The Archaeological Survey of India’s approval for a fresh excavation at Ujjain’s Vaishya Tekri has reopened a 2,300-year-old investigation into a monument that historical records described as possibly the largest known Buddhist stupa of its time. The project is significant not only because it may reveal the buried plan of a vast Mauryan-period structure, but also because it shows how modern archaeological methods are being used to revisit an excavation abandoned in 1939.
Vaishya Tekri has remained an unfinished chapter in the archaeological history of Ujjain. The earlier investigation was stopped after a reported gas leak caused several labourers to lose consciousness. Nearly nine decades later, the ASI has sanctioned a new excavation under the direction of superintending archaeologist Shivakant Bajpai, who has studied Vaishya Tekri and the wider archaeological landscape of ancient Ujjain.
The project will be undertaken with the Madhya Pradesh state archaeology department and the local administration. Ujjain divisional commissioner Asheesh Singh had earlier indicated that the administration was prepared to provide logistical and land-related support. This institutional arrangement is important because archaeological excavation is not only a technical exercise. It requires control over access, land, local arrangements, conservation processes and the handling of material recovered from the site.
The new excavation also forms part of Chief Minister Mohan Yadav’s archaeological initiative to bring the buried heritage of ancient Ujjain into historical focus. The supplied report describes the approval as a major step for that effort, but the archaeological importance of the site rests on evidence recorded long before the current initiative.
The Annual Administration Report of the Archaeological Department of Gwalior State for 1938-39 described the monument as “perhaps the biggest known” stupa. It recorded a diameter of about 350 feet and a height of at least 100 feet. By comparison, the Great Stupa at Sanchi is described as measuring around 120 feet across and 54 feet high. On those recorded dimensions, Vaishya Tekri would have been nearly three times wider and almost twice as tall as Sanchi’s Great Stupa.
Those figures, however, do not amount to a complete archaeological reconstruction. The 1938-39 work used radiating trenches and exposed portions of the principal stupa, along with the remains of two smaller stupas. The excavation did not progress far enough to establish the monument’s complete plan or elevation. Much of the outer brick facing has also disappeared, with erosion apparently washing away sections of the upper structure.
What survives in the old record is nevertheless unusually detailed. The report described a construction technique it called “peculiar construction not met with anywhere else”. The core consisted of tightly rammed local murum, while the exterior was faced with very large bricks, some more than 22 inches long, laid in mud mortar. A punch-marked coin and an Avanti coin recovered at the site supported the monument’s Mauryan-period antiquity.
The dating places the structure around the 3rd century BCE, during the Mauryan period. The report suggested that the monument could be among the stupas attributed to Emperor Ashoka, although that attribution was never conclusively established. This distinction matters: the evidence supports the site’s antiquity and scale, but the link to Ashoka remains an interpretation rather than a settled archaeological fact.
Other historical associations are similarly unresolved. According to the interpretation cited by Bajpai, the stupa may have been built when Ashoka served as governor of Ujjain, possibly under the influence of his wife Devi, who was the daughter of a prominent merchant chief of Vidisha. The merchant connection is also believed to have contributed to the name Vaishya Tekri. These explanations help frame the site’s historical possibilities, but the new excavation will be expected to test them against physical evidence.
Scholars have also linked Vaishya Tekri to Kanakgiri Vihara, mentioned in ancient Buddhist literature, and to the large Buddhist monument described by the Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang in his account of Ujjain. Neither connection has been confirmed by archaeological evidence. The site therefore sits at the intersection of written records, historical interpretation and material remains, with each category offering clues but none yet providing a complete identification.
The first major technological step has already taken place. A joint team from the ASI, the state archaeology department and technical experts from Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology conducted a Ground-Penetrating Radar survey at the site. GPR uses high-frequency radio waves to identify variations beneath the ground without disturbing archaeological deposits.
That makes the survey particularly relevant at a site where the earlier excavation was incomplete and the buried structure may still retain important archaeological layers. The technology can help map subsurface features and identify areas where structural remains are most likely to be present before excavation begins. It does not itself establish the monument’s date, identity or complete design; those questions depend on excavation, documentation and interpretation of material in its original context.
The proposed scientific approach marks a change from the 1939 effort. The earlier trenches provided evidence of the main stupa, smaller stupas, construction materials and coins, but they did not reveal the monument’s full architectural form. Modern excavation can combine the historical record with non-invasive mapping and layer-by-layer investigation. The objective, according to officials cited in the report, is to identify construction phases, structural remains and artefacts in their original context.
That context is essential to understanding what the mound represents. Individual objects can establish chronology or cultural links, but their position within the site can reveal how the monument was built, modified, used or abandoned. Similarly, locating walls, foundations, circumambulatory paths or subsidiary structures could help determine whether the dimensions recorded in the old report refer to the complete monument or only to a surviving portion of it. The supplied material does not establish whether such features will be found; it identifies them as questions the excavation is intended to examine.
The project also illustrates the division of responsibility in heritage management. The ASI is providing archaeological direction and has appointed the project director. The state archaeology department is a partner in the excavation, while the local administration is expected to assist with logistics and land-related requirements. MANIT’s technical experts have contributed to the GPR survey. The arrangement brings together archaeological authority, state-level heritage administration, local government and technical expertise before physical digging begins.
For Ujjain, the site’s significance extends beyond the possibility of identifying a large ancient monument. The city’s historical landscape contains multiple layers of religious, political and cultural importance, and Vaishya Tekri could add a major Buddhist dimension to the established understanding of ancient Ujjain. But the evidence currently available does not justify treating every historical association as proven. The excavation’s value lies precisely in the possibility of separating recorded fact, archaeological evidence and later interpretation.
The numbers recorded in the 1938-39 report provide the clearest indication of the monument’s scale: approximately 350 feet in diameter and at least 100 feet high, against Sanchi’s roughly 120-foot diameter and 54-foot height. The comparison conveys why the site has attracted sustained attention. At the same time, the missing outer facing, erosion and incomplete earlier trenches mean that the original form cannot simply be inferred from those measurements.
The next phase will therefore determine whether Vaishya Tekri can move from an extraordinary historical description to a scientifically documented monument. Archaeologists will need to establish the mound’s construction sequence, recover artefacts in context and assess how much of the original structure survives. The evidence may strengthen some existing interpretations, weaken others or leave the central historical questions open.
What is confirmed is that the ASI has authorised a fresh excavation, that GPR has been used to map subsurface features and that the project will involve state and local authorities. What remains uncertain is the complete plan of the stupa, its precise relationship with Ashoka and Ujjain’s Buddhist traditions, and whether it can be securely identified with sites mentioned in ancient literature. Those questions now depend on how the excavation proceeds and what the buried layers reveal.
