[Ind-Arch] Erannoboas and Palimbothra

[Guest guest]

Dear Francesco,

 

Is this it a tactic to divert the issue? How can you say the following?

 

Quote

 

Let us lose sight for a moment of the Erannoboas=Son issue (although this identification remains valid for me) and talk about archaeology instead.

 

Unquote

 

We cannot lose sight of the Erannoboas - Son issue even for a moment, as this was used as the basis by that dishonest person called Jones to claim that Erannoboas was Son, despite Megasthenes mentioning these two as different rivers and then his going on to claim that Pataliputra was the capital of Sandracottus and that is why Sandracottus was Chandragupta Maurya. Once that basis is demolished then Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty is confirmed as the Sandracottus. If you would have read my paper carefully you would have known that the remains of the all-wooden structures of the Palimbothra, mentioned by Megasthenes, was burnt to ashes and that the burnt city is now called Jhushi (after the Hindi word "Julasna", which means to burn). I also said that I agree that Pataliputra at the confluence of Ganga and Son was the capital of Chandragupta Maurya and it is possible that

one may be able to find some archaeological evidences in the form of remnants of the Maurya and other dynasties that ruled in Pataliputra right from the time of Ajatashatru. These findings no way alters the scene that Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty was Sandracottus. The subject of this present thread ends here. No more dragging of this thread to new issues.

 

If you want to establish that Sandracottus was Chandragupta Maurya through some imaginary linguistic and archaeological evidences, which you think the earlier scholars did not notice, then you can open a new thread on that in the group. If you dream that Pataliputra was Palimbothra who am I to deprive you of enjoying that sweet dream?

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Fri, 4/24/09, Francesco Brighenti <frabrig wrote:

Francesco Brighenti <frabrig[ind-Arch] Re: Erannoboas and PalimbothraIndiaArchaeology Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 2:39 PM

 

 

Dear Sunil,Re. your sentence:> I have never questioned the well-known fact that Pataliputra is at > the confluence of Ganga and Son(e) and that Pataliputra is the > same as Patna and also that Pataliputra was the capital of > Chandragupta Maurya.Nice to hear this from you. The only problem is that in the paper you e-mailed to me some time ago you state that Asoka reigned "much earlier" than the 7th century BCE. So at what time depth do you place Chandragupta Maurya, and the Mauryan epoch in general? Is that the 9th or 10th century BCE? Or even an earlier period? Whatever the date you may choose, you have now to reckon with the archaeological remains excavated in the Patna area during the last 100 years, which must evidently belong to the Mauryan capital since "Pataliputra is the same as Patna" and "Pataliputra was the capital of Chandragupta Maurya", as per your own admission). Or, are you

claiming that, for instance, the famous eighty pillared hall located at Kumrahar (about six kms east of Patna railway station) and the remnants of the wooden palisades discovered during excavations at Bulandibagh, Lohanipur, Maharajganj, Bahadurpur, Sandalpur, Kumrahar and some other locations in Patna belong to the capital city of a ruling dynasty OTHER than the Mauryan one? If so, of which other ruling dynasty? Or, conversely, if you agree with mainstream scholars (and with me) that the said archaeological remains belong to the Mauryan Pataliputra, would you maintain they date back to a period "much earlier" than the 7th century BCE so as to match your own dating of Asoka?I think the condradiction in this case is incurable.Let us now come to your other main claim, that is, that Megasthenes' Palimbothra did not coincide with Pataliputra/ Patna, but was a DIFFERENT city located at the confluence of the Ganga and the Yamuna; and that it

was the capital city of the Gupta rulers. Let us lose sight for a moment of the Erannoboas=Son issue (although this identification remains valid for me) and talk about archaeology instead. Have the remains of an ancient city "about 14.5 km in length and 2.4 km in breadth, shaped like a parallelogram and girded by a wooden wall with 570 towers and 64 gates and with loop-holes for the discharge of arrows, and a ditch about 182 m in breadth and 14 m in depth" (as per Megasthenes' own description of Palimbothra transmitted to us by Arrian) been found in or near Prayag (i.e. Allahabad) at the confluence of the Ganga and Yamuna rivers? No, eh? But, if you read the reports of the excavations carried out in Patna, you would see that they have brought to light (at Bulandibagh) an east-west wooden structure running (asexcavated) for a distance of about 137 m. It is a wall made of heavy wooden sleepers placed vertically in a double row, with similar sleepers

joining them horizontally at the bottom and is thought to be a part of the wooden palisade seen by Megasthenes. A similar structure was found at Gosainkhanda, 800 m to the east of Bulandibagh but in a reversed fashion, vertical sleepers capped by horizontal ones. Remnants of the wooden structure have been found to have extended to other localities of Patna (see above), with this showing that the ancient walled city with its defensive wooden fortifications was really very large, probably as large as Megasthenes reported. There is also evidence that the Son, which now meets the Ganga a few km up Patna, originally ran for a certain distance parallel to the Ganga to its south before discharging itself into the latter in the area of the modern university. Pataliputra was thus situated on the strip of land between theGanga and the Son, explaining its abnormal length:breadth ratio mentioned by Megasthenes. Please bear in mind that the core of Pataliputra

is still archaeologically untouched. Patna City lies on the top of a very large unexcavated mound. The near-totality of the ancient town (which mainstream scholars, and I with them, identify with the Mauryan capital) is preserved under the closely built-up area of Patna City -- CAN YOU POINT TO ANYTHING COMPARABLE IN PRAYAG? -- Of course you cannot (sorry for this self-given reply!), and this suffices to show that Megasthenes' Palimbothra cannot have been located at Prayag. If you accept that Palimbothra is the same as Pataliputra -- which is evident from a linguistic point of view too, as I have told you earlier on this List: Sankrit Pataliputra > Gandhari Prakrit*Pali(m)putra > Megasthenes' Palimbothra, Fa-hsien's Pa-lien-fu -- everyhting falls into place. And there are neither Guptas ruling from Prayag at 300 BCE, nor Mauryas anachronistically ruling (from Pataliputra, as you kindly concede) at 1000 BCE.

