Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


BUDDHIST STUPAS IN SOUTH ASIA

From Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search





BUDDHIST STUPAS IN SOUTH ASIA

Recent Archaeological, Art-Historical, and Historical Perspectives edited by Jason Hawkes Akira Shimada



Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas


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 magnifi cent religious monuments that appeared in the Indian subcontinent during the early historic period. Th e 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. Th e 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 offi cials in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Th e 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

Buddhist Stupas in South Asia largely pertained was only very hazy, and there was neither the archaeological expertise nor academic knowledge to facilitate their eff ective study. Over the course of the next two centuries, the study of Buddhist stūpas has been defi ned by the evolution and development of various academic disciplines, including archaeology, art history, history, and religious studies. Th e development of these disciplines has generated particular trends in the ways that stūpas are studied, and still infl uences many of our current views of the monuments. The Western Discovery of Indian Buddhism Th e 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


These various (and invariably unsystematic) encounters with Buddhist practices, however, did not immediately result in the identifi cation of the existence of Buddhism in ancient India. At fi rst 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. Th e 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 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 diffi cult 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 diff erent 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 eff ectively 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 infl uence 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


The textual studies of ancient Indian religions led to a signifi cant 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 fi rst comprehensive study of ancient Indian Buddhism using the Sanskrit manuscripts acquired by Brian Houghton Hodgson in Kathmandu, Nepal (Burnouf, 1844).6 Th rough 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). Th is ‘discovery’ of Buddhism also enabled the identifi cation of the ancient remains of Buddhism in India, which had not always been so clearly diff erentiated 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 fi rst encountered. Th e fi rst 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). Th e stūpas at Sanchi were discovered by a British offi cer 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 offi cials 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 offi cer (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 diff erent sect 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 misidentifi ed many of the Buddhist fi gures 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. Th e 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.


The Emergence of Academic Disciplines:

The 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. There 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 defi ned in opposition to the Hindu practice encountered in the present day, colonial rule was further legitimized (cf. Chakrabarti, 1988, 1999; Almond, 1998; Leoshko, 2003). Th e 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_t hi scripts, which had been found on an increasing number of coins and inscriptions from Buddhist sites throughout the Indian subcontinent.7 Th is discovery paved the way for the rapid translation of a vast amount of numismatic and epigraphic material, which in turn facilitated the fi rst chronological understanding of many of the early Buddhist sites.


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 fi rst time. As is widely known, Cunningham’s main focus was fi xing 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 fi rst time with a clear recognition of their archaeological value in terms of contributing to the wider study of ancient history and Buddhism. Th is is certainly refl ected in the published report of the work at Sanchi (Cunningham, 1854a), which marks a signifi cant 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. Th e stūpas, for instance, were dated and the relics identifi ed 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 signifi cant 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 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 Th akht-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 Th e institutional framework governing the archaeological examination of Buddhist stūpas also brought with it an eff ective means of disseminating research. Th e results of the explorations and excavations were published in the various Annual Reports of the Archaeological Survey of India. Th ese, 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–). Th rough this system of government publication (which survives even today), archaeological work was systematized and authorized for the fi rst time.

The material that resulted from the discovery and excavation of these sites soon became fi rmly imprinted on many diff erent 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 fi elds 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 fi x 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 fi eld 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 Buddhist Stupas in South Asia the same time, the epigraphic material from Buddhist stūpas was also incorporated into the emergent fi eld of palaeography by scholars such as Georg Bühler, for whom they provided evidence of some of the earliest scripts in India. Th e growth and increasing specialization of this fi eld is refl ected by the establishment of two main publication series, Corpus Inscriptionun Indicarum (1877–) and Epigraphia Indica (1888–), which dealt exclusively with epigraphic material.

