378 upvotes, 8 direct replies (showing 8)
View submission: Did Emperor Ashoka really exist?
Great to see a question about an interesting time and figure! I’ve been doing a lot of research on Ashoka and the Maurya Empire lately, and I currently have an article on the collapse of its currency system under review by a journal.
Our written evidence for the Maurya is limited. That’s at least in part due to the massive upheavel during following centuries, which led to the loss of many sources. Its existence is still corroborated by several Greek writers and surviving texts like the *Arthashastra*. While problematic in a variety of ways (*Arthashastra* has probably been interloped by later writers, and the Greek writers often repeat third hand information), it’s enough to verify broad swathes of the Mauryan history detailed in Buddhist and Jain texts, minus the more religious claims. Certainly Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the dynasty, existed and led a revolt which toppled the existing Nanda Dynasty in Pataliputra. He then began a conquest which took much of the subcontinent. His sucessors followed this model and continued to expand. Their creation of infrastructure like roads, a uniform currency, encouragement of long distance trade, maintenance of a central army, and governance of a large, multi-lingual and multi-ethnic territory are what makes them an ‘empire,’ although the rulers referred to themselves as *raja*, usually translated as king.
The Maurya Empire is further attested by archaeology. While not attributable to specific rulers, we can see the expansion of a uniform silver currency across their territory. We can also see the growth of a unique art styles, such as the “Mauryan polish” that makes the lion capitals so shiny. Many stupas and Buddhist sites do show notable expansion around the time of Ashoka, such as those excavated by John Marshall at Taxila.
The Ashoka inscriptions are actually multi-lingual, and were sort of like a Rosetta Some for scholars deciphering some no longer used Indian languages. In Prakrit, the main language of the Mauryan court, Ashoka refers to himself as *Devanampiya Piyadasi Asokaraja*, which is translated as “Humane King Ashoka, Beloved of the Gods.” They certainly paint him in an idealistic light and are subject to debate, but that’s true of any ancient document. Most modern scholars accept them as genuine, but there is certainly some debate. There’s really nothing else on the Kalinga War, but we do see the Mauryan currency and some architectural evidence of their rule or influence there.
Lastly, it may be helpful to view Ashoka and the Maurya as one dynasty within the history of a wider empire. Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the dynasty, largely usurped the existing Pataliputra-based Magadha Empire after overthrowing the Nanda Dynasty, keeping and expanding much of their governmental structure, such as their uniform currency. They may have ruled relatively loosely, relying on satraps and subservient petty kings to govern distant territories. Ashoka’s successors, even less well understood than him, probably split the empore into multiple states. The Pataliputra-based rulers were overthrown by Pushyamitra Sunga, a Mauryan general. The subsequent Sunga Dynasty kept much of the Mauryan government model within a much reduced territory. There’s a marked period of decline and disintegration of central power (especially visible by the collapse of the uniform currency, a major indicator of long distance trade), but the Sungas were eventually overthrown by the Kanva Dynasty in another coup. By now a very small kingdom, they were swallowed up by the Deccan-based Satavahana Empire.
As far as further reading goes, most of the latest scholarship is very specialized and specific, and the broader syntheses are a little outdated. Still, *Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas* by Romila Thapar is probably the best. For an outline of the debates of Mauryan historiography, “Main Trends in the Historiography of the Early Maurya Empire Since Independence” by Shankar Goyal (*Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute*, Vol. 76, No. 1/4 (1995)) is pretty solid.
Comment by lcnielsen at 07/04/2020 at 15:22 UTC
56 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Sort of related question: how much of a connection is there between the influence of the Achaemenid Empire in what is today Pakistan (which if I recall correctly is clearly visible in the archaeological record) and the rise of empires or large kingdoms such as the Nanda from what previously seem to have been some sort of city-states in the Gangetic plains?
Comment by seanzytheman at 07/04/2020 at 15:52 UTC
11 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Good write up. I’m not OP, but I appreciate you taking the time to post this!
Comment by [deleted] at 07/04/2020 at 15:26 UTC
27 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Thank You. I was looking for a long time for an opinion on this question from an expert.
Comment by yodatsracist at 08/04/2020 at 06:37 UTC
12 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Since people are lobbing big follow up questions at you, let me not break the trend: just how Buddhist was Asoka and his empire?
I know that for a long time it was taken for granted that Asoka was Buddhist, but when I was in college like twenty years ago, I remember getting assigned a reading that put more doubt on that, though I can’t remember the details. The general thesis, if I remember anything, was that Asoka supported religion generally, including Buddhism, but not Buddhism exclusively, and he should be seen in a more pluralistic South Asian Brahmana/Sramana context. While Minor Rock Edict 1 is explicitly Buddhist, Minor Rock Edict 2 could be read as more traditionally Brahman than Buddhist. The Major Rock Edicts certainly demonstrate support for principles that Buddhists support, but these principles, like *ahimsa* (non-violence) obviously have pre-Buddhist roots as well. The Major Rock Edicts, if i remember correctly, do not explicitly mention Buddhism. Like Major Rock Edict 2 focuses on the relationship between people and cattle—is this a reflection of a Brahmanic tradition more than a Buddhist one? Major Rock Edict 3 and 4 explicitly mentions both Brahmanas and Sramanas, but doesn’t specifically mention “Oh, hey, I’m a follower of a specific Sramana sect.” Major Edict 5 seems explicitly trans-sect as well and so forth, etc.
What’s the contemporary take on Asoka both personal and public religion throughout his life? Just how Buddhist was he and just how Buddhist was his state?
Comment by Organisateur at 07/04/2020 at 16:29 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I have a follow up question for you: Was there historiography, which had emerged in Greece and China in the 5th century, in ancient India? And if there was, what are the oldest available sources coming from the subcontinent?
Comment by krishna1857 at 08/04/2020 at 11:22 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Follow up:
I saw a lecture where the speaker talked about how a Kalingan/Odia ruler led a raid on Magadha decades after the Kalinga war, as some form of retribution? It was a lecture by Sanjeev Sanyal and he mentioned seeing inscriptions of this, by the Kalingan ruler.
Comment by domocke at 08/04/2020 at 20:17 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Thanks for this write-up, I wanted to ask if you've read "Ashoka: the Search for India's Lost Emperor" by Charles Allen, and if so would you recommend it? Thanks.
Comment by Zug__Zug at 07/04/2020 at 20:07 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Thank you for the answer. I have a follow up question if i may.
During the time of Ashoka we do have evidence, alebit mainly literary evidence of various other kingdoms/empires operating in other parts of India. The three Tamil kingdoms for example do get explicit mention in some Mauryan era inscriptions. Do we have any info on how these kingdoms interacted and any info from them to build a clearer picture? I do want to learn about the history of ancient India in-depth, what books do you recommend for the same?