At the March seminar Peter Bisschop and Elizabeth Cecil (Leiden University) gave a joint presentation about the preliminary results of their research on inscribed columns and civic religion in Gupta India. They have recently returned from a fieldwork trip to Central India where they and Dániel Balogh (British Museum) visited Gupta and early post-Gupta sites. The findings of this trip were incorporated into their presentation in which they emphasised that the study of pillar inscriptions needs to take more consideration than before of the pillars as physical objects, as well as the monumental sites as they would have appeared to historical visitors.
Cecil discussed the social and religious context of columns in early India, accompanied by textual references collected by Bisschop. Though image and text, they showed that the columns could have been sites of ritual power, as well as conveying a political message. Discussing the material semantics of these structures, Cecil argued that they held multiple meanings for different audiences. In this light, they discussed three specific column sites studied in their fieldwork: the Sondhni column of Yaśodharman near Mandsaur (western Malwa), the Eran column of Mātṛviṣṇu and Dhanyaviṣṇu (of the time of Budhagupta, in eastern Malwa), and the Mahākūta column of Maṅgaleśa (in Karṇāṭaka).
As a different aspect of the connection of epigraphs to their monumental context (based on the same fieldwork trip), Balogh gave a preliminary report on the inscriptions of the late Gupta temple of Charchoma (near Kota, Rajasthan). One of these appears to consist of recipes for incense presumably for use in local ritual, while two others praise donation and temple construction without reference to any particular act, probably engraved with the intent to encourage donations for the maintenance of the temple and the community attached to it.
At the February seminar, we had three talks from distinguished academics of Buddhist Studies, focusing on the transmission of Buddhism through Central Asia during the first millenium CE.
First, Hannes Fellner presented his research on Tocharian Buddhism and Buddhist texts dating roughly from the fourth to the tenth century. He first discussed the Tocharian languages spoken especially in the northern Tarim Basin in Xinjiang, which are descended from an Indo-European ancestor spoken around eastern Ukraine about four thousand years ago and suggest an easterly migration of peoples displacing an Indo-Iranian culture before the common era. Ancient and later Tocharian B are found in the west of the Tarim Basin, and both are earlier than the eastern Tocharian A.
All documents written in this now extinct language are incomplete, lacking colophons, but recent work (especially by the CEToM) has brought together almost all extant Tocharian documents to compare them with each other and with correlates in works of other languages to describe the culture that once flourished around Kucha and Yanxi. Almost all Tocharian texts are Buddhist, with the exception a colloquial poem and a fragment of a Manichaean work. They include Sarvāstivāda sutras, monastic regulations (vinaya) and classificatory works (abhidharma), as well as non-canonical literature such as royal lineages, grammars, dramas and narratives.
The Tocharians were famous in China as players and musicians, and this seems to be confirmed by the amount of these latter types of work discovered. Hannes Fellner took us through the paleography, formal features and contents of a number of these works. He then described the linguistic shifts that occurred with the Tocharians’ conversion to Buddhism, and the trends of lexical borrowing, calque vs. free translation, and suggested that speakers of Tocharian B may have converted speakers of Tocharian A to judge from differences in their core Buddhist terminologies. He ended by arguing that scholars of Buddhist Studies have much to contribute to the identification of Tocharian works, contextualisation of linguistic, stylistic and terminological shifts evidenced therein, but that Tocharian texts also could reciprocate in future, as an archaic Buddhist tradition with a comparitively large corpus of extant texts and an especially interesting proclivity for Buddhist belles lettres.
The second speaker, Jan Nattier, provided insights into the second- and early third-century translators and translations of Buddhist works into Chinese. She identified the ethnocons, the Chinese names taken on predominantly by non-Chinese that indicate their ethnic group, as suggesting that most translators were of western Central Asian (Parthian, Yuezhi and Sogdian) heritage, though not necessarily immigrants themselves. These translators included An Shigao安世高, Lokakṣema / Zhi Loujiachen 支婁迦讖, An Xuan安玄 and Kang Mengxiang康孟詳, who displayed different translation styles.
For example, Lokakṣema and his Buddhist translation group (one of the first in China), many times favoured transcription of Indic terminology over translation. In contrast, An Xuan and Kang Mengxiang attempted to translate everything, even leading to some apparent innovations that only later became standard terminology through the popularity of their works. Nattier suggested that these styles reflected different audiences for the translated works, perhaps a polyglot expat group in the case of the former, and an indigenous Chinese elites in the latter case. She also described the evidence for Gandhari underlying the texts translated, rather than Classical Sanskrit as was presumed by earlier generations of scholars.
