Indian Historical Timeline debunked

[HeinzGud]

Dontry worry Sri Lanka didn't exist at that time. There was only Lanka. No sri lanka. Gaffur Bhai.

Lanka means the island. There are "Lankas" even in Ganges .

 

[shade]

Ya'll nibbiars, don't you wish for the good old days

 

[Haldilal]

View attachment 64638

Ya'll nibbiars, don't you wish for the good old days

Janab ye Historical Timeline Debunk thread hai. History thread alag hai.

 

[shade]

Janab ye Historical Timeline Debunk thread hai. History thread alag hai.

The Lankavasi denies Ramayan.
So i gave him an undeniable time period

 

[Maharaj samudragupt]

The Lankavasi denies Ramayan.
So i gave him an undeniable time period

Now thats what , i call a pro move .

 

[Maharaj samudragupt]

Dontry worry Sri Lanka didn't exist at that time. There was only Lanka. No sri lanka. Gaffur Bhai.

Haldi bhai, kindly say something about sinhala people .

 

[N4tsula67]

Haldi bhai, kindly say something about sinhala people .

Well the sinhala people were originally from the mainland too lol they went their to Lanka around 500BCE-300BCE. Some sources claim they were originally from Bengal/Odisha/Maharashtra region.

 

[shade]

Well the sinhala people were originally from the mainland too lol they went their to Lanka around 500BCE-300BCE. Some sources claim they were originally from Bengal/Odisha/Maharashtra region.

So even according to Gora sahibs they are Indics after all

 

[N4tsula67]

So even according to Gora sahibs they are Indics after all

Even according to their own books like Mahavamsa. Also Ramayan is atleast more than 6000+ year old while Sinhalese who were originally from Vanga/Kalinga region (so Indian) arrived in Lanka around just 500-300BCE before that there were Yakshas and Nagas in Lanka. Also Buddhism arrived much much later in Lanka there is atleast some 100-200 years gap between arrival of Prince Vijay to Lanka and arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka so Vijaya wasn't Buddhist probably but his descendants converted to buddhism.

 

[A chauhan]

Some good info :-

 

[Haldilal]

Ya'll Nibbiars Very interesting discovery. 11th century AD either means late Pala era or early Sena era. Lakshman Sena's inscriptions claim that he took his armies to Prayagraj and "planted his pillars" there. Maybe it wasn't an empty boast and he did take his armies into modern UP after all.

 

[HeinzGud]

Even according to their own books like Mahavamsa. Also Ramayan is atleast more than 6000+ year old while Sinhalese who were originally from Vanga/Kalinga region (so Indian) arrived in Lanka around just 500-300BCE before that there were Yakshas and Nagas in Lanka. Also Buddhism arrived much much later in Lanka there is atleast some 100-200 years gap between arrival of Prince Vijay to Lanka and arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka so Vijaya wasn't Buddhist probably but his descendants converted to buddhism.

Vijaya could be a Jain. IDK. It is recorded that pre-Buddhist Sinhala state of Sri Lanka had a significant Jain population.

 

[HeinzGud]

The Lankavasi denies Ramayan.
So i gave him an undeniable time period

We don't deny it but do not accept the "Lanka" mentioned in Ramayana has anything to do with Sri Lanka

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT -- Vedveer Arya
A great work on this subject is attached which is compiled by adding many pieces from website of Vedaveer ji. Though I differ in some details and interpretation, this is a great work.

Arun Kumar Upadhyay August 15, 2015

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT

Author : VEDVEER ARYA.

“A comprehensive research that completely demolishes the entire edifice of the distorted chronology of ancient India which was erected on false foundations during colonial period.

Introduction
Extensive study of Sanskrit inscriptions and literature in the original always throws up a few historical or factual inconsistencies; the puzzlement led me to further reading and research to unravel these obvious mismatches. As a simple example, let us take the period of Kalidasa’s life: how are we to reconcile the fact that Kalidasa who claims to be the court poet of king Vikramaditya of Ujjain is the court poet of the king Chandragupta II Vikramaditya of Pataliputra. A further inconsistency: Kalidasa refers to Varahamihira as his senior contemporary but the modern textbooks of history teach us that Kalidasa lived in the 5th century CE whereas Varahamihira was supposed to have lived in the 6th century CE. Seemingly simple inconsistencies but requiring an extraordinary amount of erudition, a command over Sanskrit and amateur astronomical knowledge to be able to validate the celestial events recorded in the wealth of epigraphic records in this country.
There are many such anomalies in the modern chronological history of ancient India that need dedication, erudition and patience but unfortunately for us, ‘eminent historians’ preferred to brush such inconsistencies aside rather than promoting honest, unbiased research to resolve them. Western historians nurtured a bias towards the traditional chronology of ancient India to further their own political and academic interests and the majority of the historians of independent India carried forward the same legacy, patronised by the certain sections of political establishment.
The entire edifice of the chronology of ancient India was erected on false foundations during the colonial period. While many scholars attempted to expose the fallacy of the distorted Indian chronology with reference to the Puranic chronology, unfortunately none studied the chronological content of the inscriptions comprehensively to reconcile with Puranic and astronomical inputs. The present research work is completely based on the comprehensive study of the chronological content of the inscriptions. During the course of my research, I have discovered the exact epochs of various ancient Indian eras that conclusively uphold the authenticity of the Puranic chronology and expose the fallacy of the chronology given in the modern textbooks of Indian history. There is a serious need to re-write the entire history of ancient India with reference to the newly discovered epochs of the ancient Indian eras.
About The Saka Era
During the study of inscriptions, I have found that the chronology derived from the epigraphs is absolutely in line with the Puranic chronology. I have also found that all inscriptions are genuine if we follow the real epochs of certain eras. For instance, all historians simply assumed that the Saka era and the Salivahana era both commenced in 78 CE though the details of many inscriptions cannot be verified with reference to the epoch of 78 CE. Eminent historians rejected such inscriptions as “spurious” or “forgery”. Unfortunately, Indians also forgot the real epoch of Saka era since 10th and 11th century CE. Indian inscriptions clearly indicate two distinct epochs i.e. the coronation of Saka king and the death of Saka king. As stated by Alberuni, the epoch of the death or the end of Saka king commenced in 78 CE. The same epoch is later referred to as Salivahana era. Historians generally concluded that the epoch of 78 CE was earlier referred to as the coronation of Saka king and the same was later referred to as the death of the Saka king but it is an egregious blunder committed by the eminent historians.
The inscriptions clearly indicate two different epochs of the Saka era. Undoubtedly, the epoch of the death of Saka king commenced in 78 CE which is later referred to as the Salivahana era. Kurtaketi copper plates of early Chalukya king Vikramaditya and Hyderabad copper plates of Pulakesin II unambiguously indicate the untenability of the epoch of 78 CE. These two inscriptions provide the strongest verifiable details of solar eclipses which cannot be explained with reference to the epoch of 78 CE. Historians ridiculously concluded that Indians occasionally referred to the solar eclipses on calculation basis though they are not visible in India. It is quite absurd to conclude that Indian kings celebrated the occasion of invisible solar eclipses. Actually, the incorrect epoch considered by historians led to these absurd conclusions.
Kurtaketi and Hyderabad copper plates referred to the epoch of the coronation of Saka king and not the epoch of the death of Saka king. Kurtaketi plates are dated in the year 530 elapsed from the epoch of the coronation of Saka king. It refers to the total solar eclipse that occurred on new moon day of the Vaisakha month in Northern Karnataka which ended around noon. The following ten total solar eclipses have occurred in Northern Karnataka (considering the latitude 15:55 N and longitude 75:40 E of Badami) during the period from 1500 bce to 1500 CE.

• 1. 13th Aug 1416 bce
• 2. 27th Jul 1257 bce
• 3. 4th Mar 180 bce
• 4. 9th May 53 bce
• 5. 27th Jan 111 CE
• 6. 25th Jun 754 CE
• 7. 20th Aug 993 CE
• 8. 23rd Jul 1134 CE
• 9. 6th Nov 1268 CE
• 10. 9th Dec 1322 CE

It is evident from the above that there was only one total solar eclipse that occurred in Northern Karnataka on new moon day of the Vaisakha month i.e. 9th May 53 bce that started at 9:04 hrs and ended at 11:45 hrs. The day was the new moon day of Vaisakha month (between Vaisakha and Jyeshtha months) and moon was in Rohini naksatra. Sun and Moon were also in Vrishabha Rasi i.e. Taurus sign.

Hyderabad copper plates of Pulakesin II are dated in the year 534 elapsed from the epoch of the coronation of Saka king. These plates refer to the occurrence of a solar eclipse on the new moon day of Bhadrapada month i.e. 21st Aug 49 bce.

Similarly, the Talamanchi (Nellore) plates of Chalukya Vikramaditya I are dated in his 6th regnal year i.e. 1-0 bce and refer to a solar eclipse that occurred on the new moon day of the Shravana month i.e. 31st Jul 1 bce. This solar eclipse was visible at Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.

