Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 329

Thread: History and Historians on Jat Mauryan Empire[ founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC]

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    At the initial stage, perhaps you could just provide the " primary" sources of information re placing ' Chandragupt' in the time frame of 325 BCE.
    Thanks friend, you are right that we should first provide chronology. I am preparing the relevant note for use in this regard.

    Regards.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    AbhikRana (August 16th, 2012), ravinderjeet (August 14th, 2012)

  3. #22

    Mor / Amor / Muru / Amuru / Amorites / Mores


  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Moar For This Useful Post:

    AbhikRana (August 16th, 2012), DrRajpalSingh (August 16th, 2012)

  5. #23
    Dr Rajpalji,

    Why don't you write historical contents on Wiki section on Jatland ? That will be of great help.
    Laxman Burdak

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to lrburdak For This Useful Post:

    AbhikRana (August 16th, 2012), DrRajpalSingh (August 16th, 2012), ravinderjeet (August 15th, 2012), sanjayrathee (November 16th, 2012)

  7. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by lrburdak View Post
    Dr Rajpalji,

    Why don't you write historical contents on Wiki section on Jatland ? That will be of great help.
    Prior to continous ' self approved' updates to wiki, may it not be preferable to sort out the factual aspects, first?

    In an attempt to keep members focused, I will repeat the core starting question.

    Where are the PRIMARY( not secondary sources- 'so and so said ' etc ), placing Mr. Maurya in 325 BC ?

    Ravi Chaudhary
    Last edited by ravichaudhary; August 15th, 2012 at 05:43 PM.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ravichaudhary For This Useful Post:

    AbhikRana (August 16th, 2012), anilrana (August 19th, 2012), DrRajpalSingh (August 16th, 2012), puneetlakra (August 17th, 2012)

  9. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    Prior to continous ' self approved' updates to wiki, may it not be preferable to sort out the factual aspects, first?

    In an attempt to keep members focused, I will repeat the core starting question.

    Where are the PRIMARY( not secondary sources- 'so and so said ' etc ), placing Mr. Maurya in 325 BC ?

    Ravi Chaudhary
    Thank you Shri Ravi Chaudhary and Shri L. R. Burdak for your timely and very relevant suggestions. Since I am collecting/consulting all relevant and accessible sources, I come up with them to be discussed this very section before they are put at Wiki.

    Regards.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    AbhikRana (August 16th, 2012), puneetlakra (August 17th, 2012)

  11. #26
    Sandrocottus was identified as Chandra Gupta by Cunningham and it continues so far. I think Chandra for Sandro seems alright but I have doubts about Cottus being identified as Gupta. In many Inscriptions at Sanchi we find Got, Gutta, Guta,Goth words.

    At [Wiki]Sanchi[/Wiki] See the following Inscriptions:

    No. 3. — Vaja-Gutasa dānam.
    No 33. — Gotiputasa Bhadukasa bhichhuno dānam
    No. 35. — Araha-Gutasa Sāsādakasa bhichhuno dānam.
    No. 73. — Bodhe Gothiye Dhama Varhanana dānam.
    No. 81. — Utareyekasa Satigutasa dānam.
    No. 82. — Araha Gutaya dānam.
    No. 97. — Chada Gutasa sa ... kagomiya . . . mita dānam.
    No. 103. — Bhoga-varhanakasa Ajiti-gutasa.
    No. 108. — Sri Gutasa Vānijasa dānam.
    No. 110, — Subāhitasa Gotiputasa, Rajalipākarasa dānam.
    No. 125. — Nadi-Gutasa dānam bhichhuno.
    No. 129. — Madhuvana Dhama Gutasa bhichhuno dānam.

