Amaravati Art in the Context of Andhra Archaeology
by Sreyashi Ray chowdhuri | 2018 | 90,477 words
This page relates ‘Amaravati as the Centre of Buddhism’ 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.
Amarāvatī as the Centre of Buddhism
Amarāvatī art persisted with all its glory throughout the vicissitudes of Andhra cultural history till 14th Century C.E and a portion of it still survives as antiquities preserved in National and International Museums as a part of rich Indian art treasure. The rich plastic art of Amarāvatī served as an architectural embellishment of the Mahācaitya and other religious establishments attached to it. In fact much of the popularity of the place Amarāvatī lay in its Great Stupa characterized by its huge size and elaborate ornamentation. Such a Mahācaitya enjoyed a long period of survival from 4th century B.C.E to 14th century C.E. Literary and archaeological evidences undoubtedly indicate that Amarāvatī was the prime Buddhist centre in early Andhradeśa. There are ample evidences to prove the survival of Amarāvatī Mahācaitya for a long period of time spanning from 4th century BCE and 14th century CE. In comparison to this long survival, other contemporaneous sites of early Andhra art did not exhibit such long survival of any of its religious monuments. This chapter attempts to analyse the various sources to justify the long survival of the Amarāvatī Mahācaitya and its art and investigate the reasons for it.
The neighbouring contemporaneous sites of early Andhradeśa shared some stylistic similitude with that of Amarāvatī art and hence together formed the ‘Amarāvatī School of Art.’ This dimension has been thoroughly dealt with in Chapter II. However, it needs to be mentioned here that when treated separately the sites did not enjoy the same time span of existence as that of Amarāvatī Mahācaitya and perished much before.
The following table serve as an indicator to the above proposition.
| Sl No. | Site | Time Period |
| 1 | Bhaṭṭiprolu | 3rd Century BCE–1st Century CE |
| 2 | Jaggayyapeṭa | 2nd Century BCE-7th Century CE |
| 3 | Gummadidurru | 3rd Century BCE–8th Century CE |
| 4 | Alluru | 2nd Century BCE–1st Century CE |
| 5 | Nāgārjunakoṇḍa | 2nd Century CE–5th Century CE |
| 6 | Gunṭupalle | 3rd Century BCE–10th Century CE |
| 7 | Singarakonda (Chandavaram) | 2nd Century BCE–2nd Century CE |
| 8 | Thotlakoṇḍa | 2nd Century BCE–4th Century CE |
| 9 | Bavikoṇḍa | 2nd Century BCE–2nd Century CE |
| 10 | Rāmatīrtham | 2nd Century BCE–7th Century CE |
| 11 | Bojjanakoṇḍa (Saṅkaram) | 2nd Century BCE–7th Century CE |
| 12 | Goli | 2nd Century BCE–2nd Century CE |
| 13 | Dhulikaṭṭa | 2nd Century BCE–2nd Century CE |
| 14 | Salihuṇḍam | 2nd Century BCE–9th Century CE |
| 15 | Adurru | 2nd Century BCE–1st Century CE |
| 16 | Pavurallakoṇḍa | 2nd Century BCE–2nd Century CE |
The prolonged existence of Amarāvatī art centre centering round the Mahācaitya definitely points to its sustained importance over the region. A large number of literary and archaeological sources indicate the continued importance of Amarāvatī in which the monastic establishment enjoyed a pre-eminent position. In order to critically analyse the longevity of the religious complex it is necessary to situate the problem of survival in the backdrop of the position of Amarāvatī in early Andhradeśa. In this regard it is necessary to look into the actual location of the archaeological site and delve into the problem of its nomenclature in early Andhradeśa.