365bet娱乐

214
啶�啷佮ぐ啶距ぃ啶�啷� - [pur膩峁嘺m - ] 笔鲍搁膧狈础
[Vol. VI., No. 1
before the Greeks came to be called Yavanas, there were non-
Greek Yavanas - just as in medieval India, though in a different
way, the label "Yavana" was not confined to the Greeks. This
is a theme well worth discussing at some length, and the more
we explore it the more surprises we are likely to encounter,
prompting changes in several aspects of ancient Indian history.
One of the surprises Sircar himself has touched on in
passing the Puranic description of both the Yavanas and the
Kambojas as having "shaven heads". And what renders this
description all the more a challenge to the exclusive Greek-
Yavana equation is that it merely reiterates what the Ganapatha
on Panini's rule II. 1. 72 says of these two tribes: k膩mbojamunda岣�
yavanamundah. If this is authentic Paninian material, what
happens to the usual interpretation of that grammarian's yavan膩ni
as an allusion to the Greek script? Here are deep waters indeed
and we cannot launch on them at the moment. It is an enterprise
to which we may well invite Sircar and Agrawala-particularly
Agrawala who has not mentioned this part of the Ganapatha in
his famous book.
KAMBOJA
By
D. C. SIRCAR
My article entitled 'The Land of the Kambojas' appeared in
this journal, Vol. V, No. 2, July 1963, pp. 251-57. I pointed
out that the Kambojas, who lived in A艣oka's empire and were
his subjects, could not have been inhabitants of the Pamirs, where
some scholars locate the Kamboja country, since the Pamirs lay
outside the Mauryan empire. It was also suggested that the
Aramaic version of the Kandahar Rock Edict of A艣oka was meant
for the Kamboja subjects of the Maurya emperor, so that the
concentration of the Kamboja population in the Maurya empire
was in the region around Kandahar, which was apparently a
district of A艣oka's dominions.
Elsewhere in the same issue of the journal (pp. 355-59),
Dr. V. S. Agrawala has disagreed with me and has supported the
location of the Kamboja land in the Pamirs. Unfortunately, Dr.
Agrawala does not categorically state that the Kambojas were
not A艣oka's subjects and that they lived outside his empire or
that the Pamirs formed a part of the dominions of A艣oka.
Consequently, much of what he has said is not really relevant
while many of his statements and suggestions appear to me quite
clearly wrong.
In the first half of his note, Dr, Agrawala enumerates three
points of discussion and these we shall take up first for our
comments.
1. This point may probably be ignored since Dr. Agrawala
himself admits that it is not useful for a definite location' of the
Kamboja country.
1. Cf. hide raja-visavaspi Yona-Kamboyesu, etc. (Shahbazgarhi) in Rock
Edict XIII.