PURANIC CHRONOLOGY

                                                                              Prof. D.D.Misra

ABSTRACT

            So far for all official research into ancient Indian history it has been assumed that Mahapadmananda and Chandragupta Mourya were the rulers of Magadha around the time of the invasion of Alexander (327 B.C). This identification was done at the beginning of the 19^th century to fit the ancient Indian history into the time span of the then scientific belief that the universe was created in the year 4004 B.C.  The time of Lord Buddha and the other important events of the ancient Indian history have been derived from these dates. On that basis the time of Mahabharata was worked out as fifteenth century B.C.

            To fit this time span, kings mentioned in the Indian sources from completely different geographic locations and historic periods have been assumed to be one and the same. One such example is the assumption that King Vikramaditya of Ujjain (founder of Vikram Sambat) is same as the Chandragupta second of Gupta dynasty of Magadha.

             By the end of the 19^th century the theory of creation of the universe in the year 4004 B.C. had been discarded by the scientists and it was known that the universe is at least a few billion years old. However the Indologists never bothered to re-examine the hypothesis that Mahapadmananda was the contemporary of Alexander. On the contrary when the Harappan remains were first discovered. It was assumed that those belonged to a period before Mahabharata and Ramayana and the civilization was pre-Aryan. The theory of destruction of the so called Dravidian civilization of Indus valley by Aryan invasion was postulated to explain the discoveries.

            These assumptions have created a number of anomalies which cannot be explained. The discoveries of more Harappan sites, submerged remains of Dwaraka, buried course of River Saraswati have only added to these anomalies. No serious and scientific attempt could be made to properly explain all these findings. It is high time that the assumption that Mahapadmananda was a contemporary of Alexander is discarded and the chronology of ancient Indian history be worked out from the original sources. If such a scientific perspective is adopted then the year of Kurukshetra battle as 3138 B.C. would be the sheet anchor date for ancient Indian history.

             The dates of ancient India history worked out from such a scientific perspective can be corroborated with the European accounts of Alexander and can explain all the archeological findings. Such a scientific approach shows that the Harappan civilization was post Mahabharata and prospered during the comparatively long period of peace that prevailed in the empire of King Parikshit and his descendants, after the battle of Kurukshetra. Therefore all the Harappan artifacts should be re-examined in the light of the Puranic chronology starting with the Kurukshetra battle in the year 3138 B.C.

            Similarly it is evident that the contemporary of Alexander was Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty. The Emperor Sandrocyptus, the contemporary of Selucus, was Samudragupta. His son Chandragupta II ruled from Pataliputra in the third century B.C.; he did not start any new era; where as King Vikramaditya ruled from Ujjain in the first century B.C. and started the Vikram Sambat.

            This article deals with only the distortions of the history of the Puranic period. It is evident that similar distortions have been made by the European historians and their Indian followers in the Indian history of the medieval period.

INTRODUCTION

            According to the modern Indian history books, Lord Buddha was born in the Sixth century B.C. and Chandragupta Mourya was the ruler of Magadha Empire soon after the invasion of Alexander around the year 327 B.C.  There is a common misconception among the laymen as well as the historians that these and the other dates given in the official version of Indian history are proven facts.

            However, a careful and critical examination of the sources from which these dates have been derived show that these dates are only as accurate as the creation of the universe in (or around) the year 4004 B.C.

            Most people including the historians believe that the dates mentioned above and the other dates of Indian history have been derived mainly from archaeological evidences, inscriptions on stone pillars and accounts of the foreign travelers.  But no complete history, whether correct or incorrect, can be written from such discontinuous sources.  If writing of history from such sources were possible we could have got a complete and detailed history of all the great civilizations destroyed by the white European invaders in the American continents. Similarly the histories of the great Druid civilization of England, the ancient civilizations of Africa and even the history of Poland till the tenth century A.D. would have not been lost.

            History has to be written mainly from historical accounts.  The pioneers of Indian history namely Sir William Jones, Professor Max Muller, Professor Wilson and the other Indologists of early nineteenth century knew this and the first sources they looked for Indian history were the scriptures known as Itihasa and Purana such as Mahabharata, Bhagabata Purana, Vishnu Purana, Vayu Purana, Matsya Purana and Bhabishya Purana.

