Quote:
Originally Posted by Immchr  3. The 'Greek' Kings of Asoka's inscriptions.
The mention of Yona king(s) in Asokan Inscriptions is found in Rock Edict II and Rock Edict XIII. In both these Edicts, only one king is mentioned as a Yona king. His name is Amtiyoka/ga who is assumed to be Antiochus II Theos of the Seleucid Empire. Other so-called Greek kings are not mentioned in Rock Edict II where only the samantas(Vassal kings) of Amtiyoka/ga are referred without naming them. Where those other suppossedly Greek kings are mentioned in Rock Edict XIII, they are not called as Yona kings but simply mentioned as rajas or kings by the names of Turamaya(assumed to refer to Ptolemy II Philadelphus), Amtikini(Antigonus II Gonatas), Maka(Magas of Cyrene) and Alikasudara(Alexander of Epirus). But all these other kings after being mentioned, as said as inferior to Amtiyoka/ga. This is quite puzzling because, if these are indeed the Greek kings that we believe them to be, then they were definitely not subject to Antiochus II at any point of time. |
This can be attributed to these factors:
1. Chandragupta maurya forged an alliance with Selucus Nicator, where the mauryan empire was the dominant partner ( having acquired a Greek princess and a third of the Selucid domains, while parting with 500 of 5000 war elephants). Even centuries later, whe Antiochus the great came to India after his failed Bactrian campaign, he was aided by his ally. This suggests that there existed a favourable condition between the Selucids and the Mauryans, which would put the Selucids in a more favourable light than rest of the Greeks.
2. Selucid empire at the time of Ashoka was the dominant diadochi of the greek successor states. They may not have vassalised Egypt & Greece, but they did enjoy a position of dominance over them, from 301 BCE-241 BCE ( conclusion of the Third Syrian War), the period over which Ashoka ruled.
Therefore, if Ashokan pillars give higher credence to the Selucid King, it is not 'curious'- it reflects the Maurya-Selucid alliance as well as the position of Selucid dominance over the rest of the Greek world.
Quote:
|
Asoka tells us elsewhere in one of his edicts that in the 13th year of his reign he had appointed Dharma - Mahamatras for the propogation of religion. Considering the fact that Asoka came to the throne in 269 BC, the Dharma Mahamatras were appointed in 256 BC. We can see first off, that in such a scenario sending a mission to Alexander of Epirus, within the 1st year itself which then reached that very same year and achieved success in his court is rather impossible.
|
There is nothing impossible in that. The British, in their sail ships, sailing all the way across Africa and into India, would complete the journey from Britain inside 5-6 months. The distance between Epirus and India is much shorter and since Ashokan emissaries would be protected in Selucid lands ( as he was their ally and in position of dominance over them), the journey would be rather direct and taking a few months.
Even if his mahamatras were dispatched from Pataliputra itself, they would've reached the Lata coast ( 'handle' of Gujrat) in a month, would've sailed from Gujrat to Susa/Characene region in another month, trekked to the Mediterranean coast ( in selucid territorry) within another month or two and then sailed to Epirus in a week or two. That would be at quite a sedate pace, accounting for a 'delegation' travel retinue rather than a solitary person and would be accomplished in 3-5 months from date of departure.
That is, if we are to assume that Ashoka presumed the success of the mission before it even got there. Realistically, the pillar would've been erected *AFTER* the completion of the mission, indicating that by the time of its construction, the mission was complete.
Not to mention, the 'date' at which Ashoka saw himself 'crowned' is a classic case of non-standardized time discrepancy that all ancient civilizations suffer from ( except the Romans, from their adoption of the Julian calendar):
Bindusara died in 273 BCE, while Ashoka waged a dynastic struggle for power which concluded by 269 BCE. His 'date of coronation' could easily be the date of his 'theoretical succession claim', ie, immeditely after his father's death
or on the day he finally eliminated all competition to power.
