DYNAMICS OF PATRONAGE IN THE GUPTA PERIOD: A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY OF THE

ANCIENT SHRINES OF UDAYAGIRI AND ERAN (MADHYA PRADESH, INDIA) A.D 4TH -
A.D. 6TH CENTURIES
Author(s): Aparajita Bhattacharya
Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 2013, Vol. 74 (2013), pp. 83-90
Published by: Indian History Congress
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44158802

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:13:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DYNAMICS OF PATRONAGE IN THE
GUPTA PERIOD: A BIOGRAPHICAL
STUDY OF THE ANCIENT SHRINES OF
UDAYAGIRI AND ERAN (MADHYA
PRADESH, INDIA) A.D 4TH - A.D. 6TH
CENTURIES
Aparajita Bhattacharya

The archetypal image of the reign of the imperial Guptas as the luminous
example of the classical Indian cultural expression has given" rise to
certain hegemonic discourses in conventional historiography. The
crystallization of Brahmanical religion, the structural manifestation of
Hinduism in the form of temples, the proliferation of sects like
Vaisnavism and Saivism and consequent acculturation and assimilation
are glimpses of knowledge conceptualizing the essence of the epoch,
'the Gupta Age'. But the conceptualization of art as constitutive and
reflective manifestation of socio-political reality, as a plurality of
discourse and practices, co-existing within a dynamic matrix of
interaction and contestation still awaits critical scrutiny.
The regional contextualization of the two sites of Udayagiri and
Eran (Madhya Pradesh) would reveal a nuanced cultural landscape
having the traces of one of the earliest Buddhist monastic complexes
at Sanchi and earliest epigraphic evidence of the prevalence of
Bhagavatism borne out from the famous Heliodorus pillar from Vidisa.
The nuanced cultural geography of the region has demonstrated a
legacy of pluralistic ethos where co-existence of different faiths was
evident. A focus on the development and continuation of the religious
shrines of Udayagiri and Eran reveal a pre Gupta antecedent, post
Gupta continuity though they are conventionally designated as 'Gupta
period' religious complexes. Patronage pattern as evident from the
epigraphic records found at the two sites clearly shows no direct
involvement of the Gupta monarchs in excavating the shrines and
building up the temples. It is interesting that those Udayagiri panels
of Varaha and Sesasayi Narayana which have been given exalted
footage in any discussion on the political allegory of the art of Gupta
period have actually no evidence of their being sponsored by any
imperial patron.1 The conventional and much clichéd argument that
Udayagiri was designed to establish the power and authority of the
Gupta rulers in a Vaisnava mould does not explain the existence of

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:13:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
84 IHC: Proceedings, 74th Session, 2013
considerable number of Saiva shrines and two Jaina caves and the
remnants of a Buddhist monastery underneath the structure of the sixth
century AD temple, which happens to be the only fully structural edifice
of the complex.
The concept of shared sacred domain in conceptualizing 'visual
history' in the sphere of south Asian art and religion should be applied
in understanding the patronage dynamics of these two sites. One
possible explanation of this plurality as exemplified by the site of
Udayagiri is that religious enclosures like temple complexes should
be viewed as a spontaneous development interlinked with social
processes rather than structures commissioned and imposed from
outside by certain imperial authority. The character of a religious
complex is defined by not only how it had emerged but on the contrary
rests on how it had continued and evolved strategies for sustenance
redefining the past and renegotiating with the present. A biographical
study serves as an effective tool in this direction.
There is no homogeneity in the development of temple architecture
in Central India in the time bracket of 4,h - 6lh centuries CE. There are
certain commonalities that bind them together so much so as to
categorize them as 'Gupta' temple - as the earliest examples of the
extant structural temples of North India, but strands of uniqueness
and plurality needs to be studied carefully in order to understand what
necessitated the building of structural temples in place of the rock cut
caves. The question serves as the entry point to a plethora of issues.
The period of 4th -6lh centuries CE saw the beginning of flat roofed
shrines, which gradually acquired complexity in terms of stylistic
details as well as iconographie programme.
Eran (Sagar District, M.P) has a long cultural sequence from the
Chalcolithic phase onwards, revealed during the course of
archaeological excavations at the site. 2 Udayagiri, on the other hand
has never been subjected to a thorough over all excavation.3 Along
with inscriptional evidence the site of Eran had also yielded a wide
variety of numismatic findings whereas in the case of Udayagiri no
such numismatic specimens are known. Udayagiri yields examples of
multi religiosity while the character of Eran is strictly Vaisnava.
Indeed similarities are noticed in the iconographie programme, but
architecturally the two sites are as divergent as possible. Whereas
Udayagiri predominantly consisted of cave shrines except the ruins of
a structural temple, all the four temples at Eran are totally structural
temples and there is not a single evidence of cave architecture at the
site of Eran. This kind of architectural difference can be explained by
the topographical dissimilarities of the two sites.

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:13:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 85

Dynamics of Patronage
Patronage can serve as a crucial ent
dynamics of different currents condit
period. Generally it can be describe
relatively powerful position (the pat
for acceptance of his authority. An
network which swiftly adjusted acc
new requirements facilitating fr
experimentation in content and for
patronage 'as a multidimensional, so
of exchange' implying not only the
complex interplay of its transmissio
operating in both individual and co
the patronage network lies in its re
donor and receiver. To quote Mill
embedded in particular socio-politic
deeply pervasive and culturally pat
authority."4 Unlike the mechanism of
patronage exchange 'intangible' and
legitimization, establishing status or
a major role along with the visible t
it is rather implicit that a change i
specific patron, artist, audience equ
according to the exigencies of new r
Gupta period has been projected
which characterized the ages preced
the rise of the Guptas Buddhism
inspiring the construction of monu
Viharas , Gupta age marked the res
structural manifestation of sectarian H
In terms of patronage and production
like Sanchi, Bharhut and Àmaravati
effect of small scale donations cont
cutting across class, gender and reg
starting from the 4th century onward
of lavish royal patronage.6 The mot
behind financing the temple building
a ritual sanction of his power and au
Udayagiri contains three inscriptio
These are the inscription in Cave 6
the undated record of Virasena in Cave 7 and another dated record of
Gupta Era 106 i.e. 425-26 A.D from Cave 20 documenting a donation
of an image of Parsvanatha by Sankara. While the inscriptions from

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:13:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
86 IHC : Proceedings, 74th Session, 20 J 3
Cave 6 and Cave 7 are more or less contemporaneous and can be
chronologically placed in the reign of Gupta ruler Candragupta II, the
inscription of Cave 20 belonged to the reign of Candragupta II's son
and successor Kumaragupta I. The inscription in cave 6, denotes a gift
by a * Sanakanika Maharaja* ? Interestingly the name ' Sanakanikas9
(mentioned always in plural) figured in the Allahabad inscription of
Samudragupta listed in the category of nine non monarchical polities
{ganar ajy as)}
This inscription of Gupta era 82 i.e. 402 A. D shows that
Sanakanikas were brought under the framework of the monarchical
system probably as a result of Samudragupta 's extensive campaign for
territorial aggrandizements, which proved to be a fatal blow to these
alternative polities.
The epigraph from Cave 7, records a gift from Virasena, a minister
of Chandraguta II and hailing from Pataliputra, who caused the cave to
be excavated as a temple dedicated to lord Siva bearing the name
Sambhu .9 The two inscriptions of Virasena and Sanakanika Maharaja
represent two different strata of political elite but the very fact that
both the 'typical Gupta courtier' and a non-traditional newly
indoctrinated officer are making donations in the same sacred complex
and that too serving under the same Gupta emperor symbolizes a
pluralistic ethos of the time - a visible contradiction of the standardized
picture of the Gupta times.
An in-depth study of the inscriptions from Udayagiri and Eran
demonstrate a striking similarity of expression between the Cave 7
inscription of Virasena at Udayagiri with that of the inscription on the
Budhagupta Pillar from Eran of Gupta era 165 (AD 484-485). This
inscription documents the construction of a ' Dhvajastambha* or flagstaff
dedicated to lord Janardana by the brothers Matrvisnu and Dhanyavisnu
who were probably local chiefs functioning under Surasmi Chandra,
the immediate vassal of Gupta ruler Budhagupta whose administrative
territory included Eran. Among the two records, the inscription of
Virasena is relatively of an earlier date. A reading of both the
inscriptions illustrates the fact that there was a conscious attempt to
emphasize the intellectual accomplishments of the patrons. Whereas
Virasena took pride of his accomplishment as a kavi or poet, Maharaja
Matrvisnu, the elder of the two brothers of the Eran inscription described
himself as having a Brahmana lineage and proficiency in Vedic
recitation.10 It should be pointed out in this context that patrons in both
the cases held some kind of political authority although difference in
magnitude existed. Another notable pattern of patronage as glanced
from the sites of Udayagiri and Eran is that in both the places people

