Studies in Puranic History, Genealogies and Chronology

Studies in Puranic History, Genealogies and Chronology in Modern Times (adhunikayuge pauranike tiha sasya puranavamsavalinam puranavrtta - kalakramasya cadhyayanam) / By Prof. D. R. Mankad ; Gangajala Vidyapeeth, P. O. Aliabada (Gujarat). / 3-22

[ purananam pathasamsodhanartham, tesamantah saksyamasritya bharatavarsasya pracinetihasasya punarnirmanartham, puranoktarajavamsavarnananyasritya pracina- rajnam suddharajavamsavalinam nirmanartham, purananam sahayyena puravrttanam kalakramavadharanartham ca bahubhividvadbhiretavatkalaparyantam krtanam prayatnanam simhavalokanam vidusa lekhakena srimana kadamahodayenasmin lekhe kriyate | tadyatha 1 . purananam suddhapathanirdharanam-asmin visaye (1) srangaladesiyena pajitaramahodayena 'dainestij apha kali-eja ' ( 'kali- yugarajavamsavali ' ) granthe ( 1913 i0 ), ( 2 ) jarmanadesiyena kiraphala mahasayena ca 'puranapancalaksana ' granthe (1927 ) 'prasamsarham karya krtam ; ( 3 ) gargi samhitoktasya 'yugapurana 'sya suddhapathayuktani samskara- jani jayasavalamahodayena (1628 ), dhruvamahodayena (1930 ) manaka mahodayena ( 1951 ) ca sampaditani ; ( 4 ) kasirajanyasa- samsthatha'dhuna matsyapuranasampadanaya (5) gujaratavidyasabhadvara ca bhagavata puranasampadanartham prayatnah kriyante | 2 . purananam sahayyena bharatetihasa nirmanam - srasyam disayam sarvasri ( 1 ) sara viliyama jonsa (1763 i0 ), ( 2 ) parjitara ( 'enasiyanta imdiyana histaॉrikala tra ेdisana ' = 'pracinabhara- tiyetihasaparamparah ', 1922 ), (3) rayacaudhari ( 'politikala histri srapha enasiyanta imdiya ' = 'pracinabharatasya rajanaitika itihasah ', 1923 ), (4) sitanathapradhana ( 'kraॉnoloji srapha enasiyanta imdiya ' = 'pracina bharatetihasasya kalakramah ', 1927 ), (5) pusalakara ( 'ina di vaidika eja ' = 'vaidikayuge ', 1952 ), ( 6 ) altekara, (7) sriramgaraghava (pracina bharatiya parampara aura itihasa, 1954 ), (8) pi0 ela0 bhargava ( 'imdiya ina di vaidika eja ' 'vaidikayuge bharatam ', 1956 ), ( 9 ) jayacandra vidyalamkara ( 'bharatiya itihasa ki ruparekha '), (10 ) bhagavaddatta ( 'bharatavarsa ka itihasa ' ), =

4 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 ( 11 ) sriramgacarya ( 'pri-musalmana imdiya ' = 'musalmanakalat prak bharatam ' ), ( 12 ) ke0 pi0 jayasavala ( 'histri apha imdiya ' ) (13 ) esa0 ke0 pille ('vaidika histri ', 1959 ) prabhrtibhirvidvadbhih karyam krtam | 3 . pauranika rajavamsavalinamavadharanam - asmin kale mauyam- sunga - kanva - andhravamsiyanam rajnam pauranika rajavamsavalivisaye sakaividvadbhiradhyayanam krtam | puranoktanamanekesam rajnam namani mudrasilalekhadibhiranyaih pramanairapi samarthitani | jayasavala mahodayena bharasivanam, vakatakanam, naganam ca visaye'dhyayanam krtva mudradisamagri- sahayyena tesam yatharthyam pratipaditam, 'yugapuranam ' ca tenaiva prathamam sampa- ditam, srandharanam (satavahananrpanam visaye'pi jayasavala - manakada-sethana prabhrtibhividvadbhirgavesana krta | evam mauyamkaladarabhya guptakalaparyantam paura- nikarajavamsavalinam samyagadhyayanam samjatam | mauryakalatprak vattinam nandanam pradyotanam saisunaganam ca visaye'pi vidvadbhiradhyayanamanusamdhanam ca krtam | eca0 si0 raya caudhari, esa0 ena0 pradhana, di0 srara0 bhandarakara - prabhrtinam vidusam namanyatra visaye khyatani | mahabharatakalatprak- vattinam nrpani rajavamsavalivisaye sri pradhanena samyaggavesana krta | rama piturdasarathasya divodasasya ca yaugapadyam nirniya mahabharatatprak ramam yavat rajavamsavalinam samyag nirdharanamapi tena krtam | ramadarabhya krsnaparyantam caturdasa, pancadasa va rajakulani ( yadava - vitathya-magadha- hastinapura pancala pranga iksvaku kosala kasiprabhrtini ) babhuvuriti tena pratipaditam | srimanakadamahodayena vaivasvatamanorarabhya ramaparyantam saptapancasat nrpah srutayuparyantam ca ekasaptatirnrpa babhuvuriti pratipaditam | 'purana ' ( bhaga 2, amka 1-2 ) patrikayam sri ramakrsnadasenapi iksvaku- vamsavisaye kecidupayogino vicarah prakatikrtah | punasca manuriti vamsanama, manvantaram ca vamsarajyakala iti srimanakadena pratipaditam | yadyapi pracinarajnam puranoktah kramah pramaniko na sidhyati, puranoktanam prayah sarvesameva rajnamastitvam tu sarvatha pramanikameva simdhyati | tathapi 4 . kalakramanusarena bharatetihasasya punarnirmanam- pracina bharatiya itihasah kalakramanusarenettham vibhajyate- (1) mahabharatatprak rajavamsavalyah, (2) mahabharatadarabhya nandavamsaparyantam rajavamsavalyah, (3) nandavamsaduttarakalavattinyo raja- vamsavalyasca | mahabharataprakalinanam rajnam rajyakalah puranesu

