A. Phelps [i]
has recently claimed that the 19th century Colonial Government of India actively
supported the forger Dr. A. A. Führer and attempted to falsify history. D.
[ii] and N. Lahiri [iii] have also focused on
some failings of colonial Indology but overlook the most serious one, namely,
the so-called discovery of Megasthenes’ Palibothra at Patna. The absence of the relics of any Maurya or Nanda king
at Patna and the attendant discovery of Asoka’s
inscribed statues at
Kanganhalli in Karnataka, clearly disprove Jones.
Seleucid embassy of Megasthenes to the court of Sandrokottos or Chandragupta
Maurya at Palimbothra (Pataliputra) offered the first synchronism that linked
India's past to sober history and freed it from the anachronic Puranic legends.
But where was Palibothra? Jones
identified it with Patna but in
1793 this was rejected by Rennell [iv] who had selected Patna
before Jones, but opted for Kanauj.
unknown in Jones’ day but
later scholars have failed to scrutinise his idea in the light of later
eminent pre-historian Stuart Piggott playfully envisioned [v] Chandragupta crowned on
the Harappān ruins but missed that this was in fact true. The ‘tantalizing
uncertainties’ of Indology noted by R. S. Tripathi, A. L. Basham, D. D. Kosambi,
V. Smith and others are due to Jones’ error that has also ruined the
chronological basis of Indology. R. Thapar notes the absence of Asoka’s Edicts
at Patna [vi] but is silent on the
absence of relics of any Maurya or Nanda at Patna. On the other hand B.
M. Barua rejected Jones’ story on Chandragupta [vii]. Kulke [viii] and Rothermund take a
much is known about the antecedents of Chandragupta Maurya, but it is said that
he began his military career by fighting against the outposts which Alexander
had left along the river Indus. How he managed to get from there to Magadha and
how he seized power from the last Nanda emperor remains obscure.
R. Allchin’s proposal for more digging at Patna has not been taken seriously due to a general view that
this would be tantamount to flogging a dead horse.
Jones was wrong is also indicated by Herodotus report which shows that tribes
under Cyrus were the Mahabharata clans. This shows that the centre of India was
far to the west,
The rest of the Persian tribes are the following: the Panthialaeans, the Derusiaeans, the Germanians, who are engaged in husbandry; the Daans, the Mardians, the Dropicans, and the Sagartians, who are nomads. (Herodotus, I, 125)
Panthialaeans were clearly the Panchalas and the Derusiaeans were the
Druhyus. Furthermore, the Sagartians were the people of King
Sagara who seem to be linked to Sogar in the Gulf area which was
India. The Dropicans echo Drupada. Gotama appears to have been a
Daan or Dana. His father was Suddhodana and all his uncles had Dana-names.
Al-beruni wrote that his name was Buddho-Dana [ix]. Herodotus’ crucial data
exposes the fraud of Nepalese archaeology [x] and shifts the focus to
Eastern Iran, Afghanistan, Sindh, Punjab, Haryana and Gujarat. A. D. H. Bivar’s view that the tablets shed
no light on the geography of India, [xi] is a false
prognosis that illustrates how seriously Indian history has been distorted by
Jones’ error and Fuhrer’s fraud.
Dissenting Voices of N. G. L. Hammond and A. Ghosh
eminent archaeologist A. Ghosh [xii] flatly stated that
Jones’ idea has no archaeological basis. Prof. N. G. L. Hammond,
discoverer of Vergina, was aware of the ascendancy of the North-West in the
early era and stated that ‘Patna is too far east’ to be a Palibothra [xiii]. H. C. Raychaudhuri
and B. N. Mukherjee [xiv] also note the primacy
of the North-West. J. M. Carbon [xv] agrees with Hammond
(Carbon 2006). The Australian Indologist I. Mabbett also blames the foundations
of Indian history [xvi].
Mirage of City-names
people often found cities bearing the names of famous cities of their old
habitat. The fond name of York, once the ecclesiastical capital of northern
England, is echoed in the names of four U.S. cities including New York. This is
a timeless phenomenon. E. A. Speiser noted that Sumerian city-names echo earlier
city-names of Elam. Curiously this elementary notion has escaped the notice of
most archaeologists and historians. G. Fussman [xvii] notes the bleak
historical and chronological scenario and stresses the role of migration but is
also not conscious of the geographical parallax,
… history of northern India from the death of Asoka to the first inroads of the Moslem armies is still imperfectly known. About its social history we can only state that new peoples kept coming from Iran and Central Asia and were, in course of time, integrated into an Indian social organization about which we have very little incontrovertible data… The political history of northern India still consists of bare list of names, with an often unsure relative chronology and a still more unsure absolute chronology.
Names like Konarak, Kohnouj, Puri, Katak, Multan, etc. show that Karman and West Baluchistan were in Hiduŝ
Ranke’s Warning and Hsűan Tsang’s India
Historians, cautioned Ranke, should root out forgeries and falsifications from the records and test documents on the basis of their internal consistency and that with other documents originating from the same period. They have to stick to primary sources which are coeval and lay less stress on later secondary sources. In plain defiance, archaeologists like Martin Carver and D. Chakrabarti boldly justify Jones' decrepit theory of Palibothra on the basis of the Chinese records written about a thousand years later. This ignores the fact that Mauryan India was very different from Hsűan Tsang’s India. The large influx of peoples from Iran and Central Asia pointed out by Fussman must have altered Indian geography.
Ghosh regretted that Cunningham’s
identifications of ancient cities were mainly based on the Chinese records and
were in no instance confirmed by excavated artifacts or inscriptions.
After arriving in India the Hindus and Buddhists of Iran (Nagas) must have
founded cities echoing the older Iranian city-names like Kanauj, Gaya etc.
R. Das and Debala Mitra were also strongly critical of Cunningham’s
Jones missed that Panini’s link with the Nandas implies that Magadha was in the North and due to his mistake Chandragupta and the Nandas were expelled from archaeology. D. Chakrabarti notes the profusion of 3rd century BC texts [xviii] but is silent on the ominous lack of Chandragupta’s texts or relics. L. M. Joshi and Debala Mitra hold that the earliest vestiges at Gaya, the so-called site of enlightenment of Gotama, are of the 1st century BC. The same is true of Kapilavastu or Nalanda. Phelps’ exposé on Fuhrer shows that the whole gamut of Nepalese archaeology is suspect. Vincent Smith noted that no building of Harsha’s era exists at Kanauj. His remark on the endless disputes on Kapilavastu is a silent reminder of Fuhrer’s transgression [xix],
mystery of Kapilavastu will continue for many years to be the sport of
bleak archaeological scenario at
Rajgir is described by Debala Mitra [xx] (Mitra 1971). In
the Jones-Cunningham theory Buddhism rose in the Gangetic valley but this has no
archaeological proof. Niharranjan Ray [xxi] (Ray 1967) sums up
The fact remains
therefore that we have no examples extant of either sculpture or architecture
that can definitely be labelled chronologically as pre-Mauryan or perhaps even
original Buddhist text is known from modern India. Buddhism was basically
an urban phenomenon but surprisingly Sir Mortimer Wheeler [xxii] (1968), dean of
sub-continental archaeology, asserted that urbanism in the Gangetic valley
cannot be traced before Bindusara. Barring the mortal remains of Gotama which
came from the North-West, no pre-Asokan Buddhist relic is known.
Charles Eliot noted [xxiii] (Eliot 1962) that the
monks who spread Buddhism to China and Central Asia were from the north-west,
not eastern India or Nepal. This mistake has nearly ruined the fabric of Indian
history by throwing all the crucial dates into disarray. About the tantalizing
uncertainties in Indian history he wrote ( Eliot xxxx, 51),
We can hardly imagine doubt as to the century in which Shakespeare or Virgil lived, yet when I first studied Sanskrit the greatest of Indian dramatists, Kalidasa, was supposed to have lived about 50 B.C.. His date is not yet fixed with unanimity but it is now generally placed in the fifth or sixth century A.D..
