Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

[admin]

Lion Capital of Ashoka
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 9/25/21


The original Lion Capital. Minus the inverted bell-shaped lotus flower, this has been adopted as the National Emblem of India, seen from another angle, showing the horse on the left and the bull on the right of the Ashoka Chakra in the circular base on which the four Indian lions are standing back to back. On the side shown here there are the bull and elephant; a lion and a bull occupies the other place. The wheel "Ashoka Chakra" from its base has been placed onto the centre of the National Flag of India. Sarnath Museum.

The Lion Capital of Ashoka is a sculpture of four Asiatic lions standing back to back, on an elaborate base that includes other animals. A graphic representation of it was adopted as the official Emblem of India in 1950.[1] It was originally placed on the top of the Ashoka pillar at the important Buddhist site of Sarnath by the Emperor Ashoka, in about 250 BCE during his rule over the Maurya Empire.[2] The pillar, sometimes called the Aśoka Column, is still in its original location, but the Lion Capital is now in the Sarnath Museum, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India. Standing 2.15 metres (7 feet) high including the base, it is more elaborate than the other very similar surviving capitals of the pillars of Ashoka bearing the Edicts of Ashoka that were placed throughout India several of which feature single animals at the top; one other damaged group of four lions survives, at Sanchi.[3]

The capital is carved out of a single block of polished sandstone, and was always a separate piece from the column itself. It features four Asiatic Lions standing back to back. They are mounted on an abacus with a frieze carrying sculptures in high relief of an elephant, a galloping horse, a bull, and a lion, separated by intervening spoked chariot-wheels. The whole sits upon a bell-shaped lotus. The capital was originally crowned by a 'Wheel of Dharma' (Dharmachakra popularly known in India as the "Ashoka Chakra"), with 24 spokes, of which a few fragments were found on the site.[4] A 13th-century replica of the Sarnath pillar and capital in Wat Umong near Chiang Mai, Thailand built by King Mangrai, preserves its crowning Ashoka Chakra or Dharmachakra.[5] The wheel on the capital, below the lions, is the model for the one in the flag of India.

Art history


The horse motif on the capital.

Currently seven animal sculptures from Ashoka pillars survive.[6][7] These form "the first important group of Indian stone sculpture", though it is thought they derive from an existing tradition of wooden columns topped by animal sculptures in copper, none of which have survived. There has been much discussion of the extent of influence from Achaemenid Persia, where the column capitals supporting the roofs at Persepolis have similarities, and the "rather cold, hieratic style" of the Sarnath sculptures especially shows "obvious Achaemenid and Sargonid influence".[8]

Very similar four, lion sculptures are on the capitals of the two columns supporting the south torana of the Ashokan or Satavahana enclosure wall round the Great Stupa at Sanchi. Like other Ashoka pillars, the one at Sarnath was probably erected to commemorate a visit by the emperor.

Rediscovery


The Lion Capital on the ground at Sarnath, probably 1904–05


Ashok Stambha replica, Wat Umong, Thailand, 13th century

There was no surviving traces above ground of the Sarnath pillar, mentioned in the accounts of medieval Chinese pilgrims, when the Indian Civil Service engineer F. O. Oertel, with no real experience in archaeology, was allowed to excavate there in the winter of 1904–05. He first uncovered the remains of a Gupta shrine west of the main stupa, overlying an Ashokan structure. To the west of that he found the lowest section of the pillar, upright but broken off near ground level. Most of the rest of the pillar was found in three sections nearby, and then, since the Sanchi capital had been excavated in 1851, the search for an equivalent was continued, and it was found close by. It was both finer in execution and in much better condition than that at Sanchi. The pillar appeared to have been deliberately destroyed at some point. The finds were recognised as so important that the first onsite museum in India (and one of the few then in the world) was set up to house them.[9]

The Lion Capital served as the pedestal of a large stone Dharma-chakra with 32 spokes, which was found broken into pieces.[10] This Dharma-chakra was intended by three Constituent Assembly to be the symbol of India. However, mistakenly the smaller dhakrachakra with 24 spokes became the symbol. The mistake was pointed out to Jawaharlal Nehru, by Radha Kumud Mukherjee, historian, scholar and Rajya Sabha Member during Jawaharlal Nehru's administration; however, Nehru decided to stick with the 24-spoke wheel.[11] The symbol for the Supreme Court of India preserves the image of dharma-chakra on top of the Lion Capital.

Symbolism


The second stamp of independent India and the first for domestic use.[12][13]

What is being preached may be symbolised by the group of four lions of the capital. A group of four lions joined back to back symbolizes a group of four things of equal importance. The lion is frequently used as a symbol of the Buddha, as at Sanchi, and the animals on the abacus below also have symbolic meaning in Buddhism.[9] The capital is clearly Buddhist and Mauryan in origin and thus probably symbolizes the spread of Dharma, and perhaps the extent of the Maurya Empire in all directions, or four parts of the empire. Alternatively, the group of four lions and bell jointly symbolize preaching of 'the Four Noble Truths' of Buddhism to all; those that emphasize the Middle Path. The symbol U with a vertical line placed symmetrically inside it symbolizes 'The Middle Path'. The Middle Path is the fundamental philosophy of Buddhism, the Buddhist Dharma.


National Emblem of India

A further clue could be the cylindrical portion of the Lion Capital. On the wall of the cylinder the bull, the horse, the Lion and the Elephant all in the moving position are being placed in between the Chakras. These could symbolize Bull, Lion, Horse and Elephant rolling the Chakras.

A study of the ancient coins and other archaeological finds of India and Sri Lanka reveals the fact that Buddha had been symbolized with a Horse, Lion, Bull, Elephant and a pair of feet. The Tamil epic Manimekalai mentions worship of a pair of feet. Pairs of feet made of stone had been discovered in Jaffna Peninsula, Anuradhapura and in a number of places of Tamil Nadu.In a number of Buddhist inscriptions of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, a pair of feet had been symbolized with a pair of fish or a pair of conch shells. In this way the symbols sculpted in the cylindrical portion of the Lion Capital represents Buddha rolling the Dhamma Chakra; that is, Preaching the Dhamma.

As Theravada Buddhism rejects symbolization of Buddha and Buddhism, the Lion Capital may be claimed as one of the finest sculptures of the main tradition that developed into Mahayana Buddhism several centuries later.[citation needed]

Government act

Whenever the emblem is used by state governments or any other government body, the words Satyameva Jayate ("Truth alone triumphs") in Devanagari script (सत्यमेव जयते) must be used right under the emblem as per the statute, State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.[14]

Similarities with the Sanchi capital

See also: Pillars of Ashoka



The capital of the Sanchi pillar of Ashoka, as discovered (left), and simulation of original appearance (right). Sanchi Museum.[15] 250 BCE.[16]

A pillar of finely polished sandstone, one of the Pillars of Ashoka, was also erected on the side of the main Torana gateway at Sanchi. The bell-shaped capital consists of four lions, which probably supported a Wheel of Law.[17] The capital is located at the nearby Sanchi Archaeological Museum. The capital is rather similar to the Sarnath capital, except that it is surmounted by an abacus and a crowning ornament of four lions, set back to back, the whole finely finished and polished to a remarkable luster from top to bottom. The abacus is adorned with four flame palmette designs separated one from the other by pairs of geese, symbolical perhaps of the flock of the Buddha's disciples. The lions from the summit, though now quite disfigured, still testify to the skills of the sculptors.[18]

Notes

1. State Emblem, Know India india.gov.in
2. "Sarnath site". Archived from the original on 7 June 2017. Retrieved 2 October2014.
3. Harle, 24
4. Allen, caption at start of Chapter 15
5. "Wat Umong Chiang Mai". Thailand's World. Archived from the original on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 26 November 2013.
6. Himanshu Prabha Ray. The Return of the Buddha: Ancient Symbols for a New Nation. Routledge. p. 123.
7. Rebecca M. Brown, Deborah S. Hutton. A Companion to Asian Art and Architecture. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 423–429.
8. Harle, 22, 24, quoted in turn; Companion, 429-430
9. Allen, Chapter 15
10. Vasudeva S. Agrawala (March 1964), "The Heritage of Indian Art: A Pictorial Presentation". Publications Division Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
11. Dola Mitra (18 January 2016). "32 Spokes Of Wisdom". Outlook India.
12. India Postage Stamps 1947-1988.(1989) Philately branch, Department of Posts, India.
13. Souvenir sheet of the Independence series of stamps, Indian Posts, 1948
14. "Has Telangana government got the emblem wrong?". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2 October 2014.
15. Drawing reconstruction by F.C. Maisey for reference
16. Described in Marshall p.25-28 Ashoka pillar.
17. Buddhist Architecture by Huu Phuoc Le p. 155
18. Marshall, "A Guide to Sanchi" p.90ff Public Domain text

References

• Allen, Charles, Ashoka: The Search for India's Lost Emperor, 2012, Hachette UK, ISBN 1408703882, 9781408703885, google books
• "Companion": Brown, Rebecca M., Hutton, Deborah S., eds., A Companion to Asian Art and Architecture, Volume 3 of Blackwell companions to art history, 2011, John Wiley & Sons, 2011, ISBN 1444396323, 9781444396324, google books
• Harle, J.C., The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, 2nd edn. 1994, Yale University Press Pelican History of Art, ISBN 0300062176

External links

• Blog with excellent photos
• For Pictures of the famous original "Lion Capital of Ashoka" preserved at the Sarnath Museum which has been adopted as the "National Emblem of India" and the Ashoka Chakra (Wheel) from which has been placed in the center of the "National Flag of India" - See "lioncapital" from Columbia University Website, New York, USA
• National symbols of India

[admin]

Datta dynasty
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 9/20/21

-- Coins of Ancient India From the Earliest Times Down to the Seventh Century A.D., by Major-General Sir Alexander Cunningham, K.C.I.E., C.S.I., R.E.

-- Coins of Ancient India: Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Volume 1, by Vincent A. Smith, M.A. F.R.N.S., M.R.A.S., I.C.S. Retd.

-- ART. XXIX.—The Conquests of Samudra Gupta, by Vincent A. Smith, M.B.A.S., Indian Civil Service.

Coin of Ramadatta. Obv. Elephant facing. Rev. Standing figure with symbols.


Coin of Sivadatta, minted in Almora. Obv: railing with symbol between the posts. Obv: Sivadatasa, uncertain central symbol, margin: deer and tree within railing.

The Datta dynasty is a dynasty of ruler who flourished in the northern India in the areas of Mathura and Ayodhya around the 1st century BCE – 1st century CE. [History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura: Ca. 150 BCE – 100 CE, Sonya Rhie Quintanilla, BRILL, 2007, p.170.] They are named after the "-datta" ending of their name, and essentially only known through they coins. It is thought that they replaced the Deva dynasty, which had originated with the rise of Sunga Empire Pushyamitra, and that they were in turn replaced by the Mitra dynasty.

The known Datta rulers are: [Dimensions of Human Cultures in Central India, A. A. Abbasi, Sarup & Sons, 2001, p.145-146]

• Seshadatta
• Ramadatta
• Sisuchandradatta
• Sivadatta.

The coins of Ramadatta usually represent a Lakshmi standing, and facing elephants. [Dimensions of Human Cultures in Central India, A. A. Abbasi, Sarup & Sons, 2001, p.145-146] In the archaeological excavations of Sonkh, near Mathura, the earliest coins of the Northern Satraps level were those of Hagamasha and Ramadatta. [Hartel, Herbert (2007). On The Cusp Of An Era Art In The Pre Kuṣāṇa World. BRILL. p. 324. ("This item is no longer available. Items may be taken down for various reasons, including by decision of the uploader or due to a violation of our Terms of Use," i.e. CONTENT REMOVED!) (On the Cusp of an Era: Art in the Pre-Kuṣāṇa World. Edited by Doris Meth Srinivasan. Leiden: Brill, 2007. 402 pp. $264.00 (cloth). Cambridge University Press.)]

The Northern Satraps (Brahmi: [x], Kṣatrapa, "Satraps" or [x], Mahakṣatrapa, "Great Satraps"), or sometimes Satraps of Mathura, or Northern Sakas, are a dynasty of Indo-Scythian rulers who held sway over the area of Eastern Punjab and Mathura after the decline of the Indo-Greeks, from the end of the 1st century BCE to the 2nd century CE. They are called "Northern Satraps" in modern historiography to differentiate them from the "Western Satraps", who ruled in Gujarat and Malwa at roughly the same time and until the 4th century CE. They are thought to have replaced the last of the Indo-Greek kings in the Eastern Punjab, as well as the Mitra dynasty and the Datta dynasty of local Indian rulers in Mathura.

The Northern Satraps were probably displaced by, or became vassals of, the Kushans from the time of Vima Kadphises, who is known to have ruled in Mathura in 90–100 CE, and they are known to have acted as Satraps and Great Satraps in the Mathura region for his successor Kanishka (127–150 CE).

Northern Satrap rulers

In central India, the Indo-Scythians are thought to have conquered the area of Mathura over Indian kings, presumably the Datta dynasty, around 60 BCE. Due to being under the scrutiny of the Kushan Empire, as a satrapy and not wholly independent, they were called the Northern Satraps. Some of their first satraps were Hagamasha [Hagamasha, from Saka *Frakāmaxša "whose chariot proceeds in front", was an Indo-Scythian Northern Satrap (ruled in Mathura in the 1st century BCE, probably after 60 BCE). In the archaeological excavations of Sonkh, near Mathura, the earliest coins of the Kshatrapa levels were those of Hagamasha.] and Hagana [Hagana, (from Saka *Frakāna "leader, chief") was an Indo-Scythian Northern Satrap (ruled in Mathura in the 1st century BCE, probably after 60 BCE)], they were in turn followed by Rajuvula [Rajuvula from Saka *Rāzavara, meaning "ruling king") was an Indo-Scythian Great Satrap (Mahākṣatrapa), one of the "Northern Satraps" who ruled in the area of Mathura in the northern Indian Subcontinent in the years around 10 CE] who gained the title Mahakshatrapa or great satrap. However, according to some authors, Rajuvula may have been first.


Coin of satrap Hagamasha. Obv. Horse to the left. Rev. Standing figure with symbols, legend Khatapasa Hagāmashasa. 1st century BCE.


Joint coin of Hagana and Hagamasha. Obv.: Horse to left. Rev. Thunderbolt, legend Khatapāna Hagānasa Hagāmashasa. 1st century BCE.


Coin of Sodasa [son of Rajuvula, the Great Satrap of the region from Taxila to Mathura], early 1st century CE. The coinage of Sodasa is cruder and of local content: it represents a Lakshmi standing between two symbols on the obverse with an inscription around Mahakhatapasa putasa Khatapasa Sodasasa "Satrap Sodassa, son of the Great Satrap". On the reverse is a standing Abhiseka Lakshmi (Lakshmi standing facing a Lotus flower with twin stalks and leaves) anointed by two elephants sprinkling water, as on the coins of Azilises.

-- Northern Satraps, by Wikipedia

Section III. The Kings of the North, Excerpt from ART. XXIX.—The Conquests of Samudra Gupta
by Vincent A. Smith, M.B.A.S., Indian Civil Service.

-- Coins of Ancient India: Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Volume 1, by Vincent A. Smith, M.A. F.R.N.S., M.R.A.S., I.C.S. Retd.

SECTION III.—THE KINGS OF THE NORTH.

Having completed his enumeration of the temporary conquests in the south, our chronicler returns to the subject of the more permanent conquests in Northern India, which had already been briefly touched upon in the poetical introduction to the inscription.

In line 21 the writer records that the emperor "abounded in majesty that had been increased by violently exterminating

Rudradeva,
Matila,
Nagadatta,
Candravarman,
Ganapati Naga,
Nagasena,
Acyuta,
Nandin,
Balavarman,

and many other kings of the land of Aryavarta."

The name Aryavarta is well known to be the equivalent of the modern Hindustan, or India north of the Narmada river. The language of the record plainly indicates that in this vast region the kings named were thoroughly vanquished, and that their dominions were included in the conqueror's empire.

Unfortunately, the historical documents for the early history of Northern India are so few and meagre that it is at present impossible to identify most of the kings named in the inscription. The names of their kingdoms are not stated.

Acyuta was probably, for the reasons given above (ante, p. 862), a king of Ahichatra in Panchala, the modern Rohilkhand. Nagasena is mentioned along with Acyuta in the early part of the inscription, and the two princes may be supposed to have been neighbours. Nagasena may perhaps have been a member of the same dynasty as Virasena of earlier date, whose coins are tolerably common in the North-Western Provinces and the Panjab.1 [1 "Coins of Ancient India," p. 89; "Catalogue of Coins in Lahore Museum," part iii, 128 ; " Catalogue of Coins in Indian Museum," iii, 32.] Nagadatta may belong to the same dynasty as Ramadatta and Purusadatta, whose coins are obscurely connected with those of the Northern Satraps.2 [2 "Coins of Ancient India," p. 88; J.R.A.S. for July, 1894, p. 541; "Catalogue of Coins in Lahore Museum," iii, 122; "Catalogue of Coins in Indian Museum," iii, 31.]

Candravarman is probably the Maharaja of that name whose fame is preserved by a brief inscription on the rock at Susunia in the Bankura District of Bengal, seventeen miles SSW. from the Raniganj railway station.3 [3 Proc. A.S.B. for 1895, p. 177.]

Concerning the identity of Rudradeva, Matila, Nandin, and Balavarman, I am at present unable to offer even a conjecture.

The only name among the nine names in the list which can be identified with certainty is that of Ganapati Naga. Cunningham has shown that this prince must be one of the dynasty of seven or nine Nagas, whose capital was Narwar, between Gwaliar and Jhansi. Although the coins of Ganapati, which have been found in thousands, do not bear the word Naga, there can be no doubt that they were issued by a member of the Naga dynasty. Their practical identity in type and style with the coins which bear the names of the Maharajas Skanda Naga, Brhaspati Naga, and Deva Naga leaves no room for scepticism. The coins of all these Naga kings are found at Narwar.1 [Cunningham, "Reports," ii, 307-310; "Coins of Mediaeval India,"pp. 21-4.] The language of the inscription which describes Ganapati as one of the kings who were "violently exterminated" induces me to consider him the last of his dynasty.

The "kings of the forest countries" (1. 21), who were compelled to become the servants of the conqueror, and are associated in the text with the "kings of Aryavarta," were no doubt the chiefs of the Gonds and other wild tribes north of the Narmada. To this day there is a large extent of forest country north of the Narmada in Bundelkhand, Central India, and the Central Provinces.

The position of the southern forest kingdom of Mahakantaraka has been discussed above (ante, p. 866).

Excerpt from Art. XVIII. The Northern Kshatrapas
by Pandit Bhagvanlal Indraji, Ph.D., M.R.A.S.
Edited by E. J. Rapson, M.A., M.R.A.S., Late Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge.
The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1894
Pg. 525

P. 541

Art. XVIII .—The Northern Kshatrapas. By Pandit Bhagvanlal Indraji, Ph.D., M.R.A.S. Edited by E. J. Rapson, M.A., M.R.A.S., Late Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge.  

Editor’s Preface.

[Since the publication in this Journal of Pandit Bhagvanlal’s article on the Western Kshatrapas, a period of no less than four years has elapsed. The delay in issuing this, the final portion of his notes, is due to the fact that a study of these notes convinced me of the impossibility of publishing them in anything like their original form; and my task was postponed, until Dr. Buhler most generously undertook to revise the most important part of the Pandit’s work, viz. that which deals with the inscriptions engraved on the Lion Capital. Dr. Buhler’s results, which are published in another article in the present number, have enabled me to deal with the rest of the work. While I have been obliged to omit some portions and to correct others, I have endeavoured, as far as possible, to give a concise and connected exposition of the Pandit’s own views.

One of the omissions which I have made needs a few words of explanation. All friends of the Pandit will remember that, among his coins, there was a specimen in gold on which he laid the greatest value, and from the evidence of which he made some important historical deductions. In the following article no mention of this coin will be found. There can be no doubt that the Pandit was mistaken in regarding it as a genuine specimen. Its falsity, which is proved by the strongest evidences of fabric and inscriptions, was fully recognised by the greatest of all Indian numismatists, the late Sir Alexander Cunningham, and appears to me to be absolutely beyond question. The coin itself may be seen among the selected specimens from the Pandit’s collection in the British Museum.

The Pandit’s manuscript "will now be entrusted to the care of the Librarian of the Royal Asiatic Society.—E. J. Rapson.]

The Datta rulers are never mentioned as "king" or Raja on their coins, suggesting that they may only have been local rulers subservient to another king. Since the Indo-Greeks were in control of Mathura around the same time frame (150–50 BCE) according to the Yavanarajya inscription, it is thought that there may have been a sort of tributary relationship between the local Datta or Mitra dynasty and the Indo-Greek kings.[History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura: Ca. 150 BCE – 100 CE, Sonya Rhie Quintanilla, BRILL, 2007, p.8–10] Alternatively, the Datta and Mitra dynasties of rulers may simply have replaced Indo-Greek rule in the region, before the advent of the Indo-Scythian Northern Satraps and then the Kushans.

"Alternatively, the Datta and Mitra dynasties of rulers may simply have replaced Indo-Greek rule in the region, before the advent of the Indo-Scythian Northern Satraps and then the Kushans." -- How to Get Your Foot in the Door of Indian History ("Myths R Us")

Coin of Uttamadatta.


Coin of Purushadatta.


Coin of Ramadatta.

References

1. History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura: Ca. 150 BCE – 100 CE, Sonya Rhie Quintanilla, BRILL, 2007, p.170 [1] (History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura, CA. 150 BCE-100 CE (Studies in Asian Art and Archaeology), by Sonya Rhie Quintanilla (Author). Amazon $254.69.)
2. Dimensions of Human Cultures in Central India, A. A. Abbasi, Sarup & Sons, 2001, p.145-146 [2]
3. Hartel, Herbert (2007). On The Cusp Of An Era Art In The Pre Kuṣāṇa World. BRILL. p. 324. (On the Cusp of an Era: Art in the Pre-Kuṣāṇa World. Edited by Doris Meth Srinivasan. Leiden: Brill, 2007. 402 pp. $264.00 (cloth). Cambridge University Press.)
4. History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura: Ca. 150 BCE – 100 CE, Sonya Rhie Quintanilla, BRILL, 2007, p.8–10 [3] (Studies in Asian Art and Archaeology), by Sonya Rhie Quintanilla (Author). Amazon $254.69.)

[admin]

Coins of Ancient India From the Earliest Times Down to the Seventh Century A.D.
by Major-General Sir Alexander Cunningham, K.C.I.E., C.S.I., R.E.
1891

[SEARCH: "DATTA" = 2 REFERENCES]

1st Reference:

Ayodhya. Plate IX.

Ayodhya, the ancient kingdom of Rama, is now known by the shorter name of Oudh (or Awadh). The old capital of Ayodhya is still known as Ajudhya, and there all the coins in the accompanying Plate IX. were obtained. A few coins of this class have been published by Mr. Carnac, in the Bengal Asiatic Society's Journal for 1880, Plates XVI. and XVII., but without any notice of their findspots. Amongst them is a new type of Visakha Deva, which I have given in Plate IX., fig. 7.


Plate IX., fig. 7.

In my account of Ayodhya47 [Archaeol. Survey of India, i. 818.] I have identified it with the Visakha of the Chinese pilgrim, Hwen Thsang, and I have suggested that this name was perhaps derived from the famous lady Visakha, the daughter of the rich merchant Dhananjaya, of Sakata or Ayodhya. On some of the oldest coins of Ajudhya will be found the names of Dhana-deva and Visakha Datta [VISAKHA-DEVA?], which may very plausibly be connected with those of the rich merchant and his daughter. The coins are certainly not older than the second century B.C., but, as both names were popular, they would probably be repeated in many families of Ayodhya. The coins themselves do not present any traces of Buddhism except the Bodhi tree and the combined symbol of the Tri-ratna and Dharma-chakra. But neither do they show any special traces of Brahmanism, except in the names of Siva and Vayu.

2nd Reference

Siva-Datta.


Plate IX., Fig. 10

Plate IX., Fig. 10. AE. 0-6. Weight 24 grains.

Obv. — Elephant moving to l., towards symbol on pillar. Indian legend, Siva-datasa.

Rev. — Tree inside railing.

*************************

Coins of Ancient India: Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta
Volume 1
by Vincent A. Smith, M.A. F.R.N.S., M.R.A.S., I.C.S. Retd.
1906/1972

[SEARCH: "DATTA" = 37 REFERENCES]

1st Reference:

Section VI. LOCAL COINS OF NORTHERN INDIA

INTRODUCTION

The four groups of coins described in this Part have been classed together as being severally assignable to fairly definite localities in Northern India. The coins of each group are found predominantly in the districts named, and are not common elsewhere. The first definite step in such localization of the ancient coinages was taken by the publication in 1891 of Coins of Ancient India by Sir Alexander Cunningham, the greatest Indian numismatist since James Prinsep. Sir Alexander's unique experience extending over considerably more than half a century enabled him to accumulate a mass of knowledge, both general and special, concerning all classes of Indian coins, which nobody can hope to rival. Although he published comparatively few details about the provenance, or find-spots, of individual coins, his general statements on the subject are of the highest value. His announcement, for instance, that all the coins figured in Plate IX of the work above referred to were obtained at Ajodhya, furnishes a secure basis for the classification of many pieces which would otherwise embarrass the numismatist. In the same way the assignment of the other classes of coins treated in this section to Avanti, Kosam, and Taxila respectively rests primarily upon Sir Alexander Cunningham's unequalled personal knowledge of the distribution of Indian coins. As Professor Rapson has pointed out, the hope of further advance in our knowledge of the ancient currencies of India depends largely on recognition of the local limits of each class of coin. It is very unfortunate that the recorded information about the find-spots of coins is so scanty, but it is some satisfaction to be able to assign even a few groups to their proper local position. Coins of copper, including bronze of sorts, do not, as a rule, wander very far from their place of issue, and, inasmuch as nearly all the ancient Indian coins may be classed under the heading ‘copper’, evidence of their provenance goes a long way towards determining approximately the locality of their mints.  

AJODHYA

The ancient city of Ajodhya on the Ghaghra (Gogra) river to the east of the province of Oudh is famous in Hindu legend as the capital of Rama, but is now a comparatively unimportant town, except as a place of pilgrimage. It has been overshadowed, and, to a large extent, replaced by the modern city of Faizabad (Fyzabad), N. lat. 26°46’ 45”, E. long. 82°11’40”, a few miles distant, built in no small degree from the materials of Rama’s capital. Coins obtained at Fyzabad may be considered as coming mostly from Ajodhya. The ancient history of Ajodhya is lost, and the attempts of the local Brahmans to supply the loss are worthless. No independent record exists of any of the Rajas whose coins are described in the following pages, and we can only guess their age by considering the style of the coins and the script of the legends. Cunningham held that the most ancient coins, those of Dhanadeva and Visikhadeva, are ‘certainly not older than the second century B.C.’, and this determination may be accepted, so far as the inscribed coins are concerned. Of course many of the punch-marked and cast coins without legends may be much older. The coins of both — Visikhadeva and Dhanadeva were simply cast in moulds, and evidently are of much the same date. Either prince may be regarded as the predecessor of the other. The coins, Nos. 8-11, doubtfully ascribed to Sivadatta, are also cast; as are the curious little pieces, Nos. 12 and 13 (PL XIX, 14), exhibiting the fish, svastika, ‘taurine, and an object which seems to me to be intended for a steelyard balance, but is described by Cunningham as an axe.

2nd Reference:

CATALOGUE: COINS OF AJODHYA, FROM ABOUT 150 B.C. TO 100 A.D.

Serial No. / Museum / Metal, Weight, Size / Obverse / Reverse

...

(?) KING SIVA-DATTA

8 / A.S.B. / AE pale bronze rect. 16-7-65 x -55 / Elephant moving l. towards a tree or symbol in railing. Br. legend above, (Siva ?)datas. / Sundry symbols, including a form of the ‘Ujjain symbol’ ; ‘the central device may be a degraded form of the goddess seated on lotus (cp. C. A. I., Pl. IX, 10, 11).

9 / A.S.B. / AE pale bronze or brass rect. 36-7-65 x -56 / Similar; in worse condition. / Defaced.

10 / A.S.B. / AE brass rectang. 22-6 -62 x -53 / Similar; legend illegible. / Similar to No. 8; but the central device is reduced to mere lines.

11 / A.S.B. / AE brass rect. 44-3 -6 / Ditto; ditto. / Ditto; ditto; a thicker coin (Nos. 8-11 are cast coins like those of Dhanadeva, but in poor condition, and perhaps later in date).

3-18 References

SECTION IX. THE RAJAS AND SATRAPS OF MATHURA AND VIRASENA

INTRODUCTION

THE RAJAS AND SATRAPS OF MATHURA

Recent research has disclosed the names of a large number of early Rajas ruling either at Mathura (Muttra, N. lat. 27°30'13”, E. long. 77°43’45”), or over territories in the immediate neighbourhood of that ancient city. The Rajas whose coins are described in the catalogue are Balabhuti, Purushadatta, Bhavadatta (unpublished), Uttamadatta, Ramadatta, Gomitra, Vishnumitra, Brahmamitra, and ? Surya (Suya). There is also a doubtful name (uncertain, No. 1) which may be Ghosha. Other names known are Seshadatta, Kamadatta, Sivadatta, and Sisuchandradatta or -chandrata (?) (J. R.A.S, 1900, pp. 109-15). Cunningham knew of only three specimens of Balabhuti; four more are now described, and three bad specimens have been excluded. The coins of Purushadatta also are rare. Carlleyle found a specimen at Bhuila Dih in Basti District, U.P., to the east of Oudh (Reports, xii. 145, 164). Bhavadatta is new, but see J.R.A.S., 1900, p. 113. Three are now added to the five specimens of Uttamadatta previously known. The coins of Ramadatta are fairly common. Carlleyle found examples associated with coins of the satraps Ranjubula and Sodasa at Indor Khera in the Bulandshahr District, U.P. (Reports, xii, 43).

The coins of Gomitra, Vishnumitra, Brahmamitra, and Sirya (Suya) are scarce, but sometimes obtainable at Mathura. They are, I think, later than those of the princes previously named.

Probably all these Rajas, some of whom may have been contemporary with each other, are earlier than the foreign satraps with Persian names. The most ancient of the satraps seem to be Hagana and Hagimasha, presumably brothers, who introduced a reverse device of a horse. The coins of Hagamasha as satrap alone are fairly common, and it would appear that he was the younger brother and survivor of Hagana. He seems to have been directly followed by Ranjubula or Rajuvula, who struck hemidrachmae in base silver, resembling and associated with the coins of Strato II, as well as bronze coins after the manner of the Rajas: Sodasa was undoubtedly the son of Ranjubula, and if we knew the era of the date 72 on his Mathura inscription the chronology would be clear. The Mathura satraps were intimately associated with the satraps of Taxila, whose few coins are not represented in this catalogue.

The satraps of both Taxila and Mathura by their use of a Persian title and by their names plainly show their connexion with the Persian or Parthian empire; and their rule was, I believe, a consequence of the conquest of the kingdom of Taxila by the Parthian king Mithradates I in or about 138 B.C. Ranjubula and Sodasa may be placed, according to my view, in the last quarter of the second century B.C., somewhere about 125-100 B.C., and the date 72 of Sodasa’s inscription must be interpreted accordingly. But this theory of the chronology is not universally accepted. Cunningham obtained thirteen coins of Ranjubula at Sultanpur in the Jalandhar (Jullunder) District, Panjab (Reports, xiv. 57). His coins have been procured also at Sankisa in the Farrukhabad District, U.P., and, in association with those of his son Sodasa, at Padham in the adjoining District of Mainpuri (Reports, xi. 25, 38). The distribution of the coins of Ranjubula led Cunningham to believe that his dominions included a large portion of north-western India, extending from Kangra, at the foot of the Himalayas, to Multan in one direction, and to Mathura in the other (Reports, iii. 41). But this estimate may be considered somewhat excessive.

The printed notices of the coins of the Rajas and Satraps of Mathura have been indicated sufficiently above and in the catalogue. The position of the satraps in relation to the Parthian empire has been discussed briefly (p. 21) in my essay entitled ‘The Indo-Parthian Dynasties, from about 120 B.C. to 100 A.D.’ (Z.D.M.G., January, 1906).

VIRASENA

The coins of this ruler are most readily procured in the Mathura bazaar, where Cunningham obtained about a hundred. Carlleyle got thirteen at Indor Khera in the Bulandshahr District, while Mr. Burn and others have collected them in the Etah (Ita) District, as well as at Kanauj and other places in the neighbouring Farrukhabad District. It is clear, therefore, that Virasena ruled in the Central Doab, between the Ganges and Jumna. His coins are scarcer in the Panjab. Four specimens are in Rodgers’ collection at Lahore, and I formerly possessed an exceptionally minute one (diam. ‘3), which came from the Panjab. The commonest variety consists of the small rectangular pieces about -45 in diam., with a palm-tree on obverse and the rude outline of a crowned female figure on the reverse. Sometimes the reverse is blank. The variety with the name only in an incuse on obverse, and blank or animal reverse (Catal. Nos. 1-3) seems to be rare, and has not been published previously. I am disposed to think that the coins of this class were issued by an earlier homonymous king. Mr. Burn has one round coin of Virasena, but I have seen only the rectangular pieces. Mr. Burn found a brief inscription with the name Virasena in the year 1896 at Jankhat in the south of the Farrukhabad District, which probably refers to the Raja who issued the ‘palm-tree’ coins. I read the date on a rough copy as 113 Grishma (i.e. hot season), which probably indicates that the record is dated in the year 113 of the era used by the Kushan kings, which, according to my view, began about 120 A.D. If so, the date of the inscription would be about 335 A.D. The characters of the legends on the ‘palmtree’ coins may be as late, although they look rather earlier. Mr. Burn was inclined to read the date of the inscription as 13; but, apparently, that would fall in the reign of Kanishka, and it is unlikely that he would have allowed Virasena to coin extensively in a province adjoining the Panjab.

See C.A.I., Pl. VIII, 18; Carlleyle in Reports, xiv. 41; Rapson and Burn in J.R.A.S., 1900, pp. 115, 552.

CATALOGUE

RAJAS OF MATHURA, ABOUT SECOND CENTURY B.C.

Serial No. / Museum / Metal, Weight, Size / Obverse / Reverse

BALABHUTI

1 / I.M. / AE 84.7 -7 / Figure facing front, r. hand raised; early Br. legend on upper margin, [Ra]jno Balabhutisa / Rows of dots (C.A.I., Pl. VIII, 8). 

2 / I.M. / AE 72.7 -7 / Ditto; ditto; a symbol to l. of figure / Obscure, defaced.

3 / I.M. / AE 72 -73 / Ditto; ditto; the symbol to l. is [x], and to r. [x] / Two rows of dots and (?).

4 / I.M. / AE 81 -62 / Device defaced; legend, [Ba]labhutisa / Defaced; thick coin.

PURUSHADATTA

1 / I.M. / AE 99 -8 / Device defaced; early Br. legend, Purushadatasa. / Defaced (C.A.I., Pl. VIII, 17).

2 / I.M. / AE brass 79-5 -7 / Standing figure; symbol to r.; legend, [Pu]rushadatasa. / Apparently elephant l., with two rows of dots above (Pl. XXII, 10).  

BHAVADATTA

1 / A.S.B. / AE brass 100-5 -8 / Traces of standing figure and same symbols as on coins of Balabhuti. Two-line Br. legend, (1) Rajno, (2) Bhavadatasa (much worn, but reading certain, (1) [x] (2) [x]).

/ Elephant moving r. (Unpublished; cp. J.R.A.S., 1900, p. 113, fig. 13; with elephant l., but probably same legend.)

UTTAMADATTA

1 / A.S.B./ AE brass 69 -7 / Standing figure, with r. hand raised, as usual in this class; to l. a conventional tree. Legend, Raja (not Rajnno) Utamadatasa. / Elephant in high relief, moving r. (Pl. XXII, 11; also in J.R.A.S., 1900, p. 109, fig. 8).

2 / I.M. / AE copper 55-8 -7 / Standing figure; Utamadatasa. / Defaced.

3 / I.M. / AE copper 54 -63 / Ditto; [U]tamadatasa. / Elephant moving r.

RAMADATTA

1 / I.M. / AE 108-2 -82 / Usual standing figure; early Br. legend in large characters, (Ra)madatasa. / Obscure; should be three elphants with riders (Pl. XXII, 12).

2 / I.M. / AE 104 -85 / Similar; legend complete. / Defaced.

3 / I.M. / AE 94-5 -87 / Similar; Rama(data)sa. / Ditto; two rows of dots.

4 / I.M. / AE 95 -82 / Similar; kamada[tasa]; tree l. / Trident; dots above

5 / I.M. / AE 104 -88 / Similar; the figure stands on a low railing or pedestal; Rama(da)tasa. / Two rows of dots above, apparently indicating the heads of elephants.

6 / A.S.B./ AE imperfect -88 / Similar; Rama. / Similar, defaced; a protuberance left in casting.

7 / A.S.B. / AE 90-5 -87 / Similar; traces of legend. / Obscure

8 / A.S.B. / AE 71 -7 / Similar; datasa. / Ditto; worn smooth.

Doubtful

9 / I.M. / AE 95-2 -93 / Standing figure countersunk in oblong incuse r.; an obscure symbol in shallow square incuse 1. / Defaced; cast.

10 / I.M. / AE 108-3 -82 / Similar to No. 9; but oblong incuse l., and figure radiate; no second incuse. / Defaced; cast.

11 / I.M. / AE 85-6 -78 / Similar, but the single oblong incuse is r. / Ditto; apparently an elephant’s head and trunk in centre.

GOMITRA

1 / A.S.B. / AE oblong 98 -75 x -6 / The usual standing figure; tree l.; another symbol r. Br. legend above, Gomitrasa, indistinct.1 / Obscure; cast (C.A.I., Pl. VIII, 11; J.R.A.S., 1894, p. 554, fig. 11).

2 / A.S.B. / AE brass circular / Similar / Defaced; thick, die-struck

VISHNUMITRA

1 / A.S.B./ AE copper / Usual standing figure and tree. Legend, Vishnumitrasa, indistinct. / Worn smooth (J.R.A.S., ut sup., Fig. 12).

BRAHMAMITRA

1 /A.S.B./ AE copper -92 -75 / Usual standing figure and tree. Legend, imperfect, Brahmamitrasa. / Apparently blank; a protuberance left in casting.

2 / A.S.B. / AE 89 -3 -7 / Similar / Traces of a device.

3 / A.S.B. / AE 65-5 -65 / Ditto / Apparently blank. (All very poor; see C.A.I., Pl. VIII, 12.)

UNCERTAIN

1 / I.M. / AE 17-8 -6 / Standing figure, very rude. Legend seems to include [bhaga]vate gh[o]- satha (?). / Horse moving l.; thin coin.

2 / I.M. / AE 99 -8 / Usual standing figure; rajno; possibly Gomitra. / Defaced.

3 / A.S.B. / AE brass 113-3 -8 / Usual figure; ‘Ujjain symbol’ r.; legend illegible. / Probably three elephants.

4 / I.M. / AE 86-2 -7 / Usual figure; (data) maharajasa. / Defaced.

5 / I.M. / AE 65-2 -7 / Ditto; traces of maharajasa. / Three figures, each with four dots for upper parts, possibly elephants facing.

6 / I.M. / AE 67-8 -65 / Ditto; rajasa. / Apparently elephants facing.

7 / I.M. / AE 30 -47 / Device uncertain. Legend perhaps [Bha]vada-tasa. / Defaced.

8 / I.M. / AE brass 95-5 -7 / Usual figure. Legend probably Suya (Surya) mitasa. / Defaced.

1 It is possible to read these legends either as -mitrasa or -mitasa, ta being sometimes written with a downward prolongation on right side.  

