; Garuḍa; Umāmaheśvara, a big Śivaliṅga; two images of the Buddha (ibid., p. 144). 18. Pali. Discovery of two Gupta period brick temples with stone doorways by Cunningham, one dedicated to Viṣṇu and other to Śiva (A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. XVI, pp. 51-2). 19. Utren. Two mounds. Stone sculptures: Umā-Maheśvara, Gaṇeśa, Nandī, Viṣṇu, Durgā, Sūrya and Lakuliśa. The site may be dated between the Gupta and Pāla periods (A.S. Amar, op. cit., p. 143). TEKARI BLOCK.

1. Kespa/Kispa. Reported antiquities: many liṅgas and numerous cutstone blocks, which is believed to represent the remains of earlier temple (s) at the site; Pāla period stone sculptures: life-size Buddha; Avalokiteśvara; Viṣṇu mounted on Garuḍa; four-faced Śiva-liṅga; Gaṇeśa (D.R. Patil, op. cit., pp. 207-9; A.S. Amar, op. cit., p. 142) BELAGANJ BLOCK

1. Kauwa-dol/Samaspur village. Cunningham identified it with the site of Śīlabhadra monastery referred to by Xuan Zang. Reported antiquities: a mound strewn with brickbats; ruins of a stūpa at the top of the hill. Brahmanical sculptures carved on the granite masses on the foot of the hill: Visnu, Haragauri, Ganesa, many examples of Mahiṣāsuramardinī. Other stone sculptures: a 7 ft high stone sculpture of the Buddha which was worshipped as Bhīmasena in Cunningham’s time, a broken Buddhist pedestal inscribed with the Buddhist creed formula in c. ninth-tenth century AD characters (A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. XVI, pp. 46-50). ATARI BLOCK AND ADJOINING AREAS

1. Narawa. Reported antiquities: ‘several heaps of bricks of very little

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

623

elevation’ with many defaced images and several rude pillars of granite scattered about; a broken image of the Buddha and many liṅgas (D.R. Patil, op. cit., pp. 336-7). 2. Mirzapur-Nadera. A medieval mosque made of earlier materials (probably of a Buddhist structure) standing over an ancient mound (ibid., 276-8). 3. Tapoban. Reported antiquities:‘a large mound representing a stūpa’; Pāla period stone sculptures of Śiva, Viṣṇu, Hara-Gaurī and Śivaliṅgas (ibid., pp. 560-1). 4. Jethian Valley. Reported antiquities:ruins of a stūpa or a vihāra and a few Pāla period stone sculptures of Viṣṇu; some Jaina stone images (A.K. Singh, op. cit., pp. 38-9). SITES IN THE WAZIRGANJ-KURKIHAR AREA

1. Kurkihar. A ‘structural mound least 15 m high, at least 1 km long and 0.5 km wide’, with ‘traces of brickbats at every step’ is surviving in the village. The whole modern village is surviving on this mound only (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 181). In the colonial explorations of the site, many votive stūpas and stone and metal sculptures, mostly of the Pāla period (both Buddhist and Brahmanical) have been reported. 2. Hasrakol.Reported antiquities: remains of mounds; Pāla period stone slab carved with miniature Buddha images; Pāla period stone sculptures of Buddha and Boshisattvas; a few Brahmanical sculptures (A.K. Singh, op. cit., pp. 58-9). 3. Punawan. Reported antiquities: ruins of a ‘large Buddha temple in ruins’; Pāla period stone sculptures of seated Buddha; Vajra-Varāhī (ibid., p. 60) 4. Orel.Reported antiquities:an old temple made of recycled material enshrining Durgā/Mahiṣāsuramardinī image of the Pāla period; Pāla period stone sculptures of Viṣṇu; Durgā/Mahiṣāsuramardinī; Sūrya; Umāmaheśvara (A.S. Amar, op. cit., p. 135). FATEHPUR BLOCK

1. Gurpa. Reported antiquities: Pāla period stone sculptures of the Buddha in BSM; Tārā; some fragmented sculptures; many votive stūpas; a small basement of bricks representing perhaps ruins of a stūpa (D.R. Patil, op. cit., pp. 156-8). 2. Jaipurgarh. Miniature Pāla period Buddhist and Brahmanical

624

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

metal sculptures: Maitreya (4); Sadakaṣarī Lokeśvara (1); Mahāśrī Tārā (2), Hārītī (1); model of the Mahābodhi temple (1); Viṣṇu (1); Gaṇeśa (1) (B. Sahai, ‘The Bronzes from Fatehpur’, JBPP, vol. 1, 1977, pp. 173-86). 3. Dema.Reported antiquities: a mound in the village; under active cultivation; Pāla period stone sculptures of Maitreya, Bhairava and numerous Buddha-panels of stone (A.S. Amar, op. cit., pp. 126). MOHANPUR AND BARACHATTI BLOCKS

1. Lakhaipur, Mohanpur block. Reported antiquities: a mound measuring more than 1,000 × 500 m; a miniature stone stūpa and an illegible inscribed broken fragment of a statue; a new temple on the structural ruins of Pāla period temple (ibid., p. 128). 2. Binda, Barachatti block.Whole village situated on a low mound. Reported antiquities: architectural panels of the Buddha, miniature stone stūpas of the tenth-eleventh centuries AD; a Sūrya sculpture of the ninth century AD (ibid., p. 126). DOBHI BLOCK

1. Pirasin. Reported antiquities: a mound (diameter: 34.3 m; height 3.5 m); a few fragmentary remains of miniature stone stūpas (ibid., pp. 126-7). 2. Wari. Reported antiquities:a much disturbed mound in the village; Pāla period stone sculptures of Gaṇeśa; two Viṣṇu statues; Avalokiteśvara; two miniature stone stūpas of the tenth century CE. (ibid., p. 127). GURUA BLOCK

1. Baiju-bigha. Reported antiquities: shell inscription indicates Gupta period activity at the site; ruins of an old shrine; a Gupta period Śivaliṅga (ibid., pp. 144-5). 2. Dubba. Reported antiquities: a mound in the village (40 × 30 × 4 m), possibly concealing the remains of a brick stūpa which originated in the early-historic period and continued until the Pāla period; Pāla period stone sculptures of the Buddha (2) and Viṣṇu (1) (ibid., pp. 145-6). 3. Murhut near village Chillo. Explored by Kittoe only. Kittoe refers to the presence of ‘a large city and citadel, including Buddhist and Śaiva monasteries’ (D.R. Patil, op. cit., pp. 293-4).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

625

4. Matka . ‘remains of a stūpa’ (D.R. Patil, op. cit., p. 85). 5. Chillor. Reported antiquities: Pāla period stone sculptures (several Buddhist images, Śiva); ruins of a stūpa (ibid., p. 85). AMAS BLOCK

1. Manda. ‘An ancient site, with pottery and bricks spread over a great distance around the hill’. Kittoe found ‘Buddha and Śiva temples on the rocks, of which traces only are left; under a tree are heaped fragments of all idols of all ages’ (ibid., pp. 249-50). 2. Taradih. An excavated site showing continuous occupation from the Neolithic period to the end of the Pāla period. Antiquities from the Gupta period layers: fragments of votive stūpas made of stone, stone images of the Buddha and Avalokiteśvara, replica of a temple in stone, a chhatrāvalī, a sealing depicting the figure of the Buddha and inscribed with the Buddhists Creed Formula, remains of a burnt-brick structure, possibly a Buddhist monastery (IAR, 1981-2, pp. 11-12). Antiquities from the Pāla period layers: five phases of construction were noted, and the constructed material basically represented the ruins of a Buddhist monastery made of reused bricks of earlier period (IAR, 1981-2, p. 12); votive stūpas, stone head of a Bodhisattva, panel of a thousand Buddha, and a fragmented sculpture of Sūrya (IAR, 1982-3, p. 17).

Aurangabad district 1. Umga. A ruined temple dedicated to Sūrya has been discovered at this site. In the neighbouring area of the temple, discovery of many temple ruins, architectural fragments and black stone sculptures of Gaṇeśa, Nandī, Śiva, all dating to the Pāla period (K. Anand, ‘Exploration Report of Umga, District Aurangabad, Bihar’, JBPP, vols. XIX–XX, 1995-2000, pp. 326-7).

Jehanabad and Arwal districts 1. Dharawat. Continuous occupation from Neolithic to the Pāla period. Reported antiquities: extensive urn-burials; Pāla period black stone sculptures of Sūrya, Umāmaheśvara; Kārtikeya; Viṣṇu, Gaṇeśa; Buddha; Bodhisattva (IAR, 1974-5, p. 9); remains of a Gupta period monastery and a stūpa (A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. XVI, pp. 43-6).

626

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

2. Kunwa hill. Reported antiquities: ruins of a Buddhist monastery, many broken Buddhist stone sculptures (ibid., p. 40). 3. Mira Bigaha, 5 km to the north of Dharawat. Ruins of Śaiva temples . Pre-Pāla and Pāla period Brahmanical stone sculptures: Annapurṇā (twelfth-thirteenth centuries), Umāmaheśvara (ninth century), Umāmaheśvara (sixth century), Umāmaheśvara (ninth century), Vaiṣṇavī (twelfth-thirteenth centuries), Durgā (tenth century), Cāmuṇḍā (twelfth-thirteenth centuries), Sūrya (eighth century), Sūrya (ninth century), Sūrya (eleventh century), Viṣṇu (ninth century), Umāmaheśvara (tenth century), Viṣṇu (eighth century), Śivaliṅgas, Matṛkā panel, stone slab (depiction of 8 goddesses: Sarasvatī, Vaiṣṇavī, Durgā, Pārvatī, Cāmuṇḍā, Lakṣmī, an unidentified figure of mother goddess) (Manas Ranjan Manbansh, ‘A Report of Archaeological Exploration and Documentation of Stone Sculptures of Mira Bigaha Village of Jahanabad District’, pp. 40-4). 4. Bhanebigha. Pāla period black stone images of the Buddha and Bodhisattva (IAR, 1974-5, p. 9). 5. Dharnai Sumera. Pāla period black stone images of the Buddha and Bodhisattva; Avalokiteśvara; two images of Umāmaheśvara (IAR, 1974-5, p. 9; A.S. Amar, op. cit., pp. 119). 6. Nagarjni hill caves, about a mile to the northeast of the Barabar caves. Mauryan caves, inscriptions of the later period (A.K. Singh, Archaeology of Magadha Region, Delhi, 1991, p. 51) 7. Keur. This site was initially explored by A. Banerjee-Sastri. He noticed a large mound of broken bricks, 40 ft in height. He was so impressed with the massive nature of the ruins at this site that he identified it with the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra. He discovered a good number of broken sculptures, primarily Buddhist, many of them inscribed with the Buddhist creed formula in Pāla characters (ibid., p. 56). 8. Ner. Ruins of a Śaiva temple consisting of a sanctum with liṅga inside and a pillared hall in front ( J.D. Beglar, ASIR, vol. VIII, p. 65). 9. Paibigha. Beglar noticed here several granite pillars, roughly dressed and marked with deeply cut Triśūla designs indicating that they once belonged to some Śaiva shrine or shrines’ (ASIR, vol. VIII, pp. 63-4; D.R. Patil, op. cit., p. 346). 10. Badrabad. A stone image of the dancing Gaṇeśa, Pāla period (Bhagwant Sahai, ‘An image of Dancing Gaṇeśa in the Gaya Museum’, JBPP, vol. II, 1978, pp. 231-3).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

627

Nawada district 1. Aphsad. Reported antiquities: a seventh century temple dedicated to Viṣṇu, established through royal patronage; a stone sculpture of Varāha of the same period (F. Asher, Art of Eastern India, p. 53). 2. Roh. Reported antiquities: remains of a brick structure; stone sculptures, c. eighth-ninth century AD (Buddha, Gaṇeśa; Umāmaheśvara); a stone relief of 76 Buddhas in BSM in four rows with equal number of figures in each row; a brick enclosure with many images of the Brahmanical faith such as Gaṇeśa, Viṣṇu, Śiva-Pārvatī and a Liṅga (IAR, 1975-6, p. 9). 3. Narawat. Broken sculpture of the Buddha, many Śivaliṅgas of c. tenth-twelfth centuries (D.R. Patil, op. cit., pp. 336-7). 4. Devangarh. A fortified early historic urban settlement. Total site area around 85 acres. Pāla period unidentifiable sculptural fragments (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., pp. 184, 187). Stone sculptures of Vāsudeva, Balarāma and Ekānaṁśā, 4th century (F. Asher, op. cit., pp. 18-19). 5. Adwa. A Pāla period stone sculpture of the Buddha (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 183). 6. Attaua. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Sūrya (ibid., p. 183). 7. Baksanti in Govindapur block. Adorned dancing figures, cultic affiliation not known (ibid., p. 183). 8. Bermi in Warasaliganj block. Pāla period stone sculptures of Sūrya, Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 183). 9. Chhadihar in Warasaliganj block. Pāla period stone sculptures of Sūrya (ibid., p. 183). 10. Dhurivan near Nawada. Pāla period stone sculptures of Padmapāṇi, Harītī (ibid., p. 183). 11. Harahi in Waziraganj PS. Pāla period stone sculptures of Kankālī, Mahiṣāsuramardinī, Bhairava (ibid., p. 183). 12. Hisua. Pāla period stone sculptures of Śiva, Pārvatī, Gaṇeśa (ibid., p. 183). 13. Jipuragarh near Nawada. Pāla period stone sculptures of Gajalakṣmī, Maitreya, Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 183). 14. Makanpur in Warasaliganj block. Pāla period stone sculptures of Jambhala (ibid., p. 183); Viṣṇu (2 examples), Varāha (H.K. Narain, ‘Makanpur in Archaeological Perspective’, JBPP, vols. IV-V, 1980-1, pp. 212-16).

628

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

15. Makandapur in Warasaliganj block. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 183). 16. Marra near Roh. Pāla period stone sculptures of Narasiṁha, Umāmaheśvara, Gaṇeśa (ibid., p. 183). 17. Maharath in Warasaliganj block. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Harihara (ibid., p. 183). 18. Maharwan-Govindapur near Roh. Inscribed architectural fragments, Pāla period stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 183). 19. Mirzapur Mohalla, Nawada town. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara (ibid., p. 183). 20. Nazardih near Nawada town. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 183). 21. Narhat near Hisua. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 183) 22. Netkuri in Sirdhala block. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Bhairava (ibid., p. 183). 23. Neya, towards Hisua. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 183). 24. Neyari, Fatehpur in Nawada district. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara (ibid., p. 183). 25. Marui near Roh. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Bodhisattva, an architectural fragment with Sūrya (ibid., p. 183). 26. Pakaribarawan. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Balarāma (ibid., p. 183) 27. Patwasarai, Kadiraganj. Pāla period stone sculptures of Viṣṇu, Buddha (ibid., p. 183). 28. Raghopur, near Nawada town. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Pārvatī (ibid., p. 183). 29. Rupo. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Gaṇeśa (ibid., p. 183) 30. Samaya, Nawada block. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 183). 31. Singathia, near Nawada town. Pāla period stone sculptures of Mahiṣāsuramardinī, Avalokiteśvara (ibid., p. 183). 32. Siswan, in Nawada block. A Pāla period stone sculptures of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 183). 33. Sonubigha, in Kadiraganj block. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Basuki (ibid., p. 183). 34. Waziraganj. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Parswanatha (ibid., p. 183).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

629

35. Araaikesopur. A Pāla period stone sculptures of Pārvatī, Mātṛka (ibid., p. 183). 36. Basabigha, near Hisua. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 183). 37. Kenar Chatti on the Wazirganj-Ftehpur road. Large structural mound of about 8 acres, Pāla period sculptural and architectural fragments, Śivaliṅga (ibid., p. 184). 38. Pesh, in Naradiganj block. Ruins of temples, Makaramukha, many Pāla period Ekamukhī Śivaliṅgas with Yonipaṭṭa (Explored by me in 2008). 39. Unspecified site, Nawada district. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Siddhaikavira (Bhagwant Sahai, ‘Two Buddhist Images from Bihar: Crisis of Their Identification’, JBPP, vols. XV-XVI, 1991-2, pp. 14750).

Nalanda district1 BLOCK ASTHAWAN, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Jiyar. The entire village seems to be settled atop a mound. A black stone pillar (40 × 20 × 4 cm) was found outside village. Pāla period black stone sculptures: an inscribed Avalokiteśvara; Viṣṇu (6); Gaṇeśa; Sūrya; Tārā (pp. 14-15). 2. Kaila. The entire village seems to be settled atop a mound. Sherds of black-slipped ware and red ware are scattered over mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; other unidentified black stone images (p. 15). 3. Malti. The entire village is settled atop a mound. sherds of red ware are found scattered over the mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Mārīcī; Buddha in Dharmacakrapravartana mudrā (DCPM) (p. 15). 4. Sherpur. A mound with red ware scatter. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu Buddha in BSM;2 other fragmented sculptures (p. 16).

1  Unless otherwise stated, all references are from B.K. Choudhary, Archaeological Gazetteer of Nalanda District, Patna, 2015. 2  BSM is an abbreviated form of bhūmisparśa mudrā.

630

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

BLOCK BEN, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Akauna. 18 fragmented Pāla period black stone sculptures, including the following: Śivaliṅga; votive stūpa; seated Buddha in BSM; Buddha flanked by Bodhisattvas (p. 19). 2. Arawana. Mound with NBPW and red ware scatter. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara; five fragmentary images, including that of the Buddha (p. 19). 3. Balchand Bigha. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Siṁhanāda Avalokiteśvara; standing male figure; two standing female figure holding a fly-whisk and tribhanga posture (p. 20). 4. Bara. The village is atop a mound. NBPW, red ware and ancient bricks. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Sūrya; Tārā; Viṣṇu (2); Gaṇeśa; Viṣṇu; a broken image of Buddha (p. 20). 5. Ben. Big mound with red ware scatter. Pāla period black stone sculptures: seated Buddha in dhyānamudrā; the Buddha wearing a crown; Viṣṇu; Sūrya (p. 21). 6. Bhagwan Bigha. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of dancing Gaṇeśa (p. 21). 7. Ekasara. Mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Mārīcī, Avalokiteśvara, Viṣṇu, votive stūpa (p. 22). 8. Hari Bigha. Small mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha in BSM, Tārā, Vāgīśvarī, standing Buddha (p. 22). 9. Karjara. Four mound in different parts of the village. Sherds of the red ware from the mounds. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Durgā on lion; Buddha in BSM (p. 23). 10. Kosanara. Large mound with sherds of red ware, black-shipped ware, NBPW and black-and-red ware. Pāla period black stone fragmented sculptures including that of the Buddha in DCPM, Buddha in BSM (p. 24). 11. Kutlupur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu (2 examples) (p. 24) 12. Lakṣmī Bigha. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara; unidentified female figure (p. 24). 13. Maha Bigha. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Tārā; a fragmented image depicting the birth of Gautama; broken standing Buddha; broken image of the Buddha (pp. 24-5). 14. Mahespur. Reported antiquities: 4 Pāla period black stone sculptures of the Buddha in different Mudrās; a votive stūpa worshipped as a Śivaliṅga (p. 25).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

631

15. Makhdumpur. Reported antiquities: a large mound with sherds of NBPW, red ware; Pāla period black stone sculptures of Kubera; Nandī; Gaṇeśa; Śivaliṅga; Paṅcamukhī Śivaliṅga (p. 25). 16. Mari. Reported antiquities: Pāla period black stone sculptures of Viṣṇu and four fragmented black stone sculptures; a decorated black stone pillar (pp. 25-6). 17. Mahammadpur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Avalokiteśvara; Buddha (p. 26). 18. Murgawana. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Navagraha panel; Viṣṇu; Lakṣmī (pp. 26-7). 19. Nosha. Reported antiquities: two mounds with sherds of red ware, black ware, NBPW; Pāla period black stone sculptures (eight unidentified fragmented sculptures, fragmented Vajra Tārā, Buddha in BSM, Buddha, fragmented Viṣṇu, Prajñāpāramitā) (p. 27). 20. Salim Bigha. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Sūrya (p. 28). 21. Saure. Pāla period black stone sculptures: standing Buddha in varadamudrā; standing Buddha surrounded by male and female attendants; approximately 30 fragmented image of Buddhist and Brahmanical deities, including Viṣṇu and Umāmaheśvara (p. 28). BLOCK BIHAR SHARIF, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Dhanesara Ghata. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha in BSM; Buddha; Saptamatṛkā panel; many votive stūpas; Gaṇeśa (2 examples); pedestal of an unidentified image; an image of Buddha carved on a decorated black slab in different gestures. Pāla period architectural pieces: decorated pillar; sandstone pillar (pp. 33-4). 2. Baburbana. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of the Buddha (40 × 30 × 15 cm) in BSM (p. 35). 3. Dumrawan. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Durgā; Śivaliṅga; Buddha in BSM; unidentified sculptural fragments. Decorated pillar with lotus flowers (p. 36). 4. Korai. A mound with red ware and black-slipped ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha, a few broken large stone slabs (pp. 36-7). 5. Maghara. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara; Sūrya; two images of Gaṇeśa; Śivaliṅga; Navagraha; Harihara; two images of Buddha in abhaya mudrā; Trailokyavijaya; Avalokiteśvara; a broken image of Buddha; two images of Viṣṇu; an unidentified

632

6.

7. 8. 9.

10.

11. 12.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Buddhist deity. Some votive stūpas also reported from the site (p. 37). Mandachh Khurd.Reported antiquities: a big mound with sherds of red ware and black slipped ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: a broken sculpture of Buddha in BSM; other fragmented Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures (pp. 37-8). Paharpur. A Pāla period black stone votive stūpa (p. 39). Sahokhar. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Durgā (p. 39). Tetrawan.Both Broadley and Cunningham noticed an extensive low mound (750 × 450 ft) to the west of village. Cunningham thinks that the mounds represents remains of one or two Buddhists monasteries, and on top of it a fortress was erected later. Within the village, Broadley refers to two small temples, around which were 200 figures (A.L. Broadley, Buddhistic Remains of Bihar, Varanasi, 1979 (rpt.), pp. 277-83). In the recent survey, it was found that the village exists on a high mound, and the certain points the mound scales up to 10 m (p. 40). Pāla period sculptures: Buddha in BSM; Viṣṇu; Harihara; Mārīcī; Buddha; Śivaliṅga with arghā; Avalokiteśvara; Navagraha panel; Buddha in dhyāna mudrā. Many votive stūpas have also been reported from the site (p. 40). Tungi. The entire village is on a big mound. Sherds of red ware; black shipped ware, and grey ware are scattered on and around the mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures and fragmented images: Sūrya; Nandī; Aparājitā; an inscribed image of the Buddha in BSM; cakrapuruṣa, a part of Viṣṇu image; head portion of Viṣṇu. Many votive stūpas have also been reported from the site (p. 41). Tiuri. Mound with sherds of red ware. A big Pāla period black stone sculpture of Buddha in BSM (p. 41). Uparaura. A mound. Pāla period fragmented black stone sculptures: Buddha in DCPM;3 a votive stūpa (p. 42).

BLOCK BIND, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Barhog. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Sūrya; Umāmaheśvara (p. 45). 2. Bind. There is mound like formation within the village. Pāla period black stone sculptures: the Buddha in BSM; Jambhala; Cuṇḍā; Buddha (3); Śiva; navagraha panel; Gaṇeśa; Hārītī; Akṣobhya; Umāmaheśvara (2); Viṣṇu (2); ‘architectural members of temples of 3

  DCPM is an abbreviated form of dharmacakrapravartana mudrā.

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

633

different faiths’. Many votive stūpas have also been reported from the site (pp. 45-6). Gobindur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Bodhisattva; Viṣṇu (p. 46). Ibrahimpur. A big mound (40 × 40 × 3 cm) with red ware and NBPW. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara; Buddha (2); Viṣṇu; Sūrya. Three pieces of stone doorjambs are decorated architectural pieces of an old temple (p. 46). Kathrahi. Pāla period Matṛkā panel carved on the black stone (p. 47). Nanor. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Durgā (p. 47). Rasalpur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Pārvatī; Durgā. Many votive stūpas have also been reported from the site (p. 48). Utarthu. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara (p. 48).

BLOCK CHANDI, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Araut. A large mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Gaṇeśa (2); Buddha; Umāmaheśvara; Pārśvanātha; Viṣṇupada (p. 51). 2. Barhauna. Big mound. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara (p. 51). 3. Bheria. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (p. 52). 4. Birnawan. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Nandī; Sūrya (p. 52). 5. Dayalpur. A big mound with shards of red ware and black ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: dancing Śiva; Sūrya. A decorated pillar (p. 53). 6. Gauri. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Bodhisattva (p. 54). 7. Hasli. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of broken Sūrya (p. 54). 8. Madhopurgarh. A mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: unidentified male image in tribhanga; Umāmaheśvara. The Makaramukha of a temple has also been reported from the site (p. 54). 9. Mahkar Bigha. About 20 broken black stone Pāla period sculptures. The identifiable image are: a Śivaliṅga; Viṣṇu (p. 54). 10. Naili. Ten fragmented Pāla period black stone sculptures including Viṣṇu and Umāmaheśvara (p. 56).

634

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

11. Narsanda. Pāla period black stone sculptures: a Śivaliṅga with arghā; Viṣṇu (pp. 55-6). 12. Nawadda. Mound with red ware and black shipped ware scatter. A Pāla period black stone image of Viṣṇu is laying on mound (p. 56). 13. Rukhaye. A huge mound in the village; the exposed sections of the mound reveal portion of a brick well, a terracotta ring well and those brick wells. Sherds are NBPW ware, black ware, black-andred ware. Pāla period black stone images: Mahiṣāsuramardinī; a Śivaliṅga; a navagraha panel. (p. 57). 14. Sartha. A large mound with sherds of red ware and black ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara; Mahiṣāsuramardinī; Avalokiteśvara; Varāha (2) (p. 58). 15. Satang. Pāla period black stone sculptures: six Śivaliṅgas and an image of Nandī (p. 58). 16. Sirnawan. A mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Sūrya; Viṣṇu (2); Nandī; Śivaliṅga (p. 59). 17. Tulsi. A high mound with sherds of black- and- red ware, black shipped ware and red ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Sūrya; Viṣṇu; Umāmaheśvara; Buddha; several unidentified fragmented sculptures (p. 59). 18. Utra. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Tārā; unidentifiable sculptures (p. 60). BLOCK EKANGARSARAI, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Aungari. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; Mārīcī; Viṣṇu seated on Garuḍa; Umāmaheśvara (2); Gaṇeśa; Vaiṣṇavī; Varāha; Boddhisttava. ‘The name of the village has a phonetic similarity with Angari, a village name, known from a seal retrieved from the excavation of Nalanda Mahāvihāra’ (p. 63). 2. Bandraj. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Buddha; Gaṇeśa (p .63). 3. Barsiawan. The entire village seems to be settled atop a mound. The potsherds of red ware and black- and red ware are scattered on the mound. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Buddha and a votive stūpa have been reported from the village (p. 64). 4. Bijokhari. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; an unidentified figure (pp. 64-5). 5. Chaurai. A mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; Umāmaheśvara (p. 65).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

635

6. Dahaur Bigha. Reported antiquities: a Pāla period black stone Viṣṇu; a black stone Pillar; a sandstone door jamb (p. 66). 7. Datu Bigha. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Sūrya; Śivaliṅga (p. 66). 8. Dhurgaon. Three mounds visible at the village. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Tārā; Avalokiteśvara; Maitreya; Buddha in BSM (2); Harihara; Gaṇeśa; Viṣṇu (2); Sūrya; the Crowned Buddha (2); Buddha in DCPM; Jambhala (pp. 66-7). 9. Ekangardih. Two mounds with potsherds of red ware; blackand red were, NBPW. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Tārā; Umāmaheśvara; Boddhisattva; Viṣṇu (pp. 67-8). 10. Kosiyawan. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (p. 69). 11. Kurwapar. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha, unidentifiable sculptures (p. 69) 12. Laphet Bigha. Pāla period black stone sculptures: dancing Gaṇeśa; Viṣṇu; Sūrya; Mahiṣāsuramardinī; Umāmaheśvara. Decorated architectural pieces (p. 70). 13. Madanpur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Nandī; Umāmaheśvara; Buddha in BSM; Sūrya (p. 70). 14. Mandachh. Mound with a scatter of red ware and NBPW. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Nandī; Umāmaheśvara; Buddha; image of Gaṇeśa; Saptamatṛkā panel; Buddha in padmāsana; Viṣṇu (pp. 71-2). 15. Mundipur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Nandī; navagraha panel. (p. 72). 16. Saidpur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Amoghapāśa; Buddha. A Votive stūpa has also been reported from the village (p. 75). 17. Teliyamani. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara (p. 75). BLOCK GIRIAK, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Giriak. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha panel; Viṣṇu; Mahiṣāsuramardinī; Viṣṇu; Navagraha panel; Pārvatī; Gaṇeśa; foot portion of large image; Viṣṇu (fragmented); Umāmaheśvara fragmented (p. 79). 2. Ghora Katora. Mound with NBPW, BRW, red ware, black slipped ware and glazed ware; many ring wells. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Viṣṇu; Jambhala; Gaṇeśa; Cāmuṇḍā; Avalokiteśvara; Umāmaheśvara (p. 79).

636

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

3. Ghosrawan. The entire village is settled atop a mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Durgā; the Crowned Buddha; Gaṇeśa; Viṣṇu; Sūrya; Umāmaheśvara; an image depicting the birth of Buddha; Buddha taming Nālāgiri; descent of Buddha from Trayastrimsa heaven; Durgā; Mārīcī; Siṁhavāhinī Durgā; Buddha in BSM; sixarmed Avalokiteśvara; Umāmaheśvara; dancing Gaṇeśa; several fragmented sculptures of Buddha; twelve-armed Avalokiteśvara (pp. 79-80). 4. Girivajra Parvat. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; Umāmaheśvara; Gaṇeśa (p. 81). 5. Barah mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara; Durgā; Viṣṇu; Kubera (p. 87). BLOCK HARNAUT, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Barahu. A mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Durgā; Viṣṇu (p. 87). 2. Chhatiana. The entire village is settled on a mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara (2); Viṣṇu (2) (p. 88). 3. Dehri. A small mound with NBPW. Pāla period black stone sculptures: broken Umāmaheśvara (2); a Śivaliṅga with arghā (p. 88). 4. Ganawana. Mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: a broken part of an unidentified big sculpture; Harihara (pp. 88-9). 5. Gosainmatha. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; miniature Buddha (p. 89). 6. Kalayan Bigha. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Sūrya (p. 90). 7. Kolawan. The village is situated on a big mound. A Pāla period black stone Umāmaheśvara (pp. 90-1). 8. Langhaura. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara; Śivaliṅga (p. 91). 9. Mirdana Chak. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha; Umāmaheśvara (p. 91). 10. Murhari. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Gaṇeśa; Viṣṇu; broken cakrapuruṣa (p. 92). 11. Poari. The village is settled on a big mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha in BSM (2); Viṣṇu; Mārīcī (p. 93). 12. Sirsi. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara; Viṣṇu (p. 93). 13. Soradih. Reported antiquities: Pāla period black stone Śivaliṅga; a votive stūpa (p. 94).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

637

14. Telmar. This village lies on a low mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; a Śivaliṅga with arghā; Umāmaheśvara (p. 94). 15. Tira. The entire village is situated on a mound. Pottery: blackslipped ware; grey ware, black and red ware; NBPW. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Gaṇeśa; Umāmaheśvara; bust of Viṣṇu (p. 95). BLOCK HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Chhotki Ghosi. Pāla period black stone Śivaliṅga (p. 102). 2. Dabau. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara (pp. 102-3). 3. Gulni Garh. A mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Vaiṣṇavī (p. 103). 4. Hilsa. Pāla period black stone images of Viṣṇu and Sarasvatī (p. 104). 5. Jaitipur. Pāla period black stone images of Sūrya; Śivaliṅga (p. 104). 6. Jhari Bigha. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (pp. 1045). 7. Juniar. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Ekamukha liṅga; Viṣṇu (2); Sūrya. Architectural fragments of temples. (p. 105). 8. Kapsiyawan. The entire village is situated on a big mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; Umāmaheśvara; female Buddhist image (broken) (p. 196). 9. Khewan Bigha. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara (p. 106). 10. Kurtha. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Gaṇeśa (2); Śivaliṅga; Umāmaheśvara; Viṣṇu (3) (p. 107). 11. Milkipar. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara (p. 108). 12. Nadwar. Pāla period antiquities: architectural fragments of a temple, black stone Umāmaheśvara (p. 108). 13. Puna. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Sūrya; Śivaliṅga; Umāmaheśvara (p. 109). 14. Sultanpur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara; Gaṇeśa (p. 110). BLOCK ISLAMPUR, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Beshwak. Mound with sherds of red ware and black ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu (3); Umāmaheśvara; Sūrya; Buddha in BSM (2) (pp. 114-15).

638

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

2. Daura. A mound with scatter of NBPW, red ware, black ware, black- and- red ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Sūrya (2); Śivaliṅga (p. 115). 3. Ichhos. Mound with sherds of black ware, red ware and blackand- red ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures and pillars: Umāmaheśvara; 10 fragmented unidentified sculptures; two decorated pillars of black stone with carvings bearing figures of lion and scroll work; a sandstone pillar; 5 stone pillars; an image of Buddha in Abhayamudrā (p. 116). 4. Imadpur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; Pārśvanātha (p. 117). 5. Islampur.Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu (5); Umāmaheśvara; Sūrya; Vaiṣṇavī; Śivaliṅga; Pārvatī; other fragmented Brahmanical sculptures (pp. 116-17). 6. Khudaganj.Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu (2); Pārvatī (p. 118). 7. Mohanpur. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Sūrya (p. 118). 8. Mohanchak. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Ekamukha Śivaliṅga; Nandī (pp. 118-19). 9. Mubarakpur. Pāla period black stone sculptures and stone pillars: a stone pillar; Viṣṇu; Mahiṣāsuramardinī; Umāmaheśvara; about forty fragmented sculptures belonging to Buddhist and Śaiva pantheons (p. 119). 10. Paharitatola. A Pāla period black basalt stone sculpture of Śivaliṅga (p. 119). 11. Panchrukhiya. Pāla period black stone sculptures: five faced Śivaliṅga; Nandī (p. 120). 12. Panhar. Mound with scatter of sherds of red ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu (2); Śivaliṅga (p. 120). 13. Parsarai. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara; Sūrya; Pārvatī; Gaṇeśa; Nandī; Śivaliṅga (pp. 120-1). 14. Sanda. The entire village is settled over a mound. Stones pillars and sculptures are found scattered over the mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Sahasra Śivaliṅga; Ekamukha Śivaliṅga; Cāmuṇḍā; Viṣṇu; fragmented Avalokiteśvara; Nandī; a panel depicting Buddha in different mudrās; fourteen other unidentified fragmented sculptures (p. 121). 15. Sarthua. A mound with scatters of the NBPW, red ware, black ware, black slipped ware. A Pāla period sculpture of standing Buddha (p. 122).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

639

BLOCK KARAY PARSARAY, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Chand Kura. A big mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara (2); Viṣṇu (p. 125). 2. Chaurasi. A Pāla period black stone Śivaliṅga (p. 125). 3. Diawan. A mound with scatter of sherds of red ware and black ware. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (p. 125). 4. Karay Parsaray. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Mañjuśrī; Śivaliṅga (2); Umāmaheśvara; Sūrya (2); Gaṇeśa; Nandī; Buddha (2); Viṣṇu (p. 126). 5. Pakri. A mound with scatter of sherds of red ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: head of Śiva; Umāmaheśvara (3); Buddha; Viṣṇu; 8 fragmented sculptures (pp. 126-7). 6. Rasalpur. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Buddha in Sthānakamudrā (p. 127) 7. Sandh. The entire village seems to be settled atop a mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu (2); Avalokiteśvara (p. 128). BLOCK KATRI SARAI, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Ahiya Chak. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Durgā (p. 132). 2. Chhachhu Bigha. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Sūrya (2); Viṣṇu (p. 131). 3. Katauna. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu (2); Gaṇeśa (2) Durgā (pp. 131-2). 4. Maira. Pāla period black stone panel of six mother goddesses (p. 132). 5. Sundarpur. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of the Buddha (pp. 132-3). BLOCK NAGARNAUSA, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Akhtiyarpur. Pāla period black stone sculpture of Sūrya (p. 137). 2. Anker. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha in BSM; Cāmuṇḍā (p. 137). 3. Bampur. A Pāla period fragmented black stone image of Viṣṇu (pp. 137-8). 4. Bodhi Bigha. A Pāla period fragmented black stone image of Viṣṇu (p. 138). 5. Gilani Chak. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Ekamukha liṅga; Nandī; Gaṇeśa (p. 138). 6. Rampur. About 12 fragmented Pāla period black stone sculptures.

640

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia The recognizable images are Viṣṇu and Umāmaheśvara (pp. 13940).