The 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 defi ned according to their iconographic identifi cation. 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. Th e 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). Th is was then followed by a number of other surveys of ‘Buddhist’ and ‘Indianart, 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. Th e 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 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 defi ne the fi eld 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 typifi ed 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 ‘authenticBuddhism as it existed during the time of Buddha and his direct disciples. Th is was to be diff erentiated 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 Th omas W. Rhys-Davids (1903), devoted much attention to the identifi cation 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 identifi ed 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. Th at 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 refl ected in the works of early historians as well as those concerned with the study of art and architecture (cf. Smith, 1911; Rapson, 1922; Buddhist Stupas in South Asia


C. Rhys-Davids, 1922; Th omas, 1922). As mentioned above, such work was aided by the contemporary developments in epigraphy. Th e 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 fi eld of scholarship was still largely dominated by textual study, Cunningham’s work had fi rmly 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 diff erent remains of stūpas (including coins, inscriptions, and sculptures) had by now become fi rmly incorporated into a number of emerging areas of study including numismatics, epigraphy, and art and architectural history. Th e fi ndings of these diff erent areas of study provided many valuable contributions to the wider (though still largely textually defi ned) study of ancient Indian history and religion. Th roughout 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 visualproof’ 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 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). Th ere 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). Th is view, in buttressing the traditional notions of an ‘original’ and ‘authenticancient Buddhism that was philosophical and non-cultic, has been widely assumed among textual scholars. Th e 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. Th is was largely due to a general shift in the perception of archaeology in Europe as a mode of ‘scientifi c’ enquiry. Th is 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 benefi ted 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 classifi ed and catalogued, and incorporated into increasingly comprehensive numismatic frameworks (for example, Mitchiner,

1973; Gupta, 1979). Ultimately, the purpose of such studies has been to provide chronological markers in the construction of ancient Indian histories. In the fi eld 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 signifi cant role in studies of palaeography (cf. Dani, 1963).


The continued importance of architectural and sculptural remains from Buddhist stūpas is refl ected 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 defi ning 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 classifi ed 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. Th is 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 refi ned understandings of the development of Buddhist and Indian architecture.


The Notion of Symbolism


Without wishing to detract from the undoubted advances to knowledge that have been made in the fi eld of art and architectural history, it must be admitted that, for the most part, these studies tended to concentrate on the meaning of sculptures and architectural forms solely with reference to the Buddhist tradition. One signifi cant 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. Th e 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 infl uential among these were the works of Paul Mus, and his examination of Borobudur. Unsatisfi ed 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).


This 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 fi x the earth. Th us, 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.


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 benefi ted 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 refi ne various chronological typologies) were studied in order to fi ll important gaps in the understanding of ancient Buddhism defi ned 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. Th e 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 identifi cation 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. Th e study of coins, for instance, has become the sole preserve of numismatists. Similarly, inscriptions are only studied by epigraphers, sites are only excavated by archaeologists, and sculptures only studied by art historians. Together, this has meant that scholars from these diff erent 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 diff erent from each other, the specifi c fi ndings of these studies have not been well integrated with one another. Th e unfortunate eff ect 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 fi ndings 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 infl uence 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 diff erent areas and periods. As a result, while many of the identifi cations 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 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 identifi ed 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 aff ect our knowledge and understanding in the present day. Th anks 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 infl uenced 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; Th apar, 1993) and ancient Buddhism and Buddhist archaeology in particular (cf. Almond, 1986; Lopez, 1995; Shimoda, 1997; GuhaTh akurta, 1998; Leoshko, 2003; Singh, 2004). Th e results of these studies have provided valuable insights into the ways in which various archaeological, art-historical, and textual-historical approaches have been defi ned and shaped as disciplines, with important implications for current studies. Th e most recent general histories of Indian art (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 eff ectively that the ways in which these monuments have been studied in the past have caused certain specifi c problems for their future examination. Historiography, in short, has become an indispensable component for any enquiry into India’s ancient past. Th e 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-refl ective 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 eff ects 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.