Finally, Jonathan Silk outlined his current research into eighth- and ninth-century translations of Buddhist works from Chinese into Tibetan. He indicated that such an analysis could help to unlock a certain Chinese understanding of their works, uncovered in the choices made when re-translating them (or translating in the case of Chinese compositions) into Tibetan. Most Tibetan translations carried out towards the end of the Tibetan imperial period (c. 600–850) were translated from Indic languages. However, catalogues of the royal library collections of the time show that many were not, and over thirty of the works translated can be found in Chinese in the Taishō Canon.
Silk went through these works, highlighting where some Chinese-Tibetan translations have become canonical themselves, or where they only exist in the Dunhuang corpus of texts (with or without a corresponding Indic translation in the Tibetan Kanjur Canon). Sometimes the Chinese basis of the translation is clearly indicated in the colophon, or in the transcription of the Chinese title at the beginning of the work. At other times, however, the dependence has to be gleaned from internal textual evidence, and Silk pointed out the types of evidence used to come to these conclusions. Furthermore, he gave some examples where the Chinese understanding of the underlying Indic terminology behind the work shone through the Tibetan translation.
These telltale signs suggest that Chinese speakers, perhaps with dictionaries or glossaries, could see enough of the Indic terminology in the Chinese text to be able to translate it into Tibetan calque terms that also correlated with the Indic original—that they understood the technical nature of these works on a fine-grained level. It is his intention to create multilingual collations of some of these works in the future, to help to unlock the shape of Buddhism at Dunhuang in the late first millennium.
At our workshop in November, Ulrich Pagel talked about his research into the taxation of Buddhist monks and monasteries in ancient India. He began with a story from the Vinayavibhaṅga of the Mūlasarvāstivādins, about a group of monks travelling with merchants, who avoided paying customs duty on their goods. At the end of the story the Buddha finds out what has happened, and tells the monks that they must pay customs duty. But the story also suggests that monks carried private property, and were considered to be subject to taxes.
Reviewing several different sources on taxation, particularly the Dharmaśāstra literature, Pagel showed that Brahminical sources allowed certain categories of people to be exempt from paying tax, including women, children and ascetics. However, Buddhist monks seem not to have been included in the category of ascetics. In fact, in the Brahmin system, they were equivalent to the lowest of the four castes, the śūdra. Pagel also suggested reasons why rulers might want to tax Buddhist monks: monasteries were a significant source of tax revenue, and individual monks, who travelled with merchants, might often come under suspicion of avoiding customs, as the story in the Vinayavibhaṅga suggests.
In May we had a workshop on Bodhgaya, the famous site of the Buddha’s enlightenment, which has been a place of pilgrimage for many centuries, though it fell into dilapidation with the decline of Buddhism in India from around the 14th century, before its renovation in the 19th century. The workshop took a multidisciplinary approach to the site, with papers on the archaeological explorations of Bodhgaya, objects that were left there by pilgrims, the oldest known Buddha image from Bodhgaya, inscriptions of donors and others, and descriptions of the site by Tibetan and Burmese visitors over the centuries.
The papers given at the workshop were:
Michael Willis: “Introduction to the Bodhgaya Archive and Cunningham Collections.”
Robert Bracey: “The Amulet Box from the Vajrāsana.”
Gergely Hidas: “Dhāraṇī seals in the Cunningham Collection.”
At the November seminar project researcher Dániel Balogh introduced the epigraphic database that is to be one of the outputs of the project and talked about the possibilities of exploiting information technology for such purposes. The preparation and web-based publication of searchable electronic versions of any text including epigraphic texts is in itself a tremendous aid for all scholars. In addition to the diplomatic edition of an inscription, an electronic version can contain practically unlimited meta-information. This may pertain to the inscription itself (legibility issues; palaeographic considerations), to the text as an abstract entity (clearly trackable editorial alterations; metrical, semantic and syntactic structure), and to the inscribed object as a physical entity (descriptive data; history).
The EpiDoc standard is a TEI-XML system for encoding such properties of epigraphs in a way that ensures compatibility and allows complex querying of the available texts. This standard was developed with Latin and Greek inscriptions in mind and only a few pioneer projects have applied it to South(-East) Asian texts. Adapting it for Sanskrit and Indic scripts poses a few hurdles on account of the fusion of word boundaries (saṃdhi) and to the syllabic nature of such scripts, but these hurdles can be overcome. The presentation also looked briefly into other current technologies and software to aid epigraphic work.