Chronology of Indian History --Newer discussions

DrRajpalSingh said:
According to H.C. Roychaudhury, P.H.A.I., p. 65, 'Dasaratha' is mentioned in the Rigvedic hymn, R.V. 1.126.4. But no one agreed with him because etymologically 'Dasaratha' means ten chariots.

However, a proper name may or may not have a meaning, but, that does not make it the less a proper name. The hymn by Kakshivan Ausija, a junior of Kakshivan, was contemporary of Divodasa.

If this identification of the near contemporary Risi who composed the Rigvedic hymn under reference and the kings referred to are taken for further scrutiny by the scholars, perhaps, the time-line of our history may be identified properly and fixed scientifically.

Views of interested scholars on this issue are invited.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

It is generally mentioned that Raghuvamshi Dasaratha and Rama lived in Treta Yuga.

Has it historically verified and if so what its timeline fixed, kindly share your views please to carry

the discussion on the chronology of the ancient Indian history further.
 
Two very interesting studies have been provided by Sh. Rajender Kumar which show the presence of ancient man in India millions of years ago.

For details kindly log :http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...ia-from-Prehistoric-Times&p=337520#post337520

rkumar said:
Ever heard of Narmada Man?

http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/anthropology/n636.xml

here are the details of other findings from India which are much older than 100 K yrs.

http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/issue9/chauhan.html

Moreover, unlike other places Indians have been burning their dead for 1000s of years. Chances of finding fossile remains in india are much lower than other countries.

RK^2
Click to expand...

Thanks
 
DrRajpalSingh said:
It is generally mentioned that Raghuvamshi Dasaratha and Rama lived in Treta Yuga.

Has it historically verified and if so what its timeline fixed, kindly share your views please to carry

the discussion on the chronology of the ancient Indian history further.
Click to expand...


Ikshvaku, Dasaratha and Rama are mentioned in the Rigveda as famous rulers,

though they are not connected with one another in any way. The Rigveda

mentions them incidentally and its object is not to write any connected history.

But in Valmiki Ramayana these persons have been shown as belonging to one

royal dynasty.

This may mean, the Ramayana personages, who bear those names may be quite

different persons, as Krishana of the Mahabharata is different from his

namesake--a poet [a descendant of Angiras] in the Rigveda.

Was it so, your comments please !
 
maddhan1979 said:
We have lost lot of our archaeology by burning our dead.
Click to expand...

Friend,

None can say with certainty about the time of beginning of this practice in

India and also that not everything is lost on account of this isolated practice of

burning of dead bodies. On the contrary, so many other relics and remains

are there to support the advent and presence of man on this part of the globe.

Thanks.
 
In continuation to post 823 regarding time line of Epic Ramayana, "The Rishis mentioned in Ramayana are generally those who either composed or saw Rik-hymns or Rik-mantras.... In the Rigveda the Aryans are fighting with the Asuras from the west and the black people from the south east. In the Ramayana the same Aryans are seen fighting with the Gandharavas and the Sindhu Sauviras in the west and the Rakshasas in the south and east. In the Rigveda both Rishhis and Rajas are seen engaged in fighting...In the Rigveda the stream of Aryan migration seems to flow from the west to the east and the south; the same is found in the Ramayana over a greater extent of territory from Bahlika, where the same person Ila is the progenitor of the Solar and Lunar races, to Ceylon. In the Ramayana the primitive idea of men and women exchanging their sexes like Ila and of monkeys, birds and snakes living, moving and speaking like men is found in abundance. All these considerations stamp the story of the Ramayana as very ancient.'' {M.M.H. P. Sastri's Introduction to A.S.B. Purana Manuscripts cited by S.C.Dey, Historicity of Ramayana and the Indo-Aryan Society in India and Ceylon, (1976), Delhi, pp.76-77}

Therefore it may be surmised that the timeline of the Ramayana is prior to Mahabharata Battle

as ''the events of the Ramayana took place when the Rigveda was in the making and the Vedas

had not been classified by Dvaipayana Vyasa," who flourished later in the time of the Kurukshetra War

i.e. Mahabharata Battle.
 
The evidence furnished by Rigveda, Puranas and two Epics on the genealogical lists of Risis and the royal persons,

after very careful consideration, may be used for the writing of the traditional history. It is found that there are gaps in

the lists of kings provided by the epics and the puranas. As some of the names of the kings are available in the Rigveda,

they can be taken into account and fitted in the gaps as correctives to the Puranic and Epics lists, wherever possible.

