DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9541#0030
8
HISTORY OF INDIAN ARCHITECTURE.
of dynasties—probably, however, tbe paramount one—and extend only
from the accession of Chandragupta—the Sandrocottus of the Greeks—
b.c. 325, to the decline of the Andra dynasty, about a.d. 400 or 408.
It seems probable we may find sufficient confirmation of these lists
as far back as the Anjana era, b.c. GDI, so as to include the period
marked by the life and labours of Sakya Muni—the present Buddha
—in our chronology, with tolerable certainty. All the. chronology
before that period is purposely and avowedly falsified by the intro-
duction of the system of Yugs, in order to carry back the origin
of the Brahmanical system into the regions of the most fabulous
antiquity. From the 5th century onwards, when the Puranas began
to be put into their present form, in consequence of the revival of the
Brahmanical religion, instead of recording contemporary events, they
purposely confused them so as to maintain their prophetic character,
and prevent the detection of the falsehood of their claim to an antiquity
equal to that of the Vedas. For Indian history after the 5th century
we are consequently left mainly to inscriptions on monuments or on
copper-plates, to coins, and to the works of foreigners for the necessary
information with which the natives of the country itself have neglected
to supply us. These probably will be found eventually to be at
least sufficient for the purposes of chronology. Already such progress
has been made in the decipherment of inscriptions and the arrange-
ment of coins, that all the dynasties may be arranged consecutively,
and even the date of the reigns of almost all the kings in the north
of India have been already approximately ascertained. In the south
of India so much has not been done, but this is more because
there have been fewer labourers in the field than from want of
materials. There are literally thousands of inscriptions in the south
which have not been copied, and of the few that have been collected
only a very small number have been translated; but they are such
as to give us hope that, when the requisite amount of labour is
bestowed upon them, we shall be able to fix the chronology of the
kings of the south with a degree of certainty sufficient for all ordinary
purposes.1
It is a far more difficult task to ascertain whether we shall ever
recover the History of India before the time of the advent of Buddha,
or before the Anjana epoch, b.c. 691. Here we certainly will find no
coins or inscriptions to guide us, and no buildings to illustrate the
arts, or to mark the position of cities, while all ethnographic traces
have become so blurred, if not obliterated, that they serve us little as
guides through the labyrinth. Yet on the other hand there is so large
1 Almost the only person who has of and the ' Madias Journal' throw immense
late done anything in this direction is light on the subject, hut to complete the
Sir Walter Elliot. His ]>a]>ers in the task we want many workers instead of
'Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society' I only one.
HISTORY OF INDIAN ARCHITECTURE.
of dynasties—probably, however, tbe paramount one—and extend only
from the accession of Chandragupta—the Sandrocottus of the Greeks—
b.c. 325, to the decline of the Andra dynasty, about a.d. 400 or 408.
It seems probable we may find sufficient confirmation of these lists
as far back as the Anjana era, b.c. GDI, so as to include the period
marked by the life and labours of Sakya Muni—the present Buddha
—in our chronology, with tolerable certainty. All the. chronology
before that period is purposely and avowedly falsified by the intro-
duction of the system of Yugs, in order to carry back the origin
of the Brahmanical system into the regions of the most fabulous
antiquity. From the 5th century onwards, when the Puranas began
to be put into their present form, in consequence of the revival of the
Brahmanical religion, instead of recording contemporary events, they
purposely confused them so as to maintain their prophetic character,
and prevent the detection of the falsehood of their claim to an antiquity
equal to that of the Vedas. For Indian history after the 5th century
we are consequently left mainly to inscriptions on monuments or on
copper-plates, to coins, and to the works of foreigners for the necessary
information with which the natives of the country itself have neglected
to supply us. These probably will be found eventually to be at
least sufficient for the purposes of chronology. Already such progress
has been made in the decipherment of inscriptions and the arrange-
ment of coins, that all the dynasties may be arranged consecutively,
and even the date of the reigns of almost all the kings in the north
of India have been already approximately ascertained. In the south
of India so much has not been done, but this is more because
there have been fewer labourers in the field than from want of
materials. There are literally thousands of inscriptions in the south
which have not been copied, and of the few that have been collected
only a very small number have been translated; but they are such
as to give us hope that, when the requisite amount of labour is
bestowed upon them, we shall be able to fix the chronology of the
kings of the south with a degree of certainty sufficient for all ordinary
purposes.1
It is a far more difficult task to ascertain whether we shall ever
recover the History of India before the time of the advent of Buddha,
or before the Anjana epoch, b.c. 691. Here we certainly will find no
coins or inscriptions to guide us, and no buildings to illustrate the
arts, or to mark the position of cities, while all ethnographic traces
have become so blurred, if not obliterated, that they serve us little as
guides through the labyrinth. Yet on the other hand there is so large
1 Almost the only person who has of and the ' Madias Journal' throw immense
late done anything in this direction is light on the subject, hut to complete the
Sir Walter Elliot. His ]>a]>ers in the task we want many workers instead of
'Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society' I only one.