Presentation made by Prof. B B Lal at the International Seminar on Mahabharata organized by Draupadi Trust in April 2012 at New Delhi.

1. MAHĀBHĀRATA HISTORICITY
Prof. B.B. Lal
by

2. THE PROBLEM
• There are two extremely divergent views
about the historicity of the Mahabharata.
• To the faithful, everything mentioned in
the text is true to the very letter. To some
others, it is a mere figment of imagination.
The reason for such a confusion lies in the
very nature of the epic itself. Say, for
example, if Krishna was a historical figure,
he is unlikely to have been later than
Buddha who lived in 6th -5th centuries BCE.

3. THE PROBLEM (Contd.)
• On the other hand, parts of the text may
be as late as the 4th Cent. CE, since it
refers not only to the Greeks and Romans
but also to the Huns – what an yawning
gap between the event and the text!
• Secondly, the Mahabharata, as available
now, comprises over 100,000 verses, but
earlier it consisted of 24,000 verses and
called the Bharata. Still earlier, it had only
8,000 verses, called the Jaya. Thus, what
indeed is the original can’t be determined.

4. THE PROBLEM (Contd,)
• Thirdly, let it not be forgotten that the
Mahabharata was not meant to be a
history book. It is an epic (prabandha-
kavya) and the poet enjoyed absolute
liberty to let his imagination fly high. Thus,
one cannot question his use of
superlatives while describing the palaces
or the strength of the armies on the
battlefield or the supernatural weapons
used by them.

5. THE APPROACH
• As an archaeologist, I thought that a way
to ascertain the truth might be to explore
and excavate sites associated with the
Mahabharata story and find out what
these have to say in the matter.
• In this context, a very important point to
note is that all the Mahabharata sites,
luckily, continue to bear the same names
even today as they did in antiquity, e.g.
Hastinapura, Mathura, Kurukshetra, etc.

7. HASTINAPURA– THE KEY
SITE
• Way back, in 1951-52, I conducted
excavations at the key site of Hastinapura,
the capital of the Kauravas, located on the
right bank of the Ganga, in Meerut Distt,
Uttar Pradesh, some 60 miles north-east
of Delhi.
• The results were very startling, as we shall
see from the slides that follow.

11. Claims of the PGW Culture
• At this point, it needs to be emphasized
that it is the Painted Grey Ware
Culture which is the lowest common
denominator at all the sites
associated with the Mahabharata
story referred to earlier and shown
on the map. In fact, even sites
associated with the story through
verbal tradition have yielded remains
of the Painted Grey Ware Culture.

28. Archaeology vis-à-vis the Texts
• In the context of the archaeological evidence of
a flood having destroyed Hastinapura, the texts
aver:
• Gangayapahrite tsmin nagare Nagasahavaye
• Tyaktva Nichaksur nagaram Kausambyam sa
nivatsyati
• i.e. ‘When the city of Nagasahvya (Hastinapura)
is carried away by the Ganga, Nichakshu (the
then ruler) will abandon it and dwell in
Kausambi.’
• And the archaeological evidence corroborates it.

30. Chronological Horizon of the
Mahabharata War
• We now come to the most crucial issue,
viz. the probable date of the Mahabharata
War.
• As mentioned in the texts, it was during
the time of Nichkshu that the capital was
shifted from Hastinapura to Kausambi.
• The texts further tell us that (a) Nichakshu
was 5th ruler in succession from Parikshit
who ascended the throne after the War;

31. Chronological Horizon (contd.)
• and (b) amongst the rulers at Kausambi
Udayana was 19th from Nichakshu.
• Hence Udayana was the 24th ruler after
the War. Further, it is well known that
Udayana was contemporary of Buddha
who passed away in 487 BCE. Thus, in
broad figures, Udayana may have ruled
around 500 BCE.
• The next question is: What was the total
duration of the reigns of these 24 rulers?

33. Chronological Horizon (contd.)
• If we round off the 13.55 years average
per ruler to 14 years or even extend it to,
say, 15, the date of the War would work
out as follows:
• 24 (rulers) x 15 years (average reign per
ruler) = 360 years.
• If we add this number, 360, to 500 BCE,
when Udayana was ruling, we arrive at
the date of 860 BCE for the War.

34. Chronological Horizon (contd.)
• This is not to say that the War took place
exactly in 860 BCE. It is a figure arrived at
from a combined evidence of archaeology
and literature. We may further round it off
to circa 900 BCE, but perhaps no more!
• I would be failing in my duty if I did not
mention dates (all in BCE) assigned by
other scholars to the War: 1424(K.P.
Jayaswal); 1400(A.S.Altekar); 950 (F.E.
Pargiter); 9th cent. (H.C.Raychaudhury).

35. Chronological Horizon (contd.)
• I have commented on these dates in my
various papers and would not like to
repeat the same here. But I would
certainly like to say a few words about
3102 BCE, based on a lonely inscription at
Aihole dated to Saka year 556 i.e. 634-35
CE. This date, however, seems to be
supported by astronomical data in the
Mahabharata, as interpreted by Prof.
Narhar Acharya.

36. Chronological Horizon (contd.)
• My difficulty in accepting this date is that
around 3102 BCE (nor even for another
1000 years to come) none of the sites
associated with the Mahabharata story
was in existence – be it Hastinapura or
Indraprastha or Mathura, as established
by the excavations at these sites. How
can then we enact the Mahabharata story
without these sites having been there?
Can we?

37. Chronological Horizon (contd.)
• There is yet another way of looking at the
figure 3102 BCE. As seen earlier, there
were 24 rulers from Parikshit, who
ascended the throne after the War, to
Udayana who ruled around 500 BCE. This
gives an average of 108 years per ruler:
3102 - 500 = 2602, divided by 24 = 108.
• Nowhere in the entire world has there
been such an average per ruler. Has there
to be a special case for India ?
• Let the learned audience think and decide!

38. • Thank you very much for your patient
hearing.