Page:Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India 1913-14.pdf/127

2 the plan which he published in 1854 has been generally followed by subsequent writers, and it seemed to me likely to lead to inconvenience and confusion if I abandoned it. Accordingly I have, with one exception, retained General Cunningham's numbers and added others to distinguish those monuments which I myself have discovered, arranging them in such systematic sequence as has been practicable. The exception referred to is the early shrine numbered 8 on my plan. In General Cunningham's sketch a stupa numbered 8 is shown to the north of Stüpa 3, but on the spot in question there is no vestige of any such structure; nor is any indication of its existence given in either of the plans prepared by General Maisey and Mr. Thompson. On the other hand, General Maisey, who was associated with General Cunningham at Sanchi in 1851 and who in other respects follows his numeration, places No. 8 south instead of north of the Great Stupa at a spot where nothing appears on General Cunningham's plan, but where I have now unearthed a stone basement of an early shrine. Accordingly, I conclude that General Cunningham, whose plan in other respects is far from accurate, made the mistake of placing this monument to the north instead of the south of the central group.

At the time when I started my explorations the only monuments on the site which were visible to the eye, were the Great Stüpa and the few other remains indicated in black on my site plan. All the rest, which are delineated on the plan in red, were buried in such deep accumulations of débris and so over-grown with jungle, that the very existence of the majority of them had not even been suspected. My first step, therefore, on starting work in December 1912, was to clear the whole of the enclosed area of the thick growth of trees and brushwood in which it was enveloped; my next was to excavate the eastern and southern sides of the central plateau, where a deep layer of soil lay over the natural rock, and where I anticipated that further remains of value would be found, and where also I hoped to secure fresh evidence regarding the history and original design of the Great Stupa, which with its massive rail and richly carved torana stands unique among the monuments of early Buddhism. In neither respect were my hopes disappointed; but, before I proceed to narrate the details of my discoveries, it behoves me to describe the present appearance of the Great Stupa and to explain the commonly accepted views regarding its age.

As it now stands, the Great Stūpa (Plates II and Va) consists of an almost hemispherical dome truncated near the top and surrounded at its base by a lofty terrace, which served in ancient days as a procession path (pradakshina patha) and access to which was provided by a double flight of steps built against it on the southern side. Encircling the monument on the ground level is a second procession path enclosed by a massive balustrade of stone. This balustrade, which is of plain design unrelieved by carvings of any kind, is divided into four quadrants by entrances set approximately at the cardinal points, each one of which was adorned by a gateway (torana) lavishly enriched with reliefs