(a) "Although epigraphy is an important source of reconstructing history yet there are limits to what it can reveal." Justify the statement with suitable arguments. OR (b) "Historians have used a variety of sources to reconstruct the history of the Mauryan empire and also explained the ways of their administration." Justify the statement with suitable arguments. ($5 + 3 = 8$)

Epigraphy — the study of inscriptions — is one of the richest sources for reconstructing early Indian history, yet historians recognise that it has real limitations, so it must be used with caution and alongside other evidence.

Why epigraphy is an important source

• Inscriptions are usually contemporary and durable, engraved on stone, metal or pillars, so they preserve reliable information.
• Ashoka's edicts reveal his ideas of dhamma, his administrative concerns and the extent of his empire.
• Land-grant and donative inscriptions record gifts to monasteries and temples, names of kings, dates and the working of the economy and society.

The limits of epigraphy

• Technical problems: letters are sometimes very faintly engraved, so reconstructions are uncertain; inscriptions are often damaged or letters are missing.
• Problems of meaning: the exact meaning of words used in inscriptions is not always clear, and some may be specific to a time or place.
• Incomplete record: not all inscriptions have been deciphered, published or translated, and many more have not survived at all — what we have may be only a fraction of what once existed.
• Selective content: inscriptions record what those who commissioned them — usually kings and elites — considered significant; the routine of agriculture and the everyday joys and sorrows of common people rarely find mention.
• Perspective: what appears politically or economically important to us today may not have been thought worth recording then.

Conclusion

• Because of these limits, historians have shifted from simply mining inscriptions for information to questioning what inscriptions do not tell us, and they combine epigraphic evidence with texts, coins and archaeology to build a fuller picture.

OR (b) Sources for the Mauryan empire and its administration

Historians reconstruct the Mauryan empire from a rich but varied body of sources, combining archaeology and literature to understand both its history and the ways of its administration.

Archaeological sources

• Ashoka's inscriptions and edicts, engraved on polished stone pillars and rocks, reveal his message of dhamma and the extent of his empire.
• The Sarnath lion capital and other sculptures show the skill of Mauryan artisans and later became a symbol of the nation.
• Material remains such as punch-marked coins and excavated settlements point to a growing economy.

Literary sources

• Megasthenes' Indica — the account of the Greek ambassador at Chandragupta's court — describes the capital, the army and administration.
• Kautilya's Arthashastra, a treatise on statecraft, outlines the ideal principles of governance and economy.
• Later Buddhist, Jaina and Puranic texts preserve traditions about the Mauryan rulers.

What they reveal about administration

• The empire had five major political centres — the capital Pataliputra and the provincial centres Taxila, Ujjayini, Tosali and Suvarnagiri.
• Megasthenes records a large army and an elaborate espionage system, managed through committees and subcommittees.
• Ashoka appointed officials called dhamma mahamatta to spread and enforce his moral code.

Limitations of the sources

• The evidence is scattered and often incomplete, and much of it reflects elite or foreign viewpoints rather than the lives of ordinary people.