Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

[Dipanker]

Very interesting - 5000 year old skeletons found in Rakhigarghi
http://www.hindustantimes.com/haryana/a ... 37371.aspx

That is 3000 BC and they had an established settlement. No word on how old this particular one was but rakhigarhi is one of the bigger ones iirc. Kurukshetra is a 100km from here as the crow flies btw and a long long way away from the gujarat coast.

More on this from TOI with some very interesting observation relevant to this thread in the ASI report:
Haryana's Harappa saluted women 5,000 years ago

CHANDIGARH: Given its skewed sex ratio and long list of repressive khap diktats, it is difficult to imagine Haryana as a place which put women on a higher pedestal than men. But when the Archaeology Survey of India (ASI) dug up the Harappan Rakhigarhi site in Hisar, they found in the 5,500-year-old ruins a lifestyle that today's women activists would have been proud of.

The ASI report based on excavations between 1997 and 2003 has pointed out that "female deceased were offered more than double number of earthen wares as compared to opposite sex at the burials found at the Rakhigarhi site".

"Apart from this, to show reverence, the female deceased were invariably offered wares like dish-on-stand, bowl-onstand, beaker and medium sized vases, denoting their status over and above male counterpart" the 396-page report says. The report was submitted by retired DG (archaeology) Dr Amarendra Nath in December last year after 12 years of extensive research. At least 12 skeletons were found during that period and five more have been found last week during an ongoing separate research by Deccan College, Pune.

The report also cites size of bangles, found inside burials, to support the fact that women faced no discrimination at that time while doing heavy work at home or outside. "Also, some wide heavy bangles found at different sites show battering marks on them. That means that heavy manual work was also part of the work of these particular women," the report added.

It said that these type of wide shell bangles were never found in any other burials at any Harappan site so far in Asia. A part of the report also dwells upon the "robust build of a female". It, however, found that widows were denied these burial rites.

The report has also mentioned that the people of this civilization strictly followed the Vedic tenets to cremate the dead. A majority of cemetery sites have been found located adjacent to watercourse or river front according to Vedas, it said.

"Satapatha Brahmana prescribes that the cemetery be located out of sight of the village and burial be made on salt-free soil, over a level ground, closed to woods where the waters flowing from a southerly direction come to the AR east and stand still without dashing forward. This literary account was compatible geo morphological residuce particularly around mounds of area marked as RGR 7 at the site," the report said.

The report said that process of excavations further spotted sporadic remains of bones of cattle and sheep next to de ceased in consonance with animal offering references in Rigveda and Atharvaveda.

The ASI report on Rakhigarhi has also declared it as the biggest Harappan site so far with 350 hectares, leaving behind Pakistan's Mohenjo-Daro.

[Yagnasri]

JohnG sir,

Mango alert:
The wars in Kurukshethra may be many including one between Bhishma and Parasurama. They are not one war discribed as many. It is possible that this place may be considered sacred for warfare for long time. In respect of Dasarajyna War, Mahabharatha War and Bhagawan Parasurama wars against the kings concerned, I do not agree with you on the idea of all the three being one and the same and refer to a big was taken place long long back. Bhgawaan Parasurama went around the world killing Khathriyas for 22 times. He has done Tarpana or something like that in Kurukhsthra. He did not fought all his wars there. As for as my knowledge goes there is no such tradition of him fighting these wars at that place only. True that he fought his war with Bhishma there, but it was for a different reason.

In respect of the inconsistencies in the Magada Kings list, it is quite normal considering the time difference etc and as the information passes by oral traditions etc for a large period of time. We do nto have a system of making on supreme true list etc like Abrahamic cults. The fact is these list broadly agree with each other.

In respect of same names in Chandravamsha and Suryawamsha, we find people with same names living in the same period, For example Sahadava is also the name of Jarasandha's son who also fought in Paandava side in the war. Krishna is the name of Draupathi also and also of Arjuna. Many people were not known by their original name for example Dasaratha is not his original name. Same is the case for Kunti. The Lord Krishna was known with many names even during their own time. Further poets also use different names for same reason due to limitations on use of words as per Chandas. There is no Pandavas and Kauravas in fact. Both families are descendants of the Samrat Kuru only. But Pandavas were called in their father's name.

There are certain historical claims of recent past also we do not take into consideration even now. For example Maharana Hamvir, Kumbha, Pratap etc are claimed to be descendants of Sri Rama. They has their list of ancisters. We ignore their claim fully. Chathrapathi Shivaji Marahaj, makes same statement and further makes a statement that his mother is from Chandravamsha. The Sangama Dynasty, Rajaraja Narendra of Rajamahendravaram, the great Chola dynasty all claim Chandrvamsha.

No one has made any study to find out if these claims are having supporting list of forefathers etc. I am told that Maharana's do have such a list of forefathers.

The Indian astrologists and Jothishya pundits give correct calculation of start of Kaliyuga now. Yudhishtira yuga is also there. Based on the Tradition of Kali yuga started with the end of Avathara of Sri Krishna we can give the date of Mahabharatha. In the Mahabharatha war the Suryavashi King and descendant of Sri Rama fought for Kaurawas as per the tradition. Gurus need to examine the things end Mango alert.

[KLP Dubey]

The wars in Kurukshethra may be many including one between Bhishma and Parasurama. They are not one war discribed as many. It is possible that this place may be considered sacred for warfare for long time.

Indeed one cannot mix up Purana, Itihasa, and Veda. This is a most infantile mistake made by the historical interpreters (AIT and OIT) of Veda. If the Veda had history in it, it would have been designated as Purana or Itihasa.

We make a mockery of our civilization by making it sound as though the ancient Indians couldn't tell the difference between Veda and Purana. As a matter of fact it is crystal clear that the Indians specifically separate Veda as being ahistorical, impersonal, and with no connection to human civilization or objects - and Purana and Itihasa containing a mix of mythological and historical information.

In respect of Dasarajyna War, Mahabharatha War and Bhagawan Parasurama wars against the kings concerned, I do not agree with you on the idea of all the three being one and the same and refer to a big was taken place long long back. Bhgawaan Parasurama went around the world killing Khathriyas for 22 times. He has done Tarpana or something like that in Kurukhsthra. He did not fought all his wars there. As for as my knowledge goes there is no such tradition of him fighting these wars at that place only. True that he fought his war with Bhishma there, but it was for a different reason.

I do not care about Puranas much, but from what I know it is foolhardy to consider Mahabharata and Ramayana (among others) as reliable historical events. It is likely that they mirror or commemorate certain historical epochs, e.g., the legend of Parashurama - while nothing more than a legend, its author commemorates the historical fact of the extinction of the "original" kshatriya lineages probably due to infighting.

Similarly the Mahabharata war is obviously just a legend/work of fiction. It has a long list of tribes from different regions in India (including the Keralas) and even outside. The author obviously had a good geopolitical knowledge and decided to write a "world war" type story involving everyone. It is hardly realistic that tribes and clans from all over India would show up at a single spot in Haryana for a one-time showdown.

There are certain historical claims of recent past also we do not take into consideration even now. For example Maharana Hamvir, Kumbha, Pratap etc are claimed to be descendants of Sri Rama. They has their list of ancisters. We ignore their claim fully. Chathrapathi Shivaji Marahaj, makes same statement and further makes a statement that his mother is from Chandravamsha. The Sangama Dynasty, Rajaraja Narendra of Rajamahendravaram, the great Chola dynasty all claim Chandrvamsha.

No one has made any study to find out if these claims are having supporting list of forefathers etc. I am told that Maharana's do have such a list of forefathers.

There is hardly any need for such a study since it is common historical knowledge that these claims are engineered/fabricated.

After extinction of the "original" Kshatriya lineages, all "new" Kshatriyas have been re-created with the assistance of brahmans, who collaborated with different warrior/military groups to designate the "vansha" affiliations and recreate the old brahmana-rajanya nexus. The extent of collaborations/services became greater as time wore on and inhibitions were dropped.

For example, in NW India the oldest and most prestigious Rajput clans such as the Chauhans were originally labeled as "Agnivanshis". Basically, they were initiated into kshatriya-hood by the brahmans at an Agnikunda in Mt Abu. However, the brahmans were initially unwilling to cook up surya/chandravanshi lineages and so they came up with a new one (agni). As time passed other Rajput clans directly got suryavanshi etc designations. In fact, even many of the Chauhans, Parmars etc who initially were given Agnivansha later "transferred" to suryavanshi lineages.