The three solar eclipses mentioned in the copper plate inscriptions of Badami Chalukyas cannot be explained with reference to the epoch of the death of Saka king i.e. 78 CE. It is evident that the epoch of the coronation of Saka king is different from the epoch of the death of Saka king. Considering the year 530 elapsed in 53 bce, it can be easily concluded that the epoch of the coronation of Saka king commenced in 583 bce. Since the calendar of Saka era was Chaitradi and amanta, the epoch of the Saka era must have commenced on 19th Feb 583 bce. Thus, it is evident that the early Chalukyas of Badami flourished around the 1st century bce and not in the 7th century as established by eminent modern historians. It is well known that the Gupta dynasty flourished before the Badami Chalukyas thus validating the correctness of the Puranic chronology. Therefore, “Sandrokottus” must be identified with Samudragupta and not Chandragupta Maurya.
An inscription found in Shimoga district of Karnataka refers to the annular solar eclipse (Valaya grahana) that occurred on Chaitra Pratipada i.e. the 1st tithi of the bright fortnight of Chaitra month in the year 861 of Saka era. Considering the epoch of the coronation of Saka king in 583 bce, 277-278 CE was the 861st year of Saka era and the annular solar eclipse occurred on 20th Feb 277 CE.

The above mentioned references to solar eclipses found in the inscriptions clearly indicate that the epoch of the coronation of Saka king and the epoch of the death of Saka king are different. Evidently, the epoch of the coronation of Saka king commenced in 583 bce whereas the epoch of the death of Saka king or the end of the Saka era commenced in 78 CE.

To be continued..

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT (Part 2)-- Vedveer Arya
Arun Kumar Upadhyay August 15, 2015

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT

Author : VEDVEER ARYA.

The Literary References of Saka era
Saka era (583 BCE) happens to be the one of the popular eras referred in ancient Indian literature. The chronology of the great Indian astronomers and the Sanskrit poets has been reconstructed as details given below:

• Yavanajataka (528-527 BCE): Yavanesvara authored “Horarthasastra” which has been translated in Sanskrit as “Yavanajatakam” in 78 chapters by Yavana king Sphujidhvaja. A later Yavana scholar wrote 79th Chapter of Yavanajataka referring to Saka 56 (528-527 BCE). Thus, the available copy of the Yavanajataka was around 500-400 BCE and not in 269-270 CE as fraudulently propounded by David Pingree, a biased and Eurocentric Indologist.
• Simhasuri (204-203 BCE): Simhasuri translated Lokavibhaga in Sanskrit in Saka 380 (204-203 BCE).
• Gunadhya (5th century BCE): Gunadhya authored Brihatkatha.
• Bharavi (220-140 BCE): Bharavi, the famous author of Kiratarjuniyam, flourished around 220-140 BCE.
• Varahamihira (156-74 BCE): The author of Brihat Samhita, Panchasiddhantika and Brihat Jataka.
• Kalidasa (105-25 BCE): The author of Raghuvamsa, Abhijnanasakuntalam, Meghadutam, Jyotirvidabharana etc.
• Brahmagupta (63 BCE-17 CE):he author of Brahma Sphutasiddhanta and Khandakhadyaka.
• Lallacharya (1st century CE):The author of Sishyadhivriddhida Tantra.
• Udyotana Suri (116-117 CE):The author of Kuvalayamala.
• Jinasena (122-123 CE): The author of Harivamsa.
• Vatesvara (218-290 CE):The author of Vatesvara Siddhanta.
• Gunabhadra and Lokasena (238 CE): :The authors of Uttara Purana.
• Munjala (1st century CE or 3rd century CE): The author of Laghumanasa.
• Bhattotpala (304-305 CE):The author of the commentary named “Chintamani” on Varahamihira’s Brihat Samhita and the commentary named “Vivriti” on Varahamihira’s Brihajjataka.
• Sripati (338-400 CE):The author of Siddhanta shekhara.
• Bhaskaracharya (452-530 CE):The famous author of Siddhanta Siromani.

· The Epoch of the Gupta Era
· Historians concocted that Gupta era and Valabhi era are identical and both commenced in 319-320 CE. In fact, Gupta era commenced in 335-334 bce and Valabhi era commenced in 319-320 CE when Guptas ceased to exist. The following study of solar eclipses mentioned in the inscriptions leads to the epoch of Gupta era in 335-334 bce.

		The Epoch : 335-334 BCE	The Epoch : 319-320 CE
1	Solar eclipse on new moon day of MÀgha month in Gupta SaÚvat 585 elapsed. The date given is 5th tithi of the bright fortnight of PhÀlguna month. (Morbi grant of JÀika)	The year was 249-250 CE. Solar eclipse was visible on 20th Jan 250 CE between 14:33 hrs to 16:12 hrs. It was the new moon day of MÀgha month.	No Solar eclipse in MÀgha month of 903 or 904 or 905 CE.

2

Solar eclipse on new moon day of Chaitra month in Gupta SaÚvat 322. (NÀgardhan plates of SwamirÀja)

The year was 14-13 bce. A solar eclipse was visible on 29th Mar 14 bcebetween 6:40 hrs to 6:55 hrs. The day was the new moon day of Chaitra month.

No Solar eclipse on Chaitra amÀvÀsyÀ of 640 or 641 or 642 CE

3

Solar eclipse on new moon day of VaiœÀkha month in Gupta SaÚvat 254 (257?). (Bantia plates of Dharasena I)

Considering Gupta SaÚvat 254 elapsed, the year was 81-80 BCE. Solar eclipse was visible on 18th May 81 BCE between 7:57 hrs to 10:10 hrs.

No solar eclipse. 19th Mar 573 CE

4

Solar Eclipse in Gupta SaÚvat 300. (Ganjam Plates of King ŒaœÀôkarÀja)

Considering Gupta SaÚvat 300 elapsed, the year was 35-34 bce A solar eclipse was visible on 1st November 34 bce between 13:37 hrs to 16:25 hrs.

No Solar eclipse in 618-619 CE or 619-620 CE. 2nd Sep 620 CE.

To be continued..

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT (Part 2)-- Vedveer Arya
Arun Kumar Upadhyay August 15, 2015

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT

Author : VEDVEER ARYA.

The chronology of Gupta Dynasty:

	No of years reigned	In Gupta Era (335 bce)	In CE
Srigupta		--	--
Ghatotkachagupta		--	--
Chandragupta I	7	0-4	338-331 bce
Samudragupta	51	5-55	331-280 bce
Ramagupta	2?	56-57?	279-278 bce
Chandragupta II	36	57-93	278-242 bce
Kumaragupta I	42	94-136	241-199 bce
Skandagupta	23	136-158	199-177 bce
Purugupta Budhagupta Narasimhagupta Baladitya	40	159-199	176-136 bce
Kumaragupta II Vishnugupta	44	200-243	136-92 bce
Total duration of the Gupta Rule was 245 years.

Who was Sandrokottus: Samudragupta or Chandragupta Maurya?
Alexander, during his invasion on Persian Empire and some parts of western India, has carried some Greek scholars like Baeto, Diognetos, Nearchos, Onesikritos, Aristoboulos, and Kallisthenes with him to chronicle his achievements. Megasthanes and Deimachos, the ambassadors of Seleucus Nikator the successor of Alexander, also wrote about India. Though the works of these scholars are all lost but their substance is found in the works of Plutarch, Strabo, Pliny and Arrian. Plutarch wrote Alexander’s biography over 200 years after the death of Alexander based on the oral legends. These Greek scholars repeatedly mentioned about a powerful king of India named “Sandrokottus” who was undoubtedly “Samudragupta” with reference to the epoch of Gupta era in 335 bce and Puranic account of the history of Magadha.
Sir William Jones (1746-1794) deliberately identified “Sandrokottus” mentioned by the Greeks as Chandragupta Maurya and declared that he was the contemporary of Alexander in 327-326 bce. This mistaken identity or concocted theory of William Jones has been propagated by western historians as an eternal and irrefutable historical fact for constructing the chronology of Ancient India. Eminent Indian historians under the influence of western historians toed the same line. Unfortunately, they completely ignored the history of ancient India given in Puranas since Mahabharata War.
Considering the epoch of Saka era in 583 bce and the epoch of Gupta era in 335 bce, the epigraphic evidence supports that Maurya dynasty ruled Magadha much earlier than 4th century bce. Puranas tell us that Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne by defeating the last Nanda king around 1500 bce.
According to Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta, the Great Bear or Saptarshi Mandal was in Sravana nakshtra during the reign of Mahapadma Nanda.
“Saptarshayo Maghayuktah kale Yaudhishthire satam |
Sravane te bhavishyanti kale Nandasya bhupateh ||”
(During the time of Yudhishthira, the Great Bear was in Magha constellation for 100 years. By the time of Nanda, it will be in Sravana constellation.)
The Great Bear was in Sravana nakshatra around 1676 bce to 1576 bce. Nanda dynasty ruled Magadha for 100 years between 1616 bce to 1516 bce. Chandragupta Maurya founded the rule of Maurya dynasty around 1516 bce. Therefore, Samudragupta was the contemporary of Alexander in 327-326 bce not Chandragupta Maurya. There are many more evidences to support that Samudragupta was the “Sandrokottus” not Chandragupta Maurya.