Jan. 1962 ] STUDIES IN PURANIC HISTORY noktah, parantu mahabharatottarakalinanam vamsanam nrpanam ca rajyakalah puranesu kathita eva | sradhunikakale nandavamsottaranam rajavamsanamadhyayanam tu samyakkrtam, parantu nandavamsat prakvattinam rajna kalakramo navadharitah | magadha samrat candraguptamauryo yavanasamrajah sikandarasya samakalina prasiditi 'viliyama jonsa ' vidusa pratipaditam | idameva matamadhuna'pi svikriyate, parantu kecana vidvamsah 'sikandarasya samakalino guptasamrat candraguptaprathamah asit, na tu candraguptamauryah ' iti pratipadayanti | rajataramgini sampadakena 'traॉyara ' namna vidusa 1858 i0 varse matamidam prathamam prakasitam | tadanantaram ca gopala aiyyara ( 1901 ), ti0 esa0 narayanasastri ( 1615 ), ema0 krsnamacaryam ( 1936 ), di0 prara0 manakada ( 1951 ) prabhrtibhirvidvadbhirapi traॉyaramatam samarthitam | tathapi bharatetihasasya kasmiscidapyadhunika granthe idam matam na sannivesitam napi samalocitamiti tvascaryam | | puranesu pariksitamarabhyaiva kalakrama uktah, pariksinnrpat prarabhya nandanam rajyakalam yavat 1500 varsarana vyatitaniti puranesu kathitam | 1500 sthane 1015, 1115, 1150 iti kalaganana'pi pathantaresu prokta | punasca puranoktah kalakramah kalivarsam saptarsivarsa manvantaram casritya niscitah | adhunika vidvamsastu kalakramavicarane puranoktanam kalivarsadinamupeksameva kurvate - iti tu na samicinam | mahabharata- tpragvarttinam rajnam rajavamsanam ca kalakramavadharane'pi kaiscidvidvadbhih kincit prayatanam krtam, tathapi batrakaraniyamaste | ] 5 In his Presidential address delivered at the last Indian History Congress, December 1960, Dr. U. N. Ghoshal had, while surveying studies in Indian history, only this to say (p. 14) about Puranic studies in modern times. "A reconstruction of the Royal genealogies and chronology of the Vedic Age based entirely or partially on the Puranic data has likewise been attempted by Pargiter (Ancient Indian Historical Tradition), S. N. Pradhan (Chronology of Ancient India), H. C. Raychaudhary (Political History of Ancient India), A. D. Pusalkar (In the Vedic Age), and P. L. Bhargava (India and the Vedic Age). " Perhaps, Dr. Ghoshal had no time or it was out of his scope, but he has omitted to take notice of many more attempts

puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 that have been made in Puranic studies. I have, therefore, chosen the subject of Studies in Puranic History, Genealogies and Chronology in modern times'. In doing so, I shall not enter into controversies, but shall state the results obtained by various scholars about Puranic History etc. I shall do this under four sections:-(1) Textual Reconstruction, (2) Historical Reconstruction, (3) Genealogical Reconstruction and (4) Chronological Reconstruction. 1. TEXTUAL RECONSTRUCTION 1. Pargiter, in his Dynasties of Kali Age' (1913), has collected Puranic texts concerning Kali dynasties, i. e. the dynasties starting just after the Mahabharata war and coming upto the rise of the Guptas. His method of fixing the text has been eclectic, but he has quoted more recensions wherever he thought it necessary. He has also noted every available reading both from the printed editions and the manuscripts collected by him. This has preserved all the available evidence for us. 2. Kirfel in his 'Das Purana Pancalaksana' (Bonn, 1927) did the same work as was done by Pargiter for the extended purpose of giving Puranic texts of the five traditional laksanas of the Puranas viz. Sarga, Pratisarga, Manvantara, Vamsa, and Vamsanucarita. Whereas Pargiter had to collate from only five Puranas, Kirfel had to collate from about nine Puranas. But Kirfel's foot-note material is not as rich as Pargiter's. All the same, these two are very able pioneering efforts in Puranic textual reconstruction. Kirfel also collated text on Bharatavarsa, but that is geography. Unfortunarely this has not been followed up. Only the recently started Kashi Raj Trust gives hopes in this direction. They have undertaken a critical edition of Matsya Purana, and Gujarat Vidya Sabha at Ahmedabad have started work on a critical edition of Bhagavata Purana. The text of the Yuga-purana, a historical chapter from Gargisamhita has been edited by K. P. Jayswal, 1928; K. H. Dhruva, 1930 and D. R. Mankad, 1951.

