Shaw, J. 2013 , Sanchi as an Archaeological Area, in D.K Chakrabarti, and M. Lal (eds)., History of Ancient India, 388-427, New Delhi: Vivekananda International Foundation and Aryan Books, Volume 4 VI.3. Sanchi as an Archaeological Area INTRODUCTION: SANCHI AND ITS ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE The UNESCO World Heritage Site of Sanchi is one of Indiaís best preserved, and most studied Buddhist sites, with a continuous constructional sequence from c. third century BC to twelfth century AD (Marshall 1940). Four related Buddhist sites, Satdhara, Sonari, Morel Khurd, and Andher, all situated within a 15 km radius of Sanchi (Figs. 1-2), were first documented by Alexander Cunningham in his Bhilsa Topes (1854). The earliest monuments at Sanchi (Phase I) were connected with state patronage under the Mauryas, as attested by the Asokan edict there (Table 1). However, the most prolific building, here and the other four sites, took place during the post-Mauryan period (Phase II), datable to between the late second and the first century BC, and linked under a single school of monks called the Hemavatas (Willis 2000). Construction during this phase was funded mainly by collective patronage and recorded in the form of single-lined inscriptions on pillars and paving slabs. The city mounds of Vidisha, just 8 km to the north of Sanchi, represent the earliest phase of urbanism in central India (Fig. 2); whilst fortified state capitals in the Gangetic valley formed the backdrop to the Buddhaís life and teachings between the sixth and fifth centuries BC, similar developments in central and south India are not attested archaeologically until at least the third century BC (Fig. 1). Vidisha is also home to some of the earliest archaeological evidence for the Pancharatra system of the Bhagavata cult, a Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 389 Fig. 1. Map of India showing key Buddhist sites and early historic urban centres. Political History and Administration 390 Fig. 2. Sanchi Survey project: site distribution (habitational settlements, Buddhist sites and reservoirs). prototypical form of Vaisnavism which became prominent from around the second century BC onwards (Khare 1967; Shaw 2007, 53-5).The importance of orthodox Brahmanism continued throughout Vidishaís history, as illustrated by the midí first millennium-AD rock-cut temples at Udayagiri, which were connected with the Gupta royal family (Willis 2009). Until recently, little was known about how these important sites related to each other or to areas beyond their formal boundaries. The Sanchi Survey Project (henceforth SSP) initiated in 1998 with fieldwork seasons continuing until 2005ówas aimed at redressing this problem and relating the key processes of Buddhist propagation and urbanisation at Sanchi and Vidisha respectively to social, economic and religious history within the hinterland. This multi-phase survey resulted in the documentation of numerous ritual sites, habitational settlements, and water-resource structures over an area of approximately 750 square kilometres around Sanchi, providing the empirical basis for assessing models of religious and economic change in central India. The aim of this paper is to summarise these results Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 391 Table 1. John Marshallís phasing at Sanchi. Phase Date range Monuments Inscriptions Sculptures I 3rd century BC Stupa 1: brick core Pillar 10 Temple 40 (apsidal) Temple 18 (apsidal) Ashokan inscription Elephant capital (c. 269-232 BC) from Temple 40 (?) II 2ndñ1st century BC Stupas 2, 3, 4. Stupa 1: casing and railings. Temples 18 and 40 (enlargements); Building 8 (platformed monastery) Donative inscriptions Pillar by Stupa 2; on Stupa 1, 2, and 3 Pillar 25. railings; reliquary inscriptions from Stupas 2 and 3. III 1stñ3rd century AD Stupa 1: gateway carvings. Southern gateway inscription of Shatakarni (c. AD 25) IV 4thñ6th century AD Temples 17 and 19. Stupas 28 and 29. Inscription of Stupa 1 Chandragupta II pradaksinapatha (Gupta year 131, or Buddha images; AD 450-1) Pillar 25 and crowning Vajrapani image; two Padmapani to the north Stupa 1; Naga, Nagini, and yaksa sculptures. Various others now in the SAM. V 7thñ8th century AD Stupas 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16. Temples 18 and 40 (additions); Temples 20, 22 and 31. Monastery complex beneath Building 43; Monasteries 36, 37 and 38, and other newly excavated structures in the southern area; Monastery 51 (?); VI 9th ñ 12th century AD Eastern platform, surmounting Building 43 monasteries (46 and 47), and inscription (midí to temple (45), and boundary wall; late 9th century AD). Building 43. Buddha and Bodhisattva images from Temple 45. Numerous other images in SAM. Political History and Administration 392 (presented in more detail elsewhere: Shaw 2007) along with previous scholarship on Sanchi as an archaeological area. HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE SANCHI AREA SANCHI HILL Since its discovery almost 200 years ago, the Buddhist monuments on Sanchi hill have been a major focus of scholarly attention (see Mitra 1996 for a detailed account). The site was noticed in 1818 by General Taylor of the Bengal Cavalry (Burgess 1902), and revisited in the following year by Captain Edward Fell (1819). In subsequent years, there were various bouts of haphazard digging. The most ambitious project carried out in 1822 caused so much damage (Marshall 1940, 47), that when J.D. Cunningham visited in 1847, many of the monuments were already in complete ruins (Cunningham 1847). The first systematic excavations, initiated in 1851 by Alexander Cunningham (1854), were aimed primarily at the retrieval of relics and inscribed reliquaries from stupas 2 and 3; the former bear the names of the Hemavata school of monks which provide the basis for understanding the identity of early Buddhist schools in the area. (Willis 2000). Restoration work began in 1881 (Cole 1884), continuing in later years under John Marshall (1940), whose excavations between 1912 and 1919 represent the most comprehensive and authoritative study to date. Marshallís six-phase sequence between c. third century BC and 12th century AD, provided the primary framework for the chronology of Buddhist archaeology in central India. Foucherís art-historical analyses of the stupa railing carvings were published in the same volume, whilst N.G. Majumdarís chapter on the siteís epigraphical record, including the Asokan edict, a large body of second-century BC donative inscriptions, and a later group of Gupta period land-grants, provided the primary basis for scholarship on the history of patronage at Sanchi (Dehejia 1992; Singh 1996). Several excavations have been carried out since Marshallís time. In 1936, Hamid (1940) excavated a large courtyard-type monastery immediately to the west of stupa 1, while in 1995-6, ASI excavations on the western slope between stupas 1 and 2 revealed two apsidal temples and a cluster of stupas, while clearance to the southwest of stupa 1, revealed a group of small ëvotiveí stupas (IAR 1995-96 (2002), 478, pl. XIII; Shaw 2007, 21, pl. 20). As discussed later, recent scholarship (Schopen 1987) has suggested that such stupas were ëburial adsanctosí, rather than votive, structures, possibly containing the mortuary remains of ëordinaryí monks or lay followers; similar stupas have been documented throughout the study area (Shaw 2007), with parallels in south India (Fogelin 2004; 2006). Excavations during the same year at Monastery 51 revealed a three phase sequence from the ëMauryan to Kusanaí periods. Whilst Hamid (1940) had earlier observed Mauryan-sized bricks, this revised sequence is of some significance given the traditional postGupta date for this (Mitra 1996, 17) and related courtyard-style monasteries in the southern part of the site and central India as a whole. A critique of this view together with suggestions that prototypical forms of the courtyard monastery form existed during earlier periods are discussed later (see also Shaw 2007, 105-06; 2011). Further ASI clearance work in 1995 around the large stone platform known as Building 8, revealed a stairway built into the body of the structure (Willis 2000; Shaw 2007, 21, 90-91; IAR 1997-98 (2003), 105). Neither Marshall nor Cunningham were sure about the function of this Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 393 building, but more recently comparisons with similar buildings at neighbouring sites suggest that it formed the base of an early monastery (Willis 2000; Shaw 2007; 2011). The significance of this and other ëmonastery platformsí in the area for challenging received assumptions regarding the history and chronology of monasticism, is discussed later. Further, several newly identified monasteries were revealed around the seventh century monastery cluster in the southern part of the site (IAR 1996-7). More recently, in 2004, a large trench in the upper terrace to the east of stupa 1 was opened under S.B. Ota who also cleared some of the area around the smaller stupas immediately to the east of stupa 1. These more recent excavations have not yet been published. NEIGHBOURING MONASTIC SITES Four other well-preserved stupa sites, Sonari, Satdhara, Morel Khurd and Andher (Fig. 2), all situated within about 15 km of Sanchi, were first documented by Cunningham in his Bhilsa Topes (1854). Excavations carried out together with Maisey resulted in the retrieval of reliquaries from a number of the stupas at these sites. Some of these were found to bear names which correspond to those of the Hemavata monks listed in the reliquary inscriptions from stupa 2, Sanchi. This demonstrates that all five sites were linked under the Hemavata school, which under the leadership of a teacher called Gotiputa, appears to have been central to the ësecond propagationí of Buddhism in the last quarter of the second century BC (Willis 2000). All four sites are under ASI protection, but apart from basic conservation measures, have received meagre archaeological attention since Cunninghamís time. The exception is Satdhara, which has undergone renewed excavation and conservation in recent years. The most important discoveries are described in a summary report (Agrawal 1997), with further discussion in Shaw 2007 (112-13; also Shaw 2000; Willis 2000) and volumes of IAR (1995-96; 1996-97; 1997-98; 1999-2000). A summary report of a sixth monastic site, Bighan, about 3 km NW of Vidisha, was published by H.H. Lake (1910b) around 60 years after Cunninghamís explorations. It was taken up for renewed investigation during the SSP (Shaw 2007, 126-29), but otherwise has not received any scholarly interest since Lakeís time. Consequently it has escaped stateprotection, and is increasingly in danger of destruction from ongoing stone-quarrying and tree-planting programmes within the site. ANCIENT VIDISHA The other key archaeological site is the ancient city of Vidisha whose mounds are situated in the fork of the rivers Betwa and Bes, around 8 km north of Sanchi (Figs. 2-3). Also referred to as Besnagar after the village Bes which occupies a key position on the mounds, the city is thought to have moved to its new location as represented by the modern town of Vidisha, approximately 1 km to the south, during the post-Gupta period (c. sixth or seventh century AD ). However evidence documented during the SSP attests to building activity at the ënewí site from at least the second century BC (Shaw 2007, 130-1). The earliest archaeological investigations here were conducted by Cunningham (1880), whose site-plan illustrates the main city mound protected by a massive earthen rampart in the west. Cunninghamís excavations focussed mainly on a number of small mounds overlying various Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jain structures, and thus contributed little to the understanding of the siteís urban history. Several Political History and Administration 394 Fig. 3. Map of ancient Vidisha (showing location of trenches). of these mounds were later re-excavated by Lake (1910a), but it is difficult to relate Lakeís numbered mounds to those of Cunningham due to the absence of a site-plan which is nevertheless referred to in the formerís report. Both scholars were interested principally in sculptural remains, many of which are now stored in the Gujari Mahal Museum, Gwalior. Of particular interest was a group of pillars and capitals to the north of the river Bes, in the vicinity of a site known at the time as Kham Baba. It was only following Lakeís (1910a, 137-39) discovery of the associated inscription buried beneath layers of sindhur on the principal pillar there that the siteís link with Heliodorus of Taxila became known. The inscription records that the pillar was set up by the Greek ambassador of King Antialkidas in honour of a temple of Vasudeva during the time of king Bhagabhadra (Marshall 1909; Sircar 1965, 88). Although the genealogy of Bhagabhadra is problematic, coins from the Northwest which bear the name Antialkidas suggest a date of c. 115ñ80 BC (Willis 2000, 57). The inscription is crucially important for understanding the history of the associated Bhagavata cult as well as for providing the first reliable chronological marker after the Asokan pillar at Sanchi (Shaw 2004; 2007). Further excavations were conducted by J. Bhandarkar (1914; 1915) between 1913 and Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 395 1915 and later in the 1960s by M.D. Khare (1967; IAR 1963-64, 17; 1964-65, 19-20). Both studies focussed on the Heliodorus pillar area, and in particular on the foundations of the Vasudeva shrine mentioned in the inscription. During Khareís excavations, trenches were sunk at seven additional locations across the city mounds, resulting in the identification of six occupational levels ranging from c. 2000 BC to the sixth century AD (Fig. 3; Table 2). By the end of the fifth season, this sequence had been modified to incorporate pre-pottery microlithic levels underlying a small three-phase Chalcolithic mound at Rangai, about four km to the south of the city mounds (IAR 1976-77, 3334). The foundations of the city rampart, dated to c. third century BC on the basis of associated Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW), marked the earliest urban phase at the site. This sequence accords with the chronology and history of urban development in central India: with the exception of the fortified city site of Ujjain to the west, which as the capital of one of the mahajanapadas listed in early Buddhist texts, had already reached a level of urbanism by the sixth century BC (in keeping with the Table 2. Phasing at Vidisha based on five excavation seasons IAR 1976-7, 34. Phase Dates Period Dating criteria Pre pottery Chalcolithic (Rangai only) Microlithic blades Ia Pre-c. 2000 Ib c. 2000 ñ 1800 BC Chalcolithic (Rangai only) Painted Black on Red wares, Black and Red ware with white paintings (similar to Kayatha II). IIa c. 1800 ñ 1100 BC Pottery Chalcolithic Painted black-and-red wares; blackslipped wares; microlithic blades. IIb c. 1100 ñ 900 Iron Age PGW and related wares; iron. IIIa c. 900 ñ 500 BC Late Iron Age PGW and related wares, iron. IIIb c. 500 ñ 200 BC Early-historic/urban phase NBPW, punchmarked coins, iron. IIIc c. 200 BC ñ early first century AD Shunga Satavahana (city rampart) ëabsence of NBPWí and Black and Red wareí. IVa 1stñ3rd century AD Naga-Kushana Plain red, red-slipped wares (especially ësprinklersí), painted black-on-red wares, votive tanks, teracotta beads, and Naga coins. IVb 3rdñ5th century AD Ksatrapa-Gupta Red wares, black-and-red wares, jewellery, Ksatrapa coins V 9thñ11th century AD VI BC BC 18thñearly 20th century AD ëEarly medievalí ëLate medieval-moderní Political History and Administration 396 chronology of urbanisation in the Gangetic Valley region), it was not until the ësecondí phase, from about third century BC onwards, that Vidisha and many other sites in central India became fully urbanised (Chakrabarti 1995; Allchin, ed., 1995). Apart from several summary reports (IAR 1963-64, 16-17; 1964-65, 18; 1965-66, 23; 197576, 30-31; 1976-77, 33-34), the full excavation report from Vidisha has never been formally published. As Upinder Singh (1996, 7) puts it, ëin the absence of horizontal excavation at this site, in view of the disparities in the sequences revealed at BSN 1-4, and the meagreness of the published details, it is difficult to reconstruct a coherent, detailed archaeological profile of the history of ancient Vidishaí. This is an important point and one which needs to be borne in mind when it comes to evaluating a particularly problematic, but enduring, theory in ancient Indian history, itself strongly informed by the later stratigraphic levels at Besnagar. The suggested abandonment, and relocation of the city during the post-Gupta period, has featured prominently in theories regarding ëurban declineí, originally put forward by the historian, R.S. Sharma (1987). As discussed recently by Derek Kennet (2004), the endurance of this hitherto untested theory is partly the result of outdated archaeological techniques and inadequate ceramic sequences, which together with the lack of detailed reports, lend the archaeological record open to misunderstanding by non-specialists. A more acceptable suggestion, and one that needs to be tested through excavation within Vidisha town itself, is that the ëoldí and ënewí zones originally formed part of a larger extended urban centre. This is suggested, for example, by post-Mauryan architectural remains documented at various places within the ëmoderní town of Vidisha including the prominent hill known as ëLohangií (Shaw 2007, 130-31, pl. 106-107). OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES The other major published archaeological site is Udayagiri hill, situated just 1.5 km to the west of Vidishaís city rampart (Fig. 2), and consisting of Gupta-period rock-cut shrines dedicated variously to Vaisnava, Saiva and Jaina deities. The main dating evidence is provided by an inscription of Chandragupta II dated to AD 401, although there is evidence for pre-Gupta ritual and artistic activity (Shaw 2007, 131-32). Scholarly understanding of the site and its wider landscape setting has undergone major revision following recent field investigations of Michael Willis (2004) and Meera Dass (2001; Dass and Willis 2002). The Sanchi area is also renowned for its numerous prehistoric rock-shelters and associated paintings and stone tools (Fig. 7). The primary focus of rock-art research in central India has been in the Narmada Valley, the Betwa source area, and the hills around Raisen (Wakankar and Brooks 1976; Neumeyer 1993). However, Sanchi hill itself contains painted rockshelters, some of which figure on Marshallís (1940) site-plan, and numerous rock-shelters have been reported in the surrounding area (IAR 1976-77, 77; 1982-83; 39-40; 1992-93, 127). Prominent examples include those at Nagauri hill (Neumeyer 1978; Shaw 2007, 110-11; fig. 11.3), less than 0.5 km south of Sanchi, and Ahmadpur (Khare 1976; IAR 1976-77, 32-33; Shaw 2007, 129-30) around 10 km north of Vidisha. As discussed later, many of these shelters show evidence for reoccupation in later periods by Buddhist monks, and possibly represent the earliest form of monastic dwelling in the area. Fig. 4. Monastery remains on Ferozpur hill: High-resolution Quickbird satellite imagery with superimposed GPSderived mapping data. Fig. 7. Map of Buddhist sites in the Sanchi area according to earliest building phase (SG level), and prehistoric sites (rock-shelters and stone tools). Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 397 THE WIDER ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE Other than Sanchi and the limited number of published sites described above, the surrounding countryside had hitherto seen little in the way of systematic archaeological exploration. In recent years, there has been a number of unsystematic ASI surveys (e.g., IAR 1976-77; 1982-83). However, the resulting reports are usually single-line entries relating to surface ceramics or to sculptural and architectural find-spots. Generally absent is reference these sitesí geographical or historical relationship to better known sites in the area. Finally, since survey methodology is rarely made explicit, it is difficult to construct quantitative spatial patterns. More recently, a number of (unpublished) village-to-village surveys have been carried out by the Madhya Pradesh state archaeology department (Maheswari 1997); these are much broader in scope, and have resulted in fairly detailed, well-illustrated reports.1 THE SANCHI SURVEY PROJECT The Sanchi Survey Project was initiated in 1998 with the aim of building an integrated model of religious, economic and environmental history between the late centuries BC and mid-to-late centuries AD. The survey, carried out over an area of approximately 750 square kilometres around Sanchi, resulted in the systematic documentation of 35 Buddhist sites (Shaw 2007; 2009; 2011; 2013; Forthcomingña), 145 settlements, 17 irrigation dams (Shaw and Sutcliffe 2001; 2003; 2005; Shaw et al. 2007; Sutcliffe et al. 2012); and over 1,000 sculptural and architectural fragments associated with Brahmanical, Jain, Buddhist, and ëlocalí traditions (Shaw 2004; 2007; Forthcoming-b). Key research questions included how Buddhist propagation related to wider processes of urbanisation, state formation, and changes in agrarian production; how incoming monastic communities established themselves within the pre-existing ritual landscape; and how they built up patronage networks with local populations. Initial exploration between 1998 and 2001 consisted of two main aspects: i) the reexploration of Sanchi and the four outlying ëBhilsa Topesí sites; and ii) exploration throughout the rest of the study area. In general, modern settlements (approximately one village per 2 km2) formed the foci for following up local leads and a combination of systematic (transectbased) and non-systematic exploration in the surrounding fields and hills. The distribution of several well-defined geological zones, together with local drainage patterns, provided the basis for the identification of four major geographical sectors (Fig. 10) (Shaw 2007, 72, figs. 8.3 and 13.1). The latter allowed for a ëstratifiedí surveying strategy, and a level of transparency regarding the relationship between certain types of sites and their environmental setting. Subsequent field seasons were aimed at refining and developing existing results, and testing earlier hypotheses with new methodologies. Two seasons concentrated on the history of local irrigation through a combination of hydrological and archaeological methods, including the collection of sediments from dams and reservoir beds for Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating and ancient pollen analysis (Shaw et al. 2007). Later seasons focussed on systematic mapping and satellite remote-sensing for testing the degree of concordance between already identified archaeological remains in the application area and levels of visibility within a sub-set of different satellite imagery (Shaw 2007; Beck et al., 2007; Shaw and Beck Forthcoming). The latter produced variable results in areas where Political History and Administration 398 forest clearance had taken place, the highresolution ëQuickbirdí satellite imagery served as a useful aid to on-site mapping, especially for hard-edged structures such as Buddhist monuments; the offset of approximately 20 m between the satellite imagery and site-plan in Fig. 4 is a cumulative effect of inbuilt GPS errors and those related to satellite imagery projections. However, dense vegetation cover across much of the hilly region ruled out its effectiveness either as a mapping or primary site-detection tool. Further, in the agricultural zone, sites such as settlement mounds or dams that showed up clearly in the satellite imagery are already high up the visibility scale during the primary reconnaissance phase, most of these sites stood out as prominent earthworks from surrounding hilltops. Finally, many sites which rarely show up in satellite imagery, such as hillside settlements, rock-shelters or springs and ënaturalí shrinesósmall piles of rocks worshipped as a manifestation of the divineó are more readily detected by traditional survey methods, and more particularly, through a sensitivity to the currency of archaeological sites within the present-day ritual landscape (Shaw 2007, 75-77; Shaw and Beck Forthcoming). However, SRTM data have also been useful for generating contours, which together with Total Station-generated contours, have led to accurate calculations regarding the original area and volume of ancient reservoirs in the area (Shaw and Sutcliffe 2003; 2005; Sutcliffe et al. 2011). FIELD METHODOLOGY AND ëORDERINGí THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE The field methodology deployed during the SSP was informed in part by the assumption that sites do not exist in isolation but form components of larger site groupings, and that not all sites exist at the same scale. Thus, a ëSite Groupí (SG) refers to a site at its broadest spatial level, e.g. a habitational settlement, hilltop ritual site or reservoir. Each Site Group has its own number (SG) and may contain within its boundaries several smaller ëSite Clustersí (SC) with more tightly defined categories, e.g. ësettlement moundí, tank, stupa cluster, temple, etc. Again, each Site Cluster contains one or more ëSitesí (S), operating at a higher level of definition still; e.g. sculpture pile or building cluster. Finally, a site may comprise one or more ëinstallationsí (I), which refer to its individual architectural or sculptural constituents, such as ëpilasterí, ëstupa railingí or naga sculpture. Whilst this was an effective way of structuring the database, there are also broader inter-Site Group relationships which are not so easy to fit into neat tables and categories, but rather are recognised when repeated with sufficient regularity across the study area as a whole. Thus, clusters of interrelated Site Groups constitute what I refer to as an ëarchaeological complexí or, in more historically specific terms, an ëearly-historic complexí (Shaw and Sutcliffe 2001). The earlyhistoric complex at Sanchi (Fig. 5), for example, consists of the hilltop Buddhist monuments (SG001), together with the settlements at Kanakhera (SG002) and Nagauri (SG003a) and the reservoir to the south (SG003), and acts as a kind of ëmicrocosmicí model for identifying similar patterns throughout the study area. It is only by treating these individual elements as interrelated parts of dynamic but spatially bounded complexes that we can begin to address the historical aims of the study and assess hypotheses regarding the role of Buddhism in its socio-economic landscape. CHRONOLOGY AND TYPOLOGY The chronological framework developed during the SSP (Table 3) was informed by the excavated Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 399 Fig. 5. Map of Sanchi hill and archaeological complex, including dam below. and art-historical sequences at Sanchi and Vidisha (Tables 1-2), with some modification, including synchronising the different phasing systems used at each site, and taking into account recent developments in art-historical and archaeological scholarship. Marshallís Phase I at Sanchi (c. 3rd century BC) thus became Phase Id following the incorporation of three earlier periods identified during excavations at Vidisha (Table 2); its time-frame was also extended slightly (c. 5th to 3rd century BC) to fit with the ëNBPWí / urban phaseí at Vidisha (listed in Table 2 as Period IIIb in the final sequence from Vidisha). Phase Ia refers to the pre-pottery microlithic levels as identified at Rangai (IAR 1976-7, 33-34); Ib covers the period between c. 2000 and 1000 BC, and corresponds roughly to the Chalcolithic Period (IIa in Table 2) at Vidisha and Rangai. Phase Ic covers the period