SATRAPS OF MATHURA, about 125 To 80 B.C. Copper or brass

HAGANA AND HAGAMASHA

1 / A.S.B. / AE 54-8 -65 / Three-line legend (1) Khatapana (2) Haganasa (3) Hagamashasa, ‘[Coin] of the satraps Hagana and Hagamasha’; at top, female figure parallel with legend; at r. side, thunderbolt (vajra). / Horse left; worn (C.A.I., Pl. VIII, 7.

2 / A.S.B. / AE 56-8 -65 / Similar; not quite complete. / Ditto; ditto.

3 / A.S.B. / AE 54-3 -73 / Ditto ; ditto; also a tree-like symbol below legend. / Ditto; horse well preserved.

4 / I.M. / AE 84 -7 / Ditto; ditto; ditto. / Ditto; worn.

5 / I.M. / AE 60 -73 / Ditto; ditto; ditto. / Ditto.

6 / I.M. / AE 28 -65 Ditto; defaced, only Khatapa legible / Horse r., with man in front; thin coin.

HAGAMASHA ALONE

1 / I.M. / AE 91-3 -77 / Figure standing on pedestal, nearly as on coins of the Rajas; tree-like symbol in r. field. Marginal Br. legend, Khatapasa Hagamashasa, ‘[Coin] of the satrap Hagamisha.’ / / Horse l. (C.A.I., Pl. VIII, 6).

2 / A.S.B. / AE 64-5 -67 / Similar; legend incomplete. / Ditto.

3. A.S.B. / AE 74-3 -77 / Similar; much damaged. / Ditto; worn.

4. A.S.B. / AE 76-3 -8 / Ditto; ditto / Ditto; ditto.

5 / I.M. / AE 19-7 -65 / Ditto; traces of legend, thunderbolt r. / Ditto; ditto; thin coin (may belong to Hagana and Hagamasha).

6 / I.M. / AE 59-7 / Similar to No. 1; damaged / As No.1; worn.

7 / I.M. / AE 74-1 -72 / Ditto; ditto. / Ditto; horse r.

8 / I.M. / AE 57 -85 / Ditto; legend almost complete. / Ditto; horse l.

9 / I.M. / AE 45-2 -8 / Ditto; -tapasa legible. / Ditto; horse r.

10 / A.S.B./ AE brass 44-5 -63 / Ditto; -gamasha legible. / Ditto; ditto.

RANJUBULA (RAJUVULA), ABOUT 110 B.C. Silver, base

1 / I.M. / AE 38-5 -58 / Head of satrap diad. r., as on coins of Strato II; corrupt Greek legend. / Pallas l., holding aegis in l. hand, hurling thunderbolt with r. Kh. legend, mahachatrapasa, and ha in l. field; name lost (C.A.I., Pl. VIII, 2,3, J.R.A.S., 1894, p. 547, fig. 2, 3).

2 / I.M. / AE 34 -53 / Ditto. / Ditto; ditto; character in r. field.

Copper (bronze)

3 / I.M. / AE 45-3 -62 / Standing female, as on coins of the Rajas, Br. marginal legend, [Mahakhatapasa] Rajuvulusa, [Coin] of the great satrap Rajuvula.’ / Defaced (C.A.I., P1.VIII, 4; J.R.A.S., ut sup., fig. 4).

SODASA, SON OF RANJUBULA Copper (bronze)

1 / A.S.B. / AE 24-5 -58 / Standing female and tree-like symbol r., as on coins of the Rajas. Br. marginal legend, [Mahakhatapasa putasa khatapasa So]da-sasa; ‘[Coin] of the satrap S., son of the great satrap.’ / Defaced; traces of Lakshmi and elephants (C.A.I., Pl. VIII, 5; J.R.A.S., ut sup., fig. 5, 6).

2 / A.S.B. / AE 29 -63 / Similar; dasasa legible svastika at end of legend. / Ditto.

3 / A.S.B. / AE 98-8 -7 / Similar; mahakhatapasa legible. / Lakshmi with elephants pouring water over her (Pl. XXII. 13).

4 / A.S.B. / AE 74-5 -75 / Similar; khatapasa putasa khatapasa So. / Ditto; nearly defaced.

5 / I.M. / AE 49-4 -63 / Standing female as usual. Br. legend arranged parallel to figure, r., khatapasa; l., [So]dasasa. / Ditto; very rude (unpublished variety of obv.).

6 / I.M. / AE 45 -7 / Standing female as usnal./ Marginal legend, Khatapasa (Sodasasa).1 / Defaced.

VIRASENA, A KING IN THE GANGETIC DOAB, (?) ABOUT 300 A.D.

Copper, rectangular, die-struck

1 / I.M. / AE 29 -6 / Virasena in early Br. script, in shallow incuse at top; rest blank. / (?) an animal; worn (Pl. XXII, 14).

2 / A.S.B, / AE 34 -6 / Ditto; worn. / Apparently the hind part of a bull.

3 / I.M. / AE 22 -42 / senasa only in shallow incuse at top; rest blank. / Apparently blank; (resembles some Malava coins). 2

4 / A.S.B./ AE 32-8 -65 / Above, V[ i]rasenasa; below, palm-treé and ornaments. / Rude standing figure; r. hand raised, l, hand on hip; worn (C.A.I., Pl. VIII, 18).

5 / I.M. / AE 24-2 -52 x -45 / Similar / Rude sketch of standing female, with rayed crown (Pl. XXII, 15).

6 / A.S.B./ AE 28-7 -5 x -45 / Similar; a senasa. / Apparently blank.

7 / I.M. / AE 19-7 -46 / Similar; Virasenasa. / Rude female figure, apparently seated l.

8 / I.M. / AE 14.5 -45 / Ditto; ditto. / Indication of crowned female.

9 / A.S.B./ AE 24-1 -45 / Ditto; ra senasa. / Ditto.

10 / I.M. / AE 21.3 -45 x -4 / Ditto; Virasenasa; the ornaments at lower corners are a form of ‘taurine’. / Ditto.

11 / A.S.B./ AE 21 -45 / Ditto; ra senasa. / Almost defaced.

12 / I.M. / AE 21-3 -45 x -4 / Ditto; Virasena. / Indication of crowned female.

13 / I.M. / AE 20-7 -47 / Ditto; V[ i]ras[e]nasa. / Ditto.

14 / I.M. / AE 22 -45 / Ditto; s[e]nasa, / Ditto. +45

1 On these coins Khatapasa may be read as Khatrapasa.
2 Nos. 1-3, as remarked in the Introduction, may be of earlier date than the others. 

19-21 References

SECTION X: UNASSIGNED MISCELLANEOUS ANCIENT COINS OF NORTHERN INDIA

INTRODUCTION

The simple process of making coins by casting in a mould seems to be little inferior in antiquity in India to that of stamping bars or ingots. Comparatively few of the numerous cast coins of ancient India are blank on the reverse. Most of them have a device or legend, or both, on each face, and were made by joining two moulds together. All the cast coins are of copper, including in that term various alloys. The most ancient examples probably are to be found among the rude pieces which are abundant in Oudh, Benares, and the neighbouring districts.

Cunningham considered the chaitya and tree coin of C.A.I., Pl. 1, 29, to be ‘rather rare’; but I should be disposed to call it ‘rather common’. Six examples of it have been catalogued, ranging in weight from 27-5 to 61 grains. No. 16 with the legend Kumhama is novel, and I cannot explain the meaning of the word. No. 19 is the largest rectangular cast coin that I have seen.

The circular cast coins, no doubt, were, to a large extent, contemporary with the rectangular ones. The types ‘chaitya and elephant’ and ‘chaitya and bull’ served as models for the much improved anonymous coins struck by some of the Western Satraps between 225 and 236 A.D. (C.M.I, p. 7, with correction of date of No. 10 from 129 to 158, Rapson); and this fact helps us to fix a posterior limit for the cast coinage in Ujjain and the neighbourhood. Of course, in different parts of India the practice varied greatly, and the old-fashioned methods of coining must have lingered in some places longer than in others; but in the Panjab and upper Gangetic provinces the cast coins are, I should think, probably all earlier than 100 A.D. They must have been driven out of circulation largely by the abundant copper issues of the Kushan kings. In Malwa (Avanti, Ujjain), as remarked above, the cast coinage may have lasted until 200 A.D., or even a little later.

The anonymous coins apparently die-struck include one silver specimen of minute size. The rest are all copper or brass. The metal has not been analysed, and by ‘brass’ I mean an alloy that looks like brass—it may be a pale bronze. The lead coins, Nos. 15-21, ranging in weight from 43-5 to 68-2 grains, are too rude to admit of exact description or reproduction. There is nothing to indicate their age. Some specimens formerly in my cabinet were believed to come from the ancient site Atranji Khera in the Etah (Ita) District, U.P. Those catalogued may come from the same place, which was inspected by Cunningham ‘Reports, i. 269; xi. 15).

The inscribed circular coins, mostly die-struck (class IV), comprise many remarkable pieces, some of whish seam to be unpublished. The script on the coins of Brahmamitra and Gomitra (Nos. 1, 2), appears to be nearly, if not quite, as old as that of the Asoka edicts. The names recur in the series of the Rajas of Mathura (ante, Sect. IX) at a later date. Carlleyle ‘picked up’ a specimen of Jyeshthadattadeva’s coinage at the extremely ancient site of Bairint in the Benares District (Reports, xxii. 15), which may be the coin catalogued (No. 3). I do not know of any other specimen. The coin (No. 4) on which I read Kavirasa jaya, with jaya written reversed, also appears to be unique. Other examples of reversed legends occur in the Malava class (ante, Sect. VII). The little piece (No. 17) with blank rev. and Depha on obv. is very curious, and I cannot guess the meaning of the word. The Devasa class (separately numbered) is puzzling. The coins are common in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, and a good specimen which I formerly possessed came from Kosam in the Allahabad District. The upper characters look like numerals in the old notation. The reading devasa is due to Prof. Rapson. The first character, being peculiar in form, has been read generally as Ne, but De appears to be the correct reading. There is nothing to indicate who Deva was.

CATALOGUE

I. RECTANGULAR CAST COINS, EARLY

Serial No. / Museum / Metal, Weight, Size / Obverse / Reverse

Copper

(1) AS C.A.I., Pl. I, 28

1/ I.M. / AE 59-7 -6] Tree in railing: chaitya; square cross; and a form of 'taurine'. / Elephant l.; triangular-headed symbol; ‘taurine’ (PL. XXII, 16).

2. I.M. / AE 64 -58 / Similar. / Similar.

3 / I.M. / AE 41 -58 / Similar to No. 1. / As No.1; with svastika.

4 / AS.B. / AE 62-5 -65 / Ditto. / Elephant l.; square cross; triangular-headed symbol.

5 / I.M. / AE -- -58 / Ditto; worn. / As No. 3, but differently arranged: a protuberance left in casting.

6 / A.S.B./ AE -- -6 / Ditto; ditto. / Similar; with bar -37 long attached.

7 / A.S.B. / AE -- -57 / Ditto; fairly good. / Ditto; with protuberance.

8 / A.S.B. / AE 29-6 -5 / Ditto; corroded. / Ditto; corroded.

9 / A.S.B. / AE 13 -37 / Ditto; ditto. / Ditto; ditto.

(2) AS C.A.I., Pl. I, 29

10 / I.M. / AE -- -55 / Tree with ovate-lanceolate leaves / Chaitya of three arches, with crescent above; protuberance from casting,

11 / I.M. / AE 58 -5 / Ditto. / Ditto (Pl. XXII, 17).

12 / I.M. / AE 61 -5 / Ditto. / Ditto.

13 / I.M. / AE 53-2 -55 / Ditto. / Ditto.

14 / A.S.B. / AE 56-3 -5 / Ditto. / Ditto.

15 / I.M. / AE 27-5 -45 / Ditto. / Ditto.

(3) VARIOUS

a. Inscribed

16 / I.M. / AE 40 -57 x -45 / Tree l. Legend in large letters Kunhama, with apparently ya above. / A (?) tiger springing l. (Pl. XXII, 18).

17 / I.M. / AE 9-4 -45 / Snake below; obscure symbols, and remains of legend including yo. / Elephant l., and (?) tree; thin coin, probably from eastern districts.

18 / I.M. / AE 16-7 -5 x -42 / Solar symbol; traces of legend / Humped bull l.

18a / A.S.B. / AE -- hexagonal -55 / Elephant l; above, Br. legend, bhaga ... / Tree and (?).

b. Not inscribed

19 / A.S.B./ AE 139-6 1-1 / Humped bull standing l in a square; row of symbols above, svastika, &c. / Circle inside square, containing vase on stand with streamers and (?) flowers. Remarkable for large size (Pl. XXII, 19).

20 / I.M. / AE 118-3 -7 x -55 / Lion or tiger l., facing a bunch of three stems (? fire) springing from the ground, and beyond it the triangular-headed symbol common on ancient coins. / Blank.

21 / I.M. / AE 72-7 -52 / Humped bull l,, with crescent in front. / Ditto.

22 / I.M. / AE 80-6 -5 x -5 / Similar to No. 21, but no distinct objects in front of animal. / Ditto.

23 / I.M. / AE 23-8 -4 x -35 / A sort of ‘taurine’ in high relief. / Ditto.

24 / I.M. / AE 24-3 -4 / Ditto. / Ditto.

25 / I.M. / AE 18 -37 x -32 / Ditto / Ditto (These three coins have a button of metal from the casting at the back.)

26 / I.M. / AE 19-7 -30 / Rude human figure l. with r. hand raised; (?) traces of legend r. / Two pellets in relief (possibly Malava; Pl. XXIII, 1).

27 / A.S.B. / AE 38-5 -7 / Obscure symbols in a curved frame. / Obscure symbols with long straight lines.

28 / I.M. / AE 52-8 -6 / Tree in railing, in circle of which a snake is the base. / Elephant l., facing a symbol.

29 / I.M. / AE 35 -5 / Square cross. / Elephant r.

30 / I.M. / AE 21-7 -5 / Ditto. / Ditto.

31 / A.S.B. / AE -- -58 / Three-arched chaitya, crescent above. / Elephant l.; corroded.

32 / I.M. / AE brass 60-7 -65 / Three-arched chaitya, with crescent above, standing under an arch. / Humped bull r. with tail raised, and feet tied together, facing a railing with (?) tree in it, on which (?) a bird pecking the bull (Pl. XXIII, 2).

33 / I.M. / AE 15 -45 / Tree in railing; St. Andrew’s cross with balls at ends of arms; square cross. / Humped bull l.; svastika above.

34 / I.M. / AE 6-8 -45 / Similar, but partly defaced. / Similar, but mostly defaced.

35 / I.M. / AE 23-7 -47 / Ditto; ditto. / Ditto; fairly good; an object before bull.

36 / A.S.B. / AE 45-5 -5 / Solar symbol composed of ‘taurines’ and broad arrow-heads attached to central boss. / Svastika opening to r.

37 / A.S.B. / AE 30-5 -5 / Sundry indescribable symbols. / Svatika opening r., with 'taurines' at the extremities.

38 / A.S.B. / AE 47 -5 / Ditto. / Ditto; thick coin (Nos. 36038 are in very shallow relief).

39 / A.S.B. / AE 15-5 -36 / Indistinct marks. / incised rectangle. (Perhaps should be classed as 'punch-marked'.

40 / I.M. / AE 54-5 -67 x -5 / Rude solar symbol of boss and crescents. / Blank; very rough.

41 / A.S.B. / AE 13-6 -64 x -4 / Lion standing l., facing tree; svastika above. / Elephant l., facing post; doubtful traces of legend above; (?) Taxila; thin coin.

II. ANONYMOUS CIRCULAR CAST COINS, PROBABLY ALL BEFORE 200 A.D.

Copper

(1) Chaitya and elephant type (C.A.I., Pl. 1, 25) [/b]

1 / I.M. / AE 47 -55 / Three-arched chaitya, with crescent above. / Elephant l.

2 / I.M. / AE 33-7 -55 / Ditto. / Ditto.

3 / A.S.B. / AE 37-3 -55 / Ditto. / Ditto.

4 / A.S.B. / AE 34 -55 / Ditto. / Ditto.

5 / A.S.B. / AE 28-8 -52 / Ditto. / Ditto.

6 / I.M. / AE 13-6 -47 / Ditto. / Ditto (Pl. XXIII, 3).

7 / I.M. / AE -- -5 / Ditto. / Ditto; two coins joined by bar left in casting.

8 / I.M. / AE 26 -55 / Ditto. / Elephant r.

(2) Chaitya and bull type (C.A.I., Pl. I, 26)

9 / I.M. / AE 63 -65 / Three-arched chaitya, with crescent above; a ‘taurine’ symbol on each side. / Large-horned bull r.; triskelis above.

(3) Chaitya and lion type (C.A.I., Pl. I, 27)

10 / I.M. / AE 63-8 -6 / Three-arched chaitya, with crescent and ‘taurines’, as in bull type. / Lion moving l. towards triangular-headed symbol.

11 / I.M. / AE 67-1 -57 / Ditto. / Ditto.

12 / I.M. / AE 73-2 -57 / Ditto. / Ditto.

13 / I.M. / AE 53 -57 / Ditto / Ditto.

14 / I.M. / AE 16-8 -45 / Ditto. / Ditto.

15 / I.M. / AE 23-5 -53 / Ditto. / Lion r.

(4) Various

16 / A.S.B./ AE 91 -7 / Rayed sun. / Quadruped l.; much worn.

17 / A.S.B. / AE 68 -65 / Ditto. / Quadruped r.; ditto.

18 / I.M. / AE 37-5 -55 / Six-spoked wheel. / Obscure.

19 / I.M. / AE brass 66 -76 / Rayed sun above low enclosure. / Bull r.; very rough.

20 / I.M. / AE 64 -7 / Tree in railing; square cross, &c. / Elephant l.; solar symbol; chaitya, and triangular-headed symbol.

21 / A.S.B./ AE 14 -47 / Tree in railing, as on coins of Kosam; ‘Ujjain symbol’ r. / Blank.

22 / A.S.B. / AE 27-7 -55 / Humped bull l. / (?) Antelope r.; corroded.

23 / I.M. / AE 23-8 -47 / Three-arched chaitya. / Quadruped l.

24 / I.M. oval 29-3 -75 x -5 / A curious object in high relief. / (?) Bull’s face (Pl. XXIII, 4).

III. APPARENTLY DIE-STRUCK, NOT INSCRIBED [ Silver

1 / I.M. / AE 22-7 -4 / Quadruped (? horse) r. / Blank.

Copper or brass

2 / A.5.B./ AE square 58-3 -67 / Solar symbol consisting of boss with broad arrowheads and crescents, in incuse made by circular die. / Svastika with curved limbs (? Ujjain).

3 / I.M. /AE square 17 -42 / ‘Ujjain symbol’ of four circles without connecting cross; (?) lion; struck by circular die. / Quadruped l., facing a post (? Ujjain).
 
4 / I.M. / AE 14 -42 / Three-arched chaitya with crescent . / 'Taurine' (seems to be die struck).

5 / A.S.B. / AE 71-8 -78 / 'Taurine' in small incuse; rest blank. / Apparently blank; worn.

6 / I.M. / AE hexagonal 47-2 -87 / cup-mark surrounded by six others similar. / Apparently blank.

7 / I.M. / AE hexagonal 60-8 -75 / Ditto. / Ditto.

8 / I.M. / AE hexagonal 17-5 -35 x -45 / Similar, with incised rays connecting the marks. / Ditto.

9 / I.M. / AE 49-5 -73 / Trident with curved sides. / Cross in wheel (?Taxila).

10 / I.M. / AE 27-9 -67 / Similar. / Star with curved rays filling the field (? Taxila); worn.

11 / A.S.B. / AE brass 45-2 -7 / Sun with numerous rays filling the field. / Same as obv.; (?) traces of legend; worn smooth.

12 / I.M. / AE 85-5 -85 / Lion standing r. / Humped bull standing r.; worn.

13 / I.M. / AE 32 -62 / Tree in railing; 'taurine', &c. / Elephant moving r. (? Audumbara).

14 / I.M. / AE 67-7 -7 / Elphant r., very rude. / Obscure lines; worn.

Lead

15 / I.M. / L. 56 -54 / Convex, with obscure indescribable mark. / Flat, with obscure lines.

16 / I.M. / L. 63-2 -58 / Similar. / Similar.

17 / I.M. / L. 60-5 -55 / Ditto. / Ditto.

18 / I.M. / L. 54-5 -55 / Ditto. / Ditto.

19 / I.M. / L. 47 -57 / Ditto. / Ditto.

20. /I.M. / L. 53 -52 / Ditto. / Ditto.

21 / I.M. / L. 43-5 -45 / Ditto. / Ditto.

IV. INSCRIBED, CIRCULAR, VARIOUS,

MOSTLY DIE-STRUCK

Copper or brass

(1) Various

1 / A.S.B. / AE 84-5 -7 / In circular incuse, tree in railing, triangular-headed symbol r. ; ‘Ujjain symbol’; below in Br. of about 200 B.C. Brahma-mitasa, ‘[Coin] of Brahmamitra.’ / Tree-like symbol in railing; (?) Kosam (Pl. XXIII, 5).

2 / A.S.B. / AE brass 64 -77 / In square incuse, tree in railing l.; ‘Ujjain symbol’ in centre; triangular-headed symbol r.; below in Br. of about 200 B.C. (Go)mitasa, ‘[Coin] of Gomitra.’ / Tree in railing and traces of Br. legend beginning with Gomi in shallow squre incuse; allied to No. 1 (Pl. XXIII,, 6).

3 / I.M. / AE 32-5 -6 / In oblong incuse, early Br. legend, Jyeshthadattade[va], or possibly, datta-sya. / Traces of elephant standing r.; resembles some of the early Malava coins; see Reports, XXII, 115 (Pl. XXIII, 7).

4 / A.S.B. / AE 50-8 -75 / Humped bull standing r.; below, early Br. legend, Kavirasa; below, jaya, reversed; and (?)a character; ‘Victory to Kavira’: raised rim. / Defaced (unpublished) (Pl. XXIII, 8).

5 / A.S.B. / AE brass 81-3 -65 / Solar symbol, two trees in railings, ‘Ujjain symbol,’ &c.; above in early Br., mitasa or shatasa. / Open lotus flower; thick coin.

6 / I.M. / AE 24 -45 / Tree in railing; snake on end, r. / Bull l. (? Kosam or Ajodhya).

7 / A.S.B. / AE 24-4 -52 / Peculiar object springing from railing; Br. na r. / Asokan ja (?) (Pl. XXIII, 9).

8 / A.S.B. / AE oval 71-7 -85 x -75 / Tree in railing and other obscure symbols; Br. legend l., apparently chija. / Lion r.; railing above, and traces of marginal Br. legend (Pl. XXIII, 10).

9 / A.S.B. / AE 3-7 -35 / Large characters, which look like charéja, or charaju. / Br. la in centre of field (Pl. XXIII, 11).

10 / A.S.B. / AE 61-7 -53 / In circular incuse, tree in railing; obscure Br. marginal legend including yana, (?) traya nagasa. / Lion standing r.; disk above.

11 / A.S.B. / AE 53-1 -55 / Similar to No. 10. Legend, ratha yana-gicha-m[ i]ta[sa] (?). / Lion standing r.; squre (? ba) over his back; marginal legend in large character, ya (Pl. XXIII, 12).

12 / I.M. / AE 24-3 -55 / Tree in railing l.; thunderbolt (vajra) r.; traces of marginal legend. / Tree in railing, and obscure symbols; marginal Br. legend, (?)gabhemanapa (or -ha), of which bha and na are certain (Pl. XXIII, 13).

13 / I.M. / AE imperfect -5 / Thunderbolt (vajra) in centre, standing figure r.; Br. legend l., (?) mabhada, or (?) mitasa. / Peculiar symbol (Pl. XXIII, 14).

14 / I.M. / AE oval 15-9 -6 x -5 / Tree in railing; Br. na legible. / Three-arched chaitya with large ornament on top.

15 / A.S.B. / AE 17 -47 / Peculiar symbol; traces of Br. marginal legend. / Bull standing l.; thin coin; worn.

16 / I.M. / AE 24-7 -45 / Bull l.; traces of legend below. / Obscure symbol.

17 / I.M. / AE 17-3 -4 / Depha in large early Br., filling field, [x]; worn. / Blank (? Malava).

18 / I.M. / AE 22 -4 / Uncertain large characters. / Quadruped l.; corroded.

19 / I.M. / AE 20-5 -57 / Branching tree in railing; to l., early Br. napa (or -sa). / Obscure, (?) lion r.; thin coin, possibly Audumbara; in bad condition.

20 / I.M. / AE 20 -37 / Uncertain. / Uncertain (antiquity doubtful).

(2) With legend, DEVASA, probably of Kosam

1 / I.M. / AE brass 29-7 -55 / Tree in railing, as on Kosam coins; below, in early Br., [De]vasa; l. of tree a character, seemingly the ancient 20, and r., 7; all in square incuse. / Rude bull, apparently l.; probably cast (Pl. XXIII, 15).

2 / I.M. / AE brass 20 -5 / Similar; but the figure to l. of tree is looped, and seems to be 6; all in incuse. / Bull r.; cast.

3 / I.M. AE brass 35-6 -6 / Similar; no figure to r.; that 1. seems to be 20 as on No. 1; legend imperfect. / Ditto.

4 / I.M. / AE brass 26 -46 / Ditto; ditto; Deva. / Elephant standing r. (Pl. XXIII, 16).

5 / I.M. / AE brass 16-5 -45 / Ditto; characters beside tree illegible; Devasa; no incuse. / Bull r.; defaced.

6 / A.S.B. / AE brass 64-8 -76 / Square frame with low railing as base, enclosing legend Devasa in large letters, and above, an altar-like object. / Ditto; uncertain object above; worn smooth on both sides.

7 / A.S.B. / AE brass 74 -67 / Similar; legend mostly lost; a stumpy tree above; the figure 7 to r., figure to l. wanting. / Bull r.; protuberance left in casting.

8 / A.S.B. / AE brass 68-5 -67 / Ditto; ditto; ditto. / Bull r.; five-branched object (? tree) above; hammered edges apparently.

22-25 References

Bhavadatta, r., pp. 190, 193...

Purushadatta, r., pp. 190-192...

Sivadatta, r., pp. 144, 149...

Uttamadatta, r., pp. 190,193..

26-29 References

SECTION XX. THE NORTH-EASTERN FRONTIER KINGDOMS; ASSAM AND MINOR STATES

INTRODUCTION

It is unnecessary to discuss in this place the meagre data available for the reconstruction of the ancient history of the kingdom of Kamarupa, which corresponded roughly with the modern province of Assam (Asam). The early rulers of the country have not left any numismatic memorials. The modern history of Assam begins with the invasion of the Ahoms, who are ‘the descendants of those Shans who, under the leadership of Chukapha, crossed the Patkoi [mountains] about 1228 A.D. (or just about the time when Kublai Khan was establishing his power in China) and entered the upper portion of the province, to which they have given their name. The Ahoms were not apparently a very large tribe, and they consequently took some time to consolidate their power in Upper Assam. They were engaged for several hundred years in conflict with the Chutiyas and Kacharis, and it was not till 1540 A.D. that they finally overthrew the latter, and established their rule as far as the Kallang [river near Gauhati]. . . . Subsequently the Koch kingdom [further west] was divided into two parts, and as its power declined that of the Ahoms increased, and the Rajas of Jaintia, Dimarua, and others, who had formerly been feudatories of Biswa Singh, acknowledged the suzerainty of the Ahoms, The Musalmans on several occasions invaded their country, but never succeeded in permanently annexing it.... In 1663 A.D. Mir Jumla invaded the country with a large army, and after some fighting took the capital. [But difficulties ensued, which made] him ‘glad to patch up a peace..... The Ahoms then took Gauhati and ... defeated another Musalmain army. The Ahoms were then [about 1670 A.D.] at the height of their power; all the minor rulers of the country acknowledged their supremacy. ... But even then the decline was at hand. They had for some time hankered after Hinduism, and the Rajas had for years been in the habit of taking a Hindu as well as a Shan name. Eventually Rudra Singh, alias Chukrungpha, who became king in 1695, [and is regarded by many as the greatest of all the Ahom kings] resolved to make a public profession of Hinduism, ... but died in 1714 while still unconverted. His son, Sib Singh [Siva sinha], succeeded him, and became a disciple of Krishna-ram [the Sakta Gosain of Nadia]. In his reign the seeds of future dissensions were sown by the persecution of the Moamarias, while the pride of race, which had hitherto sustained the Ahoms, began to disappear.... Patriotic feeling soon disappeared, and the country was filled with dissensions.... Captain Welsh was deputed by Lord Cornwallis to help the King Gauri-nath Singh, who was then being besieged at Gauhati, and with his aid he was once more freed from his enemies. At this juncture Sir John Shore succeeded to the Governor-Generalship, and one of his first acts was to recall Welsh (1794 A.D.), after whose departure the country was given again over to anarchy. The aid of the Burmese was then invoked (1816 A.D.), and the latter remained in the country until 1824, when they were driven out by our troops, and the country was annexed’ [early in 1825].1 [Grierson (quoting Gait), Linguistic Survey of India, vol. ii, p. 61, with additions in brackets.] An Ahom Raja however continued to exist for some time longer, and in 1844 the last of the royal line did good service by arranging for the publication of a history of his country, which had always been careful to preserve its annals.

The foregoing summary of the history will serve, with little additional explanation, to render intelligible the fine series of coins now catalogued. A list of the Rajas will be found in Prinsep’s Useful Tables, copied into Duff's Chronology of India, and corrected by Gait (Report on the Progress of Historical Research in Assam, Shillong, Secretariat Printing Office, 1897). The blue-book last named gives complete references to all publications on the subject of Assamese history, which has recently been treated in detail by Mr. Gait in his work entitled A History of Assam (Calcutta, Thacker Spink, 1905), which also deals with the neighbouring minor states.

The initial syllable of the Shan names of the kings is generally given as Chu, but Babu Golap Chandra Barua, the Ahom translator, transliterates it as Su ([x]) in his account of the Ahom coins (J.A.S.B., Part I, 1895, p. 286, Pl. XXVII). The six coins described by the Babu and Mr. Gait are all included in this catalogue, with the addition of two specimens of Supatpha or Gadadhar simha from the Indian Museum cabinet. The earlier Rajas seem to have issued coins inscribed with legends in the Ahom language and character only, but Raja Pramatha simha, alias Sunenpha, used both Ahom and Sanskrit. The catalogue includes one of his coins with Ahom and eight with Sanskrit legends. The Ahom language, which is now almost extinct, is a member of the group of Northern Shan (Sham or Tai) languages, and is written in a peculiar character, ultimately derived from the Pali. In the work above cited Dr. Grierson has supplied ample materials for the study of the Ahom language and alphabet, but his vocabulary fails to include the words in the coin legends. The readings of those legends in the catalogue are given on the authority of Babu Golap Chandra Barua.

The coins of the dynasty are all octagonal, except a few of the smallest, which are circular or oval,1 [The prevailing shape is supposed to have been suggested by a statement in the Jogini Tantra which describes the Ahom country as octagonal (Gait, History, p. 97).] and certain square pieces struck by Queen Pramathesvari and Rajesvara simha, which bear Persian legends. Rajesvara simha also struck coins of the usual octagonal shape with Persian legends. These Assamese coins with Persian legends, although struck in considerable numbers, have become known only recently.2 [Mr. H.N. Wright kindly examined the coins with Persian legends, which were received in May, 1906.] The larger pieces are of thick, solid fabric, and are said to be of good metal. Most of them are in silver, but some are gold. The legends are well executed, and those in the Sanskrit language usually are inscribed in the Bengali script. They are intensely devotional in expression, the commonest formula describing the Raja as a bee feeding on the nectar from the feet of Siva or some other deity of the Hindu pantheon. Poetical words, such as aravinda for ‘lotus’ and makaranda for ‘nectar’, are sometimes substituted for the more common equivalents kamala and amrita. The Ahom legends of Supatpha or Gadadhar sitha express devotion to the tribal god Leidan, who was identified with the Hindu Indra or Purandara. The legend on the coin of Suklenmun represents the Raja as praying to the Almighty (tara).

The coins, the heaviest of which weighs 176-7 grains, appear to be intended for rupees of about 175 grains each, or for fractions of a rupee. The smallest is a tiny silver piece of Gaurinatha, -22 inch in diameter, and weighing only 4-2 grains; but small as it is, the Raja's name is distinctly legible (Pl. XXIX, 8). The gold coins are struck to the same weight standard as those in silver. Most of the coins are dated in the Saka era, and some show the regnal year in addition.

The coinage of the minor states may be dismissed briefly. The small principality of Jayantapura, now known as the Jaintia Parganas to the north-east of the Sylhet District, was annexed in 1835 owing to the abduction of four British subjects for use as human sacrifices to Kali. Its rare coinage is represented by four specimens in the Indian Museum (Pl. XXIX, 13,14), one of which is dated in 1630 Saka = 1708 A,D., and the three others are dated 1653 S. = 1781 A.D. One duplicate of the latter date has not been catalogued. The coins are exceptionally broad, and bear legends similar to those of the Assamese coinage. Mr. Gait has recorded that ‘a number of new Jaintia coins were brought to light by Babu Giris Chandra Das, Assistant Settlement Officer of Jaintia, and a collection was made which has been presented to the Asiatic Society of Bengal. The collection includes whole coins of Caka 1591, 1592, 1630, 1653, 1696, 1704, 1707, and 1712; and quarter coins of Caka 1653 and 1712: the quarter coins alone have the name of the kings who minted them, viz. Bara Gosain and Ram-sinha respectively. These coins have been described (with a plate) in the J.A.S.B. for 1895, Part I, p. 242’ (Report, p. 4). The paper referred to, entitled ‘Some Notes on Jaintia History’, and chapter XI of Mr. Gait’s History of Assam, give all the information available on the subject. The A.S.B. collection described by Mr. Gait has not been sent to me.

The Tipperah country (Tripura), which lies to the south of Sylhet and the east of Dacca, is now in part a British District, and in part a native state, known as Hill Tipperah. Mr. Gait (Report, p.4) mentions two coins of Tipperah, one of Govinda Manikya deva, dated Saka 1602, the other of Dharma Manikya deva, dated 1636. The latter was presented to the A.S.B. (Proc. 1895, p. 86), but has not come into my hands. The specimen now catalogued, struck by Ramasimha Manikya deva and his consort Tara, is new, but similar to the coins previously known. The reverse device is a grotesque lion with a trident on his back, and the date is 1728 S, = 1806 A.D.

The Manipur State, lying between Cachar and the Burmese frontier, was deprived of its independence in 1891 on account of the massacre of Mr. Quinton and his companions (Gait, History, p. 343). Some small copper coins with ma on the obverse, and the reverse blank, are ascribed to this State by Mr. Rodgers.

Chhota Udaipur is, I believe, part of Tipperah. The utterly barbarous copper coins assigned to it by Mr. Rodgers are undecipherable to me. The recent copper coins of the Sikim State to the north of Darjeeling are not in any way remarkable.

CATALOGUE

ASSAM (ASAM)

Serial No. / Museum / Metal, Weight, Size / Obverse / Reverse

A. With legends in Ahom language and script; silver, octagonal ...

B. With legends in Sanskrit language and script; octagonal, except two coins ...

BHARATHA SIMHA, RAJA or Rangpur, 1792-3 A.D. AND AGAIN 1797 A.D.

Silver

1 / I.M. / AE 175-5 -95 / Four-line legend, (1) Sri Bhagadatta (2) kulodvara sri Bha (3) ratha simha nripasya (4) Sake 1714.1 [For legends of Bhagadatta (Bhagdatta) see Gait, History, pp. 13, 27, 29.] Dragon r. below. / Four-line legend, (1) Sri sri Krishna charanaravinda makaranda pramada madhukarasya; '[coin] of king Bharatha simha of the excellent lineage of Bhagadatta, intoxicated with the nectar of the lotus of the feet of Krishna, Saka 1714' = 1792-3 A.D. (Pl. XXIX, 9).

2 / I.M. / AE 174-5 -87 / Ditto; date 1719=1797 A.D. / Ditto.

30-37 References

GENERAL INDEX

ABBREVIATIONS

ci. = city or town; co. = country; d. = deity; dy. = dynasty; k. = king or chief; qu. = queen; ty. = type....

Bhavadatta, k. of Mathura, 190, 198...

Kamadatta, k. of Mathura, 190...

Purushadatta, k. of Mathura, 190, 192...

Ramadatta, k. of Ajodhya, 190, 193...

Seshadatta, k. of Mathura, 190...

Sisuchandradatta, k. of Mathura, 190...

Sivadatta, k. of Ajodhya, 144, 149; k. of Mathura, 190...

Uttamadatta, k. of Mathura, 190, 198.

[admin]

Art. VII. -- Notes on Indian Coins and Seals. Part I.
by E.J. Rapson, M.A., M.R.A.S.
The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
1900

CONTENTS.

PLATE / PAGE

1. Uddehika / 98
2. Uddehika: Suryamitra / 98
3. Upagoda / 102
4. Seal of Nandivardha or Nandivrddha / 103
5. Seal of Mamma / 106
6. Arjunayana / 106
7. Eran / 108
8. Hindu Princes of Mathura: Uttamadatta
9-11 Hindu Princes of Mathura: Sesadatta; Hindu Princes of Mathura: Kamadatta Surya-[? Arya-]-mitra, Visnumitra (unpublished) / 111
12. ? Udumbara or Mathura: Mahadeva / 112
13. Dynasty uncertain: ? Bhumidatta or Bhimadatta / 113
14. ? Mathura: (?) Sisucandrata / 114
15. ? Mathura: Virasena / 116
16, 17. Naga Dynasty of Padmavati: Prabhakara / 116
18. Silaharas of the Northern Konkan: Chittaraja / 118
19. Dynasty uncertain: Vatsadaman / 123
20. Dynasty uncertain: Saravarman / 134  

With the kind permission of the Council of the Society, I purpose from time to time to contribute a series of notes on such unpublished or noteworthy coins and seals of Ancient and Mediaeval India as come under my notice; and I shall be greatly obliged to collectors of these objects if they will submit to me at the British Museum any specimens about which they may desire information.

The object of these Notes will be partly to correct and bring up to date the account of Indian Coins, which I contributed to Buhler's Encyclopaedia of Indo-Aryan Research,1 [Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, ii. Band, v. Haft, B. (Trubner: Strassburg, 1898.)] and partly to indicate to collectors of coins in India those classes of which farther specimens are required for study.

Comparatively few of the very numerous series of Indian coins have yet been systematically collected. The attractions of the Graeco-Indian class have apparently diverted the attention of most collectors from a study of the purely native ancient and mediaeval coinages. But there can be no doubt of the great historical importance of these latter. Their evidence, joined to that of the stone and copper-plate inscriptions, furnishes practically the only data supplied by India herself for the reconstruction of her history. The extent to which this reconstruction has already been successfully made with the aid of such apparently inadequate and unpromising materials surely leaves no doubt of the extreme importance, from the historical point of view, of the study of Indian inscriptions and coins. The old gibe that Indian dates were merely so many pins set up to be bowled down again is now anything but true. The outline of Indian history is securely drawn, and many of the details are already filled in. The future progress which scholars will be able to make in this work depends principally on the amount of new material with which they are supplied by those who have opportunities of making discoveries and observations in India.

UDDEHIKA.

1. Obv. Humped bull to r.; above, tree within railing represented horizontally.

Rev.



(Udehaki). Above, three symbols, viz., the 'Ujjain' symbol, two fishes within oblong, and tree within railing.

B.M.; Bush, 65: 8-2: 2. AE -75; Pl. 1.

UDDEHIKA: SURYAMITRA

2. Obv. (almost obliterated). Elephant to l.; beneath, five-hooded snake, and (?) tree within railing, both represented horizontally; at top l., counter-mark.

Rev.



[-] (Udeha [-]).



(Suyami[ta-]).

Beneath, three symbols, probably as on No. 1, but in reversed order, viz., tree within railing, two fishes within oblong, and (?) the Ujjain symbol.

B.M.; Armstrong, 90: 1-8: 1. AE -75; Pl. 2.

The Uddehikas (vv. ll. Audehika, Auddehika) are mentioned in Varahamihira's Brhat-samhita among the peoples who are placed in the central portion of his astrological chart1; [xiv, 3, ed, Kern, and trans., p. 88 = J.R.A.S., 1871, p. 82.] but, apparently, their name has not hitherto been read on coins.

Varāhamihira's (c. 505 – c. 587) most notable works were the Brihat Samhita... The chapters of the Brihat Samhita and verses of Varahamihira were quoted by the Persian traveler and scholar Al Biruni [(973 – after 1050)]...

Although the [encyclopedic Brihat-Samhita] is mostly about divination, it also includes a wide range of subjects other than divination. It covers wide-ranging subjects of human interest, including astronomy, planetary movements, eclipses, rainfall, clouds, architecture, growth of crops, manufacture of perfume, matrimony and domestic relations. The volume expounds on gemstone evaluation criterion found in the Garuda Purana, and elaborates on the sacred Nine Pearls from the same text....

External Link: The Brihat Jataka of Varaha Mihira, Aryan Miscellany, Astrological Series, translated into English by N. Chidambaram Aiyar, B.A., Fellow of the Theosophical Society and Founder of the Tiruvadi Jotistantra Sabha, 1905, Madras, printed by Thompson & Co., in the "Theosophist" Department of the "Minerva" Press, 33, Popham's Broadway, For Sale at the Theosophist Office, Adyar, Madras, India

-- Varāhamihira, by Wikipedia

The form Udehaki which occurs here is, no doubt, a tadvaja formation denoting 'the prince of the Uddehikas,' though, in accordance with the rule of Panini, iv, 1, 173,1 Referred to in P.W., s.v. 'Audumbari.'] should rather have expected to find Audehaki (Odehaki). Another instance of this formation is afforded by the inscriptions in Brahmi and Kharosthi characters on the silver coin of the Udumbaras, published by General Sir A. Cunningham (Coins of Ancient India, p, 67, pl. iv, 1). While we find in the Brhat-samhita the forms Udambara or Audumbara to denote the people or the kingdom, we have on this coin the genitive Odumbarisa (Audumbareh) standing in opposition to the king's name and his other titles, Mahadevasa rano Dharaghosasa. The same form probably occurs on the square bronze coin which follows (id., p. 68, pl. iv, 2). We possess, unfortunately, only a drawing of this specimen, and it is, therefore, not possible to be quite certain as to the reading; but, even on the evidence of this drawing, the fourth aksara certainly seems to be -ri rather than -ra, as read by Cunningham. A similar distinction is, no doubt, regularly observed between the forms Mukhara and Maukhari. Thus, for example, in Makharanam bhubhujam (Fleet, Corpus Inscr. Indic, iii, p. 229) the first genitive is dependent on the second — "of the lords of Mukhara (or of the Mukhara people)"; while in Bhupanam Maukharinam (id., p. 222) the two genitives are in opposition —"of the lords, the Maukharis." It seems impossible to determine, from the two specimens in the British Museum, whether an inscription in Brahmi characters, occurring on certain of the negama coins or 'guild-tokens'2 [For references, see Rapson, Indian Coins, § 6. ] found in the neighbourhood of Taxila, should be read Amtarotaka or Amtarotaki.3 [Figured in Cunningham, Coins of Ancient India, pl. iii, 11.] If the discovery of more complete specimens should prove the latter reading to be correct, we should probably be justified in regarding it as a tad-raja formation, meaning 'the prince of Antarotaka,' and in supposing that other forms found on these negama coins, such as Dajaka and Talimata (or Ralimata), are also names or titles of rulers.

The king's name, Suryamitra, may be recovered with almost absolute certainty from the portions of the inscription still remaining on the coin, No. 2, above described. The most probable restoration of this inscription is Udeha[ki-] Suyam[itasa], and the letters which are certain leave scarcely a possibility of doubt as to the reading of both name and title. The style of the Brahmi characters on these coins seems to justify us in assigning to them a date at least as early as the third century before Christ. We have at present no other evidence of the existence of a king named Suryamitra at this period. The king of North Pancala (Sunga), who bears this name, probably belongs to a somewhat later date; perhaps to the second century B.C.1 [Cunningham, C.A.I., p. 82, pl. vii, 4; Rapson, Indian Coins, § 53.] The same name has also been read on coins of Ayodhya, possibly of the second or first century B.C.; but this may be due to a mistake. The inscription on these coins seems not to be Suya-, Saya-, or Ayu-mitrasa, each of which readings has been suggested, but almost certainly Ayyamitrasa (i.e. Aryamitrasya). The description of this coinage given in Indian Coins (pl. iv, 3), should probably be corrected accordingly; but it must be borne in mind that the letters a and su at this period are very easily confused. Much the same remarks apply to the name of one of the Hindu Princes of Mathura, as represented on his coins; it is not possible from the available specimens to be quite certain whether it is Aryamitra or Suryamitra.

These coins of Uddehika — like some of the coins of Eran, which they resemble in other respects also — are examples of an interesting stage in the art of coin-making in India. Their types, struck from single dies, are simply made up of a collection of those symbols which, at an earlier period, were impressed one at a time by different punches.2 [Indian Coins, § 46.[/i]] As to the meaning of these symbols we can, at present, say practically nothing. Some may have had a personal, others a local, and others a religious significance; but we require to know a great deal more than we do know about the history, the geography, and the religious condition of ancient India, before we can make any profitable enquiry into this subject. That the symbols placed on coins had a very real meaning we cannot doubt when we see, for instance, that on the coins of the Pancala (Sunga) king Bhanumitra — not on those of other members of this dynasty — one particular symbol is deliberately and regularly1 [In three out of the four coins of the largest size in the British Museum. This counter-mark seems to occur less frequently on the coins of medium size, and not at all on the small coins.] defaced by the counter-mark of another. This must surely be the record of some event, at the nature of which we can only vaguely guess.

The counter-mark which occurs on the reverse of coin No. 2 is the curious symbol



which occurs so frequently on coins of all kinds — punch-marked, cast, and struck — and which no one seems to have explained.2 [It appears among other ornaments in a necklace (Fergusson, Tree and Serpent Worship, 2nd ed., 1873, pl. iii, 4), and a similar ornament, described by Mr. Vincent Smith as 'a gold-leaf cross,' was found among the relics from the Piprahwa Stupa (J.R.A.S., 1898, p. 586, pl. 10).] Sometimes it stands within a railing, and, in this form, it appears counter-marked on many of the coins of Bahasatimita, (Cunn., Coins of Anc, Ind., Kosambi, pl, v, 13), whose Pabhosa inscriptions3 [Fuhrer, Epigraphia Indica, ii, p. 240.] show him to have belonged to the second or first century B.C.

The existence of the Uddehikas as a people is attested for the following periods: — (1) 3rd century B.C. (probably), by the evidence of those coins; and (2) 6th century A.D., by Varahamihira. The passage in which they are mentioned by Alberuni (11th century A.D.) is quoted from the Brhat- samhita,4 [Alberuni's India (trans. Sachau), vol. i, p. 300.] and cannot be taken as evidence of their existence in his time. His remark (trans., vol. i, p. 298) to the effect that "most of the names of countries under which they appear in this context are not those by which they are now generally known" applies, no doubt, to this as to the other passages from Hindu authors quoted by him.

With regard to the locality of Uddehika, very little can be added to what Mr. Fleet, in his excellent Topographical List of the Brhat-samhita,1 [Indian Antiquary, 1893, p. 192. ] has already gathered from Varahamihira and Alberuni. The gloss 'near Bazana,' which is added after 'Uddehika' in Alberuni's quotation, might, perhaps, have afforded some useful information if the reading were certain; but this seems not to be the case. Probably the general similarity between the coins of Uddehika and Eran may be held to be good evidence that these two places were not far apart.

UPAGODA.

3. Obv.



(Upagodasa). Above, circle with dot in centre; beneath, 'Taurine' symbol represented horizontally.

Rev. Blank.

B.M.; Lady Clive Bayley, 89: 8-8: 68. AE1-; Pl. 3.

This coin or seal is described, but not illustrated, by Thomas in his edition of Prinsep's Essays on Indian Antiquities, vol. i, p. 216. It is quoted by him as an example of the early cast coinage in which one side was left blank. It seems quite probable that this variety of the cast coinage may be earlier than that which has both an obverse and a reverse, just as the 'single-die' coins of Taxila seem to be of an earlier date than the 'double-die' coins.2 [Cunn., Coins of Anc. Ind., p. 61: Rapson, Indian Coins, § 56.] In any case, the art of casting coins must be very ancient in India. There is no question here of borrowing from a Greek source; and the forms of the Brahmi characters on this coin and on the cast coins of Kada1 [Cunn., id., pl. ii, 21, 22.] seems to be as old as any others found in India. Buhler's opinion2 [Indische Palaeographie, p. 8.] was that coins and seals of this kind date from at least 350 or 400 B.C., that is to say, from some time before the Maurya Dynasty.

It must remain doubtful for the present whether Upagoda is the name of a person — like Upagupta, Upendra -- or the name of a place — like Upavanga, Upajyotisa, The former is, perhaps, the more probable. This coin or seal is not unlike the Patna seals3 [Cunn., Arch. Surv. Reports, xv, pl. iii; v. also Buhler (l.c.).] with the inscription Nadaya and Agapalasa. These are undoubtedly names of persons.

SEAL OF NANDIVARDHA OR NANDIVRDDHA.

4.



(Namdivadhasa), Lion walking r. towards staff standing within railing and surmounted by a fish and a banner (?); above, svastika and 'Taurine' symbol; to l. of staff, symbol



to r. of staff,



(probably the Kharosthi compound letter spa); in exergue, a fish.

Mr. Robert Hammersley. AE -9; Pl. 4.

The seal, from which the impression here described and illustrated was taken, is that of a silver signet-ring. Nothing is known of its provenance; but there seems to be no reason to doubt that it is really what the style of its inscription in Brahmi characters and its other features would indicate — an Indian signet-ring of about 200 B.C.

Fortunately the evidence of numismatics, which is, generally, of all the available kinds of evidence, the best by which to determine the date of other antiquities, is very much to the point in this particular instance.

This seal has several characteristics in common with the square bronze coins of Pantaleon and Agathocles,1 [Gardner: B.M. Cat., Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and India, pl. iii, 9; pl. iv, 9.] two of the earliest Greek kings of India, whose date must be very near the beginning of the second century B.C., and with those coins of Taxila of similar shape and metal which seem to bear traces of Greek influence.2 [Cunningham, Coins of Anc. Ind., pl. iii, 1-4; cf Rapson, Indian Coins, §§ 21, 56.]

In the first place, the lion of the seal is not unlike the same animal as represented on the coins. Secondly, the Brahmi inscriptions on the seal and on the coins of Pantaleon and Agathocles are very similar in character; and thirdly, the symbols above the lion on the seal — the svastika and the 'Taurine' symbol — are of common occurrence on the coins of Taxila (v. Cunningham, Coins of Anc. Ind., pl. ii, 8; iii, 2, 13, etc.). If we are right in supposing that the character to the right of the staff on the seal is the Kharosthi compound letter spa, this would be an additional point of resemblance, for Kharosthi as well as Brahmi inscriptions are found both on the coins of Agathocles and on those of Taxila.3 [Gardner, op. cit., pl. iv, 10; Cunn., op. cit., pl. iii, 9, 18.] The fish, which occurs twice on the seal, is found frequently enough as a symbol on coins of Ancient India — e.g., on the coins of Uddehika described above (p. 98) — but no other instance of the ' taff surmounted by a fish and a banner (?)' has yet been noticed. Dr. Burgess has made the suggestion, which is well worth bearing in mind in view of future discoveries, that the Matsyas might reasonably be expected to have adopted the fish (matsya) as their emblem. In southern India the fish was, of course, the emblem of the Pandyas.

The inscription Namdivadhasa is, no doubt, a Prakrit equivalent of the Sanskrit Nandivardhasya or — as Professor Kielhorn has suggested as an alternative — Nandivrddhasya. The only remarkable feature in this Prakrit form is the termination -sa (instead of -sa as would be expected) = Skt. -sya. The parallel instances given in the subjoined note,1 ["taia, Khalsi, xii, 31; Agapalas'a, Patna seal, Cunningham, A.S.R., xv, pl. iii, 2; Buhler, Ind. Pal., pp. 8, 9; Haviskala, on a coin, Cunningham, Coins of the Kusans, Num. Chron. 1892, pl. viii, 15 (Cunn. reads differently); Sakaia, in the second Nasik Inscription of Private Individuals, A.S.W.I., iv, p. 114." Prof. Franke also refers me to an instance -- Gamini Tisasa -- occuring in an ancient inscription of Ceylon, published by Dr. Hoernle in Ind. Ant., vol. i, pl. vii. On this form Dr. Hoernle observes (p. 170): "the sa of the genitive of this word is most remarkable...; it is not given by Prinsep, and has not, I think, been found in India, but I have since found it in many places in Ceylon, and there can be no doubt about the meaning of the sign."] I owe entirely to the courtesy of Professor O. Franke, to whom I desire to express my grateful acknowledgments. Other curious interchanges of letters on coin-inscriptions will be noted below — ca for cha on a coin of the Kunindas (p, 125, note 2), and na for na on the coin of Vatsadaman (p. 124).

No adequate explanation of the Kharosthi spa2 [It may be noted incidentally that spa -- not spa -- seems to be the regular equivalent to the Greek [x] on the coins which bear the names of Spalagadama, Spalabora, Spalarises, Spalyris (the Saka or Saka-Parthian class), v. Buhler, Indische Palaeographie, Taf. 1. Moreover, on the Audumbara coin published by Cunningham, Coins of Anc. Ind., pl. iv, 1 = Rapson, Indian Coins, pl. iii, 8, the reading Visvamitra should be corrected to Vispamitra. The second aksara is certainly not sva, but spa, and the dialectical form Vispamitra is not without interest.] — if such it be — can be given. Isolated aksaras like this are of frequent occurrence on Indian coins. They must, no doubt, have had a meaning at one time, but that meaning has almost certainly, in the majority of cases, been irrecoverably lost.

We may conclude, with some confidence, that this seal came originally from some place in India not far from Taxila — the modern Shahdheri or Dheri Shahan, in the Rawal Pindi district3 [Cunningham, Geog. of Anc. Ind., p. 104.]; and that its date is not long after 200 B.C.

SEAL OF MAMMA.

5.



(Sri-Mamma).

Mr. J. P. Rawlins, Steatite; Pl. 5.

This seal is published here chiefly with the object of calling attention to a branch of Indian antiquities which no one seems to have yet systematically collected — ancient and mediaeval inscribed gems and seals. If one may judge from the numbers of these which have been brought from time to time to the British Museum by visitors, they would appear to be fairly common in certain parts of India. To collect them would be an interesting, and probably not an expensive, amusement; and the study of them would certainly add to our knowledge of Indian nomenclature and of Indian epigraphy, and might often be useful in adding to the testimony of coins and inscriptions. It is to be hoped that some one in India will turn his attention to this branch of antiquities.

Mamma is a well-known Indian name. It occurs, for example, as a surname of Harivarman in his Kudarkot inscription;1 [Kielhorn, Epigraphia Indica, i, pp. 180, 181: "Harivarmmanama Sri-Mamma ity aparanamakrtapratitih."] and, in the Rajatarangini, it is the name of one of the regents under Ajitapida.2 [Stein, Num. Chron., 1899, p. 158.] In its feminine form it is found in one of the Nasik inscriptions.3 [Burgess: Arch. Surv. West. Ind., Buddhist Cave Temples, pl. lv, p. 116; note 3, "Mamma is probably a corruption of Mahima, just as Mammata is of Mahimabhatta."]

ARJUNAYANA (Indian Coins, § 42).

6. Obv. Camel (? or humped bull) to r., facing tree within railing.

Rev.



(Arjunayanana-jaya). Humped bull to r., facing sacrificial post within railing.

B.M., Cunningham. AE -75; Pl. 6.

The coins of the Arjunayanas hitherto published4 [Cunn., Coins of Anc, Ind,, p. 90, pl. viii, 20. Prinsep's Essays (ed. Thomas), vol. ii, pl. xliv, 224; p. 224 (wrongly read).] bear types which connect them with the series of the Hindu Princes of Mathura. The importance of the present specimen lies in the fact that, both by its types and by its inscription, it shows a striking resemblance to certain coins of the Yaudheyas, This resemblance is very clearly seen when this specimen h compared with the Yaudheya coin illustrated in pl. vi, 3, of Cunningham's Coins of Anc. Ind,1 [The full inscription on these coins has not been read. I conjecture that, on certain specimens, the word of which traces can be seen beneath the type may have been Bahudhanake; but there seem to be several varieties.] The reverse type is the same in both cases, and it is struck in the same manner — slightly incuse; and the form of the inscription, Arjunayanana (i.e. -nanam) jaya[h] is similar to that of other Yaudheya coins — Yaudheyaganasya jaya[h] (op, cit., pl. vi, 6-8).

This connection between the Arjunayanas and the Yaudheyas thus indicated by the coins has long ago been inferred from other records. They are mentioned together in the Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta (c. A.D. 380),2 [Fleet, Corpus Inscr. Ind., iii, p. 1.] and five passages in the Brhat-samhita (Varahamihira, obiit 587 A.D.).3 [Ed. Kern, iv, 25; xi, 59; xiv, 25-28; xvi, 22; xvii, 19. It may be said that the Arjunayanas are never mentioned apart from the Yaudheyas in the Brhat-samhita (v. Fleet, Topographical List, Ind. Ant., 1893, pp. 173, 194.)] The Malavas also are mentioned together with these two in the same inscription, and they are placed with them in the 'northern division' by Varahamihira, It is worthy of notice that the Malava coins have an inscription of the same character = Skt. Malavanam jaya[h].4 [Indian Coins, § 51.] These Malava coins, which have been found literally in thousands,5 [Smith, J.R.A.S., 1897, p. 884.] are still, unfortunately, not represented by a single specimen in the collection of the British Museum.

Mr. Vincent Smith, in his admirable account of the princes and peoples mentioned in the Allahabad inscription, places the Arjunayanas in "the region between the Malava and Yaudheya territories, or, roughly speaking, the Bharatpur Alwar States, west of Agra and Mathura, the principal seat of the Northern Satraps."6 [J.R.A.S., 1897, p. 886.]

ANCIENT CAST COIN OF ERAN (Indian Coins, § 46).

7. Obv. Horse to l. ; above, the 'Ujjain ' symbol.

Rev. In r. and l. field, a tree within railing; between, written vertically in Brahmi characters,



(Eraka[ . ]).

Mr. L. White King. AE -8; Pl. 7.

This coin, in fabric, most resembles the cast coins represented in Cunningham's Coins of Anc. Ind., pl. i, 26-30. Like them, and like the cast coins of India generally — e.g. Kada (id., pl. ii, 21), Kosambi (id., pl. v, 7-10), and Upagoda (v. sup., p. 102, pl. 3) — it shows the marks where it has been separated by cutting from the row of coins cast in the mould at the same time.

Specimens bearing a similar inscription are published in Cunningham's Arch. Surv. Reports, vol. x, p. 77, pl. xxiv, 16, 17; and one is described in his Coins of Anc. Ind., p. 102, but no illustration of it is given in the accompanying plate. General Cunningham read the last aksara as -nya, or -na. The reading cannot be verified from his autotype plate in the Arch. Surv. Reports; and the traces remaining on the specimen now published do not justify us in restoring either of these suggested readings here.

This coin is interesting as being, apparently, the only specimen of round form belonging to Eran yet discovered. The 'Ujjain' symbol, which occurs on the obverse, above the horse, is characteristic of many of the coins of Eran (v. Cunn., op. cit., p. 100, pl. xi, 1, 6, 8, 9). It would, perhaps, be more correct to call this the 'Malava' symbol, as, according to Cunningham (l.c.), it appears "on nearly all the coins of ancient Malwa, wherever found — at Eran, Besnagar, and Ujain."

HINDU PRINCES OF MATHURA (Indian Coins, § 52).

UTTAMADATTA.

8. Obv. Elephant to r.; above, a circle (?).

Rev.



(Rajno Utamadatasa).

Standing figure facing, with r. hand raised; in l. field, a tree.

Mr. L. White King, AE -75; Pl. 8.

At present there are five known coins — two in Mr. White King's collection and three in the British Museum — of this newly-discovered member of the dynasty of Hindu Princes of Mathura, as they may conveniently be called for the present, as distinguished from the Saka Satraps of Mathura (Northern Ksatrapas). The relation of these two lines to one another is at present somewhat uncertain (Indian Coins, § 52). Until more information can be obtained about them, I can do little more than classify them generally according to the locality in which their coins are found, and the character of the names which they bear.

One of the coins of Uttamadatta in the British Museum — Lady Clive Bayley, 89:8-8: 21 — is counter-marked on obverse with the curious symbol which appears on the obverse of the coin, No. 12, described below, and attributed doubtfully to either the Udumbaras or to Mathura. It may be that the striker of this coin, who bears the title Mahadeva, reissued some of the coins of Uttamadatta, counter-marked with his own symbol. This counter-mark may quite possibly prove to be of some chronological importance; and it will be interesting to note whether it occurs or not on any other coins of the Hindu Princes of Mathunl which may be discovered in the future.

Some of these Mathura coins are cast, some are struck, and in some cases it is not easy to determine whether a coin has been cast or struck. This uncertainty results from what seems to have been a peculiarly Indian method of stamping the metal when it was almost in a molten state (Indian Coins, § 56). The coin of Uttamadatta here described seems undoubtedly to have been cast; while those of Sesadatta, Nos. 9-11, seem as certainly to have been struck.

With the name Uttamadatta — or Utamadata as it appears on the coins — we may compare such forms as Utaradata and Utaramita found in the Sanchi Stupa inscriptions (Buhler, Epigraphia Indica, vol. ii, p. 386; Nos. 279, 280).

SESADATTA.

9. Obv. Probably a debased representation of the type: ''Three elephants, one to front and the others facing to r. and 1., each with a man mounted on his neck."1 [Cunningham, Coins of Anc. Ind., p. 89.]



Rev. [ ]2 [It is uncertain whether or not the word Rajno occupied this position on this coin.] ('Sesadatasa). Standing figure facing, with r. hand raised; in l. field, a tree.

Mr. L. White King. AE -75; Pl. 9.

10. Similar, but rev. inscription,



(Rajno Sesadatasa).

Mr. L. White King. AE-75; Pl. 10.

11. Obv. A wheel within a caitya.

Rev. Across centre



([Se]sadatasa); beneath, upper part of standing figure.

Mr. L. White King. AE -75; Pl. 11.

These are the only three known specimens of Sesadatta, another recently discovered ruler of this dynasty. Mr. Vincent Smith at first proposed to read the name as Gosadatta; but there can be little doubt that the first aksara is se and not go. Moreover, there is no such word as gosa, and it is scarcely likely to be a mistake for ghosa.1 [See, however, what is apparently an instance of the substitution of non-aspirate for aspirate -- catra for chatra -- referred to inf., p. 125, note 2.] The name Sesadatta is, of course, derived from Sesa, the serpent-lord, cf. Nagadatta, etc.

It is interesting to notice on these coins the fluctuation between the two Prakrit forms, -datasa (i.e. dattasa) and -datasa. The latter is sufficiently common, though not so frequently found on these coins as the former; cf. Usavadatena = Rsabhadattena (Arch. Surv. West. Ind.: Buddhist Cave Temples, pl. lii, No. 5, line 1).

Everything seems to indicate that great discoveries, both in numismatics and in epigraphy, await the future explorer of Mathura. Although the coins, whether of the Saka Satraps or of the Hindu Princes, can scarcely be said to have been collected except in a casual and accidental manner — the same remark, indeed, would apply to all the coinages of Ancient India except those of the Graeco-Indian Princes, the Kusanas, the Western Ksatrapas, and the Imperial Guptas — yet the number of names already known is considerable; while the inscribed Lion-Capital, discovered and published by Pandit Bhagvanlal Indraji (ed. Buhler, J.R.A.S., 1894, p. 525), and the Jaina inscriptions discovered by Dr. Fuhrer in the Kankali Tila (published by Buhler in Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, pp. 371, 393) are an earnest of the epigraphic treasures which may be expected.

Besides Uttamadatta and Sesadatta, the following names — all represented by coins in the British Museum — have to be added to the list of Princes of Mathura given by Cunningham (Coins of Anc. Ind., p. 85 ff., pl. viii) — Kamadatta (first discovered by Mr. Vincent Smith, in the collection of Mr. L. White King), Sivadatta, Suryamitra (or Aryamitra),2 [v. sup., p. 100.] and Visnumitra. I hope to give a more detailed description of these, together with illustrations, in a subsequent instalment of Notes on Indian Coins and Seals in this Journal.  

? Udumbara or Mathura (Indian Coins, §§ 43, 52).

Name or title, Mahadeva.

12. Obv. Symbol,



Rev.



(Bhagava[ta] Maha-devasa). Standing figure, holding in r. hand a trident and battle-axe combined.

Mr. L. White King. AE -7; Pl. 12.

At the first glance, one is inclined to attribute this coinage — of which Mr. L. White King possesses two specimens — to one of the Hindu Princes of Mathura; but, on a closer examination, it will be seen that, beyond a general resemblance in fabric and epigraphy, which denotes that it is not far removed either locally or chronologically, it has little in common with that series.

The symbol, which occurs as the obverse type, is quite peculiar. It may possibly be some form of the lingam or some other religious symbol. It seems not to be found, as a type, on any other Indian coins hitherto published; but, as has been noticed above (p. 109), it is counter-marked on a coin of Uttamadatta, one of the Princes of Mathura, in the British Museum. Until further specimens are discovered, it cannot be determined whether this symbol is characteristic of a class of coins or merely of the coins of some particular ruler. In any case, the counter-mark probably denotes some connection, the nature of which we can only conjecture, between the dynasty to which these coins belong and the Hindu Princes of Mathura.

The standing figure on the reverse is quite different from that which appears in the same position on the Mathura coins. On the latter, the figure is most probably that of a woman (perhaps the goddess Laksmi) and it has the right hand raised. On these coins, the figure is undoubtedly that of a man holding the trident battle-axe in his right hand. This is the usual weapon of the god Siva (Mahadeva), who is probably represented here in allusion to the name or title of the prince.

The same inscription, Bhagavata-Mahadevasa — with the addition of Rajaraja[? sa] (Brahmi) and Rajarana (Kharosthi) — occurs on a coin attributed by Cunningham to the Audumbaras (Coins of Anc. Ind., p, 68, pl. iv, 5), on which the trident battle-axe also appears.

These facts, then, make it most probable that these coins should be attributed to the Audumbaras; and, if so, we may infer from considerations of the fabric of the coins and from the occurrence of the counter-mark discussed above that some sort of connection existed between the Audumbaras and the Hindu Princes of Mathura. Cunningham has already shown (Coins of Anc. Ind., p. 67) that some of the Audumbara coins are imitated from the hemidrachms of the Graeco-Indian Princes, Apollodotus and Zoilus. We have, therefore, some data — not of much weight, certainly — to enable us to make a tentative chronological arrangement of these series.

The title Bhagavata denotes a worshipper of Visnu or Krsna. Mahadeva is probably, in this case, not a name but a title. It is almost certainly a title on the two Audumbara published by Cunningham (Coins of Anc, Ind., p. 68, pl. iv, 1 and 5), although he regards it as a proper name in the case of the second of these. For the occurrence of Mahadeva as a proper name, see the references to vol. iii of the Epigraphia Indica.

DYNASTY UNCERTAIN.

? BHUMIDATTA OR BHIMADATTA.

13. Obv. Elephant to l.

Rev. Inscription in Brahmi characters across the middle doubtful, perhaps intended either for



or



(Bhumidatma or Bhimadatasa). Type obscure.

Mr. L. White King. AE -75; Pl. 13.

There is very little at present to be said about this coin, which is published and illustrated here chiefly in the hope that it may lead to the recognition of other similar specimens.

The obverse type of the elephant occurs so frequently on Indian coins that it affords a very slight clue to the identification of this particular one. Practically all that can be said of this coin is that, in fabric, it is not unlike issue of the coins of the Hindu Princes of Mathura, and that the Brahmi characters of its inscription seem to belong to the same period. The formation of the name, ending in -datta, is also similar. It is quite possible that, when better specimens are found which will enable us to identify the reverse type — if any— and to read the inscription correctly, this coin may have to be placed in that series.

The first portion of the name is quite uncertain. The third consonant seems to be bh, and the second m (or possibly v); but the vowels which accompany these consonants are altogether doubtful. The readings Bhumi- or Bhima-, suggested above, are merely conjectural. There are traces on this specimen of something above this name— possibly of another line of inscription in Brahml characters, the word Rajno or something of the kind — but it is impossible to do more than guess what these traces may represent until better specimens are available.

? MATHURA.

(?) SISUCANDRATA [SISUCHANDRADATTA]

14. Obv. Elephant standing to r. with trunk upraised; above, 'Taurine' symbol represented horizontally.

Rev. In incuse



(Rajasa



sucamdatasa).

B.M.; Lady Clive Bayley. AE -55; Pl. 14.

No coin of this kind seems to have been hitherto published; and almost all that can be said as to its attribution is that, in its general character — fabric, shape, size, and epigraphy — it seems to be not far removed from the coins of Virasena, one specimen of which is described below. Cunningham, probably from considerations of provenance, assigned the coins of Virasena generally to the district of Mathura (Coins of Anc. Ind,, p. 89, pl. viii, 18), and, on the assumption that this attribution is approximately correct, we may, provisionally, place the coins of (?) Sisucandrata [Sisuchandradatta] in the same class.

The reading of the inscription suggested above is by no means certain. The second aksara is quite probably to be read as jno —



— as we should have expected; but it is not easy to see how the remaining traces fit in with this restoration. The vowel of the third aksara is, again, quite uncertain. There is no room on the coin for a vowel-sign above the line, if such was ever intended; and the restoration si is proposed rather than sa, merely because sisu would seem to be a more probable form than sasu as the first part of a name. The remainder of the name, Camdata (i,e. Candratta), is, of course, equivalent to the fuller Sanskrit form Candradatta.

VIRASENA.

15. Obv. Debased representation of the type: "Standing figure, with r. hand upraised."

Rev.



beneath, symbols.

B.M.; Lady Clive Bayley. AE -45; Pl. 15.

This type, which appears to be of no great rarity,1 [Smith, J.R.A.S., 1897, p. 876.] has already published, both by Cunningham (Coins of Anc. Ind., p. 89, pl. viii, 18) and by Rodgers (Cat of Coins in the Indian Museum, part 3, pp. 32, 33), but illustrated in the former case only from a drawing, and, in the latter case, without illustration. Cunningham tacitly places the coins among those of Mathura, while Rodgers gives a quotation — very probably from some letter or statement of General Cunningham's — to the effect that they are found at Mathura." There seems to be no reason to doubt that they belong to this district generally. Future discoveries may, perhaps, enable us to assign them to some particular dynasty ruling in this neighbourhood; but, for the present, their attribution must remain somewhat vague.

As has been noticed above (p. 115), the coins of (?) Sisucandrata may perhaps belong to the same class, and so may other specimens in the British Museum having inscriptions too fragmentary and indistinct to be deciphered. The discovery of other rulers of the same dynasty may confidently be predicted when better specimens of this series of coins are available.

The 'symbols' under the inscription on the reverse are apparently a tree with the trisula1 [For this emblem, see Burgess: Arch. Surv. West. Ind., Elura Cave Temples, p. 12. It occurs very commonly on coins, e.g., Cunn., Coins of Anc, Ind., pl. iv, 14; pt. v, 1, 2, etc.] emblem on either side. In some cases, the svastika seems to take the place of the circle and surrounding dots which form the lower portion of the trisula emblem.  

NAGA DYNASTY OF PADMAVATI (Indian Coins, § 101).

PRABHAKARA.

16. Obv. Lion to l.; border of dots.

Rev.



(Nagaraha-Sru-Prabhakara).

Mr. L. White King. AE -45; Pl. 16.

17. Obv. Humped bull to r.; border of dots.

Rev. Inscription as on No. 16.

Mr. L. White King. AE-5; Pl. 17.

The inscription, Maharaja-Sri-Prabhakara, is not complete on any single specimen belonging to Mr. White King, but it can be read with absolute certainty by comparing the eight specimens in his collection. The fabric of these coins leaves no doubt that they belong to the series attributed to the Naga Dynasty of Padmavati (Narwar), one member of which, Ganapatinaga, is mentioned in the list of princes conquered by Samudragupta (c. 350-380 A.D.)1 [Fleet, Corpus Inscr. Ind., p. 1.] The name Prabhakara is, of course, well known in Indian history, but it has not been hitherto found in connection with this dynasty. It appears in the nominative, and this would seem to be the most common form on the coins of this series. The genitive, however, is found on some coins of Ganapati — those reading -Gampatui[h] (sic) — of Skandanaga, and, apparently, all those published of Devanaga (v. Cunningham, Coins of Mediaeval India, pp. 23, 24). The name Naga is omitted on the coins of Prabhakara, as on those of Ganapati; but it is given to Ganapati in the Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta.

Fragments of several names not yet read are to be seen on coins belonging to this series. It is to be hoped that further specimens will be discovered which will enable us to decipher the names of these princes at present unknown. It has been surmised2 [Fleet, op. cit., Index, c.v. Naga, p. 328.] that, besides Ganapatinaga, others of the tributary princes mentioned in Samudragupta's inscription belonged to this family. It is extremely probable, for instance, that the Nagasena, whose name occurs twice in the inscription, is identical with the 'Nagasena, heir to the house of Padmavati,' mentioned in the Harsa-carita.3 [p. 221 (ed. Bomb., 1892); p. 192 (trans., Cowell & Thomas); cf. Rapson, J.R.A.S., 1898, p. .449.] Some interesting identifications may may reasonably be expected from further discoveries in this series.

SILAHARAS OF THE NORTHERN KONKAN.

CHITTARAJA ('Gadhiya-ka paisa' class: Indian Coins, § 122 (2) ).

18. Obv. Degraded representation of type: "King's head to r."

Rev.





within border of dots.

Mr. W. Theobald. AE -6 ; Wt. 53 grs.; Pl. 18.

The series which, since Prinsep's time,1 [Essays (ed. Thomas), vol. i, p. 341.] has been conveniently, if not very scientifically, known by its native designation, Gadhiya-ka paisa, 'Donkey-money,'2 [Cunningham (Coins of Med. Ind., p. 47) spells the word "Gadiya, derived ... from the fire-altar or throne (gadi) on the reverse."] cannot yet be arranged with any great accuracy, whether local or chronological. Cunningham classes these coins generally with "the Indian coins of Mediaeval Age, from A.D. 600 to 1200," and states that they are "found most plentifully in S.W. Rajputana, in Baroda and the neighbouring districts of Mewar, Malwa, and Gujarat"; and, in my Indian Coins, I have contented myself with stating these general facts, and leaving the coins, together with the two other classes dealt with by Cunningham in the passage above referred to, under the heading 'unattributed.'

A consideration of the fabric of the two unattributed classes of silver coins3 [With the other class of unattributed coins -- the copper series, of which specimens are shown in Cunningham's Coins of Med. Ind., pl. vi, 1-6 — I shall hope to deal in a subsequent article.] — (1) the thin pieces of silver, and (2) the thick pieces of silver — and of the epigraphy of the rare inscribed specimens of the latter class, will, I think, reveal some tangible chronological facts.

In the first place, the Sassanian derivation of both classes can scarcely now be doubted.

General Cunningham doubted this in the case of the thick pieces, which he regards as "the direct descendants of the hemidrachms of the Saka Satraps of Surashtra and Malwa, with the gadi, or 'throne,' in place of the original chaitya."1 [Op. cit., p. 48. In the sentence following this, he says, "Even the sun and moon symbols of the Sassanian coins are retained with the fire-altar or throne." Sassanian is, no doubt, a misprint for Surashtran. The 'sun and moon symbols' occur, of course, on both the Sassanian and the Surashtran coinages.[/i[] But we know that the coins derived from this source — e.g., the Gupta silver coinage and the silver coinage of Valabhi (Indian Coins, §§ 91, 98) — were very different both in form and weight. Moreover, the reverse type of these thick pieces — the gadi or whatever it may have been intended to represent in later times — was surely derived originally from the fire-altar of the Sassanian coins;2 [[i]General Cunningham seems to admit this (op. cit., p. 47) in the passage quoted above.] and no satisfactory reason can be given why their obverse type — king's head to r. — should not in like manner be copied from the same model. As will be seen, a comparison with the types as represented on the coins of the other class — the thin pieces of silver of undoubtedly Sassanian origin— makes this point almost absolutely certain.

Further, the two classes are not disconnected, but class (2) —the thick pieces of silver — is derived from class (1) — the thin pieces of silver.

It would have been unnecessary to labour this point, the truth of which was long ago recognized — for instance, by Dr. Codrington in his arrangement of the Cabinet of the Bengal Asiatic Society3 [Bhagvanlal Indraji, Journ. of the Bombay Br. R.A.S., xii, p. 325: "Gadhia Coins opf Gujarat and Malwa."] — were it not for the fact that General Cunningham seems not to have regarded it as certain. This being the case, it may, perhaps, not be amiss to briefly state the facts of the case.

Sassanian coins were brought into India in great numbers by the Huna invasions in the latter half of the fifth century A.D., and Dr. Hoernle4 [v. reff. in Indian Coins, § 105. Col. Biddulph informs me that the find described by Dr. Hoernle took place not in Marwar, but in M<hairwarra (Merwara), "the small mountainous district in the Aravalli range, forming the south-west portion of the Ajmere-Mhairwarra Commissionership." He says in a letter to me, "The coins, of which I have eight, were found in 1889, five months before I became Commissioner of Ajmere-Merwara."] has shown that some of these thin pieces of silver are direct imitations of the Sassanian coins current during that period. Now, the Sasssanian type of coin — large, thin, flat — was essentially un-Indian; and these imitations made in India gradually lose their Sassanian characteristics. They become by degrees smaller, thicker, and less flat. The process may be seen by comparing the coins illustrated by General Cunningham (Coins of Med. Ind., pl. vi), e.g., No. 13, with Nos. 14, 15, 16, and 19; and it is seen still more clearly when the comparison extends to a great number of specimens. There can be no doubt that the relative date of specimens of these classes may be determined by their fabric, and that there is no hard and fast line of demarcation between the two classes. The transition from class (1) — the thin pieces of silver — to class (2) — the thick pieces of silver — is so gradual, that it is impossible to determine accurately where one class ends and the other begins.

Similar results follow from a consideration of the process of degeneration in the types. When a series is arranged, the gradual transformation from the Sassanian types as represented in the earliest Indian imitations (e.g.. No. 13 of the plate already referred to) to those of the 'Gadhiya-ka paisa' class (e.g., Nos. 7 and 10) is evident.

Chronologically between these extremes — the date of the 'Gakhiya-ka paisa' class will be subsequently discussed — comes a series, which, thanks to Dr. Hultzsch's identification of Srimad-Adhivaraha with Bhojadeva of Kanauj1 [Epigraphia Indica, vol. 1, p. 155] (c. 850-900 A.D.), we are able to date with some approach to accuracy. Specimens of this class are shown in the same plate of General Cunningham's Coins of Med. Ind., Nos. 16, 17, 19, 20. The fabric of these coins is also midway between the extremes, but the encroachment on the Sassanian types of an Indian element in the way of inscriptions or designs can be seen until very slight traces of the Sassanian characteristics remain, as, for example, in the coins of Sramad Adaratha, where the obverse type is purely Indian — the god Visnu in his Varaha or 'boar' avatar — and the greater portion of the reverse is occupied by an Indian inscription, the pillar-like objects beneath this inscription being probably the only vestiges left of the Sassanian fire-altar and its attendant priests.

The only means which we possess at present of dating the 'Gadhiya-ka paisa' class with any degree of accuracy is afforded by the inscribed specimens; and it is interesting to note that, in this case, the evidence of epigraphy confirms the presumption of a comparatively late date, to which we were led by general considerations of the history of fabric and type. These inscribed specimens are, unfortunately, of great rarity. Up to the present, only those bearing one name have been published. This name was read Somaladeva by Cunningham (op, cit,, p. 53); but there can be no doubt that the reading of his No. 10 is Sri-Somaladevi ([x]



 — this reading is verified from other specimens — and that of his No. 11 is almost certainly Sri-Somaladevi



It seems, therefore, that we have here the coins of a queen. Who this queen was we cannot yet determine. We can only note that we know of a queen Somalladevi,1 [Kharod inscription of her son Ratnadeva III. Cedi-samvat, 933 = A.D. 1181; v. Kielhorn, List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, p. 60, No. 423.] wife of Jajalladeva II, one of the Kalacuris1 of Mahakosala (Haihayaa of Ratnapura), whose Malhar inscription2 [Kielhorn, Epigraphia Indica, i, p. 40.] is dated [Cedi-]samvat, 919 = a.d, 1167-68. The arrangement of the inscription on these coins of Somaladevi, and the style of the Nagari characters are certainly those of the known coins of the Kalacuris of Mahakosala, which belong to a period extending from c. A.D. 1060 to c. A.D. 1140 (Cunn., Coins of Med. Ind., p. 76; cf. pl. vi, 10, with pl. viii, 6-11); but it would be rash to make this suggested identification of like Somaladevi of the coins on this evidence alone. It is important, in this connection, to ascertain whether or not coins of the 'Gadhiya-ka paisa' type are ever found in Chatisgarh and Raypur districts of the Central Provinces — the site of the ancient kingdom of Mahakosala.

The coin of Chittaraja, now published for the first time, is the only other variety of the 'Gadhiya-ka paisa' class bearing an inscription which has been read without doubt.

Considerations of epigraphy alone would again lead us to much the same conclusion as to the date of this class; for the Nagari letters of Chittaraja's coin are precisely those of the Mandhata plates of Jayasimha of Dhara, dated [Vikrama-]samvat, 1112 = A.D. 1055-56,1 [Kielhorn, id., iii, p. 46. Mandhata is "an island in the Narmada river, attached to the Nimar district of the Central Provinces."] and, if the coin be approximately of this date, we can have no hesitation in identifying this Chittaraja with the Silahara of the Northern Konkan, who is well known from inscriptions,2 [Bhandup Grant (ed. Buhler), Ind. Ant., 1876, p. 276; Silahara Copper-plate Grant (ed Telang), id., 1880, p. 39; Ambarnath Inscription (ed. Bhagvanlal), Journ. Bomb. Br. R.A.S., xii, p. 332; cf. Mrs. Richmers, Chronology of India, pp. 114, 303.] especially as this division of the Bombay Presidency certainly lies within the area over which coins of the 'Gadhiya-ka paisa' class are found. Chittaraja's Bandup grant is dated Saka-samvat, 948 = A.D. 1026, and the next known date of this dynasty is Saka-samvat, 982 = A.D. 1059-60, in the reign of his brother and next successor but one, Mummuni or Mamvani.3 [Fleet, Kanarese Dynasties (Bombay Gazetteer, vol. i, pt. 2, p. 543.] All that we can say at present about the period of Chittaraja's reign, therefore, is that it began at least as early as A.D. 1026, and ended some time -- probably some years -- before a.D. 1059-60.

If we consider the very extensive area throughout which coins of the 'Gadhiya-ka paisa' class are found, we cannot help coming to the conclusion that coinages of this form were struck by a number of different dynasties, and we may confidently hope that future discoveries will enable us to identify some of these. In the meantime it is satisfactory to have been able to determine, with little room for doubt, the attribution, both local and chronological, of one of these coinages.

DYNASTY UNCERTAIN.

VATSADAMAN.

19. Obv.



Cow to l. suckling calf; border of dots.

Rev. Visnu striding to r., tramples on a demon with each foot; in his r. hand he holds a discus; in front of and behind him, other demons; border of dots.

Mr. Darrah. N -8;1 [The note taken of the weight of this coin has, unfortunately, been lost.] Pl. 19.

This is a most interesting coin in every respect, and is at present quite unique of its kind. Gold coins of the period to which it must belong — most probably from the seventh to the ninth century A.D. — are of extreme rarity. Indeed, it is doubtful whether another example is known; for the gold coin which General Sir A. Cunningham supposed to be the solitary specimen with 'mediaeval' letters,2 [Coins of Med. Ind., p. 47, pl. vi, 18.] and the coin of Saravarman described below (p. 124) are more probably of the ninth or tenth century.

The style of the Nagari letters and the reverse type — a representation of Visnu — alike connect this coin with those of Srimad-Adivaraha (Bhojadeva of Kanauj, c. 850-900 A,D,)3 [Indian Coins, § 110, pl. v, 5.]; but it would be rash to conclude that the two classes of coins belong to the same dynasty. All that can be said with any confidence is that they were probably not widely divided by time or distance.

The inscription is, unfortunately, not fully legible, but the first part of the name Sri-Vatsadama is quite certain. The next letter is n with, apparently, some vowel attached. The next two aksaras are uncertain — all that can be said for the suggested restoration is that it seems not to be inconsistent with the remaining traces — and these are followed by na and ha — the former certain and the latter doubtful. Probably the end of the inscription is lost. In any case, the n following the certain portion Sri-Vatsadama constitutes a difficulty, whether we suppose it to be the termination of the name -- damanah for -damnah — or the initial of the following word — e.g., Narayana for Na°.

The obverse type — a cow suckling a calf — is, of course, a punning allusion to the name Vatsadaman, and the reverse type represents Visnu in his Vamana1 [Is it possible that this name can be restored in the obverse inscription —



— again with na for na?] or 'dwarf' avatar slaying the demons.

A Vatsadaman is known to us from an inscription of some princes of the Surasena family.2 [Bhagvanlal Indraji, Ind. Ant., x, p. 34 ; Cunningham, Arch. Surv. Reports, xx, pl. xii; v. Kielhorn, List of Inscriptions of Northern /India, p. 81, No. 589.] The inscription is of about "the eighth century A.D."; and the Nagari letters of inscription and coin are not very dissimilar. But this is not sufficient evidence to justify us in identifying this Vatsadaman with the striker of the coin.

SARAVARMAN.

20. Ob.





within border of dots.

Rev.




 
within border of dots.

Mr. Spinner. N -9; Wt. 123-5; Pl. 20.

This coin, which is noteworthy in many ways, was sent to the British Museum for examination by Mr. Daniel Howorth, of Ashton-under-Lyne, in February, 1899. There is, apparently, no other Indian gold coin known of the period to which it belongs — probably ninth or tenth century A.D. — of a similar weight. Like the small gold coin published by General Cunningham (Coins of Med. Ind., pl. vi, 18 ; v. sup., p. 123) it is characterized by having inscriptions on both sides without any type whatever.

The style of these inscriptions is precisely that of the Pehoa Prasasti of the reign of Mahendrapala of Kanauj, published by Buhler in Epigraphia Indica, i, p. 242. The known dates of Mahendrapala are A.D. 903 and 907 (id., p. 244), and the date of Saravarman cannot be far removed from these. Buhler describes the characters of the Prasasti as "of the ordinary Nagari type, current in Northern and Western India during the ninth and tenth centuries."

The name Saravarman seems not to be known; but it is, of course, a perfectly possible formation, the former part being, probably, merely the ordinary word sara, meaning 'a reed or arrow'; cf. the names of Kartikeya, Sarabhu, Sarajanman, etc.

The title taken by Saravarman on the reverse of this coin — Dharmatma-Meru — 'the mount Meru of the pious'— is curious, but characteristically Indian. With it we may compare the title Koputa, ' the very pure,' on a coin of the Audumbara king Virayasasa, published by Cunningham (Coins of Anc. Ind., pl. iv, 14),1 [The description of this coin, id., p. 70, requires correction. The inscription is Rajna[h] Koputasya Virayasasya. The name also should be given an Virayasasa. This compound from vira + yasah is, of course, quite regular.] and, perhaps, Mahatman 'the high-souled,' on certain coins of the Kunindas (id., pl. v, 4).2 [The reading of the inscription of this coin, id,, p. 72, should also be corrected. It should be Bhagavata - Catresvara - Mahatmanah, The form catresvara for chatresvara appears to be quite beyond doubt. But it is certainly very remarkable, and a similar loss of aspiration in a Sanskrit form is not easy to find.]

[admin]

Audumbaras
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 9/27/21

Hindu Princes of Mathura (Indian Coins, § 52), Excerpt from Art. VII. -- Notes on Indian Coins and Seals. Part I.
by E.J. Rapson, M.A., M.R.A.S.
The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
1900  

HINDU PRINCES OF MATHURA (Indian Coins, § 52).

UTTAMADATTA.

8. Obv. Elephant to r.; above, a circle (?).

Rev.



(Rajno Utamadatasa).

Standing figure facing, with r. hand raised; in l. field, a tree.

Mr. L. White King, AE -75; Pl. 8.

At present there are five known coins — two in Mr. White King's collection and three in the British Museum — of this newly-discovered member of the dynasty of Hindu Princes of Mathura, as they may conveniently be called for the present, as distinguished from the Saka Satraps of Mathura (Northern Ksatrapas). The relation of these two lines to one another is at present somewhat uncertain (Indian Coins, § 52). Until more information can be obtained about them, I can do little more than classify them generally according to the locality in which their coins are found, and the character of the names which they bear.

One of the coins of Uttamadatta in the British Museum — Lady Clive Bayley, 89:8-8: 21 — is counter-marked on obverse with the curious symbol which appears on the obverse of the coin, No. 12, described below, and attributed doubtfully to either the Udumbaras or to Mathura. It may be that the striker of this coin, who bears the title Mahadeva, reissued some of the coins of Uttamadatta, counter-marked with his own symbol. This counter-mark may quite possibly prove to be of some chronological importance; and it will be interesting to note whether it occurs or not on any other coins of the Hindu Princes of Mathunl which may be discovered in the future.

Some of these Mathura coins are cast, some are struck, and in some cases it is not easy to determine whether a coin has been cast or struck. This uncertainty results from what seems to have been a peculiarly Indian method of stamping the metal when it was almost in a molten state (Indian Coins, § 56). The coin of Uttamadatta here described seems undoubtedly to have been cast; while those of Sesadatta, Nos. 9-11, seem as certainly to have been struck.

With the name Uttamadatta — or Utamadata as it appears on the coins — we may compare such forms as Utaradata and Utaramita found in the Sanchi Stupa inscriptions (Buhler, Epigraphia Indica, vol. ii, p. 386; Nos. 279, 280).

SESADATTA.

9. Obv. Probably a debased representation of the type: ''Three elephants, one to front and the others facing to r. and 1., each with a man mounted on his neck."1 [Cunningham, Coins of Anc. Ind., p. 89.]



Rev. [ ]2 [It is uncertain whether or not the word Rajno occupied this position on this coin.] ('Sesadatasa). Standing figure facing, with r. hand raised; in l. field, a tree.

Mr. L. White King. AE -75; Pl. 9.

10. Similar, but rev. inscription,



(Rajno Sesadatasa).

Mr. L. White King. AE-75; Pl. 10.

11. Obv. A wheel within a caitya.

Rev. Across centre



([Se]sadatasa); beneath, upper part of standing figure.

Mr. L. White King. AE -75; Pl. 11.

These are the only three known specimens of Sesadatta, another recently discovered ruler of this dynasty. Mr. Vincent Smith at first proposed to read the name as Gosadatta; but there can be little doubt that the first aksara is se and not go. Moreover, there is no such word as gosa, and it is scarcely likely to be a mistake for ghosa.1 [See, however, what is apparently an instance of the substitution of non-aspirate for aspirate -- catra for chatra -- referred to inf., p. 125, note 2.] The name Sesadatta is, of course, derived from Sesa, the serpent-lord, cf. Nagadatta, etc.

It is interesting to notice on these coins the fluctuation between the two Prakrit forms, -datasa (i.e. dattasa) and -datasa. The latter is sufficiently common, though not so frequently found on these coins as the former; cf. Usavadatena = Rsabhadattena (Arch. Surv. West. Ind.: Buddhist Cave Temples, pl. lii, No. 5, line 1).

Everything seems to indicate that great discoveries, both in numismatics and in epigraphy, await the future explorer of Mathura. Although the coins, whether of the Saka Satraps or of the Hindu Princes, can scarcely be said to have been collected except in a casual and accidental manner — the same remark, indeed, would apply to all the coinages of Ancient India except those of the Graeco- Indian Princes, the Kusanas, the Western Ksatrapas, and the Imperial Guptas — yet the number of names already known is considerable; while the inscribed Lion-Capital, discovered and published by Pandit Bhagvanlal Indraji (ed. Buhler, J.R.A.S., 1894, p. 525), and the Jaina inscriptions discovered by Dr. Fuhrer in the Kankali Tila (published by Buhler in Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, pp. 371, 393) are an earnest of the epigraphic treasures which may be expected.

Besides Uttamadatta and Sesadatta, the following names — all represented by coins in the British Museum — have to be added to the list of Princes of Mathura given by Cunningham (Coins of Anc. Ind., p. 85 ff., pl. viii) — Kamadatta (first discovered by Mr. Vincent Smith, in the collection of Mr. L. White King), Sivadatta, Suryamitra (or Aryamitra),2 [[illegible], p. 100.] and Visnumitra. I hope to give a more detailed description of these, together with illustrations, in a subsequent instalment of Notes on Indian Coins and Seals in this Journal.  

? Udumbara or Mathura (Indian Coins, §§ 43, 52).

Name or title, Mahadeva.

12. Obv. Symbol,



Rev.



(Bhagava[ta] Maha-devasa). Standing figure, holding in r. hand a trident and battle-axe combined.

Mr. L. White King. AE -7; Pl. 12.

At the first glance, one is inclined to attribute this coinage — of which Mr. L. White King possesses two specimens — to one of the Hindu Princes of Mathura; but, on a closer examination, it will be seen that, beyond a general resemblance in fabric and epigraphy, which denotes that it is not far removed either locally or chronologically, it has little in common with that series.

The symbol, which occurs as the obverse type, is quite peculiar. It may possibly be some form of the lingam or some other religious symbol. It seems not to be found, as a type, on any other Indian coins hitherto published; but, as has been noticed above (p. 109), it is counter-marked on a coin of Uttamadatta, one of the Princes of Mathura, in the British Museum. Until further specimens are discovered, it cannot be determined whether this symbol is characteristic of a class of coins or merely of the coins of some particular ruler. In any case, the counter-mark probably denotes some connection, the nature of which we can only conjecture, between the dynasty to which these coins belong and the Hindu Princes of Mathura.

The standing figure on the reverse is quite different from that which appears in the same position on the Mathura coins. On the latter, the figure is most probably that of a woman (perhaps the goddess Laksmi) and it has the right hand raised. On these coins, the figure is undoubtedly that of a man holding the trident battle-axe in his right hand. This is the usual weapon of the god Siva (Mahadeva), who is probably represented here in allusion to the name or title of the prince.

The same inscription, Bhagavata-Mahadevasa — with the addition of Rajaraja[? sa] (Brahmi) and Rajarana (Kharosthi) — occurs on a coin attributed by Cunningham to the Audumbaras (Coins of Anc. Ind., p, 68, pl. iv, 5), on which the trident battle-axe also appears.

These facts, then, make it most probable that these coins should be attributed to the Audumbaras; and, if so, we may infer from considerations of the fabric of the coins and from the occurrence of the counter-mark discussed above that some sort of connection existed between the Audumbaras and the Hindu Princes of Mathura. Cunningham has already shown (Coins of Anc. Ind., p. 67) that some of the Audumbara coins are imitated from the hemidrachms of the Graeco-Indian Princes, Apollodotus and Zoilus. We have, therefore, some data — not of much weight, certainly — to enable us to make a tentative chronological arrangement of these series.

The title Bhagavata denotes a worshipper of Visnu or Krsna. Mahadeva is probably, in this case, not a name but a title. It is almost certainly a title on the two Audumbara published by Cunningham (Coins of Anc, Ind., p. 68, pl. iv, 1 and 5), although he regards it as a proper name in the case of the second of these. For the occurrence of Mahadeva as a proper name, see the references to vol. iii of the Epigraphia Indica.

DYNASTY UNCERTAIN.

? BHUMIDATTA OR BHIMADATTA.

13. Obv. Elephant to l.

Rev. Inscription in Brahmi characters across the middle doubtful, perhaps intended either for



or



(Bhumidatma or Bhimadatasa). Type obscure.

Mr. L. White King. AE -75; Pl. 13.

There is very little at present to be said about this coin, which is published and illustrated here chiefly in the hope that it may lead to the recognition of other similar specimens.

The obverse type of the elephant occurs so frequently on Indian coins that it affords a very slight clue to the identification of this particular one. Practically all that can be said of this coin is that, in fabric, it is not unlike issue of the coins of the Hindu Princes of Mathura, and that the Brahmi characters of its inscription seem to belong to the same period. The formation of the name, ending in [illegible], is also similar. It is quite possible that, when better specimens are found which will enable us to identify the reverse type — if any— and to read the inscription correctly, this coin may have to be placed in that series.

The first portion of the name is quite uncertain. The third consonant seems to be bh, and the second m (or possibly v); but the vowels which accompany these consonants are altogether doubtful. The readings Bhumi- or Bhima-, suggested above, are merely conjectural. There are traces on this specimen of something above this name— possibly of another line of inscription in Brahml characters, the word Rajno or something of the kind — but it is impossible to do more than guess what these traces may represent until better specimens are available.

? MATHURA.

(?) SISUCANDRATA [SISUCHANDRADATTA]

14. Obv. Elephant standing to r. with trunk upraised; above, 'Taurine' symbol represented horizontally.

Rev. In incuse



(Rajasa



sucamdatasa).

B.M.; Lady Clive Bayley. AE -55; Pl. 14.

No coin of this kind seems to have been hitherto published; and almost all that can be said as to its attribution is that, in its general character — fabric, shape, size, and epigraphy — it seems to be not far removed from the coins of Virasena [Naga], one specimen of which is described below. Cunningham, probably from considerations of provenance, assigned the coins of Virasena [Naga] generally to the district of Mathura (Coins of Anc. Ind,, p. 89, pl. viii, 18), and, on the assumption that this attribution is approximately correct, we may, provisionally, place the coins of (?) Sisucandrata in the same class.

Location of the Audumbaras relative to other groups: the Kunindas, the Vemakas, the Vrishnis, the Yaudheyas, the Pauravas and the Arjunayanas.


Coin of Dharaghosha, king of the Audumbaras, in the Indo-Greek style, circa 100 BCE.[1]
Obv: Standing figure, probably of Vishvamitra, Kharoshthi legend, around: Mahadevasa Dharaghoshasa/Odumbarisa "Great Lord King Dharaghosha/Prince of Audumabara", across: Viçvamitra "Vishvamitra".
Rev: Trident battle-axe, tree with railing, Brahmi legend identical in content to the obverse.[1]


Silver coin of a "King Vrishni" of the Audumbaras.
Obv Pillar with half-lion and half-elephant, surmounted by a Triratna symbol and surrounded by Buddhist railing. Indian legend Vṛishṇi Raja jnâgaṇyasya blubharasya
Rev Large Dharmachakra symbol. Arian legend Vrishni Raja jnâganyasya blubharasya.[2]


Shiva temple with trident standard, Audumbara State, Punjab, 1st century BCE.

The Audumbras, or Audumbaras (Hindi;ओदुम्बर) were a north Indian tribal nation east of the Punjab, in the Western Himalaya region. They were the most important tribe of the Himachal, and lived in the lower hills between Sirmaur, Chamba and Yamuna [Jamuna].

In the neighbourhood of Jamuna, Sutlej and Beas the Kuninda tribe was ruling. To this Lahaul-Spiti must have been a part. Kulu was inhabited by Kulutas. Territory to the east of Kangra was occupied by Audumbaras. Nagas were the rulers between Ganga and Jamuna valleys on the north.

-- Lahaul-Spiti: A Forbidden Land in the Himalayas, by S.C. Bajpai

They issued coinage from the 1st century BCE, when they seemingly gained independence from the Indo-Greeks. The silver coins of the Kunindas, the Vemakas and the Audumbaras closely follow the coins of Apollodotus II in their characteristics (weight, size and material).[1]

Apollodotus II (Greek: [x]) was an Indo-Greek king who ruled in the western and eastern parts of Punjab. Bopearachchi dates him to c. 80–65 BC, and R. C. Senior to c. 85–65 BC. Apollodotos II was an important ruler who seems to have re-established the Indo-Greek kingdom to some extent of its former glory. Taxila in western Punjab was reconquered from nomad Scythian rule.

-- Apollodotus II, by Wikipedia

Their coins are found in the area of Pathānkot, Gurdāspur District.[1]Their favorite deities were Mahādeva or Shiva, and also Kārtikeya, standing with a spear in right hand.

They are also known as Audumbara or Audumbatira. It is a name of the tribe. They are the same people as the Odemboerce of Pliny. Hist Nat VI 23. Professor Lassen mentions them as the name of the people of Kutch of Gujarat state. They appear in the Ganapatha of Panini of 5th Century B.C. K K Das Gupta has attempted to show that they existed even in Brahmana period. They were enterprising people having prosperous trade and commerce.

Their capital was Kotesvara or Kachchhesvara. Mahabharat Chapter 52. A. Cunningham has also mentioned about them in the archaeological survey report V page 155 and also his book Ancient Geography of India at page 254. Kotesvara was a celebrated place of pilgrimage on the western shore of Kachh, close to Indus and to the great ocean. It is on the bank of Kori branch of Indus. There was a temple of Shiva in the middle of city. The meaning of Kotesvara is 10 million Ishvara. It is the name of Shiva. Audumvara like other tribes namely Sibi, Mujavats and Mahavrises were worshipers of Shiva, whereas Aryans worshiped Vishnu in the earliest times. Kotesvara is now only a small village and the temple Kotesvara is still there and worshipped.

Kachh is also called Rann of Kachh. The word Rann is evidently a corruption of Irana, which means a salt land (Amarkosha). It is the Eirinon of the periplus of the Erythraean sea.

There was another place Audumvara in Punjab which is the present city Pathankot. It was also known as Pratishsthana. It is on Jalandhar Jammu road about 80 km before Jammu. It was also known as Dahmeri, Dhamari, Dhammeri etc., which is apparently a corruption of Sanskrit name Audumvara of the country and tribe, whose coins have been found in Kangra (In Himachal Pradesh), Pathankot, Ropar and Hoshairpur (Punjab). From the coins of 200 B.C. – 48 A.D. it appears that for some time Audumvara were under Indo-Greek and after that under Kusanas. The Prakrit legends Aduinvarisa – ‘of the Audumvara’ appears on the copper coins and pieces of Audumbara tribe in Punjab. The word Audumvara refers either the people connected to the Fig tree, Audumvara or where the tree was grown in abundance.

It appears that a section of Audumvara tribe migrated to Gujarat, may be due to internal conflict or some aggression. In course of time these people merged into local population.

See also

• Yaudheya
• Gupta Empire

References

1. Ancient India, from the earliest times to the first century, A.D by Rapson, E. J. p.154 [1]
2. Alexander Cunningham's Coins of Ancient India: From the Earliest Times Down to the Seventh Century (1891) p.70 [2]

[admin]

Part 1 of 4

Chandragupta Maurya
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 5/26/21

-- Chandragupta Maurya, by Purushottam Lal Bhargava, M.A., Shastri, With a Foreword by Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji, M.A., Ph.D., P.R.S.. 1935
-- Ashoka, by Wikipedia
-- Kaumudi-Mahotsava, by Wikipedia

Highlights:

Chandragupta's life and accomplishments are described in ancient … Hindu, Buddhist and Jain texts, though they significantly vary in detail…

His main biographical sources in chronological order are:

• Hindu texts such as the Puranas and Arthashastra; later composed Hindu sources include legends in Vishakhadatta's Mudrarakshasa, Somadeva's Kathasaritsagara and Kshemendra's Brihatkathamanjari.

• Buddhist sources are those dated in 4th-century or after, including the Sri Lankan Pali texts Dipavamsa (Rajavamsa section), Mahavamsa, Mahavamsa tika and Mahabodhivamsa.

• 7th to 10th century Jain inscriptions at Shravanabelgola; these are disputed by scholars as well as the Svetambara Jain tradition. The second Digambara text interpreted to be mentioning the Maurya emperor is dated to about the 10th-century such as in the Brhatkathakosa of Harisena (Jain monk), while the complete Jain legend about Chandragupta is found in the 12th-century Parisishtaparvan by Hemachandra….

The Greek and Roman texts do not mention Chandragupta directly…

Hindu sources are inconsistent. One medieval commentator states Chandragupta to be the son of one of the Nanda's wives with the name Mura. Other sources describe Mura as a concubine of the king. Another Sanskrit dramatic text Mudrarakshasa uses the terms Vrishala and Kula-Hina to describe Chandragupta. The word Vrishala has two meanings: one is the son of a Shudra; the other means the best of kings. A later commentator used the former interpretation to posit that Chandragupta had a Shudra background. However, historian Radha Kumud Mukherjee opposed this theory, and stated that the word should be interpreted as "the best of kings". The same drama also refers to Chandragupta as someone of humble origin... According to the 11th-century texts of the Kashmiri Hindu tradition – Kathasaritsagara and Brihat-Katha-Manjari – the Nanda lineage was very short. Chandragupta was a son of Purva-Nanda, the older Nanda based in Ayodhya. The common theme in the Hindu sources is that Chandragupta came from a humble background and with Chanakya, he emerged as a dharmic king loved by his subjects.

The Buddhist texts such as Mahavamsa describe Chandragupta to be of Kshatriya origin. These sources, written about seven centuries after his dynasty ended, state that both Chandragupta and his grandson Ashoka – a patron of Buddhism – were from a branch of the Shakya noble family, from which Gautama Buddha descended from. These Buddhist sources attempt to link the dynasty of their patron Ashoka directly to the Buddha. The sources claim that the family branched off to escape persecution from a king of the Kosala Kingdom and Chandragupta's ancestors moved into a secluded Himalayan kingdom known for its peacocks. The Buddhist sources explain the epithet Moriya comes from these peacocks, or Mora in Pali (Sanskrit: Mayura). The Buddhist texts are inconsistent; some offer other legends to explain his epithet. For example, they mention a city named "Moriya-nagara" where all buildings were made of bricks colored like the peacock's neck. The Maha-bodhi-vasa states he hailed from Moriya-nagara, while the Digha-Nikaya states he came from the Moriya clan of Pipphalivana. The Buddhist sources also mention that "Brahmin Chanakya" was his counselor and with whose support Chandragupta became the king at Pataliputra.

The 12th-century Digambara text Parishishtaparvan by Hemachandra is the main and earliest Jain source of the complete legend of Chandragupta. It was written nearly 1,400 years after Chandragupta's death. Canto 8, verses 170 to 469, describes the legend of Chandragupta and Chanakya's influence on him. Other Digambara Jain sources state he moved to Karnataka after renouncing his kingdom and performed Sallekhana – the Jain religious ritual of peacefully welcoming death by fasting. The earliest mention of Chandragupta's ritual death is found in Harisena's Brhatkathakosa, a Sanskrit text of stories about Digambara Jains. The Brhatkathakosa describes the legend of Bhadrabahu and mentions Chandragupta in its 131st story. However, the story makes no mention of the Maurya empire, and mentions that his disciple Chandragupta lived in and migrated from Ujjain – a kingdom (northwest Madhya Pradesh) about a thousand kilometers west of the Magadha and Patliputra (central Bihar). This has led to the proposal that Harisena's Chandragupta may be a later era, different person.

None of the ancient texts mention when Chandragupta was born….

The texts do not include the start or end year of Chandragupta's reign. According to some Hindu and Buddhist texts, Chandragupta ruled for 24 years. The Buddhist sources state Chandragupta Maurya ruled 162 years after the death of the Buddha. However, the Buddha's birth and death vary by source… Similarly, Jain sources composed give different gaps between Mahavira's death and his accession. As with the Buddha's death, the date of Mahavira's death itself is also a matter of debate, and the inconsistencies and lack of unanimity among the Jain authors cast doubt on Jain sources. This Digambara Jain chronology, also, is not reconcilable with the chronology implied in other Indian … sources….

The early life of Chandragupta Maurya is unclear and varies by source. According to the Sinhalese Buddhist tradition, Chandragupta's mother was pregnant when his father - who was the chief of the Moriya clan - was killed in a battle. His mother escaped to Pataliputra with the help of her brothers. For Chandragupta's safety, his maternal uncles helped a cowherd adopt him. When Chandragupta grew up, the cowherd sold him to a hunter who employed him to tend cattle.

According to the Digambara legend by Hemachandra, Chanakya was a Jain layperson and a Brahmin. When Chanakya was born, Jain monks prophesied that Chanakya will one day grow up to help make someone an emperor and will be the power behind the throne. Chanakya believed in the prophecy and fulfilled it by agreeing to help the daughter of a peacock breeding community chief deliver a baby boy. In exchange, he asked the mother to give up the boy and let him adopt him at a later date. The Jain Brahmin then went about making money through magic, and returned later to claim young Chandragupta, whom he taught and trained. Together, they recruited soldiers and attacked the Nanda kingdom. Eventually, they won and proclaimed Patliputra as their capital.

The Buddhist and Hindu sources present different versions of how Chandragupta met Chanakya. Broadly, they mention young Chandragupta creating a mock game of a royal court that he and his cowherd friends played near Vinjha forest. Chanakya saw him give orders to the others, bought him from the hunter, and adopted Chandragupta. Chanakya taught and admitted him in Taxila to study the Vedas, military arts, law, and other sastras.

After Taxila, Chandragupta and Chanakya moved to Pataliputra, the capital and a historic learning center in the eastern Magadha kingdom of India. They met Nanda there according to Hindu sources, and Dhana Nanda according to Pali-language Buddhist sources. Chandragupta became a commander of the Nanda army … An alternate version states that it was the Nanda king who was publicly insulted by Chanakya. Chandragupta and Chanakya escaped and became rebels who planned to remove the Nanda king from power. The Mudrarakshasa also states that Chanakya swore to destroy the Nanda dynasty after he felt insulted by the king….

According to the Buddhist text Mahavamsa Tika, Chandragupta and Chanakya raised an army by recruiting soldiers from many places after the former completed his education at Taxila. Chanakya made Chandragupta the leader of the army. The Digambara Jain text Parishishtaparvan states that this army was raised by Chanakya with coins he minted and an alliance formed with Parvataka…

The Buddhist Mahavamsa Tika and Jain Parishishtaparvan records Chandragupta's army unsuccessfully attacking the Nanda capital. Chandragupta and Chanakya then began a campaign at the frontier of the Nanda empire, gradually conquering various territories on their way to the Nanda capital. He then refined his strategy by establishing garrisons in the conquered territories, and finally besieged the Nanda capital Pataliputra. There Dhana Nanda accepted defeat, and was killed by Buddhist accounts, or deposed and exiled by Hindu accounts….

Historically reliable details of Chandragupta's campaign into Pataliputra are unavailable and legends written centuries later are inconsistent. Buddhist texts such as Milindapanha claim Magadha was ruled by the Nanda dynasty, which, with Chanakya's counsel, Chandragupta conquered to restore dhamma. The army of Chandragupta and Chanakya first conquered the Nanda outer territories before invading Pataliputra. In contrast to the easy victory in Buddhist sources, the Hindu and Jain texts state that the campaign was bitterly fought because the Nanda dynasty had a powerful and well-trained army.

The conquest was fictionalised in Mudrarakshasa, in which Chandragupta is said to have first acquired Punjab and allied with a local king named Parvatka under the Chanakya's advice before advancing on the Nanda Empire. Chandragupta laid siege to Kusumapura (now Patna), the capital of Magadha, by deploying guerrilla warfare methods with the help of mercenaries from conquered areas.

According to the Digambara Jain version by Hemachandra, the success of Chandragupta and his strategist Chanakya was stopped by a Nanda town that refused to surrender. Chanakya disguised himself as a mendicant and found seven mother goddesses (saptamatrika) inside. He concluded these goddesses were protecting the town people. The townspeople sought the disguised mendicant's advice on how to end the blockade of the army surrounding their town. Hemacandra wrote Chanakya swindled them into removing the mother goddesses. The townspeople removed the protective goddesses and an easy victory over the town followed. Thereafter, the alliance of Chandragupta and Parvataka overran the Nanda kingdom and attacked Pataliputra with an "immeasurable army". With a depleted treasury, exhausted merit, and insufficient intelligence, the Nanda king lost.

These legends state that the Nanda king was defeated, but allowed to leave Pataliputra alive with a chariot full of items his family needed. The Jain sources attest that his daughter fell in love at first sight with Chandragupta and married him. With the defeat of Nanda, Chandragupta Maurya founded the Maurya Empire in ancient India…

Two poetic anthologies from the Tamil Sangam literature corpus -– Akananuru and Purananuru –- allude to the Nanda rule and Maurya empire. For example, poems 69, 281 and 375 mention the army and chariots of the Mauryas, while poems 251 and 265 may be alluding to the Nandas. However, the poems dated between 1st-century BCE to 5th-century CE do not mention Chandragupta Maurya by name, and some of them could be referring to a different Moriya dynasty in the Deccan region in the 5th century CE. According to Upinder Singh, these poems may be mentioning Mokur and Koshar kingdoms of Vadugars (northerners) in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, with one interpretation being that the Maurya empire had an alliance with these at some point of time….

The king's epithets mentioned in the Sanskrit play Mudrarakshasa include "Chanda-siri" (Chandra-shri), "Piadamsana" (Priya-darshana), and Vrishala. Piadamsana is similar to Piyadasi, an epithet of his grandson Ashoka…

There are no records of Chandragupta's military conquests and the reach of his empire. It is based on inferences from … the religious Indian texts written centuries after his death….

There is uncertainty about the other conquests that Chandragupta may have achieved…If the Jain tradition about Chandragupta ending his life as a renunciate in Karnakata is considered correct, it appears that Chandragupta initiated the southern conquest….

"We shall now turn to the Buddhist traditions which describe the 'Nandins' as of unknown lineage and testify to the noble lineage of Chandragupta without any doubts about it. Chandragupta is described as a scion of the Kshatriya clan of Moriyas, an offshoot of the noble and sacred sept of the Sakyas who gave the Buddha to the world. According to the story, these Moriyas" ...

There are varying accounts in the historic [???], legendary, and hagiographic literature of various Indian religions about Chandragupta's rule, but Allchin and Erdosy' are suspect; they state, "one cannot but be struck by the many close correspondences between the (Hindu) Arthashastra and the two other major sources the (Buddhist) Asokan inscriptions and (Greek) Megasthenes text"….

Kautilya tells us about a die-striking (punch-marking) system but is unaware of casting coins in mould…

The evidence of arts and architecture during Chandragupta's time is mostly limited to texts such as those by … Kautilya….

Archeological discoveries in the modern age, such as those Didarganj Yakshi discovered in 1917 buried beneath the banks of the Ganges suggest exceptional artisanal accomplishment. (It used to be dated to the 3rd century BCE, as it has the fine Mauryan polish associated with Mauryan art. But this is also found on later sculptures and it is now usually dated to approximately the 2nd century CE, based on the analysis of shape and ornamentation, or the 1st century CE. The treatment of the forelock in particular is said to be characteristically Kushan.)…

The circumstances and year of Chandragupta's death are unclear and disputed. According to Digambara Jain accounts that, Bhadrabahu forecasted a 12-year famine because of all the killing and violence during the conquests by Chandragupta Maurya. He led a group of Jain monks to south India, where Chandragupta Maurya joined him as a monk after abdicated his kingdom to his son Bindusara. Together, states a Digambara legend, Chandragupta and Bhadrabahu moved to Shravanabelagola, in present-day south Karnataka. These Jain accounts appeared in texts such as Brihakathā kośa (931 CE) of Harishena, Bhadrabāhu charita (1450 CE) of Ratnanandi, Munivaṃsa bhyudaya (1680 CE) and Rajavali kathe. Chandragupta lived as an ascetic at Shravanabelagola for several years before fasting to death as per the Jain practice of sallekhana, according to the Digambara legend.

In accordance with the Digambara tradition, the hill on which Chandragupta is stated to have performed asceticism is now known as Chandragiri hill, and Digambaras believe that Chandragupta Maurya erected an ancient temple that now survives as the Chandragupta basadi….

Along with texts, several Digambara Jain inscriptions dating from the 7th–15th century refer to Bhadrabahu and a Prabhacandra. Later Digambara tradition identified the Prabhacandra as Chandragupta, and some modern era scholars have accepted this Digambara tradition while others have not, Several of the late Digambara inscriptions and texts in Karnataka state the journey started from Ujjain and not Pataliputra (as stated in some Digambara texts).

Jeffery D. Long – a scholar of Jain and Hindu studies – says in one Digambara version, it was Samprati Chandragupta who renounced, migrated and performed sallekhana in Shravanabelagola. Long states scholars attribute the disintegration of the Maurya empire to the times and actions of Samprati Chandragupta – the grandson of Ashoka and great-great-grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The two Chandraguptas have been confused to be the same in some Digambara legends.

Scholar of Jain studies and Sanskrit Paul Dundas says the Svetambara tradition of Jainism disputes the ancient Digambara legends….The Svetambaras texts describe Bhadrabahu was based near Nepalese foothills of the Himalayas in 3rd-century BCE, who neither moved nor travelled with Chandragupta Maurya to the south; rather, he died near Pataliputra…

The 12th-century Svetambara Jain legend by Hemachandra presents a different picture. The Hemachandra version includes stories about Jain monks who could become invisible to steal food from royal storage and the Jain Brahmin Chanakya using violence and cunning tactics to expand Chandragupta's kingdom and increase royal revenues. It states in verses 8.415 to 8.435, that for 15 years as king, Chandragupta was a follower of non-Jain "ascetics with the wrong view of religion" (non-Jain) and "lusted for women". Chanakya, who was a Jain follower, persuaded Chandragupta to convert to Jainism by showing that Jain ascetics avoided women and focused on their religion. The legend mentions Chanakya aiding the premature birth of Bindusara, It states in verse 8.444 that "Chandragupta died in meditation (can possibly be sallekhana.) and went to heaven". According to Hemachandra's legend, Chanakya also performed sallekhana.

According to V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar – an Indologist and historian, several of the Digambara legends mention Prabhacandra, who had been misidentified as Chandragupta Maurya particularly after the original publication on Shravanabelagola epigraphy by B. Lewis Rice. The earliest and most important inscriptions mention Prabhacandra, which Rice presumed may have been the "clerical name assumed by Chadragupta Maurya" after he renounced and moved with Bhadrabahu from Patliputra. Dikshitar stated there is no evidence to support this and Prabhacandra was an important Jain monk scholar who migrated centuries after Chandragupta Maurya's death. Other scholars have taken Rice's deduction of Chandragupta Maurya retiring and dying in Shravanabelagola as the working hypothesis, since no alternate historical information or evidence is available about Chandragupta's final years and death.

-- Chandragupta Maurya, by Wikipedia

Now the age of Vicramaditya is given; and if we can fix on an Indian prince contemporary with Seleucus, we shall have three given points in the line of time between Rama, or the first Indian colony, and Chandrabija, the last Hindu monarch who reigned in Bahar; so that only eight hundred or a thousand years will remain almost wholly dark; and they must have been employed in raising empires or states, in framing laws, improving languages and arts, and in observing the apparent motions of the celestial bodies. A Sanscrit [Sanskrit] history of the celebrated Vicramaditya was inspected at Benares by a Pandit, who would not have deceived me, and could not himself have been deceived; but the owner of the book is dead, and his family dispersed; nor have my friends in that city been able, with all their exertions, to procure a copy of it. ...

I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, though my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Palibothra (for there may have been several of the name) which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem, for though it could not have been Prayaga, where no ancient metropolis ever stood, nor Canyacubja, which has no epithet at all resembling the word used by the Greeks; nor Gaur, otherwise called Lacshmanavati, which all know to be a town comparatively modern, yet we could not confidently decide that it was Pataliputra, though names and most circumstances nearly correspond, because that renowned capital extended from the confluence of the Sone and the Ganges to the site of Patna, while Palibothra stood at the junction of the Ganges and Erannoboas, which the accurate M. D'Anville had pronounced to be the Yamuna; but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur, was in fact another name for the Sona itself; though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment, for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became like Sandracottus the sovereign of Upper Hindustan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ, as two certain epochs between Rama, who conquered Silan a few centuries after the flood, and Vicramaditya, who died at Ujjayini fifty-seven years before the beginning of our era.

Since these discussions would lead us too far, I proceed to the History of Nature...

But I should be led beyond the limits assigned to me on this occasion, if I were to expatiate farther on the historical division of the knowledge comprised in the literature of Asia; and I must postpone till next year my remarks on Asiatic Philosophy, and on those arts which depend on imagination; promising you with confidence, that in the course of the present year, your inquiries into the civil and natural history of this eastern world will be greatly promoted by the learned labours of many among our associates and correspondents.  

-- Discourse X. Delivered February 28, 1793, P. 192, Excerpt from "Discourses Delivered Before the Asiatic Society: And Miscellaneous Papers, on The Religion, Poetry, Literature, Etc. of the Nations of India", by Sir William Jones

Delu is said to have been a prince of uncommon bravery and generosity; benevolent towards men, and devoted to the service of God. The most remarkable transaction of his reign is the building of the city of Delhi, which derives its name from its founder, Delu. In the fortieth year of his reign, Phoor, a prince of his own family, who was governor of Cumaoon, rebelled against the Emperor, and marched to Kinoge, the capital. Delu was defeated, taken, and confined in the impregnable fort of Rhotas.

Sirhind / Patiala / Delhi / Kannauj / "Pataliputra"

Phoor immediately mounted the throne of India, reduced Bengal, extended his power from sea to sea, and restored the empire to its pristine dignity. He died after a long reign, and left the kingdom to his son, who was also called Phoor, and was the same with the famous Porus, who fought against Alexander.

The second Phoor [Porus], taking advantage of the disturbances in Persia, occasioned by the Greek invasion of that empire under Alexander, neglected to remit the customary tribute, which drew upon him the arms of that conqueror. The approach of Alexander did not intimidate Phoor [Porus]. He, with a numerous army, met him at Sirhind, about one hundred and sixty miles to the north-west of Delhi, and in a furious battle, say the Indian historians, lost many thousands of his subjects, the victory, and his life. The most powerful prince of the Decan, who paid an unwilling homage to Phoor, or Porus, hearing of that monarch's overthrow, submitted himself to Alexander, and sent him rich presents by his son. Soon after, upon a mutiny arising in the Macedonian army, Alexander returned by the way of Persia.

Sinsarchund, the same whom the Greeks call Sandrocottus, assumed the imperial dignity after the death of Phoor, and in a short time regulated the discomposed concerns of the empire. He neglected not, in the mean time, to remit the customary tribute to the Grecian captains, who possessed Persia under, and after the death of, Alexander. Sinsarchund, and his son after him, possessed the empire of India seventy years. When the grandson of Sinsarchund acceded to the throne, a prince named Jona, who is said to have been a grand-nephew of Phoor, though that circumstance is not well attested, aspiring to the throne, rose in arms against the reigning prince, and deposed him.

-- The History of Hindostan, In Three Volumes, Volume I, by Alexander Dow, Esq., Lieutenant-Colonel in the Company's Service, 1812

Sir William Jones (1746-1794) deliberately identified 'Sandrocottus" mentioned by the Greeks as #ChandraguptaMaurya and declared that he was the contemporary of Alexander in 327-326 BCE...

Puranas tell us that Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne by defeating the last Nanda king around 1500 BCE....

Therefore, #Samudragupta was the contemporary of Alexander in 327-326 BCE not Chandragupta Maurya...

The Greek scholars recorded the names of kings of India as Xandrames, and Sandrocottus. Western historians deliberately identified these names with those of Mahapadmananda or Dhanananda and Chandragupta Maurya. Xandrames was said to be the father of Sandrocottus. According to John W. McCrindle, Diodorus distorted the name "Sandrocottus" into Xandrames and this again is distorted by Curtius into Agrammes...

Seleucus Nikator also sent Deimachos on an embassy to Allitrocades or Amitrocades, the son of Sandrocottus. Western historians identified Allitrocades or Amitrocades to be Bindusara, the son of Chandragupta and concocted that Bindusara was also known as "Amitraghata". None of the Indian sources ever referred Bindusara as Amitraghata. Western historians deliberately created the word "Amitraghata" with some sort of resemblance...

Megasthenes described the system of city administration of Pataliputra but there is no similarity between the system described by Megasthenes and the system of city administration given in Kautilya Arthasastra. Megasthenes also stated that there was no slavery in India but Kautilya Arthasastra's Chapter 65 named "Dasakalpa" is solely devoted to the status of slaves among the Aryans and the Mlecchas. Probably, the slavery system that existed during Mauryan era has gradually declined by Gupta era. Thus, Megasthenes cannot be contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya.

Megasthenes not only often visited Palibothra but also stayed in the court of Sandrocottus for a few years. But he did not even mention about Kautilya or Chanakya who was the real kingmaker and also the patron of Chandragupta. No Greek scholar ever mentioned about Kautilya. Therefore, Megasthenes cannot be the contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya.

Greek scholars often mentioned that Sandrocottus was the king of the country called as Prasii (Prachi or Prachya). Pracha or Prachi means eastern country. During the Nanda and Mauryan era, Magadha kings were ruling almost entire India. Mauryan Empire was never referred in Indian sources as only Prachya desa or eastern country. Prachya desa was generally referred to Gupta Empire because Northern Saka Ksatrapas and Western Saka Ksatrapas were well established in North and West India. Megasthenes mentioned that Sandrocottus is the greatest king of the Indians and Poros is still greater than Sandrocottus which means a kingdom in the North-western region is still independent and enjoying at least equal status with the kingdom of Sandrocottus...

The Greek historian Plutarch mentioned that Androkottus (Sandrocottus) marched over the whole of India with an army of 600 thousand men. Chandragupta Maurya defeated Nandas under the leadership of Chanakya. There was no need for him to go on such expedition to conquer the whole of India because he has already inherited the Magadha kingdom of Nandas covering entire India. Actually, it was Samudragupta who overran the whole of India as details given in Allahabad pillar inscription.

According to Greek historians like Justinus, Appianus etc., Seleukos made friendship with Sandrocottus and entered into relations of marriage with him. Allahabad pillar inscription tells us that Samudragupta was offered their daughters in marriage (Kanyopayanadana ... ) by the kings in the North-west region. There is nothing in Indian sources to prove this fact with reference to Chandragupta Maurya...

The Jain work "Harivamsa" written by Jinasena gives the names of dynasties and kings and the duration of their rule after the nirvana of Mahavira. Jinasena mentions nothing about Mauryas but he tells us that Gupta kings ruled for 231 years. Western historians fixed the date of Mahavira-nirvana in 527 BCE which means Mauryas ruled after Mahavira-nirvana but Jaina Puranas and Jaina Pattavalis had no knowledge of Mauryas after Mahavira-nirvana. Thus, Mauryas ruled prior to Mahavira-nirvana. Therefore, Sandrocottus can only be identified with Samudragupta.

If Sandrocottus was indeed Chandragupta Maurya, why do none of the Greek sources mentioned about Asoka, the most illustrious and greatest of Mauryan kings? It is evident that Greek sources had no knowledge of Asoka. Therefore, the ancient Greeks were contemporaries to Gupta kings not Mauryas...

Interestingly, there is no reference of Alexander's invasion in Indian literary sources because it was actually a non-event for Indians...

Strabo once stated:

"Generally speaking, the men who have hitherto written on the affairs of India were a set of liars. Deimachos holds the first place in the list; Megasthenes comes next; while Onesikritos and Nearchos with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words of truth."...

If Samudragupta is accepted as Sandrocottus the contemporary Indian king of Alexander and the epoch of Saka coronation era in 583 BCE, there will be no conflict in the traditional Indian records and epigraphic records.

-- Who was Sandrocottus: Samudragupta or Chandragupta Maurya?, The Chronology of Ancient India, Victim of Concoctions and Distortions, by Vedveer Arya]

Recounting the scenario after the Hyphasis mutiny (Arr. 5.25, Diod. 17.93-5, Curt. 9.2.1-3.19), Badian writes with an air of definiteness:

For the moment, he tried to use the weapon that had succeeded before. He withdrew to his tent, for three days. But this time it did not help. The men were determined, and as Coenus had made clear, they had the officers’ support. Alexander could not divide them. All that remained was to save face.

Badian not only finds Alexander in an awkward position, but also casually notes his subsequent declaration that he would go on nonetheless and his ordering of sacrifices for crossing the river. Alexander’s vow to fight against the Prasii in the face of stiff opposition from both the soldiers and officers does appear somewhat comical but here lies a trap—where was their capital Palibothra? Could it really have been at Patna, so far removed from the northwest—the centre of early India?...

Through the mist of vague reports and geographical misconceptions, it is difficult to probe into the Hyphasis revolt, which came as a serious jolt to Alexander. After this, even though there were safer routes, Alexander chose to return to Iran through the desert of Gedrosia, suffering heavy losses in soldiers and civilians from lack of water, food and the extreme heat. That the motive behind this voyage has appeared so perplexing is due to two crucial lapses—the false location of Palibothra, capital of the Prasii, and the concomitant failure to recognise the mysterious Moeris of Pattala who played a determinant role....


Territory of Gedrosia, among the eastern territories of the Achaemenid Empire.

The reports of Alexander’s historians clearly indicate that southeast Iran was within Greater India in the fourth century BC. As Prasii was in the Gedrosia area, the question arises—did the army refuse to fight the Prasii or only to march eastwards?... if the reluctance was to confront the Prasii, it appears sensible due to their formidable strength. As Moeris had fought beside Porus, the Prasiian army cannot have been left intact, though it could still have been a fighting force. It is probable that Moeris and his agents fomented discord among Alexander’s officers and soldiers... From this point onwards, if not earlier, Eumenes, Perdikkas and Seleucus may have been in touch with Moeris.

Only Justin (Just. xii, 8) reports that Alexander had defeated the Prasii. Palibothra, the Prasiian capital was famous for peacocks....

Curiously, Arrian writes that Alexander was so charmed by the beauty of peacocks that he decreed the severest penalties against anyone killing them (Arrian, Indica, xv.218). The picture of Alexander amidst peacocks appears puzzling: where did he come across the majestic bird? Does this fascination lead us to Palibothra? The height of absurdity is reached when we are told that eighteen months after the battle with Porus, Alexander suddenly remembered his ‘victory over the Indians’ in the wilderness of Carmania and set upon to celebrate it with fabulous mirth and abandon. Surprisingly it did not jar with the common sense of anyone why this was not celebrated in India. The ‘victory over the Indians’ in southeast Iran can lead to only one judicious conclusion—this was India in the fourth century BC. Moreover, if Alexander had indeed defeated the Indians, who could have been their leader but Moeris or Maurya? This clearly indicates that Alexander had indeed conquered the Prasii in Gedrosia.

Bosworth writes that the name of the place where the victory was celebrated was Kahnuj...

As the winter deepened, Alexander approached the Carmanian capital, which Diodorus (xvii.106.4) names Salmus. It was, according to Nearchus (Arr. Ind. 33.7), five days' journey from the coast. The site remains a mystery, but it was probably at the western side of the valley of the Halil Rud, in the general vicinity of the modern town of Khanu. The army was in an area of relative plenty but close enough to the coast to receive news of the progress of Nearchus' fleet. There Alexander sacrificed to commemorate his Indian victory and the emergence from the Gedrosian desert, and he held a musical and athletic festival, a drunken and festive affair, notable for the general acclaim achieved by Alexander's favourite Bagoas when he entered the winning chorus.

-- A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge 1988), p. 150

Kahnuj (Persian: كهنوج‎, also Romanized as Kahnūj) is a city and capital of Kahnuj County, Kerman Province, Iran.


Patali (Persian: پاتلي‎, also Romanized as Pātalī; also known as Kheyrābād-e Pātelī) is a village in Jahadabad Rural District, in the Central District of Anbarabad County, Kerman Province, Iran.

It is therefore clear that Alexander did not run away from the Prasii, as Badian imagines, but had in fact pursued Moeris, their leader, through Gedrosia. The palace at Kahnuj where Alexander rejoiced must have been the fabled one which, according to Aelian, excelled those at Susa and Ekbatana (Aelian, xiii.18).

Nearchus certainly had other tasks than scientific fact-finding; the army was ordered to keep close to the shore and the navy moved in tandem. This orchestration and the large number of troops and horses on ships (quite unnecessary for a scientific mission) show that the navy was not only carrying provisions for the army which was engaged in a grim and protracted battle with a mighty adversary, but that the troops on the ships were also ready to support the army if needed. This is why the navy waited for twenty-four days near Karachi. The names Pataliputra and Pattala and Moeris and Maurya leave little to imagination.

Yet Badian fails to recognise that Moeris was Chandragupta Maurya of Prasii... Badian has no idea that the food crisis was due to the collusion of Alexander’s officers with Moeris. As a general, Alexander can hardly be blamed for imposing a levy in order to arrange for the supplies for his army; this is the reason why the people of Pattala had fled. In his unseemly haste to cast Alexander in a stereotype, Badian overturns the whole episode and goes on to compare him with Chengiz Khan.

-- An Altar of Alexander Now Standing at Delhi [EXPANDED VERSION], by Ranajit Pal

Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] was a ruler of Paropamisadae (modern north-west Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan), between the Hindu Kush mountains and Indus Valley during the 4th century BCE. ...

Sisikottos/Sisocostus appears twice in Arrian's Anabasis and once in Historiae Alexendri Magni by Curtius. Many scholars suggest that Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] was a ruler of some frontier hill state south of Hindukush, it is however, more appropriate to call him a military adventurer or a corporation leader coming from the warlike background of the fierce Kshatriya clan of the Ashvakas from Massaga or Aornos (Pir-Sir) or some other adjacent territory of the Ashvakas. No ancient evidence is available which attests Shashigupta's royal background prior to his appointment by Alexander as ruler of the Ashvakas of the Aornos country....

Some scholars identify him with Chandragupta Maurya...

In all probability, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] was a professional soldier and led a corporation of mercenary soldier to help Persians especially Bessus, the Iranian Satrap of Bactria but once his case was lost, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus], along with band of warriors (obviously as mercenary soldiers), threw his lot with the invaders and thereafter, rendered a great help to Alexander during latter's campaigns of Sogdiana and later also of the Kunar and Swat valleys.

In May 327 BCE, when Alexander the Great invaded the republican territories of the Alishang/Kunar, Massaga and Aornos on the west of Indus, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] had rendered great service to the Macedonian invader in reducing several Kshatriya chiefs of the Ashvakas of the Alishang/Kunar and Swat valleys. He appears to have done this in an understanding with Alexander that after the reduction of this territory, he would be made the lord of the country. And Arrian definitively confirms that after the reduction of the fort of Aornos in Swat where the Ashvakas had put up a terrible resistance, Alexander entrusted the command of this extremely strategic fort of Aornos to Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] and made him the Satrap of the surrounding country of the eastern Ashvakas.

Towards the end of battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum), Arrian mentions a certain Meroes and attests him to be an Indian and an old friend of Porus (or Poros). Arrian further attests that he was finally chosen by Alexander to bring the fleeing Porus back for concluding peace treaty with Macedonian invader. It is notable that at the time of Porus's war with Alexander, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus], the satrap of the eastern Ashvakas had very cordial relations with Porus. In fact, he was on good terms both with Porus as well as Alexander and was finally chosen by Alexander to effect peace negotiations between him (Alexander) and Porus when Taxiles i.e. the ruler of Taxila had failed in this endeavour. It is more than likely, as several scholars have speculated, that Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] may have alternatively been known also as Meroes (equivalent to the Sanskrit Maurya) after his native-land Meros (Mor or Mer in Prakrit, perhaps Mt Meru of Sanskrit texts). Another possibility is that name Meroes (Maurya?) may have been derived from "Mer" (hill or mountain) or "Mera" (hillman) on account of the fact that Sisicottos or Shashigupta was obviously a hilllman or mountaineer.

They relate that in the most primitive times, when the people of the country were still living in villages, Dionusos made his appearance coming from the regions lying to the west, and at the head of a considerable army. He overran the whole of India, as there was no great city capable of resisting his arms. The heat, however, having become excessive, and the soldiers of Dionusos being afflicted with a pestilence, the leader, who was remarkable for his sagacity, carried his troops away from the plains up to the hills. There the army, recruited by the cool breezes and the waters that flowed fresh from the fountains, recovered from sickness. The place among the mountains where Dionusos restored his troops to health was called Meros...

Such, then, are the traditions regarding Dionusos and his descendants current among the Indians who inhabit the hill-country.

-- Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian; Being a Translation of the Fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes Collected by Dr. Schwanbeck, and of the First Part of the Indika of Arrian, by J.W. McCrindle

A few months later when Alexander was still in Punjab and was engaged in war with the Glausais of Ravi/Chenab, the Ashvakas had assassinated Nicanor, the Greek governor of lower Kabul valley and also issued a threat to kill Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] if he continued to cooperate with the invaders. While Phillipos was appointed to Nicanor's place, no further reference to Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] by this name exists in classical sources. It appears likely that as a shrewd politician & statesman cum military general, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] had sensed the pulse of time and therefore, after deserting Alexander’ camp, he had thrown his lot with the emerging powerful group of insurgents. Thence afterward, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] seems to appear under an alternative name -- Moeres or Moeris of the classical chroniclers. It is notable that Moeres, Moeris, Meris and Meroes are all equivalent terms. Arrian writes Meroes while Curtius spells it as Moeres or Moeris. Chieftain Moeris of lower Indus delta (Patala) referenced by Curtius seems precisely to be the same person as Meroes of north-west, attested to be old friend of Porus by Arrian. Alexander was apparently annoyed at this development and pursued Shashigupta who appears to have fled with his followers to lower Indus. He probably appears there as Moeres of Curtius, a chief of Patala. It is but natural that after joining the band of insurgents, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] alias Meroes or Moeres became a leader of the group of rebels and started his struggle for realizing his bigger goals for bigger regal power.

According to these scholars, it is very conspicuous that Shashigupta (Sisikottos) and Chandragupta (Sandrokotos) both names literally mean "moon-protected". "Shashi" part of Shashigupta has exactly the same meaning in Sanskrit as the "Chandra" part of Chandragupta—both mean "the moon". Thus, the two names are exact synonyms. Scholars say that it is not an uncommon practice in India to substitute one's given name with a synonym. Thus, it appears very likely, as many scholars believe, that Chandragupta may have been an alternative name for Shashigupta and both names essentially refer to same individual. This view is further reinforced if we compare the early lives of Shashigupta and Chandragupta. Both men are equally remarkable, both are military adventurers par excellence, both are rebellious and opportunists, both are equally ambitious, both are far-sighted and shrewd statesmen, and lastly but more importantly, both emerge in history precisely at the same time and at the same place in north-west India. Plutarch's classic statement that Andrakottos had met Alexander in his youth days probably alludes to the years when Sisikottos had gone to help Iranians against Alexander at Bactria in 329 BCE. J. W. McCrindle concludes from Plutarch's statement that Chandragupta was native of Punjab rather than Magadha. Appian's statement: "And having crossed Indus, Seleucus warred with Androkottos, the king of the Indians, who dwelt about that river (the Indus)" clearly shows that Chandragupta was initially a ruler of Indus country....

Dr Seth concludes: "If Chandragupta is identical to Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus], then we find no difficulty in assuming that he indeed belonged to the Kshatriya clan of the Ashvakas whose influence extended from the Hindukush to eastern Punjab at the time of Alexander's invasion. With Mauryan conquest of other parts of India, these Ashvakas settled in other parts of India as well...In the region lying between Hindukush and Indus, Alexander received terrible resistance from the Kshatriya tribe called Ashvakas".

Some scholars believe that the insurgency against the Greek rule in north-west had first started probably in lower Indus. If this is true, then Moeris of Patala may indeed have been the pioneer in this revolution and he may be assumed to be the same person as Meroes of north-west i.e. Chandragupta Maurya, alternatively known also as Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] originally a native of the Swat/Kunar valleys west of Indus. Other scholars like Dr B. M. Barua, Dr H. C. Seth etc. also identify Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] with Chandragupta. As noted above, Dr J. W. McCrindle calls Chandragupta a native of Panjab. American archaeologist David B. Spooner thinks that Chandragupta was an Iranian who had established a dynasty in Magadha. Based on the classical evidence, Dr H. R. Gupta thinks that Chandragupta as well as Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] both belonged to northwest frontiers and both, perhaps belonged to two different sections of the Ashvaka Kshatriyas. Dr Chandra Chakravarti also relates Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] and Chandragupta to northwest frontiers and states that Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] belonged to Malkand whereas Chandragupta Maurya was a ruler of Ujjanaka or Uddyana (Swat) territory of the Ashvakas.

-- Shashigupta [Sasigupta] [Sisikottos] [Sisocostus] [Sandrocottus] [Chandragupta Maurya] [Moeris] [Meroes] [Maurya], by Wikipedia

Medieval stone relief at Digambara pilgrimage site Shravanabelagola, Karnataka. It has been interpreted as Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya,[1] but some disagree.[2]

1st Mauryan Emperor
Reign: c. 324 or 321 – c. 297 BCE[3][4]
Coronation: c. 324 or 321 BCE
Predecessor: Dhana Nanda
Successor: Bindusara (son)[5]
Spouses: Durdhara (according to Jain tradition)
Issue: Bindusara
Dynasty: Maurya

-- Chanakya, by Wikipedia

Chandragupta Maurya (reign: 321–297 BCE) was the founder of the Maurya Empire in ancient India. He was taught and counselled by the philosopher Chanakya, who had great influence in the formation of his empire. Together, Chandragupta and Chanakya built one of the largest empires on the Indian subcontinent. Chandragupta's life and accomplishments are described in ancient Greek, Hindu, Buddhist and Jain texts, but they vary significantly. In Ancient Greek and Latin accounts, Chandragupta [???] is referred [to] as Sandrokottos or Androcottus.

According to Eratosthenes, and Megasthenes who lived with Siburtios the satrap of Arachosia, and who, as he himself tells us, often visited Sandrakottos the king of the Indians...

According to Megasthenes the mean breadth (of the Ganges) is 100 stadia, and its least depth 20 fathoms. At the meeting of this river and another is situated Palibothra, a city eighty stadia in length and fifteen in breadth. It is of the shape of a parallelogram, and is girded with a wooden wall, pierced with loopholes for the discharge of arrows. It has a ditch in front for defence and for receiving the sewage of the city. The people in whose country this city is situated is the most distinguished in all India, and is called the Prasii. The king, in addition to his family name, must adopt the surname of Palibothros, as Sandrakottos, for instance, did, to whom Megasthenes was sent on an embassy....

Megasthenes says that those who were in the camp of Sandrakottos, wherein lay 400,000 men, found that the thefts reported on any one day did not exceed the value of two hundred drachmae, and this among a people who have no written laws, but are ignorant of writing, and must therefore in all the business of life trust to memory....

The wild men could not be brought to Sandrakottos, for they refused to take food and died. Their heels are in front, and the instep and toes are turned backwards...

But even Megasthenes, so far as appears, did not travel over much of India, though no doubt he saw more of it than those who came with Alexander the son of Philip, for, as he tells us, he resided at the court of Sandrakottos, the greatest king in India, and also at the court of Poros, who was still greater than he....

From the time of Dionysos to Sandrakottos the Indians counted 153 kings and a period of 6042 years, but among these a republic was thrice established * * * * and another to 300 years, and another to 120 years.

-- Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian; Being a Translation of the Fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes Collected by Dr. Schwanbeck, and of the First Part of the Indika of Arrian, by J.W. McCrindle, M.A.

Chandragupta Maurya was a pivotal figure in the history [???] of India, laying the foundations of the first government to unite most of South Asia. Chandragupta, under the tutelage of Chanakya, created a new empire based on the principles of statecraft, built a large army, and continued expanding the boundaries of his empire until ultimately renouncing it for an ascetic life in his final years.

Prior to his consolidation of power, Alexander the Great had invaded the North-West Indian subcontinent before abandoning his campaign in 324 BCE due to a mutiny caused by the prospect of facing another large empire, presumably the Nanda Empire. Chandragupta defeated and conquered both the Nanda Empire, and the Greek satraps that were appointed or formed from Alexander's Empire in South Asia. Chandragupta first gained regional prominence in the Greater Punjab region in the Indus. He then set out to conquer the Nanda Empire centered in Pataliputra, Magadha. Afterwards, Chandragupta expanded and secured his western border, where he was confronted by Seleucus I Nicator in the Seleucid-Mauryan War. After two years of war, Chandragupta was considered to have gained the upper hand in the conflict and annexed satrapies up to the Hindu Kush. Instead of prolonging the war, both parties settled on a marriage treaty between Chandragupta and Seleucus I Nicator.

Chandragupta's empire extended throughout most of the Indian subcontinent, spanning from modern day Bengal to Afghanistan across North India as well as making inroads into Central and South India. According to the Jain accounts dated to 800 years after his death, Chandragupta abdicated his throne and became a Jain monk, traveled away from his empire to South India and committed sallekhana or fasting to death. Contemporary Greek evidence however avers that Chandragupta did not give up performing the rites of sacrificing animals associated with Vedic Brahminism, an ancient form of Hinduism; he delighted in hunting and otherwise leading a life remote from the Jain practice of Ahimsa or nonviolence towards living beings...[6][7]

The Greek writers relate that the father of Sandrocottus was a man of low origin, being the son of a barber, whom the queen had married after putting her husband the king to death. He is called by Diodorus Siculus (16.93, 94) Xandrames, and by Q. Curtius (9.2) Aggrammes, the latter name being probably only a corruption of the former. This king sent his son Sandrocottus to Alexander the Great, who was then at the Hyphasis, and he is reported to have said that Alexander might easily have conquered the eastern parts of India, since the king was hated on account of his wickedness and the meanness of his birth. Justin likewise relates, that Sandrocottus saw Alexander, and that having offended him, he was ordered to be put to death, and escaped only by flight. Justin says nothing about his being the king's son, but simply relates that he was of obscure origin, and that after he escaped from Alexander he became the leader of a band of robbers, and finally obtained the supreme power...The name of Sandrocottus is written both by Plutarch and Appian Androcottus without the sibilant, and Athenaeus gives us the form Sandrocuptus (Σανδρόκυπτθς), which bears a much greater resemblance to the Hindu name than the common orthography. (Plut. Alex. 62 ; Justin, 15.4 ; Appian, Syr. 55 ; Strab. xv. pp. 702, 709, 724 ; Athen. 1.18e.; Arrian, Arr. Anab. 5.6.2; Plin. H. N. 6.17.)

-- Sandrocottus, by William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology

Chandragupta's reign, and the Maurya Empire, set an era of economic prosperity, reforms, infrastructure expansions, and tolerance. Many religions thrived within his realms and his descendants' empire. Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika gained prominence alongside Vedic and Brahmanistic traditions, and minority religions such as Zoroastrianism and the Greek pantheon were respected. A memorial for Chandragupta Maurya exists on the Chandragiri hill along with a 7th-century hagiographic inscription.

[admin]

Part 2 of 4

Biography

Chandragupta's life and accomplishments are described in ancient and historical [???] Greek, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain texts, though they significantly vary in detail.[8] The historical [???] sources which describe the life of Chandragupta Maurya vary considerably in detail. Chandragupta was born about 340 BCE and died about 297 BCE. His main biographical sources in chronological order are:[9]


Statue of Chandragupta Maurya at Parliament of India

• Greek and Roman sources, which are the oldest surviving records that mention Chandragupta or circumstances related to him; these include works written by Nearchus, Onesicritus, Aristobulus of Cassandreia, Strabo, Megasthenes, Diodorus, Arrian, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch and Justin.

The Greek writers relate that the father of Sandrocottus was a man of low origin, being the son of a barber, whom the queen had married after putting her husband the king to death. He is called by Diodorus Siculus (16.93, 94) Xandrames, and by Q. Curtius (9.2) Aggrammes, the latter name being probably only a corruption of the former. This king sent his son Sandrocottus to Alexander the Great, who was then at the Hyphasis, and he is reported to have said that Alexander might easily have conquered the eastern parts of India, since the king was hated on account of his wickedness and the meanness of his birth. Justin likewise relates, that Sandrocottus saw Alexander, and that having offended him, he was ordered to be put to death, and escaped only by flight. Justin says nothing about his being the king's son, but simply relates that he was of obscure origin, and that after he escaped from Alexander he became the leader of a band of robbers, and finally obtained the supreme power...The name of Sandrocottus is written both by Plutarch and Appian Androcottus without the sibilant, and Athenaeus gives us the form Sandrocuptus (Σανδρόκυπτθς), which bears a much greater resemblance to the Hindu name than the common orthography. (Plut. Alex. 62 ; Justin, 15.4 ; Appian, Syr. 55 ; Strab. xv. pp. 702, 709, 724 ; Athen. 1.18e.; Arrian, Arr. Anab. 5.6.2; Plin. H. N. 6.17.)

-- Sandrocottus, by William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology

• Hindu texts such as the Puranas and Arthashastra; later composed Hindu sources include legends in Vishakhadatta's Mudrarakshasa, Somadeva's Kathasaritsagara and Kshemendra's Brihatkathamanjari.

[N]either the Vedas, the Upanishads, nor the Purans, profess to be historical compositions; and the ascribing this character to the latter, in particular, is a most erroneous opinion, for, with the exception of the genealogies of the princes of the solar and lunar races, the Purans contain nothing which has the slightest semblance of history ... It is true that each Puran contains a description of the division of time according to the Hindu system; but the chronology of no event is fixed more precisely than by referring it generally to such a Kalpa, or Manvantara, or Yug, as the particular year is never mentioned. The attempting, therefore, to extract either chronology or history from such data, must be an operation attended with equal success as the extraction of sunbeams from cucumbers by the sages of Laputa" -- Vans Kennedy 1831: 130.

-- Frederick Eden Pargiter: Excerpt from The Puranas, by Ludo Rocher

• Buddhist sources are those dated in 4th-century or after, including the Sri Lankan Pali texts Dipavamsa (Rajavamsa section), Mahavamsa, Mahavamsa tika and Mahabodhivamsa.

• 7th to 10th century Jain inscriptions at Shravanabelgola; these are disputed by scholars as well as the Svetambara Jain tradition.[10][11] The second Digambara text interpreted to be mentioning the Maurya emperor is dated to about the 10th-century such as in the Brhatkathakosa of Harisena (Jain monk), while the complete Jain legend about Chandragupta is found in the 12th-century Parisishtaparvan by Hemachandra.

In the first fifteen pages of the Introduction to his Inscriptions at Sravana-Belgola (published in 1889), Mr. Rice has arrived at the conclusions, that the settlement of the Jains at that place was brought about by the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, Bhadrabahu, and that this person died there, tended in his last moments by the Maurya king Chandragupta...

It is clear that there are local traditions, of some antiquity, connecting the names Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta with Sravana-Belgola....

So far, we stand on safe ground, in respect of the names of a Bhadrabahu and a Chandragupta; provided that we only bear in mind that, as yet, we have nothing to enable us to identify any particular Bhadrabahu and any particular Chandragupta....

No, 105, of A.D, 1398, dealing similarly with the succession from Kondakunda, enumerates, before him, a number of teachers, in respect of whom, for present purposes, it is only necessary to say that the Kevalin Gautama, and five Sruta-Kevalins, ending with Bhadrabahu, are mentioned, but the name of Chandragupta does not occur at all....

These inscriptions undoubtedly mention Bhadrabahu, the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, and allot to him a disciple named Chandragupta. And all that we have to note here, is, that, except through the connected mention of a Chandragupta, they afford no grounds for identifying him with the Bhadrabahu of the inscriptions quoted in the last paragraph but two above; that they furnish no reasons for asserting that the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu ever visited Sravana-Belgola, or even came to Southern India at all; and that they give no indications of Chandragupta having been anything but an ordinary Jain teacher.

And now we come to the actual reasons that led Mr. Rice to assert the alleged facts which, in the interests of plain and reliable history, it is desirable either to substantiate or to disprove. They are to be found, partly in a compendium of Jain history called the Rajavalikathe, and partly in Mr. Rice’s rendering of another inscription at Sravana-Belgola, No. I in his book.

The essence of what the Rajavalikathe tells us is this (loc. cit. pp. 3-6): — "The Bhadrabahu who came to be the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, was a Brahman’s son, and was born at Kotikapura in Pundravardhana. He interpreted sixteen dreams of Chandragupta, the king of Pataliputra; the last of which indicated twelve years of dearth and famine. On the commencement of the famine, Chandragupta abdicated in favour of his son Simhasena, and, taking initiation in the Jain faith, joined himself to Bhadrabahu....After a time, Simhasena’s son, Bhaskara, came to the place, and did obeisance to Chandragupta, and built the city of Belgola near the hill. And eventually, Chandragupta himself died there.”...

— it is sufficient to point out two things. One is, that, whatever be the sources on which it is based, this Jain compendium is a composition of the present century (loc. cit. p. 3). And the other is that, by a further extract from the same work, we learn (ibid, p. 9) that the Chandragupta in question was not the well-known grandfather of Asoka, — the Sandrokottos of the Greeks, — at all, but a son, otherwise quite unknown, of Asoka’s son Kunala. Mr. Rice himself noticed this little difficulty, and got round it by suggesting (ibid. p. 10) that ‘the introduction of two Chandraguptas seems to be due to some confusion in the traditions, and is an unnecessary variation, perhaps intended to conceal the defection of Asoka (from Jainism to the Buddhist faith).' But, by such a process as this, — accepting as reliable an account that is perfectly valueless for historical purposes, and then directly perverting its statement, on a point of leading importance, by deliberately substituting a man’s grandfather in the place of his grandson, — almost anything whatever in the way of imaginary history might be evolved.

It is unnecessary to follow Mr. Rice through the process by which, using what seems to be an actual fact, viz. that Bhadrabahu, the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, was a contemporary of the great Chandragupta, he arrived (loc. cit. pp. 12, 14) at about B.C. 297 for the date of the events recorded, on his interpretation, in the inscription that still remains to be considered or through the steps by which he established a connection of the real Chandragupta with Southern India through the Early Guptas, the Mauryas of the Konkan, and the Gatta chieftains of the Kanareso country (ibid. pp. 10-14). We will turn now to the inscription itself.

The real purport of the inscription, No. 1 in the Sravana-Belgola volume, is as follows: — After the time when (the Jain Tirthamkara) Mahavira attained parinirvana, there was a certain Bhadrabahusvamin, who belonged to a lineage that had been made illustrious by a succession of great saints who came in continuous order from the venerable Paramarshi Gautama, and his disciple Loharya, and Jambu, Vishnudeva, Aparajita, Govardhana, Bhadrabahu, Visakha, Prosthhila, Krittikarya,3 [Mr. Rice gives “Kshatriksrya." I do not overlook the fact that the name occurs as “Kshatriya" in No. 165 in Mr. Rice’s book, and in the extract from the Maghanandi-Sravakachara given ante, Vol. XII. p 22, and as “Khattiya,” explained by “Kshatriya,” in the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha (ante, Vol, XX. p. 348). But Mr. Rice’s lithograph distinctly has the name that I give. — Since writing these remarks, I have seen impressions of the inscription, which I owe to the kindness of Dr. Hultzsch. They shew that the name really is Krittikarya.] Jayanaman, Siddhartha, Dhritishena, Buddhila, and other Gurus. At Ujjayini, the Bhadrabahusvamin, thus introduced, mastered the science of prognostication, became a knower of the past, the present, and the future, and announced a period of distress that would last for twelve years; and the entire sangha set out from the north and migrated to the south, and, by the directions of the saint, came to a country containing many hundreds of villages, and rich in people, wealth, gold, grain, cows, buffaloes, and goats. Then, on the mountain Katavapra4 [The original says, “on this mountain named Katavapra”; i.e. on the hill on which the inscription is engraved; i.e. on Chandragiri itself.] the Acharya Prabhachandra, perceiving that the end of his life was very near, and being much afraid of journeying any farther, dismissed the whole samgha, with the exception of one unnamed disciple, and engaged in samnyasa until he died."

In interpreting this record, Mr. Rice made two important mistakes. (1) He took the Bhadrabahusvamin who announced the period of distress, to be identical with Bhadrabahu I, the Sruta-Kevalin, who is mentioned in his proper place between Govardhana and Visakha. But, according to the inscription itself, seven of the Dasa-Parvins, and after them a break of unspecified duration, intervened between the two Bhadrabahus, — in perfect accordance with the lists of Northern India. And (2), in consequence of a mislection in line 6, he translated the inscription as meaning that the Acharya who died at Katavapra, was Bhadrabahusvamin himself, i.e,, as the result of his identification, Bhadrabahu I., the Sruta-Kevalin, and that the disciple who tended him was Prabhachandra; to which he attached a note that Prabhachandra was explained to him as the clerical name assumed by Chandragupta.5 [See also Introd. pp 6, 7, where, however, he says only that, "according to No. 1,” i.e. the present inscription, Chandragupta “appears” to have taken the name of Prabhachandra on retiring from the world, in conformity with custom.] But all this is distinctly not the case; the reading, in line 6, is, — not acharyyah Prabhachandren=am=avanitala, “the Acharya, with6 [The passage was supposed to include the word ama, in the sense of saha, — The inscription was first brought to notice by Mr. Rice in 1871, in this Journal, Vol. III., p. 153 (see also Mysore Inscriptions, pp. lxxxvi., lxxxvii., 302); and the first extract from the Rajavalikatne was also given. But Mr. Rice did not then find the name Prabhachandra in the inscription. And in respect of the extract from the Rajavalikathe, he then wrote — “This is a strange story. How much of it may be accepted as historical is not easy to say.”] Prabhachandra also, [dismissed the sangha, and engaged in samnyasa till he died],” — but acharyyah Prabhachandro nam=avanitala, "the Acharya, namely Prabhachandra, [dismissed the samgha and engaged in samnyasa till he died].”

In short, so far from recording that the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu died at Sravana Belgola, tended by a disciple named Prabhachandra, who might be assumed to be king Chandragupta of Pataliputra, the inscription simply states that an Acharya named Prabhachandra died there, during or shortly after a migration of the Jain community to the south, which was caused by an announcement of famine made, at Ujjain, by a certain Bhadrabahusvamin who came after an interval of unspecified duration, — but plainly a long one, — after the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu, And thus the only possible substantial foundation for the fabric reared up by Mr. Rice ceases entirely to exist.

We may now proceed to examine the real historical bearings of this inscription. It is not dated. But the lithographic Plate which is given by Mr. Rice, shews that the engraving of it is to be allotted to approximately the seventh century A.D.: it may possibly be a trifle earlier; and equally, it may possibly be somewhat later.7 [While recognising, approximately, the period to which the characters really belong, Mr. Rice (loc. cit. p. 15) arrived at the conclusion that, “if this interesting inscription did not precede the Christian era, it unquestionably belongs to the earliest part of that era and is certainly not later than about 100 A.D." But there are no substantial grounds for this view, which depends chiefly upon Mr. Rice’s acceptance as genuine, of the spurious Western Ganga grants. Unfortunately, much of what would otherwise be valuable work by him, is always vitiated in the same way.] And, interpreting the record in the customary manner, viz. as referring to an event almost exactly synchronous with the engraving of it, we can only take it as commemorating the death of a Jain teacher named Prabhachandra, in or very near to the period A.D. 600 to 700. Who this Prabhachandra was, I am not at present able to say. But he cannot be Prabhachandra I. of the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha (ante, Vol. XX. p. 351), unless the chronological details of that record, — according to which Prabhachandra I., became pontiff in A.D. 396, — are open to very considerable rectification. And I should think that he must be a different person, for whose identification we have to look to southern records not as yet available.

-- Bhadrabahu, Chandragupta, and Sravana-Belgola, by J.F. Fleet, Bo.C.S., M.R.A.S., C.I.E.

The Greek and Roman texts do not mention Chandragupta directly, except for a 2nd-century text written by the Roman historian Justin. They predominantly mention the last Nanda Empire, who usurped the king before him. Justin states Chandragupta was of humble origin and includes stories of miraculous legends associated with him, such as a wild elephant appearing and submitting itself as a ride to him before a war. Justin's text notes Chandragupta and Chanakya defeated and removed Nanda from his rule.[12] Megasthenes' account, as it has survived in Greek texts that quote him, states that Alexander the Great and Chandragupta [???] met, which if true would mean his rule started earlier than 321 BCE. He is described as a great king, but not as great in power and influence as Porus in northwestern India or Agrammes (Dhana Nanda) in eastern India.[13]

But even Megasthenes, so far as appears, did not travel over much of India, though no doubt he saw more of it than those who came with Alexander the son of Philip, for, as he tells us, he resided at the court of Sandrakottos, the greatest king in India, and also at the court of Poros, who was still greater than he.

-- Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian; Being a Translation of the Fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes Collected by Dr. Schwanbeck, and of the First Part of the Indika of Arrian, by J.W. McCrindle, M.A.

The pre-4th century Hindu Puranic texts mostly mirror the Greek sources.[???] These texts do not discuss the details of Chandragupta's ancestry, but rather cover the ancestry of the last Nanda king. The Nanda king is described to be cruel, against dharma and shastras, and born out of an illicit relationship followed by a coup.[14] The Chanakya's Arthasastra refers to the Nanda rule as against the spiritual, cultural, and military interests of the country, a period where intrigue and vice multiplied.[14] Chanakya states that Chandragupta returned dharma, nurtured diversity of views, and ruled virtuously that kindled love among the subjects for his rule. [14]

Chanakya: most of what is known about him comes from semi-legendary accounts.

-- Chanakya, by Wikipedia

Hindu sources are inconsistent. One medieval commentator states Chandragupta to be the son of one of the Nanda's wives with the name Mura.[14] Other sources describe Mura as a concubine of the king.[15] Another Sanskrit dramatic text Mudrarakshasa uses the terms Vrishala and Kula-Hina to describe Chandragupta.[16] The word Vrishala has two meanings: one is the son of a Shudra; the other means the best of kings. A later commentator used the former interpretation to posit that Chandragupta had a Shudra background. However, historian Radha Kumud Mukherjee opposed this theory, and stated that the word should be interpreted as "the best of kings".[16] The same drama also refers to Chandragupta as someone of humble origin, like Justin.[16] According to the 11th-century texts of the Kashmiri Hindu tradition – Kathasaritsagara and Brihat-Katha-Manjari – the Nanda lineage was very short. Chandragupta was a son of Purva-Nanda, the older Nanda based in Ayodhya. [17][18][19] The common theme in the Hindu sources is that Chandragupta came from a humble background and with Chanakya, he emerged as a dharmic king loved by his subjects.[20]

The Buddhist texts such as Mahavamsa describe Chandragupta to be of Kshatriya origin.[21] These sources, written about seven centuries after his dynasty ended, state that both Chandragupta and his grandson Ashoka – a patron of Buddhism – were from a branch of the Shakya noble family, from which Gautama Buddha descended from.[22] These Buddhist sources attempt to link the dynasty of their patron Ashoka directly to the Buddha.[23] The sources claim that the family branched off to escape persecution from a king of the Kosala Kingdom and Chandragupta's ancestors moved into a secluded Himalayan kingdom known for its peacocks. The Buddhist sources explain the epithet Moriya comes from these peacocks, or Mora in Pali (Sanskrit: Mayura). [22][3] The Buddhist texts are inconsistent; some offer other legends to explain his epithet. For example, they mention a city named "Moriya-nagara" where all buildings were made of bricks colored like the peacock's neck.[24] The Maha-bodhi-vasa states he hailed from Moriya-nagara, while the Digha-Nikaya states he came from the Moriya clan of Pipphalivana.[21] The Buddhist sources also mention that "Brahmin Chanakya" was his counselor and with whose support Chandragupta became the king at Pataliputra. [24]


7th-century Bhadrabahu inscription at Shravanabelagola (Sanskrit, Purvahale Kannada script). This is the oldest inscription at the site, and it mentions Bhadrabahu and Prabhacandra. Lewis Rice and Digambara Jains interpret Prabhacandra to be Chandragupta Maurya, while others such as J F Fleet, V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, and Svetambara Jains state this interpretation is wrong. [2][10][11]

The 12th-century Digambara text Parishishtaparvan by Hemachandra is the main and earliest Jain source of the complete legend of Chandragupta. It was written nearly 1,400 years after Chandragupta's death. Canto 8, verses 170 to 469, describes the legend of Chandragupta and Chanakya's influence on him. [21][25] Other Digambara Jain sources state he moved to Karnataka after renouncing his kingdom and performed Sallekhana – the Jain religious ritual of peacefully welcoming death by fasting.[26][27] The earliest mention of Chandragupta's ritual death is found in Harisena's Brhatkathakosa, a Sanskrit text of stories about Digambara Jains. The Brhatkathakosa describes the legend of Bhadrabahu and mentions Chandragupta in its 131st story.[28] However, the story makes no mention of the Maurya empire, and mentions that his disciple Chandragupta lived in and migrated from Ujjain – a kingdom (northwest Madhya Pradesh) about a thousand kilometers west of the Magadha and Patliputra (central Bihar). This has led to the proposal that Harisena's Chandragupta may be a later era, different person.[28][2][29]

Date

None of the ancient texts mention when Chandragupta was born. Plutarch claims that he [???] was a young man when he met Alexander during the latter's invasion of India (c. 326-325 BCE).

62. As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. 1 For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. [2] For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.

[3] At first, then, Alexander shut himself up in his tent from displeasure and wrath and lay there, feeling no gratitude for what he had already achieved unless he should cross the Ganges, nay, counting a retreat a confession of defeat. But his friends gave him fitting consolation, and his soldiers crowded about his door and besought him with loud cries and wailing, until at last he relented and began to break camp, resorting to many deceitful and fallacious devices for the enhancement of his fame. [4] For instance, he had armour prepared that was larger than usual, and mangers for horses that were higher, and bits that were heavier than those in common use, and left them scattered up and down. Moreover, he erected altars for the gods, which down to the present time are revered by the kings of the Praesii when they cross the river, and on them they offer sacrifices in the Hellenic manner. Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth.

-- Plut. Alex. 62, Bernadotte Perrin, Ed.

Assuming the Plutarch account is true, Raychaudhuri proposed in 1923 that Chandragupta may have been born after 350 BCE.[30] According to other Greco-Roman texts, Chandragupta [???] attacked the Greek-Indian governors after Alexander's death (c. 323 CE) with Seleucus I Nicator entering into a treaty with Chandragupta years later.[31] Seleucus Nicator, under this treaty, gave up Arachosia (Kandahar), Gedrosia (Makran), and Paropanisadai (Paropamisadae, Kabul) to Chandragupta, in exchange for 500 war elephants. [13]

The texts do not include the start or end year of Chandragupta's reign.[32] According to some Hindu and Buddhist texts, Chandragupta ruled for 24 years.[33] The Buddhist sources state Chandragupta Maurya ruled 162 years after the death of the Buddha.[34] However, the Buddha's birth and death vary by source and all these lead to a chronology that is significantly different than the Greek-Roman records [???]. Similarly, Jain sources composed give different gaps between Mahavira's death and his accession.[34] As with the Buddha's death, the date of Mahavira's death itself is also a matter of debate, and the inconsistencies and lack of unanimity among the Jain authors cast doubt on Jain sources. This Digambara Jain chronology, also, is not reconcilable with the chronology implied in other Indian and non-Indian [???] sources.[34]

Historians such as Irfan Habib and Vivekanand Jha assign Chandragupta's reign to c. 322-298 BCE.[35] Upinder Singh dates his rule from 324 or 321 BCE to 297 BCE.[5] Kristi Wiley states he reigned between 320 and 293 BCE.[10]

Early life

The early life of Chandragupta Maurya is unclear and varies by source. According to the Sinhalese Buddhist tradition, Chandragupta's mother was pregnant when his father - who was the chief of the Moriya clan - was killed in a battle. His mother escaped to Pataliputra with the help of her brothers. For Chandragupta's safety, his maternal uncles helped a cowherd adopt him. When Chandragupta grew up, the cowherd sold him to a hunter who employed him to tend cattle.[36][37]

According to the Digambara legend by Hemachandra, Chanakya was a Jain layperson and a Brahmin. When Chanakya was born, Jain monks prophesied that Chanakya will one day grow up to help make someone an emperor and will be the power behind the throne.[38][25] Chanakya believed in the prophecy and fulfilled it by agreeing to help the daughter of a peacock breeding community chief deliver a baby boy. In exchange, he asked the mother to give up the boy and let him adopt him at a later date.[21][25] The Jain Brahmin then went about making money through magic, and returned later to claim young Chandragupta,[25] whom he taught and trained. Together, they recruited soldiers and attacked the Nanda kingdom. Eventually, they won and proclaimed Patliputra as their capital.[25]

Career

Influence of Chanakya (Kautilya)

Chanakya


Chandragupta's guru was Chanakya, with whom he studied as a child and with whose counsel he built the Empire. This image is a 1915 artistic portrait of Chanakya.

The Buddhist and Hindu sources present different versions of how Chandragupta met Chanakya. Broadly, they mention young Chandragupta creating a mock game of a royal court that he and his cowherd friends played near Vinjha forest. Chanakya saw him give orders to the others, bought him from the hunter, and adopted Chandragupta.[39] Chanakya taught and admitted him in Taxila to study the Vedas, military arts, law, and other sastras.[39][40]

After Taxila, Chandragupta and Chanakya moved to Pataliputra, the capital and a historic learning center in the eastern Magadha kingdom of India. They met Nanda there according to Hindu sources, and Dhana Nanda according to Pali-language Buddhist sources.[41] Chandragupta became a commander of the Nanda army, but according to Justin, Chandragupta offended the Nanda king ("Nandrum" or "Nandrus") who ordered his execution.[38] An alternate version states that it was the Nanda king who was publicly insulted by Chanakya.[42] Chandragupta and Chanakya escaped and became rebels who planned to remove the Nanda king from power.[43][note 1] The Mudrarakshasa also states that Chanakya swore to destroy the Nanda dynasty after he felt insulted by the king.[42]

Justin likewise relates, that Sandrocottus saw Alexander, and that having offended him, he was ordered to be put to death, and escaped only by flight.

-- Sandrocottus, by William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology

The passage regarding Candragupta's date is found in Justinius, Epitoma Pompet Trogi, xv 4 and Mr. McCrindle translated it as follows:2 [Mendelsohn's edition (Leipzig, 1879), I. 426.]

"[Seleucus] carried on many wars in the East after the division of the Macedonian kingdom between himself and the other successor of Alexander, first seizing Babylonia, and then reducing the Bactrians, his power being increased by the first success. Thereafter he passed into India, which had, since Alexander's death, killed his prefects, thinking that the yoke of slavery had been shaken off from its neck. The author of its freedom had been Sandrocottus, but when victory was gained he had changed the name of freedom to that of bondage. For, after he had ascended the throne, he himself oppressed with servitude the very people which he had rescued from foreign dominion. Though of humble birth, he was impelled by innate majesty to assume royal power. When king Nandrus,1 [McCrindle's translation, 114.] whom he had offended by his boldness, ordered him to be killed, he had resorted to speedy flight. Sandrocottus, having thus gained the crown, held India at the time when Seleucus was laying the foundations of his future greatness. Seleucus came to an agreement with him, and, after settling affairs in the East, engaged in the war against Antigonus."

-- History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, by Kavyavinoda, Sahityaratnakara M. Krishnamachariar, M.A., M.I., Ph.D., Member of the Royal Asiatic Society of London (Of the Madras Judicial Service), Assisted by His Son M. Srinivasachariar, B.A., B.L., Advocate, Madras, 1937

The Roman text by Justin mentions a couple of miraculous incidents that involved Sandracottus (Chandragupta [???]) and presents these legends as omens and portents of his fate. In the first incident, when Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!] was asleep after having escaped from Nandrum, a big lion came up to him, licked him, and then left. In the second incident, when Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!] was readying for war with Alexander's generals, a huge wild elephant approached him and offered itself to be his steed.[45]

Chandragupta as Leader of Revolution.

The Greek withdrawal from India was not an automatic process. It was forced by a revolution, a war of independence declared by Chandragupta as its leader. The assassinations of the Greek governors are not to be looked upon as mere accidents or isolated events. They were the preliminary incidents of a planned scheme of attack against Greek rule. The two years, 325 B.C. 323 B.C., that intervened between the death of Philip and that of Philip's master were busy years for those who were planning India's freedom. What was then happening may be gathered from the following words of Justin [XV. 4], our only source of evidence for this fateful episode in India's history: "India, after the death of Alexander, had shaken, as it were, the yoke of servitude from its neck and put his governors to death. The author of this liberation was Sandrocottus. This man was of humble origin but was stimulated to aspire to regal power by supernatural encouragement; for, having offended Alexander (Alexandrum which some scholars replace by the name Nandrum or Nanda) by his boldness of speech, and orders being given to kill him, he saved himself by swiftness of foot; and, while he was lying asleep, after his fatigue, a lion of great size, having come up to him, licked off with his tongue the sweat that was running from him, and after gently waking him, left him. Being first prompted by this prodigy to conceive hopes of royal dignity, he drew together a band of robbers and instigated the Indians to overthrow the existing (Greek) government. Sometimes after, as he was going to war with the generals of Alexander, a wild elephant of great bulk presented itself before him of its own accord and, as tamed down to gentleness, took him on his back and became his guide in the war and conspicuous in fields of battle. Sandrocottus, having thus acquired a throne, was in possession of India when Seleucus was laying the foundations of his future greatness". Stripped of its miraculous elements, the passage is a record of important history. It declares definitely that Chandragupta was the hero of this Indian war of independence. It also exhibits Chandragupta's plan of action which was first to dispose of what may be called the tall poppies of Greek India, its provincial governors who were Alexander's generals. We have already seen how this plan was given effect to by the assassination of the two most important Greek Satraps, Nicanor and Philip. It may be taken for granted that the removal of these two Greek governors practically meant the overthrow of Greek rule in India. Alexander when living was unable to take any effective steps against this defiance of his authority, and, after his death in 323 B.C., there was disruption in his empire, and India was left alone by the generals who partitioned. the empire. Thus it may be assumed that the death of Alexander meant the death of Greek rule in India. We have already seen how the provisions of the second partition of Alexander's empire in 321 B.C. practically point to the Greek recognition of the independence of India which was achieved by Chandragupta about 323 B.C., and, certainly, before 321 B.C.

If may be further noted that even if the reading Alexander is taken for the word Nandrum in the above passage of Justin, it will be quite in accord with the probabilities of the situation. The hero of Indian independence must have impressed Alexander with the promise of his future and roused his suspicion and enmity. This only added a private cause to the national cause of Chandragupta's hostility to Greek rule.

-- Mookerji, Radha Kumud (1988) [first published in 1966], Chandragupta Maurya and his times (4th ed.), Motilal Banarsidass, p. 32.

Before the war with Antigonus was commenced by Ptolemy and his allies, Seleucus, on a sudden, leaving the Greater Asia,10 [In opposition to Asia Minor.] came forward as a fresh enemy to Antigonus. The merit of Seleucus was well known, and his birth had been attended with extraordinary circumstances. His mother Laodice, being married to Antiochus, a man of eminence among Philip’s generals, seemed to herself, in a dream, to have conceived from a union with Apollo, and, after becoming pregnant, to have received from him, as a reward for her compliance, a ring, on the stone of which was engraved an anchor and which she was desired to give to the child that she should bring forth. A ring similarly engraved, which was found the next day in the bed, and the figure of an anchor, which was visible on the thigh of Seleucus when he was born, made this dream extremely remarkable. This ring Laodice gave to Seleucus, when he was going with Alexander to the Persian war, informing him, at the same time, of his paternity. After the death of Alexander, having secured dominion in the east, he built a city, where he established a memorial of his two-fold origin; for he called the city Antioch from the name of his father Antiochus, and consecrated the plains near the city to Apollo. This mark of his paternity continued also among his descendants; for his sons and grandsons had an anchor on their thigh, as a natural proof of their extraction.

After the division of the Macedonian empire among the followers of Alexander, he carried on several wars in the east. He first took Babylon, and then, his strength being increased by this success, subdued the Bactrians. He next made an expedition into India, which, after the death of Alexander, had shaken, as it were, the yoke of servitude from its neck, and put his governors to death. The author of this liberation was Sandrocottus, who afterwards, however, turned their semblance of liberty into slavery; for, making himself king, he oppressed the people whom he had delivered from a foreign power, with a cruel tyranny. This man was of mean origin, but was stimulated to aspire to regal power by supernatural encouragement; for, having offended Alexander by his boldness of speech, and orders being given to kill him, he saved himself by swiftness of foot; and while he was lying asleep, after his fatigue, a lion of great size having come up to him, licked off with his tongue the sweat that was running from him, and after gently waking him, left him. Being first prompted by this prodigy to conceive hopes of royal dignity, he drew together a band of robbers, and solicited the Indians to support his new sovereignty. Some time after, as he was going to war with the generals of Alexander, a wild elephant of great bulk presented itself before him of its own accord, and, as if tamed down to gentleness,11 [Veluti domita mansuetudine (As if tamed by meekness) stands in Wetzel’s text, and I believe in all others. Scheffer asks whether there is mansuetudo (meekness) not domita (tamed). Dübner, the editor of a small edition with French notes (Par. 18mo. 1847), says that Cuper, de Elephantis, p. 47, proposes to read domitus ad mansuetudinem (tamed with gentleness.).] took him on its back, and became his guide in the war, and conspicuous in fields of battle. Sandrocottus, having thus acquired a throne, was in possession of India, when Seleucus was laying the foundations of his future greatness; who, after making a league with him, and settling his affairs in the east, proceeded to join in the war against Antigonus. As soon as the forces, therefore, of all the confederates were united, a battle was fought,12 [At Ipsus in Phrygia.] in which Antigonus was slain, and his son Demetrius put to flight.

But the allied generals, after thus terminating the war with the enemy, turned their arms again upon each other, and, as they could not agree about the spoil, were divided into two parties. Seleucus joined Demetrius, and Ptolemy Lysimachus. Cassander dying, Philip, his son, succeeded him. Thus new wars arose, as it were, from a fresh source, for Macedonia.

-- Justinus (XV. 4)

Building the empire

Main articles: Conquest of the Nanda Empire and Maurya Empire

According to the Buddhist text Mahavamsa Tika, Chandragupta and Chanakya raised an army by recruiting soldiers from many places after the former completed his education at Taxila. Chanakya made Chandragupta the leader of the army.[46] The Digambara Jain text Parishishtaparvan states that this army was raised by Chanakya with coins he minted and an alliance formed with Parvataka.[47][48] According to Justin, Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!] organized an army. Early translators interpreted Justin's original expression as "body of robbers", but states Raychaudhuri, the original expression used by Justin may mean mercenary soldier, hunter, or robber.[49]

The Buddhist Mahavamsa Tika and Jain Parishishtaparvan records Chandragupta's army unsuccessfully attacking the Nanda capital. [47] Chandragupta and Chanakya then began a campaign at the frontier of the Nanda empire, gradually conquering various territories on their way to the Nanda capital.[50] He then refined his strategy by establishing garrisons in the conquered territories, and finally besieged the Nanda capital Pataliputra. There Dhana Nanda accepted defeat, and was killed by Buddhist accounts,[51] or deposed and exiled by Hindu accounts.[52]

[admin]

Part 3 of 4

Conquest of the Nanda empire

Greco-Roman writer Plutarch stated, in his Life of Alexander, that the Nanda [???] king was so unpopular that had Alexander tried, he could have easily conquered India.[43][53]

Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth.

-- Plut. Alex. 62, Bernadotte Perrin, Ed.

After Alexander ended his campaign and left, Chandragupta's army conquered the Nanda capital Pataliputra around 322 BCE with Chanakya's counsel.[38]

Historically reliable details of Chandragupta's campaign into Pataliputra are unavailable and legends written centuries later are inconsistent. Buddhist texts such as Milindapanha claim Magadha was ruled by the Nanda dynasty, which, with Chanakya's counsel, Chandragupta conquered to restore dhamma.[54][55] The army of Chandragupta and Chanakya first conquered the Nanda outer territories before invading Pataliputra. In contrast to the easy victory in Buddhist sources, the Hindu and Jain texts state that the campaign was bitterly fought because the Nanda dynasty had a powerful and well-trained army.[56][55]

The conquest was fictionalised in Mudrarakshasa, in which Chandragupta is said to have first acquired Punjab and allied with a local king named Parvatka under the Chanakya's advice before advancing on the Nanda Empire.[57] Chandragupta laid siege to Kusumapura (now Patna), the capital of Magadha, by deploying guerrilla warfare methods with the help of mercenaries from conquered areas.[58][59] Historian P. K. Bhattacharyya states that the empire was built by a gradual conquest of provinces after the initial consolidation of Magadha.[60]

According to the Digambara Jain version by Hemachandra, the success of Chandragupta and his strategist Chanakya was stopped by a Nanda town that refused to surrender.[61] Chanakya disguised himself as a mendicant and found seven mother goddesses (saptamatrika) inside. He concluded these goddesses were protecting the town people.[61] The townspeople sought the disguised mendicant's advice on how to end the blockade of the army surrounding their town. Hemacandra wrote Chanakya swindled them into removing the mother goddesses. The townspeople removed the protective goddesses and an easy victory over the town followed. Thereafter, the alliance of Chandragupta and Parvataka overran the Nanda kingdom and attacked Pataliputra with an "immeasurable army".[61] With a depleted treasury, exhausted merit, and insufficient intelligence, the Nanda king lost.[61]

These legends state that the Nanda king was defeated, but allowed to leave Pataliputra alive with a chariot full of items his family needed.[62] The Jain sources attest that his daughter fell in love at first sight with Chandragupta and married him.[61][21] With the defeat of Nanda, Chandragupta Maurya founded the Maurya Empire in ancient India.[3][63]

Conquest of north-west regions

The Indian campaign of Alexander the Great ended before Chandragupta came into power. Alexander had left India in 325 BCE and assigned the northwestern Indian subcontinent territories to Greek governors.[64][65] The nature of early relationship between these governors and Chandragupta [???] is unknown. Justin mentions Chandragupta [Sandrocottus !!!] as a rival of the Alexander's successors in north-western India.[35] He states that after Alexander's death, Chandragupta [Sandrocottus !!!] freed Indian territories from the Greeks and executed some of the governors.[66] According to Boesche, this war with the northwestern territories were in part fought by mercenaries hired by Chandragupta and Chanakya, and these wars may have been the cause of the demise of two of Alexander's governors, Nicanor and Philip.[67] Megasthenes served as a Greek ambassador in his court for four years.[63]

"The following statements," continues Muller, "contain all that is related about Megasthenes: —

"Megasthenes the historian, who lived with Seleukos Nikator',— Clem. Alex. p. 132 Sylb. (Fragm. 42); 'Megasthenes, who lived with Sibyrtios the satrap of Arachosia, and who says that he often visited Sandrakottos, king of the Indians,'— Arrian, Exp. Alex. V. vi. 2 (Fragm. 2);— 'To Sandrokottos, to whom Megasthenes came on an embassy,' — Strabo, xv. p. 702 (Fragm. 25);— 'Megasthenes and Deimachos were sent on an embassy, the former to Sandrokottos at Palimbothra, the other to Allitrochades his son; and they left accounts of their sojourn in the country,' — Strabo, ii. p. 70 (Fragm. 29 note); Megasthenes says that he often visited Sandrokottos, the greatest king (maharaja: v. Bohlen, Alte Indian, I. p. 19) of the Indians, and Poros, still greater than he: — Arrian, Lid. c. 5 (Fragm. 24). Add the passage of Plinitis, which Solinus (Polyhistar. c. (50) thus renders:—'Megasthenes remained for some time with the Indian kings, and wrote a history of Indian affairs, that he might hand down to posterity a faithful account of all that he had witnessed. Dionysius, who was sent by Philadelphus to put the truth to the test by personal inspection, wrote also as much.'

"From these sources, then, we gather that Megasthenes was the representative of Seleukos at the court of Sibyrtios, satrap of Arachosia, and that he was sent from thence as the king's ambassador to Sandrokottos at Palimbothra, and that not once, but frequently — whether to convey to him the presents of Seleukos, or for some other cause. According to the statement of Arrianus, Megasthenes also visited king Poros, who was (Diod. xix. 14) already dead in 317 B.C. (Olymp. CXV. 4.) These events should not be referred to the period of Seleukos, but they may very easily be placed in the reign of Alexander, as Bohlen (Alte Indien, vol. I. p. 68) appears to have believed they should, when he says Megasthenes was one of the companions of Alexander. But the structure of the sentences does not admit of this conclusion. For Arrianus says, 'It appears to me that Megasthenes did not see much of India, but yet more than the companions of Alexander, for he says, that he visited Sandrokottos, the greatest king of the Indians, and Poros even greater than he ([x]).' We should be disposed to say, then, that he made a journey on some occasion or other to Poros, if the obscurity of the language did not lead us to suspect it a corrupt reading. Lassen (De. Pentap. p. 44) thinks the mention of Poros a careless addition of a chance transcriber, but I prefer Schwanbeck's opinion, who thinks it should be written [x], 'and who was even greater than Poros.' If this correction is admitted, everything fits well.

"The time when he discharged his embassy or embassies, and how long he stayed in India, cannot be determined, but he was probably sent after the treaty had been struck and friendship had sprung up between the two kings. If, therefore, we make the reign of Sandrokottos extend to the year 288, Megasthenes would have set out for Palimbothra between 302 and 288. Clinton (F. H. vol. III., p. 482) thinks he came to the Indian king a little before B.C. 302."

-- Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian; Being a Translation of the Fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes Collected by Dr. Schwanbeck, and of the First Part of the Indika of Arrian, by J.W. McCrindle, M.A.

Chandragupta had defeated the remaining Macedonian satrapies in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent by 317 BCE.

War and marriage alliance with Seleucus

According to Appian, Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander's Macedonian generals who in 312 BCE established the Seleucid Kingdom with its capital at Babylon, brought Persia and Bactria under his own authority, putting his eastern front facing the empire of Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!].[68][69] Seleucus and Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!] waged war until they came to an understanding with each other. Seleucus married off his daughter to Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!] to forge an alliance.[69]

The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus mountain: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander [III 'the Great' of Macedon] took these away from the Arians and established settlements of his own, but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants. — Strabo 15.2.9

"He carried on many wars in the East after the division of the Makedonian kingdom between himself and the other successors of Alexander, first seizing Babylonia, and then reducing Baktriane, his power being increased by the first success. Thereafter he passed into India, which had, since Alexander's death, killed its governors, thinking thereby to shake off from its neck the yoke of slavery. Sandrokottos had made it free: but when victory was gained he changed the name of freedom to that of bondage, for he himself oppressed with servitude the very people which he had rescued from foreign dominion. Sandrokottos, having thus gained the crown, held India at the time when Seleukos was laying the foundations of his future greatness. Seleukos came to an agreement with him, and, after settling affairs in the East, engaged in the war against Antigonos (302 B.C.).' — -- Justinus (XV. 4)

'He (Seleukos) crossed the Indus and waged war on Sandrokottos, king of the Indians who dwelt about it, until he made friends and entered into relations of marriage with him.' -- Appianus [c. 95 – c. AD 165)] (Syr. c. 55)

Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!] or his son may have married a daughter of Seleucus, or perhaps there was diplomatic recognition of intermarriage between Indians and Greeks.

-- Seleucus I Nicator, by Wikipedia

Having punished with a stern hand the misrule of his satraps, Macedonian and Persian alike, Alexander began to carry out schemes which he had formed. He had unbarred and unveiled the Orient to the knowledge and commerce of the Mediterranean peoples, but his aim was to do much more than this; it was no less than to fuse Asia and Europe into a homogeneous unity. He devised various means for compassing this object. He proposed to transplant Greeks and Macedonians into Asia, and Asiatics into Europe, as permanent settlers. This plan had indeed been partly realised by the foundation of his numerous mixed cities in the Far East. The second means was the promotion of intermarriages between Persians and Macedonians, and this policy was inaugurated in magnificent fashion at Susa. The king himself espoused Statira, the daughter of Darius; his friend Hephaestion took her sister; and a large number of Macedonian officers wedded the daughters of Persian grandees. Of the general mass of the Macedonians 10,000 are said to have followed the example of their officers and taken Asiatic wives.

-- Chapter XVIII: The Conquest of the Far East, Excerpt from "History of Greece for Beginners", by J. B. Bury, M.A.

R. C. Majumdar and D. D. Kosambi note that Seleucus appeared to have fared poorly after ceding large territories west of the Indus to Chandragupta. The Maurya Empire added Arachosia (Kandahar), Gedrosia (Balochistan), and Paropamisadae (Gandhara).[70][71][a] According to Strabo, Seleucus Nicator gave these regions to Chandragupta along with a marriage treaty, and in return received five hundred elephants.[72] The details of the engagement treaty are not known.[73] According to one version, the marriage treaty involved an Indian princess, while a different version states a Seleucid princess married into the Mauryan family.[74]

Chandragupta sent 500 war elephants to Seleucus, which played a key role in Seleucus' victory at the Battle of Ipsus.[75][76][77] In addition to this treaty, Seleucus dispatched Megasthenes as an ambassador to Chandragupta's court, and later Antiochos sent Deimakos to his son Bindusara at the Maurya court at Patna.[78]

The Mahavamsa states Chandragupta married a daughter of Seleucus. As well, an Indian Puranic source, the Pratisarga Parva of the Bhavishya Purana, also described the marriage of Chandragupta with a Greek ("Yavana") princess, daughter of Seleucus (Suluva in Indian sources).

-- Seleucus I Nicator, by Wikipedia

Southern conquest

After annexing Seleucus' provinces west of the Indus river, Chandragupta had a vast empire extending across the northern Indian sub-continent from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea. Chandragupta began expanding his empire southwards beyond the Vindhya Range and into the Deccan Plateau.[38] By the time his conquests were complete, Chandragupta's empire extended over most of the subcontinent.[79]

Two poetic anthologies from the Tamil Sangam literature corpus -– Akananuru and Purananuru –- allude to the Nanda rule and Maurya empire. For example, poems 69, 281 and 375 mention the army and chariots of the Mauryas, while poems 251 and 265 may be alluding to the Nandas.[80] However, the poems dated between 1st-century BCE to 5th-century CE do not mention Chandragupta Maurya by name, and some of them could be referring to a different Moriya dynasty in the Deccan region in the 5th century CE.[81] According to Upinder Singh, these poems may be mentioning Mokur and Koshar kingdoms of Vadugars (northerners) in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, with one interpretation being that the Maurya empire had an alliance with these at some point of time.[82]

The Sangam literature historically known as 'the poetry of the noble ones' connotes the ancient Tamil literature and is the earliest known literature of South India. The Tamil tradition and legends link it to three literary gatherings around Madurai and Kapāṭapuram (Pandyan capitals): the first over 4,440 years, the second over 3,700 years, and the third over 1,850 years before the start of the common era. Scholars consider this Tamil tradition-based chronology as ahistorical and mythical. Most scholars suggest the historical Sangam literature era spanned from c. 300 BCE to 300 CE, while others variously place this early classical Tamil literature period a bit later and more narrowly but all before 300 CE. According to Kamil Zvelebil – a Tamil literature and history scholar, the most acceptable range for the Sangam literature is 100 BCE to 250 CE, based on the linguistic, prosodic and quasi-historic allusions within the texts and the colophons.

The Sangam literature had fallen into oblivion for much of the second millennium of the common era, but were preserved by and rediscovered in the monasteries of Hinduism, particularly those related to Shaivism near Kumbakonam, by the colonial era scholars in the late nineteenth century. The rediscovered Sangam classical collection is largely a bardic corpus....

This collection contains 2381 poems in Tamil composed by 473 poets, some 102 anonymous. Of these, 16 poets account for about 50% of the known Sangam literature, with Kapilar – the most prolific poet – alone contributing just little less than 10% of the entire corpus.These poems vary between 3 and 782 lines long. The bardic poetry of the Sangam era is largely about love (akam) and war (puram), with the exception of the shorter poems such as in paripaatal which is more religious and praise Vishnu, Shiva, Durga and Murugan.

-- Sangam literature, by Wikipedia

Names and titles

Greek writer Phylarchus (c. 3rd century BCE), who is quoted by Athenaeus, calls Chandragupta [Sandrocottus !!!] "Sandrokoptos". The later Greco-Roman writers Strabo, Arrian, and Justin (c. 2nd century) call him "Sandrocottus".[83] In Greek and Latin accounts, Chandragupta is known as Sandrakottos (Greek: Σανδράκοττος) and Androcottus (Greek: Ανδροκόττος). [84][85] However, some recent authors have disputed the identification of "Sandrokottus" of Greek accounts with Chandragupta Maurya.[86][87]

The king's epithets mentioned in the Sanskrit play Mudrarakshasa include "Chanda-siri" (Chandra-shri), "Piadamsana" (Priya-darshana), and Vrishala.[83] Piadamsana is similar to Piyadasi, an epithet of his grandson Ashoka.[88]

T]he name Asoka is rare even in his edicts. Only Jones’s blunder obscured that, apart from Piyadassi and Devanampiya, Devadatta was also a name of Asoka. The name dmydty in Asoka's famous Taxila pillar Aramaic inscription refers to Devadatta. The line l dmy dty `l’, which Marshall and Andreas translated as ‘for Romedatta’, in fact refers to Damadatta or Devadatta (‘M’ and ‘B’ were often interchanged). Tarn notes that Diodorus of the Greeks can be the same as Devadatta of the Indians.

In fact, Devanampiya, his most common name in the edicts, has the same meaning as Devadatta. Its literal Sanskrit rendering, ‘beloved of the Gods’, is only a secondary sense aimed at his subjects in the sub-continent. Like the Greek word nÒmoj (nomos), the word Nam in Persian means ‘law’, another Persian word for which is Dat. Thus Devanam has the same meaning as Devadat; Piya stands for a redeemer (like Priam of Troy). This clearly shows that Asoka was the same as Diodotus I. After embracing Buddhism, Asoka had to change his name Devadatta as it was the name of Gotama’s hated adversary. In the eighth rock edict he states that his ancestors were also Devanampiyas, which shows that it is a cognomen, not a title—thus even Chandragupta could have been a Devadat or Diodotus (of Erythrae). The term Deva, as known from the Shahnama,(div) the Avesta and Xerxes’ daiva inscription, initially meant a clan, not god. Ignorance of this has led to senseless translations of Asoka's edicts as ‘Gods mingled with men’....

Significantly, Asoka is also sometimes a Parthian, sometimes a Bactrian, and sometimes even a descendant of the Achaemenids. Many Parthian Kings assumed the title Arsaces, which was also written as Assak. The similarity of Assak with Asoka may appear fortuitous, but it is not so. Another Parthian royal title, Priapati(us) also resembles Piadassi, Asoka’s title. Asoka’s hold on Bactria is beyond dispute, and great scholars like Wheeler note the strong Achaemenian imprint on his architecture....

Armed with this definition of Parthia, one can turn to an invaluable clue in Asoka’s edicts on the Mauryas and the Bactrian Greeks. In the Minor Rock Edict I, Asoka explicitly calls himself the ‘king of Pathavi’—an unmistakable allusion to Parthia (Parthava of the Achaemenian records). The word Pathavi has been confused by uninformed writers with Prithvi, the Sanskrit word for the Earth, and the statement has been dismissed as just another instance of royal vainglory. This, however, is disproved comprehensively by the fact that his name, Asoka Vardhana, links him with Parthian Kings like Vardanes. Rostovtzeff’s suggestion of Parthian influence becomes only natural if one notes that the king of Pathavi was Asoka. Smith is certain that Seleucus surrendered to Chandragupta the districts of Aria (Herat area), Gedrosia (Baluchistan area), Arachosia (Kandahar region) and Paropamisadae (Kabul region). But, despite his great erudition, Tarn maintained rashly that Asoka received no part even of the Paropamisadae. Tarn’s view became untenable in the light of the discovery of Asoka’s Kandahar edict, and even he had to concede that Asoka ‘established some sort of suzerainty over Paropamisadae’. Asoka’s own claim of being the king of Pathavi in a way lays the controversy to rest. The Parthian Prince An-shih-kao, who dedicated his life to the spread of Buddhism, is clearly Diodotus.

-- An Altar of Alexander Now Standing at Delhi [EXPANDED VERSION], by Ranajit Pal

The word "Vrishala" is used in Indian epics and law books to refer to non-orthodox people. According to one theory, it may be derived from the Greek royal title Basileus, but there is no concrete evidence of this: the Indian sources apply it to several non-royals, especially wandering teachers and ascetics.[89]


A modern statue depicting Chandragupta Maurya, Laxminarayan Temple, Delhi

Empire

There are no records of Chandragupta's military conquests and the reach of his empire. It is based on inferences from Greek and Roman historians and the religious Indian texts written centuries after his death. Based on these, the North-West reach of his empire included parts of present-day Afghanistan that Seleucus I Nicator ceded to him including Kabul, Kandahar, Taxila and Gandhara.[70][90] These are the areas where his grandson Ashoka left the major Kandahar rock edict and other edicts in the Greek and Aramaic languages.[91][92]

In the west, Chandragupta's rule over present-day Gujarat is attested to by Ashoka's inscription in Junagadh. On the same rock, about 400 years later, Rudradaman inscribed a longer text sometime about the mid 2nd–century.[93] Rudradaman's inscription states that the Sudarshana lake in the area was commissioned during the rule of Chandragupta through his governor Vaishya Pushyagupta and conduits were added during Ashoka's rule through Tushaspha. The Mauryan control of the region is further corroborated by the inscription on the rock, which suggests that Chandragupta controlled the Malwa region in Central India, located between Gujarat and Pataliputra.[94]

The Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman,... is a Sanskrit prose inscribed on a rock by the Western Satraps ruler Rudradaman I. It is located near Girnar hill near Junagadh, Gujarat, India. The inscription is dated to shortly after 150 CE. The Junagadh rock contains inscriptions of Ashoka, Rudradaman I and Skandagupta....

The Rudradaman inscription is near the top, above the Ashoka edict...

The first sixteen lines are extensively damaged in parts and are incomplete, with evidence suggesting willful damage as well as natural rock peeling. The lost text constitutes about 15 percent of the total text. The last four are complete and in a good state of preservation. According to Kielhorn, the alphabet is an earlier form of the "decidedly southern alphabet"...The first eight lines offer a historical record of water management and irrigation conduits at the Sudarshana Lake from the era of Chandragupta Maurya (321-297 BCE) to the time when the inscription was written around 150 CE. The last twelve lines praise king Rudradaman I...

James Prinsep, known for his work with the Brahmi script, first edited and translated this inscription in April 1838....

The inscription is significant as a historical record of public works in ancient India, nearly 500 years before the inscription was created. It mentions the construction of a water reservoir named Sudarshana nearby, during the reign of the Maurya Empire founder Chandragupta Maurya by Vaishya Pushyagupta. Later, during the reign of Ashoka, it mentions a Yavana king named Tushaspha building conduits. According to Dilip Chakrabarti, a professor of South Asian archaeology at the Cambridge University, the inscription is an evidence of historical record keeping tradition in ancient India because Rudradaman otherwise would not have known the names of people involved in the project in 4th-century BCE, or who later worked on the water reservoir in following centuries, before Rudradaman promoted his Sanskrit inscription in 150 CE.

-- Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman, by Wikipedia

There is uncertainty about the other conquests that Chandragupta may have achieved, especially in the Deccan region of southern India.[94] At the time of his grandson Ashoka's ascension in c. 268 BCE, the empire extended up to present-day Karnataka in the south, so the southern conquests may be attributed to either Chandragupta or his son Bindusara. If the Jain tradition about Chandragupta ending his life as a renunciate in Karnakata is considered correct, it appears that Chandragupta initiated the southern conquest.[95]

Maurya with his counsellor Chanakya together built one of the largest empires ever on the Indian subcontinent.[3][27][96] Chandragupta's empire extended from Bengal to central Afghanistan encompassing most of the Indian subcontinent except for parts that are now Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Odisha.[97][27]

Chanakya... is traditionally identified as Kauṭilya or Vishnugupta, who authored the ancient Indian political treatise, the Arthashastra, a text dated to roughly between the 4th century BCE and the 3rd century CE....His works were lost near the end of the Gupta Empire in the 6th century CE and not rediscovered until the early 20th century....

There is little documented historical information about Chanakya: most of what is known about him comes from semi-legendary accounts. Thomas Trautmann identifies four distinct accounts of the ancient Chanakya-Chandragupta katha (legend):

Version of the legend / Example texts

Buddhist version / Mahavamsa and its commentary Vamsatthappakasini (Pali language)
Jain version / Parishishtaparvan by Hemachandra
Kashmiri version / Kathasaritsagara by Somadeva, Brihat-Katha-Manjari by Ksemendra
Vishakhadatta's version / Mudrarakshasa, a Sanskrit play by Vishakhadatta

Buddhist version

The legend of Chanakya and Chandragupta is detailed in the Pali-language Buddhist chronicles of Sri Lanka. It is not mentioned in Dipavamsa, the oldest of these chronicles. The earliest Buddhist source to mention the legend is Mahavamsa, which is generally dated between 5th and 6th centuries CE....Its author is unknown, and it is dated variously from 6th century CE to 13th century CE. Some other texts provide additional details about the legend; for example, the Maha-Bodhi-Vamsa and the Atthakatha give the names of the nine Nanda kings said to have preceded Chandragupta.

Jain version

The Chandragupta-Chanakya legend is mentioned in several commentaries of the Shvetambara canon. The most well-known version of the Jain legend is contained in the Sthaviravali-Charita or Parishishta-Parvan, written by the 12th-century writer Hemachandra. Hemachandra's account is based on the Prakrit kathanaka literature (legends and anecdotes) composed between the late 1st century CE and mid-8th century CE. These legends are contained in the commentaries (churnis and tikas) on canonical texts such as Uttaradhyayana and Avashyaka Niryukti.

Kashmiri version

Brihatkatha-Manjari by Kshemendra and Kathasaritsagara by Somadeva are two 11th-century Kashmiri Sanskrit collections of legends. Both are based on a now-lost Prakrit-language Brihatkatha-Sarit-Sagara.

Mudrarakshasa version

Mudrarakshasa ("The signet ring of Rakshasa") is a Sanskrit play by Vishakhadatta. Its date is uncertain, but it mentions the Huna, who invaded northern India during the Gupta period. Therefore, it could not have been composed before the Gupta era. It is dated variously from the late 4th century to the 8th century. The Mudrarakshasa legend contains narratives not found in other versions of the Chanakya-Chandragupta legend. Because of this difference, Trautmann suggests that most of it is fictional or legendary, without any historical basis.

-- Chanakya, by Wikipedia

Rule

After unifying much of India, Chandragupta and Chanakya passed a series of major economic and political reforms. Chandragupta established a strong central administration from Pataliputra (now Patna).[98] [Mookerji 1988, pp. 13–18. Mookerji, Radha Kumud (1988) [first published in 1966], Chandragupta Maurya and his times:

"We shall now turn to the Buddhist traditions which describe the 'Nandins' as of unknown lineage and testify to the noble lineage of Chandragupta without any doubts about it. Chandragupta is described as a scion of the Kshatriya clan of Moriyas, an offshoot of the noble and sacred sept of the Sakyas who gave the Buddha to the world. According to the story, these Moriyas ...]

Chandragupta applied the statecraft and economic policies described in Chanakya's text Arthashastra.[99] [Boesche 2003, pp. 7–18. "Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India":

Kautilya's Arthasastra was one of the greatest political books of the ancient world. Max Weber recognized this. “Truly radical ‘Machiavellianism,’ in the popular sense of that word,” Weber said in his famous lecture “Politics as a Vocation,” “is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthasastra of Kautilya (written long before the birth of Christ, ostensibly in the time of Chandragupta [Maurya]): compared to it, Machiavelli’s The Prince is harmless.”]

[100][101] There are varying accounts in the historic [???], legendary, and hagiographic literature of various Indian religions about Chandragupta's rule, but Allchin and Erdosy' are suspect; they state, "one cannot but be struck by the many close correspondences between the (Hindu) Arthashastra and the two other major sources the (Buddhist) Asokan inscriptions and (Greek) Megasthenes text".[102]

The Maurya rule was a structured administration; Chandragupta had a council of ministers (amatya), with Chanakya was his chief minister.[103][104] The empire was organised into territories (janapada), centres of regional power were protected with forts (durga), and state operations were funded with treasury (kosa).[105] Strabo, in his Geographica composed about 300 years after Chandragupta's death, describes aspects of his rule in his chapter XV.46–69. He had councillors for matters of justice and assessors to collect taxes on commercial activity and trade goods. He routinely performed Vedic sacrifices,[106] Brahmanical rituals,[107] and hosted major festivals marked by procession of elephants and horses. His officers inspected situations requiring law and order in the cities; the crime rate was low.[108]

Megasthenes described the system of city administration of Pataliputra but there is no similarity between the system described by Megasthenes and the system of city administration given in Kautilya Arthasastra. Megasthenes also stated that there was no slavery in India but Kautilya Arthasastra's Chapter 65 named "Dasakalpa" is solely devoted to the status of slaves among the Aryans and the Mlecchas. Probably, the slavery system that existed during Mauryan era has gradually declined by Gupta era. Thus, Megasthenes cannot be contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya.

Megasthenes not only often visited Palibothra but also stayed in the court of Sandrocottus for a few years. But he did not even mention about Kautilya or Chanakya who was the real kingmaker and also the patron of Chandragupta. No Greek scholar ever mentioned about Kautilya. Therefore, Megasthenes cannot be the contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya.

-- Who was Sandrocottus: Samudragupta or Chandragupta Maurya?, The Chronology of Ancient India, Victim of Concoctions and Distortions, by Vedveer Arya

According to Megasthenes, Chandragupta's [Sandrocottus !!!] rule was marked by three parallel administrative structures. One managed the affairs of villages, ensuring irrigation, recording land ownership, monitoring tools supply, enforcing hunting, wood products and forest-related laws, and settling disputes.[109] Another administrative structure managed city affairs, including all matters related to trade, merchant activity, visit of foreigners, harbors, roads, temples, markets, and industries. They also collected taxes and ensured standardized weights and measures.[109] The third administrative body overlooked the military, its training, its weapons supply, and the needs of the soldiers.[109]

Chanakya was concerned about Chandragupta's safety and developed elaborate techniques to prevent assassination attempts. Various sources report Chandragupta frequently changed bedrooms to confuse conspirators. He left his palace only for certain tasks: to go on military expeditions, to visit his court for dispensing justice, to offer sacrifices, for celebrations, and for hunting. During celebrations, he was well-guarded, and on hunts, he was surrounded by female guards who were presumed to be less likely to participate in a coup conspiracy. These strategies may have resulted from the historical context of the Nanda king who had come to power by assassinating the previous king.[110]

During Chandragupta's reign and that of his dynasty, many religions thrived in India, with Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika gaining prominence along with other folk traditions.[111][112]

[admin]

Part 4 of 4

Infrastructure projects


Silver punch mark coin of the Maurya empire, with symbols of wheel and elephant (3rd century BCE)

The empire built a strong economy from a solid infrastructure such as irrigation, temples, mines, and roads.[113][114] Ancient epigraphical evidence suggests Chandragupta, under counsel from Chanakya, started and completed many irrigation reservoirs and networks across the Indian subcontinent to ensure food supplies for the civilian population and the army, a practice continued by his dynastic successors.[102] Regional prosperity in agriculture was one of the required duties of his state officials.[115]

The strongest evidence of infrastructure development is found in the Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman in Gujarat, dated to about 150 CE. It states, among other things, that Rudradaman repaired and enlarged the reservoir and irrigation conduit infrastructure built by Chandragupta and enhanced by Asoka.[116] Chandragupta's empire also built mines, manufacturing centres, and networks for trading goods. His rule developed land routes to transport goods across the Indian subcontinent. Chandragupta expanded "roads suitable for carts" as he preferred those over narrow tracks suitable for only pack animals.[117]

According to Kaushik Roy, the Maurya dynasty rulers were "great road builders".[114] The Greek ambassador Megasthenes credited this tradition to Chandragupta [Sandrocottus !!!} after the completion of a thousand-mile-long highway connecting Chandragupta's [Sandrocottus !!!] capital Pataliputra [Palibothra !!!] in Bihar to Taxila in the north-west where he studied. The other major strategic road infrastructure credited to this tradition spread from Pataliputra in various directions, connecting it with Nepal, Kapilavastu, Dehradun, Mirzapur, Odisha, Andhra, and Karnataka.[114] Roy stated this network boosted trade and commerce, and helped move armies rapidly and efficiently.[114]

Megasthenes transformed India from a site of freakish difference and symmetrical opposition, to be wondered at or assimilated by imperial expansion, into a space of similarity and submerged cultural identity. India is now good to think with. The land has become an analogue of the Seleucid state and the Indica a text for working through issues of Seleucid state formation.

While Chandragupta Maurya's multiethnic, polyglot, expansionist kingdom certainly resembled the Seleucid state in outline and probably generated parallel mechanisms of territorial control, Megasthenes' ethnography went beyond this to emphasize consonance with the Seleucid world: certain of India's characteristics, appearing for the first time in ethnography, resemble Seleucid state structures too closely to be anything but observations or fabrications of similarity. The strongest case is the existence of autonomous, democratically governed cities within Megasthenes' Indian kingdom. The coexistence of independent and dependent cities within the same realm is one of the most striking characteristics of the Seleucid empire; it is unattested for the Mauryan kingdom. Megasthenes seems to have deliberately constructed a parallel system of irregular political sovereignty to better support the analogy between the two states. Other parallels include royal land ownership, the capital-on-the-river, the construction of roads and milestones, and various duties of the monarch.

-- Chapter 1: India – Diplomacy and Ethnography at the Mauryan Empire, Excerpt from "The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire", by Paul J. Kosmin

Chandragupta and Chanakya seeded weapon manufacturing centres, and kept them as a state monopoly of the state. The state, however, encouraged competing private parties to operate mines and supply these centres.[118] [Roy, Kaushik (2012), Hinduism and the Ethics of Warfare in South Asia: From Antiquity to the Present]

The Economic, Political and Military Background, Excerpt from Hinduism and the Ethics of Warfare in South Asia: From Antiquity to the Present
Roy, Kaushik
2012

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND MILITARY BACKGROUND

After late in the sixth century BCE, Magadha emerged as the most powerful mahajanapada. Bimbisara, the ruler of Magadha (546-494 BCE), was known as seniya (one with sena). D. N. Jha asserts that Bimbisara was probably the first ruler in India with a regular standing army. Bimbisara annexed Anga. Bimbisara's son and successor, Ajatasatru, not only fortified Rajagriha (the capital of Magadha) with a forty-kilometer-long wall but also sent one of his ministers (a Brahmin named Vassakara) to sow dissension among the Lichchhavi tribes.20 [Jha, Early India, pp. 84- 6, 90.]Ajatasatru was able to overthrow the Vajjis through the policy of bheda followed by Vassakara.21 [KA, Part III, by Kangle, p. 11.] Kautilya's concept of kutayuddha was probably shaped by such historical events.

In 413 BCE, Shishunaga, the viceroy/governor of Benaras, became the ruler, and in 321 BCE the Shishunaga dynasty was overthrown by Mahapadma Nanda. Mahapadma, a Sudra, not only annexed Kalinga but also increased the strength of the army.22 [Jha, Early India, p. 87.] The Vishnu Purana and the Brahmanda Purana say that the Nandas ruled for 100 years.23 [Mital. Kautilaa Arthasastra Revisited. p. 60.] Alexander crossed the Hindu Kush mountain range in 327 BCE, but he then left after a brief sojourn in north-west India. Hence, no direct confrontation between the Greeks and the Nanda Empire occurred.

Chandragupta, like Mahapadma Nanda, was a Sudra. Chandragupta's mother, Mura, was probably the daughter of a Persian merchant. Reflecting the historical reality, the Arthasastra, unlike the vedas, never argue that the vijigishu should always come from the Kshatriya rank. Chandragupta seized Magadha around 32I BCE. By 312 BCE, he had completed the conquest of north and north-west India. If we believe the Mudraraksa (a fictional political drama in Sanskrit, by Vishakadatta, composed between the fourth and the seventh century CE), Chandragupta probably first acquired Punjab and then, with the help of Chanakya, moved towards the Nanda Empire. Paurava, who was ruling as a client ruler on behalf of Alexander, was killed before 318 BCE. The Mudraraksa tells us that Chandragupta, with the aid of some mercenaries from the north-west frontier tribes, laid siege to Kusumapura, the capital of Magadha. In the Questions of Milinda there is a reference to Bhaddasala. a general belonging to the Nandas, who fought against Chandragupta. Chandragupta defeated Seleucus in 305 BCE in a series of encounters along the river Indus. Megasthenes came to the Maurya court as an ambassador around 302 BCE and resided in India for four years. Around 297 BCE, Chandragupta passed away.24 [Kane, History of Dharmasastra, vol. I, Part I, pp. 173-4, 184, 186, 217-18.]

As regards the nature of the Maurya Empire, historians [???] are divided into two camps. While R. K. Mookerji25 [R. K. Mookerji, Chandragupta Maurya and His Times (n.d.; reprint, New Delhi: Motilal Banrasidas, 1960).] and D. N. Jha argue that it was a centralized empire, Gerard Fussman26 [Gerard Fussman, 'Central and Provincial Administration in Ancient India: The Problem of the Mauryan Empire', Indian Historical Review, vol. 14, nos. 1-2 (1988), pp. 43-72.] and Burton Stein27 [Burton Stein, A History of India (1998; reprint, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 78- 83.] claim that the Maurya Empire was a decentralized political entity. Some factual statements point to the fact that the Maurya Empire was a centralized bureaucratic polity. The Mauryas, like the Romans, were great road builders, and all the roads led to Pataliputra. Megasthenes noted that the thousand-mile- long royal highway connected Pataliputra to Taxila.28 [Mital, Kautilya Arthasastra Revisited, p. 29.] Pataliputra was connected to Nepal via Vaishali. From there a road passed through Champaran to Kapilavastu, Kalsi (DehraDun District), and Hazara up to Peshawar. Another network of roads connected Pataliputra to Sasaram, Mirzapur and central India. Yet, another road connected Pataliputra to Kalinga, Andhra and Karnataka, the southernmost limit of the empire.29 [Jha, Early India, p. 102.] These roads, besides facilitating trade and commerce, also functioned as military highways.

Jha claims that the Maurya economy was a sort of command economy. The Maurya polity exercised rigid control through a number of superintendents who presided over all trade and commercial activities. The metallurgy and mining industries were highly developed and were state monopolies. The monopoly rights of the state over mineral resources gave it exclusive control over the manufacture of metal weaponry.30 [Ibid., pp. 102.-5.] However, at times, mining was leased out to contractors. India produced high-quality steel, and the metal workers of Asia Minor adopted the techniques of Indian steel making.31 [Mital, Kautilya Arthasastra Revisited, p. 32.] Kautilya tells us about a die-striking (punch-marking) system but is unaware of casting coins in mould.32[Sil, Kautilya's Arthasastra, p. 25.]

Cunningham held that the most ancient coins, those of Dhanadeva and Visikhadeva, are ‘certainly not older than the second century B.C.’, and this determination may be accepted, so far as the inscribed coins are concerned. Of course many of the punch-marked and cast coins without legends may be much older. The coins of both — Visikhadeva and Dhanadeva were simply cast in moulds, and evidently are of much the same date. Either prince may be regarded as the predecessor of the other. The coins, Nos. 8-11, doubtfully ascribed to Sivadatta, are also cast; as are the curious little pieces, Nos. 12 and 13 (PL XIX, 14), exhibiting the fish, svastika, ‘taurine, and an object which seems to me to be intended for a steelyard balance, but is described by Cunningham as an axe....

The simple process of making coins by casting in a mould seems to be little inferior in antiquity in India to that of stamping bars or ingots. Comparatively few of the numerous cast coins of ancient India are blank on the reverse. Most of them have a device or legend, or both, on each face, and were made by joining two moulds together. All the cast coins are of copper, including in that term various alloys. The most ancient examples probably are to be found among the rude pieces which are abundant in Oudh, Benares, and the neighbouring districts.

Cunningham considered the chaitya and tree coin of C.A.I., Pl. 1, 29, to be ‘rather rare’; but I should be disposed to call it ‘rather common’. Six examples of it have been catalogued, ranging in weight from 27-5 to 61 grains. No. 16 with the legend Kumhama is novel, and I cannot explain the meaning of the word. No. 19 is the largest rectangular cast coin that I have seen.

The circular cast coins, no doubt, were, to a large extent, contemporary with the rectangular ones. The types ‘chaitya and elephant’ and ‘chaitya and bull’ served as models for the much improved anonymous coins struck by some of the Western Satraps between 225 and 236 A.D. (C.M.I, p. 7, with correction of date of No. 10 from 129 to 158, Rapson); and this fact helps us to fix a posterior limit for the cast coinage in Ujjain and the neighbourhood. Of course, in different parts of India the practice varied greatly, and the old-fashioned methods of coining must have lingered in some places longer than in others; but in the Panjab and upper Gangetic provinces the cast coins are, I should think, probably all earlier than 100 A.D. They must have been driven out of circulation largely by the abundant copper issues of the Kushan kings. In Malwa (Avanti, Ujjain), as remarked above, the cast coinage may have lasted until 200 A.D., or even a little later.

-- Coins of Ancient India: Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Volume 1, by Vincent A. Smith, M.A. F.R.N.S., M.R.A.S., I.C.S. Retd.

The Magadhan state functioned as a cash economy.33 [D. D. Kosambi, The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline (n.d.; reprint, New Delhi: Vikas, 2001), p. 154.] Money was used for trade as well as for paying the state's civilian and military officials.34 [Jha, Early India, p. 102.]

Megasthenes tells us that soldiers were paid and equipped by the state. Hence, it seems that the Mauryas maintained a standing army and not merely a militia.35 [Biren Bonnerjea, 'Peace and War in Hindu Culture', Primitive Man: Quarterly Journal of the Catholic Anthropological Conference, vol. 7, no. 3 (1934), p. 36.] On the other hand, opines P.C. Chakravarti, the existence of armed trade and craft guilds with their private militias points to the fact that the Maurya Empire was a weak state. Not only did the private militias of these armed srenis provide protection to these organizations from brigands and highwayman, but during emergencies the ruler also hired them to fight internal as well as external enemies. These armed guilds occasionally engaged in private warfare and, in a way, constituted semi-autonomous states within a state.36 [P.C. Chakravarti, The Art of War in Ancient India (1941; reprint, New Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1989), pp. 6, 8.] It seems that the Mauryan Empire was not uniformly administered and was partially centralized and partially decentralized.

Romila Thapar takes a middle position and claims that the level of control exercised by the Maurya central government over different regions varied with distance. The inner core of the Maurya Empire was the metropolitan state of Magadha, which was ruled directly by the emperor from Pataliputra. Beyond the metropolitan state was the outer core of the empire, which comprised north and central India. The outer core region was divided into several provinces ruled by viceroys appointed by the emperor at Pataliputra. Most of the viceroys were princes of the royal family. The control of the central government at Pataliputra over the outer core region was substantial, but less than its control over the metropolitan state. Beyond the outer core was the periphery, which was comprised of north-west India and Deccan (the region south of the Narmada River). The periphery was ruled by several hereditary vassal chiefs and tribal leaders who accepted the political suzerainty of the Mauryan emperor at Pataliputra. It goes without saying that the control exercised by the central government at Pataliputra over the distant periphery was weakest. The central government did not interfere in the internal affairs of the vassal kingdoms, but it did control the foreign and military policies of the vassal chiefs.37 [Romila Thapar, The Mauryas Revisited (1987; reprint, Calcutta: K. P. Bagchi & Company, 1993).] This three-tier model of Thapar seems to be the most appropriate one for explaining the structure of the Maurya Empire. It is to be noted that the Arthasastra also speaks of regions ruled directly by the vijigishu; the janapadas (fertile agricultural land dotted with urban centres), which were ruled by chiefs and officials appointed by the vijigishu and hereditary vassal chiefs; and the forest regions under indirect control of the vijigishu. As a basis of comparison, the Shang Empire of China seems to have been more centralized than the Mauryan Empire because the former political entity had the capacity to conscript the common people for civil engineering projects and distributed grain through a system of centrally administered state granaries).38 [Thomas M. Kane, Ancient China on Postmodern War: Enduring Ideas from the Chinese Strategic Tradition (London/New York: Routledge, 2007), p. 29.]

Buddhism focused mainly on moksa. The arthasastra school, asserts Sil, emerged as a reaction to Buddhism. The arthasastra tradition emphasizes materialism rather than morality. The arthasastra writers divide the goals of human life into chatuvarga (four categories): dharma (morality), artha (wealth), kama (desires) and moksa. And of these four, artha occupies the most prominent place. Kautilya himself says that material well-being is supreme, because spiritual well-being and sensual pleasures depend on material well-being. The arthasastra means the sastra (theory) of artha. The meaning of artha changes with circumstances; broadly, it refers to wealth and territory with human population. Kautilya's Arthasastra does not really deal with the theory of the generation of wealth but is a treatise on statecraft. Kautilya says that the source of the livelihood of men is wealth and that the means for the attainment and protection of artha constitutes the theory of politics. Kautilya aims to educate the prince on the acquisition of material welfare (labha) and its maintenance through good governance.39 [Sil, Kautilya's Arthasastra, pp. 20-1.] The objective of Kautilya's theory is to lay bare the study of politics, wealth and practical expediency. The subjects covered are administration, law, order and justice, finance, foreign policy, internal security and defence against external powers.40 [Rashed Uz Zaman, 'Kautilya: The Indian Strategic Thinker and Indian Strategic Culture', Comparative Strategy, vol. 25, no. 3 (2006), p. 235.] The arthasastra tradition, claims Ashok S. Chousalkar, is based on the Lokayata philosophy, which emphasized analysis of concrete facts. [!!!] The Lokayatas deduced their conclusions from human behaviour and attempted an inductive investigation of the polity.41 [Ashok S. Chousalkar, A Comparative Study of Theory of Rebellion in Kautilya and Aristotle (New Delhi: Indological Book House, 1990), p. 65.] In the following sections, Kautilya's philosophical ideas are compared to and contrasted with both Western and Chinese philosophies.

They considered economic prosperity essential to the pursuit of dharma (virtuous life) and adopted a policy of avoiding war with diplomacy yet continuously preparing the army for war to defend its interests and other ideas in the Arthashastra.[119][120]

Arts and architecture

The evidence of arts and architecture during Chandragupta's [Sandrocottus !!!] time is mostly limited to texts such as those by Megasthenes and Kautilya.

The edict inscriptions and carvings on monumental pillars are attributed to his grandson Ashoka. The texts imply the existence of cities, public works, and prosperous architecture but the historicity of these is in question.[121]

Archeological discoveries in the modern age, such as those Didarganj Yakshi discovered in 1917 buried beneath the banks of the Ganges suggest exceptional artisanal accomplishment.[122][123] The site was dated to 3rd century BCE by many scholars[122][123] but later dates such as the Kushan era (1st-4th century CE) have also been proposed.

The Didarganj Yakshi [???] is one of the finest examples of very early Indian [???] stone statues. It used to be dated to the 3rd century BCE, as it has the fine Mauryan polish associated with Mauryan art. But this is also found on later sculptures and it is now usually dated to approximately the 2nd century CE, based on the analysis of shape and ornamentation, or the 1st century CE. The treatment of the forelock in particular is said to be characteristically Kushan....

The statue's nose was damaged during a travelling exhibition, The Festival of India, en route to Smithsonian Institution and the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., leading to a decision not to send it abroad again.

-- Didarganj Yakshi, by Wikipedia

The competing theories state that the art linked to Chandragupta Maurya's dynasty was learnt from the Greeks and West Asia in the years Alexander the Great waged war; or that these artifacts belong to an older indigenous Indian tradition.[124] Frederick Asher of the University of Minnesota says "we cannot pretend to have definitive answers; and perhaps, as with most art, we must recognize that there is no single answer or explanation".[125]

Succession, renunciation, and death (Sallekhana)


1,300 years Old Shravanabelagola relief shows death of Chandragupta after taking the vow of Sallekhana. Some consider it about the legend of his [???] arrival with Bhadrabahu.[2][10][11]

-- Bhadrabahu, Chandragupta, and Sravana-Belgola, by J.F. Fleet, Bo.C.S., M.R.A.S., C.I.E.

A statue depicting Chandrgupta Maurya (right) with his spiritual mentor Acharya Bhadrabahu at Shravanabelagola.


Chandragupta Maurya having 16 auspicious dreams in Jainism

The circumstances and year of Chandragupta's death are unclear and disputed.[2][10][11] According to Digambara Jain accounts that, Bhadrabahu forecasted a 12-year famine because of all the killing and violence during the conquests by Chandragupta Maurya. He led a group of Jain monks to south India, where Chandragupta Maurya joined him as a monk after abdicated his kingdom to his son Bindusara. Together, states a Digambara legend, Chandragupta and Bhadrabahu moved to Shravanabelagola, in present-day south Karnataka.[126] These Jain accounts appeared in texts such as Brihakathā kośa (931 CE) of Harishena, Bhadrabāhu charita (1450 CE) of Ratnanandi, Munivaṃsa bhyudaya (1680 CE) and Rajavali kathe.[127][128][129] Chandragupta lived as an ascetic at Shravanabelagola for several years before fasting to death as per the Jain practice of sallekhana, according to the Digambara legend.[130][26][131]

In accordance with the Digambara tradition, the hill on which Chandragupta is stated to have performed asceticism is now known as Chandragiri hill, and Digambaras believe that Chandragupta Maurya erected an ancient temple that now survives as the Chandragupta basadi.[1] According to Roy, Chandragupta's abdication of throne may be dated to c. 298 BCE, and his death to c. 297 BCE.[58] His grandson was emperor Ashoka who is famed for his historic pillars and his role in helping spread Buddhism outside of ancient India.[132][133]

Regarding the inscriptions describing the relation of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya, Radha Kumud Mookerji writes,

The oldest inscription of about 600 AD associated "the pair (yugma), Bhadrabahu along with Chandragupta Muni." Two inscriptions of about 900 AD on the Kaveri near Seringapatam describe the summit of a hill called Chandragiri as marked by the footprints of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta munipati. A Shravanabelagola inscription of 1129 mentions Bhadrabahu "Shrutakevali", and Chandragupta who acquired such merit that he was worshipped by the forest deities. Another inscription of 1163 similarly couples and describes them. A third inscription of the year 1432 speaks of Yatindra Bhadrabahu, and his disciple Chandragupta, the fame of whose penance spread into other words.[134]

A limited hangout is a form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality by withholding key facts is protecting a deeper crime and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.

A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.

Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."

-- Limited Hangout, by Wikipedia

While recognising, approximately, the period to which the characters really belong, Mr. Rice (loc. cit. p. 15) arrived at the conclusion that, “if this interesting inscription did not precede the Christian era, it unquestionably belongs to the earliest part of that era and is certainly not later than about 100 A.D." But there are no substantial grounds for this view, which depends chiefly upon Mr. Rice’s acceptance as genuine, of the spurious Western Ganga grants...

We may now proceed to examine the real historical bearings of this inscription. It is not dated. But the lithographic Plate which is given by Mr. Rice, shews that the engraving of it is to be allotted to approximately the seventh century A.D.: it may possibly be a trifle earlier; and equally, it may possibly be somewhat later. And, interpreting the record in the customary manner, viz. as referring to an event almost exactly synchronous with the engraving of it, we can only take it as commemorating the death of a Jain teacher named Prabhachandra, in or very near to the period A.D. 600 to 700. Who this Prabhachandra was, I am not at present able to say. But he cannot be Prabhachandra I. of the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha (ante, Vol. XX. p. 351), unless the chronological details of that record, — according to which Prabhachandra I., became pontiff in A.D. 396, — are open to very considerable rectification.

-- Bhadrabahu, Chandragupta, and Sravana-Belgola, by J.F. Fleet, Bo.C.S., M.R.A.S., C.I.E.

Along with texts, several Digambara Jain inscriptions dating from the 7th–15th century refer to Bhadrabahu and a Prabhacandra. Later Digambara tradition identified the Prabhacandra as Chandragupta, and some modern era scholars have accepted this Digambara tradition while others have not, [2][10][11] Several of the late Digambara inscriptions and texts in Karnataka state the journey started from Ujjain and not Pataliputra (as stated in some Digambara texts).[10][11]

Jeffery D. Long – a scholar of Jain and Hindu studies – says in one Digambara version, it was Samprati Chandragupta who renounced, migrated and performed sallekhana in Shravanabelagola. Long states scholars attribute the disintegration of the Maurya empire to the times and actions of Samprati Chandragupta – the grandson of Ashoka and great-great-grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The two Chandraguptas have been confused to be the same in some Digambara legends.[135]

Scholar of Jain studies and Sanskrit Paul Dundas says the Svetambara tradition of Jainism disputes the ancient Digambara legends. According to a 5th-century text of the Svetambara Jains, the Digambara sect of Jainism was founded 609 years after Mahavira's death, or in 1st-century CE.[136] Digambaras wrote their own versions and legends after the 5th-century, with their first expanded Digambara version of sectarian split within Jainism appearing in the 10th-century.[136] The Svetambaras texts describe Bhadrabahu was based near Nepalese foothills of the Himalayas in 3rd-century BCE, who neither moved nor travelled with Chandragupta Maurya to the south; rather, he died near Pataliputra, according to the Svetambara Jains.[10][137][138]

The 12th-century Svetambara Jain legend by Hemachandra presents a different picture. The Hemachandra version includes stories about Jain monks who could become invisible to steal food from royal storage and the Jain Brahmin Chanakya using violence and cunning tactics to expand Chandragupta's kingdom and increase royal revenues.[25] It states in verses 8.415 to 8.435, that for 15 years as king, Chandragupta was a follower of non-Jain "ascetics with the wrong view of religion" (non-Jain) and "lusted for women". Chanakya, who was a Jain follower, persuaded Chandragupta to convert to Jainism by showing that Jain ascetics avoided women and focused on their religion.[25] The legend mentions Chanakya aiding the premature birth of Bindusara,[25] It states in verse 8.444 that "Chandragupta died in meditation (can possibly be sallekhana.) and went to heaven".[139] According to Hemachandra's legend, Chanakya also performed sallekhana. [139]


The Footprints of Chandragupta Maurya on Chandragiri Hill, where Chandragupta (the unifier of India and founder of the Maurya Dynasty) performed Sallekhana.

According to V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar – an Indologist and historian, several of the Digambara legends mention Prabhacandra, who had been misidentified as Chandragupta Maurya particularly after the original publication on Shravanabelagola epigraphy by B. Lewis Rice. The earliest and most important inscriptions mention Prabhacandra, which Rice presumed may have been the "clerical name assumed by Chadragupta Maurya" after he renounced and moved with Bhadrabahu from Pataliputra. Dikshitar stated there is no evidence to support this and Prabhacandra was an important Jain monk scholar who migrated centuries after Chandragupta Maurya's death.[2] Other scholars have taken Rice's deduction of Chandragupta Maurya retiring and dying in Shravanabelagola as the working hypothesis, since no alternate historical information or evidence is available about Chandragupta's final years and death.[2]

28. History. It has been said that the Hindus possess no national history. Max Muller accepts this proposition as a postulate, builds on it and explains the so-called absence of anything like historical literature among the Hindus to their being a nation of philosophers. "Greece and India are, indeed, the two opposite poles in the historical development of the Aryan man. To the Greek, existence is full of life and reality, to the Hindu, it is a dream, a delusion. The Greek is at home where he is born, all his energies belong to his country, he stands or falls with his party, and is ready to sacrifice even his life to the glory and independence of Hellas. The Hindu enters this world as a stranger, all his thoughts are directed to another world, he takes no part even where he is driven to act, and when he sacrifices his life, it is but to be delivered from it."1 [ASL, 9.]...

H. H. Wilson in his admirable Introduction to his translation of the Visnu Purana, while dealing with the contents of the Third Book observes that a very large portion of the contents of the Itihasas and and Puranas is genuine and writes: —

"The arrangement of the Vedas and other writings considered by the Hindus— being, in fact, the authorities of their religious rites and beliefs — which is described in the beginning of the Third book, is of much importance to the History of the Hindu Literature and of the Hindu religion. The sage Vyasa is here represented not as the author but the arranger or the compiler of the Vedas, the Itihasas and the Puranas. His name denotes his character meaning the 'arranger' or 'distributor', and the recurrence of many Vyasas, many individuals who remodelled the Hindu scriptures, has nothing in it, that is improbable, except the fabulous intervals by which their labours are separated. The re-arranging, the re-fashioning, of old materials is nothing more than the progress of time would be likely to render necessary. The last recognised compilation is that of Krishna Dvaipayana, assisted by Brahmans, who were already conversant with the subjects respectively assigned to them. They were the members of the college or school supposed by the Hindus to have flourished in a period more remote, no doubt, than the truth, but not at all unlikely to have been instituted at some time prior to the accounts of India which we owe to Greek writers and in which we see enough of the system to justify our inferring that it was then entire. That there have been other Vyasas and other schools since that date, that Brahmans unknown to fame have re-modelled some of the Hindu scriptures, and especially the Puranas, cannot reasonably be counted, after dispassionately weighing the strong internal evidence, which all of them afford, of their intermixture of unauthorized and comparatively modern ingredients. But the same internal testimony furnishes proof equally decisive, of the anterior existence of ancient materials, and it is, therefore, as idle as it is irrational, to dispute the antiquity or the authenticity of the contents of the Puranas, in the face of abundant positive and circumstantial evidence of the prevalence of the doctrines, which they teach, the currency of the legends which they narrate, and the integrity of the institutions which they describe at least three centuries before the Christian Era. But the origin and development of their doctrines, traditions and institutions were not the work of a day, and the testimony that establishes their existence three centuries before Christianity, carries it back to a much more remote antiquity, to an antiquity, that is, probably, not surpassed by any of the prevailing fictions, institutions or beliefs of the ancient world."

Again, in dealing with the contents of the Fourth Amsa of the Visnu Purana, the Professor remarks: —

"The Fourth Book contains all that the Hindus have of their Ancient History. It is a tolerably comprehensive list of dynasties and individuals, it is a barren record of events. It can scarcely be doubted, however, that much of it is a genuine chronicle of persons, if not of occurrences. That it is discredited by palpable absurdities in regard to the longevity of the princes of the earlier dynasties, must be granted, and the particulars preserved of some of them are trivial and fabulous. Still there is an artificial simplicity and consistency in the succession of persons, and a possibility and probability in some of the transactions, which give to these traditions the semblance of authenticity, and render it likely that these are not altogether without foundation. At any rate, in the absence of all other sources of information the record, such as it is, deserves not to be altogether set aside.

It is not essential to its celebrity or its usefulness, that any exact chronological adjustment of the different reigns should be attempted. Their distribution amongst the several Yugas, undertaken by Sir William Jones, or his Pandits, finds no countenance from the original texts, rather than an identical notice of the age in which a particular monarch ruled or the general fact that the dynasties prior to Krishna precede the time of the Great War and the beginning of the Kali Age, both which events are placed five thousand years ago. This, may, or may not, be too remote, but it is sufficient, in a subject where precision is impossible, to be satisfied with the general impression, that, in the dynasties of Kings detailed in Puranas, we have a record, which, although it cannot fail to have suffered detriment from age, and may have been injured by careless or injudicious compilation, preserves an account not wholly undeserving of confidence, of the establishment and succession of regular monarchies, amongst the Hindus, from as early an era, and for as continuous a duration, as any in the credible annals of mankind."

-- History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, by Kavyavinoda, Sahityaratnakara M. Krishnamachariar, M.A., M.I., Ph.D., Member of the Royal Asiatic Society of London (Of the Madras Judicial Service), Assisted by His Son M. Srinivasachariar, B.A., B.L., Advocate, Madras, 1937

Legacy

A memorial to Chandragupta Maurya exists on Chandragiri hill in Shravanabelagola, Karnataka.[140] The Indian Postal Service issued a commemorative postage stamp honouring Chandragupta Maurya in 2001.[141]

See also

• List of Indian monarchs
• List of Jain Empires and Dynasties
• Mauryan art
• Shashigupta

Notes

1. Some early printed editions of Justin's work wrongly mentioned "Alexandrum" instead of "Nandrum"; this error was corrected in philologist J. W. McCrindle's 1893 translation. In the 20th century, historians Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri and R. C. Majumdar believed "Alexandrum" to be correct reading, and theorized that Justin refers to a meeting between Chandragupta and Alexander the Great ("Alexandrum"). However, this is incorrect: research by historian Alfred von Gutschmid in the preceding century had clearly established that "Nandrum" is the correct reading supported by multiple manuscripts: only a single defective manuscript mentions "Alexandrum" in the margin.[44]
1. According to Grainger, Seleucus "must ... have held Aria" (Herat), and furthermore, his "son Antiochos was active there fifteen years later". (Grainger, John D. 1990, 2014. Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom. Routledge. p. 109).

References

Citations

1. Mookerji 1988, p. 40.
2. Dikshitar 1993, pp. 264–266.
3. Chandragupta Maurya, Emperor of India Archived 10 March 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Encyclopædia Britannica
4. Upinder Singh 2016, p. 330.
5. Upinder Singh 2016, p. 331.
6. Majumdar, R. C.; Raychauduhuri, H. C.; Datta, Kalikinkar (1960), An Advanced History of India, London: Macmillan & Company Ltd; New York: St Martin's Press, If the Jaina tradition is to be believed, Chandragupta was converted to the religion of Mahavira. He is said to have abdicated his throne and passed his last days at Sravana Belgola in Mysore. Greek evidence, however, suggests that the first Maurya did not give up the performance of sacrificial rites and was far from following the Jaina creed of Ahimsa or non-injury to animals. He took delight in hunting, a practice that was continued by his son and alluded to by his grandson in his eighth Rock Edict. It is, however, possible that in his last days he showed some predilection for Jainism ...
7. The authors and their affiliations listed in the title page of the reference (which has the Wikipedia page An Advanced History of India) are: R. C. Majumdar, M.A., Ph.D. Vice-Chancellor, Dacca University; H. C. Raychaudhuri, M.A., Ph.D., Carmichael Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture, Calcutta University; and Kalikinkar Datta, M.A., Ph.D. Premchand Raychand Scholar, Mount Medallist, Griffith Prizeman, Professor and Head of the Department of History, Patna College, Patna
8. Mookerji 1988, pp. 2-14, 229-235.
9. Mookerji 1988, pp. 3-14.
10. Wiley 2009, pp. 50–52.
11. Fleet 1892, pp. 156–162.
12. Mookerji 1988, pp. 5-7.
13. Upinder Singh 2017, pp. 264–265.
14. Mookerji 1988, pp. 7–9.
15. Edward James Rapson; Wolseley Haig; Richard Burn; Henry Dodwell; Mortimer Wheeler, eds. (1968). The Cambridge History of India. 4. p. 470. "His surname Maurya is explained by Indian authorities as mean 'son of Mura,' who is described as a concubine of the king.
16. Mookerji 1988, pp. 9–11.
17. Mookerji 1988, p. 13.
18. Mookerji 1988, pp. 15-18.
19. note
20. Mookerji 1988, pp. 7–13.
21. Mookerji 1988, p. 14.
22. Mookerji 1988, pp. 13-15.
23. Thapar 1961, p. 12.
24. Mookerji 1988, pp. 13-14.
25. Hemacandra 1998, pp. 155–157, 168–188.
26. Jones & Ryan 2006, p. xxviii.
27. Kulke & Rothermund 2004, p. 59-65.
28. Jaini 1991, pp. 43–44.
29. Upādhye 1977, pp. 272–273.
30. Raychaudhuri 1923, p. 142.
31. Raychaudhuri 1923, p. 137.
32. Raychaudhuri 1923, p. 138.
33. Thapar 1961, p. 13.
34. Raychaudhuri 1967, pp. 134–142.
35. Habib & Jha 2004, p. 15.
36. Mookerji 1988, p. 16.
37. Raychaudhuri 1967, p. 143.
38. Mookerji 1988, p. 6.
39. Mookerji 1988, pp. 15–17.
40. Modelski, George (1964). "Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International System in the Ancient Hindu World". American Political Science Review. Cambridge University Press. 58 (3): 549–560. doi:10.2307/1953131. JSTOR 1953131.; Quote: "Kautilya is believed to have been Chanakya, a Brahmin who served as Chief Minister to Chandragupta (321–296 B.C.), the founder of the Mauryan Empire."
41. Mookerji 1988, pp. 19–20.
42. Mookerji 1988, p. 18.
43. Habib & Jha 2004, p. 14.
44. Trautmann 1970, pp. 240-241.
45. Mookerji 1988, p. 32.
46. Mookerji 1988, p. 22.
47. Hemacandra 1998, pp. 175–188.
48. Raychaudhuri 1967, pp. 144-145.
49. Raychaudhuri 1967, p. 144.
50. Mookerji 1988, p. 33.
51. Malalasekera 2002, p. 383.
52. Mookerji 1988, pp. 33-34.
53. Stoneman 2019, p. 155.
54. Thapar 2013, pp. 362–364.
55. Sen 1895, pp. 26–32.
56. Mookerji 1988, pp. 28–33.
57. Roy 2012, pp. 27, 61-62.
58. Roy 2012, pp. 61–62.
59. Grant 2010, p. 49.
60. Bhattacharyya 1977, p. 8.
61. Hemacandra 1998, pp. 176–177.
62. Mookerji 1988, p. 34.
63. Roy 2012, p. 62.
64. Mookerji 1988, pp. 2, 25-29.
65. Sastri 1988, p. 26.
66. Mookerji 1988, pp. 6-8, 31-33.
67. Boesche 2003, pp. 9–37.
68. Mookerji 1988, pp. 2-3, 35-38.
69. Appian, p. 55.
70. Mookerji 1988, pp. 36–37, 105.
71. Walter Eugene, Clark (1919). "The Importance of Hellenism from the Point of View of Indic-Philology". Classical Philology. 14 (4): 297–313. doi:10.1086/360246.
72. "Strabo 15.2.1(9)". Archived from the original on 3 February 2009. Retrieved 14 July 2017.
73. Barua 2005, pp. 13-15.
74. Thomas McEvilley, "The Shape of Ancient Thought", Allworth Press, New York, 2002, ISBN 1581152035, p.367
75. India, the Ancient Past, Burjor Avari, p. 106-107
76. Majumdar 2003, p. 105.
77. Tarn, W. W. (1940). "Two Notes on Seleucid History: 1. Seleucus' 500 Elephants, 2. Tarmita". The Journal of Hellenic Studies. 60: 84–94. doi:10.2307/626263. JSTOR 626263.
78. Mookerji 1988, p. 38.
79. Raychaudhuri 1967, p. 18.
80. Zvelebil 1973, pp. 53-54.
81. Mookerji 1988, pp. 41–42.
82. Upinder Singh 2016, pp. 330–331.
83. Raychaudhuri 1967, p. 139.
84. Thapar 2004, p. 177.
85. Arora, U. P. (1991). "The Indika of Megasthenes — an Appraisal". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 72/73 (1/4): 307–329. JSTOR 41694901.
86. Roy, Raja Ram Mohan (24 November 2015). India before Alexander: A New Chronology. Mount Meru publishing.
87. Arya, Vedveer (24 January 2020). The Chronology of India: From Mahabharata to Medieval Era - Vol I. Aryabhata Publications.
88. Raychaudhuri 1967, pp. 139-140.
89. Raychaudhuri 1967, p. 140.
90. Kulke & Rothermund 2004, p. 61.
91. Dupree 2014, pp. 285–289.
92. Dupont-Sommer, André (1970). "Une nouvelle inscription araméenne d'Asoka trouvée dans la vallée du Laghman (Afghanistan)". Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. 114 (1): 158–173. doi:10.3406/crai.1970.12491.
93. Salomon 1998, pp. 194, 199–200 with footnote 2.
94. Habib & Jha 2004, p. 19.
95. Kulke & Rothermund 2004, p. 64.
96. Boesche 2003, p. 7-18.
97. Mookerji 1988, pp. 1-4.
98. Mookerji 1988, pp. 13–18.
99. Boesche 2003, pp. 7–18.
100. MV Krishna Rao (1958, Reprinted 1979), Studies in Kautilya, 2nd Edition, OCLC 551238868, ISBN 978-8121502429, pages 13–14, 231–233
101. Olivelle 2013, pp. 31–38.
102. Allchin & Erdosy 1995, pp. 187–194.
103. Modelski, George (1964). "Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International System in the Ancient Hindu World". American Political Science Review. 58 (3): 549–560. doi:10.2307/1953131. JSTOR 1953131.; Quote: "Kautilya is believed to have been Chanakya, a Brahmin who served as Chief Minister to Chandragupta (321–296 B.C.), the founder of the Mauryan Empire."
104. Upinder Singh 2017, p. 220.
105. Allchin & Erdosy 1995, pp. 189–192.
106. Eraly 2002, pp. 414–415.
107. Sastri 1988, pp. 163–164.
108. Mookerji 1988, pp. 62–63, 79–80, 90, 159–160.
109. Sastri 1988, pp. 120–122.
110. Allan 1958, pp. 25–28.
111. Obeyesekere 1980, pp. 137–139 with footnote 3.
112. Albinski 1958, pp. 62–75.
113. Allchin & Erdosy 1995, pp. 187–195.
114. Roy 2012, pp. 62–63.
115. Allchin & Erdosy 1995, pp. 192–194.
116. Allchin & Erdosy 1995, p. 189.
117. Allchin & Erdosy 1995, pp. 194–195.
118. Roy 2012, pp. 63–64.
119. Roy 2012, pp. 64–68.
120. Olivelle 2013, pp. 49–51, 99–108, 277–294, 349–356, 373–382.
121. Harrison 2009, pp. 234–235.
122. Guha-Thakurta 2006, pp. 51–53, 58–59.
123. Varadpande 2006, pp. 32–34 with Figure 11.
124. Guha-Thakurta 2006, pp. 58–61.
125. Asher 2015, pp. 421–423.
126. Habib & Jha 2004, p. 20.
127. Mookerji 1988, pp. 39–40.
128. Samuel 2010, pp. 60.
129. Thapar 2004, p. 178.
130. Mookerji 1988, pp. 39–41, 60–64.
131. Bentley 1993, pp. 44–46.
132. Mookerji 1962, pp. 60–64.
133. Bentley 1993, pp. 44-46.
134. Mookerji, Radhakumud (1966). Chandragupta Maurya and His Times. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 978-81-208-0405-0.
135. Long 2013, pp. 60–61.
136. Dundas 2003, pp. 46–49.
137. Dundas 2003, pp. 46–49, 67–69.
138. Jyoti Prasad Jain 2005, pp. 65–67.
139. Hemacandra 1998, pp. 185–188.
140. Vallely 2018, pp. 182–183.
141. Commemorative postage stamp on Chandragupta Maurya Archived 27 April 2013 at the Wayback Machine, Press Information Bureau, Govt. of India
142. Ghosh 2001, pp. 44–46.
143. The Courtesan and the Sadhu, A Novel about Maya, Dharma, and God, October 2008, Dharma Vision LLC., ISBN 978-0-9818237-0-6, Library of Congress Control Number: 2008934274
144. Bhagwan Das Garga (1996). So Many Cinemas: The Motion Picture in India. Eminence Designs. p. 43. ISBN 978-81-900602-1-9.
145. Screen World Publication's 75 Glorious Years of Indian Cinema: Complete Filmography of All Films (silent & Hindi) Produced Between 1913-1988. Screen World Publication. 1988. p. 109.
146. Hervé Dumont (2009). L'Antiquité au cinéma: vérités, légendes et manipulations. Nouveau Monde. ISBN 978-2-84736-476-7.
147. "Chanakya Chandragupta (1977)". IMDb. Archived from the original on 11 March 2016. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
148. "Television". The Indian Express. 8 September 1991. Archived from the original on 11 May 2018. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
149. "Chandragupta Maurya comes to small screen". Zee News. 13 January 2011. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016.
150. "Chandragupta Maurya on Sony TV?". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 4 January 2016.
151. TV, Imagine. "Channel". TV Channel. Archived from the original on 25 July 2011.
152. "Real truth behind Chandragupta's birth, his first love Durdhara and journey to becoming the Mauryan King". 17 October 2016. Archived from the original on 28 October 2017.
153. "'Chandraguta Maurya' to launch in November on Sony TV". Archived from the original on 13 November 2018. Retrieved 18 November 2018.
154. "Civilization VI – The Official Site | News | CIVILIZATION VI: RISE AND FALL - CHANDRAGUPTA LEADS INDIA". civilization.com. Archived from the original on 27 July 2018. Retrieved 26 July2018.

Sources

• Albinski, Henry S. (1958), "The Place of the Emperor Asoka in Ancient Indian Political Thought", Midwest Journal of Political Science, 2 (1): 62–75, doi:10.2307/2109166, JSTOR 2109166
• Allan, J (1958), The Cambridge Shorter History Of India, Cambridge University Press
• Allchin, F. R.; Erdosy, George (1995), The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-37695-2
• Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars
• Asher, Frederick (2015), Brown, Rebecca M.; Hutton, Deborah S. (eds.), A Companion to Asian Art and Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-1-119-01953-4
• Barua, Pradeep (2005), The State at War in South Asia, 2, Nebraska Press, ISBN 9780803240612, via Project MUSE (subscription required)
• Bentley, Jerry (1993), Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times, Oxford University Press
• Bhattacharyya, P. K. (1977), Historical Geography of Madhyapradesh from Early Records, Motilal Banarsidass
• Boesche, Roger (2003), "Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India" (PDF), The Journal of Military History, 67 (1): 9, doi:10.1353/jmh.2003.0006, ISSN 0899-3718, S2CID 154243517
• Brown, Rebecca M.; Hutton, Deborah S. (22 June 2015), A Companion to Asian Art and Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 9781119019534
• Dikshitar, V. R. Ramachandra (1993), The Mauryan Polity, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., ISBN 978-81-208-1023-5
• Dundas, Paul (2003), The Jains, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-26605-5
• Dupree, Louis (2014), Afghanistan, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-1-4008-5891-0
• Eraly, Abraham (2002), Gem In The Lotus, Penguin, ISBN 978-93-5118-014-2
• Fleet, J.F. (1892), Bhadrabahu, Chandragupta and Shravanabelagola (Indian Antiquary), 21, Archaeological Society of India
• Ghosh, Ajit Kumar (2001), Dwijendralal Ray, Makers of Indian Literature (1st ed.), New Delhi: Sahitye Akademi, ISBN 978-81-260-1227-5
• Grant, R.G. (2010), Commanders, Penguin
• Guha-Thakurta, Tapati (2006), Chatterjee, Partha; Ghosh, Anjan (eds.), History and the Present, Anthem Press, ISBN 978-1-84331-224-6
• Habib, Irfan; Jha, Vivekanand (2004), Mauryan India, A People's History of India, Aligarh Historians Society / Tulika Books, ISBN 978-81-85229-92-8
• Harrison, Thomas (2009), The Great Empires of the Ancient World, Getty Publications, ISBN 978-0-89236-987-4
• Hemacandra (1998), The Lives of the Jain Elders, translated by R.C.C. Fynes, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-283227-6
• Jain, Jyoti Prasad (2005), Jaina Sources of the History of Ancient India: 100 BC - AD 900, Munshiram Manoharlal
• Jaini, Padmanabh S. (1991), Gender and Salvation, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-06820-9
• Jones, Constance; Ryan, James D. (2006), Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Infobase Publishing, ISBN 978-0-8160-7564-5
• Long, Jeffery D (2013), Jainism: An Introduction, I.B.Tauris, ISBN 978-0-85771-392-6
• Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), A History of India (4th ed.), London: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-15481-9
• Majumdar, R. C. (2003) [1952], Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-81-208-0436-4
• Malalasekera, Gunapala Piyasena (2002), Encyclopaedia of Buddhism: Acala, Government of Ceylon
• Mandal, Dhaneshwar (2003), Ayodhya, Archaeology After Demolition: A Critique of the "new" and "fresh" Discoveries, Orient Blackswan, ISBN 9788125023449
• Mookerji, Radha Kumud (1962), Aśoka (3rd Revised., repr ed.), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (reprint 1995), ISBN 978-81208-058-28
• Mookerji, Radha Kumud (1988) [first published in 1966], Chandragupta Maurya and his times (4th ed.), Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-0433-3
• Obeyesekere, Gananath (1980), Doniger, Wendy (ed.), Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-03923-0
• Olivelle, Patrick (2013), King, Governance, and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, Oxford UK: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199891825
• Raychaudhuri, H. C. (1923), Political History of Ancient India: From the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty, Oxford University Press (1996 reprint, with B. N. Mukerjee Introduction)
• Raychaudhuri, H. C. (1967), "India in the Age of the Nandas / Chandragupta and Bindusara", in K. A. Nilakanta Sastri (ed.), Age of the Nandas and Mauryas (Second ed.), Motilal Banarsidass (1988 reprint), ISBN 978-81-208-0466-1
• Roy, Kaushik (2012), Hinduism and the Ethics of Warfare in South Asia: From Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-01736-8
• Salomon, Richard (1998), Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-535666-3
• Samuel, Geoffrey (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge University Press
• Sastri, Kallidaikurichi Aiyah Nilakanta (1988), Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-81-208-0466-1
• Sen, R.K. (1895), "Origin of the Maurya of Magadha and of Chanakya", Journal of the Buddhist Text Society of India, The Society
• Singh, Upinder (2016), A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Pearson Education, ISBN 978-93-325-6996-6
• Singh, Upinder (2017), Political Violence in Ancient India, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-97527-9
• Stoneman, Richard (2019), The Greek Experience of India: From Alexander to the Indo-Greeks, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-18538-5
• Thapar, Romila (1961), Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Oxford University Press
• Thapar, Romila (2004) [first published by Penguin in 2002], Early India: From the Origins to A.D. 1300, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-24225-8
• Thapar, Romila (2013), The Past Before Us, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-72651-2
• Trautmann, Thomas R. (1970), "Alexander and Nandrus in Justin 15.4.16.", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 51 (1/4)
• Upādhye, Ādinātha Neminātha (1977), Mahāvīra and His Teachings, Bhagavān Mahāvīra 2500th Nirvāṇa Mahotsava Samiti
• Vallely, Anne (2018), Kitts, Margo (ed.), Martyrdom, Self-Sacrifice, and Self-Immolation: Religious Perspectives on Suicide, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-065648-5
• Varadpande, Manohar Laxman (2006), Woman in Indian Sculpture, Abhinav, ISBN 978-81-7017-474-5
• Wiley, Kristi L. (16 July 2009), The A to Z of Jainism, Scarecrow, ISBN 978-0-8108-6821-2
• Zvelebil, Kamil (1973), The Smile of Murugan: On Tamil Literature of South India, BRILL, ISBN 90-04-03591-5

Further reading

Library resources about
• Bongard-Levin, Grigory Maksimovich (1985). Mauryan India. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers. OCLC 14395730.
• Kosmin, Paul J. (2014), The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in Seleucid Empire, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-72882-0
• Mani, Braj Ranjan (2005), Debrahmanising history: dominance and resistance in Indian society, Manohar, ISBN 978-81-7304-640-7
• Roy, Kaushik (2015), Warfare in Pre-British India–1500BCE to 1740CE, Routledge
• Sagar, Krishna Chandra (1992), Foreign Influence on Ancient India, Northern Book Centre, ISBN 9788172110284

External links

• Maurya and Sunga Art, N R Ray

[admin]

Bhadrabahu, Chandragupta, and Sravana-Belgola
by J.F. Fleet, Bo.C.S., M.R.A.S., C.I.E.
The Indian Antiquary
May, 1892

Medieval stone relief at Digambara pilgrimage site Shravanabelagola, Karnataka. It has been interpreted as Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya, but some disagree....

[Chandragupta's] main biographical sources in chronological order are: ... 7th to 10th century Jain inscriptions at Shravanabelgola...


7th-century Bhadrabahu inscription at Shravanabelagola (Sanskrit, Purvahale Kannada script). This is the oldest inscription at the site, and it mentions Bhadrabahu and Prabhacandra. Lewis Rice and Digambara Jains interpret Prabhacandra to be Chandragupta Maurya, while others such as J F Fleet, V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, and Svetambara Jains state this interpretation is wrong....

The earliest mention of Chandragupta's ritual death is found in Harisena's Brhatkathakosa, a Sanskrit text of stories about Digambara Jains. The Brhatkathakosa describes the legend of Bhadrabahu and mentions Chandragupta in its 131st story. However, the story makes no mention of the Maurya empire, and mentions that his disciple Chandragupta lived in and migrated from Ujjain – a kingdom (northwest Madhya Pradesh) about a thousand kilometers west of the Magadha and Patliputra (central Bihar). This has led to the proposal that Harisena's Chandragupta may be a later era, different person....


1,300 years Old Shravanabelagola relief shows death of Chandragupta after taking the vow of Sallekhana. Some consider it about the legend of his [???] arrival with Bhadrabahu....


A statue depicting Chandrgupta Maurya (right) with his spiritual mentor Acharya Bhadrabahu at Shravanabelagola....

The circumstances and year of Chandragupta's death are unclear and disputed. According to Digambara Jain accounts that, Bhadrabahu forecasted a 12-year famine because of all the killing and violence during the conquests by Chandragupta Maurya. He led a group of Jain monks to south India, where Chandragupta Maurya joined him as a monk after abdicated his kingdom to his son Bindusara. Together, states a Digambara legend, Chandragupta and Bhadrabahu moved to Shravanabelagola, in present-day south Karnataka. These Jain accounts appeared in texts such as Brihakathā kośa (931 CE) of Harishena, Bhadrabāhu charita (1450 CE) of Ratnanandi, Munivaṃsa bhyudaya (1680 CE) and Rajavali kathe. Chandragupta lived as an ascetic at Shravanabelagola for several years before fasting to death as per the Jain practice of sallekhana, according to the Digambara legend....

Regarding the inscriptions describing the relation of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya, Radha Kumud Mookerji writes,

The oldest inscription of about 600 AD associated "the pair (yugma), Bhadrabahu along with Chandragupta Muni." Two inscriptions of about 900 AD on the Kaveri near Seringapatam describe the summit of a hill called Chandragiri as marked by the footprints of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta munipati. A Shravanabelagola inscription of 1129 mentions Bhadrabahu "Shrutakevali", and Chandragupta who acquired such merit that he was worshipped by the forest deities. Another inscription of 1163 similarly couples and describes them. A third inscription of the year 1432 speaks of Yatindra Bhadrabahu, and his disciple Chandragupta, the fame of whose penance spread into other words.

Along with texts, several Digambara Jain inscriptions dating from the 7th–15th century refer to Bhadrabahu and a Prabhacandra. Later Digambara tradition identified the Prabhacandra as Chandragupta, and some modern era scholars have accepted this Digambara tradition while others have not. Several of the late Digambara inscriptions and texts in Karnataka state the journey started from Ujjain and not Pataliputra (as stated in some Digambara texts)....

Scholar of Jain studies and Sanskrit Paul Dundas says the Svetambara tradition of Jainism disputes the ancient Digambara legends. According to a 5th-century text of the Svetambara Jains, the Digambara sect of Jainism was founded 609 years after Mahavira's death, or in 1st-century CE. Digambaras wrote their own versions and legends after the 5th-century, with their first expanded Digambara version of sectarian split within Jainism appearing in the 10th-century. The Svetambaras texts describe Bhadrabahu was based near Nepalese foothills of the Himalayas in 3rd-century BCE, who neither moved nor travelled with Chandragupta Maurya to the south; rather, he died near Pataliputra, according to the Svetambara Jains....

According to V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar – an Indologist and historian, several of the Digambara legends mention Prabhacandra, who had been misidentified as Chandragupta Maurya particularly after the original publication on Shravanabelagola epigraphy by B. Lewis Rice. The earliest and most important inscriptions mention Prabhacandra, which Rice presumed may have been the "clerical name assumed by Chadragupta Maurya" after he renounced and moved with Bhadrabahu from Pataliputra. Dikshitar stated there is no evidence to support this and Prabhacandra was an important Jain monk scholar who migrated centuries after Chandragupta Maurya's death. Other scholars have taken Rice's deduction of Chandragupta Maurya retiring and dying in Shravanabelagola as the working hypothesis, since no alternate historical information or evidence is available about Chandragupta's final years and death.


The Footprints of Chandragupta Maurya on Chandragiri Hill, where Chandragupta (the unifier of India and founder of the Maurya Dynasty) performed Sallekhana.

-- Chandragupta Maurya, by Wikipedia

In the first fifteen pages of the Introduction to his Inscriptions at Sravana-Belgola (published in 1889), Mr. Rice has arrived at the conclusions, that the settlement of the Jains at that place was brought about by the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, Bhadrabahu, and that this person died there, tended in his last moments by the Maurya king Chandragupta, — the Sandrokottos of the Greek historians, — the grandfather of Asoka. These conclusions, if they could be accepted as correct, would possess considerable interest. And it is worth while, therefore, to examine the grounds upon which they are based.

It is clear that there are local traditions, of some antiquity, connecting the names Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta with Sravana-Belgola. Thus: — Of the two hills at Sravana-Bolgola, the smaller one, Chandragiri, is said to derive its appellation from the fact that Chandragupta was the name of the first of the saints who lived and performed penance there (Introd. p. 1). On this hill there is a cave which is known as the cave of Bhadrabahusvamin; and also a shrine which is called the Chandragupta-basti (ibid. p. 2, and map). Two inscriptions, said to be of the ninth century, found near the Gautama-kshetra of the river Kaveri at Seriugapatam, speak of the hill at Sravana-Belgola as having its summit marked by the impress of the feet of Bhadrabahu and the Munipati Chandragupta (ibid. p. 2, note 6). At Sravana-Belgola itself, inscription No. 17, of about the seventh century A.D., mentions “the pair Bhadrabahu, together with the Munindra Chandragupta.” And inscription No. 71, of considerably later date, refers to worship being done to the foot-prints of Bhadrabahu.

So far, we stand on safe ground, in respect of the names of a Bhadrabahu and a Chandragupta; provided that we only bear in mind that, as yet, we have nothing to enable us to identify any particular Bhadrabahu and any particular Chandragupta.

We turn next to inscriptions at Sravana-Belgola, which undoubtedly mention Bhadrabahu, the last of the Sruta-Kevalins. No. 40, of A.D. 1163, speaks of “Gautama" [the first of the Kevalins], “in whose line arose ‘‘Bhadrabahu, the last among the Sruta-Kevalins; his disciple was Chandragupta, whose “glory was such that his own gana of Munis was worshipped by the forest-deities:"1 [It may be mentioned, in connection with an altogether different matter of some interest, that, in the further succession of disciples, this inscription mentions one whose original name was Devanandin; who was called Jinendra-Buddha, on account of his great learning; who was called Pujyapada, because his feet were worshipped by gods; and who composed the Jainundra-grammar.] and then, after a break, it takes up a line of succession, placed in the lineage (anvaya) of Chandragupta, beginning with the Munisvara Kondakunda,2 [I give this name as it stands in Mr. Rice’s texts, — Kondakunda, in Nos. 40, 54, and 105, and Kundakunda in No. 108. The variation in the vowel of the first syllable is not material. There is a question as to the proper consonants in the second and fourth syllables. For several variants of the name, see Dr. Hultzsch’s South-Indian Inscriptions, Vol. I. p. 158, note 2. In the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha, it appears as Kundakunda (ante, Vol. XX. pp. 351, 356).] whose original name was Padmanandin. No. 54, of A.D. 1128, again mentions Gautama, the 'Sruto-Kevalins, Bhadrabahu (apparently the 'Sruta-Kevalin of that name), and Chandragupta, “who, by being his disciple, acquired such merit as to be served for a long time by the forest-deities;” and then, like the preceding, after a break, it takes up the succession beginning with Kondakunda. No, 105, of A.D, 1398, dealing similarly with the succession from Kondakunda, enumerates, before him, a number of teachers, in respect of whom, for present purposes, it is only necessary to say that the Kevalin Gautama, and five Sruta-Kevalins, ending with Bhadrabahu, are mentioned, but the name of Chandragupta does not occur at all. And No. 108, of A D. 1433, mentions Gautama; in his line, the Yatindra Bhadrabahu, the last of the 'Sruta-Kevalins; his disciple, Chandragupta; and, in the line of the latter, the Munindra Kundakunda, whose succession is then continued, as in the other records.

These inscriptions undoubtedly mention Bhadrabahu, the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, and allot to him a disciple named Chandragupta. And all that we have to note here, is, that, except through the connected mention of a Chandragupta, they afford no grounds for identifying him with the Bhadrabahu of the inscriptions quoted in the last paragraph but two above; that they furnish no reasons for asserting that the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu ever visited Sravana-Belgola, or even came to Southern India at all; and that they give no indications of Chandragupta having been anything but an ordinary Jain teacher.

And now we come to the actual reasons that led Mr. Rice to assert the alleged facts which, in the interests of plain and reliable history, it is desirable either to substantiate or to disprove. They are to be found, partly in a compendium of Jain history called the Rajavalikathe, and partly in Mr. Rice’s rendering of another inscription at Sravana-Belgola, No. I in his book.

The essence of what the Rajavalikathe tells us is this (loc. cit. pp. 3-6): — "The Bhadrabahu who came to be the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, was a Brahman’s son, and was born at Kotikapura in Pundravardhana. He interpreted sixteen dreams of Chandragupta, the king of Pataliputra; the last of which indicated twelve years of dearth and famine. On the commencement of the famine, Chandragupta abdicated in favour of his son Simhasena, and, taking initiation in the Jain faith, joined himself to Bhadrabahu. Bhadrabahu, having collected a body of twelve thousand disciples, migrated to the south, and came to a hill in the Karnataka country. There he perceived that his end was approaching; and so, giving upadesa to Visakhcharya, he committed all the disciples to his care, and sent them on to the Chola and Pandya countries. He himself remained on the hill, and died in a cave there, tended only by Chandragupta, who performed the funeral rites, and abode there, worshipping the foot-prints of the deceased saint. After a time, Simhasena’s son, Bhaskara, came to the place, and did obeisance to Chandragupta, and built the city of Belgola near the hill. And eventually, Chandragupta himself died there.”

In connection with this account, — the value of which most people will be able to appreciate for themselves, — it is sufficient to point out two things. One is, that, whatever be the sources on which it is based, this Jain compendium is a composition of the present century (loc. cit. p. 3). And the other is that, by a further extract from the same work, we learn (ibid, p. 9) that the Chandragupta in question was not the well-known grandfather of Asoka, — the Sandrokottos of the Greeks, — at all, but a son, otherwise quite unknown, of Asoka’s son Kunala. Mr. Rice himself noticed this little difficulty, and got round it by suggesting (ibid. p. 10) that ‘the introduction of two Chandraguptas seems to be due to some confusion in the traditions, and is an unnecessary variation, perhaps intended to conceal the defection of Asoka (from Jainism to the Buddhist faith).' But, by such a process as this, — accepting as reliable an account that is perfectly valueless for historical purposes, and then directly perverting its statement, on a point of leading importance, by deliberately substituting a man’s grandfather in the place of his grandson, — almost anything whatever in the way of imaginary history might be evolved.

It is unnecessary to follow Mr. Rice through the process by which, using what seems to be an actual fact, viz. that Bhadrabahu, the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, was a contemporary of the great Chandragupta, he arrived (loc. cit. pp. 12, 14) at about B.C. 297 for the date of the events recorded, on his interpretation, in the inscription that still remains to be considered or through the steps by which he established a connection of the real Chandragupta with Southern India through the Early Guptas, the Mauryas of the Konkan, and the Gatta chieftains of the Kanareso country (ibid. pp. 10-14). We will turn now to the inscription itself.

The real purport of the inscription, No. 1 in the Sravana-Belgola volume, is as follows: — After the time when (the Jain Tirthamkara) Mahavira attained parinirvana, there was a certain Bhadrabahusvamin, who belonged to a lineage that had been made illustrious by a succession of great saints who came in continuous order from the venerable Paramarshi Gautama, and his disciple Loharya, and Jambu, Vishnudeva, Aparajita, Govardhana, Bhadrabahu, Visakha, Prosthhila, Krittikarya,3 [Mr. Rice gives “Kshatriksrya." I do not overlook the fact that the name occurs as “Kshatriya" in No. 165 in Mr. Rice’s book, and in the extract from the Maghanandi-Sravakachara given ante, Vol. XII. p 22, and as “Khattiya,” explained by “Kshatriya,” in the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha (ante, Vol, XX. p. 348). But Mr. Rice’s lithograph distinctly has the name that I give. — Since writing these remarks, I have seen impressions  of the inscription, which I owe to the kindness of Dr. Hultzsch. They shew that the name really is Krittikarya.] Jayanaman, Siddhartha, Dhritishena, Buddhila, and other Gurus. At Ujjayini, the Bhadrabahusvamin, thus introduced, mastered the science of prognostication, became a knower of the past, the present, and the future, and announced a period of distress that would last for twelve years; and the entire sangha set out from the north and migrated to the south, and, by the directions of the saint, came to a country containing many hundreds of villages, and rich in people, wealth, gold, grain, cows, buffaloes, and goats. Then, on the mountain Katavapra4 [The original says, “on this mountain named Katavapra”; i.e. on the hill on which the inscription is engraved; i.e. on Chandragiri itself. ] the Acharya Prabhachandra, perceiving that the end of his life was very near, and being much afraid of journeying any farther, dismissed the whole samgha, with the exception of one unnamed disciple, and engaged in samnyasa until he died."

In interpreting this record, Mr. Rice made two important mistakes. (1) He took the Bhadrabahusvamin who announced the period of distress, to be identical with Bhadrabahu I, the Sruta-Kevalin, who is mentioned in his proper place between Govardhana and Visakha. But, according to the inscription itself, seven of the Dasa-Parvins, and after them a break of unspecified duration, intervened between the two Bhadrabahus, — in perfect accordance with the lists of Northern India. And (2), in consequence of a mislection in line 6, he translated the inscription as meaning that the Acharya who died at Katavapra, was Bhadrabahusvamin himself, i.e,, as the result of his identification, Bhadrabahu I., the Sruta-Kevalin, and that the disciple who tended him was Prabhachandra; to which he attached a note that Prabhachandra was explained to him as the clerical name assumed by Chandragupta.5 [See also Introd. pp 6, 7, where, however, he says only that, "according to No. 1,” i.e. the present inscription, Chandragupta “appears” to have taken the name of Prabhachandra on retiring from the world, in conformity with custom.] But all this is distinctly not the case; the reading, in line 6, is, — not acharyyah Prabhachandren=am=avanitala, “the Acharya, with6 [The passage was supposed to include the word ama, in the sense of saha, — The inscription was first brought to notice by Mr. Rice in 1871, in this Journal, Vol. III., p. 153 (see also Mysore Inscriptions, pp. lxxxvi., lxxxvii., 302); and the first extract from the Rajavalikatne was also given. But Mr. Rice did not then find the name Prabhachandra in the inscription. And in respect of the extract from the Rajavalikathe, he then wrote — “This is a strange story. How much of it may be accepted as historical is not easy to say.”] Prabhachandra also, [dismissed the sangha, and engaged in samnyasa till he died],” — but acharyyah Prabhachandro nam=avanitala, "the Acharya, namely Prabhachandra, [dismissed the samgha and engaged in samnyasa till he died].”

In short, so far from recording that the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu died at Sravana Belgola, tended by a disciple named Prabhachandra, who might be assumed to be king Chandragupta of Pataliputra, the inscription simply states that an Acharya named Prabhachandra died there, during or shortly after a migration of the Jain community to the south, which was caused by an announcement of famine made, at Ujjain, by a certain Bhadrabahusvamin who came after an interval of unspecified duration, — but plainly a long one, — after the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu, And thus the only possible substantial foundation for the fabric reared up by Mr. Rice ceases entirely to exist.

We may now proceed to examine the real historical bearings of this inscription. It is not dated. But the lithographic Plate which is given by Mr. Rice, shews that the engraving of it is to be allotted to approximately the seventh century A.D.: it may possibly be a trifle earlier; and equally, it may possibly be somewhat later.7 [While recognising, approximately, the period to which the characters really belong, Mr. Rice (loc. cit. p. 15) arrived at the conclusion that, “if this interesting inscription did not precede the Christian era, it unquestionably belongs to the earliest part of that era and is certainly not later than about 100 A.D." But there are no substantial grounds for this view, which depends chiefly upon Mr. Rice’s acceptance as genuine, of the spurious Western Ganga grants. Unfortunately, much of what would otherwise be valuable work by him, is always vitiated in the same way.] And, interpreting the record in the customary manner, viz. as referring to an event almost exactly synchronous with the engraving of it, we can only take it as commemorating the death of a Jain teacher named Prabhachandra, in or very near to the period A.D. 600 to 700. Who this Prabhachandra was, I am not at present able to say. But he cannot be Prabhachandra I. of the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha (ante, Vol. XX. p. 351), unless the chronological details of that record, — according to which Prabhachandra I., became pontiff in A.D. 396, — are open to very considerable rectification. And I should think that he must be a different person, for whose identification we have to look to southern records not as yet available.

As regards Bhadrabahusvamin, all that should have been of necessity plain at the time when Mr. Rice dealt finally with this inscription, is, that he is not the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu. Now that Dr. Hoernle has published the patttavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha, he is easily capable of identification. He is undoubtedly Bhadrabahu II., the last but one of the Minor-Angins who is represented as becoming pontiff in B.C. 63 (ante, Vol. XX. pp. 349-51.)

The same pattavali enables us to locate properly the Chandragupta of the Sravana-Belgola traditions and inscriptions. Such of them as make him a disciple of the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu, are plainly mistaken. He is evidently Guptigupta, the disciple of Bhadrabahu II., — otherwise named Arhadbalin and Visakhacharya, — who, according to the same record, became pontiff in B.C. 31 (ante, Vol. XX. pp. 350, 351). And this brings us to a point in which the local traditions are possibly more correct than the northern records. The pattavali in question tells us that one of Guptigupta’s disciples, Maghanandin, established the Nandi-Samgha or Balatkara-Gana, as a division of the Mula-Samgha itself. Both names of the gana, as well as that of the Mula-Samgha, are of frequent occurrence, in connection with teachers belonging to it, in inscriptions in the Kanarese country; where, however, the gana is perhaps mentioned most often as the Balatkara-Gana. This appellation for it is attributed by Dr. Hoernle to Guptigupta’s name of Arhadbalin. A gana of his own is allotted to Chandragupta, i.e. to Guptigupta, by inscription No. 40 at Sravana-Belgola (see the words quoted from it, on page 156 above), which ultimately deals with the Desi-Gana as a division of the Nandi-Gana in the Mula-Samgha, placing it in the lineage (anvaya) of Kondakunda, just as the lineage of the latter is placed in the lineage of Chandragupta, i.e. of Guptigupta. And the fact that the Inscription with which we have been dealing, and others on the Chandragiri hill which similarly record the deaths of Jain ascetics, lie in such a position that they have to be read with the face directed towards the front of the so-called Chandragupba-basti, indicates plainly that some peculiar sanctity or reverence attached to the parson commemorated by that shrine. There can be little doubt that the ascetics in question belonged to the same sect with that person; that he was the traditional founder of the sect; and that the tradition at Sravana-Belgola was that the Balatkara-Gana was really founded by the Chandragupta of the inscriptions, i.e. by Guptigupta, the disciple of Bhadrabahu II.8 [In connection with a division of the Nandi-Samgha, “the body of saints of Guptigupta” is mentioned in the Kadab grant, which purports to be dated in Saka-Samvat 785 (ante, Vol. XII. p. 11). And inscription No. 105 in Mr. Rice’s book, dated Saka-Samvat 1820, speaks of Arhadbalin, apparently as establishing a four-fold division of the samgha.]  

The migration to the south, whether it really started from Ujjain, or from elsewhere, may well be a historical fact.9 [It appears to be mentioned also in the Upasarga kevaligala-kathe; see ante, Vol. XII, p. 99, -- "the whole assemblage of the saints having come by the region of the south, and having arrived at the tomb of the venerable one, &c."] It may be open to argument, whether the inscription intends to imply that it was led by Bhadrabahu II. But at any rate this is not distinctly asserted. And I think that the contrary is indicated, (1) by the description of Bhadrabahu as ‘‘a knower of the past, the present, and the future (traikalya-darsin)," which rather points to his predicting a future period of distress, than to his simply announcing the commencement of immediately impending distress; and (2) by the statement that the rich land at which the samgha arrived was reached “by the directions of the saint (arshena = rishi-vachanena)," which points to instructions given at the time of predicting the distress, — or at any rate to advice given to people who were leaving him, — rather than to personal guidance. On the other hand, the inscription, whether correctly or not, does make the migration contemporaneous with Prabhachandra; for it says that, at the mountain Katavapra, he perceived that the end of his life was very near and became “much afraid of travelling any further (adhvanah su-chakitah)," and so dismissed the samgha and remained there till he died. If, then, the record does mean to imply that Bhadrabahu II. led the migration, or even that it took place in his time, it is wrong, either in that respect, or in placing the death of Prabhachandra during the migration; because of the intervention of several centuries at least10 [I assume that the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha is at least approximately correct in respect of the date which it gives for Bhadrabahu II.] between the period of Bhadrabahu II, and the death of Prabhachandra as determined, with close approximation, by the palaeography of the record.