Quote:
With regard to Magas of Cyrene too, we have a period of only six years from 256 BC, when Asoka started sending his missionaries, to 250 BC when Magas died. In that period, from 260 BC to 253 BC there was hostility between the Seleucids and Ptolemies. It would seem incredibly lucky for a Buddhist mission coming to the Ptolemaic kingdom from the Seleucid territory being allowed to pass through their territory before 253 BC. Cyrene itself was formerly a Ptolemaic territory on its westernmost frontiers in present day Libya, that had broken off under the rule of Magas. Therefore, there would have been hostility
between Magas and the Ptolemies. After Magas' death in 250 BC, by 249 BC Cyrene had again been incorporated into the Ptolemaic kingdom. So for a Buddhist mission to pass through Ptolemaic Egypt within 3 years and be even allowed to go to a hostile territory looks rather improbable. We should also take stock of the fact that Asoka is supposed to have sent the mission to Ptolemy II Philadelphus as well. In that case, the Buddhist mission would have invariably halted at the Ptolemaic court before moving on to go to Cyrene.
|
Again, it is a matter of optics: The Diadochi period is rife with propaganda: Alexandrine propaganda, inter-dynastic propaganda, etc. As such, they were well aware of major developments in their sphere of the world. In 305 BCE, Chandragupta Maurya conquered lands from what is practically Lahore to Qandahar: an immense area of productive value, trade and strategic potential.
He did this and also sealed a marriage contract, costing him 500 elephants ( 1/10th of his force of elephants) in the process.
This, against the Selucid Empire, which at this point ( 305 BCE) was quite literally the largest, with the greatest manpower and resources of all the Diadochi kingdoms.
By the time of Ashoka, the selucid empire, though unstable, was the dominant military force of the Diadochis, having extended their territorries even further.
If the 'ally' of this nation, (ie, India) that holds a dominant position over the Selucids sends 'missions', you listen to it at the very least. The officials of the Roman emperor, even though 'vastly far away and antagonist to a traditional Chinese ally- Anxi(Parthia), were still recieved in the emperor's court and vice versa. Similar parallels would apply for the Mauryan embassy.
Quote:
|
Finally, even if the mission to Magas had been a success, Cyrene was soon to become part of Ptolemaic territory, where too Asoka supposedly claims success for his religious mission. So then why should Asoka mentioned Magas separately ?
|
Perhaps due to politics- Cyrene was a rival to the Selucids and ended up going to the bigger Selucid rival: Egypt. If Ashoka didn't want to tacitly acknowledge Cyrene's changed rulership, it would be a politically astute position.
Not to mention, news didn't travel *that* fast for peripheral events: Cyrene to Ashokan India is a peripheral world of little/no importance and continuous contact- changes there, happening thousands of kms away, across hostile territorries, would be slow to be reported in that era.
Quote:
|
Regarding Antiochus II Theos, we know that during his reign, the province of Bactria under Diodotus broke off as an independent kingdom in 255 BC, so did Parthia under Andragarus in 247 BC. Cappadocia also became independent in 250 BC and Antiochus II also went into war with Ptolemaic Egypt from 260 BC to 253 BC. Antiochus II died in 246 BC at the young age of 40 years. By all accounts, his was a very turbulent reign. Asoka neither mentions any mission to Bactria nor to Parthia. Infact, Asoka can be expected to send missions there and if he had done so, it looks rather improbable that these relatively small kingdoms would have dared to reject the missions of Asoka, when they would eagerly solicited Asoka's support for their fledgling kingdoms against Antiochus II. Further, nowhere do we have any mention of Indian religious missions coming to the court of Antiochus II. The Seleucid empire, throughout its existence is never known to have entertained Buddhism at its court. The dominant religions were the greek religion and the Zoroastrianism with perhaps influence of Chaldean rituals as well.
|
I disagree with the insinuations here. For one, the Mauryans proved themselves to be pretty consistent in their pacts.By ancient standard, remarkably so: they seemed to've not broken a pact with any of their 'allies' and even 100 years after the sealing of the pact, they supported the Selucids even after their failed campaign in Bactria( Antiochus mentions that he went to India, exchanged formalities & received aid after his costly and fruitless Bactrian campaign). Perhaps their support of the Selucids did factor in marriage relations: there is strong indication that marriage alliance was made between the Mauryas and the Selucids ( and certainly, it would be the common practice of their times).
