Graeco-Bactrians and Indo-Greeks
Around 250 BC the Seleucid satrap of Bactria, Diodotus, established his independence and thereby founded the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom. At the beginning of the second century the Bactrian kings Demetrius I and Menander I Soter added northwestern India (Indo-Greeks) to their territory.
The kingdom was soon split into several sub-kingdoms. There are many difficulties in reconstructing the history of the Hellenistic rulers of this eastern state and their Iranian successors. The few, brief textual sources cover only the first hundred years. Most of the rulers are known only by their coins. Not only are all dates tentative, therefore, but there is often uncertainty even over the extent of territorial control, the sequence of kings and even the number of homonymous rulers (e.g., two or three kings named ‘Demetrius’). To complicate matters, viceroys and coregents must also be taken into account.
The (Middle) Indian names of the rulers are attested only on coins.
In the first century BC the Indo-Greeks were ousted by Iranians. First, the Sacae (Old Indian Śaka) or Central-Asian Scythians, themselves driven out of Bactria(North West Afghanistan) by the Yuezhi (Indo-Scythians), invaded the region. Subsequently, a Parthian dynasty seems to have seized control and these rulers in turn were succeeded by the so-called Indo-Parthians, who founded a sovereign state with rulers of Parthian descent. The Sacae and Indo-Parthian kings are again almost exclusively known by their coins. Only Gondophares is also mentioned in the Syriac version of the Christian Thomas legend as king of India. Consequently, no absolute certainty on dates, territories or dynasties is possible.
The Kushan (Old Indian Kuṣāṇa), originally a tribe of the Central-Asian Yuezhi (Indo-Scythians), rulers of Bactria from 130 BC, conquered the whole of northwestern India in the first century AD and thereby founded the Kushan Empire. Most rulers are known only by coins and inscriptions.
Maurya Empire
The potential for establishing an (absolute) chronology for the Mauryas on the basis of Indian sources is very limited. The repeated statement, e.g. in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, that the dynasty of Nanda rulers was replaced by the one founded by Chandragupta (Sandracottus) around 318 BC, is credible. Synchronisms are also to be found in the report by Megasthenes (Indiká FGrH 715), the ambassador of Seleucus Nicator, for the contacts between Chandragupta and Seleucus, and in the list of Hellenistic rulers in the 13th rock edict of Aśoka. Given this evidence, Eggermont dated the accession of Aśoka to 269 BC, which would, in turn, fit Morton Smith’s reflections on the accession of Chandragupta (1973: 362). The latter scholar has published a comprehensive commentary on the lists of dynasties and rulers in the various Purāṇas – mythological scriptures from the first millennium AD with a pseudo-historical background – in which he adapted the (sometimes very different) variant readings to match his interpretation. In Morton Smith’s reconstruction, the Mauryas have a total reign of 137 years, but this number can only be reached by deleting one of the ten kings, with a reign of eight years, from the dynastic list.
The lengths of the reigns of the first three Mauryas (24, 25 and 36 years) are plausible and have been accepted by Thapar (1997: 196), though Eggermont (1965-66) tried to establish a reign of ca. 27 years for Aśoka. The only certainty in the latter case is, however, that Aśoka did not issue any more edicts after his 27th regnal year. The names and numbers of the subsequent rulers are transmitted differently in Hindu and Buddhist sources. Only Daśaratha is attested epigraphically; this ruler gave the beautifully decorated caves in Nagarjuni Hills between Gayā and Bodh Gayā in Bihar, which had previously been commissioned by Aśoka, to the ascetics of the Ājīvika Order, apparently directly after Aśoka’s reign. By contrast, the northern, Buddhist tradition has a certain Kunāla as successor to Aśoka; this Kunāla figures in a tragic tale. That Daśaratha and Kunāla were identical or contemporary cannot be excluded
At least the historical context of the end of the Maurya dynasty is known. A Brahman commander-in-chief by the name of Puśyamitra murdered the last king, Bṛhadratha. The absolute number of 137 years for the total reign of the Mauryas, as given in the Purāṇas according to Morton Smith’s analysis (1973), should not be credited with too much authority. The number represents only the result of a calculation from lengths of individual reigns which, in turn, have been gathered from different sources
The kingdom was soon split into several sub-kingdoms. There are many difficulties in reconstructing the history of the Hellenistic rulers of this eastern state and their Iranian successors. The few, brief textual sources cover only the first hundred years. Most of the rulers are known only by their coins. Not only are all dates tentative, therefore, but there is often uncertainty even over the extent of territorial control, the sequence of kings and even the number of homonymous rulers (e.g., two or three kings named ‘Demetrius’). To complicate matters, viceroys and coregents must also be taken into account.
The (Middle) Indian names of the rulers are attested only on coins.
In the first century BC the Indo-Greeks were ousted by Iranians. First, the Sacae (Old Indian Śaka) or Central-Asian Scythians, themselves driven out of Bactria(North West Afghanistan) by the Yuezhi (Indo-Scythians), invaded the region. Subsequently, a Parthian dynasty seems to have seized control and these rulers in turn were succeeded by the so-called Indo-Parthians, who founded a sovereign state with rulers of Parthian descent. The Sacae and Indo-Parthian kings are again almost exclusively known by their coins. Only Gondophares is also mentioned in the Syriac version of the Christian Thomas legend as king of India. Consequently, no absolute certainty on dates, territories or dynasties is possible.
The Kushan (Old Indian Kuṣāṇa), originally a tribe of the Central-Asian Yuezhi (Indo-Scythians), rulers of Bactria from 130 BC, conquered the whole of northwestern India in the first century AD and thereby founded the Kushan Empire. Most rulers are known only by coins and inscriptions.
Maurya Empire
The potential for establishing an (absolute) chronology for the Mauryas on the basis of Indian sources is very limited. The repeated statement, e.g. in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, that the dynasty of Nanda rulers was replaced by the one founded by Chandragupta (Sandracottus) around 318 BC, is credible. Synchronisms are also to be found in the report by Megasthenes (Indiká FGrH 715), the ambassador of Seleucus Nicator, for the contacts between Chandragupta and Seleucus, and in the list of Hellenistic rulers in the 13th rock edict of Aśoka. Given this evidence, Eggermont dated the accession of Aśoka to 269 BC, which would, in turn, fit Morton Smith’s reflections on the accession of Chandragupta (1973: 362). The latter scholar has published a comprehensive commentary on the lists of dynasties and rulers in the various Purāṇas – mythological scriptures from the first millennium AD with a pseudo-historical background – in which he adapted the (sometimes very different) variant readings to match his interpretation. In Morton Smith’s reconstruction, the Mauryas have a total reign of 137 years, but this number can only be reached by deleting one of the ten kings, with a reign of eight years, from the dynastic list.
The lengths of the reigns of the first three Mauryas (24, 25 and 36 years) are plausible and have been accepted by Thapar (1997: 196), though Eggermont (1965-66) tried to establish a reign of ca. 27 years for Aśoka. The only certainty in the latter case is, however, that Aśoka did not issue any more edicts after his 27th regnal year. The names and numbers of the subsequent rulers are transmitted differently in Hindu and Buddhist sources. Only Daśaratha is attested epigraphically; this ruler gave the beautifully decorated caves in Nagarjuni Hills between Gayā and Bodh Gayā in Bihar, which had previously been commissioned by Aśoka, to the ascetics of the Ājīvika Order, apparently directly after Aśoka’s reign. By contrast, the northern, Buddhist tradition has a certain Kunāla as successor to Aśoka; this Kunāla figures in a tragic tale. That Daśaratha and Kunāla were identical or contemporary cannot be excluded
At least the historical context of the end of the Maurya dynasty is known. A Brahman commander-in-chief by the name of Puśyamitra murdered the last king, Bṛhadratha. The absolute number of 137 years for the total reign of the Mauryas, as given in the Purāṇas according to Morton Smith’s analysis (1973), should not be credited with too much authority. The number represents only the result of a calculation from lengths of individual reigns which, in turn, have been gathered from different sources
Comments
Post a Comment