No More Learning

The region corresponding to the modern province of Kandahār, as already
stated, is represented by Av. Harahvaiti (O. P. Hara(b) uvatī, Gk. ’Apaywor’a).
In the territory to the south-west, the river Helmand and the lagoon
districts of Seistān around the Hāmūn Lake (which the natives call Zirrah,
i. e. Av. Zrayah 'sea') are respectively known in the Avesta as the Haētu-
mant and as Zrayah Kāsaoya (cf. O. P. Zra(n)ka or Zara(n)ka, Gk.
Ζαράγγοι, Σαράγγοι, or Δραγγιανη) : while the river systems that empty
into this lagoon depression from the north are mentioned in Yasht xix, 67,
by names that can be identified exactly with their modern designations in
almost every case4. It is worth noting that the majority of these particu-
lar allusions are found in the Nineteenth Yasht, which is devoted to the
praise of the 'Kingly Glory' of the ancient line of the Kayanians, heroes
who are known to fame also through Firdausi's epic poem, the Shāhnāmah,
1 Cf. El. Bab. Parupar esanna, substituted for O. P. Gain)dāra in these versions
of the Bahietān Inscription, 1. 16 (6). It is quite possible to see in Av. iskata and
pouruta, Yt. X. 14 (cf. Yt. XIX, 3 ; Ys, X, 11), the names of two mountain branches
of the Hindu Kush and Paropanisus ; so, among other scholars, Sarre and Herzfeld,
Iranische Felsreliefs, Text, p. 31 ; somewhat differently Bartholomae, Air. Wb. coll.
376. 900.
2 For references to the passages in which the ancient Irānian names of the pro.
vinces occur, consult Bartholomae, Air. Wb. , under each of the separate Avestan or
Old Persian names involved.
3 The position of the Sattagydai is not quite certain ; according to Sarre and
Herzfeld, Iranische Felsreliefs, Text. pp. 27, 256, they are to be located in Ghazni and
Ghilzai ; but Dames Afghanistān in Encyclop. of Islam, I, 158, places them in the
Hazāra country further to the north-west. Other authorities differ; e. g. J. Marquart,
Untersuch. z, Gesch, ron. Eran, II, 175.
4 See M. A. Stein, Afghanistān in Avestic Geography, in The Academy, May 16,
1885, pp. 348-349 (also in Indian Antiquary XV, 21-23). Consult also Geiger, Grundr.
d. iran. Philol. II, 388, 392-4. On the possibility of locating the tribal name Av. Sāma,
cf. Gk. Oop. cvcol in Afghānistān, compare Sarre and Herzfeld, op. cit. p. 27; Marquart,
Unters. z. Gesch. v. Eran, II, 144, 176.


