60 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Did Emperor Ashoka really exist?
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 SeptimusT at 07/04/2020 at 15:40 UTC
79 upvotes, 1 direct replies
That’s one of the big historiographical debates, so it’s hard to answer precisely! The British colonial historians probably overestimated the influence of the Achaemenids, but the Achaemenids certainly introduced some technological and societal innovations. None of it is particularly direct insofar as the Magadha Empire, since the Achaemenids never ruled so far east.
Magadhan/Mauryan art is likely influenced by Achaemenid styles and technology, including the Mauryan Polish technique I mentioned. Stylistically, the lion capitals reflect this. The Aramaic alphabet was adapted to some Indian languages, such as Kharoshthi, and may have influenced the Brahmi alphabet (big debate on that). There is probably some cross-cultural religious influence, too, with some Zoroastrian dualism making its way into some Brahmanical and Buddhist schools, but that’s beyond my area of study.
Taxila, in the northwest and once under Achaemenid rule, was home to many great scholars and influential to the development of thought throughout northern India. Taxila was an extremely cosmopolitan city. Chandragupta Maurya studied there, by which time Hellenistic influences began to creep in, and Ashoka governed it during his youth, and so they would have been exposed to ideas coming from the west. This trend continued for centuries after the Maurya.
Since it’s what I’m studying, I’ll also say that the currency system of the Magadha/Nanda Empire was probably derived from Achaemenid currency, albeit indirectly. Not everyone agrees with that; some historians favor an indigenous origin, but in my opinion (and the opinion of scholars such as Joe Cribb), the similarities are too great to overlook. Our evidence is pretty sketchy at this point, and begins to verge on speculation if we try to say much more.