Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject India or the India Portal may be able to help recruit one. If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.

There are divergent views regarding the origin of Chandragupta Maurya.^[1]

Contents 1 The identification of Chandragupta Maurya with Sandrokottas 2 Reasons for Sandracottus to be Chandragupta Gupta 3 Unanswered doubts 4 Common views on Maurya origin 4.1 Nanda Dynasty affiliation 4.2 Peacock-tamer theory 4.3 Moriya clan view 5 Alternate views on Maurya origin 5.1 North-western origin view 5.2 Scythian origin view 6 Notes

[edit] The identification of Chandragupta Maurya with Sandrokottas

Maurya Empire

The Maurya Empire at its largest extent under Ashoka the Great.
Imperial Symbol: The Lion Capital of Ashoka
Founder	Chandragupta Maurya
Preceding State(s)	Nanda Dynasty of Magadha Mahajanapadas
Languages	Pali Prakrit Sanskrit
Religions	Buddhism Hinduism Jainism
Capital	Pataliputra
Head of State	Samraat (Emperor)
First Emperor	Chandragupta Maurya
Last Emperor	Brhadrata
Government	Centralized Absolute Monarchy with Divine Right of Kings as described in the Arthashastra
Divisions	4 provinces: Tosali Ujjain Suvarnagiri Taxila Semi-independent tribes
Administration	Inner Council of Ministers (Mantriparishad) under a Mahamantri with a larger assembly of ministers (Mantrinomantriparisadamca). Extensive network of officials from treasurers (Sannidhatas) to collectors (Samahartas) and clerks (Karmikas). Provincial administration under regional viceroys (Kumara or Aryaputra) with their own Mantriparishads and supervisory officials (Mahamattas). Provinces divided into districts run by lower officials and similar stratification down to individual villages run by headmen and supervised by Imperial officials (Gopas).
Area	5 million km² [2] (Southern Asia and parts of Central Asia)
Population	50 million [3] (one third of the world population [4])
Currency	Silver Ingots (Panas)
Existed	322–185 BCE
Dissolution	Military coup by Pusyamitra Sunga
Succeeding state	Sunga Empire

For two centuries historians have been trying to establish the chronology of early India. The question of whether Chandragupta can be identified with the figure known in Western texts as Sandrokottas is an important element in fixing the chronology. The philologist William Jones began the systematic study of the chronology in the late 18th century. His work and that of his contemporaries are still highly regarded.^[5] However, even William Jones could not believe in the antiquity of the Bharata War since he followed the view held by all Christians at the time that the world was created in 4004 BC. The indologists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were reluctant to believe in the veracity of Indian history books or to accept the antiquity of Indian history. Arthur A. McDonnell wrote,

Early India wrote no history because it never made any. The ancient Indians never went through a struggle for life like the Greeks, the Persians and the Romans. Secondly, the Brahmanas early embraced the doctrine that all action and existence are a positive evil and could therefore have felt but little inclination to chronicle historical events.

Later scholars took this identity of Sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya as proven and carried on further research. James Princep, an employee of the East India Company, deciphered the Brahmi script and was able to read the inscriptions of Piyadassana. Turnour, another employee of the Company in Ceylon, found in the Ceylonese chronicles that Piyadassana was used as a surname of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The inscription bearing the name of Asoka was not found till the time of Turnour. In 1838, Princep found five names of the Yona kings in Asoka's inscriptions and identified them as the five Greek kings near Greece of the third century BC who were contemporary with Asoka.For two centuries historians have been trying to establish the chronology of early India. The question of whether Chandragupta can be identified with the figure known in Western texts as Sandrokottas is an important element in fixing the chronology

[edit] Reasons for Sandracottus to be Chandragupta Gupta

• "The Greek records mention the kings before and after Sandracottus to be Xandramas and Sandrocyptus^{[citation needed]}. The kings before and after Chandragupta Maurya were: Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusar. The kings before and after Chandragupta Gupta were: Chandramas and Samudragupta. The phonetic similarity is quite apparent for Chandragupta Gupta and not Maurya."

On the contrary, Strabo properly identifies both Sandragupta and his son Bindusara "Amitragata" (Slayer of Enemies), and connects them to the 3rd century ambassadors Megasthenes and Deimakos sent to their courts:

"Both of these men were sent ambassadors to Palimbothra (Pataliputra): Megasthenes to Sandrocottus ("Chnadragupta"), Deimakos to Allitrochades ("Amitragata") his son" (Strabo II, I, 9).^[6]

I don't find this mentioned in the reference given above.

Also Plutarch directly connects Chandragupta to Alexander himself:

"Androcottus, 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 62-3.^[7]

• "Greek records are silent about important figures like: Chanakya, Ashoka (kingdom much bigger than his Grandfather Chandragupta's.)"
• "Greek records do not clearly mention the presence Buddhist monks who were very common in Maurya time".

There are actually many Greek accounts of sramanas which are thought to correspond to them. "Well the above points says that there wasn't much mention of sramana's in India during Alexander period. Of course by then Buddhism had spread to Greece and several other places and the mention of sramana in other context doesn't disprove the above point."

• "Inscription on a Greek Tomb: "Here lies Indian Sramanacharya, Shakya monk from Bodh Gaya". Sramanacharya went to Greece with his Greek pupils. The tomb marks his death about 1000 B.C. Which means Buddha existed before 1000 BC."^{[citation needed]}

The exact circumstances of this event are connected to 10 CE instead. Nicolaus of Damascus is famous for his account of an embassy sent by an Indian king "named Pandion (Pandyan kingdom?) or, according to others, Porus" to Caesar Augustus around 13 CE. He met with the embassy at Antioch. The embassy was bearing a diplomatic letter in Greek, and one of its members was a "Sarmano" (Σαρμανο) who burnt himself alive in Athens to demonstrate his faith. The event made a sensation and was quoted by Strabo^[3] and Dio Cassius.^[4] A tomb was made to the "Sarmano", still visible in the time of Plutarch, which bore the mention "ΖΑΡΜΑΝΟΧΗΓΑΣ ΙΝΔΟΣ ΑΠΟ ΒΑΡΓΟΣΗΣ" (Zarmanochēgas indos apo Bargosēs – The sramana master from Barygaza in India).

Almost all of the ancient Greek works was lost because of the incidents like fire in the library of Alexandira and just because the mode of storing the knowledge was perishable. This is in stark contrast with much of ancient Indian work, which was in Sanskrit and had to memorized from one generation to the next. There was no contradiction in the works from different parts of the country. The works attributed to Strabo, etc. are translations from the later work in Arabic and hence a lot got mixed into the actual facts. To analyze linguistically based on that is more than a streatch.

• "The names of contemporary kings found on Ashokan inscriptions are Amtiyoka, Tulamaya, etc. Amtiyoka ruled Afghanistan around 1475 BC, which then appears to be the approximate date of Ashoka. (the grandson of Maurya Chandragupta.)"^{[citation needed]}

On the contrary, it is usually thought that the edict in question mentions Western Greek kings during the time of Ashoka:

"Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest. And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas (4,000 miles)) away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni." Rock Edict Nb13 (S. Dhammika)

In the Gandhari original Antiochos is referred as "Amtiyoko nama Yona-raja" (lit. "The Greek king by the name of Antiokos"), beyond whom live the four other kings: "param ca tena Atiyokena cature 4 rajani Turamaye nama Amtikini nama Maka nama Alikasudaro nama" (lit. "And beyond Antiochus, four kings by the name of Ptolemy, the name of Antigonos, the name of Magas, the name Alexander" Gandhari original of Edict No13 (Greek kings: Paragraph 9): [5]

[edit] Unanswered doubts

According to the Greek accounts, Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottas and Sandrocyptus was the son of Sandrokottas. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no phonetic similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek accounts.

In the Greek accounts, we find the statements of the Greek and Roman writers belonging to the period from 4th century BC to 2nd century AD None of them have mentioned the names of Kautilya or Asoka. Kautilya's work on polity is an important document of lndia's mastery on this subject. It was with his assistance that Chandragupta had come to the throne. Asoka's empire was bigger than that of Chandragupta and he had sent missionaries to the so-called Yavana countries. But both of them are not mentioned. Colebrook has pointed out that the Greek writers did not say anything about the Buddhist Bhikkus though that was the flourishing religion of that time with the royal patronage of Asoka. Roychaudhari also wonders why the Greek accounts are silent on Buddhism.

[edit] Common views on Maurya origin

[edit] Nanda Dynasty affiliation

Some Indian literary traditions connect him with the Nanda Dynasty of Magadha in eastern India. The Sanskrit drama Mudrarakashasa not only calls him Mauryaputra (Act II) but also a Nandanvaya (Act IV). Dhundiraja, a commentator of 18th century on Mudrarakshas states that Chandragupta was son of Maurya who in turn, was son of the Nanda king Sarvarthasiddhi by a wife named Mura, daughter of a Vrishala (shudra). Mudrarakshas especially uses terms like kula-hina and Vrishala for Chandragupta's lineage. This reinforces Justin's contention that Chandragupta had a humble origin.^[8][9] On the other hand, the same play describes the Nandas as of Prathita-kula i.e illustrious lineage. The commentator on the Vishnu Purana informs us that Chandragupta was son of a Nanda prince and a dasi (Hindi:maid), Mura. Pandit Kshmendra and Somadeva call him Purvananda-suta, son of genuine Nanda as opposed to Yoga-Nanda i.e pseudo Nanda.

[edit] Peacock-tamer theory

Other literary traditions imply that Chandragupta was raised by peacock-tamers (Sanskrit: Mayura-Poshakha), which earned him the Maurya epithet. Both the Buddhist as well as Jaina traditions testify to the supposed connection between the Moriya (Maurya) and Mora or Mayura (Peacock). While the Buddhist tradition describes him as the son of the chief of the Peacock clan (Moriya), the Jaina tradition on the other hand, refers to him as the maternal grandson of the headman of the village of peacock tamers (Moraposaga).^[10] This view suggests a degraded background of Chandragupta. (The same Jain tradition also describes Nanda as the son of a barber by a courtesan).

According to some scholars, there are some monumental evidence connecting the Mauryas with peacocks. The pillar of Ashoka in Nandangarh bears on its bottom the figures of a peacock which is repeated in many sculptures of Ashoka at Sanchi.^[11] According to Turnour,^[12] Buddhist tradition also testifies to the connection between Moriya and Mora or Mayura or peacock. Aelian informs us that tame peacocks were kept in the parks of the Maurya palace at Pataliputra. But scholars like Foucher^[13] do not regard these birds as a sort of canting badge for the dynasty of Mauryas. They prefer to imagine in them a possible allusion to the Mora Jataka. Moreover, besides the peacocks, there were also other birds like pheasants, parrots as well as a variety of fishes etc also kept in the parks and water pools of the Mauryas.

[edit] Moriya clan view

Yet there are other literary traditions according to which Chandragupta belonged to Moriyas, a Kshatriya (warrior) clan of a little ancient republic of Pippalivana located between Rummindei in the Nepalese Tarai and Kasia in the Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh. Tradition suggests that this clan was reduced to great straights in the 4th century BCE under Magadhan rule, and young Chandragupta grew up among the peacock-tamers, herdsmen and hunters.

The Buddhist text of the Mahavamsa calls Chandragupta a scion of the Khatttya (Kshatriya) clan named Moriya (Maurya). Divyavadana^[14] calls Bindusara, son of Chandragupta, an anointed Kshatriya, Kshatriya Murdhabhishikata, and in the same work, king Ashoka, son of Bindusara, is also styled a Kshatriya. The Mahaparinnibhana Sutta^[15] of the Buddhist canon states that the Moriyas (Mauryas) belonged to the Kshatriya community of Pippalivana. These traditions, at least, indicate that Chandragupta may have come from a Kshatriya lineage.

The Mahavamshatika connects him with the Sakya clan of the Buddha, a clan which also claimed to belong to the race of Aditya i.e solar race.^[16]

A medieval age inscription represents the Maurya clan as belonging to the solar race of Kshatriyas.^[17] It is stated that the Maurya line sprang from Suryavamsi Mandhatri, son of prince Yuvanashva of the solar race.^[18]

[edit] Alternate views on Maurya origin

As it can be noticed from above, there is no concrete evidence on Chandragupta's origin and all the above referred to theories are quite divergent. Therefore, additional views have been proposed by an alternative school of scholars.

[edit] North-western origin view

There is school of scholars like B.M. Barua, Dr J.W. McCrindle, Dr D.B. Spooner, Dr H.C. Seth, Dr Hari Ram Gupta, Dr Ranajit Pal and others who connect Chandragupta (Sandrokottos) to the north-western frontiers.

B.M. Barua calls him a man of Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila.^[19]

Based on Plutarch's evidence, Dr J.W. McCrindle and Dr H. R. Gupta write that Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi and belonged to the Ashvaka (Assakenoi) territory.^[20]

Appian of Alexandria (95CE-165CE), author of a Roman History attests that 'Antrokottos (Chandragupta), the king of the Indians, dwelt on river Indus'.^[21] This reference also seems to indicate that Chandragupta belonged to north-west rather than East India.

These scholars relate Sandrocottos (or Androcottos) with Sisicottos of the Classical writings. Sisicottos was the ruler of Paropamisos (Hindukush) who had helped Bessus of Bactria against Alexander but later co-operated with the latter throughout the Sogdian campaigns.^[22] During Alexander's campaign of Kabol and Swat valleys, prince Sisicottos had rendered great service to Alexander in reducing several principalities of the Ashvakas. During war of rock-fort of Aornos, where Alexander faced stiff resistance from the tribals, Sisicottos was put in command of this fort of great strategical importance. Arrian calls Sisicottos the governor of Assakenois. It is however not quite clear if this Sisicottos was same as Sandrocottos or if they were brothers or else they were related in someway. Dr J. W. McCrindle and Dr H. R. Gupta think that they both possibly belonged two different branches of the Ashvakas.^[23] Meri was probably another political centre of the Mor or Meros people. It is asserted by scholars of this school that the name Moriya or Maurya comes from the Mor (Modern name Koh-i-Mor i.e Mor hill---the ancient Meros of the classical writings) located in the Paropamisadae region between river Kunar and Swat in the land of Ashvakas (q.v.). It is pointed out that since Chandragupta Maurya belonged to Mor (Meros of classical writings) hence he was called Moriya or Maurya after his motherland.^[24][25]

It is notable that Adiparva of Mahabharata (verses 1/67/13-14) also seem to connect Maurya Ashoka with the Ashvakas.^[26]

Dr Spooner observes: "After Alexander's death, when Chandragupta marched on Magadha, it was with largely the Persian army (Shaka-Yavana-Kamboja-Parasika-Bahlika) 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 of this kind".^[27] Thus, Dr Spooner's comments also point to the north-western origin of the Mauryas.

It is however interesting to see that the scholars also identify the Ashvakas as a branch of the Kambojas. They were so-called since they were specialised in horse-profession and their services as cavalrymen were frequently requisitioned in ancient wars.

[edit] Scythian origin view

A Jat writer B.S.Dehiya published a paper titled The Mauryas: Their Identity^[28] in 1979 and a book titled Jats the Ancient rulers^[29] in 1982, wherein he concludes that the Mauryas were the Muras or rather Mors and were jatt of Scythian or Indo-Scythian origin. It is claimed that the Jatts still have Maur or Maud as one of their clan name.^[30]

The Rajputana Gazetteer describes the Moris (Mauryas?) as a Rajput clan.^[31]

[edit] Notes