DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9541#0735
( m )
A P P E X DI X.
APPENDIX A.
OX SOME DISPUTED POINTS OF INDIAN CHRONOLOGY.
Throughout the preceding pages the dates of kings' reigns, where
quoted, have been assumed as known, and the eras from which they
are calculated as ascertained. This has been done in order not to
interrupt the narrative of events by introducing a chronological dis-
quisition at every point where a date occurs; but no one at all familiar
with the subject needs to be told that the dates of mediaeval dynasties
in India are far from settled, and that few are universally acquiesced
in. Great progress has, it is true, been made in the last ten or twenty
years in clearing away the difficulties that surround the subject. So
much is this the case, that there are only one or two dates of sufficient
importance to affect our reasoning which still remain in doubt; but
though this may be true, there are many others about which the
world in general feel considerable hesitation. It consequently becomes
almost indispensable to state briefly the grounds on which the chrono-
logy used throughout this work is based, in order that the correctness
of most of the inductions stated in it may be estimated at their
true value.1
The earliest reasonable statement bearing on the subject which we
possess is in the 9th chapter of Arrian's 'Indica.' It is there stated
—quoting from Megasthenes—" That from Bacchus (Ixwaku) to San-
drocottus (Chandragupta), the Indians reckon one hundred and fifty-
1 In the year 1S70 I published in the
'Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society'
(N.S.), vol. iv. p. 81, et seqq., an article
on Indian chronology, in which my views
on the subject were stated at greater
length and more detail than it is pro-
posed to do here. Being addressed to
those who were supposed to be more or
less familiar with the subject, the paper
took the form of an argument, rather
than of a statement, and is, consequently,
difficult to follow by those to whom the
subject is new. The following is an
abstract of that paper, with such correc-
tions as have occurred to me in the
meanwhile, and stated in a consecutive
form, and with only those details that
seem necessary to render it intelligible.
For further particulars on special points
the reader is referred to the article
itself.
A P P E X DI X.
APPENDIX A.
OX SOME DISPUTED POINTS OF INDIAN CHRONOLOGY.
Throughout the preceding pages the dates of kings' reigns, where
quoted, have been assumed as known, and the eras from which they
are calculated as ascertained. This has been done in order not to
interrupt the narrative of events by introducing a chronological dis-
quisition at every point where a date occurs; but no one at all familiar
with the subject needs to be told that the dates of mediaeval dynasties
in India are far from settled, and that few are universally acquiesced
in. Great progress has, it is true, been made in the last ten or twenty
years in clearing away the difficulties that surround the subject. So
much is this the case, that there are only one or two dates of sufficient
importance to affect our reasoning which still remain in doubt; but
though this may be true, there are many others about which the
world in general feel considerable hesitation. It consequently becomes
almost indispensable to state briefly the grounds on which the chrono-
logy used throughout this work is based, in order that the correctness
of most of the inductions stated in it may be estimated at their
true value.1
The earliest reasonable statement bearing on the subject which we
possess is in the 9th chapter of Arrian's 'Indica.' It is there stated
—quoting from Megasthenes—" That from Bacchus (Ixwaku) to San-
drocottus (Chandragupta), the Indians reckon one hundred and fifty-
1 In the year 1S70 I published in the
'Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society'
(N.S.), vol. iv. p. 81, et seqq., an article
on Indian chronology, in which my views
on the subject were stated at greater
length and more detail than it is pro-
posed to do here. Being addressed to
those who were supposed to be more or
less familiar with the subject, the paper
took the form of an argument, rather
than of a statement, and is, consequently,
difficult to follow by those to whom the
subject is new. The following is an
abstract of that paper, with such correc-
tions as have occurred to me in the
meanwhile, and stated in a consecutive
form, and with only those details that
seem necessary to render it intelligible.
For further particulars on special points
the reader is referred to the article
itself.