Sannati: From Ashoka’s Edicts to the Chandralamba Temple
A Stone That Changed Its Purpose
In January 1989, an inscription issued under Emperor Ashoka came to scholarly attention at Sannati, in present-day Kalaburagi district, Karnataka. The stone had not been discovered standing in its original setting. It had been reused as the base of an image in an old Mahakali shrine adjoining the Chandralamba Parameshwari temple. [1][2]
The inscription belonged to the third century BCE. Its presence beneath a later Hindu image created an extraordinary connection between two different periods of the region’s history. The exact date when the slab was moved and incorporated into the shrine, however, remains unknown. [1][2]
The discovery raises a larger historical question: how did the ancient Buddhist landscape of Sannati evolve over the centuries, and what evidence connects its Buddhist remains with the later Chandralamba temple?
Answering this question requires looking beyond the temple itself. Ancient fortifications, settlement remains, Buddhist monasteries, Satavahana inscriptions and the great stupa at nearby Kanaganahalli reveal a much longer history of human activity, religious patronage and architectural change. [3][4]
The surviving evidence does not establish a simple transition from one religious tradition to another. Instead, it offers glimpses of a landscape in which structures and sacred objects from different periods eventually came to occupy the same historical setting.
An Ancient Settlement on the Bhima River
Sannati stands near a bend in the Bhima River in northern Karnataka. Archaeological investigations have revealed an extensive early historic settlement, including fortifications, pottery, bricks, roof tiles, terracotta objects, beads, bangles and other material remains. [3]
The fortified settlement is associated with the local name Seturajanakatte. Ranamandala, an elevated area near the river, preserves evidence of ancient habitation and construction. A. Sundara’s archaeological study describes an extensive early historic settlement enclosed by a brick fortification wall and records the presence of structural remains and numerous surface finds. [3]
The remains indicate that Sannati was more than a religious centre. It was also a place of habitation, construction and economic activity.
The archaeological record includes early historic pottery, coins and structural remains. Such discoveries place Sannati within the wider history of settlement development and regional exchange in the Deccan. [3][4]
The settlement was not necessarily built in a single phase. Fortifications, buildings and other features may represent different periods of activity, and each requires its own archaeological dating.
This distinction matters because the ancient settlement, the Buddhist monuments and the later Chandralamba temple should not be treated as parts of one contemporaneous architectural complex.
The wider landscape becomes clearer when Sannati is considered alongside Kanaganahalli, where excavations revealed one of the region’s most significant Buddhist monuments. [4]
Sannati in the Age of Ashoka
Ashoka ruled the Mauryan Empire during the third century BCE. His inscriptions communicated policies concerning dhamma, administration and the conduct of officials and subjects across different parts of the subcontinent.
The Sannati inscription is unusual because it was engraved on a large stone slab rather than directly onto a natural rock surface. The slab was subsequently incorporated into the base of the Mahakali image at the shrine adjoining the Chandralamba temple. [1][2]
The Archaeological Survey of India identified portions of Major Rock Edicts XII and XIV on one face of the slab and Separate Edicts I and II on the reverse. The inscriptions are in Prakrit, written in Brahmi script. [1][2]
These edicts connect Sannati with the Mauryan inscriptional world. The Separate Edicts contain instructions relating to officials and the administration of territories, while Ashoka’s broader inscriptional programme reflects his concerns with dhamma and governance. Their precise implications for the administrative status of Sannati require careful interpretation of the inscriptions themselves. [1][2]
The slab’s original location, however, remains unknown. Its later discovery inside the Mahakali shrine does not establish whether it originally stood near the temple, beside a Buddhist monument or elsewhere in the surrounding landscape.
The inscription is direct evidence of an Ashokan edict at Sannati. It does not prove that the Chandralamba temple existed during Ashoka’s reign, nor does it establish that the slab originally belonged to a Buddhist building.
The discovery is nevertheless significant. It demonstrates that an inscription associated with Mauryan rule survived into a much later period, when its original architectural context had been lost or was no longer recognised.
To understand the Buddhist monuments associated with this landscape, it is necessary to move forward several centuries to the period in which the great stupa at Kanaganahalli developed.
Kanaganahalli: The Great Buddhist Monument
Approximately three kilometres east of Sannati lies Kanaganahalli, the site of a major Buddhist establishment on the Bhima River. Archaeological investigations there revealed a large stupa, associated monastic remains and an extensive collection of sculpted architectural elements. [4]
The stupa is known in its inscriptions as the AdhÄlaka MahÄcetiya, or Great Stupa. Its remains include a substantial brick structure, sculpted limestone panels, railing pillars, ayaka platforms, inscriptions and Buddhist imagery. [4][5]
The monument developed over successive phases. Although its earliest architectural form remains difficult to reconstruct precisely, the surviving architectural and sculptural evidence is principally associated with the period from the first century BCE to the third century CE. [4][5]
The carved panels depict Buddhist narratives, Jataka stories, stupas and figures associated with Buddhist traditions. Inscriptions also identify historical rulers and help establish the chronology of particular architectural additions. [4][5]
One especially notable panel bears the inscription RÄyÄ Asoko, meaning “King Ashoka,” in Brahmi script. This labelled sculptural representation is an important piece of evidence for how Ashoka was remembered and represented within Buddhist art. [4][6]
It must be distinguished from the Ashokan edict slab found beneath the Mahakali image at Chandralamba temple. The Kanaganahalli panel is a labelled sculptural representation from a Buddhist monument; the Chandralamba slab carries Ashoka’s royal proclamations. [2][4]
These are separate objects from separate archaeological contexts.
The discovery of the labelled figure does not establish what Ashoka looked like in life. Its importance lies in the inscription and the representation of the Mauryan ruler within the Buddhist monument’s sculptural programme. [6]
Kanaganahalli and Sannati belong to the same wider archaeological landscape, but the great stupa is not the Chandralamba temple. The stupa’s remains do not establish that the later Hindu temple was constructed directly over it. [3][4]
The Satavahana Period: Inscriptions, Rulers and Donors
The inscriptions associated with the Kanaganahalli stupa provide evidence for its successive construction and decorative phases. Some records identify rulers and regnal years, allowing particular additions to be placed within a historical chronology. [4][5]
The inscriptional corpus includes references to Satavahana rulers such as Vasisthiputra Sri Satakarni and Mathariputra Sri Pulumavi. Their names appear on inscriptions associated with the stupa’s sculptural and architectural elements. [4][5]
An inscription associated with the eleventh regnal year of Vasisthiputra Sri Satakarni helps date the addition of a sculptural frieze to the stupa’s western entrance to approximately the second century CE. Other inscriptions document activity at the monument during later phases of the Satavahana period. [4][5]
These records show that the stupa was not simply an ancient building whose date can be inferred from its general appearance. Its inscriptions help reconstruct a more detailed sequence of architectural development.
The records also illuminate the people who supported the Buddhist establishment. Donors included merchants, members of their families, caravan traders, monks and nuns. Some inscriptions document gifts of architectural elements, including railing pillars and carved slabs associated with the stupa. [5][7]
This evidence broadens our understanding of patronage. The monument’s development involved a wider donor community, not just the royal court.
Although the inscriptions name Satavahana rulers and provide dates for particular additions, they do not establish that every major component was personally donated by a king. Individual contributions must be interpreted from the relevant records. [5][7]
The inscriptions, sculptures and architectural remains together demonstrate that Kanaganahalli was an important Buddhist centre sustained through successive phases of construction and patronage. [4][5]
Beyond the Great Stupa: A Wider Buddhist Landscape
The archaeological landscape around Sannati contains several important sites beyond the great stupa.
These include Benagutti, Hasargundigi, Kanaganahalli and Ranamandala. Their remains represent different aspects of the region’s ancient history. [3][8]
At Benagutti, excavations identified an elliptical brick vihara, or Buddhist monastic building, attributed to the Satavahana period. Kanaganahalli contains the great stupa and its extensive sculptural programme, while Ranamandala preserves evidence of the ancient fortified settlement. [3][8]
Other archaeological remains include additional stupa sites, ancient structures and evidence of early historic activity around the Bhima River. [3][4][8]
Taken together, these findings show that the Buddhist history of the region was not confined to a single monument. It included religious buildings, monumental sculpture, settlement activity and an extensive network of donors.
The chronology of each structure must nevertheless be established independently. Evidence for a Satavahana-period monastery or stupa does not automatically date every structure in the surrounding area to the same period.
Nor does the presence of several Buddhist monuments establish exactly when Buddhist institutions in the region declined or what happened to each one afterwards.
This is where the later Chandralamba temple becomes important. Its surroundings preserve evidence of older material being reused in a later architectural setting. [3][9]
From Buddhist Remains to the Chandralamba Temple
The Archaeological Survey of India’s Excavations at Sannathi, 1986–1989, published in 1995, provides an important archaeological reference for the site’s early historic remains and excavations. [9]
Descriptions of Sannati’s archaeological remains report that older Buddhist sculptural material was reused in the later temple landscape. Shastriya Kannada specifically notes that relics and other material associated with the Buddhist period were used in the construction of the Chandralamba temple. This is a published account of reuse, although the precise original location and date of reuse of each object are not established by that statement alone. [10]
The distinction between an object’s original location and its later location is essential. A sculptural fragment incorporated into a terrace wall may have come from an earlier structure in the vicinity, but its presence does not identify that structure with certainty. Nor does it establish when the fragment was moved.
The presence of ancient bricks and other early historic material in the locality demonstrates earlier activity around the temple. It does not establish that the surviving Chandralamba sanctum was built during the Satavahana period. [3][9]
Likewise, the presence of Buddhist sculptural fragments does not prove that the temple was originally a Buddhist monument.
The available evidence does not establish that the great stupa at Kanaganahalli was dismantled to supply construction material for Chandralamba temple. That claim would require independent archaeological documentation identifying the materials and establishing their movement.
The evidence instead points to a more cautious interpretation: the ancient landscape contained structures and objects that later acquired new architectural uses, while the original contexts of some of those objects were lost.
The Ashokan slab beneath the Mahakali image provides the clearest example of this process. [1][2]
The Rashtrakutas and Chalukyas: A Later Temple in an Ancient Landscape
The later history of the Chandralamba temple may preserve another chapter in the region’s architectural and religious development.
A description published by Shastriya Kannada attributes the construction of a small Durga shrine at Sannati to the Rashtrakuta period. According to this account, the shrine was subsequently enlarged and came to be known as the Chandralamba temple. [10]
Karnataka Tourism similarly describes the temple as believed to have originated during Rashtrakuta rule and to have been enlarged under the Kalyana Chalukyas. It describes an east-facing complex containing a garbhagriha (sanctum), an open antarala (intermediate chamber), a navaranga and an attached sabhamandapa, as well as a gopura described as Dravida in style. [11]
These accounts provide a historical framework for investigating the temple’s development, although the precise construction dates of its earliest surviving parts remain uncertain.
The regional context makes the attribution worth examining. Manyakheta, present-day Malkhed in Kalaburagi district, was an important Rashtrakuta capital. The region subsequently came under the influence of the Western Chalukyas, also known as the Kalyana Chalukyas.
Their successive periods of political dominance offer a plausible setting for the development of a temple complex through more than one building phase. Political geography alone, however, cannot establish when a particular shrine was built or expanded.
A detailed architectural survey would be needed to determine which elements belong to the earliest phase and which reflect later additions, alterations or renovations. It would also help establish whether specific architectural features can be attributed to Rashtrakuta or Western Chalukya workmanship.
The twelfth-century date reported for the Mahakali image is an important clue to the history of the shrine, but it does not automatically establish the construction date of the temple itself. A sculpture can be installed in a building constructed earlier, or incorporated during a later renovation. [1]
The temple’s architectural history must therefore be reconstructed by distinguishing the dates of individual objects from the dates of the structures in which they were eventually used.
The Rashtrakuta-origin and Chalukya-expansion tradition is a useful historical lead. It should be treated as a published attribution awaiting stronger site-specific confirmation, rather than a conclusively established construction chronology. [10][11]
The Mahakali Image and the Ashokan Slab
The clearest physical connection between the Ashokan inscription and the later Hindu shrine is the slab’s reuse as the base of the Mahakali image. [1][2]
The slab bears portions of four edicts. Two are associated with Ashoka’s Major Rock Edicts XII and XIV, while the reverse carries portions of Separate Edicts I and II. [1][2]
A report published on 2 March 2016, titled “Experts to Document Ashoka Circuit in State,” provides additional information about the original idol and its restoration. [1]
According to the report, the Mahakali image was a seated, four-armed sculpture dating to the twelfth century CE. It held a damaru, trishula, kapala and sword. [1]
The report states that part of the temple roof collapsed in 1986, damaging the sculpture. The idol had a projecting, pillar-like feature that fitted into a socket in the stone forming its base. That base was the slab bearing Ashoka’s inscriptions. [1]
The inscription came to scholarly attention during subsequent work on the damaged image and its base. The precise sequence of the initial roof damage, renovation work and identification of the inscriptions should be distinguished from the broader archaeological discovery programme. [1][2]
The idol’s reported twelfth-century date does not establish when the slab was installed beneath it. The slab might have been reused when the image was installed, or it might have been incorporated into the pedestal at a later stage.
The available report does not resolve this question. The identity of the person who moved the slab, its original location and the circumstances of its reuse also remain unknown.
The original Mahakali image was subsequently found in broken pieces outside the temple precinct, beside the Bhima River, during a visit by Professor Susmita Basu Majumdar of Calcutta University and colleagues in 2016. The report describes efforts to reassemble the sculpture and return the restored image to the temple. It also states that the image then worshipped as Chandralamba was a replica. [1]
This modern history adds another layer to the story. The inscription, the original image and the later replica each have distinct histories, even though they became associated with the same shrine.
The discovery demonstrates that an Ashokan inscription became part of a later Hindu temple setting. It does not, by itself, establish the exact date or circumstances of the architectural and religious changes that brought the two objects together.
What the Stones Reveal—and What They Cannot Tell Us
The archaeological evidence supports several important conclusions.
First, Sannati preserves direct evidence of Ashoka’s inscriptions and a wider archaeological record of early historic settlement and Buddhist activity. [2][3][4]
Second, the Satavahana-period inscriptions at Kanaganahalli document the development of a major Buddhist monument over successive generations. They also reveal the participation of rulers and a wider community of donors. [4][5][7]
Third, the settlement remains, fortifications and monastic buildings show that the region’s history included organised habitation and economic activity as well as religious architecture. [3][8]
Fourth, Buddhist sculptural material was reused in the later temple landscape, and the Ashokan-inscribed slab served as the base of the Mahakali image. These are tangible connections between older material and a later religious setting. [1][2][10]
Fifth, secondary descriptions attribute the Chandralamba temple’s origins to the Rashtrakuta period and its subsequent enlargement to the Kalyana Chalukyas. These attributions provide a useful direction for further architectural investigation, but the precise sequence of construction has not been established by the evidence discussed here. [10][11]
Several questions remain unresolved. We do not know the slab’s original position, the exact date of its reuse, the identity of the person who moved it or the precise date when the earliest Chandralamba shrine was built.
The evidence also does not prove that the temple was originally a Buddhist monument or that it directly replaced the great stupa at Kanaganahalli.
These uncertainties do not diminish the historical importance of Sannati. They define the boundaries of what can responsibly be concluded from the surviving evidence.
A Landscape with Several Histories
Sannati’s history extends from Ashoka’s inscriptions in the third century BCE through the development of Buddhist monuments and settlements during the early historic period, particularly under the Satavahanas, and into the later religious landscape represented by the Chandralamba temple. [2][4][5]
The Satavahana inscriptions reveal how a major Buddhist monument developed through successive building phases and donations. The fortifications, settlement remains and monastic structures show that the region’s history included organised habitation as well as religious architecture. [3][4][5][8]
The reused Ashokan slab and Buddhist sculptural fragments provide tangible evidence that older material acquired new purposes in a later temple landscape. Published accounts of the Chandralamba temple’s Rashtrakuta origins and Kalyana Chalukya expansion offer a possible framework for investigating the shrine’s architectural development. [1][2][10][11]
Yet the precise sequence connecting the Buddhist monuments to the later temple remains unresolved. The evidence does not establish that the Chandralamba temple was constructed directly from the remains of the great stupa, nor does it reveal the exact circumstances in which the Ashokan slab became the Mahakali image’s base.
The most important question is therefore not whether the Chandralamba temple simply replaced a Buddhist monument. It is how objects, structures and traditions from different periods came to occupy the same landscape, and how the reuse of ancient material preserved traces of an earlier past.
Sannati offers a striking example of how archaeology can recover fragments of that history. The stones provide evidence of changes in architectural use and the survival of inscriptions long after their original context was lost.
Establishing the earliest construction phase of the temple and the date when the Ashokan slab was reused will require further inscriptional, architectural and conservation research. Until then, the most defensible interpretation is also the most revealing: Sannati is not the story of a single monument, but of a landscape whose different histories became physically intertwined.
Read More
Megalithic Burial at Badami Karnataka
Image Credits and Licences
1. Ashokan Inscription Stone at Sannati
Creator: Sarah Welch
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Licence: CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication)
Original image: View on Wikimedia Commons
Modifications: Resized and compressed for web publication.
2. Ashoka with His Queens, Kanaganahalli Stupa
Creator: Ashokha
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Original image: View on Wikimedia Commons
Modifications: Cropped to a 16:9 aspect ratio and resized for web publication.
References
[1] “Experts to Document Ashoka Circuit in State.” The New Indian Express, 2 March 2016. Read the report.
[2] Harry Falk, ed., AÅokan Sites and Artefacts: A Source-Book with Bibliography. See the discussion of the Chandralamba temple inscription and the discovery of the slab in January 1989. Consult the book.
[3] A. Sundara, “Excavations at Sannati: 1986–87.” PurÄtattva. Read the digitised paper through the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts.
[4] Robert Arlt, “Kanaganahalli (or Sannathi).” Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Read the scholarly overview.
[5] Maiko Nakanishi and Oskar von HinĆ¼ber, Kanaganahalli Inscriptions. Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University, 2014. This publication examines the inscriptions associated with the stupa and their historical significance.
[6] Monika Zin, “Kanaganahalli SÄtavÄhana Art and Buddhism: King AÅoka in Front of the Bodhi Tree.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 41 (2018), pp. 537–568. Read the scholarly article.
[7] “Prakrit Inscriptions of Kanaganahalli Stupa.” DHARMA epigraphic database. See the translated inscription recording a donation to the AdhÄlaka Great Shrine. Consult the inscription and bibliography.
[8] Government of India, Ministry of Culture, parliamentary response on the archaeological sites of Kanaganahalli and Sannati. Read the official response.
[9] J. R. Howell, G. V. S. Rao, J. V. P. Rao and Annie Howell, Excavations at Sannathi, 1986–1989. Archaeological Survey of India, Memoirs No. 93, 1995. Bibliographic record.
[10] Shastriya Kannada, “Sannathi.” This secondary account attributes the construction of a small Durga shrine to the Rashtrakuta period and describes the later development of the Chandralamba temple. Read the account.
[11] Karnataka Tourism, “Kalaburagi,” section on Chandrala Parameshwari Temple, Sannati. This source describes the temple’s reported Rashtrakuta-period origin, Kalyana Chalukya expansion and architectural layout. Read the tourism description.
Disclaimer:
This article is based on published archaeological reports, inscriptions, scholarly research and secondary sources. While the Ashokan edicts and the reuse of ancient material at Sannati are documented, the precise construction chronology of the Chandralamba temple and the circumstances surrounding the reuse of older stones remain uncertain. Interpretations are presented cautiously, distinguishing established evidence from historical possibilities. Further archaeological and architectural research may refine these conclusions.
Comments
Post a Comment