The Geo-politics of the situation may've been an influencing factor too: a stable government unifying central Iranan plateau is highly favourable to an Indian government that controlls the Khyber, Bolan and Golan passes: this allows for one of the best case 'stability in the Hindu-Kush' scenario to prevail, a situation fundamentally benificial to a political entity based out of India in control over all/most of it.
As for sending missions there, it again, is a matter of optics: Ashokan inscriptions, nor any ancient inscription, follows a scientific principle of nomenclature, where names mentioned are exclusively on ethnic or national basis (akin to modern declaration). An omission of territorries that are 'de jure' claimed by their ally, which for 50 years remained under its 'de facto' control, is not a terrible oversight.
he didn't mention Bactria. He also didn't mention Assam or Malwa, Sindh or Gujrat: a region that would've been a part of his empire for 70 years prior to the writings of these edicts.
As for religious missions being unreported or unrecognized in the 'Selucid/Greek sources', that isn't a major issue: religious missions are often missing in bipartisan accounts of history. Often the recipients simply do not officially record them due to sensibilities issues. If a major Saudi islamic deligation showed up in USA tomorrow, it won't make the official news of the US government gazette.
Religious missions between Ottomans and europe are not officially recorded, islamic missions to Hindu courts are not recorded, etc.Greeks do mention exchange of ambassadors in certain sources and that is sufficient bipartisan corroborrations IMO.
Quote:
|
Regarding Ptolemy II Philadelphus, we learn that he had sent a diplomat by the name of Dionysius to Indian court but nothing beyond that. We do not learn of any religious mission arriving from India to Egypt during his tenure or that of his successor. Infact, the Ptolemies seemed to have followed the old Egyptian religion where they allowed themselves to be deified as Gods like the Pharoahs of old.
|
I dont see how any of the above casts doubt towards the validity of an Ashokan mission to Ptolemy II in an official/semi-official capacity. Egypt at this point traded with India on a mercantile basis, implying that human exchange between the two region is an ongoing, if a small facet of social intercourse.
Quote:
|
Greece under Antigonus II also seems to have continued to follow the ancient Greek religion. We have no record of Antigonus or his successors having had any contact with India.
|
We have very little record of Antigonus II in the first place and a one- off contact with a distant empire could easily have been lost, with the rest of his records.
A successful mission from the Ashokan pillar doesn't necessitate the literal translation of 'conversion of western asia and Greece(Yona lands) to buddhism' like you are trying to imply. This could simply mean that an Indian deligation, possibly consisting of Buddhist monks, were officially recieved and no restriction was placed on them ( within social norms ofcourse) to interact with their society.
Ie, the mission was 'accepted'. Again, a successful Saudi Islamic deligation to the US doesn't imply that US has converted to Islam, it implies that such a mission is accepted, allowed to exist and given its due rights.
There is an element to sanctify & exgaggerate religion/morality based declarations in all levels of society and as such, 'success' in these type of writings cannot be taken in its most literal context.
Quote:
|
Broadly, we hear nothing from the classical Greek and Roman sources regarding Indian missions to these above mentioned kingdoms. There is no trace of Buddhism found in the literature.
|
Not in name, but in practice we do find traces of Buddhism in Epicureanism. Infact, a lot more than traces, we find parallels from Vajrayana ideology and Epicureanism quite well.
Quote:
|
Even in the Pali sources, Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa, we hear of a mission sent to only a single Yona country and going by the account given in these sources, that kingdom was a northwestern territory.
|
Well, Greece is 'north-west' to India, so would be Persia & most Greek controlled lands, except for egypt.
Quote:
|
We also learn of a Yona missionary being sent to Aparanta by the name of Maharakshita, a name decidedly non-Greek.
|
'Maharakshita' and 'Soter' means the same thing: the Savour/great protector ( Soter titles were given to kings who 'saved/protected' the realm from a catastrophic barbarian invasion, ie, 'saved' civilization).
Soter is also quite common in the Diadochi period.
