Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 20th, 2012, 04:11 AM   #1
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Western India
Posts: 433
Great Injustice to Ancient Indian History


Dear friends,

I am new to this forum. I have been visiting the forum for more than a year but did not post any messages.

However, I now wish to start a thread on a topic which is extremely important.

We all know how the Aryan Migration Theory is being rammed down the throats of Indians despite it being against all Indian traditions and having no proof in its favour whatsoever.

I think it is safe to say whatever is accepted through scholarly consensus is not necessarily the truth.

The establishment often desists in making changes to long-held beliefs despite mounting evidence to the contrary. It is therefore, those who are not part of the establishment to challenge the wrong beliefs.

My topic is about the dating of the Maurya and Gupta dynasties. I wish to reveal some points which are quite breathtaking in their implication towards Indian history.

I have long wondered why there was no information available for the long interval between the date of Buddha(circa 6th cent. BC) and the date of Mahabharata (3102 BC - Kaliyuga era).

Afterwards, I came across something which blew my mind away. It was regarding the identity of Sandrocottus of Greek accounts with Chandragupta Maurya which is the basis of modern reconstruction of Ancient Indian history.

Indeed, the British who created the Aryan Invasion theory have created another howler which lazy Indian historians have made no effort to correct. The Sandrocottus of Greek accounts can indeed be Chandragupta but was he Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I of the Gupta dynasty ?

I will proceed to draw your attention to some strong points which favour the identification of Sandrocottus with the Gupta monarch.
Immchr is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 20th, 2012, 04:49 AM   #2
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Western India
Posts: 433

It was William Jones towards the fag end of the 18th century who kickstarted the modern reconstruction of Indian history based on more critical analysis and research.

He became aware that Indian texts boasted of a very great antiquity to Indian civilization. But he found it absurd that Indian history could stretch to such enormous spans of time especially when in Europe of that time, the church propagated the ridiculous belief that the first man was created in 4004 BC.

He therefore set about reducing the long span of Indian history in comparably manageable dimensions. To his aid came the account of India by the Greek Megasthenes in the 3rd century BC. In it he found that after Alexander had left India there arose a very great emperor in India by the name of Sandrocottus. Jones already had the Puranas at his disposal. Perusing them he came across the name of Chandragupta Maurya, who according to the Puranas came to power 1604 years after Mahabharata war i.e. 1534 BC.

He realised the strong similarity between the names Sandrocottus and Chandragupta and rightly identified that Sandrocottus was nothing but the Greek corruption of Chandragupta. Therefore Jones concluded that Chandragupta Maurya had come to the throne after Alexander left India around 320 BC and not as the Puranas stated in 1634 BC. Jones was happy that he able to reduce Indian history to its tolerable limits.

Later scholars have never questioned this identificaton. However, we should remember that the Puranas (Matsya, Vayu, Brahmanda, Vishnu & Bhagavat) stop their accounts of royal dynasties just before the Guptas rise to Imperial power. Therfere the Gupta monarch Chandragupta I is never mentioned by name in the Puranas.

Why do I think that Chandragupta I is the Sandrocottus of the Greek acounts ?

1. Firstly, we know from Greek accounts that before Sandrocottus there ruled a king by the name of Xandramas during Alexander's invasion. But he was a ruler of the Gangaridai. We are told as if the Gangaridai and Prasii were distinct kingdoms who had come together and were presently being ruled by Xandramas but who chiefly is called the king of only the Gangaridai.

We should remember, that no Nanda king had a name that even remotely rhymes with Xandramas. And according to Puranas and other sources, the Nandas were indisputable sole sovereigns of the nation. How does the idea of a confederacy of the Gangaridai and Prasii match this account ? There is no satisfactory answer. We can only speculate.

Further, the Prasii are the ones with the capital of Palibothri(Pataliputra) but Xandramas is quite clearly the king of the Gangaridai. So then how can he be the Nanda ruler who ruled from Pataliputra ?

On the other hand, when we search for the pre-Gupta kings we see that there were Naga kings ruling from Padmavati, Vidisha, Mathura, Champavati, Kantipur. Among them, the Puranas list only the Kings of Vidisha which suggest that perhaps they were the strongest among them. Scholars have even speculated that these Naga kingdoms were confederacies. And numismatic studies have suggested that the Vidisha line of the Naga kings held sway over a very wide area of Northern India right upto Punjab in the north where Alexander seemed to have reached the limits of his conquests.

Among the Naga kings of Vidisha is one by the name of Chandramsa, and we can see that this name is suspiciously similar to Xandramas.

So if we put the Guptas in the 4th century BC after Alexander's departure, this part of the puzzle has atleast a more satisfactory answer.
Immchr is offline  
Old May 20th, 2012, 05:55 AM   #3
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Western India
Posts: 433

2.

Because the scholars have decided that Sandrocottus was a Maurya, they have made a great error regarding the Saka era of 78 AD as well.

How come ?

Alberuni who obviously got his information from his Indian sources, says in his Indica that the era of 78 AD was established when a Saka ruler in the northwest of India who oppressed his subjects cruelly was killed by Vikramaditya. In other words, the era of 78 AD was the era of the death of a Saka king.

Modern scholars state that 78 AD is the start of the rule of Sakas in India. This is in clear contradiction to what Al-Beruni states.

Bhaskara, the great scientist and author of Siddhanta Siromani has himself quoted in his work that 3179 years of Kaliyuga were at an end at the death of a Saka king.

Even Brahmagupta, in his work Brahma-Sphuta-Siddhanta states that at the end of the Sakas 3179 years of Kaliyuga had elapsed.

When we add 3179 years to the era of kaliyuga(3102 BC) we get the era of 78 AD.

Why would such respectable figures like Brahmagupta and Bhaskara state that the era of 78 AD marked the end of Sakas rather than their beginning ?

There is no evidence whatsoever to justify the modern day consensus that the Saka rule started in 78 AD.

But scholars were constrained to accept this because according to them Mauryas and not the Guptas ruled in 4th century BC. And since, according to inscriptions, the Sakas ruled in parts of western India for more than 300 years putting their end in 78 AD would mean they were contemporary to the Mauryas which is not possible.

Hence, they subverted the tradition and in turn have alleged that the Indian tradition is wholly unreliable in this regard.

3. The Gupta era of 320 AD is also a similar problem. Al-beruni is the only source from where we get to know that such a era of Guptas existed.

However, Al-beruni clearly said that the era was established at the end of the Guptas. So why have scholars subverted this to infer that the Guptas infact came to power in 320 AD ? The reason is again the same.

4. Moreover, the Nepalese history has also greatly suffered. In their recorded history, the Gopalaraja Vamshavali, the Licchavi kings are supposed to have ruled for a long time in Nepal before the start of the Christian era. After that a king named Anshuverma comes to the throne of Nepal and it is stated that during his time, Vikramaditya came from India to Nepal and established his era meaning the era of 57 BC in Nepal. Curiously enough, inscriptions of Anshuverma have been discovered where a samvat with dates from 35 to 45 or so is stated which indicates that a new era had been started very near to the time of Anshuverma. This indirectly supports the Nepalese tradition.

Now we know from inscriptions that the later Licchavi kings were contemporaries of the Guptas. The script on their inscriptions is the same Gupta script. As Guptas are dated from 4th century AD to 6th century AD, Lichhavis being their contemporaries have also been put at the same time and Anshuverma has thus been demoted to the 6th century AD. But scholars have so far not been able to answer as to which era do the inscriptions of Anshuverma refer to.

But if we identify Sandrocottus with the Gupta monarch this issue is amicably resolved.

The Licchavis are also put before the christian era as the Nepalese chronicles tell us and then at the end of the Licchavis the rule of Amshuverma can be said to be coinciding with the Vikram era

There are few more points I shall make. Currently i am short of time.

Thank you.
Immchr is offline  
Old May 20th, 2012, 07:10 AM   #4
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: UK
Posts: 324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Immchr View Post
2.

Because the scholars have decided that Sandrocottus was a Maurya, they have made a great error regarding the Saka era of 78 AD as well.

How come ?

Alberuni who obviously got his information from his Indian sources, says in his Indica that the era of 78 AD was established when a Saka ruler in the northwest of India who oppressed his subjects cruelly was killed by Vikramaditya. In other words, the era of 78 AD was the era of the death of a Saka king.

Modern scholars state that 78 AD is the start of the rule of Sakas in India. This is in clear contradiction to what Al-Beruni states.

Bhaskara, the great scientist and author of Siddhanta Siromani has himself quoted in his work that 3179 years of Kaliyuga were at an end at the death of a Saka king.

Even Brahmagupta, in his work Brahma-Sphuta-Siddhanta states that at the end of the Sakas 3179 years of Kaliyuga had elapsed.

When we add 3179 years to the era of kaliyuga(3102 BC) we get the era of 78 AD.

Why would such respectable figures like Brahmagupta and Bhaskara state that the era of 78 AD marked the end of Sakas rather than their beginning ?

There is no evidence whatsoever to justify the modern day consensus that the Saka rule started in 78 AD.

But scholars were constrained to accept this because according to them Mauryas and not the Guptas ruled in 4th century BC. And since, according to inscriptions, the Sakas ruled in parts of western India for more than 300 years putting their end in 78 AD would mean they were contemporary to the Mauryas which is not possible.

Hence, they subverted the tradition and in turn have alleged that the Indian tradition is wholly unreliable in this regard.

3. The Gupta era of 320 AD is also a similar problem. Al-beruni is the only source from where we get to know that such a era of Guptas existed.

However, Al-beruni clearly said that the era was established at the end of the Guptas. So why have scholars subverted this to infer that the Guptas infact came to power in 320 AD ? The reason is again the same.

4. Moreover, the Nepalese history has also greatly suffered. In their recorded history, the Gopalaraja Vamshavali, the Licchavi kings are supposed to have ruled for a long time in Nepal before the start of the Christian era. After that a king named Anshuverma comes to the throne of Nepal and it is stated that during his time, Vikramaditya came from India to Nepal and established his era meaning the era of 57 BC in Nepal. Curiously enough, inscriptions of Anshuverma have been discovered where a samvat with dates from 35 to 45 or so is stated which indicates that a new era had been started very near to the time of Anshuverma. This indirectly supports the Nepalese tradition.

Now we know from inscriptions that the later Licchavi kings were contemporaries of the Guptas. The script on their inscriptions is the same Gupta script. As Guptas are dated from 4th century AD to 6th century AD, Lichhavis being their contemporaries have also been put at the same time and Anshuverma has thus been demoted to the 6th century AD. But scholars have so far not been able to answer as to which era do the inscriptions of Anshuverma refer to.

But if we identify Sandrocottus with the Gupta monarch this issue is amicably resolved.

The Licchavis are also put before the christian era as the Nepalese chronicles tell us and then at the end of the Licchavis the rule of Amshuverma can be said to be coinciding with the Vikram era

There are few more points I shall make. Currently i am short of time.

Thank you.
Excellent points made. This will shock the foundations. Bhartiya History - Bhartiya Chronology

This timeline agrees with you.

Look at my analysis: http://www.historum.com/asian-histor...ilization.html

This is a map of kingdoms in Epic India: http://www.historum.com/asian-histor...ent-india.html
Illumanation is offline  
Old May 20th, 2012, 10:14 AM   #5
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Western India
Posts: 433

Thank you for your interest, Illumination.

5. This point is related to the information in the link you've just posted.

All ancient Indian traditions & authorities agree that Kaliyuga era started in 3102 BC.

In addition to Bhaskara and Brahmagupta we also have the testimony of Aryabhata. Plus we also have the Aihole inscription of Pulkeshin II.

There is an argument that Varahamihira and then Al-beruni and Kalhana following him stated the era of Pandavas about 600 years later.

However, Al-beruni and Kalhana misunderstood Varahamihira. Varahamihira was one of the nine gems of the court of King Vikramaditya according to tradition.

But modern scholars put him in the 6th century AD. So what exactly is the truth ? The truth is that we have two dates of Varahamihira in the Saka era 427 saka & 509 saka. Of this the last one is stated as being his year of death.

Scholars have assumed that this Saka era is the era of 78 AD. The era of 78 AD is referred in Indian tradition as the year of the end of Sakas. But does Varahamihira also say so? No. He calls his Saka era as Sakabhupakala & Sakendrakala. This means the era of the Saka king(s). If we consider 78 AD era as the era of the end of Sakas then their beginning should be logically atleast 310 years earlier if not more.

And since we know that the Sakas used an era of their own, we should not be surprised if Varahamihira was referring to that era.

So, what is the starting date of that earlier era ? Let us assume that Varahamihira believes in the Indian tradition that Yudhisthira lived around the time of the start of Kaliyuga.

Varahamihira states that the Saka era he is referring to, started 2526 after the king Yudhisthira. Yudhisthira is believed to have died 25 years after the start of Kaliyuga i.e. 3077 BC. Subtracting 2526 from 3077 BC we get 551 BC as the start of the era of the Saka kings.

Let us try to calculate the dates of Varahamihira from this new era. We get dates of 124 BC & 42 BC. The later date is 15 years later than the start of Vikrama era of 57 BC. Therefore, from this standpoint the tradition of Varahamihira being one of the nine gems of King Vikramaditya's court gets support.

Therefore, Varahamihira has been misunderstood. Clearly, the traditional date of Kaliyuga is 3102 BC only and none other.

Taking this as so, if we compute the years that the Puranas give to the dynasties of Magadha in Kaliyuga we get the following:-

Brihadratha dynasty - 3138 BC - 2132 BC (1006 years)

Pradyota dynasty - 2132 BC - 1994 BC (138 years)

Shishunaga dynasty - 1994 BC - 1634 BC (360 years)

Nanda dynasty - 1634 BC - 1534 BC (100 years)

Hence, we can see that the Puranas put the Mauryas 1200 years before their currently accepted dates. How can the puranas err so much ? Does it even make sense ? Why should we assume that William Jones' identification was correct and that the Puranas indeed made such a huge blunder.

Incidentally, the Kashmir chronicle Rajatarangini is also accused of a similar mistake of pre-dating the kings. In effect, Rajatarangini agrees with the Puranic scheme of things. and dates kings much earlier than modern scholars would have them.


6. There is then the matter of King Vikramaditya.

Modern scholars have shamelessly dismissed him as myth discounting the fact that an actual historical era that runs across the length and breadth of the country is named after him.

Here, the scholars think that the Puranas lend support to their theory that Vikramaditya is just a legend. But they are very wrong.

The Puranas effectively give information about the dynasties of Kaliyuga only upto the period before the rise of Guptas. It is believed that since Guptas came to power in the 4th century AD that Puranas narrate political history upto that time. And since in that they never talk of any king by the name of Vikramaditya, hence Vikramaditya is legend. But as we have said, the Puranas only narrate political history upto 4th century BC and not 4th century AD. Therefore, how can we expect the Puranas to name a king who was atleast 3 centuries in the future ?

Moreover, though inscriptions of Emperor Vikramaditya have not been found, he has been mentioned as a historical person in the Rajatarangini and the Nepal Chronicles which are historical narratives.

The Puranic obstacle against the historicity of King Vikramaditya is also removed. And we can make sense of why he was considered such a great king by the people of India upto the time when Britishers meddled in Indian history. Vikramaditya was indeed much more popular than any of the Gupta or Maurya kings or Harshavardhana or anyone else. How could a fictional character have been so popular. Incidentally, his popularity is also related to his annihilation of the Sakas. According to Indian tradition either before 57 BC or 78 AD, Vikramaditya completely extinguished the Sakas. This is a historical fact of much importance that is also attested by Kalhana in Rajatarangini. So far this has been completely neglected.

Last edited by Immchr; May 20th, 2012 at 10:22 AM.
Immchr is offline  
Old May 20th, 2012, 11:00 AM   #6

cachibatches's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,546

Very interesting. I am a complete novice when it comes to Indian civilization, but I have been becoming interesting in it via looking at ancient Indian architecture, and I did notice that there seems to be these dead zones in Indian civilization that do not make much sense. Maybe this fills in the gaps.
cachibatches is offline  
Old May 20th, 2012, 11:07 AM   #7
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: UK
Posts: 324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Immchr View Post
Thank you for your interest, Illumination.

5. This point is related to the information in the link you've just posted.

All ancient Indian traditions & authorities agree that Kaliyuga era started in 3102 BC.

In addition to Bhaskara and Brahmagupta we also have the testimony of Aryabhata. Plus we also have the Aihole inscription of Pulkeshin II.

There is an argument that Varahamihira and then Al-beruni and Kalhana following him stated the era of Pandavas about 600 years later.

However, Al-beruni and Kalhana misunderstood Varahamihira. Varahamihira was one of the nine gems of the court of King Vikramaditya according to tradition.

But modern scholars put him in the 6th century AD. So what exactly is the truth ? The truth is that we have two dates of Varahamihira in the Saka era 427 saka & 509 saka. Of this the last one is stated as being his year of death.

Scholars have assumed that this Saka era is the era of 78 AD. The era of 78 AD is referred in Indian tradition as the year of the end of Sakas. But does Varahamihira also say so? No. He calls his Saka era as Sakabhupakala & Sakendrakala. This means the era of the Saka king(s). If we consider 78 AD era as the era of the end of Sakas then their beginning should be logically atleast 310 years earlier if not more.

And since we know that the Sakas used an era of their own, we should not be surprised if Varahamihira was referring to that era.

So, what is the starting date of that earlier era ? Let us assume that Varahamihira believes in the Indian tradition that Yudhisthira lived around the time of the start of Kaliyuga.

Varahamihira states that the Saka era he is referring to, started 2526 after the king Yudhisthira. Yudhisthira is believed to have died 25 years after the start of Kaliyuga i.e. 3077 BC. Subtracting 2526 from 3077 BC we get 551 BC as the start of the era of the Saka kings.

Let us try to calculate the dates of Varahamihira from this new era. We get dates of 124 BC & 42 BC. The later date is 15 years later than the start of Vikrama era of 57 BC. Therefore, from this standpoint the tradition of Varahamihira being one of the nine gems of King Vikramaditya's court gets support.

Therefore, Varahamihira has been misunderstood. Clearly, the traditional date of Kaliyuga is 3102 BC only and none other.

Taking this as so, if we compute the years that the Puranas give to the dynasties of Magadha in Kaliyuga we get the following:-

Brihadratha dynasty - 3138 BC - 2132 BC (1006 years)

Pradyota dynasty - 2132 BC - 1994 BC (138 years)

Shishunaga dynasty - 1994 BC - 1634 BC (360 years)

Nanda dynasty - 1634 BC - 1534 BC (100 years)

Hence, we can see that the Puranas put the Mauryas 1200 years before their currently accepted dates. How can the puranas err so much ? Does it even make sense ? Why should we assume that William Jones' identification was correct and that the Puranas indeed made such a huge blunder.

Incidentally, the Kashmir chronicle Rajatarangini is also accused of a similar mistake of pre-dating the kings. In effect, Rajatarangini agrees with the Puranic scheme of things. and dates kings much earlier than modern scholars would have them.


6. There is then the matter of King Vikramaditya.

Modern scholars have shamelessly dismissed him as myth discounting the fact that an actual historical era that runs across the length and breadth of the country is named after him.

Here, the scholars think that the Puranas lend support to their theory that Vikramaditya is just a legend. But they are very wrong.

The Puranas effectively give information about the dynasties of Kaliyuga only upto the period before the rise of Guptas. It is believed that since Guptas came to power in the 4th century AD that Puranas narrate political history upto that time. And since in that they never talk of any king by the name of Vikramaditya, hence Vikramaditya is legend. But as we have said, the Puranas only narrate political history upto 4th century BC and not 4th century AD. Therefore, how can we expect the Puranas to name a king who was atleast 3 centuries in the future ?

Moreover, though inscriptions of Emperor Vikramaditya have not been found, he has been mentioned as a historical person in the Rajatarangini and the Nepal Chronicles which are historical narratives.

The Puranic obstacle against the historicity of King Vikramaditya is also removed. And we can make sense of why he was considered such a great king by the people of India upto the time when Britishers meddled in Indian history. Vikramaditya was indeed much more popular than any of the Gupta or Maurya kings or Harshavardhana or anyone else. How could a fictional character have been so popular. Incidentally, his popularity is also related to his annihilation of the Sakas. According to Indian tradition either before 57 BC or 78 AD, Vikramaditya completely extinguished the Sakas. This is a historical fact of much importance that is also attested by Kalhana in Rajatarangini. So far this has been completely neglected.
The idea that the Nanda dynasty ruled from the iron age period puts into serious doubt the date the Buddha lived: Glorious India - Ikshvaku Dynasty

Buddha was decended from an early branch off the Solar dynasty. Of course this timeline takes off many kings, including the sindhar dynasty.
Glorious India - Ikshvaku Dynasty - King Prasenjit II

Now look at the Nanda dynasty: Glorious India - Ikshvaku Dynasty - King Sumitra

Therefore, Buddha must have lived from around 9th century BC to 6th century.
Illumanation is offline  
Old May 20th, 2012, 11:37 AM   #8
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Western India
Posts: 433

7. The Mehrauli Pillar Inscription

The Mehrauli pillar inscription is one of mysteries of ancient India. Scholars are still undecided as to who the Chandra of the inscription really was.

They cannot believe that it could be Chandragupta I because they do not believe that he could have ruled such an extensive dominion which reached the river Indus.

But when we identify Sandrocottus with Chandragupta I, we should draw our attention to something that the Greeks tell us about Sandrocottus.

We are told that he had fought with Seleucus and in that war Seleucus, who had tried to win territories beyond the Indus ended up ceding territories of his own before the Indus. Clearly Sancrocottus had defeated Seleucus badly.

The Mehrauli inscription says that a war was fought by Chandra by crossing the Indus against the Vahlikas and that he had conquered them. If this Chandra is identified with Chandragupta I we are instantly struck by the close similarity with the war of Sandrocottus with Seleucus across the Indus.

The Vahlika is the Greek Bactria which had become their stronghold after Alexander had conquered it. Hence, we should not be surprised if Indians might have termed them as Vahlikas. That the Greeks were called Yavanas is a modern day myth.

Yavanas have been mentioned even in the Mahabharata where they are located even in eastern India and with names which are purely Indian sounding.

8. We then have the case of Yashodharman, the Aulikara chief who claimed in one of his inscriptions of having won territories which even the Guptas could conquer. We have one date of his - 589 malava era.

Modern scholars believe that this Malava era is none other than Vikrama era. But this is just speculation.

If we assume that the malava era is the same as vikram samvat then we have to accept that in 532 AD, Yashodharman was the paramount king of India. But we know that by 554 AD, Isanavarman of the Maukharis was the already the imperial ruler of North India who had even defeated the Huns. And Isanavarman never came in conflict with the Aulikaras.

So how come Yashodharman lost his empire so quickly ?

Indeed the Malava era is not the same as Vikram era. Scholars have accepted the identification blindly because they believe the Guptas ruled in the 4th century AD.

The fact of the matter is that we have an inscription during the rule of Kumaragupta in which dates are given in both the Malava era and the gupta era. The difference between the two eras is roughly 400 years with the Malava era preceding the Gupta Era.

Since, the Vikrama era is 377 years anterior to the Gupta era of 320 AD scholars readily assumed that Vikram and Malava era are the same.

But when we put the start of the Gupta Imperial Era somewhere around 320 BC do we have evidence of an era called Malava era 400 years anterior to it ?

Curiously enough we do have some literary evidence. The ancient history of Malwa is not survived in any native tradition but we get to know of it in Ain-a-Akbari and then in more detail in an 1824 book called 'A Memoir of Central India' written by a British Major General.

According to him, the kingdom of Malwa was first established in 850 BC and then 730 years before christ, we are told that the king of Malwa shook off his dependance from the King of Delhi.

The Malava era is also mentioned in the inscriptions as Malavagana Jaya meaning ' Victory to the Malava republic'.

Could the event of 730 BC have been the trigger that established the Malava era ? It is very possible.

Thats all for now. I hope I have written stuff that generates interest and curiosity, God willing.
Immchr is offline  
Old May 21st, 2012, 01:51 PM   #9

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 6,518

As a westerner who is greatly interested in Indian history, let me tell you about the key methodology involved in identifying the age of Indian dnyasties:

The Buddhist and Hindu chronicles state that Ashoka was the first and only monarch to send buddhist missionaries into the Greek world. The Ashokan pillars also mention Ashoka sending bhikshus to the greek empires of Ptolemy (Tulamaya), Selucus ( selukiya) and to Antipater. These guys are categorically dated to've been around 300-250 BCE in western chronicles and those dates cannot be disputed. Since Ashokan pillars mention these missions, are dated from 270-240 BCE by carbon dating & the texts support this idea, the date for Ashoka is one of the 'fixed' dates in Indian history, with very few dates previous to the muslim era being as accurate.
From Ashoka's date, we extrapolate those of Chandragupta Maurya.

Generally speaking, I am satisfied with dating of Indian dynasties from 350 BCE period onwards, a few confusions/uncertainties notwithstanding ( Kharavela, Shaka Era, Shalivahan era, Vikram Samvat,etc).

Also, i highly doubt the 3100 BCE nature of Kaliyuga extrapolation: Aryabhatta himself used astronomical data to correlate the date of Kurukhshetra war. However, the Mahabharata we know- atleast to've existed as is from the Gupta era- offers different dates for different events- based on which astronimical data you use, you can date the period of the Mahabharata from anywhere between 5000 BCE and 800 BCE. IMO, this is because this text took on an epic proportion in Indic literature, akin to something that doesn't exist in the modern world: this was perhaps *the* novel of India, having religious, historical, cultural and literary prestige, with numerous renditions, additions and stuff happening, where various astronomical data has been added to it simply due to the prestige of association of such data with the epic.
As such, we have no way of knowing how valid the particular passage describing the astronomical data has(the one used by Aryabhatta), compared to another passage quoting an astronomical alignment that is 2000 years younger (or, 40,000 years older).

It is natural that Aryabhatta's numbers would be used de-facto by Indian mathematicians after him: he was afterall, one of the greatest mathematicians/astronomers in human history, probably in the top 5 of both categories in my books, and his contribution would've been deeply respected in Indian academia.
But we still don't know what makes Aryabhatta's usage of a particular astronomical passage more valid than another passage that has astronomical data, that can be used to extrapolate 1500 BCE.

Last edited by Lord_of_Gauda; May 21st, 2012 at 02:51 PM.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Old May 21st, 2012, 03:34 PM   #10

Alcibiades's Avatar
Chameleon
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Kragujevac,Serbia
Posts: 10,594
Blog Entries: 2

All in all,a great read,this.
Alcibiades is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
ancient, indian, injustice


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ancient Indian army Nego Asian History 71 May 2nd, 2014 08:56 PM
Indian presence in ancient China? Thessalonian Asian History 62 February 10th, 2013 10:00 AM
Ancient Indian Ranged Weapon plutoboyz Asian History 19 June 15th, 2012 05:52 PM
Ancient Indian Battlefield Tactics bluesman Asian History 11 April 16th, 2011 07:55 AM
A great history, a great advance, a great book! TasteOfTorment Art and Cultural History 7 January 29th, 2011 08:48 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.