BLOCK NUR SARAI, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Ajaypur. A mound with sherds of red ware, NBPW and blackslipped ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara; Viṣṇu (2); Sūrya. A votive stūpa (p. 143). 2. Darara. The village seems to be settled atop a mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara (2); Avalokiteśvara (pp. 143-4). 3. Dharampur. Pāla period black stone sculpture: Umāmaheśvara (25 × 18 × 8 cm). A broken pillar (13×18×5cm) and a broken quern (10 × 7 × 8 cm) (pp. 144-5). 4. Kaparsari. Some Pāla period black stone fragmented images of the Buddha (pp. 145-6). 5. Kishunpur. The modern habitation rests on a mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha; an unidentified female deity (p. 146). 6. Machhardiha. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha, Viṣṇu, Maitreya, Avalokiteśvara. Many votive stūpas (IAR, 1973-4, p. 50). 7. Mustafapur. Pāla period black stone Buddha in a preaching attitude (IAR, 1973-4, p. 50). 8. Kundi. Three mounds in the village. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha in BSM, fragmented Buddha; Buddha in Dhyānamudrā; Avalokiteśvara; a Daśāvatāra panel on a stone-slab; broken Sūrya (B.K. Choudhary, op. cit., pp. 146-7). 9. Mathurapur. The present village is settled over a mound. A Pāla period black basalt votive stūpa (pp. 147-8). 10. Milkipar. Mound with sherds of red ware. The head portion of a Buddha image of the Pāla period was traced (p. 148). 11. Paparnohsa. A few Pāla period unidentifiable fragmentary stone sculptures, of which one is of Buddha in black stone (p. 149). 12. Sarghaon. Two mounds. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha; a broken Pārvatī; many unidentified sculptures (pp. 149-50). BLOCK PARWALPUR, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Alawan. Pāla period black stone sculptures:Varāha; Sūrya (2); Viṣṇu (2); Śivaliṅga with Arghā. A votive stūpa (p. 153).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

641

2. Bana Bigha. A Pāla period black stone image of Umāmaheśvara (p. 153) 3. Bikrampur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Sūrya; Viṣṇu; unidentifiable sculptural fragments (p. 153). 4. Chausanda. A mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures:Varāha; Umāmaheśvara; Buddha; unidentified goddess (pp. 153-4). 5. Fatehpur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu (2) (p. 154). 6. Larhuari. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Avalokiteśvara (p. 155). 7. Mai. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (p. 155). 8. Pilich. Pāla period black stone sculptures:Viṣṇu; Umāmaheśvara (2); Gaṇeśa; Tārā; several unidentifiable fragmented sculptures (pp. 155-6). 9. Sinawan. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Nandī (p. 156). 10. Sivnagar. A mound with scatter of sherds of red slipped ware and black-slipped ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Ekamukha Śivaliṅga; Buddha; Gaṇeśa; some architectural fragments (pp. 1567). 11. Sonchari. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha; Umāmaheśvara; Varāha (p. 157). 12. Tara Bigha. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga with Arghā; Nandī (p. 157). 13. Bokna. A large part of the village rests on a mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: many unidentifiable fragmented images; Śivaliṅga. Votive Stūpa (p. 161). BLOCK RAHUI, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Khajesara. Pāla period black stone Viṣṇu; a pillar (p. 161). 2. Khidarchak. Pāla period black stone Buddha; 3 votive stūpas (pp. 161-2). 3. Moratalao. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; Sūrya; Buddha; Śivaliṅga; Nandī (p. 162). 4. Musepur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; 2 unidentified sculptures (p. 162). 5. Nawada Par . A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Sūrya (p. 163). 6. Pachasa. Pāla period black stone sculptures: broken Buddha; Śivaliṅga (p. 163). 7. Patasang. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Sūrya; torso of a sculpture (p. 163).

642

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

BLOCK RAJGIR, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Wena. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Avalokiteśvara; unidentified female deity (p. 164). 2. Hasanpur.Two mounds. A few Pāla period black stone fragmented sculptures, of which one may be of Manasā (p. 170). 3. Katari. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Durgā; Buddha in BSM. A votive stūpa (p. 170). 4. Kahata. The entire village is settled over a big mound which is spread over an area of 1.5 sq. km. The sherds of red were, blackslipped were, grey ware, black and red ware and NBP were found scattered over the mound. Pāla period black stone sculpture: Umāmaheśvara (p. 171). 5. Miyar. The village is atop a mound. Pottery: red ware. A red sandstone sculpture of Varāha of the early medieval period (pp. 171-2). 6. Nahu. Pāla period fragmented black stone sculptures and a votive stūpa (p. 172). 7. Barhari.Pāla period black stone sculptures: Pārśvanātha; unidentified sculptural fragments (p. 167). 8. Barhauna. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara (2); Sahasrabuddha panel (p. 168). 9. Bhui. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara; Avalokiteśvara; Tārā (2) (p. 168). 10. Bichhakol. Pāla period black stone Umāmaheśvara; votive stūpa (p. 168). 11. Goraur. The entire village is situated over big mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara (2); Viṣṇu (3); Gaṇeśa; Buddha in BSM (3); Mahiṣāsuramardinī; Pārvatī; Pārśvanātha (p. 169). BLOCK SILAO, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Balaur. A mound with of red ware potsherds. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Avalokiteśvara; Viṣṇu; Hārītī (p. 191). 2. Baragaon. Site is close to excavated ruins of the Nalanda Mahāvihāra. The present modern temple has more than 50 Pāla period black stone sculptures of Hindu and Buddhist pantheons. Documented Pāla period black stone sculptures are: Sūrya (6); Tārā; Revanta; Viṣṇu; Navagraha Panel; Śivaliṅga; Buddha; Durgā; Gaṇeśa; Harihara; Avalokiteśvara; three votive stūpas; a Buddhist female deity; Cāmuṇḍā; Caturmukhi Śivaliṅga; Buddha; Votive

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. 10.

11.

12.

643

stūpa; Viṣṇu; Buddha in BSM; Pārvatī; Avalokiteśvara. Pāla period black stone sculptures at the site of Pethi Bazar, Bargaon: Śivaliṅga with depiction of face (2); 65 miniature Śivaliṅga depicted on a stone slab; Votive stūpa; a broken image of female goddess (Tārā ?); 44 miniature Buddha images in different postures; Buddha in BSM; a headless 12-handed Buddhist deity; 3 broken sculptures of the Buddha; a broken Buddha sculpture on which the important events of his life are depicted. decorated stone slab stone pillar (pp. 191-3). Barakar. A mound with sherds of red ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha in BSM; Buddha in DCPM; many unidentified black stone sculptures. Two decorated pillars. (p. 194). Chandiman. Four mounds. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha; Buddha in BSM; headless image of Buddha; Four images of Viṣṇu on a stone block; Avalokiteśvara; Śivaliṅga; fragmented image of Viṣṇu; a Buddhist female deity; Gaṇeśa; Umāmaheśvara; Cāmuṇḍā; Sūrya; Śivaliṅga (pp. 195-6). Dih Juafar. 3 km south-west of the Nalanda ruins. An early historic mud stūpa excavated at the site. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha in the BSM, Śivaliṅga (p. 196). Fatehpur. Two extant mounds with sherds of red ware and blackslipped ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: the Buddha in BSM; an unidentified image (p. 196). Ghostawan. Mound with sherds of red ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara (2); fragmented Viṣṇu; nine fragmented images; Buddha in BSM. Many door-jamb, votive stūpas and pillars of the same period (p. 197). Gorawan. Three extant mounds in the village. Pāla period black stone sculptures: two images of Buddha in BSM; Jambhala; Avalokiteśvara; Viṣṇu; Gaṇeśa (2) (p. 197). Jagadisapur. Mound. A huge Pāla period black stone image of Buddha (p. 198). Mahuri. The village is settled over a mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Mahiṣāsuramardinī; Vajaśāradā; Vāgīśvarī; Buddha in BSM; Umāmaheśvara (p. 200). Maniyawan. The village is located on a mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Siṁhavāhinī Durgā; Gaṇeśa; a navgraha panel on a stone-slab (pp. 200-1). Mitawan. A mound with scatter of red were were found on the

644

13. 14. 15. 16.

17.

18.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia mound. A Pāla period black stone image of the Crowned Buddha (p. 201). Mohanpur. A Pāla period sculpture of the Buddha in BSM (p. 201). Muzaffarpur. The entire village is settled over a mound. Pāla period votive stūpas; Buddha in BSM; Jambhala; Umāmaheśvara (p. 202). Pachwara. Mound; a Pāla period black stone Śivaliṅga with human figure (p. 203) Sarichak. A mound with scatter of NBPW, red ware. Several Pāla period black stone sculptures including Tārā, Buddha, and Umāmaheśvara (pp. 203-4). Silao. The entire village is settled over a mound. A mound is located to the south of the village. The remains of brick structure are found on the mound, and sherd on red were, block slipped ware and grey were have also been found on the mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha; Umāmaheśvara (pp. 204-5). Surungpur. Pāla period black stone sculptures:Jambhala; Gaṇeśa; and two other unidentified fragmented images (p. 205).

BLOCK THARTHARI, DISTRICT NALANDA

1. Asta. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha in BSM (2); Viṣṇu; Buddha (p. 209). 2. Barki Chharari. Mound with NBPW and BRW scatter. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Gaṇeśa; 25 fragmented sculptures; Buddha in BSM; Viṣṇu (2) (p. 209). 3. Bhatahar. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Gaṇeśa; Umāmaheśvara; Buddha in BSM; Durgā, broken; Viṣṇu (2); an unidentified image (p. 210). 4. Dhibrapar. Mound with sherds of red ware, BRW. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; Sūrya; a saptamatṛkā panal; Kubera; Buddha in preaching posture. Two doorjambs (140 × 18 cm, 120 × 18 cm) and a broken stone pillar were also found from this area. (p. 210). 5. Kachaharia. Mound with sherds of red ware, BRW. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha in BSM; Durgā; Umāmaheśvara; Gaṇeśa. A door jamb of the same period (pp. 210-11). 6. Kariyawan. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Hārītī; Umāmaheśvara. A decorated doorjamb of the same period (p. 211). 7. Lakha Chak. Pāla period black stone Sūrya, broken doorjamb (pp. 211-12).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

645

8. Mehtarwan. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Revanta; Buddha in BSM; Jambhala; Umāmaheśvara (2) (p. 212). 9. Narari. Reported Pāla period antiquities: a black stone sculpture of Nandī; a votive stūpa; broken pieces of a stone pillar (pp. 212-13). 10. Tharthari Bigha. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara (p. 213) 11. Thartharidih. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Gaṇeśa; Avalokiteśvara; Sūrya (p. 213). PATNA DISTRICT

1. Kumrahar area of Patna. An excavated site, showing remains of Kuṣāṇa and Gupta period Buddhist monasteries. No evidence of continuation of monasteries in the Pāla period. 2. Gulabighat, Patna. Stone image of Pārśvanātha, eleventh century (Pravin Kumar, ‘An image of Pārśvanātha at Patna’, JBPP, vol. II, 1978, pp. 231-3). 3. Gangapur, Patna district. Pāla period (c. tenth century) stone sculpture of Durgā (Triloki Nath, ‘Saktism in Early Medieval Bihar (600 AD to 1000 AD)’, JBPP, vols. XIII-XIV, 1989-90, p. 144). 4. Ranighat area of Patna. a Pancamukhi Śivaliṅga, stone, ninthtenth century, on which images of Brahma, Gaṇeśa, Sarasvatī and Naṭarāja are carved (C.P. Sinha, ‘Naṭarāja in the Art of Bihar’, JBPP, vol. III, 1979, p. 152). 5. Mera, Block and P.S. Pali. A low mound in the village, 700 × 400 m, with a thick scatter of red ware. Many intact black stone sculptures of post-Gupta and Pāla periods have been reported from the village. All reported sculptures are Brahmanical. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Gaṇeśa; Viṣṇu (6 sculptures); Umāmaheśvara (2 sculptures); Sūrya. Post-Gupta period stone sculptures: Viṣṇu (2 sculptures); Narasiṁha. About three dozen sculptural fragments of Brahmanical sculptures (mostly Viṣṇu, Umāmaheśvara, Navagraha panel, Sūrya, Durgā, Gaṇeśa, Manasā, Sadāśiva) and many architectural fragments of temples (door jambs, etc.) have also been reported from different parts of the village (Jalaj Kumar Tiwari, ‘Village Mera in Archaeological Perspective’, JBPP, vols. XVIIXVIII, 1993-4, pp. 195-203).

646

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Lakhisarai district . For sites reported in Rajaona-Chouki-Lakhisarai-Kiul-Uren area, see pp. 109-10 of the present book.

Jamui district 1. Indape (also spelled as Indappe). Ruins of a ‘fort’, with two layers of fortification walls: outer and inner. Ruins of a big stūpa inside the area enclosed by the inner fortification walls (A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. VIII, p. 120). Site probably dated to the late Gupta or post-Gupta period (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 175). 2. Kagisvara. Pāla period stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; 2 Umāmaheśvara images. A doorjamb of c.eleventh century AD (ibid., p. 175). 3. Gridhresvar. The Jamui museum houses sculptural and architectural fragments from this place (ibid., p. 175). 4. Kandi. D.C. Sircar has reported the discovery of an inscribed Buddhist image, two plaques with representations of female figures and other mutilated images, collected at several places in the village (D.C. Sircar, ‘Kāndī Buddhist Image Inscription of Rāṇaka Samudrāditya’, JBRS, vol. XXVII, pts. 3-4, 1951, pp. 7-10).

Munger district 1. Khakardih. NBPW, Red Ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha in DCPM; Viṣṇu and Hanumān in various postures and attributes’ (IAR, 1961-2, p. 5). 2. Sarahiyadih. Pāla period black stone sculptures: many sculptures ‘belonging to the Pāla period including a miniature stone stūpa inscribed with the Buddhist creed formula and a fragmented stone image of the Buddha inscribed with the Buddhist creed formula’ have been reported from the site (ibid., p. 5). 3. Karnacahura in Munger. Three phases of continuous occupation, from the Pāla period to the post-Muslim period. A torso of Avalokiteśvara and a broken head of the Buddha, stylistically dated to the Pāla period were recovered from the debris of Phase II (Medieval) (IAR, 1979-80, pp. 13-14; Ajit Kumar Prasad, ‘Excavations at Karṇa-Chaurā’, JBPP, vol. III, 1979, pp. 179-80). 4. Lai. Discovery of an inscribed Pāla period fragmented Buddhist image (D.C. Sircar, EI, XXX, pp. 82-3).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

647

5. Nandpur. In the niche of this temple, a copper-plate referring to the Gupta ruler Buddhagupta and dated to the 16th year of the Gupta era (i.e. 489 AD), was found. This copper-plate also refers to ‘Nandavithi’, which is, apparently, the ancient name of the present village. This site contains an ‘ancient’ temple with a liṅga nearby (EI, XXIII, 1935, p. 53). 6. Deoghar. This is a small hill, situated about 10 miles south of Kharagpur. Remains of a Vaiṣṇava temple and an impression of the human feet on the rocks and called Viṣṇupādukās have been reported from this site (D.R. Patil, op. cit., p. 103). 7. Unspecified site, Munger district. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Durgā (Triloki Nath, ‘Saktism in Early Medieval Bihar (600 AD to 1000 AD)’, JBPP, vols. XIII-XIV, 1989-90, p. 144).

Bhagalpur district 1. Karnagarh or Champa mound in Nathnagar PS. Findings of many ‘old’ sculptures at the top of the Champanagar or Karnagarh mound. In 1914, from a nearby tank, certain Jaina and Buddhist sculptures were recovered. Many inscribed Jaina sculptures of medieval period are also reported (D.R. Patil, op. cit., pp. 77-9). 2. Kheri Hills, near Shahkund. Several low mounds, covered with bricks, all along the foot of the hill and also within the village of Kheri. Pāla period stone sculptures: Viṣṇu on Garuḍa, Umāmaheśwara, Sadyojāta, Kārtikeya and Sūrya. Beglar discovered several liṅgas and an inscribed large black stone slab below the hill, reading ‘Swaste Pratāpa Rāmānuja’ in medieval characters. Beglar counted 22 ‘shell inscriptions’ which probably ‘derived from the Gupta characters’. No Buddhist sculpture from the site has been reported so far (IAR, 1961-2, p. 3; J.D. Beglar, ASIR, VIII, pp. 128-9; D.R. Patil, op. cit., pp. 205-6). 3. Sultanganj. A Gupta period Buddhist monastery and stūpa (A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. XV, pp. 25-6). Life-size bronze image of the Buddha, seventh century (Frederick Asher, op. cit., p. 57). 4. Mandar Hill. An image of Varāha, stone, seventh century (A.K. Sinha, ‘An Image of Varāha – Viṣṇu in the Bhagalpur Museum’, JBPP, vol. III, 1978, pp. 123-6). In a recent exploration, the following stone images have been reported: Śiva, Andhakāsuravadha form (sixth-seventh centuries AD); Urdhvaretas Śiva (sixth-seventh centuries AD); bust portion of an image of Sadāśiva (sixth-

648

5.

6.

7.

8.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia seventh centuries AD); Gaṇeśa (seventh-eighth centuries); Śiva, Andhakāsuravadha form (sixth-seventh centuries AD); rock cut image of Śiva, Andhakāsuravadha form (seventh-eighth centuries); rock cut image of Viṣṇu Trivikrama (eighth-ninth centuries AD); Viṣṇu Narasiṁha (seventh-eighth or ninth centuries AD); rock-cut image of Umāmaheśvara (eighth or ninth century AD); rock-cut image of Hanumān (tenth-eleventh centuries AD); rock cut image of Sūrya (eleventh-twelfth centuries); rock-cut image of Viṣṇu (eleventh-twelfth centuries); rock-cut image of Viṣṇu (sixthseventh centuruies AD). Architectural fragments of ruined temples in the neighbourhood of the site have also been reported (Kumkum Bandyopadhyay, ‘Recent Archaeological Investigations in and Around the Mandar Hill, District Banka, South Bihar’, Pratna Samiksha, N.S., vol. 4, 2013, pp. 105-20). Jahangira area. This site has a high mound which was accidently cut due to the erosion of the Ganga river. On the eroded section of the mound, ring wells and remains of brick walls, clear and fine varieties of BRW and NBPW, were reported (IAR, 1968-9, p. 5). In earlier explorations, many Brahmanical sculptures carved on granite masses have been reported: incarnations of Viṣṇu, Haragaurī, Gaṇeśa, Kṛṣṇa, Sūrya, some worn out sculptures of the Buddha, all of datable to the Gupta period (A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. XV, p. 20). T. Bloch (ARASI, B.C., 1903, pp. 7-8) assigns them to the seventh-eighth centuries period. Frederick Asher, op. cit., pp. 88-9, dates many of them to the eighth century. Colgong or Kahalgaon. Cunningham saw a level terrace, sandstone pillars and doorjambs indicating the site of a large brick temple on a hill. Cunningham also noticed a rock-cut temple on the same hill. Side walls of this temple bear leaf-shaped decoration surrounded by Kīrtimukha motif. As per Cunningham, this was a Śaiva temple (A. Cunningham, ASIR, XV, pp. 34-5). Patharghata. Some tenth-twelfth centuries AD images, all brought from the Patharghata hill, are kept in the modern Batesvara Śiva temple of the village: two Umāmaheśvara sculptures; a Viṣṇu image in black stone; Manasā; an unfinished image of Avalokiteśvara; few fragmentary pieces (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 165). On the hill side: many rock-cut sculptures of Viṣṇu in Trivikrama form; Viṣṇu riding on Garuda; Kṛṣṇa shown near a cow with a women churning milk. F. Asher (op. cit., 31) has dated all of them to the sixth century AD Antichak. Excavated Buddhist monastic site of the Pāla period.

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

649

9. Kailash Pahar. From a modern temple in the village, discovery of stone sculptures of Śiva, Pārvatī, Kārtikeya and Gaṇeśa, all datable to the Pāla period (IAR, 1983-4, p. 12). 10. Barantpura. The modern temple of goddess Chandi in the village appears to have been built on the ruins of the ancient site of perhaps a Buddhist temple of eleventh century AD. A colossal female figure; a damaged male figure of a warrior riding a tiger (D.R. Patil, op. cit., pp. 18-19). 11. Jethur. Viṣṇupada, dated to the late tenth century AD (C.P. Sinha, ‘Foot-Prints of Viṣṇu from Bihar’, JBPP, vols. IV-V, 1980-1, p. 318). 12. Olpura, near Ghogha. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha, Viṣṇu, Sūrya (Kumkum Bandyopadhyay, ‘A Note on Newly Reported Sculptures from Olpura, District Bhagalpur’, Journal of Bengal Art, vol. 18, 2013, pp. 185-92).

Sites in North Bihar Gopalganj district 1. Thawe. Many mounds. A few Pāla period abraded stone sculptures including Viṣṇu and Mahiṣāsuramardinī (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 202). 2. Belwa. Excavation at a mound near the village led to the unearthing of a ruined temple and three bronze sculptures, two of them representing Śivaliṅga. The third bronze sculpture is perhaps of the Buddha under the sacred tree. A stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (ARASI, Eastern Circle, 1918-19, pp. 46-7). 3. Bhore. ‘Pāla period black stone sculptures of Viṣṇu and other Hindu deities’ (Rashmi Sinha, Uttara Bihar Mein Purātattva Kā Udbhava Aur Vikās, Patna, 2010, p. 192). 4. Ameya. ‘Identifiable with Ambagāma’ mentioned in the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra (B.P. Sinha, Directory of Bihar Archaeology, Patna, 2000, p. 227). No sculpture has been reported from the site.

Siwan district 1. Siwan town. Four large ‘stūpa-shaped’ mounds have been noticed in different parts of the city (B.P. Sinha, op. cit., p. 301). A Paṅcamukhī Śivaliṅga in the Mahadeva Mohalla of the town, probably dating to the ‘post-Gupta period’ (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 232). 2. Bararama. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Gaṇeśa (Rashmi Sinha, ibid., p. 181).

650

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

3. Bhikaban. Brick remains, probably of a stūpa, not properly dated (D.R. Patil, op. cit., p. 42) . 4. Bherabaniya. Pāla period black stone sculptures of Viṣṇu, Gaṇeśa (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 191) . 5. Bagausa. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Sūrya (ibid., p. 181). 6. Kachnar. A Pāla period black basalt sculpture of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 206). 7. Hasanpur. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (D.R. Patil, op. cit., pp. 161-2). 8. Don Buzurg. An extensive structural mound in the village, which is strewn with potsherds, beginning with micaecious BRW. A female black stone sculpture (four-handed, with two hands broken; a child in her lap, c. ninth century AD) (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 202). 9. Bhantapokhara. Hoey saw the ruins of brick stūpa here and identified it with the Harina-Stūpa mentioned by Xuan Zang. Not much exploration later (B.P. Sinha, op. cit., pp. 233-4). 10. Bhallua. A high mound, now almost leveled. NBPW and associated wares (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 189). Site is ‘identifiable with Bhandagrama mentioned in the early Pali literature where the Buddha stayed after crossing the Gandaka at Kesariya on his way to Kusinagara’. ‘Here, Asoka built an earthen stūpa which was intact till 1991’ (B.P. Sinha, op. cit., p. 233).

Saran district 1. Chirand. An early historic urban centre with a Kuṣāṇa period Buddhist monastery. Pāla period Buddhist and Brahmanical fragmented sculptures (B.P. Sinha, op. cit., p. 41). 2. Godana. A mound in the village. Brickbats and ‘ancient’ pottery scattered over the whole mound: ‘It is believed that there is a stūpa dating to the third-second century BCE underneath the mound’ (H.P. Sinha, Archaeological and Cultural History of North Bihar, p. 50; Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 20). 3. Manjhi. A fortified early historic rectangular site of about 17 to 18 acres on the bank of the Sarayu and surrounded by a moat except on the river side. NBPW, red ware, plain and fine grey ware, iron slags (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 202). Bloch refers to the discovery of one ‘medieval’ sculpture of the Buddha BSM kept in the local temple (T. Bloch, ARASI, E.C., 1908-9, pp. 16-18; D.R. Patil, op. cit., pp. 269-70).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

651

4. Eksari. Three Pāla period black stone sculptures of c.eleventhtwelfth century AD : two of Viṣṇu and one of dancing Gaṇeśa (D.R. Patil, op. cit., pp. 122-3). 5. Ibrahimpur. An extensive site with red ware potsherds and stone sculptures of Umāmaheśvara, Viṣṇu and Sarasvatī, datable to the thirteenth century (IAR, 1993-4, p. 9). 6. Khanpur. A large mound in the village yielding red ware. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu and Śiva, many fragmented and unidentifiable sculptures (Birendra Nath, ‘An Extensive Exploration on the Banks of Ghaghra, Ganga and Gandak in North Bihar’, JBPP, vols. XVII-XVIII, 1993-4, pp. 78). 7. Jamanpura. A ruined brick temple (Birendra Nath, op. cit., p. 78). 8. Sitalpur: an ‘ancient’ brick temple of Śiva (ibid., p. 78) . 9. Dighoa. Two stūpa mounds, one of which is about 10 m high and 10 m in circumference. Both mounds are more or less intact (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 202). 10. Saranakhas. An ancient mound surrounded by a rampart-like structure. A Pāla period navagraha in black stone (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 229). 11. Silour. Stone sculpture of Hārītī, c. eleventh century AD (J. Mishra, A History of Buddhist Iconography in Bihar, Patna, 1992, p. 187). 12. Ami/Ambiksthan. The modern village partially rests on a mound and is full of brickbats. Buddhist sculptures have been reported from this site (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 201). 13. Sonpur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu riding on Garuḍa, Sūrya, Umāmaheśvara, Pārvatī, Gaṇeśa (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 233).

Vaishali district4 BLOCK BHAGWANPUR

1. Barahrup. Mound. Circular mud stūpa (50 × 50 × 5 m) probably 4

 Unless otherwise stated, all references are from B.K. Choudhary, Archaeological Gazetteer of Vaishali District, Patna, 2016. This book contains data on 5 Neolithic, 11 Chalcolithic, 58 early historical and 67 early medieval sites from the district (p. 7). We have included only those sites here where the presence of an early historic or early medieval religious centre is indicated by the discovery of stone sculptures or structural ruins.

652

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

belonging to the early historic phase. Pāla period black stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (pp. 12-13). 2. Imadpur. A big mound (350 × 250 × 2 m), haphazardly excavated during the colonial period, leading to the discovery of three inscribed miniature bronze sculptures of the regime of the Pāla king Mahipāladeva (Vāsudeva, Balarāma, etc.) (p. 14). 3. Pratap Tanr, 26 km to the north of Hajipur. Mound (250 × 200 × 6 m). Pāla period black stone Śivaliṅga, Gaṇeśa (p. 16). BLOCK BIDDUPUR

1. Bagh Saiskhan. A stūpa like mound (24 × 9 × 3 m) of uncertain date (p. 23). 2. Bazitpur Saidad. An early historic stūpa mound (50 × 40 × 5 m) littered with NBPW, which probably continued in the early medieval phase. A terracotta figure of the Buddha in Dhyānamudrā of the ‘early medieval period’. A buff sandstone decorated doorjamb of an early medieval temple is kept at a neighbouring site. The cultic affiliation of the temple represented by the doorjamb is uncertain. This site is traditionally identified with the Ānanda Stūpa. Excavations are required at the site (p. 24). 3. Bidduputr. Big mound littered with potsherds. Pāla period buff stone Navagraha panel and bricks (p. 25). 4. Chechar Qutubpur. Excavated site, having continuous habitation from the Neolithic to the Pāla period. Explorations at the site indicate the presence of a mud stūpa and ruins of a monastery. Explored stone sculptures at the site: Viṣṇu; Śivaliṅga in sandstone; Gaṇeśa in sandstone; four big Śivaliṅgas with Yonipaṭṭa in black stone; Nandī in sandstone; Mahiṣāsuramardinī in sandstone; Gaṇeśa in sandstone; Śivaliṅga in sandstone; an inscribed sculpture of the Buddha in BSM in black stone; Buddha in BSM in black stone; four other examples of big Śivaliṅga either in buff sandstone or black stone; Sadyojāta in black stone; Sūrya in black stone. Dating of the sculptures: Gupta and Pāla periods (pp. 26-7). 5. Gopalapur. A sandstone Śivaliṅga belonging to the early medieval period (pp. 28-9). 6. Kamalapur Singhia. Three Pāla period Śivaliṅgas in black stone including an Ekamukhī Śivaliṅga with a thousand miniature Śivaliṅgas engraved on the main liṅga (p. 29).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

653

7. Kanchanpur. An early medieval stūpa mound littered with potsherds (p. 29). 8. Madhurapur. A big circular stūpa mound, bricks of the Gupta and Pāla periods. The stūpa probably dated to the Gupta period and continued in the Pāla period. (p. 31). 9. Majhauli. A big mound; Pāla period black stone Gaṇeśa (p. 31). 10. Mathura. Big mound; 2 examples of Pāla period stone sculptures of Umāmaheśvara; unidentifiable broken sculptures of the Pāla period (p. 32). 11. Maniarpur. Big mound; Pāla period black stone Śivaliṅga (p. 32). 12. Pakri. Big mound. Unidentified Pāla period black stone sculpture of a female deity (p. 33). 13. Pakauli. Pāla period black stone Śivaliṅga (p. 33). 14. Rajasan. Big mound. A stūpa mound (50 × 50 × 3 m) with ruins of a monastery to the north of the stūpa, dating not provided (pp. 34-5). 15. Ramadauli. Big mound. Unidentified Pāla period black stone sculptures (p. 35). 16. Sah Salempur. Big mound. Unidentified Pāla period black stone sculptures (pp. 35-6). 17. Saidpur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Mahiṣāsuramardinī; Śivaliṅga; Buddha (p. 36). BLOCK CHEHRA KALAN

1. Akhtiyarpur. Big mound. Many Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; Ekamukhī Śivaliṅga; carved stone pillar; stone slab with the figure of a male deity with trident (p. 40). 2. Bakhari Dua. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Gaṇeśa (p. 40). 3. Mathna Mal. Two big mounds. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Kārtikeya and fragmented architectural piece of a temple (p. 43). BLOCK GORUAL

1. Muhammadpur Pojha. Two Pāla period black stone sculptures of the Buddha in BSM and Dhyānamudrā (p. 55). 2. Turki. A circular stūpa mound, dating uncertain (p. 56). BLOCK HAJIPUR

1. Chandralaya. Mound. Pāla period black stone Ekamukhī Śivaliṅga (p. 62). 2. Daulatpur. Mound. Pāla period Śivaliṅga and Nandī (p. 63).

654

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

3. Dumari. Two early historic stūpa mounds littered with NBPW (p. 65). 4. Hajipur town. Gupta period sandstone Gaṇeśa, sandstone Śivaliṅga (pp. 66-7). BLOCK JANDAHA

1. Jagadishpur. 2 examples of Pāla period black stone Śivaliṅga; 2 examples of black stone votive stūpas, probably of the same period (p. 85). 2. Mathurapur. Pāla period black stone Śivaliṅga with Arghā (p. 87). 3. Panapur Batesar. Doorjamb (black stone) of a broken temple. Pāla period black stone sculpture of Nandī . The site ‘was seat of a Śiva temple during the early medieval period’ (p. 88). BLOCK LALGANJ

1. Ataullapur. Pāla period black stone sculptures of Nandī and Śivaliṅga (p. 93). 2. Balua Basant. An early historic mud stūpa (200 × 150 m), littered with NBPW (p. 94). 3. Basant Jahanabad. Mound. Pāla period black stone sculptures of Cāmuṇḍā, Bhairava and Ekamukhī Śivaliṅga (p. 95). 4. Fatehabad. Late Gupta period sandstone sculptures of Bhairava, Ekamukhī Śivaliṅga (p. 96). 5. Ghataro. Three stūpa mounds in the village, dating uncertain (pp. 96-7). 5. Thega Dih. Big mound and an early historic stūpa mound (p. 97). 6. Jalalpur. Mound. Pāla period black basalt Śivaliṅga (p. 99). 7. Lalganj. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga (2), Nandī (2) (pp. 100-1). 8. Pakarikanth. Mound with scatter of red ware. Śivaliṅga in black stone, Pārvatī in sandstone; Bhairava in sandstone. All sculptures are datable from the late Gupta to the Pāla period’ (p. 102). 9. Patepur. Big mound. Black stone bust of unidentified deity, Pāla period (pp. 102-3). 10. Purkhauli. Mound. Pāla period stone sculptures: Ekamukhī Śivaliṅga; Gaṇeśa (p. 104). BLOCK MEHNAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI

1. Dharampur Palwaiya. Pāla period black stone fragmented

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

2. 3.

4. 5.

655

sculptures: Nandī; Kīrtimukha. Fragmented architectural pieces. ‘The architectural members and sculptures suggest it to be the site of a Hindu temple during the Pāla period’ (p. 120). Fatehpur Kamal. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga; Nandī (p. 120) Hasanpur Juned. Mound with NBPW. Three examples of doorframe in sandstone; doorframe in black stone. ‘The architectural members indicate it to be a site of temples during the early medieval period and also probably during the Gupta period’ (p. 121). Mehnar. Pāla period black stone votive stūpa (p. 123). Naurangpur. Big mound with BRW, NBPW. Gupta period architectural fragment in red stone containing two female figures shown in kneeling posture (p. 124).

BLOCK PATEPUR

1. Dabhaichh. Big mound with scatter of NBPW and associated wares. Pāla period black stone sculpture of Tārā (p. 131). BLOCK PATERHI BELSAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI

1. Bidauliya. Two early historic stūpa mounds with scatter of NBPW, BSW (p. 147). 2. Mishrauliya Afzalpur. An early historic stūpa mound (p. 148). BLOCK RAJAPAKAR

1. Bakarpur. Early medieval Black stone sculptures: 3 Śivaliṅgas; Nandī (pp. 157-8). 2. Bhata Dasi. Two large early historic circular stūpa mounds with scatter of NBPW (p. 160). BLOCK SAHADEI BUZURG

1. Nayagaon. Mound with NBPW. A Pāla period black stone doorframe of temple. The doorframe has a figure of Gaṛuḍa. ‘ The architectural member traced here suggests that a Vaiṣṇava temple existed here during the Pāla period’ (p. 171). 2. Sahria. Mud stūpa of the Mauryan period situated in the middle of the village (p. 172). BLOCK VAISHALI

1. Basarh. Pāla period black stone sculptures kept in the modern

656

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

temple at Bauna Pokhar locality: Saptamātṛkā; Cāmuṇḍā; Umāmaheśvara; Viṣṇu; Gaṇeśa; Kārtikeya (p. 178). 2. Belka. Local villagers recall the existence of a Buddhist temple and a stūpa at the site till some 70 years back. Only the remains of the foundation of the Buddhist temple can be seen now (p. 178). 3. Kamman Chhapra. A black stone Caturmukhi Śivaliṅga of the Gupta period, probably one of the four Śivaliṅgas that marked the outer boundaries of the ancient town of Vaiśālī (p. 182). 4. Shahjahanpur. A Pāla period black stone votive stūpa (p. 184).

Muzaffarpur district 1. Kataragarh. An early historic fortified urban centre. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Sūrya, Gaṇeśa (Jitendra Karyyi and K.J. Mayank, Chāmuṇḍāgarh: Itihās Evam Āsthā, Darbhanga, 2013, p. 45). 2. Turki. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 236).

East and West Champaran districts 1. Kesariya. A stūpa site beginning in the Mauryan period and having most significant expansion in the late Gupta period. Ruins of a monastery with a temple 10 sq. ft inside enshrining a ‘colossal’ sculpture of the Buddha partially excavated by Cunningham at a distance of around one mile from the stūpa site (A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. XVI, p. 18). 2. Sagardih. A 37 ft high mound excavated by Cunningham, led to the discovery of a ninth -tenth century stūpa built on the remains of a much older stūpa (A. Cunningham, ASIR, vol. XVI, pp. 20-2). 3. Sitakund. About 6 acres of high ground, originally enclosed by a burnt brick and mud walls with cells in it. Inside the compound, Pāla period black stone sculptures of Viṣṇu, Jambhala, Sūrya, Mahiṣamardinī and an unidentified 18-hand deity were discovered. A modern temple stands in the same compound, but the sanctum is considerably below the modern ground level and contains the original liṅga (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 203). 4. Beidi. A 10-acre high structural mound, apparently concealing the ruins of a stūpa (ibid., p. 203).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

657

5. Bisasagar. ‘A large and undisturbed stūpa mound like Kesariya’ (ibid., p. 203). 6. Kasturiya. A large mound of brick-ruins, 160 × 100 × 4-5 ft. Pāla period black stone sculptures: eight-armed Durgā, Viṣṇu and a piece of carved door-jamb (A. Cunningham, ASIR, XVI, pp. 26-7).

Sitamarhi and Sheohar districts 1. Deokuli. A large mound with scatter of brickbats and potsherds. On the top of the mound, an ancient Śiva temple with a liṅga and a Makaramukha. Black stone Śivaliṅga inside the temple. Another black stone Caturmukhī Śivaliṅga of c. eleventh century (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 197; B.P. Sinha, op. cit., p. 240; D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 200). 2. Hirauta. ‘Architectural ruins of a Pāla period temple at the site’. Pāla period black stone Śivaliṅga and Gaṇeśa (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 203) . 3. Birakh (Sitamarhi district). A tank associated with a small mound. An eleventh century stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 200).

Darbhanga district 1. Bahera. ‘Many Buddhist sculptures of the Pāla period’ ( J. Mishra, op. cit., p. 184). 2. Ahilyasthan. ‘Many Buddhist sculptures of the Pāla period’ (ibid.) . 3. Shivasinghgarh. Many Buddhist sculptures of the Pāla period’ (ibid.) . 4. Mahadeodih on the Sakari-Baheri road. A 10-acre structural mound containing brickbats, architectural fragments and sculptures. Architectural fragments include a Makara gargoyle of black stone of c. eleventh century. Black stone sculpture of Gaṇeśa of c.eleventh century (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 198). 5. Khojpur. A much disturbed mound, ‘presumably of the Pāla period’ (ibid., p. 199); Discovery of an inscribed sculpture of Durgā, thirteenth century (1253-4), dated to the year 147 of Lakshmanasena era (D.C. Sircar, JBRS, XXXVII, pp. 10-13) . 6. Miran Thana. ‘There is possibly a stūpa site covering structural mound dating to the Pāla period’ (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 199).

658

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

7. Bara Pokhar. A small mound. A modern temple of Śiva has been built partially using ancient stone. Pāla period structural mound. An agate Śivaliṅga (ibid.). 8. Kapilesvara. Sanctum of the modern temple is below the ground level. Brahmanical sculptural fragments including Viṣṇu (D.K. Chakrabarti, ibid.). From the pond of this village, two Makaramukha of several meters length have been discovered, which may indicate the existence of an old temple at the site. Stone sculpture of the Buddhist god Lokeśvara also discovered (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 209). 9. Rajesvara Śiva/Dokhar. This is a modern temple site, sanctum below the ground level, indicating its earlier origins. Pāla period fragmented Brahmanical sculptures including Umāmaheśvara (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 199). 10. Puranadih. Large, high grass-covered stūpa mound (ibid., p. 200). 11. Bhairava-Baliya. Stone sculptures: a tenth century Rūdra, a twelfth century Viṣṇu (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 189). 12. Chaugama. Many mounds in the village. Pāla period black stone sculptures: twelfth century Durgā, some Buddhist sculptures (R.K. Chaudhury, ‘Discoveries in North Bihar’, JBRS, XLII, p. 365). 13. Darabhanga town. A Pāla period sculpture of Sūrya in black stone discovered from the Raghepura locality of the town (P.C. Roychaudhury, Bihar District Gazetteer, Darbhanga, p. 147). 14. Tattail. A large, 2 m high ornamented black stone pillar. A more than life-size black stone sculpture of the Buddha, tenth-twelfth century AD, from this site is kept in the Chandradhari Museum, Darbhanga (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 198).