Regards,Francesco

[Guest guest]

Dear Francesco,

 

It was Ajatashatru who built the capital in Pataliputra and later on the Nandas and the Mauryas continued to have their capital there. Jones dismissed Megasthenes's mention of Erannoboas and Sone as distinct rivers and I was the first to put it before public about Jones's bulldozing of the Account of of Megasthenes. Any right-minded and right-thinking person, even if he is my enemy w,ould have to accept the fact as otherwise his own credibility wouild be lost. Now by being one with Jones in contesting the Account of Megasthenes you have proven yourself to be a person having no regard for facts. I maintain that the main argument of Jones, on which he tried to identify Chandragupta Maurya as Sandracottus, has been demolished and so the corollary, ie, the AIT automatically gets demolished. Max Muller did not cite any archaeological data to support the AIT.

 

However if you have firm conviction, on the basis of archaeological evidence, that Chandragupta Maurya was the Sandracottus, then please go ahead and the credit will be entirely yours, if you can really establish that convincingly. I think that in that case you will deserve to be awarded the Bharata Ratna, the highest civilian award India can give. Unfortunately there is no Nobel prize for History. Had it been there you could have expected to be recommended for that award also. So my suggestion is that you can start a new thread on the archaeological evidences to prove Sandracottus to be Chandragupta Maurya, as you strongly feel that to be so.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Sat, 5/2/09, Francesco Brighenti <frabrig wrote:

Francesco Brighenti <frabrig[ind-Arch] Re: Erannoboas and PalimbothraIndiaArchaeology Date: Saturday, May 2, 2009, 12:43 AM

 

 

IndiaArchaeology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> If you would have read my paper carefully you would have known > that the remains of the all-wooden structures of the Palimbothra, > mentioned by Megasthenes, was burnt to ashes and that the burnt> city is now called Jhushi (after the Hindi word "Julasna", which > means to burn). The mound site of Jhusi near Allahabad, anciently known as Pratisthanapura (probably identical with the Prayag of ancient sources), is certainly very old. Its excavated deposits go back to the early Iron Age. There is, however, little or no evidence of fortification at this site, and certainly no evidence of the wooden fortifications seen by Megasthenes at "Palimbothra" .

That's why in my latest post I had cited the archeological finds of remains of extensive wooden palisades at Patna as a much more significant piece of evidence matching Megasthenes' description of "Palimbithra" . The city of Pratisthanapura was burnt down by foreign invaders around the 13-14th century A.D., the epoch of the Delhi Sultanate. That's why that ancient habitational mound came to be known as 'the burnt (place)'. No traces of destruction by fire are documented for the site's ancient levels, and the fire set to the town by the Muslimm invaders in the medieval period cannot certainly have destroyed the wooden fortifications seen (according to you only, Sunil) by Megasthenes at "Palimbothra" . Or do you think that those (perishable) wooden artifacts were, putatively, still extant in Jhusi in A.D. 1300?Agreed to end this discussion, however.Regards,Francesco

[Guest guest]

Dear Francesco,

 

Further please keep in mind about Pliny mentioning that Yamuna traversed Palimbothra.

 

Secondly while identifying the archaeological remnants in Pataliputra please do not forget to mention the ruling periods of the Mauryas, the Shungas and the Kanvas, who had their capital at Pataliputra. Vincent Smith, who treated Sandracottus as Chandragupta Maurya says that the Kanvas ruled till 28 BCE. Pataliputra was not abandonerd after the Kanvas and it continued to be the capital of the subsequent rulers. Once you find the date of abandonment of Pataliputra as the capital city you will have to reconcile how Hiuen Tsang in 640 CE had given an eye-witness description of Pataliputra.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 5/5/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: [ind-Arch] Re: Erannoboas and PalimbothraIndiaArchaeology Cc: Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 2:49 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Francesco,

 

It was Ajatashatru who built the capital in Pataliputra and later on the Nandas and the Mauryas continued to have their capital there. Jones dismissed Megasthenes' s mention of Erannoboas and Sone as distinct rivers and I was the first to put it before public about Jones's bulldozing of the Account of of Megasthenes. Any right-minded and right-thinking person, even if he is my enemy w,ould have to accept the fact as otherwise his own credibility wouild be lost. Now by being one with Jones in contesting the Account of Megasthenes you have proven yourself to be a person having no regard for facts. I maintain that the main argument of Jones, on which he tried to identify Chandragupta Maurya as Sandracottus, has been demolished and so the corollary, ie, the AIT automatically gets demolished. Max Muller did not cite any archaeological data to support the AIT.

 

However if you have firm conviction, on the basis of archaeological evidence, that Chandragupta Maurya was the Sandracottus, then please go ahead and the credit will be entirely yours, if you can really establish that convincingly. I think that in that case you will deserve to be awarded the Bharata Ratna, the highest civilian award India can give. Unfortunately there is no Nobel prize for History. Had it been there you could have expected to be recommended for that award also. So my suggestion is that you can start a new thread on the archaeological evidences to prove Sandracottus to be Chandragupta Maurya, as you strongly feel that to be so.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Sat, 5/2/09, Francesco Brighenti <frabrig (AT) (DOT) it> wrote:

Francesco Brighenti <frabrig (AT) (DOT) it>[ind-Arch] Re: Erannoboas and PalimbothraIndiaArchaeologySaturday, May 2, 2009, 12:43 AM

 

 

IndiaArchaeology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> If you would have read my paper carefully you would have known > that the remains of the all-wooden structures of the Palimbothra, > mentioned by Megasthenes, was burnt to ashes and that the burnt> city is now called Jhushi (after the Hindi word "Julasna", which > means to burn). The mound site of Jhusi near Allahabad, anciently known as Pratisthanapura (probably identical with the Prayag of ancient sources), is certainly very old. Its excavated deposits go back to the early Iron Age. There is, however, little or no evidence of fortification at this site, and certainly no evidence of the wooden fortifications seen by Megasthenes at "Palimbothra" .

That's why in my latest post I had cited the archeological finds of remains of extensive wooden palisades at Patna as a much more significant piece of evidence matching Megasthenes' description of "Palimbithra" . The city of Pratisthanapura was burnt down by foreign invaders around the 13-14th century A.D., the epoch of the Delhi Sultanate. That's why that ancient habitational mound came to be known as 'the burnt (place)'. No traces of destruction by fire are documented for the site's ancient levels, and the fire set to the town by the Muslimm invaders in the medieval period cannot certainly have destroyed the wooden fortifications seen (according to you only, Sunil) by Megasthenes at "Palimbothra" . Or do you think that those (perishable) wooden artifacts were, putatively, still extant in Jhusi in A.D. 1300?Agreed to end this discussion,

however.Regards,Francesco

[Guest guest]

Sunilji, there is another contradiction in the account of Vincent smith in Early History of India . He says that the Andhras have a large army during that period when Megasthenes visited, but the Andhras were not a major power during the time of Chandragupt maurya or during the reign of Asoka. . But they  were the major power when the Guptas took over. In fact the Guptas are known as Andhra Bhrityas in the Puranas.

I have summmarized the observationsof megasthenes in my forthcoming essay on the topic. Any one of these reasons would be sufficient to overturn the CM hypothesis. Collectively, it would be impossible to sustain such a hypothesis.

1.                  

He

calls Sandracottus the king of the Prassi and he mentions the names of

Xandramus as predecessor and Sandrocyptus as successor to Sandracottus. There

is absolutely

no resemblance in these names to Bindusara (the successor to Chandragupta

Maurya) and Mahapadma Nanda, the

predecessor.

2.                  

He

makes absolutely no mention of Chanakya or Vishnugupta, the Acharya who helped

Chndragupta ascend the throne.

3.                  

He makes no mention of  the widespread presence

of the Baudhik  or Sramana tradition

during the time of the Maurya empire, except in a very

cursory fashion in Frag XLI, as people who

practiced severe penences.

4.                  

He claims the capital is Palimbothra or

Palibothra, and that the city exists near the confluence of the Ganga and the

Eranaboas (Hiranyabahu). You have addressed this question quite thoroughly5.                  

The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha Empire. It had a long history even

at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this

powerful empire is amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek

accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthenes did not use this name

and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent or counterpart in

Indian accounts.

6.                  

It is interesting also that Megasthenes makes

special mention of the well nourished 

and healthy stature of the Indians. This is in stark contrast with  the impression that British Historians seek

to  foist upon the Gullible Indics of

today that India was always bedvilled by famines even prior to their coming.

They did so , it is quite obvious to seek to downplay the venality of their

administrators  and to give  a ratiional explanation  of why there were over 50 famines in British

India, to the extent that it turned into a chronically malnourished 0population. during the relatively short period of their overlordsdhip’ .

Purushottam was reputed to have towered overAlexander and was 7 feet in height , and according to

Megasthenes such a height was characteristic of the entire population.

7.                  

Then 

there is the famous quote attributed to Megasthenes that  “ the Indians stand almost alone among the

nations in never having migrated from their own country. From the days of

Father Bacchus to Alexander the Great, their kings are reckoned at 154 (generations), whose

reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 month. 

Father Bacchus was the first who invaded India, and was the first of all

who triumphed over the vanquished Indians. From him to Alexander the Great 6451

years are reckoned with 3 months additional, the calculation being made by

counting the, kings who reigned in the intermediate period, to the number of

153. [1]

“. This is the quote that the English historians consistently gloss over or

completely omit to mention , because if it were indeed true that Megasthenes

could get hold of the  lineage of kings ,

then surely this negates the oft repeated claim that Indians were not good

reecord keepers. We wil get back to this lineage of Kings

8.                  

 

 

 

 

[1]

http://ia311205.us.archive.org/2/items/AncientIndiaAsDescribedByMegasthenesAndArrian/HTML/0000%20-%200044.htm

22.

Same as (1) above.Ancient India as

described by Arrian- http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Indica.html. Excerpted from Arrian, " The Indica " in

Anabasis of Alexander, together with the Indica, E. J. Chinnock, tr. (London:

Bohn, 1893), ch. 1-16]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rajagriha Rajagrha (Sanskrit) The ancient capital

of Magadha, famous for its conversion to Buddhism in the days of the Buddhist

kings. It was the royal residence from Bimbisara-raja to Asoka, and the seat of

the first Synod or Buddhist Council held 510 BC. 

The famous Saptaparna cave, in which the Buddha's select circle of arhats were

initiated, was in this famous city. Rajgir is the current name of the city and a notified area in Nalanda district in the Indian state of Bihar. The city of Rajgir (ancient

Rajagriha or RÄjagá¹›ha; Pali: RÄjagaha) was the first capital of

the kingdom of Magadha, a state that would eventually evolve

into the Maurya Empire. Its date of origin is unknown, although

ceramics dating to about 1000 BC have been found in the city. The epic Mahabharata calls it Girivraja and recounts

the story of its king, Jarasandha, and his battle with the Pandava brothers and their allies Krishna. It is also mentioned in Buddhist and Jain scriptures, which give a series

of place-names, but without geographical context. The attempt to locate these

places is based largely on reference to them and to other locations in the

works of Chinese Buddhist pilgrims, particularly Faxian and Xuanzang. It is on the basis of Xuanzang in particular that the site is

divided into Old and New Rajgir. The former lies within a valley and is

surrounded by low-lying hills. It is defined by an earthen embankment (the

Inner Fortification), with which is associated the Outer Fortification, a

complex of cyclopean walls that runs (with large

breaks) along the crest of the hills. New Rajgir is defined by another, larger,

embankment outside the northern entrance of the valley and next to the modern

town.

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

ooo

-- पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤•à¥‹à¤¦à¤¾à¤¹à¤°à¤£à¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies.us/icih_conf

webmaster925-271-4528 mobile:925-998-2529

[Guest guest]

Dear Koslaji,Yes. You have mentioned good points. Pataliputra was in ruins and was abandoned for centuries when Hiuen Tsang visited it around 635 CE. Later on Pataliputra was again made capital by other kings such as by Dharmapala, the second king of the Pala dynasty.The present-day supporters of the distortionists are still saying that Sandracottus was Chandragupta Maurya by trying to prove that Palimbothra was Pataliputra. These people are adamant and have absolutely no regard for the historical records. Pliny also mentioned that Iomanes or Jomanas (Yamuna) passed by Palimbothra and on that basis D'Anville identified Palimbothra to be a city next to Allahabad. Jones not only brushed aside Megasthenes's record he even discarded Pliny's evidence. If distortion of history is considered a crime then Jones should be considered to be the

greatest criminal in the annals of History.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 5/7/09, Kosla Vepa <Kosla.Vepa wrote:Kosla Vepa <Kosla.VepaRe: Re: [ind-Arch] Re: Erannoboas and Palimbothra , indiaarchaeology Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 11:22 AM

 

Sunilji, there is another contradiction in the account of Vincent smith in Early History of India . He says that the Andhras have a large army during that period when Megasthenes visited, but the Andhras were not a major power during the time of Chandragupt maurya or during the reign of Asoka. . But they were the major power when the Guptas took over. In fact the Guptas are known as Andhra Bhrityas in the Puranas.

I have summmarized the observationsof megasthenes in my forthcoming essay on the topic. Any one of these reasons would be sufficient to overturn the CM hypothesis. Collectively, it would be impossible to sustain such a hypothesis.

1.

He

calls Sandracottus the king of the Prassi and he mentions the names of

Xandramus as predecessor and Sandrocyptus as successor to Sandracottus. There

is absolutely

no resemblance in these names to Bindusara (the successor to Chandragupta

Maurya) and Mahapadma Nanda, the

predecessor.

2.

He

makes absolutely no mention of Chanakya or Vishnugupta, the Acharya who helped

Chndragupta ascend the throne.

3.

He makes no mention of the widespread presence

of the Baudhik or Sramana tradition

during the time of the Maurya empire , except in a ver y cursory fashion in Frag XLI , as people who

practiced severe penences. 4.

He claims the capital is Palimbothra or

Palibothra, and that the city exists near the confluence of the Ganga and the

Eranaboas (Hiranyabahu) . You have addressed this question quite thoroughly5.

The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha Empire. It had a long history even

at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this

powerful empire is amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek

accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthenes did not use this name

and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent or counterpart in

Indian accounts.

6.

It is interesting also that Megasthenes makes

special mention of the well nourished

and healthy stature of the Indians. This is in stark contrast with the impression that British Historians seek

to foist upon the Gullible Indics of

today that India was always bedvilled by famines even prior to their coming.

They did so , it is quite obvious to seek to downplay the venality of their

administrators and to give a ratiional explanation of why there were over 50 famines in British

India, to the extent that it turned into a chronically malnourished 0population. during the relatively short period of their overlordsdhip’ .

Purushottam was reputed to have towered overAlexander and was 7 feet in height , and according to

Megasthenes such a height was characteristic of the entire population.

7.

Then

there is the famous quote attributed to Megasthenes that “ the Indians stand almost alone among the

nations in never having migrated from their own country. From the days of

Father Bacchus to Alexander the Great, their kings are reckoned at 154 (generations) , whose

reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 month.

Father Bacchus was the first who invaded India, and was the first of all

who triumphed over the vanquished Indians. From him to Alexander the Great 6451

years are reckoned with 3 months additional, the calculation being made by

counting the, kings who reigned in the intermediate period, to the number of

153. [1]

“. This is the quote that the English historians consistently gloss over or

completely omit to mention , because if it were indeed true that Megasthenes

could get hold of the lineage of kings ,

then surely this negates the oft repeated claim that Indians were not good

reecord keepers. We wil get back to this lineage of Kings

8.

 

 

 

 

[1]

http://ia311205. us.archive. org/2/items/ AncientIndiaAsDe scribedByMegasth enesAndArrian/ HTML/0000% 20-%200044. htm

22.

Same as (1) above.Ancient India as

described by Arrian- http://www.shsu. edu/~his_ ncp/Indica. html. Excerpted from Arrian, "The Indica" in

Anabasis of Alexander, together with the Indica, E. J. Chinnock, tr. (London:

Bohn, 1893), ch. 1-16]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rajagriha Rajagrha (Sanskrit) The ancient capital

of Magadha, famous for its conversion to Buddhism in the days of the Buddhist

kings. It was the royal residence from Bimbisara-raja to Asoka, and the seat of

the first Synod or Buddhist Council held 510 BC.

The famous Saptaparna cave, in which the Buddha's select circle of arhats were

initiated, was in this famous city. Rajgir is the current name of the city and a notified area in Nalanda district in the Indian state of Bihar. The city of Rajgir (ancient

Rajagriha or RÄjagá¹›ha; Pali: RÄjagaha) was the first capital of

the kingdom of Magadha, a state that would eventually evolve

into the Maurya Empire. Its date of origin is unknown, although

ceramics dating to about 1000 BC have been found in the city. The epic Mahabharata calls it Girivraja and recounts

the story of its king, Jarasandha, and his battle with the Pandava brothers and their allies Krishna. It is also mentioned in Buddhist and Jain scriptures, which

give a series

of place-names, but without geographical context. The attempt to locate these

places is based largely on reference to them and to other locations in the

works of Chinese Buddhist pilgrims, particularly Faxian and Xuanzang. It is on the basis of Xuanzang in particular that the site is

divided into Old and New Rajgir. The former lies within a valley and is

surrounded by low-lying hills. It is defined by an earthen embankment (the

Inner Fortification) , with which is associated the Outer Fortification, a

complex of cyclopean walls that runs (with large

breaks) along the crest of the hills. New Rajgir is defined by another, larger,

embankment outside the northern entrance of the valley and next to the modern

town.

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

ooo

-- पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤•à¥‹à¤¦à¤¾à¤¹à¤°à¤£à¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_conf

webmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529

[Guest guest]

Of course now Jean Dreze is saying that  Megasthenes is unreliable, which they knew all along,  A case of cutting your nose  to spite  your  face. Because then there is no prima facie case supprting the  thesis that CMaurya was Sandrocottus.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Koslaji,Yes. You have mentioned good points. Pataliputra was in ruins and was abandoned for centuries when Hiuen Tsang visited it around 635 CE. Later on Pataliputra was again made capital by other kings such as by Dharmapala, the second king of the Pala dynasty.

The present-day supporters of the distortionists are still saying that Sandracottus was Chandragupta Maurya by trying to prove that Palimbothra was Pataliputra. These people are adamant and have absolutely no regard for the historical records. Pliny also mentioned that Iomanes or Jomanas (Yamuna) passed by Palimbothra and on that basis D'Anville identified Palimbothra to be a city next to Allahabad. Jones not only brushed aside  Megasthenes's record he even discarded Pliny's evidence. If distortion of history is considered a crime then Jones should be considered to be the

greatest criminal in the annals of History.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 5/7/09, Kosla Vepa <Kosla.Vepa wrote:

Kosla Vepa <Kosla.VepaRe: Re: [ind-Arch] Re: Erannoboas and Palimbothra

, indiaarchaeology Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 11:22 AM

 

 

Sunilji, there is another contradiction in the account of Vincent smith in Early History of India . He says that the Andhras have a large army during that period when Megasthenes visited, but the Andhras were not a major power during the time of Chandragupt maurya or during the reign of Asoka. . But they  were the major power when the Guptas took over. In fact the Guptas are known as Andhra Bhrityas in the Puranas.

I have summmarized the observationsof megasthenes in my forthcoming essay on the topic. Any one of these reasons would be sufficient to overturn the CM hypothesis. Collectively, it would be impossible to sustain such a hypothesis.

