Archeology Questions for MB Researchers

 1) Mahabharata Researchers say 1 rule. In history, if there is something, it is an evidence. This something can be accessed to derive a meaning. If there is nothing, then it does not mean anything. History is not logic. History means, it happened. It happened, so there must be some evidence. Well this rule should be applied to Mahabharata too. Till there is some archeology evidence, Mahabharata has no meaning in History. Mahabharata can be a great text. But, Archeology evidence is required to consider Mahabharata as history and make chronology from it. 

2) Regarding 3102 BCE Kali, 3076 BCE Yudhisthira Saka, 3667 BCE Saptarshi Era, there are no inscriptions written before 100BCE as public records. Heliodorus pillar (dated in 2nd century BCE), names sankarshana Vāsudeva. It even exhibit a verse traceable to Mahabharata. So Mahabharata was well known. But doe’s not use Kali to date it. instead, it dates the writing in kings accession year and not Kali. Nanaghat royal inscription of Sathavahanas also names Balarama & Vāsudeva krishna. It does not use Kali epoch.  Absence of evidence for Kali, Yudhisthira or saptarshi means, it was not known before 100BCE. So, first prove, it was in practice before arguing Mahabharata based on Kali epoch.

3) Guru cycle is 12 years. Shani cycle is 30 years. Other planets has faster (lesser in time) cycles. LCM is 60 years. So, we have 60 Samvatsara as a larger year cycle rather than a century (100 years). On an average we can expect 2 kings rule in one samvatsara. 100 king rule means 3000 years. Someone around 110BCE, thought next imperial king is 100th king in Kaliyuga. Vikramaditya (of Vikrama Shaka) takes birth. Varahamihira fixes kali 3000 years before. This 3000 year difference (3101 - 101BCE) between Kali and Vikramaditya birth, gives a suspicion that, it was a calculated figure. A birth was not controlled and hence it can’t be exactly 3000 years. Western jesuits working with Indian calendars probably did not understand 101st king. They used 101 from king vikram’s birth, while finalising Jesus Era (1 CE). Do, we get Kali in 3101BCE. If you are a Mahabharata researcher, you have to explain this perfect number 3000.

4) Charriot wheel question? Sanauli, UP archeology find,  conservatively dates war chariots to 2000-2200BCE. The war chariot has solid wheels. The wheels had copper fixtures to avoid wheel from cracking. So, it was not a fast moving chariot. Fast moving horse drawn chariots, like the one used by Arjuna and Krishna has to be spoked wheel chariot. So, first prove spoked wheel in your MB date (3K or 5K) before arguing Mahabharata war in 3K or 5K BCE dates.

Generally accepted time period for carts in other civilisations!

Rig Veda has references for horse and chariot. For ex..

Amarna tablets found at Syria (Mittani kingdom) puts a lower cutoff date of 1500BCE. Meaning, vedas must have been written before 1500BCE. 

5) Upper bound for Mahabharata:  Kathotia, MP Rock art . Since all warriors in this art are on horse back and non horse cart is used to carry food/ war bounty and without a human riding the cart, it shows a time period, before carts were made available to warriors. This art has to be dated as precisely as possible. This date will be the upper bound for MB war.

6) Lower bound for Mahabharata : is 2nd century BCE. By this time, Mahabharata and Vāsudeva Krishna were known to common people of India. Heliodorus pillar mentioning Krishna also validates the same.

5) We have one English word called “Barbarian’s”. This has come to English from Greek via Romans. It means savages. Greek word was Barbaras. In Mahabharata, we have the same Barbaras (in Sanskrit) fighting Mahabharata war along with Saka, Parthia, yavana etc. These tribes were ruling beyond Kabul valley in north west of India. Check MB reference below. Actually these Barbaras were Babylonians. They were called by the name Babiraus, in old Persian (DNA inscription of Darius the great). Unless Babirus introduced themselves as Barbaras, to both Greek and Indians, the name can’t be same in Greek and Sanskrit.  No other Barbaras identified in this region. Babylon comes up after 2000BCE. If Barbaras/Babylonians has to fight in 3K or 5K MB, please prove babylons existence in your MB date. Same thing with Parthia. MB says, all these were warrior tribes born out of Nandini, when kartyaveeraarjuna tries to capture that holy cow. Let them take birth from any form. You need to prove their existence archeologically first.

7) Bronze beads killings Semi precious stone exports of India, a stage that can be identified in archeology. (more bronze beads findings than stone beads). This stage/period indicates beginning of Bronze Age.

In and around 3000BCE, we still see semi precious beed making in Harappa. These were export items fetching good wealth. The existence of Beed making from fayence, lapis etc indicates, there was no cheaper alternates. Stones like lapis were available in abundance, but people in those countries did not know how to make thin holes in them. So, those stones were brought to India to turn them into beeds (jewelary). But, this trade disappears, once bronze was invented. Bronze beads imitating gold beads could be locally made at a cheaper cost than importing expensive beads from India. Harappan tried to compete, by making bronze beads also. But, due to cost differences export collapsed. Stone beads were done in abundance in 3000BCE. it indicates, absence of bronze. Absence of Bronze means, absence of iron also. That is because, iron was invented when metallurgy & smelting technology progressed from copper extraction to bronze making. Without bronze and iron, Is MB possible?

A fresh investigation on Colonial British History on Guptas

British Indian history has been written by equating Alexander with Chandragupta Maurya. Basis for this equation is Megasthanese Indica, where in he mentions Sandrocottus. Britishers have taken Sandrocottus=Chandragupta and whole Indian history is based on this sheet anchor. But Indian historians are arguing since 100 years that, this equation is wrong. So, this is a century old proble, still not resolved amicably.

I have a detailed peer reviewed researched paper to address this problem. The summary of the paper, I am publishing here.

My Hypothesis, Sandrocottus = Samudragupta and Greeks clearly documents their transactions with Imperial Guptas. British colonial equation is wrong. The sheet anchor 326BCE is correct, but it should be treated as Gupta Shaka epoch for working out Indian chronology.

Proof:

1) Greek account says Sandrocouptos.  SandroCouptos = Samdrogupto. (Only 1 letter error. Greek ‘nu’ used instead of Greek ‘mu’). Reading Chandragupta from Sandrocottus is primary error (be it Mauryan Chandragupta or Gupta Chandragupta). If it is not Chandragupta, Mauryans do not even come in the context.

2) Chandragupta1 (CG1) coins and inscriptions mentions him as “Chandra”. He is identified as Chandragupta1 only after Samudragupta (SG) publishes his Allahabad Prashasti, where Gupta genealogy was written. We have no king CG1 record, identifying himself as Chandragupta. That is why Delhi iron pillar Gupta Brahmi inscription has king named as Chandra only. Megasthanese naturally calls the king Xandramese = chandrama.  

3) Megasthanese ends his embassy with Sandrocottus. His accounts ends there. He do not document next king. So we do not hear anything about Chandragupta2(CG2) from Megasthanese or Arrian.   

4) Daimachus becomes next ambassador. His work is lost. Only Strabo quotes him and says Megasthanese was sent as ambassador to Androcottus, and Daimachus was sent as ambassador to next king AmitraGhatta. Amitraghata is son of Sandrocottus. we already know Androcottus is wrong and correct name is Sandrocottus. “Ghatta can be read as Gupta”. The greeks originally have used some twisted names, so CG1 and CG2 are not confused. This is further corrupted by follow on references, who does not know the context. AmitraGhata is no way reads Bindusara of Mauryans. So, it is Chandragupta2 (CG2) of Gupta for whom Daimachus was sent as ambassador.

5) CG1, SG,CG2 is a signature of Guptas. Hence Greek accounts are naming Gupta and not Mauryans.

6) Gadahara coins of peroysa found in Punjab are immediately replaced by Gadahara coins of Samudragupta. This clearly shows, Peroysa is Porus, as Greeks murder Porus and samudragupta fights Selucus Nicator for this. Samudragupta takes over Porus kingdom also. Greeks original accounts reads PHEROS, very close to Peroysa. So, correct name of Porus is Peroysa.

7) Silver coins of CG2 distributed in western kshatrap style and in that region are dated in 320-329 range. While skandagupta silver coins in that style and region are dated in the range 145. Skandagupta is grandson of CG2.  This means epoch used in the coins are different. CG2 coins are dated in Cyrus Saka era(550BCE). 550-329=221 BCE. Skandagupta coins are in Gupta Saka(326 BC, alexanders defeat by CG1), 326-145=181BCE. Gupta Coins in kshatrap region & in their style indicates continuation of kshatrapa rule, but under Gupta overlordship. As Vikrama Saka 57BCE or Shalivahana Saka 78CE celebrates Saka kings defeat. Hence, it cannot be used to print coins while western kshatrapa continue their rule as subordinates to guptas. It offends the rulers. so, epoch can only be older cyrus Saka or Gupta saka. Modern historians use Shalivahan Saka to date these silver coins, which beats practice and logic. Use of word, “varshe”, instead of samvatsara, clearly indicates it is continuation of older Cyrus Saka (550 BCE, as described by Varahamihira) and not Shalivahana Saka.

Chandragupta2 coin

Skandagupta coin

8) Alexander after crossing River Sindh and at Jhelam, enquires about forces he has to face deeper in India, If he crosses, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. He was told about kingdom of Prachi and its ruler Chandragupta1. So, CG1 was ruling. Samudragupta might have been a declared crown prince. As per Allahabad Prashasti, CG1 was an imperial king (Maharajadhiraja). So, defeat of Alexander get ascribed to him. Since, Alexander had killed Darius3 and appropriated his kingdom, he was king of king of Persia too. Alexanders defeat and battle injury was not a small Win. Death of Darius3 and closure of Achaemenid (called as Saka emperor) rule ends Cyrus Saka. So, new Saka has to be started. Hence Gupta Shaka starts at this point, in 326BCE coinciding with Darius3’s death and Alexander’s defeat. CG1 was ruling. GS starts under CG1. This implies, Gupta Shaka did not start to commemorate CG1 ascending the throne. Samudragupta does not claim starting a new era in Allahabad Prashasti. Samudragupta copperplates dated in Gupta Shaka 5 and 9 have been found. This Indicates, Samudragupta ascending the throne after 5 years from Gupta Shaka beginning. CG1 did not wage a war with Darius. So, Gupta Shaka was started to celebrate Alexander’s Defeat (only possibility, when CG1 was old & SG not a king yet). There is no other reasons for Imperial Gupta's to start a Shaka under CG1 rule. Hence, 326BCE becomes Gupta Shaka epoch date. Samudragupta ascends the throne in 321BCE. 326BCE should be the sheet anchor to define Indian chronology.

Samudragupta Gupta copper plate reference with Gupta Shaka 5&9

9) Gupta Garuda vs Greek and Iranian motifs.

The Greek “Garuda” on the inscription closely matches with Gupta logo. We have Heliodorus pillar, where the Greek ambassador inscribes his message on Garuda pillar in 110BC. Heliodorus pillar proves existence of Garuda pillar with Garuda as capital. This 1st BCE Garuda of Greeks points to existence of Gupta symbol before 1st BCE. The original motif should exist for Greeks to copy Garuda from aIndia than the Iranian eagle. So, Gupta must be ruling in BCE and not in CE.