These 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 signifi cant 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 defi ned ancient Buddhism as a philosophicallypure

Buddhist Stupas in South Asia religion. Within this intellectual framework, relic worship was not defi ned 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) infl uence. 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. Th e 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 classifi cations 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 fi t 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 fi eld 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 fi rst time, the various remains of Buddhist stūpas have been considered in relation to the wider archaeological and geographical realities of their surrounding areas. Th is has reinvigorated 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. Th ese 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. Th e 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 diff erent 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 refl ected 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 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 fi rst report of the Amaravati stūpa and three decades after the Heidelberg conference, aims to present the latest approaches to Buddhist stūpas in the fi elds of archaeology, history, history of art, and textual studies. Each of the remaining fi fteen chapters contained in this volume not only signifi cantly improves our understanding of stūpas, but also refl ects the range of new approaches from within all of these diff erent disciplines. In order to highlight the main features of these approaches, the chapters have been divided into fi ve main sections, each devoted to key thematic areas of interest.

Inthe fi rst 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 Specifi cally, 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 fi gure of the Buddha. Th is 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 the stūpa site at Amaravati. She tells the story of fi ve 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 eff ect that this had on some of the pieces. Th is provides a valuable insight into the variety of factors that have shaped and defi ned 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 refl ects only what was found upon discovery (let alone in what existed in antiquity). Th e second section focuses on the religious context of Buddhist stūpas—their signifi cance 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 signifi cance of the relic shrine in ancient Indian Buddhism. Th rough a review of the textual evidence, he examines the diff erent types of relics as they were understood within ancient Buddhism, and reveals a complex system of symbolic meaning, ritual, and philosophical signifi cance 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. Th e spread of Buddhism is not simply refl ected in, but was actually facilitated by the construction of new stūpas.


Th inking 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. Th rough an examination of the texts, specifi cally various versions and redactions of the story of Toyikā, Rotman reconstructs the aspects that marked and defi ned

a Buddhist site as sacred. Of primary importance in this regard was a notion of an engagement with a specifi c place by the Buddha. Relics, as the embodiment of the Buddha, not only refl ected 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 signifi cance 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 signifi cance 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 fi nal 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. Th is 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 refl ect a number of recent approaches to early Buddhist stūpas and monasteries that have, in their various ways, sought to examine the wider social contexts of Buddhism. Th e 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 fi rst 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. Specifi cally, Behrendt focuses on the narrative reliefs from Gandhāra. As readers may notice, however, he diff ers signifi cantly 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 signifi cant 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 off ering 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 and social settings of Buddhist monastic complexes in this area, on the basis of her extensive fi eld exploration and active ‘reading’ of the site. Based on her observations of diff erent 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 fi gures. It is readily apparent that Shaw’s approach to the stūpa site is signifi cantly diff erent from that of traditional archaeological studies—her arguments directly address important questions that have been largely posed by textual studies of Buddhism, and eff ectively 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 fi elds of interest, and have begun to address wider questions that can be shared with textual studies.


Th e 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 fi rst 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 fi rst 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 signifi cantly transformed from the one that originally addressed renouncers to one that encompassed lay people. Th is 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 signifi cant 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 fi rst 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 subcontinent. In each and every example, he identifi es the existence of settlement site-ranking and site-specifi c 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. Th is 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 fi t well with canonical references, Shimada’s survey reveals similar geographical relationships between Buddhist edifi ces 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 fortifi ed 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 defi ned 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.


Th e 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. Th e fl ourishing 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 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. Th e 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 fi fth section focuses on a growing and welcome trend in modern scholarship that seeks to examine the many diff erent dimensions of Buddhist stūpas as they appear in modern contexts. Th us 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 diff erent 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.


Th is 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. Th rough her own personal account, Becker vividly recreates

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. Th rough examination and consideration of the ways in which all of these various trappings were used with one another, Becker identifi es how a lasting Buddhist landscape around the stūpa was, in eff ect, 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 fi nal 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 identifi es two main directions in the building of stūpas in contemporary India. Th e fi rst of these, defi ned 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. Th e second programme of building is the construction of


Peace Pagodas, or ‘Shanti Stūpas’, throughout India by the Japanese


Nipponzan Myohoji religious group. Th rough 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


Th us far, we have seen how studies from a variety of diff erent 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. Th e range of works collected here in this volume refl ects the great 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 signifi cant 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. Th is 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. </poem> 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 fl ourishing Buddhist centre, as attested by the record of Xuanzang (Beal, 1969: 229). Th e 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. Th is is not, however, to deny the infl uence 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).

