Chronology of Indian History --Newer discussions

[drrajpalsingh]

Fortunately several literary evidences and studies have come up and much more are in the pipe line at the hands of participants in the discussion. We must simultaneously make concerted efforts to dig out archaeological studies on the issue so that real history could be reconstructed by comparing and contrasting the literary records with the archaeological finds related with our subject of study in an objective manner.

Nonetheless the inputs are welcome on either type of sources.

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

It does if 1400-1200 BCE are the accepted dates of immigration into India and assumption that the immigrants brought iron with them, else it does not. Although, one can say that iron can be found locally and immigrats could have also brought it.

It is also argued that Rigved was pre-iron age (I will try to get some information on it), which will also mean an earlier dating of it, something like pre 1800-1500 BCE.

If on the basis of the information of the use of Iron and later steel, the first Aryan migration to India is accepted, as has been made to be so by some authors, the antiquity of the Aryans and composition of the Vedic hymns would be disturbed beyond comprehension.

If we accept second assumption for the Rigveda composition i.e. 1800-1500 BCE as genuine, then the question arises who were the Harappans.

To my mind the clue of the chronology lies in the dating of Four Deva-Asura battles and identification of the battlefields with the participating Devas and Asuras ! But so far, we have not been able to find out any concrete work on the issue which brings out the facts lying burried behind these traditions available in Indian and Iranian literature. The same could be co-related with the studies related with archaeology of both the regions.

If someone succeeds to solve this puzzle of Devas led by Harishachandra, Dashratha, Indra/Vaman, Sudas in four different ages (Sat Yug, Treta, Dwapar and Kaliyuga) in their battles against the Asuras, then and only then, path breaking results in finding the convincing answers about the ancient abode of the Aryans and the chronology of the Indian history could be settled.

Hope the participants in the discussion would extend helping hand to take the subject of the thread to logical conclusion.

Regards and thanks

 

[romar]

Ek vicharniya baat yeh hai ki Ramayan Mahabharat se pehle aati hai. Ramayan mein pashcimi bharta ka jayada varnan nahin hai. Mahabharata mein uttar paschimi bharata ka bahut varnana hai.

Ramayan main madhya aur purvi bharta ka varnan hai.

Isse ky nishkarsh nikaalna chhaiye?

 

[nrao]

Something to think about:

First, quote from Talageri's book that Ranbir Tomar provided here regarding Daivodasi and Kasiraj used for Pratardana:
http://www.tri-murti.com/ancientindia/rigHistory/ch4.htm (I am looking for in IX.96, the epithet is DaivodAsI (son or descendant of DivodAsa); and in X.179.2, the epithet is KASirAja (King of KASI).

I checked this version using Latin alphabets here: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/RV/RV09.html#H096

It has no mention of the that epithet.

Now if you go and check a devnagri version, it has both epithets. Aisa kyon?

In the online version there is a mismatch between the two. Need to confirm this from printed version.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Ek vicharniya baat yeh hai ki Ramayan Mahabharat se pehle aati hai. Ramayan mein pashcimi bharta ka jayada varnan nahin hai. Mahabharata mein uttar paschimi bharata ka bahut varnana hai.

Ramayan main madhya aur purvi bharta ka varnan hai.

Isse ky nishkarsh nikaalna chhaiye?

Is baat se kya Deva-Asura battle ka kaal nirdharan karane mein kuchh sahyog rahega !!

 

[lrburdak]

Ek vicharniya baat yeh hai ki Ramayan Mahabharat se pehle aati hai. Ramayan mein pashcimi bharta ka jayada varnan nahin hai. Mahabharata mein uttar paschimi bharata ka bahut varnana hai.

Ramayan main madhya aur purvi bharta ka varnan hai.

Isse ky nishkarsh nikaalna chhaiye?

Ramayana geography being of eastern India and Mahabharata geography of North-West India has certain logical consequences. If Ramayana people are Aryans then Aryan movement seems to be from East to west. But this migration is not supported by historians.

Does it mean Ramayana people are not Aryans ?

They are original inhabitants of India ?

Or its geography was different from present one?

Is Ramayana of later period?

Is Ramayana an invented story?

Why do we not find archaeological evidences of Ramayana period?

Answers of these questions may lead to some what conclusive history.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

According to historians, the Mahabharata, as it is known today, consists of three layers as :

Original Mahabharata -- The Jaya or the tale of the battle and victory (Mangala Charana and 1.56.19).

Then the main text recited by Vaisampayana at the instance and in the presence of Vyasa himself [1.54, (21-22)] at the sarpastra or victory celebration of Janamejaya, the great-grandson of Arjuna over the Takshaka Nagas.

The third recension was recited at the Naimisharanya conference of the sages by Ugrasharava Sauti son of Romaharshana, the latter was a disciple of Vyasa.

It is said that these three recensions of the Mahabharata came into existence within 100 years of the Mahabharata battle and contained just 24,000 shlokas. It is also said that it did not contain the Upa-akhyanas i.e. subsidiary tales and legends. The inclusion of Upaalhyanas has brought the number of shlokas in Mahabharata to 1,00,000.

A critically analysed and edited version of the Mahabharata has been compiled by Bhandarkar Institute, Poona for the benefit of the scholars to find out history as contained in the epic.

Perhaps, this could lead to throwing light on the chronology of not only Mahabharata battle but of the Proto-history of India. Several authors have tried to trace Itihas in it. The studies undertaken so far have given the following four chronological estimates of the time of the Mahabharata battle as given below:

1. c. 3100 B.C.E.
2. c. 2500 B.C.E.
3. c. 1450 B.C.E. and,
4. c. 950 B.C.E.

All the four groups have a number of reputed historians and have their own logic and sources to support their reasons for fixation of the chronology of the Mahabharata battle. To whom to believe ? Very difficult to decide.

The plausible reply would depend on the study of all the findings and the tools applied for arriving at the conclusion regarding chronology. Whosoever has done it on the basis of use of scientific tools of study, would surely convince one and all.

Could someone throw light on the issue !

If the date of this historic event if finally fixed, many problems of the dating of Indian history, it is presumed, would automatically stand resolved !

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Ramayana geography being of eastern India and Mahabharata geography of North-West India has certain logical consequences. If Ramayana people are Aryans then Aryan movement seems to be from East to west. But this migration is not supported by historians.

Does it mean Ramayana people are not Aryans ?

They are original inhabitants of India ?

Or its geography was different from present one?

Is Ramayana of later period?

Is Ramayana an invented story?

Why do we not find archaeological evidences of Ramayana period?

Answers of these questions may lead to some what conclusive history.

Friends,

For proper understanding of the terms 'Uttara Kuru', 'Uttara Panchala' and 'Uttara Khoshala' we will have to identify their ancient lands and cannot depend upon the description of the 'Ramayana' or 'Mahabharata' alone.

In the earlier posts we have presented several studies to identify the region of 'Uttara Kuru' across the Indus and beyond towards Central Asia. The same may be possible for the latter two people too.

Is it so or is it not so, remains the puzzle as Burdakji has also hinted to in this post under reference !!!

Let us join hands to tackle the issue on the basis of available studies on the topic.

 

[romar]

Is baat se kya Deva-Asura battle ka kaal nirdharan karane mein kuchh sahyog rahega !!

Ramayana mein Ram aur Ravana yudha aur anya rakshashon se yudha ke anek varnan hein. Mahabharata mein bhi rakshashon se yudh ke varnan hein. In yuddhon se kaal kaise nirdharit kiya jave?

 

[romar]

Ramayana geography being of eastern India and Mahabharata geography of North-West India has certain logical consequences. If Ramayana people are Aryans then Aryan movement seems to be from East to west. But this migration is not supported by historians.

Does it mean Ramayana people are not Aryans ?

They are original inhabitants of India ?

Or its geography was different from present one?

Is Ramayana of later period?

Is Ramayana an invented story?

Why do we not find archaeological evidences of Ramayana period?

Answers of these questions may lead to some what conclusive history.

Kya aisa nahin ho sakta ki historians galat ho?

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Ramayana mein Ram aur Ravana yudha aur anya rakshashon se yudha ke anek varnan hein. Mahabharata mein bhi rakshashon se yudh ke varnan hein. In yuddhon se kaal kaise nirdharit kiya jave?

and

Kya aisa nahin ho sakta ki historians galat ho?

Deciding a chronology of an event is done on the basis of scientific research based on well settled methods :


Literary method,
Radio Carbon Technique,
Astronomical method,
Archaeological method, and
Cross Contacts method.

These methods have been rigorously applied to analyse the chronology of not only Ramayana and Mahabharata but also several other aspects of Indian History.

The Chronology of the Proto-History and Pre History of the world has been fixed/is being fixed by historians applying these methods. In the initial stage of the studies some errors might creep in findings of a scholar which could be rectified by using stronger tools by successive researchers than used by the earlier one. And in this way the quest for knowledge continues.

This process is continuing in the case of fixation of the ancient chronology of Indian history.

Therefore, it should not be said that all the historians have gone wrong in their attempts without suggesting more plausible findings based on accepted norms of research methodology.

Thanks and regards,

 

[drrajpalsingh]

The process prescribed for scientific research in History is continuing in the case of fixation of the ancient chronology of Indian history, which goes to hoary past.


Most of the controversies in deciding acceptable dates and chronology plaguing Indian history arise because of lop sided application of these methods or on account of considering one or two but not all the tools of scientific research methods. If an objective effort is made to arrive at convincing results, Indian history offers ample sources to end the controversy generated by wrong application and in an effort to thrust the pre decided, biased and prejudiced views.

Therefore, we must come out of the cob web of basing our views only on one source only of our arbitrary choice, whether it is archaeology or Rigaveda or outside composition like Avesta, or to say any other and study historical sources in the scientific method and then arrive at some convincing results instead of going on to blame one or the other historian without rhyme and reason.

If we do so, we can crack new facts of history of ancient India which would bring to light many an unexplored avenues of research.

Let us start to look into the direction of exploring Indian historical chronology in the context of world history and not as an isolated history of India only.

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Kya aisa nahin ho sakta ki historians galat ho?

Dost,

Aisa hone ki poori sambhavana hai yadi sambhndhit itihaskar ne sahi Research tools ka prayog nahin kiya hoga to!!!

Aisi sithithi mein reinterpretation of data karake ya naya sources use karake naya nishkrash nikale ja saakte hain !!

Aap kis kis historian ke galat hone ke baare mein ingeet kar rahe ho, kripa karake un sabhi ke thithi nirdharan vidhi sandarbha sahit nishkrsh sajha karein taaki unke conclusions ka punah vishleshan kiya ja sake.

Dhanyavad.

 

[nrao]

Ramayana geography being of eastern India and Mahabharata geography of North-West India has certain logical consequences. If Ramayana people are Aryans then Aryan movement seems to be from East to west. But this migration is not supported by historians.

Does it mean Ramayana people are not Aryans ?

They are original inhabitants of India ?

Or its geography was different from present one?

Is Ramayana of later period?

Is Ramayana an invented story?

Why do we not find archaeological evidences of Ramayana period?

Answers of these questions may lead to some what conclusive history.

Actually, some historians do support this migration from east to west.

Ranbir Tomar, had provided one link earlier (if you read the chapter on UP):
http://www.tri-murti.com/ancientindia/rigHistory/ch4.htm (westward migration),

In addition, this inagural address by BB Lal at the 19th International Conference on South Asian Archaeology, held at University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy on July 2-6, 2007 also talk about westward migration out of India:
http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/19th-century-paradigms.html

Specific quote from the above talk:
"Ayu migrated eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and the Kasi-Videhas. This is the Ayava (migration). Amavasu migrated westwards. His (people) are the Ghandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasu (migration).

According to the correct translation, there was no movement of the Aryan people from anywhere in the north-west. On the other hand, the evidence indicates that it was from an intermediary point that some of the Aryan tribes went eastwards and other westwards. This would be clear from the map that follows (Fig. 1)."

In addition try to read Talageri's newer book (from 2008):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8116734/Talageri

So there is discussion on westward migration, both Talageri and B B Lal contend movement did take place from somewhere near Punjab/Haryana after battle of 10 kings, with actual quotes from the text on both occasion. It also ties in with Natthan Singh's contention, that there was an emigration out in very ancient times followed by immigration in (I actually thought that it never made sense but now it does)

Back in 2003, Sivaji Singh delivered a talk which he ended by saying that more research in coming years will be about people moving west out of India, which I had posted earlier:

http://www.indicstudies.us/History/C...in, 2003.pdf

However, it is a different matter that question of Uttarkurus is not discussed by any or as a matter of fact by anybody in detail, except for what Rajpal ji had provided or sometimes one will get some mention here and there. Dahiya does discuss it in his book but I think he may relying on the same source that has been quoted in this thread early on. It will also have to account for chronology of Ved, viz a viz, Harappans, Ramayan and MBh. That will be a new aadhyay.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Actually, some historians do support this migration from east to west.

Ranbir Tomar, had provided one link earlier (if you read the chapter on UP):
http://www.tri-murti.com/ancientindi...istory/ch4.htm (westward migration),

In addition, this inagural address by BB Lal at the 19th International Conference on South Asian Archaeology, held at University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy on July 2-6, 2007 also talk about westward migration out of India:
http://www.archaeologyonline.net/art...paradigms.html

Specific quote from the above talk:
"Ayu migrated eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and the Kasi-Videhas. This is the Ayava (migration). Amavasu migrated westwards. His (people) are the Ghandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasu (migration).