Similarly at the other end of India, in KL many Nairs decided to adopt Vedic kshatriyahood, with a choice of "service providers" due to the different types of brahmans (Ayyars, Embrans, Nambudiris etc) present in the area. One Udayan Nair of north KL (Malabar) appears to be the first to have undergone Vedic rites, which were conducted by Embrans. Over time, a large number of Nair clans ruling small or large principalities were at different points of getting "vansha" status.

Same story with the Marathas.

In all these cases there is absolutely no historical connection with the previous lineages of Kshatriyas.

The Indian astrologists and Jothishya pundits give correct calculation of start of Kaliyuga now. Yudhishtira yuga is also there. Based on the Tradition of Kali yuga started with the end of Avathara of Sri Krishna we can give the date of Mahabharatha. In the Mahabharatha war the Suryavashi King and descendant of Sri Rama fought for Kaurawas as per the tradition. Gurus need to examine the things end Mango alert.

I would say that all these speculations should be taken with a large dose of salt.

[shiv]

The word "history" is a problem word - it is like a club. The only way of entering that club is if an event can prove that someone wrote about it in the past and a continuous record of that has come down through the years. Everything after Christ was deemed to belong in this club as history was then recorded by Christian historians. OK there are a few Greek historians that predate these - but many records (such as Ctesias) have been destroyed as nonsense and only "believable" stuff like animals in India that burrow and bring up gold has been retained.

It is wrong in more ways than one to try and force fit the Mahabharata into this "historic record" club. In the first place it does not qualify as "history" as defined above and it is silly to try and join this post-Christ "history club" and say "We also want to be in your club - please accept us - we are like you only"

Secondly it is a highly dumbed down view to call the Mahabharata a "story of war" . The Mahabharata is a Hindu social document that provides an ethical basis for Hindus to live their lives by in the form of a series of stories based on long forgotten "pre-historic" memories of human events in India. The role of the Mahabharata for Hindu society is less like Enid Blyton or Harry Potter and more like the Indian constitution. Every part of the Mahabharata is filled with ethical dilemmas based on perfectly human acts of love, hate or desire and moral guidelines about how such dilemmas should ideally be resolved and how resolution can succeed or fail. That is the Mahabharata - not a simple yarn like "Lord of the Rings"

[RajeshA]

So let me see if I get the point: It is an abominable act to look for history in Vedas but to consider Itihas and Puranas as history is just as stupid because that is all fiction from some very good creative mind!

If somebody had provided this wisdom when we started the first OIT thread, we could all have saved us so much time! Back to NCERT syllabus!

[KLP Dubey]

So let me see if I get the point: It is an abominable act to look for history in Vedas but to consider Itihas and Puranas as history is just as stupid because that is all fiction from some very good creative mind!

If somebody had provided this wisdom when we started the first OIT thread, we could all have saved us so much time! Back to NCERT syllabus!

Was it not already mentioned in clear English language that there is NO HISTORY in Veda, but there ARE elements of MYTHOLOGY and HISTORY in Purana and Itihasa. This is why they are separated by name by the ancient Indians.

Who said that "considering all Itihasa and Purana as history is stupid". I commented on specific speculations regarding the Mahabharata war and other topics, with my opinion being on a case-by-case basis. Some descriptions in Purana are obviously not historical, others may mirror historical events, while yet others may in fact be recorded history. That is exactly why this literature is classified as Purana and/or Itihasa in the first place.

No need to get worked up again without reading carefully (as usual).

This confusion does not surprise me though, since you apparently consider Veda itself to be Purana/Itihasa !

[Agnimitra]

After extinction of the "original" Kshatriya lineages, all "new" Kshatriyas have been re-created with the assistance of brahmans, who collaborated with different warrior/military groups to designate the "vansha" affiliations and recreate the old brahmana-rajanya nexus.

What are "original kshatriya lineages"?

[Prem]

Are the good bad ugly beautiful brave people mentioned in Vedas existed in reality or just imagined.
We see many names still around even now.

[shiv]

So let me see if I get the point: It is an abominable act to look for history in Vedas but to consider Itihas and Puranas as history is just as stupid because that is all fiction from some very good creative mind!

If somebody had provided this wisdom when we started the first OIT thread, we could all have saved us so much time! Back to NCERT syllabus!

What you want to follow is your call

As I see it there are two issues here
1. Is "history" the same as "the past". Is "our history" the same as "our past"? Are the itihasas and puranas "history" or do they contain records of our past along with other information?

2. The word "history" has a specific definition. Someone asked "Why should the word history have a specific meaning as defined in the dictionary? Why can we not simply define it in whatever way we want?". I don't think that is necessary. People who claim they know their history because there are written records for 2000 years are welcome to shove their history up their backsides. I am confident that we have records of our past going back 5000 years or more - that is, from pre-historic times. And those records of my past have been deliberately excluded from the definition of "history" because they are orally transmitted and not written. That is how history came to be defined by the Christians whose memes now rule our world

It is only an intense desire to feel that we are equalequal when we try and say "Puranas are our history onlee. We also are same same like you European Christians who have a written history. We also have history. Please admit our puranas into your hallowed portals of history". My view on this is "Balls". I have a past and it is on record as my itihasa. I don't need you or anyone else to define my past in a particular way and say "This is history because it was always written down That is not history because no one wrote it back then". And if anyone disagrees he can go f'k himself. My past is my past whether you want it to fit your definition of history or not. the argument is a waste of time.

However these are my personal view and no one needs to follow them. It is a free world.

[A_Gupta]

Am able to only see the title of this National Geographic story:
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/20 ... east-asia/

DNA Reveals Unknown Ancient Migration Into India
As the Genographic Project celebrates its 10th anniversary, team scientists announce intriguing results from a study of more than 10,000 men from southern Asia.

From Google Cache:

For ten years, Genographic Project scientists have explored and explained how patterns in our DNA show evidence of migration and expansion routes of our ancient ancestors across the globe. DNA has shown that genetically modern humans arose in Africa some 150,000 years ago, and around 60,000 years ago left Africa and went east into Asia, north into Europe, and south into Australia. But new research from Genographic Project scientists in India shows that eventually some of them also moved back west, and brought their language with them.

Genographic Project scientists Drs. Ramasamy Pitchappan and GaneshPrasad ArunKumar from Tamil Nadu, India, analyzed the Y-chromosome (paternally-inherited) DNA from more than 10,000 men from southern Asia. The findings, published in the Journal of Systematics and Evolution, showed that in the last 8,000 years humans expanded west from Southeast Asia back to India.

This previously undetected migration is evident from the frequency and diversity of a specific genetic clan, or haplogroup, in that part of the world. The Genographic scientists found a much higher frequency of haplogroup O2a1 in their research than expected. “Since O2a1 is accepted as the founding lineage of Austro-Asiatic languages (a group of related languages from Southeast Asia), the origin and spread of this lineage gives clues on the history of these speakers and the region. Our study shows a clear decrease in age and diversity of haplogorup O2a1 from Laos to East India, suggesting an east to west spread out of Southeast Asia,” explains Dr. ArunKumar about his findings.

But why did they focus on just one haplogroup, when there are hundreds of distinct haplogroups in Asia? “The Y chromosomal haplogroup O2a1 accounts for almost 15 percent of Indian male lineages and 58 percent of male lineages from Southeast Asia, and the distribution of this haplogroup matches the distribution of Austro-Asiatic languages (i.e. Vietnamese, Cambodian, Munda, and Nicobarese), and some of these Austro-Asiatic speaking populations are 100-percent haplogroup O2a1,” adds Dr. ArunKumar. “Thus understanding the distribution of O2a1 sheds light on the origin and movement of people in that part of the world.”

Previous Genographic Project studies have also shown strong correlations between language and frequency of a certain haplogroup. Examples include the relationship between Indo-European languages and paternal haplogroup R1, and Austronesian languages and mitochondrial DNA (maternal) haplogroup B4. In each case, language similarities paralleled genetic similarities.

So, does this mean that the language you speak is ingrained in your DNA? Well no, but even though language is learned (nurture) and DNA is inherited (nature), the two are undoubtedly interconnected and, as we have shown, correlated.

Learn more about this and other Genographic Project research and what haplogroups our scientists are currently studying at genographic.com.

[Virendra]

After extinction of the "original" Kshatriya lineages, all "new" Kshatriyas have been re-created with the assistance of brahmans, who collaborated with different warrior/military groups to designate the "vansha" affiliations and recreate the old brahmana-rajanya nexus. The extent of collaborations/services became greater as time wore on and inhibitions were dropped.

