Diodotus = Asoka?

Diodotus = Asoka?

Below.


> Ranajit Pal, Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander.  New Delhi:  Minerva
> Press, 2002.  Pp. 254.  ISBN 81-7662-032-7.  GBP 21,50.
>
> Reviewed by Monique Cardell, Universite/ Aix-Marseille I
> (mlcardell@...)
> Word count:  1790 words
> -------------------------------
> To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-12-39.html
> -------------------------------
>
> There is a dearth of new ideas in Alexander studies, and Ranajit Pal
> proposes to fill the gap with data from the Pali and Sanskrit texts.
> This is the most stimulating recent work on Indo-Iran and Alexander and
> not only challenges the prevailing linear perceptions but also offers
> new solutions. Pal sees Alexander from an eastern perspective and his
> method is not a cut-and-paste one. His canvas is wide -- in fact there
> is so much that only a brief outline of the major points can be given
> here. To start with, the term 'Non-Jonesian' is a new coinage with
> radical overtones. This invites the reader and the scholar to
> reconsider the geography of India as it is so closely linked to
> history.
>
> During the troubled days of the French revolution, Sir William Jones
> startled the world by his so-called discovery of Palibothra, described
> by Megasthenes. Jones equated Palibothra to Patna in Eastern India.
> This hypothesis, together with the identification of Sandrocottus of
> the classical writers with Chandragupta of the Indian texts,
> constitutes the very basis of Indology and also has a bearing on world
> history. According to Pal this 'discovery' has no archaeological basis
> and is the fountain-head of discrepancies in Indology, as pointed out
> by scholars like R. S. Tripathi, A. L. Basham, D. D. Kosambi and most
> notably B. M. Barua.[[1]] While most historians mention the
> inconsistencies yet continue with them,[[2]] Pal advocates scrapping
> the mammoth Jonesian edifice altogether. If Moeris was the same as
> Chandragupta Maurya and Orontobates, as Pal suggests, the history of
> Alexander in Indo-Iran has to be rewritten.
>
> Pal's central thesis is geographical. For him, the fact that Alexander
> celebrated his victory at Kohnouj in southeast Iran clearly proves that
> Kohnouj was Palibothra. Jones' idea has been accepted using Chinese
> texts but according to Pal these are not valid sources as they were
> written a thousand years later. Not a single archeological relic
> corroborates Jones' idea. Yet the standard works on Mauryan history
> remain silent on the fact that no relic of any Nanda or Maurya King,
> including Asoka, is known from Patna.[[3]]
>
> Pal starts the book with the assertion that Kahnuj (or Kohnouj) where
> Alexander celebrated his victory was the chief city of the Indians,
> Palibothra. He points out that Vincent Smith held that Kanauj in
> Eastern India is not an ancient city. Moreover he writes that Moeris
> was Chandragupta Maurya and Pattala could have been another Mauryan
> capital. This agrees with the reports of Plutarch and Appian that
> Androcottus, king of the Indians, dwelt near the Indus. Another bold
> suggestion is that the highly respected Indian sage Calanus (Sphines,
> according to Plutarch) was in fact Aspines or Asvaghosa. 'Asva' in
> Sanskrit means 'horse', and Calanus was specially known for his horse
> which is mentioned in the sources. There were probably many Asvaghosas,
> but Pal points to Gotama's biographer who was also a philosopher and a
> playwright. According to him Asvaghosa's association with Alexander
> indicates that the latter was not quite the brute painted by E. Badian
> and P. Green. Nothing engages Alexander scholars more than the question
> whether Alexander did in fact speak about the Brotherhood of Man. Pal
> holds that he did and criticizes E. Badian for ignoring the Sanskrit
> and Pali accounts and confusing 'truth' with the Greco-Roman accounts.