Jan. 1962] STUDIES IN PURANIC HISTORY 7 Question whether the original Puranas were written in Prakrta has been discussed by Pargiter, A. B. Dhruva, Pusalkar and others. 2. HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION This was first attempted by Sir William Jones in A. D. 1793, when he declared that the name of the Magadhan ruler, contemporary of Alexander was Chandragupta Maurya. Colonal Wilford took up this theme and later till the present day, this theme has been relied upon and strengthened by a number of scholars of ancient Indian History. And in this light, Puranic dynasties of Saisunagas, Pradyotas, Nandas, Mauryas, Sungas, Kanvas and Andhras have been studied. Then came Pargiter's great attempt in A. D. 1922, when he, in his 'Ancient Indian Historical Tradition', undertook the study of traditional and historical materials available in the various Puranas. This he did from the very beginning of Puranic history-the dynasty of Svayambhuva Manu. He has established a number of synchronisms and his contribution has been invaluable in drawing our attention particularly to the period prior to the Pradyotas and Saisunagas. It is he, who for the first time, proved that Purannas preserve genuine historical materials, which, when used with discretion, can yield important results. Results obtained by him are well-known and I need not re-tell them here. H. C. Raychaudhary, in his 'Political History of Ancient India' (A. D. 1923) took up detailed studies of the Puranic dynasties of Saisunaga, Pradyota, Nanda and Maurya families. He supplemented these studies by a detailed study of Buddhistic, Jain and Brahmanic sources. His studies have been, now, recognised as standard and therefore authoritative. Dr. Sita Nath Pradhan, in his Chronology of Ancient India' (1927) took up this inquiry further and studied the Puranic dynasties from the period of Rama to Krsna in details. He also included post-Mahabharata dynasties of Barhadrathas,

8 puranam- PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 Saisunagas, Pradyotas, Nandas and Mauryas in his studies. His work is very important and shows original insight. He has been able to establish many historical synchronisms, which Pargiter could not. He has, at places, corrected Pargiters' synchronisms. His singular achievement is his study of kings Divodasa and Nala Naisadha. He has unmistakably established that Divodasa Atithigva of the Rgveda was the same as Divodasa of the Puranas and that he was a contemporary of Dasaratha, the father of Rama. Another important result achieved by him is that Nala Naisadha was the father-in-law of the Rgvedic Rsi Mudgala, the grand-father of Divodasa. Pusalkar in the Vedic Age, 1952, gives a connected history of Ancient India from Manu Vaivasvata to the Bharata War and later. He has utilised the Puranic genealogies and has tried to reconstruct the history dynasty-wise:* It is for the first time that pre-Bharata history of India is thus included in a book of Indian History. In his 'Studies in Epics and Puraanas' (1958) he has studied the question of Srikrsna's historicity, which he has proved. He has also established the indentity of Vedic Kurusravana with Puranic Kurusamvarana. He has also surveyed Puranic studies in modern times. A. S. Altekar in his Presidential address at Ancient section of the Indian History Congress (Calcutta) studied certain Puranic names and came to the conclusion that 'there is nothing unscientific or unhistorical in utilising the data of the Puranic genealogies of pre-Pandava period for reconstructing contemporary history after taking all due precautions.' He has also said that the various pre-Bharata war dynasties mentioned in the Puranas are as real and historical as the Saisunagas or the Mauryas or the Nandas. Shri Rangaya Raghava, in his Hindi book 'Pracina Bharatiya Parampara aur Itihasa' (1954) has given a detailed account of Puranic history under the periods which he had called Kirata-Deva-Asura-Yuga, Satyayuga, Tretayuga, Dvaparayuga, * Vedic Age, pp. 270 ff.