## p. 294 (#328) ############################################

294
[CH.
PERSIAN DOMINIONS IN N. INDIA
and from whom some of the families in the regions named still claim to be
descended.
With regard to Avestan place names that may be localised in parts
of Baluchistān there is more uncertainty. It is thought by some, for
example, but denied by others, that Av. Urvā (Vd. ), 10) may thus be a
locality near the Indian border. It might also be possible to suggest that
the Avestan name Peshana (Yt. v, 109) may still survive in the Baluchi
town near Pishin, near Quetta, but it would be difficult to prove this.
The quotations above given from Avestan sources serve at least to
show the interest or share which Persia had traditionally in Northern India
and the adjoining realms at a period prior to Achaemenian times, provided
we accept the view, already stated (p. 289), that the Avesta represents in
the main a spirit and condition that is pre-Achaemenian, however late
certain portions of the work may be? .
Prior to the seventh century B. O. , and for numerous ages afterwards,
there is further proof of relations between Persia and India through
the facts of trade in antiquity, especially through the early commerce
between India and Babylon, which, it is believed, was largely via the
Persian Gulfs. Persia’s share in this development, although hard to
determine, must have been significant even in days before the Achæmenian
Empire. Beginning with the sixth century B. C. , however, we enter upon
the more solid ground of recorded political bistory. From unquestioned
sources in the classics we know that the Medo-Persian kingdom, which was
paramount in Western Asia during that century, was brought into more or
less direct contact with India through the campaigns carried on in the east
of Irān by Cyrus the Great at some time between 558 and 530 B. C. , the
limits of his reign. The difficulty, however, of determining exactly when
this campaigning occurred and just how the domains between the
rivers Indus and Jaxartes came under the control or sphere of influence
of the Persian Empire is a problem accounted among the hardest in Irānian
history
In the following paragraphs of discussion, which may be considered
as a critical digression, statements or inferences from Herodotus, Ctesias,
and Xenophon, with other evidence, have to be compared with those
1 For references see Bartholomae, Air. Wb. col. 404.
2 Lack of space prevents including here certain supplementary allusions to India
in early times as found in the Pahlavi literature of the Sassanian era and in such later
sources as Firdausi's Shāhnāmah ; but they will appear in the Festschrift Windisch.
3 See J. Kennedy, The Early Commerce of India with Babylon, 700-300 B. C. , in
J. R. A. S. 1898, pp. 241-288 ; and cf. V. A. Smith, Early History of India, 3rd ed. , p. 28.
n. , Oxford, 1914 ; likewise W. H. Schoff, J A. O. S. XXXIII, 352; Rhys Davids,
Buddhist India, p. 104.
4 See Prasek, Geschichte der Weder und Perser, I, 224 ; and compare How and
Wells, Commentary on Herodotus. I, 177 (vol. I, 135), Oxford, 1912.


## p. 295 (#329) ############################################

XIV)
EARLY RELATIONS WITH INDIA
295
of Strabo and with the seemingly more conservative views of Arrian, in in-
terpreting the question of the possible or probable control of the Indian
borderland touching upon Irān.
In the first place, Herodotus says (1, 177) that 'Cyrus in person
subjugated the upper regions of Asia', conquering every nation without
passing one by'; but this statement is so broadly comprehensive that it
is difficult to particularise regarding North-western India except through in-
direct corroborative evidence. In fact, most of the allusions by Herodotus
to India refer to the times of Darius and Xerxes. It is certain, however,
that Cyrus, by his own personally conducted campaigns in the east, brought
the major part of Eastern Irān, especially the realms of Bactria, under
his sway? . His conquests included the districts of Drangiāna, Sattagydia,
and Gandaritis, verging upon the Indian borderland, though we may omit
for the moment the question of the extent of Cyrus's suzerainty over the
Indian frontier itself.
In the same connexion may be mentioned the fact that Ctesias, espe-
cially in the tenth book of his lost Persica, if we may judge from quota-
tions in later authors regarding the nations involved, appears to have
given an account of the campaigns by Cyrus in this regions. The stories,
moreover, regarding the death of Cyrus differ considerably4; but the
account recorded by Ctesias (fragm. 37, ed. Gilmore), which reflects local
Persian tradition, narrates that Cyrus died in consequence of a wound
inflicted in battle by 'an Indian,' in an engagement when the Indians were
fighting on the side of the Derbikes and supplied them with elephants. '
The Derbikes might therefore be supposed to have been located somewhere
near the Indian frontier, but the subject is still open to debate.
Xenophon, in his romance of the life of Cyrus, entitled Cyropaedia
(1, 1, 4), declares that Cyrus brought under his rule Bactrians and
Indians,' as foruning a part of his wide-spread empire. In the same work
(VIII, 6, 20-21) he furthermore says that Cyrus, after reducing Babylon,
'started on the campaign in which he is reported to have brought into
subjection all the nations from Syria to the Erythraean Sea' (i. e. the
1 i. e. the regions in the east, more distant from Greece and contrasted with
those subdued by Cyrus in Asia Minor through his general Harpaguz.
2 For the Bactrian and Çaka conquests, see Herodotus, I, 153 compared with I,
177 ; and consult Ctesias, Persica, fragms. 33-34 (ed. Gilmore, pp 127-129). For
certain problems raised by the quostion of the Çakas, see F. W. Thomas, J. R. A. S.
1906, pp. 181-216, 460- 164.
? See the passages in Gilmore's edition of the Persica, pp. 133-133 ; also G.
Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, IV, 371, n. 22 ; but of Marquart, Unters, z. Gesch.
v. Eran. II, 139.
4 Consult G. Rawlinson, op. cit. IV, 378-380 ; E. Katz, Cyrus des Perserkonigs
Abstammung, Kriege, und Tod, Klagenfurt, 1895 ; Pràsek, Gesch. der Meter und
Perser, I, 236, n. 1,
5 The notices of classical authors regarding this widely distributed people are
collected by Tomaschek, art. Derbikes, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie ; V,
273-238, Stuttgart, 1905.


