Why did the Indians not record history correctly?

Status
Closed
Feb 2013
599
Scholars do occasionally, just dispersed through the internet. The problem is that Indologists are getting rarer :(

There's also this: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/vedica.pdf which is a PDF available online by Witzel and Jamison on Vedic hinduism, though from what I call the overall book was never published.

It's been a while since I read it, I roughly remember liking some of it, disagreeing with other aspects. I'm not happy to think of a "cut off" point for Vedic religion, nor vedic religioN rather than religions. There's also problems, to my mind, with Witzel arguing that the Vedas act as tape-recorders to past ages. I think at best they're radio transmissions and we're not on quite the same frequency.
Wow. Now that is what I mean by providing a link. Will read and post back.

Thanks a lot.
 
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
Indian history is almost completely reconstructed through the efforts of European Indologists/historians. Most Indians did not know of Indus Valley civilization or Ashoka or Mauryas etc before the Britishers showed up. It means that there had been an effort to destroy the history of India prior to that.
It has been propagated that indians did not record history but it has not been the case. Indians were among only three cultures which recorded history and have preserved heir records so far back in time. Puranas have recorded history but some of its facts have been questioned and its dating and hence the misconception that indians didn't record history.

It is true that indians were not very keen recording history and on dating their texts which probably the chinese and the greeks were so fond of and hence their texts cannot be accurately dated, Indian library functioned is a slightly different manner than the chinese and the greeks as well, for instance instead an indian author writing on his own publication, several indian authors chose to write a complete encyclopedia on a branch of science or arts for instance arthashastra itself is a science so instead of having many publications, arthashastra itself is a book, compiled, amended over period of time and hence it has many authors and not one. The roman myth of foundation of rome, the greek myths in which they attributed historical personalities with gods and goddesses etc so even roman and greek cultures mixed myth with history. Indians were not very much fond of recording for instance there are no indian records on kings and principalities of south east asia, despite indians had the first and most profound impact there, but on the contrary chinese have recorded them, greeks have also recorded indian stuff but we dont see indian records speaking about greeks except in few minor occasions. So indians did record history but it was just not done in the same elaborate way the greeks and the chinese did.

But allegedly only seven percent of indian literature has been researched and analysed yet, a mammoth task requires to swift to the rest of 93 percent and there is a big probability that we may come across a historical breakthrough in the future.

regards
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bharata

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,723
Dispargum
Please do not resurrect threads that have been dead more than two years. If you want to discuss the topic, you may start a new thread.
 
Status
Closed