1.                  

He

calls Sandracottus the king of the Prassi and he mentions the names of

Xandramus as predecessor and Sandrocyptus as successor to Sandracottus. There

is absolutely

no resemblance in these names to Bindusara (the successor to Chandragupta

Maurya) and Mahapadma Nanda, the

predecessor.

2.                  

He

makes absolutely no mention of Chanakya or Vishnugupta, the Acharya who helped

Chndragupta ascend the throne.

3.                  

He makes no mention of  the widespread presence

of the Baudhik  or Sramana tradition

during the time of the Maurya empire , except in a ver y cursory fashion in Frag XLI , as people who

practiced severe penences. 4.                  

He claims the capital is Palimbothra or

Palibothra, and that the city exists near the confluence of the Ganga and the

Eranaboas (Hiranyabahu) . You have addressed this question quite thoroughly5.                  

The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha Empire. It had a long history even

at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this

powerful empire is amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek

accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthenes did not use this name

and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent or counterpart in

Indian accounts.

6.                  

It is interesting also that Megasthenes makes

special mention of the well nourished 

and healthy stature of the Indians. This is in stark contrast with  the impression that British Historians seek

to  foist upon the Gullible Indics of

today that India was always bedvilled by famines even prior to their coming.

They did so , it is quite obvious to seek to downplay the venality of their

administrators  and to give  a ratiional explanation  of why there were over 50 famines in British

India, to the extent that it turned into a chronically malnourished 0population. during the relatively short period of their overlordsdhip’ .

Purushottam was reputed to have towered overAlexander and was 7 feet in height , and according to

Megasthenes such a height was characteristic of the entire population.

7.                  

Then 

there is the famous quote attributed to Megasthenes that  “ the Indians stand almost alone among the

nations in never having migrated from their own country. From the days of

Father Bacchus to Alexander the Great, their kings are reckoned at 154 (generations) , whose

reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 month. 

Father Bacchus was the first who invaded India, and was the first of all

who triumphed over the vanquished Indians. From him to Alexander the Great 6451

years are reckoned with 3 months additional, the calculation being made by

counting the, kings who reigned in the intermediate period, to the number of

153. [1]

“. This is the quote that the English historians consistently gloss over or

completely omit to mention , because if it were indeed true that Megasthenes

could get hold of the  lineage of kings ,

then surely this negates the oft repeated claim that Indians were not good

reecord keepers. We wil get back to this lineage of Kings

8.                  

 

 

 

 

[1]

http://ia311205. us.archive. org/2/items/ AncientIndiaAsDe scribedByMegasth enesAndArrian/ HTML/0000% 20-%200044. htm

 

22.

Same as (1) above.Ancient India as

described by Arrian- http://www.shsu. edu/~his_ ncp/Indica. html. Excerpted from Arrian, " The Indica " in

Anabasis of Alexander, together with the Indica, E. J. Chinnock, tr. (London:

Bohn, 1893), ch. 1-16]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rajagriha Rajagrha (Sanskrit) The ancient capital

of Magadha, famous for its conversion to Buddhism in the days of the Buddhist

kings. It was the royal residence from Bimbisara-raja to Asoka, and the seat of

the first Synod or Buddhist Council held 510 BC. 

The famous Saptaparna cave, in which the Buddha's select circle of arhats were

initiated, was in this famous city. Rajgir is the current name of the city and a notified area in Nalanda district in the Indian state of Bihar. The city of Rajgir (ancient

Rajagriha or RÄjagá¹›ha; Pali: RÄjagaha) was the first capital of

the kingdom of Magadha, a state that would eventually evolve

into the Maurya Empire. Its date of origin is unknown, although

ceramics dating to about 1000 BC have been found in the city. The epic Mahabharata calls it Girivraja and recounts

the story of its king, Jarasandha, and his battle with the Pandava brothers and their allies Krishna. It is also mentioned in Buddhist and Jain scriptures, which

give a series

of place-names, but without geographical context. The attempt to locate these

places is based largely on reference to them and to other locations in the

works of Chinese Buddhist pilgrims, particularly Faxian and Xuanzang. It is on the basis of Xuanzang in particular that the site is

divided into Old and New Rajgir. The former lies within a valley and is

surrounded by low-lying hills. It is defined by an earthen embankment (the

Inner Fortification) , with which is associated the Outer Fortification, a

complex of cyclopean walls that runs (with large

breaks) along the crest of the hills. New Rajgir is defined by another, larger,

embankment outside the northern entrance of the valley and next to the modern

town.

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

ooo

-- पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤•à¥‹à¤¦à¤¾à¤¹à¤°à¤£à¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.

USA indicstudies. us/icih_conf

webmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529

-- पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤•à¥‹à¤¦à¤¾à¤¹à¤°à¤£à¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies.us/icih_conf

webmaster925-271-4528 mobile:925-998-2529

[Guest guest]

Not to mention M Troyer who translated the Rajatarangini , and said in the preface that the resulting chronology is untenable and has severe problems. But we have yet to learn fro the occidental rtheo nehting he does well. When the chips are down they are completely unified . I asked Pierre Sylvain Filliozat whether he was familiar with Troyers objections  and he replied he was but he  thinks that it was right to override Troyer.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Koslaji,Yes. You have mentioned good points. Pataliputra was in ruins and was abandoned for centuries when Hiuen Tsang visited it around 635 CE. Later on Pataliputra was again made capital by other kings such as by Dharmapala, the second king of the Pala dynasty.

The present-day supporters of the distortionists are still saying that Sandracottus was Chandragupta Maurya by trying to prove that Palimbothra was Pataliputra. These people are adamant and have absolutely no regard for the historical records. Pliny also mentioned that Iomanes or Jomanas (Yamuna) passed by Palimbothra and on that basis D'Anville identified Palimbothra to be a city next to Allahabad. Jones not only brushed aside  Megasthenes's record he even discarded Pliny's evidence. If distortion of history is considered a crime then Jones should be considered to be the

greatest criminal in the annals of History.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 5/7/09, Kosla Vepa <Kosla.Vepa wrote:

Kosla Vepa <Kosla.VepaRe: Re: [ind-Arch] Re: Erannoboas and Palimbothra

, indiaarchaeology Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 11:22 AM

 

 

Sunilji, there is another contradiction in the account of Vincent smith in Early History of India . He says that the Andhras have a large army during that period when Megasthenes visited, but the Andhras were not a major power during the time of Chandragupt maurya or during the reign of Asoka. . But they  were the major power when the Guptas took over. In fact the Guptas are known as Andhra Bhrityas in the Puranas.

I have summmarized the observationsof megasthenes in my forthcoming essay on the topic. Any one of these reasons would be sufficient to overturn the CM hypothesis. Collectively, it would be impossible to sustain such a hypothesis.

1.                  

He

calls Sandracottus the king of the Prassi and he mentions the names of

Xandramus as predecessor and Sandrocyptus as successor to Sandracottus. There

is absolutely

no resemblance in these names to Bindusara (the successor to Chandragupta

Maurya) and Mahapadma Nanda, the

predecessor.

2.                  

He

makes absolutely no mention of Chanakya or Vishnugupta, the Acharya who helped

Chndragupta ascend the throne.

3.                  

He makes no mention of  the widespread presence

of the Baudhik  or Sramana tradition

during the time of the Maurya empire , except in a ver y cursory fashion in Frag XLI , as people who

practiced severe penences. 4.                  

He claims the capital is Palimbothra or

Palibothra, and that the city exists near the confluence of the Ganga and the

Eranaboas (Hiranyabahu) . You have addressed this question quite thoroughly5.                  

The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha Empire. It had a long history even

at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this

powerful empire is amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek

accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthenes did not use this name

and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent or counterpart in

Indian accounts.

6.                  

It is interesting also that Megasthenes makes

special mention of the well nourished 

and healthy stature of the Indians. This is in stark contrast with  the impression that British Historians seek

to  foist upon the Gullible Indics of

today that India was always bedvilled by famines even prior to their coming.

They did so , it is quite obvious to seek to downplay the venality of their

administrators  and to give  a ratiional explanation  of why there were over 50 famines in British

India, to the extent that it turned into a chronically malnourished 0population. during the relatively short period of their overlordsdhip’ .

Purushottam was reputed to have towered overAlexander and was 7 feet in height , and according to

Megasthenes such a height was characteristic of the entire population.

7.                  

Then 

there is the famous quote attributed to Megasthenes that  “ the Indians stand almost alone among the

nations in never having migrated from their own country. From the days of

Father Bacchus to Alexander the Great, their kings are reckoned at 154 (generations) , whose

reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 month. 

Father Bacchus was the first who invaded India, and was the first of all

who triumphed over the vanquished Indians. From him to Alexander the Great 6451

years are reckoned with 3 months additional, the calculation being made by

counting the, kings who reigned in the intermediate period, to the number of

153. [1]

“. This is the quote that the English historians consistently gloss over or

completely omit to mention , because if it were indeed true that Megasthenes

could get hold of the  lineage of kings ,

then surely this negates the oft repeated claim that Indians were not good

reecord keepers. We wil get back to this lineage of Kings

8.                  

 

 

 

 

[1]

http://ia311205. us.archive. org/2/items/ AncientIndiaAsDe scribedByMegasth enesAndArrian/ HTML/0000% 20-%200044. htm

 

22.

Same as (1) above.Ancient India as

described by Arrian- http://www.shsu. edu/~his_ ncp/Indica. html. Excerpted from Arrian, " The Indica " in

Anabasis of Alexander, together with the Indica, E. J. Chinnock, tr. (London:

Bohn, 1893), ch. 1-16]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rajagriha Rajagrha (Sanskrit) The ancient capital

of Magadha, famous for its conversion to Buddhism in the days of the Buddhist

kings. It was the royal residence from Bimbisara-raja to Asoka, and the seat of

the first Synod or Buddhist Council held 510 BC. 

The famous Saptaparna cave, in which the Buddha's select circle of arhats were

initiated, was in this famous city. Rajgir is the current name of the city and a notified area in Nalanda district in the Indian state of Bihar. The city of Rajgir (ancient

Rajagriha or RÄjagá¹›ha; Pali: RÄjagaha) was the first capital of

the kingdom of Magadha, a state that would eventually evolve

into the Maurya Empire. Its date of origin is unknown, although

ceramics dating to about 1000 BC have been found in the city. The epic Mahabharata calls it Girivraja and recounts

the story of its king, Jarasandha, and his battle with the Pandava brothers and their allies Krishna. It is also mentioned in Buddhist and Jain scriptures, which

give a series

of place-names, but without geographical context. The attempt to locate these

places is based largely on reference to them and to other locations in the

works of Chinese Buddhist pilgrims, particularly Faxian and Xuanzang. It is on the basis of Xuanzang in particular that the site is

divided into Old and New Rajgir. The former lies within a valley and is

surrounded by low-lying hills. It is defined by an earthen embankment (the

Inner Fortification) , with which is associated the Outer Fortification, a

complex of cyclopean walls that runs (with large

breaks) along the crest of the hills. New Rajgir is defined by another, larger,

embankment outside the northern entrance of the valley and next to the modern

town.

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

ooo

-- पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤•à¥‹à¤¦à¤¾à¤¹à¤°à¤£à¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.

USA indicstudies. us/icih_conf

webmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529

-- पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤•à¥‹à¤¦à¤¾à¤¹à¤°à¤£à¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies.us/icih_conf

webmaster925-271-4528 mobile:925-998-2529

[Guest guest]

Koslaji,

 

This reminds me of an episode. One westerner was invited by an Indian family for dinner. He was served in a plate with chapati, rice, sabji, dal, fish, papad (papadam), pickle and dahi. The guest went on eating item by item ie. one item at a time. He first consumed the chapatis, then the rice and the next in order were the other items one by one. The hosts were surprised and the guest told that that is how he takes his food. It is certainly different from our way of mixing rice and dal and the taking with sabji and taking papada and pickle from time to time.. So it appears that according to Dreze, Megasthenes should have written in a book only those things which he had seen and experienced and as regards what Megasthenes heard but not verified he should have written a separate book. But being in india at that time he had chosen to write the personally confirmed things as well as what

he had heard from others in a single book. Naturally the writing on what Megasthenes had heard has become hazy and Dreze was nonplussed no end. Poor Dreze! She is unable to sort out the facts from the hearsays. Palimbothra was the place where Megasthenes stayed and he cannot be wrong about his description of Palimbothra and its association with Yamuna. When will Dreze grow up and see the Megasthenes's account in the proper perspective?

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sun, 5/10/09, Kosla Vepa <Kosla.Vepa wrote:

Kosla Vepa <Kosla.VepaRe: Re: [ind-Arch] Re: Erannoboas and Palimbothra , "sunil bhattacharjya" <skbhattacharjyaCc: indiaarchaeology Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 8:18 AM

 

 

Of course now Jean Dreze is saying that Megasthenes is unreliable, which they knew all along, A case of cutting your nose to spite your face. Because then there is no prima facie case supprting the thesis that CMaurya was Sandrocottus.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Koslaji,Yes. You have mentioned good points. Pataliputra was in ruins and was abandoned for centuries when Hiuen Tsang visited it around 635 CE. Later on Pataliputra was again made capital by other kings such as by Dharmapala, the second king of the Pala dynasty.The present-day supporters of the distortionists are still saying that Sandracottus was Chandragupta Maurya by trying to prove that Palimbothra was Pataliputra. These people are adamant and have absolutely no regard for the historical records. Pliny also mentioned that Iomanes or Jomanas (Yamuna) passed by Palimbothra and on that basis D'Anville identified Palimbothra to be a city next to Allahabad. Jones not only brushed aside Megasthenes's record he even discarded Pliny's evidence. If distortion of history is considered a crime then Jones should be considered to be the

greatest criminal in the annals of History.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 5/7/09, Kosla Vepa <Kosla.Vepa@indicstu dies.us> wrote:

Kosla Vepa <Kosla.Vepa@indicstu dies.us>

Re: Re: [ind-Arch] Re: Erannoboas and Palimbothra, indiaarchaeologyThursday, May 7, 2009, 11:22 AM

 

 

 

Sunilji, there is another contradiction in the account of Vincent smith in Early History of India . He says that the Andhras have a large army during that period when Megasthenes visited, but the Andhras were not a major power during the time of Chandragupt maurya or during the reign of Asoka. . But they were the major power when the Guptas took over. In fact the Guptas are known as Andhra Bhrityas in the Puranas.I have summmarized the observationsof megasthenes in my forthcoming essay on the topic. Any one of these reasons would be sufficient to overturn the CM hypothesis. Collectively, it would be impossible to sustain such a hypothesis.

1. He calls Sandracottus the king of the Prassi and he mentions the names of Xandramus as predecessor and Sandrocyptus as successor to Sandracottus. There is absolutely no resemblance in these names to Bindusara (the successor to Chandragupta Maurya) and Mahapadma Nanda, the predecessor.

2. He makes absolutely no mention of Chanakya or Vishnugupta, the Acharya who helped Chndragupta ascend the throne.

3. He makes no mention of the widespread presence of the Baudhik or Sramana tradition during the time of the Maurya empire , except in a ver y cursory fashion in Frag XLI , as people who practiced severe penences.

 

4. He claims the capital is Palimbothra or Palibothra, and that the city exists near the confluence of the Ganga and the Eranaboas (Hiranyabahu) . You have addressed this question quite thoroughly

5. The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha Empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthenes did not use this name and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts.

6. It is interesting also that Megasthenes makes special mention of the well nourished and healthy stature of the Indians. This is in stark contrast with the impression that British Historians seek to foist upon the Gullible Indics of today that India was always bedvilled by famines even prior to their coming. They did so , it is quite obvious to seek to downplay the venality of their administrators and to give a ratiional explanation of why there were over 50 famines in British India, to the extent that it

turned into a chronically malnourished 0population. during the relatively short period of their overlordsdhip’ . Purushottam was reputed to have towered overAlexander and was 7 feet in height , and according to Megasthenes such a height was characteristic of the entire population.

7. Then there is the famous quote attributed to Megasthenes that “ the Indians stand almost alone among the nations in never having migrated from their own country. From the days of Father Bacchus to Alexander the Great, their kings are reckoned at 154 (generations) , whose reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 month. Father Bacchus was the first who invaded India, and was the first of all who triumphed over the vanquished Indians. From him to Alexander the Great 6451 years are reckoned with 3 months additional, the calculation being made by counting the, kings who

reigned in the intermediate period, to the number of 153. [1] “. This is the quote that the English historians consistently gloss over or completely omit to mention , because if it were indeed true that Megasthenes could get hold of the lineage of kings , then surely this negates the oft repeated claim that Indians were not good reecord keepers. We wil get back to this lineage of Kings

8.

 

 

 

[1] http://ia311205. us.archive. org/2/items/ AncientIndiaAsDe scribedByMegasth enesAndArrian/ HTML/0000% 20-%200044. htm

 

22. Same as (1) above.Ancient India as described by Arrian- http://www.shsu. edu/~his_ ncp/Indica. html. Excerpted from Arrian, "The Indica" in Anabasis of Alexander, together with the Indica, E. J. Chinnock, tr. (London: Bohn, 1893), ch. 1-16]

 

 

 

 

 

Rajagriha Rajagrha (Sanskrit) The ancient capital of Magadha, famous for its conversion to Buddhism in the days of the Buddhist kings. It was the royal residence from Bimbisara-raja to Asoka, and the seat of the first Synod or Buddhist Council held 510 BC. The famous Saptaparna cave, in which the Buddha's select circle of arhats were initiated, was in this famous city. Rajgir is the current name of the city and a notified area in Nalanda district in the Indian state of Bihar. The city of Rajgir (ancient Rajagriha or RÄjagá¹›ha; Pali: RÄjagaha) was the first capital of the kingdom of Magadha, a state that would eventually evolve into the Maurya Empire. Its date of origin is unknown, although ceramics dating to about 1000 BC have been found in the city. The epic Mahabharata calls it Girivraja and recounts the story of its king, Jarasandha, and his battle with the Pandava brothers and their allies Krishna. It is also mentioned in Buddhist and Jain scriptures, which give a series of place-names, but without geographical context. The attempt to locate these places

is based largely on reference to them and to other locations in the works of Chinese Buddhist pilgrims, particularly Faxian and Xuanzang. It is on the basis of Xuanzang in particular that the site is divided into Old and New Rajgir. The former lies within a valley and is surrounded by low-lying hills. It is defined by an earthen embankment (the Inner Fortification) , with which is associated the Outer Fortification, a complex of cyclopean walls that runs (with large breaks) along the crest of the hills. New Rajgir is defined by another, larger, embankment outside the northern entrance of the valley and next to the modern town.