According to the correct translation, there was no movement of the Aryan people from anywhere in the north-west. On the other hand, the evidence indicates that it was from an intermediary point that some of the Aryan tribes went eastwards and other westwards. This would be clear from the map that follows (Fig. 1)."

In addition try to read Talageri's newer book (from 2008):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8116734/Talageri

So there is discussion on westward migration, both Talageri and B B Lal contend movement did take place from somewhere near Punjab/Haryana after battle of 10 kings, with actual quotes from the text on both occasion. It also ties in with Natthan Singh's contention, that there was an emigration out in very ancient times followed by immigration in (I actually thought that it never made sense but now it does)

Back in 2003, Sivaji Singh delivered a talk which he ended by saying that more research in coming years will be about people moving west out of India, which I had posted earlier:

http://www.indicstudies.us/History/C...in, 2003.pdf

However, it is a different matter that question of Uttarkurus is not discussed by any or as a matter of fact by anybody in detail, except for what Rajpal ji had provided or sometimes one will get some mention here and there. Dahiya does discuss it in his book but I think he may relying on the same source that has been quoted in this thread early on. It will also have to account for chronology of Ved, viz a viz, Harappans, Ramayan and MBh. That will be a new aadhyay.

Friend,

The dispersal after the last battle among the ten kings at Ravi is not the first but is final culmination of the long standing rivalry among the 'Devas-and-Asuras' to which the scholars quoted in various post agree.

But Friends remember that this final dispersal is very late incident to say in old terminology an event occurred in Kali Yuga. But anterior incidents and the chronology as well as battle fields connected with Harishchandra [Sat Yug], Dashratha [Treta] and Indra [Dwapara] remain unresolved.

In fact, the puzzle about the battle fields of earlier three Deva-Asura wars as recorded in the traditions of India and Iran remains unresolved. Not only the question of 'Uttara Kurus'' but also that of ''Uttara Panchalas'' and ''Uttra Kaushals'' keeps on emerging as we go deeper in quest of the antiquity and abode of the 'Aryans'. The identification of these people as styled Uttara Kurus, Uttara Panchalas and Uttara Kaushals is intermixed inextricably with the proper identification of the ''rivers'' and ''good lands'' of the Indian literature and the Iranian traditions, perhaps with the help of archaeological finds.

Could any body identify the river system mentioned in the above literature and reconcile the same with the interpretation of Indian and Iranian/central Asian records to arrive at some reasonable conclusion as to the chronology and the battle fields of the 3 other Deva-Asura battles mentioned therein?

If it is done much of the problem being discussed would be sorted out to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Thanks and regards,

 

[romar]

Dost,

Aisa hone ki poori sambhavana hai yadi sambhndhit itihaskar ne sahi Research tools ka prayog nahin kiya hoga to!!!

Aisi sithithi mein reinterpretation of data karake ya naya sources use karake naya nishkrash nikale ja saakte hain !!

Aap kis kis historian ke galat hone ke baare mein ingeet kar rahe ho, kripa karake un sabhi ke thithi nirdharan vidhi sandarbha sahit nishkrsh sajha karein taaki unke conclusions ka punah vishleshan kiya ja sake.

Dhanyavad.

Kain baar aisa bhi dekha gaya hai ki sahi research tools mojood hone ke baad bhee historians ne galat nishkarsh nikale hein. Udharnarth aap bharat ki sabhyata ke addhyan ko le lijiye. Angrejon ne arya logon ko aakranti isliye bataya ki unka apna aakraman aur bharat ko adhin banana sahi sabit kiya jaa sake yeh keh kar ki kain hajar saal pehle arya logon ne bhi bahar se aa kar bharat pe raj kiya tha. Doosri dikkat yeh hai ki aksar historian log kise bade historian ka hawala dete hain aur yeh jaanch nahi karte ki jis cheej ka hawala de rahe hein veh satya hai ki nahin. Bharat mein aryon ka bahar se aana kuch isi prarkar ka ghatna chakra pratit hota hai. Ek ne keh diya aur baki sab usi ki taal me taal mila rahe hain.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Kain baar aisa bhi dekha gaya hai ki sahi research tools mojood hone ke baad bhee historians ne galat nishkarsh nikale hein. Udharnarth aap bharat ki sabhyata ke addhyan ko le lijiye. Angrejon ne arya logon ko aakranti isliye bataya ki unka apna aakraman aur bharat ko adhin banana sahi sabit kiya jaa sake yeh keh kar ki kain hajar saal pehle arya logon ne bhi bahar se aa kar bharat pe raj kiya tha. Doosri dikkat yeh hai ki aksar historian log kise bade historian ka hawala dete hain aur yeh jaanch nahi karte ki jis cheej ka hawala de rahe hein veh satya hai ki nahin. Bharat mein aryon ka bahar se aana kuch isi prarkar ka ghatna chakra pratit hota hai. Ek ne keh diya aur baki sab usi ki taal me taal mila rahe hain.

