English
_ Notwithstanding all this, there is so much of Greek or rather Bactrian art in the architectural details of the Amravati Tope, that the first inference is that it must be nearer to the Christian era than the form of the inscriptions would lead us to suppose. On the other hand, we do not know how long the classical influence prevailed, and how much it may have been nourished by intercommunication with the West. Down to the age of Constantine, Rome seems to have maintained its intercourse with India, and*we must pause before we draw a line as to the time when classical feeling may have ceased to exert an influence on Indian art. Certainly, in this instance, the expression of Hiouen Thsang, that this Tope was ornamented with all the art of the palaces of Bactria, is borne out to the fullest extent; but there seems no reason to suppose that this classical influence may not have endured till the break down of the Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries, though it could hardly have lasted beyond that time. The one point which it seems necessary to insist upon at this stage of the inquiry is the strong Bactrian influence which is manifested in all the details of the monument. As has been explained, the sculptuces, with scarcely an exception, refer to a Naga people and to a Naga worship; and since, as pointed out above, p. 44, Taxila and Cashmere were the head quarters of that faith at this age, that circum- stance alone would almost suffice to indicate the north-west as the source from which we must expect information regarding its origin. But, again, how long did the - Bactro-Parthian kingdom exist? and how long did it continue to influence the politics and arts of India Proper? These are questions to which no very definite answer can be given in the present state of our knowledge; my own impression is, that the influence continued to.a much later date than has hitherto generally been supposed; but there is nothing in all this sufficiently definite to enable us to found on it any argument as to the date of the Amravati Tope. Z * : Although, therefore, it must be confessed that neither these classical influences nor the Mackenzie traditions seem to throw any steady: light on our subject, the 158 ' THE TOPE AT AMRAVATI information collected by Mr. Stirling, and published in: his invaluable history of Cuttack, does seem to bear on its origin. The following extracts from his memoirs* are those slik seem most to the point:—“In the reign of Bajra Nath Deo the Yavanas are said to invade the “ country in great numbers from Babul Des—explained to mean Iran and Cabul—. but are finally driven back.” “In the reign of Huns or Hangsha Deo (query, _ Hushka) the Yavanas again invade in great force from Cashmere, and many bloody “ battles ensue.” In the reign of Bhoja, the Yavanas from Sindhu Des invade the country in great force, but.are driven back. Then follows Vikramaditya. If, therefcre, the dates are to be depended upon, these invasions took place before the Christian era. Other Yavana invasions oceur in the next four reigns; but the most important of all occurred in the reign of Subhan Deo, who ascended the throne 818 (the year of the Ballabhi era). In the ninth year of his reign a Yavana, Rakta Bahu, invades the country by sea, and conquers it. The king escapes with the image of Juggernath, which he buries under a ber tree, and flies farther into. the jungle, where he dies. His son succeeds to the title, but is murdered by the invaders. “A Yavana dynasty then ruled over Orissa for a space of 146 years, or down to a.v. 473.” If these dates are to be depended upon,—and I see no reason for doubting their general correctness,—the period of the supremacy of this Yavana dynasty in Orissa exactly coincides with the dates which from other circumstances I - would ascribe to the principal buildings at Amravati. No Stirling has yet visited Guntur, and we cannot therefore assert it, but it seems more than probable that the foreigners who conquered the northern, woud also take possession of the southern Kalingas. This account of this. ast invasion, being derived from Brahminical sources, , would hardly help us much; but, fortunately, we: have two Buddhist accounts of the same transaction, which are much more complete and detailed, and which do, I fancy, throw great light on our researches. The first is contained in the Daladd-— vansa, partially translated by the Hon. G. Turnour, and published in the J. A.S.B. vol. VI. p. 856, et seq.; the other is abstracted by Colonel Low from the Siamese -Phr& Pat’>hom, and published in-the same journal, vol: XVII. part II. p. 82, et seq. Unfortunately, neither work has been completely translated, and the extracts _ having been made with reference to other objects, do not give us all the infor- mation we want. The following abridgment of the story will, TOWNE: suffice for present purposes :— The left canine tooth of Buddha had been preserved in Dantapura, -the api of Kalinga, probably at or near the spot where the celebrated temple of JuggernAth now stands, for 800 years, when Gdhasivo, the king, early in the fourth century, was converted to Buddhism from the Brahminical faith, which he had professed up “to that time. With the zeal of a convert he dismissed and persecuted the Brahmins, who had ‘hitherto enjoyed his favour. They repaired to PAtaliputta (Patna) to complain of this to the paramount sovereign, here called Pandu, but who, as it appears from the context, most probably was the Gotamiputra of the Satkarni * Asiatic Researches, vol. XV. p. 254, et seq. J. A. S. B, vol. VI. p. 756, et seq. HISTORY OF MONUMENTS. 159 dynasty. He orders Guhasivo to repair to his court, bringing the relic with him. It is then subjected to every sort of trial. It is smashed on an anvil, thrown into the gutter, and everything conceivable done to destroy or dishonour it. It comes triumphantly out of all its trials. The king is converted, and finally devotes himself to a religious life. ° While all this is going on, a northern king—it is not quite clear whence he came*—named Khiradharo, attacks the capital, in order to possess himself of the wonder-working relic. He was defeated and killed in battle, and Gihasivo returned, it is said, with the sacred tooth to his capital. Some time afterwards the nephews of Khirddharo, allying themselves with other kings, march against Gihasivo. He, though seeing that resistance is hopeless, prepares for defence; but; before going to the combat, he enjoins on his daughter Hemachalé, who was married to a prince of Oujein, called Danta Kumara, that in the event of his falling, they should take the relic, and escaping by sea, convey it to Mahdsena, king of Ceylon, who had been for some time negotiating for its purchase.t The prince and princess fly from the city before its fall, bury the relic in the sand, in the same manner as the image of Juggernath is said to have been concealed in the Brahminical account, and, afterwards returning, the princess conceals it in her ‘hair, and escaping to the coast, they take ship apparently at Tamralipi or Tamlook, and sail for Ceylon. Half-way between the place of embarkation and Ceylon they ‘are shipwrecked, at a place called the Diamond Sands.{ From the context I do not think there can be much hesitation in fixing this locality on the banks of the * Probably Sravastt, then the capital of the northern Kosala, the modern Oude. See General Cunningham’s Report for 1862-63, p. 40. 2 t Some years ago Dr. Bird opened a small Tope in front of the Kenheri Caves in Salsette. In it he found a copper plate recording that a canine tooth of Buddha had been deposited there. The plate is dated in the year 245. From the expression “ Samvat” being used, Dr. Stevenson (J. B. B. R. A. S., vol. V. p. 13) assumes that it must be from the era of Vikramaditya. I believe, however, it is correct to assert that no Buddhist inscription is dated from the era of the hated opponent of their religion. If, on the other hand, we assume the era of Salivahana, it brings the date to almost the exact time—a.p. 823—of these events on the east coast; and _ though it is not directly stated in the inscription, it seems that thé tooth was deposited there by Gotamiputra, the very king who played so important a part in the narrative just recorded, and what is more, it seems extremely probable that the Kenheri tooth ‘was, or was supposed to be, the identical one which performed so many miracles in Pataliputta. This might seem paradoxical had not the same thing happened to the same relic in similar circumstances more than twelve centuries afterwards. When the Portuguese conquered Ceylon, Constantine de Braganza seized the Dalad& and conveyed it to Goa. The king of Pegu sent an embassy after it, and offered any amount of ransom for it. But the bigotry of the priesthood was proof against any such temptation. The tooth was corisumed by fire in presence of the Archbishop and all the notables, and the ashes cast into the sea. The result was peculiar. The Ceylonese pretended that the one so destroyed was a counterfeit, A true one-was discovered and sold to the king of Pegu, and as soon as he was gone and had paid for it, another true one was found concealed in Ceylon, and ts probably the crocodile’s tooth that is now so honoured in that country. To complete the parallelism, both the Burmese and the Concani teeth have disappeared, and only their empty Chaityas remain. The Ceylonese tooth still remains with the oldest pedigree of any such relic that the world possesses, The particulars of this second great attempt to destroy the Dalada will be found well stated in Sir KE. Tennent’s Ceylon, vol. II. p. 199. Translations of the original authorities are there given also. + { Dtnne means sand bank in Telugu.