between c. tenth to sixth century BC , and incorporates both the ëChalcolithic / PGWí and ëPre-NBPWí periods as defined at Vidisha (Periods IIb and IIIa in Table 2). In the light of recent views regarding the relative chronology between Stupas 1 and 2 at Sanchi (Willis 2000, 70; see also Shaw 2007, 88-90), Marshallís Phase II was broken down into an ëearlyí (IIa: late second to midí first century BC) and ëlateí (IIb: late first century BC to early first century AD) subphase. Phase III was also divided into an ëearlyí (IIIa: first century AD) and ëlateí (IIIb: second to third century AD) sub-phase, the former referring Political History and Administration 400 to the Satavahana sculpture, and the latter to a number of locally produced sculptures in the surrounding countryside with close links to Kushana sculpture at Mathura; there is no evidence that Kushana control extended to the Sanchi area, and apart from a few imported sculptures, this period is largely absent from Marshallís phasing at Sanchi. Phase IV (fourth to sixth century AD) corresponds to the Gupta period. Marshallís Phase V, referring to the ëpost-Guptaí to early Pratihara periods (c. seventhólate eighth century AD) was left largely unchanged. Finally, the time-frame of Marshallís phase VI was shortened so as to refer to the late Pratihara-Paramara period alone (c. ninth-tenth century AD), with the addition of Phase VII for the later material of the 11th and 12th centuries AD. Each type of datable material encountered during the SSP offered a chronology of varying resolution as well as application (Table 3). For example, the fairly finely tuned chronological Table 3. Sanchi Survey Project: phasing and dating criteria. Pottery & stone tools Phase Approximate Dating criteria dates Ia Pre-2000 Ib c. 2000 ñ 1000 BC Early chalcolithic pottery (e.g. Kayatha ware); Black slipped ware. Ic c. 1000 ñ 500 BC Later chalcolithic and Iron Age pottery: Black and Red ware; Black slipped ware; Coarse grey wares; some red slipped wares Id c. 500 ñ 200 II c. 2ndñ1st century BC Sculpture, Architecture and Epigraphy Sub Dates phase Dating criteria Microliths, Neolithic stone tools, painted rock-shelters. BC BC Northern Black Polished ware; Black slipped ware; Coarse grey wares; Buff coloured slipped ware; Red slipped ware c. 269232 BC Ashokan pillar and capital, Ashokan edict, Stupa 1 Red slipped ware; IIa Coarse grey wares; Buff coloured slipped ware c. 11580 BC Heliodorus pillar and inscription; Early railing carvings on Stupa 2 c. 50 0 BC Later railing carvings on Stupas 1 and 2, Sanchi IIb BC- Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 401 Pottery & stone tools Sculpture, Architecture and Epigraphy Phase Approximate Dating criteria dates III c. 1stñ3rd century AD Sub Dates phase Micaceous wares; IIIa Burnished red ware; Black painted red ware; Thick buff coloured ware IIIb IV c. 4thñ6th century AD Va-VII c. 7thñ12th century AD Painted red ware Early 1st Shatakarni inscription, century AD Sanchi Stupa 1, southern gateway. c. 2ndñ3rd Sculpture found during century AD survey, with comparisons formed with Kushana sculpture from the Gangetic valley area. Inscriptions of Chandragupta II at Udayagiri and Sanchi; Gupta period art and architecture. Unslipped red wares and heavy grey wares (type nos. 000) framework with respect to the sculptural and architectural evidence, reflects the relatively advanced level of art-historical scholarship in central India. This material was helpful in providing terminus ante quem dates for settlements and dams and also provided the primary basis for dating various phases in the development of Sanchiís multi-layered ritual Dating criteria V c. 7thñ8th Post Gupta to early century AD Pratih‚ra art and architecture. VI c. 9thñ10th Late Pratihara-Paramara century AD art and architecture at Sanchi, with dated comparisons from Gyaraspur, and Bhojpur. VII c. 11thñ Comparisons from 12th Udayapur and century AD Chandella art landscape, at least as far as the adoption of a stone-working tradition is concerned. By contrast, the ceramic-based chronology is much less detailed or precise, largely due to the paucity of reliable local pottery sequences based on excavated evidence. Thus, the function of the ceramic evidence in the SSP does not extend beyond providing dates based on the ëpresenceí Political History and Administration 402 or absence of surface pottery, itself largely determined by ground conditions. Since surface ceramic collections are more reliable from ploughed contexts, pottery was largely restricted to habitational settlement contexts. Further it is important to stress that due to the unavailability of sculpture prior to the third century BC and the limitations of ceramic analysis, there may be a degree of under-representation of pre-PhaseId sites. STUPA TYPOLOGIES The primary framework for assessing newly documented stupas was provided by typologies at Sanchi (Marshall 1940) and the four other ëBhilsa Topesí sites (Cunningham 1854). Sanchiís stupas can be divided into four main morphological and chronological groups: i) the Mauryan type (Phase Id) as represented by the brick core of stupa 1 at Sanchi, and; closely paralleled by stupa 1 at Satdhara (Agrawal 1997); ii) the post-Mauryan type (Phase II) as represented by stupas 2 and 3 at Sanchi, and similar examples at Sonari, Satdhara, Morel Khurd and Andher. These stupas, often enclosed by a carved balustrade, consist of a core of heavy stone blocks interspersed with chippings, and faced with a single course of dressed stone blocks (Marshall 1940, 41); iii) somewhat smaller stupas of the Gupta and post-Gupta periods, such as those clustered around Sanchi stupa 1, all set on a square or circular platform, without the addition of railings (Marshall 1940, 46); iv) even smaller stupas, with diameters of 1 m or less, such as the recently revealed cluster on the lower southern slopes of Sanchi hill (Willis 2000). Traditionally classified as ëvotiveí structures, more recently scholars have regarded them as ëburial ad sanctosí stupas, built to house the mortuary remains of ordinary monks and the laity, and positioned at a removed distance from more important stupas in deference to the hierarchical structure of the relic cult (Schopen 1987; 1994a). Similar stupas occur throughout the study area, either within larger monastic compounds, as at Sanchi, or comprising large burial grounds, as on the small hillock to the north of the Dargawan dam immediately to the west of Sanchi (Fig. 5) (Shaw and Sutcliffe 2005, 8-12); similar stupas have more recently been noted in large numbers around the Buddhist site of Thotlakonda in Andhra Pradesh (Fogelin 2004; 2006). Whilst providing the framework for assessing new stupas in the field, precise dating was often complicated by high erosion and disturbance levels. In many cases, stupas have been reduced to no more than faint circular outlines on the ground, or square stupa bases, the main building material having been removed for reuse in new structures. Even in better preserved cases, the outer facing has usually been removed, and the inner core dug down as far as the central relic chamber. MONASTERY TYPOLOGIES Five main types of monastery were recorded during the SSP (Fig. 6), three of which are represented at Sanchi itself (Shaw 2007, appendix IIb): i) the courtyard monastery, discussed further below; ii) the less well understood platformed variety which at Sanchi survives in the form of Building 8, with better preserved examples at the four ëBhilsa Topeí sites and five other newly documented hilltop Buddhist sites (Mawasa, Salera, Murlikheri, Chandna Tohoria, and Bighan). Datable to Phase II, they would have been surmounted by towering superstructures, as suggested by brick fragments and stone walls on their summits. These imposing structures provide a challenge to received views regarding the history and Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 403 chronology of institutionalised monasticism in central India. This is based entirely on the courtyard monastery which is usually seen as having originated in the Northwest during the Kushana period, and not appearing at Sanchi until much later, as represented by the late, or postGupta, examples in the southern part of the site (Marshall 1940, 63-64). This framework has been used to support theories regarding the late domestication of the sangha in central India (Schopen 1994b, 547), drawing largely on the assumption that the courtyard monastery was the epitome of ëorderí, and was thus the key archaeological manifestation of textual allusions to the transition between peripatetic and sedentary monasticism. The problem with this line of reasoning is its underlying normative model of spatial order. However, the fact that the rock-cut versions of the courtyard monastery were fully developed in the Deccan during the second century BC, means that the possibility of earlier prototypical examples of this kind of monastery in central India cannot be ruled out. iii) Additional evidence to this effect is provided by a third category of monastery found at four newly documented sites, but not represented at Sanchi itself. At Mawasa, Barahi Khas, Ferozpur (Fig. 6), Karhaud kherai, and Devrajpur, these consist of rectangular structures arranged around a series of interconnected courtyards, while one of the Mawasa examples is built on the summit of a monastery platform (Shaw 2007; 2011). The latter suggests a Phase-II date, while the rectangular shape is suggestive of a communal, dormitory-style prototype of the singleoccupancy cells found in their Phase-IV counterparts at Sanchi. iv) A fourth monastery type, represented at seven newly documented sites, consists of simple single, or double-roomed rectangular structures, which appear to be simplified versions of the rectangular type of courtyard monasteries. In some cases the walls consist of a rubble core, faced on both sides with dressed masonry slabs; others are formed from large free-standing boulders, the intervening spaces between which were presumably originally filled with mud or mortar. Examples of the former type were revealed during ASI excavations at Satdhara (Agrawal 1997, Fig. 7). Their simple form and distance from the principal stupas and platformed monasteries there led to the suggestion that they were occupied by junior monks or pilgrims. Their proximity to Phase II stupas implies a secondcentury-BC date. There is also a fifth category of monastic dwelling: prehistoric rock-shelters showing evidence for adaptation for monastic use in the form of platforms built up in front of their entrances, Buddhist paintings / inscriptions on their walls, or nearby stupas (Figs. 5-7). Whilst these additional features are datable by reference to art-historical, architectural, and palaeographic typologies, the Buddhist occupation of the actual shelters prior to their adaptation, is difficult to date in the absence of excavation. CERAMICS In the absence of accepted sculptural or architectural typologies prior to c. third century BC, the main dating tool for earlier periods is provided by potsherds, over 1100 of which were collected during the SSP and subjected to basic characterisation analysis (Shaw 2007, appendix III). The majority were collected from ploughed surfaces, with others coming from exposed sections and ditches. The reliability of surface pottery as a dating tool is closely related to the complexities of site-formation processes (Hodder and Malone 1984). A major problem, for example, is that even from ploughed Political History and Administration 404 Fig. 6. Map showing components of Buddhist sites: monastery types, stupas, elements of fortification. surfaces, surface ceramic assemblages tend to be dominated by pottery belonging to the siteís later phases. This is especially problematic in central India where traditional ploughing methods still prevail; ox-drawn ploughs can only reach depths of about 15 cm, approximately one sixth of the capacity of modern ploughs. As a consequence, ceramics from the lowest levels of high settlement mounds are less likely to be represented in surface assemblages. It is therefore important to compare surface collections with archaeological material in eroded sections, or to draw on additional corroborative markers such as the relative heights of mounds. The latter method has its own problems because it is often difficult to determine how much mound-erosion has already taken place at the time of survey. However, the most important factor in the dating of surface assemblages is the availability of comparative excavated sequences. In central India, the paucity of detailed excavation reports means that much of the comparative material comes from Gangetic Valley sites such as Hastinapura (Lal 1954) and Ahichchhatra (Ghosh and Panigrahi 1946), which underwent Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 405 excavated prior to the development of systematic sampling, or characterisation analysis techniques. Furthermore, published sequences are usually divided into a limited number of wellknown diagnostic wares such as PGW, BRW, Black Slipped Wares (BSW); NBPW, or Red Polished Ware. Sherds without diagnostic surface treatments are often described by generalised lables such as ëred wareí or ëblack wareí. Such ubiquitous categories obviously subsume a vast amount of diversity both in terms of fabric-type and colour: this problem is compounded by the lack of standardised Munsell-derived terminology for describing different colour hues. In the SSP study area, these problems were exacerbated by the fact that the Vidisha excavations were never published beyond summary form and that each stratified layer comprises long, dynastic-based periods and is associated with a limited number of diagnostic wares, without detailed descriptions or illustrations. Despite these drawbacks, I was compelled to work within the current framework of understanding, and to use the available published resources to build a loose internal typology for supplementing