>
> Of all the tantalizing assertions in the book, the most mind-boggling
> is that Diodotus I, well-known for his superb coins, was the great
> Asoka. This far-reaching idea was first articulated at the All-India
> Oriental Conference at Pune in 1993.[[4]] Pal writes that the bilingual
> Kandahar Edict shows Asoka as the master of Arachosia and that the
> coins point to Diodotus as the ruler. He boldly states that the names
> Diodotus and Devanam (piya) are synonymous (p. 74). Significantly,
> while Diodotus has only coins but no inscriptions, his contemporary
> Asoka has many inscriptions but no coins, which shows that they
> complement each other.[[5]] Asoka never refers to his neighbor Diodotus
> because he was Diodotus himself. Both were fierce warriors in their
> youth but later became saviors, <greek>SWTH/R</greek>. Tarn wrote that
> most of the Bactrian Greeks became Buddhists. Pal holds that this was
> because of Alexander and Diodotus, due to whom momentous events took
> place in the Orient that altered human destiny. It was here that
> Hellenistic culture and religion were born.[[6]]
>
> In the second chapter Pal explores the motives behind Alexander's most
> disastrous campaign, the Gedrosian march, and his final victory
> celebrations at Kohnouj, which he identifies as Palibothra. The
> expedition was a near-disaster and Alexander himself narrowly escaped
> death. As there were safer routes, most writers have ascribed the
> campaign to the king's growing megalomania bordering on insanity and
> his desire to surpass Dionysius and Semiramis. Pal discards all this as
> hearsay and holds that Alexander and Nearchus were in fact pursuing a
> dangerous military objective -- to defeat the mighty Prasii. His
> argument that Moeris was in fact Chandragupta Maurya of Prasii (p. 90)
> appears to be sound. Both were active in Bactria; their chronologies
> match exactly; and 'Sashi' and 'Chandra' are the words for the 'moon'
> in Sanskrit. Pal laments that this was suggested by H. C. Seth but he
> was shouted down. The identification of Moeris as Chandragupta
> radically alters the history of Alexander.
>
> On this campaign, the navy, commanded by Nearchus, is usually said to
> have been engaged in a reconnaissance mission. The army, led by
> Alexander himself, moved in tandem, and its task, supposedly, was to
> ensure the safety of the fleet. Pal disagrees and writes that the
> reverse was true. According to him the Gedrosian voyage was a
> two-pronged military initiative. The army was engaged in a crucial
> battle against the Prasii and its allies and, apart from fact finding,
> the navy was carrying horses, troops and provisions to support the
> army. Pal provides support for Justin's statement that Alexander had
> defeated the Prasii at Palibothra (p. 91) although this is not
> mentioned by Arrian, Plutarch or Curtius. This is a very drastic
> reassessment of Alexander's motives and contradicts the imputations of
> scholars like E. Badian and P. Green on Alexander's character. When
> Alexander reached Pattala, Moeris and the populace had fled. Unaware of
> the true background, Badian ascribed this to Alexander's unmitigated
> brutality and compared him with Chenghis Khan. Pal, however, considers
> this claim to be unwarranted. As the leader of the army, Alexander can
> hardly be blamed for arranging provisions for it and had probably
> imposed a grain levy which made the people flee. There is clear
> evidence of a plot to deny his army the provisions he had so carefully
> planned. The four-month stock at Pattala somehow vanished and his men
> became so short of food that the guards themselves broke the royal seal
> and distributed the provisions. According to Pal this was the handiwork
> of traitors in Alexander's own camp, including Bagoas the younger, who
> was a spy of Moeris or Sashigupta. After returning to Susa, Alexander
> started punishing the guilty with utmost severity. Again, while E.
> Badian squarely reproached Alexander for excesses, Pal blames the
> Harvard professor for badly misjudging the scenario (p. 103).
>
> Pal's assertion that the Mudrarakshasa, an ancient Sanskrit drama of
> royal intrigue, is relevant to Alexander's history is very significant.
> He writes that the drama, which belongs to world literature, has been
> badly misinterpreted due to Jonesian delusions. He points out that the
> locale of the play is the North-West, not Patna. The Sanskrit scholar
> A. B. Keith dated the drama to the 9th century AD, but his proposal has
> been doubted. According to Pal, the drama has a core that is very
> ancient. The main stratagem of the drama is the theft of a signet-ring,
> which, according to him, is linked to the mysterious manner in which
> Perdikkas produced Alexander's signet-ring. Crashing gates, poisoning
> cups, poison-maidens and forged letters feature prominently in the
> drama, and the same devices also appear in Alexander's history. Pal
> writes that Bhagurayana of the drama was Bagoas the younger (p. 99). If
> Pal's idea that Diodotus of Erythrae, the mysterious editor of
> Alexander's diary, was Chandragupta is indeed true, then there is ample
> ground to suspect that Alexander was poisoned. In many manuscripts
> Chandragupta is not mentioned, but his place is taken by Rantivarma.
>>From this Pal concludes that Rantivarma was another name of
> Chandragupta and identifies him with Orontobates, the Carian satrap who
> fought against Alexander. Another striking discovery of Pal appears to
> be the identification of Andragoras as Chandragupta. This is quite
> plausible as the coins of Andragoras are dated to the fourth-century BC
> by many scholar, and both Plutarch and Appian use a similar name,
> Androcottus, for Chandragupta. Pal holds that the Gedrosian expedition
> was partly successful and ends the chapter with generous praise for
> Alexander (p. 106).
>
> Pal's work is strongly influenced by the  approach of D. D. Kosambi and
> is also a continuation of the ideas of Dr. Spooner and the great
> Buddhist scholar B. M. Barua.[[7]] Pal suggests a relocation of
> Palibothra in the North-West which is widely considered to be the seat
> of ancient Indian civilization. However, even if one agrees with Pal
> that Palibothra was not Patna, the real Palibothra may still be another
> nearby location. Only new finds of relics of the Nandas, Chandragupta
> or Asoka in the North-West can finally settle the true location of
> Palibothra.
>
> This is an exciting work which puts in another perspective Alexander's
> expedition, his goals, his knowledge of the people he was conquering,
> and the space where he was evolving. It sheds a new light on him and
> his supposed cruelty or whims. The text also highlights how Indology
> could help in the study of the history of the Hellenistic period.
> However, the absence of an index is an irritant. Also, credit for the
> pictures and maps is not given. A bibliography would have greatly
> enhanced the value of the book. Finally, for Western readers whose
> familiarity with the Indian texts is inadequate, a prosopography or an
> index of kings and generals named differently in the Graeco-Latin and
> in the Indian sources would have been very useful. Although the maps in
> the book are illuminating, a more comprehensive map of Indo-Iran is
> lacking. The narrative is at times uneven, which is probably not
> unexpected given the broad scope of the work.
>
> Hopefully, with the possible shrinking of borders in the subcontinent
> and the emergence of a South Asian Association for Regional
> Cooperation, as envisioned by thinkers like the Nobel Laureate Mohammed
> Yunus, Pal's ideas may find greater acceptance. Pal ends the preface of
> the book with a poignant note, "The author fervently hopes that the
> book may not only throw new light on the lost Brotherhood of Man but
> also contribute towards an eventual redemption."
>
> ------------------
> Notes:
>
>
> 1.   Doubts about the basis of Indology have also been expressed by G.
> Fussman, Southern Bactria & Northern India before Islam
> (http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Archaeology/Greater-Iran/southern_bactria.htm).
> See also, I. Mabbett, 'Dhanyakataka', in South Asia 16.2 (1993), p. 21.
>
> 2.   For example, R. Thapar, a staunch supporter of British Indology,
> wonders why there are no edicts of Asoka at Patna which is alleged to
> be his capital. R. Thapar, Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas
> (Oxford, 1961), p. 230.
>
> 3.   Pal notes that the Cambridge archaeologist D. K. Chakrabarti in
> The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia edited by F. R. Allchin
> (Cambridge, 1995) p. 295 refers to many 2nd century B.C. texts but does
> not explain why there are none belonging to Chandragupta. In contrast,
> the veteran archaeologist A. Ghosh (The City in Early Historical India
> Simla, 1972, p.15) warned that 'The facts about Pataliputra are known
> mainly from texts.'
>
> 4.   Studies by F.L. Holt (Thundering Zeus, Hellenistic Culture and
> Society, Berkeley, 1999; Alexander the Great and Bactria, Leiden 1988)
> and others do not address the problem of the absence of inscriptions or
> other material evidence. Similar deficiencies characterize the studies
> on the Aramaic inscriptions from Bactria by S. Shaked and others. (See
> for example, S. Shaked, Three Aramaic Seals, Royal Asiatic Society of
> Great Britain and Ireland, London, 1986.) Even the great Sir W. W. Tarn
> was puzzled by the wide scattering of Diodotus' coins. (W.W. Tarn, The
> Greeks in Bactria and India, 3rd edition, Chicago 1997, p. 216).
>
> 5.   H. P. Ray's satisfaction with Asoka's coins is bizarre: Ancient
> India (N. Delhi, 2001), p. 55.
>
> 6.   Alexander gave a call for homonoia that was followed up by Asoka
> with great zeal. If the present reviewer has understood the text
> correctly, Pal's Diodotus was some kind of a Parsi who later adopted
> Buddhism. Pal ends the first chapter with "A Call to Archaeologists" in
> which he calls for more excavations in the Carman area. This was
> written in 2001 and in a way Pal anticipated the splendid Bronze Age
> finds at Jiroft by Madjidzadeh and others. In his later writings Pal
> has maintained that Jiroft or Djiroft was the early Kamboja of the
> Indian texts. His thesis has great depth and mainstream scholars have a
> duty to either accept or disprove it.
>
> 7.   D.B.Spooner, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1915, pp.
> 68-89, pp. 405-455; B. M. Barua, History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian
> Philosophy, passim.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> The BMCR website (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/) contains a complete
> and searchable archive of BMCR reviews since our first issue in 1990.
>
> Please do not reply to this email as this is an unmonitored mailbox.
> You can contact us by sending e-mail to classrev@... To
> subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> http://newmailman.brynmawr.edu/mailman/listinfo/bmcr-l. To unsubscribe,
> you may also send a blank e-mail to bmcr-l-request@... with
> the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BMR-L mailing list
> BMR-L@...
> http://newmailman.brynmawr.edu/mailman/listinfo/bmr-l
>