365bet娱乐

[Location: 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 (Lat 160 34鈥� N Long 800 24鈥� E Sattanpalli, Gun峁璾r District, Andhra Pradesh)]

础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 held a position of considerable importance in ancient 础苍诲丑谤补诲别艣补. It is situated on the right bank of 碍峁涐梗峁嚹� and was a major Buddhist centre in ancient India. It is 18 miles from Gun峁璾r. The 蝉迟奴辫补-monastery complex had a long history spanning from 4^th century B.C.E and 14^th century C.E (PL 1). The ancient name of this place as noticed in the inscriptions from 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 is 顿丑腻苍测补办补峁璦办补^[1] /顿丑补谤补峁噄办辞峁璦^[2]. 顿丑腻苍测补办补峁璦办补 was once a fortified capital of the later 厂腻迟补惫腻丑补苍补蝉^[3].

The principal establishment of the monastic complex is the 惭补丑腻肠补颈迟测补. This great monastic complex was later abandoned and with time it lost its importance and became covered with layers of dust and debris. Towards the end of the 18^th century C.E 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 was discovered by a local zamindar in the town of Amre艣varam in the 碍峁涐梗峁嚹� valley. The discovery was followed by investigation and documentation of the site by Colonel Colin Mackenzie. Colonel Mackenzie of the Trigonometrical Survey discovered the remains of the ancient 蝉迟奴辫补 of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 in 1797 in the Gun峁璾r district^[4]. The local name of the mound was Dipaldinne^[5]. (the hill of lamps). It was named Dipaldinne probably because the upper half of the 蝉迟奴辫补 was decorated with a succession of triangular shaped recesses, which were intended for lamps. It is learnt that Mackenzie set up his camp at Ibrampattan and sent his interpreter Cavelli Venkata Boria along with some 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 and two sepoys to Amre艣varam inorder to enquire about the history of the place and conciliate the inhabitants specially the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉 about the forth coming exploration^[6]. Next day Mackenzie left Ibrampattan and went to Amre艣varam. Mackenzie documented the remains of the mound. He mentioned of a broken white slab with some carvings. However, the central mound was untouched. Another three or four slabs with a carving on one side was found outside the trench. He asked his draftsman Sydenham to make a sketch. Mackenzie described eight sculptured slabs discovered around the site. However, Mackenzie could not read the two inscribed slabs. The local tradition connected the sculptures to the Jaina tradition but Mackenzie failed to discover the meaning of the sculptures. Thus he left. He revisited the site in 1816^[7] and found that the whole inner circle of the 蝉迟奴辫补 had been dug up and stones were removed for the repair of temples and the construction of flight of steps to the 艢ivaga峁単a tank^[8]. It may be stated that when the zamindar 搁腻箩补 Vasu Reddi Venka峁�膩dri N膩yu岣島 of Chintapalle shifted his capital to 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 he required these stones for construction. In this attempt Raja鈥檚 workmen worked carelessly and damaged a number of stone slabs. This time Mackenzie understood the importance of the site.

Mackenzie gave description of the modern town of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 and the remains of the ancient fortified settlements at Dhara峁噄ko峁璦^[9] (500 yards from the western end of the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 town) other mounds and 17-18 megalithic stone circles about a mile west of Dhara峁噄ko峁璦. He drew attention to the fine carvings on stones. He also mentioned about the discovery of coins and inscriptions at Dip膩ldinne. The Mackenzie鈥檚 Collection in the British Library comprised of two plans of the mound (PL 2a, PL 2b), a map, a sketch of the stone circles in the neighbourhood and the drawings of sculptures and inscriptions. Later some of the drawings and plans were published in J. Fergusson鈥檚 Tree and Serpent Worship^[10], R Sewell鈥檚 Report on the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 Tope^[11], J. Burgess鈥檚 The Buddhist 蝉迟奴辫补s of

础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 and Jaggayyape峁璦^[12] and W.A Frank鈥檚 List of Drawings from the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 Tope, Southern India. Fergusson refers to three copies of Mackenzie鈥檚 drawings, one sent to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta, second sent to Madras and the third sent to the Court of Directors, London. Mackenzie removed some sculptures from 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨. In a note dated 7^th April 1817 pasted onto the volume of drawings, it is stated that eleven stones including an inscription were given to Major Cotgrave at Masulipa峁璦m^[13]. These artifacts later came to Calcutta. Two were presented by Mackenzie to the Asiatic Society of Bengal which was later sent to the Indian Museum. After the death of Mackenzie nine artifacts were sent to East India Company鈥檚 Museum in London. But J. Burgess, however, stated that seven sculptures were sent to the India office via Madras and atleast sixteen reached London. He stated that most of the stones cleared by Mackenzie were actually left exposed at 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 for making drawings of it. The local inhabitants either took it or burnt it for lime. The stones sent to Masulipa峁璦m and remained there for many years.

In 1830 Mr. Robertson, Collector of Masulipatam broght more sculptures from the site. He arranged thirty three slabs in the square of a market place named after himself. In 1835 these stones attracted the attention of Sir Frederick Adam, Governor of Madras. He gave an order to send these antiquities to the Museum of the Literary Society, Madras which occurred twenty years later. During this period some of the stones were kept in the garden of Mr. Alexander, the Master attendant. The government succeeded in retrieving it in 1880.

Next investigation of the site took place in 1845 when Walter Elliot, the Commissioner of Gun峁璾r made haphazard digging. He exposed the western gateway and some sculptured stones including two lions, five dome slabs and the shaft of the monolithic column. He also discovered a miniature 蝉迟奴辫补. Elliot suggested that the structure was huge. Elliot sent the sculptural remains to Madras. After investigation the Court of Directors placed these artifacts in front of the Central Museum in 1853.

In 1856 Edward Balfour took charge of Madras Museum and asked Rev. William Taylor to compile and publish the 鈥淓lliot Marbles鈥�. Taylor listed 79 sculptures of which two were missing. He added 37 marbles to the list which came to Masulipa峁璦m in April-May 1856^[14]. During this time seven pieces were already discovered which were photographed by Captain Tripe in 1858-59. Walter Elliot procured 44 more pieces. By 1859, one twenty one pieces of the 鈥淓lliot Marbles鈥� were sent to London. According to Boswell, other Marbles were sent to the Central Museum, Madras, Bezwada Museum and few others remained with Captain Maiden, Master attendant in Masulipa峁璦m.

One twenty one marbles reached London in 1860 and remained at Beale鈥檚 wharf in south work for a year. This was the time after the Revolt of 1857 when the rule of the East India Company was taken over by the British crown. In this chaotic political scenario the sculptures were kept to the stables of fife House in 1861. However, the best pieces were preserved along the outer wall of the Fife House while the rest were kept in the stables. This was the situation upto 1867 when James Fergusson found them. Fergusson with the help of Forbes Watson, Director of India Museum brought out the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 collection from Fife Coach House to the world. Fergusson sent four or five 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 specimens to the Paris Exhibition. He exhibited the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 photographs in Paris and in 1867 read a paper on it to the Royal Asiatic Society. In his book Tree and Serpent Worship he gave photographic and textual account of the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 蝉迟奴辫补. He identified several Buddhist scenes and motifs.

In June 1869 J.A.C Boswell, Officiating Collector of the K峁泂h峁嚹� District prepared a report on archaeological remains in the district which naturally included remnants in and around 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨. Boswell submitted his report in the next year and extracts of it were published in the Indian Antiquary^[15]. Boswell鈥檚 report led to first serious discussion on the excavation, investigation and preservation of the site. The report was sent by the Madras Government to the Secretary of State for India in India office. In a Despatch (12^th April, 1871) from India office to the Government of Fort St. George, the Secretary of State stated that he had taken the opinion of Mr. Fergusson, Sir Walter Elliot and Rost.

础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 excavation was restarted by Robert Sewell in 1877. He excavated 100 ft platform and discovered 90 sculpture marble pieces. Sewell got a clear picture of the site and mentioned that it was not covered by a number of structures as mentioned by Fergusson but a single structure, that is a large 蝉迟奴辫补^[16].

In February 1880, the Madras Government directed J.G Horsfall, the Collector of the K峁泂h峁嚹� district to complete the excavation at 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨. He began his work on 16^th February 1880 and personally supervised it upto 3^rd March 1880. He came back to the site on 24^th March 1880 and saw that Sergeant Coney had already taken photographs of the site. In his report he referred to the discovery of a brick basement, some inscriptions, coins, potteries, relic casket, ascertained the position of the Southern gateway and uncovered a number of sculptured stones. He also reported that his draftsmen had made a plan which he will submit shortly. The Madras Government sent the report to Sewell who commented that the plan drawn by the Public Works Department officers were more accurate than his own^[17]. But they had given new numbers to the stone. This double numbering created problem of correlations of the plan. Sewell recommended further excavation.

James Burgess was then given the charge of further enquiry at 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨. He visited the site in December 1881 and January 1882 and found that the site looked like a circular pit of about 75 yards in diameter with extensions at the cardinal points. He gave a detailed description of the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 蝉迟奴辫补 and divided the antiquities into several structural phases. He described the sculptures and integrated it with epigraphical evidences. He also gave a series of photolithographs of the site. Burgess suggested that the diameter of the 蝉迟奴辫补 was 138 feet at the base and 80-100 feet high. He opined that the 蝉迟奴辫补 was surrounded by a sculpted double rail^[18]. He suggested for the immediate removal of the exposed stones to the Central Museum, Madras. As a result preparation was made for the removal of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 stones. However, a telegram from the Madras Government stopped all operations. The Government of India gave the order to Captain Cole to visit the site and give opinion on the matter.

Cole managed to visit the site in November 1882 and inspected 175 stones near the site of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨. Cole strongly suggested non removal of ancient antiquities from India to England. He added that there is no need to send more stones to the Museum. Here it may be stated that the British Museum and the Central Museum Madras had already housed many 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 marbles. Cole recommended in situ conservation and not restoration.

He also suggested that a photographic documentation of the marble pieces should be made. Burgess opposed Cole鈥檚 recommendation and urged the Madras Government to take steps for the preservation of the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 stones.

The Madras Government accepted Burgess鈥檚 suggestion and asked the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, Cunningham for his opinion. Cunningham鈥檚 opinion helped the Madras Government to accept Burgess鈥檚 plan. In spite of Cole鈥檚 opposition Burgess鈥檚 recommendations were implemented and 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 stones were removed to the Madras Government. In the Madras Museum the stones were entrusted to the acting Surgeon General Bidie. But unfortunately Bidie arranged the stones in such a way that many of them were embedded in the cement for display. Burgess was extremely disappointed with this act^[19].

For further investigation several excavations were carried by Alexander Rea in 1888-89, 1905-06 and 1908-09^[20], R. Subrahmanyam and K. K峁泂h峁嚹乵urthy of Archaeological Survey of India in 1958-59^[21] and I.K Sarma in 1973-74^[22]. A. Rea鈥檚 excavations revealed the lesser 蝉迟奴辫补s, a gold casket with golden flower and bronze images of Buddha. Some of them were preserved in the Madras Government Museum and Archaeological Museum, 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨. R. Subrahmanyam and K峁泂h峁嚹乵urthy鈥檚 operation exposed numerous architectural fragments of the railing with donative inscriptions, uprights and crossbars. I.K Sarma鈥檚 investigation revealed the five main phases of the Mah膩蝉迟奴辫补^[23]. In 1974-75 A. Ghosh鈥檚 excavation gave a clearer chronological and cultural sequence of the site.

However, it can be stated that the result of such investigations and excavations revealed one of the greatest 惭补丑腻肠补颈迟测补 of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 which held a position of great importance in ancient India. Early excavations led to different views regarding the plan of the Mah膩蝉迟奴辫补. Fergusson opined that it consisted of two railings surrounding the monastic complex and a central 蝉迟奴辫补. Percy Brown suggested that the 蝉迟奴辫补 showed a raised circumambulatory, dome and drum slabs. It is now confirmed that a single rail surrounded the 蝉迟奴辫补. Robert Knox added some more details.

These are as follows:-

1. existence of 腻测补办补蝉 on four sides of the 蝉迟奴辫补
2. profusion of sculptures and decorative motifs
3. use of P膩lnad marble^[24]

From the various archaeological reports it can be inferred that the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 Mah膩蝉迟奴辫补 was systematically planned from its inception. The Mah膩蝉迟奴辫补 consisted of a dome placed on a cylindrical drum like platform (PL 2c). It was surrounded by an exquisitely carved railing 59 m in diameter. It consisted of upright slabs (Stambha) each about 2.7 m high and 85 cm in diameter separated by trios of crossbars (Su肠墨) each about 82.5 cm in diameter. Each pair of upright stood upon a plinth. Minor sculptures were carved in between the spaces of the upright. The scenes gave an impression of an ivory work. Within the boundary rail (PL 2d) was constructed 108 蝉迟奴辫补s^[25]. In this regard it may be stated that both sides of the rail were richly decorated with scenes narrating the 闯腻迟补办补 stories 础惫补诲腻苍补蝉 and scenes from Buddha鈥檚 life.

The rail was crowned by a highly ornate coping (鲍峁ａ箛墨峁�a) 80 cm (32 in) wide and 30cm (12 inch) thick(PL 3a). From various archaeological investigations it can be presumed that the railing when complete probably contained 136 pillars and 348 crossbars (Su肠墨) supporting about 240m (800 ft) of coping^[26]. At each cardinal point, a gateway (罢辞谤补峁嘺) was constructed. The 迟辞谤补峁嘺蝉 were guarded by two or four guardian lions. Evolution of 迟辞谤补峁嘺蝉 with guardian lions seated on pillars at 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 probably led to the later development of 厂颈峁僪补诲惫腻谤补蝉 (Lion Gateways)^[27]. In between the railing and the drum, upon which the dome of the 蝉迟奴辫补 was mounted was a narrow area which probably served the circumambulatory pathway or 辫谤补诲补办峁�i峁嘺辫补迟丑补. The cardinal points of the 辫谤补诲补办峁�i峁嘺辫补迟丑补 were marked by five standing pillars, that is, 腻测补办补蝉. It is an unique feature of the South Indian 蝉迟奴辫补s.

Huge number of sculptures and materials now preserved in the various Indian and foreign museums reveal naturalistic plastic treatment of Buddhist themes. Primarily the sculptures are presented in narrative style where the entire theme is chiseled in several episodes.

Sculptures are found on various architectural components of the 蝉迟奴辫补: -

1. railing (惫别诲颈办腻)-railing pillars (stambha) (PL 3b), crossbars (Su肠墨) (PL 3c), coping (耻峁ａ箛墨峁�a)
2. drum-drum frieze panels, drum slabs, drum pilasters
3. dome slabs
4. column fragments

In addition to it guardian lions are also found.

The sculptures of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 may be broadly divided into the following periods phases:-

1. First phase
2. Second phase
3. Third phase
4. Fourth phase
5. Fifth phase

Early /First phase (c 200 B.C.E -c 100 B.C.E)

The sculptures belonging to this period are assignable to the period of the foundation of the 蝉迟奴辫补^[28]. These sculptures are few and mostly fragmentary. The sculptures are distinguished by low and flat reliefs. The figures suffer from stiffness and show dull face. The sculptures lack flexion which later became a significant characteristic of the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 style. The sculptures share stylistic parallels with the sculptures of Bh膩rhut and early S膩帽ch墨. The figures are chiseled in frontal attitude but the feet face opposite directions^[29]. In this phase Buddha is represented symbolically. Some coping fragments of this phase show the representation of dwarfish figures. Here one can find the curious depiction of a dwarf with elephantine head and ear (PL 3d). According to A.K Coomaraswamy such representation in later period became a feature of the iconographic form of Ganesa^[30]. Almost all the sculptures from the plinth are from earlier rail. An eye catching feature of the plinth is the representation of powerful and heavy animals (mythical and real) (PL 4a).

Second phase (100 C.E鈥�149 C.E)

This phase can be attributed to the period of the reign of the 厂腻迟补惫腻丑补苍补 king V膩艣i峁ａ弓h墨putra Pulam膩vi (116-19 C.E). The sculptures of this period show a definite advance in modelling from the previous period. In this phase the linear sensitiveness of the reliefs are subdued to some extent. However, though the figures are more graceful and natural than previous period, they show a preference for heavy form. These sculptures usually depict principal scenes from Buddha鈥檚 life (PL 4b). Here Buddha is mostly depicted in symbolic way though occasionally one finds anthropomorphic representation of the Master. However, there is some controversy regarding the origin of the Buddha figure. It is generally suggested that the earliest image of Buddha appears at Gandhara and Mathura and the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 Buddha owes its inspiration to them. 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 followed the traditions in the next century^[31]. Some of the reliefs of this period are Siddhartha鈥檚 惭补丑腻产丑颈苍颈峁�k谤补尘补峁嘺, 惭腻谤补鈥� s temptation, Dream of 惭腻测腻, 笔耻谤峁嘺办补濒补艣补 etc.

Third Phase (c.150-200 CE)

This phase is contemporaneous to the period of the 厂腻迟补惫腻丑补苍补 ruler 艢r墨 Yajna Satakarni. This period is characterized by the profuse carvings on the rail constructed around the great 蝉迟奴辫补. These carvings are considered as the finest specimens of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 art^[32]. The scenes from the life of Buddha (PL 4c) and episodes of his previous births are ascribed to this period.

In this phase the figures are more deeply and delicately cut and ornamented with fine aesthetic taste. The plastic pliability and linearism is more evident and the treatment is more elegant than visualized in the reliefs of the previous periods (PL 4d). There is also a suggestion of perspective by varying the sizes of a figure in successive planes.

Depiction of human figures became a prominent feature of the relief in this period. Scenes are crowded with figures in various poses and attitudes. The figures are extremely pliable showing various movements. The movement in their final form becomes circular. The powerful emotions of human heart find appropriate rendering in the reliefs of this period. This is clearly seen in the scene narrating the subjugation of Nalagiri, Bodhisattva鈥檚 descent as a white elephant, Udayana and his queen, Siddhartha鈥檚 Departure etc. There is an increased depiction of 驰补办峁�a蝉 exhibiting various stances and actions.

Buddha鈥檚 image appears frequently in this period. However, the symbolic representations of the Master continued its existence. Another interesting addition to the symbolic representation of the Master is the use of flaming pillar above the feet. The early bronzes from 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 approximately belong to this period.

Fourth Phase (c. 200-250 C.E)

In this period the figures are slightly taller and more slender. To this period belong some very pleasing compositions(PL 5a). The casing slabs with 蝉迟奴辫补 representations are diminutive in size. In this phase pearl ornament became the most important ornament in the sculptures. 颁耻岣峚尘补苍颈尘补办补谤颈办腻 or the makara jewel on the head and pearl yajnopavita (muktayapavita) is also seen in this period.

Later /Fifth Phase

This period coincides with 滨办峁�v腻办耻蝉 and the later dynasties of Andhra. The later dynasties, however, did not play a significant part in the refurbishment of the monument and concentrated their art activity elsewhere. Infact the end of the 厂腻迟补惫腻丑补苍补 rule saw the end of work on the great 蝉迟奴辫补^[33]. Though from the 3^rd century CE onwards the monument was on decline but it survived till 14^th century C.E. Several inscriptions and sculptures bear testimony to this. In this regard mention may be made of some figures of Buddha in stone and metal (4^th鈥�^th century C.E) Bodhisattva Avolokite艣vara, Bodhisattva Manju艣r墨 (PL 5b), 痴补箩谤补辫腻峁噄 (8^th Century C.E), Buddha (9^th Century C.E) Tara (10^th Century C.E) (PL 5c) from the site which exhibit Pallava flavour.

Apart from 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨, several archaeological sites have been discovered from various parts of Andhra Pradesh. In the following pages discussions on some archaeological sites of Andhra have been made.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Barrett Doughlas, 1984, Sculptures from 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 in the British Museum, London, p 21

[2]:

Knox Robert, 1992, 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨, Buddhist Sculpture from the Great St奴pa, London, p 9.

[3]:

Rana Jyoti Rohilla, 2013, The Sculptural Art of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨, Delhi, p 2.

[4]:

Sivaramamurti C, 1956, 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 Sculpture in the Madras Government Museum, Madras, p 1,

[5]:

Chakrabarti Dilip.K, 2006, Oxford Companion to Indian Archaeology, The Archaeological foundations of Ancient India, Stone Age to A.D 13^th Century, New Delhi, p 394.

[6]:

Singh Upinder, 2001, 鈥槾〕静拱�腻惫补迟��: the dismembering of the Mahacaitya (17971886)鈥� Journal of the Society for South Asian Studies, Vol 17, London, p 19.

[7]:

Barrett Douglas, Op cit, p 22.

[8]:

Ramachandran A, 1996, The Cultural History of Lower 碍峁涐梗峁嚹� Valley, Its contact with South East Asia, Jaipur, p 43.

[9]:

Singh Upinder, Op cit, p 21.

[10]:

Fergusson James, 1873, Tree and Serpent Worship or illustrations of mythology and art in India in the first and fourth centuries after Christ. From the sculptures of the Buddhist Topes at S膩帽ch墨 and 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨, London.

[11]:

Sewell Robert, 1880, Report on the 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 Tope and Excavations on its site in 1877, London.

[12]:

Burgess J, 1970, The Buddhist 蝉迟奴辫补s of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 and Jaggayyape峁璦, Varanasi.

[13]:

Barrett Doughlas, Op cit, p 22-23

[14]:

Upinder Singh, Op cit p 23.

[15]:

Boswell J.A.C, 1984 Reprint, 鈥極n the Ancient Remains in the Krishna District鈥�, Burgess Jas (ed), The Indian Antiquary, Vol 1, Bombay, Delhi, pp 151-152.

[16]:

Singh Upinder, 2004, 鈥楧ocumentation & Destruction: The Case of 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 (1797-1886)鈥� in Ray Himanshu Prabha and Sinopoli Carla M. (ed), Archaeology as History in Early South Asia, New Delhi, p 31.

[17]:

Singh Upinder, 2001, Op cit, p 31.

[18]:

Burgess J.A.S, Op.cit, pp 19-22

[19]:

Singh Upinder, 2001, Op cit, p37

[20]:

Rea A, 1990 (Reprint), 鈥楨xcavations at Amaravati鈥�, Annual report of Archaeological Survey of India, 1905-1906, Delhi, pp 116-119, 鈥楨xcavations at Amaravati鈥�, Annual Report of Archaeological Survey of India, 1908-09, pp 88-91.

[21]:

Ghosh A, (ed) 1959, 鈥楨xplorations and Excavations: Andhra Pradesh鈥�, Indian Archaeology -A Review, 1958-59, Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi, p 5.

[22]:

Sarkar H and Nainar S.P, 2003, Amaravati, New Delhi, p4

[23]:

Sarma, I. Karthikeya, 1974, 鈥楽ome more Inscriptions from 础尘补谤腻惫补迟墨 Excavations and the Chronology of the Mah膩蝉迟奴辫补鈥� Desai Z.A, Shastri Ajay Mitra, Ramesh K.V (ed), Studies in Indian Epigraphy, vol 1, Mysore, pp 60- 61.

[24]:

Rana Jyoti Rohilla, Op cit, p 16

[25]:

Ramachandran A, Op cit, pp 49-50

[26]:

Barrett Doughlas, Op.cit, p 30

[27]:

Knox Robert, Op.cit, p 27

[28]:

Rana Jyoti Rohilla, Op. cit, p 17

[29]:

Sivaramamurti C, Op. cit, p 28.

[30]:

Coomaraswamy Ananda K, 1993, Yaksas-Essay in the Water Cosmology, New Delhi, p 43, pl 23a.

[31]:

Sivaramamurti.C, Op. cit, p 30

[32]:

Knox Robert, Op. cit, p 15

[33]:

Rea A, 1969, South India Buddhist Antiquities, Report of Archaeological Survey of India, Varanasi, p 7