Amaravati Art in the Context of Andhra Archaeology
by Sreyashi Ray chowdhuri | 2018 | 90,477 words
This page relates ‘Lower Krishna Valley (2): Bhattiprolu� of the study on Amaravati Art in the Context of Andhra Archaeology, including museum exhibitions of the major archeological antiquities. These pages show how the Buddhist establishment of Amaravati (Andhra Pradesh) survived from 4th century BCE to 14th century CE. It includes references and translations of episodes of Buddha’s life drawn from the Avadanas and Jatakas which are illustrated in Amaravati art.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
Lower Kṛṣṇ� Valley (2): Bhaṭṭiprolu
[Location: Bhaṭṭiprolu (Lat 1606’N, Long 800 47 E Repalle Taluk, Gunṭur District)]
The ū貹 of Bhaṭiprolu [Bhaṭṭiprolu] was one of the magnificent brick structures of early Andhradesa. Once a massive ū貹, probably next to 屹ī, it is presently an irregular mass of brickwork with concentric courses of bricks. The mound (locally called Lanja-dibbā) was reported by Boswell (1870)[1] and then referred by Walter Elliot in a letter printed in Government Proceedings of 7th June, 1871. A. Rea (1892)[2] made excavation of the ruined mass and succeeded in tracing the plan of the ū貹. Regarding the plan H. Sarkar opined that the ū貹 exhibited a wheel shaped ground plan which probably first began in Bhaṭṭiprolu[3]. Many important objects were also discovered from the site. Among them mention may be made of three inscribed votive caskets which contain a stone and crystal reliquaries with jewels (PL 5d).
Like 屹ī Ѳ峦ٲⲹ, the relics of Bhaṭṭiprolu contain Buddha’s bone receptacles (Śٳ). The solid dome at Bhaṭṭiprolu measure 132 feet in diameter. The top of the drum measured 148 feet in diameter. Around the base of the dome was a terrace 8 feet wide. The height of the drum was 8 feet. The drum had four projected ⲹ첹 with ⲹ첹 pillars. Around the base of the drum was a processional path measuring 8 feet 4 inch wide.
From the inscriptions discovered from the site it appears that some individuals and a King Kuberaka made donations to the ū貹. From the inscription it appears that the date of the ū貹 is not later than 200 B.C.E[4].
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Ibid, p 9
[3]:
Ramachandran A, Op. cit, p 80