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 » Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:42 am

Bias in Ptolemy's History of Alexander1 [An early version of this paper was read to the meeting of Hibernian Hellenists at Ballymascanlon in March 1968. I am grateful for comments made then, and to Professor E. Badian for reading a subsequent draft.]
by R. M. Errington
The Queen's University, Belfast
The Classical Quarterly
Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 233-242 (10 pages)
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Nov., 1969

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.




Arrian's enthusiasm for Ptolemy's account of Alexander has often been echoed in modern times.2 [A(rrian) I. I (all references are to the Anabasis unless otherwise stated). Cf. W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 1949), passim: L. Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (New York, (1960), esp. 188 ff.] With much justification it is generally agreed that Arrian's account of Alexander, through its reliance on the works of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, is our best and, on the whole, most reliable account of Alexander. Recent work, however, has illuminated Ptolemy's weaknesses, and we can no longer regard Ptolemy as utterly reliable in every important respect.3 [See especially the articles of E. Badian in TAPhA, 1960, Historia, 1958, C.Q., 1958. Also his comments on Pearson's book in Gnomon, 1961 (reprinted in Studies in Greek and Roman History [Oxford, 1964], 250 ff.); C. B. Welles, Miscellanea Rostagni (Turin, 1963), 101 ff.] His version of the Alexander story is centred on Alexander, therefore Alexander is depicted out of the close context of the Macedonian court.4 [Clearly shown by H. Strasburger, Ptolemaios und Alexander (Leipzig, 1934), 50 ff.] It is only through the information preserved in other writers -- traditionally, but undiscriminatingly, considered unreliable -- that, for instance, the picture of Alexander's struggle with his Macedonian nobles has begun to emerge. And in matters of this kind Ptolemy's version is so much the court 'official' version that it cannot be regarded as trustworthy.

From these studies a new dimension has been revealed in Ptolemy's history. Far from being a simple military narrative, a general's story, 'to set the record straight',5 [So Pearson, Lost Histories, 193 ff. (with bibliography).] it is as much a political history as any, even if much of the distortion is caused by omitting crucial events. Strasburger in 1934 noted Ptolemy's penchant for throwing Alexander's activities into relief by omitting details about his nobles', except in purely military contexts where mention was unavoidable.6 [Potlemaios und Alexander, 50 ff.] Strasburger attributed Ptolemy's unwillingness to allow too much success to Alexander's nobles, and his complementary emphasis on Alexander's own activities, to Ptolemy's loyalist point of view, and he did not regard it as being of any great importance. But Badian's more recent work has shown that, far from being unimportant, it is one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of Ptolemy's historical work.

Welles has tried to plot another aspect of Ptolemy's bias:7 [Miscellanea Rostagni, 101 ff.] arguing from fundamentals, that Ptolemy was himself active under Alexander, therefore cannot have been unbiased in his treatment of his own career, he goes on to illustrate, in terms of military commands, how Ptolemy on occasions exaggerated his own achievements, and on occasions disagreed with what other authors had to say about his own activities. Moreover, we can add that this exaggeration was not limited solely to military affairs. The silence about the other Macedonian nobles, which Strasburger noticed, is more insidious than at first appears: for it is used to exaggerate Ptolemy's own importance. In the 'conspiracy of the pages', which led to Callisthenes' arrest, Curtius' version1 [C(urtius) 8. 6. 22.] -- which we have no reason to doubt in outline -- has it that the conspiracy was revealed in the first instance to Ptolemy and Leonnatus, who duly brought matters to a head by informing Alexander (and who, by implication, took the credit of saving the king's life). Arrian's version is broadly similar, but the credit for bringing the conspiracy to Alexander's notice there belongs to Ptolemy alone: Leonnatus does not feature in his account, and there is no reason why Arrian should have omitted him, had Ptolemy mentioned his part.
2 [A. 4. 13. 7.]

Since Ptolemy exaggerated his own activities in this way, he also, inevitably, depreciated the activities of his colleagues. In the case we have just noticed. Leonnatus' reputation would have suffered were Arrian's (Ptolemy's) version the only one to have survived. Exaggeration of Ptolemy's own activities is perhaps to be expected, and we can take precautions against it. But his insidious distortion by the simple omission of important facts about his colleagues is clearly not intended only to throw Alexander's own activities into relief, and to make them alone seem relatively more important. Ptolemy clearly used the method more widely than has hitherto been thought, and while he uses it to exaggerate discreetly his own career (often without actually lying -- a characteristic which appealed to Arrian!), we must explore whether it was also used, equally discreetly, to denigrate his later opponents. Few of his later opponents were, in fact, sufficiently important under Alexander to feature largely in Ptolemy's narrative. But there are cases which seem to offer primafacie evidence, Antigonus, Aristonous, and Perdiccas.3 [Otto (ap. H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (2 vols., Munich, 1926), ii, 351 n. 6), suggests that Seleucus' military career under Alexander has also been suppressed -- though he does not say who might have suppressed it. This is an unnecessary assumption and cannot be demonstrated (as Berve, loc. cit., points out), since no source supplies much information about Seleucus under Alexander, Berve's own suggestion is quite satisfactory, that Seleucus simply was not important at the time.] Since the case of Antigonus is inconclusive, I shall deal with it first.

In his examination of some information which Curtius provides, and which he thinks Arrian ought to have, Tarn deals with the case of Antigonus.4 [Alexander, ii. 110-11.] Antigonus was appointed to the satrapy of Phrygia Major in 334, which he retained until Alexander's death. After Issus, in 333, Antigonus had a major success in dealing with the remains of the Persian army which tried to escape through Asia Minor. This we know only from Curtius.5 [C. 4. I. 35.] It is not in Arrian, and the reasonable conclusion is that it was not in Ptolemy. Tarn attributed this to Ptolemy's hostility towards Antigonus: 'Ptolemy was not going to relate the acta of one who had been his most bitter enemy.'6 [Alexander, ii. 110; cf. Pearson, Lost Histories, 192 (briefly).] And since it is clear that distortion by omission was peculiarly Ptolemy's among the Alexander historians, Tarn's interpretation has a prima-facie plausibility. Yet in this instance Ptolemy can be defended: for Antigonus' activities in Phrygia after 333 were no part of the Alexander-centred story favoured both by Ptolemy and by Arrian: they were essentially off-stage activities, however important in themselves. Even if Ptolemy had recorded Antigonus' success, there is no reason for Arrian to have followed him in this. Moreover, the manner of Tarn's argument begs a large question about the date at which Ptolemy wrote: he accepts the common assumption that Ptolemy wrote late in life, therefore after he had been hostile to Antigonus (after 314).1 [Alexander, ii. 110; cf. 43.] This may be reasonable; but if Ptolemy wrote before 314, there can clearly be no question of his having been openly hostile to Antigonus at the time of his writing, and therefore no question of his having concealed Antigonus' activities through jealousy. We shall return to this point later. It is sufficient for the present to notice that there is no conclusive reason for seeing hostile bias in Antigonus' omission.

The second of our examples is more interesting. Again, Tarn has drawn attention to it.2 [Ibid. 109.] The man in question is Aristonous, about whom essential information is preserved in Curtius alone, and though Arrian mentions him twice, neither instance comes from Ptolemy. The strange thing is that Aristonous was an important man at the court; he was a somatophylax [bodyguards of high-ranking people] at least as early as 326, since Arrian cites him in a list of somatophylakes, which he took from Aristobulus, when Peucestas was made somatophylax in 325; and Aristonous is also named later as 'Alexander's somatophylax'.3 [A. 6. 28. 4; cf. Strasburger, Ptolemaios und Alexander, 46; A. succ. (=F. Jacoby, FGH no. 156), frg. 10, 6.] The only other mention in Arrian comes from Nearchus: Aristonous is named as one of the trierarchs [the title of officers who commanded a trireme, an ancient vessel and a type of galley.] on the Indus.4 [A. Ind. 18. 5.] It is Curtius who gives us details of Aristonous' sole known claim to fame under Alexander. At the capture of the city of the Malli, Aristonous is one of those who, together with Peucestas, Timaeus, and Leonnatus, fought to protect Alexander's body, and was wounded for his pains.5 [C. 9. 5. 15 ff.] Arrian, as is well known, uses the discrepancies among the accounts of this battle for a discussion of his source material, but his narrative, probably taken from Ptolemy,6 [A. 6. 9. 10; cf. Strasburger, Ptolemaios und Alexander, 45.] features Peucestas, Leonnatus, and an otherwise unknown Abreas, a dimoirites [half-file leader]. Aristonous is not mentioned. Arrian admits that accounts vary; all are agreed on Peucestas, but they do not agree on Leonnatus and Abreas.7 [A. 6. 11. 7.] It is clear that Ptolemy must have provided the account which Arrian follows, yet, as Arrian himself admits, Ptolemy was not himself present at the battle;8 [A. 6. 11. 8.] and Curtius, for one, found information about Aristonous elsewhere -- but although he knew Ptolemy's book, he chose to ignore Ptolemy's trivia about the insignificant Abreas. The conclusion which immediately presents itself is that Ptolemy has deliberately concealed Aristonous' bravery, and chosen instead to feature the unimportant Abreas; were it not for Aristobulus' list of somatophylakes, Nearchus' list of trierarchs, and Curtius' wide reading and good sense, we should know precisely nothing about Aristonous under Alexander.

This would be particularly odd in view of the fact that Aristonous was an important man after Alexander's death. Arrian's Successors, taking information from Hieronymus of Cardia, lists him among the nobles who supported Perdiccas against Meleager in the first struggle at Babylon in June 323;
Curtius also makes him prominent at Babylon, and Curtius was also probably using the reliable Hieronymus.9 [A. succ. 2; C. 10. 6. 16 f. I shall show in JHS 1970 C.'s probable use of Hieronymus for his account of events at Babylon.] In this prominence at Babylon may lie the explanation of Ptolemy's silence about Aristonous under Alexander. For Aristonous was a firm supporter of Perdiccas at Babylon and after; and the speech which Curtius attributes to Aristonous at Babylon is not only the statement of one fully committed to supporting Perdiccas, but is also the first speech after Ptolemy's own intervention in the struggle, and is largely responsible for Ptolemy's proposal's being ignored. Moreover, this was not Aristonous' sole action directly against Ptolemy's interests: the Vatican papyrus fragment of Arrian's Successors shows him in action on Perdiccas' behalf in Cyprus, at the time when the leading Cypriot kings had allied with Ptolemy against Perdiccas, and when Perdiccas was in the process of invading Egypt in 320.1 [A succ. frg. 10, 6. On the date cf. E. Manni, RAL ser. 8, iv (1949), 53 ff.] Ptolemy clearly had reason for thinking Aristonous hostile, and for deliberately suppressing his activities under Alexander.2 [The remaining information about Aristonous after Perdiccas' death shows him only indirectly opposed to Ptolemy: he joined Olympias -- whether or not he was attached to Polyperchon first -- and fought for her against Cassander in 316 (Diod. 19. 35. 4), and was her governor of Amphipolis until her surrender to Cassander, when he was murdered by Cassander (Diod. 19. 51. 1 ff.). Although Ptolemy was nominally friendly towards Cassander, it is difficult to see anything in this later career of Aristonous which would exacerbate Ptolemy's hostility towards him.]

Concealment -- surely deliberate -- by Ptolemy of his enemy's earlier activities, which alone explain why Aristonous was at all prominent among the nobles at Babylon, leads us directly to an examination of Ptolemy's attitude to Perdiccas himself under Alexander, for Perdiccas proved to be Ptolemy's chief enemy -- though only comparatively briefly -- after Alexander's death: he was the only man to turn the whole might of the central government's power and propaganda against Ptolemy's possession of Egypt. There was every reason for Ptolemy to be hostile towards Perdiccas as towards his lieutenant Aristonous; and we shall see that his method of distortion by suppression was also employed in Perdiccas' case -- naturally, much more widely, inasmuch as Perdiccas was a more important man, than with Aristonous. We shall therefore proceed by comparing the picture of Perdiccas' career as it emerges from Ptolemy, on the one hand, and from the non-Ptolemaic sources on the other.

First, it is clear that a great deal of formal information, about battle alignments and commands, is common to all sources; and since this seems to be fuller and more accurate before the death of Callisthenes than after, it may have come in the first instance from Callisthenes' history, and have reached our extant authors either directly, or through Ptolemy and Aristobulus (Arrian), Clitarchus (Diodorus and ? Curtius), or others. It is therefore quite meaningless for our purpose that (for instance), both Curtius and Arrian mention the presence of Perdiccas' taxis in the dispositions before the battle of Issus, and that they are joined by Diodorus in giving the same information for Gaumela.3 [References in Berve, Das Alexanderreich, ii. 213-14.] If battles have to be described in detail, it is clearly important that the dispositions should be described. These purely formal mentions of Perdiccas' presence account for no fewer than eight out of eighteen references to him in Arrian, where he relies on Ptolemy, only four out of twenty in non-Ptolemy. Some of the remainder are insignificant for our purpose: for instance, the fact that Perdiccas was one of Philip's bodyguards is recorded only by Diodorus;4 [Diod. 16. 94. 4.] but there is no essential reason why Ptolemy (or Arrian) should have mentioned this detail. There is no point in discussing such inconclusive details: we shall therefore stick to such instances as shed some light on our investigation.

The first of these is very important, for it is a direct conflict between an attested fragment of Ptolemy and Diodorus, over Perdiccas' part in Alexander's destruction of Thebes in 335.1 [A. 1. 8. 1 ff. = FGH no. 138, frg. 3; Diod. 17. 12. 3 ff.] Ptolemy's tendency throughout his book is to apologize for Alexander, wherever he can prevent his distortion from being too obvious, and to depict him as being correct and right and his actions justified. Ptolemy's version of the destruction of Thebes -- a difficult enough problem for his Tendenz so early in his book -- is that the crucial attack which ultimately captured the city was started by Perdiccas without Alexander's orders, and that Alexander had to go to his rescue, and by so doing captured the city. The version has the clear merit for Ptolemy of partially absolving Alexander of the blame for Thebes' destruction; and this purpose becomes even clearer as his account progresses, when the Phocians, Plataeans, and other Boeotians are said to have been more prominent than the Macedonians in sacking the city.2 [A. 1. 8. 8.] Here, Ptolemy chooses the ill discipline of Perdiccas as his chief means of absolving Alexander from the distasteful responsibility for destroying Thebes. His dual purpose is clear enough, and has often been recognized, particularly when it is confronted with Diodorus' version which (much more soberly and reasonably) has Perdiccas acting on Alexander's orders, and the other Greeks joining in the destruction only when it is already under way.3 [Diod. 17. 12. 3.] Tarn preferred Ptolemy; but, long before, Berve had rightly thought Diodorus' version more trustworthy.4 [Tarn, Alexander, i. 7-8; Berve, Das Alexanderreich, ii. 313.]

This is one of the few preserved traceable examples where Ptolemy distorted other than by omission.5 [For some other important examples (not involving Perdiccas) cf. Badian, Studies, 258; Welles, Miscellanea Rostagni, 101 ff.] But omission can hurt Perdiccas just as well. At the siege of Tyre we have to look to Curtius to find the fact that Alexander at one stage left Perdiccas and Craterus in joint command of the siege operations while he went against some Arabs.6 [C. 4. 3. 1; cf. A. 2. 20. 4.] This could conceivably be an omission of Arrian's, so undue weight should not be placed upon it. But when we come to Gaugamela Ptolemy is clearly culpable: a list of nobles wounded in the battle is uniformly given by Diodorus and Curtius as Hephaestion, Perdiccas, Coenus, and Menidas; Arrian has merely Hephaestion, Coenus, and Menidas, omitting Perdiccas.7 [Diod. 17. 61. 3; C. 4. 16. 32; cf. A. iii. 15. 2.] Arrian himself had no reason to deprive Perdiccas of his glory: his omission must be Ptolemy's responsibility. Furthermore, we owe to a random mention in Curtius our knowledge that Perdiccas had already reached the high rank of somatophylax by 330, for he participated in the Philotas affair in this capacity. Ptolemy himself, we know, did not become somatophylax until after the affair, as a direct result of a vacancy created by the purge which followed.8 [C. 4. 8. 17 (Perdiccas); A. 3. 27. 5 (Ptolemy).]

From this time onwards Ptolemy himself had the same high status as Perdiccas, and they were often associated. But it can scarcely be an accident that Ptolemy's own activities are given much more prominence in Arrian than Perdiccas' -- or indeed, than any of the other nobles': we have already seen how Leonnatus' part in discovering the conspiracy of the pages was suppressed by Ptolemy -- in their personal association with Alexander. In Sogdiana in 329 Curtius alone9 [C. 7. 6. 19-21.] mentions that Perdiccas and Meleager were left in charge of a siege; and in the next spring, when Alexander split up the army into five sections, commanded respectively by himself, Hephaestion, Perdiccas, Ptolemy, and Coenus and Artabazus jointly, Ptolemy is the only man explicitly called somatophylax, yet Hephaestion and Perdiccas were also members of the corps.1 [A. 4. 16. 2; cf. Berve, Das Alexanderreich, i. 25 ff.] This might be quite accidental. But it is odd that Arrian here uses this distinguishing phrase in addition to his usual defining phrase, 'Ptolemy, son of Lagus'. There is no obvious need to mention that Ptolemy was somatophylax. It seems to carry the false implication, which may well be deliberate, that all the others were not.

Another conflict of evidence occurs in connection with the death of Clitus in Maracanda, in winter 328/7. Alexander held a party in connection with a sacrifice to the Dioscuri, in the course of which Alexander's achievements were openly praised in terms which offended some of the older Macedonians, since they implied depreciation of the achievements of Phllip. Clitus objected, and Alexander tried to kill him, but was at first restrained. There are different versions of the incident from here on, but all sources agree that the upshot was that very soon after the first provocation the party provided another opportunity for Alexander, and this time Clitus was duly murdered.


Arrian's main version of the first part of the incident, in which Alexander was at first restrained, is vague. He says simply that Alexander was restrained by 'some of his drinking companions'.2 [A. 4. 8. 7.] He also cites explicitly Aristobulus, whose version was that Ptolemy rushed Clitus away before any damage could be done, but that Clitus rushed back and presented Alexander with his opportunity.3 [A. 4. 8. 9.] Aristobulus' version is clearly an attempt to exonerate Alexander, and to depict his action as duly provoked -- which is consonant with his reputation in later antiquity as a flatterer of Alexander.4 [Cf. Pearson, Lost Histories, 150 ff., with Badian's comments, Studies, 255-6.] If Arrian is here following his usual custom, his main version will be Ptolemy's, while he cites Aristobulus' version as a variation. In this case Ptolemy chose to conceal his own part in the affair under the blanket term which Arrian gives as [x]. In outline, Curtius' account agrees with Arrian's first version, but gives more detail: [x] becomes Ptolemy and Perdiccas, aided by Lysimachus and Leonnatus.5 [C. 8. 1. 43. ff.] Where Curtius' source found these names is not clear: Plutarch's account of the events, which perhaps comes from Chares, does not mention them.6 [Plut. Alex. 50-1; cf. Pearson, Lost Histories, 60.] It is difficult to believe that they are invented -- though it is not impossible. However, if they are (more or less) correct, Ptolemy's vague phrase can be seen to have concealed his own participation; but it has also concealed the participation of others. It is easy enough to see that Ptolemy himself was not proud of his involvement in the highly discreditable episode, and if he omitted his own part, he could scarcely allow others to be prominent.

However, the consensus of modern opinion is that Arrian's main version is not here drawn from Ptolemy.7 [So Strasburger, Ptolemaios und Alexander, following Schwartz, R.E. s.v. 'Arrianos', 1240, and Jacoby, FGH 11 D, 517.] If this is correct -- and there are good grounds for it -- it must imply that Ptolemy simply omitted the whole unsavoury episode, a practice entirely in accordance with his normal technique of suppressing the inconvenient or unpalatable. In so doing, of course, he has also omitted -- as we have already seen from discussing the implications of [x] -- both his own part and that of his colleagues. However we regard the question of Arrian's source, we clearly have here a further example of the discreet silence which has already been seen to be the chief characteristic of Ptolemy's propaganda technique. Unfortunately for Ptolemy, his was not the only version of the incident to survive; Aristobulus chose him as the deux ex machina for his own justification of Alexander's conduct. Someone much more straightforward provided information which perhaps Clitarchus wrote up for Curtius' use. For despite some (trivial) dramatic additions for which Curtius himself might easily be responsible, Curtius' version shows fewer signs of tendentious distortion than either of Arrian's, and is therefore likely (in outline) to be closer to the truth. Also the fact that it is not altogether incompatible with Plutarch's version -- which, if from Chares, will represent an eyewitness account -- suggests the same conclusion.

From the death of Clitus to the end of the Indian campaign relatively little evidence for our purpose is available: both Curtius and Arrian confirm that Perdiccas was sent ahead of the main expedition with Hephaestion to arrange the bridging of the Indus; and though Arrian gives much more prominence to Ptolemy's activities than does Curtius, this is explicable from Arrian's use of Ptolemy, who, it is clear, also liked where possible to give his own activities a discreet prominence.1 [C. 8. 10. 2 ff.; A. 4. 22. 7 ff.] Nor can much be made of the remaining instances of Perdiccas' activities as mentioned by Arrian; they are mostly either simple military commands with little or no detail given, or references to groups of men among whom Ptolemy also is mentioned.2 [Military: A. 6. 6. 4 ff.; 6. 16. 1.; cf. C. 9. 1. 19. Groups: A. 5. 13. 1; 7. 4. 5; cf. C. 8. 14. 15.] Only one more direct reference may reflect Ptolemy's bias in action; the occasion is the attack on the city of the Malli, where Alexander was almost fatally wounded.3 [A. 6. 9. 1 ff., cf. Schwartz, R.E. s.v. 'Arrianos', 1241; Strasburger, Ptolemaios und Alexander, 45.] The incident as presented by Arrian, who is no doubt influenced by Ptolemy's presentation, does nothing to enhance Perdiccas' military reputation; for it was directly because of the slowness in action of his section of the army that Alexander was cut off and wounded. If this does reflect Ptolemy, it is consistent with his general attitude to Perdiccas.

Crucial omissions now remain to be considered, for they constitute the body of facts which alone explain how Perdiccas was, at the time of A1exander's death, quite pre-eminent among the Macedonians; if we only had Arrian, with his emphasis, taken from Ptolemy, on Alexander's own achievements, it would come as a totally unexplained phenomenon to find (even in Arrian's own book on the successors) Perdiccas' immediate dominance at Babylon after Alexander's death. Ptolemy's subtle distortion by suppression must clearly be at work again, with its purpose of emphasizing Alexander's supremacy over all. The vital facts which Ptolemy has suppressed are that Perdiccas, on Hephaestion's death in 324, virtually succeeded to Hephaestion's position as chief companion of the king and second-in-command of the empire. Diodorus, following Clitarchus -- who is likely to have been well informed on these events, since he may have been an eyewitness; but in any case he had no axe to grind and no reason to falsify details which would be widely known -- says that Perdiccas was given the highly personal and honorific task of conveying Hephaestion's body to Babylon;4 [Diod. 17. 110. 8. On the date of Clitarchus see (most recently) Badian, PACA viii ( 1965), 5 ff.] and Diodorus is supported by Plutarch -- here both using Hieronymus of Cardia, whose close association with Eumenes made him well informed on court matters -- in saying that Perdiccas succeeded to Hephaestion's position as chiliarch of the companion cavalry -- a military command which by now implied that its holder would be Grand Vizier head of government of many sovereign states in the Islamic world.].1 [Diod. 18. 3. 4; Plut. Eumenes, I. Tarn, JHS, 1921, 4 ff., argues unconvincingly that these are based on Duris -- yet even Duris cannot always have been wrong! On Hieronymus see T.S. Brown, AHR lii (1946-7), 684 ff.] Ptolemy found this an opportunity for discreet concealment. Arrian records Ptolemy's information that Alexander never appointed another commander for Hephaestion's chiliarchy, but that it remained known as 'Hephaestion's chiliarchy', and kept the same standard. This seems to contradict Diodorus and Plutarch, yet it is not incompatible. That we cannot simply choose to believe Ptolemy's version against that of the others is clear from the additional fact that in the same passage Plutarch preserves a promotion consequent on that of Perdiccas, Eumenes' appointment to command Perdiccas' taxis. Perdiccas must have been given the temporary command of Hephaestion's chiliarchy -- for reasons we need not investigate here -- which accordingly retained its name and standard. Presumably Perdiccas' taxis, now commanded by Eumenes, similarly retained its former name and standard. Arrian omits these crucial promotions; indeed, he implies that they did not take place. The dissimulation is clear; it must be Ptolemy's, and Perdiccas' reputation is again the chief sufferer.2 [A. 7. 14. 10. This explanation of the contradiction in the sources seems more satisfactory than that of Berve, Das Alexanderreich, ii. 315-16, and Tarn (tentatively, in Alexander, i. 117) that Perdiccas did the duties of the office without the name; it is far from clear that the Macedonian monarchy employed such over-subtle distinctions. Possible hostility to Eumenes, also apparent in this omission, will be from Eumenes' later close association with Perdiccas. Unfortunately we cannot trace this in any detail in Ptolemy's book.]

Lastly Curtius, probably taking his information from Clitarchus -- who had no reason to invent it -- must be reliable when he makes Perdiccas Alexander's confidant on his death-bed;3 [C. 10. 5. 8.] and Curtius, Diodorus, and Justin, all probably using Hieronymus who, through Eumenes, would know the fact from its importance in the subsequent struggle at Babylon, record Alexander's giving Perdiccas his signet ring. Tarn denied that this was fact because Ptolemy did not say it.4 [Diod. 17. 117. 3; 18. 2. 4; C. 10. 5. 4; Justin, 12. 15. 12. Tarn, JHS 1921, 4 ff.; cf. also M. J. Fontana, 'Le lotte per la successione di Alessandro Magno', 259 ff. (in Atti della accademia di scienze, lettere e arti di Palermo, xviii, II, 1957-8). Good discussion in Badian, HSPh lxxii (1967), 185 n. 12.] But his argument from silence is not at all cogent. Ptolemy, as we have seen, had every reason for suppressing Perdiccas' prominence and there is no justification any longer for regarding him as the sole straight-forward purveyor of all truth.

Ptolemy's suppression of important details about Aristonous and Perdiccas seems proved, in so far as anything of this kind can ever be proved. The reason for the suppression must originate in their co-operation against Ptolemy's separatist inclinations in Egypt after Alexander's death. We can perhaps go further and see Ptolemy's discreetly apologetic portrait of Alexander himself, and his generally uninformative treatment of his officers, as also originating in these years. For by depicting Alexander as supreme, by implication Ptolemy depicted Alexander's officers as all being on the same level of prominence. To depict the officers as equals under Alexander, to suppress the outstanding prominence of Perdiccas in the last years, was tantamount to depicting his own position after 323 as being based on an equivalent prestige to Perdiccas'. This was likely to be a much more effective means of propaganda than if Ptolemy had obviously exaggerated his own status under Alexander, for that would be expected; and the fact that we have to search for this type of personal exaggeration is evidence that Ptolemy avoided making himself invidiously prominent in his book.


This bias which we have illustrated against Perdiccas and Aristonous -- leaving aside the doubtful case of Antigonus -- might have some bearing on the date at which Ptolemy wrote his history. Badian has already suggested that the traditional period for the composition -- Ptolemy's extreme old age in the 280s B.C. -- should be reconsidered: his re-examination of the meagre evidence for the relative dates of Ptolemy and Aristobulus shows it to be entirely inconclusive;1 [Badian, Studies, 256 ff. For the traditional view, cf. Pearson, Lost Histories, 193 ff.] and the traditional purpose for Ptolemy's book, to set the record straight, is equally unconvincing. In addition to the important instances which Badian cites of Ptolemy's suppression of crucial details of court history, which in themselves constitute a severe indictment against Ptolemy's good faith, the more personal animosity which we have demonstrated offers further evidence of a distinct purpose behind Ptolemy's Tendenz. Badian suggests that his book might have been written during the early part of his career in Egypt, at the time when, having snatched Alexander's body from Perdiccas' control and buried it in Egypt, he seems to have been making some claim to be regarded as Alexander's successor.2 [Studies, 258.]

Certainly, the traditional late date offers no convincing reason for Ptolemy's purpose: there could be no urgency giving edge to his hostility towards Perdiccas and Aristonous, no urgency to his suppression of unsavory details about Alexander, if he wrote when his own acknowledged kingship had existed for nearly twenty years,3 [From 305/4; cf. A. E. Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology (Munich, 1962), 4 ff.] his actual control of Egypt for nearly forty. What point was there, at this late stage of his life, in justifying himself in this over-subtle way? If we take an earlier date, however (let us say sometime after 320, when Perdiccas was assassinated in Egypt while attacking Ptolemy, and Ptolemy had access to such documentary material as was collected at the royal headquarters), Ptolemy had more reason for producing the kind of book he did. The previous year he had gained the prestige of possessing Alexander's corpse; he was investing massive resources in developing the city of Alexander, Alexandria, as his capital; in every way his satrapy was to be dominated by the prestige (and the physical remains) of Alexander. It is surely in this general context that his Alexander-centred history assumes its greatest relevance. From this time onwards the course of events might actually be affected by what people -- particularly the Macedonians and Greeks whom he wished to encourage to support him in Egypt -- thought about Alexander. After Perdiccas' death it really mattered to Ptolemy what these people thought about Perdiccas and what kind of information they had about him. And -- perhaps most importantly -- what Alexander had thought about Perdiccas, for this was an immediate issue. After Perdiccas' death and in the context of an Alexander-conscious Egypt which was on the defensive, the general levelling of the officers' prestige under Alexander and the concealment of Perdiccas' closeness to Alexander in the last months of the king's life were not only important: they might even have been the crucial factors in retaining the long-term loyalty or Ptolemy's Macedonian supporters. On Alexander Ptolemy built his kingdom. His publicized view of Alexander and of the careers of his colleagues (and of himself) under Alexander is vitally conditioned by this fact.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:02 am

Reckonings dated from a historical event
by Britannica
Accessed: 6/26/21

The inscriptions of the Buddhist king Aśoka (c. 265–238 BC) give the first epigraphical evidence of the mode of reckoning from a king’s consecration (abhiṣeka). In these inscriptions (Middle Indian language in India or Greek and Aramaean in what is now Qandahār, Afghanistan) the dates are indicated by the number of complete years elapsed since the king’s consecration. But the earlier existence of a reckoning of duration of reigns and dynasties is evidenced by the testimony of the Greek historian Megasthenes, who in 302 BC was the ambassador of Seleucus I Nicator, founder of the Seleucid Empire, to the court of Chandragupta Maurya, Aśoka’s grandfather. According to Megasthenes, the people of the Magadha kingdom, with its capital Pāṭaliputra (Patna), kept very long dynastic lists, preserved in the later Sanskrit Purāṇas (legends of the gods and heroes) and later Buddhist and Jain chronicles. They generally indicate, in years or parts of years, the duration of each reign.

Similar records of other periods and regions exist, and a relative chronology may be established. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to connect them with any absolute chronology, the precise dates of the reigns given being still unsettled. For example, in the Scythian period of the history of northern India, several inscriptions are dated from the beginning of the reign of Kaniṣka, the greatest king of the Asian (Kushān) invaders, but his dates are still uncertain (AD 78, 128–129, 144, etc., have been suggested for the beginning of a Kaniṣka era).

Other records give regnal years that can be linked with absolute chronology through other data—e.g., those of several rulers of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa of the Deccan.

The dynastic eras, founded by several rulers and kept up or adopted by others, are also numerous. The most important were the Licchavi era (AD 110), used in ancient Nepal; the Kalacuri era (AD 248), founded by the Abhūrī king Īśvarasena and first used in Gujarāt and Mahārāshtra and later (until the 13th century) in Madhya Pradesh and as far north as Uttar Pradesh; the Valabhī era (AD 318, employed in Saurāṣṭra) and the Gupta era (AD 320), used throughout the Gupta Empire and preserved in Nepal until the 13th century. Later came the era of the Thakuri dynasty of Nepal (AD 395), founded by Aṃśuvarman; the Harṣa era (AD 606), founded by Harṣa (Harṣavardhana), long preserved also in Nepal; the western Cālukya era (AD 1075), founded by Vikramāditya VI and fallen into disuse after 1162; the Lakṣmaṇa era (AD 1119), wrongly said to have been founded by the king Lakṣmaṇasena of Bengal and still used throughout Bengal in the 16th century and preserved until modern times in Mithilā; the Rājyabhīṣekasaka or Marāthā era (1674), founded by Śivājī but ephemeral.

Later, instead of the beginning of a reign or of a dynasty, the death of a religious founder was adopted as the starting point of an era. Among Buddhists the death of the Buddha and among the Jains the death of the Jina were taken as the beginning of eras. The Jain era (vīrasaṃvat) began in 528 BC. Several Buddhist sects (no longer existing in India) adopted different dates for the death (Nirvāṇa) of the Buddha. The Buddhist era prevailing in Ceylon and Buddhist Southeast Asia begins in 544 BC.

Historical events, now obscure, were the basis of the two most popular Indian eras: the Vikrama and the Śaka.

The Vikrama era (58 BC) is said in the Jain book Kālakācāryakathā to have been founded after a victory of King Vikramāditya over the Śaka. But some scholars credit the Scytho-Parthian ruler Azes with the foundation of this era. It is sometimes called the Mālava era because Vikramāditya ruled over the Mālava country, but it was not confined to this region, being widespread throughout India. The years reckoned in this era are generally indicated with the word vikramasaṃvat, or simply saṃvat. They are elapsed years. In the north the custom is to begin each year with Caitra (March–April) and each month with the full moon. But in the south and in Gujarāt the years begin with Kārttika (October–November) and the months with the new moon; in part of Gujarāt, the new moon of Āṣāḍha (June–July) is taken as the beginning of the year. To reduce Vikrama dates to dates AD, 57 must be subtracted from the former for dates before January 1 and 56 for dates after.

The Śaka, or Salivāhana, era (AD 78), now used throughout India, is the most important of all. It has been used not only in many Indian inscriptions but also in ancient Sanskrit inscriptions in Indochina and Indonesia. The reformed calendar promulgated by the Indian government from 1957 is reckoned by this era. It is variously alleged to have been founded by King Kaniṣka or by the Hindu king Salivāhana or by the satrap Nahapāna. According to different practices, the reckoning used to refer to elapsed years in the north or current years in the south and was either solar or luni-solar. The luni-solar months begin with full moon in the north and with new moon in the south. To reduce Śaka dates (elapsed years) to dates AD, 78 must be added for a date within the period ending with the day equivalent to December 31 and 79 for a later date. For Śaka current years the numbers to be added are 77 and 78. The official Śaka year is the elapsed year, starting from the day following that of the vernal equinox. A normal year consists of 365 days, while the leap year has 366. The first month is Chaitra, with 30 days in a normal year and 31 in a leap year; the five following months have 31 days, the others 30.

A Nepalese era (AD 878) of obscure origin was commonly used in Nepal until modern times. The years were elapsed, starting from Kārttika, with months beginning at new moon. Another era, the use of which is limited to the Malabār Coast (Malayalam-speaking area) and to the Tirunelveli district of the Tamil-speaking area, is connected with the legend of the hero Paraśurāma, an avatar (incarnation) of the god Vishnu. It is called the Kollam era (AD 825). Its years are current and solar; they start when the Sun enters into the zodiacal sign of Virgo in north Malabār and when it enters into Leo in south Malabār. It is sometimes divided into cycles of 1,000 years reckoned from 1176 BC. Thus, AD 825 would have been the first year of the era’s third millennium.

Eras based on astronomical speculation

During the period of elaboration of the classical Hindu astronomy, which was definitively expounded in the treatises called siddhāntas and by authors such as Aryabhata (born AD 476), Varāhamihira, Brahmagupta (7th century AD), etc., the ancient Vedic notions on the cycle of years, embracing round numbers of solar and lunar years together, were developed. On the one hand, greater cycles were calculated in order to include the revolutions of planets, and the theory was elaborated of a general conjunction of heavenly bodies at 0° longitude after the completion of each cycle. On the other hand, cosmologists speculated as to the existence of several successive cycles constituting successive periods of evolution and involution of the universe. The period calculated as the basis of the chronology of the universe was the mahāyuga, consisting of 4,320,000 sidereal years. It was divided into four yugas, or stages, on the hypothesis of an original “order” (dharma) established in the first stage, the Kṛta Yuga, gradually decaying in the three others, the Tretā, Dvāpara, and Kali yugas. The respective durations of these four yugas were 1,728,000, 1,296,000, 864,000, and 432,000 years. According to the astronomer Aryabhata, however, the duration of each of the four yugas was the same—i.e., 1,080,000 years. The basic figures in these calculations were derived from the Brahmanical reckoning of a year of 10,800 muhūrta (see calendar: The Hindu calendar), together with combinations of other basic numbers, such as four phases, 27 nakṣatras, etc. The movement of the equinoxes was at the same time interpreted not as a circular precession but as a libration (periodic oscillation) at the rate of 54 seconds of arc per year. It is in accordance with these principles that the calculation of the beginning of the Kali Yuga was done in order to fix for this chronology a point starting at the beginning of the agreed world cycle. Such a beginning could not be observed, since it was purely theoretical, consisting of a general conjunction of planets at longitude 0°, the last point of the nakṣatra Revati (Pisces). It has been calculated as corresponding to February 18, 3102 BC (old style), 0 hour, and taken as the beginning of the Kali era. In this era, the years are mostly reckoned as elapsed and solar or luni-solar.

