The Indian truth behind the ruins of Takshasila

 

     The truth behind the ruins of Takshasila

Takshasila(Taxila) was a vital Buddhist centre from the fifth century B.C. to the Sixth Century A.D. Takshasila illustrates the different stages in the development of a city on the Indus. It included the ancient Neolithic Saraikala mound, the Sirkap fortification (2nd century B.C.) and the town of Sirsukh (1st century A.D.). Central Asian, Persian and Greek influence can be witnessed at Takshasila. (Centre, 2023). Ancient Takshasila was situated at the pivotal junction of South Asia and Central Asia. The common association of the Huns with Takshasila has been the destroyer of the Buddhist structures at Takshasila. The name “Huns” has been associated with atrocities committed against select groups and vandalism, especially by Attila in Europe. However, no reliable evidence exists of the Alkhan carrying out such atrocities and destruction in the outgoing fourth century. New archaeological research has revealed that this image does not correspond with historical reality.  

Prof. Ahmad Hasan Dhani, an eminent archaeologist, historian and linguist, writes in the introduction of the book on Ancient Pakistan, “The archaeology of Pakistan in the post-Kushana period is ill evidenced. On the suggestion of Sir John Marshall, it is generally believed that the Huns destroyed the Buddhist monasteries in the 5th century A.D., and they probably spelt disaster to the rich civilization built by the Kushanas under the inspiration of Buddhism and on the thriving commerce with the East and the West. Unfortunately, no heed is paid to the accounts of the Chinese pilgrims travelled in West Pakistan either during the rule of the Huns or after them. The analysis of their accounts tells entirely a different story. When these details are combined with scattered pieces of archaeological material, we get a completely new picture.”

The Kidarite Hun took over East of the Indus in Punjab around Takshasila from the last Kushan kings ruling there. The Indian kings pushed them into Kashmir after ruling here with the Alkhan (Schörflinger, 2013). Historical sources and archaeological finds reveal that the Alkhan Hun had expanded eastward across the Indus and reached at least Takshasila. Four hunters are shown on a silver bowl found in Swat but likely produced in Gandhara; based on their crowns and features, two can be identified as Alkhan and two as Kidarites. After the Alkhans, the Karkota dynasty of Kashmir ruled Takshasila, but there is no mention of destruction by Kalahana in his book Rajatarangani. The Chinese Buddhist pilgrims continued visiting Gandhara sites in the Peshawar basin into the early 6th A.D. Many visited the Buddha’s alms bowl shrine (Behrendt, 2004). Kuwayama was the first to challenge the old assumption of percecution by the Hun.

However, in their portrayal of the Huns, the authors of Antiquity had nothing positive to say, describing them as barbaric intruders. Xuan-Zang, also known as Hsiuen Tsang, was a 7th-century Chinese Buddhist monk. He was also a scholar, traveller, and translator. Hsuen Tsang visited Takshasila almost two centuries after the Huns and blamed them for the destruction in his writings. As per Xuan-zang’s description, in Gandhāra, there are 1000 sangharamas or Stupas, which are deserted and in ruins. The stupas are filled with wild shrubs and are solitary to the last degree. (Zang & Beal, 1884 This was not the case with all the stupas. Xuanzang writes that the monastery at Pushkalavati was not abandoned outside the city. Kanishka's stupa, the cruciform stupa at Shah-ji-ki-dheri, was restored after being damaged (Zang & Beal, 1884). Xuanzang and Sun Yun attribute the decline of the Gandhāran tradition to the Hephthalites, and Marshall goes a step further to suggest iconoclasm and the burning of monasteries (Marshall 1951: 76-77). John Marshall was prejudiced as a European historian and specialist in Greek Civilization history. The devastation carried out by Atilla the Hun was probably why John Marshall attributed the destruction of Takshasila to the Huns without differentiating the various Hun tribes.

Scholars initially took these accounts as credible evidence, assuming that sometime in the middle of the fifth century A.D.the Peshawar Buddhist community of Gandhara was persecuted and that the sites were methodically pillaged and destroyed (Behrendt, 2004). However, a more recent and reasonable suggestion seems plausible that trade routes shifted in favour of the Kabul Valley in Afghanistan, as there was an evident economic decline in Gandhāra in the mid-sixth century. In all of these scenarios, it is possible that earthquakes could have played a vital role in the rising and falling fortunes of the Gandhāran tradition and may well have caused the widespread destruction Xuanzang observed.

