Comparison of Amaravati and Sanchi

“Discovering” Stupas The Fate of Amaravati and Sanchi

Each stupa has its own unique history, including tales of how they were constructed and discovered. In 1796, a local ruler planning to construct a temple stumbled upon the ruins of the Amaravati stupa. Intrigued, he utilized the stone, suspecting potential buried treasure within the structure. Later, British official Colin Mackenzie visited the site, documenting various sculptures but never publishing his findings. In 1854, Commissioner Walter Elliot explored Amaravati, collecting sculpture panels and labeling them the Elliot marbles. He recognized Amaravati as one of the grandest Buddhist stupas. By the 1850s, Amaravati’s sculptures were scattered across different locations, even adorning the gardens of British administrators. Despite objections from archaeologist H.H. Cole, who advocated for in situ preservation, sculptures continued to be removed from Amaravati....

Walter Elliot’s Exploration

In 1854, Walter Elliot, the commissioner of Guntur, visited Amaravati and collected numerous sculpture panels, later known as the Elliot marbles. He identified Amaravati as one of the largest and most magnificent Buddhist stupas ever built, noting the grandeur of the western gateway. Walter Elliot’s recognition of Amaravati’s significance as one of the largest Buddhist stupas underscores the importance of informed archaeological assessments. The collection of sculpture panels by Elliot served to preserve artifacts that might have otherwise been lost or destroyed. Elliot’s contributions laid the foundation for subsequent scholarly research and public awareness of Amaravati’s historical importance....

Dispersion of Amaravati Sculptures

By the 1850s, sculptures from Amaravati had been taken to various places, including the Asiatic Society of Bengal, the India Office in Madras, and even London. British administrators often adorned their gardens with these sculptures, leading to the widespread removal of artifacts from the site by subsequent officials. The widespread distribution of sculptures from Amaravati reflects the global interest in antiquities during the colonial period. The practice of adorning gardens with ancient sculptures by British administrators highlights the colonial attitudes towards cultural heritage and ownership. The removal of artifacts from Amaravati contributed to the loss of context and hindered comprehensive understanding of the site’s history and significance....

Differing Perspectives on Preservation

Archaeologist H.H. Cole advocated for the in-situ preservation of ancient art, opposing the removal of artifacts from their original locations. Despite Cole’s pleas, authorities did not prioritize preserving Amaravati’s artifacts in situ, contrasting with their approach to Sanchi. H.H. Cole’s advocacy for in situ preservation emphasizes the ethical considerations involved in archaeological conservation. The failure to adopt Cole’s recommendations at Amaravati underscores the challenges in reconciling preservation efforts with competing interests. The contrasting approaches to preservation between Amaravati and Sanchi reflect evolving attitudes towards cultural heritage management....

Survival of Sanchi Stupa

Sanchi, discovered in 1818, retained three standing gateways and a well-preserved mound, with the fourth gateway lying where it had fallen. Although there were suggestions to relocate the gateway to Paris or London, factors such as preservation efforts and local support helped maintain Sanchi’s integrity. The relatively intact state of Sanchi compared to Amaravati highlights the importance of proactive conservation measures. The decision to retain Sanchi’s gateways in their original location demonstrates a commitment to preserving the site’s authenticity. Local support and community engagement played a crucial role in safeguarding Sanchi from further degradation and exploitation....

Comparison of Amaravati and Sanchi

Amaravati suffered significant loss and degradation over time, becoming a mere mound stripped of its former glory, while Sanchi remained intact due to preservation efforts and local initiatives. Amaravati’s decline into insignificance serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of neglect and inadequate preservation efforts. The contrasting fates of Amaravati and Sanchi underscore the impact of historical circumstances and conservation practices on archaeological sites’ survival and legacy....

FAQs on Class 12 History “Discovering” Stupas The Fate of Amaravati and Sanchi

Why did Sanchi Stupa survive while Amaravati did not?...