bharata battle

Rajesh Kochhar rkk at NISTADS.RES.IN
Sun Nov 5 09:30:10 EST 2000


POINT ONE > It is unlikely that no signs would remain of ancient settlements
because of flooding.When one seeks to connect literary evidence  with the
archaeological,one must suppose that the latter exists.After all ,we do have
archaelogical "history" of India 7000BC onwards,even if there are gaps.Since
in any case it is not easy to connect material evidence with the  ORAL
literary / linguistic tradition,one must allow for "huge error bars " in the
profferred interpretations

POINT TWO >1000BC is a round date for the Bharata battle. It could go a
century this way or that. Nobody has ever placed the event later than about
900/850 BC.I would personally feel more comfortable with -100 rather than
+100.
rajesh kochhar

From: Yashwant Malaiya <malaiya at CS.COLOSTATE.EDU>
To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Date: Saturday, November 04, 2000 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: bharata battle


>On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:39:46 +0530, Rajesh Kochhar <rkk at NISTADS.RES.IN>
>wrote:
>
>>* More generally, large-scale habitation east of Yamuna-Ganga ( Yaga)
>>doab did not take place  till the advent of iron-age.The Rgveda is
>>decidedly a pre- iron age document. Therefore, the kings and chieftains
>>of the pre-Bharata battle  could not have been stationed east of Ganga..
>
>In ancient India, all buildings were generally made of wood. In that
>case, traces of habitation along the river-banks would generally get
>washed away in the floods.
>
>>I am inclined to place the battle circa 1000 BC.Roughly speaking this is
>>also the beginning of iron age in India.For the geography of pre-Bharata
>>battle people we must look to the east of the Yaga doab (where else?)
>
>What margin of error would you allow on either side of the date?
>
>Yashwant



More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list