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 Nov 23, 2021 6:15 am

Firishta
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 11/22/21

Firishta or Ferešte (Persian: فِرِشتہ‎), full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah (Persian: مُحَمَّد قاسِم هِندو شاہ‎), was a Persian[1] historian, who later settled in India and served the Deccan Sultans as their court historian. He was born in 1560 and died in 1620.[2] The name Firishta means angel in Persian.

Life

Firishta was born at Astrabad on the shores of the Caspian Sea to Gholam Ali Hindu Shah. While Firishta was still a child, his father was summoned away from his native country into Ahmednagar, India, to teach Persian to the young prince Miran Husain Nizam Shah, with whom Firishta studied.

In 1587 Firishta was serving as the captain of guards of King Murtaza Nizam Shah I when Prince Miran overthrew his father and claimed the throne of Ahmednagar. Prince Miran spared the life of his former friend, who then left for Bijapur to enter the service of King Ibrahim Adil II in 1589.

Having been in military positions until then, Firishta was not immediately successful in Bijapur. Further exacerbating matters was the fact that Firishta was of Shia origin and therefore did not have much chance of attaining a high position in the dominantly Sunni courts of the Deccan sultanates.[3] In 1593 Ibrahim Shah II ultimately implored Firishta to write a history of India with equal emphasis on the history of Deccan dynasties as no work thus far had given equal treatment to all regions of the subcontinent.

Overview of work

The work was variously known as the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahimi. In the introduction, a resume of the history of Hindustan prior to the times of the Muslim conquest is given, and also the victorious progress of Arabs through the East. The first ten books are each occupied with a history of the kings of one of the provinces; the eleventh book gives an account of the Muslims of Malabar; the twelfth a history of the Muslim saints of India; and the conclusion treats of the geography and climate of India. It also includes graphic descriptions of the persecution of Hindus during the reign of Sikandar Butshikan in Kashmir.

Locked up in the difficulties of the Persian tongue, the literature of Asia has been hitherto little known in Europe. From an ignorance so unpardonable in this investigating age, a very unfavourable idea has prevailed concerning the learning, as well as history, of the eastern nations. Full of prejudices so natural to an European, the translator entered upon the study of the oriental languages. Whatever aid a knowledge of them might give to his private views, he little hoped to be able to convert his studies to the amusement or instruction of the public. To translate some piece of history, was, by his teachers, recommended to him as a proper exercise in the Persian. The works of Mahummud Casim Ferishta of Delhi, who flourished in the reign of Jehangire, about the beginning of the seventeenth century, was put into his hands for that purpose. As he advanced, a greater field gradually opened before him. He found, with some degree of astonishment, the minute and authentic history of a great empire, the name of which had scarcely ever travelled to Europe.

To open a door to the literary treasures, which lay concealed in the obscurity of the Persian, the translator resolved to proceed in his version of Ferishta's history, and to give it to the public as a small specimen of what men of greater abilities may hereafter meet with in that language. But before he had fully accomplished this design, injuries in rank, and other motives, forced him to quit the company's service, and to return to England. Being, at his departure from India, possessed only of one volume of the original, he has been obliged to confine himself to it; and to leave the second volume, which contains the particular histories of the Decan, Bengal, Guzerat, and Cashmire, to a more favourable opportunity, or to the employment of some other hand. This circumstance has occasioned some chasms in that part of the history which is now given to the public; and many material transactions of those nations, of whom Ferishta in his second volume treats, are only slightly mentioned.

The reigns of the Mogul Emperors, from Akbar, with whom our author concludes his general history, have been written by different historians. But so voluminous are those works, that to attempt a translation, would be a laborious and very tedious task. Since the days of Ferishta, no writer that has come to our knowledge, has abridged the history of India, and therefore the translator had formed a design to compile from various authors that very essential part of the history of the Mogul empire, which is not comprehended in the following translation.

-- History of Hindostan; From the Earliest Account of Time, To the Death of Akbar; Translated From the Persian of Mahummud Casim Ferishta of Delhi: Together With a Dissertation Concerning the Religion and Philosophy of the Brahmins; With an Appendix, Containing the History of the Mogul Empire, From Its Decline in the Reign of Mahummud Shaw, to the Present Times,(1768), by Alexander Dow.


Tarikh-i Firishta consists primarily of the following books:[3]

1. The Kings of Ghazni and Lahore
2. The Kings of Dehli
3. The Kings of Dakhin - divided into 6 chapters:
1. Gulbarga
2. Bijapur
3. Ahmadnagar
4. Tilanga
5. Birar
6. Bidar
4. The Kings of Gujarat
5. The Kings of Malwa
6. The Kings of Khandesh
7. The Kings of Bengal and Bihar
8. The Kings of Multan
9. The Rulers of Sind
10. The Kings of Kashmir
11. An account of Malabar
12. An account of Saints of India
13. Conclusion - An account of the climate and geography of India

Contemporary scholars and historians variously write that the works of Firishta drew from Tabaqat-i-Akbari by Nizamud-din,[4] Tarikh-i-Rashidi by Mirza Haider[4] and Barani's Tarikh.[5] At least one historian, Peter Jackson, explicitly states that Firishta relied upon the works of Barani and Sarhindi, and that his work cannot be relied upon as a first hand account of events, and that at places in the Tarikh he is suspected of having relied upon legends and his own imagination.[6]

Muhammad Qasim Firishta completed the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, also known as the Ta'rikh-i Firishta and Ta'rikh-i Nawras-nama, in 1015/1606-1607. In it he recorded the history of early Indo-Muslim dynasties, from the time of Sebuktigin of Ghazna. Writing under the patronage of Ibrahim ’Adil Shah of Bijapur, Firishta's Ta'rikh is an assimilation of earlier histories and oral tradition. In it he draws on Barani and the Tabakat-i Akbari of Nizam al-Din Ahmad Bakshi (1001/1592-93). As a historical source, Firishta was considered by European scholars to be authoritative from the end of the 18th century when parts of his history first appeared in English translation. Alexander Dow translated and published the Ta'rih in London in 1798 in two volumes as The History of Hindostan, from the Earliest Account of Time, to the Death of Akbar. A Persian manuscript of Firishta's Ta'rikh was edited by John Briggs and Mir Khairat ‘Ali Khan but was not published until 1247/1831-32 in Bombay under its Persian title Ta'rikh-i Firishtah. Briggs published an English translation of the work almost in its entirety in 1829 under the title History of the Rise of the Mohammedan Power in India, which appeared in four volumes. As a historical source, Firishta's account is suspect and his references to the architecture of Delhi are probably secondhand....

Firishta is believed to have depended heavily on Barani’s Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, but he seems to be unaware of ‘Afif's work. See Hardy, "Firishta," Encyclopedia of Islam 2 (1966), pp. 921-922.


-- The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate, School of The Ohio State University, by William Jeffrey McKibben, B.A., M.A., 1988


Legacy

According to T. N. Devare, Firishta's account is the most widely quoted history of the Adil Shahi, but it is the only source for asserting the Ottoman origin of Yusuf Adil Shah, the founder of the Adil Shahi dynasty. Devare believes that to be a fabricated story. Other sources for Deccani history mentioned by Devare are those of Mir Rafi-uddin Ibrahim-i Shirazi, or "Rafi'", Mir Ibrahim Lari-e Asadkhani, and Ibrahim Zubayri, the author of the Basatin as-Salatin (67, fn 2). Devare observed that the work is "a general history of India from the earliest period up to Firishta's time written at the behest of Ibrahim Adilshah II and presented to him in 1015 AH/1606 CE. It seems, however, that it was supplemented by the author himself as it records events up to AH 1033 (1626 CE)" (Devare 272).[citation needed]

On the other hand, Tarikh-i-Farishti is said to be independent and reliable on the topic of north Indian politics of the period, ostensibly that of Emperor Jehangir where Firishta's accounts are held credible because of his affiliation with the south Indian kingdom of Bijapur.[7]

Despite his fabricated story of Yusuf's Ottoman origin, Firishta's account continues to be a very popular story and has found wide acceptance in Bijapur today.

In 1768, when the East India Company officer and Orientalist Alexander Dow translated Firishta's text into English language, it came to be seen as an authoritative source of historical information by the English.[8]

Firishta's work still maintains a high place and is considered reliable in many respects. Several portions of it have been translated into English; but the best as well as the most complete translation is that published by General J. Briggs under the title of The History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India (London, 1829, 4 vols. 8vo). Several additions were made by Briggs to the original work of Firishta, but he omitted the whole of the twelfth book, and various other passages which had been omitted in the copy from which he translated. Edward Gibbon used Firishta's work as one of the sources of reference for Indian history in Decline and Fall.

Works

• Firishta, Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah Astarabadi (1794). Ferishta's History of Dekkan..(Vol. 1). Jonathan Scott (trans.). John Stocksdale, London.
• Firishta, Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah Astarabadi; Tr. by Jonathan Scott (1794). Ferishta's History of Dekkan..(Vol. 2). John Stocksdale, London.

See also

• List of Muslim historians

References

1. Minorsky, V. (1955). "The Qara-qoyunlu and the Qutb-shāhs (Turkmenica, 10)". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 17 (1): 52. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00106342. JSTOR 609169. Another tendency of Firishta (a Persian of Astarabad) is to underline (...)
2. "Medieval Period". Government of Maharashtra. Archived from the original on May 28, 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
3. Elliot, Henry Miers (December 2008). The History of India, As Told by Its Own Historians. BiblioBazaar. ISBN 9780559693335. Retrieved 2009-02-20.
4. Hasan, Mohibbul (2005). Kashmir Under the Sultans. Aakar Books. ISBN 9788187879497. Retrieved 2009-02-20.
5. Mayaram, Shail (2004). Against History, Against State. Orient Blackswan. ISBN 9788178240961. Retrieved 2009-02-20.
6. Jackson, Peter (16 October 2003). The Delhi Sultanate. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521543293. Retrieved 2009-02-20.
7. Ray, Sukumar (1992). Bairam Khan. Mirza Beg. p. 138. ISBN 9789698120016. Retrieved 2009-02-20.
8. Cynthia Talbot (2015). The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Cauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000. Cambridge University Press. p. 49. ISBN 9781107118560.
• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Ferishta, Mahommed Kasim". Encyclopædia Britannica. 10 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 274.
• Devare, T. N. A short history of Persian literature; at the Bahmani, the Adilshahi, and the Qutbshahi courts. Poona: S. Devare, 1961.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 33903
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:54 am

Pir Ghaib Hunting Lodge and Observatory
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 12/1/21

Feroz Shah, during one of his campaigns, was enthralled by the two spectacular monoliths –- inscribed Ashokan pillars he saw, one at Topra near Ambala and the other near Meerut, till then undeciphered –- and decided to shift them to his palatial Feruzabad palace in Delhi as "totemic embellishments". He shifted the pillars from these places and got them erected in Delhi; the former in his new capital and the latter on the ridge, near Pir-Ghaib, his hunting palace. The first pillar was erected in the 1350s, next to the Friday mosque in the new city of Feruzabad.).

-- Ashokan Edicts in Delhi, by Wikipedia


10. Congregational mosque, Jahannuma, ca. 764/ 367

The Jahannuma palace is located on the northern ridge of Delhi and is believed to be the same as the kuskh shikar mentioned by contemporary historians....

The mosque may not be extant. It corresponds to the so-called Pir Ghaib, one of two remaining structures located at the northwest corner of the site, but Pir Ghaib has also been identified as the Jahannuma palace.47 [Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 136; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 152. Welch and Crane believe that Pir Ghaib is the remnant of the congregational mosque of Jahannuma.] The form of the mosque is impossible to decipher from the ruins of Pir Ghaib, a two-storied structure which is only part of a much larger edifice.48 [Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plate 22.]


-- The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate, School of The Ohio State University, by William Jeffrey McKibben, B.A., M.A., 1988


Image
Pir Ghaib Hunting Lodge and Observatory
Pir Ghaib is a hunting lodge and Observatory built by Sultan Feroz Shah Tughlaq of Delhi in the 14th century
Pir Ghaib Hunting Lodge and Observatory is located in DelhiPir Ghaib Hunting Lodge and Observatory
Image
Location within Delhi
General information
Architectural style: Indo-Islamic
Town or city: Delhi
Country: India

Pir Ghaib Hunting Lodge and Observatory is a medieval building in Delhi, India. It is believed to be built by Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq of the Delhi Sultanate in the 14th century.[1] It is a double storied structure and, just like most other examples of Tughlaq era architecture, is made up of rubble.[2] The building has a hollow masonry cylinder, which is believed to have been used for astronomical purposes. Apart from its theorized uses as a hunting lodge and observatory, it is also believed to have been used as a clock tower[3]

Etymology

The monument's original name was Khushk-i-Shikar(hunting lodge).[4] Its current name Pir Ghaib literally means the saint who vanished. This refers to the popular story of an islamic saint , who had occupied a part of the building(two chambers to be exact) after it had been abandoned by the rulers, vanishing into thin air towards the end of his life.[5] Because of this miracle, he came to be known as "Pir Ghaib" (the saint who vanished) and is still revered today by a few localities.[6]

History

The monument, and the stepwell next to it, were built by Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq in the year 1351 AD. The hunting lodge, along with an enclosure for game animals, was built by the Sultan following the death of his favorite son, Fateh Khan, to help him divert his mind by hunting.[7]

References

1. Taneja, Anand Vivek (2017). "Saintly visions: Other histories and history's others in the medieval ruins of Delhi". The Indian Economic & Social History Review. 49 (4): 557–590. doi:10.1177/0019464612463843.
2. "Pir Ghaib". Archaeological Survey of India. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
3. Varma, Urmila (2001). Delhi, a tale of seven cities. Smriti Books. p. 55. ISBN 9788187967040.
4. Chaudhuri, Dhruva N. (2005). Delhi, Light, Shades, Shadows. Niyogi Offset. p. 71. ISBN 9788190193641.
5. Smith, Ronald Vivian (2005). The Delhi that No-one Knows. Orient Blackswan. p. xxiv. ISBN 9788180280207.
6. "Pir Ghaib: Medieval observatory or a vanished saint's mausoleum". Hindustan Times. 10 July 2017.
7. Chopra, Prabha (1976). Delhi Gazetteer. The Unit. p. 1066. OCLC 499238960.

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

[x]
Facsimile of the inscription which was received by the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal from Colonel Polier, that James Prinsep used to translate one of the pillars.

I now proceed to lay before the Society the results of my application of the alphabet, developed by the simple records of Bhilsa, to the celebrated inscription on Feroz's column, of which facsimiles have been in the Society's possession since its very foundation, without any successful attempt having been made to decipher them.... "Round it" says the author of the Haftaklim, "have been engraved literal characters which the most intelligent of all religions have been unable to explain. Report says, this pillar is a monument of renown to the rajas or Hindu princes, and that Feroz Shah set it up within his hunting place: but on this head there are various traditions which it would be tedious to relate."

-- VI.—Interpretation of the most ancient of the inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi, and of the Allahabad, Radhia [Lauriya-Araraj (Radiah)] and Mattiah [Lauriya-Nandangarh (Mathia)] pillar, or lat, inscriptions which agree therewith., by James Prinsep, Sec. As. Soc. &c.


Image
Plate IV: Picturesque Elevation of the Shikar-Gah, & the Celebrated Pillar at Dehli in June, 1797

I have the pleasure of presenting to the Society a Book of Drawings and Inscriptions prepared under the inspection of their late member, Captain James Hoare, and intended by him (I have reason to believe) for the life of the Society.

Two of the drawings represent elevations, taken on the spot, of the stone building near Dehlee, called the Shikargah, or hunting place, of Feeroz Shah; with the pillar in the center, and above the summit of it, commonly known by the designation of Feeroz Shah’s Lat; and described, with an outline of the building and pillar, in the 21st paper of the 1st Vol. of the Society’s Transactions. The copy of the inscriptions on this pillar, which was received by our revered President and Founder from Colonel Polier, enabled him to exhibit a translation of one of them, as accurate as the imperfect state of the transcript would admit; but on comparing it with a more perfect copy made by Captain Hoare, it was found in several parts defective and inaccurate; and the date, instead of being 123 of the era of Vicramaditya, or A.D. 67, as appeared from the former copy, was clearly ascertained, from the present, to be 1220 of the above era, or A.D. 1164. ...

The author of the Huft Akleem, Mohummud Ameem Razee, who wrote his history of the world (or, as the title of his book imports, of the Seven Climes, into which the Mahommedans divide the universe) in the reign of Akbur,... adds the following passage, translated verbatim from his history.

“Among the places built by this King (Feeroz Shah) is a hunting place, which the populace call the Lat of Feeroz Shah. It is a house of three stories, in the centre of which has been erected a pillar of red stone, of one piece, and tapering upwards. ... Report says, this pillar is a monument of renown to the Rajuhs, (or Hindoo Princes,) and that Feeroz Shah set it up within his hunting place. But on this head there are various traditions, which it would be tedious to relate.”...


One of Captain Hoare’s drawings further represents the plans of the three stories of the Shikar-gah; and his Moonshee informs me, the current opinion is, that they were used partly for a menagery, and partly for an aviary, which the plans appear to confirm.

-- Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar At Dehlee, called the Lat of Feeroz Shah, Excerpt from Asiatic Researches, Volume 7, by Henry Colebrooke, Esq., With Introductory Remarks by Mr. Harington, P. 175-182, 1803


Image
Delhi-Meerut, Delhi ridge, Delhi (Pillar Edicts I, II, III, IV, V, VI; moved from Meerut to Delhi by Firuz Shah Tughluq in 1356, broken in pieces during transportation.

The next Asokan pillar at Delhi can be seen between the Chauburji-Masjid and Hindu Rao Hospital on the town of Mirath and set up by Firuz over the top of the three storeyed imposing Hunting Palace better known as Kushk-i-Shikar (now mass of ruins). According to Afif this pillar was removed by Sultan Firuz with similar skill and labour, and was re-erected on a hill on the Kushk-i-Shikr. After the erection of the pillar a large town sprang up and the nobles of the court erected their houses there. The hunting palace (Kushk-i-Shikar) was built by Firuz Shah Tughluq in A.H. 755 (A. D. 1354) and was originally a lofty rubble built structure in three storeys, having circular bastions at the corners, The apartments had many entrances of pointed arches on all sides. The bastions as well as top pavilions were covered with low domes of the Khalfi-Tughluq variety. The stone column was fixed on the top of the central structure which was flanked by two square pavilions of similar height....

The pillar of Kushk-i-Shikar, remained intact until it was damaged, and broken into five pieces on account of an explosion of the neighbouring powder magazine during the reign of Farrukhsiyar (A.D. 1713-19.) Its inscribed surface was later sawed off and sent to the Asiatic Society of Bengal at Calcutta wherefrom all the pieces were received back and re-set in 1867 by the British on the site of the dismantled palace on the bridge where it can be seen at present. The pillar now measures 10 m. in length.


-- A Study of Asokan Pillars: Re-Erected by Firuz Shah Tughluq, by W. H. Siddiqi, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 36 (1975), pp. 338-344 (7 pages), 1975


Image
Delhi-Meerut, Delhi ridge, Delhi (Pillar Edicts I, II, III, IV, V, VI; moved from Meerut to Delhi by Firuz Shah Tughluq in 1356, broken in pieces during transportation.

Firoz Shah is considered to be an early conservationist, with a keen interest in ancient buildings and objects. In addition to the Ashokan pillar that he moved from Topra in Haryana and had installed in his citadel in Firozabad, he moved a second pillar from nearby Meerut to be installed at what was soon to become his hunting lodge on the ridge, the Kushak-i-shikar. In the early seventeenth century, the pillar was described by an English traveller, William Finch, as one with a ‘globe and half-moon at top, and divers inscription upon it’. The pillar was severely damaged in an explosion during the reign of Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar (ad 1713–19) and disintegrated into five pieces. The five fragments were later restored to an upright position in 1866, but its inscribed portions were sawed off and sent to the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Later, the inscribed pieces were received back and joined together and this restored pillar was installed back at its current location in 1867. The current height of the pillar is 10 m. Inscribed in Brahmi script and written in the Prakrit language, the inscription of Ashoka contains his messages and instruction for promoting Dharma and the welfare and happiness of the people. At the base of the pillar, a plaque announces its history. Today, the pillar looks forlorn, standing alone in its fenced enclosure near a roundabout on the main ridge road in front of the gate of the Hindu Rao Hospital complex.

-- Ashoka Pillar, by Smit Sandhir, flickr.com


Image

Ashoka's Pillar at Kamla Nehru Ridge, near Hindu Rao hospital, is one of the two brought in by Firoz Shah Tughlaq in the mid-13th century. Brought from Meerut after one of his campaigns, the pillar was transported meticulously through the Yamuna river on barges and then hauled up on a 42 wheel cart from the bank to the ridge. Another of its counterparts can be found in the urban village of Firoz Shah Kotla.

The construction is mostly made of sandstone, quarried from Chunar town in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, presently another small town (known for its pottery) on the Indo-Gangetic belt but historically a very important destination, finding mention in the ancient Hindu Puranas (scriptures). Huge rock slabs were chiseled at the quarry and then sent across the country. The pillar suffered an accident during the tumultuous reign of the Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar during the first half of the 17th century. The top of the pillar which got blown off as a consequence still remains in-state as a result. [???] The pieces of the pillar were transported for safekeeping to the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta in 1866, but were brought back and restored in its original place in 1887, where it still stands today.

The pillar is about 10 feet in height with a diameter of about three quarters of a metre and features inscriptions in Brahmi Script; mostly focusing on Ashoka’s major propaganda, viz, his conversion to and propagation of Buddhism and social and animal welfare. Further studies have revealed later inscriptions in Sanskrit around Ashoka’s texts, assumed to date back to the rule of the Chauhan King Visala around the 11th century AD. Firoz Shah himself added some bits of decoration to the pillars later.


The pillar is located at one end of the Kamla Nehru Ridge in North Delhi, with Mutiny Memorial situated nearby.

-- Surviving As A Historical Relic Since The 13th Century, Here's All About The Ashokan Pillar, by Delhi Dwell, 21 Aug 2017


Image
Sikargah or Kushak Mahal, 14th-century hunting lodge built by Firoz Shah Tughlaq.

He brought 2 Ashokan Pillars from Meerut, and Topra near Radaur in Yamunanagar district of Haryana, carefully cut and wrapped in silk, to Delhi in bullock cart trains. He re-erected one of them on the roof of his palace at Firoz Shah Kotla.

... One of his hunting lodges, Shikargah, also known as Kushak Mahal, is situated within the Teen Murti Bhavan complex, Delhi.

-- Firuz Shah Tughlaq, by Wikipedia


Image
The Kotla of Firoz Shah with the Ashokan pillar, View from the south of the Kotla. Author: Metcalfe, Sir Thomas Theophilus (1795-1853). Medium: Ink and colours on paper. Date: 1843.

Feroze (‘Propitious’) Shah’s (‘King’) Laut (‘Pillar. Club’) is situated in the immediate environs of the city on the High road from the Dehlie Gate towards Muttra. The building on which the Laut now stands was constructed by the Emperor Feroze Shah as a Shekargah or Hunting place.... The height of the pillar now visible above the building is about 37 feet, and its circumference where it forms the terrace is about 10 feet 4 inches; it is composed of a single stone, and tradition asserts that only 1/3 is visible, the remaining 2/3 being buried in the earth. The structure originally consisted of three stories, and used, accorded to current opinion, partly as a menagerie and partly as an aviary.

-- The Kotla of Firoz Shah with the Ashokan pillar, by British Library Online Gallery


Image
Pir Ghaib is a hunting lodge and Observatory built by Sultan Feroz Shah Tughlaq of Delhi in the 14th century

Feroz Shah, during one of his campaigns, was enthralled by the two spectacular monoliths – inscribed Ashokan pillars he saw, one at Topra near Ambala and the other near Meerut, till then undeciphered – and decided to shift them to his palatial Feruzabad palace in Delhi as "totemic embellishments". He shifted the pillars from these places and got them erected in Delhi; the former in his new capital and the latter on the ridge, near Pir-Ghaib, his hunting palace. The first pillar was erected in the 1350s, next to the Friday mosque in the new city of Feruzabad.).

-- Ashokan Edicts in Delhi, by Wikipedia




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

10. Congregational mosque, Jahannuma, ca. 764/ 367

The Jahannuma palace is located on the northern ridge of Delhi and is believed to be the same as the kuskh shikar mentioned by contemporary historians. [so-called "historian", singular]

-- The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate, School of The Ohio State University, by William Jeffrey McKibben, B.A., M.A., 1988


The Sultan having selected a site at the village of Gawin, on the banks of the Jumna, founded the city of Firozabad, before he went to Lakhnauti the second time. Here he commenced a palace, * * * and the nobles of his court having also obtained (giriftand) houses there, a new town sprang up, five kos [1.8 miles x 5] distant from Dehli. Eighteen places were included in this town, the kasba of Indarpat, the sarai of Shaikh Malik Yar Paran, the sarai of Shaikh Abu Bakr Tusi, the village of Gawin, the land of Khetwara, the land of Lahrawat, the land of Andhawali, the land of the sarai of Malika, the land of the tomb of Sultan Raziya, the land of Bhari, the land of Mahrola, and the land of Sultanpur. So many buildings were erected that from the kasha of Indarpat to the Kushk-i shikar, five kos apart, all the land was occupied. There were eight public mosques, and one private mosque. * * * The public mosques were each large enough to accommodate 10,000 supplicants.

During the forty years of the reign of the excellent Sultan Firoz, people used to go for pleasure from Dehli to Firozabad, and from Firozabad to Dehli, in such numbers, that every kos of the five kos between the two towns swarmed with people, as with ants or locusts. To accommodate this great traffic, there were public carriers who kept carriages, mules (sutur), and horses, which were ready for hire at a settled rate every morning after prayers, so that the traveller could make the trip as seemed to him best, and arrive at a stated time. Palankin-bearers were also ready to convey passengers. The fare of a carriage was four silver jitals for each person; of a mule (sutur) six; of a horse, twelve; and of a palankin, half a tanka. There was also plenty of porters ready for employment by any one, and they earned a good livelihood. Such was the prosperity of this district; * * but it was so ravaged by the Mughals, that the inhabitants were scattered in all directions. This was the will of God, and none can gainsay it. [???!!!]

***

The Sultan employed himself at Dehli in State affairs. Among his other qualities, he had a remarkable fondness for history. Just at this time Maulana Ziau-d din Barni, the author of the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi died, and the Sultan expressed to every learned man the great desire he felt for an historical record of the events of his own reign. When he despaired of getting such a work written, he caused the following lines, of his own composition (az zaban-i kkwesh), to be inscribed in letters of gold on the walls ('imarat) of the Kushk-i Shikar-rav, and on the domes of the Kushk-i nuzul, and the walls ('imarat) of the minarets of stone which are within the Kushk-i Shikar-rav at Firozabad: —

"I made a great hunt of elephants, and I captured so many:
"I performed many glorious deeds; and all this I have done
"That in the world and among men; in the earth and among mankind, these verses
"May stand as a memorial to men of intelligence, and that the people of the world, and the wise men of the age, may follow the example."


***

Transport of stone Obelisks.

After Sultan Firoz returned from his expedition against Thatta, he often made excursions in the neighbourhood of Dehli. In this part of the country there were two stone columns. One was in the village of Tobra, in the district (shikk) of Salaura and Khizrabad, in the hills (koh-payah); the other in the vicinity of the town of Mirat. These columns had stood in those places from the days of the Pandavas, but had never attracted the attention of any of the kings who sat upon the throne of Dehli, till Sultan Firoz noticed them, and, with great exertion, brought them away. One was erected in the palace (kushk) at Firozabad, near the Masjid-i jama', and was called the Minara-i zarin, or Golden Column, and the other was erected in the Kushk-i Shikar, or Hunting Palace, with great labour and skill. The author has read in the works of good historians that these columns of stone had been the walking sticks of the accursed1 [One MS., to the credit of the writer, omits this execration.] Bhim, a man of great stature and size. The annals of the infidels record that this Bhim used to devour a thousand mans of food daily, and no one could compete with him. * * * In his days all this part of Hind was peopled with infidels, who were continually fighting and slaying each other. Bhim was one of five brothers, but he was the most powerful of them all. He was generally engaged in tending the herds of cattle belong to his wicked brothers, and he was accustomed to use these two stone pillars as sticks to gather the cattle together. The size of the cattle in those days was in proportion to that of other creatures. These five brothers lived near Dehli, and when Bhim died these two columns were left standing as memorials of him. *** When Firoz Shah first beheld these columns, he was filled with admiration, and resolved to remove them with great care as trophies to Dehli. ***

Removal of the Minara-i zarin.

