Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Sep 28, 2021 2:36 am

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.

Image
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.

Image
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]).
Image
/ 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
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:25 am

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.

Image

(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.

Image

[-] (Udeha [-]).

Image

(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

Image

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.

Image

(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.

Image

(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

Image

to r. of staff,

Image

(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.

Image

(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.

Image

(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,

Image

(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.

Image

(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.]

Image

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,

Image

(Rajno Sesadatasa).

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

11. Obv. A wheel within a caitya.

Rev. Across centre

Image

([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,

Image

Rev.

Image

(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

Image

or

Image

(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

Image

(Rajasa

Image

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 —

Image

— 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.

Image

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.

Image

(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.

Image

Image

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]

Image

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

Image

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.

Image

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 —

Image

— 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.

Image

Image

within border of dots.

Rev.

Image

Image
 
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
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:28 am

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.

Image

(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.]

Image

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,

Image

(Rajno Sesadatasa).

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

11. Obv. A wheel within a caitya.

Rev. Across centre

Image

([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,

Image

Rev.

Image

(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

Image

or

Image

(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

Image

(Rajasa

Image

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.


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

Image
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]


Image
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]


Image
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
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:47 am

Part 1 of 4

Chandragupta Maurya
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 5/26/21



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.
Image
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....

Image
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

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

Image
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


Image
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



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
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:47 am

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]

Image
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]


Image
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


Image
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
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:26 am

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.


Image
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]

Image
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
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Sat Oct 02, 2021 12:37 am

Part 4 of 4

Infrastructure projects

Image
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.
Image

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)

Image
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]



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

Image
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]

Image
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
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:24 am

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

Image
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...

Image
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....

Image
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....

Image
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.

Image
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.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:53 am

Part 1 of 2

"Sandrocottus", Excerpt from "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 Introduction deals with several topics of general interest allied to the study of Classical Sanskrit Literature… Of foremost importance, there is the subject of Indian Chronology. India has its well written history, and the Puranas exhibit that history and chronology. To the devout Hindu, and to a Hindu who will strive to be honest in the literary and historical way, Puranas are not 'pious frauds.' In the hands of many Orientalists, India has lost (or has been cheated out of) a period of 10-12 centuries in its political and literary life, by the assumption of a faulty Synchronism of Candragupta Maurya and Sandrocottus of the Greek works, and all that can be said against that "Anchor-Sheet of Indian Chronology" has been said in this Introduction…[for] our "Professors of Indian History," that have given a longevity and a garb of truth to it by repetition, there is to my mind no excuse or expiation, if at all it be a confession of neglect and a recognition of India's glorious past in its entire truth…

Of the several kingdoms and dynasties of which Puranas have recorded political history, there is the kingdom of Magadha. For our present purposes of sifting and settling the chronology of India up to the Christian era, the history of Magadha is particularly relevant, for it is at Magadha, 'Chandragupta' and 'Asoka' ruled, and it is on these names that the modern computation of dates has been based for everything relating to India's literary history, and it is those two names that make the heroes of the theory of Anchor Sheet of Indian Chronology.

The Kingdom of Magadha was founded by Brhadratha, son of Uparicara Vasu, the 6th in descent from Kuru of the Candra Vamsa. That happened 161 years before Mahabharata war. Tenth in descent from Brhadratha was Jarasandha. Jarasandha perished at the hand of Kamsa, and in his place Sahadeva was installed on the throne. Sahadeva was an ally of Pandavas and was killed in the war, that is in 3139 BC. His son Marjari (or Somadhi or Somavit) was his successor and the first king of Magadha after the war. From him 22 kings of this Barhadratha dynasty ruled over Magadha for 1006 years, or roughly stated, for 1000 years…

The following is the description of the Nanda Dynasty as given in the Kaliyuga Rajavrttanta: —...

"It will be clear from these numerous extracts quoted in full from the various important Puranas, which are practically identical with one another, that the Founder of this Dynasty was Mahapadma, well known otherwise as Dhana Nanda, that he was the son of Mahanandin, the last of the Saisunaga Dynasty, that he was born to that king from a Sudra wife, that he was most avaricious and powerful, that he extirpated the Kshattriya rulers of his time like a second Parasurama, the destroyer of the Kshattriyas in the olden times, that he subjugated the different lines of Kings of the Solar and Lunar dynasties who began to rule in the various parts of Northern India from the time of the Mahabharata War commencing from the Coronation of Yudhishthira in the year 3139 BC, that he became a paramount King and Emperor of the whole of India between the Himalaya and the Vindhya mountains by putting an end to the ancient families of Kings, such as Aikshvakus, Panchalas, Kauravyas, Haihayas, Kalakas, Ekalingas, Surasenas, Maithilas etc., who ceased to rule as separate dynasties ever since that time, that he ruled the kingdom under one umbrella for a period of 88 years, that his 8 sons jointly ruled the kingdom for a short period of 12 years, that these Nine Nandas, including the father and his eight sons ruled Magadha altogether for a total period of 100 years from 1635 to 1535 BC, that these Nandas were extirpated by the Brahman Chanakya, well known as Kautilya, on account of his crooked and Machiavellian policy, and that he replaced his protege Chandragupta, an illegitimate son of Mahapadma Nanda by his Sudra wife Mura on the throne of his father."

But Vincent A. Smith chooses to assign to these nine Nandas a total period of only 45 years for their reigns.

Candragupta came to the throne as the son of Mura, so he was a Maurya, and the dynasty which he started was Maurya dynasty. Candragupta's son was Bindusara, and Bindusara's son was Asoka or Asokavardhana…

Thus Candragupta reigned from 1535 to 1501 BC, for 34 years, Bindusara from 1501 to 1473, for 28 years, and Asoka from 1473 to 1437 BC, for 36 years. And in all there were twelve Kings of Maurya dynasty, the last of whom was Brhadratha.

Regarding this dynasty the readings and versions of the Puranas are hopelessly confused and incorrect but the passages quoted, of which the authenticity is doubtless, show that the Maurya dynasty lasted for 316 years from 1535 to 1219 BC.


Pusyamitra was the commander-in-chief of Brhadratha. He removed his master and ascended the throne. Thus he started the Sunga dynasty. According to Matsya Purana, there were ten kings of this dynasty who ruled in all for 30 years from 1219 BC to 919 BC…

Thus, these 32 kings of the Andhra Dynasty reigned for a total period of 506 years, although in summing up their total period of reigns, it states in round figures that they ruled for full 500 years (instead of 506 years); and their kingdom passed into the hands of Candragupta, son of Ghatotkaca Gupta and grandson of Sri Gupta, who appears to have come from Sri Parvata or Nepal and originally entered the service of Vijayasri Satakarni as one of his generals and with whose help he managed to maintain his tottering kingdom….

Sandrocottus.

It was Sir William Jones, the Founder and President of the Society instituted in Bengal for inquiry into the History and Antiquities, the Arts, Sciences and Literature of Asia, who died on 27th April 1794, that suggested for the first time an identification to the notice of scholars. In his 'Tenth Anniversary Discourse,' delivered by him on 28th February 1793, on "Asiatic History, Civil and Natural," referred to the so-called discovery by him of the identity of Candragupta, the Founder of the Maurya Dynasty of the Kings Magadha, with Sandrocottus of the Greek writers of Alexander's adventures, thus:

"The Jurisprudence of the Hindus and Arabs being the field, which I have chosen for my peculiar toil, you cannot expect, that I should greatly enlarge your collection of historical knowledge, but I may be able to offer you some occasional tribute, and 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 Erranaboas, which the accurate M. D'Anville had pronounced to be "Yamuna", but this only difficulty was removed when I found in a Classical Sanskrit book near two thousand years old, that Hiranyabahu or golden-armed, which the Greeks changed to Erranaboas, 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.1 [Asiatic Researches, IV. 10-11.] 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."…


Earlier in the same discourse Sir William had mentioned his authorities for the statement that Candragupta became sovereign of upper Hindusthan, with his Capital at Pataliputra. "A most beautiful poem," said he "by Somadeva, comprising a long chain of instructive and agreeable stories, begins with the famed revolution at Pataliputra by the murder of king Nanda with his eight sons, and the usurpation of Chandragupta, and the same revolution is the subject of a tragedy in Sanskrit entitled 'The Coronation of Chandra.'"1 [Ibid 6.] Thus he claimed to have identified Palibothra with Pataliputra and Sandrokottus with Candragupta, and to have determined 300 BC "in round numbers" as a certain epoch between two others which he called the conquest of Silan by Rama: "1200 BC," and the death of Vikramaditya at Ujjain in 57 BC.

In the Discourse referred to, Sir William barely stated his discovery, adding "that his proofs must be reserved" for a subsequent essay, but he died before that essay could appear.

The theme was taken immediately by Col. [Captain Francis] Wilford in Volume V of the Asiatic Researches. Wilford entered into a long and fanciful disquisition on Palibothra, and rejected Sir William's identification of it with Pataliputra, but he accepted the identification of Sandrocottus with Candragupta in the following words: —"Sir William Jones from a poem written by Somadeva and a tragedy called the Coronation of Chandra or Chandragupta discovered that he really was the Indian king mentioned by the historians of Alexander under the name of Sandrocottus. These poems I have not been able to procure, but I have found another dramatic piece entitled Mudra-Rachasa,1 [This spelling shows that Wilford saw not the Sanskrit drama but some vernacular visions of it.] which is divided into two parts, the first may be called the Coronation of Chandra."2 [Asiatic Researches, V, 262. Wilford wrongly names the author of the drama as Amanta (or Ananta).]


P. 262: Chandra-Gupta, or he who was saved by the interposition of Lunus or the Moon, is called also Chandra in a poem quoted by Sir William Jones. The Greeks call him Sandracuptos, Sandracottos, and Androcottos. Sandrocottos is generally used by the historians of Alexander; and Sandracuptos is found in the works of Athenaeas. Sir William Jones, from a poem written by Somadeva, and a tragedy called the coronation of Chandra or Chandra-Gupta [Asiatick Researches, vol. IV, p. 6, 11.], discovered that he really was the Indian king mentioned by the historians of Alexander, under the name of Sandracottos. These two poems I have not been able to procure; but, I have found another dramatic piece, intitled Mudra-Racshasa, or the Seal of Racshasa, which is divided into two parts: the first may be called the coronation of Chandra-Gupta, and the second the reconciliation of Chandra-Gupta with Mantri-Racshasa, the prime minister of his father.

The history of Chandra-Gupta is related, though in few words, in the Vishnu-purana, the Bhagawat, and two other books, one of which is called Brahatcatha, and the other is a lexicon called Camandaca: the two last are supposed to be about six or seven hundred years old. In the Vishnu-purana we read, "Unto Nanda shall be born nine sons; Cotilya, his minister shall destroy them, and place Chandra-Gupta on the throne."

In the Bhagawat we read, "from the womb of Sudri, Nanda shall be born. His eldest son will be called Sumalva, and he shall have eight sons more; these, a Brahmen (called Cotilya, Vatsayana, and Chanacya in the commentary) shall destroy, after them a Maurya shall reign in the Cali-yug. This Brahmen will place Chandra-Gupta on the throne." In the Brahatcatha it is said, that this revolution was effected in seven days, and the nine children of Nanda put to death. In the Camandaca, Chanacyas is called Vishnu-Gupta. The following is an abstract of the history of Chandra-Gupta from the Mudra-Racshasa:

Nanda, king of Prachi, was the son of Maha Nandi, by a female slave of the Sudra tribe: hence Nanda was called a Sudra.
He was a good king, just and equitable, and paid due respect to the Brahmens: he was avaricious, but he respected his subjects. He was originally king of Magada, now called South-Bahar, which had been in the possession of his ancestors since the days of Crishna; by the strength of his arm he subdued all the kings of the country, and like another Parasu-Rama destroyed the remnants of the Cshettris. He had two wives, Ratnavati and Mura. By the first he had nine sons, called the Sumalyadicas, from the eldest, whose name was Sumalya (though in the dramas, he is called Sarvarthasidd'hi); by Mura he had Chandra-Gupta, and many others, who were known by the general appellation of Mauryas, because they were born of Mura...


-- XVII. On the Chronology of the Hindus, by Captain Francis Wilford, Asiatic Researches; or, Transactions of the Society Instituted in Bengal, For Inquiring Into the History and Antiquities, The Arts, Sciences, and Literature, Of Asia, Volume the Fifth, 1799


[Horace Hayman] Wilson further amended the incorrect authorities relied on by Sir William Jones, and said in his Preface to Mudra-Rakshasa3 [Theatre of the Hindus, Vol. II.] that by Sir William's "a beautiful poem by Somadeva" was "doubtless meant the large collection of tales by Somabhatta the Vrihat-katha."4 [Wilson again is not quite correct in his Bibiography. Somadeva's large collection of tales is entitled Kathasarit sagara and is an adaptation into Sanskrit verse of an original work in the Paisaci language called Brihat, Katha, composed by one Gunadhya.]

It may not here be out of place to offer a few observations on the identification of Chandragupta and Sandrocottus. It is the only point on which we can rest with anything like confidence in the history of the Hindus, and is therefore of vital importance in all our attempts to reduce the reigns of their kings to a rational and consistent chronology. It is well worthy, therefore, of careful examination; and it is the more deserving of scrutiny, as it has been discredited by rather hasty verification and very erroneous details.

Sir William Jones first discovered the resemblance of the names, and concluded Chandragupta to be one with Sandrocottus (As. Res. vol. iv. p. 11). He was, however, imperfectly acquainted with his authorities, as he cites "a beautiful poem” by Somadeva, and a tragedy called the coronation of Chandra, for the history of this prince. By the first is no doubt intended the large collection of tales by Somabhatta, the Vrihat-Katha, in which the story of Nanda's murder occurs: the second is, in all probability, the play that follows, and which begins after Chandragupta’s elevation to the throne. In the fifth volume of the Researches the subject was resumed by the late Colonel Wilford, and the story of Chandragupta is there told at considerable length, and with some accessions which can scarcely be considered authentic. He states also that the Mudra-Rakshasa consists of two parts, of which one may be called the coronation of Chandragupta, and the second his reconciliation with Rakshasa, the minister of his father. The latter is accurately enough described, but it may be doubted whether the former exists.

Colonel Wilford was right also in observing that the story is briefly related in the Vishnu-Puranaa and Bhagavata, and in the Vrihat-Katha; but when he adds, that it is told also in a lexicon called the Kamandaki he has been led into error. The Kamandaki is a work on Niti, or Polity, and does not contain the story of Nanda and Chandragupta. The author merely alludes to it in an honorific verse, which he addresses to Chanakya as the founder of political science, the Machiavel of India.

The birth of Nanda and of Chandragupta, and the circumstances of Nanda’s death, as given in Colonel Wilford’s account, are not alluded to in the play, the Mudra-Rakshasa, from which the whole is professedly taken, but they agree generally with the Vrihat-Katha and with popular versions of the story. From some of these, perhaps, the king of Vikatpalli, Chandra-Dasa, may have been derived, but he looks very like an amplification of Justin's account of the youthful adventures of Sandrocottus. The proceedings of Chandragupta and Chanakya upon Nanda's death correspond tolerably well with what we learn from the drama, but the manner in which the catastrophe is brought about (p. 268), is strangely misrepresented. The account was no doubt compiled for the translator by his pandit, and it is, therefore, but indifferent authority.

It does not appear that Colonel Wilford had investigated the drama himself
, even when he published his second account of the story of Chandragupta (As. Res. vol. ix. p. 93), for he continues to quote the Mudra-Rakshasa for various matters which it does not contain. Of these, the adventures of the king of Vikatpalli, and the employment of the Greek troops, are alone of any consequence, as they would mislead us into a supposition, that a much greater resemblance exists between the Grecian and Hindu histories than is actually the case.

Discarding, therefore, these accounts, and laying aside the marvellous part of the story
, I shall endeavour, from the Vishnu and Bhagavata-Puranas, from a popular version of the narrative as it runs in the south of India, from the Vrihat-Katha, [For the gratification of those who may wish to see the story as it occurs in these original sources, translations are subjoined; and it is rather important to add, that in no other Purana has the story been found, although most of the principal works of this class have been carefully examined.] and from the play, to give what appear to be the genuine circumstances of Chandragupta's elevation to the throne of Palibothra.


-- Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus, Translated from Original Sanskrit in Two Volumes, by Horace Hayman Wilson, Volume II, 1871


Max Muller then elaborated the discovery of this identity in his Ancient Sanskrit Literature. To him this identity was a settled incontrovertible fact. On the path of further research, he examined the chronology of the Buddhists according to the Northern or the Chinese and the Southern or the Ceylonese traditions, and summed this up:

"Everything in Indian Chronology depends upon the date of Chandragupta. Chandragupta was the grand-father of Asoka, and the contemporary of Selukus Nikator. Now, according to the Chinese chronology, Asoka would have lived, to waive the minor differences, 850 or 750 BC, according to Ceylonese Chronology, 315 BC. Either of these dates is impossible because it does not agree with the chronology of Greece."


'Everything in Indian Chronology depends upon the date of Chandragupta' is the declaration. How is that date to be fixed? The Puranic accounts were of course beneath notice. The Buddhist chronologies were conflicting, and must be ignored. The Greek synchronism comes to his rescue:

"There is but one means by which the history of India can be connected with that of Greece, and its chronology must be reduced to its proper limits, [that is, by the clue afforded by] ...the name of Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus, the Sanskrit Chandragupta."


From classical writers — Justin, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Quintus Curtius, and Plutarch — a formidable array, all of whom however borrowed their account from practically the same sources — he puts together the various statements concerning Sandrocottus, and tries to show that they all tally with the statements made by Indian writers about the Maurya king Candragupta.

"The resemblance of this name [says he] with the name of Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus was first, I believe, pointed out by Sir William Jones. [Captain Francis] Wilford, [Horace Hayman] Wilson, and Professor [Christian] Lassen have afterwards added further evidence in confirmation of Sir W. Jones's conjecture, and although other scholars, and particularly M. Troyer in his edition of the Rajatarangini, have raised objections, we shall see that the evidence in favour of the identity of Chandragupta and Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus is such as to admit of no reasonable doubt."


Max Muller only repeats that the Greek accounts of Sandrocottus and the Indian accounts of Chandragupta agree in the main, both speaking of a usurper who either was base-born himself or else overthrew a base-born predecessor, and that this essential agreement would hold whether the various names used by Greek writers — Xandrames, Andramas, Aggraman, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus — should be made to refer to two kings, the overthrown and the overthrower, or all to one, namely the overthrower himself, though personally he is inclined to the view that the first three variations refer to the overthrown, and the last two to the overthrower. He explains away the difficulty in identifying the sites of Palibothra and Pataliputra geographically by "a change in the bed of the river Sone." He passes over the apparent differences in detail between the Greek statements on the one hand and the Hindu and Buddhist versions on the other quite summarily, declaring that Buddhist fables were invented to exalt, and the Brahmanic fables to lower Chandragupta's descent! Lastly with respect to chronology the Brahmanic is altogether ignored, and the Buddhist is "reduced to its proper limits," that is, pulled down to fit in with Greek chronology.

Priyadasi.

Next came inscriptions of Priyadasi1 [The Edicts are edited in IA, 6, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 22, 34, 37, 38. On the Edicts, see IA, XIII 804, XX 1, 85, 229, XXXV 220 XXXIV 246, XXXVIII 151, XLVII, 48. Also, D. R. Bhandarkar, Asoka, Calcutta, V. A. Smith, Asoka, Oxford, F. W. Thomas, Les Vivasti de Asoka, JA, (1910), E. Hultzsch, Date of Asoka, JRAS, (1914) 943. H. H. Wilson, Identity of Asoka, JRAS, (o s), XXII, 177 243, (1901) 827 858, V. A. Smith, Authorship of Piyadasi inscriptions, JRAS, (1901), 485; Asokavadana, JRAS, [1901) 545, Bindusara, JRAS, (1901), 334.] These edicts published in the tenth and twelfth years of Asoka's reign (253 and 251 BC) are found in distinct places in the extreme East and West of India. As revealed in these engraved records, the spoken dialect was essentially the same throughout the wide and fertile regions lying between the Vindhya and Himalayas, and between the mouths of the Indus and the Ganges. The language appears in three varieties, which may be named the Punjabi, the Ujjaini and the Magadhi. These may point to a transitional stage between Sanskrit and Pali. "The language of the inscriptions," says Prinsep, "although necessarily that of their date and probably that in which the first propagators of Buddhism expounded their doctrines, seems to have been the spoken language of the people of Upper India than a form of speech peculiar to a class of religionists or a sacred language, and its use in the edicts of Piyadasi, although incompatible with their Buddhistic origin, cannot be accepted as a conclusive proof that they originated from a peculiar form of religious belief."

Asoka's name does not occur in these inscriptions, but that these purport to emanate from a king who gives his formal title in various Prakrit forms of which the Sanskrit would be Devanampriyah Priyadarsi raja. It was James Prinsep that first ascribed Asoka's edicts to Devanampiya-Tissa of Ceylon.1 [E. Hultzsch, Date of Asoka, JRAS, (1914), 948.] The discovery of the Nagarjuna Hill cave-inscriptions of Sashalata Devanampiya [Barabar Caves], whom he at once identified with Dasaratha, the grandson of the Maurya king Asoka, and the fact that Turnour had found Piyadassi or Piyadassana used as a surname of Asoka in the Dipavamsa, induced Prinsep to abandon his original view, and to identify Devanampriya Priyadarsan with Asoka himself.[/b][/size]

In February 1838, Prinsep published the text and a translation of the second rock edict, Girnar version of it (1 3) the words Amtiyako Yonaraja and in the Dhauli version (1, 1) Amtiyoke nama Yona-laja, and identified the Yona king Antiyaka or Antiyoka with Antiochus III of Syria.2 [JASB, VII 156.] In March 1838, he discovered in the Girnar edict xiii (1, 8), the names of Turamaya, Amtikona,3 [In reality Girnar and Kalsi read Amtekina, Shahbazgarhi Amtikini. Buhler (ZDMG, 40 137) justly remarked that these two forms would rather correspond to Antigenes than to Antigonus. But no king named Antigenes is known to us, though it was the name of one of the officers of Alexander the Great, who was executed, together with Eumenes in BC 316, being then satrap of Suslana.] and Maga, whom he most ingeniously identified with Ptolemy II Philadelphos of Egypt, Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia (?) and Magas of Cyrine. At the same time he modified his earlier theory and now referred the name Antiyoka to Antiochus I or II of Syria, preferably the former.

On the Girnar rock the name of a fifth king who was mentioned after Maga is lost. The Shahbazgarhi version calls him Alikasundara. E. Norris recognized that this name corresponds to the Greek [x], and suggested hesitatingly that Alexander of Epirus, the son of Pyrihus, might be meant by it.4 [JRAS (o s), 205.] This identification was endorsed by Westerguard,5 [Zwei Abhandlungen, translated from the Danish into German by Stenzlet (Breslau, 1862), p 120 f.] Lassen,6 [Ind. Alt., 253 ff.] and Senart.7 [IA, XX, 242.] But Professor Beloch thinks that Alexander of Corinth, the son of Craterus, had a better claim.8 [Griech, Gesch., 3, 2, 105.]

"The mention of these five contemporaries in the inscriptions of Devanampriya Priyadarshi," says E. Hultzsch, "confirms in a general way the corrections of Prinsep's identification of the latter with Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, whose approximate time we know from Greek and Roman records. Antiochus I Soter of Syria reigned BC 280-261, his son Antiochus II Theos 261-246, Ptolemy II Philadelphos of Egypt 285-247, Antigonus Gonates of Macedonia 276-239, Magas of Cyrene c 300- c. 250, Alexander of Epirus 272-c 255, and Alexander of Corinth 252-c 244."

This identification of Sandrocottus with Candragupta Maurya furnished a very certain starting point in investigating what appeared to be such a huge field of uncertainties as Indian Chronology. Thus, according to Buddhist traditions, it is said, Buddha died 162 years before Candragupta. Max Muller supposes that "Chandragupta became king about 315 BC, and so he places the death of Buddha 162 plus 315 or 477 BC. Or again, 32 years after Chandragupta, Asoka is said to have become king, that is 315-52 or 263 BC, and his "inauguration" is said to have taken place in 259 BC. At the time of Asoka's inauguration, 218 years had elapsed since the conventional date of Buddha's death." Hence Buddha must have also died in 477 BC.

Thus came in the Anchor Sheet of Indian Chronology. It fell to the glorious lot of Vincent A. Smith to sponsor this hypothesis and instal it on a firmer pedestal. Glory is god-made and V. A. Smith was destined for it.1 [The reader may well be reminded of the facetious address of Gopi to Sri Krsna: [x]] He took the chronological identity so premised by the predecessors in this historical hierarchy as the basis of further calculation of the exact dates of the different dynasties that ruled over Magadha before and after the Mauryas. He was able to invoke the aid of numismatics in addition to epigraphy. He could interpret the eras, particularly the Gupta era of the inscriptions, and the legends on the coins, and discover a confirmation of the earlier opinions. He could not however get over, as if by compunction, the need to follow the Puranas in the enumeration of the kings and then dynasties, he took the dynasties and the succession of kings as they were, he did not call them fictitious. He had objection to the long periods of years that these Puranas sometimes assigned to particular kings or dynasties. They were improbable and fanciful and so on their face unreliable. So he set out to sift the intervals of time and adjust the dates and periods on a rational basis, a basis that would quite convince the modern mind of a reasonable probability. The device of reduction of time is in short this:

Where the Puranas have different readings the shortest number of years is adopted, where the Puranas give a long period to any reign, it is reduced to 20 years as the average ascertainable in royal histories elsewhere, where the Puranas give only brief terms of a few years or a few months, that is adopted as correct. The result of these reductions will be seen below —


Dynasty / Puranas / V. Smith

Nandas / 100 (1635-1535 BC) / 45
Mauryas / 316 (1535-1219 BC ) / 137
Sungas / 300 (1219-919 BC) / 112
Kanvas / 85 ( 919-834 BC) / 45
Andhras / 506 (834-328 BC) / 289
Guptas / 245 (328-83 BC) / 149


Thus, according to Vincent Smith, Candragupta became king in 322 BC, and Buddha died in 487 BC, this allows 50 years for the Nandas before Candragupta, and 250 years for the Saisunagas before the Nandas. And so he begins his Early History from about 602 BC. Likewise, starting from 322 BC, V. Smith allows 137 years for the Maurya Dynasty, and places Sunga kings in 185-73 BC, and Kanva kings in 73 to 28 BC, and so on bringing the list down to Andhras and Guptas. I extract the passage:

"Although the discrepant traditionary materials available do not permit the determination with accuracy of the chronology of the Saisunaga and Nanda dynasties, it is, I venture to think, possible to attain a tolerably close approximation to the truth, and to reconcile some of the traditions. The fixed point from which to reckon backwards is the year 322 BC, the date for the succession of Chandragupta Maurya, which is certainly correct, with a possible error not exceeding three years. The second principal datum is the list of ten kings of the Saisunaga dynasty as given in the oldest historical entries in the Puranas, namely those in the Matsya and the Vayu, the general correctness of which is confirmed by several lines of evidence, and the third is the probable date of the death of Buddha.

Although the fact that the Saisunaga dynasty consisted of ten kings may be admitted, neither the duration assigned by the Puranas to the dynasty as a whole, nor that allotted to certain reigns, can be accepted. Experience proves that in a long series an average of twenty-five years to a generation is rarely attained, and that this average is still more rarely exceeded in a series of reigns as distinguished from generations.

The English series of ten reigns from Charles II to Victoria, inclusive, 16+9-1901 (reckoning the accession of Charles II from the death of his father in 1649), occupied 252 years, and included the two exceptionally long reigns of George III and Victoria, aggregating 124 years. The resultant average, 252 years per reign, may be taken as the maximum possible, and consequently 232 years are the maximum allowable for the ten Saisunaga reigns. The Puranic figures of 321 (Matsya) and 332 (Vayu) years, obtained by adding together the durations of the several reigns may be rejected without hesitation as being incredible. The Matsya account concludes with the statement, 'These will be the ten Saisunaga kings. The Saisunagas will endure 360 years, being kings with Kshatriya kinsfolk.' Mr. Pargiter suggests that the figures '360' should be interpreted as '163'. If that interpretation be accepted the average length of reign would be only 16.3. and it would be difficult to make Buddha (died cir 487) contemporary with Bimbisara and Ajatasatru. It is more probable that the dynasty lasted for more than two centuries.

