Of tribes, hunters and barbarians: Forest dwellers in the Mauryan period

Studies in History

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 173-191

  Parasher Sen, Aloka ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442674760     PISSN: 02576430     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/025764309801400202     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. D.D. Kosambi, The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline, New Delhi, 1970, p. 140.
2. P.V. Kane, History of the Dharmaśāstra, Vol. II, Poona, 1962, p. xi assigns the date of this text as 300 B.C.
3. R.P. Kangle, The Arthaśāstra, Pt. III, Bombay, 1965, Chap. 4, pp. 59ff. reviews the problem of the date at length and concludes to assign it to the Mauryan period. He considers that it is important (p. 10) to note that the text marks a culmination of a long period of speculation on the matter which forms the subject of the śāstra;.
4. A.B. Keith, History of Sanskrit Literature, London, 1940, pp. 459–61.
5. is typical of the view that proposes the work to be a product of C. A.D. 300 chiefly because the accounts of the Mauryan state given by Megasthenes in his Indica, and by Kauṭilya in the Arthaśāstra do not coincide; D.D. Kosambi, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Bombay, 1975 rpt, pp. 210–12.
6. disagrees with Keith's views first by showing that accounts of Megasthenes and Kautilya do tally, and, second, by detailing reasons why society depicted in the Arthaśāstra could not exist in the India of C. A.D. 300. More recently, based on the researches done on a statistical analysis of terms used in this text, T.R. Trautmann, Kauṭilya and the Arthaśāstra, Leiden, 1971, p. 174, concludes that there is no unity of authorship in the text and therefore, there are as many dates as authors of the text. However, a provisional date for it is suggested on pp. 176–87 as C. A.D. 250. Based on these insights it is possible to conclude as Romila Thapar had done (Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Delhi, 1961, Appendix), that some portions of the text may be considered later additions.
7. Gerard Fussman, ‘Central and Provincial Administration in Ancient India: The Problem of the Mauryan Empire’, The Indian Historical Review, Vol. 14: 1–2, 1987–88, p. 48.
8. Romila Thapar, The Mauryas Revisited, S.G. Deuskar Lectures in Indian History, 1984, Calcutta, 1987, pp. 3–4.
9. Fussman, ‘Central and Provincial Administration’, p. 71 72.
10. R.P. Kangle, The Kauṭiliya Arthaśāstra, New Delhi, 1986 rpt, Vol. 3, p. 1.
11. B. Subbarao, The Personality of India, Pre and Proto-Historic Foundations of India and Pakistan, Baroda, 1958, p. 12.
12. B. Subbarao map on ‘Physical Regions of India and Pakistan’, as Figure 6, p. 19. (See also Figure 3, p. 12; Figure 4, p. 15; Figure 5, p. 17) 12.
13. See H.D. Sankalia, Pre History and Proto History of India and Pakistan, Poona, 1960, map on distribution of early neolithic and chalcolithic cultures, Figure 246, p. 555 234.
14. M. Gadgil and R. Thapar, ‘Human Ecology in India; Some Historical Perspectives’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 15:3, 1990, p. 209.
15. Aloka Parasher, Mlecchas in Early India: A Study in Attitudes towards Outsiders up to A.D. 600, New Delhi, 1991, pp. 93–94 299.
16. A.A. Führer, Aphorisms on the Sacred Laws of the Āryas, Bombay Sanskrit Series, Bombay, 1883, p. 3, fn. 13.
17. Viśvarupa on Yajn¯avalkya Smṛti, ed. T. Ganapathi Sastri, Trivandrum, 1922, rpt., New Delhi, 1982, I.2.
18. Summarized from Parasher, Mlecchas in Early India, 1991, pp. 94–95 300 96–97.
19. Āpastambha Dharmasūtra, I. 11. 32. 18.
20. Majjhima Nikāya I, 149.
21. Bṛhatkalpa BhāṢya I. 326ff.
22. Listed in Parasher, Mlecchas in Early India, p. 212.
23. J.W. McCrindle, Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian, Calcutta, 1925, pp. 20–21.
24. Kosambi, Culture and Civilization, pp. 145–47.
25. AŚ., 2. 1. 5.
26. AŚ., 2. 1. 6.
27. AŚ., 7. 10. 16.
28. AŚ., 8. 4. 43.
29. AŚ., 1. 10. 3.
30. AŚ., 12. 3. 17.
31. AŚ., 2. 4. 32.
32. Kangle, The Kauṭilya Arthaśāstra, III, p. 150.
33. AŚ., 4. 5. 1–7.
34. AŚ, 1. 12. 21; 7. 10. 16; 7. 14. 27; 13. 5. 15; 14. 1. 2.
35. Parasher, Mlecchas in Early India, p. 117.
36. AŚ., 13. 5. 15.
37. Kosambi, An Introduction, p. 215.
38. AŚ., 8. 1. 29; 13. 4. 5.
39. AŚ., 6. 1. 8.
40. AŚ, 7. 11. 13.
41. AŚ, 2. 2. 13–14.
42. AŚ, 2. 5. 1; 2. 5. 5, 1. 18. 20, 2. 2. 1ff, 2. 34. 6–8.
43. AŚ., 3. 10. 21.
44. AŚ, 8. 4. 37–38.
45. AŚ, 1. 4. 2.
46. Thapar, Aśoka and the Decline, pp. 69–70.
47. AŚ., 7. 11. 3–5.
48. AŚ 2. 1. 1.
49. Kangle, The Kauṭilya Arthaśāstra, III, p. 169.
50. AŚ., 2. 1. 1–2.
51. Kangle, The Kauṭilya Arthaśāstra, 1965, III, p. 168.
52. Thapar, Aśoka and the Decline, p. 62.
53. Kosambi, Culture and Civilization, p. 149.
54. Kosambi, An Introduction, p. 185; 218.
55. AŚ., 2. 1. 3 9 15–18.
56. AŚ., 9. 2. 18–20 7–8.
57. AŚ. 7. 14. 27.
58. AŚ., 12. 4. 23.
59. AŚ. 1. 12. 21.
60. AŚ. 11. 1. 1–2 10–11 14–18 4 5.
61. AŚ, 9. 1. 17–18.
62. D.C. Sircar, The Geography of Ancient and Medieval India, Delhi, 1960, p. 4.
63. E. Hultzsch, ‘Inscriptions of Aśoka’, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. 1, Oxford, 1925, p. 87 173.
64. J. Bloch, Les Inscriptions d'Aśoka, Paris, 1950, p. 154.
65. Bloch, Les Inscriptions, pp. 128–29 103–4, 129–31.
66. H.C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India, Calcutta, 1953, p. 311.
67. Hultzsch, ‘Inscriptions’, Vol. 1, pp. 116–17.
68. Summarized from Kosambi, Culture and Civilization, p. 163.
69. Thapar, Aśoka and the Decline, p. 76, 118.
70. Kosambi, Culture and Civilization, p. 160 164.
71. Pillar Edict V, Bloch, Les Inscriptions, p. 166.
72. Kosambi, Culture and Civilization, p. 162.
73. Thapar, Aśoka and the Decline, p. 118.
74. AŚ., 2. 17. 1–3. A list of forest produce is given subsequently: 2. 17. 4–17.
75. B.N. Mukherjee, ‘Two Aramaic Edicts of Priyadarsi (Aśoka) from Laghman’, in Studies in the Aramaic Edicts of Aśoka, I.M. Reprint Series No. 1, Indian Museum, Calcutta, 1984, pp. 9ff.
76. B.N. Mukherjee, ‘Two Aramaic Edicts of Priyadarsi (Aśoka) from Laghman’, in Studies in the Aramaic Edicts of Aśoka, text lines 1–3, p. 12.
77. The content of the second Aramaic inscription from Laghman found engraved on a rock called Sam Baba is almost similar—see B.N. Mukherjee, ‘Two Aramaic Edicts of Priyadarsi (Aśoka) from Laghman’, in Studies in the Aramaic Edicts of Aśoka, text lines 1–5, p. 14.
78. Epigraphica Indica, Vol. 34, pp. 2–3.
79. Mukherjee, ‘Two Aramaic Edicts’, p. 59.
80. Thapar, Aśoka and the Decline, p. 72.
81. Epigraphica Indica, Vol. 37, pp. 194–95.
82. R.G. Basak, Aśokan Inscriptions, Calcutta, 1959, pp. 14–15, 19–20 109 112 55–56.
83. Mukherjee, ‘Two Aramaic Edicts’, p. 15.
84. Rock Edict I tells us that earlier hundred thousands of lives were slaughtered but now “only three lives” were killed for use in the royal kitchens; cf. Mukherjee, ‘Two Aramaic Edicts’, 1984, p. 15.
85. Epigraphica Indica, Vol. 34, pp. 3–4.
86. Rock Edict I, IV, Bloch, Les Inscriptions, p. 91, 98.
87. Thapar, Aśoka and the Decline, pp. 70–71.
88. Rock Edict IX, Bloch, Les Inscriptions, p. 113 64.
89. Mukherjee, ‘Two Aramaic Scripts’, p. 59, 34.
90. Thapar, The Mauryas Revisited, p. 13; pp. 25–26.
91. Aloka Parasher-Sen, Social and Economic History of Early Deccan: Some Interpretations, New Delhi, 1993, p. 71, 91.
92. Sibesh Bhattacharya, ‘Pluralism and Visible Path (Pratyaksha Marga) and Early Indian Idea of Polity’, Presidential Address, Section I, Indian History Congress, Session 54, Mysore University, 1993, Reprint, p. 4 7 14–16.
93. Thapar, The Mauryas Revisited, p. 26.
94. James Heitzman, ‘Early Buddhism, Trade and Empire’, in K.A.R. Kennedy and Gregory L. Possehl, ed., Studies in Archaeology and Paleoanthropology of South Asia, AIIS, 1984, p. 125, Figure 1, map on ‘Archaeological Sites—3rd century B.C.’
95. M. Gadgil and R. Guha, This Fissured Land: Towards an Ecological History of India, Delhi, 1993, pp. 105–9.