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:13:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 87

were making gifts in their individu

of group or community patronage.
The inscription of Cave 20 at Uday
106 is distinctly a Jain inscription
complex. The inscription of Cave 20
of Acharya Gosarman who is in turn
lineage of the " Acharya Bhadra has
with serpent's hood forming a cano
donor of the image of Parsvanatha
he took pride of being the son of S
Asvapati. According to Fleet the term
lord of the horses' has a technical im
and its meaning should be understo
cavalry regiment." Sankara only took
himself as a ' Ripughna ', literally m
by his enemies.12 While no inscript
from Cave 19 several 11 * century
engraved on the pillars inside cav
identified an inscription on the left
19 which is dated in Vikrama ye
interpreted it as a pilgrim's record a
that at the time of the engraving of t
been dedicated to Visnu although at p
inside, which Cunningham also notic
An eight line dated inscription is i
left hand pillar inside the cave 19 w
what Michael. D. Willis termed as 'co
shows the restoration of a decayed s
at the feet of Visnu. The particular ph
is interpreted in the sense of the 'Vi
an object of worship.15
There is a second inscription on
denotes donation of a plot of land
' rajaputra ' named Sodha. The word
son of a king in this context denotes a
region where the land has been don
just above the grant of Sodha also r
' nivartana ' to the shrine by one m
have an inscription from cave 19 wh
as belonging to the previous group o
on paleographical grounds. Another
inside the cave records a land donat

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:13:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
88 IHC: Proceedings , 74th Session, 2013

The previous discussion points out that a gap remains yet to be

explained in the conventional scholarship as to this somewhat strange
fact that an imperial house so overwhelmingly held as the epitome of
the royal vigor produces almost no evidence when it cornés to the actual
inscriptional documentation of sponsoring any art object or temple. A
shift is much needed from the stereotypical issues of legitimization
and state formation and focus is awaited on the reasons for the
sustenance of particular temple or religious centre long after the eclipse
of an imperial house.
The epigraphic records from the sites serve as clues to reconstruct
the patronage network of the time. Except for the Vidisa Tirthankar
images donated by Ramagupta, the only instance of the involvemen
of a Gupta monarch in the temple building activity is attested by a
inscription on a garudadhvaja pillar from the brick temple at Bhitari
located in Uttar Pradesh. According to the statement of the record
Gupta ruler Skandagupta (455-467 AD) installed the image of lord
Sarngi , a form of lord Visnu iņ the temple for the purpose of increasing
religious merit of his late father Kumaragupta I (415- 455 AD). This
inscription also documents the donation of a village to meet the cos
of the maintenance of the temple.17 The Bhitari inscription o
Skandagupta is the only in situ inscription still noticeable at the templ
ground testifying an unambiguous imperial contribution.18
Attempts have been m^de to explain this absence of royal
patronage in terms of conscipus preference. The revival of elaborate
Vedic rituals like asvamedha , rajasuya , etc., are helpful to emphatically
assert and affirm the supremacy òf a ruler as universal sovereign styled
as Chakrovartin . As Willis puts' it "Indeed temple patronage would
have been detrimental to the whole imperial enterprise because the
temple deities were not abstract symbols but concrete legal entities
with clearly defined rights to gifts, property and income. "19According
to Willis this localization of power which marked the origination of
temples did not fit into the ambitious scheme of the Gupta rulers wh
were keen to project themselves on a pan-Indian scale transcending
the regional boundaries.20 The relative simplicity of architecture of
these pre Nagara flat roofed temples is yet to acquire its politica
significance beyond its immediate religious purpose.21
The patronage pattern as borne out by the epigraphic records show
that temple architecture in its formative stage was not conditioned by
royal patronage and therefore was never dependent on it for their
sustenance. The emergence of temples, however modest they seem in
their initial stage of development, nevertheless implies an urge for
public religiosity. From the 2nd century BCE onwards small modest
shrines are known of Buddhist, Jain and Brahmanical faiths where