This chronological chaos naturally affects the value of literature as a record of the development of thought. We are in danger of moving in a vicious circle: of assigning ideas to an epoch because they occur in a certain book, while at the same time we fix the date of the book in virtue of the ideas which it contains.
famous American Sanskritist W. D. Whitney (Whitney 1889) remarks [xxiv] candidly
“All dates given in Indian literary history are pins set up to be bowled down again”.
identical opinion is expressed by another famous Indologist, M. Winternitz, [xxv],
'In this ocean of uncertainty there are only a few fixed points.'
is the appalling heritage of Jones.
The countless chronological and archaeological problems point to a systemic failure and call for an outright rejection of the ideas of Jones and
Cunningham. Dr. Spooner wrote in 1915 that Gotama and Chandragupta were
from Iran but this was rejected due to a predilection for Jones. Jones had no
idea of the crucial importance of Kanauj. In his History of Hindostan,
the British historian Dow identified Sandrocottos with Sinsarchund who,
according to Firista, ruled from Kanauj. Hoary figures like Visvamitra and Gadhi
are from Kanauj yet, as Vincent Smith noted, Kanauj in modern India is not a
very ancient city. There must have been an earlier Kanauj in the north-west. E.
A. Speiser asserted that many Sumerian city-names echo earlier cities in Elam.
This is due to migration but its effect on city-names was lost on Jones and
Cunningham. Al-beruni gave the vital information that Zoroaster drove the
Buddhists to the east which led to the rise of cities in modern India echoing
older city-names in Iran-Baluchistan. Zoroaster appears to be Devadatta of the
Indian texts [xxvi]. 190)
aside archaeology, even a proper analysis of the texts disproves Jones who
overlooked key geographical issues. The Kasika, a commentary on Panini’s
grammar, cites Apara Pataliputra which appears to be a reference to a
city in the North-West. Pataliputra was also called Kusumapura which matches
Gulaskherd or Gulaskhand (Gul=Kusuma) near Kohnouj in Karman.
of the East and India of the West and Megasthenes
central plank of Jones’ theory is Megasthenes’ Indica which is the most detailed western report on
India. The work has long been lost and is known from quotations in later authors
like Strabo, Arrian, Diodorus and others. Much has been written about its
credulous and inexact nature which is partly
true but it
has also been very fancifully interpreted. The fault is not of Jones
Mukherji (1996) notes that Xenophon’s India did not include the East yet
misses that the same can be true of Megasthenes’ Indica which was
written a few years later. It has to be noted that Megasthenes does not refer to
the eastern cities [xxvii].
of Panini was in the North-West but sometime
after Asoka, the Patna area also became Magadha and this concurrent existence of
an India of the East and an
India of the West caused untold confusion among western writers. The
great geographer Strabo branded the writers on India as a set of liars of
whom only a few managed now and then to stammer out some words of truth.
even likely that ‘India’ comprised non-contiguous areas [xxviii].
Palibothra was on the Ganges yet Strabo wrote flatly that the Greeks `have
seldom made a voyage as far as the Ganges' which agrees with the lack of
Greek artifacts at Patna. Sir
W. W. Tarn also wrote that the Ganges was unknown to the Greco-Macedonians under
missed that many
Iranian cities had Indian-names and that terms
like ‘India’, ‘Magadha’, ‘Ganges’ etc. denoted different geographical entities
[xxix] in different era.
India of the 4th century BC reached up to southeast Iran. This was
known to Vincent Smith. Eliot wrote with a clear vision,
Our geographical and political phraseology about India and Persia obscures the fact that in many periods the frontier between the two countries was uncertain or not drawn as now.
quoted by Arrian [xxx] (Indica, chap. X),
Megasthenes’ text on Palimbothra is,
The largest city in India, named Palimbothra, is in the land of the Prasians, where is the confluence of the river Erannoboas and the Ganges, which is the greatest of the rivers…
observer untutored in Jones’ theory, the Prasii or Pharrasii (Curtius) may
appear to be the Persians, and Erannoboas has a distinct ring of Iran but Jones’
tale about Hiranyabahu mesmerized all and Palibothra was placed in the East.
More importantly, the terms Palibothra and Prasii are not attested in the
Sanskrit or Prakrit texts which indicates that these were extraneous.
Another factor probably misled Jones – the Ganga. Chandragupta’s Suganga
palace is known from the records. The Ganga was, and still is, a central element
of Hindu culture - but even this is amenable to a deeper study. Ganga is not
cited in the RigVeda and legend has it that it was a celestial river brought to
the earth by Bhagiratha. Thus there
may have been an earlier Ganga in the north-west. Curtius wrote that the
Ganges flows into the Arabian sea. The Greeks used the form
Gange and the names Gang, Kang, etc. are found in Seistan. The
VYSKs of Kang [xxxi] (Herzfeld 1948) may be
the Vishakhas (Shakas?) of the Indian texts. Chandragupta’s grandfather is named
as Shakuni in the Rajatarangini. No river of Seistan matches the Greek reports
on Ganga which was a great river but these reports are second hand and the
ecosystem of Seistan was different in the ancient era. During Alexander’s time
it was a fertile land known as the granary of Iran.
forcible eviction of Magadha threw history into disarray. Sadly even after two
centuries of research, Indologists have failed to realise that this relic of
Colonial Indology has banished not only Chandragupta and the Nandas, but also
Rama and Manu from history proper. B. N. Mukherjee notes
the primacy of the North-West but misses that Magadha was in this area. Kulke
and Rothermund (1990 57) also have no idea about greater India. As the dental
consonants were often nasalised by the Elamites, it follows that Magan
was a variant of Magadha. Rama of Valmiki must have been Ram-Sin
(Rim-Sin) of Larsa [xxxii] who is said to
be from the Magan area in the
Sumerian records [xxxiii] (Oates, 1979). Prof.
Sukumar Sen also linked Rama with Iran. The name Magadha is found in the Iranian
king-name Machatas (Marlow’s
Tamburlane) and common Iranian names like Mucaddum and Mogadham.
Greeks did not refer to Magadha but to the Chinese Magadha was almost synonymous
with India. This has a deep-seated history. The Indus civilization
was Magadha. ‘Mah-gud’ in Sumerian means ‘great bull’ which agrees
with the Sanskrit ‘Maha-Uksha’ or Melukhkha [xxxiv], the name of the
Indus cities. After the fall of the Indus cities in the mid-2nd millennium BC
there was a westward exodus which shows that after this era Magadha was in the
north-west. As Magadha is first
cited in an Asokan Edict in Rajasthan, far from Bihar, there is no warrant to
link it to the Patna area before this period.
Thapar observed that Dilmun included Gujerat. It was cited together with Magan
and Melukhkha which shows that these three states were allied. Dilmun, Magan
and Melukhkha was greater India or Indo-Iran. A great king of Dilmun, Magan
and Melukhkha was Manu or Mannu of Magan[xxxv] (Hammond 1971,) who
ruled in the 3rd millennium BC. Owing to Jonesian delusions S. Ratnagar[xxxvi] (1981, 39) dismisses
Manu. Historians have run from pillar to post in search of the Nandas but have
missed that Darius II was No(n)thos. In the Babylonian texts Artaxerexes-III was
named Ni(n)din. The Sisunagas of Magadha were the Susinaks of
Magan Kakavarnas may be related to the Kak kings of Elam. Seth wrote that
Sasigupta could be Chandragupta, (Sashi=Chandra) but Raychaudhuri denied this[xxxvii]. Sisicottus may be
an echo of Sisunaga. L. B. Keny linked the Nagas to the Gulf area.
The final nail in the coffin of Jones’ unsound hypothesis is put by the history of Alexander’s voyage. His return through the Gedrosian desert, though there were safer routes, has bewildered all. Unaware of the location of Palibothra E. Badian and P. Green have ascribed this to his growing megalomania but this is baseless - the Gedrosian voyage was a military campaign to defeat Moeris of Pattala who, like Sandrocottos, was once an ally but revolted later.
nearly eighteen months after defeating Porus, Alexander celebrated (Arrian
XXVIII) yet another victory over the Indians at Kohnouj in Carmania with
fabulous mirth and abandon. Who were these Indians? Scholars have assumed this
victory to be over Porus but this is false. As Vincent Smith pointed out, both
Stephanus and Pliny indicate that Gedrosia and Carmania were in India. Bosworth
[xxxviii] writes that the
rejoicing took place near Khanu (also called Kohnouj) but knows nothing about
the name. Moeris whom Alexander was chasing at Pattala must have been
Chandragupta Maurya. This is the clearest proof of that Kohnouj was Kanauj which
Dow and Rennell identified as Palibothra. Patel, a common surname in Gujerat may
be an echo of Pataliputra in the North-West. Badian and Green attributed the
week-long revelry to the King’s degeneration but had no idea that Alexander was
celebrating his victory over the mighty Prasii. Justin wrote that Alexander had
defeated the Prasii.
report that the Indian Royal Palace was more magnificent than those at Susa and
Ecbatana can be judiciously interpreted to indicate that Palibothra was in the
same vicinity, i.e. Iran-Baluchistan. The Palace in Carmania where Alexander
celebrated his victory over the Indians must have been the Indian Royal Palace
mentioned by Aelian. Marco Polo also wrote about a Palace in this
Once Jones’ theory is rejected, Cunningham’s view that Buddhism was born in Eastern India becomes baseless. Gotama can be seen to belong to Seistan- Afghanistan which was within greater India. Hsuan Tsang wrote that Bhallika who first offered food to Gotama after enlightenment, brought Buddhism to Balkh. This indicates that, like Bhallika, Gotama was also a man of Seistan-Afghanistan area. The ascendancy of Afghanistan and Gandhara in Buddhism is shown by the 3rd century BC stupa at Swat (Butkara) and the monastery at Takht-I Bahl (1st cent. AD). By far the largest number of Buddha images are from this area, not the east where one should expect them in Jones’ theory. In fact Gotama was the same as Gomata of the Behistun record who was a namesake and a contemporary. H. Bechert’s argument that Gotama belonged to a later era does not seem to hold water.
stated that the Indus formed two islands, a very large one called Prasiane and a
smaller one called Patala which leaves no doubts regarding the location of
Prasiane. Darius’ reference to the
‘Hidus’ is usually taken to be the Indus area but it may also have included
southeast Iran. A Magadha in the North-west implies that Anga, Vanga, and
Kalinga were also in the same vicinity. Anga appears to be Seistan-Baluchistan.
Daranj (Zaranj) in Seistan appears to be Dvara-Anga. ‘Dvara’ in Sanskrit means
Gate and this may be related to ancient Der in Elam, Dwarkan in Magan and the
may be Maha-Anga-Dvara. Raghu’s victory over Vanga shows that there was
an early Vanga in the North. Kar-Kasi (the city of Kasi) of the Assyrians was
the early Kashi of the North-West. Portus Macedonum cited by the Greeks seems to
have been a Magadhan Port in the Gulf. The place-name Sagara (Sogar) is also
found in this area. Names like Kosala, Lanka, Anga, Vanga, Kalinga etc. arrived
in modern India later. Three Kalingas are cited in the texts. H. D. Sankalia
(1971) and others have shown that Lanka of Ravana was not Sri Lanka. Simhala was
called Sangara and the Egyptian texts speak of a Sangara in the Gulf area [xxxix]. Bandar-i Lengeh in
the Gulf echoes Lanka. Hsuan Tsang refers to a Lanka in Persia.
Gwadur in Baluchistan, where caves dating back to over two thousand years in the foothills of Koh-i-batil have been discovered recently, may be Gayadvara. Isidore of Charax (1st cent. BC) knew a king Goaisos [xl] (Tarn 1951, 481) who was his contemporary. Goaisos was a king of western Gaya which has an echo in modern Goa. The name Palibothra was probably Pali-Bhadra or the city of the Bhadras. Toynbee remarked that the Bhadras were intruders from the North. Tarn wrote about Batrasasave of the Omani which reminds one of Bhadrasva of the Indian texts. Kohnouj stands at the confluence of two rivers –Amanis and Halil. Amanis or Yomanis may be an earlier Yamuna.
the geography of ancient India is a daunting task yet it is likely to open up
new vistas of research in the history of not only Indo-Iran but the whole of the
ancient East. Iranian scholars have justly celebrated the Bronze Age finds at Djiroft (Dvaravati?) near
Kohnouj but seem to forget that even
in the 4th century BC there were Indians in this area. This area was
probably the early Kamboja of the Indian texts. The present author noted the
importance of the Jiroft area before Majidjadeh and others, 64). At a later date
Kamboja became the Afghanistan area. Yaska linked the language of Kamboja to
Iran. According to D. C. Sircar [xli] (Sircar, 1971) the
ancient Kambojas lived in various settlements in the wide area between Iran and
[ii] Chakrabarti, D. K., ‘Colonial Indology and identity’,
Antiquity, 74(2000): 667-71.
[iii] Lahiri N., ‘Archaeology and identity in colonial
India’, Antiquity, 74(2000): 687-92.
[iv] Mukherjee, S. N., Sir William Jones, A Study of
Eighteenth Century British Attitudes to India, Cambridge University Press, 1968,
‘Perhaps it would be too much to say that Chandragupta Maurya and his dynasty
were the ghosts of the Harappā Empire sitting crowned on the ruins thereof, or
to claim, in Toynbee’s phrase, that the Harappā kingdom was ‘apparented’ to the
Mauryas’. Piggott, S., Prehistoric India, Harmondsworth,1950, p.288.
Thapar’s claim, “The identification of Pataliputra is certain”, is based on
Waddell's findings of 1903 which are a travesty of scientific approach and
contrasts sharply with Ghosh’ cautious methodology. Thapar, R., Asoka and the
Decline of the Mauryas, Oxford University Press, 1961.
‘To me Chandragupta was a man of the Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of
Taksashila. His early education, military training and alliances were all in
that part of India. He added the whole of the province of Gandhara and the
surrounding tribal state (Punjab and N.W. frontier province) to the growing
Magadha empire together with the territories ceded to him by Seleukus’. Barua,
B.M. Indian Culture, 1934, vol. X, p.34.
[viii] Kulke, H. & Rothermund, D., A History of India,
London, 1990, p. 61. In page p. 57 the authors write, ‘The meteoric rise of
Magadha within the lifetime of two generations has remained an enigma to all
historians who have tried to explain the origins of ancient India’s first
empire. The main problem is not the sudden emergence of a successful dynasty –
history is replete with such stories – but the fact that a vast empire of
hitherto unprecedented dimension was born at the periphery of the Gangetic
civilisation without any recognizable period of gestation. Historians who
believe in the theory of diffusion of imperial state formation from a center in
Western Asia point to the fact that the rise of Magadha closely paralleled the
Persian conquest of Northwestern India.
[ix] His father was a Dana
(Suddhodana) and all his uncles were also Danas: Amit(r)o-dana, Dhoto-dana,
Sukko-dana and Sukkho-dana.
[x] The Fraud of Lumbini by Dr.
A. Fuhrer has recently been discussed by
[xi] “So far as India is concerned, the Fortifications Tablets attest an active and substantial traffic, though they shed no light on the geography of that province”. Cambridge Ancient History, vol. iv, Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, p. 205.
[xii] “Facts about Pataliputra are mainly known from
non-archaeological sources”. Ghosh, A., The City in Early Historical
India, Simla 1972, p. 76
‘Your personal knowledge of the terrain makes your views especially valuable and
I agree that Patna is too far East’, Hammond, N.G.L., Private communication
“Xenophon (c. 430- 354 BC) referred to an ‘Indian King’ as ‘a very wealthy man’
in his idealized biography, Kouro Paideia (Cyropaedia) (III,ii,25)…. Moreover,
the term ‘India’ denoted at that time only the lower Indus country”. Mukherjee,
B.N. ed. Political History of Ancient India, O.U. P. 1996, p. 579.
[xv] Carbon, J. M. Scholia Reviews, http://www.classics.und.ac.za/reviews/05-19pal.htm .
[xvi] “The foundations of our knowledge of ancient Indian history are still weak, and conventional assumptions about fundamental features of chronology and political geography are still liable to radical revision from time to time. Mabbett, I., ‘Dhanyakataka’, in South Asia, vol. XV1, No. 2(Dec. 1993), p.21.
[xvii] G. Fussman, ‘Southern Bactria and Northern India before
Islam’, J.A.O.S. vol. xxx, 1996.
[xviii] Allchin, F.R., The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia, ed. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Smith, V., Kapilavastu in
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. VII, p. 661.
[xx] “Exposed Buddhist monuments are scanty, partly due to gradual decay and denudations and mostly on account of inadequate excavations. Most sites mentioned in the Buddhist texts have been located with the help of directions and distances given by Chinese pilgrims, but the identifications are not always beyond doubt.” Mitra, D., Buddhist Monuments, Sahitya Samsad,1971, p.61.
[xxi] Ray, N., Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, ed. Nilakanta Sastri, Delhi, 1967, p.346.
[xxii] ‘And as far as architecture, in the time of the Buddha there was so far as we know, little or nothing to which the term `monumental' can be truthfully applied. The stalwart fortifications which intermittently outlined the vast site of sixth-century Rajgir, in the hills south of Patna, are rough and random masonry, with no hint of refinement. At about the same time, the houses of Hastinapura on the upper Ganges and Kausambi on the lower Jumna were becoming solid and tolerably civilized, but again with no suspicion of architectural sophistication; always with the proviso that the non-survival of domestic timber-work may have impoverished our evidence’. Wheeler, R.E.M., Flames over Persepolis, 1968, p.129.
[xxiii] Sir Charles Eliot stated that the Buddhist deity Amitabha is Iranian in origin. Eliot, C., Hinduism and Buddhism, London, 1962, part III, p. 449. Vol. III, p.220
[xxiv] Whitney, W. D., Sanskrit
Grammar, Leipzig, 1889.
[xxv] Winternitz contrasted the
enthusiasm of W. Jones with the hard-headed sobriety of Colebrooke, who
continued the work of Jones and became the real founder of Indian philiology and
archaeology. Winternitz, M., History of
Indian Literature, vol.1, p.xxx.
[xxvi] Jones, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta Supreme Court,
greatly loved India. His founding of the Asiatic Society and his
discourse on Sakuntala are landmarks but his ‘discovery’ of Palibothra at Patna
created a havoc in world history. Pal R., Non-Jonesian Indology and
Alexander, New Delhi, 2002. Pal, R. An Altar of Alexander now standing
near Delhi, Scholia vol. xv (2006). http://www.otago.ac.nz/classics/scholia/forthcoming.html
Raychaudhuri refers to Rhys-Davids’ remark that Megasthenes possessed very
little critical judgment and was misled by wrong information from others.
[xxviii] Korotayev, A.,
Orientalia, vol. 63, 1994, p. 64.
[xxix] ‘The statement that in 190AD Pantaenus found Indians who were Christians depends upon the interpretation to be given to the vague word "India" in a notice of Eusebius, which may with more probability be assigned to South Arabia’. Keith, A. B., 'Indian Mythology’,1916, p.175.
[xxx] Arrian, Anabasis, ed. Hamilton, J.R.,
[xxxi] Herzfeld, E., Zoroaster and his Men. Princeton, 1948
[xxxii] Pal R., Gotama Buddha in
Mesopotamia, Toho Shuppan, Osaka, 1995. p. 129
[xxxiii] Oates Joan, Babylon,
Thames & Hudson, London, 1979, p. 77.
[xxxiv] Pal R., Gotama Buddha in
West Asia, ABORI, 1997, Vol. 77, p.
[xxxv] Hammond, N. G. L., Edwards, I. E. S., Gadd, C. J., ed., Cambridge Ancient History, 1971, vol. 1, Pt. II. p. 445
[xxxvi] Ratnagar, S.,
Encounters, The Westerly Trade of the Harappa civilization, OUP,
Raychaudhuri, H.C. Political History of Ancient India,
[xxxviii] Bosworth, A.B., Conquest
And Empire, Cambridge
University Press, 1993. p. 150
[xxxix] Pal R., Meru, Lanka and
Simhala, Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental Res. Inst., 1995, Vol. 75.
[xl] Tarn, W.W., The Greeks
in Bactria and India, Cambridge, 1951, p. 481
[xli] Sirkar, D. C.,
Studies In The Geography Of Ancient And Medieval
India, Delhi, 1971, p.
[xlii] Bivar, A. D. H., The
Indus Lands in the “Cambridge Ancient History”, vol. 4, ed. J. Boardman, N.
G. L. Hammond, D.M. Lewis, M.
Ostwald, 1988, p. 194.