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

ooo

-- पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤•à¥‹à¤¦à¤¾à¤¹à¤°à¤£à¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org

925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529

-- पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤•à¥‹à¤¦à¤¾à¤¹à¤°à¤£à¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529

[Guest guest]

Mr. Francesco Breghenti,Only a harebrained will interpret the way you are interpreting just because to admit a mistake is not in your blood. If Palibothra was in Pataliputra could the Yamuna have traversesd by that. Please apply common sense Mr. Brighenti. At least Sir Jones had common sense and he did not advance your type of argument when he discarded D'Anville's argument of Palibothra being at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna.In case of Sir Jones either he did not realise that he was doing a mistake in discarding what Megasthenes said just because he vould not locate an ancient city near the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna or he could have made it deliberately to reduce the antiquity of Indian History.You said Quote

In sum, your objections (as well as your veritable obsession with

William Jones' "dishonesty" ) are unidirectional and biased, and must,

therefore, be ignoreUnquoteWhat else can you say Mr. Breghenti. Did I not give the facts that Megasthenes mentioned Erannoboas and Sonus separately, which a blind (or biased) person like you cannot see. The act of depending on Megastenes's acoount does not make me biased but by opposing the record of Megasthenes you have joined the category of distortionists like.Sir Jones. Now it it is very clear in your case and I am one hundred percent sure

that you are determined to prove that Pataliputra was Palibothra by

hook or crook irrespective of whatever the records say. That is the level of your scholarship. Have some respect for the historical records even though they do not say what you wish. I wonder what could be the reason for your unreasonable stand. Are you feeling jealous that the antiquity of the history and the civilization of India is higher than of your country?

S.K.Bhattacharjyaq--- On Wed, 5/13/09, Francesco Brighenti <frabrig wrote:Francesco Brighenti <frabrig[ind-Arch] Re: Erannoboas and PalimbothraIndiaArchaeology Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 4:03 AM

 

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

 

> Dear Francesco,

>

> Further please keep in mind about Pliny mentioning that Yamuna

> traversed Palimbothra.

 

And, in another post:

 

> Pliny also mentioned that Iomanes or Jomanas (Yamuna) passed by

> Palimbothra and on that basis D'Anville identified Palimbothra

> to be a city next to Allahabad. Jones not only brushed aside

> Megasthenes' s record he even discarded Pliny's evidence.

> If distortion of history is considered a crime then Jones should

> be considered to be the greatest criminal in the annals of History.

 

Why do you keep on making such patently false claims throughout this discussion? Nowhere does Pliny state that the "Jomanes" (safely identifiable with the Yamuna) passes through "Palibothra" ; he writes the river "runs into the Ganges through the territory of the Palibothri" (not the *city* named Palibothra!) instead, and this makes a big difference:

 

"But more famous and more powerful than any nation… throughout almost the whole of India, are the Prasii [< Skt. Pracya 'Eastern people'], who dwell in a city of vast extent and of remarkable opulence, called Palibothra; from which circumstance some writers have given to the people themselves the name Palibothri, and, indeed, to the whole tract of country between the Ganges and the Indus [lit. (the country) 'along the whole tract of the Ganges']... The river Jomanes runs into the Ganges through the territory of the Palibothri, between the cities of Methora [most likely identifiable with Mathura] and Chrysobora [v.r. Carisobora, Cyrisoborka; an unidentifiable town]" (Pliny, Hist. Nat., 6. 22; trans. by J. Bostock and H.T. Riley).

 

Since in Megasthenes' time the Ganga-Yamuna doab was part and parcel of the Mauryan Empire (ruled over by the Magadhans, i.e. the "Prasii" or "Palibothri" ), it was but natural for Pliny, drawing this information from Megasthenes, to note that the Yamuna traversed the territory of the "Palibothri" . This does not mean that the Yamuna traversed the city of Palibothra!

 

Moreover, in the same chapter (6. 22) of his _Natural History_ Pliny, following Megasthenes, cites both the "Erannoboas" and the "Sonus" as affluents of the Ganges. Now, to follow your logic, if the "Erannoboas" is not the same as the Son (as most of modern scholars believe), why should it be the same as the Jomanes? You are, in fact, clearly using a double standard here by claiming that the "Erannoboas" cannot absolutely be identical with the Son because classical writers also mention a river named "Sonus" besides the "Erannoboas" among the affluents of the Ganges, but, at the same time, you claim this is indeed possible for the "Jomanes" (Yamuna), although the latter figures as a *distinct* river in Pliny's (and probably Megasthenes' ) account!

 

In sum, your objections (as well as your veritable obsession with William Jones' "dishonesty" ) are unidirectional and biased, and must, therefore, be ignored.

 

Let me further add here that, as this discussion unfolds, I am finding more and more clues supporting the identification of Megasthenes' "Palimbothra" with Pataliputra/ Patna (which you, Sunil, identify with "the capital of Chandragupta Maurya" and, consequently, of Ashoka Maurya too). For instance, I discovered that Fa-hsien, who undoubtedly visited Pataliputra/ Patna in the late 4th century CE and mentions the name of that city as Pa-lien-fu (pronounced as <pa-liän-piu@ t> in Ancient Chinese and, therefore, remarkably coinciding with the form Palimbothra cited by Arrian after Megasthenes) , states that Pa-lien-fu had been the capital of king A-yu, who is none else but Ashoka Maurya:

 

http://tinyurl. com/oqwky9

 

Another historical fact I recently discovered is that in his Rabatak inscription Kanishka I mentions a city termed as "Palabotro" (cp. Strabo's spelling "Palibothra" ) as one of five cities of northern India under Kushan rule. These five cities, whose names are listed in approximate geographical order from west to east, are "Ozeno" (probably Ujjain; N. Sims-Williams' reading "Oa(s)po" is most likely wrong), "Zagedo" (Saketa), Kozambo (Kausambi), "Palabotro" (identified with Pataliputra/ Patna by all the scholars who have studied this inscription) , and "Ziri Tambo" (Shri-Champa) . These cities were the capitals of some among the most important traditional mahajanapadas (from west to east: Avanti, Kosala, Vatsa, Magadha, and Anga) on which Kanishka claimed his sovereignty. Since Kausambi lies near the confluence of the Ganges and the Yamuna, and no other capital of an ancient mahajanapada was located in that area (which was part of the Vatsa janapada with

Kausambi as its ancient capital), it is *highly* unlikely that Kanishka meant to indicate the city of Pratisthanapura -- the modern Jhusi, which you, Sunil, claim to be identical with Megasthenes' "Palimbothra" -- on the confluence of the Ganges and the Yamuna with the use of the name "Palabotro". Therefore, Kanishka's "Palabotro" can only be identified with Pataliputra/ Patna.

 

Regards,

Francesco