## p. 296 (#330) ############################################

296
[CH.
PERSIAN DOMINIONS IN N. INDIA
Indian Ocean); and for that reason he repeats that 'the Erythraean Sea
bounded the empire of Cyrus on the east. ' This reference, though inde-
finite, certainly contains a direct allusion to control over the regions bor.
dering on the Indian Ocean ; but it would be unwarranted to interpret it
as indicating any sovereignty over the mouth of the Indus, such as could
be claimed in regard to the Persian sea-route to India in the time of
Darius and his successors.
In a general way, however, as possibly supporting the idea of some
sort of suzerainty over Northern India by Cyrus, we may note the fact
that Xenophon (Cyrop. vi. 2, 1-)l) introduces an account of an embassy
sent to Cyrus by an Indian king. This embassy conveyed a sum of money
for which the Persian king had asked, and ultimately served him in a deli-
cate matter of espionage before the war against Croesus and the campaigns
in Asia Minor. It may be acknowledged that the value of this particular
allusion is slight, and that the Cyropaedia is a source of minor importance
in this particular regard ; but yet it is worth citing as showing, through
Xenophon, a common acceptance of the idea that Cyrus was in a position
to expect to receive direct consideration, if not vassalage, from the over-
lord of Northern India.
Descending to the Hellenistic age, when the Greeks began to have
knowledge of India at first hand, we find that two of the principal autho-
rities, Nearchus, who was Alexander's admiral, and Megasthenes, the
ambassador of Seleucus I at the court of Chandragupta, are at variance
regarding an attempted conquest of India by Cyrus.
The account of Nearchus, as preserved by Arrian (An ab. vi, 24, 2-3),
links the names of Cyrus and of Semiramis, the far-famed Assyrian Queen,
and states that Alexander, when planning his march through Gedrosia
(Baluchistān), was told by the inhabitants that no one had ever before
escaped with an army by this route, excepting Semiramis on her flight from
India. And she, they said, escaped with only twenty of her army, and
Cyrus, the son of Cambyses, in his turn with only seven. For Cyrus also
came into these parts with the purpose of invading India, but was preven-
ted through losing the greater part of his army, owing to the desolate and
impracticable character of the route? '
Megasthenes, on the other hand, as quoted by Strabo (Geogr. xv,
1, 6, pp. 686-687 Cas. ), declares that the Indians had never engaged in
foreign warfare, nor had they ever been invaded and conquered by a
foreign power, except by Hercules and Dionysus and lately by the Mace-
donians. After mentioning several famous conquerors who did not
1 In regard to the term •Erythraean Sea' as a designation for the Indian Ocean,
see W. H. Schoff, J. A. 0. S. XXXIII, 349-362.
2 Strabo, Geogr. xv, 1, 5 p. 686 Cas, (and cf. xv 2, 5 p. 722 Cas. ), likewise
quotes Nearchus but merely to the effect that Cyrus escaped with seven men.
1