    B S Dahiya seems right when he identifies Gut-Goth-Got-Jott with Jutt and Jat

    Now See at [Wiki]Bharhut Inscriptions[/Wiki]

    2. Magha Deviya Jātakam
    5. Sujāto-gahuto Jātaka
    6. Biḍāla Jatara4 Kukutta Jātaka
    9. Isi-migo Jātaka.
    11. Hansa Jātakam.
    12. Kinara Jātakam
    13. Jātila Sabhā
    14. Uda Jātaka
    15. Sechha Jātaka
    17. Bhisaharaniya Jātaka.
    10. Bahaḍagajaṭiranatane Isā Rakhitaputasa Anandasa thabho (dānam).
    13. Naga Jātaka
    16. Dhama Gutasa dānam thabho.
    19. Miga Jātakam
    58. Yava-Majhakiyam Jātakam
    74. Chadantiya Jātakam
    75. Vitura Punakiya Jātakam
    95. Moragiri Jita mitasa dānam.
    97. Yambumano avayesi Jātakam.
    1. Sapa Gutaye bhikuniye dānam.
    11. Laṭuwā Jātakam
    41. Aya Jāto Sepeṭakino Suchi dānam.

    The words Jāt and Jāto can be considered to be Jat.

    Dr Rajpal ji is requested to apply a proper technique for identification.

    For the meanings of these Inscriptions compiled on Jatland Wiki you can click the active links here- [Wiki]Sanchi[/Wiki] and [Wiki]Bharhut[/Wiki]
    Last edited by lrburdak; August 17th, 2012 at 08:24 AM.
    Laxman Burdak

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to lrburdak For This Useful Post:

    anilrana (August 19th, 2012), bsbana (February 3rd, 2013), DrRajpalSingh (August 17th, 2012), JSRana (August 17th, 2012), narvir (August 17th, 2012), prashantacmet (August 17th, 2012), puneetlakra (August 17th, 2012), ravinderjeet (August 17th, 2012)

  13. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by lrburdak View Post
    Sandrocottus was identified as Chandra Gupta by Cunningham and it continues so far. I think Chandra for Sandro seems alright but I have doubts about Cottus being identified as Gupta. In many Inscriptions at Sanchi we find Got, Gutta, Guta,Goth words.

    At [Wiki]Sanchi[/Wiki] See the following Inscriptions:

    No. 3. — Vaja-Gutasa dānam.
    No 33. — Gotiputasa Bhadukasa bhichhuno dānam
    No. 35. — Araha-Gutasa Sāsādakasa bhichhuno dānam.
    No. 73. — Bodhe Gothiye Dhama Varhanana dānam.
    No. 81. — Utareyekasa Satigutasa dānam.
    No. 82. — Araha Gutaya dānam.
    No. 97. — Chada Gutasa sa ... kagomiya . . . mita dānam.
    No. 103. — Bhoga-varhanakasa Ajiti-gutasa.
    No. 108. — Sri Gutasa Vānijasa dānam.
    No. 110, — Subāhitasa Gotiputasa, Rajalipākarasa dānam.
    No. 125. — Nadi-Gutasa dānam bhichhuno.
    No. 129. — Madhuvana Dhama Gutasa bhichhuno dānam.

    B S Dahiya seems right when he identifies Gut-Goth-Got-Jott with Jutt and Jat

    Now See at [Wiki]Bharhut Inscriptions[/Wiki]



    2. Magha Deviya Jātakam
    5. Sujāto-gahuto Jātaka
    6. Biḍāla Jatara4 Kukutta Jātaka
    9. Isi-migo Jātaka.
    11. Hansa Jātakam.
    12. Kinara Jātakam
    13. Jātila Sabhā
    14. Uda Jātaka
    15. Sechha Jātaka
    17. Bhisaharaniya Jātaka.
    10. Bahaḍagajaṭiranatane Isā Rakhitaputasa Anandasa thabho (dānam).
    13. Naga Jātaka
    16. Dhama Gutasa dānam thabho.
    19. Miga Jātakam
    58. Yava-Majhakiyam Jātakam
    74. Chadantiya Jātakam
    75. Vitura Punakiya Jātakam
    95. Moragiri Jita mitasa dānam.
    97. Yambumano avayesi Jātakam.
    1. Sapa Gutaye bhikuniye dānam.
    11. Laṭuwā Jātakam
    41. Aya Jāto Sepeṭakino Suchi dānam.