For example, in NW India the oldest and most prestigious Rajput clans such as the Chauhans were originally labeled as "Agnivanshis". Basically, they were initiated into kshatriya-hood by the brahmans at an Agnikunda in Mt Abu. However, the brahmans were initially unwilling to cook up surya/chandravanshi lineages and so they came up with a new one (agni). As time passed other Rajput clans directly got suryavanshi etc designations. In fact, even many of the Chauhans, Parmars etc who initially were given Agnivansha later "transferred" to suryavanshi lineages.

Evidence please.

[Yagnasri]

To my knowledge every purana has lists of kings etc in them. True that there are inconsistencies in these lists. But they are there in these books. One can say they do not agree with these lists - as the timelines etc are not acceptable. Many of the same people agree the dates etc mentioned in the Bible as absolute truth. None of the writers of the 4 books in the bible even met their son of god in the first places. The books themselves are selected as authentic some 350 years after the stories suppose to have taken place. There is no firsthand account of bible stories and its timelines. Jews the local community do not agree with this entire rubbish drama.

There is no mention of Mohamed for the first 100 years a Arabic expansion. There were more than one version Koran. Yet we have to accept that what ever they say as absolute truth. We have to accept that Mohamad and Jusus are direct decendants from "greats".

But what is mentioned in Puranas is all rubbish. What the well known Indian royal families which have known history for thousand years are more saying is also rubbish. We say that the Mahabharatha war is a myth. May be it is. But are we sure that it is? if yes then how?

Large armies mentioned there are not possible to raise? Devaraya 2 of Vijayanagara has 11 Lac strong land force as per the History. More than Chandra Gupta Maurya said to have. More than India has today. How we can accept that? 70000 thousand strong cavalry of Khilji dynasty? Sending 370000 strong numerous times to south to attack south kingdoms? Lie, because not possible and realistic?

We hardly have any recorded history of big Navy or going abroad for big religions expeditions, wars etc. Even if we have done, we could not have huge amount of money required to such things. Yet most of the east has our names, our civilization and our gods ,religions etc. May be we borrowed it from them and we are not original in that aspect also?

Weapons are not realistic? May be. The armor of Maharana Pratap is said to some 100 Kg? Can we believe it? None of us can even lift the Bhavani Sword, let along use it in battle. Chathrapathi Shivaji Maharaj who we all agree a very small man. Is it also myth that he used this sword? Shivaji Maharaj and his family has a list of forefathers. It is also lie?

Can we believe that India was producing more than 25% of the world's production for 1700 years of last 2000 years. Of course it is also a lie because we are absolutely poor today.

If someone is made up his or her mind to be a closed one then no one can help it.

[shiv]

To my knowledge every purana has lists of kings etc in them. True that there are inconsistencies in these lists.

No. They are no more inconsistent than the insistence that history means what somebody wrote down.

For example There was a King Canute who ruled England for a while. What the hell difference does it make whether his name was Benis or whether he ruled for 10 years, 20 years or 75 years. It is only because you and I and every Indian has received a smack on the bottom in school for not learning these idiotic details that we sit as adults and imagine that the absence of these dry details means it is "inconsistent" - as if Indian memories of the past are diseased like a vegetarian with leprosy.

Screw the concept of "history". People can shove their histories up their asses. We have our past related to us in the form of itihasas that tell us about people and events and those narratives come to us with ethics lessons as well. There is no rule that the past can only be called "the real past' only if someone wrote it and you have names and date, and no stories and no lessons to go with the narrative of the past. Long ago Europeans decided that "History" was about names and events from the time of Christ and the spread of Christianity. Very little pre-Christian stuff is recalled as history even in Europe. They decided that if there were moral lessons or stories it should be called "literature". And if it had not been written down it was "pre-history" and therefore unreliable. If our itihasas have a narrative of the past as well as stories and moral lessons they constitute something that is far bigger and more important to us than mere "recorded" history as defined by Europeans

it is because we have bought 100% into the Macaulayite vision of what "History" should be that we worry about how to fit our past on the same shelves as the west places its history books. We are actually killing our past and our culture by idiot-fitting our past into their framework. If we can comfortably accept a King Henry the 1st, 2nd 3rd etc all the way to the 8th, why can't we accept that a king who ruled for 300 years could have been a dynasty of kings with the same name that ruled for 300 years? And just because the Brits refuse to accept it as "history" because it was narrated along with other stuff and not written as dry data points, we feel so butt hurt that we want to have what they have exactly like they have it.

No. We have a rich past that comes down as a narrative from pre-historic times, describing people, events and stories and lessons from the past. It is a cultural kaleidoscope - not a dry cowdung cake that history looks like in comparison. It has a name and that name is itihasa. We need to stop trying to fit our itihasa in as "history". It is a narrative of our past as remembered by our people and handed down to us from long long ago.

[A_Gupta]

We are actually killing our past and our culture by idiot-fitting our past into their framework..... It is a cultural kaleidoscope - not a dry cowdung cake that history looks like in comparison. It has a name and that name is itihasa. We need to stop trying to fit our itihasa in as "history". It is a narrative of our past as remembered by our people and handed down to us from long long ago.

+108

[A_Gupta]

We are actually killing our past and our culture by idiot-fitting our past into their framework..... It is a cultural kaleidoscope - not a dry cowdung cake that history looks like in comparison. It has a name and that name is itihasa. We need to stop trying to fit our itihasa in as "history". It is a narrative of our past as remembered by our people and handed down to us from long long ago.

+108

We do not have history and the West does not have Itihasa.

[Yagnasri]

Shivji, there are some variations in the lists mentioned in Puranas. It is natural.

Let us see parts of puranas - The Puncha Lakshana of Puranas are

1. Sarga - Cosmogony
2. Prathisarga - Cosmogony and Cosmology
3. Vamsha - List or Genealogy of Kings
4. Manvanthara - History of world in a particular period of one Manu etc
5. Vamshacharitham - Legends, stories etc relating to the kings etc.

Now can we say that all this is rubbish because Goras say so.

It is not just Puranas, traditions etc, take Rajatharangini of Kalhana - It starts almost with the Mahabharatha period. Even this book written long long back is also rubbish.

[RajeshA]

1. Is "history" the same as "the past". Is "our history" the same as "our past"? Are the itihasas and puranas "history" or do they contain records of our past along with other information?

2. The word "history" has a specific definition. Someone asked "Why should the word history have a specific meaning as defined in the dictionary? Why can we not simply define it in whatever way we want?". I don't think that is necessary. People who claim they know their history because there are written records for 2000 years are welcome to shove their history up their backsides. I am confident that we have records of our past going back 5000 years or more - that is, from pre-historic times. And those records of my past have been deliberately excluded from the definition of "history" because they are orally transmitted and not written. That is how history came to be defined by the Christians whose memes now rule our world

Perhaps the most interesting part of this evolution is that Yindoos really have come to accept Ramayana and Mahabharata and Puranas as "their" past! LoL!!!

In year 52 BCE, on an afternoon in October on the day of the second new moon, three adventurers Miracolix, Asterix and Obelix made a stop in Anatolia, where they met two Anatolian scholars studying old Hottitty history and writing poems, who too wanted to go to Basra, the center of civilization. Their ship went off course, and it was ship wrecked on the coast of Kerala.

There when the travelers came out they could not find anybody, absolutely no trace of any human civilization. When Asterix looked up, he saw a whole lot of shy ape-like natives looking back at them from the trees.

Miracolix offered to share some dates with the natives, so they came down.

Over the next months the ape-like natives became friendly with the travelers. The one Anatolian scholar, who was called Wally Michael told the native apes about Hottitty history composed as a poem. He called it Ramayana. So that they feel better he even changed the Satyrs to look like Vanaras. The other Anatolian scholar, who was called Wade Witzel told another group of natives a story of different Hottitty War. He called it Mahabharata. The natives told them about the delicious berries.

After such pleasant exchanges and several moons the travelers set out with their ship to continue their journey to Basra. The natives gave a tearful goodbye to their friends from across the seas, the noble men who used to wear clothes.

The natives in the mean time took a fondness to the stories, and even today those natives still treat those stories as their "own past"! But after all it doesn't matter, because it is not about my or yours, it is about the ethical knowledge that those natives received. Right?

It is only an intense desire to feel that we are equalequal when we try and say "Puranas are our history onlee. We also are same same like you European Christians who have a written history. We also have history. Please admit our puranas into your hallowed portals of history". My view on this is "Balls". I have a past and it is on record as my itihasa. I don't need you or anyone else to define my past in a particular way and say "This is history because it was always written down That is not history because no one wrote it back then". And if anyone disagrees he can go f'k himself. My past is my past whether you want it to fit your definition of history or not. the argument is a waste of time.

