Problems of Chronology and historiography in Ancient India: Need for a New Paradigm

Sumedha Verma Ojha

In recent days RBSI has seen an interesting discussion thrown up on the issue of the dates of significant events of India’s past. Different groups have been debating the issues with inputs from a wide variety of sources including authors of books on alternative views.

I am writing this as a response to the general discussion and some individual exchanges on this issue.

The discussion began with the dates to be ascribed to the Mauryas and soon spread out into a discussion of Ancient Indian historiography and chronology. In its present form it has assumed such vast dimensions that, frankly, my imagination boggles at treating the entire gamut of evidence in detail. It will perforce have to be sketchy. Two interesting writers, Kosla Vepa (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Rare-Book-Society-of-India/196174216674) and Ranajit Pal (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Rare-Book-Society-of-India/196174216674) have written extensively on these issues and have joined the discussion thread on the RBSI page. Their opinions differ from established ancient Indian historiography.

Ø Kosla Vepa has written that the identification of Chandragupta Maurya with the Sandrocottus of Greek accounts of India at the time of Alexander’s entry into north western India was done by William Jones on the basis of very limited evidence and was more or less a leap of faith unfortunately accepted by later historians as an article of faith. And, therein begins the story of the misdating of the Mauryan Empire, indeed of ancient Indian civilizations. His point is well taken.

Ø The problem does not end with this, however. There is an array of supporting evidence for this identification of not only the King, but the description of society, polity and administration in Greek accounts, with the Mauryans. Megasthenes’ Indica exists only in fragments collected first of all by Dr Schwanbeck of Bonn and translated by J W McCrindle in six volumes which also included works of Arrian (also called the Indica), Strabo, and Ktesias, Ptolemy, Q.Curtius, Pliny, Plutarch, Aeolian and some other minor Greek works. Extensive work has been done on these comparisons by scholars across the world.

Reading McCrindle‘s translation cannot inspire anyone with confidence regarding the sense and veracity of the Greeks. They are vague, full of wonderful and impossible stories (like a race of gold digging Indian ants!) and in general very far removed from being serious historical evidence. Megasthenes and Nearchus also contradict each other on the subject of whether writing existed in Mauryan times, the former says no and the latter, yes. However, for times so long ago we have to make the best of what we have and some information has definitely been extracted which cannot be rejected out of hand.

Ø This brings me to a comparison of the Arthashastra and Megasthenes’ accounts in the Indica. There are certain points where the two are similar such as a description of the divisions of society and the organization of the city. It is not as if they are exact but they can be construed as a description of the same reality. Dating the Arthashastra is a huge undertaking in itself and this correspondence does not place Chandragupta in 326 B.C.E. as traditional historians would have it. The Arthashastra has layers of descriptions which may belong to very different periods.

Ø Then there is Ashoka, his inscriptions and rock edicts, major and minor, and Buddhist sources to say nothing of Chandragupta Maurya and Jain sources.

The Mahavamsa (read with the Chulavamsa) and Dipavamsa of the Sinhalese are a record of events in Sri Lanka since the birth of the Buddha, one of the oldest and most well preserved of historical records. They start with the arrival of Buddhism on the island during the rule of Ashoka. They were translated in 1837 and the title used for the King, ‘Devanampiya Piyadassi Raja Ashoka’ led to the identification of the King whose inscriptions and edicts are scattered across India, i.e. Ashoka Maurya, by Prinsep. (He had earlier identified the Devanampiya Piyadassi with a Ceylonese King.) Inscriptions, both Ashokan and others have been correlated with Kings ruling outside India and their chronology which broadly backs them up. The five ‘Yona’ or Greek kings mentioned in the Graeco-Aramaic inscription at Kandahar have been correlated with actual rulers. For some historians this is the central fact on which the chronology of the Mauryans hinges. In recent years many new Ashokan, rock cut inscriptions and pillars have been found in a very large area ranging from Afghanistan to Southern India.

However, many inscriptions mentioned by Hsuan Tsang and Fa Hsien have still not been found. Again a number of these were removed by the rulers of medieval India to other than original sites. This was also done later by the British. Evidence could therefore be said to have been compromised. It has also been argued that the inscriptions were on pillars which are much older than Ashoka therefore they are not really Mauryan pillars as such. There is also new evidence on the origin of the Brahmi script conventionally dated to the 3^rd century BCE.

