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

With respect

I think you are missing the point.

The reliability of Kalhan's work for high antiquity, is no worse than for other works of a similar date in any part of the world.

For events in the pre 2000 or pre 3000 BCE period, it is again no worse than the other material available to us.

In fact it is much better, for here, Kalhan's case,we have alternative sources of information , which we do not have in the other cases.

We can weigh the evidence from alternate sources.


The problem, to narrow the matter down, is something like this.

Kalhan composed a work circa 1150 CE, (Shalivana Saka 1070)


1) Where is the original manuscript?

2) In what script was the original manuscript composed?
Probably the Sharada script, Devnagari was not in
use then.

When was the original manuscript transcribed to Devnagari

What errors were made, were they faithfully copied, or did the copyists bring in their own opinions.


Answers to this will give us the correct path.

It is there that our investigative efforts should go

The rest is idle speculation


Ravi Chaudhary

P.S. I cannot see a Historian of the caliber of Kalhan make this kind of monumental error.
 
Last edited:
Leaving the matter of critical analysis of all types of literary sources for some time aside, presently we proceed to discuss other equally important sources of the Maurya History i.e. Inscriptions.

We invite the learned comments of the scholars on the Inscriptions so far read and analysed to study the Maurya History and how far they can be useful to set the chronology of the Maurya dynasty. Could some one inform about the latest interpretation of this important tool of investigation to understand their date and time using carbon dating system has been carried out or not.
 
Carbon dating does not work with rocks/stone.

It only works with organic matter.

The inscriptions, as far as I know, cannot be carbon dated.

You will recall that the inscriptions, ( ascribed to Shri Ashoka Maurya) have no dates.


Ravi Chaudhary
 
ravichaudhary said:
Carbon dating does not work with rocks/stone.

It only works with organic matter.

The inscriptions, as far as I know, cannot be carbon dated.

You will recall that the inscriptions, ( ascribed to Shri Ashoka Maurya) have no dates.


Ravi Chaudhary
Click to expand...

Thanks Chaudhary Sahib for sharing the information.

Yes none of the inscriptions of Priyadarshi contain exact dates as they only contain the year of the rule of the king who got them installed and except one do not mention Asoka by name. This situation has led to controversy regarding their exact chronology.

Therefore, the only method to know about the periodicity of the inscriptions could be arrived at with the help of their contents i.e. the language used, the contents inscribed, the relationship of the persons/events, the material and technology used on these monuments and so on.

The scholars who are conversant with old time languages like Brahmi and Kharosthi or any other can only make sense out of the contents of those sources. Then the information could be used to refute or substantiate the later day literary sources on the issue.

The views and readings based on the study of these inscriptions right from Princep to Bhandarkar are well known and their transliteration has been extensively used in relation to the History Maurya dynasty.

Since I do not possess the knowledge of ancient languages, it would be interesting to learn if there have/had been any other school of thought that not only rejects transliteration and interpretations of these inscriptions offered by 'Prinsep' and his line of scholars and also offers alternate reading or newer chronology to these inscriptions.

Regards
 
.
DrRajpalSingh said:
Yes none of the inscriptions of Priyadarshi contain exact dates as they only contain the year of the rule of the king who got them installed and except one do not mention Asoka by name.
Regards
Click to expand...

Just a small point to take into account.

The inscriptons contain NO dates.

Then also, you do not know which 'Asoka' is being referred to! Could be a local person in then Karnataka called Ashoka. Does not have to have any relation to our friend Ashoka Maurya.

To remind ourselves, it is only one single inscription amongst many, that contains the name 'Ashoka'. That too a minor one.Hardly statistically significant.



Ravi Chaudhary
 
Last edited:
On the Author of the Inscriptions:

According to Corpus Inscriptionum Indicanum Vol. I by E. Hultzsch, Ph.D. reprint Ed. 1969, Indological Book House, Delhi-Varanasi pp. xxix to xxxvi, the king at whose orders the rock and pillar-edicts were engraved, gives the name or title in various Prakrit forms of which the Sanskrit would be Devanampriyah Priyadarsi raja. This full form of his title is shortned into Devanampriyah in a few and after the opening section in which the full style is preserved and in a few only Devanampariyah alone is found.

