Lecture 3 LICHCHAVIS

Lecture 3

Historical Periods:

Lichchavis       78 – 879 AD

Transitional      879 – 1200 AD

Early Malla      1200 – 1382 AD

Late Malla        1382 – 1769 AD

Shah                1769 – 1951 AD

Rana                1846 – 1950 AD

LICHCHAVIS

Lichchavis of India ruled from Vaisali, north across the Ganges from Pataliputra the capital of the Mauryans and Imperial Guptas. They appear to have been politically assimilated by the Mauryan state. Later they were allied to the Guptas through marriage. Chandragupta I (ascended 320AD) married a Lichchavi girl Kumaradevi which was acknowledged in an Allahabad inscription by his son Samundragupta (Slusser, 1982).

The first and only epigraphical record of connection between the Lichchavis of Nepal and India occurs in a Jayadeva II inscription of 733 AD at Pasupatinath temple. Jayadeva extends the lineage to 37 kings before Vrisadeva, to the Lichchavis of India. There are twelve unnamed kings preceding Jayadeva before another Jayadeva is mentioned, referred to as Jayadev I by historians. Providing 20 year average reign, Jayadeva ruled sometime in the 2^nd century AD. This coincides with the statue of Jaya Varman unearthed at Hadigaon.

Gopalarajavamsavali states Lichchavi king Nimistankaravarman, lord of Vaisali who came from the south, defeated the Kiratas (King Galija) and began the dynasty in Nepal. Why the Lichchavis came to Nepal from India is not known (perhaps important trade or pilgrimage?). Tiwari suggests Bhaskervarman, the leader of the Lichchavi army, was on the run from the Kushanas and arrived in Nepal in 78 CE (Tiwari, 2002). During his absence Vaisali was sacked by the Kushanas, ending Lichchavi rule there, so he set up his kingdom in Kathmandu. The change of power appears to have come about without a fight through negotiations with the ruling house. He probably ruled from the palace of Dakshinrajkula which was annexed from the Kirata king of Patan. Since he did not have any sons, he adopted Bhumivarman, a local youth. Perhaps, because of his “Sakara” origin, Bhumivarman moved his capital to Andipringga, the site of his ancestors. This was probably the reason - the start of his rule and his return to his ancestral home – why he established the Sakara Samvat, the official Lichchavi calendar in 78 AD. He built the Madhyamarajkula palace, so called because it was centrally located in the valley (Tiwari, 2002). Its existence is corroborated by Anshuvarman’s later inscription. This was the royal residence of the Lichchavi’s until Mandeva built Managriha almost 400 years later.

The period between 78 CE and the time of Manadev’s rule is now referred to by historians as the Varman period. Manadeva used the surname Dev to denote rule by the Lichchavis and this period extends to 879 CE.

Some scholars, however, believe that the Lichchavis were of Mongoloid stock and were Kiratas themselves, rather than immigrants. They were believed to have adopted the Hindu varna system which divided society into rigid hierarchical class structures (Joshi,1998 as quoted by Pant and Funo, 2007).

The first epigraphic record of the Lichchavis, Manadeva’s inscription at Changunarayan, mentions 3 preceding kings: Vrisadeva, Sankaradeva and Dharmadeva. There are no clear indications of when the Lichchavi dynasty disappeared but there was a decline after Jayadeva II and records disappeared so 879 AD (the year of establishment of Nepal Sambat) is taken as convenient dividing line (Slusser, 1982). The Nepal Samvat was introduced by king Raghavadeva and is referred to by the vamsavalis as Pasupati Bhattaraka Samvata, implying it had something to do with the construction or renovation of the temple. This also probably implied, as suggested by Tiwari, that Pashupati had replaced Vishnu as the royal patron deity because power had returned to the Sakara lineage (Tiwari, 2002).

From the chronicles Vrisadeva was a Buddhist who founded Swayambhu stupa. He was noted as an excellent king “not given to war”. From this it may be assumed that he may have assumed a subservient status for Nepal vis-à-vis the Guptas. Son Sankaradeva was brave, ruled the country well and made it prosperous. He was followed by Dharmadeva with virtues of an ideal king. He appears to have died unexpectedly. His queen Rajyavati was performing a religious service at Changunarayan when she had to leave midway because of news of Dharmadev’s death. She was dissuaded from committing sati by her son Manadev who threatened to commit suicide if she did not change her mind. After learning of Dharmadev’s death the tributary chiefs tried to break free of Lichchavi control so Manadeva with the aid of his maternal uncle, an Indian prince, set out to subdue them. The east was won back without a fight but he had to defeat the western samantas. Thereafter, he raised the garuda victory pillar at Changunarayan in 464 AD recording his exploits which was the first epigraphical record of the valley (Slusser, 1982). Manadeva built one of the first known palaces, Managriha from which all subsequent Lichchavi kings ruled until the 7^th century.

Between 506-641 AD power was contested by the Abhira Guptas who claimed lunar descent (Somavamsa) as opposed to the solar descent (Suryavamsa) of the Lichchavis. Their connection to the Guptas of India is doubtful. Some scholars think Abhira Guptas may be descendents of Gopalas since the Gopalas also bore the name of Guptas. The Gopalaraja vamsavali also states “King Bhimadeva (Bhimaarjunadeva) reigned 14 years. After that the Gopala dynasty conquered the solar dynasty and ruled powerfully again” (Slusser, 1982). Bhaumagupta apparently was the first Abhira Gupta to assume full power that in effect made him king. His name appears in 540 AD and regularly thereafter. By 594, he had either died or been displaced by Amsuvarman.

Amsuvarman’s name appears in the inscription of Sivadeva I beginning in 594 AD denoting him as a powerful officer. His declared rule lasted from 605-621 AD although he had in effect wielded power a decade earlier. He used the title Samanta and later referred to himself as Mahasamanta (illustrious high feudatory). Later he assumed the title of Maharajadhiraj. He was not a Lichchavi but claimed lineage of the moon as opposed to the solar lineage of the Lichchavis (Slusser, 1982). Tiwari suggests he could be of Sakara origin which is probably why he elevated Pashupati as the royal deity although he gave equal status to Vishnu, the official deity of the Lichchavis (Tiwari, 2002).

Shortly after Sivadeva’s death, Amsuvarman built a palace for himself, naming it after Siva’s home, Kailashkutabhavana. He also assured maintenance of the older palaces of Managriha and Madhyamarajkula as indicated by his Hadigaon edict. He was a truly remarkable king, deeply involved in administrative and judicial matters and learned in the sastras. His fame was sung by Hsuan-tsang, probably at Vaisali.

Soon after Amsuvarman’s death, Abhira Guptas again regained power by deposing Amsuvarman’s designated successor Udayadeva. His heir Narendradeva fled to Tibet. A puppet Lichchavi Dhruvadeva had been installed by 624 AD and Bhaumagupta’s grandson Jisnugupta was the real wielder of power. He had taken up residence in Kailashkutabhavana. Jisnugupta’s son Vishnugupta also virtually ruled as king from the same palace. Lichchavi’s were relegated to figureheads whose names were initially invoked in inscriptions but wielded no power.

By 641 AD, with the aid of Tibetans, Narendradeva had been restored to the throne and had taken up residence in Kailashakutabhavana. Thereafter, his descendents ruled from Kailashkutabhavana. Nepal was a country of some consequence between 600-733 AD. Legends tell of a great fire in Vishalnagar. Tiwari believes this probably refers to a fire during the reign of Narendradeva. Palace intrigues and disputes developed into a religious civil war which caused the great fire that destroyed the capital. Two of Narendradeva’s sons are also believed to have been killed. Narendradeva was forced to set up residence at Bhadradivasa Bhawan at Sankhamul and many of the Buddhists of Hadigaon fled to the safety of Patan with their Buddhist king (Tiwari, 2002). Narendradeva later returned to Hadigaon.

Lichchavis brought Indian heritage to Nepal. Sanskrit was the court language and the script was brought from India. They used similar administrative, judicial and legislative terms. There was constant touch with India through commerce and pilgrimage and Gupta influence in art, especially stone sculptures, was quite apparent. There was frequent intermarriage with Indian royalties eg. Manadeva’s mother Rajyavati was of Indian descent. Tiwari, however, contends that Nepal already was highly advanced in art and architecture due to the merging of the Kirata and Lichchavi culture and was at a higher level of development than that of the Indo-gangetic plains. That is why apart from the religious and philosophical context Nepali architecture shows a distinct divergence from that of India.

Tibet’s records are silent about Nepal’s vassalage but China’s annals refer to Nepal’s vassal state because of Tibetan help to Narendradeva in regaining the throne (Slusser, 1982). The Gopalaraja vamsavali confirms Nepal was subservient to Bhota but Nepali records make no mention of this.

Tibetan records tell of two Buddhist princesses, Bhrikuti of Nepal and a Chinese princess who were sent to marry Song-tsen Gampo, a powerful king of Tibet (627-650 AD). They are credited with introducing Buddhism to Tibet. Though Bhrikuti was said to be the daughter of Amsuvarman, he had been dead for 20 years by the date of the marriage so the princess was probably the daughter of Bhaumarjunadeva, Visnugupta or even Narendradeva (Slusser, 1982).

Lichchavis administered the state skillfully according to established laws. Complex institutions were set up that regulated the relationship between the ruler and the ruled and between the men and gods. Taxes were levied and compulsory labour was exacted for irrigation and public works. Trade was fundamental. Land tenure was closely regulated and state was concerned with farmers’ agricultural and livestock production (Slusser, 1982).

Guthis, based on Indian gosthi, was an important practice. Society was hierarchically stratified by caste and occupation was caste based and enforced through the office of the bhattadhikarana. Although the official language of the court was Sanskrit and Indian Gupta script was used, indigenous people spoke their mother tongue, Kirat or proto-Newari (Slusser, 1982).

Lichchavi towns must have followed Sanskrit ritual literature rules for creating towns, based on the Vastu Purusa Mandala represented by the Ekasiti Pada or 9x9 grid of 81 squares. Brahma is said to preside over the 9 central squares and the palace and other important buildings were placed there. The 8 cardinal points were controlled by territorial deities and watch guards. The Hindu city was supposed to represent the cosmos and Manasara prescribed 8 plans: Dandaka, Sarvatobhadra, Namdyavarta, Padmaka, Svastika, Prastara, Karmuka, Chaturmuka (Tiwari, 2001).

By the 4^th century Siva Pasupati was the most important deity of Nepal. At about the same time, Dolasikhara-swami (Changunarayan) was installed and these two gods were held in highest esteem. Durga worship was also made. By the beginning of 5^th century Vrisadeva built Svayambhu. Then Dharmadeva built the Chabahil chaitya. Bouddhanath was built probably by Sivadeva. Hundreds of miniature stone stupas or chaityas were built. Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism were practiced and by Amsuvarman’s time Vajrayana was also practiced. Monasteries (viharas) were set up where monks and nuns resided. Mathas, their Hindu counterparts, were also built. Endowments were made to temples and monasteries. There appeared to be harmonious relationship between the two religions (Slusser, 1982).

Tiwari’s view seems to differ somewhat on this matter. According to him, there appears to have been continuous conflict between the two religions. Buddhist legend tried to discredit Mandeva by describing how the Makara turned back at the sight of the son killing his father at Narayanhiti. On the other hand the Gopalarajavamsavali gave a milder account by saying it was done unknowingly. Tiwari believes Manadeva’s father’s death was a result of palace intrigue, initiated by Hindu Buddhist rivalry, with the chief priest of Pasupati as one of the main instigators. Dharmadeva appears to have been killed because of his inclination towards sacrificial rites associated with Buddhist Yogini sect and presumably for erecting the Chabahil chaitya. He believes an act of regicide and patricide was committed (Tiwari, 2001).

According to Gopalarajavamsavali, Vrisadeva, the great grandfather of Manadeva, built Swayambhu chaitya. Tiwari thinks he was apparently sacrificed at a water conduit. No conduit is observed today. As per the Svayambhu purana, Shantikaracharya erected Swayambhu to protect the spot of the primordial lotus and went into self-internment at Shantikara temple just as Vrisadeva was supposed to have done. Closer inspection of the temple reveals that it has been built over a stone conduit where today access is denied to the sanctum which is built over the conduit. Vrisadeva’s (Shantikara) self-sacrifice probably may have been performed to keep peace between the Hindu-Buddhist sects. Similarly, Dharmadeva (Dharmapala) was probably executed at Sankhu, home of the Yogini (Tiwari, 2001).

Miniature chaityas of the Buddhists called chibahs, more correctly Masiri-dega (Mansiri-dega>Manjushri-dega) were the Buddhist equivalent of the Hindu practice of dedicating Siva linga to dead parents. Chaityas were suppressed following the rule of Manadeva, briefly resurfaced in the 12^th century and again were suppressed till the 17^th century, even in Patan (Tiwari, 2001).