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 fi gure in this important endeavour; and his work owed signifi cant debt to fi ndings 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. Th omas (see Prinsep, 1858). 08. Th ough in northwestern areas, Cunningham also followed a number of other ancient Greek accounts.

09. Infl uential though Cunningham’s work was, many of his fi ndings were not entirely accurate. For instance, his identifi cations of relics, which still aff ect scholarly writing on Sanchi, have since been signifi cantly 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 signifi cant results, and were never properly fi nished. 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. Th e 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. Th e Dhammapada, edited and translated by Fausböll, was published in 1855. Fausböll published the fi rst 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 specifi c religious meaning of sculptures at Udayagiri.

Approaches to the Study of Buddhist Stūpas 16. Other recent studies of the same topic include Guha-Th akurta (1998) and Singh (2004). 17. Heitzman has publis hed his idea on this issue some two decades before (Heitzman, 1984). Th e 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.), Th e 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.), Th e Kau_t ilīya Arthaśāstra, Bombay: University of Bombay, 1969–72.
———— Rangarajan, L.N. (ed. and trans.), Th e Arthashastra, New Delhi: Penguin, 1992.
Buddhacarita. Cowell, E.B. (ed. and trans.), Th e Buddhacarita of Aśvagosha,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893 (reprint New Delhi: Cosmo Publication, 1977)
Buddhava^msa. Morris, R. (ed.), Th e Buddhava^msa and the Cariyā-pi_t aka, London: Pali Text Society, 1882.
Cariyā-pi_t aka. Morris, R. (ed.), Th e Buddhava^msa and the Cariyā-pi_t aka, London: Pali Text Society, 1882.
Cilappatikāram. Parthasarathy, R. (trans.), Th e Cilappatikāram of Ila<nkō A _tikal, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
Daakumāracarita. Ryder, A.W. (trans.), Th e Dasakumaracarita, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927.
Dātha-va^msa. Rhys-Davids, T.W. and R. Morris (ed. and trans.), ‘Th e 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: Th e Law Codes of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhnyana, and Vasi_s_t ha, 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,
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.), Th e Gilgit Manuscripts, 2 vols, Calcutta: Calcutta Oriental Press, 1939 (reprint, 4 vols., Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1984).
Har]sacarita. Cowell, E.B. and Th omas F.W. (eds), Th e 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.), Th e 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.), Th e 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.), Th e Khuddaka-Pathā together with its
Commentary (Parmatthajotikā I), London: Pali Text Society, 1915 (reprint, London: Pali Text Society, 1959, 1978).
———— Nanamoli (trans.), Th e Minor Readings and Th e Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning, London: Pali Text Society, 1960.
Mahābhārata. Sukthankar, V.S., S.K. Belvalkar, and P.L. Vaidya (eds), Th e 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).
 
Mahāparinibbāna sūtta. Waldschmidt, E. (ed.), Das Mahāparinirvā]nasūtra, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1950–1.
Mahāva^msa. Geiger, W. (ed.), and Frowde, H. (trans.), Th e 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.), Th e Mahavastu, 3 vols, London: Pali Text Society, 1949–56.
Majjhima Nikāya. Trenckner, V. (ed.), Th e 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.), Th e Laws of Manu, London: Penguin, 1991.
Milindapañha. Trenckner, V. (ed.), Th e Milindapanho, London, 1880 (reprint, London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1928).
———— Rhys-Davids, T.W. (trans.), Th e 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.), Th e 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.), Th e Periplus Maris Erythraei, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.
———— Schoff , W.H. (trans.), Th e Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, New York: Longmans Green & Co., 1912 (reprint, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1995).
Saddharmapu]n]darika. Chandra, L. (ed.), Th e Saddharmapu]n]darika, New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1976.
———— Kern, H. (trans.), Th e Lotus Sutra, Sacred Books of the East, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1884 (reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1979).
Śatapatha Brāhma]na. Eggeling, J. (trans.), Th e Śatapatha-Brāhma]na: according to the text of the Mādhyandina School, Th e Sacred Books of the East 44, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1900.
Saundarānanda. Johnston, E.H. (ed. and trans.), Th e 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.), ‘Th e 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.), ‘Th e 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.), Th e Sutta-nipāta, Th e Sacred Books of the East, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881.
———— Andersen, D. and Smith, H. (eds), Sutta-nipāta, London: Pali Text Society, 1990.
Th e Travels of Marco Polo. Benedetto, L.F. (trans.), Th e travels of Marco Polo, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1994.
Vinaya Pi]t aka^m. Oldenberg, H. (ed.), Th e Vinaya Pi ]taka^m II (Th e Cullavagga), London: William and Norgate, 1880.
———— Rhys-Davids, T.W. (trans.), Vinaya Texts, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1885.
———— Horner, I.B. (trans.), Th e 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.), Th e Path of Purifi cation (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.
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., ‘Th e Urban Position of Taxila and its Place in Northwest
India-Pakistan’, in Urban Form and Meaning in South Asia: Th e 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.), Th e Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: Th e Emergence of Cities and States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Allchin, B., and F.R. Allchin (eds), Th e Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Almond, P., Th e 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’, Th e 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., Th e Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Kyoto: Rinzen Book Company, 1986.
Asad, T., ‘Anthropological conceptions of religion: refl ections 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, Th e Sociology of Early Buddhism, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Bakker, H., Ayodhya, Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986.
———— Th e 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: Th e 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.
Barrett, D., Sculptures from Amaravati in the British Museum, London: Th e 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.
———— ‘Th e 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 Th at Was India, New Delhi: Fontana Books, 1967.
Bechert, H. and R. Gombrich (eds), Th e World of Buddhism: Buddhist monks and nuns in society and culture, London: Th ames 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
Th eravāda-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.), Th e 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: Th e 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.
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. Th anikaimony (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 Chiefl y 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: Th e 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., ‘Th e Buddha and the naga: a study in Buddhist folk religiosity’, History of Religions, 13(1), 1973, pp. 37–53.
Bosch, F.D.K., Th e Golden Germ: an Introduction to Indian Symbolism, Th e Hague: Mouton & Co, 1960.
Boucher, D., ‘Th e Pratītyasamutpādagāthā and its Role in the Medieval Cult of Relics’, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 14, 1991, pp. 1–27.
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., ‘Th e 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: Th e 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., ‘Th ree New Edicts of Asoka’, Indian Antiquary, 6 (June), 1877, pp. 149–60.
———— ‘Th e Bhattiprolu Inscriptions’, Epigraphia Indica, 2, 1894, pp. 323–32.
Burgess, J., Notes on the Amaravati Stūpa, Madras: Government of India Press, 1882.
———— Th e 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.
———— Th e Gandhara Sculptures: A selection of illustrations in twentyfi ve plates from the British and Lahore Museums, London: W. Griggs, 1898.
———— Th e Gandhara Sculptures: A Selection of Illustrations in Twenty-Five Plates from the British and Lahor Museums, London: W. Griggs, 1899.
———— ‘Th e 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).
Byrne, D. and G. Barnes, ‘Buddhist stūpa and Th ai Social Practice’, World Archaeology, 27, 1995, pp. 266–82.
Carswell, J., ‘Th e Port of Mantai, Sri Lanka’, Rome and India: Th e 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.
———— Th e Archaeology of Ancient Indian Cities, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995a.
———— ‘Buddhist Sites Across South Asia as Infl uenced 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.
———— Th e Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain: Th e Lower and the Middle Ganga, Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001a.
———— ‘Th e Archaeology of Hinduism’, in Archaeology and World Religion, T. Insoll (ed.), London: Routledge, 2001b.
———— Th e Archaeology of the Deccan Routes: Th e 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., Th e 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 Th e Stūpa: Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Signifi cance, L. Dallapiccola and S.Z. Lallemant (eds), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980.
Chattopadhyaya, B.D., ‘Th e 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.
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., Th e New Leviathan or Man, Society, Civilization and Barbarity, New York: Th omas Crowell, 1971 (fi rst 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: Th e 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, ‘Th e rise of cities in Sri Lanka’, in Th e Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: Th e Emergence of Cities and States, F.R. Allchin (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Conze, E., Buddhist Meditation, London: Allen & Unwin, 1956.
———— ‘Th e Golden Germ: An Introduction to Indian Symbolism (review article)’, Oriental Art, 6, 1960, pp. 114–15.
Conze, E., Buddhist Th ought in India, Th ree Phases of Buddhist Philosophy, London: Allen and Unwin, 1962.
———— Th irty Years of Buddhist Study: Selected Essays by Edward Conze, Oxford: Bruno Cassier, 1967.
Coomaraswamy, A., Th e Aims of Indian Art, Broad Campden: Essex House Press, 1908.
———— Th e Indian Craftsman, London: Probsthain, 1909.
———— History of Indian and Indonesian Art, London: E. Goldston, 1927.
———— Th e 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), Th e Imperial Gazetteer of India (new edition), vol. 9, 25 vols, Oxford: Th e 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: Th ames & Hudson, 1976.
Cummings, J., Buddhist Stūpas in Asia: Th e Shape of Perfection, London: Lonely Planet Publications, 2001.
Cunningham, A., Th e 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).
———— Th e 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.
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.
———— Th e 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), Th e Stūpa: Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Signifi cance, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980.
Dalton, J., ‘Th e 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.
———— Th e Historic City of Taxila, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization, 1986.
Danielou, A., Manimekhalai: Th e 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: Th e Shaping of Cities from Prehistoric to Precolonial Times, H. Spodek and D. M. Srinivasan (eds), Washington: National Gallery of Art, 1993.
———— ‘Th e 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, ‘Th e 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., ‘Th e 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.
Deane, H., Memorandum on Excavations at Sikri, Yusafzai, Lahore, 1889.
Dehejia, V., Early Buddhist Rock Temples: A Chronological Study, London: Th ames and Hudson, 1972.
———— ‘Th e 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 Th e 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: Th e 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., Th e 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.
Edgerton, F., Vikrama’s Adventures or the Th irty-Two Tales of the Th rone, 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.
———— ‘Th e 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., ‘Th e 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., ‘Th e 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 Poligrafi co 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, Th e Buddhist Sacred Area. Th e Stupa Terrace, Rome: Institute Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1995.
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), Th e Social Organisation in NorthEast India in Buddha’s Time, Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1920.
Fiser, I., ‘Th e 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 Th e 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’infl uence classique dans l’art bouddhique de l’Inde et de l’Extrême-Orient, 3 vols, Paris: E. Leroux, 1905–51.
———— Th e beginnings of Buddhist art and other essays in Indian and CentralAsian archæology; revised by the author and translated by L.A. Th omas and F.W. Th omas; 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 Th e Stūpa: Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Signifi cance, 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.
Gail, A., ‘Cosmic Symbolism in the Spire of the Ceylon Dagoba’, in Th e Stūpa: Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Signifi cance, 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., Th e Gods of Northern Buddhism: their history, iconography and progressive evolution through the northern Buddhist countries, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914.
Ghosh, A., ‘Th e 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 fi ne 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., Signifi cance and importance of Jatakas; with special reference to Bhārhut, Calcutta: Calcutta University, 1951.
Gombrich, E.H., Th e Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art, Oxford: Phiadon, 1979.
Gombrich, R., Th eravada 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
Signifi cance 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., Th e Architecture of India: Buddhist and Hindu, Ghaziabad:
Vikas, 1980.
Grünwedel, A., Buddhistische Kunst in Indien, Berlin: W. Spemann, 1893.
Guha-Th akurta, 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., Th e 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., ‘Th e Mahabodhi Temple: Pilgrim Souvenirs of Buddhist India’, Th e 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.
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., Th e 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., ‘Th e 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 Binfi eld, 1908.
———— Th e Ideals of Indian Art, London: Ernest Binfi eld, 1911.
———— Indian architecture: its psychology, structure, and history from the fi rst 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.
———— ‘Th e 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.
Hinüber, O.V., ‘Khandhakavatta: loss of text in the Pāli Vinayapia ka’, Journal of the Pāli Text Society, 15, 1990, pp. 127–38.
Hirakawa, A., ‘Th e 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; Th e 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., ‘Th e Relation between the Divyāvadāna and the Mūlasarvātivāda Vinaya’, Journal of Indian Philosophy, 26, 1998, pp. 1–16.
Hocart, A.M., ‘Th e 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.
———— ‘Th e 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., ‘Th e 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: Th e 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 Th eory 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.
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.
———— ‘Th e Stūpa and the Cosmic Axis: the Archaeological Evidence’, in South Asian Archaeology, 1977, M. Taddei (ed.), Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1979.
———— ‘Th e Axial Symbolism of the Early Stūpas: An Exegesis’, in Th e Stūpa: Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Signifi cance, L. Dallapiccola and S.Z. Lallemant (eds), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980.
———— ‘Th e Mystery of the (Future) Buddha’s First Words’, Annali dell’ Istituto Orientalle de Napoli, 41, 1981, pp. 623–63.
———— ‘Th e Sacred Anthill and the Cult of the Premordial Mound’, History of Religions, 21, 1982, pp. 339–60.
———— ‘Th e 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: Th e 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: Th e Municipal Museum, 1951.
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? Th e Hindu / Buddhist
Battle over Bodhgayā and Its Buddha Image’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 66(4), 1998, pp. 817–39.
———— ‘Th e Polyvalent Pādas of Vi]s]nu and the Buddha’, History of Religions, 40(1), 2000, pp. 32–57.
Kisala, R., Prophets of peace: pacifi sm 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: Th e British Museum, 1992.
Kosambi, D.D., ‘Th e 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
———— ‘Th e 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., Th e Proto and Early Historical Cultures of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1983.
Lahiri, N., Th e 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.
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 Th eravada 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., Th e Story of the Stūpa, Colombo: Ceylon Government Press, 1936.
———— Th e 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 Th ought: Essays in Honour of A.L. Basham, S.N.
Mukherjee (ed.), Delhi: Subarnarekha, 1982.
Losty, J.P., ‘Th e 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.
Lutgendorf, P., ‘My Hanuman is Bigger than yours’, History of Religions, 33, 1994, pp. 211–45.
Mabbett, I., ‘Th e 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 Th ought in Ancient India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Malandra, G., ‘Th e Mahabodhi Temple’, in Bodhgaya: Th e 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.
———— ‘Th e Monuments of Ancient India’, in Th e 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, Th e Monuments of Sāñchī, 3 vols., Calcutta: Government of India Publications, 1940.
Martin M. (ed.), Th e 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), Th e Gift: Th e 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 fi rst part of the Indika of Arrian, London:
Th acker, Spink & Co., 1877 (reprint New Delhi: Today & Tomorrow’s Printers & Publishers, 1972).
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, ‘Th e 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: Th e 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., Th e 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: Th e Buddha and Sanchi, V. Dehejia (ed.), Mumbai: Marg Publications, 1996.
Mitra, R., Buddha Gaya: Th e Hermitage of Sakya Muni, Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press, 1878.
Mitra, Rajendralal, Th e Sanskrit Buddhist literature of Nepal. Calcutta, Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1882, rpt. Calcutta, Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 1971.
Mitra, Rajendralal, Th e 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 Th eir 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 Th e 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
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., Th e 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., Th e 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 Th e 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 Th e 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 Th eory, vol. 8, M. Schiff er (ed.), London: Academic Press, 1985.
Prasad, K., Cities, Crafts and Commerce under the Kusanas, Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, 1984.
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. Th omas), 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.
———— ‘Th e 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., ‘Th e 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.), Th e 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.
———— Th e Winds of Change: Buddhism and the Maritime Links of Early South Asia, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994.
———— Th e Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia, Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
———— ‘Inscribed Pots, Emerging Identities: Th e Social Milieu of Trade’, in Between Th e 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 (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., ‘Th e Many Lives of Buddha: A Study of Sacred Biography and Th eravāda Tradition’, in Th e Biographical Process: Studies in the History and Psychology of Religion, F.E. Reynolds and D. Capps (eds), Th e Hague: Moulton, 1976.
———— ‘Th e Several Bodies of Buddha: Refl ections on a Neglected Aspect of Th eravāda 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 Th e 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 Aff airs, 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 fi ve hundred English buildings, London: Longman, 1817.


Rosenfi eld, J.M., Th e dynastic arts of the Kushans, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.
Roth, G., ‘Symbolism of the Buddhist Stūpa’, in Th e Stūpa: Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Signifi cance, 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., ‘Th e stūpa in the Śilpaśāstras and the rituals of the Sinhalese’, in Th e Stūpa: Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Signifi cance, L. Dallapiccola and S. Z. Lallemant (ed.), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980.


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 refl ected 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., Th e 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’, Th e 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., ‘Th e 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: Th e 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.
———— ‘Th e 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.
———— ‘Th e Stèpa Cult and the Extant Pāli Vinaya’, Journal of the Pāli Text Society, 13, 1989, pp. 83–100.
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.
———— ‘Th e 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: Th e 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., Th e 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.


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. ‘Th e sacred landscape’, in Buddhist Reliquaries from Ancient India, M. Willis (ed.), London: Th e British Museum, 2000a.
———— ‘Sanchi and its archaeological landscape: Buddhist monasteries, settlements and irrigation works in central India’, Antiquity, 74, 2000b, pp. 775–6.
———— Th e 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, fi rst century BC to fi fth 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.
———— ‘Th e 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: Th e British Academy, 2007.
Shaw J. and J.V. Sutcliff e, ‘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. Sutcliff e, 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.
Sherratt, A., ‘“Settlement patterns” or “landscape studies”? Reconciling reason and romance’, Archaeological Dialogues, 3(2), 1996, pp. 140–59.
Shimada, A. ‘Th e 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.

———— Th e 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., ‘Th e 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: Th e Clarendon Press, 1911.
———— Oxford History of India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1919.
Smith, M.L. Th e Archaeology of an Early Historic Town in Central India, BAR International Series, 1002, Oxford: Archaeopress, 2001.
Snodgrass, A., Th e 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’, Th e 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: Th e 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., Th e 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: Th e 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: Th e New Evidence’, in Gandhāran Buddhism: Archaeology, Art, Texts, in P. Brancaccio and K. Behrendt (eds), Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2006.


Tadgell, C., Th e history of architecture in India: from the dawn of civilization to the end of the Raj (second edition), London: Phiadon, 1995.
Tartakov, G.M., ‘Art and Identity: Th e Rise of a New Buddhist Imagery’, Art Journal, 49(4), 1990, pp. 409–16.
———— Th e Durga temple at Aihole: A Historiographical Study, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Taylor, W., Report on the Elliot Marbles, Madras, 1856.


Th akur, V.K., Urbanisation in Ancient India, New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1981.
Th apar, 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.
Th omas, F.W., ‘Political and Social Organisation of the Mauryan Empire’, in Th e Cambridge History of India, vol. 1, E.J. Rapson (ed.), Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1922.


Th omas, 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 Th eravada 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: Th e 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.
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 signifi cato, 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., ‘Th e 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., ‘Th e 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., ‘Th e Buddha’s Bad Karma: A Problem in the History of Th eravāda Buddhism’, Numen, 37(1), 1990, pp. 70–95.
———— ‘A Voice from the Silence: Th e 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.


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 Th eravāda
Buddhist History’, in Constituting Communities: Th eravāda 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_ta ka 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 Th eir 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: Th e British Museum, 2000.
———— ‘Buddhist Saints in Ancient Vidiśā’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 11, 2001, pp. 219–28.
———— ‘Th e Archaeology and Politics of Time’, in Th e Vākā_taka Heritage: Indian culture at the crossroads, H. Bakker (ed.), Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 2004.
Winckelmann, J.J. (trans. from German by H. Fusseli), Refl ections 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.
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?’, Th e Hindu, 30 October.
Yazdani, G., Th e 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: Th e British Musuem, 1996.
Zysk, K.G., Asceticism and Healing in Ancient India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998.



Source