In Hindu tradition the beginning of the Kali era was connected with (1) events of the Mahābhārata war; (2) King Yudhiṣṭhira’s accession to the throne; (3) 36 years later, King Parikṣit’s consecration; and (4) the death of Lord Krishna. Years of the era are still regularly given in Hindu almanacs.

An era resting upon a fictitious assumption of a complete 100-year revolution of the Ursa Major, the Great Bear (saptarṣi), around the northern pole was the Saptarṣi, or Laukika, era (3076 BC), formerly used in Kashmir and the Punjab. The alleged movement of this constellation has been used in Purāṇa compilations and even by astronomers for indicating the centuries.

Two chronological cycles were worked out on a basis of the planet Jupiter’s revolutions, one corresponding to a single year of Jupiter consisting of 12 solar years and the other to five of Jupiter’s years. The second, the bṛhaspaticakra, starts, according to different traditions, from AD 427 or from 3116 BC. Before AD 907 one year was periodically omitted in order to keep the cycle in concordance with the solar years. Since 907 the special names by which every year of the cycle is designated are simply given to present years of the almanac.

Side-by-side with Hindu and foreign eras adopted in India, several eras were created in the country under foreign influence, chiefly of the Mughal emperor Akbar: Bengali San (AD 593), Amli of Orissa and Vilayati (AD 592), Faṣlī (AD 590, 592, or 593 according to the district), and Sursan of Mahārāshtra (599).

Egyptian

At the end of the 4th millennium BC, when King Menes, the first king of a united Egypt, started his reign, the ancient Egyptians began to name each year by its main events, presumably to facilitate the dating of documents. These names were entered into an official register together with the height of the Nile during its annual inundation. Short notes at first, the year names developed into lengthy records of historical and religious events, especially of royal grants to the gods. These lists grew into annals, which were kept during the entire history of Egypt so that later kings could, after important events, consult the annals and ascertain whether a comparable occurrence had happened before. Unfortunately, these annals are lost. Only fragments from the 1st to the 5th dynasty (c. 3100–c. 2345 BC) are preserved, copied on stone. These fragments, however, are in such poor condition that they raise more chronological problems than they solve.

The Egyptian priests of the Ramesside period (c. 1300 BC) copied the names and reigns of the kings from Menes down to their time from the annals, omitting all references to events. Even this king list would have given a safe foundation of an Egyptian chronology, but the only extant copy, on a papyrus now kept at the Museo Egizio in Turin, has survived only in shreds, entire sections having been lost. Extracts from this king list, which name only the more important kings, are preserved in the temples of the kings Seti I and Ramses II at Abydos and on the wall of a private tomb at Ṣaqqārah (now in the Egyptian Museum), but they give little help in chronological matters.

When the Greeks began to rule Egypt after the conquest of Alexander the Great, King Ptolemy II Philadelphus, hoping to acquaint the new ruling class with the history of the conquered country, commissioned Manetho, an Egyptian priest from Sebennytus, to write a history of Egypt in the Greek language. As Manetho had access to the ancient annals, he added some of their entries to his list of kings and reigns, especially during the first dynasties. The more he progressed in time, the more he added semihistorical traditions and stories as they were composed by the Egyptian priests to discuss moral problems in the disguise of a historical “novel.” There had been, undoubtedly, fewer historical facts in Manetho’s history than one might expect. But Manetho’s work, too, is lost except for some excerpts used by Sextus Julius Africanus and Eusebius in writing their chronicles. These, in turn, represented the material used in part by George Syncellus in the 8th century AD. During copying and recopying, Manetho’s text clearly suffered many changes, unintentionally or on purpose. The figures of the reigns, especially of the older dynasties, for instance, were enlarged when some of the early Christian historians tried to equate King Menes with Adam. In addition, the excerpts were done carelessly. Therefore, Manetho’s work, as handed down to us, is short of useless. Nevertheless, together with the fragments of the annals and of the king list of Turin, they create a framework of Egyptian chronology; so the division into dynasties was taken over from Manetho. But to achieve a continuous history of Egypt and to bridge the gaps left by the fragmentary state of the extant chronological material, scholars must turn to other means, particularly astronomical references found in dated texts. These are related principally to the rising of Sothis and to the new moon.

Theoretically, the Egyptian civil year began when the Dog Star, Sirius (Egyptian Sothis), could first be seen on the eastern horizon just before the rising of the Sun (i.e., 19/20 of July). As the civil calendar of the ancient Egyptians consisted of 12 months (each of 30 days) and five odd days (called epagomenal days), the civil year was a quarter of a day too short in relation to the rising of Sothis, so that the new year advanced by one day every four years. New Year’s Day and the rising of Sothis coincided again only after approximately 1,460 years, the so-called Sothic cycle. Dated documents mentioning the rising of Sothis can be translated into the present calendar by multiplying the number of days elapsed since the first day of the year by four and subtracting this sum from the date of the beginning of the particular Sothic cycle. The dates for the start of each Sothic cycle are fortunately known because the Roman historian Censorinus fixed the coincidence of New Year’s Day and heliacal rising of Sothis in AD 139. Taking into account a slight difference between a Sothic year and a year of the fixed stars, the years 1322, 2782, and 4242 BC are taken as starting points of a Sothic cycle.

There are six ancient Egyptian documents extant giving Sothis dates, but only three of these are of value. The oldest is a letter from the town of Kahun warning a priest that the heliacal rising of Sothis will take place on the 16th day of the 8th month of year 7 of a king who, according to internal evidence, is Sesostris III of the 12th dynasty. This date corresponds to 1866 BC, according to the corrected Sothic cycle. The next date is given by a medical papyrus written at the beginning of the 18th dynasty, to which a calendar is added, possibly to ensure a correct conversion of dates used in the receipts to the actual timetable. Here it is said that the 9th day of the 11th month of year 9 of King Amenhotep I was the day of the heliacal rising of Sothis—i.e., 1538 BC. This date, however, is only accurate provided that the astronomical observations were taken at the old residence of Memphis; if observed at Thebes in Upper Egypt, the residence of the 18th dynasty, the date must be lowered by 20 years—i.e., 1518 BC. The third Sothis date shows that Sirius rose heliacally sometime during the reign of Thutmose III, which lasted for 54 years, on the 28th day of the 11th month; so year 1458 BC (point of observation at Memphis) or 1438 BC (point of observation at Thebes) must have belonged to the reign of this king. From these dates it is possible to calculate the absolute dates for the reigns of the 12th dynasty, as the durations of most of the reigns of the kings belonging to this dynasty are preserved on the king list of the Turin Papyrus. On the other hand, chronologists are able to compute the reigns of the kings of the 18th dynasty by utilizing the highest dates of their documents and the figures preserved by Manetho. Historians are also helped by the fact that the Egyptians sometimes identified a certain day as “exactly new moon”; they reckoned new moon from the morning after the last crescent of the waning moon had become invisible in the east just before sunrise. As there is a 25-year lunar cycle, such ancient Egyptian moon dates could be calculated with a fair amount of certainty but of course only if the ancient Egyptians themselves observed this celestial phenomenon accurately. There is some doubt, however, as it is shown by the attempts of very competent scholars to convert these moon dates. Sometimes even moon dates given by the same papyrus contradict themselves; in another case, the date given by a document had to be amended to achieve a reasonable result. These and other examples show that ancient Egyptian statements on celestial phenomena, especially on new moons, tend to be inaccurate because of faulty or inexact observations. Therefore, every date given for a fixed reign should be used with caution as the astronomical observation on which it is based may be inexact. Sometimes they are controlled by synchronism with Babylonian, Assyrian, or Hittite king lists or, later on, by the close interconnections between Greek and Egyptian history. Sometimes even biographical data are helpful. The statements found on small stelae inside the burial ground of the holy bulls of Memphis (Apis) register the dates of birth, enthronement, and death of these animals accurately. But the more time recedes, the more the chronology of the Egyptian history becomes uncertain, even when astronomical data are available. Up till now even carbon-14 data are of no great help, as uncertainties are mostly not greater than the standard deviations to be expected in a carbon-14 calculation.

Nevertheless, Egyptologists believe themselves to be on fairly firm ground when dating the beginning of the Ancient Kingdom (1st and 2nd dynasty) about 3090 BC, the beginning of the 11th dynasty at 2133 BC, and of the Middle Kingdom (12th dynasty) at 1991 BC. The New Kingdom started at 1567 or 1552 BC, depending on a choice for the first year of Ramses II of either 1290 BC or 1304 BC—one lunar cycle earlier. The following centuries still pose many chronological questions down to 664 BC, when Greek historiography took over.

Babylonian and Assyrian

Mesopotamian chronology, 747 to 539 BC


The source from which the exploration of Mesopotamian chronology started is a text called Ptolemy’s Canon. This king list covers a period of about 1,000 years, beginning with the kings of Babylon after the accession of Nabonassar in 747 BC. The text itself belongs to the period of the Roman Empire and was written by a Greek astronomer resident in Egypt. Proof of the fundamental correctness of Ptolemy’s Canon has come from the ancient cuneiform tablets excavated in Mesopotamia, including some that refer to astronomical events, chiefly eclipses of the Moon. Thus, by the time excavations began, a fairly detailed picture of Babylonian chronology was already available for the period after 747 BC. Ptolemy’s Canon covers the Persian and Seleucid periods of Mesopotamian history, but this section will deal only with the period up to the Persian conquest (539 BC).

The chief problem in the early years of Assyriology was to reconstruct a sequence for Assyria for the period after 747 BC. This was done chiefly by means of limmu, or eponym, lists, several of which were found by early excavators. These texts are lists of officials who held the office of limmu for one year only and whom historians also call by the Greek name of eponym. Annals of the Assyrian kings were being found at the same time as eponym lists, and a number of these annals, or the campaigns mentioned in them, were dated by eponyms who figured in the eponym lists. Moreover, some of the Assyrian kings in the annals were also kings of Babylonia and as such were included in Ptolemy’s Canon.

Good progress was therefore being made when, soon after 1880, two chronological texts of outstanding importance were discovered. One of these, now known as King List A, is damaged in parts, but the end of it, which is well preserved, coincides with the first part of Ptolemy’s Canon down to 626 BC. The other text, The Babylonian Chronicle, also coincides with the beginning of the canon, though it breaks off earlier than King List A. With the publication of these texts, the first phase in the reconstruction of Mesopotamian chronology was over. For the period after 747 BC, there remained only one serious lacuna—i.e., the lack of the eponym sequence for the last 40 years or so of Assyrian history. This had not been established by the early 1970s.

Assyrian chronology before 747 BC

German excavations at Ashur, ancient capital of Assyria, yielded further eponym lists. By World War I the full sequence of eponyms was known from about 900 to 650 BC. A further fragmentary list carried the record back to about 1100 BC, and on this basis Assyrian chronology was reconstructed, with little error, back to the first full regnal year of Tiglath-pileser I in 1115 BC. Without another eponym list, a king list was needed for substantial further progress. King lists found at Ashur proved disappointing. Those fairly well preserved did not include figures for the reigns, and those with figures were very badly damaged.

In 1933, however, an expedition from the University of Chicago discovered at Khorsabad, site of ancient Dur Sharrukin, an Assyrian king list going back to about 1700 BC. But for the period before 1700 BC the list is damaged and otherwise deficient, and Assyrian chronology prior to this date is still far from clear.

Before 747 BC it was the custom of the Assyrian kings to hold eponym office in their first or second regnal year. Thus, in an eponym list, the number of names between the names of two successive kings usually equals the number of years in the reign of the first of the two kings. It would have been easy to compile a king list from an eponym list, and there is evidence that this Assyrian king list was compiled from an eponym list probably in the middle of the 11th century BC. As an eponym list is a reliable chronological source, since omission of a name entails an error of only one year, the king list, if based on one, will have preserved much of the structure of older eponym lists now lost. (Except for one fragment, no known eponym list goes back further than the beginning of the 11th century BC.)

Babylonian chronology before 747 BC

In the long interval between the fall of the last Sumerian dynasty c. 2000 BC and 747 BC there are two substantial gaps in chronology, each about two centuries long. The earlier gap is in the 2nd millennium, from approximately 1600–1400 BC, the later gap in the 1st millennium, from c. 943–747 BC. During these gaps the names of most of the kings are known, as well as the order, but usually not the length of their reigns.

A means of checking the reliability of the Babylonian king list is provided by the chronicles, annals, and other historical texts that show that a given Assyrian king was contemporaneous with a given Babylonian king. There are no fewer than 15 such synchronisms between 1350 and 1050 BC, and, when the Babylonian and Assyrian king lists are compared, they all fit in easily. Only one of them, however, provides a close approximate date in Babylonian chronology. This synchronism shows that the two-year reign of the Assyrian king Ashared-apil-Ekur (c. 1076–c. 1075 BC) is entirely comprised within the 13-year reign of the Babylonian king Marduk-shapik-zeri. The Assyrian’s dates are probably correct to within one year. Thus, if Marduk-shapik-zeri is dated so that equal proportions of his reign fall before and after that of Ashared-apil-Ekur, a date is obtained for the former that should not be in error more than six years. This synchronism constitutes a key to the structure of Babylonian chronology by providing the base date for all the reigns in the interval c. 1400–943 BC for which the Babylonian king list gives figures. All the dates thus obtained are subject to the six-year margin of error.

These synchronisms between Assyrian and Babylonian kings continue throughout the period that corresponds to the second gap in the Babylonian king list—from c. 943–747 BC. Since the Assyrian chronology in that period is firmly established, these synchronisms provide a useful framework for the structure of Babylonian chronology in that period.

The gap in the 2nd millennium BC, however, is not as easy to fill. The fact that the magnitude of the gap is uncertain constitutes the main problem in the chronology of the 2nd millennium BC and also affects the chronology of the preceding Sumerian period. The problem is not yet solved. Observations of the planet Venus made during the reign of King Ammisaduqa, less than 50 years before the end of the 1st dynasty of Babylon, permit only certain possible dates for his reign. Translated into dates for the end of the dynasty, the three most likely possibilities are 1651, 1595, and 1587 BC. The evidence is not yet conclusive and leaves uncertain what choice should be made among the three. The chronology adopted here is based on the second of these dates for the end of the 1st Babylonian dynasty—i.e., 1595 BC.

Prior to this gap in the 2nd millennium BC, there is a period of five centuries with a well-established chronological structure. All the kings in the major city-states are known, as well as their sequence and the length of their reigns. Which sets of dates should be assigned to these reigns, however, depends on the date adopted for the 1st dynasty of Babylon. This period of five centuries extends from the beginning of the 3rd dynasty of Ur to the end of the 1st dynasty of Babylon—i.e., on the chronology adopted here, 2113–1595 BC. During this period the Babylonians dated their history not by regnal years but by the names of the years. Each year had an individual name, usually from an important event that had taken place in the preceding year. The lists of these names, called year lists or date lists, constitute as reliable a source in Babylonian chronology as the eponym lists do in Assyrian chronology. One of the events which almost invariably gave a name to the following year was the accession of a new king. Hence, the first full regnal year of a king was called “the year (after) NN became king.” In Assyria the number of personal names in an eponym list between the names of two successive kings normally equalled the number of years in the reign of the first king, and, similarly, in Babylonia the number of year names between two year names of the above kind nearly always equalled the number of years in the reign of the first king. Just as in Assyria, the eponym lists are almost certainly the source of the king lists, so in Babylonia the king lists are based on the year lists. Several of these king lists, compiled at a time when the year lists were still in use, survive. One gives the 3rd dynasty of Ur and the dynasty of Isin; another gives the dynasty of Larsa. Both may be school texts.

The 3rd dynasty of Ur and the dynasty of Isin also figure in the Sumerian king list, which reaches far back into the Sumerian period. The original version probably ended before the 3rd dynasty of Ur, but later scribes brought it up to date by adding that dynasty as well as the dynasty of Isin.

Jewish

The era at present in vogue among the Jews, counted from the creation of the world (anno mundi; abbreviated to AM), came into popular use about the 9th century AD. Traceable in dates recorded much earlier, this era has five styles conventionally indicated by Hebrew letters used as numerals and combined into mnemonics, which state the times of occurrence of the epochal mean conjunctions of moladim (see calendar: The Jewish calendar) or the orders of intercalation in the 19-year cycle or both. The respective epochs of these styles fall in the years 3762–3758 BC, inclusive. By about the 12th century AD the second of the mentioned styles, that which is in use at present, superseded the other styles of the era anno mundi.

The styles of this era arise from variations in the conventional rabbinical computation of the era of the creation. This computation, like hundreds of other calculations even more variable and no less arbitrary, is founded on synchronisms of chronological elements expressed in the terms of biblical and early postbiblical Jewish eras.

The biblical era anno mundi underlies the dating of events (mainly in the book of Genesis) prior to the Exodus from Egypt. This period of biblical chronology abounds in intractable problems caused by discrepancies between the Jewish and Samaritan Hebrew texts and the Greek version known as the Septuagint, by apparent inconsistencies in some of the synchronisms, and by uncertainties about the method of reckoning.

During the period from the Exodus to the founding of Solomon’s Temple, the only continuous biblical era (chiefly in the remaining books of the Pentateuch) is the era of the Exodus. With regard to a crucial date expressed in this era—“In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the Lord” (I Kings 6:1)—there is again a discrepancy between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint. Other problems to be met with during this period are due to the obscurity of chronological data in the book of Judges and in I and II Samuel.

During the following period, the Bible uses the eras of the regnal years of monarchs (the kings of Judah, Israel, and Babylon) and of the Babylonian Exile. This period of biblical chronology likewise poses numerous problems, also the result of apparent inconsistencies of the synchronisms—e.g., in the period from the accession of Rehoboam of Judah and of Jeroboam of Israel to the fall of Samaria “in the sixth year of Hezekiah [of Judah], which was the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel” (II Kings 18:10) the reigns of the southern kingdom exceed those of the northern kingdom by 25 years.

The biblical data might be easier to harmonize if the occurrence of coregencies were assumed. Yet, as an ever-variable factor, these evidently would not lead to the determination of the true chronology of this period. Scholars therefore seek additional information from sources outside the Bible—e.g., inscriptions on Assyrian monuments, which are dated by the so-called eponym lists. Substantial use also has been made of the data in the king list known as Ptolemy’s Canon (compiled in the 2nd Christian century) commencing in 747 BC with the reigns of the Babylonian kings (see above Babylonian and Assyrian). Scholars differ widely, however, in their interpretation of details, and numerous chronological problems remain unsolved. Only a few dates in this period can be fixed with any degree of confidence.

After the Babylonian Exile, as evidenced by the data in the Bible and the Aswān papyri, the Jews reckoned by the years of the Persian kings. The chronological problems of this period are caused by the apparent disorder in the sequence of events related in the biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah and by the difficulty of identifying some of the Persian kings in question. For example, the King Artaxerxes of these books may stand for Artaxerxes I Longimanus (465–425 BC), for Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359/358 BC), or in the case of Ezra at any rate, for Artaxerxes III Ochus (359/358–338/337 BC).

From the Grecian period onward, Jews used the Seleucid era (especially in dating deeds; hence its name Minyan Sheṭarot, or “Era of Contracts”). In vogue in the East until the 16th century, this was the only popular Jewish era of antiquity to survive. The others soon became extinct. These included, among others, national eras dating (1) from the accession of the Hasmonean princes (e.g., Simon the Hasmonean in 143/142 BC) and (2) from the anti-Roman risings (“era of the Redemption of Zion”) in the years 66 and 131 of the Common (Christian) Era. Dates have also been reckoned from the destruction of the Second Temple (le-ḥurban ha-Bayit). The various styles of the latter, as also of the Seleucid era and of the era anno mundi, have often led to erroneous conversions of dates. The respective general styles of these eras correlate as follows: 3830 AM = year 381 of the Seleucid era = year 1 of the Era of the Destruction = year 69/70 of the Common (Christian) Era.

The earliest Jewish chronologies have not survived. Of the work of the Alexandrian Jew Demetrius (3rd century BC), which deduced Jewish historical dates from the Scriptures, only a few fragments are extant. In the Book of Jubilees, events from the creation to the Exodus are dated in jubilee and sabbatical cycles of 49 and 7 years, respectively. Scholars differ as to the date and origin of this book. The era of the creation therein is unlikely to have been other than hypothetical.

The earliest and most important of all Jewish chronologies extant is the Seder ʿolam rabbaʾ (“Order of the World”), transmitted, according to Talmudic tradition, by Rabbi Yosi ben Halafta in the 2nd century AD. The author was possibly the first to use the rabbinic Era of the Creation. His chronology extends from the creation to Bar Kokhba in the days of the Roman emperor Hadrian (2nd century AD); but the period from Nehemiah to Bar Kokhba (i.e., from Artaxerxes I or II to Hadrian) is compressed into one single chapter. The Persian phase shrinks to a mere 54 years. The smaller work Seder ʿOlam zuṭaʾ completes the Rabbaʾ. It aims to show the Babylonian exilarchs as lineal descendants of David.

Megillat taʿanit (“Scroll of Fasting”), although recording only the days and months of the year without the dates of the years, is nevertheless an important source for Jewish chronology. It lists events on 35 days of the year that have been identified with events in five chronological periods: (1) pre-Hasmonean, (2) Hasmonean, (3) Roman (up to AD 65), (4) the war against Rome (65–66), and (5) miscellaneous. The authors, or rather the last revisers, are identified with Zealots guided by Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion and his son Eliezer.

Greek

As the cities of ancient Greece progressed to their classical maturity, the need arose among them for a chronological system on a universally understood basis. In the archaic period, genealogies of local monarchs or aristocrats sufficed for the historical tradition of a given area, and events were associated with the lifetimes of well-known ancestors or “heroes.” The synoikismos (founding of the united city) of Athens took place “in the time of Theseus”; the Spartan ephorate (chief magistracy) was established “in the reign of King Theopompus.” When the city-states adopted annual magistracies, the years were designated by the eponymous officials—“in the archonship of Glaucippus” or “when Pleistolas was ephor.” This was the local usage throughout classical and Hellenistic Greece, the title of the magistrate varying in different cities. Sometimes tenure of a priesthood provided the chronological basis, as at Argos, where years were dated as the nth of the (named) priestess of Hera. The correctness of the series was a matter first of memory and later of careful record. The list of annual archons at Athens was known back to 683 BC (in modern terms). Lists of dynasties also amounted to recorded folk memory, and in all genealogical reckoning there is a point, for modern critics, at which acceptable tradition shades into myth. Corruption of the records was introduced through error or political design, and traditions often conflicted.

Chronology became subject to systematization when cities felt a national need for accurate clarification of their past. In literature the growth of historiography initiated a search for a method of dating that could be universally applied and acknowledged. In the 5th and 4th centuries, local historians used local magistracies as their framework; research was devoted to rationalization of conflicting traditions and production of definitive lists. Charon of Lampsacus, perhaps in the early 5th century, compiled a record of Spartan magistrates; Hellanicus of Lesbos, author of the earliest history of Athens, wrote on the priestesses of Argos. Lists of victors in the great Olympic games were valid for all Greece, pointing the way to the widely accepted reckoning by Olympiads. The Athenian Philochorus was the latest (early 3rd century BC) of compilers of Olympionikai.

The 5th-century historian Herodotus relied for his chronology principally upon the reckoning by generations used by his informants, conventionally accepted as showing three generations to a century. In some cases a 40-year, or other, reckoning was used, and varying traditions sometimes produced difficulty of synchronism. Thucydides, writing “contemporary” history, recognized the chronological problems involved. He dated the beginning of the Peloponnesian War by the Athenian, Spartan, and Argive systems and thenceforward marked the passage of time by seasonal indications. Synchronization was not helped by the fact that the official year began at different times in different cities. In later historical writing the impossibility of accurately coordinating the Athenian and Roman years resulted in serious chronological difficulties.

The system of dating by Athenian archons came to be recognized outside Attica as of wider value, but, in the Hellenistic period, Alexandrian scholarship, represented especially by Eratosthenes of Cyrene, the “father of chronology,” was instrumental in promoting the use of the Olympiads as an acceptable system, reckoning a four-year period from each celebration of the Olympic Games. Timaeus of Tauromenium (c. 356–260 BC) was the first historian to employ it, but it was little used outside historical writing. Aristotle had been concerned to identify the generation of the first Olympiad, accepted as 776 BC on modern reckoning. For convenience, the beginning of the Olympic year was equated with the summer solstice, when the Athenian year also began. This makes it generally necessary for a Greek year to receive a double date in modern terms (e.g., the death of the philosopher Epicurus in 271/270 BC). Eratosthenes’ system produced tables of dates, from which, for example, the fall of Troy could be dated to 1184/83 BC. The “Parian Marble” of 264/263 BC is an inscribed record of events from the time of Cecrops, first king of Athens, reckoning years between the date of the inscription, fixed by the Athenian archon, and each event concerned. Some cities inscribed lists of their eponymous magistrates; the Athenians were the first to do so c. 425 BC. A list from Sicilian Tauromenium originally spanned some 300 years. The regnal years of the Hellenistic monarchs or the count from a fixed event (a city foundation or refoundation) also provided acceptable chronological reckoning often useful for more than contemporary or local purposes.

The use of these chronological possibilities is best seen in historians using the annalistic method, of whom Diodorus Siculus is most notable. In the Christian period, Eusebius, followed by St. Jerome, began the work of reconciling all these indications to the Judaic tradition and produced the foundation of chronology in terms of the Julian calendar upon which modern historians have constructed their framework.

For modern scholarship the problem, in E.J. Bickerman’s words, is “how we know Caesar was assassinated on March 15, 44 BC.” Before 480 BC, no date can be precise in terms of the Julian calendar unless confirmed by astronomical phenomena. Archaic chronology relies upon the typology of Corinthian pottery in relation to the foundation dates for Greek colonies in Sicily implicit in Thucydides, book vi. Julian dates given for this period (e.g., for the tyranny of Peisistratus in Athens) stem from a complex combination of ancient chronographic tradition with modern archaeology, acceptable only with appropriate reserve. Literary tradition gives the succession of Athenian archons from 480 to 294 BC. The regnal, era, and Olympiad years also provide dates within a 12-month period. Closer dating is seldom possible unless the sources give precise information in calendric terms, as occasionally in literature and regularly in Athenian and Egyptian public documents. Even these are not translatable into Julian months and days unless coordinated with knowledge of contemporary solar or lunar phenomena and of possible official interference with the calendar.

Roman

The establishment of a sound chronology for Roman history, as for Greek, depends on the assessment of the evidence available, which falls into two categories—literary and archaeological.

Literary evidence

Although by the late 3rd century BC the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes was working on the systematization of chronography and a series of learned historians had used the documentary method—e.g., for Roman history, Timaeus of Tauromenium, to whom are probably due many of the synchronizations of Roman history with the Greek Olympiads—unfortunately this tradition of documentation and concern for chronology did not immediately pass over into Roman historiography. According to Cicero in De oratore, the earliest Roman historians did no more than “compile yearbooks”—for example, Fabius Pictor in the late 3rd century BC, Lucius Calpurnius Piso in the 2nd, and the so-called Sullan annalists in the 1st. Of these authors it is possible to judge only at second hand, and only those of the 1st century were much used directly by the historians whose work survives in any quantity, notably Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Diodorus Siculus. In these authors, as in other 1st-century historians such as Sallust, there is little concept of documentation or research other than comparison of literary sources; for none was chronology a direct concern, and in many cases dramatic effectiveness took priority over fidelity to truth. Apart from the Greek Polybius, who treated the rise of Roman power in the Mediterranean from 264 to 146 BC, it was not until Cicero’s time that the conception of historical scholarship developed in Rome. Cicero’s friend Atticus not only was concerned to draw up a chronological table in his Liber annalis but had undertaken research to that end, and the great scholar Marcus Terentius Varro and a little later the learned Marcus Verrius Flaccus produced a vast body of erudite work, nearly all lost. To this source must probably be ascribed the Fasti Capitolini, a list of magistrates from the earliest republic to the contemporary period, set up near the regia (the office and archive of the pontifices, or high priests), perhaps on the adjacent Arch of Augustus, at the end of the 1st century BC. This work, since it is based on inscriptions, is sometimes given precedence over literary evidence, but, since it is a compilation, it is still subject to serious error.

Sources used by Roman historians

The traditionally early extant bodies of law, such as the Twelve Tables from the early republic, were of little chronological value, and juristic commentarii were liable to mislead through their zeal for precedent, while Cicero, in spite of Polybius’ claim to have inspected early treaties preserved in the Capitol definitely states that there were no public records of early laws. A source frequently referred to is the Annales maximi, a collection made about 130 BC of the annual notices displayed on a white board by the pontifices and containing notes of food prices, eclipses, etc. Dionysius of Halicarnassus implied that they gave a date for the foundation of the city but was reluctant to accept their authority; and one of the eclipses is referred to by Cicero as being mentioned also by Ennius, but unfortunately the number of the year “from the foundation of the city” is corrupt in the text. Although it is possible to calculate the dates of eclipses astronomically in terms of the modern era, it is difficult to link these to Roman chronology because of the uncertainty of the figures and because of the confused state of the Roman calendar before the Julian reform (see calendar: The early Roman calendar). Another difficulty is that the early records may have been burned in 390 BC when Celtic tribes sacked the city; also they would probably have been largely unintelligible if authentic.

Livy quoted the 1st-century annalist Gaius Licinius Macer as having found in the temple of Juno Moneta “linen rolls” giving lists of magistrates; but he also said that Macer and Quintus Aelius Tubero both cited the rolls for the consuls of 434 but gave different names. In any case, it is unlikely that the list could have been older than the temple, which dates from 344 BC. It is clear that the chief sources for the lists were the pedigrees of prominent Roman families, such as the Claudii Marcelli, Fabii, and Aemilii, drawn up by Atticus; but Cicero and Livy agree that tendentious falsifications had in many cases corrupted the records, and other suspicious facts are the appearance of obviously later or invented cognomina, or third names, and of plebeian gentile names for the earliest period, when only patricians bore them. Many scholars, however, accept the general authenticity of the lists—one reason being the appearance in them of extinct patrician families—but prefer Livy’s version to that of the Capitoline lists, which show signs of late revision, often give names in incorrect order, and contain other anomalies.

The question, therefore, remains whether Roman chronography was dependent on the lists of magistrates or whether these were adapted to fit other known datings. The apparent advantages of the existence of a terminal date, the “foundation of the city,” is illusory for Roman chronology, since it depended on back reckoning and was not agreed even in antiquity. Various ancient scholars each assumed a different date. Each computed his date by adding a different number of years of kingly rule from the foundation of the city to his estimate of the date of the foundation of the republic. This, in turn, was presumably computed by counting back over the yearly lists of magistrates. There may have been traditions about the intervals between certain events in early Roman history, but the frequently accepted reckoning of 244 years of kingly rule seems to be a calculation based only on the conventional 35-year generation for the rule of the seven legendary kings. Polybius claimed that the dating of the first republican consulship to 508/507 BC could be substantiated by an extant copy of a contemporary treaty. Combined with the traditional kingly period, this would give a foundation date of 751–750, reckoned inclusively, and 752–751, exclusively (Cato’s date). The chronological scheme worked out by Varro added two years of nonconsular rule, thus the foundation of Rome was put in 754/753 and the beginning of the republic in 510/509. Varro’s dates became standard for later Romans and are sometimes also used by modern scholars in a purely conventional sense. But it remains uncertain whether the dating depended on the magistrate lists or whether these were “doctored” to synchronize with given dates or intervals, whether these were traditional or calculated in some other way. Anomalies such as Livy’s five-year anarchy 15 years after the Gallic invasion, Diodorus’ repetition of magistrates’ names, and the “dictator years” in the lists are perhaps attempts to synchronize the various pedigrees.

Contribution of archaeology

Archaeology can provide many dates useful to the detailed study of Roman history, especially from coins and inscriptions, but, for the general scheme of early chronology, its value is largely negative. It shows, for example, that Rome evolved over a lengthy period and was not really “founded,” though a “foundation” date might perhaps refer to the first common celebration of the Septimontium, or festival of the seven hills; again, if that dating is dependent on the seven kings, archaeology shows that the tradition about them, though it may preserve genuine names and events, is largely legendary.

Datings after the 1st century BC

In this better documented period, datings to consul years, or later to the years of tribunician power of the emperors, are normally intelligible, despite a few notorious cruxes, although up to the Julian reform the state of the calendar has always to be taken into account. In parts of the empire, however, different eras were used—e.g., that of the Seleucids—and from the 4th century AD dates were often calculated in terms of the years of the indiction, a 15-year cycle connected with the levying of taxes, a method that continued in use for many centuries in spite of difficulties, such as lack of synchronization among the various provinces.

Christian

The Christian Era is the era now in general use throughout the world. Its epoch, or commencement, is January 1, 754 AUC (ab urbe condita—“from the foundation of the city [of Rome]”—or anno urbis conditae—“in the year of the foundation of the city”). Christ’s birth was at first believed to have occurred on the December 25 immediately preceding. Years are reckoned as before or after the Nativity, those before being denoted BC (before Christ) and those after by AD (anno Domini, “in the year of the Lord”). Chronologers admit no year zero between 1 BC and AD 1. The precise date of commencing the annual cycle was widely disputed almost until modern times, December 25, January 1, March 25, and Easter day each being favoured in different parts of Europe at different periods.

The Christian Era was invented by Dionysius Exiguus (c. AD 500–after 525), a monk of Scythian birth resident in Italy; it was a by-product of the dispute that had long vexed the churches as to the correct method of calculating Easter. Many churches, including those in close contact with Rome, followed 95-year tables evolved by Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, and by his successor, St. Cyril; but some Western churches followed other systems, notably a 532-year cycle prepared for Pope Hilarius (461–468) by Victorius of Aquitaine. In 525, at the request of Pope St. John I, Dionysius Exiguus prepared a modified Alexandrian computation based on Victorius’ cycle. He discarded the Alexandrian era of Diocletian, reckoned from AD 284, on the ground that he “did not wish to perpetuate the name of the Great Persecutor, but rather to number the years from the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Somehow Dionysius reckoned the birth of Christ to have occurred in 753 AUC; but the Gospels state that Christ was born under Herod the Great—i.e., at the latest in 750 AUC. Dionysius’ dating was questioned by the English saint Bede in the 8th century and rejected outright by the German monk Regino of Prüm at the end of the 9th. Nevertheless, it has continued in use to the present day, and, as a result, the Nativity is reckoned to have taken place before the start of the Christian Era.

The new chronology was not regarded as a major discovery by its author; Dionysius’ own letters are all dated by the indiction (see below). The use of the Christian Era spread through the employment of his new Easter tables. In England the Christian Era was adopted with the tables at the Synod of Whitby in 664. But it was the use, above all by Bede, of the margins of the tables for preserving annalistic notices and the consequent juxtaposition of historical writing with calendrical computations that popularized the new era. Outside Italy it is first found in England (in a charter of 676) and shortly afterward in Spain and Gaul. It was not quickly adopted in royal diplomas and other solemn documents, however, and in the papal chancery it did not replace the indiction until the time of John XIII (965–972). The Christian Era did not become general in Europe until the 11th century; in most of Spain it was not adopted until the 14th and in the Greek world not until the 15th.

Of the alternative chronologies used by Christians, the most important were: (1) the indiction, (2) the Era of Spain, and (3) the Era of the Passion. The indiction was a cycle of 15 years originally based on the interval between imperial tax assessments but during the Middle Ages always reckoned from the accession of Constantine, in 312. Years were given according to their place in the cycle of 15, the number of the indiction itself being ignored. This chronology was the most widespread in the early Middle Ages, but its use diminished rapidly in the 13th century, although public notaries continued to use it until the 16th. The Era of Spain was based on an Easter cycle that began on January 1, 716 AUC (38 BC), marking the completion of the Roman conquest of Spain. First recorded in the 5th century, it was in general use in Visigothic Spain of the 6th and 7th centuries and, after the Arab invasions, in the unconquered Christian kingdoms in the north of the Iberian Peninsula. It was abolished, in favour of the Era of the Incarnation, in Catalonia in 1180, in Aragon in 1350, in Castile in 1383, and in Portugal in 1422. The Era of the Passion, commencing 33 years after that of the Incarnation, enjoyed a short vogue, mainly in 11th-century France.