The Buddhist centres at Gandhara(greater) were established very slowly, in different phases. Evolving masonry techniques allow chronologically distinct construction phases to be distinguished.

1. Phase-I: Rubble masonry. Two independent complexes were built. Butkara I and Dharmarajika, and a small group of sites in the city of Sirkap.

2. Phase II: Diaper Masonry. More sites were founded in this phase.

3. Phase III and later Phase III: Ashlar Masonry & Double-Semi-Ashlar Masonry. Most construction occurred in the Peshawar basin, Takshasila, and Swat. The architectural forms corresponding to stage III account for perhaps 70% of the material that survives today. The most critical phase III sites are Takht-i-barf, Sahrf-Bahlol, Jamal Garh1, Thareli, Ranigat, Dharmarajika, Jauliafi, Mohra Moradu, Butkara I, Saidu, and Nimogram.

Construction appears to have occurred in Afghanistan, and sites such as Bamiyan, Fondukistan, and Tapa Sardar thrived. In contrast, only a few sites in the Peshawar basin and Takshasila had active patronage at this time: Shah-ji-ki-deheri, Bhamala, Mamikyala, Bhallar tope, and probably the Dharmarajika complex.

Figure : Map of Main Archaeological Sites in Taxila World Heritage Site (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2010e).

 

A major proponent of the Hunnic destruction theories, Jhon Marshall, Director General Archaeology, India, wrote in his book Taxila (Takshasila) that “circumstantial evidence leads no doubt that the White Huns were responsible for the wholesale destruction of the Buddhist sangharamas(monastery) at Takshasila. Thirty-two silver coins were found in the ruins of Takshasila. All but one coin was found in the burnt-out monasteries, where some invaders perished. Several skeletons were found at Dharamarajika monasteries, including one of a White Hun.” The coins were probably minted North of the Hindu Kush, and names appearing on the coins were those of "Jabula,” "Jarusha,” "Jatukha," or "Jaruba." Marshall writes that these names were Brahmi variants of "Javula" or "Jabuvlah." The coins were struck between 450-500 AD at a mint in Balkh(Marshall, 1951). Marshall's assumptions were based on the fact that the last series of coins found at Takshasila belonged to the Huns and no other later dynasty.

Kurt A. Behrendt is an associate curator of South Asian art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In his book, “The Buddhist Architecture of Gandhara,” Behrendt quoted John Marshall and wrote that until now, these theories had been accepted. The reason was that post-500 A.D., the patronage for Buddhism appeared to have collapsed. This is why coins have not been found at the Buddhist sites or in any archaeological records. This has been seen at other sites too. This theory has been supported by the fact that sculptures with sophisticated late iconography were not found at the sites. These are also some of Xuanzang's "1,000 sangharamas, which are deserted and in ruins" (Behrendt, 2004).

The Bamiyan Valley was a vital route connecting the Silk Route with Southern countries like India. Xuanzang passed through the area around 630 AD and described Bamiyan as a flourishing Buddhist centre (Blänsdorf, 2009). Xuanzang was in Samarkand, North of the Oxus river (Amu Darya). He would learn about Buddhism’s chief form of architecture, the Stupa, and Buddhist Kings like Ashoka and Kanishka. Two monasteries existed, but they had long stood empty before his arrival. He then travelled south to the Oxus River, which rises in the Pamirs. Staying on the northern side of the river, he remained in Termez. There he found Buddhism flourishing, with more than a thousand brethren.

 Finally, Xuanzang visited Balk on the advice of the prince of Kunduz because of its many religious monuments. One hundred monasteries and three thousand monks belonged to the Hinayana or lesser vehicle. Above all, the countryside was rich in relics despite the invasions of a series of foreign invaders. Buddhism flourished from the first to the third century. During the third and fifth centuries, the cave monasteries at Bamiyan and the thousands of Stupas at Hadda were constructed. The Buddhas of Bamiyan, including the Western Buddha and the Eastern Buddha, were carbon-dated between 544-595 CE. Then came the invasion of the White Huns, who conquered Gandhara on the way to India. Sally Hovey Wriggins was the first Westerner who travelled extensively in Asia and retraced the footsteps of Xuanzang. Sally writes that Xuanzang may have exaggerated their destruction; a combination of floods, a general decline in economic prosperity, and, most importantly, a general revival of Hinduism had occurred by the seventh century when Xuanzang passed through the area (Wriggins, 2023).

Elizabeth Errington, in her paper “Numismatic evidence for dating the Buddhist remains of Gandhara”, has supported the view that the Huns did not destroy Takshasila, and there were several other reasons. She can no longer sustain John Marshall’s simplistic view. She writes that the Hun invasions must have impacted politically and economically. For all periods, the monastic sites have produced very few stray coins finds, and in some sites, none (Errington, 2015).

When making any numismatic assessment of this region, it is necessary to remember that the lack of coin evidence in specific periods may be because none were issued, and other forms of currency or the coins of earlier dynasties were used instead. For example, the Palas of East India (c. mid-eighth to the twelfth century) issued no coins but are known as a powerful dynasty from other sources. As far as the Huns are concerned, coins of Kidara are relatively numerous, but the Alchon coin-issuing group is known to date only from hoards of silver coins found at Takshasila and Shah-ji-ki-Dheri, and a single stray finds at Ranigat.

Hun coins of unspecified types have also apparently been found during current excavations of the urban site of Hund. However, there is a numismatic gap at all the other Peshawar Valley and Swat sites, including Butkara I. This gap from approximately the mid-fifth century to the beginning of the seventh ends at Butkara I with a coin of Sri Sahi (c. A.D.). The period coincides initially with the conquest of these regions by the Alchon Hun rulers Khingila (c. AD 440-90), Toramana (c. AD 490-515) and Mihirakula (c. AD 515-28), all of whom issued bronze coins (Alram, 2000). So-called Toramana coins from Dharmarajika, listed by Marshall, Takshasila are, in fact, coins of Kashmir, issued in the name of this ruler, or a later ruler of the same name, in the sixth-seventh century.

 The general absence of their issues at sites north of the Kabul River and West of the Indus has been relied upon to deduce the abandonment of the monasteries: after all, Song Yun describes the Peshawar Valley in AD 519-20 as "the country which the Ye-thas destroyed and afterwards set up Lae-lih to be king," a ruler who was "strongly opposed" to Buddhism. However, the lack of bronze coins datable to this period is not confined to the Buddhist sites but appears to be a general trend throughout the region. If this is the case, the gap between the Late Kushan/ Kushano-Sasanian bronze coinages and that of the Hindu Shahis could be explained by the fact that none were issued in the interim, earlier coinages may have continued in use or bartering or other currency forms were adopted. Thus the lack of Hun bronze coins cannot be viewed as conclusive evidence for abandoning the monasteries at this time.

Evidence in the form of coins lends credence to the theory that the Kushan dynasty, which ruled the province of Gandhara from the second century until the beginning of the fifth century, was responsible for the growth and prosperity of the territory's monasteries. The Hun invasion that occurred at that time has been blamed for the destruction of the monasteries; however, coin discoveries and other evidence demonstrate, on the contrary, that occupancy in some form lasted at numerous significant sites into the eighth or perhaps the ninth century. As a result, it would appear that the conclusion was not necessarily dramatic but rather was the result of a multitude of events that affected various locations at various periods. It's possible that natural calamities had as much of an effect on some situations as the political and economic upheaval that was brought on by the Hun invasion. It appears that the fall of the pro-Buddhist Kushan dynasty, the subsequent rise to power of the Brahmanic Hindu Shahi, and, in Afghanistan at least, eventually, the advent of Islam from the West were more significant factors (Quintanilla et al., 2004).

As more archaeological evidence emerges, Marshall's chronological framework for the end of Buddhism in the fifth century becomes increasingly unsustainable. Ahmad Hasan Dani, for example, has already remarked in connection with the excavations at Damkot in Swat that "the evidence is not sufficient to prove that there was a calamity [... or that this so-called] calamity was due to the invasion of the \White Huns in the fifth or sixth century" (Rehman, 1969).

An important point to be considered in assessing the factors that led to the end of Buddhism in Gandhara is the paucity of evidence for the deliberate destruction of sites. For example, at Jamalgarhi, Takht-iBahi, Jaulian, and possibly elsewhere, the stucco figural reliefs - indeed a prime target for attack - were not vandalized but in pristine condition, having been protected for centuries, until excavation, by fallen debris from the collapse of the upper sections of the buildings. At Jamalgarhi, the complete stucco figures of seated Buddhas encircling the main st[pa, excavated in 1852 and left in situ without protection, totally disintegrated within fifty years after they were exposed (Bailey, 1833). This suggests that the collapse of the buildings must have been quite sudden and was not the result of a gradual process of decay over decades, else the stucco would not have survived.

Xuan-zang's record compares with the archaeological and numismatic evidence elsewhere. He says that the people of Takshasila were still Buddhists and mentions four monasteries that a few monks inhabited during his visit (Takakusu, 1905). The patterns of coin distribution at the Takshasila sites support this assertion: notably, the finds at Bhamala, Lalchak, and Dharmarajrka included Alchon Hun and other coins of the mid-fifth-seventh century. However, the presence, at Dharmarajike, of images of the Hindu divinities Vasudeva-Krsna (fifth-sixth century) and Skanda/ Karttikeya (sixth century) indicates that the situation was not straightforward and that some form of amalgamation of religion & cultures could have been evolving at this and other sites in the vicinity.

Behrendt explains how an earthquake can explain the ruin, as described by Sung-yun and Xuanzang. Unfortunately, no documentary evidence supports the hypothesis, but the region lies in the seismic belt and has witnessed periodic earthquakes. Calleri has observed a sixth-century earthquake in Swat(Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), which accounts for the extent of destruction (Behrendt, 2004). Marshall also suggested that an earthquake destroyed Sikarp, and then it was rebuilt. Marshall writes about the temple at Jandial in Takshasila, where several of the columns and pilaster bases fractures were probably caused by earthquakes, and the fractures were repaired by cutting back on the broken stones to straight edges and dowelling on separate pieces using iron pins. If it can happen in Sikarp, it could also be the reason for destroying other structures (Marshall, 1921).

Luoyang Qielan ji describes Gandhara as follows:

“The land (of Boshafu, Varushapura, or modern Shahbaz Garhi) on the rivers is fertile, and the fortified city is well ordered, the population large and flourishing, the woods and the springs lush and numerous. The land is rich with precious articles, and the customs are refined and good. In and out of the city, there are old temples where virtuous priests and monks reside, and their devout conducts are highly excellent. One Chinese mile to the north of the town is a temple called the White Elephant Palace (a palace of the father of Prince Visvantara), where all of the Buddhist statues are of stone, extremely fine in decoration and very many in number. The entire body of each statue is covered with thin leaves of gold, producing a dazzling effect on the viewers. “

There is no indication of abandoned temples or the decline of Buddhist activity here. This, on the other hand, is true. This is an authentic pilgrim's writing that we are aware of. It relates to the stone sculptures and images of Gandharan art covered in delicate gold leaf. (KUWAYAMA, 2002).

Abdur Rehman notes that there is no reason to assume, as is generally believed, that Buddhism disappeared altogether with the Ephthalite invasion of Gandhara in A.D. 455. The Turk Sahis were decidedly Buddhists. The sites of Bambolai and Damkot have now yielded Buddhist sculptures datable to the post-Ephthalite period. The evidence of some of the Tibetan pilgrims to Swat has suggested to G. Tucci that Buddhism existed in this area as late as the thirteenth century A.D. (Rehman, 1988).

The Hunnic rulers were more often donors of religious monuments and presented themselves as an integrative power, equally open to all religious and ethnic groups. Primary evidence about the History of East Iran recently surfaced with a private collector in Norway. An inscription on a copper scroll dedicating a Buddhist stupa in Tālagānika listed the names of several Alkhan donors at the end of the 5th century. The names of Khīngīla, Toramāna, Javūkha, and Mehama all were Alkhan rulers of the Turk Shahi dynasty. (Rezakhan, 2019)