While, in an abstract sense, the layout and form of Buddhist pilgrimage sites were relatively stable in the first millennium GE, this does not mean that every major pilgrimage center was stable and successful. Over the course of the first millennium GE, several established Buddhist pilgrimage sites were abandoned or neglected. Perhaps the most surprising of these is Lumbini, the birthplace of the Buddha. During Faxian’s travels through North India in the early fifth century GE, he noted that Lumbini was neglected, with only a few monks living among the ruins. By the time Xuanzang visited Lumbini in the mid-seventh century, Lumbini had been all but abandoned by the Buddhist sangha. By the late first millennium GE, Chinese pilgrims increasingly noted similar patterns of neglect and abandonment at other Buddhist centers across India. While some sites, like Lumbini, were abandoned in the heartland of Buddhism in the Gangetic Plain, in general more Buddhist sites were abandoned in the South, West, and Northwest. It is important, however, not to overstate this pattern. Even in the regions where Buddhist institutions were abandoned in greater numbers, some Buddhist pilgrimage centers and monasteries survived. As will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7, those Buddhist institutions that persisted were often those that were least associated with, or dependant on, continued state support. Following this chapter’s focus on lay Buddhism, here I will only discuss the abandonment and neglect of pilgrimage centers frequented by the laity.
Before discussing the abandonment of specific Buddhist sites, it is important to note two problems in the archaeological evidence. First, the date of the last constructions at archaeological sites does not necessarily mark the abandonment of those sites. Temples and viharas may have been used for several centuries after they were constructed. Without careful excavation, attention to the smaller artifacts, and carbon-14 dating, it is often difficult to determine how long a site was used after the last constructions. Few Buddhist sites in India have been excavated to this degree of precision. The second difficulty is the tendency for archaeologists to focus on beginnings rather than endings. Archaeologists, generally, want to find the earliest of whatever they are studying. They spend inordinate amounts of time determining when a site was first founded, with less time considering a site’s abandonment. Given these two difficulties, it is usually more difficult to study the abandonment of a site than its foundation, and the range of dates of abandonment are typically wider and more indeterminate. With those hesitations noted, it is possible to identify some general trends in the abandonment of Buddhist sites in India. Interestingly, there is a marked difference in the patterns of neglect and abandonment between large and small Buddhist pilgrimage centers. Whereas many of the largest and most prominent pilgrimage sites in South, West, and Northwest survived through the beginning of the second millennium CE, smaller pilgrimage centers were mostly abandoned in the mid - to late first millennium CE.
Beginning with the large pilgrimage centers, the last building at Sanchi (temple 46) was constructed in the tenth or eleventh century CE, with abandonment likely dating to the twelfth or thirteenth century (Marshall and Foucher 1983; Mitra 1971). The last inscription at Bharhut—now only preserved in a single photograph—dates to the tenth century, with some Buddha images dating to the eleventh century ce (Mitra 1971:96). At Amaravati, in Andhra Pradesh, a donation inscription dates to 1234 CE, with another inscription from Sri Lanka recording the restoration of a temple at Amaravati in 1344 ce (Mitra 1971:201). Not all the large pilgrimage stupas survived so long. Based on preliminary published reports (Poonacha 2007), Kanaganahalli stupa in Karnataka was abandoned by the third or fourth century CE. In the Northwest, the last modifications of the Dharmarajika stupa at Taxila date to the fourth or fifth century CE. By the time Xuanzang passed though Taxila in the beginning of the seventh century CE, both the city and stupa had been long abandoned. This should not, however, be taken to mean that Buddhist pilgrimage stupas were abandoned in the Northwest earlier than they were in other regions of India. While the Dharmarajika stupa fell into disuse, several other large pilgrimage complexes were erected in the Northwest (e. g., Shingardar).
In contrast to the large pilgrimage centers, smaller pilgrimage centers seem to have been abandoned earlier. In part, this pattern may be the result of the difficulty distinguishing monastic sites with space devoted to lay worship from pilgrimage sites with associated monasteries. Outside the heartland of Buddhism in the Gangetic Plain, many pilgrimage centers were initially centered at monastic sites. As discussed in earlier chapters, early Buddhist monasteries in the South, West, and Northwest India typically included public worship spaces where the sangha sought to exert influence over the laity. Over the course of the first millennium, with the withdrawal of the sangha from day-to-day interaction with the laity, it would make sense that the sangha would abandon those monasteries that were most frequented by lay pilgrims. Thus, in Andhra Pradesh, early Buddhist centers at Thotlakonda, Bavikonda, Sankaram, Salihundam, and Nagarjunakonda were abandoned between the third and fifth centuries GE. In the Western Ghats, Bhaja, Bedsa, Ajanta, other early rock-cut monasteries were abandoned by roughly the seventh century GE. In the Northwest, Takht-I-Bahi and the monasteries near Taxila (e. g., Kalawan, Jaulian) were abandoned beginning around the fifth or sixth century GE. The common element of almost all the smaller monastic/pilgrimage centers that failed was that they combined public worship spaces and private viharas reserved for the sangha. In contrast, those centers that were more clearly identifiable as pilgrimage centers (e. g., Amaravati and Sanchi) survived. Critically, however, as smaller monastic/pilgrimage centers failed in the South, West, and Northwest, they were not replaced with other lay-oriented Buddhist pilgrimage sites. Rather, the small pilgrimage/monastic sites were either abandoned or taken over by rival religious orders.
There is, perhaps, no clearer archaeological evidence of syncretism as the reoccupation of religious sites. The physical and symbolic appropriation of Buddhist sites by Hindus and Jains served as legitimations in their attempts to draw the laity to their own orders. It is not simply that the reoccupation of Buddhist sites reflected the increasing power of Hindu and Jain sects, but rather that the reoccupation of Buddhist sites actively created this power and facilitated the conversion of the laity. Just as with the adoption of Buddhist architectural and ritual practices in new temples, the reoccupation of Buddhist sites fostered an easy syncretism requiring few, if any, changes in the laity’s ritual practices. Beginning in the mid-first millennium GE, former Buddhist sites across India were reoccupied by Hindu, Jain, and other religious orders. For example, at
Sankaram in Andhra Pradesh, images of Ganesha were carved into the walls of the Buddhist shrines (Rea 1907-1908). In the Western Ghats, the early rock-cut chaitya at Karla was converted into a Shaivite temple sometime after the seventh century GE, with the primary stupa repainted to resemble a lingam (Singh 2004:291). By early to mid-second millennium GE, some of the large Buddhist pilgrimage centers in the Gangetic Plain were reoccupied by rival religious orders, with even Bodh Gaya converted to a lesser Shaivite temple sometime after the fifteenth century.
World History
