SOAS Studies on South Asia
BUDDHIST STUPAS IN SOUTH ASIA
Recent Archaeological, Art-Historical, and
Historical Perspectives
edited by
Jason Hawkes
Akira Shimada
1
1
YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110 001
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur
Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala
Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland
hailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in India
by Oxford University Press, New Delhi
© Oxford University Press 2008
he moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2008
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
ISBN-13: 978-0-19-569886-2
ISBN-10: 0-19-569886-X
Typeset in Adobe Jenson Pro 11/13.2
by Excellent Laser Typesetters, Pitampura, Delhi 110 034
Printed at ................................................................
Published by Oxford University Press
YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110 001
Contents
List of Figures
vii
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas:
An Introduction
Jason Hawkes and Akira Shimada
ix
Section I
1. he Archaeology of Stūpas: Constructing Buddhist
Identity in the Colonial Period
Himanshu Prabha Ray
2. he Colonial History of Sculptures from the
Amaravati Stūpa
Jennifer Howes
Section II
3. Relics of the Buddha: Body, Essence, Text
Michael Willis
1
20
41
4. he Power of Proximity: Creating and Venerating
Shrines in Indian Buddhist Narratives
Andy Rotman
51
5. Nature as Utopian Space on the
Early Stūpas of India
Robert L. Brown
63
Section III
6. Narrative Sequences in the Buddhist Reliefs
from Gandhāra
Kurt Behrendt
83
vi Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
7. Shedding Skins: Nāga Imagery and Layers of
Meaning in South Asian Buddhist Contexts
Robert DeCaroli
94
8. Stūpas, Monasteries, and Relics in the Landscape:
Typological, Spatial, and Temporal Patterns in the
Sanchi Area
Julia Shaw
114
9. he Wider Archaeological Contexts of the
Buddhist Stūpa Site of Bharhut
Jason Hawkes
146
Section iv
10. Buddhist Ideology and the Commercial
Ethos in Ku]sān India
Xinru Liu
177
11. he Urban Context of Early Buddhist
Monuments in South Asia
James Heitzman
192
12. Amaravati and Dhānyakaaka: Topology of
Monastic Spaces in Ancient Indian Cities
Akira Shimada
216
13. Stūpa, Story, and Empire: Constructions of the
Buddha Biography in Early Post-Aśokan India
Jonathan S. Walters
235
Section V
14. Remembering the Amaravati Stūpa:
he Revival of a Ruin
Catherine Becker
267
15. What makes a Stūpa?: Quotations, Fragments, and the
Reinvention of Buddhist Stūpas in Contemporary India
Jinah Kim
288
Bibliography
List of Contributors
Index
310
347
349
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas1
An Introduction
Jason Hawkes and Akira Shimada
Buddhist stūpas, the often massive hemispherical mounds built for
the veneration of the Buddha and his disciples, were undoubtedly
the most magnificent religious monuments that appeared in the
Indian subcontinent during the early historic period. he origins of
the stūpa are not entirely clear, but in Buddhist contexts they would
seem to have appeared at some point around 400–300 bce. he
practice of building them became prevalent throughout South Asia
between c. 200 bce and 300 ce, and soon spread to other parts of
Asia. Although the Indian Buddhist tradition does not survive today,
a considerable number of early stūpas are still visible in many places,
and their remains testify to the nature and widespread presence of
Buddhism in early India.
As is widely known, Buddhist stūpas in India were largely abandoned after the demise of Buddhist monastic practice, and were
re-discovered by European colonial officials in the late eighteenth and
early nineteenth centuries. he subsequent study of these monuments
and their associated remains has been central to many aspects of the
study of South Asia’s ancient past, providing as they do some of
the earliest examples of religious architecture, stone sculpture, and
inscriptions in South Asia. Despite this, however, our understanding
of this important class of monument, and the ancient past to which
they belonged, remains seriously limited. In many respects, this is due
to the ways they have been studied. At the time of their re-discovery,
knowledge of the ancient Buddhism to which these monuments
xii
Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
largely pertained was only very hazy, and there was neither the
archaeological expertise nor academic knowledge to facilitate their
effective study. Over the course of the next two centuries, the study of
Buddhist stūpas has been defined by the evolution and development
of various academic disciplines, including archaeology, art history,
history, and religious studies. he development of these disciplines
has generated particular trends in the ways that stūpas are studied,
and still influences many of our current views of the monuments.
The Western Discovery of Indian Buddhism
he study of stūpas has been closely connected to the evolution of
the European understanding of Buddhism itself. As early as the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries ce, fragmentary accounts of
Buddhism in Asia began to reach Europe through the records and
personal accounts of travellers and explorers. One example is a fairly
detailed summary of the life of the Buddha that was recorded by
Marco Polo, the celebrated Venetian traveller, who stayed in China
between 1275 and 1291 ce (Benedetto trans., 1994: 319–20). From
the sixteenth century, European encounters with contemporary
Buddhist worship throughout Asia greatly increased with the direct
contacts established by merchants and missionaries. Over the next
two centuries, a considerable amount of ethnographic material was
written about the beliefs and practices of Buddhism in various Asian
contexts.2
hese various (and invariably unsystematic) encounters with
Buddhist practices, however, did not immediately result in the
identification of the existence of Buddhism in ancient India. At
first glance this would seem a bit odd, especially when we consider
that early European travellers had also visited a number of ancient
Buddhist sites in India. he rock-cut caves at Kanheri, for example,
received much attention (Mitter, 1977: 34–40; Chakrabarti, 1988:
3–11). At the same time, however, these early travellers seem to have
had little idea as to the nature of these monuments. One of the main
reasons for this may have been that in India, unlike other countries in
Asia, Buddhism was no longer visible as a living religion. Buddhism in
India had largely disappeared before the Islamic conquest of the lower
Gangetic valley in the early thirteenth century.3 By the eighteenth
century, many of the Buddhist monuments were either dilapidated or
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xiii
had been turned into shrines devoted to Hindu or other forms of local
worship.4 In addition, the Hindu Brahmins, who would have been
the main informants of Indian culture for the Europeans, understood
any form of religious practice associated with the Buddha as a part of
Hindu worship. It would, therefore, have been difficult to recognize
the monuments as the remains of the ancient Buddhist religion, as
distinct from contemporary Vai]s]navite practice. Moreover, it should
be noted that Europeans observed contemporary Buddhist practices in
different countries throughout Asia, without having a comprehensive
understanding of Buddhism as a pan-Asian religion. Due to the long
history of Buddhism in each part of Asia, the Buddhist monasteries
and practices that were observed had already developed highly
divergent forms. It was hardly an obvious conclusion that they were
all part of the same religion, let alone connected to the dilapidated
ruins encountered in a largely Hindu India.
Around the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, however,
this situation began to change. During this time, coinciding with an
increasing colonial interest in India’s ancient past (through which
contemporary Indian culture could be better understood, and thus
more effectively ruled), the reconstruction of the religions of ancient
India became a major academic issue. Central to this endeavour was
the study of the ancient texts in Sanskrit and to a lesser extent Pāli,
which started to become available for European scholars. In many
respects, and as is widely recognized, the primacy attached to the
study of these texts was rooted in the influence of the European
classical tradition, for which written texts were the established, and
indeed the only, objects of study in scholarly approaches to ancient
history, religion, and philosophy.5
he textual studies of ancient Indian religions led to a significant
development in the understanding of Buddhism. Combined with
various ethnographic accounts of the beliefs of Futo, Hotoke, Bodo,
Booddhu or Bauddha observed in the larger part of Asia, studies of the
ancient texts revealed that these seemingly diverse styles of worship
were in fact manifestations of the same religion that had its origins in
ancient India (Almond, 1988: 10–11). Based on this larger historical
canvas, Eugene Burnouf wrote the first comprehensive study of ancient
Indian Buddhism using the Sanskrit manuscripts acquired by Brian
Houghton Hodgson in Kathmandu, Nepal (Burnouf, 1844).6 hrough
xiv Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
the gradual accumulation of textual knowledge, western scholars were
able to sketch the broad historical framework of Buddhism, and, in
doing so, ‘authorized’ the study of the texts as a means of enquiry
into ancient Indian Buddhism and the history of the period to which
it belonged, as a serious academic pursuit (Almond, 1988: 25). his
‘discovery’ of Buddhism also enabled the identification of the ancient
remains of Buddhism in India, which had not always been so clearly
differentiated from Brahmanical or Jain monuments (Erskine, 1823:
494–537).
The Study of Buddhist Stūpas
Early Encounters: the Late Eighteenth and
Early Nineteenth Centuries)
It was in precisely this context that the remains of Buddhist stūpas
were first encountered. he first recorded discovery and study of
a Buddhist stūpa was in 1798 when Colin Mackenzie Found the
remains of the Amaravati stūpa and made a brief survey (Mackenzie,
1807). Shortly thereafter, in 1800, a local doctor excavated the stūpa
at Vaiśālī (Stephenson, 1835: 130–1). he stūpas at Sanchi were
discovered by a British officer named General Taylor in 1816, and
subsequently explored by Captain Edward Fell in 1817 (Fell, 1834:
490–4; Burgess, 1902: 29–45). In the northwest, Ranjit Singh
excavated the stūpa at Manikyala in 1830 (Prinsep, 1834: 315–20),
and throughout the 1830s, Alexander Burnes and Charles Masson
opened a large number of stūpas throughout the Gandhāran region.
It should be noted, however, that these earliest explorations
of stūpa monuments were in no sense professional archaeological
surveys as we have come to understand them today. At best, they may
be described as antiquarian endeavours, at worst they were the result
of blatant treasure hunting. Because the early surveyors of the stūpas
were largely government officials or else private individuals with an
amateur interest in old ruins, their understanding of what was being
surveyed or excavated varied considerably. Mackenzie’s extensive
excavations at Amaravati (1816–17), for example, were to obtain
sculptures for the embellishment of a monument that had been built
by a local British officer (Howes, 2002: 59–65). Mackenzie did not
fully understand the nature of this monument, but knew enough
to surmise that it was used for religious worship by a different sect
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xv
from the Hindus (Mackenzie, 1823: 469). Similarly, while Fell was
able to note the presence of Buddha images at the Sanchi stūpas in
1819, he also misidentified many of the Buddhist figures as Jain ‘Jinas’
and Hindu deities (Fell, 1834: 490–4). Burnes and Masson even
assumed the stūpas they excavated to be the royal tombs of Greek
kings, due to the large number of Greek coins and other precious
objects from found (Burnes, 1833: 310; Gerard, 1834: 321). In many
cases, the casual style of the excavations of these monuments resulted
in the inadvertent yet serious destruction of the sites. he tragic
history of the excavations at the Amaravati stūpa is perhaps the best
known example of the poor and unprofessional nature of the early
surveys of Buddhist stūpas (cf. Singh, 2001; Howes, 2002; Shimada,
2006). As a result of such practices, many of the objects yielded by
stūpa monuments were permanently separated from their original
archaeological context, becoming mere ‘antiquities’ to be exhibited
in museums.
he Emergence of Academic Disciplines:
he Mid-Nineteenth–early Twentieth Centuries
From around the mid-nineteenth century, however, this unsophisticated approach to the study of Buddhist stūpas began to change, as
they were increasingly viewed as valid objects of academic study. here
were two main developments that laid the foundation for this change.
First, throughout the mid-nineteenth century there was a growing
colonial and Indological concern with the study of ancient Buddhism,
which took on new importance. As has been well documented
elsewhere, through the study of a Buddhism increasingly defined
in opposition to the Hindu practice encountered in the present day,
colonial rule was further legitimized (cf. Chakrabarti, 1988, 1999;
Almond, 1998; Leoshko, 2003). he study of ancient Buddhism was
thus seen as an important concern. Second, between 1834 and 1837,
James Prinsep, an Assay-master of the East India Company, had
deciphered the Brāhmī and Kharo]s_thi scripts, which had been found
on an increasing number of coins and inscriptions from Buddhist
sites throughout the Indian subcontinent.7 his discovery paved the
way for the rapid translation of a vast amount of numismatic and
epigraphic material, which in turn facilitated the first chronological
understanding of many of the early Buddhist sites.
xvi Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
It was in this context that Alexander Cunningham invigorated
the archaeological examination of Buddhist stūpas, and in doing so
pushed them to the forefront of academic study for the first time. As
is widely known, Cunningham’s main focus was fixing the locations
of the main ancient sites by following (primarily) the accounts of the
journeys of two Buddhist pilgrims in India—Faxian (Fa-Hien), and
Xuanzang (Hiuen-Tsang)—which had recently been translated into
French and had been published earlier in the 1830s.8 Of primary
interest to Cunningham (informed as he was by the main scholastic
focus on ancient Buddhism) were the ancient Buddhist sites, and
as such he explored a number of stūpa sites. One of the earliest of
these was his exploration, in 1851, of the various stūpa remains in the
Sanchi area (cf. Cunningham, 1854a). After the foundation of the
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1861, this was followed by
a number of others—most notable among which was the discovery
and excavation of the Buddhist stūpa site of Bharhut in 1873–76 (cf.
Cunningham, 1879a, 1879b). Under the direction of Cunningham,
these sites were studied for the first time with a clear recognition of
their archaeological value in terms of contributing to the wider study
of ancient history and Buddhism. his is certainly reflected in the
published report of the work at Sanchi (Cunningham, 1854a), which
marks a significant departure from earlier writings on Buddhist stūpas,
including as it did reasonably detailed site plans, descriptions, and
illustrations of architectural remains and their associated carvings, as
well as extensive written accounts of the excavation. In this work, much
of the stūpa material was understood with reference to the written
sources. he stūpas, for instance, were dated and the relics identified
with reference to recent translations of the Sri Lankan Buddhist
chronicles, Dīpava^msa and Mahāva^msa. Concrete archaeological data
was in turn then used to verify textual accounts of ancient Buddhist
history.9
Cunningham’s work was of profound importance to the establishment of archaeology as a valid pursuit in general, at the forefront of
which was the study of Buddhist stūpas. A significant number of
stūpas continued to be explored and excavated after Cunningham’s
retirement in 1885. Importantly, all of these were carried out from
within the institutional framework provided by the ASI, meaning
that a greater degree of professionalism and more systematic methods
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xvii
of survey and excavation could be maintained.10 Some of the main
stūpas to have been excavated during the later nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries included Amaravati, which was repeatedly
excavated in 1882, 1888–89, and 1905–06 (Burgess, 1882, 1887;
Rea, 1909, 1912), Bhattiprolu in 1892 (Rea,1894), Ghantasala in
1892 (Rea, 1894), Mirpur Khas in 1909–10 (Cousens, 1914), Sanchi
in 1912–19 (Marshall, 1940) and many others in Gandhāra such as
hakht-i-Bahi in 1907–08, and 1911–12 (Spooner, 1911; Hargreaves,
1914a), Sahri-Bahlol in 1909–10 (Spooner, 1914; Stein, 1915) and
Shaji-ki-Dheri in 1907–08 (Hargreaves, 1914b).11 he institutional
framework governing the archaeological examination of Buddhist
stūpas also brought with it an effective means of disseminating research.
he results of the explorations and excavations were published in the
various Annual Reports of the Archaeological Survey of India. hese,
which had originally begun with Cunningham’s annual reports of
his surveys, continued with the Annual Report of the Archaeological
Survey of India, New Imperial Series (1904–), and the Memoirs of
the Archaeological Survey of India (1904–). hrough this system of
government publication (which survives even today), archaeological
work was systematized and authorized for the first time.
he material that resulted from the discovery and excavation of
these sites soon became firmly imprinted on many different aspects
of the study of ancient India. Coins found in association with stūpas,
for example, continued to be relied upon by the immediate successors
of Prinsep (after his untimely death in the 1840). In addition to
Cunningham himself (whose additional contributions to the fields
of numismatics and epigraphy should not be under-rated), these
included scholars such as Edward James Rapson and John Allan. For
these scholars, the study of this material was important in order to
identify the rulers who issued the coins and to fix their chronology,
in support of the historical aim of the establishment of the political
history of India. Similarly, the large number of inscriptions found
at stūpa sites across India soon came to occupy a central place in
the growing field of epigraphy. On the one hand, the texts of these
inscriptions were studied by scholars such as John Fleet, Eugen
Hultzch, Heinrich Lüders, and Sten Konow in the hopes that
they would provide important information on the ancient dynastic
history of India in general and Buddhist stūpas in particular. At
xviii Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
the same time, the epigraphic material from Buddhist stūpas was also
incorporated into the emergent field of palaeography by scholars such
as Georg Bühler, for whom they provided evidence of some of the
earliest scripts in India. he growth and increasing specialization of
this field is reflected by the establishment of two main publication
series, Corpus Inscriptionun Indicarum (1877–) and Epigraphia Indica
(1888–), which dealt exclusively with epigraphic material.
he remains of Buddhist stūpas also assumed a prominent position
in the emerging studies of art and architecture. Important to all such
studies were the sculptural scenes that adorned the architectural
remains of Buddhist stūpas, which were defined according to their
iconographic identification. During the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, we can identify two main thrusts in this research. On the
one hand there was a large tradition of scholarship that viewed the
main goal of studying carved architectural and sculptural remains to
determine a chronology of stylistic development.12 For those works,
stūpa remains provided some of the earliest examples of Buddhist art
and architecture in South Asia. he earliest stylistic analysis of stūpa
art and architecture was provided by James Fergusson, who dated
the Amaravati sculptures by comparison with sculptures at Kanheri
and Nasik (Fergusson, 1873). his was then followed by a number of
other surveys of ‘Buddhist’ and ‘Indian’ art, central to which were the
remains of Buddhist stūpas. In this regard one can mention the works
of Albert Grünwedel (1893), Vincent Smith (1911), Alfred Foucher
(1905–51, 1917), William Cohn (1926), John Marshall (1922), and
Kenneth Codrington (1926). But other scholars approached the
architectural and sculptural remains of Buddhist stūpas in the light of
the ‘psychology’ and ‘meaning’ of art as expressed in the philosophical
and aesthetic traditions that gave birth to them. he works of
Edward B. Havell (1908, 1911, 1913, 1920), and the early writings of
Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy (1908, 1909), held that as Indian
art was ‘intimately bound up with the social and religious life of the
people’, it was only through an understanding of ‘Indian thought’ and
the ‘Indian point of view’ that an understanding of Indian sculpture
could be arrived at (Havell, 1908). For these works, the sculptures
that adorned many of the early Buddhist stūpas, such as Bharhut and
Sanchi, were lauded as some of the earliest examples of the Indian
art tradition. Ultimately, these two approaches to the study of art
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xix
and architecture were synthesized in the 1920s by Coomaraswamy
(1927) and Ludwig Bachhofer (1929), both of whom produced
comprehensive treatments of the architectural and sculptural remains
of a number of stūpas, and together helped define the field of the
history of Indian art as we know it today.
In addition, the remains of Buddhist stūpas were also relied upon
by a number of textual scholars, of both Buddhism and ancient
history. Within textual studies of Buddhism, the approach typified by
scholars such as Bournouf—the reconstruction of ancient Buddhism
through the critical reading of ancient texts—was further elaborated
throughout the later nineteenth century on the basis of an increasing
number of available Sanskrit and, especially, Pāli texts.13 A central
concern for such studies was the reconstruction of what was perceived
to the ‘authentic’ Buddhism as it existed during the time of Buddha and
his direct disciples. his was to be differentiated from the later forms
of Buddhist worship which were deemed corruptions of an originally
philosophically pure religion. Fixing the chronology of the various
Buddhist texts was integral to this project. Buddhist stūpa remains
were instantly seized upon in this endeavor, because the sculptures
at a number of stūpas depicted narrative scenes that appeared to
correspond with episodes found in particular texts. Sculptural
representations provided visual evidence of the popularity of certain
stories at the time the sculptures were carved and thus ‘proof’ of the
existence of the corresponding texts (S. Oldenburg, 1893). Scholars
such as Ivan P. Minayeff (1894), Sergey F. Oldenburg (1893, 1895,
1897), and homas W. Rhys-Davids (1903), devoted much attention
to the identification of the sculptural scenes.
In a similar way, certain sculptures from Buddhist stūpas were
also used by textual historians to provide visual proof of wider social
and economic practices identified in the texts (cf. Fick, 1897, 1920; C.
Rhys-Davids, 1901). Because, for instance, various narrative episodes
appeared to represent certain social hierarchies or commodities of
production and trade, they ‘proved’ the historical existence of those
things. hat the sculptures, and to a lesser degree inscriptions, were
recognised as providing proof for such historical realities very quickly
became an important aspect of the study of the carved remains, and
is reflected in the works of early historians as well as those concerned
with the study of art and architecture (cf. Smith, 1911; Rapson, 1922;
xx
Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
C. Rhys-Davids, 1922; homas, 1922). As mentioned above, such
work was aided by the contemporary developments in epigraphy.
he Crystallization of the Disciplines from the
Early Twentieth Century
By the early twentieth century, the stūpa remains had become one
of the most important subjects in the study of early Buddhism and
South Asia’s ancient past. Buddhist stūpas were no longer the object
of interest for adventurous surveyors and curious antiquarians, but
had, instead, become the objects of study for an increasingly academic
audience with many more specialist areas of interest. While the
wider field of scholarship was still largely dominated by textual study,
Cunningham’s work had firmly imprinted the value of archaeological
remains and the pursuit of archaeology onto the wider academic
consciousness. Within the increasingly more institutionalized study
of archaeology, the excavation of Buddhist stūpas had become a
legitimate archaeological concern. In addition, the various different
remains of stūpas (including coins, inscriptions, and sculptures) had
by now become firmly incorporated into a number of emerging areas
of study including numismatics, epigraphy, and art and architectural
history. he findings of these different areas of study provided many
valuable contributions to the wider (though still largely textually
defined) study of ancient Indian history and religion. hroughout the
twentieth century, interest in Buddhist stūpas continued—and as the
various academic disciplines treating them have developed, so too has
our knowledge and understanding of these important monuments
and their associated remains.
In textual studies, the narrative sculptures of Buddhist stūpas have
continued to be cited as supporting evidence in the endeavour to
understand the date and geographical dispensation of the Buddhist
narrative texts (cf. Warder, 1970). In addition, the carved remains
have continued to provide visual ‘proof’ of the existence of Buddhist
practices, and of other social and economic realities (cf. Dutt, 1941,
1945; Gokuldas, 1951). Over the course of the twentieth century, we
may also chart the development of certain ideas within textual studies
concerning stūpa worship in Buddhism. To wit, a number of scholars
have picked up the now famous passages in Mahāparinibbāna sūtta
(chapter 5.10), which appears to prohibit Buddhist monks from
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xxi
involvement in the worship of Buddha relics (see Rhys-Davids
trans., 1995: vol. II, 154). It was also noted that there is no rule on
the construction and worship of stūpas in the Pāli Vinaya (Bareau,
1960: 229). here thus, developed a sort of consensus that stūpa
worship was not supported by the traditional monastic Buddhism,
but only by the laity (S. Dutt, 1962: 183; N. Dutt, 1945: 250–1;
Roth, 1980: 186). his view, in buttressing the traditional notions of
an ‘original’ and ‘authentic’ ancient Buddhism that was philosophical
and non-cultic, has been widely assumed among textual scholars.
he theory was further extended by Akira Hirakawa (1963: 57–106,
1968: 617–18), who linked the practice of stūpa worship with the
foundation of Mahāyāna Buddhism by the lay community.
In other disciplines, including archaeology and art history,
Buddhist stūpas have continued to be important objects of study.
In archaeology, the survey and exploration of stūpa sites extended
into new areas, including the stūpas and monasteries of Tibet and
Nepal. Here, particular mention must be made of the pioneering and
tireless of work of Giuseppe Tucci, whose numerous expeditions to
Tibet and western Nepal between the late 1920s and 1940s resulted
in much of our current understanding of these regions (see further
Tucci, 1932, 1988). Methodologically, the early twentieth century
was also witness to the development, over time, of more systematic
methods of excavation. his was largely due to a general shift in the
perception of archaeology in Europe as a mode of ‘scientific’ enquiry.
his may be seen in the introduction, for instance, of more accurate
methods of stratigraphic recording by Mortimer Wheeler in the 1940s
(cf. Chakrabarti, 1988: 175–8). Such developments have greatly
benefited the further excavation of stūpa sites throughout India and
Pakistan, as at Nāgārjunako]n]da in 1954–60 (Indian Archaeology—A
Review, 1954–55, 1955–56, 1956–57, 1957–58, 1958–59, 1959–60,
1960–61), Butkara in 1956–62 (Faccenna, 1962–64), Devnimori in
1960–63 (Mehta and Chowdhary, 1966), Pauni in 1969–70 (Deo
and Joshi, 1972), Sanghol in 1971–72 and 1984–85 (Gupta, 1985),
Amaravati in 1954–56 and 1977–78 (Indian Archaeology—A Review,
1958–59, 1973–74) and Ranigath in 1983–92 (Nishikawa, 1994).
In numismatic studies, coin deposits from stūpas have continued
to be classified and catalogued, and incorporated into increasingly
comprehensive numismatic frameworks (for example, Mitchiner,
xxii
Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
1973; Gupta, 1979). Ultimately, the purpose of such studies has
been to provide chronological markers in the construction of ancient
Indian histories. In the field of epigraphy, the transcription and
translation of inscriptions from Buddhist stūpas has continued to
be a major pursuit, and the results of this work continue to be
published in several journals. In addition to such individual reports,
some major collections of epigraphic material have also been
produced. In this connection one may cite the eventual completion
of the catalogue of Bharhut inscriptions (Lüders, 1963), and Masao
Shizutani’s (1979) corpus of Indian Buddhist inscriptions, which
is in many respects a comprehensive revision of Lüders’ (1912)
earlier catalogue. Inscriptions from Buddhist stūpas have also
continued to occupy a significant role in studies of palaeography
(cf. Dani, 1963).
he continued importance of architectural and sculptural remains
from Buddhist stūpas is reflected in the production, throughout the
twentieth century, of a series of catalogues of the sculptures from
a number of the larger stūpas, all of which have concentrated on
defining various stylistic features and identifying the subject matter
of the sculpture (cf. Barua, 1934–37; Marshal and Fourcher, 1940;
Sivaramamurti, 1942; Kala, 1951; Barrett, 1954; Coomaraswamy,
1956; Knox, 1992). In more general studies of Indian art, the
sculptures from early Buddhist stūpas have been further classified
according to the larger art-historical framework in terms of their
style, iconography, origins, development, and cultural background
(Kramrisch, 1933; Spink, 1958; Stern and Bénisti, 1961; Huntington,
1985; Nath, 1986; Harle, 1986). In studies of architectural history
too, stūpas have continued to be cited as examples of early Indian
architecture. In 1942, P. Brown published his systematic survey of
the history and development of architectural practice in India. his
work has been joined by that (most notably) of Mitra (1971), Pant
(1976), Grover (1980), and more recently Tadgell (1995)—in all of
stūpas are being placed within ever more refined understandings of
the development of Buddhist and Indian architecture.
he Notion of Symbolism
Without wishing to detract from the undoubted advances to
knowledge that have been made in the field of art and architectural
history, it must be admitted that, for the most part, these studies
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xxiii
tended to concentrate on the meaning of sculptures and architectural
forms solely with reference to the Buddhist tradition. One significant
departure from this approach that is worthy of special mention,
however, has been the study of symbolism. Over the course of the
twentieth century, a number of scholars have sought to achieve a more
comprehensive understanding of Buddhist stūpas, and have attempted
to identify certain fundamental principles of the symbolism of stūpa
architecture through the incorporation of wider archaeological,
textual, and anthropological evidence. he origins of these studies
may be traced back to the 1930s and a number of works that sought
to explore the metaphysical meanings of the Buddhist stūpa (Hocart,
1924; Mus, 1932, 1933; Combaz, 1933, 1935, 1937; Pryzluski, 1935;
Longhurst, 1936). Especially influential among these were the works
of Paul Mus, and his examination of Borobudur. Unsatisfied with the
prevalent understanding of the stūpa as a funerary monument, Mus
drew a number of analogies between the architectural features of the
stūpa and various pre-existing religious symbols, such as the cosmic
mountain (Mount Meru), cosmic pillar (axis mundi), and Indra’s
palace (cf. Mus, 1932, 1933, 1998).
his approach had a strong impact on many studies of stūpas from
the 1950s onwards. F.D.K. Bosch, for example, sought to identify
the stūpa with lotus-roots (padmamūla), as the fundamental principle
governing its shape, ornamentations and development (Bosch, 1960:
167–76).14 At an international seminar held at the University of
Heidelberg in 1978, which sought to bring together the most recent
approaches to the study of Buddhist stūpas, the symbolism of the
stūpas was a key topic of discussion (cf. Chandra, 1980; Franz, 1980;
Gail, 1980; Irwin, 1980; Roth, 1980). John Irwin, perhaps the most
well-known protagonist of this branch of study, interpreted the holes
pierced at the centre of the early stūpa as evidence for the erection
of cosmic pillars (axis mundi), which, according to the Vedic texts,
functioned to release the cosmic water and fix the earth. hus, he
opined, the stūpa was an architectural microcosm whose origin dated
to the pre-Buddhist period (Irwin, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1987).
More recently still, Andrew Snodgrass (1985) completed an extensive
and highly ambitious work on the symbolism of stūpas through a
comprehensive survey of textual, architectural, and archaeological
evidence in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Japan.
xxiv Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
Problems and Limitations
In many respects then, it may be seen that the continued development of the study of Buddhist stūpas over the course of the twentieth
century has not only improved our knowledge of these monuments
and their associated remains, but has also greatly benefited the study of
ancient Buddhism and ancient Indian history in general. At the same
time, however, for all of the methodological and theoretical developments that have taken place within these disciplines, Buddhist stūpas
and their remains have continued to be studied in very traditional
ways. As will be remembered, during the earliest phase of scholarship (within which the monuments themselves only came to be valid
objects of study largely through the colonial and Indological interests),
stūpas were studied primarily in order to provide supporting evidence
in text-based studies of Buddhism and ancient history. Coins and
certain inscriptions, for instance, were studied in order to supplement
our understanding of political histories. Similarly, the texts of other
inscriptions and the subject matter of sculpture (when not used to
refine various chronological typologies) were studied in order to fill
important gaps in the understanding of ancient Buddhism defined by
the texts. Despite the development of the various academic disciplines,
it is still these questions which by and large continued to be applied
to Buddhist stūpas and their associated remains. As has been pointed
out elsewhere (Chakrabarti, 1988, 1999; Ray and Sinopoli, 2004),
such has been the dominance of the textual approach on archaeology
and other disciplines that the questions asked of the evidence in these
disciplines have largely remained the same. he study of coins, for
instance, still largely extends only as far as improving our knowledge
of political and economic histories, while sculptures are still looked at
largely with a view to the formal iconographic identification of subject
matter. Other questions that the various remains of stūpas are better
suited to answer have, by and large, been ignored.
At the same time (and due to the limited ways in which the various
remains of stūpas have traditionally been studied), as the disciplines
that have sought to study Buddhist stūpas have developed, the remains
of Buddhist stūpas have become ever further entrenched as objects of
study in these disciplines. he study of coins, for instance, has become
the sole preserve of numismatists. Similarly, inscriptions are only
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xxv
studied by epigraphers, sites are only excavated by archaeologists, and
sculptures only studied by art historians. Together, this has meant
that scholars from these different disciplines have come to regard
these evidentiary objects as the only ones relevant to their research
questions. Archaeologists, for example, rarely engage with sculptural
material because it is perceived to exist more properly within the
realm of art history, and vice versa. Further, because the academic
interests of these diverse approaches have been considerably different
from each other, the specific findings of these studies have not been
well integrated with one another. he unfortunate effect of all of this
is that our knowledge and understanding of Buddhist stūpas, and
by extension those aspects of ancient Buddhism and the ancient
past to which they pertain, has become increasingly fragmented. In
short, while past studies have undoubtedly increased the level of
detail pertaining to various aspects of the remains of Buddhist stūpas,
the findings of this work have rarely been combined to achieve an
integrated understanding of the stūpa.
Potential ways around this have been suggested by a number of
studies over the course of the twentieth century. In this connection,
studies on symbolism created a new perspective for the examination of
the stūpa in terms of the wider religious and visual tradition of South
Asia, and were extremely innovative by attempting to incorporate
such a breadth of evidence. Indeed, it should not be forgotten that
such approaches still have considerable influence in many current
academic writings. Yet, at the same time, these approaches have not
been without problems. Recently, a number of scholars have pointed
out fundamental problems with the unthinking application of the
‘symbolism theory’ (cf. Conze, 1960: 14; Fussman, 1986: 41–4; Brown,
1986: 219–20; Skilling, 1997: 579–80). What all of these criticisms
share in common is that in order to delineate the fundamental logic
governing all stūpa architecture and art, many ‘symbolism’ arguments
have drawn on archaeological, art-historical, and textual examples
from widely different areas and periods. As a result, while many of
the identifications of symbolic meaning might appear to extend to
all Buddhist stūpas, in actual fact they are extremely theoretical, and
do not necessarily pertain to any one stūpa in any particular place
and time. Instead, the varieties of local historical contexts in which
xxvi Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
individual stūpa sites are situated are largely dismissed. In this sense,
the methodology of these studies has been highly decontextualized
and ahistorical.
Due to their deep-rooted and widespread nature, the wider
problems identified in the study of Buddhist stūpas have largely
still remained, and in many respects, the study of Buddhist stūpas
(both as discreet objects and as subjects of study) has yet to realize its
full potential. For the most part, the questions that are asked of
Buddhist stūpas continue to be limited to the broad historical and
formal-religious concerns received from traditional scholarship.
Knowledge continues to be fragmented between the various disciplines
that have laid claim to the various aspects of the study of South Asia’s
ancient past.
Points of Departure: Recent Developments
in the Study of Buddhist Stūpas
Over the last twenty years, a number of developments have taken place
in the study of South Asia’s ancient past and Buddhism in general,
which have begun to open up many exciting new areas of research, and
which together highlight a variety of ways around these problems in
the study of Buddhist stūpas. On the one hand, these have developed
from a growing awareness that the ways research has been carried out
in the past may affect our knowledge and understanding in the present
day. hanks to a number of recent studies on orientalism, imperialism,
and colonialism, scholars are now fully aware that our notions and
perspectives of the historical past of the non-western world have been
deeply influenced by the colonial discourses created in the west. In
order to highlight the problem in the context of South Asia, and to
seek a better understanding of its history, there has been a growing
number of critical-historiographical approaches to both the study
of India’s ancient past in general (cf. Lorenzen, 1982; Inden, 1990;
hapar, 1993) and ancient Buddhism and Buddhist archaeology in
particular (cf. Almond, 1986; Lopez, 1995; Shimoda, 1997; Guhahakurta, 1998; Leoshko, 2003; Singh, 2004). he results of these
studies have provided valuable insights into the ways in which various
archaeological, art-historical, and textual-historical approaches have
been defined and shaped as disciplines, with important implications
for current studies. he most recent general histories of Indian art
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xxvii
(Dehejia, 1997b; Mitter, 2001), for instance, devote many pages to
the descriptions of the colonial and the post-colonial periods, which
have been largely neglected or treated separately in the historiography
of Indian art. Gary Tartakov’s (1997) study of the Durga temple in
Aihole, and Jennifer Howes’ (2002) study of the Amaravati stūpa
both show effectively that the ways in which these monuments have
been studied in the past have caused certain specific problems for
their future examination. Historiography, in short, has become an
indispensable component for any enquiry into India’s ancient past.
he upshot of such a critical historiographical awareness in the
general approaches to the study of South Asia’s ancient past has been
a rather self-reflective re-appraisal throughout the various disciplines
(of archaeology, art and architectural history, textual history, and
textual studies of Buddhism) on the ways we have sought to examine
this past. One of main effects of this is that studies are starting to take
inter- and multi-disciplinary approaches, taking into consideration
other types of evidence usually relegated to the expertise of other
disciplines, and with this, are asking new questions about Buddhist
stūpas. As far as the study of Buddhist stūpas is concerned, this has
meant that many studies of ancient stūpas in particular, and Indian
Buddhism and Indian history in general, have started to become
highly interdisciplinary in nature.
hese developments have created new questions in many of the
traditional disciplines. In textual studies of Buddhism, for instance,
scholars have begun to realize that a number of problems surround
the exclusive focus on texts in the reconstruction of ancient Indian
Buddhism and the uncritical application of the text-based notion of a
pure Buddhist religio-philosophical system as the originary inception
of the Buddhist religion. Studies have thus begun to explore the
avenues opened by more archaeological evidence, and have expanded
their concerns to include Buddhist worship and practices that
are not necessarily the main topics in canonical texts. One of the
most significant results of this has been the revision of a number
of traditional theories concerning the fundamental importance of
relic worship and the role of stūpas in early Indian Buddhism. As
already discussed, through the literal reading and interpretation of
the canonical texts, especially the Pāli canon, Buddhist studies have
traditionally defined ancient Buddhism as a philosophically ‘pure’
xxviii Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
religion. Within this intellectual framework, relic worship was not
defined as an authentic practice for the traditional Buddhist Sangha,
but as a practice developed by lay Buddhists or Mahāyāna worshippers.
An increasing number of works, however, have convincingly argued
that such an understanding is actually a rather distorted picture that
owes more to textual bias than historical ‘fact’ (Schopen, 1997: 1–55;
Trainor, 1997: 1–23). Such studies have re-addressed the issue of
relic worship through a much more comprehensive and critical reexamination of the available textual, epigraphic, and archaeological
evidence (Schopen, 1997: 30–4, 86–113; Shimoda, 1997: 124–8;
Trainor, 1997: 54–65; Willis, 2000; Shaw, 2000). According to these
studies, relic worship should not be regarded as a later development
to pure monastic Buddhism as the result of some external (and
non-traditional) influence. Instead, it has been shown that relics and
stūpas were regarded as physical embodiments of the Buddha himself,
and were indispensable components of Buddhist monastic practices
from the earliest times. he topic of relic and stūpa worship has thus
become an important issue in recent studies of Buddhism.