......There remain the Calcutta Bairat rock-inscription and the three Barabar Hill cave inscriptions. In the former the king styles himself Priyadarsi Raja, and in the three others raja Priayadarsi.

This is what the inscriptions tell about the king on whose orders these inscriptions were engraved. The decipher's of the old Brahmi, James Prinsep, at first ascribed the edicts to Devanampiya Tissa of Ceylon. [JABS, 6 (1837). 472 f.]. However, the discovery of the Nagarjuni Hill cave-inscriptions of Dashalatha Devanampiya, whom Princep at once identified with Dasaratha, the grandson of the Maurya king Asoka (i.d., p.676 ff.) and the fact that Turnour had found Piyadassi or Piyadassana used as a surname of Asoka in the Dipavamsa, induced Prinsep to abandon his original view, and to identify king Devanampriya Priyadarsin with Asoka himself (id., p. 790 ff.). .......

However, before proceeding further it would be worthwhile to stop and invite expert views of scholars on the issue of identification of the king.


To be contd.../
 
ravichaudhary said:
.

Just a small point to take into account.

The inscriptons contain NO dates.

Then also, you do not know which 'Asoka' is being referred to! Could be a local person in then Karnataka called Ashoka. Does not have to have any relation to our friend Ashoka Maurya.

To remind ourselves, it is only one single inscription amongst many, that contains the name 'Ashoka'. That too a minor one.Hardly statistically significant.



Ravi Chaudhary
Click to expand...

Thanks Chaudhary Sahib for raising valid points to be taken note by the scholars while solving the puzzle about the king at whose orders the rock and pillar edicts at such a large scale were engraved and placed in so wide area of the country in those days when the means of transport were not so developed as they are today.

To manage engraving and installation of so mammoth cave inscriptions and stone pillars engraved or installed in the region stretched between Afghanistan and Karnataka and Patliputa to Gujarat, the king must have been of substantial means and power enjoying sovereign authority over those areas.

This makes one to believe that, he cannot be a local prince from Karnataka, but he must be at least a master of the areas over which these inscriptions have been found. If he is not Asoka of the Mauryan dynasty, then who he was, this has to be discovered.

Regards and thanks.
 
Prinsep etc.

When we are rexamining data, we have to rexamine everything.

We cannot simply base our conclusions on and , rely upon words like, the 'esteemed, reputed, learned' , author.

Which is why I am attempting to drive this investigation in a new direction.

Take Kalhan's work.

The orginal is untracebale.

The transliterated, translated versions, shows that the mainstay for the advocates of the late 2448 BC date for the Bharat war, does not have validity.

The scientific astronomical data also support this.

That being the case, we only have the examine the rest of sources,including Varahamihir, and Aryabhat, to see if their dating, placing the Bharta war around( Kali 643) or 2448BC, or 2626 years before Saka era ( 78 CE) instead , has any scientific validity

It is aslo not necessary , indeed very unlikely that Aryabhat composed the work Aryabhattia at the tender age of 23, as is claimed, or the Varahamihir single handedly composed the ' Panch- Sidhhant'


It is more than likey that two works were the product of a 'school of Astronomy'., based on older knowledge, complied in honour of these two.

Ujjain , where these two were supposedly based, was a centre for learning, a university. One of the foremost in its time, along with Takshsila, Nalanda and others.

We have to re think our approaches, our methodology and follow the evidence. Let us see where it leads


Ravi Chaudhary
 
Last edited:
ravichaudhary said:
Prinsep etc.

When we are rexamining data, we have to rexamine everything.

We cannot simply base our conclusions on and , rely upon words like, the 'esteemed, reputed, learned' , author.

Which is why I am attempting to drive this investigation in a new direction.

Take Kalhan's work.

The orginal is untracebale.

The transliterated, translated versions, shows that the mainstay for the advocates of the late 2448 BC date for the Bharat war, does not have validity.

The scientific astronomical data also support this.