Jan. 1962] STUDIES IN PURANIC HISTORY 9 Kaliyuga etc. He has utilised Puranic materials in great details. He has based his work on Pargiter, but has differed from him on several points. His is an attempt which takes Pargiter's researches further. His chapter on Kirata Deva Asura-Yuga is a noteworthy contribution. P. L. Bhargava in his 'India in the Vedic Age' (Lucknow 1956) has studied the Puranic materials in details for the purpose of reconstructing pre-Bharata war period. He has tried to establish agreement between Vedic and Puranic traditions and thus has tried to establish several synchronisms which Pargiter could not and then he has tried to give the history of ancient India from Manu Vaivasvata to Bharata War. He has tried to study the question of Aryan advent and expansion in India. His view* that-'the story of the flood, which is undoubtedly connected with the migration of the Aryas, suggests by a reference to 'Manu's descent' on the northern mountain that the Aryas originally lived near some mountain range to the north of Saptasindhu from where they descended into the plains of Saptasindhu, being compelled by a flood. This mountain range was either the Hindu kush or the north western part of the Himalayas-is the only one that a student of Puranas can arrive at. I myself have held this view for a long time past.† Shri Jayachandra Vidyalan kara (Bharatiya Itihasa ki Ruparekha), Shri Bhagavaddatta (Bharatavarsa ka Itihasa), Shri Rangacharya (Pre-Mussalman India) have also tried to reconstruct Puranic History from the days of Manu Vaivasvata downwards. K. P. Jayaswal, in his 'History of India, 150 A. D. to 350 A. D.' studied the Vakataka and Naga dynasties. Shri S. K. Pillai, in his 'Vedic History (set in Chronology)', Allahabad 1959, has utilised Vedic and Puranic materials and has tried to trace historical details of the Rsis and Kings that ruled in Vedic Age. *India in the Vedic Age, p. 26. † He seems to be ignorant of the views of S. N. Pradhan and even Raychowdhary. He is also unware of the 'Puranic Chronology.' 2

10 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 3. GENEALOGICAL RECONSTRUCTION Puranic genealogies of the Maurya, Sungas, Kanva and Andhra dynasties have been studied by a number of scholars in modern times and their results are, now, commonly accepted. These studies have shown that out of 9 or 10 Puranic names of the Mauryas, those of Chandragupta, Bindusara, Asoka, Samprati, Salisuka are corroborrated by other evidences. Similarly, out of ten Puranic names of Sungas, those of Pusyamitra, Agnimitra, Vasumitra and Bhagabhadra are corroborrated by other evidences. So also out of the Puranic names of the Kanvas and Andhras, some are corroborrated and others are not. K. P. Jayaswal made a good study of the Bharasivas, Vakatakas and Nagas and he established with the help of numismatic and other materials that these were real dynasties that actually ruled. Puranas name certain kings of these dynasties and he proved their historicity. He also ventured identifications of certain Puranic names, like Visvasphurji, Kana, Pravira with certain king-names from other sources. In this connection, I have postulated that the Puranic Visvasphurji (with various spellings) is the same as Samudragupta. Jayaswal, with the edited for the first time, Maurya dynasty was a real king and that Indo-greek rule of Demetrius and others was proved by this small Purana. The present writer also edited³ Yuga Purana, with the help of a fresh Ms and showed the following:help of the Yuga Puaana which he showed that Salisuka of the Puranic "It will be seen that according to this Purana, following is the sequence of events: (1) Salisuka i. e. the Mauryas. (2) After the Mauryas, at Saketa ruled seven kings in succession and at Magadha ruled, at first, the five allied governors, and then the four kings then came anarchy, then a Saka king 1. History of India from 150 A. D. to 350 A. D. (1933) Chapters 2-4. 2. Puranic Chronology (= PC) pp. 268 ff. 3. Yuga Purana edited by D. R. Mankad, Vallabhvidyanagar, 1951.

Jan. 1962] STUDIES IN PURANIC HISTORY il Amlata and others. (3) Then came Pusyamitra Sunga, who replaced, at Saketa, the rule of the seven kings and at Magadha, the dynasty of Amlata. (4) Then ruled three more Sunga kings. (5) Then a king ruled for 10 years. (6) And lastly, the Sakas overran the whole land. This means that the Sungas did not immediately follow the Mauryas, but between them there was a gap caused by foreign rule and anarchy. The evidence of the Yuga-Purana makes it clear that there was a period at Magadha between the Mauryas and the Sungas, during which no indeginous independent native king ruled there. In other words, it was a period of foreign rule and of disorder. Similarly, if this Purana is to be believed, the Kanvas did not follow the Sungas immediately, but soon after the Sungas, the Sakas overran the Northern India." There are detailed studies made by several scholars about the Andhras i. e. the Satavahanas. Jayaswal postulated' that Candasena of the play Kaumudimahotsava was the same as Chandragupta I of the Gupta dynasty and in my opinion this hypothesis of Jayaswal has never been really disproved. It has been supported by me, Dasharatha Sharma, Sethna and others. Thus the Puranic genealogies from the Mauryas to the Guptas have been studied well. Then we take up the pre-Mauryan period of the Nandas, the Pradyotas, the Saisunagas. H. C. Raychowdhary has established that Puranic Pradyota and Saisunaga dynasties were not lineal but were collateral, that the Puranic Saisunaga dynasty was a composite dynasty, that this dynasty really started with Bimbisara and 1. History of India pp. 113-4; 116-18. 2. PC. pp. 259 ff. 3. 1HQ 4. Mother India, Aug. 1956 ff. 5. Political History of Ancient India, 1930 pp. 115-6; 222-3.

