Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T13:24:50.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Art. I.—Śrāvastī

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Vincent A. Smith  and
V. A. S.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent paper Dr. Bloch has made a valuable contribution to knowledge by publishing an edition and translation of the inscription on the colossal statue found at Sāheṭ-Māheṭ by Sir Alexander Cunningham in 1862–63. When Dr. Bloch published this paper he had not read my essay entitled “Kauśāmbī and Śrāvastī.” I have since sent him a copy of my paper, but he still adheres to the view expressed in his. I may therefore deal with Dr. Bloch's statement of opinion as if he had expressly considered my views and had rejected them. I propose in the following pages to defend my position.

Type
Original Communications
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 1900 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1900

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 2 note 1 J.A.S.B. for 1898, vol. lxvii, part 1, p. 278.

page 2 note 2 J.E.A.S., July, 1898, p. 603.

page 2 note 3 I was Commissioner of the Fyzabad Division, which includes the Gonda and Bahraich Districts, from the end of November, 1898, to the end of July, 1899, and was on tour for nearly three months. My official duties were heavy, and left ine little time for archaeological work. This paper has been written at intervals, and is consequently, I fear, somewhat wanting in literary finish.

page 3 note 1 “Reports,” i, 320. Cunningham quotes a verse professing to be in the Rāmāyana, but gives no reference. Fergusson long ago (“Archaeology in India”) proved that Sāketa and Shā-che were not identical, and that neither of the Chinese pilgrims visited the Hindu town of Ajodhya. No Buddhist remains at Ajodhya are known.

page 4 note 1 It is a statue, not of Buddha, but of a Bodhisattya.

page 4 note 2 “The Remains near Kasia, in the Gorakhpur District, the Eeputed Site of Kucinara, the Scene of Buddha's Death.” By Smith, Vincent A. I.C.S., Fellow of the University of Allahabad. (Allahabad, 1896.)Google Scholar

page 5 note 1 Extensive though hurried researches have been made in the Kapilavastu region during February and March, 1899, by Mr. P. C. Mukherjī and Major Waddell, I.M.S. Mr. Mukherjī's report will be published under my superintendence. Major Waddell is understood to be preparing an independent report.

page 7 note 1 Dr. Hoey hás recently avowed his continued belief in the identity of Sāheṭ-Maheṭ and S'rāvastī.

page 7 note 2 I am, of course, aware that Dr. Hoey derives the name Set, which he uses in preference to Sahet, from some form of S'rāvastī. But such derivation cannot be proved, and is, I think, phonologically impossible. If independent proof of the identity existed, some confirmation might be obtained from Dr. Hoey's observations. That gentleman points out that in certain elements the Buddhist legend of Virūḍhaka agrees with a fairy tale which he heard at Sāheṭ-Maheṭ, and that a stūpa in which a begging-pot, alms-bowl, and a porcelain bowl containing ashes were found, may be the stūpa of Sāriputra, in which such relics were enshrined. But there is no inscription to confirm the identification, and similar relics might occur in many stūpas. As a matter of fast, memorials of Sāriputra were numerous. “In places where priests reside they make towers in honour of Sāriputra, of Mudgalaputra, of Ananda” (Fa-hian, ch. xvi). The name of Sāriputra occurs in an inscription found in the Kasiā ruins (Arch. Rep., vol. xxii, pi. iv). As to the name of the place, I did not hear the form Set. Everyone whom I met used the form Sāhet-Māheṭ . The t is the cerebral, and I think that the a vowels are long, but as to this latter point I am not quite certain.

page 9 note 1 Cunningham, , “Reports,” i, p. 339Google Scholar; xi, pp. 84, 86. Anderson, , “Catalogue and Handbook of the Archaeological Collections in the Indian Museum,” part i, p. 194Google Scholar. The slab with the impressions of Buddha's feet is described on p. 193.

page 10 note 1 Hoey, , “Set Mahet” (extra number of J.A.S.B. for 1892, p. 57)Google Scholar. The inscription has been edited by ProfessorKielhorn, (Ind. Ant. for 1888, vol. xvii, p. 61)Google Scholar, whose version Dr. Hoey has with some boldness undertaken to amend. Dr. Hoey gives the date as 1176. Dr. Hoey, though a firm believer in the identity of Sāhet-Māhet with S'rāvastī, which he never questioned, was by no means certain that the statue was found in its original position. He says: “The large statue found in 12 by General Cunningham may have been there from a very ancient date” (p. 46). He shows that the buildings have been frequently altered and added to.

page 12 note 1 Dūgam ia the local pronunciation. See Captain Vost's article on “The Dōgām Mint” in J.A.S.B. for 1895, vol. lxiv, pt. 1, p. 69.

page 12 note 2 Compare the case of Bāngarmau. “According to the legends of the people, Newal was a large and flourishing city, under a ritja named Nala, when the Musalmans first invaded the country. Saiyid Ala-ud-din bin Ghanauu came from Kanauj to Newal, and wished to settle at Bângarmau; but the râja ordered him to go away, and sent his servants to drive him out. On this the saint cursed him, when the city was immediately turned upside down, leaving only mounds, which are seen at the present day. So firmly do the people believe this story that they affirm that all relics of the old city, no matter of what kind, are always turned up upside down. Hence the old site is generally known as Aundhâ Khera, or ‘Topsy-turvy town’” (Cunningham, , “Reports,” vol. xi, p. 48)Google Scholar. I think it probable that Sāheṭ-Māheṭ is merely an equivalent for Aundhā-Kherā, that is to say, a nickname rather than a name.

page 13 note 1 In Sanskrit sāvitra (m.), , means ‘the sun,’ and sāvitrī (fem.) means ‘a beam of light,‘ and is also a proper name (Benfey).

page 13 note 2 For this statement I have the authority of Dr. Grierson.

page 13 note 3 Dr. Hoey gives some doubtful reasons for supposing that Chandrikapuri is a blunder for Chapakāpuri (Bhāgalpur). (p. 5.)

page 13 note 4 J.A.S.B. for 1896, part i, p. 276.

page 15 note 1 The cross dykes and the hamlets of Binauni and Gundāpur were not marked on the map from which I took my tracing, which therefore shows their position approximately. The canal is clearly marked on the map.

page 16 note 1 The word kuṭi is applied to the residence of a fakir, or holy man. Both the mounds in question have been occupied by fakīrs.

page 19 note 1 See photographs on view at the Society. A man is standing on the pavement. The annexed diagram explains my meaning.

page 20 note 1 “Reports,” vol. i, p. 331.

page 23 note 1 “Detailed Eeport of an Archaeological Tour with the Buner Field Force,” by M. A. Stein, Ph.D., Principal Oriental College, Lahore. 8vo; pp. 69, with eight plates. (Lahore: printed at the Punjab Government Press, 1898. Price R. 1–6–0.)

page 24 note 1 “Lists of Antiquarian Remains in the Central Provinces and Berâr,” compiled by Henry Cousens, M.E A.S., Superintendent Archaeological Surrey, Bombay. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, India, 1897. Price, rupees five and annas eight. (Vol. xix of Archaeological Survey of India, New Series.)