            The Puranas give the dates of the historical events in Kaliyugabda, Vikram Sambat, Shalivahana Shakabda and other Indian eras still in use at present.  From these narrations it is possible to get the dates of all important historical events in the Christian era.

  

DAWN OF INDOLOGY

            However, Sir William Jones and the other European Indologists of early nineteenth century ran into a serious difficulty in determining the chronology from the Puranas.  It must be recalled that during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, it was firmly believed by the Scientists and other learned men that the universe was created around the year 4004 B.C. The Scientists till late nineteenth century did not accept the theory of evolution suggested by Darwin and the idea of the universe being millions, or even billions, of years, old.  The earlier European Indologists could not possibly believe in the chronology of the Puranas, which places the age of the universe at a few billion years (in contrast to the accepted age of less than 6000 years).  Their misgivings were strengthened because of the following.

1. Narrations of the events of the first three eras, namely Krita Yuga, Treta Yuga and Dwapara Yuga, in the Puranas appear more mythical than factual, though the narrations of the events of Kali Yuga are purely factual accounts.

2.    All narrations of the events after the battle of Kurukshetra are  written in future tense.  All narrations are made in a mythological language involving the Gods (rather unnecessarily) in the events.  This could be very confusing to the scholars not familiar with the Indian traditions.

3. There are some discrepancies in the accounts of the different Puranas partly due to errors in copying, proof reading etc. including modern printing and partly due to deliberate alterations to suit the purpose of the royal families in whose courts the scriptures were maintained.  These could be corrected by comparing the different Puranas as well as the different versions of the same Purana.  This could hardly be done in an unbiased manner by the early European Indologists who were exploring a field hitherto completely unknown.  The later Indologists, like Pargiter, could not do a proper evaluation as they were already biased by the earlier work.

4. Many translations, or rather narrations, of the Puranas in the Vernacular languages contain accounts much in variation from the original Sanskrit texts from which those are purported to   have been derived.  Kamban Ramayana, Krittibas Ramayan and Ramcharit Manas of Tulsidas are a few such examples.

5. In addition there are famous literary works like "Abhigyana Shakuntalam", "Mudra Rakshasa" and   "Harsha Charita" which are more popular but can be very misleading for the purpose of chronology.

            Thus the European Indologists like Professor Max Muller and Sir William Jones came to the obvious, but grossly erroneous, conclusion that though the accounts of the Puranas are based on a hard core of historical facts, the chronology is all wrong.

            Having thus dismissed the straightforward method of determining the chronology of Indian history, the Indologists started looking for other sources including their own conjectures.  Sir William Jones actually suggested a chronological table of events starting with the year 4004 B.C. which he believed to be the year of creation of Adam or Swayambhuba Manu.  Accordingly he identified Vaivaswata Manu as Noah (of the Ark). See annexure I.

SHEET ANCHOR DATE

             Professor Max Muller improved upon the work of Sir William Jones by trying to correlate the Indian history with Greek history.  One ancient event the date of which is well known in the Christian era is the invasion of Alexander.  However, there is no mention whatsoever of Alexander or anything connected with his invasion in any Purana or any other ancient Indian account including the Buddhist Chronicles.  The obvious inference is that the invasion of Alexander did not touch any important kingdom of India.  Professor Max Muller then searched the Greek accounts and the narrations of the other classical European writers for the name of any Indian ruler who could be located.  One such name is Sandrocottus.  He is said to have succeeded Xandramese who was a contemporary of Alexander.  Sir William Jones had suggested that Chandragupta Mourya of Mudra Rakshasa could be the Sandrocottus of Greek history.

            Professor Max Muller confirmed this identification.  His main purpose was to arrive at a chronology acceptable to the intellectuals of the nineteenth century.  In fact his motives and methods are best described in his own words in his "History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (Allahabad Edition 1859 A.D)"

            A few of the anomalies which arise because of the identification of Sandrocottus of Greek history as Chandragupta Mourya are given in annexure II.

