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?

6) Question of  iron

Harpoons used to kill animals were different from spears used in battle. Harpoons evolved first. They will have “fangs”. These fangs were made to get grip inside the animals body. Idea was that, injured animal could run away, but cannot get rid of the “Weapon”. The weapon struck in the animals body will eventually retard the movement of that animal and that animal will die. Hunters would get “the prey” in a day or two. So, “prepare” the kill, if it escapes today. Another reason for fangs is hardness. Weapon was prepared using copper. Not hard enough to pierce through the body. Once iron came into the picture, fangs were not really required, as hardness of the weapons allowed deeper penetration. Deeper penetration was doing same effect of fangs. So, spears came later than harpoons. Harappa had harpoons and it was a copper culture civilisation. Design of the weapon indicates, Harappan’s did not have iron.

The entire argument is based on harappan artefact. It shows, 5000 years back, India did not had iron. Absence of iron in and around 3000 BC challenges Mahabharat date. To counter it, you have to prove harappan civilisation is “older” by 1000’s of years. This is challenge to MB researchers.

 

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. 

10)Why Guptas has be in BCE?

A) After 1AD (Jesus) Romans were ruling. Referrence will be to “Romaka” and not to Greeks. Indians knew Romaka Siddantha.

B) Junagadh inscription of Rudradamana recalls Mauryans and Ashoka. Ashoka had a Greek Administrator/king in the area (probably defeated Greeks and reappointed the ruler as a subdued king). Rudradamana being a kshatrapa was ruling under Persian King. This was in BCE. Rudradamana recalls defeating satavahana king (his son in law) satakarni. Andhra satavahanas were ruling and Guptas not yet started. 

C) Naneghat inscription of satavahanas mentions about Vasudeva (probably early vaishnavism before Guptas). No satavahana inscription mentions about any Vishnu temple. 

D) Heliodorus , ambassador of Greeks erects Garuda pillar. Since Greeks has to be before Romans, western historians do not date this pillar later than 100BCE. 

E) Garuda is the royal emblem of Guptas. Guptas begins Vishnu temple constructions. Till Satavahanas no inscription with mention of any Vishnu temple. So, Heliodorus pillar must be coming up in front of Vishnu temple built by Guptas. 

This implies, Guptas were ruling before Heliodorus pillar and after Naneghat inscription. 

Both Rudradamana and Guptas come before Heliodorus pillar date and after Mauryans. Greek ambassadors were sent to Guptas.

Heliodorus pillar can not be before Naneghat inscription. British History puts Heliodorus in 100+BCE but satavahanas after 1AD. This is not possible from physical evidence on the ground.

British history is clearly wrong because, If, Chandragupta MAURYA was in 325 BCE (Alexander time) and Guptas were before 100BCE Heliodorus pillar, we can’t fill Mauryans to Guptas (including Satavahanas) in 225 years.

11) Alexander’s defeat has to be an epoch. Why? 

Alexander had killed Darius3 and becomes King of king of Persia. He attacks India. His defat was very big one = defeat of king of king of Persia = emperrors defeat. If we have a new Saka for defeating a western kshatrapa (who is a governor under Persian empire), then there must be a Saka for defeating Alexander. Samudragupta mentions defeat of Shai shahanu shahi = Emperror of Persia and Saka murunda = Commander of Saka = kshatrapa or Kushana who accompanies Alexander as commander of Persians or Selucus who was a commander of Alexander at that time. So, 325BC Defeat of Alexander has to be Gupta Saka. CG1 was Indian Emperror and SamudraGupta Crowned Prince.

12)  Why Gupta Saka Epoch =327BCE?

1) Reason for 326/7 BCE as GS = Alexander’s defeat after crossing Jhelam. 

2) If we take Cyrus coronation at 550BCE, and Albirunis value of 241 (4 times 60 yrs samvatsara), then 550-241=309 BCE becomes GS. Alternately, Considering 325 (exact year of Alexander’s defeat) as GS, Cyrus Saka Epoch = 325+241=566 BCE.

