CONCLUSION

Given the limited Buddhist remains from the sixth through fourth centuries bce, archaeology cannot substantially add to understandings of the earliest period of Indian Buddhism. Archaeology has more to offer in the study of Buddhism in the third century bce. But even here, some was directly analogous to the colonial and postcolonial contexts of nineteenth - and twentieth-century Buddhism in Thailand and Sri Lanka. For example, Tambiah’s (1984) study of modern Thai Buddhism focuses on the manner in which amulets (blessed by forest monks) are circulated among, and valued by, the urban Buddhist laity. I have no evidence that an analogous process was, or was not, occurring in early Buddhism in India.

Archaeological and epigraphic remains provide clear insights, while others are more ambiguous. Ashokan inscriptions, for example, indicate that Buddhist monasteries existed in the third century bce. As to what these monasteries would have looked like, that can only be stated more tentatively through reference to the first-century bce rock-cut chaitya at Kondivte and the third-century bce sites of Bairat, Lomas Rishi, and Sudama. Based on these sites, it is likely that in the third century bce Buddhists circumambulated stupas in circular wood and thatch huts, with collective rites performed in wooden halls abutting the chamber containing the stupa. This, in turn, suggests that the need to balance the ascetic and communal disjunctures in Buddhism date to at least this time.

Based on the evidence for a tree-shrine at Lumbini, it is likely that Buddhist pilgrimage was practiced in pre-Mauryan times, and was common by the third century bce. Ashokan inscriptions make reference to Buddhist pilgrimage and Ashokan inscriptions and Mauryan period columns are found at several sites known to be pilgrimage centers in the second century bce. As to the form and layout of these early pilgrimage sites took, that is less certain. Relying on the Mahaparinibbana-sutta, the poorly dated stupa at Vaisali, and the form of second-century bce pilgrimage sites, it is likely that they were centered on brick, clay, or earthen stupas containing relics of the Buddha. Relying on the recent excavations at Lumbini, earlier pilgrimage sites were likely made of wood, and may have centered on trees as well as stupas.

The practice of circumambulation and collective rites by early Buddhists suggest that the long-standing, fundamental disjuncture between the solitary and communal elements of Buddhism may have already existed in the third century bce. More so, considering the priority given to circumambu-lation at Kondivte, Bairat, and the ancestral chaityas on which they were modeled, the establishment of a coherent community of Buddhists may have been limited by the individualistic tendencies of early Buddhists. The creation of spaces within early monastic chaityas for collective rites do, however, suggest that early Buddhists were attempting to foster a more collective Buddhist identity.

While some of the Sri Lankan accounts of Ashoka are confirmed by archaeological and epigraphic remains, a close reading of the inscriptions and their placement at non-Buddhist sites challenges the traditional depiction of Ashoka as being wholeheartedly Buddhist. Rather, it appears that while a Buddhist himself, Ashoka gave to multiple religious orders and promoted a more generic, nonsectarian form of Dharma in the majority of his inscriptions. Through a combination of material acts (e. g., construction of columns at Buddhist pilgrimage sites) and immaterial acts (e. g., organizing the third Buddhist conference), Ashoka attempted to legitimize his rule by routinizing the charisma of the Buddha. At least in Sri Lanka, where Ashoka is remembered as the prototypical divine king, this attempt at legitimization was wildly successful. In India, in contrast, the Mauryan Empire survived for only about 50 years after Ashoka’s death. This is not to say that Ashoka’s legitimations failed in India, only that they were not as successful as they were elsewhere.

While textual sources such as the Pali Canon provide more detailed accounts of the early history of Buddhism, we must be careful not to confuse detail with accuracy. Other than Ashokan inscriptions from the third century BCE, the earliest textual sources describing early Buddhism were written five to ten centuries after the Buddha’s death. As for the archaeological evidence, it too is problematic. The few material remains of early Buddhism are often difficult to date and interpret. It would be a mistake to claim more knowledge of early Buddhism than either archaeological or historical sources can provide. It is also a mistake, however, to say that archaeologists and historians know nothing of the early centuries of Buddhism. Archaeologists and historians have successfully identified important historical trends and social disjunctures in early Buddhism, trends and disjunctures critical for understanding the long-term development of Indian Buddhism in subsequent centuries. Rather than dwell on the limitations, it is best to note what we can and cannot know of Buddhism from the sixth through third centuries BCE and proceed to studies of later centuries. As stated at the beginning of this chapter, a robust archaeological history of Indian Buddhism can only begin in the second century BCE—the first century in which archaeological and epi-graphic remains become ubiquitous.