As stated in the text, the traditional periods assigned to the Nanda dynasty of either 100 or 150 years for two generations cannot be accepted. A more reasonable period of fifty years may be provisionally assumed. We thus get the 302 (252 plus 50) as the maximum admissible period for the Saisunaga and Nanda dynasties combined, and, reckoning backwards from the fixed point, 322 BC. The Year 624 BC is found to be the earliest possible date for Sisunaga, the first king. But of course the true date may be, and probably is, somewhat later, because it is extremely unlikely that twelve reigns (ten Saisunaga and two Nanda) should have attained an average of 25.16 years.

The reigns of the fifth and sixth kings, Bimbisara or Srenika, and Ajatasatru or Kunika, were well remembered owing to the wars and events in religious history which marked them. We may therefore assume that the lengths of those reigns were known more or less accurately, and are justified in accepting the concurrent testimony of the Vayu and Matsya Puranas, that Bimbisara reigned for twenty-eight years.

Ajatasatru is assigned twenty-five or twenty-seven years by different Puranas, and thirty-two years by Tibetan and Ceylonese Buddhist tradition. I assume the correctness of the oldest Puranic list, that of the Matsya, and take his reign to have been twenty-seven years. The real existence of Darsaka (erroneously called Vamsaka by the Matsya) having been established by Bhasa's Vasavadatta
[Svapnavasavadattam: The dream of Vasavadatta is a Sanskrit play in six acts written by the ancient Indian poet Bhāsa. The plot of the drama is drawn from the romantic narratives about the Vatsa king Udayana and Vasavadatta, the daughter of Pradyota, the ruler of Avanti, which were current in the poet's time and which seem to have captivated popular imagination. The main theme of the drama is the sorrow of Udayana for his queen Vasavadatta, believed by him to have perished in a fire, which was actually a rumour spread by Yaugandharayana, a minister of Udayana to compel his king to marry Padmavati, the daughter of the king of Magadha.], his reign may be assigned twenty-four years, as in the Matsya Udaya, who is mentioned in the Buddhist books, and is said to have built Pataliputra, is assigned thirty-three years by the Puranas, which may pass.

The Vayu and Matsya Puranas respectively assign eighty-five and eighty-three years to the sum of the reigns of kings numbers 9 and 10 together. These figures are improbably high, and it is unlikely that the two reigns actually occupied more than fifty years. The figure 46 is assumed.

The evidence as far as it goes, and at best it does not amount to much, indicates that the average length of the later reigns was in excess of the normal figure. We may assume, therefore, that the first four reigns, about which nothing is known, must have been comparatively short, and did not exceed some seventy or eighty years collectively. An assumption that these reigns were longer would unduly prolong the total duration of the dynasty, the beginning of which must be dated about 600 BC, or a little earlier.

The existence of a great body of detailed traditions, which are not mere mythological legends, sufficiently establishes the facts that both Mahavira, the Jain leader, and Gautama Buddha, were contemporary to a considerable extent with one another and with the kings Bimbisara and Ajatasatru.

Tradition also indicates that Mahavira predeceased Buddha. The death of these saints form well-marked epochs in the history of Indian religion, and are constantly referred to by ecclesiastical writers for chronological purposes. It might therefore be expected that the traditional dates of the two events would supply at once the desired clue to the dynastic chronology. But close examination of conflicting traditions raises difficulties. The year 527 (528-7) BC, the most commonly quoted date for the death of Mahavira, is merely one of several traditionary dates, and it seems to be impossible to reconcile the Jain traditions either among themselves or with the known approximate date of Chandragupta."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:53 am

Part 2 of 2

This exposition of V. A. Smith has become the unalterable standard for later scholars.1 [V. R. Ramachandra Diksitar, Matsyapurana, Madras, R. D. Banerjee, Age of Imperial Guptas, Benares, Dinescandra Sircar, Successors of Satavahanas, Jl. of Dept of Letters, Calcutta, Vol. 26, Dhirendranath Mukhopadhyaja, True Dates of Buddha and Connected Epochs, Ibid. Vol. 27.] Great and sincere as many of these scholars have been, they did not dare or care to go behind Smith's fiats, and if any did differ from him, it was over the insignificant question of the particular year in which Candragupta was crowned, if it was 312, 315, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326 or 327 BC.2 [See M. Senart, IA, XX 229; S. Gopala Iyer, IA, XXXVII. 341, Buhler, IA, VI, 149, EI, III, 134, Fleet, JRAS, (1904) 1, (1906) 983, V. Smith, EHI, 173.] Thus Fleet says: —

"Now, in all matters of the most ancient Indian chronology, the great 'sheet anchor' is, and has been ever since 1798, the date of Chandragupta, the grandfather of Asoka the Maurya, as determined by the information furnished by the Greek writers. In recent years, indeed, there has been a tendency to believe that we have something still more definite in the reference to certain foreign kings in the thirteenth rock-edict of Asoka. But, as may be shown on some other occasion, there is nothing in that, beyond proof that that edict, framed not earlier than the ninth year after the abhisheka or anointment of Asoka to the sovereignty, and most probably in the thirteenth year, was framed not before BC 272, and that does not help as much, because the abhisheka of Asoka might, so far as that goes, be put back to even as early a year as BC, 284. In all that we have as yet been able to determine about Asoka, there is nothing that enables as to improve upon what we could already determine about Chandragupta. From the Greek writers, we know that Chandragupta became king of Northern India at some time between BC. 326 and 312. Within those limits, different writers, have selected different years: BC. 325, 321, 316, 315 and 312. The latest selection is, I suppose, that made by Mr. Vincent Smith in his Early History of India, 173, namely, BC 321."3 [Fleet, JRAS, (1906), 984.]


The deductions and inferences of V. Smith have come to stay. But the traditional reputation has been too staring in its assertion that Mahabharata War happened at the end of Dvaparayuga, 37 years before the advent of Kaliyuga in 3102 BC. Later scholars, to whom the tradition was a fraud, resorted to the only alternative, viz., to post-date the beginning of Kaliyuga so as to preserve the Puranic Synchronism of Mahabharata War with about the end of Dvaparayuga. Even there the sayings of V. Smith were adopted as canons of indubitable truth and the dates were worked up on their basis only, and this had been done in wholesale disregard of the care and precision with which the Puranas recorded the calculations of political history.

The Puranas uniformly give two methods, which are corroborative of each other, in calculating the dates of these Hindu Dynasties. One starts from the close of the Mahabharata War, and almost coevally with the commencement of the Kaliyuga, from which time the number of years that each king reigned is given. The other starts from the Saptarsi Era or the Laukikabda, whose cycle consisting of 2700 years is accepted by all authorities to have commenced about 4992 years ago, corresponding to 3676 BC. Now the Puranas state the First cycle of this Saptarsi Era, or Laukikabda, commenced at the time of Pariksit, that the Saptarsis were in Magha at his time, that they move in a retrograde motion and take 100 years to pass from one Naksatra to another, that they were in Purvasadha (or the 16th Naksatra from Magha) at the time of the commencement of the Nanda dynasty, that they were in Citra-Naksatra (or the 24 Naksatra from Magha) at the commencement on the Andhra Dynasty, and that at the beginning of the reign of the 27th king of the Andhra Dynasty, the cycle repeated itself, the Saptarsis having come back to Magha. So there must have elapsed at least 1500 years between Pariksit and Mahipadma Nanda, 2300 years between Pariksit and Andhra Simuka (Sri Satakarni) the Founder of the Andhra Dynasty, and 270 years between Pariksit and Sivasri Satakarni, the 27th king of the Andhra Dynasty, and that this king Sivasri must have commenced his reign in the year 377 BC….

But having adopted the wrong readings, and reduced the period of interval between the birth of Pariksit and the coronation of Nanda to 1015, 1050 or 1115 years, these Orientalists bring down the date of the commencement of the Kali Yuga itself as low as possible. Assuming the wrong synchronism between Sandrocottus of the Greeks and Candragupta Maurya, they place the accession of Candragupta Maurya to the throne of Magadha in 322 BC, and calculating backwards and forwards from that date (while accepting the Lists of Kings given in the Puranas and the regnal periods given of those kings as correct) fix the date of the accession of Nanda to the throne in 422 BC, just placing him 100 years before the accession of Candragupta to the throne, and conclude that Kali Yuga must have commenced 1015, 1050 or 1115 years before that date, that is in 1437 BC or 1537 BC, conceding for all practical purposes the commencement of the Kali Yuga to be synchronous with the Birth of Pariksit, the Coronation of Yudhisthira, and the Great War of the Mahabharata. This false synchronism between Sandrocottus of the Greeks and Candragupta Maurya of the Indians has become so much rooted in the bed of Indian Chronology, that scholars Srisa Chandra Vidyarnava and F. E. Pargiter placed the commencement of Kaliyuga in 1733 BC.

"The method of calculation", says Srisa Chandra "adopted by the Puranas, however, is to take Nanda as the starting point. The last of the Sisunaga was Mahanandin, who had a son by a Sudra woman. He was known as Mahapadma, or the famous Nanda, whose eight sons succeeded him. This Nanda family was brought to an end by the Indian Machiavelli, Kautilya or Chanakya. Chandragupta was placed on the throne of the Nandas by this Kautilya or Chanakya. About this event, V. Smith says:

'Mahanandin, the last of the Dynasty, is said to have had, by a Sudra or low caste woman, a son named Mahapadma Nanda who usurped the throne, and so established the Nanda family or dynasty. This event may be dated in or about 372 BC. * *

The Greek or Roman historians * * * ranking as contemporary witnesses throw a light on real history. When Alexander was stopped in his advance at the Hyphasis, in 326 BC, he was informed * * that the king of the Prachei etc * * * was Xandrames or Agramis.'


The reference to this king is evidently to one of the Nandas. The date of the accession of Nanda is calculated from that of Chandragupta Maurya, who ascended the throne in 322 BC. The Nanda Dynasty, according to Mr. Vincent Smith, lasted for 50 years, when it was replaced by the Maurya. So adding 50 to 322, the above figure 372 BC is arrived at by Mr. V. Smith as the date of the accession of Mahapadma Nanda. But all the Puranas are unanimous in stating that the nine Nandas reigned for 100 years, and we have taken that in our calculations. The date of accession of Mahapadma Nanda would, therefore, be 422 BC instead of 372 BC.

Thus, 422 BC is the starting point backwards and forwards in the Puranic calculations.


Chandragupta Maurya displaced the Nanda family. The nine Nandas reigned for 100 years. Before that, there was the Sisunaga Dynasty, and before that was the Pradyota Dynasty, and before that the Brihadrathas. The following table shows the periods of the reigns of these dynasties:

(1) Chandragupta's accession / 322 BC
(2) Nanda Dynasty / 100
(3) Sisunagas / 360
(4) Pradyotas / 152 (?)
(5) Barhadrathas from the time of Chaidyoparichara / 1000
Total / 1612
Deduct from Chaidya to Sahadeva / 171
Balance / 1441, and adding 322
--/ 1763 BC, the year of the Great War


The Mahabharata War took place when Sahadeva of Barhadratha family, was king. From Vasu Chaidya Uparichara up to Sahadeva, there were 13 kings, namely, (1) Vasu Chaidya Uparichara, (2) Brihadratha, (3) Kusagra, (4) Vrishabha, (5) Punyavan or Pushpavan, (6) Punya or Pushya, (7) Satyadhriti, (8) Dhanusha, (9) Sarva, (10) Sambhava, (11) Brihadratha, (12) Jarasandha, and (13) Sahadeva. After Sahadeva there were 19 or 32 kings (or 22 according to Mr. Pargiter) up to Ripunjaya the last. The Great War, therefore, took place, on the above assumption, one thousand four hundred and forty one years before the accession of Chandragupta in 322 BC., or in other words that the Great War took place in or about 1763 BC."

Mr. Pargiter, however, in his Dynasties of the Kali Age, arrives at the year 1810 BC as the date of the Great War of Mahabharata.
He says that from Somadhi to Ripunjaya there were 22 kings in the Barhadratha Dynasty who reigned for 920 years. The Pradyotas after Ripunjaya were 5 kings who reigned for 138 years. The Saisunagas who came after the Pradyotas were 10 kings and reigned for 330 years. Adding up the above mentioned three figures, 920 plus 138 plus 330, he gets the sum 1388 years, which according to his calculation, was the interval between the installation of Mahapadma Nanda and the birth of Pariksit or the Great War. Adding 422 BC., the year of the installation of Mahapadma Nanda (which is of course assumed as a postulate of Indian History). Mr. Pargiter comes to the figure 1810 BC as the date of the Mahabharata War.

The fanciful speculations involved in these theories regarding the date of the Mahabharata War will be manifest to any disinterested reader of the Puranas and Itihasas. The conclusions were so uncertain that Srisa Chandra Vidyarnava reviewed his own original theory at a later stage and refuted the date of the Great War in 1922 BC (still following the false synchronism between Candragupta Maurya and Sandrocottus).

Thus, we see that Vincent Smith is the modern protagonist of this identity, the Anchor-Sheet of Indian Chronology. It is he that is quoted and followed without inquiry by our Indian Professors of history, and it is that chronology that is and must be taught in our schools. By sheer repetition by men in authority and in the works that emanate from them, the theory had almost become an axiom, and rarely does any thought occur for any fair investigation. Day after day the assumed identity takes a firmer root, and it is considered a matter of senility or superstition to express a need for a reconsideration. Hasty generalisations lead to prepossessions, and it is rarely human to attempt to demonstrate their reality. It may appear, therefore, a futile cry to seek to go behind these established opinions and to ask the reader to forbear and see for himself on the original bases of this theory, if, after all, the narratives of the Puranas, so honestly planned, are 'pious frauds.' For the vindication of the morality of our sages and the merit of our traditional lore, a lore adored by the millions of Hindu India, an attempt must be made, be the effect what it may.1 [See also R. K. Mookerji, Later Gupta History and Chronology, Jl, of Ind. History, IV. 17, Dineschandra Sarcar, Dynastic History of Northern India, Jyotirmoy Sen, Riddle of Pradyota Dynasty, IHQ, (1930), 678, H. D. Bhide, Pradyota Dynasty, JBORS, (1921), K. P. Jayaswal, Chandragupta II and his predecessors, JBARS, XVIII, 17.]

Max Muller himself was not slow to condemn in others this tendency to generalise. Says he,

"Men who possessed the true faculty of an historian like Niebuhr, have abstained from passing sentence on the history of a nation whose literature had only just been recovered, and had not yet passed through the ordeal of philological criticism. Other historians however thought they could do what Niebuhr had left undone; and after perusing some poems of Kalidasa, some fables of Hitopadesa, some verses of the Ananda-lahari, or the mystic poetry of the Bhagavad-gita, they gave with the aid of Megasthenes and Appollonius of Tyana a so-called historical account of the Indian nation without being aware that they were using as contemporary witnesses authors as distant as Dante and Virgil. No nation has in this respect been more unjustly treated than the Indian. Not only have general conclusions been drawn from the most scanty materials, but the most questionable and spurious authorities have been employed without the least historical investigation."


H. H. Wilson, earlier, in the preface to his translation of the Visnu Purana, had remarked,

"Impatience to generalise has availed itself of whatever promised to afford materials for generalisation, and the most erroneous views have often been confidently advocated because the guides to which their authors trusted were ignorant or inefficient."

"Strabo (p. 70) says, '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). Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in Deimachos and Megasthenes. They coined the fables concerning men with ears large enough to sleep in, men without any mouths, without noses, with only one eye, with spider legs, and with fingers bent backward. They renewed Homer's fables concerning the battles of the cranes and pygmies, and asserted the latter to be three spans high. They told of ants digging for gold, and Pans with wedge-shaped heads, of serpents swallowing down oxen and stags, horns and all, — meantime, as Eratosthenes has observed, accusing each other of falsehood. Both of these men were sent as ambassadors to Palimbothra, — Megasthenes to Sandrokottos, Deimachos to Amitrochados his son, — and such are the notes of their residence abroad, which I know not why, they thought fit to leave.

"When he adds, 'Patrokles certainly does not resemble them, nor do any other of the authorities consulted by Eratosthenes contain such absurdities, we may well wonder, seeing that, of all the writers on India, Erastosthenes has chiefly followed Megasthenes. Plinius (Hist. Nat. VI xxi. 3) says: 'India was opened up to our knowledge ... even by other Greek writers, who, having resided with Indian kings, as for instance Megasthenes and Dionysius, — made known the strength of the races which peopled the country. It is not, however, worth while to study their accounts with care, so conflicting are they, and incredible.'


-- 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 various accounts given of Candragupta and Asoka by Hindu and Buddhist writers, have contributed to a large extent to the manipulation of Indian chronology at the historian's pleasure….

The Buddhistic accounts such as Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa give a description of the first three kings only of the Dynasty. The accounts given of Candragupta's origin and parentage are various and contradictory. By one account it is said that Mura, the mother of Candragupta, was the servant girl of Dhana Nanda, the last of the Nanda Dynasty, and by her influence she had her son placed on the throne of Magadha at Pataliputra. Another account makes him a member of an Andhra family, and says that he acquired the sovereign power by his own skill and exertion. The writer evidently confuses here the accounts of the two Candraguptas, Candragupta of the Maurya Dynasty, with Candragupta the Founder of the Gupta Dynasty, and an illegitimate son of the Andhra family, for the Andhra family itself came into existence about 700 years after the accession of Candragupta Maurya.

According to Northern Buddhistic accounts, Candragupta was a member of the Sakya family,
which in consequence of some political intrigues was driven away from its territory. The family repaired to a forest in the Himavanta and there constructed a new town in a delightful and beautiful locality. The streets and houses in the town having been laid after the pattern of a peacock's neck, it was called by the name of Moriya-nagara, and the family by the name of Moriya, and the kingdom founded by it Moriya Dynasty. The explanation is ingenious and is probably based upon a confusion of the Prakrit forms of the words Maurya ([x]) and Mayura ([x])…

But all the Buddhistic works are agreed on one point, that Candragupta owed his sovereignty entirely to Canakya, alias Kautilya, and not 'called to royalty by the power of the gods and by prodigies' as stated by Justin with reference to his Sandrocottus. Nor is there any reference either in the Hindu or the Buddhistic accounts to Candragupta Maurya's ''having traversed India with an army of 600,000 men and conquered the whole," as stated by Plutarch.

The Buddhistic accounts of Asoka, as given by the two great schools of Buddhism — Mahayana and Hinayana— not only differ from each other, but also from the accounts given of Asoka, the grandson of Candragupta Maurya, by the Puranic accounts of the Hindus. "There is a good deal of confusion in these Buddhistic works as regards the very family and genealogy of Asoka, the Buddhistic king, and one can easily trace that the life and time of Asoka must have been constructed by the Buddhistic writers who flourished several hundreds of years after him, by jumbling up the lives of three different Indian kings, viz., (1) of Asoka, (Dharmasoka), the third in ascent from Kanishka belonging to the First Gonanda Dynasty of Kasmir kings as described in the First Book of Kalhana's Raja-Tarangini who is said to have freed himself from sins by embracing the faith of Gautama Buddha and by constructing numerous Viharas and Stupas, and by building the town of Srinagari with its ninety-six lakhs of houses resplendent with wealth, (2) of Asokavardhana (Chandasoka) the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya, as described in the Puranas, and (3) of Samudragupta or Asoka the Great, (Mahasoka) the son of Chandragupta the Founder of the Gupta Dynasty, described by Mr. Vincent A. Smith himself as the Indian Napoleon, as narrated by his biographer Harishena, and in the Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta, and as corroborated by his numerous coins and inscriptions recently unearthed by European scholars themselves."

Arrian is prone to misread and misinterpret his primary sources, and the smooth flow of his narrative can obscure treacherous quicksands of error....

There are, however, more complex problems created by faulty manipulation of two or more sources. At the outset Arrian states categorically that his two principal sources are Ptolemy and Aristobulus. Where they agree he will record the common version as the absolute truth; in case of disagreement he will select the more plausible version, making use of all memorable material.42 Arrian does not commit himself to record all divergences. Indeed he very rarely records disagreement, and gives variant traditions only when he considers them memorable in themselves. Usually he reproduces without comment the version which seems to him the more credible. There are accordingly two main areas where error is likely. Arrian may reproduce only one version, but he has read both, and there are occasional traces of contamination, both deliberate and inadvertent. The alternative, rejected tradition creeps in to infect the version chosen for reproduction. Secondly Arrian is not always aware when his sources are retailing the same episode. An incident may be placed by Ptolemy and Aristobulus at different points in the narrative or described with very different details. In these circumstances Arrian may use both descriptions from both sources and retail them as separate incidents....

The vulgate tradition of Gaugamela includes a description of the Macedonian line. The phalanx commanders are the same as in Arrian, with one exception: the battalion of Amyntas was commanded in his absence by Philippus, son of Balacrus.46 Now we can explain the error in Arrian. His source for the Macedonian line of battle was most probably Ptolemy, and it was his version that Arrian followed. But he must have collated the Ptolemaic version against that of Aristobulus, and, although he accepted Ptolemy's statement that Simmias commanded Amyntas' battalion, he was aware of the variant tradition placing it under Philippus, son of Balacrus, and the name of Philippus slipped in erroneously as the patronymic of Amyntas. It seems to me a clear case of source contamination.

The same appears to have happened in Arrian's review of the Macedonian line at the Granicus (1. 14. 1-3). Here Arrian rather annoyingly lists the two halves of the army from the wing to the centre, giving first the right and then the left. The battalion of Philippus, son of Amyntas (a person otherwise obscure),47 occupied a central position in the line and is therefore mentioned at the end of both lists. Craterus' battalion, however, is also mentioned twice, but in different positions. In the review of the right half of the line it is placed between the battalions of Coenus and Amyntas, and it appears again as the battalion at the extreme left of the phalanx.48 Once more there have been attempts to delete one of the references to Craterus' battalion,49 but then it becomes impossible to explain the intrusion. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose a scribal gloss.

The most probable solution is again source contamination by Arrian. Both Ptolemy and Aristobulus presumably gave full descriptions of the battle line and differed over the position of Craterus' battalion. One placed it in the mass of the phalanx and the other at the extreme left, the position it was to occupy at Gaugamela and Issus.50 Arrian has absorbed both versions without reconciling the contradiction....

There are even more striking examples of Arrian's maladroit use of sources in the narrative of Alexander's Indus voyage in 325....


-- Errors in Arrian, by A. B. Bosworth


The Mahavamsa, (according Wijesinha's revised edition of Turnour translation) says, "One Kalasoka had ten sons, who after his death ruled the kingdom righteously for 22 years. They were succeeded by other nine brothers, who likewise, in order of seniority, ruled the kingdom for 22 years. A Brahman named Chanakya, who had conceived an implacable hatred against Dhana Nanda, the last survivor of the nine brothers, put that king to death, and placed upon the throne Chandragupta, a member of the princely Moriya clan descended from the line of the Sakyas, who ruled the country for 34 years. He was succeeded by his son Bindusara, who ruled the land for 28 years. The sons of Bindusara, the offspring of sixteen mothers, numbered one hundred and one, of whom the eldest was named Sumana, and the youngest Tishya. A third son, Asoka, uterine brother of Tishya, had been appointed Viceroy of Ujjain by his father. On receiving news of King Bindusara's mortal illness, Asoka hastened to Pataliputra, slew his eldest brother Sumana and his 98 other brothers, and ruled the country for 37 years."

The Dipavamsa, on the other hand, substitutes Susunaga for Kalasoka and makes Asoka, the son of Susunaga himself, and omits all mention of the nine Nanda brothers.


The Asokavadana (according to the prose version in the Divyavadana) gives the following account of the lineage and family of Asoka: —
"(1) King Bimbisara reigned at Rajagriha. His son was (2) Ajatasatra, whose son was (3) Udayibhadra, whose son was (4) Munda, whose son was (5) Kakavarnin, whose son was (6) Sahalin, whose son was (7) Tulakuchi, whose son was (8) Mahamandala, whose son was (9) Prasenajit, whose son was (10) Nanda, whose son was (11) Bindusara. King Bindusara reigned at Pataliputra and had a son named Susima. To him was born of Subhadrangi, the daughter of a Brahman, two sons, the elder named Asoka, and the younger named Vigatasoka. Asoka secured the throne by putting to death the legitimate prince Susima by a stratagem devised by Radhagupta by which Susima was inveigled while marching against the capital, so that he fell into a ditch full of burning fuel and there miserably perished."


Here it will be observed that Candragupta is altogether omitted, and Bindusara, the father of Asoka, is represented as being the son of Nanda. The metrical Asokavadana, on the other hand, substitutes Mahipala for Ajatasatru, and exhibits numerous other variations, which deprive these Buddhistic accounts of historical worth. The conquests ascribed to Asoka in the various Buddhistic accounts are no doubt taken from the conquests of Samudragupta or Asoka the Great, and the embassy of the Ceylon king is also traceable to the same origin. The story of his having embraced the faith of Buddha, of his having built stupas and Viharas, of his having reconstructed the city of Pataliputra and of his having introduced several reforms in the affairs of the kingdom and in the matter of the appointment of officers of state, are all taken from the accounts of Asoka and his successors as given by Chhavillakara ["Referring to an earlier Rajatarangini recorded by Chhavillakara, Kalhana has stated that Kashmir was held after Asoka by his son, Jalauka, who was followed by a ruler named 'Damodara,' who was none else than Demetrius, 'Regis Indorus,' [Demetrius I, called Poliorcetes, son of Antigonus I, king of Macedon, 337-283 BC)] as the classical references indicate. (Vide my article, "The Chavillakara Fragment in Kalhana's Rajatarangini" -- JBRS (Journal of the Burma Research Society), Vol. 36 (1950), pp. 71-75 + i-vi.) -- Reviewed Work: Beginnings of Life, Culture and History: (Study of Indian History and Culture : Vol. I) by S. D. Kulkarni, Review by: S. V. Sohoni, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 70, No. 1/4 (1989), pp. 338-343 (6 pages)] ...

19. Chavillakara. Nothing is known about him. “Do these lines not warrant a suspicion that, like some of us, Kalhana would have desired to place within the historical period two or three of those kings whom we call historical.... Ashoka, Jalaukas, Damodara, Kanishka (with Hushka and Jushka), and Abhimanyu and whom Kalhana also seems to have regarded in the same light, because he places them immediately before the historical period, but that he placed them before the historical period on the authority, quoted, of Sri-Chhavillakara? If so, it is not Kalhana, but his predecessors who are responsible for assigning to a period before Gonanda III., the king, of whom alone we know anything from independent sources.” — S. P. Pandit.

-- Rajatarangini, by Ranjit Sitaram Pandit, 1935


... and by Kalhana in his Rajatarangini.

Rajatarangini is a metrical legendary and historical chronicle of the north-western Indian subcontinent, particularly the kings of Kashmir. It was written in Sanskrit by Kashmiri historian Kalhana in the 12th century CE....

Although inaccurate in its chronology, the book still provides an invaluable source of information about early Kashmir...

Little is known about the author Kalhana (c. 12th century CE), apart from what is written in the book...

Kalhana's work is ... full of legends and inconsistencies...

The total reign of the following kings is mentioned as 1266 years....

Ashoka / Great-grandson of Shakuni and son of Shachinara's first cousin. Built a great city called Srinagara (near but not same as the modern-day Srinagar). In his days, the mlechchhas (foreigners) overran the country, and he took sannyasa. According to Kalhana's account, this Ashoka would have ruled in the 2nd millennium BCE, and was a member of the dynasty founded by Godhara. Kalhana also states that this king had adopted the doctrine of Jina, constructed stupas and Shiva temples, and appeased Bhutesha (Shiva) to obtain his son Jalauka. Despite the discrepancies, multiple scholars identify Kalhana's Ashoka with the Mauryan emperor Ashoka, who adopted Buddhism. Although "Jina" is a term generally associated with Jainism, some ancient sources use it to refer to the Buddha....

Despite the value that historians have placed on Kalhana's work, there is little evidence of authenticity in the earlier books of Rajatarangini. For example, Ranaditya is given a reign of 300 years. Toramana is clearly the Huna king of that name, but his father Mihirakula is given a date 700 years earlier. Even where the kings mentioned in the first three books are historically attested, Kalhana's account suffers from chronological errors.

Kalhana's account starts to align with other historical evidence only by Book 4, which gives an account of the Karkota dynasty. But even this account is not fully reliable from a historical point of view. For example, Kalhana has highly exaggerated the military conquests of Lalitaditya Muktapida.


-- Rajatarangini, by Wikipedia


Inferences have been drawn in support of this imaginary synchronism by the dates assigned to Buddha-Nirvana. Opinions are various on that event. "The Northern Buddhists give dates ranging from 2422 to 546 BC, and the Ain-i Akbari of Abul Fazl fixes 1246 BC, for the event. The Tamil Manimegalai gives the year 1616 of some unknown era, probably of the Kali, and the Buddhists of Ceylon, Burma and Siam have uniformly been regulating their calendars on the basis that the Nirvana occurred in BC 543. The Western scholars are likewise as much divided in their opinion, though their dates range only from 544 to 370 BC. Professors Rhys Davids and Kern give 412 and 388 BC respectively for the Para Nirvana, whereas Max Muller to the last maintained that 477 BC, was the correct date. Dr Fleet considers the event to have taken place in BC 482 1 [JRAS, (1906) 179 and 669.] and Professor Oldenberg and M. Barth fix it in 480 BC. Mr. V. A. Smith has given us three different dates, BC 508 in his 'Asoka', 487 in his 'Early India', and 480 to 470 BC in a recently published article."2 [Indian Revisio, VIII 561.]

The Maurya dynasty ruled at Magadha according to the Puranas in 1535-1219 BC, and Candragupta ascended the throne in 1538 BC. But according to modern orientalists the Gupta era began somewhere about 325 BC. There they vary in arranging the date of Candragupta's coronation between 325 and 312 BC,3 [See M. Senart, IA, XX 229, V. Gobala Aiyar, IA, XXXVII 841; Buhler, IA, VI 149, EI, III. 134; Fleet, JRAS, (1904), 1, (1906), 983, V. Smith, EHI, 178.] such as 325, 321, 316, 315 and 312. For instance, V. Smith, as we have seen, fixes the coronation of Candragupta in 321 BC. But Fleet has a word of condemnation.4 [JRAS, (1906), 984.] "Mr. Smith's chronological details are even inter se wrong and irreconcilable. The most reliable tradition, adopted by Mr. Smith himself for other ends, gives an interval of 56 years from the commencement of the reign of Chandragupta to the abhisheka of Asoka, yet on the same page, Mr. Smith has adopted only 52 years, placing the abhisheka of Asoka in BC 269. And further, he has placed only three years earlier, in BC 272, that which he has termed the "accession" — (in reality, the usurpation) — of Asoka, regardless of the fact that the same tradition makes that interval one of four years.5 [This is easily arrived at, by deduction, from the Dipavamsa, 6, 1, 20, 21. It is expressly stated by the commentary on that work, the Mahavamsa, in the statement about Asoka (Turnour 21 f) that — "Vematike bhatare so hantva skunakam satam / sakale Jambuipasmim ekarajjam apapuni / Jina-nibbanato pachchha pure tasa =abhisekato /attharasami vassa satam dvayam evam vijaniyam / Patva chatuhi vassehi ekarajja mahayaso / pure Pataliputtasmim attanam abhisechayi." "Having slain (his) brothers, born of various mothers, to the number of a hundred less by one, he attained sole sovereignty in the whole of Jambudvipa. After the death of the Conqueror (Buddha), (and) before the anointment of him (Asoka), (there were) 218 years, thus is it to be understood. Having reached (a point of time marked) by four years, he, possessed of the great glory of sole sovereignty, caused himself to be anointed at the town Pataliputta."] A chronology which includes such inconsistencies and errors as these in some of its radical details cannot in any way be accepted as final."…

Speaking of the Indian sources, Fleet writes (IA, XXX 1):

"We should not be able to deduce the date of Asoka from the Puranas. But we should find that the Rajatarangini would place him somewhere about BC 1260. We shall find, indeed, that the Nepal Vamsavali would place him, roughly, about BC 2600. As, however, that list does not mention him as a ruler of Nepal but only as a visitor to the country, we should probably infer a mistake in that account, and prefer to select the date of BC 1260. And then we should set about arranging the succession of the kings of India, itself, from the Puranas, with BC 1260 for the approximate date of the accession of Asoka as our starting-point."


In his dissertation on the Chronology of the Hindus, written in 1788 (As Res. Vol. II, p 111, reprint of 1799) Sir William Jones took a different starting-point and fixed it in a different way. His paper was based on a work entitled Puranarthaprakasa, which was composed shortly before the time at which he was writing, by Pandit Radhakani Sarman and which seems to have been based, in its turn, chiefly on the Bhagavatapurana. In the first place he brought forward a verse given to him from a book entitled Bhagavatamrita, composed by "a learned Goswami," which purported to fix the Kaliyuga year 1002 expired as the date of the manifestation of Buddha. With this he coupled an assertion in the same book that, two years before that date, there occurred the revolution which placed on the throne Pradyota, the first king in the third dynasty before that of the Mauryas. And he thus exhibited a chronology which, taking the accession of Pradyota in BC 2100 as its starting-point, placed the accession of Sisunaga in BC 1962, the accession of Nanda in BC 1602, and the accession of Candragupta (the grandfather of Asoka) in BC 1502, and made the dynasty of the Andhrabhrtyas run from BC 908 to 432. But he considered that the figures put forward by the Puranas were excessive both for generations and for reigns. And adjusting those figures according to his own estimate, and taking, as a starting-point BC 1027 for the date of Buddha as fixed by the Chinese authorities as interpreted by De Geignes, he submitted a revised scheme which placed Pradyota BC 1029 Nanda BC 699, and the rise of the Andhrabhrtyas in BC 149….

The story of Candragupta as originally given in the Brihatkatha in the Paisaci language by Gunadhya, the prime minister of King Satavahana of Pratisthana, and as we now have it in Kathasaritsagara, a true translation of the said work in Sanskrit by Somadeva, is somewhat different from the accounts given of that prince in the Puranas on the one hand, and in Visakhadatta's Mudraraksasa and its commentary on the other. Here Candragupta is represented as the only son of Nanda, the king of Pataliputra, and a contemporary of Katyayana Vararuci, the celebrated author of Vartikas and a disciple of Varsacarya, under whom Panini also first began to study Grammar.1 [See paras 4-7 post.]

The following are the passages of Kathasaritsagara, dealing with King Nanda and Candragupta —…

According to Kathasarit-Sagara therefore Candragupta was the only son of the genuine-king Nanda, and was very young when the genuine Nanda passed away, and Indradatta entered the dead body of the king and began to rule the kingdom, so he was called by the name Yoga Nanda. Yogananda begot a son on the queen of the late real or Satya Nanda and he was named Hiranyagupta. Besides the mention of these two persons, there is no reference to "Nanda and his eight sons" anywhere in the said poem. These passages also show that Candragupta was but a king in name, that he was in no sense a usurper or adventurer, that he took no active part at all in establishing himself on the throne of Nanda, that it was Sakatala, the old minister of the king, and Canakya, a Brahman sage of great learning and determination, that planned the death of Yogananda and of his son Hiranyagupta, and raised the young prince Candragupta, the legitimate son of the genuine Nanda to the throne of Magadha. Nowhere is there any reference to this Candragupta being a conqueror of enemies or of having received ambassadors from foreign princes, either at Pataliputra or Ayodhya, the permanent and temporary capitals, and it is at Ayodhya the revolution came off on the death of king Nanda, leading to the elevation of Candragupta to the throne.

The statements of the early European writers may now be summed up2 [McCrindle's collection and translation of all the passages from classical writers in six books are regarded as reliable by Vincent Smith, of which Indika of Megasthenes and Arrian are instructive.] —(a) At the time of Alexander's invasion, the Prasi, or eastern kingdom of Magadha, was ruled over by a king Xandrames. According to the officers of Alexander sent to investigate the country living ahead, and also according to Poros whom Alexander consulted, Xandrames was a powerful king who could bring into the field 20,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 2900 chariots, and 4000 or 3000 elephants. He was nevertheless of mean origin. The queen of his predecessor had fallen in love with him, and had helped him to murder her husband, and therefore he was very unpopular with his subjects; (b) Sandrokottos or Androcottos as a young prince had met Alexander, and had offended him and incurred his displeasure, but after the retreat of Alexander he put himself at the head of a band of robbers, drove out the prefects of Alexander, and made himself king; (c) Seleukus Nikator tried to regain the Indian conquests of Alexander, but found it wiser to contract an alliance with him1 [V. Smith, EHI, 140.]; (d) Megasthenes the ambassador of Seleucus dwelt at the court of Sandrocyptus and wrote an account of those in whose midst he lived (from which account later writers have quoted copiously).

"The Greek writers mention as many as six names or variations: Xandrames, Andrames, Agrammes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus [and Androcottus]. Whether these apply to one or more than one individual, and Max Muller was not sure, but in his obdurate zeal to demonstrate the identity he said, "Xandrames ...is the last king of the empire conquered by Sandrocotus. If however it should be maintained that those two names were intended for one and the same king, the explanation would still be very easy. For Chandragupta is also called Chandra, and Chandramas in Sanskrit is a synonym for Chandra."2 [ASL, 148.]

What was discovered was simply this — that in the celebrated inscriptions of king Priyadarsin— Rock Edicts III and XIII— Antiochus and Ptolemy are mentioned as Priyadarsin's contemporaries. There is nothing in the inscriptions to show that Priyadarsin was Asoka Maurya, grandson of Candragupta Maurya. Strict logic will justify only one inference from the first Greek Synchronism — that Sandrocottus, whoever he was, was the contemporary of Seleukus Nikator, and only one from the second — that Priyadarsin was the contemporary of a Greek ruler Antiochus. Unless proof is forthcoming to show that either Sandrocottus or Priyadarsin was a Maurya King, it is wrong to say as Vincent Smith does say, that by the discovery of these two synchronisms, "the chronology of the Maurya dynasty was placed on firm footing, and is no longer open to doubt in its main outlines."


Who was Xandrames? Let as compare the Greek and the Indian versions, understanding Xandrames to be the predecessor of Sandrocottus. First, in Indian traditions Nanda, or more precisely Sumalya Nanda, was the immediate predecessor of Candragupta Maurya. If therefore by Sandrocottus we are to understand Candragupta Maurya, we must identify Xandrames with Nanda. This is exactly what is done by almost all Orientalists like Vincent Smith, with a vague statement, "that the king of the Gangaridae and Prasii was named, as nearly as the Greeks could catch the unfamiliar sounds, Xandrames or Agrammes ... who must have been one of the Nandas mentioned in native tradition,"1 [EHI, 40.] and that somehow, in order to maintain the hypothesis, Xandrames must be identified with Nanda. Max Muller as a philologist is convinced that Greek Xandrames is Sanskrit 'Chandramas or Chandra,' and rather than ignore grammar he is for identifying Xandrames and Sandrocottus. Secondly, the Greek account of Xandrames does not tally either with Hindu or with Buddhist versions of Nanda. According to them, Mahapadma, first king of the Nanda dynasty, was the son of the last Saisunaga King Mahanandin by a $udra wife, and was a powerful, avaricious, wicked king, having Ksatriya wives, but there is no allusion to any of his father's wives having become his paramour. The Puranic writers had no love for Mahapadma and they would certainly have mentioned such an incident in his life, if it really referred to him. His father Mahanandin is nowhere stated to have been murdered whether by Mahapadma or his paramour. Thus neither from the name nor from the description, can Xandrames be reasonably identified with Nanda.

We have no less difficulty in identifying Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus with Candragupta Maurya. The description given of the mighty Sandrocottus by the Greeks cannot possibly compare with any Indian account whatsoever of Candragupta Maurya, who, far from being a great conqueror, owed his elevation and rule entirely to the Brahmana Canakyaor Kautilya. The Hindu and the Buddhist versions are agreed here. Max Muller's explanation is only this, that because Candragupta Maurya was grandfather of the great Buddhist Emperor Asoka, therefore the Brahmanas unduly lowered him, and the Buddhists as excessively exalted him, and that is mere fancy. The part played by Raksasa, the devoted minister of the Nandas at first and of Candragupta at last, and the power exercised throughout by the Brahman Canakya over Candragupta, amply indicate that Candragupta and his immediate predecessors were in no way considered anti-brahmanical. Even King Priyadarsin of the Edicts was no persecutor of the Brahmans, for in his inscriptions he always enjoins the highest respect for "brahmanas and sramanas."

The identification of Raja Priyadarsin with Raja Asoka was based entirely upon Ceylonese Buddhist chronicles. Talboys Wheeler wrote in 1874, "The identification of Raja Priyadarsin of the Edicts with Raja Asoka of the Buddhist chronicles was first pointed out by Mr. Turnour who rested it upon a passage in the Dipavamsa. The late Prof. [Horace Hayman] Wilson objected to this identification."1 [History of India, Hindu, Buddhist and Brahmanical, 280. [???] ] Prof. Rhys Davids declared, "It is not too much to say that without the help of the Ceylon Books, the striking identification of the King Piyadassi of the edicts with the king Asoka of history would never have been made."2 [Buddhist India, 273.] But the Ceylon chronicles are admitted to be utterly worthless as history, and according to Wheeler, "the Buddhist chronicles might be dismissed as a monkish jumble of myths and names,3 [EHI, 171] and even Vincent Smith in the preface to his Asoka himself said, "I reject absolutely the Ceylonese chronology...... The undeserved credit given to the monks of Ceylon has been a great hindrance to the right understanding of ancient Indian history." And yet it is on such undeserved credit that the identity of Priyadarsin with Asoka Maurya rests to this day.

In the literature of India there is no allusion anywhere to an invasion or inroad into India by foreign nations up to the time of the Andhra kings; and the only person who bore the name of Candragupta answering to the description of Sandrocottus of the Greeks who flourished about the time of Alexander the Great in India, according to the Puranas, was Candragupta of the Gupta Dynasty who established the mighty empire of the Guptas on the ruins of the already decayed Andhra Dynasty about 2811 years after the Mahabharata War, corresponding to 328 BC, but he is now being placed in the 4th century AD, on the sole strength of this mistaken Greek Synchronism by our Savants of Indian history. God save us from our friends!

Beyond the verbal resemblance of Candragupta and Sandrocottus and Pataliputra and Palibotra, there is nothing to justify the identification of Candragupta Maurya and Sandrocottus of the Greeks. No attempt has been made to explain the various names Xandrames, Andrames, Andracottus, Sandrocottus, Sandrocyptus, and Sandrocuptas as used by the Greek writers to denote three different persons, as referring respectively to the last king of the previous dynasty, the usurper who has been actually reigning at Pataliputra at the time when Alexander invaded India, and the king who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator at the instance of Megasthenes. These facts would equally apply, if not more pointedly, to Candragupta of the Gupta Dynasty who usurped the throne of Candrasri, the last virtual king of the Andhra Dynasty, under the pretext of acting as guardian and regent of his minor son Puloman and who was succeeded by Samudragupta who established himself on the throne of his father with the aid of vagabonds and banditti at Pataliputra, and who is distinctly stated in inscriptions to have received ambassadors from various foreign princes, to have conquered the whole of India, then extending far beyond its present limits, and to have performed even an Asvamedha sacrifice in honour of his glorious victories.

Kaliyugarajavrttanta, which is a part of Bhavisyottarapurana, describes the last two kings of the Andhra dynasty and the advent of Gupta dynasty thus:…

This eulogy should bring to mind at once the Greek picture of Sandrocottus. The sensitiveness of Prince Samudra must have been stung by his father's undue favouritism towards Kaca. The statement that Candragupta ruled along with Kaca not merely indicates the cause of quarrel between Samudragupta and his father, it explains also the numismatic puzzle as to how Kaca's coins came to be struck. Thus, then, Androkottus of Plutarch who tried to persuade Alexander to invade the Prasii, but whose "insolent behaviour" according to Justin led to a quarrel between him and Alexander, the Androkottus who afterwards collected bands of robbers and drove out the prefects of Alexander, who was called to royalty by the power of the Gods and by prodigies, who overthrew Xandrames, and humbled Seleucus Nikator, was the same as Samudragupta who with Mleccha troops overthrew his "treacherous" father, and whose conquests inscribed by Harisena on "Asoka's pillar" at Allahabad amply bear out the statement of the Puranas that Samudragupta was supreme ruler of the earth from sea to sea, to whom even Ceylon and Bactria and Assyria paid homage. And this same Samudragupta, "the Indian Napoleon," of Vincent Smith, was the Sandrocottos of Megasthenes, and he reigned for fifty-one years. Samudragupta, like all the Guptas, had a title ending in aditya. He was ASOKADITYA!

Sandrocottos was also Piyadassi.

— We have read of "Asoka the Buddhist Emperor of India," and "The first and most authentic records are the rock and pillar edicts of Raja Priyadasi ....the reputed grandson of Sandrocottos. The second ... consist of the Buddhist Chronicles of the Rajah of Megadha. "1 [Talboys Wheeler's History of India, Hindu Buddhist, and Brahmanical, p. 269.] From a careful study of these two classes of records, Talboys Wheeler, whose "History of India" appeared in 1874, that is, before the traditional conventions of Orientalists took the fatally rigid shape which they have since assumed, drew his picture of Raja Priyadarsi Asoka and found how like his picture was to that of the Greek Sandrocottus as depicted by Megasthenes. Asoka, while young,2 [Ibid, pp. 231, 487.] "was at variance with his father, and seems to have gone into exile like another Rama. He is said to have been appointed to the Government of the distant province of Ujjain, and subsequently to have repressed a revolt in Taxila in the Panjab ...The main incidents of Asoka's early career thus present a strange similarity to those recorded of Sandrokottos by Greek writers. Sandrokottos was also an exiled prince from Pataliputra, and he ultimately drove the Greeks from Taxila. Again, Asoka usurped a throne and founded an empire, so did Sandrokottos. Asoka originally professed the Brahmanical religion, and then embraced the more practical religion of the edicts. Sandrokottos sacrificed to the Gods in Brahmanical fashion, but he also held a great assembly every year in which every discovery was discussed which was likely to prove beneficial to the earth, to mankind and to animals generally.... It would be a startling coincidence if the great sovereign whose religion of duty without deity has been engraven for more than twenty centuries on the rocks and pillars of India, should prove to be the same prince who met Alexander at Taxila, who offended the Macedonian conqueror by his insolence and assumption, who expelled the Greeks from the Panjab during the wars of Alexander's successors, and ultimately married the daughter of Seleukos Nikator." In fact Talboys Wheeler had little doubt that Sandrokottos of the Greeks and Asoka of the Buddhists were identical. In one or two places he calls Asoka "the reputed grandson of Sandrocottus or Chandragupta"1 [Ibid, pp. 209 and 476.] and adds in a note, "The term 'reputed grandson' is here used advisedly. It will appear hereafter2 [i.e., p 487.] that there is reason to believe that the name Sandrocottos and Asoka are applied to the same individual."3 [Ibid, p 476.] The title Asokaditya applied to the king in the Kaliyugarajavrttanta confirms the conjecture made by Talboys Wheeler from internal evidence.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36183
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests