AN ALTAR OF ALEXANDER
Ranajit Pal
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute,
Abstract. The vanishing of the twelve magnificent altars set up by Alexander the Great has intrigued many scholars. This article shows that one of the Altars was reinscribed by Emperor Asoka, who was the famous Indo-Greek King Diodotus I. There is an indication that Alexander may have tried to promote brotherhood in these altars. It is just possible that the four-lion emblem of India
Even in the heyday of Assyriology, when the lure of grand discoveries drew archaeologists to Sumer and Akkad, some eminent figures opted for India Indus culture, a prime attraction was the undiscovered altars of Alexander cited in several ancient texts. Alexander was the greatest ambassador of the West, and the failure to locate the altars saddened eminent archaeologists like Sir Mortimer Wheeler, who writes:
And yet it is astonishing how very little actual trace we have of his passing . . . his material presence has eluded us. It is as though a disembodied idea had come and gone as a mighty spiritual force with little immediate tangibility.[1]
The vanishing of the altars was seen by some as an index of the insignificance of Alexander’s legacy, and was at the root of much ignorant criticism levelled against him. However, survival of relics is often a matter of chance; to the layman the accounts of Arrian, Plutarch and others may appear trivial in contrast to the lustre of the Taj Mahal or the splendour of Tutenkhamun’s relics, but the historian must tread cautiously. Natural disasters like earthquakes and floods, wilful destruction by political or religious reactionaries, and at times plain misjudgment of historians, may accumulate in order to diminish a legitimate hero. Lastly one must consider the effects of misappropriation. Had it not been for the ballasting of more than one hundred miles of the Lahore-Multan railway with bricks from the monuments of Harappa, the task of reconstructing the glories of the Indus civilisation would have been far easier. This background has other dimensions as well: only a little more than fifty years after the construction of the altars, all of which apparently disappeared, one encounters the majestic Asokan pillars. Since Asoka has a very strong presence in the northwest, it is natural to suspect a link between the vanishing of all the altars of Alexander and the simultaneous emergence of nearly the same number of his pillar edicts, many of which had lion-capitals. It can be recalled that when Philip wanted to commemorate the momentous victory at Chaeronea India
Who Erected Pillars In India
The find-spots of relics are of great importance in the reconstruction of history, but one of the recurrent problems in Indian history is that pillars were often re-written and re-ercetd at different locations. Unfortunately this has been totally ignored by gullible historians such as H. C. Raychaudhuri and R. Thapar. Even though the weight of some of these pillars is about thirty tons, it is not safe to assume that they were erected in their present locations. Keay writes,:
The question of how these pillars had originally been moved round India
Significantly, although most writers placed this quarry at Chunar near Benares, Prinsep located it somewhere in the outer Himalayas . The altars of Alexander were grand structures. Plutarch writes that in his day these were held in much veneration by the Prasiians, whose kings were in the habit of crossing the Ganges every year to offer sacrifices in the Grecian manner upon them (Plut. Alexander, 62). What happened thereafter? Was there a scramble among the later rulers to use these splendid monuments for their own purposes? The fame of Samudragupta as one of the greatest rulers of India rests on his famous Allahabad
The fact that ten of the pillars bear inscriptions of Ashoka is proof they were erected not later than his reign; it does not prove that none of them was erected earlier.[4]
In the Sanskrit drama Mudrarakshasa, Chandragupta is called Piadamsana.[5] From this, Raychaudhuri concludes that it is not always safe to ascribe all epigraphs that mention Priyadarsana to Ashoka the Great.[6] The intriguing fact is that Asoka says that pillars bearing edicts had been in existence in India
Etaṃ devānaṃpiye āhā: iyaṃ dhaṃma-libi ata athi silā-thaṃbānii vā, silā phalakāni vā tata kaṭaviyā ena esa cila-ṭhitike siyā.
The Devānamṃpiya said: wherever there are either stone pillars or stone slabs, thereon this Dharma rescript is to be engraved, so that it may long endure.[7]
This shows that there were already pillars in India
The Location of Palibothra
Alexander historians have often been baffled by the scarcity of new sources, archaeological or textual, and new writers are usually content with reinterpretation of old documents.[8] Unfortunately this is due to a faulty perspective; too much stress has been laid on the Greek and Roman sources at the expense of crucial data from Sanskrit and Pali documents. Moreover, the value of the Indian sources has been impaired by one fatal error—Jones’s location[9] of Palibothra at Patna India but also that of Iran and Afghanistan
Recounting the scenario after the Hyphasis mutiny (Arr. 5.25, Diod. 17.93-5, Curt. 9.2.1-3.19), Badian writes with an air of definiteness:
For the moment, he tried to use the weapon that had succeeded before. He withdrew to his tent, for three days. But this time it did not help. The men were determined, and as Coenus had made clear, they had the officers’ support. Alexander could not divide them. All that remained was to save face.[11]
Badian not only finds Alexander in an awkward position, but also casually notes his subsequent declaration that he would go on nonetheless and his ordering of sacrifices for crossing the river.[12] Alexander’s vow to fight against the Prasii in the face of stiff opposition from both the soldiers and officers does appear somewhat comical but here lies a trap—where was their capital Palibothra? Could it really have been at Patna , so far removed from the northwest—the centre of early India
The significance of this question has been glossed over by all. Only Hammond, discoverer of Aegai, recognises the crucial role of geography in history, and states that ‘Patna Iran was closer to India
So far as India
The tablets not only throw invaluable light on the geography of greater India but provide data that revolutionise Indology. Sedda Saramana of the tablets appears to be Siddhartha (Sedda-Arta) Gotama and the ubiquitous Suddayauda Saramana seems to be his father Suddodhana. Al-beruni writes that Gotama's real name was Buddho-Dana [21] which puts him in the same bracket as Daniel. Nunudda of the tablets may be Nanda, a relative of Gotama.
Through the mist of vague reports and geographical misconceptions, it is difficult to probe into the Hyphasis revolt, which came as a serious jolt to Alexander. After this, even though there were safer routes, Alexander chose to return to Iran through the desert of Gedrosia
‘Alexander, of course, had read Herodotus’, writes Badian,[22] but misses the purport of his reference to Indians in the Gedrosia area. Toynbee writes on world history and makes no mistake to note the shifting nature of India
. . . and we can already see the beginnings of this progressive extension of the name ‘Indian’ in Herodotus’s usage.[23]
The reports of Alexander’s historians clearly indicate that southeast Iran Magadha on the Ganges .[24] If he had learnt that the fertile Gangetic plains were only a few days’ march away, and wanted to be there for mere expansion of empire, he would have met little resistance. Reluctance of the army could be due to the lack of any tangible gain, not fear of the mighty Easterners. If this was the case, then Alexander bowed down to the wishes of his men. However, if the reluctance was to confront the Prasii, it appears sensible due to their formidable strength. As Moeris had fought beside Porus, the Prasiian army cannot have been left intact, though it could still have been a fighting force. It is probable that Moeris and his agents fomented discord among Alexander’s officers and soldiers.[25] The magicians and other secret agents of Moeris probably overblew the might of the Prasii in order to frighten the invaders. From this point onwards, if not earlier, Eumenes, Perdikkas and Seleucus may have been in touch with Moeris.
Victory Over Moeris At Palibothra
Only Justin (Just. xii, 8) reports that Alexander had defeated the Prasii. Palibothra, the Prasiian capital was famous for peacocks. Lane Fox writes:
. . . Dhana Nanda's kingdom could have been set against itself and Alexander might yet have walked among Palimbothra's peacocks.[26]
Curiously, Arrian writes that Alexander was so charmed by the beauty of peacocks that he decreed the severest penalties against anyone killing them (Arrian, Indica, xv.218).[27] The picture of Alexander amidst peacocks appears puzzling: where did he come across the majestic bird? Does this fascination lead us to Palibothra? The height of absurdity is reached when we are told that eighteen months after the battle with Porus, Alexander suddenly remembered his ‘victory over the Indians’ in the wilderness of Carmania and set upon to celebrate it with fabulous mirth and abandon. Surprisingly it did not jar with the common sense of anyone why this was not celebrated in India
Bosworth writes that the name of the place where the victory was celebrated was Kahnuj.[28] The name tells all, for Kanauj was the chief city of the Indians, the name of which is echoed in the famous city in eastern India India Susa
Nearchus certainly had other tasks than scientific fact-finding; the army was ordered to keep close to the shore and the navy moved in tandem. This orchestration and the large number of troops and horses on ships (quite unnecessary for a scientific mission) show that the navy was not only carrying provisions for the army which was engaged in a grim and protracted battle with a mighty adversary, but that the troops on the ships were also ready to support the army if needed. This is why the navy waited for twenty-four days near Karachi
Who Ruled Arachosia—Asoka the Saviour or Diodotus I Soter ?
A powerful heuristic in artificial intelligence research is ‘coalesce’, which consists in assigning the same value to two different variables[35]. In ancient history also a similar approach at times leads to great simplification. It is not often that Soters rub shoulders with Saviours, but at first sight this is what seems to have happened in Arachosia. Macdonald writes:
Who was the lord of Arachosia when it was traversed by the Seleucid troops, it is difficult to say. It had once been Asoka.[36]
That Asoka[37] was the ruler of Arachosia is clear from his bilingual Kandahar Epirus
It is astonishing that the picture of Diodotus I has exactly the same mien. As already noted, the Mauryas ruled Aria and Seistan. This in a way opens up a Pandora’s box, for if Seistan and Aria were within the Mauryan kingdom it immediately follows that some of the Indo-Greek kings of Bactria
The spectacle of the greatness of the Maurya empire would not be lost upon a satrap of such force of character as the elder Diodotus.[42]
The figure of Zeus wielding the thunderbolt in his coins is perhaps awesome, but there is much more to Diodotus than just brute power. On his gold and silver coins he sometimes calls himself Soter, ‘the saviour’. That he was regarded as a saviour long after his death is clear from the coins struck in his memory by the later Graeco-Bactrian kings Agathocles and Antimachus, which mention Diodotus Soter.[43] The title has baffled all scholars. Tarn dismisses it as mere royal rhodomontade, but this is unwarranted.[44] Narain also grapples with the problem, and gives the simplistic explanation that Diodotus I took the title Soter as he considered himself as the saviour of the Bactrian Greeks.[45] Turning a blind eye to the very real likelihood that Diodotus the warrior may have transcended into a great missionary, Narain holds the myopic view that his name Theodotus (Theos = God) quoted by Justin (Justin, xli.4) was just a scribal error.[46] The story of civilisation is replete with instances of fierce men and women who later responded to higher callings, but due to Jonesian delusions, writers like Holt[47] have missed that the image of Diodotus wielding the thunderbolt is not at all irreconcilable with that of a Bodhisatva-like Soter spreading the message of homonoia. That the history of Asoka matches that of Diodotus I line by line can only imply that they were one and the same person.
Devanampiya was the Same as Devadatta
As Seleucus’ daughter had come to the Mauryan household, there is general agreement among scholars that Asoka could have been an Indo-Greek; yet his true face remains veiled because he has been dumped at Patna
It is just possible that Ashoka had Seleukid blood in his veins; at least his reputed vice-royalty of Taxila in the Punjab during the reign of his father could have introduced him to the living memory of Alexander the Great, and, as king, he himself tells us of proselytizing relations with the Western powers.[48]
Wheeler misses that there is not a single archaeological relic that links Asoka with Patna Tarn is almost awed by the very wide scatter of Diodotus’ coins, but fails to recognise the true bearings of Diodotus. His assertion is at best a hasty oversight:
. . . coins of Diodotus, for example, have been found in Seistan and in Taxila, places where he never ruled and never even was.[50]
Narain remarks with greater acuity:
It may be more than coincidence that almost at the same time as Euthydemus established his authority in Bactria Asoka died in India
Due to Jonesian illusions, Narain cannot even dream that if he had not tried to feed on a carcass, Euthydemus had in fact killed a Maurya—Diodotus II, son of Asoka.[52]
By which name was Asoka known in the West? From the fact that the Greco-Roman writers do not refer to Asoka or his other name Piyadassi, Thapar concludes rather simplistically that he was unknown in the West.[53] This is absurd: Asoka was one of the greatest emperors of history, and had sent religious emissaries to the farthest corners of the civilised world. The classical writers must have used a different name—the name Asoka is rare even in his edicts. Only Jones’s blunder obscured that, apart from Piyadassi and Devanampiya, Devadatta was also a name of Asoka. The name dmydty[54] in Asoka's famous Taxila pillar Aramaic inscription refers to Devadatta. The line l dmy dty `l’, which Marshall and Andreas translated as ‘for Romedatta’, in fact refers to Damadatta or Devadatta (‘M’ and ‘B’ were often interchanged).[55] Tarn notes that Diodorus of the Greeks can be the same as Devadatta of the Indians.[56]
In fact, Devanampiya, his most common name in the edicts, has the same meaning as Devadatta. Its literal Sanskrit rendering, ‘beloved of the Gods’, is only a secondary sense aimed at his subjects in the sub-continent. Like the Greek word nÒmoj (nomos), the word Nam
Asoka Ruled Parthia
That Diodotus could have ruled Parthia India
. . . is sometimes a Parthian, sometimes a Bactrian, sometimes even a descendant of the Achaemenids.[57]
Significantly, Asoka is also sometimes a Parthian, sometimes a Bactrian, and sometimes even a descendant of the Achaemenids. Many Parthian Kings assumed the title Arsaces, which was also written as Assak. The similarity of Assak with Asoka may appear fortuitous, but it is not so. Another Parthian royal title, Priapati(us) also resembles Piadassi, Asoka’s title. Asoka’s hold on Bactria Patna Patna Parthia was once within the sphere of greater India Ajanta paintings.[63] Busagli writes:
It should be borne in mind that at the time of its maximum expansion the Parthian kingdom covered an area far greater than that of Iran proper and included the Indian subcontinent [emphasis added], Mesopotamia , Armenia
Armed with this definition of Parthia Parthia Kandahar region) and Paropamisadae (Kabul Tarn maintained rashly that Asoka received no part even of the Paropamisadae. Tarn’s view became untenable in the light of the discovery of Asoka’s Kandahar China Iran Babylon
Asoka seems to have died when Diodotus died. His edicts stopped appearing by about 245 BC. Thapar writes:
The issuing of the pillar edicts was the next known event of Asoka’s reign, and these are dated to the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth year . . . It is indeed strange that for the next years until his death in 232 BC there were no major edicts. For a man so prolific in issuing edicts this silence of ten years is difficult to explain.[76]
Significantly, according to most scholars, Diodotus died in 245 BC, and this may be the reason why the edicts stopped appearing. The year of Asoka’s death given by Thapar and others is 232 BC but this may be a mistake.[77] Diodotus’ son, who was also a Diodotus, died in 232 BC. However, an alternative scenario is also possible: some writers give 232 BC as Diodotus’ death[78], which agrees with the Indian texts, but the Indian accounts of Asoka after the death of his wife Asandhimitta (ca. 245 BC) are so fanciful that it is more sensible to infer that he had died by ca. 245 BC. The Indian sources blame Asoka’s Queen Tissarakshita for ordering the death of his son Kunala[79], which may be an echo of the alleged marriage of Diodotus with a Seleucid princess.
Lion of
The vanishing of the altars and the true bearings of Sasigupta and Diodotus cast a flood of light on a vexing problem of art history. When the Sarnath pillar with a lion-capital was discovered, it created a flutter all over the world.[80] Marshall, an able and unprejudiced writer on Indian art, writes that ‘the Sarnath capital, on the other hand, though by no means a masterpiece, is the product of the most developed art of which the world was cognisant in the third century BC’.[81] However, despite its Indian symbolism, it bespeaks a strange fusion of Hellenic as well as Achaemenian traditions which has baffled all. At first sight there seems to be nothing unnatural for Asoka, alleged by Thapar to be a native of
Surprisingly, no one seems to remember that Alexander had come to Punjab . After the Middle Ages, the first Westerner to notice the Asokan pillars was the Englishman Thomas Coryat who, in AD 1616, was greatly impressed by the superbly polished forty feet-high monolithic column, and presumed that it must have been erected by Alexander the Great ‘in token of his victorie’ over Porus.[89] Moreover, although the lion is an intrusive symbol in India , it was common in Macedonia India , his father Philip had erected a famous lion statue after the historic victory at Chaeronea India
There is no deeper Caesura in the 5000 years of history of the Ancient East than the conquest of Alexander the Great, and there is no archaeological object produced after that period that does not bear its stamp.[90]
An Altar of Alexander from the
It turns out that Coryat was right—truth may be indestructible but at times it is stranger than fiction—as it was Asoka who had re-inscribed the much sought-after pillars of Alexander. In Coryat’s time, the inscriptions on the pillar were unreadable. But today, thanks to Prinsep, we know that it contains an inscription of Asoka.[91] Yet there is more to it than meets the eye—it is known that many of Asoka’s pillars were not erected by him. One has to recall that after the Hyphasis mutiny, Alexander gave up his plans to march further east, and to commemorate his Indian expedition he erected twelve massive altars of dressed stone. Arrian writes:
Οἱ δὲ ἐβόων τε οἷα ἂν ὄχλος ξυμμιγὴς χαίρων βοήσειε καὶ ἐδάκρυον οἱ πολλοὶ αὐτῶν· οἱ δὲ καὶ τῇ σκηνῇ τῇ βασιλικῇ πελάζοντες ηὔχοντο Ἀλεξάνδρῳ πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθά, ὅτι πρὸς σφῶν μόνων νικηθῆναι ἠνέσχετο. ἔνθα δὴ διελὼν κατὰ τάξεις τὴν στρατιὰν (5)
δώδεκα βωμοὺς κατασκευάζειν προστάττει, ὕψος μὲν κατὰ τοὺς μεγίστους πύργους, εὖρος δὲ μείζονας ἔτι ἢ κατὰ πύργους, χαριστήρια τοῖς θεοῖς τοῖς ἐς τοσόνδε ἀγαγοῦσιν αὐτὸν νικῶντα καὶ μνημεῖα τῶν αὑτοῦ (2.) πόνων. ὡς δὲ κατεσκευασμένοι αὐτῷ οἱ βωμοὶ ἦσαν, θύει δὴ ἐπ’ αὐτῶν ὡς νόμος καὶ ἀγῶνα ποιεῖ γυμ-νικόν τε καὶ ἱππικόν.
He then divided the army into brigades, which he ordered to prepare twelve altars to equal in height the highest military towers, and to exceed them in point of breadth, to serve as thank offerings to the gods who had led him so far as a conqueror, and also as a memorial of his own labours. After erecting the altars he offered sacrifice upon them with the customary rites, and celebrated a gymnastic and equestrian contest. (V.29.1-2)
Curiously, unlike most writers who place the altars on the right bank of the river, Pliny places them on the left or the eastern bank:
The Hyphasis was the limit of the marches of Alexander, who, however, crossed [emphasis added] it, and dedicated altars on the further bank. (Plin. HN 6.21)
Pliny’s crucial hint suggests a reappraisal of the riddle of the altars. Precisely how far east had Alexander and his men come? Although Bunbury[92] holds that the location of the altars cannot be regarded as known even approximately, the Indian evidence sheds new light. Masson places the altars at the united stream of the Hyphasis and Sutlez.[93] McCrindle also writes that the Sutlez marked the limit of Alexander’s march eastward;[94] and this is precisely the locality from where Feroze Shah brought the pillar to Delhi
Thapar ignores Alexander’s voyage and writes heedlessly that, although at present there is no archaeological evidence, Topra must have been an important stopping place on the road from Pataliputra to the north.[95] This not only skirts the central issue but also exposes the poverty of Jonesian Indology. There can be little doubt that the Delhi-Topra pillar at Firozabad near Delhi Chandigarh
Alexander and Asoka
Only misjudgment of historians has denied Diodotus his true place in world history. If almost no words seem to be commensurate for the description of Alexander, the same is true of Asoka who swept away all, as it were. His impact on the civilisations of both the East and the West is immense. As Droysen holds[96], Christianity grew out of an intercourse between Hellenism and the Eastern cultures. There can be no doubt that the chief architect of the great expansion of Hellenism and Buddhism, which ultimately paved the way to the rise of Christianity and Islam, was Diodotus. Toynbee writes:
At its maximum extent, Hellenism had expanded in Latin dress as far westward as Britain and Morocco , and in Buddhist dress, as far eastwards as Japan
Smith is more specific:
Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the Early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.[98]
If Alexander was the harbinger of this Hellenistic revolution, Diodotus was its greatest champion.[99] In the thirteenth edict, after declaring that he had himself found pleasure rather in conquests by the Dhamma than in conquests by the sword, he says that he had already made such conquests in the realms of the kings of Syria, Egypt, Macedonia, Epirus, and Kyrene, among the Cholas and Pandyas in South India, in Ceylon and among a number of peoples dwelling in the borders of his empire. This was, as Asoka saw it, the Kingdom of God
… devāṃpiyasā dhaṃmānuṣathi anuvataṃti. Yata pi dutā devāṃpiyasā no yaṃti – te pi sutu devāṃpiyasā dhaṃma-vutaṃ vidhanaṃ dhaṃmānusathi dhaṃmam anuvidhiyaṃti anuvidhiyisaṃti cā. Ye se ladhe etakenā hoti savatā vijaye, piti-lase se.
Everywhere are followed the instructions of the Devānaṃpiya. Even where the envoys of the Devānaṃpiya do not go they (the people of those countries) too, having heard of the Dharma practices, the (Dharma) prescriptions and the Dharma instructions of the Devānaṃpiya follow the Dharma and will continue to follow (it). That conquest which has been won everywhere by this, generates the feeling of satisfaction.[100]
Diodotus not only utilised Alexander’s monuments, but in many other respects he trod in the latter’s footsteps. In the Rumminidei edict[101], Asoka reduced taxes for the local people as this was the birthplace of Gotama. This has a very distant echo linked with Alexander and Gomata. Impressed by their way of life and civic administration, Alexander extended the boundary of the Ariaspians of Prophthasia[102] and conferred nominal freedom (Arrian III.27). Waiving part of the taxes may have been a part of his decree. In the prelude to his famous seventh pillar edict, Asoka states:
Devānaṃpiye Piyadasi lājā hevaṃ āhā : ye atikaṃtaṃ aṃtalaṃ lājāne husu, hevaṃ ichisu - kathaṃ jane dhaṃma-vaḍhiyā vaḍheyā. No cu jane anulupāyā dhaṃma-vaḍhiyā vaḍhithā.
King devānaṃpiya piyadasi spoke thus: The kings who were in times past, desired thus, (viz.) that the people might progress by the promotion of Dharma. But the people did not progress by the adequate progress of Dharma.[103]
Who are these kings? Despite Asoka’s measured silence on Alexander, it is possible that he is referring to him.[104] Asoka not only used Alexander’s pillars, but also undertook to spread the message of homonoia championed by Alexander with a greater resolve.
The Mission
In so far as it failed to rout the Prasii, and in view of the great losses in human lives that it caused, Alexander’s Gedrosian operation cannot be called an all-round success. Nevertheless, this unique expedition achieved its goals and marks a high point Asia appears truly mind-boggling. Nothing could deter him, not the huge Prasiian army or the elephants, not the desert heat, not even the lack of water and food. His emergence from the desert inferno of Gedrosia was a superhuman feat. It is said that he had wept after seeing Nearchus in Carmania (Arrian, Indica xxxv).
When the Macedonians and Greeks first set out with the mandate of the Corinthian League, they were probably guided by simple nationalist motives. But after Alexander was declared a Son of Amon at Siwa, and also under the affectionate guidance of the great Buddhist philosopher Asvaghosa (Calanus) [105], this changed into something far more pregnant. More than just a lure for Persian gold or a yearning for the unknown (pÒqoj), Alexander and his followers were driven by a mission to usher in a new world. Russell, one of the towering minds of the last century, squarely reproved Aristotle for his shallow outlook in his Politics:
There is no mention of Alexander, and not even the faintest awareness of the complete transformation that he was effecting in the world.[106]
Like Cambyses, Alexander got a very bad press. Writers like Badian and Green stress the need for demythologizing, but this demands a precise knowledge of history and geography.[107] It necessary to carefully analyse history to perceive Alexander’s greatness[108], which has been acknowledged through the ages. Like many Eastern gods, he was not above sin; his role in his father’s death is far from clear, and his killing of Cleitus and his treatment of Callisthenes were unfortunate yet not inhuman acts. He was certainly less prone to violence than Diodotus in his youth. It is important to consider the possibility that his alienation from his compatriots may have been due to his reinterpretation of Hellenic religion.
For about a century after the voyage, the Orient was witness to momentous events that altered human destiny. It was here that Hellenistic culture and religion were born. It is needless to say that no study of the Hellenistic phenomenon can be complete without reference to Diodotus/Asoka. His edicts indicate that apart from recording his achievements, Alexander’s messages in the altars were also meant for the propagation of homonoia. This is the goal that Asoka took up with a greater zeal. Bevan writes with insight:
One may notice first that nothing was further from Alexander’s own thoughts than that his invasion of India
Material evidence for Buddhism in India Tarn can see a link between Alexander and Asoka:
For when all is said, we come back at the end to his personality; not the soldier or the statesman, but the man. Whatever Asia did or did not get from him she felt him as she scarcely felt any other; she knew that one of the greatest of the earth had passed. Though his direct influence vanished from India within a generation, and her literature does not know him, he affected Indian history for centuries; for Chandragupta saw him and deduced the possibility of realising in actual fact the conception, handed down from Vedic times, of a comprehensive monarchy in India; hence Alexander indirectly created Asoka’s empire and enabled the spread of Buddhism.[110]
The influence of Alexander’s pillars, which were later modified by Asoka, on world history is inestimable. Although it cannot be proven conclusively, from considerations of art history, it is not impossible that the Sarnath pillar is also a timeless relic of Alexander the Great modified by Asoka[111]. Due to Jones’s error, great scholars like Tarn and Rostovtzeff underrate Alexander’s role. Yet the staggering possibility that the four-lion emblem of India India
* In the preparation of this article, the author gratefully remembers the kind encouragement of the late Prof. N. G. L. Hammond.
[2] J. Keay, India Discovered: The Achievement of the British Raj (London
[3] H. Kulke and D. Rothermund, A History of India (London
[4] F. J. Monahan, The Early History of Bengal (Delhi
[6] H.C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India (Calcutta
[7] A. C. Sen, Asoka’s Edicts (Calcutta
[8] Archaeologists have found little in India or Iran
[10] Jones’s mistake misled such erudite scholars as Rostovtzeff and Tarn into believing that Alexander is not mentioned in Indian literature and had little impact on Indian civilisation: see D. Musti, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol vii pt.1, ed. F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin, M. W. Frederiksen and R. M. Ogilvie (Cambridge 1984) 217. ; W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great (Cambridge
[11] E. Badian, ’Alexander in Iran ’, in I. Gershevitch (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods (Cambridge
[12] ibid.
[13] I am indebted to Prof. Hammond for this private communication to me.
[14] A. Ghosh, The City in Early Historical India (Simla 1973) 66: ‘. . . of Pataliputra which is mainly known from non-archaeological sources’. For a more detailed discussion, see R. Pal, Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander (New Delhi 2002).
[15] Kulke and Rothermund [3] 61.
[16] V.A. Smith, Ashoka, The Buddhist Emperor of India
[17] V. Elisseeff, ‘Asiatic Prehistory’, in Encyclopedia of World Art (New York Sind , represented today by their descendants, the Brahuis’. R. N. Frye, The Heritage of Persia (London
[18] R.T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, (Chicago Persepolis
[20] A. D. H. Bivar, ‘The Indus Lands’, in The Cambridge Ancient History, ed. I. E. S. Edwards, J. Boardman, N. G. L. Hammond, D. M. Lewis, (Cambridge 1988) 205.
[21] E. C. Sachau, Alberuni’s India , vol. 1(London Delhi
[22] Badian [11] 2.462. Herodotus writes: . . oƒ d ¢pÕ ¹l…ou ¢natolšwn A„q…opej (dixoˆ g¦r d¾ ™strateÚonto) prosetet£cato to‹si 'Indo‹si . . . oátoi d oƒ ™k tÁj 'As…hj A„q…opej t¦ mn plšw kat£ per 'Indoˆ ™ses£cato . . . (‘The eastern Ethiopeans—for two nations of this name served in the army—were marshalled with the Indians... Their equipment was in most points like that of the Indians’, Hdt. 7.70.1-7).
[23] A. J. Toynbee, A Study Of History 7, Universal States ; Universal Churches (Oxford India
[24] W. W. Tarn, Alexander The Great, vol. 2, (Cambridge Tarn ’s wide knowledge of both European and Asiatic history gave him a deep insight which remains unmatched.
[25] This can be inferred from the Sanskrit drama Mudrarakshasa which recounts the rise of Chandragupta. The fabulous strength of the Nanda army disagrees with the archaeological scenario of fourth century Bihar , and reminds one of the powerful Prasiian army. A century later the Jats and other fierce fighters of Seistan under the Surens humbled the Roman army.
[26] R. Lane Fox, Alexander The Great, (London
[27] Asoka's Edicts hint that ritual slaughter of the bird(Mayura) was practised by the Mauryas.
[28] A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge
[29] V. Smith, Early History of India (Oxford
[30] A. Dow, The History of Hindostan (London Patna London Bhagalpur London London
[31] J. W. McCrindle (ed. and tr.), The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as Described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch and Justin (New Delhi
[32] Pattala is said to have been a great city and could have been another Mauryan capital.
[33] M. Wood, In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great: A Journey from Greece to Asia (Berkeley 1997) 214 discards the Dionysius-Semiramis stories, and proposes that Alexander may have been exploring whether cities could be founded along the coast for trade with India.
[34] There may have been a smear campaign launched by the generals who took over after Alexander. The very existence of the junta depended on an extensive falsification and defamation campaign. That Ptolemy had to defend Alexander only shows the extent of such a campaign. Needless to say, Sasigupta could justify his role only by blackening Alexander. The expedition did not immediately bring economic prosperity in Greece
[36] G. Macdonald, The Hellenic Kingdoms of Syria , Bactria and Parthia in The Cambridge History of India , ed. E. J. Rapson, (New Delhi
[37] Many aspects of Asoka’s life are obscure. Although some punch-marked coins have been associated with his name, this has been disputed. Apart from the edicts, archaeology has unearthed few inscriptions. Palaces unearthed near Patna
[38] While Diodotus-I has numerous coins but no inscriptions, Asoka has many inscriptions but no coins. H.P Ray’s satisfaction about Asoka’s coins is bizzare. H. P. Ray, Ancient India (N. Delhi 2001), 55. Kulke and Rothermund [3] 75, on the other hand, write, “Whereas the Maurya emperors had only produced simple punch-marked coins, even petty Indo-Greek kings issued splendid coins with their image”.
[40] Coins of Abd Susim, probably a relative of Asoka, have been found at Persepolis
[41] T. W. Rhys Davids, Buddhist India (London
[42] Macdonald [36] 393.
[43] P. Gardner, Catalogue of Indian Coins in the British Museum : Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and India (London
[44] W. W. Tarn Greeks of Bactria and India (Cambridge
[45] A. K. Narain, The Indo-Greeks (Oxford
[46] Narain ibid, 12.
[47] F. L. Holt, Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bacteria (Berkeley 1999), writes much on the Bactrian Greeks but fails to recognise the true Diodotus. Tarn was also an able commentator on the Indian scene, yet he did not recognise Diodotus.
[48] R. E. M. Wheeler, Early India and Pakistan to Ashoka (London Oxford
[49] Ibid, p. 174.
[50] Tarn [44] 216.
[51] Narain, [45] 20.
[52] That cats and dogs fed on the carcass of Artaxerxes III was reported by the Greek sources. It is uncanny that this is also confirmed by the Mudrarakshasa
[53] R. Thapar’s remark that ‘Greek sources mention Sandrocottus and Amitrochates but do not mention Ašoka’ presupposes that the Greeks would also use the name Ašoka current among the Indians. See Thapar [48] 20.
[54] B. N. Mukherjee, Studies in the Aramaic Edicts of Asoka (Calcutta
[55] J. H. Marshall A Guide to Taxila (Delhi
[56] Tarn [44] 392.
[57] Macdonald [36] 394. Although nearly all scholars reject the Achaemenian link as a fabrication, this is unwarranted. The name Arsaces or Assak could also have been used by Chandragupta who may be Ashkh of the Shahnama; the eldest son of Darius II was Arsaces.
[59] A. L. Oppenheim, The Babylonian Evidence for Achaemenian Rule in Mesopotamia , in Gershevitch [11] 533.
[60] Thapar [48] 233, writes, without any warrant, that the identification of Pataliputra is certain but remains silent on the fact that not a single relic of the Mauryas or the Nandas has been found at Patna. She fails to realise that the wooden palace unearthed at Patna
[61] A. Hillebrandt, Vedische Mythologie, I (Breslau 1929) 96.
[62] M. Busagli, ‘Parthian Art’, in Encyclopedia of World Art.114.
[63] M. K. Dhavalikar, in D. C. Sircar (ed.) Foreigners in Ancient India and Lakshmi and Sarasvati in Art and Literature (Calcutta
[64] Busagli [62]106 .
[65] In this edict, Asoka describes his dominion as Jambudvipa, which is usually assumed to be the same as modern India Asia .
[66] Smith [16] 75.
[67] Tarn [44] 101.
[68] R. N. Frye [19] 172 writes that An-hsi is the same as Arshak. As Ghirshman notes, the name is also given as Assak. R. Ghirshman , Iran
[69] W. Lai, The Three Jewels in China , in T. Yoshinori (ed.), Buddhist Spirituality (Delhi
[70] F. W. Thomas, ‘Ashoka’, in E. J. Rapson (ed.), Cambridge History of India 1: Ancient India (Cambridge
[71] From Asoka’s references to Antiochus, the relation between the two appears to be cordial. It is not impossible that he also took a favourable view of Asoka’s Dharmavijaya.
[72] Wheeler [48], 176.
[73] Narain [45] 16.
[74] Macdonald [36] 393.
[76] Thapar [48] 51.
[77] Ibid.
[80] It can be argued that Asoka’s lions were borrowed from Nebuchadrezzar’s Babylon Lydia Osaka
[81] J. H. Marshall, ‘The Monuments of Ancient India
[82] Thapar [48].
[83] B. M. Barua, Indian Culture,vol.X, p34 sees no link between Chandragupta, Asoka’s grandfather, and Bihar . He writes that the language of Asoka’s stone masons was the West Asian Kharosthi. Only two names of Asoka’s governors are known, and by no stretch of imagination can they be linked to Patna
[84] R. E. M. Wheeler [48] 174: ‘It has long been recognised that these columns, without precedent in Indian architectural forms, represent in partibus the craftmanship of Persia Persepolis
[85] N. Ray, Mauryan Art in Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, ed. N. Sastri (Delhi 1967) 346, indirectly hints, with uncommon boldness, at Jones’s error: ‘The fact remains therefore that we have no examples extant of either sculpture or architecture that can definitely be labelled chronologically as pre-Mauryan or perhaps even as pre-Asokan’. He adds later (376) that: ‘Compared with later figural sculptures in the round of Yakshas and their female counterparts or the reliefs of Bharhut, Sanchi and Bodhgaya, the art represented by these crowning lions belongs to an altogether different world of conception and execution, of style and technique, altogether much more complex, urban and civilised. They have nothing archaic or primitive about them, and the presumption is irresistible that the impetus and inspiration of this art must have come from outside’.
[86] Marshall
[87] A. Foucher, The Beginnings of Buddhist Art
[88] V. Smith, A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon (Oxford Marshall
[89] R. E. Pritchard, Odd Tom Coryate: The English Marco Polo. (Stroud 2004). Philostratos’ statement that Apollonius of Tyana, on his journey into India London
[90] E. Herzfeld , Iran in The Ancient East (New York
[91] J. Prinsep, Essays on Indian Antiquities: Historic, Numismatic and Palaeographic, (London
[92] E. H. Bunbury, A History of Ancient Geography among the Greeks and Romans from the Earliest Ages till the Fall of the Roman Empire, (London
[93] McCrindle [32] 120
[94] ibid.
[95] Thapar [48] 230. Authors like Raychaudhuri and Thapar do not treat Alexander’s voyage in detail and hold that Alexander does not belong to Indian history proper.
[97] A. J. Toynbee, The Greeks and Their Heritage (Oxford
[98] J. Z. Smith, Hellenistic Religions, in P. W. Goetz et al. (edd.), Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago 1979) 8.751.
[99] Wheeler, writes: ‘This book is not a History, but in its last chapter the impersonal disjecta of prehistory may fittingly be assembled in the likeness of a man. Ashoka came to the throne about 268 B.C. and died about 232 B.C. Spiritually and materially his reign marks the first coherent expression of the Indian mind, and, for centuries after the political fabric of his empire had crumbled, his work was implicit in the thought and art of the subcontinent, it is not dead today’. Wheeler [48] 170.
[100] Sen [7] 102.
[101] This edict has to be examined in view of the widespread frauds in Nepalese archaeology as pointed by T. A. Phelps. See the online resource http://www.lumkap.org.uk . It is more than likely that this pillar was brought from the northwest. A careful study shows that Gomata of the Behistun inscriptions was the true Gotama.. See Pal [14]
[102] The Ariaspians are the Hariasvas of the Indian texts, who were a lost tribe. The Mahabharata says that King Haryasva never ate flesh in his life (Anusasana Parva 11.67). See V. Mani (ed.), Puranic Encyclopedia (New Delhi
[103] Sen [7] 160.
[104] The corpus of Asoka’s inscriptions is vast, but one is mystified by what he did not say. He never names his father or his illustrious grandfather. Was he a nephew of Bindusara? See Taranatha’s History of Buddhism in India (Delhi
[105] The name given as Sphines by Plutarch is the same as Aspines or Asvaghosa (Plut. Alexander, 65). Asvaghosa may have been an Ariaspian.
[106] B. Russell, History of Western Philosophy (London
[107] Badian [11]3.420; See also P. Green, Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography (California
[108] I. Worthington, How ‘Great’ was Alexander the Great?, AHB 13.2 (1999) 39-55, attempts, relying almost exclusively on the Greek and Roman sources, to analyse why Alexander was called ‘Great’ even in ancient sources.
[109] E. R. Bevan, Alexander The Great, in Rapson [70] 343.
[110] Tarn , [10] 1.142
[111] Wheeler writes: ‘Equally Persian are the famous lions which crowned the Ashokan column at Sarnath, near Benaras, and have been assumed as the republican badge of India
No comments:
Post a Comment