<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Jun 23 2008, 08:15 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Jun 23 2008, 08:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Dating of the Mahabharat time period
[right][snapback]83239[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is there a good understanding of the time line from Mahabharat to Gautama Buddha? I think here is where th jahiliya creeps in. Maybe Jain and Buddhist stories have the narrative?
on what basis is 1 AD = 57/58 vikramI?
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jul 3 2008, 09:26 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jul 3 2008, 09:26 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->on what basis is 1 AD = 57/58 vikramI?
[right][snapback]83731[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Bodhiji,
Because we know in the present year, the vikrami new year of samvat 2065 happened in Gregorian calendar year 2008 AD.
2065 - 2008 = 57
But there was no 0 AD or 0 BC. After 1 BC, the next year was 1 AD.
1 AD = 58 Vikrami
1 BC = 57 Vikrami
Vikrami samvat starts in spring, so the vikrami year spans parts of two gregorian years, and vice versa.
07-03-2008, 05:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2008, 05:23 PM by Bodhi.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Jul 3 2008, 10:05 AM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jul 3 2008, 10:05 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Because we know in the present year, the vikrami new year of samvat 2065 happened in Gregorian calendar year 2008 AD.
[right][snapback]83733[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ashokji, that is what I am curious about. How have Indologists concluded that vikram samvat started X number of years before the georgian calendar and x is 57/58. How was the relationship set up between the two calendars (any inscription or work of text or coinage, establishing a third independent datum between the two?)
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jul 3 2008, 05:22 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jul 3 2008, 05:22 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Jul 3 2008, 10:05 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jul 3 2008, 10:05 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Because we know in the present year, the vikrami new year of samvat 2065 happened in Gregorian calendar year 2008 AD.
[right][snapback]83733[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ashokji, that is what I am curious about. How have Indologists concluded that vikram samvat started X number of years before the georgian calendar and x is 57/58. How was the relationship set up between the two calendars (any inscription or work of text or coinage, establishing a third independent datum between the two?)
[right][snapback]83737[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bodhiji,
I am not sure I am understanding your concerns preceisely. Why do we need a 3rd independent datum? Wouldn't knowing the current year in both the systems be enough to backtrack?
Vikrami samvat year is mentioned in Indian panchangas. And the panchanga makers tell us that the current year is 2065 vikrami. Those panchanga makers use traditinal hindu astronomy for their calculations and have no contact with the indologists per se. And we also know that present year is 2008 Gregorian. It is a matter of simple backtracking then.
May be the question you are trying to ask is this:
"On what basis do the hindu panchanga makers believe that the Vikrami era started 2065 years ago"?
07-03-2008, 05:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2008, 05:45 PM by Bodhi.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Jul 3 2008, 05:37 PM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jul 3 2008, 05:37 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->May be the question you are trying to ask is this:
"On what basis do the hindu panchanga makers believe that the Vikrami era started 2065 years ago"?
[right][snapback]83739[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Generally that is one way of looking at it Ashok Ji. Not just Hindu pa~nchAnga makers, but also historians...there seems to be a very firm agreement.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jul 3 2008, 05:39 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jul 3 2008, 05:39 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Jul 3 2008, 05:37 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jul 3 2008, 05:37 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->May be the question you are trying to ask is this:
"On what basis do the hindu panchanga makers believe that the Vikrami era started 2065 years ago"?
[right][snapback]83739[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Generally that is one way of looking at it Ashok Ji. Not just Hindu pa~nchAnga makers, but also historians...there seems to be a very firm agreement.
[right][snapback]83740[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although historians accept the Vikrami era as starting 2065 years ago, they don't agree with its association with king Vikramaditya. Present historians associate Vikramaditya with Chandragupta-II of Gupta empire and they date the end of his rein to 413 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire
In fact Vikrami era is another instance where the historians don't give any regard to traditional hindu dates, and put much more faith in "Indologists'" dating. Early colonial Indologists came up with many such dates on rather flimsy bases, but the dating has survived due to their followers repeating them ad nauseum.
To recap: Current historians accept Vikrami era ONLY as a time-keeping artifice. They don't assign ANY historical value to it.
07-03-2008, 06:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2008, 07:04 PM by Bodhi.)
Here probably is the answer (or more questions!):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Vikrama era begins in 58 BC. We know this because a very late text, Meratunga's Theravali gives a story of how King Vikramaditya expelled the Sakas from Ujjain and established the era, and gives a formula for calculating the Vikrama era from the Saka (Majumdar, 1951). The term Vikrama is fairly late, and was not the original appellation of the era. Before the ninth century the Vikrama era was known as the Malwa era. This Malwa era can be traced to a group of inscriptions of the fifth century, found to the south of Mathura in Rajasthan. These inscriptions include the word 'Krita' and this allows them to be linked to a group of inscriptions dated 295, 284, 282 (ie the first half of the third century) from the same region. This is where the trail stops. These are the oldest inscriptions known with certainty to be dated in the era of 58 BC.
http://www.kushan.org/essays/chronology/azesvikrama.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a simple rule of thumb in epigraphy (and source criticism in general) that <span style='color:red'>if everyone agrees on what an inscription says then nobody really cares</span><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bodhiji,
Now I see the import of your questions.
It is clear from the link you posted, that historians do not assign much importance to historical aspect of the start of Vikrami era. They are treating it as a time keeping artifice. I haven't seen an answer which tells me why 58 BC was so important to have started this era Vikrami/Malva/Krita etc, which has survived in usage in India for two millenia! If left to indologists they would probably say that Indians stole the Azes era and renamed it Vikrami! But who was this king Azes/Ayas, and why should hindus consider him so important?
One thing which becomes readily apparent is how much in regard greek, saka, Kushana, arab timelines are given as compared to traditional hindu dates.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->a group of inscriptions dated 295, 284, 282 (ie the first half of the third century) from the same region. This is where the trail stops.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
which means at least inscription-wise, (which would probably say, "...in the year 339 of X era...")... so, that particular inscription can be placed 339 years after X, but how is the inscription itself fixed in time so as to track back to event X?
Yes Ashok Ji, precisely. Also I see potential for relooking at Vikram samvat.
Relevant for discussion of Vikrami era:
A Gap in Puranic History Bridged
http://www.boloji.com/history/027.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Jul 2 2008, 09:30 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Jul 2 2008, 09:30 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Jun 23 2008, 08:15 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Viren @ Jun 23 2008, 08:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Dating of the Mahabharat time period
[right][snapback]83239[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is there a good understanding of the time line from Mahabharat to Gautama Buddha? I think here is where th jahiliya creeps in. Maybe Jain and Buddhist stories have the narrative?
[right][snapback]83714[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dating the Mahabharata
and see the link inside.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Jul 3 2008, 07:20 PM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jul 3 2008, 07:20 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Relevant for discussion of Vikrami era:
A Gap in Puranic History Bridged
http://www.boloji.com/history/027.htm
[right][snapback]83748[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dear Ashok and Bodhi,
A very critical scholar of the equation Azes Era = Vikram Era is Robert Bracey, see:
http://www.kushan.org/essays/chronology/azesvikrama.htm
In his last point he gives the proponents of the equation the change to prove this: "The Azes era may well be identical with the 58 BC Krita/Malwa/Vikrama era but scholars will have to establish that synchronism independently."
In my opinion, the Azes Era either started around the rule of Azes II close to 30 BCE or around 62 BCE with Azes I, which Bracey mentions too (agreeing with a 4 years gap upto Vikrama as referred to in Jaina sources).
The Jaina work Pavapurikalpa of the Vividhatirthakalpa says:
caaliisam NaravaahaNassa terasa Gaddabhillassa cattaari Sagassa tao
Vikamaaicco: of Naravahaana 40, of Gardabhilla 13, of Sakas 4 and
then Vikramaditya.
The Jainas place this Vikamaaicco in ShriiViiraat 470 (from a date 527 BCE for Mahavira), which gives 57 BC. There is also the following the information: "ShriiViiranirvaaNaat 550 Vikramavamshastadanu 38 shuunyo vanshah; ShriiViiraat 605 Shakasamvatsarah." (a MSS as noted by Muni Kalyanavijaya).
527 BCE
470 => 57 BCE Vikramaditya
550 => ca. 22 CE upto this time the Vikramavamsha
38 => ca. 22-60 CE Shunyavamsha Nahapana rule
605 => ca.7 8 CE Shaka-samvatsara the Shaka Era
[the date of 22 CE corresponds with an Era started by Gondophernes]
Another Jaina manuscript, as noted by Muni Kalyanavijaya in Nagaripracharini Sabha Patrika X, p. 615:
Shriiviiraat 470
KaalantareNa keNavi uppaaDitaa sagaaNam tam vasam |
Hohaa maalavaraayaa naameNa vikamaadicco ||1||
To satanavaii vassaa paalehii vikkamo rajjam |
AriNattaNeNa sovi hu vihae samvatsaram niyayam ||2||
Vikramaditya king of the Malavas, is thus placed in 57 BCE, after having defeated Shakas. There was a rule of 97 years of the Vikrama-Rajya, and with him is also remembered a Samvatsara coupled with the defeat of his enemies.
