Ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya

A statue of Chandragupta Maurya, In the courtyard of Indian Parliament, with the inscription, "Shepherd boy-Chandragupta Maurya dreaming of India he was to create".

The ancestry of Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya Empire, is debated.

The identification of Chandragupta Maurya with Sandrokottos

Little, if anything, is known for certain about Chandragupta Maurya's origins. For two centuries historians have been trying to establish the chronology of early India. The question of whether Chandragupta can be identified with the figure known in ancient Greek texts as Sandrokottos is one element in fixing the chronology. The philologist William Jones began the systematic study of the chronology in the late 18th century. His work and that of his contemporaries are still highly regarded. The indologists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were reluctant to believe in the veracity of traditional Indian accounts of the past or to accept an extraordinary antiquity of Indian history.

Subsequent scholars took the identity of Sandrokottos with Chandragupta Maurya as proven and carried on further research. James Prinsep, deciphered the Brahmi script and was able to read the inscriptions of Piyadassin (Asoka). George Turnour found in the Ceylonese chronicles that Piyadassin was used as another name of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The inscription bearing Piyadassin as a name of Asoka was not found until the time of Turnour. In 1838, Prinsep found five names of the Yona kings in Asoka's inscriptions and identified them as the five Greek kings, successors of Alexander, living in the third century BCE, who were contemporaries of Asoka.

Alleged reasons for Sandracottus to be Chandragupta Gupta

• Allegedly, "The Greek records mention the kings before and after Sandracottus to be Xandramas and Sandrocyptus. The kings before and after Chandragupta Maurya were: Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusara. The kings before and after Chandragupta Gupta were: Chandramas and Samudragupta. The phonetic similarity is quite apparent for Chandragupta Gupta and not Maurya."

On the contrary, Strabo properly identifies both Sandragupta and his son Bindusara "Amitraghata" (Slayer of Enemies), and connects them to the 3rd century ambassadors Megasthenes and Deimakos sent to their courts::"Both of these men were sent ambassadors to Palimbothra (Pataliputra): Megasthenes to Sandrocottus ("Chandragupta"), Deimakos to Allitrochades ("Amitraghata") his son" (Strabo II, I, 9). Plutarch also directly connects Chandragupta to Alexander himself::"Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth." Plutarch 62-3.

• "Greek records, however, are silent about important figures like: Chanakya, Ashoka (whose kingdom was much larger than his Grandfather Chandragupta's.)"

• "Greek records do not clearly mention the presence of Buddhist monks who were very common in Maurya time". There are actually many Greek accounts of sramanas which are thought to correspond to them.

• An alleged "inscription on a Greek Tomb has: 'Here lies Indian Sramanacharya, Shakya monk from Bodh Gaya'. By 1000 B.C. the Greeks did not yet use the alphabet rendering the alleged quote a spurious. Instead, the exact circumstances of this event are connected to 10 CE instead.

Nicolaus of Damascus is famous for his account of an embassy sent by an Indian king "named Pandion (Pandyan kingdom?) or, according to others, Porus" to Caesar Augustus around 13 CE. He met with the embassy at Antioch. The embassy was bearing a diplomatic letter in Greek, and one of its members was a "Sarmano" (Σαρμανο) who burnt himself alive in Athens to demonstrate his faith. The event made a sensation and was quoted by Strabo^[3] and Dio Cassius.^[4] A tomb was made for the "Sarmano", still visible in the time of Plutarch, which bore the mention "ΖΑΡΜΑΝΟΧΗΓΑΣ ΙΝΔΟΣ ΑΠΟ ΒΑΡΓΟΣΗΣ" (Zarmanochēgas Indos apo Bargosēs – The sramana master from Barygaza in India).

• Allegedly, "the names of contemporary kings found on Ashokan inscriptions are Antiyoka, Tulamaya, etc. Antiyoka ruled Afghanistan around 1475 BC, which then appears to be the approximate date of Ashoka. (the grandson of Maurya Chandragupta.)" . The date clearly is a fabrication. It is usually thought that the edict in question mentions Western Greek kings during the time of Ashoka:

"Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest. And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas (4,000 miles)) away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni." Rock Edict Nb13 (S. Dhammika)

In the Gandhari version Antiochos is referred as "Antiyoko nama Yona-raja" (lit. "The Greek king by the name of Antiochos"), beyond whom live the four other kings: "param ca tena Atiyokena cature 4 rajani Turamaye nama Antikini nama Maka nama Alikasudaro nama" (lit. "And beyond Antiochus, four kings by the name of Ptolemy, the name of Antigonos, the name of Magas, the name Alexander" Gandhari original of Edict No13 (Greek kings: Paragraph 9): [5]

Further allegations

According to Greek accounts, Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottos and Sandrocyptus was the son of Sandrokottos. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek accounts. However, as is seen in the case of Amitraghata (Bindusara), Greek sources mention a secondary (Sanskritic) name of Indian kings.

