PDF Version (GS_13_2019)

ISSN 1996-9120

GANDHĀRAN STUDIES

Vol. 13
2019

Editor
M. Nasim Khan

Research Journal of the

Centre for Gandhāran and Buddhist Studies
 Gandhāran Studies
ISSN 1996-9120
Founded by Prof. Meritorious Dr. M. Nasim Khan

Board of Editorial Advisors

Michael ALRAM
Kunst Historisches Museum Wien, Austria
Joe CRIBB
Ex-Keeper, Department of Coins and Medals, British Museum, London –UK
Gul Rahim KHAN
Department of Archaeology, University of Peshawar – Pakistan
Zarawar KHAN
Institute Of Cultural Heritage, Tourism And Hospitality Management
Judith A. LERNER
Editor Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology, USA
Congfeng LI
Department of Archaeology, Peking University, Beijing - China
Michael MEISTER
Philadelphia University, USA
Cameron PETRIE
Cambridge University, UK
Ghani-ur-RAHMAN
TIAC, Quaid-i-Azam University, Pakistan
MOHD MOKHTAR SAIDIN
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
Katsumi TANABE
Chuo University-Tokyo, Japan
Muhammad ZAHIR
Department of Archaeology, Hazara University - Pakistan

Published by: Centre for Gandhāran and Buddhist Studies

© Editor, Gandhāran Studies

 Contents

Did the Monk Maranant’a Really Come from Gandhāra to Korea? 1

Juhyung Rhi

A Preliminary note on Fresh Archaeological Excavation at Jinnan Wali Dheri, Taxila 27

Valley, Pakistan

Suleman Shah

The Discovery and Contextualization of a Possible Buddhist Monastic Complex at 39

Thalpan, District Diamer, Gilgit-Baltistan Province, Pakistan.

Muhammad Zahir

An Image of King Udayana from Gandhara. The Amaravati Style Slab from Charg- 61
Pate (Lower Dir, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa).

M. Habibullah Khan Khattak and Nidaullah Sehrai

Tripartite Cape of Buddha: A Case Study of a Stucco Bust from Shnaisha Site, Swat- 73
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Zubaida Yousaf

Terracotta Sculpture from Bhamāla, Taxila, Pakistan: New Insight on Kushān 79

Manufacturing and Firing Techniques

Abdul Hameed, Abdul Samad, J. Mark Kenoyer, Shaista Sher

List of contributors

Abdul HAMEED
Department of Archaeology, Hazara University, Pakistan

Mark, J. KENOYER
Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, USA

M. Habibullah Khan KHATTAK

Chief Editor, Frontier Archaeology, Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Juhyung RHI
Department of Archaeology and Art History, Seoul University, South Korea

Abdul SAMAD
Director Archaeology and Museums, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Nidaullah SEHRAI
Lecturer cum Assistant Curator, Department of Archaeology, University of Peshawar, Pakistan

Suleman SHAH
Ph.D. Scholar, Taxila Institute for Asian Civilization, Quad-i-Azam University, Islamabad,
Pakistan

Shaista SHER
Department of Archaeology, Hazara University, Pakistan

Zubaida YOUSAF
Lecturer cum Assistant Curator, Department of Archaeology, University of Peshawar, Pakistan

Muhammad ZAHIR
Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology, Hazara University, Pakistan
 Gandhāran Studies, vol. 13 61

An image of King Udayana from Gandhara.

The Amaravati style slab from Charg-Pate (Lower Dir, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa)

M. Habibullah Khan Khattak

Nidaullah Sehrai

Abstract

The Buddhist site of Charg-Pate in District Lower Dir was excavated in 1981 by Prof. Farid
Khan. The first report was published only in 1990, followed by a relatively detailed report
by the excavator in 1992. Dr. Muhammad Farooq Swati and Prof. Maurizio Taddei also
discussed the site and its important sculptures, including a fragment of a slab in Amravati
style carved out of white limestone. Disagreement persists about the chronology of the site
and the finds from the site after. The main purpose of this article is to discuss afresh the
presence of Amaravati style slabs in Swat, an effort has also been made to critically analyse
the available reports in light of the views of current scholarship, and reach some definite
conclusion on the interpretation of the scene.

Key Words: Charg-pate, Udayana, Amaravati, Swat, Dir

Introduction

Among the many important archaeological
sites from pre-historic to historic periods that
were excavated by professional
archaeologists, but the scientific report of
which could not be published (Swati,
Muhammad Farooq 1996:74-82) include the
Buddhist site of Chirgpatai1 or Charg-pate2.
This site was excavated by Peshawar
University in 19813 (Farid Khan 1990: 171-
173) with very important discoveries that
might have warranted immediate detailed
scientific excavations, apart from publication
of the preliminary technical report of the 1981
excavations on two terraces that yielded
different types of sculptures (Farid Khan
1990: 171-173). In such a report, the
sculptures found should have been described
in their proper archaeological context.
According to excavator of the site “the
sculptures of the upper terrace show a style
which is a radical departure from the generally
known features of Gandharan art. Stylistically
they predate anything that has been excavated
in Swat, Dir and adjacent tracts, and appear
even earlier than the group published by van
Lohuizen de Leeuw [...]. Indeed, we find a
stylistic progression from Chirgpatai to the
early sculptures of Butkara I and III.
Therefore, it seems likely that Dir and Swat
hold the secret of the earliest phase of
Gandhara art, on which future excavations
should shed much additional light. From these
sculptures it is also apparent that the
Gandharan School started as a purely
indigenous development, and absorbed
foreign influences in the course of its full

1 3
As spelled by its excavator (Farid Khan 1990: 171- This Buddhist site was explored and excavated by
173; Id. 1992: 67-79) the Department of Archaeology, University of
2
As spelled by Dr. Muhammad Farooq Swati (Swati Peshawar, in 1981 under salvage operation, named as
1996: 74-82; 1997: 1-60; 2012 :1-22) “Save Gandhara Archaeological Project” (Swati
2012:1-22).
 Gandhāran Studies, vol. 13
flowering” (Farid Khan 1990: 171-173). Even
the scanty report published after almost a
decade should have led scholars to this site for
further extensive researches, before its total
destruction by antique seekers through
clandestine activities.
The slab of Amaravati style
In a later paper Farid Khan (1992: 67-79)
discussed a fragment of a slab of Amaravati
style4 (Fig. 1) from this very site that had
provided new evidence of cultural interactions
with Andhra Desa. Archaeological researches
have already proved cultural contacts and
exchanges between Gandhara and Mathura at
many archaeological sites including Bhari
Dheri Taxila (Zwalf 1996:69), Shaikhan Dheri
(Dani 1965-66: 40-42; van Lohuizen de
Leeuw 1972; Zwalf 1996: 69), Butkara-I (van
Lohuizen de Leeuw 1972; Zwalf 1996: 69),
Badalpur (Ashraf Khan 2019: 71-80).
However, the Amaravati style sculptures from
Charg-Pate in District Lower Dir and Bir-kot-
ghwandai in District Swat have probably
opened a new chapter in similar contacts (?)
and exchanges between Gandhara and
Andhra. According to Farid Khan (1992: 67-
79), “this recrystallized limestone sculpture
from the upper terrace appears to be of the
Amaravati School”. In its present form, the
slab is 18 cm high, 13 cm wide and 1.9 cm
thick. On the authority of Newman (1984: 19),
he opines that the stone might have come from
the Kurnool formation in Andhra Desa.
The Amaravati5 type relief panel in limestone
vertically broken almost from the middle has
4
The Andhra sculpture is generally known as
Amaravati art.
5
Amaravathi is the place where Buddhas remains are
present; most of the sculptures are made of
limestone. (Beeram and Anitha 2018: 7.426).
6
It is important to note that Bodhisattva Padmapani
or Avaloketisvara has been carved or engraved on
rocks of in Swat and particularly in Dir seated on
throne in lalitasana pose (Dani 1968-69: 1-32;
Dani 1968-69: 251-257; Ashraf Khan 1994: 455-
466). Lalitasana is a pose also called Rajalilasana
62
been recorded at Accession No.CGP-1981-1-
70 in Sir Sahibzada Abdul Quyyum Museum,
University of Peshawar. In the record of the
museum it has been captioned as “Love
Scene”. The official record of the Museum
describes the panel as “Fragment of a round
panel badly corroded and defaced, depicting
nude male figure in lalitasana on a throne and
embracing the female figures seated with him
on either side and the female figures also nude.
Modilion round border. The figure on the left
also a female with breast visible and hair
tucked on the back. Defaced figure on front of
the throne pillar separating the lower scene or
figure”.
The excavator of the site (Farid Khan
1992:67-79) has described the broken panel as
below:
“It depicts a palace scene with a prince in
lalitasana6 between two females on an
elongated low seat of which only the left
stumpy tripled molded leg survived. The
Princess’s right foot rests on a footstool.
His right hand rests on the back of the
woman seated beside him on his proper
right, while left hand is held by the second
woman on the other side. The Prince and
the female figures on his right are depicted
frontally. His head inclines slightly to the
second woman on his left who is shown in
profile, with one foot resting on the central
foot stool. The Prince is wearing an
elaborate turban, ear rings and a short
tunic-like dress below the waist. The
women on either side are both nude except
for a double beaded girdle of typical
"the royal position" or "royal ease", which is a
relaxed pose (Hudson 2008: 374, 590) typical in
royal portraits and those of religious figures whose
"kingly" attributes are being emphasized. The
figure sits on a throne with one leg tucked inwards
on the seat and the other hanging down to touch the
ground or rest on a support such as footstep, lower
seat or step of the throne. Usually it is the proper
right leg that dangles, but the reversed image can
be found. Bare feet are normal. (Lee 1993: 311-
357; Gar 1972.)
 Gandhāran Studies, vol. 13
Amaravati style (Barrett, 1954, pl, XII).
They are adorned with ear rings and have
elaborate head dresses with prominent
buns at the back. Below the narrative
register is a wide decorative band
containing three auspicious signs (Fig. 6).
From the left, Srivatsa, Purnaghata
(Kalasa, the full vase) and a pair of fish
(Matsya-yugma) are clearly visible. They
are part of a characteristic set of the
Buddhist eight auspicious signs (Asta
mangala7). They are not infrequently
found on the sculptures of Andhra Desa of
this period, often in association with
Buddha Pada. They occur on Buddha Pada
from early time at Amaravati (Stern &
Benisti, 1961, pls III & VII). An almost
identical Asta mangala was discovered on
a Buddhist Pada from Nagarjunakonda
(IAR, 1955-56, pl. XXXIX C); and
another example was found on a fragment
of a limestone Buddha Pada found at
Kaneripattana, and almost certainly
exported from Amaravati region (IAR,
1964-65, pl. XVII B). The style of this
relief is typical of Amaratavai, and similar
scenes are found there (Fig. 7). (Stern &
Benisti, 1961, pl. XXXVI; Barrett, 1954,
p1. XLIV). The long low rectangular seat
without arm and foot rest can be seen in
Amaravati sculptures (Sivaramamurti,
1942, p. 137, 138, p.1.XII, No.16, 18;
Stern & Benisti, 1961, pl. XIX,
pl.1.XLVa; Barret, 1954, pl. VII, pl.
XXVI, pl. XXVII). Many examples of
beaded borders motif are found in the
circular roundals of Amaravati sculptures
(Sivaramamurti, 1942, pl. XXVIa, 2, pl.
XXVId, pl. XXVIII2b, c and d; Stern and
Binisti 1961, pl. XXXI)”.
Farid Khan opines that the presence of this
relief panel at this site indicates that
occasional cultural exchanges took place
between Gandhara and Andhra. He further
7
Parasol, Golden Fish, vase, lotus flower, conch
shell, Endless Knot, Banner and the All-Powerful
Wheel
63
believes that “the piece perhaps came from a
provincial Satawhana like Sannathi rather
than Amaravati or Nagar Jona-Konda” (ibid.).
Farid Khan analysis of the panel is worth
consideeration when he states the following
(ibid.):
“It is important to note that this relief from
Chirg Patai is associated with a group of
sculptures made of schist which are
depicted in stiff formal position, and in
frontal posture with no details on hands
and other parts of the body. This group is
almost totally devoid of classical influence
(Khan, 1990, p. 73) and is moreover in a
style which is a radical departure from the
generally known features of Gandharn art.
Their association with the Amaravati style
fragment however, provide some
indication of their date. Keeping in view
the stylistic similarity of this piece with
sculptures from Amaravati and Sannanthi
and the style of the associated sculpture,
the conclusion appears inescapable that
this piece can be placed between 1st and 2nd
century A.D.”.
The site
Of the two terraces that were targeted by the
excavator revealed not only contrasting
architecture, but also notable variety in the
arena of finds. The lower terrace revealed two
square-based stupas while a round-based
stupa was exposed on the upper terrace.
Coarse grey schist sculptures were retrieved
from the upper terrace, while the dresses of
some of the figures depicted on the sculptures
closely resembled the costumes of Central
Asian inhabitants of the time. However,
contrary to that, the sculptures from the lower
terrace mostly in green phyllite “exhibit depth
in carving, excellence in workmanship and
Western influence in their style”. On the basis
of art style, the site can be dated roughly from
https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Eight_A
uspicious_Symbols
 Gandhāran Studies, vol. 13
the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd
century CE (see Khan 1992: 72 and ff.).
According to the excavator the sculptures
from the upper terrace are chronologically
earlier than those from the lower terrace
(Khan 1990: 171). However, Dr. Swati
emphatically disagreed with Prof. Farid Khan
and thought that “this sequence should be
reversed on the basis of style and ethnicity of
figures depicted there in” (Swati 2012: 1-22).
Dr. Swati opines that “On the basis of art style,
the site can be dated roughly from the
beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd
century AD” and in that he agrees with Prof.
Khan. In our considered opinion, this problem
should not have cropped up, had the technical
report of excavations been published in time
by the original excavator by describing the
structures and the sculptures in proper
archaeological context in relation to the
developments during excavation. Dr. Swati
had also good opportunities to have gone for
further excavations at the site before making
any opinion.
The Amaravati slab and its context
Since the scope of this paper is limited to the
Amaravati style slab from Charg-pate, it does
not seem possible to discuss the structures and
the sculptures from this site in any detail.
However, what Dr. Swati has concluded
requires at least random reference. He has
divided the narrative reliefs from Charg-Pate
into two phases qualifying him to challenge
the chronology of Prof. Farid Khan. He places
the first phase of Prof. Farid Khan in his
second phase.
He predates the more finely carved sculptures
from the lower terrace, but appears critical as
“the law of perspective was not strictly
followed and far objects and those nearby are
viewed almost of the same size”. On the basis
of his own research he traces “the tradition of
making such kind of relief panels going back
to the early 2nd century BC that may have
reached excellence in carving during 1st
64
century BC in the Parthian period”. He adopts
different arguments for his second phase i.e.
the sculptures from the upper terrace.
According to him, “sculptures from the upper
terrace indicate the arrival of new ethnic group
who had not yet attained carving skills in stone
as is clear from Pls.1 and 2a-d. Gradually, the
degree of carving was much improved by the
end of 2nd century AD as is evident from Pl.
11”. In support he also quotes the sculpture
under discussion here that “reached this site
from Andharadesa that is dated to the 2nd
century AD [...]. Being recovered from the
same cultural context of the upper terrace its
contemporary material shall be synchronic,
and should be dated to the same period”.
The reasoning of Dr. Swati appears
interesting, but lacks supporting arguments.
For instance, there is little support for the ups
and downs as to the initial stage and
subsequent development to perfection of the
sculptures of his first phase and the emergence
of the new ‘ethnic group’ for the sculpture of
his second phase, who had not yet attained
carving skills in stone. His notions leave the
following question unanswered:
(a) For the beginning of the first phase, Dr.
Swati quotes his own research (Swati
2007:105-157) for his hypothesis deriving
strength from H. Ackermann (2005) who
had developed the same notion without
any solid evidence. The serious efforts of
Dr. Swati to identify different major
wokshops or production centre in Swat are
commendable. But more efforts are
needed to distinguish the styles and
pecularities of these major workshops “to
remove confusions arising from the
existence of multiple stylistic traditions”
(Behrendt 2004: 270-271) for precisely
establishing ‘stylistic-based’ chronology.
The present stylistic-based chronology of
Dr. Swati is not accepted by majority of
the scholars and researchers. Sculptures of
Charg-pate should have been described in
proper context, associated to the structures
to which they were attached or from where
 Gandhāran Studies, vol. 13
they had fallen down due to collapse of
any part. Unfortunately, at Charg-pate this
realistic study in proper context was
probably not possible in absence of the
technical report of the original excavator.
(b) Dr. Swati gives no reason for ignoring the
circular or round based stupa of the upper
terrace, which as per historic development
of the stupa architecture must be earlier
than the square-based stupa of the lower
terrace (Franz 1980: 39; Faccenna 1980-
1981; Fitzsimmons 2001: 21).
(c) Dr. Swati opines that “Sculptures from the
upper terrace indicate the arrival of new
ethnic group who had not yet attained
carving skills in stone as is clear from Pls.1
and 2a-d”. This is mere assumption for
which he gives no tangible or viable
reason or evidence. Further, 2nd century
CE was the period of perfection and
excellence of the Buddhist religious art.
How could the decline be justified in this
particular case?
(d) Dr. Swati discusses the workshop of his
Period I, but he completely ignores the
workshop of his Period II. He states, “The
workshop of Period I (Period II of the
excavator) of Charg-pate, situated in the
Adinzai sub-valley in the south-west of the
8
John Boardman opines that the bead and reels motif
was entirely developed in Greece from motifs
derived from the turning techniques used for wood
and metal, and was first employed in stone
sculpture in Greece during the 6th century BC. The
motif then spread to Persia, Egypt and the
Hellenistic world, and as far as India, where it can
be found on the abacus part of some of the Pillars
of Asoka or the Pataliputra capital (Broadman
1998: 13-22). According to Benjamin Rowland Jr.,
“almost all the authorities to write on the
Amaravati sculptures have hinted at the possibility
of a classical influence not only in the composition
of the reliefs but also in the treatment of the
individual figures” (Rowland 1936: 2-7).
9 10
The rock types constituting the Kurnool Group
mainly composed of limestone and calcareous
shale. It is divisible into four formations: (i)
65
Swat Valley, represents entirely a series of
features unique in the whole Swat corpus.
(Swati 1997: 1-60). Without mentioning
the specific place or exact location for the
workshop of his Period II he writes, “The
sculptural workshop of Period II of the
Charg-pate flourished in the Early Kusana
period” (ibid.: 1-60). Thus, he seems to be
side-tracking this important reference for
reason beyond comprehension.
Thus, the chronology fixed by Prof. Farid
Khan for both the upper and the lower terraces
at Charg-pate holds good ground till the same
is refuted on concrete grounds.
Coming back to our Amaravati style sculpture
from Charg-pate (Fig.1), it would be
beneficial to first reproduce the gist of the
description of this piece (excluding
discussions on the scene depicted and
comparison of the panel) given by Prof. Farid
Khan (1992: 67-79):
(1) It is part of a semicircular panel with a
narrow beaded8 border running around the
outside.
(2) Made of recrystallized limestone of which
it is made probably comes from the
Kurnool formation in Andhra Desa9. It
does not occur in Gandhara nor as far as
we know elsewhere in Pakistan10.
Kunderu formation, (ii) Paniam formation, (iii)
Jammalamadugu formation, and (iv)Banaganapalli
formation. The Najri limestones are massive and
variegated in color. They are intercalated with
shales and quartzite bands. They contain enormous
limestone reserves. Limestone deposits in the form
of flagstones, and high-grade calcium limestone
are found in Dhone, Kurnool, Palakur,
Madhavaram, Ramabadrapalli, Ramathirtham and
Nandavaram in Banaganapalli of Kurnool district.
Limestone also occurs in Pulivendula Cuddapah,
Muddanur, Yerraguntla, Jammalamadugu mandals
of Cuddapah district. The kind of lime stone was
used in sculptures because of its suitability for
carving.
H. Jawad Sohail, a Professional Geologist of
Pakistan has shared slides on internet about
limestone quarries in Pakistan, he has identified
 Gandhāran Studies, vol. 13
(3) The sculpture was wet when found and it
seemed that it had lain for a long time in
water which produced the partially eroded
and somewhat flattened surface11.
Prof. Farid Khan has compared the scene on
the broken panel palace scene12 with a prince
in lalitasana flanked by two nude females
(obviously in compromising gestures) on an
elongated low seat. He compares the double
beaded girdles of the two women with typical
Amaravati style (Barrett 1954: Pl. XII)”. Prof.
Khan has also described the scene below the
narrative register, which has further faded
with the passage of time. According to him the
eight Buddhist auspicious signs (asta
mangala) “are not infrequently found on the
sculptures of Andhra Desa of this period but
from early time at Amaravati, often in
association with Buddha Pada13 (Stern and
Benisti 1961: Pls III and VII)”. Prof. Khan
opines that keeping in view its size, it was
carried by Buddhist pilgrims from Andhra to
Gandhara, suggesting of occasional cultural
exchanges between Gandhara and Andhra.
Almost similar opinion was expressed by
Prof. Maurizio Taddei on the basis of the two
fragments of two stelae or better stone slab-
huge reserves of limestone in Punjab, while lime
stones are abundantly available in different
districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa including
Charsadda, Mardan, Swabi, Mansehra, Nowshera,
Swat, Kohat, D. I. Khan, Abbottabad, Malakand,
Karak and Lakki Marwat.
https://www.slideshare.net/HJawadSohail/limesto
ne-production-of-pakistan. An interesting research
undertaken by the Geology Department of Shaheed
Benazir Bhutto University, Main Campus
Sheringal, Dir Upper, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, found
a fossil (Nummulites) rich limestone in Sheringal
area Upper Dir Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Mehmood
et. al. 2018: 127). There is a considerable variation
in size, but the bigger specimens are generally 15-
20 mm. in diameter and 3-4 mm. in maximum
thickness. The surface is uniformly papillate all
over, and these papillae generally cover the
irregularly radiating septal filaments; the filaments
are clearly visible just below the surface (Gupta
1965: 86-96).
66
querns from the excavations at the settlement
site of Bir-kot-ghwandai. Prof. Taddei opines
that there were “clear links between Swat and
peninsular India, apparently the Krishna
basin, in a period that cannot be later than the
3rd century and presumably not earlier than the
1st century A.D.” According to the Italian
scholar, the two slabs from Bir-kot-ghwandai
provide “precious evidence of the multi-
faceted cultural wealth the Northwest could
rely upon” and that – together with other
evidence - the two isolated imports from
peninsular India found at Bir-kot-ghwandai
and the one at Charg-pate were “the witness of
a fairly substantial flow of artefacts from India
proper to the Northwest” (Taddei 2004: 16).
He also compared the first of his two
fragments with the slab from Sannati
(Mysore) and a slab from Pauni (Maharashra)
in the Central Museum, Nagpur, which has
been dated to the 2nd century CE. However,
Prof. Taddei opines that these examples are
later than – at least - the the first slab from Bir-
kot-ghwandai. The latter is dated to 1st
century BCE due to the archaizing shape of
the lotus flowers (Taddei, 2014: 13), even
though its archaeological context is possibly
later14. Taddei has also compared another
greenish white limestone fragment of a slab-
11 Prof. Maurizio Taddei (2014:11-16) holds
different opinion about this panel from Charg-pate.
Quoting from the report of Prof. Farid Khan the
circumstances of discovery of this panel, he opines,
“Needless to say, this is also a fragment of a quern,
as it appears from its badly eroded central portion.
He further states, “therefore likely that the quern
from Chirg Patai was used for grinding pigments
by the artisans working in the yard”.
12
Prof. Maurizio Taddei (2014:11-16) states that he
was “not able to suggest any precise interpretation
for the scene depicted”.
13
The footprints of the Buddha (Buddhapada), one of
the early representations of the Buddha in the
aniconic stage of Buddhist art.
14
The first slab (“Slab A”) is erratic from Trench
BKG 3, the second (“Slab B”) was found re-used
in the masonry of a palatial structure of Late
Kushan phase (Macrophase 5 of the site sequence:
mid-end 3rd century CE; L.M. Olivieri pers.
comm.). According to L.M. Olivieri it is evident
 Gandhāran Studies, vol. 13
quern (Inv. No. BKG 1238) with specimens
from Sannati depicting a bullock cart and
drive (Seshadri 1972: pl.130) attributed to the
1st-3rd centuries CE. His analysis of the Bir-
kot-ghwandai piece is interesting. He thus
writes, “Though one immediately thinks of
Amaravati as the most obvious reference for
our fragment, at a closer scrutiny, chiefly on
the grounds of the quality of limestone (as far
as one can judge from eye examination), we
are rather led to connect it with sites such as
Nagarjunakonda (Callieri et al. 1990: 176) or
even the cognate sites in Mysore. These sites
show a greater percentage of slightly greenish
limestone if compared with Amaravati where
a milky white limestone definitely prevails”.
Maurizio Taddei’s analysis of the two slabs
from Bir-kot-ghwandai led him to the
conclusion that one of the slab (“slab A”) was
made of a kind of stone available from a not
too far-away area, while the limestone of the
other (“slab B”) is typical of peninsular India
“The latter – like the one from Chirg Patai – is
therefore an import and we must assume that
the demand was such that similar slabs were
manufactured locally from local stone (our
slab A), though in ‘Indian’ style. It should be
clear that our slab B and the one from Chirg
Patai (both Andhra originals) are not
necessarily earlier than the slab A from BKG
(possibly a local imitation) – as a matter of fact
they seem to be later!” (Taddei 2004: 15). We
subscribe to his opinion about our slab from
Charg-pate, as the white limestone reserves in
different parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
including Swat were probably unknown then.
However, his opinion about his “slab A” to be
made locally though in Indian style provides
much food for thoughts, further discussions on
which here may throw our panel into the
background.
that the slabs were imported/executed (see below)
in an earlier period, and that, were they re-used (as
masonry material), they were already in
67
An interpretative conclusion
My initial study of the slab under discussion
with other published material led me to the
conclusion that it was most probably one of
the palace scenes from Nagarjunakonda
depicting a king of the Chimukha Satavahana
flanked either by his queens or concubines in
this relief. However, I had to revise my
conclusion after carefully studying further
published materials. The study of Buddhist
narratives from Amaravati by Monika Zin
(2016: 46-116) particularly attracted me to
such kind of narratives from Kanganhalli in
the Andhra region.
The most interesting part of the story related
to our slab from Chirg-Patai is indeed the
interpretation of the scene. According to our
studies, it undoubtedly represents a famous
scene of King Udayana of Kosambi, who is
said to be contemporary to the Buddha with
two of his three queens. This scene is so well
embedded in the Buddhist narrative of Andhra
Desa that King Udayana is depicted with his
queens in the Jataka relief sculptures from the
railing of Amaravati stupas, more or less as in
our slab, and more or less uniformly repeated
in most of the pillars, both those preserved in
Madras and in London.
Interpreting the scene R. Linossier explains
that “the protagonist is Udayana, king of
Kosambi, what is to be conveyed has been
portrayed through the actions of two of his
three queens: Samavati is a noble and
righteous consort; Magandiya out of jealousy
creates situations to falsely implicate her and,
eventually, is exposed. While the third queen,
Vasaladatta, is not relevant to the sculptural
depiction, though her name reminds us of
Vasavadatta” (Linossier 1929-1930; see also
Zin 1998). Magandiya had been offered in
marriage to the Buddha by her parents; in
refusing Magandiya the Buddha reminded her
fragmentary conditions and un-utilizable (pers.
comm.).
 Gandhāran Studies, vol. 13
parents of his victory over Mara and other
temptations of the flesh. Magandiya was
brought by her uncle before King Udayana,
who fell in love with her and promptly married
her. Magandiya's uncle became an accomplice
in the intrigues they later staged in order to
prove that Samavati, a devout Buddhist, did
not care for her royal husband.
Our slab from Charg-pate is broken vertically
almost from the middle and we are unable to
reconstruct what was further to the left on the
missing part. This slab also shows a male
figure – a princely figure flanked by two
female figures. It may appear a wild claim, but
most probably the male figure in the middle is
King Udayana of Kosambi flanked by his two
queens namely Samavati on his right side and
Magandiya on his left side, while the third
queen Vasavadatta is missing. we have
concluded this keeping in view the sculpting
tradition in the Andhra country during the 1st
and 2nd centuries CE, the textual references of
Ratan Parimoo (1995: 125-154). We may also
refer to the keen observation of Prof. Taddei
about this scene who states that right arm of
the male figure rests on the shoulders of a
naked woman to his right, while his left is held
by another naked lady on the left who seems
to endeavour to attract her hesitant mate to
her. Obviously, while the king is naturally
attracted to the pious queen Samavati who was
targetted by Magandiya, the king appears to be
annoyed with Magandiya for her mischief.
Magandiya is trying to appease the annoyed
king and in an effort to do that she is holding
68
the left arm of the king with her both hands. In
the scene queen Samavati also could not hid
her anger by turning her head away from the
king – probably to avoid seeing the king
turning towards Magandiya.
Acknowledgement
We are thankful to Ms. Zubaida Yusuf,
Assistant Curator-cum-Lecturer and Mr.
Muhammad Waqar, Assistant Research
Officer of Sir Sahibzada Abdul Qayyum
Museum, University of Peshawar for their
cooperation and assistance in facilitating our
research. We are also obliged to Ms Ayesha
Khan, Ph.D. scholar for providing valuable
published material that has been liberally used
in this article. We are grateful to Dr.
Zakirullah Jan, Curator-cum-Associate
Professor who kindly allowed study and
photograph of the sculpture, without which the
present study could not have been possibly
done. We are particularly indebted to Dr. Luca
Maria Olivieri for providing the published
material of Prof. Maurizio Taddei and other
scholars, many valuable additions including
footnotes and taking out time from his
immense engagements to go through this
article and making valued improvements.
 Gandhāran Studies, vol. 13
References
Ackermann, H. (1975). Narrative Stone
Reliefs from Gandhara in the Victoria
and Albert Museum in London:
Catalogue and Attempt at a Stylistic
History, IsMeo, Rome
Behrendt, Kurt. A. (2004). The Buddhist
Architecture of Gandhara, Handbuch
der Orientalistik, Brill, Leiden-
Boston;pp.270-271
Beeram. S. and Anitha, D. (2018).
Development of Designs from Sculptures
of Amaravathi for Application on
Kameez Material; International Journal
of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN:
2319-7064 Impact Factor (2018): 7.426
Broadman, J. (1998). Reflections on the
Origins of Indian Stone Architecture,
Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New
Series, Vol. 12,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24049089;
pp.13-22.
Dani, A.H. (1968-6). Introduction: Environs
of Chakdara. Ancient Pakistan, Vol. 4: 1-
32. Research Bulletin of the Department
of Archaeology, University of
Peshawar, Peshawar.
Dani, A.H. (1968-69). Buddhist Rockcarvings
of Dir. Ancient Pakistan, Vol. 4: 251-
257. Research Bulletin of the
Department of Archaeology, University
of Peshawar, Peshawar.
Dimand, M.S. (1928). Two Indian Reliefs of
the Amarāvatī School, The Metropolitan
Museum of Art Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 10::
229-244
Dimand, M. S. (1933). An Indian Relief of the
Amarāvatī School. In: The Metropolitan
Museum of Art Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 7,
The Metropolitan Museum of Art;pp.
124-125
Gangoly, O.C., (1994): mentioned in Chapter
7: Narrative and Other Scenes at
Amaravati and
Nagarjunakonda,https://shodhganga.infli
bnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/123446/14/14
_chapter%207.pdf.
69
Garg, Ganga Ram (1972). Encyclopaedia of
the Hindu World Volume 3. Concept
Publishing Company, New Delhi
Hudson, D Dennis (2008). The Body of God:
An Emperor's Palace for Krishna in
Eighth-Century Kanchipuram. Oxford
University Press, Madison Avenue, New
York;p.374&P.590.
Khan, Farid (1990). Fresh Evidence of Early
Buddhist Sculptures from Gandhara. In:
Ancient Ceylon Vol.4 – Journal of the
Archaeological Survey Department of
Sri Lanka, Department of Archaeology,
Colombo, Sri Lanka;pp.171-173
Khan, F. (1992). Recent Discoveries from the
North-West Frontier, Pakistan. In: South
Asian Studies, Vol.8, Journal of the
Society for South Asian Studies, The
British Academy, London;pp.67-79.
Khan, M.A. (2019). Fresh discoveries at the
Buddhist Monastic Complex Bādalpur,
Taxila valley, In: Eds. Wannaporn
Rienjang & Peter Stewart : The
Geography of Gandhāran Art
(Proceedings of the Second International
Workshop of the Gandhāra Connections
Project, University of Oxford, 22nd-
23rd March, 2018), Archaeopress
Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion
18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford
OX2 7LG; pp.71-80
Lee, J. (1993). The Origins and Development
of the Pensive Bodhisattva Images of
Asia. Artibus Asiae, Vol. 53, No. ¾,
Artibus Asiae Publishers
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3250524;p
p.311-357
Mehmood, Mubashir et. al. (2018).
Occurrences of Nummulites Fossil in
Limestone in Kohistan Island Arc an
Igneous and Metamorphic Zone; Journal
of Ecology & Natural Resources, Ecol &
Nat Resour 2018, 2(2): 127, Department
of Geology, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto
University, Main Campus Sheringal, Dir
 Gandhāran Studies, vol. 13 70

Upper, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Swati, M.F. (1997). Special Feature of the

Pakistan;p.127
Mitra, D. (1998). Konarak Archaeological
Survey of India, Archaeological Survey
of India, New Delhi;p.37
Pacciolla, P. (2017). Drumming
Auspiciousness the Pakhavaj of
Nathdwara and the Cult of the King-
God, Durham Theses, Durham
University available at Durham E-
Theses Online:
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12276/
Parimoo, R. (1995). On Re-Identification of
Āndhra Buddhist Jātaka Relief
Sculptures. Artibus Asiae, Vol. 55, No.
½, Artibus Asiae Publishers Stable
URL:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3249764;p
p.125-154.
Sarkar, H. and S.P. Nainar. (1992). Amaravati,
3rd. ed. New Delhi: Archaeological
Survey of India, p.21.
Subramanian, K. R. (1939). Some Aspects of
Andhra Buddhist Art, Proceedings of the
Indian History Congress Vol. 3, Indian
History Congress Stable URL:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44252413;
pp.579-585
Swati, M.F. (1996). A Note on two Relief
Panels from Charg-pate, Dir, Depicting
Incidents from the Story of the Stupa of
Ramagrama. The Journal of Humanities
and Social Sciences, Vol. IV, No.1,
Faculty of Arts, University of
Peshawar;pp.74-82.
Buddhist Art in the Swat Valley: In:
Āthariyyāt (Archaeology), Vol. I, 1997,
A Research Bulletin of the National
Heritage Foundation Peshawar; pp.1-60
Swati, M.F. (2012). Some Narrative Reliefs
from Charg-pate in District Dir. Journal
of Asian Civilizations, Vol.35, No.1,
Taxila Institute of Asian Civilization,
Quaid-i-Azam Univesity,
Islamabad;pp.1-22.
Taddei, M. (2014). Bir-Kot-Ghwandai Interim
Reports II – Imported Artefacts from Bir-
Kot-Ghwandai, Instituto Italiano Per
L’Africe E L’Oriente (IsIAO), Rome,
Italy;pp.11-16
Zin, M. (2016). Buddhist Narratives and
Amaravati. In: The Art of an Early
Buddhist Monument in Context Edited
by Akira Shimada and Michael Willis –
The British Museum, London;pp. 46-
116.
Zwalf, W. (1996). A Catalogue of the
Gandhara Sculpture in the British
Museum (in two volumes). Published for
the British Museum by British Museum
Press, London, UK;pp.69
Zwalf, W. (2017). Limestone and Other
Calcareous Materials In: Indian
Minerals Yearbook 2016 (Part- III :
Mineral Reviews) 55th Edition,
Government of India, Ministry of Mines
Indian Bureau of Mines, Indira Bhavan,
India
Gandhāran Studies, vol. 13 71

Fig. 1. Fragment of a semi-circular slab (Amaravati style) with a row of beads

bordering the slab (Photo by Muhammad Waqar).