12 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 not with Sisunaga, that the Bimbisara family was called Haryankakula, that Bimbisara and his successors Ajatasatru, Udayi, Anuruddha Munda and Naga Dasaka (same as Darsaka) ruled in Magadha and that Sisunaga's successor Puranic Kakavarna was the same as Kalasoka of the Ceylonese chronicles. S. N. Pradhan carried these studies further and showed¹ that the first two names of the Puranic Saisunaga genealogy viz. Sisunaga and Kakavarna were the same as the last two names of this dynasty viz. Nandivardhana and Mahanandi and that Sisunaga of this dynasty, Visakkhayupa of the Pradyota dynasty, Sumitra of the Aiksvaka dynasty and Ksemaka of the Aila dynasty were all at the same step and therefore contem. poraries. To this I have added that the Puranic Kalki, who started the new Krta Age and who was later taken as an Avatara was a contemporary of these four kings viz. Sisunaga, Visakkhayupa, Sumitra and Ksemeka. About the Nandas, D. R. Bhandarkar identified Puranic Mahananda with Ugrasena of the Jain Literature and Raychowdhary and Pradhan accepted this view. These writers seem to accept the Buddhist statements as also Puranic statements that ten sons of Kalasoka ruled for 22 years and then the nine Nandas starting with Mahapadma ruled for another 22 years. In this connection I have said that Mahananda (same as Kalasoka) had 9 descendents who were Nandas and I have explained their period differently and have showed that then came Mahapadma and his son, who together ruled for 85 years. Puranic Barhadratha genealogy is hardly studied by any scholar. There is a paucity of corroborative evidence for this period. I have, however, shown that at one time, Barhadratha 1. Chronology of Ancient India, pp. 211 ff. 2. PC pp. 78 ff. 3 PHAI p. 229-38. 4. CAI p. 226, 5. PC p. 87. 6. PC p. 76.

Jan. 1962] STUDIES IN PURANIC HISTORY 13 list had included the names of Ksemadhanva and ksatraujah, who are now found in the Saisunaga list. Coming to the Mahabharata level, Raychowdhary has examined¹ the question of Pariksit and has concluded that the two Pariksits-Puranic and Vedic are identical. For the pre-Mbh genealogies, there is no serious effort made with the sole exception of Pradhan. He has, first, fixed the contemporaneity of Dasaratha and Divodasa and has then, examined and reconstructed pre-Mbh genealogies upto the level of Rama Dasarathi. He has ably shown that there were 14 or 15 generations from Rama to Srikrsna in all the lines he has examined. He has examined the following lines:- -Yadava, Vithavya, Magadha, Hastinapura, North and South Pancala, Anga, Iksvaku, Janaka, South Kosala and Kasi-and in all these lines he has shown that from the kings who were contemporaries of Dasaratha to the kings who were contemporaries of Srikrsna there were 14 or 15 names. He has also shown³ that the Aiksvaka King Dasaratha, the father of Rama, the Northern Pancala king Atithigva Divodasa, the brother of Ahalya, Senajit, the southern Pancala king, Sarvabhauma and Rksa II, the Sons of Vidaratha of the Hastinapura line, Krta, the father of Uparicara Vasu whose descendent Brhadratha I founded the kingdom of Magadha, Romapada Dasaratha of the dynasty of Anga, Siradhvaja Janaka the father of Sita, king Satvanta of the Yadu dynasty and the father Vitahavya, the Haihaya-all these ten kings belonged to the same age, namely the age of Divodasa. He has also obtained a number of incidental results which are of great value in the reconstruction of our pre-Mbh period. I have examined the pre-Mbh Ayodhya line from Vaivasvata Manu to the level and have confirmed the view of Pradhan that the kings from Pusya to Brhadbala were collateral (and not lineal) to the kings from Kusa to Sankhana. I have put the number of Rama Dasarathi to be 57th from 1. PHAI p. 12-21. 2. CAI pp. 3ff. 3. CAI p. 30. 4. PC p. 341 ff.

14 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 Manu Vaivasvata and that of Srutayu and Brhadbala to be 71st, thus taking 14 generations from Rama to Krsna." This Iksavaku dynasty has also been examined by Shri Rai Krisnadas (Purana, Vol. II, No. 1-2). He has proposed some reconstruction of this dynasty. Reconstruction of this as well as other pre-Mbh Puranic genealogies is still to be made from the point of the references to some of these kings that we get in the Vedic and Epic literature. In this connection, I should point out that I have reached some other conclusions regarding the method of reconstructing Puranic genealogies. I have shown in my Puranic chronology that Manu was a dynastic title and Manvantara meant a dynastic period and taking these senses as well as some clues furnished by Megasthenes and Herodotas into consideration, I have found that all our present Puranic genea logies upto the Nandas even later have been constructed in an arbitrary and artificial method, which I have designated as Manvantara-centuryuga-Method (= MCM). According to this method, one king-name in the genealogical lists represents a time-unit of 40 years or sometimes of 20 years. Thus the succession list, which is given in the Puranas, is not reliable as such, but this also is certain that a name mentioned in the Puranic genealogies generally guarrantees the existence of that person as a king, not necessarily in the same chronological or successive order but most probably in the same family. 4. CHRONOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTION We generally divide Puranic genealogies thus: Pre-Mbh genealogies, post-Mbh genealogies upto the Nandas and Post- 1. PC p. 341 ff. Subsequently, there has been a change in my view. I have realised that originally, the distance between Manu and Rama was of about ten generations, and that between Rama and Krsna of 3 or 4 generations. The present Puranic genealogies are arranged as they are today for the specific purpose of following the Manvantara-centuryuga-Method-which I have explained in my Puranic Chronology.

