and Their Untenable Sunga Association

Ajit Kumar 1

1. Department of Archaeology, University of Kerala, Kariavattom Campus, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala – 695 581, (Email: [email protected])

Received: 15 September 2014; Accepted: 09 October 2014; Revised: 01 November 2014 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2 (2014): 223‐241

Abstract: Bharhut and sculptures adorning its railing and is popularly associated with the Sungas or their reign period. Since there is a continuity of style among the early north sites of Bodhgaya, and the early sculptures noticed in these sites divulging style close to Bharhut also got terminologically associated with the Sungas and to their period. If these sculptures are to be classified to the Sungas or to their period it is mandatory that there should be undisputable archeological evidences to substantiate or indicate that these art sites are dateable between 184BC and ending around 82BC, the period of 112 years during which the Sungas reigned (Barua 1934: 29). In critical stylistic and literary reevaluation attempted by the author, it has become evident that the Bharhut is not datable to this period and hence the currently vogue association of Bharhut and its sculptures to Sunga or their period stands untenable. This find, also necessitate freeing the sculptures of Bodhgaya, Mathura and Sanchi‐II from the yolk of the Sungas and their period. The analysis and its results form the crux of the discussion of this paper.

Keywords: Bharhut Stupa, Sungas, Inscription, Sculptures, Bodhgaya, Mathura, Sanchi

Introduction In the chronological sequencing of north Indian sculptural art centers, a host of scholars have rightly opinioned that Bharhut sculptural style is apparently the most pristine followed by Bodhgaya Mathura and Sanchi. However the chronology deduced for these sites primarily relying on paleographic parameter have been far from uniform.

Dating one site in absolute terms can help sequence the others. We shall proceed to critically reappraise the published archaeological evidences and their interpretations that have come about over the years relating these sites and try to deduce a near absolute date for the sculptures in Bharhut and related sites.

Bharhut (23o 18’ N 80o 34’ E) is currently located in the district of . The site of Bharhut was discovered by Cunningham by the end of 1873. He holistically analyzed the cultural finds and brought out a monograph on it in 1879 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

(Cunningham 1879). Even today, after a century of its publication, except for some minor subjective interpretations regarding paleographic chronology, this work has not lost its sheen.

Authorship and Date Attributed by Cunningham The authorship and date of this stupa was deduced by Cunningham reading into the epigraphs and its paleography. Cunningham’s reading of inscription of the eastern gateway of Bharhut stupa with assistance from Babu Rajendra Lal was as “In the kingdom of Sugana () this Toran, with its ornamented stonework and plinth, was caused to be made by king Dhana‐bhuti, son of Vachhi and Aga Raja son of Goti and grandson of Visa son of Gagi”. Buhler gave his reading of the same inscription as “This ornamental gateway has been erected by the king of Srughna, Dhanabhuti, born of (the queen of) the Vatsa family,(and) son of Aga‐raja born of (the queen of ) the Gota family,(and) grandson of king (Visa Deva),born of (the queen of) Gageya race, and spiritual merit has been gained (thereby)” (Cunningham 1879: 128‐129).

It is important to note here that in the published readings of the inscription by Cunningham there is no reference to Sunga or to the period of Sungas. Sugana or Srughna from where Dhanabhuti hailed or ruled is identified with Sugh, a territory located in the upper reaches of River by Cunningham. This village of Sugh (30° 08’N and 77° 23’ E) is now located in district of 5km from Jagadhari railway station and in excavations conducted at the ancient mound here, that the earliest habitation was found to date from 500 BC and the latest to 13th ‐15th century (Handa 2010: 8‐10).

Assessing the paleographic features Dhanabhuti’s Bharhut inscriptions in comparison with Ashokan inscriptions Cunningham felt that it would date back to 250‐200 BC, and reiterates ‘… not certainly than B.C 200’ (Cunningham 1879: 14‐15). In the inscription of Mathura of the same king he noticed the Brahmi alphabets developing matras or heads. Instead of considering it a local developmental feature, to accommodate the developed paleographic features of Dhanabhuti’s Mathura record he attributed it to a possible grandson of his bearing the same name and assigns it a date of ‘B.C 180 to 160’ without any further discussion and evidences (Figs.1a and 1b) (Cunningham 1879: 130). This clearly brings to fore how undue importance assigned to paleographic characters and its distorted placement determine historic interpretations and dates (Kumar 2013: 12).

Other Readings of the Bharhut Inscription Cunningham had sought and included the opinions of Bhagwanlal Inderji and Buhler in the decipherment of Bharhut inscriptions in the published report (Cunningham 1879: 14‐15). We have no further publication from Cunningham on the issue and it is not sure if he changed his opinion on the decipherment soon after or was forced to concede to other’s views (Anderson 1883: 6). Buhler in 1880, while discussing the Nanaghat record and trying to deduce the date for the Satavahana monarchs, compares the Nanaghat record with that of Dhanabhuti’s inscription in Bharhut. He

224 Kumar 2014: 223‐241 states that Dhanabhuti’s record owes its “..beginning suganam raje, i.e. Suganam rejye, “In the reign of the Sungas”, must be counted among the documents of Pushyamitra’s successor, incontestable proves that the Nanaghat and Kanha’s Nasik inscription belong to the first half of the second century BC, i.e. were incised between 200‐150BC”. In the next sentence he states “ the difference between the characters of Goutamiputra ’s and those of the Nanaghat documents are such that it is not possible to place them, as Pandit Bhagavanlal has also seen, at a distance of more than 100 years” (Buhler 1883 73). What prompted Buhler to change his earlier expressed opinion published by Cunningham is not clear.

Figure 1a: Dhanabhuti’s Bharhut Inscription (after Hultzsch)

Figure 1b: Mathura Record of Figure 1c: Mathura Inscription of Sodasa Dhanabhuti (after Quintanilla) in Amohini Panel (AD15) (after Quintanilla)

Without much analysis the view expressed by Buhler, was reiterated by Hultzsch and he read the Bharhut inscription to mean “During the reign of the Sugas (Sungas), (this) gateway was erected, and the masonry finished by Vachhi‐puta (Vatsi‐putra)

225 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

Dhanabhuti, the son of Goti‐puta (Gautiputra) Agaraju and Grandson of Gagi‐puta (Gargi‐Putra) Visadeva (Visvadeva) (Hultzsch 1885: 133‐134).

Barua assessing the Dhanabhuti’s Bharhut inscriptional records read and reinterpreted the record to read as ‘…when king Dhanabhuti erected this gateway Sungas wielded there suzerain power’, which was bluntly a continuation of the earlier opinions. Though other scholars did not touch upon Dhanabhuti’s Mathura record, Barua makes a mention of Dhanabhuti’s Mathura record and says that he is not sure if the territory of Mathura was under the Sungas. All his arguments and discussions are loose ended (Barua 1934‐37: part I: 29‐36). In supports of his Sunga association, all he presents is the paleographic dates of 150 BC assigned to Dhanabhuti’s inscription at Bharhut by Buhler and Waddel (Barua1934‐37: 29‐30). This association or assignment of Bharhut with the Sunga period on wobbling paleographic and historic interpretations had far reaching consequences in art history of . Sculptures of Bodhgaya, Mathura and Sanchi which showed stylistically similarity with Bharhut also came to be untenably assigned to the Sungas or to their period.

It has already been opinioned by scholars that paleography is not an absolute means to deduce dates for undated historical records or sculptural styles (Spink 1954: 94; Dehejia 1972: 33). The dates deduced on paleographic and historic grounds for an inscription tends to yield varied results according to the comparative parameter used by scholars. This is very conspicuously reflected in the dates deduced for pre‐ Kshatrapa and pre‐ Kushan records. Using Ashokan Brahmi as a comparative idiom leads to early dates and using Kshatrapa records lead to later dates (Kumar 2013:3; Dani 1963: 65‐66). Since many Kshatrapa and Kushan inscriptions bear dates in known eras the situation is far better in later period as more absolute dates can be derived.

Among the chaotic historical and socio‐cultural situation of north India during the post‐Mauryan‐ pre‐Kushan period one of the earliest art centers to yield epigraphs dated in known eras and with historically relevant information is from Mathura. One of the earliest epigraphs dated to known era is that of Sodasa who is also known from coins. According to inscriptional records, Sodasa is the son of Rajuvula and they mention him both as ksatrapa and mahaksatrapa. There are a few inscriptions from around Mathura mentioning him combined with sculptural imagery.

The Mathura lion inscription in Kharoshthi mentions Sodasa as a ksatrapa and records the gift of a stupa with of Buddha by the queen of Mahaksatrap Rajuvula (Fig.2a and 2b). References to Sodasa also occurs Katra stone fragment, Vasu doorjamb and the Amohini stele which also bear sculptures (Quintanilla 2007: 171, Figs. 217‐218, 264,148‐149, 276‐278, 265‐266). The Amohini stele is dated to 72 Vikram Era which commenced during 58 BC and correspondingly equates to AD 15 (Fig.3a and 3b). A host of scholars agree that the sculptural style of Amohini stele perfectly synchronizes with this date and hence this stele can be considered stylistically and chronologically a bench mark in the study of north Indian sculptural traditions (Bachhofer 1939: 45;

226 Kumar 2014: 223‐241

Dehejia 1972: 38‐39; Coomaraswamy 1927: 37; Quintanilla 2007: 168‐172; Kumar 2004: 138). We shall proceed with our stylistic analysis considering the Amohini stele as a stylistic and chronological benchmark to assess the sculptures at Bharhut, Bodhgaya and Sanchi.

Figure 2a: Mathura Lion Capital, Figure 2b: Mathura Lion Capital, Frontal View Rear View

Figure 3a: Amohini Panel Figure 3b: Close‐up of the (Sodasa’s Period AD 15) Figure

We shall start the comparison by discussing the stylistic parameters evident in the Amohini panel (Fig.3a and 3b) and extend it to other sites. In the Amohini stele the sculptural representation is framed by a vedika railing at the bottom and two pilasters on either side support the lintel carved with arch motif. These pilasters have pot‐base placed on a pyramidical tired pediment, from which issues a fluted octagonal shaft with a pot capital bearing a couchant animal positioned into the panel and a splayed second capital issuing from behind the animal and supporting the lintel

227 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

(Fig.11a). The splayed second capital has its face carved with a form of design. A variant of this design is observed on the dado of the Mathura lion capital, which mentions Sodasa. From within the lintel or canopy hangs receptacles issuing garlands. Three of them are clearly visible (Fig.3a). The main protagonist, a lady stands with her right hand held in abhaya mudra and left in akimbo. She has a parasol bearing attendant to her right and a chauri bearer to her left and also possibly has a garland bearer and a dwarf attended accompanying her. The coiffures of all the women in the panel have a bun shaped hairdo parted in the center to allow the median jewel to pass and fall at the forehead. They also wear necklaces and other ornaments like the girdle. The drapery is rather translucent and one fold of the drapery is clearly to the front. The upper cloth is seen dangling from the left arm of the main protagonist. The coiffure seen in this panel is rather endemic to Mathura region and noticed in other sculptures dated to the period of Sodasa or early decade of first century AD (Fig. 5 and 10).

4a 4b Figures 4a and 4b: Bharhut Torana and Its Details (after Cunningham)

Figure 5: Torana from Mathura Figure 6: Bharhut: (after Quintanilla) Lady

228 Kumar 2014: 223‐241

7a 7b Figure 7a and 7b: Bharhut ‐ Capital of Gateway Post (after Cunningham)

Figure 8: Sanchi Stupa I: Figure 9: Bharhut: Splayed Capital on Gateway Post Upper Capital

The panel and the figures within it are well composed. The concept of visual appeal and space allocation within the frame has been effectively addressed. The figures are rendered in varied forms or postures with adequate depth and dimension and it adds vigor to the narration. The main protagonist is depicted in samabhanga or standing with feet drawn together frontally. The physiognomy of the human forms is rendered with rounded smooth flowing contours making it visually aesthetic, even in its damaged state. The main protagonist does share technical and stylistic similarity with some of the figures carved in Bharhut (Fig.6, 17a). The coiffures with the median jewel dangling to the forehead and the general rounded treatment of the physiognomy have striking parallels between them. The garlands issuing form a receptacle at the corners is also a common motif. The women figures in Amohini panel as early as 15AD have started to divulge the Mathura idiom.

229 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

Another panel from Mathura that shares stylistic and artistic features of both Amohini panel and Bharhut is the Sivayasa ayagapata from Mathura (Fig.5, Quintanilla 2007: Fig.165). This panel depicts a torana which is stylistically and architecturally similar to that of Bharhut torana. The coiffure of the women depicted in the panel draws affinity with those in Amohini panel and those at Bharhut (Fig. 3, a, b; 6 and 17a). The paleography of the Amohini record also does not seem to be different or distant from Dhanabhuti’s Mathura record (Fig. 1a, 1b and1c).

Figure 10: Mathura: Splayed Upper Capital (after Quintanilla R.H)

11a 11b 11c Figures 11a, b and c : Mathura – Splayed upper Capital, (a) Amohini Panel, (b) Bodhgaya and (c) Sanchi

230 Kumar 2014: 223‐241

Figure12a: Bharhut: Floral Medallions Figure 12b: Sanchi: Floral Medallions

Figure 12c: Bodhgaya: Figure 12d: Sanchi Stupa I: Floral Medallions Floral Medallions

Figure 13a: Figure 13b: Figure 13c: Figure 13d: Mithuna ‐ Bharhut Mithuna‐ Bodhgaya Mithuna‐ Bodhgaya Mithuna ‐ Amin

Figure 13e: Figure 13f: Couple – Mathura: Mithuna ‐ Bodhgaya Sodasa’s period (after Quintanilla)

231 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

14a 14b 15a 15b Figures 14a and b: Doorjambs; Vasu and Figures 15a and 15b: East Mora, Mathura (Period of Sodasa) Torana Post Sanchi Stupa‐I (after Quintanilla) (Period of Satakarni)

The Amohini panel also has close stylistic parallels with the panels and other images carved on the corner posts at Bodhgaya. At Bodhgaya too, on either side of the panel, we have the pot‐base‐octagonal shaft‐pot capital addorsed with a single animal facing into the panel. The upper splayed capital with fronds in the pilaster framing the panel is similar to Amohini and the garland issuing from the lintels extends to the whole panel and is omnipresent in the panels of the corner posts at Bodhgaya (Fig.11b and 13b). The mithuna and other figures carved on the corner pillars of Bodhgaya in technical excellence and in their contouring of human figures can be equated with Mathura, Sanchi and Amin (Figs.13 a‐d). In Bodhgaya, there is some regionalistic idiom visible in the treatment of coiffure of men and women and in a way they seem stylistically mid way between Bharhut and Sanchi. In some figures the cap like

232 Kumar 2014: 223‐241 formation over the hairdo is conspicuous (similar to Bharhut) and in some the tuft of hair is rolled with a cloth to create a turban (similar to Sanchi stupa I and II). In some the hair is depicted as ribbed braids rising into the turban or roundish cap or scarf (Fig. 9 a, 10b, 14a, 14 b) The nascent version of this style is observable in Bharhut and the style similar to Bodhgaya is observable in Mathura (Fig.13e, 16 b, c). Some of the human figures carved on the corner post of Bodhgaya technically and aesthetically equate if not excel those of Sanchi and hence they need to be bracketed along with Amohini (Bachhofer 1939: 45‐46). The decorated post, cross bars, coping stone and corner posts are a common feature to the railings of Bharhut, Bodhgaya and Sanchi stupa II and torana to Bharhut and Sanchi stupa‐I.

16a 16b 16c 16d Figures 16a, b, c and d: Medallions 16a Bharuhut, 16b Bodhgaya,16c Bodhgaya and 16d Sanchi Stupa II

17a 17b 17c 17d Figures 17a, b, c and d: Female Figures on Posts ‐17a Bharuhut, 17b Bodhgaya, 17c Mathura and 17d Mathura (17c and 17d after Quintanilla)

233 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

Bharhut railing and torana and the sculptures adorning them are considered to be the earliest on paleographic and stylistic grounds. However, there are many stylistically similar motifs present in the sculptural art of Bharhut, Bodhgaya, Sanchi and Mathura. It is only in the railing on Bharhut, Bodhgaya and Sanchi stupa‐II that we find floral medallions carved with various motifs within it. The human bust carved within these medallions are technically and stylistically so similar between these sites it is difficult to differentiate their site of origin (Fig. 12a‐d).

18a 18b 18c Figures 18a, b and c: Figures 18a Mathura (Sodasa), 18b and 18c Sanchi StupaI ‐ North Gateway

19a 19b 19c Figures 19a, b and c: ‐ 19a Bharhut, 19b Bodhgaya and 19c Sanchi

On the eastern torana post at Bharhut there are two pair of conjoined pillars on either side that have pot capital addorsed over with a pair of mythical animals and a decorated upper capital issuing between them and supporting the lintels of the torana (Fig 2a,b). The upper capital or dado bear the palmette or anthemion design and above

234 Kumar 2014: 223‐241 it are two layers of horizontally running floral diadems demarcated by a biconical beaded design. The mythical animals on the torana of Bharhut lack wings annd the body animal to the right has only its fore part in depiction while the rest of the body is in the shadow of the animal carved to the left in full profile. The animals have a rather contracted physiognomic profile. These features are also observable in the lions depicted in the Mathura capital mentioning Sodasa. The vegetative fronds on the dado are another common factor between the capitals of Mathura and Bharhut. The torana of Sanchi stupa I too have dado decorated with vegetative fronds similar to Bharhut. These splayed capitals with vegetative fronds are clearly an indigenous version of the Indo‐Greek palmette or anthemion design found on the capitals of Indo‐Corinthian pillars. In southern torana of Sanchi stupa I these fronds do occur on the dado over the lion capitals. In one instance lotus flower is added to motifs on either sides and also observed in the northern torana (Fig.8 and Marshall et al. 1935/36: Pl.17, 14, 33). With the introduction of lotus leaf and flowers with the fronds the indigenization of this motif takes place. In the pilasters framing the panels on the post of Sanchi stupa‐I, the upper splayed capital with fronds gets obliterated, though a variant version with splaying tiered capital is observed in one instance in Sanchi stupa‐I and similar ones are also observed in Mathura (Fig. 11c, 13c). In Bharhut stupa the fronds are not common on the upper splayed capital and is in fact generally compensated with latticed design and the animals beneath the upper capital is also not popular (Fig.9, 13a). The lattice design on the upper capital, issuing out from the lower capital addorsed with animal, is a popular design in the pilasters framing the panels, during Sodasa’s period in Mathura and appears to a queer amalgamation of the capital designs of Bharhut, Bodhgaya and Sanchi stupa‐I as some of the addorsed animals have wings as at Sanchi (Fig.10, Quintanilla 2007: Figs.254‐261, 289). In the Bharhut torana in‐the‐ round versions of the pot‐base‐octagonal shaft‐pot capital addorsed with a pair of animals and dado is observed between the cross beams of the torana. The palmette like design is also observed crowning the Bharhut torana and Mathura torana (Fig. 4a and 5).

20a 20b 21 Figures 20a and 20b: Gaja‐ Figures Figure 21: Sanchi Stupa II and Bodhgaya Sanchi Stupa II

235 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

22 23a 23b Figure 22: Winged Animals, Figures 23a and 23b: Warriors, Bodhgaya 23a Bharhut and 23b Sanchi

Apart from the pillars/pilasters or the medallions on the post and cross bars of the railing, a host of other motifs are common between the sites of Bharhut, Bodhgaya, Sanchi and early Mathura. The lotus medallion observed on the coping stone of Bharhut and Bodhgaya railing is absent in the railing of Sanchi stupas but finds imitation on the post and soffit of the cross bars of northern and southern torana of Sanchi stupa‐I and apart from it, pot bellied dwarfs issuing lotus stalks and flowers similar to Bharhut is seen on the southern torana (Fig. 12a,b, 15b; Marshall et al. 1935/36: Pl. 19e, 50b, 23b and 2). The lotus medallions scrolls on Bodhgaya also are replicated on the soffit of the cross beams of Sanchi’s northern torana (Fig. 12c and d). One of the floral scrolls seen on the Sanchi eastern torana post appears to a developed version of Vasu and Mora doorjambs from Mathura carved during the period of Sodasa (Fig.14a,b and 15 a). At Bharhut, Bodhgaya and Mathura there are also pillars or posts carved with human figures some of them are in‐the‐round with the pot‐base‐ pot‐capital and splayed capitals, and human figures probably representing and yakshis carved on the shaft (Figs. 17 a, b, c, d). Stylistically and technically all these figures are presentable in the same league. The pillar post and the figures carved on them at Bodhgaya are smaller, hence are more rounded when compared to Amohini (Fig.13e, 17b and Bachhofer 1939: 34, 39). The mithuna figures observed in the panels of Bharhut, Bodhgaya, Sanchi, Mathura and Amin in Haryana are very similar in style and technical treatment (Fig. 13 a‐f). The from Mathura and Sanchi too have great similarity (18 a, b and c). The structural features depicted in the stupas sculptured at Bharhut, Bodhgaya and Sanchi are so similar that they emphasize their contemporariness (Fig. 19 a, b and c). The Gaja Lakshmi is a common motif in the sculptures of these sites and on coins issued during this period (Fig.20a, b and Agrawal 1977: 197‐106). Winged animals, Saka soldiers wearing tunic and boots, centaur like creatures etc., feline with beaks are certain other common motifs among these sites emphasizing the Saka‐Kshatrapa influences from north‐west (Fig.20‐23).

Scholars who have analyzed the paleography of inscriptions in these sites cite similarity of characters. For example Dehejia observes a paleographic similarity

236 Kumar 2014: 223‐241 between the inscriptional records of Bharhut and Sanchi‐northern torana. She places the Bharhut inscription of Dhanabhuti, Bodhgaya inscription of Indragnimitra, Sanchi stupa‐I inscriptions and Ayodhya inscription of Dhanadeva in the same group (Dehejia 1972: 36‐37). Dani similarly clubs the inscriptions of Bharhut torana, Bodhgaya, Hathigumpha, Pabhosa and Ayodhya together and states of the latter sites having character of Kshatrapa inscriptions of Mathura. He reiterates that there is no fundamental difference between the characters of Mathura Kshatrapa inscriptions and Sanchi inscriptions and assigns them to a chronological bracket of first half of the first century AD (Dani 1963: 58‐59, 64). As already stated above there is virtually no paleographic difference between Dhanabhuti’s Mathura record and Amohini record and hence are coeval (Fig 1a, 1b,and 1c).

The human figures and other decorations in the Bharhut railing are slightly over crowded with motifs in a limited plane of thickness and hence were deliberately kept shallow by the artisans for the fear of damaging the stability and strength of the railing. The lack of depth and volume in these figures was adequately compensated by the artist by surface detailing of the coiffure and costumes and other parameters and this became stylistic idiom or expression of Bharhut sculptures. Hence, the flattened expansive treatment with over decorative surfaces generally observed in the sculptures of Bharhut railings is possibly a result of technical compulsions, rather than an intentional style statement. The existence of in‐ the‐ round figures from Bharhut torana clearly shows that the artists were capable of effectively handling the issue of depth and proportion aptly. This feature, of the space available for carving deciding the depth, form and style is also observable in Bodhgaya and other art sites (Kumar 2013: 27, 89‐90). At Bodhgaya the figures carved in the panels on the corner post were are less clustered and smaller and kept matching with the thickness of the pillars and hence they are rendered with rounded forms when compared to the figures on Bharhut post and railings. Even the larger figures carved on some of the corner post Bodhgaya looks stylistically and technically developed over that of Bharhut and closer to those in Amohini panel and Katra sculptures. Technical compulsions, artistic liberty and regional factors do affect the stylistic character of the sculptures, if that is overlooked, stylistically and chronologically sculptures of Bharhut, Bodhgaya and Sanchi do not appear to be very distant from each other and from the Amohini stele and other sculptural panels carved close to the period of Sodasa at Mathura or in other words to the early decades of the 1st cent. AD.

Political Situation and a Probe for Absolute Dates The political situation in north India in the post‐Mauryan period was apparently chaotic. The Sungas were not apparently able to retain clout over the extensive Mauryan Empire. Dissenting chieftains commenced autonomous reign and the Indo‐ Greeks were knocking down the Mauryan hegemony in the north‐west. Inscription available from sites like Bharhut, Bodhgaya, Ayodhya and Mathura indicated that a series of small chieftains often referring to themselves as Raja/Rajan were reigning over large tracts of land once held by the mighty Mauryan Empire. None

237 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

of them gives any indication of being under the overlordship of any particular king or dynasty or being feudatory. These Rajas apparently established a confederacy through mutual understanding or matrimonial relationship amongst themselves and with the Saka‐Kshatrapas and reigned independently. Many chieftains with names ending in ‘Mitra’, ‘Datta’ and ‘Bhuti’ and at times acknowledging their lineage to the Kaundinya are known from inscriptions of Bharhut, Bodhgaya and Mathura and also from coins found in the Yamuna valley (Dehejia 1972: 38‐39). Inscriptions also indicate that the Saka‐Kshatraps or Indo‐Scythians, the local Rajas and their families fostered and its activities during this period, which had otherwise received persecution under Pushyamitra Sunga and Brahmanical revitalization (Cunningham 1854: 126‐137; Howard 2012: 49).

An attestation of this political situation in north India is also reflected in Kharavela’s record. Kharavela who was contemporaneous to Satakarni of Sanchi records states in his inscription that the Uttarapatha was ruled by rajas and does not mention of Sungas or any other sovereign rulers ruling north India. Even at , he claims to have ousted a Mitra ruler named Bahasatimitra (Marshall et al. 1935/36: part. IV. 276‐277). Kharavela’s statement is also vouched from other inscriptions and coins found in north India. All evidences indicate the fact there were no centralized powers in north India immediately after the Maurya‐Sunga rule. The contemporaneousness of Satakarni and Kharavela is also vouched from paleographic similarity of their inscriptions and the stylistic affinity shared by the sculptures of Sanchi stupa‐I and those in Udayagiri cave (Sircar 1951: 197‐198). Dhanabhuti attested from Mathura and Bharhut inscriptions, and Brahmamitra and Indragnimitra known from Bodhgaya railing, and Sodasas of Mathura records, Kharavela and Satakarni were all apparently local rulers who came to assert themselves to power during the first half of the first century AD and this is also vouched from the paleographic characters of their records (Dani 1963: 49). These smaller chieftains and Kshatraps ruling north India finally seem to have ceded to the authority of Kushan monarchs around late 1st century AD.

I strongly believe that the Dhanabhuti the donor of the eastern and other gateway of the Bharhut was ruling from the territory of Sug, on the upper reaches of Yamuna as suggested by Cunningham. The affinity of sculptural styles between Bharhut and early Mathura, the occurrence of alphabets in the torana donated by Dhanabhuti, the occurrence of modified version of the Indo‐Corinthian pillar capitals on the torana and sculptures and the occurrence of Dhanabhuti’s inscription from Mathura all seem to vouches Cunningham’s views of Dhanabhuti hailing from the north‐western region which was under strong influx of the Saka‐Satrapas. In sculptures assigned to Sodasa’s period at Mathura we have a datum date of AD 15. As stated earlier, there was apparently a rule based on confederacy and in such situation, it is not mandatory to place Dhanabhuti’s reign from Sug earlier to that of Sodasa from Mathura. Religious donations of Dhanabhuti at Mathura could have been done close to the reign period of Sodasa. Even if were to hypothetically consider Bharhut and Bodhgaya sculptures to supersede Sodasa’s period by even 15 years (though not necessary), even then, the

238 Kumar 2014: 223‐241 dates of Bharhut and Bodhgaya do not seem to be going beyond the commencement of the Christian era.

We shall also cross check this datum data with some other historically relevant records. The southern torana of the Sanchi gateway mentions Sri Satakarni the third king of the also known from Naneghat records and Kharavela’s . The Satavahana dynasty was founded by around 30 BC after murdering the last Kanva king Susuraman and he is assigned a rule of 28 years (Sircar 1960: 195; Raychaudhuri 1923: 357‐58 ; Shastri 1999: 19 ; Chattopadhyaya 1974: 31; Kumar 2013: 7). He was succeeded by who is assigned 18 years of rule according to the . This would place the accession of Sri Satakarni the third ruler to 11 AD and given that he ruled for 18 years he could have ruled between 11 AD and 29 AD (Kumar 2013: 7) or between 19 AD and 37 AD (Cunningham 1854: 265‐266). In other words, he almost certainly reigned during the 2nd‐3rd decades of the 1st century AD. This in other way divulges the contemporaneous of Satakarni at Vidisa and Sodasa at Mathura. It is needless to reiterate the continuity and affinity between of sculptural styles of Sanchi‐II and I with Bharhut, Bodhgaya and Mathura sculptures of Sodasa which now finds political and chronological contemporaneousness. The dates deduced for the sculptural style of the Southern torana of Sanchi stupa I is perfectly attuned to the Satakarni’s reign period datable to the 2nd‐3rd decades of the 1st Cent. AD and vouched by many scholars (Cunningham 1854: 265; Bachhofer 1939: 45, 51; Dani 1963: 68; Kumar 2013: 7‐8). This date of first half of the 1st century AD has also been attributed to the paleographical characters of Dhanubhutis’ Bharhut records, Indrganimitra’s Bodhgaya record and those of Sanchi stupa‐I (Dehejia 1972: 35; Dani 1963: 49).

Thus from the analysis of sculptural style, paleography and historical records for Bharhut, Bodhgaya and Sanchi‐II and I, the dates emerging for this group of monuments and its sculptures is close to the first two decades of the Christian era. The Sunga dynasty is believed to have ruled for 112 years commencing from 184 BC and lasting to 82 BC or commencing from 176 BC and lasting to 64 BC as opinioned by Barua and Anderson respectively (Barua 1934‐37: 29; Anderson 1883: 6). At no instance can the sculptures from Bharhut, Bodhgaya, early Mathura and Sanchi be dated between 184 BC and 82 BC (the dates assigned to Sunga rule). This in other words testifies that the sculptures of Bharhut, Bodhgaya, Mathura and Sanchi stupa‐II, do not have any association with the Sungas or to their reign period. Since it now testified that Bharhut sculptures do not have any association with the Sungas or their period the terminology ‘Sunga style’ used to denote sculptural style of Bharhut and associated sites also becomes invalid.

References Agrawal, P. K. 1977. Gods and Goddesses on Tribal Coins. Seminar papers on the Tribal coins of Ancient India, ed. by Jai Prakash Singh, : Department of Ancient Indian History, BHU, 102‐106.

239 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

Anderson, John. 1883. (reprint 1977). Catalogue and handbook of the Archaeological collections in the Indian Museum, Part‐I, Patna: Indological Book Corporation. Bachhofer. L. 1939. (1973 reprint). Early Indian , Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Barua, B. M. 1934‐37. (1979 reprint). Barhut part I, II and III, Calcutta: Indian Research Institute, Patna: Indological Book House. Buhler, G. 1883. (1994 reprint). Naneghat inscriptions and Kanheri Inscriptions. Archaeological Survey of vol.V, Report on Elura cave , Burgess, J. Delhi. Chakaravarty, K. K. 1997. Early Buddhist Art of Bodhgaya, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Chattopadhyaya. 1974. Some Early Dynasties of , Delhi: Motilal Banarisidas. Coomaraswamy, A. K. 1972. History of Indian and Indonesian Art, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Cunningham, Alexander. 1854. (1997 reprint). The Bhilsa topes or Buddhist Monuments of , Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Cunningham, Alexander. 1872‐73. (1994 reprint). Ancient Indian Architecture‐Indo‐ Persian and Indo‐Grecian‐Styles in Archaeological Survey of India reports 1872‐73: Delhi: Rahul Publishing. Cunningham, Alexander. 1879. (1998 reprint). The Stupa of Bharhut, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Cunningham, Alexander. 1892. (1998 reprint). Mahabodhi the great Buddhist . : Smith Elder. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Dani, A. H. 1963. Indian Paleography, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal (1997, edition). Dehejia, Vidya. 1972. Early Buddhist Rock Temples, London: Thames and Hudson. Handa, Devendra. 2010. Terracottas from Sugh, Haryana in KALA The journal of Indian art history Congress, Vol. XVI, Guwahati: IAHS, 8‐24. Hegde, Rajaram. 2002. Sunga Art‐cultural Reflections. Delhi: Sharada. Howard C. Michael. 2012. Transnationalism in Ancient and Medieval Societies: the role of cross‐border trade and travel, McFarland. Hultzsch, E. 1885. The Sunga inscription of the Barhut stupa, in Indian Antiquary Vol.XIV. Kumar, Ajit. 2004. A Stylo‐Chrono Appraisal of Pitalkhora Sculptures in Puratattva: The Journal of the Indian Archaeological Society, No.35, Delhi: IAS, 135‐142. Kumar, Ajit. 2013. Sculptural Art in Early Buddhist (Hinayana) Caves of Western India (A Stylo‐Chrono Study), Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corporation. Leeuw De‐Johanna Engelberta Lohuizen. 1949. The “Scythian” period; An Approach to History, Art, Epigraphy and Paleography of North India from 1st Century BC to 3rd Century AD, Leiden: E. J. Brill. Marahall. J, A. Focuher and N. G. Majumdar. 1935/36. Monuments of Sanchi (3 vols), Delhi: Swat Publication. Quintanilla, Sonya Rhie. 2007. History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura CA. 150BCE‐ 100CE, Leiden: Brill.

240 Kumar 2014: 223‐241

Raychaudhuri. H. 1923. (1996 reprint). Political History of Ancient India, Delhi: Oxford. Shastri, Ajay Mitra. 1999. Great Ages of Indian History, the Age of the Satavahanas, vol.I and II, Delhi: Aryan Books. Sircar, D. C. 1960. The Satavahanas and the Chedis.ch.XIII, in The Age of Imperial Unity, ed. R.C.Majumdar, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Spink, W. M. 1954. Rock‐cut monuments of the Andhra Period: Their style and chronology, unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard: Harvard University. Zimmer, Henrich. 1960. The Art of Indian its Mythology and Transformation, New York: Bollinger Foundation.

241