Altruistic World Online Library

Part 1 of 3

On the edge of empire: form and substance in the Satavahana dynasty
by Carla M. Sinopoli
from "Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History, edited by Susan E. Alcock, Terence N. D'Altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison, Carla M. Sinopoli
© Cambridge University Press 2001

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.

-- Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter With Early Buddhism in Central Asia, by Christopher I. Beckwith

INTRODUCTION

Historical understandings of the structure and history of the Mauryan empire of northern India (c. 321-180 BCE) weigh heavily on contemporary constructions of the Indian nation. Portrayed as the first precolonial exemplar of a unified subcontintental polity, a Mauryan sculpted column is the emblem of modern India, printed on its currency to display essential continuities (or aspirations) between past and present (e.g., Sen 1997: 36). While many questions remain concerning the nature, extent, and impact of the Mauryan polity, here I consider its legacy in a more proximate context -- the Satavahana dynasty of the Deccan of central and southern India (c. first century BCE to second century CE). As with the Mauryas (albeit with considerably more debate), scholars have viewed the Satavahanas as rulers of a geographically extensive and politically centralized imperial polity (e.g., Mirashi 1981: 1; Margabandhu 1985; Shastri 1991: 45), heirs to the political and economic frameworks developed by their Mauryan predecessors. Yet in both cases, historical and material evidence for these polities is limited, suggesting that these empires were both less pervasive and more ephemeral than the claims made about them by both their rulers and the historians and archaeologists who have studied them.

In this chapter, I consider that evidence and examine the complex relations between political forms and ideological claims during the South Asian Early Historic period (c. 300 BCE-400 CE). I begin with a brief introduction to the Mauryan empire considering both archaeological and textual evidence for imperial organization and extent and the place of the Mauryas in South Asian historiography. I then turn to the Satavahana successors of the Mauryas and consider Satavahana imperial structure, origins, and royal ideology. In particular, I situate the Satavahanas in their broader pan-regional historical and ideological processes and cultural frameworks, including the development and spread of ideological systems, economic networks, and categories of material culture whose distribution extended well beyond the range of individual polities and regions. I will argue that, to a considerable extent, Satavahana success derived from their ability to lay claim to some of these broader developments through a combination of ideological practices, disposition of economic resources, and short-lived military successes.

THE MAURYAN EMPIRE

Thus speaks the Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi: When I had been consecrated twelve years I commanded as follows: Everywhere in my empire, the yuktas [subordinate officers] with the rajuka [rural administrators] and the pradisekas [heads of the district] shall go on tour every five years, in order to instruct people in the Dhamma as well as for other purposes. It is good to be obedient to one's mother and father, friends and relatives, to be generous to brahmans and sramanas [Buddhist or Jain monks], it is good not to kill living beings, it is good not only to spend little but to own the minimum of property. The council will instruct the officials to record the above, making it both manifest to the public and explaining why,

-- (Third major rock edict of Asoka; Thapar 1997: 251)

[I would like at this point to pay belated acknowledgement to my respected friend and colleague, Karl Khandalawala, which whom I have sometimes expressed differences of interpretation, in this case in opposing his view (which on hindsight appears to be entirely correct) that the Sarnath pillar reveals the influences of foreign (Achaemenid) influence. I hope this eminent art historian will now accept my personal apology and withdrawal. On this particular issue I am ready to admit that he was right, though I reserve my differences on other issues involving Asokan pillars. A further issue reflecting his correctness is embodied in the self-styled title Asoka used as the opening words of many of his inscriptions (Devanampiya Piyadassi), often translated as 'Beloved of the Gods." A century ago, this term was rightly recognised by the brilliant French Indologist Emile Senart, as borrowed from earlier Achaemenid inscriptions in Persia, yet since then ignored by all authorities writing on Asoka in English.]

-- -- The True Chronology of Aśokan Pillars, by John Irwin

In the late fourth century BCE Candragupta Maurya, king of the Ganges Basin state of Magadha, founded South Asia's first empire.

Chandragupta's life and accomplishments are described in ancient … Hindu, Buddhist and Jain texts, though they significantly vary in detail… His main biographical sources in chronological order are:

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

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

• 7th to 10th century Jain inscriptions at Shravanabelgola; these are disputed by scholars as well as the Svetambara Jain tradition. The second Digambara text interpreted to be mentioning the Maurya emperor is dated to about the 10th-century such as in the Brhatkathakosa of Harisena (Jain monk), while the complete Jain legend about Chandragupta is found in the 12th-century Parisishtaparvan by Hemachandra…. The Greek and Roman texts do not mention Chandragupta directly… Hindu sources are inconsistent...

The Buddhist texts such as Mahavamsa [were] ... written about seven centuries after his dynasty ended.... The 12th-century Digambara text Parishishtaparvan by Hemachandra is the main and earliest Jain source of the complete legend of Chandragupta. It was written nearly 1,400 years after Chandragupta's death....

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

The texts do not include the start or end year of Chandragupta's reign...

The early life of Chandragupta Maurya is unclear and varies by source...

Historically reliable details of Chandragupta's campaign into Pataliputra are unavailable and legends written centuries later are inconsistent...

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

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

The circumstances and year of Chandragupta's death are unclear and disputed...

-- Chandragupta Maurya, by Wikipedia

Rulers of one of more than a dozen contemporary city-states, the Mauryan kings of Magadha combined military conquest with agricultural intensification and control of long-distance riverine trade routes to forge a polity that ruled the entire Indo-Gangetic Plain and areas beyond (Thapar 1997). Their empire was relatively short-lived, dating from c. 322 to 187 BCE, and reached its maximal extent under its most renowned ruler, the king Asoka (c. 273-232 BCE). Territories were rapidly lost under Asoka's successors and within thirty-five years of Asoka's death the empire had disappeared. The main focus of this chapter, the Satavahana empire, was one of a series of states and empires that came to the fore in South Asia following the Mauryan collapse. Indeed, Thapar (1997: 320) has suggested that the emergence of states and empires "in Orissa, Andhra and the western Deccan [was] ... virtually impelled by the break-up of the Mauryan state."

Scholars know of the Mauryans through the lithic inscriptions of Asoka, in Prakrit (Brahmi script), Aramaic, and Greek. These would presumably have been the primary spoken languages in the regions where the inscriptions were located. Prakrit, an Indo-European language, is believed to have been preferred over the more scholarly Sanskrit because it was "the language spoken by the people at large, and not ... the language of culture" (Thapar 1997: 7). Literacy was no doubt quite restricted during the Early Historic period, and it is likely that the texts inscribed on stone (and probably also on non-durable materials) were intended to be read aloud to a non-literate public. Asokan inscriptions are among the earliest securely dated written sources in South Asia (the much earlier Indus Valley script of the third millennium BCE remains undecoded).

Beyond the Edicts of Ashoka, biographical information about him relies on legends written centuries later, such as the 2nd-century CE Ashokavadana ("Narrative of Ashoka", a part of the Divyavadana), and in the Sri Lankan text Mahavamsa ("Great Chronicle")…. Information about Ashoka comes from his own inscriptions; other inscriptions that mention him or are possibly from his reign; and ancient literature, especially Buddhist texts. These sources often contradict each other…

Ashoka's own inscriptions ... provide little information regarding ... the Maurya state and society....

Much of the information about Ashoka comes from Buddhist legends, which present him as a great, ideal king. These legends appear in texts that are not contemporary to Ashoka, and were composed by Buddhist authors, who used various stories to illustrate the impact of their faith on Ashoka...

Ashoka's name appears in the lists of Mauryan kings in the various Puranas, but these texts do not provide further details about him…

For some scholars such as Christopher I. Beckwith, Ashoka, whose name only appears in the Minor Rock Edicts, should be differentiated from the ruler Piyadasi, or Devanampiya Piyadasi (i.e. "Beloved of the Gods Piyadasi", "Beloved of the Gods" being a fairly widespread title for "King"), who is named as the author of the Major Pillar Edicts and the Major Rock Edicts. This inscriptional evidence may suggest that these were two different rulers...

Ashoka's own inscriptions do not describe his early life, and much of the information on this topic comes from apocryphal legends written hundreds of years after him.… these legends include obviously fictitious details such as narratives of Ashoka's past lives…

The exact date of Ashoka's birth is not certain, as the extant contemporary Indian texts did not record such details….

According to the Sri Lankan texts Mahavamsa and the Dipavamsa, Ashoka ascended the throne 218 years after the death of Gautama Buddha, and ruled for 37 years. The date of the Buddha's death is itself a matter of debate, and the North Indian tradition states that Ashoka ruled a hundred years after the Buddha's death, which has led to further debates about the date….

The 5th century Chinese traveller Faxian states that Ashoka personally visited the underworld to study the methods of torture there, and then invented his own methods.…

Such descriptions of Ashoka as an evil person before his conversion to Buddhism appear to be a fabrication of the Buddhist authors, who attempted to present the change that Buddhism brought to him as a miracle. In an attempt to dramatise this change, such legends exaggerate Ashoka's past wickedness and his piousness after the conversion….

According to Ashoka's Major Rock Edict 13, he conquered Kalinga 8 years after his ascension to the throne. The edict states that during his conquest of Kalinga, 100,000 men and animals were killed in action; many times that number "perished"; and 150,000 men and animals were carried away from Kalinga as captives. Ashoka states that the repentance of these sufferings caused him to devote himself to the practice and propagation of dharma. He proclaims that he now considered the slaughter, death and deportation caused during the conquest of a country painful and deplorable; and that he considered the suffering caused to the religious people and householders even more deplorable.  

This edict has been found inscribed at several places, including Erragudi, Girnar, Kalsi, Maneshra, Shahbazgarhi and Kandahar. However, [it] is omitted in Ashoka's inscriptions found in the Kalinga region, where the Rock Edicts 13 and 14 have been replaced by two separate edicts that make no mention of Ashoka's remorse...

Taranatha claims that Ashoka conquered the entire Jambudvipa...

The A-yu-wang-chuan states that a 7-year-old Buddhist converted Ashoka. Another story claims that the young boy ate 500 Brahmanas who were harassing Ashoka for being interested in Buddhism; these Brahmanas later miraculously turned into Buddhist bhikkus at the Kukkutarama monastery, where Ashoka paid a visit….

The Ashokavadana states that Ashoka collected seven out of the eight relics of Gautama Buddha, and had their portions kept in 84,000 boxes made of gold, silver, cat's eye, and crystal. He ordered the construction of 84,000 stupas throughout the earth, in towns that had a population of 100,000 or more. He told Elder Yashas, a monk at the Kukkutarama monastery, that he wanted these stupas to be completed on the same day. Yashas stated that he would signal the completion time by eclipsing the sun with his hand. When he did so, the 84,000 stupas were completed at once....

The number 84,000 is an obvious exaggeration, and it appears that in the later period, the construction of almost every old stupa was attributed to Ashoka….

The Sri Lankan tradition presents a greater role for Ashoka in the Buddhist community. In this tradition, Ashoka starts feeding monks on a large scale. His lavish patronage to the state patronage leads to many fake monks joining the sangha. The true Buddhist monks refuse to co-operate with these fake monks, and therefore, no uposatha ceremony is held for seven years. The king attempts to eradicate the fake monks, but during this attempt, an over-zealous minister ends up killing some real monks. The king then invites the elder monk Moggaliputta-Tissa, to help him expel non-Buddhists from the monastery founded by him at Pataliputra. 60,000 monks (bhikkhus) convicted of being heretical are de-frocked in the ensuing process. The uposatha ceremony is then held, and Tissa subsequently organises the Third Buddhist council, during the 17th regnal year of Ashoka. Tissa compiles Kathavatthu, a text that reaffirms Theravadin orthodoxy on several points.

The North Indian tradition makes no mention of these events, which has led to doubts about the historicity of the Third Buddhist council….

The Rock Edict XIII states that Ashoka won a "dhamma victory" by sending messengers to five kings and several other kingdoms... the lists of destinations of the missions and the dates of the missions mentioned in the inscriptions do not tally [with] the ones mentioned in the Buddhist legends….

Ashoka's last dated inscription -- the Pillar Edict 4 is from his 26th regnal year. The only source of information about Ashoka's later years are the Buddhist legends….

Various sources mention five consorts of Ashoka: Devi (or Vedisa-Mahadevi-Shakyakumari), Karuvaki, Asandhimitra (Pali: Asandhimitta), Padmavati, and Tishyarakshita (Pali: Tissarakkha).

Kaurvaki is the only queen of Ashoka known from his own inscriptions: she is mentioned in an edict inscribed on a pillar at Allahabad. The inscription names her as the mother of prince Tivara, and orders the royal officers (mahamattas) to record her religious and charitable donations….

According to the Mahavamsa, Ashoka's chief queen was Asandhimitta, who died four years before him....

Tivara, the son of Ashoka and Karuvaki, is the only of Ashoka's sons to be mentioned by name in the inscriptions.  

According to North Indian tradition, Ashoka had a son named Kunala. Kunala had a son named Samprati.

The Sri Lankan tradition mentions a son called Mahinda, who was sent to Sri Lanka as a Buddhist missionary; this son is not mentioned at all in the North Indian tradition. The Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang states that Mahinda was Ashoka's younger brother (Vitashoka or Vigatashoka) rather than his illegitimate son....

According to Sri Lankan tradition, Ashoka had a daughter named Sanghamitta, who became a Buddhist nun....

Another source mentions that Ashoka had a daughter named Charumati, who married a kshatriya named Devapala.

According to the Ashokavadana, Ashoka had an elder half-brother named Susima. According to the Sri Lankan tradition, Ashoka killed his 99 half-brothers....

Various sources mention that one of Ashoka's brothers survived his ascension, and narrate stories about his role in the Buddhist community....

According to Sri Lankan tradition, this brother was Tissa...

The Theragatha commentary calls this brother Vitashoka....

Faxian calls the younger brother Mahendra ...

A legend in the Buddhist text Vamsatthapakasini states that an Ajivika ascetic invited to interpret a dream of Ashoka's mother had predicted that he would patronise Buddhism and destroy 96 heretical sects. However, such assertions are directly contradicted by Ashoka's own inscriptions. Ashoka's edicts, such as the Rock Edicts 6, 7, and 12, emphasise tolerance of all sects. Similarly, in his Rock Edict 12, Ashoka honours people of all faiths. In his inscriptions, Ashoka dedicates caves to non-Buddhist ascetics, and repeatedly states that both Brahmins and shramanas deserved respect. He also tells people "not to denigrate other sects, but to inform themselves about them".

In fact, there is no evidence that Buddhism was a state religion under Ashoka. None of Ashoka's extant edicts record his direct donations to the Buddhists….

Historically, the image of Ashoka in the global Buddhist circles was based on legends (such as those mentioned in the Ashokavadana) rather than his rock edicts. This was because the Brahmi script in which these edicts were written was forgotten soon and remained undeciphered until its study by James Prinsep in the 19th century. The writings of the Chinese Buddhist pilgrims such as Faxian and Xuanzang suggest that Ashoka's inscriptions mark the important sites associated with Gautama Buddha. These writers attribute Buddhism-related content to Ashoka's edicts, but this content does not match with the actual text of the inscriptions as determined by modern scholars after the decipherment of the Brahmi script. It is likely that the script was forgotten by the time of Faxian, who probably relied on local guides; these guides may have made up some Buddhism-related interpretations to gratify him, or may have themselves relied on faulty translations based on oral traditions...

Some Greeks (Yavana) may have played an administrative role in the territories ruled by Ashoka. The Girnar inscription of Rudradaman records that during the rule of Ashoka, a Yavana Governor was in charge in the area of Girnar, Gujarat, mentioning his role in the construction of a water reservoir....

It is thought that Ashoka's palace at Patna was modelled after the Achaemenid palace of Persepolis….

Ashoka probably got the idea of putting up these inscriptions from the neighbouring Achaemenid empire….

Ashoka's inscriptions have not been found at major cities of the Maurya empire, such as Pataliputra, Vidisha, Ujjayini, and Taxila…. the 7th century Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang refers to some of Ashoka's pillar edicts, which have not been discovered by modern researchers….

Ashoka had almost been forgotten, but in the 19th century James Prinsep contributed in the revelation of historical sources. After deciphering the Brahmi script, Prinsep had originally identified the "Priyadasi" of the inscriptions he found with the King of Ceylon Devanampiya Tissa. However, in 1837, George Turnour discovered an important Sri Lankan manuscript (Dipavamsa, or "Island Chronicle") associating Piyadasi with Ashoka:

"Two hundred and eighteen years after the beatitude of the Buddha, was the inauguration of Piyadassi, .... who, the grandson of Chandragupta, and the son of Bindusara, was at the time Governor of Ujjayani."

— Dipavamsa.

-- Ashoka, by Wikipedia

The identification of Raja Priyadarsin with Raja Asoka was based entirely upon url=http://survivorbb.rapeutation.com/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=4204&start=99]Ceylonese Buddhist chronicles.[/url] Talboys Wheeler wrote in 1874, "The identification of Raja Priyadarsin of the Edicts with Raja Asoka of the Buddhist chronicles was first pointed out by Mr. Turnour who rested it upon a passage in the Dipavamsa. The late Prof. [Horace Hayman] Wilson objected to this identification."1 [History of India, Hindu, Buddhist and Brahmanical, 280.] Prof. Rhys Davids declared, "It is not too much to say that without the help of the Ceylon Books, the striking identification of the King Piyadassi of the edicts with the king Asoka of history would never have been made."2 [Buddhist India, 273.] But the Ceylon chronicles are admitted to be utterly worthless as history, and according to Wheeler, "the Buddhist chronicles might be dismissed as a monkish jumble of myths and names,3 [EHI, 171] and even Vincent Smith in the preface to his Asoka himself said, "I reject absolutely the Ceylonese chronology...... The undeserved credit given to the monks of Ceylon has been a great hindrance to the right understanding of ancient Indian history." And yet it is on such undeserved credit that the identity of Priyadarsin with Asoka Maurya rests to this day.

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

The inscriptions, made over some twenty years (from Asoka's eighth through twenty-seventh regnal years), span the period of Asoka's conversion to Buddhism in c. 260 BCE. As recorded in the thirteenth major rock edict (Thapar 1997: 255-6), his conversion was a consequence of the great remorse Asoka experienced for the massacres that followed upon the Mauryan conquest of the Kalinga state of eastern India. 1 ["A hundred and fifty thousand people were deported, a hundred thousand were killed and many times that number perished. Afterwards, now that Kalinga was annexed, the Beloved of the Gods very earnestly practiced Dhamma, desired Dhamma, and taught Dhamma. On conquering Kalinga, the Beloved of the Gods felt remorse, for, when an independent country is conquered the slaughter, death, and deportation of the people is extremely grievous to me Beloved of the Gods, and weighs heavily on his mind ... " (13th Major rock edict, Thapar 1997: 255).] Referred to as the major and minor rock edicts and pillar edicts, Asokan inscriptions were engraved on stone columns in urban centers in the Ganges basin (Fig. 6.1) and on rock outcrops across the broad territories over which Asoka claimed sovereignty. They thus had a material dimension visible even to non-readers that may have made them important symbols of political authority. Asokan inscriptions were typically located in or near settlements or along trade routes (though not always in highly visible locales).

Some three dozen unique Asokan texts have been identified at approximately fifty sites (Fig. 6.2; Allchin 1995: 199). In many contexts, texts co-occur; for example, most or all of the fourteen rock edicts are found together in several locales (Chaudhary 1983: 44-5).2 [As a result, it is difficult to estimate precisely how many inscriptions there are, since different scholars have recorded and counted inscriptions in quite different ways.] As a key source of primary data, Asokan inscriptions have come to play a tremendously important role in interpretations of the Mauryan polity. Although considerable caution needs to be exercised in reading these propagandistic texts, they do provide a great deal of important information. They seem to result from a conscious imperial policy to communicate information and instructions about Asoka's religious values and right behavior (dhamma) as well as his understandings of South Asia's political structure (including mention of border states, administrative offices, and revenue collection, among other things). They are thus by and large prescriptive texts, written in a paternalistic voice to instruct imperial subjects on behavior and values.

Part 2 of 3

Other textual sources on the Mauryas include the writings of Megasthenes, Seleucid ambassador to the Mauryan court in c. 310 BCE (Thapar 1997: 296), [Librarian's Comment: partially preserved by means of epitomes and quotations to be found scattered up and down the writings of various ancient authors, both Greek and Roman, such as Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian.] ...

According to Megasthenes the mean breadth (of the Ganges) is 100 stadia, and its least depth 20 fathoms. At the meeting of this river and another is situated Palibothra, a city eighty stadia in length and fifteen in breadth. It is of the shape of a parallelogram, and is girded with a wooden wall, pierced with loopholes for the discharge of arrows. It has a ditch in front for defence and for receiving the sewage of the city. The people in whose country this city is situated is the most distinguished in all India, and is called the Prasii. The king, in addition to his family name, must adopt the surname of Palibothros, as Sandrakottos, for instance, did, to whom Megasthenes was sent on an embassy. -- Strab. XV. i. 35. 36,— p. 702.

According to Eratosthenes, and Megasthenes who lived with Siburtios the satrap of Arachosia, and who, as he himself tells us, often visited Sandrakottos, the king of the Indians. -- Arr. Exped. Alex. V. 6. 2-11.

According to Megasthenes the largest tigers are found among the Prasii, being nearly twice the size of the lion. -- Strabo, XV. i. 37, — p. 703.

Among the Prasii in India there is found, they say, a species of apes of human-like intelligence. -- Aelian, Hist. Anim. XVI. 10.

It is also said that there exists in India a one-horned animal, called by the natives the Kartazon ... The foals, it is said, are taken when quite young to the king of the Prasii, and are set to fight each other at the great public spectacles. -- Aelian, Hist. Anim. XVI. 20. 21. Conf. Fragm. XV. 2. 1.

It is further said that the Indians do not rear monuments to the dead, but consider the virtues which men have displayed in life, and the songs in which their praises are celebrated, sufficient to preserve their memory after death. But of their cities it is said that the number is so great that it cannot be stated with precision, but that such cities as are situated on the banks of rivers or on the sea-coast are built of wood instead of brick, being meant to last only for a time,— so destructive are the heavy rains which pour down, and the rivers also when they overflow their banks and inundate the plains, — while those cities which stand on commanding situations and lofty eminences are built of brick and mud; that the greatest city in India is that which is called Palimbothra, in the dominions of the Prasians, where the streams of the Erannoboas and the Ganges unite, — the Ganges being the greatest of all rivers, and the Erannoboas being perhaps the third largest of Indian rivers, though greater than the greatest rivers elsewhere; but it is smaller than the Ganges where it falls into it. Megasthenes informs us that this city stretched in the inhabited quarters to an extreme length on each side of eighty stadia, and that its breadth was fifteen stadia, and that a ditch encompassed it all round, which was six hundred feet in breadth and thirty cubits in depth, and that the wall was crowned with 570 towers and had four-and-sixty gates. The same writer tells us further this remarkable fact about India, that all the Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave. -- Arr. Ind. 10.  

But the Prasii surpass in power and glory every other people, not only in this quarter, but one may say in all India, their capital being Palibothra, a very large and wealthy city, after which some call the people itself the Palibothri, — nay, even the whole tract along the Ganges. Their king has in his pay a standing army of 600,000 foot-soldiers, 30,000 cavalry, and 9000 elephants: whence may be formed some conjecture as to the vastness of his resources... The Indus skirts the frontiers of the Prasii, whose mountain tracts are said to be inhabited by the Pygmies. -- Plin. Hist. Nat. VI. 21. 8—23. 11.

The Prasian nation, which is extremely powerful, inhabits a city called Palibotra, whence some call the nation itself the Palibotri. Their king keeps in his pay at all times 60,000 foot 30,000 horse, and 8000 elephants. Beyond Palibotra is Mount Maleus.-- Solin. 52. 6-17.

In India there are herds of wild horses, and also of wild asses ... They say that they catch these mules with foot-traps, and then take them to the king of the Prasians. -- AElian, Hist. Anim. XVI. 2-22

".. these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander took these away from the Arians and established settlements of his own, but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus, upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants. — Strabo 15.2.9."

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

... and Buddhist texts (preserved in Sri Lanka and Tibet) that recount legends of Asoka, either as narratives of his religious deeds or as accounts of sacred lineages J. S. Strong 1983: 22-31; Thapar 1997: 8-9). The political treatise of Kautilya, the Arthasastra, a text on statecraft, has commonly been interpreted as dating to the Mauryan period. However, Trautmann (1971) has argued that the Arthasastra was a multi-authored text that did not take its present form until c. 250 CE, well after the Mauryan collapse (although portions of the manuscript may well date back to Mauryan times and the author proclaimed himself a minister of Candragupta Maurya). Mauryan king lists and stories of the accession of Candragupta are also recorded in the Vedic Puranas.


6.1 Capital of Asokan lion-headed column from Sarnath

Archaeologically, the locations of inscriptions provide important evidence of imperial geography (Fussman 1988; Habib and Habib 1990), although the extent to which they document areas under direct imperial control is far from clear, especially in the southern part of the peninsula. Other reasonably well-dated archaeological materials include coins and sculptures. Evidence from the numerous Early Historic urban settlements and associated material remains (e.g., Northern Black Polished Ware ceramics) is more problematic owing to limitations of current archaeological chronologies (see below).

Early scholarship and more recent political claims concerning the Mauryas have portrayed the empire as a highly centralized and homogeneous polity that unified a vast region into a single monolithic imperial state. However, some more recent scholarship has emphasized the discontinuous geography of the empire and the internal variability in its administration (Fig. 6.2; e.g., Thapar 1987, 1997; Fussman 1988; though see Chakrabarti 1997: 203-6 for an opposing view). In particular, Mauryan territories in the Deccan and south India appear to have been quite limited, restricted to areas near important mineral resources, especially gold sources along the Tungabhadra River and in the Kolar region of south India. Asokan inscriptions are rare in the western and eastern Deccan areas where the Satavahana polity emerged (see below, though Satavahana and Mauryan inscriptions co-occur at Sanchi, Amaravati, and Sannathi). Other than Asokan inscriptions and some rare trade wares, these areas contain little direct evidence of the Mauryan presence, and no evidence of the form that presence may have taken. Thus, while the Mauryan empire was certainly far more extensive and complexly organized than any previous South Asian state, claims for its universal status and highly centralized political structure appear to have been overstated.

The status of the Mauryans in South Asian history, historical writings, and recent political discourse is an important issue, although its detailed consideration is well beyond the scope of this study. Given the importance of the past in the legitimation of later states, it is, however, relevant to consider how or if the Satavahanas considered the Mauryas in their claims to imperial legitimacy, as well as how historical understandings of the Mauryas have impacted interpretations of later politics such as the Satavahanas. For how long and in what contexts were the Mauryas relevant to South Asian historical memories and political constructions? Did they, like the Romans for the Carolingians (see Moreland, this volume), become a template and ideal against which later states could model themselves?

These are difficult questions to answer with certainty. We know that the existence of the Mauryans and their chronological position in north Indian political history was recorded in Brahmanical Puranic texts, which took written [form] in the fifth century CE (see below) and provide evidence for a sense of long-term linear dynastic history. According to Thapar, the Puranas attempted "to provide an integrated world view of the past and present, linking events to the emergence of a deity or sect" (1993: 152), and recorded the names of all known lineages and dynasties up to the fifth century CE. However, while earlier ruling lineages were acknowledged in the Puranas, post-Mauryan rulers appear to have emphasized the history of their particular lineage in inscriptions and royal pedigrees, and not the longer Puranic sequences.