In archaeological and art-historical studies which have traditionally concentrated on the detailed chronological, architectural, and
iconographical classifications of monuments and excavated objects,
scholars have started to explore the wider religious and social contexts
in which the sites and objects were situated. Arthistorians no longer
exclusively see Buddhist sculptures as the mere visual representations
of particular Buddhist legends and iconography described in written
texts. Instead there is now a growing concern with how individual
sculptural scenes fit in with wider architectural and sculptural
programmes of embellishment (Behrendt, 2006; Shimada, 2006) and
what they can tell us about the actual religious practices that took
place at these monuments (Brown, 1997; Dehejia, 1998; Williams,
1998; Brancaccio, 2006).15 In the field of archaeology too, scholars
have revised the traditional approach that concentrated on the vertical
excavation of the stūpa and monastic remains, and have begun to
situate monastic sites and objects within their comprehensive survey
of archaeological landscapes (Chakrabarti, 1995b; Shaw, 2002, 2004;
Fogelin, 2004). For the first time, the various remains of Buddhist
stūpas have been considered in relation to the wider archaeological and
geographical realities of their surrounding areas. his has reinvigorated
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xxix
the examination of the archaeological evidence from both the stūpa
sites themselves, which in many cases have been largely neglected
since their initial discovery, and from the wider areas surrounding
those sites, which have never been examined at all. Importantly,
such an approach has also provided a framework within which new
questions may be asked that are better suited to the archaeological
evidence itself. hese include issues like the administration of stūpa
sites by the local monastic communities, the relationships between
Buddhism and local cults, the nature of Buddhist pilgrimage, and the
social roles of Buddhist monasteries.
In addition, aided by the increasing textual and non-textual
data on the legacy of early Indian Buddhism, scholars also started
exploring the detailed relationships between the Buddhist Sangha
and the society within which it existed. he traditional view of this
relationship, based on the canonical descriptions of monastic life, was
that the Sangha, as the respected group of social renouncers, sustained
their existence simply by collecting numerous gifts from pious donors.
By combining different sources of evidence, however, current studies
have begun to argue for a more dynamic and complex relationship
between the Buddhist Sangha and the various social elements with
which it would have interacted. Himanshu Prabha Ray’s now classic
work (1986) on early Buddhism in the western Deccan, for example,
demonstrates how the Buddhist Sangha undertook the crucial role of
historical agent for the political, economic, and social development of
this region on the bases of a comprehensive survey of epigraphic and
archaeological evidence. Xinru Liu’s study on trade and Buddhism
(1988) has stressed the important economic role of the Buddhist
Sangha as a consumer of precious goods from long-distance trade.
Systematic surveys of the donors in the inscriptions at Sanchi by
Upinder Singh (1996) and Kumkum Roy (1998) have revealed much
about the pattern of patronage to the Buddhist monastic community
and the construction of Buddhist stūpas. As we will see later, Jonathan
Walters’ essay on the patronage of the stūpa construction (1997),
included in this volume, has proposed a sophisticated theory for the
motivations behind donations to the monastic community reflected
on the inscriptions on stūpa monuments, by combining textual and
archaeological evidence with modern historical theory. In short,
current studies of Buddhist stūpas have started to become much more
xxx
Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
comprehensive, including almost all major disciplines of historical
studies, and in doing so many new questions have generated.
Contents of this Volume
It is with these developments in the study of Buddhist stūpas in mind
that this edited volume, coming, as it does, two centuries after the
Mackenzie’s first report of the Amaravati stūpa and three decades
after the Heidelberg conference, aims to present the latest approaches
to Buddhist stūpas in the fields of archaeology, history, history of art,
and textual studies. Each of the remaining fifteen chapters contained
in this volume not only significantly improves our understanding of
stūpas, but also reflects the range of new approaches from within all
of these different disciplines. In order to highlight the main features
of these approaches, the chapters have been divided into five main
sections, each devoted to key thematic areas of interest.
In the first section, two chapters take up the study of Buddhist
stūpas during the colonial period. First, in Chapter 1, Himanshu
Prabha Ray considers the archaeological study of Buddhist stūpas,
viewing the history of their examination in terms of the construction
of Buddhist identities in the colonial period.16 Specifically, she
explores the discovery and early study of the Buddhist stūpas
during the nineteenth century, highlighting the role of Alexander
Cunningham. Ray shows how Cunningham’s work on Buddhist sites
had a large impact on the consolidation of Buddhist religious identity
in the colonial period, coinciding as it did with the negotiation, in
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, of a modern Buddhist
identity based on the oriental translation of ancient texts and the
historical figure of the Buddha. his essay provides many useful
details in the history of this formative period in the study of stūpas,
and shows just how one key ‘moment’ in the colonial study of Buddhist
stūpas set the parameters for generations of scholars to come, all of
which needs to be factored into any future study and understanding
of stūpas.
In Chapter 2, Jennifer Howes explores another equally important
aspect of the history of the study of stūpas: the much more immediate
question of how the remains of Buddhist stūpas have physically been
treated as objects of study. Howes looks at the details of the early
excavations at and subsequent movement of sculptural material from
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xxxi
the stūpa site at Amaravati. She tells the story of five sculptures, tracing
their movement since their discovery using the records, manuscripts,
drawings, and photographs gathered during the nineteenth century.
We are shown how the sculptures were used by various individuals
and institutions under whose domain they fell over time, and the
unfortunate physical effect that this had on some of the pieces. his
provides a valuable insight into the variety of factors that have shaped
and defined the ways in which stūpas have been studied over the last
two hundred years, and compels us to consider the extent to which
the extant materials bequeathed to us today reflects only what was
found upon discovery (let alone in what existed in antiquity).
he second section focuses on the religious context of Buddhist
stūpas—their significance as structures that were built to house the
relics of the Buddha (and later those of his disciples).
In the first chapter in this section, Michael Willis provides a
useful overview of the meaning and significance of the relic shrine in
ancient Indian Buddhism. hrough a review of the textual evidence,
he examines the different types of relics as they were understood
within ancient Buddhism, and reveals a complex system of symbolic
meaning, ritual, and philosophical significance pertaining to the relic
shrine. Before the making of images became widespread, the presence
of the Buddha was understood to be a shrine, usually in the form
of a stūpa, containing relics. It was through the use of these relics
and relic shrines that the Buddhist community solved the problem
of the Buddha’s physical absence after his passing. With relics being
so central to religious practice, Willis shows how the spread of the
Buddhist dispensation in the early historic period went hand-in-hand
with the movement of relics, leaving little doubt of the importance
of stūpas in early Buddhism. he spread of Buddhism is not simply
reflected in, but was actually facilitated by the construction of new
stūpas.
hinking about how the geographical spread of Buddhism through
the proliferation of relic-shrines would have worked in practice, the
second chapter in this section by Andy Rotman considers fundamental
questions of exactly how it was that these relic shrines were created
and venerated in the early historic period. hrough an examination
of the texts, specifically various versions and redactions of the story
of Toyikā, Rotman reconstructs the aspects that marked and defined
xxxii
Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
a Buddhist site as sacred. Of primary importance in this regard was a
notion of an engagement with a specific place by the Buddha. Relics,
as the embodiment of the Buddha, not only reflected the presence of
the Buddha, but as such also lent the location of the relic-shrine some
of that same sacredness. With this understanding, the significance
of these sites was then established by the merit gained by visiting
the locations associated with these shrines. Further, Rotman makes
a convincing argument that over time, this dynamic was expanded
to include locations associated with past Buddhas, and suggests that
in this way new Buddhist sites became associated with locations of
pre-existent sacred significance and co-opted these locations into the
Buddhist sacred geography.
Whereas the above two essays explore the religio-philosophical
meanings of the relic and relic-shrine within early Buddhism and its
importance in the expansion of the religion, the final chapter in this
section examines the way in which sculptural elements in the carving
surrounding the relic served to construct the appropriate religious
space. Robert Brown concentrates on the use of representations of
natural forms on two of the earliest Indian stūpas—Stūpa I at Sanchi
and the Bharhut stūpa—and argues what it meant to represent natural
forms (already imbued with a pre-existent symbolism) in a patterned
form, on stone. According to Brown, central to the symbolic meaning
of these forms would have been their representation as growing and
alive. Despite being abstracted, these representations of nature that
appeared on the stūpas would almost certainly have been thought
of as living forms in nature by the original viewing audience. Taking
into account the psychological and cognitive aspects of the use of
pattern in art, and the fact that these patterned natural forms made
up a considerable part of the overall sculptural programme, Brown
argues that the representation of these abstracted but living forms
helped to create a new kind of religious space. his space was carefully
structured, and visually decorated in order to impart a notion of a
perfected, protected, and separated social space, operating according
to the ideals of a perfect world.
Following these approaches to the religious contexts of Buddhist
stūpas, the chapters in the third and fourth sections of this volume
reflect a number of recent approaches to early Buddhist stūpas and
monasteries that have, in their various ways, sought to examine the
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xxxiii
wider social contexts of Buddhism. he third section is composed
of four chapters that provide excellent examples of how recent
archaeological and art-historical studies have sought to address wider
questions by integrating the variety of material (epigraphic, sculptural,
and archaeological) at stūpa sites, and examining it with reference to
its wider contexts.
In the first chapter in this section, Kurt Behrendt casts new light
on the approach to the study of one of the most ‘classical’ aspects of
early Buddhist stūpas: the narrative sculptural reliefs that adorned
stūpa monuments. Specifically, Behrendt focuses on the narrative
reliefs from Gandhāra. As readers may notice, however, he differs
significantly from traditional approaches to this material. Instead
of treating narratives as separate entities and decoding them by
comparison with written texts, Berhendt tries to reconstruct the
original sequence of the narratives which worshippers at Gandhāra
‘read’ while engaged in religious practice at the stūpas. Although the
full results of this research are still forthcoming, the chapter points
out some significant patterns in the Gandhāran narratives, which give
us new insights into the development of the Buddhist narrative and
the appearance of Buddha images as icons in the Gandhāran region.
In the next chapter, Robert DeCaroli looks at the complex meaning
of nāgas in the inscriptions and sculptures at Amaravati, exploring
how the Buddhist institutions would have gained a degree of social
legitimacy through their purposeful and conscious association
with nāgas. He traces the history of the ideas surrounding nāgas
in literature, and re-assesses the inscriptions and sculptures from
the Amaravati stūpa in light of these interpretations. By offering
a convincing argument as to the symbolic meaning of nāgas with
reference to Amaravati, DeCaroli demonstrates that nāgas were a
vital and dynamic component to religious and social life in early South
Asia. DeCaroli also suggests that the deliberate associations of nāgas
and Buddhism may have been even more far-reaching, and posits the
idea that a similar dynamic may also have been true for other religious
institutions and even the ruling dynasty itself.
In the ninth chapter, Julia Shaw highlights the full extent of the
potential of ‘landscape’ approaches to the examination of Buddhist
stūpa sites by presenting her own research in the Sanchi area. Shaw
proposes a number of stimulating and useful hypotheses on the ritual
xxxiv
Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
and social settings of Buddhist monastic complexes in this area, on the
basis of her extensive field exploration and active ‘reading’ of the site.
Based on her observations of different types of monastic residences
in the Sanchi area, for example, Shaw challenges the received views
on the process of the domestication of the Sangha. In explaining
the hilltop locations of monasteries in the Sanchi area, Shaw raises
a number of important social and religious issues pertaining to the
nature of early monastic Buddhism, including security concerns
of monasteries, the formation of Buddhist sacred landscapes, and
the relationship between the Buddhist monastic community and
pre-existent religious cults in the area. Further, Shaw contests the
prevalent idea that Buddhism marginalized nāgas in the process of
adopting the local cult, but stresses the positive role of Buddhism
in elevating the cultic status of these figures. It is readily apparent
that Shaw’s approach to the stūpa site is significantly different from
that of traditional archaeological studies—her arguments directly
address important questions that have been largely posed by textual
studies of Buddhism, and effectively challenge some of the received
assumptions.
In the tenth chapter, Jason Hawkes focuses on the Buddhist stūpa
site of Bharhut. Despite its famous sculptures and inscriptions, this site
has never really been comprehensively examined after Cunningham’s
collection of the sculptures and the disappearance of most of the
architectural remains from the site. Looking at the archaeology of
the landscape surrounding Bharhut, Hawkes demonstrates how
it is possible to identify the broad social, political, and economic
processes that were operating in the Bharhut area and how they
changed over time, through a consideration of archaeological sites
dated to the later centuries bce throughout the region. Hawkes
further examines how the site of Bharhut was related to these wider
sacred and secular spheres, and reveals some of the ways in which the
Buddhist community at Bharhut was related to those processes. Not
only does this examination yield important conclusions pertaining to
the monastic community at Bharhut, but it also highlights one or two
interesting variations in the wider contexts of Bharhut that do not
tally in every respect with the received understandings for the major
stūpa sites. Viewed with Shaw’s contribution, this work demonstrates
how current archaeological writings have greatly expanded their fields
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xxxv
of interest, and have begun to address wider questions that can be
shared with textual studies.
he chapters in the fourth section, on the other hand, all take
broader perspectives, and seek to explore the wider political, economic,
and social contexts in which Buddhist stūpas and monasteries were
situated. In the first chapter in this section, Xinru Liu examines the
parallel developments of Buddhist ideology, stūpa or relic worship,
and trading activities in Ku]sān India. Although this work first appeared
as a book chapter in 1988, Liu’s argument remains stimulating and
continues to be extremely helpful for our understanding of how the
flowering of long-distance trade contributed to the development of
stūpa worship. Liu shows how, as Buddhism gained a strong foothold
among the wider classes of people in the early centuries ce, its ideology
significantly transformed from the one that originally addressed
renouncers to one that encompassed lay people. his ideological
transformation led to the authorization and further development of
particular religious practices, especially donating precious objects and
worshipping stūpas, for gaining great religious merit. By exploring the
representative Buddhist texts, ranging from the Milindapañhas to the
Sukhāvatīvyūha, as well as archaeological evidence, Liu convincingly
argues for a close link between the authorization of such practices
and the growth of Indo-China trade, which brought precious objects
for use in relic deposits and which also helped develop a commercial
ethos in Buddhist ideology.
In Chapter 12, James Heitzman explores the urban context of
Buddhist stūpas by tracing some of the main socio-spatial features
of early urbanization in South Asia, and identifying the ways that
Buddhist sites, usually stūpa-sites, formed significant features in
this landscape.17 He begins by reviewing the salient socio-political
and economic features of the process of urbanization that occurred
across northern and central South Asia during the first millennium
bce as revealed by the archaeological and textual evidence. Within
this framework, Heitzman reviews the ways in which the Buddhist
monastic institution was related to these wider social processes,
and highlights strong links between Buddhist sites, inter-city trade,
and newly emerging economic groups. It is against this backdrop
that Heitzman then looks at the three-way relationship between
urban sites, trade, and Buddhist sites in several key areas across the
xxxvi
Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
subcontinent. In each and every example, he identifies the existence
of settlement site-ranking and site-specific specializations that appear
to have been closely related to Buddhist monastic institutions. In the
process, the Buddhist monastic complex emerges as a key part of the
established ‘urban order’ in the early historic period. his relationship
is then seen to continue for some centuries.
Following on from this, Akira Shimada adds a new insight into the
relationship between the Buddhist monastic institution and urban
centres during the early historic period with special reference to the
remains of the stūpa at Amaravati. Shimada notices that one of the
distinct features of this site is its close proximity to the ancient city of
Dhānyaka_taka, located less than one kilometre from the monastery.
Although this proximity does not fit well with canonical references,
Shimada’s survey reveals similar geographical relationships between
Buddhist edifices and ancient cities in central and south India.
Interesting is the fact that these monasteries are not in the centre of the
cities, but at the fringes. Shimada points out that this feature accords
well with the layout of a fortified city (durganiveśa) in the Arthaśāstra.
Based on archaeological and textual evidence, Shimada also argues
that areas outside the cities accommodated places for funerals and
commercial exchanges, which ancient dharma literature defined as
‘impure’. Buddhist monasteries, the major component of ‘outside’
spaces, could help in organizing and vitalizing such ‘outside’ activities.
Shimada’s model thus highlights the importance of peripheral spaces
in the urbanization of early India.
he last chapter in this section is a reworking of Jonathan Walters’
important article on Buddhist stūpas and the biographical tradition in
ancient Buddhism. By examining the cosmological biographies of the
Buddha in three Avadāna texts compiled in the post-Aśokan period,
Walters persuasively argues that these cosmological biographies
intend to show a soteriological path in which all beings may attain
nirvā]na. Since the stūpa is not the remains of the Buddha but Buddha
himself, the construction embellishment and worship of stūpas would
have been a way to become part of the Buddha’s biography, and in so
doing join the path to salvation. he flourishing of the construction of
Buddhist stūpas during the immediate post-Aśokan period, which is
well attested by archaeological and epigraphic evidence, may thus be
understood in this context. Since these early stūpas were constructed
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xxxvii
on the basis of donations from a variety of donors, Walters also
addresses the ways in which such collective patronage was organized.
He explains the construction work of the stūpa with reference to the
theory of ‘complex agency’, in which the donation and construction
of stūpas would have involved the complex arrangement of a variety
of human agencies joining together for that common goal. he most
powerful of these, if we are to understand the authorizing factor in
this relationship, would have been imperial kingship. Walters has
succeeded in establishing a useful model for understanding why
and, perhaps more importantly, how the numerous stūpas were
constructed during the post-Aśokan era.
Finally, the fifth section focuses on a growing and welcome trend
in modern scholarship that seeks to examine the many different
dimensions of Buddhist stūpas as they appear in modern contexts. hus
far, most of the studies on Buddhist stūpas in India have concentrated
on the historical reconstruction of stūpas and their wider contexts
as they appeared in the ancient past. However, Buddhist stūpas did
not, and indeed do not, exist only in this ancient past. Despite the
decline of Buddhism as an active religion in India, many of the ancient
stūpas have continued to be very visible in local society, and have been
used in different religious and social contexts. In addition, after the
re-discovery of Buddhism in the nineteenth century, the remains
of Indian stūpas have been imbued with a variety of new meanings
within modern Buddhist traditions, now a global religion. As shown
by the recent development of historiographical studies, we must be
conscious that our understanding of the stūpa is continually aware of
such contemporary discourses.
his section, therefore, includes two cutting-edge studies that
explore how the ancient past is being manipulated in a number of
ways in the constant negotiation of modern Buddhist identities and
the construction of modern Buddhist sites. In one of these papers,
Catherine Becker explores the manipulation of the carved remains
from the Amaravati stūpa in modern times, and the ways in which
this has changed their meanings, investing them with an entirely new
sense of sacredness. In early January 2006, the stūpa at Amaravati once
again became an ‘active’ Buddhist monument, with the performance
of a Kalachakra (Kālacakra) Initiation by His Holiness the Dalai
Lama. hrough her own personal account, Becker vividly recreates
xxxviii
Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
the ways in which the site was visually reanimated for the ritual; and
shows how the ancient remains of the stūpa site were re-used together
with an abundance of new imagery in order to create a new sense of
sacredness at the site. Central to this was not just the dusting down
and re-use of the ancient remains themselves, but the incorporation
and use of these remains together with other more ephemeral
modern objects of devotion, and the installation of more permanent
remembrances of the event. hrough examination and consideration
of the ways in which all of these various trappings were used with one
another, Becker identifies how a lasting Buddhist landscape around
the stūpa was, in effect, recreated, and has highlighted how the ancient
stūpa was manipulated and used in the evocation of ‘sacredness’, in
both religious and political agendas.
Leading on from this, in the final chapter in this volume, Jinah
Kim focuses on a modern revival of stūpa construction in India, and
looks at the appropriation of the stūpas in the negotiation of modern
Buddhist identity in India. Kim identifies two main directions in the
building of stūpas in contemporary India. he first of these, defined
as ‘collage’ stūpas, are modern stūpas built at ancient sites that are
made from, or contain, actual remains from the sites at which they
are built. he second programme of building is the construction of
Peace Pagodas, or ‘Shanti Stūpas’, throughout India by the Japanese
Nipponzan Myohoji religious group. hrough examination of the
underlying ideology behind, and actual practice of the construction
of these stūpas, Kim shows how both programmes of building
involve physical and visual references to ancient Buddhism, and
have contributed to the legitimization of Buddhist identities in
contemporary India.