Muslim

Unlike earlier chronological systems in use before Islam, Islamic chronology was instituted so soon after the event that was to be the beginning of the Muslim era that no serious problems were encountered in its application. According to the most reliable authorities, it was ʿUmar I, the second caliph (reigned 634–644), who introduced the era used by the Muslim world. When his attention was drawn by Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī to the fact that his letters were not dated, ʿUmar consulted with men at Medina and then ordered that the year of the Hijrah (Hegira), the Prophet’s flight from Mecca to Medina, be taken as the beginning of an era for the Muslim state and community. According to the Muslim calendar, the Hijrah took place on 8 Rabīʿ I, which corresponds to September 20, 622 (AD), in the Julian calendar. But, as Muḥarram had been already accepted as the first month of the lunar year, ʿUmar ordered that (Friday) 1 Muḥarram (July 16, 622) be the beginning of the reckoning. It is generally accepted that this was done in AH 17 (anno Hegirae, “in the year of the Hijrah”).

There are a few points in connection with this that deserve mention: first, there is no real agreement on the exact date of the Hijrah—other dates given include 2 and 12 Rabīʿ I; second, the year in which ʿUmar issued the order is a point of contention—the years 16 and 17 are sometimes given; third, some people have ascribed the use of the chronology to the Prophet himself. According to some sources, the Hijrah date was first used by Yaʿlā ibn Umayyah, Abū Bakr’s governor in Yemen. This sounds somewhat plausible because Yemenis were probably used to affixing dates to their documents. There is, however, a consensus among workers in the field that 8 Rabīʿ I was the day of the Hijrah, that ʿUmar instituted the use of the date for the new era, and that this was done in AH 17. The choice of the Hijrah as the beginning of the epoch has two reasons. On the one hand, its date had been fixed; on the other, ʿUmar and his advisers must have recognized the importance of the migration—Islam had become, as a result, a religion and a state.

Before the introduction of the new epoch, the Arabs had been acquainted with chronologies used by their neighbours, the Seleucids and the Persians. In Yemen the practice of dating had been perfected to the extent that inscriptions show the day, the month, and the year. In Mecca the “year of the Elephant,” supposedly coinciding with the birth of the Prophet, had been in use. For the period between the migration and the institution of the new epoch, the Muslims of Medina resorted to naming the year after local events—“the year of the order of fighting” and “the year of the earthquake,” etc.

The lunar year was adopted by the Muslims for the new chronology. In this there was hardly any innovation insofar as Arabia was concerned.

The chronology introduced by ʿUmar was adopted throughout the Muslim world, although earlier epochs continued in use in outlying provinces. Muslim historians, annalists, and chroniclers met with difficulties when writing their books on pre-Islamic history. No practice had as yet developed for pre-Hijrah dating; therefore, when writing about the history of various lands in pre-Islamic times, authors resorted to the use of chronologies previously in existence there (e.g., Persian, Indian, Seleucid, Alexandrian). For the histories of the area under Islam, writers used only Muslim chronology, while non-Muslim authors (e.g., Bar Hebraeus) used the Seleucid and the Hijrah dates when discussing events pertaining to provinces that had been Byzantine and therefore still had fairly large groups of Christians.

The era of the Hijrah is in official use in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and in the Persian Gulf area. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia use both the Muslim and the Christian eras. Many Muslim countries, such as Turkey, Nigeria, and Pakistan, use the Christian Era.

Within the general uniformity of applying the Hijrah era proper, there existed differences, some of which were the result of earlier pre-Islamic practices; others were the result of continuous contacts of Muslim countries with their European neighbours, with whom they had economic as well as political relations. An example of the former was the work of the ʿAbbāsid caliph al-Muʿtaḍid, who brought the Nowrūz (Persian New Year’s Day) back to date in keeping with the agricultural activities of the community. Maḥmūd Ghāzān introduced the Khānian era in Persia in AH 701, which was a reversion to the regnal chronologies of antiquity. It continued in use for some generations, then the ordinary Hijrah era was reintroduced. A similar step was taken by Akbar when he established the Ilāhī era, which began on Rabīʿ II 963 (February 13, 1556), the date of his accession; the years were solar.

Two Muslim countries, Turkey and Iran, introduced more drastic changes into their chronology because of European influences.

In Turkey the Julian calendar was adopted in AH 1088 (AD 1676–77) and used solar months with Hijrah dating. The year was officially called the Ottoman fiscal year but was popularly known as the marti year, after mart (Turkish for March), which was the beginning of the year. Under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the Gregorian calendar and the Christian Era were officially adopted in Turkey (1929). Iran also adopted a solar year; the names of the months in its calendar are Persian, and the era is still that of the Hijrah.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:28 am

Pataliputra
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/26/21


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

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

What Does Megasthenes Say About The Kings Who Ruled?

1. He calls Sandracottus the king of the Prassi and he mentions the names of Xandramus as predecessor and Sandrocyptus as successor to Sandracottus. There is absolutely no resemblance in these names to Bindusara (the successor to Chandragupta Maurya) and Mahapadma Nanda, the predecessor.

2. He makes absolutely no mention of Chanakya or Vishnugupta, the Acharya who helped Chandragupta ascend the throne.

3. He makes no mention of the widespread presence of the Baudhik or Sramana tradition [Rishi tradition] during the time of the Maurya empire.

4. He claims the capital is Palimbothra or Palibothra, and that the city exists near the confluence of the Ganga and the Eranaboas (Hiranyabahu). But the Puranas are clear that all the 8 dynasties after the Mahabharata war had their capital at Girivraja (Rajagriha), located in the foothills of the Himalayas. There is no mention of Pataliputra in the Puranas. So, the assumption made by Sir William that Palimbothra is Pataliputra has no basis in fact and is not attested by any piece of evidence. If the Greeks could pronounce the first P in (Patali) they could certainly have pronounced the second p in Putra, instead of bastardising it as Palimbothra. Granted the Greeks were incapable of pronouncing any Indian names, but there is no reason why they should not be consistent in their phonetics.

5. The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha Empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by its name but the same is absent in Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthenes did not use this name “Magadha” and instead used the word Prassi, which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts.


-- Historical Dates From Puranic Sources, by Prof. Narayan Rao



Image
Plan of Pataliputra compared to present-day Patna
Pataliputra is located in India
Image
Alternative name Pātaliputtā (Pāli)
Location Patna district, Bihar, India
Region South Asia
Coordinates 25°36′45″N 85°7′42″ECoordinates: 25°36′45″N 85°7′42″E
Altitude 53 m (174 ft)
Length 14.5 km (9.0 mi)
Width 2.4 km (1.5 mi)
History
Builder Ajatashatru
Founded 490 BCE
Abandoned Became modern Patna
Associated with Haryankas, Nandas, Mauryans, Shungas, Guptas, Palas, Sher Shah Suri
Management Archaeological Survey of India

Pataliputra (Sanskrit: पाटलिपुत्र) (IAST: Pāṭaliputra), adjacent to modern-day Patna, was a city in ancient India, originally built by Magadha ruler Udayin in 490 BCE as a small fort (Pāṭaligrāma) near the Ganges river.[1]

It became the capital of major powers in ancient India, such as the Shishunaga Empire (c. 413–345 BCE), Nanda Empire (c. 460 or 420–325 BCE), the Maurya Empire (c. 320–180 BCE), the Gupta Empire (c. 320–550 CE), and the Pala Empire (c. 750–1200 CE). During the Maurya period (see below), it became one of the largest cities in the world. As per the Greek diplomat, traveler and historian Megasthenes, during the Mauryan Empire (c. 320–180 BCE) it was among the first cities in the world to have a highly efficient form of local self government.[2] Afterwards, Sher Shah Suri (1538–1545) revived Pataliputra, which had been in decline since the 7th century CE, and renamed it Paṭna.

As an ambassador

Image
According to Arrian, Megasthenes lived in Arachosia and travelled to Pataliputra.



Megasthenes was a Greek ambassador of Seleucus I Nicator in the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Arrian explains that Megasthenes lived in Arachosia, with the satrap Sibyrtius, from where he visited India.

-- Megasthenes, by Wikipedia


The location of the site was first identified in modern times in 1892 by Laurence Waddell, published as Discovery Of The Exact Site Of Asoka's Classic Capital.[3] Extensive archaeological excavations have been made in the vicinity of modern Patna.[4][5] Excavations early in the 20th century around Patna revealed clear evidence of large fortification walls, including reinforcing wooden trusses.[6][7]



Etymology

The etymology of Pataliputra is unclear. "Putra" means son, and "pāṭali" is a species of rice or the plant Bignonia suaveolens.[8] One traditional etymology[9] holds that the city was named after the plant.[10] Another tradition says that Pāṭaliputra means the son of Pāṭali, who was the daughter of Raja Sudarshan.[11] As it was known as Pāṭali-grāma ("Pāṭali village") originally, some scholars believe that Pāṭaliputra is a transformation of Pāṭalipura, "Pāṭali town".[12] Pataliputra was also called Kusumapura (city of flowers).

Pataligram to Patna -- The Historical Journey Of The 'City of Flowers'

The cities, towns or villages that once occupied the site of modern Patna had carried quite a large number of names in different periods of history and most of them were in the name of 'FLOWERS.' The earliest to exist at the site seems to have been a small sprawling village with the name of Patali, Pataligrama, Padali or Padalipura as mentioned in Buddhist and Jain traditions.

Vayupurana mentions the name of Pataliputra as Kusumapura. In Tattvarthasutra of Umasvati, a celebrated Jain Author who lived here in the first-second centuries A.D., the place is described as Kusumapura. It literally means a 'city of flowers.' Gargi-Samhita names Pataliputra as Kusum-Dhvaja or Pushpapura -- variant of Kusumapura. The modern name of Phulwarisharif of a small hamlet near Patna is obviously a survival of the ancient name. One tradition says that in the time of Nandas, the name was Padmawati. It is under the Mauryans that the name of Pataliputra came in common use. Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador, at the court of Chandragupta Maurya, mentioned Pataliputra with the Greek utterance of 'Palibothra.' The celebrated Buddhist monk, Hiuen-Tsang who came to India in the seventh century A.D., also knew it by the name of Pataliputra.

-- The Wonder That Was Pataliputra, by brandingbihar.com


"O World-Honoured One! To the east, beyond worlds as numerous as the sands of 20 Ganges, is a world called "Acala"....The rivers contain various flowers, such as the utpala, padma, kumuda, pundarika, the fragrant, the greatly fragrant, the wonderfully fragrant, the nitya, and the bloom that unhinderedly protects all beings. Also, on both banks are numerous flowers, such as the atimuktaka, campaka, pataliputra, varsika, mallika, mahamallika, simmallika, sumana, yukthika, dhanika, nitya, and the bloom that unhinderedly protects all beings.

-- The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Translated into English by Kosho Yamamoto, from Dharmakshema’s Chinese version, 1973


"Karavira, Jati, Champaka, Lotus, and Patali, are the five flowers (275)."

-- Mahanirvana Tantra: Tantra of the Great Liberation, Translated by Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe)


History

There is no mention of Pataliputra in written sources prior to the early Jain and Buddhist texts (the Pali Canon and Āgamas), where it appears as the village of Pataligrama and is omitted from a list of major cities in the region.[13] Early Buddhist sources report a city being built in the vicinity of the village towards the end of the Buddha's life; this generally agrees with archaeological evidence showing urban development occurring in the area no earlier than the 3rd or 4th Century BCE.[13] In 303 BCE, Greek historian and ambassador Megasthenes mentioned Pataliputra as a city in his work Indika.[14]Diodorus, quoting Iambulus mention that the king of Pataliputra had a "great love for the Greeks".[15]

The city of Pataliputra was formed by fortification of a village by Haryanka ruler Ajatashatru, son of Bimbisara.[16]


Its central location in north eastern India led rulers of successive dynasties to base their administrative capital here, from the Nandas, Mauryans, Shungas and the Guptas down to the Palas.[17] Situated at the confluence of the Ganges, Gandhaka and Son rivers, Pataliputra formed a "water fort, or jaldurga".[18] Its position helped it dominate the riverine trade of the Indo-Gangetic plains during Magadha's early imperial period. It was a great centre of trade and commerce and attracted merchants and intellectuals, such as the famed Chanakya, from all over India.

Two important early Buddhist councils are recorded in early Buddhist texts as being held here, the First Buddhist council immediately following the death of the Buddha and the Second Buddhist council in the reign of Ashoka. Jain and Brahmanical sources identify Udayabhadra, son of Ajatashatru, as the king who first established Pataliputra as the capital of Magadha.[13] The Sangam Tamil epic Akanaṉūṟu mentions Nanda kings ruling Pataliputra.[19][20][21]

Capital of the Maurya Empire

Image
Ruins of pillared hall at Kumrahar site at Pataliputra.

Image
The Pataliputra capital, discovered at the Bulandi Bagh site. 4th-3rd c. BCE.

Image
Mauryan remains of a wooden palissade at Bulandi Bagh site.

During the reign of Emperor Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE, it was one of the world's largest cities, with a population of about 150,000–400,000.[22] The city is estimated to have had a surface of 25.5 square kilometers, and a circumference of 33.8 kilometers, and was in the shape of a parallelogram and had 64 gates (that is, approximately one gate every 500 meters).[23] Pataliputra reached the pinnacle of prosperity when it was the capital of the great Mauryan Emperors, Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka. The city prospered under the Mauryas and a Greek ambassador, Megasthenes, resided there and left a detailed account of its splendour, referring to it as "Palibothra":

"Megasthenes says that on one side where it is longest this city extends ten miles in length, and that its breadth is one and three-quarters miles; that the city has been surrounded with a ditch in breadth 600 feet, and in depth 45 feet; and that its wall has 570 towers and 64 gates." - Arrian "The Indica"[24]


Image
Mauryan remains of a wooden palisade discovered at the Bulandi Bagh site of Pataliputra.

Image
Fa-Hien at the ruins of Ashoka's palace in Pataliputra in the 4th century CE (artist impression).

Strabo in his Geographia adds that the city walls were made of wood. These are thought to be the wooden palisades identified during the excavation of Patna.[25]

"At the confluence of the Ganges and of another river is situated Palibothra, in length 80, and in breadth 15 stadia. It is in the shape of a parallelogram, surrounded by a wooden wall pierced with openings through which arrows may be discharged. In front is a ditch, which serves the purpose of defence and of a sewer for the city." - Strabo, "Geographia"[26]


Aelian, although not expressly quoting Megasthenes nor mentioning Pataliputra, described Indian palaces as superior in splendor to Persia's Susa or Ecbatana:

"In the royal residences in India where the greatest of the kings of that country live, there are so many objects for admiration that neither Memnon's city of Susa with all its extravagance, nor the magnificence of Ecbatana is to be compared with them. (...) In the parks, tame peacocks and pheasants are kept." - Aelian in "De Natura Animalium"[27]


Under Ashoka, most of wooden structure of Pataliputra palace may have been gradually replaced by stone.[28] Ashoka was known to be a great builder, who may have even imported craftsmen from abroad to build royal monuments.[29] Pataliputra palace shows decorative influences of the Achaemenid palaces and Persepolis and may have used the help of foreign craftmen.[30] Which may be the result of the formative influence of craftsmen employed from Persia following the disintegration of the Achaemenid Empire after the conquests of Alexander the Great.[31][32]

Capital of later dynasties

The city also became a flourishing Buddhist centre boasting a number of important monasteries. It remained the capital of the Gupta dynasty (3rd–6th centuries) and the Pala Dynasty (8th-12th centuries). When Faxian visited the city in 400 A.D, he found the people to be rich and prosperous; they practised virtue and justice.[33] He found that the nobles and householders of the city had constructed several hospitals in which the poor of all countries, the destitute, the crippled and the diseased can get treatment. They could receive every kind of help gratuitously. Physicians would inspect the diseases, and order them food, drink, and medicines.[34] The city was largely in ruins when visited by Xuanzang.[35] In a fanciful 1559 book about world geography, the Italian Caius Julius Solinus briefly mentions a powerful Indian kingdom of Prasia with a capital at Palibotra.[36] Afterwards, Sher Shah Suri made Pataliputra his capital and changed the name to modern Patna.

Structure

Image
Ruins of Pataliputra at Kumhrar.

Though parts of the ancient city have been excavated, much of it still lies buried beneath modern Patna. Various locations have been excavated, including Kumhrar, Bulandi Bagh and Agam Kuan.

During the Mauryan period, the city was described as being shaped as parallelogram, approximately 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles) wide and 15 kilometers (9 miles) long. Its wooden walls were pierced by 64 gates. Archaeological research has found remaining portions of the wooden palisade over several kilometers, but stone fortifications have not been found.[37]

Excavated sites of Pataliputra

• Kumhrar
• Bulandi Bagh
• Agam Kuan

As dynastic capital

Pataliputra served as the capital under various Indian dynasties

Image
Pataliputra served as the capital of the Haryanka dynasty and the Shishunaga dynasty of Magadha.

Image
Pataliputra served as the capital of the Nanda Empire.

Image
Pataliputra served as the capital of the Maurya Empire.

Image
Pataliputra served as the capital of the Shunga Empire.

Image
Pataliputra served as the capital of the Gupta Empire.

Image
Pataliputra served as the capital of the Pala Empire.

Main recovered artifacts

Image
The Masarh lion, 3rd century BCE.

Image
Lohanipur torso.

Image
Portion of pillar, found in Pataliputra.

Image
Pataliputra griffin statuette.

Image
Winged griffin.

Image
Pataliputra Yakshas, with Mauryan inscriptions.

Image
Kumrahar coping stone with vines.

Image
Pataliputra lotus motifs.

Image
Polished pillar from Pataliputra.

Image
Mason marks at the base of a pillar.[38]

Image
Chariot wheel, Bulandi Bagh, Mauryan period.

Image
Bulandi Bagh female statuette, Sunga period.

Image
Buddhist railing, Sunga period.

See also

• India portal
• Azimabad
• Magadh
• Names of Patna
• History of Patna

References

1. Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), A History of India, 4th edition. Routledge, Pp. xii, 448, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0.
2. Schwanbeck, E.A. (4 October 2008). Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian (First published 1657) (23 ed.). Bibliolife.
3. Discovery Of The Exact Site Of Asoka's Classic Capital, 1892
4. "Patna". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 13 Dec. 2013 <"Patna | India". Archived from the original on 30 November 2011. Retrieved 30 January 2011.>.
5. "Heritage wall for Metro corridor plan". Archived from the original on 22 November 2016.
6. "A relic of Mauryan era". Archived from the original on 27 November 2017.
7. Valerie Hansen Voyages in World History, Volume 1 to 1600, 2e, Volume 1 pp. 69 Cengage Learning, 2012
8. Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Pāṭali, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 16 July 2011. Retrieved 20 July 2009. (a junior synonym of Stereospermum colais "View crop". Archived from the original on 22 July 2011. Retrieved 20 July 2009.)
9. Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, p.677
10. Folklore, Vol. 19, No. 3 (30 September 1908), pp. 349–350 Archived 10 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine
11. The Calcutta Review Vol LXXVI (1883), p.218
12. Language, Vol. 4, No. 2 (June , 1928), pp. 101–105 Archived 10 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine
13. Sujato, Bhikkhu; Bhikkhu, Brahmali, "1.1.5", The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts (PDF), Oxford Center for Buddhist Studies, archived from the original on 20 November 2017.
14. Tripathi, Piyush Kumar (16 July 2015). "Realty to broaden horizon". The Telegraph. Calcutta. Archived from the original on 16 July 2015.
15. DIODORUS SICULUS -LIBRARY OF HISTORY-Book II, 60
16. Sastri 1988, p. 11.
17. Thapar, Romilak (1990), A History of India, Volume 1, New Delhi and London: Penguin Books. Pp. 384, ISBN 978-0-14-013835-1.
18. The Pearson Indian History Manual, Pearson Education India, A94.
19. Kowmareeshwari (Ed.), S. (August 2012). Agananuru, Purananuru. Sanga Ilakkiyam (in Tamil). 3 (1 ed.). Chennai: Saradha Pathippagam. p. 251.
20. The Song of Songs and Ancient Tamil Love Poems: Poetry and Symbolism By Abraham Mariaselvam
21. Akanaṉūṟu Verses 261 and 265
22. Preston, Christine (2009). The Rise of Man in the Gardens of Sumeria: A Biography of L.A. Waddell. Sussex Academic Press. p. 49. ISBN 9781845193157.
23. Schlingloff, Dieter (2014). Fortified Cities of Ancient India: A Comparative Study. Anthem Press. p. 49. ISBN 9781783083497.
24. Arrian, "The Indica" Archived 25 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine
25. Kosmin 2014, p. 42.
26. Strabo Geographia Vol 3 Paragraph 36 Archived 16 November 2014 at the Wayback Machine
27. Aelian, Characteristics of animals, book XIII, Chapter 18, also quoted in The Cambridge History of India, Volume 1, p411
28. Asoka Mookerji Radhakumud. Motilal Banarsidass Publishing. 1995. p. 96. ISBN 9788120805828.
29. Bhalla, A. S. (2015). Monuments, Power and Poverty in India: From Ashoka to the Raj. I.B.Tauris. p. 18. ISBN 9781784530877.
30. "The Analysis of Indian Muria Empire affected from Achaemenid's architecture art". Journal of Subcontinent Researches. 6 (19): 149–174. 2014. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015.
31. Coningham, Robin; Young, Ruth (2015). The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c.6500 BCE–200 CE. Cambridge University Press. p. 414. ISBN 9780521846974.
32. Waddell, L. A. (Laurence Austine) (1903). "Report on the excavations at Pātaliputra (Patna); the Palibothra of the Greeks". Calcutta, Bengal secretariat press.
33. Beal, Samuel (1884). Si-Yu-Ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World. London: Trubner & Co.
34. Beal, Samuel (1884). Si-Yu-Ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World. London.
35. Scott, David (May 1995). "Buddhism and Islam: Past to Present Encounters and Interfaith Lessons". Numen. 42 (2): 141–155. doi:10.1163/1568527952598657. JSTOR 32701721.
36. Delle cose maravigliose del mondo Tradotto da Giovan Vincenzo Belprato, Count of Antwerp, by Caius Julius Solinus (Solino), 1559, page 209.
37. Excavation sites in Bihar, Archaeological Survey of India, archived from the original on 28 October 2009, retrieved 13 September 2009.
38. Foreign Influence on Ancient India, de Krishna Chandra Sagar p.41

Sources

• Kosmin, Paul J. (2014), The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in Seleucid Empire, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-72882-0
• Sastri, Kallidaikurichi Aiyah Nilakanta, ed. (1988) [1967], Age of the Nandas and Mauryas (Second ed.), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-81-208-0465-4

Further reading

• Bernstein, Richard (2001). Ultimate Journey: Retracing the Path of an Ancient Buddhist Monk (Xuanzang) who crossed Asia in Search of Enlightenment. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. ISBN 0-375-40009-5
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:48 pm

Indica (Megasthenes)
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/28/21

What Does Megasthenes Say About The Kings Who Ruled?

1. He calls Sandracottus the king of the Prassi and he mentions the names of Xandramus as predecessor and Sandrocyptus as successor to Sandracottus. There is absolutely no resemblance in these names to Bindusara (the successor to Chandragupta Maurya) and Mahapadma Nanda, the predecessor.

2. He makes absolutely no mention of Chanakya or Vishnugupta, the Acharya who helped Chandragupta ascend the throne.

3. He makes no mention of the widespread presence of the Baudhik or Sramana tradition [Rishi tradition] during the time of the Maurya empire.

4. He claims the capital is Palimbothra or Palibothra, and that the city exists near the confluence of the Ganga and the Eranaboas (Hiranyabahu). But the Puranas are clear that all the 8 dynasties after the Mahabharata war had their capital at Girivraja (Rajagriha), located in the foothills of the Himalayas. There is no mention of Pataliputra in the Puranas. So, the assumption made by Sir William that Palimbothra is Pataliputra has no basis in fact and is not attested by any piece of evidence. If the Greeks could pronounce the first P in (Patali) they could certainly have pronounced the second p in Putra, instead of bastardising it as Palimbothra. Granted the Greeks were incapable of pronouncing any Indian names, but there is no reason why they should not be consistent in their phonetics.

5. The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha Empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by its name but the same is absent in Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthenes did not use this name “Magadha” and instead used the word Prassi, which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts.


-- Historical Dates From Puranic Sources, by Prof. Narayan Rao




Image
map of the known world, c. 194 BC

Indika (Greek: Ἰνδικά; Latin: Indica) is an account of Mauryan [No, "Sandrocottus"!!!] India by the Greek writer Megasthenes. The original work is now lost, but its fragments [not scraps of parchment; rather references] have survived in later Greek and Latin works. The earliest of these works are those by Diodorus Siculus, Strabo (Geographica), Pliny, and Arrian (Indica).[1][2]

Reconstruction

Megasthenes' Indica can be reconstructed using the portions preserved by later writers as direct quotations or paraphrase. The parts that belonged to the original text can be identified from the later works based on similar content, vocabulary and phrasing, even when the content has not been explicitly attributed to Megasthenes. Felix Jacoby's Fragmente der griechischen Historiker contains 36 pages of content traced to Megasthenes.[3]

E. A. Schwanbeck traced several fragments [not scraps of parchment; rather references] to Megasthenes, and based on his collection, John Watson McCrindle published a reconstructed version of Indica in 1887. However, this reconstruction is not universally accepted. Schwanbeck and McCrindle attributed several fragments [not scraps of parchment; rather references] in the writings of the 1st century BCE writer Diodorus to Megasthenes. However, Diodorus does not mention Megasthenes even once, unlike Strabo, who explicitly mentions Megasthenes as one of his sources. There are several differences between the accounts of Megasthenes and Diodorus: for example, Diodorus describes India as 28,000 stadia long from east to west; Megasthenes gives this number as 16,000. Diodorus states that Indus may be the world's largest river after Nile; Megasthenes (as quoted by Arrian) states that Ganges is much larger than Nile. Historian R. C. Majumdar points out that the Fragments I and II attributed to Megasthenes in McCrindle's edition cannot originate from the same source, because Fragment I describes Nile as larger than Indus, while Fragment II describes Indus as longer than Nile and Danube combined.[4]

Schwanbeck's Fragment XXVII includes four paragraphs from Strabo, and Schwanbeck attributes these entire paragraphs to Megasthenes. However, Strabo cites Megasthenes as his source only for three isolated statements in three different paragraphs. It is likely that Strabo sourced the rest of the text from sources other than Megasthenes: that's why he attributes only three statements specifically to Megasthenes.[4]

Another example is the earliest confirmed description of Gangaridai, which appears in the writings of Diodorus. McCrindle believed that Diodorus' source for this description was the now-lost book of Megasthenes. However, according to A. B. Bosworth (1996), Diodorus obtained this information from Hieronymus of Cardia: Diodorus described Ganges as 30 stadia wide; it is well-attested by other sources that Megasthenes described the median or minimum width of Ganges as 100 stadia.[5]


Fragments used by John Watson McCrindle to reconstruct Megasthenes' Indica

# / Work / Author-Editor / Section / Topic / Book number in Megasthenes' Indica


1 / Bibliotheca historica / Diodorus Siculus II.35-42 Summary of India Summary
2 / Bibliotheca historica / Diodorus Siculus III.63 Three persons named Dionusos Summary
3 / The Anabasis of Alexander / Arrian V. 6. 2-11 Boundaries and rivers / I
4 / Indica (Arrian) / Arrian II. 1. 7 Boundaries / I
5 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.11 Boundaries and extent / I
6 / Geographica / Strabo II.1.7 Size of India / I
7 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.12 Size of India / I
8 / Geographica / Strabo II.1.4 Size of India / I
9 / Indica (Arrian) / Arrian III. 7-8. Size of India / I
10 / Geographica / Strabo II.1.19 Ursa Major and shadows / I
11 / Natural History / Pliny VI. 22.6. Ursa Major / I
12 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.20 Fertile soil / I
13 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.37 Wild animals / I
14 / De Natura Animalium / Claudius Aelianus XVII 39. Indian apes / I
15 / De Natura Animalium / Claudius Aelianus XVI. 41 Winged scorpions and serpents / I
16 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.56 Animals of India, and the Reed / I
17 / De Natura Animalium / Claudius Aelianus XVI. 20.21 Animals of India / I
18 / Natural History / Pliny VIII. 14. 1 Boa constrictor / I
19 / De Natura Animalium / Claudius Aelianus VIII.7 Of the Electric Eel. / I
20 / Natural History / Pliny VI.24.1 Taprobane / I
21 / Antigon. Caryst. / Antigonus of Carystus 647 Marine trees / I
22 / Indica (Arrian) / Arrian 4. 2-13. Indus and Ganges / I
23 / Natural History / Pliny VI. 21.9-22. 1. Indus and Ganges / I
24 / Polyhistor / Gaius Julius Solinus 52. 6-7. Indus and Ganges / I
25 / Indica (Arrian) / Arrian 6. 2-3. Silas river / I
26 / Anecdota Graeca / Jean François Boissonade de Fontarabie I. p. 419, Silas river / I
27 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.38 Silas river / I
28 / Indica (Arrian) / Arrian 5. 2 Number of Indian rivers / I
29 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.35-36 Pataliputra [No, Palibothra!!!] city / II
30 / Indica (Arrian) / Arrian 10 Pataliputra [No, Palibothra!!!] and Indian manners / II
31 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.53-56 Indian manners / II
32 / Varia Historia / Claudius Aelianus iv.1. Indian manners / II
33 / Nicol. Damasc. / Nicolaus of Damascus 44 Indian manners / II
34 / Sermones / Stobaeus 42 Indian manners / II
35 / Deipnosophistae / Athenaeus iv. p. 153. Indian suppers / II
36 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.57 Extraordinary tribes / II
37 / Natural History / Pliny VII. ii. 14-22 Extraordinary races / II
38 / Polyhistor / Gaius Julius Solinus 52. 26-30 Extraordinary races / II
39 / On the Face in the Moon (de facie in orbe lunae) in Moralia / Plutarch Opp. ed. Reisk, tom. ix. p. 701. Race of mouthless humans / II
40 / Indica (Arrian) / Arrian Xl.l.-XII.-9 7 castes of India / III
41 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.39-41 7 castes of India / III
42 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.50-52 Administration of public affairs; horses and elephants. / III
43 / De Natura Animalium / Claudius Aelianus XIII. 10. Horses and elephants / III
44 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.41-43 Elephants / III
45 / Indica (Arrian) / Arrian ch. 13-14. Elephants / III
46 / De Natura Animalium / Claudius Aelianus XII. 44. Elephants / III
47 / De Natura Animalium / Claudius Aelianus XIII. 7. Of the diseases of Elephants. / III
48 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.44 Gold-digging ants / III
49 / Indica (Arrian) / Arrian XV.5-7. Gold-digging ants / III
50 / Orations / Dio Chrysostom Or. 35 Gold-digging ants / III
51 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.58-60 Indian philosophers / III
52 / Stromata / Clement of Alexandria I. p. 305 D Indian philosophers / III
53 / Praeparatio evangelica / Eusebius IX. 6 Indian philosophers / III
54 / Contra Julianum (Against Julian) / Cyril of Alexandria IV Indian philosophers / III
55 / Stromata / Clement of Alexandria I Indian philosophers / III
56 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.68 Indian philosophers: Kalanos (Calanus) and Mandanis / III
57 / The Anabasis of Alexander / Arrian VII ii. 3-9 Indian philosophers: Kalanos (Calanus) and Mandanis / III
58 / Geographica / Strabo XV.1.68 Indians had not attacked anyone or faced external attacks; Dionysos and Herakles / IV
59 / Indica (Arrian) / Arrian V. 4-12. Indians had not attacked anyone or faced external attacks; Dionysos and Herakles / IV
60 / Contra Apion / Josephus I. 20 (T. II p. 451, Havere.) King of the Babylonians surpassed Herakles in greatness / IV
61 / Antiquitates Judaicae / Josephus X. ii. 1 (T. I p. 533, Havere.) King of the Babylonians surpassed Herakles in greatness / IV
62 / Zonar. Annal. Basileae 1557 / -- / -- / King of the Babylonians surpassed Herakles in greatness / IV
63 / G. Syncell. T. I. / George Syncellus??? p. 419, ed. Benn. (p. 221 ed. Paris, p. 177 ed. Venet.) King of the Babylonians surpassed Herakles in greatness / IV
64 / Fragments of Abydenus's writings in Praeparatio evangelica / Eusebius I. 41 (ed. Colon. 1688, p. 456 D) King of the Babylonians surpassed Herakles in greatness / IV
65 / Indica (Arrian) / Arrian 7-9. King of the Babylonians surpassed Herakles in greatness / IV
66 / Natural History / Pliny IX. 5 Pearls / IV
67 / Mirabilia / Phlegon of Tralles 33 Pandaian land / IV
68 / Natural History / Pliny VI. xxi. 4-5. Ancient history of Indians / IV
69 / Polyhistor / Gaius Julius Solinus 52. 5. Ancient history of Indians / IV
70 / The Anabasis of Alexander / Arrian VII. ii. 3-9. Indian philosophers: Kalanos (Calanus) and Mandanis / IV
71 / De Natura Animalium / Claudius Aelianus XII. 8. Elephants / (Doubtful fragments)
72 / De Natura Animalium / Claudius Aelianus III. 46. White elephant / (Doubtful fragments)
73 / De Recta in Deum Fide / Adamantius (Pseudo-Origen) vol. I. p. 904. Brachhmans (Brahmins) and their philosophy / (Doubtful fragments)
74 / Palladius De gentibus Indiae et Bragmanibus' / Palladius of Galatia pp. 8, 20 et seq. ed. Londin. 1668. Indian philosophers: Kalanos (Calanus) and Mandanis / (Doubtful fragments)
75 / De Moribus Brachmanorum / Ambrose pp. 62, 68 et seq. ed. Pallad. Londin. 1668. Calanus and Mandanis / (Doubtful fragments)
76 / Natural History / Pliny VI. 21. 8-23. 11. Indian races / (Doubtful fragments)
77 / Polyhistor / Gaius Julius Solinus 52. 6-17. Catalogue of Indian Races. / (Doubtful fragments)
78 / Stratagems / Polyaenus I. 1. 1-3. Dionysos / (Doubtful fragments)
79 / Stratagems / Polyaenus I. 3. 4. Hercules and Pandaea / (Doubtful fragments)
80 / De Natura Animalium / Claudius Aelianus XVI. 2-22. Beasts of India / (Doubtful fragments)


India according to the reconstructed text

According to the text reconstructed by J. W. McCrindle, Megasthenes' Indica describes India as follows:

Geography

India is a quadrilateral-shaped country, bounded by the ocean on the southern and the eastern side.[6] The Indus river forms the western and the north-western boundary of the country, as far as the ocean.[7] India's northern border reaches the extremities of Tauros. From Ariana to the Eastern Sea, it is bound by mountains that are called Kaukasos by the Macedonians. The various native names for these mountains include Parapamisos, Hemodos and Himaos (the Himalayas).[8] Beyond Hemodos, lies Scythia inhabited by the Scythians known as Sakai.[9] Besides Scythia, the countries of Bactria and Ariana border India.[10]

At the extreme point of India, the gnomon of the sundial often casts no shadow, and the Ursa Major is invisible at night. In the remotest parts, the shadows fall southward, and even Arcturus is not visible.[9]

India has many large and navigable rivers, which arise in the mountains on its northern border. Many of these rivers merge into Ganges, which is 30 stadia wide at its source, and runs from north to south. The Ganges empties into the ocean that forms the eastern boundary of Gangaridai.[11]
Other nations feared Gangaridai's huge force of the biggest elephants, and therefore, Gangaridai had never been conquered by any foreign king.[12]


Indus also runs from north to south, and has several navigable tributaries. The most notable tributaries are Hupanis, the Hudaspes, and the Akesines.[13] One peculiar river is Sillas, which originates from a fountain of the same name. Everything cast into this river sinks down to the bottom - nothing floats in it.[10] In addition, there are a large number of other rivers, supplying abundant water for agriculture. According to the native philosophers and natural scientists, the reason for this is that the bordering countries are more elevated than India, so their waters run down to India, resulting in such a large number of rivers.[14]

History

Image
Mauryan[???] remains of a wooden palissade at Bulandi Bagh site of Pataliputra.

Image
Mauryan[???] remains of a wooden palissade at Bulandi Bagh site of Pataliputra.

In the primitive times, the Indians lived on fruits and wore clothes made of animal skin, just like the Greeks. The most learned Indian scholars say that Dionysus invaded India, and conquered it. When his army was unable to bear the excessive heat, he led his soldiers to the mountains called Meros for recovery; this led to the Greek legend about Dionysus being bred in his father's thigh (meros in Greek).[a] Dionysus taught Indians several things including how to grow plants, make wine and worship. He founded several large cities, introduced laws and established courts. For this reason, he was regarded as a deity by the Indians. He ruled entire India for 52 years, before dying of old age. His descendants ruled India for several generations, before being dethroned and replaced by democratic city-states.[16]

The Indians who inhabit the hill country also claim that Herakles was one of them. Like the Greeks, they characterize him with the club and the lion's skin. According to them, Herakles was a powerful man who subjugated evil beasts. He had several sons and one daughter, who became rulers in different parts of his dominion. He founded several cities, the greatest of which was Palibothra (Pataliputra[???]). Herakles built several places in this city, fortified it with water-filled trenches and settled a number of people in the city. His descendants ruled India for several generations, but never launched an expedition beyond India. After several years, the royal rule was replaced by democratic city states, although there existed a few kings when Alexander invaded India.[17]

33 Such, then, are the traditions regarding Dionusos and his descendants current among the Indians who inhabit the hill-country. 34 They further assert that Herakles [Apparently Siva is meant, though his many wives and sons are unknown to Hindu mythology.— ED.] also was born among them. 34 They assign to him, like the Greeks, the club and the lion's skin. He far surpassed other men in personal strength, and prowess, and cleared sea and land of evil beasts. 35 Marrying many wives he begot many sons, but one daughter only. The sons having reached man's estate, he divided all India into equal portions for his children, whom he made kings in different parts of his dominions. He provided similarly for his only daughter, whom he reared up and made a queen. 36 He was the founder, also, of no small number of cities, the most renowned and greatest of which he called Palibothra. He built therein many sumptuous palaces, and settled within its walls a numerous population. The city he fortified with trenches of notable dimensions, which were filled with water introduced from the river. 37 Herakles, accordingly, after his removal from among men, obtained immortal honour; and his descendants, having reigned for many generations and signalized themselves by great achievements, neither made any expedition beyond the confines of India, nor sent out any colony abroad. 38 At last, however, after many years had gone, most of the cities adopted the democratic form of government, though some retained the kingly until the invasion of the country by Alexander. 39

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


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

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


Flora and fauna

India has several mountains with fruit trees of every kind.[9] There are a large number of animal species in India. The Indian elephants are far stronger than the Libyan elephants, because of the abundance of food on the Indian soil. The elephants are domesticated in large numbers, and trained for war.[18] The gestation period of the elephants ranges from 16 to 18 months, and the oldest of the elephants live up to 200 years.[19]

Economy

Gold, silver, copper and iron are abundant on Indian soil. Tin and other metals are used for making a number of tools, weapons, ornaments, and other articles.[18]

India has very fertile plains, and irrigation is practised widely.[18] The main crops include rice, millet, a crop called bosporum, other cereals, pulses and other food plants.[20] There are two crop cycles per year, since rain falls in both summer and winter. At the time of summer solstice, rice, millet, bosporum and sesamum are sown. During winter, wheat is sown.[20]

No famines have ever occurred in India because of the following reasons:[21]

• The Indians are always assured of at least one of the two seasonal crops
• There are a number of spontaneously growing fruits and edible roots available.
• The Indian warriors regard those engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry as sacred. Unlike the warriors in other countries, they do not ravage farms during war conquests. Moreover, the warring sides never destroy the enemy land with fire or cut down its trees.

Food and Clothing

Indian beverage is a liquor composed from rice instead of barley, when the Indians are at supper a table is placed before each person, this being like a tripod. There is placed upon it a golden bowl, into which they first put rice, boiled as one would boil barley, and then they add many dainties prepared according to Indian receipts. [22]

In contrast to the general simplicity of their style, they love finery and ornament. Their robes are worked in gold, and ornamented with precious stones, and they wear also flowered garments made of the finest muslin. Some have attendants walking behind hold up umbrellas over them: for they have a high regard for beauty, and avail themselves of every device to improve their looks.[23]

Society

Because of its large size, India is inhabited by many diverse races, all of which are indigenous. India has no foreign colony, and Indians have not established any colonies outside India.[10] The Indians are of above average stature, because of abundant food, fine water and pure air. They are well-skilled in art.[18]

A law, prescribed by ancient Indian philosophers, bans slavery. The law treats everyone equally, but allows the property to be unevenly distributed.[24]

The population of India is divided into 7 endogamous and hereditary castes:[25]

1. Philosophers
o Not numerous compared to other castes, but most prominent
o Exempted from all public duties
o Neither masters, nor servants
o "believed to be most dear to the gods, and to be the most conversant with matters pertaining to Hades"
o Engaged by others to offer sacrifices and perform funerary rites, for which they received valuable gifts and privileges
o At the beginning of the year, they make prophecies about droughts, rain storms, propitious winds, diseases and other topics. Based on these prophecies, the citizens and the rulers make adequate preparations. A philosopher whose prophecy fails receives strong criticism and has to observe silence for the rest of his life, but otherwise incurs no penalty.
2. Farmers
o Most numerous of all castes
o Live in villages, and avoid visiting towns
o Exempted from fighting and other public duties
o Regarded as public benefactors, and protected from damage during wars, even by enemy warriors
o Pay a land tribute to the ruler, the official land owner
o In addition, they remit 1/4th of their produce to the state treasury
3. Herders
o Live in tents, outside villages and towns
o Hunt and trap crop-destroying birds and animals
4. Artisans
o Create weapons as well as tools for farmers and others
o Exempted from paying taxes, and receive a maintenance from the state exchequer
5. Military
o Second most numerous among the castes
o Well-organized and equipped for war
o Indulge in amusements and idleness during peaceful times
o Maintained at state expense, along with war horses and elephants
6. Overseers
o Carry out administrative tasks
o Report to the king or (in states not ruled by kings) magistrates
7. Councillors and Assessors
o Composed of wise people with good character
o Deliberate on public affairs; included the royal advisers, state treasurers, dispute arbitrators; the army generals and chief magistrates also usually belonged to this class.
o Least numerous, but most respected

Philosophy

Megasthenes makes a different division of the philosophers, saying that they are of two kinds - one of which he calls the Brachmanes, and the other the Sarmanes. Of the Sarmanes he tells us that those who are held in most honour are called the Hylobioi. Next in honour to the Hylobioi are the physicians, since they are engaged in the study of the nature of man. Besides these there are diviners and sorcerers. Women pursue philosophy with some of them. [26]

Megasthenes also comments on the presence of pre-Socratic views among the Brahmans in India and Jews in Syria. Five centuries later Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromateis, may have misunderstood Megasthenes to be responding to claims of Greek primacy by admitting Greek views of physics were preceded by those of Jews and Indians. Megasthenes, like Numenius of Apamea, was simply comparing the ideas of the different ancient cultures.[27]

Administration

The foreigners are treated well. Special officers are appointed to ensure that no foreigner is harmed, and judges hand out harsh punishment to those who take unfair advantage of the foreigners. Sick foreigners are attended by physicians and taken care of. Foreigners who die in India are buried, and their property is delivered to their relatives.[28]

Historical reliability

Later writers such as Arrian, Strabo, Diodorus, and Pliny refer to Indika in their works. Of these writers, Arrian speaks most highly of Megasthenes, while Strabo and Pliny treat him with less respect.

The first century Greek writer Strabo called both Megasthenes and his succeeding ambassador Deimachus liars, and stated that "no faith whatever" could be placed in their writings.[29] The Indika contained numerous fantastical stories, such as those about tribes of people with no mouths, unicorns and other mythical animals, and gold-digging ants.[30] Strabo directly contradicted these descriptions, assuring his readers that Megasthenes' stories, along with his recounting of India’s founding by Hercules and Dionysus, were mythical with little to no basis in reality.[31] Despite such shortcomings, some authors believe that Indika is creditworthy, and is an important source of information about the contemporary Indian society, administration and other topics.[30]

According to Paul J. Kosmin, Indica served a legitimizing purpose for Seleucus I and his actions in India.[32] It depicts contemporary India as an unconquerable territory, arguing that Dionysus was able to conquer India, because before his invasion, India was a primitive rural society. Dionysus' urbanization of India makes India a powerful, impregnable nation. The later ruler — the Indian Herakles — is presented as a native of India, despite similarities with the Greek Heracles. This, according to Kosmin, is because now India is shown as unconquerable.[33] Megasthenes emphasizes that no foreign army had been able to conquer India (since Dionysus) and Indians had not invaded a foreign country either. This representation of India as an isolated, invincible country is an attempt to vindicate Seleucus' peace treaty with the Indian emperor [34] through which he abandoned territories he could never securely hold, stabilized the East, and obtained elephants with which he could turn his attention against his great western rival, Antigonus Monophthalmus. [35]

Megasthenes states that there were no slaves in India, but the Arthashastra attests to the existence of slavery in contemporary India;[36] Strabo also counters Megasthenes's claim based on a report from Onesicritus. Historian Shireen Moosvi theorizes that slaves were outcastes, and were not considered members of the society at all.[37] According to historian Romila Thapar, the lack of sharp distinction between slaves and others in the Indian society (unlike the Greek society) may have confused Megasthenes: Indians did not use large-scale slavery as a means of production, and slaves in India could buy back their freedom or be released by their master.[38]

Megasthenes mentions seven castes in India, while the Indian texts mention only four social classes (varnas). According to Thapar, Megasthenes' categorization appears to be based on economic divisions rather than the social divisions; this is understandable because the varnas originated as economic divisions. Thapar also speculates that he wrote his account some years after his visit to India, and at this time, he "arrived at the number seven, forgetting the facts as given to him". Alternatively, it is possible that the later authors misquoted him, trying to find similarities with the Egyptian society, which according to Herodotus, was divided into seven social classes.[39]

Megasthenes claims that before Alexander, no foreign power had invaded or conquered Indians, with the exception of the mythical heroes Hercules and Dionysus. However, it is known from earlier sources - such as the inscriptions of Darius the Great and Herodotus - that the Achaemenid Empire included parts of north-western part of India (present-day Pakistan). It is possible that the Achaemenid control did not extend much beyond the Indus River, which Megasthenes considered to be the border of India. Another possibility is that Megasthenes intended to understate the power of the Achaemenid Empire, a rival of the Greeks.[40]

Notes

1. D. R. Patil suggests that the Rigvedic Prithu was a vegetarian deity, associated with Greek god Dionysus.[15]

References

1. Upinder Singh (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India. Pearson Education India. p. 324. ISBN 9788131711200.
2. Christopher I. Beckwith (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. p. 62. ISBN 9781400866328.
3. Paul J. Kosmin 2013, p. 99.
4. Sandhya Jain 2011, p. 22.
5. A. B. Bosworth 1996, pp. 188-189.
6. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 49.
7. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 46.
8. J. W. McCrindle 1877, pp. 48-49.
9. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 30.
10. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 35.
11. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 33.
12. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 33-34.
13. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 34.
14. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 34-35.
15. Nagendra Kumar Singh (1997). Encyclopaedia of Hinduism. Anmol Publications. pp=1714. ISBN 978-81-7488-168-7.
16. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 35-38.
17. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 39-40.
18. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 31.
19. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 44.
20. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 32.
21. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 32-33.
22. Gochberg, Donald S., et al., ed. "World Literature and Thought: Volume I: The Ancient Worlds"; Fort Worth, TX; Harcourt Brace; 1997, pp. 410-416.
23. Gochberg, Donald S., et al., ed. "World Literature and Thought: Volume I: The Ancient Worlds"; Fort Worth, TX; Harcourt Brace; 1997, pp. 410-416.
24. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 40.
25. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 40-44.
26. FRAGM. XLI Strab. XV. 1. 58-60,--pp. 711-714 Of the Indian Philosophers. J. W. McCrindle.
27. Bezalel Bar-Kochva 2010, p. 157: "He does not respond to the implied claim of Greek primacy, presumably because he did not have, and could not have had, hard information about the beginnings of "parallel" opinions among the Brahmans."
28. J. W. McCrindle 1877, p. 44-45.
29. Allan Dahlaquist 1996, p. 28.
30. Irfan Habib; Vivekanand Jha (2004). Mauryan India. A People's History of India. Aligarh Historians Society / Tulika Books. p. 19. ISBN 978-81-85229-92-8.
31. Strabo, Geography, Book XV, Chapter 1
32. Paul J. Kosmin 2013, p. 91.
33. Paul J. Kosmin 2013, p. 98-100.
34. Paul J. Kosmin 2013, p. 103-104.
35. Paul J. Kosmin 2013, p. 98.
36. Romila Thapar 1990, p. 89.
37. Shireen Moosvi 2004, p. 548.
38. Romila Thapar 1990, pp. 89-90.
39. Romila Thapar 2012, p. 118.
40. H. C. Raychaudhuri 1988, pp. 31-32.

Bibliography

• A. B. Bosworth (1996). Alexander and the East. Clarendon. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-19-158945-4.
• Allan Dahlaquist (1996). Megasthenes and Indian Religion- Volume 11 of History and Culture Series. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 386. ISBN 81-208-1323-5.
• H. C. Raychaudhuri (1988) [1967]. "India in the Age of the Nandas". In K. A. Nilakanta Sastri (ed.). Age of the Nandas and Mauryas (Second ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-0466-1.
• J. W. McCrindle (1877). Ancient India As Described By Megasthenes And Arrian. London: Trübner & Co.
• Megasthenes (1846), E. A. Schwanbeck (ed.), Indica, Sumptibus Pleimesii, bibliopolae (Original Oxford University)
• Paul J. Kosmin (2013). "Apologetic Ethnography: Megasthenes' Indica and the Seleucid Elephant". In Eran Almagor, Joseph Skinner (ed.). Ancient Ethnography: New Approaches. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781472537607.
• Radha Kumud Mookerji (1988) [first published in 1966], Chandragupta Maurya and his times (4th ed.), Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-0433-3
• Romila Thapar (2012). Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. Oxford University Press India. ISBN 978-0-19-908868-3.
• Romila Thapar (1990). A History of India. Penguin Books Limited. ISBN 978-0-14-194976-5.
• Sandhya Jain (2011). The India They Saw (Vol-1). Ocean Books. ISBN 978-81-8430-106-9.
• Shireen Moosvi (2004). "Domestic service in precolonial India: Bondage, caste and market". In Antoinette Fauve-Chamoux (ed.). Domestic Service and the Formation of European Identity. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-03910-589-2.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:37 am

The Indika of Megasthenes
by R.C. Majumdar
University of Pennsylvania
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 273-276 (4 pages)
Published by: American Oriental Society
(Oct. - Dec., 1958)



Highlights:

Arrian [86/89-146/160 A.D.] mentions Nearchus, Eratosthenes [276 BC–195/194 BC)], Megasthenes and other writers as his sources of information. In one place he refers to Eratosthenes as "the safest authority" (para III). He specifically mentions Megasthenes many times, but evidently sets little value on his account, for he says: "Beyond that limit (the Hyphasis [Beas]) we have no real knowledge of the country since this is the sort of account which Megasthenes gives us of an Indian river." He then refers to the river Silas, on whose water, according to Megasthenes, nothing floats but sinks to the bottom…

Again, referring to the statement of Megasthenes 'that the Indian tribes number in all 118,' Arrian makes the very apposite comment: "I am at a loss to conjecture how he arrived at it, for the greater part of India he did not visit, nor is mutual intercourse maintained between all the tribes." Again Arrian says: "Megasthenes avers that the tradition about (gold-digging) ants is strictly true," and very correctly observed: "Megasthenes writes what he had heard from hearsay.…

The passages which we may justly regard as either quoted from the Indika of Megasthenes, or derived from it through secondary sources, are comparatively few in number. Leaving aside the incredible stories of fabulous races and wild animals, etc., the passages of real interest to Indian history that may be confidently referred to the authority of Megasthenes may be listed as follows:

1. The geography of India (Fragments II to VIII). The account is chiefly based on Eratosthenes, and Megasthenes agrees with him (p. 50) or with Deimachos (p. 51).
2. That in the southern parts of India the constellation of the Bear disappears from view and shadows fall in opposite direction (Fragments IX-X).
3. The soil of India produces two crops every year, both of fruits and grain (Fragment XI)…
4. A short account of Taprobane [Sri Lanka] (Fragment XVIII, p. 62).
5. The mean breadth of the Ganges is 100 stadia and its least depth 20 fathoms (Fragment XXV). The rest of the Fragment XXV, containing the description of Pataliputra, may be ascribed to Megasthenes, for it is repeated with fuller details by Arrian (Para X) who definitely mentions Megasthenes as his authority.
6. The passages quoted by Arrian about Palimbothra and absence of slavery in India (Fragment XXVI, p. 68, last 9 lines, and line 1 of p. 69)…
7. One sentence at the beginning and another at the end [of the long Fragment XXVII]…
8. Description of Indian supper (Fragment XXVIII, p. 74).
9. Seven castes among the Indians (Fragments XXXII, XXXIII, p. 83).
10. Description of Indian philosophers (Fragment XLI, p. 97; XLII, pp. 103-4)…
11. [A] few references [in Fragment XLVI (p. 107)]…
12. The assertion that the women of the Pandaian realm bear children when they are six years of age (Fragment LI, p. 14).
13-14. Two passages in Arrian's Indika; one giving a fuller account of the rivers of India (Paras IV, V); the other enumerating the Indian tribes and giving the legendary account of the parts played by Dionysos and Herakles in India (Paras VII-IX).


-- The Indika of Megasthenes, by R.C. Majumdar

Since the beginning of Indological studies the Indika of Megasthenes has deservedly occupied a very high place among the classical sources of ancient Indian history. The book itself has never come to light, and the German scholar Dr. Schwanbeck rendered a great service by bringing together all the passages of the lost treatise which have survived in quotations by later classical writers. The English translation of Dr. Schwanbeck's collected fragments of Indika by J.W. McCrindle has made this book familiar to all students of ancient Indian history. For nearly a century they have made full use of this first-hand account of India written by an eye-witness at the beginning of the Maurya period, i.e., towards the end of the fourth century B.C.

When the study of Indology was at its infancy, one could not be expected to be very critical of the few sources of first-rate importance then available to him. Schwanbeck's reconstruction of Megasthenes' Indika was therefore accepted without criticism, and this mental attitude, by sheer inertia, has persisted among the students of ancient Indian history even today.1 [B.C.J. Timmer has discussed this question in her doctoral dissertation entitled "Megasthenes en de Indische Mastachappij" (Amsterdam, 1930). She has not, however, gone very deeply into this subject.]

But the progress of Indological studies has rendered it necessary to subject many of the old accepted notions to a searching criticism, and among these should be included the genuineness of the Indika of Megasthenes, as reconstructed by Schwanbeck, and rendered familiar by McCrindle's translation into English.

The passages which Dr. Schwanbeck has accepted as "fragments" of the Indika may be divided into four classes:

1. The passages in the works of later writers which are explicitly attributed to Megasthenes.

2. Passages closely resembling those under (1), though not specifically attributed to Megasthenes.

3. Passages preceding or following those under (1) or (2).

4. Long passages including, incidentally, those under (2) or (3).


A typical instance of the fourth category is furnished by the very first Fragment, from the History of Diodorus (II. 35-42), which Schwanbeck has labelled as "An Epitome of Megasthenes." Now, it is a notable fact that in this long extract, extending over 14 printed pages, the name of Megasthenes is conspicuous by its absence. The account of Diodorus seems more likely to be a compilation from many sources; at least there is no ground to suppose that he depended solely, or even mainly, upon Megasthenes, far less, intended to give a summary of his work. If such had been the case we could certainly expect a reference to the name or authority of Megasthenes. The English translator of the work of Diodorus was constrained to observe: "It cannot be known whether Diodorus used Megasthenes directly or through a medium; his failure to mention his name a single time is a little surprising, if he used him directly."2 ["Diodorus of Sicily" -- English translation by C.H. Oldfather (1935). See Introduction.]

The theory that Diodorus used Megasthenes through a medium may explain the omission of Megasthenes' name, but certainly reduces, to a very considerable extent, the value of the account as a genuine source of information based on the Indika of Megasthenes alone.

But even if we assume that Diodorus derived his knowledge of the Indika from other books, there are good grounds to believe that he had relied on sources other than the Indika. The statement that Alexander advanced as far as the Ganges3 [Diodorus, para. 37.] may be cited as an instance. It seems almost incredible that such a statement could be made by Megasthenes, belonging to the same generation as Alexander and living in Pataliputra on the banks of the Ganges in intimate touch with the king and the people who must have possessed a correct knowledge of the extent of Alexander's advance in India.

If, therefore, it is practically certain that Diodorus utilised sources other than the Indika of Megasthenes, it is obviously impossible to regard his long account of India as "an epitome of Megasthenes." Further, one might naturally doubt whether any passage in the account of Diodorus, save and except those included under category (2) mentioned above, may be regarded as based, even indirectly, on the authority of Megasthenes.


We may now consider the passages belonging to category (3). A typical instance is furnished by the long extract from Strabo's Geography (XV. 1. 53-56), included under Fragment XXVII (p. 69).4 [The pages refer to McCrindle's Translation (London, 1877).] Now, here Megasthenes is definitely cited as authority for the statement that "those who were in the camp of Sandrakottos, wherein lay 40,000 men, found that the thefts reported on any one day did not exceed the value of 200 drachmae."5 [McCrindle gives the number of men in the camp as 400,000 (p. 69). But H.L. Jones, in his translation of Strabo's Geography, gives the number as 40,000 which is evidently the correct figure.]

'He (Seleukos) crossed the Indus and waged war on Sandrokottos, king of the Indians who dwelt about it, until he made friends and entered into relations of marriage with him.' So also Strabo (xv. p. 724): — 'Seleukos Nikator gave to Sandrokottos' (sc. a large part of Ariane). Conf. p. 689: — 'The Indians afterwards held a large part of Ariane, (which they had received from the Makedonians), 'entering into marriage relations with him, and receiving in return five hundred elephants' (of which Sandrakottos had nine thousand— Plinius, vi. 22-5); and Plutarch, Alex. 62:— 'For not long after, Androkottos, being king, presented Seleukos with five hundred elephants, and with six hundred thousand [600,000] men attacked and subdued all India.' Phylarchos (Fragm. 28) in Athenaeus, p. 18 D., refers to some other wonderful enough presents as being sent to Seleukos by Sandrokottos.

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


But there is no such specific reference to Megasthenes in the case of the other statements that follow. There is no obvious reason to take the long extract of more than four pages as a running quotation from the Indika of Megasthenes, particularly as the passage from the Indika is specifically quoted only in support of a general statement quoted by Strabo that theft is of very rare occurrence. Besides, the subject matters dealt with in the passages that follow are quite different. It is well known that Strabo utilised many other sources and has specifically referred to some of them. There is thus no reason to suppose that Strabo must necessarily have derived from Megasthenes all the information included in a single para or consecutive paras, which contain any reference to Megasthenes. There is, no doubt, a possibility, that some of the passages, if not all, in these paras, were based on the Indika of Megasthenes. But it is surely unsafe to proceed on this assumption; and then it is difficult to find out which of the passages falls in this category. It is to be noted that at the end of the very same Fragment (XXVII), another specific reference is made to Megasthenes. This indirectly supports the view that the passages in Fragment XXVII, in between the two specific quotations from the Indika, are not based on that authority. For in that case a second reference to Megasthenes was uncalled for.

Many Indologists, consciously or unconsciously, make the tacit assumption that the Indika of Megasthenes gave the most elaborate and reliable account of India, and the subsequent classical writers drew so largely upon it that one may be excused in regarding their account as based on Megasthenes unless otherwise mentioned. This assumption is belied by the fact that the classical writers themselves had no great faith in the veracity of Megasthenes and did not put a very high value on his Indika. How far this view was just or not, it is immaterial for our present purpose to decide. But the existence of such a general belief should make us hesitate to refer all that they said, without any specific mention of the source, to the authority of Megasthenes.

Strabo (p. 70) says, 'Generally speaking, the men who have hitherto written on the affairs of India were a set of liars, — Deimachos holds the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes next; while Onesikritos and Nearchos, with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words (of truth). Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in Deimachos and Megasthenes. They coined the fables concerning men with ears large enough to sleep in, men without any mouths, without noses, with only one eye, with spider legs, and with fingers bent backward. They renewed Homer's fables concerning the battles of the cranes and pygmies, and asserted the latter to be three spans high. They told of ants digging for gold, and Pans with wedge-shaped heads, of serpents swallowing down oxen and stags, horns and all, — meantime, as Eratosthenes has observed, accusing each other of falsehood. Both of these men were sent as ambassadors to Palimbothra, — Megasthenes to Sandrokottos, Deimachos to Amitrochados his son, — and such are the notes of their residence abroad, which I know not why, they thought fit to leave.'

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


Aristobulus [375 B.C.-301 B.C.], whose treatise on India is also lost, was another author of repute, holding more or less the same status as Megasthenes. Arrian [86/89-146/160 A.D.] mentions Nearchus, Eratosthenes, Megasthenes and other writers as his sources of information. In one place he refers to Eratosthenes as "the safest authority" (para III). He specifically mentions Megasthenes many times, but evidently sets little value on his account, for he says: "Beyond that limit (the Hyphasis [Beas]) we have no real knowledge of the country since this is the sort of account which Megasthenes gives us of an Indian river." He then refers to the river Silas, on whose water, according to Megasthenes, nothing floats but sinks to the bottom.6 [McCrindle's translation, Para VI, p. 196).]

Image

The Beas River (Sanskrit: Vipāśā; Hyphasis in Ancient Greek) is a river in north India. The river rises in the Himalayas in central Himachal Pradesh, India, and flows for some 470 kilometres (290 mi) to the Sutlej River in the Indian state of Punjab. Its total length is 470 kilometres (290 mi) and its drainage basin is 20,303 square kilometres (7,839 sq mi) large.

Beas River [Hyphasis], by Wikipedia


It might be argued that as Megathenes lived at Pataliputra, the accounts of the eastern parts of Northern India, as given by the classical writers, were most probably based on his Indika. But Arrian quite clearly tells us that "A FEW AUTHORS have described the country as far as the river Ganges and the parts near its mouth and the city of Palimbothra."7 [Ibid., Para II, p. 184).] Thus there were other sources of information about Palimbothra (Pataliputra) and the neighbouring region than the Indika of Megasthenes.

The above discussion would make it clear that the passages which we may justly regard as either quoted from the Indika of Megasthenes, or derived from it through secondary sources, are comparatively few in number. Leaving aside the incredible stories of fabulous races and wild animals, etc., the passages of real interest to Indian history that may be confidently referred to the authority of Megasthenes may be listed as follows:

1. The geography of India (Fragments II to VIII). The account is chiefly based on Eratosthenes, and Megasthenes agrees with him (p. 50) or with Deimachos (p. 51).

2. That in the southern parts of India the constellation of the Bear disappears from view and shadows fall in opposite direction (Fragments IX-X).

3. The soil of India produces two crops every year, both of fruits and grain (Fragment XI). The rest of Fragment XI (pp. 54-5) does not belong to the Indika as it is specifically referred to Eratosthenes.

4. A short account of Taprobane [Sri Lanka] (Fragment XVIII, p. 62).

5. The mean breadth of the Ganges is 100 stadia and its least depth 20 fathoms (Fragment XXV). The rest of the Fragment XXV, containing the description of Pataliputra, may be ascribed to Megasthenes, for it is repeated with fuller details by Arrian (Para X) who definitely mentions Megasthenes as his authority.

6. The passages quoted by Arrian about Palimbothra and absence of slavery in India (Fragment XXVI, p. 68, last 9 lines, and line 1 of p. 69). The rest of Fragment XXVI cannot, however, be definitely attributed to Megasthenes, though it seems to be very likely.

7. The attribution of the long Fragment XXVII, excepting one sentence at the beginning and another at the end, to Megasthenes is very doubtful as already pointed out above.

8. Description of Indian supper (Fragment XXVIII, p. 74).

9. Seven castes among the Indians (Fragments XXXII, XXXIII, p. 83).

10. Description of Indian philosophers (Fragment XLI, p. 97; XLII, pp. 103-4).

11. Fragment XLVI (p. 107) contains a few references to Megasthenes but the whole passage is obviously based upon a number of different accounts.

12. The assertion that the women of the Pandaian realm bear children when they are six years of age (Fragment LI, p. 14).

13-14. Two passages in Arrian's Indika; one giving a fuller account of the rivers of India (Paras IV, V); the other enumerating the Indian tribes and giving the legendary account of the parts played by Dionysos and Herakles in India (Paras VII-IX).

As regards other passages included in Schwanbeck's (and McCrindle's) Indika of Megasthenes, their authenticity is highly doubtful and it may be justly questioned whether one should regard them as emanating from Megasthenes. Among these the most important are:

1. Fragment I (the so-called "Epitome of Megasthenes" by Diodorus) except the topics or passages included in the above list.

2. The major part of Fragment XXVII describing the manners and customs of the Indians.

3. Fragment XXXIV describing the Municipal and Military Boards of Administration.


Very important conclusions have been drawn from these fragments regarding the state of things in the time of Chandragupta Maurya, and they have figured prominently in the discussion of the genuineness of the text of Arthasastra, attributed to Kautilya. In particular, the absence of any reference to the Municipal and Military Boards in Kautilya's Arthasastra has been put forward as a strong argument against accepting that work as belonging to the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In view of such great importance naturally attaching to any statement of Megasthenes, we must be very cautious in attributing to Megasthenes any passage for which his name or authority is not specifically cited.


In conclusion, a few words may be said about the veracity of Megasthenes. Schwanbeck has discussed this question at length and discredited the views of ancient writers who included Megasthenes among "those writers who are given to lying and least worthy of credit," and ranked him "almost on a part with Ktesias."8 [Ibid., pp. 18 ff.] Schwanbeck has cited, in his favour, the passage from Arrian's Indika in which both Eratosthenes and Megasthenes are referred to as "approved men." It is, however, curious that Schwanbeck does not refer to the views of Arrian, quoted above, in which he clearly says that no true account of India beyond the Hyphasis is known since the account of Megasthenes is absolutely unreliable; and he supports this by mentioning the latter's description of the river Silas. Again, referring to the statement of Megasthenes 'that the Indian tribes number in all 118,' Arrian makes the very apposite comment: "I am at a loss to conjecture how he arrived at it, for the greater part of India he did not visit, nor is mutual intercourse maintained between all the tribes."9 [Ibid., pp. 198-9.] Again Arrian says: "Megasthenes avers that the tradition about (gold-digging) ants is strictly true," and very correctly observed: "Megasthenes writes what he had heard from hearsay."10 [Ibid., p. 217.] Megasthenes may certainly be excused, as Schwanbeck has argued, for recording "truthfully both what he actually saw, and what was told him by others."11 [Ibid., p. 26.] But when Megasthenes does not evidently distinguish between the two, and avers as strictly true what he merely heard from others, we may certainly be skeptical about the real value of his accounts. Besides, it is obvious from the way in which he has recorded the most unnatural phenomena and incredible tales about men and animals, without any comment, that he did not possess a very high degree of critical judgment such as we find, for example, in the writings of Arrian and Strabo. It is to be seriously considered how far we can place absolute reliance on the statements of such an uncritical man, even if they were based on his own observations. This particularly applies to his description of social manners which would be in any case difficult for a foreigner to comprehend rightly even if he had a higher degree of critical ability than Megasthenes possessed. His description of the seven castes, which are unknown to Indian literature or tradition, may be cited as an example, where, on a few basic facts, he has reared up a structure which is mostly inaccurate and misleading. On the whole, time has surely come when we must make a re-assessment of the nature and value of the Indika of Megasthenes as a source of our knowledge regarding ancient Indian history and culture.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:32 am

Kaumudi-Mahotsava
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/29/21
The numerous Puranas and Itihasas, or poems mythological and heroic, are completely in our powers and from them we may recover some disfigured but valuable pictures of ancient manners and governments; while the popular tales of the Hindus, in prose and in verse, contain fragments of history; and even in their dramas we may find as many real characters and events as a future age might find in our own plays, if all histories of England were, like those of India, to be irrecoverably lost. For example: A most beautiful poem by Somadeva, comprising a very long chain of instinctive 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 Sanscrit, entitled, the Coronation of Chandra, the abbreviated name of that able and adventurous usurper. From these once concealed, but now accessible, compositions, we are enabled to exhibit a more accurate sketch of old Indian history than the world has yet seen, especially with the aid of well attested observations on the places of the colures.

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

"Vijaka wrote Kaumudi Mahotsava to commemorate the coronation of Chandra Gupta I. The play has some historical value." (Winternitz)

-- Indian Civilization & Culture, by Suhas Chatterjee

Chandragupta I (r. c. 319-335 or 319-350 CE) was a king of the Gupta dynasty, who ruled in northern India. His title Maharajadhiraja ("great king of kings") suggests that he was the first emperor of the dynasty. It is not certain how he turned his small ancestral kingdom into an empire, although a widely accepted theory among modern historians is that his marriage to the Lichchhavi princess Kumaradevi helped him extend his political power. Their son Samudragupta further expanded the Gupta empire.

-- Chandragupta I, by Wikipedia

Now, the problem is— how and when Subhadra came to be identified with Ekanamsa-Durga? In his attempt to solve this problem Mr. J. C. Ghose (JRASB., Letters , vol. 2 1936, page 41 ff.) suggested it long ago that the Yadavas seeing the daughter of Yasoda so much instrumental in saving the lives of their favourites, Krsna and Baladeva, took her as their household deity — Ekanamsa. It may be pointed out here that ‘Kaumudimahotsava’ also refers to Ekananga5 [5 Cf. also the Mahabharata , II. 39. 136.] (misread for Ekanamsa?) as the tribal deity of the Yadavas. The work further attempts to show the goddess in her dual capacity, viz. as Vindhyavasini-Durga and as the tribal deity of the Yadavas (cf. Lokdksih-Bhagavatyaiva Vindhyacalavasini). Lokaraksitah-Kuladaivatam hi Yadunam Ekananga ǀ- p. 38 of Kaumudi-mahotsava (quoted by Mr. Amalananda Ghosh in p. 212 of vol. 4 of the Indian Culture).

So, we see that the attempt to identify Ekanamsa with the tribal deity of the Yadavas, first made in the Harivathsa, is complete by the time of the composition of the Kaumudi Mahotsava, a work of circa 7th or 8th century A.D. (see Sakuntala Rao Shastri’s edn. of Kaumudi-mahotsava by Vijaka).

Image

-- The Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. 35, no.1-4, Mar-Dec, 1959



According to Puranic evidence, there had expired 1500 odd years after Parikshit, when Mahapadmananda was coronated.

Between Parikshit and the Nandas, there were 3 royal dynasties, namely the Brihadratha, Pradyota and Sisunaga families. The ten kings of the Sisunaga dynasty ruled for 360 years, beginning from 1994 BC and ending with 1634 BC At this time, an illegitimate son, Mahapadma-Nanda, of the last Sisunaga emperor, Mahanandi, ascended the throne of Magadha. The total regnal period of this Nanda dynasty was 100 years. After this with the assistance of Arya Chanakya, Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne of Magadha, in the year 1534 BC.

The Mauryas ruled for a total of 316 years, and were replaced by the Sungas. The Kanvas, who succeeded the Sungas, were themselves overthrown by one of the Andhra chiefs, which dynasty reigned for a period of 506 years. Then followed the reign of the Sri Guptas for a period of 245 years, a period also referred to as the (last of the) golden ages of Bharata. It was Samudragupta of the Sri Gupta dynasty, who was known as Asokaditya Priyadarshin. The inscriptions of Asoka belong to this Gupta emperor and not to the Asoka Maurya who came to power 218 years after the Buddha....

In the Puranic and other ancient texts, there is no allusion to any invasion or inroad into India by foreign people up to the time of Andhra kings. The only person who bore a name similar to “Sandracottus” mentioned by the Greeks, who flourished at the time of Alexander, was Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty, who established a mighty empire on the ruins of the already decayed Andhra dynasty. His date from puranic records is 2811 years after the Mahabharata War, which corresponds to 328 B.C. His current place on the historical dateline is 4th Century AD, which is an obvious error.

It is also interesting to note that the accounts in the life of Sandracottus of the Greeks, the political and social conditions in India at that time, match with those of Chandragupta Gupta era. Therefore, the Greek and Puranic accounts agree only with the identity of Chandragupta Gupta and Sandracottus.

-- Historical Dates From Puranic Sources, by Prof. Narayan Rao


Kaumudi-Mahotsava (IAST: Kaumudīmahotsava, "Festival of Moonlight") is a Sanskrit play of uncertain date. It is known from a single manuscript discovered in the present-day Kerala state of India. Its style and language suggest that it was composed around the 3rd century. The portion supposedly containing the name of the playwright is damaged, but the name appears to be a feminine one (read by some scholars as "Vijjakaya"), although this cannot be said with certainty. Several scholars have made attempts to identify the play's characters with historical personalities, but most modern scholars believe it to be a work of fiction.

The play narrates the story of prince Kalyanavarman of Magadha, whose adopted brother Chandasena forms an alliance with the rival Lichchhavis, and treacherously attacks Magadha. Kalyanavarman's father Sundaravarman dies in the attack, and his mother Madiravati commits suicide by self-immolation. The orphaned young prince is taken to safety by his nurse Vinayandhara and other loyalists, and spends several years in exile in the Vindhya forest. When he grows up, his loyal minister Mantragupta instigates the Shabhara and the Pulinda tribes to rebel against Chandasena, and while Chandasena is busy curbing the revolt, stages a coup in the capital Pataliputra. Chandasena is killed, and Kalyanavarman becomes the new king. He marries the Shurasena princess Kirtimati, whom he had met during his exile.

Authorship and date

Kaumudi-Mahotsava was discovered from a single manuscript from Kerala. The manuscript was partially damaged by worms, and had a hole at the place that appears to state the beginning of the author's name in the prologue. The visible part of the author's name can be read as ("-kayā"); the ending syllable suggests that this is a feminine name. Scholar Manavalli Ramakrishna Kavi (1866-1957) saw the remains of what he believed to be "ja", and read the name as "jakayā", although Indologist A. K. Warder finds this reading doubtful.[1]

Based on Kavi's reading and the space occupied by the hole, some scholars have theorized that the author was "Vijjakayā", identifying her with the poetess Vijja, who in turn, is sometimes identified with Vijaya, the daughter-in-law of the 7th century Chalukya king Pulakeshin II. However, Warder notes that the word could have been another name, such as "Morikayā". Alternatively, the broken word may not be a name at all: it is possible that the sentence containing it states that "the play was composed with a sub-plot patākayā".[1][2]

An analysis of the play's style and language indicates that it was definitely not authored by the poetess Vijja: the play resembles the works of earlier authors such as Bhasa (3rd or 4th century). It may have been composed somewhat later by an imitative writer, but it is highly unlikely to have been composed in as late as the 9th (or even the 6th) century.[3]


Plot

Act I


Kalyanavarman, the exiled prince of Magadha, is living in the hermitage of Jabali, near Lake Pampa in the Vindhyas. His loyal minister Mantragupta is living in disguise in Pataliputra, the capital of Magadha. Once, while sitting under an Ashoka tree near the temple of goddess Chandika, the prince recalls his childhood, and wonders if his memories are a dream or an illusion. Meanwhile, Kirtimati, the beautiful daughter of the Shurasena king Kirtisena, visits the temple. She rests under the same Ashoka tree, and is romantically attracted to Kalayanavarman.[4]

Yogasiddhi, a nun and the guide of Kirtimati, informs her that her residence in the hermitage is ready.[4] As the princess leaves, she glances at Kalyanavarman in a way that makes her passion for him evident. Meanwhile, Vaikhanasa, Kalyanavarman's jester (vidushaka) arrives, and informs him that Mantragupta's plan is going well. The prince describes princess Kirtimati to him, but the fool thinks of this encounter as the final disaster to strike the prince after the loss of the kingdom. Vaikhanasa sees what he thinks is a heap of rice, but turns out to be a broken pearl necklace dropped by the princess. At this time, the prince is called for his mid-day exercise.[5]

Act II

Princess Kirtimati becomes infatuated with Kalyanavarman, and unable to sleep, paints his portrait. The prince also becomes lovesick, and starts neglecting his meals.[5]

Yogasiddhi becomes concerned at the state of the princess. Meanwhile, she recalls her own past: she became a nun after her family suffered a disaster, and came to the Shurasena capital Mathura, where the Queen liked her and made her the caregiver of the princess. As Yogasiddhi thinks about her past, a hawk grabs the portrait of Kalyanavarman and drops it near her. Yogasiddhi recognizes Kalyanavarman, and recalls that she used to be his nurse when he was a young boy: she became a nun after his family lost the throne of Magadha. Yogasiddhi faints, and is revived by Kirtimati's confidante Nipunika. Yogasiddhi vows to unite the lovers, and writes a verse on the painting, declaring that Kirtimati is as worthy of Kalyanavarman, as Bandhumati of Shaunaka, and Kurangi of the Avimaraka (characters from well-known stories).[5]

Meanwhile, Vaikhanasa comes to the residence of the princess, and returns the pearl necklace to Nipunika. Yogasiddhi recognizes him and gives him the portrait of Kalyanavarman.[5]

Act III

The prince asks Vaikhanasa about Kirtimati's necklace. Vaikhanasa pretends to have lost it, and instead shows him the painting. The prince paints a portrait of Kirtimati beside his portrait, while Vaikhanasa tells him about Yogasiddhi, the writer of the verse, being his childhood nurse.[5]

Act IV

In Pataliputra, Mantragupta's agents prepare for a coup against the usurper Chandasena, who is busy dealing with a diversion organized at the frontier by Mantragupta.[5] (Mantragupta had instigated the Shabhara and the Pulinda tribes to rebel against Chandasena).[6]

Kalyanavarman's loyalists plan to appoint him as the new king. The son of the chaplain of Kalyanavarman's father narrates how Chandasena usurped the power:[7] An adopted son of Kalyanavarman's father Sundaravarman, he entered into a marriage alliance with Lichchhavis, the enemies of the Magadha dynasty.[8] He subsequently attacked Magadha: in the ensuing conflict, Sundaravarman and several of his ministers were killed. Queen Madiravati, the mother of Kalyanavarman, suicide by self-immolation. Chandasena conquered the capital, and became the new ruler of Magadha. The orphaned prince Kalyanavarman escaped the capital with his nurse Vinayandhara and other loyalists, including the sons of the ministers.[7]

Mantragupta describes the evening in Pataliputra, and at night, he receives the news that Kalayanavarman will arrive in the city in the morning. He sends the Chaplain's son to Mathura to arrange Kirtimati's marriage to the prince, as a surprise gift for the prince at his coronation. A voice then proclaims the arrival of the prince, and the coup starts at the daybreak.[7]

Act V

The audience learn that Kalyanavarman has conquered the kingdom, Chandasena has been killed, and the celebrations are being organized. A gambler returning from Mathura states that Kirtisena is sending Kirtimati to Pataliputra. Meanwhile, Kalyanavarman longs for Kirtimati, not realizing that she is already in Pataliputra, where Yogasiddhi has hidden in the grove of the Suganga palace.[7]

Kirtisena's chaplain enters the court, and announces that Kirtisena has offered to marry Kirtimati to Kalyanavarman. He presents the pearl necklace (mentioned in Act I) to Kalyanavarman, and narrates the story of its origin as follows: the necklace was made from the temples of an elephant killed by Arjuna during the Bharata battle. Arjuna appointed at Vrishni prince as the king of Shurasena, and gave the necklace to him. The necklace was inherited by the present-day royals of Mathura.[7] Kalyanavarman wears the necklace and visits the grove, where Nipunika brings Kirtimati to him.[9]

The drama is said to have been staged on the occasion of coronation of Kalyanavarman, on a full-moon day, resulting in the name of the play ("Full-Moon Festival").[3]

Historicity

Historian Edward Aloysius Pires connected the play's characters with the Maukhari rulers, whose names ended in -varman.[2] Pires identified Chandasena as the Gupta king Chandragupta I (who married a Lichchhavi princess). According to Pires, the play was commissioned by a Maukhari ruler named Kalyanavarman, on the occasion of his coronation in 326 CE. However, this identification is not corroborated by any concrete historical evidence. No Maukhari rulers (or any other rulers named Sundaravarman, Kalyanavarman and Chandasena) are known to have ruled Magadha during the 3rd or 4th centuries.[10]

Historian K. P. Jayaswal theorized that Sundaravarman's family was another dynasty that ruled Magadha before the Guptas. He identified Chandasena as Chandragupta I, and Kalyanavarman as a prince of the Kota family, which was subjugated by Chandragupta's son Samudragupta.[6] However, this identification is incorrect, as the play explicitly states that Chandasena was killed and his dynasty ended when the forces loyal to Kalyanavarman conquered the capital. Chandragupta lived to an old age, and passed on the throne to his son. Moreover, the play does not describe Sundaravarman or Kalyanavarman as members of the Kota family.[11] Jayaswal's theory has been rejected by most scholars.[12]

Numismatist P. L. Gupta identified Sundaravarman and Kalyanavarman as last two kings of the Satavahana dynasty. He interpreted "Karniputra", a word mentioned in the play, as "Satakarni-putra" (Satakarni was a title common to several Satavahana kings). However, "Karniputra" is actually a typo in the manuscript - the play mentions "Karni-patra" (the leaves of karnikara), which had been used to make the victory arches.[11] Moreover, no Satavahana king had a name ending in -varman, and no historical source describes the Satavahana dynasty as Magadha-kula (which, according to the play, was the name of Kalyanavarman's dynasty).[11]

Several other scholars have determined that Sundaravarman (or Sundaravarma) and Kalyanavarman (or Kalyanavarma) are not historical figures at all, and have categorized the drama as a work of fiction.
[13][8][10]

References

1. A. K. Warder 1994, p. 427.
2. Hans Bakker 2014, p. 71.
3. A. K. Warder 1994, p. 428.
4. A. K. Warder 1994, p. 429.
5. A. K. Warder 1994, p. 430.
6. Ashvini Agrawal 1989, p. 74.
7. A. K. Warder 1994, p. 431.
8. Balkrishna Govind Gokhale 1962, p. 31.
9. A. K. Warder 1994, p. 432.
10. Hans Bakker 2014, p. 72.
11. Ashvini Agrawal 1989, p. 75.
12. Ramesh Chandra Majumdar 1986, p. 133.
13. Ashvini Agrawal 1989, pp. 74-76.

Bibliography

• A. K. Warder (1994). Indian Kavya Literature. 4: The ways of originality (Bana to Damodaragupta). Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-0449-4.
• Ashvini Agrawal (1989). Rise and Fall of the Imperial Guptas. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-0592-7.
• Balkrishna Govind Gokhale (1962). Samudra Gupta: Life and Times. Asia Publishing House. OCLC 59021253.
• Hans Bakker (2014). The World of the Skandapurāṇa. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-27714-4.
• Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (1986). Vakataka - Gupta Age Circa 200-550 A.D. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-0026-7.

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

The Historical Drama of Kaumudi-Mahotsava, or Full-Moon Festival
by Sakuntala Rao Sastri

Here shall be made a brief mention of the historical drama of Kaumudi-Mahotsava or Full-Moon Festival a time-honoured festival of ancient India. This name is given to this drama as it was staged at the palace of Suganga at Pataliputra on the Autumnal Full-Moon Festival day the day on which Prince Kalyanavarman was reinstated on his throne.

The text of the drama reveals that the authoress Vijjaka or Vijayabhattarika of Karnala had in view mainly a portrayal of the life-history of its hero Kalyanavarman. It was staged to celebrate the occasion of the acquisition of the Kingdom afresh of King Kalyanavarman.

Vijaya-Bhattarika (r. c. 650-655 CE) was a member of the Chalukya royal family of Deccan region in southern India. She is known from her Nerur and Kochre grant inscriptions, which call her Vijaya-Bhattarika and Vijaya-Mahadevi respectively.

Vijaya-Bhatarika was the wife of Chandraditya, who appears to have held the weakened Chalukya throne for a brief period, in the years following the Pallava invasion of the Chalukya capital Vatapi. After Chandraditya's death, Vijaya-Bhattarika seems to have acted as a regent for their minor son. Subsequently, the throne passed to her brother-in-law Vikramaditya I, who had probably become the de facto ruler during her regency, after having restored the dynasty's power as the supreme commander of the Chalukya army....

Identification with Vijayanka and Vijja

Rajashekhara, a noted Sanskrit poet and dramatist of the 9th-10th century, mentions a poetess called Vijayanka, who belonged to the historical Karnata region (in present-day Karnataka). This region was a part of the Chalukya territory, and based on similarity of names, some modern scholars - such as M. B. Padma of University of Mysore - have identified this poetess with the Chalukya royal Vijaya-Bhattarika. A verse, attributed to Rajashekhara in Jalhana's Suktimuktavali, compares Vijayanka to Sarasvati, the goddess of wisdom and learning.

Vijayanka, in turn, has been identified by some scholars with Vijja, a Sanskrit poetess known from major anthologies of Sanskrit verses. One of the verses from these anthologies compares Vijja to the goddess of learning, Sarasvati, and states that she had a dark complexion unlike the goddess. This verse also mentions the famous poet Daṇḍin (a native of southern India), calling him wrong for describing Sarasvati as "all-white". The verse may be considered as evidence supporting Vijja's connections to south India, where the Chalukyas ruled, but there is no concrete proof that she was same as the Chalukya royal Vijaya-Bhattarika. In fact, such an identification results in chronological improbabilities: the poetess whose works mention the 8th century poet Dandin could not have been the 7th century royal Vijaya-Bhattarika, unless she lived until the end of the century, and deigned to notice a verse by a much younger author. The names "Vijaya" (literally "victory") and "Vijayanka" (literally "having the mark of victory") have a different meaning from the name Vijja (literally "knowledge" or "science").


-- Vijaya-Bhattarika, by Wikipedia


Kalyanavarman was the son of Sundara-Varman, Lord of Magadha. His original name was Kalyanasree. Sundara-Varman adopted Candasena as his son, but later Kalyanasree was born to his first wife Madiravati. When Kalyanasree was a boy, Candasena secretly formed an alliance with Licchavis who were enemies of Magadha rulers and treacherously laid siege to the Capital. In the battle that ensued Sundaravarman died fighting bravely in defence of his Capital. Queen Madiravati with other queens, entered the funeral fire of her husband leaving Kalyanasree in charge of his nurse Vinayandhara, who carried him away from the Capital to the Vindhya forest followed by some of the faithful ministers of the King, and the throne of Magadha was usurped by Candasena. The ministers waited until Kalyanasree came to age and finding subjects dissatisfied with Candasena, asked him to rise up against their ruler when the latter was away from the Capital in quelling the rebellion of frontier tribes, where he is said to have been killed. The people of Magadha crowned Kalyanasree as Kalyanavarman as their king when Kirtisena, the ruler of the country of Saurasena gave his daughter in marriage, whom the prince met and fell in love during his exile. With the accession of Kalyanavarman and the death of Candasena, the dynasty of Candasena is said to have been uprooted.

According to the facts of the drama, Kalyanasree was a contemporary of Vijayabattarika. Then our hero must flourished about the middle of the 7th century A. D. One of the inscriptions shows a Varman dynasty ruling at Magadha about this time. This is the Seipur Inscription of Mahasivagupta Batarjuna. This inscription belongs to the 8th century A. D. It runs thus: "In the lunar family, Candra Gupta, his son Harsa Gupta, married Vatasa (daughter of Suryavarman) of the Varman dynasty". Though the name of Sundaravarman is not found in the list of rulers of Magadha, it will not be out of place to connect him with Suryavarman. As Vatasa belongs to the 8th century, Suryavarman can be placed about the middle of the 7th century, in which case we can suppose Suryavarman, as immediate successor of Kalyanavarman, whose date synchronises with that of queen Vijayabhattarika of Karnala.

Again Candasena is said to have been uprooted by Kalyanvarman. Who was Candasena? The text of the drama shows that he was a Jat. These Jats were Guptas. In the 'List of Inscription of Northern India' Inscription 1402 gives the name of Adityasena as a ruling King of Magadha. His date is 666 A. D.. His daughter's daughter was married to a Licchavi King. The name Candasena which is synonymous, with Adityasena may be identified with this prince of the Gupta dynasty.

The Nepal Inscription of Pandit Bhagawantal Indraji shows that the Licchavis held then sway in Nepal and had matrimonial alliances with the ruling families of Magadha.


These show that in the transitional period which followed the great Gupta kings, when several dynasties were trying to usurp central power, two families -- the Varmans and the later Guptas, succeeded in acquiring supremacy. It is quite probable that the Capital was an arena of contest of these two families. Sundaravarman seems to have tried to bring about a reconciliation between the two rival families, by adopting Candasena from the Gupta family. With the death of Sundaravarman, the Gupta dynasty came into power; but as Candasena grew unpopular the citizens of Magadha rose against him and reinstated Kalyanavarman and thus revived the Varman dynasty.

Among the Sanskrit dramas, this is the only one written by a lady drawing materials for her plot from contemporary history. The characters are neither imaginary nor types, but are living men and women, toiling and moiling in the daily routine of their life. It is a drama of a political intrigue centred in the person of Prince Kalyanavarman, who was exiled but was brought back by the stratagem of his loyal minister Mantra-gupta. The action covers a period of at least two decades of a century and the object is accomplished without bloodshed.

The political intrigue is interwoven with the amours of Prince Kalyanavarman and Princess Kirtimati. This makes drama unique in itself. Nowhere in the history of Sanskrit drama can we find one parallel to this one. In Mudraraksasa we find a similar intrigue, but the dry structure of political intrigue has not any human interest. In Mricchakatikam we have characters drawn from life, but we are deprived of the atmosphere of high royal families. We meet here all varieties of people -- the hermits, the princes, the officers of a royal court and harem, military officers, statesmen, Buddhist nuns, the usual familiar picture of the citizens of Magadha, the beggars priests and spies.

The author has given scope to display an ideal of romantic love making hero and heroine free and independent masters of their own destiny. The combination of romance with history makes it as interesting as Shakespeare's Henry IV where the din of battle and conquest is sweetened by the wed-lock of the Prince of England with the Princess of France.

The drawing of characters from everyday life, the love of the youth for the maiden, the mixture of contemporary political intrigue with the romance of love, has much in common with the new Attic comedy of Greece.

We get also a glimpse of the society of the time. Buddhism was declining, but women were still admitted into Buddhist Order and were held in respect. Vinayandhara became, out of dejection of mind, a Buddhist nun under the name Yogasiddhi. King was the head of the State and had absolute power. The democratic spirit which prevailed in the time of the Vakatakas, still continued. Mantragupta worked on the democratic spirit of the people and achieved his object. According to Hindu Constitutional Law, the City Council of the Capital had the power to choose their king and crown him.

Another characteristic feature of the period is the revival of Sanskrit learning. After the death of Buddha, Pali was in full swing. But with the revival of Hinduism, Sanskrit again became the Court language. Everyone in the official circle spoke and wrote in Sanskrit. This is further corroborated by the fact that the Vakataka Inscription found near or at the Capital about this period are in Sanskrit. In the South, too, royal documents were written in Sanskrit. Sanskrit drafting must have come into vogue in the time of Pravarasena II as is seen in the set geneological form of Vakataka documents. Ganapati Naga, a ruler of the South, converted the vernacular literary tradition into Sanskrit classical poetry.

The State religion was Hinduism and Siva-worship was supreme. In the early part of Christian Era, Siva was worshipped as god of destruction, by the Vakatakas. But here that aspect is changed, we find Siva as a Yogi -- as a teacher who was trying to dispel the darkness of ignorance. This Siva has the peaceful attitude of Lord Buddha than the Lord of Destruction.

Thus we see a society that was slowly passing through a transitional period where Buddhism was waning and Hinduism was rising. This drama, thus, throws light on the dark transitional period which followed the fall of Gupta power at Magadha.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:40 am

Arachosia
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/29/21

Arachosia: [x] (Old Persian: Harauvatiš); Ἀραχωσία (Greek: Arachosia)

Image
Eastern territories of the Achaemenid Empire, including Arachosia.

Image
Arachosian soldier of the Achaemenid army, circa 470 BCE, Xerxes I tomb.

Image
Arachosian priests of Zoroastrianism carrying various gifts and animals for a ritual of sacrifice at Persepolis

Arachosia /[x]/ is the Hellenized name of an ancient satrapy in the eastern part of the Achaemenid, Seleucid, Parthian, Greco-Bactrian, and Indo-Scythian empires. Arachosia was centred on the Arghandab valley in modern-day southern Afghanistan, although its influence extended east to as far as the Indus River. The main river of Arachosia was called Arachōtós, now known as the Arghandab River, a tributary of the Helmand River.[1] The Greek term "Arachosia" corresponds to the Aryan land of Harauti which was around modern-day Helmand. The Arachosian capital or metropolis was called Alexandria Arachosia or Alexandropolis and lay in what is today Kandahar in Afghanistan.[1] Arachosia was a part of the region of ancient Ariana.

Image
Arghandab River Valley between Kandahar and Lashkargah

Helmand (Pashto/Dari: هلمند, Balochi:ہلمند, /ˈhɛlmənd/ HEL-mənd;), also known as Hillmand or Helman and, in ancient times, as Hermand and Hethumand, is one of the 34 provinces of Afghanistan, in the south of the country. It is the largest province by area, covering 58,584 square kilometres (20,000 sq mi) area. The province contains 13 districts, encompassing over 1,000 villages, and roughly 1,446,230 settled people. Lashkargah serves as the provincial capital.

Helmand was part of the Greater Kandahar region until made into a separate province by the Afghan government in the 20th century. The province has a domestic airport (Bost Airport), in the city of Lashkargah and heavily used by NATO-led forces. The former British Camp Bastion and U.S. Camp Leatherneck is a short distance southwest of Lashkargah.

The Helmand River flows through the mainly desert region of the province, providing water used for irrigation. The Kajaki Dam, which is one of Afghanistan's major reservoirs, is located in the Kajaki district. Helmand is believed to be one of the world's largest opium-producing regions, responsible for around 42% of the world's total production. This is believed to be more than the whole of Burma, which is the second largest producing nation after Afghanistan.

Image
A U.S. Marine greeting local children working in an opium poppy field in 2011.

The region also produces tobacco, sugar beets, cotton, sesame, wheat, mung beans, maize, nuts, sunflowers, onions, potato, tomato, cauliflower, peanut, apricot, grape, and melon.

Since the 2001 War in Afghanistan, Helmand Province has been a hotbed of insurgent activities. It has been considered to be Afghanistan's "most dangerous" province.

-- Helmand Province, by Wikipedia


Name

Image
The ancient Arachosia and the Pactyan people during 500 BC.

"Arachosia" is the Latinized form of Greek Ἀραχωσία - Arachōsíā. "The same region appears in the Avestan Vidēvdāt (1.12) under the indigenous dialect form [x]‎ Haraxvaitī- (whose -axva- is typical non-Avestan)."[1] In Old Persian inscriptions, the region is referred to as [x], written h(a)-r(a)-u-v(a)-t-i.[1] This form is the "etymological equivalent" of Vedic Sanskrit Sarasvatī-, the name of a river literally meaning "rich in waters/lakes" and derived from sáras- "lake, pond."[1] (cf. Aredvi Sura Anahita).

"Arachosia" was named after the name of a river that runs through it, in Greek Arachōtós, today known as the Arghandab, a left bank tributary of the Helmand.[1]

Geography

Arachosia bordered Drangiana to the west, Paropamisadae (i.e. Gandahara) to the north (a part of ancient India (present day Pakistan) to the east), and Gedrosia (or Dexendrusi) to the south. Isidore and Ptolemy (6.20.4-5) each provide a list of cities in Arachosia, among them (yet another) Alexandria, which lay on the river Arachotus. This city is frequently mis-identified with present-day Kandahar in Afghanistan, the name of which was thought to be derived (via "Iskanderiya") from "Alexandria",[2] reflecting a connection to Alexander the Great's visit to the city on his campaign towards India. But a recent discovery of an inscription on a clay tablet has provided proof that 'Kandahar' was already a city that traded actively with Persia well before Alexander's time. Isidore, Strabo (11.8.9) and Pliny (6.61) also refer to the city as "metropolis of Arachosia."

In his list, Ptolemy also refers to a city named Arachotus (English: Arachote /ˈærəkoʊt/; Greek: Ἀραχωτός) or Arachoti (acc. to Strabo), which was the earlier capital of the land. Pliny the Elder and Stephen of Byzantium mention that its original name was Cophen (Κωφήν). Hsuan Tsang refers to the name as Kaofu.[3] This city is identified today with Arghandab which lies northwest of present-day Kandahar.

Peoples

Further information: Pashtun people

Image
A 15th century reconstruction (by Nicolaus Germanus) of a 2nd-century map (by Ptolemy)

The inhabitants of Arachosia were Iranian peoples, referred to as Arachosians or Arachoti.[1] They were called Pactyans by ethnicity, and that name may have been in reference to the present-day ethnic Paṣtun (Pashtun) tribes.[4]

Isidorus of Charax in his 1st century CE "Parthian stations" itinerary described an "Alexandropolis, the metropolis of Arachosia", which he said was still Greek even at such a late time:

"Beyond is Arachosia. And the Parthians call this White India; there are the city of Biyt and the city of Pharsana and the city of Chorochoad and the city of Demetrias; then Alexandropolis, the metropolis of Arachosia; it is Greek, and by it flows the river Arachotus. As far as this place the land is under the rule of the Parthians."

— "Parthians stations", 1st century CE. Original text in paragraph 19 of Parthian stations


History

Further information: History of Afghanistan

Image
According to Arrian, Megasthenes lived in Arachosia and travelled to Pataliputra, to the court of Chandragupta Maurya.

The region is first referred to in the Achaemenid-era Elamite Persepolis fortification tablets.

Oriental Institute Publications
Persepolis Fortification Tablets
R. T. Hallock
The University of Chicago Press, 1969

-- Persepolis Fortification Tablets, by Richard T. Hallock

With over 2100 texts published, the Persepolis Fortification Texts in Elamite, transcribed, interpreted, and edited by the late Richard Hallock, already form the largest coherent body of material on Persian administration available to us; a comparable, but less legible, body of material remains unpublished, as does the smaller group of Aramaic texts from the same archive. Essentially, they deal with the movement and expenditure of food commodities in the region of Persepolis in the fifteen years down to 493. Firstly, they make it absolutely clear that everyone in the state sphere of the Persian economy was on a fixed ration-scale, or rather, since some of the rations are on a scale impossible for an individual to consume, a fixed salary expressed in terms of commodities. The payment of rations is very highly organized. Travelers along the road carried sealed documents issued by the king or officials of satrapal level stating the scale on which they were entitled to be fed. Tablets sealed by supplier and recipient went back to Persepolis as a record of the transaction. Apart from a few places in Babylonia for short periods, Persepolis is now the best-documented area in the Achaemenid empire. What generalizations or other insights this provides for other areas is perhaps likely to remain one of the main methodological problems for Achaemenid scholarship. [From an article by D. M. Lewis, "The Persepolis Fortification Texts," in Achaemenid History IV: Centre and Periphery, Proceedings of the Groningen 1986 Achaemenid History Workshop, edited by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Amélie Kuhrt (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1990), pp. 2-6].


Image
Tablet of Elamite script

Elamite, also known as Hatamtite, is an extinct language that was spoken by the ancient Elamites. It was used in present-day southwestern Iran from 2600 BC to 330 BC. Elamite works disappear from the archeological record after Alexander the Great entered Iran. Elamite is generally thought to have no demonstrable relatives and is usually considered a language isolate. The lack of established relatives makes its interpretation difficult.

Language isolates are languages that cannot be classified into larger language families with any other languages. Korean and Basque are two of the most commonly cited language isolates, though there are many others.

A language isolate is a language that is unrelated to any others, which makes it the only language in its own language family. It is a natural language with no demonstrable genealogical (or "genetic") relationships—one that has not been demonstrated to descend from an ancestor common with any other language.

One explanation for the existence of language isolates is that they might be the last remaining branch of a larger language family. The language possibly had relatives in the past but they have since disappeared without being documented. Another explanation for language isolates is that they developed in isolation from other languages. This explanation mostly applies to sign languages that have arisen independently of other spoken or signed languages.

-- Language isolate, by Wikipedia


A sizeable number of Elamite lexemes are known from the trilingual Behistun inscription and numerous other bilingual or trilingual inscriptions of the Achaemenid Empire, in which Elamite was written using Elamite cuneiform (circa 400 BCE), which is fully deciphered. An important dictionary of the Elamite language, the Elamisches Wörterbuch was published in 1987 by W. Hinz and H. Koch. The Linear Elamite script however, one of the scripts used to write the Elamite language circa 2000 BC, has remained elusive until recently.

Writing system

Image
Linear Elamite inscription of king Puzur-Inshushinak
Image
in the "Table du Lion", Louvre Museum Sb 17.


Two early scripts of the area remain undeciphered but plausibly have encoded Elamite:

Proto-Elamite is the oldest known writing system from Iran. It was used during a brief period of time (c. 3100–2900 BC); clay tablets with Proto-Elamite writing have been found at different sites across Iran. It is thought to have developed from early cuneiform (proto-cuneiform) and consists of more than 1,000 signs. It is thought to be largely logographic.
• Linear Elamite is attested in a few monumental inscriptions. It is often claimed that Linear Elamite is a syllabic writing system derived from Proto-Elamite, but it cannot be proven. Linear Elamite was used for a very brief period of time during the last quarter of the third millennium BC.

Later, Elamite cuneiform, adapted from Akkadian cuneiform, was used from c. 2500 to 331 BC. Elamite cuneiform was largely a syllabary of some 130 glyphs at any one time and retained only a few logograms from Akkadian but, over time, the number of logograms increased. The complete corpus of Elamite cuneiform consists of about 20,000 tablets and fragments. The majority belong to the Achaemenid era, and contain primarily economic records....

History

Image
Inscription of Shutruk-Nahhunte in Elamite cuneiform, circa 1150 BC, on the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin.

The history of Elamite is periodised as follows:

• Old Elamite (c. 2600–1500 BC)
• Middle Elamite (c. 1500–1000 BC)
• Neo-Elamite (1000–550 BC)
• Achaemenid Elamite (550–330 BC)

Middle Elamite is considered the “classical” period of Elamite, but the best attested variety is Achaemenid Elamite, which was widely used by the Achaemenid Persian state for official inscriptions as well as administrative records and displays significant Old Persian influence. Documents from the Old Elamite and early Neo-Elamite stages are rather scarce.

Neo-Elamite can be regarded as a transition between Middle and Achaemenid Elamite, with respect to language structure.

Image
Inscription in Elamite, in the Xerxes I inscription at Van, 5th century BCE

The Elamite language may have remained in widespread use after the Achaemenid period. Several rulers of Elymais bore the Elamite name Kamnaskires in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC. The Acts of the Apostles (c. 80–90 AD) mentions the language as if it was still current. There are no later direct references, but Elamite may be the local language in which, according to the Talmud, the Book of Esther was recited annually to the Jews of Susa in the Sasanian period (224–642 AD). Between the 9th and 13th centuries AD, various Arabic authors refer to a language called Khuzi spoken in Khuzistan, which was not any other language known to those writers. It is possible that it was "a late variant of Elamite".

-- Elamite language, by Wikipedia


It appears again in the Old Persian, Akkadian and Aramaic inscriptions of Darius I [550 B.C.–486 B.C.] and Xerxes I [518 B.C.–August 465 BC] among lists of subject peoples and countries.

Aramaic (Classical Syriac: [x] Arāmāyā; Old Aramaic: [x]; Imperial Aramaic: [x]; square script [x]) is a Semitic language that originated among the Arameans in the ancient region of Syria. During its three thousand year long history, Aramaic went through several stages of development. It has served as a language of public life and administration of ancient kingdoms and empires, and also as a language of divine worship and religious study. It subsequently branched into several Neo-Aramaic languages that are still spoken in modern times.

The Aramaic language belongs to the Northwest group of the Semitic language family, which also includes the Canaanite languages, such as Hebrew, Edomite, Moabite, and Phoenician, as well as Amorite and Ugaritic. Aramaic languages are written in the Aramaic alphabet, which was derived from the Phoenician alphabet. One of the most prominent variants of the Aramaic alphabet, still used in modern times, is the Syriac alphabet. The Aramaic alphabet also became a base for the creation and adaptation of specific writing systems in some other Semitic languages, thus becoming the precursor of the Hebrew alphabet and the Arabic alphabet.

Historically and originally, Aramaic was the language of the Arameans, a Semitic-speaking people of the region between the northern Levant and the northern Tigris valley. By around 1000 BC, the Arameans had a string of kingdoms in what is now part of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the fringes of southern Mesopotamia and Anatolia. Aramaic rose to prominence under the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–605 BC), under whose influence Aramaic became a prestige language after being adopted as a lingua franca of the empire, and its use spread throughout Mesopotamia, the Levant and parts of Asia Minor. At its height, Aramaic, having gradually replaced earlier Semitic languages, was spoken in several variants all over what is today Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Eastern Arabia, Bahrain, Sinai, parts of southeast and south central Turkey, and parts of northwest Iran.

Aramaic was the language of Jesus, who spoke the Galilean dialect during his public ministry, as well as the language of several sections of the Hebrew Bible, including books of Daniel and Ezra, and also the language of the Targum, Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible.

The scribes of the Neo-Assyrian bureaucracy had also used Aramaic, and this practice was subsequently inherited by the succeeding Neo-Babylonian Empire (605–539 BC), and later by the Achaemenid Empire (539–330 BC). Mediated by scribes that had been trained in the language, highly standardized written Aramaic (named by scholars as Imperial Aramaic) progressively also become the lingua franca of public life, trade and commerce throughout the Achaemenid territories. Wide use of written Aramaic subsequently led to the adoption of the Aramaic alphabet and (as logograms) some Aramaic vocabulary in the Pahlavi scripts, which were used by several Middle Iranian languages (including Parthian, Middle Persian, Sogdian, and Khwarazmian).

-- Aramaic, by Wikipedia


Image

The Aramaic inscription of Laghman, also called the Laghman I inscription to differentiate from the Laghman II inscription discovered later, is an inscription on a slab of natural rock in the area of Laghmân, Afghanistan, written in Aramaic by the Indian emperor Ashoka about 260 BCE, and often categorized as one of Minor Rock Edicts of Ashoka. This inscription was published in 1970 by André Dupont-Sommer. Since Aramaic was an official language of the Achaemenid Empire, and reverted to being just its vernacular tongue in 320 BCE with the conquests of Alexander the Great, it seems that this inscription was addressed directly to the populations of this ancient empire still present in this area, or to border populations for whom Aramaic remained the language used in everyday life.

Epigraphical context

The chance discovery by two Belgian anthropologists of this inscription in 1969 is one of a set of similar inscriptions in Aramaic or Greek (or both together), written by Asoka. In 1915, Sir John Marshall had discovered the Aramaic Inscription of Taxila,

Image
Aramaic inscription of Taxila.

The Aramaic Inscription of Taxila 'is an inscription on a piece of marble, originally belonging to an octagonal column, discovered by Sir John Marshall in 1915 at Taxila, British India. The inscription is written in Aramaic, probably by the Indian emperor Ashoka around 260 BCE, and often categorized as one of the Minor Rock Edicts. Since Aramaic was the official language of the Achaemenid empire, which disappeared in 330 BCE with the conquests of Alexander the Great, it seems that this inscription was addressed directly to the populations of this ancient empire still present in northwestern India, or to border populations for which Aramaic remained the normal communication language. The inscription is known as KAI 273...

Text of the inscription

The text of the inscription is very fragmentary, but it has been established that it contains twice, lines 9 and 12, the mention of MR'N PRYDRŠ ("our lord Priyadasi"), the characteristic title used by Ashoka.

-- Aramaic Inscription of Taxila, by Wikipedia


followed in 1932 by the Pul-i-Darunteh Aramaic inscription.

Image

The Pul-i-Darunteh Aramaic inscription, also called Aramaic inscription of Lampaka, is an inscription on a rock in the valley of Laghman ("Lampaka" being the transcription in Sanskrit of "Laghman"), Afghanistan, written in Aramaic by the Indian emperor Ashoka around 260 BCE. It was discovered in 1932 at a place called Pul-i-Darunteh.
Since Aramaic was the official language of the Achaemenid Empire, which disappeared in 320 BCE with the conquests of Alexander the Great, it seems that this inscription was addressed directly to the populations of this ancient empire still present in northwestern India, or to border populations for whom Aramaic remained the language of use....

Content of the inscription

The inscription is incomplete. However, the place of discovery, the style of the writing, the vocabulary used, makes it possible to link the inscription to the other Ashoka inscriptions known in the region. In the light of other inscriptions, it has been found that the Pul-i-Darunteh inscription consists of a juxtaposition of Indian and Aramaic languages, all in Aramaic script, and the latter representing translations of the first. This inscription is generally interpreted as a translation of a passage of the Major Pillar Edicts n°5 or n°7, although others have proposed to categorize it among the Minor Rock Edicts of Ashoka.

-- Pul-i-Darunteh Aramaic inscription, by Wikipedia


In 1958 the famous Bilingual Kandahar Inscription, written in Greek and Aramaic was discovered,

Image
Bilingual inscription (Greek and Aramaic) by king Ashoka, discovered in Kandahar.

The Kandahar Bilingual Rock Inscription, (also Kandahar Edict of Ashoka, sometimes "Chehel Zina Edict"), is a famous bilingual edict in Greek and Aramaic, proclaimed and carved in stone by the Indian Maurya Empire ruler Ashoka (r.269-233 BCE) around 260 BCE. It is the very first known inscription of Ashoka, written in year 10 of his reign (260 BCE), preceding all other inscriptions, including his early Minor Rock Edicts, his Barabar caves inscriptions or his Major Rock Edicts. This first inscription was written in Classical Greek and Aramaic exclusively. It was discovered in 1958, during some excavation works below a 1m high layer of rubble, and is known as KAI 279.

It is sometimes considered as one of the several "Minor Rock Edicts" of Ashoka (and then called "Minor Rock Edict No.4), in contrast to his "Major Rock Edicts" which contain portions or the totality of his Edicts from 1 to 14. Two edicts in Afghanistan have been found with Greek inscriptions, one of these being this bilingual edict in Greek language and Aramaic, the other being the Kandahar Greek Inscription in Greek only. This bilingual edict was found on a rock on the mountainside of Chehel Zina (also Chilzina, or Chil Zena, "Forty Steps"), which forms the western natural bastion of ancient Alexandria Arachosia and present Kandahar's Old City.

The Edict is still in place on the mountainside. According to Scerrato, "the block lies at the eastern base of the little saddle between the two craggy hills below the peak on which the celebrated Cehel Zina of Babur are cut". A cast is visible in Kabul Museum. In the Edict, Ashoka advocates the adoption of "Piety" (using the Greek term Eusebeia for "Dharma") to the Greek community.

Background

Greek communities lived in the northwest of the Mauryan empire, currently in Pakistan, notably ancient Gandhara near the current Pakistani capital of Islamabad, and in the region of Arachosia, nowadays in Southern Afghanistan, following the conquest and the colonization efforts of Alexander the Great around 323 BCE. These communities therefore seem to have been still significant in the area of Afghanistan during the reign of Ashoka, about 70 years after Alexander.

Content

Ashoka proclaims his faith, 10 years after the violent beginning of his reign, and affirms that living beings, human or animal, cannot be killed in his realm. In the Hellenistic part of the Edict, he translates the Dharma he advocates by "Piety" εὐσέβεια, Eusebeia, in Greek. The usage of Aramaic reflect the fact that Aramaic (the so-called Official Aramaic) had been the official language of the Achaemenid Empire which had ruled in those parts until the conquests of Alexander the Great. The Aramaic is not purely Aramaic, but seems to incorporate some elements of Iranian. According to D.D. Kosambi, the Aramaic is not an exact translation of the Greek, and it seems rather that both were translated separately from an original text in Magadhi, the common official language of India at the time, used on all the other Edicts of Ashoka in Indian language, even in such linguistically distinct areas as Kalinga. It is written in Aramaic alphabet.

This inscription is actually rather short and general in content, compared to most Major Rock Edicts of Ashoka, including the other inscription in Greek of Ashoka in Kandahar, the Kandahar Greek Edict of Ashoka, which contains long portions of the 12th and 13th edicts, and probably contained much more since it was cut off at the beginning and at the end.

Implications

The proclamation of this Edict in Kandahar is usually taken as proof that Ashoka had control over that part of Afghanistan, presumably after Seleucos had ceded this territory to Chandragupta Maurya in their 305 BCE peace agreement. The Edict also shows the presence of a sizable Greek population in the area, but it also shows the lingering importance of Aramaic, several decades after the fall of the Achaemenid Empire. At the same epoch, the Greeks were firmly established in the newly created Greco-Bactrian kingdom under the reign of Diodotus I, and particularly in the border city of Ai-Khanoum, not far away in the northern part of Afghanistan.

According to Sircar, the usage of Greek in the Edict indeed means that the message was intended for the Greeks living in Kandahar, while the usage of Aramaic was intended for the Iranian populations of the Kambojas.

Transcription

The Greek and Aramaic versions vary somewhat, and seem to be rather free interpretations of an original text in Prakrit. The Aramaic text clearly recognizes the authority of Ashoka with expressions such as "our Lord, king Priyadasin", "our lord, the king", suggesting that the readers were indeed the subjects of Ashoka, whereas the Greek version remains more neutral with the simple expression "King Ashoka"...

English (translation of the Greek)

Ten years (of reign) having been completed, King
Piodasses made known (the doctrine of)
Piety (εὐσέβεια, Eusebeia) to men; and from this moment he has made
men more pious, and everything thrives throughout
the whole world. And the king abstains from (killing)
living beings, and other men and those who (are)
huntsmen and fishermen of the king have desisted
from hunting. And if some (were) intemperate, they
have ceased from their intemperance as was in their
power; and obedient to their father and mother and to
the elders, in opposition to the past also in the future,
by so acting on every occasion, they will live better
and more happily."


English (translation of the Aramaic)

Ten years having passed (?). It so happened (?) that our lord, king Priyadasin, became the institutor of Truth,
Since then, evil diminished among all men and all misfortunes (?) lie caused to disappear; and [there is] peace as well as joy in the whole earth.
And, moreover, [there is] this in regard to food: for our lord, the king, [only] a few
[animals] are killed; having seen this, all men have given up [the slaughter of animals]; even (?) those men who catch fish (i.e. the fishermen) are subject to prohibition.
Similarly, those who were without restraint have ceased to be without restraint.
And obedience to mother and to father and to old men [reigns] in conformity with the obligations imposed by fate on each [person].
And there is no Judgement for all the pious men,
This [i.e. the practice of Law] has been profitable to all men and will be more profitable [in future].


-- Kandahar Bilingual Rock Inscription, by Wikipedia


and in 1963 the Greek Edicts of Ashoka, again in Kandahar.

Image
Greek inscription by king Ashoka, discovered in Kandahar

The Kandahar Greek Edicts of Ashoka are among the Major Rock Edicts of the Indian Emperor Ashoka (reigned 269-233 BCE), which were written in the Greek language. They were found in the ancient area of Old Kandahar (known as Zor Shar in Pashto, or Shahr-i-Kona in Farsi) in Kandahar in 1963. It is thought that Old Kandahar was founded in the 4th century BCE by Alexander the Great, who gave it the Ancient Greek name Αλεξάνδρεια Aραχωσίας (Alexandria of Arachosia).

The extant edicts are found in a plaque of limestone, which probably had belonged to a building, and its size is 45x69.5 cm and it is about 12 cm thick. These are the only Ashoka inscriptions thought to have belonged to a stone building. The beginning and the end of the fragment are lacking, which suggests the inscription was original significantly longer, and may have included all 14 of Ashoka's Edicts in Greek, as in several other locations in India. The plaque with the inscription was bought in the Kandahar market by the German doctor Seyring, and French archaeologists found that it had been excavated in Old Kandahar. The plaque was then offered to the Kabul Museum, but its current location is unknown following the looting of the museum in 1992–1994...

Content

The Edict is a Greek version of the end of the 12th Edicts (which describes moral precepts) and the beginning of the 13th Edict (which describes the King's remorse and conversion after the war in Kalinga), which makes it a portion of a Major Rock Edict. This inscription does not use another language in parallel, contrary to the famous Kandahar Bilingual Rock Inscription in Greek language and Aramaic, discovered in the same general area.

The Greek language used in the inscription is of a very high level and displays philosophical refinement. It also displays an in-depth understanding of the political language of the Hellenic world in the 3rd century BCE. This suggests the presence of a highly cultured Greek presence in Kandahar at that time.

Implications

The proclamation of this edict in Kandahar is usually taken as proof that Ashoka had control over that part of Afghanistan, presumably after Seleucus I had ceded this territory to Chandragupta Maurya in their 305 BCE peace agreement. The Edict also shows the presence of a sizable Greek population in the area where great efforts were made to convert them to Buddhism. At the same epoch, the Greeks were established in the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, and particularly in the border city of Ai-Khanoum, in the northern part of Afghanistan.

Translation

English translation

(End of Edict Nb12)
"...piety and self-mastery in all the schools of thought; and he who is master of his tongue is most master of himself. And let them neither praise themselves or disparage their neighbors in any matter whatsoever, for that is vain. In acting in accordance with this principle, they exalt themselves and win their neighbors; in transgressing in these things they misdemean themselves and antagonize their neighbors. Those who praise themselves and denigrate their neighbors are self-seekers, wishing to shine in comparison with the others but in fact hurting themselves. It behoves to respect one another and to accept one another's lessons. In all actions it behoves to be understanding, sharing with one another all that which one comprehends. And to those who strive thus let there be no hesitation to say these things in order that they may persist in piety in everything.

(Beginning of Edict Nb13)

In the eighth of the reign of Piodasses, he conquered Kalinga. A hundred and fifty thousand persons were captured and deported, and a hundred thousand others were killed, and almost as many died otherwise. Thereafter, piety and compassion seized him and he suffered grievously. In the same manner wherewith he ordered abstention from living thing, he has displayed zeal and effort to promote piety. And at the same time the king has viewed this with displeasure: of Brahmins and Sramins and others practicing piety who live there [in Kalinga]- and these must be mindful of the interests of the king and must revere and respect their teacher, their father and their mother, and love and faithfully cherish their friends and companions and must use their slaves and dependents as gently as possible - if, of those thus engaged there, any has died or been deported and the rest have regarded this lightly, the king has taken it with exceeding bad grace. And that amongst other people there are..."

— Translation by R.E.M. Wheeler.


-- Kandahar Greek Edicts of Ashoka, by Wikipedia


In the same year 1963 and again in Kandahar, an inscription in "Indo-Aramaic" known as the Kandahar Aramaic inscription or Kandahar II was found, in which the Indian Prakrit language and the Aramaic language alternate, but using only the Aramaic script.

Image
Transliteration in Roman alphabet of the Aramaic inscription of Kandahar.

The Aramaic inscription of Kandahar is an inscription on a fragment of a block of limestone (24x18 cm) discovered in the ruins of Old Kandahar, Afghanistan in 1963, and published in 1966 by André Dupont-Sommer. It was discovered practically at the same time as the Greek Edicts of Ashoka, which suggests that the two inscriptions were more or less conjoined. The inscription was written in Aramaic, probably by the Indian emperor Ashoka about 260 BCE. Since Aramaic was the official language of the Achaemenid Empire, which disappeared in 320 BCE with the conquests of Alexander the Great, it seems that this inscription was addressed directly to the populations of this ancient empire still present in northwestern India, or to border populations for whom Aramaic remained the language of use...

Content of the inscription

This inscription is usually interpreted as a version of a passage from Major Pillar Edict n°7.

The word SHYTY which appears several times corresponds to the Middle Indian word Sahite (Sanskrit Sahitam), meaning "in agreement with", "according to ...", and which allows to introduce a quote, in this case here Indian words found in the Ashoka Edits. Many of these Indian words, transcribed here phonetically in Aramaic, are indeed identifiable, and otherwise exist only in Major Pillar Edict n°7 of Ashoka, in the same order of use : 'NWPTYPTY' corresponds to the Indian word anuppatipatiya (without order, in disorder), and 'NWPTYP ...' to anuppatipamme. Y'NYHYK'NY .... corresponds to yani hi kanici and is the first word of this edict.

There are also several words in the Aramaic language, the role of which would be to explain the meaning of the Indian words and phrases mentioned: the word WK'N "and now", WYHWTRYWN "they have grown, and they will grow", PTYSTY "obedience" ....

This inscription, in spite of its partial and often obscure character, seems to be a translation or a line-by-line commentary of elements of Major Pillar Edict n°7. A more extensive analysis with photographs was published in the Asian Journal.


-- Kandahar Aramaic inscription, by Wikipedia


The Aramaic parts translate the Indian parts transcribed in the Aramaic alphabet. A few years after this description was discovered, in 1973, the Lahmann II inscription followed.

Image
The word "Tadmor" in the Laghman inscription (top, right to left), compared to "Tadmor" in the Imperial Aramaic script (middle), and in the modern Hebrew script (bottom).

Another Aramaic inscription, the Laghman II inscription, almost identical [to Laghman I inscription], was discovered nearby in the Laghman Valley, and published in 1974.

-- Aramaic Inscription of Laghman, by Wikiwand


The translation is slightly incomplete but brings some valuable indications. It first mentions the propagation of moral rules, which Ashoka will call "Dharma" in his Edicts of Ashoka, consisting of the abandonment of vanity and respect for the life of the people and animals (here, urging people to give up fishing).

Then, according to semitologist André Dupont-Sommer, who made a detailed analysis of the script observed in multiple rock inscriptions in the Laghman valley as well as in other Aramaic inscriptions of Ashoka,[5] the inscription mentions the city of Tadmor (Tdmr in the Aramaic script in the inscription, ie Palmyra), destination of the great commercial road leading from India to the Mediterranean basin, located at a distance of 3800 km. According to the reading of Dupont-Sommer, Palmyra is separated by two hundreds "bows" from Laghman.

-- Aramaic Inscription of Laghman, by Wikipedia


It is subsequently also identified as the source of the ivory used in Darius' palace at Susa.

Only a few sources mention his activities in India. Chandragupta (known in Greek sources as Sandrokottos), founder of the Mauryan empire, had conquered the Indus valley and several other parts of the easternmost regions of Alexander's empire. Seleucus began a campaign against Chandragupta and crossed the Indus. Most western historians note that it appears to have fared poorly as he did not achieve his goals, even though what exactly happened is unknown. The two leaders ultimately reached an agreement, and through a treaty sealed in 305 BC, Seleucus abandoned the territories he could never securely hold in exchange for stabilizing the East and obtaining elephants, with which he could turn his attention against his great western rival, Antigonus Monophthalmus. The 500 war elephants Seleucus obtained from Chandragupta were to play a key role in the forthcoming battles, particularly at Ipsus against Antigonus and Demetrius.

-- Seleucus I Nicator, by Wikipedia


In the Behistun inscription (DB 3.54-76), the King recounts that a Persian was thrice defeated by the Achaemenid governor of Arachosia, Vivana, who so ensured that the province remained under Darius' control. It has been suggested that this "strategically unintelligible engagement" was ventured by the rebel because "there were close relations between Persia and Arachosia concerning the Zoroastrian faith."[1]

Image
Alexander the Great in Arachosia, 329 BCE.

The chronologically next reference to Arachosia comes from the Greeks and Romans, who record that under Darius III the Arachosians and Drangians were under the command of a governor who, together with the army of the Bactrian governor, contrived a plot of the Arachosians against Alexander (Curtius Rufus 8.13.3). Following Alexander's conquest of the Achaemenids, the Macedonian appointed his generals as governors (Arrian 3.28.1, 5.6.2; Curtius Rufus 7.3.5; Plutarch, Eumenes 19.3; Polyaenus 4.6.15; Diodorus 18.3.3; Orosius 3.23.1 3; Justin 13.4.22).

Following the Partition of Babylon, the region became part of the Seleucid Empire, which traded it to the Mauryan Empire in 305 BCE as part of an alliance. The Shunga dynasty overthrew the Mauryans in 185 BC, but shortly afterwards lost Arachosia to the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. It then became part of the break-away Indo-Greek Kingdom in the mid 2nd century BCE. Indo-Scythians expelled the Indo-Greeks by the mid 1st century BCE, but lost the region to the Arsacids and Indo-Parthians. At what time (and in what form) Parthian rule over Arachosia was reestablished cannot be determined with any authenticity. From Isidore 19 it is certain that a part (perhaps only a little) of the region was under Arsacid rule in the 1st century CE, and that the Parthians called it Indikē Leukē, "White India."[5]


The Kushans captured Arachosia from the Indo-Parthians and ruled the region until around 230 CE, when they were defeated by the Sassanids, the second Persian Empire, after which the Kushans were replaced by Sassanid vassals known as the Kushanshas or Indo-Sassanids. In 420 CE the Kushanshas were driven out of present Afghanistan by the Chionites, who established the Kidarite Kingdom. The Kidarites were replaced in the 460s CE by the Hephthalites, who were defeated in 565 CE by a coalition of Persian and Turkish armies. Arachosia became part of the surviving Kushano-Hephthalite Kingdoms of Kapisa, then Kabul, before coming under attack from the Moslem Arabs. These kingdoms were at first vassals of Sassanids. Around 870 CE the Kushano-Hephthalites (aka Turkshahi Dynasty) was replaced by the Saffarids, then the Samanid Empire and Muslim Turkish Ghaznavids in the early 11th century CE.

Arab geographers referred to the region (or parts of it) as 'Arokhaj', 'Rokhaj', 'Rohkaj' or simply 'Roh'.

Theory of Croatian Iranian origin

The theory of Croatian origin traces the origin of the Croats to the area of Arachosia. This connection was at first drawn due to the similarity of Croatian (Croatia - Croatian: Hrvatska, Croats - Croatian: Hrvati / Čakavian dialect: Harvati / Kajkavian dialect: Horvati) and Arachosian name,[6][7] but other researches indicate that there are also linguistic, cultural, agrobiological and genetic ties.[8][9] Since Croatia became an independent state in 1991, the Iranian theory gained more popularity, and many scientific papers and books have been published.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

See also

• Old Kandahar

Image
Ancient city of Old Kandahar (red) on the western side of Kandahar

Old Kandahar (locally known as Zorr Shaar; Pashto: زوړ ښار‎, meaning "Old City") is a historical section of the city of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan. It is thought its foundation was laid out by Alexander the Great in 330 BC under the name Alexandria Arachosia. and served as the local seat of power for many rulers in the last 2,000 years. It became part of many empires, including the Mauryans (322 BC–185 BC), Indo-Scythians (200 BC–400 AD), Sassanids, Arabs, Zunbils, Saffarids, Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Timurids, Mughals, Safavids, and others. It was one of the main cities of Arachosia, a historical region sitting in Greater Iran's southeastern lands and was also in contact with the Indus Valley Civilization. The city has been a frequent target for conquest because of its strategic location in Southern Asia and Central Asia, controlling the main trade route linking the Indian subcontinent with the Middle East, the rest of Central Asia and the Persian Gulf.

-- Old Kandahar, by Wikipedia


Notes

1. Schmitt, Rüdiger (August 10, 2011). "Arachosia". Encyclopædia Iranica. United States.
2. Lendering, Jona. "Alexandria in Arachosia". Amsterdam: livius.org..
3. Mookerji, Radhakumud (1966). Chandragupta Maurya and his times (4 ed.). Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 173. ISBN 978-81-208-0405-0. Retrieved 2010-09-18.
4. Houtsma, Martijn Theodoor (1987). E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936. 2. BRILL. p. 150. ISBN 90-04-08265-4. Retrieved 2010-09-24.
5. The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge University Press. 2010-06-24. ISBN 978-1-108-00941-6. Retrieved 2007-12-31.
6. "Identity of Croatians in Ancient Afghanistan". iranchamber.com..
7. Kalyanaraman, Srinivasan. "Sarasvati Civilization Volume 1". Bangalore: Babasaheb (Umakanta Keshav) Apte Smarak Samiti. .
8. Budimir/Rac, Stipan/Mladen. "Anthropogenic and agrobiological arguments of the scientific origin of Croats". Zagreb: Staroiransko podrijetlo Hrvata : zbornik simpozija / Lovrić, Andrija-Željko (ed). - Teheran : Iranian Cultural Center. .
9. Abbas, Samar. "Common Origin of Croats, Serbs and Jats". Bhubaneshwar: iranchamber.com..
10. Beshevliev 1967: "Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians" by V. Beshevliev (in Bulgarian)(Antichnoe Obschestvo, Trudy Konferencii po izucheniyu problem antichnosti, str. 237-247, Izdatel'stvo "Nauka", Moskva 1967, AN SSSR, Otdelenie Istorii) http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/fadlan/besh.html
11. Dvornik 1956: "The Slavs. Their Early History and Civilization." by F. Dvornik, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Boston, USA., 1956.
12. Hina 2000: "Scholars assert Croats are Descendants of Iranian Tribes", Hina News Agency, Zagreb, Oct 15, 2000 (http://www.hina.hr)
13. Sakac 1949: "Iranisehe Herkunft des kroatischen Volksnamens", ("Iranian origin of the Croatian Ethnonym") S. Sakac, Orientalia Christiana Periodica. XV (1949), 813-340.
14. Sakac 1955: "The Iranian origin of the Croatians according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus", by S. Sakac, in "The Croatian nation in its struggle for freedom and independence" (Chicago, 1955); for other works by Sakac, cf. "Prof. Dr. Stjepan Krizin Sakac - In memoriam" by Milan Blazekovic, http://www.studiacroatica.com/revistas/ ... tmArchived 2011-09-28 at the Wayback Machine
15. Schmitt 1985: "Iranica Proto-Bulgarica" (in German), Academie Bulgare des Sciences, Linguistique Balkanique, XXVIII (1985), l, p.13-38; http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/bu ... hmitt.html
16. Tomicic 1998: "The old-Iranian origin of Croats", Symposium proceedings, Zagreb 24.6.1998, ed. Prof. Zlatko Tomicic & Andrija-Zeljko Lovric, Cultural center of I.R. of Iran in Croatia, Zagreb, 1999, ISBN 953-6301-07-5, "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-12-12. Retrieved 2011-06-13.
17. Vernadsky 1952: "Der sarmatische Hintergrund der germanischen Voelkerwanderung," (Sarmatian background of the Germanic Migrations), G. Vernadsky, Saeculum, II (1952), 340-347.

References

• Frye, Richard N. (1963). The Heritage of Persia. World Publishing company, Cleveland, Ohio. Mentor Book edition, 1966.
• Hill, John E. 2004. The Western Regions according to the Hou Hanshu. Draft annotated English translation.
• Hill, John E. 2004. The Peoples of the West from the Weilue 魏略 by Yu Huan 魚豢: A Third Century Chinese Account Composed between 239 and 265 CE. Draft annotated English translation.
• Hill, John E. (2009) Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty, 1st to 2nd Centuries CE. BookSurge, Charleston, South Carolina. ISBN 978-1-4392-2134-1.
• Toynbee, Arnold J. (1961). Between Oxus and Jumna. London. Oxford University Press.
• Vogelsang, W. (1985). "Early historical Arachosia in South-east Afghanistan; Meeting-place between East and West." Iranica antiqua, 20 (1985), pp. 55–99.

External links

• Arachosia
• Alexandria in Arachosia
• ARACHOSIA, province (satrapy)
• King, Rhyne (2019). "Taxing Achaemenid Arachosia: Evidence from Persepolis". Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 78 (2): 185–199. doi:10.1086/705163. S2CID 211659841.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Jun 30, 2021 5:40 am

Aramaic Inscription of Laghman [Ashokan Inscriptions]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/29/21

Image
Aramaic inscription of Laghman
Material: Natural stone.
Writing: Aramaic
Created: circa 260 BCE
Period/culture: 3rd Century BCE
Discovered: 34.5846°N 70.1834°ECoordinates: 34.5846°N 70.1834°E
Place: Laghman Province, Afghanistan
Present location: Laghman Province, Afghanistan

Image
Laghman valley.

The Aramaic inscription of Laghman, also called the Laghman I inscription to differentiate from the Laghman II inscription discovered later, is an inscription on a slab of natural rock in the area of Laghmân, Afghanistan, written in Aramaic by the Indian emperor Ashoka about 260 BCE, and often categorized as one of Minor Rock Edicts of Ashoka.[1][2] This inscription was published in 1970 by André Dupont-Sommer. Since Aramaic was an official language of the Achaemenid Empire, and reverted to being just its vernacular tongue in 320 BCE with the conquests of Alexander the Great, it seems that this inscription was addressed directly to the populations of this ancient empire still present in this area, or to border populations for whom Aramaic remained the language used in everyday life.[3]

Epigraphical context

The chance discovery by two Belgian anthropologists of this inscription in 1969 is one of a set of similar inscriptions in Aramaic or Greek (or both together), written by Asoka. In 1915, Sir John Marshall had discovered the Aramaic Inscription of Taxila,

Image
Aramaic inscription of Taxila.

The Aramaic Inscription of Taxila 'is an inscription on a piece of marble, originally belonging to an octagonal column, discovered by Sir John Marshall in 1915 at Taxila, British India. The inscription is written in Aramaic, probably by the Indian emperor Ashoka around 260 BCE, and often categorized as one of the Minor Rock Edicts. Since Aramaic was the official language of the Achaemenid empire, which disappeared in 330 BCE with the conquests of Alexander the Great, it seems that this inscription was addressed directly to the populations of this ancient empire still present in northwestern India, or to border populations for which Aramaic remained the normal communication language. The inscription is known as KAI 273...

Text of the inscription

The text of the inscription is very fragmentary, but it has been established that it contains twice, lines 9 and 12, the mention of MR'N PRYDRŠ ("our lord Priyadasi"), the characteristic title used by Ashoka.

-- Aramaic Inscription of Taxila, by Wikipedia


followed in 1932 by the Pul-i-Darunteh Aramaic inscription.

Image

The Pul-i-Darunteh Aramaic inscription, also called Aramaic inscription of Lampaka, is an inscription on a rock in the valley of Laghman ("Lampaka" being the transcription in Sanskrit of "Laghman"), Afghanistan, written in Aramaic by the Indian emperor Ashoka around 260 BCE. It was discovered in 1932 at a place called Pul-i-Darunteh.
Since Aramaic was the official language of the Achaemenid Empire, which disappeared in 320 BCE with the conquests of Alexander the Great, it seems that this inscription was addressed directly to the populations of this ancient empire still present in northwestern India, or to border populations for whom Aramaic remained the language of use....

Content of the inscription

The inscription is incomplete. However, the place of discovery, the style of the writing, the vocabulary used, makes it possible to link the inscription to the other Ashoka inscriptions known in the region. In the light of other inscriptions, it has been found that the Pul-i-Darunteh inscription consists of a juxtaposition of Indian and Aramaic languages, all in Aramaic script, and the latter representing translations of the first. This inscription is generally interpreted as a translation of a passage of the Major Pillar Edicts n°5 or n°7, although others have proposed to categorize it among the Minor Rock Edicts of Ashoka.

-- Pul-i-Darunteh Aramaic inscription, by Wikipedia


In 1958 the famous Bilingual Kandahar Inscription, written in Greek and Aramaic was discovered,

Image
Bilingual inscription (Greek and Aramaic) by king Ashoka, discovered in Kandahar.

The Kandahar Bilingual Rock Inscription, (also Kandahar Edict of Ashoka, sometimes "Chehel Zina Edict"), is a famous bilingual edict in Greek and Aramaic, proclaimed and carved in stone by the Indian Maurya Empire ruler Ashoka (r.269-233 BCE) around 260 BCE. It is the very first known inscription of Ashoka, written in year 10 of his reign (260 BCE), preceding all other inscriptions, including his early Minor Rock Edicts, his Barabar caves inscriptions or his Major Rock Edicts. This first inscription was written in Classical Greek and Aramaic exclusively. It was discovered in 1958, during some excavation works below a 1m high layer of rubble, and is known as KAI 279.

It is sometimes considered as one of the several "Minor Rock Edicts" of Ashoka (and then called "Minor Rock Edict No.4), in contrast to his "Major Rock Edicts" which contain portions or the totality of his Edicts from 1 to 14. Two edicts in Afghanistan have been found with Greek inscriptions, one of these being this bilingual edict in Greek language and Aramaic, the other being the Kandahar Greek Inscription in Greek only. This bilingual edict was found on a rock on the mountainside of Chehel Zina (also Chilzina, or Chil Zena, "Forty Steps"), which forms the western natural bastion of ancient Alexandria Arachosia and present Kandahar's Old City.

The Edict is still in place on the mountainside. According to Scerrato, "the block lies at the eastern base of the little saddle between the two craggy hills below the peak on which the celebrated Cehel Zina of Babur are cut". A cast is visible in Kabul Museum. In the Edict, Ashoka advocates the adoption of "Piety" (using the Greek term Eusebeia for "Dharma") to the Greek community.

Background

Greek communities lived in the northwest of the Mauryan empire, currently in Pakistan, notably ancient Gandhara near the current Pakistani capital of Islamabad, and in the region of Arachosia, nowadays in Southern Afghanistan, following the conquest and the colonization efforts of Alexander the Great around 323 BCE. These communities therefore seem to have been still significant in the area of Afghanistan during the reign of Ashoka, about 70 years after Alexander.

Content

Ashoka proclaims his faith, 10 years after the violent beginning of his reign, and affirms that living beings, human or animal, cannot be killed in his realm. In the Hellenistic part of the Edict, he translates the Dharma he advocates by "Piety" εὐσέβεια, Eusebeia, in Greek. The usage of Aramaic reflect the fact that Aramaic (the so-called Official Aramaic) had been the official language of the Achaemenid Empire which had ruled in those parts until the conquests of Alexander the Great. The Aramaic is not purely Aramaic, but seems to incorporate some elements of Iranian. According to D.D. Kosambi, the Aramaic is not an exact translation of the Greek, and it seems rather that both were translated separately from an original text in Magadhi, the common official language of India at the time, used on all the other Edicts of Ashoka in Indian language, even in such linguistically distinct areas as Kalinga. It is written in Aramaic alphabet.

This inscription is actually rather short and general in content, compared to most Major Rock Edicts of Ashoka, including the other inscription in Greek of Ashoka in Kandahar, the Kandahar Greek Edict of Ashoka, which contains long portions of the 12th and 13th edicts, and probably contained much more since it was cut off at the beginning and at the end.

Implications

The proclamation of this Edict in Kandahar is usually taken as proof that Ashoka had control over that part of Afghanistan, presumably after Seleucos had ceded this territory to Chandragupta Maurya in their 305 BCE peace agreement. The Edict also shows the presence of a sizable Greek population in the area, but it also shows the lingering importance of Aramaic, several decades after the fall of the Achaemenid Empire. At the same epoch, the Greeks were firmly established in the newly created Greco-Bactrian kingdom under the reign of Diodotus I, and particularly in the border city of Ai-Khanoum, not far away in the northern part of Afghanistan.


Image
Approximate maximum extent of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom circa 180 BC, including the regions of Tapuria and Traxiane to the West, Sogdiana and Ferghana to the north, Bactria and Arachosia to the south.

The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, also known as the Diodotid Kingdom, was along with the Indo-Greek Kingdom, the easternmost part of the Hellenistic world, in Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent from 256 to 125 BC. It covered much of present day Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and parts of Iran, Pakistan and India. The capital at Bactra was one of the largest and richest cities in antiquity – Bactria itself known as the ‘empire of a thousand golden cities’. The Indo-Greek Kingdom - a Diodotid successor state was to last until 10 AD.

-- Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, by Wikipedia


According to Sircar, the usage of Greek in the Edict indeed means that the message was intended for the Greeks living in Kandahar, while the usage of Aramaic was intended for the Iranian populations of the Kambojas.

Transcription

The Greek and Aramaic versions vary somewhat, and seem to be rather free interpretations of an original text in Prakrit. The Aramaic text clearly recognizes the authority of Ashoka with expressions such as "our Lord, king Priyadasin", "our lord, the king", suggesting that the readers were indeed the subjects of Ashoka, whereas the Greek version remains more neutral with the simple expression "King Ashoka"...

English (translation of the Greek)

Ten years (of reign) having been completed, King
Piodasses
made known (the doctrine of)
Piety (εὐσέβεια, Eusebeia) to men; and from this moment
he has made
men more pious, and everything thrives throughout
the whole world. And
the king abstains from (killing)
living beings, and other men and those who (are)
huntsmen and fishermen of
the king have desisted
from hunting. And if some (were) intemperate, they
have ceased from their intemperance as was in their
power; and obedient to their father and mother and to
the elders, in opposition to the past also in the future,
by so acting on every occasion, they will live better
and more happily."


English (translation of the Aramaic)

Ten years having passed (?). It so happened (?) that our lord, king Priyadasin, became the institutor of Truth,
Since then, evil diminished among all men and all misfortunes (?)
he caused to disappear; and [there is] peace as well as joy in the whole earth.
And, moreover, [there is] this in regard to food: for our lord,
the king, [only] a few
[animals] are killed; having seen this, all men have given up [the slaughter of animals]; even (?) those men who catch fish (i.e. the fishermen) are subject to prohibition.
Similarly, those who were without restraint have ceased to be without restraint.
And obedience to mother and to father and to old men [reigns] in conformity with the obligations imposed by fate on each [person].
And there is no Judgement for all the pious men,
This [i.e. the practice of Law] has been profitable to all men and will be more profitable [in future].


-- Kandahar Bilingual Rock Inscription, by Wikipedia


and in 1963 the Greek Edicts of Ashoka, again in Kandahar.

Image
Greek inscription by king Ashoka, discovered in Kandahar

The Kandahar Greek Edicts of Ashoka are among the Major Rock Edicts of the Indian Emperor Ashoka (reigned 269-233 BCE), which were written in the Greek language. They were found in the ancient area of Old Kandahar (known as Zor Shar in Pashto, or Shahr-i-Kona in Farsi) in Kandahar in 1963. It is thought that Old Kandahar was founded in the 4th century BCE by Alexander the Great, who gave it the Ancient Greek name Αλεξάνδρεια Aραχωσίας (Alexandria of Arachosia).

The extant edicts are found in a plaque of limestone, which probably had belonged to a building, and its size is 45x69.5 cm and it is about 12 cm thick. These are the only Ashoka inscriptions thought to have belonged to a stone building. The beginning and the end of the fragment are lacking, which suggests the inscription was original significantly longer, and may have included all 14 of Ashoka's Edicts in Greek, as in several other locations in India. The plaque with the inscription was bought in the Kandahar market by the German doctor Seyring, and French archaeologists found that it had been excavated in Old Kandahar. The plaque was then offered to the Kabul Museum, but its current location is unknown following the looting of the museum in 1992–1994...

Content

The Edict is a Greek version of the end of the 12th Edicts (which describes moral precepts) and the beginning of the 13th Edict (which describes the King's remorse and conversion after the war in Kalinga), which makes it a portion of a Major Rock Edict. This inscription does not use another language in parallel, contrary to the famous Kandahar Bilingual Rock Inscription in Greek language and Aramaic, discovered in the same general area.

The Greek language used in the inscription is of a very high level and displays philosophical refinement. It also displays an in-depth understanding of the political language of the Hellenic world in the 3rd century BCE. This suggests the presence of a highly cultured Greek presence in Kandahar at that time.

Implications

The proclamation of this edict in Kandahar is usually taken as proof that Ashoka had control over that part of Afghanistan, presumably after Seleucus I had ceded this territory to Chandragupta Maurya in their 305 BCE peace agreement. The Edict also shows the presence of a sizable Greek population in the area where great efforts were made to convert them to Buddhism. At the same epoch, the Greeks were established in the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, and particularly in the border city of Ai-Khanoum, in the northern part of Afghanistan.

Translation

English translation

(End of Edict Nb12)

"...piety and self-mastery in all the schools of thought; and he who is master of his tongue is most master of himself. And let them neither praise themselves or disparage their neighbors in any matter whatsoever, for that is vain. In acting in accordance with this principle, they exalt themselves and win their neighbors; in transgressing in these things they misdemean themselves and antagonize their neighbors. Those who praise themselves and denigrate their neighbors are self-seekers, wishing to shine in comparison with the others but in fact hurting themselves. It behoves to respect one another and to accept one another's lessons. In all actions it behoves to be understanding, sharing with one another all that which one comprehends. And to those who strive thus let there be no hesitation to say these things in order that they may persist in piety in everything.

(Beginning of Edict Nb13)

In the eighth of the reign of Piodasses, he conquered Kalinga. A hundred and fifty thousand persons were captured and deported, and a hundred thousand others were killed, and almost as many died otherwise. Thereafter, piety and compassion seized him and he suffered grievously. In the same manner wherewith he ordered abstention from living thing, he has displayed zeal and effort to promote piety. And at the same time the king has viewed this with displeasure: of Brahmins and Sramins and others practicing piety who live there [in Kalinga]- and these must be mindful of the interests of the king and must revere and respect their teacher, their father and their mother, and love and faithfully cherish their friends and companions and must use their slaves and dependents as gently as possible - if, of those thus engaged there, any has died or been deported and the rest have regarded this lightly, the king has taken it with exceeding bad grace. And that amongst other people there are..."

— Translation by R.E.M. Wheeler.