1. The Greek scholars recorded the names of kings of India as Xandrames, and Sandrokottus. Western historians deliberately identified these names with those of Mahapadmananda or Dhanananda and Chandragupta Maurya. Xandrames was said to be the father of Sandrokottus. According to John W. McCrindle, Diodorus distorted the name “Sandrokottus” into Xandrames and this again is distorted by Curtius into Agrammes21. It is totally absurd to link Xandrames with MahÀpadmananda and Sandrokottus with Chandragupta Maurya. Most probably, Greeks called Chandra (Chandragupta) as Xandrames and Samudragupta as Sandrokottus. Moreover, the description given by the Greek scholars about Sandrokottus and his father Xandrames are quite inapplicable to Chandragupta Maurya and could only apply to Samudragupta too. According to Greeks, Xandrames was the king of Gangaridai and Prasii whereas Dhanananda was the ruler of entire North, west, central and eastern India. It is also said that Sandrokottus (Samudragupta) killed his father Xandrames (Chandragupta). This fact has been wilfully ignored by the biased western historians and their followers.
2. All Greek writers mentioned that Sandrokottus, the king of Prasii, whose capital was Palibothra i.e. Pataliputra. Megasthanes, Deimachos and other Greek ambassadors of Seleucus Nikator were sent in the court of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II at Palibothra. Pataliputra became the capital of Magadha Empire only during the reign of Chandragupta I around 335 bce. According to Puranas, Girivraja or Rajagriha (Rajgir) was the capital city of Magadha during the reign of Nandas and Mauryas. Thus, Pataliputra was not the capital city of Chandragupta Maurya. From 3rd century bce onwards, the city of Pataliputra became famous as the capital of Magadha. This is the reason why Vishakhadatta referred Pataliputra as the capital city of Magadha Empire in his work “Mudraraksasa” but this cannot be taken as evidence to reject the Puranic reference. Moreover, Mudraraksasa is a drama based on historical fiction. All the Puranas unanimously tell us that the capital of Magadha Empire was Girivraja or Rajagriha till the fall of Satavahana dynasty.
3. According to Megasthanes, Sakas or Skythians were living in the northern side of India.

“India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Œakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile.”
Many other Greek scholars also wrote about Skythians. Thus, it seems that Northern Saka Ksatrapas were ruling in the North-western frontier region during the time of Megasthanes.
It is well known that Saka Ksatrapas were contemporaries of Guptas not Mauryas. Asoka inscriptions mention about only Yavana kings named Antikina, Alikasundara, Maga, Turamaya and Gongakena (not Greeks but indigenous Yavana kings of Afganistan and Northern Pakistan) ruling in the western frontier regions. Western historians speculated about these kings to be Antiochus Theos II of Syria, Alexander of Epirus, Magas of Cyrene, Ptolemy II Philadelphos of Egypt and Antigonus Gonatus of Macedonia. These baseless speculations are simply based on the resemblance of names without any direct or indirect evidence. The references of Yavana kings in Asoka inscriptions indicate that Yavanas were the rulers in the western frontier regions not Sakas. There is no reference of Saka Ksatrapas in the entire account of Mauryan history. Therefore, Sandrokottus can only be Samudragupta who was the contemporary of Saka Ksatrapas not Chandragupta Maurya.

1. Seleucus Nikator also sent Deimachos on an embassy to Allitrocades or Amitrocades, the son of Sandrokottus. Western historians identified Allitrocades or Amitrocades to be Bindusara, the son of Chandragupta and concocted that Bindusara was also known as “Amitraghata”. None of the Indian sources ever referred Bindussra as Amitraghata. Western historians deliberately created the word “Amitraghata” with some sort of resemblance. According to Puranas, Samudragupta was also known as “Asokaditya” and Chandragupta II was also known as “Vikramaditya”. Probably, Allitrocades or Amitrocades referred to “Vikramaditya”, the son of Sandrokottus (Samudragupta).
2. Megasthanes described the system of city administration of Pataliputra but there is no similarity between the system described by Megasthanes and the system of city administration given in Kautilya Arthasastra. Megasthanes also stated that there was no slavery in India but Kautilya Arthasastra’s Chapter 65 named “Dasakalpa” is solely devoted to the status of slaves among the Aryans and the Mlecchas. Probably, the slavery system that existed during Mauryan era has gradually declined by Gupta era. Thus, Megasthanes cannot be contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya.
3. Megasthanes not only often visited Palibothra but also stayed in the court of Sandrokottus for a few years. But he did not even mention about Kautilya or Chanakya who was the real kingmaker and also the patron of Chandragupta. No Greek scholar ever mentioned about Kautilya. Therefore, Megasthanes cannot be the contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya.
4. Greek scholars often mentioned that Sandrokottus was the king of the country called as Prasii (Prachi or Prachya). Pracha or Prachi means eastern country. During the Nanda and Mauryan era, Magadha kings were ruling almost entire India. Mauryan Empire was never referred in Indian sources as only Prachya desa or eastern country. Prachya desa was generally referred to Gupta Empire because Northern Saka Ksatrapas and Western Saka Ksatrapas were well established in North and West India. Megasthanes mentioned that Sandrokottus is the greatest king of the Indians and Poros is still greater than Sandrokottus26 which means a kingdom in the North-western region is still independent and enjoying at least equal status with the kingdom of Sandrokottus.

Chandragupta Maurya and his successors were the most powerful kings of India. It was impossible for any other Indian king to enjoy equal status with Mauryan kings because Mauryans inherited a strongest and vast empire from Nandas. Therefore, Sandrokottus, the king of Prasii can only be Samudragupta not Chandragupta Maurya.

1. The Greek historian Plutarch mentioned that Androkottus (Sandrokottus) marched over the whole of India with an army of 600 thousand men. Chandragupta Maurya defeated Nandas under the leadership of Chanakya. There was no need for him to go on such expedition to conquer the whole of India because he has already inherited the Magadha kingdom of Nandas covering entire India. Actually, it was Samudragupta who overran the whole of India as details given in Allahabad pillar inscription.
2. According to Greek historians like Justinus, Appianus etc., Seleukos made friendship with Sandrokottus and entered into relations of marriage with him. Allahabad pillar inscription tells us that Samudragupta was offered their daughters in marriage (Kanyopayanadana...) by the kings in the North-west region. There is nothing in Indian sources to prove this fact with reference to Chandragupta Maurya.
3. The Jain work “Harivamsa” written by Jinasena gives the names of dynasties and kings and the duration of their rule after the nirvana of Mahavira. Jinasena mentions nothing about Mauryas but he tells us that Gupta kings ruled for 231 years. Western historians fixed the date of Mahavira-nirvana in 527 bce which means Mauryas ruled after Mahavira-nirvana but Jaina Puranas and Jaina Pattavalis had no knowledge of Mauryas after Mahavira-nirvana. Thus, Mauryas ruled prior to Mahavira-nirvana. Therefore, Sandrokottus can only be identified with Samudragupta.
4. If Sandrokottus was indeed Chandragupta Maurya, why do none of the Greek sources mentioned about Asoka, the most illustrious and greatest of Mauryan kings? It is evident that Greek sources had no knowledge of Asoka. Therefore, the ancient Greeks were contemporaries to Gupta kings not Mauryas.

In view of the above, Samudragupta was the contemporary of Alexander not Chandragupta Maurya. Unfortunately, this distorted history is being taught to Indians since last 231 years. Indian historians also blindly followed on the footsteps of Western historians.
Western historians were born and brought up in a religious Christian society. They were faithful to the Biblical conception of the creation of the world in 4004 bce. They knew the fact that the antiquity of the history of Greece and other European countries cannot be greater than 1000 bce. When they encountered with the antiquity of ancient Indian history that is greater than 6776 bce, Western historians could not believe it. Therefore, they started distorting the chronology of ancient India. First of all, Sir William Jones conspired and deliberately cut down 1200 years of Indian history by identifying Sandrokottus as Chandragupta Maurya. To cover up this distortion, Jones declared that Puranic account of Indian history is mythological and unreliable but selectively accepted the genealogy of various dynasties from Puranas. Actually, many Western historians pursued their research with an objective to curtail the antiquity of the chronology of ancient India so that the supremacy of ancient Greek civilization can be established.
Western historians were fascinated with the history of Alexander from their childhood. They started searching the footprints of Alexander’s invasion in India. Interestingly, there is no reference of Alexander’s invasion in Indian literary sources because it was actually a non-event for Indians. Western scholars concocted the theory that the Yavanas mentioned in Indian sources are Greeks without any evidence. According to various Indian sources, Yavana kingdoms existed in Indian history since Mahabharata war that located in the west and north side across the Indus river. Thus, Indian Yavanas were more ancient than the birth of ancient Greek civilisation.
In fact, it can be confidently stated that the great victory of Alexander and the homesickness of Greek soldiers have been concocted by historians of Alexander who were employed by him to chronicle his achievements. Probably, the army of Alexander was comprehensively defeated by the Indian king Poros and the wounded Alexander and his army have to flee through the channels of Indus River and they landed on the shores of Arabian Sea. They were then forced to march along the dry Makran and Persian Gulf coast and somehow finally, made it back to Babylonia where the wounded young Alexander died there in 323 bce at the age of 33 years. It may be noted that Alexander employed the historians to chronicle his victories not the defeats. Therefore, the Greek historians concocted the victorious army of Alexander fell homesick and feigned the ignorance of geography for the return journey through the channels of Indus River. It is unbelievable that the victorious army of Alexander fell homesick otherwise they could have amassed unimaginable wealth from India, the most prosperous country of the world of the times. Moreover, Megasthanes, who was sent as ambassador to King Poros by Seleukos, mentioned that Poros was even greater than Sandrokottus. If Poros was defeated and appointed as satrap by Alexander, how could he become greater than Sandrokottus? After the death of Alexander, his generals decided to divide his Empire among themselves but interestingly, no part of India east of Indus River was included as part of Alexander’s Empire. Therefore, it seems that the victory of Alexander over the Indian king Poros, the homesickness of his army and the ignorance of geography were just concocted stories by paid Greek historians of Alexander.
Strabo once stated:
“Generally speaking, the men who have hitherto written on the affairs of India were a set of liars. Deimachos holds the first place in the list; Megasthanes comes next; while Onesikritos and Nearchos with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words of truth.”
As quoted by Kota Venkatachalam, Troyer also rejected the identification of Chandragupta Maurya with Sandrokottus and pointed out that one of the Chandraguptas of the Gupta dynasty should be taken as Sandrokottus. If Samudragupta is accepted as Sandrokottus the contemporary Indian king of Alaxander and the epoch of Saka coronation era in 583 bce, there will be no conflict in the traditional Indian records and epigraphic records. Moreover, we need not to declare certain copper plate inscriptions as forgeries. Unfortunately, the Eurocentric and the distortionist approach of Western historians caused extreme damage to the chronology of ancient India. These intellectuals having no integrity pursued their research by distorting and concocting numerous so-called historical facts which can be called nothing less than a “fraud”.


To be Continued..

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT (Part 3)-- Vedveer Arya
Arun Kumar Upadhyay August 15, 2015

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT

Author : VEDVEER ARYA.

The Epoch of Karttikadi Vikrama era
According to Jaina Pattavalis, King Gardabhilla became the king of Ujjain in Mahavira-nirvana samvat 453 (736-735 bce) and ruled for 13 years. Early Jaina scholars have preserved one interesting historical story named “Kalakacharya-kathanaka” in their works. This story tells about the background for the rise of Vikramaditya in 719-718 bce. In Jaina tradition, there were three Kalakacharyas. Kalakacharya I lived around Mahavira-nirvana samvat 376 (813-812 bce) and authored commentaries on “Nigodas”. Kalakacharya II lived during the reign of king Gardabhilla (736-723 bce) whereas Kalakacharya III flourished around Mahavira-nirvana samvat 993 (196-195 bce). The famous “Kalakacharya-Kathanaka” is the real story of Kalakacharya II.
“King Vairisimha of Dhara (modern Dhar in Madhya Pradesh) had a son named Kalaka and a daughter named Sarasvati both of whom embraced Jainism at an early age. They went to Ujjain which was the major centre of Jainism in Madhyadesa. King Gardabhilla was ruling then in Ujjain. He happened to be impressed by the beauty of Kalaka’s sister Sarasvati and forcibly carried her off to his palace. Kalaka made all out efforts to convince the king to release his sister with honour but Gardabhilla did not pay any attention to Kalaka’s repeated requests. The frustrated and furious Kalaka decided to avenge this humiliation. He went westward by crossing Sindhu River and reached the country (modern Afghanistan) where a number of Saka ksatraps were ruling as subordinate to Sahanusahi kings. Kalaka successfully persuaded 96 or 95 Saka ksatraps to migrate to India to become independent rulers instead of ruling as subordinates. These Saka ksatraps came to Ujjain accompanied by Kalaka and defeated the King Gardabhilla and imprisoned him. Kalaka thus avenged his humiliation and liberated his sister Sarasvati. Saka ksatraps declared themselves as the kings of Ujjain in Mahavira-nirvana samvat 466 (723-722 bce) and ruled for four years. Gardabhilla’s son or Mahendraditya’s son Vikramaditya attacked Sakas and drove them away. Thus, Vikramaditya became the king of Ujjain and founded the Karttikadi era in 719-718 bce which was referred initially as Krita era or Malava-gana era and later as Vikrama era.”
Kalakacharya II, also known as Kalakasuri, is repeatedly mentioned as the uprooter of Gardabhilla in Jaina tradition. Apart from Pattavalis, Kalakasuri is mentioned in Sthanakavritti, Dharmopadesamalavritti, Pushpamalavritti, Samasta-Kalakacharya-Katha and Prabhavakacaritam. According to Jaina works, the illustrious king Vikramaditya received “diksa” of Jainism from Siddhasena Divakara in Mahavria-nirvana samvat 470 (719-718 bce) and ruled for 60 years. After Vikramaditya, his four successors ruled for a period of 75 years and 5 months. Thus, the dynasty of Vikramaditya ruled for 135 years and 5 months. Saka ksatraps regrouped themselves and invaded Ujjain again after 135 years and 5 months and re-occupied Ujjain. Probably, Saka Mahaksatrap Chashtana was coronated as the king of Ujjain. He founded the Saka era in 583 bce which was referred as “Saka-nripa-kala”, “Saka-nripa-rajyabhisheka-samvatsara”, etc.
The chronology of King Vikramaditya and his four successors is given in the Gurvavali of Vriddhagaccha.
“Sunnamuniveyajutta 470 Jinakala Vikkamo varisa-satthi 60 | Dhammaichcho chalisa 40 Gaila panavisa 25 Nahade attha 8 | Ikkammi 3 vasasaye gayami panatisavachcharasadiye 135 | Vikkama-kalau saga na vachcharo puna vi samjao |”

		Mahavira-nirvana Samvat (1189-1188 bce)	In CE
1	Gardabhilla (13 years)	453-466	736-723 bce
2	Saka Ksatrapas (4 years)	466-470	723-719 bce
3	Vikramaditya (60 years)	470-530	719-659 bce
4	1st successor (40 years)	530-570	659-619 bce
5	2nd successor (25 years)	570-595	619-594 bce
6	3rd successor (8 years)	595-602	594-587 bce
7	4th successor (3years)	602-605	587-583 bce
8	Coronation a Saka king (Probably Chashtana)	605 (1st day of Chaitra month)	19th February 583 bce

It is evident from the early Jaina sources that Vikramaditya founded an era in Mahavira-nirvana samvat 470 (719-718 bce) when he became the king of Ujjain by defeating 96 Sakas. Prabhavakacarita of Prabhavakasuri mentioned that Kalakacharya brought 96 Sakas to Ujjain to uproot Gardabhilla. Gathasaptasati, a Prakrit anthology compiled by Satavahana king Hala of 5th century bce, tells us that Vikramaditya was an illustrious king well known for his generosity and victories (Samvahana-suha-rasa-tosiena demtena tuha kara lakkham | Chalanena Vikkamaiccha-chariam anusikkhiam tissa |). Probably, Brihatkatha of Gunadhya (5th century bce) also recorded about Vikramaditya. Rajamahendravaram inscription of Vishnuvardhana dated in Kaliyuga era 2628 (475-474 bce) referred about Vikramaditya while comparing Vishnuvardhana with Vikramaditya (Vikramaditya iva rajanya-vishama-siddhih). Subandhu (400-250 bce), the author of Vasavadatta, also pays his tribute to the King Vikramaditya.
The above cited literary sources belong to the period earlier than 1st century bce that referred about the great king Vikramaditya who defeated Sakas and founded an era in 719-718 bce. The people of Malava had suffered a lot under the rule of tyrant Sakas for four years (723-719 bce). Vikramaditya led the Malava army and drove away the Sakas. Thus, Vikramaditya became a legend not only in Malava but also in entire India. The people of Malava considered the rule of Vikramaditya as golden era and they named the era founded by Vikramaditya as “Krita” era. Since this era has commenced from the date of the establishment of Malava-gana or Malava republic, it was also referred as Malava-gana era. Interestingly, this era was commenced on 1st tithi of the bright fortnight (sukla pratipada) of Karttika month in 719-718 bce i.e. 17th September 719 bce or 17th October 719 bce. Undoubtedly, this Krita or Malava-gana era is Karttikadi and its months are amanta. Nandsa (Udaypur, Rajasthan) Pillar inscription of Saktigunaguru is the earliest inscription that is dated in Krita era or Karttikadi Vikrama era 282 (437 bce). Two yupa inscriptions from Barnala (Jaipur) are also dated in Krita 284 (435 bce) and Krita 335 (384 bce).
The inscriptions of the Maukharis, Aulikaras, Pratiharas, Paramaras, Chaulukyas, Chahamanas, Gahadwalas and Chandratreyas (Chandellas) used the epoch of Karttikadi Vikrama era (719-718 bce).
The epoch of Mahavira-nirvana era
Jaina Pattavalis are the historical records of Jainas and provide great deal of information about the early history of Jainas. These Pattavalis used Mahavira-nirvana era and tell us unanimously about the king Vikramaditya who founded Karttikadi era in 719-718 bce. It may be noted that Saka era has commenced in 583 bce. Thus, Saka era started in 583 bce exactly after the interval of 135 years from Karttikadi Vikrama era. First of all, we have to fix the date of Mahavira-nirvana to reconstruct the early history of Jainas based on the valuable information available in the ancient Jaina literary sources.

• 1. According to Kharatara-gaccha and Tapa-gaccha, two main sects of Jaina Pattavalis, King Vikramaditya received “diksha” of Jainism from Jaina scholar Siddhasena Divakara in Mahavira-nirvana samvat 470. Thus, Mahavira attained nirvana 470 years earlier from 719-718 bce.
• 2. Jaina works like Tiloyapannati of Yativrishabha, Harivamsa of Jinasena, Dhavala of Acharya Virasena, Trilokasara of Nemichandra, Mahaviracharitam of Nemichandra and Vicharasreni of Merutunga tell us that Mahavira attained nirvana 605 years and 5 months before the start of Saka era (583 bce) and 470 years before the start of Karttikadi Vikrama era (719-718 bce).
• 3. Jaina works like Pattavalis of Nandi, Sena and Kashtha sanghas, Tiloyapannati, Jambudvipa-prajnapti Samgraha, Harivamsa, Dhavala, Jayadhavala, Kalpasutra, Theravali, Parisishtaparva and Prabhavakacharitam give the genealogy of 28 immediate successors of Mahavira up to 683 years from Mahavira-nirvana. These Jaina works also stated that by deducing 77 years and 7 months from the period of 683 years, we get 605 years and 5 months, which is the exact interval between Mahavira-nirvana and the beginning of the Saka era (583 bce).

According to Gunabhadra’s Uttarapurana, Mahavira became a Siddha in the month of Karttika, krishna paksha chaturdasi and Svati naksatra. Thus, Mahavira attained nirvana on 22nd October 1189-88 bce, 605 years and 5 months before the commencement of Saka era in 583 bce.
Indians lost the knowledge of the epoch of Saka era (583 bce) and Karttikadi Vikrama era (719-718 bce) during the early medieval period. It seems that generally, Indians had the knowledge of only Salivahana era (78 CE) and Chaitradi Vikrama era (57 bce) during 11th century CE when Alberuni visited India. Since Saka era and Karttikadi Vikrama era were generally not in vogue, Alberuni could only collect the information of the epoch of Salivahana era and the epoch of Chaitradi Vikrama era. Therefore, eminent historians also could not distinguish between the epochs of Saka era & Salivahana era and Karttikadi Vikrama era & Chaitradi Vikrama era. Thus, some historians erroneously believed the year of Mahavira-nirvana to be 527 bce on the presumption that Saka & Salivahana era commenced in 78 CE and Karttikadi & Chaitradi Vikrama era commenced in 57 bce.
Some historians argued that Mahavira’s Nirvana occurred in 467 bce based on the statement of Jaina author Hemachandra (5th century). Parisishtaparva of Hemachandra tells us that Chandragupta ascended the throne at Ujjain in Mahavira-nirvana era 155.
“Evam ca Sri-Mahavira-mukter-varsha-sate gate |
Panca-pancasadadhike Chandragupto’bhavannripah ||”
Apart from Hemachandra, Sanskrit works like Brihatkathakosa of Harishena, Bhadrabahucharitam of Ratnanandi and Kannada works like Munivamsabhyudaya of Chidanandakavi, Rajavalikathe of Devachandra (1838 CE)9 also mentioned that Chandragupta, the king of Ujjain, became the disciple of Bhadrabahu. Chandragiri, a cave of Bhadrabahu and few inscriptions at Sravanabelgola in Karnataka also indicate the visit of Bhadrabahu to Sravanabelgola along with his disciple Chandragupta. The brief story of Bhadrabahu, the last Srutakevalin runs thus:
“Bhadrabahu was the son of a Brahmana named Somasarma who was in the court of King Padmaratha or Padmadhara of Devakotta city in Paundravardhana (Bengal) region. Fourth Srutakevalin Govardhana met Bhadrabahu when he was playing with his friends. He became Bhadrabahu’s teacher later. Thus, Bhadrabahu received “diksha” of Jainism from Govardhana and became fifth Srutakevalin. In his wanderings, Bhadrabahu went to Ujjain. During his stay at Ujjain, the king of Ujjain Chandragupta or Chandragupti received “diksha” of Jainism from Bhadrabahu. One day, Chandragupta requested Bhadrabahu to interpret the dreams which he had had the previous night. While explaining it, Bhadrabahu predicted a twelve years’ famine in the kingdom. Therefore, he advised his followers to leave Ujjain and go to South. King Chandragupta handed over the reins of kingdom to his son Simhasena and followed his guru. Thus, Bhadrabahu along with Chandragupta visited Sravanabelgola and stayed at Chikka betta or Chandragiri where he died by the Jaina rite of Sallekhana or in an attack by a tiger. Chandragupta continued to stay at Chandragiri by worshipping the god and died by the rite of Sallekhana. Sometime after the death of Chandragupta, his grandson Bhaskara and the son of Simhasena came to Sravanabelgola and built Jain temples and a city near Chandragiri which was named Belgola.”
It is evident, according to the ancient Jaina tradition, Chandragupta or Chandragupti was the king of Ujjain not Pataliputra. He was the father of Simhasena and the grandfather of Bhaskara whereas Chandragupta Maurya was the father of Bindusara and grandfather of Asoka. Actually, Jain scholars like Hemachandra, Chidanandakavi, etc. of later period mistakenly identified Chandragupta, the disciple of Bhadrabahu to be Chandragupta Maurya. Moreover, none of the early Jaina works mentioned about Mauryan kings after Mahavira-nirvana. Jaina Pattavalis like Kharatara-gaccha and Tapa-gaccha mentioned about Bhadrabahu and his death in Mahavira-nirvana samvat 170 (1019 bce) but did not give any details of King Chandragupta. Harivamsa, written by Jinasenasuri in Saka 705 (122 CE), gives the details of the duration of the rule of various kings starting from the Nirvana of Mahavira. According to Harivamsa, king Palaka ascended the throne in the year of Mahavira-nirvana. It is also recorded in Jaina tradition, Chanda Pradyota, the king of Avanti, died on the same night Mahavira attained nirvana and he was succeeded by his son Palaka.
Starting from Mahavira-nirvana year,

• Palaka kings ruled for 60 years
• Visaya kings ruled for 150 years
• Murundas ruled for 40 years
• Pushpamitra ruled for 30 years
• Vasumitra and Agnimitra ruled for 60 years
• “Rasabha” kings ruled for 100 years
• Naravahana ruled for 40 years
• Bhattubanas ruled for 240 years
• Gupta kings ruled for 231 years
• Kalkiraja ruled for 42 years
• After Kalkiraja, his son Ajitamjaya began to rule at Indrapura.

Thus, Jaina Pattavalis and Harivamsa did not mention about Maurya kings after Mahavira-nirvana.
According to Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta, Saptarshi or the Great Bear was in Magha constellation during the time of Yudhishthira and it was in Sravana constellation during the rule of Nanda dynasty.
Saptarshayo Maghayuktah kale Yaudhishthire satam |
Sravane te bhavishyanti kale Nandasya bhupateh ||
Since Sravana is the 15th star in the reverse direction from Magha, the interval between the times of Yudhishthira and Nanda was 1500 years. Nandas ruled for 100 years. Thus, Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne after 1600 years from Yudishthira (3128 or 3109 bce). Therefore, Chandragupta Maurya started ruling around 1516 bce whereas Mahavira attained nirvana in 1189-1188 bce considering 605 years and 5 months before the commencement of Saka era (583 bce). Mahavira attained nirvana 327 years after from the accession of Chandragupta Maurya. Thus, Harivamsa of Jinasenasuri and early Jaina works did not mention about Mauryas after Mahavira-nirvana.
Later Jaina scholars like Hemachandra, Chidanandakavi etc. mistakenly identified Chandragupta or Chandragupti, the king of Ujjain to be Chandragupta Maurya. Based on this mistaken identity, some historians believed that Maurya kings had a second capital at Ujjain and the accession of Chandragupta Maurya at Ujjain took place in 312 bce. Thus, Mahavira died in 467 bce. As explained above, Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne 327 years earlier than Mahavira-nirvana. Therefore, Chandragupta, the disciple of Bhadrabahu, cannot be identified with Chandragupta Maurya. Probably, Chandragupta was the one of the earlier kings of Malava Gupta dynasty (wrongly referred as later Guptas) who became the ruler of Ujjain after 155 years from Mahavira-nirvana. Moreover, it was only Hemachandra who calculated the year of the accession of Chandragupta in Mahavira-nirvana samvat 155 whereas Tiloyapannati of Yativrishabha (2nd century bce), Harivamsa of Jinasenasuri (122 CE), Trilokasara of Nemichandra, Vicharasreni of Meruttunga and many other Jaina works mentioned that Chandragupta ascended the throne in Mahavira-nirvana Samvat 215. It is evident that Chandragupta, the disciple of Bhadrabahu was the king of Ujjain and he cannot be identified with Chandragupta Maurya. Mahavira attained nirvana on 22nd October 1189-1188 bce exactly 605 years and 5 months before the commencement of Saka era in the Chaitra month of 583-582 bce.

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT (Part 4)-- Vedveer Arya
Arun Kumar Upadhyay August 15, 2015

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT

Author : VEDVEER ARYA.


The era of Buddha Nirvana (2134 bce or 1658 bce)
Ancient Buddhist literature refers to the epoch of the Mahaparinirvana of Gautama Buddha for dating certain historical events but opinions differ as to the exact date of the nirvana of Buddha. Let us first shortlist the essential data from various sources related to Buddha’s nirvana.

• It is well known fact that Buddha flourished before the rule of the Nandas and Mauryas in Magadha. Puranas record that Mahapadmananda ascended the throne after 1500 years from the birth of King Pariksit. Thus, the nirvana of Buddha cannot be dated earlier than 17th century bce. Kota Venkatachalam fixed the date of nirvana in 1807 bce whereas Dr. DS Triveda proved it in 1793 bce.
• Many Buddhist sources (Sanskrit and Tibetan) including Vinayapitaka inform us that the difference between the date of Asoka’s coronation and the nirvana of Buddha was 100 years.
• According to Buddhist chronicles like Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa and Samantapasadika, King Asoka’s consecration is dated 218 years after the nirvana of Buddha and the 3rd council was held 18 years later i.e. 236 years after nirvana of Buddha.
• The Khotanese chronicle,Li yul gyi lo rgyus, places the start of the reign of Asoka 234 years after nirvana of Buddha.
• The northern Buddhist tradition place the nirvana about 100 or 110 years before the coronation of Asoka.
• Buddha was a contemporary of Bimbisara and Ajatasatru. According to Buddhist tradition, Buddha was 72 years old at the time of Ajatasatru’s coronation.
• Max Muller collected 14 dates referring to Buddha’s nirvana from Tibetan sources. They range from 2422 bce to 546 bce.
• <="" li="">
• Hiuen Tsang stated that the Chinese were not able to attribute an exact date to the nirvana of Buddha during his times (7th century CE). However, he referred to various dates from 860 bce to 260 bce.
• Tao Hsuan referred to the tradition of “dotted record” in his Ta t’ang nei tien lu and claimed that when Upali collated the Vinaya after the nirvana of Buddha, he marked a dot in the manuscript. His successors like Dasaka, Sonaka, Siggava, Moggaliputta, Tissa and Chandavajji marked a new dot each year. During a visit to Canton about 489 CE, Saôghabhadra inscribed the 975th dot on the manuscript. Thus, Cantonese sources place the nirvana in 486 bce.
• Some of the sources from Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand and Cambodia place the nirvana around 543 bce.
• Later Jain tradition claims that Mahavira was a contemporary of Buddha.
• Some of the sources from Sri Lanka and China place the nirvana in 483 bce.
• Apart from the above, Samyutta Nikaya gives certain verifiable astronomical details related to the year of nirvana of Buddha. According to Samyutta Nikaya, Buddha was staying in Sravasti about three months before his death. During this time, there occurred the winter solstice and a lunar eclipse, followed by a solar eclipse.

It is evident from the above that the date of Mahaparinirvana of Buddha cannot be arrived without fixing the date of king Asoka’s accession and consecration.
Modern historians generally agree that Buddha attained nirvana in 486 bce or 483 bce and Asoka ascended the throne in 268 bce or 265 bce. There is unanimity on the point that Buddha lived for eighty years. Thus, Buddha was born in 566 bce or 563 bce.
I discussed the mistaken identity of Sandrokottus and proved that Sandrokottus was Samudragupta and not Chandragupta Maurya. The chronology of the Maurya dynasty given by the eminent historians is highly distorted and hence not acceptable.
According to the Puranas, Mahapadmananda ascended the throne after 1500 years from the birth of Pariksit and the Great Bear (Saptarshis) was in Sravana constellation during the reign of king Nanda.
“Mahapadmabhishekattu yavajjanma Pariksitah |
ekameva sahasram tu jneyam panca-satottaram ||”
“Saptarshayo Maghayuktah kale Yaudhishthire satam |
Sravane te bhavishyanti kale nandasya bhupateh ||”
The Great Bear was in Sravana constellation during the period 1676-1577 bce and it is well known that king Pariksit, the son of Abhimanyu was born in the year of the Mahabharata war. As discussed above, the date of the Mahabharata war can be fixed around 3138 bce. Mahapadmananda ascended the throne approximately after 1500 years from the birth of Pariksit and his Nanda dynasty ruled for 100 years. Since Pariksit was born around 3138 bce, Mahapadmananda’s coronation must be dated after 1638 bce. The Maurya dynasty succeeded the Nandas. According to Puranas and Buddhist sources, Chandragupta reigned for 34 years, Bindusara for 28 years and Asoka for 37 years. Buddhist sources tell us that Buddha attained nirvana100 years or 218 years before Asoka’s consecration.
Samyutta Nikaya tells us that Buddha was staying in Sravasti about three months before his death. During this time, there occurred the winter solstice and a lunar eclipse followed by a solar eclipse. It clearly indicates that the lunar and solar eclipses occurred within 15 days and were visible in India. Sravasti is situated 27.31 north latitude and 82.32 east longitude. Based on the astronomical details given in the Samyutta Nikaya, only 1807-06 bce, 1694-03 bce and 1659-58 bce can qualify as the intended year but the solar eclipses that occurred on 10th Feb 1806 bce, 2nd Feb 1694 bce and 22nd Jan 1693 bce were not visible in India. The penumbral lunar eclipse occurred on 9th Feb 1658 bce and the solar eclipse occurred on 23rd Feb 1658 bce were visible in Sravasti and elsewhere in India. Winter solstice also occurred in the first week of January 1658 bce. Therefore, Buddha attained Mahaparinirvana in Kusinagar on Vaisakha Purnima i.e. 9th April 1658 bce. Accordingly, Buddha was born on Vaisakha Purnima i.e. 25th March 1738 bce and lived for eighty years.
Puranas tell us that Buddha was the son of Suddhodana, the 23rd king of the Iksvaku dynasty. Ajatasatru was coronated king when Buddha was seventy-two years old but it is difficult to establish the identity of Ajatasatru whether he belonged to the Sisunaga dynasty or some other dynasty.
Now the chronology can be arrived considering the Maurya king Asoka’s consecration in the 218th year:

• Buddha was born in 1738 bce and attained Mahaparinirvana in 1658 bce.
• Mahapadmananda ascended the throne in 1616 bce and founded the rule of the Nanda dynasty. Nine Nanda kings ruled for 100 years up to 1516 bce.
• Chandragupta Maurya founded Maurya dynasty in 1516 bce and ruled for 34 years up to 1482 bce.
• Bindusara ruled for 28 years from 1482 bce to 1454 BC
• Asoka or Asokavardhana ascended the throne in 1454 bce. The Kalinga War occurred in his 13th regnal year i.e.1441 bce. Asoka was consecrated 218 years after the Nirvana of Buddha i.e.1440 bce.
• The Buddhist council at Rajagriha was convened in 1422 bce, 18 years after Asoka’s consecration.

According to Milinda-Panho, the Yavana king Milinda of Sakala (Sialkot) flourished 500 years after the Nirvana of Buddha. Thus, the lifetime of Milinda can be fixed in the 12th century bce. Western historians held that Yavanas meant Greeks or Indianised Greeks and wrongly identified the Yavana king Milinda with Minander (165-130 bce). Actually, Yavanas have existed in the Western and /or North-Western borders of India prior to the birth of ancient Greek civilisation. I have discussed this issue in detail in Chapter 3 with reference to Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja.
One inscription found at Gaya is dated in the year 1813 of Buddha Nirvana era. This inscription mentions about Asokachalla, a king of the Sapadalaksa mountains (Prakhyatam hi sapadalaksa-sikhari-ksmapala-cudamanim silaih Srimad-Asokachallamapi yo natva viniya svayam|). A Bodh Gaya inscription dated in the year 74 of Laksmanasena Samvat refers to Dasaratha, the younger brother of the king Asokachalla (Sapadalaksa-sikhari-ksmapala rajadhiraja-Srimad-Asokachalladeva-kanishtha-bhratri-Sri-Dasaratha-namadheya-kumara-padapadmopajivi......). Undoubtedly, both inscriptions belonged to the time of king Asokachalla. The Bisapi grant of the time of Sivasimhadeva20 is dated in the year 293 of Laksmanasena era, in Karttikadi Vikrama year 1455 elapsed (10th Oct 736 CE to 28th Sep 737 CE) and in Saka 1321 current (7th Mar 737 CE to 23rd Feb 738 CE). Considering the epoch of Karttikadi Vikrama era in 719-718 bce and the epoch of the coronation of Saka king in 583 bce, the Bisapi grant was issued on the 7th tithi of the bright fortnight of Sravana month i.e. 9th July 737 CE.
Now we can easily calculate the epoch of Laksmanasena Samvat which commenced 293 years before the year 737 CE i.e. 443-444 CE. Thus, the Bodh Gaya inscription of the time of king Asokachalla dated in Laksmanasena era 74 was issued in 517-518 CE. Considering that the regnal year (517-518 CE) of king Asokachalla and the year 1813 of Buddha nirvana era mentioned in the Gaya inscription are the same, the year of Nirvana of Buddha works out to be 1296 bce.
The astronomical data given by the Samyutta Nikaya can only be verified with reference to the year 1250 bce but it is contrary to the astronomical data provided by the Puranas (The great Bear was in Sravana constellation during the reign of Nandas).
Historians identified the Asoka mentioned in the Buddhist literary sources as the Maurya king Asoka. Interestingly, there was a King of Kashmir named Asoka who flourished at a date earlier than the Maurya king Asoka. According to Rajatarangini, a Kashmir king Asoka was a follower of the Buddha. Jaloka and Damodara II succeeded him, and thereafter, the Turushka kings Hushka, Jushka and Kanishka started ruling in Kashmir around 150 years elapsed from the nirvana of Buddha. Thus, the Kashmir king Asoka might have flourished around the 100th year from the nirvana of Buddha. Many Buddhist sources (Sanskrit and Tibetan) say the difference between the date of Asoka’s coronation and the date of nirvana of Buddha is 100 years. Vinayapitaka tells us that the Buddhist council of Vaisali was held in the 100th year from the nirvana of Buddha, just before the reign of Dharmasoka.
We will discuss the chronology of Kashmir in detail in Chapter 8. Kalhana wrote Rajatarangini in Saka 1070 (487 CE) and provided the history of Kashmir up to the 25th year of Laukika era i.e. 449 CE. According to him, Gonanda III started ruling 2330 years before 449 CE i.e. around 1881 bce. Kashmir Kings Asoka, Jaloka, Damodara II, Hushka, Jushka, Kanishka and Abhimanyu ruled prior to Gonanda III. Undoubtedly, the Kashmir king Asoka was coronated at least 150 years before Gonanda III.
Interestingly, Atisa Dipankar Srijnana (319-391 CE), an Indian Buddhist scholar from Bengal (during Pala Empire) who was instrumental in reviving Buddhism in Tibet, mentions that Buddha attained Mahaparinirvana in 2136 bce.
According to Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhist Sa-skya-pa scholars, there is a span of 2955 years from the date of nirvana of Buddha up to 822 CE in which the peace treaty between Tibet and China was concluded; a span of 3300 years up to 1167 CE in which the work entitled “Char-la-jug-pal-ngo” was written and there is a span of 3349 years up to 1216 CE when Grags-pa-rgynl-mtshan passed away. Thus, the tradition of Sa-skya-pa scholars tells us that Buddha attained Mahaparinirvana around 2134-2133 bce. They fix the date of the birth of Buddha around 2213 (Earth-Dragon year) and the date of nirvana on the boundary of 2134 bce (Fire-Pig year) & 2133 bce (Earth-Mouse year). According to another Tibetan tradition, Buddha attained nirvana around 2422-2421 bce.
Most probably, the King Asoka mentioned in Buddhist sources was a Kashmir King who flourished at a period prior to the Maurya King Asoka. Rajatarangini clearly informs us that the Kashmiri King Asoka was a Buddhist whereas Puranas mention nothing about the Maurya King Asoka as being a patron of Buddhism. In my opinion, the Kashmir king Asoka and Maurya Asoka were not only two different persons but also belonged to two different eras. The Kashmir King Asoka was coronated in the 100th year from the date of nirvana of Buddha and Hushka, Jushka, Kanishka started ruling in Kashmir in 150th year from the date of nirvana of Buddha. Most probably, Buddha attained nirvana in 2134-2133 bce as mentioned by Buddhist scholar Atisa and Tibetan Sa-skya-pa tradition.
If the Asoka of Buddhist literature was a Maurya king, Buddha ought to have attained Mahaparinirvana in Kusinagar on Vaisakha PÂrnima of 1658 bce i.e. 9th April 1658 bce.
At least, it is now certain that the Mahaparinirvana of Buddha cannot be dated later than 1658 bce. In my opinion, the traditional account of Tibetan Sa-skya-pa scholars seems more authentic because the Asoka mentioned in ancient Buddhist literature was probably a king of Kashmir who flourished around 2034-2000 bce as recorded in Rajatarangini of Kalhana. Therefore, Buddha might have attained Mahaparinirvana in Kusinagar on Vaisakha Purnima of 2134 bce i.e. 23rd Mar 2134 bce.

To be continued..

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT (Part5)-- Vedveer Arya
Arun Kumar Upadhyay August 15, 2015

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT

Author : VEDVEER ARYA.

The Epoch of the Sri Harsha era
Sri Harsha was one of the most celebrated kings of India. He belonged to the Pushpabhuti dynasty, one of the ancient dynasties of North India. According to Indian tradition, Sri Harsha founded an era in 457 bce. Three grants of Sri Harsha are dated in Samvat 22 (435 bce), 23 (434 bce) and 25 (432 bce). Alberuni, who came to India around 1017-1031 CE, states that the Sri Harsha era was founded 400 years before the Vikrama era (57 bce):
“The Hindus believe regarding Sri Harsha that....... His era is used in Mathura and the country of Kanauj. Between Sri Harsha and Vikramaditya there is an interval of 400 years, as I have been told by some of the inhabitants of that region. However, in the Kashmirian calendar I have read that Sri Harsha was 664 years later than Vikramaditya. In face of this discrepancy I am in perfect uncertainty, which to the present moment has not yet been cleared up by any trustworthy information.”
“Now, the year 400 of Yazdajird, which we have chosen as a gauge, corresponds to the following years of the Indian eras:
1. To the year 1488 of the era of Sri Harsha
2. To the year 1088 of the era of Vikramaditya”
It is evident from Alberuni’s account that Sri Harsha era commenced in 457 bce. He also calculated that the year 1031 CE corresponds to the year 1488 in the Sri Harsha era. He simply stated that according to some Kashmirian sources, one Sri Harsha was ruling 664 years later than Vikramaditya. Therefore, Alberuni expressed his inability to explain why the people of Mathura and Kanauj believed the existence of the rule of King Sri Harsha in 457 bce whereas some Karshmirian sources tell us that Sri Harsha ruled 664 years later than Vikramaditya i.e. 606 CE.
It is clear that some Kashmirian sources simply mention that Sri Harsha flourished 664 years later than Vikramaditya. There is no mention of Sri Harsha having started an era in 606 CE but Western historians concocted the myth that Sri Harsha was supposed to have started an era from about 606 CE. Thus, historians fixed the time of Sri Harsha around 606-647 CE.
Actually, Sri Harsha, the son of Prabhakaravardhana flourished around 457 bce whereas Sri Harsha, the son of Rasal ruled in 7th century CE. According to Chacha-Nama, a king named Siharasa, the son of Rasal, was ruling in Kanauj in the 7th century CE during the reign of Chandara, the king of Sindh. Therefore, some Kashmirian sources say that Sri Harsha (the son of Rasal) ruled 664 years later than Vikramaditya.
Historians, by distorting and misinterpreting these facts, erroneously concluded that Sri Harsha, the son of Prabhakaravardhana and Sri Harsha, the son of Rasal were one and the same and created a non-existent era having the epoch of 606 CE.
The rulers of Pushpabhuti dynasty flourished in the 6th and 5th centuries bce and Sri Harsha was the most illustrious king of this dynasty. Probably, Pushpabhuti was the progenitor of this dynasty as mentioned in the Harshacharita of Banabhatta. According to the genealogy given in the grants of Sri Harsha, Naravardhana was the earliest known king of Pushpabhuti dynasty who was succeeded by his son Rajyavardhana I and subsequently by his grandson Adityavardhana.. Prabhakaravardhana, the son of Adityavardhana had two sons, Rajyavardhana II & Sri Harsha and one daughter, Rajyasri.
The chronology of Pushpabhuti dynasty:

		In CE
1	Naravardhana	580-550 bce
2	Rajyavardhana I	550-520 bce
3	Adityavardhana	520-500 bce
4	Prabhakaravardhana	500-465 bce
5	Rajyavardhana II	465-458 bce
6	Sri Harsha or Harshavardhana	457-420 bce

The Chandellas
The chronology of Chandella kings:

	Karttikadi Vikrama era(719-718 bce)	In CE
Nannuka	810-835	91-116 CE
Vakpati	835-860	116-141 CE
Jayasakti	860-890	141-171 CE
Vijayasakti	860-890	141-171 CE
Rahila	890-930	171-211 CE
Sri-Harsha	930-970	211-251 CE
Yasovarman I	970-1003	251-284 CE
Dhangadeva	1003-1059	284-340 CE
Gandadeva	1059-1060	340-341 CE
Vidyadhara	1060-1095	341-376 CE
Vijayapala	1095-1106	376-387 CE
Devavarman	1106-1115	387-396 CE
Kirtivarman	1115-1155	396-436 CE
Sallaksanavarman	1155-1165	436-446 CE
Jayavarman	1165-1168	446-449 CE
Prithvivarman	1168-1175	449-456 CE
Madanavarman	1175-1220	456-501 CE
Yasovarman II	--	--
Paramardideva	1220-1260	501-541 CE
Trailokyavarman	1260-1300	541-581 CE
Viravarman	1300-1338	581-619 CE
Bhojavarman	1338-1346	619-627 CE
Hammiravarman	1346-1368	627-649 CE
Viravarman II	1368	649 CE

The epoch of the Kalachuri-Chedi era
It is well known from the literature and epigraphic evidence that Mahishmati (near Khandwa in Madhyapradesh) was the capital of the Kalachuri dynasty (Mahishmatim Kalachureh kula-rajadhanim) and Tripuri in Dahala desa (Near Jabalpur) was the capital of the Chedi dynasty. Probably, the Kalachuris and Chedis were the descendants of the ancient Haihaya dynasty. The era used in the inscriptions of the Kalachuris of Mahishmati and the Chedis of Tripuri is referred to as the Kalachuri-Chedi era. This era was also found in the inscriptions of the Maharajas of Valkha, the Gurjaras, the Sendrakas and the early Chalukyas of Gujarat, etc.
There is no direct evidence to prove the exact epoch of Kalachuri-Chedi era. The calendar of the Kalachuri-Chedi era was Karttikadi and generally followed the Amanta scheme. The epoch of Kalachuri-Chedi era can be calculated based on the verifiable details of dates given in epigraphs and the other references.
Historians calculated various epochs of the Kalachuri era ranging from 244 CE to 250 CE. Dr. VV Mirashi argued that the earliest inscriptions from Gujarat and Maharashtra dated up to the year 490 followed the era which commenced on the Amanta Karttika sukla pratipada i.e. 25th September 249 CE whereas later inscriptions dated from the year 722 to the year 969 which come from Vindhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh followed the era which commenced on the Purnimanta Karttika sukla pratipada i.e. 6th October 248 CE. Thus, the Kalachuri-Chedi era originally commenced in 249 CE but consequently it became antedated by one year i.e. 248 CE and while the calendar originally followed the Amanta scheme, subsequently its months became Purnimanta. Eminent historians agreed with Mirashi because this unusual approach not only gives them a convenient platform to explain the dates mentioned in the inscriptions but also facilitates the justification of their distorted chronology.
It is nothing but ridiculous to accept that Indians followed two different epochs of the same era. There is nothing to support this unusual and speculative theory of historians. Ancient Indians being well advanced in astronomy, the calendar or Panchanga adopted by them was highly scientific and based on accurate calculations. It can be somehow reconciled that the calendar of the Kalachuri-Chedi era was originally based on the Amanta scheme and later its months became Purnimanta but there is no logical justification for antedating the era by one year.
The method of antedating of the era by one year will be highly unscientific and Indian astronomers would have never accepted such an unscientific approach because it would have changed the scheme of intercalary months, ahargana, etc. Every Indian era has only one epoch and Kalachuri-Chedi era would have also commenced from only one epoch.There were many siddhantas of astronomy in vogue in ancient India. Therefore, it is always difficult to prove all the dates of inscriptions with reference to modern Surya Siddhanta or other available siddhantas. It would be more appropriate to reconstruct the calendar of a particular era based on the dates and other details given in the inscriptions for finding the correct siddhanta applicable. We need to focus on verifiable data like solar eclipses and lunar eclipses that, irrespective of the siddhanta followed by the calendar of an era, can be traced in history.
The inscriptions of the Gurjara kings and the early Chalukyas of Gujarat were dated in the Kalachuri-Chedi era and some of them were also dated in the Saka era (583 bce). These inscriptions roughly indicate the starting point of the Kalachuri-Chedi era. Based on the study of the solar eclipses and lunar eclipses mentioned in the inscriptions of the Kalachuri-Chedi era, it is easy to conclude that the epoch of the Kalachuri-Chedi era commenced in 403-402 bce.
The Sarkho grant of Ratnadeva II, issued in Kalachuri year 880 on the occasion of a total lunar eclipse, provides the strongest evidence. King Ratnadeva II belonged to the family of the Kalachuris of Ratanpur and the great astronomer Padmanabha, respected as the Varahamihira of his era (VarahamihiropamaÍ).was a member of his court Padmanabha was plausibly the senior contemporary of Bhaskaracharya of Siddhanta Siromani as Bhaskaracharya had quoted a rule from Padmanabha’s treatise on algebra to establish the theory that a quadratic equation has generally two roots. Unfortunately, all of Padmanabha’s works of are now lost.
Once, the in the court of Ratnadeva II and in the presence of astronomers, Padmanabha predicted that when the day of Gihpati or Vachaspati i.e. Thursday ends in the year 880 and the full moon occurs in Krittika naksatra, a total lunar eclipse will commence during the third quarter of the night i.e. 0:00 AM to 3:00 AM and the time when moon enters into the asterism Rohini.
Tenasityadhikashta-vatsara-sate jate dine Gihpateh,
Karttikyamatha Rohinibha-samaye ratrescha yama-traye |
Srimad-Ratnanaresvarasya sadasi jyotirvidamagratah,
Sarvagrasamanushnagoh pravadata tirnna pratijnanadi ||
Considering the epoch of the Kalachuri-Chedi era in 403-402 bce, 476-477 CE would be the current year and 477-478 CE would be the elapsed year of the Sarkho grant. The verifiable details given in the Sarkho grant correspond regularly with the date 7th Nov 477 CE. We can ignore the weekday because it can only be verified with reference to the Siddhanta followed by Padmanabha. But Padmanabha clearly tells us about the end of a weekday before the end of Krittika naksatra, the starting of Rohini naksatra and the beginning of total lunar eclipse in Rohini naksatra. The weekday of 6th Nov 477 CE i.e. Thursday (according to Padmanabha) ended at 12:00 AM and Friday started at 0:00 hrs on 7th Nov 477 CE. Krittika naksatra ended at 00:23 AM on 7th Nov 477 CE and Rohini naksatra started at the same time. Total lunar eclipse started at 2:06 hrs and ended at 7:27 hrs on 7th Nov 477 CE. Thus, the end of Krittika naksatra, the starting of Rohini naksatra and the beginning of total lunar eclipse in Rohini naksatra occurred in the third quarter of the night i.e. 0:00 hrs to 3:00 hrs and after the end of a weekday.

Interestingly, when the eclipse occurred at the predicted time of Padmanabha, the king Ratnadeva became pleased and donated the village Chinchatalai situated in the mandala of Anarghavalli to the great astronomer Padmanabha by issuing Sarkho copper plates.
Interestingly, when the eclipse occurred at the predicted time of Padmanabha, the king Ratnadeva became pleased and donated the village Chinchatalai situated in the mandala of Anarghavalli to the great astronomer Padmanabha by issuing Sarkho copper plates.
VV Mirashi stated that Sarkho grant was issued on 8th Nov 1128 CE considering the epoch in 248 CE but the eclipse started in the second quarter of the night. The total lunar eclipse started at 23:27 hrs on 8th Nov and ended at 5:36 hrs on 9th Nov 1128 CE. This total lunar eclipse cannot qualify the details i.e. the end of Thursday (Jate dine Gihpateh) and the third quarter of the night (ratrescha yamatraye) given by Padmanabha. Thus, the epoch of Kalachuri-Chedi era fixed by the historians is not tenable. Mischievously, historians replaced the word “Jate” with “Yate” by distorting the statement of Padmanabha and propagated that “Yate dine Gihpateh” means the arrival of Thursday not the end of Thursday.
Sendraka kings also used Kalachuri era. Kasare grant of Nikumbhallasakti is dated in the year 404 (0-1 CE) on the occasion of solar eclipse on new moon day of Ashadha month. The verifiable details given in the Kasare grant correspond regularly with the date 10th June 1 CE. The solar eclipse was visible between 6:45 hrs to 8:44 hrs on 10th June 1 CE.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the Kalachuri-Chedi era commenced from 3rd Oct 403 bce and the calendar was Karttikadi. Dr. VV Mirashi calculated the date of the Kasare grant as 1st June 653 CE considering the epoch in 249 CE. Thus, historians calculated the date of the Sarkho grant considering the epoch in 248 CE whereas they calculated the date of the Kasare grant considering the epoch in 249 CE.
There is no evidence to support that Indians followed two different epochs while using the Kalachuri-Chedi era. Every Indian era has only one epoch and Kalachuri-Chedi era commenced from 3rd Oct 403 bce. In the event it commenced in 248-249 CE, the Kalachuri era was in vogue till the beginning of the 13th century CE. Alberuni referred to the kingdom of Dahala but did not mention Kalachuri-Chedi era. According to the epoch of 248-249 CE, the Kalachuri era was commonly used in the 11th century CE and that begs the question as to how Alberuni was completely ignorant of this era. In fact, the Kalachuri era commenced in 403 bce and became extinct by the 7th century CE. Chaitradi Vikrama era (57 bce) became popular from the 9th century CE onwards over entire North India and memories of the Kalachuri era in the public mind completely faded away by the 11th century CE and hence, Alberuni could not get any information about Kalachuri-Chedi era.

To be continued.

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT (Part5 continued)-- Vedveer Arya
Arun Kumar Upadhyay August 15, 2015

The chronology of Ancient BHARAT

Author : VEDVEER ARYA.

Ancient BHARAT eras :

• The Epoch of Mahabharata War (Between 3169 bce and 3128 bce) The date of 3137 bce. The traditional value, mentioned by Aryabhata and in the Aihole inscription of 634 AD. This is still work in progress and the original date predates back to many thousand years . The Author has used this particular date for reference purposes in this particular case so it goes as.....
• The Epoch of Yudhishtira era (3128 bce or 3109 bce)
• The Epoch of Kaliyuga era (3102 bce)
• The era of Buddha Nirvana (Between 2134 bce and 1658 bce)
• The era of Mahavira Nirvana (1189 bce)
• The Krita, Malava-gana or Karttikadi Vikrama era (719-718 bce)
• The Saka era (583 bce)
• The Sri Harsha era (457 bce)
• The Kalachuri-Chedi era (403-402 bce)
• The Gupta era (335 bce)
• The Gangeya era (656 bce)
• The Chaitradi Vikrama era (57 bce)
• The Salivahana era (78 CE)
• The Valabhi era (319-320 CE)
• The Laksmanasena era (443-444 CE)
• The Simha Samvat (450-451 CE)
• The ancient era of Nepal or Licchavi era (966 bce)
• The Manadeva Samvat (85-84 bce)

· An Outline of the Chronology of Ancient India
· The chronology of ancient Indian civilisation can be presented in seven distinct stages as follows

1	Proto Vedic period	10,000 – 8000 bce
2	Early Vedic period	8000 – 5500 bce
3	Mid Vedic period	5500 – 3500 bce
4	Post Vedic Period	3500 – 1650 bce
5	Imperial era or Early Classical period	1650 - 200 bce
6	Classical period	200 bce–650 CE
7	Early Mediaeval period	650-1200 CE

To be continued.