    The words Jāt and Jāto can be considered to be Jat.

    Dr Rajpal ji is requested to apply a proper technique for identification.

    For the meanings of these Inscriptions compiled on Jatland Wiki you can click the active links here- [Wiki]Sanchi[/Wiki] and [Wiki]Bharhut[/Wiki]

    The inscriptions are primary data.

    They may have relevance.

    The comment about Cunningham is secondary data. His is an opnion. A bald opinion, with no rationale attached. It has no relevance.




    Why are the inscriptions being posted?


    The thread is about Chandra Gupta Maurya.


    Is there any connection between these inscriptions and Mr. Maurya?

    How do they help establish his date?

    Ravi Chaudhary

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ravichaudhary For This Useful Post:

    anilrana (August 19th, 2012), DrRajpalSingh (August 17th, 2012), puneetlakra (August 17th, 2012)

  15. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    The inscriptions are primary data.

    They may have relevance.

    The comment about Cunningham is secondary data. His is an opnion. A bald opinion, with no rationale attached. It has no relevance.




    Why are the inscriptions being posted?


    The thread is about Chandra Gupta Maurya.


    Is there any connection between these inscriptions and Mr. Maurya?

    How do they help establish his date?

    Ravi Chaudhary

    Friend,

    Sanchi Stupa was built by King Asoka who was grand son of Chandragupta Maurya. Therefore, the inscriptions mentioned by Burdak ji have direct relation with our subject of study. You are right to prefer inscriptional evidence to baseless hypothesis of Historians.

    Thanks.

  16. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by lrburdak View Post
    Sandrocottus was identified as Chandra Gupta by Cunningham and it continues so far. I think Chandra for Sandro seems alright but I have doubts about Cottus being identified as Gupta. In many Inscriptions at Sanchi we find Got, Gutta, Guta,Goth words.

    At Sanchi See the following Inscriptions:

    No. 3. — Vaja-Gutasa dānam.
    No 33. — Gotiputasa Bhadukasa bhichhuno dānam
    No. 35. — Araha-Gutasa Sāsādakasa bhichhuno dānam.
    No. 73. — Bodhe Gothiye Dhama Varhanana dānam.
    No. 81. — Utareyekasa Satigutasa dānam.
    No. 82. — Araha Gutaya dānam.
    No. 97. — Chada Gutasa sa ... kagomiya . . . mita dānam.
    No. 103. — Bhoga-varhanakasa Ajiti-gutasa.
    No. 108. — Sri Gutasa Vānijasa dānam.
    No. 110, — Subāhitasa Gotiputasa, Rajalipākarasa dānam.
    No. 125. — Nadi-Gutasa dānam bhichhuno.
    No. 129. — Madhuvana Dhama Gutasa bhichhuno dānam.

    B S Dahiya seems right when he identifies Gut-Goth-Got-Jott with Jutt and Jat

    Now See at Bharhut Inscriptions

    2. Magha Deviya Jātakam
    5. Sujāto-gahuto Jātaka
    6. Biḍāla Jatara4 Kukutta Jātaka
    9. Isi-migo Jātaka.
    11. Hansa Jātakam.
    12. Kinara Jātakam
    13. Jātila Sabhā
    14. Uda Jātaka
    15. Sechha Jātaka
    17. Bhisaharaniya Jātaka.
    10. Bahaḍagajaṭiranatane Isā Rakhitaputasa Anandasa thabho (dānam).
    13. Naga Jātaka
    16. Dhama Gutasa dānam thabho.
    19. Miga Jātakam
    58. Yava-Majhakiyam Jātakam
    74. Chadantiya Jātakam
    75. Vitura Punakiya Jātakam
    95. Moragiri Jita mitasa dānam.
    97. Yambumano avayesi Jātakam.
    1. Sapa Gutaye bhikuniye dānam.
    11. Laṭuwā Jātakam
    41. Aya Jāto Sepeṭakino Suchi dānam.