-- Kandahar Greek Edicts of Ashoka, by Wikipedia


In the same year 1963 and again in Kandahar, an inscription in "Indo-Aramaic" known as the Kandahar Aramaic inscription or Kandahar II was found, in which the Indian Prakrit language and the Aramaic language alternate, but using only the Aramaic script.

Image
Transliteration in Roman alphabet of the Aramaic inscription of Kandahar.

The Aramaic inscription of Kandahar is an inscription on a fragment of a block of limestone (24x18 cm) discovered in the ruins of Old Kandahar, Afghanistan in 1963, and published in 1966 by André Dupont-Sommer. It was discovered practically at the same time as the Greek Edicts of Ashoka, which suggests that the two inscriptions were more or less conjoined. The inscription was written in Aramaic, probably by the Indian emperor Ashoka about 260 BCE. Since Aramaic was the official language of the Achaemenid Empire, which disappeared in 320 BCE with the conquests of Alexander the Great, it seems that this inscription was addressed directly to the populations of this ancient empire still present in northwestern India, or to border populations for whom Aramaic remained the language of use...

Content of the inscription

This inscription is usually interpreted as a version of a passage from Major Pillar Edict n°7.

The word SHYTY which appears several times corresponds to the Middle Indian word Sahite (Sanskrit Sahitam), meaning "in agreement with", "according to ...", and which allows to introduce a quote, in this case here Indian words found in the Ashoka Edits. Many of these Indian words, transcribed here phonetically in Aramaic, are indeed identifiable, and otherwise exist only in Major Pillar Edict n°7 of Ashoka, in the same order of use : 'NWPTYPTY' corresponds to the Indian word anuppatipatiya (without order, in disorder), and 'NWPTYP ...' to anuppatipamme. Y'NYHYK'NY .... corresponds to yani hi kanici and is the first word of this edict.

There are also several words in the Aramaic language, the role of which would be to explain the meaning of the Indian words and phrases mentioned: the word WK'N "and now", WYHWTRYWN "they have grown, and they will grow", PTYSTY "obedience" ....

This inscription, in spite of its partial and often obscure character, seems to be a translation or a line-by-line commentary of elements of Major Pillar Edict n°7. A more extensive analysis with photographs was published in the Asian Journal.


-- Kandahar Aramaic inscription, by Wikipedia


The Aramaic parts translate the Indian parts transcribed in the Aramaic alphabet. A few years after this description was discovered, in 1973, the Lahmann II inscription followed.[4]

Image
The word "Tadmor" in the Laghman inscription (top, right to left), compared to "Tadmor" in the Imperial Aramaic script (middle), and in the modern Hebrew script (bottom).

Another Aramaic inscription, the Laghman II inscription, almost identical [to Laghman I inscription], was discovered nearby in the Laghman Valley, and published in 1974.

-- Aramaic Inscription of Laghman, by Wikiwand


The inscription

The text of the Aramaic Inscription of Laghman has been transliterated into the Latin alphabet and translated as follows:[3]

Aramaic Inscription of Laghman. Translation by André Dupont-Sommer [3]

Line / Original (Aramaic alphabet) / Transliteration / English translation


1 / [x] / bšnt 10 ∣ ḥzy ∣ Prydrš mlkʾ ∣ rq dḥʾ / In the year 10, behold, the king Priyadasi expelled vanity from among prosperous men,
2 / [x] / mh mṣd brywt kwry / friends of that which is vain,
3 / [x] / mn šryryn dwdy mh ʿbd ryq qštn / friends of those who fish fish creatures.
4 / [x] / 200 znh rmh Tdmr šmh znh ʾrʾ knpty shty / At 200 "bows", there is over there the place called Tadmor. This is the KNPTY road, that is to say (the road) of the Garden:
5 / [x] / gntʾ ytry 100 20 trtʾ tnh 100 ʿlʾ 20 20 20 20 / more than 120 ("bow"). At TRT', here: 100. Above: 80.
6 / [x] / ʿm Wʾšw dynʾ / Done with Wasu the judge


Interpretations

Image
The Laghman Valley was a compulsory stop on the main trade route from India to Palmyra.

The translation is slightly incomplete but brings some valuable indications. It first mentions the propagation of moral rules, which Ashoka will call "Dharma" in his Edicts of Ashoka, consisting of the abandonment of vanity and respect for the life of the people and animals (here, urging people to give up fishing).[3][2]

Image
The word "Tadmor" in the Laghman inscription (top, right to left), compared to "Tadmor" in the Imperial Aramaic script (middle), and in the modern Hebrew script (bottom).

Then, according to semitologist André Dupont-Sommer, who made a detailed analysis of the script observed in multiple rock inscriptions in the Laghman valley as well as in other Aramaic inscriptions of Ashoka,[5] the inscription mentions the city of Tadmor (Tdmr in the Aramaic script in the inscription, ie Palmyra), destination of the great commercial road leading from India to the Mediterranean basin, located at a distance of 3800 km. According to the reading of Dupont-Sommer, Palmyra is separated by two hundreds "bows" from Laghman. In the inscription, the word used to indicate bow is "QŠTN", and Dupont-Sommer asserted that it is an Aramaic word denoting a unit to measure a distance of 15 to 20 kilometres, which could represent a day on the road for an archer.[3] Other distances are then given, which makes it possible to interpret Laghman's inscription as a kind of information terminal on the main trade route with the West.[3][6]

Franz Altheim and Ruth Altheim-Stiehl read three hundred instead of two hundred bows; they equated it with the Vedic unit of measurement yojona, c. 12 kilometres, which would result in a number close to the actual 3800 kilometres distance between Laghman and Palmyra.[7] The linguist Helmut Humbach criticized the reading of Dupont-Sommer and considered his claims regarding the distance to have no validation.[8]

Another issue is that the Aramaic alphabet, the letters "r" and "d" share an identical character.[9] Jean de Menasce read the city's name "Trmd" and identified it with Termez on the Oxus river.[10] Linguist Franz Rosenthal also contested the reading of Dupont-Sommer and considered that the inscription refers to an estate called "Trmr".[11] Historian Bratindra Nath Mukherjee rejected the readings of both Dupont-Sommer and de Menasce; he contested the large value attributed to "bow", considering it a small unit. The historian also rejected the reading of Tdmr and Trmd as referring to a city; in the view of Mukherjee, the name, whether Tdmr or Trmd refers to the rock on which the inscription was carved itself.[10][12]

The Aramaic Inscription of Laghman is the oldest of the known Ashoka inscriptions, with the Kandahar Bilingual Inscription, both dated to the year 10 of Ashoka's reign.[3]

Another Aramaic inscription, the Laghman II inscription, almost identical, was discovered nearby in the Laghman Valley, and published in 1974.[13]

See also

• History portal
• India portal
• Religion portal
• List of the Edicts of Ashoka
• Kandahar Bilingual Inscription
• Asoka - the Buddhist Emperor of India Chapter 4 by Vincent Arthur Smith: The Rock Edicts (this version)

Sources

• Kaizer, Ted (2017). "Trajectories of Hellenism at Tadmor-Palmyra and Dura-Europos". In Chrubasik, Boris; King, Daniel (eds.). Hellenism and the Local Communities of the Eastern Mediterranean: 400 BCE-250 CE. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-192-52819-3.
• MacDowall, David w.; Taddei, Maurizio (1978). "The Early Historic Period: Achaemenids and Greeks". In Allchin, Frank Raymond; Hammond, Norman (eds.). The Archaeology of Afghanistan from Earliest Times to the Timurid Period. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-120-50440-4.
• Mukherjee, Bratindra Nath (2000) [1984]. Studies in Aramaic Edicts of Aśoka (2 ed.). Kolkata: Indian Museum. OCLC 62327000.
• Rosenthal, Franz (1978). "The Second Laghmân Inscription". Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies. Israel Exploration Society. 14: H.L. Ginsberg Volume. ISSN 0071-108X.

References

1. Nakamura, Hajime (1987). Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 349. ISBN 9788120802728.
2. Behrendt, Kurt A. (2004). Handbuch der Orientalistik. BRILL. p. 39. ISBN 9004135952.
3. A new Aramaic inscription of Asoka found in the Laghman Valley (Afghanistan), André Dupont-Sommer Proceedings of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres Year 1970 114-1 pp.158-173
4. History of Discoveries and identifications from M. Boyce / F. Grenet, A History of Zoroastrianism, Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule, 1991.
5. Script of the Laghman Valley Fig 3
6. The Silk Road Encyclopedia. Seoul Selection. 2016. p. 991. ISBN 9781624120763.
7. Kaizer 2017, p. 33, 34.
8. MacDowall & Taddei 1978, p. 192.
9. Kaizer 2017, p. 34.
10. Mukherjee 2000, p. 11.
11. Rosenthal 1978, p. 99.
12. Kaizer 2017, p. 33,34.
13. Essenism and Buddhism, Dupont-Sommer, André, Proceedings of the sessions of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres Year 1980 124-4 pp.698-715
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:20 am

Greco-Bactrian Kingdom
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/30/21

"Baktria" redirects here. For the historical region, see Bactria.



Greco-Bactrian Kingdom
Image
256 BC–125 BC
Approximate maximum extent of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom circa 180 BC, including the regions of Tapuria and Traxiane to the West, Sogdiana and Ferghana to the north, Bactria and Arachosia to the south.
Capital: Bactra; Alexandria Oxus
Common languages: Greek (Official); Bactrian; Aramaic; Sogdian; Parthian
Religion: Hellenism; Zoroastrianism; Buddhism; Hinduism

Government: Monarchy; King Diodotus I (256–240 BC); Heliocles I (145–130 BC)
Historical era: Antiquity
Established: 256 BC
Disestablished: 125 BC
Area: (184 BC[1]) 2,500,000 km2 (970,000 sq mi)
Preceded by: Seleucid Empire
Succeeded by: Indo-Greek Kingdom; Indo-Scythians; Parthian Empire

The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, also known as the Diodotid Kingdom, was along with the Indo-Greek Kingdom, the easternmost part of the Hellenistic world, in Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent from 256 to 125 BC. It covered much of present day Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and parts of Iran, Pakistan and India. The capital at Bactra was one of the largest and richest cities in antiquity – Bactria itself known as the ‘empire of a thousand golden cities’. The Indo-Greek Kingdom - a Diodotid successor state was to last until 10 AD.[2][3][4]

Independence (around 250 BC)

Image
Gold coin of Diodotus c. 245 BC. The Greek inscription reads: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ – "(of) King Diodotus".

Diodotus, the satrap of Bactria (and probably the surrounding provinces) founded the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom when he seceded from the Seleucid Empire around 250 BC and became King Diodotus I of Bactria. The preserved ancient sources (see below) are somewhat contradictory, and the exact date of Bactrian independence has not been settled. Somewhat simplified, there is a high chronology (c. 255 BC) and a low chronology (c. 246 BC) for Diodotos' secession.[5] The high chronology has the advantage of explaining why the Seleucid king Antiochus II issued very few coins in Bactria, as Diodotos would have become independent there early in Antiochus' reign.[6] On the other hand, the low chronology, from the mid-240s BC, has the advantage of connecting the secession of Diodotus I with the Third Syrian War, a catastrophic conflict for the Seleucid Empire.

Diodotus, the governor of the thousand cities of Bactria (Latin: Theodotus, mille urbium Bactrianarum praefectus), defected and proclaimed himself king; all the other people of the Orient followed his example and seceded from the Macedonians.

— Justin, XLI, 4[7]


The new kingdom, highly urbanized and considered as one of the richest of the Orient (opulentissimum illud mille urbium Bactrianum imperium "The extremely prosperous Bactrian empire of the thousand cities" Justin, XLI,1 [8]), was to further grow in power and engage in territorial expansion to the east and the west:

Image
Remains of a Hellenistic capital found in Balkh, ancient Bactra.

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. Among these was Eucratidia,[9] which was named after its ruler.

— Strabo, XI.XI.I[10]


In 247 BC, the Ptolemaic empire (the Greek rulers of Egypt following the death of Alexander the Great) captured the Seleucid capital, Antioch. In the resulting power vacuum, Andragoras, the Seleucid satrap of Parthia, proclaimed independence from the Seleucids, declaring himself king. A decade later, he was defeated and killed by Arsaces of Parthia, leading to the rise of a Parthian Empire. This cut Bactria off from contact with the Greek world. Overland trade continued at a reduced rate, while sea trade between Greek Egypt and Bactria developed.

Diodotus was succeeded by his son Diodotus II, who allied himself with the Parthian Arsaces in his fight against Seleucus II:

Soon after, relieved by the death of Diodotus, Arsaces made peace and concluded an alliance with his son, also by the name of Diodotus; some time later he fought against Seleucos who came to punish the rebels, and he prevailed: the Parthians celebrated this day as the one that marked the beginning of their freedom.

— Justin, XLI, 4[11]


Overthrow of Diodotus II (230 BC)

Image
Asia in 200 BC, showing the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and its neighbors.

Euthydemus, a Greek from Magnesia according to Polybius,[12][13] and possibly satrap of Sogdiana, overthrew the dynasty of Diodotus II around 230-220 BC and started his own dynasty. Euthydemus's control extended to Sogdiana, going beyond the city of Alexandria Eschate founded by Alexander the Great in Ferghana:[citation needed]

And they also held Sogdiana, situated above Bactriana towards the east between the Oxus River, which forms the boundary between the Bactrians and the Sogdians, and the Iaxartes River. And the Iaxartes forms also the boundary between the Sogdians and the nomads. (Strabo XI.11.2)[14]


Seleucid invasion

Image
Coin depicting the Greco-Bactrian king Euthydemus 230–200 BC. The Greek inscription reads: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΕΥΘΥΔΗΜΟΥ – "(of) King Euthydemus".

Euthydemus was attacked by the Seleucid ruler Antiochus III around 210 BC. Although he commanded 10,000 horsemen, Euthydemus initially lost a battle on the Arius[15] and had to retreat. He then successfully resisted a three-year siege in the fortified city of Bactra (modern Balkh), before Antiochus finally decided to recognize the new ruler, and to offer one of his daughters to Euthydemus's son Demetrius around 206 BC.[16] Classical accounts also relate that Euthydemus negotiated peace with Antiochus III by suggesting that he deserved credit for overthrowing the original rebel Diodotus and that he was protecting Central Asia from nomadic invasions thanks to his defensive efforts:

…for if he did not yield to this demand, neither of them would be safe: seeing that great hordes 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)[13]


Kuliab inscription

In an inscription found in the Kuliab area of Tadjikistan, in eastern Greco-Bactria, and dated to 200–195 BC,[17] a Greek by the name of Heliodotos, dedicating a fire altar to Hestia, mentions Euthydemus as the greatest of all kings, and his son Demetrius I as "Demetrios Kalinikos" "Demetrius the Glorious Conqueror":[18][17]

Heliodotos inscription, Kuliab

Translation (English) / Transliteration (original Greek script) / Inscription (Greek language)


"Heliodotos dedicated this fragrant altar for Hestia, venerable goddess, illustrious amongst all, in the grove of Zeus, with beautiful trees; he made libations and sacrifices so that the greatest of all kings Euthydemos, as well as his son, the glorious, victorious and remarkable Demetrios, be preserved of all pains, with the help of Tyche with divine thoughts."— Kuliab inscription, 200–195 BCE[19][20] / τόνδε σοι βωμὸν θυώδη, πρέσβα κυδίστη θεῶν; Ἑστία, Διὸς κ(α)τ᾽ ἄλσος καλλίδενδρον ἔκτισεν; καὶ κλυταῖς ἤσκησε λοιβαῖς ἐμπύροις Ἡλιόδοτος; ὄφρα τὸμ πάντων μέγιστον Εὐθύδημον βασιλέων; τοῦ τε παῖδα καλλίνικον ἐκπρεπῆ Δημήτριον; πρευμενὴς σώιζηις ἐκηδεῖ(ς) σὺν τύχαι θεόφρον[ι] / Image


Geographic expansion

Following the departure of the Seleucid army, the Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded. In the west, areas in north-eastern Iran may have been absorbed, possibly as far as into Parthia, whose ruler had been defeated by Antiochus the Great. These territories possibly are identical with the Bactrian satrapies of Tapuria and Traxiane.

Contacts with the Han Empire

Image
Probable statuette of a Greek soldier, wearing a version of the Greek Phrygian helmet, from a 3rd-century BC burial site north of the Tian Shan, Xinjiang Region Museum, Ürümqi.

To the north, Euthydemus also ruled Sogdiana and Ferghana, and there are indications that from Alexandria Eschate the Greco-Bactrians may have led expeditions as far as Kashgar and Ürümqi in Xinjiang, leading to the first known contacts between China and the West around 220 BC. The Greek historian Strabo too writes that: "they extended their empire even as far as the Seres (Chinese) and the Phryni". (Strabo, XI.XI.I).[10]

Several statuettes and representations of Greek soldiers have been found north of the Tian Shan, on the doorstep to China, and are today on display in the Xinjiang museum at Ürümqi (Boardman).[21] Middle Eastern or Greek influences on Chinese art have also been suggested (Hirth, Rostovtzeff). Designs with rosette flowers, geometric lines, meanders and glass inlays, suggestive of Egyptian, Persian, and/or Hellenistic influences,[22] can be found on some early Han dynasty bronze mirrors.[23]

Some speculate that Greek influence is found in the artworks of the burial site of China's first Emperor Qin Shi Huang, dating back to the 3rd century BC, including in the manufacture of the famous Terracotta army. This idea suggested that Greek artists may have come to China at that time to train local artisans in making sculptures[24][25] However, this idea is disputed.[26]

Numismatics also suggest that some technology exchanges may have occurred on these occasions: the Greco-Bactrians were the first in the world to issue cupro-nickel (75/25 ratio) coins,[27] an alloy technology only known by the Chinese at the time under the name "White copper" (some weapons from the Warring States period were in copper-nickel alloy).[28] The practice of exporting Chinese metals, in particular iron, for trade is attested around that period. Kings Euthydemus, Euthydemus II, Agathocles and Pantaleon made these coin issues around 170 BC and it has alternatively been suggested that a nickeliferous copper ore was the source from mines at Anarak.[29] Copper-nickel would not be used again in coinage until the 19th century.

The presence of Chinese people in India from ancient times is also suggested by the accounts of the "Ciñas" in the Mahabharata and the Manu Smriti. The Han dynasty explorer and ambassador Zhang Qian visited Bactria in 126 BC, and reported the presence of Chinese products in the Bactrian markets:

"When I was in Bactria (Daxia)", Zhang Qian reported, "I saw bamboo canes from Qiong and cloth made in the province of Shu (territories of southwestern China). When I asked the people how they had gotten such articles, they replied, "Our merchants go buy them in the markets of Shendu (India)." (Shiji 123, Sima Qian, trans. Burton Watson).


The purpose of Zhang Qian's journey was to look for civilizations on the steppe that the Han could ally with against the Xiongnu. Upon his return, Zhang Qian informed the Chinese emperor Han Wudi of the level of sophistication of the urban civilizations of Ferghana, Bactria and Parthia, who became interested in developing commercial relationships with them:

The Son of Heaven on hearing all this reasoned thus: Ferghana (Dayuan) and the possessions of Bactria (Daxia) and Parthia (Anxi) are large countries, full of rare things, with a population living in fixed abodes and given to occupations somewhat identical with those of the Chinese people, and placing great value on the rich produce of China. (Hanshu, Former Han History).


A number of Chinese envoys were then sent to Central Asia, triggering the development of the Silk Road from the end of the 2nd century BC.[30]

Contacts with the Indian Subcontinent (250–180)

The Indian emperor Chandragupta, founder of the Mauryan dynasty, conquered the northwestern subcontinent upon the death of Alexander the Great around 323 BC. However, contacts were kept with his Greek neighbours in the Seleucid Empire, a dynastic alliance or the recognition of intermarriage between Greeks and Indians were established (described as an agreement on Epigamia in Ancient sources), and several Greeks, such as the historian Megasthenes, resided at the Mauryan court. Subsequently, each Mauryan emperor had a Greek ambassador at his court.

Image
Kandahar Bilingual Rock Inscription of Ashoka (in Greek and Aramaic), found in Kandahar. Circa 250 BC, Kabul Museum.

Chandragupta's grandson Ashoka converted to the Buddhist faith and became a great proselytizer in the line of the traditional Pali canon of Theravada Buddhism, directing his efforts towards the Indo-Iranic and the Hellenistic worlds from around 250 BC. According to the Edicts of Ashoka, set in stone, some of them written in Greek, he sent Buddhist emissaries to the Greek lands in Asia and as far as the Mediterranean. The edicts name each of the rulers of the Hellenistic world at the time.

The conquest by Dharma has been won here, on the borders, and even six hundred yojanas (4,000 miles) away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni. (Edicts of Ashoka, 13th Rock Edict, S. Dhammika).


Some of the Greek populations that had remained in northwestern India apparently converted to Buddhism:

Here in the king's domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhojas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dharma. (Edicts of Ashoka, 13th Rock Edict, S. Dhammika).


Furthermore, according to Pali sources, some of Ashoka's emissaries were Greek Buddhist monks, indicating close religious exchanges between the two cultures:

When the thera (elder) Moggaliputta, the illuminator of the religion of the Conqueror (Ashoka), had brought the (third) council to an end... he sent forth theras, one here and one there: ...and to Aparantaka (the "Western countries" corresponding to Gujarat and Sindh) he sent the Greek (Yona) named Dhammarakkhita... and the thera Maharakkhita he sent into the country of the Yona. (Mahavamsa, XII).


Greco-Bactrians probably received these Buddhist emissaries (at least Maharakkhita, lit. "The Great Saved One", who was "sent to the country of the Yona") and somehow tolerated the Buddhist faith, although little proof remains. In the 2nd century AD, the Christian dogmatist Clement of Alexandria recognized the existence of Buddhist Sramanas among the Bactrians ("Bactrians" meaning "Oriental Greeks" in that period), and even their influence on Greek thought:

Thus philosophy, a thing of the highest utility, flourished in antiquity among the barbarians, shedding its light over the nations. And afterwards it came to Greece. First in its ranks were the prophets of the Egyptians; and the Chaldeans among the Assyrians;[31] and the Druids among the Gauls; and the Sramanas among the Bactrians ("Σαρμαναίοι Βάκτρων"); and the philosophers of the Celts; and the Magi of the Persians, who foretold the Saviour's birth, and came into the land of Judea guided by a star. The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other barbarian philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them called Sramanas ("Σαρμάναι"), and others Brahmins ("Βραφμαναι"). (Clement of Alexandria "The Stromata, or Miscellanies" Book I, Chapter XV)[32]




Influence on Indian art during the 3rd century BC

Main article: Hellenistic influence on Indian art

Image
One of the Hellenistic-inspired "flame palmettes" and lotus designs, which may have been transmitted through Ai-Khanoum. Rampurva bull capital, India, circa 250 BC.

The Greco-Bactrian city of Ai-Khanoum, being located at the doorstep of India, interacting with the Indian subcontinent, and having a rich Hellenistic culture, was in a unique position to influence Indian culture as well. It is considered that Ai-Khanoum may have been one of the primary actors in transmitting Western artistic influence to India, for example in the creation of the Pillars of Ashoka or the manufacture of the quasi-Ionic Pataliputra capital, all of which were posterior to the establishment of Ai-Khanoum.[33]

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


The scope of adoption goes from designs such as the bead and reel pattern, the central flame palmette design and a variety of other moldings, to the lifelike rendering of animal sculpture and the design and function of the Ionic anta capital in the palace of Pataliputra.[34]

First visual representations of Indian deities

Image
Coin of Greco-Bactrian king Agathocles with Indian deities.

Image
Indian coinage of Agathocles, with Buddhist lion and dancing woman holding lotus, possible Indian goddess Lakshmi.

One of the last Greco-Bactrian kings, Agathocles of Bactria (ruled 190–180 BC), issued remarkable Indian-standard square coins bearing the first known representations of Indian deities, which have been variously interpreted as Vishnu, Shiva, Vasudeva, Buddha or Balarama. Altogether, six such Indian-standard silver drachmas in the name of Agathocles were discovered at Ai-Khanoum in 1970.[35][36][37] These coins seem to be the first known representations of Vedic deities on coins, and they display early Avatars of Vishnu: Balarama-Sankarshana with attributes consisting of the Gada mace and the plow, and Vasudeva-Krishna with the Vishnu attributes of the Shankha (a pear-shaped case or conch) and the Sudarshana Chakra wheel.[36] Some other coins by Agathocles are also thought to represent the Buddhist lion and the Indian goddess Lakshmi, consort of Vishnu.[37] The Indian coinage of Agathocles is few but spectacular. These coins at least demonstrate the readiness of Greek kings to represent deities of foreign origin. The dedication of a Greek envoy to the cult of Garuda at the Heliodorus pillar in Besnagar could also be indicative of some level of religious syncretism.

Expansion into the Indian subcontinent (after 180 BC)

Main article: Indo-Greek Kingdom

Image
Silver coin depicting Demetrius I of Bactria (reigned c. 200–180 BC), wearing an elephant scalp, symbol of his conquests in northwest Indian subcontinent.

Demetrius, the son of Euthydemus, started an invasion of the subcontinent from 180 BC, a few years after the Mauryan empire had been overthrown by the Shunga dynasty. Historians differ on the motivations behind the invasion. Some historians suggest that the invasion of the subcontinent was intended to show their support for the Mauryan empire, and to protect the Buddhist faith from the religious persecutions of the Shungas as alleged by Buddhist scriptures (Tarn). Other historians have argued however that the accounts of these persecutions have been exaggerated (Thapar, Lamotte).

Demetrius may have been as far as the imperial capital Pataliputra in today's eastern India (today Patna). However, these campaigns are typically attributed to Menander. The invasion was completed by 175 BC. This established in the northwestern Indian Subcontinent what is called the Indo-Greek Kingdom, which lasted for almost two centuries until around AD 10. The Buddhist faith flourished under the Indo-Greek kings, foremost among them Menander I. It was also a period of great cultural syncretism, exemplified by the development of Greco-Buddhism.

Usurpation of Eucratides

Back in Bactria, Eucratides, either a general of Demetrius or an ally of the Seleucids, managed to overthrow the Euthydemid dynasty and establish his own rule around 170 BC, probably dethroning Antimachus I and Antimachus II. The Indian branch of the Euthydemids tried to strike back. An Indian king called Demetrius (very likely Demetrius II) is said to have returned to Bactria with 60,000 men to oust the usurper, but he apparently was defeated and killed in the encounter:

Image
Silver tetradrachm of King Eucratides I 171–145 BC. The Greek inscription reads: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΟΥ – "(of) King Great Eucratides".

Image
Bilingual coin of Eucratides in the Indian standard, on the obverse Greek inscription reads: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΟΥ-"(of) King Great Eucratides", Pali in the Kharoshthi script on the reverse.

Eucratides led many wars with great courage, and, while weakened by them, was put under siege by Demetrius, king of the Indians. He made numerous sorties, and managed to vanquish 60,000 enemies with 300 soldiers, and thus liberated after four months, he put India under his rule. (Justin, XLI,6)[38]

Eucratides campaigned extensively in present-day northwestern India, and ruled a vast territory, as indicated by his minting of coins in many Indian mints, possibly as far as the Jhelum River in Punjab. In the end, however, he was repulsed by the Indo-Greek king Menander I, who managed to create a huge unified territory.

In a rather confused account, Justin explains that Eucratides was killed on the field by "his son and joint king", who would be his own son, either Eucratides II or Heliocles I (although there are speculations that it could have been his enemy's son Demetrius II). The son drove over Eucratides' bloodied body with his chariot and left him dismembered without a sepulchre:

As Eucratides returned from India, he was killed on the way back by his son, whom he had associated to his rule, and who, without hiding his parricide, as if he didn't kill a father but an enemy, ran with his chariot over the blood of his father, and ordered the corpse to be left without a sepulture. (Justin XLI,6)[38]


Defeats by Parthia

During or after his Indian campaigns, Eucratides was attacked and defeated by the Parthian king Mithridates I, possibly in alliance with partisans of the Euthydemids:

Image
Gold 20-stater of Eucratides, the largest gold coin of Antiquity. The coin weighs 169.2 grams, and has a diameter of 58 millimeters.

The Bactrians, involved in various wars, lost not only their rule but also their freedom, as, exhausted by their wars against the Sogdians, the Arachotes, the Dranges, the Arians and the Indians, they were finally crushed, as if drawn of all their blood, by an enemy weaker than them, the Parthians. (Justin, XLI,6)[38]


Following his victory, Mithridates I gained Bactria's territory west of the Arius, the regions of Tapuria and Traxiane: "The satrapy Turiva and that of Aspionus were taken away from Eucratides by the Parthians." (Strabo XI.11.20)[14]

In the year 141 BC, the Greco-Bactrians seem to have entered in an alliance with the Seleucid king Demetrius II to fight again against Parthia:

The people of the Orient welcomed his (Demetrius II's) arrival, partly because of the cruelty of the Arsacid king of the Parthians, partly because, used to the rule of the Macedonians, they disliked the arrogance of this new people. Thus, Demetrius, supported by the Persians, Elymes and Bactrians, routed the Parthians in numerous battles. At the end, deceived by a false peace treaty, he was taken prisoner. (Justin XXXVI, 1,1)[39]


The 5th-century historian Orosius reports that Mithridates I managed to occupy territory between the Indus and the Hydaspes towards the end of his reign (c. 138 BC, before his kingdom was weakened by his death in 136 BC).[40]

Heliocles I ended up ruling what territory remained. The defeat, both in the west and the east, may have left Bactria very weakened and open to nomadic invasions.

Nomadic invasions

Yuezhi


Image
The migrations of the Yuezhi through Central Asia, from around 176 BC to AD 30

A nomadic steppe people called the Yuezhi inhabited a region thousands of miles to the east of Bactria on the edges of the Han Empire called the Hexi Corridor. Shortly before 176 BC, the Xiongnu invaded the Hexi Corridor, forcing the Yuezhi to flee the region. In 162 BC the Yuezhi were driven west to the Ili River valley by the Xiongnu. In 132 they were driven out of the Ili valley by the Wusun. The surviving Yuezhi migrated again south towards the territory just north of the Oxus River where they encountered and expelled a nomadic steppe nation called Sakastan.[41]

Scythians (c. 140 BC)

Image
Gold artefacts of the Scythians in Bactria, at the site of Tillia tepe

Around 140 BC, eastern Scythians (the Saka, or Sacaraucae of Greek sources), apparently being pushed forward by the southward migration of the Yuezhi started to invade various parts of Parthia and Bactria. Their invasion of Parthia is well documented: they attacked in the direction of the cities of Merv, Hecatompolis and Ecbatana. They managed to defeat and kill the Parthian king Phraates II, son of Mithridates I, routing the Greek mercenary troops under his command (troops he had acquired during his victory over Antiochus VII). Again in 123 BC, Phraates's successor, his uncle Artabanus I, was killed by the Scythians.[42]

Second Yuezhi expansion (c. 120 BC)

When the Han Chinese diplomat Zhang Qian visited the Yuezhi in 126 BC, trying to obtain their alliance to fight the Xiongnu, he explained that the Yuezhi were settled north of the Oxus but also held under their sway the territory south of Oxus, which makes up the remainder of Bactria.

According to Zhang Qian, the Yuezhi represented a considerable force of between 100,000 and 200,000 mounted archer warriors,[43] with customs identical to those of the Xiongnu, which would probably have easily defeated Greco-Bactrian forces (in 208 BC when the Greco-Bactrian king Euthydemus I confronted the invasion of the Seleucid king Antiochus III the Great, he commanded 10,000 horsemen).[15] Zhang Qian actually visited Bactria (named Daxia in Chinese) in 126 BC, and portrays a country which was totally demoralized and whose political system had vanished, although its urban infrastructure remained:

Daxia (Bactria) is located over 2,000 li southwest of Dayuan, south of the Gui (Oxus) river. Its people cultivate the land and have cities and houses. Their customs are like those of Dayuan. It has no great ruler but only a number of petty chiefs ruling the various cities. The people are poor in the use of arms and afraid of battle, but they are clever at commerce. After the Great Yuezhi moved west and attacked Daxia, the entire country came under their sway. The population of the country is large, numbering some 1,000,000 or more persons. The capital is called the city of Lanshi (Bactra) and has a market where all sorts of goods are bought and sold. (Records of the Great Historian by Sima Qian, quoting Zhang Qian, trans. Burton Watson)


The Yuezhi further expanded southward into Bactria around 120 BC, apparently further pushed out by invasions from the northern Wusun. It seems they also pushed Scythian tribes before them, which continued to India, where they came to be identified as Indo-Scythians.

Image
Silver coin of Heliocles (r. 150–125 BC), the last Greco-Bactrian king. The Greek inscription reads: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ ΗΛΙΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ – "(of) King Heliocles the Just".

The invasion is also described in western Classical sources from the 1st century BC:

The best known tribes are those who deprived the Greeks of Bactriana, the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari, and Sacarauli, who came from the country on the other side of the Jaxartes, opposite the Sacae and Sogdiani.
(Strabo, XI.8.1 [44])


Around that time the king Heliocles abandoned Bactria and moved his capital to the Kabul valley, from where he ruled his Indian holdings. Having left the Bactrian territory, he is technically the last Greco-Bactrian king, although several of his descendants, moving beyond the Hindu Kush, would form the western part of the Indo-Greek kingdom. The last of these "western" Indo-Greek kings, Hermaeus, would rule until around 70 BC, when the Yuezhi again invaded his territory in the Paropamisadae (while the "eastern" Indo-Greek kings would continue to rule until around AD 10 in the area of the Punjab region).

Overall, the Yuezhi remained in Bactria for more than a century. They became Hellenized to some degree, as suggested by their adoption of the Greek alphabet to write their Iranian language, and by numerous remaining coins, minted in the style of the Greco-Bactrian kings, with the text in Greek.

Around 12 BC the Yuezhi then moved further to northern India where they established the Kushan Empire.

Military forces

Image
Indian War Elephant with wooden tower.

Before Greek conquest, the armies of Bactria were overwhelmingly composed of cavalry and were well known as effective soldiers, making up large portions of the Achaemenid cavalry contingents. 2,000 Bactrian horsemen fought at the Granicus against Alexander and 9,000 at the Battle of Gaugamela on the left flank of Darius' army. Herodotus also mentions the widespread use of chariots among the Bactrians. After Alexander's conquest of Bactria, Bactrian cavalry units served in his army during the invasion of India and after the Indian campaign, Alexander enlarged his elite companion cavalry by adding Bactrians, Sogdians and other east Iranian cavalrymen.[45] Both Aeschylus (The Persians, v. 318) and Curtius mention that Bactria was able to field a force of 30,000 horse. Most of these horsemen were lightly armed, using bows and javelins before closing with sword and spear. Herodotus describes the Persian cavalry of Mardonius at the Battle of Plataea (which included Bactrians) as horse archers (hippotoxotai). Bactrian infantry is described by Herodotus as wearing caps in the Median style, short spears and reed Scythian style bows.[citation needed]

Alexander and Seleucus I both settled other Greeks in Bactria, while preferring to keep their Macedonian settlers farther west. Greek garrisons in the satrapy of Bactria were housed in fortresses called phrouria and at major cities. Military colonists were settled in the countryside and were each given an allotment of land called a kleros. These colonists numbered in the tens of thousands, and were trained in the fashion of the Macedonian army. A Greek army in Bactria during the anti-Macedonian revolt of 323 numbered 23,000.[45]

The army of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was then a multi-ethnic force with Greek colonists making up large portions of the infantry as pike phalanxes, supported by light infantry units of local Bactrians and mercenary javelin-wielding Thureophoroi.[46] The cavalry arm was very large for a Hellenistic army and composed mostly of native Bactrian, Sogdian and other Indo-Iranian light horsemen. Polybius mentions 10,000 horse at the Battle of the Arius river in 208 BC. Greco-Bactrian armies also included units of heavily armored cataphracts and small elite units of companion cavalry. The third arm of the Greco-Bactrian army was the Indian war elephants, which are depicted in some coins with a tower (thorakion) or howdah housing men armed with bows and javelins. This force grew as the Greco-Bactrian kingdom expanded into India and was widely depicted in Greco-Bactrian coinage. Other units in the Bactrian military included mercenaries or levies from various surrounding peoples such as the Scythians, Dahae, Indians and Parthians.
[citation needed]

Greek culture in Bactria

Image
Corinthian capital, found at Ai-Khanoum, 2nd century BC

Greeks first began settling the region long before Alexander conquered it. The Persian Empire had a policy of exiling rebelling Greek communities to that region long before it fell to Greek conquest. Therefore it had a considerable Greek community that was expanded upon after Macedonian conquest.

The Greco-Bactrians were known for their high level of Hellenistic sophistication, and kept regular contact with both the Mediterranean and neighbouring India. They were on friendly terms with India and exchanged ambassadors.

Their cities, such as Ai-Khanoum in northeastern Afghanistan (probably Alexandria on the Oxus), and Bactra (modern Balkh) where Hellenistic remains have been found, demonstrate a sophisticated Hellenistic urban culture. This site gives a snapshot of Greco-Bactrian culture around 145 BC, as the city was burnt to the ground around that date during nomadic invasions and never re-settled. Ai-Khanoum "has all the hallmarks of a Hellenistic city, with a Greek theater, gymnasium and some Greek houses with colonnaded courtyards" (Boardman). Remains of Classical Corinthian columns were found in excavations of the site, as well as various sculptural fragments. In particular a huge foot fragment in excellent Hellenistic style was recovered, which is estimated to have belonged to a 5–6 meters tall statue.

Image
Stone block with the inscriptions of Kineas in Greek. Ai Khanoum.

One of the inscriptions in Greek found at Ai-Khanoum, the Herôon of Kineas, has been dated to 300–250 BC, and describes Delphic precepts:

As children, learn good manners.
As young men, learn to control the passions.
In middle age, be just.
In old age, give good advice.
Then die, without regret.


Some of the Greco-Bactrian coins, and those of their successors the Indo-Greeks, are considered the finest examples of Greek numismatic art with "a nice blend of realism and idealization", including the largest coins to be minted in the Hellenistic world: the largest gold coin was minted by Eucratides (reigned 171–145 BC), the largest silver coin by the Indo-Greek king Amyntas Nikator (reigned c. 95–90 BC). The portraits "show a degree of individuality never matched by the often bland depictions of their royal contemporaries further West" (Roger Ling, "Greece and the Hellenistic World").

Several other Greco-Bactrian cities have been further identified, as in Saksanokhur in southern Tajikistan (archaeological searches by a Soviet team under B.A. Litvinski), or in Dal'verzin Tepe.

Image
Bronze Herakles statuette. Ai Khanoum. 2nd century BC.

Image
Sculpture of an old man, possibly a philosopher. Ai Khanoum, 2nd century BC.

Image
Close-up of the same statue.

Image
Frieze of a naked man wearing a chlamys. Ai Khanoum, 2nd century BC.

Image
Same frieze, seen from the side.

Image
Gargoyle in the form of a Greek comic mask. Ai Khanoum, 2nd century BC.

Image
Plate depicting Cybele pulled by lions. Ai Khanoum.

Main Greco-Bactrian kings

House of Diodotus

Territories of Bactria, Sogdiana, Ferghana, Arachosia:

Notable Rulers:


• Diodotus I (reigned c. 250–240 BC) Coins
• Diodotus II (reigned c. 240–230 BC) Son of Diodotus I Coins
• Berenisa Diodotia I (reigned c. 230-200/195 BC) daughter of Diodotus I, Queen regent alongside her consort, Euthydemus I
• Demetrius I (reigned c. 200-180)
• Demetrius II (reigned 145-138)
• Menander I (reigned 165-130) The most famous Diodotid Indo-Greek ruler as a successful ruler and convert to Buddhism.
• Strato III (reigned c. ? - 10 AD) Last Indo-Greek king and independent Hellenistic ruler.

The Diodotid dynasty was main and longest reigning of Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek dynasties, with its founding by Diodotus I in 255 BC up until the last Indo-Greek king Strato III in 10 AD. Many of the dates, territories, and relationships between Greco-Bactrian kings are tentative and essentially based on numismatic analysis and a few Classical sources. The following list of kings, dates and territories after the reign of Demetrius is derived from the latest and most extensive analysis on the subject, by Osmund Bopearachchi (Monnaies Gréco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques, Catalogue Raisonné, 1991).
House of Eucratides[edit]

Image
Silver tetradrachm of King Eucratides 171–145 BC. The Greek inscription reads: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΟΥ – "(of) King Great Eucratides".

Territory of Bactria and Sogdiana

• Eucratides I 170-c. 145 BC Coins
• Plato co-regent c. 166 BC
• Eucratides II 145–140 BC Coins
• Heliocles (r. c. 145–130 BC).

Heliocles, the last Greek king of Bactria, was invaded by the nomadic tribes of the Yuezhi from the North. Descendants of Eucratides may have ruled on in the Indo-Greek kingdom.

Image
Silver drachm of Menander I, dated circa 160-145 BC. Obverse: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΜΕΝΑΝΔΡΟΥ ('of King Menander the Saviour'), heroic bust of Menander, viewed from behind, head turned to left; Reverse: Athena standing right, brandishing thunderbolt and holding aegis, Karosthi legend around, monogram in field to left. Reference: Sear 7604.

Greco-Bactrian kings

Territories-dates / Dynastic lineage / Bactrian domain / Expansion into India


280 BCE / Foundation of the Hellenistic city of Ai-Khanoum in Bactria (280 BCE) / Foundation of the Hellenistic city of Ai-Khanoum in Bactria (280 BCE) / --

255 BCE / Independence of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom from the Seleucid Empire (255 BCE) / Independence of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom from the Seleucid Empire (255 BCE) / --

255–239 BCE / House of Diodotus. / Diodotus I / --

239–223 BCE / -- / Diodotus II / --

230–200 BCE / House of Euthydemus. / Euthydemus I / --

200–180 BCE / -- / Demetrius I / Pantaleon

180 BCE / -- / Euthydemus II / Agathokles

180–170 BCE / -- / Antimachus I / Apollodotus I

170–145 BCE / House of Eucratides / Eucratides / Demetrius II

145 BCE / -- / (Destruction of Ai-Khanoum by the Yuezhi in 145 BCE) / (Succession of Indo-Greek kings to the 1st century CE)

145–140 BCE / -- / Plato Eucratides II / (Succession of Indo-Greek kings to the 1st century CE)

140–130 BCE / -- / Heliocles I / (Succession of Indo-Greek kings to the 1st century CE)

130 BCE / Complete occupation of Bactria by the Yuezhi. / Complete occupation of Bactria by the Yuezhi. / --


See also

• Greco-Buddhism
• Seleucid Empire
• Indo-Greek Kingdom
• Yuezhi
• Indo-Scythians
• Indo-Parthian Kingdom

Notes

1. Taagepera, Rein (1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D." Social Science History. 3 (3/4): 132. doi:10.2307/1170959. JSTOR 1170959.
2. Doumanis, Nicholas. A History of Greece Palgrave Macmillan, 16 dec. 2009 ISBN 978-1137013675 p 64
3. Baumer, Christoph. The History of Central Asia: The Age of the Steppe Warriors Vol. 1 I.B.Tauris, 11 dec. 2012 ISBN 978-1780760605 p 289
4. Kaushik Roy. Military Manpower, Armies and Warfare in South Asia Routledge, 28 jul. 2015 ISBN 978-1317321279
5. J. D. Lerner 1999, The Impact of Seleucid Decline on the Eastern Iranian Plateau: the Foundations of Arsacid Parthia and Graeco-Bactria, Stuttgart
6. F. L. Holt 1999, Thundering Zeus, Berkeley.
7. Justin XLI, paragraph 4
8. Justin XLI, paragraph 1
9. Possibly present day Qarshi; Encyclopaedia Metropolitana: Or Universal Dictionary of Knowledge, Volume 23, ed. by Edward Smedley, Hugh James Rose, Henry John Rose, 1923, p. 260: "Eucratidia, named from its ruler, (Strabo, xi. p. 516.) was, according to Ptolemy, 2° North and 1° West of Bactra." As these coordinates are relative to, and close to, Bactra, it is reasonable to disregard the imprecision in Ptolemy's coordinates and accept them without adjustment. If the coordinates for Bactra are taken to be 36°45′N 66°55′E, then the coordinates 38°45′N 65°55′Ecan be seen to be close to the modern day city of Qarshi.
10. Strabo XI.XI.I
11. Justin XLI
12. EUTHYDEMUS – Encyclopaedia Iranica.
13. Polybius 11.34
14. Strabo 11.11.2
15. Polybius 10.49, Battle of the Arius
16. Polybius 11.34 Siege of Bactra
17. Shane Wallace Greek Culture in Afghanistan and India: Old Evidence and New Discoveries p.206
18. Osmund Bopearachchi, Some Observations on the Chronology of the Early Kushans, p.48
19. Shane Wallace Greek Culture in Afghanistan and India: Old Evidence and New Discoveries p.211
20. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum: 54.1569
21. On the image of the Greek kneeling warrior: "A bronze figurine of a kneeling warrior, not Greek work, but wearing a version of the Greek Phrygian helmet ... From a burial, said to be of the 4th century BC, just north of the Tien Shan range". Ürümqi Xinjiang Museum. (Boardman "The diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity")
22. Notice of the British Museum on the Zhou vase (2005, attached image): "Red earthenware bowl, decorated with a slip and inlaid with glass paste. Eastern Zhou period, 4th–3rd century BC. This bowl may have intended to copy a possibly foreign vessel in bronze or even silver. Glass has been both imported from the Near East and produced domestically by the Zhou States since the 5th century BC."
23. "The things which China received from the Graeco-Iranian world-the pomegranate and other "Chang-Kien" plants, the heavy equipment of the cataphract, the traces of Greeks influence on Han art (such as) the famous white bronze mirror of the Han period with Graeco-Bactrian designs (...) in the Victoria and Albert Museum" (Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India, pp. 363–364). Its popularity at the end of the Eastern Zhou period may have been due to foreign influence."
24. BBC Western contact with China began long before Marco Polo, experts say
25. The Mausoleum of China's First Emperor Partners with the BBC and National Geographic Channel to Reveal Groundbreaking Evidence That China Was in Contact with the West During the Reign of the First Emperor
26. "Why China's Terracotta Warriors Are Stirring Controversy".
27. "Copper-Nickel coinage in Greco-Bactria". Archived from the original on 2005-03-06. Retrieved 2004-10-30.
28. Ancient Chinese weapons Archived 2005-03-07 at the Wayback Machine A halberd of copper-nickel alloy, from the Warring States Period. Archived 2012-05-27 at archive.today
29. A.A. Moss pp317-318 Numismatic Chronicle 1950
30. C.Michael Hogan, Silk Road, North China, Megalithic Portal, ed. A. Burnham
31. Viglas, Katelis (2016). "Chaldean and Neo-Platonic Theology". Philosophia E-Journal of Philosophy and Culture(14): 171–189. The name “Chaldeans” refers generally to the Chaldean people who lived in the land of Babylonia, and especially to the Chaldean “magi” of Babylon......The “Chaldeans” were the guardians of the sacred science: the astrological knowledge and the divination mixed with religion and magic. They were considered the last representatives of the Babylonian sages......In Classical Antiquity, the name “Chaldeans” primarily stood for the priests of the Babylonian temples. In Hellenistic times, the term “Chaldeos” was synonymous with the words “mathematician” and “astrologer”......The Neo-Platonistsconnected the Chaldean Oracles with the ancient Chaldeans, obtaining a prestige coming from the East and legitimizing their existence as bearers and successors of an ancient tradition.
32. Clement of Alexandria "The Stromata, or Miscellanies" Book I, Chapter XV
33. John Boardman, "The Origins of Indian Stone Architecture", p.15
34. John Boardman, "The Origins of Indian Stone Architecture", p.13-22
35. Alexander the Great and Bactria: The Formation of a Greek Frontier in Central Asia, Frank Lee Holt, Brill Archive, 1988, p.2 [1]
36. Iconography of Balarāma, Nilakanth Purushottam Joshi, Abhinav Publications, 1979, p.22 [2]
37. The Hellenistic World: Using Coins as Sources, Peter Thonemann, Cambridge University Press, 2016, p.101 [3]
38. Justin XLI,6
39. Justin XXXVI, 1,1
40. Mentioned in "Hellenism in ancient India", Banerjee, p140, to be taken carefully since Orosius is often rather unreliable in his accounts.
41. McLaughlin, Raoul. (2016). The Roman Empire and the Silk Routes : the Ancient World Economy and the Empires of Parthia, Central Asia and Han China. Havertown: Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-1-4738-8982-8. OCLC 961065049.
42. "Parthians and Sassanid Persians", Peter Wilcox, p15
43. "They are a nation of nomads, moving from place to place with their herds, and their customs are like those of the Xiongnu. They have some 100,000 or 200,000 archer warriors... The Yuezhi originally lived in the area between the Qilian or Heavenly mountains and Dunhuang, but after they were defeated by the Xiongnu they moved far away to the west, beyond Dayuan, where they attacked and conquered the people of Daxia (Bactria) and set up the court of their king on the northern bank of the Gui (Oxus) river" ("Records of the Great Historian", Sima Qian, trans. Burton Watson, p234)
44. Strabo 11-8-1 on the nomadic invasions of Bactria
45. Nikonorov, Valerii; The Armies of Bactria 700 B.C. - 450 A.D
46. Nikonorov, Valerii; The Armies of Bactria 700 B.C. - 450 A.D, page 39.

References

• Boardman, John (1994). The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03680-2.
• Boardman, John, Jasper Griffin, and Oswyn Murray (2001). The Oxford Illustrated History of Greece and the Hellenistic World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-285438-4.
• Bopearachchi, Osmund (1991). Monnaies Gréco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques, Catalogue Raisonné. Bibliothèque Nationale de France, ISBN 2-7177-1825-7.
• Bopearachchi, Osmund and Christine Sachs (2003). De l'Indus à l'Oxus, Archéologie de l'Asie Centrale: catalogue de l'exposition. ISBN 2-9516679-2-2.
• McEvilley, Thomas (2002).The Shape of Ancient Thought. Comparative studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies. Allworth Press and the School of Visual Arts. ISBN 1-58115-203-5
• Puri, B. N. (2000). Buddhism in Central Asia. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi. ISBN 81-208-0372-8.
• Tarn, W. W. (1966) The Greeks in Bactria and India. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press.
• Watson, Burton, trans. (1993). Records of the Great Historian. Han dynasty II, by Sima Qian. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-08167-7.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Greco-Bactrian Kingdom.

External links

• Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Kingdoms in Ancient Texts
• Some new hypotheses on the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms by Antoine Simonin
• Catalogue of Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Coins
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Jun 30, 2021 9:31 pm

Ai-Khanoum
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/30/21

Image
Ai-Khanoum
Gold coin of Eucratides I (171–145 BC), one of the Hellenistic rulers of ancient Ai-Khanoum. This is the largest known gold coin minted in Antiquity (169,20 g; 58 mm).[1]
Ai-Khanoum lies in the north of Afghanistan, close to the border with Kyrgyzstan.
Alternative name Ay Khanum, Aï Khānum
Image
Ai-Khanoum (South Asia)
Location: Takhar Province, Afghanistan
Region: Bactria
Coordinates: 37°09′53.7″N 69°24′31.4″ECoordinates: 37°09′53.7″N 69°24′31.4″E
Type: Settlement
History
Founded: circa 280 BC, 3rd century BC
Abandoned: Possibly between 145 and 120 BC
Periods: Hellenistic
Cultures: Greek
Site notes
Excavation dates: Between 1964 and 1978
Archaeologists: Paul Bernard [fr]
Condition: Ruined

Ai-Khanoum (Aï Khānum, also Ay Khanum, lit. “Lady Moon” in Uzbek),[2] possibly the historical Alexandria on the Oxus (Greek: Ἀλεξάνδρεια ἡ ἐπὶ τοῦ Ώξου), possibly later named Eucratidia, Εὐκρατίδεια) was one of the primary cities of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom from circa 280 BCE, and of the Indo-Greek kings when they ruled both in Bactria and northwestern India, from the time of Demetrius I (200-190 BCE) [200-180] to the time of Eucratides (170–145 BCE). Previous scholars have argued that Ai Khanoum was founded in the late 4th century BC, following the conquests of Alexander the Great. Recent analysis now strongly suggests that the city was founded c. 280 BC by the Seleucid emperor Antiochus I Soter [292-281 BC].[3][4] The city is located in Takhar Province, northern Afghanistan, at the confluence of the Panj River and the Kokcha River, both tributaries of the Amu Darya, historically known as the Oxus. It is on the lower of two major sets of routes (lowland and highland) which connect Western Asia to the Khyber Pass which gives road access to South Asia.

Ai-Khanoum was one of the focal points of Hellenism in the East for nearly two centuries until its annihilation by nomadic invaders around 145 BCE about the time of the death of Eucratides I.[5]

Discovery

On a hunting trip in the 1960s, the Afghan Khan Gholam Serwar Nasher discovered ancient artifacts of Ai Khanom and invited Princeton archaeologist Daniel Schlumberger with his team to examine Ai-Khanoum.[6] It was soon found to be the historical Alexandria on the Oxus, also possibly later named اروکرتیه Arukratiya or Eucratidia), one of the primary cities of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Some of those artifacts were displayed in Europe and USA museums in 2004. The site was subsequently excavated through archaeological work by a French Archaeological Delegation in Afghanistan (DAFA) mission under Paul Bernard [fr] between 1964 and 1978, as well as Soviet scientists. The work had to be abandoned with the onset of the Soviet–Afghan War, during which the site was looted and used as a battleground, leaving very little of the original material. In 2013, the film-maker David Adams produced a six-part documentary mini-series about the ancient city entitled Alexander's Lost World.[citation needed]

Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carter's security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA's support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army's invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.

Le Nouvel Observateur: Despite this risk you were a supporter of this covert action? But perhaps you expected the Soviets to enter this war and tried to provoke it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: It's not exactly like that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it.

Le Nouvel Observateur: When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this...Do you regret nothing today?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence: "We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war." Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.

Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Le Nouvel Observateur: "Some hotheads?" But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat...

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It's said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That's hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let's look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries...


-- Zbigniew Brzezinski's Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur


Strategic location

Image
Ai-Khanoum was located at the extreme east of Bactria, at the doorstep of the Maurya Empire in India.

The choice of this site for the foundation of a city was probably guided by several factors. The region, irrigated by the Oxus, had a rich agricultural potential. Mineral resources were abundant in the back country towards the Hindu Kush, especially the famous so-called "rubies" (actually, spinel) from Badakshan, and gold. Its location at the junction between Bactrian territory and nomad territories to the north, ultimately allowed access to commerce with the Chinese empire. Lastly, Ai-Khanoum was located at the very doorstep of Ancient India, allowing it to interact directly with the Indian subcontinent.

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


Greek city in Bactria

Image
Plan of Ai-Khanoum

Numerous artefacts and structures were found, pointing to a high Hellenistic culture, combined with Eastern influences. "It has all the hallmarks of a Hellenistic city, with a Greek theatre, gymnasium and some Greek houses with colonnaded courtyards".[7] Overall, Aï-Khanoum was an extremely important Greek city (1.5 sq kilometer), characteristic of the Seleucid Empire and then the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom.
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


It seems the city was destroyed, never to be rebuilt, about the time of the death of the Greco-Bactrian king Eucratides around 145 BC.[citation needed]

Ai-Khanoum may have been the city in which Eucratides was besieged by Demetrius, before he successfully managed to escape to ultimately conquer India (Justin).[citation needed]

Architecture

Image
Corinthian capital, found at Ai-Khanoum in the citadel by the troops of Commander Massoud, 2nd century BC.

The mission unearthed various structures, some of them perfectly Hellenistic, some other integrating elements of Persian architecture:

• Two-miles long ramparts, circling the city
• A citadel with powerful towers (20 × 11 metres at the base, 10 meters in height) and ramparts, established on top of the 60 meters-high hill in the middle of the city
• A Classical theater, 84 meters in diameter with 35 rows of seats, that could sit 4,000-6,000 people, equipped with three loges for the rulers of the city. Its size was considerable by Classical standards, larger than the theater at Babylon, but slightly smaller than the theater at Epidaurus.
• A huge palace in Greco-Bactrian architecture, somehow reminiscent of formal Persian palatial architecture
• A gymnasium (100 × 100m), one of the largest of Antiquity. A dedication in Greek to Hermes and Herakles was found engraved on one of the pillars. The dedication was made by two men with Greek names (Triballos and Strato, son of Strato).
• Various temples, in and outside the city. The largest temple in the city apparently contained a monumental statue of a seated Zeus, but was built on the Zoroastrian model (massive, closed walls instead of the open column-circled structure of Greek temples).
• A mosaic representing the Macedonian sun, acanthus leaves and various animals (crabs, dolphins etc...)
• Numerous remains of Classical Corinthian columns

Image
Architectural antefixae with Hellenistic "Flame palmette" design, Ai-Khanoum.

Image
Sun dial within two sculpted lion feet.

Image
Winged antefix, a type only known from Ai-Khanoum.

Image
Ai-Khanoum mosaic.

Sculptural remains

Image
High-relief of a naked man in contrapposto, wearing a chlamys. Ai-Khanoum, 2nd century BC.[8]

Various sculptural fragments were also found, in a rather conventional, classical style, rather impervious to the Hellenizing innovations occurring at the same time in the Mediterranean world.

Of special notice, a huge foot fragment in excellent Hellenistic style was recovered, which is estimated to have belonged to a 5-6 meter tall statue (which had to be seated to fit within the height of the columns supporting the Temple). Since the sandal of the foot fragment bears the symbolic depiction of Zeus' thunderbolt, the statue is thought to have been a smaller version of the Statue of Zeus at Olympia.

Also found among the sculptural remains were:

• A statue of a standing female in a rather archaic chiton
• The face of a man, sculpted in stucco
• An unfinished statue of a young naked man with wreath
• A gargoyle head representing the Greek cook-slave
• A frieze of a naked man, possibly the god Hermes, wearing a chlamys
• A hermaic sculpture of an old man thought to be a master of the gymnasium, where it was found. He used to hold a long stick in his left hand, symbol of his function.

Due to the lack of proper stones for sculptural work in the area of Ai-Khanoum, unbaked clay and stucco modeled on a wooden frame were often used, a technique which would become widespread in Central Asia and the East, especially in Buddhist art. In some cases, only the hands and feet would be made in marble.

Image
Stucco face found in the administrative palace. Ai-Khanoum, 2nd century BC

Image
Sculpture of an old man. Ai-Khanoum, 2nd century BC.

Image
Close-up of the same statue.

Image
Hellenistic gargoyle. Ai-Khanoum, 2nd century BC.

Epigraphic remains

Various inscriptions in Classical, non-barbarized, Greek have been found in Ai-Khanoum.

On a Herõon (funerary monument), identified in Greek as the tomb of Kineas (also described as the oikistes (founder) of the Greek settlement) and dated to 300-250 BC, an inscription has been found describing Delphic maxims:

Image
Stone block with the inscriptions of Kineas. Ai-Khanoum, 2nd century BC.

παῖς ὢν κόσμιος γίνου,
ἡβῶν ἐγκρατής,
μέσος δίκαιος,
πρεσβύτης εὔβουλος,
τελευτῶν ἄλυπος.[9]

"Païs ôn kosmios ginou (As children, learn good manners)
hèbôn enkratès, (as young men, learn to control the passions)
mesos dikaios (in middle age, be just)
presbutès euboulos (in old age, give good advice)
teleutôn alupos. (then die, without regret.)"


The precepts were placed by a Greek named Clearchos, who may or may not have been Clearchus of Soli the disciple of Aristotle,[10] who, according to the same inscription, had copied them from Delphi:

ἀνδρῶν τοι σοφὰ ταῦτα παλαιοτέρων ἀνάκει[τα]ι
ῥήματα ἀριγνώτων Πυθοὶ ἐν ἠγαθέαι·
ἔνθεν ταῦτ[α] Κλέαρχος ἐπιφραδέως ἀναγράψας
εἵσατο τηλαυγῆ Κινέου ἐν τεμένει.[9]

"These wise commandments of men of old
- Words of well-known thinkers - stand dedicated
In the most holy Pythian shrine
From there Klearchos, having copied them carefully, set them up, shining from afar, in the sanctuary of Kineas"


Image
Inscription on one of the vases from the Ai-Khanoum treasury.

Remains of some papyrus manuscripts, the imprint of which were left in the thin earth of brick walls, containing unknown philosophical dialogues on the theory of ideas, thought to be the only surviving remain of an Aristotelian dialogue, possibly the Sophist, where Xenocrates, another philosopher, present his theory of ideas.[11]

Various Greek inscriptions were also found in the Treasury of the palace, indicating the contents (money, imported olive oil...) of various vases, and names of the administrators in charge of them. The hierarchy of these administrators appears to be nearly identical to that in the Mediterranean Greek areas. From the names mentioned in these inscriptions, it appears that the directors of the Treasury were Greek, but that lower administrators had Bactrian names.[11] Three signatories had Greek names (Kosmos, Isidora, Nikeratos), one a Macedonian or Thracian name (Lysanias), and two Bactrian names (Oxuboakes, Oxubazes).

One of these economic inscriptions relates in Greek the deposit of olive oil jars in the treasury:

"In the year 24, on ....;
an olive oil (content);
the partially empty (vase) A (contains) oil transferred from
two jars by Hippias
the hemiolios; and did seal:
Molossos (?) for jar A, and Strato (?) for jar B (?)"[11]


The last of the dates on these jars has been computed to 147 BC, suggesting that Ai-Khanoum was destroyed soon after that date.

Artefacts

Image
Plate depicting Cybele pulled by lions, a votive sacrifice and the Sun God. Ai-Khanoum, 2nd century BC.

Numerous Greco-Bactrian coins were found, down to Eucratides, but none of them later. Ai-Khanoum also yielded unique Greco-Bactrian coins of Agathocles, consisting of six Indian-standard silver drachms depicting Hindu deities. These are the first known representations of Vedic deities on coins, and they display early Avatars of Vishnu: Balarama-Samkarshana and Vasudeva-Krishna, and are thought to correspond to the first Greco-Bactrian attempts at creating an Indian-standard coinage as they invaded northern India.[citation needed]

Among other finds:

• A round medallion plate describing the goddess Cybele on a chariot, in front of a fire altar, and under a depiction of Helios
• A fully preserved bronze statue of Herakles
• Various golden serpentine arm jewellery and earrings
• Some Indian artefacts, found in the treasure room of the city, probably brought back by Eucratides from his campaigns
• A toilet tray representing a seated Aphrodite
• A mold representing a bearded and diademed middle-aged man

Various artefacts of daily life are also clearly Hellenistic: sundials, ink wells, tableware. An almost life-sized dark green glass phallus with a small owl on the back side and other treasures are said to have been discovered at Ai-Khanoum, possibly along with a stone with an inscription, which was not recovered. The artefacts have now been returned to the Kabul Museum after several years in Switzerland by Paul Bucherer-Dietschi, Director of the Swiss Afghanistan Institute.[12]

Image
Bronze Herakles statuette. Ai-Khanoum. 2nd century BC.

Image
Bracelet with horned female busts. Ai-Khanoum, 2nd century BC.

Image
Stone recipients from Ai-Khanoum. 3rd-2nd century BC.

Image
Imprint from a mold found in Ai-Khanoum. 3rd-2nd century BC.

Image
Ai-Khanoum ivory statuette. Temple of Indented Niches.[13]

Trade with the Mediterranean

The presence of olive oil jars at Ai-Khanoum indicates that this oil was imported from the Mediterranean, as its only possible source would have been the Aegean Basin or Syria. This suggests important trade contacts with the Mediterranean, through long and expensive land routes.[14]

Contacts with India

Image
The Indian plate found in Ai-Khanoum, thought to represent the myth of Kunala (with reconstitution).

Coin of Greco-Bactrian king Agathocles with Hindu deities.
Several Indian artefacts were found among the archaeological remains of Ai-Khanoum, especially a narrative plate made of shell inlaid with various materials and colors, thought to represent the Indian myth of Kuntala.[15] Also, numerous Indian punch-marked coins were found.[16]

Image
The equatorial sun dial adjusted to the latitude of Aswan or Ujjain, Ai-Khanoum, 3rd-2nd century BC.

In Ai-Khanoum remarkable Greek coins were also found, of one of the last Greco-Bactrian kings, Agathocles of Bactria (ruled 190-180 BCE). They are Indian-standard square coins bearing the representations of Hindu deities, which have been variously interpreted as Vishnu, Shiva, Vasudeva, Balarama. Altogether, six such Indian-standard silver drachmas in the name of Agathocles were discovered at Ai-Khanoum in 1970.[17][18][19] Some other coins by Agathocles are also thought to represent the Buddhist lion and the Indian goddess Lakshmi.[19]

Influence on Indian art

Image
One of the Hellenistic-inspired "flame palmettes" and lotus designs, which may have been transmitted through Ai-Khanoum. Rampurva bull capital, India, circa 250 BCE.

Main article: Hellenistic influence on Indian art

According to John Boardman, Ai-Khanoum may have been one of the conduits for some art influence into ancient India, though these influences and their sources are "not always properly identified or yet identifiable".[20] There are three competing scholarly views: one originated by early scholars such as Percy Brown where Indian architecture was due to immigration of western craftsmen, second by later scholars such as John Irwin who favor mostly indigenous inspiration and third such as S.P. Gupta who favor a combination.[20] Persia, states Boardman, did not have a stone tradition of its own that can be traced, but there is evidence that "Persian bases of a plain half round torus" combined with Corinthian capitals existed there, and there is evidence that India had an intricate wooden architecture tradition about the same time. It is possible that Ai-Khanoum, a Greek city of Bactria in 3rd-century BCE, could have provided the conduit to connect the Hellenistic and Indian artists. However, Persepolis fell about 80 years before the first Buddhist stone architecture appeared, which leaves the question whether knowledge was preserved over the generations between Persepolis to the west of Ai-Khanoum and the Mauryans to its east.[20]

Numismatics

Image
Gold stater of the Seleucid king Antiochus I Soter minted at Ai-Khanoum, c. 275 BCE. Obverse: Diademed head of Antiochus. Reverse: Nude Apollo seated on omphalos, leaning on bow and holding two arrows. Greek legend: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ (of King Antiochos). Δ monogram of Ai-Khanoum in left field.

Image
The symbol found on a brick in Ai-Khanoum.

Many Seleucid and Bactrian coins were found at Ai-Khanoum, as were ten blank planchets, indicating that there was a mint in the city.[21] Ai-Khanoum apparently had a city symbol (a triangle within a circle, with various variations), which was found imprinted on bricks coming from the oldest buildings of the city.

The same symbol was used on various Seleucid eastern coins, suggesting that they were probably minted in Ai-Khanoum. Numerous Seleucid coins were thus reattributed to the Ai-Khanoum mint rather recently, with the conclusion that Ai-Khanoum was probably a larger minting center than even Bactra.[22]

The coins found in Ai-Khanoum start with those of Seleucus, but end abruptly with those of Eucratides, suggesting that the city was conquered at the end of his rule.

Nomadic invasions

The invading Indo-European nomads from the north (the Scythians and then the Yuezhi) crossed the Oxus and subdued Bactria about 135 BC. It is likely that the city itself fell during a major siege, due to the presence of arrowheads in the city walls alongside a colossal stone projectile in the main cathedral, suggesting that the invaders had the means of constructing siege weaponry.[23]

It seems the city was totally abandoned between 140 and 120 BC following the Yuezhi invasion. There is evidence of huge fires in all the major buildings of the city, however there remains evidence that the city was temporarily re-inhabited following the fire prior to being totally abandoned.[23]

Ai-Khanoum was likely affected as many nomadic invasions passed through across through the Hindu Kush passes. In 1838 a Lieutenant Wood heard local people refer to the site as "Barbarrah".[24] As with other archaeological sites such as Begram or Hadda, the Ai-Khanoum site has been pillaged during the long phase of war in Afghanistan since the fall of the Communist government.

Significance

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

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
Indian Emperor Ashoka addressed the Greeks of the region circa 258 BC in the Kandahar Edict of Ashoka, a bilingual inscription in Greek and Aramaic. Kabul Museum.

The findings are of considerable importance, as no remains of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek civilizations had been uncovered in the East (beyond the abundant coinage) until this discovery, which led some to speak of a "Bactrian mirage."

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 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.[25]

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


The discovery of Ai-Khanoum also gives a new perspective on the influence of Greek culture in the East, and reaffirms the influence of the Greeks on the development of Greco-Buddhist art.[26]

See also

• Seleucid Empire
• Greco-Bactrian Kingdom
• Indo-Greek Kingdom
• Yuezhi
• Kushan Empire
• Indo-Scythians
• List of cities founded by Alexander the Great
• Takht-i Sangin

Notes

1. Monnaie, Eucratide I. (roi de Bactriane) Autorité émettrice de. [Monnaie : 20 Statères, Or, Incertain, Bactriane, Eucratide I].
2. Bell, George. "Journal of the Royal Society of Arts". Royal Society of Arts, 1970. p. 445 JSTOR 41370364
3. Lyonnet, Bertille (2012). "Questions on the Date of the Hellenistic Pottery from Central Asia (Ai Khanoum, Marakanda and Koktepe)". Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia. 18: 143–173. doi:10.1163/157005712X638672.
4. Martinez-Seve, Laurianne (2014). "The Spatial Organization of Ai Khanoum, a Greek City in Afghanistan". American Journal of Archaeology. 118 (2): 267–283. doi:10.3764/aja.118.2.0267.
5. Bernard, P. (1994): "The Greek Kingdoms of Central Asia." In: History of civilizations of Central Asia, Volume II. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Harmatta, János, ed., 1994. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. ISBN 92-3-102846-4, p. 103.
6. https://www.persee.fr/doc/crai_0065-053 ... 45_2_16315
7. (Boardman)
8. Mairs, Rachel. "Ethnic Identity in the Hellenistic Far East": 85.
9. Greek Culture in Afghanistan and India: Old Evidence and New Discoveries, Shane Wallace, 2016, p.215
10. Greek Culture in Afghanistan and India: Old Evidence and New Discoveries, Shane Wallace, 2016, p.217
11. Claude Rapin, "De l'Indus à l'Oxus", p. 375. Also full description of the papyrii (French)original text and French translation
12. Source, BBC News, Another article. German story with photographs here (translation here).
13. Mairs, Rachel. "Ethnic Identity in the Hellenistic Far East": 115.
14. Frölich, p.10
15. "Afghanistan, tresors retrouves", p150
16. Joe Cribb, Investigating the introduction of coinage in India, Journal of the Numismatic Society of India xlv Varanasi 1983 pp.89
17. Alexander the Great and Bactria: The Formation of a Greek Frontier in Central Asia, Frank Lee Holt, Brill Archive, 1988, p.2
18. Iconography of Balarāma, Nilakanth Purushottam Joshi, Abhinav Publications, 1979, p.22
19. The Hellenistic World: Using Coins as Sources, Peter Thonemann, Cambridge University Press, 2016, p.101
20. John Boardman (1998), "The Origins of Indian Stone Architecture", Bulletin of the Asia Institute, p.13-22
21. Brian Kritt: Seleucid Coins of Bactria, p. 22.
22. "Seleucid coins of Bactria", Brian Kritt
23. Mairs, Rachel (2014). The Hellenistic Far East. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-28127-1.
24. Llewelyn Morgan, "Greeks on the Edge" (review of Rachel Mairs, The Hellenistic Far East: archaeology, language and identity in Greek Central Asia), Times Literary Supplement 11 September 2015 page 25.
25. Dupree, L. (2014). Afghanistan. Princeton University Press. p. 286. ISBN 9781400858910. Retrieved 2016-11-27.
26. Harle, J.C., The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, pp. 82-83, 2nd edn. 1994, Yale University Press Pelican History of Art, ISBN 0300062176

References

• Tarn, W. W. (1984). The Greeks in Bactria and India. Chicago: Ares. ISBN 0-89005-524-6.
• Bopearachchi, Osmund (2003). De l'Indus à l'Oxus, Archéologie de l'Asie Centrale (in French). Lattes: Association imago-musée de Lattes. ISBN 2-9516679-2-2.
• Frölich, Pierre (2004). Les Grecs en Orient. L'heritage d'Alexandre. La Documentation photographique, n.8040 (in French). Paris: La Documentation Francaise.
• Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures from the National Museum, Kabul (2008). Eds., Friedrik Hiebert and Pierre Cambon. National Geographic, Washington, D.C. ISBN 978-1-4262-0374-9.

External links

• Ai-Khanum, the Capital of Eucratides on Ancient History Encyclopedia
• Ai-Khanoum archaeological site photographs
• Ai-Khanoum and vandalization during the Afghan war page not found
• The Hellenistic Age
• Afghan Treasures
• 3-D reconstruction of Ai-Khanoum
• Livius.org: Alexandria on Oxus
• Afghanistan: Crossroads of the Ancient World Surviving treasures from the National Museum of Afghanistan, at The British Museum, 3 March – 17 July 2011
• "The Forgotten Alexandria", 2nd film of Eurasia
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

cron