## p. 297 (#331) ############################################

XIV]
CYRUS
297
attack India, he continues : Semiramis, however, died before (carrying
out) her undertaking ; and the Persians, although they got mercenary
troops from India, namely the Hydrakes?
, did not make an expedition into
that country, but merely approached it when Cyrus was marching against
the Massagetae. '
We may also take megasthenes to be the authority for the statement
of Arrian (Indica, ix, 10 ; and cf. v, 4-7) that, according to the Indians, no
one before Alexander, with the exception of Dionysus and Hercules, had
invaded their country, 'not even cyrus, the son of Cambyses, although he
marched against the Scythians and showed himself in other respects the
most enterprising of Asiatic monarchs? . '
It appears, therefore, that both Nearchus and Megasthenes deny, the
former by implication and the latter expressly, that Cyrus ever reached
India, although Nearchus regards him as having made an unsuccessful
campaign in Baluchistān. We must not, however, overlook the fact that
Strabo and Arrian, our proximate sources, consider the river Indus to be
the western boundary of India proper ; and the foregoing accounts
consequently leave open the possibility that Cyrus made conquests in the
borderland west of the Indus itself. Indeed, Arrian elsewhere (Indica
1, 1-3) expressly states that the Indians between the river Indus and the
river Cophēn, or Kābul, 'were in ancient times subject to the Assyrians
afterwards to the Medes, and finally submitted to the Persians and
paid to Cyrus, the son of Cambyses, the tribute that he imposed on
them. '
In regard to the supposed campaign of Cyrus in Baluchistān, we may
note that Arrian (Anab. 111, 27, 4-5) mentions the story, recorded elsewhere
in connexion with Alexander's exploits, that Cyrus had received substantial
help from the Ariaspian people (a tribe dwelling in a region that
corresponds to the modern Seistān) when he was waging war in these
territories against the Scythians'. This folk received from him in conse-
quence the honorific title Euergetae, 'Benefactors,' a term answering to the
Persian designation Orosangae mentioned by Herodotus (viii, 85).
One further point may be cited from a classical source. Pliny,
Hist. Nat, vi, 23 (25) credits Cyrus with having destroyed a city called
Capisa in Capisene, a place supported to be represented by Kafshān
1 i. e. Oxydrakai or Kehudrakas in the Punjab ; see Chapter xv.
2 Cf. also Justin, Historiae Philippicae, 1, 2, 9, who says that no one invaded
India except Semiramis and Alexander.
3 Arrian, Anab. III, 27, 4-5 ; Strabo, Geogr. xv. 2, 10, p. 724 Cas. ; Diodorus
Siculus Bibl. Hist. xvii. 81, 1:Quintus Curtius, Hist. Al:x. vii, 3, 1-3, For a special
consideration of this subject, see F. W. Thomas, Sakastana, in J. R. A. S. 1906, pp. 181.
216, 460-464.
4 For the interpretation of this word as 'active in spirit,' cf. Thomas, op. cit.
p. 196.