Postscript
hus far, we have seen how studies from a variety of different
disciplines have fundamentally changed the way that stūpas are
approached within the hitherto narrow foci of their respective areas of
study. We have also seen how these studies, in looking at the evidence
in novel ways, have provided important new levels of understanding
for further study, or else have begun to explore new and previously
unconsidered questions of the past in which these stūpas existed.
he range of works collected here in this volume reflects the great
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xxxix
breadth and diversity of recent approaches to Buddhist stūpas. Not
only have the essays in this volume improved our understanding of
stūpas, but each marks a significant departure in existing academic
approaches to stūpas, Buddhism, and South Asia’s ancient past in
general. We hope that this anthology is not only of value to a reader,
but that it also provides a re-appraisal of the ‘state play’ in the study
of Buddhist stūpas. We also hope, as it must be obvious now, that the
collection here will encourage and promote further inter-disciplinary
researches.
Notes
01. his volume uses diacritical marks for ancient Indian names and speical
terms in Sanskrit and Prākrit, with some exceptions (such as Sangha)
which are commonly included in English. As far as place names are
concerned, the volume follws the by now well-established system (see,
for example, Mitra 1971) in which modern place names are spelled
without diacritics; whereas diacritical marks are used for historical place
names recorded in ancient texts and inscriptions, such as Kauśāmbī,
Kusiñagara, Pañcāla, and Dhānyaka]taka.
02. For further details of early European accounts of Buddhism, see De
Jong (1987: 8–13).
03. One or two exceptions to this rule do appear to have existed. For
instance, the Buddhist monastery at Nāgapattinam, an important
seaport in coastal Tamil Nadu with maritime trade links to Southeast
Asia, seems to have survived until at least the sixteenth century (and
possibly the late seventeenth) as indicated by the discovery of later
Buddhist sculptures at the site (Dehejia, 1988: 64–73).
04. For instance, Kanchipuram in Tamil Nadu was originally a flourishing
Buddhist centre, as attested by the record of Xuanzang (Beal, 1969:
229). he presence of Buddha statues inside later Hindu temples
suggests that Buddhism was then assimilated into Hinduism (Dehejia,
1988: 58). Similarly, parts of the rock-cut Buddhist monasteries in the
western Deccan, such as those at Junnar and Nasik, were used as the
shrines to local deities in the later period, as evidenced by associated
carved remains.
05. his is not, however, to deny the influence of other Indological ideologies
that stimulated and maintained an academic interest in textual studies.
06. For the history of collecting Buddhist manuscripts in Sanskrit and Pāli
and the development of the early textual studies of Buddhism, see De
Jong (1987: 13–23), and Trainor (1997: 5–23).
xl
Buddhist Stupas in South Asia
07. It must be emphasized, however, that Prinsep, while undoubtedly key
to this development, was by no means the only figure in this important
endeavour; and his work owed significant debt to findings of a number
of other scholars (such as C. Wilkins, Captain A. Troyer, W.H. Mill,
and the Revd. J. Stevenson), which altogether contributed to the
eventual deciphering of these scripts (Singh, 2004a: 13). Prinsep’s
articles, originally published in various issues of the Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal, were later compiled and published posthumously by E.
homas (see Prinsep, 1858).
08. hough in northwestern areas, Cunningham also followed a number of
other ancient Greek accounts.
09. Influential though Cunningham’s work was, many of his findings were
not entirely accurate. For instance, his identifications of relics, which
still affect scholarly writing on Sanchi, have since been significantly
revised. See Willis (2001).
10. It should be admitted, however, that not all stūpas were excavated in a
professional and systematic manner. For instance, A. Fuhler’s excavations of stūpas at Kankali Tila and Katra in 1890–91, and 1895–96
respectively were carried out in an extremely unsystematic way, yielded
no significant results, and were never properly finished. Fuhler is
also recognized to have forged a number of Aśokan inscriptions
(Chakrabarti, 1988, 109–12).
11. For further references of these stūpa excavations as well as the other
excavations of the same period, see Chakrabarti (1988: 106–72).
12. he European tradition of looking at art and architecture in terms
of style can be traced back to the seminal works of Winckelmann
and Rickman in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (cf.
Winckelmann, 1765, 1766; Rickman, 1817).
13. he Dhammapada, edited and translated by Fausböll, was published
in 1855. Fausböll published the first volume of the Jātaka in 1877.
Oldenberg’s edition of Vinaya Pi_taka^m then appeared between 1879
and 1883. At the same time, the Pāli Text Society was founded for
the study of the Pāli texts in 1881 by T.W. Rhys-Davids. For further
details, see De Jong (1987: 24).
14. Although not focusing on the Buddhist stūpa, another important study
on the symbolic meaning of Indian art is Zimmer (1946).
15. Such approaches have by no means been limited to the study of Buddhist
stūpas. Among similar such studies of Hindu sites, we may note Dass
and Willis (2002) as an important attempt to reveal the specific religious
meaning of sculptures at Udayagiri.
Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas xli
16. Other recent studies of the same topic include Guha-hakurta (1998)
and Singh (2004).
17. Heitzman has published his idea on this issue some two decades before
(Heitzman, 1984). he essay in this volume is, in this sense, an updated
study of his early paper.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Apadāna. Lilley, M.E., Apadāna of the Khuddaka Nikāya, 2 vols., London:
Pali Text Society, 1925–7.
Anguttara Nikāya. Woodward, F.L. and Hare, E.M. (trans.), he Book of
Gradual Sayings, 5 vols, London: Pali Text Society, 1932–6.
Arthaśāstra. Shamashastri, R. (trans.), Kautilya’s Arthasastra, Mysore:
Mysore Printing and Publishing House, 1915.
———— Kangle, R.P. (ed. and trans.), he Kau_tilīya Arthaśāstra, Bombay:
University of Bombay, 1969–72.
———— Rangarajan, L.N. (ed. and trans.), he Arthashastra, New Delhi:
Penguin, 1992.
Buddhacarita. Cowell, E.B. (ed. and trans.), he Buddhacarita of Aśvagosha,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893 (reprint New Delhi: Cosmo Publication,
1977)
Buddhava^msa. Morris, R. (ed.), he Buddhava^msa and the Cariyā-pi_taka,
London: Pali Text Society, 1882.
Cariyā-pi_taka. Morris, R. (ed.), he Buddhava^msa and the Cariyā-pi_taka,
London: Pali Text Society, 1882.
Cilappatikāram. Parthasarathy, R. (trans.), he Cilappatikāram of Ila<nkō
A_tikal, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
Daakumāracarita. Ryder, A.W. (trans.), he Dasakumaracarita, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1927.
Dātha-va^msa. Rhys-Davids, T.W. and R. Morris (ed. and trans.), ‘he
Dā_thāva^msa by Ven. Dhammakitti’, Journal of the Pali Text Society,
1884, pp. 109–51.
Dhammapada. Norman, H. C. (ed.), Dhammapada-a_t_takathā, London: Pali
Text Society, 1906–14.
Dharmasūtras. Olivelle, P. (ed. and trans.), Dharmasūtras: he Law Codes
of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhnyana, and Vasi_s_tha, Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 2000.
Dīgha Nikāya. Rhys-Davids, T.W. and Rhys-Davids, C.A.F. (ed. and trans.),
Dialogues of the Buddha, translated from the Pali of the Digha Nikaya,
Bibliography
311
3 vols, London: Pali Text Society, 1899–1921 (fourth edition, Oxford:
Pali Text Society, 1995).
Divyāvadāna. Cowell, E.B. and Neil, R.A. (eds), Divyāvadāna, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1886.
———— Vaidya, P.L. (ed.), Divyāvadāna, Buddhist Sanskrit Text, 20,
Darbhanga: Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research
in Sanskrit Learning, 1959.
Faxien. Legge, J. (trans.), A Record of Buddhist Kingdom: Being an Account
by the Chinese Monk Fa-hien of His Travels in India and Ceylon, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1886.
Gilgit Manuscripts. Dutt, N. (ed.), he Gilgit Manuscripts, 2 vols, Calcutta:
Calcutta Oriental Press, 1939 (reprint, 4 vols., Delhi: Sri Satguru
Publications, 1984).
Har]sacarita. Cowell, E.B. and homas F.W. (eds), he Harsa-carita of Bana,
London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1897.
Historia Naturalis. Rackham, H., W.H.S. Jones, A.C. Andrews, and D.E.
Eichholz (trans.), Pliny Natural History, 10 vols., LOEB Classical
Library, Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1947–63.
Jātaka. Fausböll, V. (ed.), he Jātaka, together with its Commentary, 7 vols,
London: Trübner, 1877–97 (reprint London: Pali Text Society,
1963).
———— Cowell, E.B. et al. (ed. and trans.), he Jātaka, or, Stories of the
Buddha’s Former Births, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1895–1913 (reprint, 3 vols, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990).
Kathāvatthu. Taylor, A.C., (ed.), Kathāvatthu, 2 vols., London: Pali Text
Society, 1894–7 (reprint, London: Pali Text Society, 1979).
———— Aung, S.Z. and Rhys-Davids, C.A.F. (ed. and trans.), Point of
Controversy or Subject of Discourse (Kathāvatthu), London: Pali Text
Society, 1915 (reprint, London: Pali Text Society, 1979).
Khuddakapā]tha. Smith, H., (ed.), he Khuddaka-Pathā together with its
Commentary (Parmatthajotikā I), London: Pali Text Society, 1915
(reprint, London: Pali Text Society, 1959, 1978).
———— Nanamoli (trans.), he Minor Readings and he Illustrator of
Ultimate Meaning, London: Pali Text Society, 1960.
Mahābhārata. Sukthankar, V.S., S.K. Belvalkar, and P.L. Vaidya (eds),
he Mahabharata for the First Time Critically Edited, 19 vols., Poona:
Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, 1933–66.
Mahāparinibbāna sūtta. Rhys-Davids, T.W. & Rhys-Davids, C.A.F. (ed.
and trans.), Dialogues of the Buddha, translated from the Pali of the
Dīgha Nikāya, 3 vols., London: Pali Text Society, 1899–1921 (fourth
edition, Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1995).
312
Bibliography
Mahāparinibbāna sūtta. Waldschmidt, E. (ed.), Das Mahāparinirvā]nasūtra,
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1950–1.
Mahāva^msa. Geiger, W. (ed.), and Frowde, H. (trans.), he Mahāva^msa,
London: Pali Text Society, 1908 (reprint, London: Pali Text Society,
1958).
———— Geiger, W. (trans.), Mahāva^msa, London: Pali Text Society, 1912.
Mahavāstu. Senert, E.C.M. (ed.), Mahavastu, London: Pali Text Society,
1882–97.
———— Jones, J.J. (trans.), he Mahavastu, 3 vols, London: Pali Text
Society, 1949–56.
Majjhima Nikāya. Trenckner, V. (ed.), he Majjhima Nikaya, 4 vols, London:
Pali Text Society, 1888–1925.
Manasollasa. Shrigondekar, G.K. (ed.), Manasollasa, 3 vols., Baroda: Central
Library, 1925–61.
Ma]nimēkalai. Daniélou, A. (trans.), Manimekhalai, the dancer with the magic
bowl/by the Merchant-Prince Shattan, New York: New Directions Press,
1989.
Manu-Sm_rti. Jha, M.G. (ed.), Manu-Sm_rti, with the ‘Manubhā]sya’ of
Medhātith, 3 vols., Bibliotheca Indica 256, Allahabad: Asiastic Society
of Bengal, 1932.
———— Doniger, W. and Smith, B.K. (trans.), he Laws of Manu, London:
Penguin, 1991.
Milindapañha. Trenckner, V. (ed.), he Milindapanho, London, 1880
(reprint, London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1928).
———— Rhys-Davids, T.W. (trans.), he Questions of King Milinda, 2 vols,
Sacred Books of the East, 35 and 36, London: Oxford University Press,
1890–94 (reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1975).
———— Horner, I.B. (trans.), Milinda’s questions, 2 vols., London: Pali Text
Society, 1963–64.
Paramatthajotikā. Smith, H. (ed.), he Khuddaka-Pathā together with its
Commentary (Parmatthajotikā I), London: Pali Text Society, 1915
(reprint, London: Pali Text Society, 1959, 1978).
Periplus Maris Erythraei. Casson, L. (trans.), he Periplus Maris Erythraei,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.
———— Schoff, W.H. (trans.), he Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, New York:
Longmans Green & Co., 1912 (reprint, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal,
1995).
Saddharmapu]n]darika. Chandra, L. (ed.), he Saddharmapu]n]darika, New
Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1976.
———— Kern, H. (trans.), he Lotus Sutra, Sacred Books of the East, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1884 (reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas,
1979).
Bibliography
313
Śatapatha Brāhma]na. Eggeling, J. (trans.), he Śatapatha-Brāhma]na: according
to the text of the Mādhyandina School, he Sacred Books of the East 44,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1900.
Saundarānanda. Johnston, E.H. (ed. and trans.), he Saundarananda,
London: Oxford University Press, 1928 (reprint, New Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1975).
Si-Yu Ki. Beal, S. (ed.), Si-Yu Ki—Buddhist Records of the Western World, 2
vols., London: Routledge, 2000.
Sukhāvatīvyūha Sutra (smaller). Müller, M. (trans.), ‘he Smaller
Sukhavativyuha’, in Buddhist Mahayana Texts, Sacred Book of the East,
49, London: Oxford University Press, 1894a (reprint, Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidas, 1978), pp. 91–107.
Sukhāvatīvyūha Sutra (larger). Müller, M. (trans.), ‘he Larger Sukhavativyuha,
or the Sutra on the Buddha of Eternal Life’, in Buddhist Mahayana
Texts, Sacred Book of the East, 49, London: Oxford University Press,
1894b (reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1978), pp. 153–86.
Sutta-nipāta. Fausböll, V. (trans.), he Sutta-nipāta, he Sacred Books of the
East, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881.
———— Andersen, D. and Smith, H. (eds), Sutta-nipāta, London: Pali Text
Society, 1990.
he Travels of Marco Polo. Benedetto, L.F. (trans.), he travels of Marco Polo,
New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1994.
Vinaya Pi]taka^m. Oldenberg, H. (ed.), he Vinaya Pi]taka^m II (he Cullavagga),
London: William and Norgate, 1880.
———— Rhys-Davids, T.W. (trans.), Vinaya Texts, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1885.
———— Horner, I.B. (trans.), he Book of Discipline, 5 vols., London: Lusac
& Co., 1952.
Visuddhimagga. Warren, H.C. (trans.), Visuddhimagga (revised by
D. Kosambi), Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950.
———— Ven. Nanamoli (trans.), he Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga),
Colombo: R. Semage, 1956.
Secondary Sources
Abeynayake, O., A Textual and Historical Analysis of the Khuddaka Nikāya,
Colombo: Tissara, 1984.
Agrawal, R.C., ‘Stūpas and Monasteries: a recent discovery from Satdhara,
India’, in South Asian Archaeology, 1995, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, F.R. Allchin and B. Allchin (eds), New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 1997
Agrawala, V. S., Indian Art, Varanasi: Prithivi Prakashan, 1965.
314
Bibliography
Agrawala, V. S., ‘Some Obscure Words in the Divyāvadāna’, Journal of the
American Oriental Society, 86(2), 1966, pp. 67–75.
———— Ancient Indian Folk Cults, Varanasi: Prithivi Prakashan, 1970.
Allen, C., Buddha and the Sahibs, London: John Murray, 2002.
Allchin, F.R., ‘he Urban Position of Taxila and its Place in Northwest
India-Pakistan’, in Urban Form and Meaning in South Asia: he Shaping
of Cities from Prehistoric to Precolonial Times, H. Spodek and D.M.
Srinivasan (eds), Washington: National Gallery of Art, 1993.
Allchin, F.R. (ed.), he Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: he Emergence
of Cities and States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Allchin, B., and F.R. Allchin (eds), he Rise of Civilization in India and
Pakistan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Almond, P., he British Discovery of Buddhism, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988.
Altekar, A.S., and V. Mishra, Report on Kumrahar Excavations 1951–1955,
Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1959.
Anonymous. 2003, ‘Dalai Lama opens Buddhist cultural centre’, he Hindu,
April 7, 2003.
Arnheim, R., Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye,
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974.
Apte, V.S., he Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Revised and Enlarged
Edition, Kyoto: Rinzen Book Company, 1986.
Asad, T., ‘Anthropological conceptions of religion: reflections on Geertz’,
Man (n.s.), 18, 1983, pp. 237–59.
Bachhofer, L., Early Indian Sculpture, 2 vols, Paris: Pegasus, 1929.
Bailey, G. and I. Mabbett, he Sociology of Early Buddhism, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Bakker, H., Ayodhya, Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986.
———— he Vākā_takas: an essay in Hindu iconology, Groningen: Egbert
Forsten, 1997.
Bandaranayake, S., Sinhalese Monastic Architecture: the Vihāras of
Anurādhapura, Leiden: Brill, 1974.
———— ‘Monastery plan and social formation: he spatial organization
of the Buddhist monastery complexes of Early and Middle Historical
period in Sri Lanka and changing patterns of political power’, in
Domination and Resistance, D. Miller and C. Tilley (eds), London and
Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989.
Bareau, A., Les Sectes Bouddhiques du Petit Véhicule, Saigon: École française
d’Extrême-Orient, 1935.
———— ‘La construction et culte des stūpa d’apres les Vinayapitaka’, Bulletin
de l’ecole française d’Extrême-Orient, 50(2), 1960, pp. 229–74.
Bibliography
315
Barrett, D., Sculptures from Amaravati in the British Museum, London: he
British Museum, 1954.
Barrett, J., ‘Towards an archaeology of ritual’, in Sacred and Profane,
P. Garwood et al. (eds), Oxford University Committee for Archaeology
Monograph, 32, Oxford, 1989.
———— ‘he monumentality of death: the character of early Bronze Age
mortuary mounds in southern Britain’, World Archaeology, 22, 1990,
pp. 179–89.
———— Fragments from Antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain,
2900–1200 bce, London: Blackwell, 1994.
Barua, B., Barhut, 3 vols., Calcutta: India Research Institute, 1934–37
(reprint, Patna: Indological Book Corporation, 1979).
Barua, B. and K. Sinha, Barhut Inscriptions, Calcutta: University of Calcutta,
1926.
Barua, D., Buddha Gaya Temple: Its History, Bodh Gaya: Buddha Gaya
Temple Management Committee, 1981.
Basham, A.L., The Wonder hat Was India, New Delhi: Fontana Books,
1967.
Bechert, H. and R. Gombrich (eds), he World of Buddhism: Buddhist monks
and nuns in society and culture, London: hames and Hudson, 1984.
Becker, C., ‘Artistic Production and Ritual Performance at Amarāvatī
and other Buddhist stūpas of Andhra Pradesh’, unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 2006.
Bechert, H., ‘Buddha-Feld und Verdienstübertragung: Mahāyāna-Ideen im
heravāda-Buddhismus Ceylons’, Bulletin de la classe des lettres et des
sciences morales et politiques, 5e. série, vol. 62, 1976, pp. 27–51
Begley, V., ‘From Iron Age to Early Historical in South Indian Archaeology’,
in Studies in the Archaeology of India and Pakistan, J. Jacobson (ed.), New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1987.
———— (ed.), he Ancient Port of Arikamedu: New Excavations and
Researches 1989–1992, Pondichéry: Centre d’Histoire et d’Archéologie,
École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1996.
Begley, V. and R. de Puma (eds), Rome and India: he Ancient Sea Trade,
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.
Behrendt, K., ‘An unnoticed relief from the Bhilsa topes and its relationship
to the sculpture of Sanchi’, South Asian Studies, 16, 2000, pp. 1–9.
———— ‘Narrative Sequences in the Buddhist Reliefs from Gandhara’, in
South Asian Archaeology 2001: Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists,
vol. 2, C. Jarriage and V. Lefèvre (eds), Paris: Éditions Recherche sur
les Civilisations, 2005.
316
Bibliography
Behrendt, Kurt. ‘Narrative Sequence in the Buddhist Reliefs from
Gandhāra’, in C. Jarrige and V. Lefèvre eds, South Asian Archaeology
2001: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the European
Association of South Asian Archaeologists, Paris: Éditions Recherche sur
les Civilisations, vol. II, 2006, pp. 383–92.
Bénisti, M., Le médaillon lotiforme dans la sculpture indienne, Paris: Musée
Guimet, 1952.
———— Contribution à l’étude du Stūpa Bouddhique Indien: Les Stūpa Mineurs
de Bodh-Gayā et de Ratnagiri, Paris: École Français d’Extrême-Orient,
1981.
———— ‘Contribution to the Study of the Indian Buddhist Stūpa: the Minor
Stūpas of Bodhgayā and Ratnagiri’, in Stylistics of Buddhist Art in India,
K. hanikaimony (trans.), Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for
the Arts, 2003.
Bender, B. (ed.), Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, Oxford: Berg, 1993.
Bentor, Y., Consecration of Images and Stūpas in Indo-Tibetan Tantric
Buddhism, Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Benza, P.M. ‘Notes Chiefly Geological, of a Journey through the Northern
Circars in the year 1835’. Madras Journal of Literature and Science, Vol.
5, January-June 1837, pp. 43–70.
Beyley, E. C., ‘Note on some Sculptures Found in the District of Peshawar’,
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (n.s.), 1852, pp. 606–21.
Bhandare, S., ‘Numismatics and History: he Maurya-Gupta Interlude in
the Gangetic Plain’, in Between the Empires, Society in India 300 bce to
400 ce, P. Olivelle (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Bhandarkar, D.R., Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Vol. III, Inscriptions of
the Early Gupta Kings (revised edition), New Delhi: Archaeological
Survey of India, 2006.
Bhattacharya, G., ‘Danam-Deyadharma: Donation in Early Buddhist
Records (in Brahmi)’, in Investigating Indian Art: Proceedings of a
Symposium of Early Buddhist and Hindu Iconography, Held at the
Museum of Indian Art, Berlin, in May 1986, M. Yaldiz and W. Lobo
(eds), Berlin: Museum für Indische Kunst and Staatliche Museen
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 1987.
Bloss, L.W., ‘he Buddha and the naga: a study in Buddhist folk religiosity’,
History of Religions, 13(1), 1973, pp. 37–53.
Bosch, F.D.K., he Golden Germ: an Introduction to Indian Symbolism, he
Hague: Mouton & Co, 1960.
Boucher, D., ‘he Pratītyasamutpādagāthā and its Role in the Medieval Cult
of Relics’, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 14,
1991, pp. 1–27.
Bibliography
317
Bradley, R., Altering the Earth: the origins of monuments in Britain and
continental Europe, Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,
1991.
Bradley, J.C., R. Bradley, and M. Green, Landscape, Monuments and Society:
the prehistory of Cranborne Chase, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991.
Brancaccio, P., ‘he Making of a Life: Re-reading Bhārhut Sculpture’, South
Asian Studies, 21, 2005, pp. 47–52.
Brekke, T., Makers of Modern Indian Religion in the Late Nineteenth Century,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Brown, R.L., ‘Recent Stūpa Literature: A Review Article’, Journal of Asian
History, 20, 1986, pp. 215–32.
———— ‘Narrative and Icon: he Jataka Stories in Ancient India and
Southeast Asian Architecture’, in Sacred Biography in the Buddhist
Traditions of South and Southeast Asia, J. Schober (ed.), Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i Press, 1997.
———— ‘Place in the Sacred Biography at Borobudur’, in Pilgrims, Patrons,
and Place: Localizing Sanctity in Asian Religions, P. Granoff and
K. Shinohara (eds), Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press,
2003.
Bühler, G., ‘hree New Edicts of Asoka’, Indian Antiquary, 6 (June), 1877,
pp. 149–60.
———— ‘he Bhattiprolu Inscriptions’, Epigraphia Indica, 2, 1894, pp.
323–32.
Burgess, J., Notes on the Amaravati Stūpa, Madras: Government of India
Press, 1882.
———— he Buddhist Stûpas of Amaravati and Jagayyapeta in the Krishna
District, Madras Presidency, surveyed in 1882 (with translations of the
Asoka inscriptions at Jaugada and Dhauli, by Georg Buhler), London:
Trübner & Co., 1887.
———— he Gandhara Sculptures: A selection of illustrations in twentyfive plates from the British and Lahore Museums, London: W. Griggs,
1898.
———— he Gandhara Sculptures: A Selection of Illustrations in Twenty-Five
Plates from the British and Lahor Museums, London: W. Griggs, 1899.
———— ‘he Great Stūpa at Sānchī Kānakheda’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society (n.s.), 34, 1902, pp. 29–45.
Burnes, A., ‘On the ‘Topes’ and Grecian Remains in the Punjab’, Journal of
Asiatic Society of Bengal, 2, 1833, pp. 308–10.
Burnouf, E., Introduction a l’histoire du Buddhism indien, Paris: Imprimerie
royale, 1844 (second edition, 1876).
318
Bibliography
Byrne, D. and G. Barnes, ‘Buddhist stūpa and hai Social Practice’, World
Archaeology, 27, 1995, pp. 266–82.
Carswell, J., ‘he Port of Mantai, Sri Lanka’, Rome and India: he Ancient
Sea Trade, V. Begley and R. de Puma (eds), Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1991.
Chakrabarti, D.K., A History of Indian Archaeology: From the Beginning to
1947, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1988.
———— Ancient Bangladesh: A Study of the Archaeological Sources, New
Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
———— he Archaeology of Ancient Indian Cities, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1995a.
———— ‘Buddhist Sites Across South Asia as Influenced by Political and
Economic Forces’, World Archaeology, 27, 1995b, pp. 185–202.
———— India: An Archaeological History (Palaeolithic Beginnings to Early
Historic Foundations), New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999.
———— he Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain: he Lower and the
Middle Ganga, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001a.
———— ‘he Archaeology of Hinduism’, in Archaeology and World Religion,
T. Insoll (ed.), London: Routledge, 2001b.
———— he Archaeology of the Deccan Routes: he Ancient Routes from the
Ganga Plain to the Deccan, Delhi: Munishiram Manoharlal, 2005.
Chakravarti, N., ‘Brahmi Inscriptions from Bandhogarh’, Epigraphica Indica,
31, 1960, pp. 167–86.
Chakravarti, U., he Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism, New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1987.
Chanda, R., ‘Some Unpublished Amaravati Inscriptions’, Epigraphica Indica,
15, 1925, pp. 258–71.
Chandra, L., ‘Borobudur: A new interpretation’, in he Stūpa: Its Religious,
Historical and Architectural Significance, L. Dallapiccola and S.Z.
Lallemant (eds), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980.
Chattopadhyaya, B.D., ‘he City in Early India: Perspectives from Texts’,
Studies in History (n.s.), 13, 1997, pp. 190–3.
———— Studying Early India: Archaeology, Texts, and Historical Issues, New
Delhi: Permanent Black, 2003.
Chhabra, B. and G. Gai (eds), Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings (Revised
by Devadatta Ramakrishna Bhandarkar), New Delhi: Archaeological
Survey of India, 1981.
Cimino, R.M. (ed.), Ancient Rome and India: Commercial and Cultural
Contacts between the Roman World and India, New Delhi: Munshiram
Manorharlal, 1994.
Bibliography
319
Codrington, K. de B., Ancient India from the earliest times to the Guptas
with notes on the architecture and sculpture of the mediæval period; with
a prefatory essay on Indian sculpture by William Rothenstein, London:
E. Benn, 1926.
Coedès, G., ‘La legende de la nagi’, Bulletin de l’ecole francaise d’Extreme-Orient,
11(3–4), 1911, pp. 391–3.
Cohen, R.S., ‘Nāga, Yak]si]nī, Buddha: Local Deities and Local Buddhism at
Ajanta’, History of Religions, 37(4), 1998, pp. 360–400.
Cohn, W., Indische Plastik, Berlin: B. Cassirer, 1926.
Cole, H.H., Memorandum on Ancient Monuments in Eusofzai, with a
description of the explorations undertaken from the 4th February to the
16th April 1883: Curator of Ancient Monuments in India, illustrated
by a map, 8 plans of buildings and 17 plates of rough sketches, June
1882, Simla: Government Central Branch Press, 1883.
———— Preservation of National Monuments, India: Greeco-Buddhist
Sculptures from Yusfzai, Paris, 1884–5.
Collingwood, R.G., he New Leviathan or Man, Society, Civilization and
Barbarity, New York: homas Crowell, 1971 (first edition, 1942).
Collins, S., Nirvana and Other Buddhist Felicities: Utopias of the Pali imaginaire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Combaz, G., ‘L’evolution du stoūpa en Asie, I, Etude d’architecture
bouddhique’, Melanges chinois et bouddhiques, 2, 1933, pp. 163–305.
———— ‘L’evolution du stoūpa en Asie, II, Contributions nouvelles, vue
d’ensemble’, Melanges chinois et bouddhiques, 4, 1935, pp. 93–144.
———— ‘L’evolution du stoūpa en Asie. III, La symbolisme de stoūpa’,
Melanges chinois et bouddhiques, 6, 1937, pp. 1–125.
Coningham, R.A., ‘Monks, Caves and Kings: A Reassessment of the
nature of Early Buddhism in Sri Lanka’, World Archaeology, 27(2),
1995, pp. 222–42.
———— ‘Buddhism “Rematerialized” and the Archaeology of the Gautama
Buddha’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 8(1), 1998, pp. 121–6.
———— Anuradhapura: he British-Sri Lankan Excavations at Anuradhapura Salgaha Watta, 2 vols., BAR International Series 824, Oxford:
Archaeopress, 1999.
Coningham, R.A.E. and F.R. Allchin, ‘he rise of cities in Sri Lanka’, in he
Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: he Emergence of Cities and States,
F.R. Allchin (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Conze, E., Buddhist Meditation, London: Allen & Unwin, 1956.
———— ‘he Golden Germ: An Introduction to Indian Symbolism (review
article)’, Oriental Art, 6, 1960, pp. 114–15.
320
Bibliography
Conze, E., Buddhist hought in India, hree Phases of Buddhist Philosophy,
London: Allen and Unwin, 1962.
———— hirty Years of Buddhist Study: Selected Essays by Edward Conze,
Oxford: Bruno Cassier, 1967.
Coomaraswamy, A., he Aims of Indian Art, Broad Campden: Essex House
Press, 1908.
———— he Indian Craftsman, London: Probsthain, 1909.
———— History of Indian and Indonesian Art, London: E. Goldston, 1927.
———— he Transformation of Nature in Art, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934 (reprint New York: Dover, 1956).
———— Elements of Buddhist Iconography, New York: Harvard University
Press, 1935 (reprint Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1972).
———— La sculpture de Bharthut, Éditions d’Art et d’Histoire, Paris: Vanoest,
1956.
———— Yak]sas: Essays in the Water Cosmology, New Delhi: Indira Gandhi
National Centre for the Arts, 1993.
———— Early Indian Architecture: Cities and City-gates, New Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal, 2002.
Cotton, J.S. and R. Burn (eds), he Imperial Gazetteer of India (new edition),
vol. 9, 25 vols, Oxford: he Clarendon Press, 1908.
Cousens, H., ‘Buddhist Stūpa at Mirpur Khas, Sind’, in Annual Report of the
Archaeological Survey of India, 1909–1910, J. Marshall (ed.), Calcutta:
Government of India Press, 1914.
Craven, R., A Concise History of Indian Art, London: hames & Hudson,
1976.
Cummings, J., Buddhist Stūpas in Asia: he Shape of Perfection, London:
Lonely Planet Publications, 2001.
Cunningham, A., he Bhilsa Topes or Buddhist Monuments of Central India,
London: Smith Elder, 1854a (reprint Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal,
1997).
———— Ladák, physical, statistical, and historical; with notices of the surrounding countries, London: W.H. Allen, 1854b (reprint New Delhi: Sagar
Publications, 1970).
———— he Ancient Geography of India: Buddhist Period, London: Trübner
and Co., 1871.
———— Archaeological Survey of India, Report for the Year 1872–73,
Calcutta: Government of India Publications, 1875.
———— Archaeological Survey of India, Report of a Tour in Bundelkhand
and Malwa, 1871–72; and in the Central Provinces, 1873–74, Calcutta:
Government of India Publications, 1878.
Bibliography
321
Cunningham, A., Archaeological Survey of India, Report of a Tour in the
Central Provinces, 1873–74, and 1874–75, Calcutta: Government of
India Publications, 1879a.
———— he Stūpa of Bhārhut, London: W. H. Allen, 1879b.
———— Archaeological Survey of India, Report of Tours in Bunderkhand
and Malwa in 1874–75 and 1876–77, Calcutta: Government of India
Publications, 1880.
———— Archaeological Survey of India, Reports of a Tour in Bundelkhand
and Rewa in 1883–84; and of a Tour in Rewa, Bundelkhand, Malwa,
and Gwalior, in 1884–85, Calcutta: Government of India Publications,
1885.
———— Mahabodhi or the Great Buddhist Temple under the Bodhi Tree
at Buddha–Gaya, London: W.H. Allen, 1892 (reprint Varanasi:
Indological Book House, 1998).
Dallapiccola, L.S.Z. Lallemant (eds), he Stūpa: Its Religious, Historical and
Architectural Significance, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980.
Dalton, J., ‘he Early Development of the Padmasambhava Legend in
Tibet: a study of IOL Tib J. 644 and Pelliot tibétain 307’, Journal of the
American Oriental Society, 124(4), 2004, pp. 759–72.
Dani, A.H., Indian Palaeography, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.
———— he Historic City of Taxila, Paris: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1986.
Danielou, A., Manimekhalai: he Dancer with the Magic Bowl, New York:
New Directions Books, 1989.
Dar, S.R., ‘Dating the Monuments of Taxila’, in Urban Form and Meaning
in South Asia: he Shaping of Cities from Prehistoric to Precolonial Times,
H. Spodek and D. M. Srinivasan (eds), Washington: National Gallery
of Art, 1993.
————‘he Sikri Sculptures: prolegomena on an exceptional, but unstudied,
collection of Gandharan art in the Lahore Museum’, in Silk Road Art and
Archaeology, Papers in honour of Francine Tissot, E. Errington, and O.
Bopearachchi (eds), Kamakura: Institute of Silk Road Studies, 2000.
Dass, M. and M.D. Willis, ‘he lion capital from Udayagiri and the
antiquity of Sun worship in central India’, South Asian Studies, 18, 2002,
pp. 25–46.
De Jong, J.W., ‘he Study of Buddhism: Problems and Perspectives’, in
Studies in Indo-Asian Art and Culture, vol. 4, P. Ratnam (ed.), New
Delhi: International Academy of Art and Culture, 1975.
———— A Brief History of Buddhist Studies in Europe and America (second
revised and enlarged edition), Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1987.
322
Bibliography
Deane, H., Memorandum on Excavations at Sikri, Yusafzai, Lahore, 1889.
Dehejia, V., Early Buddhist Rock Temples: A Chronological Study, London:
hames and Hudson, 1972.
———— ‘he Persistence of Buddhism in Tamilnadu’, in A Pot-Pourri of
Indian Art, P. Pal (ed.), Bombay: Marg Publcations, 1988.
———— ‘Stūpas and Sculptures of Early Buddhism’, Asian Art, 11(3), 1989,
pp. 7–30.
———— ‘Aniconism and the Multivalence of Emblems’, Ars Orientalis, 21,
1991, pp. 45–66.
———— ‘Collective and Popular Bases of Early Buddhist Patronage: Sacred
Monuments 100bc-ad250’, in he Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian
Culture, B. Stoler-Miller (ed.), New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
1992.
———— Discourse in Early Buddhist Art: Visual Narratives of India, Delhi:
Munisharam Manoharlal, 1997a.
———— Indian Art, London: Phiadon, 1997b.
———— ‘Cicumambulating the Bhārhut Stūpa: he Viewers’ Narrative
Experience’, in Picture Showmen: Insights into the Narrative Tradition in
Indian Art, J. Jain (ed.), Bombay: Marg Publications, 1998.
Deloche, J. (trans. from French by J. Walker), Transport and Communications
in India Prior to Steam Locomotion, 2 vols., New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1994.
Deo, S. and J. Joshi, Pauni Excavation, Nagpur: Nagpur University, 1972.
Derrett, J.D.M., Religion, Law and the State in India, London: Faber & Faber,
1968.
Doyle, T., ‘“Liberate the Mahabodhi Temple!” Socially Engaged Buddhism,
Dalit-Style’, in Buddhism in the Modern World, S. Heine and C. Prebish
(eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Duncan, J.S., he City as Text: the Politics of Landscape Interpretation in the
Kandyan Kingdom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Dutt, N., Early Monastic Buddhism, vol. 1, Calcutta: Firma K.L.
Mukhopadhyay, 1941.
———— Early Monastic Buddhism, vol. 2, Calcutta: Firma K.L.
Mukhopadhyay, 1945a.
———— ‘Popular Buddhism’, Indian Historical Quarterly, 21(3), 1945b,
pp. 245–70.
Dutt. S., Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India, their history and their
contribution to Indian culture, London: Allen & Unwin, 1962.
Eck, D., Darśan: seeing the divine image in India, Chambersberg: Anima
Books, 1981.
Bibliography
323
Edgerton, F., Vikrama’s Adventures or the hirty-Two Tales of the hrone,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926.
———— Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1953.
Elphinstone, Monstuart, An account of the Kingdom of Caubul and its
dependencies in Persia, Tartary and India. London, Longman, Hurst,
Rees, Orme and Brown [etc.] 1815.
Erdosy, G., Urbanisation in Early Historic India, BAR International Series,
430, Oxford: Archaeopress, 1988.
———— ‘he Archaeology of Early Buddhism’, in Studies on Buddhism in
Honour of Professor A.K. Warder, N.K. Wagle and F. Watanabe (eds),
Toronto: University of Toronto, 1993.
Errington, E., ‘he Western Discovery of the Art of Gandhara and the Finds
of Jamalgarhi’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1987.
———— ‘Towards Clearer Attributions of Site Provenance for some 19th
Century Collections of Gandhara Sculpture’, in South Asian Archaeology,
1987, M. Taddei (ed.), Rome: Institute Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo
Oriente, 1990.
———— ‘Addenda to Ingholt’s Gandharan Art in Pakistan’, Pakistan
Archaeology, 26, 1991, pp. 46–70.
Errington, S., ‘Making Progress on Borobudur: An Old Monument in New
Order’, Visual Anthropology Review, 9(2), 1993, pp. 32–5.
Erskine, W., ‘Observations on the Remains of the Bouddhists in India’,
Transactions of Literary Society of Bombay, 3, 1823, pp. 494–537.
Evans, C., ‘Tradition and the cultural landscape: an archaeology of place’,
Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 4, 1985, pp. 80–94.
Fabregues, D., ‘he Indo-Parthian Beginnings of Gandhara Sculpture’,
Bulletin of the Asia Institute, 1, 1987, pp. 33–43.
Faccenna, D., Sculptures from the Sacred Area of Butkala I (Swāt, W. Pakistan),
Institute Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Reports and
Memoirs, vol. 2, nos. 2–3, Rome: Instituto Poligrafico dello Stato,
1962–64.
———— ‘Excavations of the Italian Archaeological Mission (IsMEO) in
Pakistan: Some problems of Gandharan art and architecture’, in Central
Asia in the Kushan Period: Proceedings of the International Conference on
the History, Archaeology and Culture of Central Asia in the Kushan Period,
B.G. Gafurov et al. (eds), Moscow: Nauka, 1974.
———— Saidu Sharif (Swat, Pakistan), vol. 2, he Buddhist Sacred Area.
he Stupa Terrace, Rome: Institute Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo
Oriente, 1995.
324
Bibliography
Falk, N.A. ‘To gaze on the sacred traces’, History of Religions, 16, 1977,
281–93.
Fergusson, J. Tree and Serpent Worship, London: J. Murray, 1868.
———— Tree and Serpent Worship (second edition), London: W.H. Allen,
1873.
Fell, E., ‘Description of an Ancient and Remarkable Monument, near Bhilsa’,
Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, 3, 1834, pp. 490–4.
Fick, R., Die sociale gliederung im nordöstlichen Indien zu Buddha’s zeit, mit
besonderer berücksichtigung der kastenfrage, vornehmlich auf grund der
Jâtaka dargestellt, Kiel: C. F. Haeseler, 1897.
———— (trans. from German by S. Maitra), he Social Organisation in NorthEast India in Buddha’s Time, Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1920.
Fiser, I., ‘he Problem of the Setthi in Buddhist Jatakas’, in Trade in Early
India, R. Chakravarti (ed.), New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Fiske, A., ‘Scheduled Caste Buddhist Organization’, in he Untouchables in
Contemporary India, M. Mahar (ed.), Tuscon: University of Arizona
Press, 1972.
Fleet, J., Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and their Successors, Corpus
Inscriptionum Indicarum, 3, Calcutta: Government of India Publications,
1888.
Fogelin, L., ‘Sacred Architecture, Sacred Landscape: Buddhist Architecture
in north coastal Andhra Pradesh’, in Archaeology as History in Early
South Asia, H.P. Ray and C. Sinopoli (eds), New Delhi: Aryan Books
International, 2004.
———— Archaeology of Early Buddhism, New York: Altamira Press, 2006.
Foucher, A., ‘Les Bas-Reliefs du Stupa de Sikri (Gandhara)’, Journal
Asiatique, 2, 1903, pp. 185–330.
———— L’art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhâra: étude sur les origines de
l’influence classique dans l’art bouddhique de l’Inde et de l’Extrême-Orient,
3 vols, Paris: E. Leroux, 1905–51.
———— he beginnings of Buddhist art and other essays in Indian and CentralAsian archæology; revised by the author and translated by L.A. homas
and F.W. homas; with a preface by the latter, London: P. Geuthner,
1917.
Francis, P., Asia’s Maritime Bead Trade 300 bce to the Present, Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 2002.
Franz, H.G., ‘Stūpa and Stūpa-Temple in the Gandharan Regions and in
Central Asia’, in he Stūpa: Its Religious, Historical and Architectural
Significance, L. Dallapiccola and S.Z. Lallemant (eds), Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980.
Fussman, G., ‘Symbolisms of the Buddhist Stūpa’, in Journal of International
Association of Buddhist Studies, 9(2), 1986, pp. 37–53.
Bibliography
325
Gail, A., ‘Cosmic Symbolism in the Spire of the Ceylon Dagoba’, in he Stūpa:
Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Significance, L. Dallapiccola and
S.Z. Lallemant (eds), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980.
Gehlot, D.R., ‘More Reliquaries from Amarāvatī Mahācaitya’, in Śrī
Rāmachandrikā (Professor Oruganti Rāmachandraiya Festschrift),
A.V.N. Murthy and I.K. Sarma (eds), Delhi: Book India, 1993.
Gerard, J.G., ‘Memoirs on the Topes and Antiquities of Afghanistan’, Journal
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 3, 1834, pp. 321–9.
Getty, A., he Gods of Northern Buddhism: their history, iconography and
progressive evolution through the northern Buddhist countries, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1914.
Ghosh, A., ‘he Early Phase of the Stūpa at Amaravati, South East India’,
Ancient Ceylon, 3, 1979, pp. 97–103.
Ghosh, A. and H.B. Sarkar, ‘Beginnings of Sculptural Art in Southeast
India: a stele from Amaravati’, Ancient India, 20 and 21, 1964–65, pp.
168–77.
Gogte, V.D., ‘XRD Analysis of the Rouletted Ware and other fine Grey
Ware from Tissamaharama’, in Ancient Ruhuna: Sri Lankan-German
Archaeological Project in the Southern Province, vol. 1, H.J. Weisshaar,
H. Roth and W. Wijeyapala (eds), Kommission fur Allgemeine und
Vergleichende Archäologie des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,
Bonn, Materialien zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie,
58, Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2001.
Gokuldas, D., Significance and importance of Jatakas; with special reference to
Bhārhut, Calcutta: Calcutta University, 1951.
Gombrich, E.H., he Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative
Art, Oxford: Phiadon, 1979.
Gombrich, R., heravada Buddhism: a social history from ancient Benares to
modern Colombo, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1988.
———— ‘Making mountains without molehills: the case of the missing stūpa’,
Journal of the Pali Text Society, 15, 1990, pp. 141–3.
———— ‘Merit Detached from Volition: How a Buddhist Doctrine Came to
Wear a Jain Aspect’, in Jainism and Early Buddhism: Essays in Honor of
Padmanabh S. Jaini, O. Qvarnström (ed.), Freemont: Asian Humanities
Press, 2003.
Gomez, O. and H. W. Woodward Jr. (eds), Barabudur: History and
Significance of a Buddhist Monument, Berkley: University of California
Press, 1981.
Gopinatha Rao, T.A., Elements of Hindu Iconography, 2 vols, Madras: Law
Printing House, 1916.
Grover, S., he Architecture of India: Buddhist and Hindu, Ghaziabad:
Vikas, 1980.
326
Bibliography
Grünwedel, A., Buddhistische Kunst in Indien, Berlin: W. Spemann, 1893.
Guha-hakurta, T., ‘Tales of the Bharhut Stupa: Archaeology in the Colonial
and Nationalist Imaginations’, in Paradigms of Indian Architecture Space and Time in Representation and Design, G. Tillotson (ed), London,
Curzon, 1998, pp. 26–58
———— Monuments, Objects, Histories: Institutions of Art in Colonial and
Postcolonial India, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004.
Gunawaradana, R.A.H.L., Anuradhapura: Ritual, Power and Resistance
in a Precolonial South Asian City’, in Domination and Resistance,
D. Miller, M. Rowlands, and C. Tilley (eds), London and Boston:
Unwin Hyman, 1989.
Gupta, P.L., he Imperial Guptas, 2 vols, Varanasi: Vishwavidyalaya
Prakashan, 1974.
———— Coins (second revised edition), New Delhi: National Book Trust,
1979.
Gupta, P. and T. Hardaker, Ancient Indian Silver Punchmarked Coins of
the Magadha–Maurya Karshapana Series, Indian Institute of Research
in Numismatic Studies Monograph 1, Anjaneri: Indian Institute of
Research in Numismatic Studies, 1985.
Gupta, S.P. (ed.), Kushana Sculptures from Sanghol (1st–2nd century ce): A
Recent Discovery, New Delhi: National Museum, 1985.
Guy, J., ‘he Mahabodhi Temple: Pilgrim Souvenirs of Buddhist India’, he
Burlington Magazine, 133(1059), 1991, pp. 356–67.
Hallisey, C., ‘Apropos the Pāli Vinaya as a historical document: a reply
to Gregory Schopen’, Journal of the Pāli Text Society, 15, 1990, pp.
197–208.
Hamid, M., ‘Excavation at Sanchi’, in Annual Report of the Archaeological
Survey of India 1936–37, J. Marshall (ed.), Calcutta: Government of
India Publications, 1940.
Hamid, M. et al., Catalogue of the Museum of Archaeology at Sanchi, Bhopal
State (second edition), Varanasi: Indological Book House, 1982.
Hamilton, F.B., A Geographical, Statistical and Historical Description of the
District or Zila of Dinajpur in the Province or Soubah of Bengal, Calcutta:
Baptist Mission Press, 1833.
Hanumantha Rao, B.S.L., N.S. Ramachandra, B. Murthy, E. Subrahmanyam,
and S. Reddy, Buddhist Inscriptions of Andhradesa, Hyderabad: Ananda
Buddha Vihara Trust, 1998.
Hardy, E., ‘Ueber den upsprung des samajja’, in Album Kern: opstellen
geschreven ter eere Van H.K. Kern hem aangeboden, H. Kern (ed.),
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1903.
Bibliography
327
Hargreaves, H., ‘Excavations at Takht-i-Bahi’, in Annual Report of the
Archaeological Survey of India, 1909–1910, J. Marshall (ed.), Calcutta:
Government of India Publications, 1914a.
————‘Excavations at Shaji-ki-Dheri’, in Annual Report of the Archaeological
Survey of India, 1909–1910, J. Marshall (ed.), Calcutta: Government of
India Publications, 1914b.
Harle, J., he Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1986.
Härtel, H., ‘Archaeological evidence on the early Vāsudeva Worship’,
in Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata, vol. 2, G. Gnoli and L.
Lanciotti (eds), Serie Orientale Roma 61, Rome: Instituto Italiano per
il medio ed estremo oriente, 1987.
———— Excavations at Sonkh: 2500 Years of a Town in Mathura District,
Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1993.
———— ‘Archaeological research on ancient Buddhist sites’, in When did
the Buddha Live?, H. Bechert (ed.), New Delhi: Satguru Publications,
1995.
Harrison, P., ‘Is the Dharmakāya the Real Phantom Body of the Buddha?’,
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 15, 1992,
pp. 44–94.
Harvey, P., ‘he Symbolism of the Early Stūpa’, Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies, 7(2), 1984, pp. 67–93.
Havell, E., Indian Sculpture and Painting, London: Ernest Binfield, 1908.
———— he Ideals of Indian Art, London: Ernest Binfield, 1911.
———— Indian architecture: its psychology, structure, and history from the first
Muhammadan invasion to the present day, London: John Murray, 1913.
———— A Handbook of Indian Art, London: John Murray, 1920.
Hawkes, J. ‘Bharhut: a Re-assessment’, paper presented at the 18th
International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists, held at the
British Museum, London, 2005.
———— ‘he Buddhist Stūpa Site of Bhārhut and its Sacred and Secular
Geographies’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge,
2006.
———— ‘A Re-assessment of the Buddhist Stupa Site of Bharhut’, Pragdhara,
2008 (in press).
Hebalkar, S., Ancient Indian Ports with Special Reference to Maharashtra,
New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 2001.
Heitzman, J., ‘Early Buddhism, Trade and Empire’, in Studies in the
Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology of South Asia, K.A.R. Kennedy and
G.L. Possehl (eds), New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1984.
328
Bibliography
Hinüber, O.V., ‘Khandhakavatta: loss of text in the Pāli Vinayapiaka’,
Journal of the Pāli Text Society, 15, 1990, pp. 127–38.
Hirakawa, A., ‘he Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relationship to the
Worship of Stūpas’, Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo
Bunko, 22, 1963, pp. 57–106.
———— Shoki Daijo Bukkyo no kenkyu (A Study of Early Māhayāna
Buddhism), Tokyo: Shunju sha, 1968.
Hiralal, R., ‘Betul Plates of Samkshobha; he Gupta Year 199’, Epigraphica
Indica, 8, 1905–06, pp. 284–90.
———— Descriptive Lists of Inscriptions in the Central Provinces and Berar
(second edition), Nagpur: Government of India Publications, 1932.
Hiraoka, S., ‘he Relation between the Divyāvadāna and the Mūlasarvātivāda
Vinaya’, Journal of Indian Philosophy, 26, 1998, pp. 1–16.
Hocart, A.M., ‘he Origin of the Stūpa’, Ceylon Journal of Science, 1(1), 1924,
pp. 15–26.
Howell, J.R., ‘Note on Society’s Excavation at Sannathi, Gulbalga District,
India’, South Asian Studies, 5, 1989, pp. 159–62.
———— Excavations at Sannathi 1986–1989, Memoirs of the Archaeological
Survey of India 93, New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India, 1995.
Howes, J., ‘Colin Mackenzie and the Stūpa at Amaravati’, South Asian
Studies, 18, 2002, pp. 53–65.
———— ‘he Mackenzie Parsvanath in the V&A: Research in Progress
on the British Library’s Mackenzie Collection’, South Asia Archive &
Library Group Newsletter, London, 2004.
Hultzsch, E., ‘he Sunga Inscription of the Bharaut Stūpa’, Indian Antiquary,
14, 1885, pp. 138–9.
———— ‘A Pallava Inscription from Amaravati’, South Indian Inscriptions, 1,
1890, pp. 27–8.
———— ‘Rayakota Plates of Skandasishya’, Epigraphia Indica, 5, 1898,
p. 52.
———— Inscriptions of Asoka (new edition), Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum
1, Oxford: he Clarendon Press, 1925.
Huntington, J.C., ‘Sowing the Seeds of the Lotus: A Journey to the Great
Pilgrimage Sites of Buddhism, Part 1’, Orientations, 16(11), 1985,
pp. 46–61.
Huntington, S.L., ‘Early Buddhist Art and the heory of Aniconism’, Art
Journal, 49(4), 1990, pp. 401–8.
———— ‘Aniconism and the Multivalence of the Emblems: Another Look’,
Ars Orientalis, 22, 1992, pp. 111–56.
Inden, Ronald. Imagining India, Oxford, Blackwell, 1990
Ingholt, H., Gandharan art in Pakistan, New York: Pantheon, 1957.
Bibliography
329
Irwin, J., ‘“Asokan Pillars”: a reassessment of the evidence, Part I’, Burlington
Magazine, 115, 1973, pp. 706–20.
————‘“Asokan Pillars”: a reassessment of the evidence, Part II (Structure)’,
Burlington Magazine, 116, 1974, pp. 712–27.
———— ‘“Asokan Pillars”: a reassessment of the evidence, Part III (Capitals)’,
Burlington Magazine, 117, 1975, pp. 631–43.
———— ‘“Asokan Pillars”: a reassessment of the evidence, Part IV
(Symbolism)’, Burlington Magazine, 118, 1976, pp. 734–53.
———— ‘he Stūpa and the Cosmic Axis: the Archaeological Evidence’,
in South Asian Archaeology, 1977, M. Taddei (ed.), Naples: Istituto
Universitario Orientale, 1979.
————‘he Axial Symbolism of the Early Stūpas: An Exegesis’, in he Stūpa:
Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Significance, L. Dallapiccola and
S.Z. Lallemant (eds), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980.
———— ‘he Mystery of the (Future) Buddha’s First Words’, Annali dell’
Istituto Orientalle de Napoli, 41, 1981, pp. 623–63.
———— ‘he Sacred Anthill and the Cult of the Premordial Mound’, History
of Religions, 21, 1982, pp. 339–60.
———— ‘he Stūpa and the Cosmic Axis (yūpa-ya· i)’, in Ācārya-Vandanā:
D.R. Bhandarkar Birth Centenary Volume, S. Bandyopadhyay (ed.),
Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1984.
————‘Buddhism and the Cosmic Pillar’, Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae
Dicata, vol. 2, G. Gnoli and L. Lanciotti (ed.), Serie Orientale Roma 56,
Rome: Instituto Italiano per il medio ed estremo oriente, 1987.
Jacobson, J., ‘Static sites and peripatetic peoples in the archaeology of
population mobility in eastern Malwa’, in Pastoralists and Nomads
in South Asia, S. Leshnik and G.D. Sontheimer (eds), Wiesbaden:
O. Harrassowitz, 1975.
———— ‘At the Crossroads: a study of Mother Goddess cult sites’, in Myth
and Reality: Studies in the formation of Indian culture, D.D. Kosambi
(ed.), Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1962.
Jamieson, R.C., Nāgārjuna’s Verses on the Great Vehicle and the Heart of
Dependent Origination, New York: Peter Lang, 2000.
Jayaswal, K.P., Hindu Policy, Bangalore: Bangalore Printing and Publishing,
1943.
Joshi, M. (ed.), Indian Archaeology 1988–89-A Review, Delhi: Archaeological
Survey of India, 1993.
Juhyung, R., ‘Images, Relics and Jewels: he Assimilation of Images in the
Buddhist Relic Cult of Gandhāra–or vice versa’, Artibus Asiae, 65(2),
2005, pp. 169–211.
Kala, S.C., Bhārhut Vedikā, Allahabad: he Municipal Museum, 1951.
330
Bibliography
Kenoyer, J.M., J.D. Clark, J.N. Pal, and G.R. Sharma, ‘An upper palaeolithic
shrine in India?’, Antiquity, 57, 1983, pp. 88–94.
Kern, H., Manual of Indian Buddhism, Strassburg: Verlag Von Karl J.
Trübner, 1896.
Khan, S.N., ‘Preliminary report of excavations at Marjanai, Kabal, Swat’,
Ancient Pakistan, 11, 1995, pp. 1–74.
Khare, M.D., ‘Discovery of a Vishnu temple near the Heliodorus pillar,
Besnagar, Dist. Vidisha (M.P.)’, Lalit Kala, 13, 1967, pp. 21–7.
Kim, H.P., ‘Fujii Nichidatsu’s Tangyō–Raihai: Bodhisattva-practice for the
Nuclear Age’, Cross Currents, 36(2), 1986, pp. 193–203.
Kinnard, J.N., ‘When is the Buddha Not the Buddha? he Hindu / Buddhist
Battle over Bodhgayā and Its Buddha Image’, Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 66(4), 1998, pp. 817–39.
———— ‘he Polyvalent Pādas of Vi]s]nu and the Buddha’, History of Religions,
40(1), 2000, pp. 32–57.
Kisala, R., Prophets of peace: pacifism and cultural identity in Japan’s new
religions, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999.
Kittoe, M., ‘Notes on the Viharas and Chaityas of Bihar’, Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal, 16, 1847, pp. 272–9.
Knox, J.R., Amaravati: Buddhsit Sculpture from the Great Stūpa, London: he
British Museum, 1992.
Kosambi, D.D., ‘he Basis of Ancient Indian History, I’, Journal of the
American Oriental Society, 75(1), 1955, pp. 35–45.
———— Myth and Reality: Studies in the Formation of Indian Culture, Bombay,
Popular Prakashail, 1962
———— ‘he Autochthonous Elements in the Mahabharatra’, Journal of the
American Oriental Society, 84(1), 1964, pp. 31–44.
Kramrisch, S., Indian Sculpture, Calcutta: YMCA Publishing House, 1933.
Krishna Murthy, K., Nagarjunakonda: A Cultural Study, Delhi: Concept
Publishing Company, 1977.
Krishna Sastri, H., ‘Velurpalaiyam Plates of Vijaya-Nandivarman (III)’,
South Indian Inscriptions, 2(10), 1891, p. 510.
Krishna Sastry, V.V., he Proto and Early Historical Cultures of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1983.
Lahiri, N., he Archaeology of Indian Trade Routes upto c.200 bce: Resource
Use, Resource Access, and Lines of Communication, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1992.
Lake, H.H., ‘Bigan Topes’, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 23, 1910, pp. 45–6.
Lal, M., Settlement history and rise of civilization in Ganga-Yamuna doab, from
1500 bce to 300 ce, Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, 1984.
Bibliography
331
Lamotte, E., Histoire du Buddhisme Indien, Louvain: Institut Orientaliste,
1958.
———— (trans. from French by S. Webb-Boin), History of Indian Buddhism,
Louvain: Univesité Catholique de Louvain, 1988.
Law, B.C.E., ‘Cetiya in Buddhist literature’, in Studia Indo-Iranica Ehrengabe
fur Wilhelm Geiger, W. von Wust (ed.), Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz,
1931.
Lawson, S., ‘Votive Objects from Bodhgaya’, in Bodhgaya: the Site of
Enlightenment, J. Leoshko (ed.), Bombay, Marg Publications, 1988,
pp. 61–72
Leider, J.P., ‘Text, Lineage and Tradition in Burma: the struggle for norms
and religious legitimacy under King Bodawphaya (1782–1819)’, paper
presented at Exploring heravada Studies: Intellectual Trends and the
Future of a Field of Study, Asia Research Institute, National University
of Singapore, 12–14 August, 2004.
Leoshko, J. (ed.), Bodhgaya, the site of Enlightenment, Bombay: Marg
Publications, 1988.
Leoshko, J., ‘On the Construction of a Buddhist Pilgrimage Site’, Art History,
19(4), 1996, pp. 573–97.
———— Sacred Traces: British Explorations of Buddhism in South Asia,
Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.
Liu, X., Ancient India and Ancient China: Trade and Religious Exchanges AD
1–600, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Longhurst, A.H., he Story of the Stūpa, Colombo: Ceylon Government
Press, 1936.
———— he Buddhist Antiquities at Nāgārjuniko]n]da, Madras Presidency,
Delhi: Government of India Publications, 1938.
Lopez, D.S. (ed.), Curators of the Buddha, the study of Buddhism under
colonialism, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1995.
Lorenzen, D., ‘Imperialism and the Historiography of Ancient India’, in
India: History and hought: Essays in Honour of A.L. Basham, S.N.
Mukherjee (ed.), Delhi: Subarnarekha, 1982.
Losty, J.P., ‘he Mahabodhi Temple before its Restoration’, in Aksayanīvī:
essays presented to Dr. Debala Mitra in admiration of her scholarly contributions, G. Bhattacharya (ed.), Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1991.
Lüders, H., ‘A List of Brāhmī Inscriptions from the Earliest Times to about
ce 400 with the Exception of those of Aśoka’, Epigraphia Indica, 10,
1912, Appendix.
———— (ed. and rev. by E. Waldschmit and M.A. Mehendare), Bhārhut
Inscriptions, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 2, part 2, Ootacamund:
Government Epigraphist for India, 1963.
332
Bibliography
Lutgendorf, P., ‘My Hanuman is Bigger than yours’, History of Religions, 33,
1994, pp. 211–45.
Mabbett, I., ‘he Problem of the Historical Nagarjuna Revisited’, Journal of
the American Oriental Society, 118(3), 1998, pp. 332–46.
Mackenzie, C., ‘Extracts of a Journal’, Asiatick Researches, 9, 1807, pp.
272–8.
———— ‘Ruins of Amravutty, Depauldina and Durnacotta’, Asiatic Journal
and Monthly Register, 15(May), 1823, pp. 464–78.
Maisey, F.C., Sānchī and Its Remains: a full description of the ancient buildings,
sculptures, and inscriptions at Sánchi, near Bhilsa, in Central India, with
remarks on the evidence they supply as to the comparatively modern date
of the Buddhism of Gotama, or Sákya Muni, London: Kegan Paul, 1892
(reprint Delhi: Indological Book House, 1972).
Makransky, J., Buddhahood Embodied: Sources of Controversy in India and
Tibet, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.
Malamoud, C., Cooking the World: Ritual and hought in Ancient India, New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Malandra, G., ‘he Mahabodhi Temple’, in Bodhgaya: he Site of Enlightenment, J. Leoshko (ed.), Mumbai: Marg Publications, 1988.
Marshall, G.T., ‘Facsimiles of Ancient Inscriptions’, Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal, 6, 1837, pp. 464–78.
Marshall, J., ‘Excavations at Bhita’, in Archaeological Survey of India Annual
Report 1911–12, J. Marshall (ed.), Calcutta: Government of India
Publications, 1915.
———— ‘he Monuments of Ancient India’, in he Cambridge History of
India, vol. 1, E. J. Rapson (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1922.
———— Taxila: An Illustrated Account of Archaeological Excavations, 3 vols,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.
Marshall, J. and A. Foucher, he Monuments of Sāñchī, 3 vols., Calcutta:
Government of India Publications, 1940.
Martin M. (ed.), he History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern
India, vol. 2, London: W.H. Allen, 1836–38.
Mauss, M. (trans. from French by W.D. Halls), he Gift: he Form and
Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, London: Routledge, 1990.
McCrindle, J.W., Ancient India, as described by Megasthenes and Arrian;
being a translation of the fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes collected by
Dr. Schwanbeck, and of the first part of the Indika of Arrian, London:
hacker, Spink & Co., 1877 (reprint New Delhi: Today & Tomorrow’s
Printers & Publishers, 1972).
Bibliography
333
Mehta, R.N. and S.N. Chowdhary, Excavation at Devnimori (a report of the
excavation conducted from 1960 to 1963), Baroda: University of Baroda,
1966.
Meskell, Lynn, ‘he Somatization of Archaeology: Institutions, Discourses,
Corporeality’, Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 29, 1996, pp.
1–16
Michaelson, C., Gilded Dragons: Buried Treasures from China’s Golden
Ages, London: he British Museum, 1999.
Miller, D. and C. Tilley (eds), Ideology, power and prehistory, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Minayeff, I., Recherches sur le bouddhisme, Paris: E. Leroux, 1894.
Mirashi, V.V., ‘Nā]nēghā_t Inscription Re-Examined’, Studies in Indian
Epigraphy, 3, 1978, pp. 86–90.
———— History and Inscriptions of the Satavahana and the Western Ksatrapas,
Bombay: State Board for Literature and Culture, 1981.
Mishra, P., Deorkothar (Barhat), Rewa: A Unique, Recently Excavated
Buddhist Site in Central India, Bhopal: Archaeological Survey of India,
2000.
———— ‘Excavations at the Buddhist Site of Deorkothar (Barhat), District
Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, 1999–2001’, Circle of Inner Asian Art, 13,
2001, pp. 3–14.
Mishra, S.S., Someévara’s Mānasollāsa; a cultural study, Vidyabhawan
Rashtrabhasha Granthamala 99, Varanasi, 1966.
Misra, R.N., Yaksa Cult and Iconography, New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal, 1981.
Misra, V., J. Pal, and M. Gupta, ‘Excavation at Amilikoni, Rewa, Madhya
Pradesh and Exploration around Amilikoni’, Pragdhara, 12, 2001–02,
pp. 145–52.
Mitchiner, M., he origins of Indian coinage, London: Hawkins, 1973.
Mitra, D., Buddhist Monuments, Calcutta: Sahitya Samsad, 1971 (reprint,
1980).
———— Ratnagiri 1958–1961, New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India,
1981.
———— ‘Discovery and Restoration of the Monuments’, in Unseen Presence:
he Buddha and Sanchi, V. Dehejia (ed.), Mumbai: Marg Publications,
1996.
Mitra, R., Buddha Gaya: he Hermitage of Sakya Muni, Calcutta: Bengal
Secretariat Press, 1878.
Mitra, Rajendralal, he Sanskrit Buddhist literature of Nepal. Calcutta, Asiatic
Society of Bengal, 1882, rpt. Calcutta, Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 1971.
334
Bibliography
Mitra, Rajendralal, he Antiquities of Orissa, 2 vols, Calcutta, Wyman & Co.,
1875–80, rpt. New Delhi, Today & Tomorrow’s Printers & Publishers,
1973.
Mitter, Partha, Much Maligned Monster: A History of European Reactions to
Indian Art, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1977.
———— Indian Art, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Monier-Williams, M., A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1899.
Morrison, K., ‘Trade, Urbanism, and Agricultural Expansion: Buddhist
Monastic Institutions and the State in Early Historic Western Deccan’,
World Archaeology, 27(2), 1995, pp. 203–21.
Mus, P., ‘Bārabu]dūr. Les origins du stoûpa et la transmigration’, Bulletin de
l’ecole française d’Extrême-Orient, 32(1), 1932, pp. 269–439.
———— ‘Bārabu]dūr. Les origins du stoûpa et la transmigration’, Bulletin de
l’ecole française d’Extr me-Orient, 33(2), 1933, pp. 577–980.
———— Barabadur: Esquisse d’une histoire du Bouddhisme fondée sur la critique
archéologique des texts, Paris and Hanoi: Paul Geuthner, 1935.
———— (trans. from French by A. W. Macdonald), Barabudur: Sketch of a
History of Buddhism based on Archaeological Criticism of the Texts, Delhi:
Indira Gandhi International Centre for the Arts, 1998.
Nagao, G., ‘Bukkyo kyodan no gensi keitai (the Ancient Buddhist Community in India and its Cultural Activities)’, Nihon Bukkyo Gallai Nenpo,
39, 1971, pp. 1–19.
Nagaraja Rao, M.S., ‘Brāhmī Inscriptions and heir Bearing on the Great
Stūpa at Sannathi’, in Indian Epigraphy: Its Bearing on History of Art,
F.M. Asher and G.S. Gai (ed.), New Delhi: IBH Publishing, 1985.
Nakamura, H., Gotama Buddha: A Biography Based on the Most Reliable
Texts, Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Co., 2000.
Nath, A., Further Excavations at Pauni 1994, Memoirs of the Archaeological
Survey of India 97, New Delhi: Archeological Survey of India, 1998.
———— ‘Satavahana Antiquities from A]dam’, in he Age of the Sātavāhanas,
A.M. Shastri (ed.), vol. 2, New Delhi: Aryan Book International, 1999.
Nath, R., Elements of Indian Art and Architecture, Jaipur: Historical Research
Documentation Programme, 1986.
Nattier, J., A Few Good Men: Boddhsattava path according to the inquiry of
Ugra (ugraparip_rccha), Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003.
Nilakanta Sastri, K.A., A History of South India from Prehistoric Times to the
Fall of Vijayanagara, London: Oxford University Press, 1955.
Nishikawa, Koji ed., Ranigato: 1983–92 Gandara bukkyo iseki no sogo chosa
(Ranigat : a Buddhist site in Gandhara, Pakistan surveyed 1983–1992),
Kyoto, Kyoto Daigaku Shuppankai, 1994
Bibliography
335
Nugteren, A., ‘Rituals around the Bodhi-Tree in Bodhgaya, India’, in
Pluralism and Identity: Studies in Ritual Behaviour, in J. Platvoet and
K. Van der Toorn (eds), Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995.
Oldenberg, H., Buddha, Sein Leben, sein Lehre, seine Gemeinde, Berlin,
1881 (reprint thirteen edition, Stuttgart: Erschenen im Costa Verlag,
1951).
———— (trans. from Russian by W. Hoey), Buddha: His Life, His Doctrine,
His Order, London: William & Norgate, 1882.
Oldenburg, S.F. (trans. from Russian by H. Wenzel), ‘On the Buddhist
Jatakas’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,
25, 1893, pp. 301–56.
———— (trans. from Russian by T. W. Rhys-Davids), ‘Notes on Buddhist
Bas-Reliefs’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and
Ireland, 28, 1895, pp. 623–27.
———— (trans. from Russian by Lanman), ‘Notes on Buddhist Art’, Journal
of the American Oriental Society, 18, 1897, 183–201.
Otto, R., he Idea of the Holy: an inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea
of the divine and its relation to the rational, London: Oxford University
Press, 1924.
Owens, B., ‘Monumentality, Identity, and the State: Local, Practice, World
Heritage and Heterotopia at Swayambhu, Nepal’, Anthropological
Quarterly, 75, 2002, pp. 269–316.
Pal, P., Indian Sculpture. A Catalogue of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Collection, 2 vols., Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum, 1986.
Pant, S., he Origin and Development of Stûpa Architecture in India, Bharata
Manish Research Series, 8, Varanasi: Bharata Manisha, 1976.
Parasher, A., ‘Social Structure and Economy of Settlements in the Central
Deccan (200 bce—ce 200)’, in he City in Indian History, I. Banga
(ed.), New Delhi: Manohar, 1991.
———— ‘Social Structure and Economy of Settlements in the Central
Deccan (200 bce-ce 200)’, in he City in Indian History: Urban Demography, Society, and Politics, I. Banga (ed.), New Delhi: Manohar, 1991.
———— ‘Nature of society and civilisation in early Deccan’, Indian Economic
and Social History Review, 29(4), 1992, pp. 437–77.
Pargiter, F.E., Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922.
Patrik, L., ‘Is there an Archaeological Record?’, in Advances in Archaeological
Method and heory, vol. 8, M. Schiffer (ed.), London: Academic Press,
1985.
Prasad, K., Cities, Crafts and Commerce under the Kusanas, Delhi: Agam
Kala Prakashan, 1984.
336
Bibliography
Prinsep, J., ‘On the Coins and Relics discovered by M. le Chavalier Ventura,
General in the Service of Maha Raja Ranjeet Singh, in the Tope of
Manikyara’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 3, 1834, pp. 313–20.
———— (ed. by E. homas), Essays on Indian Antiquities, Historic, Numismatic, and Palaeographic, of the late James Prinsep, London: John
Murray, 1858.
Przyluski, J., ‘La princesse à l’odeur de poisson et la nāgī dans les traditions
de l’asie orientale’, Études asiatiques, 2, 1925, pp. 265–84.
———— ‘he Harmikā and the Origin of the Buddhist Stūpa’, Indian
Historical Quarterly, 11, 1935, pp. 190–210.
Quintanilla, S.R., ‘Āyāgapa_tas: Characteristics, Symbolism, and Chronology’,
Artibus Asiae, 60(1), 2000, pp. 79–137.
Rabe, M., ‘he Māmallapuram Praśasti: A Panegyric in Figures’, Artibus
Asiae, 57(3–4), 1997, pp. 189–241.
Raghunandan, K. and B. Dhruva Rao, Exploration for Copper, Lead and
Zinc Ores in India. Bulletins of the Geological Survey of India, Series
A—Economic Geology 47, Calcutta: Geological Survey of India, 1981.
Rajan, K., ’Early Maritime Activities of the Tamils’, in Tradition and
Archaeology: Early Maritime Contacts in the Indian Ocean, H.P. Ray and
J.F. Salles (eds), New Delhi: Manohar, 1996, pp. 97–108.
Ramanan, K.V., Nagarjuna’s Philosophy, Cambridge: Harvard-Yenching
Institute, 1966.
Rapson, E.J. (ed.), he Cambridge History of India, vol. 1, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1922.
Ray, H.P., Monastery and Guild: Commerce under the Sātavāhanas, New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1986.
———— he Winds of Change: Buddhism and the Maritime Links of Early
South Asia, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994.
———— he Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia, Cambridge and
New York, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
———— ‘Inscribed Pots, Emerging Identities: he Social Milieu of Trade’,
in Between he Empires: Society in India 300 bce to 400 ce, P. Olivelle
(ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Ray, H. & Sinopoli, C. (eds), Archaeology as History in Early South Asia,
Aryan Books International, New Delhi, 2004
Ray, N.R., Maurya and Sunga art, Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press,
1945.
Ray, R., Buddhist Saints in India: a study in Buddhist values and orientations,
New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Rea, A., Rea, Alexander, South Indian Buddhist Antiquities; Including the
Stūpas of Bha hiproÂu, Gu]div]n]da and Gha]n asālā and other Ancient Sites
Bibliography
337
(Madras: Superintendent, Government Press, 1894, rpt. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India, 1997).
———— ‘Excavations at Amarāvatī’, in Annual Report of the Archaeological
Survey of India 1908–1909, J. Marshall (ed.), Shimla: Government of
India Publications, 1912.
Reynolds, F.E., ‘he Many Lives of Buddha: A Study of Sacred Biography
and heravāda Tradition’, in he Biographical Process: Studies in the
History and Psychology of Religion, F.E. Reynolds and D. Capps (eds),
he Hague: Moulton, 1976.
———— ‘he Several Bodies of Buddha: Reflections on a Neglected Aspect
of heravāda Tradition’, History of Religions, 16(4), 1977, pp. 374–89.
Rhys-Davids, C.A.F., Rhys-Davids, C., Economic Conditions in Ancient
India, Economic Journal 11:305–320, 1901
———— ‘Economic Conditions According to Early Buddhist Literature’, in
he Cambridge History of India, vol. 1, E.J. Rapson (ed.), Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1922.
Rhys-Davids, T.W., ‘Buddhism’, North American Review, 171, 1900, pp.
517–27.
———— Buddhist India, London: G. P. Putnam & Sons, 1903.
———— Buddhism, being a Sketch of the Life and Teaching of Gautama the
Buddha (reprint of revised edition), London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 1912.
Richman, P., Women, Branch Stories, and Religious Rhetoric in a Tamil
Buddhist Text, Syracuse: Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public
Affairs, 1988.
Rickman, T., An attempt to discriminate the styles of English architecture,
from the conquest to the reformation: preceded by a sketch of the Grecian
and Roman orders, with notices of nearly five hundred English buildings,
London: Longman, 1817.
Rosenfield, J.M., he dynastic arts of the Kushans, Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1967.
Roth, G., ‘Symbolism of the Buddhist Stūpa’, in he Stūpa: Its Religious,
Historical and Architectural Significance, in L. Dallapiccola and S.Z.
Lallemant (eds), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980.
Roy, K., ‘Women and Men Donors at Sanchi: A Study of the Inscriptional
Evidence’, in Position and Status of Women in Ancient India, vol. 1, L.K.
Tripathi, Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University, 1998.
Ruelius, H., ‘he stūpa in the Śilpaśāstras and the rituals of the Sinhalese’,
in he Stūpa: Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Significance, L.
Dallapiccola and S. Z. Lallemant (ed.), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 1980.
338
Bibliography
Salt, H., ‘Account of the Caves in Saltenatte’, Transactions of the Literary
Society of Bombay, 1, 1819, pp. 41–52.
Sarao, K.T.S., Urban Centres and Urbanisation as reflected in the Pali Vinaya
and Sutta Pitakas, Delhi: Vidyanidhi, 1990.
Sarkar, H., ‘Emergence of Urban Centres in Early Historical Andhradesa’,
in Archaeology and History, vol. 2, B.M. Pande and B.D. Chattopadyaya
(eds), Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, 1987.
———— Studies in Early Buddhist Architecture of India, New Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal, 1993.
Sarkar, H. and B.N. Mishra, Nagarjunakonda, New Delhi: Archaeological
Survey of India, 1972.
———— Nagarjunakonda, 3rd edition, New Delhi: Archaeological Survey
of India, 1980.
Sarma, I.K., he Development of Early Śaiva Art and Architecture, Delhi:
Sundeep Prakashan, 1982.
Sarma, I.K. and Rao, V.K., Early Brāhmī Inscriptions from Sannathi, New
Delhi: Harman Publishing House, 1993.
Sasaki, S., ‘A study on the Origin of Mahāyana Buddhism’, he Eastern
Buddhist, 30(1), 1997, pp. 79–113.
Schober, J. (ed.), Sacred Biography in the Buddhist Traditions of South and
Southeast Asia, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997.
Schopen, G., ‘he Phrase sa p_rthivīpradeśaś caityabhto bhavet in the
Vajracchedikā: Notes on the Cult of the Book in Mahāyāna’, IndoIranian Journal, 17, 1975, pp. 147–81.