Ø The Chinese, ‘A Dotted Record of Many Sages’, which had 975 dots in the year 489 CE, started just after the Buddha’s death and therefore dates his death to 486 BCE. There are controversies surrounding this interpretation, too, however, with some scholars arguing that certain supporting manuscripts with which this record should have been read have been ignored. In such a case, another seminal date for ancient Indian chronology, the birth of the Buddha is placed in doubt.

Ø Jain tradition connects Chandragupta Maurya with Sravana Belagola where he fasted to death. Jain sources have more or less been interpreted within the same chronology. It is interesting to note, however, that Jain traditions are as hoary as the Vedas and the Puranas and offer an alternative view of many of the same kings, dynasties and events. Time has been divided into ‘Kalpas’ and ‘Kalas’. Mahavir was the 24^th Tirthankar and the historicity of the other 23 is lost in the mists of time. It is also interesting that a well known Jain scholar Jagdishchandra Jain who has written extensively on ancient Jain literature and canon points out that the Kings that Mahavir is said to have converted to Jainism during his lifetime have not been identified except for Bimbisara, Ajatsatru, Udayana and Pradyotta. For example Chedaga of Vesali, Dadhivahana of Champa, Darsanabhadra of Darsana, Prasannachandra of Potanapur and others. Who were they and why are they not found anywhere near the time of the Mahavir?

Ø Numismatics has its own role to play as do literary sources. These are both controversial and it appears difficult for any consensus to be reached.

Dating of coins swings between gaps of more than two millennia. The types of coins called ‘Suvarana’ ,‘Satmana’ and ‘Krishnala’ in Vedic literature and ‘Nishka’ of the Jatakas would generally give the lie to any placing of the origin of coins to the 5^th or 6^th Century BC as has been done by some. Much more work needs to be done in this area. The indigenous system of weights of coins, explained in detail in the Arthashastra (One section of the book I have written set in the Mauryan period revolves around minting, coinage and ancient financial warfare!) and also shown to have some Indus Valley Civilization links is different from the Greek or Bactrian system.

Literary sources and interpretations are highly controversial and no general consensus exists.

Ø Last but most important is archaeological evidence. I think it is here that the chinks in the armor of current chronology show up. Archaeological evidence of Ancient India however is still more or less in the William Jones / John Marshall period. New investigations, digging, and carbon dating have just not been done on the scale necessary. Isolated efforts give us tantalizing discoveries such as in the Gulf of Cambay but concentrated work on important sites has not been done. It does not seem to be a priority. The state of archeology in India is nothing short of tragic (visit the official website of the ASI). I do not think a review of current carbon dating can throw up any definite conclusions.

Ø Proper excavations have to be done of significant sites and soon, they should be done carefully with due regard to stratification and dating. The digging at times resembled/es nothing short of looting and ascribing periods to recovered objects is more or less impossible as records of the strata at which they were found have not been kept. Important data has already been lost and is being lost even as I write due to depredations of weather, habitation because of a growing population (the Bhir mound of Taxila is no longer possible to excavate because it has become an area of settled habitation) and general indifference.

Ø With reference to Kosala Vepa I think the evidence was considered from only the point of view of Greek sources. There are many more which will have to be considered, and rebutted, to arrive at any finality.

Ø With reference to Ranajit Pal there is a huge array of interesting facts the analysis of which may perhaps need some more rigor. Unless in extremis personal opinion is not a substitute for either evidence or analysis (although as far as ancient history is concerned hard evidence is ‘hard ‘to come by!). For instance you say that “While Asoka has numerous inscriptions but no coins, Diodotus, who was a neighbor, has numerous coins but no inscriptions. This clearly shows that they were the same.” That left me a little confused as any definitive answer would require a more comprehensive analysis. Again, I have read the Mudrarakshasa very closely and continuously for the last three years and do not agree with your opinion regarding Chandandas. These are but two examples I quote to make the point of the need for a methodical analysis.

Ø To break the established paradigm and move to a new one a concentrated, comprehensive and well argued challenge has to be mounted to that which is currently believed. It is not enough to say that the current paradigm is wrong, we have to say what is right and provide cogent arguments for it. That is not possible with the current state of evidence; the mainstream historians have squatter’s rights and are using them to the fullest. :) All the above sources of evidence I have mentioned are subject to varying interpretations but the people who have worked on them have spent time and effort on interpretation; their arguments have to be closely countered. For example, if we are to prove that the alternate ‘scaffolding’ for ancient Indian history provided by Kosla Vepa is correct how do we go about collecting evidence?

Ø My thrust therefore is that all of us who have valid doubts about contemporary understanding of ancient history should do something about collecting evidence. Start a movement for it, find funding for it ….

Can we together do something?