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. Logically, these changes which were brought about in the later times should have been mentioned in the later interpolations of the Arthashastra. These are some of the arguments which tend to prove that the Arthashastra was originally written during the Maurya period. Megasthenes’s Indica

After the war between Chandragupta Maurya and Seleucus Nikator a treaty was made by both sides as mentioned by Strabo and peace prevailed between Syrian and Indian emperors then onwards. Seleucus sent an envoy to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. He was Megasthenes who, before coming to India was an official under Sibyrtios, the Satrap of Arachosia (Kandahar). According to Arrian, ‘Megasthenes ‘dwelt’ with the Satrap of Arachosia, Sibyrtios… and often visited Sandrokottos’. Hence he may not have been a permanent resident of Pataliputra.

Megasthenes wrote extensively on various facets of Indian life, society, administration, kingship etc., to which he gave the shape of a book titled Indica. The original work has been lost. The Indica is available in fragments as quotations in the later writings but it is an important source of Mauryan history. Rhys Davids says that Megasthenes lacked the sense of critical judgement and so, he was often misled by what he saw. But still his writings have been an important eyewitness source of the Mauryan history.

Archaeological Sources

The age of the Mauryas, in terms of archaeology, is identified by the use of Northern Black Polished Ware (NBP Ware). Some of the places where NBP Ware sherds have been unearthed are, Kaushambi, Rajghat, Rajgir, Pataliputra, Vaishali etc., and we may consider them as some of the important places under Mauryas. The two most important sources of information have been the structures unearthed at Kaushambi and Kumrahar near Patna. These structures signify flourishing urban culture. The structure excavated at Kaushambi has a huge defence system. The structure unearthed at Kumarhar by Dr. Spooner is considered to be the palace of Chandragupta Maurya. It is in the form of a pillared hall and its wooden superstructure is assumed to have caved in, as a result of a conflagration, leaving an ashy deposit. Seven platforms made of wood, each 9 metres long, 1.5 metres wide and 1.2 metres high have been found to the south of this hall. The purpose of these platforms has not yet been ascertained properly. Spooner compared the hall with the building of Persepolis and put forth the view that pillars of the wall had sunk, in fact, were probably still sinking–deep into the soft slimy earth underneath. A canal has also been discovered which came from the east in the same alignment as the wooden platforms.

Apart from these structures the discovery of NBP Ware sherds has thrown much needed light on the socio-economic life during Maurya age and this has helped the scholars to study the cultural advancement of the Maurya society. The drainage system which has been discovered at various places highlights the importance, people paid to health and hygiene. Apart from this, the recovery of a number of tools, weapons and ornaments have also helped the scholars and archaeologists to understand various diverse facets of Maurya life and their cultural identity.

Epigraphical Sources

In the foregoing pages we have assessed the importance of literary and archaeological sources. Both these sources have come to us in an altered form and we have already talked about possible interpolations in the Arthashastra and can also not negate the possibility of some changes being made in the Indica. As far as archaeology is concerned, during Maurya age excessive use of wood was done in construction and these wooden structures could not have withstood the wear and tear with the passage of time. It is in this context that inscriptions of Ashoka gain significance as they have come down to us without much damage. These inscriptions are by and large the most authentic proof of the existence of Maurya dynasty. The importance of these inscriptions lies in the fact that they give us the original version of the important events of Ashoka’s life and his all important concept of Dhamma. Let us now look at the various types of inscriptions, their languages, their locations etc.

Ashoka’s Inscriptions

1. Language of Inscriptions: Ashokan inscriptions have come to us in four different languages. What is important is that the language used in an inscription was always in consonance with its geographical location. The different languages used in these inscriptions are:

(a) Prakrit Language (which varies according to regional settings) and the Brahmi script

(b) North western Prakrit and the Kharoshti script

(d) The Aramaic language and script

2. Various Types of Inscriptions: A number of different surfaces were used for writing the edict like rocks, pillars and fashioned slabs of stone. This has been used to classify the inscriptions of Ashoka. The various types of inscription are as follows:

(a) Fourteen Major Rock Edicts

(b) Six Pillar Edicts

(d) Edict concerning the sangha (They were differentiated on the basis of their contents)

Here one must also understand that ‘edicts’ was a set of thoughts or ideas that the emperor wanted to put across to his subjects and they were numbered accordingly. For example Fourteen Rock Edicts were a set of fourteen edicts numbered from one to fourteen which were written on rocks. Similar was the case with Six Pillar Edicts. Moreover, the surface, the sequence and the contents of all the edicts were similar wherever they were engraved barring of course, specific exceptions.

3. Fourteen Major Rock Edicts: These have been found in different recensions at ten different sites; these sites are:

(a) Kalsi Prakrit language and Brahmi script

(b) Girnar Prakrit language and Brahmi script

(d) Dhauli Prakrit language and Brahmi script

(e) Jaugada Prakrit language and Brahmi script

(f) Eerragudi Prakrit language and Brahmi script (g) Sannati Prakrit language and Brahmi script

(h) Shahbazgarhi Prakrit language and Kharoshthi script

(i) Mansehra Prakrit language and Kharoshthi script

(j) Kandahar Greek

What is important to note here is the fact that not all these inscriptions contain all the fourteen edicts; Jaugada and Dhauli have two Separate Rock Edicts (SRE), instead of RE XI, XII and XIII. These two edicts have also been found at Sannati.

4. Six Pillar Edicts: These edicts have been discovered at six different places. These are – Topra, Laurya Araraj, Lauriya Nandangarh, Rampurva, Meerut and Allahabad (Kosam). All these inscriptions are in Prakrit and Brahmi. The Pillars which were originally at Topra and Meerut were brought to Delhi by Feroz Shah Tughluq. The Topra pillar contains a seventh Pillar Edict also.

5. Two Minor Rock Edicts: These edicts are also written in Prakrit-Brahmi. The first of these two Minor Rock Edicts, i.e., MRE-1 has been discovered at Seventeen places:

Northern India: Bahapur (near Delhi) and Bairat

Eastern India: Sahasram and Ahraura

Central India: Rupnath, Gujarra and Pangudariya

Southern India: Brahmagiri, Siddhapur, Maski, Palkigundu, Nittur, Govimath, Udegolam, Eerragudi and Rajula-Mandagiri and Jatinga-Rameshwaram

Seven of these places, namely Brahmagiri, Siddhapur, Jatinga-Rameshvaram, Nittur, Udegolam, Eerragudi and Rajula-Mandagiri have also yielded a second Minor Rock Edict in addition to the first one. A third rock edict has been found at Bairat.

5. Sangha Edict: An edict concerning the sangha has been discovered at three places–Sanchi, Sarnath and Allahabad (Kosam). This edict is written in Prakrit and Brahmi.

6 Individual Inscriptions: A few individual inscriptions, written in Prakrit Brahmi, have been found at five places. These sites are Bhabru (actually found near Bairat), Rummindei, Nigalisagar, Allahabad (Kosam), and Barabar hills. The last inscription (the Barabar hills) is dedicatory in nature.

Apart from these inscriptions, few more inscriptions are there which can be attributed to the Maurya period. These include Amravati (stone plaque), Mahasthan (lithic) and Sohagaura (copper plate). Besides the individual inscriptions, the Allahabad Pillar inscription contains two more edicts. One, as mentioned elsewhere, is concerning the sangha and the other which is also called the‘Queen’s edict’ is about the donation of queen Kaluvaki. The Rummindei and Nigalisagar inscriptions are commemorative in nature, the first one commemorates Buddha and the second one, Kanakamuni, one of the six Buddhas before Gautama.

7. The Greek Inscriptions: The fragments of Greek recensions of RE XII and RE XIII have been noticed near Kandahar. A bilingual edict written in Greek and Aramaic language has been reported from Shar-i- Kuna (ancient Kandahar). Moreover inscriptions having Aramaic language have been reported from Taxila, Kandahar, Pul-i-Darunta and Lamgham valley.

Finally one more important point in these inscriptions is that the name ‘Ashoka’ is explicitly mentioned only in three recensions of the first Minor Rock Edict at Maski, Gujarra, and Nittur and two versions of Second Minor Rock Edict at Nittur and Udegolam. At most other places he has been named as Devanampiya or Piyadassi.

The inscriptions of Ashoka were installed in all corners of the Indian subcontinent except some areas of deep south. These locations indicate the extent of Mauryan empire during Ashoka. Some new inscriptions, doubtfully attributed to Ashoka, have been reported in Afghanistan and if they are proved so, the east-west limits of Ashoka’s empire will extend from Afghanistan to Bengal. In any case it is quite astonishing to see that such vast empire was administered so effectively by Mauryans, with a great deal of rigid centralised control for around a century.

Numismatic Sources

With the emergence of urban settlement and increase in the trade and commercial activities, an era of monetary exchanges also ushered in ancient India around sixth century BC. Monetary exchange was an inherent feature of Mauryan economy and society and this has been proved by a number of punch marked coins discovered during excavations from various sites at their respective NBP levels. According to the Arthashastra two prominent coins were in circulation during the Mauryan period. One was the silver pana and its submultiples and the second was the copper mashaka and its submultiples. the Arthashastra also mentions kakani, a copper coin which was, perhaps, not as popular as pana and mashaka. These coins were inscribed with various symbols like Sun, tree in railing, moon, animals etc., and bear no name of any Maurya ruler. Die-striking method was used for inscribing them and the method of casting in moulds was not in practice.

Chandragupta Maurya

Chandragupta, the founder of the Mauryan dynasty has been addressed variously by classical writers as Sandrokoptus, Sandrokottos, and Androkottos etc. Justin has given a picturesque description of the rise of Chandragupta which is too well known to be repeated here. In this description he calls Chandragupta, a man of ‘humble origin’. The story as to how Chandragupta comes in contact with Chanakya should not bother us here, but it seems pertinent to explore the various mutually contradictory sources of his ancestry.

The Ancestral Lineage of Chandragupta Maurya

There has been a controversy regarding the ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya. The ancient Indian Brahmanical literature connects him with the Nandas. Mudrarakshasa calls him a Mauryaputra and Nandanvaya. Kshemendra and Somadeva call him as Purvanandasuta, i.e., son of genuine Nanda. Dhundiraja, the commentator of Mudrarakshasa, tells us that Chandragupta was the eldest son of Maurya who was the son of the Nanda king Sarvarthasiddhi by Mura, daughter of a Vrishala. The term Vrishala is not fully understood as yet but some scholars, though doubtfully, identify it as shudra.

• Jaina Parishishthaparvan identifies Chandragupta as the son of a daughter of the chief of a village resided by Peacock tamers (mayuraposhaka). • The Mahavamsa relates him to the kshatriyas (khattiya) clan styled Moriya.

• Bindusara, in the Divyavadana, has been referred to as an anointed kshatriya, (kshatriya murdhabhishikta). Ashoka also in the same work is mentioned as a kshatriya.

• Mahaparinibbanasutta, one of the earliest Buddhist sources refers to the Moriyas as the ruling clan of Pipphalivana and as belonging to kshatriya caste.

Among all the sources mentioned above, the Mahaparinibbanasutta is the earliest, so its veracity is generally accepted now by scholars in comparison to that of later sources. Scholars thus generally converge on the view that Chandragupta belonged to a kshatriya community, i.e., the Moriya clan. The place called Pipphalivana is said to have been located between Rummindei in the Nepalese terai and Kasia in the Gorakhpur district. After the downfall of Pipphalivana, young Chandragupta was sent to Vindhyan forests where he grew up amongst peacock tamers.