A new site, built from published sources. Spotted a mistake? Please tell us
Telugu Historyతెలుగు చరిత్ర

Amaravati Mahachaitya

The great Buddhist stupa of Amaravati on the Krishna, founded perhaps around 200 BCE and rebuilt with carved limestone rails in the 2nd–3rd centuries CE. From 1796 it was dug up for building material, and it is now known mainly from its scattered sculptures.

1858 albumen photograph of an Amaravati drum slab showing a carved stupa with nagas worshipping at its gateway (Elliot no. 116).
1858 albumen photograph of an Amaravati drum slab showing a carved stupa with nagas worshipping at its gateway (Elliot no. 116). · Linnaeus Tripe (University of Edinburgh) (opens in a new tab) · CC BY 3.0 (opens in a new tab)

The Mahachaitya (“great chaitya”) at Amaravati stands on the south bank of the Krishna, about twenty miles above Vijayawada (Bezwada). It was one of the largest and most richly sculptured Buddhist monuments of South India. Almost nothing of it stands today. It was quarried for bricks and stone from 1796. What survived was dug out in the 19th century and scattered between museums in Madras, Calcutta and London. It is known mainly from those sculptures, from Colin Mackenzie’s drawings of 1816–17, and from James Burgess’s survey of the site in 1881–82.123

Terms

A stupa is a solid domed mound built over relics of the Buddha or of a revered teacher.45 The Amaravati inscriptions call this one a mahachetiya, Sanskrit mahachaitya, “great chaitya”.45 Burgess explains chaitya as a word that first meant a funeral heap and then any sacred monument.45 He explains stupa as a word used mostly for the larger, unroofed chaityas.45

Around the dome ran a paved procession path (pradakshina).67 A stone railing of upright posts, cross-bars and a coping (top course) enclosed it.67 On each of the four sides facing the gateways, a platform carried five tall ayaka pillars (ayaka-khambha).67

The monument

When Mackenzie first saw the site in 1797, the local name for the mound was Dipaldinne, “hill of lights”.8 It was a large, low mound crowned by a smaller one, about thirty yards across and twenty feet high, cased in brick.8

By 1880 the central structure had been completely removed.4 Burgess therefore worked out its size from Mackenzie’s notes and from the surviving foundations.4 In his estimate, the brick drum or basement was about 138 feet across and the dome close on 100 feet.4 The total height was perhaps 80 to 100 feet.4 The inner rail stood on a brick circle 162 feet 7 inches across inside.4 Mackenzie’s plan, as reproduced by Fergusson, gives 195 feet for the inside diameter of the outer circle.9

The rails

The outer rail was the monument’s most famous feature.5 Its upright slabs stood about ten feet above the paved path inside it.5 Each pair of uprights was joined by three lens-shaped cross-bars set into mortices (sockets).5 A carved coping about 2 feet 9 inches high ran along the top.5

The facing was a greyish-white limestone, which 19th-century writers usually called “marble”.61011 Burgess believed it came from the same quarries on the Krishna bank, south of Jaggayyapeta, that supplied the Jaggayyapeta stupa.610 The 1883 district manual names the cream-coloured limestone of the hills to the west.11 Mackenzie’s draughtsmen recorded that the carvings had originally been painted red.12

Many of the slabs of the inner rail carry a carved picture of a stupa.6 These “chaitya slabs” show a dome with a five-pillar group on each face.6 Burgess took them as fair pictures of the Mahachaitya itself in its finished form.6 The sculptures show scenes from the life of the Buddha and Buddhist emblems.13 On what Burgess took to be the earliest slabs, the Buddha himself is not shown.14 Worshippers bow instead before an empty seat and a pair of footprints.14

Building phases and dates

The monument was built and rebuilt over several centuries, so it cannot be given one date. Burgess found several kinds of evidence for this:

  • Fragments of an inscription in letters of Mauryan type record “a pillar of the General Mudakutala”. Burgess placed the first Great Chaitya at perhaps about 200 BCE.15
  • South of the west gate, polished granite rail posts and archaic slabs resemble the early carvings at Jaggayyapeta. Burgess thought they might be remains of an early rail that was later replaced in limestone.16
  • An inscription dated in the reign of the Satavahana king Vasishthiputra Sri Pulumavi records a Dharmachakra (wheel of the law) set up at the western gate. Burgess dated Pulumavi to about 135–163 CE and concluded that the outer rail was begun in the 2nd century. He placed the inner rail somewhat later, perhaps not completed much before the end of the 3rd century.1718
  • Burgess found part of the paving laid on top of broken sculptured slabs, which showed that the site had been partly restored at a much later date.16
  • A later Sanskrit pillar inscription in early Telugu characters lists Pallava kings. It records that Simhavarman II honoured the shrine of the Buddha at “Dhanyaghata”, which Burgess read as a spelling of Dhanyakataka.19

These dates depend on Satavahana chronology, which was unsettled even then.20 Burgess noted that Bühler preferred dates about 130 years earlier for the same kings.20 So the absolute dates should be read as approximate (see Satavahanas).20

Inscriptions and the Chaitika school

More than fifty short donative (gift) inscriptions were recovered.17211913 Most of them are in Prakrit, an everyday language related to Sanskrit, and in Brahmi script.17211913 They name householders, merchants, monks and nuns who gave a rail bar, a pillar or a slab, often “with” their whole family.17211913

Several describe the monument as belonging to the Chaitika school, a branch of the Mahasanghika Buddhists.155 Burgess used this to identify Amaravati with the Purvasaila monastery described by the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang (Hiuen Tsang).155 Xuanzang came to the kingdom he called Tho-na-kie-tse-kia (Dhanakataka) in about 636.22 He reported convents on hills east and west of the city, Purvasila and Avarasila, most of them deserted.22

A Tibetan life of the philosopher Nagarjuna says that he “surrounded the great shrine of Dhanyakataka with a railing”.23 Burgess gave this tradition some weight, but noted that the accounts of Nagarjuna’s date conflict.23

Destruction and excavation

In 1796–97 Raja Vasireddi Venkatadri Nayudu, the zamindar (landholder) of Chintapalle, moved his capital to Amaravati and dug the local mounds for bricks.242526 His workmen opened Dipaldinne and sank a shaft at its centre in search of treasure.242526 They broke up the slabs.242526 Some went into the steps of a tank and into the Amaresvara temple.242526 Others were burnt for lime, and slabs used in mosques were first rubbed smooth.242526

At the centre the workmen found a stone casket holding a crystal box with a small pearl and gold leaf.169 Walter Elliot later secured these for the Madras Museum.169 Digging stopped after a Pindari raid in March 1816 and the Raja’s death that August.25

Mackenzie and the slabs

Colin Mackenzie first visited in 1797.824 He returned in March 1816 with a team of draughtsmen, who drew the exposed sculptures and made a survey of the site.824 Some slabs went to Machilipatnam (then Masulipatam), and from there seven were sent to Calcutta.26 In 1830 the Collector, Robertson, set up thirty-three slabs in a new market square there.26 Sewell later counted only seven of these as recovered.27

Elliot’s slabs

Walter Elliot dug near the west gate and sent the slabs to Madras.2829 Burgess dates this to 1845.28 The district manual and the Imperial Gazetteer date it to 1840.29

Most of these slabs were later shipped to London.3028 There, the manual says, they lay in the coach-house of Fife House until James Fergusson found them in 1867.3028 Fergusson published them in Tree and Serpent Worship (1868).3028 They were afterwards set up along the grand staircase of the British Museum.3028

The clearing of 1880

Robert Sewell excavated in 1877.2 In February 1880 the Governor, the Duke of Buckingham, ordered the whole site cleared.2 Burgess complained that this was done without professional supervision.2 In his view it destroyed any remaining trace of the central structure.2

Burgess surveyed the cleared site in December 1881 and January 1882.312 He counted 329 slabs and fragments, to which he added about ninety more.312 He packed over 170 of them for the Madras Museum, although their removal was delayed for nearly two years.312 The marbles became one of that museum’s chief exhibits.332

Older interpretations

Fergusson wrote his account before most of the inscriptions were read.33 He dated the great rail to the 4th century CE.33 He linked it with a temple “at the Diamond Sands” mentioned in Ceylonese chronicles as begun in 322.33 He also argued that serpent (Naga) worship almost replaced Buddhism in its sculpture.33

Burgess used the Pulumavi inscription and revised dates for the western Indian cave inscriptions.3431 With these he moved the rail back to the 2nd century.3431 He also gave a far larger estimate for the dome than Fergusson’s figure of no more than 30 feet.49

Even the identification of Dhanyakataka with Dharanikota beside Amaravati was not settled.35 In 1933 J. Ph. Vogel asked whether Nagarjunakonda might instead be that ancient capital.35

Footnotes

  1. James Burgess, The Buddhist Stupas of Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 2 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  2. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 19 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  3. Imperial Gazetteer of India: Madras, Vol. I (1908), p. 508 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)); see also p. 303 on pieces in Calcutta (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  4. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 23 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  5. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 24 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  6. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 21 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  7. J. Ph. Vogel, “Prakrit Inscriptions from a Buddhist Site at Nagarjunikonda”, Epigraphia Indica XX (1933), p. 2 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 13 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. James Fergusson, Tree and Serpent Worship (1868), p. 164 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  10. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 107 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  11. Mackenzie, Kistna District Manual (1883), p. 168 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  12. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 16, quoting Mackenzie (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  13. Imperial Gazetteer of India: Madras, Vol. I (1908), p. 333 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  14. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 53 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  15. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 101 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 22 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  17. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 100 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  18. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 112 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  19. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 106 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  20. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 11, n. 6 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  21. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), pp. 102–103 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  22. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 9 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  23. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 5 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  24. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 14 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  25. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 15 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  26. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 17 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  27. Robert Sewell, Lists of the Antiquarian Remains in the Presidency of Madras, Vol. I (1882), p. 53 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  28. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), p. 18 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  29. Gordon Mackenzie, A Manual of the Kistna District (1883), p. 165 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)); Imperial Gazetteer of India: Madras, Vol. I (1908), p. 332 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  30. Mackenzie, Kistna District Manual (1883), p. 166 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  31. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), Preface, p. v (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  32. Alexander Rea, South Indian Buddhist Antiquities (1894), p. 47 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  33. Fergusson, Tree and Serpent Worship (1868), p. 162 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  34. Burgess, Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta (1887), pp. 11–12 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  35. Vogel, Epigraphia Indica XX (1933), p. 9 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

Photos

Show all (139)

Inscriptions

Amaravati inscription of the time of Vasishthiputra Pulumavi

c. 130 CE

A two-line Prakrit inscription on a broken coping stone from the Amaravati stupa. It records a Dharmachakra (wheel of the law) set up at the western gate of the Great Chaitya, in a regnal year of the Satavahana king Vasishthiputra Sri Pulumavi. The year itself is lost.

Amaravati inscription of King Sri Sivamaka Sada

c. 150 CE

Fragment of a one-line Prakrit inscription on a carved coping stone of the Amaravati stupa, recording a gift by the 'superintendent of the water establishment' of a king Sri Sivamaka Sada. The king has been taken for the founder Simuka, for Siva Sri Satakarni, or for a ruler of another family altogether.

References

Sources (7)
  1. James Burgess, The Buddhist Stupas of Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta in the Krishna District, Madras Presidency, Surveyed in 1882 (opens in a new tab), Trübner & Co. for the Archaeological Survey of Southern India, 1887, v, 2–24, 53, 100–101, 106, 112. [Public domain]
  2. James Fergusson, Tree and Serpent Worship: Illustrations of Mythology and Art in India from the Sculptures of the Buddhist Topes at Sanchi and Amravati (opens in a new tab), India Museum / W. H. Allen & Co., London, 1868, pp. 162, 164. [Public domain]
  3. Gordon Mackenzie, A Manual of the Kistna District in the Presidency of Madras (opens in a new tab), Government of Madras (Lawrence Asylum Press), 1883, pp. 164–168. [Public domain]
  4. Robert Sewell, Lists of the Antiquarian Remains in the Presidency of Madras, Vol. I (opens in a new tab), Government Press, Madras, 1882, pp. 53, 64. [Public domain]
  5. Government of India, Imperial Gazetteer of India, Provincial Series: Madras, Vol. I (opens in a new tab), Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta, 1908, pp. 303, 332–333, 508. [Public domain]
  6. Alexander Rea, South Indian Buddhist Antiquities, including the Stupas of Bhattiprolu, Gudivada and Ghantasala and other Ancient Sites in the Krishna District (opens in a new tab), Government Press, Madras (Archaeological Survey of India), 1894, pp. 47. [Public domain]
  7. Hirananda Sastri (ed.), Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XX (1929–30) (opens in a new tab), Archaeological Survey of India, 1933, pp. 2, 9. [Public domain]

Spotted an error on this page? Tell us

Last updated: