 |
Yakṣinī in Pralambapāda pose, Bābā Mitrasen Sthān, Nōṇgaḍh. |
Biography and Records, both the accounts of Xuanzang have mentioned an isolated hill in Īraṇaparvata country, where the Buddha did one of his Vassā (rainy season retreats). As per both these accounts, the isolated hill was situated south of the river Gaṅgā (Ganges) on the western border of Īraṇaparvata Country (Rongxi 1996: 259-261). Present-day Munger has been identified as the capital city of Īraṇaparvata Country visited by Xuanzang (Cunningham 1882: 15-16). Lieutenant Colonel Laurence Austine Waddell (1854-1938) in 1892 identified village Uren (25° 10' 06'' N. 86° 13' 02'' E) situated 37 kilometres as the crow flies, southwest of Munger as the isolated hill under discussion (Waddell 1893).
Xuanzang travelled east from Nālandā to Īraṇaparvata (Munger) touching Kapotaka, the village by the Gaṅgā and Lāvaṇīla (refer to Fig.1). In my previous stories, I have proposed Barui-Pachnā Hill as the probable site of ancient Kapotaka (Anand 2024). Similarly, the evidence suggests Rajaonā-Valgūdar may represent the village by the Gaṅgā mentioned by Xuanzang (Anand 2024). An exploration of Google Maps indicates that the shortest route connecting Nālandā, Kapotaka (Barui-Pachnā) and Īraṇaparvata (Munger) is along the southern bank of the Gaṅgā through the isolated hill of Uren (refer to Fig.1). Yet, both the accounts suggest he didn't visit the isolated hill of Uren while en route to Īraṇaparvata, but visited the isolated hill later from Īraṇaparvata. Further, while the Records (Rongxi 1996: 256-258) have mentioned the visit of Xuanzang to the village by the Gaṅgā and village Lāvaṇīla located between Kapotaka and Īraṇaparvata, the Biography (Beal 1914: 126-127) does not speak about village by the Gaṅgā and village Lāvaṇīla in the itinerary of Xuanzang. The differing descriptions of Biography and Records imply two situations (refer to Fig.1):
The capital city of Īraṇaparvata was on the southern bank of the Gaṅgā. The first possibility is that Xuanzang may have taken the river route to Īraṇaparvata (Munger) from some location after Kapotaka. In this situation, as implied by the Biography, he did not visit the village by the Gaṅgā and Lāvaṇīla. And this also explains why he skipped the isolated hill of Uren.
The second likelihood is that, as mentioned in the Records, Xuanzang may have visited the village south of the Gaṅgā and the village of Lāvaṇīla. However, in this situation, we will observe that Lāvaṇīla may not be east as mentioned by Xuanzang but should be southeast of the village by the Gaṅgā (i.e. Rajaonā-Valgūdar).
As per the Records, Xuanzang travelled east from the village by the Gaṅgā to Īraṇaparvata visiting the village Lāvaṇīla in between. This trail connecting the village by the Gaṅgā and Lāvaṇīla was ‘through mountains and forests for over 100 Li’(Rongxi 1996: 258). Further, his travel from Lāvaṇīla to Īraṇaparvata was also by way of ‘great mountains and forests for more than 200 Li’.
The straight path connecting Rajaonā (i.e. the village by the Gaṅgā) and Munger (capital of Īraṇaparvata) runs parallel along the south side of the Gaṅgā, sans hills (refer to Fig.1). The Kharagpur range of Hills, the only mountain range in view, is more than 10 km south of this route. If we examine the toposheet, we realise, that the only way this route connecting Rajaonā-Lāvaṇīla-Īraṇaparvata could pass through the ‘great mountains and forests’ (the Kharagpur hills), is if Lāvaṇīla is southeast of Rajaonā and southwest of Īraṇaparvata (Munger). Furthermore, Xuanzang travelled more than 300 Li i.e., 80 to 100 km eastward from the village by the Gaṅgā to Īraṇaparvata (Rongxi 1996: 256-258). However, the distance between Rajaonā and Munger as the crow flies is around 50 km. This discrepancy between the distance mentioned in Records (i.e. 300 Li) and the distance between Rajaonā and Munger can be resolved if the trail connecting Rajaonā to Munger first goes 100 Li towards the southeast (to Lāvaṇīla) and then 200 Li northeast to Munger (capital of Īraṇaparvata).
 |
| Fig. 1. Map depicting the travel of Xuanzang. |
 |
Nōṇgaḍh Mound. |
 |
| Mā Bhagwati Sthān, Nōṇgaḍh. |
 |
Yakṣinī Images at the Bābā Mitrasen Sthān, Nōṇgaḍh. |
 |
| Parvesh in front of animal-faced Yakṣinī, Bābā Mitrasen Sthān. |
 |
| Cow-faced Yakṣinī, Bābā Mitrasen Sthān. |
 |
| Image of the Buddha, Bābā Mitrasen Sthān. |
 |
| Shri Kapildev Ji showed me the recovery spots of three animal-faced Yakṣinī, Nōṇgaḍh Mound. |
 |
Yakṣinī are freestanding images with details on the rear. |
 |
| Rear of the broken image of Yakṣa, Mā Bhagwati Sthān. |
 |
| Yakṣa image kept in the open, Nōṇgaḍh. |
 |
Yakṣinī discovered from the river is relocated to the Lakhisarai Museum. @Elora Tribedy. |
 |
| With Asharfi ji and Vinod ji, Nōṇgaḍh. |
If Lāvaṇīla is not in the east but most likely in the southeast of Rajaonā, then which place represents the ancient remains of Lāvaṇīla Village?
Xuanzang mentions the presence of a monastery in Lāvaṇīla. In front of the monastery existed a ‘great stūpa’ built by King Aśoka. The Aśokan stūpa marked where the Buddha once preached the Dharma for three months. Alexander Cunningham initially believed that Rajaonā, Kiul and Jayanagar, the three contiguous villages in Lakhisarai constitute the ancient Lāvaṇīla. Equally, when he visited Nōṇgaḍh 10 km further south of Rajaonā, he was convinced that Nōṇgaḍh represented Lāvaṇīla (Cunningham 1873).
Cunningham noticed two mounds in village Nōṇgaḍh (25° 03' N. 86° 08' E). The big mound (25° 04' 02'' N. 86° 08' 50'' E) which was locally called ‘Nōṇgaḍh’ according to Cunningham was the Aśokan stūpa of Lāvaṇīla mentioned by Xuanzang. Cunningham noticed a second mound 250 feet square. The second mound was 200 feet east of the stūpa mound on the bank of the river Kiul. Cunningham believed the second mound was the remains of the monastery mentioned by Xuanzang. The Nōṇgaḍh mound (‘stūpa mound') was 40 feet high, and 200 feet in diameter at the base. The mound, Cunningham noticed, was a solid mass of well-burnt bricks, each 12in x 9in x 2in. Cunningham sank a shaft from the top of the mound. He discovered two small chambers in the mound, first at 7 feet and another at 8 and a half feet. The chambers had eleven small stūpas of unburnt clay (Cunningham 1873: 161). Cunningham didn't go to the bottom of the ‘stūpa mound' and left the remaining excavations to his assistant J D Beglar. Further excavation of the ‘stūpa mound' by Beglar revealed that the ‘stūpa’ was built over the remains of a small, north-facing temple. Beglar could not determine the temple’s dimensions, but the remains of the temple were 12 to 13 feet high (Beglar 1878: 119). The upper layers of the ‘stūpa’ were made of bricks sized 12in x 9in x 2in (Cunningham 1873: 161). The temple enshrouded inside the ‘stūpa’ is made of bricks measuring 14in x 11.75in x 3in (Beglar 1878: 119). The bottom layers of the ‘stūpa’ consist of bricks sized 12in x 9in x 2.5in (Beglar 1878: 119).
Cunningham had found a broken statue near the ‘stūpa mound'. The statue was made of the Sikri sandstone of Mathurā. It was an important find because it bore remains of an inscription that Cunningham believed belonged to the 1st century BCE or CE. Beglar believed the broken image found by Cunningham belonged to the temple enshrouded inside the ‘stūpa mound'. Based on this supposition, Beglar conjectured the temple inside the ‘stūpa’ belonged to the 1st BCE (Beglar 1878: 119). However, Frederick Asher believes the image found by Cunningham was a Kuṣāṇa (2nd CE) sculpture imported from Mathurā (Asher 1980: 29).
The ‘stūpa mound' was free of encroachment when Cunningham and Beglar visited it in the 1870s. More than two decades later, T Bloch noted the Nōṇgaḍh stūpa mound had become a quarry for bricks. A sādhu (ascetic) had made a small house east of the mound by reusing the bricks from the ‘stūpa’. Bloch tried to trace the inscribed sandstone image reported by Cunningham, but unfortunately, it had gone missing from the sādhu’s place where it was kept last (Bloch 1903: 11-12).
There has never been a systematic excavation at Nōṇgaḍh nor have any trial trenches been excavated to find the cultural sequence. Archaeological exploration of Nōṇgaḍh Village and its neighbourhood by Rupendra Kumar Chattopadhyay and Kumkum Bandyopadhyay have led to findings of Microlith, Black and Red Ware (BRW), Black Slipped Ware (BSW), Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW), Red Ware (RW), Black Polished Ware (BPW), Grey Ware (GW), Early Medieval Red Ware (EMRW) with Chocolate Slip etc. (Chattopadhyay, Bandyopadhyay 2017: 22). The presence of these ceramic types imply settlement in Nōṇgaḍh evolved from early village farming phases (BRW, 12th-9th BCE) and developed as a flourishing pastoral settlement in the early historic/historical phases.
I visited Nōṇgaḍh on a rainy afternoon on August 6, 2024. The ‘stūpa’ site or Nōṇgaḍh identified by Cunningham is situated 300 mts northeast of the village (habitation) on the western bank of Kiul River. The place is now known as Mā Bhagwati Sthān. The house of sādhu noted by Bloch probably evolved into the Mā Bhagwati Sthān shrine. The ‘stūpa mound' is not more than 30 ft high, much more depleted than what was recorded by Cunningham. Nōṇgaḍh village is popular among art historians for the presence of numerous images of yakṣa/dvārapāla and yakṣinī (mother goddess) from the Kuṣāṇa to mediaeval periods (Chattopadhyay, Bandyopadhyay 2017). However, there is some confusion regarding the findspot of these images of yakṣinī.
Shri Dilip Kumar Chakrabarti has mentioned the discovery of three yakṣinī images from an earthen mound one kilometre from the ‘stūpa mound' (Mā Bhagwati Sthān) further up the Kiul River (Chakrabarti 2001: 173-174). Parvesh Pandit whom I met in the village, acquainted me with a different story of the discovery of the yakṣinī images. Parvesh a native of Nōṇgaḍh is a political science graduate and runs a mathematics coaching center in the village. As per Parvesh, the ‘stūpa mound' is the source of at least six images of yakṣinī. Three images were unearthed in 1961 when the late Jagdish Prasad, a prominent Kayastha of the village, mauled the ‘stūpa’ to extract bricks to build his house. The second batch of three yakṣinī were found in 1995 when the family of Parvesh extracted bricks from the ‘stūpa mound' to make their house. Parvesh who was then eight years old, recounted how his father Shri Kapildev Pandit extracted the bricks, and he along with his mother and sister carried the bricks on their heads. Shri Kapildev ji showed me the two trenches on the ‘stūpa mound' from where he extracted bricks. Both the trenches were on the slope of the mound, 5 ft vertically and 15-20 ft horizontally away from the peak of the mound. The three images were discovered from these two trenches. One image was facing west on the southwest corner and two were south-facing on the southwest corner of the mound. All the images recovered were animal-faced with some disfigurement. As per Kapil ji, the images were found upright on plaster flooring. The plaster flooring was probably a terrace. The three images of animal-faced yakṣinī recovered by Kapil ji most likely belonged to the same terrace. The three human-faced yakṣinī discovered in 1961 may belong to another terrace. All the yakṣinī/ yakṣa/ animal-faced females are freestanding images i.e., they were kept in full view and not placed in niches.
Three of the six yakṣinī images extracted in 1961 and 1995 are presently enshrined in Bābā Mitrasen Sthān. One yakṣinī has been relocated to the Jamui Museum and two of the six images extracted from the ‘stūpa mound' were stolen from the Mitrasen Sthān in 1998. At least three images of yakṣa and yakṣinī have been discovered from the Kiul River in the recent past. One of the yakṣa is kept at the Mā Bhagwati Sthān. The second yakṣa is kept on the roadside. The third yakṣinī has been removed to the Lakhi Sarai Museum. The ‘monastery mound’ east of the ‘stūpa’ according to Parvesh has been partially eroded by the river. The images of yakṣa, yakṣinī and some fragments retrieved from the river belonged to the ‘monastery mound’.
It is noteworthy that the (six) images of yakṣinī, goat-headed and buffalo-faced female deities in Pralambapāda pose (sitting posture) were retrieved from inside the ‘stūpa mound' and the standing (yakṣa/dvārapāla) ones were discovered mostly from the river i.e., belonged to ‘monastery mound’.
Nōṇgaḍh has also yielded many Buddhist images including two broken images of Avalokiteśvara and an image of the seated Buddha which are kept in the Jamui Museum. A few fragments of Buddhist sculptures are kept at the Bābā Mitrasen Sthān. As per the villagers, all the Buddhist images were discovered from the mound underneath the Maṭh (Brahmanical monastery, 25° 03' 50'' N. 86° 08' 45'' E). The Maṭh is in the middle of the village and 400 mt south of the ‘stūpa mound'. The Maṭha was a flourishing place of ascetics of Giri tradition and owned most of the land in the village. The Maṭha was abandoned in 1995. The residential quarters of the Maṭha were levelled to make a school in 2015.
The question is, does Nōṇgaḍh represent Lāvaṇīla as proposed by Cunningham? Well, Fredrick Asher believes so (Asher 2000: 302). Asher conjectured that Nōṇgaḍh was the tīrtha (pilgrimage place) on the outskirts of the urban centre Kṛimilā i.e., Rajaonā-Valgūdar-Jaynagar. (Asher 1986: 227). Xuanzang mentions a monastery and an Aśokan stūpa in Lāvaṇīla. Cunningham and Beglar identified the Nōṇgaḍh mound to be a stūpa (126.5 feet in diameter) from a very early period (Beglar 1878: 119). Is the ‘stūpa mound' originally a stūpa? Rupendra Kumar Chattopadhyay and Kumkum Bandyopadhyay noted that the ‘stūpa mound' didn't hold characteristics of the stūpa complex including plan, projection etc. (Chattopadhyay, Bandyopadhyay 2017: 23).
Beglar found a temple from the early centuries enveloped in the ‘stūpa mound'. The sandstone images of yakṣinī retrieved from the ‘stūpa’ are from the Kuṣāṇa to mediaeval periods demonstrating that the ‘stūpa mound' was originally a temple (yakṣinī shrine) at least till the mediaeval period. The ‘monastery’ mound on the banks of Kiul seems like an extension of the ‘yakṣinī shrine’. The discovery of eleven small stūpas of unburnt clay inside the ‘stūpa mound' by Cunningham implies that in later centuries the ‘yakṣinī shrine’ was enshrouded and transformed into a stūpa.
Do we have evidence of the presence of a monastery at Nōṇgaḍh in 6-7th CE, during the visit of Xuanzang? We don't know, because mounds in Nōṇgaḍh have not yet been excavated. The village of Nōṇgaḍh including the Maṭh site is settled on the mound. We don’t know whether these remains underneath the village mound are religious or secular. The Buddhist material discovered from the village mound up till now dates from the 11th to the 13th CE (Bautze-Picron 1991-92: 242). The bricks scattered on the two mounds of Nōṇgaḍh (i.e. village mound and ‘stūpa mound') measure (i) 12.6in x 10.6in x 2.16in, (ii) 14.17in x 9.4in x 2.36in and (iii) 15.7in x 10.2in x 1.96in (Chattopadhyay, Bandyopadhyay 2017: 23).
The Nōṇgaḍh ‘stūpa mound' and the village mound need a systematic study to establish the complete cultural sequence. Incidentally, an inscription on the pedestal of a broken image of Buddha found in Nōṇgaḍh states that the image on which it is engraved was the déya-dharma (a religious gift) of dānapati (person who took the vow to donate) Śéja and his vadhū (wife) Aśōkā installed at Ḍakā (Sircar 1970: 41-42). It is important to note that this inscription from the 12th CE refers to this locality of Nōṇgaḍh as Ḍakā and not Lāvaṇīla.
Besides Nōṇgaḍh, Indape is another ancient Buddhist site which is a potential location for the village Lāvaṇīla. A couple of decades ago, numerous images of Buddha were recovered from Indape. The Indape Buddha images were relocated to the Jamui Museum. Asher maintains that the Indape Buddha images belong to the 7th CE (Asher 1988: 13-14). Claudine Bautze-Picron believes a Buddhist Monastery must have stood at Indape in the 7th century when several images of the Buddha were carved (Bautze-Picron 1991-92: 239). Most importantly, Indape is the only site in the Lakhisarai region (Rajaonā, Valgūdar, Jayanagar, Uren, Nōṇgaḍh etc.) where Buddha images from the 7th CE have been found (Bautze-Picron 1991-92: 242).
Indape (24° 53' N. 86° 13' E) is also locally referred to as Indapegaḍh meaning Indape Fort. The fort is less than one kilometre west of Kiul River. The fort is almost square with a 2.3 km perimeter. Buchanan noted many mounds and heaps of bricks in and around the fort. The ancient remains of Indape are now mostly unrecognisable from the descriptions of Buchanan. Mounds have been damaged. There are habitations all over the mounds. There is a cluster of ancient remains inside the fort which Buchanan alludes to as a ‘citadel’ (refer to Fig. 2). Most conspicuous mound inside the citadel according to Buchanan is the ‘temple of a Buoddh’ (Buchanan 1939: 109-110). Buchanan mentions a ‘lofty terrace’ 220 ft X 110 ft near the ‘temple of a Buoddh’ (refer to Fig. 2). Buchanan was told the ancient remains on the ‘lofty terrace’ represented the royal palace of King Indradyumna. Cunningham believed the ‘temple of a Buoddh’ to be a stūpa (Cunningham 1873: 163). Beglar based on observation estimated the stūpa to be 125 feet in diameter at the base by 35 feet in height (Beglar 1878: 119). Beglar believed the stūpa to be from a very early period. Bloch noticed the stūpa had a deep shaft down from its top (Bloch 1903: 11-12). In 1882, just between the visits of Beglar (1872-73) and Bloch (1903), the Archaeological Survey of India presented four terracotta medallions of Padmapāṇi to the Indian Museum, Calcutta. These medallions were discovered in the remains of the great stūpa of Indape (Anderson 1883: 95).
 |
| Fig. 2. References of Buchanan, Indape Site Plan (Beglar 1878). |
 |
Stūpa mound, Indape. View of the south side. |
 |
| Stūpa mound, Indape. View of the west side. |
 |
| The 'lofty terrace' badly mauled on the east side. |
 |
| The 'lofty terrace' badly mauled on the east side. |
 |
| An image of Buddha, Village collective, Indape. |
 |
| With Shri Rameshwar Yadav (on right), Indape. |
 |
| Ancient mounds, Indape Village. |
 |
| Ancient remains, Indape Village. |
 |
| Ancient brick flooring in a cowshed, Indape. |
 |
| Encroachment of ancient mounds, Indape. |
 |
| Government Schools are built around the Stūpa mound, Indape. |
 |
| Kharagpur Hills in the background. |
Shri Rameshwar Yadav, whom I met near the stūpa mound informed me that the sculptures (Buddha images) currently displayed at Jamui Museum were recovered from the mound opposite the Thākurbāri (stūpa mound) i.e. from the ‘lofty terrace’. The ‘lofty terrace’ is now badly damaged but more than 200 years ago Buchanan traced the remains of three apartments on it. The discovery of images from the ‘lofty terrace’ suggests the three apartments noticed by Buchanan are most likely remains of an ancient Buddhist Vihāra (temple).