Quote:
|
Yet Asoka claims that he had won all those 5 kings over to his religion.He had won them over through religious conquest. This can only mean that Asoka had made those 5 kings accept Buddhism as a state religion within their territories. But could Asoka have made such a claim, even unprecedentedly mentioning the names of those kings, if his missions had been a failure ? Infact Asoka had no need to make any false claims as his missions to many kingdoms were a success and many Buddhist nations to this day attribute the coming of the religion to their lands through the efforts of Asoka. And in the case of Antiochus II, his lie would have been exposed soon because Antiochus II was his neighbour with possible diplomatic contacts and trade relations. A king who would have lied in this fashion could never have become such a great icon, the epitome of an ideal Buddhist ruler across all Buddhist nations.
|
Your entire idea that 'if lands didn't get to be Buddhist, Ashoka's mission = failure' is entirely flawed. 'Won them over through conquest of righteousness' simply implies that they were allowed to practice/preach their philosophies.
It is important to keep in perspective that the usage of the word 'dharma' in Indic language is not completely analogous to religion (though it includes it), the more accurate term for it is philosophy(which could include religious & non religious philosophy towards life).
Thus, winning over by conquest of righteousness' doesnt imply conversion. it simply applies to a position where a few dozen delegates showed up, of which some continuted to live there and preach their way. Ultimately, this was a 'one-off' and most 'one off' religious missions don't get much attention or success unless backed up by consistent stream of such missions.
One-off religious missions to China are also rarely acknowledged and this despite a much superior Chinese records survival due to their long periods of unification under excellent beurocracy.
Quote:
|
Perhaps this Yona king Amtiyoka and 4 other besides were not Greek after all ? But a strong objection would be that their names are all very Greek sounding.
|
Indeed. it flies in the face of the most basic histographic analysis: when multiple kings names are mentioned and independent concurrence of said kings are confirmed in history through other sources, it is considered as close to empiric truth in history you will ever get to: for what are the chances that 4 kings mentioned in a text to've done something, when we can independently verify through arcaeology and other independent sources that these kings not only existed but were contemporaries, wern't actually them but someone else ? Exceedingly rare and considered through mountain of contradicting direct evidence.
Consider the rock edict #13: It not only mentions these kings by name, it also says that 'six hundred yojnas away, where Amityoko rules, beyond which there is Tulamaya, Maka and Alukasadaro'.
All estimates of the Indian yojna is between 6-15 kms. This means, Amityoko ruled 3600-9000 kms away, in the same ballpark as Baghdad to Patna distance, the approximate distance of Selucia to Pataliputra ( it is 6500 kms between these two modern cities).
Beyond this Amityoko, are the three other kings: completely consistent with the geographical reference of Egypt, Anatolia and Greece from Indian vangage point (further away than Iraq, center of Selucian power).
Quote:
|
Well, to begin with, Maka is a very Iranian sounding name. Modern day Makran during the rule of the Achaemenids was known as Maka. The Magi or Maga was a term used for ancient Iranian priests. The Mahabharata enumerates the peoples of Sakadwipa as Maga, Masaka, Manasa and Mandanga. According to the opinion of F. W. Thomas, Maga was also a Turkish title. Infact in Buddha's time, the inhabitants of Magadha used to call it Maga. Hence, there is nothing exclusively Greek about the name Maga.
|
Happens to be that Magas ( a rare Greek name) is consonant with Maka/Moka/Moga, an Indo-Iranian name. That doesn't discredit the fact that the name Magas was used by Greeks and the rest by Indo-Iranians, which both can be transliterated as Maka.
This often happens with names that happen to be similar to names in other cultures phonologically: Lee is both a quintessential Chinese and western name ( Lee in west can be first name, Lee Westwood for example, and last name: Tommy Lee).
Quote:
|
Regarding Turamaya, Tura & Mayava are names occuring in the Avesta. Tura is also the name of a Vedic seer, the son of Rishi Kavasu in Aitreya Brahmana. According to Asokavadana, one of Asoka's own near ancestors was known as Turakuri. Maya as a terminal is found in many ancient names in Indian literature, one being the famous Asuramaya. According to the interpretation of the Avesta, 'Tura' means resistant and indicates a strong and stubborn opponent. Infact, Turfan in Chinese Turkestan was known to ancient Persians as Turan and its Indian equivalent is 'Turapamni'. In Turkish language too, we find a name Turaman very close to Turamaya. Turamaya can also be non-Greek and infact it looks quite distant from Ptolemy in the face of the above similarites with Indian, Iranian and Turkish names.
|
Ptolemy in Indic language would most likely be pronounced 'Tulamaya/Tolamaya', which is close enough to the already Iranic name of 'Toramanya/Turaman to get transliterated into a name they already knew.