Khizrabad is ninety kos [162 miles] from Dehli, in the vicinity of the hills. When the Sultan visited that district, and saw the column in the village of Tobra, he resolved to remove it to Dehli, and there erect it as a memorial to future generations. After thinking over the best means of lowering the column, orders were issued commanding the attendance of all the people dwelling in the neighbourhood, within and without the Doab, and all soldiers, both horse and foot. They were ordered to bring all implements and materials suitable for the work. Directions were issued for bringing parcels of the cotton of the Sembal (silk cotton tree). Quantities of this silk cotton were placed round the column, and when the earth at its base was removed, it fell gently over on the bed prepared for it. The cotton was then removed by degrees, and after some days the pillar lay safe upon the ground. When the foundations of the pillar were examined, a large square stone was found as a base, which also was taken out. The pillar was then encased from top to bottom in reeds and raw skins, so that no damage might accrue to it. A carriage, with forty-two wheels, was constructed, and ropes were attached to each wheel. Thousands of men hauled at every rope, and after great labour and difficulty the pillar was raised on to the carriage. A strong rope was fastened to each wheel, and 200 men pulled at each of these ropes. By the simultaneous exertions of so many thousand men the carriage was moved, and was brought to the banks of the Jumna. Here the Sultan came to meet it. A number of large boats had been collected, some of which could carry 6,000 and 7,000 mans of grain, and the least of them 2,000 mans. The column was very ingeniously transferred to these boats, and was then conducted to Firozabad, where it was landed and conveyed into the Kushk with infinite labour and skill.

Account of the Raising of the Obelisk.

At this time the author of this book was twelve years of age, and a pupil of the respected Mur Khan. When the pillar was brought to the palace, a building was commenced for its reception, near the Jami' Masjid, and the most skilful architects and workmen were employed. It was constructed of stone1 [Two MSS. call the stone [x] and the other two [x].] and chunam, and consisted of several stages or steps (poshish). When a step was finished the column was raised on to it, another step was then built and the pillar was again raised, and so on in succession until it reached the intended height. On arriving at this stage, other contrivances had to be devised to place it in an erect position. Ropes of great thickness were obtained, and windlasses were placed on each of the six stages of the base. The ends of the ropes were fastened to the top of the pillar, and the other ends passed over the windlasses, which were firmly secured with many fastenings. The wheels were then turned, and the column was raised about half a gaz. Logs of wood and bags of cotton were then placed under it to prevent its sinking again. In this way, by degrees, and in the course of several days, the column was raised to the perpendicular. Large beams were then placed round it as shores, until quite a cage of scaffolding was formed. It was thus secured in an upright position, straight as an arrow, without the smallest deviation from the perpendicular. The square stone, before spoken of, was placed under the pillar. After it was raised, some ornamental friezes of black and white stone were placed round its two capitals (do sar-i an), and over these there was raised a gilded copper cupola, called in Hindi kalas.2 [A spire, pinnacle, or cupola.] The height of the obelisk was thirty-two gaz; eight gaz was sunk in its pedestal, and twenty-four gaz was visible. On the base of the obelisk there were engraved several lines of writing in Hindi characters. Many Brahmans and Hindu devotees3 [[[x], Qy. Hind. [x]].] were invited to read them, but no one was able. It is said that certain infidel Hindus interpreted them as stating that no one should be able to remove the obelisk from its place till there should arise in the latter days a Muhammadan king, named Sultan Firoz, etc., etc.

Erection of the other Obelisk in the Kushk-i Shikar.

This obelisk stood in the vicinity of the town of Mirat, in the Doab, and was somewhat smaller than the Minara-i zarin. This also was removed by Sultan Firoz, with similar skill and labour, and was re-erected on a hill in the Kushk-i Shikar [amid great feasting and rejoicing]. After the erection of the pillar a large town sprang up, and the khans and maliks of the Court built houses there. *** Every great king took care during his reign to set up some lasting memorial of his power. So Sultan Shamsu-d din Altamsh raised the large pillar in the Masjid-i jama' at old Dehli, the history of which is well known. ***

In these days, in the year 801 H. (1398 A.D.), Amir Timur, of Khurasan, has marched into India, and by the will of fate has subdued the empire of Hindustan. During his stay of some days in Dehli, he inspected all the monuments of former kings, *** and among them these two obelisks, when he declared that in all the countries he had traversed he had never seen any monuments comparable to these. * * *

***

His palaces (kushk) were those of Firoz, Nuzul, Mahandwari, Hisar Firozah, Fath-abad, Jaunpur, Shikar, Band-i Fath Khan and Salaura.

***

The Jizya, or poll tax, had never been levied from Brahmans; they had been held excused, in former reigns. But the Sultan convened a meeting of the learned men and elders, suggested to them that an error had been committed in holding Brahmans exempt from the tax, and that the revenue officers had been remiss in their duty. The Brahmans were the very keys of the chamber of idolatry, and the infidels were dependent on them. They ought therefore to be taxed first. The learned lawyers gave it as their opinion that the Brahmans ought to be taxed. The Brahmans of all the four cities then assembled and went to the Kushk-i Shikar, where the Sultan was engaged in building, and represented that the Brahmans had never before been called upon to pay the Jizya, and they wanted to know why they were now subjected to the indignity of having to pay it. They were determined to collect wood and to burn themselves under the walls of the palace rather than pay the tax. When these pleasant words (kalimat i pur naghmat) were reported to the Sultan, he replied that they might burn and destroy themselves at once, for they would not escape from the payment.

-- XVI. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 269-364, 1871
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 33903
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:11 am

Firoz Shah palace complex
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 12/1/21

Image
Firoz Shah palace complex
Inner courtyard of Firoz Shah Palace
Location Hisar, Haryana, India
Coordinates 29.166306°N 75.720587°ECoordinates: 29.166306°N 75.720587°E
Settled 1357
Founded 1354
Built 14th century
Built for Firoz Shah Tughlaq
Demolished 1398
Restored by Archaeological Survey of India
Architectural style(s) Islam
Governing body Archaeological Survey of India
Firoz Shah palace complex is located in India
Firoz Shah palace complex
Image
Location in western Haryana, India

Firoz Shah palace complex (Hisar-e-Firoza) in the city of Hisar in Haryana, India, was built by Firuz Shah Tughlaq in 1354 AD.[1] The original town of Hisar was a walled settlement inside the fort.

The complex contains a mosque known as Lat ki Masjid. Lat is a sandstone pillar about 20 feet high and was earlier an Ashokan pillar.[2]

Gurjari Mahal, another palace nearby, was also built by Firoz Shah, for his wife Gurjari in 1356.[3]

Jahaj Kothi Museum, a past residence of George Thomas inside the Firoz Shah palace complex, is maintained by the Archaeological Survey of India.[4]

History

Image
Evolution of Indian trade networks. The main map shows the routes since Mughal times, Inset A shows the major prehistorical cultural currents, B: pre-Mauryan routes, C: Mauryan routes, D: routes c. 1st century CE, and E: the "Z" shaped region of developed roads.

The palace, known as Hisar-i-Firuza, is located at a strategic point where the old Delhi Multan Road branches towards Khorasan, a historic region northeast of Iran.

Construction began in 1354 CE, supervised by Firozshah, who stayed at Hisar for the purpose. Stone was brought from the hills of Mahendragarh to build the ramparts, which were surrounded by a protective moat. The tank inside the complex was used to refill the moat. The complex was completed in 1356 after two and half years, and Ferozshah ordered his courtiers to build their palaces within the walls of the fort.[5]

Artillery was not widely used in Central Asia prior to the 16th century. The limited use of cannon at Hisar by the Timurid Sultan Husayn Mirza in 1496 did not lead to a substantial military role for artillery in India.[6] nor did the presence of cannon on Portuguese ships at the 1509 Battle of Diu.[7] Regular use of artillery came to India only with the Mughal invasion and Babur.[6]

Restoration work began on the palace in 1924 and has gradually continued since. The complex has been declared a Centrally Protected Monument by the Archaeological Survey of India.

Architecture

The palace complex consists of a mosque, a Diwan-e-Aam, a palace for the shah’s wife, apartments underground, and a granary.[3] The artwork in the fort synthesizes Islamic and Indian architecture. However, the mosque is an example of Seljuk architecture. The palace is built of red sandstone.

Gates

The palace complex within the fort had one royal entrance. The protective ramparts around the fort originally had four main gates.[1][5]

Shahi Darwaza

The Shahi Darwaza entrance to the palace faces east and is still standing. Shahi Darwaza in Persian means “royal gate”; it was reserved for the royal family. As seen here, it still serves as the main entrance to the current monument.[1] Roughly seven meters tall, the single-story arched gateway has small built-in guard rooms on each side.

Talaqi gate

The Talagi gate faces west, with access to ancient Agroha Mound and Sirsa, and still stands across from the main bus station of Hisar. Associated bastions with slanted narrow niches to shoot arrows at attacking enemy armies still exist.[1]

Nagauri gate

The Nagauri gate, now demolished, led south to Nagaur and on to Jodhpur in Rajasthan via Siwani, Jhumpa Khurd, Rajgarh and Churu. The Bansi Lal government demolished this gate in order to widen the entrance to the market. The British Raj added a two-story clock tower to its top. Nothing remains now at the site, but it is still known as the Nagauri gate.[1]

Mori gate

The Mori gate, now vanished, faced east. A water channel, now also vanished, entered the fort complex through a hole (Hindi: mori) in the fort bastion to supply water. The gate provided access to Multan in Pakistan, Kandahar in Afghanistan, Mashhad in Iran, and Ashgabat in Turkmenistan. The gate is long gone and unmarked. The current ramp and road link the fort complex and the auto market.[1]

Delhi gate

The Delhi gate, located at current Mehta Nagar here near Shaheed Bhagat Singh Chowk, faced east but is gone now. It led to Delhi on the Delhi Multan Road. It stood near the current Gandhi statue inside the market.[1][4]

Royal palace

The royal palace is a rectangular three-storied building of stone masonry. Two floors are above ground and one underground. Here the king resided with his entourage. In the past it also had two more floors above the current structure. The ruined pillars of the third above-ground floor still lie horizontally on the roof of the current structure. They supported a two-story structure of wood and stone, now gone.

The palace is built of rubble masonry and lime mortar. The palace building is between one and three rooms deep on the north, west and east sides, but it is several rooms deep on the south side where the bulk of the structure lies.[1][4]

In the extreme north-west a three-storied above-ground staircase also leads underground to connect to the tehkhana.[1][4]

North and west side of this two-story complex with arched passages are built into the fort's bastion with no windows on north and west side for the security reasons. West and south sides of the structure were renovated by the Archaeological Survey of India and still survives with a flat roof and arched gateway and passages.[1][4]

The north side of this structure is in ruin and only the remains of the ground floor, with no roof, survive.[1][4]

The west side of this structure is in good condition and still has a roof. The west side has underground tehkhana chambers with hammam. Two doorways on the ground level and three doorways on the second floor open into a central rectangular courtyard.[1][4]

The south side, the longer side of the rectangular palace complex, has seven doorways on the ground level and nine doorways on the second story opening into the central rectangular courtyard.[1][4]

The east side of the two-storied palace complex is also in ruins without a roof. It lies adjacent to the stables to its east.[1][4]

Watch tower staircase

On the far north and west sides of the royal palace complex, a watch tower with three stories above ground and one underground doubled as staircase, connecting all floors of the palace and serving as a corner passage between the north and west sides of the building. This is the tallest structure in the complex.[1][4]

Diwan-e-khas

The Diwan-e-khas is a central courtyard inside the royal palace, which also served as an open private audience chamber.[1][4]

Tehkhana

The royal palace had an underground complex and two stories above ground, with a central courtyard that served as a private audience hall. The underground apartments were used for sleeping to escape the summer heat, evidenced by the presence underground of a hammam, bath.[1][4]

Royal bath

Hammam, bath, is located inside the underground tehkhana below the royal palace.[1][4]

Stables

The stables are semi-underground and adjacent to the tehkhana structure to the east of the main royal palace building, between it and the Jahaj Kothi Museum. [4]

Diwan-e-Aam

Immediately to the right of the royal gate is the Diwan-e-Aam, or audience chamber. It is an L-shaped liwan, five to six meters high, with a vaulted ceiling under a flat roof and an open courtyard. The lat ki masjid to the east is within its courtyard, and the Ashoka pillar (lat) is in the middle of the courtyard. An L-shaped ablution pool lies in the south corner of the courtyard.

Three rows totaling 50 red stone pillars line the longer western arm of the L-shaped liwan, which has 18 vaults in the ceiling. The front row has 10 pairs of double pillars (a total 20 pillars) facing east, opening into the courtyard and forming seven doorways. A row of 10 single pillars runs down the middle of the hall. A row built into the back wall to the west has also has 10 pillars. Each chamber the form in this back wall has three red sandstone niches on the lower half, one outer rectangular niche, and two arched niches inside. The upper portion of the liwan is built with rubble masonry covered with white lime mortar. The flat roof of the longer arm of the liwan is topped with two false domes, one each on the north and south sides.[1][4]

The shorter north-facing arm of the L-shaped liwan hall has three vaulted chambers on three pillars in front, opening south into the courtyard, and three pillars built in the back wall on the north side.[1][4]

In the north-west corner of the liwan is a raised Takht-i-shahi or Muluk-khana platform on four smaller red stone pillars, where the throne of the king used to be. The throne can be reached by five red sandstone steps. Under the platform is a dried-up well. This platform also has a north-west facing qibla wall (towards Kaaba in Mecca) in the mihrab.[1][4]

Lat ki Masjid

Image
Lat ki Masjid
Religion
Affiliation Islam
Ownership Archaeological Survey of India
Location
Location Hisar, Haryana, India
Architecture
Type Mosque
Style Seljuk
Date established 1354
Specifications
Minaret height 20 feet
Materials Red sandstone

On the south-east end of the complex, the square Lat ki Masjid, was made of red sandstone. One door leads to each of the four directions, with a stone jali (a perforated latticed stone screen) above each door. The roof has stone brackets that can be seen from outside the building. The roof has been altered with the later-era addition of a brick wall. The ceiling is vaulted and the roof is flat, With a single lime-plastered dome.[1][4]

To the south of this lies an above-ground masonry pond with an underground narrow passage connecting it to the basement of the Lat ki Masjid.[1][4]

Architecture

Unlike other structures inside the complex, the mosque was built using Seljuk architecture. Qibla have been carved inside the prayer hall of the adjacent liwan hall.[1][4]

Structures

It is a small one-story one-domed mosque of red sandstone. The mosque is divided into three parts: the central dome, the pillar, and the prayer hall. An L-shaped ablution tank is also located south of the mosque a couple of feet away. To the southwest, the square mosque building has a built-in exterior staircase to the roof. The mosque also has a narrow underground staircase in its northern wall, leading south a few feet, re-emerging on the south-western edge of the L-shaped ablution tank in the courtyard.[1][4]

Hisar Ashokan pillar

See also: Edicts of Ashoka, Bodh Stupa, Topra, Buddhist pilgrimage sites in Haryana, Buddhist pilgrimage sites in India, and Buddhist pilgrimage sites

The mosque got its name from Lat, a column located on the North-East of its courtyard. The Lat was once a part of an Ashokan pillar, one of the rock-cut edicts of Ashoka dating to 250–232 BCE. This has been proved by the inscriptions in Brahmi script on the pillar, deciphered in 1837 by James Prinsep, an archaeologist, philologist, and official of the East India Company.[8] The Ashokan pillar, likely taken from its nearby original location at Agroha Mound, was cut for the ease of transportation and rejoined in four portions here. The remaining bottom portions are at the Fatehabad mosque. The four upper portions of the Ashokan pillar here are tapering registers with a finial topped by an iron rod.[1][4]

Indus Valley Civilization mound

Close to the mosque lies a mound which is believed to most likely house the ruins of an Indus Valley Civilization town.[1][4]

Bastions

Underground apartments can be found inside the complex in good condition. A passage is embedded in the western wall of the palace leading to the terrace. Archery holes can still be observed in the bastion wall, once surrounded by water-filled protective ditch, now filled in.[9]

Gurjari Mahal

Gurjari Mahal
गुर्जरी महल
Location Hisar, Haryana, India
Material Rubble and Mortar
Beginning date 1354
Completion date 1356
Dedicated to Gurjari (Mistress of Firoz Shah Tughlaq)
The palace is a part of Firoz Shah Palace Complex

Gurjari Mahal is the name of the palace built by Firoz Shah Tughlaq for his mistress Gurjari. The palace is located outside the fort complex to east and was built as an outlying portion of it. Between the Gurjari Mahal and the main fort complex there existed a now-vanished Islamic garden, which is now the location of modern-day Jindal park with a 207 feet tall Flag of India.[1]

History

Gurjari, the mistress of Firoz Shah Tughlaq, was a local resident of Hisar who belonged to a pastoral community. When Firoz asked her to accompany him to the throne at Delhi, she refused. So, he built a palace for her in Hisar and built his own palace complex around it.

Architecture

The palace was built using rubble and mortar.

Structures

Gurjari Mahal building


Only a small portion of the Gurjari Mahal palace remains. The palace is built on a rectangular platform that can be approached by a ramp leading to the upper level. The building has been declared a Centrally Protected Monument by the Archaeological Survey of India.[10] The palace is closed to the public. To the north, there once were gardens, but they no longer exist and modern houses have been built there.

Baradari

The most visible part of what now remains of the palace is the baradari on the upper level, so named for the twelve doorways, three on each side. It was used for social gatherings. Four pillars inside the chamber support the roof.

Underground Hammam

Three underground apartments are located below the platform. One of them is a tank and is believed to have served as a hammam.[3]

Graves

On the upper level are a total of nine graves. Five are sarcophagi on an open-air platform nearly three feet higher, and two are sarcophagi on a separate nearby open-air lower platform (less than a foot from bottom). Two are brick shrines inside a brick structure that no longer has a roof. All of them belong to 17th or 18th century Mughal empire era.[3]

Secondary Apartment

On the upper level, there is a small secondary apartment in the corner of the structure.

Garden

Originally, there was a garden in the north of the complex but it no longer exists, now there is Jindal park in its place that has a 207 feet tall flag of india installed by Naveen Jindal's Flag Foundation of India.

Jahaj Kothi Museum

Main article: Jahaj Kothi Museum

See also: Haryana Rural Antique Museum and Rakhigarhi Indus Valley Civilisation Museum

Jahaj Kothi Museum, a later era building that was originally a Jain temple which was later used as residence by George Thomas, is located inside Firoz Shah Palace Complex and maintained by Archaeological Survey of India.[4]

Nearby Haryana Rural Antique Museum is in Gandhi Bhawan, established by this unit, exhibits the evolution of agriculture and vanishing antiques.[4] The Rakhigarhi Indus Valley Civilisation Museum is located at Rakhigarhi, which is an Indus Valley Civilisation site 60 km away, also has a museum developed by the state government.[11]

Residence of Superintendent of Livestock Farm

A large British raj era historic building in the complex, to the northeast, was used as a residence for the superintendent of the Government Livestock Farm, Hisar (c. 1809).[4]

See also

• Asigarh Fort
• Pranpir Badshah tomb

References

1. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 May 2014. Retrieved 22 May 2012.
2. "Lat Ki Masjid, Haryana Lat Ki Masjid, Lat Ki Masjid travel guide, Lat Ki Masjid in Hissar Haryana, Journey to Lat Ki Masjid, Traveling to Lat Ki Masjid".
3. http://www.hisarjano.com/sylabs.pdf[permanent dead link]
4. Jahaj Kothi museum
5. Hisar at a glance, Haryana Tourism.
6. Adle C, Habib I, Baipakov KM, eds. (2004). History of Civilizations of Central Asia: Development in Contrast : from the Sixteenth to the Mid-Nineteenth Century. United Nations Educational. pp. 474–475. ISBN 978-9231038761.
7. Grant RG. (2010). Warrior: A Visual History of the Fighting Man. DK ADULT. pp. 126–127. ISBN 978-0756665418.
8. More details about Buddhist monuments at Sanchi Archived 21 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Archaeological Survey of India, 1989.
9. "Hisar jano" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2012. Retrieved 2 June 2012.
10. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 26 October 2016. Retrieved 22 May 2012.
11. Harappan museum at Rakhigarhi

External links

• Images of Firoz Shah Palace Complex on ASI website[permanent dead link]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 33903
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:58 am

Part 1 of 2

Appendix C: On The Early Indian Inscriptions
Excerpt from Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter With Early Buddhism in Central Asia
by Christopher I. Beckwith
2015

Librarian’s Comment:

Don’t be fooled by Christopher Beckwith’s designation of his revolutionary essay, “On the Early Indian Inscriptions” as “Appendix C” to his recently-published “Greek Buddha.” If anything, he should be chided for relegating this essential material to its humble position as the final section of the book, when its thesis should be jumping off the back cover in boldface type: “Blows the Lid off the Ashokan Pillar Scam that Has Held a Nation in Thrall for Two Hundred Years!” Because, as Beckwith gently demonstrates, there is far, far less here than meets the eye. Ashoka’s very existence is in question, and is derived circularly from the pillars themselves, after distorting the “evidence” that can be gleaned from them. The purported historical references to Ashoka come from a Ceylonese book of mythology. All of the well-shaped, finely finished pillars are marked with the name of a different man altogether, which is not Ashoka, but rather Devanampriya Piyardarsi. The Lumbini pillar is an obvious fraud, a very short declaration of recent vintage composed from an anachronistic salad of alphabets. The Seventh Pillar edict, likewise, is clearly a late creation that compiles phrases from other pillars in an obvious effort to resemble them. The rock edicts are evidence of nothing more than the penchant of irresponsible improvisers to attach the name of Ashoka to every petroglyph in India. Why has Beckwith hidden all this in an “appendix,” i.e., a disposable appendage? Because when you barbeque sacred cows, you do it in the back yard, not on your front lawn!


Of foremost importance, there is the subject of Indian Chronology....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 Chandragupta 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...

[T]he 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....

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 Chandragupta, the Founder of the Maurya Dynasty of the Kings Magadha, with Sandrocottus of the Greek writers of Alexander's adventures, thus:
... 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...

Earlier in the same discourse Sir William had mentioned his authorities for the statement that Chandragupta 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 Chandragupta, 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.

-- "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


One has to recall that after the Hyphasis mutiny, Alexander gave up his plans to march further east, and to commemorate his Indian expedition he erected twelve massive altars of dressed stone. Arrian writes:

He then divided the army into brigades, which he ordered to prepare twelve altars to equal in height the highest military towers, and to exceed them in point of breadth, to serve as thank offerings to the gods who had led him so far as a conqueror, and also as a memorial of his own labours. After erecting the altars he offered sacrifice upon them with the customary rites, and celebrated a gymnastic and equestrian contest. (V.29.1-2)


Curiously, unlike most writers who place the altars on the right bank of the river, Pliny places them on the left or the eastern bank:

The Hyphasis was the limit of the marches of Alexander, who, however, crossed it, and dedicated altars on the further bank. (Plin. HN 6.21)


Pliny’s crucial hint suggests a reappraisal of the riddle of the altars. Precisely how far east had Alexander and his men come? Although Bunbury holds that the location of the altars cannot be regarded as known even approximately, the Indian evidence sheds new light. Masson places the altars at the united stream of the Hyphasis and Sutlez. McCrindle also writes that the Sutlez marked the limit of Alexander’s march eastward; and this is precisely the locality from where Feroze Shah brought the pillar to Delhi.

-- An Altar of Alexander Now Standing at Delhi [EXPANDED VERSION], by Ranajit Pal, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, India. January, 2006




Appendix C: ON THE EARLY INDIAN INSCRIPTIONS

The Major Inscriptions of the Mauryan period, which are explicitly and repeatedly declared to have been erected by a king known as Devanampriya Priyadarsi,1 [However, the so-called Seventh Pillar Edict on the Delhi-Topra pillar is spurious. It is discussed at the end of this appendix.] are the very first inscriptions known to have been created in India. They are also the first datable examples of actual Indian writing.2 [It remains uncertain if the Harappan inscriptions represent writing. Even if they do, they remain undeciphered and had no descendant in any later Indian writing system.] The religious contents of these inscriptions are very important sources for the "popular" variety of Early Buddhism and are discussed at length in Chapter Three.

However, the Major Inscriptions are generally believed to be only a subset of a much larger set of well over two dozen Mauryan inscriptions, large and small, most of which are explicitly concerned with Buddhism -- not Early Buddhism, but Normative Buddhism. Virtually all of them -- that is to say, all inscriptions of any kind in early Brahmi script and Prakrit language, including the Major Inscriptions and the others -- are now attributed not only to the Mauryan period, but specifically to a Mauryan ruler known from traditional Indian "histories" as Asoka.3 [E.g., Norman (2012), Salomon (1998), Falk (2006), Olivelle (2012), generally with a few extremely minor quibbles at most. The most significant exception is Falk (2006: 58), who concludes regarding the "Second Minor Rock Edict" (one of the synoptic, explicitly Buddhist edicts) that "analysis of its content ... seems to indicate that it was not Asoka who produced this text." (He takes the "First Minor Rock Edict" to be by Asoka.) Olivelle (2012: 158), following and citing Falk, says that the Minor Rock Edicts "are problematic in that they exist in many versions and were subjected to several editorial interventions in different places". He also questions whether all the texts had "the same author" or "multiple authors". Unfortunately he does not pursue these insights in any substantial way in his article, and actually treats all the inscriptions as being by Asoka. Just about the only other hedges that have been expressed relate to a small number of short inscriptions, which have sometimes been ascribed to later authors. Asoka's grandson Dasaratha is explicitly credited with the Nagarjuni Hills inscriptions (Hultzsch 1925: xxviii; Salomon 1998: 76,n16; Falk 2006: 276, q.v. for the texts and translations), as already established by Prinsep in the nineteenth century (Salomon 1998: 208). Despite their extremely close connection to the Barabar Hill Cave inscriptions of "king Devanampiya" (Hultzsch 1925: xxvii), the latter are still generally attributed unquestioningly to Asoka (e.g., Salomon 1998: 140; Falk 2006: 266-268), but Asoka is actually never mentioned. Both probably belong to Dasaratha -- whose historicity and chronology, however, depend wholly on the same pseudo-historical sources responsible for the questionable historicity and chronology of Asoka. It is probable that he needs to be downdated along with Asoka, as suggested below.] He is identified in these "histories" as the grandson of the dynasty's founder, Chandragupta. All of the inscriptions are thus usually known today as the "Asoka (or Asokan) inscriptions".

Unfortunately, this determination is extremely problematic at best. Absolutely no careful scientific epigraphical or palaeographical study of the inscriptions themselves has ever been done in the century and a half since their first decipherment. No one knows what such a study would reveal. Careful preliminary examination indicates that the traditional view is partly or even wholly incorrect. It is thus necessary to determine why the inscriptions might have been erected, which among them are genuine Mauryan inscriptions, which (if any) were authored by "Asoka", and when they were erected.

THE BACKGROUND OF THE MAURYAN INSCRIPTIONS

There is unquestionable Old Persian influence on the Major Inscriptions, including language (Old Persian ni-pis "to write"); textual formulae -- most notably the usual third-person introduction "King x says" followed by the king's proclamation in first person;4 [Olivelle (2012: 166). This is also noted by others arguing that the Mauryan edicts were based on Persian models, e.g., Hultzsch (1925).] the Kharosthi alphabet (derived from Persian Imperial Aramaic script) used in the northwestern inscriptions, the area formerly under Achaemenid Persian rule; and the "Persepolitan" (Achaemenid Persian) style of the pillars and the capitals that graced them. All of this goes back to the period when "Sindhu and Gandhara belonged to the Persian Empire."5 [Hultzsch (1925: xlii). The Achaemenid Persian presence there is firmly established by the Persian royal inscriptions and by provincial travel reports to and from Gandhara in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, as noted in the Prologue, as well as by numerous Achaemenid sites in Sindh and Gandhara (J. Choksy, p.c., 2013).] One must add to these points the simple fact of creating monumental inscriptions at all, which was done for the first time in India, in blatantly Persian style, on both rocks and columns. They were erected along royal roads built and provided with rest houses, exactly as the early Achaemenids had done. On these roads Achaemenid royal emissaries made annual "tours of inspection"6 [Xenophon (Cyropaedia VIII, 6.16) says, "every year a progress of inspection is made by an officer at the head of an army, to help any satrap who may require aid, or bring the insolent to their senses ... "(Meadows 2005: 185).] -- exactly as the Mauryans were to do, as we know from the Major Inscriptions themselves. Moreover, just as the inscriptions of Darius are a litany of praise and thanks to Ahura Mazda (God), the inscriptions of Devanampriya Priyadarsi are a litany of praise and thanks -- not to Brahma (God)7 [The earliest information on the Indian Brahmanists' conception of God is given by Megasthenes, q.v. Chapter Two.] but to the Dharma.8 [Olivelle (2012: 174) says, "I propose that in the case of Asoka's civil religion, the place of 'God' is taken by 'Dharma'." However, he then states that "like 'God', Dharma was a vacuous concept into which individuals and groups could read whatever content they desired." This is highly unlikely, as are his and other scholars' arguments in favor of Asoka's view of Dharma as "civil religion". Against it may be mentioned the regular Greek translation of dharma as eusebeia "piety, holiness", which he cites (Olivelle 2012: 175). Interestingly, Dharma is translated into Aramaic once as qsyt' (qassita) 'truth' in the Kandahar II/III Inscription (Ito, 1966), and Clement of Alexandria says that Buddhists (Sramattas) are those "who practiced the truth (ten aletheian askousi)" (Parker 2012: 320). Significantly, 'my Dharma' is translated in the Aramaic inscription from Taxila (Parker 2012: 325n24) as dty 'my data', using the Old Persian word for 'divine law' used by Darius and others for the "Law of God".

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


Image
Environmentalist Protecting Migratory Birds in Northern Iran

The duck test is a form of abductive reasoning. This is its usual expression:
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse arguments that something is not what it appears to be.

-- Duck test, by Wikipedia


Olivelle (2012: 170-171) states flatly, "we can dismiss the early view that Asoka's Dharma was, in fact, the Buddhist Dharma, and we can agree fully with Romila Thapar ... that 'Asoka's Dhamma did not conform to the religious policy of any one of the existing religions of his time'." This claim is predicated upon the belief that the "religions of his time" are in fact well known, but that is not the case. The received view of "the existing religions of ['Asoka's'] time" has hitherto been based exclusively on the Normative Buddhism of Saka-Kushan or later sources, which has been demonstrated to be, in large part, a development of those or later centuries.] This is one of the strongest indications that the ruler's Dharma was, in fact, a form of Early Buddhism, in which the structural place for God is apparent, but it is unoccupied.

It is well known that some of these Persian-style pillars of the Mauryas were left uninscribed. It seems not to have been noticed, however, that those which were inscribed were done in a very curious fashion. Specifically, the pillar inscriptions are not inscribed around the cylindrical columns, as might perhaps be expected, but are instead placed in geographically oriented north, south, east, and west "faces".9 [Hultzsch (1925: xvi, 119-137); e.g., the Delhi-Topra pillar, Edicts I-VI. The so-called Seventh Pillar Edict, most of which is inscribed all around the circumference of the column, is found only on the Delhi-Topra column, and is in this and other respects a glaringly obvious later addition to the authentic synoptic edicts already inscribed on the stone. This is clearest in the rubbings in Hultzsch (1925), but is visible upon careful inspection of available photographs in Sircar (1957: the second plate between pages 24 and 25) and Falk (2006: 216 figure 4, 217 figure 6). Olivelle (2012: 160-161) says that on the Allahabad Pillar, "the inscriptions were carved in a circular manner while the pillar was erect; the same is true with regard to P[illar] E[dict] 7 at [Delhi-]Topra" (i.e., the pillar now in Delhi and known as the Delhi-Topra pillar). Unfortunately, neither the very poor photographs in Falk (2006) nor any posted online allow one to actually see very clearly how the Allahabad Pillar is inscribed, but close examination of the rubbing in Hultzsch (1925: 156) shows that the text does not in fact run circularly all around the column, though it does go partway around (how far is unclear). There is a space at the beginning and end of the lines in the rubbing; which shows. that the lines do not continue in a continuous string the way the "Seventh Pillar Edict" on the Delhi-Topra column uniquely does. Salomon (1998: 139) remarks, "The Allahabad-Kosam pillar contains, in addition to the six principal edicts, two brief additional inscriptions", namely the "Queen's Edict" and "the so-called Schism Edict, addressed to the mahamatras at Kosambi (Kausambi), which refers to the punishment to be inflicted on monks or nuns who cause schisms within the Buddhist samgha." Examination of the rubbing in Hultzsch (1925) of the "Queen's Edict" on the same column clearly shows that it too was not written all the way around it, but in a panel with rather short lines. ] Together it is clear that the pillars were erected first, uninscribed, and that the inscriptions were added later.

The so-called Seventh Pillar Edict on the Delhi-Topra pillar actually mentions the existence of blank pillars. The existence of uninscribed pillars has inexplicably been taken by Hultzsch, and evidently by subsequent scholars, to mean that the Buddhist Inscriptions -- which are overtly Normative Buddhist -- are earlier than the Major Inscriptions. The elaborate theory of Norman (2012) claims, among other things, that the Pillar Edicts were inscribed while horizontal, before erection; he does not mention the uninscribed pillars, nor the fact that such uninscribed pillars are actually mentioned explicitly in the "Seventh Pillar Edict" as still existing when that inscription was added to the Delhi-Topra column, nor that some still exist today. He also claims that the texts of all of the inscriptions were written out on perishable material in the capital, Pataliputra and sent out to the provinces with "cover letters" that were supposedly "not meant to be published", 10 [This is an ad hoc proposal based on speculation; the differences are surely there in many cases because the texts were recast by the inscribers, while some of them are clear forgeries.] despite the fact that Megasthenes visited Pataliputra in 305-304 BC and remarked that the Indians in that country did not know writing, and despite the fact that no "Asokan Inscription" has ever been found there; the written texts were then translated into local dialects, or for the Pillar Edicts, copied verbatim.11 [Norman (2012: 53; 56-57).] While the closeness of the synoptic Pillar Edicts supports Norman's idea of a written exemplar, the synoptic Major Rock Edict inscriptions at least were undoubtedly memorized orally in sections (the "Edicts") and inscribed in the local dialect or language, thus accounting for most variations.

Now we must consider who first erected the pillars, and why, and who ordered some of them to be inscribed.

The absolutely unprecedented, specifically Persian character of the earliest Indian inscriptions,12 [This is obvious and unquestionable. See the excellent, careful overview in Falk (2006: 139-141), which is followed by a careful description of the pillars themselves, their materials, mode of production and erection, etc.] as well as the complete failure of post-Mauryan Indians to erect inscriptions that are even remotely similar to them, as frequently noted by scholars, tells us that their creator must have been impressed by things Persian through firsthand experience. He must have personally seen monumental Persian inscriptions -- which are mainly on cliff faces or stone slabs -- and either read them or heard someone read aloud what they said.13 [If he had travelled from Gandhara to Persepolis in the years before Alexander's invasion, he would have seen many impressive monuments.] It would therefore seem likeliest by far that the pillars themselves were erected, uninscribed, by the dynastic founder Chandragupta (in Greek, Sandracottos), who is known from Greek historical sources to have had direct personal and diplomatic contact of different kinds with the Greeks and Persians, and was undoubtedly influenced strongly by them; but they were inscribed by one of his successors.

Contradictions in the texts themselves indicate that all of the Mauryan inscriptions could not have been erected by the same person,14 [Falk (2006: 58), on the Second Minor Rock Edict; Olivelle (2012: 158).] but it is clear -- and explicit in those very texts -- that all of the genuine Major Inscriptions were in fact erected by one and the same Mauryan ruler, Devanampriya Priyadarsi. It is most plausible, on the basis of the chronology inferrable from the inscriptions' record of contemporaneous Hellenistic rulers' names, and on other historical grounds, that he is to be identified with Chandragupta's [Sandracottus's] son, Amitrochates (according to Greek sources) or Bindusara (according to traditional Indian accounts). He actually proclaimed the authentic edicts of the Major Inscriptions on rocks and pillars and is responsible for the deeds recorded in them. Both Amitrochates ~ Bindusara and his father had close political relations with the Greeks, as we know very well from Greek sources; both are historical and datable, if only somewhat roughly. The contents of these genuine, dated inscriptions are discussed in Chapter Three.

As for the minor monuments henceforth referred to as the "Buddhist Inscriptions", including the Minor Rock Edicts and Minor Pillar Edicts, a casual inspection of the inscriptional evidence and the scholarship on them might indicate that they were inscribed by Chandragupta's grandson Asoka, since the author of the First Minor Rock Edict is explicitly named "Devanampriya Asoka" in two copies of the text.15 [Norman (2012: 41); see also the discussion by Falk (2006: 58).] However, as shown below, they could not in fact have been inscribed until much later.16 [See below on this issue, and for which texts belong to which category.]

Unfortunately, we do not have rich, reliable historical sources for the Mauryas. We have only extremely tenuous information about them -- most of it about "Asoka" -- from very late Buddhist "histories", which are in large part fantasy-filled hagiographies having nothing to do with actual human events in the real world. Moreover, as Max Deeg has argued, not only did the inscriptions remain in public view for centuries, but their script and language remained legible to any literate person through the Kushan period (at least to ca. AD 250). This strongly suggests that the inscriptions influenced the legendary "histories" of Buddhism that began to develop at about that time,17 [Deeg (2009); cf. Salomon (1998: 31).] That would explain why the story of Devanampriya Priyadarsi's conquest of Kalinga, his subsequent remorse, and his turning to the Dharma is all repeated in the Buddhist "histories", though they attribute the events to "Asoka", who is said to be the grandson of Chandragupta.

Despite the deep learning and care many scholars have taken with the texts, some very striking irregularities in some of the inscriptions appear not to have been noticed. Hultzsch, author of the classic monumental edition of the inscriptions, rightly notes that the Seventh Pillar Edict on the Delhi-Topra column is "unique"18 [Hultzsch (1925: xvi).] because unlike all the other Pillar Edicts, which (like the Major Rock Edicts) exist in synoptic copies, it is only found in a single exemplar. Salomon correctly remarks that it is "the longest of all the Asokan edicts. For the most part, it summarizes and restates the contents of the other pillar edicts, and to some extent those of the major rock edicts as well."19 [Salomon (1998: 139).] Hultzsch says nothing at all about the inscription's date except to note. that "the seventh pillar edict at Delhi-Topra was added in the next year" of Asoka's reign after the inscription of the first six Pillar Edicts. 20 [Hultzsch (1925: xlviii).] Norman similarly remarks, "The failure of this edict to reach other cities [than Topra] is one of the great unsolved mysteries of the Asokan administration."21 [Quoted by Olivelle (2012: 180n8).]

Hultzsch's unquestioning acceptance of the "Seventh Pillar Edict" on the Delhi-Topra column is unlike his discussion of the Allahabad-Kosam Pillar, which he says has "four strata of literary records", of which the first consists of the "original inscriptions of Asoka, viz.: (a) the first six edicts of the Delhi-Topra pillar; (b) the so-called 'Queen's edict' ... ; [and] (c) the so-called 'Kausambi edict' ... ". 22 [Hultzsch (1925: xix).] He also mentions, "The Barabar Hill inscriptions record a grant of caves to the Ajlvikas, but it is not absolutely certain whether the donor was identical to Asoka."23 [Hultzsch (1925: (xlixn1).] Near the end of his chapter 4, "Asoka's Conversion", he says, "It must still be noted that the Calcutta-Bairat rock-inscription24 [Formerly also known as the "Bhabra" or "Bhabru" inscription.] or 'letter to the Sarngha' seems to be earlier than all the other rock and pillar edicts. The references to a few Buddhist tracts in this inscription suggest that after his visit to the Samgha, and before starting on tour, he was engaged in studying the sacred literature."25 [Hultzsch (1925: xlvii). These two sentences are more than usually astounding.]

Salomon comments that the unique text of the "Seventh Pillar Edict" is an "important early instance" of an inscription shedding "some light on the complex problems of the formation and history of the various Buddhist canons."26 [Salomon (1998: 138, 241-242).] Although he notes -- as others have before him -- that the Nigali Sagar Inscription and the Lumbini Inscription "are different in content and character from Asoka's other edicts", he ascribes this to the ruler's state of mind (much as is done by Hultzsch and nearly everyone else since). He notes that the former inscription "records the king's visit to the site and his expansion of the stupa of the Buddha Konakamana there", while the latter "celebrates the site as the birthplace of the Buddha and commemorates the king's visit there."27 [Salomon (1998: 140).]

The latter inscriptions thus have been used, and continue to be used, as "proof" of this or that idea about "early" Buddhism, even by careful scholars such as Bareau,28 [Bareau (1995: 216-218). He concludes with another remark about "the surprising rarity of canonical texts which locate the birth of the Blessed One at Lumbini or which mention the Buddha Konakamana", and continues on about the diffusion of the legends recorded on the stones. The accuracy and usefulness of his otherwise insightful article has thus been negatively affected by the lamentable state of the field of Indian epigraphy. The same is true of his even more insightful article on the Buddha's supposed birth in Lumbini (Bareau 1987), q.v. below.] but they have never been examined critically with respect to their dating, authenticity, or practically anything else. All has been accepted on belief right down to the present, and the false ideas embodied in them -- at least as they are currently understood -- have thus insinuated themselves into the publications of scholars whose work is otherwise very thoughtful.

This is essentially the state of the field today, close to a century after Hultzsch's edition of the inscriptions was published. The archaeologist Anton Fuhrer had already been publicly exposed as a forger and dealer in fake antiquities and expelled from his position in 1898,29 [Phelps (2010).] so one might expect Hultzsch -- and the legion of others who have written on the inscriptions since Fuhrer's day -- to have at least mentioned the possibility that one or more of the inscriptions that Fuhrer "discovered" could be forgeries. But nothing of the kind has happened. Recent works on Indian epigraphy say not one word about this scandal, nor about its scholarly implications.30 [Major works on Mauryan period archaeology and Indian epigraphy usually mention Fuhrer but do not cite his works in their bibliographies, with the partial exception of Falk (2006: 25).] Yet even a cursory inspection of the Lumbini and Nigali: Sagar Pillar Inscriptions -- both of which were discovered by Fuhrer, who was purportedly working on them when he was exposed -- shows that the Lumbini Inscription repeats exactly much of the phraseology of the Nigali: Sagar Pillar's text, but unlike the genuine "synoptic" Major Inscriptions, the phrases are not identical or closely parallel. That fact, plus the idea that an already divinized Buddha having been many times "reborn" could go back as far as the third century BC, or that anyone in the vicinity of Lumbini could have been given a Sanskrit epithet in the same period, centuries before Sanskrit is first attested in Indian inscriptions, ought to have at least aroused suspicion. Instead, scholars insist on the authenticity of all of the inscriptions, and also insist that they must all be ascribed to the ruler known from traditional -- very late, fantasy-filled, pious, hagiographical -- "histories", as well as from the Maski and Nittur Inscriptions, as "Asoka".31 [The name Devanampriya Asoka occurs only in the late Buddhist Inscriptions known as the Minor Rock Edicts, specifically the Maski Inscription and the recently discovered Nittur Inscription. According to Sircar (1975), the Gujarra Inscription should be included with them, but it is extremely problematic, and seems to be a crude forgery, as discussed below. The rubbing of the Maski Inscription provided by Hultzsch (1925: 174) is very poor. Hultzsch reads Asok[a]sa 'of Asoka' without comment or explanation of the bracketed "[a]", but in the rubbing the part that includes his Asok[a] is actually written very clearly [[x] [d]eva-na[m]piyasa Asokesa, with the name in an eastern dialect form.] Although the Maski Inscription and the Nittur Inscription are the only ones that support the view that any inscriptions in Mauryan Brahmi script are by a ruler named "Asoka", the text is generally close to the other somewhat synoptic Buddhist Inscriptions, 32 [Hultzsch (1925: 228-229).] so Hultzsch concludes on the entire authorship issue, "Every such doubt is now set to rest by the discovery of the Maski edict, in which the king calls himself Devanampriya Asoka".33 [Hultzsch (1925: xxxi).] But this is exactly the opposite of the logical conclusion: the Maski and Nittur Inscriptions confirm that the texts of the Major Inscriptions (which explicitly and repeatedly say they are by Devanampriya Priyadarsi) on the one hand, and the Buddhist Inscriptions on the other, must have been promulgated by different rulers, and Devanampriya Asoka is of course responsible only for the Buddhist Inscriptions. It is time for Indologists to seriously consider the recent scholarship which suggests that some of the inscriptions are spurious.34 [See now Phelps (2010). Some have objected that the Lumbini pillar itself -- the stone and its preparation -- is unquestionably identical to the physical pillars used in the acknowledged Major Inscriptions. This is certainly the case. However, it is well known that there are a number of blank (uninscribed) pillars identical to pillars used in the Major Inscriptions, and the scholars who first saw the inscription on the Lumbini pillar remarked that it was remarkably clear, as if it had just been inscribed (Phelps 2010). Cf. the suspicious remarks of Schopen about the Lumbini Inscription (2004: 76-77). The inscription is also stunningly short. Even if the pillar was not recently inscribed by Fuhrer, the text itself reveals that it belongs not to the authentic Major Inscriptions of Devanampriya Priyadarsi, but to a much later period, no doubt exactly the period in which the legends about the Buddha's supposed birth in Lumbini were being created, as shown by Bareau (1987), who thus unknowingly -- but brilliantly -- demonstrates the lateness of the Lumbini Inscription. If he had even suspected that the Lumbini Inscription is spurious, his article would have made its case even more effectively than it does, and without the necessity of trying to explain what is patently an impossible historical background, as he actually shows very clearly. However, this topic requires much further specialized study.]

As Hultzsch himself notes, for Devanampriya 'Beloved of the gods', some versions. of the synoptic Major Inscriptions have rajan 'the king', It is thus accepted that Devanampriya is an epithet used as the equivalent of 'the King', or more appropriately, 'His Highness' or 'His Majesty'. As for Priyadarsi 'He who glances amiably', Hultzsch says that its Pali equivalents "occur repeatedly in the Dipavamsa35 [This is one of the most famous of the above-noted Buddhist hagiographical "histories". It is traditionally (and generously) dated to about the fourth century AD.] as equivalents of Asoka, the name of the great Maurya king."36 [Hultzsch (1925: xxx).] However, Hultzsch immediately points out, "A limine, another member of the Maurya dynasty might be meant as well; for, as stated above, the eighth rock-edict shows that the king's predecessors also bore the title Devanampriya, and the Mudrarakshasa applies the epithet Priyadarsana to Chandragupta".37 [Hultzsch (1925: xxx-xxxi).] Moreover, as remarked above, Deeg notes that the inscriptions stood in the open for centuries after their erection, during which time anyone could have read them, so that the above very late literary works cited by Hultzsch, written as much as a millennium after the inscriptions were erected, were undoubtedly based on legends derived at least in part from the selfsame inscriptions. The only solution to this problem is to study the inscriptions without contaminating the data with material deriving from supposed Buddhist "historical" works such as those cited by Hultzsch.

If we set aside the "miscellaneous" inscriptions that have already been shown not to belong with the others,38 [These include the Barabar Hill cave inscriptions and several inscriptions in Mysore State (Hultzsch 1925: xxvi-xxvii, 175-181), which are (or perhaps should be) attributed to Asoka's grandson Dasaratha (Hultzsch 1925: xxviii, 181-182).] as well as the Lumbini and Calcutta-Bairat Inscriptions, which are spurious as Mauryan inscriptions and were inscribed long after the Maurya Dynasty, apparently in the Saka-Kushan period (see below), there would seem to be two distinct sets of inscriptions in Mauryan Brahmi script.

The earlier set consists of the monumental synoptic rock and pillar inscriptions, referred to herein as the "Major Inscriptions", including the "Major Rock Edicts" (Girnar, Kalsi, Shahbazgarhi, Mansehra, Dhauli, Jaugada, Bombay-Sopara) and the "Major Pillar Edicts" (Delhi-Topra I-VI, Delhi-Mirath, Lauriya-Araraj and Lauriya-Nandargarh, Rampurva, Allahabad-Kosam). These all appear to be genuine Mauryan inscriptions, and all are explicitly ascribed in the texts themselves to the same ruler, Devanampriya Priyadarsi.

The other set, referred to henceforth as the "Buddhist Inscriptions", consists of all of the other inscriptions, which are later chronologically (in some cases explicitly), and are overtly Buddhist in content; most are also short and of very poor quality.

The period of the Major Inscriptions is determinable on the basis of explicit information in the texts themselves on Hellenistic historical personages, whose common period of rule is 272-261 BC.39 [Hultzsch (1925: xxxi-xxxvi) discusses this issue carefully and in some detail, but because of his belief that all of the inscriptions are by Asoka, he has ended up tainting the evidence by use of medieval Buddhist literary "histories". The dates given here are based on the most conservative treatment of the Hellenistic references in the inscriptions.] The Buddhist Inscriptions do not contain any foreign chronological references, but they do contain sufficient references to developed Normative Buddhism that they must be dated to one or more much later periods. In any case, there is absolutely no principled way to justify lumping all of the Mauryan Brahmi script inscriptions together as the work of a single author.

If we were to believe Hultzsch and many other scholars, the Dipavamsa, a late Buddhist hagiographical "history", is a reliable historical work that can be trusted, so the author of the Major Inscriptions, who describes his remorse over his bloody war with the Kalingas, must be identified with Asoka. That would mean that the other set, the Later Inscriptions, which are sharply distinct in every respect, must be unidentified as to their author or authors, although unlike the Major Inscriptions they share the feature that they explicitly mention, and in most cases openly promote, Normative Buddhism. Moreover, one of the "Minor Rock Edicts" -- preserved in two apparently genuine inscriptional copies -- is clearly, explicitly said to be by Devanampriya Asoka 'His Majesty Asoka'. Accordingly, "Asoka" is the author of at least some of the later Buddhist Inscriptions, while other Buddhist inscriptions (most notably the Lumbini and Calcutta-Bairat Inscriptions) were evidently composed and erected even later. But in any case, the positive identification of Asoka as the author of the Maski and Nittur "Minor Rock Edict" inscriptions, which are radically different from any of the highly distinctive Major Inscriptions, makes it absolutely certain that "Devanampriya Asoka" cannot after all be the author of the Major Inscriptions, which explicitly and repeatedly say they are by Devanampriya Priyadarsi 'His Majesty Priyadarsi'. Considering the fact that we have absolutely no reliable historical information on "Asoka", and the fact noted by Deeg that the Major Inscriptions stood in open view for centuries after their erection and must have influenced the later writers of the Buddhist "histories" in question, it is most likely that "Asoka" was not in fact a Mauryan ruler. We do not really know when or where he ruled, if he existed at all; we do not actually know that Dasaratha was the grandson of a Mauryan ruler named Asoka; and so on.

In view of the above considerations, it is necessary to reorganize the inscriptions written in early Brahmi script into three groups:

1. The synoptic Major Inscriptions erected by the ruler called Devanampriya Priyadarsi. These include the Major Rock Edicts and the Major Pillar Edicts. (But they exclude the nonsynoptic, later, and clearly spurious "Seventh Pillar Edict", q.v. below in this appendix.) Their contents relevant to the reconstruction of Early Buddhism are discussed in Chapter Three.

2. The Synoptic Buddhist Inscriptions erected by the ruler known simply as Devanampriya, or in two instances (the Maski and Nittur Inscriptions), as Devanampriya Asoka, whose historical identity is unclear. His inscriptions pertain to Normative Buddhism, the mentioned elements of which are not attested to have come into existence until the Saka-Kushan period, over two centuries later. These inscriptions are discussed briefly in the following section.

3. A number of late, mostly spurious inscriptions that scholars have attributed to "Asoka". The most significant of these are the inscriptions explicitly attributed to "Asoka's" grandson Dasaratha; the "Seventh Pillar Edict"; the Lumbini Inscription; the Nigali Sagar Inscription; and the Calcutta-Bairat Inscription. These texts are not usable as sources on religion in India during the Mauryan period and are not further discussed here, with the exception of the "Seventh Pillar Edict", the Lumbini Inscription, and the Calcutta-Bairat Inscription, which have nevertheless been mistakenly used by many scholars as sources on Mauryan period Buddhism. They are discussed below.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 33903
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:59 am

Part 2 of 2

THE SYNOPTIC BUDDHIST INSCRIPTIONS

The second group of inscriptions in Mauryan Brahmi script consists almost entirely40 [The exceptions are the dedications to the Ajivikas, q.v. Falk (2006).] of the synoptic Buddhist Inscriptions.41 [A number of new inscriptional copies of texts belonging to this group have been found since Hultzsch's 1925 edition; see Salomon (1998: 138).] These inscriptions, which mention the Samgha -- the Normative Buddhist term for the organized community of monks -- and give more detail about Buddhism, are all problematic as Devanampriya Priyadarsi inscriptions for a number of other reasons, beginning with the significant, much-overlooked fact that none of them say they are proclaimed by Devanampriya Priyadarsi, but by Devanaampriya or Devanampriya Asoka, as discussed above.

These inscriptions are synoptic versions of one short text42 [As Hultzsch (1925) already recognized.] declaring that the Samgha should not be divided -- thus telling us definitively that sectarian divisions had already happened. But once again their use of the term Samgha to refer to the Buddhists, instead of Sramana, is a clear mark of a much later period, long after the Mauryas, when Buddhism became overwhelmingly monastic in character, namely the Saka-Kushan period.43 [For the linguistic and archaeological evidence, see Beckwith (2014).] These texts thus can only belong to Normative Buddhism.

The texts are also in general quite different in character from the Major Inscriptions, and have already been noted as calling for scholarly caution.44 [Norman (2012: 60), whose discussion mentions a number of points that suggest at least some of the inscriptions are spurious.] Most of the remaining Minor Pillar Inscriptions, including the Kausambi Pillar Edict (on the Allahabad-Kosam Pillar), the Samchi Pillar-Inscription, and the Sarnath Pillar Inscription, as well as the Minor Rock Inscriptions -- the Rupnath Rock Inscription, the Sahasram Rock Inscription, the Bairat Rock Inscription (not to be confused with the Calcutta-Bairat Inscription), the Maski Rock Inscription, and so on -- are versions of the same short text on the progress of the author, Devanampriya (not Devanampriya Priyadarsi) 'His Majesty', as an upasaka 'Buddhist lay worshipper'.45 [For this latter group, see Hultzsch (1925: 228-230).] As noted, the Maski and Nittur Rock Inscriptions give the author's name as Devanampriya Asoka.46 [Written Devanampriya Asokesa; the rest of the line is mostly damaged. Hultzsch (1925: 175) translates it" [A proclamation] of Devanampriya Asoka." The Nittur Inscription also mentions Asoka, as noted above.] Therefore, these later and mostly much cruder Buddhist inscriptions were erected not by Devanampriya Priyadarsi,47 [The Gujarra Inscription, according to the brief account of Falk (2006: 77), has "devanampiyasa piyadasino asake raja", the last two words presumably "miswritten for asoke raja". However, the many problems with this inscription noted by him (Falk 2006: 77), including language, text ("sampe is miswritten for samghe"; "the beginning of this line is completely distorted"; "upa was misread as gha"), palaeography ("dha or dhi ... with missing inner coil"), and presentation ("the letters have not been incised very deeply"), indicate that it is a late, crude forgery by someone who did not know the Mauryan Brahmi script or Prakrit language very well. How could it be an edict by even a minor king, let alone one of the greatest rulers in Indian history? It is certainly not an authentic inscription of Devanampriya Priyadarsi, or for that matter even an authentic inscription of Devanampriya Asoka (whenever he lived). It should be removed from the corpus entirely.] but by Devanampriya Asoka.

Who, then, really was Devanampriya Asoka? The evidence suggests at least two possibilities. One is that he was imagined by the Kushan period Normative Buddhists on the basis of their understanding of the monumental Major Inscriptions erected by the Mauryas -- evidently by Amitrochates ~ Bindusara. "Asoka" was then projected back to the glorious Mauryan period as an ideal for good Kushan rulers to follow. A more likely possibility is that Asoka was a historical ruler of Magadha in the Saka-Kushan period who was strongly pro-Buddhist, and sought to connect his lineage with the great Mauryan Dynasty, whose powerful rulers had left so many impressive monuments, including inscriptions, on the landscape of northern India. At any rate, the inscriptions of this Devanampriya Asoka, the apparent author of some of the Late Inscriptions, simply do not have anything in common with the Major Inscriptions of the Mauryas decreed by Devanampriya Priyadarsi.