Dost,

Agar prastut thread mein ab tak huie discussion ko dekhen to aapka yah kathan upyukat nahin lagata ki : "Ek ne keh diya aur baki sab usi ki taal me taal mila rahe hain."

Sabhi sahyogi aur mittar naye naye tathya saamne la rahen hain aur ek sakaratamak niskrash nikalne ki disha mein bharpur sahyog de rahen hain.

Vastava mein is thread ka udeshaya bhi yahi hai ki navintam sodh niskrshon ke aadhar pe bharat ke itihas ke tithikaram mein jo visangtiyan hain unko durushat kiya jaye tatha anya bharantiyon ka nirakaran kiya jaye.

Angrezon ne jo kuchh itihas ke kshetra mein karya kiya tha usmein ab navintam sodh ke aadhaar pe kaphi kant chhant ho chuki hai tatha ab bhi yah karya bakayada jari hai. AAP KE PAAS JO NAVINTAM TATHYA HAIN UNKO BHI PURA SANMMAN DIYA JAYEGA.

KOI BHI ITIHASKAR APNE KAAM SE BADA HOTA HAI AUR EK DIN MEIN MAHANTA KA DARJA NAHIN PRAPAT KARTA, LAGATAR LAMBE SAMYA TAK KARI MEHNAT SE UNHE YAH RUTABA MILTA HAI.

Danyavad.

 

[bsbana]

Genetics of South Asian people have two autosomal components : ANI(Ancestral North Indian) and ASI(Ancestral South India)
1. ANI component declines from NW to SE which is consistent with geography.
2. ANI declines from upper castes to lower castes, which points out migration of Aryan from North-West to South-East. Jats have more ANI than upper castes.
3. NEU(North European, a component within ANI) has a significant presence in Indian upper caste, and even more elevated among Jats, so it may tell connection to IE family.
4. Pakhtun and Baloch groups have sufficient genetic similarity with Jats and other NW South-Asians but they seem to acquire some components 'relatively little' though, absent in non-Muslim South Asians, because of result of Islamization. Iranian are genetically different though but they have less 'NEU'(component connected with Aryans) than upper caste NW south Asians and Jatts. I think in absence of caste system, Asura/Ahura worshiper Aryan elites of Iran mixed more with masses.

Ramayana geography being of eastern India and Mahabharata geography of North-West India has certain logical consequences. If Ramayana people are Aryans then Aryan movement seems to be from East to west. But this migration is not supported by historians.

 

[romar]

Dost,

Agar prastut thread mein ab tak huie discussion ko dekhen to aapka yah kathan upyukat nahin lagata ki : "Ek ne keh diya aur baki sab usi ki taal me taal mila rahe hain."

Mera abhipraya bharat ke adhunik historians se tha na ki yahan jo vartalap chal raha hai. Kya aap is baat se bilkul sahmat nahin hai ki bharat ke bade historian paschimi deshon ke historians ka hawala dene mein kuch garv sa mahsus karten hain chahe unki baat kitni galat hi kyon no ho?

Nehru Vishwavidyalaya Nayi Dilli aur Aligarh Vishwavidyalaya ke sabhi historians yeh maante hain ki Arya log bhar se aaye the aur unhone bharat per kabja kiya. Yeh log angrejon ka samarthan kar rahe hain. Aise vyvahar ke piche kya kaaran hai?

 

[narenderkharb]

Genetics of South Asian people have two autosomal components : ANI(Ancestral North Indian) and ASI(Ancestral South India)
1. ANI component declines from NW to SE which is consistent with geography.
2. ANI declines from upper castes to lower castes, which points out migration of Aryan from North-West to South-East. Jats have more ANI than upper castes.
3. NEU(North European, a component within ANI) has a significant presence in Indian upper caste, and even more elevated among Jats, so it may tell connection to IE family.
4. Pakhtun and Baloch groups have sufficient genetic similarity with Jats and other NW South-Asians but they seem to acquire some components 'relatively little' though, absent in non-Muslim South Asians, because of result of Islamization. Iranian are genetically different though but they have less 'NEU'(component connected with Aryans) than upper caste NW south Asians and Jatts. I think in absence of caste system, Asura/Ahura worshiper Aryan elites of Iran mixed more with masses.
[/COLOR]

@Romar

This post of BSBana was for you.

Read and try to understand it.