the local sculptural and architectural datasets (Shaw 2007). The closest comparative excavated sequences come from Tumain (Bajpai and Pandey 1984) to the north, and Tripuri (Dikshit 1952) and Kayatha (Ansari and Dhavalikar 1975) in the south. An inter-regional comparative framework is provided by excavation reports from Ahichchhatra (Ghosh and Panigrahi 1946), Hastinapura (Lal 1954) and Kausambi (Sharma 1969) in the Gangetic Valley, while recent reports from Sonkh (Härtel 1993) and Sravasti (Aboshi and Sonoda 1997) represent more refined methodologies. The ceramic sequence at Devnimori (Mehta and Chowdhary 1966), although largely a single-phase site datable to the early centuries AD, offered useful parallels for studying the micaceous wares collected during the survey. TEMPLE SITES AND SCULPTURE FRAGMENTS Over 1000 individual sculpture and architectural fragments were also documented during the SSP. Many were still under worship and installed on village platforms. A total of 313 find-spots were identified (Shaw 2007, Fig. 8.4), approximately one-third of which related to in situ architectural and sculptural components of extant temples or, as sculpture piles in or in close proximity to associated temple mounds or foundations. The remaining two-third consisted of isolated sculpture piles with no obvious temple site in the immediate vicinity. In such cases, their original context was inferred on the basis of stylistic, denominational or chronological similarities with provenanced material. Some assemblages consisted of fragments from more than one phase possibly originating from a variety of temple sites. Only in a few cases did individual sculptures remain without a clearly identifiable context. The distinction between those sculptures that are still in their original context and those that are not is a crucial factor for understanding temporal and spatial patterns in the ritual landscape (Shaw 2004; 2007, 19093), based as they are on the distribution of actual temples and cult spots rather than isolated sculpture piles. However, neither of these site categories was well suited to satellite remote sensing, due to the often highly eroded condition of surviving temple foundations and the dispersed nature of sculpture collections. As discussed earlier, these sites were more easily detected through a sensitivity to the currency of ancient temple remains in the configuration of the present-day ritual landscape. Political History and Administration 406 SURVEY RESULTS 1. BUDDHIST SITES Thirty-five hilltop Buddhist sites were documented during the SSP (Figs. 6-7) (Shaw 2007, table 11.2). Whilst most of these sites were documented for the first time during the SSP, this list also includes the four previously published ëBhilsa Topeí sites (Cunningham 1854), and Bighan (Lake 1910b) whose reexamination formed a central focus of the study. A number of Buddhist remains occurring within habitational settlements rather than their more usual hilltop monastic settings were also documented (Shaw 2007, 130-35). These included stupa and monastery remains within both the ëancientí and ëmoderní zones of Vidisha itself, with similar Buddhist remains identified at four smaller urban settlements in other parts of the study area (Fig. 12). A third category of Buddhist remains was also identified: those occurring in larger ritual settings whose predominant cultic affiliation is definable as nonBuddhist, or ëmixedí. Included in this category is Ahmadpur, a mixed ritual complex in the northern sector, Lohangi hill in the middle of Vidisha, and Udayagiri, better known for its Gupta period Brahmanical cave temples, but also yielding evidence for some form of Buddhist presence during earlier periods. The last two sites can also be classified as ëurbaní as both fall within the limits of ancient Vidisha. From the primary dataset summarised above it is possible to delineate four major strands in the formation of Sanchiís ëBuddhist landscapeí (Fig. 7) (Shaw 2007, table 11.2). i) The first Buddhist Monuments: Phase Id The earliest period of monumental construction is represented by the Mauryan brick stupa, Asokan pillar, and apsidal temples (nos. 18 and 40) at Sanchi, and the brick stupa (now obscured beneath the post-Mauryan stone facing), and newly excavated apsidal temple at Satdhara (Fig. 7), but this is not to rule out the possibility of dispersed monastic communities during preceding periods: clearly, the ëmonastic rocksheltersí found at Sanchi, Morel Khurd, and Ahmadpur, require further investigation and, ideally, excavation in order to establish their temporal relationship with the architecturally attested local history of Buddhism. Further, the fact that the schism edict, otherwise only known at sites in the Gangetic Valley, long since connected with Buddhism, is found at Sanchi, provides suggestions of some kind of preMauryan Buddhist presence in the area. ii) The Second Propagation: Phase II Stupas and Monasteries The ësecond propagationí of Buddhism (Willis 2000) involved the elaboration of existing monuments at Sanchi and Satdhara and the establishment of numerous new monastic centres throughout the surrounding countryside. The main chronological indicators are Phase II stupas, found at a total of 27 sites, and three of the five major categories of monastic dwellings discussed earlier (Fig. 6) (Shaw 2007, table 11.2; appendix IIb): the first category survives in the form of prominent stone platforms, the best preserved examples are at Sanchi and the four other ëBhilsa Topesí sites, with close parallels at Mawasa, Salera, Murlikheri, Chandna Tohoria, and Bighan. Some of the wall outlines on their summits are clear enough to make inferences about the internal organisation of the original superstructures. For example, the platform on the lowest tier of Mawasa hill is surmounted by a series of rectangular rooms, while the middle platform has a courtyard monastery surrounded by similar rectangular rooms (Shaw 2011). Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 407 Similar rectangular structures arranged around a courtyard, although without the underlying platformed element, were found elsewhere within the Mawasa complex (ibid.), as well as the nearby sites of Barahi Khas, Ferozpur, Karhaud Kherai, and Devrajpur (Shaw 2007, appendix IIb). Sometimes following a rather haphazard, interlinked plan, these comprise the second major Phase-II monastery category. The rectangular rooms appear to have provided communal, dormitory-style accommodation, in contrast to the single-occupancy, square cells of the more regularly planned courtyard monasteries at Sanchi. The apparent late appearance of the latter during the Gupta or post-Gupta period, has to a large extent informed the accepted chronology of the courtyard monastery in central India. However, my principal argument is that prototypical variants as represented by the platformed and non-platformed versions in the SSP study area, already existed during the late centuries BC. This should not come as a surprise given that rockcut versions of the courtyard monastery were already being produced in the Deccan around the same time, while the idea of building a courtyard monastery on top of a high platform finds its direct parallel in the second-century BC rock-cut monastery at Pitalkhora (Shaw 2011, 2007, 91, pl. 77). The rectangular rooms found in both the platformed and non-platformed versions in the SSP study area, also occur on their own at Satdhara, and eight other smaller sites in the SSP study area (Shaw 2007, appendix IIb). Comprising the third, and most basic, category of Phase-II monastery, these consist of freestanding, single, or double-roomed buildings, without the addition of a central courtyard. Most have rubble-infill, outer-facing walls, although a few survive as boulder outlines which were presumably filled in with mortar. The fourth monastic, albeit only semi-structural, category consists of ëmonastic rock-sheltersí: prehistoric shelters showing signs of adaptation in the form of platformed terraces built up in front of their entrances, Buddhist paintings / inscriptions, and often nearby stupas. At Sanchi, Morel Khurd, and Bighan, they perch on the outer edges of larger Buddhist architectural complexes, while at Ahmadpur which may be viewed as a solitary ëforest dwellingí, the only additional Buddhist evidence is a single stupa which may date to a much later period. Given that apparently unadapted rock-shelters occur at fourteen Buddhist sites, it is not unlikely that some of these were also used by monks (Fig. 8). iii) Phase IV-Va Stupas and Courtyard Monasteries The Phase IV/Va square-platformed stupas and regular courtyard monasteries at Sanchi provide the primary chronological markers for dating the third major phase of Buddhist construction, represented at fourteen other sites in the SSP study area (Fig. 8) (Shaw 2007, table 11.2); of these, only Mori and Naroda Pathari show no evidence for Buddhist building activity in earlier periods, but given the high level of erosion at these sites, an earlier phase cannot be ruled out. The courtyard monasteries of this period are lined with single-occupancy regular-sized square cells as at Sanchi, rather than the larger rectangular rooms of Phase II. Such are found at Morel Khurd, Bighan and Chandna Tohoria, while at Kotra and Torin they form part of large interconnected complexes. This renewed building activity coincided with a massive proliferation of Brahmanical temple construction. However, the latter does not appear to have undermined the samghaís prominent place in the ritual landscape; nor is there evidence for any significant overlap Political History and Administration 408 in the spatial boundaries of Buddhist and Brahmanical sites which appear to occupy quite distinct topographical positions in the landscape, with the latter being largely confined to urban or village contexts. iv) Phase VI monuments, and the Later History of Buddhism The latest Buddhist monuments at Sanchi, including Temple 45 and Building 43, date to the ninth/tenth centuries AD. Monasteries 45 and 46, which follow the regular courtyard plan, also date to this period. At most other sites, however, poor preservation, the lack of surface ceramics, and sketchy understanding of later structural forms, mean that it is usually only possible to provide a loose terminus marker for the final phase of Buddhist occupation. At Satdhara, for example, the latest archaeological material dates to c. sixth or seventh century AD, while at Sonari, the absence of ëlateí markers, such as the regular courtyard monastery, may indicate that abandonment had already taken place by this time (Cf. Willis 2000, 81). However, quite how long Buddhist occupation continued after the construction of the latest archaeologically diagnostic feature is difficult to tell. The only clearly datable Phase-VI Buddhist structure outside Sanchi is the 10th-century-AD temple at Morel khurd, built on top of the Phase II monastery platform which was presumably already in ruins by this time. The interlinked monastery complex to the NW of the platform probably dates to the same period. Whether these later structures represent the culmination of an unbroken history of Buddhist occupation at the site, or as suggested by Willis (2000, 66), a later ëreinvigorationí, is difficult to determine in the absence of a complete ceramic sequence. However, other forms of evidence throughout the SSP study area, do suggest that a reorientation in inter-religious dynamics by this time. At Udayagiri, where there is evidence, albeit tentative, for some form of early Buddhist presence, now obscured by Gupta-period, Brahmanical landscaping, this kind of reorientation in ritual affiliation may have taken place much earlier. However, a more complex, and heterogeneous religious dynamic is suggested by the archaeological patterns at other sites. The enormous proliferation in Brahmanical temple construction during Phase IV, reaches a climax between the ninth and 10th centuries AD, when many are positioned within, or in close proximity to hilltop Buddhist monastic centres (Shaw 2007, table 11.3). At Kotra, Barahi Khas, and Karhaud, 10th-century- AD Brahmanical temple remains are found within the actual monastic compound (Fig. 8) (Shaw 2007, table 11.3). Whist we may infer from such patterns that the earlier monasteries were no longer occupied by monks, caution is required here given the fact that in eastern India similar evidence is interpreted not as a signal of the demise of Buddhism but by contrast, the saEghaís dominance over the Saiva and Vaisnava traditions (Singh 2012; also Willis, in press). Twelve sites, including Ferozpur and Ahmadpur, appear to have been part of a multidenominational landscape from at least the Gupta period onwards, with Buddhist and Brahmanical centres co-existing in close proximity to each other, but nevertheless in distinct spatial spheres (Shaw 2007). Thus, at Ferozpur, the hilltop monastery co-exists with a major Brahmanical temple in the village at the foot of the hill. At Ahmadpur, the multi-phase Brahmanical temple co-exists during Phase IV with the Buddhist stupa on the lower slopes of the hill. A similar level of religious heterogeneity is attested at Vidisha, Besar Talai and Marhai, where Buddhist remains are found out with the Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 409 context of spatially discrete monastic centres. By Phase VI, some of these temples perch on the edges of hilltop Buddhist complexes. For example, at Sanchi, which was apparently still flourishing during the 10th century AD, there is a Saiva temple built into the side of the hill immediately below the main complex, and another at the northern foot of the hill. These patterns, also found at Morel Khurd, which was still active as a Buddhist site during this period, attest to the contrasting ritual roles of Buddhism and Brahmanism, the former being predominantly a monastic tradition with less direct ritual involvement on the part of the laity, the latter being embedded in the everyday ritual lives of villagers; this very factor may have played a major role in the eventual decline of Buddhism in India (Shaw 2007, 259-61; Jaini 1980; Verardi 1996; 2003). However, at other sites such as Andher, Salera, Kanchanpura, Kotra, Barahi Khas, or Karhaud, where there is no such evidence for continued Buddhist occupation, the construction of Brahmanical temples, in, or in close proximity to, monastic compounds, may imply a reorientation in the force of religious patronage, although the traditional model of a homogenous post-Gupta Buddhist decline is no longer taken for granted (Singh 2012; Willis, in press). 