History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Naga–Vakataka Imperial Period c19: Appendix A. On the Durehā Vākāṭaka Pillar, and the Nachnā and Bhūbharā (Bhūmarā) Temples

History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Nāga–Vākāṭaka Imperial Period c19

Language: English

c19.s1 Distances of Sites — 3 parts
c19.s2 Bhūbharā [Bhūmarā] Voussoir Bricks — 14 parts
c19.s3 Nachnā Temples — 9 parts
c19.s4 Age of Nachnā Temples — 8 parts
c19.s5 Bhāra-Siva Sivas — 8 parts

Appendix A. On the Durehā Vākāṭaka Pillar, and the Nachnā and Bhūbharā (Bhūmarā) Temples

c19.2

Since completing the *History* above I took a journey (December, 1932) to verify certain facts. The result is noted below.

Durehā is a flourishing village at a distance of about 4 miles (S.) from the town of Jāso, the seat of the Chief of Jāso. Jāso is a small Bundela principality on the borders of Nagod (Nagaudh), Baghelkhand, Central India. Cunningham visited Durehā and noticed a stone monument which he described in his *Reports*, Vol. XXI, p. 99 (Plate 27), as ‘a natural *lingam*’. He gave an eye-copy of the inscription on it and a drawing of the monument. Since his time no one else went to the place to verify Cunningham’s record. Suspecting the inscription to be of importance, in my last tour in Bundelkhand I made enquiries about the place *Dareda* as Cunningham had spelt it. I came to know from my friend Mr. Śaradā Prasad of Satna that the correct name of the village is Durehā and I motored with him to the place. The monument is by the side of the unmetalled road in the village, standing on an artificial elevation. It is not a *lingam* at all, but a pillar; the side facing the south is made smooth by chisel, while its back is rough as it was hewn out of the quarry. Unfortunately when I returned from Nachnā and took an impression of the inscription it had become dark and the operations had to be done in artificial light. Below the inscription which consists of one line there is a wheel with 8 spokes, just as on Rudrasena’s coin and Pṛithivīsheṇa’s inscriptions of Ganj and Nachnā. Cunningham gives this inscription below, not above, the wheel in his eye-copy. It seems that the drawing given by him was done from memory, not on the spot, as the order of the inscription and the wheel is transposed and the shape of the stone is also not truly drawn. The stone is not round.¹

c19.4

¹ See Plate IV.

c19.5

A flashlight photograph was taken after filling the lettering with French chalk, but as I could not fully follow the forms of the letters in darkness, the third letter was not fully filled in and its left-hand loop incision (which has come out in the impression²) was missed. There is a flaw in the stone to the right of the third letter which gives a false impression of there being a letter. It is produced by a higher level of the surface. The last two letters were completely missed by me on the stone in the darkness; but they have come out in the impression. I give a photograph of the whole stone to show its shape. The stone is painted white by the villagers and a few letters in white paint are written above the inscribed portion. It is now called Maṅgalanātha (Śiva).

c19.6

² See Plate V.

c19.7

The inscription reads Vākāṭakānā[m] which evidently refers to the royal insigne the wheel, *chakra*, below. The whole would read '*the chakra of the Vākāṭakas*'. It was obviously set up in the Vākāṭaka territory.

c19.8

Its letters belong to the early Vākāṭaka time. The first letter *Va* is earlier in form than the same letter in Pṛithivīsheṇa's inscriptions. Its second letter *kā* agrees with the form of the same letter with the same value in the impression of Pṛithivīsheṇa's inscription reproduced by General Cunningham in his plate (A.S.R., Vol. 21, plate XXVII, second inscription). The third letter *ṭa* has a wedge on the top and the box is not developed. The fourth letter *ka* has no box on its top; nor does the last letter *na* has the form of the time of Pṛithivīsheṇa, it belongs to an earlier type. *M* is also of an early form. Hence the majority of the letters appear to indicate a date earlier than that of the known inscriptions of the time of Pṛithivīsheṇa.