This manuscript adds the information that the Vikramavamsha ruled from 57 BCE upto ca. 40 CE. As the powerful Vikramavamshiyas ruled upto ca. 22 CE, the weaker ruler(s) ruled upto 40 CE, till they were ousted from Ujjain.
Vetalapacavimshati and other sources name two Vikramas: Vikramaditya and his son Vikramasena. This is conform Nahapana's rising power. Ujjain remained weak upto the time of the Chashtanas under Rudradaman. This is substantiated by the Periplus (p. 42) with the words "Ozene, formerly a royal capital". Avanti was conquered by Gautamiputra.
The Kathasaritsagara gives these names: Vikramaditya â Vishamashila Vishamaditya â Pratapashila Shiladitya. The third one may be the weak ruler from 22-35 CE. Hereafter there may have been Vikramavamshiyas who were powerless vassals of Ujjain, till Nahapana was defeated by Gautamiputra.
At 78 CE the Salivahana Shaka(nrpa) Era was introduced by Salivahana (the king over) Shaka(s) = the Shakraditya in Bauddha sources (Arya Manjushri Mula Kalapa).
At any rate, the Jaina sources, quite familiair with the Ujjain Vikramas and their tradition, are unanimous in their information and dating of Vikramaditya.
The Kshaharata Shaka king Nahapana, who ruled for 40 years (from ca. 20-60 CE, conquering from 22 CE on) based on the Jaina information above, was defeated by Gautamiputra Salivahana around 60 CE. (The Periplus of the Erythraea, written in the 1st century, ca. 70-80 CE: mentions Saraganus and Nambanus, resp. a Satakarni and Na(b)hapana). Gautamiputra then must have had to deal with the Kushanas (seen as Shakas) under Vima Takto at Mathura. I assume that Gautamiputra had defeated them close to 78 CE.
Salivahana Samvat
Ujjain was not a royal capital in the seventies, during the start of the Salivahana Era. If Chashtana ruled as Kshatrapa or vassal, see his early coins, for Gautamiputra or anyone in Ujjain, he cannot have initiated any Era, as he was a subordinate. He must have adopted the Era of the Salivahana sovereign., as that Era is also and most certainly connected with the name Salivahana.
Chashtana's son Jayadaman was still a Kshatrapa, but the first Mahakshatrapa is Rudradaman. A date 72 of Rudradaman places him in 150 CE. This date comes close to Ptolemy's work, referring to Tiastenes of Ozene and Siro-Ptolemaios of Baithan. Rudradaman may have become independant from the Salivahanas.
Gautamiputra, as Shaka-adhipati (like Vikramaditya, who was called Shakadhipati in the Kathasaritsagara), was a Shaka-nrpa: adhi-pati = nrpa or king over (Shakas).
Legends, like in the late Vikramacarita, refer to a battle between the Vikramadityas (of Malva) and the Shalivahanas (of Paithan) for supremacy. The powerless Vikramavamshiyas may have had some aspirations, but most probably, in my scenario, were made vassals in Ujjain by Gautamiputra, upto the battle with the Kushanas. Gautamiputra ruled from ca. 60-84 CE. His victorious 18th year coincides with 78 CE.
The earliest attested date of Chashtana is year 6, which is 84 Salivahana Era. It is roughly the year when Gautamiputra died. Svamin Chashtana Kardamaka may have adopted the era of Salivahana, because perhaps he was initially an ally or mercenary of Gautamiputra.
Ptolemy gives the information that Ozene is the capital of Tiastenes (Chashtana) and Baithan of Siro Ptolemaios (Siri Pulumayi). He refers to the the Chashtanas and the Pulumayis after ca. 150 CE. This corresponds to the reign of Rudradaman, becoming an independent Mahakshatrapa. He was matrimonially related to the Satakarnis and despite two battles remained on friendly terms with them: "who obtained good report because he, in spite of having twice in fair fight completely defeated Satakarni, the lord of Dakshinapatha, on account of the nearness of their connection did not destroy him". This is when Ujjain became powerful enough to become a royal capital under the Chashtanas, independant from the Salivahanas of Paithan.
I have explained why the Salivana Era was adopted by the Ujjain Shakas of Chashtanas house. It cannot be explained the other way around. Why should Indians adopt an Era of a people who weren't ruling by then in the plains, let alone in Malava. The Kardamaka Shakas, who did ruled from Ujjain, were completely Hinduised (Shaiva) and used (Hybrid) Sanskrit in an era of Prakrit dominance. The Era they used was rather related to (Gautamiputra) Salivahana, who defeated first Kshaharata Shaka king Nahapana (Nambanus in the Periplus) and then the Kushana 'Shakas' in 78 CE.
In my opinion, the Shakas (generic word for Central-Asian foreigners and also indigenous NW tribes: Kamuiya and Moga were Kambojas of Gandhara: Kamuiya=Kambojikâ) Mathura Shakasiya, who) who were also defeated by Gautamiputra, are the Kushanas of Vima Takto in Mathura, aided by a Kshatrapa or subordinate leader, named Chashtana Kardamaka (his statue is in the devakula of Mathura) .
Indians would never accept an Era of Shakas, if they remembered how the foreigner Shakas massacred people in those days, as per Yugapurana. The re-edited epics and Puranas remembered the Mahakala episodes of the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE too.
Shaka incursion, an Indian perspective, Garga Samhita,YugaPurana, vv.54,84:
caturbhaagam tu shastreNa naashayiShyanti praaNinaam |
shakaah sheSham hariShyanti caturbhaagam svakam puram |
vinaShTe shakaaraajye tu shuunyaa prthvii bhaviShyati ||
This is a clear case of a horrible period, indicating that a quarter of the population was killed, another quarter was being enslaved and carried away to their cities. This means that there was a massacre of grand proportions during the Shaka raids, a precursor to the Arab-Turk-Afghan-Mughal raids and mass morders and mass deportations.
Vikrama of 57 BCE
The Salivahanas of Paithan started the Salivahana Shaka(ditya/nrpa) Era. The Vikramavamsha ruled in Ujjain. Who was this Shakari king of Ujjain, called Kalkin by Jaina tradition, and whose fame did influence Chandragupta II Devagupta to adopt his title of Vikramaditya ?
Jaina tradition (like Trailokya Prajnapti, Jaina Harivamsha, etc.) place the Rasabhas or Gardabhas before Nahapana. This dynasty corresponds well with the Gardabhillas or with Indra's son Gandharvasena the Donkey (father of Vikramaditya) of the Sanskrit sources.
There were Satakarnis in the first century BCE. one of these or a scion of a branch may have been the powerful ruler of Ujjain, having issued coins in that century.
Nayanika's Naneghat Inscription, in my opinion, refers to this king in the guise of Shri Shatakarni:
He conquered reconquered W-Malava, Vidarbha and Anupa. He performed 2 Ashvamedhas and a Rajasuya and became a Samrat. He used the titles of Dakshinapathapati and Apratihatacakra. This Samrat had two minor sons: Vedisiri and Satisiri. Queen Nayanika ruled till one of her sons became older.
regards,
Ishwa
In the past I had made this chronology, backcalculating from 60-85 CE, when Gautamiputra ruled:
Andhra-bhrtya Satakarnis (of Vidarbha and Ujjain)
01. shimuka (koshikiputra) 243-220 BCE
02. kRSNa (I) 220-202 BCE (Kanha I)
03. shrI SAtakarNi I 202-(192
04. pUrNotsanga 192-174
05. skandhastambhi 174-156
06. shrI sAtakarNi II 156)-146 BCE = Yajnasena of Malavikagni.?
07. lambodara 146-128 BCE
08. dvivilaka/ApAdabaddha/ApItaka 128-116 BCE
09. meghasvAti svati = sati 116-98 BCE
10. sAtakarNi III 98-80 BCE
11. skandasvAti 80-73 BCE
12. mRgendra svAtikarNa 73-70 BCE = Mahendra?
13. kuntala svAtikarNa 70-62 BCE = Gandharvasena?
14. svativarNa 62-61 BCE (Shakasena) = Satvara of Yugapurana?
15. pulomAvi I 61-25 BCE = Vikrama Shi Shata?
16. nemi kRSNa (II) /gorakSa kRSNa 25 BCE-0 CE = Kanha II
17. hAla 00-05 CE = Saraganus The Elder
18. mantalaka 05-10 CE
19. purIndrasena 10-31 CE
20. sundara sAtakarNI 31-31 CE = Sandares of Periplus
21. cakora sAtakarNI (rajAdasvAti) 31-32 CE
22. shivasvAti 32-60 CE
23. gautamIputra (salivahana sakaditya) 60-85 CE = (Saraganus the Younger)
Pulomavi I Shri Satakarni is the most probaly candidate to be Vikramaditya.
Nemi and Goraksha may be the names of his sons Vedisiri and Satisiri.
Ishwa,
Thanks a lot for your post!
You have mentioned that the shaka invasions were extremely brutal and therefore a shakAri king was likely to be hailed a savior.
India had been subjected to quite an array of new challenges in the preceding centuries. Buddhism and Jainsim shook the traditional hindu society. And Greek/shaka presences and invasions were perhaps a great disturbing influence politically.
During such turbulent times if a king arose, who reestablished the traditional way of things, then that might have been welcomed as a great relief. It is also interesting that you mention that Jainas called Vikrama by the name of kalki. There appears to be a consistent undercurrent of Vikrama as a savior of times who reestablished dharma in a turbulent time. And that singular achievement was etched on the civilizational memory of Indians.
No other emperor/king has inspired such adulation as Vikrama did, since post Mahabharata days. Not even the Maurya Ashoka , who was primarily mentioned in Buddhist works. Even Alexander's invasion doesn't register much in hindu memory as purANas are pretty much silent on Alexander.
Works like Vikrama charita (dvaAtriMshat-puttalikA) and Vetala panchaviMshati etc show how much of hindu heart & mindscape Vikrama occupied.
It appears to me that Vikrama was a crucial link between turbulent times post Buddha and establishment of hindu Gupta empire. His rein perhaps renewed the hope of the hindus for a better future after a dark turbulent time.
P.S. Could you also comment on king bhoja of dhArA-nagarI ?
Interesting...
How would you rationalize the name of Saraganus The Elder from Hellenistic sources? What do you think was its Indic form ? Was there another king inserted before or after hAla?
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Jul 4 2008, 09:24 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 4 2008, 09:24 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting...
How would you rationalize the name of Saraganus The Elder from Hellenistic sources? What do you think was its Indic form ? Was there another king inserted before or after hAla?
[right][snapback]83802[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hauma Hamiddha: In general Saraganus is identified with Sâtaka ni by academia. Let us look at the linguistic question:
a. identification saraganus-satakani: The second member -gan.us clearly represents a Prakritic ka na or ka ni form. This poses no problem, the -k- may give a -g- in the Periplus, see bary-g-aza. The first member has sara- which must be equated with sata-. In Satavahana Vaidarbhi the -t- was rendered as an Antastha -l- or -r- or Murdhanya - l- or - r- through intermediate Prakritism rendered as a Murdhanya - t- : Sata-vahana is equivalent to Sali-vahana. The athor of the Periplus had problems with the retroflex medial sound, thus giving sa la as sara-.
b. identification hala-sata(kani): the kings of this dynasty have variations in their names, sometimes omitting the second member of Sata-karni (Sri Sata, Hala). Hala- is equal to sala- or sata-. The medial dental is explained above. The initial h- poses no problem too, when we look at the numismatics:
Obverse : Kings bust right, elaborate hair style
Rano Gotamiputasa Siri Yana Satakarnisa
Reverse : Hill, Satavahana symbol, sun, moon
Arahanaku gotami putaku Hiru Yana Hatakanaku
Reference : MCSI1, #156
See here that Satavahana Vaidarbi s- is rendered as h- in Hiru for Siru and Hatakanaku for Satakanaku. Note also that kar na > ka na, which is logical.
c. connection Hala-Gautamiputra: Hala for Sala, meaning Sala-vahana Satakarni, can be called Saraganus the "Elder" as opposed to a "Younger" Sala-vahana", which was Gautamiputra Satakarni.
The spellings in the Periplus are adaptations of the (regional) Prakrits and Hybrid Sanskrit(ized) words and names of those days. The sounds are fluid. The vowels too are fluid in Satavahana Vaidarbhi, where the -a- and -i- can be found alternating, see the coin above, having Satakarn-<b>i</b>-sa and Hatan-<b>a</b>-ku
Ashok: Do you refer to Bhoja the Paramara? He was one of the crucial powers Mahmud Ghaznavi feared enormously, having been terribly defeated by Bhoja.
About Mahmud, who raided India several times, his achievements are put in a wrong light. He hated "Kafirs" and was determined to conquer India, despite what standard works want us to believe that he only wanted to loot. He needed some 12 raiding campaigns to achieve this (we can see the same pattern with other looter-conqueror Ghazis. Timur didn't succeed, that is why he gave the excuse that he only wanted to punish the weak Muslims for their lax attitude towards the "Kafirs", hiding the fact that he couldn't conquer a piece of mainland "Kafirl" India permanently.), but was time after time, after intitial successes forced to a humiliating retreat. One of his most formidable opponent in the borderlands was the Hindu Shahi, with whom he had the most clashes. One formidable opponent of the heartland was Bhoja Paramara.
After him, Masud the Ghaznavid, also tried to conquer India, but was crushed in the Battle of Bahraich. His army hereafter was completely annihilated. No Turk dared to raid India, till they were supplanted by the Gurids. The Ghaznavid were as unsuccessful in the goals as the Arabs centuries before.
Muslims who make him into a hero, and some standard works exaggerate his achievements from the point of view of Mahmud, hailing him as a brilliant general. But he suffered crucial defeats, which are hardly given attention by Muslims and the same standard works.
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?ur...01014%26ct%3D69
<i>NOTE D. Mahmúd's Expeditions to India.
It has been usual to consider the number of Mahmúd's expeditions to India to be twelve. The first authority for this number is Nizámu-d dÃn Ahmad in the Tabakát-i AkbarÃ; and as Dow has also numbered them as twelve, most English authors following him as the standard, have entertained the same persuasion. But it is curious to observe that, while Nizámu-d dÃn mentions that there were altogether twelve, in recording them seriatim, he enumerates no less than sixteen; and Dow, while he marginally notes twelve, records no less than fifteen different invasions. Even Elphinstone, though he notes twelve, records more. The Khulásatu-t TawárÃkh gives twelve, and confines itself to that number, or in reality only to eleven, as by some mistake an expedition to KashmÃr and Kálinjar are placed in one year, and the tenth expedition is omitted. The Akhbár-i Muhabbat follows it in both errors. I will not attempt to maintain this established number of expeditions, but will consider them in the actual order of their occurrence.
First Expedition.âFrontier Towns. A.H. 390 (1000 A.D.)â [only 1 source, as per Elliot]
Second Expedition.âPesháwarâWaihind. A.H. 391-2.â
Third Expedition.âBhera (BhátÃa). A.H. 395 (1004-5 A.D.)â
Fourth Expedition.âMultán. A.H. 396.â
Fifth Expedition.* âDefeat of Nawása Sháh, A.H. 398.â
Sixth Expedition.âWaihind, Nagarkot.* A.H. 399 (1008-9 A.D.).â
Seventh Expedition.âNáráin. A.H. 400.â
Eighth Expedition.âMultán. A.H. 401.â
Ninth Expedition.âNinduna [or NárdÃn.]* A.H. 404 (1013 A.D.)â[Jud Hills, as per Elliot]
Tenth Expedition.âThánesar. A.H. 405.â [The TárÃkh-i Alfà omits all notice of the 10th expedition, as per Elliot]
Eleventh Expedition.âLohkot.* A.H. 406.â [unsuccessful, as per Elliot]
Twelfth Expedition.âKanauj, Mathura. A.H. 409.â
Thirteenth Expedition.âBattle of the Ráhib. A.H. 412.â
Fourteenth Expedition.âKÃrát, Núr, Lohkot, and Láhore.* A.H. 413. â [doubted by Elliot]
Fifteenth Expedition.âGwáliár and Kálinjár. A.H. 414.â [doubted by Elliot]
Sixteenth Expedition.âSomnát. A.H. 416-7.â
Seventeenth Expedition.âJáts of Júd. (A.H. 417.â</i>
(Notes Elliot added in the quote)
Most attempts were related to the Sindhu river border.
His attempts to conquer the heartland are only 3: the 10th, 12th and 15th . And perhaps the 16th. But the 15th one is doubted as a separate one, most probably occurring simultaneously with another one. The same may be the case with the 10th.
Thus, he didn't dare to attack the heartland many times, remembering his defeats
Mahmud's only success was his loot, massacres, rape. etc. Hardly befitting a hero. This staunch Muslim Ghazi extended his dominion, but he was unsuccessful in his primary goal: to conquer "Kafiri" India, the Dar-ul Harb. He also failed into his secondary goal: to Islamize India, or making India a Dar-ul islam.
So, against this light, Muslims have not much to celebrate.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Satavahana Vaidarbhi the -t- was rendered as an Antastha -l- or -r- or Murdhanya -l- or -r- through intermediate Prakritism rendered as a Murdhanya -t-<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The other possibility is that sata and sala are alternating or equivalent words from two languages with an dental and retroflex medial, popularly denoting an equine. Sâta from Sapti (Kalkipurana gives Saptavahana) and Sâla from a tribal word for an equine (for instance sadom in Munda). This may support the Rasabha or Gardabhilla connection of the Jaina sources, or Gandharvasena the Donkey of Sanskrit sources.
Ishwa,
Yes, Bhoja the parmar king whose capital was dhArA-nagarI or present day Dhar.
He also commands great heart/mind share in traditional writings. And with the story of 32-statuettes, also connected to the glory of vikramAditya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhoja
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bhoja was from the Paramara dynasty of Arya , who ruled Malwa from the mid-tenth century to about 1200. His extensive writings cover philosophy, poetry, medicine, veterinary science, phonetics, yoga, and archery. Under his rule, Malwa and its capital Dhar became one of the chief intellectual centers of India. King Bhoj, together with the Solanki king Bhima of Gujarat (Anhilwara), rebuilt the temple at Somnath between 1026 and 1042 after it was sacked by Mahmud of Ghazni. Bhoj also founded the city of Bhopal, which is named after him, to secure the eastern frontier of his kingdom. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There seems to be one more connection with vikramAditya. As vikrama had driven away the sakas, which probably was registered as a major event in the psychology of hindus. So perhaps rebuilding of somnatha temple by bhoja registered strongly in hindu psyche. So, both were associated with fighting foreigners of some type. Both vikrama and bhoja were supposedly great patrons of arts and knowledge.
The idea of navaratna, a very persistent meme in Indian culture, which showed up later even during Akbar's time, and possibly may have influenced the stories of King Arthur's knights of the roundtable, was also associated with king vikramAditya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikramaditya
VikramAditya, the original, not chandragupta-II, captured Indian imagination in a very powerful manner, as shown in the literature and surviving cultural memes. Identification of Chandragupta_II with original vikramAditya never made sense anyway. Since guptas were magadha based, while the capital of vikramAditya was unambiguously mentioned as ujjayinI in all the stories.
What is puzzling is the lack of historical evidence for the original vikramAditya. He apparently didn't rule a great empire, and his kingdom didn't last long. But he must have achieved something very significant to have acquired such an iconic adulation.
Since Shalivahana captured ujjayinI within a century of vikramAditya's rein, may be official accounts of vikramAditya were erased, who knows. Shalivahana did start a new era the shaka-era, so it is clear that he wanted to uproot the original vikrama-era. I suspect there was a strong undercurrent for undermining vikrama by later rulers, which might explain lack of available physical evidence. But that couldn't erase the memory of the peoples and writers.
Vikrama's greatness perhaps has much to do with him being a harbinger of hope during a turbulent time. he perhaps showed, within a short span o time, what was yet possible to be achieved by a battered hindu civilization, which eventually culminated in the gupta empire becoming a golden age of hindu civilization.
Dear Ashok,
Sorry for the delay of my response. Vikramaditya's empire didn't last long, because the Shakas of Minnagara and Chukhsa area were pressing and the Kushana 'Shakas' Kujula of Bactria were about to enter the Gandhara area of some late Yavana ruler.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Since Shalivahana captured ujjayinI within a century of vikramAditya's rein, may be official accounts of vikramAditya were erased, who knows. Shalivahana did start a new era the shaka-era, so it is clear that he wanted to uproot the original vikrama-era. I suspect there was a strong undercurrent for undermining vikrama by later rulers, which might explain lack of available physical evidence. But that couldn't erase the memory of the peoples and writers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not believe that Shalivahana wanted to erase the name and fame of his Ujjain kinsmen, the Vikramadityas. These last lost all power and independacy ('Shunya-vamsha' of a jaina source) in the middle of the 1st century CE, most probably to Nahapana, who had extended his dominion upto Nasik.
Shalivahana perhaps didn't want to start an era, but wanted to commemmorate the date of 78 CE when inflicted crushing defeats upon the combined enemies of Shakas, Pahlavas and Yavanas. His in my opinion Shaka allies, the Hinduised Kardamakas of the house of Chashtana, counted their regnal years from this date of their sovereign. Chashtana initially ruled as subordinate, but under his grandson Mahakshatrapa Rudradaman, they became independant masters of Ujjain, the capital of their dominion in 150 CE. As they were still counting in Shalivahana or Shalivahana Shaka-adhipati (overlord) years, they supplanted with the 78 CE date officially the Vikrama 57 BCE date in Ujjain. [I do not know whether the Vikramas themselves really used this date as the beginning of an era. Even if they did, the Chashtanas had supplanted this.]
The Chashtanas had tremendous respect for the Shatavahanas. Rudradaman had given his daughter in marriage to a Vasisthiputra, and even after defeating his former Satavahana overlord (Yajnashri) twice, treated him with respect.
Vikrama Era revival
Robert Bracey: <i>The term Vikrama is fairly late, and was not the original appellation of the era. Before the ninth century the Vikrama era was known as the Malwa era. This Malwa era can be traced to a group of inscriptions of the fifth century, found to the south of Mathura in Rajasthan. These inscriptions include the word 'Krita' and this allows them to be linked to a group of inscriptions dated 295, 284, 282 (ie the first half of the third century) from the same region. This is where the trail stops. These are the oldest inscriptions known with certainty to be dated in the era of 58 BC.</i>
I believe that under the influence of Jaina and Vaishnava/Shaiva bards of south Rajasthan, probably hailing from Ujjain originally, the memory was revived of a major Krta beginning, and that it was connected to Malava. (You do not have to name the era Malava, if it would have been in use in the area of Malava. )
An Ujjain Vikramaditya is also connected with the liberation of Indraprastha, and also with founding the town of Dhilli (called Daidala close to Indapara=Indarpat by Ptolemy). If there is some connection of Vikramaditya to the north with Dhilli, perhaps this act may have had some influence on the morale of the northern republican Ganas, like the Yaudheyas, Arjunayanas, Audumbaras, Kunindas, etc. in the first century BCE.
Yaudheya coins have 3 periodical sequences, as per K.D. Bajpai in his Indian Numismatic Studies, p.28):
1. the Vrsha-Gaja type (2nd century-1st century BCE) with the text: yaudheyânâm bahudhânaka
2. the Shanmukha-Karttikeya type with the texts: svâmino brahmanya or bhâgavata svâmino brahmanyadevasya kumârasya.
3. Karttikeya-Devasena type (early 3rd century CE): with the text: yaudheya-ganasya jayah
B.t.w., there is a third Vikramaditya who had crushed foreigners (in the beginning called Shakas too, later of course Turukka or Turushka), who was Hemachandra, better known as Raja Hemu, ruler and liberator of Delhi and Agra.
regards,
Ishwa
The Shaka threat of the 1st centuries BCE and CE:
<i>After this region, where the coast is already deeply indented by gulfs caused by the land advancing with a vast curve from the east, succeeds the seaboard of Skythia, a region which extends to northward. It is very low and flat, and contains the mouths of the Sinthos (Indus), the largest of all the rivers which fall into the Erythraean Sea, .... The river has seven mouths, all shallow, marshy and unfit for navigation except only the middle stream, on which is Barbarikon, a trading seaport. Before this town lies a small islet, and behind it in the interior is Minnagar, the metropolis of Skythia, which is governed, however, by Parthian princes, who are perpetually at strife among themselves, expelling each the other.
(Periplus Maris Erythraei, 38)</i>
Thus, the Kshaharata Shakas of Minnagara were in the Indus area in the middle of the 1st century CE, and had by then Pahlava or Parthians governors in their capital. (The Imperial Pahlavas were beyond this Indus Shakastan) The leader of these southern Shakas was Kshatrapa Nahapana, a vassal of Pahlavas. The Kshaharata predecessors of 3.Nahapana were 2.Bhumaka and 1.Abhiraka and possibly one with the title 0.Yapirajaya. The son-in-law of Nahapana, 5.Usavadata (Rshabhadatta), was in Nasik in year 46 of Nahapana. In my opinion he was ruling after Nahapana on his behalf. Gautamiputra retook his possessions.
The presence of the Sakas in Sakastan in the 1st century BCE is mentioned by Isidore of Charax in his "Parthian stations" (1st century BCE). He explained that they were bordered at that time by Greek cities to the east (Alexandria of the Caucasus= Kapisa and Alexandria of the Arachosians), and the Parthian-controlled territory of Arachosia to the south:
<i>17. Beyond is Zarangiana, 21 schoeni. There are the city of Parin and the city of Coroc.
18. Beyond is Sacastana of the Scythian Sacae, which is also Paraetacena, 63 schoeni. There are the city of Barda and the city of Min and the city of Palacenti and the city of Sigal; in that place is the royal residence of the Sacae; and nearby is the city of Alexandria (and nearby is the city of Alexandropolis), and 6 villages.
19. Beyond is Arachosia, 36 schoeni. And the Parthians call this White India; there are the city of Biyt and the city of Pharsana and the city of Chorochoad and the city of Demetrias; then Alexandropolis, the metropolis of Arachosia; it is Greek, and by it flows the river Arachotus. As far as this place the land is under the rule of the Parthians.</i>
As to the date of the work of Isidore, as it mentions the second revolution of Tiridates against the Parthian king Phraates, which took place in 26 B.C., it must be later than that date; and a subsequent reference to a king named Goaesus of the "Incense Land" in South Arabia, while his dates are not definitely known, suggests as Glaser has shown, a time very near the Christian era.
This picture is at the end of the reign of Azes II. Hereafter the Pahlavas will be the dominant factor in Indus Shakastan. (see Periplus)
|