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

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

As will be discussed below, there is only very limited evidence that the Satavahanas made reference to the Mauryas (and, in contrast to Satavahana claims to high Brahmanical status, the Puranas make clear that the Mauryans were of the low-status sudra varna; 3 [The early historic texts document four varnas or ranked categories of people. The varna structure grouped people into hierarchically ranked, ritually defined endogamous social units, and forms the basis of the South Asian caste system. From highest to lowest rank the four varnas are: Brahmans (priests and teachers), Kshatriyas (warriors and kings), Vaisyas (merchants), and Sudras (agricultural laborers and craft producers).] (Thapar 1993: 152). But some Early Historic states may have. In particular, the Gupta empire (320-467 CE4 [The Gupta dynasty persisted as late as 550 CE, but Thapar (1966: 141) has noted that the scale and authority of the state declined dramatically during and after the reign of Skanda Gupta (455-467 CE), as a result of internal dissension and external invasions from Central Asia.]) that emerged in Magadha roughly five centuries after Mauryan collapse does appear to have had some sense of being heir to past Mauryan greatness. We see hints of this in dynastic and royal names: the first Gupta ruler (320-335 CE) shared the name Candra Gupta with the first Mauryan emperor (Trautmann, personal communications). A eulogy to his successor, Samudra Gupta I (CE 335-376), was inscribed on an Asokan column now in Allahabad[???](Thapar 1966: 137) and Fahsien, a Chinese pilgrim of the early fifth century CE, wrote of visiting the remains of Asoka's temple in the Gupta capital of Pataliputra, the former Mauryan capital....

As Buddha descended from his position aloft in the Trayastriṃśas heaven, when he was coming down, there were made to appear three flights of precious steps. Buddha was on the middle flight, the steps of which were composed of the seven precious substances. The king of Brahmâ-loka9 also made a flight of silver steps appear on the right side, (where he was seen) attending with a white chowry in his hand. Śakra, Ruler of Devas,10 made (a flight of) steps of purple gold on the left side, (where he was seen) attending and holding an umbrella of the seven precious substances. An innumerable multitude of the devas11 followed Buddha in his descent. When he was come down, the three flights all disappeared in the ground, excepting seven steps, which continued to be visible. Afterwards king Aśoka, wishing to know where their ends rested, sent men to dig and see. They went down to the yellow springs12 without reaching the bottom of the steps, and from this the king received an increase to his reverence and faith, and built a vihâra over the steps, with a standing image, sixteen cubits in height [288' @ 18"/cubit; 512' @ 32"/cubit] eight over the middle flight. Behind the vihâra he erected a stone pillar, about fifty cubits high,13 with a lion on the top of it.14 [A note of Mr. Beal says on this:—‘General Cunningham, who visited the spot (1862), found a pillar, evidently of the age of Aśoka, with a well-carved elephant on the top, which, however, was minus trunk and tail. He supposes this to be the pillar seen by Fâ-hien, who mistook the top of it for a lion. It is possible such a mistake may have been made, as in the account of one of the pillars at Śrâvastî, Fâ-hien says an ox formed the capital, whilst Hsüan-chwang calls it an elephant (P. 19, Arch. Survey).’] Let into the pillar, on each of its four sides,15 there is an image of Buddha, inside and out16 shining and transparent, and pure as it were of lapis lazuli. Some teachers of another doctrine17 once disputed with the Śramaṇas about (the right to) this as a place of residence, and the latter were having the worst of the argument, when they took an oath on both sides on the condition that, if the place did indeed belong to the Śramaṇas, there should be some marvellous attestation of it. When these words had been spoken, the lion on the top gave a great roar, thus giving the proof; on which their opponents were frightened, bowed to the decision, and withdrew....

East from Buddha’s birthplace, and at a distance of five yojanas, there is a kingdom called Râma.1 The king of this country, having obtained one portion of the relics of Buddha’s body,2 returned with it and built over it a tope, named the Râma tope. By the side of it there was a pool, and in the pool a dragon, which constantly kept watch over (the tope), and presented offerings to it day and night. When king Aśoka came forth into the world, he wished to destroy the eight topes (over the relics), and to build (instead of them) 84,000 topes.3 [The bones of the human body are supposed to consist of 84,000 atoms, and hence the legend of Aśoka’s wish to build 84,000 topes, one over each atom of Śâkyamuni’s skeleton.] After he had thrown down the seven (others), he wished next to destroy this tope. But then the dragon showed itself, took the king into its palace;4 and when he had seen all the things provided for offerings, it said to him, ‘If you are able with your offerings to exceed these, you can destroy the tope, and take it all away. I will not contend with you.’ The king, however, knew that such appliances for offerings were not to be had anywhere in the world, and thereupon returned (without carrying out his purpose). (Afterwards), the ground all about became overgrown with vegetation, and there was nobody to sprinkle and sweep (about the tope); but a herd of elephants came regularly, which brought water with their trunks to water the ground, and various kinds of flowers and incense, which they presented at the tope. (Once) there came from one of the kingdoms a devotee5 to worship at the tope. When he encountered the elephants he was greatly alarmed, and screened himself among the trees; but when he saw them go through with the offerings in the most proper manner, the thought filled him with great sadness—that there should be no monastery here, (the inmates of which) might serve the tope, but the elephants have to do the watering and sweeping. Forthwith he gave up the great prohibitions (by which he was bound),6 and resumed the status of a Śrâmaṇera.7 With his own hands he cleared away the grass and trees, put the place in good order, and made it pure and clean. By the power of his exhortations, he prevailed on the king of the country to form a residence for monks; and when that was done, he became head of the monastery. At the present day there are monks residing in it. This event is of recent occurrence; but in all the succession from that time till now, there has always been a Sramanera head of the establishment....

Having crossed the river, and descended south for a yojana, (the travellers) came to the town of Pâṭaliputtra,1 in the kingdom of Magadha, the city where king Aśoka2 ruled. The royal palace and halls in the midst of the city, which exist now as of old, were all made by spirits which he employed, and which piled up the stones, reared the walls and gates, and executed the elegant carving and inlaid sculpture-work,—in a way which no human hands of this world could accomplish.

King Asoka had a younger brother who had attained to be an Arhat, and resided on Gridhra-kuṭa3 hill, finding his delight in solitude and quiet. The king, who sincerely reverenced him, wished and begged him (to come and live) in his family, where he could supply all his wants. The other, however, through his delight in the stillness of the mountain, was unwilling to accept the invitation, on which the king said to him, ‘Only accept my invitation, and I will make a hill for you inside the city.’ Accordingly, he provided the materials of a feast, called to him the spirits, and announced to them, ‘To-morrow you will all receive my invitation; but as there are no mats for you to sit on, let each one bring (his own seat).’ Next day the spirits came, each one bringing with him a great rock, (like) a wall, four or five paces square, (for a seat). When their sitting was over, the king made them form a hill with the large stones piled on one another, and also at the foot of the hill, with five large square stones, to make an apartment, which might be more than thirty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and more than ten cubits high...

By the side of the tope of Asoka, there has been made a mahâyâna monastery, very grand and beautiful; there is also a hînayâna one; the two together containing six or seven hundred monks....

When king Aśoka destroyed the seven topes, (intending) to make eighty-four thousand,9 the first which he made was the great tope, more than three le to the south of this city. In front of this there is a footprint of Buddha, where a vihâra has been built. The door of it faces the north, and on the south of it there is a stone pillar, fourteen or fifteen cubits in circumference, and more than thirty cubits high, on which there is an inscription, saying, ‘Aśoka gave the jambudvipa to the general body of all the monks, and then redeemed it from them with money. This he did three times.’10 North from the tope 300 or 400 paces, king Aśoka built the city of Ne-le.11 In it there is a stone pillar, which also is more than thirty feet high, with a lion on the top of it. On the pillar there is an inscription recording the things which led to the building of Ne-le, with the number of the year, the day, and the month...

When king Aśoka, in a former birth,1 was a little boy and played on the road, he met Kâśyapa Buddha walking. (The stranger) begged food, and the boy pleasantly took a handful of earth and gave it to him. The Buddha took the earth, and returned it to the ground on which he was walking; but because of this (the boy) received the recompense of becoming a king of the iron wheel,2 to rule over Jambudvîpa. (Once) when he was making a judicial tour of inspection through Jambudvîpa, he saw, between the iron circuit of the two hills, a naraka3 for the punishment of wicked men. Having thereupon asked his ministers what sort of a thing it was, they replied, ‘It belongs to Yama,4 king of demons, for punishing wicked people.’ The king thought within himself:—‘(Even) the king of demons is able to make a naraka in which to deal with wicked men; why should not I, who am the lord of men, make a naraka in which to deal with wicked men?’ He forthwith asked his ministers who could make for him a naraka and preside over the punishment of wicked people in it. They replied that it was only a man of extreme wickedness who could make it; and the king thereupon sent officers to seek everywhere for (such) a bad man; and they saw by the side of a pond a man tall and strong, with a black countenance, yellow hair, and green eyes, hooking up the fish with his feet, while he called to him birds and beasts, and, when they came, then shot and killed them, so that not one escaped. Having got this man, they took him to the king, who secretly charged him, ‘You must make a square enclosure with high walls. Plant in it all kinds of flowers and fruits; make good ponds in it for bathing; make it grand and imposing in every way, so that men shall look to it with thirsting desire; make its gates strong and sure; and when any one enters, instantly seize him and punish him as a sinner, not allowing him to get out. Even if I should enter, punish me as a sinner in the same way, and do not let me go. I now appoint you master of that naraka.’...

-- A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms, Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hien Of His Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399–414) In Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline, Translated and Annotated with a Corean Recension of the Chinese Text by James Legge, M.A., LL.D.

Even here, direct references to the Mauryans or Asoka did not appear in royal texts and the Gupta kings, like the earlier Satavahanas, were avid proponents of Vedic sacrifices and military glory. Nonetheless, historian A. L. Basham suggested that the Guptas consciously sought to restore "the splendour of the Mauryas" (1954: 63) and Romila Thapar described the emergence of the Gupta empire as "shades of the Mauryas ... re-emerging on the scene" (1966: 137). Comparisons between Asoka and Samudra Gupta are common in contemporary historiography and, like the Mauryan period, the Gupta period is often described as a "golden age" and has been important in nationalist history (Goyal 1997; Chattopadhyaya 1995: 310). Even so, it not clear to what extent these comparisons were explicitly drawn during the Gupta period.

Thus, while legends of Asoka persisted and were transmitted in Buddhist texts and royal lineages were recorded in the Puranas, detailed knowledge of the historical Asoka and the empire he ruled appears to have been lost relatively rapidly. And by the late fourth century CE, Brahmi script had disappeared from usage (J. S. Strong 1983: 6). When the [url=xhttps://survivorbb.rapeutation.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=4393]Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang visited India in the early seventh century[/url], he recognized the large sculpted columns he saw at several sites as associated with the legendary ruler (J. S. Strong 1983: 4-7). But neither he nor earlier pilgrims such as Fa-hsien (399-414 CE; J. S. Strong 1983: 6) were able to read the Asokan inscriptions on them.5 [Fa-hsien nonetheless came up with some quite interesting translations that were highly favorable to his monastic brethren. He reported that a pillar in one site contained the following inscription: "King Asoka bestowed the inhabited portion of the world on the priesthood of all quarters, and bought it back from them with money; he did this three times" (Fa-hsien 1923: 48, trans. M. A. Giles).] After Buddhism disappeared from India in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries CE, even the legends of Asoka were forgotten (J. S. Strong 1983: 6-7).

Historical knowledge of the Mauryans reemerged in 1837 with the decipherment of Brahmi by James Prinsep of the Royal Asiatic Society (Trautmann 1997: 137).

The difficulties with which I have had to contend are of a very different nature from those presented by more modern inscriptions, where the sense has to be extracted from a mass of hyperbolical eulogy and extravagant exaggeration embodied still in very legible and classical Sanskrit. Here the case is opposite: — the sentiments and the phraseology are perfectly simple and straightforward — but the orthography is sadly vitiated [the spelling is spoiled] — and the language differs essentially from every existing written idiom: it is as it were intermediate between the Sanskrit and the Pali; and a degree of license is therefore requisite in selecting the Sanskrit equivalent of each word, upon which to base the interpretation — a license dangerous in the use unless restrained within wholesome rules; for a skilful pandit will easily find a word to answer any purpose if allowed to insert a letter or alter a vowel ad libitum.

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

The translation and the recognition of the import of the Asokan inscriptions occurred roughly simultaneously with early archaeological work on Buddhist monuments of British India carried out under the direction of Sir Alexander Cunningham, founder or the Archaeological Survey of India. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Mauryan empire had become an important part of South Asian historical reconstructions and was prominent in political discourse among both British colonials and those resisting them. For British historians, such as Vincent Smith, author of the encyclopedic Oxford History of India (1981 [1919]), the Mauryan empire was an efficient and admirable despotic autocracy. And Asoka was a king whose name "is still fresh in the memory of men after the lapse of more than two millennium [sic]" (Smith 1981 [1919]: 137; an interesting perspective in light of that name's recent rediscovery). Smith and his contemporaries saw the Mauryan period as the apex of ancient Indian political history and the 2000 years between Mauryan collapse and the arrival of the British as a period of decline and decadence. Following the Mauryan collapse, the possibility of a unified India did not again exist until (and because of) the arrival of the British colonial rulers.

In a thematic variation, nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Indian nationalists, such as Pramathanath Banerjea and Narayan Candra Bandyopadhyaya, also saw the Mauryas as both model and precedent (Inden 1990: 193). The empire provided evidence for an indigenous precolonial South Asian state that had united the entire subcontinent under a single legitimate authority, governed by law and reason rather than coercion and despotism. During both the independence movement and his tenure as independent India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru made frequent references to the Mauryans and particularly Asoka, whom he proclaimed in a speech given on 22 July 1947 as "one of the most magnificent names not only in India's history but in world history" (Nehru 1985: 71). Following Indian independence the Mauryans remain a potent symbol of Indian nationalism; Mauryan sculptural images adorn the nation's flag6 [Nehru described this decision in his 22 July speech to India's Constituent Assembly. Of choosing the Asokan wheel as symbol, he said, "that wheel is a symbol of India's ancient culture, it is a symbol of the many things that India had stood for through the ages. For my part, I am exceedingly happy that in this sense indirectly we have associated with this Flag of ours not only this emblem but in a sense the name of Asoka" (1985: 71).] and its currency.

During the Satavahana period Brahmi script was still in use, indicating that Asokan inscriptions could have been read and comprehended. Yet, neither Asoka nor other Mauryan rulers appear in Satavahana royal inscriptions7 [An important exception is a newly discovered sculptural panel of a royal figure from the Early Historic monastic site of Sannathi in northern Karnataka. Here a sculpted panel has recently been excavated by the Archaeological Survey of India. This depicts a male figure, with an associated Brahmi title inscription "King Asoka"; we do not however know for certain who sponsored this panel or its inscription (Shankar, personal communications, 1999).] Instead, as will be explored below, Satavahana referents are to Vedic rituals and Brahmanical pedigrees. While it is always problematic to argue from negative evidence, especially for a period as poorly understood as the Satavahanas, the paucity of references to the Mauryans may indicate either that their impact was far less pervasive in the Deccan than many archaeologists and historians have assumed or that the Satavahanas deliberately excluded them from political discourse.

WHO WERE THE SATAVAHANAS?

"Success! From the victorious camp of the triumphant army in Govardhana, the illustrious Gautamaputra Satakarni, the lord of Benakataka, issues the [following] order to amatya [minister] Vishnupalita in Govardhana: The field of 200 nivartanas [unit of measure] of Ajakalaka in the village of Western Kakhadi, which was owned by Rishabhadata -- that our field of 200 nivartanas We give to these mendicant monks of the Trirasmi [Nasik Caves / Pandaleni Caves] [caves] and We also grant them the following immunities of that field -- it must not be entered, it must not be interfered with, it must not be meddled with by the district functionaries; it should be provided with all immunities. This order has been given orally.

-- (Nasik cave inscription of Gautamiputra Satakarni, in Mirashi 1981: 23-8)

[/quote]

The nature of the evidence

Like the Mauryas, the Satavahanas are known to scholars from both textual and material evidence. Written sources include (1) sacred texts, (2) inscriptions on walls of rock-cut caves and religious structures, (3) inscribed coins, and (4) foreigners' (Roman and Greek) accounts. The eighteen Vedic Puranas ("Ancient Stories") are the major sacred texts that contain references to the "Andhras" or Satavahanas. These texts may have roots extending back to as early as 500 BCE, though they did not take their final written form until the fifth century CE. Several of the Puranas contain dynastic lists of Satavahana rulers; the number of kings mentioned varies from seventeen to thirty, spanning a duration of between 275 and 460 years (Nilakanta Sastri 1975: 6; Shastri 1987: 4). As with the Mauryans, references to the Satavahanas are also found in some Buddhist and Jain texts.

By the Satavahana period, Brahmi inscriptions were widespread throughout the Deccan where they are found on Buddhist sacred structures and commemorative stelae. Fewer than three dozen of the hundreds of recorded inscriptions refer explicitly to Satavahana rulers (Burgess 1964 [1881], 1970 [1883]; Burgess and Indraji 1976 [1881]; Mirashi 1981). The vast majority document donations to Buddhist monastic institutions made by a wide array of individual artisans or merchants, merchant and artisan guilds, lay men and women, and monks and nuns (Dehejia 1992). The Satavahana royal inscriptions too are primarily records of royal donations of land and its revenues for the support of monks or religious institutions. While they sometimes also recorded attributes of rulers or queens (e.g., military success, religious piety) and provide some information on imperial structure, they are much more modest in scope and tone than the prescriptive inscriptions of Asoka discussed above.

Inscribed coins comprise the most abundant written record of Satavahana rulers. Thousands of coins of lead, copper, and potin (an alloy of copper, zinc, lead, and tin; Goyal 1995: 89) and smaller numbers of gold and silver coins are known from sites and hoards throughout the Deccan and south India. While portrait coins are rare, the names of some sixteen to twenty rulers are found on coins. Several of these rulers appear to be local elites and many coins are highly restricted in their geographical distribution (Dutta 1990: 13-15; Sarma 1980: 1), suggesting that multiple minting locales existed, with little emphasis on panregional uniformity in images or systems of measure. Inscriptions on coins are mostly in Prakrit, though in some areas Tamil or Telugu inscriptions also occur (Ray 1986: 44). In many cases, coins carry matronyms or titles common to several rulers, such as Satakarni, Pulumavi, and Satavahana (Dutta 1990: 18). Rulers' names also vary regionally and it is often not clear whether different names referred to a single individual or to different individuals who ruled over distinct territories.

Other relevant written sources include the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea, a handbook (in Greek) of the first century CE that reports on maritime trade routes between Roman Egypt, Arabia, and India (Casson 1991), and the writings of Pliny, Claudius Ptolemy, and Strabo, among others. By and large, these texts are most informative on issues of geography and economy, especially on commodities traded between India and the Roman world, but provide little useful information on the Satavahana polity. Some sources do cite formal diplomatic contacts between various Indian polities (though not the Satavahanas) and Rome (Ray 1986: 5-9).

Along with coins, the other sources of archaeological evidence fix the Early Historic period are both abundant and problematic. The late centuries BCE through early centuries CE were times of rapid sociopolitical change in many areas of the Deccan and south India. This period witnessed the emergence of large fortified centers, and the expansion of multi-tiered settlement hierarchies and social elites, as well as expanding agricultural and craft production, and the development of extensive regional and long-distance trade networks within and beyond South Asia (Seniveratne 1980; Ray 1987; Parasher 1991, 1992; Morrison 1995 b; Parasher-Sen 1996). The roots of these changes can be traced back to the central and south Indian Iron Age or "Megalithic" period of the early first millennium BCE, although the massive megalithic cemeteries of that period are far better understood than the broader social and economic contexts in which they emerged. Sociopolitical transformations were likely accelerated in some areas with the intensification of contacts with Early Historic north Indian states of the Ganges Basin, particularly the Mauryan empire. As discussed above, direct evidence for the nature and extent of Mauryan contact in the Deccan is scarce, suggesting at most that the Mauryans exerted extremely limited imperial control in that region. The Early Historic period in peninsular India was also marked by the expansion of Buddhism and Buddhist monastic institutions (Ray 1986), the spread of Vedic religion and its crystallization with local religious practices into recognizably Hindu forms, and processes of "Sanskritization" (Srinivas 1989), entailing the expansion of language, beliefs, and behaviors (including the formalization of varna and, eventually, caste frameworks) across a broad region.

While numerous archaeological sites are known from the Early Historic period (Fig. 6.3), both chronological assignment and clear understandings of regional processes remain vexing challenges. The latter problem is slowly being remedied by an increasing focus on regional research (e.g., Krishnasastry 1983; Parasher-Sen 1996; M. L. Smith 1997), though an emphasis on large sites divorced from their regional context remains predominant. Chronological problems result from the discordance between rates of material culture change and rates of political change, as well as from limited stratigraphic excavations and a paucity of absolute dates. Thus, although certain artifact categories (e.g., Northern Black Polished Ware, Red Polished Ware, and mold-made figurine) are in a general sense diagnostic of the period, their temporal and geographic distributions remain poorly understood. However, they clearly do not correspond with dynastic chronologies or political entities (despite many attempts to use the presence of particular artifact categories to identify "the Mauryans" or "the Satavahanas"). Further, the spatial distribution of many artifact categories (e.g., Black and Red Ware) is much greater than the reputed spatial extent of any individual polity. This lack of correspondence between material forms and political history is, of course, not unique to the South Asian context (see Smith, this volume). In the Satavahana context, it points to an essential disjunction between the dynastic history that has been the goal of most scholars of the period, and the kinds of historical evidence that archaeological research can most effectively generate.

Part 3 of 3



Dynastic chronology

Chronological problems also beset text-based reconstructions of Satavahana chronology and dynastic sequences. All such constructions rely heavily on the Puranic king lists, with their attendant interpretative complications (i.e., that they are Brahmanical elite texts written in a particular political context long after the events they purport to report [Ray 1986: 34]). Chronological reconstructions fall into two groups. Advocates of the now largely discredited "long chronology" support the maximal span of c. 475 years derived from a literal reading of the Puranas (Nilakanta Sastri 1975: 92-4; Mirashi 1981), and view the Satavahana polity as emerging directly after the Mauryan collapse. This interpretation is problematic given the historical context of the Puranas, the lack of concordance among the texts, and the lack of supporting numismatic or inscriptional evidence for many of the rulers named.

Advocates of the more widely accepted "short chronology" (Ray 1986; Shastri 1987, 1991; Parasher-Sen 1993; Goyal 1995) combine Puranic records with other lines of numismatic, archaeological, and textual evidence and date the Satavahana rule from the beginning of the first century BCE to the end of the second century CE. Even here, many scholars are reluctant to assign absolute dates to specific kings and those who do often select quite disparate dates and name different rulers. Nonetheless, the shorter chronology is the more reasonable given current evidence, and the version developed by Himanshu Ray (1986: 33-50, following Dehejia 1972) will be used in this chapter. This chronology is presented in Table 6.1; the calendrical dates should be considered approximations.

Although various Puranas list several intervening Satavahana rulers that fill the 111 year gap between the two periods of rule presented in Table 6.1, no other sources survive to verify their existence, and the relation between earlier and later rulers is murky. This gap suggests that the Satavahana empire is best characterized as having been marked by two brief periods of imperial florescence with an intervening period of political regionalization or "collapse." Like the Mauryans, the success of individual rulers in forging a large imperial polity was not transformed into an effective administrative structure that could weather periods of internal and external dissension or the reigns of less effective rulers.

Origins and geography

While the chronology of the Satavahanas has been subject to debate, so too have the ethnic and geographic origins of the dynasty. The secondary literature includes claims that the Satavahana homeland was in the western Deccan (modern Maharashtra) and in the central or eastern Deccan (modern Andhra Pradesh). More interesting for the purposes of this chapter are questions about the linguistic and cultural relations of the Satavahanas to the Indo-European speakers and societies of northern India, including the Mauryans. I first briefly review the former issue and turn to the latter below.

Table 6.1. A short chronology for the Satavahana dynasty (after Ray 1986)
Ruler / Regnal dates

Period I

1 Simuka / <100 BCE  

2 Kanha / 100-70 BCE  

3 Satakarni I / 70-60 BCE

4 Satakarni II / 50-25 BCE

Imperial collapse (Ksaharata period)

[Nahapana] / CE 54-100]

Period II

5 Gautimaputra Satakarni / 86-110 CE  

6 Pulumavi / l10-138 CE  

7 Vasisthiputra Satakarni / 138-145 CE  

8 Siva Sri Pulumavi / 145-152 CE  

9 Siva Skanda Satakarni / 145-152 CE  

10 Yajna Sri Satakarni / 152-181 CE

11 Vijaya Satakarni / ?

12 Candra Sri / ?

13 Pulumavi II / ?

14 Abhira Isvasena / ?

15 Madhariputra Sakasena / ?

16 Haritiputra Satakarni / ? Note: Nahapana is a ruler of the Ksaharata polity who is known from several inscriptions; rulers 9 and 10 are either different names for the same individual, or may be two individuals who ruled simultaneously in the eastern and western Deccan; rulers 12-16 are likely regional rulers who may (or may not) be of the main Satavahana lineage.

In an examination of geographic origins, the Puranas again prove a source of confusion. In marked contrast to inscriptions and coins, the name Satavahana does not appear in the Puranas; instead the texts refer to the "Andhras" or the "Andhra Bhrityas." These latter terms, conversely, do not appear in coins or inscriptions despite the overlap in rulers' names among these diverse sources. The Puranic use of the term Andhra has led some scholars to trace the Satavahana homeland to modern Andhra Pradesh (Hanumantha Rao 1976: 4; Shastri 1987: 12, 1991: 50; Goyal 1995). Others have argued that Satavahana rule (if not the Satavahanas themselves) originated in the western Deccan (modern Maharashtra) and that the Puranas, which date well after the Satavahana period, were written by authors who mistook ultimate Satavahana presence in the east as evidence for their origin (Dehejia 1972: 17). In contrast, Margabandhu (1985) has suggested that the Andhras were an eastern clan, employed by the Mauryas, who eventually settled in the western Deccan and it was there that their empire emerged. Ray (1986: 41-2) has suggested that "Andhra" was an ethnic or tribal term (known from Mauryan inscriptions and the Mahabharata) and did not emerge as a geographic term until well after the Satavahana period.

Some of these conflicting origin debates have occurred in the context of contemporary regional chauvinism linked to modern political and linguistic boundaries (particularly at the state level), and to current trends in archaeological research and writing (leading to texts on the "Archaeology of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra," etc. -- modern political boundaries that did not exist in the ancient world; Parasher-Sen 1996: 22). Yet, while the question of precisely who the Satavahanas were may be largely unanswerable according to these terms, this does not mean that an examination of state expansion in the Deccan during the Early Historic period should exclude consideration of where those states originated and where they expanded to. Unfortunately, present data do not allow a satisfying answer to these questions, though a founding location somewhere in the western Deccan seems most likely.

In the absence of well-developed archaeological chronologies, inscriptions and coins constitute the primary material evidence for examining this issue and they are both scarce and contradictory. Only four of the thirty published inscriptions with royal referents date to the period of Satavahana emergence.8 [The remaining "non-royal" inscriptions must be dated solely on stylistic palaeographic evidence, and are thus problematic; royal inscriptions are dated combining palaeographic evidence with correspondence to king lists and numismatic chronologies, themselves not without controversy. Note: Recently documented inscriptions from the site of Sannathi in northern Karnataka are not included here, though these tend to date to the second century CE, and not the early Satavahana period (Howell 1995).] The earliest of these are found in the western Deccan at the sites of Naneghat and Nasik; a slightly later inscription is known from the Great Stupa at Sanchi, to the northeast. The rock-cut9 ["Rock-cut" in South Asian archaeological parlance refers to features (e.g., caves, freestanding structures, stupas, columns, chambers) constructed through excavation into the faces of stone outcrops or cliffs, a highly labor-intensive construction technique. A second century CE inscription from Kanheri mentions specialized architects, stone masons, and polishers associated with their construction.] monastic complexes of Naneghat are located along an important pass through the Western Ghats linking the seacoast with the inland Deccan plateau. At Pandu Leni, Nasik, twenty-four rock-cut Buddhist monastic establishments were carved into the northern face of a large outcropping hill from the first century BCE through the second century CE (Ghosh 1990: 312). Sanchi was an important Buddhist center from the third century BCE through the seventh century CE and contains more than fifty Buddhist monuments, including seven stupas, numerous monasteries and temples, and an inscribed Asokan column (Michell 1989: 179-86). Each site contains numerous inscriptions, though here I consider only those sponsored by, or referring to, Satavahana rulers.

The earliest such inscription [referring to, Satavahana rulers] is found at Nasik Cave XIX and records that the cave was excavated by an individual named Mahamatra Saman of Nasika (perhaps a monk?) during the reign of King Kanha (Burgess 1964 [1881]: 98). It can thus be assigned to the second Satavahana ruler and tentatively dated to the early first century BCE (c. 100-70 BCE). At Naneghat, two royal inscriptions refer to Satakarni I (c. 70-60 BCE). The first is an inscription attributed to his widow Nayanika (Naganika). This inscription records Nayanika's family lineage and a list of Vedic sacrifices performed by the royal family (Burgess 1970 [1883]: 60-4, see discussion below). The second inscription (or group of inscriptions) at Naneghat is associated with a series of bas-relief portraits (now totally eroded) of the Satavahana royal family, with name labels inscribed above them. On palaeographic grounds they are believed to be roughly contemporary with the inscription of Nayanika. Eight royal figures are named in these inscriptions: Simuka Satavahana; Queen Nayanika and King Satakarni; Prince Bhayala (perhaps the eldest son of Satakarni I); [eroded name, probably Satakarni II]; Maharathi Tranakayira (father of Nayanika?); Prince Haku-sri and Prince Satavahana (two other sons of Nayanika). The name and portrait of the dynasty's second ruler, Kanha (Krishna) [according to the Puranas], are missing from this sequence. According to the Puranas, Kanha was the brother of Simuka and thus was not a direct lineal descendant (unlike Satakarni I who was Simuka's son) and may have been excluded for this reason (Mirashi 1981: 18). This suggests a very early attempt to revise dynastic history so as to legitimate Satakarni I and his descendants.

The final royal inscription of the early Satavahana period is found on a sculpted gateway element on Stupa 1 at Sanchi and is likely associated with Satakarni II (c. 50-25 BCE). Like other donative inscriptions, it names the element's donor -- Ananda -- and notes that he was the son of Siri Satakarni's foreman of artisans (Lueders 1912: no. 346; Dehejia 1992: 36), suggesting some form of state patronage of non-agricultural production.

While the earliest inscriptions (and the vast majority of published Early Historic inscriptions overall) are found in the western Deccan, the earliest Satavahana coins reported to date have been recovered in the eastern Deccan at the site of Kotalingala. Kotalingala was a large fortified settlement (some 50 hectares, on a mound 6 to 10 m high) located along the Godavari River in Karimnagar District, Andhra Pradesh. This region is characterized by a dense distribution of Early Historic sites, with a well-developed settlement hierarchy from at least the second century BCE (Krishnasastry 1983; Parasher-Sen 1993, 1996). At Kotalingala, coins were recovered in excavations of residential areas and from two hoards. They include punch-marked coins attributable to the third and second centuries BCE and inscribed coins of local (pre-Satavahana?) rulers (Reddy and Reddy 1987: 58-60). Also found were small numbers of inscribed coins of Simuka, "Satavahana," and Satakarni I. Though the Reddys and others (e.g., Goyal 1995) have enthusiastically used the numismatic evidence to argue that Kotalingala was the Satavahana home base, the samples are small and nothing is known of where they were minted or how (or when) they arrived at Kotalingala. However, the many kings mentioned on the coins do document a complex and highly dynamic regional political system, with multiple elites making claim to royal status and political ascendancy prior to (and during?) Satavahana hegemony. In addition to the coins, Kotalingala yielded archaeological remains of craft activities and long-distance trade. The site thus provides evidence of a highly specialized and at least partly monetized economy in a region that by and large lacked the early large Buddhist monastic complexes that Ray (1986) has argued played a critical role in the spread of "civilization" and development of political centralization.

Although valuable in their own right, these sources unfortunately help us little in charting the geographical origins of the dynasty, or the path of its expansion. The inscriptions are located in the areas of the greatest intensity of monastic construction of the first century BCE, the western Deccan. But, given both the paucity of evidence and sampling problems, inferences of a probable western Deccan Satavahana homeland are tentative at best.

Royal and non-royal inscriptions do provide some evidence on the geographic structure and extent of the polity during particular periods. An inscription at Cave II at Nasik, dating to the period of Vasisthiputra Pulumavi (c. 110-138 CE) and recording the cave's construction by his grandmother, lists the extent of her son Gautamiputra Satakarni's (c. 86-110 CE) kingdom.10 [The inscription describes the king as the lord of Asika, Asaka, Mulaka, Surasthra, Kukur, Aparanta, Anupa, Vidabha, Akara, Avanti and as lord of the mountains of Vindhya, Rikshavat, Paripatra, Sahiya, Krishnagiri, Mach, Siritana, Malaya, Mahendra, Sctagiri, and Chakora, whose "army drank the water of three oceans," and who "entirely destroyed the Khakharata [Ksaharata] race ... restored the fame of the Satavahana race ... [and] ... conquered his enemies in many battles" (and "who never disobeyed his mother" ??!!]; Burgess 1964 [1881]: 109).] The territory claimed in the inscription is vast, spanning the width of the peninsula and north to south from Gujarat to northern Karnataka. The fit between territorial claims recorded in inscriptions and effective political control are, of course, far from clear, and it is apparent that Gautamiputra's military successes, while impressive, were in any case short-lived.

Several inscriptions contain references to geographic districts or aharas that appear to have been the largest administrative divisions of Gautamiputra's Satavahana polity, under the control of appointed officials (e.g., Govardhanahara, Mamalahara, Satavanihara, Kapurahara). Three distinctive types of settlements are named: nagara (city or palace), nigama (market town), and gama (village). The outlines of an imperial administrative framework are thus evident.

Non-royal inscriptions also provide important information on Deccani geography of the Early Historic period. Along with listing donors' names, inscriptions often list donors' occupations (including guild membership), places of residence, and the nature of their donations including, in some cases, grants of land or rights to produce of named agricultural settlements to Buddhist monks or Brahmanical communities. Settlements most frequently mentioned as homes of donors to western Deccan monasteries include the seaports of Sopara, Kalyan, Bharucha, Kuda (?), and Chaul, and the inland settlements of Dhenukakata (location unknown), Junnar, Nasik, Paithain, and Karadh (Dehejia 1972: 142-3).

No single city served as the Satavahana capital throughout the duration of the dynasty's history. In the early second century CE, Ptolemy referred to Paithan (Pratisthana; in Aurangabad district) as the capital of King Pulumavi; the Nasik inscription of his predecessor Gautamiputra Satakarni referred to him as lord of Benakataka (in the Nasik region). A pattern of shifting capitals is known from other historical empires in South Asia and beyond, such as the Carolingians (Moreland, this volume), the Achaemenids (Kuhrt, this volume), and the Mughals (Sinopoli 1994b). This situation may, at least in part, be associated with structural weaknesses of imperial political and economic organization, thus making the physical presence of the king, court, and military force important to the exercise and immediacy of imperial authority and revenue collection. Along with the monastic centers, ports, and inland settlements already noted, many other important centers of the Satavahana period are known from texts, inscriptions, or archaeological evidence. These include, among others, the inland settlements of Govardhana, Ter, Nevasa, and Vadgaon-Madhavpur in the western Deccan; and Dhulikatta, Peddabankur, Amaravati, Kotalingala, and Sannathi in the central and eastern Deccan.

The archaeological evidence

The first century BCE through third century CE was marked by a dramatic florescence in the construction of Buddhist monastic sites throughout the Deccan. It has been estimated that nearly 800 rock-cut caves were created during this period, as were many freestanding monasteries and stupas (Ray 1986: 35). This construction boom, contemporary with Satavahana/Kshtrapa rule, may partly account for why these periods have attained prominence in Early Historic historiography (though their mention in Puranic lineages is no doubt also of importance to their prominence in historical memory). The relations between state and monastic institutions are, however, far from clear. As noted earlier, although some sizeable royal donations are recorded, the vast majority of donors to monasteries were non-elites (Dehejia 1992: 36) drawn from a broad range of social and economic groups, of which merchants were the most common. On the basis of inscriptional, sculptural, and architectural analysis, Dehejia (1972) has suggested that there were two phases of intensive construction of Buddhist cave structures, the first from c. 100-20 BCE and the second from 50-200 CE. The intervening gap in construction roughly parallels the gap in Satavahana dynastic chronology presented earlier, and Dehejia has suggested that political stability created a favorable context for economic expansion and investment, even in the absence of direct state investment (i.e., a pax Satavahana, to draw on Roman imperial memories).

Building on Dehejia's work, Ray (1986) has argued that the intensity of monastic construction and the location of monastic sites owed much to general increases in agricultural production and, more importantly, to intensification of long-distance trade across the subcontinent and beyond, along maritime trade routes. She further proposed that Buddhism and trade participated in a mutually reinforcing dynamic that may have been facilitated by, but was in large part independent of, particular political institutions. Thus, the flexible belief system that characterized the diverse sects and monastic communities of early Buddhism allowed for fluid constructions of social status and occupation, creating possibilities for considerable social mobility. This situation contrasted, she suggests, with the more rigid Vedic varna system, which was characterized by inherited occupational groups and ritual status. She also noted Buddhists' liberal attitudes concerning wealth acquisition, which contributed to a "spirit of entrepreneurship" (Ray 1986: 204).

Many monastic sites were located along important transport routes across the Deccan and in major mountain passes between the upland plateau and west coast ports. The monasteries may have served as rest houses and sources of provisions for merchants, facilitating trade and, possibly, directly participating in it. Royal sponsorship of Buddhist institutions documented in inscriptions also marks an ideological flexibility of a kind common to many early empires. As will be considered in more detail below, the Satavahanas were Hindus, who performed Vedic sacrifices, proclaimed Brahmanical status, and donated land to Brahman communities. Their donations to Buddhist monasteries may have had economic consequences of reinvesting resources in ways that encouraged continued economic intensification, and ideological consequences as a tool for proclaiming a "universal" status.

The monastic sites are the best-known and most thoroughly documented archaeological remains of the Early Historic period. Many have been the focus of more than a century of art historical and architectural research (though virtually no work has been done on associated settlements or other remains left by the inhabitants/users of these sites).11 [And archaeological "clearance" work at some of the larger monastic sites has resulted in the removal and destruction of remains of non-elite activities (e.g., Schopen 1987).] Non-monastic sites, in contrast, have been much less thoroughly studied. Although numerous settlement sites are known from the Early Historic, very few have been subject to large-scale horizontal excavations; instead, excavations have typically consisted of a small number of stratigraphic trenches. Accurate maps of site plan and surface features are also not available for most reported sites. In some cases these problems are inescapable, as modern occupation overlays many Early Historic sites. However, this excavation strategy has also resulted from the predominance of chronological concerns among many researchers and a consequent lack of interest in settlement organization or internal variability. In perhaps the most dramatic example, the only excavations at the approximately 4 square kilometer site of Paithan, the reported capital of Pulumavi, were a few small stratigraphic trenches that were excavated in the mid-1930s and mid-1960s (Ghosh 1990: 325) and are still not fully published.12 [Renewed excavations at Paithan have been undertaken in the late 1990s; these are as yet unpublished.]

Equally problematic for archaeological understanding is the fact that few systematic surveys have been conducted that can allow scholars to situate the known larger sites in their regional context. As a result we know relatively little about the agricultural economies and communities that provided the economic base for the period's expanding economic and sociocultural networks (Morrison 1995b). It is also difficult to ascertain whether areas of particularly high site density have merely been subject to more intensive examination than other areas, or if the high site density in areas such as Karimnagar District of Andhra Pradesh is an accurate reflection of past population distributions. A further limitation of the archaeological evidence lies in the absence of systematic recovery or analysis of artifacts and botanical or zoological remains. Site reports typically contain brief summaries and illustrations of diagnostic finds, with little consideration of artifact distributions or intra- and inter-site variability (see M. L. Smith 1997 for an important exception).

Given the many problems with the archaeological data, what can we conclude? It is evident that the Early Historic period was a time of increasing sociopolitical and economic complexity in many areas of peninsular India. Numerous large population centers emerged in areas of arable soils, particularly along major rivers. Areas with mineral resources desirable for craft production and commerce (e.g., metals and precious and semi-precious stones) may also have been sites of increased exploitation and associated settlement. The emerging town or urban centers appear to have been foci of regional political, demographic, and economic systems, and were presumably centers of regional settlement systems that included numerous smaller habitation and production sites. The amount of land under agricultural regimes expanded through forest clearance and the construction of irrigation reservoirs and facilities. Craft production also intensified and the distribution of production debris at sites such as Kotalingala provide evidence for discrete areas of specialist production (also supported by the numerous inscriptional references to artisans and guilds). Many of the documented large settlements were enclosed within substantial earthwork and moat fortifications, suggesting competition and conflict between regional centers and a consequent need for defense.

The poorly understood settlement distributions appear to suggest a general pattern of Iron Age/Early Historic emergence of numerous small-scale regional polities, probably with fairly fluid boundaries (see also M. L. Smith 1997). These largely autonomous regional systems were incorporated into larger "imperial" political structures during periods of greater political unity that occurred under particularly strong leaders, perhaps including Asoka of the Mauryans or more probably under Gautamiputra Satakarni of the Satavahanas. There are few Mauryan inscriptions in the Deccan, and, as noted above, their territorial claims in the peninsula appear to have focused on limited areas of rich resources further to the south. And despite the grandiose claims of the above-mentioned Nasik inscription concerning Gautamiputra's territorial control, a similar discontinuous or mosaic pattern of territorial integration almost certainly existed during the periods of Satavahana hegemony. However, inscriptions do indicate some attempt to create more formal administrative and revenue collection structures, such as the ahara units.

The distributions of many artifact types and architectural styles suggest that these regional politics emerged in the context of a pan-regional material culture complex that superseded the extent of even the largest imperial politics, and which I suggest is indicative of broader cultural or "civilizational" trends. Although, as noted above, little systematic analysis has been done on artifact morphology, even a superficial glance at the limited subset of materials illustrated in site reports reveals a remarkable uniformity of some artifact forms over vast areas. This is particularly evident among certain ceramic wares, such as Black and Red Ware and Russet Coated Painted Ware, and in molded terracotta figurine types (roof tiles and grinding stone or quern styles are also quite widespread). In the absence of systematic artifact recovery techniques and quantitative studies it is impossible to say what percentage of artifact inventories from particular sites consisted of these widespread types as opposed to more locally specific artifact categories. In addition, no large-scale sourcing studies have been conducted to examine the production of these wares, though it is likely that the majority of ceramics and other domestic artifacts were produced relatively near to the region where they were consumed. This is supported by M. L. Smith's study of artifact distributions at the site of Kaundinyapur in Nagpur District. Her research demonstrated that most ceramic, chert, and ground stone materials recovered at the site were procured within a regional exchange and/or production network of 75-80 km in radius (M. L. Smith 1997: ch. 10).

The widespread similarity of various categories of locally produced artifacts is complemented by a very wide distribution of small quantities of exotic goods. These include ornaments such as lapis lazuli beads and possibly some scarce ceramic wares such as Northern Black Polished Ware and Rouletted Ware, and some coin types (though many of the latter appear to have intermediate distributions, larger than local regions but not pan-peninsular). Other widely distributed trade goods include Roman coins and very small numbers of Roman bronze artifacts; Mediterranean ceramics, particularly amphorae, are found most frequently at coastal sites. In addition, architectural and sculptural styles also had wide distributions, and Dehejia (1972: 139-40) has suggested the possibility of itinerant artisans or architects.

In Early Historic South Asia, as in many other areas, the mere presence of similar material culture, even in goods presumed to be markers of elite status, may be sufficient to support interpretations of some kind of minimally shared systems of meanings. However, it is clearly not sufficient to provide evidence for political boundaries or political unity.13 [This is a vexing challenge in the identification of preliterate empires and in the archaeological identification of political units of various scales, see Schreiber and Smith, this volume.] Such unity did not exist in the region during the Early Historic period, when scales of material culture distribution and political boundaries were quite discordant. I will not attempt an extended discussion of the significance of the appearance of material cultural "horizon styles" at this time in South Asian history. But taken together, both material and written evidence provide a picture of a dynamic period, when significant portions of the subcontinent's population were being incorporated, to a greater or lesser extent;14 [Though certainly not all; hunter-gatherers and so-called "tribal" communities no doubt persisted in many areas, and, like political territories, territories or communities participating in these broader "civilizational" processes were likely discontinuous.] into some kind of shared cultural framework.15 [Although people were no doubt moving over large areas during this period and the preceding Iron Age or Megalithic period, large-scale population migration does not seem to have played a major role in these changes.] Political elites such as the Satavahana rulers do not appear to have been the creators of such frameworks but did manipulate and benefit from them, both ideologically and economically from the increased production and flow of diverse resources from which they could extract wealth.

Cultural identity and legitimation

The picture I have painted of the Satavahanas conforms little to images of empires as highly centralized political formations with major impact on the social, political, and economic lives of the peoples they incorporate (in any case, an invalid image in many contexts). Yet, although imperial infrastructure may have been limited for much of the Satavahana period, textual sources indicate that Satavahana assertions of imperial status were expansive. While many issues concerning Satavahana regional and ethnic origins remain unresolvable, I turn in this section to evidence concerning how Satavahana elites defined themselves, how (and where) they presented their claims of identity, and the practices they employed to assert those claims.

I begin with a quotation from a recent historical overview of the Satavahanas. Writing of Gautamiputra Satakarni, Vasudev Mirashi (1981: 13-4) observed, "this Brahmana Satavahana changed his ladle for a sword when there was confusion and chaos in the country after the death of Asoka, and established peace and order in the Deccan." He continued, "Though the Satavahanas were themselves Aryas and belonged to the Brahmana caste, they married Naga and even Saka women without inhibition ... In that age Hinduism had a catholic outlook and freely admitted the Sakas, Yavanas and Pahlavas to its fold."

Although these quotations are problematic on multiple counts, Mirashi, whose writings celebrate Satavahana imperial grandeur, derived his interpretations from an uncritical reading of Satavahana self-presentation in royal inscriptions. That the Satavahanas claimed Brahmanical status is evidenced in the Nasik II inscription of the mother of Gautamiputra Satakarni. The inscription celebrates her son's outstanding character and lists his many accomplishments. Thus, Gautamiputra Satakarni is referred to as "sole archer ... sole hero ... sole Brahmana" (Trautmann 1981: 364), and as he "who humbled the pride and arrogance of the Kshatriyas" (Burgess 1964 [1881]: 109).16 [In the varna hierarchy of Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras, the Kshatriyas are warriors and kings, while the Brahmans are priests who perform the sacrifices necessary to consecrate rulers (see Thapar 1984: 34 ff.; Heesterman 1985). A Brahman king disturbs this order, and Gautamiputra is portrayed as somewhat of a reluctant king who took power to prevent further abuses of the populace by corrupt Kshatriya rulers.]

As Trautmann (1981: 364) has noted, it is an unwarranted leap to conclude from this inscription that the Satavahanas were of Aryan or northern origin (and, he argues, inscriptional evidence for a Dravidian pattern of cross-cousin royal marriages suggests the contrary, see below). A more appropriate characterization is that the Satavahanas drew creatively from a range of contemporary values and practices in their production of a cultural iconography of kingship. Among these values was the fourfold varna system of ranked ritual status (Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra) and principles of caste (rather than those proclaimed by the Mauryan ruler Asoka). Social hierarchy and systems of inherited status had no doubt marked Deccani social relations from at least the Iron Age and early first millennium BCE (and in some areas, from the mid-second millennium BCE). However, the transformation of inherited status kin groups into hereditary socioritual castes was only beginning to gain a foothold in the Deccan during the Early Historic period and did not yet play a major role in structuring social organization and relations.17 [This is evidenced in the lack of caste names or references in the inscriptional record, as well as inscriptional evidence for occupational mobility. Guilds and artisan communities did exist in this period, but they do not seem to have yet acquired the religious and behavioral attributes that would later come to characterize caste.] Such groups were, however, important in northern India and the Ganges Basin states that predated and were in contact with the Deccan.

Satavahana rulers also asserted their royal status through the performance of Vedic sacrifices, essential to royal legitimation in the Vedic tradition. These are documented in the Naneghat inscription of Nayanika, in which she recounted the many sacrifices sponsored by her late husband Satakarni I and the associated fees paid to officiating Brahman priests and attendees. The inscription records two horse sacrifices -- or asvamedha -- the most important of all Vedic royal rituals,18 ...

[As described in the Vedic literature, during the year-long asvamedha ritual a specially consecrated horse was released to roam freely, accompanied by a group of warriors. As evidenced in the citation below, the sacrificial horse embodied qualities of the cosmos, and the king sponsoring the ritual could claim all territories through which the animal traveled uncontested (or where the warriors defeated those who sought to impede its passage), and in so doing established himself as a universal ruler. At the end of the year, the horse was returned to the ruler's capital and sacrificed in an elaborate and costly ceremony.

FN: Dawn verily is the head of the sacrificial horse. The sun is his eye; the wind, his breath; the universal sacrificial fire, his open mouth; the year is the body of the sacrificial horse. The sky is his back; the atmosphere, his belly; the earth, his underbelly; the directions, his flanks; the intermediate direction, his ribs; the seasons, his limbs; the months and half-months, his joints; days and nights, his feet; the stars, his bones; the clouds, his flesh. Sand is the food in his stomach; rivers, his entrails; mountains, his liver and lungs; plants and trees, his hair; the rising sun, his forepart; the setting sun, his hindpart. When he yawns, then it lightnings; when he shakes himself then it thunders; when he urinates, then it rains.

-- (from the Brihad Aranyaka I: 1: 1, quoted in Embree 1966: 52)

... a rajasuya or royal consecration sacrifice, an agnyadheya or "kindling of the sacred fire" sacrifice, and several other named sacrifices. The fees recorded as associated with each of these sacrifices were substantial, for example, 10,001 cows for a Bhagala-Dasaratra sacrifice, or 24,400 coins for another sacrifice (the inscription is damaged, so it is not clear which sacrifice this fee was associated with; Burgess 1970 [1883]: 61-3). The record of these sacrifices was composed in Prakrit and carved on the walls of a Buddhist monastic rock-cut cave located along an important inland trade route. As noted earlier, the Satavahanas, although not Buddhist, were generous in their sponsorship of Buddhist monasteries and communities of monks. The numerous inscriptions further attest that monasteries were an important venue for displaying royal and non-royal generosity, whether to Buddhists or to other communities (especially Brahman communities ).

While Satavahana Brahmanical identity and royal sacrifices drew on Indo-Aryan Vedic sources to legitimate royal status, royal marriages relied on rather different cultural sources and/or pragmatic needs. In an analysis of the admittedly limited kinship data that can be derived from royal inscriptions, Trautmann (1981: 363-75) has argued that there was a consistent pattern of cross-cousin royal marriages (this is a form of marriage explicitly barred in Indo-Aryan kinship systems, while it is the preferred form according to Dravidian kinship rules). Inscriptions record multiple and multigenerational marriage relations between Satavahana nobility and two groups known as the Maharathis and Mahabhojas. Trautmann interpreted the latter as territorial hereditary groups who, with the Satavahanas, comprised the aristocracy of the Deccan. He further suggested that the common use of matronyms and other references to mothers' lineages in royal inscriptions19

FN: For example, an inscription in Cave LXXII at Nasik associated with a Satavahana princess, possibly the daughter of Pulumavi (110-138 C E) reads as follows:

... on the tenth (lunar day). On the above (date) Nagamulanika, daughter of the great king and daughter of the Mahabhoji, wife of the Maharathi, mother of Khamdanagastaka, and sister of the Mahabhoja Ahija Denaseana excavated a cave (as) a meritorious gift for the community of the ascetics ... for the benefit of her parents. (Burgess 1970 [1883]: 86)] could have served both to refer to an important group of allies and to emphasize the purity of royal descent on both the mother's and father's sides (Trautmann 1981: 374).

Thus, unlike as prescribed in the sacred Hindu texts, Satavahana women did not sever relations with their natal families upon marriage; instead relations with both parents' kin groups bolstered critical political and social alliances among regional elites. In contrast to the preferred pattern of royal marriages among members of related lineages, a Kanheri inscription records an example of a royal marriage of a kind that is common to many early states -- between non-kin and indeed political adversaries -- the Satavahana king Vasisthiputra Satakarni and a Kshtrapa royal woman. She was likely the daughter of the Kshtrapa King Rudradaman I, who in an inscription at the site of Junagarh was called "he who has obtained glory because he did not destroy Satakarni, lord of the Deccan, on account of his near relationship by marriage, though he had twice conquered him" (Trautmann 1981: 367).

In contrast to the multiple claims to Brahmanical and Vedic status noted above, there is little evidence that Satavahana rulers traced their legitimacy to the earlier Mauryan empire. However, one newly discovered sculpture from the site of Sannathi (Karnataka) does provide evidence that Asoka had not been entirely forgotten during the Satavahana period. This is a small unpublished sculptural panel recently uncovered in excavations of a second-century CE Buddhist stupa by the Archaeological Survey of India (Shankar, personal communications 1999). The panel depicts a standing turbaned figure; at his feet is a Brahmi inscription that reads "King Asoka." Excavators have tentatively dated this image to the mid-second century CE, nearly 400 years after Asoka's death (c. 232 BCE). We do not know who sponsored the construction of this stupa (i.e., whether it was a royal construction). Nonetheless, the presence of this image does indicate that, although the Mauryans were not referred to in Satavahana royal inscriptions, they, or at least Asoka, were still remembered in Buddhist sacred contexts.[??!!]

Authorial bias refers to the tendency of an author to present information or express opinions that are influenced by their personal beliefs, values, or experiences. This can result in a lack of objectivity and may impact the credibility and reliability of the information presented.

THE SATAVAHANA POLITY: FORM AND SUBSTANCE

I began researching this chapter with the idea that there was more form than substance in the Satavahana empire: that is, that the presentation of imperial status in inscriptions and monuments far surpassed any political, military, or economic infrastructure of empire that existed during the period. And to a considerable extent, I still think this is a valid characterization, though the limited or problematic nature of the archaeological and textual evidence does hinder our ability to examine relations between polity, economy, and social/ideological processes. Nonetheless, the empire was characterized by brief periods of greater political centralization and more effective administration that correlated with the reigns of particularly capable rulers who were able to both achieve and consolidate military successes.

There is evidence for this consolidation in a number of inscriptions that document some kind of formal revenue collection system, territorial administrative framework, and royal officials (such as the foreman of the artisans mentioned above). For example, two inscriptions of Gautamiputra Satakarni from Nasik Cave XI (Nasik inscriptions 13 and 14; Burgess 1964 [1881]: 104-6) record the donation of agricultural fields to a community of ascetics. They further declare that these monks were to be granted immunities from all taxes and from all interference from royal officers, and were otherwise "endowed with immunities of all kinds" (Burgess 1964 [1881]: 106).

In addition, the first of these inscriptions concludes that "a charter has been drawn up, which has been approved of by the minister Sivagupta who received verbal orders, and which is preserved by the great lords" (Burgess 1964 [1881]: 105). The second inscription expands on the previous donation. It acknowledges Syamaka, the minister of the Govardhana ahara, and records a donation given by Gautamiputra Satakarni in concert with his mother; a charter of this inscription is recorded as having been drawn up and approved by a woman named Lota, whose status Burgess (1964 [1881]: 106) has translated as "chief lady-in-waiting" to the Queen Mother. These inscriptions suggest the existence of some kind of bureaucratic structure during the early second century CE, although its stability and effectiveness cannot be ascertained.

There is considerable evidence that in the intense competition among the numerous rival states that comprised South Asia during the Early Historic period, the Satavahanas can be counted among the major political and military players and were occasionally transcendent, able to conquer and incorporate rival polities. The Satavahanas were also successful in both benefiting from and participating in the economic expansion that characterized the period, including both agricultural intensification and increased production of non-agricultural commodities (including but not restricted to luxury goods), and their trade both within and beyond the subcontinent.

