07-03-2008, 07:09 PM
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.
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.