For the most part, archaeological research on Indian Buddhism has focused on religious architecture, to the detriment of studies of smaller, more mundane aspects of the archaeological record. Where archaeologists in many other parts of the world often focus on ceramics, lithics, faunal remains, and other more quotidian aspects of past societies, in the archaeological study of Indian Buddhism, architecture takes center stage. While I make use of smaller artifacts in my analyses, for the most part, this archaeological history primarily relies on the abundant information concerning the layout and construction of Buddhist religious institutions.
Archaeological research in India has been conducted for more than two centuries (see Singh 2008 for a good introduction to Indian archaeology). In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, much of this research focused on early Buddhist monasteries and pilgrimage sites. Among the more important of the early researchers was Alexander Cunningham ([1854] 1997, [1876] 1962, [1892] 1998). As the first director general of the Archaeological Survey of India, he helped establish the systematic study of archaeology in India. Excavations under his direction at Sanchi, Bharhut, Bodh Gaya, and numerous other locations established archaeological investigation of early Buddhism. Other researchers (e. g., Fergusson and Burgess [1880] 1988) continued these studies, revealing large numbers of early Buddhist monuments and monasteries.
In the first half of the twentieth century, research continued on early Buddhist sites, but a new emphasis on cities and large settlements began to develop. Major excavations were carried out at Arikamedu (Wheeler 1946), Taxila (Marshall [1951] 1975), and several other cities.3 Together, these allowed for a more nuanced understanding of the early Indian urbanism to emerge. In this research Buddhism was understood as part of a process of increasing urbanism, the development of regional exchange systems, and the establishment of craft guilds throughout India. At this time, a strong interest in the importance of trade between India and Rome developed, particularly after Wheeler’s excavations at Arikamedu revealed numerous artifacts with clear Mediterranean origin (Wheeler 1954). Wheeler’s interpretation of these remains as indicating a Roman trading colony on the east coast of India became central to understandings of the development of Indian history. While Wheeler’s claim that Arikamedu housed a Roman colony has now been cast into doubt (Begley 1983), a focus on the role of India in long-distance trade has continued to be among the central concerns of archaeological inquiry (see Ray 1994, 1999).
In the latter half of the twentieth century, archaeological study of Indian Buddhism continued with the investigation of numerous sites across India, but particularly in Andhra Pradesh (Prasad 1994; Sastry et al. 1992; Subrahmanyam 1964) and Orissa (Chauley 2000; Nigam 2000). Much of this work has followed closely the work of Wheeler. Both Wheeler’s field methodologies and historical interpretations have, until recently, been relatively unchallenged. In particular, his excavations at Brahmagiri (Wheeler 1948) have served as the baseline for interpreting the ceramic sequence of most sites in peninsular India. Despite the advent of carbon-14 dating in the 1960s, most sites are still dated using Wheeler’s ceramic chronology. A recent reanalysis of the ceramics from Brahmagiri by Kathleen Morrison suggests that the periods assigned by Wheeler were too short (Morrison 2005). Morrison argues that, in most cases, wares persisted for several centuries longer than previously believed. If correct—and her use of carbon-14 dating makes this likely—many of the sites once thought to be firmly dated in India must be re-evaluated. Chronology, once thought to be more or less resolved in India, has re-emerged as a central concern among archaeologists. As such, I will pay inordinate attention to issues of dating throughout this book.
In addition to the archaeological excavations, the study of ancient Indian Buddhism has been significantly advanced by the work of several Indian historians, most notably Romila Thapar (1966, 2000, 2002) and Himanshu Ray (1986). Since about the year 2000, there has been renewed interest in the archaeology of Indian Buddhism by foreign scholars, including Robin Coningham at Lumbini (Coningham et al. 2013), Julia Shaw at Sanchi (2000, 2007, 2013b; Shaw and Sutcliffe 2001), Akira Shimada at Amaravati (2012; Shimada and Hawkes 2009), Jason Hawkes at Bharhut (2008, 2009), and my own work at Thotlakonda in Andhra Pradesh (Fogelin 2006).
World History