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:13:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient India 89

sacred icons or relics were worshippe

have demonstrated that architectural
of belief systems. So temple as a struct
CE, although in spite of epigraphica
survived from before 4th century CE
The modest shrines of the 4th-6th ce
ritual transformation and iconograph
print for the subsequent times. The the
performances to public devotional ritua
puja is gradually receiving scholarly a
onwards the emerging temples were f
religious tension concerning a pletho
on the nature of divinity and the fo
performances. The patronage pattern
demonstrate that they were not mechan
religious certification to the power a
In fact, Gupta period sites of Udayag
and never enjoyed the status of imp
Ujjayini or a pilgrimage centre. The
the sites as religious complexes poin
from local elites and people whose co
character of these two sites.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Frederick M Asher, Historical and political allegory in Gupta Art, in

(ed) Essays on Gupta Culture , Motilal Banarasidas, Delhi, 1983, pp.53-
2. V.D Jha, Contribution of Eran to Indian History, in R.K Sharma and
Handa (eds.), Revealing India 's Past, Recent Trends in Art and Archa
Professor Ajay Mitra Shastri Commemoration Volume , Aryan Books Inte
New Delhi /305, pp.83-87.
3. Progress Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle
year ending 31" March 1915, p. 65.
4. Barbara Stoller Miller (ed.), The Powers of Art, Patronage in Indian
Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1992, pp.3-4.
5. Romila Thapar, Patronage and the Community, in Barbara Stoller Mi
The Powers of Art, p. 19.
6. Michael. D. Willis, The Archaeology and Politics of Time at Udayagiri
T. Bakker (ed), The Vakataka Heritage , Brill, Groningen, 2005, p. 25, no
7. J.F. Fleet, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Vol. 111. Inscriptions of the E
Kings and Their Successors, Indological Book House, Varanasi, 1970
third edition), pp.2 1-25.
8. Ibid., pp.1-17.
9. Ibid., pp. 34-36.

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:13:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
90 ÍHC: Proceedings , 74th Session , 2075
10. D.R. Bhandarkar, Corpus lnscriptionum Indie arum, Vol. III. (Inscriptions of the
Early Gupta Kings), ed. by Bahadurchand Chhabra and Govind Swamirao Gai,
New Delhi, 1981, pp.339-341 [note 39].
11. Fleet, op.cit., p. 260, footnote 2. Also D.R. Patii, The Monuments of the Udayagiri
Hill, Archaeological Department of the State of Gwalior, 1948, p 48.
12. Fleet, op.cit. p .259 for translation.
13. Alexander Cunnigham, Archaeological Survey of India Report of Tours in
Bundelkhand and Malwa 1874-75 and 1876-77 , Vol.X, Archaeological Survey of
India, New Delhi, 2000 (reprint), p. 52.
14. J.F. Fleet, Sanskrit and Old-Canarese Inscriptions, in Indian Antiquary , 1 3 (1884),
p. 185.
15. Michael D. Willis, Inscriptions from Udayagiri locating domains of devotion,
patronage and power in the eleventh century, South Asian Studies , 1 7, 2004, p.42,
fig.3.
16. Ibid., p. 44.
17. D.C. Sircar, Select Inscriptions bearing on Indian History and Civilization , vol.1
(From Sixth Century BC to Sixth Century AD). University of Calcutta, Calcutta,
pp. 321-324.
1 8. Vidula Jayaswal, Royal Temples of Gupta Period : Excavations at Bhitari , Aryan,
New Delhi, 2001.
19. Michael. D Willis, Patronage during the Gupta Period: Epigraphic Evidence for
the Activities of the Gupta Monarchs, in Raymond & Bridget Allchin (eds.), South
Asian Archaeology , Proceedings of the 1 3,h Conference of the European Association
of South Asian Archaeologists , Cambridge, 1995, Ancient India and Iran Trust,
Cambridge, p. 622.
20. Ibid., p. 622.
2 1 . Romila Thapar, Early India from the Origins to AD 1300 , Penguin Press, New
Delhi, 2002, p.313.
22. Michael D. Willis, The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual, Temples and the
Establishment of the Gods, Cambridge University Press, New Delhi, 2009.

This content downloaded from

27.59.233.121 on Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:13:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms