History and Historians on Jat Mauryan Empire[ founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC]

Thanks friend for your excellent input.

Since literature is infinite and man's capacity to grasp the same is limited; so everyone has neither studied all the literature nor it is expected from anyone to question why he/she has not done so. Nonetheless, please keep it up and contribute your views with ease and composure not out of anger !

Best wishes and regards
 
Moar said:
Dear Sir,

I don't mind texting it over and over and over again, but maybe Dear Ravi Sir, Dear Rao Sir, Dear Burdak Sir won't appreciate this !! .............................


Dear Dr. Rajpal Sir, I hope You are aware of the "Padma Shri" award. It is awarded to citizens of India to "recognize" their "distinguished contribution" in various spheres of activity including the Arts, Education, Industry, Literature, Science, Sports, Medicine, Social Service and Public Affairs; however, it has also been awarded to some distinguished individuals who were not citizens of India and who did contribute in various ways to India.
..................................
Click to expand...


Please note, Padamshri or any other award has nothing to do with research or quality of research, young Friend. So, this para could have been avoided as it has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.

Moreover, kindly see here we are not carrying out research on origin of the Jats but Mauryan dynasty only [ founded by Chandragupta]. So these two issues are different and therefore we must avoid juxtaposing them at one place.

We have no prejudice on the issue that is why we want to discuss it on the open discussion forum of the Jatland.com

Nonetheless, your contribution to the discussion is second to none, keep it up!

Thanks and regards.
 
NEED FOR NEWER DIRECTION FOR FINDING THE ORIGIN OF SAKAS/SACAES (ANCESTORS OF MAURYAS?) FROM INDIAN SAKYAS:

According to Dr. Hukam Singh Pawaria, " Buddhist literature tells us that, after the demise of Lord Buddha, Virudhak, the king of Kosala, attacked the Buddhists and massacred them, and that many fled to the north-western hills to escape his wrath. However, there is every possibility that the Mauryas, as they were connected with the Sakyas of Kapilvasstu, who were from solar race of Aryans, had followed them to the west."*

*[B.C. Law, Geography of Early Buddhism, pp.197-201, 211; Rahul Sankrityana, History of Central Asia, Calcutta, 1964, p.100 cited in the Jats:their origin, antiquaity and Migrations. p. 138]

Since, religious persecution and finding shelter in newer places is nothing new in the annals of history of various countries, the reference gives a new direction to thought on the issue of relationship between the Sakyas of the Indian Origin from Solar Race and Sacae/Saka of Iranian or Western Asia origin as claimed by many scholars. This entry needs further investigation as how far the Sakayas penetrated to the west and how their name was given to the so called Sacaes/Sakas known to present day historians.

Dr. K.R Qanunago, the pioneer historian on Jats has also concluded in his last pages of the History of the Jats that in some remote antiquity many Jat tribes crossed over to central Asia and other foreign countries and in due course of time, immigrated back to India.

Taking these two hints together, it becomes the duty of historians to co-relate/reject or accept the facts and then arrive at some convincing conclusion. This is a new challenge to scholars to dig out the newer aspects of lost pedigree of the Maurya dynasty.

Is someone ready to accept the challenge and refute or support the hypothesis of Hukam Singh Panwar and K R Qanungo?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Scholars needed to decipher Mauryas Inscriptions:

Voluminous work on ancient inscriptions including the inscription of the Mauryas has been accomplished for which researchers could have a glance in the pages of Indian Antiquary, Imperial Gazetteer 1908, Epigraphia Indica, South Indian Inscriptions, Archaeological Survey of India Reports and so on. But even today the position of the study of Inscriptions remains to be fully explored as V A Smith in his Early History of India, p 18 had pointed out the deficiency in this field in the words:

"Although much excellent work has been done, infinitely more remains to be done before the study of Indian Inscriptions can be considered as exhausted; and the small body of unselfish workers at the subject is in urgent need of recruits, content to find their reward in the interest of the work itself, the pleasure of discovery, and the satisfaction of adding to the world's knowledge."

This was said by Dr. Smith in 1904-05. Since then many very valuable studies have appeared on inscriptions but one can even agree with him that much more work remains yet to be completed at the hands of unassuming and dedicated band of scholars who think that their work is reward in itself.

Thanks and regards
 
Scythians migrations (invasions ?) are confirmed inwards Ancient India.

-->> The 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica says that a Scythian horde was seated at Pattala on the Indus, in 625 BC. <<--


-->> Trevaskis put the date of Scythian migrations into India approximately from 600 BC to 600 AD. Trevaskis wrote, "Their (Scythians') successive onslaughts proved the ruin of Assyria, and soon after the fall of Nineveh, B.C. 606, a vast horde of them burst into Punjab." <<--


-->> It is worth noticing that as early as Pāṇini's (पाणिनि) era, the places in-and-around Sialkot are known to have Sakian etymology i.e. ending in "kantha" — Chihankantha, Madarakantha, etc.

Even the Archaeological Survey Report of India unearths the fact that the ancient name for Sialkot was Sakala. < Archaeological Survey Report of India, Vol II, Vanaras, page 193. > < Kumar, Raj (2008). Encyclopaedia Of Untouchables Ancient, Medieval And Modern. Gyan Publishing House. p. 144. ISBN 8178356643, 9788178356648. >

Also, Sakala is thought to be "Saka" town by Przyluski and Tarn. <<--
 
Last edited:
Moar said:
-->> The 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica says that a Scythian horde was seated at Pattala on the Indus, in 625 BC. <<--


-->> Trevaskis put the date of Scythian migrations into India approximately from 600 BC to 600 AD. Trevaskis wrote, "Their (Scythians') successive onslaughts proved the ruin of Assyria, and soon after the fall of Nineveh, B.C. 606, a vast horde of them burst into Punjab." <<--


-->> It is worth noticing that as early as Pāṇini's (पाणिनि) era, the places in-and-around Sialkot are known to have Sakian etymology i.e. ending in "kantha" — Chihankantha, Madarakantha, etc.

Even the Archaeological Survey Report of India unearths the fact that the ancient name for Sialkot was Sakala. < Archaeological Survey Report of India, Vol II, Vanaras, page 193. > < Kumar, Raj (2008). Encyclopaedia Of Untouchables Ancient, Medieval And Modern. Gyan Publishing House. p. 144. ISBN 8178356643, 9788178356648. >

Also, Sakala is thought to be "Saka" town by Przyluski and Tarn. <<--
Click to expand...

Friend,

Good findings; Keep it up.

Minor correction: A S R Report, vol. II is published from Varanasi [not VANARAS].

Thanks and regards.
 
Some thoughts on Saka

Dr Rajpal, Good question. I will point to some excellent posts in Ravi's Jat History forum regarding this by Ishwa. Here is the first one:

~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is absolutely no academic proof that Iranians came from Central-Asia. It is an assumption which has still to be proved. No so-called Iranian tribe is identified to be more ancient than the first millennium BC. While the Mitanni are clearly Indo-Arya. They appear much before the Medes and Persians, the oldest clear presence of so-called Iranians. These Medes and Persians were not indigenous to the Middle-East, they came from more eastern areas, as per their own history. The oldest Iranian document, the Avesta (Videvdat), even lists HaptaHendu.sh amongst the countries visited by the Iranian Arya. When one looks at this list of 16 countries in the Videvdat, Fargard
1, Airyanem Vaejah is named as first and foremost:

verse 2: "The first of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the Airyana Vaeja, by the Vanguhi Daitya.
Thereupon came Angra Mainyu, who is all death, and he counter-created the serpent in the river and Winter, a work of the Daevas." (Where
Devas are, there clearly must be Indo-Arya too!)

verse 18: "The fifteenth of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the Seven Rivers."

verse 19: "The sixteenth of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the land by the sources of the Ranha, where
people live who have no chiefs. Thereupon came Angra Mainyu, who is all death, and he counter-created Winter, a work of the Daevas.

The Videvdat starts with Airyanem Vaeja, the First land, with the winter started by the Daevas.
Then arriving at HaptaHendu or SaptaSindhu in India, the enumeration is concluded with the remark in verse 19 of the source country
connected with the river Ranha (ancient Rahâ). And what can we remark:

1. Here live people who have no chiefs!
2. It is close to where Angra Mainyu is, the winter and the Daevas!
3. Rahâ is in the source country, meaning Aryanem Vaejah.

Now the Vedic Rasâ (Avestan Rahâ) is clearly situated in the subcontinent. Winter and Daevas have a clear connection with the
Himalayas.
But the most direct evidence that we have to do with the panjab is the remark 'people who have no chiefs': This is clearly Aratta or the
country of the A-rashtras or kingless people (Janapadas, Sanghas)!

And when do we meet the Janapadas? That is in post-Mahabharata Era and pre-Buddha Era, as it is enumerated in Buddhist works. What is
even more remarkable, is that the Buddhists also know of 16 (!) Mahajanapadas, all in Indo-Arya areas (including Gandhara as
northwesternmost) just before Buddha's time, like the Videvdat has also 16 countries visited by the Iranian Arya.


While the Vedas do describe the Sarasvati before drying up, which happened around 1900 BC, the Indo-Aryan presence in the subcontinent
is proved. There is no other river in Asia that could fit the description of the RigVedic Sarasvati except for the river of the
subcontinent. So the most ancient presence of the Arya is definitely in India.

Which makes the claim of ShakaDvipa in India more ancient than the one outside of India. Dvipa simply means a tract of land which is
between two waters. It is the ancient origin of the word 'doab'. ShakaDvipa is the country with the capital Shakala (Siyalkot. Every
indologist kagree with this identity) in the Panjab. This Shakala is the famous city of ancient Rshis like Vedamitra and Devamitra
Shakalya who were connected with the Samhita-Patha and the Pada-Patha. These Rshis were in pre-Mahabharata days, as king
Hiranyanabha, also part of the Vedic Preservation Project started by Veda Vyasa, is much before his descandant Brhadbala in the time of
Krshna Dvaipayana Vyasa of the Battle. Even if we assign the ca. 1000 BC late date to the Battle by Pargiter, it would still be much earlier than any Saka presence in Seistan, which is a corruption of Sakastan. (The submerged Dvaraka of ca. 1500 BC, is described as submerging in the Mahabharata)

There is absolutely no academic proof that the Oxus area was named after the Sakas before the Persepolis Inscription of Darius. This
inscription, on the contrary mentions the Sakas in Indian territories!

5 ..........Dâra
6 yavaush : xshâyathiya : vashnâ : Aurama
7 zdâhâ : imâ : dahyâva : tyâ : adam
8 : adarshiy : hadâ : anâ : Pârsâ : kâ
9 râ : tyâ : hacâma : atarsa : manâ : bâj
10 im : abara : Ûvja : Mâda : Bâbiru
11 sh : Arabâya : Athurâ : Mudrây
12 â : Armina : Katpatuka : Sparda : Ya
13 unâ : tyaiy : ushkahyâ : utâ : tya
14 iy : drayahyâ : utâ : dahyâva : t
15 yâ : para : draya : Asagarta : Parthava : Zra
16 ka : Haraiva : Bâxtrish : Suguda : Uv
17 ârazmîy : Thatagush : Harauvatish : H
18 idush : Gadâra : Sakâ : Maka : thâtiy

(5-18.) Darius the King says: By the favor of Ahuramazda these are the countries which I got into my possession along with this Persian
folk, which felt fear of me (and) bore me tribute: Elam, Media, Babylonia, Arabia, Assyria, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Sardis,
Ionians who are of the mainland and (those) who are by the sea, and countries which are across the sea; Sagartia, Parthia, Drangiana,
Aria, Bactria, Sogdiana, Chorasmia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, Sind, Gandara, Scythians, Maka.

Scythians, wrongly for Sakas, are placed in Indian territories between Sind, Gandara (Peshawar and Taxila) and Maka (Makran coast)!
Thus Sakas are clearly in the subcontinent. No other ancient source can unmistabably claim the Sakas to be elsewhere. Vedic and epic
literature has the Shakas in Indian territories. No other country has them mentioned in pre-Darius days save for India.


20 ....Dârayavaush : xsh
21 âyathiya : pasâva : hadâ : kârâ : adam : ashiyavam : abiy : Sak
22 âm : pasâ : Sakâ : tyaiy : xaudâm : tigrâm : barati
23 y : imaiy : Sakâ : hacâma : âisha : yadiy : abiy : draya : a
24 vârasam : parashim : avadâ : hadâ : kârâ : visâ : viyatara
25 yam : pasâva : adam : Sakâ : vasiy : ajanam : aniyam : aga
26 rbâyam : hauv : basta : anayatâ : abiy : mâm : ut
27 âshim : avâjanam : mathishtashâm : Skuxa : nâma : avam : aga
28 rbâya : utâ : anaya : abiy : mâm : avadâ : aniyam : math
29 ishtam : akunavam : yathâ : mâm : kâma : âha : pasâva : da
30 hyâush : manâ : abava : thâtiy Dârayavaush : xshâya

(5.20-30.) Darius the King says: Afterwards with an army I went off to Scythia, after the Scythians who wear the pointed cap. These
Scythians went from me. When I arrived at the sea, beyond it then with all my army I crossed. Afterwards, I smote the Scythians
exceedingly; another (leader) I took captive; this one was led bound to me, and I slew him. The chief of them, by name Skunkha -- him they
seized and led to me. Then I made another their chief, as was my desire. After that, the province became mine.

to be continued in next section
.....

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/787

~~~~~~~~~~~~

DrRajpalSingh said:
NEED FOR NEWER DIRECTION FOR FINDING THE ORIGIN OF SAKAS/SACAES (ANCESTORS OF MAURYAS?) FROM INDIAN SAKYAS:

According to Dr. Hukam Singh Pawaria, " Buddhist literature tells us that, after the demise of Lord Buddha, Virudhak, the king of Kosala, attacked the Buddhists and massacred them, and that many fled to the north-western hills to escape his wrath. However, there is every possibility that the Mauryas, as they were connected with the Sakyas of Kapilvasstu, who were from solar race of Aryans, had followed them to the west."*

*[B.C. Law, Geography of Early Buddhism, pp.197-201, 211; Rahul Sankrityana, History of Central Asia, Calcutta, 1964, p.100 cited in the Jats:their origin, antiquaity and Migrations. p. 138]

Since, religious persecution and finding shelter in newer places is nothing new in the annals of history of various countries, the reference gives a new direction to thought on the issue of relationship between the Sakyas of the Indian Origin from Solar Race and Sacae/Saka of Iranian or Western Asia origin as claimed by many scholars. This entry needs further investigation as how far the Sakayas penetrated to the west and how their name was given to the so called Sacaes/Sakas known to present day historians.

Dr. K.R Qanunago, the pioneer historian on Jats has also concluded in his last pages of the History of the Jats that in some remote antiquity many Jat tribes crossed over to central Asia and other foreign countries and in due course of time, immigrated back to India.

Taking these two hints together, it becomes the duty of historians to co-relate/reject or accept the facts and then arrive at some convincing conclusion. This is a new challenge to scholars to dig out the newer aspects of lost pedigree of the Maurya dynasty.

Is someone ready to accept the challenge and refute or support the hypothesis of Hukam Singh Panwar and K R Qanungo?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Moar said:
Excerpts from -- Bhim Singh Dahiya: "The Mauryas: Their Identity", Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), p.132-133. -- :




"The identification of the Mauryas with Central Asia and in particular with the city of Maur or Mourav (present Merv) is further strengthened by Indian literature. In the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas these people and their country are called Mura or Muru. These are practically the same forms of the name which appear in the Assyrian records as Mor or Muru. In Indian literature they are called Asura who were a branch of the Aryans, for, as the Śatapatha Brahmaṇa mentions, the Devas and Asuras were both born from Prajāpati:

... [Devanagari line, S.B.1.2.4.8; 4.2.4.11] ...

It is stated that Mura was an Asura son of Kāśyapa Prajāpati (Vāmana Purāṇa, ch.60).......


The above discussion would clearly establish that the country of Mura was in the North-west of India, and the present city of Merv can very well be identified with their ancient capital. As already mentioned, in Iranian literature, this city is called Mourav or Maur.
Click to expand...


It is amazing to learn that Dr. Dahiya's research totally based on Brahamnical sources like Puranas and Mahabharata is acceptable to you to prove the foreign origin of the Mauryas which shows your bias and haste to thrust upon others your preconceived and prejudiced theory which seems to you "clearly (to) establish that the country of Mura was in the North-west of India" and that "In Indian literature they are called Asura who were a branch of the Aryans, for, as the Śatapatha Brahmaṇa mentions, the Devas and Asuras were both born from Prajāpati."

But it suffers from certain lacunae as it propounds the view that Asuras were a branch of the Aryans whereas modern researches have totally rejected the Aryan Invasion Theory.

Dr. Dahiya's theory also does not reconcile with the findings of other historians like Trevaskis as quoted by you who puts the date of Scytheian migrations into India approximately from 600B.C. to 600 A.D. This creates two Problems in the way of acceptance of Dr. Dahiya's Theory:

1. It mitigates against the time period of Mahabharata/600BC.

2. Either accept Dahiya or Trevaskis but not both as they contradict each other on the chronology .

3. It creates another knot about the location of Mauryas in North West Punjab/Afghanistan in 600 B.C. or their deep penetration into other parts of the country in one go in 600 B.C. itself. For, according to the studies of some historians, the ancestral home of the founder of the Mauryan Dynasty is located around Pipphalivana, [ in c. 600 B C] the capital of the ancient republic , which is about 80 kms to the west of Kusinagara. [For further details, please See B.C. Law, Tribes in Ancient India, p. 288; H.C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India, 4th Ed. Calcutta, 1938, p. 160; R C Majumdar, The Age of Imperial Unity, Bombay, 1951, p.17].

Therefore, more research is desirable to understand the problem in toto.

Thanks
 
continued from previous post -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...

The Sakas (this is the the right rendering, and not 'Scyths') are Eastern Arya. Darayavahu or Darius had annexed Indian territories along the banks of the Indus river (see descripton of Scylax ordered by Darius). The word Abiya Saka has a conection with the Indus Sakas.
The word 'Sea' is clearly not a reference to the Oxus river. One might think of the Kaspian Sea, but the Behistun clearly connects Saka with Indian territories! So these Sakas, with their leader Sku(n) kha, with whom he fought are to be placed at the Indusmouth at the Arabian Sea.
Thus the older claim of Shakadvipa for India has substantial support from Old-Persian texts. There is absolutely no other area which can give an older claim of being called Sakastan or Sakadvipa than an area in India.

Atharvan and Iranian
Atharvan is an ancient Rshi, the son of Rshi Brahmâ. Both the Rshsis are mentioned as composers of many of the hymns of the AtharvaVeda. The oldest name of the AtharvaVeda were BrahmaVeda and Atharvangirasa or Bhrgvangirasa. So where is the connection with Old_Iranians? We do not find the name of Zarathushtra, or any Iranian Athravan in any of the Vedas, which simply means, at this stage of what we know from hard evidence, that the Iranian tradition is much later than Vedic
tradition.


Mishra
Though I once also thought of a connection between Mithra and Mishra, this is right only in reference to God Mitra, but certainly not etymologically. The word Mishra is more ancient than the Avestan Mithra (we simply don't know at what point the Avesta got this spelling, as much of the Avesta and other so-called Iranian works are clearly late editions after the 5th century BC down. Most of it started to be preserved/recollected in Sasanian-Pahlavi period) Mishra is a word which is traced in the RigVeda, I believe in Mandala X in the Pururavah-Urvashi Sukta. There are more meanings attached to the word 'mishra' than simply mixed.
The words Mihira and Mithra may have connections, but it is unconnected with Mishra. Otherwise your own translation of "mishra = mixed race" with Mithra denoting the sun and friendship is contradictory! Why did you choose the 'mixed-race' meaning, while no Sanskrit dictionary will ever connect 'race' to the word 'mishra',
instead of the 'solar friendship' meaning when you derive everything from Iranian?
Perhaps you don't know but the name Mishra is a title of respect and learning given to wise people of many Vedic Gotras.
Whether people are 'poor' or not in society, that doesn't have anything to do with learning and wisdom.

Mathur
I fail to understand how one can arrive from Mithra to Mathur(a). First of all, one doesn't understand the etymology and history of the Mathura, secondly one must be unaware of linguistic laws too. Mathura, older Madhura, is the city founded by king Madhu an ancestor of Krshna Vasudeva. There is no base for a change of -i- to -u-. There is absolutely no base for a change of Indo-Arya -t- (the original of the Avestan -th-) to an Indo-Arya -th-. Besides, the original in the case was a -dh-. Wheteher Mathurs are Brahmin or Kayasths has nothing to do with their names. The word "Mâthur(a) simply means 'someone from Mathura'! Everyone with a basical understanding of Indo-Arya linguistics would understand this.

Maga
In the NW, in ancient Kekaya Desha with its capital Girivraja (Girjak, modern Jabalpur in the Panjab), the bards were known as "Magadha". This Magadha becomes Magaha > Magâ easily in Prakrit formation. From Kekaya to their eastern neighbours of MadraDesha with its capital Shaka-la (Siyalkot) is not a far distance at all.

Physiognomic and race
I don't want to comment much upon dubious connections between physiognomic characteristics and (ancient) class names and people, save that I have to simply laugh at Vajapeyi being compared to a Semite and Bachan to a Nordic-Iranian. No serious scholar does get involved in these matters without much expertise and even more caution.


regards,
ishwa

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/787

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Here is second excellent post by Ishwa which is related to our discussion here from Jat-History forum (hope Ravi does not mind):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Ravi,

I am sorry that you had to go through this process. To be frankly, I was (perhaps like David?), afraid that this could happen. It is not only that names which sound the same, but also other similar elements between totally dissimilar groups, which are misleading sometimes.

Dahiya, Joon, Dhillon, Pauria, have made an attempt to lay a foundation for further research on Jat history. But their words are not always gospel truths, especially not in the field of etymologies, but an attempt to collect material in their own respects.

While Tod is one of the 'fathers' of the Jat-Getic-Guti-Goth-Yuezhi connection, he is also the person who pointed out several times, in his three-vulume-books, the intimate connection of the Yadu Vansha and a majority of Jat sections, based on the Jaisalmer Annals of the Bhattis. He obviously didn't understand this connection properly, otherwise he would have refrained from the first connections.

I believe that Joon is perhaps the one who did understand this the most, as he remarks "Jat is in fact only another name of Chandra Vanshi branch of Aryans.." (History of the Jats, ch. 1 introduction)

The Jaisalmer Annals confirm the information of the local dynasties, like the one of Dholpur, about an ancestor Shalivahana, and an area "beyond the Five Rivers". This is clearly a hint towards Zabulistan (Jabal) and the capital Gajni (named after Gaja or Gajasimha I Yadava), where the ancestors of the later two major groups, the Bhatti and Janjua Yadavas, were ruling and to which many Jat groups and their traditions are connected: Por, Mor, Tor, Bais, etc. are all in the Yadu, especially Bhatti lineages [in one lineage of Bhattis, according to the Kapurthala traditions, we come across Chauhan (not the same as the Chahamanas), Manj and Mann sections.] Almost all other Yadu and Jat groups related to the (pre-)Shalivahana sections, on the other side of the Indus, became Muslims, of which the Jats were known as Zotts to the Arabs.

But what even Tod forgets, is that the Yadus according to their own traditions, are being located before the Zabulistan period in the more eastern Marusthali area in the subcontinent, and before that in Gujarat upto Mathura, areas where they are also traditionally located. They give the names of the kings, the events and the locations. And not really giving room to a Central-Asian (or NW) connection.

regards,
Ishwa

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/1337
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DrRajpalSingh said:
NEED FOR NEWER DIRECTION FOR FINDING THE ORIGIN OF SAKAS/SACAES (ANCESTORS OF MAURYAS?) FROM INDIAN SAKYAS:

According to Dr. Hukam Singh Pawaria, " Buddhist literature tells us that, after the demise of Lord Buddha, Virudhak, the king of Kosala, attacked the Buddhists and massacred them, and that many fled to the north-western hills to escape his wrath. However, there is every possibility that the Mauryas, as they were connected with the Sakyas of Kapilvasstu, who were from solar race of Aryans, had followed them to the west."*

*[B.C. Law, Geography of Early Buddhism, pp.197-201, 211; Rahul Sankrityana, History of Central Asia, Calcutta, 1964, p.100 cited in the Jats:their origin, antiquaity and Migrations. p. 138]

Since, religious persecution and finding shelter in newer places is nothing new in the annals of history of various countries, the reference gives a new direction to thought on the issue of relationship between the Sakyas of the Indian Origin from Solar Race and Sacae/Saka of Iranian or Western Asia origin as claimed by many scholars. This entry needs further investigation as how far the Sakayas penetrated to the west and how their name was given to the so called Sacaes/Sakas known to present day historians.

Dr. K.R Qanunago, the pioneer historian on Jats has also concluded in his last pages of the History of the Jats that in some remote antiquity many Jat tribes crossed over to central Asia and other foreign countries and in due course of time, immigrated back to India.

Taking these two hints together, it becomes the duty of historians to co-relate/reject or accept the facts and then arrive at some convincing conclusion. This is a new challenge to scholars to dig out the newer aspects of lost pedigree of the Maurya dynasty.

Is someone ready to accept the challenge and refute or support the hypothesis of Hukam Singh Panwar and K R Qanungo?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Now some maps to provide perspective regarding ancient janapads or republics:

First 16 Mahajanpadas as mentioned in Buddhist literature - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_india.png

Now more detailed one as mentioned in Indian Epics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EpicIndia.jpg

Finally even more detailed one with names of cities and ancient janapads (republics) from Ramayan, Mahabharat and Buddhist literature - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/EpicIndiaCities.jpg


DrRajpalSingh said:
NEED FOR NEWER DIRECTION FOR FINDING THE ORIGIN OF SAKAS/SACAES (ANCESTORS OF MAURYAS?) FROM INDIAN SAKYAS:

According to Dr. Hukam Singh Pawaria, " Buddhist literature tells us that, after the demise of Lord Buddha, Virudhak, the king of Kosala, attacked the Buddhists and massacred them, and that many fled to the north-western hills to escape his wrath. However, there is every possibility that the Mauryas, as they were connected with the Sakyas of Kapilvasstu, who were from solar race of Aryans, had followed them to the west."*

*[B.C. Law, Geography of Early Buddhism, pp.197-201, 211; Rahul Sankrityana, History of Central Asia, Calcutta, 1964, p.100 cited in the Jats:their origin, antiquaity and Migrations. p. 138]

Since, religious persecution and finding shelter in newer places is nothing new in the annals of history of various countries, the reference gives a new direction to thought on the issue of relationship between the Sakyas of the Indian Origin from Solar Race and Sacae/Saka of Iranian or Western Asia origin as claimed by many scholars. This entry needs further investigation as how far the Sakayas penetrated to the west and how their name was given to the so called Sacaes/Sakas known to present day historians.

Dr. K.R Qanunago, the pioneer historian on Jats has also concluded in his last pages of the History of the Jats that in some remote antiquity many Jat tribes crossed over to central Asia and other foreign countries and in due course of time, immigrated back to India.

Taking these two hints together, it becomes the duty of historians to co-relate/reject or accept the facts and then arrive at some convincing conclusion. This is a new challenge to scholars to dig out the newer aspects of lost pedigree of the Maurya dynasty.

Is someone ready to accept the challenge and refute or support the hypothesis of Hukam Singh Panwar and K R Qanungo?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Moar said:
Dear Sir, I think You should sincerely be in touch with Dr. Sube Singh Rana (User:Drssrana2003) right away.

But, I guess, as You are in touch with Dr. Vir Singh, You may well be aware about the Gentleman !!

Sincerely !!
Click to expand...

Thanks Moar Sahib. But I am sorry to say Dr. Rana does not master Prakrit/Pali/Khrosthi and Brahmi languages in which Asokan inscriptions are inscribed. He is a reputed Sanskrit scholar and is elderly friend of mine.

Regards
 
nrao said:
Now some maps to provide perspective regarding ancient janapads or republics:

First 16 Mahajanpadas as mentioned in Buddhist literature - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_india.png

Now more detailed one as mentioned in Indian Epics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EpicIndia.jpg

Finally even more detailed one with names of cities and ancient janapads (republics) from Ramayan, Mahabharat and Buddhist literature - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/EpicIndiaCities.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks Rao Sahib for all the nice inputs.

Hope you would kindly keep enriching the discussion to make us wiser on the issues being taken up for the benefit of all concerned.

Regards.
 
Moar said:
-->> http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?34292-Mor-Maur-Maurya-Mori-Mauri&p=323919#post323919 <<--
Click to expand...

In reply to your this post under reference and the preceding one, kindly see my post No. 17 reproduced below for your ready reference please :

"It is amazing to learn that Dr. Dahiya's research totally based on Brahamnical sources like Puranas and Mahabharata is acceptable to you to prove the foreign origin of the Mauryas which shows your bias and haste to thrust upon others your preconceived and prejudiced theory which seems to you "clearly (to) establish that the country of Mura was in the North-west of India" and that "In Indian literature they are called Asura who were a branch of the Aryans, for, as the Śatapatha Brahmaṇa mentions, the Devas and Asuras were both born from Prajāpati."

But it suffers from certain lacunae as it propounds the view that Asuras were a branch of the Aryans whereas modern researches have totally rejected the Aryan Invasion Theory.

Dr. Dahiya's theory also does not reconcile with the findings of other historians like Trevaskis as quoted by you who puts the date of Scytheian migrations into India approximately from 600B.C. to 600 A.D. This creates two Problems in the way of acceptance of Dr. Dahiya's Theory:

1. It mitigates against the time period of Mahabharata/600BC.

2. Either accept Dahiya or Trevaskis but not both as they contradict each other on the chronology .

3. It creates another knot about the location of Mauryas in North West Punjab/Afghanistan in 600 B.C. or their deep penetration into other parts of the country in one go in 600 B.C. itself. For, according to the studies of some historians, the ancestral home of the founder of the Mauryan Dynasty is located around Pipphalivana, [ in c. 600 B C] the capital of the ancient republic , which is about 80 kms to the west of Kusinagara. [For further details, please See B.C. Law, Tribes in Ancient India, p. 288; H.C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India, 4th Ed. Calcutta, 1938, p. 160; R C Majumdar, The Age of Imperial Unity, Bombay, 1951, p.17].

Therefore, more research is desirable to understand the problem in toto.

Thanks"

For other contradiction see the contents of next post ......To be continued.
 
Dr Rajpal Singh,

For you just Naveen is fine with me. Secondly, even though I provided the links to the maps, not sure how much of it is right information, so members should use their judgement or consult other sources. However, I think one with 16 mahajanpad one is accurate.

DrRajpalSingh said:
Thanks Rao Sahib for all the nice inputs.

Hope you would kindly keep enriching the discussion to make us wiser on the issues being taken up for the benefit of all concerned.

Regards.
Click to expand...
 
I AM more interested and focused on the real side of the Puranic literature, and I never said to overlook the Puranas !!

----

On the Page 147 of the book, "Jats, the ancient rulers: a clan study", the famed Jat Historian, belated Dear "Bhim Singh Dahiya" (IRS), wrote :


"Another indication of the foreign nature of these people is given by the Puranas and other Indian works. The Vishnu Purana calls them Sudras. The Markandeya Purana brands the Mauryas as Asuras. Yuga Purana called them "utterly irreligious, though posing as religious". The Mudra Rakshasa calls these people as Mlecchas and Chandragupta himself is called 'Kulahina', i.e., an upstart of unknown family. In the same drama, a character Dingarata (डिन्गराट) figures in the retinue of Chandragupta and Malayaketu. This name is manifestly non-Indian. One is forced to reflect as to why so much antagonism against the Mauryas by the narrators of the Puranas. The theory of the patronage extended to Buddhism by Asoka being the cause will not do because Chandragupta himself was more inclined to Jainism and many other kings of the Maurya dynasty were Brahmanical. The reason lies in the foreign origin of these people. That is why they are called Mleccha, Asuras, etc."


Dear Sir, the Mauryas were Sacae Jats; and their branding as "Asuras" by the Markandeya Purana is in-fact in "direct support of their Iranic origin" !!

----

Dear Sir, If You or Your Friends have invented something rock-solid concrete to back-up the Indigenous Aryans theory (Out of India theory); then please be in touch with the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, right away; because the scholars of history have reached a consensus that the original Aryan homeland was "Ariana".


Even the genetic studies show otherwise.


Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste populations [ Genome Res. 2001 Jun;11(6):994-1004. ] - PubMed - NCBI : Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA. : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11381027?dopt=Abstract

----

Sincerely !!
 
Last edited:
So long as the scholars come out with their findings on the original home of Chanddragupta Maurya and his chronology, let us now take up discussion on another contentious issue i.e. Etymology of the word 'Maurya':
The first question :
Is ‘Maurya’ a derivative of the word Mura, from the supposed name of the mother of Chandragupta Maurya:
Dhundiraja, the 18th century A D commentator on the Text of Puranas takes Chandragupta Maurya to be the son of Mura who was one of the wives of king Nanda [Chandraguptam Nandasyaiva patanyasya Mura-samjanasya putram Mauryanam prathamam].
Prof. Radha Kumud Mukerji, the author of Chandragupta Maurya and His times, comments on this statement as follows:
“Heavens save us from commentators who supplement texts by facts of their own creation! The commentator here makes the astounding statement that Chandragupta was a son of the Nanda king against the silence of all the Puranas on the subject. Such a fact completely militates against the context of the references which the Puranas make to Chandragupta…. It may be noted that if there is any sort of connexion between a preceeding and succeeding dynasty, the Puranas as a rule do not omit to mention it.” He goes on to add that it “is nothing but a pure and simple invention of the commentator to explain grammatically the formation Maurya from Mura. But he is as innocent of grammar as of any concern for truth. It is impossible to derive by any grammar Maurya as a direct formation from Mura. The derivative from Mura is Maureya. The term Maurya can be derived only from the masculine Mura which is mentioned as the name of a gotra in a Ganapatha to Panini’s Sutra [IV.1,151]. It is strange that the derivation of the term has not been traced by this track.” ----[pp.9-10]

Another problem also rises if we accept the supposed derivation of the commentator of the Puranas, Dhundiraja's view which will be taken in succeeding posts on the issue.

Thanks.
 
Friends,

If one accepts the view that the Maurya dynasty gotra was designated with the advent of Mura as mother of Chandragupta then, the historical role of the Mauryas as testified by the Buddhist and other literary sources in Republic Tribal era around 600 B C as stated in this discussion earlier will be nullified.

Therefore, it deserves rejection both on the basis of other stronger and anterior sources as well as on the basis of the rules of grammar as depicted by Prof.Mukerji quoted earlier.

In view of it we will have to find the origin of the word Maurya elsewhere.

Could someone point out the direction for the search/research on the issue?

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top