Distances of Sites

c19.s1.1

I may note here the distances between important ancient sites in the area.

c19.s1.2

Durehā is about 5 miles to the north-west from Nachnā. Bhūbharā (Bhūmarā) to Khoh is 5 miles (to the south) across the hill. Ganj to Bhūbharā the distance is 13 miles. Khoh is on the southern side below a high range (about 1,500 ft.), and Nachnā below its northern slopes. Khoh is in the Nagod State

c19.s1.3

Gond Type at Bhūmarā.

Bhūbharā [Bhūmarā] Voussoir Bricks

c19.s2.1

[Reverse Side]

c19.s2.2

[Obverse Side]

c19.s2.3

while Nachnā is in Ajaygarh. Durehā is in Jāso. There were two large towns in the early centuries—one on the site of Ganj-Nachnā and the other at Khoh. These were twins, united and separated by the chain of the mountain on the top of which was situated the Temple of the so-called ‘Bhūmarā’, more common and correct pronunciation being Bhūbharā. The temple is near the village Majhgawān (‘the middle village’), at a distance of 1½ miles from the village Bhūbharā [which everyone I met at the locality and at Nagod called by this name].

c19.s2.4

Bhūbharā is a village of the Goṇḍs, who have features as in Bharahut sculptures.¹ Bharahut and Bhūbharā are within Nagod territory and within about twenty miles from each other as the crow flies. In the middle lies Uch-harā, the residential fort of the Rajas of Nagod.

c19.s2.5

¹ See Plate VI. Female types have a still greater resemblance.

c19.s2.6

There was a brick-wall round the temple of Bhūbharā. Thousands of bricks still lie in a square round the temple remains. Most of these bricks where I examined the heap (East Gate) disclosed Brāhmī letters of c. 200 A.D. I have brought to the Patna Museum two such bricks. They are important as affording some reliable data on the date of the temple. The letters on the rough bottom-side read darva-ārā[la] on one and darva (l. 1) -ārālā (l. 2) on the other.² Darva is ‘hood’ and ārāla or ārālā is ‘arch’, from ārā, ‘segment of a circle’, ‘a spoke’; cf. Sanskrit arāla. These marked bricks are, as a matter of fact, voussoir bricks. Arā seems to mean a voussoir, and in ārālā we seem to discover the technical architectural Hindu term for the horse-shoe arch. The name darva-ārālā, ‘hood-arch’, may refer to the shape of the arch, or to the purpose of accommodating hoods of Nāga images. It is evident that the outer wall of the temple had niches with round arches for reception of images. The smooth face of one brick has a clear bhū inside a bigger letter which is a large bhā. This large letter is followed by a large rā and a ya with an anusvāra.

c19.s2.7

² See Plates VII and VIII. The surface of the bricks has been made lighter to bring out the lettering in the photograph.

c19.s2.8

The whole inscription reads *Bhūbhārāyam*, ‘at Bhūbhārā.’ The other brick on the top-side has *ā* at the left corner and *rā* at the right. They have arrow-marks to show the correct direction to the mason. The bricks are voussoir bricks in shape. The measurements of the bricks are: (1) 7" × 8" × 9" (one side broken, at present 6", originally probably 8" like the opposite side); the thickness is 2½", and the fabric very strong; (2) 8" × (7", broken) 9". It seems that bricks were made below the hill and were marked for *Bhūbhārā* which was evidently the name of the hill where the temple was built. Probably bricks were made together for several buildings and were thus allocated.

c19.s2.9

There being no inscription on the stone remains of the ‘Bhūmarā’ temple, the brick inscriptions are very useful in fixing the age of the temple. The temple cannot be later than 200 A.D., it should be, as the letter-forms certainly indicate, of about 150-200 A.D.

c19.s2.10

The name of the mukhalingam, now lying flat in the temple, is *Bhākul dev*, according to the tradition current at Majhgawāñ and the neighbourhood. This seems to stand for *Bhāra-kula-deva*, ‘the Deity of the Bhāra-kula (dynasty)’. The date of the bricks would warrant the inference that probably this was the Śiva-lingam founded by the Bhāra-Śiva king mentioned in the Vākāṭaka inscriptions. In any case its period is the Bhāraśiva period.

c19.s2.11

There are place-names in the neighbourhood, e.g. *Bharaḥaṭā* and *Bharauli*. Near Satna there is *Bharjunā* where ancient sculptures are found. Pre-eminently in the same group of nomenclature and area stands the well-known Bharahut.

c19.s2.12

*Bhūbhārā* [village] marked the boundary between the Gupta empire and the Vākāṭaka kingdom during the Gupta period, according to the boundary pillar inscription of Bhūbhārā (*thāṛī pāṭhar*) which is traceable at present in the jungles. Bhūbhārā and Majhgawāñ are in the thick of the jungle. We found fresh foot-prints of a pair of huge tigers who had walked back by the time of our return over our shoe-marks. Reports of similar temples on the hill still existing have reached me. The hill should be explored.

c19.s2.14

[Reverse Side]

c19.s2.15

a [Obverse Side]

Nachnā Temples

c19.s3.1

Bhairava-Śiva (Chaturmukha) Temple (Pinnacle over Āmalaka restored recently, and Portico added.

c19.s3.2

A window in Pārvati Temple showing Date-Palm Design.

c19.s3.3

The Bhūbharā temple has been subjected to modern vandalism. The glorious door with its jambs and sculptures has been removed; that is, the temple has been practically demolished; and the parts have been taken to the Indian Museum at Calcutta and to Fort Uch-harā, where numerous parts have been fortunately saved and preserved by Lal Saheb M.-Kumāra Bhārgavendra Singh, President of the Council of Nagod. But they are lying scattered. The exquisite face-lingam is lying uncared for in the jungle within a shrine which has been rendered tottering by the removal of the massive door and the sculptures which faced and lined the sides.¹ This link between Bharahut and the revived Hindu plastic art has been subjected to a fate worse than Bharahut.

c19.s3.4

¹ Lal Saheb whose attention was drawn to the present condition of the temple has kindly promised to take steps to preserve what still remains.

c19.s3.5

The Nachnā temple has been the subject of a worse treatment. The famous Pārvatī temple has been, within the last few years, deprived of its outer walls completely.² With its pieces one side of the tower of the Śiva temple has been repaired by a local Brahmin,³ who is said to have discovered gold coins buried in jars at Nachnā. The walls of the Pārvatī temple imitating rocks and caves have thus wholly disappeared, and their animal sculptures which are amongst the most beautiful specimens of Hindu plastic art are either lying scattered on the ground or taken away. A few of them have been rescued by a friend of mine.

c19.s3.6

² See the *Modern Review* (Calcutta), April, 1933, for its illustration.

c19.s3.7

³ See Plate IX. The room in front of the Śikhara temple is a recent addition. The side photographed shows the original śikhara, except for the pinnacle which is modern.

c19.s3.8

The Pārvatī temple and the Śiva temple are works of the same artists and are contemporary ones. Mr. Codrington is wrong in saying that the Śikhara of the temple of Śiva is a later construction and 'superimposed' (*Ancient India*, p. 61). I have examined the temples and had the advantage of the expert opinion of an engineer whom I had taken with myself. The Sikhara temple is the earliest in India existing in its original form. The carvings and the technique are the precursor of the Gupta and the later art. The Śiva-faces on the lingam are superb.¹ One of them with a Bhairava expression has its palate wonderfully well done, which one realizes by feeling it. I hope, some artist will make a thorough study of the temple and sculptures on the spot, and some official attempt would be made to rescue the buildings and the remains.

c19.s3.9

¹ See Plate X.

