history of Indian dating system

Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#11
Al-beruni was in somewhere in Sindh (Pakistan) when writing the tradition that Guptas were '"wicked and powerful". This was the area occupied by many foreign tribes, which were forced to pay tribute by Samudragupta (c. 335/350 to c.375 CE ) and finally annihilated by Chandragupta-II (375-415 CE).

'Brihatkathamanjari' of Kshemendra say King Vikramaditya (Chandragupta II) had "unburdened the sacred earth of the Barbarians like the Sakas, Mlecchas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Tusharas, Parasikas, Hunas, and others, by annihilating these sinful Mlecchas completely".

After this time, we don't hear of these tribes in Indian history - except Kambhojas and Hunas. Hunas were pushed to Kashmir but after some time their kingship also ended.

So it is okay for people of Sindh to say that Guptas were wicked and powerful. Fahien has neither not named any king nor commented on them. He has described the country & people & their habits in Madhya-desha. The society was orderly & peaceful.
yeah it seems to make sense, reading on some gupta history else where, i came to know that they were known for making campaigns against tribalism in the north western regions of punjab and sindh.

even today sindh is practically ruled by baloch tribes who are originally not from sindh but ruling and living here for hundreds of years, balochs are also mentioned by name by varahamihira as foreigners/mlecchas. These tribes are of extreme feudal mentality and hinder development and rule lands like fiefdoms. i have also read about Paratarajas - Wikipedia ruling areas of sindh and balochistan who were iranic. Balochs must be their descendants.

regards
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#12
Barli Inscription - Wikipedia

Earlier scholars assigned the Barli inscription to the pre-Ashoka period, but more recent scholars have assigned it to a later date.[1]
According to historian G. H. Ojha, who discovered the inscription in 1912, the inscription contains the line Viraya Bhagavate chaturasiti vase, which can be interpreted as "dedicated to Lord Vira in his 84th year". Based on this reading, Ojha concluded that the record was inscribed in 443 BCE (year 84 of the Vira Nirvana Samvat), 84 years after the death of the Jain leader Mahavira.[2] K. P. Jayaswal disagreed with Ojha's interpretation, but nevertheless assigned the inscription to a pre-Ashoka period: he dated it to 374-373 BCE, equivalent to the year 84 of an imaginary calendar era.[3]
there are some evidences that there were inscriptions and dating even before the mauryas and it wont be hard to understand why.

some indian historians have revised the dating and there has been a lot of revisionism based on colonial machinery left behind by the british and archaeological survey of india and britain proper but i think these evidences do point to an earlier period of dating system and inscriptions.

One thing is definitely clear that indians did date events rigorously atleast from the mahajanapada periods.
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#13
Al Beruni talks about a Sri Harsa era that began 400 yrs prior to the Vikram era (i.e. 458 BC). His description of this king Harsa is that of a very greedy king who searched the seven layers of the earth for wealth, and overtaxed his subjects. That seems strikingly similar to the descriptions of the Nandas in the Greek sources. Hence, this Sri Harsa era may be taken to the Nanda era. We know from a Chalukyan inscription that during the period of the Chalukyas, the Nanda era, Vikram era, and Saka eras were in use. The Jains attribute 155 years to the Nandas. That seems about right, since it gives 303 BC for the start of the Mauryan rule in Magadha (in sync with Greek sources). Some Buddhist and Puranic texts give 2 generations (about 50 years max) to the Nandas, but given that the Kharavela inscription talks about an aqueduct being built in Kalinga in the year 103 of Nanda rule, the reign of the Nandas could not be as short as just 50 years.

So, there we have a pre-Mauryan era.

As far as Ashoka is concerned, I have issues with his dating. Usually, the Antiochus mentioned in major rock edict 13 is taken to be Antiochus II, giving a range of dates from 255 BC - 261 BC for the engraving of the major rock edicts. The lower date (255 BC) is used, along with the assumption that all the major rock edicts were engraved in the 13th year. That gives us a date of 268 BC for Ashoka's accession. However, as Jarl Charpentier has shown, Antiochus II faced revolts from Bactria and Parthia in his reign, thus eliminating any interaction he would have had with the eastern states, like the Mauryans. Ashoka hints at a close relationship with Antiochus in his edicts, and hence Antiochus II is likely not intended. Antiochus I is more likely intended, and that gives us a range of 261 BC - 272 BC for the engraving of the major rock edicts. Hence, Ashoka's accession could have happened anytime between 274 BC and 285 BC.
i have now found a referene to what raghavendra stated in April

Old Brahmi Inscriptions In The Udayagiri And Khandagiri Caves : Barua, Benimadhab : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

1563786507098.png
 
Likes: Raghavendra
Apr 2018
69
Ayodhya
#15
Yes, but the phrase talks about the canal being extended in year 103 of the Nanda era, by a Nanda ruler, not 300 years after the commencement of the Nanda era by a non-Nanda. Justin suggests that Nandas were dethroned around 303 BC, and Jain sources says they ruled for a total of 155 years. Hence the Nanda era began in 458 BC, and the canal work was done by 355 BC.
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#16
Yes, but the phrase talks about the canal being extended in year 103 of the Nanda era, by a Nanda ruler, not 300 years after the commencement of the Nanda era by a non-Nanda. Justin suggests that Nandas were dethroned around 303 BC, and Jain sources says they ruled for a total of 155 years. Hence the Nanda era began in 458 BC, and the canal work was done by 355 BC.
the interpretation of the era i disputed, it can be 103 or 300 but given the date of the inscription which is placed at 2nd century BC or 155 BC 103 would effectively mean the reign of ashoka and not nanda, so probably what is meant is 300 years.

regards
 
Likes: Raghavendra
Apr 2018
69
Ayodhya
#17
the interpretation of the era i disputed, it can be 103 or 300 but given the date of the inscription which is placed at 2nd century BC or 155 BC 103 would effectively mean the reign of ashoka and not nanda, so probably what is meant is 300 years.

regards
Plz see this paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44133109

The date of the inscription as nothing to do with that line imo, since the line talk about the 103rd year of Nanda rule, not 103 yrs from the date of composition of the inscription.
 
Likes: Ashoka maurya
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#18
Plz see this paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44133109

The date of the inscription as nothing to do with that line imo, since the line talk about the 103rd year of Nanda rule, not 103 yrs from the date of composition of the inscription.
interesting, thanks, why does wikipedia state something another, ill try to confirm the translation. the inscription seems to be damaged so i think diff interpretation have been made regarding it.

regards
 
Apr 2018
69
Ayodhya
#19
Likes: Ashoka maurya