2. NON BUDDHIST RITUAL SITES The SSP also focused on other strands of Sanchiís multi-religious geography, based on the distribution of over 1000 sculptural and architectural fragments, dateable from c. 3rd century BC to 12th century AD (Shaw 2007, 17693). The primary focus was on the early period between Phases Id (third to second century BC) and IV (fourth to sixth century AD): about 110 newly document sculptures, or 62 find-spots, belong to this category, including material now stored in the Gwalior Gujari Mahal Museum, the Sanchi Archaeological Museum, and the Vidisha Museum (Shaw 2004; 2007, 176-88; Forthcomingñb). For the later period between Phases V (seventh to eighth century AD) and VI (ninth to twelfth century AD), it is more difficult to provide precise quantifications, because finds usually consist of piles of sculpture and temple fragments, often dislocated from their original architectural context. Approximately 1,190 fragments (or 197 find-spots) were documented for this phase (Fig. 9) (Shaw 2007, appendix IIa). PHASE ID SITES (THIRD CENTURY BC) Our understanding of religious history during the late centuries BC has been hampered by the ëmonumentalí focus of archaeological research, with excavations carried out at only a limited number of sites. It is likely that much ritual activity during this period would have involved non-durable materials such as wood and terracotta; the probability that we are dealing with an incomplete archaeological record therefore needs to be made explicit. Until more information about the cultic associations ofënonmonumentalí sites such as shrines and rockshelters is made available through excavation, we are limited to an assessment of a single aspect of the ritual landscape, that is the adoption of stone as a medium of representation. While imposing limitations on our understanding of religious history, this particular bias also shed light on the history and development of stone sculpture workshops, as well as the patronage networks and administration systems that supported them. Based on available archaeological evidence, the primary ritual centres during the third century BC formed a triangle between Sanchi, Satdhara and Vidisha (Fig. 9) (Shaw 2007). The first two Political History and Administration 410 are Buddhist in orientation, while the last, represented by the Heliodorus pillar site, was associated with the proto-Pancharatra system of the Bhagavata tradition, an early form of Vaisnavism. The pillar and the temple mentioned in the associated inscription are datable to the late second century BC following the chronology of Antialcidas, the Indo-Greek king named in the inscription. However, the wooden foundations of an earlier apsidal building underlying the temple remains probably date to c. third century BC (Khare 1967; IAR 196364, 17; 1964-65, 19-20). PHASE IIA (LATE SECOND TO MID-FIRST CENTURY BC) Most of the Bhagavata material at the Heliodorus pillar site dates to the final quarter of the second century BC, that is contemporaneous with the second propagation of Buddhism in the area. The pillar was set up in honour of a Vasudeva temple, the stone remains of which overlie the apsidal foundations mentioned above. Related Bhagavata remains are found at other sites in and around Vidisha (Shaw 2007, 177), whilst a slightly later group mentioned below (late first century BC to first century AD) consists of naga sculptures which incorporate elements of Bhagavata iconography (Shaw 2004; 2007). PHASES IIBñIIIA (FIRST CENTURY BC TO FIRST CENTURY AD) Much of the sculpture of this period relates to the naga and yaksa cults, ancient spirits connected with water, fertility and the natural elements. In contrast to the urban context of the Heliodorus pillar material, many of these sculptures are found in rural locations, and in particular, next to water bodies. Their importance in local cultic practice made them susceptible to assimilation into both Buddhist and Brahmanical frameworks. Although allusions to nagas can be found in the stupa railing carvings and inscriptions at Sanchi (Misra 1982), there is no evidence for free-standing sculptural representations of anthropomorphic deities of any kind prior to the first century BC. The earliest-known group, first documented by Joanna Williams (1976), consists of a naganagini couple from Gulgaon, a village about two km to the west of Sanchi, and another similar couple from Nagauri hill, immediately to the south of Sanchi (see also Shaw 2004). Slightly later in date is a group of four yaksa and yaksini sculptures from Vidisha (Chandra 1966), including the well-known Kubera yaksa now stored in the Vidisha Archaeological Museum. The generally accepted date range for these sculptures, in the above order, is between the middle and the end of the first century BC . Williamsí (1976) study also includes a later group of naga sculptures,datable to the Gupta period (c. fifth century AD). This consists of i) two nagas and a nagini at Sanchi, and ii) a naganagini couple and a naga pillar capital at Ferozpur village, to the west of Sanchi, and whose hilltop monastery remains are discussed earlier (Shaw 2007, table 12.2, Fig. 12.2). Additional nagas documented for the first time during the SSP (Shaw 2004) fit with Williamsíëearlyí and ëlateí phases, which, following the chronological framework used here, correspond to Phases IIb and IV. This new material also includes an additional, intermediary phase, datable to the second or third century AD (Phase IIIb). These are closely related to Kushana images of the Mathura region, in distinct contrast, therefore, to the lack of locally produced images of this period at Sanchi itself. However, the lack of evidence for Kushana dynastic control of the area makes it Fig. 8. Map showing Buddhist sites and Brahmanical temples and cult spots (Phases IdñVII). Fig. 9. The development of the ritual landscape: building phases IdñVII (SG level). Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 411 inappropriate to refer to these sculptures asëKushanaí; a more appropriate designation would be Ksatrapa/Naga. There are also differences in geographical distribution: Williamsí group is concentrated in and around Sanchi, extending into the hilly area immediately to the west. By contrast, most of the newly documented nagas are situated on the flat agricultural plain to the east of Sanchi, and to a lesser extent to the north of Vidisha. Another difference is that when both groups of nagas are viewed together, an element of cultic diversity becomes evident that was not immediately apparent on the basis of Williamsí group alone. Not only can we identify ëindependentí naga cult spots, it is also possible to identify Brahmanical (particularly Vaisnava) and Buddhist serpent deities. Mention may also be made of Jain nagas, most of them datable to the post-Gupta period. In total, six sets of naga sculptures are known from Phase IIb (Shaw 2007, 177-83); two of these, which happen to be the earliest, were dealt with in Joanna Williamsís study; the remainder were documented for the first time during the SSP (Shaw 2004; 2007, table 12.2; fig 12.2). Four of these are connected with the Bhagavata tradition, and appear to represent Samkarsana-Balarama in both his serpent, or non-serpent aspect. PHASE IIIB (c. SECOND TO THIRD CENTURY AD) Five of the newly documented naga sculptures belong to Phase IIIb (Shaw 2007, 182-83). Unlike earlier examples, their fragmentary nature means there are often no distinguishing features directly associated with Balarama, and it is thus difficult to fit them into a specific sectarian bracket. With the exception of the naga-Balarama sculptures, non-Buddhist sculpture was, prior to the second century AD, restricted to the immediate vicinity of Sanchi and Vidisha. In addition to these serpent sculptures, several yakcas and, for the first time, Saiva material, too, begin to appear throughout the study area. PHASE IV (C. FOURTH TO SIXTH CENTURY AD) The gradual embracement of a stone-working tradition across an increasingly broad religious spectrum during the early centuries AD reaches a climax around the beginning of the fifth century AD . Yaksas, nagas and Siva lingas continue to be produced, although there are changes in ritual context as illustrated by the incorporation of naga images into both Brahmanical and Buddhist ritual complexes. There are also changes in terms of style and iconography, the most notable of which are a pronounced ëVisnuisationíand ëroyalisationí of naga images (Shaw 2004). Further, the introduction of a wide variety of ënewí deities reflects the unfolding of a more heterogeneous Brahmanical landscape, at least as far as its manifestation in stone is concerned. The most important site in this respect is Udayagiri, whose sculptural programme reflects wider theological shifts, such as the first specific references to Visnu and his avataras (Willis 2000). The siteís strong Saiva associations indicate an increasing movement towards a pluralistic form of Brahmanism which transcends sectarian Divisions. These developments are mirrored closely by material in Vidisha, and patterns throughout the Sanchi area (Shaw 2007, 184-89), although the largest number of exclusively Vaisnava, or syncretic VaisnavaSaiva, images come from the Vidisha / Udayagiri area. Apart from several Mahisasuramardini and saptamatrika sculptures from Udayagiri and Vidisha, very few Gupta-period Brahmanical goddesses were documented during the SSP. It Political History and Administration 412 is not until the post-Gupta period that they appear in significant numbers throughout the wider countryside, with two notable Guptaperiod exceptions, from Mehgaon in the eastern sector (Shaw 2007, 185, plate 208), and Katarsi in the southern sector (ibid.). Some of the Gupta sculptures documented during the SSP appear to have been housed in temple complexes, with significant examples from Ratanpur Girdhari, Mehgaon, Ferozpur, Eran, Tajpura Shur, Raisen, Pipariya Bes, Amacchar, Dhakna, Dhakna basti and Devalkhera (Fig. 9) (Shaw 2007, appendix IIc). PHASE V (C. SEVENTH TO LATE EIGHTH CENTURY AD) The ëpost-Guptaí/early Pratihara period corresponded to the third major phase of Buddhist propagation in the area, and appears to have been matched by an equal degree of Brahmanical expansion. Twelve Phase-V Brahmanical sites, consisting of 13 individual sculptural pieces were documented during the SSP. Eleven of these are directly linked to the goddess (devi) tradition, with a predominance of Mahisasuramardini and Durga figures (Fig. 9) (Shaw 2007, pls. 209ñ12). Whilst in previous periods, goddess sculptures had been restricted to the Vidisha area, these are now found throughout the study area, although the majority of Brahmanical sites are found in the eastern sector (Shaw 2008, table 12.1). PHASE VI (C. NINTH TO TENTH CENTURY AD) There is a significant increase in temple construction during the late Pratihara-Paramara period (ninth to tenth century AD), with 103 individual temple sites identifiable in the study area (Fig. 9) (Shaw 2007, table 12.3). Approximately 1,010 newly documented sculptures occur at a total of 199 find-spots. The overwhelming majority of these sites are Brahmanical, but in contrast to earlier periods, it is now difficult to distinguish between different sectarian strands: only eight were specifically Saiva in orientation, and five belonged exclusively to the Devi tradition. Brahmanical sites are distributed fairly evenly throughout the four major geographical sectors, although there is slightly more activity in the western (1a and 1b) and eastern (2a and 2b) sectors. A notable departure from earlier trends is the increase in the number of Hanuman sculptures: 25 such sculptures were documented during the SSP. Six Jain temple sites were identified, at Vidisha (Sector 1a),NarodaMurlikheri (Sector 1b),Morel kala and Devrajpur (Sector 2b), Besar Talai (Sector 3, and Ahmadpur (Sector 4). This varied geographical distribution contrasts to the previous period, when Jain temples were restricted to the Vidisha/Udayagiri area. PHASE VII (ELEVENTH TO TWELFTH CENTURY AD) Brahmanical temples continued to be built during Phase VII, but in fewer numbers than the previous two centuries. Approximately 173 individual sculptural or architectural pieces (both previously known and newly documented) are distributed over 38 separate find-spots (Shaw 2007, fig. 21.1). These can be related to 33 actual temple sites. A Jain temple complex which possibly stood on the Nagauri hill is included in this figure (Shaw 2007). No other Jain temples were documented in the surrounding area, and with the exception of Sanchi, there is limited evidence for building activity within Buddhist hilltop sites during this period. Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 413 PATTERNS IN THE MULTI-RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE The gradual movement towards a multi-layered ritual landscape during the early centuries AD reaches a climax during Phase IV, when there is a significant increase in the number of sculptures related to the Brahmanical tradition. More importantly, there is increased diversification in the variety of Brahmanical deities. These shifts reflect wider theological developments, such as the promotion of a pantheistic form of Brahmanism in the contemporary Puranic texts. However, the archaeological manifestation of orthodox Brahmanism during the Gupta period does not extend much beyond the immediate vicinity of Vidisha and Udayagiri. This is in keeping with the areaís strong links with the proto-Pancharatra tradition. Interestingly, the Brahmanical developments in the eastern sector also follow on directly from earlier trends just as the proto-Pancharatra tradition first spread into this area through the appropriation of naga iconography, so does the first Visnu image appear in the guise of a naga (Shaw 2004; 2007). This brings me to my final point regarding the reorientation of the ritual landscape during the Gupta period. The increase in the total number of Brahmanical sculptures, not to mention the first free-standing Buddhist deities at Sanchi, coincides with a radical change in the ritual and social context of local folk deities. Apart from the theriomorphic nagakals, all of the naga sculptures now appear as components of either Buddhist or Brahmanical complexes. The dissolution of the independent character of local folk-cults reaches its climax in the later periods, when it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between the so-called ëhighí and ëlowí religious traditions. Secondly, although there is a notable proliferation of sites connected to the ëgoddessí tradition during the ëpost-Guptaí period (Phase V), from the ninth century AD onwards (Phase VI) the character of the ritual landscape has become overwhelmingly and overarchingly ëBrahmanicalí in orientation. By this time it is usually not possible to distinguish between different sectarian strands within the Brahmanical tradition. However, it should be stressed that these patterns reflect the adoption of a stone-working tradition rather than the formation of a ritual landscape per se. Many aspects of ritual practice in ancient times would have revolved around ënon-monumentalí shrines which would leave little in the way of archaeological traces. Insights into the nature of these shrines are provided by the nature of present-day religious practice in much of the rural countryside where shrines often consist of sculptural fragments reinstalled on village platforms (chabutra), or simple unhewn stones worshipped beneath trees (Shaw 2007, pls. 13-14). The makeshift quality of these shrines represents a striking contrast to the grandiose scale of the original temples, which until the Muslim conquests of the thirteenth century AD, would have been part of a ëhighí orthodox religious framework. The reuse of these sculptures therefore constitutes a transformation to an overtly ëfolkí level of worship. Thus, although there is an element of continuity between the ritual geography of the past and present, we are dealing only with the reconstitution of the ruins of an orthodox religious tradition, which says little about more localised religious practices. Insights into these practices are provided by ënaturalí shrines, found in rock-shelters, next to springs, trees, or on prominent hilltops. Many shrines are dedicated to place-bound deities known simply as devi, bir baba, bhumia or djinn Maharaja. Although these may be modern, their Political History and Administration 414 Fig. 10. Map showing settlement distribution arranged according to type and sector (SC level): Phases IbñVII. antecedents may be extremely ancient. Above all, these patterns are important for highlighting the fact that the apparent paucity of archaeological evidence relating to religion beyond the Buddhist and orthodox Brahmanical framework may reflect partly theënonmonumentalí focus of local cultic practice. 3. HABITATIONAL SETTLEMENTS A total of 134 habitational settlements were documented at the site-group (SG) level during the SSP. When viewed at a site cluster (SC) level, this figure increases to 161 to account for Site Groups (SG) that contain more than one settlement area (Shaw 2007, 215-26, table 13.1; Fig. 10). Of these site clusters, 82 survive as mounds formed from denuded mud structures; and 44 as hillside settlements surviving as clusters of sandstone buildings on the lower slopes of hills. Also included in the overall figure are 30 modern villages where in addition to sculptures or temple fragments no settlement mounds or evidence for residential buildings were recorded, but may nevertheless overlie earlier remains. There is also a fourth category that I refer to as ëmemory siteí. These sites are commemorated locally as ancient or ëancestralí settlements, but in all five cases, no supporting Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 415 Fig. 11. Map showing settlements as polygon outlines with corresponding six-tier site hierarchy (SG level). archaeological evidence was identified. This belief appears to stem from assumptions regarding the so-called ëarchaeologicalí character of material found in the immediate vicinity of these sites (Shaw 2007, 76-77, fig. 8.5). SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY Each settlement was graded according to a six tier size-based hierarchy (ibid., table 13.2), as illustrated in polygon-outline form in Fig. 11. Unsurprisingly, Vidisha, which covers an area of c. 630 ha, is the largest settlement in the area (Level 1), with an additional six sites in Level 2; 23 in Levels 3-4, 19 in Level 5, and the remaining 84 belonging to the smallest category (Level 6). Due to site formation uncertainties, it is unfeasible to build up a phase-by-phase site hierarchy on the basis of size alone. However, additional archaeological criteria enable the construction of a broad local settlement hierarchy for the early-historic period. One major marker of rank, for example, is a group of urban stupas, post-Mauryan pillars and associated animal capitals found across the study area (Shaw 2007, 130-35, table 11.1, fig. 9.4; Political History and Administration 416 pl. 114-33; Forthcomingñb). The best known examples come from Vidisha with most concentrated around the Heliodorus pillar site, as well as the principal Buddhist sites of Sanchi and Satdhara. Others were recorded at four newly documented settlement sites (Besar talai, Dhakna, Sanchi-Kanakhera, and Tajpur Shur) which ranked high in the local hierarchical structure, at least as far as their political and economic tie to the capital city was concerned (Table 4). Additional indicators of economic status within the regional settlement hierarchy are provided by the distribution of irrigation dams (discussed below), obviously associated with high construction and maintenance costs, which were probably covered by local landlords or oligarchs. Accordingly, the sites which may be regarded as occupying high ranks in the local hierarchical structure, following criteria other than size alone are listed in Table 4. Table 4. Settlement hierarchy: sites in Ranks 1ñ3, and corresponding criteria (Phases IdñIV). SGNo Name Sector Pottery range Sculpture Area Additional criteria phase hierarchy SG006 Vidisha 1a 1b to 5 1d to 7 1 Temples, stupas, pillars SG010 Gulgaon Eran 1b 1d to 7 2 to 7 2 Dam, early sculpture SG002 Sanchi/ 1b Kanakhera hill n/a 2 to 7 2 Temple, well inscription SG056 Mehgaon 2a 1d to 3b 4 to 6 2 sculpture, large village tank SG101 Andol 2b n/a 6 to 6 2 sculpture, size SG162b Murlikheri- 1b Naroda 1d to 3b 3b to 7 3 Dam, major temple, associated Buddhist sites SG179b Hakimkheri 2b n/a 6 to 7 3 Temple SG041 Besar talai 3 1c to 7 2 to 6 3 Dam, Post-Mauryan pillar, urban stupa SG140 Marwai 1a 1d to 7 6 to 6 4 Temple 1a Ib to 7 3c to 6 4 1a 1d to 4 n/a 4 Strategic location SG003a Nagauri 1b 1d to 7 2 to 7 4 Dam, quarry, proximity to Sanchi SG003a Nagauri 1b 1d to 7 2 to 7 4 Dam, early sculpture SG031b Udayagiri/ Madhupuri/ Sonapura SG039 Fatehpur marmata Major temples Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 417 SGNo Name SG064 Pottery range Sculpture Area Additional criteria phase hierarchy Tajpura shur 2a 1d to 7 2 to 6 4 Post-Mauryan pillar SG125 Parwariya/ 2a Arwariya n/a n/a 4 Strategic location SG102 Sachet 2a 1b to 7 6 to 6 4 Major temple SG121 Mahuakhera 2a -Himatgarh 1c to 7 6 to 7 4 Large temple. Strategic position SG165 Girbhar 2a 1c to 4 4 to 6 4 Large temple. Strategic position SG133 Parsora haveli 2a n/a 5 to 6 4 Major temple SG099b Morel kala 2b n/a 3b to 6 4 Major dam, sculpture SG177d Devrajpur 2b 1d to 4 2 to 6 4 Dam, adjoining Buddhist site SG012 Karhaud 2b n/a 4 to 6 4 Major temples SG170 Salera 2b n/a 2 to 7 4 Major village tank, sculpture, adjoining Buddhist site SG061 Pagneswar 3 n/a 3b to 7 4 Major crossing, and sculpture/temples SG058 Tijalpur 3 n/a 4 to 7 4 Temple SG072 Khamtala 4 1d to 7 4 to 7 4 Temple 2b n/a 2 to 6 5 Major dam and adjoining Buddhist sites SG095b Chandna/ Gorpur kherai Sector SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION Topographical Zones Settlement distribution over the four main geographical sectors is illustrated in Fig. 10. The geographical trends are similar to those noted for Brahmanical temple sites (Shaw 2007, 18990): the highest overall settlement density occurs in Sectors 1a-b and 2a-b, with the lowest to the north of the river Bes (Sector 4). The areas with the highest density of settlement mounds are the central agricultural plain (Sector 1a), and the agricultural terrain to the east of the river Betwa (Sector 2a). SETTLEMENT CHRONOLOGY A basic chronological framework was constructed using a combination of sculptural, architectural and ceramic criteria (Table 3). The various weaknesses of internal pottery Political History and Administration 418 typologies established from surface collections alone, particularly those related to the complexities of site formation processes, were discussed earlier. These problems are exacerbated by the fact that the stratified sequence from Vidisha was never published beyond summary form. It should be stressed therefore that the chronology presented here only reflects the presence or absence of a certain sculptural or architectural phase, or diagnostic ceramic ware. A large number of individual sherds (Shaw 2007, appendix IIIa) are still lacking verified stratified parallels, meaning therefore that the resolution of the present chronological framework is subject to reevaluation at a later stage. Another bias stems from the disparity between the dating capacity of ceramic and sculptural evidence. The most obvious point is that the dates suggested by ceramic samples are often significantly earlier than those based on stone sculpture, the latter being a relatively late development in India. Since the availability (and representativeness) of ceramic samples is determined by the presence of ploughed surfaces or exposed sections, the ongoing occupation of approximately two-third of the settlements documented here has a direct impact on dating resolution (Shaw 2007,228, Fig. 13.3). Even more problematic when it comes to dating, are the hillside settlements, which are often completely devoid of ploughed surfaces or sections. There is a mutual interrelationship between the earliest date obtained for each site, the type of available dating evidence, and ground conditions (Shaw 2007, Figs. 13.4 and 13.5). Given that there are no stone sculptures at any of the settlements prior to the second century BC (Phase II), an identification of an earlier date is dependent entirely on ceramic evidence. It should therefore come as no surprise that of the 15 settlements yielding pottery datable between Phases Ib and Id, 13 had either ploughed surfaces, exposed sections, or had been excavated in the past (Shaw 2007, Fig. 13.5). Further, prior to Phase Id, ceramics constitute the only available dating evidence, while between Phases Id and IIIa, ceramics still far outweigh sculpture as a dating tool. It is only in Phase IIIb and later, that sculpture becomes the dominant dating tool (Shaw 2007, Fig. 13.4). Quite obviously, therefore, the possible existence of buried ceramic evidence dating to earlier periods at these sites cannot be ruled out. Despite these shortcomings, the available evidence is adequate for the purposes of providing a broad chronological framework. In some cases, it was possible to adjust the chronology suggested by sculptural and ceramic evidence on the basis of immediate archaeological context. For example, despite the absence of pottery at Binjoli Kherai (SG005c), a large settlement northwest of Morel khurd, the earliest available dating evidence was a group of Phase-IV-sculptures (c. fifth century AD ). However, a Phase-II, or earlier, date, is suggested by the proximity of a large irrigation dam which runs between here and Morel Khurd (Shaw 2007, 248). A similar line of reasoning informed the dating of Barla (SG159) in the south, and Dargawan (SG023) to the west, of Sanchi. TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL PATTERNS IN THE RURAL HINTERLAND Additional archaeological research is required to attain a more secure chronological framework in which to situate the settlement patterns in the study area. Three main steps for future research in this direction can be envisaged: i) detailed petrographic analysis and C-14 dating of existing Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 419 surface-ceramic collections; ii) systematic, comparative study of stratified sequences from excavated sites in central India; and ii) renewed excavations at Vidisha, coupled with test pits at selected settlements in the surrounding area. However, on the basis of the available evidence, a number of preliminary observations can be made regarding the temporal and spatial distribution of settlements in the Sanchi area. First, apart from Vidisha (SG006) and Rangai Amkhera (SG017), no Kayatha-type pottery (Phase Ib) was collected during the study. However, Chalcolithic ëpainted black on orangeí (ie ëMalwa Wareí) is reported from Sachet (SG102), in Sector 3 (IAR 1984-5, 47-8). The earliest group of newly documented settlements belong to Phase Ic, that is between c. 1000 and 600 BC. Twenty-nine settlements were dated to this phase, largely on the basis of Black and Red