286 T. Bloch — Buddhistic statue from Cravasti. [No. 4, 
those two buildings is described as Kosamhakutz; it is the building 
mentioned in our Inscription, as has been recognized long ago by 
General Cunningham. The second building is called gamdliakuti , and 
is referred to directly in the tale of the Avidurenidana (Jataka, ed. 
Fansboll, Vol. I, p. 92), where we read that Sudatta ( i.e ., Anatba- 
pindika) erected this building in the centre of the park (so majjhe 
Dasabalassa gandhakutim kdresi). Further it is stated in the same 
place, that he also erected ‘ places to walk, to sleep, and to stay during 
the day ’ for Buddha ( camkamana-rattitthdna-divdtthdndni ca ), one of 
which doubtless was the Bhagavatd camkama, where the statue was set 
up, according to the Inscription. 
It thus is establised beyond doubt that the statue originally teas 
erected in Cravasti , and the only point that remains for our discussion 
is the question whether we are entitled to identify the locality where 
the statue was discovered by General Cunningham in 1863, i.e., the 
modern Set-Mahet with the site of the ancient pravasti ? 
It has been done so by General Cunningham ; see his account 
on Sahet-Mahet, or Cravasti, in Arch. Surv. Rep., Vol. I, p. 330 ff., and 
Vol. XI, p. 78 ff. This identification up to lately, seems to have been 
generally adopted, and is repeated by Dr. Fulmer in his List of Anti¬ 
quarian Remains in the North-West Provinces and Oudh, p. 306. 
Recently, however, it appears to have come into discredit again. I 
refer to V. A. Smith’s report on the Remains near Kasia in the Gorakh¬ 
pur District (Allahabad, 1896) where in note 3, p. 4 he states: “I 
greatly doubt the correctness of the accepted identification of the site of 
£ravastl. I have a strong suspicion that £ravasti should be identified 
with Cliarda, or Chahardah, in the Bahraich district, about forty miles 
north-west of Set-Mahet (Saliet-Mahet). The latter place, which is 
commonly reputed to be the site of fravasti, will probably prove to be 
Setawya, which was situated eastward from Cravasti.” It is for this 
reason that I take up the question here again. 
It would be wrong to infer from a statement contained in the diary 
of the Journey of Hiouen Thsang, that the image discovered by General 
Cunningham is the same statue which the Chinese pilgrim saw in 
(^ravasti. He tells us that (St. Julien, Hiouen Thsang, Vol. I, p. 296) 
“ les batiments du Kia-lan (convent) sont completement mines ; il n’en 
reste que les antiques fondements. On ne voit plus qu’une petite 
maison en briques qui s’eleve toute seule au milieu des decombres ; elle 
renferme une statue du Bouddha .” Though this description closely agrees 
with the site where the General found the statue in 1863, yet from what 
immediately follows in Hiuen Thsang’s account, we learn that the 
statue which he saw, was made of sandel-wood, while Cunningham’s 
