Sources of Mauryan History Sanjay Sharma There is hardly any dearth of sources of the history of Mauryan empire. All kinds of sources, literary and archaeological, epigraphic and numismatic have enlightened us about the history of the empire but the credibility and authenticity of some of these is highly questionable especially of the literary ones. Researchers and historians generally consider archaeological and epigraphic sources as more authentic then others. There are both contemporary as well as later sources (mostly literary) for the Mauryan history. Literary Sources A number of literary sources–both contemporary as well as late, as also Indian as well as foreign, have a direct or an indirect reference to Mauryan history. Some of these sources, of course, are highly debatable. The Arthashastra, Megasthenes’s Indica, the Milindapanho, the Puranas, the Mudrarakshasa, the Mahavamsa and the Jaina Parishishthaparvan are considered to be the most important literary sources of Mauryan history and chronology. Because of the importance attached with the Arthashastra and the Indica, we shall discuss them separately. Brahmanical Literature Puranas are the most prominent brahmanical literature providing us information about Mauryan genealogy. The Vishnu Purana talks about the origin of Nandas and their subsequent overthrow by Chandragupta under the guidance of his mentor-Kautilya. Buddhist Literature A number of Buddhist works written during Mauryan or later times refer to Mauryan polity and society. These include the Jatakas which give a vivid description of socio-economic conditions of people in India during the middle of first millennium BC. It broadly stretches to the Mauryan period as well. Apart from this, the Dighanikaya, along with its commentary Sumangalavilasini, is also a source for the history of this period. Apart from Indian Buddhist literature, Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist chronicles have also referred to Mauryan empire. The Divyavadana and the Ashokavadana refer to some of the important events in the life of Ashoka, like his expedition to suppress the revolt in Taxila and his conversion to Buddhism. Divyavadana also refers to the dhammayatras undertaken by Ashoka. Taranath’s History of Tibet (written in 16th century) has touched upon Mauryan life but it is not a very authentic source. Apart from these, Ceylonese chronicles constitute another set of very important source of Mauryan history. Dipavamsa (c. 3rd century BC-4th century AD) and Mahavamsa (fifth century AD) have praised Ashoka, in great detail for his efforts to spread Buddhism in Ceylon. Vamsathapakasini, a commentary on the Mahavamsa composed in India during the tenth century AD, gives some information about the origin of the Mauryas. Besides, texts like the Lalitavistara and the Mahavastu also shed important light on the history of the period. Jaina Literature The Parishishthaparvan, written by Hemchandra in the tenth century AD, was composed primarily as a biography of Chanakya or Kautilya but still it gives an interesting account of the various phases in Chandragupta’s life, like his early life, his conversion to Jainism later etc. Parishishthaparvan also throws a light on the social and economic conditions of people of Magadha during the Mauryan period. Another important source for the history of this period is Jaina Kalpasutra by Bhadrabahu (c. 4th cemtury BC) Mudrarakshasa Mudrarakshasa was written by Vishakhadatta during the Gupta period (c. 4th century AD). It is written in the backdrop of Chanakya’s enmity towards the Nandas and his subsequent assistance to Chandragupta Maurya. Chandragupta Maurya under the guidance of Chanakya not only defeated Dhanananda but also destroyed the seemingly insurmountable Nanda power. Greek and Latin literary Sources Though the primary source of foreign literature about the Mauryan age is Megasthenes’s Indica, but as it has been lost in its original form, so the historians have been referring to the later Greek and Latin works which have actual quotations from the Indica. Strabo (64 BC-19 AD) wrote a book on geography and attributed some portion of it to India. Besides this, he has mentioned in his work the matrimonial alliance between Chandragupta Maurya and Seleucus but does not mention the exact nature and details of this alliance. Strabo also refers to the female bodyguards of Chandragupta Maurya. Plutarch, another Greek writer, has written on the expedition and life of Alexander. He, in his writings, has referred to the meeting between Androkottus (Chandragupta Maurya) and Alexander. Justin, who lived in second Century AD, has given the most comprehensive account on Chandragupta Maurya, among all contemporary foreign authors. He calls Chandragupta as Sandrokottus. He describes in detail, Chandragupta Maurya’s rise to power and his conflict against Greeks. In this war he was able to wrest the Punjab from Greeks. A number of other writers like Arrian, Pliny etc. have referred to India and they have also made some specific references to Chandragupta and other Mauryans. In any case it seems the importance of these foreign sources in the reconstruction of Mauryan history can not be ignored. Kautilya’s Arthashastra The Arthashastra was discovered by Ramashastry in the first decade of the twentieth century. Since then it has been treated by scholars as an encyclopaedia of ancient Indian political principles. Different portions of the book are said to have been authored by Chanakya, Kautilya and Vishnugupta; perhaps one person with three different names. A number of scholars including Ramashastry have mentioned that the author of the Arthashastra was the prime minister of Chandragupta Maurya. The Arthashastra is not a treatise on ancient Indian political thought as inferred by most people, although it may be apt to call Kautilya a political thinker because in the Arthashastra he lays down his own ideas about the ideal government, its head, ministers, their duties and privileges etc. Prof. B. N. Mukherjee in his commentary to H. C. Raychaudhuri’s Political History of Ancient India, mentions, “The Arthashastra of Kautilya is, by its own definition, concerned with earth’s {that is, an inhabited land’s} gain and maintenance.” He then calls it a guidebook for governing an inhabited territory (technically known as artha) by monarchy, in continuation of which, management of finance (artha) plays a major role. The book incorporates the thoughts and ideas of some early acharyas as well. Controversy Regarding the Date of The Arthashastra: The Arthashastra, being a popular and an important source of Mauryan history, has been translated into a number of languages, but the historians are still not fully unanimous about its authorship and approximate time when it was composed. The Arthashastra seems to have been compiled a number of times since the fourth century BC, with some new modifications each time and the draft that has come to us was finally composed in third century AD. As a matter of fact, Ramashastry, Smith, Fleet, Jayaswal and some other scholars consider The Arthashastra to have been written during the Mauryan age but, Raychaudhuri, Bhandarkar, Winternitz, Keith and Jolly etc., consider it to be a work composed much later. The first two adhikaranas of the Arthashastra are mentioned to have been written by Kautilya. Vishnugupta is said to be the author of the last section but the expression kautilya arthashastra has been mentioned at the end of each adhyaya. This shows that the Arthashastra was either written by Kautilya himself or it was composed by scholars belonging to the school named after him. Recently, some scholars have come out with fresh proposition to prove that the Arthashastra was actually written during the Mauryan age, though some interpolations may have been made in the later ages. Prof. B. N. Mukherjee has explained this on the basis of literary, epigraphic and numismatic sources. the Arthashastra describes chakravartikshetra, i.e., the territory of imperial sovereign as extending in north-south direction from the Himalayas to the sea and a thousand yojanas in east west direction. These are the dimensions of the Mauryan empire and this empire is mentioned in the Arthashastra as Prithvi. In Indian literature Prithvi is said to mean a huge land area though, not properly defined in term of limits. In the Arthashastra, Prithvi is well defined in geographical terms. In Ashoka’s Nittur version of his First Minor Rock Edict, same title has been given to his empire, i.e., Prithvi and the whole area is also known as, like in other recessions of this edict, Jambudvipa. Prof. B. N. Mukherjee writes, “The Empire of Ashoka or of his grandfather Chandragupta, including the major part of the subcontinent and the borderlands, could have thus fitted well with the Kautilyan idea of chakravartikshetra or Prithvi. In other words, a Pandect on administration, compiled in the Maurya age on the basis of contemporary data, could have conceived of small states (as known in the previous periods) and a big empire (as existed in the days of Mauryas).” So the use of the term Prithvi in the same specific sense in both, Arthashastra and the Nittur version of MRE-1 of Ashokan inscription can be used to infer that they both belong to the same age. Numismatic sources have also helped considerably to understand or explain the fact that the Arthashastra was composed during Maurya age. During Maurya period coin was an important medium of exchange. The second book of the Arthashastra refers to the minting of silver pana and copper mashaka and kakani and their submultiples. But in the Arthashastra, no mention has been made of silver dramma (drachma) which became popular in a later age in north-west India during the times of Indo Greeks. North-west India was a part of Arthashastra’s chakravartikshetra. Moreover Kautilya in the Arthashastra mentions, the method of die-striking to inscribe the coins. The process of casting coins in the moulds started in around second century BC, and finds no place in the Arthashastra.