             Having worked out a chronology acceptable to the Europeans, the Indologists started looking for archeological and other evidence to confirm it and this they thought they found in plenty in the form of stone inscriptions attributed to emperor Ashoka (and some other kings such as Kharabela), Mandasara inscriptions etc. However the stone inscriptions, like Aihole inscriptions which did not fit the preconceived notions were ignored. 

            The pity is that the stone inscriptions can be interpreted in different ways and these interpretations were stretched to absurd lengths to suit the conjecture that Sandrocottus is same as Chandragupta Mourya.

            By the later half of the nineteenth century the dates arrived at by the early Indologists had already been accepted as historical facts. Though the Darwin’s theory of evolution, the age of the universe as a few billion years, Stratigraphy etc. were being accepted by the scientists by the end of the nineteenth century, it never occurred to the official historians and Indologists to re-examine the accepted chronology of Indian history in the light of these scientific discoveries. On the contrary unfounded hypotheses like the theory of Aryan migration were postulated to explain the archeological findings of the Indus valley.

            Here it must be emphasized that the European Indologists deserve all the credit for their efforts to work out a detailed history of ancient India.  Their failure to arrive at the correct dates and details of the events was only due to the firm belief among the scientists and other intellectuals of their time that the universe is less than 6000 years old.

            Unfortunately, in the process they have altered certain verses and otherwise mutilated the texts of the Puranas in their editions, such as Wilson's Vishnu Purana, which are today most widely read.  The Christian missionaries have also been unintentionally guilty of such vandalism, as they have often destroyed some of the manuscripts of Puranas, which fell in their hands.  They were doing so with the firm belief that by such destruction they are saving the posterity from these sin provoking documents.

            However, sufficient numbers of the different versions of the different Puranas are still available in the monasteries in India, as well as the libraries in Great Britain, Germany, America and other countries for a complete and correct chronology of Indian history to be worked out.  In calculating the dates from the Puranas the following procedure should be adopted to rectify the errors and discrepancies.

1. Proper distinction should be made between the Puranas and the other ancient texts.  For example Abhigyana Shakuntalam, Mudra Rakshasa, Raghu Vansa, Ramcharitmanas etc. are magnificent literary works and not historical documents.

2. In some Puranas the dates are given in more than one era.   In such cases comparison should be made to detect any possible error.  Possible grammatical errors as well as the consistency and continuity of the verses should be carefully checked.

3. The dates of events worked out from different Puranas should be tallied and compared with the astronomical data.

The chronological table worked out by such direct translation is given in annexure III

INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION

            Most of the Harappan remains so far discovered have been dated to be of a period between 3000 B.C. and 1800 B.C. According to the Puranas the battle of Kurukshetra took place in the year 3138 B.C. and the present Kali yuga started in the year 3102 B.C. with the coronation of King Parikshit. Thus it is apparent that the Indus valley settlements belong to the post Mahabharata period. In fact the area was under the rule of the descendants of King Parikshit.

From the discovery of the buried course of river Saraswati it is clear that the river was very much present around 3000 B.C. though in the centuries that followed, with the diversion of Sutlej to the west and Yamuna to the east, the river gradually dried up.

            In the light of these findings and to properly understand the Harappan civilization it is important to consider the following.

1. How do the available remnants of the Indus valley settlers compare with the present inhabitants of those areas?

2.  To what extent migration of population has taken place from the Indus valley settlements and in which directions? How far the migration has been affected by the diversion of Sutlej and Yamuna?

3. How much of the differences, if any, found item 2 are due to the known later day migrations, for example due to the invasions of the Shaks, Huns, Mongols and Muslims?

4. How do the religious figurine obtained from the Harappan settlements compare with Gods and Goddesses of the post Mahabharata period?

5. Interpretation of the Harappan script according to the grammar and syntax of the Puranas.

6. Comparison of the narrations of Mahabharata, such as a predominantly pastoral economy, early phase of Slash and burn cultivation etc. with the earliest Harappan remains of the period before 3000 B.C.

7. Comparison of the narrations of Artha Shastra of Koutilya (sixteenth century B.C. according to the Puranas) with the latest Harappan remains.

