If anybody is looking for something to read, chapter 7 of the same open-access book is pretty good. The chapter was written by Mekhola Gomes and Stefan Baums and discusses blood ties, monuments, kinship, and power structures in the Buddhist Ikṣvāku kingdom (which was located in what is modern-day Andhra Pradesh). Here I will just post the introduction and a little bit more of the text, and put a direct link to the whole chapter at the end:
Introduction:
“In the late 19th century, residents of Jaggayyapeta in present-day Andhra Pradesh often retrieved bricks and limestone slabs from the Dhana Boḍu, the “Hill of Wealth,” located close to the town. One day in 1881, rather than ordinary bricks, local residents found carved stone slabs. This unusual discovery was reported to James Burgess, head of the Archaeological Survey of Southern India. Suspecting that the slabs might be remains of a Buddhist stūpa, Burgess visited Jaggayyapeta in February 1882 (Burgess 1886: 107–112). Upon surveying the area, Burgess found what remained of multiple structures. Preliminary excavations revealed traces of a stūpa and sculpted stone slabs with reliefs similar to those found at Amaravati. The excavations also yielded three inscribed pillar fragments bearing versions of the same text. Burgess sent estampages of the inscriptions to Georg Bühler, who then published editions and a translation of the text in the 1882 issue of the Indian Antiquary (Bühler 1882: 256–259). The inscriptions record a gift of five pillars at the eastern gateway of the “great shrine” (mahācetiya) at Velagiri, the ancient name of Jaggayyapeta. Most intriguingly, the inscription was dated to the 20th regnal year of a (then) unknown king, Vīrapurisadatta of the Ikṣvāku dynasty.
Since 1882, based on archaeological, epigraphical, numismatic, and other findings, we have come to know that the Ikṣvāku dynasty ruled over a kingdom in the Krishna River valley, centred around the site of Nagarjunakonda.1 The Ikṣvāku kingdom was established once Sātavāhana power waned in the eastern Deccan. Scholars suggest that Ikṣvāku rule lasted for approximately 100 years between ca. 225 CE and 330 CE.2 The rise of the Ikṣvāku polity was propelled by historical processes that can be traced back to the previous early historic period in the Deccan. These included political integration, urbanization, the expansion of regional and long-distance exchange networks, as well as the proliferation of Buddhist monastic communities.3 Beginning in the third century CE, new configurations of politics, religion, economy, and language appeared in the region and involved the rise of localized states like the Ikṣvāku kingdom, royal donations of land to Buddhist monastic communities, brahmans, and temples, as well as the practice of recording land-grants on plates of copper. These features are hallmarks of the early medieval period in southern India (Veluthat 2010).4 The earliest articulations of these features are discernible in the Ikṣvāku kingdom.
Inscriptions found in and around the Ikṣvāku domain are important historical sources. For instance, inscriptions dated in regnal years of Ikṣvāku kings are crucial in reconstructing political chronology. Inscriptions that record donations to religious communities and establishments including the Buddhist saṅgha reveal unique aspects of religious history. These epigraphic texts were engraved on architectural elements such as monumental stone pillars and bases of stone sculptures. Donors comprised artisans, military commanders, royal officials, and queens who sponsored the construction of monasteries (vihāra), temples (devakula), and large stūpas or “great shrines” (mahācetiya). Inscriptions, in particular those texts engraved on monumental supports, were written in a Middle Indo-Aryan dialect using a formal Brāhmī script. From the early fourth century on, inscriptions were increasingly written in Sanskrit.
The engraved pillar fragments that Burgess found at Jaggayyapeta document Siddhattha’s gift of five pillars. Siddhattha was an āvesani from Mahākāṁḍurūra who made the gift collectively with his family “for the well-being and happiness of all beings.”5 These columns, referred to as āyāka pillars in the inscriptions, are a characteristic feature of early historic stūpas in the Āndhra region. Āyāka pillars were placed as a set of five columns on platforms that extended in the four cardinal directions from the balcony surrounding the stūpa drum. Inscriptions on āyāka pillars from Nagarjunakonda suggest that these columns were erected once the stūpa drum was finished.6 Therefore, āyāka pillars did not have a structural function, but they can instead be understood as monuments of piety. The columns, along with engraved texts, memorialized those who donated them. Siddhattha’s inscription from Jaggayyapeta also suggests that Buddhist piety was often organized through networks of kinship. Siddhattha, for example, donated the pillars together with his mother Nāgilani, with his wife (gharaṇī) Samudanī, and with his son and daughter. This kin group also included Siddhattha’s brother Budhiṇṇika and his family that comprised his wife, sons, and daughter. In such instances, therefore, āyāka pillars memorialized not just the piety of individual donors but also recorded their ties of blood and marriage.
A fragmentary inscription from Nagarjunakonda offers a further glimpse into how Siddhattha’s family organized their Buddhist piety through kinship ties. Part of an engraved āyāka pillar was found at Nagarjunakonda’s site 9 (see Map 3 in the Introduction, volume I). Though much of the inscription is lost, the name of a mahātuvaṇikā Sidhaṭhaṇṇikā is still discernable.7 What is crucial is Siddhaṭṭhaṇṇikā’s identification as the daughter of Pudhinnaka in this inscription. This identification suggests that Siddhaṭṭhaṇṇikā of the Nagarjunakonda inscription may be the same as the figure of Siddhatthaṇṇikā mentioned in Siddhattha’s Jaggayyapeta inscription. In the Jaggayyapeta record, Siddhatthaṇṇikā is identified as the daughter of Buddhinnaka, who was Siddhattha’s brother. Pudhinnaka may be interpreted as an orthographic variant of Budhiṇṇaka mentioned in the Jaggayyapeta record.8 These ties of blood engraved on monuments of piety suggest that Siddhattha’s family, including his niece Siddhatthaṇṇikā and his brother Budhiṇṇaka, made “pious gifts” (deyadhamma) at two different sites in the Ikṣvāku domain. Siddhattha and his family’s ability to make these substantial gifts of pillars suggest they had significant means. The term āvesani has generally been translated as “artisan.” However, if Siddhattha and his family did indeed donate multiple āyāka pillars to two stūpas, Siddhattha was perhaps no ordinary artisan but rather the head of a workshop.9 Siddhattha was indeed able to deploy considerable resources to express his Buddhist piety in the form of āyāka columns. The ties of blood that organized resources for the gifts were engraved on these monuments of piety.
Ikṣvāku royals, too, expressed devotion to the Buddha through lavish gifts that included the establishment of āyāka pillars. Inscriptions carved on these royal gifts commemorated both the largesse of their donors and, similar to the pillars Siddhattha donated, also declared their ties of blood and marriage. However, unlike the records of Siddhattha’s gifts, inscriptions that document royal gifts display how piety, kinship, and political authority intersected in the Ikṣvāku kingdom. While scholars have so far read these inscriptions to reconstruct political history as well as histories of Buddhism, the convergence of kinship, piety, and political authority expressed within the same inscriptions has remained unexamined. Through a study of inscriptions found at Buddhist monastic and sacred architectural complexes at Nagarjunakonda, this essay demonstrates how ties of blood displayed on monuments of piety were crucial in forging and asserting rule in the Ikṣvāku kingdom.
2 Kindred Columns: Āyāka Pillar Inscriptions of the Great Shrine at Nagarjunakonda
Siddhattha donated āyāka pillars at Jaggayyapeta on the 10th day in the 6th fortnight of the rainy season in king Vīrapurisadatta’s 20th year as king. On exactly the same day, but 14 years earlier, a group of seven royal and elite women established āyāka pillars at the “great shrine” (mahācetiya) at Nagarjunakonda (see Map 3 in the Introduction, volume I).10 The mahācetiya was controlled by the Aparamahāvinaseliya monastic order (nikāya) and located close to the main road of the Ikṣvāku capital. At ca. 20 to 25 metres high, the monument must have been an imposing sight to behold.11 Names of the women who sponsored the construction of this impressive monument are known from the inscriptions engraved on the limestone āyāka pillars. Cāntisirī was undoubtedly the most prominent member of this collective. Cāntisirī was King Cāntamūla’s sister and King Vīrapurisadatta’s paternal aunt. Cāntamūla was the founder of the Ikṣvāku dynasty and his sister Cāntisirī donated at least eleven out of an original set of twenty āyāka pillars attached to the great shrine.12 Six women part of the group donated a single pillar each.13 Three of these six individuals, namely Aḍavi-Cāntisirī, Bapisiriṇṇikā, and Chaṭṭhisirī, were also part of the Ikṣvāku royal family. Aḍavi-Cāntisirī was Cāntamūla’s daughter. Bapisiriṇṇikā and Chaṭṭhisirī were the daughters of Hammasiriṇṇikā, who was also Cāntamūla’s sister. Further, Bapisiriṇṇikā and Chaṭṭhisirī were King Vīrapurisadatta’s wives. Three women, Ruddadharabhaṭṭārikā, Cullacāntisiriṇṇikā, and an unnamed mahātalavarī, were not part of the Ikṣvāku line by birth. However, their titles suggest that these women were part of the ruling class and Ruddadharabhaṭṭārikā may have been a wife of Vīrapurisadatta. Through a close reading of this set of āyāka pillar inscriptions, I examine how Buddhist piety, kinship networks, and networks of authority intersected in the Ikṣvāku kingdom. I pay particular attention to networks of marriage. That political networks in early India were forged through marriage alliances is well known. However, specific instances of how marriage alliances were connected to political authority within specific historical contexts are rarely discussed. In order to address this lacuna, in this section I outline how piety, kinship, and political authority were interrelated in the Ikṣvāku kingdom. I do this through a close reading of inscriptions that document the foundation of a prominent Buddhist shrine by royal and elite women.”
Here is a link to the whole chapter:
https://brill.com/edcollchap-oa/book/9789004744097/BP000007.xml
R