That being the case, we only have the examine the rest of sources,including Varahamihir, and Aryabhat, to see if their dating, placing the Bharta war around( Kali 643) or 2448BC, or 2626 years before Saka era ( 78 CE) instead , has any scientific validity

It is aslo not necessary , indeed very unlikely that Aryabhat composed the work Aryabhattia at the tender age of 23, as is claimed, or the Varahamihir single handedly composed the ' Panch- Sidhhant'


It is more than likey that two works were the product of a 'school of Astronomy'., based on older knowledge, complied in honour of these two.

Ujjain , where these two were supposedly based, was a centre for learning, a university. One of the foremost in its time, along with Takshsila, Nalanda and others.

We have to re think our approaches, our methodology and follow the evidence. Let us see where it leads


Ravi Chaudhary
Click to expand...

Really good idea worth trying to solve the problem of Mahabharata war!!!

But how Maurya dynasty is related with the great war, I do not have any idea.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
DrRajpalSingh said:
Really good idea worth trying to solve the problem of Mahabharata war!!!

But how Maurya dynasty is related with the great war, I do not have any idea.

Thanks.
Click to expand...


The Maurya family is known only from Puranic sources.

The chronology is from Puranic sources.

To validate this the Kali era needs to validated.

The start of the Kali era ( 3102 BCE), in intertwined with the Bharat war.

The Laukika era or the Sapt Rishi era, or the Yudhisthra era all start at the year Kali 25 (3067 BCE), the MBH date for the death of Yudhisthra.

In Puranic chronolgy, the Nandas, the Mauryas follow.

Warm regards


Ravi Chaudhary
 
The studies so far undertaken by the scholars say that the following sources are available on the Maurya dynasty of Magadha founded by Chandragupta Maurya:

The Buddhist literature contains a number of references to the Maurya dynasty rulers like Asoka, Dashrath etc.

The Jain literature mentions Chandragupta Maurya and Samparti Maurya.

Inscriptions provide names of Asoka, Dashratha Maurya and a few consorts of the Maurya rulers.

Some coins of the Maurya kings have also been reported.

This situation puts one in dilemma what to do and how to reconcile all these sources or can we conclude that Puranas are the sole source of information on the Mauryas and others do not exist !

Thanks and regards
 
DrRajpalSingh said:
The studies so far undertaken by the scholars say that the following sources are available on the Maurya dynasty of Magadha founded by Chandragupta Maurya:

The Buddhist literature contains a number of references to the Maurya dynasty rulers like Asoka, Dashrath etc.

The Jain literature mentions Chandragupta Maurya and Samparti Maurya.

Inscriptions provide names of Asoka, Dashratha Maurya and a few consorts of the Maurya rulers.

Some coins of the Maurya kings have also been reported.

This situation puts one in dilemma what to do and how to reconcile all these sources or can we conclude that Puranas are the sole source of information on the Mauryas and others do not exist !

Thanks and regards
Click to expand...

Is that not the whole point in re-examining our existing beliefs and assumptions.


It may very well turn out the the currently accepted chronology is correct.

Ravi Chaudhary
 
ravichaudhary said:
Is that not the whole point in re-examining our existing beliefs and assumptions.


It may very well turn out the the currently accepted chronology is correct.

Ravi Chaudhary
Click to expand...

Chaudhary Sahib,

You are absolutely right in suggesting the re-examination of 'our existing beliefs and assumptions' but I once again fail to understand from where to get irrefutable evidence to supersede the overwhelming sources supporting the other view presently in vogue.

I mean to say, if you are in knowledge of any such source, kindly share with us the name of some reliable Purana or any other ancient historical document on the Maurya dynasty which could provide us base to make a frame work for the study of the Maurya chronology afresh. If we get such information only then we could proceed further and test our hypotheses and carry out the study in a scientific way to untie the knot of chronology of Chandragupta Maurya in particular and the ancient Indian History in general.

It would be a great pleasure to receive information on the topic from any of the scholars across the globe and would be duly acknowledged.

Thanks and regards.

P S : This is just request for information; kindly do not take it as a demand on you in any way please.
 
Last edited:
On a lighter note:

I do not have any idea which Purana or source is more reliable.

I am planning to take up the study of ancient Indian civilization.

To achieve that I will have to learn Sanskrit, Pali, Kharoshti, Bramhi, the nail head, and other scripts.

Of course an deep knowledge of the vedic knowledge will alsobe required.

We must knot forget the need to knowledge of Sumerian, Egyptian and other ancient languages

I may add knowledge of Astronomy and other sciences

I am not sure how long this will take, but a few life times may be necessary.

Thank goodness, we have reincarnation.


In the mean time I have taken the first small steps, and am asking the questions ,and garnering what knowledge I can, and sharing it.

The question of Puranic chronology is one that is my focus for now.

Warm Regards

Ravi Chaudhary
 
ravichaudhary said:
On a lighter note:

I do not have any idea which Purana or source is more reliable.

I am planning to take up the study of ancient Indian civilization.

To achieve that I will have to learn Sanskrit, Pali, Kharoshti, Bramhi, the nail head, and other scripts.

Of course an deep knowledge of the vedic knowledge will alsobe required.

We must knot forget the need to knowledge of Sumerian, Egyptian and other ancient languages

I may add knowledge of Astronomy and other sciences

I am not sure how long this will take, but a few life times may be necessary.

Thank goodness, we have reincarnation.


In the mean time I have taken the first small steps, and am asking the questions ,and garnering what knowledge I can, and sharing it.

The question of Puranic chronology is one that is my focus for now.

Warm Regards

Ravi Chaudhary
Click to expand...

Thanks Chaudhary Sahib,

I got it.

Regards
 
DrRajpalSingh said:
Friends,

Below are given a few links for favour of reference on the chronology of Indian History:

http://www.astrojyoti.com/indian-history-chronology.htm

Chronology of Indian History (Part 1) - Asian History and Culture ...

History of India - Timeline
Timeline of Indian history, from the earliest civilizations to the modern day.
asianhistory.about.com/od/india/tp/indiatimeline.htm - 30k

Could someone suggest better source for reference purpose
Click to expand...


Rajpalji if we believe this time line then we find Jats in 3102 BC.

3102 -BIRABHADRA ERA

[Wiki]Virabhadra[/Wiki] is originator of many Jat clans.
 
lrburdak said:
Rajpalji if we believe this time line then we find Jats in 3102 BC.

3102 -BIRABHADRA ERA

Virabhadra is originator of many Jat clans.
Click to expand...

Burdakji,

I have just invited the attention of the Jatland forum scholars to this timeline of Indian history and have not tested it on my own in any way.

Since Wiki pages of the Jat land are already full of references based on Mbt and a book edited by four learned authors, the critical assessment of that material could be done in the light of such type of newer researches to give them solid foundation or to weed them out totally so that history of Jats become more authenticated and placed on firmer footing.

This is a line of thinking on the part of some historians and should be taken into account after applying rigorous tools of research. If it proves its worth the what is harm in applying to not only the history of the Jats but also to the history of India as a whole. Alternately it could be rejected if it does not prove its claim on the basis of stronger evidence against it.

No doubt, a challenging work for the researchers.

Thanks and regards
 
Identification of Chandragupta Maurya:

Budha Prakash has dealt with the term Maurya in its various aspects and has come to conclusion that the Mauryas originally belonged to Bihar region. By him, Chandragupta Maurya has been identified with 'Kand' of Masudi, 'Kaid' of Firdausi, and 'Kafand' of Mujmul-ut-tawariskh.

Now the last named authority has also been quoted by Elliot and Dowson in their History of India as Told by its own Historians, vol II, p.108.

B. S Dahiya [Jats--The Ancient Rulers, p.153] says that the important point however, is that 'Kafand' is expressly mentioned as a non-Hindu, non-Indian, who made fine speeches and won the hear of the Indians by his sweet words and complimentary deeds. he goes on to add "If the implied identification of 'Kafand' with 'Chandragupta' is correct, then the way is cleared for the fact that he was a foreigner in India."

Comments of the readers are invited to untangle the issue.

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