Age of Nachnā Temples

c19.s4.1

A good datum on the age of the Nachnā buildings is the cult-figure of Śiva. The face to the south is Bhairava. Śiva was worshipped in his auspicious (Śiva) form by the Bhāraśivas; the forms at Bhūbharā, and Nakṭi(Khoh) and the one discovered by me (see below) are all of that aspect.² The Vākāṭaka Rudrasena I, on the other hand, worshipped that god in the Mahā-Bhairava form (G.I., p. 236). It was interdicted to make Bhairava in the main shrine (na mūlāyatane kāryo Bhairavas tu...Matsya 258. 14). Hence we have his fierce face (tīkṣṇa-nāsāgra-daśanaḥ karālavadano mahān; 258. 13) combined with other faces.³ Two more Bhairava-Śivas in the same style are found at Jāso, one on a platform in the village, fashioned in the same red stone as the Bhūbharā sculptures, and another in black stone in the Jāso temple (brought there and deposited from some neighbouring site). The Nachnā temples will go back to the time of Rudrasena I, for Pṛthivī-sheṇa worshipped the god in the Maheśvara form (G.I., p. 237). The Pārvatī temple has the date-palm trunk design in one of its windows.⁴ This design is prominent at Bhūbharā. R. D. Banerji has pointed out the intimate structural and material affinity between the Pārvatī and Bhumara temples (Memoir, No. 16, p. 3). Nachnā is nearer Guptan Art and serves as a link between that and Bhūbharā.

c19.s4.2

² See Plate XI.

c19.s4.3

³ See the two faces reproduced in Plate X. The sanctum is dark but for the windows. With difficulty this photograph was taken.

c19.s4.4

⁴ See Plate IX.

c19.s4.5

New discoveries.

c19.s4.6

Near the village of Bhūbharā close to a well under a tree I found a mukhalingam belonging to the same period as the Bhūbharā-Majhgawāñ

c19.s4.7

Vākāṭaka Śiva.

c19.s4.8

[Figure: Two faces of Bhairava-Śiva (Chaturmukha Lingam) at Nachnā.]

Bhāra-Siva Sivas

c19.s5.1

Bhūbharā [Bhūmarā] Siva [Eka-mukha Lingam] in the Temple.

c19.s5.2

Eka-mukha-Lingam-Nakti-ki-talai, Khoh (A. S. W. C., 1919-20).

c19.s5.3

Bhūbharā Eka-mukha Lingam Siva [ Under tree near the Village ]

c19.s5.4

Bhākul dev.¹ Between Ganj and Nachnā I found a square stone temple with a few sculptures on a bāwalī (stepped well) which have exactly the same technique as the Nachnā sculptures. The temple contains a plain lingam. The spot is called Chauparā.

c19.s5.5

¹ See Plate XI. Curiously enough, I found a similar, though later, sculpture at Koch, near Tikari, Gaya, indicating the Bhāraśiva influence in Magadha. [The Koch image will be illustrated in a subsequent issue of J.B.O.R.S.]

c19.s5.6

Local Tradition of Past Dynasties. From Lal Saheb of Nagod and other persons I came to learn local traditions about the past dynasties which ruled over Uch-harā, Nachnā, and Nagaudh. The ‘Bhars’ are said to have been the former rulers of Nagaudh and Nachnā and the Sanyāsins, of Uch-harā. These Sanyāsins are the historical ‘Parivrājaka Mahārājas’ of the inscriptions, and ‘the Bhars’ might probably be the Bhāra-Śivas. There is no room in history from the Chandel times or rather from the Gupta times to the present day for a Bhar dynasty. It is possible that Mahārāja Jayanātha and his family who were neighbours of the Parivrājakas were a branch of the Bhāra-Śivas.

c19.s5.7

There is no Bhar village at Bhūbharā. But I was told by Lal Saheb, who is the adopted son of the late Chief of Nagaudh and knows every inch of the ground, that the Bhars in the State wear sacred thread and have the status of inferior Kshatriyas. They may or may not be connected with the Bhāra-Śivas. I am inclined to regard them as unconnected.

c19.s5.8

At Bhārahut I heard the tradition that there had been a Telī dynasty there. This probably refers to Tailapa, as in the proverb of ‘Gāngū and Telī’ (Gāngeyadeva and Tailapa).