    The words Jāt and Jāto can be considered to be Jat.

    Dr Rajpal ji is requested to apply a proper technique for identification.

    For the meanings of these Inscriptions compiled on Jatland Wiki you can click the active links here- Sanchi and Bharhut

    Thanks Burdak ji for providing important clues. I shall surely cross check before putting the write up.

  17. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Friend,

    Sanchi Stupa was built by King Asoka who was grand son of Chandragupta Maurya. Therefore, the inscriptions mentioned by Burdak ji have direct relation with our subject of study. You are right to prefer inscriptional evidence to baseless hypothesis of Historians.

    Thanks.
    Are there any inscriptions that state that Ashok built the Sanchi Stupa?
    Last edited by ravichaudhary; August 18th, 2012 at 06:20 AM.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ravichaudhary For This Useful Post:

    anilrana (August 19th, 2012), DrRajpalSingh (August 18th, 2012), lrburdak (August 18th, 2012)

  19. #31
    Raviji Go to [Wiki]Sanchi[/Wiki]. It reads at

    No. 110, — Subāhitasa Gotiputasa, Rajalipākarasa dānam.

    "Gift of Subāhita, son of Goti, the royal scribe."

    This is the most valuable of all the inscriptions on the Sanchi colonnade ; as it belong-s to the family of Goti, whose eldest son Gotiputra was the teacher of the celebrated Mogaliputra. This inscription there- fore serves to fix the date of the Sanchi enclosure in the early part of Asoka's reig'n.

    Kindly go to page The Bhilsa topes: Inscriptions, Page 260

    Devanam(piya) Magadhe raja.

    " Devanampriya, King of Magadha."

    Who is Devanampriya ? Not Ashoka ?
    Last edited by lrburdak; August 18th, 2012 at 04:38 PM.
    Laxman Burdak

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lrburdak For This Useful Post:

    anilrana (August 19th, 2012), DrRajpalSingh (August 18th, 2012), puneetlakra (August 18th, 2012)

  21. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by lrburdak View Post
    Raviji Go to [Wiki]Sanchi[/Wiki]. It reads at

    No. 110, — Subāhitasa Gotiputasa, Rajalipākarasa dānam.

    "Gift of Subāhita, son of Goti, the royal scribe."

    This is the most valuable of all the inscriptions on the Sanchi colonnade ; as it belong-s to the family of Goti, whose eldest son Gotiputra was the teacher of the celebrated Mogaliputra. This inscription there- fore serves to fix the date of the Sanchi enclosure in the early part of Asoka's reig'n.

    Kindly go to page The Bhilsa topes: Inscriptions, Page 260

    Devanam(piya) Magadhe raja.

    " Devanampriya, King of Magadha."

    Who is Devanampriya ? Not Ashoka ?
    We are making progress.

    In the sense that data from primary sources is being used, rather than quotes from some colonial who lived 200 hundred years ago.

    As for your conclusion that Devanampiya or priya, king of magadha = Ashok, that is still drawing a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence you or anyone else has been able to show so far.

    On no inscription, ascribed to Ashok, does his name appear.

    There is only one , an inscription found at a village called Maski, that allegedly purports to have the names Ashok and Devnampriya on the same inscription. It will be all hte better if someone can find the actual image and translate it afresh.

    Until then the question remains open.

    Then too is the little matter of a lack of certainity in the chronology.

    I am pleased that members are at least starting to look at primary data.

    If we are to reconstruct jat history, it will have to be done by re translating primary data.

    Warm regards


    Ravi Chaudhary

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ravichaudhary For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (August 19th, 2012), lrburdak (August 19th, 2012), op1955 (August 19th, 2012), spdeshwal (August 19th, 2012)

  23. #33
    Mauryan Empire Rulers:

    Name Lifespan Reign start Reign end
    Chandragupta Maurya 340 - 298 BC 320 BC 298 BC
    Bindusara 320 - 272 BC 298 BC 272 BC
    Ashoka the Great 304 - 232 BC 274 BC 232 BC
    Dasaratha c. 252 - 224 BC 232 BC 224 BC
    Samprati 224 BC 215 BC
    Salisuka 215 BC 202 BC
    Devavarman 202 BC 195 BC
    Satadhanvan 195 BC 187 BC
    Brihadratha d. 185 BC 187 BC 185 BC

    Tried google ( thats the only source i have access )-----no concrete evidence suggests MAuryans Jats

    Only slight relation is found in this link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mor_clan
    Some mismatches-
    1- There are number of theories about the origin of surname Mor. Some people consider it after the king Mordhwaja or Moron rulers and others from Mauryas.
    Just theories no concrete evidence.

    2-
    It is a fact that, during the Mauryan Empire, some Jat people along with the Jat ruler Ashoka Maurya
    Here they are referring Ashoka as Jat ( if he is the same Ashoka the great )

    3- Ashoka had spreaded Budhism ---------if he was JAt then I m curious how come we decided to go with Hinduism not Budhism ---there has to some sort of evidence to it.


    PS: Please suggest some book which I can refer , as I m curious Mauryans being Jat ( google not much of help )

  24. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    We are making progress.

    In the sense that data from primary sources is being used, rather than quotes from some colonial who lived 200 hundred years ago.

    As for your conclusion that Devanampiya or priya, king of magadha = Ashok, that is still drawing a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence you or anyone else has been able to show so far.

    On no inscription, ascribed to Ashok, does his name appear.

    There is only one , an inscription found at a village called Maski, that allegedly purports to have the names Ashok and Devnampriya on the same inscription. It will be all hte better if someone can find the actual image and translate it afresh.

    Until then the question remains open.

    Then too is the little matter of a lack of certainity in the chronology.

    I am pleased that members are at least starting to look at primary data.

    If we are to reconstruct jat history, it will have to be done by re translating primary data.

    Warm regards


    Ravi Chaudhary

    Friend,

    The title Devnampriya is accepted as confirmed nomenclature of King Asoka by all the Historians therefore there is no question of finding out the 'Real' person who got these inscriptions engraved.

    Yes, there is always scope for improvement if one knows the script and languages used at that time.

    The image can be got easily but it is difficult to translate it afresh.

    Regarding chronological order of the Maurya's we can follow the records left behind by the Greek writers regarding the overthrow of the Greek Rule established in India as a result of Alexander's victorious campaigns and its rapid fall.

    The first signal of the Indian battle for freedom carried out under the leadership of Chandragupta Maurya seems to have started after the murder of the most powerful Greek Governor in the person of Philip in 325 B.C. followed by his place being taken by an Indian. The second event was the murder of Greek Satrap, Nicanor, by the Asvayanas and the death of Alexander himself in 323 B.C.

    In 321 B.C., at the second partition of Alexander's empire India proper was not counted as a part of that empire. We may therefore take it for granted that between 323 and 321 B.C., Chandragupta made himself the ruler of the Punjab. Puranas also confirm this date because they provide 24 years for Chandragupta's reign which ended in 298 B.C. and his son and successor, Bindusara reigned for 25 years i.e. up to 273 B.C. the date of Asoka's accession to sovereignty is thus to be taken as 273 B.C.

    The Mahavamsa distinguishes between Asoka's accession to throne and his coronation, and places an interval of 4 years between them. This makes 269 B.C. as his date of coronation. His inscriptions again date from his coronation. His Rock Edict XIII is dated 13 years after his coronation. This Rock Edict is a document of unique chronological importance in Indian History. Five other Greek kings have been mentioned on it with whom Asoka had friendly dealings.

    Regards.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    lrburdak (September 15th, 2012)

  26. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Friend,

    The title Devnampriya is accepted as confirmed nomenclature of King Asoka by all the Historians therefore there is no question of finding out the 'Real' person who got these inscriptions engraved.

    Yes, there is always scope for improvement if one knows the script and languages used at that time.

    The image can be got easily but it is difficult to translate it afresh.

