Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
-
Upload
upayin-arapacana -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 1/15
Early Activity at AmaravatiAuthor(s): Vidya Dehejia
Reviewed work(s):Source: Archives of Asian Art, Vol. 23 (1969/1970), pp. 41-54Published by: University of Hawai'i Press for the Asia Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111012 .
Accessed: 05/03/2013 16:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
University of Hawai'i Press and Asia Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Archives of Asian Art.
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 2/15
Early Activity
at
Amaravati
Vidya
Dehejia
History
Department,
University
of
Sydney,
Australia
The
discoveries
in
recent
years
at
Amaravati
of
various
sculptured
and
inscribed
frag
ments executed in a
rudimentary style
seem to make it
imperative
to
recognize
the
existence
of
an
early
stage
of
activity,
prior
to
the
First
Period
or
Early
Phase
of
scholars.
The
evidence
leads
us
to
postulate
the
existence
of
a
small
stupa
during
this
period
to
which
we
would attach
the
term
Post-Asokan.
The
terms
Early
Phase
or
First
Period
would
be
unsuitable
in
this
context.
These
terms
refer
to
the main
stupa
at
Amaravati,
and
describe the
period
of the
early
simple
uprights
carved
on one
side
only
and
simple
cross-bars
with
one
face
plain,
topped
by
a
coping
stone
carved
with animals-and-herdsmen
or
the
dwarf-and-roll
theme.
Apart
from
work
on
this
railing,
the
Early
Phase
also
included work
on
the
casing
of
the
drum:
the
quadrant
slabs
were
carved with
pilasters
and crowned with
a
frieze,
while
the
?yaka-plztiorm
slabs
included
sculptured
scenes
between
the
pilasters.
There
has
been
a
general
tendency
to
include
in
this
First
Period
certain
pieces
which
to
us
represent a much earlier stage of activity and which we would place in a Post-Asokan
period.
The
term
Post-Asokan,
which
not
many years
ago
would
have
been
somewhat
irrelevant
as
applied
to
Amaravati,
is
today
an
appropriate
one.
Recently
a
sandstone
slab,
with
traces
of
an
original
polish
and
the
fragmentary
remains
of
an
inscription,
was
recov
ered
at
Amaravati.
D. C.
Sircar
points
out
that
the
language
of
the
inscriptions
is
quite
similar
to
that
of
the
Girnar
version
of Asoka's
edicts,1
and
it
seems
likely
that
the
inscrip
tion
is
part
of
an
Asokan
edict.
In view
of
the
difference
of
opinion
regarding
the
date of
the
earliest
sculptures
and
inscriptions
at
Amaravati,
we
shall
first
treat
these
on
an
entirely
relative
scheme.
The
resulting
sequence
should
be
mostly acceptable
to
all
scholars,
whether
they
place
the earliest
carvings
and
in
scriptions
around
200
B.C.
(Srinivasan,
Lalit
Kal?),
in
the first
century
B.C.
(Sivaramamurti,
"Andhra",
Encyclopaedia
of
World
Art,
p.
412;
Srinivasan,
Lalit
Kal?),
in
the earlier
half
of
the
first
century
A.D.
(A.
H.
Dani,
Indian
Palae
ography,
Oxford
1963,
p.
72),
or
around
80
A.D.
(Barrett, B.M.Q.,
p.
47).
We shall
later
give
our
own
opinion
on
the absolute
dates
to
be
attached
to
this
early
stage
of
activity.
POST-ASOKAN
STAGE
A
The
Post-Asokan
period
comprises
several
in
scribed
fragments
of
plain pillars,
cross-bars
and
copings,
and
a
few
sculptured
pieces,
and
may
be
subdivided
into
two
stages
on
the
basis
of
palaeog
raphy
(Fig.
13).
Stage
A
consists
of
over
fifty
inscribed
fragments,
unsculptured
save
for
one
piece.
It includes Chanda
1
and
3-20;
and
some
thirty
or so
inscribed
fragments
recovered
re
cently
in
the
course
of
excavations
at
Amaravati.
These
inscriptions
display
a
ha
in
which
the
hori
zontal
and
vertical
are
of
equal
length.
There
is
no
attempt
at
the
equalization
of
the verticals of
any
of
the
letters,
and
the
forms of
ga
and
ta
reveal
a
distinct
angularity.
Early
forms of
bha
are
to
be found side
by
side with
some
later
ones,
and
similarly, angular
flat-based forms
of
ma
may
be
found
beside
some
of
an
earlier
variety.
The
Chanda
group
is
carved
on
plain
unsculp
tured
pillars
and
cross-bars,
and
Sivaramamurti
suggests
that
as
these
pillars
appear
to
be
much
smaller
than
those
comprising
the
railing
of
the
main
st?pa,
they belonged
either
to
an
older
and
more
simple
rail,
or to
the harmik? o?
the
main
st?pa.
He
favours
the idea of the
harmik?
and
other
scholars
have
since
followed
him
on
this
point.
In view
of the
growing
amount
of
evi
dence
of
extensive
activity
during
a
Post-Asokan
period,
we
feel
there
is
little doubt
that these
pieces
formed
part
of
a
smaller
early
st?pa
at
Amaravati.
A
large
number of
fragments
of
cross-bars
and
pillars
were
recovered
in
recent
excavations
and
41
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 3/15
some
of these
have been noticed
in
the
Annual
Report
on
Indian
Epigraphy
1959/60,
although
the list
given
there does
not
appear
to
be
com
plete.
The
inscriptions
on
these
pieces
are
very
similar
to
those
of
the
Chanda
group
and
ob
viously
belonged
to
the
same
stage.
We
may
note
that
these
records include
two
donations from
the
P?k?takas,
who
are
the donors also
in
Chanda
8 :Chanda suggests that these are the people who
later
came
to
be
known
as
the V?k?takas.
In
scriptions
of
this
stage
include the record
of
a
senagopa
Mudukutala
(Sivaramamurti,
No.
18)
and
a
fragmentary
record,
of
which there is
a
plate
only
in
Burgess
(PI.
LVI,
7)
and which
we
have otherwise
been
unable
to
identify
or
locate.
A
coping
piece
with
an
inscription
recording
a
donation from the attendants
of
Princess
Sam
mali has been noticed
by
P. R.
Srinivasan
in
his
note
on some
of
the
early
inscriptions
in
Lalit
Kal?,
10.
The
coping
is
about
21
inches
high,
and while
some
three
to
six
inches smaller
than
the
general
size
of
the
coping
of
the
main
st?pa,
it
is
not
so
small
as
to
be
assigned
to
the
harmik?
and
surely
proves
the
existence of
an
early
rail.
Included
among
the
pieces recently
uncovered
is
a
cross-bar with
a
roughly
incised
st?pa
and
a
tree
within
a
railing,
with
an
equally roughly
engraved inscription
below
(Fig. 1).
It
may
be
noted
that the
perspective
shown
in
the
depiction
of the
railing
around
the
tree
seems
to
indicate
an
advance
on
the
depictions
at
Bh?rh?t.
Stage
A
includes
also
the
inscriptions
on
three
enormous
pillars
lying
on
the
site
itself. The
records
on two
of
these
are
contained
in
the Annual
Report
on
Indian
Epigraphy
1959/60,
where
one
(No.
25
of the
Report)
is
assigned
to
the
2nd
or
3rd
century
B.C.,
and the
other
(No.
61
of
the
Report)
to
the
1st
century
B.C.
It
appears
to
us
that
all
three
records
belong together
and that
it
would be
stretching
the
point
to
separate
them
thus
in date.
The
pillars
are
of
varying
widths
but
are
all massive?one
measures
37
inches
across,
the other
38
inches,
and the
third
52
inches?and
certainly
prove
the
existence
of
an
early
railing
of
some
sort.
Belonging
also
to
Post-Asokan
Stage
A
are
the
donatory inscriptions on two slender octagonal
pillars
in
the
Amaravati Museum. The
two
rec
ords,
so
far
unpublished,
are
identical and read
as
follows:
Acinakaputa(t?})naUtarasaGul?tasa
ca
thabho
(Fig.
2),
or
"the
pillar
of
Utara and
Gul?ta,
sons
of Acinaka".
One
of
the
columns
rises
out
of
a
rather
clumsy
ghat
a
(water-vessel)
base
(Fig. 3).
Two
pillar
capitals placed
above
an
inverted
ghata
with
part
of the
octagonal
column
intact
may
also be
seen
at
the
museum.
The
size
of
the
inscribed
base columns
and
of
the
capital-topped
columns
is
identical,
and
it
is
tempting
to
associate
the inscribed columns
with
these
capitals.
The
capitals
depict
addorsed
winged
animals,
the
palmette
and
rosette
motifs,
and are of shallow carving (Fig. 4). If indeed
they belong
to
the inscribed
columns,
they
are
among
the earliest
sculptures
at
Amaravati.
A
consideration of the
capitals
of
the
Bh?rh?t
torana
reveals
a
similar
shallow
carving
of
the
addorsed
animals,
as
well
as
the
palmette
and
rosette
motifs.
The
Amaravati Museum
pillars
may
be
compared
also
to
the
pillar
at
Madras,
but
the
Madras
elephant-and-rider capital,
by
con
trast,
is
differently
conceived,
more
deeply
cut
and
the
carving
is
highly
advanced
(Fig.
5).
On
the basis
of
sculptural style
there is
little
doubt
that
the
Madras
column
is
a
later advanced
ver
sion
of these
two
pillars.
POST-ASOKAN
STAGE
B
Stage
B
of the Post-Asokan
period
consists
of
records that
display
a
rounded later
form
of
ta,
and
a
distinct
tendency
towards
the
equalization
of the
verticals of
pa.
The vertical
and
horizontal
of
ka
are
still of
the
same
size.
This
stage
includes
Chanda
2;
Chanda
37, 38,
43;
two
sculptured
and inscribed
pillars;
and
the
records
on
a
set
of
flat
rectangular pillars
at
present
in
the
court
yard
of the
Amaravati
Museum. Chanda
2
has
long
been
attributed
wrongly
to
Amaravati.
Douglas
Barrett
points
out
that
it
is
to
be
found
instead
on
a
sculptured
fragment
from
Jaggay
yapeta
(Burgess,
PI.
LIV,
4).2
This
inscription
indicates that
the
Jaggayyapeta
st?pa
belonged
to
the
Post-Asokan
period,
and
raises
certain
questions
which
we
shall consider
later
along
with
those
regarding
the
cutting
of
the
drum slabs
of
the
main
st?pa
at
Amaravati. Chanda
37,
38,
43
are
all
inscribed
on
a
single
slab
with
carvings
on
both
sides,
now
in
the
Madras
Museum.
One
face
of
the slab
includes
a
depiction
of
the
War
of the Relics
(Fig. 6).
One
panel
depicts
three
elephants with relic caskets on their heads and a
rider and
attendant. Another
panel
shows
a
man
with
drawn bow
and
arrow,
while
a
panel
above
shows
men
with
arrows.
A
glance
at
the
S?nchi
gateway
(torana)
depictions
of
the
scene
re
veals
that
here
we
have
an
earlier
style.
The
relief
is
so
shallow
that
it
may
be
described
as
42
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 4/15
Fig.
1.
Cross-bar
from
Post-Asokan
st?pa,
Amaravati.
(Archaeological
Survey
of
India,
Government
of
India.)
Fig.
2.
Inscriptions
on
tivo
octagonal
pillars,
Post-Asokan
st?pa,
Amaravati.
(Archaeological
Survey
of
India,
Government
of
India.
)
Fig.
3.
Base
of
inscribed
octagonal
column,
Post-Asokan
st?pa,
Amaravati.
Fig.
4.
Addorsed animal
capital,
Post-Asokan
st?pa,
Amaravati.
Fig.
5.
Madras
Museum
pillar,
Main
st?pa,
Amaravati.
43
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 5/15
Fig.
6.
Slab
carved
on
both
sides,
Post-Asokan
st?pa,
Amaravati.
Fig.
7.
Vais?li
panel
of sculptured pillar,
Post-Asokan
st?pa,
Amaravati.
(Archaeological
Survey
of
India,
Govern
in
en
t
of
India.)
Fig.
8.
Finial
of
?yaka
pillar
of
the main
st?pa,
Amaravati.
WWI^nP^EigBWWBWii^BWBBWWMUaTWCTWWIIl.l
IIIIIWWWW?ww
F/?.
9.
N
er
an
jar
a
pillar,
Post-Asokan
st?pa,
Amaravati.
(By
courtesy
of
the India
Office
Library,
London.)
44
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 6/15
incised
or
engraved.
Both faces of
the slab
in
clude
representations
of
very
simple
chaitya
arches,
and both sides
are
framed
with
a
border
of
the bead-and-reel
motif.
Belonging
to
Stage
B
of
the
Post-Asokan
period
are
the
labelling
inscriptions
on
the
three
sides of
the
important sculptured
pillar
published
recently inAncient India 20/21. It is interesting
to
compare
the
Jetavana
scene
engraved
on
one
face of the
pillar
with
the
depictions
of
that
story
at
Bh?rh?t,
BodhGay?
and
Sanch?.
At
Bh?rh?t
the
details
of
the
story
are
vividly
depicted,
with
the
ox-cart
in
the
foreground,
men
covering
the
ground
with
the
square
coins,
the
onlookers
on
one
side and
the
merchant
An?thapindaka
in
the
centre.
At
BodhGay?
the
story
has
been abbre
viated?the
merchant
himself
is
absent,
as
is
the
ox-cart
and the
onlookers.
However,
men
may
be
seen
covering
the
ground
with
coins,
and
a
labourer
carries
a
container of coins
on
his shoul
der. In the panel on the Sanch? tor anas the scene
is
barely
recognizable
except
for
two
layers
of
square
coins
along
the
front
left
of
the
panel.
At
Amaravati,
as at
Bh?rh?t,
the
colourful
de
tails of the
episode
are
depicted.
The
stone
is
much
damaged
and
many
further
details
must
have
disappeared.
The
unyoked
ox
and
the
laden
cart
are
clearly
visible
in
the
foreground.
The
entire
ground
of
the
relief
seems
to
have
been
covered
with
the
coins and
to
the
right
men can
be
seen
squatting
on
the
ground,
laying
out
the
coins. The
scene
depicts,
however,
a
technical
advance
on
Bh?rh?t
in
the
easy
manipulation
of
the laden cart, the casual resting ox, and the
domed
building
to
the left of
the
relief.
The
skilful
depiction
of the stairs
to
the
lower left
of
the
Jetavana
scene
may
be
noticed. It
is
of
in
terest
to note
that the
depiction
of the
chaitya
arch
and
doorway
is
almost
exactly
similar
to
that
at
Bh?rh?t.
The
outward
slope
of the door
jambs
is
clearly
visible
in
the
representation
of
the
shrine
in
the
Vais?li
panel
on
the
same
pillar
(Fig.
7),
as
it is
also
in
the medallions
at
Bh?rh?t.
The
arch itself is
filled
in
with
the
criss-crossing
seen at
Bh?rh?t.
This
is
characteristic of
a
phase
prior
to
that
on
the Sanch?
foranas
where the
chaitya
arches
are
represented
with
the tie-rod
clearly distinguished.
The
painstaking
care
with
which the tie-rod
is
depicted
at
Sanch? would
seem
to
indicate that
it
was a
very
recent
innova
tion
and the
fact that
one
solitary panel
depicts
a
chaitya
arch
without
a
tie-rod
is
further
proof
of
this.3 The
invention
of the
tie-rod removed
the need
for
slanting
door-jambs
in
the
wooden
construction
of
the
time
as
the
tie-rod
now
took
the
weight
and
supported
the roof.
This
little
architectural detail
supports
the
sculptural style
in
assigning
the
pillar
to
a
phase
prior
to
that of
the Sanch?
foranas?prior
at
any
rate,
to
the
gen
eral
use
of the tie-rod
in
wooden
construction
in
the
Amaravati
area.
It
may
be noted that the
tie-rod is
clearly depicted
in the
chaitya
arches
on
the
octagonal
blocks that
formed the
finial
of
the
?yaka pillars
of
the
main
st?pa
at
Amaravati
(Fig. 8).
The
sculptured
pillar
reveals
the
bead
and-reel
motif
framing
the
panels
and
we
have
seen
that this motif
is
present
also
on
the
slab
in
the Madras
Museum with shallow incised
carv
ings
on
both sides.
It
may
be noted
that
a
similar
framing
by
this
motif
occurs on
an
early
Bud
dhap?da
piece
(Stern
and
B?nisti,
PI.
VII
b).
The shallow
carving
of
the
worshippers
on
either
side
is
quite
similar
to
the
treatment
on
the
sculp
tured
pillar
just
considered,
and it
appears
possi
ble that the Buddhap?da fragment belongs to
Post-Asokan
Stage
B.
It
seems
likely
that the
inscriptions
on
the
much
damaged
pillar,
found
by
Burgess
in
the
vicinity
of the
east
gate,
belongs
to
this
stage
(Fig. 9).
The
inscriptions
neranjara
and
gama
nam
are
certainly
labels
to
sculptured
scenes.
The
word
gamanam
carved
above the horse
and
below
the
torana
refers
undoubtedly
to
the
Great
De
parture,
and
the
groom
in
front
of
the horse
carries
an
umbrella
in
his
hand.
To the lower
right
of
this
episode
is
another
scene
of
which
the identification is not quite certain. Sivara
mamurti
feels
that
it
answers
best
to
the
Tempta
tion
of the bodhisattva
by
M?ra
and
his
daughters
?an
event
that took
place
in
the
Neranjara
region.
The
fact
that
the words
neranjara
are
inscribed
above the
scene
are
to
Sivaramamurti
a
definite indication
of
this
episode,
and
so
far
this
is
the
most
satisfactory
identification.
Towards
the left
of
the
pillar
is
another
scene
identified
as
the
archery
contest
in
which
Siddh?rtha
dis
plays
his skill and
dexterity.
The
trees
in
the
foreground
of the
scene are
depicted
in
a manner
very
similar
to
that
on
the
sculptured pillar
previously
considered. The
Vais?li
panel,
for
example,
reveals
a
depiction
of
foliage
in
this
same manner.
The
attitude of the
figures
also
suggests
a
similar
style
in
general,
and
we
would
have little hesitation
in
assigning
the
two
pillars
to
the
same
stage.
The
scene
of the
gamanam
may
be
compared
with
the
Great
Departure
scene
45
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 7/15
Fig.
10.
Pradakshina
pat
ha
slab
from Kesanapalli.
(Depart
ment
of Archaeology,
Government
of
Andhra
Pradesh.)
Fig.
11.
Slab
from
Kesanapalli. (Department
of
Archaeol
ogy,
Government
of
Andhra
Pradesh.)
Fig.
12.
Inscription of
Stage
II
on
Early
Phase
pillar.
The
British
Museum,
London.
?a
loose
fragment?from
the
early
Buddhist
caves
at
Pitalkhor?.
The
carving
there is
some
what
more
precise,
but the
horse is
depicted
in
a
very
similar
attitude,
and the
torana,
while it has
three
architraves,
is
similar
to
that
in
the
gama
nam
scene
and
in
the
paintings
in
chaitya
X
at
Ajant?.
Inscribed
labels
to
sculptured
scenes
appear
elsewhere
only
at
Bh?rh?t,
and it
has
generally
been
agreed
that the
reason
for
this
is
that,
by
the
time
of the
BodhGay?
and
Sanch?
torana
sculp
tures,
the stories
from the
various lives
of
the
Buddha
were
well
enough
known
for
the
in
formative labels
to
be omitted.
The fact that
such
labels
appear
at
Amaravati
on
these
sculp
tures
belonging
to
Post-Asokan
Stage
B,
adds
perhaps
to
the
argument
based
on
palaeography
and
sculptural
style,
that
these
two
sculptured
pillars
belong
to a
date
following
soon
after
Bh?rh?t.
However,
while the
argument
based
on
inscribed labels may be considered after all other
evidence,
it
does
not
appear
that
one
is
justified
in
basing
a
chronology
on
it.
Douglas
Barrett
has
pointed
out
that
P.
R.
Srinivasan's
reversal
of
Chanda's
sequence?dedicatory inscriptions
being
placed
in
the
first
century
B.C.,
and
labels
being
taken
back
to
the
second
century
B.C.?does
not
appear
valid.4
Palaeographic
evidence
too
does
not
permit
such
a
reversal of
the
sequence:
we
have
seen
that
the
inscriptions
on
the Sammali
coping
and
the
Mudukutala
pillar,
as
well
as
other
donatory
records
such
as
Chanda
3-20,
be
long
to
Stage
A
of the Post-Asokan
period,
while
the
labelling inscriptions
are
to
be
assigned
to
Stage
B.
It
appears
too
that
an
inscribed
label
does
not
invariably
and
without
exception
indi
cate
the
early
date
of
a
sculpture.
The
yaksha
Candamukha
inscription,
which
we
shall
consider
later
at
length,
is
apparently
a
label
providing
us
with
the
name
of
the
figure
carved
below,
but
it
appears
to
belong
to a
date
somewhat
in
ad
vance
of the
Post-Asokan
period.
Having
defined
the
Post-Asokan
period
at
Amaravati
and divided
it into
stages
A
and
B,
we
must
now
consider
the
probable
absolute
dates
of
these
records.
The
only comparison possible
is
with the records on the st?pas at Bh?rh?t and
Sanch?,
and
with
the
inscriptions
in
the
caves
of
the
western
Deccan.
The
records of Post-Asokan
Stage
A
reveal
a
style distinctly
earlier
than
in
scriptions
on
the foranas
of
st?pa
I
at
Sanch?,
and
somewhat earlier
than the
record
on
the
Bh?rh?t
torana
(Fig.
13).
Later
characteristics of
the
Bh?rh?t record
include
a
rounded
ga
and
a
defi
46
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 8/15
nite
tendency
towards the
equalization
of the
verticals
of
pa. Stage
A
records
appear
to
be
slightly
earlier than those
at
N?n?gh?t,
where
too
a
tendency
is
to
be
seen
towards
the
equalization
of
the verticals
of
pa.
The
contents
of
the
Bh?rh?t
torana
inscription give
us a
definite
in
dication of the
absolute date of the
record.
The
inscription
informs
us
that
the
torana
and
some
further stone-work were carved during the reign
of the
Sungas,
and
we
would
place
the
record
towards the
end of
Sunga
rule?around
80
B.C.
It
may
not
be
placed
at
a
much earlier date
since
it
reveals
palaeographic
features
somewhat
in
advance
of the
Besnagar
Heliodorus
record that
is
securely
dated
to
c.
120-100
B.C.5 The
Stage
A
records from
Amaravati
display
features earlier
than
the
Bh?rh?t
torana
record,
and akin
to
the
inscriptions
on
the
railings
of
st?pa
I
and
st?pa
II
at
Sanch?
and
with
the
railing
inscriptions
at
Bh?rh?t.
On
this
basis
we
would
suggest
a
date
of
approximately
90-60
B.C.
to
cover
these
rec
ords.