However these are my personal view and no one needs to follow them. It is a free world.

Without history one doesn't even have a past!

We all had a past, all that with Rishis and Suryavanshas and Chandravanshas and so on! Where did it go in the "history" books! Europeans cooked up some AIT, they had the influence and the charm, and all "our past" went out of the window!

There is some misunderstanding on what history really means!

History is a charter of claims about oneself, one's ancestors and their interactions with the outside world. One puts up universities departments, one digs, one floods the market with history books written according to own sense of strategic needs. In other words one does everything to turn those claims into the perceived truth and reality.

Why?

Because history, that is chronology of people and events, decides really the "cause and effect"! If Indian works are dated after some manufactured dates for Greek and Babylonian works, then yes we copied their fantastic discoveries and we were stupid enough not to discover them ourselves but bright enough to copy them well! Is Krishna really an Indian, or is he simply an Indian rendition of the Greek hero Hercules? One can't ignore the parallels! Most probably he is a copy, because the Greeks had Hercules earlier. Indians learned about Krishna only in year 52 BCE!!!

Muslims are fighting it out with Jews for Jerusalem! Why? Because they have historical claims on the city, considering that the Prophet visited the city once in one night riding on a type of mule that doesn't exist, which had legs a few kms long! That is tenacity of making historical claims!

History is a war of claims! Without history one can't even claim to have something called "our past"!

Saying "We don't need history, we have our past" sounds to me, like leaving the borders of the country, the mountain passes, saying that not even a blade of "our past" grows there, and hiding in the comfort of one's own home, one's "own past", thinking that one is safe! Calling this from roof tops, public meetings and forums to become a national mentality, is asking all to leave their posts on the border and go back to their houses! How much more easier can one make it for this nation's detractors?!

There have been innumerable wars in Bharat and countless warriors have lost their lives during those wars, many for Dharma, many of them simply for the glory of it! When not only those warriors are not remembered, but when we even call those wars as fictitious, then what glory do those warriors get?

So many peoples of the world have been subjected to European colonialism of their history, and we are being asked to stop even making an effort at resistance! In fact, Europeans have been allowed to completely monopolize history.

It is false to think, that history is about all people getting together and in a friendly way trying to get at the truth, and us Yindoos, begging them Europeans to take our opinions on board. That is Kumbaya nonsense! History requires locking horns, and forcing others to accept one's claims, even if it is done pretending that we are all friends.

Again just a personal opinion!

[johneeG]

We do not have history and the West does not have Itihasa.

What qualities differentiate history from ithihaasa?

----
Dubey ji,
Vedas are similar to Puranas. Mahabharatha is called Panchama Veda. I really don't understand why Mimamsakas want to claim Veda as Apaureshya. That claim is similar to claiming that quran is divine revelation. No one can corroborate alleged super-natural origins of a revelation.

Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad (2.4.10) supposedly says that Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda, Atharva Angirasa, Puranas, Ithihaasa, Upanishads, and Shlokas are the breath of Brahman.

Rig Veda 10th Mandala is considered by some to be a very late addition.

The onus is on you to prove your logic that Vedas are not talking about Bhaarath. Is Ramayana talking about Bhaarath or is it also a coincidence?

[shiv]

Without history one doesn't even have a past!
<snip>
Again just a personal opinion!

I disagree with that viewpoint.

My father was born on April 21st 1919. There is birth record and that is recorded history

My father and my grandfather are part of my past. But there is no birth record of my grandfather. So he did not exist because without history I cannot have a past by your logic.

Anyhow. This is the last post on this from me. We are simply not going to agree on this and I welcome you to please have your say as you feel.

[A_Gupta]

Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad (2.4.10) supposedly says that Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda, Atharva Angirasa, Puranas, Ithihaasa, Upanishads, and Shlokas are the breath of Brahman.

https://archive.org/details/Brihadarany ... dhavananda

with Sankarabhasya says "History {itihaas} such as the dialogue between Urvashi and Pururavas", "Mythology {Purana} such as, 'This universe in the beginning was unmanifest'", etc.

And after going through the list of things in that verse, the conclusion is: "So only the mantras and brahmanas are meant (and not the popular meanings of those eight terms {itihaas, purana, vidya, sutra, vyakhyana, etc., - terms rendered as history, mythology, arts, upanisads, verses, aphorisms, elucidations and explanations}). It is the eternally composed and already existent Vedas that are manifested like a man's breath - without any effort on his part".

PS: Further, on page 786 of the above, we find "Thus hundreds of contradictory passages from the Srutis and Smritis are found, inculcating an option with regard to renunciation, or a succession among the orders of life, or the adoption of any one of them at will. The conduct of those who are versed in these scriptures has also been mutually conflicting. And there is disagreement even among great scholarrs who understand the meaning of the scriptures. Hence it is impossible for persons of shallow understanding clearly to grasp the meaning of the scriptures. It is only those who have a firm hold on the scriptures and logic, that can distinguish the particular meaning of any of those passages from that of the others. Therefore, in order to indicate their exact meaning, we shall discuss them according to our understanding."

It is good to know that BRF has so many people with deep understanding.

PPS: This is the Urvashi-Pururavas dialog, Rg Veda, Mandala X, Sukta 95:
http://sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10095.htm

Further, because Griffiths is not to be relied on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram%C5% ... .5D.5B4.5D

Rigveda (ऋग्वेद): In the 95th section, called Sukta (सूक्त) of the tenth cluster (called Mandala/मण्डळ), there is a dialogue between Pururava and Urvashi. Situation suggests that she has left the king after living for four years with him. The king beseeches her to return, but she refuses (saying, "न वै स्त्रैणानि सन्ति शालावृकानां हृदयान्येता:" - meaning, the hearts of women are not like those of jackals). The story ends at that.

Shatapatha Brahmana (शतपथ ब्राह्मण): Apparently aimed at emphasizing importance of a Yagya, Pururava was attracted to Urvashi when she came to his city. She agreed with a condition, but when the king could not honor it because of manipulation by Gandharva people, she left him. Later, moved by the king's plight without her, she agreed to return once every year to him. The king still missed her a lot, so now convinced of his love, the Gandharvas asked him to perform a Yagya, due to which Pururava attained Gandharva-hood and could reunite with Urvashi (P. 1.2).

Purana: In all, Vishnu Purana (विष्णु पुराण) (4.6, 34-39), Padma Purana (पद्म पुराण) (Srishti Khanda/सृष्टिखण्ड 12, 62-68), Matsya Purana (मत्स्य पुराण) (24, 10-32), Mahabharata, Bhagavat Purana (भागवत पुराण) (9, 14) and the story of Gunadhya in Brihatkatha are the sources of the story of Pururava and Urvashi. There are multiple versions of these stories in different sources, but one can see the following elements in this pool:

(a) That Urvashi descended from heaven for some reason and met Pururava (b) The two lived together under some condition(s) for some time (c) At least on one occasion Urvashi had to part from the king under some sort of breech, for which she changed form (d) Urvashi returned to her form and got reunited with the king, but there came a time when she had to return to the heaven to serve Indra (e) The two had a son together, named Ayush (आयुष)

Whether they lived together happily ever after is questionable, because there is one more story in Mahabharata in which Arjuna (a descendant of Pururava) goes to heaven and meets Urvashi there. Hence, by inference she and Pururava lived together during his lifetime, as he was a mortal.

Anyway, this, per the commentary to the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad referred to above, is Itihaas.

[RajeshA]

Without history one doesn't even have a past!
<snip>
Again just a personal opinion!

I disagree with that viewpoint.

My father was born on April 21st 1919. There is birth record and that is recorded history

My father and my grandfather are part of my past. But there is no birth record of my grandfather. So he did not exist because without history I cannot have a past by your logic.

Anyhow. This is the last post on this from me. We are simply not going to agree on this and I welcome you to please have your say as you feel.

I can't imagine anybody would contest that your grandfather didn't exist, as that would be against logic and experience, however generally speaking, not limited to you, one can contest, whether the grandfather a person thought to be his grandfather, was indeed his biological grandfather, let's say for purposes of determining inheritance or social status. In that case history, genetics, again become relevant.

The issue of historical claims become relevant only if there are parties who make contrary claims, and often in such rival claims, there are stakes, interests - personal or civilizational, involved.

If nobody is making contrary claims and there are no stakes involved, it really doesn't matter whether one has any historical records regarding one's grandfather!

As far as our civilizational history is concerned, there are people out there making contrary claims and high stakes are involved - mental colonization of Indians or not, unity or fragmentation of India, superiority of West over others or not.

[svinayak]

As far as our civilizational history is concerned, there are people out there making contrary claims and high stakes are involved - mental colonization of Indians or not, unity or fragmentation of India, superiority of West over others or not.

This is about Indians and future of India.

[KLP Dubey]

Evidence please.

This is found in many places, from Prithiviraj Raso and other medieval works, and from inscriptions. An exhaustive summary is here (see pages 3-23):

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gHNo ... &q&f=false

Regarding the Chauhans, the mostly likely conclusion is that they secured Kshatriya status through the services of brahmans belonging to the Vatsa gotra (which is highly popular among Chauhans). As is extremely well known, Chauhans are Agnivanshi rajputs. However it is not hard at all to find Chauhans (e.g. in western UP) who claim Suryavanshi lineage.

[KLP Dubey]

What are "original kshatriya lineages"?

The original Kshatriyas were those who were conversant with Veda without having obtained such knowledge (from brahmans) at some specific point in time. To my knowledge there is no evidence to suggest that they classified themselves as suryavanshi, chandravanshi etc - these labels were probably created by the authors of the puranas and itihasas. Later on, "newly minted" Kshatriyas claimed affiliation to these "vanshas" in order to imply continuity of descent from the illustrious kings mentioned in Puranas.

[Agnimitra]

What are "original kshatriya lineages"?

The original Kshatriyas were those who were conversant with Veda without having obtained such knowledge (from brahmans) at some specific point in time.

Very interesting. What are the various methods of obtaining knowledge of Veda apart from teaching and being taught? Are you referring to this? -

The Pancharatra says that 'Agamas' are handed down in 3 forms:

1. दिव्य - Divine: Directly revealed by the Lord of all Mankind, Narayana, to Mankind via the Rishis.
2. मुनिभाषित - Spoken to Sages: Handed down and interpreted by the self-realized philosophers of different schools at different times, places and for different levels of cultural maturity.
3. आप्तमनुजप्रोक्त - Spoken by reliable and authentic persons: This has been written down and transmitted by individuals deemed trustworthy by virtue of their ethical character, intellectual acumen, clarity of memory, etc.

So an "original kshatriya" would be someone of that Varna who obtained Veda via #1 above?

[Prem]

Misinterpretations in ‘Searching for Saraswati’
MICHEL DANINO
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/m ... 123050.ece

Professor Irfan Habib’s article, “Searching for Saraswati” (The Hindu, April 17) is replete with misrepresentations; I will deal with only two. Agreed, the Haryana government’s plan to revive the near-defunct “Sarsuti” stream, whose source at Adi Badri has been traditionally regarded as the ancient Saraswati’s (“Excavation to begin in search of Saraswati”, The Hindu, March 31), is dubious in the absence of a healthy catchment area; drilling borewells to augment its flow is ecologically absurd.
However, the proposed diversion of its waters eastward to Prayag exists only in Prof. Habib’s imagination: the quoted article’s reporter simply juxtaposed the old Triveni Sangam tradition, but other articles carry the Yamunanagar Deputy Commissioner S.S. Phulia’s statement that “the water channel would flow up to the holy town of Pehowa in Kurukshetra,” that is westward (its natural direction).More troublesome is Prof. Habib’s misattribution of the connection between the Saraswati and the Indus Civilisation to a few pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh scholars and archaeologists in the 1990s. The first to show that Harappan settlements dotted the course of the Ghaggar river was the famous British archaeologist, Marc Aurel Stein, during his 1941-42 exploration in the then Bahawalpur State, as reported in his Survey of Ancient Sites along the ‘Lost’ Sarasvati River. Stein, also a fine Sanskritist, had long accepted the Ghaggar’s identification with the Saraswati of Vedic lore, as had before him (since 1855, to be precise) generations of French, British and German Indologists, geographers and geologists. After Partition, with many more Harappan sites identified in the region (including Kalibangan, Banawali, Rakhigarhi, Bhirrana...), Western archaeologists such as Mortimer Wheeler, Raymond Allchin, J.M. Kenoyer, G.L. Possehl or Jane McIntosh endorsed this identification, all of whom Prof. Habib carefully avoids mentioning, reserving his barbs for Indian archaeologists alone. This is academically unfair.

[ramana]

If we are on subject of History one has to be familiar with Hegel's "Philosophy of History". It puts down what makes Western history, History.
Essentially linear march of time.
Darwinian model of evolution.

[Prem Kumar]

^^ RM talks about it at length in "Being Different" & "Breaking India"

One of the foundational elements of Western Universalism

[Prem Kumar]

Misinterpretations in ‘Searching for Saraswati’
MICHEL DANINO
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/m ... 123050.ece

That Chindu article should be titled "Minuscule-interpretations of Danino's response". Apparently his response was 1000 words (learnt this from Twitter - I am trying to find the original if this was indeed the case). Chindu allowed him only 250. Irfan Sahib of course gets the full 1000 quota!

[Vayutuvan]

{itihaas, purana, vidya, sutra, vyakhyana, etc., - terms rendered as history, mythology, arts, upanisads, verses,

That is a cr@p xlation of the samskruta pada. vidya is certainly not arts, sutra are part of upanishad they are not upanishad, and vyAkaraNa is in no way same as verses. Either it written by somebody who does not know English well inclusiveor somebody who does not know samskrutamu well.

[Virendra]

Evidence please.

This is found in many places, from Prithiviraj Raso and other medieval works, and from inscriptions. An exhaustive summary is here (see pages 3-23):

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gHNo ... &q&f=false

Regarding the Chauhans, the mostly likely conclusion is that they secured Kshatriya status through the services of brahmans belonging to the Vatsa gotra (which is highly popular among Chauhans). As is extremely well known, Chauhans are Agnivanshi rajputs. However it is not hard at all to find Chauhans (e.g. in western UP) who claim Suryavanshi lineage.

Please! Raso and Agnivansha etc have been discussed before at this forum.
It is wrong to rely on Raso and later texts for origin of Chauhans which dates back to 6th century A.D. IIRC.
Raso is one of the most interpolated sources on Chauhan history and yet ironically the most cited/popular one. Well, a bit obvious too because it is also the most dramatic (full of love stories, 17 pardons etc filmi tales that never took place).
I'm in office right now, will write a proper post tonight, citing numerous early sources (earlier than Raso etc) including inscriptions that state Suryavansha.
The whole Agnivansha thing is a modieval concoction, to proclaim exclusive rights and say "We are the only surviving Kshatriyas. As others got annihilated the Brahmins did yagya and got us from thee Gods."

Regards,
Virendra

[Virendra]

If we are on subject of History one has to be familiar with Hegel's "Philosophy of History". It puts down what makes Western history, History.
Essentially linear march of time.
Darwinian model of evolution.

That is exactly the charade which non-conformists like Graham Hancock, John Anthony West (I'm missing most of them) are challenging.
One thing common among them is that they believe in cyclical time (yugas) and have interest in ancient civilizations.

[johneeG]

For what it is worth...

Discovery of Shri Prabhakar Phadnis

(Ramana Gaaru, had you heard this before during audio lectures on Mahabharata you listen to?)

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2015/04 ... r-phadnis/

This confirms what I had posted earlier. So, there was a gap of 40 -45 yrs between ages of Bhishma and Dhrona.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1809339

My doubt is where to place Mahabharata war in history? Interestingly, Raama and Kusha are known to ancient Jews and ancient Egyptians. But, they seem to be ignorant of Krushna.

Edit:
I meant that the names Raama and Kusha are mentioned by jews and egyptians but the name Krushna is not mentioned. But Moses story contains many similarities to Bhaagavatham.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1771068
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... s#p1770925

Now, Sathyaki(the guy who killed Dhrona) is called grandson of Sini in Mahabhaaratha. Mount Sinai and Desert Sinai are found in old testament stories. Noah(ancestor of Abraham) seems to be Nahusha (father of Yayathi who is father of Puru and Yadhu). Adam seems to be Swayambhuva Manu. But, strangely the words Manu and Krushna are missing. If jews are a faction of yadhavas, one would expect them to mention Shri Krushna by name.

The word Manu is found among europeans. Word 'man' is taken from 'Manu' just like 'Manava'. Europeans also seem to be aware of 10th Mandala of Rig Veda. Name 'Europe' is derived from 'Surabhi' of Rig Veda 10th Mandala.

Is the word 'Paris' related to Puru in anyway? French capital Paris is on the bank of river Seine. Again Sini is encountered...

[Murugan]

Finally Dholavira Excavation Report is out. Better late than Never


It has nice nuggets of Info and 'misunderstanding' of previous archaelogists about past of India

http://asi.nic.in/pdf_data/dholavira_ex ... rt_new.pdf

[KLP Dubey]

Please! Raso and Agnivansha etc have been discussed before at this forum.
It is wrong to rely on Raso and later texts for origin of Chauhans which dates back to 6th century A.D. IIRC.
Raso is one of the most interpolated sources on Chauhan history and yet ironically the most cited/popular one. Well, a bit obvious too because it is also the most dramatic (full of love stories, 17 pardons etc filmi tales that never took place).
I'm in office right now, will write a proper post tonight, citing numerous early sources (earlier than Raso etc) including inscriptions that state Suryavansha.
The whole Agnivansha thing is a modieval concoction, to proclaim exclusive rights and say "We are the only surviving Kshatriyas. As others got annihilated the Brahmins did yagya and got us from thee Gods."

I don't agree. The link I posted has an excellent and well-research discussion on the whole topic - not only based upon the Raso but upon a number of texts and inscriptions. I don't think you have looked at it.

I don't know what was discussed in the form before, but I doubt if it was at the level of analysis done by the authors. You can't discount careful research/analysis just because you don't like the conclusions.

Obviously, the story of Rajputs springing out of the fire pit is a concoction/legend, but it is clear that the story itself is one of the several attempts to regularize/mainstreamize/explain the recently acquired Kshatriya-hood of the Rajputs - just like all other Kshatriyas in India. The Chauhans (Chahamanas) are never heard of or mentioned as a Kshatriya group until after their rise to power. This is common knowledge at this point.

KL

[Virendra]

I don't agree. The link I posted has an excellent and well-research discussion on the whole topic - not only based upon the Raso but upon a number of texts and inscriptions. I don't think you have looked at it.

I've gone through the link. It is nothing but a latest rehash of already available theories & evidence with tadka of 'seems', 'probably' and 'possibly'.
Your own citation says this about Chauhans (pg 11) - "there is hardly anything on record which prevents us from ascribing to them an indigenous origin."

I don't know what was discussed in the form before, but I doubt if it was at the level of analysis done by the authors. You can't discount careful research/analysis just because you don't like the conclusions.

It is fair to assume that a discussion of which you weren't a part, was of inferior quality than what you read and happen to be impressed with?
Like I said before that link does nothing but rehashing of the "careful research/analysis" already done by dozens of scholars spanning over centuries. The link itself acknowledges (pg 3) that - 'not much can be added to whatever research has been done already.'

Obviously, the story of Rajputs springing out of the fire pit is a concoction/legend, but it is clear that the story itself is one of the several attempts to regularize/mainstreamize/explain the recently acquired Kshatriya-hood of the Rajputs - just like all other Kshatriyas in India.

Wrong. Firstly the Agnikunda myth talk only about 4 clans so your use of term 'Rajputs' in a generic way is unwarranted.
You do realize that these 4 don't form the majority of Rajput clans right?
Secondly, these myths were improvised, revised to market certain favorite clans/dynasties as the best, the most authentic and to caste doubts on authenticity of others.

The Chauhans (Chahamanas) are never heard of or mentioned as a Kshatriya group until after their rise to power. This is common knowledge at this point.

Doesn't make them foreigners at least. Will cover below the transition from kshatriyas to rajputs.

Chauhans were originally labeled as "Agnivanshis"

Wrong again. Chauhans history goes as far back as the 6th century A.D. The earliest attempt to call Chauhans as Agnivanshis comes centuries later in Raso. Prior to Raso, there is not a single shred of historical evidence that calls Chauhans as Agnivanshis. Before that all the sources (and many even after) on Chauhan history either call them Suryavanshis or only give their Gotra. So no, Chauhans were not originally labelled as Agnivanshis.
Raso is laughable when it comes to historical accuracy and is not reliable for factual analysis. There are plenty of inscriptions, Sanskrit manuscripts and other sources which provide much clearer, accurate and corroborating (cross verified) information on Chauhan history. If anyone needs more clarity on Raso, I can repeat all its fiction and the reasons why it is fiction.

The Agnivansha itself owes its existence to the fictional narrative of agnikunda. This legend was put in place not because some outsiders/rulers wanted to claim Kshatriyahood (as some European scholars would want us to believe). But it was clearly utiized (perhaps even created) by some bards in medieval era to damage/challenge the authenticity of other existing Kshatriya clans (Rajputs) and give credence to few specific/favored ones only.
Anyone who believes in Agnivansha or Agnikunda would also have to believe that at some point all the kshatriyas were annihilated and rishis did yagya to manufacture some fresh kahstriyas in which they succeeded by God's grace.

One of the rock inscriptions at Sarasvati temple in Ajmer states Chauhan's to be of Suryavansha. This temple was built during VigrahRaj Chauhan's reign, prior to PrithviRaj.
PrithvirajVijaya - a 12th century text contemporary to PrithviRaj Chauhan identifies Chauhans as Suryavanshis.
Hammir Mahakavya - a 14th century text puts Chauhans in the Suryavansha stock.
KanhadDePrabandh - a 15th century text calls Chauhans as Suryavanshis
Vansha Bhaskara - a 18th century text on history of Hadas (branch of Chauhans) mentions Chauhans to be Suryavanshis.
All along (before & after PrithviRaj) the Chuahan gotra is consistently mentioned as 'Vatsa'.

Now about the Gurjar Pratiharas.
People would laugh at me if I believed this author of yours and told them that my ancestors knew a so called foreign tribe (Gurjars) as their gate keepers (Pratihars).
Pratiharas are called Gurjar Pratiharas because Agnikunda legend has them manufactured at Mount Abu yagya. Mount Abu was part of the region called Gurjaratra and the region was ruled by Pratiharas.
There are plenty of references to identify Gurjara term with connotation of a place, not of a people. It is yet to be settled whether Gurjara people led to the place being named Gurjaratra or that the place was named Gurjaratra and some people from there took this name with them to be called so.
1. Uddotana's prakrit creation 'Kuvalayamala' from 779 CE Jalor, Rajasthan (contemporary to early Pratihara times) is making reference to the adjoining territories of Pratihara Kingdom. It calles them - Maru, Malava, Gurjar, Lata, Madhyadesa, Takka, and Sindhu.
2. Hiuen Tsang writes about a Kingdom with its capital at pi-lo-mo-lo (modern Bheenmal near Abu, Rajasthan) like this:
"The king is of the Kshatriya caste. He is just twenty years old, He is distinguished for wisdom and he is courageous. He is a deep believer in the law of Buddha and highly honours men of distinguished ability." He has called this kingdom ku-che-lo (Gurjara).
3. The 'Harsha Charita' of Banabhatta talks about Prabhakarvardhana of Thaneswar fighting the Hunas, the king of Sindhu (modern Sindh), the king of Gurjara (modern Gujarat and parts of Rajasthan), the lord of Gandhara (northwest), the ruler of Lata (southern Gujarat), and that of Malava (western Madhya Pradesh).
4. Epigraphical records of Broach Gurjars mention Pratihara Kings lineage as being "the lineage of the kings of Gurjara", like this - "Gurjara nripa vamsa".
Rajor inscription 959 CE has a feudatory of the Imperial Pratiharas named Malthandeva, describing himself as - gurjara-pratiharanvayah.
Translations differ from a) a Pratihara from Gurjara (place) .. to b) a Pratihara from Gurjara (tribe).
Problem with attaching the tribe meaning is that normally the clan name precedes the tribe name. Hence it doesn't seem plausible.
5. Same inscription further talks about the agrarian people of the region as: Tathaitat pratyasanna Sri Gurjjara vahita samasta-ksetra sametah.
Translations differ from a) all the neighbouring fields cultivated by the inhabitants of Gurjara region .. to b) all the neighbouring fields cultivated by the Gurjara tribe.
Problem with attaching the tribe meaning here is that it implies 1) a huge population of Gurjar tribe 2) that is agrarian (non martial/non-pastoral).
Not to forget that we've been told only the warlike elements of the foreign tribe colonized Rajasthan. Huge population (for branching into agriculture) is again not plausible.
It is common knowledge that Gurjars even today form only a tiny percentage of modern Rajasthan and Gujarat's population.
6. Even in late medieval and modern history the word Gurjar was being used in territorial sense, rather than tribal, in certain parts of India.
Rajputana gazetteer 1879 reports that in Marwar the word Gurjar is used to designate Gujarat region. Then the 1883 Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency reports that in Maharashtra the vani (vanik i.e. traders) were named after the provinces of their origin; hence the word Gurjar was used for a Vani from Gujarat while Marwari was used for a Marwar based Vani.

I would still concede that it is possible that some people named as Gurjars in ancient times might have gone to present day Gujarat and thus the place got named Gurjaratra. That doesn't mean every dynasty/clan/King found in Gujarat ought to have been linked to those Gurjars somehow.
There are plenty instances in history for both - people getting names by places and vice versa.
If at all some people have Gurjaratra its name early on, it still doesn't prove that these people would be foreigners only.

Most importantly the Imperial pratihars in their inscriptions do not mention the Gurjar term in clan/tribe sense at all.
Lastly, the communities like the Gurjar Kshatriyas, Gurjar Vanias, Gurjar Jains, and Gurjar Oswals, all live in the state of Gujarat and speak the Gujarati language. But but but .. they are not found anywhere outside Gurjaratra. Only the pastorals looking for moderately wet grasslands went out to Punjab (possibly driven out due to drought/famine in Gurjaratra).
Likewise the 'Gurjara Brahmans' are group of brahmins found only in Gurjaratra region and are purely defined by geography (not gotra/clan etc).
North Indian brahmins are Gaud brahmins and south ones are called Dravida brahmins. 'Goud Gurjara' is a clan of Goud Brahmins settled in Gurjara region and it is a part of the 'Gurjar Brahmins' grouping.

After extinction of the "original" Kshatriya lineages

First let me put up a question - to what do we owe the extinction of the "original" Kshatriya lineages and where is the evidence of such an event/circumstance?

Now coming to the regularization or main streamization of Rajputs.
Indian society went through a lot of churning ever since the war of Mahabharata. I don't debate on how vedic these medieval kshatriyas/rajputs were.
I don't claim there was some pure unbroken line coming from Ikshvaku/Rama or someone like that right till the medieval Rajputs. There has got to be twists in a tale this long.
At some point the geneological/biological ancestors of medieval Rajputs might have even mixed with guilds, tribes or people of lower castes.
What I can say with surety is that they're of native stock and not foreigners.
There's one more thing that can be deduced clearly. Whoever became the first Rajputs were people of military prowess.
If they were not kshatriyas (at least partially) and they were not foreigners, then who were they? You don't just come out of thin air and grab power, position in the society.
The entire NW India (J&K, HP, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and MP) where Rajputs dwell, was previously also populated by warrior clans.
Panini calls these clans ayudha-jivin i.e. people who live by the profession of war. Kautilya knows them as sastropajivin i.e. 'living by bearing arms'.
These clans would serve when there were strong monarchies and build their own clan states when there was a power vaccum.
That is what happened post Mauryas in BCE and the same repeated after Harshavardhan in 6th-7th century A.D. Each time the identities/names change of course (exceptions like Madra re-emerged in same place with same name). Old clans give way to the formation of new ones. The latter process went on till late medieval era by the way.
Persistence of clans and clan-states in this region explains why the Kshatriya to Rajput transition took place only in north India and more so in the north west.

Following are the clans that emerged after Mauryas and existed with varying degrees of sovereignty even during foreign rule:
Madra (Jammu-Punjab)
Udumbara (Himachal Pradesh)
Kuluta (Himachal Pradesh)
Trigarta (Himachal-Punjab)
Kuninda (Himachal Pradesh)
Yaudheya (Punjab-Haryana-Rajasthan)
Rajanya (Rajasthan)
Uttambhadra (Rajasthan)
Arjunayan (Rajasthan)
Uddehika (Rajasthan)
Malav (Rajasthan-Madhya Pradesh)
Bharasiva (Madhya Pradesh)
These clans minted their own coins and inscriptions (indicating self-rule). It is from these coins and inscriptions that history of these clans has been collated.
Sakas' Junagadh and Nasik inscriptions mark which of these clans were opposing them and which were vassals.
Many of the clans recovered their lands as soon as Kushans began to weaken.
When Guptas came in with reinforcement of centralized rule, these clans didn't cease to exist. They were fighting Saka-Kushan till now. They relegated to Monarchial Gupta rule then, fought huns etc, only to re-emerge with Independence after Gupta-Harshavardhan era.

I) Rajputs are and have always been heavily clannish, just like these warrior clans preceding them.
II) Each of the Rajputs military states was based on one primary clan, just like the clan-states that would be created at every opportunity by the warrior clans mentioned above.
III) Rajputs states just like the preceding warrior clan-states, would have vote system in choosing the Monarch from among the primary clan of the respective State. Only difference is that the system went more stringent into hereditary options in the case of Rajputs; which is obvious considering that the entire society got rigid into castes.
The gap between vedic kshatriyas and medeival Rajputs is filled by these warrior clans who lived, ruled and fought in the same region as their medieval version i.e. Rajputs.

Regards,
Virendra
@Mods - I realize this is not exactly an on the topic post. Please do move as you deem fit.

[KLP Dubey]

I'll keep my reply short and as relevant to Out-of-India as possible. This exchange started with my reply to another poster regarding placing stock in Puranic Kshatriya-vamsha classifications in order to bolster OIT.

Like I said before that link does nothing but rehashing of the "careful research/analysis" already done by dozens of scholars spanning over centuries. The link itself acknowledges (pg 3) that - 'not much can be added to whatever research has been done already.'

And likewise I do not see any new information provided by you. The value of the Gupta and Bakshi work is in critical analysis of the available evidence. At the end of the day they also conclude that while uncertainty remains, it is more correct to draw the conclusion that the Rajputs were a collection of new groups that gained Kshatriya-hood after their rise to power. There is practically zero evidence that they were continuous in bloodline/descent from the dynasties mentioned in the Ramayana and Mahabharata !

Wrong. Firstly the Agnikunda myth talk only about 4 clans so your use of term 'Rajputs' in a generic way is unwarranted.
You do realize that these 4 don't form the majority of Rajput clans right?
Secondly, these myths were improvised, revised to market certain favorite clans/dynasties as the best, the most authentic and to caste doubts on authenticity of others.

I never said Agnikunda story applied to all Rajputs. I am talking (as I clearly said before) of the oldest such clans, which are indeed 4 in number with the Chahamanas being considered the most prestigious of all Rajputs. However, even the others have adopted similar routes assisted by brahmans. There is nothing special about that. Nor I am casting aspersions on the 'quality' of Rajputs or any other martial groups in India. It is just widely known that all groups considered as Kshatriyas in modern India have arisen well after the Gupta age. They are simply not continuous in bloodline with any of the Puranic "vanshas".

Doesn't make them foreigners at least. Will cover below the transition from kshatriyas to rajputs.

I did not say they were foreigners. G&B also examine this issue critically. The view that they were a "foreign" group was mainly promoted by western historians. They could very well have come into India in earlier times and may have mixed with other invaders, but that is irrelevant. By the 7-8th century they were certainly indigenous/indigenized peoples ready to fight for Hindu dharma.

Wrong again. Chauhans history goes as far back as the 6th century A.D. The earliest attempt to call Chauhans as Agnivanshis comes centuries later in Raso. Prior to Raso, there is not a single shred of historical evidence that calls Chauhans as Agnivanshis. Before that all the sources (and many even after) on Chauhan history either call them Suryavanshis or only give their Gotra. So no, Chauhans were not originally labelled as Agnivanshis.

In fact they were, simply because their origin was most likely through Vedic rituals carried out in the Mt Abu area which was their bastion. Let us be very clear, the Chahamanas along with the Pratiharas, Paramaras, and Chaulukyas (Solankis) form the "Agnivanshi" group and are all geographically proximate. The earliest version of this story appears in several texts and inscriptions from the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries and mentions the Paramaras and Chaulukyas. A 14th century inscription also states that "when the solar and lunar lines became extinct, the brahman Vatsa created Chahamana to fight the asuras". Based upon all this, G&B correctly conclude that the most likely scenario is that these clans in the Mt Abu area obtained Vedic Kshatriya status after asserting independence from their former imperial sovereigns. They also conclude that the Raso (at least the earlier versions) cannot be just dismissed as a fabrication.

Raso is laughable when it comes to historical accuracy and is not reliable for factual analysis. There are plenty of inscriptions, Sanskrit manuscripts and other sources which provide much clearer, accurate and corroborating (cross verified) information on Chauhan history. If anyone needs more clarity on Raso, I can repeat all its fiction and the reasons why it is fiction.

This 'Raso' business is a red herring. I agree it cannot be the only source of information. There is no need to repeat all the stories again. I am indeed talking about the inscriptions, texts, and other sources. See above.

The Agnivansha itself owes its existence to the fictional narrative of agnikunda. This legend was put in place not because some outsiders/rulers wanted to claim Kshatriyahood (as some European scholars would want us to believe). But it was clearly utiized (perhaps even created) by some bards in medieval era to damage/challenge the authenticity of other existing Kshatriya clans (Rajputs) and give credence to few specific/favored ones only.

Again, it is not a question of their being "foreigners". Please do not confuse the issues here and do not create the red herring of European historians. I think the idea of "bards trying to damage other Kshatriya clans" is absurd. The bards (and others) were simply continuing the tradition of story-building and myth-making that inevitably follows the rise to power of new groups.

Anyone who believes in Agnivansha or Agnikunda would also have to believe that at some point all the kshatriyas were annihilated and rishis did yagya to manufacture some fresh kahstriyas in which they succeeded by God's grace.

Come on, I think you are being disingenuous here. Do you think I really believe this occurred physically ? I said clearly that these descriptions commemorate the "elevation" of martial groups to Kshatriya-hood by certain brahmans through Vedic rites. This is given scriptural authenticity by creating legends that so and so brahman sage "created these kshatriyas out of the fire". Is this so difficult to understand ?

Please note, the rise to kshatriyahood is indeed literally considered an act of creation/manufacture, i.e. "a Kshatriya being given birth to by actions of the brahmans". For example such rituals include the "hiranyagarbha" wherein the king passes through a womb-shaped vessel and is verily "created" as a Kshatriya. The newly minted Vedic Kshatriya then onwards takes the gotra of the brahmans who "created" him.

On my part I do not understand your insistence in claiming that Rajputs are of suryavanshi etc descent (these terms themselves are puranic classifications which do not have any reliability), when the actual historical glory of the Rajput Kshatriyas - who rose from obscure origins to protect India from invaders for centuries - is far greater than such imagined associations.

One of the rock inscriptions at Sarasvati temple in Ajmer states Chauhan's to be of Suryavansha. This temple was built during VigrahRaj Chauhan's reign, prior to PrithviRaj.
PrithvirajVijaya - a 12th century text contemporary to PrithviRaj Chauhan identifies Chauhans as Suryavanshis.
Hammir Mahakavya - a 14th century text puts Chauhans in the Suryavansha stock.
KanhadDePrabandh - a 15th century text calls Chauhans as Suryavanshis
Vansha Bhaskara - a 18th century text on history of Hadas (branch of Chauhans) mentions Chauhans to be Suryavanshis.

Just above you said that there is evidence from the 6th century that states Chahamanas to be of suryavansha, but practically everything you mentioned above is from the 12th century onwards.

The only exception in your list is the 973 CE inscription of Vigraharaja Chahamana, which as far as I understand does not identify Chahamana himself as belonging to the Raghuvansha! According to G&B the king referred to is a Pratihara king. There are also earlier inscriptions that claim the Pratiharas were from the "race of Ikshvaku" and even claim they were descendents of Lakshmana!

But this is the whole point: an inscription by itself is not evidence. Any king could get such an inscription written up by eager-to-oblige brahmans after rising to power and going through the rites of accession to Vedic Kshatriya status. That is why a critical examination along with other historical context is necessary.

The fact of the matter is that when even the imperial Mauryas and Guptas were clearly not directly connected to any "suryavansha/chandravansha" lineages, it is totally absurd to think that such groups were quietly existing in Rajasthan for centuries without being recognized and suddenly rose up again.

All along (before & after PrithviRaj) the Chuahan gotra is consistently mentioned as 'Vatsa'.

Naturally, because the brahmans who "created" the Chahamanas as Vedic Kshatriyas belonged to the Vatsa gotra!

2. Hiuen Tsang writes about a Kingdom with its capital at pi-lo-mo-lo (modern Bheenmal near Abu, Rajasthan) like this:
"The king is of the Kshatriya caste. He is just twenty years old, He is distinguished for wisdom and he is courageous. He is a deep believer in the law of Buddha and highly honours men of distinguished ability." He has called this kingdom ku-che-lo (Gurjara).

Again, you are missing the point. Foreign travelers cannot be relied upon to know the "lineage" of the local king ! They simply state that the king was considered a Kshatriya by the subjects at that time. The question here is simply of the continuity with the older lineages as claimed by the new Kshatriyas. For that matter Marco Polo writes that the Raja of Cochin is a Kshatriya (which is obviously correct because they were indeed rulers). But that hardly proves their claim to Suryavansha! It is well known that the Nairs of Cochin and elsewhere obtained Vedic Kshatriya status through elevation by brahmans (in many cases, the brahmans being specially imported for the purpose and given land grants and wealth in return).

I have deleted the rest of your comments below - not because I discounted your effort but because I found them to be irrelevant to my points. I appreciate your knowledge of the subject. Nobody is trying to claim that the Rajputs were foreigners. Please stick to the issue, which is simply that the Rajputs (and other modern Indian Kshatriya groups) do not have any kind of direct bloodline continuity with the mythical "vanshas" mentioned in the Puranas. It is dangerous to claim such a continuity in bolstering the Out-of-India theory based upon Puranas.

Let's keep ourselves honest here.

[Agnimitra]

Interesting discussion, KLPD ji and Virendra ji.

The fact of the matter is that when even the imperial Mauryas and Guptas were clearly not directly connected to any "suryavansha/chandravansha" lineages, it is totally absurd to think that such groups were quietly existing in Rajasthan for centuries without being recognized and suddenly rose up again.

I've come across a theory that the 'Vedic' age broke down and gave way to a 'Pauranic' age, when the kshatriya clans were sidelined and political power was usurped by certain Vaishya clans. They relate this to a supposed shift in the popular power of certain devatas also (Vishnu, versus Indra, etc). So according to this theory, these 'Rajputs' could be those earlier kshatriya lineages who had faded into obscurity and were then 'revived', while the Mauryas, Guptas, etc. were Vaishya clans that had grown powerful.

[KLP Dubey]

I've come across a theory that the 'Vedic' age broke down and gave way to a 'Pauranic' age, when the kshatriya clans were sidelined and political power was usurped by certain Vaishya clans. They relate this to a supposed shift in the popular power of certain devatas also (Vishnu, versus Indra, etc). So according to this theory, these 'Rajputs' could be those earlier kshatriya lineages who had faded into obscurity and were then 'revived', while the Mauryas, Guptas, etc. were Vaishya clans that had grown powerful.

That is extremely unlikely in my opinion.

Firstly it is not that these groups had faded away into obscurity. They were very much present as either agrarian groups or non-Vedic groups headed by minor chiefs who served as vassals to kings of the area. At the same time, there is no mention of Chahamanas in the literature of the previous era (Gupta and pre-Gupta) either.

Some of the Rajput groups such as the Rathores and Solankis are descended from the Rashtrakutas and Chalukyas respectively. Again it is the same story - the latter two are definitely known to be non-Kshatriya (in the Vedic sense) groups who started out as minor vassals to other kingdoms which themselves have a non-Vedic origin and started the (excellent) process of Sanskritization earlier.

Regarding the Pratiharas a story has been cooked up that the word Pratihara means "doorkeeper" and that they are thus related to Lakshmana who served as a Pratihara (doorkeeper) during Vedic yajnas to keep away the asuras. However it has been overlooked that the word Pratihara ("doorkeeper") actually means a minor vassal or feudatory chief.

Secondly there are about 20 different Rajput clans claiming suryavanshi/chandravanshi heritage in a huge area of NW, SW, and Central India. Again it is unlikely that all these groups were 'lying dormant'

I personally would be absolutely delighted if indeed the Chahamanas were related to the Suryavansh of yore - my own children would then be descended from Ikshvaku et al through their mother, who comes from a Mt Abu Chauhan family (really "ground zero" Rajputs) with a distinguished history. Alas, the Suryavansh story is not true.

Regarding the Mauryas, they were initially for sure a non-Kshatriya group mentioned quite clearly as "shudras" in Sanskrit literature (although the Buddhists, imitating the brahmans in regard to hagiography of their royal patrons, seem to have later cooked up a story that Ashoka, Chandragupta et al were descended from the Vedic Shakya clan)! I do not think the Mauryas were Vaishyas.

The "lineage" of the Guptas is also uncertain. I do not subscribe to some historians' theory that the "Gupta" suffix automatically makes them Vaishyas. It may or may not - many brahmans have also had names ending with Gupta (such as Brahmagupta or Vishnugupta). They may (or may not) have been Vaishyas (or some other group), but what is certain is that after rising to power they got the Vedic Kshatriya status with several Guptas performing the Ashvamedha yajna.

[Vayutuvan]

How do we know brahmagupta and vishnugupta were Brahman?