Timeline of Mahabharat

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by satyam, Jun 23, 2010.

  1. satyam

    satyam New Member

    May 19, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Event Date

    _____ ____

    Going to forest 4th Sept. 5574 BC

    Kitmeet Killed 7th Sept. 5574 BC

    Going underground 19th May 5562 BC

    Keechak killed 1st April 5561 BC

    Anukeechak_Massacre 2nd April 5561 BC

    End of secret life 9th April 5561 BC

    Cows stolen 15th April 5561 BC

    Arjuna exposed 16th April 5561 BC

    All pandavas exposed 19th April 5561 BC

    Marriage of Uttara 4th May.

    & Abhimanyu.

    Krishna set out for a treaty. 27th Sept.

    Stay at Upaplavya 27th Sept.

    Stay at Vrukshthala 28th Sept.

    Dinner to Brahmins 29th Sept.

    Entry into Hastinapur 30th Sept.

    Krishna meets Kunti etc. 1st Oct.

    Invited for meeting 2nd Oct.

    First meeting 3rd Oct.

    Second meeting and an attempt 4th Oct.

    to arrest Krishna.

    Third meeting Vishvaroopa 7th Oct.

    Stay at Kunti 8th Oct.

    Krishna meets Karna. War 9th Oct.


    Krishna returns 9th Oct.

    Pandavas preparation 11th Oct.

    Balaram's visit.

    Mahabharat war started 16th Oct.

    Abhimanyu killed 28th Oct. 5561 BC.

    End of War 2nd November 5561 B.C.

    Yudhishthira crowned 16th Nov. 5551 BC.

    Bhishma expired 22nd Dec. 5561 BC

    Pandava campaign 15th Jan. 5560 BC

    for wealth

    Parikshita born 28th Jan. 5560 BC

    Pandavas return 25th Feb. 5560 BC

    Ashvamedh Deeksha. 1st March 5560 BC

    Return of Arjuna Horse 15th Jan. 5560 BC

    Ashvamedh yajna 22nd Feb. 5559 BC

    Dhrutarashtra went to forest 18th Aug. 5545 BC

    Pandavas visited Kunti 18th Aug. 5543 BC

    Vidura expired

    Death of Kunti, Dhrutarashtra, Sept./Oct. 5541 BC

    and Gandhari

    Yadava Massacre 5525 B.C.

    Parikshit Dead 5499 B.C.

    johnee and hit&run like this.
  3. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Jun 3, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Yea, I'm totally sold.
    Singh likes this.
  4. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Apr 1, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Could you clarify what is stopping you from buying the theory and please avoid the sarcasm.
    youngindian likes this.
  5. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Apr 1, 2009
    Likes Received:
    If we think about it, its quite natural that the european(mostly English) historians or indologists who arrived at their first conclusions on Indian literature, did not accept the original traditionally accepted timeline. They, and later others schooled in their thought, did not accept the figures mentioned in these literary works either. They remarked 'a few zeroes too many'. Quite understandable. What is interesting is that, we, the indians have been influenced so much by them that even we approach these literary works with a suspicious eye.

    Most of the times, the numeric figures or historical sequence is rejected without any overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is nothing but accusing our predecessors of lying in these literary works. Foreigners do that, nothing surprising. Should we be following those foreigners blindly?
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2010
    maomao likes this.
  6. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Jun 3, 2009
    Likes Received:
    The sentence that was quoted in the earlier post is self contradictory. It seems that the author of this (yet another) faith based hypothesis has absolutely no idea what "conclusive evidence" means, or how to derive upon it. His methodology is based on some grand assumptions and he keeps implementing one untestable hypothesis to "calculate" another to eventually derive upon his "conclusive evidence." I don't know what exactly the timeline of the Mahabharat is, but I do know that this supposed "conclusive evidence" as presented by this author is mislabeled.

    The people who believe this should do so out of faith (and it is everyone's right as a human being). But to pass this off as a 'scientifically proven theory' using (in the author's terms) "modern scientific methodology" as a testament to its veracity is categorically false, misleading and intellectually dishonest.

    I don't know how you came to this conclusion. It is blatantly evident that Indic literature and scriptures are rich with vast amounts of allegorical narratives. Just because there's an absence of scientific evidence indicating a literary version of reality doesn't mean that the predecessors are lying. It may however serve as an indicator of the unicorn chasing process (in which case I don't think the foreigners are to blame).
    plugwater and Singh like this.
  7. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Apr 1, 2009
    Likes Received:
    I have read some of that stuff. It would be better if you can specifically clarify what 'untestable hypothesis' you are refusing to buy. What I can gather from that paper is that he first rejects the dates given by some 'european' historians on the basis that they either depended on wrong sources or derived wrong conclusions. Then he proceeds to give his own theories, where principally he takes the astronomy mentioned in those works as proof.

    Basically, you are saying that since they are allegorical, they cannot be historical?!! And since it is not historical, meaning it never happened, it is imaginary(or allegorical in your words). Thus, it becomes a 'unicorn chasing'?!!

    Since, you dismiss these works as allegorical(or imaginary?!!), its natural that you term any work which uses the astronomy mentioned in these works as 'faith based analysis'. In short, you seem to say that the astronomical times mentioned in works are not to be depended on since these are 'untestable'.

    It would be better, if you spell out what you consider as the 'modern scientific methodology'.

    These works are accepted as historical. That means the events did occur. It is, correct me if I am wrong, accepted by all historians that the events mentioned in these works did occur. The disagreements are on dating and the sequence of events. So, allegorical or not, they are historical and very real events.
    So, this author only sticks to the historical part leaving allegorical part for the spirituality.
    maomao and youngindian like this.
  8. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Jun 3, 2009
    Likes Received:
    I'd much rather you look into this yourself considering the rather rudimentary nature of the question. Most importantly, please keep in mind that the information you unearth is not a matter of my personal consideration, but rather a generic principle of reasoning.

    Again, given the rather rudimentary nature of your inquiry, it'd be best if you were to look into this yourself at first. Here too you will realize that it's not a matter of my personal convictions but rather a situation where most of the hypotheses being presented not being falsifiable in the first place, making any further discussions moot.

    This is what you deduced from my earlier post? really? Sir I implore you to reread my post in order to realize that
    1. At no point in time did I deem them allegorical or historical. I don't have information to derive upon a definitive conclusion.
    2. The only thing I dismissed was your erroneous conclusion where you state...
    Just because there is very little evidence supporting the literal version you endorse, or even if there were definitive evidence rejecting the literal version, doesn't mean the "predecessors are to be accused of lying." It just means that what they wrote may have been allegorical, as in the case with many, many other parts of Indian literature (for which there is ample evidence). To assume something as real (without much evidence) and then retroactively look for "proof" (or make it up) through "scientific theories" is unicorn chasing. The author of the blog is clearly a champion of such a pursuit.
    3. Allegorical is not synonymous with imaginary.

    Sir, this makes no sense.

    You're wrong.
  9. Quickgun Murugan

    Quickgun Murugan Regular Member

    Oct 1, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Remember, geology is just an estimate which may or may not be accurate. At the end of the day, you just believe what you want yourself to believe.

    Here are a few likely dates when Mahabharat might have occurred:

    14th-15th century BC

    There are several clues that point to this date:

    1. The dating of the artifacts found at the underwater site off the coast of Dwaraka suggest that the city sunk at about 1400 BCE.

    2. Consider the reference of successive solar eclipses at Kurukshetra within a gap of 13 days. Such an occurence happened in 1397 BC (It also occurred in 3129 BC, 2559 BC, 2056 BC, 1853 BC, 1708 BC).

    3. The Puranas state that there were 1015 (or 1050) years between the birth of Parikshit (Arjuna's grandson) and the accession of Mahapadma Nanda, commonly dated to 382 BCE, which would lead to an estimate of about 1400 BCE for the battle.

    2800 BCE

    That's the estimated date of some metal weapons dug up at Kurukshetra.

    3129 BC

    5561 BC

    Both of the last two dates correspond with the two eclipses in 13 days idea, and also support perfectly the planetary and stellar positions stated in the epic.

    But the first of them also corroborates Aryabhatta's postulate about the starting point of Kaliyuga.

    There's another thing to remember here. Geologists say, the Saraswati river dried up somewhere around 1700 BC. The Thar desert was created as a resultof the drying up of the Saraswati river basin. Now, in the Mahabarata, we read of a great desert that Krishna has to cross while coming from Dwaraka to Hastinapur; probably indicating the Thar. This means that Saraswati had either dried up completely, or at least was flowing feebly at the time of the Mahabharata. This would also point towards the date of 1400 BCE.


    While searching on Google for archeological links to the Mahabharata, I came across a couple of sites that claim that 'iron' arrows and spearheads dated 2800 BCE have been excavated at Kurukshetra. However, I am not quite sure about the authenticity of such claims.



    A more authentic-looking site also discusses findings across the Saraswati river basin, though mentions Kurukshetra, does not mention anything about weapons.


    Sounds appealing to me!!
  10. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Apr 1, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Sir, I understand your stand. I appreciate your concern for 'scientific'ness of this author's approach. Let me also inform you that I am not defending his conclusions or even his methodology for that matter. But my stand is very simple: If someone is going to criticise or worse brush aside a theory, they should offer atleast some nominal reasons for doing so.

    I imagined that you rejected his theory because he uses the astronomical clues in literary works as his basis.

    This was your first post:
    Here, the author says that he will use astronomical or literary evidences or clues from Pauranic and Vaidik texts to give 'conclusive' dates for Mahabharat War. You dismissed it with sarcasm without giving any reasons for doing so.
    So, I inquired you the reasons for rejecting his theory.
    You, kindly, explained to me that his approach lacked 'modern scientific methodology' and depended on 'untestable hypothesis' or 'faith based hypothesis'. Further, you termed it as 'unicorn chasing'.
    Since, I did could not understand what completely, I asked for further explanation especially the specific deductions in his theory that you found 'untestable' or lacking the 'modern scientific methodology'.

    I am quoting you:
    So, I repeat my 'rudimentary' question: What are the 'grand assumptions' that you found in his theory? What 'untestable hypothesis' did he use? Could you give some specific deductions where he applied such 'assumptions' or 'untestable hypothesis'?

    Without giving any proper reason, you are simply dismissing it.....it is not proper.

    Once you enlighten all of us about the untestability of his approach, then we can all dismiss it together.

    Thanks for the clarification, sir.

    Fine, sir. A rhetorical point: Even if there is definitive evidence rejecting the literal version at present, we may in future, find other evidences which then add a new light to these evidences. And right now, if we are unable to find definitive evidence supporting the literal version, we may find them in future due to improved techniques.

    And who determines what is 'unicorn chasing' and what is not? How does anyone know which part of the text is allegorical and which is historical and which is merely imaginary?
    Each researcher starts with his perception and goes ahead to give his theories and before that he must give reasons for rejecting what has been already said. So, the author seems to be looking at the text only as a historical account with ample amounts of 'euhemerism' and 'personification'. You could, of course, agree or disagree with him. You could criticize him. But to simply accuse him of being a 'champion' of 'unicorn chasing' without giving any proper reasons is distasteful to say the least.

    I understand that. I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that you used the word allegorical to convey that mahabharat war(or events related to it) are allegorical...which obviously means that Mahabharat War never happened.

    I was referring to principle events and principle story line in these works specially the Mahabharat.

    Lastly, when you say that the proof is not 'conclusive', I think all historical proofs are more or less not conclusive. IMHO, events that may have happened so many years back can hardly be proved conclusively.
  11. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Jun 3, 2009
    Likes Received:
    I thought my dismissal of his crap blog entry was clear, but OK I'll be more specific.
    Reason: What he's offering is not a scientific theory. He is misrepresenting his findings as being scientifically sound, which they are not and neither is his methodology. So either he is an intellectual hack or unaware of scientific methodology altogether.

    No sir, you hastily jumped to the wrong conclusion.
    Let's revisit his original statement...
    If you look back at my posts you'll see that I say nothing about the limitations of astronomical chronology. What I do make issue of is the distortion of the phrase conclusive evidence. There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever in this matter, except for maybe the intellectual bankruptcy of the statement in question.

    I'll sum up my response for these questions:

    1. All of his ideas rely upon his esoteric ability to implement decoded information from the Vedas and the Puranas. There is also the grossly unsubstantiated assumption of considering the Mahabharat to be a literal historical fact. There is no scientific validity to this whatsoever. His calculations to produce the "conclusive evidence" are then based on the supposed decoded information, which further distorts the veracity of his statements. None of his conclusions or statements are falsifiable (untestable hypotheses) which inherently make any definitive conclusions invalid. I don't think you have looked up the exact definitions of all these terms, because if you had, you'd see the ridiculousness involved here.
    2. You also seem to have the burden of proof equation backward (a very common phenomenon in faith based discussions such as these). It is not I who have to provide evidence to someone else's unsubstantiated statements, but rather they who have to prove the veracity of their work. He has none, which is what renders his "conclusive evidence" as being bogus.
    3. Anybody who considers unsubstantiated information to be factual and then proceeds to build up on it is actively engaging in a pointless endeavor, often metaphorically referred to as chasing unicorns, and in this regard the author is a champion.
    4. I still don't think you have internalized the difference between allegory and imaginary
    5. There are many, many inconclusive aspects to history. The definitive conclusions however are drawn from testable evidence; he has none. He is being intellectually dishonest by saying otherwise.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong in the author's belief in this, all I'm saying is just don't call it science if it isn't.
  12. S.A.T.A

    S.A.T.A Senior Member Senior Member

    Mar 28, 2009
    Likes Received:
    I know iam butting in late,but the dating the epic to the early 6th millennium BCE would be quite preposterous and far fetched on many accounts.that would place the epic in the neolithic period,which goes against every notion of our understanding of the epic age.There are no evidences of war horses and chariots from sixth millennium from any part of the world(not to mention bronze war equipments).The Purana s are very late texts in Indian literary tradition and besides the purana's are not a astronomical treatise(or a scientific one, even from the traditional pov)hence making any inference based on such derivation would be too speculative.

    We cannot establish an irrefutable chronology to the events narrated in the Mahabharata,nor can we indisputably establish that so and so event did take place at such a such time,at such a such place.Most of the narrative must be accepted on faith only.However we can reasonably infer that the period that Mahabharata closely resonates with,would be late the bronze age(1900BCE or later).

    P.S:not everything mentioned in the traditional texts like epics and Purana's are allegorical.B.B Lal's excavation at Hastinapura(as part of his archaeology of Mahabharata project)came up with evidence that Hastinapura was inundated by a massive flood in the early historical period(Hastinapura was situated on the banks of Ganga before the river shifted course)following which there is absence of any habitational records for several years.This appears to synchronize with a legend in the puranas(Matsya purana i think)which says that during the reign of a great great grandson of pariksheet, Hastinapura was flooded forcing the population to abandon the city.

Share This Page