Yet it is perhaps through their ideological form that the Satavahanas were most successful. Their impact during the Early Historic period can perhaps best be seen in the revival of the dynasty in the western Deccan after a century of Kshtrapa hegemony, and in their second- (and third?)-century CE prominence in the eastern and southern Deccan. The last five Satavahana rulers listed in Table 6.1, and dating to after 181 CE (i.e., Candra Sri, Pulumavi II, Abhira Isvasena, Madharputra Sakasena, Haritiputra Satakarni), all appear to have been regional kings who controlled small territories in the southern and eastern Deccan. While their precise relations with earlier Satavahana rulers are unknown, their claims of connection to them attest to the importance of those earlier rulers and their legacy in later Deccani constructions of kingship and imperial identities. It may be then that the Satavahanas persisted longer in historical memories within the Deccan than did the Mauryas, who have such resonance for contemporary scholars and a broader public.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An earlier draft of this chapter was presented at the 122nd International Symposium of the Wenner Gren Foundation, "Imperial Designs: Comparative Dynamics of Early Empires." My deepest gratitude to the conference participants, and to Sydel Silverman, Laurie Obbink, and Mark Mahoney, and my fellow conference organizers, Sue Alcock, Terry D'Altroy, and Kathy Morrison. My thanks also to the conference participants and to Rob Brubaker, Lars Fogelin, Joyce Marcus, and Norman Yoffee for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Amaravati Stupa
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/20/24
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaravati_Stupa
Frailin
Amaravati Stupa

Depiction of the stupa, from the site
Location Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh, India
Coordinates 16.5753°N 80.3580°E
Height originally perhaps 73 m (241 ft)
Built 3rd Century BCE



Ruins of the stupa, 2012


A model of the original stupa, final phase, as reconstructed by archaeologists

Amarāvati Stupa is a ruined Buddhist stūpa at the village of Amaravathi, Palnadu district, Andhra Pradesh, India, probably built in phases between the third century BCE and about 250 CE. It was enlarged and new sculptures replaced the earlier ones, beginning in about 50 CE.[1] The site is under the protection of the Archaeological Survey of India, and includes the stūpa itself and the Archaeological Museum.[2]

The surviving important sculptures from the site are now in a number of museums in India and abroad; many are considerably damaged. The great majority of sculptures are in relief, and the surviving sculptures do not include very large iconic Buddha figures, although it is clear these once existed. The largest collections are the group in the Government Museum, Chennai (along with the friezes excavated from Goli), that in the Amaravati Archaeological Museum, and the group in the British Museum in London. Others are given below.[3]

Art historians regard the art of Amaravati as one of the three major styles or schools of ancient Indian art, the other two being the Mathura style, and the Gandharan style.[4] Largely because of the maritime trading links of the East Indian coast, the Amaravati school or Andhra style of sculpture, seen in a number of sites in the region, had great influence on art in South India, Sri Lanka and South-East Asia.[5]

Like other major early Indian stupas, but to an unusual extent, the Amaravarti sculptures include several representations of the stupa itself, which although they differ, partly reflecting the different stages of building, give a good idea of its original appearance, when it was for some time "the greatest monument in Buddhist Asia",[6] and "the jewel in the crown of early Indian art".[7]

Name of the site

The name Amaravathi is relatively modern, having been applied to the town and site after the Amareśvara Liṅgasvāmin temple was built in the eighteenth century.[8] The ancient settlement, just next to the modern Amaravathi village, is now called Dharanikota; this was a significant place in ancient times, probably a capital city. The oldest maps and plans, drawn by Colin Mackenzie and dated 1816, label the stūpa simply as the deepaladimma or 'hill of lights'.[9] The monument was not called a stūpa in ancient inscriptions, but rather the mahācetiya or great sanctuary.[10]

History

The stupa, or mahāchetiya, was possibly founded in the third century BCE in the time of Asoka but there is no decisive evidence for the date of foundation.[11] The earliest inscription from the site belongs to the early centuries BCE but it cannot be assigned to Aśoka with certainty.[12] The earliest phase from which we have architectural or sculpted remains seems to be post-Mauryan, from the 2nd century BCE.[13]

The main construction phases of Amaravati fall in two main periods, with the stupa enlarged in the second by additions to the main solid earth mound, faced with brick, consisting of railings (vedikā) and carved slabs placed around the stūpa proper. As elsewhere these slabs are usually called 'drum slabs' because they were placed round the vertical lower part or "drum" (tholobate) of the stūpa. In the early period (circa 200-100 BCE), the stūpa had a simple railing consisting of granite pillars, with plain cross-bars, and coping stones. The coping stones with youths and animal reliefs, the early drum slabs, and some other early fragments belong to this period. The stūpa must have been fairly large at this time, considering the size of the granite pillars (some of which are still seen in situ, following excavations).[14]


Reconstruction of the Amaravati Stupa, by or after Sir Walter Elliott 1845.[15]

The late period of construction started around ca. 50 BCE and continued until circa 250 CE. The exterior surfaces of the stupa and the railings were in effect all new, with the old elements reused or discarded. James Burgess in his book of 1887 on the site, noted that:[16]

wherever one digs at the back of the outer rail, broken slabs, statues &etc, are found jammed in behind it. The dark slate slabs too of the procession path are laid on a sort of concrete formed of marble chips, broken slabs, pillars &etc ...

At the base the dome seems to have been brought out by 2.4 metres all round, the distance between the outer face of the old drum wall, and that of the new one. The older wall was 2.4 metres thick and the new one 1.2 metres. The size and shape of the new dome is uncertain.[17]

The earlier vedika railings were also replaced with larger ones, with more sculpture. Some of the old stones were recycled elsewhere on the site. The pillars had mostly been plain, but there was a coping carved in relief at the top.[18] Burgess estimated that the new railings were some 3 metres tall, 59 metres in diameter, with 136 pillars and 348 crossbars, running for 803 feet in total.[19]

The work of this period has generally been divided into three phases on the basis of the styles and content of the railing sculpture and so dates that can be assigned to parts of the great limestone railing.[20] Shimada dates the first phase to 50-1 BCE, about the same period as the Sanchi stūpa I gateways. The second phase is 50-100 CE, the same period as Karli chaitya and the Pandavleni Caves (no. 3 and 10) at Nasik. The third phase is circa 200-250 CE based on comparisons with Nagarjunakonda sculpture. Some other types of sculpture belong to an even later time, about the seventh or eighth centuries, and include standing Bodhisattvas and goddesses. Amaravātī continued to be active after this time, probably to about the thirteenth century.

The Chinese traveller and Buddhist monk Hiuen Tsang (Xuanzang) visited Amaravati in 640 CE, stayed for some time and studied the Abhidhammapitakam. He wrote a enthusiastic account of the place, and the viharas and monasteries there.[21] It was still mentioned in Sri Lanka and Tibet as a centre of Esoteric Buddhism as late as the 14th century.[22]


Plan of the Amaravati Stupa as sketched by Colin Mackenzie in 1816.[23]

During the period of the decline of Buddhism in India, the stupa was neglected and was buried under rubble and grass. A 14th-century inscription in Sri Lanka mentions repairs made to the stupa, and after that it was forgotten. The stupa is related to the Vajrayana teachings of Kalachakra, still practiced today in Tibetan Buddhism.[24] The Dalai Lama of Tibet conducted a Kalachakra initiation at this location in 2006, attended by over 100,000 pilgrims.[25]

Recovery

Westerners were first alerted to the ruins of the Stupa at Amaravati after a visit in 1797 by Major Colin Mackenzie.[26] On the right bank of the Krishna River[27] in the Andhra district of southeast India, Mackenzie came across a huge Buddhist construction built of bricks and faced with slabs of limestone.[28] By the time he returned in 1816, indiscriminate excavations led by the powerful local zamindar Vasireddy Venkatadri Nayudu had already destroyed what remained of the structure and many of the stones and bricks had been reused to build local houses.[26] Mackenzie carried out further excavations, recorded what he saw and drew a plan of the stupa.[29]

In 1845, Sir Walter Elliot of the Madras Civil Service explored the area around the stupa and excavated near the west gate of the railing, removing many sculptures to Madras (now Chennai). They were kept outside the local college before being transported to the Madras Museum. At this time India was run by the East India Company and it was to that company that the curator of the museum appealed. The curator Dr Edward Balfour was concerned that the artefacts were deteriorating so in 1853 he started to raise a case for them to be moved. Elliot seems to have made extensive notes and sketches of his excavations, but most of these were lost getting back to England.[30]


Excavation of the south gate of the stupa by J.G. Horsfall in 1880.[31]

By 1855, he had arranged for both photographs and drawings to be made of the artifacts, now called the Elliot Marbles. 75 photographs taken by Captain Linnaeus Tripe are now in the British Library. Many of the sculptures were exported to London in 1859,[32] though more remained in Madras. Robert Sewell, under James Burgess, first Director of the Archaeological Survey of India, made further excavations in the 1880s, recording his excavations in some detail with drawings and sketches but not in the detail that would now be expected.[26]

Plans have also been put in place to create a purpose built exhibition space for the sculptures still in India. Those marbles not in an air-conditioned store were said to show signs of damage from the atmosphere and salt.[32] The Chennai museum has plans for an air-conditioned gallery to install the sculptures, but these goals have yet to be realised.[33]

Sculptures


Later period railing pillar, incomplete at top

The history of the sculptures for the stupa is complicated and scholarly understanding of it is still developing. The subject matter of many detailed narrative reliefs is still unidentified,[34] and many reliefs of the first main phase round the drum were turned round in the second, and recarved on their previously plain backs, before being re-mounted on the drum. The earlier sculptures, now invisible and facing into the stupa, were often badly abraded or worn down in this position.[35]

In the final form of the stupa, it seems that all the sculpture of the early phase was eventually replaced, and new sculpture added in positions where there had been none before, giving a profusion of sculpture, both relief and free-standing, on the stupa itself, and the vedika railings and gateways surrounding it, making Amaravati "the most richly decorated stupa known".[36]

The final form of the railings had a diameter of 192 feet. The railing uprights were some 9 feet high, with three rounded cross-bars horizontally between them, and a coping at the top. Both uprights and cross-bars were decorated with round medallion or tondo reliefs, the latter slightly larger, and containing the most impressive surviving sculpture. Large numbers of the medallions contained just a single stylized lotus flower. The vedika had four entrances, at the cardinal directions, and here the railings turned to run away from the stupa.[37]

All this is much the same as at Sanchi, the surviving highly decorated stupa that is in the closest to its original condition. But the Sanchi railings have much less decoration, except around the famous torana gateways; these do not seem to have been a feature at Amaravati.

Types of sculpture

Very little of the sculpture was found and properly recorded in its original exact location, but the broad arrangement of the different types of pieces is generally agreed. The many representations of a stupa, either representing the Amaravati Stupa itself, or an imaginary one very similar to it, provide a useful guide. It is not certain whether either the early or late phases of sculptural decoration were ever completed, as too much has been destroyed. Most survivals can be fitted into groups, by architectural function and placement.

A typical "drum-slab" is about 124 centimetres high, 86 cm wide and 12.5 cm thick. A two-sided example in the British Museum is dated by them to the 1st century BCE for the obverse face, with a scene of worshippers around the Bodhi Tree with no Buddha shown, and 3rd century CE for the reverse face, with a view of a stupa,[38] which large numbers of the later drum-slabs show. The stupas are broadly consistent and are generally taken to show what the late form of the Amaravati Stupa looked like, or was intended to.


Reconstructed section of the later railing at the site museum

The early railing pillars are in granite (apparently only on the east and west sides) and plain; the cross-bars were perhaps in limestone. Many stumps of the pillars are now arranged around the stupa. Fragments have been found of limestone coping stones, some with reliefs of running youths and animals, similar in style to those at Bharhut, so perhaps from c. 150-100 BCE.[39] This subject-matter continued in the coping stones of the first phase of the later railings.

The later "railing copings" (uṣṇīṣa) are long pieces typically about 75 to 90 cm tall and 20 to 28 cm thick,[40] running along the top of the railings (where perhaps their detail was hard to make out). Many are carved with crowded scenes, often illustrating Jataka tales from the previous lives of the Buddha. The early coping stones were smaller and mostly carved with a thick undulating garland with small figures within its curves.


Coping stone relief, late, inner face

There was also a much smaller set of limestone railings, undecorated, whose placing and function remains unclear.[41] The later ones, in limestone, are carved with round lotus medallions, and sometimes panels with figurative reliefs, these mostly on the sides facing in towards the stupa. There are three medallions to a column, the bottom one incomplete. Based on the style of the sculpture the construction of the later railing is usually divided into three phases, growing somewhat in size and the complexity of the images.[42]

Around the entrances there were a number of columns, pillars and pilasters, some topped with figures of sitting lions, a symbol of Buddhism. Several of these have survived. There are also small pilasters at the side of some other reliefs, especially drum-slabs showing stupas. The stupas on drum-slabs show large statues of a standing Buddha behind the entrances, but none of these have survived. Only a few fragments from the garland decorations shown high on the dome in drum-slab stupa depictions (one in Chennai is illustrated).


Later railing pillar, inner face


Early drum slab, with king and boy, and fragment of the relief decoration high on the dome


Drum-slab, later period, inscribed "(Adoration) to Siddhartha! Gift of coping stone to the great stupa of the Lord by the wife of the merchant Samudra, the son of the householder Samgha, living in the chief city of Puki district and by the ... householder Kotachandi for welfare and happiness of the world."[43]


Railing medallion with figures, including an aniconic Great Departure, and the worship of the Buddha's hair or turban, c. 150


Worship of the Buddha's bowl in heaven, c. 150


Buddha Preaching in Tushita Heaven


Coping stone relief with garland bearers


"Vase of plenty" drum-slab, late


Railing cross-bar medallion, late


Pilaster fragment, late, Veneration of the Buddha as a Fiery Pillar


Drawing of pillar fragments, c. 1853


Lion, from the top of a column

Amaravati School or style


Buddha statue at Nagarjunakonda

Amaravati itself is the most important site for a distinct regional style, called the Amaravati School or style, or Andhran style. There are numerous other sites, many beyond the boundaries of the modern state of Andhra Pradesh. One reason for the use of the terms Amaravati School or style is that the actual find-spot of many Andhran pieces is uncertain or unknown. The early excavations at Amaravati itself were not well recorded, and the subsequent history of many pieces is uncertain.[44] As late as the 1920s and beyond, other sites were the subject of "excavations" that were sometimes little better than treasure hunts, with pieces sold abroad as "Amaravati School".[45]

The second most important site for the style is Nagarjunakonda, some 160 km away. This was a large monastic vihara or "university", which is now submerged under a lake, after construction of a dam. Many remains were relocated to what is now an island in the lake, but most sculptures are now in various museums, in India and abroad.[46] The Chandavaram Buddhist site is another large stupa.

In reliefs, the mature Amaravati style is characterised by crowded scenes of "graceful, elongated figures who imbue the sculpted scenes with a sense of life and action that is unique in Indian art";[47] "decorative elements reach a suave richness never surpassed... In the narrative scenes, the deep cutting permits overlapping figures on two or even three planes, the figures appearing to be fully in the round. The superlative beauty of the individual bodies and the variety of poses, many realizing new possibilities of depicting the human form, as well as the swirling rhythms of the massed compositions, all combine to produce some of the most glorious reliefs in world art".[48]

Though the subject matter is similar to that at Bharhut and Sanchi "the style is notably different. Compared with the northern works, their figures are more attenuated and sensual, their decoration more abundant. Empty space is anathema, so that the entire surface is filled with figures in motion".[49]

In earlier phases, before about 180-200 CE, the Buddha himself is not shown, as also in other Indian schools.[50] Unlike other major sites, minor differences in the depiction of narratives show that the exact textual sources used remain unclear, and have probably not survived.[51]

Especially in the later period at Amaravati itself, the main relief scenes are "a sort of 'court art'", showing a great interest in scenes of court life "reflecting the luxurious life of the upper class, rich, and engaged in the vibrant trade with many parts of India and the wider world, including Rome".[52]

Free-standing statues are mostly of the standing Buddha, wearing a monastic robe "organized in an ordered rhythm of lines undulating obliquely across the body and imparting a feeling of movement as well as reinforcing the swelling expansiveness of the form beneath". There is a "peculiarly characteristic" large fold at the bottom of the robe, one of a number of features similar to the Kushan art of the north.[53]


A representation of Mara's assault on the Buddha, depicted in aniconic form, 2nd century AD, now thought to come from Nagarjunakonda


The Great Departure, 2nd century, aniconic


Life scenes of Buddha-2nd century CE, left panel


Life scenes of Buddha-2nd century, middle panel


Life scenes of Buddha-2nd century CE, right panel

Dating and ruling dynasties


Distribution of the Edicts of Ashoka[54]

From the 19th century, it was always thought that the stupa was built under the Satavahana dynasty, rulers of the Deccan whose territories eventually straddled both east and west coasts. However, this did not resolve the dating issues, as the dates of that dynasty were uncertain, especially at the start. Recently there has been more attention paid to the preceding local Sada dynasty, perhaps tributaries of the Mahameghavahana dynasty ruling Kalinga to the north. Their capital was probably Dhanyakataka; the stupa was just outside this.[55]

Since the 1980s, the dynasty has been given this name as all the names of kings from it, known from coins and inscriptions, end in "-sada" (as all from the later Gupta dynasty end in that).[56] They perhaps began to rule around 20 BCE.[57] Their coins nearly all have a standing lion, often with symbols that are very likely Buddhist.[58] Shimada suggests that much or most of the sculpture at Amaravati was created under Sada rule, before the Satavahanas took over in the 2nd century CE,[59] possibly around 100 CE.[60]

At the later end of the chronology, the local Andhra Ikshvaku ruled after the Satavahanas and before the Gupta Empire, in the 3rd and early 4th centuries, perhaps starting 325-340.[61]

The Colin Mackenzie album


Around the stupa wall in 2011: early granite railing pillar fragments, lotus flower medallions, & a large drum casing fragment with pilasters

This album of drawings of Amarāvati is a landmark in the history of archaeology in India. The pictures were made in 1816 and 1817 by a team of military surveyors and draftsmen under the direction of Colonel Colin Mackenzie (1757-1821), the first Surveyor-General of India.[62]

The album contains maps, plans and drawings of sculpture from the stūpa at Amarāvati. The album is preserved in the British Library, where it is online,[63] with a second copy in Kolkata.

Amarāvati sculptures worldwide


Tableau of Andhra Pradesh's 'Buddhist Heritage' in the Republic Day parade, 2006, New Delhi, the Great Stupa of Amaravati and the statue of Buddha along with Acharya Nagarjuna teaching his disciples


Apart from those in the site museum (some of which are casts), nearly all of the sculptures have been removed from the site of the stupa. Some pieces, especially from the early granite railing pillars, and lotus flower medallions, are placed around the stupa itself. Apart from the museum at the site, several museums across India and around the world have specimens from Amarāvati.[64] The largest collections are the group in the Government Museum, Chennai, and the group in the British Museum in London. Significant collections of sculpture are held in the following places:[65]

India
• Government Museum, Chennai[66]
• Archaeological Museum, Amaravathi[2]
• Indian Museum, Kolkata
• National Museum of India, New Delhi[67]
• State Museum, Hyderabad
• Patna Museum, Patna
• Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya, Mumbai[68]
• State Museum, Pudukkottai
• Baudhasree Archaeological Museum, Vijayawada
• State Museum Lucknow, Lucknow

United Kingdom
• The British Museum, London (see Amaravati Marbles)[69]

France
• Guimet Museum

Singapore
• Asian Civilisations Museum, Singapore[70]

United States
• University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia[71]
• Museum of Fine Arts, Boston[72]
• Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.[73]
• Seattle Art Museum, Seattle
• also Cleveland, Chicago, and Kansas City

See also

• List of tallest structures built before the 20th century

Notes

1. Shimada, 74
2. "Archaeological Museum, Amaravati - Archaeological Survey of India".
3. PDF List from the BASAS Project
4. Pal, Pratapaditya (1986). Indian Sculpture: Circa 500 B.C.-A.D. 700. Los Angeles County Museum of Art. p. 154. ISBN 978-0-520-05991-7.
5. Rowland, 210
6. Harle, 35
7. Harle, 34
8. South Indian transliteration differs from Hunterian transliteration, thus Amarāvatī can appear as Amarāvathī, Ratana as Rathana, etc.
9. For link to maps and plans at the British Library: The Amaravati Album
10. Pia Brancaccio, The Buddhist Caves at Aurangabad: Transformations in Art and Religion (Leiden: Brill, 2011), p. 47.
11. Shimada, 66
12. See Harry Falk, Aśokan Sites and Artefacts: A Source-Book with Bibliography (Mainz: Von Zabern, 2006).
13. Shimada, 72
14. Shimada, 72-74
15. see BM, 6
16. quoted, Shimada, 71, from The Buddhist Stupar of Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta in the Krishna District, Piadras Presidency, surveyed in 1882, published Trubner, 1887
17. Shimada, 82
18. Shimada, 64, plates 5-12
19. Shimada, 82
20. Shimada, 82-83, for Shimada see Akira Shimada
21. Travels of Xuanzang
22. BM, 1
23. see BM, 3
24. Kilty, G Ornament of Stainless Light, Wisdom 2004, ISBN 0-86171-452-0
25. Becker, 6
26. Buddha, ancientindia.co.uk, retrieved 19 December 2013
27. Erdosy, George; et al. (1995). The archaeology of early historic South Asia: the emergence of cities and states (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 146. ISBN 0521376955.
28. Amravati, PilgrimTrips, retrieved 12 January 2014
29. Government Museum Website Government Museum homepage (and then click on "Archaeology", Chennai Museum, Tamil Nadu, retrieved 11 January 2014
30. Shimada, 88
31. BM, 5
32. Roy, Amit (December 1992). "Out of Amatavati". IndiaToday. Retrieved 21 December 2013.
33. "History in stone". The Hindu. 28 January 2002. Archived from the original on 14 February 2002. Retrieved 22 December 2013.
34. BM, 48-57
35. Becker, 7-9; Shimada, 71; Shimada, plates 20 and 21 illustrate both sides of an example.
36. Fisher, 40 (see 197-200 on Borobudor for why this is presumably excluded from comparison).
37. Harle, 35
38. "drum-slab" (BM 1880,0709.79)
39. Shimada, 66-69, 72
40. Averaging BM 1880,0709.18 and BM 1880,0709.19
41. Shimada, 69-70
42. Shimada, 82-84
43. Government Museum, Chennai
44. BM, 2-6, 89
45. BM, 7, 97
46. Rowland, 212-213
47. Craven, 76
48. Harle, 79
49. Fisher, 51
50. Craven, 77; Harle, 38
51. BM, 48-50
52. BM, 46
53. Rowland, 209
54. "India: The Ancient Past" p.113, Burjor Avari, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-35615-6
55. BM, 46
56. BM, 38-39
57. BM, 41
58. BM, 38, 41-45
59. BM, 10
60. BM, 40
61. Shimada, 48-58
62. Howes, Jennifer (2002). "Colin Mackenzie and the Stupa at Amaravati". South Asian Studies. 18: 53–65. doi:10.1080/02666030.2002.9628607. S2CID 194108928.
63. link to the British Library album
64. These collections are being brought together in the World Corpus of Amarāvatī Sculpture, a digital project agreed to and jointly developed by the Archaeological Survey of India and the British Academy, London. website Archived 23 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine, another site, little developed
65. A fuller list, from BASAS
66. "Government Museum Chennai".
67. "National Museum, New Delhi".
68. Virtual Museum of Images and Sound - VMIS. "Collections-Virtual Museum of Images and Sounds".
69. "British Museum - Room 33a: Amaravati". British Museum.
70. "Singapore And India Sign Agreement : Ministry of Information, Communications and The Arts Press Release, 1 March 2003".
71. "Search Results for: Amaravati - Penn Museum Collections".
72. "Search". Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
73. "Object - Online - Collections - Freer and Sackler Galleries". Freer - Sackler. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. Retrieved 30 October 2015.

References

• Becker, Catherine, Shifting Stones, Shaping the Past: Sculpture from the Buddhist Stūpas of Andhra Pradesh, 2015, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199359400
• "BM": Amaravati: The Art of an Early Buddhist Monument in Context, Edited by Akira Shimada and Michael Willis, British Museum, 2016, PDF
• Craven, Roy C., Indian Art: A Concise History, 1987, Thames & Hudson (Praeger in USA), ISBN 0500201463
• Fisher, Robert E., Buddhist art and architecture, 1993, Thames & Hudson, ISBN 0500202656
• Harle, J.C., The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, 2nd edn. 1994, Yale University Press Pelican History of Art, ISBN 0300062176
• Rowland, Benjamin, The Art and Architecture of India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, 1967 (3rd edn.), Pelican History of Art, Penguin, ISBN 0140561021
• Shimada, Akira, Early Buddhist Architecture in Context:The Great Stūpa at Amarāvatī (Ca. 300 BCE-300 CE), Leiden: Brill, 2013, ISBN 9004233261, doi:10.1163/9789004233263

James Waterhouse
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/21/24


James Waterhouse - Stonehenge, Trilithon (On the left of altar stone), Yale Center for British Art

James Waterhouse (1842–1922) was a British photographer and Indian Army officer who headed the Photographic Department of the Survey of India and pioneered the development of photomechanical printing.

Early life

James Waterhouse was born in London on 24 July 1842, the son of William Waterhouse, solicitor and his wife Mary. He was educated at King's College and University College schools, London, before applying at the age of 17 years for a cadetship in the Bengal Artillery of the army of the East India Company.[1] From 1857-59 he attended the Company's military seminary at Addiscombe, near Croydon, before sailing for India, where he arrived in October 1859.

Photography in India

Waterhouse may well have first learnt photography during his time at Addiscombe, where the subject had formed part of the curriculum since the mid-1850s and while stationed in Meerut in 1859 he acquired his first camera, 'a half-plate set made of the good old French walnut wood ... [which] ... stood the hot dry climate wonderfully well'.[2] His first serious photographic expedition appears to have been made in 1861 in the company of a fellow officer, Boyce Edward Gowan, with whom he made the first recorded photographs of the ruined Buddhist stupa and monastery at Sanchi, near the holy Hindu city of Vidisha. In June 1861, an official circular issued under the authority of the Governor-General Lord Canning, was sent out encouraging military officers and others to collect photographs of ethnic and tribal types and in December 1861 Waterhouse was officially seconded to undertake a photographic tour of Central India (present-day Madhya Pradesh) for this purpose. This work occupied him for the whole of 1862 and involved a series of strenuous trips in Central India in search of suitable subjects: the best-known of this work is the series of portraits made of Sikandar Begum of Bhopal, her family and courtiers, taken in November of that year.[3] A selection of these portraits was later included in John Forbes Watson and John William Kaye, The People of India (8 vols., India Museum, London, 1868–75), while views taken at Sanchi during the trip were used by the architectural historian James Fergusson in his Tree and Serpent Worship (India Museum, London, 1868).

The Survey of India

In May 1866 Waterhouse was appointed Assistant Surveyor in charge of the photozincographic operations of the Survey of India and after undergoing training at Dehradun in the use of photozincography for the reproduction of maps and plans, he arrived in Calcutta in December 1866 to take up his new post. The remaining thirty years of his career were to be spent in supervising the photographic operations of the Calcutta headquarters, overseeing a dramatic growth in the department's output and activities, from a minor and ill-housed offshoot of the Survey of India to one of its most important departments, housed in the impressive quarters which survive to the present day in Wood Street. As well as printing maps and plans, the Photolithographic Department of the Survey undertook a wide range of additional photographic activities under Waterhouse's direction, including the copying of the sketches made by Edward Law Durand in the course of his work with the Afghan Boundary Commission of 1884-87, the producing of presentation albums for the Viceroy relating to the Gilgit Mission of 1888 and the reproduction of photographs made by the Archaeological Survey of India.

Later career and death

He retired from the Photography Section of the Surveyor-General's Office in Calcutta in 1897 after 31 years, at the age of 55, moving to Hurstmead, Eltham. Kent.[4] In his later career, Waterhouse was Honorary President of the Calcutta Zoological Gardens from 1894-1897, president of the Asiatic Society of Bengal from 1888-1890, and trustees and twice chairman of the Indian Museum in Calcutta. He was president of the Photographic Society of India and the Royal Photographic Society between 1905-1907.[5] He was made an Honorary Fellow of the RPS in 1905 and was awarded its Progress Medal in 1891 for his researches and work in orthochromatic photography and photographic etching.[6] and the Voigtländer Medal of the Vienna Photographic Society. He died on 28 September 1922, aged 80 years.

References

1. British Library, India Office Records, Cadet Papers, IOR/L/MIL/9/242 ff.65-74.
2. James Waterhouse, Thirty-seven years of photographic work in India, in Camera obscura: revue internationale pour la photographie paraissant touse les mois en 4 langues, Amsterdam, 1899-1901, vol. 1, no. 8 (1900), pp.594-95. For a complete transcript of Waterhouse's series of articles in this journal, see John Falconer et al, The Waterhouse Albums (Mapin Publishing, Ahmadabad, 2009).
3. For Waterhouse's own account of his photographic work in Central India, see Narrative of my tour in Malwa whilst engaged in photographing the tribes of Central India, British Library, India Office Records, Government of India Foreign Department Consultations (General Proceedings), no. 22 (July 1863), pp.34-37, IOR/P/205/14.
4. The late Major-General James Waterhouse I.A. Hon.FRPS, in The Photographic Journal, November 1922, pp. 487-488.
5. "WATERHOUSE, Maj.-Gen. James", Who Was Who (online edition, 2007)
6. Progress Medal. The Photographic Journal, June 1894, pp. 280-282.

Lala Deen Dayal
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/22/24
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lala_Deen_Dayal

Lala Deen Dayal
लाला दीन दयाल

Lala Deen Dayal, c. 1890
Born c. 1844
Sardhana, North-Western Provinces, Company Raj
Died July 1905
Bombay, Bombay Presidency, British India
Nationality Indian
Alma mater Thomason College of Civil Engineering
Known for Photography

Raja Lala Deen Dayal (Hindi: लाला दीन दयाल; c. 1844 – 1905; also written as 'Din Dyal' and 'Diyal' in his early years), famously known as Raja Deen Dayal[1]) was an Indian photographer. His career began in the mid-1870s as a commissioned photographer; eventually he set up studios in Indore, Mumbai and Hyderabad. He became the court photographer to the sixth Nizam of Hyderabad, Mahbub Ali Khan, Asif Jah VI, who awarded him the title Raja Bahadur Musavvir Jung Bahadur, and he was appointed as the photographer to the Viceroy of India in 1885.[2]

He received the Royal Warrant from Queen Victoria in 1897.[3]

Early life and education

Deen Dayal was born in Sardhana, Uttar Pradesh, near Meerut in a family of jewellers.[citation needed] He received technical training at Thomason College of Civil Engineering at Roorkee (now IIT Roorkee) in 1866 as an engineer in lower subordinate class.[4]

Career

In 1866, Deen Dayal entered government service as head estimator and draughtsman in the Department of Works Secretariat Office in Indore.[5] Meanwhile, he took up photography. His first patron in Indore was Maharaja Tukoji Rao II of Indore state, who in turn introduced him to Sir Henry Daly, agent to the Governor General for Central India (1871–1881) and the founder of Daly College, who encouraged his work, along with the Maharaja himself who encouraged him to set up his studio in Indore. Soon he was getting commissions from Maharajas and the British Raj.[4] The following year he was commissioned to photograph the Governor-General's tour of Central India.[6] In 1868, Deen Dayal founded his studio – Lala Deen Dayal & Sons – and was subsequently commissioned to photograph temples and palaces of India.[6] He established studios in Indore (Mid 1870s), Secunderabad (1886) and Bombay (1896).[7]

In 1875–76, Deen Dayal photographed the Royal Tour of the Prince and Princess of Wales.[5] In the early 1880s he travelled with Sir Lepel Griffin through Bundelkhand, photographing the ancient architecture of the region.[8] Griffin commissioned him to do archaeological photographs: The result was a portfolio of 86 photographs, known as "Famous Monuments of Central India".[9]

The next year he retired from government service and concentrated on his career as a professional photographer. Deen Dayal became the court photographer to the sixth Nizam of Hyderabad in 1885. Soon afterward he moved from Indore to Hyderabad.[9] In the same year he was appointed as the photographer to the Viceroy of India.[10] In time, the Nizam of Hyderabad conferred the honorary title of Raja upon him. It was at this time that Dayal created the firm Raja Deen Dayal & Sons in Hyderabad.[10]

Raja Deen Dayal was appointed photographer to Queen Victoria in 1897.[10]

In 1905–1906, Raja Deen Dayal accompanied the Royal Tour of the Prince and Princess of Wales.[10]

Legacy


Raja Lala Deen Dayal on a 2006 stamp of India

The Lala Deen Dayal studios' collection of 2,857 glass plate negatives was bought by the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA), New Delhi in 1989. Today it is the largest repository of his work. A large collection including celebrated images of the 1870s' famine are with the Peabody Essex Museum, US and the Alkazi collection in Delhi. In 2010, a retrospective exhibition of his work was held at IGNCA, curated by Jyotindra Jain.[11][12]

In 2006, a curated collection of Raja Deen Dayal's photographs was exhibited at the Salar Jung Museum during the Times Hyderabad Festival;[13] subsequently in November, the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts released a commemorative stamp honouring him; the ceremony was held at Jubilee Hall, Hyderabad.[3]

Gallery

Photographs taken by Deen Dayal in the 1880s, sourced from the British Library, George Curzon's Collection: Views of HH the Nizam's Dominions, Hyderabad, Deccan, 1892.


Purana Pul, Hyderabad


Bashir Bagh Palace, Hyderabad


The interior of the Basir-bagh Palace


Drawing Room of Chowmahalla Palace, Hyderabad


A distant view of the Falaknuma Palace from an opposite hillside, taken by in the 1880s


Rashtrapati Nilayam, Hyderabad, then Residency House circa 1892

Notes

1. The Library of Congress (Washington, DC, USA) gives the date of his death as 5 July 1905, which is probably an error, and gives the preferred form of his name as "Deen Dayal, Raja". The Union List of Artist Names gives his year of death as 1910 and the preferred form of his name as "Dayal, Lala Deen".
2. "Portrait of a photographer". The Tribune. 8 February 2004.
3. "Lala Deen Dayal stamp released: Many photographers fail to match Deen Dayal's ability even today, says Union Minister". The Hindu. 12 November 2006. Archived from the original on 27 October 2007.
4. "Biography". Archived from the original on 22 January 2011. Retrieved 4 December 2010.
5. Thomas 1981, p. 24.
6. Johnson 1990.
7. "HOME :: Raja Lala Deen Dayal". http://www.laladeendayal.in. Retrieved 2 June 2019.
8. Thomas 1981, p. 39.
9. "Vignettes of a splendorous era". The Hindu. 28 November 2010. Archived from the original on 5 December 2010.
10. Thomas 1981, p. 40.
11. "The Raja of images". Hindustan Times. 3 December 2010. Archived from the original on 4 February 2011.
12. "Framing history". Indian Express. 1 December 2010.
13. "Deen Dayal's 'eyes' capture bygone era". The Times of India. 26 April 2006.

References

• "Deen Dayal, Raja, LC Control Number n 79141503". Anglo-American Name Authority File. Retrieved 18 August 2006.
• Canadian Centre for Architecture; Collections Online, s.v. “Dayal, Lala Deen”, cited 18 August 2006.
• Johnson, William S. (1990). Nineteenth-Century Photography: An Annotated Bibliography, 1839–1879. Boston: G.K. Hall.
• Thomas, G. (1981). History of photography, India, 1840–1980. Andhra Pradesh State Akademi of Photography. pp. 24, 31, 39, 40.
• Union List of Artist Names, s.v. "Dayal, Lala Deen", cited 18 August 2006.

Further reading

• Princely India: Photographs by Raja Deen Dayal, 1884–1910, by Deen Dayal (Author), Clark Worswick. Knopf, 1980. ISBN 0-394-50772-X.
• Raja Deen Dayal : Prince of Photographers, by Narendra Luther, Sureshchand Deendayal. Hyderabadi, 2003. ISBN 81-901752-0-3.
• Lala Deen Dayal: the eminent Indian photographer, 1844–1910, Deen Dayal (Raja), London Borough of Camden. Libraries & Arts Dept., 2002.
• Raja Deen Dayal Collection at Alkazi Foundation

External links

• Media related to Lala Deen Dayal at Wikimedia Commons
• Official website
• Lala Deen Dayal, resource website
• Documentary

Yavanarajya inscription
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/22/24

Yavanarajya inscription

Ancient Sanskrit inscription
Mathura GMM 88.150
Material: red sandstone
Size: 102 x 37 centimeters
Writing: Sanskrit, Brahmi script[1]
Created: 1st Century BCE
Discovered: 1988, in Maghera, a village outside Mathura
27.571171°N 77.590097°E
Place: Mathura, Uttar Pradesh
Present location: Mathura Museum, India

Maghera (Mathura) is located in India

The Yavanarajya inscription, also called the Maghera Well Stone Inscription,[2] was discovered in the village of Maghera, 17 kilometers north of Mathura, India in 1988.[3] The Sanskrit inscription, carved on a block of red sandstone, is dated to the 1st century BCE, and is currently located at the Mathura Museum in Mathura.[3][4] The inscription notes the donation of a water well and tank to the community in 1st century BCE, built by a Brahmana.[5]

The inscription was published and analysed by French indologist Gérard Fussman in 1993.[6] The inscription is in Brahmi script, and is significant because it mentions that it was made in Year 116 of the Yavanarajya ("Kingdom of the Yavanas"), and proves the existence of a "Yavana era" in ancient India.[7] It may mean that Mathura was a part of a Yavana dominion, probably Indo-Greek, at the time the inscription was created.[3]

Inscription

The Yavanarajya inscription is in Brahmi script and describes a dedication for a well and a tank in Mathura on "The last day of year 116 of Yavana dominion (Brahmi script: [x] Yavanarajya)". Although the term "Yavanas" can sometimes mean "westerners" in general, inscriptions made at this early period generally use the term Yavana to refer to the Indo-Greeks, and known inscriptions referring to the Indo-Parthians or Indo-Scythians in Mathura never use the term Yavana.[3] The date mentioned on the stone was the Hindu festival day of Holi, according to the Hindu calendar.[3][8]

Date

The year 116 probably refers to the Yavana era (yonana vasaye), thought to begin in 186-185 BCE based on Bajaur reliquary inscription which gives an equivalence between the Yavana era and the Azes era.[9] The inscription would thus have a date of 70 or 69 BCE.[5][9] Some other authors have also suggested the date is counted in the Maues era (circa 80 BCE) or the Azes era (circa 57 BCE), but these have never been referred to as "Yavana era" in any other inscription.[3]

Harry Falk and others have suggested that the Yavana era actually started in 174 BCE, based on a reevaluation of the Azes era which is now thought to have started in 47/46 BCE. This reevaluation of the start of the Yavana era means that the Yavanarajya inscription dates to 58 BCE.[10]

Content

The Yavanarajya inscription, written in elegant Sanskrit, reads:[11]

Yavanarajya inscription

Translation (English) / Transliteration (original Brahmi script) / Inscription (Sanskrit in the Brahmi script)

On this day, the year one hundred sixteen, 116, of the Yavana kingdom, in the fourth month of winter on the thirtieth day... [This is] the well and tank of Ahogani, the mother of the merchant Virabala, who was the son of Ghosadatta, a Brahmana of the Maitreya clan (gotra), with [her] son Virabala, daughter-in-law Bhaguri, and grandsons Suradatta, Rsabhadeva, and Viraddata. May (their) merit increase — Mathura Yavanarajya inscription, Translated by Sonya Rhie Quintanilla[9] / [x] Yavanarajyasya ṣoḍaśottare varṣaśate 100 10 6 hemata māse 4 divase 30 etaye purvaye; [x] brāhmaṇasya maitreyasa gotrasya ghoṣadatta putrasya sārthavāhasya vīrabalasya māturāhogaṇiya udapāni; [x] puṣkariṇi saha putreṇa vīrabalena vadhuye bhāgureye pautrehi ca śuradattena ṛṣabhadevena viradattena ca puṇyam vardhatu[9] / Yavanarajya inscription.

Interpretation


The Indo-Greek king Menander I.

The Yavanarajya inscription, states Sonya Rhie Quintanilla, mentions year 116 of the yavana hegemony (yavanarajya), attesting to the 2nd-century and 1st-century BCE Indo-Greek presence. This makes the inscription unique in that it mentions the Indo-Greeks, and it "may confirm" the numismatic and literary evidence which suggests that Mathura was under the ruler of the Indo-Greeks during the period between 185 BCE-85 BCE.[12] It is unclear whether the Indo-Greeks were still present at the time the inscription was engraved, states Quintanilla. She states that the inscription's mention of a family of "Brahmin merchants" is significant as well and the foreign rule must have had a lasting impression on them.[5]

Quintanilla states that the nearly contemporaneous coinage of Menander I (165-135 BCE) and his successors found in the Mathura region, in combination with this inscription, suggests the hypothesis that there was a tributary style relationship between the Indo-Greek suzerains and the Mitra dynasty that ruled that region at the time.[5]

Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings, territories and chronology Based on Bopearachchi (1991)

The Shunga Empire was an ancient Indian dynasty from Magadha that controlled areas of the central and eastern Indian subcontinent from around 184 to 75 BCE. The dynasty was established by Pushyamitra Shunga, after taking the throne of the Maurya Empire....
 
Pushyamitra Shunga ruled for 36 years and was succeeded by his son Agnimitra. There were ten Shunga rulers. However, after the death of Agnimitra, the second king of the dynasty, the empire rapidly disintegrated: inscriptions and coins indicate that much of northern and central India consisted of small kingdoms and city-states that were independent of any Shunga hegemony....
 
Art, education, philosophy, and other forms of learning flowered during this period including small terracotta images, larger stone sculptures, and architectural monuments such as the stupa at Bharhut, and the renowned Great Stupa at Sanchi....
 
Artistry also progressed with the rise of the Mathura art style.... 
 
However, the city of Mathura further west never seems to have been under the direct control of the Shungas, as no archaeological evidence of a Shunga presence has ever been found in Mathura. On the contrary, according to the Yavanarajya inscription, Mathura was probably under the control of Indo-Greeks from some time between 180 BCE and 100 BCE, and remained so as late as 70 BCE....

Meanwhile, Kabul and much of the Punjab passed into the hands of the Indo-Greeks...
 
-- Shunga Empire, by Wikipedia

References

1. Gerhard Lüdtke; et al. (2009). Kurschners Deutscher Gelehrten-Kalender 2009, Vols 1-4. W. de Gruyter. p. 2766.
2. Goyal, Shankar (2004). India's ancient past. Book Enclave. p. 183. ISBN 9788181520012.
3. History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura: Ca. 150 BCE - 100 CE, Sonya Rhie Quintanilla, BRILL, 2007 pp. 254-255
4. "Some Newly Discovered Inscriptions from Mathura : The Meghera Well Stone Inscription of Yavanarajya Year 160 Recently a stone inscription was acquired in the Government Museum, Mathura." India's ancient past, Shankar Goyal Book Enclave, 2004, p.189
5. History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura: Ca. 150 BCE - 100 CE, Sonya Rhie Quintanilla, BRILL, 2007, p.8-10 [1]
6. "Ménandre l’Indo-grec ou Paul Demiéville revisité" Journal Asiatique 1993, 1-2, pages 61–138
7. Fussman, Gérard. The riddle of the ancient eras is not yet solved (PDF). p. 242.
8. Gérard Fussman (1993), "Ménandre l’Indo-grec ou Paul Demiéville revisité", Journal Asiatique, Volume 281, 1-2, pages 113-114
9. History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura: Ca. 150 BCE - 100 CE, Sonya Rhie Quintanilla, BRILL, 2007, p.255-256 [2]
10. Falk, Harry (2007). "Ancient Indian Eras: An Overview". Bulletin of the Asia Institute. 21: 136. JSTOR 24049367.
11. Published in "L'Indo-Grec Menandre ou Paul Demieville revisite," Journal Asiatique 281 (1993) p.113
12. Quintanilla, Sonya Rhie (2007). History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura: Ca. 150 BCE - 100 CE. BRILL. p. 9. ISBN 9789004155374.

Part 1 of 2

Achaemenid conquest of the Indus Valley
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/22/24

Achaemenid conquest of the Indus Valley

Map of ancient India, c. 500 BCE, with the Persian frontier delineated along the Indus River and the Jhelum River[1][2][3][4]
Date: c. 535/518 BCE – 323 BCE[1]
Location: Indus Valley
Result: Persian victory
Territorial changes: Annexation of the Indus Valley by the Persians
Belligerents
Achaemenid Empire; Gandhara; Kambojas
Commanders and leaders
Cyrus the Great; Darius the Great; Various


Achaemenid coin, an imitation of an Athenian coin type, of the sort found in the Kabul hoard.[5]

Around 535 BCE, the Persian king Cyrus the Great initiated a protracted campaign to absorb parts of India into his nascent Achaemenid Empire.[1] In this initial incursion, the Persian army annexed a large region to the west of the Indus River, consolidating the early eastern borders of their new realm. With a brief pause after Cyrus' death around 530 BCE, the campaign continued under Darius the Great, who began to re-conquer former provinces and further expand the Achaemenid Empire's political boundaries. Around 518 BCE, the Persian army pushed further into India to initiate a second period of conquest by annexing regions up to the Jhelum River in what is today known as Punjab.[6] At peak, the Persians managed to take control of most of modern-day Pakistan and incorporate it into their territory.

The first secure epigraphic evidence through the Behistun Inscription gives a date before or around 518 BCE. Persian penetration into the Indian subcontinent occurred in multiple stages, beginning from the northern parts of the Indus River and moving southward.[7] As mentioned in several Achaemenid-era inscriptions, the Indus Valley was formally incorporated into the Persian realm through provincial divisions: Gandāra, Hindush, and Sattagydia.

Persian rule over the Indus Valley decreased over successive rulers and formally ended with the Greek conquest of Persia, led by Alexander the Great. This brief period gave rise to independent Indian kings, such as Abisares, Porus, and Ambhi, as well as numerous gaṇasaṅghas, which would later confront the Macedonian army as it massed into the region for Alexander's Indian campaign.[1] The Achaemenid Empire set a precedence of governance through the use of satrapies,[8] which was further implemented by Alexander's Macedonian Empire, the Indo-Scythians, and the Kushan Empire.

Background and invasion


India appears to the east of the inhabited world according to Herodotus, 500 BCE.


Ruins at Bhir Mound representing the city of Taxila during the Achaemenid period

For millennia, the northwestern part of India had maintained some level of trade relations with the Near East. Finally, the Achaemenid Empire underwent a considerable expansion, both east and west, during the reign of Cyrus the Great (c.600–530 BC), leading the dynasty to take a direct interest into the region of northwestern India.[1]

Cyrus the Great

The conquest is often thought to have started circa 535 BCE, during the time of Cyrus the Great (600-530 BCE).[9][10][1] Cyrus probably went as far as the banks of the Indus river and organized the conquered territories under the Satrapy of Gandara (Old Persian cuneiform: [x], Gadāra, also transliterated as Gandāra since the nasal "n" before consonants was omitted in the Old Persian script, and simplified as Gandara)[11] according to the Behistun Inscription.[12] The Province was also referred to as Paruparaesanna (Greek: Parapamisadae) in the Babylonian and Elamite versions of the Behistun inscription.[12] The geographical extent of this province was wider than the Indian Gandhara.[13] Various accounts, such as those of Xenophon or Ctesias, who wrote Indica, also suggest that Cyrus conquered parts of India.[14][1] Another Indian Province was conquered named Sattagydia ([x], Thatagus) in the Behistun inscription. It was probably contiguous to Gandhara, but its actual location is uncertain. Fleming locates it between Arachosia and the middle Indus.[15] Fleming also mentions Maka, in the area of Gedrosia, as one of the Indian satrapies.[16]

Darius I

A successor of Cyrus the Great, Darius I was back in 518 BCE. The date of 518 BCE is given by the Behistun inscription, and is also often the one given for the secure occupation of Gandhara in Punjab.[17] Darius I later conquered an additional province that he calls "Hidūš" in his inscriptions (Old Persian cuneiform: [x], H-i-du-u-s, also transliterated as Hindus since the nasal "n" before consonants was omitted in the Old Persian script, and simplified as Hindush), corresponding to the Indus Valley.[18][11][19] The Hamadan Gold and Silver Tablet inscription[20] of Darius I also refers to his conquests in India.[1]


Darius I on his tomb.

The exact area of the Province of Hindush is uncertain. Some scholars have described it as the middle and lower Indus Valley and the approximate region of modern Sindh,[21] but there is no known evidence of Achaemenid presence in this region, and deposits of gold, which Herodotus says was produced in vast quantities by this Province, are also unknown in the Indus delta region.[22] Alternatively, Hindush may have been the region of Taxila and Western Punjab, where there are indications that a Persian satrapy may have existed.[22] There are few remains of Achaemenid presence in the east, but, according to Fleming, the archaeological site of Bhir Mound in Taxila remains the "most plausible candidate for the capital of Achaemenid India", based on the fact that numerous pottery styles similar to those of the Achaemenids in the East have been found there, and that "there are no other sites in the region with Bhir Mound's potential".[23]

According to Herodotus, Darius I sent the Greek explorer Scylax of Caryanda to sail down the Indus river, heading a team of spies, in order to explore the course of the Indus river. After a periplus of 30 months, Scylax is said to have returned to Egypt near the Red Sea, and the seas between the Near East and India were made use of by Darius.[24][25]

Also according to Herodotus, the territories of Gandhara, Sattagydia, Dadicae and Aparytae formed the 7th province of the Achaemenid Empire for tax-payment purposes, while Indus (called [x], "Indos" in Greek sources) formed the 20th tax region.

Achaemenid army

See also: Achaemenid army


Greek Ionian (Yavanas), Scythian (Sakas) and Persian (Parasikas) soldiers of the Achaemenid army, as described on Achaemenid royal tombs from circa 500 to 338 BCE.

Throughout its existence, the Achaemenid were constantly engaging in wars. Either through conquering new territories or by quelling rebellions throughout the empire. To fulfil this need, the Achaemenid Empire had to maintain a professional standing army which levied and employed personnel from all of its satraps and territories.[26]

The Achaemenid army was not uniquely Persian. Rather it was composed of many different ethnicities that were part of the vast and diverse Achaemenid Empire. Herodotus gives a full list of the ethnicities of the Achaemenid army, in which are included Bactrians, Sakas (Scythians), Parthians, Sogdians,[27] Ionians (Greeks), Egyptians, Ethiopians, etc.[28][27] These ethnicities are likely to have been included in the Achaemenid army during the invasions of India.[27]

Inscriptions and accounts

Indian satrapies on the Statue of Darius I


[x] h-n-d-wꜣ-y Hindush ("India")[29]


sꜣ-d-g-wꜣ-ḏꜣ Sattagydia;


h-rw-ḫ-d-y Gandara

These events were recorded in the imperial inscriptions of the Achaemenids (the Behistun inscription and the Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription, as well as the accounts of Herodotus (483–431 BCE). The Greek Scylax of Caryanda, who had been appointed by Darius I to explore the Indian Ocean from the mouth of the Indus to Suez left an account, the Periplous, of which fragments from secondary sources have survived. Hecataeus of Miletus (circa 500 BCE) also wrote about the "Indus Satrapies" of the Achaemenids.

Behistun inscription

The 'DB' Behistun inscription[30] of Darius I (circa 510 BCE) mentions Gandara ([x], Gadāra) and the adjacent territory of Sattagydia ([x], Thataguš) as part of the Achaemenid Empire:

King Darius says: These are the countries which are subject unto me, and by the grace of Ahuramazda I became king of them: Persia [Pârsa], Elam [Ûvja], Babylonia [Bâbiruš], Assyria [Athurâ], Arabia [Arabaya], Egypt [Mudrâya], the countries by the Sea, Lydia [Sparda], the Greeks [Yauna (Ionia)], Media [Mâda], Armenia [Armina], Cappadocia [Katpatuka], Parthia [Parthava], Drangiana [Zraka], Aria [Haraiva], Chorasmia [Uvârazmîy], Bactria [Bâxtriš], Sogdia [Suguda], Gandara [Gadāra], Scythia [Saka], Sattagydia [Thatagus], Arachosia [Harauvatiš] and Maka [Maka]; twenty-three lands in all.

— Behistun Inscription of Darius I.[31][32]

From the dating of the Behistun inscription, it is possible to infer that the Achaemenids first conquered the areas of Gandara and Sattagydia circa 518 BCE.

Statue of Darius inscriptions

Hinduš is also mentioned as one of 24 subject countries of the Achaemenid Empire, illustrated with the drawing of a kneeling subject and a hieroglyphic cartridge reading [x] (h-n-d-w-y), on the Egyptian Statue of Darius I, now in the National Museum of Iran. Sattagydia also appears ([x], sꜣ-d-g-w-ḏ, Sattagydia), and probably Gandara ([x], h-rw-ḫ-d-y, although this could be Arachosia), with their own illustrations.[33][29]

Apadana Palace foundation tablets


Gold foundation plate of Darius I in the Apadana Palace in Persepolis with the word Hidauv, locative of "Hidus".[34]

Four identical foundation tablets of gold and silver, found in two deposition boxes in the foundations of the Apadana Palace, also contained an inscription by Darius I in Old Persian cuneiform, which describes the extent of his Empire in broad geographical terms, from the Indus valley in the east to Lydia in the west, and from the Scythians beyond Sogdia in the north, to the African Kingdom of Kush in the south. This is known as the DPh inscription.[35][36] The deposition of these foundation tablets and the Apadana coin hoard found under them, is dated to circa 515 BCE.[35]

Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid. King Darius says: This is the kingdom which I hold, from the Sacae who are beyond Sogdia to Kush, and from Sind (Old Persian: [x], "Hidauv", locative of "Hiduš", i.e. "Indus valley") to Lydia (Old Persian: "Spardâ") - [this is] what Ahuramazda, the greatest of gods, bestowed upon me. May Ahuramazda protect me and my royal house!

— DPh inscription of Darius I in the foundations of the Apadana Palace[37]

Naqsh-e Rustam inscription


The Naqsh-e Rustam DNa inscription, on the tomb of Darius I, mentioning all three Indian territories: Sattagydia ([x], Thataguš), Gandara ([x], Gadāra) and India ([x], Hidūš) as part of the Achaemenid Empire.[38]

The DSe inscription[39] and DSm inscription[40] of Darius in Susa gives Thataguš (Sattagydia), Gadāra (Gandara) and Hiduš (Sind) among the nations that he rules.[39][29]

Hidūš ([x] in Old Persian cuneiform) also appears later as a Satrapy in the Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription at the end of the reign of Darius, who died in 486 BCE.[29] The DNa inscription[19] on Darius' tomb at Naqsh-i-Rustam near Persepolis records Gadāra (Gandāra) along with Hiduš and Thataguš (Sattagydia) in the list of satrapies.[41]

King Darius says: By the favor of Ahuramazda these are the countries which I seized outside of Persia; I ruled over them; they bore tribute to me; they did what was said to them by me; they held my law firmly; Media, Elam, Parthia, Aria, Bactria, Sogdia, Chorasmia, Drangiana, Arachosia, Sattagydia, Gandara (Gadāra), India (Hiduš), the haoma-drinking Scythians, the Scythians with pointed caps, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Lydia, the Greeks (Yauna), the Scythians across the sea (Sakâ), Thrace, the petasos-wearing Greeks [Yaunâ], the Libyans, the Nubians, the men of Maka and the Carians.

— Naqsh-e Rustam inscription of Darius I (circa 490 BCE)[42][43]

Strabo

The extent of Achaemenid territories is also affirmed by Strabo in his "Geography" (Book XV), describing the Persian holdings along the Indus:[44]

The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus mountain: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians.

— The Geography of Strabo, Book XV, Chapter 2, 9.[44][45]

The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus mountain: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander took these away from the Arians and established settlements of his own, but Seleucus Nicator gave them [back] to Sandrocottus, upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants. [Meaning, he gave Sandrocottus "some of the places that lie along the Indus that had previously been taken from the Indians by Alexander. He did NOT give Sandrocottus EVERYTHING on the east side of the Indus."]

— Strabo 15.2.9

Achaemenid administration


Eastern territories of the Achaemenid Empire.[2][3][46]


The names of the three Ancient Indian provinces still appear in trilingual cuneiform labels above their respective figures on the tomb of Artaxerxes II (c.358 BCE).[47][48][49]

The nature of the administration under the Achaemenids is uncertain. Even though the Indian provinces are called "satrapies" by convention, there is no evidence of there being any satraps in these provinces. When Alexander invaded the region, he did not encounter Achaemenid satraps in the Indian provinces, but local Indian rulers referred to as hyparchs ("Vice-Regents"), a term that connotes subordination to the Achaemenid rulers.[50] The local rulers may have reported to the satraps of Bactria and Arachosia.[50]

Achaemenid lists of Provinces

Darius I listed three Indian provinces: Sattagydia (Thataguš), Gandāra (Gandhara) and Hidūš (Sind),[29] in which "Sind" should be understood as "Indus Valley".[51]

Gandhara included the entire Peshawar Valley which was bound by the Swat District in the north, Afghanistan in the West, the Indus River to the south east, and Kohat District in the south.[52] The capital of the Gandhara satrapy was Pushkalavati. Archeological excavations of Pushkalavati were conducted by Mortimer Wheeler in 1962 who discovered structures built during the Achaemenid period as well as artifacts.[52]

The Achaemenid Satrapy of Hindush incorporated the Greater Punjab region in the Indus Valley. It was bound by the Hazara region to the north, the Indus River to the west, and the Jhelum River in the south and east. The satrapy's capital was Bhir Mound in Takshashila (Taxila).[53] Bhir Mound was excavated by John Marshall between 1913 and 1934. Fortified structures and canals were found dating to the Achaemenid period, as well as ornamental jewelry.[53]

The three regions remained represented among Achaemenid Provinces on all the tombs of the Achaemenid rulers after Darius, except for the last ruler Darius III who was vanquished by Alexander at Gaugamela, suggesting that the Indians were under Achaemenid dominion at least until 338 BCE, date of the end of the reign of Artaxerxes III, before the accession of Darius III, that is, less than 10 years before the campaigns of Alexander in the East and his victory at Gaugamela.[50] The last known appearance of Gandhara in name as an Achaemenid province is on the list of the tomb of Artaxerxes II, circa 358 BCE, date of his burial.[47][48][49]

List of Herodotus

Herodotus (III-91 and III-94), gives a list with a slightly different structure, as some province which are presented separately in the Achaemenid inscriptions are grouped together by Herodotus when he described the tribute paid by each territory.[54][55][56] Herodotus presents Indos ([x]) as "the 20th province", while "the Sattagydae, Gandarii, Dadicae, and Aparytae" together form "the 7th Province".[56] According to historian A. T. Olmstead, the fact that some Achaemenid regions are grouped together in this list may have represented some loss of territory.[57]

The Hindūš province, remained loyal till Alexander's invasion.[58] Circa 400 BC, Ctesias of Cnidus related that the Persian king was receiving numerous gifts from the kings of "India" (Hindua).[29][a] Ctesias also reported Indian elephants and Indian mahouts making demonstrations of the elephant's strength at the Achaemenid court.[60]

By about 380 BC, the Persian hold on the region was weakening, but the area continued to be a part of the Achaemenid Empire until Alexander's invasion.[61]

Darius III (c. 380 – July 330 BC) still had Indian units in his army, albeit very few in comparison to his predecessors.[29] In particular he had 15 war elephants at the Battle of Gaugamela for his fight against Alexander the Great.[62]


Indian soldiers on the tomb of Darius I (c.500 BCE)


Indian soldiers on the tomb of Xerxes I (c.480 BCE)


Indian soldiers on the tomb of Artaxerxes I (c.430 BCE)


Indian soldiers on the tomb of Darius II (c.410 BCE)


Indian soldiers on the tomb of Artaxerxes II (c.370 BCE)


Indian soldiers on the tomb of Artaxerxes III (c.340 BCE)

Indian tributes

Apadana Palace


Hindush Tribute Bearers on the Apadana Staircase 8, circa 500 BCE.


A small but heavy load: Indian tribute bearer at Apadana, probably carrying gold dust.[63] 1 liter of gold weighs 19.3kg.

The reliefs at the Apadana Palace in Persepolis describe tribute bearers from 23 satrapies visiting the Achaemenid court. These are located at the southern end of the Apadana Staircase. Among the foreigners the Arabs, the Thracians, the Bactrians, the Indians (from the Indus valley area), the Parthians, the Cappadocians, the Elamites or the Medians. The Indians from the Indus valley are bare-chested, except for their leader, and barefooted and wear the dhoti. They bring baskets with vases inside, carry axes, and drive along a donkey.[64] One man in the Indian procession carries a small but visibly heavy load of four jars on a yoke, suggesting that he was carrying some of the gold dust paid by the Indians as tribute to the Achaemenid court.[63]

According to the Naqsh-e Rustam inscription of Darius I (circa 490 BCE), there were three Achaemenid Satrapies in the subcontinent: Sattagydia, Gandara, Hidus.[42][65]

Tribute payments

See also: Districts of the Achaemenid Empire


Volume of annual tribute per district, in the Achaemenid Empire, according to Herodotus.[66][67][29]

The conquered area was the most fertile and populous region of the Achaemenid Empire. An amount of tribute was fixed according to the richness of each territory.[68][66] India was already fabled for its gold.

Herodotus (who makes several comments on India) published a list of tribute-paying nations, classifying them in 20 Provinces.[69][56] The Province of Indos ([x], the Indus valley) formed the 20th Province, and was the richest and most populous of the Achaemenid Provinces.

The Indians ( Ἰνδῶν) made up the twentieth province. These are more in number than any nation known to me, and they paid a greater tribute than any other province, namely three hundred and sixty talents of gold dust.

— Herodotus, III 94.[56]

According to Herodotus, the "Indians" ('[x], Indoi)[70]), as separate from the Gandarei and the Sattagydians, formed the 20th taxation Province, and were required to supply gold dust in tribute to the Achaemenid central government for an amount of 360 Euboean talents (equivalent to about 8300 kg or 8.3 tons of gold annually, a volume of gold that would fit in a cube of side 75 cm).[68][66] The exchange rate between gold and silver at the time of Herodotus being 13 to 1, this was equal in value to the very large amount of 4680 Euboean talents of silver, equivalent to 3600 Babylonian talents of silver (equivalent in value to about 108 tons of silver annually).[68][66] The country of the "Indians" ('[x] Indoi) was the Achaemenid district paying the largest tribute, and alone represented 32% of the total tribute revenues of the whole Achaemenid Empire.[68][66][29] It also means that Indos was the richest Achaemenid region in the subcontinent, much richer than Gandara or Sattagydia.[29] However the amount of gold in question is quite enormous, so there is a possibility that Herodotus was mistaken and that his own sources actually only meant something like the gold equivalent of 360 Babylonian talents of silver.[22]


Gandaran delegation at Apadana Palace.

The territories of Gandara, Sattagydia, Dadicae (north-west of the Kashmir Valley) and the Aparytae (Afridis) are named separately, and were aggregated together for taxation purposes, forming the 7th Achaemenid Province, and paying overall a much lower tribute of 170 talents together (about 5151 kg, or 5.1 tons of silver), hence only about 1.5% of the total revenues of the Achaemenid Empire:[68][66]

The Sattagydae ([x]), Gandarii (Γανδάριοι), Dadicae, and Aparytae (Ἀπαρύται) paid together a hundred and seventy talents; this was the seventh province

— Herodotus, III 91.[56]


Ancient Indian soldiers of the three territories of Sattagydia, Gandhara and Hindush respectively,[71] supporting the throne of Xerxes I on his tomb at Naqsh-e Rostam.[72][73] See also complete relief. c. 480 BCE.


Indian soldiers of the Achaemenid army participated to the Second Persian invasion of Greece (480-479 BCE).

The Indians also supplied Yaka wood (teak) for the construction of Achaemenid palaces,[74][65] as well as war elephants such as those used at Gaugamela.[65] The Susa inscriptions of Darius explain that Indian ivory and teak were sold on Persian markets, and used in the construction of his palace.[1]

Contribution to Achaemenid war efforts

Second Persian invasion of Greece (480-479 BCE)

Indians were employed in the Achaemenid army of Xerxes in the Second Persian invasion of Greece (480-479 BCE). All troops were stationed in Sardis, Lydia, during the winter of 481-480 BCE to prepare for the invasion.[75][76] In the spring of 480 BCE "Indian troops marched with Xerxes's army across the Hellespont".[16][77] It was the "first-ever force from India to fight on the continent of Europe", storming Greek troops at the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BCE, and fighting as one of the main nations until the final Battle of Platea in 479 BCE.[78][79][80]

Herodotus, in his description of the multi-ethnic Achaemenid army invading Greece, described the equipment of the Indians:[77]

The Indians wore garments of tree-wool, and carried bows of reed and iron-tipped arrows of the same. Such was their equipment; they were appointed to march under the command of Pharnazathres son of Artabates.

— Herodotus VII 65

Probable Spartan hoplite (Vix crater, c. 500 BCE),[81] and a Hindush warrior of the Achaemenid army[82][83] (tomb of Xerxes I, c. 480 BCE), at the time of the Second Persian invasion of Greece (480–479 BCE).

Herodotus also explains that the Indian cavalry under the Achaemenids had an equipment similar that of their foot soldiers:

The Indians were armed in like manner as their foot; they rode swift horses and drove chariots drawn by horses and wild asses.

— Herodotus VII 86

The Gandharis had a different equipment, akin to that of the Bactrians:

The Bactrians in the army wore a headgear most like to the Median, carrying their native bows of reed, and short spears. (...) The Parthians, Chorasmians, Sogdians, Gandarians, and Dadicae in the army had the same equipment as the Bactrians. The Parthians and Chorasmians had for their commander Artabazus son of Pharnaces, the Sogdians Azanes son of Artaeus, the Gandarians and Dadicae Artyphius son of Artabanus.

— Herodotus VII 64-66

Destruction of Athens and Battle of Plataea (479 BCE)

After the first part of the campaign directly under the orders Xerxes I, the Indian troops are reported to have stayed in Greece as one of the 5 main nations among the 300,000 elite troops of General Mardonius. They fought in the last stages of the war, took part in the Destruction of Athens, but were finally vanquished at the Battle of Platea:[84]


Indian corps at the Battle of Plataea, 479 BCE.

Mardonius there chose out first all the Persians called Immortals, save only Hydarnes their general, who said that he would not quit the king's person; and next, the Persian cuirassiers, and the thousand horse, and the Medes and Sacae and Bactrians and Indians, alike their footmen and the rest of the horsemen. He chose these nations entire; of the rest of his allies he picked out a few from each people, the goodliest men and those that he knew to have done some good service... Thereby the whole number, with the horsemen, grew to three hundred thousand men.

— Herodotus VIII, 113.[85][84]

At the final Battle of Platea in 479 BCE, Indians formed one of the main corps of Achaemenid troops (one of "the greatest of the nations").[79][80][78][86] They were one of the main battle corps, positioned near the center of the Achaemenid battle line, between the Bactrians and the Sakae, facing against the enemy Greek troops of "Hermione and Eretria and Styra and Chalcis".[87][79] According to modern estimates, the Bactrians, Indians and Sakae probably numbered about 20,000 men altogether, whereas the Persian troops on their left amounted to about 40,000.[88] There were also Greek allies of the Persians, positioned on the right, whom Herodotus numbers at 50,000, a number which however might be "extravagant",[88] and is nowadays estimated to around 20,000.[89] Indians also supplied part of the cavalry, the total of which was about 5,000.[90][89]

Depictions

Indian soldiers of the three territories of Gandara, Sattagydia (Tathagatus) and Hindush are shown, together with soldiers of all the other nations, supporting the throne of their Achaemenid ruler, at Naqsh-e Rostam on the tombs of Darius I, Xerxes I, Artaxerxes I and Darius II, and at Persepolis on the tombs of Artaxerxes II and Artaxerxes III. The last Achaemenid ruler Darius III never had time to finish his own tomb due to his hasty defeat by Alexander the Great, and therefore does not have such depictions.[50][73] The soldiers from India are characterized by their particular clothing, only composed of a loin cloth and sandals, with bare upper body, in contrast to all the other ethnicities of the Achaemenid army, who are fully clothed, and in contrast also to the neighbouring provinces of Bactria or Arachosia, who are also fully clothed.[50]


The three types of Indian soldiers still appear (upper right corner) among the soldiers of the Achaemenid Empire on the tomb of Artaxerxes III (who died in 338 BCE).[50][73][91]

The presence of the three ethnicities of Indian soldiers on all the tombs of the Achaemenid rulers after Darius, except for the last ruler Darius III who was vanquished by Alexander at Gaugamela, suggests that the Indians were under Achaemenid dominion at least until 338 BCE, the date of the end of the reign of Artaxerxes III, before the accession of Darius III, that is, less than 10 years before the campaigns of Alexander in the East and his victory at Gaugamela.[50]

Indians at the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BCE)

According to Arrian, Indian troops were still deployed under Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BCE). He explains that Darius III "obtained the help of those Indians who bordered on the Bactrians, together with the Bactrians and Sogdianians themselves, all under the command of Bessus, the Satrap of Bactria".[50] The Indians in questions were probably from the area of Gandara.[50] Indian "hill-men" are also said by Arrian to have joined the Arachotians under Satrap Barsentes, and are thought to have been either the Sattagydians or the Hindush.[50]

Fifteen Indian war elephants were also part of the army of Darius III at Gaugamela.[62] They had specifically been brought from India.[92] Still, it seems they did not participate to the final battle, probably because of fatigue.[62] This was a relief for the armies of Alexander, who had no previous experience of combat against war elephants.[93] The elephants were captured with the baggage train by the Greeks after the engagement.[94]


Gandaran soldier of the Achaemenid army, circa 480 BCE. Xerxes I tomb.


Gandaran soldier (enhanced detail).


Sattagydian soldier of the Achaemenid army, circa 480 BCE. Xerxes I tomb.


Sattagydian soldier (enhanced detail).


Hindush soldier of the Achaemenid army, circa 480 BCE. Xerxes I tomb.


Hindush soldier (enhanced detail).

Greek and Achaemenid coinage

See also: Ancient Greek coinage and Achaemenid coinage


Strike of an Achaemenid siglos, Kabul, Afghanistan, circa 5th century BCE. Archer king type. Coins of this type were also found in the Bhir Mound hoard in Taxila.[95]


Achaemenid Empire coin minted in the Kabul Valley. Circa 500-380 BCE.[96][97]


"Bent bar" minted under Achaemenid administration, of the type found in large quantities in the Chaman Hazouri hoard and the Bhir Mound hoard in Taxila.[98][99]

Coins found in the Chaman Hazouri hoard in Kabul, the Shaikhan Dehri hoard in Pushkalavati in Gandhara, near Charsadda, as well as in the Bhir Mound hoard in Taxila, have revealed numerous Achaemenid coins as well as many Greek coins from the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. These circulated in the area, at least as far as the Indus during the reign of the Achaemenids, who were in control of the areas as far as Gandhara.[100][101][97][102]

Kabul and Bhir Mound hoards

See also: Kabul hoard

The Kabul hoard, also called the Chaman Hazouri, Chaman Hazouri or Tchamani-i Hazouri hoard,[100] is a coin hoard discovered in the vicinity of Kabul, Afghanistan. The hoard, discovered in 1933, contained numerous Achaemenid coins as well as many Greek coins from the 5th and 4th centuries BCE.[97] Approximately one thousand coins were in the hoard.[100][101] The hoard is dated to approximately 380 BCE as no coins in the hoard were later than that date.[103]

This numismatic discovery has been very important in studying and dating the history of coinage of India, since it is one of the very rare instances when punch-marked coins can actually be dated, due to their association with known and dated Greek and Achaemenid coins in the hoard.[104] The hoard supports the view that punch-marked coins existed in 360 BCE, as suggested by literary evidence.[104]

Daniel Schlumberger also considers that punch-marked bars, similar to the many punch-marked bars found in north-western India, initially originated in the Achaemenid Empire, rather than in the Indian heartland:

"The punch-marked bars were up to now considered to be Indian (...) However the weight standard is considered by some expert to be Persian, and now that we see them also being uncovered in the soil of Afghanistan, we must take into account the possibility that their country of origin should not be sought beyond the Indus, but rather in the oriental provinces of the Achaemenid Empire"

— Daniel Schlumberger, quoted from Trésors Monétaires, p.42.[102]

Modern numismatists now tend to consider the Achaemenid punch-marked coins as the precursors of the Indian punch-marked coins.[105][106]

Pushkalavati hoard

See also: Shaikhan Dehri hoard

In 2007, a small coin hoard was discovered at the site of ancient Pushkalavati (the Shaikhan Dehri hoard) near Charsada in Pakistan. The hoard contained a tetradrachm minted in Athens circa 500/490-485/0 BCE, typically used as a currency for trade in the Achaemenid Empire, together with a number of local types as well as silver cast ingots. The Athens coin is the earliest known example of its type to be found so far to the east.[107][108]

According to Joe Cribb, these early Greek coins were at the origin of Indian punch-marked coins, the earliest coins developed in India, which used minting technology derived from Greek coinage.[97]

Part 2 of 2

Influence of Achaemenid culture in the Indian subcontinent

Cultural exchanges: Taxila


Global location of Persepolis, capital of the Achaemenid Empire, and Taxila.


South Asia circa 500 BCE.[109][110]

Taxila (site of Bhir Mound), the "most plausible candidate for the capital of Achaemenid India",[16] was at the crossroad of the main trade roads of Asia, was probably populated by Persians, Greeks and other people from throughout the Achaemenid Empire.[111][112][113] As reported by Strabo (XV, 1, 62),[114] when Alexander the Great was in Taxila, one of his companions named Aristobulus, noticed that in the city the dead were being fed to the vultures, a clear allusion to the presence of Zoroastrianism.[115] The renowned University of Taxila became the greatest learning centre in the region, and allowed for exchanges between people from various cultures.[116]

Followers of the Buddha

Several contemporaries, and close followers, of the Buddha are said to have studied in Achaemenid Taxila: King Pasenadi of Kosala,[117] a close friend of the Buddha, Bandhula, the commander of Pasedani's army, Aṅgulimāla, a close follower of the Buddha, and Jivaka, court doctor at Rajagriha and personal doctor of the Buddha.[118][119] According to Stephen Batchelor, the Buddha may have been influenced by the experiences and knowledge acquired by some of his closest followers in Taxila.[120]

Pāṇini

The 5th century BCE grammarian Pāṇini lived in an Achaemenid environment.[121][122][123] He is said to have been born in the north-west, in Shalatula near Attock to the north-west of Taxila, in what was then a satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire following the Achaemenid conquest of the Indus Valley, which technically made him a Persian subject.[121][122][123]

Kautilya and Chandragupta Maurya

Kautilya, the influential Prime Minister of Chandragupta Maurya, is also said to have been a professor teaching in Taxila.[124] According to Buddhist legend, Kautilya brought Chandragupta Maurya, the future founder of the Mauryan Empire to Taxila as a child, and had him educated there in "all the sciences and arts" of the period, including military sciences, for a period of 7 to 8 years.[125] These legends match Plutarch's assertion that Alexander the Great met with the young Chandragupta while campaigning in the Punjab.[125][126]

The Persians may have later participated, together with Sakas and Greeks, in the campaigns of Chandragupta Maurya to gain the throne of Magadha circa 320 BCE. The Mudrarakshasa states that after Alexander's death, an alliance of "Shaka-Yavana-Kamboja-Parasika-Bahlika" was used by Chandragupta Maurya in his campaign to take the throne in Magadha and found the Mauryan Empire.[127][128][129] The Sakas were Scythians, the Yavanas were Greeks, and the Parasikas were Persians.[128][130][127] David Brainard Spooner theorized upon Chandragupta Maurya's conquest and claimed that "it was with largely the Persian army that he won the throne of India."[129]

Scientific knowledge

Astronomical and astrological knowledge was also probably transmitted to India from Babylon during the 5th century BCE as a consequence of the Achaemenid presence in the sub-continent.[131][132] Babylonian astronomy was the first form of astronomy to fully develop and likely influenced other civilizations. The spread of knowledge may have hastened with the expansion of the Achaemenid Empire.

According to David Pingree, elements of Achaemenid scientific knowledge, particularly works on omens and astronomy, were adopted by India from the 5th century BCE:[133]

"India today is estimated to have about thirty million manuscripts, the largest body of handwritten reading material anywhere in the world. The literate culture of Indian science goes back to at least the fifth century B.C. ... as is shown by the elements of Mesopotamian omen literature and astronomy that entered India at that time."[133]

The outstanding feature of the oldest Indian education and Indian culture in general, especially in the centuries B.C., is its orality. The Vedic texts make no reference to writing, and there is no reliable indication that writing was known in India except perhaps in the northwestern provinces when these were under Achaemenid rule, since the time of Darius or even Cyrus. Those who write down the Veda go to hell, as the Mahabharata tells us, and Kumarila [700 A.D.] confirms: "That knowledge of the truth is worthless which has been acquired from the Veda, if the Veda has not been rightly comprehended or if it has been learnt from writing."2 Sayana [d. 1387] wrote in the introduction to his Rgveda commentary that "the text of the Veda is to be learned by the method of learning it from the lips of the teacher and not from a manuscript."3

The best evidence today is that no script was used or even known in India before 300 B.C., except in the extreme Northwest that was under Persian domination. That is in complete accord with the Indian tradition which at every occasion stresses the orality of the cultural and literary heritage....

There were no books; the common Indian word for "book" (pusta[ka]) is found not before the early centuries A.D. and is probably a loanword from Persian (post),25 and grantha denoted originally only "knot, nexus, text" acquiring the meaning "manuscript" much later.

The older Indian literature (including some texts as late as the early centuries A.D.) belongs to one of two classes: sruti "hearing" and smrti "remembering." It behooves us to pay attention to this distinction made by the Indians themselves early on.

-- Chapter Two: The Oral Tradition, From "Education in Ancient India", by Hartmut Scharfe

Palatial art and architecture: Pataliputra


The Masarh lion. The sculptural style is "unquestionably Achaemenid".[134]

Various Indian artefacts tend to suggest some Perso-Hellenistic artistic influence in India, mainly felt during the time of the Mauryan Empire.[1] The sculpture of the Masarh lion, found near the Maurya capital of Pataliputra, raises the question of the Achaemenid and Greek influence on the art of the Maurya Empire, and on the western origins of stone carving in India. The lion is carved in Chunar sandstone, like the Pillars of Ashoka, and its finish is polished, a feature of the Maurya sculpture.[134] According to S.P. Gupta, the sculptural style is unquestionably Achaemenid.[134] This is particularly the case for the well-ordered tubular representation of whiskers (vibrissas) and the geometrical representation of inflated veins flush with the entire face.[134] The mane, on the other hand, with tufts of hair represented in wavelets, is rather naturalistic.[134] Very similar examples are however known in Greece and Persepolis.[134] It is possible that this sculpture was made by an Achaemenid or Greek sculptor in India and either remained without effect, or was the Indian imitation of a Greek or Achaemenid model, somewhere between the fifth century B.C. and the first century B.C., although it is generally dated from the time of the Maurya Empire, around the 3rd century B.C.[134]

The Pataliputra palace with its pillared hall shows decorative influences of the Achaemenid palaces and Persepolis and may have used the help of foreign craftsmen.[135][1] Mauryan rulers may have even imported craftsmen from abroad to build royal monuments.[136] This 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.[137][138] The Pataliputra capital, or also the Hellenistic friezes of the Rampurva capitals, Sankissa, and the diamond throne of Bodh Gaya are other examples.[139]

The renowned Mauryan polish, especially used in the Pillars of Ashoka, may also have been a technique imported from the Achaemenid Empire.[1]


Ruins of pillared hall at Kumrahar site at Pataliputra.


Plan of the 80-column pillared hall in Pataliputra.


The Pataliputra capital, generally described as "Perso-Hellenistic".


Griffin of Pataliputra.[140]


Lotus motifs in Pataliputra.

Rock-cut architecture

See also: Buddhist caves in India


Lycian Tomb of Payava (dated 375-360 BCE)


Lomas Rishi cave entrance (dated circa 250 BCE).


Ajanta Cave 9 (dated 1st century BCE)

The similarity of the 4th century BCE Lycian barrel-vaulted tombs, such as the tomb of Payava, in the western part of the Achaemenid Empire, with the Indian architectural design of the Chaitya (starting at least a century later from circa 250 BCE, with the Lomas Rishi caves in the Barabar caves group), suggests that the designs of the Lycian rock-cut tombs travelled to India along the trade routes across the Achaemenid Empire.[141][142]

Early on, James Fergusson, in his Illustrated Handbook of Architecture, while describing the very progressive evolution from wooden architecture to stone architecture in various ancient civilizations, has commented that "In India, the form and construction of the older Buddhist temples resemble so singularly these examples in Lycia".[143] The structural similarities, down to many architectural details, with the Chaitya-type Indian Buddhist temple designs, such as the "same pointed form of roof, with a ridge", are further developed in The cave temples of India.[144] The Lycian tombs, dated to the 4th century BCE, are either free-standing or rock-cut barrel-vaulted sarcophagi, placed on a high base, with architectural features carved in stone to imitate wooden structures. There are numerous rock-cut equivalents to the free-standing structures and decorated with reliefs.[145][146][147] Fergusson went on to suggest an "Indian connection", and some form of cultural transfer across the Achaemenid Empire.[142] The ancient transfer of Lycian designs for rock-cut monuments to India is considered as "quite probable".[141]

Art historian David Napier has also proposed a reverse relationship, claiming that the Payava tomb was a descendant of an ancient South Asian style, and that Payava may actually have been a Graeco-Indian named "Pallava".[148]

Monumental columns: the Pillars of Ashoka


Highly polished Achaemenid load-bearing column with lotus capital and animals, Persepolis, c. 5th-4th BCE.


Lion Capital of Ashoka from Sarnath.

See also: Pillars of Ashoka

Regarding the Pillars of Ashoka, there has been much discussion of the extent of influence from Achaemenid Persia,[149] since the column capitals supporting the roofs at Persepolis have similarities, and the "rather cold, hieratic style" of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka especially shows "obvious Achaemenid and Sargonid influence".[150]

Hellenistic influence has also been suggested.[151] In particular the abaci of some of the pillars (especially the Rampurva bull, the Sankissa elephant and the Allahabad pillar capital) use bands of motifs, like the bead and reel pattern, the ovolo, the flame palmettes, lotuses, which likely originated from Greek and Near-Eastern arts.[152] Such examples can also be seen in the remains of the Mauryan capital city of Pataliputra.


Frieze of Rampurva capitals, alternating palmettes and lotus .


Frieze of Sankissa.


Frieze of the diamond throne of Bodh Gaya.

Aramaic language and script


The Aramaic Inscription of Taxila, dated circa 260 BCE. Taxila Museum, Pakistan.

The Aramaic language, official language of the Achaemenid Empire, started to be used in the Indian territories.[153] Some of the Edicts of Ashoka in the north-western areas of Ashoka's territory, in modern Pakistan and Afghanistan, used Aramaic (the official language of the former Achaemenid Empire), together with Prakrit and Greek (the language of the neighbouring Greco-Bactrian kingdom and the Greek communities in Ashoka's realm).[154]

The Indian Kharosthi script shows a clear dependency on the Aramaic alphabet but with extensive modifications to support the sounds found in Indic languages.[1][155] One model is that the Aramaic script arrived with the Achaemenid Empire's conquest of the Indus River (modern Pakistan) in 500 BCE and evolved over the next 200+ years, reaching its final form by the 3rd century BCE where it appears in some of the Edicts of Ashoka.[153][1]

Edicts of Ashoka

The Edicts of Ashoka (circa 250 BCE) may show Achaemenid influences, including formulaic parallels with Achaemenid inscriptions, presence of Iranian loanwords (in Aramaic inscriptions), and the very act of engraving edicts on rocks and mountains (compare for example Behistun inscription).[156][157] To describe his own edicts, Ashoka used the word Lipī ([x]), now generally simply translated as "writing" or "inscription". It is thought the word "lipi", which is also orthographed "dipi" ([x]) in the two Kharosthi versions of the rock edicts,[ b] comes from an Old Persian prototype dipî ([x]) also meaning "inscription", which is used for example by Darius I in his Behistun inscription,[c] suggesting borrowing and diffusion.[158][159][160] There are other borrowings of Old Persian terms for writing-related words in the Edicts of Ashoka, such as nipista or nipesita ([x], "written" and "made to be written") in the Kharoshthi version of Major Rock Edict No.4, which can be related to the word nipištā ([x], "written") from the daiva inscription of Xerxes at Persepolis.[161]

Several of the Edicts of Ashoka, such as the Kandahar Bilingual Rock Inscription or the Taxila inscription were written in Aramaic, one of the official languages of the former Achaemenid Empire.[162]


The word Dipi ("Edict") in the Edicts of Ashoka, identical with the Achaemenid word for "writing".[163]


The Kharoshthi script is generally considered as a development from Aramaic.


The Kandahar Bilingual Rock Inscription of Ashoka (circa 256 BCE) in Greek and Aramaic.

Figurines of West Asian foreigners in Mathura, Sarnath and Patna (4th-2nd century BCE)

See also: Mathura art

Figurines of foreigners in India


"Ethnic head", Mathura, c. 2nd century BCE. Mathura Museum.[164]


"Persian Nobleman clad in coat dupatta trouser and turban", Mathura, c. 2nd Century BCE. Mathura Museum.[164]


Figure of a foreigner, from Sarnath.[165][166]

Some relatively high quality terracotta statuettes have been recovered from the Mauryan Empire strata in the excavations of Mathura in northern India.[167] Most of these terracottas show what appears to be female deities or mother goddesses.[168][169] However, several figures of foreigners also appear in the terracottas from the 4th to the 2nd century BCE, which are either described simply as "foreigners" or Persian or Iranian because of their foreign features.[164][170][171] These figurines might reflect the increased contacts of Indians with Iranian people during this period.[170] Several of these seem to represent foreign soldiers who visited India during the Mauryan period and influenced modellers in Mathura with their peculiar ethnic features and uniforms.[172] One of the terracotta statuettes, a man nicknamed the "Persian nobleman" and dated to the 2nd century BCE, can be seen wearing a coat, scarf, trousers and a turban.[173][174][175][164]

S.P. Gupta also mentions the "male heads of foreigners from Patna city and Sarnath", which according to him attest to the presence of a foreign elite in the Gangetic plains during the Mauryan or late Mauryan period. This elite was West Asian, specifically related to the Pahlavas and Sakas based in Iran and Afghanistan, and their presence was a consequence of their eastern forays into India.[165][166]

Religion

According to Ammianus Marcellinus,[176] a 4th-century CE Roman author, Hystaspes, the father of Darius I, studied under the Brahmanas in India, thus contributing to the development of the religion of the Magi (Zoroastrianism):[177]

"Hystaspes, a very wise monarch, the father of Darius. Who while boldly penetrating into the remoter districts of upper India, came to a certain woody retreat, of which with its tranquil silence the Brahmans, men of sublime genius, were the possessors. From their teaching he learnt the principles of the motion of the world and of the stars, and the pure rites of sacrifice, as far as he could; and of what he learnt he infused some portion into the minds of the Magi, which they have handed down by tradition to later ages, each instructing his own children, and adding to it their own system of divination".

— Ammianus Marcellinus, XXIII. 6.[178][177]

In ancient sources, Hystapes is sometimes considered as identical with Vishtaspa (the Avestan and Old Persian name for Hystapes), an early patron of Zoroaster.[177]

Historically, the life of the Buddha also coincided with the Achaemenid conquest of the Indus Valley.[179] The Achaemenid occupation of the areas of Gandara and Hinduš, which was to last for about two centuries, was accompanied by Achaemenid religions, reformed Mazdaism or early Zoroastrianism, to which Buddhism might also have in part reacted.[179] In particular, the ideas of the Buddha may have partly consisted in a rejection of the "absolutist" or "perfectionist" ideas contained in these Achaemenid religions.[179]

Still, according to Christopher I. Beckwith, commenting on the content of the Edicts of Ashoka, the early Buddhist concepts of karma, rebirth, and affirming that good deeds will be rewarded in this life and the next, in Heaven, probably find their origin in Achaemenid Mazdaism, which had been introduced in India from the time of the Achaemenid conquest of Gandara.[180]

List of satrapies

Several satrapies were founded by the Achaemenid empire in the Indian subcontinent, including;

• Gandāra satrapy
• Hindush satrapy
• Sattagydia satrapy

Other important satrapies in South Asia (in modern day's Balochistan) include:

• Arachosia satrapy
• Gedrosia satrapy
• Drangiana satrapy

See also

• Persian Immortals

Notes

1. Ctesias: "The Indians also include this substance among their most precious gifts for the Persian king who receives it as a prize revered above all others."[59]
2. For example, according to Hultzsch, the first line of the First Edict at Shahbazgarhi (or at Mansehra) reads: "(Ayam) Dhrama-dipi Devanapriyasa Raño likhapitu" ("This Dharma-Edicts was written by King Devanampriya" Inscriptions of Asoka. New Edition by E. Hultzsch (in Sanskrit). 1925. p. 51.
This appears in the reading of Hultzsch's original rubbing of the Kharoshthi inscription of the first line of the First Edict at Shahbazgarhi.
3. For example Column IV, Line 89
References[edit]
1. Sen, Ancient Indian History and Civilization 1999, pp. 116–117.
2. Philip's Atlas of World History (1999)
3. O'Brien, Patrick Karl (2002). Atlas of World History. Oxford University Press. p. 43. ISBN 9780195219210.
4. Schwartzberg, Joseph E. (1978). A Historical atlas of South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 15. ISBN 0226742210.
5. Errington, Elizabeth; Trust, Ancient India and Iran; Museum, Fitzwilliam (1992). The Crossroads of Asia: transformation in image and symbol in the art of ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ancient India and Iran Trust. p. 56. ISBN 9780951839911.
6. André-Salvini, Béatrice (2005). Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24731-4.
7. (Fussman, 1993, p. 84).[full citation needed] "This is inferred from the fact that Gandhara (OPers. Gandāra) is already mentioned at Bisotun, while the toponym Hinduš (Sindhu) is added only in later inscriptions."
8. Briant, Pierre (2002-07-21). From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Penn State Press. ISBN 978-1-57506-574-8.
9. Kerr, Gordon (2017). A Short History of India: From the Earliest Civilisations to Today's Economic Powerhouse (in German). Oldcastle Books. p. PT16. ISBN 9781843449232.
10. Thapar, Romila (1990). A History of India. Penguin UK. p. 422. ISBN 9780141949765.
11. Some sounds are omitted in the writing of Old Persian, and are shown with a raised letter.Old Persian p.164Old Persian p.13. In particular Old Persian nasals such as "n" were omitted in writing before consonants Old Persian p.17Old Persian p.25
12. Perfrancesco Callieri, INDIA ii. Historical Geography, Encyclopaedia Iranica, 15 December 2004.
13. Eggermont, Alexander's Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan 1975, p. 177: "One should, therefore, be careful to distinguish the limited geographical unit of Gandhāra from the political one bearing the same name."
14. Tauqeer Ahmad, University of the Punjab, Lahore, South Asian Studies, A Research Journal of South Asian Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, January–June 2012, pp. 221-232 p.222
15. FLEMING, DAVID (1993). "Where was Achaemenid India?". Bulletin of the Asia Institute. 7: 67–72. JSTOR 24048427.
16. FLEMING, DAVID (1993). "Where was Achaemenid India?". Bulletin of the Asia Institute. 7: 70. JSTOR 24048427.
17. Marshall, John (1975) [1951]. Taxila: Volume I. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 83.
18. Waters, Matt (2014). Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550–330 BCE. Cambridge University Press. p. 82. ISBN 9781107009608.
19. DNa - Livius.
20. Hamadan Gold and Silver Tablet inscription
21. Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire 1989, p. 147; Neelis, Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks 2010, pp. 96–97; Sen, Sailendra Nath (1999). Ancient Indian History and Civilization. New Age International. p. 117. ISBN 9788122411980.
22. "The region was soon to appear as Hindūš in the Old Persian inscriptions... Transparent though the name appears at first sight, its location is not without problems. Foucher, Kent and many subsequent writers have identified Hindūš with its etymological equivalent , Sind, thereby placing it on the lower Indus towards the delta. However, (...) no material evidence of Achaemenid activity in this region is so far available. (...) There seems no evidence at present of gold production in the Indus delta, so this detail seems to weight against the location of the Hindūš province in Sind. (...) The alternative location to Sind for an Achaemenid province of Hindūš is naturally at Taxila and in the West Punjab, where there are indications that a Persian satrapy may have existed, though no clear evidence of its name." in Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge University Press. 2002. pp. 203–204. ISBN 9780521228046.
23. FLEMING, DAVID (1993). "Where was Achaemenid India?". Bulletin of the Asia Institute. 7: 69. JSTOR 24048427.
24. Parker, Grant (2008). The Making of Roman India. Cambridge University Press. p. 15. ISBN 9780521858342.
25. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire 1948, pp. 144–145.
26. Samad, Rafi U. (2011). The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Algora Publishing. ISBN 978-0-87586-859-2.
27. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. p. 5. ISBN 9781400866328.
28. Herodotus VII 65
29. "INDIA RELATIONS: ACHAEMENID PERIOD – Encyclopaedia Iranica". http://www.iranicaonline.org.
30. Behistun T 02 - Livius.
31. King, L. W. (Leonard William); Thompson, R. Campbell (Reginald Campbell) (1907). The sculptures and inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia : a new collation of the Persian, Susian and Babylonian texts. London : Longmans. p. 3.
32. Sagar, Krishna Chandra (1992). Foreign Influence on Ancient India. Northern Book Centre. p. 21. ISBN 9788172110284.
33. "Susa, Statue of Darius - Livius". http://www.livius.org.
34. Also described here Archived 2019-07-01 at the Wayback Machine
35. Zournatzi, Antigoni (2003). "The Apadana Coin Hoards, Darius I, and the West". American Journal of Numismatics. 15: 1–28. JSTOR 43580364.
36. Persepolis : discovery and afterlife of a world wonder. 2012. pp. 171–181.
37. DPh inscription, also Photographs of one of the gold plaques Archived 2019-07-01 at the Wayback Machine
38. Livius DNa inscription
39. DSe - Livius.
40. DSm inscription
41. Sagar, Krishna Chandra (1992). Foreign Influence on Ancient India. Northern Book Centre. p. 20. ISBN 9788172110284.
42. "DNa - Livius". http://www.livius.org.
43. Alcock, Susan E.; Alcock, John H. D'Arms Collegiate Professor of Classical Archaeology and Classics and Arthur F. Thurnau Professor Susan E.; D'Altroy, Terence N.; Morrison, Kathleen D.; Sinopoli, Carla M. (2001). Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge University Press. p. 105. ISBN 9780521770200.
44. Briant, Pierre (2002). From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Eisenbrauns. p. 756. ISBN 978-1-57506-120-7.
45. "Strabo Geography, Book XV, Chapter 2, 9". penelope.uchicago.edu.
46. Barraclough, Geoffrey (1989). The Times Atlas of World History. Times Books. p. 79. ISBN 9780723009061.
47. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire 1948, pp. 291–292: "The Gandarians thus make their last appearance as Persian tribute paying subjects in the lists of Artaxerxes, though the land continued to be known under the name of Gandhara down to classic Indian times."
48. Inscription A2Pa of Artaxerxes II
49. Lecoq, Pierre. Les inscriptions de la perse achemenide (1997) (in French). pp. 271–272.
50. Magee et al., The Achaemenid Empire in South Asia and Recent Excavations 2005, pp. 713–714.
51. Tola, Fernando (1986). "India and Greece before Alexander". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 67 (1/4): 159–194. JSTOR 41693244.
52. Samad, Rafi U. (2011). The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Algora Publishing. ISBN 978-0-87586-859-2.
53. Samad, Rafi U. (2011). The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Algora Publishing. ISBN 978-0-87586-859-2.
54. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire 1948, pp. 291–292
55. Herodotus III 91, Herodotus III 94
56. Mitchiner, The Ancient & Classical World 1978, p. 44.
57. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire 1948, pp. 291–292: "...the official tribute list incorporated by Herodotus shows decided administrative change. As under Cyrus, there were again twenty satrapies, but the larger number of Darius had been reduced by the union of some hitherto separate. This process, already to be detected in the army list of Xerxes, but accelerated in the tribute list of Artaxerxes, again suggests actual loss of territory. (25 lines later).... Two satrapies are united in the case of the Sattagydians, Gandarians, Dadicae, and Aparytae, whose tribute was 170 talents."
58. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire 1948, pp. 291–292.
59. The Complete Fragments of Ctesias of Cnidus. pp. 120–121.
60. The Complete Fragments of Ctesias of Cnidus. p. Page 116 Fragment F45bα) and Page 219 Note F45bα).
61. The hypothesis that the region had already become independent by the end of the reign of Darius I or during the reign of Artaxerxes II (Chattopadhyaya, 1974, pp. 25-26) appears to be contradicted by Ctesias's reference to gifts received from the kings of India and by the fact that even Darius III still had some Indian units in his army (Briant, 1996, pp. 699, 774). At the time of the arrival of the Alexander's Macedonian army in the Indus Valley, there is no mention of officers of the Persian kings in India; but this does not mean (Dittmann, 1984, p. 185) that the Achaemenids had no power there. Other data indicate that they still exercised control over the area, although in ways that differed from those of Darius I's time (Briant, 1996, pp. 776-78).
62. Kistler, John M. (2007). War Elephants. U of Nebraska Press. p. 29. ISBN 978-0803260047.
63. "Furthermore the second member of Delegation XVIII is carrying four small but evidently heavy jars on a yoke, probably containing the gold dust which was the tribute paid by the Indians." in Iran, Délégation archéologique française en (1972). Cahiers de la Délégation archéologique française en Iran. Institut français de recherches en Iran (section archéologique). p. 146.
64. André-Salvini, Béatrice (2005). Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520247314.
65. Bosworth, A. B. (1996). Alexander and the East : The Tragedy of Triumph: The Tragedy of Triumph. Clarendon Press. p. 154. ISBN 9780191589454.
66. Herodotus Book III, 89-95
67. Archibald, Zosia; Davies, John K.; Gabrielsen, Vincent (2011). The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First Centuries BC. Oxford University Press. p. 404. ISBN 9780199587926.
68. Archibald, Davies & Gabrielsen, The Economies of Hellenistic Societies 2011, p. 404.
69. Herodotus III, 89
70. 'Ινδοι, Greek Word Study Tool, Tufts University
71. Nations of the soldiers on the tombs, Walser. Also [1]
72. The Achaemenid Empire in South Asia and Recent Excavations in Akra in Northwest Pakistan Peter Magee, Cameron Petrie, Robert Knox, Farid Khan, Ken Thomas p.713
73. NAQŠ-E ROSTAM – Encyclopaedia Iranica.
74. DSf inscription
75. Stoneman, Richard (2015). Xerxes: A Persian Life. Yale University Press. p. 118. ISBN 9780300180077.
76. Herodotus. LacusCurtius • Herodotus — Book VII: Chapters 1 56. pp. VII-26.
77. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. p. 7. ISBN 9781400866328.
78. Daniélou, Alain (2003). A Brief History of India. Simon and Schuster. p. 67. ISBN 9781594777943.
79. "A Sindhu contingent formed a part of his army which invaded Greece and stormed the defile at Thermopylae in 480 BC, thus becoming the first ever force from India to fight on the continent of Europe. It, apparently, distinguished itself in battle because it was followed by another contingent which formed a part of the Persian army under Mardonius which lost the battle of Platea"Sandhu, Gurcharn Singh (2000). A military history of ancient India. Vision Books. p. 179. ISBN 9788170943754.
80. 7 LacusCurtius • Herodotus — Book IX: Chapters 1 89. pp. IX-32.
81. Freeman, Charles (2014). Egypt, Greece, and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean. Oxford University Press. p. 154. ISBN 9780199651917.
82. Naqs-e Rostam – Encyclopaedia Iranica.
83. Naqs-e Rostam – Encyclopaedia Iranica List of nationalities of the Achaemenid military with corresponding drawings.
84. Tola, Fernando (1986). "India and Greece before Alexander". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 67 (1/4): 165. JSTOR 41693244.
85. LacusCurtius • Herodotus — Book VIII: Chapters 97 144. p. Herodotus VIII, 113.
86. Roy, Kaushik (2015). Warfare in Pre-British India – 1500BCE to 1740CE. Routledge. p. 28. ISBN 9781317586920.
87. LacusCurtius • Herodotus — Book IX: Chapters 1 89. pp. IX-31.
88. Shepherd, William (2012). Plataea 479 BC: The most glorious victory ever seen. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 9781849085557.
89. Shepherd, William (2012). Plataea 479 BC: The most glorious victory ever seen. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 51. ISBN 9781849085557.
90. Shepherd, William (2012). Plataea 479 BC: The most glorious victory ever seen. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 37. ISBN 9781849085557.
91. Heckel, Waldemar; Tritle, Lawrence A. (2011). Alexander the Great: A New History. John Wiley & Sons. p. 164. ISBN 9781444360158.
92. Yenne, Bill (2010). Alexander the Great: Lessons from History's Undefeated General. St. Martin's Press. p. 71. ISBN 9780230106406.
93. Kistler, John M. (2007). War Elephants. U of Nebraska Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-0803260047.
94. Holt, Frank L. (2003). Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions. University of California Press. p. 72. ISBN 9780520938786.
95. "Coins of this type found in Chaman Hazouri (deposited c.350 BC) and Bhir Mound hoards (deposited c.300 BC)." Article by Joe Cribb and Osmund Bopearachchi in Errington, Elizabeth; Trust, Ancient India and Iran; Museum, Fitzwilliam (1992). The Crossroads of Asia: transformation in image and symbol in the art of ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ancient India and Iran Trust. pp. 57–59. ISBN 9780951839911.
96. Classical Numismatic Group, Coin page
97. Bopearachchi & Cribb, Coins illustrating the History of the Crossroads of Asia 1992, pp. 57–59
98. CNG Coins
99. "Silver bent-bar punch-marked coin of Kabul region under the Achaemenid Empire, c.350 BC: Coins of this type found in quantity in Chaman Hazouri and Bhir Mound hoards" Article by Joe Cribb and Osmund Bopearachchi in Errington, Elizabeth; Trust, Ancient India and Iran; Museum, Fitzwilliam (1992). The Crossroads of Asia: transformation in image and symbol in the art of ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ancient India and Iran Trust. pp. 57–59. ISBN 9780951839911.
100. Bopearachchi, Coin Production and Circulation 2000, pp. 300–301.
101. "US Department of Defense". Archived from the original on 2020-06-10. Retrieved 2018-10-06.
102. Bopearachchi, Coin Production and Circulation 2000, pp. 308-.
103. Bopearachchi, Coin Production and Circulation 2000, p. 308.
104. Cribb, Investigating the introduction of coinage in India 1983, pp. 85–86.
105. "the local coins of the Achaemenid era (...) were the precursors of the bent and punch-marked bars" in Bopearachchi, Osmund. Coin Production and Circulation in Central Asia and North-West India (Before and after Alexander's Conquest). p. 311.
106. About the hoard in Kabul: "In the same hoard there were also discovered two series of local silver coins which appear to be the product of local Achaemenid administration. One series (...) was made in a new way, which relates it to the punch-marked silver coins of India. It appears that it was these local coins, using technology adapted from Greek coins, which provided the prototypes for punch-marked coins made in India." p.57 "In the territories to the south of the Hindu Kush the punch-marked coins, descendants of the local coins of the Achaemenid administration in the same area, were issued by the Mauryan kings of India for local circulation." in Errington, Elizabeth; Trust, Ancient India and Iran; Museum, Fitzwilliam (1992). The Crossroads of Asia: transformation in image and symbol in the art of ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ancient India and Iran Trust. pp. 57–59. ISBN 9780951839911.
107. O. Bopearachchi, "Premières frappes locales de l'Inde du Nord-Ouest: nouvelles données," in Trésors d'Orient: Mélanges offerts à Rika Gyselen, Fig. 1 (this coin) CNG Coins Archived 2019-12-25 at the Wayback Machine
108. Bopearachchi, Coin Production and Circulation 2000, p. 309.
109. Schwartzberg, Joseph E. (1978). A Historical atlas of South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 15. ISBN 0226742210.
110. See also this map
111. Lowe, Roy; Yasuhara, Yoshihito (2016). The Origins of Higher Learning: Knowledge networks and the early development of universities. Routledge. p. 62. ISBN 9781317543268.
112. Le, Huu Phuoc (2010). Buddhist Architecture. Grafikol. p. 50. ISBN 9780984404308.
113. Batchelor, Stephen (2010). Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. Random House Publishing Group. pp. 255–256. ISBN 9781588369840.
114. "LacusCurtius • Strabo's Geography — Book XV Chapter 1 (§§ 39 73)". penelope.uchicago.edu.
115. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. p. 177. ISBN 9781400866328.
116. Batchelor, Stephen (2010). Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. Random House Publishing Group. p. 125. ISBN 9781588369840.
117. "The Dhammapada Commentary furnishes us with some interesting information regarding Kosala. We learn from this work that Pasenadi, son of Mahākosala, was educated at Taxila." in The Indian Historical Quarterly. Calcutta Oriental Press. 1925. p. 150.
118. "One account suggests that, as a young man, Jivaka had travelled across India to Taxila, in the distant west, to study medicine under the well-known Disapamok Achariya" in Lowe, Roy; Yasuhara, Yoshihito (2016). The Origins of Higher Learning: Knowledge networks and the early development of universities. Routledge. p. 62. ISBN 978-1-317-54326-8.
119. Batchelor, Stephen (2010). Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. Random House Publishing Group. p. 256. ISBN 9781588369840.
120. Batchelor, Stephen (2010). Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. Random House Publishing Group. p. 255. ISBN 9781588369840.
121. Scharfe, Hartmut (1977). Grammatical Literature. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 89. ISBN 9783447017060.
122. Bakshi, S. R. (2005). Early Aryans to Swaraj. Sarup & Sons. p. 47. ISBN 9788176255370.
123. Ninan, M. M. (2008). The Development of Hinduism. Madathil Mammen Ninan. p. 97. ISBN 9781438228204.
124. Schlichtmann, Klaus (2016). A Peace History of India: From Ashoka Maurya to Mahatma Gandhi. Vij Books India Pvt Ltd. p. 29. ISBN 9789385563522.
125. Mookerji, Radhakumud (1966). Chandragupta Maurya and His Times. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 16–17. ISBN 9788120804050.
126. "Sandrocottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth". Plutarch 62-4 "Plutarch, Alexander, chapter 1, section 1".
127. Mookerji, Radhakumud (1966). Chandragupta Maurya and His Times. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 27. ISBN 9788120804050.; Mookerji, Radha Kumud (1957). "The Foundation of the Mauryan Empire". In K. A. Nilakanta Sastri (ed.). A Comprehensive History of India, Volume 2: Mauryas and Satavahanas. Orient Longmans. p. 4.: "The Mudrarakshasa further informs us that his Himalayan alliance gave Chandragupta a composite army ... Among these are mentioned the following : Sakas, Yavanas (probably Greeks), Kiratas, Kambojas, Parasikas and Bahlikas."
128. Shashi, Shyam Singh (1999). Encyclopaedia Indica: Mauryas. Anmol Publications. p. 134. ISBN 9788170418597.: "Among those who helped Chandragupta in his struggle against the Nandas, were the Sakas (Scythians), Yavanas (Greeks), and Parasikas (Persians)"
129. D. B. Spooner (1915). "The Zoroastrian Period of Indian History". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 47 (3): 416–417. doi:10.1017/S0035869X00048437. JSTOR 25189338. S2CID 162867863.: "After Alexander's death, when Chandragupta marched on Magada, it was with largely the Persian army that he won the throne of India. The testimony of the Mudrarakshasa is explicit on this point, and we have no reason to doubt its accuracy in matter[s] of this kind."
130. Mookerji, Radhakumud (1966). Chandragupta Maurya and His Times. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 210. ISBN 9788120804050.
131. Boyce, Mary (1982). A History of Zoroastrianism: Volume II: Under the Achaemenians. BRILL. p. 41. ISBN 9789004065062.
132. Boyce, Mary (1982). A History of Zoroastrianism: Volume II: Under the Achaemenians. BRILL. p. 278. ISBN 9789004065062.
133. Pingree, David (1988). "Review of The Fidelity of Oral Tradition and the Origins of Science". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 108 (4): 638. doi:10.2307/603154. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 603154.
134. Page 88: "There is one fragmentary lion head from Masarh, Distt. Bhojpur, Bihar. It is carved out of Chunar sandstone and it also bears the typical Mauryan polish. But it is undoubtedly based on the Achaemenian idiom. The tubular or wick-like whiskers and highly decorated neck with long locks of the mane with one series arranged like sea waves is somewhat non-Indian in approach . But, to be exact, we have an example of a lion from a sculptural frieze from Persepolis of 5th century BCE in which it is overpowering a bull which may be compared with the Masarh lion."... Page 122: "This particular example of a foreign model gets added support from the male heads of foreigners from Patna city and Sarnath since they also prove beyond doubt that a section of the elite in the Gangetic Basin was of foreign origin. However, as noted earlier, this is an example of the late Mauryan period since this is not the type adopted in any Ashoka pillar. We are, therefore, visualizing a historical situation in India in which the West Asian influence on Indian art was felt more in the late Mauryan than in the early Mauryan period. The term West Asia in this context stands for Iran and Afghanistan, where the Sakas and Pahlavas had their basecamps for eastward movement. The prelude to future inroads of the Indo-Bactrians in India had after all started in the second century B.C."... in Gupta, Swarajya Prakash (1980). The Roots of Indian Art: A Detailed Study of the Formative Period of Indian Art and Architecture, Third and Second Centuries B.C., Mauryan and Late Mauryan. B.R. Publishing Corporation. pp. 88, 122. ISBN 978-0-391-02172-3.. Also Kumar, Vinay (Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi Faculty Member) (2015). "West Asian Influence on Lion Motifs in Mauryan Art". Heritage and Us (4): 14.
135. The Analysis of Indian Muria Empire affected from Achaemenid's architecture art Archived 2 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine. In: Journal of Subcontinent Researches. Article 8, Volume 6, Issue 19, Summer 2014, Page 149-174.
136. Monuments, Power and Poverty in India: From Ashoka to the Raj, A. S. Bhalla, I.B.Tauris, 2015 p.18 [2]
137. "The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c.6500 BCE-200 CE" Robin Coningham, Ruth Young Cambridge University Press, 31 aout 2015, p.414 [3]
138. Report on the excavations at Pātaliputra (Patna); the Palibothra of the Greeks by Waddell, L. A. (Laurence Austine)
139. The Origins of Indian Stone Architecture, 1998, John Boardman p. 13-22.
140. "A griffin carved from milky white chalcedony represents a blend of Greek and Achaemenid Persian cultures", National Geographic, Volume 177, National Geographic Society, 1990
141. Ching, Francis D.K; Jarzombek, Mark M.; Prakash, Vikramaditya (2017). A Global History of Architecture. John Wiley & Sons. p. 707. ISBN 9781118981603.
142. Fergusson, James (1849). An historical inquiry into the true principles of beauty in art, more especially with reference to architecture. London, Longmans, Brown, Green, and Longmans. pp. 316–320.
143. The Illustrated Handbook of Architecture Being a Concise and Popular Account of the Different Styles of Architecture Prevailing in All Ages and All Countries by James Fergusson. J. Murray. 1859. p. 212.
144. Fergusson, James; Burgess, James (1880). The cave temples of India. London : Allen. p. 120.
145. M. Caygill, The British Museum A-Z companion (London, The British Museum Press, 1999)
146. E. Slatter, Xanthus: travels and discovery (London, Rubicon Press, 1994)
147. Smith, A. H. (Arthur Hamilton) (1892–1904). A catalogue of sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman antiquities, British museum. London : Printed by order of the Trustees. pp. 46–64.
148. According to David Napier, author of Masks, Transformation, and Paradox, "In the British Museum we find a Lycian building, the roof of which is clearly the descendant of an ancient South Asian style.", "For this is the so-called "Tomb of Payava" a Graeco-Indian Pallava if ever there was one." in "Masks and metaphysics in the ancient world: an anthropological view" in Malik, Subhash Chandra; Arts, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the (2001). Mind, Man, and Mask. Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. p. 10. ISBN 9788173051920.
149. Boardman (1998), 13
150. Harle, 22, 24, quoted in turn
151. A Comprehensive History Of Ancient India, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 2003, p.87
152. Buddhist Architecture, by Huu Phuoc Le, Grafikol, 2010 p.44
153. Marshall, John (2013). A Guide to Taxila. Cambridge University Press. p. 11. ISBN 9781107615441.
154. Salomon, Richard (1998). Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 73–76. ISBN 9780195356663.
155. "The derivation of the Kharosstshī script from Aramaic, which was used throughout the Achaemenid realm, is relatively straightforward, but the development of Brāhmī as a chancellery script for writing Aśokan inscriptions may have also been related to an effort to emulate the royal inscriptions of Achaemenid or later Seleukid rulers." in Neelis, Jason (2011). Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks: Mobility and Exchange within and beyond the Northwestern Borderlands of South Asia. Brill. p. 98. ISBN 9789004194588.
156. Sagar, Krishna Chandra (1992). Foreign Influence on Ancient India. Northern Book Centre. p. 39. ISBN 9788172110284.
157. "Ashoka" in Encyclopaedia Iranica
158. Hultzsch, E. (1925). Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum v. 1: Inscriptions of Asoka. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. xlii.
159. Sharma, R. S. (2006). India's Ancient Past. Oxford University Press. p. 163. ISBN 9780199087860.
160. "The word dipi appears in the Old Persian inscription of Darius I at Behistan (Column IV. 39) having the meaning inscription or "written document" in Congress, Indian History (2007). Proceedings - Indian History Congress. p. 90.
161. Voogt, Alexander J. de; Finkel, Irving L. (2010). The Idea of Writing: Play and Complexity. BRILL. p. 209. ISBN 978-9004174467.
162. Dupree, L. (2014). Afghanistan. Princeton University Press. p. 286. ISBN 9781400858910. Retrieved 2016-11-27.
163. Inscriptions of Asoka. New Edition by E. Hultzsch (in Sanskrit). 1925. p. 51.
164. Vishnu, Asha (1993). Material Life of Northern India: Based on an Archaeological Study, 3rd Century B.C. to 1st Century B.C. Mittal Publications. p. 141. ISBN 9788170994107.
165. Page 122: About the Masarh lion: "This particular example of a foreign model gets added support from the male heads of foreigners from Patna city and Sarnath since they also prove beyond doubt that a section of the elite in the Gangetic Basin was of foreign origin. However, as noted earlier, this is an example of the late Mauryan period since this is not the type adopted in any Ashoka pillar. We are, therefore, visualizing a historical situation in India in which the West Asian influence on Indian art was felt more in the late Mauryan than in the early Mauryan period. The term West Asia in this context stands for Iran and Afghanistan, where the Sakas and Pahlavas had their base-camps for eastward movement. The prelude to future inroads of the Indo-Bactrians in India had after all started in the second century B.C."... in Gupta, Swarajya Prakash (1980). The Roots of Indian Art: A Detailed Study of the Formative Period of Indian Art and Architecture, Third and Second Centuries B.C., Mauryan and Late Mauryan. B.R. Publishing Corporation. pp. 88, 122. ISBN 978-0-391-02172-3..
166. According to Gupta this is a non-Indian face of a foreigner with a conical hat: "If there are a few faces which are nonIndian , such as one head from Sarnath with conical cap ( Bachhofer , Vol . I , Pl . 13 ), they are due to the presence of the foreigners their costumes, tastes and liking for portrait art and not their art styles." in Gupta, Swarajya Prakash (1980). The Roots of Indian Art: A Detailed Study of the Formative Period of Indian Art and Architecture, Third and Second Centuries B.C., Mauryan and Late Mauryan. B.R. Publishing Corporation. p. 318. ISBN 978-0-391-02172-3.
167. "The relatively high quality of terracotta sculptures recovered from Maurya strata at Mathura suggests some level of artistic activity prior to the second century BCE." Quintanilla, Sonya Rhie (2007). History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura: Ca. 150 BCE - 100 CE. BRILL. p. 35. ISBN 9789004155374.
168. Kala, Satish Chandra (1980). Terracottas in the Allahabad Museum. Abhinav Publications. p. 5. ISBN 9780391022348.
169. "The largest number of mother-goddess figurines has been found in western Uttar Pradesh in Mathura, which in the Mauryan period became an important terracotta making centre outside Magadh." in Sant, Urmila (1997). Terracotta Art of Rajasthan: From Pre-Harappan and Harappan Times to the Gupta Period. Aryan Books International. p. 136. ISBN 9788173051159.
170.
"Iranian Heads From Mathura, some terracotta male-heads were recovered, which portray the Iranian people with whom the Indians came into closer contact during the fourth and third centuries B.C. Agrawala calls them the representatives of Iranian people because their facial features present foreign ethnic affinities." Srivastava, Surendra Kumar (1996). Terracotta art in northern India. Parimal Publications. p. 81.
171. "Mathura has also yielded a special class of terracotta heads in which the facial features present foreign ethnic affinities." Dhavalikar, Madhukar Keshav (1977). Masterpieces of Indian Terracottas. Taraporevala. p. 23.
172. "Soldier heads. During the Mauryan period, the military activity was more evidenced in the public life. Possibly, foreign soldiers frequently visited India and attracted Indian modellers with their ethnic features and uncommon uniform. From Mathura in Uttar Pradesh and Basarh in Bihar, some terracotta heads have been reported, which represent soldiers. Artistically, the Basarh terracotta soldier-heads are better, executed than those from Mathura." in Srivastava, Surendra Kumar (1996). Terracotta art in northern India. Parimal Publications. p. 82.
173. Vishnu, Asha (1993). Material Life of Northern India: Based on an Archaeological Study, 3rd Century B.C. to 1st Century B.C. Mittal Publications. p. XV. ISBN 9788170994107.
174. "The figure of a Persian youth (35.2556) wearing coat, scarf, trousers and turban is a rare item." Museum, Mathura Archaeological (1971). Mathura Museum Introduction: A Pictorial Guide Book. Archaeological Museum. p. 14.
175. Sharma, Ramesh Chandra (1994). The Splendour of Mathurā Art and Museum. D.K. Printworld. p. 58.[permanent dead link]
176. xxiii. 6 in Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History. London: Bohn (1862) Book 23. pp.316-345.
177. James, Montague Rhodes (2007). The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament: their titles and fragments. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 93. ISBN 9781556352898.
178. Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History. London: Bohn (1862) Book 23. pp.316-345.
179. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. pp. 7–12. ISBN 9781400866328.
180. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. pp. 132–133. ISBN 9781400866328.

Bibliography

• Archibald, Zosia; Davies, John K.; Gabrielsen, Vincent (2011), The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First Centuries BC, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199587926
• Alram, Michael (2016), "The Coinage of the Persian Empire", in William E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage, Oxford University Press, pp. 61–, ISBN 9780199372188
• Boardman, John (1998), "Reflections on the Origins of Indian Stone Architecture", Bulletin of the Asia Institute, pp. 15–19, 1998, New Series, Vol. 12, (Alexander's Legacy in the East: Studies in Honor of Paul Bernard), p. 13-22, JSTOR
• Bopearachchi, Osmund (2000), "Coin Production and Circulation in Central Asia and North-West India (Before and after Alexander's Conquest)", Indologica Taurinensia, 25, International Association of Sanskrit Studies
• Bopearachchi, Osmund (2017), "Achaemenids and Mauryans: Emergence of Coins and Plastic Arts in India", in Alka Patel; Touraj Daryaee (eds.), India and Iran in the Longue Durée, UCI Jordan Center for Persian Studies, pp. 15–48
• Bopearachchi, Osmund; Cribb, Joe (1992), "Coins illustrating the History of the Crossroads of Asia", in Errington, Elizabeth; Cribb, Joe; Claringbull, Maggie (eds.), The Crossroads of Asia: transformation in image and symbol in the art of ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ancient India and Iran Trust, pp. 56–59, ISBN 978-0-9518399-1-1
• Cribb, Joe (1983), "Investigating the introduction of coinage in India - A review of recent research", Journal of the Numismatic Society of India: 80–101
• Dandamaev, M. A. (1989), A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, BRILL, ISBN 978-90-04-09172-6
• Eggermont, Pierre Herman Leonard (1975), Alexander's Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahmin Town of Harmatelia, Peeters Publishers, ISBN 978-90-6186-037-2
• Harle, J.C., The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, 2nd edn. 1994, Yale University Press Pelican History of Art, ISBN 0300062176
• Magee, Peter; Petrie, Cameron; Knox, Richard; Khan, Farid; Thomas, Ken (2005), "The Achaemenid Empire in South Asia and Recent Excavations in Akra in Northwest Pakistan", American Journal of Archaeology, 109 (4): 711–741, doi:10.3764/aja.109.4.711, S2CID 54089753
• Mitchiner, Michael (1978), The Ancient & Classical World, 600 B.C.-A.D. 650, Hawkins Publications ; distributed by B. A. Seaby, ISBN 9780904173161
• Neelis, Jason (2010), Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks: Mobility and Exchange Within and Beyond the Northwestern Borderlands of South Asia, BRILL, ISBN 978-90-04-18159-5
• Olmstead, A. T. (1948), History of the Persian Empire, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-62777-9
• Sen, Sailendra Nath (1999). Ancient Indian History and Civilization. New Age International. ISBN 9788122411980.

External links

• Ancient India, A History Textbook for Class XI, Ram Sharan Sharma, National Council of Educational Research and Training, India Iranian and Macedonian Invasion, pp 108
• INDIA iii. RELATIONS: ACHAEMENID PERIOD

Part 1 of 2

Introduction, from "Samnyasa Upanisads: Hindu Scriptures on Asceticism and Renunciation"
Translated with an introduction by Patrick Olivelle
(Copyright © 1992 by Oxford University Press, Inc.)

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.

-- Samnyasa Upanisads: Hindu Scriptures on Asceticism and Renunciation, Translated with an introduction by Patrick Olivelle, 1992

-- Oupnek'hat [Four Upanishads], by Anquetil Duperron

-- Upanishads, by Wikipedia

Introduction

The Samnyasa Upanisads

The Upanisads form the concluding sections of the several Vedic collections handed down in the ancient Vedic schools [LC: what are "the ancient Vedic schools"? No Google search items are available.] and are therefore called Vedanta, which literally means the end of the Veda. The Upanisads, however, came to be viewed in many traditions not merely as the last books of the Vedas but also as the most important. The very term Vedanta was understood to mean not just the end but also the summit and crown of the Veda.

Many indigenous traditions divide the Vedic corpus into two sections: the section on rites (karmakanda), consisting of the earlier portions, and the section on knowledge (jnanakanda), consisting of the Upanisads. The theology of Vedic revelation within the mainstream of the Brahmanical tradition regarded the Vedas to be without an author; they constitute the temporal manifestations [LC: what "time"?] of eternal [LC: how can it be "eternal" when it is limited by time?] and transcendent knowledge. As the ritual section contains infallible [LC: "infallible" because they were invented by a man?] directions in ritual and moral matters, so the Upanisads contain the transcendent knowledge needed for human salvation. Within the soteriological traditions, such as Advaita Vedanta, that considered knowledge as the sole means of liberation (moksa), therefore, the Upanisads came to be regarded as its most authoritative source. As one medieval text puts it, "The Vedanta is contained in the Veda like oil in the seed."1 [Muktika Upanisad, 1.9.]

Because of the foundational nature of the Upanisads, later Hindu sects and theologies sought to find in them the revealed basis of and the ultimate justification for their doctrines and practices. The proponents understood their sectarian doctrines and practices to be the explication of the essential message of the Upanisads. Thus many Hindu sects called their own doctrines Vedanta. The early Upanisads, composed many centuries before the rise of these sects and traditions, however, did not always directly support their often contradictory positions. Sectarian theologians, therefore, resorted frequently to hermeneutical strategies, interpreting the ancient Upanisads in ways that would provide support for their doctrines;2 [I have discussed some of these strategies in Olivelle 1986, 57-76.] Sometimes they composed new Upanisads. Given the lack of an acknowledged and closed canon of the Vedic corpus,3 [For a survey of the problems relating to the canon and transmission of the Vedic texts, see Olivelle 1986, 66-76; L. Renou, The Destiny of the Veda in India, trans. D. R. Chanana (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965).] these new texts were able to gain recognition, at least within the sects in which they were composed, as authentic Vedic documents, having the same sanctity and authority as other Vedic books. The number of Upanisads thus swelled to well over 100, and Upanisads continued to be composed down to modern times to support every sort of religious belief and practice.

In the eyes of the believers, all Upanisads have the same authority.

People who believe anything that has the name of the thing they are looking for

The concept of people believing in something simply because it has a name that matches what they are looking for is related to the idea of tulpa, a term used in mysticism and the paranormal to describe a being or object created through spiritual or mental powers. This phenomenon is also linked to the illusory truth effect, where people tend to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure, often due to familiarity and the feeling of truth.

Additionally, individuals who believe things easily without having to be convinced are described as credulous or gullible, which can be seen in people who accept information without a lot of supporting facts. This credulity can be a result of a willingness to believe in things that are unseen or unproven, such as religions or mythical creatures.

In the context of cognitive dissonance, people may rationalize or deny behaviors that go against their beliefs, leading to discomfort, tension, shame, and anxiety. This discomfort can lead individuals to believe in things that align with their existing beliefs, even if they lack evidence or logical reasoning.

In summary, people who believe anything that has the name of the thing they are looking for may be exhibiting credulity, the illusory truth effect, or the tendency to believe in things that align with their existing beliefs, even if they lack evidence or logical reasoning.

-- AI-generated answer

They are eternal and transcend history. Scholars who use them as sources for the reconstruction of Indian religious history, however, must approach them as human documents located in space and time. From a historical perspective, therefore, modern scholarship has customarily distinguished between the major (sometimes called classical) and the minor Upanisads. The former are generally older and were composed within the Vedic schools, whereas the latter are by and large later compositions, some of which are sectarian in nature.4 [Although this statement is valid as a generalization, sections of some so-called minor Upanisads are as old as some of the classical Upanisads.] The Samnyasa Upanisads belong to the latter category.

They are a collection of twenty texts written in Sanskrit. Their common characteristic is the theme of samnyasa, or renunciation. The Samnyasa Upanisads, however, do not constitute an indigenous classification of the Upanisads; no Indian list or collection of Upanisads groups these texts together. Paul Deussen was the first to use the category Samnyasa Upanisads. In his German translation of sixty Upanisads, Deussen (1905; Eng. tr. 1980, 567-568) classified the Upanisads belonging to the Atharva Veda under five headings "according to the tendency predominant in them:" (1) Purely Vedantic Upanisads, (2) Yoga-Upanisads, (3) Samnyasa-Upanisads, (4) Siva-Upanisads, and (5) Visnu-Upanisads.5 [Deussen was in fact expanding on a classification first proposed by A. Weber, History of Indian Literature (London, 1878), 156.] Under Samnyasa Upanisads he included seven texts: Brahma, Samnyasa, Aruneya, Kathasruti, Paramahamsa, Jabala, and Asrama. That number was expanded to twenty in Schrader's critical edition of the Samnyasa Upanisads.

From the viewpoint of Brahmanical theology, these Upanisads provide the basis in Vedic revelation for the institution of renunciation (samnyasa) and for the rules and practices associated with that state. They played a central role in the theological reflections and disputes concerning that key institution of Brahmanical religion.6 [Deussen was in fact expanding on a classification first proposed by A. Weber, History of Indian Literature (London, 1878), 156.] Apart from providing valuable data for the history of Indian ascetical institutions, therefore, these Upanisads are especially significant for tracing the development of the Brahmanical theology of renunciation.7 [Scholars have come to recognize the importance of the indigenous theological and exegetical traditions as objects of study for scholars of religion. Jonathan Z. Smith has articulated this eloquently: "I have come to believe that a prime object of study for the historian of religion ought to be theological tradition . . . in particular, those elements of the theological endeavor that are concerned with canon and its exegesis. .. . It [exegetical enterprise] is, at the same time, the most profoundly cultural, and hence, the most illuminating for what ought to be the essentially anthropological view point of the historian of religion and a conception of religion as human labor." Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 43.]

1.1 EDITIONS, TRANSLATIONS, AND STUDIES

Deussen's fivefold classification, with the addition of the Sakta-Upanisads, was followed by the Adyar Library when, under the direction of F. Otto Schrader, it drew up a plan to publish critical editions of all the minor Upanisads (Schrader, ii—iii). The first volume to be published in the series contained the Samnyasa Upanisads, a collection of twenty texts critically edited by Schrader himself and published in 1912 with an original Sanskrit commentary, Tippani, prepared by Schrader with the help of several pandits. The present translation is based on Schrader's critical edition.

Unfortunately, the editors of the remaining volumes of this series did not follow Schrader's lead; the other collections were not critically edited. They were published without a proper critical apparatus and reproduce the version commented on by Upanisadbrahmayogin. The Samnyasa Upanisads thus remain the only collection of minor Upanisads to have been critically edited.

As part of the same series, the Adyar Library in 1929 produced another publication of the Samnyasa Upanisads based on the version commented on by Upanisadbrahmayogin (see Dikshit 1929), a version far inferior to the critically reconstituted edition of Schrader. A reprint of it amounting in reality to a new edition was published in 1966.8 [For differences in the two editions, see Sprockhoff 1990, 7-17.] Individual texts of the collection have been published frequently in uncritical editions.9 [All these editions are listed by Sprochkhoff (1976) at the beginning of his discussion of each Upanisad.]

In his introduction Schrader says that his translation of the Samnyasa Upanisads "is practically ready for the press."10 [Schrader, iii, n. I. He repeats this claim elsewhere: Schrader, 80, nn. 1—2. Cf. Sprockhoff 1976, 10, n. 3.] Unfortunately, it was never published. The Adyar Library recently published a translation of the Samnyasa Upanisads by A. A. Ramanathan (Ramanathan 1978). Besides being an extremely poor and inaccurate translation, it is not based on Schrader's critical edition but follows by and large Dikshit's edition of the version commented on by Upanisadbrahmayogin.11 [For an assessment of Ramanathan's translation, see my review in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 102 (1982): 228—229. A detailed critique of this translation has been made by Sprockhoff 1990. Individual texts, especially of the older group, have been translated into English and other European languages, but they are for the most part not based on Schrader's critical edition. For a bibliography of these translations, see Sprockhoff 1976 under each Upanisad. The Satyayaniya was translated by me in Olivelle 1987, and the Kathasruti (together with the Katharudra of the SR) by Sprockhoff 1990.] I have been unable to consult the recent French translation of these Upanisads by Alyette Degraces-Fahd referred to by Sprockhoff (1989, 138; 1990, 47, n. 150), who considers it an uncritical translation.

Joachim Friedrich Sprockhoff, a student of Schrader, has made an excellent and detailed study of all the Samnyasa Upanisads (Sprockhoff 1976). Sprockhoff's work is indispensable for any serious study of these documents. It is neither possible nor desirable within the scope of this introduction to include all the details of his analysis. For more detailed and technical information on these documents, including their textual histories, I can do no better than refer the reader to Sprockhoff's study, which ought to be regarded as a standard work of reference on Brahmanical renunciation. Besides being the only group of minor Upanisads to have been critically edited, the Samnyasa Upanisads remains also the only group to have been subjected to such a thorough historical and philological study.

It is my hope that this first complete English translation of the critical editions of all the Samnyasa Upanisads will make that valuable collection accessible to a wider group of people interested in the history of Indian religion and culture.

1.2 DATES

The Samnyasa Upanisads share with other ancient Indian texts a common problem: it is impossible to date them with any degree of precision or certainty. Neither the texts nor their manuscript traditions contain any information regarding their authors or the dates and places of their composition. Except for citations in other datable works, we have no external evidence regarding their dates. Almost all these texts, furthermore, are not original compositions. They draw extensively from other Brahmanical sources, such as the classical Upanisads, the epics, and the Puranas.12 [Sprockhoff (1976 especially 277-295) has dealt extensively with the composition and the sources of the Samnyasa Upanisads. He gives all the sources and parallel passages in seventeen detailed tables (319-377) and in an extremely helpful diagram on p. 280.] Many of them, moreover, are composite texts, containing sections taken from older works or from other Samnyasa Upanisads. Some of the later Upanisads appear to be expansions of older ones. Others, such as the Laghu-Samnyasa and the Kundika, as well as the Kathasruti and the Katharudra (which occurs only in the SR), appear to be different recensions of the same text. Each text, therefore, contains several layers that may be separated by hundreds of years. All of this makes any dating of these documents tentative and provisional at best.

In his critical edition, Schrader arranged these Upanisads in a manner that in his view approximated their relative dates: "The texts edited in this volume fall into two groups, an older one and a younger one. The older one comprises the first six texts, the younger one Maitreya and the succeeding Upanisads. Asrama-Upanisad cannot well be included in either of the groups; it seems to stand exactly on the dividing-line" (Schrader, xxvi).

Sprockhoff's exhaustive study generally confirms this broad division. Sprockhoff, however, has attempted to date individual Upanisads and even the different strata within them. He assigns the older group to the last few centuries before the common era. The Asrama Upanisad was composed around 300 C.E. The texts of the younger group for the most part belong to the medieval period. Sprockhoff assigns the Naradaparivrajaka to around 1150 C.E. and the Satyayaniya to 1200 C.E. Most of the others belong to the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries.13 [For details on the dates of each Upanisad, see the appropriate chapter of Sprockhoff 1976.]

A clue to the dating of the older group is found in a controversy recorded in all except the Laghu-Samnyasa. These texts attempt to answer the objection that if a renouncer cuts his topknot and discards his sacrificial string, he can no longer be regarded as a Brahmin (see below 4.3). Now the abandonment of the string as well as any objection to such an abandonment have significance only if it was either an obligation or at least a universal custom among Brahmins to wear such a string. It is no doubt true that in medieval and modern times the wearing of a sacrificial string was regarded as the hallmark of a Brahmin. The older Brahmanical documents, however, do not record a rule or custom that required Brahmins to wear a sacred string at all times. The term yajnopavita, which in later times came to mean the sacrificial string, is used in them to refer to a particular mode of wearing the upper garment during ritual acts.14 [The garment or string goes over the left shoulder and hangs under the right arm. Other ways of wearing it are called pracinavita (over the right shoulder and under the left arm), used during rites for the dead, and nivita (hanging from the neck).] It is nowhere mentioned that a garment or a string should be worn in that manner at all times.

That the custom of wearing a string was a late development is confirmed by the fact that the oldest texts are silent on the investiture of a boy with the sacred string at his initiation, an investiture that later became its central element. After examining all the evidence, Kane concludes:

From the above passages, from the fact that many of the grhyasutras ["treatises on domestic ritual"] are entirely silent about the giving or wearing of the sacred thread in upanayana ["Vedic initiation"] and from the fact that no mantra is cited from the Vedic Literature for the act of giving the yajnopavita (which is now the centre of the upanayana rites), while scores of vedic mantras are cited for the several component parts of the ceremony of upanayana, it is most probable, if not certain, that sacred thread was not invariably used in the older times as in the times of the later smrtis and in modern times, that originally the upper garment was used in various positions for certain acts, that it could be laid aside altogether in the most ancient times and that the cord of threads came to be used first as an option and later on exclusively for the upper garment. (sic; Kane, HDh, 2:291)

If Kane is right in dating the custom of wearing a sacred string at all times to the period of the smrtis, that is, roughly the first few centuries of the common era—and I believe he is—then the texts of the older group, with the exception of the Laghu-Samnyasa, must be younger by several centuries than assumed by Sprockhoff. The earliest date to which these texts in their present form can be assigned is the first few centuries of, rather than before, the common era. It is possible, of course, that sections of these composite documents belong to an earlier period.

With regard to the Satyayaniya Upanisad, it may be possible to add some more information bearing on the date to that given by Sprockhoff. This text was clearly the product of a Vaisnava sect, in all likelihood the Sri-Vaisnava founded by Ramanuja. As far as I know, the earliest citation of this Upanisad is found in Varadacarya's Yatilingasamarthana.15 [See the edition and translation of this text in Olivelle 1987.] Varadacarya (1165—1275 C.E.) was the grandson of Ramanuja's sister's son (Olivelle 1986, 23—24). Ramanuja's elder contemporary and teacher was Yadava Prakasa. Tradition has it that Ramanuja converted his former teacher from a non-dualist form of Vedanta to his Visistadvaita philosophy.16 [Vedanta Desika (13—14th cent. C.E.) in his Satadusani refers to the conversion of Yadava Prakasa: see Olivelle 1987, 82.] Yadava's literary activities, therefore, must have taken place in the second half of the eleventh century C.E. He wrote an extensive treatise on renunciation called Yatidharmasamuccaya (Olivelle 1986, 22), which generally supports the Sri-Vaisnava position on renunciation, especially on the disputed issue of the insignia of a renouncer. He fails, however, to cite the Satyayaniya Upanisad, even though it would have given him plenty of scriptural ammunition against the Advaita position. It is quite unlikely that Yadava would have been ignorant of or deliberately ignored such an important scriptural text of his tradition, a text that is cited prominently a few generations later by Varadacarya. The likely conclusion is that the Satyayaniya was either composed or attained the status of an Upanisad sometime between Yadava and Varada, probably in the early part of the twelfth century.

1.3 CONTEXT: BRAHMANICAL LITERATURE ON RENUNCIATION

The Samnyasa Upanisads did not arise in a vacuum; they were part of a broader literary tradition concerning renunciation and related topics both within the Brahmanical mainstream and in non-Brahmanical traditions such as Buddhism and Jainism. Here I want to present a brief conspectus of that broader tradition that provides the context within which these documents were composed and need to be studied.

There is sufficient evidence for the existence of organized ascetical institutions17 [I use the term institution in the broadest possible sense. We have little evidence regarding how large these institutions were or how they were organized. From early Buddhist evidence it appears that each ascetic group coalesced around a teacher who became its corporate head and, at least in the case of institutions known to us, such as Buddhism and Jainism, provided both an ideology and rules of conduct for its members.] in northern India probably during the sixth—and for certain by the fifth—century B.C.E. At a very early age, moreover, at least some of these ascetical institutions produced literary works often ascribed to their founders. At first they were, in all likelihood, composed and transmitted orally. Examples of such texts are found both within and outside the Brahmanical tradition.

The outstanding feature of the oldest Indian education and Indian culture in general, especially in the centuries B.C., is its orality. The Vedic texts make no reference to writing, and there is no reliable indication that writing was known in India except perhaps in the northwestern provinces when these were under Achaemenid rule, since the time of Darius or even Cyrus. Those who write down the Veda go to hell, as the Mahabharata tells us, and Kumarila [700 A.D.] confirms: "That knowledge of the truth is worthless which has been acquired from the Veda, if the Veda has not been rightly comprehended or if it has been learnt from writing."2 Sayana [d. 1387] wrote in the introduction to his Rgveda commentary that "the text of the Veda is to be learned by the method of learning it from the lips of the teacher and not from a manuscript."3

The best evidence today is that no script was used or even known in India before 300 B.C., except in the extreme Northwest that was under Persian domination. That is in complete accord with the Indian tradition which at every occasion stresses the orality of the cultural and literary heritage....

There were no books; the common Indian word for "book" (pusta[ka]) is found not before the early centuries A.D. and is probably a loanword from Persian (post),25 and grantha denoted originally only "knot, nexus, text" acquiring the meaning "manuscript" much later.

The older Indian literature (including some texts as late as the early centuries A.D.) belongs to one of two classes: sruti "hearing" and smrti "remembering." It behooves us to pay attention to this distinction made by the Indians themselves early on.

-- Chapter Two: The Oral Tradition, From "Education in Ancient India", by Hartmut Scharfe

Whatever may be said about the dates of their extant canons of scripture, the Buddhist and Jain traditions—and possibly other extinct non-Brahmanical sects such as the Ajivika—produced a considerable body of literature not long after their founding. These literary products often claim to record the very words of the deceased founders of their respective sects and were thus infused with their personal authority, becoming thereby sacred and authoritative. The early ascetic literature of non-Brahmanical sects thus became the nucleus of their sacred scriptures, which paralleled—and which may have even been composed in imitation of—the Vedic scriptures, the model par excellence of sacred text in India.