———— ‘Mahāyāna in Indian Inscriptions’, Indo-Iranian Journal, 21, 1979,
pp. 1–19.
———— ‘Filial Piety and the Monk in the Practice of Indian Buddhism’,
T’oung Pao, 70, 1984, pp. 110–26.
———— ‘Two Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism: he Layman/
Monk Distinction and Doctrines of the Transference of Merit’, Studien
Zur Indologie und Iranistik, 10, 1985, pp. 9–47.
———— ‘Burial “ad sanctos” and the Physical Presence of the Buddha in early
Indian Buddhism: a Study in the Archaeology of Religions’, Religion, 17,
1987a, pp. 193–225.
———— ‘he Inscription on the KushŒn Image of Amitābha and the
Character of the Early Mahāyāna in India’, Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies, 10(2), 1987b, pp. 99–137.
———— ‘On the Buddha and his Bones: the Conception of a Relic in the
Inscriptions from Nāgārjuniko]n]da’, Journal of the American Oriental
Society, 108(4), 1988, pp. 527–37.
———— ‘he Stèpa Cult and the Extant Pāli Vinaya’, Journal of the Pāli Text
Society, 13, 1989, pp. 83–100.
Bibliography
339
Schopen, G., ‘Doing business for the lord: lending on interest and written
loan contracts in the Mūlasarvāstivāda-Vinaya’, Journal of the American
Oriental Society, 114(4), 1994, pp. 527–54.
———— ‘Immigrant monks and the proto-historical dead: the Buddhist
occupation of early burial sites in India’, in Festschrift Dieter Schlingloff, F.
Wilheln (ed.), Reinbek: Verlag fur Orientalistische Fachpublikationen,
1996a.
———— ‘he Lay Ownership of Monasteries and the Role of the Monk in
Mūlasārvāstivādin Monasticism’, Journal of the International Association
of Buddhist Studies, 19(1), 1996b, pp. 81–126.
———— Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India, Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1997.
———— Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic
Buddhism in India, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004.
———— Figments and Fragments of Mahayanan Buddhism in India: More
Collected Papers, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005.
Seneviratna, A., Ancient Anuradhapura: he Monastic City, Colombo:
Archaeological Survey Department, 1994.
Sengupta, G., ‘Archaeology of Coastal Bengal’, in Tradition and Archaeology:
Early Maritime Contacts in the Indian Ocean, H.P. Ray and J.F. Salles
(eds), New Delhi: Manohar, 1996, pp. 115–27.
Shackleton Bailey, D.R., ‘Notes on the Divyāvadāna, part 1’, Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society, 1950, pp. 161–84.
———— ‘Notes on the Divyāvadāna, part 2’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 1951, pp. 82–102.
Sharma, G. Excavations at Kausambi, 1957–1959: the Defences and the
Syenaciti of the Purusamedha. University of Allahabad, Allahabad.
1960.
Sharma, G.R., he Excavations at Kausambi 1957–1959, Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India, 1969.
Sharma, G.R., V.D. Misra, D. Mandal, B.B. Misra, and J.N. Pal, Beginnings
of Agriculture, From Hunting and Food Gathering to the Domestication of
Plants, Allahabad, Abinash Prakashan, 1980.
Sharma, R., Encyclopaedia of Art, Archaeology and Literature in Central India,
2 vols., New Delhi: Aryan Books International, 1998.
Sharma, R. and S. Mishra, Excavations at Kakrehta (Rupnath), Delhi: Agam
Kala Prakashan, 1992.
Sharma, R.S., Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India,
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1959.
———— Indian Feudalism: c. 300–1200, Calcutta: University of Calcutta
Press, 1965.
340
Bibliography
Sharma, R.S., Urban Decay in India (c ce 300–c 1000), New Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal, 1987.
———— Early Medieval Indian Society: A Study in Feudalisation, Hyderabad:
Orient, 2001.
Shaw, J. ‘he sacred landscape’, in Buddhist Reliquaries from Ancient India,
M. Willis (ed.), London: he British Museum, 2000a.
———— ‘Sanchi and its archaeological landscape: Buddhist monasteries,
settlements and irrigation works in central India’, Antiquity, 74, 2000b,
pp. 775–6.
———— he Sacred Geography of Sanchi Hill: the archaeological setting
of Buddhist monasteries in central India, Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Cambridge, 2002
———— ‘Nāga sculptures in Sanchi’s archaeological landscape: Buddhism,
Vaiś]navism and local agricultural cults in central India, first century BC
to fifth century CE’, Artibus Asiae, 64(1), 2004a, pp. 5–59.
———— ‘Early historic landscapes in central India: recent archaeological
investigations in districts Raisen and Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh, 2003–
4’, Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in History and Archaeology, 1(1),
2004b, pp. 143–50.
———— ‘he archaeological setting of Buddhist monasteries in central India:
a summary of a multi-phase survey in the Sanchi area, 1998–2000’,
in South Asian Archaeology 2001: Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, vol.
2, C. Jarriage and V. Lefèvre (eds), Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les
Civilisations, 2005.
———— Buddhist Landscapes in Central India: Sanchi hill and archaeologies of
religious and social change, c. 3rd century bc to 5th century ad, London:
he British Academy, 2007.
Shaw J. and J.V. Sutcliffe, ‘Ancient irrigation works in the Sanchi area: an
archaeological and hydrological investigation’, South Asian Studies, 17,
2001, pp. 55–75.
———— ‘Water management, patronage networks and religious change: new
evidence from the Sanchi dam complex and counterparts in Gujarat
and Sri Lanka’, South Asian Studies, 19, 2003, pp. 73–104.
———— ‘Ancient dams and Buddhist landscapes in the Sanchi area: new
evidence on irrigation, land use and monasticism in central India’, South
Asian Studies, 21, 2005, pp. 1–24.
Shaw, J., J.V. Sutcliffe, L. Lloyd-Smith, J.L. Schwenninger, and M.S.
Chauhan (with contributions by O.P. Misra and E. Harvey), ‘Ancient
Irrigation and Buddhist history in Central India: Optically Stimulated
Luminescence and pollen sequences from the Sanchi dams’, Asian
Perspectives, 46(1), 2007, pp. 166–201.
Bibliography
341
Sherratt, A., ‘“Settlement patterns” or “landscape studies”? Reconciling
reason and romance’, Archaeological Dialogues, 3(2), 1996, pp. 140–59.
Shimada, A. ‘he Great Railing at Amaravati: An Architectural and Chronological Reconstruction’, Artibus Asiae, 66(1), 2006, pp. 89–141.
Shimoda, M., Nehangyo no kenkyu: Daijo kyoten no kenkyuhouhou siron (A
study of the Mahāparinirvā]nasūtra with a focus on the methodology of the
study of mahayanasutras), Tokyo: Shunju sha, 1997.
Shizutani, M., Shoki Daijo Bukkyo no seiritsu katei, Kyoto: Hyakkaen,
1974.
———— Shizutani, Masao, Indo bukkyo himei mokuroku (Catalogue of Indian
Buddhist Inscriptions), Kyoto Heirakuji Shoten, 1979.
Singh, A., Rewa ka Puratattva, Allahabad: Sekhar Prakashan, 1998.
Singh, R. (ed.), India, a Regional Geography, Varanasi: National Geographical
Society of India, 1971.
Singh, U., ‘Sanchi: the History of the Patronage of an Ancient Buddhist
Temple’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 33, 1996, pp.
1–35.
———— ‘Amaravati: the Dismembering of the MahŒcaitya (1797–1886)’,
South Asian Studies, 17, 2001, pp. 19–40.
———— he Discovery of Ancient India: Early Archaeologists and the Beginning
of Archaeology, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004a.
———— ‘Cults and shrines in early historical Mathura (c. 200 bce-ce 200)’,
World Archaeology, 36(3), 2004b, pp. 378–98.
Sinha, B.P., S.H. Askari, and Q. Ahmad (eds), Comprehensive History of
Bihar, Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1983–87.
Sinha, B.P. and L.A. Narain, Pataliputra Excavation, 1955–56, Patna:
Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, 1970.
Sircar, D.C., Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization
(6th Century bce to 6th Century ce), 2 vols., Calcutta: University of
Calcutta, 1965.
———— ‘More Inscriptions from Nāgārjunako]n]da’, Epigraphica Indica, 35,
1966, pp. 17–18.
Sircar, D.C. and K.G. Krishnan, ‘Two Inscriptions from Nāgārjunako]n]da’,
Epigraphica Indica, 34, 1963, pp. 20–2.
Sivaramamurti, C., Amaravati Sculptures in the Madras Government Museum,
Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum (n.s.) 4, Madras: Government of India Publications, 1942 (reprint 1977).
Skilling, P., ‘he Buddhist World of Southeast Asia’ (review article), Journal
of the American Oriental Society, 117(3), 1997, pp. 579–80.
Smith, V., A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon: from the earliest times to
the present day, Oxford: he Clarendon Press, 1911.
———— Oxford History of India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1919.
342
Bibliography
Smith, M.L. he Archaeology of an Early Historic Town in Central India, BAR
International Series, 1002, Oxford: Archaeopress, 2001.
Snodgrass, A., he Symbolism of the Stūpa, Ithanca: Cornell University Press,
1985.
Speyer, J.S., ‘Critical Remarks on the Text Divyāvadāna’, Wiener Zeitschrift
für die Kunde des Morg]nlandes, 16, 1902, pp. 103–30, 340–61.
Spink, W.M., ‘On the Development of Early Buddhist Art in India’, he Art
Bulletin, 40, 1958, pp. 95–104.
Spooner, D.B., ‘Excavations at Takht-i-Bahi’, in Annual Report of the
Archaeological Survey of India, 1906–1907, J. Marshall (ed.), Calcutta:
Government of India Publications, 1911.
————‘Excavations at Shahri-Bahlol’, in Annual Report of the Archaeological
Survey of India, 1909–1910, in J. Marshall (ed.), Calcutta: Government
of India Publications, 1914.
Srinivasan, D.M., Many Heads, Arms and Eyes: Origin, Meaning and Form
of Multiplicity in Indian Art, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997.
———— (ed.), Mathura: he Cultural Heritage, New Delhi: American
Institute of Indian Studies, 1989.
Stein, A., ‘Excavations at Sahri-Bahlol’, in Annual Report of the Archaeological
Survey of India, 1911–1912, J. Marshall (ed.), Calcutta: Government of
India Publications, 1915.
Stern, P. and M. Bénisti, Évolution du style indienne d’Amarāvatī, Paris:
Presses Universitaire de France, 1961.
Stephenson, J., ‘Excursions to the ruins and site of an ancient city near
Bakhra’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 4, 1835, pp. 128–38.
Strong, J., he Legend of King Aśoka: a Study and Translation of the
Asokāvadāna, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983 (reprint
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1989).
———— ‘Relics of Previous Buddhas: he Case of the Stūpa of Kāśyapa at
Toyikā’, paper presented at the 12th Conference of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies in Lausanne, Switzerland, 1999.
———— Relics of the Buddha, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Subrahmanyam, R., Salihundam, a Buddhist Site in Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1964.
Sugimoto, T., Indo–Butto no kenkyu: butto suhai no seisei to kiban (Studies in
Buddhist Stūpa-cult in India), Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 1993.
Taddei, M., ‘Recent Archaeological Research in Gandhara: he New
Evidence’, in Gandhāran Buddhism: Archaeology, Art, Texts, in P.
Brancaccio and K. Behrendt (eds), Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press, 2006.
Tadgell, C., he history of architecture in India: from the dawn of civilization to
the end of the Raj (second edition), London: Phiadon, 1995.
Bibliography
343
Tartakov, G.M., ‘Art and Identity: he Rise of a New Buddhist Imagery’,
Art Journal, 49(4), 1990, pp. 409–16.
———— he Durga temple at Aihole: A Historiographical Study, New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1997.
Taylor, W., Report on the Elliot Marbles, Madras, 1856.
hakur, V.K., Urbanisation in Ancient India, New Delhi: Abhinav
Publications, 1981.
hapar, R., From Lineage to State, Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1984.
———— Interpreting Early India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
1993.
———— ‘Early Mediterranean Contacts with India: An Overview’, in
Crossings: Early Mediterranean Contacts with India, F. de Romanis and
A. Tchernia (eds), Delhi: Manohar, 1997.
———— Early India: From the Origins to ce 1300, Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2002.
homas, F.W., ‘Political and Social Organisation of the Mauryan Empire’,
in he Cambridge History of India, vol. 1, E.J. Rapson (ed.), Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1922.
homas, J., Rethinking the Neolithic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991.
Tilley, C., Material Culture and Text: the Art of Ambiguity, London:
Routledge, 1991.
———— A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, paths and monuments,
Oxford: Berg, 1994.
Törzsök, J., King Vikrama’s Adventures, Clay Sanskrit Library, New York:
New York University Press, 2007.
Trainor, K., ‘Constructing a Buddhist ritual site: stūpa and monastery
architecture’, in Unseen Presence: the Buddha and Sanchi, V. Dehejia
(ed.), Mumbai: Marg Publications, 1996.
———— Relics Ritual and Representation in Buddhism: Rematerializing the
Sri-Lankan heravada Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997.
Trautmann, R., Kau_tilya and the Arthaśāstra: a Statistical Investigation of the
Authorship and its Evolution of the Text, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971.
Tripe, L., Photographs of the Elliot Marbles; and other subjects; in the
Central Museum Madras, Madras, 1858–59.
Trevithick, A., ‘British archaeologists, Hindu abbots, and Burmese Buddhists:
he Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya, 1811–1877’, Modern Asian
Studies, 33, 1999, pp. 648–51.
Tsukamoto, K., Indo Bukkyo himei no kenkyu A Comprehensive Study of
the Indian Buddhist Inscriptions), 2 vols., Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten,
1996.
344
Bibliography
Tucci, G., Mc’od rten e ts’a ts’a nel Tibet indiano ed occidentale: contributo
allo studio dell’arte religiosa tibetana e del suo significato, Indo-Tibetica 1,
Rome: Reale Accademia d’Italia, 1932.
———— (trans. from Italian by U.M. Vesci), Stupa: Art, Architectonics and
Symbolism, New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1988.
Turner, P.J., Roman Coins from India, London: Royal Numismatic Society,
1989.
Van Kooij, K.R., ‘Remarks on festivals and altars in early Buddhist art’, in
Function and Meaning in Buddhist Art, K.R. Van Kooij and H. Van der
Veer (eds), Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1995.
Varma, R., ‘he Unknown Stūpa Complex of Deur Kothar (Rewa), Madhya
Pradesh’, Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, 49, 1990,
pp. 427–30.
Verardi, G., ‘Religion, rituals and the heaviness of Indian history’, Annali
(Istituti universitario Orientale), 56, 1996, pp. 215–53.
Vogel, J.P., Indian Serpent Lore or Nagas in Hindu Legend and Art, London:
Arthur Probstain, 1926.
Waddel, L.A., Report on the Excavations at Pataliputra (Patna), the Patalibothra
of the Greeks, Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press, 1903 (reprint Delhi:
Sanskaran Prakashak, 1975).
Wagle, N.K., Society at the Time of the Buddha (second rev. ed.), Bombay:
Popular Prakashan, 1995.
Walleser, M., ‘he Life of Nagarjuna in Chinese and Tibetan Sources’, in
Asia Major: Hirth Anniversary Volume, B. Schindler (ed.), New Delhi:
Probsthain, 1979.
Walser, J., Nāgārjuna in Context: Mahāyāna Buddhism and Early Indian
Context, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
Walters, J.S., ‘he Buddha’s Bad Karma: A Problem in the History of
heravāda Buddhism’, Numen, 37(1), 1990, pp. 70–95.
———— ‘A Voice from the Silence: he Buddha’s Mother’s Story’, History
of Religions Journal, 33(4), 1994, pp. 358–79.
———— ‘Gotamī’s Story: Introduction and Translation’, in Buddhism in Practice, D.Z. Lopez (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.
———— ‘Stūpa, Story, and Empire: Constructions of the Buddha Biography
in Early Post-Aśokan India’, in Sacred Biography in the Buddhist Traditions of South and Southeast Asia, J. Schober (ed.), Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press, 1997.
———— ‘Suttas as History: Four Approaches to the Sermon on the Noble
Quest (Ariyapariyesanasutta)’, History of Religions, 38(3), 1999, pp.
247–84.
Bibliography
345
Walters, J.S., ‘Mapping Sāñchi in a Whole Buddhist World’, in Lily de Silva
Felicitation Volume, in C. Witanachchi (ed.), Peradeniya: University of
Peradeniya, 2002.
———— ‘Communal Karma and Karmic Community in heravāda
Buddhist History’, in Constituting Communities: heravāda Buddhism
and the Religious Cultures of South and Southeast Asia, J.C. Holt,
J. Kinnard and J.S. Walters (eds), Albany: State University of New
York Press, 2003.
———— ‘Dhānyaka_taka Revisited: Buddhist Politics in Post-Buddhist
Andhra Pradesh’, in Buddhism in the Krishna River Valley, S.P.
Holt (ed.), Albany, State University of New York Press, 2008
(forthcoming).
Warder, A.K., Pāli Metre, London: Pali Text Society, 1967.
———— Indian Buddhism, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970.
Warren, H.C., Buddhism in Translations, Cambridge (MA): Harvard
University Press, 1922.
Weber, M., ‘Religious Rejections of the World and heir Directions’, in
Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds),
London: Routledge, 1991.
Weisshaar, H.J., H. Roth, and W. Wijeyapala (eds), Ancient Ruhuna: Sri
Lankan-German Archaeological Project in the Southern Province, Kommission fur Allgemeine und Vergleichende Archäologie des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Bonn, Materialien zur Allgemeinen und
Vergleichenden Archäologie, 58, Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern,
2001.
Williams, J., ‘On Viewing Sanchi’, Archives of Asian Art, 50, 1998, pp.
93–8.
Willis, M.D. (with contributions from J. Cribb and J. Shaw), Buddhist
Reliquaries from Ancient India, London: he British Museum, 2000.
———— ‘Buddhist Saints in Ancient Vidiśā’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 11, 2001, pp. 219–28.
———— ‘he Archaeology and Politics of Time’, in he Vākā_taka Heritage:
Indian culture at the crossroads, H. Bakker (ed.), Groningen: Egbert
Forsten, 2004.
Winckelmann, J.J. (trans. from German by H. Fusseli), Reflections on
the painting and sculpture of the Greeks: with instructions for the
connoisseur, and An essay on grace in works of art, London, 1765
(reprint London: Routledge, 1999).
———— (trans. from German by G. Sellius), Histoire de l’art chez les anciens,
Amsterdam, 1766.
346
Bibliography
Winternitz, M.A., History of Indian Literature, Vol. II, Prague, 1920. Trans
S. Ketkar and H. Kohn, 1933. Reprint New York: Russell & Russell,
1971.
Wyatt, A. 2005, ‘Do our stamps evoke nationalism?’, he Hindu, 30
October.
Yazdani, G., he Early History of the Deccan, London: Oxford University
Press, 1960.
Zelliot, E., ‘A new phase in the Ambedkar movement’, paper presented at the
16th European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies, Edinburgh,
6–9 September, 2000.
Zimmer, H., Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization, J. Campbell
(ed.), New York: Harper & Row, 1946.
Zwalf, W., A Catalogue of Gandhāra Sculpture in the British Museum, 2 vols,
London: he British Musuem, 1996.
Zysk, K.G., Asceticism and Healing in Ancient India, Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1998.