Ware, Black Slipped Wares, and Coarse Grey Wares. A number of vessel types in red slipped wares were also dated to this period. The settlement area immediately in front of Udayagiri hill (SG031b) is included in this group (Fig. 10). However, given its proximity to the city mounds at Besnagar (the rampart is just over 1 km to the east), and the continuous spread of pottery scatters between the two sites, it may be considered as part of the cityís suburban sprawl. Interestingly, settlements of this phase are evenly spread throughout the study area, and are often situated next to smaller streams. As illustrated at Besar Talai (SG041) and Amoni ka Kherai (SG053), even the most ëinterior valleysí appear to have been settled by this time. Sites such as Fatehpur Marmata (SG039) and Amacchar (SG169) which are located directly on the rivers Bes and Betwa, only appeared to yield pottery of Phase Ib and later. Further, all of the Phase-Ic sites show evidence for continued occupation into later periods (Table 5). This suggests therefore that the sequence at Rangai Amkhera, which shows evidence for abandonment after c. 1000 BC (IAR 1976-77, 3334), is an exception to wider regional trends. The latter appear not to fit with the GangeticValley settlement patterns, characterised by a shift from major river-banks to interior locations between the Chalcolithic and Iron Age (Lal 1984; Erdosy 1988). The next phase (Id), dated to between c. 600ñ200 BC, was identified tentatively at twentyfour sites (Fig. 10). Only a single sherd of the major diagnostic ware for this period, NBPW, was collected during the SSP. However, a number of the black slipped wares and red slipped wares are directly relatable to associated wares from excavated NBPW horizons. Having said this, given the degree of continuity between Phases Ic and Id in many of the Black Slipped Wares, an earlier date for many of these sites cannot be ruled out. Four of the Phase-Id settlements, Parariya (SG154), Berkheri ghat kherai (SG156), Fatehpur Marmata (SG039), and Amacchar (SG169), are situated next to the rivers Betwa or Bes (Fig. 10). Further, there is a fairly even distribution of Phase-Id sites throughout Sectors 1-3, which may be contrasted to their near absence in Sector 4. The next settlement phase (II) is datable to between the second and first centuries BC . Seventeen sites, whose earliest archaeological material dated to this period, were documented during the SSP. The diagnostic ceramic types of this period consist largely of red slipped wares, with the most common vessel types being jars. Sculptural evidence also becomes available for the first time. The two main areas of settlement during this period are Sectors 1a and 2a, with a particularly high concentration in the latter area to the east of the Betwa (Fig. 12). Many of these Political History and Administration 420 Table 5. Phase Ic sites (c. 1000 ñ 600 BC): occupational sequences. SGNo. Name Sector Area hierarchy Pottery phasing Sculpture phasing SG006 Vidisha 1a 1 Ic to IIIb II to VII SG021 Sehor 1b 6 Ic to VII n/a SG031b Udayagiri/Madhupuri/ Sonapura 1a 4 Ic to VII IIIb to VI SG032b Dhakna basti 1b 6 Ic to IIIb IV to VI SG041 Besar talai 3 3 Ic to VII II to VI SG046 Burakhera/Kharetiya 2 3 6 Ic to VII n/a SG050 Amkhera bhauji 3 5 Ic to VII IV to VI SG068 Salamatpur hill 3 6 Ic to VII n/a SG082 Sonthiya kherai 2 2a 6 Ic to VII n/a SG106 Utari guhar 1a 6 Ic to IIIb n/a SG121 Mahuakhera-Himatgarh 2a 4 Ic to VII VI to VII SG165 Girbhar 2a 4 Ic to IV IV to VI sites are situated in direct proximity to Buddhist sites, more on which later. However, the main point to note is that there is no significant change in the topographical or geographical location of settlements between Phases Ic and II. With regard to the remaining settlements, five were positioned in the first-to-third century AD time bracket (Phase III). In addition to sculpture, the main diagnostic ceramic types for this period are micaceous wares and highly polished red wares (Shaw 2007, appendix IIIb). Eight settlements were dated to Phase IV (c. fourth to sixth centuries AD); with a further 44 assignable to between the seventh and 12th centuries AD (Phases V-VII). However, as already discussed, many of these sites may well be older. The distribution of settlements datable between c. fifth and 12th century AD is illustrated in Fig. 10. Brief mention should also be made of the relationship between ancient and modern-day settlement patterns. Most settlements are situated in close proximity to modern villages, while 105 sites recorded at the site cluster level are actually overlain by modern villages (Shaw 2007, fig. 13.3). Others are situated at the edge of modern villages, indicating a shift in location at some point in the past. A similar phenomenon occurs at Vidisha, which appears to have shifted (or simply shrunk) from the original city site in the fork of the river Betwa and Bes, to its present location some time after the Gupta period (Shaw 2007, 21-22). In some cases, however, there is evidence for complete abandonment, as represented by ancient settlements which show no signs of having been shifted to a new location in the immediate vicinity. Approximately 51 sites to which this situation applies, were recorded during the SSP (Shaw 2007, fig. 13.3). These patterns possibly tally with historical records of a series of serious droughts, and Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 421 Fig. 12. Settlements Phases IdñVII (SG) and Buddhist sites (hilltop monastic, urban and mixed ritual contexts). consequent depopulation, from the 14th century AD onwards (Shaw and Sutcliffe 2001; 2003), which may in part explain the considerable disparity between ancient and modern-day settlement patterns. SETTLEMENTS AND RITUAL SITES The temporal and spatial distribution of settlements provides a starting point for evaluating the wider social and economic setting of the hilltop Buddhist sites discussed earlier. In particular, the relative configuration of monasteries and settlements provides an empirical basis for assessing theories regarding the link between Buddhist propagation and wider economic, political, and social transformations during the early-historic period. For example, it has been suggested that despite its ëproperty-renouncingí status, the saEgha, through its pioneering spirit, encouraged the movement of populations into new areas (Ray 1994, 5). In order to assess such hypotheses, the loose chronological framework presented here would require corroboration through excavation and rigorous statistical ceramic analysis. However, at this stage, a number of Political History and Administration 422 preliminary propositions may be offered. First, the majority of Buddhist sites show evidence for occupation during much earlier periods: the large number of painted rock-shelters and microlithic scatters at these sites attest to peripatetic, possibly hunter-gatherer, occupation from at least the Chalcolithic period (Fig. 7). Secondly, the chronology of early village settlements discussed above suggests that much of the low-lying area surrounding these hills had been occupied by sedentary communities from at least 1000 BC, if not earlier. To state the obvious, despite the solitary setting of the hilltop Buddhist monasteries, the incoming saEgha did not choose completely unsettled areas. However, a number of these sites appear to be more or less contemporary with settlements in their immediate vicinity. For example, neither Pipalia Kherai (SG005b), nor Binjoli kherai (SG005c), which are less than 1 km away from Morel khurd, have yielded archaeological evidence datable to before c. third or second century BC (Fig. 12). The same applies to Nagauri (SG003a), less than 500 m south of Sanchi, although Dhakna basti (SG032b) contains some Phase Ic pottery. However, given the uncertainties over the dating of surface ceramics from these settlements, any inferences regarding their chronological relationship to Buddhist sites remain speculative. Nevertheless, one point of certainty is that whether or not they predate the establishment of Buddhism, a number of significant changes take place within these settlements during Phase II. First, the earliest stone sculptures to appear in the study area outside the context of the capital city and the hilltop Buddhist sites, are are Phase-II pillar and capital remains, as found at Besar talai (SG041), Tajpur shur (SG064), Kanakhera and Dhakna (Shaw 2007, 130-35, table 11.1, fig. 9.4; pl. 114-33; Forthcoming-b). The ëimperialí nature of these pillars, and their similarity to examples from Vidisha itself, suggest that these places operated as political and economic ënodesí in a larger interlinked network. Secondly, the strong Buddhist associations of their associated animal capitals provide clear indications of the focus of religious patronage at these sites. The third point is that prior to the last quarter of the first century BC, there is no clear evidence for non-Buddhist sculpture in these ëinteriorí areas. When examples do appear, the influence of artistic developments at neighbouring monastic sites is obvious. Both these last two points support the view that the growing patronage base of Buddhism between c. third and second century BC was closely related to the increasingly urban character of settlements. As argued by Ray (1994, 122) in her study of the relationship between Buddhist propagation and the expansion of trading networks in the Deccan area, it is important to view both processes as part of a much larger set of economic and ideological changes involving the spread of urbanisation and monarchical systems from their base in the Gangetic Valley. Buddhism did not ëcauseí the proliferation of trade, but rather both processes were linked to the emergence of an ëinteractive support systemí between monastic and lay sections of society, that ëconstantly evolved and adapted itself between 300 BC and AD 300í (ibid.). Examples of similar forms of ëinteractive support systemsí include textual and epigraphical descriptions of the ritualised exchange of gifts and religious merit (punya) between the saEgha and the laity. These descriptions lie at the heart of theories, hitherto untested archaeologically, regarding the Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 423 development of institutionalised monasticism (Schopen 1994b). It is interesting to speculate whether the spatial relationship between monastic sites and local settlements accords in any way with these theories. The first point to note is that each of the Phase-II hilltop Buddhist sites is situated within between 1 to 2 km of the nearest habitational settlement (Fig. 12). For example, Morel Khurd should be viewed in relation to Binjoli Kherai and Pipalia Kherai; Andher to Hakim Kheri; Mawasa to Naroda; Sonari to Besar Talai; and Satdhara to Naroda and Sehor. This spatial relationship conforms to canonical rules which stipulate that monasteries should be situated close, but not too close, to towns (Vinaya III, 155). As argued by Gombrich (1988, 95, 156) in relation to contemporary patterns in Sri Lanka, both in spatial and social terms the position of the monastery is dialectical and ëambivalentí, because although it is ëoutsideí society, it is also dependent upon society for financial support. Clearly the saEgha in the Sanchi area could not have survived in their secluded hilltop locations without some level of integration within the local social and economic infrastructure.2 4. WATER-RESOURCE STRUCTURES IN THE SANCHI AREA In addition to the settlement patterns discussed above, further insights into the nature of this relationship are provided by a group of 17 irrigation dams, all situated in close proximity to Buddhist sites (Fig. 2) (Shaw and Sutcliffe 2001; 2003; 2005; Shaw et al. 2007; Sutcliffe et al 2011). Surviving as pronounced earthworks up to heights of 6 m, the dams have earthen cores faced with stone slabs, and are laid across valleys up to 1400 m in length. Immediately to the south of Sanchi hill are the remains of a 350 m-long dam, which, together with a second dam to the west, would have created a reservoir about 3 km2 with a storage capacity of about 3.6 x 106 m3. Two smaller reservoirs at Karondih and Dargawan in the shorter valleys to the west appear to have been designed to maintain water levels in the main reservoir as part of an upstream irrigation system (Fig. 5). Similar reservoirs, with volumes ranging between 0.03 to 4.7 x 106 m3, were documented throughout the study area. While those built on gradually sloping terrain, as at Sanchi, appear to have acted as inundation tanks for upstream irrigation, dams built across deeper valleys as found in the eastern part of the study area were used for downstream irrigation. Some of those in the latter category, such as Devrajpur, show evidence of spillways and sluice gates (Shaw and Sutcliffe 2005; Shaw et al. 2007). Analyses of surface remains and local present-day hydrology enabled a number of hypotheses regarding the damsí chronology and function, their associated crop usage, and their relationship to the urban sequence at Vidisha and the history of Buddhism at Sanchi and neighbouring sites. Discussed in detail elsewhere (Shaw and Sutcliffe 2001; 2003; 2005), these may be summarized as follows: i) the earliest dam construction occurred between c. 