Madhubani district 1. Balirajagarh . A Śuṅga period fortified urban settlement. Pāla period sculptures from this place are now kept in the Darbhanga museum. The cultic affiliations of sculptures have not been reported (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 198). 2. Andharathari. A structural mound of about 10 acre area. ‘Several Buddhist sculptures of the Pāla period’ ( J. Mishra, op. cit., p. 183). An inscribed stone sculpture of Viṣṇu, possibly indicating the existence of a temple at the find spot or nearby, was found here. 3. Akaura. Scattered mounds spread over 1 km. Pāla period sculptures:

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

659

Viṣṇu, ninth-twelfth centuries AD (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 200); a miniature sculpture of the Buddha; a miniature sculpture of Mahāvīra; many other sculptures of Viṣṇu (S.N. Thakur, ‘Akaur: Ek Alpagyāta Nagara’ in V.M. Pandey et al. (eds.), Bihar: Sthānīya Itihāsa Evam Paramparā, Patna, 1998, pp. 226-30). Chaugama. ‘Many Buddhist sculptures, tenth-twelfth centuries AD’ ( J. Mishra, op. cit., p. 181). Pandaul. A Gupta period red stone sculpture of the Buddha (ibid., p. 181). Jorahatia. Pāla period big sculpture of the Buddha (ibid., p. 181) . Manpur . An eleventh century stone sculpture of the Buddha in BSM (ibid., p. 183) . Bideshwara. Stone sculptures of the Buddha, tenth-eleventh century AD (ibid., p. 183) . Mangarauni. Pāla period stone sculptures: Tārā, eleventh century AD ; Trailokyavijaya miniature sculpture (18.5 × 10 cm); Umāmaheśvara (ibid., p. 183; Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 217). Vachaspatinagar. Many Pāla period Buddhist stone sculptures (ibid., p. 183). Bhagirathapur. Many Pāla period Buddhist stone sculptures. A black stone sculpture of the Buddha reported from Navadegadiha, a neighbouring site (ibid., p. 183). Narayanapur . Many Pāla period Buddhist stone sculptures (ibid., p. 184). Bhachchi. Many Pāla period Buddhist stone sculptures (ibid., p. 184). Saburi. Many Pāla period Buddhist stone sculptures (ibid., p. 184). Balia Bikramapura. Many Pāla period Buddhist stone sculptures (ibid., p. 184). Pirozagarh. Many Pāla period Buddhist stone sculptures (ibid., p. 184). Rajanagar. Many Buddhist sculptures of Nepal and Tibetan origin (ibid., p. 185). Makranpur. Many Pāla period Buddhist stone sculptures (ibid., p. 185). Pastana. Two clearly marked stūpa mounds in the compound of the local Sanskrit school. There could be a third mound of this type in the vicinity. Some Buddhist antiquities, including a Buddha torso of c.tenth century AD, a clay votive sculpture of the Buddha of the same period; and some architectural fragments were discovered

660

20.

21.

22.

23. 24. 25.

26.

27.

28.

29. 30.

31. 32.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia at the site (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 199). Pāla period stone sculptures of Sūrya and Viṣṇu are also reported (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., pp. 221-2). Ucchaitha. A modern temple site on the top of a low mound. An eight-handed Durgā seated on a lion of c.eleventh century AD (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 200). Berantpur, Jaynagar and Manpur in Madhubani district. Discovery of several stone sculptures of the Pāla period: Viṣṇu, Gaṇeśa, Ekamukha Śivaliṅga, the Crowned Buddha (IAR, 1974-5, p. 10). Videsvarasthana. Pāla period stone sculptures: a tenth century Agni; a twelfth century Buddha in BSM (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 188). Bhagavatipur. Eleventh century stone sculptures: Sūrya, ŚivaPārvatī, Gaṇeśa (ibid., p. 189). Bhavanipur. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Bhairava (ibid., p. 190). Bhitha-Bhagavanapur. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Umāmaheśvara, Sūrya. Viṣṇu of the period of Malladeva (Karṇaṭa ruler) inscribed with his name (ibid., p. 192). Devapura. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Durgā, Sūrya and Kārtikeya. A later Gupta period mother goddess in red sandstone (S.K. Jha, ‘A Mother figure From Devapura, Madhubani’, in N. Akhtar (ed.), Art and Architecture of Eastern India, Patna, 1997, pp. 103-10). Jamadhari. An inscribed stone sculpture of Ekamukhī Śivaliṅga and a sculpture of Buddha made of Aṣṭadhātu (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 204; IAR, 1975-6, p. 74). Muktesvara Sthan. ‘A Gupta period Paṅcamukhī Śivaliṅga’. Pāla period stone sculptures: Gaṇeśa, Pārvatī and Bhairava (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 218). Parsa. A black stone sculpture of Sūrya, later Pāla period (ibid., p. 221). Rajeswara. Pāla period stone sculptures kept in the precincts of a modern temple: Śivaliṅga and Umāmaheśvara. This temple is probably on the ruins of a Pāla period temple (ibid., p. 225). Rakhavari. Pāla period stone sculptures: Viṣṇu and Sūrya, both datable to the eleventh century (ibid., p. 226). Tirahua. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara (ibid., p. 235).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

661

Begusarai district 1. Bihat. A small black stone sculpture of the Buddha, Gupta period. A stone sculpture of the standing Buddha, c.ninth century AD ( J. Mishra, op. cit., p. 180). 2. Barauni. A Pāla period stone sculpture of Mārīcī (A.K. Agrawal, ‘Image of Goddess Marichi from Rajwara, Barauni’, JBPP, vols. XXIXXII, 2010, pp. 329-31). 3. Ulao. Many Pāla period stone sculptures in a modern temple (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., pp. 236-7). 4. Sanghaul. Pāla period antiquities: a stūpa of the Pāla period; votive stūpas; inscribed sculpture of the Buddha in BSM ( J. Mishra, op. cit., p. 188). 5. Itawa. An ornamented black stone doorjamb, datable to the Pāla period, has been reported from the site. On the doorjamb, sculptures of Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava deities are engraved, indicating the presence of a Brahmanical temple at the site (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 203). 6. Kanakaula. An ornamented black stone sculpture of Viṣṇu, eleventh or twelfth century (ibid., p. 207). 7. Rajaiura Chauk. A big stone sculpture of Varāha-Viṣṇu, Pāla period (ibid., p. 224). 8. Chilhai Rampur, 7 km to the north of Begusarai town. 3 Pāla period (eleventh-twelfth centuries) Buddha sculptures ( J. Mishra, op. cit., p. 188). 9. Pachamba. Black stone sculpture of Cāmuṇḍā, Pāla period (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 220). 10. Samho. Black stone sculpture of standing Buddha, c. ninth century AD ( J. Mishra, op. cit., p. 180). 11. Sankh. Many Pāla period black stone sculptures at the site, including a stone Chakra, which contains the depiction of Viṣṇu on one side and a dancing figure on another (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 229). 12. Balia town. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Viṣṇu; two sculptures of the Buddha in BSM (ibid., p. 182). 13. Gododih. Ruins of a brick built stūpa, apparently of the Pāla period. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Sūrya, Varāha, Umāmaheśvara (ibid., p. 201). 14. Naulagarh. A huge fortified urban centre, dating at least from the Śuṅga period and continuing up to the late Pāla period. Eleventh

662

15.

16. 17.

18.

19. 20. 21. 22.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia century AD doorway pillars and a navagraha pillar of about the same date; an inscribed sculpture of Vasudhārā of the Pāla period (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 196). Jaimangalagarh. An early historic urban settlement, with a moat around it. Trial excavations in 1994-5 indicate continuous occupation from the Maurya to the Pāla period. Gupta period antiquities: red ware and black ware potteries, terracotta sealings inscribed with Gupta Brahmi characters; sculptures of Hindu deities (Varāha, Umāmaheśvara, Gangā etc.). Pāla period antiquities: miscellaneous sculptural fragments (A.K. Sinha and K. Anand, ‘Jaymangalagarh in Archaeological Perspective’, JBPP, vols. XV-XVI, 1991-2, pp. 151-4). The ‘modern temple enshrining a black stone image is a successor of a Pāla period temple at the site because the sanctum is below the modern ground level’ (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., pp. 196-8). Harsai. A stūpa mound of uncertain date. Garhpura. Many Pāla period stone sculptures including a Śivaliṅga (D.P. Singh, ‘Explorations of Archaeological Sites in Begusarai, Samastipur’, JBPP, vols. XIX-XX, 1995-2000, p. 336). Birpur. A mound (height: 2 m; area: around 10 acres) with largescale brickbats and architectural fragments. A large ‘ancient’ Śivaliṅga; many other sculptural fragments (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 196). Eleventh-twelfth centuries stone sculptures of Sūrya, 2 examples (Namita Chandra, ‘Vīrapur Kī Sūrya Pratimāyen’, JBPP, vols. XIX-XX, 1995-2000, pp. 121-4). Pāla period stone sculptures of Cāmuṇḍā and Avalokiteśvara have also been reported from the site (Bhagwant Sahai, ‘Some Sculptures of Cāmuṇḍā from the District of Begusarai’, JBPP, vols. IX-X, 1985-6, p. 273; Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 188). Barepur. An eleventh-twelfth centuries black stone sculpture of Cāmuṇḍā reported from the site (Bhagwant Sahai, op. cit., p. 71). Maheshavara. Many Pāla period broken sculptures on a structural mound (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 215). Meghaul. A big mound in the village. Many ‘Pāla period sculptures’ reported from the site (ibid., p. 218). Some unspecified site of Begusarai district. Pāla period stone sculpture of Brahmā (T.H.D. Sinha, ‘An Interesting Sculpture of Brahmā in the G.D. College Museum’, JBPP, vol. II, 1978, pp. 231-3).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

663

Khagaria district 1. Jhikatiya near Maheshkhut. A structural mound of around 10 acres. A collapsed Pāla period temple of c. tenth century on the mound (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 196).

Saharsa district 2. Srinagara. Mound showing indications of the presence of ramparts, walls and bastions, datable to the Pāla period. No sculpture reported (IAR, 1961-2, p. 8; A. Cunningham ASIR, XIII, p. 8). 3. Kandaha Sun temple. Miscellaneous Pāla period architectural fragments and sculptural pieces (Sūrya in black stone, Navagraha panel, etc.) (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 195). 4. Mahishi, 17 km to the west of Saharsa town. An apparently large but mostly destroyed structural mound, on the top of which stands a modern temple. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Buddha (3), Tārā, and at least 2 Śivaliṅgas. All sculptures are datable to c.tenth century AD (ibid., p. 195). 5. Piranagara. A fortified settlement with a moat around it. Enclosed area within the fortification wall is around 20 acres, full of brickbats and potsherds. Traces of ninth-tenth centuries AD abraded black stone sculptures (ibid., p. 196). 6. Amritagarh in the Sonbarasa block. A miniature Pāla period Buddhist stone sculpture (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., pp. 179-80). 7. Aukahi. A black stone sculpture of Durgā, Pāla period (ibid., pp. 180-1). 8. Biratapur. Many Pāla period black stone sculptures in the precincts of a modern temple: a door lintel measuring 109 × 20 × 13 cm (of a temple) on which a sculpture of Gaṇeśa is engraved (ibid., p. 184); Mārīcī, black basalt eleventh-twelfth centuries AD (Bhagwant Sahai, ‘Marichi in the Art of Bihar’, JBPP, vols. XVII-XVIII, 1993-4, p. 181). 9. Gaurasthana. A black stone sculpture of Gaṇeśa, eleventh-twelfth centuries (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 200). 10. Jalasimh. Many Pāla period black stone Brahmanical sculptures (ibid., p. 204). 11. Kusumi Maharatha. Many Pāla period black stone Brahmanical sculptures including Mahiṣāsuramardinī (ibid., pp. 212-13). 12. Maheshapura. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of the Buddha wearing a crown (ibid., p. 214).

664

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Madhepura district 1. Singhesvara. Pāla period black stone sculptural fragments including Bhairava of c.eleventh -twelfth century (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 195). 2. Belo-Chamgarh. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Tārā (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 186). 3. Dhelai. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara (ibid., pp. 199-200). 4. Lakshmipur. Pāla period black stone sculptures of Durgā and other Brahmanical deities (ibid., p. 213). 5. Nayanagar. Pāla period black stone sculptures of Durgā, Paṅcamukhī Śivaliṅga (ibid., pp. 219-20). 6. Mathali. Many Pāla period stone sculptures of the Buddha ( J. Mishra, op. cit., p. 180).

Supaul district 1. Arra. A stone sculpture of Devī and many doorjambs, all datable to the Pāla period (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 180). 2. Baruari. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Navagraha; Viṣṇu; miniature Tārā (ibid., p. 185). 3. Kapileswara-sthana. A high mound in the village : 30-5 ft high, 70 ft wide, 80 ft long. Pāla period black stone sculptures: Varāha-Viṣṇu and Sūrya (ibid., p. 208). 4. Nauhatta. Pāla period black basalt Śivaliṅga (ibid., p. 219). 5. Pipara. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Tārā (ibid., p. 223).

Kishanganj 1. Thakurganja. A mound in the outskirts of the town, 4 m high, 15 m in circumference, made of mud with a veneer of brickbats. ‘The mound may represent the remains of a small stūpa’. Pāla period antiquities: Ekamukha Liṅga and Umāmaheśvara sculpture of c. ninth-tenth centuries; miscellaneous loose sculptures (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 192). 2. Kanbaiyaji: A large mound. Pāla period stone sculptures: a Viṣṇu sculpture of blue shale dated to c.eleventh century AD; miscellaneous sculptural fragments (ibid., p. 193). 3. Borijangarh: ‘a prominent temple mound with a large sandstone

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bihar

4. 5. 6.

7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12.

665

lintel (3.5 × 0.75 m) still in place with Gaṇeśa shown in the middle’; other architectural fragments; a large Sūrya sculpture in black stone of tenth-eleventh century (ibid., p. 193). Andhasura. ‘A modern Śiva temple atop a high mound, probably concealing the remains of a Stūpa’ (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 178). Bahaduraganja town. A black stone Śivaliṅga (ibid., p. 182). Bandarajhula near the Thakuraganja. Two high mounds in the village which could represent the remains of stūpas; a black stone Pāla period sculpture of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 183). Bhimatakia. Ruins of a stūpa of an uncertain date has been reported from the site. The stūpa is made of burnt bricks and 20 ft above the ground level. Its diameter is 20 m (ibid., p. 192). Ikara in Dighalaback block. Many Pāla period Aṣṭadhātu sculptures: Umāmaheśvara and Gaṇeśa, Viṣṇu; two unidentified Buddhist sculptures (ibid., p. 203). Kalasingia. A stūpa mound of uncertain date in the village: height 25 ft, diameter 160 ft (ibid., p. 207). Khuniabhita. A tenth-eleventh centuries black stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (ibid., pp. 210-11). Kishanganj town. Two Pāla period black stone sculptures of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 211). Dhumagarh. A Pāla period Śivaliṅga excavated out of the mound (ibid., p. 200).

Katihar District 1. Sisia near Barari. Pāla period black stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara, 56 × 23 cm (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 194). 2. Kasba. Pāla period black stone sculptures, architectural fragments (D.R. Patil, op. cit., p. 195). 3. Belanda. A Pāla period black stone sculpture of Viṣṇu on which the word ‘Śrī–Śrīpāla’ is inscribed (Rashmi Sinha, op. cit., p. 186). 4. Kataghara-Durgapur. Fifteen (8 Brahmanical and 7 Buddhist) bronze sculptures of the Pāla period have been discovered at the site. Brahmanical sculptures: Viṣṇu, Gaṇeśa, Indra on Airāvata, Umāmaheśvara, Agni, Śiva, Vaiṣṇavī, Kumārī. Buddhist sculptures: Buddha, Lokanātha, Sadakaṣarī Lokeśvara, Hārītī, Mahāśrī Tārā (Ajoy Kumar Sinha, ‘The Bronzes from Pranpur (Katihar)’, JBPP, vols. VII-VIII, 1983-4, p. 265).

666

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Purnea district 1. Gangasagar and Jivaja. A broken stone lintel of eleventh-twelfth centuryies AD (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 193). 2. Sikligarh near Banamankhi. Black stone Ekamukhi-liṅga of the Pāla period (ibid., p. 193). 3. Mahendragarh. Pāla period broken stone sculptures, base of an sculpture (ibid., p. 194). 4. Purnea town. Many stone sculptures of Viṣṇu, c. twelfth century AD (ibid., p. 194).

APPENDIX 2

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal (excluding Varendra) having Sculptural or Structural Indications for the Presence of Religious Centers during the Early Historic and Early Medieval Periods

Murshidabad district 1. Nilkuthi mound, in the neighbourhood of Rajabadidanga. A second or third century AD Sūrya image on a stone slab possibly forming part of a temple wall. Terracotta plaque, second or third century AD, probably of Viṣṇu. Miniature terracotta plaque of Viṣṇu, seventh century AD; a mutilated stele of a miniature slate stone female fierce goddess, eighth century; sand stone miniature plaque of Durgā- Mahiṣāsuramardinī in a four-armed form, seventh-eighth centuries AD; a terracotta face of a Bodhisattva, c. eighth-ninth centuries AD; lime stone plaque of Avalokiteśvara, seventh century AD (Bimal Bandopadhyaya, ‘Excavations at Nilkuthi Mound’, pp. 15569; idem, ‘A Note on Some Recently Discovered Sculptures in Stone and Terracotta from Excavation at Nilkuthi Mound, Karnasuvarna’, pp. 52-9). 2. Rakshasidanga. A big seventh-eighth centuries stone image of Mahiṣāsuramardinī. Stucco Dhyānī Buddha Amitābha; 5 to 6 figures of the Buddha (Bimal Bandopadhyaya, ‘A Note on Some Recently

668

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13.

14. 15.

16.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Discovered Sculptures in Stone and Terracotta from Excavation at Nilkuthi Mound, Karnasuvarna’, p. 53; S.R. Das, Rājbāḍīḍāngā, p. 30). Rajbadidanga. An excavated Buddhist monastic site. For details, see S.R. Das, ibid. Jadupur, on the eastern side of Rajbadidanga. many stone sculptures (ibid., p. 9) . Samskar. Plinths of several temples. Inside one such structure a big stone Gaurīpaṭṭa with liṅga was found (ibid., p. 9). Madhupur. Many fragmented stucco fragments, including one Avalokitesavara head (ibid., p. 10). Panchathupi, Burwan PS. Ruins of a Panchāytana temple complex in the southeastern corner of the village. Ruins of another ancient temple in the north-eastern part of the village. Black basalt image of Durgā (ibid., p. 16). Ghiasabad. Muslim monuments made of architectural fragments from Hindu or Buddhist monuments; Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara image, stone (S.R. Das, op. cit., p. 17) . Mahipala. A large mound. Many unidentified sculptural fragments (ibid., p. 20) . Chandanvati, near Sagardighi. A large Post-Gupta period Śivaliṅga with Gaurīpaṭṭa (ibid., pp. 20-2); a mutilated stone sculpture of the Buddhist deity Mārīcī, c.eleventh century AD (IAR, 1983-4: 172) . Amritakunda, PS Navagrama. Several large images of Viṣṇu, Buddha, Sūrya, all of the Pāla-Sena period (S.R. Das, op. cit., p. 21). Bhanga Milki. An inscribed stone image of Viṣṇu with the legend Śrīmadavākasya in tenth-eleventh centuries AD characters, Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara, stone (S.R. Das, Archaeological Discoveries from Murshidabad, p. 39). From unspecified provenance of the district of Murshidabad. Black basalt Lakṣmī, black basalt Viṣṇu, Umāmaheśvara, all of twelfth century (IAR, 1965-6, pp. 96-7). Chiruti. Stone image of Mahiṣāsuramardinī, seventh-eighth century AD (S.R. Das, op. cit., p. 30). Farakka. A Maurya-Śuṅga period Jaina terracotta votive plaque (Chitrarekha Gupta, ‘Jainism in Bengal: Beginning of the Study, Problems and Perspectives’, p. 219). From some site of Murshidabad district. Bronze image of the Buddha, meditating under a banyan tree, c. ninth century (Śaktirani Chakrabarti, Buddhist Art-Objects in the Museums of West Bengal, p. 106).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

669

17. Talgram. Structural fragments which were possibly part of an early medieval temple (Sharmi Chakravarti, op. cit., p. 54). 18. Singhari. Sena period fragments of three pieces of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 54). 19. Kunnanur. Sena period fragments of an image of Viṣṇu and Gaṇeśa (ibid., p. 55). 20. Jalabandha. Avalokiteśvara, c. twelfth century (G. Sengupta et al., Vibrant Rock, p. 213). Five examples of stone sculptures of Viṣṇu reported from this site (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, pp. 346, 349, 351). 21. Some unknown place of Murshidabad district. Hevajra. (A.Sengupta, Buddhist Art of Bengal, p. 142). 22. Gokarna. Narasimha, stone (Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 341). 23. Jhilli. Varāha, stone (ibid., p. 342). 24. Chandapara. Varāha, stone (ibid., p. 342). 25. Sundarpur. Viṣṇu, bronze (IAR 1955-6, p. 62; Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 348). 26. Navagram. Viṣṇu, stone (Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 350). 27. Unspecified site of Murshidabad. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 348). 28. Unspecified site of Murshidabad. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 349). 29. Manigram. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 352). 30. Manikyahar. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 354). 31. Lalbagh. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 355). 32. Baranagar. Viṣṇu, bronze (ibid., p. 357). 33. Jemo. 2 stone images of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 345). 34. Sagaradihi. 2 stone images of Viṣṇu (ibid., pp. 351, 354); 2 bronze images of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 354). 35. Berhampore. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 360). 36. Kandi. Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 369); Cāmuṇḍā, stone (ibid., p. 379). 37. Borowa. Lalitā, stone (ibid., p 373). 38. Navagram. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone (ibid., p. 375). 39. Unspecified site of Murshidabad. Lakṣmī, stone (ibid., p. 379). 40. Navagram. Kārttikeya, stone (ibid., p. 384); Śiva, stone (ibid., p. 387). 41. Debakunda. Gangā, stone (ibid., p. 385). 42. Banyeswar. Gaurī, with Sadyojāta Śiva, stone (ibid., p. 386). 43. Jiganj. Caturmukhaliṅga, bronze (ibid., p. 395). 44. Rangamati. Nandī, stone (Ibid., 396).

670

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Birbhum 1. Beluti. Mound with traces of a monastic building of the Gupta period (ibid., p. 28). 2. Nanur. Fragmented Pāla-Sena sculptures on the mound (ibid., p. 29). 3. Suratheswar Śiva temple mound. A modern temple site, but temple lintels and fragmented Pāla period sculptures reported from sites (ibid., p. 29). 4. Kankutia. Mound, unlikely to be earlier than eleventh-twelfth centuries (ibid., p. 29). 5. Deuli. Chalcolithic site having BRW, few sculptures of the late Pāla period, the most impressive being a large Mahiṣāsuramardinī figure (ibid., p. 29); Bhairava, stone (Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 394). 6. Ghurisa. A few pieces of Pāla period sculptures including a Jaina Tīrthaṅkara figure; a few well-cut blocks of laterite suggest an earlier temple made of laterite blocks (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 29). 7. Kotasur. An early historic urban centre. A 6 m high mound in the central part of the site, near which Pāla period sculptures of Sūrya and Viṣṇu were found (ibid., p. 30). 8. Baragrama. A major cluster of fragmented eleventh-twelfth centuries unidentifiable sculptures in the village (ibid., p. 31). A stone sculpture of Sūrya (Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 369). 9. Paikor. An inscribed pillar containing the name of the Cedi king Karṇadeva of the eleventh century. The inscription refers to the installation of the stone image of female deity. Stone sculptures reported from the site: Narasiṁha killing an Asura (twelfth century); twelfth century images of Sūrya and Viṣṇu; extensive habitational deposits not earlier than tenth-twelfth centuries (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., pp. 31-2). 10. Tārāpith, east of Rampurhat. 2 Viṣṇu images, stone, of tenthtwelfth centuries AD (ibid., p. 32). 11. Bakreshvar. Broken Umāmaheśvara and other fragmented stone sculptures (D.K. Chakrabarti, Archaeology of Eastern India, p. 184). 12. Bara. Vajratārā, stone, eleventh century AD (Anusua Sengupta, Buddhist Art of Bengal, p. 147). 13. Mallarpur. Viṣṇu, stone (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 351); Baṭuka-Bhairava, stone (ibid., p. 394); Navagraha, stone (ibid., p. 370); Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone (ibid., p. 374).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

671

14. Belenarayanpur. Garuḍa stone (ibid., p. 355). 15. Tilora. Narasiṁha, stone (ibid., p. 357); Gaurī, stone (ibid., p. 373); Brahmā, stone (ibid., p. 397). 16. Sitalgram Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 358). 17. Birchandrapur. Viṣṇu, stone, 2 examples (ibid., p. 361). 18. Dabak. Viṣṇu, stone, 2 examples (ibid., p. 361). 19. Nandīgram. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 361); Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 369); Gaurī, stone (ibid., p. 373). 20. Ghoshgram.Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 361). 21. Turigram Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 361); Umāmaheśvara, stone (ibid., p. 392). 22. Kalesvar. Viṣṇu, stone: 2 examples (ibid., p. 361); 1 example of Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 369); Revanta, stone (ibid., p. 371). 23. Dhekagram. Viṣṇu, stone: 3 examples (ibid., p. 361). 24. Fullartala.Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 361). 25. Banyesvar. Anantaśāyī-Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 361). 26. Nisparunpur. Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 369). 27. Sagardighi. Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 369). 28. Bhandirban. Devī, stone (ibid., p. 372). 29. Kumarsanda. Gaurī, stone (ibid., p. 372). 30. Bhatra. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone (ibid., p. 374). 31. Fuljore. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone (ibid., p. 374). 32. Senbhum. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone (ibid., p. 375). 33. Bakresvar. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone: 2 examples (ibid., p. 375); Umāmaheśvara, stone (ibid., p. 392). 34. Dandesvar. Cāmuṇḍā, stone (ibid., p. 377). 35. Jhalaka. Cāmuṇḍā, stone (ibid., p. 378). 36. Bhadisvar. Manasā, stone (ibid., p. 380); 3 sculptures of Umāmaheśvara, stone (ibid., p. 392). 37. Akalipur. Manasā, stone (ibid., p. 381). 38. Paikore. Manasā, stone (ibid., p. 381). 39. Daranda. Brahmā, stone (ibid., p. 384). 40. Shakera. Gaurī, with Sadyojāta Śiva, stone (ibid., p. 386). 41. Maurapur. 2 examples of Umāmaheśvara, stone (ibid., p. 392). 42. Mallesvara. Bhairava, stone (ibid., p. 394). 43. Panchagram. Brahmā, stone (ibid., p. 397). 44. An unspecified site in Birbhum district. Mañjuvajra, stone, Pāla period (S.K. Saraswati, Tantrayana Art: An Album, p. XXV).

672

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

Bardhaman district 1. Sidhesvar temple of the Begunia group of temples at Barakar, early Pāla period (D.K. Chakrabarti, Archaeology of Eastern India: Chhotanagpur Plateau and West Bengal, p. 165). 2. Sat Deulia. A Jaina brick temple of c. tenth-eleventh centuries AD; a number of Jaina images, including an image of Ṛṣabhanātha, from the neighbourhood of the temple (ibid., p. 165). 3. Goswamikhanda. A structure made of large lateritic blocks, probably a temple (ibid., p. 165). 4. Bharatpur. An excavated stūpa site, excavation reported in different issues of IAR. 5. Panagarh. Potsherds, brick structures, sculptural fragments (few Śivaliṅgas), early medieval in dating (Sharmi Chakraborty, ‘Resource Base and Consumer Sites: Tracing Early Historic Networks in the Damodar Valley’, p. 72). 6. Andal. A few unidentified sculptural fragments (ibid., p. 75). 7. Rondiha. brickbat, potsherds, brick structures, sculptural fragments (ibid., p. 72). 8. Punchara in the Barabani block of the Asansol subdivision. A ruined temple complex in the southern part of the village. Out of the 21 discovered Pāla period sculptures, 15 are Jaina sculptures depicting various Tīrthaṅkaras, 5 are of Viṣṇu and 1 unidentified (Chitrarekha Gupta, ‘Bengal Art and Bengal Inscriptions: An Approach Towards Co-relation – A Case Study with Punchra, A Village in the Vardhaman District, West Bengal’, pp. 89-91). 9. Bhadaritikurj, Katwa subdivision. A fragmented stone image of Tārā, black basalt, eleventh century (Saktirani Chakrabarti, Buddhist Art-Objects in the Museums of West Bengal, pp. 42-3). 10. Unidentified site, Bardhaman district. Black Stone image of Harihara, late seventh century (S.L. Huntington, The ‘Pāla-Sena’ Schools of Sculptures, p. XXIV). 11. Mandalagrama. Buddha in Bhūmisparśamudrā, stone, eighth century AD (B. Chattopadhyaya and R.K. Jana, Descriptive Catalogue of Sculptures in the Museum and Art Gallery, Burdwan University, p. 27). 12. Birhata, Bardhaman town area. Buddha, Tathāgata types in a row, stone, ninth century AD (ibid., p. 27). 13. Bardhaman. Tathāgatas represented on a stūpa, eighth century AD; Standing Buddha, stone, tenth-eleventh centuries AD; Seated

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

673

Buddha, stone, tenth-eleventh centuries AD; Tārā, stone, tentheleventh centuries AD (Ibid., pp. 27-8). Kanchannagar. Jambhala, stone, tenth- eleventh century AD (ibid., p. 28). Bacharhat area near Bardhaman town. Inscribed image of seated Buddha, stone, eleventh century AD (R.K. Jana, ‘Tracing the Archaeology of Buddhism in the Early Medieval Bardhaman, West Bengal’, pp. 116-17). Nutanhat, P.S. Mangalkot. Inscribed image of Jambhala, stone, c.eleventh century AD (ibid., p. 117). Susana. Hārītī, stone, tenth-eleventh century AD (ibid., p. 117). Guskara. Buddha in Bhūmisparśamudrā, stone, c. eleventh century AD (ibid., p. 117). Ketugram. Viṣṇu, stone (Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 341). Pachandi. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 341). Sardanga. Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara, stone, 2 examples (ibid., p. 348). Sanchra. Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara, stone (ibid., p. 348). Bardhaman. Viṣṇu, stone, 2 examples (ibid., p. 349) Chaitanpur. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 350). Mallikpur. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 351). Pubar. Varāha, stone (ibid., p. 352). Bardhaman. Viṣṇu, stone, (ibid., p. 354). Unspecified site of Bardhaman dist. Varāha, stone (ibid., p. 354). Kusumgram. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 354). Barabelum. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 354). Sanchar. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 355). Denur. Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara, stone (ibid., p. 357). Garun. Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara, stone (ibid., p. 357). Bahapur. Venugopāla, stone (ibid., p. 359). Katwa. Viṣṇu, (fragmented, stone), 4 examples (ibid., p. 359); 2 intact stone images of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 351). Patun. Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara (10-armed), stone; Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara, (8-armed) (ibid., p. 361). Bardhaman. Hari-Hara, stone (ibid., p. 362). Bardhaman. Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 366). Raina. Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 367). Attashasa. Cāmuṇḍā, stone (ibid., p. 377). Bardhaman. Cāmuṇḍā, stone (ibid., p. 378). Kanchannagar. Cāmuṇḍā, stone, (ibid., p. 378).

674 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Bardhaman. Cāmuṇḍā, stone (ibid., p. 379). Patilpara. Umāmaheśvara, stone (ibid., p. 392). Bardhaman. Liṅga with 4 Śaktis, stone (ibid., p. 395). Uchanal. Caturmukhaliṅga, stone (ibid., p. 395). Redeswan. Ekamukhaliṅga, stone (ibid., p. 396). Mangalkot. Ekamukhaliṅga, stone (ibid., p. 396); greyish stone Viṣṇu Madhusūdana, tenth-eleventh centuries (B. Chattopadhyaya and R.K. Jana, Descriptive Catalogue, p. 9); black stone Umāmaheśvara, eleventh-twelfth centuries AD (ibid., p. 16). B. Chattopadhyaya and R.K. Jana (Descriptive Catalogue of Sculptures in the Museum and Art Gallery, Burdwan University) have reported the following Pāla period stone sculptures from ‘Burdwan’ (it is not clear if they are referring to the Bardhaman town or the Bardhaman district): Viṣṇu Trivikrama (6 examples); Viṣṇu Madhusūdana (3 examples); Viṣṇu Śrīdhara (1 example); Viṣṇu Nārāyaṇa (8 examples); Viṣṇu Mādhava (7 examples); Viṣṇu without any specific variation (1 example); Viṣṇu Varāha incarnation (6 examples). All sculptures are datable to tentheleventh centuries AD (ibid., pp. 8-15). Other sculptures include black stone Umāmaheśvara, eleventh-twelfth centuries AD (ibid., p. 17); black stone Gaṇeśa, eleventh-twelfth centuries AD (ibid., p. 18); black stone Pārvatī; black stone Durgā Siṁhavāhīni; black stone Cāmuṇḍā (all of eleventh-twelfth centuries) (ibid., pp. 19-21); and 5 black stone sculptures of Sūrya, all of tenth-eleventh century (ibid., p. 25).

Bankura district (A) Sites in the Bankura Sadar Subdivision 1. Ekteswar. A Śiva temple site. Stone sculptures: Gaṇeśa, Viṣṇu Lokeśvara, Nandī, miscellaneous fragmented stone sculptures. All datable to the eleventh-twelfth centuries AD and all found inside the temple complex (R.K. Chattopadhyay, Bankura: A Study of Its Archaeological Sources, Kolkata, 2010, p. 156). 2. Bahulara. A brick made Śikhara temple (Siddhesvara temple). Stone sculptures inside the Garbhagṛha of the temple: Gaṇeśa, Mahiṣāsuramardinī, Pārśvanātha. A hero stone kept in the campus of the temple (ibid., p. 156).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

675

3. Deulbherya. Ruins of an old lateritic stone temple. A modern temple over it. Stone sculptures of Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara, Kubera, Naṭarāja, all datable to the eleventh-twelfth centuries AD (ibid., p. 156). 4. Thumkara. Ruins of an old brick temple, bricks probably of the Gupta period. Stone sculptures of Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara Mahiṣāsuramardinī, all datable to the eleventh-twelfth century AD. Group of hero stones of uncertain origin in the village (ibid., p. 156). 5. Pakhanna. Stone sculptures of Mahiṣāsuramardinī, ViṣṇuLokeśvara, Sūrya. Jaina Chaumukha shrine (ibid., p. 156). 6. Hat Asuria. A low mound in the village. Jaina Chaumukha shrine (ibid., p. 158). 7. Chandar. Unidentified sculptural fragments (ibid., p. 158). 8. Biharinath Hill. Ruins of a temple. Stone sculptures: ViṣṇuLokeśvara, eleventh-twelfth centuries AD; Tīrthaṅkara Pārśvanātha, eleventh-twelfth centuries AD (ibid., p. 158). 9. Tiluri. Ruins of brick a temple. Stone sculptures: Tīrthaṅkara Chandraprabha, other broken sculptures (ibid., p. 158). 10. Brahmāndiha. Structural fragments of a temple including a pillar and a stone slab. Stone sculptures: 3 images of Viṣṇu; an image of Bodhisattva (Lokeśvara or Lokanātha) (ibid., p. 158). 11. Tungi. Many fragmented Jaina images (ibid., p. 158). 12. Balaramapura. Many fragmented Jaina images, a Jaina Chaumukha shrine, all datable to twelfth-thirteenth centuries AD (ibid., p. 158). 13. Jorda. Ruins of a brick structure. Stone sculptures: Caturmukha Śivaliṅga; Viṣṇu (two examples); Tīrthaṅkara Pārśvanātha (ibid., p. 158). 14. Jumbediya. A high mound in the village, old structural remains made of square bricks of the Gupta period style. Many unidentifiable fragmented stone sculptures, including Gaṇeśa and Tīrthaṅkaras (ibid., p. 159). 15. Deulbhira. Ruins of a temple, bricks similar to the Gupta period style. Highly abraded stone sculptures, belonging to the Bodhisattva group of Mahāyāna (ibid., p. 159). 16. Govindapur. Traces of an ancient settlement indicated by ancient ruins in different places of the village. Broken pillars and Āmalakas of temples, sculptural fragments (ibid., p. 159). 17. Namokecanda. ‘Ruins, fragments potsherds, and other artefacts of the late period’. 3 fragmented Jaina stone images (ibid., p. 159).

676

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

18. Bheduasol. Broken temple pillars, Āmalakas, pillars of two more temples (ibid., p. 159). 19. Panch Pukhuria. Ruins of numerous temples of Odisha rekh deul type. A stone image of Viṣṇu with Vanamālā (ibid., p. 159). 20. Jiroda. Stone sculptures: many fragmented Jaina sculptures; ViṣṇuLokeśvara (ibid., p. 160). 21. Atbaichandi. Ruins of an old temple (plinths, pillars, etc.). Stone sculpture of Cāmuṇdā (ibid., p. 160). 22. Deulbhira, PS Taldangra. An extant temple of the Orissan Śikhara variety. Stone sculpture of Tīrthaṅkara Pārśvanātha, tentheleventh century (ibid., p. 160). 23. Harmasra. A Jaina temple of the Chhotanagpur rekh deul type. eleventh-twelfth centuries AD stone sculptures: fragmented sculptures of many Brahmanical gods and goddesses, including an image of Siṁhavāhīni; fragmented Jaina sculptures (ibid., p. 160). 24. Sulgi. Iron slag, stone artefacts and habitational ruins of the early medieval period. Stone sculptures: Jaina Tīrthaṅkara, many other fragmented images (ibid., pp. 160-1). 25. Sarengarh. A temple site, now submerged by the Kansavati reservoir. A hero-stone (ibid., pp. 161-2). 26. Paresnath. Ruins of a stone temple, now reduced to the plinth. Temple ruins at Sasthitala. Stone sculptures of Viṣṇu, Buddhist goddess Mārīcī, Jaina Tīrthaṅkara, other sculptural fragments (ibid., p. 162). 27. Ambikānagar. Early historic potsherds, early medieval temple ruins, stone sculptures of many Jaina Tirthaṅkars, Viṣṇu, Buddhist deity Mārīcī (ibid., p. 162). 28. Barkola. Ruins of many Jaina brick temples, three fragmented Jaina sculptures, two Chaumukha shrines (ibid., pp. 162-3). Ambikā (twelfth century AD). 29. Chiada/Navachiada. Three stone sculptures of different Tīrthaṅkaras (ibid., p. 163). 30. Hasadungri. An image of Viṣṇu, probably carried from the reservoir area. Many fragmented Jaina sculptures (ibid., p. 163). 31. Rudra. Broken stone pedestal of a Tīrthaṅkara (ibid., p. 163). 32. Chitgiri. Red sand-stone temple, ‘now completely denuded beyond recognition’. Stone sculptures: Ekamukha liṅga; a Tīrthaṅkara image (ibid., p. 163). 33. Mukutmanipur. A stone sculpture of Narasiṁha possibly collected from Sarengarh (ibid., p. 163).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

677

34. Kechanda. A stone sculpture of a Jaina Śāsanadevī (ibid., p. 163). 35. Kendua. A Jaina temple site: many Āmalaka, temple pillars, doorjambs, a complex of ruined brick structures; a stone image of Pārśvanātha (ibid., pp. 163-4). 36. Makrasintala. Ruins of a temple at the nearby site of Junbediya. Broken stone pedestals of Jaina images (ibid., p. 164). 37. Raipur. Mound, a stone sculpture of Gaṇeśa, a hero-stone (ibid., pp. 164-5). 38. Satpatta. Many fragmented Jaina sculptures, including Tirthaṅkaras (ibid., p. 165). 39. Simalpal. Stone sculpture of Umāmaheśvara (ibid., p. 165). 40. Ramnagar. Many fragmented Jaina stone sculptures including two Tīrthaṅkaras (ibid., p. 165).

(B) Sites in the Vishnupur subdivision 41. Bhatra. Stone sculptures of mukhaliṅga, Manasā (ibid., p. 166). 42. Dihar. Two famous Śiva temples of c. tenth century AD (ibid., p. 166). 43. Dharapat. A temple of śikhara type. Many Jaina stone sculptures including an image of Pārśvanātha. A stone sculpture of Viṣṇu. (ibid., p. 166). 44. Radhanagar. Many stone sculptures including Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 166). 45. Basudevpur. Ruins of a lateritic temple. A stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 166). 46. Basubati. A stone sculpture of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 166). 47. Bhagalpur. Stone sculptures of Viṣṇu, Jaina Tīrthaṅkara, a hero stone (ibid., pp. 166-7). 48. Patashpur. Early medieval habitational remains. A stone sculpture of a Jaina Tīrthaṅkara (ibid., p. 167). 49. Lakshmisagar. Few architectural fragments; stone sculpture of Ādinātha (ibid., p. 167). 50. Mahajnatal. Mound scattered with potsherds and other habitational debris. Fragmentary stone sculptures including an image of Nandī (ibid., p. 167). 51. Garora. Yonipaṭṭa, a broken stone image of Gaṇeśa (ibid., p. 167). 52. Salda. Numerous temple ruins (mainly Śaiva); stone sculptures of Lakuliśa, Viṣṇu Lokeśvara, Umāmaheśvara, unidentified Tīrthaṅkaras (Ibid., pp. 167-8). 53. Gokulnagar. Architectural fragments of temples. Stone sculptures of Varāha, Anantaśāyī Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 168).

678

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

54. Kumbhasthal. A broken Jaina stone sculpture (ibid., p. 168). 55. Baital. A Manasā stone image of the twelfth- thirteenth centuries AD (ibid., p. 168). 56. Rautkhanda. A stone sculpture of Manasā of the twelfth- thirteenth centuries AD. A miniature stone votive shrine of tenth-twelfth centuries AD (ibid., p. 168). 57. Kotulpur. A miniature stone votive shrine of tenth-twelfth centuries AD (ibid., pp. 168-9). 58. Sihar. Stone sculpture of Tīrthaṅkara Śāntinātha inside a Malla period temple (ibid., p. 169). 59. Jamkkuri. Several early medieval antiquities from this place in the VSM. (ibid., p. 169). 60. Kantore. Naṭarāja medallion, twelfth century AD (ibid., p. 169). 61. Naricha. Ruins of a brick temple. Stone sculptures of Gaṇeśa, Garuḍa, Mahiṣāsuramardinī (ibid., p. 169). 62. Atra. High mound, ht. about 50 ft. Temple ruins and stone sculptures including an image of Sūrya of twelfth century (ibid., p. 169). 63. Hadal-Narayanpur. Jaina Yakṣa-yakṣini (ibid., pp. 169-70). 64. Kusadwip. Stone sculptures of Sūrya, Viṣṇu, and broken pedestals of images (ibid., p. 170). 65. Jaypur. Stone sculpture of Anantaśāyī Viṣṇu (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 341). 66. Sarangarh. Stone sculptures: Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 355); Sūrya (ibid., p. 369), Mahiṣāsuramardinī (ibid., p. 374). 67. Deulberia. Stone sculptress of Bāla-Kṛṣṇa and Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 357). 68. Biharinath. Stone sculpture of Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara (ibid., p. 362). 69. Ambikanagar. Stone sculpture of Devī (ibid., p. 371). 70. Atbaichandigram. Cāmuṇḍā, stone (ibid., p. 378).

Purulia district . For a cataloguing of reported data from this district, see Birendra Nath Prasad, ‘Jaina and Brahmanical Temples and Political Processes in a Forested Frontier of Early Medieval South-Western Bengal: A Study of Purulia’, Religions of South Asia, vol. 14.2, 2021, forthcoming.

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

679

Medinipur (East and West) 1. Moghalmari. An excavated Buddhist monastic site. 2. Kasba. Viṣṇu, stone (Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 341); Viṣṇu, stone, (ibid., p. 341), Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 341); Ganesa, stone (ibid., p. 384). 3. Kotbar. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 341). 4. Danapur Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 341). 5. Tamluk. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 341); Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 342). 6. Mahisadal. Viṣṇu-Lokesvara, stone (Ibid., , p. 342). 7. Jhargram. Viṣṇu-Lokesvara (ibid., p. 361); Liṅga with 4 Śaktis (ibid., p. 395). 8. Pathara. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 348). 9. Amanpur. Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 368). 10. Siddha. Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 368). 11. Byabarattahat. Mahisamradini, stone (ibid., p. 375); Śiva, stone (ibid., p. 387). 12. Srigauri near Tamluk. A stone sculpture of Viṣṇu, c. eleventhtwelfth centuries AD (Manoranjan Bhaumick, History, Culture and Antiquities of Tamralipta, Kolkata, 2001, p. 52). 13. Nandapur near Tamluk. Stone image of Viṣṇu, Pāla period (ibid., p. 52). 14. Kalyanchak. A large Stone image of Viṣṇu, early Pāla period (ibid., p. 52). 15. Nunia near Gidui in Medinipur district: early medieval temples of unreported cultic affiliation and style (IAR, 1961-2, p. 59). 16. Takashi, PS Khejri. Historical mound and sculptures of c.tenth century AD (IAR, 1984-5, p. 99). 17. Kanti, PS Contai. Temples, tombs and sculptures of the thirteenth century AD (IAR, 1985-6, p. 88). 18. Basudebberia. Exposed corner of a massive brick temple, c.tenthtwelfth century AD (IAR, 1995-6, p. 116). 19. Dariapur. Fragmented sculptures of the Pāla-Sena period, identification not possible (ibid., p. 116). 20. Daulatpur. Fragmented sculptures of the Pāla-Sena period, identification not possible (ibid., p. 116). 21. Haripur. Fragmented sculptures of the Pāla-Sena period, identification not possible (ibid., p. 116). 22. Pratapapur. Fragmented sculptures, c. twelfth century AD , identification not possible (ibid., p. 116).

680

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

23. Bahiri Two Viṣṇu images in black stone in the local Jagannath temple (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 151). 24. Karkait, 10 km north-east of Dantan in the Dantan PS of the West Medinipur district. Sūrya, tenth century (Sharmila Saha, ‘Another Image of the Sun God with Planetary Deities from South-Western Bengal’, pp. 152-62).

24-Parganas, Hooghly and Howrah districts 1. Saptagrama. A few sherds of the rouletted ware, black ware, medieval pottery. architectural members detached from Brahmanical temples, presumably of the Pāla period (IAR, 1961-2, p. 59). 2. Pathpukur, Jayanagar, 24-Parganas. Bronze image of the Buddha in dharmacakrapravartana mudrā, c. eleventh century (IAR, 1965-6, p. 97). 3. Brahmān Ban near Saraberia (along the stream Piyali), 24-Parganas. Remains of a post-Gupta period temple consisting of door jambs, lintels, basements, etc., all carved in black basalt (IAR, 1971-2, p. 51). 4. Mahanad, district Hooghly. A mutilated image of a 12-armed Śiva in his Ānanda-Bhairava, Naṭesa or Naṭarāja form (IAR, 1982-3, p. 139). 5. Sonarpur, district 24-Pargana. Black basalt, one meter high image of Viṣṇu, c. eleventh century (ibid., p. 139). 6. Rayadighiabad, PS Mathuramur. stone sculptures of the Pāla-Sena period, cultic affiliation not specified (IAR, 1984-5, p. 99). 7. Jangipara, district Hooghly. Stone sculptures of the early medieval period: Viṣṇu (2); Śiva (1); (IAR, 1986-7, p. 123); Gaṇeśa (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 383). 8. Jayanagar, district 24-Parganas. Stone image of Viṣṇu, presumably of the Pāla period (IAR, 1986-7, p. 123). 9. Chandraketugarh. An excavated site having early historic and early medieval religious antiquities. 10. Behala area, Kolkata. Stone sculptures: bust of a Viṣṇu image wearing kiritimukha, c. seventh century AD (D.K. Chakrabarti, Archaeological Geography of the Gangā Plain, The Lower and the Middle Gangā, p. 142); Buddha in Vajrāsana posture under the Bodhi tree (Gourishankar De, Vanga Down the Ages, p. 126). 11. Boral area, Kolkata. Maurya-Śuṅga, Kuṣāṇa and Gupta period terracottas in profusion along with some Gupta period sculptures

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

681

in black stone. Black basalt Viṣṇu images, Pāla period (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 142). Atghara, northeast of Baruipur. A structural mound with evidence of occupational debris spread over an area of 13-14 acres; NBPW, Śuṅga-Kuṣāṇa red ware, terracotta Yakṣini images, Rouletted ware, cast copper coins, etc. A terracotta image of Jaina Tīrthaṅkara, tenth-twelfth centuries AD (IAR, 1956-7, p. 81; D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 142.). Mathbari, Ghoser Chak. This place is in the Baishata area, to the southeast of Jayanagar. Two large circular structural mounds representing two stūpas of c. tenth-eleventh centuries AD, a Buddha sculpture from a neighbouring site, presumably of the same period (ibid., p. 143.). Harinarayaṇapur near Dakshina Bishnupur. Gupta period terracottas showing monks clad in their long flowing robes (sanghati) (ibid., p. 143). Chhatrabhog. Large architectural fragments and a low structural mound; a modern temple on much earlier foundations. A few sculptural fragments of the Pāla-Sena period; many Pāla-Sena period stone sculptures, bronzes, decorated architectural fragments etc., have been found from time to time in the neighboring villages (ibid., p. 143). Katanadighi, 1 km from Krishnachandrapur . Basement of a temple dated to the eleventh century AD (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., p. 144); black basalt Viṣṇu (Gourishankar De, Vanga Down the Ages, p. 110). Jatar Deul. A Pāla period standing temple at the site (ibid., p. 144); Viṣṇu, stone (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 348). Ghateswar, 11 miles to the northwest of Raidighi. A stone image of Ādinātha (3 ft 5 in. high) with 12 miniature standing Tīrthaṅkara figures on either side (ibid., p. 144). Raidighi. Stone sculptures: Neminātha, an inscribed image of the Buddha (ibid., p. 144); Umāmaheśvara (Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 391). Kankandighi, an important settlement site in the Jatar DeulKankandighi-Raidighi area. Traces of low structural mounds all over the village which seems to have yielded a large number of Pāla-Sena period stone images including an image of Mahiṣāsuramardinī of c. eleventh century AD (IAR, 1984-5, p. 99; D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., pp. 144-5) and a large image of Viṣṇu, 5 ft high (Gourishankar De, Vanga Down the Ages, p. 108).

682

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

21. Delbari, about 6 miles from Jatar Deul. Ruin of a small (5.4 sq. m externally and 2.24 sq. m internally) temple. Cella was 1.6 m below the surface. A broken pedestal of black stone image was found inside the cella. Ruins of a large building were found near the temple (D.K. Chakrabarti, op. cit., pp. 145-6). 22. Bhuvaneshwari, an island, approachable from Raidighi and few other places by waterways. A mound (about 50 m across) containing a modern temple on old foundations. Fragments of Viṣṇu image in black stone (ibid., pp. 146). 23. Pakurtala, about 6 km from Kakdwip towards Diamond Harbour, on one of the old channels of Adi Gangā. The entire village stands on a low mound. Antique findings include terracotta beads, semiprecious stone beads, copper punch-marked coins, Śuṅga to Gupta period terracottas, Kuṣāṇa period sprinklers and spouted vessels; Pāla-Sena period fragmented stone sculptures and a large number of terracotta plaques with proto-Bengali inscriptions (ibid., pp. 146). 24. Kakdwipa area. From Maniknagar, c. ninth century Viṣṇu image in black stone with usual attributes. At Mahadevatala, which to the south of Pakurtala, a modern Śiva temple on earlier foundations, the liṅga in worship being the original one (ibid., p. 147). 25. Sagar island, Mandirtala. Kuṣāṇa sprinklers. Temple ruins standing over the ruins of an earlier temple in the midst of an ancient habitation area at Mandiratala. Harapārvatī images in black stone (ibid., p. 148). 26. Kulpi. Architectural fragments including decorated lintels. Image of Viṣṇu in black stone, twelfth-thirteenth century AD (ibid., p. 148). 27. Deulpota, 3 km to the north-west of Diamond Harbour. A structural mound, about 300 m in circumference and about 5 m in height. NBPW associated wares, Yakṣini figures, a gajalakṣmī plaque (first or second century BC) in terracotta, Gupta period terracotta, and large number of beads of semiprecious stones. miscellaneous Pāla–Sena period fragmented stone sculptures (Gaṇeśa, Viṣṇu) (ibid., p. 149); a stone image of Durgā (Gourishankar De, op. cit., p. 117). ‘Large number of terracotta male and female figurines and many stone sculptures of Hindu divinities’ of the post-Gupta peiod’ (Asok Datta, ‘Archaeology of Deulpota’, JBA, vols. 11-12, 2006-7, pp. 46-7). 28. Jamtala, Sundarban, district Dakshin 24-Parganas. Jaina Caumukha/ Caumukhi votive shrine (17 × 7 cm), tenth-thirteenth centuries

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

34.

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

683

(Shubha Majumdar, ‘A Unique Jaina Caumukha/Caumukhi or Caturmukha or Sarvatobhadra Pratima from Sundarban’, p. 33). Ghatesvara. Grey stone Ṛṣabhanātha, c. tenth-thirteenth centuries AD (Shubha Majumdar, op. cit., p. 34). Kanvandighi. Many Jaina sculptures including Ambikā, Ayagapatta, tenth-thirteenth centuries (ibid., p. 36). Nalagora. Stone image of Ambikā, c.tenth-thirteenth century AD (ibid., p. 36). Kantabenia. Stone image of Pārśvanātha, c. tenth-thirteenth century AD (ibid., p. 36). Bethune College area, northern part of Kolkata. Śuṅga-Kushana period pottery, early medieval terracotta pieces, all discovered in accidental digging (Uttara Chakraborty et al., ‘Archaeology of Calcutta: Evidence from Bethune College’, pp. 85-6). North Surendraganj. Inscribed coins of Chandragupta II . Pāla-Sena period stone image of Śiva with Nandī (A. Datta and D. Banerjee, ‘Archaeology of Sundarban: An Overview’, p. 173). Kulpi. Viṣṇu image in black stone, presumably of the Pāla period (ibid., p. 173). Kalinagar: Viṣṇu image in black stone, c. ninth century AD (ibid., p. 173). Gobardhanapur: terracotta slab, stone image of Naṭarāja on a bull’s back (ibid., p. 173). Baribhanga: Viṣṇu and Durgā images of the Pāla period (ibid., p. 173). Matabhari and Ghosher Chak: architectural fragments, 2-3 black basalt sculptures, unidentified (ibid., p. 173). Mathurapur Pāla period temple ruins (ibid., p. 173). Ghanteswari. Stone Image of Jaina Tīrthaṅkara Ādinātha (ibid., p. 174). Sarishadaha, Kajirdanga and Kasipur. Ruins of a Śiva temple of the Gupta period; two Viṣṇu images of the late Pāla period (ibid., p. 174). Gajamuri. Stone image of Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 174). Girishchandrapur. Black stone Viṣṇu image (ibid., p. 174). Kakdvipa. Viṣṇu, stone, c. ninth century (ibid., p. 174). Boral, 24-Parganas. Viṣṇu, stone (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 347). Govindpur, 24-Parganas. Naṭarāja Śiva, stone (Enamul Haque, ibid., p. 388).

684

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

48. Sarisadah, 24-Parganas. Śivaliṅga, stone (ibid., p. 396). 49. Mahanad, Hooghly. Stone sculptures: Śivaliṅga (ibid., p. 396); Viṣṇu, 2 examples (ibid., p. 352); Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 358); Viṣṇupaṭṭa (ibid., p. 361); Vaiṣṇavī (ibid., p. 376); Gangā (ibid., p. 385); Bhairava (ibid., p. 394); Baṭuka-Bhairava (ibid., p. 394); Ekapada-Bhairava (ibid., p. 395); Śivaliṅga (ibid., p. 396). 50. Bhadrakali, Hooghly. Stone sculptures: Brahmā (Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 396); Sūrya (ibid., p. 366) 51. Kaligram, Hooghly. Stone sculptures: Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 348); Umāmaheśvara (ibid., p. 390). 52. Unspecified site of Hooghly district. Narasiṁha, stone(ibid., p. 349). 53. Bhandarhati, Hooghly. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 349). 54. Beloon, Hooghly. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 349). 55. Kantaberia, Hooghly. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 349). 56. Kanur, Hooghly. Viṣṇu, stone, three examples (ibid., p. 349, 350). 57. Champarni, Hooghly. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 350). 58. Jamgram, Hooghly. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 351). 59. Kaikala, Hooghly. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 355). 60. Nanigram, Hooghly. Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 366). 61. Unspecified site of the Hooghly district. Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 367). 62. Durgadaspur, Hooghly. Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 367). 63. Simlogarh (Pandua-Hooghly). Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 367). 64. Chuchura, Hooghly. Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 368). 65. Pandua Hooghly. Sūrya, stone (ibid., p. 368); Umāmaheśvara, stone (ibid., p. 389). 66. Sarai, Hooghly. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone (ibid., p. 374). 67. Unspecified site of the Hooghly dist. Vaiṣṇavī, stone (ibid., p. 376). 68. Dvarbasini, Hooghly. Vaiṣṇavī, stone (ibid., p. 376). 69. Srirampur, Hooghly. Gaṇeśa, bronze (ibid., p. 382). 70. Guptipara, Hooghly. Gaṇeśa, stone (ibid., p. 383). 71. Tribeni, Hooghly. Gangā, stone (ibid., p. 385). 72. Kanur Sriamabhita, Hooghly. Umāmaheśvara, stone (ibid., p. 392). 73. Unspecified site of Hooghly. Ekapada-Bhairava, stone (ibid., p. 394). 74. Jagatballavpur, Howrah. Umāmaheśvara, stone (ibid., p. 392). 75. Khalna, Howrah. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. p. 341). 76. Harinarayanpur. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 342). 77. Shyampur, Howrah. Viṣṇupaṭṭa, stone (ibid., p. 360). 78. Mankur, Howrah. Cāmuṇḍā, stone (ibid., p. 378).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

685

SCULPTURES DOCUMENTED BY GOURISHANKAR DE, VAṄGA DOWN THE AGES: CULTS, ICONS AND TEMPLES, KOLKATA, 2008

79. Jalaghata, Uttarapara, district Hooghly: three stone images of Viṣṇu (p. 107). 80. Unspecified site of Sundarbans. Viṣṇu Vsudeva, stone (p. 107). 81. Khadi: a Viṣṇu image, 3 ft high, stone (ibid., p. 108); Khadi, Sundarbans. a fine specimen of Viṣṇupaṭṭas (p. 112). 82. Lot no. 10, Sundarban. Standing Pāla period Viṣṇu, stone, with a seven-hooded snake canopy from (ibid., p. 109). 83. Madpur.Viṣṇu image, Trivikrma, 2.5 ft high (p. 109). 84. Patharprati, PS Mathurapur. A Viṣṇu image, stone (p. 109). 85. Dhablat, east of the Sangam. A Viṣṇu image, stone (p. 109). 86. Baruipur, Kakadvip in Lot 10. Viṣṇu image, stone (p. 110). 87. Govindapore, PS Mathurapur. Four Viṣṇu images of black stone (p. 110); an image of Naṭarāja of black shale from the ruins of the temple of Govindapur (p. 115). 88. Krisnachandrapur, PS Mathurapur. Viṣṇu Trivikrama, eleventhtwelfth century (p. 110). 89. Sitakundu Mouza, PS Baruipur. Black basalt Viṣṇu (p. 110). 90. Badisa, district South 24-Parganas. Four-armed Viṣṇu, stone (p. 110). 91. Daksinpara, Barasat. Viṣṇu image, stone (p. 111). 92. Baguihati, PS Rajarhat. An image of Viṣṇu, stone (p. 111). 93. Najarnagar, PS Haroa. basalt image of Viṣṇu (p. 111). 94. Barrackpur. An image of Viṣṇu, stone (p. 111). 95. Barrackpur. An image of Viṣṇu, stone (p. 111). 96. Kartikpur (24-Parganas). A Rāma-Lakṣmana plaque of early medieval period (Ibid. p. 112). 97. Kachubedia, a stone image of Garuḍa (p. 112). 98. Budaratat in G. plot of the Sundarbans. Fragments of a stone image of Sahasraliṅga (ibid., p. 114). 99. Jayanagar. An anthropomorphic figure of Śiva, stone, seventh century (p. 114). 100. Netra. PS Diamond Harbour. Black stone image of Umāmaheśvara (p. 115). 101. Bantra, PS Jaynagar. Śiva Ardhanārīśvara, twelfth century, stone. (p. 116). 102. Mayda. stone image of dancing Gaṇeśa, tenth century AD (Ibid.). 103. Uttarpara, Hooghly district. Durgā, stone (p. 117).

686

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

104. Baribhanga, north of Khari. Durgā, stone (p. 117). 105. Najilpur. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, two or three stone images (pp. 11718). 106. Gokulpur, 24-Parganas. An inscribed image of Manasā, c. tenth century AD, stone (p. 118). 107. Lalbati, PS Diamond Harbour. Caṇḍī, stone (p. 118). 108. Amdanga. Cāmuṇḍā, stone (p. 118). JAINA IMAGES

1. Bolbamni, PS Melta. Pārśvanātha, stone, tenth-twelfth centuries AD (p. 123). 2. Ghatesvar, PS Kulpi. Ādinātha, stone, tenth-twelfth centuries AD (p. 123). 3. Dakshin Barasat. Pārśvanātha stone, tenth-twelfth centuries AD (p. 123). BUDDHIST STONE IMAGES FROM 24-PARGANAS

1. Bhangor, a few miles away from Bālāndā (PS Haroa, Basirahat subdivision). Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī, tenth-eleventh centuries (pp. 124-5). 2. An octo-ally image of the Buddha in BSM unearthed at Patharpratima, South 24-Parganas. Shows affinity to the Buddha image discovered in Chittagongn (p. 126) 3. Barrackpur, 24-Parganas. Buddha in vajrāsana posture under the Bodhi tree (p. 126). 4. Mathurapur, PS Mathurapur. Buddha in BSM (p. 126). 5. Jayanagar. Buddha, bronze, tenth century, now in the collection of the State Archaeological Gallery, West Bengal (p. 126). 6. From a mound called Bharat Rajar Mandir . Two or three stone sculptures including an image of the Buddha (p. 126). 7. Chandanpidi, in the extreme southern part of the district. Buddha (p. 126). 8. Jagaddalgarh near Barrackpur. Buddha (p. 126). 9. Kachupukur, P.S. Habra. Buddha, broken (p. 126). 10. Khalisady, district 24-Parganas. Black stone sculpture (7 ft 6 in. × 12 ft 6 in.), tenth century, showing the Parinirvāṇa scene of the Buddha (pp. 126-7). 11. Bronze Buddha, tenth century, from Jayanagar, kept in State Archaeological Gallery (p. 127).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

687

12. Boral, PS Sonarpur. Tārā, thirteenth century (p. 128). 13. Lot no. 29, P.S. Jaynagar, Sundarban. Hārītī, twelfth or thirteenth century (p. 128).

Nadia district 1. Shantipur. A mutilated black basalt Daśāvatāra panel (IAR, 1965-6, p. 97). 2. Ballal Dhipi, 13 km to the west of Krishnanagar. A tenth-twelfth centuries temple existing within an enclosure wall. Excavation results reported in different issues of IAR. 3. Bareya. Akṣobhya, eleventh century, stone (Saktirani Chakrabarti, Buddhist Art-Objects in the Museums of West Bengal, p. 39). 4. Dignagar, Nadia. Viṣṇu, stone (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 341). 5. Debagram. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 354). 6. Talanda. Navagraha stone panel (ibid., p. 370). 7. Krishnanagar. Sadāśiva, stone, late eleventh or twelfth century AD (ibid., p. 388).

Jessore district 1. Barobazar, 16 km to the north of Jessore. Many mounds, tanks, architectural fragments with reliefs of scenes from the Jātakas (M.S. Bhattacharya, Glimpses of Buddhist Bengal, p. 50). 2. Murali Kasbah, on the western bank of the Bhairava river. Extensive ruins covering around 10 sq. km. Remains of a small brick built stūpa here (A.K.M. Zakariah, The Archaeological Heritage of Bangladesh, pp. 438-9). 3. Damdama Peerthan at the village Donar in Baozgati union of Manirampur Upazilla. An eleventh century temple; a black basalt image of Gaṇeśa (ibid., p. 449). 4. Unspecified site, Jessore district. Viṣṇu, stone (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 349). 5. Jessore town. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 359). 6. Shakhat (Jessore). Devī, stone (ibid., p. 371). 7. Unspecified site, Jessore district. Manasā, stone (ibid., p. 380). 8. Benapole. Snake goddess (Manasā), stone, eleventh or twelfth

688

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia century (Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, Sculptures in Bangladesh, p. 276).

Khulna-Bagherhat 1. Unknown sites of Khulna district. Stone sculptures: Varuṇa, eighth-ninth centuries AD ; Buddha-Śākyamuni, Pāla period; Sankṣiptamārīcī, tenth-eleventh centuries AD (Md. Mosharraf Hossain, ‘A Study on the Iconography and Art of the Recently Discovered Sculptures form the Greater Khulna District’, pp. 1415). 2. Rezaquepur in Kapilamuni union. Manasā, stone, eleventh century (ibid., p. 16). 3. Khulna city. 4 examples of stone sculptures of Viṣṇu, eleventhtwelfth centuries (ibid., pp. 16-17); a black basalt Vāsudeva Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 20). 4. Masjidkur. Viṣṇu, stone, thirteenth-fourteenth centuries (ibid., p. 17). 5. Kachua. Viṣṇu, stone, eleventh century (ibid., p. 17). 6. Kapilmuni. Black basalt Viṣṇu, Pāla period (Ibid., pp. 17-18). 7. Unspecified site, Khulna district. Black basalt Mahiṣāsuramardinī, eleventh century (ibid., p. 18). 8. Unspecified site, Bagherhat district. Paṅcatāpasa-Vyktaliṅga, stone, eleventh century (Ibid., pp. 18-19). 9. Jahajghata, Khulna district. seventh-eighth centuries sandstone pillar shaft carved with Mahiṣāsuramardinī in low relief (ibid., p. 19). 10. Śivabati, Bagherhat. An eleventh century stone image of the Buddha, now being worshipped in the Kamalapura Buddha Vihāra within the Dhaka metropolitan area (ibid., pp. 19-20). 11. Iswaripur, Satkhira district. Black basalt Yasosvari; black basalt Gangā (Ibid., pp. 19-20). 12. Mahesvarpasha. Viṣṇu, stone, four examples (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, pp. 359-60); Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone (ibid., p. 376); Cāmuṇḍā, stone (ibid., p. 377); Umā, stone, twelfththirteenth centuries (Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, Sculptures in Bangladesh, p. 267). 13. Satakhira. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 339). 14. Abdulpur. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone (ibid., p. 374). 15. Panihat. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone (ibid., p. 375).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

689

16. Isvaripur. Gangā, stone (ibid., p. 384). 17. Rahimabad, Bagerhat district Unidentified deity (probably Varuṇa or moon god Candra), stone, ninth-tenth centuries (Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, Sculptures in Bangladesh, p. 277). 18. Sundarghona, Bagerhat district Catuhśakti liṅga, stone, twelfththirteenth century (ibid., p. 277). 19. Unspecified site, Khulna district. Buddha Śākyamuni, stone, ninthtenth centuries, inscribed (ibid., p. 277). 20. Unspecified site, Khulna district. Durgā Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone, eleventh or twelfth century] (ibid., p. 277).

Dhaka-Vikrampur area 1. BUDDHIST SCULPTURES FROM THE DHAKA-VIKRAMPUR AREA All references are from Eun-Se Lee, ‘On Defining Buddhist Art in Bengal: The Dhaka Region’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 2009.

A. Large stone sculptures from the Vikrampur area 1. Vajrayogini. Bhṛkuṭi, ninth century (p. 379); Parṇaśabarī, black stone, eleventh century (p. 398). 2. Paikpada. Hārītī, eleventh century (p. 383). 3. Somapada. Aṣṭamahābhaya Tārā, eleventh century (p. 385). 4. Sukhavaspur. Tārā, , eleventh century (p. 389); Jambhala, eleventh century (p. 547). 5. A village in the Vikrampura area. Tārā, eleventh century (p. 390). 6. Rampal. Tārā, black stone, eleventh century (p. 391); Heruka, eleventh century, 2 examples (pp. 415-16). 7. Sonarang. Avalokiteśvara Lokanātha, eleventh century (p. 394). 8. Nayanda. Parṇaśabarī, eleventh century (p. 398). 9. Unspecified site, Munshiganj district. Mahāpratiśarā, eleventh century (p. 399). 10. Unspecified site, Munshiganj district. 12-armed goddess, eleventh century (p. 399). 11. Unspecified site, Munshiganj district. Mārīcī, eleventh century (p. 403). 12. Dhalla, Vikrampur area. Mārīcī, eleventh century (p. 403). 13. Vikrampur. Mārīcī, eleventh century (p. 404); Siṁhanāda Lokeśvara,

690

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia eleventh century (p. 411); Khasarpaṇa Lokeśvara, eleventh century (p. 411); Khasarpaṇa Lokeśvara, Pāla period (p. 474); Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā, eleventh century (p. 422). Bhavanipur. Eight-armed Buddhist goddess, eleventh century (p. 405). Mahakali. Khasarpaṇa Lokeśvara eleventh century (p. 408); Buddha Amitābha (p. 426). Mulchar. Khasarpaṇa Lokeśvara, late tenth or early eleventh century (p. 412). Paschimpada. 6-armed Buddhist deity, ninth or early tenth century (p. 417). South Kazi Kasba. Mahākāla, late eleventh–early twelfth centuries (p. 418). Betka. Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā, eleventh century (p. 422). Bejgaon Lauhajang. Buddha wearing a jewel (Ratnasambhava?), eleventh century (p. 426).

B. Wooden sculptures from the Vikrampur area 1. Rampal. Mañjuśrī, eleventh century (p. 432). 2. Uttar Kazi Kasba. Female deity (Surasundarī), eleventh century (p. 432). 3. Tangibadi. Bodhisattva, eleventh century (p. 433). 4. Vikrampur area. Buddha in Bhūmisparśamudrā, eleventh century (p. 435).

C. Small stone/bronze/terracotta sculptures and objects from the Vikrampur area 1. Unspecified site of Munshiganj district. Miniature stūpa, ninth or early tenth century (p. 400). 2. Churain. Miniature stūpa, Pāla period (p. 475). 3. Raghurampur. Prajñāpāramitā, Pāla period (p. 476); Jambhala, tenth century (p. 458); Avalokiteśvara, eleventh century (p. 463); terracotta sealing impressed with a figure of the Buddha, eleventh century, two examples (p. 468). 4. Sonarang. A Vaiṣṇava syncretic deity, eleventh century (p. 456);1 Buddha holding a jar and fruit (p. 461) 1

 This is probably a miniature sculpture of Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara.

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

691

5. Paikpada. Buddha in Bhūmisparśamudrā, Pāla period (p. 475); Jambhala, ninth century (p. 458) 6. Sukhavaspur. Jambhala, eleventh century (p. 458); Vajrasattva, tenth century (p. 459); Tārā, eleventh century (p. 462)

D. Dhaka district: large stone sculptures 1. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Khasarpaṇa Lokeśvara, eleventh century (p. 412) 2. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Standing Buddha, ninth or early tenth century (p. 419). 3. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Standing Buddha, tenth century (p. 419). 4. Mandra. Standing Buddha with Maitreya and Avalokiteśvara, Pāla period (p. 420) 5. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Buddha in his first sermon at the Deer Park, tenth or early eleventh century (p. 420). 6. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Buddha in dharmacakrapravartana mudrā, tenth century (p. 425).

E. Dhaka district: small stone/ bronze sculptures 1. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Avalokiteśvara, seventh or early eighth century (p. 449) 2. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Buddha in dharmacakrapravartana mudrā, tenth century (p. 450). 3. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Buddha wearing Jaṭāmukuṭa, ninth century (p. 455). 4. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Jambhala, ninth century (p. 458) 5. Dhamrai, Dhaka district. Buddha in BSM, eleventh century (p. 460) 6. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Buddha in bhūmisparśa mudrā, eleventh century (p. 461). 7. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Tārā, twelfth century (p. 462). 8. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Tārā, twelfth century (p. 462). 9. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Three-headed Buddhist goddess, twelfth or early thirteenth century (p. 463). 10. Unspecified site of Dhaka district. Vajratārā, twelfth or early thirteenth century (p. 464).

692

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

F. Nārāyaṇaganj district: large stone sculpture 1. Unspecified site of Narayanganj district. Mañjuśrī, late eleventh or twelfth century (p. 433).

G. Gazipur district: large stone sculpture 1. Khailkair. Tārā, tenth century (p. 384). 2.

BRAHMANICAL SCULPTURES REPORTED FROM THE DHAKA-VIKRAMPUR AREA (All references are from Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures: Hindu Iconography Upto c. 1250 AD, Dhaka, 1992)

A. Stone sculptures of Viṣṇu reported from the Vikrampur area Viṣṇu (p. 336); Viṣṇu (p. 336); Viṣṇu (p. 336); Viṣṇu (p. 336); Viṣṇu (p. 336); Viṣṇu (p. 337); Viṣṇu (p. 338); Viṣṇu (p. 338); Viṣṇu (p. 338); Viṣṇu (p. 338); Viṣṇu (p. 339); Viṣṇu (p. 339); Viṣṇu (p. 339); Viṣṇu (p. 339); Viṣṇu Viśvarūpa (p. 356); Viṣṇu (p. 356); Viṣṇu (p. 359). A Viṣṇupaṭṭa has also been reported (p. 362).

B. Bronze sculptures of Viṣṇu reported from the Vikrampur area Viṣṇu (ibid., p. 337). C. Stone sculptures of other deities associated with Viṣṇu found in the Vikrampur area Narasiṁha (p. 338); Narasiṁha (p. 338); Garuḍa (p. 338); Kalki (p. 356); Garuḍa (p. 356).

D. Stone sculptures of Saura deities reported from the Vikrampur area Sūrya (p. 363); Sūrya (p. 363); Sūrya (p. 363); Sūrya (p. 363); Sūrya (p. 363); Sūrya (p. 364); Sūrya (p. 364); Sūrya (p. 368).

E. Stone sculptures of Śaiva deities reported from the Vikrampur area Kārttikeya (p. 384); Umāmaheśvara (p. 389); Bhairava (p. 394); Śivaliṅga (p. 395).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

693

F. Stone sculptures of Viṣṇu reported from the Dhaka area Viṣṇu (p. 336); Viṣṇu (p. 336); Viṣṇu (p. 336); Viṣṇu (p. 336); Viṣṇu (p. 336); Viṣṇu (p. 337); Viṣṇu (p. 337); Viṣṇu (p. 337); Viṣṇu (p. 338); Viṣṇu (p. 338); Viṣṇu ((p. 339); Viṣṇu (p. 339); Viṣṇu (p. 339); Viṣṇu (p. 339); Viṣṇu (p. 339); Viṣṇu (p. 339); Viṣṇu(p. 340); Viṣṇu (p. 349); Viṣṇu (p. 356); Viṣṇu (p. 357); Viṣṇu (p. 357); Viṣṇu (p. 357); Viṣṇu (p. 357). Stone Viṣṇupaṭṭas have been reported from Khilapada (p. 362) and Raghurampur (4 examples) (p 362).

G. Bronze sculptures of Viṣṇu reported from the Dhaka area Viṣṇu, bronze (p. 357).

H. Stone sculptures of other deities associated with Viṣṇu reported from the Dhaka area Varāha (p. 338); Vāmana (p. 338); Vāmana (p. 338); Vāmana (p. 338); Vāmana (p. 338); Vāmana (p. 338); Vāmana (p. 354); Paraśurāma (p. 338); Matsya avatar of Viṣṇu (p. 338); Narasiṁha (p. 338); Kūrma avatar of Viṣṇu (p. 338); Garuḍa (p. 338); Garuḍa (wooden) (p. 338); Balarama (p. 342); Garuḍa (p. 356); Vāmana (p. 356); Vāmana (p. 356); Varāha (p. 356); Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa (p. 356); Narasiṁha (p. 358); Rāma (p. 362).

I. Stone sculptures of Saura deities reported from the Dhaka area Sūrya (p. 363); Sūrya (p. 363); Sūrya (p. 363); Sūrya (p. 363); Sūrya (p. 363); Sūrya (p. 363); Sūrya (p. 364).

J. Bronze sculptures of Saura deities reported from the Dhaka area Revanta, bronze (p. 369).

K. Stone sculptures of different goddesses reported from the Dhaka area Caṇḍī (p. 371); Mahiṣāsuramardinī (p. 374); Mahiṣāsuramardinī (p. 375); Mahiṣāsuramardinī (p. 375); Gaurī (p. 372); Gaurī (p. 372); Cāmuṇḍā (p. 378); Lakṣmī (p. 379); Sarasvtī (p. 379); Manasā (p. 380); Mahāmāya (p. 386).

694

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

L. Stone sculptures of Gaṇeśa reported from the Dhaka area Gaṇeśa (p. 382); Gaṇeśa (p. 382); Gaṇeśa (p. 382); Gaṇeśa (p. 383).

M. Bronze sculptures of Gaṇeśa reported from the Dhaka area Gaṇeśa (p. 383); Gaṇeśa (p. 383).

N. Stone sculptures of different forms of Śiva reported from the Dhaka area Naṭarāja (p. 388); Naṭarāja (p. 388); Naṭarāja (p. 388); Naṭarāja (p. 388); Naṭarāja (p. 388); Umāmaheśvara (p. 389); Umāmaheśvara (p. 389).

O. Bronze sculptures of different forms of Śiva reported from the Dhaka area Umāmaheśvara (p. 389).

Faridpur district 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13.

Deora. Viṣṇu, stone (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 336). Atghar. Viṣṇu, stone (p. 349). Nagar. Viṣṇu, bronze (p. 354). Khatra. Viṣṇu, stone (p. 357). Rajair. Sūrya stone (p. 363). Daharpara. Sūrya, stone (p. 367). Unspecified site, Faridpur district. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone (p. 374). Dhanuka. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone (p. 375); Gaṇeśa, stone (p. 381). Deobhog. Brahmā, stone (p. 384); Nandī, stone (p. 396). Ujani. Mārīcī, black stone, late tenth century (Lee, On Defining Buddhist Art in Bengal: The Dhaka Region, p. 402); Buddha in Bhūmisparśamudrā, black stone, late tenth century (p. 421). Panditsar. Mārīcī, Black stone, early to middle eleventh century (p. 402). Unspecified site, Faridpur district. Mārīcī, black stone, Pāla period, now untraceable (p. 159). Majvadi. Lotus Heruka maṇḍala, bronze (p. 464).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

695

Barisal district 1. Chakhar. Garuḍa, stone, eleventh century (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 338; Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, Sculptures of Bangladesh, p. 147). 2. Kasipur. Śiva. Black stone, eleventh century (Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, op. cit., p. 140). 3. Unspecified site, Barisal district. Paṅcamukha Śivaliṅga, bronze, first half of the eleventh century AD (Krishna Biswas, The Sculptural Art of Ancient Bengal: Vanga and Samatata, p. 76). 4. Kesavapur. A bronze image of Śiva-Lokeśvara, c. tenth-eleventh centuries (Anusua Sengupta, The Buddhist Art of Bengal, p. 158). 5. Batajore. Black Stone (height: 91.5 cm) Viṣṇu, first half of eleventh century (S.L. Huntington, The ‘Pāla-Sena’ Schools of Sculpture, p. XXV). 6. Unspecified site, Barisal district. Black stone image of Mārīcī, eleventh or twelfth century (G.J.R. Mevvissen, ‘Two Unpublished Mārīcī Sculptures in the Khulna Museum’, p. 273). 7. Kachua. Black stone image of Mārīcī, eleventh or twelfth century (ibid., p. 277). 8. Atok. Viṣṇu, stone (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 349). 9. Laksmankati. Viṣṇu, seated on Garuḍa, stone, Gupta period (N.K. Bhattasali, IBBS, pp. 86-7, pl. XXXII). 10. Unspecified site, Barisal district. Sūrya, stone (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 368). 11. Unspecified site, Barisal district. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, stone (ibid., p. 374). 12. Habibpur. Śiva, bronze (ibid., p. 387). 13. Betagi. Buddha Śākyamuni, late twelfth or early thirteenth century (Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, Sculptures in Bangladesh, p. 116). 14. Agholijara. Viṣṇu, stone, twelfth century (ibid., p. 267).

Comilla district 1. Darinda Rasulpur, PS Matlab, Chandpur subdivision. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, sandstone; a black chlorite stone image of Viṣṇu. (N.K. Bhattasali, IBBS, vol. XIX, p. 196) 2. Kasba. Mahiṣāsuramardinī, sandstone. Sandstone probably obtained from local hills (ibid., p. XIX) 3. Chauddagrama, Deulvadi. Śarvvāni, metal (seventh century). Viṣṇu,

696

4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14.

15. 16.

17.

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia stone (Pāla-Sena period) (N.K. Bhattasali, IBBS, p. XX; Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 340). Unspecified site, Comilla district. Sitātapatrā, metal (N.K. Bhattasali, IBBS p. XX). Belasa, P.S. Badkamta. Stone images: Khasarpaṇa Lokanātha, 2 ft 7 in. × 2 ft 1 in., tenth-eleventh centuries; Avalokiteśvara (Pāla period) (N.K. Bhattasali, IBBS, pp. 6-7, 26). Biharamandala, P.S. Badkamta. Jambhal, miniature, 18 in. high; Buddha in BSM, 23 in. high, black stone (N.K.Bhattasali, IBBS, p. 35). Shubhapur (located to the west of the Biharamandala village). Heruka, 5 ft 5 in. × 2 ft 9 in., first half of the eleventh century AD; Vajrapāṇi, Pāla period (N.K. Bhattasali, IBBS, pp. 6-7, 37; Krishna Biswas, op. cit., p. 79; Mallar Mitra, ‘Two-Armed images of Heruka from Bangladesh: An Iconographic Study’, p. 155). Badkamta, 12 miles west of Comilla. Many Buddhist images, traces of old monuments, important sites like Belasa, Shubhapur, Biharamandala in the neighbourhood of the site, from where many Buddhist stone sculptures have been reported (N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., pp. 6-7). A Pāla period stone image of Revanta (ibid., p. 177). Pior, near Badkamta. Mārīcī, black stone. eleventh century (Eanmul Haque and A.J. Gail, Sculptures in Bangladesh, p. 282). Unspecified site of Tippera dt., Sitātapatrā, probably inscribed with Buddhist Creed Formula (N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., pp. 53-4). Laksama village. Viṣṇu, octo-alloy (ibid., p. 82). Krishnapur, PS Muaradanagar. Viṣṇu, wooden image, 4 ft × 1 ft 4 in., probably made of sandalwood (ibid., p. 82). Baghaura, in the Brahmanbaria district. Viṣṇu, inscribed, second half of the tenth century AD (Krishna Biswas, The Sculptural Art of Ancient Bengal: Vanga and Samatata, Delhi, 1995, p. 78). Bharella, PS Badkamta. Black stone sculptures of Naṭarāja Śiva, early eleventh century; Caṇḍī; several other broken sculptures. (N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., pp. 114-15). Natghar, in Brahamanbaria subdivision, close to the site of Baghaura. Naṭarāja Śiva, black stone, 4 ft. 6 in. high (ibid., p. 116). Brahmanbaria. Black stone sculptures: Ālinganamūrti, one inscribed (eleventh-twelfth century), Viṣṇu (N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., p. 125, p. 129; Enamul Haque, Bengal sculptures, p. 340). Deulbadi, 22 miles south of Comilla. Metal images: inscribed Khaḍga period images of (c. seventh century) Śarvvāṇī and Sūrya. Remains of a seventh century AD temple (N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit.,

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28. 29. 30. 31.

32.

697

p. 172. Krishna Biswas, op. cit., p. 75; Harunur Rashid, Bangladesh: A Profile in the Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries, p. 8). Unspecified site, Tippera district. Sūrya, black stone (N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., p. 173). Bad-Kamta.Stone images: Revanta; many other Brahmanical images (N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., p. 174). Narayanapur. Gaṇeśa, stone, second half of the tenth century AD (Krishna Biswas, op. cit., p. 78). Pālagiri. Śiva Naṭarāja, stone, first half of the eleventh century AD (ibid., p. 79). Mandhuka. Gaṇeśa, stone, second half of the tenth century AD (ibid., p. 77). Krishnanagar, Comilla Sadar PS Wooden Sadakṣarī Lokeśvara (?), eighth or ninth century (Mokammal H. Bhuiyan, ‘The Wooden Sadakṣarī Lokeśvara (?) Image of Mainamati Museum’, p. 161). Gunaighar. A Pāla-Sena period stone image of the Buddha now worshipped as Vāsudeva (Mokammal H. Bhuiyan, ‘Buddha Survived as Vāsudeva’, 2008-9, pp. 229-36); traces of a Gupta period temple (Harunur Rashid, op. cit., p. 5). Sachar Zamindar Badi. Mañjuvajra, stone, 62 × 39 cm, ninth century on stylistic grounds (Mokammal H. Bhuiyan, ‘A Study of Buddhist Gods and Goddesses in Mainamati Museum’, pp. 43-4). Lajjair, Kachhua. Stone images: Heruka, eleventh century (Mokammal H. Bhuiyan, op. cit., p. 45); Śyāma Tārā, seventh century (Abu Imam, ‘Samataṭa, Mainamati: Some Observations’, p. 619); Naṭarāja Śiva from Kachhua (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 388). Daribhata. Khadiravanī Tārā, stone eleventh/twelfth century (Mokammal H. Bhuiyan, ‘A Study of Buddhist Gods and Goddesses in Mainamati Museum’, p. 45). Unspecified site, Comilla district. Akṣobhya in bhūmisparśa mudrā, stone, seventh or eighth century (Ibid., pp. 45-6). Unspecified site, Comilla district. Avalokiteśvara panel, stone (ibid., p. 46). Baghaura. Viṣṇu, stone, 3rd year of Mahipāla (I), c. late tenth century (S.L. Huntington, The ‘Pāla-Sena’ Schools of Sculpture, p. XVI). Udaipur Hills, Comilla district. Tārā, stone (originally made in ninth century, re-inscribed in AD 1386 (S.L. Huntington, op. cit., p. XVIII). Noapara, about 2 miles south of Deulbari. Remains of two stūpas (Harunur Rashid, op. cit., p. 8).

698

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia

33. Unspecified site, Comilla district. Miniature bronze images of GajaLakṣmī, Viṣṇu, Hārītī-Panchika, all of tenth-eleventh centuries AD (G. Sengupta, ‘The Art of South-eastern Bengal’, p. 131). 34. Sultanpur, ten km to the south of the Brahmānbaria town. Gaṇeśa, bronze (Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 382). 35. Kaligaccha, in the Sarail upazila. A black stone image of Viṣṇu Nārāyaṇa with Lakṣmī and Sarasvatī on either side, weighing about 165 kg (A.K.M. Zakariah, The Archaeological Heritage of Bangladesh, p. 696). 36. Unspecified site, Comilla district. Stone sculptures of Sūrya, Viṣṇu (both tenth-eleventh centuries AD); ‘many other images of Hindu gods and goddesses’ (Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, Sculptures in Bangladesh, p. 279). 37. Pakilara. Sūrya, stone (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 368). 38. Muhammadpur, Devī, stone (ibid., p. 371). 39. Matlab. Durgā Mahiṣāsuramardinī (58.5 × 22.5 cm), stone, twelfth century (Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, op. cit., p. 285). 40. Narayanpur (Comilla). Gaṇeśa, stone (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 381). 41. Jethgram. Umāmaheśvara, stone (2 sculptures from this site) (N.K. Bhattasali, op. cit., p. 128, pl. XLIXa). 42. Suagonj. Tārā (61 × 33 cm), stone, eighth-ninth century AD (Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, op. cit., p. 282). 43. Sachar, Matlab, Chandpur district. Vādirāja (62 × 38 cm), stone, tenth-eleventh centuries (ibid., p. 283). 44. Uttar Lakshmipur, Barura, Comilla district. Viṣṇu (78 × 37 cm), stone, twelfth century AD (ibid., p. 283). 45. Alhabad, Debidwar, Comilla district. Viṣṇu (65 × 26.5 cm), stone, tenth century AD (ibid., p. 283). 46. Lakssam, Comilla district. Viṣṇu (78 × 36 cm), stone, eleventh century (ibid., p. 284). 47. Narayanasar, Burichang. Navagraha panel (18 × 52 cm), stone, tenth-eleventh centuries (ibid., p. 284). 48. Babutipara, Muradnagar. Sūrya (135 × 63.5 cm), stone, tenth century (ibid., p. 284). 49. Unspecified site of Comilla. Umāmaheśvara (60 × 30 cm), stone, tenth-eleventh centuries (Ibid., pp. 284-5).

Catalogue of Reported Sites of Bengal

699

Noakhali district 1. 2. 3. 4.

Feni. Viṣṇu, stone (Enamul Haque, Bengal Sculptures, p. 358). Hatiya. Sūrya stone (ibid., p. 363). Hatpukuria. Mañjuśrī (Enamul Haque and A.J. Gail, op. cit., p. 130). Silua. A mound in the village, but no potsherds, brickbats, etc., Fragments of a colossal unidentifiable sandstone image, early medieval period (D.K. Chakrabarti, Ancient Bangladesh, p. 161).

Sylhet district 1. Unspecified site of Sylhet district. Viṣṇu, stone (Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 339). 2. Habiganj. Viṣṇu, stone (ibid., p. 340). 3. Garhduar near Sylhet town. No sculpture reported from here. Large mound (500 × 500 m) full of ancient cultural materials like brickbats, bricks, potsherds, stone pieces, in addition to foundations of ancient buildings deep beneath the surface (A.K.M. Zakariah, op. cit., p. 677). 4. Piramahalla, situated about 3 km to the east of the tomb of Hazrat Shah Zalal. Many stone pieces – pillars, lintels, etc. – at the site most probably represents the remains of the monument of the pre-Muslim period. No sculpture reported (ibid., p. 678). 5. Kalapur, situated about 8 km to the west/northwest of Srimangala upazila sadar. This place is the site of discovery of Kalapur copperplate of Sāmanta Maruṇḍanātha, which records a donation in favour of a Viṣṇu temple. Ruins of an ancient masonry wall and remains of an ancient brick wall have been found near the field where the inscription was found. A stone image of Viṣṇu was also found (ibid., p. 690).

Coastal tracts of the Chittagong district 1. Durgapur. Pāla period stone sculptures of Garuḍāsana Viṣṇu (Gautam Sengupta, ‘Art of South-Eastern Bengal’, Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. 14, 1989-90, pp. 134-5); Naṭarāja Śiva (Enamul Haque, op. cit., p. 388). 2. Unspecified site, Chittagong district. Bhaiṣajyaguru Buddha, bronze,

700

Archaeology of Religion in South Asia Pāla period (Pratapaditya Pal, ‘Possible Indian Representations of Bhaisajyaguru’, Journal of Bengal Art, vol. 4, 1999, pp. 153-8). Other bronze and stone Buddhist sculptures from the district, as reported by Debala Mitra, have been summarized in Chapter 4 of the present book.

Map 1: Some cultural units of eraly medieval Bihar and Bengal (map not to scale). Source: Map prepared by the author.

APPENDIX 3

Maps and Figures

Map 2: Districts and Rivers of Bihar (map not to scale). Source: Map prepared by the author.

Map 3: Geological Map of Bengal (Courtesy: Dr. Swadhin Sen, Jahangirnagar University, Savar)

Map 4: Segments of the Bengal Delta (map based on Banglapaedia, vol. 2, p. 139)

Map 5: West Bengal and Bangladesh (Courtesy: Aksadul Alam, ‘Geographical Basis of Cultural and Economic Aspects of Early Bengal from the 5th to 13th Century AD’, unpublished PhD thesis, JNU, 2011). Map not to scale.

Fig. 1: Gorund plan of the excavated remains of Nalanda (Courtesy: Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement, New York, 2002, p. 108.)

Fig. 2: Gound plan of the excavated monastery, Antichak (Based on B.S. Verma, Antichak Excavatios-2 (1971-1981), Delhi, 2011, p. 8)

Fig. 3: Gound plan of the excavated monastery, Paharpur (Courtesy: K.N. Dikshit, Excavatios at Paharpur, Bengal, Delhi, 1999)

Fig. 4: Gound plan of the excavated temple, Satyapira Bhita, Paharpur (Courtesy: K.N. Dikshit, Excavatios at Paharpur, Bengal, Delhi, 1999)

Fig. 5: Plan of Sitakot Monastery, Dist. Dinajpur, Bangladesh (Courtesy: Bangladesh Archaeology, vol. 1, no. 1, 1989)

Fig. 6: Gound plan of the excavated monastery at jagajjibanpur (Courtesy: Amal Roy, ‘Nandadirghi-Vihara: A Newly Discovered Buddhist Monastery at Jagajjivanpur, West Bengal’, p. 584).

Fig. 7: Ground plan of the excavated monastery, Bihar Dhap, Bogra (Courtesy: Md. Shafiqul Alam et al., Excavations at Bihar Dhap, Bogra, Dhaka, 2000, p. 7)

Fig. 8: Gound plan of the excavated remains, Basu Vihāra (Courtesy: Bulbul Ahmed (ed.), Buddhist Heritage of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 2015, p. 67)

Fig. 9: Ground plan of the excavated monastery, Jagaddala (Courtesy: Md. Shafiqul Alam et al., Excavations at Bihar Dhap, Bogra, Dhaka, 2015, p. 81)

Fig. 10: Gound plan of the excavated tempe, Halud Vihāra (Courtesy: Md. Hashem Miah and Md. Abu Musa, A Preliminary Report on Excavations at Halud Vihara, Naogaon, Dhaka, 2000, p. 9)

Fig. 11: Ground plan of the excavated monastery, Salban Vihāra (Courtesy: Abu Imam, Excavations at Mainamati: An Exploratory Study, Dhaka, 2000, p. 27)

Fig. 12: Gound plan of the excavated monastery, Ananda Vihāra (Courtesy: Md. Shafiqul Alam and Md. Hashem Miah, Excavations at Ananda Vihara, Mainamati, Comilla, 1979-82, Dhaka, 1999, p. 5)

Fig. 13: Ground plan of the excavated cruciform temple, Bhoja Vihāra (Courtesy: Abu Imam, Excavations at Mainamati: An Exploratory Study, Dhaka, 2000, p. 100)

Fig. 14: Gound plan of the excavated temple, Itakhola Mura (Courtesy: Abu Imam, Excavations at Mainamati: An Exploratory Study, Dhaka, 2000, p. 59)

Fig. 15: Ground plan of the excavated remains, Kutila Mura (Courtesy: Abu Imam, Excavations at Mainamati: An Exploratory Study, Dhaka, 2000, p. 48)

Fig. 16: Ground Plan to Temple and Monastery Complex at Rupban Mura, Mainamati, Comilla (Courtesy: Md. Shafiqul Alam, Excavations at Rupban Mura, Mainamati, Comilla, Dhaka, 2000, p. 55)

Bibliography

Primary Sources Archaeological Excavation Reports, Bulletins and Explorations Ahmed, N. 1981. Mahasthan. Dhaka: Dept. of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh. Alam, A.K.M. Shamsul. 1982. Mainamati. Dhaka: Deptt. of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Alam, Md. Shafiqul. 1992. ‘Buddhist Establishment at Rupban Mura, Mainamati, Bangladesh’. East and West, 42(2/4) (December): 281300. Alam, Md. Shafiqul and Md. Abul Hashem Miah. 1999. Excavations at Ananda Vihara, Mainamati, Comilla, 1979-82. Dhaka: Deptt. of Archaeology, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh. Alam, Md. Shafiqul et al. 2000. Excavations at Bihar Dhap, Bogra. Dhaka: Deptt. of Archaeology, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh. . 2000. Excavation at Rupban Mura, Mainamati, Comilla. Dhaka: Deptt. of Archaeology, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh. Altekar, A.S. and Vijaykant Mishra. 1959. Report on Kumrahar Excavations (1951-55). Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. ‘Ananda Vihara Excavations, Mainamati’. Bangladesh Archaeology, 1(1), 1979: 68-91. Anand, Kumar. 1995-2000. ‘Exploration Report of Umga, District Aurangabad, Bihar’. The Journal of the Bihar Purāvid Pariṣad (JBBP), vols. XIX-XX: 326-8. Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, all relevant volumes. Published by Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.

724

Bibliography

Baidya, T.J. et al. 2010. ‘Excavations at Bangarh 2008-09’. Pratna Samiksha, New Series, vol. 1: 35-7. Bandyopadhyaya, Bimal. 2002. ‘Shunga-Kushana Art as Gleaned from the Recent Excavations at Dumdum, Kolkata’. JBA, vol. 7: 31-7. . 2006-7. ‘Excavations at Nilkuthi Mound, Mauja Chak Chandpara, District Murshidabad, West Bengal, (2005-06)’. Journal of Bengal Art (JBA), vols. 11-12: 57-70. . 2007-8. ‘A Note on Some Recently Discovered Sculptures in Stone and Terracotta from Excavation at Nilkuthi Mound, Karnasuvarna’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXIV: 52-9. Bandyopadhyay, Kumkum. 2013. ‘Recent Archaeological Investigations in and Around the Mandar Hill, District Banka, South Bihar’. Pratna Samiksha, New Series, vol. 4: 105-20. . 2013. ‘A Note on the Newly Reported Sculptures from Olpura, District Bhagalpur, South Bihar’. JBA, vol. 18: 185-92. Banik, Bijoy Krishna. 2009. Maināmatī: Sanskrit Inscriptional and Archaeological Study. Delhi: Bhartiya Kala Prakashan. . 2010. ‘The Sundarbans: An Archaeological Exploration’, in M.M. Hoque, A.T.M. Atiqur Rahman and Seema Hoque (eds), Selected Essays on History and Archaeology: Papers Presented in Memory of Professor Abu Imam: 332-42. Dhaka: Centre for Archaeology and Heritage Research. Bhattacharya, Sayan and Sharmistha Chatterjee. 2009. ‘A Preliminary Note on Archaeological Investigation in Dantan and Adjoining Region, West Medinipur’, in Shahnaj Husne Jahan (ed.), Abhijñāna: Studies in South Asian Archaeology and Art History of Artefacts Felicitating A.K.M. Zakariah: 21-7. London: BAR International Series. Chakrabarti, D.K. 2001. Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain: The Lower and the Middle Ganga. Delhi: Permanent Black. Chakrabarti, D.K. et al. 1978-9. ‘An Archaeological Reconnaissance in Birbhum’. Puratattva, vol. 10: 25-32. Chakraborty, Uttara et al. 1998-9. ‘Archaeology of Calcutta: Evidence from Bethune College’. Puratattva, vol. 29: 83-8. Chakraborty, Sharmi. 2010. ‘Resource Base and Consumer Sites: Tracing Early Historic Networks in the Damodar Valley’. Pratna Samiksha, New Series, vol. 1: 65-81. Chakraborty, Sharmi. 2013. ‘Exploration in Mayurakshi-Koya Interfluve’. Pratna Samiksha, New Series, vol. 4: 53-6. Chattopadhyay, R.K. 2010. Bankura: A Study of its Archaeological Sources. Kolkata: Platinum Publishers.

Bibliography

725

Chattopadhyay, R.K. et al. 2010. ‘Archaeology of the Lower Ganga Valley: Some Aspects of Cultural Sequence’, in Vibha Tripathi and Prabhakar Upadhyaya (eds), Archaeology of the Ganga Valley, Paradigm Shift, vol. II: 314-47. New Delhi: Sharada Publishing House. . 2010. ‘Dihar Excavations: An Interim Report’. Pratna Samiksha, New series, vol. 1: 9-33. . 2012. ‘In Search of the Jaina Identity: A Study of the Sculptural Remains of the Vishnupur Region’. Journal of the Indian Society for Oriental Art, vol. XXVIII: 119-52. . 2012-13. ‘Excavations at Dihar 2012-13: An Interim Report’. Prāgdhārā, Journal of the U.P. State Archaeology Deptt., vol. 23: 95141. Chattopadhyay, R.K. 2010. ‘Contexts of Early Medieval Remains of Purulia: Researching Ideologies’, Pratnatattva, vol. 16: 9-31. Choudhary, B.K. 2015. The Archaeological Gazetteer of Vaishali District. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. . 2015. The Archaeological Gazetteer of Nalanda District. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. Cunningham, A. [1873] 2000. Archaeological Survey of India Report, vol. III: Report for the Year 1871-72. Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. . [1878] 2000. Archaeological Survey of India Report, vol. VIII: Report of A Tour through the Bengal Provinces of Patna, Gaya, Mongir and Bhagalpur; The Santal Parganas, Manbhum, Singhbhum and Birbhum; Bankura, Raniganj, Bardwan and Hughli by J.D. Beglar. Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. . [1885] 2000. Archaeological Survey of India Report, vol. XXII: Report of Tours in Gorakhpur, Saran and Ghazipur in 1877-78-79 and 80. Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. . [1883]. Archaeological Survey of India Report, vol. XVI: Report of Tours in North and South Bihar in 1880-81. Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. . [1880] 2000. Archaeological Survey of India Report, vol. XI: Report of Tours in the Gangetic Provinces from Badaon to Bihar in 1875-76 and 1877-78. Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. . [1882] 2000. Archaeological Survey of India Report, vol. XV: Report of a Tour in Bihar and Bengal in 1879-80 from Patna to Sunargaon. Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. . 1892. Mahābodhi or the Great Buddhist Temple under the Bodhi Tree

726

Bibliography

at Buddha- Gaya. London: W.H. Allen. Reprint: Varanasi and Delhi, Indological Book House, 1972. Das, S.R. 1967. Rājbāḍīḍāngā: 1962 (Chiruti: Jadupur), An Interim Report on Excavations at Rājbāḍidāṅgā and Terracotta Seals and Sealings. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. . 1971. Archaeological Discoveries from Murshidabad District (West Bengal), Part One. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. Datta, Asok. 1997. ‘Art and Archaeology of Natsal’. JBA, vol. 2: 25-36. . 2010. ‘Excavations at Moghalmari: A Pre-Pala Buddhist Monastic Complex’. JBA, vol. 15, 2010: 275-93. . 2008. Excavations at Moghalmari, First Interim Report 2003-04 to 200708. Kolkata: Asiatic Society. Deva, K. and V. Mishra. 1958. Vaiśālī Excavations (1950). Patna: The Vaiśālī Sangha. Dikshit, K.N. [1938] 1999. Excavations at Paharpur, Bengal, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 55. Delhi: Director General, Archaeological Survey of India. Gangopadhyay, Kaushik. 2010. ‘Archaeological Investigations at Tamluk: An Early Historical Settlement in Coastal West Bengal’. Pratna Samiksha, New Series, vol. 1: 53-63. Ghosh, A. 1939. A Guide to Nāandā. Delhi: Manager of Publications. Ghosh, Ranjusri. 2006-7. ‘Archaeological Investigations in the Districts of Dakshin Dinajpur and Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal: A Report’. JBA, vols. 11-12: 323-59. . 2008-9. ‘Second Report of Archaeological Investigations in Two Dinajpur Districts ( Dakshin and Uttar)’. JBA, vols. 13-14: 119-42. Goswami, K.G. 1948. Excavationsat Bangarh (1938-41). Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Gupta, P.L. 1965. Patna Museum Catalogue of Antiquities. Patna: Patna Museum. Haque, Enamul (ed.). 2001. Excavations at Wari- Bateshvar: A Preliminary Study. Dhaka: The International Centre for Study of Bengal Art. Hoque, M.M. et al. 1996. ‘Pre-Muslim Settlement and Chronology of Savar Region’. Pratnatattva, vol. 3: 7- 16. Indian Archaeology-A Review, all relevant Volumes. Published by the Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. Jahan, Shahnaz Husne. 2010. ‘Archaeological Investigations at Bhitargarh in Panchagarh District’. JBA, vol. 15: 173-200. Jana, Rangan Kanti. 2011. ‘Tracing the Archaeology of Buddhism in the

Bibliography

727

Early Medieval Bardhaman, West Bengal’. Pratna Samiksha, vol. 2, New Series: 115-18. Manjul, S.K. 2011. Revealing Vaiśālī: Excavations at Kolhua. Patna: ASI Excavations Branch III, Patna. Miah, Md. Abul Hashem and Md. Abu Musa. 2001. A Preliminary Report on Excavations at Halud Vihara, Naogaon. Dhaka: Deptt. of Archaeology, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh. Miah, Md. Abul Hashem. 2003. ‘Archaeological Excavations at Jagaddala Vihara: A Preliminary Report’. JBA, vol. 8: 147-66. Mitra, Debala. 1969. Telkupi: A Submerged Temple-Site in West Bengal, Memoirs of Archaeological Survey of India, no. 76. Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. . 1983. Ratnagiri (1958–1961): Memoirs of Archaeological Survey of India, no. 80, vol. 2. New Delhi: Director General of Archaeology, Archaeological Survey of India. Morrison, B.M. 1974. Lālmāi: A Cultural Centre in Early Bengal. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Musa, Md. Abu. 2000. Archaeological Survey Report, Munshiganj District. Dhaka: Deptt. of Archaeology, Govt. of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Patil, D.R. 1963. The Antiquarian Remains of Bihar. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. Paul, Asit Boran. 2001. ‘Recent Discoveries of Archaeological Sites at Dhamrai: A Preliminary Report’. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Humanities, 46 (2): 255-82. Prasad, Ajit Kumar. 1979. ‘Excavations at Karṇa-Chaurā’. The Journal of the Bihar Purāvid Pariṣad, vol. III: 179-80. Rashid, M. Harunur. 2008. The Early History of South-East Bengal in the Light of Archaeological Material. Dhaka: Itihas Academy. Roy, Amal. 2002. ‘Nandadirghi-Vihara: A Newly Discovered Buddhist Monastery at Jagajivanpur, West Bengal’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), Archaeology of Eastern India: New Perspectives: 557-611. Kolkata: Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India. . 2012. Jagjivanpur 1996-2005: Excavation Report. Kolkata: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal. Roy, S.R. 1965. Karian Excavations 1955. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. Saran, S.C. et al. 2008. ‘Excavations at Juafardih and Its Identification with Kulika’. Purātattva, no. 38: 59-73.

728

Bibliography

Sen, Swadhin et al. ‘Excavations at Bochaganj and Full Coverage Survey at Khansama: Preliminary Results’, paper presented in the Seminar on Research funded by the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh (https: //www.academia. edu/23239947/THE_SEMINAR_PRESENTATION_ON_THE_EXCAVATION_AT_BOCHAGANJ_AND_FULL_COVERAGE_SURVEY_AT_ KHANSAMA_PRELIMINARY_RESULTS). Singh, D.P. 1995-2000. ‘Explorations of Archaeological Sites in Begusarai, Samastipur’. JBPP, vols. XIX–XX: 332-40. Singh, R.D. and Bimal Sinha. 2006. ‘Buddhist Remains at Boxnagar’, in Jahar Acharjee (ed.), History, Culture and Coinage of Samatata and Harikela. Agartala: Rajkusum Prakashini, pp. 30-5. Sinha, A.K. and K. Anand. 1991-2. ‘Jaymangalagarh in Archaeological Perspective’. JBPP, vols. XV-XVI: 151-4. Sinha, A.K. 2010. ‘Masar Excavations’. JBPP, vols. XXI-XXII: 200-3. Sinha, B.P. and S.R. Roy, 1969. Vaiśālī Excavations (1958-62). Patna: The Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Bihar. Sinha, C.P. 1983-4. ‘Excavations at Buxar’. JBPP, vols. VII-VIII: 213-17. Sinha, C.P. et al. 1987-88. ‘Excavations at Hajipur’. JBPP, vols. XI-XII: 120-30. Sinha, D.N. 1991-2. ‘Recently Excavated Stūpa at Kesariya’.JBPP, vols. XVXVI: 131-6. ‘Sitakot Excavations’. Bangladesh Archaeology, vol. 1, no. 1, 1979: 21-33. Srivastava, K.M. 1977. ‘The Place of Buddha’s Sujātā Discovered’. JBPP, vol. 1: 133-7. Tiwari, Jalaj Kumar. 1993-4. ‘Village Mera in Archaeological Perspective’. JBPP, vols. XVII- XVIII: 195-203. ‘Vasu Bihar Excavations’, in N. Ahmed (ed.), Bangladesh Archaeology, 1(1), 1979: 33-67. Verma, B.S. [1977] 2015. ‘Excavations at Antichak (A Probable Site of the Ancient Vikramasila University)’, in R.K. Sinha (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra: The Last Beacon of Buddhist Philosophy: 75-82. Varanasi: Bharati Prakashan. Verma, B.S. [1978] 2015. ‘Further Excavations at Antichak’, in R.K. Sinha (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra: The Last Beacon of Buddhist Philosophy: 83-6. Varanasi: Bharati Prakashan. . 2011. Antichak Excavations-2 (1971-1981). New Delhi: The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India.

Bibliography

729

Yadav, Chandrika Prasad (ed.). 2002. Mīrā Bigahā: Ek Purātātvika Khoj. Patna: Bihar Hindi Granth Academy. Zakariah, A.K.M. 2011. The Archaeological Heritage of Bangladesh. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.

Epigraphic Sources Altekar, A.S. 1941-2. ‘Mangraon Inscription of the Time of Vishnugupta, the Year 17’. Epigraphia Indica (EI), vol. XXVI: 241-6. Asher, Frederick. 1972. ‘The Bodh Gaya Image of the Year 64: A Reconsideration’. The Journal of the Bihar Research Society (JBRS), vol. LVIII: 151-7. Bandopadhyay, Sudipa Ray. 2010. ‘A Unique Inscribed Image of Vārāhī from West Bengal’. JBA, vol. 15: 119-28. Banerjee, Priyatosh. 1973-4. ‘Some Inscriptions from Bihar’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, VII(1-2): 102-11. Banerjee, Priyatosh. 1973-4. ‘Some Inscriptions from Bihar’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. VII, nos. 1-2: 102-11. Banerji, R.D. 1911-12. Four Sculptures from Chandimou. ASIAR: 161-6. . 1907-8. ‘Mundesvari Inscription of Udayasena, The (Harsha) Year 30’. EI, vol. IX: 289-90. Barua, B.M. 1930. ‘Old Buddhist Shrines at Bodh Gaya Inscriptions’. The Indian Historical Quarterly (IHQ), vol. VI, no. 1: 1-31. Basak, R.G. 1915-16. ‘Silimpur Inscription of the Time of Jayapala of Kamarupa’. EI, vol. XIII: 283-95. Bhattacharjee, S.B. 1994. ‘Mainamati Copper Plate of Śrī- Vīradharadeva’. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Humanities, 39(2): 70-5. Bhattacharya, D.C. 1934. ‘The Mainamati Copper Plate of Raṇavaṅkamalla Harikāladeva: 1141 Saka’. Varendra Research Society Monographs No. 5, Rajshahi: 11-12. Bhattacharya, G. 1995-6. ‘A New Pīṭhīpati’. Pratna Samiksha, vols. 4 and 5: 178-9. . 1993. ‘An Inscribed Metal Vase, Most Probably from Chittagong’, in A.J. Gail and G.J.R. Mevissen (eds), South Asian Archaeology 1991: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference of the Association of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe held in Berlin 1–5 July 1991: 323–38.Stuttgart: G.J.R. Verlag. . 1996. ‘A Preliminary Note on the inscribed Metal Vase from the National Museum of Bangladesh’, in Debala Mitra (ed.), Explorations in the Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays Dedicated to

730

Bibliography

N.G. Majumdar: 237-46. Calcutta: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal. . 2000. Essays on Buddhist Hindu Jaina Iconography and Epigraphy. Dhaka: The International Centre for Study of Bengal Art. . 2003. ‘An inscribed Stone Image of the Buddhist Deity Aparājitā’. JBA, vol. 8: 95-101. . 2007-8. ‘The Inscribed Stone Image of Caṇḍī from Rampal and the Iconographic Problems Connected With it’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXIV: 83-91. Bhattacharya, S.C. 2006-7. ‘The Murshidabad (Indian Museum) CopperPlate Grant of Dharmapāla and the Somapura Mahāvihāra’. JBA, vols. 11-12: 237-49. Bhattacharyya, Dinesh Chandra. 1930. ‘A Newly Discovered Copperplate from Tippera [The Gunaighar Grant of Vainyagupta: The Year 188 Current (Gupta Era)].’ IHQ, vol. 6: 45–60. Bhattasali, N.K. 1923-4. ‘Some Image Inscriptions from East Bengal’. EI, vol. XVII: 349-62. . 1941. ‘Two Inscriptions of Gopāla III of Bengal’, IHQ, vol. XVII: 207-22. . 1953-4. ‘Two Grants of the Varmans of Vanga: Sāmantasār Plate of Harivarman and Vajrayoginī Plate of Sāmalavarman’. EI, vol. XXX: 255-63. Chaudhary, R.K. 1952. ‘Lakhisarai Inscription’. G.D. College Bulletin Series, vol. 2: 23-5. Chhabra, B.C. 1939-40. ‘Kāśyapa Image Inscription from Silao, Nalanda District’. EI, vol. XXV: 327-34. Fleet, J.F. 1888. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. III: Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and their Successors. Calcutta: Superintendent of Govt. Printing, India. Furui, R. 2008. ‘A New Copper Plate Inscription of Gopāla II’. South Asian Studies, 24(1): 67-75. . 2011. ‘Indian Museum Copper Plate Inscription of Dharmapāla, Year 26: Tentative Reading and Study’. South Asian Studies, 27(2): 145-56. . 2013. ‘Chaprakot Stone Inscription of the Time of Gopāla IV, Year 19’, in P.C. Das (ed.), Bangladesh National Museum Centenary Commemorative Volume (1913-2013): 110-17. Dhaka: Bangladesh National Museum. . 2013. ‘Merchant groups in early medieval Bengal: with special

Bibliography

731

reference to the Rajbhita stone inscription of the time of Mahīpāla I, Year 33’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 76(3): 391-412. . 2013. ‘The Kotalipada Copperplate Inscription of the time of Dvādaśāditya, Year 14’. Pratna Samiksha, New Series, vol. 4: 89-98. Ghosh, A. 1939-1940. ‘A Bronze image Inscription from Nālandā’. EI, vol. 25: 334-5. Goswami, Niranjan. 1996. ‘A Note on an Inscribed Portrait-Statue of Mūrtiśiva from West Bengal’, in Debala Mitra (ed.), Exploration in the Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays Dedicated to N.G.Majumdar. Calcutta: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal, pp. 267-75. Gupta, K.K. 1967. Copper Plates of Sylhet, vol. 1: 7th–11th Centuries AD. Sylhet: Lipika Enterprises. . 1979. ‘Two Mainamati Copper-Plate Inscriptions of Khadga and Early Deva Times (7th and 8th Century A.D.)’.Bangladesh Archaeology, 1(1): 141-8. Gupta, K.M. 1927-8. ‘The Bhāṭerā Copper Plate of Govindakeśavadēva.’ EI, vol. XIX: 277–86. Jana, Rangan Kanti. 2003. ‘A Note on an Inscribed Image of Dhyānī Buddha’. Journal of the Asiatic Society, 45 (1): 46-7. . 2010. ‘Inscribed Seals from Mangalkot’. Pratna Samiksha, vol. 1, New Series: 141-3. Lashkar, G.M. 1906. ‘Ashrafpur Copper-Plate Grants of Devakhaḍga’. Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1(6): 85-91. Law, N.N. 1932. ‘Some Images and Traces of Mahāyāna Buddhism in Chittagong’. IHQ, VIII (2): 332-41. Majumdar, N.G. 1930-31. ‘Nalanda Inscription of Vipulasrimitra’. EI, vol. XXI: 97-101. . 2003 [1928]. Inscriptions of Bengal: Containing Inscriptions of the Candras, The Varmans and the Senas, and of Īśvaraghoṣa and Dāmodara. Kolkata: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar. Majumdar, Susmita Basu and Vishi Upadhyay, 2012. ‘Did Magaradhvaja Yogī Ever Visit Bengal? A Case Study of Three Image Inscriptions from Bangladesh’. JBA, vol. 17: 177-88. Mitra, Debala. 1995-6. ‘A Fragmentary Bejeweled Image of Buddha of the Time of Mahīpāla from Shantipur’. Pratna Samiksha, vols. 4 and 5: 165-72. . 1997. ‘A Crowned Image of the Buddha in the British Museum’,

732

Bibliography

in C.P. Sinha (ed.), Art, Archaeology and Culture of Eastern India, Dr. B.S.Verma Felicitation Volume. Patna: Bihar Purāvid Pariṣad, pp. 179-87. Mukherjee, B.N. 1993-4. ‘Natashal Fragmentary Inscription Referring to King Pupṭhuhata’. Pratna Samiksha, vols. 2-3: 226-7. . 1997-9. ‘An Inscribed Object from Jagjibanpur’. Pratna Samiksha, vols. 6-8: 81-3. Mukherji, R.R. and S.K. Maity. 1967. Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions Bearing on History and Civilisation of Bengal. Calcutta: Firma KLM. Mukherji, S.C. 1997-9. ‘The Jagajibanapur Copper Plate Inscription of King Mahendrapāla (of the Pāla Dynasty), Regnal Year 7’. Pratna Samiksha, vols. 6-8: 58-70. Pal, Sayantani. 2010. ‘The Chopra Image Inscription of the Time of Mahīpāla’. Pratna Samiksha, New Series, vol. 1: 95-8. Paul, Pran Gopal. 1996-7. ‘Monk Guṇākarasena’s Homage to the Tathāgata: Reflections on an Inscribed Pāla Icon from Magadha’. IndoKoko –Kenkyu—Indian Archaeological Studies, no. 18: 26-34. Ray, Krishnendu. 2008-9. ‘Socio-economic and Cultural Study of the Rajabhita (Greater Dinajpur District, Bangladesh) Stone Slab Inscription of the Time of Mahipala (I), Regnal Year 33’. JBA, vols. 13-14: 271-7. Sahai, B. 1983. The Inscriptions of Bihar from Earliest Times to the Middle of 13th Century A.D. Delhi: Ramanand Vidya Bhavan. Sanyal, Rajat. 2009-10. ‘A Note on the Munger Sadāśiva (?) Image Inscription of Year 3 of King Bhagīratha’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXVI: 143-7. Sanyal, Rajat. 2006. ‘Two Recently Discovered Inscriptions from West Bengal’. Journal of the Asiatic Society, XLVIII(2): 91-104. . 2010. ‘Two Inscribed Images of Early Medieval Eastern India’. Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. LII: 69-84. . 2011. ‘Another Inscribed Image of the Reign of Rāmapāla from South Bihar’. Pratna Samiksha, New Series, vol. 2: 139-44. . 2014. ‘Appendix 1: Inscribed Sculptures’. in Gautam Sengupta and Sharmila Saha (eds), Vibrant Rock: A Catalogue of Stone Sculptures in the State Archaeological Museum, West Bengal: 253-76. Kolkata: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal. Sastri, H. 1923-4. ‘The Nalanda Copper Plate Inscription of Devapaladeva’. EI, vol. XVII: 310-27.

Bibliography

733

. 1929-30. ‘Nalanda Stone Inscription of the Reign of Yaśovarmmādeva’. EI, vol. XX: 37-46. . 1942. Nalanda and Its Epigraphic Material, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 66. Delhi: Manager of Publications. Sattar, Noor Bano. 2010. ‘An Inscribed Image of a Buddhist Deity from West Bengal’. JBA, vol. 15: 63-71. Seinko, T. 1911-12. ‘Burmese Inscriptions at Bodh Gaya’. EI, vol. 11: 11820. Sharma, M.P.N. 1967. ‘Merā Viṣṇu Temple Inscription of Haridharman (1175 A.D.). JBRS, vol. LIII: 62-70. Singh, Ram Shekhar. 1983-4. ‘Terracotta Sealings from Naulagarh’. JBPP, vols. VII-VIII: 287-91. Sinha, B.P. 1977. ‘New Light on the History of Bihar’. JBPP, vol. 1: 202-4. Sircar, D.C. 1940-1. ‘Paikpara Vāsudeva Image Inscription of King Govindacandra of Bengal, Regnal Year 23’. Indian Culture, vol. VIII: 405-16. . 1942-4. ‘Nārāyaṇpur Vināyaka Image Inscription of King Mahīpāla. Regnal year 4’. Indian Culture, vol. 9: 121-5. . 1947. ‘The Kailan Copper-plate Inscription of King Śrīdhāraṇa Rāta of Samataṭa’. IHQ, vol. XXIII: 221-41. . 1949. ‘Two Pillar Inscriptions’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal – Letters, XV(1): 5-8 . 1949-50. ‘A Buddhist Inscription from Maldah Museum’. EI, vol. XXVIII: 224-6. . 1949-50. ‘Three Inscriptions from Valgudar’. EI, vol. XXVIII: 13749. . 1949-50. ‘Epigraphic Notes: Kulkuri and Betka inscriptions’. EI, vol. XXVIII: 339-40. . 1949-50. ‘Three Buddhist Inscriptions from Uren’. EI, vols. XXVIII: 220-4. . 1951. ‘Copper-Plate Inscription of King Bhavadeva of Devaparvata’. Journal of the Asiatic Society, Letters, XVII(2): 1-13. . 1951. ‘Some Inscriptions from Bihar’. JBRS, vol. XXVII, pts. 3-4: 1-13. . 1952. ‘Pāla Rule in the Tippera District’. IHQ, vol. XXVIII: 51-7. . 1953-4. ‘Lai Inscription of Vikramadevi’. EI, vol. XXX: 83-4. . 1953-4. ‘Sanokhar Inscription of the Time of Ballālasena’. EI, vol. XXX: 78-82. . 1953-4. ‘An Inscribed Terracotta Plaque from Teghra’. EI, vol. XXX: 85-7.

734

Bibliography

. 1955. ‘Jaynagar Image Inscription of the Year 35’. JBRS, vol. XLI: 143-53. . 1959-60. ‘Bhaturiya Inscription of Rajyapala’. EI, vol. XXXIII: 150-4. . 1963-4. ‘Grant of Jīvagupta’ . EI, vol. XXXV: 125-31 . 1963-4. ‘Gaya Inscription Mentioning Govindapala, Vikrama 1232’. EI, vol. XXV: 233-8. . 1963-4. ‘Gaya Inscription of the Time of Nārāyaṇapāla, Regnal Year 7’. EI, vol. XXXV: 225-8. . 1965-6. ‘Inscriptions from Mandar Hill’. EI, vol. XXXVI: 303-6. . 1965-6. ‘Silsilā Inscription of Aṅgasiṁha’s Time, Vikrama 1162’. EI, vol. XXVI: 39- 41. . 1965-6. ‘Nongadh Inscription of Madanapāla’s Time, Vikrama 1201’. EI, vol. XXXVI: 41-2. . 1965-6. ‘Inscriptions of the Two Brahmin Rulers of Gaya’. EI, vol. XXXVI: 39-44. . 1965-6. ‘Inscriptions from Mandar Hill’. EI, vol. XXXVI: 303-7. . 1965-6. ‘The Ārmā Inscription of Madanapala’ Time, Year 14’. EI, vol. XXXVI: 42-4. . 1965-6. ‘Three Inscriptions from Bihar’. EI, vol. XXXVI: 39-44. . 1971-2. ‘Nalanda Inscription of King Prathamaśiva’. EI, vols. XXXIX: 117-22. . 1973. Epigraphic Discoveries in Eastern Pakistan. Calcutta: Sanskrit College. . 1976-7. ‘Indological Notes: Inscriptions on the Bronze Images from Jhewari’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. X: 111-14. . 1979. Some Epigraphic Records of the Medieval Period from Eastern India. Delhi: Abhinav Publications. . 1983. Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization (vol. II): From the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Vidyavinoda, Vinoda Vihari. 1913-14. ‘Two Inscriptions from Bodh Gaya’. EI, vol. XII: 27-30.

Foreign Accounts Beal. S. 1981 [1884]. Si-Yu-Ki, Buddhist Records of the Western World: Translated from the Chinese of Hieun Tsiang. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Bibliography

735

Chimpa, Lama and Alaka Chattopadhyaya (tr.). 2010. Tārānātha’s History of Buddhism in India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Legge, James.1991. A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms: Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hein of Travels in India and Ceylon (AD 399414) in search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Roerich, G.N. 1959. Biography of Dharmasvāmin. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. Takakusu, J (tr.). 1982. A Record of Buddhist Religion as Practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago (AD 671-695) by I-Tsing. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Secondary Sources Acharjee, Jahar (ed.). 2006. History, Culture and Coinage of Samatata and Harikela, vol. 1. Agartala: Rajakusum Prakashini. Agrawal, A.K. 2010. ‘Image of Goddess Marichi from Rajwara, Barauni’. JBPP, vols. XXI-XXII: 329-331. Ahmad, Nisar. 1989-90. ‘Profile of the Stūpas of Bihar: Excavated Since Independence’. JBPP, vols. XIII-XIV: 70-4. Ahmed, Bulbul (ed.). 2015. Buddhist Heritage of Bangladesh. Dhaka: Nymphea Publications. Alam, Shamsul, et al. 1999. ‘Sylhet and its Evolving Geographical Environment’, in Sharif Uddin Ahmed (ed.), Sylhet: History and Heritage: 73–82. Dhaka: Bangladesh Itihas Samiti. Amar, A.S. 2009. ‘Contextualizing The Navel of the Earth: Emergence, Sustenance and Religious Transformation of Buddhism in the Bodhgaya Region (circa. 300 BCE-1200 CE)’. Unpublished PhD thesis, SOAS, University of London. . 2012. ‘Buddhist Responses to Brāhmaṇa Challenges in Medieval India: Bodhgayā and Gayā’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, vol. 22(1): 155-85. Amstutz, Galen. 1998. ‘The Politics of Pure Land Buddhism in India’. Numen, vol. 45, fasc.1: 69-96. Anand, K. 1995. History and Archaeology of Buxar, Bhojpur and Rohtas Regions. Delhi: Ramanand Vidya Bhavan. . 1983-4. ‘Stone Sculptures from Kaithi’. JBPP, vols. VII-VIII: 31521. . 1993-4. ‘Early Medieval Sculptural Art of Kaimur’. JBPP, vols. XVIIXVIII: 204-11.

736

Bibliography

Anita, R. 2004. ‘An Archaeological Study of Temples in Eastern Andhra’, in H.P. Ray and Carla M. Sinopoli (eds), Archaeology as History in Early South Asia: 426-33. Delhi: Aryan Books International. Asher, Frederick M. 1980. The Art of Eastern India, 300-800. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. . 1986. ‘Sculptures from Rajaona, Valgudar and Jaynagar: Evidence for an Urban Centre’ . East and West, vol. XXXVI: 227-46. . 1998. ‘Stone and Production of Images’. East and West, 48(3-4): 313-28. . 1999. ‘Ancient Slate Quarry Revisited: A Source Located’. JBA, vol. 4: 263-5. . 2000. ‘An Image at Lakhi Serai and its Implications’. Artibus Asiae, 59 (3-4): 296-302. . 2008. Bodh Gaya: Monumental Legacy. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Asher, Frederick. [1975]. 2014. ‘Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Pāhārpur alias Somapura Mahāvihāra: A World Cultural Heritage Site: 335-41. Dhaka: The International Centre for the Study of Bengal Art. . 2015. Nalanda: Situating the Great Monastery. Mumbai: The Marg Foundation. Asthana, S. 1991. ‘A Rare Image of Cuṇḍā in the National Museum Collection’, in G. Bhattacharya (ed.), Akṣyanīvī: Essays Presented to Dr.Debala Mitra in Admiration of Her Scholarly Contributions: 269-73. Delhi: Sri Sataguru Publications. Bagchi, J. 1993. The History and Culture of the Palas of Bengal and Bihar: Cir. 750 A.D.- 1200 A.D. Delhi: Abhinav Publications. Banerji, R.D. 1915. Pālas of Bengal: Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 3. Calcutta: Asiatic Society. Barua, B.M. [1934] .Non-dated. Gayā and Buddha Gayā, vol. II: Old Shrines at Bodh Gayā .Varanasi: Bharatiya Publication House. Barua, R.B. 1983. ‘Early History of the Spread of Buddhism in Bangladesh’. Bangladesh Historical Studies, vol. VII: 1-9. Basak, Bishnupriya. 2014. ‘Interpreting Historical Archaeology of Coastal Bengal: Possibilities and Limitations’, in D.N. Jha (ed.), The Complex Heritage of Early India: Essays in Memory of R.S. Sharma: 156-79. Delhi: Manohar. Bautze-Picron, Claudine.1989. ‘Some Aspects of the Iconography of Avalokiteśvara in the “Pāla-Sena” Period’, in K. Frifelt et al. (eds), South Asian Archaeology 1985: 327-49. London: Curzon Press.

Bibliography

737

. 1991/92. ‘Lakhi Sarai, an Indian Site of Late Buddhist Iconography, and Its Position within the Asian Buddhist World’. Silk Road Art and Archaeology, vol. 2: 239-84. Kamakura: The Institute of Silk Route Studies. . 1996. ‘From God to Demon, from Demon to God: Brahmā and Other Brahmanical Divinities in the Late Buddhist Art of Eastern India’. JBA, vol. 1: 109-35. . 1998. The Art of Eastern India in the Collection of the Museum Für Indische Kurst, Berlin: Stone and Terracotta Sculptures. Berlin: D.R. Verlag. . 2007. ‘The Hidden God: Some Remarks on Yama and the Protectors of the Sacred Space in Buddhist Art’, in G. Bhattacharya et al. (eds), Kalhaar (White Water-Lily), Studies in Art, Iconography, Architecture and Archaeology of Indian and Bangladesh (Prof. Enamul Haque Felicitation Volume): 81-95. New Delhi: Kaveri Books. . 2010. The Bejewelled Buddha: From India to Burma. New Delhi: Sanctum Books in association with Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training-Eastern India, Kolkata. Bernet Kempers, A.J. 1933. The Bronzes of Nālandā and Hindu-Javanese Art. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Bhardwaj, Surinder M. 1987. ‘Single Religious Shrines, Multi-religious Pilgrimage’. National Geographical Journal of India, 33(4): 457-68. Bhattacharya, A. 1977. Historical Geography of Ancient and Early Medieval Bengal. Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar. . 1998. ‘Trade Routes of Ancient Bengal’, in A. Dutta (ed.), History and Archaeology of Eastern India: 200-12. Delhi: Books and Books. Bhattacharya, Asok K. 1991. ‘The Pancharatra Concept and the Vishnu Images of Bengal’, in Asok Datta (ed.), Studies in Archaeology: Essays in Memory of P.C. Dasgupta: 319-24. Delhi: Books and Books. Bhattacharya, G. 2001. ‘Suvarna Vrihi (The Golden Rice Grain?)’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Hakim Habibur Rahman Khan Commemoration Volume: 129-32. Dhaka: The International Centre for Study of Bengal Art. . 2008. ‘Who Were the Donors of Early Mathurā Sculptures? What Was Their Social Status?’ in G. Sengupta and S. Chakraborty (eds), Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: 494-502. New Delhi: Pragati Publications. . 2001. ‘Pretasantarpita-Lokeśvara’. JBA, vol. 6: 21-44. Bhattacharya, Malaysankar. 2008. Glimpses of Buddhist Bengal. Kolkata: Indian Institute of Oriental Studies and Research.

738

Bibliography

. 2013. Art and Life: Bengal Art Through the Ages. Kolkata: Sagnik Books. Bhattacharyya, N.N. 1993. Buddhism in the History of India Ideas. Delhi: Manohar. . 2005. ‘The Cult of Tara in Historical Perspective’, in N.N. Bhattacharyya (ed.), Tantric Buddhism: Centennial Tribute to Dr. Benoytosh Bhattacharya: 190-207. Delhi: Manohar. Bhattasali, N.K. [1929] 1972. Iconography of Buddhist and Brahmanical Sculptures in the Dacca Museum. Varanasi and Delhi: Indological Book House. Bhaumick, Manoranjan. 2001. History, Culture and Antiquities of Tamralipta. Kolkata: Punthi Pustak. Bhuiyan, Mokammal H. 2006. ‘A Study of Buddhist Gods and Goddesses in Mainamati Museum’. Pratnatattva, vol. 12: 41-50. . 2010. ‘The Wooden Sadakshari Lokeshvara (?) Image of Mainamati Museum’, in M.M. Hoque, A.T.M. Atiqur Rahman and Seema Hoque (eds), Selected Essays on History and Archaeology: Papers Presented in Memory of Professor Abu Imam: 160-3. Dhaka: Centre for Archaeology and Heritage Research. . 2008-9. ‘Buddha Survived as Vāsudeva’. JBA, vols. 13-14: 229-36. Biswas, Krishna. 1995. The Sculptural Art of Ancient Bengal: Vanga and Samatata. Delhi: Ramanand Vidya Bhawan. Chakrabarti, Saktirani. 2014. Buddhist Art-Objects in the Museums of West Bengal. Kolkata: R.N. Bhattacharya. Chakrabarti, D.K. 1987. ‘Pakbira: A Jaina Site in Purulia District, West Bengal’, in B.M. Pande and B.D. Chattopadhyaya (eds), Archaeology and History: Essays in Honour of Shri A. Ghosh, vol. II: 351-7. New Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashana. . 1992. Ancient Bangladesh: A Study of Its Archaeological Sources. Delhi: Oxford University Press. . 1993. Archaeology of Eastern India: Chhotanagpur Plateau and West Bengal. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. . 2001. ‘Archeology of Hinduism’, in Timothy Insoll (ed.), Archaeology and World Religions: 33-60 . London: Routledge. Chakravarti, Adhir. 1989-90. ‘Harikela’s Contacts with the Outside World’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, 14(1-2): 1-53. Chakrabarti, Kunal. 2001. Religious Process: The Purāṇas and the Making of a Regional Tradition. Delhi: Oxford University Press. . [2000] 2011. ‘Cult Region: The Purāṇas and the Making of Cultural Territory of Bengal’, in Upinder Singh (ed.), Rethinking

Bibliography

739

Early Medieval India: A Reader: 233-51. Delhi: Oxford University Press. . 2016. ‘A History of Intolerance: The Representation of Buddhists in the Bengal Purāṇas’. Social Scientist, 44(5/6): 11-27. Chakravarti, Ranabir. 1996. ‘Vaṅgasāgara-saṁbhāṇḍāriyaka: A Riverine Trade-centre of Early Medieval Bengal’, in Debala Mitra (ed.), Explorations in Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays Dedicated to N.G. Majumdar: 557-72. Calcutta: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal. . 2002. Trade and Traders in Early Indian Society. Delhi: Manohar Publishers and Distributors. Chanda, R.P. 1925-6. ‘Jaina Remains at Rajgir’. Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India: 121-7. Chandra, Lokesh. 1980. ‘Chandi Mendut and Pawon: A New Interpretation’. Bijdragen tot de Taal- Land- en Volkenkunde 136 (2/3): 313-20. Chandra, Namita. 1995-2000. ‘Vīrapur Kī Sūrya Pratimāyen’. JBPP, vols. XIX-XX: 121-4. Chatterjee, Rama. 1976-7. ‘Syncretism as Found in Some Composite Images from Bengal’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. X: 150-60. . 1985. Religion in Bengal during Pāla and Sena Times: Mainly on the Basis of Epigraphic and Archaeological Sources. Calcutta: Punthi Pustaka. Chattopadhayay, R.K. and Dipasikha Acharya. 2017. ‘Interpreting the “Viṣṇu Lokeśvara” - Viṣṇu Identity: A Study of “His Iconic Forms” from Eastern India and Bangladesh’. Berlin Indological Studies, vol. 23: 157-210. Chattopadhyaya, Bhaskar and Rangan Kanti Jana. 2001. Descriptive Catalogue of Sculptures in the Museum and Art Gallery, Burdwan University. The University of Burdwan: Museum and Art Gallery. Chattopadhyaya, B.D. 1993. ‘Historiography, History and Religious Centres: Early Medieval North India, circa A.D. 700-1200’, in Visakha N. Desai and D. Mason (eds), Gods, Guardians and Lovers: Temple Sculptures fromNorth India, A.D. 700–1200: 33-47. Ahmedabad: Mapin Publishing Company. . 1993-4. ‘Urban Centres in Early Bengal: Archaeological Perspectives’. Pratna Samiksha, vols. 2-3: 169-92. . 2003. Studying Early India: Archaeology, Texts and Historical Issues. Delhi: Permanent Black. . 2004. ‘State Perception of the “Forest” and the “Forest” as State in Early Medieval India’, in B.B. Chaudhury and Arun Bandopad-

740

Bibliography

hyaya (eds), Tribes, Forests and Social Formations in Indian History: 23-37. Delhi: Manohar. . 2012. The Making of Early Medieval India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Chaudhury, R.K. 1975. The University of Vikramaśilā. Patna: The Bihar Purāvid Pariṣad. Chauley, G.C. 1977. ‘Sculptural Remains at Nalanda’, in C.S. Upasaka (ed.), Nalanda: Past and Present: 83-120. Nalanda: Nava Nalanda Mahavihara. Coningham, Robin. 2001. ‘The Archaeology of Buddhism’, in T. Insoll (ed.), Archaeology and World Religions: 61- 95. London: Routledge. Cousins, L.S. 2003. ‘Sākiyabhikkhu/Śākyabhikkhu/Śākyabhikṣu: A Mistaken Link to the Mahāyāna?’. Nagoya Studies in Indian Culture and Buddhism, vol. 23: 1–27. Das, D.R. 1997-9. ‘Early Temples of West Bengal: Non-Structural Evidence’. Pratna Samiksha, vols. 6-8: 44-9. . 2006-7. ‘Islamic Heritage of Bengal Temples’. JBA, vols. 11-12: 101-19. Dasgupta, P.C. 1991. ‘The Early Medieval Art and Architecture of Purulia’, in Asok Datta (ed.), Studies in Archaeology: Essays in Memory of P.C. Dasgupta: 203-7. New Delhi: Books and Books. Datta, Asok . 2006-7. ‘Archaeology of Deulpota’. JBA, vols. 11-12: 39-47. Davidson, Ronald M. 2002. Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement. New York: Columbia University Press. De, Gourisankar. 2008. Vaṅga Down the Ages: Cults, Icons and Temples. Kolkata: Sagnik Books. Dehejia, Vidya. 1992. ‘The Collective and Popular Basis of Early Buddhist Patronage: Sacred Monuments, 100 BC–AD 250’, in Barabara S. Miller (ed.), The Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian Culture: 35-50. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Deva, Krishna and V.S. Agrawala. 1950. ‘The Stone Temple at Nalanda’. Journal of the Uttar Pradesh Historical Society, vol. XXIII: 198-212. Dhammika, S.1996. Navel of the Earth: The History and Significance of Bodh Gaya. Singapore: Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society. Eaton, Richard M. 1994. The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760. Delhi: Oxford University Press. . 2001. Essays on Islam and Indian History. Delhi: Oxford University Press. . 2009. ‘Shrines, Cultivators, and Muslim “Conversion” in Punjab and Bengal, 1300–1700’. The Medieval History Journal 12(2): 191-220.

Bibliography

741

Eschmann, A. 1994. ‘Sign and Icon: Symbolism in the Indian Folk Religion’, in G.C. Tripathi and H. Kulke (eds), Religion and Society in Eastern India: 211-36. Delhi: Manohar. Fogelin, Lars. 2004. ‘Sacred Architecture, Sacred Landscape: Early Buddhism in North Coastal Andhra Pradesh’, in H.P. Ray and Carla M. Sinopoli (eds), Archaeology as History in Early South Asia: 376–91. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. . 2008. ‘Delegitimizing Religion: The Archaeology of Religion as Archaeology’, in David S Whitley and Kelley Hays-Gilpin (eds), Belief in the Past: Theoretical Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion: 129-41. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press. . 2015. An Archaeological History of Indian Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press. Furui, R. 2007. ‘Rural Society and Social Networks in Early Bengal from the Fifth to the Thirteenth Century A.D.’ Unpublished PhD thesis, Centre for Historical Studies, JNU. . 2013. ‘Expansion of Agrarian Economy and Local Power Relations in the Seventh and Eighth Century Eastern Bengal: A Study of Copper Plate Inscriptions’, in Ratnabali Chatterjee (ed.), Urbanity and Economy: The Pre-Modern Dynamics in Eastern India: 96110. Kolkata: Setu Prakashani. . 2015. ‘Variegated Adaptations: State Formation in Bengal from the Fifth to the Seventh Century’, in B.P. Sahu and H. Kulke (eds), Interrogating Political Systems: Integrative Processes and State in PreModern India: 255-73. Delhi: Manohar. Ganguly, D.K. 1994. Ancient India: History and Archaeology. Delhi: Abhinav Publications. Geddes, Arthur. 1982. Man and Land in South Asia, edited with an Introduction by A.T.A. Learmonth et al. Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Gellner, David N. 2003. The Anthropology of Buddhism and Hinduism: Weberian Themes. Delhi: Oxford University Press. . [1992]. 2009. Monk, Householder and Tantric Priest: Newar Buddhism and Its Hierarchy of Ritual. Delhi: Cambridge University Press. Ghosh, Mallar. 1980. Development of Buddhist Iconography in Eastern India: A Study of Tārā, Prajñās of Five Tathāgatas and Bhrikuṭi. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Ghosh, Ranjusri. 2003. ‘Puṇḍravardhana/Varendra: A Socio-Economic and Cultural Profile of a Sub-region of Early Bengal.’ Unpublished PhD thesis, Centre for Historical Studies, JNU.

742

Bibliography

. 2012. ‘Towards Understanding the Buddhist Environment in Two Brahmanical Settlement Zones from Some Unpublished Buddhist Antiquities of Erstwhile West Dinajpur, West Bengal’. JBA, vol. 17: 17-38. Ghosh, Suchandra. 2008-9. ‘Nature of Royal Patronage in South-eastern Bengal: 507 AD-1250 AD. JBA, vols. 13-14: 109-18. . 2010-11. ‘The Trans-Meghna Region: Making of a Sub-Regional Identity’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXVII: 220-31. . 2011. ‘Buddhist Votive Tablets across Asia: Case Studies from Eastern India, Bangladesh, Thailand and Myanmar’. JBA, vol. 16: 39-46. Gill, Sandrine. 1999. ‘Mahasthangarh: A Riverine Port in Ancient Bengal’, in H.P. Ray (ed.), Archaeology of Seafaring: Indian Ocean in the Ancient Period: 154-72. Delhi: Pragati Publications. . 2002. Two Notes on Chronology and Style: Evidence from Mahasthan’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), Archaeology of Eastern India, New Perspectives’: 41-65. Kolkata: Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India. . 2007. ‘Spatial Organization of Paharpur Buddhist Establishment’, in H.P. Ray (ed.), Sacred Landscapes in Asia: Shared Traditions, Multiple Histories: 169-97. Delhi: Manohar. Gombrich, Richard. 1966. ‘The Consecration of a Buddhist Image’. Journal of Asian Studies, vol. XXVI: 23-36. Gunawardana, R.A.L.H. 1979. Robe and Plough: Monasticism and Economic Interest in Early Medieval Sri Lanka. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Gupta, Chitrarekha. 2002. ‘Bengal Art and Bengal Inscriptions: An Approach towards Co-relation—A Case Study with Punchra, a Village in the Vardhaman District, West Bengal’. JBA, vol. 7: 83-100. . 1993-4. ‘Jainism in Bengal: Beginning of the Study, Problems and Perspectives’. Pratna Samiksha, vols. 2-3: 216-25. Gupta, Vinay Kumar. 2006. ‘Kahalgāon Kshetra Kī Prāchina Bauddha Kalā’, in Rajiva Kumar Sinha and Om Prakash Pandey (eds), Aṅga Sanskriti, Vividha Āyāma: 45-52. Bhagalpur: Indian Book Market. Guy, John. 1991. ‘The Mahābodhi Temple: Pilgrim Souvenirs of Buddhist India’. The Burlington Magazine, 133(1059): 356-67. Hall, Kenneth R. 1992. ‘Buddhism as an Economic Force in Pagan Burma’, in Nicholas Tarling (ed.), The Cambridge History of South East Asia, vol. I: 240-5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

743

Haque, Enamul. 1992. Bengal Sculptures: Hindu Iconography Upto c. 1250 A.D. Dhaka: Bangladesh National Museum. . 1999. ‘The Early Phase of Architecture of Ancient Bengal as Redeemed from Terracotta Plaques’. JBA, vol. 4: 427-53. . 2001. ‘Reflections on the Early Art of Bengal’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Hakim Habibur Rahman Khan Commemoration Volume: 175-91. Dhaka: The International Centre for Study of Bengal Art. . 2004-5. ‘The First and Only Stone Yaksha Image from Bangladesh/Bengal’. JBA, vols. 9-10: 371-6. . 2008. ‘The Buddhist Art at Mainamati: A Parallel to Nalanda’, in C. Mani (ed.), The Heritage of Nalanda: 27-37. Delhi: Aryan Books International. Haque, Enamul and Adalbert J. Gail. 2008. Sculptures in Bangladesh, an Inventory of Select Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina Stone and Bronze Images in Museums and Collections of Bangladesh (Up to the 13th Century). Dhaka: The International Centre for Study of Bengal Art, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Hasan, Perween. 1997. ‘Reflections on Early Temple Forms of Eastern India’. JBA, vol. 2: 211-24. Hasan, S. Jamal. 2002. ‘Buddhist Remains in Tripura’. JBA, vol. 7: 223-35. Hermann-Pfandt, Adelheid. 2006-7. ‘Cakrasaṃvara Iconography and Buddhist Religious Politics in Medieval Bengal’. JBA, vols. 11-12: 9-20. Hermann-Pfandt, Adelheid. [2012] 2014. ‘The Maṇḍala Temples in Pāhārpur, Maināmatī and Vikramaśilā: A New Interpretation’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Pāhārpur alias Somapura Mahāvihāra: A World Cultural Heritage Site: 470-97. Dhaka: The International Centre for the Study of Bengal Art. Holt, John Clifford. 2005. The Buddhist Viṣṇu: Religious Transformation, Politics and Culture. New York: Columbia University Press. Hoque, M.M. and Hoque, Seema. 1997. ‘Ancient Human Settlement Patterns of Bangladesh: A Preliminary Study’. JBA, vol. 2: 283-300. Hoque, M.M. 2008. ‘Human Occupation in Bangladesh During the Early Historic Period: An Overview’, in G. Sengupta and S. Chakraborty (eds), Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: 281-95. New Delhi: Pragati Publications. Hoque, Seema and M.M. Hoque. 2004. ‘Understanding the Paharpur Temple Architecture in New Perspective’, in Dr. Md. Shafiqul Alam (ed.), Proceedings of the International Seminar on Elaboration of

744

Bibliography

an Archaeological Research Strategy for Paharpur World Heritage Site and Its Environment (Bangladesh), 20-25 March 2004, Dhaka: 59-66. Dhaka: Deptt. of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Govt. of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh and UNESCO. Hossain, Md. Mosharraf. 2006. ‘A Study on the Iconography and Art of the Recently Discovered Sculptures form the Greater Khulna District’. Pratnatattva, vol. 12: 13-22. . 2009. ‘An Iconographical and Sculptural Appraisals of Four Newly Discovered Rare Sculptures’, in Shahnaz Husne Jahan (ed.), Abhijñāna: Studies in South Asian Archaeology and Art History of Artefacts Felicitating A.K.M. Zakariah: 113-117. London: BAR International Series. Hunter, W.W. [1879] 1990. A Statistical Account of Assam, vol. II: A Statistical Account of Sylhet. Delhi: Low Price Publications. . 1976. A Statistical Account of Bengal, vol. XIV: Bhagalpur and Santal Pargana. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. . 2001. A Statistical Account of Birbhum. Calcutta: Govt. of West Bengal (rpt. edn.). . [1876] 1973. A Statistical Account of Bengal, vol. V: Districts of Dacca, Bakarganj, Faridpur and Maimansinh. Delhi: D.K. Publishing House. . [1877] 1973. A Statistical Account of Bengal, vol. VIII: Districts of Rajshahi and Bogra. Delhi: D.K. Publishing House. . [1877] 1976. A Statistical Account of Bengal, vol. XIII: Districts of Tirhut and Champaran. Delhi: Concept Publishing House. Huntington, John. 1987. ‘Pilgrimage as Image: The Cult of the Aṣṭamahāprātihārya, Part I’. Orientations: 55-63. . 1987. ‘Pilgrimage as Image: The Cult of the Aṣṭamahāprātihārya, Part II’. Orientations: 56-68. Huntington, S.L. and John C. Huntington 1990. Leaves from the Bodhi Tree: The Art of Pāla India (8th-12th Centuries) and Its International Legacy. Dayton, Ohio: Dayton Art Institute in association with the University of Washington Press. Huntington, Susan L. 1984. The ‘Pāla-Sena’ Schools of Sculpture. Leiden: E.J. Brill. . 1985. ‘Epigraphy from Art History: Studies in the Art of the Pāla Period’, in Frederic Asher and G.S. Gai (eds), Indian Epigraphy: Its Bearing on the History of Art: 177-84. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH. Imam, Abu. 2002. ‘Samataṭa, Mainamati: Some Observations’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), Archaeology of Eastern India, New

Bibliography

745

Perspectives: 613-23. Kolkata: Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training. Insoll, Timothy. 2003. The Archaeology of Islam in Sub-Saharan Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jahan, Shahnaj Husne. 2006. Excavating Waves and Winds of (Ex)change: A Study of Maritime Trade in Early Bengal. London: BAR International Series. . 2010 . ‘Archaeology of Wari-Bateshvar’. Ancient Asia, vol. 2: 13546. Jaini, P.S. 2001. Collected Papers on Buddhist Studies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Jaiswal, Suvira. 2008. ‘Caste, Gender and Ideology in the Making of India’. Social Scientist, 36(1-2): 1-39. Jamuar, B.K. 1985. The Ancient Temples of Bihar. Delhi: Ramanand Vidya Bhavan. Jana, Rangankanti. 2009-10. ‘Gaṇa Image from Mangalkot: A Note’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXVI: 127-9. Jha, S.K. 1996. ‘Problems of Identifying Pāla Sculptures of Mithila in the Light of Recent Discoveries’. Proceedings of the Indian Art History Congress, Patna Session: 134-50. . 1997. ‘A Mother Figure from Devapura, Madhubani’, in N. Akhtar (ed.), Art and Archaeology of Eastern India: 103-10. Patna: Patna Museum. Joshi, L.M. [1967] 2002. Studies in the Buddhist Culture of India during the Seventh and Eight Centuries AD. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Karyyi, J. and Dr. K.J. Mayank. 2013. Chāmuṇḍāgarh: Itihās Evam Āsthā. Darbhanga: Shloka Prakashan. Khamari, Subash. 2011. ‘Survival of the Liṅgarāja Temple: A Study of Spatial Context, Linkage and Patronage’, in Birendra Nath Prasad (ed.), Monasteries, Shrines and Society: Buddhist and Brahmanical Religious Instituions in India in Their Socio-Economic Context: 278-302. Delhi: Manak Publications. . 2012. Archaeology of Early Orissan Temple: Spatial Context, Patronage and Survival. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan. Khettry, Sarita. 2011. ‘Social Role of Monasteries in Bengal in Early Medieval Period’. JBA, vol. 16: 289-98. Kim, J. 2012. ‘Unheard Voices: Women’s Roles in Medieval Buddhist Artistic Production and Religious Practices in South Asia’. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 80(1): 200-32. . 2012. ‘Emergence of a Buddhist Warrior Goddess and the

746

Bibliography

Historical Development of Tantric Buddhism: The Case of Mārīcī’. Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art, New Series, vol. XXVIII: 49-65. Kinnard, Jacob N. 1996. ‘Reevaluating the 8th-9th Century Pāla Milieu: Icono-Conservatism and the Persistence of the Śākyamuni’. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 19(2): 281-300. Kumar, Anil. 2011. ‘Kṛimilā: A Forgotten Adhiṣṭhāna of Early Medieval Eastern India’. Indian Historical Review, 38(1): 23-50. Kumar, Anjani. 1987-8. ‘Pālakālīna Bihar Mein Śaivadharma: Abhilekhiya Sākṣyon Evam Mūrtikalā Ke Namuno Par Ādhārita Ek Samkikṣātmaka Adhyayana’. JBPP, vol. XI-XII: 120-30. Kumar, B.M. 1987. Archaeology of Pataliputra and Nalanda. Delhi: Ramanand Vidyabhavan. Kumar, Dilip. 1978. ‘Stone and Metal Images from the Old District of Muzaffarpur’. JBPP, vol. II: 197-205. Kumar, Pravin. 1978. ‘An Image of Pārśvanātha at Patna’. JBPP, vol. II: 231-3. Lahiri, Nayanjot and Elisabeth A. Bacus, 2004. ‘Exploring the Archaeology of Hinduism’. World Archaeology, 36(3): 313-25. Lawson, Simon. 1988. ‘Votive Objects from Bodh Gaya’, in Janice Leoshko (ed.), Bodhgaya: The Site of Enlightenment: 61-72. Mumbai: The Marg Foundation. Lee, Eun-Su. 2006-7. ‘A Preliminary Note on Buddhist Sculptures from Dhaka Region’. JBA, vols. 11-12: 265-83. . 2009. ‘On Defining Buddhist Art in Bengal: The Dhaka Region’. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin. Lefevre, Vincent. 2014. ‘The Hindu Sculptures form Pāhārpur Reconsidered’, in Deborah Kilmberg-Salter and Linda Lojda (eds), South Asian Archaeology and Art: Papers from the 20th Conference of the European Association for South Asian Archaeology and Art Held in Vienna from 4th to 9th July 2010: 131-42. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers. Ling, Trevor. 1978. ‘Buddhist Bengal and After’, in D.P. Chattopadhyaya (ed.), History and Society: Essays in Honour of Professor Nihar Ranjan Ray: 317-25. Calcutta: K.P.Bagchi and Company. . 1979. Buddha, Marx and God: Some Aspects of Religion in the Modern World. London: Macmillan. Linrothe, Rob. 1997. ‘Beyond Sectarianism: Towards Reinterpreting the Iconography of Esoteric Buddhist Deities Trampling on Hindu Gods’, in C.P. Sinha (ed.), Art, Archaeology and Culture of Eastern

Bibliography

747

India, Dr. B.S. Verma Felicitation Volume: 193-8. Patna: Bihar Purāvid Parishad. Loseries, Andrea. 2015. ‘Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra and the ‘Bowdlerization’ of Tantric Culture: A Case Study of Cakrasaṁvara Tantra’, in R.K. Sinha (ed.), Studies in History and Archaeology of Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra, The Last Beacon of Buddhist Philosophy: 142-55. Varanasi: Bharati Prakashan. Ludden, David. ‘The First Boundary of Bangladesh on Sylhet’s Northern Frontiers.’ Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, 48(1): 1-54. . 2003. ‘Investing in Nature around Sylhet: An Excursion into Geographical History’. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(48): 5080-8. Majumdar, Gayatri Sen. 1983. Buddhism in Ancient Bengal. Calcutta: Navana. Majumdar, R.C. 1968. ‘Jainism in Ancient Bengal’. Shri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya Golden Jubilee Volume, pt. 1: 130-8. Majumdar, S.C. 2001. ‘Rivers of the Bengal Delta’, in K.R. Biswas (ed.), Rivers of Bengal: A Compilation: 1-60. Calcutta: Govt. of West Bengal, Higher Education Dept. Majumdar, Shubha. 2012. ‘A Unique Jaina Caumukha/ Caumukhi or Caturmukha or Sarvatobhadra Pratima from Sundarban, District South 24-Parganas, West Bengal’. History Today, vol. 13: 33-6. . 2014. ‘Understating the Archaeological Contexts and Iconic Details of Jaina Antiquities from Rakṣatpura and Śaṅkā, District Puruliā, West Bengal’. International Journal of Jaina Studies, 10(1): 1-32. Majumdar, Susmita Basu. 2014. ‘Monetary History of Bengal: “Issues” and “Non-Issues”, in D.N. Jha (ed.), The Complex Heritage of Early India: Essays in Memory of R.S. Sharma: 585-605. Delhi: Manohar. Mani, B.R. 2008. ‘Excavations of Stupa Site No. 3 at Nalanda and Early Chronological Evidence’, in C. Mani (ed.), The Heritage of Nalanda: 13-22. Delhi: Aryan Books International. Mevissen, Gerd J.R. 2006. Ādityas, Grahas, and other Deities of Time and Space on Sūrya Sculptures, Predominantly from Bengal. Fourth Sarat Kumar Ray Memorial Lecture, Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India, Kolkata . 2009. ‘Two Unpublished Marici Sculptures in the Khulna Museum, Bangladesh, and Related Images from Mainamati’, in Devangana Desai and Arundhati Banerji (eds.), Kalādarpaṇa, the Mirror of Indian Art: Essays in Memory of Shri Krishnadeva: 273-84. Delhi: Aryan Books International.

748

Bibliography

Mishra, B.N. 1998. Nālandā, vols. I–III. Delhi: D.K. Printworld. Mishra, J. 1992. A History of Buddhist Iconography in Bihar, AD 600-1200. Patna: Prabhavati Prakashana. Mishra, R.N. 2005. ‘Beginning of Śaiva-Siddhānta and its Expanding Space in Central India’, in Sadananda Das and Ernst Furlinger (eds), Sāmarasya: Studies in Indian Arts, Philosophy, and Interreligious Dialogue: 275-306. Delhi: D.K. Printworld. Mishra, Umakant. 2009. Vajrayāna Buddhism: Study in Social Iconography. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan. Mishra, Vineeta. 1985-6. ‘The Kuṣāṇa Architecture in Bihar’. JBPP, vols. IX-X: 109-16. Mitra, Debajani. 2004. A Survey of Jainism and Jaina Art of Eastern India with Special Emphasis on Bengal from the Earliest Period to the Thirteenth Century. Kolkata: R.N. Bhattacharya. Mitra, Debala. 1976. ‘Antiquities from Pilak and Jolaibari, Tripura’. Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. XVIII: 56-77. . 1982. Bronzes from Bangladesh: A Study of Buddhist Images from District Chittagong. Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan. . 1995. ‘The Monuments, a Historical Survey’, in D.C. Ahir (ed.), A Panorama of Indian Buddhism: 489-511. Delhi: Sri Sataguru Publications. . 2005. ‘Representation of Aṣṭa-mahābodhisattvas from Nalanda: An Iconographic Study’, in N.N. Bhattacharyya (ed.), Tantric Buddhism: Centennial Tribute to Dr. Benoytosh Bhattacharya: 31-53. New Delhi: Manohar. Mitra, Mallar. 1996. ‘Two-Armed images of Heruka from Bangladesh: An Iconographic Study’. JBA, vol. 2: 149-60. . 1997-9. ‘Notes on Some Sculptures Located at Pakhanna, District Bankura’. Pratna Samiksha, vols. 6-8: 50-8. . 1999. ‘An Image of Mañjuśrī in the Company of Jālinīprabha and Candraprabha Preserved in the Bangladesh National Museum’. JBA, vol. 4: 497-514. Mitra, R.C. 1954. The Decline of Buddhism in India, Vishva Bharati Studies 20. Calcutta: Vishva Bharati. Mitra, R.L. 1972. Buddha Gaya the Great Buddhist Temple the Hermitage of Sakya Muni. Delhi and Varanasi: Indological Book House. Mobin, Nasir Uddin. 2001. ‘The Pre-Muslim Landscape of Savar and the Nature of Buddhist Settlements of Bangladesh’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Hakim Habibur Rahman Khan Commemoration Volume: 249-66. Dhaka: The International Centre for Study of Bengal Art.

Bibliography

749

Morrison, B.M. 1970. Political Centers and Cultural Regions in Early Bengal. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Mukherjee, B.N. 1975. ‘The Original Territory of Harikela’. Bangladesh Lalit Kalā, 1(2): 115-19. . 1982. ‘Commerce and Money in the Western and Central Sectors of Eastern India (c. AD 750-1200)’. Indian Museum Bulletin, vol. XVII: 65-83. . 2001. ‘An Early Syncretic Icon’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Hakim Habibur Rahman Khan Commemoration Volume: 63-4. Dhaka: The International Centre for Study of Bengal Art. Myer, Prudence R. [1961] 2014. ‘Stupas and Stupa- Shrines’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Pāhārpur alias Somapura Mahāvihāra: A World Cultural Heritage Site. Dhaka: The International Centre for Study of Bengal Art, pp. 316-31. Nagaraju, S. 1996. ‘From Spirituality to Power: A Millennium of Buddhist Monastic Architecture as a Mirror of Social History’, in K. Sankarnarayan et al. (eds), Buddhism in India and Abroad: An Integrated influence in Vedic and Post Vedic Perspective: 301-14. Mumbai and Delhi: Sommaiya Publishers. Narain, H.K. 1980-81. ‘Makanpur in Archaeological Perspective’. JBPP, vols. IV-V: 212-16. Nath, Amarendra. 2008. ‘A Portable Stūpa in Magadha Style’, in C. Mani (ed.), The Heritage of Nalanda: 38-41. Delhi: Aryan Books International. Nath, Birendra. 1993-94. ‘An Extensive Exploration on the Banks of Ghaghra, Ganga and Gandak in North Bihar’. JBPP, vols. XVIIXVIII: 74-81. Nath, Triloki. 1989-90. ‘Saktism in Early Medieval Bihar (600 A.D. to 1000 A.D.)’. JBPP, vols. XIII-XIV: 140-8. Nicholas, Ralph. 2001. ‘Vaishanavism and Islam in the Environs of Rural Bengal’, in Rafiuddin Ahmed (ed.), Understanding Bengal Muslims, Interpretive Essays: 52-70. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Niyogi, Puspa. 1967. Buddhism in Ancient Bengal. Calcutta: Jijnasa. . 1971-2. ‘Buddhism and the Early Rulers of South-East Bengal’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. V, pts. 1-2: 171-81. . 1972-3. ‘Endowments in Favour of Early Buddhist Monasteries in Bengal and Bihar’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. 6: 160-5. O’Connell, J.T. 2011. ‘Revisiting Art, Architecture and Archaeology as Sources for the History of Religion in Bengal’. JBA, vol. 16: 115-24. Pal, Sayantani. 2014. ‘Religious Patronage in the Land Grant Charters of

750

Bibliography

Early Bengal (Fifth–Thirteenth Century). Indian Historical Review, vol. 41 (2): 185-205. . 2007. ‘Some Observations on the Ashrafpur Plates of Devakhaḍga’, in G.J.R. Mevvissen (ed.), Kalhar: Studies in Art, Iconography, Architecture and Archaeology of India and Bangladesh: Prof. Enamul Haque Felicitation Volume: 314-17. Delhi: Kaveri Books. Pal, Pratapaditya. 1999. ‘Possible Indian Representations of Bhaisajyaguru’. JBA, vol. 4: 153-8. Patra, Chitaranjan. 1998. ‘Spread of Buddhism in Bengal’, in A. Dutta (ed.), History and Archaeology of Eastern India: 200-12. Delhi: Books and Books. Paul, Debajani. 1995. The Art of Nalanda: Development of Buddhist Sculpture AD 600-1200. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Peterson, J. [1910] 1997. Bengal District Gazetteers –Burdwan. Calcutta: Govt. of West Bengal Press. O’Malley, L.S.S. 2007. Bengal Gazetteers – Gaya. Delhi: Logos Press. . 2007. Bihar and Orissa District Gazetteers – Monghyr. Delhi: Logos Press. Poell, H. 2011. ‘The Evolution of the Ashta-Maha-Pratiharya Iconography and its Impact on Later Buddhist Art’. JBA, vol. 16: 9-37 . Prasad, Birendra Nath et al. 2009. ‘Bārā: A Recently Discovered Site in Nālandā District and its Bearings on the Decline of Indian Buddhism’, in B. Labh (ed.), The Ocean of Buddhist Wisdom, vol. 4: 22534. Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corporation. . 2010. ‘Pilgrimage to Gaya, c. 1250 AD-1550 AD: An Enquiry into Some Sanskrit Inscriptions Discovered at Gaya’.Anusandhanika, Ranchi, vol. VIII, no. 1: 8-12. . (ed. with an Introduction). 2011. Monasteries, Shrines and Society: Buddhist and Brahmanical Religious Institutions in India in their SocioEconomic Context. Delhi: Manak Publications. . 2012. ‘Brahmanical Temples, Maṭhas, Agrahāras and a Buddhist Establishment in a Marshy and Forested Periphery of Two ‘Frontier’ States: Early Medieval Surma Valley (Sylhet and Cachar), c.600 CE -1100 CE’. Religions of South Asia, 6(1): 33-60. . 2013. ‘Cultic Relationships between Buddhism and Brahmanism in the “Last Stronghold” of Indian Buddhism: An Analysis with Particular Reference to Votive Inscriptions on the Brahmanical Sculptures Donated to Buddhist Religious Centres in Early Medieval Magadha’. Buddhist Studies Review, London, 30(2): 181-99.

Bibliography

751

Prasad, Birendra Nath. 2013. ‘A Folk Tradition Integrated into Mahāyāna Buddhism: Some Observations on the Votive Inscriptions on the Sculptures of Puṇḍeśvarī/Pūrṇeśvarī/Puṇyeśvarī Discovered in the Kiul-Lakhisarai Area, Bihar’. Berlin Indological Studies, vol. 21: 299-306. . 2014. ‘The Socio-Religious Dimensions of Dedicatory Inscriptions on Sculptures Donated to a Buddhist Establishment in Early Medieval Magadha: Kurkihar, c. 800-1200 CE’. Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, vol. 7: 116-52. . 2014. ‘Urbanisation at Early Historic Vaiśālī, c. BCE 600-CE 400’, in D.N. Jha (ed.), The Complex Heritage of Early India: Essays in Memory of R.S. Sharma. Delhi: Manohar, pp. 231-42. . 2014. ‘Survival of Mahayana Buddhism in the Late Thirteenth– Early Fourteenth Century India: A Note on the “Poetic Inscription” on a Korean Stūpa Erected in the Memory of Dhyānabhadra’, in P. Chenna Reddy and E. Sivanagi Reddy (ed.), Bodhisiri: A Festschrift to A. Venkateswara Reddy: 86-91. Delhi: Research India Press. . 2017. ‘Marsh, Rice, Faith: Aspects of Environmental and Religious Changes in the Early Medieval Surma-Barak Valley’, in Sajal Nag (ed.), Playing with Nature: History and Politics of Environment in North-eastern India: 20-50. Delhi: Manohar. . 2018. ‘The Social Bases of Patronage to the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra: An Epigraphic Enquiry’, in Sajal Nag and Ishrat Alam (ed.), Blending Nation and Region: Essays in Honour of Amalendu Guha. Delhi: Primus Books, pp. 310-24. Prasad, Kameshwar. 1989-90. ‘Bihar Kā Ārambhika Itihāsa: Samasyāen Aur Sambhāvanāyen’. JBPP, vols. XIII-XIV: 149-62. . 1994. ‘Transition from Rural to Urban Settlement: A Case Study of Chirand’, in V.K. Thakur (ed.), Towns in Pre-Modern India: 65-74. Patna: Janaki Prakashan. . 2010. ‘The Architectural Heritage of Pāṭaliputra’. JBPP, vols. XXIXXII: 190-9. . 2015. The Glory That Was Vaiśālī (From the Earliest Times to c. 600 C.E.). Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. Prasad, R.C. 1987. The Archaeology of Champa and Vikramashila. Delhi: Ramananda Vidya Bhavan. Preston, James J. 1992. ‘Sacred Centres and Symbolic Networks in India’, in S. Mahapatra (ed.), The Realm of the Sacred: 79–112. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

752

Bibliography

Rashid, M. Harunur. 1975 . ‘The Mainamati Gold Coins’. Bangladesh Lalit Kalā, 1(1): 41-58. . 1978. ‘Bangladesh: A Profile in the Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries’. Bangladesh Historical Studies, vol. III: 1-32. Rashid, Harun E. 1991. Geography of Bangladesh. Dhaka: University Press Limited. Rashid, Md. Mizanur. 2004-5. ‘The Conception of the Architectural Lay Out of Somapura Mahāvihāra: An Analysis of Cultural and Religious Symbolism’. JBA, vols. 9-10: 97-110. Ray, Amita. 1996. ‘Some Reflections on the Terracotta Art of Bangladesh on the Basis of Archaeological Evidence, from the Third Century BC to the Eleventh Century AD’, in Debala Mitra (ed.), Explorations in the Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays in Memory of N.G. Majumdar: 277-92. Calcutta: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal. Ray, H.P. 1994. ‘Kanheri: The Archaeology of an Early Buddhist Pilgrimage Site in Western India’. World Archaeology, 26(1): 35-46. . 2004. ‘The Archaeology of Sacred Space: Introduction ’, in H.P. Ray and Carla M. Sinopoli (eds), Archaeology as History in Early South Asia: 350-75. Delhi: Aryan Books International. . 2006. ‘The Archaeology of Bengal: Trading Networks, Cultural Identities’. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 49(1): 68-95. . 2008. ‘Providing for the Buddha: Monastic Centres in Eastern India’. Arts Asiatiques, Tome 63: 119-38. . 2012. ‘From Multi-Religious Sites to Mono-religious Monuments in South Asia: The Colonial Legacy of Heritage Management’, in P. Daly and Tim Winter (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia: 69-84. London: Routledge. . 2014. ‘Archaeology of Early Temples in the Chalukyan Regions’, in Shonaleeka Kaul (ed.), Cultural History of Early South Asia, A Reader: 209-34. New Delhi: Orient Black Swan. Ray, Reginald A. 1994. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations. New York: Oxford University Press. Rowland, Benjamin. 1967. The Art and Architecture of India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jaina. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Roy Chowdhury, Sima. 1997-99. ‘Terracotta Sculptures from Panna: A Preliminary Survey’. Pratna Samiksha, vol. 6-8: 29-43. . 2008. ‘Patterns of Patronage and Early Buddhist Art of Amra-

Bibliography

753

vati’, in G. Sengupta and S.Chakraborty (eds), Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: 477-94 .New Delhi: Pragati Publications. Roychaudhury, P.C. 1960. Bihar District Gazetteer–Muzaffarpur. Patna: Secretariat Press. . 1961. Bihar District Gazetteers: Bhagalpur. Patna: Secretariat Press. . 1964. Bihar District Gazetteer –Darbhanga. Patna: Secretariat Press. . 1970. Bihar District Gazetteer—Patna. Patna: Secretariat Press. Roy, Kumkum. 1988. ‘Women and Men Donors at Sanchi: A Study of the Inscriptional Evidence’, in L.K. Tripathi (ed.), Position and Status of Women in Ancient India: 209-23. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. Saha, Sharmila. 2008-9. ‘Context of Architecture in Archaeology: A Case Study with the Siddheśvara Temple at Bahulara’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXV: 122-31. . 2009-10. ‘Another Image of the Sun God with Planetary Deities from South-Western Bengal’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, vol. XXVI: 152-62. . 2014. ‘In Search of a Legitimate Identity: The Enigma of Ichai Ghosher Deul’. JBA, vol. 19: 201-16. Saha, Sharmila and Rajat Sanyal. 2013. ‘Templescape and Culture under the Mallas of Medieval Bengal: A Case Study’, in Ratnabali Chatterjee (ed.), Urbanity and Economy: The Pre-Modern Dynamics in Eastern India: 168-79. Kolkata: Setu Prakashani. Sahai, Bhagwant. 1971. ‘Terracotta Plaques from Antichak’. JBRS, vol. LVII: 57-76. . 1977. ‘The Bronzes from Fatehpur’. JBPP, vol. 1: 173-86. . 1978. ‘An image of Dancing Gaṇeśa in the Gaya Museum’. JBPP, vol. II: 231-3. . 1980-1. ‘The Pāśupatas in Bihar’. JBPP, vols. IV-V: 319-31. . 1985-6. ‘Some Images of Chamunda from the District of Begusarai’. JBPP, vols. IX-X: 267-73. . 1991-2. ‘Two Buddhist Images from Bihar: Crisis of Their Identification’. JBPP, vols. XV-XVI: 147-50. . 1993-4. ‘Mārīchī in the Art of Bihar’. JBPP, vols. XVII-XVIII: 17091. . 1995-2000. ‘Bhrikuṭī in the Art of Bihar’. JBPP, vols. XIX-XX: 90104. Sahay, B.K. 1985-6. ‘Two Rare Images of Sūrya from Gaya’. JBPP, vols. IX-X: 274-6.

754

Bibliography

Sahay, Kiran. 1998. Vikramaśilā: Itihāsa Evam Purātattva. Patna: Bauddha Sanskriti Kendra. Samuel, Geoffrey. [2002] 2014. ‘Ritual technology and the State: The Maṇḍala-Form Buddhist Temples of Bangladesh’, in Enamul Haque (ed.), Pāhārpur alias Somapura Mahāvihāra: A World Cultural Heritage Site: 388-410. Dhaka: International Centre for the Study of Bengal Art. Sanderson, Alexis. 1994. ‘Vajrayāna: Origin and Function’, in M. Bhikkhu et al (eds), Buddhism into the Year 2000: 87-102. Bangkok and Los Angeles: Dhammakaya Foundation. Sanderson, Alexis. 2009. ‘The Śaiva Age – the Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During the Early Medieval Period’, in Shingo Einoo (ed.), Genesis and Development of Tantrism: 41-348. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo. Sarao, K.T.S. 2012. The Decline of Buddhism in India: A Fresh Perspective. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Saraswati, S.K. 1962. Early Sculptures of Bengal. Calcutta: Sambodhi Publications. . 1977. Tantrayana Art: An Album. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. Sastri, H.P. 2002. ‘Buddhism in Bengal after the Muhammadan Conquest’, in B. Ghosh (ed.), Biṣaya Bauddhadharma: 202-8. Calcutta: Karuna Prakashani. Schopen, Gregory. 1979. ‘Mahāyāna in Indian Inscriptions’. Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 21: 1-19. . 1984. ‘Filial Piety and the Monk in the Practice of Indian Buddhism: A Question of “Sinicization” Viewed from the Other Side’. T’oung Pao, Second Series, 70, Livr. 1(3): 110-26. . 1987. ‘The Inscription on the Kuṣān Image of Amitābha and the Character of Early Mahāyāna in India’. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 10: 99–137. . 1987: Burial Ad Sanctos and the Physical Presence of the Buddha in Early Indian Buddhism: A Study in the Archaeology of Religions’. Religion, vol. 17: 193-225. . 1988–9. ‘On Monks, Nuns and “Vulgar” Practices: The Introduction of the Image Cult into Indian Buddhism’. Artibus Asiae, 49(1/2): 153-68. . 1991. ‘Archaeology and Protestant Presuppositions in the Study of Indian Buddhism’. History of Religions, 31(1): 1-23. . 2005. Figments and Fragments of Mahayana Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Bibliography

755

. 2010. Indian Monastic Buddhism, Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional and Archaeological Evidence. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sengupta, Anusua. 1993. Buddhist Art of Bengal (From the 3rd Century BC to the 13th Century AD). Delhi: Rahul Publishing Company. Sengupta, Gautam. 1989-90. ‘Art of South-Eastern Bengal: An Overview’. Journal of Ancient Indian History, 14(1-2): 119-44. . 1990. ‘Epigraphy and Art History: On Some Inscribed Sculptures of Eastern India’. Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India, vol. XVI: 112-18. . 1996. ‘East Indian Sculptures: Formative Centuries’, in Debala Mitra (ed.), Explorations in the Art and Archaeology of South Asia: Essays in Memory of N.G. Majumdar: 293-313. Calcutta: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal. . 1996. ‘Problem of Pāla Art and a Derivative Style in Assam’. JBA, vol. 1: 149-60. . 1999. ‘Hero-Stone of West Bengal: A Preliminary Study’. JBA, vol. 4: 77-97. Sengupta, Gautam and Shambhu Chakraborty. 2002. ‘Locale, Material and Monuments: Begunia Group of Temples, Barakar, West Bengal’, in G. Sengupta and Sheena Panja (eds), Archaeology of Eastern India, New Perspectives’: 389-418. Kolkata: Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India. Sengupta, Gautam et al. 2014. Vibrant Rock: A Catalogue of Stone Sculptures in the State Archaeological Museum, West Bengal. Kolkata: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of West Bengal. Sharma, Arvind Kumar. 2012. The Pala Art in Bihar. Patna: Janaki Prakashan. Sharma, R.C. 1991. ‘The Pala Idiom of Sculptural Art’, in Asok Datta (ed.), Studies in Archaeology: Essays in Memory of P.C. Dasgupta: 20915. Delhi: Books and Books. Sharma, R.S. 1987. Urban Decay. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. . 1990. ‘Keynote Addresses’, in Amita Ray, S. Mukherjee (eds), Historical Archaeology of India: Dialogue between Historians and Archaeologists: 1-11. Delhi: Books and Books. Sharma, Sudhakar. 2004. The Heritage of Buddhist Pāla Art. Delhi: Aryan Books. Shaw, J. 2004. ‘Nāga Sculptures in Sanchi’s Archaeological Landscape: Buddhism, Vaiṣṇavism and Local Agricultural Cults in Central India, First Century BCE to Fifth Century CE’. Artibus Asiae, 64(1): 5-59.

756

Bibliography

Shaw, Julia and J. Sutcliffe. 2000. ‘Sanchi and its Archaeological Landscape: Buddhist Monasteries, Settlements and Irrigation Work in Central India’. Antiquity, vol. 74: 775–96. Shaw, Julia. 2009. ‘Stupas, Monasteries and Relics in the Landscape: Typological, Spatial, and Temporal Patterns in the Sanchi Area’, in Jason Hawkes and Akira Shimada (eds), Buddhist Stupas in South Asia: Recent Archaeological, Art-Historical and Historical Perspectives: 114-45. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Silk, J. 2008. Managing Monks: Administrators and Administrative Roles in Indian Buddhist Monasticism. New York: Oxford University Press. Singh, Arun Kumar. 1991. Archaeology of Magadha Region. Delhi: Ramanand Vidya Bhavan. Singh, R.L. 1971. India: A Regional Geography. Varanasi: National Geographical Society of India. Singh, Ramnivas. 2008. Pāṭaliputra: Purātātvika Avalokana. Patna: Janaki Prakashan. Singh, Upinder. 1996. ‘Sanchi: The History of Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist Establishment’. Indian Economic and Social History Review, vol. 33(1): 1–35. Sinha, A.K. 1979. ‘An Image of Varāha-Viṣṇu in the Bhagalpur Museum’. JBPP, vol. III: 123-6. Sinha, Ajoy Kumar. 1983-4. ‘The Bronzes from Pranpur (Katihar)’. JBPP, vols. VII-VIII: 262-80. Sinha, B.K. 1999. Archaeology of North Bihar. Delhi: Ramanand Vidyabhavan. Sinha, B.P. 2000. Directory of Bihar Archaeology. Patna: Bihar Puravid Parishad. Sinha, C.P. 1977. ‘Models of the Mahābodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya’. JBPP, vol. 1: 159-64. . 1979. ‘Naṭarāja in the Art of Bihar’. JBPP, vol. III: 149-52. . 1980. Early Sculptures of Bihar. Patna: Indological Book Corporation. . 1980-1. ‘Foot-prints of Viṣṇu from Bihar’. JBPP, vols. IV-V: 31618. . 2004-5. ‘Evolution of Art in Bihar and Jharkhand’. JBA, vols. 9-10: 111-18. Sinha, Kamini. 1983. The Early Bronzes of Bihar. Delhi: Ramanand Vidya Bhawan. Sinha, Pushpa. 2010. Bihār Kī Prāchīna Hindu Pratimāyen. Patna: Bihar Hindi Granth Academy.

Bibliography

757

Sinha, Rajiva Kumar (ed.). 2015. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra: The Last Beacon of Buddhist Philosophy. Varanasi: Bharati Prakashan. Sinha, Rajiva Kumar. 1995-2000. ‘The Material Milieu of the Vikramaśilā Mahāvihāra’. JBPP, vols. XIX-XX: 114-20. Sinha, Rashmi. 2010. Uttarī Bihār Mein Purātattva Kā Udbhava Aur Vikāsa. Patna: Janaki Prakashan. Sinha, T.H.D. 1978. ‘An Interesting Image of Brahmā in the G.D. College Museum’. JBPP, vol. II: 231-3. Sircar D.C. 1971. Studies in the Religious Life of Ancient and Medieval India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. . 1974. Studies in the Political and Administrative Systems in Ancient and Medieval India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Spate, O.H.K. and A.T.A. Learmonth. 1967. India and Pakistan: A General and Regional Geography. London: Methuen. Swarnakar, L.B. 2007. The Historical Geography of Ancient Angadesa. Delhi: Indian Publishers’ Distributors. Talbot, Cynthia. 1991. ‘Temples, Donors and Gifts: Patterns of Patronage in Thirteenth-Century South India’. Journal of Asian Studies, 50(2): 308-40. . 2001. Pre–Colonial India in Practice: Society, Religion and Identity in Medieval Andhra. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Tambiah, S.J. 1984. Buddhist Saints of Forests and the Cult of Amulets: A Study in Charisma, Hagiography, Sectarianism, and Millennial Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tarafdar, M.R. 1995. Trade, Technology and Society in Medieval Bengal. Dhaka: University Press Limited. Thakur, S.N. 1998. ‘Akaur: Ek Alpagyāta Nagara’, in V.M. Pandey et al. (eds), Bihar, Sthānīya Itihāsa Evam Paramparā: 226-30. Patna: Janaki Prakashan. Thakur, Upendra. 1964. Studies in Jainism and Buddhism in Mithilā. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. Thakur, V.K. 1977. ‘Archaeology and the Writing of Ancient Indian History’. JBPP, vol. I: 94-103. . 1987. ‘Trade and Towns in Early Medieval Bengal’. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. XXX: 196-220. Thapar, Romila. 1992. ‘Patronage and Community’, in Barbara S. Miller (ed.), The Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian Culture: 19-34. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

758

Bibliography

Tinti, Paola G. 1996. On the Brāhmī Inscription of Mahāsthān. JBA, vol. 1: 33-8. . 2011. ‘Buddhism in Pre-Pala Eastern Bengal According to Chinese Sources’. JBA, vol. 16: 289-98. . 2014. ‘The Origins of Buddhism in Bangladesh: Between History, Myth and Historical Inventions’. JBA, vol. 19: 9-16. Upasaka, C.S. 1977. Nalanda: Past and Present. Nalanda: Nava Nalanda Mahāvihāra. Verardi, G. 2011. Hardships and Downfall of Buddhism in India. Delhi: Manohar. Verma, Susan. 2004. ‘Archaeology of Early Temples of Saurashtra’, in H.P. Ray and Carla M. Sinopoli (eds), Archaeology as History in Early South Asia: 411-25. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. Mishra, Susan Verma. 2006. ‘Archaeology of Religion: A Study of Religious Diversity in Gujarat from the Ancient to the Early Medieval Times – Third Century BC to Eight Century AD’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Centre for Historical Studies, JNU. Weber, Max. 1992 [1916]. The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism, ed. and tr. H.H. Gerth and D. Martindale. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Willis, Michael. 2008. ‘Relics of the Buddha: Body, Essence, Text’, in C. Mani (ed.), The Heritage of Nalanda: 136-40. Delhi: Aryan Books International. . 2009. The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the Establishment of the Gods. Delhi: Cambridge University Press. Wink, Andre. 1999. Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World, vol. II. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Woodward, Hiram W. Jr.1990. ‘The Life of the Buddha in the Pāla Monastic Environment’. The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, vol. 48: 13-27.

Index

Acala, a Vajrayāna deity 534 Ācārya Saṅghamitra 413-14 Ādityasena, king of Magadha 438 Afghanistan, Jalalabad area of 401 Aggaśāvaka 269, 281, 405, 510, 582 Agrahāra 148, 409, 410, 450, 464, 479 Ajay river 68, 162 Ajantā 233, 268 Ājīvikas 410 Akṣayavaṭa 434, 444 Akṣhayanīvi 387, 398, 399, 400 Akṣobhya 33, 325, 327,348, 349, 351, 379, 380, 534, 536, 632, 687, 697 Amaravati/Amarāvatī 355 Amitābha 202, 348, 349, 534, 536, 610, 667, 690 Amoghapāśa 635 Amoghasiddhi 331, 348, 349, 534 Amoghavajra 539 Āmradvīpa 248, 384 Ānanda Vihāra 411, 424, 430, 510, 511, 526, 528, 529, 533, 535, 538, 574, 575, 587, 607, 717 Ānandadeva 374, 424, 475 Āndhradeśa 279, 287, 297 Aṅga 89, 90, 91, 106, 241,242, 260, 274, 291, 296, 301, 305, 344, 382, 404,465, 467, 493, 514, 604 Antichak 41, 83, 112, 211, 291, 298, 299, 300, 345, 349, 352, 354, 361, 369, 403, 404-6, 420, 439, 465, 466, 490, 493, 508, 510-12, 514-19, 521, 526, 527, 531, 533, 535-9, 544, 546, 551, 555,

556, 563, 564, 569, 575, 576, 578, 599, 604, 605, 609, 648, 707 Aparājitā 30, 98, 102, 105, 115, 122, 124, 129, 202, 258-60, 292, 350, 351, 360, 361, 492, 501, 544-8, 550, 552, 561, 562, 570, 603, 632 Aphsad temple 106, 431, 432, 438, 627 Arabs 254, 255, 279 Araria 123, 125, 127 Ārogyavihāra (Kumrahar, Patna) 86 Arrah 93, 94, 432, 619 Arthaśāstra 153 Ārya Mahāmaudgalyāyana 269 Ārya Maitreyanātha 269 Ārya Vasumitra 269 Āryamahāvihāra 248 Aśoka 55, 87, 302, 384, 650 Aśokacalladeva 356, 387, 388, 424 Aśokan pillar 55, 87 Aśokan railing 384, Āśrama Vihāra 407, 409, 410, 476 Assam 54, 65, 67, 152, 192, 193 Aṣṭamahābhaya Tārā, 522, 530-2 Aṣṭamahābodhisattva-maṇḍala 513 Aṣṭamahāpratihārya 186, 192, 261, 274, 279, 283-5, 287, 288, 362, 405, 406, 537, 614 Aṣṭasahasrikā Prajñāpāramitā 155, 424, 609 Āṭavika-sāmanta Rudraśikhara 173, 218 Āṭavika-sāmanta Vīraguṇa, ruler of Vishnupur area, Bankura 176-7 Aṭṭākaradeva 409, 417

760

Index

Avalokiteśvara 51, 111, 113, 122, 129, 132, 137, 139, 150, 163, 191, 210, 219, 256, 258, 272, 273, 278, 282, 295, 297, 311, 336, 340, 346, 407, 505, 511, 543, 556, 570, 597, 609, 617-700 passim Ayodhyā 57, 449 Bahulara temple site, Bankura 176, 177, 674 Bakarganj 70, 71, 72 Bakror 85, 86, 89, 96, 98, 620 Bālāditya 356, 394, 398, 402, 473, 512 Bālaputradeva, the ruler of Suvarṇadvīpa (Java) 400, 402 Balarāma 262, 264, 265, 267, 289, 290, 379, 544, 554, 567, 627, 628, 652, 693 Bali 258, 400, 421, 440,445, 534 Ballal Dhipi, temple site of 183, 184, 687 Bangarh 83, 158, 160, 204, 316, 322, 323, 326, 457 Bangladesh 7, 10, 21, 43, 54, 111, 147, 152, 154, 158, 187, 204, 205, 230, 455, 456, 520, 525, 577, 614, 705 Bankura 23, 38, 47, 49, 54, 68, 154, 162, 164, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177, 179-81, 203, 205, 218, 219, 230, 324, 325, 592, 603, 674-8 Barak river/valley 67, 193 Barauni (Begusarai district), Mārīcī sculpture of 661 Bardhaman 34, 46, 47, 49, 68, 69, 151, 154, 155, 162, 164-7, 169, 172, 174, 178, 183, 203, 212, 216, 230, 324-6, 349, 369, 592, 603, 672-4 Barisal 157, 158, 191, 326, 695 Begunia group of temples 46, 50, 169, 672 Begusarai 57, 58, 59, 121, 302, 307, 444, 446, 447, 661, 662 Bhabhua 93, 94, 134, 431, 435, 444, 617, 618, 619, 620 Bhagalpur 58, 62, 85, 88, 91, 98, 106, 111, 112, 130, 433, 440, 441, 647-9 Bhāgavata Purāṇa 561 Bhagirathi river 45, 64, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 162, 163, 174, 425, 426

Bhairava 111, 216, 221, 624, 627, 628, 654, 660, 758, 664, 670, 671, 680, 684, 692 Bhaiṣajyaguru 700 Bharata Bhayana 147, 148, 185 Bharatpur Buddhist site in Bardhaman district 151, 154-8, 166, 167, 178, 204, 216, 672 Bhāṣkarvarman, king of Kāmarūpa 391 Bhavadeva 374, 408, 411, 415, 424, 475, 526, 561, 607 Bhikṣu Ajayagarbha 428, 429 Bhikṣuṇīsaṅgha 297, 346 Bhitargarh 111, 138, 152, 153, 158, 184, 203 Bhoja Vihāra 528, 536, 538, 718 Bhṛukuṭi 187, 188 Bihar Dhap 41, 490, 518, 565, 571, 712 Bihar Sharif 100, 101, 102, 136, 275, 276, 277, 279, 283, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290, 361, 379, 382, 631 Birbhum 68, 69, 145, 148, 161, 162, 164, 172, 457, 670-1 Bodhgayā 26, 94, 96-9, 130, 137, 240, 242-4, 246-50, 252, 256, 259, 283, 344, 345, 347, 349, 356, 358, 359, 379, 383, 387, 405, 442, 496, 499, 500-2, 505-7, 513, 543, 544, 546, 554, 558, 592; see also Mahābodhi Bogra 65, 210, 212, 313, 314, 317 Borobudur 535, 538, 596 Brahmi inscription, Mahasthangarh 208 Bṛhatsaṁhitā 235 Buddha Śākyamuni 32, 33, 100-2, 109, 163, 167, 181, 185, 186, 189, 192, 202, 255, 269, 280, 283, 284, 287, 327, 328, 347-9, 379, 399, 405, 513, 514, 525, 537, 552, 555, 556, 576, 603, 610, 611, 617-700 passim Burma 65, 137, 309, 310, 311, 341, 465, 504, 506, 582, 588 Cachar, a district in southern Assam 67, 192, 450 Caitya/Chaitya 23, 24, 109, 287, 288, 387, 495