Buchanan noted brick buildings in the outer fort which he thought were residences of officers and servants (refer to Fig. 2). The brick buildings in the outer fort Buchanan observed have the village (Indape) settled over them. I noticed big-sized bricks repurposed in houses, outwalls and cowsheds in Indape. D K Chakrabarti thinks the Indape site belongs to the Gupta to the post-Gupta period (Chakrabarti 2001: 175). Chattopadhyay and Sanyal consider the rampart and internal settlement with the stūpa mound to belong to the early mediaeval period (Chattopadhyay, Sanyal 2008: 264-265). Based on his explorations, Prof Anil Kumar of the Visva Bharati University trusts that Indape Fort was a Buddhist Monastery that flourished and evolved from the 6th to 13th CE (personal information).
I think Asher is correct in identifying the walled complex of Indapegaḍh as a monastic complex in the 7th CE (Asher 1988:14). The ‘citadel’, marked by Buchanan, is the shrine complex consisting of the stūpa (‘temple of Boudha’) and a Buddhist temple (‘lofty terrace’). The ‘residences of officers and servants’ may represent the monastery where the venerable saṅgha stayed and practised. The opinions of scholars are based on the surface findings. Just as in Nālandā, the monastery and shrines belonged to the 5th to 13th CE but the central shrine i.e., Temple No.3 had the foundations from the early centuries. It is plausible that future excavations may reveal an early date of the stūpa, shrines and monastic remains of Indape.
Ancient remains demonstrate that Indape had an imposing Buddhist establishment in the 7th CE, at the time of the visit of Xuanzang. Unfortunately, the ‘lofty terrace’ and the stūpa have been mutilated from all directions to create space for Girls Residential High School, Ambedkar Girls Residential School and Jannayak Karpoori Thakur Hostel.
Nōṇgaḍh and Indapegaḍh are ancient Buddhist sites and equally probable to be the ancient Lāvaṇīla, yet, I trust the ancient remains of Indapegaḍh represent the Buddhist remains of Lāvaṇīla. Lāvaṇīla was ‘over 100 Li’ from the Village by the Gaṅgā (Rajaonā). Which translates into approximately 33 kms (1 Li = 323 Mts). Nōṇgaḍh is 17 km and Indapegaḍh is 36 km as the crow flies southeast of Rajaonā (refer to Fig.1). Further, the path connecting the two passed through ‘mountains and forests’. An inspection of the map reveals only one hill on the shortest route connecting Rajaonā and Nōṇgaḍh. But several isolated hills dot the trail connecting Rajaonā and Indapegaḍh. Last but important, the travel from Lāvaṇīla to Īraṇaparvata (i.e. Munger) was through great mountains and forests for more than two hundred Li’(Rongxi 1996: 258). Nōṇgaḍh is 48 kms and Indape is 60 kms as the crow flies southwest of Munger. A survey of Google Maps reveals that the shortest route connecting Nōṇgaḍh and Munger is feasible by averting the Kharagpur range of Hills (refer to Fig.1). Still, conversely, any direct route connecting Indapegaḍh and Munger must run along the western or the southern edge of the Kharagpur Hills (refer to Fig.1).
If Indapegaḍh represents the Buddhist monastery of Lāvaṇīla, where should we look for the Lāvaṇīla village? As we know Buddhist monasteries were usually established a little away from the villages and towns. I believe Lāvaṇīla village should be near the junction of rivers Kiul and Barnar near Indape Fort. The area around Indape has yielded BRW (black and red ware), NBPW (northern black polished ware) and BPW (black polished ware) (Chattopadhyay, Sanyal 2008: 264-265).
Xuanzang mentions a large lake 2-3 Li north of Lāvaṇīla. The lake was more than Thirty Li in circuit with lotus flowers in four colours blooming all four seasons. Thirty Li translates into ten kilometres. There is no Lake of this proportion in Indapegaḍh, Nōṇgaḍh or the whole of Magadha. Indeed, there is an inconsistency between the descriptions and the context. I believe Xuanzang may not have visited Lāvaṇīla as implied in the Biography. He might have catalogued Lāvaṇīla in his Records for the benefit of future pilgrims, as he has done several times.
Postscript
I have always wondered why the long distances mentioned by Xuanzang are mostly in the multiples of 100 Li. Li is a traditional Chinese unit of distance. The Li has varied considerably over time but was equivalent to 323 Mts in the 7th CE, during the time of Xuanzang. Does 100 Li on every occasion translate into 33 kms ( One Li= 323 mts).
Xuanzang travelled across many topographic regions of China, Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. Civilisations and cultures had divergent ways of calculating the march. Not all calculated the march by a measure of distance. As in the Indian Subcontinent, short distances were measured by sounds. For example, Gāvuta is the distance at which the lowing of a cow may be heard. Kosa/ Krośa is a distance measure that originally signified ‘a call’, meaning the distance at which a man’s call can be heard (Yule, Burnell, Crooke, 1903: 261). Kosa/ Krośa is still used in parts of India. Likewise, Yojana is an ancient unit for quantifying long distances, in the Indian Subcontinent. Yojana calculated a march by a measure of distance. Traditionally, Yojana is etymologically to be ‘a yoking,’ viz. ‘the stage, or distance to be gone in one harness without unyoking’ (Yule, Burnell, Crooke, 1903: 391). However, Xuanzang has a different definition of Yojana. Yojana as per Xuanzang is the ‘distance covered by the ancient royal army in one day’s time’ (Rongxi 1996: 42). The values of Krośa, Gāvuta and Yojana were ambiguous and oscillated from era to era and region to region.
Xuanzang in his introduction to measurement systems in the Indian Subcontinent noted the vagueness in the value of Yojana; ‘formerly it (i.e. Yojana) was said to be forty Li, or thirty Li according to Indian usage, while in Buddhist texts it was counted as only sixteen Li’ (Rongxi 1996: 42). With considerable local variations and subjectivity in measuring a distance, how did Xuanzang calculate his marches?
Presumably, Xuanzang travelled in the company of the royal escorts, fellow pilgrim monks or with the trade caravans. He may be mostly travelling by riding on an elephant’s back, bullock carts of traders, sometimes walking and occasionally taking a boat ride. Besides relying on his observation, Xuanzang may have been gathering information about the distance of his destination from his hosts or local people to calculate his marches. And of course, among other things, he must have been discussing distance between particular places with his guide, escort and fellow travellers. Yojana, the prevalent unit of long-distance measurement in ancient times as documented by Xuanzang, consists of two parts, (i) The distance covered by the royal army and (ii) in one day's time. The only thing fixed among these two components of Yojana must be ‘one day’s time’. In ancient times, it was convenient to calculate, memorise and communicate long distances in terms of days. I believe that Xuanzang acquired information about the distances in terms of travel duration (i.e. days) and transposed them into the distance (i.e. Li or Yojan) for documentation purposes. This is plausible because 100 Li, which is around 30 km is the distance an average person in normal condition walks in a day, including some respite in between. So, every time Xuanzang mentions 100 Li, it need not necessarily translate into 33 km, we have to regard it as a day’s journey in a particular topographic condition.
-Thanks to Shri Surinder Talwar for proofreading the story.
Bibliography:
Anand, D. (2024, August 22). Interpreting the travels of Xuanzang from Indraśailaguhā to Īraṇaparvata (Part I)- Kapotaka Monastery. [Blog post]. Available at:
https://nalanda-insatiableinoffering.blogspot.com/2024/08/interpreting-travels-of-xuanzang-from.html
[Accessed 22nd August 2024]
Anand, D. (2024, August 24).Interpreting the travels of Xuanzang from Indraśailaguhā to Īraṇaparvata (Part II) - A big Village south of river Gaṅgā. [Blog post]. Available at:
[Accessed 24th August 2024]
Anderson, John.; 1883, Catalogue and Hand Book of The Archaeological Collections in The Indian Museum, Part II. Calcutta: Printed by the order of the Trustees.