This very sketchy and preliminary study of the Buddhist Inscriptions indicates that they are much later than the Major Inscriptions -- evidently centuries later -- and thus do not belong to the Mauryan period and cultural milieu. They must be removed from the corpus of genuine Mauryan inscriptions. However, they are certainly of interest as relatively early monuments from ancient India, which tell us some interesting things about early Normative Buddhism. They deserve study in their own right.

All of the early Indian inscriptions in Mauryan Brahmi script need to be reexamined in detail in specialized studies intended to reveal what the texts actually do tell us, rather than to repeat what scholars have thought the texts should say.

THE SPURIOUS BUDDHIST INSCRIPTIONS

According to the traditional analysis, the single most important putative "Asoka" inscription for the history of Buddhism is the unique48 [Unlike the synoptic "edicts", the text occurs only once, in this inscription.] "Third Minor Rock Edict" found at Bairat, now known as the Calcutta-Bairat Inscription,49 [Also known as the Bhabru Inscription, among other names.] in which "the king of Magadha, Piyadasa" addresses the "Samgha" (community of Buddhist monks) directly, and gives the names of a number of Buddhist sutras, saying, "I desire, Sirs, that many groups of monks and (many) nuns may repeatedly listen to these expositions of the Dharma, and may reflect (on them)."50 [Hultzsch (1925: 174).] The problems with the inscription are many. It begins with the otherwise unattested phrase "The Magadha King Piyadasa",51 [In the rubbing reproduced by Hultzsch, what is visible is [x] piyadasa la[] magadhe, translated by Hultzsch as "the king (laja, dial. for raja) of Magadha, Piyadasi" (Hultzsch 1925: 172-173).] not Devanampriya Priyadarsi (or a Prakrit version of that name). The omission of the title Devanampriya is nothing short of shocking. Moreover, it is the only inscription to even mention Magadha.52 [This is taken by Hultzsch (1925: xxx) as evidence that the author of the Major Inscriptions, Devanampriya Priyadarsi, was a king of Magadha.] It is also undated, unlike the genuine Major Inscriptions, all of which are dated. In the text, the authorial voice declares "reverence and faith in the Buddha, the Dharma, (and) the Samgha".53 [Hultzsch (1925: 173).] This is the only occasion in all of the Mauryan inscriptions where the Triratna 'Three Jewels', the "refuge" formula well known from later devotional Buddhism, is mentioned. Most astonishingly, throughout the text the author repeatedly addresses the Buddhist monks humbly as bhamte, translated by Hultzsch as "reverend sirs". The text also contains a higher percentage of words that are found solely within it (i.e., not also found in some other inscription) than does any other inscription. From beginning to end, the Calcutta-Bairat Inscription is simply incompatible with the undoubtedly genuine Major Inscriptions. It is also evidently incompatible with the other Buddhist inscriptions possibly attributable to a later ruler named Devanampriya Asoka.

However, because the inscription is also the only putative Asokan inscription that mentions Buddhist texts, and even names seven of them explicitly, scholars are loath to remove it from the corpus. It therefore calls for a little more comment.

First, even if the Calcutta-Bairat Inscription really is "old", it is certainly much younger than the genuine inscriptions of Devanampriya Priyadarsi. If it dates to approximately the same epoch as the recently discovered Gandhari documents -- the Saka-Kushan period, from about the late first century BC to the mid-third century AD -- the same period when the Pali Canon, according to tradition, was collected, it should then not be surprising to find that the names of the texts mentioned in the inscription seem to accord with the contents of the latter collections of Normative Buddhist works, even though few, if any, of the texts (of which only the titles are given) can be identified with any certainty.54 [However, it must be borne in mind that the Trilaksana text discussed in Chapter One, though short, is by far the oldest known fragment of Buddhist text. It is thus possible that texts in the Pali Canon and the Gandhari documents that mention the Trilaksana might themselves be older than the other texts in the same corpora.]

Second, as noted above, specialists have pointed out that the script and Prakrit language of the Mauryan inscriptions continued to be used practically unchanged down through the Kushan period,55 [Falk (1993: 328), cited in Deeg (2009: 117). Numerous short donative inscriptions in Brahmi script are dated (or archaeologically datable) to the end of the first millennium BC or first centuries AD, showing that the language and script of the Mauryan inscriptions continued to be used long after the dynasty fell (Michael Willis, p.c., 2012).] and though the style of the script changed somewhat in the following period, it was still legible for any literate person at least as late as the beginning of the Gupta period (fourth century AD),56 [At that time the script underwent substantial changes that soon made older forms of it unreadable.] so the inscriptions undoubtedly influenced the developing legends about the great Buddhist king, Asoka.57 [Deeg (2009: 117).] Thus at least some of the events described in the Major Inscriptions, such as Devanampriya Priyadarsi's conquest of Kalinga, subsequent remorse, and turning to the Dharma, were perfect candidates for ascription to Asoka in the legends. In the absence of any historical source of any kind on Asoka dating to a period close to the events -- none of the datable Major Inscriptions mention Asoka -- it is impossible to rule out this possibility. The late Buddhist inscriptions, such as the Calcutta-Bairat Inscription, may well have been written under the same influence.58 [It is possible that the Maski and Nittur Inscriptions, in which Asoka is mentioned by name, were written at the same time, following the model of the other roughly synoptic Buddhist Inscriptions.]

Third, because the Calcutta-Bairat Inscription only mentions the titles of texts that have been identified -- rather uncertainly in most cases -- with the titles of texts in the Pali Canon, the actual texts referred to may have been quite different, or even totally different, from the presently attested ones. Because the earliest, or highest, possible date for the Pali Canon is in fact the Saka-Kushan period, the Calcutta-Bairat Inscription and the texts it names cannot be much earlier.

The inscription's list of "passages of scripture" that "Priyadarsi, King of Magadha" has selected to be frequently listened to by the monks so that "the True Dharma will be of long duration" is translated by Hultzsch as "the Vinaya-Samukasa, the Aliya-vasas, the Anagata-bhayas, the Munigathas, the Moneya-suta, the Upatisa-pasina, and the Laghulovada which was spoken by the blessed Buddha concerning falsehood."59 [Hultzsch (1925: 173-174). The rubbing reads (with my added punctuation and capitalization), "Vinaya-samukase, Aliya-vasani, Anagata-bhayani, Muni-gatha, Moneyasute, Upatisa-pasine, e ca Laghulovade ...".] Among the texts considered to be identified are the Vinaya-samukasa and the Muni-gatha.

The Vinaya-samukasa has been identified with the Vinaya-samukase 'Innate Principles of the Vinaya', a short text in the Mahavagga of the Pali Canon. After a brief introduction, the Buddha tells the monks what is permitted and what is not.

VINAYA-SAMUKASE

Now at that time uncertainty arose in the monks with regard to this and that item: "Now what is allowed by the Blessed One? What is not allowed?" They told this matter to the Blessed One, (who said):

"Bhikkhus, whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, this is not allowable for you.

"Whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, this is allowable for you.

"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, this is not allowable for you.

"And whatever l have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, this is allowable for you. "60 [Mv. [Mahavagga] VI 40.1. From "That the True Dhamma Might Last a Long Time: Readings Selected by King Asoka", selected and translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Access to Insight, June 7, 2009, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... saro/Asoka .html (punctuation modified to fit the style of the present book).]


Although the Buddha's own speech in this text is structured as a tetralemma, which was fashionable in the fourth and third centuries BC,61 [See Appendix A.] it must also be noted that the tetralemma is a dominant feature of the earliest Madhyamika texts, those by Nagarjuna, who is traditionally dated to approximately the second century AD. But the problems with the inscription are much deeper than this. The Vinaya per se cannot be dated back to the time of the Buddha (as the text intends), nor to the time of Asoka; it cannot be dated even to the Saka-Kushan period. All fully attested Vinaya texts are actually dated, either explicitly or implicitly, to the Gupta period, specifically to the fifth century AD: "In most cases, we can place the vinayas we have securely in time: the Sarvastivada-vinaya that we know was translated into Chinese at the beginning of the fifth century (404-405 C.E.). So were the Vinayas of the Dharmaguptakas ( 408), the Mahisasakas ( 423-424), and the Mahasamghikas (416). The Mulasarvastivada-vinaya was translated into both Chinese and Tibetan still later, and the actual contents of the Pali Vinaya are only knowable from Buddhaghosa's fifth century commentaries."62 [Schopen (2004: 94), who adds, "Although we do not know anything definite about any hypothetical earlier versions of these vinayas, we do know that all of the vinayas as we have them fall squarely into what might unimaginatively be called the Middle Period of Indian Buddhism, the period between the beginning of the Common Era and the year 500 C.E."] As Schopen has shown in many magisterial works, the Vinayas are layered texts, so they undoubtedly contain material earlier than the fifth century, but even the earliest layers of the Vinaya texts cannot be earlier than Normative Buddhism, which is datable to the Saka-Kushan period. It thus would require rather more than the usual amount of credulity to project the ancestors of the cited texts back another half millennium or more to the time of the Buddha.

The Muni-gatha 'Discourses on the Sage' has been identified with the Muni Sutta in the Sutta Nipata. Its emphasis on the Forest-dwelling sage certainly might support an argument for a relatively early date. However, it could also support an argument in favor of identifying the text with early Mahayana, a school of Buddhism thought to be contemporary with Nagarjuna, which also insists on the superiority of the Forest-dwelling sramana.63 [See Boucher (2008). The Muni Sutta reads strikingly like a passage from the Tao Te Ching or the Chuangtzu (or vice versa). It appears that no one has ever done a scholarly comparison of these Indian and Chinese texts.]

Note that the inscription does not mention reading the sutras.

As for other well-known but evidently spurious "Asokan" inscriptions, note that the "Minor Pillar Inscription" at Lumbini not only mentions "Buddha" (as does, otherwise uniquely, the Calcutta-Bairat Inscription), it explicitly calls him Sakyamuni 'the Sage of the Scythians (Sakas)',64 [The Lumbini Inscription, line 3, has Budhe jate Sakyamuni ti "the Buddha Sakyamuni was born here" (Hultzsch 1925: 164).] who it says was born in Lumbini.65 [See the discussion of this and other related issues in Phelps (2008).] The use of the Sanskrit form of his epithet, Sakyamuni, rather than the Prakrit form, Sakamuni, is astounding and otherwise unattested until the late Gandhari documents; that fact alone rules out ascription to such an early period. But it is doubly astounding because this Sanskritism occurs in a text otherwise written completely in Mauryan Prakrit and Brahmi script. What is a Sanskrit form doing there? Sanskrit is not attested in any inscriptions or manuscripts until the Common Era or at most a few decades before it.66 [Bronkhorst (2011: 46, 50), who cites Salomon (1998:86) on the existence of four inscriptions ascribed by some, including Salomon, to the first century BC; otherwise the earliest inscriptions in Sanskrit are from Mathura in the first and second centuries AD (Salomon 1998: 87).] Significantly, the inscription also notes that the village of Lumbini is exempted from tax and has to pay less in kind as well, yet not one of the other Mauryan inscriptions includes such "benefice" information.

It is incredible that an avowedly Buddhist Inscription bestows imperial largesse on a village (though the village of Lumbini has been shown not to have existed yet in Mauryan times) rather than on a Buddhist institution. 67 [I am indebted to M. L. Walter (p.c., 2013) for this observation, which had escaped me; cf. Schopen (2007: 61) and Bronkhorst (2011: 18). For a discussion of some nonreligious functions of later Buddhist monasteries, see Schopen (2006).] Perhaps most telling of all, the inscription is uniquely written in ordinary third person (not royal third person) and is in the past tense. That means the text is narrated by some unknown person and does not even pretend to have been proclaimed by its putative sponsor Devanampriya Priyadarsi, the king who authored the synoptic Major Inscriptions (nor of course by Devanampriya Asoka, who may have authored the synoptic Buddhist Inscriptions). It says that it records events that supposedly happened at some time in the past, but those events have been shown to be fictitious.68 [Bareau (1987).] The inscription is strikingly unlike the unquestionably authentic Major Inscriptions in general, and based on its contents is much later in date than it evidently pretends to be. It is a spurious inscription.69 [The only question now is to determine when it was created -- probably late in the Saka-Kushan period, but see Phelps (2008).]

Finally, the Delhi-Topra pillar includes a good version of the six synoptic Pillar Edicts, which are genuine Major Inscriptions, but it is followed by what is known as the "Seventh Pillar Edict". This is a section that occurs only on this particular monument -- not on any of the six other synoptic Pillar Edict monuments. It is "the longest of all the Asokan edicts. For the most part, it summarizes and restates the contents of the other pillar edicts, and to some extent those of the major rock edicts as well."70 [Salomon (1998: 139).] In fact, as Salomon suggests, it is a hodgepodge of the authentic inscriptions. It seems not to have been observed that such a melange could not have been compiled without someone going from stone to stone to collect passages from different inscriptions, and this presumably must have involved transmission in writing, unlike with the Major Rock Edict inscriptions, which were clearly dictated orally to scribes from each region of India, who then wrote down the texts in their own local dialects -- and in some cases, their own local script or language; knowledge of writing would seem to be required for that, but not actual written texts.71 [Norman (2012: 56) notes that the Major Pillar Edicts, which are dated to a later period of the reign of the king, are in the same dialect and are virtually identical, indicating that they were copied from a written exemplar, but on the following page he shows (unintentionally) that the texts must have been oral. Further study is needed.] For the Delhi-Topra pillar addition, someone made copies of the texts and produced the unique "Seventh Pillar Edict".72 [The bilingual Aramaic and Prakrit (both in Aramaic script) fragment from Kandahar known as Kandahar II or Kandahar III, which is written in an extremely odd fashion (Falk 2006: 246), has been identified as representing a portion of the "Seventh Pillar Edict" (Norman 2012: 43), but strong doubts remain about the reading of the text (Falk 2006: 246). It is also by no means exactly like the "Seventh Pillar Edict", not to speak of the peculiar presentation of text and translation. In fact, it looks like a student exercise. It is very similar to the content of the Taxila Inscription and the two Laghman Inscriptions, both of which are also highly problematic, q.v. Falk's (2006: 253) conclusion: "There is no clear evidence for an Asokan influence on this text [the Taxila Inscription]. Like the two Laghman 'edicts' this text as well could be of a rather profane nature, mentioning Asoka as king just in passing." However, Falk (2006: 241) also says of Kandahar II/III that "Asoka must have ordered to bring his words to the public unchanged regarding their sound and content. Presenting this text in two languages using one script for both is a remarkable thought, aimed at avoiding flaws in the translation." This is an unlikely speculation. Finally, the "Seventh Pillar Edict" shares some of the peculiarities of the other minor inscriptions from Afghanistan. (I.e., they are to be distinguished from the genuine fragments of a Greek translation of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Rock Edicts, found at Kandahar, q.v. Halkias 2014.) C. f. Ito (1996), a study of the Greek and Aramaic bilingual inscription from Kandahar. These texts all await detailed, serious study.]

Why would anyone go to so much trouble? The answer is to be found in the salient new information found in the text itself. It mentions a category of mahamatra officers unmentioned anywhere else,73 [As noted by Senart in "(IA, 18. 305)," according to Hultzsch (1925: 136n5).] saying that they are in charge of the different sects: it names the Samgha 'Buddhists' and the Brahmanas 'Brahmanists', but also (uniquely) the Ajivikas and Nirgranthas (Jains), and "various other sects" who are unnamed.74 [Hultzsch (1925: 136).] Most incredibly, the Buddhists are called the "Samgha" in this section alone, but it is a Normative Buddhist term; the Early Buddhist term is Sramana, attested in the genuine Major Inscriptions. Throughout the rest of the "Seventh Pillar Edict" Buddhists are called Sramanas, as expected in texts copied from genuine Mauryan inscriptions. There can be no doubt that this great pastiche was created for a single purpose: to acquire "grandfathered" legal protection for two sects -- the Ajivikas and Jains -- which were perhaps under pressure by the government of the day. Which government might that have been? One imagines the Kushans, under whom Normative Buddhism developed and flourished.75 [In the total absence of any studies at all on the problems of this text, or any other significant issues involving it, little more can be said at present.]

Yet it is not only the contents of the text that are a problem. It has been accepted as an authentic Mauryan inscription, but no one has even noted that there is anything formally different about it from the other six edicts on the same pillar. At least a few words must therefore be said about this problem.

The "Seventh Pillar Edict" is palaeographically distinct from the text it has been appended to. It is obvious at first glance. The physical differences between the text of the "Seventh Pillar Edict", as compared even to the immediately preceding text of the Sixth Pillar Edict on the East Face, virtually leap out at one. The style of the script,76 [For an obvious example, compare the different shape of the syllable form [x] dhi in the First Pillar Edict (line 6) on the Delhi-Topra column and in the "Seventh Pillar Edict" (lines 13 and 14) on the same column.] the size and spacing of the letters, the poor control over consistency of style from one letter to the next,77 [Note the many shapes of the letter [x] (ja), including some that look like Greek € (e.g., line 26).] and the many hastily written, even scribbled, letters are all remarkable. These characteristics seem not to have been mentioned by the many scholars who have worked on the Mauryan inscriptions.

The text begins as an addition to the synoptic Sixth Pillar Edict, which occupies only part of the East Face "panel". After filling out the available space for text on the East Face, the new text incredibly continues around the pillar, that is, ignoring the four different "faces" already established by the earlier, genuine edicts. This circum-pillar format is unique among all the genuine Mauryan pillar inscriptions.78 [See Note 9 in this appendix for previous scholars' discussion of the circum-pillar format.]

Another remarkable difference with respect to the genuine Major Inscriptions on pillars is that the latter are concerned almost exclusively with Devanampriya Priyadarsi's Dharma, but do not mention either the Sramanas ''Buddhists' or the Brahmanas 'Brahmanists' by name. This is strikingly unlike the Major Inscriptions on rocks, which mention them repeatedly in many of the edicts. In other words, though the Pillar Edicts are all dated later than the Rock Edicts, for some reason (perhaps their brevity), Devanampriya Priyadarsi does not mention the Sramanas or the Brahmanas in them. The "Seventh Pillar Edict" is thus unique in that it does mention the Buddhists (Sramanas) and Brahmanists (Brahmanas) by name, but the reoccurrence of the names in what claims to be the last of Devanampriya Priyadarsi's edicts suggests that the text is not just spurious, it is probably a deliberate forgery. This conclusion is further supported by the above-noted unique passage in the inscription in which the Buddhists are referred to as the "Samgha". This term occurs in the later Buddhist Inscriptions too; but it is problematic because it is otherwise unknown before well into the Saka-Kushan period.79 [This is one of the many reasons for dating all of the Buddhist Inscriptions to the Saka-Kushan period at the earliest.]

The one really significant thing the text does is to add the claim that Devanampriya Priyadarsi supported not only the Buddhists and the Brahmanists but also the Ajivikas and Jains. However, all of the Jain holy texts are uncontestedly very late (long after the Mauryan period). The very mention of the sect in the same breath as the others is alone sufficient to cast severe doubt on the text's authenticity.80 [See the discussion in the Preface.]

The "Seventh Pillar Edict" claims that it was inscribed when Devanampriya Priyadarsi had been enthroned for twenty-seven years; that is, only one year after the preceding text (the sixth of the synoptic Pillar Edicts), which says it was inscribed when Devanampriya Priyadarsi had been enthroned for twenty-six years. The "Seventh Pillar Edict" text consists of passages taken from many of the Major Inscriptions, both Rock and Pillar Edicts, in which the points mentioned are typically dated to one or another year after the ruler's coronation, but in the "Seventh Pillar Edict" the events are effectively dated to the same year. Most puzzling of all, why would the king add such an evidently important edict to only a single one of the otherwise completely synoptic pillar inscriptions?81 [Cf. Norman (2012).]

Perhaps even more damning is the fact that in the text itself the very same passages are often repeated verbatim, sometimes (as near the beginning) immediately after they have just been stated, like mechanical dittoisms. Repetition is a known feature of Indian literary texts, but the way it occurs in the "Seventh Pillar Edict" is not attested in the authentic Major Inscriptions. Moreover, as Olivelle has noted, the text repeats the standard opening formula or "introductory refrain" many times; that is, "King Priyadarsin, Beloved of the Gods, says"82 [Olivelle (2012: 166), Norman (2012: 45).] is repeated verbatim nine times, with an additional shorter tenth repetition. "In all of the other edicts this refrain occurs only once and at the beginning. Such repetitions of the refrain which state that these are the words of the king are found in Persian inscriptions. However, this is quite unusual for Asoka."83 [Olivelle (2012: 180n8).] In fact, this arrangement betrays the actual author's misunderstanding of the division of the authentic Major Inscriptions into "Edicts", and his or her consequent false imitation of them using repetitions of the Edict -- initial formula throughout the text in an attempt to duplicate the appearance of the authentic full, multi" "Edict" inscriptions on rocks and pillars.

In short, based on its arrangement, palaeography, style, and contents, the "Seventh Pillar Edict" cannot be accepted as a genuine inscription of Devanampriya Priyadarsi. The text was added to the pillar much later than it claims and is an obvious forgery from a later historical period. These factors require that the "Seventh Pillar Edict" be removed from the corpus of authentic inscriptions of Devanampriya Priyadarsi.

The Calcutta-Bairat Inscription, the Lumbini Inscription, and the "Seventh Pillar Edict" of the Delhi-Topra pillar thus do not belong with either the authentic Major Inscriptions of Devanampriya Priyadarsi or the possibly authentic inscriptions of Devanampriya Asoka.84 [he next task is for scholars to study the spurious inscriptions to see when exactly each was inscribed, and in some cases why, so as to be able to attribute the information in them to approximately correct historical periods. See also Endnote xiv.] xiv [After the present book was already in page proofs, I learned (courtesy of Michael L. Walter) of the existence of a book on spurious Achaemenid inscriptions, a topic of direct relevance to this Appendix. I therefore take advantage of the available space on this page to give the reference: Schmitt, Rudiger 2007. Pseudoaltpersische Inschriften: Inschriftenfalschungen und moderne Nachbildungen in altpersischer Keilschrift. Vienna: Osterreichisthen Akademie der Wissenschaften.]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 33903
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:21 am

Diodotus I
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 9/6/21

That the history of Asoka matches that of Diodotus I line by line can only imply that they were one and the same person....

The Parthian Prince An-shih-kao, who dedicated his life to the spread of Buddhism, is clearly Diodotus...

Asoka does not refer to Diodotus because he was Diodotus himself...

Historians have denied Diodotus his true place in world history.

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




Diodotus became Seleucid satrap (governor) of Bactria during Antiochus II's reign, thus about a generation after the original establishment of Seleucid control over the region .... Archaeological evidence for the period comes largely from excavations of the city of Ai-Khanoum, where this period saw the expansion of irrigation networks, the construction and expansion of civic buildings, and some military activity...

At some point, Diodotus seceded from the Seleucid empire, establishing his realm as an independent kingdom, known in modern scholarship as the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom. The event is mentioned briefly by the Roman historian Justin:
Diodotus, the governor of the thousand cities of Bactria, defected and proclaimed himself king; all the other people of the Orient followed his example and seceded from the Macedonians [i.e. the Seleucids].

— Justin Epitome of Pompeius Trogus 41.4...

The limited archaeological evidence reveals no signs of discontinuity or destruction in this period. The transition from Seleucid rule to independence thus seems to have been accomplished peacefully....

The literary sources stress the prosperity of the new kingdom. Justin calls it "the extremely prosperous empire of the thousand cities of Bactria.", while the geographer Strabo says:
The Greeks who caused Bactria to revolt grew so powerful on account of the fertility of the country that they became masters, not only of Ariana, but also of India, as Apollodorus of Artemita says: and more tribes were subdued by them than by Alexander... Their cities were Bactra (also called Zariaspa, through which flows a river bearing the same name and emptying into the Oxus), and Darapsa, and several others.

— Strabo Geography 11.11.1

[A]rchaeological evidence makes clear that goods and people continued to move between Bactria and the Seleucid realm.

-- Diodotus I, by Wikipedia


Image
Diodotus I
Basileus
Gold coin of Diodotus c. 245 BC. The reverse legend reads: "ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ" – "(of) King Diodotos". Cabinet des Medailles, Paris.
King of Bactria
Reign: c. 255 or 245 BC – c. 235 BC
Reign: c. 268 – c. 232 BCE

-- Ashoka, by Wikipedia

Predecessor: Position Established
Successor: Diodotus II
Born: c. 300 BC, Bactria
Died: 235 BC, Balkh, Bactrian Kingdom
Spouse: Apama
Issue: Diodotus II; Laodice (mother of Eucratides the Great)[1]
Dynasty: Diodotid
Father: Diodotus
Mother: unknown Bactrian or Sogdian noblewoman [2]

Diodotus I Soter (Greek: Διόδοτος Σωτήρ, Diodotos Sōtḗr; c. 315-300 BC – c. 235 BC), was the first Hellenistic king of Bactria. Diodotus became independent of the Seleucid empire around 255 BC, and established the Diodotid Bactrian Kingdom, which endured in various forms until the beginning of the first century AD. In around 250 BC Diodotus repelled a Parthian invasion of Bactria by Arsaces, but little is known about this war, except that it resulted in a peace treaty, favourable to Diodotus, and a possible alliance was formed. He also minted an extensive coinage and administered a powerful and prosperous new kingdom. He died around 235 BC (aged 80-65) of likely natural causes and was succeeded by his son, Diodotus II.[3][4]

His rule was recounted by Apollodorus of Artemita in the Parthian History, but this text is lost, and surviving literary sources only mention him in passing.
[5] Thus, most details of Diodotus' life and career have to be reconstructed from numismatics and brief mentions by ancient writers such as Justin.[6]

Background and satrapy

Image
Map of major sites in Bactria.

Diodotus was born between 315-300 BC, likely to parents established as nobles in Bactria. His father (also Diodotus) was believed to have been a dignitary and Diadochi of Alexander the Great, awarded land in Bactria.[7]

The region of Bactria, which encompassed the Oxus river Valley in modern Afghanistan and Tajikistan, was conquered by Alexander between 329 and 327 BC and he settled a number of his veterans in the region. In the wars which followed Alexander's death in 323 BC, the region was largely left to its own devices, but it was incorporated in the Seleucid empire by Seleucus I between 308 and 305 BC, along with the rest of the territories that Alexander had conquered in Iran and Central Asia. Seleucus entrusted the region to his son and co-regent, Antiochus I, around 295 BC. Between 295 and 281 BC, Antiochus I established firm Seleucid control over the region. The region was divided into a number of satrapies (provinces), of which Bactria was one. Antiochus founded or refounded a number of cities on the Greek model in the region and he opened a number of mints to produce coinage on the Attic weight standard. After Antiochus I succeeded his father as ruler of the Seleucid empire in 281 BC, he entrusted the east to his own son, Antiochus II who remained in this position until he in turn succeeded to the throne in 261 BC.[8]

Diodotus became Seleucid satrap (governor) of Bactria during Antiochus II's reign, thus about a generation after the original establishment of Seleucid control over the region.
The Babylonian Astronomical Diaries record that an unnamed Bactrian satrap sent a herd of twenty war elephants to Babylon at the beginning of 273 BC to join the Seleucid forces fighting against Ptolemaic Egypt in the First Syrian War.[9] This satrap may have been Diodotus, or a predecessor.[10] Archaeological evidence for the period comes largely from excavations of the city of Ai-Khanoum, where this period saw the expansion of irrigation networks, the construction and expansion of civic buildings, and some military activity, probably raiding by nomads from the Central Asian steppe. As satrap, Diodotus was probably involved in these matters, though the specifics are not recoverable.[11]

Secession from the Seleucid realm

At some point, Diodotus seceded from the Seleucid empire, establishing his realm as an independent kingdom, known in modern scholarship as the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom. The event is mentioned briefly by the Roman historian Justin:

Diodotus,[12] the governor of the thousand cities of Bactria, defected and proclaimed himself king; all the other people of the Orient followed his example and seceded from the Macedonians [i.e. the Seleucids].

— Justin Epitome of Pompeius Trogus 41.4


The date of this event is unclear. The literary evidence is as follows:

• Justin says that the rebellion occurred 'around the same time' as the Parni conquest of Parthia from the Seleucid realm, but his dating of this event is confused—he places it in 256 BC, but during the reign of Seleucus II (246-225 BC).[13]
• Strabo further claims that Arsaces, the leader of the Parni, had been based in Bactria before the conquest. He says that Diodotus drove Arsaces out of Bactria and maintained hostilities against the Parni.[14]
• Ammianus Marcellinus places the Parthian rebellion in the reign of a Seleucus (II?).[15]
• Arrian's lost Parthian History seems to have claimed that the Seleucid satrap who was overthrown by the Parthians was appointed to that position by Antiochus II.[16]
• Appian states that the Parthian rebellion took place in 246 BC, during the Third Syrian War, in the wake of Ptolemy III's conquest of Seleucid Syria and Babylon.[17] The Adulis inscription set up by Ptolemy III to celebrate this event claims that Bactria was among Ptolemy's conquests, which is hyperbole but might indicate that Bactria had been part of the Seleucid empire up to this point.[18]

Different scholars have argued for a 'High Chronology' which places Diodotus' independence around 255 BC in the reign of Antiochus II, or a 'Low Chronology' which dates the secession around 245 BC at the beginning of the reign of Seleucus II.[19] Several scholars have expressed pessimism about the possibility of resolving this debate with the available evidence. Frank Holt argues that the secession should be seen as a gradual process in which Diodotus and other eastern Seleucid satraps aggregated ever more autonomy, rather than a single event. In his opinion, the process probably began in the 250s BC and was completed in the reign of Seleucus II.[20] By contrast, Jens Jakobssen argues that Diodotus assumed independence suddenly in 246 or 245 BC, in the confusion of the Third Syrian War, during which it briefly appeared that Ptolemy III had conquered the Seleucid core territories of Syria and Mesopotamia.[21]

The limited archaeological evidence reveals no signs of discontinuity or destruction in this period. The transition from Seleucid rule to independence thus seems to have been accomplished peacefully.[18] Coins of Antiochus I were over sixty times more common than those of Antiochus II in the excavations at Ai Khanoum, which might indicate that Bactria shifted out of the Seleucid orbit early in Antiochus II's reign, or that Antiochus I's coinage continued to be minted posthumously.[22][23]

Image
Possible Bactrian satrapal capitals

Whether gradual or quick, the culmination of the process was apparently Diodotus' proclamation of himself as king. He divided the territories under his control into a number of satrapies, each with its own satrap. Two of these satrapies, Aspionus and Turiva (perhaps Tapuria) were established on the border with Parthia.[24] Archaeologists have identified a number of other settlements which might be other satrapal capitals, including Emshi Tepe [de] in Sar-e Pol, Dalverzin Tepe in the Surxondaryo river valley, and Kobadian in the Kofarnihon river valley. It is unclear whether Diodotus based himself and his main mint at Ai-Khanoum or Bactra.[25]

The literary sources stress the prosperity of the new kingdom. Justin calls it "the extremely prosperous empire of the thousand cities of Bactria.",[26] while the geographer Strabo says:

The Greeks who caused Bactria to revolt grew so powerful on account of the fertility of the country that they became masters, not only of Ariana, but also of India, as Apollodorus of Artemita says: and more tribes were subdued by them than by Alexander... Their cities were Bactra (also called Zariaspa, through which flows a river bearing the same name and emptying into the Oxus), and Darapsa, and several others.

— Strabo Geography 11.11.1


Diodotus continued to be hostile to the Parthians for the rest of his reign. Justin emphasises Arsaces' precarious position, opposed by the Seleucids to his west and Diodotus to the east—he is unclear about whether this opposition was co-ordinated.[13] Before archaeological evidence became available, it was generally assumed that the Parni conquest of Parthia had decisively cut Bactria off from contact with Seleucid authority and Greek culture. However, archaeological evidence makes clear that goods and people continued to move between Bactria and the Seleucid realm.

Diodotus died during the reign of Seleucus II, sometime around 235 BC, probably of natural causes. He was succeeded by his son Diodotus II.[27] The new king concluded a peace with the Parthians and supported Arsaces when Seleucus II attacked him around 228 BC.[13] Diodotus II was subsequently killed by an usurper, Euthydemus, who founded the Euthydemid dynasty.[28][29]


Euthydemus I (Greek: Εὐθύδημος, Euthydemos) c. 260 BC – 200/195 BC) was a Greco-Bactrian king and founder of the Euthydemid dynasty. He is thought to have originally been a governor of Sogdia, who seized the throne by force from Diodotus II in 224 BC. Literary sources, notably Polybius, record how he and his son Demetrius resisted an invasion by the Seleucid king Antiochus III from 209 to 206 BC. Euthydemus expanded the Bactrian territory into Sogdia, constructed several fortresses, including the Wall of Darbent,[2] and issued a very substantial coinage.

-- Euthydemus I, by Wikipedia


Coinage

Image
Gold Stater of Diodotus I from 'Series A', issue 7. Obverse: Diademed head of Diodotos I, facing right. Reverse: Zeus advancing left, holding thunderbolt in right hand, aegis draped over extended left arm, Ν control-mark at left, eagle at his feet standing left, Ancient Greek: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ('Of King Antiochus')

Before Diodotus came to power, there was already a mint in Bactria based at Ai-Khanoum[30] or at Bactra,[31] which minted royal coinage in the name of the Seleucid sovereign, with the reigning Seleucid king's portrait on the obverse and an image of Apollo, the Seleucid patron deity, sitting on an omphalus. As satrap, Diodotus continued to issue these coins, in the name of Antiochus II. This included gold staters, silver tetradrachms, drachms, and hemidrachms, and some bronze coins. None of them seem to have been issued in great quantity.[32]

On Frank Holt's interpretation, Diodotus introduced a new coinage while still satrap, which consisted of a large number of silver tetradrachms and, later, a small number of gold staters. These coins have the head of a male figure on the obverse, presumably Diodotus himself, shown wearing the diadem—a band of cloth wrapped around the head, with two strips hanging down the back, which had been the standard symbol of Hellenistic kingship since the time of Alexander the Great. The image seems to gradually age over time, suggesting that it was intended as a realistic portrait of Diodotus. The reverse of these coins abandoned the Seleucid god Apollo in favour of a depiction of Zeus preparing to throw his thunderbolt. The choice of Zeus may have been intended as a reference to Diodotus himself whose name meant 'Gift of Zeus' in Greek. Alternatively, it may look back to early coinage struck by Seleucus I, from which the reverse image is taken. The legend on the reverse of these coins still reads Ancient Greek: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ('Of King Antiochus'). The coinage thus clearly proclaimed Diodotus' authority, but retained some ambiguity about the extent of his independence from the Seleucids.[32] An alternative interpretation advanced by Jens Jakobsson is that this is the coinage of a separate king Antiochus Nicator, whom he interprets as a younger son of grandson of Diodotus, and whose rule he would place around the 220s BC.[33]

Towards the end of this series, a small wreath appears on the reverse to the left of Zeus. The wreath was a Greek symbol of victory. Frank Holt suggests that it commemorated a victory over the Parthians and that this victory was also the source of Diodotus' epithet soter (saviour). Other Hellenistic kings, such as Antiochus I Soter and Attalus I Soter of Pergamum took this title to commemorate victories over existential barbarian threats. Diodotus may have done the same. This may further have been the occasion of Diodotus I's assumption of the royal title of king (basileus)—as a similar victory was for Attalus I.[32]

The date at which this coinage began is not clear. Frank Holt suggests it was around 250 BC. The coinage seems to have been minted simultaneously at two mints—one with a more aged portrait ('Series A') and the other with a younger portrait ('Series C and E'). The mint of 'Series A & C' is generally identified with the Ai-Khanoum/Bactra mint, that of 'Series E' has not been localised. Holt proposes that the younger portrait depicts Diodotus II, perhaps junior co-regent with Diodotus I. After a break, both mints produce coins with the younger portrait and with the legend now reading Ancient Greek: ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ ('Of Diodotus', Series D and F). Holt suggests that this break marks the death of Diodotus I and accession of Diodotus II.[32]

A few tetradrachm coins depicting Diodotus I in a more 'idealising' guise were issued late in Diodotus II's reign ('Series B'). Diodotus appears also on coins struck in his memory by the later Graeco-Bactrian kings Agathocles and Antimachus. These coins imitate the original design of the tetradrachms issued by Diodotus I, but with a legend on the obverse identifying the king as Ancient Greek: ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ('Of Diodotus Soter').[32]

Diodotus also issued a bronze coinage ('Series G'). This coinage consisted of two denominations: a 'double' (c. 8.4 grammes, 20-24 millimetres in diameter) and a 'single' (4.2 g, 14–18 mm)—possibly worth 1/48th of a silver drachm.[34] All denominations bore the head of Hermes wearing a petasus hat on the obverse, and two caducei (winged staffs, an attribute of Hermes) crossing one another on the reverse, with a legend reading Ancient Greek: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ('Of King Antiochus'). There is a similar break to the silver and gold coins, after which the bronzes are issued with the legend Ancient Greek: ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ ('Of Diodotus', 'Series H'). These bronze coins were found in very large numbers in the excavations of Ai-Khanoum.[35]

Issue

The only attested relative of Diodotus I is his son and successor, Diodotus II. William Woodthorpe Tarn interpreted later Bactrian coinage as indicating that Diodotos had a daughter who married Euthydemus, was involved in the assassination of Diodotus and usurpation of the throne, and then became Queen regent until her son, Demetrius I ascended to the throne.[36] There is no explicit evidence for this daughter's existence and the speculative nature of Tarn's genealogical reconstructions has been criticised in subsequent scholarship.[37][38]

References

1. https://www.academia.edu/23031604/Bactr ... an_Kingdom. Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. https://www.academia.edu/23031604/Bactr ... an_Kingdom. Missing or empty |title= (help)
3. "Strabo, Geography, Book 11, chapter 11, section 1". http://www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
4. Justin XLI, paragraph 1
5. Holt 1999, pp. 55–57
6. Justin XLI, paragraph 4
7. Bopearachchi, O. (2005). "La politique mone'taire de la Bactriane sous les Se'leucides". In Chankowski, V.; Duyrat, Frédérique (eds.). Le roi et l'économie: autonomies locales et structures royales dans l'économie de l'empire séleucide : actes des rencontres de Lille, 23 juin 2003, et d'Orléans, 29-30 janvier 2004. pp. 44–49.
8. Holt 1999, pp. 24–29 & 37–47
9. Astronomical Diaries I, p. 345, No. –273B ‘Rev. 30’- 32’
10. First proposed by MacDonald, George (1922). "The Hellenistic Kingdoms of Syria, Bactira, and Parthia". In Rapson, E. J. (ed.). The Cambridge History of India: Volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 393.. Holt 1999, p. 51 expresses great scepticism.
11. Holt 1999, pp. 54–55
12. Justin's text actually reads 'Theodotus'
13. Justin, Epitome of Pompeius Trogus 41.4
14. Strabo 11.9.3
15. Ammianus Marcellinus 23.6.2-3
16. Arrian FGrH F30a
17. Appian Syriaca 65
18. Holt 1999, pp. 58–60
19. Musti 1986
20. Holt 1999, pp. 63–64
21. Jakobsson 2021.
22. Kritt 2001, pp. 23-26.
23. Jakobsson 2021, pp. 502-503.
24. Strabo 11.11.2
25. Bactra: Bopearachchi 2005
26. Justin, 41.1
27. Holt 1999, p. 62
28. Polybius 11.34.2
29. Holt 1999, p. 64
30. Kritt, Brian (1996). Seleucid Coins of Bactria. Lancaster: CNG.
31. Bopearachchi 2005.
32. Holt 1999, pp. 87–101
33. Jakobsson 2020.
34. Cunningham, Alexander (1884). Coins of ALexander's Successors in the East (Bactria, Ariana, and India). London. pp. 305–337.
35. Holt 1999, pp. 107–125
36. Tarn, William Woodthorpe (2010-06-24). The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge University Press. p. 73. ISBN 9781108009416.
37. Lerner, 1999 & 56-59.
38. Holt 1999, p. 68-69

Bibliography

• Bopearachchi, O. (2005). "La politique monétaire de la Bactriane sous les Séleucides". In Chankowski, V.; Duyrat, Frédérique (eds.). Le roi et l'économie: autonomies locales et structures royales dans l'économie de l'empire séleucide : actes des rencontres de Lille, 23 juin 2003, et d'Orléans, 29-30 janvier 2004. pp. 349–69.
• Holt, Frank L. (1999). Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0520211405.
• Jakobsson, Jens (2021). "Dating Bactria's Independence to 246/5 BC?". In Mairs, Rachel (ed.). The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek world. Abingdon, Oxon. pp. 499–509. ISBN 9781138090699.
• Kritt, Brian (201). Dynastic Transitions in the Coinage of Bactria. Lancaster: CNG.
• Lerner, Jeffrey D. (1999). The impact of Seleucid decline on the eastern Iranian plateau : the foundations of Arsacid Parthia and Graeco-Bactria. Stuttgart: Steiner. ISBN 3515074171.
• Musti, Domenico (1986). "The Date of the Secession of Parthia from the Seleucid Kingdom". In Walbank, F. W.; Astin, A. E.; Frederiksen, M. W.; Ogilvie, R. M. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 7, Part 1: The Hellenistic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 220–221. ISBN 9781139054348.

External links

• Coins of Diodotus

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

Euthydemus I
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 12/14/21

Image
Euthydemus I
Basileus
Coin of Euthydemus
King of Bactria
Reign: ca. 230–195 BC
Predecessor: Diodotus II
Successor: Demetrius I
Born: c. 260 BC, Ionia[1]
Died: 195 / 190 BC, Bactria
Issue: Demetrius I; Pantaleon; Antimachus; Euthydemus II
Dynasty: Euthydemid

Euthydemus I (Greek: Εὐθύδημος, Euthydemos) c. 260 BC – 200/195 BC) was a Greco-Bactrian king and founder of the Euthydemid dynasty. He is thought to have originally been a governor of Sogdia, who seized the throne by force from Diodotus II in 224 BC. Literary sources, notably Polybius, record how he and his son Demetrius resisted an invasion by the Seleucid king Antiochus III from 209 to 206 BC. Euthydemus expanded the Bactrian territory into Sogdia, constructed several fortresses, including the Wall of Darbent,[2] and issued a very substantial coinage.

Biography

Euthydemus was a Greek from one of the Magnesias in Ionia,[3] though it is uncertain from which one (Magnesia on the Maeander or Magnesia ad Sipylum) and he was the father of Demetrius I, according to Strabo and Polybius.[4][5][1] William Woodthorpe Tarn proposed that Euthydemus was the son of a Greek general called Antimachus or Apollodotus, born c. 295 BC, whom he considered to be the son of Sophytes, and that he married a sister of the Greco-Bactrian king Diodotus II.[6] However, there is no explicit evidence for these links or even for the existence of the sister of Diodotos and Tarn's genealogical hypotheses are no longer generally accepted.[7][8]

War with the Seleucid Empire

Image
Map of Bactria during the Hellenistic Age

Little is known of his reign until 208 BC when he was attacked by Antiochus III the Great, whom he tried in vain to resist on the shores of the river Arius (Battle of the Arius), the modern Herirud. Although he commanded 10,000 horsemen, Euthydemus initially lost a battle on the Arius [5] and had to retreat. He then successfully resisted a three-year siege in the fortified city of Bactra, before Antiochus finally decided to recognize the new ruler, and to offer one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son Demetrius around 206 BC.[5] As part of the peace treaty, Antiochus was given Indian war elephants by Euthydemus.[9]

For Euthydemus himself was a native of Magnesia, and he now, in defending himself to Teleas, said that Antiochus was not justified in attempting to deprive him of his kingdom, as he himself had never revolted against the king, but after others had revolted he had possessed himself of the throne of Bactria by destroying their descendants. (...) finally Euthydemus sent off his son Demetrius to ratify the agreement. Antiochus, on receiving the young man and judging him from his appearance, conversation, and dignity of bearing to be worthy of royal rank, in the first place promised to give him one of his daughters in marriage and next gave permission to his father to style himself king

— Polybius, 11.34, 2 [1]


Polybius also relates that Euthydemus negotiated peace with Antiochus III by suggesting that he deserved credit for overthrowing the descendants of the original rebel Diodotus, and that he was protecting Central Asia from nomadic invasions thanks to his defensive efforts.

The war lasted altogether three years and after the Seleucid army left, the kingdom seems to have recovered quickly from the assault. The death of Euthydemus has been roughly estimated to 200 BC or perhaps 195 BC. He was succeeded by Demetrius, who went on to invade northwestern regions of South Asia.

Conflict with the nomads

Polybius claims that Euthydemus justified his kingship during his peace negotiations with Antiochus III by reference to the threat of attack by nomads on the Central Asian steppe:

"...[he said that] if [Antiochus] did not yield to this demand, neither of them would be safe: seeing that great hoards of Nomads were close at hand, who were a danger to both; and that if they admitted them into the country, it would certainly be utterly barbarised." (Polybius, 11.34).


Archaeological evidence from coin finds shows that Euthydemus' reign saw extensive activity at fortresses in northwestern Bactria (the modern Surkhan Darya region of Uzbekistan), especially in the Gissar and Köýtendag mountains. The Seleucid fortress at Uzundara was expanded and large numbers of Euthydemus' bronze coins have been found there, as was as hundreds of arrowheads and other remains indicating a violent assault.[10] Coin finds also seem to indicate that Euthydemus was responsible for the first construction of the Derbent Wall, otherwise known as the "Iron Gates", a 1.6-1.7 km long stone wall with towers and a central fortress guarding a key pass.[11] Landislav Stančo tentatively links the archaeological evidence with the nomad threat.[12] However, Stančo also notes that Derbent wall seems to have been designed not to defend against an attack from Sogdia to the northwest, but from Bactria to the southeast. Hundreds of arrowheads also seem to indicate an attack on the wall from the southeast. Stančo proposes that Euthydemus was originally based in Sogdia and built the fortifications to protect himself from Bactria, before seizing control of the latter.[13]

Kuliab inscription

Image
Section of the Kulaib inscription

In an inscription found in the Kuliab area of Tajikistan, northeastern Greco-Bactria, and dated to 200-195 BC,[14] a Greek by the name of Heliodotos, dedicating an altar to Hestia, mentions Euthydemus as the greatest of all kings, and his son Demetrius I.[15]

This fragrant altar to you, Hestia, most honoured among the gods, Heliodotus established in the grove of Zeus with its fair trees, furnishing it with libations and burnt-offerings, so that you may graciously preserve free from care, together with divine good fortune, Euthydemus, greatest of all kings and his outstanding son Demetrius, renowned for fine victories[16][17]


This is a further indication, alongside the passages from Polybius, that Euthydemus had made his son Demetrius a junior partner in his rule during his lifetime. The reference to Demetrius as a "glorious conqueror" might refer to a specific victory, in the conflict with Antiochus III[18] or in India, or look forward to future victories.[16]

Coinage

Image
Coin of Euthydemus, 'youthful' portrait (type 1).

Image
Coin of Euthydemus, 'middle-aged' portrait (type 3).

Image
Coin of Euthydemus, 'aged' portrait (type 4).

Image
Bronze coin of Euthydemus

Image
Barbaric copy of a coin of Euthydemus from the region of Sogdiana.

Image
'Pedigree' coin of Agathocles, depicting 'Euthydemus Theos' ('the God')

Euthydemus minted coins in gold, silver and bronze at two mints, known as 'Mint A' and 'Mint B'. He produced significantly more coins than any of his successors and was the last Greco-Bactrian coinage to include gold denominations until the time of Eucratides I (ca. 170-145 BC). Euthydemus' gold and silver issues are all minted on the Attic weight standard with a tetradrachm of ca. 16.13 g and all have the same basic design. On the obverse, his face is depicted in profile, clean-shaven, with unruly hair, and a diadem - this iconography is typical of Hellenistic kings, ultimately deriving from depictions of Alexander the Great. The reverse shows Heracles, naked, seated on a rock, resting his club on a neighbouring rock or on his knee, with a legend reading ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΕΥΘΥΔΗΜΟΥ ('of King Euthydemos').[19] Heracles was apparently a popular deity in Bactria, associated with Alexander the Great, but this reverse type is very similar to coins minted by the Seleucids in western Asia Minor, near Euthydemus' home city of Magnesia.[18][20] Heracles continues to appear on the coinage of Euthydemus' immediate successors, Demetrius and Euthydemus II.

There are four distinct versions of the obverse portrait, presumably reflecting different models given to the die engravers. The first of these is an 'idealising' portrait, depicting him as a young or middle-aged man, with very large eyes, an arching eyebrow, pointed nose and protruding chin, the diadem is very broad. The overall appearance is very similar to images of Diodotus I on his coinage.[21][22] The second shows him with a tall, large face with heavier jowls; his eye is smaller and the diadem is much narrower.[21][22] The third portrait is similar, but with the hair above his forehead stylised as a series of semicircles. Finally, in the fourth portrait style, Euthydemus is portrayed as a visibly aged man with very large jowls; his hair also interacts with the diadem in a more natural way.[21][22] Portrait type 1 is the earliest and portrait type 4 is the latest and these coins have often been interpreted as showing Euthydemus aging over the course of a long reign. However, Simon Glenn argues that the types instead represent a shift from 'idealising' portraiture to 'naturalising', pointing out that distinctions of age in the first three types are highly subjective.[22] This shift to verism represents a substantial divergence from the usual iconography of Hellenistic kings, whose coinage usually showed them in a youthful, idealised guise, regardless of their age.[19] Portrait type 4 has been compared with a Roman-period bust in the Torlonia Collection, which was accordingly identified by Jan Six in 1894 as a bust of Euthydemus, known as the "Torlonia Euthydemus." This identification has been contested by R. R. R. Smith, who identifies the bust as a general of the Roman republic.[23]

Relative chronology

Like the earlier Diodotid coinage and that of Euthydemus' successors, monograms and die links allow the precious metal coinage to be divided into two mints, which produced coins simultaneously. "Mint A" uses two types of monogram: one in the form of vertical line bisecting an equilateral triangle, with two shorter vertical lines hanging down from the corners of the triangle, and another with an Α contained within a Π.[24] Mint B initially used three monograms, of which the most long-lasting was a combination of Ρ and Η; later these were replaced by a monogram combining a Ρ and a Κ.[25] A putative "Mint C" has now been shown to be identical with "Mint B".[26][27] Frank Holt and Brian Kritt identify "Mint B" with Bactra, the kingdom's capital. Holt identifies "Mint A" with Ai Khanoum, while Kritt prefers some other location near Ai Khanoum.[28][29] Simon Glenn emphasises the that "we do not know the location of either mint" and that it is particularly uncertain whether there was a mint at Ai Khanoum at all.[30]

The earliest coins use portrait type 1 and have a 6 o'clock die axis (i.e. the top of the obverse is aligned with the bottom of the reverse). At Mint A, these coins, Group I (A1-A10) consist of silver tetradrachms, drachms, and hemidrachms; they use either of the two monograms, plus the letters ΤΙ, ΑΝ, Α, Ν, or no monogram at all.[31] These additional letters may have referred to the specific batch of bullion used in minting the coins.[32] Partway through this issue, Mint A switches to a 12 o'clock die axis (i.e. the top of the obverse is aligned with the top of the reverse). At Mint A, Group I continues after this change.[31] At Mint B ("Group I"), the coins consist of gold staters (ca. 8.27 g), and small numbers of silver tetradrachms and drachms, and all three monograms are used.[33] Some of the gold staters are die-linked to earlier Diodotid coins minted in the name of "Antiochus," but it is possible that the linked coins are modern forgeries.[34][35] At Mint B, these coins are followed by Group II (CR1-CR3), which consists of gold staters and silver tetradrachms with portrait type 1 (but with some features similar to portrait model 3). Most of these coins use the Η with triangle monogram.[27]

The next period starts with the introduction of the second portrait type. At Mint A, Group II (A11-A14) only tetradrachms were minted in this period, all with the bisected triangle monogram, sometimes accompanied by a Ν or an Α.[36] At Mint B this issue consisted of Group III (CR4), composed of gold staters and silver tetradrachms, with a monogram composed of Ρ, Η, and Α. This is followed by the first issue at Mint B to use a 12 o'clock die axis, Group IV (B13), consisting only of tetradrachms, all with the ΡΚ monogram, and produced in much large numbers than had previously been the case at Mint B.[37] The third portrait type, introduced only at Mint B, characterises Group V (B14-B15), which consists of tetradrachms and drachms.

At Mint A, the introduction of portrait type 4 is marked by the start of Group III (A16-A17) and a gold octodrachm (A15) with a reverse modelled on Mint B's Group V, known from a single example weighing 32.73 g. This issue is generally associated with the end of Antiochus III's siege of Bactra in 206 BC.[38][39][40] Group III is much smaller than previous issues at Mint A and is the last issue produced by the mint in Euthydemus' reign.[41] At Mint B, the introduction of portrait 4 coincides with the large issue of Groups VI and VII (B17).[42]

Bronze coinage

In addition to the precious metal coinage, Euthydemus also produced bronze coins. Almost all have a bearded male head, identified as Heracles, on the obverse and a rearing horse on the reverse with the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΕΥΘΥΔΗΜΟΥ ('of King Euthydemos'). The earlier coins have thick flans with beveled edges (like the bronze of the Diodotids) and no monograms. These coins were issued in four denominations, referred to by modern scholars as a double unit (5.26-11.82 g), a single unit (2.95-5.07 g), a half unit (1.47-2.28 g), and a quarter unit (0.76-0.79 g). Some of the quarter units have a horse's head or a trident on the reverse instead of the usual reverse type.[43] Apparently later issues have thinner, flat flans. These bronzes were minted in the double, single, and half denominations. Most of them have no monograms, but some of them bear the ΡΚ symbol associated with Groups IV-VII at Mint B, and a few have a trident, anchor with ΔΙ, or an Ε.[44] The anchor was one of the main symbols of the Seleucid dynasty and ΔΙ is a monogram used by the Seleucids, so Holt interpreted it as commemorating Euthydemus' treaty with Antiochus III in 206 BC.[28] Simon Glenn is sceptical of this argument, seeing the anchor and other symbols as control marks, but he entertains the possibility that the anchor indicates "a shared production process" between the anchor bronzes and the coinage produced by Antiochus III in Bactria.[44]

Posthumous coinage

Euthydemus is also featured on the 'pedigree' coinage produced by the later kings Agathocles and Antimachus I. On this coinage he bears the royal epithet, Theos ('God'); it is unclear whether he used this title in life or if it was assigned to him by Agathocles.[45] His coins were imitated by the nomadic tribes of Central Asia for decades after his death; these imitations are called "barbaric" because of their crude style. Lyonnet proposes that these coins were produced by refugees fleeing the destruction of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom by the Yuezhi in the mid-second century BC.[46]

Torlonia Euthydemus

Image
The so-called "Torlonia Euthydemus", Torlonia Marbles, Rome.

The so-called "Torlonia Euthydemus" or "Albani Euthydemus" bust, now in the Torlonia Collection in Rome but formerly belonging to the Villa Albani collection, has often been suggested as a possible statue of the Bactrian ruler Euthydemus, based on resemblance with his effigy on coinage.[47][48] This is now rejected, as the statue in question is now considered as a 1st century portrait of a Republican commander or a client ruler.[48][49] The style of the statue itself is consistent with the style of the Republican period, rather than the Hellenistic period.[47] The style of the broad-brimmed hat on the statue is also very different from the Hellenistic kausia.[47]

References

1. Glenn 2020, pp. 6, 41–42.
2. Stančo 2021, p. 262-265.
3. Tarn, William Woodthorpe (2010-06-24). The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge University Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-1-108-00941-6.
4. Strabo, Geography 11.11.1
5. Polybius 11.34 Siege of Bactra
6. Tarn, William Woodthorpe (2010-06-24). The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge University Press. p. 73. ISBN 9781108009416.
7. Lerner 1999, pp. 56–59.
8. Holt 1999, p. 68-69.
9. Polybius. Histories. adding to his own the elephants belonging to Euthydemus.
10. Stančo 2021, p. 262-264.
11. Stančo 2021, p. 264-265.
12. Stančo 2021, p. 262.
13. Stančo 2021, p. 265-266.
14. Wallace 2016, p. 206.
15. Bopearachchi 2007, p. 48.
16. Glenn 2020, p. 8.
17. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum: 54.1569
18. Bopearachchi 2011, p. 47.
19. Glenn 2020, pp. 32–34.
20. Glenn 2020, pp. 41–42.
21. Kritt 2001, p. 75.
22. Glenn 2020, pp. 32–34, 71–72.
23. Smith 1988, Appendix 4.
24. Glenn 2020, pp. 72–75.
25. Glenn 2020, pp. 76–80.
26. Kritt 2015, p. 56.
27. Glenn 2020, p. 78.
28. Holt 1999, p. 132.
29. Kritt 2001, pp. 66, 135.
30. Glenn 2020, pp. 80–81.
31. Glenn 2020, pp. 73–74.
32. Glenn 2020, p. 74.
33. Glenn 2020, pp. 76–78.
34. Glenn 2020, p. 76.
35. These may be coins of Diodotus I in the name of the Seleucid king Antiochus II Theos or coins of a putative successor of Diodotus II called Antiochus Nicator Glenn 2020, p. 76.
36. Glenn 2020, pp. 74–75.
37. Glenn 2020, p. 79.
38. Holt 1999, p. 131.
39. Kritt 2001.
40. Glenn 2020, p. 75.
41. Glenn 2020, pp. 73 & 75.
42. Glenn 2020, p. 80.
43. Glenn 2020, pp. 81–82.
44. Glenn 2020, pp. 83–84.
45. Glenn 2020, pp. 137 & 156-158.
46. Lyonnet 2021, pp. 324–326.
47. Bopearachchi, Osmund (1998). "A Faience Head of a Graeco-Bactrian King from Ai Khanum". Bulletin of the Asia Institute. 12: 27. ISSN 0890-4464.
48. Lerner 1999, p. 53.
49. Bivar, A.D.H. "EUTHYDEMUS in the Encyclopaedia Iranica". iranicaonline.org.

Bibliography

• Bopearachchi, Osmund (2007). "Some Observations on the Chronology of the Early Kushans". In Gyselen, R. (ed.). Des Indo-Grecs aux Sassanides: données pour L'histoire et la géographie historique. Leuven: Peeters. pp. 41–53. ISBN 9782952137614.
• Bopearachchi, Osmund (2011). "The Emergence of the Greco-Baktrian and Indo-Greek Kingdoms". In Wright, Nicholas L. (ed.). Coins from Asia Minor and the East: Selections from the Colin E. Pitchfork Collection. Adelaide: Numismatic Association of Australia. pp. 47–51. ISBN 978-0-646-55051-0.
• Bordeaux, Olivier (2021). "Monetary Policies during the early Graeco-Bactrian Kingdom (250-190 BCE)". In Mairs, Rachel (ed.). The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek world. Abingdon, Oxon. pp. 510–519. ISBN 9781138090699.
• Glenn, Simon (2020). Money and Power in Hellenistic Bactria: Euthydemus I to Antimachus I. New York: American Numismatic Society. ISBN 978-0897223614.
• Holt, Frank L. (1981). "The Euthydemid coinage of Bactria: further hoard evidence from Ai-Khanoum". Revue numismatique. 23: 7–44.
• Holt, Frank L. (1999). Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0520211405.
• Kritt, Brian (2001). Dynastic transitions in the coinage of Bactria: Antiochus-Diodotus-Euthydemus. Classical Numismatic Group. ISBN 9780963673879.
• Kritt, Brian (2015). New Discoveries in Bactrian Numismatics. Lancaster, PA: Classical Numismatics Group. ISBN 9780989825481.
• Lerner, Jeffrey D. (1999). The Impact of Seleucid Decline on the Eastern Iranian Plateau: The Foundations of Arsacid Parthia and Graeco-Bactria. Franz Steiner Verlag. ISBN 978-3-515-07417-9.
• Lyonnet, Bertille (2021). "Sogdia". The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek World. New York: Routledge. pp. 313–327. ISBN 9781138090699.
• Smith, R. R. R. (1988). Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780198132240.
• Stančo, Ladislav (2021). "Southern Uzbekistan". The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek World. New York: Routledge. pp. 249–285. ISBN 9781138090699.
• Wallace, Shane (2016). "Greek Culture in Afghanistan and India: Old Evidence and New Discoveries". Greece & Rome. 63 (2): 205–226.

External links

• Coins of Euthydemus
• "Euthydemus" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 33903
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:44 am

Pergamon [The Pergamon Altar of Zeus]
Hellenistic Period: c. 323-31 BCE
by Christopher L.C.E. Witcombe
Greek Art & Archaeology
arthistoryresources.net
175 BCE

One has to recall that after the Hyphasis mutiny, Alexander gave up his plans to march further east, and to commemorate his Indian expedition he erected twelve massive altars of dressed stone. Arrian writes:
He then divided the army into brigades, which he ordered to prepare twelve altars to equal in height the highest military towers, and to exceed them in point of breadth, to serve as thank offerings to the gods who had led him so far as a conqueror, and also as a memorial of his own labours. After erecting the altars he offered sacrifice upon them with the customary rites, and celebrated a gymnastic and equestrian contest. (V.29.1-2)

Curiously, unlike most writers who place the altars on the right bank of the river, Pliny places them on the left or the eastern bank:
The Hyphasis was the limit of the marches of Alexander, who, however, crossed it, and dedicated altars on the further bank. (Plin. HN 6.21)

Pliny’s crucial hint suggests a reappraisal of the riddle of the altars. Precisely how far east had Alexander and his men come? Although Bunbury holds that the location of the altars cannot be regarded as known even approximately, the Indian evidence sheds new light. Masson places the altars at the united stream of the Hyphasis and Sutlez. McCrindle also writes that the Sutlez marked the limit of Alexander’s march eastward; and this is precisely the locality from where Feroze Shah brought the pillar to Delhi.

-- An Altar of Alexander Now Standing at Delhi [EXPANDED VERSION], by Ranajit Pal, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, India. January, 2006


The kingdom of Pergamon enjoyed great wealth and power for a hundred years or more before it was absorbed into the Roman Empire in 133 BCE. During this time, the city of Pergamon was embellished with two important monuments commemorating the defeat of invading Gauls: a statuary group set up on the city's acropolis, and a massive Ionic altar with a frieze showing the battle of the gods and giants.

The Attalid Monument

Pergamum had been a kingdom of minor importance until 230 BCE, when its king Attalus I (ruler from 241 to 197 BCE, with the title of king after about 230) defeated an invading force of Gauls from the north and briefly made himself master of Asia Minor. The event was celebrated in a series of statues of dead or dying Gauls, now known only from later copies which reveal the emergence of a distinctive Pergamene style responsive to the highly "civilized" demands of its patrons.

Image
The Attalid group of Gauls at Pergamon (reconstruction)

Image
Image
Gaul and his wife. Roman copy from the Attalid group of c. 220 BCE. Height 6' 11". (Terme Museum, Rome)

Image
Dying Gaul (Trumpeter). Roman copy from the Attalid group of c. 220 BCE. Height 36-1/2". (Capitoline Museum, Rome)

The Great Altar

The Great Altar was by far the largest sculptural complex created in the ancient world, a work so grandiose and imposing that the author of the Biblical Book of Revelation later called it "Satan's seat." It was erected as a memorial to the war against the Gauls.

The Altar was erected some 50 years after the Attalid Group. It stood on a 20-foot-high platform, surrounded by an Ionic colonnade. It originally stood within the elaborate enclosure in the open air.

Image
Present remains of the Great Altar of Zeus, Pergamon. Most of the material excavated by Carl Humann (1839-96) in the late 1870s and early 1880s was transported to Berlin

The approach was from the back, so that only after walking round the building did the great flight of steps leading up to the altar come into view.

Running round the base was a sculptural frieze (only part of which survives) some 7.5 feet high and, in all, more than 300 feet long. (The remains of the building were dismantled after excavation in the late nineteenth century and re-erected in the Berlin Museum in about 1900.)

The first and larger frieze is devoted to a battle between gods and giants, the gods being the full height of the relief slabs and the giants even bigger, only their huge menacing torsos being visible. Muscles swell in great hard knots, eyes bulge beneath puckered brows, teeth are clenched in agony. The writhing, overpowering figures seem contorted, stretched, almost racked, into an apparently endless, uncontrolled (in fact, very carefully calculated) variety of strenuous, coiling postures to which the dynamic integration of the whole composition is due. Rhythmic sense is felt very strongly a plastic rhythm so compelling that the individual figures and complex groups are all fused into a single system of correspondences throughout the whole design. Deep cutting and under-cutting produce strong contrasts of light and dark which heighten the drama. The naturalism is extreme and is taken to such lengths that some of the figures break out of their architectural frame altogether and into the spectator's space.

The author has read in the works of good historians that these columns of stone had been the walking sticks of the accursed Bhim, a man of great stature and size. The annals of the infidels record that this Bhim used to devour a thousand mans of food daily, and no one could compete with him ..... In his days all this part of Hind was peopled with infidels, who were continually fighting and slaying each other. Bhim was one of five brothers, but he was the most powerful of them all. He was generally engaged in tending the herds of cattle belonging to his wicked brothers, and he was accustomed to use these two stone pillars as sticks to gather the cattle together. The size of the cattle in those days was in proportion to that of other creatures. These five brothers lived near Delhi, and when Bhim died these two columns were left standing as memorials of him .....

-- XVI. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 269-364, 1871


Image
Altar of Zeus, from Pergamon. c. 175 BCE. Marble, reconstructed and restored. (Staatliche Museen, Berlin)

Image

Image

The great frieze shows how the Hellenistic taste for emotion, energetic movement, and exaggerated musculature could be translated into relief sculpture. In a detail illustrating Athena's destruction of a son of Gaia, the Titan earth goddess, the energy of the juxtaposed diagonal planes seems barely contained. Athena spreads out both arms, the left bearing her shield.

Image
Athena Battling with Alcyoneus from the East Frieze, Altar of Zeus, Pergamon. c. 175-150 BCE Marble, height (of frieze) 7' 7". (Staatliche Museen, Berlin)

Image

Athena's right hand grasps the luxuriant hair of her adversary Alcyoneus. He is perfectly human except for big wings. Alcyoneus stretches out his left arm in a gesture of supplication, while with his right hand he tries to tear the hand of Athena away from his hair. The long winding strands surround his face like snakes. His features reflect deep anxiety. His mouth is open as if shouting for mercy, the nostrils are dilated, the eyes look up imploringly, full of deep anguish. The eyebrows are drawn, the forehead is wrinkled. His supplication is supported by his mother Ge (or Gaia), the earth, whose upper body appears; both hands are lifted to Athena. Her pleading, however, is in vain. The figure of Nike has appeared at the right to give Athena the crown of victory.

This mythical battle between pre-Greek Giants and Greek Olympians recurs in Hellenistic art partly as a result of renewed threats to Greek supremacy. Unlike the Classical version, however, Pergamon's reveled in melodrama. frenzy, and pathos. King Attalus I defeated the invading Gauls in 238 BCE, making Pergamon a major political power. Later, under the rule of Eumenes II (197 - c. 160 BCE), the monumental altar dedicated to Zeus was built to proclaim the victory of civilization over the barbarians. Greece was trying to reassert its superiority, as Athens had done in building the Parthenon following the Persian Wars. But Hellenistic art, especially in its late phase, reflects the uncertainty and turmoil of the period. By the end of the first century BCE the Romans were in complete control of the Mediterranean world and, with the ascendancy of Augustus in 31 BCE, the scene was set for the beginning of the Roman Empire.

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

Mysia [Pergamon]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 12/14/21

Image

Image

Image

Ancient Region of Anatolia
Acropolis of Pergamon
Location North-western Anatolia
Largest city Pergamon
Inhabitants Mysians
Language Mysian
Achaemenid satrapy Phrygia
Roman province Asia

Image
Image
Anatolia/Asia Minor in the Greco-Roman period. The classical regions, including Mysia, and their main settlements

Mysia (UK /ˈmɪsiə/, US /ˈmɪʒə/ or /ˈmiːʒə/; Greek: Μυσία, Latin: Mysia, Turkish: Misya) was a region in the northwest of ancient Asia Minor[1] (Anatolia, Asian part of modern Turkey). It was located on the south coast of the Sea of Marmara. It was bounded by Bithynia on the east, Phrygia on the southeast, Lydia on the south, Aeolis on the southwest, Troad on the west and by the Propontis on the north. In ancient times it was inhabited by the Mysians, Phrygians, Aeolian Greeks and other groups.

Geography

The precise limits of Mysia are difficult to assign. The Phrygian frontier was fluctuating, while in the northwest the Troad was only sometimes included in Mysia.[1] The northern portion was known as "Lesser Phrygia" or (Ancient Greek: μικρὰ Φρυγία, romanized: mikra Phrygia; Latin: Phrygia Minor), while the southern was called "Greater Phrygia" or "Pergamene Phrygia". Mysia was in later times also known as Hellespontine Phrygia (Ancient Greek: Ἑλλησποντιακὴ Φρυγία, romanized: Hellespontiake Phrygia; Latin: Phrycia Hellespontica) or "Acquired Phrygia" (Ancient Greek: ἐπίκτητος Φρυγία, romanized: epiktetos Phrygia; Latin: Phrygia Epictetus), so named by the Attalids when they annexed the region to the Kingdom of Pergamon.[2]

Under Augustus, Mysia occupied the whole of the northwest corner of Asia Minor, between the Hellespont and the Propontis to the north, Bithynia and Phrygia to the east, Lydia to the south, and the Aegean Sea to the west.[3]

Land and elevation

Image
Coin of Kyzikos, Mysia. Circa 550–500 BC

The chief physical features of Mysia are the two mountains—Mount Olympus at (7600 ft) in the north and Mount Temnus in the south, which for some distance separates Mysia from Lydia and is afterwards prolonged through Mysia to the neighbourhood of the Gulf of Adramyttium. The major rivers in the northern part of the province are the Macestus and its tributary the Rhyndacus, both of which rise in Phrygia and, after diverging widely through Mysia, unite their waters below the lake of Apolloniatis about 15 miles (24 km) from the Propontis. The Caïcus in the south rises in Temnus, and from thence flows westward to the Aegean Sea, passing within a few miles of Pergamon. In the northern portion of the province are two considerable lakes, Artynia or Apolloniatis (Abulliont Geul) and Aphnitis (Maniyas Geul), which discharge their waters into the Macestus from the east and west respectively.[1]

Cities

The most important cities were Pergamon in the valley of the Caïcus, and Cyzicus on the Propontis. The whole sea-coast was studded with Greek towns, several of which were places of considerable importance; thus the northern portion included Parium, Lampsacus and Abydos, and the southern Assos, Adramyttium. Further south, on the Eleatic Gulf, were Elaea, Myrina and Cyme.[1]

History

Image
Coin of Mysia, 4th century BC

A minor episode in the Trojan War cycle in Greek mythology has the Greek fleet land at Mysia, mistaking it for Troy. Achilles wounds their king, Telephus, after he slays a Greek; Telephus later pleads with Achilles to heal the wound. This coastal region ruled by Telephus is alternatively named "Teuthrania" in Greek mythology, as it was previously ruled by King Teuthras. In the Iliad, Homer represents the Mysians as allies of Troy, with the Mysian forces led by Ennomus (a prophet) and Chromius, sons of Arsinous. Homeric Mysia appears to have been much smaller in extent than historical Mysia, and did not extend north to the Hellespont or the Propontis. Homer does not mention any cities or landmarks in Mysia, and it is not clear exactly where Homeric Mysia was situated, although it was probably[original research?] located somewhere between the Troad (to the northwest of Mysia) and Lydia/Maeonia (to its south).

A number of Mysian inscriptions have survived in a dialect of the Phrygian language, written using a variant of the Phrygian alphabet. There are also a small number of references to a Lutescan language indigenous to Mysia in Aeolic Greek sources.[4]

Image
Coin of Orontes as Satrap of Mysia, Adramyteion – c. 357–352 BC

Image
Coinage of Memnon of Rhodes, Mysia. Mid-4th century BC

Under the Persian Achaemenid Empire, the northwest corner of Asia Minor, still occupied by Phrygians but mainly by Aeolians, was called "Phrygia Minor" – and by the Greeks "Hellespontos".

After Rome's defeat of Antiochus the Great in the Roman-Syrian War of 192 to 188 BC, the area, which had been held by the Diadoch Seleucid Empire, passed to Rome's ally, the kingdom of Pergamon, and, on the death of King Attalus III of Pergamon in 133 BC, to Rome itself, which made it part of the province of Asia[1] and, later, a separate proconsular Roman province, called "Hellespontus".[3]

According to the Acts of the Apostles,[5] the apostles Paul, Silas and Timothy came to (or passed by) [6] Mysia during Paul's second missionary journey. The narrative suggests that they were uncertain where to travel during this part of the journey, being "forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia".[7] Shortly afterwards Paul had a vision of a "man of Macedonia" who invited the apostles to travel westwards to Macedonia.

Ancient bridges

The remains of several Roman bridges can still be found:

• Aesepus Bridge across the Aesepus (Gönen Çayı)
• Constantine's Bridge across the Rhyndacus (Adırnas Çayı)
• Makestos Bridge across the Makestos (Susurluk Çayı)
• White Bridge across the Granicus (Biga Çayı)

See also

• Ancient regions of Anatolia
• Mysians
• Mysian language
• Telephus
• Aeolis

References

1. One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Hasluck, Frederick William (1911). "Mysia". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. 19 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 115–116.
2. Strabo, Geographia, XII.5.3
3. William Smith, New Classical Dictionary of Biography, Mythology, and Geography, entry: "Mysia"
4. Titchener, J.B. (1926), Synopsis of Greek and Roman Civilization, Cambridge MA
5. Acts 16:7–8
6. Acts 16:7 states Greek: ελθοντες κατα την μυσιαν, 'to Mysia' in most English translations, whereas Acts 16:8 states Greek: παρελθοντες δε την μυσιαν, generally translated 'passing by Mysia' and in some cases 'bypassing Mysia', e.g. Holman Christian Standard Bible; all references taken from BibleGateway.com accessed 23 September 2015
7. Acts 16:6
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 33903
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Dec 15, 2021 3:40 am

Investigation of the Correctness of the Historical Dating
by Wieslaw Z. Krawcewicz, Gleb V. Nosovskij and Petr P. Zabreiko
February 9, 2006

In the sixteenth century D. Arcilla, a professor of Salamanca University in Spain, claimed that all ancient history was a fabrication made in the middle ages. The director of the French Royal Library, Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) declared that practically all the antiquities and ancient texts were created (or falsified) after 12th century. The most famous scientist of that epoch, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), was also against the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius. Newton published a large monograph entitled "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended," in which he re-dated key ancient events by shifting them several hundreds years forward.

-- Investigation of the Correctness of the Historical Dating, by Wieslaw Z. Krawcewicz, Gleb V. Nosovskij and Petr P. Zabreiko


In modern times mathematics has become an inseparable part of human culture, in which it plays a fundamental role. Throughout the centuries mathematics has been a crucial tool in the hands of mankind. It has allowed us to understand the fundamental principles of the universe, for example Newton's law of gravity, Einstein's equivalence of mass and energy, Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, the laws of quantum mechanics for elementary particles, and even the Big Bang theory. The advances in interplanetary exploration and rapid development of computer technology wouldn't have been possible without mathematics.

Scientists, in their struggle to improve our understanding, have untangled the principal problems of biology and unveiled the secrets of life. However, the times when it was sufficient for a biologist to know only elementary arithmetic and graphs of functions are long gone. Today, they need much more advanced mathematics like linear and multilinear algebras, mathematical analysis, the theory of differential and functional equations, statistics and discrete mathematics. Branches of biology like genetics or ecology are considered as parts of mathematics. Mathematics also opens new possibilities for medicine. Mathematical models are used to understand our bodies and to find optimal treatment for diseases.

More and more mathematics is used in the social sciences like economics, psychology, sociology, demography, social epidemiology and criminology. Not surprisingly, mathematics is also trying to make its contribution in history, where it addresses a very serious problem of reliability of the accounts of historical events. How can we be sure that the historical events that we learn about in school or from books really took place? Maybe some of them are simply fairy tales that, because of some mysterious circumstances, are considered now to be historical facts.

History of the Global Chronology

The fundamental question that should be asked is what is the origin of our historical knowledge. We all learned our history at school and generally accepted it as a true description of the actual events. However, even in our lifetime some of the recent historical events that we witnessed are not always described in the way we remember them. How can we be sure that the description of the events that took place centuries ago is accurate? Moreover, why should we believe that these historical events really happened at the time and place that is allocated to them? In order to answer these questions we must look at the history of history.

The early historians (for example Thucydides, Herodotus, Ssu-ma Ch'ien and others) were describing history of small territories over short periods of time. Ancient and medieval manuscripts that are available today usually present accounts of events in separate countries over a time scale of no more than one or two centuries. The fundamental problem encountered by historians in 16th and 17th centuries working on reconstruction of the global history of mankind was putting together in chronological order all of the manuscripts, chronicles and other historical documents to obtain a unified and consistent account of all historical events. This was an extremely difficult problem for that time. The main obstacle was that most of the manuscripts were not dated, or used an unknown or archaic system of dating, and contained only a description of a sequence of successive events. It should be stressed out that the most of historical documents that we have today, related to ancient and medieval times, are not original but only copies made some time ago, often under suspicious circumstances.


The idea of reconstructing global history emerged during the late Renaissance. The official historical chronology, presently commonly acknowledged, was originated by the Italian theologian and scientist I. Scaliger (1540-1609). He determined the exact dates of the most important historical events like the Peloponnesian War, Trojan War, founding of Rome, etc., but did not prove none of his dates. His followers continued this work and it is commonly accepted that the official chronology was given its final shape by D. Petavius (1583-1652). It is strange that other historians, in spite of the scientific advantages, very rarely modified the dates of the basic historical events assigned by Scaliger and Petavius.

In summary, according to Scaliger, Petavius and their followers, the events of the ancient world took place from about 3,500 years B.C. till the fifth century A.D. As their results were never independently confirmed, there is an outstanding question of the credibility of this chronology. By the way, not all of the statements made by Scaliger turned out to be true, as for example, his geometrical proof of the quadrature of the circle, which he defended ferociously all his life.


Critics of the Traditional Chronology

Even among scholars, not all contemporaries of Scaliger and Petavius, supported their chronology. For example, in the sixteenth century D. Arcilla, a professor of Salamanca University in Spain, claimed that all ancient history was a fabrication made in the middle ages. The director of the French Royal Library, Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) declared that practically all the antiquities and ancient texts were created (or falsified) after 12th century. The most famous scientist of that epoch, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), was also against the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius. Newton published a large monograph entitled "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended," in which he re-dated key ancient events by shifting them several hundreds years forward. There were many more scientists, philologists, historians, and jurists who objected to the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius. We should also mention recent and contemporary critics of the conventional chronology in Germany, including W. Kammeier, H. Illig, U. Topper, H-U. Niemitz, G. Heinsohn, and C. Blöss (see [13,14,15]).

Nicolai A. Morozov and His Version of Chronology

The first scholar who suggested new powerful methods to correct chronological mistakes, was prominent Russian scientist N.A. Morozov (1854-1946). He published a fundamental monograph composed of seven large volumes, entitled "Christ. History of Human Culture from the Standpoint of the Natural Sciences" (see [1]). Morozov analyzed in it the conventional chronology using the latest discoveries in mathematics, astronomy, linguistics, philology and geology. He suggested a new version of the global chronology and a historical reconstruction. According to N.A. Morozov all the ancient events occurred after 3rd century AD.

Anatoly T. Fomenko and His Version of Chronology

In 1970s at the Moscow State University, a group of young mathematicians undertook the task of the verification and further development of Morozov's research in global chronology. One of them, Professor A.T. Fomenko introduced several new methods of independent dating and after several years of investigation he proposed a new version of global chronology, which was even more radical that the version of N.A. Morozov. He claimed that the recorded history of mankind started not earlier than the year 900 AD, while the majority of historical events, which make our history, refer to the time after the year 1300 AD (see [2,3]).

The New Chronology

In collaboration with G.V. Nosovskij, A.T. Fomenko continued his work on the development of new independent scientific methods for dating of ancient events. In 1993-1996, completely new results were established by them on the chronology of Russia and China. Their work resulted in stating the New Chronology, which is a new concept of the global chronology and history. It is based on the chronological version of A.T. Fomenko, to which new proofs and improvements were introduced. It led to the further shifting of the "starting point" of the known history to the 11th century AD (see [6,7,8]).

We should mention an important pillar of this theory, which is the astronomical dating of the Ptolemy's Star Catalogue in "Almagest" obtained by A.T. Fomenko, V.V. Kalashnikov and G.V. Nosovskij (see [4]).
In the conventional chronology the epoch of Ptolemy, who was the last great astronomer of the antiquity, is considered to be the second century AD. However, the analysis of vast amount of the astronomical information contained in his star catalogue proved that the only possible time of creation of this catalogue was from 7th to 13th century AD, which is at least 500 years later. Consequently, it is impossible that this astronomical data was collected in the second century. This result strongly contradicts the conventional chronology of Scaliger and Petavius, while it perfectly fits the New Chronology.


Methods of the New Chronology

It is an interesting question, how the above claims could be made and justified. In fact, this work started with constructing a large chronological table covering all periods of human history. Next, it was attempted to discover in it some unusual phenomena, contradictions and disagreements, simply something that could never happen. Apparently, this idea was not easy to carry out. Numerous heavy books devoted to the chronology are arranged in a frustrating manner (see [10,11]). There are no modern monographs presenting a detailed description of the global chronology, useless to even mention proofs of its correctness in principle.

A.T. Fomenko and his collaborators compiled a global chronology table using all available sources such as old chronicles, chronological tables, including the Blair's canonical chronological tables and the most recent monographs. In spite of the fact that the available data from different sources didn't always match, they were able to put together the global chronology enclosing almost the whole history of the mankind. This massive work could be done only with the use of computers.

From the point of view of mathematics, the chronology represent an object called a function. More precisely, we can write it as a function denoted by H(t, x1,x2), which depends on the three variables: t - the time of a historical event and (x1,x2) - the geographical coordinates (longitude and latitude) of the place where this event occurred, or we can simply say that its domain is the Cartesian product of numeric half line and the sphere. The values of the function H(t, x1,x2) represent the fragments of historical recordings describing this particular event.

Image
Figure 1

The above Figure 1 illustrates the "chronology" function H. On the left hand side of Figure 1 the concentric spheres represent the domain of H. More precisely, the red arrow stands for the time axis where the points correspond to specific dates. For example, the inside coloured sphere illustrates events of the year 1320 at specific locations. The larger spheres on this figure correspond to the years 1415 and 1985. In this way, with every date in history we can associate a sphere on which the corresponding events are indicated. To every place on the Earth we can associate a ray originating at its centre to mark the dates of the events that occurred at this place. The books symbolize available descriptions of the historical events. The green arrows indicate the exact fragments of the available descriptions corresponding to certain concrete events. Briefly, the chronology is a database parameterized by points of the Cartesian product R+ x S2, i.e. the product of the half-axis R+ and the sphere S2. Naturally, this function is not convenient for mathematical analysis. Clearly the set of values of the function H does not have any natural mathematical structure. However, the information contained in the function H allows us, on the one side, to construct a variety of scalar (numeric) functions which can be easily analyzed with mathematical methods, and on the other side, to provide essential information on the nature of the historical events. An example of a simple scalar function, which can be easily extracted from the historical database, is the functions of the time-span of the reign of subsequent rulers belonging to a certain specific dynasty. Such a `dynasty' function can be illustrated by its graph, see Figure 2.

Image
Figure 2

On the horizontal axis are placed the subsequent numbers of the consecutive rulers (or names of kings, emperors, etc.) and on the vertical axis is marked the length of the reign of the corresponding ruler. We will call such a sequence of rulers a numerical dynasty or simply a dynasty. The dynasty in the above example consists of 12 rulers.

There is another way to analyze chronicles by extracting numerical information from them. For example we can associate with a text X a sequence of integers, which are the numbers of words H(X(T)) in the chapter describing the year T (or simply the volume of a year fragment). We call H(X(T)) the volume function for X. There are also possibilities for other numerical functions like the number of references to the year T in subsequent years, the number of all names of historical persons listed in the text, or the frequencies showing how often these names were mentioned in the whole text. In his monograph [2], A.T. Fomenko used these functions to analyze similarities and differences between documents referring either to the same epoch or two different epochs. It is clear that for two different documents X and Y the functions H(X(T)) and H(Y(T)) can be completely different even if they refer to the same epoch. However, if the functions H(X(T)) and H(Y(T)) have local maxima practically at the same positions it means that these two chronicles describe the same historical epoch. A.T. Fomenko called it the principle of maximal correlation. This principle was empirically checked using the reliable historical data of 16th - 19th centuries, and its correctness was confirmed. Therefore, the locations of the maxima constitute the numerical data that can be associated with the text X in order to characterize the epoch it is referring to.

The methods of Fomenko are based on theoretical and numerical analysis of these and other similar functions describing historical data. In particular, he introduces a routine for distinguishing functions referring to different dynasties and defines a certain measure of distinctiveness between them (or a probability measure for distinctiveness). In simple words, he found a way to measure a `distance' between the above numerical functions (like for example dynasty functions) in a similar way to measuring distance between two different locations. Mathematicians say that in such a situation they are dealing with a metric space. The geometry of such metric spaces is definitely different from the geometry we learn in school, but the usual properties related to the measurement of distances are still valid in these spaces. If a distance between towns A and B is less than one kilometre we are justified to think that in fact A and B represent the same town. Similarly, if in the space of functions a distance between two dynasty functions is sufficiently small we may think that indeed they represent the same dynasty. These methods were extensively tested on the data referring to well documented. It was proved that if two dynasty functions (for 15 rulers) or volume functions were not related, the measure of distinctiveness between numerical functions associated with these dynasties was between 1 and 10-4. However, in the case of related events from the same epoch, the measure of distinctiveness was never higher than 10-8.

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. " 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, "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" and adds in a note, "The term 'reputed grandson' is here used advisedly. It will appear hereafter that there is reason to believe that the name Sandrocottos and Asoka are applied to the same individual." The title Asokaditya applied to the king in the Kaliyugarajavrttanta confirms the conjecture made by Talboys Wheeler from internal evidence.

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


Diodotus was born between 315-300 BC, likely to parents established as nobles in Bactria. His father (also Diodotus) was believed to have been a dignitary and Diadochi of Alexander the Great, awarded land in Bactria.

The region of Bactria, which encompassed the Oxus river Valley in modern Afghanistan and Tajikistan, was conquered by Alexander between 329 and 327 BC and he settled a number of his veterans in the region. In the wars which followed Alexander's death in 323 BC, the region was largely left to its own devices, but it was incorporated in the Seleucid empire by Seleucus I between 308 and 305 BC, along with the rest of the territories that Alexander had conquered in Iran and Central Asia. Seleucus entrusted the region to his son and co-regent, Antiochus I, around 295 BC. Between 295 and 281 BC, Antiochus I established firm Seleucid control over the region. The region was divided into a number of satrapies (provinces), of which Bactria was one. Antiochus founded or refounded a number of cities on the Greek model in the region and he opened a number of mints to produce coinage on the Attic weight standard. After Antiochus I succeeded his father as ruler of the Seleucid empire in 281 BC, he entrusted the east to his own son, Antiochus II who remained in this position until he in turn succeeded to the throne in 261 BC.[8]

Diodotus became Seleucid satrap (governor) of Bactria during Antiochus II's reign, thus about a generation after the original establishment of Seleucid control over the region .... Archaeological evidence for the period comes largely from excavations of the city of Ai-Khanoum, where this period saw the expansion of irrigation networks, the construction and expansion of civic buildings, and some military activity...

At some point, Diodotus [Reign: c. 255 or 245 BC – c. 235 BC] seceded from the Seleucid empire, establishing his realm as an independent kingdom, known in modern scholarship as the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom. The event is mentioned briefly by the Roman historian Justin:
Diodotus, the governor of the thousand cities of Bactria, defected and proclaimed himself king; all the other people of the Orient followed his example and seceded from the Macedonians [i.e. the Seleucids].

— Justin Epitome of Pompeius Trogus 41.4...


The limited archaeological evidence reveals no signs of discontinuity or destruction in this period. The transition from Seleucid rule to independence thus seems to have been accomplished peacefully....

The literary sources stress the prosperity of the new kingdom. Justin calls it "the extremely prosperous empire of the thousand cities of Bactria.", while the geographer Strabo says:
The Greeks who caused Bactria to revolt grew so powerful on account of the fertility of the country that they became masters, not only of Ariana, but also of India, as Apollodorus of Artemita says: and more tribes were subdued by them than by Alexander... Their cities were Bactra (also called Zariaspa, through which flows a river bearing the same name and emptying into the Oxus), and Darapsa, and several others.

— Strabo Geography 11.11.1

[A]rchaeological evidence makes clear that goods and people continued to move between Bactria and the Seleucid realm.

Diodotus died during the reign of Seleucus II, sometime around 235 BC, probably of natural causes. He was succeeded by his son Diodotus II. The new king concluded a peace with the Parthians and supported Arsaces when Seleucus II attacked him around 228 BC. Diodotus II was subsequently killed by an usurper, Euthydemus [a Greco-Bactrian king], who founded the Euthydemid dynasty....

Diodotus appears also on coins struck in his memory by the later Graeco-Bactrian kings Agathocles and Antimachus. These coins imitate the original design of the tetradrachms issued by Diodotus I, but with a legend on the obverse identifying the king as Ancient Greek: ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ('Of Diodotus Soter' [saviour]).

-- Diodotus I, by Wikipedia


Image
Ai-Khanoum was located at the very doorstep of India.

Ai-Khanoum was a center of Hellenistic culture at the doorstep of India, and there was a strong reciprocal awareness between the two areas. A few years after the foundation of the city, around 258 BC, the Indian Emperor Ashoka [Reign: c. 268 – c. 232 BCE] was carving a rock inscription in Greek and Aramaic addressed to the Greeks in the region, the Kandahar Edict of Ashoka, in the nearby city of Kandahar.

-- Ai-Khanoum, by Wikipedia


The work of Fomenko and his collaborators proves that the statistical analysis can be successfully applied to analyze the numerical data contained in historical documents. A.T. Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij also developed several other statistical criteria for distinguishing or recognizing identical sequences of historical events. We should mention for example the method of detecting of chronological shifts based on the names distribution in chronicles and the method of relation matrices used to recognize duplicates and decompose chronicles into its source fragments (see [6]).

What is Wrong With the Traditional Chronology

It is difficult to imagine that two different dynasties could have identical or almost identical dynasty functions. The probability of such a coincidence is extremely small already for dynasties composed of 10 rulers. Nevertheless, the number of such coincidences, for even longer dynasties of 15 rulers, turns out to be unexpectedly large. N.A. Morozov, who noticed the coincidence between the ancient Rome and the ancient Jewish state, discovered the first examples of surprisingly identical pairs of dynasty graphs. A formal method to study such similarities was introduced by A.T. Fomenko (see the reference list in [2]).

There is another surprise, besides coincidence of the dynasty functions, the other numerical functions confirm with very high probability that these dynasties are indeed the same. It brings us to a suspicion that in fact we are dealing with repetitions in the conventional version of the history. Fomenko discovered dozens of strong coincidences, sometimes between three and more dynasties. But, there are no more such coincidences in the history of the better-documented epochs, for example starting from the 16th century.


That the history of Asoka matches that of Diodotus I line by line can only imply that they were one and the same person....

The Parthian Prince An-shih-kao, who dedicated his life to the spread of Buddhism, is clearly Diodotus...

Asoka does not refer to Diodotus because he was Diodotus himself...

Historians have denied Diodotus his true place in world history.


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


Firuz Shah should be given all credit for the discovery and preservation of five Mauryan pillars. It is recorded that the scholars of his time had failed to decipher the Asokan edicts. But it is nowhere mentioned why Firuz attached so much importance to these, otherwise simple monolithic stone pillars. It is also not known why he decided to re-erect these columns inside or in front of mosques. It seems that after the re-erection of the Delhi-Topra pillar some Indian scholar of his time had informed him about some of the purports of the inscriptions.
On the base of the obelisk there were engraved several lines of writing in Hindi characters. Many Brahmans and Hindu devotees were invited to read them, but no one was able. It is said that certain infidel Hindus interpreted them as stating that no one should be able to remove the obelisk from its place till there should arise in the latter days a Muhammadan king, named Sultan Firoz, etc., etc.

-- XVI. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 269-364, 1871

This becomes more probable when we consider that Firuz Shah caused to be inscribed memories (Futuhat-i-Firuz Shahi), i.e. records of his achievements or regulations to be inscribed on the eight sides of the octagonal cupola in the Jami Mosque of Firuzabad, next to the pyramidal structure of the Delhi-Topra pillar. It is also not understood why Firuz erected his inscribed cupola before the Asokan pillar. Moreover one can find many parallels in the Asokan pillar edict of Kotla-Firuz Shah and in the Futuhat [K. A. Nizami, "The Futuhat i-Firuz as a Medieval Inscription, Proceedings of the Seminar on Medieval Inscriptions (Aliparh, 7974), pp, 28-33, where he compares the text of the Futuhat with the Delhi-Topra Pillar Edicts of Asoka and observes many striking similarities in both the texts.] which recorded Firuz's regulations, public works love of people, abolition of inhuman punishments, and harsh taxes, foundations of hospitals, colleges, towns, gardens, public baths, minarets, excavation of tanks, wells, construction of bridges, canals, preservation of ancient monuments and books (some of them translated from Sanskrit), extension of cultivation; and attempts of raising the morals of the people.

-- A Study of Asokan Pillars: Re-Erected by Firuz Shah Tughluq, by W. H. Siddiqi, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 36 (1975), pp. 338-344 (7 pages), 1975


As an example, we would like to discuss two dynasties, one the dynasty of the Holy Roman-German Empire (10th - 13th AD) and another one of the Jewish kings according the Bible (9th - 5th BC). On Figure 3, we represent the vertical time line with two graphs of reign durations on its opposite sides for comparison. On this chart, we start the dates for the dynasty of Jewish kings in the year zero, which is not a date according to some era but simply indicates the starting "zero" point for this dynasty. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the beginning of this dynasty is around 922 B.C. Figure 3 was taken from A.T. Fomenko monograph [2].

Image
Figure 3

There are many more examples of similar dynasty pairs in the conventional chronology. For instance, the parallel between the first period of the Roman episcopate in 141-314 A.D. and the second period of the Roman episcopate in 314-532 A.D. is shown in Figure 4.

Image
Figure 4

On Figure 5, we present another pair of graphs, this time without annotations. All these graphs were also taken from the monograph [2].

Image
Figure 5

These parallels suggest that the traditional history of ancient times consist of multiple recounts of the same events scattered in many locations at various times. The first scientist who realized it was N.A. Morozov (see [1]). Further progress was made by A.T. Fomenko who succeeded to decipher the principle structure of these duplicates in Roman and Biblical history (see [2]). On Figure 6, we show a graphical representation of his result related to the Roman and European history. The chronological blocks annotated by the same letters (what we also emphasised by adding colours) represent duplicates in the conventional chronology.

Two other factors in the formation of this artificial structure, the received story of the early days, were the duplication of events actual or alleged, and the influence of current political tendencies and theories. The duplication of events, that is the assigning of what happened at one time to another much earlier date, in either the same or a slightly disguised form, while not peculiar to Roman history, has there found its widest application. It is not among the least of Pais's services that he has brought out with proper emphasis the great importance of this factor. So numerous are the examples, such as the repeated stories of Manlius, and the explanations of the Lacus Curtius, that it would be useless to linger over them. The reasons for such duplication are patent at the first glance, among them the stereotyped character and conduct of those who belonged to the same house, the desire of succeeding generations to imitate the deeds of their ancestors, and the fact that so many of the clans seem to have assumed in successive years the command against the same foes. Variations in later versions seem usually to have been intentionally made, in order that suspicion might be averted. Consulships, dictatorships and censorships were boldly attributed to the ancestors of those who had held these offices in historical times, and so notorious was the practice that even Cicero and Livy protested against it. In consequence of this same impulse, events of a later date were thrown back into earlier periods, as the fabled treaty of 508 B.C. between Rome and Carthage, and the establishment of the censorship in the days of Servius Tullius. The same tendency which has assigned to Charlemagne the achievements of more than one man produced such types as Appius Claudius and Coriolanus.

The last factor in the fabrication of Roman history upon which much weight must be laid, is that of the political attitude of the historian and his hero. Cato, as is well known, tried to do something to counteract this evil, by refusing to mention the names of those of whom he was writing, but nothing could have been farther from the purpose of all other Roman historians. One has only to read Livy's account of perfectly historical persons and events, to see how he deliberately warped or suppressed the truth in order to depreciate the services of those who represented opposite political views. Modern colorless critical history was something entirely unsupposable to the Roman mind. Education in morals and good citizenship, the avowed object of the Roman historian, demanded an expression on his part of what he considered right and patriotic, and a condemnation of the opposite. To the most critical and truth-seeking of Romans, even a writer like Froude would have seemed not only culpably impartial but absolutely impossible.

These elements have been recognized in some degree by all historians since Niebuhr, but the extent of their application has varied. We have in general come to regard the history of the regal period as legendary so far as details are concerned, but no such view has prevailed with regard to the republic. It is true that Mommsen in his Roemische Forschungen laid down the lines along which the investigation should proceed, and in his essays on Coriolanus, Spurius Maelius, Spurius Cassius and Marcus Manlius, demonstrated the non-historical character of many of the tales from the period of the early republic, but in these particular cases, the subjects were such as would most naturally be derived from mythical sources. Neither in his history nor in his essays, does Mommsen cast any serious doubt upon the truth of the main features of the traditional history of the period between the expulsion of the Kings and the fall of the decemvirate. The attitude of most scholars previous to 1898, may be illustrated by that of Pelham and Shuckburgh in their histories published in 1893 and 1894. Pelham, after explaining the reasons why the history of the early republic is subject to some extent to the same suspicions as that of the regal period, and stating that the "details are of no historical value," proceeds to relate the course of events in such a way as not to suggest for a moment that he discredits the main features of the narrative. Shuckburgh is much less skeptical and gives his readers to understand that he is treating of what is genuinely historical.

Hardened as we have become to the process of having long cherished beliefs destroyed, and prone as we are to welcome innovations in all things, we cannot overcome a sense of dismay at reading statements like these of Pais:
"We arrive therefore at the conclusion that the whole account of decemvirate, that is the creation of this magistracy, the sending of the embassy to Athens, the codification of the laws of the Twelve Tables, the circumstances and procedure with reference to Virginia, no less than the second secession of the plebs, the following passage of the Canuleian laws, and the revolution at Ardea, are the results of unskilful attempts to combine self-contradictory traditions, and have at bottom no historical or chronological value." ...

"In the case of all the history of Roman legislation before the decemvirate we are confronted with accounts not originally true and only altered by later changes, but produced by real and deliberate falsification.

"The pretended constitutional history of Rome, described by the annalists of the second and first centuries, is in direct opposition to the honest and sincere declaration of Polybius who asserted that it was difficult to explain the beginnings and successive modifications, and to foretell the future phases of the Roman constitution, since the institutions of the past, both private and public, were unknown."

This means that everything which has been handed down from the years before 440 B.C. is thoroughly discredited, and that the beginning of anything like genuine history must be placed after that date. It is doubtful if anything quite so destructive as this in the field of historical criticism has been effected for many years, and we are overpowered by the almost absolute negation involved. Painstaking labor and the utmost skill in the employment of great learning, have combined to produce a monumental work of the greatest importance, and one which forces itself upon the attention of all students of classical antiquity.

-- The Credibility of Early Roman History, by Samuel Ball Platner


Image
Figure 6

What Does Analysis of Astronomical Data Confirm?

One of the most important and convincing methods used for dating of historical events is the astronomical dating. For instance, the accurate astronomical computations indicate that the Peloponnesian war took place not in the 6th century BC, as it is assumed by the conventional chronology, but in the 11th century AD, or even later (see [2], Vol.1, pp. 20-22). A very important example was already mentioned; it is the dating of star catalogue in the Almagest (see [4]).

During the recent years a significant progress was done in the old problem of decoding and dating of ancient Egyptian zodiacs. It was discovered that the principal structure of a typical Egyptian zodiac was much more elaborated and complex than it was assumed before. In fact, the amount of the astronomical information contained in such a zodiac is completely sufficient not only to accurately calculate its date, but also to determine its correct decoding (see [11,12]).

Egyptian zodiac is nothing else than a symbolic representation of astronomical objects inside the zodiacal belt. One of the most famous examples is the Round zodiac from the Denderah temple in Egypt. On Figure 7 we show a drawing of this zodiac. We used colours to indicate figures with different types of astronomical meaning.

Image
Figure 7

Let us briefly explain the structure of an Egyptian zodiac (we refer to [11,12] for more details). It was discovered in [11,12] that an Egyptian zodiac presents an astronomical description of the whole calendar year during which the main date occurred. This date is encoded in the zodiac by its main horoscope. On Figure 7, the main horoscope on the Round zodiac is marked in yellow. Four solstices and equinox days, belonging to the same year, were described by partial horoscopes. In our example these horoscopes are marked in light-blue (see Figure 7). There also could be other astronomical scenes present (see the symbols marked in green on Figure 7). The whole structure of an Egyptian zodiac is illustrated on Figure 8.

Image
Figure 8

The results of astronomical dating of Egyptian zodiacs sharply contradict the conventional chronology (see [11,12]). For example the final astronomical solution for the main date on the Round Denderah zodiac was the morning of March 20, 1185 AD. Let us mention that in the same Denderah temple there was another large zodiac, usually called the Long Denderah zodiac. The date shown on this zodiac turned out to be April 22-26, 1168 AD. These two dates suggest that the Denderah temple was commemorating some events that occurred in 12th century AD. Of course, it completely contradicts the conventional chronology, but perfectly agrees with the New Chronology. The situation with other Egyptian zodiacs is even "worse," because it was proved that their dates in case of temple zodiacs range from the 12th to 15th century, and for some zodiacs in tombs and on coffins, they are even later.

What Critics of the New Chronology Say?

We will discuss some of typical arguments against the New Chronology. One of the most popular arguments in support of the conventional chronology is that the carbon-14 dating method supports it. But in fact it is not true. The carbon-14 method, which was discovered by Willard Libby, is based on the measurement of the radiocarbon level in organic samples. It assumes essentially uniform level of the isotope carbon-14 in every living material, but it is now clear that carbon-14 was never homogeneously distributed. In fact, in order to improve its "accuracy," the carbon-14 method was calibrated using samples of "known" age. It was done by constructing the so-called calibration curves, which are dependent on the conventional chronology. That means the carbon-14 dating method is secondary and is not able either [to] confirm or discard any chronological theory. In addition, the errors induced by this method exceed all reasonable time intervals. We would like to point out that if the global chronology was changed, the carbon-14 dating method would also work nicely with the new dating system. It is not possible to present here a complete discussion of this complicated problem (we refer the reader to [2], Vol.1, pp. 133-136, [3], Vol.1, pp. 184-214, and [13]).

There are other arguments, of different type, claiming that there is nothing abnormal in coincidence of dynasty functions for different dynasties. For instance, we know that the probability of having winning lottery is very small but still there are communities that have one or more lottery winners. So, even very unlike events could happen. Critics of the New Chronology often mention that biographies of certain rulers, like Napoleon and Hitler (both dictators) are quite similar, so by applying the method of Morozov and Fomenko we should consider them to be the same person and ultimately make a senseless statement that the first 20 years of the 19th century are simply the years thirties and forties of the 20th century. There are many more similar arguments, but all of them miss the point that extremely rare events only happen in large samples. For example, although the chances of having a winning lottery ticket are extremely small, nevertheless the probability that somebody wins is one. But, this is not the case with the unrelated dynasty functions, for which the coincidence in the whole sample is even less probable than the coincidence of two random fingerprints.

There is also a claim that the "strange" coincidences between dynasty functions could be removed by making appropriate corrections of the historical data. However, even with modified dates the probability arguments still hold.

Regarding the archaeological dating, we should point out that it is closely dependent on the conventional chronology. The usual dating procedure in archaeology is based on the comparison of the excavated objects with objects already dated. In this procedure, finding some objects of identifiable style or origin can lead to a conclusion of the age of the whole site. The whole process is highly subjective and cannot be considered as a proof of the conventional chronology.

References

• N.A. Morozov, Christ. The History of Human Culture from the Standpoint of the Natural Sciences). (In Russian), Moscow and Leningrad. 1926-1932, vols. 1-7. Second edition, Kraft & Lean, Moscow, 1997-1998, vols. 1-7 (8 books).

• A.T. Fomenko, Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and Its Applications to Historical Dating. Volume 1: The Development of the Statistical Tools. Volume 2: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval Records. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1994.

• A.T. Fomenko, New Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Applications to Chronology, Vol. 1-3. (In Russian). In the series: Russian Studies in Mathematics and Sciences. Scholarly Monographs in the Russian Language. Vol. 6-7. The Edwin Mellen Press. USA. Lewiston. Queenston. Lampeter. 1999.

• A.T. Fomenko , Kalashnikov V.V, Nosovskii G.V. Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy's Almagest. CRC Press. 1993, USA.

• A.T. Fomenko, G.V. Nosovskij, The New Chronology and Concept of Ancient Russian, English and Roman History." (In Russian). - Moscow, Moscow University Press, 1995, 1996.

• A.T. Fomenko, G.V. Nosovskij, Empire. (Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, Egypt. New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity). (In Russian). - Moscow, "Factorial", 1996. New editions in 1997, 1998, 1999.

• A.T. Fomenko, G.V. Nosovskij. "Mathematical Chronology of the Biblical Events." (In Russian). - Moscow, Nauka, 1997.

• A.T. Fomenko, G.V. Nosovskij. "Reconstruction of General History. New Chronology." (In Russian) - Moscow, Publishing Company "Delovoi' Express", 1999, 2000.

• E. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World. Thames & Hudson, London, 1968.

• J. Blair, Blair's Chronological and Historical Tables from the Creation to the Present Time etc. G.Bell & Sons, London, 1882.

• A.T. Fomenko, G.V. Nosovskij, New Chronology of Egypt. Astronomical Dating of the Egyptian Antiquities. (In Russian), Moscow, Veche 2001.

• A.T. Fomenko, T.N. Fomenko, W.Z. Krawcewicz, G.V. Nosovskij, Mysteries of the Egyptian Zodiacs and Other Riddles of Ancient History. To appear.

• Christian Blöss, Hans-Ulrich Niemitz, C14-Crash. (Das Ende der Illusion mit Radiokarbonmethode und Dendrochronologie datieren zu k\"onnen). Mantis Verlag, Gr\"afelfing, 1997.

• Wilhelm Kammeier, Die Fälschung der deutschen Geschichte, Adolf Klein Verlag, Leipzig, 1935.

• Wilhelm Kammeier, Die Wahrheit über die Geschichte des Spätmittelalters, Verlag für ganzheitliche Foeschung, Wobbenbühl, 1979.

• Isaac Newton, The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, London 1728.

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

Talk:New chronology (Fomenko)/Archive 1
by Wikiwand
Accessed: 12/14/21

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Talk:New_ch ... y_(Fomenko)/Archive_1

Pseudoscience?
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 33903
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:54 am

Streetlight effect
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 12/19/21

Librarian's Comment:

We bring this human foible to your attention at this turning because it appears to be the universal failing of orientalists to inflate their theories with convenient notions rather than putting them to the test of the evidence. During the period when many of the "archaeological discoveries" in India were being made, there was an excess of enthusiasm about recreating the fabled history of many territories and the dynasties that ruled over them. Very little work has ever been done to objectively place these discoveries in a rational, chronological framework based on their observable characteristics. Instead, there has been a dedicated effort to impose convenient meanings upon many discoveries that have no relationship with each other, in an effort to contrive "histories" from a melange of literature, rubble, and legend. As a result, the serious scholar is faced with a lack of serious scholarship with which to work. It is not possible to take scholarship seriously that fails to account for the evidence that important interpreters of early discoveries, most notably Fuhrer and Buhler, are irreparably tainted, as are all of their discoveries and conclusions, by the spectre of forgery and academic fabrication. And yet, this is the state of indology today. The lies of the past are still relied on as the foundations for today's study. And the accumulation of conveniently harvested information, like a rubbish heap of cultural detritus, does not provide a legitimate foundation for future study.


Image
It is harder to find something on the part of the floor that is not well lit.

The streetlight effect, or the drunkard's search principle, is a type of observational bias that occurs when people only search for something where it is easiest to look.[1][2][3][4] Both names refer to a well-known joke:

A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is".[2]


The anecdote goes back at least to the 1920s,[5][6][7][8] and has been used metaphorically in the social sciences since at least 1964, when Abraham Kaplan referred to it as "the principle of the drunkard's search".[9] The anecdote has also been attributed to Nasreddin. According to Idries Shah, this tale is used by many Sufis, commenting upon people who seek exotic sources for enlightenment.[10]

See also

• McNamara fallacy

References

1. David H. Freedman (August 1, 2010). "The Streetlight Effect". Discover. Retrieved 2010-08-24.
2. David H. Freedman (2010). Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0-316-02378-8.
3. Sufism/Nasrudin on Wikibooks
4. Battaglia, Manuela; Atkinson, Mark A. (2015-04-01). "The Streetlight Effect in Type 1". Diabetes. 64 (4): 1081–1090. doi:10.2337/db14-1208. ISSN 0012-1797. PMC 4375074. PMID 2580758.
5. ^ "'Did You Lose the Keys Here?' 'No, But the Light Is Much Better Here'", Quote Investigator April 4, 2013
6. "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists : Science and Public Affairs. Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc.: 9 December 1960. ISSN 0096-3402. Retrieved 2017-01-08.
7. United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Military Affairs (1945). Hearings on Science Legislation (S. 1297 and Related Bills): Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate, Seventy-ninth Congress, First Session, Pursuant to S. Res. 107 (78th Congress) and S. Res. 146 (79th Congress) Authorizing a Study of the Possibilities of Better Mobilizing the National Resources of the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved 2017-01-08.
8. Alabama State Bar Association (July 1926). "daddy%27s+watch" Report of the Organization and of the... Annual Meeting of the Alabama State Bar Association. Smith & Armstrong. p. 94. Retrieved 2017-01-08.
9. Kaplan, Abraham (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. Transaction Publishers. p. 11. ISBN 9781412836296. Retrieved 2014-10-08.
10. Shah, Idries (1964). The Sufis. Doubleday. pp. 70. ISBN 9780385079662.

Further reading

• Iyengar, Shanto (1993). "The Drunkard's Search". Explorations in Political Psychology. Duke Studies in Political Psychology. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-1324-3.
• Popkin, Samuel L. (1991). "Going beyond the data". The reasoning voter: communication and persuasión in presidential campaigns (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 92–95. ISBN 978-0-226-67545-9.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 33903
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Dec 21, 2021 2:18 am

Loharu State [Zia-ud-din Khan / Nawab Ziau-d din Loharu]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 12/20/21

Shams-i Siraj ‘Afif, author of the Ta'rikh-i Firuz Shahi, completed his work after the death of Firuz Shah.21

[21 For a discussion of ‘Afif s work and biographical details, see Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, pp. 40-55.]


The work was written after the capture of the city of Delhi by Timur’s army in 1398-1399. ‘Afif's relationship to the court is not known. He was not known to be a nadim like Barani and his patron is not known. ‘Afif devotes several chapters to the architectural endeavors of the sultan, most notably the foundations at Firuzabad and Hissar. He also provides a list of monuments where Firuz Shah undertook restoration and also discusses the transport of the Asokan columns to Delhi. Since ‘Afif witnessed the destruction of Delhi by Timur, his history is a nostalgic recollection of a past era. His account is not always firsthand and he frequently relies on the testimony of other authorities, such as his father, as well as his own memory. According to the author, the Ta’rikh is only part of a larger composition which records the history of the Delhi sultanate from the time of Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq through the time of Timur’s capture. However, the known manuscripts of the work include only the reign of Firuz Shah. The name Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi has been ascribed to the work by modern historians on the basis of the surviving portions. Even these, however, are incomplete according to the author’s table of contents. ‘Afif refers to his work as the Manaqib-i Firuz Shahi.22

[The manaqib ("merit" or "virtue") is a literary genre which is usually reserved for biographies of saints and Muslim holymen. According to Hardy, the application of this genre to a biography of a sultan is unusual and he claims that ‘Afif "superimposes upon events a pattern required by the literary genre..." The same author contends that ‘Afif models the sultan "in conformity with an abstract ideal." See Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, p. 41.]


The Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi survives in several manuscripts, all imperfect copies. Two copies in India, one formerly in the possession of General Hamilton and another owned by Nawab Zia al-Din Loharu, were the basis for other copies owned by Sir H. Elliot, a certain Mr. Thomas, and two copies in the India Office Library (one by way of the Marquis of Hastings). The Bibliotheca Indica edition, edited by Maulavi Vilayat Husain, was published in 1891. Elliot and Dowson published an English translation of the Ta’rikh in their History. Translated abstracts of the work by Lieut. Henry Lewis first appeared in the Journal of the Archaeological Society of Delhi in 1849.

-- The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University, by William Jeffrey McKibben, B.A., M.A., 1988


Little is known of Shams-i Siraj beyond what is gleaned from his own work....

The work has met with scarcely any notice, whilst every historian who writes of the period quotes and refers to Ziau-d din Barni. The reason of this may be... [due to] the fact of its having at a comparatively late period been rescued from some musty record room. The work, consisting of ninety chapters, contains an ample account of this Akbar of his time ... [it] gives us altogether a better view of the internal condition of India under a Muhammadan sovereign than is presented to us in any other work, except the A'yin-i Akbari...

Sir H. Elliot desired to print a translation of the whole work... A portion of the work had been translated for him by a munshi, but this has proved to be entirely useless. The work of translation has, consequently, fallen upon the editor, and he has endeavoured to carry out Sir H. Elliot's plan by making a close translation of the first three chapters, and by extracting from the rest of the work everything that seemed worthy of selection....

Besides this history of Firoz Shah, the author often refers to his Manakib-i Sultan Tughlik, and he mentions his intention of writing similar memoirs of the reign of Sultan Muhammad, the son of Firoz Shah. Nothing more appears to be known of these works. Copies of the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi are rare in India, and Colonel Lees, who has selected the work for publication in the Bibliotheca Indica, has heard only of "one copy in General Hamilton's library, and of another at Dehli, in the possession of Nawab Ziau-d din Loharu, of which General Hamilton's is perhaps a transcript." The editor has had the use of four copies. One belonging to Sir H. Elliot, and another belonging to Mr. Thomas, are of quite recent production. They are evidently taken from the same original, most probably the Dehli copy above mentioned. The other two copies belong to the library of the India Office, one having been lately purchased at the sale of the Marquis of Hastings's books. These are older productions; they are well and carefully written, and although they contain many obvious errors, they will be of the greatest service in the preparation of a correct text. None of these MSS. are perfect. The two modern copies terminate in the middle of the ninth chapter of the last book. The Hastings copy wants several chapters at the end of the first and the beginning of the second book; but it extends to the eleventh chapter of the last book, and has the final leaf of the work. The other MS. ends in the middle of the fifteenth chapter of the last book, and some leaves are missing from the fourteenth.

-- XVI. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 269-364, 1871


The earliest record of Firuz Shah’s achievements was written by the pre-eminent historian of the age, Ziya’ al-Din Barani.13

[13. Authors whose works predate Firuz Shah’s reign provide descriptions of the topography and monuments of Delhi. Their accounts are useful in setting the stage for Firuz Shah’s reign, one which witnessed a proliferation of architectural monuments.

Most noted among these authors is the poet Amir Khusrau (b. 651/1253) whose Tughluk-nama, one of his many prose works which describes the glorious victories of Khalji and Tughluq rulers makes no reference to their architectural achievements. Amir Khusrau was patronized by ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji, Qutb al-Din Mubarak Shah and Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq. See P. Hardy, "Amir Khusraw Dihlawi," Encyclopedia of Islam I (1960), pp. 444-445.

’Isami, a court poet under Muhammad bin Tughluq, was embittered over his family’s forced migration to Daulatabad so he retired to the court of ‘Ala’ al-Din Hasan Bahman Shah and wrote his Futuh al-Salatin in 750-751/1349-1350 under the patronage of the Bahman sultan. The Futuh, written in the manner of Firdausi’s Shah-nama, recounts the conquests of India since the Ghaznavids (English trans. Agha Mahdi Husain, Bombay 1967). In it, he provides one of the few early descriptions of Delhi. See A.S. Bazmee Ansari, "’Isami," Encyclopedia of Islam IV (1978), pp. 92-93.

Ibn Battuta served as a qadi to the court of Muhammad bin Tughluq between 1333-1343 A.D. In his Rihla, completed in 756/1357, he described the urban landscape of Delhi. See A. Miquel, "Ibn Battuta," Encyclopedia of Islam III (1971), pp. 735-736. Chapters on India translated by C. Defrémery and B.R. Sanguinetti, Voyage d'Ibn Batoutah, 4 vols (Paris, 1853-59); H. A. R. Gibb, The Travels of Ibn Battuta, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1958-62); and Mahdi Husain, TheRehla of Ibn Battuta (Baroda, 1953).

The poet Badr al-Din Chach wrote a panegyric description of Delhi and the palace of Khurrambad in the Qasa’id (portions translated by Elliot and Dowson).

Shihab al-Din ‘Abbas al-’Umari wrote about monuments of Delhi and Daulatabad without having visited the subcontinent. Based on traveler’s descriptions, he completed the Masalik al-absar fi mamalik al-amsar in Damascus (Trans. I.H. Siddiqi and Q.M. Ahmad, Fourteenth Century Account of India under Muhammad bin Tughluq, Aligarh 1971.]


Barani is known from four surviving works, Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, Fatawa-yi Jahandari, Na’t-i Muhammadi, and Akhbar-i Barmakiyyan.14

[14. Biographical details about Barani’s life are provided by Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, pp. 20-39; Hardy, "Diya’ al-Din Barani," Encyclopedia of Islam I, pp. 1036-1037; and Habib, "Life and Thought of Ziauddin Barani," in Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate, pp. 117-172.]


His family was well-connected with the Delhi court since the time his father had risen to prominence under ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. Barani served Muhammad bin Tughluq for over seventeen years as nadim or court chronicler and continued to serve the court in that capacity under Firuz Shah. However at the beginning of Firuz Shah’s reign, Barani was implicated in a coup attempt and was banished from court.15

[15. Ibid. Details about his banishment are sketchy. Barani himself relates in his Na’t-i Muhammadi that he was confined to the Pahtez fortress for five months.]


He spent his remaining years in exile seeking to be restored to the favor of the sultan. During this time he wrote the Ta'rikh-i Firuz Shahi until his death in 759/1357.

The Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi recorded the history of the Delhi sultans from Balban (664-686/1266-1287) through the sixth year of Firuz Shah’s reign. Barani advocated strict adherence to the shari’a and judged the success or failure of the sultans he discussed accordingly. While 101 chapters were planned, Barani had only completed a portion of these at the time of his death. Those chapters which deal with Firuz Shah focus on the events surrounding his accession to the throne and his early reforms. Barani includes in two chapters a discussion of the sultan’s buildings and canals. His description of the madrasa at Hauz Khas is the only contemporary literary record of that institution. (His descriptions of the earlier Tughluq foundations at Jahanpanah and Tughluqabad are included in earlier chapters.) Other matters which he addresses are Firuz Shah’s military feats: the campaign to Bengal (Barani lived to witness only the first expedition) and the repelling of early Chaghatai marauders. He eulogizes the personal character of the sultan and remarks on his fondness for hunting. He also records the occasion of the sultan’s investiture by the Mamluk caliph.

Two editions of the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi have been published. The Bibliotheca Indica edition, edited by Saiyid Ahmad Khan under supervision of Captain W. Nassau Lees and Maulavi Kabir al-Din, was published in 1862. This edition was a collation of two manuscripts in the possession of Sir H. Elliot, one of which bore a transcription colophon 1010/1610 and was borrowed from the Nawab of Tonk. The second edition was published by Elliot and Dowson, who translated parts of the Ta’rikh in the third volume of The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians. Their translation was largely based on the Bibliotheca Indica edition. Only two chapters of those on Firuz Shah’s reign are translated.

Barani’s other work which is relevant to the reign of Firuz Shah is the Fatawa-yi Jahandari, completed in 1358-1359 A.D. The Fatawa is written in the form of advice from Mahmud of Ghazni to his sons and the rulers of Delhi. The work is his own personal theory of kingship and is representative of the tradition of nasihat literature of the time.16

[16. Nasihat literature consisted of books of advice which were paradigms or mirrors for princes to emulate.]


Barani viewed history as the instrument to teach religious morality through examples of the past. Barani casts Firuz Shah as an ideal ruler. Barani’s interpretation of the sultan’s actions may have been influenced by his own personal misfortune and his desire to be restored to the favor of the sultan.

The Fatawa-yi Jahandari is known from the India Office Library Persian manuscript (Persian MS 1149). An English translation by Dr. Afsar Begum (Mrs. Afsar Umar Salim Khan) from a manuscript in the Commonwealth Library was published in Medieval India Quarterly and was reprinted in Muhammad Habib and Afsar Begum, The Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate.

-- The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University, by William Jeffrey McKibben, B.A., M.A., 1988


Image
The city walls of Tughluqabad, Delhi; from El mundo en la mano, 1878|© Universal History Archive/UIG via Getty Images

IN THIS REVIEW: TARIKH-I FIROZ SHAHI, Translated by Ishtiyaq Ahmad Zilli 396pp. Primus Books. £46.95 (US $69.95), Ziauddin Barani

Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi by Ziauddin Barani (1285–1357) is the most important history of India’s Delhi Sultanate, which was founded by Turkish invaders in the thirteenth century. It covers the high point of the Sultanate from the beginning of the reign of Balban in 1266 through to the sixth year of Firoz Shah Tughluq in 1357. If it did not exist, our knowledge of this important period in the establishment of Muslim power in South Asia would be much diminished.

That we have this history at all is the result of the will of one of the remarkable Muslims of nineteenth-century India, Syed Ahmed Khan. Later in the century, he fashioned the lineaments of Islamic modernist thought and founded the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh, which was designed to enable his class to continue to have under the British the positions of power it held under the Mughals. Earlier in the century, he had become obsessed by the relics of the Sultanate that lay all around him in Delhi. These he recorded in one of his early publications, Asar as-Sanadid (1847/1853), which translates as “Traces of the Great”. It was Ahmed Khan who, with the help of Captain Nassau Lees and Maulvi Kabiruddin Ahmed, compiled the first printed edition of the Persian text of the Tarikh, using one complete manuscript and three incomplete manuscripts to finish what Ishtiyaq Ahmad Zilli tells us is the first Persian edited text. It was published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Calcutta) in 1862 and was one of the achievements which earned him his Fellowship of the Royal Asiatic Society.

Zilli’s translation is the first complete translation into English of Barani’s history. Several excerpts were translated in the nineteenth century, the largest and most used being that which appeared in the third volume of Henry Miers Elliot and John Dowson’s History of India as Told by its own Historians. The value of this particular excerpt has been increasingly undermined by the blatant imperial purpose of the volumes as a whole. “Though”, Elliot tells us in his preface of 1849, “the intrinsic value of these works may be small . . . they will make our native subjects more sensible of the immense advantages accruing to them from our rule.” It is understandable why Zilli, who has taught Sultanate history for many years at Aligarh Muslim University, should wish to produce a complete English text…

-- Traces of the Great: A medieval history of the Delhi Sultanate, by Francis Robinson, the-tls.co.uk, June 30, 2017


Loharu State
लोहारू रियासत
ریاست لوہارو
Princely State of British India
1806–1947
Image
Flag of Loharu
Image
Loharu at the edge of Punjab (British India), 1903
Capital: Loharu
Area: • 1901: 570 km2 (220 sq mi)
Population: • 1901: 15,229
History
• Established: 1806
• Accession to the Union of India: 1947
Succeeded by: India
Today part of: India

Loharu State was one of the princely states of India during the period of the British Raj.[1] It was part of the Punjab States Agency and was a nine-gun salute state.[citation needed]

Loharu State encompassed an area of 222 square miles (570 km2), and was situated in the south-east corner of the undivided Punjab province, between the district of Hissar and the Rajputana Agency.[2] In 1901, the state had a population of 15,229 people, of whom 2,175 resided in the town of Loharu.[3] From 1803 to 1835, the territory of Loharu State also included an Ferozepur Jhirka enclave within the area directly administered by the British raj,[4][5] Outer limits of the state were defined by the peripheral towns of Loharu, Bahal, Isharwal, Kairu, Jui Khurd and Badhra.

The haveli of 'Nawab of Loharu', known as Mahal Sara, lies in Gali Qasim Jan in Ballimaran, where his son-in-law, noted poet Mirza Ghalib stayed for a few years, whose own Ghalib ki Haveli lies a few yard away.[6][7] Now the gali, which houses the Mahal Sara, is known as Kothi Nawab Loharu lane in Ballimaran mohalla of Chandni Chowk area in Old Delhi.[8]

History

Image
Gali Qasim Jan in Ballimaran

Loharu town, the seat of the state's administration town got its name from the Lohars (local blacksmiths) who were employed in the minting of coins for the erstwhile Jaipur State.[9] The princely state of Loharu was founded by Ahmad Baksh Khan in 1803 when he received the town of Loharu, (along with the pargana of 'Firozepur Jirka' (now in Nuh district), from the Lord Lake of British East India Company as a reward for his services against the Jat rulers of Bharatpur.[5][10][11]

Image

Gerard Lake, 1st Viscount Lake (27 July 1744 – 20 February 1808) was a British general. He commanded British forces during the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and later served as Commander-in-Chief of the military in British India....

He served with his regiment in Germany between 1760 and 1762, and with a composite battalion in the Battle of Yorktown of 1781. After this he was equerry to the Prince of Wales, afterwards George IV....

In 1790, he became a major-general, and in 1793 was appointed to command the Guards Brigade in the Duke of York and Albany's army in Flanders during the French Revolutionary Wars....

As lieutenant-colonel Lake went out with drafts to America i(American War of Independence) n the spring of 1781, made the campaign in North Carolina under Lord Cornwallis, and commanded the grenadiers of the guards and of the old 80th royal Edinburgh regiment in a sortie, under Colonel Robert Abercromby, from the British lines at York Town...

In December 1796 he was appointed commander in Ulster {1798 rebellion Ireland) and issued a proclamation ordering the surrender of all arms by the civil population, during which time he was 'untroubled by legal restraints or by his troops' violent actions'.... Lake succeeded Sir Ralph Abercromby as commander-in-chief of British troops in Ireland in April 1798 and turned his attention to Leinster, where 'public floggings and torture of suspected rebels became widespread and added to the general atmosphere of terror'. Rather than cowing the province into submission, 'his crude methods probably contributed to the outbreak of insurrection' in May 1798.[3] Lake continued to deal harshly with opposition, and issued orders to take no prisoners during the rebellion....

Indian Campaigns

In 1799, Lake returned to England, and soon afterwards travelled to British India where he was appointed Commander-in-Chief. He took up his duties at Calcutta in July 1801, and applied himself to the improvement of the East India Company army, especially in the direction of making all arms, infantry, cavalry and artillery, more mobile and more manageable. In 1802 he was made a full general.

On the outbreak the Second Anglo-Maratha War in 1803 General Lake took the field against Daulat Scindia, and within two months defeated the Marathas at Kol (now called Aligarh), after storming Aligarh Fort during the Battle of Ally Ghur (1 September 1803). He then took Delhi (11 September) and Agra (10 October), and won a victory at the Battle of Laswari (1 November), where the power of Scindia was completely broken with the loss of 31 disciplined battalions, trained and officered by Frenchmen, and 426 pieces of ordnance....

Operations continued against Yashwantrao Holkar, who, on 17 November 1804, was defeated by Lake at the Battle of Farrukhabad. However, Lake was frustrated by Jats and Yashwantrao Holker at Bharatpur which held out against five assaults early in 1805.... Lake pursued Holkar into the Punjab. However, after seeing the stronger position of Holkar and his effort to gather all Indian princes under one flag against the British, the British East India Company signed a peace treaty with Holkar which returned to him all his territory and promised no further interference from the Company.

Lord Wellesley in a despatch attributed much of the success of the war to Lake's matchless energy, ability and valour. For his services, Lake received the thanks of Parliament, and, in September 1804, was rewarded by being created Baron Lake of Delhi and Laswary and of Aston Clinton in the County of Buckingham. From 1801 to 1805 Lake was Commander-in-Chief, India, then again from 1805 to 1807
.... At the conclusion of the war he returned to England, and in 1807 he was created Viscount Lake of Delhi and Laswary and of Aston Clinton in the County of Buckingham.

-- Gerard Lake, 1st Viscount Lake, by Wikipedia


Image
Sir Amiruddin Ahmad Khan, Nawab of Loharu,1884-1920.

Ahmad Baksh Khan was succeeded by his eldest son, Sams-ud-din Khan [Samsudin Ahmad Khan], in 1827; his reign did not last long: in 1835 he was executed by the British Raj for being involved in the conspiracy to kill the British Resident to Delhi, Sir William Frazer,[12][13] Noted Urdu poet Daagh Dehlvi was a son of Nawab Samsuddin Khan.[14][15] Subsequently the pargana of Firozepur was taken away by the British and the state of Loharu was given to his brothers, Amin-ud-din and Zia-ud-din Khan. Both were themselves kept under surveillance after the Indian Rebellion of 1857 for some time, before being released and their positions restored.

Alauddin Ahmed Khan succeeded his father Amin-ud-din Khan in 1869 and received the title of Nawab. Alauddin's son, Amir-ud-din Ahmad Khan (1859–1937), after managing the state on his father's behalf, succeed him in 1884, though from 1893 to 1903, he remained administrator and adviser of the state of Maler Kotla – during this time, the state was being handled by his younger brother, Bashiruddin Ahmed Khan. In 1903, Amir-ud-din Ahmad Khan also received the K.C.S.I honour from the British Government and after 1 January 1903 was allowed a 9 gun personal salute.[5] He later became a member of the Viceroy of India's legislative council.[3][16]

Image
Loharu State, State Court Fee Stamp, 8 Annas, issued under Nawab Amin ud-din Ahmad Khan
(r. 1926–1947)


In 1920, he abdicated to his second son, Aizzuddin Ahmad Khan, though he died early in 1926, leaving the state to his son, Amin ud-din Ahmad Khan (1911–1983) - the last Nawab.[17] However, since the new Nawab was still young, Amirud-din Ahmad Khan stepped in and took care of the state till 1931.

After the Independence of India in 1947, the state acceded to the Union of India and many of the ruling family and the city's Muslim inhabitants re-settled in Lahore, Pakistan, though the Nawab and his direct descendants (except for the eldest daughter of Nawab Aminuddin Ahmed, Mahbano Begum who lives in Islamabad), stayed on, in India.[12]

Nawabs of Loharu: Lineage
Nawab / Reign


Ahmad Bakhsh Khan /1806–1827
Sams-ud-din Khan (Samsuddin Ahmad Khan) /1827–1835
Aminuddin Ahmad Khan /1835 - 27 February 1869
Allauddin Ahmad Khan /27 February 1869 – 31 October 1884
Amiruddin Ahmad Khan, K.C.S.I/31 October 1884 - April 1920 (abdicated)
Azizuddin Ahmad Khan /April 1920 - 30 October 1926
Aminuddin Ahmad Khan II /30 October 1926 – 15 August 1947


Notable members of the Loharu dynasty

The ruling family of Loharu was linked by blood or marriage to several important Muslim personalities of the 19th century, including:

• Mirza Ghalib (1796 — 1869), renowned Urdu and Persian poet, married Umrao Begum, daughter of Nawab Ilahi Bakhsh Khan (younger brother of the first Nawab, Ahmad Baksh Khan).
• Daagh Dehlvi (1831 – 1905), a noted Urdu poet was a son of second Nawab, Samsuddin Ahmad Khan.[14][15]
Syed Ahmed Khan (1817 – 1898), educationist KCSI[16]
Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed (1905–1977), President of India (1974–1977)

Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed (13 May 1905 – 11 February 1977) was an Indian lawyer and politician who served as the fifth president of India from 1974 to 1977...

Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed was born on 13 May 1905 at the Hauz Qazi area of Old Delhi, India. His father, Col. Zalnur Ali Ahmed, was an Assamese Muslim and the first Assamese person to have an M.D. (Doctor of Medicine) degree. His mother, Sahibzadi Ruqaiyya Sultan, was a daughter of the Nawab of Loharu. Ahmed's grandfather, Khaliluddin Ahmed, was from Parsi Poria Family of Assamese Goria ethnic community. Khaliluddin Ahmed's forefather was brought to Assam by the medieval Ahom ruler from Delhi to work as translator to translate the letters received from Mughal emperor written in Parsian language and also to write letters and communications to Mughal court in Parsian language, therefore his family was called Parsi poria family in Assam History.... Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed married a Muslim girl named Begum Abida Ahmed of Sheikhupur, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh. Ahmed attended St. Stephen's College, Delhi, and St Catharine's College, Cambridge. He was called to the Bar from the Inner Temple of London and began legal practice in the Lahore High Court in 1928.

He met Jawaharlal Nehru in England in 1925. He joined the Indian National Congress and actively participated in the Indian Freedom Movement. In 1942 he was arrested during the Quit India Movement and sentenced to 3+1⁄2 years imprisonment. He was a member of the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee from 1936 and of AICC from 1947 to 1974, and remained the Minister of Finance, Revenue and labour in 1948 Gopinath Bordoloi Ministry.


After Independence he was elected to the Rajya Sabha (1952–1953) and thereafter became Advocate-General of the Government of Assam. He was elected on the Congress ticket to the Assam Legislative Assembly for two terms (1957–1962) and (1962–1967) representing the Jania constituency.

Subsequently, he was elected to the Lok Sabha, representing the Barpeta constituency, Assam in 1967 and again in 1971. In the Central Cabinet he was given important portfolios relating to Food and Agriculture, Co-operation, Education, Industrial Development and Company Laws.

Ahmed was chosen for the presidency by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1974, and on 20 August 1974, he became the second Muslim to be elected President of India. He is known to have issued the proclamation of emergency by signing the papers at midnight after a meeting with Indira Gandhi the same day. He used his constitutional authority as head of state to allow him to rule by decree once the Emergency in India was proclaimed in 1975.

Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, by Wikipedia


• Ibrahim Ali Khan Pataudi (r. 1913–1917), Nawab of Pataudi, married Shahar Bano Begum, daughter of Nawab Amiruddin Ahmad Khan.

Courtiers

Jaglan Zail of Bidhwan was adjacent to the Loharu State.

Mir Muhammad Khan, was a fine vocalist in the court of Maharaja Loharu, a descendant of Mir Allahbux who a famous vocalists and the court-musician of Raja Nahar Singh of Ballabhgarh State.[18]

Post-Independence

Loharu descendants in India


• Amin ud-din Ahmad Khan, the last ruling Nawab: Served in the Indian Army, seeing action during the liberation of Portuguese India in 1961. He was later elected to the Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan state, and ended his chequered career as the governor of Himachal Pradesh (1977–1981) and governor of Punjab (1981–1982).
o Ala-uddin Ahmad Khan II (Born 1938): After staying in Kolkata for many year, he now lives in Loharu town; where the Loharu fort, now in ruins, stands in its center,[19] and a major tourist attraction [20]
o Aimaduddin Ahmad Khan, or 'Durru Mian' (Born 1944) married to Fauzia Ahmad Khan: Indian National Congress politician, member Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan, Health Minister Of Rajasthan state,[21] settled in Jaipur[22]
o Noor Bano (Born 1939): Married to Syed Zulfiqar Ali Khan of Rampur (Titular Nawab of Rampur), and a member 11th Lok Sabha and 13th Lok Sabha.
Loharu descendants in Pakistan[edit]
• Jamiluddin Aali, (born 1926, Delhi), Urdu poet, playwright.[23]
• Mahbano Begum, (born 1934, Loharu), eldest daughter of Nawab Aminuddin Ahmad Khan, married to H. E. Dr. S. M. Koreshi, Ambassador of Pakistan.[12]
• Junaid Jamshed Khan, (died 2016, Havelian) son of granddaughter of last Nawab of Loharu, Pakistani Artist and Personality

Adjacent states and jagirs

• Jind State, bordering south east
• Patiala State, bordering south
• Jaglan Zail of Bidhwan, bordering north was directly administered by the British raj.

See also

• History of Haryana
• List of princely states of British India

References

1. Loharu Princely State (nine gun salute)
2. 1909 location map of Loharu in British Punjab
3. Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Loharu" . Encyclopædia Britannica. 16 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 922.
4. Sir Thomas Metcalfe. "Assasination [sic] of William Fraser, Agent to the Governor-General of India". British Library. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
5. Loharu State The Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1909, v. 16, p. 169.
6. HC fiat to Centre, Delhi Govts on poet Mirza Ghalib's haveli Indian Express, 12 April 1999.
7. Delhi Hunger and History in Delhi Archived 8 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Jauymini Barkataky, Civil Society, April 2007 Edition.
8. Senior Secondary Panama Building Girls School in the Kothi Nawab Loharu lane in Ballimaran Indian Express, 8 October 2008.
9. Loharu Town The Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1909, v. 16, p. 170.
10. Chapter 5: My Loharu Connection Archived 30 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine The Battle Within, by Brigadier Mirza Hamid Hussain, Pakistan Army 33. 1970. ISBN 969-407-286-7 -.(ebook)
11. The State of Loharu Indian States: A Biographical, Historical, and Administrative Survey, by Somerset Playne, R. V. Solomon, J. W. Bond, Arnold Wright. Asian Educational Services, 2006. ISBN 81-206-1965-X.Page 691.
12. Loharu family’s get-together in capital – Islamabad Dawn, 26 May 2005.
13. The Story of Many Moons ArabNews, "Sams-ud-din Khan is one of the characters in the historic novel, Kai chand thay sar-e asman (novel), by Shamsur Rahman Faruqi."
14. Amrita Dutta (16 June 2013). "Finding Wazir". The Indian Express (newspaper). Retrieved 16 May 2018.
15. Omair Ahmad (14 September 2013). "An incandescent star, a polyphonic constellation". The Sunday Guardian. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
16. Lee-Warner, William (1911). "Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Sir" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. 24 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 278.

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan
by William Lee-Warner
Encyclopædia Britannica
1911

SAYYID AHMAD KHAN, SIR (1817-1898), Mahommedan educationist and reformer, was born at Delhi, India, in, 1817. He belonged to a family which had come to India with the Mahommedan conquest, and had held important offices under the Mogul emperors. Although his imperfect acquaintance with English prevented his attainment of higher office than that of a judge of a small cause court, he earned the title of the recognized leader of the Mahommedan community. To the British he rendered loyal service, and when the mutiny reached Bijnor in Rohilkand in May 1857 the British residents owed their lives to his courage and tact. His faithfulness to his religion was pronounced, and in 1876 he defended the cause of Islam in a Series of Essays on Mahommed, written in London. He used these advantages to act as interpreter between the Mahommedans and their rulers, and to rouse his co-religionists to a sense of the benefits of modern education. The task was no light one, for during the first half of the 19th century the Mahommedans had kept themselves aloof from English education, and therefore from taking their proper part in the British administration, being content to study Persian and Arabic in their own mosques. Sayyid Ahmad set himself to alter their resolution. He established a translation society, which became the Scientific Society of Aligarh. He wrote letters from England to draw the hearts of the East to the West. In 1873 he founded the Mahommedan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh, and raised funds for the buildings of which Lord Lytton laid the foundation stone. He stimulated a similar movement elsewhere, and among other cities Karachi, Bombay and Hyderabad caught the infection of his spirit. Thus he effected a revolution in the attitude of Mahommedans towards modern education. He was made K.C.S.I., and became a member of the legislative councils of India and Allahabad, and of the education. He died at Aligarh on the 2nd of March 1898.

See Lieut.-Colonel G. F. I. Graham, The Life and Work of Sir Saiyad Ahmed Khan (1885). (W. L.-W.)


17. Genealogy of the Nawabs of Loharu Queensland University.
18. Amala Dāśaśarmā, 1993, Musicians of India: Past and Present : Gharanas of Hindustani Music and Genealogies
19. "Eighth Nawab" of Loharu Alauddin Ahmed Khan The Tribune, 23 August 2007.
20. Bhiwani district http://www.haryana-online.com.
21. Nawab of Loharu Archived 21 February 2009 at the Wayback Machine
22. "Heritage". Mariekesartofliving.com. Retrieved 8 December 2013.
23. Jamiluddin Aali - Pakistani Poet Dawn, 5 June 2008.

External links

• Media related to Loharu State at Wikimedia Commons
• Genealogy of the Nawabs of Loharu Queensland University
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 33903
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests