Important Sources For Reconstruction of Mauryan History

Historians consider Mauryan Empire as the greatest empire of early India. In order to reconstruct the history of the Mauryas, historians depend on many sources, which are of various kinds and also belong to a large time bracket. The two major categories of sources are literary sources and Asokan inscriptions. Some of the greatest literary works of this period are Arthashastra and Megasthenes’ Indica. Apart from that other literary works include Puranas, Dharmasutras, Buddhist texts, viz. Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa and Vinaypitaka, Panini’s Astadhyayi and Jaina texts, viz. Rajavalikathe. Now we should look at these texts in detail. We also have some archaeological as well as numismatic evidences for this period.
Arthashastra is considered as the most important text for the reconstruction of the Mauryan history which is on science of statecraft. It is a practical guidebook for governing an inhabited territory by a monarchy, in the continuation of which management of finance (artha) plays a major role. Arthashastra consists of 15 books (Adhikaranas): the first 5 deal with internal administration (tantra); the next 8 with inter-state relations (avapa); and the last two with miscellaneous topics. There are two main debates among historians regarding this text, regarding its authorship and its chronology. The general belief is that it is composed by Kautilya in 4th century BCE. Later historical texts, viz. Kamandaka’s Nitisara, Dandin’s Dashakumaracharita, Vishakhadatta’s Mudrarakshasa and Bana Bhatta’s Kadambari support this view. However, many historians challenge this view. B. N. Mukherjee comments, “The pandect explicitly states that it is based on most of the books on the Arthashastra composed by earlier acharyas.” Mukherjee further says that in two places its authorship is attributed to Kautilya, but in the last section, Vishnugupta is said to its author. Here, Mukherjee argues that probably Vishnugupta was the personal name of the author and Kautilya was his gotra. Even if the relevant sections are considered as the interpolations, the references to Kautilya as the final authority in the text and the expression Kautilyarthashastra at the end of each adhyaya ascribe it to a person known as Kautilya.
Looking at the debate regarding the time frame of Arthashastra, various opinions range from the Maurya to the Gupta period. Raychaudhuri argues that this text could not belong to the Mauryan period because Prakrit was the language of the Mauryas whereas, Arthashastra is written in Sanskrit. He further says that Kautilya was against the use of wood for building purposes whereas Megasthenes states that cities near river and sea were made of woods. Upinder Singh contradicts this point by saying that Megasthenes was not an acute observer. Moreover, his work has survived only as second hand paraphrases. She also contradicts the statement that Arthashastra does not contain any reference to the Mauryas by saying that it is a theoretical, not a descriptive work. Romila Thapar contradicts Raychaudhuri’s argument that there is no reference in the Arthashastra to the royal titles used by the Mauryas by saying that there was no set formula for royal titles at this time. B. N. Mukherjee says, “A pre-Christian date for the Arthashastra is strongly advocated by numismatic evidence. In Kautilyan state the only medium of exchange was the coin. The Arthashastra refers to the minting of silver pana and copper mashaka and kakani. H. C. Raychaudhuri says that Hemchandra and Taranath were of the belief that Kautilya continued to serve as minister for some time after the accession of Bindusara. T. Trautmannn rightly says, “What the Arthashastra loses by way of individuality it gains by synthesising the merits gained by generations of thinkers. In its impersonal and abstract way, it sums up ancient Indian beliefs about the state with an authority which no individual creation could possess.”
The next major text of this period is Megasthenes’ Indica. Here various scholars have presented their views regarding the authenticity of the facts mentioned in this text. Before looking at the text, first we need to see the background of Megasthenes. He was the representative of Seleucus Nikator at the court of Sibyrtios, who was the governor of Arachosia (present day Kandhar). After a treaty between Chandragupta and Seleucus, he was sent as an ambassador to the Mauryan court, but we lack information regarding the frequency and duration of his visits. According to Upinder Singh, one major problem with this text is that the original text is lost and it survived only as fragmentary quotations due to which India is seen through a double filter – the first is Megasthenes interpretation; and the second is interpretations of Megasthenes by later Graeco – Roman writers. Arrian also refers to his visiting King Porus as well. One of the most debatable issues here is that Megasthenes is quoted as having listed the following seven divisions of Indian society: philosophers, cultivators, herdsmen, artisans, traders, soldiers overseers and councillors. Romila Thapar quotes R. C. Majumdar as “His description of the seven castes which are unknown to Indian literature or tradition may be cited as an example where, on a few basic facts he has reared up a structure which is mostly inaccurate and misleading.” And she says that this statement resulted from a lack of careful reading and understanding of the text. Diodorus quoting Megasthenes writes that the Indian people are divided into seven mere. He further says that no one was allowed to marry outside caste or change their profession. Strabo also quotes Megasthenes and refers to the people of India being divided into seven mere. However, when talking about marriage and occupation he refers to the groups as gene and confirms the restriction on marriages. Although, he says that only the philosophers were allowed to marry outside their genos. As mentioned earlier, Arrian quoting from Megasthenes says that all the Indians were divided into seven genes, which was different from mere. He also testifies that it was unlawful to marry outside genos or change profession. Here Romila Thapar says that it is important to consider whether he was referring to varna or jati. We are certain that he was not referring to varna because unlike his description, varna were four in number; there is no mention of other varnas except for Brahmans; and even the untouchables and chandals are not mentioned in his description. This was permitted only to the sophistai. However, Romila Thapar says that Megasthenes was regarded with suspicion even by his contemporaries. Comparing Megasthenes notion about chora basilike with the sita bhumi (crown land) mentioned in Arthashastra, Romila Thapar says that this was the most important system of tenure of land but the problem lies with statement that there were only crown lands. Apart from that, she says that Megasthenes reference to self-governing cities is puzzling. According to many historians, another problem with Megasthenes is that he mentioned that there were no slaves in India. Ramchandra Dikshitar concluded that it was impossible to depend on such an unreliable source as the work of Megasthenes, which contained very little useful evidence. He was even against attempts to compare the Selucid envoy’s data with the Indian evidence. However, H. C. Raychaudhuri says that the most important information provided by him was the description of Pataliputra, which Arrian quotes in chapter X of his Indica: “The largest city in India, named Palimbothra, in the land of the Prasians, where the confluence of the river Erannobaos and the Ganges, which is the greatest of rivers. The Erannobaos would be third of the Indian rivers.”
The other literary works include Puranas, which gives information about the chronology of the Mauryas and it is the only text which describes relationship of Chanakya and Chandragupta; the Ceylon chronicles, Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa describe at great length the part played by Asoka in spreading Buddhism; Dharmasutras which reflect some elements of customary law and contained rudiments of legislative literature ; avadan of Asoka is a Buddhist text, containing cycle of legends about this king.
Now let us look at Asokan inscriptions. There are about 150 inscriptions of Asoka, in total, which are under three categories, namely major rock edicts, pillar edicts and minor rock edicts. These inscriptions are distributed in a particular pattern: the set of 14 major rock edicts are located in the bordering areas of the empire; the 6 pillar edicts are found in the Ganga Valley; and the minor rock edicts (MRE) are distributed in the maximum area across the empire. Apart from these major inscriptions there are others also, viz. some cave inscriptions, Sohgaura Bronze Plaque inscription, silver coin inscription etc. K. A. Nilkanth Sastri talks about characteristics of these inscriptions. The language of these inscriptions is Magadhi (the official language of the royal chancery of Pataliputra), the inscriptions in Shahbazgarhi and Mansera are in the Kharosthi alphabet written from right to left, except the Laghman fragments are written in Brahmi script. In all the inscriptions except for Maski inscription, otherwise Asoka is addressed as Devanam Piyadasi etc. Apart from these inscriptions, there are also inscriptions with specific characteristics, e.g. there is an inscription consisting of Greek and Aramaic versions of one of his edicts mentioned in RE XIV. This is known as Shar-i-Kuna, the two Kalinga inscriptions are meant only for Kalinga (which, according to D. C. Sircar is considered as RE XV of Asoka ), two Barabar cave inscriptions records gifts of caves to Ajivikas. D. C. Sircar gives a detail transliteration and meaning of Asokan inscriptions from which we get many useful information. RE II mentions the names of some non-Indians and using this information, we can decide the time period of Asoka because it seems from the inscription that they were his contemporary. RE XIII mentions that Kalinga was an unconquered territory until Asoka’s conquest, although this has been challenged by B. M. Barua on the basis of Hanthigumpha inscription of Karvela which says that Nandas already conquered some part of Kalinga. The other information are like Asoka was against Vedic practice of killing of animals for sacrifice , Asoka was an upasak (follower) and not a monk till the promulgation of Maski inscription where he mentions this. One of the major sources from this period which is not considered as inscription is Asoka’s ‘Lion Capital’ at Sarnath. Most of the scholars agree that Asoka’s main purpose for making these inscriptions was to propagate Dhamma. There are also later sources, e.g. Rudradaman inscription of CE 150.
Scholars use these sources for the reconstruction of Mauryan history and one of its major parts is their chronology which is also a topic of much debate among historians. The known chronology of the Mauryas begins with the rise of Chandragupta Maurya, but there are many opinions for the genealogy of Mauryas. Medieval inscriptions represent Maurya family as belonging to the solar race. In the Rajputana Gazetteer, they are described as a Rajputana clan. Jaina traditions represent Chandragupta as the son of the chief of the peacock-tamers. In the Divyavadana Bindusara the son of Chandragupta, claims to be an anointed Kshatriya. In the same work Asoka calls himself a Kshatriya. In one more assumption, the Moriyas were the ruling clan of the republic of Pipphalivana which probably lies in the present day Gorakhpur district.
Mauryas rose to prominence under Chandragupta Maurya. Some historians, agreeing with puranas and Chanakya – Chandragupta Katha, says that Kautilya who is also known as Chanakya and Vishnugupta played a major role in the rise of Mauryas. According to most of the documents, Mauryas came to prominence after removing Nandas from power. As per the account of Milindpanho, “Sometime after his acquisition of sovereignty, Chandragupta went to war with the perfect generals of Alexander and crushed their power.” B. N. Mukherjee says that there is a controversy about the chronology of Chandragupta’s early conquests. While some scholars date the downfall of the Nandas earlier than his conquest of the Punjab area from the straps of Alexander. According to Justin, Chandragupta, after collecting a band of mercenary soldiers, instigated the Indians to overthrow the existing government. Thereafter, he was preparing to attack Alexander’s perfects. These incidents must have taken place in or around 317 BCE. H. C. Raychaudhuri quotes Justin and says that when Chandragupta acquired his throne in India Seleucus was laying the foundation of his future greatness.” As per the Jaina traditions, Chandragupta, in the last days of his life, adopted Jainism and died as per Jaina tradition of slow starvation in about 300 BCE, after a reign of 24 years.
Chandragupta was succeeded by his son Bindusara who is also known as Amitraghata (slayer of foes) or Simhasena. In Asoka’s RE VIII, Asoka as well as his predecessors are addressed as Devanampiyam. H. C. Raychaudhuri talking about Bindusara’s family says that, a passage from RE V says that Asoka had many brothers and sisters. The Divyavadana mentions two of these brothers, namely, Susima and Vigatasoka. Susima is said to have been the eldest son of Bindusara and a step brother of Asoka, while Vigatasoka is reputed to have been the youngest son of Bindusara and co-uterine brother of Asoka. According to Puranas, Bindusara died after 25 years of reign and according to Buddhist tradition, he died after 27 or 28 years of reign. Both Divyavadana and Ceylonese chronicles agree that there was a great struggle for the throne after his death. Asoka was not the real successor, but he is said to have overthrown his eldest step – brother with the help of Radhagupta whom he made his Agramatya .
After the death of Asoka, around 232 BCE, the mighty monarchy of the Mauryas started declining. H. C. Raychaudhuri talks extensively on this topic also. He says that there is hardly any source talking about Mauryas later than Asoka. Different sources give different descriptions regarding his children, e.g. Vayu Purana says that Kunala succeeded Asoka, Matsya Purana gives the names of his successors as Dashrath, Samprati, Satadhanvan and Brihadrath. Rajtarangini mentions Jaluka as the successor of Asoka in Kashmir etc. But it is widely accepted that Kunala was his successor, as it is mentioned both in Puranic as well as Buddhist traditions. Kunala was succeeded by Dashratha whose reality is established by a brief dedicatory inscription at Nagarjun Hills. Indrapalita succeeded Dashratha. The last of imperial Mauryas of Magadha is considered to be Brihadratha after which Pushyamitra Sunga, although it is evident from various sources that Mauryas continued to rule as feudatories till CE 1069, i.e. during the Gupta period.