Asher, Frederick M.; 1980, The Art of Eastern India, 300-800. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
Asher, F. M.; 1988, Sculptures of Indapaigarh. Arts asiatiques, tome 43. pp. 13-18.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/arasi.1988.1231
Asher, Frederick M.; 1986, Sculptures from Rajaonā, Valgūdar and Jaynagar: Evidence for an Urban Center. East and West, vol. 36, no. ⅓. pp. 227–46. JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/29756765. Accessed 28 Mar. 2024.
Asher, F. M.; 2000, An Image at Lakhi Serai and Its Implications. Artibus Asiae, 59(3/4). pp.296–302. https://doi.org/10.2307/3249882 . Accessed 3 August. 2024.
Bandyopadhyay, K. K., Chattopadhyay, R. K., & Majumder, S.; 2015, Recent Study of Sculptural and Architectural Remains from the South Bihar Plain: A Case Study of Rajaonā-Chowki Region. Journal of Bengal Art, Vol. 20, Vol. 20, 205–228.
Bautze-Picron, Claudine.; 1991-92, Lakhi Sarai, An Indian Site of Late Buddhist Iconography, and its Position within the Asian Buddhist World, Silk Road, Art and Archaeology, Kamakura: The Institute of Silk Road Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 240-284.
Beal, S.;1914, The life of Hiuen-Tsiang by Shaman Hwui Li by Kegan Paul. London: Trench Trubner and Co.
Bloch, T.;1903, Annual Report of Archaeological Survey, Bengal Circle. Calcutta: Printed at the Bengal Secretariat press. P.12.
Beglar, J.D.; 1878, Archaelogical Survey of India Report of A Tour Through the Bengal Provinces of Patna, Gaya, Mongir, Bhagalpur; The Santal Parganas, Manbhum, Singhbhum, and Birbhum: Bankura, Raniganj, Bardwan, and Hughli: in 1872-73, Vol. VIII. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing.
Buchanan, Francis.; 1939, An Account Of The District Of Bhagalpur In 1810-11. Patna: The Bihar & Orissa Research Society.
Cunningham, A.; 1873, Report for the Year 1871-72, Vol. III. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing.
Cunningham, A.; 1882, Archaeological Survey of India. Report of a tour in Bihar and Bengal in 1879-80, Vol. XV. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing.
Chakrabarti, D. K.; 2001, Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain: The Lower and Middle Ganga. New Delhi: Permanent black.
Chattopadhyay, R. K., Sanyal, Rajat.; 2008, Contexts and Contents of Early Historic Sites in the South Bihar Plains: An Archaeological Perspective. Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia. New Delhi: Pragati Publications. pp. 247-80.
Chattopadhyay, R. K.; Bandyopadhyay, K.; 2017, Archaeology of Nongarh: A Reconnaissance, History Today, No. 18. New Delhi: The History and Culture Society.
Kumar, A.; 2009, Interesting Early Mediaeval Sculptures of Magadh: A Case Study of Sculptures from “Krimila Adhisthana, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 70, 1034–1048. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44147749
Rongxi, Li.; 1996, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions. California: BDK America, Inc.
Sircar, D. C.; 1970, Three Inscriptions from Bihar, Epigraphica Indica-XXXVI. Delhi: Manager of Publications. pp. 39-42.
Yule, H.; Burnell, A. C.; Crooke, W.; 1903, Hobson-Jobson: A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases, and of Kindred Terms, Etymological, Historical, Geographical, and Discursive. London: John Murray.
Waddell, L. A.; 1893, Discovery of Buddhist Remains at Mount Uren in Mungir (Monghyr) district and Identification of the site with a celebrated Hermitage of Buddha. Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol LXI, Part I. Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 57 Park Street.