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, coinciding with the earliest monuments at Sanchi and neighboring Buddhist sites; ii) they were built to provide irrigation, principally for rice, as a response to the increased population levels suggested by the distribution of habitational and Buddhist sites in Vidishaís hinterland; iii) their position within the wider archaeological landscape warrants their being viewed as part of a cultural package that accompanied the spread of Buddhism, urbanisation and the development of centralised Political History and Administration 424 state polities during the late centuries BC; and iv) similarities with inter-site patterns in Sri Lanka, where monastic landlordism is attested from c. 2nd century BC onwards (Gunawardana 1971), suggest that the Sanchi dams were underlain by a similar system of exchange between Buddhist monks and local agricultural communities. Recent attempts to develop and assess these hypotheses have included satellite remotesensing and ground-base mapping discussed earlier, and a programme of geological dating and pollen analysis which focussed on two major dam sites: Sanchi, and Devrajpur, around 14 km to the east (Shaw et al. 2007). The results confirmed the suitability of local sediments for OSL and TL dating methods, as well as affirming our working hypothesis that the dams were constructed, along with the earliest Buddhist monuments in central India, in the late centuries BC. CONCLUSION The Sanchi area occupies a key position for illuminating the history of Buddhism in central India. The newly documented monastic sites summarised here demonstrate that Buddhist propagation during the late centuries BC was somewhat more prolific than previously assumed on the basis of the five ëBhilsa Topesí sites. Further, Sanchiís proximity to Vidisha makes it an idea case-study for examining the entwined histories of urbanisation, and the spread of new religious and political forms from their former base in the Gangetic Valley. The rich and varied archaeological dataset including habitational settlements, water-resource structures and sculptural material from a range of religious traditions shows the establishment of Buddhism was not an isolated process, but rather formed part of a wider set of cultural, religious and economic developments between the late centuries BC and early centuries AD. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Grateful thanks to the Archaeological Survey of India, and the Madhya Pradesh Directorate of Archaeology, Archives and Museums (Bhopal) for support of this project. Since 2003, research has been funded by the British Academy Board for Academy-Sponsored Institutes and Societies (BASIS), Merton College, Oxford, and the British Association for South Asian Studies. Recent fieldwork has been carried out in collaboration with the Madhya Pradesh Directorate of Archaeology, Archives and Museums (Bhopal), with additional input by John V. Sutcliffe, Anthony Beck (Leeds) and Lindsay Lloyd-Smith (Cambridge) (http://www.basas.org.uk/ourwork/collaborative-projects/landscape-waterreligion-india/). NOTES 1. Grateful thanks to the Madhya Pradesh Directorate of Archaeology, Archives, and Museums (Bhopal) for granting me access to these reports in 19992000. 2. Fogelinís (2006) survey in and around Thotlakonda in Andhra Pradesh offers useful parallels to these inter-site patterns. In particular, Fogelin (ibid. 152-3) infers a high level of localised exchange between monks and local populations on the basis of close similarities between ceramics at Thotlakonda and nearby settlements, whilst an abundance of storage jars at Thotlakonda supports the view that food was stored and prepared on site (by non-monastic staff), rather than acquired through begging rounds (ibid. 165). Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 425 REFERENCES Aboshi, Y. and K. Sonoda. 1997. Excavations at Jetavana. Kansai: Kansai University. Agrawal, R.C. 1997. Stupas and Monasteries: A Recent Discovery from Satdhara, India. South Asian Archaeology 1995: 403-15. Allchin, F.R. (ed.). 1995. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allchin, F.R. and K.R. Norman. 1985. Guide to the Asokan Inscriptions. South Asian Studies 1: 43-45. Ansari, Z.D. and M.K. Dhavalikar. 1975. Excavations at Kayatha. Pune: Deccan College. Bajpai, K.D. and S.K. Pandey. 1984. Excavation at Tumain. Bhopal: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Madhya Pradesh. Beck, A., J. Shaw and D. Stott. 2007. Best Practice Approaches for Applying Satellite Imagery for Landscape Archaeological Applications: A Case Study from the World Heritage Site of Sanchi, India. Proc. SPIE 6749, Remote Sensing for Environmental Monitoring, GIS Applications, and Geology VII, 674905 (October 29, 2007). Bhandarkar, J. 1914. Excavations at Besnagar. Annual Report of Archaeological Survey of India 191314: 186-226. Bhandarkar, J. 1915. Excavations at Besnagar. Annual Report of Archaeological Survey of India 191415: 66-89. Burgess, J. 1902. The Great Stupa at Sanchi-Kanakheda. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland: 29-45. óñ. 1880. Archaeological Survey of India: Report of Tours in Bundelkhand and Malwa in 1874ñ75 and 1876-77. Vol. X. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing. Cunningham, J.D. 1847. Notes on the Antiquities within the Bhopal Agency. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 16 (2): 739-63. Dass, M. 2001. Udayagiri: A Sacred Hill, Its Art, Architecture and Landscape. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. De Montford University, Leicester. Dass, M., and M.D.Willis. 2002. The Lion Capital from Udayagiri and the Antiquity of Sun Worship in Central India. South Asian Studies 18: 25-46. Dehejia, V. 1992. Collective and Popular Bases of Early Buddhist Patronage: Sacred Monuments, 100 BCAD 250. In B. Stoler-Miller (ed.), The Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian Culture. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 35-46. Dikshit, M.G. 1955. Tripuri - 1952: Being the Account of the Excavations at Tripuri, Madhya Pradesh. Government of Madhya Pradesh. Erdosy, G. 1988. Urbanisation in Early Historic India. Oxford: BAR International Series 430. Fell, J. 1819. Description of An Ancient and Remarkable Monument, Near Bhilsaí, Calcutta Journal, 11 July 1819 (reprinted in the Journal of the Asiatic Society III: 490-94 (1834). Fogelin, L, 2004, Sacred Architecture, Sacred Landscape: Early Buddhism in Northern Coastal Andhra Pradesh. In H.P. Ray and C.M. Sinopol (eds.), Archaeology as History in Early South Asia. New Delhi: Aryan Books International, pp. 376-91. Chakrabarti, D.K. 1995. The Archaeology of Ancient Indian Cities. Delhi: Oxford University Press. óñ. 2006. Archaeology of Early Buddhism. New York: Altamira Press. Chandra, P. 1966. Yaksha and Yakshi Images from Vidisa. Ars Orientalis VII: 157-63. Ghosh, A., and A.C. Panigrahi. 1946. The Pottery of Achichchhatra, District Bareilly, UP. Ancient India I: 37-59. Cole, H.H. 1884. Preservation of National Monuments in India. 2 Vols. Calcutta. Cunningham, A. 1854. Bhilsa Topes. London: Smith, Elder & Co. Gombrich, R. 1988. Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Political History and Administration 426 Gunawardana, R.A.L.H. 1971. Irrigation and Hydraulic Society in Early Medieval Ceylon. Past and Present 53: 3-27. Marshall, J., A. Foucher, and N.G. Majumdar. 1940. The Monuments of Sanchi. London: Probsthain (reprinted 1983, Delhi: Swati Publications). Hamid, M. 1940. Excavation at Sanchi. Annual Report Archaeological Survey of India, 1936-37: 85-87. Mehta, R.N., and S.N Chowdhary. 1966. Excavations at Devnimori. Baroda: University of Baroda. Hartel, H. 1993. Excavations at Sonkh: 2500 Years of A Town in Mathura District. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Mitra, D. 1996. ëDiscovery and Restoration of the Monuments. In V. Dehejia (ed.), Unseen Presence: the Buddha and Sanchi. Mumbai: Marg Publications, 1-17. Hodder, I., and C. Malone. 1984. Intensive Survey of Prehistoric Sites in the Stilo Region, Calabria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50: 12150. Jaini, P.S. 1980. The Disappearance of Buddhism and the Survival of Jainism: A Study in Contrast. In A.K. Narain (ed.), Studies in the History of Buddhism. Delhi. Kennet, D. 2004. The transition from Early Historic to Early Medieval in the Vakataka Realm. In H. Bakker (ed.), The Vakataka Heritage: Indian Culture at the Crossroads. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1118. Khare, M.D. 1967. Discovery of A Vishnu Temple Near the Heliodorus Pillar, Besnagar, Dist. Vidisha (M.P.). Lalit Kala 13: 21-27. óñ. 1976. Rock Shelters of Ahmadpur Hill, Vidisha District. Madhya Pradesh Itihas Parishad 10: 1820. Lake, H.H. 1910a. Besnagar. Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society XXIII: 13545. óñ. 1910b. Bigan Topes. Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society XXIII: 45-46. Lal, B.B. 1954. Excavations at Hastinapura and Other Explorations, 1950-2. Ancient India 10-11: 5-151. Neumayer, E. 1978. Lines on Stone: The Prehistoric Rock Art of India. New Delhi: Manohar. Ray, H.P. 1994. The Winds of Change: Buddhist and the Maritime Links of Early South Asia. Delhi: Oxford India. Schopen, G., 1987. Burial ìad sanctosî and the Physical Presence of the Buddha in Early Indian Buddhism: A Study in the Archaeology of Religions. Religion 17: 193-225. óñ. 1994a. Ritual Rights and Bones of Contention: More on Monastic Funerals and Relics in the Mulasarvastivada-Vinaya. Journal of Indian Philosophy 22: 31-80. 1994b. Doing Business for the Lord: Lending on Interest and Written Loan Contracts in the Mulasarvastivada-Vinaya. Journal of the American Oriental Society 114(4): 527-54. Sharma, G.R. 1969. Excavations at Kausambi, 1957-59. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 74. Sharma, R.S. 1987. Urban Decay in India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Sircar, D.C. 1965. Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilisation, from the 6th Century BC to the 6th Century AD. 2nd edition. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Lal, M. 1984. Settlement History and the Rise of Civilisation in the Ganga-Yamuna Doab (from 1500 BC - AD 300). Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation. Shaw, J. 2000. The Sacred Landscape. In M. Willis, Buddhist Reliquaries from Ancient India. London: British Museum Press, pp. 27-38. Maheswari, M.K. 1997. Vidisha District Village-to-Village Survey, 1996-7. Bhopal: State Archaeology Department. Unpublished report. óñ. 2004. Naga Sculptures in Sanchiís Archaeological Landscape: Buddhism, VaicGavism, and Local Agricultural Cults in Central India, First Century BCE to Fifth Century CE,í Artibus Asiae LXIV(1): 5-59. Marshall, J. 1909. Archaeological Exploration in India, 1908ñ9. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society: 1056ñ61. óñ. 2007. Buddhist Landscapes in Central India: Sanchi Hill and Archaeologies of Religious and Sanchi as an Archaeological Area 427 Social Change, c. 3rd Century BC to 5th Century London: British Association for South Asian Studies, The British Academy. AD. óñ. 2009. Stupas, Monasteries and Relics in the Landscape: Typological, Spatial, and Temporal Patterns in the Sanchi Area. In A. Shimada and J. Hawkes (eds.), Buddhist Stupas in South Asia: Recent Archaeological, Art-Historical, and Historical Perspectives. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. óñ. 2011. Monasteries, Monasticism, and Patronage in Ancient India: Mawasa, A Recently Documented Hilltop Buddhist Complex in the Sanchi Area of Madhya Pradesh. South Asian Studies 27 (2): 11130. óñ. 2013. Archaeologies of Buddhist Propagation in Ancient India: ëRitualí and ëPracticalí Models of Religious Change. In J. Shaw (ed.), Archaeology of Religious Change, World Archaeology 45.1. óñ. ForthcomingóA. ëBuddhist Mortuary Traditions in Ancient India: Stupas, Relics and the Buddhist Landscape. In C. Renfrew, M. Boyd, and I. Morely (eds.), Death Shall Have No Dominion. Proceedings from McDonald Institute seminar, Cambridge, April 2011. Cambridge University Press. óñ. ForthcomingóB. Newly Documented PostMauryan Animal Capitals in the Sanchi-Vidisha Area. Shaw, J., and A. Beck, Forthcoming. The Archaeological Application of Satellite Remote-sensing in Central India. Shaw J., and J.V. Sutcliffe. 2001. Ancient Irrigation Works in the Sanchi Area: An Archaeological and Hydrological Investigation. South Asian Studies 17: 55-75. óñ. 2003. 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: 73-104. óñ. 2005. Ancient Dams and Buddhist Landscapes in the Sanchi Area: New Evidence on Irrigation, Land Use and Monasticism in Central India. South Asian Studies 21: 1-24. Shaw, J., J. V. Sutcliffe, L. Lloyd-Smith, J-L. Schwenninger, and M.S. Chauhan, with contributions by O.P. Misra and E. Harvey. 2007. Ancient Irrigation and Buddhist History in Central India: Optically Stimulated Luminescence and Pollen Sequences from the Sanchi Dams. Asian Perspectives 46(1): 166-201. Sutcliffe, J., J. Shaw, and E. Brown. 2011. Historical Water Resources in South Asia: The Hydrological Background. Hydrological Sciences Journal 56 (5): 775-88. Singh, U. 1996. Sanchi: The History of the Patronage of An Ancient Buddhist Establishment. Indian Economic and Social History Review 33(1): 135. Singh, Amar A. 2012. Buddhist Responses to Brahmana Challenges in Medieval India: Bodhgaya and Gaya. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Third Series), 22: 155-85. Verardi, G. 1996. Religion, Rituals and the Heaviness of Indian History. Annali (Istituti universitario Orientale) 56: 215-53. Verardi, G. 2003. Images of Destruction: An Enquiry into Hindu Icons in Their Relation to Buddhism. In G. Verardi and S. Vita (eds.), Buddhist Asia I: Papers from the First Conference of Buddhist Studies Held in Naples in May 2001. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies. Wakankar, V.S. and R.R. Brooks. 1976. Stone Age Painting in India. Bombay: D.B. Taraporevala. Willis, M.D., with contributions from J. Cribb, and J. Shaw. 2000. Buddhist Reliquaries from Ancient India. London: British Museum Press. óñ. 2004. The Archaeology and Politics of Time. In H. Bakker (ed.), The Vakamaka Heritage: Indian Culture at the Crossroads. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, pp. 33-58. óñ. 2009. The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the Establishment of the Gods. New York: Cambridge University Press. óñ. In Press. Avalokitesvara of the Six Syllables: Locating the Practice of the ëGreat vehicleí in the Landscape of Central India. Bulletin of the Asia Institute. [JS]