3) We could expect a reset to Vikrama Saka (VS) after 300yrs (5x60),means 57 +300=357 BCE should be GS and 357+241=598BCE = Cyrus Saka Epoch. (Unlikely, so upper limit)

4) we could expect a reset to Shalivahana Saka (SS) after 420 yrs (7X60), means 420-78=342 BCE= GS (could be coronation of CG1). 342+241=583BCE=Cyrus Saka Epoch.

Inscriptions with 300GS are obtained. So GS was in use for atleast 300 years. VS can come after 300 years of GS.

13) Yudheyas linking Rudradamana and Guptas.

Another key connection is yaudheya. Yaudheya people worshiped Kartikeya and called him Mahasena. They were ruling in Haryana. When Kushana subdues them, Kushana coins were minted for the region with mahasena image. Kanishka mentions about them in Rabatak inscriptions. Yaudheya was defeated by CG2, as he mentions them in Allahabad prashasti. Due to the influence of Yudheya, CG2 names his son Kumāra Gupta. Kumara gupta coins carry mahasena and peacock, just like Yudheya coins. Guptas were Vishnu devotees. Unless there is some big influence, they won’t be minting Kartikeya coins. So, Yudheya links and shows, Guptas and Kushanas overlap during their rule. Yudheya is mentioned by Rudradamana also and Junagad carries Skandagupta inscription , ruler after Kumaragupta. So, Yudheya links Kushana, Rudradamana, Shatakarni, Guptas as overlapped during their existence.

If Yudheya ruled for more than 500 years, then they must be very famous and powerfull dynasty. Many kings from the dynasty must be known. To stretch Yudheya from Rudradamana in BCE (say 200 BCE) then , Kushanas, then shungas in 100 BCE and then up to Guptas in 200+CE  will give more than 400 years rule to Yudheyas.

14) British chronology not matching important inscriptions?

As per British history (check Wikipedia)

1. Chandragupta Maurya (320-298 BCE)

2. Ashoka Maurya ( 273 - 232 BCE)

3. Rudradamana (130-150 CE)

4. Gautami putra Satakarni (78 CE - 102 CE)

5. Vasishta putra Satakarni (158-165 CE)

6. Maurya empire ( 320 - 185 BCE)

7. Archemenian Iranian empire ( 550 - 330 BCE)

8. Kushana Empire (30 CE - 375 CE) = 340 years

9. Sathavahana Empire ( 100+ BCE - 224 CE) = 300 years

10. Shunga Empire (185 BCE - 73 BCE)

11. Heliodorus pillar (113 BCE)

12. Kanishka (127 CE - 150 CE)

13. Gupta Empire (240 CE - 550CE) = 290 years.

14. CG1 (319-335CE)

15. SG (335-375 CE)

16. CG2 (380-415 CE)

17. Kumara Gupta (415-455 CE)

18. Skanda-Gupta (455-467CE)

19. Yudheya Dynasty (400+ BCE - 300+ CE)= 700 years.

1) British history gets caught in Vasishta putra sathakarni. Junagad inscription states, Rudradamana recovers lost land (to Gautamiputra) and defeats his son in law Vasishtaputra satakarni two times. But, vasistaputra satakarni is king in 158CE, while Rudradamana is dead by 150CE. How will Rudradamana defeats vasistaputra satakarni?

2) Rudradamana can be a vassal (maha kshatrapa) only to Kushanas, as archemenian empire ends due to Alexander in 330 BCE. To be precise Rudradamana was ruling under Kanishka. But we have no referrence to Kanishka from Rudradamana. kanishka has his own Saka, but Rudradamana and his dynasty inscriptions are in Cyrus Saka

3) Yudheya dynasty rules for 700 years, double than Maurya, sathavahana, Gupta etc. But we have no inscriptions or noteable kings?

4) Heliodorus pillar built before Sathavahanas started in Shunga period (113 BCE and Sathavahana start in 100 BCE). But not even 1 referrence to Vishnu temple or Garuda by Shunga or Sathavahana till Guptas in 220 CE??