## p. 298 (#332) ############################################

298
[ch.
PERSIAN DOMINIONS INN, INDIA
>
(Kaoshān, Kushān) in the modern Ghorband valley district, somewhat
north of Kābul, and in any case it could not have been from the Indian
frontieri.
To sum up, we may say that, even if there are just grounds for
doubting that Cyrus actually invaded Northern India, there can be no
question that he did campaign in the territories corresponding to the
present Afghānistān and Baluchistān. It seems likely that Alexander's
historians may have been inclined to minimise the accomplishments of
Cyrus the Great, especially in the light of his apparent set-back in Gedrosia",
in order to bring into greater prominence the achievements of the famous
Greek invader.
The view above stated, to the effect that Cyrus advanced at least as
far as the borders of the Indus region, will be better understood from the
ensuing paragraphs, in which the holdings of his successors and their
control of regions integral to the Indian Empire of to-day are shown. The
main point of this opinion is likewise in agreement with such an authority
on the subject as Eduard Meyer, who expressly says : Cyrus appears to
have subjugated the Indian tribes of the Paropanisus (Hindu Kush) and in
the Kābul valley, especially the Gandarians ; Darius himself advanced as
far as the Indus. '
Cambyses, whose activities were almost wholly engaged in the con-
quest of Egypt, could hardly have extended the Persian dominions in the
direction of India, even though he may have been occupied at the beginning
of his reign in maintaining suzerainty over the extensive realm inherited
from his father. Xenophon, or his continuator (Cyrop. VIII, 8, 2), speaks of
almost immediate uprisings by subject nations after the death of Cyrus,
and these revolutions may have caused the postponement of the Egyptian
expedition of Cambyses until the fifth year of his reign, 526-525 B. C. ;
but it would be hazardous to suggest any direct connexion of India with
these presumable campaigns. Herodotus makes two very broad statements;
one (111, 88, cf. 1, 177) to the effect that, when Darius became king after
1 See Thomas, J. R. A. S. 1906, pp. 191, n. 1, 460-461, and the works there cited,
especially E. J. Rapson, J. R. A. S. 1905, pp. 783-784 ; J. Marquart, Erānšahr; pp. 280-
281 ; and cf. idem, Unters. 2. Gesch u. Eran, II, 180, Leipzig, 1905. Capisa is the
Kiapi-shi of Hiuen Tsiang and the Ki-pin of other Chinese texts. The name is found in
the first element of the compound O. P. Kāpisa-kāni the name of a stronghold mention-
ed in the inscriptions of Darius (Bh. 3, 61). Marquart (Unters. II, 180), with others,
inclines to regard the two places as identical, although objections may be raised that
Kāpisa-lāni was located in Arachosia (the El. version, 3, 37, 25 expressly adding in
Ararhosia'). Still much depends on determining the extent of the confines of Arachosia
in the time of Darius.
2 Cf. the passages of Arrian and Strabo cited above, p. 296, und n. 2.
3 Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, III, 97 with note. See also Max Kiessling,
Zur Geschichte der ersten Regierungsj ihre des Darius Hystaspis, Quellen u. Forsch. z. alt.
Gesch. u. Geogr. p. 28, hrsg. W. Sieglin, Heft 2, Leipzig, 1900-1901.


## p. 299 (#333) ############################################

XIV]
CYRUS : CAMBYSES
299
>
the death of Cambyses and the assassination of the false Smerdis, ‘all the
peoples of Asia, with the exception of the Arabians [who were already
allied as friends), were subject to him, inasmuch as they had been subdued
by Cyrus and afterwards by Cambyses in his turn. ' Again he says (111, 67),
with reference to the death of the usurper Smerdis, that ‘all the peoples
of Asia felt regret, except the Persians themselves. Although it would be
a forced interpretation of these passages to construe them as including
India proper among the subject nations of the Persian Empire', it seems
clear, nevertheless, that Darius, when he assumed the sovereignty in 522
B. C. , had, as an Achaemenian, an authentic claim to the realms imme-
diately bordering upon India, if not to that land itself.
For the reign of Darius (522-486 B. c. ) we have documentary evidence
of the highest value in the inscriptions executed by that monarch's com-
mand and containing his own statements. From these inscriptions,
especially when they are compared one with another, we can trace the
general outline of the Persian dominion in Northern and North-western
India in the time of Darius, and we can even infer that he annexed the
valley of the Indus early in his reign, a conclusion which is confirmed by
the testimony of various passages in Herodotus. The three records in
stone which require special consideration in this connexion are the following:
1. The famous Bahistān Rock Inscription (1, 16-17; 2, 7-8 ; 3,54-76),
which is presumably to be assigned to a period between the years 520 and
518 B. C. , with the exception of the fifth column which was added later.
2. The second of the two Old Persian block tablets sunk in the wall
of the Platform at Persepolis (Dar, Pers. e. 15-18). It was probably carved
between 518 and 515 B. C.
3. The upper of the two inscriptions chiselled around the Tomb of
Darius in the cliff at Naksb-i-Rustam (NR. a 23-26), which must have
been incised some time after 515 B. 03.
1 Equally doubtful would be the attempt to connect the name of Camhyses
(0. P. Kaſm)būjia) with the frontier people of Kamboja, though consult the references
given by A. Hoffmann-Kutschke, Die altpersischen Keilinschriften, p. 21, Stuttgart,
1909 ; and idem, Indogermanisches, in Recueil de Travaux égypt. et assyr. 31, 66.
2 A mutilated clay tablet, Dar. Sus, e, exhibits the remains of a list of provinces,
which seems, however, to have been the same as that which is found in NR, a.
3 The dates assigned to these three inscriptions by different scholars vary some.
what] especially in regard to the record on the Bahistān Rock, although they are in.
cluded approximately within the limits given. In respect to dating the Bahistān edict,
much depends upon the interpretation of the 0. P. phrase hamahyāyaſh) tharda (h);
for if, following Weissbach, we take it to mean ‘in one and the same year,' all the
events chronicled must have taken place within about a year after Darius succeeded
to the throne, whereas otherwise they may be regarded as extending over two or three
or even more years. See F. H. Weissbach Zur neubabylon. u. achämenid. Chronologie,
in Z. D. M. G, LXII. 640-641 ; idem, Keilinschr. d. Achämeniden, pp. Ixix-lxxiii, Leipzig,
1911 ; idem, Zum bab. Kalender, in Hil precht Anniversury Volume, pp. 285-290 (with
[P. T. O.


## p. 300 (#334) ############################################

300
[ch.
PERSIAN DOMINIONS IN N. INDIA
The Bahistān Inscription itself (1, 13-17) does not include India in
the list of the twenty-three provinces which 'came to Darius,' as the Old
Persian text says, or obeyed him, as the Babylonian version expresses
it'. The inference to be drawn, therefore, is that the Indus region did not
form a part of the empire of Darius at the time when the great rock
record was made, though it was incorporated shortly afterwards, as is
shown by the two other inscriptions in question. Both of these latter (Dar.
Pers. e. 17-18, and NR. a, 25) expressly mention Hi(n)du, that is, the
Punjab territory, as a part of the realm. The Northern Indian domain must
therefore have been annexed some time between the promulgation of the
Bahistān edict and the completion of the two records just cited. The pre-
sent tendency of scholarly opinion is to assign the Indus conquest to about
the year 518 B. C.
In addition to the evidence of the inscriptions, the fact that a portion
of Northern India was incorporated into the Achaemenian Empire under
Darius is further attested by the witness of Herodotus, who, in giving a list
of the twenty satrapies or governments that Darius established, expressly
states that the Indian realm was the 'twentieth division' (Hdt. 11), 94, cf. 111,
89). Some inference regarding its wealth and extent may furthermore
be gathered from the tribute which it paid into the Persian treasury.
Herodotus is our authority on this point, when he explicitly narrates (111, 94):
‘The population of the Indians is by far the greatest of all the people that
we know; and they paid a tribute proportionately larger than all the rest -
[the sum of] three hundred and sixty talents of gold dust. ' This immense
tribute was equivalent to over a million pounds sterling, and the levy formed
about one-third of the total amount imposed upon the Asiatic provinces.
All this implies the richness of Persia's acquisition in annexing the northern
territory of Hindustān*; and it may also be brought into connexion with
the curious story of the gold-digging ants in this region, which Herodotus
tells directly afterwards (in, 102-105).
There is likewise another passage in Herodotus (IV, 44) which affords
further proof, both of the Persian annexation or control of the valley of the
Indus from its upper course to the sea, including therefore the Punjab and
Contd. from p. 299.
Table). Leipzig, 1909 ; refer also to King and Thompson,, Inscr. Behistūn, pp. xli-xliii;
Prāśek, Gesch, d. Med. u. Pers. 11, 37-38 ; Sarre and Herzfeld, Iranische Felsreliefs,
pp. 17-33, 106-107 ; cf. also Justi, Grundr. d. iran. Philol. II. 430.
1 Cf Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achämeriden, p. 11, n. 6 a.
2 See Sarre and Herzfeld, Iranische Felsreliefs, pp. 106-107 (with referen-
ces); Max Kiessling, Zur Geschichte. . .