________________
326
TRIBES IN ANCIENT INDIA him if they found him innocent; if they held him guilty, they transferred him to certain officers called Suttadhāras, that is, officials who kept up the sūtra (sutta) or thread of (ancient) law and custom. They in their turn made further investigation, and if satisfied that the accused was innocent, they discharged him. If, however, they considered him guilty, he was made over to the Atthakūlakā 1 (lit. 'the eight castes or tribes') which was evidently a judicial institution composed of judges representing the eight kūlas or tribes of the confederacy.
The Atthakūlakā, if satisfied of the guilt of the accused, made him over to the Senāpati or commander of the army, who delivered him over to the Uparājā or sub-king, and the latter in his turn handed him over to the Rājā. The Rājā released the accused if he was innocent; if he was found guilty, the Rājā referred to the Paveni potthaka, that is, the pustaka or book recording the law and precedents, and prescribing the punishment for each particular offence. The Rājā,2 having measured the culprit's offence by means of that standard, used to inflict a proper sentence.3
Political History It is from the Buddhist literature that we first realise the importance of the Licchavis. In the Brāhmaṇa literature, though there is repeated mention of Videha, which in the Buddha's time joined with the Licchavis and formed a confederation, there is no mention of the Licchavis. It is remarkable that while the Mallas, their immediate neighbours, are mentioned in the Mahābhārata, the Licchavis are not found among the peoples that were encountered by the Pāņdava brothers in their peregrinations, or on their mission of conquest. In the sixth century B.C., however, we find them in the Jaina and Buddhist books as a powerful people in the enjoyment of great prosperity and of a high social status among the ruling races of Eastern India, and, as we have seen, they had already evolved a system of government and polity bearing no small
1 The Hon. G. Turnour says that no satisfactory explanation can be obtained as to the nature of the office held by these functionaries. It is inferred to be a judicial institution composed of judges from all the eight castes.
2 It seems that the 'Rājā' who was the highest authority in the administration of criminal justice was different from the ordinary rājās who constituted the popular assembly. He was perhaps the senior amongst the rājās, or was one elected from time to time to administer criminal justice.
3 G. Turnour, An Examination of the Pāli Buddhistical Annals, J.A.S.B., December, 1838, pp. 993-4, f.n.
