Dear Kishore Patnaik,
Although Koenraad Elst has already given you a deserved reply re:
Mahabharata war at -5000ya, I would like to add my comments on your
confused post archived at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59299
You wrote:
> Some people believe that Betdwaraka pertains to around 1500 bce
> (which is a wrong position -- it pertains to much ealier times and
> I think we are yet to correctly date Betdwaraka).
The archaeological site on the Bet Dwarka island has been dated, as
regards its Late Harappan phase, to c. 2000-1500 BCE -- read the
paper on _Current Science_ at
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun102002/1351.pdf
What is wrong with your implicit assumption that Bet Dwarka may bear
some relevance to the dating of the Mahabharata war is that this
site is not the same as the historical Dwaraka, traditionally
regarded by the Hindus as the site of the mythical maritime town
ruled over by Lord Krishna of Mahabharata fame. This error is
principally to be ascribed to SR Rao, the excavator of Dwarka, who
in his research papers always clubs the findings of Dwarka and Bet
Dwarka, which are actually two different sites located at a distance
of 30 km.
> I remember a news item that a wood artefact was found in the
> excavations, which could throw good light on the dating of
> the ruins.
This finding again pertains to Dwaraka, not to Bet Dwarka. I have
lost sight of that wooden block (retrieved on April 30, 2007
from a submerged circular stone structure off Dwaraka), which,
according to ASI officials, should have helped in dating such
structures:
http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/04/stories/2007050401361300.htm
> Some people still believe in AIT/AMT
"Some" people? You should have better used the adjective "most"
(scholars)!
> which gives the year 2000 bce as the earliest time Aryans landed
> in India. Based on this, dating around 1500 bce to 1300 bce for
> MBh (depending upon how fast Vedas could be composed).
The main story line of the Mahabharata can be traced from the Rgveda
(7.18, battle of the Bharata chieftain Sudas against the 10 tribes of
the Greater Panjab), via its slow transmorphing in post-Rgvedic
Brahmana texts (shift of location and of persons involved), down to
the Mahabharata battle between the Kauravas and Pandavas on the
latter's right to be called descendents of King Bharata (= the
Bharata battle). The time bracket for these events -- *if* this
tradition really records some historical events, which is denied by
some scholars -- may be placed in the late Rgvedic period, namely,
in the late 2nd millennium BCE.
> The PGW of Hastinapur is dated to 1500 bce which many want to
> believe as excavations of Kauravas and Pandavas' Hastinapur (which
> they are not).
In the 1950s BB Lal, the excavator of Hastinapura, dated the Painted
Gray Ware phase at that site (which he supposed to be associated
with the period immediately following the Mahabharata war) to early
11th - early 8th century BCE. Your dating of that archaeological
phase at Hastinapura to 1500 BCE is wrong.
> But to start with, Mbh describes Saraswati, which has totally
> dried up by 1900 bce. Hence, Mbh must have occured prior to 1900
> bce.
As Koenraad has already pointed out, the Mahabharata describes the
Sarasvati river as disappearing under the sands of the desert in
present-day Pakistan. Hence, this is no evidence at all for a pre-
1900 BCE Mahabharata war.
> Second point that one would have to make in this connection is the
> traditional dating for Buddha is 1807 bce. I would post a message
> later regarding how the date of 6th century for Buddha was riddled
> with self contradictions and place Buddhism (as preached by
> Buddha) prior to Buddha.
Please spare us with these unscholarly thoughts. Think, the most
recent scholarly trend in Buddhological studies is to re-date the
time of the historical Buddha's death from c. 500 to c. 400 BCE. And
you talk us about a date of 1800 BCE for the life of the Buddha?
Ciao,
Francesco