The
script
of
Post-Asokan
Stage
B is
similar
in
many ways
to
the
inscriptions
at
N?n?
gh?t.
Both reveal
a
tendency
towards
the
equal
ization of
the
verticals
of
pa.
At
N?n?gh?t
the
beginnings
of
the
tendency
towards
such
equal
ization
may
be
seen
in
the
case
of
sa,
ha and la
also.
In
this
Amaravati
group
it
may
be
seen
in
the
case
of
ha
and
la.
It
would
seem
that
on
this
basis
we
must
place
Stage
B
as
belonging
some
where
within
the
period
of
c.
60-25
B.C.
These
inscriptions
of
the Post-Asokan
period
and
the
sculpture
on
associated
fragments
indi
cate
the existence of
a
st?pa,
of
some
nature,
on
or
beside
the
site
of
the
main
st?pa
at
Amaravati,
but
at a
considerably
earlier
date. This
Post
Asokan
st?pa
seems
to
have been surrounded
by
a
largely
unsculptured railing
and
perhaps
a
small
harmik?,
and
to
these
must
have
belonged
the
various
inscribed
pillar
fragments, coping
stones
and
cross-bars. The
two
sculptured
pillars
seem
to
indicate that
columns with
scenes
carved
on
them
were
perhaps
set
up
at
the
entrance
gate
way.
The
position
in
this
scheme
of
pieces,
such
as
the slab
with
shallow
carvings
on
both
sides,
of
the
flat
rectangular pillars
with
Stage
B in
scriptions on them, and of the slender octagonal
columns
apparently
topped
with
addorsed animal
capitals,
remains
uncertain. In
this
context
we
may
note
that
while
large
numbers
of
sculptured
slabs from
Amaravati
have been
destroyed,
sev
eral
more
may
still
be
waiting
to
be
uncovered.
This
is
particularly
to
be
borne
in
mind
in
view
of
the fact
that
over
half
the
fragments
enabling
us
to
define
a
Post-Asokan
period
have
been
un
covered
as
recently
as
during
the last
ten to
fifteen
years.
The
Post-Asokan
inscriptions
con
tain
references
to a
general,
a
royal
scribe
and
a
princess,
and
indicate
that
this small
early
st?pa
arose
under the
patronage
of
some
unknown
local
dynasty. According
to
our
chronology,
on
the
evidence of both sculpture and palaeography, this
st?pa
was
commenced
around
80
B.C.,
soon
after
the
erection
of the
railings
of
the
Bh?rh?t
st?pa,
and the
railings
of
s
?
pas
I
and
II
at
Sanch?,
and
fairly
soon
after
the
cutting
of
some
of the
earliest
caves
in
western
India,
such
as
the
Kon
divte
chaitya
and
the
Bh?j?
chaitya.
The evidence from
various
other
sites in
the
lower Krishna
basin
indicates that
there
was a
considerable
amount
of
activity
in
the
area
dur
ing
the
Post-Asokan
period,
and
that
the
con
struction of
the
early
Amaravati
st?pa
was
by
no
means
an
isolated
phenomenon.
At
the
nearby
site
of
Guntupalli
a
small
rock-cut
chaitya
and
a
few
vih?ras
appear
to
have
been
cut
prior
to 80
B.C.,
and
were
presumably
in
occupation
when
the
Post-Asokan
Amaravati
st?pa
was
construct
ed.
Few
scholars
would
dispute
the
analysis
that
the
Guntupalli
chaitya displays
features
reminis
cent
of
the
Bar?bar
chaityas
and
distinctively
prior
to
the
typical
early
western
chaitya
such
as
Bh?j?,
and
we
would
assign
the
cave
to a
date
prior
to
100
B.C.
West
of
Amaravati,
at
the
village
of Kesana
palli?which
together
with Amaravati
and
Jag
gayyapeta forms the three points of a roughly
equilateral triangle?Waheed
Khan
recently
un
covered evidence
of
activity
at
an
early
date.6
A
small
st?pa,
roughly
twelve
feet
in
diameter,
was
surrounded
by
a
pradakshin?
patha,
and
situated
on
a
raised brick
platform,
and
beside this
were
the remains
of
at
least
one
rectangular
structure.
The
pradakshin?
patha
was
paved
with
limestone
slabs,
several of
which
have
donatory
inscriptions
engraved
on
them,
and
shallow
carvings
of
pendant
lotuses and
the
conventional full
lotus
(Fig.
10).
Waheed
Khan
suggests
that
an un
usual
sculptured
slab with
a
semicircular end
depicts
a
pool
with
lotuses, judging from the
presence
of
the
fishes
carved
at
the
right
(Fig.
11).
The
inscriptions,
some
fifteen
in
number,
are
all
donatory
and
belong
to
Post-Asokan
Stage
B.
Features
indicating
this
include
the
ka
with
horizontal
and
vertical
of
equal
size,
the
pa
in
which
there
is
a
tendency
towards
the
equaliza
tion
of
the
verticals,
and
a
somewhat
rounded
47
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 9/15
form of
ta.
The
present
excavations
have
not
yielded
any
remnants
of
a
railing
that
might
have
surrounded
the
st?pa.
Later
activity
at
the
site
is
indicated
by
an
inscription reporting
the dedi
cation
of
an
?yaka
pillar
in
the
reign
of
Vasisht?
putra
Sr?
Chamtam?la,
the
founder
of
the
Ikshv?ku
dynasty.
The
Post-Asokan
st?pa
at
Kesanapalli
was
apparently
enlarged
in
the
early
part of the third century A.D.
South
of
Amaravati
at
the site of
Bhattiprolu
also there
was
fairly
extensive
activity
at
an
early
date,
with the construction of
a
st?pa.
Two
of
the three
caskets
found
at
the
site
are
said
to
be
for
the relics of
the
Buddha
himself,
and
this
may
be
regarded
as
some
indication
of the
antiquity
of the
st?pa.
The
inscriptions
mention
a
Ku
beraka
raja
under
whose
auspices
the
st?pa
and
the
relic caskets
seem
to
have
been
prepared.
The
inscriptions
on
the
caskets
display
certain fea
tures
that
appear
to
be
a
local
peculiarity
for
which
we
have
no
explanation.
The forms of
the
letters,
considered
together
with
the
inscriptions
on
the
crystal,
suggest
contemporaneity
with the
records
of
Post-Asokan
Stage
A
at
Amaravati.
The
sculptured
pieces
recovered
from
Bhatti
prolu
include
two
fragments
of
drum slabs
similar
in
style
to
those
from
the
st?pa
at
Jaggayyapeta.
On
palaeographic
evidence,
the
Jaggayyapeta
st?pa
too
appears
to
have
been
constructed
during
the
Post-Asokan
period.
Chanda
inscription
2
engraved
on
a
sculptured
fragment
from
Jaggayyapeta,
indicates
that the
st?pa
there
was
completed by
the
end
of
the
first
century
B.C.
At
the
site
of
Amaravati,
the
end
of
the
Post
Asokan
period
seems
to
have
been
followed
by
a
general
lull
in
activity
over
a
span
of
fifty
years
or
so,
after
which
construction
began
again
when
work
on
the
main
st?pa
was
commenced.
On
the
evidence
of the
neranjara
pillar
it
would
seem
that the
existing
Post-Asokan
st?pa
was
enlarged
and
its
railing
dismantled and
discarded,
some
pieces
being
re-used.
Bernet
Kempers
describes
the
process
thus.
"Part
of
the
carved
work
was
used
for
the
new
one,
not
only
for
the
decoration,
but
also
for
building
materials.
Reverence for
the
past
did not
prevail.
Thus a
square
block
(or
part
of
it),
which
was
decorated
on
two
sides
at
least
with
series
of
superposed
bas-reliefs
(pos
sibly
it
once
formed
a
corner
of the
entrance)
was
transformed
into
an
octagonal pillar.
The
four
corners
of
the
block
were
cut
off,
only
the
top
and
some
parts
of the
base
were
preserved.
The
shaft
of
the
pillar
was
smoothed
and
is
con
siderably
smaller
than
the
base.
.
.
The latter
was
only
crudely
worked?it
was meant
to
be
underground?the
corners were
cut
off without
care,
the
planes
were
not
smoothed and
partly
preserved
their
carving,
as
far
as
it
had
not
been
broken
during
the
work. Thus
the
two
frag
ments
of
the
decoration
of
the
old
block
were
preserved by chance. Originally they formed
part
of the
greater
panels
of the block."7 The
pillar
was
re-carved
perhaps
to
take
a
seated
lion
on
top,
in
which
form
it
may
now
be
seen
in
the
Madras
Museum. It
would
seem
to
us
that
cir
cumstances
not
only
permit,
but
actually
call for
a
gap
of
some
decades between the
completion
of
the Post-Asokan
st?pa
and
the
re-use
of
its
ma
terials
for the
construction
of
the
main
st?pa.
Several
palimpsest
pieces
and
split
pillars
indicate
that
there
was
no
gap
in
the
re-use
of
pieces
on
the
main
st?pa
itself,
but
in
this
instance
it
in
volved
the
complete dismantling
of
one
st?pa
for
use on
another.
It
would
seem
to
us
that
there
is
a
fundamental
difference
between
the
two.
The
inscriptions
on
certain
sculptured
pillars,
cross-bars,
coping
pieces
and
drum
slabs that
dec
orated
the
main
st?pa
at
Amaravati,
will
be
our
concern
now.
We shall
examine
records
inscribed
on
pieces
belonging
primarily
to
the
Early
Phase
or
First
Period.
The
evidence afforded
by
these
inscriptions
has
never
been made
the
subject
of
a
study,
and
a
palaeographic analysis
indicates
that
these
records
may
be
subdivided
into
Stage
I
(Pre-Nahap?na),
Stage
II
(similar
to
records
of
Nahap?na
and
Gautam?putra
S?takarni),
and
Stage
III
(those
displaying
features
characteristic
of the
inscriptions
of
Pulum?vi).
We
shall
see
that
in
certain instances
the
palaeographic
de
velopment
of the records
does
not
coincide
exact
ly
with
the
sculptural development.
In
pointing
this
out
we
do
not
intend
to
imply
that in
such
instances
the
order of the
sculptures
is
to
be
reversed.
Rather,
we
shall
attempt
to
find
an
explanation
for
the
slight
inconsistency
or
dis
crepancy
between
palaeographic
and
sculptural
evidence.
STAGE
I
Inscriptions
of
Stage
I,
or
of
Pre-Nahap?na
style, display
in
general
a
tendency
towards
an
angularity
of
the letters. There is
a
lengthening
of the
verticals
of
ka,
ra
and
a,
all
of
which
main
tain
a
straight
lower
end,
and
an
equalization
of
the
verticals of
sa.
We
have
an
early
form
of
da,
48
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 10/15
s
V
<
s:
?<
z:
<5
M?
2
cet
-j
-*
CD
<Txs>
C
3.
T7
C
-D
<
3*V
(A
CM
3
4^
G^?j
J
|D
?C
?*~
W-3
50
~?
*>
-9
?--9
r*
<
SE
uu
V?
<c
z:
UJ
>
I
o
il
i
i
I
S?
h
?J4
PC3
T3
uu
po:
o
rP*
H
3
x
7C
4
u
4>ig_
te*
S?*
,
"0
'
Q
H*t
?JC
v-'
fC-V
-o
^
3
8
o?*-?
^
*
^HP?
?T?,
^^l-<^>
r^
-<
Aoh
j?
1
?,
""-o
j?
"^
Oo
??
-p
-o
.-5C?.
5C
3C
a c- <
-D-6?J
?
^
c
*
-)
-
*->
-^
?Jfc
PC
c?
a
<
4-
c-
<
3
3
^
J>
Si
.S?
Ci
J5
<
o
U)
I
\
o
a.
I?
X*.
ol?
1
MJ
??
>
-
c
n>3
^
S '
__5_
vu
H
-^
X
.-)
p
1
^
J
4
va
-
*?
-J
+1
5
H
-a
H:
>a
-)
?
-?
-o-i.
j>
?
<
X
-J
+
?-
k*
^
vo
^
v>
^
o
?l
o
-4
i
>c
?
S*
-
~>
*? r< 4^
<
o
<
?^
X
3
4
C
*^?euj
?
?
3
?-
i
\
?,
I
^
?6^
~H4-i
l'?.
*
i
*
i
i
*
l
i
4
5
49
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 11/15
the
form
of
ta
is
h-shaped,
and
there
is
a
ten
dency
towards
the notched
variety
of
bha.
The
inscriptions
are
in
general
similar
to
those
in
the
Karle
chaitya
recording
the
donation of
various
portions
of
the
cave
(Fig.
13).
1-1.
The
yaksha
Candamukha
inscription
is the first
record
to
be
considered
in
this
group
(Sivaramamurti,
PL
LXV
9;
Chanda
36).
The
inscription
is
very
brief and unfortunately does not include key
letters such
as
ga,
pa
and
ta:
it
is,
however,
very
precisely
engraved
as
compared
with
inscriptions
of the
Post-Asokan
period.
One feature
that
may
be
regarded
as
an
indication
of
its
later
date is
the
definite
lengthening
of the vertical
of
ha.
The
forms of
da,
ma,
sa
and
na
offer
few
clues.
The
form
of
va
may
again
be
taken
as
an
indica
tion
of
the
later date of
the record.
The
letter
has
a
flattish
base,
but this
in
itself
is
no
indica
tion of
an
advanced
age
as
the
va
with
such
a
base
occurs
in
inscriptions
of
various
ages.
Here,
however,
the
va
has
no
vertical
at
all,
and this
feature?an unusual one?usually
occurs
at
a
late
date.
The
form
of
kha
is
a
very strange
one
and
may
in fact
be described
as
unique:
this
is
apparent
from
the
fact
that
so
reliable
and
ac
curate
an
authority
as
Chanda
should
read
it
as
ga.
However,
the
letter
occurs
twice
in
the
in
scription
and Sivaramamurti's
reading
appears
in
little
doubt.
The
yaksha
piece
has
been
classified
as
an
?yaka
slab with
pilaster
(Barrett,
B.M.Q.
p.
43
).
Presumably
the
yaksha
comprises
the shaft
of
the
pilaster
which
then terminated
without
the usual
inverted ghata
and addorsed
animal
capital.
The
piece
is
an
unusual
one,
the
only
similar
handling
of
the
pilaster
figure
being
on
the
Chakravartin
slab from
Jaggayyapeta
where
the
remnants
of
more
than
one
chaitya
arch
are
visible
above
the
pilaster
figure.
A
noteworthy
feature
is
the
large
heavy
square earrings
seen
on
the
yaksha
slab:
these
are
strikingly
similar
to
those
on
a
yakshi
fragment
recently
recovered
at
Amaravati
(An
cient
India
20/21,
PL
XLIV
A),
and
to
those
worn
by
the
Queen
on
the
Jaggayyapeta
Chak
ravartin
slab.
It is similar also
to
those
seen on
the
British
Museum
palimpsest
drum
slab
(Bar
rett, PL
V).
The later age of the
yaksha
slab is
indicated
also
by
the
carving
of
the
chaitya
arch
which is
depicted
with
a
distinct
inward
curve
at
the
lower
end.
It is
highly
advanced
when
com
pared
with
those
depicted
on
pieces
belonging
to
Post-Asokan
Stage
B,
and
is
definitely
closer
in
style
to
the
arches
carved
on
the
block
forming
the finial
of
an
?yaka pillar
of the main
st?pa
(Fig. 8).
This
yaksha
?yaka-platioicm
slab,
to
gether
with the British Museum
?yaka
slab
(Bar
rett,
PL
V),
the slab
in
Madras
depicting
a
vriksha-chaitya
(Sivaramamurti,
PL
XV,
1),
and
the
slab
representing
the
worship
of
a
domed
chaitya
(A.R.A.S.I.
1908/09,
PL XXIX
d)
were
among
the
very
first
pieces
to
be
carved
at
the
site when work began on the main st?pa. The
?yaka-platiorm
slabs
certainly comprised
the
first
sculptural
work
on
the
st?pa,
prior
probably
to
work
on
the
railing.
Other
records
of
Stage
I
include:
1-2.
The
donatory
inscription
on
the
"Sri"
coping
(Sivaramamurti,
PL
XV,
3).
1-3. A
fragmentary
record
on
a
similar
coping
with the
dwarf-and-roll theme
(Burgess,
PL
XXXI,
3).
1-4.
The
record
on
the
garment
of
a
life-size
figure
of
a
worshipper (Chanda
39;
Siva
ramamurti, PL XVIII, 2,
3).
This record
at
present
has
so
few
letters
intact that
it
is
difficult
to
be
very
specific
on
its
palaeographic position
and
it
could,
in
fact,
have
belonged
to
an
earlier
stage.
1-5.
A
much blurred
inscription
on a
slab
de
picting
the facade of
a
building
(Stern
and
B?nisti,
PL
X
a).
We
have
been
unable
to
locate
any
translation
or
photograph
of
an
estampage
of
this record.
1-6.
Gift of
a
coping
stone
(Chanda
29).
1-7.
Donation
of
a
cross-bar
(Chanda
32).
1-8. Donation of three
cross-bars,
engraved
on
the
corner
of
a
disc with
a
big
lotus
(Chanda
33).
1-9. A
fragmentary
donation
(Chanda
35).
I-10.
Donation
mentioning
the
navakarmika,
engraved
on a
fragment
of
a
rail
pillar
(Chanda
40).
1-11.
Gift of
a
coping
stone
(Chanda
42).
1-12.
Gift of
a
coping
stone
and
a
Buddhap?da
(Chanda
44).
1-13.
Gift of
a
cross-bar
(Sivaramamurti
No.
85,P1.LXV,
16).
1-14.
Gift
of
a
coping
slab,
engraved
on
a
split
pillar
(Sivaramamurti,
No.
94
and
PL
LXV,
11).
1-15.
A
fragmentary
donation
engraved
on
a
slab
showing
the
lower
portion
of the
feet
of
a
man
and three
women
(Burgess,
PL
LVIII,
33).
50
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 12/15
I-16.
Donation of
a
pillar
engraved
on
the
lower
portion
of
an
octagonal
pillar,
on
the
re
verse
of
which is
a
list
of
Pallava
kings
(Burgess,
PL
LXI,
51).
1-17.
Fragmentary donatory
record
engraved
on
a
cross-bar with
a
lotus
medallion
(Bur
gess,
PL
L
VI,
14).
1-18. A
fragmentary inscription
on a
broken
pillar
at
Amaravati
(An.
Rep.
Ind.
Ep.
1959/60,
No.
43).
STAGE
II
Belonging
to
a
slightly
more
advanced
stage
in
which
the
script
shows affinities
with the
in
scriptions
of
Nahap?na
and
Gautam?putra
S?ta
karni,
are a
group
of records
on
various
sculp
tured
pieces.
These
inscriptions
display
a
light
but distinct
curve
of
the
lower
ends of
the
verti
cals
of
a,
ka and
ra,
and
also of
medial
u.
The
form
of da
is
occasionally
of
the
early
variety,
but
more
often
of
a new
form
open
to
the
right.
II-1.
The donation
of
a
chaitya
pillar,
engraved
on
an
octagonal
sculptured
column
(Fig.
12.
Also
Barrett,
Fig.
IX,
b,
c,
d).
II-2.
The
fragmentary
inscription
on
the
re
verse
of the Madras
Museum
palimpsest
(Douglas
Barrett,
"Two
Unpublished
Sculptures
from
Amaravati",
B.M.Q.
XX,
1956,
PL
XXIV,
a,
b).
II-3.
The
inscription
on
a
slab
representing
the
Great
Departure
(Barrett,
Catalogue
No.
73,
Middle
Phase).
The
inscription
is
badly
damaged
but
the letters
may
be
discerned reasonably clearly in Fergusson's
reproduction
(Fergusson,
PL
XCVI,
3).
II-4.
The record
on
a
pillar
carved with
st?pas
and
standing
Buddha
figures
(Stern
and
B?nisti,
PL LXVII
a).
This
pillar
indicates
that
plain unsculptured
columns
were
oc
casionally
set
up
with
donatory
inscrip
tions
on
them,
and that
sculptures
were
added
at
a
later
date:
the
carving
in
this
instance
belongs undoubtedly
to
the
Late
Phase.
II-5.
The donation of
a
pillar,
inscribed
on
a
fragmentary
slab
built into
a
temple
(Bur
gess, PL LIX, 39).
II-6 &
7.
The
fragmentary
inscriptions
on
two
drum
slabs classified
as
Middle
Phase
pieces
(Barrett,
PL
XVI,
XVII),
appear
to
be
long
to
the
transition
to
Stage
III.
Once
again
Fergusson's
reproductions
are
valua
ble for
the
inscriptions (Fergusson,
PL
XCV,
3,4).
II-8.
The
inscription
on
the
top
of
the rail
pillar
seen
in
Barrett,
PL
XXIV
also has
an
in
scription
belonging
to
the
transition
to
Stage
III
(Fergusson,
PL
LXI,
1).
II-9.
The
inscription
at
the
top
of
the rail
pillar
on
Barrett,
PL
XXI b
belongs undoubtedly
to
the
transition
to
Stage
III.
STAGE III
The
inscriptions
of
Stage
III,
of the
time
of
Pulum?vi,
reveal
definite
advances
in
script.
The
lower ends of
the
verticals
of
ka,
ra
and
a are
invariably
curved,
and
in
the
case
of
jha
and
?a,
optionally
so.
Elaborate
flourishes
of
medial
i
and
u
may
be
seen.
The
left
arm
of
pa,
ha and
ba
usually
curve
inward,
and
the form
of
da
is
always
the latter
one,
open
to
the
right.
A
new
form
of
ta
now
appears:
the letter
is
formed
in
a
single
stroke
and results
in
a
hooked
variety.
The
earlier
form
may
be
seen
to
persist,
however,
in
several
inscriptions
of this
stage.
III-l
&
2.
Prominent
among
Stage
III
pieces
are
two
donatory
records
on
Early
Phase
rail
pillars
(Barrett,
PL
XX
b;
Barrett,
Cata
logue
No.
1
).
The
inscriptions
display
all
the
advanced
features characteristic of the
records
of
Pulum?vi,
with
the elaborate
curves
of the
lower ends of
the
verticals
and the
flourishes of the
medi?is.
These
rail
pillars
with
one
face
plain
and
the
other
carved
with
one
full
lotus
and
two
half-lotuses,
belong undoubtedly
to
the
earliest
stage
in
the decoration
of
the
rail.
The
inscription
on
Barrett,
PL XX
b
is
intact and
refers
to
the
gift
of
two
p?
dukas
by
Sivaka and
various
members of
his
family,
while
the
record
on
Barrett,
Catalogue
No.
1
is
fragmentary.
Ill-3.
Belonging
to
the
Early
Phase
is
a
slab
that
formed
part
of the final
projection
of
a
gateway,
with
mortise
holes
in
the
top
to
hold
the
lion
figure,
and
in
the
base
to
fix it
to
a
pillar
(Barrett,
PL
XIV
b).
The
inscription
on
the
slab
refers
specifically
to
the
donation
of
a
lion-seat
(sihath?na).
The
script displays,
even more
than
the
two
rail
pillars
considered
above,
the
elab
orate
flourishes
characteristic of
the
rec
ords
of
the
time
of
Pulum?vi.
It
is
apparent
that
there
is
some
discrepancy
here
between
the
palaeographic
and
sculptural
evidence?a
discrepancy
which
must
be
recog
nized and
discussed.
Any
scholar
comparing
the
n
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 13/15
pieces
discussed
as
III-3
and
II-9
will
agree
that
the
inscription
on
II-9
undoubtedly displays
(whatever
the
reason
for
this
may
be)
an
earlier
form
of
script.
Yet
sculpturally
the situation
is
reversed
as
the
carving
of
II-9
is
of
a
later
date
than
III-3.
The
main
discrepancies
between
palaeographic
and
sculptural style
will be
exam
ined
below
and
at
the
same
time
we
shall
con
sider the
slight
anomalies
presented by
some of
the
inscriptions.
In
the
course
of
examining
the
contents
of
various
records,
we
have
come
across
a
number
of
instances
in
which
the donations
are
apparently
inscribed
on a
piece
other
than
the
one
actually
donated.
The
possible
implications
of
this
will
be
apparent.
While
this
explanation
does
not
provide
all
the
answers,
it
nevertheless
raises
interesting possibilities.
The
inscriptions
on two
Early
Phase
rail
pillars
belong
to
the
time
of
Pulum?vi
(III-l
and
2),
while
the records
on
two
coping
stones
that
must
have crowned pillars of this type belong
to
the
Pre-Nahap?na
stage
(1-2
and
3).
It would
ap
pear
possible
that
the
rail
pillars
were
also
set
up
in
the
Pre-Nahap?na
stage
with
the
inscriptions
being
added
in
later
days.
The record
on
one
of
the rail
pillars
certainly
refers
to
an
unconnected
gift
of
footprints
of
the
Buddha.
The record
on
the
other
rail
pillar
is
fragmentary.
This
explana
tion,
while
possibly
valid
in
this
particular
in
stance,
may
not
be extended
to
all
such
problem
records.
The
Pulum?vi
style
inscription
on
the
slab
for
a
lion
mount
(an
Early
Phase
piece)
reports
the
gift
of
that
very
slab
(III-3).
It in
dicates
either
that
the
piece
itself
must
be
as
signed
to
the
Middle
Phase,
or
that
the
Early
Phase
which
commenced
at
an
earlier
date,
per
sisted
into the
time of
Pulum?vi.
The
fragmentary
inscription
on
the
top
of
the
magnificent
Middle
Phase
rail
pillar
(H-9)
refers
to
the
gift
of
two
p?dukas
by
the
mother
of
?nada,
The
portion
of
the
inscription
referring
to
the actual
donation
is
quite
intact.
While the
record
belongs palaeographically
to
the
Pre
Pulum?vi
stage,
the
pillar
itself
is
one
of
the
finest
examples
of
the
Middle
Phase
rail
pillars,
and
must
have
belonged
to
the
time
of
Pulum?vi.
It appears probable that an unsculptured pillar
was
set
up
at
an
earlier
date
and the
donation
of
the
p?dukas
(which
one
assumes
were
located
nearby)
was
engraved
on
it.
This
inscription
was
left
intact
when
the
pillar
was
carved
at
a
later
stage.
That
this
in
fact
did
happen
is indicated
by
the
piece
discussed
earlier
as
II-4. This
pillar
has
a
record
in
the characters
typical
of the
in
scriptions
of
Nahap?na
and
Gautam?putra
S?ta
karni,
while the
carving depicts standing
Buddha
figures
and
belongs
undoubtedly
to
the
Late
Phase. It is
apparent
in
this instance
that
an un
sculptured
pillar
was
donated
at
an
early
date
and
the
gift
inscribed
on
it. When
it
was
later
carved,
the
earlier
record
was
allowed
to
remain.
This
explanation
seems
most
probable
for the
magnificent
Middle Phase rail
pillar
under con
sideration. There
is
the
possibility
that the
earlier
script persisted
into
the
Middle
Phase,
but
it
seems
unlikely
that
once
the
pillar
with
its
splen
did
carving
was
completed (presumably
through
the
munificence
of
an
un-named
donor)
an
un
connected record would then have
been
inscribed
on
it.
The third
possibility?an
unlikely
one?
is
that the
rail
pillar
actually
belongs
to
an
earlier
period.
One other
anomalous
inscription
to
which
we
may
draw
attention,
although
it
does
not
pose
any
problems
of
sculptural
or
palaeographic
dis
crepancy,
is
the
donatory inscription
engraved
on
a
Late
Phase drum
frieze
(Barrett,
PL
X
&
XI).
The record
mentions
various
gifts
to
the
"Great
Chaitya"
at
Amaravati
including
that
of
two
chaitya
slabs,
three
p?dukas,
a
coping,
and
a
slab
with
a
flower
vase.
It
also
mentions
the
erection
of
some structure
at
the
st?pa
at
R?jagiri
(Luders,
No.
1225).
It is
interesting
that
apart
from
the
various
gifts
at
Amaravati
(engraved
on an
unconnected
slab)
donations
to
other
stupas
are
even
recorded.
Other
examples
of
such
anomalous
inscriptions
exist.8
Two drum slabs of the Middle Phase contain
inscriptions
that
illustrate the
transition
to
the
days
of
Pulum?vi
(II-6
and
7).
Either these
pieces
belong sculpturally
also
to
the
transition
from
the
Early
to
the
Middle
Phase,
or
the earlier
style
of
script
persisted
side
by
side
with
that
of
Pulum?vi.
Another
fragment,
apparently
from
a
drum
slab,
displays
an
even
earlier
style
of
script
(1-15).
We
must
consider also
the
questions
raised
by
a
comparison
of
the slab
II-2
with
Chanda
in
scription
2
that
belongs
to
Post-Asokan
Stage
B.
The latter
inscription,
engraved
on
a
fragment
from Jaggayyapeta, indicates that the decoration
of
the drum
of the
Jaggayyapeta
st?pa
took
place
in
the
Post-Asokan
period.
The
inscription
on
the
reverse
of
the Madras
Museum
palimpsest,
which
is
a
quadrant
slab
(II-2),
belongs
to
the
stage
illustrating
the
transition
to
the
days
of
Pulum?vi,
and indicates
that
the
similar
decora
tion
of the drum
at
Amaravati
belongs
to a
later
52
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 14/15
date.
It
is
certainly
true
that
apart
from the
treatment
of
the
shaft
of the
pilasters
"no
stu
dent
.
.
.
would
be
able
to
distinguish stylisti
cally
between the
pilaster
forms
on
either
type
of slab
[?yaka-platiorm
or
quadrant]
or
between
those
of
Amaravati
and
Jaggayyapeta."9
On
this
basis,
it
might
be
expected
that
Post-Asokan
Stage
B
and
Stage
II
of the
main
st?pa
belong
fairly closely
together.
However, the appearance
of the male
and
female
figures
on
the
shafts
of
all
pilasters
at
Jaggayyapeta,
and
on
the
shafts
of the
?yaka-plztiorm
slabs
only
at
Amaravati
(though
not
necessarily
on
all
such)
may
defi
nitely
be
considered
as
an
earlier
feature,
which
was
followed
on
the
quadrant
slabs of the
Amara
vati
st?pa,
by
shafts decorated
in imitation
of
a
rail
pillar
with
one
full
and
two
half-lotuses.
Construction
of the
main
st?pa
at
Amaravati
was
commenced
some
time
after work
at
Jaggayya
peta
was
completed,
and
the
?yaka-phtforms
were
carved
first
with
the
shafts
of the
pilasters
following the earlier style of Jaggayyapeta. The
quadrant
slabs
were cut
later,
probably
contem
porary
with
the
carving
of the
rail,
and
the
sculpting
of
human
figures
on
the
pilaster
shafts
was
abandoned. The
inscription
on
the
Amara
vati
quadrant
slab
(II-2)
is
then
understandably
later than
any
on
the
Jaggayyapeta
st?pa.
We
may
also
note
that
there is
undoubtedly
a
certain
difference
in
the
treatment
of
the
sculptured
scenes on
the
?yaka
slabs
at
Jaggayyapeta
and
Amaravati.
The
scenes
at
Jaggayyapeta?the
Chakravartin
or
the
Punyas?la?reveal
a
com
pletely
flat,
entirely
incised
treatment.
The
Amaravati ?yaka slabs by
contrast
reveal
a
deeper
cutting,
and
the British
Museum
palimpsest
for
example
(Barrett,
PL
V)
could
no
longer
be
described
as
incised,
although
the
cutting
is shal
low
and
flat
as
compared
to
later
sculptures.
We
must
now
consider
the absolute
dating
of
the records
on
the
main
st?pa
at
Amaravati. We
have termed the
Stage
I
records
Pre-Nahap?na,
by
which
we mean
prior
to
the
first
known
rec
ord of
Nahap?na
of
the
year
41.
We do
not
believe
that
his
inscriptions
refer
to
the
Saka
era
of
A.D.
78,
and
largely following
the
argument
of
the editorial article "Date of
the
Karle
Chait
ya",
in
Lalit Kala
3/4, 1956/57,
we
would
iden
tify
the
year
41
with the
year
A.D. 95.
On
this
basis
we
would
place
the
Stage
I
records
roughly
between
A.D. 50-95.
Stage
II
then
belongs
be
tween
A.D.
95-110,
and
Stage
III
to
A.D.
110
138.
Those who
assign
Nahap?na
to
the
Saka
era
may
adjust
the dates
accordingly.
We
have
seen
earlier
that
pieces
belonging
sculpturally
to
the
Early
Phase
have
engraved
on
them
inscriptions
of
all three
stages:
these
pieces
could
then
be
placed
anywhere
between
A.D. 50
and
A.D. 138.
This
period
may,
however,
be
lessened
to
around
sixty
years
by
assigning
the
Stage
III
inscriptions
to
the
first
years
of
Pulu
m?vi?to
around A.D.
110.
The first
appearance
of his new style of script may justifiably be
placed
towards
the
start
of his
reign.
That
the
sculptural
decoration of
the
monument
in
Early
Phase
style
extended
over
such
a
period
is
cer
tainly
feasible. It
would
seem
to
us
that the
Early
Phase
had
a
slow and
somewhat
uncertain
start,
possibly
under the influence
of
one
of
the
branch
lines
of
the
S?tav?hana
dynasty,
while
their
central
territories
were
being
lost
to
the
Kshahar?tas. With the
re-establishment
of
S?ta
v?hana
power
and the
extension
of their
domains,
work
on
the
monument
was
subject
to
accelera
tion.
While
a
few
pieces
of
Early
Phase
style
may
still have been carved in the time of Pulum?vi,
stylistic
development
was
rapid
and
there
was a
swift
transition
into the
style
of
the Middle
Phase.
The
one
or
two
pieces
of Middle
Phase
style,
which
bear
Stage
II
inscriptions,
indicate
that
Early
and
Middle
Phase
styles
undoubtedly
co-existed
for
some
time,
just
as
Stage
II
and
Stage
III
styles
of
script
must
have been
in
vogue
side
by
side for
a
certain
length
of
time.
Among
the artisans
involved
in
work
at
Amaravati
there
would have
been
the
older
master
craftsmen
and
the
younger
pupils,
and
there
must
undoubtedly
and
understandably
have been
stylistic
distinc
tions
between their work.
In
sculptural style,
as
in
palaeographic
style,
the
transition
from
one
phase
to
another could
not
have been
so
abrupt
that,
at
any
certain
time,
two
stages
in
the de
velopment
of
a
style
may
not
be
found
together.
/ must
acknowledge
here
the
help
and
advice received
from
Mr.
Douglas
Barrett
of
the
British
Museum,
who
was
kind
enough
to
read
through
the
typescript
of
this article
and
offer
me
sug
gestions for
the
improvements.
Ultimate
responsibility for
the
views
on
the
dating
must,
however,
rest
with
me.?V.
Dehejia.
53
This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:26:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/11/2019 Dehejia Early Activity at Amaravati
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dehejia-early-activity-at-amaravati 15/15
NOTES
1. D.
C.
Sircar,
"Fragmentary
Pillar
Inscription
from
Amaravati",
Epigraphia
?ndica, XXXV,
1%2,
pp.
40-43.
2.
Barrett,
British
Museum
Quarterly,
XXXII,
1967,
p.
45.
3.
The
chaitya
arch is
depicted
without the
tie-rod
on
the
top
most
panel
of
the
left
pillar
on
the
south
torana.
4.
Barrett,
ibid.,
p.
46
f.
5.
The
inscription
mentions
the
erection
of
a
garuda-dhvaja by
the ambassador from king Antialkidas, who is known to have
ruled
between
120-100
B.C.
6.
Mohd. Abdul
Waheed
Khan,
A
Buddhist
Stupa
at
Kesanapalli
(District
Guntur,
Andhra
Pradesh),
Hyderabad,
1969.
7.
A.J.Bernet Kempers,
"Note
on
an
ancient
sculpture
from
Amaravati",
Acta
Orientalia, X, 1932,
p.
365.
8.
Consider,
for
example,
the
inscription
on
a
drum
pilaster
belonging
to
the Late
Phase
(Barrett,
PI.
Villa)
which
reports
the
gift
of
a
p?duka
slab
(Luders
1217).
9.
Barrett, ibid.,
p.
44.
ABBREVIATIONS
Ancient India
20/21?A.
Ghosh
and
H.
Sarkar,
"Beginnings
of
Sculptural
Art
in
south-east
India:
a
stele
from
Amaravati",
Ancient India
20/21,
(1964
&
65),
pp.
168-177.
A.R.A.S.I.?Annual
Report
of
the
Archaeological
Survey of
India.
An.
Rep.
Ind.
Ep.?Annual
Report
on
Indian
Epigraphy.
Barrett?Douglas
Barrett,
Sculptures
from
Amaravati in
the British
Museum, (London, 1954).
Barrett,
B.M.Q.?Douglas
Barrett,
"The
Early
Phase
at
Amaravati",
British
Museum
Quarterly
XXXII, 1967,
pp.
35-48.
Burgess?James
Burgess,
The
Buddhist
Stupas
of
Amaravati
and
Jaggayyapeta, (London,
1887).
Chanda?R.
P.
Chanda,
"Some
Unpublished
Amaravati
Inscrip
tions",
Epigraphia
Indica,
XV,
1919/20,
pp.
258-275.
Fergusson?James Fergusson,
Tree and
Serpent
Worship,
(London,
1873).
Luders?H.
Luders,
"A
List of
Brahmi
Inscriptions",
Appendix
to
Epigraphia
Indica,
X,
1909/10.
Sivaramamurti?C.
Sivaramamurti,
Amaravati
Sculptures
in
the
Madras Government Museum, (Madras, 1942).
Srinivasan,
Lalit
Kal??P.
R.
Srinivasan,
"Recently
discovered
in
scriptions
from
Amaravati
and
their
significance",
Lalit Kola
10,
1961,
p.
59
f.
Stern and
B?nisti?Philippe
Stern
and Mireille
B?nisti,
?volution
du
style
Indien
d'Amaravati, (Paris, 1961).
54