Jan. 1962] STUDIES IN PURANIC HISTORY 15 Nanda genealogies. Puranas do not give periods for the reigns of kings of the Pre-Mbh genealogies. But for the post-Mbh genealogies they give total regnal period for each of the dynasties as also individual regnal period of each of the kings of all these periods. They also give a general computation twice--from Pariksit to Nanda and from Nanda to Andhra-end. Out of the post-Mbh dynasties, those which are post-Nanda are studied well, even from the point of view of their chronology but the chronology of the pre-Nanda period is hardly studied. I shall not go into the details of the chronological studies made by various scholars for the post-Nanda period. But I shall, here give, details of the studies of the most debatable question of the Puranic chronology that of the synchronism between Alexander the Great and Chandragupta Maurya. Sir William Jones and almost all the modern scholars agree that Sandrocottus, who was a contemporary of Alexander was Chandragupta Maurya, while a small group of Scholars have held that the Magadhan king, who was the contemporary of Alexander, was not Chandragupta Maurya, but Chandragupta I of the Gupta dynasty. Troyer, in his Rajatarangini, as early as A. D. 1858, advocated that Chandragupta I of the Gupta dynasty was the Magadha contemporary of Alexander. This has been supported by several other scholars also. V. Gopal Aiyyar (1901) in his The Chronology of Ancient India', T. S. Narayan Shastri (1915) in his 'Age of Sankara and the Kings of Magadha', M. K. Acharya, A. Somayajula (1936) in his 'Dates of Ancient Indian History', M. Krisnamachariar (1939) in his 'Classical Sanskrit Literature', Kalyananda Sarasvati, N. Jagannath Rao in his 'The Age of the Mahabharata War', Kuppiah in his 'Ancient Indian History', D. R. Mankad (1951) in his 'Puranic Chronology' D. S. Triveda in his various articles, Indranarayan Dwivedi in 'Vishal Bharata', Oct. 1954, Pt. Kota Venketachalam in his various books,' K. D. Sethna in 1. (1) The Plot in Indian Chronology, 1953. (2) Chronology of Nepal History, 1953.

16 puranam -- PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 the issues of 'Mother India' (1956 August ff), G. C. Bose (1934) in his Bengali book 'Purana Pravesha, Gulshan Ray, Subba Rao All these writers have supported the stand taken by Troyar in 1858. And yet, absolutely no notice has been taken of these views in any modern history of Ancient India, nor is this view ever reffered to. These writers have built up their case by refuting all the usual arguments which are advanced in support of the view that Chandragupta Maurya, was the Magadhan centemporary of Alexander. I shall briefly summarise the whole position here, without going much in individual views. There are certain crucial points in Puranic Chronolgy. One such point is that the Puranas start their chronology with Pariksit and from Pariksit to the beginning of the Nandas, they put 1500 years. This is borne out by counting the toal regnal period given to Barhadrathas (1000), Pradyotas (138) and Saisunagas (362), and also by referring to a verse¹ which explicitly says that from Pariksit to the beginning of Nandas, had elapsed a period of 1500 years. Most of the modern scholars do not accept both these, while this small group of scholars does. It is usually objected that the local regnal periods given to these dynasties do not tally with the totals of regnal periods given to individual kings. Therefore, these figures are not reliable. Similarly, the verse, which puts 1500 years between Pariksit and the Nandas, has some other readings for 1500, such as 1015, 1115, 1150. Generally, the scholars accept the lowest figures and explain the totals also that way. In so doing, they have often to put their own construction on the Puranic evidence. But this small (3) Chronology of Kasmir History, reconstructed 1955. (4) Indian Eras 1956. (5) Age of Buddha, Milinda and Antiyoka and Yuga Purana 1956. (6) The Historicity of Vikaramaditya and Salivahana 1957. (7) Ancient Hindu History Vols. I-II, 1957. 1. mahapadmabhisekattu yavajjanmapariksitah | evam varsasahasram tu jneyam pancasatottaram ||

Jan. 1962] STUDIES IN PURANIC HISTORY 17 group of scholars accept both the figures as they are given in the Puranas. This is one main point of difference in Puranic chronology. Another crucial point is the use of certain eras. Puranic chronology is based on two eras-Kali Era and Saptarsi Era. There is also a calculation based on Manvantara. Modern scholars completely ignore the evidence of these eras and of Manvantara. According to the Puranic traditions, Kali Era started in B. C. 3101 and Saptarsi Era in 3176 B. C. Now it is stated in the Puranas that Kali started on the day on which Krsna died. Therefore, Krsna's death will be put in 3101 B. C. and the Mbh war will be dated a few years earlier, say in 3126 or 3136 B. C. Puranic scholars have shown that, according to the Puranas, Saptarsi Era was in Maghha in the days of Pariksit and it was again in Maghha in the days of 24th or 27th Andhra king. Saptarsi Era is a cycle of 2700 years and therefore, according to this statement, 2700 years had elapsed from Pariksit to the 24th or 27th Andhra. Similarly, I have shown on Puranic evidence that a Manvantara lasted for 2840 years and that a Manvantara had started with Pariksit and ended with the rise of the Guptas. These calculations based on Saptarsi Era and Manvatara calculations show that between Pariksit and the rise of the Guptas, about 2800 years had elapsed and putting Pariksit in 3101 B. C., the rise of the Guptas falls in c. 300 B. C. According to the Puranas, Kali Era started at the death of Krsna and therefore at the accession of Pariksit. Kali had ended in the days of Sumitra and Ksemeka i. e. in the days of Visakkhayupa, the fourth king of the Pradyota dynasty. It has 1. See Indian Eras by Pt. K. Venkatachalam, and PC pp. 322 ff. Pargiter's frantic efforts to explain away this are not at all convincing. 2. PC pp. 42 ff. 3

18 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 been shown¹ that this Kali Era was of 1200 years and though it had ended in the days of Sumitra and Visakkhayupa, Kali Era continued and continues even to-day. These calculations are corroborrated by the total number of years assigned to various post-Mbh dynasties upto the rise of the Guptas. These Puranic scholars, have worked out details of these calculations very accurately. Most of the modern scholars, on the other hand, do not consider these statements about these eras, but take as their basis of calculations the number of years given to various postMbh dynasties; but they always select the smallest period, where two or more calculations are available and even then have to put their own construction at several places in order to make the Puranic figures fit in with their own chronolgy. Their method is this. Putting Chandragupta Muarya in c. 327 B. C. they go backward and forward and adjust the Puranic figures. They take Chandragupta Maurya's date-arrived at by them as the central point, while the Puranic scholars take traditional date of the Mbh war as the central point. Puranic scholars, who put about 2800 years between Pariksit and the rise of the Guptas, put Chandragupta the First Gupta as the contemporary of Alexander. These scholars have examined and refuted all these points³ which, according to the present day chronology, militate against putting Chandragupta I in C. 320 B. C. These points are the mention of Yona kings in the Piyadasi inscriptions, Date of Buddha's death, Beginning of the Gupta Era as fixed by modern scholars to be in 318-19 A. D. Harsa Era, Saka Era, Krta Era etc.* 1. PC pp. 60 ff. 2. See particnlarly, pt. K. Venkatachalam, T. S. Narayan Shastri, Mankad, V. Jagannath Rao and K. D. Sethna. 3. See particularly the writings of pt. Kota Venkatachalam, T. S. N. Shastri, Mankad and Sethna. * I must, however, say that the reference to the Yona kings in the piyadasi Inscriptions has not been satisfactorily explained.

Jan. 1962] STUDIES IN PURANIC HISTORY 19 Some attempts have been made to study the pre-Bharata war chronology, but here the material is scanty and often uncertain. However, some attempts in this direction are noteworthy. Pusalkar in the Vedic Age, takes 3102 B. C., which is the usual date for Flood in Mesopotamia, to be the date of Manu Vaivasvata. He, then divides the ancient Indian Historical periods thus; The Manu Vaivasvata Period (3102) B. C., The Yayati Period (3000-2750 B. C.), the Parasurama Period (2550- 2350 B. C.). The Rama-candra Period (2350 B. C.-1950 B. C.), The Krsna Period (1950-1450 B. C.). His method is that of counting generations given in the Puranas by taking an average of 18 years for one ruling generation. He has taken 95 generations between Manu and the Bharata war and thus has put the Bharata war in 3100-(95 x 18-1710) = C. 1400 B. C. P. L. Bhargava has divided the ancient period into Eras called-The Era of Saptasindhu, The Era of conquest, the Era of Expansion and the Era of Settlement. This is from the point of Aryan advent and expansion in India. His method of settling the ancient chronology is this: He takes his stand on the Puranic verse which says that 1050 (with v. 1.) years had elapsed between the birth of Pariksit and the coronation of Mahapadma Nanda. But he takes Pariksit of this verse, not to be that Pariksit who was the grandson of Arjuna, but to be that Pariksit who is given in the Paurava genealogy at an early stage. He takes this Pariksit to be the same as Kuru the son of Samvarana and as such to be the first king of the Kurus as separate from the Pancalas. Having called this Pariksit as Pariksit I, he puts 1050 years between the birth of the Pariksit I and Mahapadma Nanda. And taking 360 B. C. as the date of the coronation of Mahapadma, he puts³ the birth of this Pariksit I in 360 + 1050: 1410 B. C. He has, then, fixed his chronology by counting the generations of kings, taking an average of 20 years for one ruling 1. India in the Vedic Age p. 96 ff. 2. Ibid. p. 46. 3. Ibid. p. 128-29 ff.

20 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 generation. He has taken 81 generations from Iksvaku to Pariksit I and thus putting the accession of Pariksit I in 1380 B. C. and adding to it 81 x 20=1620 he gets 3000 B. C. as date of Iksvaku. He puts the Bharata war in 1000 B. C. putting it 32 generations before Mahapadma. Shri M. N. Yajnik in his "Genealogical Tables of the Solar and the Lunar Dynasties" Baroda, 1930 gave only from Visnupurana 12 dynasties and tried to fix up certain dates. He puts Manu Vaivasvata in 6000 B. C., Rama in 3250 B. C. and Mbh war in 1898 B. C. S. C. Bose in his 'Purana Pravesa, Calcutta 1920 (in Bengali) has said that Kalpa is a cycle of 5000 years divided into 14 Manvantaras (one of 359 years and thirteen of 357 years each) as also four yugas in proportion of 4:3: 2: 1. According to him Bharata war took place in 1416 B. C. the beginning of the Kali Age was 1458 B. C. and of Krta Age 5958 B. C. Pargiter examined the question of Puranic chronology on the basis of Yuga-calculations of Satya, Treta, Dvapara and Kali. Some other scholars' also have tried to examine the question of the yugas. Usually, Kali is given 4,32,000 years. Dvapara is given 8,64,000 years, Treta is given 17,28,000 years and Krta or Satya is given 34,56,000 years. These are considered Manava years. When they are changed to Divya years, each of this period is divided by 360 and then Kali will have 1200 divya years, Dvapara 2400, Treta 3600 and Krta 4800 Divya years. Some scholars have said that these are the real Manava years, which were later taken as divya. Again here the proportion is 1. 2. 3. 4. It has been pointed out that originally the proportion was 1. 1. 1. 1 and therefore each Yuga will have 1200 years and if we take out 200 years of the sandhya and sandhyamsa each Yuga will have 1000 years. Thus it has been shown³ that from Manu Vaivasvata to Sisunaga 1. Tilak (The Arctic Home), Rangacharya (The Yugas), V. S. Aiyer (The Chronology of Ancient India), S. B. Ditarkit (Bharatiya Jyotissastra). 2. PC pp. 320-1. 3. PC pp. 60 ff.

Jan. 1962] STUDIES IN PURANIC HISTORY 21 (Sumitra, Kalki), four yugas i. e. 4000 years had elapsed. Thus the yuga calculations are applied to ancient Puranic chronology. Some other scholars have given some dates for Manu Vaivasvata and some other subsequent kings and events. I have given¹ some dates by using a method which I have called Manvantara centuryuga Method. Attempts have also been made to equate some of the earlier Puranic dates with the dates in earlier Kashmirian and Nepalese genealogies. Pradhan has put³ 14 to 15 generations between Rama and Krsna and has put about 300 years between them. In Vaidika Sahitya Parisilana (1953) by Shr Rajnikant Shastri an attempt has been made to fix up the dates of principal Rgvedic rsis, by connecting them with certain Puranic kings and counting the number of these Puranic kings. Thus Madhucchandas, the son of Visvamitra is taken as a contemporary of Hariscandra and as Hariscandra is removed upwards from Mbh war by 61 king-units, his date is taken to be 61 x 25: 1525 i. e. 15253101 (date of Kali start): 4626 B. C. In my 'Date of Rgveda' (1951) I have also fixed the dates of Rgvedic rsis on somewhat different lines. Here ends my survey of these studies. It is likely that for want of information, I might have not been able to refer to other attempts in this direction, for which I beg to be excused. This survey of Puranic studies in modern times shows that the Puranas are now being rccognised as an important source of ancient Indian History. Puranas had been already recognised for the period upto the Saisunagas. Now several scholars have a tendency to recognise even the pre-Bharata war period of the Puranas. 1. PC Ch. 2. 2. D. 8. Triveda, Pt. K. Venkatachalam, Mankad. 3. CAI in several chapters.

22 puranam - PURANA [Vol. IV, No. 1 In this connection, I would point out here that though our studies, few as they are, stop at Manu Vaivasvata, the Puranas have a period which may be termed as prediluvian or pre-flood period. For this period, the Puranas have preserved the genealogy of Svayambhuva Manu. This genealogy, though given as one continuous genealogy, is, in fact, composed of two or three branches, one starting with Svayambhuua Manu and the other starting with Caksusi Manu. Moreover, there is a third genealogy-that of Priyavrata which, to some extent, can be called pre-diluvian. These pre-flood lines are not studied yet, but they deserve a close study. Pre-flood dynasties of Egypt, Babylon, Sumer etc. have been studied and they have yielded some results. Pre-flood i. e. Pre-Vaivasvata dynasties of India also are likely to yield good results. Again, Buddhistic Mahavamsa, Dipavamsa and the Jain Agamas and their commentaries as well as what are called Jain Puranas are known to throw valuable light on the period of Buddha and Mahavira; but if used properly they are likely to throw good light on Barhadratha to Maurya dynasties. Some light is likely to be thrown on the pre-Bharata period also. Earlier Puranic materials are likely to throw light on the Harappan culture also.