Index Cakrasaṁvara 196, 197, 492, 584 Cāmuṇḍā 104, 119, 122, 186, 210, 215, 216, 221, 316, 323, 431, 433, 438, 439, 440, 620, 626, 635, 638, 639, 642, 643, 654, 656, 661, 662, 669, 671, 673, 674, 676, 678, 684, 686, 688, 693 Cāmuṇḍāviṣaya 119, 438 Caṇḍī 109, 199, 221, 328-30, 686, 693, 696 Candragomin 191 Candraprabha 309 Carcikā 323 Caru 258, 400, 421, 440 Caturmukha Mahādeva 89, 113, 564 Caturmukhī Śivaliṅga 642, 656, 657 Central Asia 398 Ceylon 191; see also Sri Lanka Chaitanya Vaiṣṇavism 577 Champaran 55, 57, 58, 87, 117-18, 656-7 Chandi Mendut 535 Chandraketugarh 47, 144, 145, 146, 147, 151, 158, 182, 201, 204, 680 Chatara district, Jharkhand 98 Chaurāsī-Yoginī 186 Chhotanagpur 54, 164, 171, 178, 676 China 65, 152, 253, 386, 507, 610 Chittagong 31, 41, 45, 64, 67, 76, 193, 198, 199, 201, 202, 205, 228, 330, 336, 337, 339-41, 377, 378, 381, 408, 409, 416, 417, 419, 448, 465-7, 478, 699, 700 Comilla 45, 46, 67, 68, 77, 147, 148, 150, 156-8, 192-9, 202, 203, 206, 210, 212, 225-7, 241, 260, 272, 321, 330, 332, 332-7, 339-41, 344, 346, 351, 353, 361, 376, 377, 407, 408, 410, 411, 416, 448, 451, 459, 461, 463, 465-7, 489, 532, 561, 567, 574, 587, 600, 607, 614, 695-9 Cooch Behar 205 Coorg area of Karnataka 437 Crowned Buddha 102, 113, 124, 137, 249, 255, 307, 348-51, 536, 537, 583, 588, 589, 635, 636, 644, 660 Cuṇḍā 246, 248, 249, 262, 264, 270, 424, 609, 632

761

Damodar river 68, 69, 154, 178 dānapati 260, 273, 277, 288-90, 295, 302, 303, 310, 311, 314, 316, 317, 324, 325, 327, 328, 349, 370, 500, 501, 503, 504, 505, 506 daṇḍanāyaka 436 Darbhanga 28, 57, 58, 59, 60, 89, 119, 120, 128, 308, 657-8 Darjeeling 205, 315, 321 Deccan 16, 231, 591 Deification of Buddhist monks 521, 524, 540-2, 569, 591 Deo-Barunark temple 93, 432, 436, 437, 618 Deo-Markandey temple 93, 94, 618 Devakhaḍga, king of Khaḍga dynasty 332, 408, 413 dēvakula 89, 409, 410, 454 dēvakulikā 454 devanikāya 436 Devapāla, Pāla king 86, 256, 270, 271, 280, 386, 391, 394, 396, 397, 400, 401, 455 Devaparvata 204, 408, 415, 416, see also Mainamati Devātideva Bhaṭṭāraka 416, 418 devimaṭha 413 Dhaka 30, 31, 66, 71, 73, 75, 81, 154, 186-92, 198, 200, 205, 222, 223, 32630, 413, 565, 566, 604, 688, 689-94 Dhāraṇī 270 Dharawat, Buddhist religious centres of 86, 89, 104, 625, 626 Dharmapāla, Pāla king 249, 252, 374, 391, 393, 397, 400, 408, 420, 424, 427, 450, 454, 476, 515, 534, 564 Dharmasvāmin 36, 249, 403 Dhavalasaṅgha 404 Dinajpur 22, 65, 213, 310, 313-17, 370, 710 Dipaṅkara Jātaka 552 Droṇimaṭhikā 414, 415 Durgā 94, 99, 103, 104, 109, 120, 121, 199, 216, 221, 229, 230, 308, 328, 330, 332, 334, 392, 547, 614, 617-700 passim

762

Index

Durgottārā 423, 424 ekāmra-kṣetra 171 Faridpur 30, 70-2, 75, 186, 187, 189, 198, 223, 326, 328, 329, 694-5 Faxian 36, 146, 178, 509 Gadādhara 358, 434, 443, 445 Gandak river 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 114, 650, 651 gaṅdhakuṭi 233, 385, 386, 391, 393, 394, 420 Gaṇeśa 94, 103, 107, 112, 114, 116, 119, 120, 122, 125, 126, 160, 169, 170, 199, 215, 216, 221, 282, 332, 334-6, 339, 377, 539, 544, 547, 556, 558, 564-7, 570, 589, 617-700 passim Garhwal 386, 387, 470 Garuḍa 160, 170, 202, 212, 213, 618, 622, 634, 647, 648, 651, 655, 671, 678, 685, 692, 693, 695, 700 Gauḍa/Gaur 191, 443, 476 Gaurī 191, 215, 317, 319, 324, 353, 416, 669, 671, 693 Gaya district, sculptures and other archaeological records of 95-9, 620-5 Gayāla Brahmins 442 Ghaghra river 56 Gopāla II, Pāla king 272, 334, 364, 409, 421, 439 Gopāla III, Pāla king 295 Gopalaganj 114, 649 Govindacandra 200, 329, 451 Govindapāla 434, 445 Gujarat 16, 454 Guṇacarita Vihāra 255 Gunaighar copper-plate inscription 148, 150, 194, 407, 410, 411, 466 Halud Vihāra 41, 490, 535, 536, 565 Haora 180, 182 hāors (marshes) of Sylhet 67, 68, 80, 193, 199, 200 Harihara 216, 617-700 passim

Harikela 45, 162, 181, 187, 192, 193, 202, 204, 330, 332, 337, 340, 341, 375, 408, 409, 417, 451, 452, 467, 475, 485, 493 Hārītī 105, 115, 126, 167, 181, 188, 251, 262, 263, 271, 354, 624, 627, 632, 642, 644, 651, 665, 673, 687, 689, 698 Haritika-Dharmasabha-Vihāra 416, 417 Harṣavardhana, king of Kanauj 391 haṭṭa 456, 457, 463 Haṭṭa-Mahājanasya 396 haṭṭikā 454, 460 Hero-stones 38, 169, 172, 173, 177, 675 Heruka 129, 188, 191, 195-8, 202, 206, 223, 226, 249, 260, 336, 361, 492, 501, 545, 550, 552, 689, 695, 696, 697 Hevajra 163, 164, 669 Hīnayāna 234, 244 Hiuen Tsang; see Xuanzang horae 426, 481 Indra 126, 168, 170, 303, 304, 443, 544, 665 Inscribed sculptures: Gaya district excluding Kurkihar 242-61; Nalanda Mahāvihāra 262-74; rest of Nalanda district 274-91; Aṅga 291-305; North Bihar 305-8; Varendra 308-24; Rāḍha 324-6; Vaṅga 326-30; Samataṭa-Harikela 330-41 Īśāna 558 Islam 10, 43, 77, 229, 230 Islamization of East Bengal/Bangladesh 43, 230, 614 Itakhola Mura 528, 535, 536, 576, 719 Itakhori 98 Itsing 36, 146, 178, 406, 448, 468, 473, 495, 499, 593 Jagaddala 41, 309, 428, 490, 514, 519, 520, 541-4, 566, 569, 585, 591, 599, 714 Jagajjibanpur 408, 421, 424, 426, 427, 430, 456, 514, 515, 518, 519, 520, 565, 570, 606; see also Nandadīrghikā-Vihāra

Index Jaina 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 27-9, 31, 33-5, 37-9, 47, 83-5, 89-91, 93, 95, 97, 100, 101, 103, 105, 113, 116-19, 121, 123, 127, 131, 133, 143, 144, 146, 149, 150, 154, 160-2, 164-9, 171-3, 175-7, 181, 183, 195, 203, 205, 207, 231, 233, 262, 309, 324, 357, 383, 401, 449, 592, 595, 604, 617-700 passim Jainism 11, 15, 18, 34, 90, 92, 100, 105, 113, 118, 131, 149, 162, 164, 165, 172, 175, 177, 181, 203, 219, 230, 309, 592 Jalpaigudi 152, 205 Jamui 79, 91, 98, 106, 107, 110, 111, 130, 138, 303, 346, 354, 366, 646 Jamuna river, Bangladesh 66, 67, 72, 75, 200, 205, 604 Janārdana 434, 443 Jehanabad 61, 91, 99, 103, 130, 242, 445, 625-6 Jessore 70, 147, 184, 326, 687-8 Jharkhand 49, 54, 60-4, 68, 69, 77, 91, 93, 97, 98, 106, 110, 130, 162, 172, 180, 304, 603 Jhewari 201, 202, 227, 228, 330, 336, 337, 341, 344, 376, 378 Jina Buddhas/Dhyānī Buddhas 32, 102, 325, 589, 598 Jīvagupta 438 Jīvitagupta II 94, 432, 436 Kādambarī 454 Kaimur 60, 61, 76, 91, 92, 93, 130 Kaivartta 177, 218, 422, 520, 543 Kakatiya period, temples in 15 Kalachuri 115, 354 Kāmarūpa 391, 450, 458, 464 Kāñcī 350, 368 Kanheri 406 Karala Vihāra 413 Karatoya river 29, 45, 65, 74, 152 Karmanasa river 89, 91, 92 Karṇasuvarṇa 154, 204, 426, 667 Karnataka 94, 432, 437, 440 Karṇāṭas, Karṇāṭa dynasty of Mithila 307, 308, 660

763

Kārṣāpaṇa 445 Kārttikeya 289, 290, 564, 669, 692 Karuṇaśrīmitra 429, 585 Karuṣadeśa 91, 92, 93, 94, 612, 617 Katihar 63, 123, 125, 126, 307, 665 Kauśāmbī 234, 402, 512 Kāyastha 276, 281, 295, 313, 319, 322, 328, 329, 428 Kerala 341, 368 Kesariya 85, 87, 118, 127, 130, 382, 650, 656, 657 Keśava 315, 321, 322, 435, 447 Khagaria 57, 58, 59, 121, 122, 123, 127, 663 Khana-Mihirer-Dhipi 147, 204 Khasarpaṇa Avalokiteśvara 256, 258, 278, 282, 609 Khasarpaṇa Avalokiteśvara, MahāĀyatana (great temple) of 51 Khodar Pathar mound, Mahasthangarh, Buddhist temple at 25, 151, 157-9 Khulna 70, 71, 149, 150, 185, 186, 201, 213, 326-8, 330, 688, 689 Kishanganj 55, 125, 664-5 Kokāmukhasvāmin, the shrine of 449 Kokkāka 421 Kolhua 83, 85, 87, 117, 306, 307, 382 Konch temple 99, 622 Korea 610 Kotalipada 187, 204 Kotasur 158, 160, 204, 670 Kṛmilā 90, 106, 107, 109, 110, 130, 301, 302, 304 Krodha 137, 562 Krodhanandin, donor of an image of Aparājitā 257, 258, 259, 260, 350, 360 Kṛṣṇa 400, 555, 556, 558, 561, 618, 648, 678 kulapati 436 Kulika (Juafardih), Maudgalyāyana’s birthplace 582 Kumaon 386-8, 470 Kumāragupta, Gupta king 391 Kumrahar 85, 89, 645 Kurkihar 98, 240, 242, 243, 247, 256,

764

Index

268, 292, 296, 300, 344-8, 350, 365, 367, 380, 382, 405, 406, 544, 546, 612, 623 Kurukullā 98 Kuṣāṇa Period 85, 87, 115, 133, 139, 144, 149, 204, 208, 234, 244, 573, 610, 617, 645, 650, 680, 682 Kuśīnagara 283, 650 Kutila Mura 528-32, 575, 576, 720 Kuṭumbika 449 Kuṭumbin 437, 449 Laḍahacandra 321, 334, 451, 459, 461, 462, 607 Laḍahamādhava Viṣṇu temple, Comilla 451, 459-63, 607 Lakhisarai 62, 79, 90, 91, 106, 108, 110, 137, 291-5, 297, 298, 301, 302, 304, 346, 349, 351, 367, 380, 382, 404, 578, 646; see also Kṛmilā Lakṣmaṇasena 330, 466; era 387, 388 Lakuliśa 252, 253, 622, 677 Lalitā 215, 319, 324, 353, 373, 669 Lalitagiri 361 Lalmai 46, 158, 193-5, 197, 198, 202, 330, 331, 376, 423, 525, 528, 577; see also Mainamati Lāṭa 454; see also Gujarat Liṅgarāja temple 170, 171 Lokanātha 126, 157, 199, 200, 310, 311, 450, 460, 476, 665, 675, 689, 696 Lokeśvara 658 Lumbini 283, 288 Madanapāla, Pāla king 289, 296, 302, 304, 404, 466 Madhepura 57, 59, 123, 124, 126, 664 Madhubani 28, 57, 58, 59, 88, 119, 120, 121, 128, 141, 306, 307, 658-60 Madhupur jungle tract 66, 73, 74, 200 Magadha 34, 41, 49, 53, 60-3, 66, 77, 83, 85, 86, 91-3, 95, 99, 106, 129, 130, 152, 174, 179, 242, 243, 247, 251, 256-62, 273, 275, 277, 279, 284, 286, 288, 291, 297, 305, 309, 323, 341, 344,

345, 350, 355, 364, 380, 382, 388, 389, 404, 430, 431, 434, 437, 444-6, 465, 467, 489, 493, 505, 514, 530, 534, 547, 563, 567, 578, 604, 605 Mahābhārata 171, 489 Mahābodhi 41, 47, 85, 86, 88, 89, 94, 98, 99, 245, 247, 248, 250-5, 300, 343, 352, 353, 364, 382, 384-9, 401, 405, 406, 424, 429, 465, 466, 469, 473, 490, 493, 497-9, 501, 502, 505-7, 511-14, 522, 530, 546, 547, 553, 554, 564, 576, 605, 613, 614, 624; see also Bodhgayā, Pīṭhī and Vajrāsana Mahadeopur temple 93, 94, 619 Mahākāla 137, 547, 570, 593, 690 Mahāmāṇḍalika 329, 354, 404 Mahānāma 245, 248, 249, 384 Mahananda river 29, 45, 56, 65, 74 Mahānāvika Buddhagupta 378, 426 Mahāparinirvāṇayatra 87, 114, 124, 181, 283 Mahāpratiśarā 30, 188, 689 Mahārāja Maheśvara Nāthacandra 410 Mahārājādhirāja Mitya 391, 392 Mahārajādhirāja Sāmalavarmana 422, 466 Mahārājādhirāja Vitavva 391, 392 Mahāsāmanta Bhadranāga 420 Mahāsānghika 235 Mahasthangarh/Mahasthan 25, 47, 83, 144, 149-52, 157, 158, 203, 208, 213, 519, 557, 572 Mahattara 414, 477 Mahāvairocana 274, 348, 535, 537, 583 Mahāvīra 659 Mahāyāna 17, 23, 24, 41, 108, 129, 148, 149, 186, 198, 201, 202, 233-41, 2479, 254, 256, 258, 268-70, 274, 278-84, 292, 296, 297, 299, 307, 311, 312, 325, 327, 334, 335, 338-40, 343, 349, 351-3, 356, 367, 387, 391, 398, 402, 417, 423, 427, 429, 466, 474, 490, 505, 506, 511, 512, 552, 675 Mahāyāna vihāra 466, 476 Mahāyāna-vihāra-kṣetra 417

Index Mahendrapāla, Pāla king 242, 255, 279, 285, 364, 408, 421, 427, 428, 482, 570 Maheśvara 410 Mahiṣāsuramardinī 107, 109, 112, 116, 186, 191, 199, 213, 215, 216, 221, 318, 319, 330, 334, 353, 617-700 passim Mainamati 41, 46, 148, 157, 158, 193-8, 202, 206, 213, 225, 330, 331, 352, 376, 409, 411, 423, 424, 430, 451, 459, 462, 467, 475, 482, 491, 510, 512, 514, 519, 525, 526, 528, 530, 531, 535, 537, 538, 539, 542, 543, 544, 575, 576, 577; see also Lalmai Maitreya 98, 101, 113, 135, 257, 260, 269, 305, 348, 556, 597, 624, 627, 635, 640, 691 Makaradhvaja Jogī/Yogī 95, 320, 620 Malla state in medieval Vishnupur area, Bankura 218 Malladeva, Karṇāṭa ruler of Mithilā 308, 353, 660 Manasā 139, 153, 185, 211, 216, 221, 299, 300, 314, 317, 326, 444, 642, 645, 648, 671, 677, 678, 686-8, 694 Manbhum 15, 54 Maṇḍala 42, 285, 345, 347, 349, 352, 402, 454, 513, 514, 534, 535, 537-40, 542, 543, 547, 548, 562, 563, 567, 578, 596, 695 maṇḍapa 16, 90, 94, 428, 437, 456, 520, 543 māṇḍapika 308 Mandār 89, 112, 647, 648 mangalakāvya 326 Mangalkot 47, 149, 158, 161, 166, 167, 204, 673, 674 Mañjuśrī 180, 200, 327, 328, 329, 330, 354, 556, 597, 639, 686, 690, 692, 699 Mānuṣī Buddhas 32 Māra 196, 249 Mārīcī 30, 101, 122, 124, 137, 163, 185, 186, 188, 189, 192, 252, 254, 556, 629, 630, 632, 634, 636, 661, 663, 668, 676, 688, 689, 694, 695, 696 maṭhapati 304

765

maṭhas/maṭha 89, 199, 323, 402, 431, 432, 436, 438, 440, 441, 445, 447, 450, 451, 453, 455, 456, 463, 464, 474, 477, 549, 564, 606 maṭhikā 409, 418 Mathurā / Mathura 233, 234, 244, 277, 295, 343, 352, 397, 399, 400, 402, 653 Mātṛkā 104, 149, 169, 170, 210, 312, 314, 626, 629, 631, 633, 635, 644 Mattavilāsaprahasana 235 Mayurakshi river 68 Medinipur, East/West 47, 68, 145, 149, 164, 178, 179, 180, 182, 221, 325, 603, 679-80 Meghalaya 67, 193, 205, 604 Meghna river/valley 45, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70-2, 74, 75, 80, 81, 157, 193 Merā Viṣṇu temple, Magadha 434, 446 Mithila 57, 58, 60, 77, 307, 308, 353, 578, 604 Mitrabala Vihāra 413 Moghalmari 41, 179, 180, 325, 490, 525, 679 Mūlasarvāstivādin 281 Mundesvari temple 93, 431, 432, 436, 619 Munger 58, 61, 62, 79, 91, 106, 111, 130, 293, 301, 303, 356, 389, 433, 442, 646-7 Murshidabad 65, 70, 71, 162, 164, 210, 408, 667-69 Mūrtiśiva 313, 323, 326 Muzaffarpur 57, 58, 118-19, 127, 433, 656 Mymensingh 66, 75, 192, 200 Nadia 70, 71, 183, 222, 687 Nāga 89, 276, 281 Nāgarāja 263, 268, 429, 511, 552 nagaraśreṣṭhin 449 Nāgārjuna 268 Naigameṣa 149 Nalanda district, sculptures and other archaeological records of 100-3, 629-45

766

Index

Nalanda Mahāvihāra 19, 82, 100, 180, 243, 261, 262, 268-71, 273, 274, 278, 280, 285, 289, 329, 344, 362, 365, 379, 386, 389, 390, 392-7, 401-3, 405, 420, 448, 471, 473, 507, 530, 562, 566, 567, 604, 612, 614, 634, 642 Nandadīrghikā Vihāra 421, 427 Nānyadeva 307, 308 Narasiṁha 89, 103, 112, 160, 215, 221, 313, 434, 645, 648, 669, 670, 671, 676, 684, 692, 693 Narasiṁhagupta 391 Nārāyaṇapāla, Pāla king 279, 289, 290, 396, 433, 440, 441 Naṭarāja 170, 199, 202, 221, 332, 334, 645, 675, 678, 680, 683, 685, 694, 696, 697, 700 Nawada 49, 61, 91, 95, 98, 105-6, 130, 242, 382, 432, 627-9 Nāyaka Aṅgasiṁha, Bhabhua area 445 Nayapāla, Pāla king 323, 326, 434, 443, 452, 457 Nepal 55, 57, 424, 594, 609, 659 Newar Buddhism 594 Niṣpannayogāvalī 42 Noakhali 67, 68, 192, 200, 205, 227, 699 nunnery 87; see also Bhikṣuṇīsaṅgha Odantapuri 100, 287 Odisha 27, 29, 30, 48, 53, 155, 170, 171, 172, 174, 176, 177, 179, 181, 197, 320, 360, 361, 470, 492, 496, 524, 580, 581, 676 Pāḍikramaṇa Vihāra 287 Padma river 45, 65, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 81, 158, 162 Padmapāṇi 828, 338, 340, 556, 559, 627 Pagan 465, 588; see also Burma Paharpur 25, 41, 206, 309, 317, 320, 347, 349, 352, 373, 402, 420, 424, 426-30, 449, 466, 482, 490, 491, 508, 510-14, 518-21, 523, 524, 526, 530, 531, 533, 535-46, 551, 553, 555-61, 565, 568, 576, 578, 586, 589-92, 595, 596,

599, 603-6, 608, 613, 708. See also Somapura Mahāvihāra. Pāhila Praśasti 453, 455-6, 458 Pakbira, a Jaina site in Purulia 15 Pakhanna/Puṣkaraṇa 154, 155, 158, 174, 178, 204, 219, 675 Palamau 61, 91, 93, 134 paṅcarakṣā 188 Pañcastūpanikāyika 449 Paṅcatathāgatas 32, 33, 129, 195, 198, 202, 206, 255, 280, 284, 285, 305, 347-9, 352, 424, 429, 482, 501, 514, 524, 530, 532, 534-7, 543, 559, 576, 583, 589, 590, 603 pāribhogikadhātu 86, 87, 89, 109, 132, 383, 405, 510 Parṇaśabarī 30, 188, 689 Pāśupata 433, 440 Pāśupata maṭha 440 Pāśupata-Ācarya-Pariṣada 433, 440 Pāṭaliputra 86, 137, 573 Patna district, sculptures and other archaeological records of 103, 645 Paṭṭikera 321, 423, 424, 460, 461, 576, 609 Pīṭhī (Bodhgayā region) 442 Pīṭhīpati rulers 386, 387, 388, 389, 442, 484, 501 Prabhāvatī, Khaḍga queen 332, 332, 353, 414, 415 Pradyumneśvara 148, 409, 410, 457 Prajñāpāramitā 155, 336, 409, 421, 423, 424, 466, 631, 690 Prāṇapratiṣṭhā 27, 239, 345, 346, 357 Prapitāmaheśvara temple, Gaya 434, 443, 444 Prathamaśiva, ruler of Mathura area 399, 400, 402, 473 Pratihāra 299, 300, 354 Puṇḍeśvarī/ Pūrṇeśvarī/Puṇyeśvarī 108, 301, 367 Puṇḍravardhanabhukti 454, 455 Purāṇic Brahmanism 258 Pure Land Buddhism 610, 611 Purnea 55, 59, 60, 63, 125, 127, 666

Index Purulia 15, 21, 23, 34, 38, 47, 49, 54, 162, 169, 171-4, 177, 178, 180, 181, 203, 205, 218, 230, 324, 325, 592, 603, 678 Rāḍha 13, 45, 49, 144, 145, 149, 154, 157, 158, 160-2, 164, 178, 181, 203, 204, 230, 324, 344, 448, 493, 592 Rajabadidanga 41, 145, 148, 150, 154, 157, 397, 424, 425, 426, 427, 430, 490, 521, 544, 564, 573, 667 Rājagṛha/Rajgir 34, 61, 89, 90, 101, 172, 261, 263, 271, 276, 282, 283, 289, 290, 400, 642 Rājarāja Bhaṭṭa 408, 413, 414 Rajasthan 320 Rājavaiśya 396 Rājavihāra 409, 410 Rajbhita inscription 321, 451, 456, 486, 607 Rajshahi district in Bangladesh 65, 144, 210, 313, 314, 316, 317, 455 Rājyapāla, Pāla king 289, 319, 401, 456 Raktamṛttikā Mahāvihāra 163, 425, 426 Rāmāyaṇa 151, 556, 557, 558 Rāmāyaṇa panels from Bamunpara (in the neighbourhood of Mahasthangarh) 151 Rāṇaka 242, 289, 290, 293, 296, 302, 346, 353, 354, 500, 501, 502, 505, 506 Raṇavaṅkamalla Harikāladeva 423, 463, 487 Rangpur 63, 65, 75, 213, 422 Rarh Plains 64, 68, 69, 77 Rāṣṭrakūṭa 384 Ratnagiri, Buddhist site in Odisha 155, 259, 517, 524, 580 Ratnatraya 385, 408, 412, 415, 466, 477, 489 Rohtas district 60, 92, 93, 94, 617-18 Ṛṣabhanātha 167, 672, 683 Rupaban Mura Vihāra 528, 535, 575, 587, 721 Sabhar/Savar 41, 150, 154, 157, 158, 187, 189, 190, 204, 223, 430, 490, 543, 565, 566, 572, 600

767

Sadakaṣarī Lokeśvara 126, 624, 665 Sadāśiva 160, 183, 316, 317, 319, 324, 442, 645, 647, 687 Sahajayāna 53, 351, 423 Saharsa 57, 58, 59, 123, 125, 663 Sahṣra-Āyatana 440 Śaivācārya 160, 313, 320, 323, 326 Śaivism 121, 124, 125, 149, 157, 160, 169, 171, 182, 192, 196, 197, 221, 250, 251, 252, 254, 259, 323, 547, 548, 553, 554, 558, 562, 583 Śākta 28, 29, 84, 104, 112, 116, 124, 126, 183, 186, 192, 197, 319, 320, 332, 353, 607 Śākyabhikṣu 235-8, 245, 246, 248, 249, 275, 279, 338, 339, 407, 410, 476 Śākyabhikṣuṇī 235, 236, 238, 296, 297, 346 Śākya-Sthavirā Vijayaśrībhadrā 294, 297, 346 Salban Vihāra 194, 195, 225, 330, 331, 344, 345, 376, 424, 430, 475, 508, 510, 511, 526, 528, 531, 533, 535, 536, 538, 542, 551, 555, 560, 561, 566, 567, 573-5, 600, 604, 609, 613, 716 Samācāradeva, king of Samataṭa 391 Samandar, a port in Chittagong coastal tracts 201 Samastipur 58, 59, 119, 121 Samataṭa 31, 147, 149, 157, 162, 187, 204, 255, 407, 411; boundaries of 45, 46, 67,77, 80; copper-plate inscriptions of 407-9; dedicatory inscriptions on sculptures of 33041; distribution pattern of religious centres in 192-203; geographical features of 67-8; gold and silver coinage of 331, 364, 376; shift of maritime focus of Bengal to 181, 376 Sanchi 110, 268, 363, 397, 579 Sandhyākara Nandī 176, 429 Śaṅkara, temples of 456, 460 Saptamatṛkā 631, 635, 644 Saran 56, 57, 60, 76, 114, 115, 128, 139, 650-1

768

Index

Sarasvatī 126, 626, 637, 645, 651, 698 Sāriputra 269, 281, 509 Sarnath 92, 144, 149, 233, 283, 284, 288, 618 Sārthavāha 331, 334, 335, 341, 378, 396 Sarvāstivādina 235 Śarvvāṇī 156, 198, 212, 213, 272, 332, 332, 353, 566, 589, 696, 697 Śaśāṅka, king of Gauḍa 191 Śaṣṭhī 191, 289, 290 Sata Deulia, Jaina temple site in Bardhaman district 167 Sattra 51, 89, 398, 399, 400, 440, 444, 452, 458, 472, 609 Satyapir Bhita 25, 513, 521, 523, 524, 527, 530, 531, 542, 606, 608, 709 Shahabad 22, 31, 49, 60, 61, 445 Shekhpura 79, 91, 106 Siddhācārya 311 Siddhas 311, 351, 611, 614 Siddhesvara temple, Bardhaman district 169, 170, 171, 674 Siṁhanāda Avalokiteśvara 137, 297, 346, 630 Sindh 253, 254, 255, 275, 279, 341, 406 Singhalasaṅgha 387, 388 Sinhala 249, 255, 357 Sitakot Vihāra 41, 490, 514, 518, 565, 571, 710 Sitamarhi 58, 118, 119, 127, 657 Śiva 89, 90, 93, 94, 99, 103, 105-7, 112, 121, 122, 126, 157, 169, 170, 173, 182, 197, 199, 202, 213, 221, 242, 251, 253, 313, 319, 322-4, 332, 334, 410, 431, 433-5, 437, 440, 443-6, 452, 456, 458, 460, 461, 544, 547, 553, 554, 556, 558, 565, 570, 604, 613, 617-700 passim Śiva-Lokeśvara 157, 192, 604, 695 Siwan 114, 128, 139, 649-50 Somapura Mahāvihāra 255, 398, 401, 411 420, 424, 429, 521, 523, 524, 558, 585, 608 Sone river 49, 60, 61, 63, 83, 90-2, 95, 98, 129, 242, 382, 431, 436, 467, 603, 617

Sonnakādevīmādhava Viṣṇu temple 321, 457, 607 South-East Asia 145, 272, 400, 494, 507 śrāddha 96, 442, 444, 563 Śramaṇa 385, 395, 610 Śramaṇa Prakhyātakīrti 385 Śrāvaka 249 Śrāvastī 234, 283, 286, 288 Śreṣṭhi 396 Sri Lanka 245, 249, 255, 341, 379, 384, 385, 387, 388, 549, 593 Śrīcandra 276, 402, 451, 459, 464, 468, 485, 549 Śrīdhāraṇa Rāta 408, 411, 412 Sthavira Mañjuśrīmitra 422 Sthavira Śrīgarbha 428 Sthavira Vīryendra 253, 255, 429, 467 Śūdraka, ruler of Gaya area 443, 444 Suhma 162 Sujātā stūpa 386 Sultanganj 85, 88, 89, 111, 573, 647 Supaul 57, 59, 123, 124, 125, 664 Surma river/valley 45, 64, 67, 80 Sūrya 94, 98, 99, 103, 104, 106, 112, 113, 114, 116, 119-22, 126, 161, 169, 170, 198, 199, 200, 210, 212, 213, 215, 216, 220, 221, 227, 252, 253, 262, 263, 303, 304, 313, 314, 322, 328, 329, 431, 432, 436, 443, 449, 564, 565, 566, 589, 617-700 passim Susunia rock inscription 174 suvarṇakāra 288, 416 Suvarnarekha river/valley 178 Śvetavarāhasvāmin, the shrine of 449 Sylhet 31, 34, 45, 54, 67, 76, 77, 80, 157, 158, 192, 193, 199, 200, 203, 205, 225, 402, 448, 450-2, 459, 463, 464, 467, 468, 485, 549, 604, 606, 699 Tailika 256, 258 Tamil Nadu 341, 365, 384, 365, 368 Tāmralipti 34, 47, 144-8, 151, 178, 179, 201, 204, 209, 332, 376, 406, 426, 456, 467 Tāmraparṇī 384

Index Tantric 29, 30, 31, 98, 124, 128, 186-9, 191, 192, 198, 205, 229, 249, 250, 310, 311, 327, 350, 351, 357, 534, 537, 564, 584 Tārā 25, 31, 98, 101, 115-17, 122, 124-6, 129, 135, 137, 156, 157, 181, 191, 195, 206, 212, 246, 249, 256, 257, 260, 264, 270, 275, 276, 278, 279, 280, 282, 293, 295, 296, 299, 300, 310, 311, 328, 329, 330, 336, 338, 340, 346, 349, 354, 377, 423, 501, 513, 514, 521-5, 530-2, 542, 543, 556, 570, 586, 606, 608, 614, 617-700 passim Taradih 98, 625 Tārānātha 36, 249, 345, 534 Teesta river 59, 63, 65, 74, 75 Teghara (in Begusarai district) inscribed seal 446, 447 Telhara/Telāḍhaka 85, 89, 100, 402, 512, 614, 615 Telkupi/ Tailakampī 172, 173 Thailand 582, 591 Theravāda 247, 249, 255, 311, 379, 588 Tibet/Tibetan 32, 36, 65, 74, 152, 191, 227, 249, 361, 403, 507, 515, 538, 569, 584, 659 Tippera 68, 72, 199, 450, 464, 476, 696-7 Tīrabhukti 57, 58, 119, 433, 438, 440, 441 Trailokyavijaya 30, 102, 105, 115, 121, 122, 124, 129, 202, 259, 273, 307, 350, 351, 360, 492, 501, 544-8, 550, 552, 631, 659 Trāyatrimśa 283 Tripiṭaka 343 Tripura 67, 68, 193, 225, 489 Triratna- stūpas 529 Trivikrama, a form of Viṣṇu 207, 458, 459, 648, 674, 685 Tulāpuruṣa ritual 458 Turkic 18, 229, 298, 308, 389, 403, 568, 569, 570, 576, 577, 578, 599, 608, 609 24-Parganas 70, 71, 145, 180-3, 212, 213, 220, 680, 682-7

769

Umāmaheśvara 92, 94, 103, 104, 107, 109, 116, 121, 122, 125, 126, 199, 215, 216, 221, 317, 324, 553, 554, 565, 617-700 passim Vāgīśvarī 265, 270, 272, 630, 643 Vaibhāśika 269 Vainyagupta 391, 407, 410, 476 Vairocana 102, 139, 202, 255, 266, 273, 274, 312, 325, 347-9, 351, 365, 513, 514, 534, 535, 537, 539, 559, 590 Vaiśālī 34, 85, 87, 89, 116, 117, 258, 283, 288, 396, 573, 656 Vaishali district 57, 58, 116-17, 651-6 Vaiṣṇava 29, 84, 104, 112, 124, 126, 127, 168, 190, 192, 241, 423, 441, 450, 453, 455, 461, 550, 595, 619, 647, 655, 661, 690 Vaiṣṇavism 149, 168, 190, 192, 558, 565, 566, 577, 592 Vaiśya varṇa 207, 341, 458, 459 Vajradeva 374, 421, 424, 427, 518, 570, 607 Vajradhātumaṇḍala 524, 535, 538, 540, 541 Vajrapāṇi 246, 248, 249, 276, 281, 539, 696 Vajrāsana 249, 384, 385, 386, 388, 442; see also Mahābodhi and Bodh Gaya Vajrasattva 536, 691 Vajravārāhī 252, 254, 386 Vajrayāna 29, 30, 32, 35, 40-2, 53, 84, 98, 102, 105, 115, 122, 129, 156, 167, 181, 188, 202, 206, 240, 249, 258-60, 274, 283-5, 305, 307, 340, 347-3, 424, 490, 491, 492, 501, 508, 513, 516, 532-4, 576, 584, 588, 603, 611 Vajrayāna, epigraphic invisibility of 350 Vajrayogini (site in the Dhaka area) 188, 190, 409, 422, 465-7, 598, 689 Vaṅga 45, 47, 147, 149, 158, 162, 204, 221, 326, 327, 329, 344, 354, 409, 422, 448, 465, 466, 493, 566, 572, 600 Vaṅgāla 479, 523, 568, 585

770

Index

Vaṇijakī 249, 250 Vaṇika 255, 276, 282, 295, 302, 303, 331, 335, 341, 378, 401, 500, 501, 505 Vaṇika-Śreṣṭhī 258 Varāha 89, 122, 124, 168, 215, 555, 617-700 passim Varanasi/Vārāṇasī 91, 172, 176, 181, 323 Varendra 29, 31, 45, 47, 65, 66, 76, 77, 144, 149, 152, 158, 162, 203, 205, 210, 213, 308-12, 314, 315, 319-23, 332, 341, 344, 353, 408, 409, 411, 417, 419, 448-59, 465-8, 493, 514, 516, 518, 520, 521, 531, 543, 544, 557, 565, 571, 572, 577, 592, 600, 607 Varṇa 9, 39, 207, 232, 248, 252, 278, 287, 292, 299, 305, 307, 322, 327, 340, 341, 458, 506, 517 Varṇāśrama 329, 392 Varṣavardhana ceremony 439 Varuṇasvāmin, temple of 94 Vasu Bihar/Vasu Vihāra 25, 41, 430, 480, 490, 519, 565, 572 Vāsudeva 190, 328, 329, 400, 451, 458, 459, 461, 462, 565, 566, 598, 614, 627, 652, 688, 697 Vāsudeva 190, 328, 329, 400, 451, 458, 459, 461, 462, 565, 566, 598, 614, 617-700 passim Vasudhārā 302, 306, 307, 446, 447, 662 Vaṭeśa temple, Gaya 434, 443 Vela Vihāra 409, 418, 419 Veṇḍamatī-vihārikā 408, 415 vihārasvāmin 411 vihārī 382, 387, 409, 423, 424, 466, 469 vihārikā 382, 401, 408, 413-15, 420, 449 Vijñānavāda 269 Vikramaśilā 41, 113, 196, 291, 345, 382, 383, 403, 405, 465, 515-17, 534-7, 584, 588, 626 Vikrampur 30, 31, 158, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 198, 204, 223, 326, 327, 330, 565, 566, 573, 609, 689-94 Vinaya 247, 343 Vinayadhara 243, 247, 249, 343

Vipulaśrīmitra 51, 401, 420, 429, 467, 479, 522, 523, 524, 585, 609 Vīradeva Praśasti 401 Vīradharadeva 451, 462, 463 Viṣṇu 22, 28, 94, 99, 103, 104, 106, 107, 111-15, 118-22, 124-7, 139, 149, 156, 158, 160, 161, 164, 165, 168, 170, 174, 178, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 190, 199, 200, 202, 206, 207, 210, 212, 213, 215, 216, 221, 252, 253, 307, 308, 313-17, 319-22, 324, 325, 328, 329, 332, 335, 336, 346, 374, 416, 423, 431, 432, 434, 437, 438, 443-6, 457, 458, 459, 464, 544, 549, 555, 561, 565, 592, 606, 607, 617-700 passim Viṣṇu-Lokeśvara 163, 178, 190, 216, 324, 325, 544, 592, 604, 668, 673, 675, 676, 678, 679, 690 Viṣṇu, avatāras of 168, 190, 549, 614, 693 Viṣṇupāda temple, Gaya 443, 445, 620 Viṣṇupaṭṭta 160, 190, 684, 685, 692, 693 Viśvāditya, ruler of Gaya area 434, 443 Votive stūpas: Mahābodhi 497-502; Nalanda Mahāvihāra 507-14; Antichak 514-17; Paharpur 521-5; other monastic centres of Varendra 518-21; Moghalmari 525; monastic centres on the Mainamati ridge 525-8; Kutila Mura 529-30 Votive tablets 17, 47, 429, 491, 494, 496, 502-6, 507, 516, 525, 575 Votive terracotta plaques 36, 41, 243, 491, 493, 513 vṛhata-gaṅdhakuṭi, Vajrāsana 384, 385 Wari-Batesvara 76 Xuan Zang 109, 146, 151, 178, 251, 425, 495, 496, 497, 499, 519, 547, 622, 650 Yakṣa Maṇibhadra, shrine of 410 Yakṣapāla, ruler of Gaya area 444 Yamāntaka 272, 561, 562, 563 Yaśovarmmadeva 396, 398, 473 Yogācāra 269