In the Greek accounts, we find the statements of the Greek and Roman writers belonging to the period from 4th century BCE to 2nd century CE. None of them have mentioned the names of Kautilya or Asoka. Kautilya's work on polity is an important Indian document on this subject. According to tradition, it was with his assistance that Chandragupta had come to the throne. Asoka's empire was bigger than that of Chandragupta and he had sent missionaries to the Yavana countries. But both are not mentioned in Greek sources by these names. Colebrook has pointed out that the Greek writers did not say anything about the Buddhist Bhikkhus though that was the flourishing religion of that time due to the royal patronage of Asoka. However, all of the above are futile argements ex nihilo. Already Herodotos (Histories, around 420 B.C.) mentions ascetics in the Panjab.

Common views on Maurya origin

Arthshastra on Chandragupta Origin

Chandragupta Kshatriya origin most practical evidence came from The book which was composed by His Prime Minister Chanakya. The book describes the reason for preference of a poor and weak Kshatriya(Chandragupta) over a rich Shudra(Nanda) king. Chanakya describes himself as protector of religion because he destroyed Shudra Nanda and gave the empire to the Kshatriya Chandragupta.

Purana On Morya(or Maurya) Dynasty

Puranas are clear on the Kshatriya lineage of Chandragupta Maurya. Matsya Purana tells about a King Moru who will retore the Kshatriya rule over India and will be the founder of Morya(or Maurya) dynasty.This dynasty will be followed by Shunga Dynasty. Vishnu Purana the oldest of all Purana too speak about King Moru who will re-establish the kshatriya rule over India by destroying the Shudra Nanda. Another Purana Vayu Purana declares that in 19th coming Yuga Morya dynasty will restore Solar dynasty(Suryavanshi Kshatriya) in India and will be followed by Shunga Dynasty.

Nanda Dynasty affiliation

Some Indian literary traditions connect him with the Nanda Dynasty of Magadha in eastern India. More than half a millennium later, the Sanskrit drama Mudrarakashasa not only calls him Mauryaputra (Act II) but also a Nandanvaya (Act IV). Again more than a millennium later, Dhundiraja, a commentator of 18th century on Mudrarakshasa states that Chandragupta was son of Maurya who in turn, was son of the Nanda king Sarvarthasiddhi by a wife named Mura, daughter of a Vrishala (shudra). Mudrarakshasa uses terms like kula-hina and Vrishala for Chandragupta's lineage. This reinforces Justin's contention that Chandragupta had a humble origin. On the other hand, the same play describes the Nandas as of Prathita-kula i.e. illustrious lineage. The medieval commentator on the Vishnu Purana informs us that Chandragupta was son of a Nanda prince and a [dasi] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (English: maid), Mura. The poets Kshmendra and Somadeva call him Purvananda-suta, son of genuine Nanda as opposed to Yoga-Nanda i.e. pseudo Nanda.

Peacock-tamer theory

Other literary traditions imply that Chandragupta was raised by peacock-tamers (Sanskrit: Mayura-Poshakha), which earned him the Maurya epithet. Both the Buddhist as well as Jaina traditions testify to the supposed connection between the Moriya (Maurya) and Mora or Mayura (Peacock). While the Buddhist tradition describes him as the son of the chief of the Peacock clan (Moriya), the Jaina tradition on the other hand, refers to him as the maternal grandson of the headman of the village of peacock tamers (Moraposaga). This view suggests a degraded background of Chandragupta. (The same Jain tradition also describes Nanda as the son of a barber by a courtesan).

According to some scholars, there are some monumental evidence connecting the Mauryas with peacocks. The pillar of Ashoka in Nandangarh bears on its bottom the figures of a peacock which is repeated in many sculptures of Ashoka at Sanchi. According to Turnour, Buddhist tradition also testifies to the connection between Moriya and Mora or Mayura or peacock. Aelian informs us that tame peacocks were kept in the parks of the Maurya palace at Pataliputra. But scholars like Foucher do not regard these birds as a sort of canting badge for the dynasty of Mauryas. They prefer to imagine in them a possible allusion to the Mora Jataka. Moreover, besides the peacocks, there were also other birds like pheasants, parrots as well as a variety of fishes etc. also kept in the parks and water pools of the Mauryas.