ARYAN MIGRATION

            For the post Mahabharata period the Puranas mostly describe the genealogies of the rulers of Magadha starting with the descendants of King Jarasandha, the father-in-law of King Kansa and the arch enemy of Lord Krishna. The same Puranas give the list of the predecessors of King Jarasandha at Magadha for a few thousand years before Mahabharata.

 

            For the Indus valley area, which in the Puranas are referred to as the territories of Chandravansi kings, the genealogies of the predecessors of King Shantanu are given for many thousand years. Thus even if we ignore the kings of Ayodhya whose rule is said to have extended over a million years, it is clear that the kings mentioned in the Puranas have been ruling over the different parts of North India, up to Hindukush for many thousand years (more likely a few million years). There has been continual evolution of the civilization in this area including language, literature, science, technology and industry frequently punctuated by battles and wars among the vassal states whenever the central authority became weak and also by repeated attacks by Yavanas, Shaks, Huns, Mongols etc.

            There is no evidence whatsoever of any migration of population akin to Aryan migration. With the rediscovery of the buried course of river Saraswati it is clear that the language and culture assumed to have been brought home by the Aryans, actually originated on the banks of that mighty river.

CONCLUSION

            It is evident that the Harappan relics, which have so far been studied with the assumption that those are pre-Aryan, are actually Puranic in nature and belong to the period when the descendants of the King Parikshit ruled over the Indus valley. Similarly, the archeological remain which have so far been examined as those of the Mourya period actually belong to the Gupta period. Re-examination of all these archeological findings in the proper scientific perspective would throw new light and solve all the anomalies of Indian history.

            It is high time that the modern students and scholars of history discard the chronology based on the creation of universe in the year 4004 B.C. and write the ancient history of India on the basis of the correct chronology by direct translation from the Puranas.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

            The views expressed in this paper are on the basis of the following sources.

 

1.         Bhagabata Purana, Vishnu Purana, Vayu Purana, Matsya Purana and Bhabishya Purana published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur and Sanskriti Sansthan, Bareily.

2.         Books written by Pandit Kota Venkatachelam, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada-2.

               i) Chronology of Ancient Hindu History, in two volumes, 1957

              ii) Chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed, 1953

             iii) Chronology of Kashmir History Reconstructed, 1955

             iv) The Plot in Indian Chronology, 1953

             v) Age of Buddha, Milinda & Amtiyoka and Yuga Purana,                                 1956

3.         “Bharatka Naya Itihasa” in Hindi written for private circulation by Dr.D.S.Triveda giving the summary of his publications till 1980 in

              i)  Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune

             ii)  Hinduism, Bharat Sevashram Sangha, London

            iii)  Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay and some other journals.

4.         Publications of International Society for the Investigation of Ancient Civilizations, 31 Poes Gargen, Madras - 600086.

5.         Itihas Patrika and the other publications of Institute for Rewriting Indian History and Oriental Institute, C/o Dr.V.V.Bedakar, Shivashakti, Naupada, Thane - 400 602.

ANNEXURE - I

 

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF SIR WILLIAM JONES

            The following chronology taken from “The complete Works of Sir William Jones (in 13 volumes) Volume IV, 1807 edition (by Lord Teinmouth, printed for John Stockdale, Piccadelly and John Walker, Paternoster Row, 1807)” on Page 47 has been quoted by Pandit Kota Venkatachelam on page 19 of his book “The Plot in Indian Chronology” published in 1953.

Christian and

Mussalman                  Hindu                           Years before 1788 of our era

 Adam                           Menu I age I                                           5794

Noah                            Menu II                                                    4747

Deluge                                                                                            4138

Nimord                         Hiranyakasipu Age II                         4004

Bel                                  Bali                                                          3892

Rama                            Rama Age III                                         3817

Noah’s death                                                                                3787

                                    Pradyota                                                   2817

                                    Buddha Age IV                                        2815

                                    Nanda                                                        2487

                                    Balin                                                           1937

                                    Vikramaditya                                         1844

                                    Devapala                                                  1811

Christ                                                                                            1787

                                    Narayanapala                                         1721

                                    Saka                                                           1709

Walid                                                                                            1080

Muhmud                                                                                        786

Chengiz                                                                                          548

Timur                                                                                              391

Babur                                                                                             276

Nadirshah                                                                                     49

ANNEXURE II

SANDROCOTTUS AND CHANDRAGUPTA

            If Sandrocottus of Greek history is identified as Chandragupta Mourya we run into a number of difficulties that the modern historians have not yet been able to explain.

 

1. The name of the predecessor of Mourya Chandragupta, i.e. Nanda does not at all resemble the name Xandramese of Greek history.  Similarly the name of his successor Bindusara does not at all resemble Sandrocyptus of Greek history.

2. The Greek accounts describe a vast empire and army under the command of Xandramese and Sandrocottus; though the Puranas state that the empire of Nanda was very extensive it is categorically stated that the kingdom of the Mouryas was rather small not including even Kalinga, the state just to the south of Magadha.

3. The Greek accounts describe Palibothra as the capital of Sandrocottus.  But the Puranas are specific about the fact that the capital of the Mouryas was at Giribraja.  The capital was shifted to Pataliputra (Palibothra) only during the rule of Satavahan dynasty.

4. In the Indian accounts Chanakya is inseparable from any description of Chandragupta Mourya or Nandas. Greeks make no mention of Chanakya or Artha Shashtra.

5. The Greek accounts describe Sandrocottus as an usurper who had treacherously killed King Xandramese after having won the confidence of the Queen.  In contrast Chandragupta Mourya, guided by Chanakya, had overthrown the Nandas after a civil war.

6. According to the Puranas at the time of the establishment of Mourya dynasty Buddhism was spreading fast but the Greeks make no mention of Lord Buddha or Ashoka.

Thus it is clear that the Sandrocottus cannot be Chandragupta of Mourya dynasty.  If Sandrocottus is identified as Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty the following correspondences are obtained between the Greek and Indian names.

            Greek name                                                        Indian name

 

           Xandramese                        Chandrabij (last Satvahan king)

           Sandrocottus                         Chandragupta (first Gupta king)

          Sandrocyptus                        Samudragupta (Ashokaditya)

ANNEXURE III

Dates of some of the important historic events

estimated from the Puranas

Event                                                                               Year in B.C.

 

Kurukshetra battle of Mahabharata
and birth of King Parikshit                                                 3138

End of Brihadratha dynasty (of Jarasandha)
and start of Pradyota dynasty                                         2132

in Magadha (capital Giribraja)

End of Pradyota dynasty and start of
Shishunag dynasty of Magadha                                      1995

 Birth oLord Buddha                                                           1887

 Nirvana of Lord Buddha                                                  1807

End of Shishunag dynasty and
coronation of Mahapadmanand                                    1634

(capital Giribraja)

 End of Nanda dynasty and

coronation of Chandragupta Mourya                          1534

Coronation of Ashoka (Ashokavardhana)                   1472     
                                                            

End of Mourya dynasty and
coronation of Pushyamitra Sunga                                1218

(Capital Giribraja)

End of Sunga dynasty and
start of Kanwa dynasty                                                     918

(Coronation of Vasudeva)

End of Kanwa dynasty and start of
Satavahana dynasty with the                                          833

coronation of Shrimukha (capital Giribraja)

 Birth of Adi Shankaracharya

(in South India)                                                                  509

Establishment of
Dwaraka Shankarcharya Pitha                                     491

 

Establishment of
Kanchi Kamokoti Pitha                                                   482

End of Andhra dynasty with assassination
of King Chandarbij (Xandramese of Greek history)
and coronation of Chandragupta

(Sandrocottus or Androcottus of Greek history)

Capital Pataliputra (Palibothra)                                 327

 Coronation of Samudragupta
(Sandrocyptus of Greek history)                                 320

 End of Gupta dynasty and
decline of Magadha empire                                            82

Establishment of the suzerainty of
Emperor Vikramaditya of Ujjain                                 58

(Born in 101 B.C. and
coronated in 86 B.C. at Ujjain) over the whole

 of India and start of Vikram Sambat                                                     

--- 0 ---