Keith and Pargiter had paved way for using the Rigveda and the Puranas as sources of ancient history of India and the

subsequent studies have been continuing to critically examining the vedic texts and the Puranic literature to give a well

connected narrative of ancient Indian history and culture. These studies have led to fixation of chronology or time line of

Indian history by application of other available sources too.
 
Last edited:
Now, we will take up the views of various authors on the date of epoch making event,

Mahabharata Battle, and after reading them the readers are free to derive their own

conclusions on the basis of sources of research at their command. The readers must go

for details to the books by concerned authors cited herein under:

Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak ["Gita Rahasya -Hindi", pp 548-552] arrived at the conclusion

that Mahabharata Battle was fought in c. 1400 B.C.
 
3. C.V. Vaidya, [History of Sanskrit literature (Vedic period), Mahabharata a Criticism, pp65-92], declares 3102 B.C. as the year of the historic Mahabharata battle.
 
According to Vraha Mihira, Vrihat Samhita; Kalhana, Rajatarangini; and, P.C. Sengupta, Indian Chronology,

the Mahabharata battle was fought in c.2500 B.C. --------[cite. by S. B. Roy, op.cit., p140]
 
DrRajpalSingh said:
7.

Pargiter [Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, pp. 175-83] arrives at 950 B.C. as the date of the event of the Mahabharata battle.
Click to expand...

ha ha,,,i am sorry to say Dear, Dr. Rajpal. The so called timing of "Mahabharata" seems "Timeless or Timeout". I wonder,why does a learned person like you waste his time on such factless, archaeologically non verifiable myths?
 
maddhan1979 said:
ha ha,,,i am sorry to say Dear, Dr. Rajpal. The so called timing of "Mahabharata" seems "Timeless or Timeout". I wonder,why does a learned person like you waste his time on such factless, archaeologically non verifiable myths?
Click to expand...

Dear Friend,

Itihas or History is all about the past, so nothing is time out for it.

Mahabharata battle is neither factless nor 'Timeless or Time out'. There are scientifically verifiable facts to fix the time line of this very significant event in the history of India. Therefore, to sift the myth from facts, it is the need of the hour to collect all the relevant material [sources] under one thread, analyse them and then arrive at some logical conclusion.

The views of different persons on the issue as are available in literature are being first presented for the benefit of readers to know what sort of research has been done on the issue.That is why instead of wastage of time, this is one universally accepted method of research and as such first step to reach to the goal.

Kindly bear with us and contribute to make the attempt a success so that this knotty problem of chronology of this watershed event -- Mahabharata Battle -- is solved !

Thanks and regards
 
I can only talk about it if there are any chronological artifacts retrieved and if any remains of the civilization which fought this war, are brought out from the earth.
Otherwise it is a waste of time.
I do not want to go back to Dark Indian Ages where only some segments were spreading rumors about such battles and making money over it, whereas rest of the tribes were busy getting butchered in the name of country, region, religion and so on.

Let facts be facts and rumors be rumors.
I want to believe Battle of Mahabharata took place and so on, but to know the truth we need archaeological evidence, otherwise it is just making money in the name of dead civilizations and people.
 
Last edited:
maddhan1979 said:
I can only talk about it if there are any chronological artifacts retrieved and if any remains of the civilization which fought this war, are brought out from the earth.
Otherwise it is a waste of time.
I do not want to go back to Dark Indian Ages where only some segments were spreading rumors about such battles and making money over it, whereas rest of the tribes were busy getting butchered in the name of country, region, religion and so on.

Let facts be facts and rumors be rumors.
I want to believe Battle of Mahabharata took place and so on, but to know the truth we need archaeological evidence, otherwise it is just making money in the name of dead civilizations and people.
Click to expand...

Friend,

You have rightly said that :''Let facts be facts and rumors be rumors.''

And we are trying to do the same by means of this thread.

Thanks.
 
8. Dr. B.B. Lal, the famous Indian archaeologist,

who carried out excavations at Hastinapur near Meerut

and at a number of other places had come to conclusion

that the Mahabharata Battle took place c. 850 B.C.
 
Here it is pertinent to note that for fixation of ancient chronology

or time line, very many factors like traditions, literary sources,

astronomical references, cross contacts between various Risis and

Rulers, archaeological remains etc, provide different clues. As many as

possible they have to be collected, analysed scientifically giving each and

every shred of information due weightage, neither some over-weighed

nor any underestimated for this purpose. In other words, the sources

are sacred and their historic value must be critically and scientifically

tested and utilised to unravel truth and facts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top