[1] ‘History of Architecture in all Countries.’ 2nd ed. Murray, 1867.

[2] ‘History of Architecture,’ vol. ii. pp. 445-756, Woodcuts 966-1163.

[3] A distinguished German professor, Herr Kinkel of Zürich, in his ‘Mosaik zur Kunstgeschichte, Berlin, 1876,’ has lately adopted my views with regard to the age of Stonehenge without any reservation, though arriving at that conclusion by a very different chain of reasoning from that I was led to adopt.

[4] The following brief résumé of the principal events in the ancient history of India has no pretensions to being a complete or exhaustive view of the subject. It is intended only as such a popular sketch as shall enable the general reader to grasp the main features of the story to such an extent as may enable him to understand what follows. In order to make it readable, all references and all proofs of disputed facts have been postponed. They will be found in the body of the work, where they are more appropriate, and the data on which the principal disputed dates are fixed will be found in an Appendix especially devoted to their discussion. Unfortunately no book exists to which the reader could with advantage be referred; and without some such introductory notice of the political history and ethnography the artistic history would be nearly, if not wholly, unintelligible.

[5] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. p. i.

[6] Almost the only person who has of late done anything in this direction is Sir Walter Elliot. His papers in the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society’ and the ‘Madras Journal’ throw immense light on the subject, but to complete the task we want many workers instead of only one.

[7] All this has been so fully gone into by me in my work on ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ pp. 63, et seqq., that it will not be necessary to repeat it here.

[8] Dr. Caldwell, the author of the ‘Dravidian Grammar,’ is the greatest and most trustworthy advocate of this view.

[9] ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ pp. 244-247.

[10] In Arrian there is a curious passage which seems certainly to refer to this people. “During the space,” he says, “of 6042 years in which the 153 monarchs reigned, the Indians had the liberty of being governed by their own laws only twice, once for about 200 years, and after that for about 120 years.”—‘Indica,’ ch. ix. The Puranas, as may be supposed, do not help us to identify these two periods.

[11] I cannot help fancying that they occupied some part of southern India, and even Ceylon, before the arrival of the Dravidians. It seems difficult otherwise to account for the connection between Behar and Ceylon in early ages, and the spread of Buddhism in that island leaping over the countries which had been Dravidianised.

[12] I cannot help suspecting that the Gonds also belong to this northern race. It is true they speak a language closely allied to the Tamil; but language, though invaluable as a guide, is nearly useless as a test of affinity. The Romans imposed their language on all the diverse nationalities of Italy, France, and Spain. We have imposed ours on the Cornish, and are fast teaching the Irish, Welsh, and Highlanders of Scotland to abandon their tongue for ours, and the process is rapidly going on elsewhere. The manners and customs of the Gonds are all similar to those of the Coles or Khonds, though, it is true, they speak a Dravidian tongue.

[13] The most pleasing of the histories of Buddha, written wholly from a European point of view, is that of Barthélemy St. Hilaire, Paris. Of those partially native, partly European, are those of Bishop Bigandet, from the Burmese legends, and the ‘Romantic History of Buddha,’ translated from the Chinese by the Rev. S. Beal. The ‘Lalita Vistara,’ translated by Foucaud, is more modern than these, and consequently more fabulous and absurd.

[14] There may possibly be an error of forty to sixty years in this date; but, on the whole, that here given is supported by the greatest amount of concurrent testimony, and may, after all, prove to be minutely correct.

[15] ‘Foé Koué Ki,’ xxv. ch. 11; ‘Mahawanso,’ v. p. 20; ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vi. 527.

[16]

One coin at least of the period is well known. It belongs to a king called Kunanda or Krananda, generally assumed to be one of the nine Nandas with whom this dynasty closed. In the centre, on one side, is a Dagoba with the usual Buddhist Trisul emblem over it, and a serpent below it; on the right the Sacred Tree, on the left a Swastica with an altar? on the other side a lady with a lotus (Sri?) with an animal usually called a deer, but from its tail more probably a horse, with two serpents standing on their tails over its head, which have been mistaken for horns. Over the animal is an altar, with an umbrella over it. In fact, a complete epitome of emblems known on the monuments of the period, but savouring much more of Tree and Serpent worship than of Buddhism, as it is now known. ‘Journal of the Koyal Asiatic Society,’ vol. i. (N.S.) p. 447, et seqq.

[17] All these particulars, it need hardly be said, are taken from the 12th and 15th chapters of the ‘Mahawanso,’ confirmed by the inscriptions themselves and the relics found at Sanchi, to all which reference will be made hereafter.

[18] Wilson’s ‘Hindu Drama,’ vol. xii. p. 151, et seqq., edition 1871.

[19] Lassen, it is true, brings these dates down by ten years below where I have placed it. But he overlooks the fact that according to his hypothesis Asoka, in the sixteenth year of his reign, would claim Magas as his ally ten or twelve years after his death, which is improbable.

[20] For complete details of these two monuments and the dates, the reader is referred to my ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ which is practically devoted to a description of these two monuments.

[21] ‘Vie et Voyages de Hiouen Thsang,’ i. p. 215. It need hardly be said that all these particulars are taken from the three volumes relating his Indian experiences, translated by Stanislas Julien.

[22] This does not apply to Orissa, which, from its remote situation, and having at that time no resident Buddhist population, seems to have escaped being drawn into the vortex of these troubles.

[23] The best and most accepted account of these events is found in Vivien de St. Martin’s ‘Les Huns blancs,’ Paris, 1849.

[24] Cunningham’s ‘Numismatic Chron.,’ viii. 175; ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vii. 704; Lassen’s ‘Indische Alterth.,’ ii. p. 24.

[25] I wrote a paper stating the evidence in favour of this last view, which I intended should appear in the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society.’ The evidence being, however, incomplete, it has only been printed for private circulation.

[26] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. viii. p. 28.

[27] Ibid., vol. v. p. 42.

[28] The argument on which these assertions are founded is stated at length in the privately printed pamphlet alluded to on preceding page. It is too long to insert here, but, if not published before this work is complete, an abstract will be inserted in the Appendix.

[29] ‘Journal of the Koyal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. p. 202.

[30] For an exhaustive description of this subject see Priaulx, ‘India and Rome,’ London, 1873. My own impressions are, I confess, entirely in favour of the northern origin of the embassy. We are now in a position to prove an intimate connection between the north of India and Rome at that time. With the south it seems to have been only trade, but of this hereafter.

[31] ‘Dravidian Grammar,’ second edition, London, 1875, p. 129, et seqq.

[32] Sir Walter Elliot and others frequently speak of Buddhist monuments in the south. I have never, however, been able to see a photograph or drawing of any one except at Amravati and its neighbourhood.

[33] In his ‘Elements of South Indian Palæography,’ Mr. Burnell, the last and best authority on the subject, divides the South Indian alphabet into Chera, Chalukya, and Vengi. The first, he states, appears in Mysore in the second half of the 5th century. The oldest specimen of the second he dates from the first half of that century. The third is more modern.

[34] I am, of course, aware of the existence of a so-called Buddhist pagoda at Negapatam. It was, however, utilised by the British—for railway purposes, I believe—before it was photographed, so its history may for ever remain a mystery. On the spot it was apparently known as the Jaina (hence China) pagoda, which it may have been. To me it looks like the gopura of a small Hindu temple, but I have no real knowledge on the subject. See Yule’s ‘Marco Polo,’ vol. ii. p. 320, second edition.

[35] ‘Storia della Scultura, dal suo risorgimento in Italia sino al secolo di Napoleone,’ Venezia, 1813.

[36] “The ritual of the Veda is chiefly, if not wholly, addressed to the elements, particularly to fire.”—H. H. Wilson, ‘Asiatic Researches,’ xvii. p. 194; ibid., p. 614.

[37] A list of the twenty-four Buddhas, with these particulars, is given in the introduction to Tumour’s ‘Mahawanso,’ p. 32. Representations of six or seven of these Bodhi-trees, with the names attached, have been found at Bharhut, showing at least that more than four were recognised in the time of Asoka. If the rail there were entire, it is probable representations of the whole might be found.

[38] Stobæus, ‘Physica,’ Gaisford’s edition, p. 54. See also Priaulx, ‘India and Rome,’ p. 153.

[39] Wilson’s ‘Ariana Antiqua,’ plates 10, 11.

[40] A book has recently been published by the late Mr. Breeks, of the Madras Civil Service, on the primitive tribes of the Nilagiris, which gives a fuller account of these ‘rude stone monuments’ than any other yet given to the public. It can hardly, however, be accepted as a solution of the problem, which requires a wider survey than he was able to make.

[41] The serpent of Siva is always a cobra, or poisonous snake, and used by him as an awe-inspiring weapon, a very different animal from the many-headed tutelary Naga, the guardian angel of mankind, and regarded only with feelings of love and veneration by his votaries. It may also be remarked that no tree is appropriated to Siva, and no trace of tree worship mingled with the various forms of adoration paid to this divinity—a circumstance in itself quite sufficient to distinguish this form of faith from that of the Dasyu group which pervaded the valley of the Ganges.

[42] Page 41. Dr. Cornish, in the introduction to the ‘Madras Statistical Tables,’ p. 67, states this at only 30,000,000—a very considerable difference; but on the whole I am inclined to place faith in Dr. Caldwell’s figures.

[43] ‘Madras Report,’ p. 90.

[44] These remarks must not be taken as applying to sculpture also. It is quite true that no stone sculptures have yet been found in India of an earlier date than the age of Asoka; but, as will be seen in the sequel, the perfection the Indian artists had attained in stone sculpture when they executed the bas-reliefs at Bharhut (B.C. 200), shows a familiarity with the material that could only be attained by long practice.

[45] No mention of temples, or, indeed, of buildings is, I believe, found in the Vedas, and though both are frequently alluded to, and described in the Epic Poems and the Puranas, this hardly helps us; first because, like all verbal descriptions of buildings, they are too vague to be intelligible, and secondly, because there is no proof that the passages containing these descriptions may not have been interpolated after—probably long after—the Christian Era.

[46] I believe I was the first to ascertain these facts from a personal inspection of the monuments themselves. They were communicated to the Royal Asiatic Society in a paper I read on the ‘Rock-cut Temples of India,’ in 1842. Every subsequent research, and every increase of our knowledge, has tended to confirm those views to such an extent that they are not now disputed by any one acquainted with the literature of the subject, though some writers do still indulge in rhapsodies about the primæval antiquity of the caves, and their connection with those of Egypt, &c. Till all this is put on one side, no clear idea can be obtained of the true position of the art in India.

[47] From two Sanscrit words, Dhatu, a relic, and Garbha (Pali, Gabbhan), the womb, receptacle, shrine of a relic. (Turnour, ‘Mahawanso,’ p. 5.) The word Pagoda is probably a corruption of Dagoba.

[48] In Nepal, according to Hodgson, and, I believe, in Thibet, the monuments which are called Stupas in India are there called Chaityas. Etymologically, this is no doubt the correct designation, as Chaitya, like Stupa, means primarily a heap or tumulus, but it also means a place of sacrifice or religious worship—an altar from Chíta, a heap, an assemblage, a multitude, &c. (Monier Williams’ ‘Sanscrit Dictionary’ sub voce). Properly speaking, therefore, these caves ought perhaps to be called “halls containing a chaitya,” or “chaitya halls,” and this latter term will consequently be used wherever any ambiguity is likely to arise from the use of the simple term Chaitya.

[49] These inscriptions have been published in various forms and at various times by the Asiatic Societies of Calcutta and London (‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vi. p. 566, et seqq.; ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. xii. p. 153, et seqq.) and in various other publications, but always mixed up with extraneous matters. It is, however, very much to be regretted that a carefully-edited translation is not issued in some separate form easily accessible to the general public. An absolutely authentic and unaltered body of Buddhist doctrine, as it stood 250 years before the birth of Christ, would be one of the most valuable contributions possible to the religious history of the modern world, and so much has been already done that the task does not seem difficult. Among other things, they explain to us negatively why we have so little history in India in these days. Asoka is only busied about doctrines. He does not even mention his father’s name; and makes no allusion to any historical event, not even those connected with the life of the founder of the religion. Among a people so careless of genealogy, history is impossible.

[50] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vi. p. 794.

[51] Ibid., plate 40.

[52] Ibid., p. 969, et seqq.

[53] These dimensions are taken from Capt. Burt’s drawings published in the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. iii. plate 3.

[54] ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ plates 9, 10, 10a, et passim.

[55] ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. i. p. 274, plate 46.

[56] ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ plates 1 and 5, and plates 89 and 90.

[57] Ibid., plate 42.

[58] In the description accompanying Daniell’s view of this cave he says: “On the pillars to the right, above the capital, is a group of lions, from the centre of which a few years since arose the chacra, or war disk of Vichnou, though not the least appearance of it at present remains.” On the left he remarked a figure of Buddha, which he mistook for Mahadeva, and in another part a row of bulls, and he adds: “The Chacra of Vichnou, the Mahadeva, and the bulls, seem not to favour the opinion of its being a temple of the Bhoods.” He was not aware how inextricably these religions were mixed up at the time when this cave was excavated, about A.D. 400.

[59] Turnour in ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vii., p. 1013.

The fame of this distribution seems to have reached Europe at least as early as the 1st century of the Christian Era, inasmuch as Plutarch (‘Moralia,’ p. 1002, Dübner edition, Paris, 1841) describes a similar partition of the remains of Menander, among eight cities who are said to have desired to possess his remains; but as he does not hint that it was for purposes of worship, the significance of the fact does not seem to have been appreciated.

[60] ‘Mahawanso,’ p. 26, ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ vol. ii. p. 417.

[61] Account of the great bell at Rangoon, Hough, ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xiv. p. 270.

[62] Abstracted from Turnour’s ‘Mahawanso,’ p. 4.

[63] There may be an error in this date to the extent of its being from fifteen to twenty years too early.

[64] The principal particulars of this story are contained in a Cingalese work called the ‘Daladavamsa,’ recently translated by Sir Mutu Comara Swamy. I have collected the further evidence on this subject in a paper I read to the Asiatic Society, and published in their ‘Journal’ (N.S.), vol. iii p. 132, et. seqq., and again in ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ p. 174, et. seqq.

[65] The date being given as 245, Samvat has generally been assumed to be dated from the era of Vicramaditya. I am not aware, however, of any inscription of so early an age being dated from that era, nor of any Buddhist inscription in which it is used either then or thereafter.

[66] The same fate had overtaken another tooth relic at Nagrak in northern India. Fa Hian, B.C. 400, describes it as perfect in his 13th chapter. ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ vol. ii. p. 97, describes the stupa as ruined, and the tooth having disappeared.

[67] For a translation, &c., see ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. v. p. 33. See also Bird, ‘Historical Researches,’ Bombay, 1847.

[68] ‘Foé Koué Ki,’ ch. xii. p. 77.

[69] ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ vol. i. p. 83.

[70] ‘Foé Koué Ki,’ p. 353. A detailed account of its transference from the true Gandhara—Peshawur—to the new Gandhara in Kandahar will be found in a paper by Sir Henry Rawlinson, ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. xi. p. 127.

[71] Among the bas-reliefs of the Bharhut tope is one representing just such a domical roof as this (Woodcut No. 90). It is not, however, quite easy to make out its plan, nor to feel sure whether the object on the altar is a relic, or whether it may not be some other kind of offering.

[72] ‘Bhilsa Topes, or Buddhist Monuments in Central India,’ Smith, Elder, and Co., 1854. One half of my work on ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ and forty-five of its plates, besides woodcuts, are devoted to the illustration of the great Tope; and numerous papers have appeared on the same subject in the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society’ and elsewhere. A cast of the eastern gateway is in the South Kensington Museum.

[73] ‘Mahawanso,’ p. 76. See also ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ p. 99, et seqq., where all this is more fully set out than is necessary here.

[74] Cunningham, ‘Bhilsa Topes,’ p. 299, et seqq.

[75] The Chandragupta inscription on the rail near the eastern gateway (‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. ii. p. 454) is evidently a subsequent addition, and belongs to the year A.D. 400.

[76] These views, plans, &c., are taken from a Memoir by Capt. J. D. Cunningham, ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ August, 1847.

[77] As all the particulars regarding all these topes, except the great one and No. 3 of Sanchi, are taken from Gen. Cunningham’s work entitled ‘Bhilsa Topes,’ published by Smith and Elder, in one volume 8vo., in 1854, it has not been thought necessary to repeat the reference at every statement.

[78] These dimensions and details are taken from Gen. Cunningham’s ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. i. p. 107, et seqq.

[79] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. ix. p. 203.

[80] See also paper by Vesy Westmacott, ‘Calcutta Review,’ 1874, vol. lix. p. 68.

[81] ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. i. p. 17.

[82] Ibid., p. 19.

[83] ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ vol. iii. p. 60.

[84] Buchanan Hamilton was told by the priests on the spot, in 1811, that it was planted there 2225 years ago, or B.C. 414, and that the temple was built 126 years afterwards, or in 289. Not a bad guess for Asoka’s age in a locality where Buddhism has been so long forgotten. Montgomery Martin’s ‘Eastern India,’ vol. i. p. 76.

[85] ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ vol. ii. pp. 464-468.

[86] ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. i. p. 5.

[87] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ 1834, vol. iv. p. 214. See also Cunningham, ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. i. p. 5, et seqq.

[88] ‘Hiouen Thsang, Festival of the three Religions at Allahabad in 643,’ vol. i. p. 254.

[89] A view of it is given, ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. iv. p. 122.

[90] Beal’s ‘Fa Hian,’ p. 35.

[91] ‘Vie et Voyages de Hiouen Thsang,’ vol. i. p. 83.

[92] De Guigne’s ‘Histoire des Huns,’ vol. ii. p. 40, et seqq.

[93] ‘Mahawanso,’ p. 71.

[94] ‘Ariana Antiqua,’ p. 43.

[95] ‘Ariana Antiqua,’ plate 10.

[96] Vassilief, ‘Le Bouddhisme, ses Dogmes,’ &c., Paris, 1865, p. 31, et passim. He spells the words Makhaiana and Khinaiana.

[97] Beal’s translation, p. 26.

[98] Honigberger, ‘Reise.’

[99] Mr. Masson’s account was communicated to Professor Wilson, and by him published in his ‘Ariana Antiqua,’ with lithographs from Mr. Masson’s sketches which, though not so detailed as we could wish, are still sufficient to render their form and appearance intelligible.

[100] The length of time over which these coins range—more than 200 years—is sufficient to warn us what caution is requisite in fixing the date of buildings from their deposits. A tope cannot be earlier than the coins deposited in it, but, as in this case, it may be one or two hundred years more modern.

[101] ‘Ariana Antiqua,’ p. 109.

[102] Thomas in ‘Prinsep,’ vol. i. p. 144.

[103] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. iii. p. 559.

[104] Thomas in ‘Prinsep,’ p. 148.

[105] ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 167, plate 65.

[106] Thomas’s ‘Prinsep,’ vol. i. p. 94.

[107] In the text it is certainly printed “three” with a reference to 19 in the plate 21 of vol. iii. The latter is undoubtedly a misprint, and I cannot help believing the former is so also, as only one fragment is figured; and Prinsep complains more than once of the state of the French MS. from which he was compiling his account. I observe that General Cunningham, in his volume just received, adopts the same views. At p. 78, vol. v., he says: “I have a strong suspicion that General Ventura’s record of three Sassanian coins having been found below deposit B may be erroneous.”

[108] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. iii. plate 21, fig. 18.

[109] ‘Foé Koué Ki,’ chap. xiii.

[110] ‘Fa Hian,’ Beal’s translation, p. 32. ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ vol. i. p. 89.

[111] ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 172.

[112] ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ Preface to the First Edition.

[113] ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. i. p. 10.

[114] ‘Memorandum,’ dated 13th April, 1874, printed by the Bengal Government, but not published.

[115] ‘Voyages dans les Contrées Occidentales,’ vol. i. p. 465.