Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9.s1: Name and Etymology

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9.s1

Language
English

Name and Etymology

c9.s1.1

The first scholar to propose the etymology of the word Licchavi was the Buddhist commentator, Buddhaghosa (c. A.D. 450-500).³ He gives two derivations of the term. Both etymologies might have satisfied the intellectual curiosity of fifth century folk or even those of mediaeval times, despite the fact that they are fanciful, unscientific and unscholarly. Several modern historians who have written about the Licchavis discuss their non-monarchical form of government and their elaborate and complicated procedure of administering justice, but none has suggested a reasonable and scientific derivation of the name of the people whose peculiar form of government they so admire.

c9.s1.2

³ *Par. Jot.*, i, pp. 158-65; *Pap. Sūd.*, i, 258ff.

c9.s1.3

The name occurs in various forms throughout the Pāli Canon, and in Jaina texts, Sanskrit literature, Chinese sources and Gupta inscriptions. In the *Divyāvadāna*,⁴ and to a lesser degree in the Pāli Canon and the Gupta inscriptions,⁵ the standard form is *Licchavi*. Kauṭilya,¹ Manu,² the Bhitari inscription of Skanda Gupta ³ and the spurious Gayā grants of Samudra Gupta ⁴ give the word with the vowel ‘i’ instead of ‘a’ in the second syllable, viz. *Licchivi*. In the *Mahāvastu* the usual spelling is *Lecchavi*.⁵ The Chinese translators of the Buddhist Sanskrit literature also employ characters which indicate that they knew the word in two forms: *Licchavi* and *Lecchavi*.⁶ This form bears a very close resemblance to the Prākrit form *Licchaī* that is found in the Jaina Canon, which probably contains material transmitted from a period before the time of Candragupta Maurya.

c9.s1.4

⁴ *Divyāvadāna*, pp. 55-6, 136.

c9.s1.5

⁵ Fleet, *CII*, iii, pp. 8, 27, 43, 50, etc.

c9.s1.6

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, bk. xi, pp. 376-9.

c9.s1.7

² *Manu*, x, 22.

c9.s1.8

³ Fleet, *CII*, iii, p. 53.

c9.s1.9

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 256.

c9.s1.10

⁵ *Mahāvastu*, i, p. 254.

c9.s1.11

⁶ Watters, *BRWW*, ii, p. 77.

c9.s1.12

Although the word Licchavi occurs in no less than four forms, the majority of scholars have accepted *Licchavi* as standard on the authority of the Pāli Canon, the *Divyāvadāna* and the Gupta inscriptions.⁷ Trusting the same sources and the previous authorities, we also accept the standard form *Licchavi*. In order to establish the derivation of the term, Buddhaghosa gives a particular legend about the origin of the Licchavis. Briefly, the story tells how the Queen of Banaras brought forth a lump of flesh instead of a normal baby, which she then hurried to lose in the currents of the Ganges. A hermit caught the basket and looked after the lump. Within six weeks it developed into a boy “yellow like gold,” and a girl “white as silver.” By the strength of his compassion and the warmth of his affection, the fingers of the hermit were changed into breasts. From them milk passed into the babies like a “clear nectar into a Maṇi jewel.” Since both inside and out the brilliance ⁸ of their skins was the same, the hermit gave the children the name of *Licchavi*. Buddhaghosa mentions other possible interpretations of the name as meaning “thin-skin” (*Līna-chavī*) or even as “in the same skin” or with “no-skin” (*Ni-cchavī*), in connexion with these two children.⁹ These interpretations may be a metaphorical exaggeration implying very fair complexion. If taken literally they do not make sense—can there be children with no skin?

c9.s1.13

⁷ S. Lévi, *La Népal*, ii, pp. 85-90; *DPPN*, ii, pp. 779-82; Altekar, *State and Government*, pp. 125ff; Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, pp. 19ff; Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, pp. 221ff.; Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, pp. 40ff.; Law, *TAI*, p. 294, etc.

c9.s1.14

⁸ *Cf.* Lévi, *op. cit.*, ii, pp. 89ff.

c9.s1.15

⁹ *Par. Jot.*, i, pp. 158-65. For text of the passage, see Appx. A, p. 244.

c9.s1.16

In connection with this, Sylvain Lévi comments that the story of Buddhaghosa is an obvious attempt to connect the name with the word *chavī*, meaning *brilliance*, and points to the similarity of this legend with another in the *Mahābhārata* recording the birth of the one hundred sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra.¹ Other than noting this similarity, Lévi neither suggests an alternative etymology for the term, nor comments further on Buddhaghosa's interpretation. Prof. Rhys Davids,² D. R. Bhandarkar,³ K. P. Jayaswal,⁴ R. C. Majumdar,⁵ B. C. Law,⁶ Malalasekera⁷ and A. S. Altekar⁸ say nothing about the term except to mention it and discuss the various forms in which it occurs. Those who give the etymology (Sylvain Lévi, Malalasekera and Law) only report the derivation suggested by Buddhaghosa. In this connection B.C. Law simply says that “the word (Licchavi) is rather peculiar and defies easy analysis by the ordinary rules of grammar—hence the mythological interpretation by the commentator”.⁹ The etymology given by Buddhaghosa is evidently mythological, legendary and divorced from historical fact. It is, however, the only etymology we have. During the last 1,500 years no scholar has tackled the problem, and a solution seems long overdue.

c9.s1.17

¹ *Op. cit.*, ii, p. 89; *cf. DPPN*, ii, p. 782.

c9.s1.18

² *Buddhist India*, pp. 17ff.

c9.s1.19

³ *Car. Lecs.*

c9.s1.20

⁴ *Hindu Polity*, pp. 40ff.

c9.s1.21

⁵ *Corporate Life.*

c9.s1.22

⁶ *SKTAI.*

c9.s1.23

⁷ *DPPN*, ii, pp. 779-82.

c9.s1.24

⁸ *State and Government.*

c9.s1.25

⁹ *SKTAI*, p. 18.

c9.s1.26

Following Smith's suggestion that the Licchavis represented an intrusive Mongol element in the Indian population it might be thought that the word was of non-Indian origin, but after consultation with competent authorities we can find no counterpart of this word in Tibeto-Burman languages.

c9.s1.27

We suggest¹⁰ that the name Licchavi is an Indo-Aryan one, the Sanskrit equivalent of which would be *Ṛkṣavin*. *Ṛkṣa* means “bear”,¹¹ and in Māgadhī Prākrit might take the form *liccha*. The form *Licchavi* which we find in the sources, is consistent with Prākrit of the eastern variety.¹ We suggest that the Licchavis were a people who came down to the plains from the mountainous region north of the Ganges. The region abounded in *licchas* or bears (Hindi *rīch*), and hence the inhabitants took up or were given the name of Licchavis. We have no reference to them in the Vedic literature prior to the Buddhist period. If they were, as we believe, an Aryan tribe, they must have changed their name when they migrated to the Himālayan foothills. There is ground to suppose from their well-developed republican institutions and their refined system of judicial administration at the time of the Buddha, as well as their equal status with the Kurus, the Pāñcālas, etc., in the *Arthaśāstra*,² that they had a long previous history.

c9.s1.28

¹⁰ I am indebted to my teacher Professor Basham, for this suggestion.

c9.s1.29

¹¹ Monier Williams, *op. cit.*, *s.v.*

c9.s1.30

¹ *Cf.* Appx. B, p. 245.

c9.s1.31

² Chap. xi, p. 279.

c9.s1.32

Although our etymology gives the correct form of their name as *Ṛkṣavī* we have no evidence that they were ever commonly referred to as such, and, on our hypothesis, their name passed very early into literary Sanskrit and Pāli in its Prākrit form. Therefore, we prefer to refer to them by their usual appellation of *Licchavis*.

c9.s1.33

*Origin*

c9.s1.34

V. A. Smith believed that the "Licchavis were really a Tibetan tribe which settled in the plains during pre-historic times." ³ In his opinion, "much more significant are the undoubted similarities between the customs of the Tibetans and those of the Licchavis, which are recorded in the important matters of sepulture and judicial procedure." ⁴ He further adds, "it will be observed that in Tibet, as at Vaiśālī, cremation, burial and exposure are all practised. Similiarly, the Mongols are said to dispose of their dead in all these ways." ⁵ Smith bases this argument on the authority of Turnour ⁶ and Sarat Chandra Das,⁷ and comments that "one will agree with him (Das) after reading both these accounts (of Turnour and Das) that the ancient procedure at Vaiśālī is substantially identical with the modern procedure at Lhāsā.'' ¹ We are unable to trace the article by Das on which Smith based his hypothesis, and it seems never to have been published. Moreover, no theory can be soundly established merely by comparing an ancient system with a modern one. The detailed legal procedure of ancient Vesāli may well have been a mere ideal in the mind of the commentator Buddhaghosa, based on a tradition transmitted over centuries and containing recollections of a legal system which was actually much more simple.

c9.s1.35

³ *IA*, xxxii, p. 233. We do not consider here another rather fantastic theory of S. C. Vidyabhusana that the Licchavis were of Iranian origin (*IA*, xxxvii, 1908, pp. 78ff.), since this is evidently impossible. The old theory of B. H. Hodgson, that the Licchavis were "Scythians" (*Collected Essays*, pp. 17ff.) seems equally impossible in the light of our present-day knowledge of the Śakas and other central Asian invaders of India.

c9.s1.36

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 233.

c9.s1.37

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 234.

c9.s1.38

⁶ *JASB*, 1838, pp. 993ff.

c9.s1.39

⁷ Das never contributed such an article on the "Tibetan Jails and Criminal Punishment'' in the *JASB*. See *Index of Publications of the Society 1788-1953*, i, pt. 1, 1956, under S. C. Das, pp. 84-6.

c9.s1.40

¹ Smith, *IA.*, xxxii p. 235.

c9.s1.41

Smith makes only one other significant point in favour of the Tibetan origin of the Licchavis. This is their system of exposure of the dead for which he finds Tibetan parallels. The argument is quite inconclusive as it may equally well be used in favour of their Persian origin. Furthermore, four different ways of disposing of the dead, one of which was exposure, were known to the Vedic people.² Exposure was also so widespread among ancient and primitive peoples that no valid inferences can be drawn from it. From these arguments it is extremely difficult to associate the Licchavis with the Tibetans.

c9.s1.42

² *AV*, xviii, 2, 34; xii, 3, 22.

c9.s1.43

H. C. Raychaudhuri argued that ''the Licchavis, though originally non-Aryans, or foreigners, ranked as Kshatriyas, when they were admitted into the fold of Brāhmanism like the Dravidians referred to in Manu's śloka and the Gurjara-Pratihāras of mediaeval times.'' ³ We have suggested above that there is no solid evidence to prove that the Licchavis were either non-Aryans or foreigners. Raychaudhuri's view is not acceptable.

c9.s1.44

³ *PHAI*, p. 123.

c9.s1.45

In this question the crucial point seems to have been missed. We cannot determine the origin of a people unless we can link them to a certain ethnic group or linguistic category. The fact that the word Licchavis seems to be of Indo-European origin, suggests that they had at least some Aryan blood or had come much under Aryan influence. The Aryans had been moving eastwards by stages since they entered India. There were also associations with non-Aryan elements of the Indian population, to which the stocks that had migrated to the greatest distances were especially exposed. This may have played some part in the fact that the *Prācyas*, or easterners, were referred to “in a hostile or contemptuous tone.” The writer of the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* and Manu refer to the *Prācyas* and the Licchavis respectively, in such a tone.¹ This may also show that the Licchavis had customs of which people raised in the Vedic tradition did not approve; hence they are absolutely neglected in the pre-Buddhist period.

c9.s1.46

¹ Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 394.

c9.s1.47

Oldenberg says that “a series of the most important race-names given in the *Ṛik-Saṁhitā* have vanished wholly, or as good as wholly, in the *Brāhmaṇa*: e.g., the Pūrus, Turvaṣas, Yadus, Tritsus, and so on. Vice-versa, of the names of Kurus and Pāñcālas, which stand in the front in the *Brāhmaṇa*, not one is named directly at least, in the *Saṁhitā*. There arose apparently, on the one side new names instead of the old (note the well-known change of Krivi and Pāñcāla), and on the other, in the many migrations and struggles in numerous places, the countless small stocks of the older days cohered into few greater peoples; naturally such events might easily necessitate a change in the names.”² It is by no means impossible that the Licchavis were a branch of some well known Vedic tribe which changed its name as a result of migration. Furthermore, a passage in the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta* refers to the earlier customs and institutions of the Licchavis, thus making them an older people. The Buddha says that they will prosper “so long as they enact nothing already established, abrogate nothing that has been already enacted, and act in accordance with the ancient institutions of the Vajjians, as established in former days”.³

c9.s1.48

² *Buddha*, pp. 401-05.

c9.s1.49

³ *Dīgha*, ii, p. 74.

c9.s1.50

There is yet another point which strongly supports the view that the Licchavis were linked with the Indo-Aryans. Throughout the Pāli literature the Licchavis are called by the *gotra*-names of the Brāhmaṇas, indicating the close connection of the two. Rhys Davids’ comment is pertinent in regard to this. He states that “all that we can fairly conclude is that the clans claimed, by the very use of these names (gottas), to be descended from the same ancestors as the Brahmans, who also bore the names; and that the claim was admitted to be well founded".¹ Of course, in later times many non-Aryan peoples accepted the *gotra*-system. But from this it is clear that the Licchavis, like other peoples of northeast India, were at least greatly influenced by the Aryan way of life and followed some of their customs. This strongly points to their kinship with the Indo-Aryan group of people.

c9.s1.51

¹ *Dīgha*, tr. i, p. 196, (*Intro. to the Mahāli Sutta*); *cf.* Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 414.

c9.s1.52

The most probable origin of the Licchavis, as we envisage it, is that they were an Aryan tribe or a branch of one, originally called by a different name. During the Brāhmaṇa period, when the Kuru-Pāñcāla area became too congested and when kings became more autocratic, there was a considerable migration to the east. This is evident from the story of Videgha Māthava contained in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*.² The Licchavis broke away from their kinsfolk and moved eastwards to find a better home. They most probably moved along the Himālayan foothills as suggested by Grierson,³ Rhys Davids,⁴ and Kosambi.⁵ Grierson pointed out the important fact that, even now, the dialects of Rājasthān have a close resemblance to those spoken along the Himālayas, not only in Nepal but as far west, at least, as Campā. This would tend to show that their ancestors must have been living close together when they began their wanderings to the east along the foot of the mountains from the Panjab or northwest by way of Kosala to the Sakyan country, and thence through Tirhut to Magadha and Aṅga. In the south they went down the Indus and up to Avanti. Both started from the northern Panjab, and probably neither migration followed the Ganges route.⁶

c9.s1.53

² *Śat., Br.*, i, 4, 1-10; *cf.* Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 398.

c9.s1.54

³ *JRAS*, 1901, p. 808.

c9.s1.55

⁴ *Buddhist India*, pp. 32-3.

c9.s1.56

⁵ *Introduction to the Study of Indian History*, pp. 116ff.

c9.s1.57

⁶ Grierson, *op. cit.*, p. 808; *cf.* *Buddhist India*, pp. 32-3.

c9.s1.58

We suggest, therefore, that the Licchavis, before descending to the Videhan country, stayed in the hills in some region of the Nepalese Terāi as if watching the political developments in Videha and the neighbouring region. They might have reached this region about the time that Janaka was ruling over Mithilā (8th-7th century B.C.). As they stayed in a region which abounded in bears and had broken off from their earlier folk, they dropped their older name and started calling themselves by a new name—the Licchavis. They soon advanced south towards the Ganges and first occupied the region of Videha, then Vesāli, the land previously controlled by the Videhas.¹ The Licchavian concentration of power at Vesāli was most probably the second and final stage in their search for a new home. Before the Licchavis occupied Vesāli it was an insignificant place, but it became the biggest city, the stronghold and the capital of the Licchavis. The Ganges separated them from the Magadhan Kingdom, and occasional feuds between these two great and rival powers persisted. They may well have annoyed the Magadhan king over a Ganges port held by them in common. This port is reported by Buddhaghosa to have been a bone of contention between the Licchavis and Ajātasattu.² Both Bimbisāra and his son are said to have been hostile to them.³ Ajātasattu’s fortification at Pāṭaligāma was mainly designed to check the Vajjian invasions⁴ and the campaigns against Ajātasattu were directed from Vesāli, the metropolis of the confederacy.⁵

c9.s1.59

¹ Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 5; Bhandarkar, *Car. Lecs.*, p. 156.

c9.s1.60

² *Sum. Vil.*, ii, p 516; cf. Basham, *Ājīvikas*, pp. 71ff.

c9.s1.61

³ See below, pp. 121ff.

c9.s1.62

⁴ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 86ff; *Mahāvagga*, pp. 243-4.

c9.s1.63

⁵ *Niryāvalikā*, pp. 27ff.

c9.s1.64

Our theory seems to place the Licchavis in the proper historical context and explains the silence of the pre-Buddhist sources about them. Smith’s suggestion of their Tibetan origin, seems less substantial than our theory that they were an offshoot of the Brāhmanic peoples of Madhyadeśa. Though this is admittedly based chiefly on the slender evidence of the etymology of their name, it fits the known historical facts of the period better than any other hypothesis.

c9.s1.65

If our hypothesis about the derivation of Licchavi is accepted, some scholars may be inclined to see in this word evidence of totemism. We should note that according to Buddhist tradition the Mauryas, said to be survivors of the massacre of the Sakyas, took their name similarly from the most striking wild life in the territory in which they settled. We see no need to postulate survivals of totemism in these names, unless perhaps in the most attenuated sense, since there is no clear evidence of true totemism anywhere in the whole Vedic and Buddhist literature.

Linked texts (14)