Trolling through the archives I occasionally discover interesting academic papers.
Today I stumbled upon this article from 2013:
In this study, a team of archeologists unearthed the pre-Maurian ground under Lumbini. If Iâm reading the paper correctly, they found four layers under Asokaâs stone works. From bottom to top these are:
Pre-human land
Agricultural land
Re-forested land
Wooden structures arranged (religiously?) around a central tree or grove
(The Ashokan brickwork)
Itâs interesting enough that Lumbini was actually reforested, but much more interesting is the discovery of the wooden remnants.
In the paper, the authors explain that the later Ashokan structures were at least partially modeled on the earlier wooden structures at the site, leading to the exciting possibility that the earlier structures were also Buddhist.
If thatâs the case, then it puts a big dent in the âshort chronologyâ as the wood was radiocarbon dated to somewhere in the ~800â550 BCE range, well before the âshort chronologyâsâ dating of the Buddha in the fourth century but roughly in line with the traditional date of 563 BCE.
There is, of course, the alternate (more likely?) explanation that Lumbini was already a sacred (animist?) shrine for centuries before the Buddha, but if thatâs indeed the case, then the Bodhisattva was born at what was already a sacred site (or Ashoka mis-identified the place. And both of those possibilities are interesting in their own right.
What do you think is the most likely explanation for all this? What do you make of the paper? Am I missing something obvious?
I look forward to your learned and thoughtful responses!
To summarize from the previous thread: Bhante explained that itâs perfectly expected that Maya would have given birth at an existing shrine and seems to imply that this research doesnât add much to our knowledge.
While I agree the claims of the paper were over-blown, Iâm still grateful that someone is (was?) doing the hard digging over there in India!
Accepting that it was a pre-Buddhist shrine and the âmedianâ chronology (which places the Buddhaâs birth at ~490 BCE), this paper informs us that that the shrine that Maya went to was about 1-3 centuries old when she entered. A wooden fence, originally quite simple, by then was already a bit more elaborate, forming almost a wall. It demarked the sacred space around the central tree and provided her with some bit of privacy and shade⊠Yes, thisâll do, she thoughtâŠ
I wouldnât project current India/Nepal back on the past. The population then was so much smaller. And we know this site was pretty rural even in early modern times.
In China and Taiwan, they still have these small shrines that most of the time have no one there, but anyone can come to and prayâŠ
But yes. Perhaps some/one of her attendants waited just outside?