Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c20.s1: Date of the Bhārata Battle

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c20.s1

Language
English

Date of the Bhārata Battle

c20.s1.1

As the Bhārata battle marked the end of the Dvāpara age and is a great landmark, it is well to reach some estimate of its probable date.³

c20.s1.2

³ In the following discussion I refer for convenience to my *Dynasties of the Kali Age*, as DKA.

c20.s1.3

Candragupta began to reign in or about 322 B. C. He was preceded by the nine Nandas,⁴ Mahāpadma and his eight sons, who are said to have enjoyed the earth one hundred years. To Mahāpadma are assigned 88 years and to his sons 12 years. The best reading says, not that he reigned 88 years, but that he would be (that is, lived) 88 years; and a hundred years for the joint lives of him and his sons accord with an ordinary genealogical estimate, and are not unreasonable, as his life was long. It is improbable in the circumstances of that time that he could have gained the throne of Magadha until he was grown up, or, say, 20 years old at least.⁵ The reigns of the nine Nandas would then be reduced to 80 years, and we may reckon that they began approximately at (322 + 80) 402 B. C.

c20.s1.4

⁴ DKA, pp. 25–6, 69–70.

c20.s1.5

⁵ A variation in this estimate makes no material difference.

c20.s1.6

The next question to consider is the time between Mahāpadma’s inauguration and the Bhārata battle. For this three sets of data are alleged. First, there reigned in Magadha during that time 22 Bārhadrathas, 5 Pradyotas and 10 Śiśunāgas, and the total of all their reigns is (940 + 138 + 330) 1408 years, while the totals of the durations of the dynasties vary from (1000 + 138 + 360) 1498 to (723 + 52 + 163) 938 years according as we take all the highest or all the lowest figures.⁶ Secondly, it is said that the period from Mahāpadma’s inauguration back to Parikṣit’s birth, which occurred soon after the battle,¹ was 1050 (or 1015) years.² These figures are so discrepant that it is clear no reliable tradition has survived in them. It cannot be said that any one of them is more trustworthy than the others. No calculation can be based on all of them combined, and to make computations from one or other of them is purely random work.³ Besides they are all demonstrably wrong. From the Bhārata battle to Mahāpadma there were 30 Paurava kings (for Yudhiṣṭhira must be reckoned in) and 29 Aikṣvākus (excluding Siddhārtha, i. e. Buddha, who did not reign), beside the 37 Māgadha kings; hence on a reckoning of the kings as 30, the foregoing figures, 1408, &c., give average reigns of 47, 50, 31 and 35 years respectively, which are all impossible when tested by real historical averages as will be shown. Those figures therefore cannot be relied on. The third set of data is that Mahāpadma exterminated all kṣatriyas, and that until then there reigned contemporaneously for the same length of time 24 Aikṣvākus, 27 Pañcālas, 24 Kāśis, 28 Haihayas, 32 Kaliṅgas, 25 Aśmakas, 36 Kurus, 28 Maithilas, 23 Śūrasenas and 20 Vītihotras.⁴ Here we have safer ground, for the (names and so) number of kings in a dynasty was a much simpler matter and more easily remembered than figures of the lengths of reigns and dynasties; and this information about ten contemporary dynasties eliminates peculiarities and extravagances about single dynasties and enables us to make prudent calculations by means of averages of all ten. The investigation will proceed on these lines.

c20.s1.7

⁶ DKA, pp. 13–22, 67–9.

c20.s1.8

¹ MBh xiv, 66 to 70.

c20.s1.9

² DKA, pp. 58, 74.

c20.s1.10

³ Mr. Jayaswal in *Journal, B. and O. Research Socy.* i, pp. 67 f. : iii, pp. 246 f. : iv, pp. 26-35. The astronomical statements obviously cannot have scientific precision, and can only have been formed by estimate at the close. Very probably regnal years have been unduly swelled by reckoning for a king his *yuvarāja* period as well as his reign proper.

c20.s1.11

⁴ DKA, pp. 23-4, 69.

c20.s1.12

It would have taken Mahāpadma some time to conquer all those kingdoms, the nearer earlier and the more distant later; and it will not be far out if we strike a mean, say, of 20 years after his accession for their destruction,⁵ and so fix the year (402-20) 382 B. C. for their mean termination. That list of contemporary kings can be tested as regards its period and the number of kings. The dynastic account gives the Paurava, Aikṣvāku and Bārhadratha kings from the time of the battle, but the prophetic portion of it starts from the point of time when the Paurava king Adhisīmakṛṣṇa, the Aikṣvāku Divākara and the Bārhadratha Senājit were reigning contemporaneously, for it is clearly stated in the Paurava list that the future kings were 25, Adhisīmakṛṣṇa and his 24 successors, and in the Bārhadratha list that they were 16, Senājit and his 15 successors; the predecessors in both cases not being so reckoned. Hence in these three dynasties that point of time is the real initial point throughout and the extermination by Mahāpadma is the final point.

c20.s1.13

⁵ This estimate may be varied without material difference.

c20.s1.14

The number of kings can be tested as regards the Aikṣvākus and the Kurus who were the Pauravas. The Aikṣvāku list names 25 future kings from Divākara (omitting Siddhārtha), and the list of contemporary kings says 24 Aikṣvākus, so that the two agree practically. The Paurava-Kuru list names 25 future kings, and the contemporary list says 36; but another well-attested reading in the latter says 26,¹ and it was pointed out² that, because of the ease with which *tr* and *v* might be confused, ‘in many cases either [20 or 30] may be read as other data may indicate, irrespective of the weight of the MSS.’ This reading 26 is no doubt the true reading, because it accords better with the other numbers in the contemporary list and agrees practically with the 25 in the former list. The practical agreement in these two dynasties, the only cases we can test, indicates that the contemporary list is also reckoned from the same initial point as the three detailed dynasties.

c20.s1.15

¹ DKA, p. 24, note 16.

c20.s1.16

² Id, p. xxiii, § 39.

c20.s1.17

According to the contemporary list then there reigned between those initial and final points, 24 Aikṣvākus, 27 Pañcālas, 24 Kāśis, 28 Haihayas, 32 Kaliṅgas, 25 Aśmakas, 26 Kurus (Pauravas), 28 Maithilas, 23 Śūrasenas and 20 Vītihotras,³ that is 257 kings in ten kingdoms, or a mean of 26 kings. For these 26 then we must allow reigns of medium length, and the question is, at how many years should a medium length be reckoned? The longest average of reigns occurred among the 20 Vītihotras, the shortest among the 32 Kaliṅgas. Thus 20 long reigns = 32 short reigns = 26 medium reigns, whence we obtain the proportion—longest average : shortest average : medium average :: 26 : 16¼ : 20. I have examined 14 series of from 20 to 30 kings in various eastern and western countries; the longest average just exceeded 24 years in one case, the shortest was about 12, and the average of all was 19; but the average was higher in western countries and lower in eastern countries. Hence as a medium average for these contemporary eastern dynasties we must take something less than 19, and 18 years will be a fair and even liberal estimate. The duration of these ten contemporary kingdoms then would be 26 × 18, that is, 468 years, and their period would be from 850 to 382 B. C. when Mahāpadma exterminated them.

c20.s1.18

³ It is said the Vītihotras had passed away before the Pradyotas began, DKA, pp. 18, 68. If so, they should be omitted; yet the reckoning here would not be materially modified.

c20.s1.19

In this calculation the Magadha kings have not been included, since they are omitted from the contemporary list, and the date 850 B. C. may now be tested with reference to them. From Senājit (850) till Mahāpadma overthrew the Śiśunāgas (402) reigned 16 Bārhadrathas, 5 Pradyotas and 10 Śiśunāgas; that is, 448 years are allowed for 31 reigns—an average of 14½ years. This lower average is quite probable because of the violence that overthrew those dynasties, and it is about the average I have found in eastern dynasties. The above estimate therefore of 18 years for a medium peaceful reign appears just, and the date 850 B. C. is highly probable.

c20.s1.20

This year 850 would be the approximate mean date of the beginnings of the reigns of Adhisīmakṛṣṇa, Divākara and Senājit; and therefore the standpoint during their reigns, dividing the ‘past’ from the ‘future’ in the prophetic account,¹ would be a few years later, say, about 840 B. C.

c20.s1.21

¹ See Vā 1, 12–15; 99, 258–9, 282, 300; Mat 1, 4–5; 50, 66–7; 271, 5, 23: and p. 52.

c20.s1.22

To get the time of the Bhārata battle, we must add the kings who preceded those three kings, namely, 5 Pauravas (for Yudhiṣṭhira’s reign must be included), 4 Aikṣvākus and 6 Bārhadrathas, that is, a mean of 5, and here for so short a period the medium reign probably was longer, say 20 years.² Hence we must add (5 × 20) 100 years, and the date of the battle may be fixed approximately as (850 + 100) 950 B. C.³ This reckoning has avoided special figures or unique statements, except in the one case of the Nandas where no other course is available; and has proceeded upon general averages (1) of the number of kings belonging to 11 contemporaneous dynasties and (2) of the lengths of reigns computed from the reliable data of 14 historical dynasties in other countries; thus it has eliminated all peculiar features and is a reasonable general approximation.¹

c20.s1.23

² The 60 years assigned to Parikṣit II cannot be relied on (p. 53).

c20.s1.24

³ Mr. Jayaswal fixes the battle in 1424 B. C., and other Indian writers favour similar early dates, all working on the above chronological statements in the Puranas (which are discrepant) without checking their figures by comparison with reliable data from dynasties elsewhere. Such a comparison shows that their calculations produce results contrary to general experience: thus his date makes the medium average of 31 reigns from the battle to Mahāpadma about 33 years, an incredible length.

c20.s1.25

¹ With a possible error of being too liberal. For further calculations see end of chap. XXIV.

c20.s1.26

If we should seek to make an estimate of the ages before the battle, it would be prudent to take a smaller length for the average reign, because only one line, that of Ayodhyā, is practically complete, while there are gaps in the other dynasties, so that there is little scope for taking medium averages of all the dynasties and eliminating peculiarities. The lowest average mentioned above, 12 years, therefore would be a sounder estimate. Since however it is said that insignificant kings have been omitted from the genealogies (p. 89), it may be contended that the average should be increased to compensate for lost kings, say, 13 or 13½ years per step in the table in chapter XII; but the uncertainty and peculiarity in such details require caution, and it would be more prudent to adhere to 12 years as the average. To contend for immense antiquity for the earliest ages is discredited by the historical sense; and to push back the antiquity of those ages to vast figures is to weaken *pro tanto* the trustworthiness of tradition about them when everything depended on memory alone.²

c20.s1.27

² Indian writers are prone to do this; e. g. Abinas Chandra Das in his *Rigvedic India*.

c20.s1.28

Another consequence of such dating is to prolong also the ages before the battle; and to put back the antiquity of any event is to weaken the trustworthiness of tradition about it.

Linked texts (3)