Moriya clan view

Silver punch mark coin of the Mauryan empire, with symbols of wheel and elephant. 3rd century BCE.

Yet there are other literary traditions according to which Chandragupta belonged to Moriyas, a Kshatriya (warrior) clan of a little ancient republic of Pippalivana located between Rummindei in the Nepalese Tarai and Kasia in the Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh. Tradition suggests that this clan was much reduced in the 4th century BCE under Magadhan rule, and young Chandragupta grew up among the peacock-tamers, herdsmen and hunters.

The Buddhist text Mahavamsa calls Chandragupta a scion of the Khattya (Kshatriya) clan named Moriya (Maurya). Divyavadana calls Bindusara, son of Chandragupta, an anointed Kshatriya, Kshatriya Murdhabhishikata, and in the same work, king Ashoka, son of Bindusara, is also styled a Kshatriya. The Mahaparinnibhana Sutta of the Buddhist canon states that the Moriyas belonged to the Kshatriya community of Pippalivana. These traditions, at least, indicate that Chandragupta may have come from a Kshatriya lineage.

The commentary on the Mahavamsa connects him with the Sakya clan of the Buddha, a clan which also claimed to belong to the race of Aditya i.e. solar race.

Ancient Jain texts Punyashrava Katha Kosh refers to Chanragupta as Kshatriya.

A medieval inscription represents the Maurya clan as belonging to the solar race of Kshatriyas. It is stated that the Maurya line sprang from Suryavamsi Mandhatri, son of prince Yuvanashva of the solar race.

Alternate views on Maurya origin

Although most of the sources claim Chandragupta to be of east Indian origin, additional views have been proposed by an alternative school of scholars.

Some scholars relate Sandrocottos (or Androcottos) with Sisicottos of the Classical writings. Sisicottos was the ruler of Paropamise (Hindu Kush) who had helped the last Persian satrap Bessus of Bactria against Alexander but later co-operated with the latter throughout the Sogdian campaigns. During Alexander's campaign of Kabol and Swat valleys, prince Sisicottos had rendered great service to Alexander in reducing several principalities of the Ashvakas. During war of rock-fort of Aornos, where Alexander faced stiff resistance from the local people, Sisicottos was put in command of this fort of great strategical importance. Arrian calls Sisicottos the governor of Assakenoi.

It is however not clear at all whether this Sisicottos was same as Sandrocottos or if they were brothers or else they were related in someway. Dr J. W. McCrindle and Dr H. R. Gupta think that they both possibly belonged two different branches of the Ashvakas. Meri was probably another political centre of the Mor or Meros people.

It is asserted by some that the name Moriya or Maurya comes from the Mor (Modern name Koh-i-Mor i.e. Mor hill---alleged to be the ancient Meros of the classical writings) located in the Paropamisade region between river Kunar and Swat in the land of Ashvakas (This name, however, refers to the Meru mountain of Chitral, Tirich Mir; there also is a Deva-Meru, modern Diamar). It is claimed that since Chandragupta Maurya could have belonged to Mor he was called Moriya or Maurya after his motherland.

Dr Spooner observes: "After Alexander's death, when Chandragupta marched on Magadha, it was with largely the Persian army (Shaka-Yavana-Kamboja-Parasika-Bahlika) that he won the throne of India. The testimony of the Mudrarakshasa is explicit on this point, and we have no reason to doubt its accuracy in matter of this kind". Although this theory contradicts the Mudrarakshasa, which talks about Malayketu forming an alliance with Persians not Chandragupta. As per the Mudrarakshasa, Malayaketu, together with Rakshasa, the last minister of Nanda and his Persian allies wanted to invade Pataliputra, the capital of Chandragupta, though their alliance was undone by Chanakya, who managed to attract Rakshasa to the Maurya side.

A Jat writer B.S.Dehiya published a paper titled The Mauryas: Their Identity in 1979 and a book titled Jats the Ancient rulers in 1982, wherein he concludes that the Mauryas were the Muras or rather Mors and were jatt of Scythian or Indo-Scythian origin. It is claimed that the Jats still have Maur or Maud as one of their clan names.

The Rajputana Gazetteer describes the Moris as a Rajput clan.