This is bogus analysis IMO, because names are often confused in cross-cultural references and there is a tendency to 'domesticate' foreign names by assigning them names closer to pre-existing ones in a culture.
If you think Ptolemy to Turamaya is an impossible transliteration, then virtually all Chinese recordings of non-Chinese names are questionable, as they are even more mutated phonologically.
The tendency to hear a foreign name that is simiar to a pre-existing name in your culture ( Aaron and Arun for example) and confuse it with the native one, is a common mistake.
Such critical analysis of nomenclature is a complete and fundamental distortion of name mutations & migrations and ultimately, cannot challenge the simple fact that 4 kings mentioned in the Ashokan edict are remarkably phonological to 4 Greek kings of the *same* era, which are also geographically consistent.
Quote:
| Alikasudara can be prakritised form of Sanskrit 'Alaka-sundara' which means 'one whose face is beautiful with forelocks'. 'Alikayu' is also a part of the name of a man mentioned twice as an authority in the Kausitaki Brahmana.
|
There is not a single 'Alikasudara/alak-sundara/alaka-sundaram/alaksundar' in Indian classical literature. Such a guy does not exist- not in Indic literature, fiction, epics, history, edict, etc. So, regardless of what that term might mean in sanskrit, fact remains that such a name is completely absent from Indian records for not only this era, but most of it.
Just because you can put two nouns together to mean something doesn't mean that it was done so.
Quote:
| Amtekina or Amtikini as it appears in Asoka's inscriptions corresponds according to Buhler, the late German Indologist, to the Greek Antigenes rather than to Antigonus. But as no king named Antigenes is known Amtikini has been identified with Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia. Amtikena has an ending as that in the name of 'Airikina' by which the ancient city of Eran, in Central India, was known in antiquity. Antixeni is also the name of a tribe mentioned by Pliny on the authority of Megasthenes, residing on the east side of Indus.
|
I put down 'Amtekena' as closest to Antigenes, but Amtegena would be closest to Antigonus- it is a simple error in accuracy in names reflected in cross-cultural ties. Again, by such stringent standards, entire Chinese histography gets reduced to fictitious beings, as their preservation of foreign names are far less phoenetic than this example.
Quote:
|
Besides, all of the above kings are not mentioned as Yona kings. Only Amtiyoka is mentioned as a Yona king.
|
So ? The entire Diadochi period was spent by the Diadochis proclaiming thsemelves as the 'only/true reek king & successor to Alexander'. The Mauryans referring to their ally exclusively as the 'Greek King' is simple and basic astuteness in diplomacy.
Quote:
|
Regarding Amtiyoka, we may draw our attention to the Junagarh inscription of Rudradaman the Saka. In it he mentions a Yavana king by the name of Tushaspa, who was the governor of Aparanta(western India) in the time of Asoka Maurya. This Tushaspa is clearly an Iranian name. More specifically it is an Avestan name. Vishtaspa is a very famous character in the Avesta and his name appears in the Gathas, the date of which is perhaps as early as the 10th century BC. Other -aspa ending names in the Avesta are Tumaspa, Viraspa, Vazhaspa, Aurvataspa, Frinaspa, Habaspa, Hitaspa, etc. Tusha also appears as a name. There is therefore no doubt that Tushaspa is an Iranian name of a great antiquity which could have easily been the name of an Iranian king as early as 10th century BC or perhaps earlier.
|
That an Indic sounding 'Yavana king' ruled in India, subordinate to the Greeks is neither an earth-shattering news, nor does it throw the entire idea of Amityoka being Greek.
The Greeks did leave Iranian satraps in minor holdings of eastern reaches of Persian empire. Alexander himself did so and Selucus astutely followed this principle.
Given that the Mahakshatrapas ( The dynasty of which Rudradaman belonged to) were initially subordinate to the kushans and indeed, rudradaman himself could easily have been a 'de facto' king that is 'de jure' governor of the Kushans, is quite possible in the evolution of the Western Satraps dynasty.
Rudradaman identifying these iranic satraps as 'kings' is not only in resonance to his position, it also reflects the 'de facto' condition of the rulership, where to the local population, the satraps were effective 'kings'.
Quote:
|
We have earlier stated how the Yonas could have been Iranianised people. In the name of Tushaspa, we get evidence for that.
|
Such evidence is extremely flimsy. Your entire perspective on how Yavanas could be non-Greek is based on:
a) the idea that their mentioning in Mahabharata is older than contact with the Greeks ,which is not the case- yavanas are mentioned in the gupta script mahabharata, which is dated to after 2nd century CE and the Mahabharata in its finalized form is from 2nd-4th century period. Of this, we can safely assess, as the core text of the mahabharata, 'jaya', is of older writing than any that mention yavanas or tusharas.
b) mention of yavanas by panini- which i've explained is easily accomodated by panini's flourit in the Achaemenid period: Panini lived in Taxila, a land close to Achaemenid border and the Ionians are evidenced to've been travelling around the Achaemenid empire during its early stages.
On the other hand, the number of times that the word 'yavana/Yauna and Yona' are exclusively identified with Greeks in Indic literature is abundant.
Quote:
|
Amtiyoka was likely a contemporary of Tushaspa and an Iranian or Iranianised Indian king. We need not identify him with the Greek Antiochus.
|
That is as absurd as saying we need not identify Sikander with Alexander.
Amityoka is categorically mentioned as the Yavana king, dwelling 600 yojnas away from Mauryan lands. Happens to be right where Selucia would be.
Quote:
|
In Puranas, we find a similar sounding name Antinara. And then there is an inscription from Taxila which reads " In Sira Amtiyoha, sister of Looda, daughter of a Hamsi mother and a Hamsa father, deposits relics of the Bhagavat". According to F. W. Thomas, the inscription testifies to a thoroughly Indian consciousness. Though the names are strange, but no one has so far connected them to any Greek name.
|
now this, is double standards. Phonologically, Amityoka is far closer to Antiochus than it is to Antinara.
Quote:
|
Lastly, one may ask why is it that Asoka, while using for himself such a pompous title like 'Beloved of the Gods' does not use a similar title for Amtiyoka ? Antiochus II Theos was king of a very vast empire with good diplomatic relations to India. And to empasize the significance of his conquest by religion, Asoka would surely have used a high title if he indeed was referring to a Antiochus II. Instead it seems that the Yona king as Asoka refers to, was a minor king.
|
For the same reason the Roman Emperors didn't put anyone as equal to them, The Chinese emperor was *the* man of prime status unequalled in the Chinese worldview, no man was given equal status to the Abbasid/Ummayad Caliph, etc.
Its called cultural pride. Happens to be a common theme in well developed but insular civilizations.
Quote:
|
But one may finally ask what about the co-incidence ? How is it such all 5 names are so similar sounding to Greek kings of Post-Alexadrine epoch ? Well, there are other recorded coincidences and on account of this, we are not qualified to post-date the Puranic era of the Mauryas by 12 centuries.
|
No, this 'coincidence' is what falls in the realms of Occam's razor principle and the consistency of analysis applied to histography.
The facts are simple: 4 kings are mentioned. One of them is mentioned as yavana, which is also *clearly* associated with Greeks in other texts. The other three live 'beyond' the 1st king mentioned.
All 4 names are remarkably close to 4 Greek kings that ruled in the same period dated to Ashoka. The 1st king lives significant distance away, the number of which is in the same vicinity of Selucia and far greater than the distance of Pataliputra to any territorry held by the Mauryas. The other kings who happen to live beyond the 1st, are consistent with the names (Turamaya to Ptolemy, Maka to Magas, Amtikini to Antigonus and Alukasadaro to Alexander) of Greek kings who lived 'beyond' Antiochus.
This is what you would call the 'seven sigma proof' of histography. An inscription that matches independent data on so many levels being questioned on such flimsy grounds is akin to questioning virtually every aspect of historical recordkeeping.
Linear Mode