    Regarding chronological order of the Maurya's we can follow the records left behind by the Greek writers regarding the overthrow of the Greek Rule established in India as a result of Alexander's victorious campaigns and its rapid fall.

    The first signal of the Indian battle for freedom carried out under the leadership of Chandragupta Maurya seems to have started after the murder of the most powerful Greek Governor in the person of Philip in 325 B.C. followed by his place being taken by an Indian. The second event was the murder of Greek Satrap, Nicanor, by the Asvayanas and the death of Alexander himself in 323 B.C.

    In 321 B.C., at the second partition of Alexander's empire India proper was not counted as a part of that empire. We may therefore take it for granted that between 323 and 321 B.C., Chandragupta made himself the ruler of the Punjab. Puranas also confirm this date because they provide 24 years for Chandragupta's reign which ended in 298 B.C. and his son and successor, Bindusara reigned for 25 years i.e. up to 273 B.C. the date of Asoka's accession to sovereignty is thus to be taken as 273 B.C.

    The Mahavamsa distinguishes between Asoka's accession to throne and his coronation, and places an interval of 4 years between them. This makes 269 B.C. as his date of coronation. His inscriptions again date from his coronation. His Rock Edict XIII is dated 13 years after his coronation. This Rock Edict is a document of unique chronological importance in Indian History. Five other Greek kings have been mentioned on it with whom Asoka had friendly dealings.

    Regards.
    Dr. Singh,

    Since it is a simple matter, as you state,it should be simple to provide primary data, showing Chandra Gupta Maurya to be dated in 325 BC?

    Not arguments, or re- copying and pasting what is taught in textbooks, but primary data?

    Ravi Chaudhary

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ravichaudhary For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (August 28th, 2012), ravinderjeet (August 20th, 2012)

  28. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    Dr. Singh,

    Since it is a simple matter, as you state,it should be simple to provide primary data, showing Chandra Gupta Maurya to be dated in 325 BC?

    Not arguments, or re- copying and pasting what is taught in textbooks, but primary data?

    Ravi Chaudhary
    Friend,

    Rock Edict XIII of Asoka, testimony of Puranas' and references from Justin as well as Numismatics evidences support the views contained in my previous post(references are with me and are being further examined for fool proof authencity).

    Chaudhary Sahib, If you don't mind, all of these evidences are nothing but primary data.

    Their inclusion in textbooks does not mean that they have lost their historical significance.

    I will give every reference in a fuller essay on the issue presently under preparation.

    Thanks.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    deependra (September 19th, 2012)

  30. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Friend,

    Rock Edict XIII of Asoka, testimony of Puranas' and references from Justin as well as Numismatics evidences support the views contained in my previous post(references are with me and are being further examined for fool proof authencity).

    Chaudhary Sahib, If you don't mind, all of these evidences are nothing but primary data.

    Their inclusion in textbooks does not mean that they have lost their historical significance.

    I will give every reference in a fuller essay on the issue presently under preparation.

    Thanks.
    Dr. Singh

    You are saying nothing, that is not there already in school textbooks.

    Simply repeating that information is not providing primary evidence.

    RE XIII gives the regnal year of Devnampiyasi.

    ( A Regnal year for us lay people, simply means the year of the reign of a king).

    Unless corroborated by other evidence to another era, it is of no value whatsoever in dating anything.


    RE XIII gives only the date of the year of the reign of Devnampiyasi.

    It does not mention Ashoka


    On this thread, there is little, actually no point, in quoting secondary works like a translation of a Roman author , whose dates are uncertain in themselves, and who could have lived anywhere from the 2nd century CE to 4th century CE. He would have lived some 5 centuries to 9 centuries after 325 BCE.


    His work BTW was in Latin not Greek.



    How does the English translation of his Latin work, become primary evidence?


    Ravi Chaudhary

    PS If we, the Jats, are not prepared to do primary research, we Jats have only ourselves to blame if our history is written and distorted by others.

  31. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ravichaudhary For This Useful Post:

    op1955 (August 21st, 2012), puneetlakra (August 26th, 2012), ravinderjeet (August 20th, 2012), swaich (August 20th, 2012)

  32. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    Dr. Singh

    You are saying nothing, that is not there already in school textbooks.

    Simply repeating that information is not providing primary evidence.

    RE XIII gives the regnal year of Devnampiyasi.

    ( A Regnal year for us lay people, simply means the year of the reign of a king).

    Unless corroborated by other evidence to another era, it is of no value whatsoever in dating anything.


    RE XIII gives only the date of the year of the reign of Devnampiyasi.

    It does not mention Ashoka


    On this thread, there is little, actually no point, in quoting secondary works like a translation of a Roman author , whose dates are uncertain in themselves, and who could have lived anywhere from the 2nd century CE to 4th century CE. He would have lived some 5 centuries to 9 centuries after 325 BCE.


    His work BTW was in Latin not Greek.



    How does the English translation of his Latin work, become primary evidence?


    Ravi Chaudhary

    PS If we, the Jats, are not prepared to do primary research, we Jats have only ourselves to blame if our history is written and distorted by others.
    Friend,
    You are right that primary sources are sacrosanct but their availability and accessibility is next to impossible in these days when we have not been able to lay our hands on the original text of Indica by Majasthenes or Athashastra of Kautilya. We have to make do with only the available references and quotes from the subsequent available sources.This is the fate of several other ancient documents.

    But there is no question of doubting the authenticity of Asokan inscriptions which have been acceptd by the Historians all over the world as geniunely got installed by Devnampiyasi. The name Devnampiyasi is authenticated by the contemporary evidence deducted from Buddhist and Cylonic historical documents.

    Regards.

  33. #39
    Friends,

    Regarding foreign sources of history about Mauryans in general and of India in particular we have to depend on the following sources left to us in addition to indigenous sources.

    Of the companions of Alexander on his campaigns three are noted for their writings on India:
    1. Nearchus
    2. Onesicritus
    3. Aristobulus

    The writings of these were supplemented in the 3rd century B.C. by some European ambassadors sent by the Hellenistic Kings to India. Megasthenes has left the fullest account of India in classical Literature. his account is lost in the original and has been traced only in the citations of later writers among whom the following may be noted.
    1. Strabo
    2. Diodorus
    3. Pliny The elder
    4. Arrian
    5. Plutarch
    6. Justin who lived in the second century A.D. and composed an epitome, of which book XII gives an account of Alexander's campaigns in India.

    In view of it, Historians from west and oriental countries have based their reliance on these records only to the extent that these are supplemented by other archaeological, numismatics etc evidences which we will have to accept as the tools for reconstruction of lost history of any person, place or nation.

    Thanks.

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    op1955 (August 21st, 2012), ravinderjeet (August 20th, 2012)

  35. #40
    Dear Dr. Singh

    As long as you are satisfied with acceoting the views of " other historians ", then to put is simply, you are satisfied.

    As for having to accept their views, we do not have to accept their views

    Until recently, ' historians the world over' as you put it, were satisfied with the Aryan Invasion theory. Today the picture has changed,and it is accepted the Aryan Invasion theory was a British political construct.

    All people are asking of you, is to back up what you claim to be history, with primary data.

    To claim, that the works of the authors you cite is primary evidence or rather the secondary and tertiary translations are primary evidence, will be difficult to hold water.

    Then claims by 17th century British evangelist and bureaucrats, passing themselves off as historians, need to re examined critically and afresh.

    The primary data they relied upon needs to re examined afresh.

    Is that difficult?

    Of course it is?

    Does that mean we should not do it?

    The correct answer, I suggest should be - yes, and the start should be made now.

    The establishment of the date of Chandragupta Maurya is as good a starting point as any.

    Now, what primary evidence do you have of his date at 325 BC ?

    Ravi Chaudhary

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ravichaudhary For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 18th, 2012), op1955 (August 21st, 2012), ravinderjeet (August 20th, 2012)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •