vinukonda murali mohan

Académica. Journal de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades del Dharma College Internacional. Vol IV. Año 2019

The excavations show that Dwaraka was an urban center with certain specializedindustries such as boat building and metal working as evidenced by this copper lotafound in the sea bed. Iron too was known to the smiths of Bet Dwaraka. The

Sabha Parva

text of the

Mahâbhârata

describes houses, but none had survived the sea. A few pavedpaths, drains, etc. were traced. Some houses or public buildings had pillared halls. "Anidea of the houses built of dressed and undressed stones in ancient Dwaraka can be hadfrom the structures laid bare in the Harappan town of Surkotada in Kutch.Kushastali is the name given to a pre-Dwaraka (or Harappan) settlement that hadbeen abandoned and reoccupied and rebuilt during the

Mahâbhârata

period, said Rao,who identifies Bet Dwaraka with Antardvipa of the epic.

"The word dvipa as used in the

Mahâbhârata

often conveys the sense of any land between two rivers or two waters,although it is also used for a continent,

" said Rao. Also,

"the fort wall and submergedwalls in the sea confirm the appellation

Varidurga

, citadel in the water, given toDwaraka in the

Mahâbhârata

(Idem)The stone mould found in the intertidal zone compares favorably with similarmoulds found in Lothal and other Indus towns just as the tidal dock at Lothal built in 2300BC is seen as the precursor of the port installation of Dwaraka. Iron was already known tothe smiths of Bet Dwaraka as attested to by iron stakes, nails and other iron objects.Terracotta wheels of toy carts were also recovered. By 1500 BC almost the entiretownship seems to have been destroyed. But while it existed, one later description of thecity reads, "The yellow glitter of the golden fort of the city in the sea throwing yellow light allround looked as if the flames of vadavagni (volcano) came out tearing asunder the sea." Also, the Dwaraka harbor provided the earliest clear evidence of modifying naturalrock to serve the needs of a harbor. Two rock-cut slipways of varying width extending fromthe beach to the intertidal zone were discovered, which could have been designed forlaunching boats of different sizes. This technique was adopted by the Phoenicians muchlater, around 900-800 BC. The structures and the large stone anchors lying under the seaat Dwaraka are also seen as indicative of large ships being anchored out at sea whilesmaller boats carried men and cargo up the river. Among artifacts recovered fromDwaraka and Bet Dwaraka were pottery carrying inscriptions in old Indo-Aryan (Vedic orarchaic Sanskrit) script and were found to be 3,528 years old in thermoluminescencetesting. Rao associate one of the potsherds recovered to read baga (God) in lateHarappan characters and

assignable to 1800-1600 BC and another as

Mahakaccha sah pa

, conveying the sense of "sea (or sea god) king (or ruler) protect"-an appeal to the seagod for protection. A similar appeal has been in a seal inscription from Mohenjo Daro.

Académica. Journal de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades del Dharma College Internacional. Vol IV. Año 2019

Triangular three-holed anchors weighing 120-150 kg, the biggest weighing 560 kg,found were similar to pre-Phoenician anchors found in Syria and Cyprus and were datedaround 1500 BC. Another archaeologically significant find was a lunate shaped moonstone(chandrasila). This and a beam found in the vicinity suggested to Rao's team that thereexisted a temple here. Stone artifacts recovered from the sea-bed included a low footedstool of basalt, finely polished found along with brass arches, a pestle of granite and agrinder cum pounder of dolerite. Two single-holed spheroid stone objects, use unclear,datable to 1500-1400 BC were found, besides iron nails, brass objects, a copper bell, ahighly corroded copper lota and a few bronze nails. Low zinc brass produced at Lothal in2300-2000 BC is similar in composition to that found at Dwaraka. (See in appendixes endmore ruins photos)

7. What really happened to Dwaraka?

The rise in the sea-level in Dwaraka is a scientific truth. Studies have proved that thesea considerably and suddenly rose to submerge the city.

Harivamsa

describes thesubmergence of Dwaraka saying Krishna instructed Arjuna, who was then visiting Dwaraka, toevacuate the residents of the city as the sea was going to engulf the city. "On the seventh day(of Krishna saying this), as the last of the citizens were leaving the city, the sea entered thestreets of Dwaraka." According to experts, there could have been three reasons why the seaentered the land. One, a change in the level of seabed, two, a massive earthquake and three,sudden increase in the level of sea water. Of the three, the last is the most plausible. If it was achange in the level of seabed, some remains of the "tearing off action" on the shore would bevisible, which is absent. Earthquake can be ruled out as the structures have not collapsedbecause of the quake. The third reason is most acceptable as a similar phenomenon hadoccurred in the shores of Bahrain, around the same time, as some recent findings indicate. It isto be noted here that considerable work has been done on shore and offshore underwaterexcavations in Bahrain, which has indicated a deep and regular trade and other relationsbetween the western coast and the coasts of the present-day Bahrain region.In the project proposal, Rao writes,

"The fort walls of the first town of Dwaraka saidto have been founded at Kusasthali in Bet Dwarka island have been traced on shore andin the sea and also dated by thermoluminescence dating method to 16th century BC."

(Opus cit) According to him, the clue to the existence of ancient Dwaraka near the modern

Académica. Journal de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades del Dharma College Internacional. Vol IV. Año 2019

town of Dwaraka was found during archaeological excavation near the Dwarkadhish temple in1979-80. Eroded debris and pottery provided evidence of a port town destroyed by sea about3,500 years ago. This evidence is what led to the early excavations in the Arabian Sea, nearthe mouth of the Gomati river, where the modern town of Dwaraka stands.The proposal envisaged a three-stage heritage conservation. This was to be donealong with further excavations in Bet Dwaraka. It was suggested that access to the submergedcity in Dwaraka water can be given to visitors, in fair season, through underwater acrylic tubesor viewing chambers at specific points. Such facilities exist in Singapore and Auckland (NewZealand). Alternatively, underwater video cameras can be used to project images above water,in monitors.The project also mooted the idea of a submarine museum of dolphins as they are ingood population in deeper water, off Dwaraka. There is also a strong case for a MaritimeMuseum of Antiquities found in excavations at Dwaraka, Bet Dwaraka, Somnath, Nageswarand dioramas of Lothal port and Modern Dwaraka city. As of now, the Dwaraka antiquities arelying in NIO, Goa.It is again a telling story of the system in India, which is the cause of lack of interest inthe project. Such a discovery in any other country would have been approved and encouraged.The excavation on Dwaraka was done by Rao, who was with the National Institute ofOceanography, Goa. Though work remained to be done, the CSIR, under whom falls the NIO,did not release the funds. Further extension to Rao was not given as he had already reachedthe age of 72 and He pass away in the age of 91 in 2013.

8. Discussion of Date problems

The mainstream chronological model based in Max Müeller ideas says that

Rig-Veda

is the oldest text, introduced in India around 1500 B.C. by the Aryan invader tribescoming from the Caucasus (early scholars said that they came from Europe or Iran) andthe other texts had been gradually compiled in the course of centuries. This theory givessome historical recognition to the

Mahâbhârata

War and its protagonists such as Krishna,but as the later epic rendition of a primitive society around the 10th century B.C. Accordingto this theory, sage Vyasa and his successors the Vyasas, compiled the

Mahâbhârata

andrelated texts starting from the 5th century B C., until the later compilation of the

Purânas

between the 5th and the 13th centuries D C.8.1 This model has been a useful tool for scholars; but unbiased investigators haverecognized that it presents several difficulties that cannot be solved, and above all it isnothing more than a non-verifiable hypothesis.

It is sad to say; but even today, there areadvocates to (AIT) and the Müllerian dating model of Vedic texts, which alienate anddisassociate themselves from reality, before the archaeological evidence and discoveries thatdemonstrate the unreal of that model ...

Currently, some researchers change the word with

―migration

and others s

uggest both ―migration

-invasion

, others ―

from outside andinside or both? However, there are scholars, more Archeologists, like Jim Shafer thatdemonstrates how:

The Indo-Aryan concept never was subject to rigorous validation beyond the field ofhistorical linguistic. Linguistic reconstruction were used to interpret archeologicalmaterials, which in turned were used to substantiate the original reconstructions.The Indo-Aryan invasion as an academic concept in 18th -19th century in Europereflected the cultural milie

u of that period… What was theory became unquestioned

fact that was used to interpreted and organize all subsequent data.Archeological data not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasioninto south Asia any time in the pre- or proto-historic periods. Instead, it is possible todocument archeologically a series de changes reflecting indigenous culturaldevelopments from prehistoric to historic periods. (Shafer 1984:88).

Académica. Journal de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades del Dharma College Internacional. Vol IV. Año 2019

There are others examples that demonstrated the same, like Jonathan MarkKenoyer:

There is in fact no archeological or literary evidence of invasion during this period of

Indus civilization‘s decline. Concurrent theories take into account main factors that

would have contributed to fragmentation of society, including the breakdown ofagricultural life, the migration of people following changes in rivers courses, and thefailure to maintain political and economic control over the vast region. (Kenoyer: 55)

Although undoubtedly the origin of such one Indo-European community in itself, issomething that in the present is outside the scope of scientific knowledge, the truthremains ignored.8.2 About the dating Müeller model of

Sruti Smriti

vedic

–

puranic literature, since 1500BC to later, is very easy quote scholars that disclosed how is groundless. Max Muller wasone of the first to reject his own paradigm: "

Whether the Vedic hymns were composedin the 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 B. C., there is no power on earth that willdetermine it. (

Müeller, 1899: 35) Similar statements by himself appear in two other od histexts.. (Müeller, 1883: 21; Müeller, 1869: 163).

In this respect S. Piggot revealed:

Max Müller insisted that these dates were only minimal dates, and later there was akind of tacit agreement (no doubt by the influence of the Mitanni Aryan documentsdiscovery around 1380 B.C. with the names of the gods mentioned in the Rig Veda)to date the composition of the Rigveda between 1500 and 1400 BC. C. But withoutconclusive evidence. (Piggot. 1966: 214)

The American Sankristist W. D. Whitney wrote: ―

All dates in India literary

history are pint set up to be bowled again…

For most part is still the case

(Cit inWinterniz 1972; 27). Therefore, Moris Winterniz pointed out:

It is remarkable, however, how strong the power of suggestion is even in science.

Max Müeller‘s hypothetical and purely arbitrary determination of the Vedic epochs, in

the course of the years, received more and more dignity in the character of ascientifically proven fact, without any new argument or actual proof been added(Idem).

8.3 The official date of 10

BC for

Krishna’s and

Mahâbhârata

epoch is based in thedating of Buddha Siddharta in 500 BC. Other arguments in establishing the antiquity ofKrishna

’s

times is exemplified by the calculation offered by the critics Colebrook andWilson. According to them, the

Bhâgavatam

must have been compiled in the 13th centuryCE, because the 12th Canto gives a chronology from which it is evinced that king Pariksit,described in the beginning and in the end of the text, lived 1300 years before kingChandragupta Maurya. The chronology seems to mention also three Andhra kings,tentatively dated in the 2nd century CE.The entire association is based on a reference from the Greek historianMeghasthenes in 300 BC in his work

Indika,

where he mentions king

Sandrakutus,

identified by later scholars as king Chandragupta Maurya. These conservative scholarsbelieved this to be the equivalent of the Rosetta Inscriptions stone, and on this calculationall the chronology of Indian history was built. The theory elaborated on Chandragupta

Maurya‘s gra

ndson, King Asoka Maurya, who was identified like a Asoka converted toBuddhism, that financing its expansion and organizing its councils, and who was deemed

Académica. Journal de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades del Dharma College Internacional. Vol IV. Año 2019

to have lived in the 2nd century BC. Thus the Battle of

Mahâbhâtara

was deemed to havebeen fought in the 10th century BC.But there are difficulties in this tine scenery because, according to Jiva GosvamiBuddha appeared when two thousand years of the Kali age have passed:

tatah iti ayamkaler abda-sahasra-dvitiye gate vyaktah.

(

Krishna-sandarbha

Vol. I anuccheda 24) Thatmeans around 1102 BC. And in the first reconstruction of Hindu chronology by Sir WilliamJones, Lord Buddha is appointed to 1027 BC. (Thompson 1994), There are astrologicalreferences in the Buddhist sources that Sidhartha born in 1800 BC. (Ghokale 1996)The other weak point of this claim is that Meghastenes made no mention ofChanakya, the great minister of king Chandragupta Maurya, and neither did Chanakyaever mentioned in his works any Greek like Alexander or Meghastenes who visited thecourt of

Sandrakutus

. Another problem is that the two kings mentioned by the Greekhistorian as preceding and succeeding

Sandrakutus

were

Xandramas

and

Sandrocyptus

.Such names have no resemblance whatsoever with the names of Nanda or Bindusar and Asoka, the kings whose lived before and after of Chandragupta Maurya.The only phonetically acceptable resemblances are among linage Rulers of kingChandragupta-Gupta I:

Chamdramas

Xandramas

, and

Samudragupta

Sandrocyptus

.This means that the dating system must be rethought. This evidence, presented by Dr.Prasada Gokhale from University of New Brunswick in Canada , suggest that Chanakyalived around 1534 BC and king Chandragupta I in 325 BC, when he entered diplomaticrelationships with Alexander the Great. Still another problem is that the Buddhist Asokawas a king of Kashmir and not the grandson of emperor Maurya's Asoka. (Cfr. Gokhale1996) This is significant, because it justifies this investigation, since it coincides with thehistorical version in

Srîmad-Bhâgavatam

. Other example of erroneous calculations is thefollow argument:

According to the inscription Aihole of Pulakesin II, 700 AD, the Battle of Bharataoccurred in 3102 BC, in which the Kali-yuga era began according to the astronomicaltradition represented by Aryabhata. Another school of Hindu astronomers andhistorians represented by Vridda-Gaga, Varahamihira and Kalahana, puts the battlein 2449 BC. . . We can, therefore, take the 1400 B.C as provisional date for the battle

(of Kuruksetra); and the event must have taken place between that date and 1000 BC.

(Cit in Gambirananda 1984)

Where is the objectivity? In other words, the conclusive scores are leaving the realevidence to speculative jumps of imagination like blind shots in the air, so imagine that thisextrapolate way was used to calculate anti-aircraft ballistics?

Nb.

The author of this paper was asked to Dr. Dominid Wujastyk, director of theinternational forum Indological List on the Internet, about the date of Buddha, whichwas confronted with all those findings already show here and his response was very

objective: “So far, I'm afraid I could not respond.”

8.4 However, in the recent years several questions have been raised about the dating andthe original purpose of the structures off Dwaraka. The underwater explorations of 1997-98 and1998-99 were carried out to re-examine and compare the findings with surrounding sites. Itappears that submerged structures of Dwaraka may be part of an ancient jetty. A detaildiscussion has been

conducted

on underwater structures, stone anchors and other finds,based on the recent exploration in the adjoining areas of Dwaraka

Admittedly, there is notsuch dispute about the general area of Krishna's kingdom.

“

The dating of Rao's materialwas done, not by archaeologists, but by scientists at the Physical Research Lab,and that cannot be disbelieved. So it is definitely ancient Dwaraka

," said Dr. M.

Académica. Journal de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades del Dharma College Internacional. Vol IV. Año 2019

Acharya (Rao Opus cit). But in terms of time, Rao's explorations place Krishna and the

Mahâbhârata

in the post-Harappan period or after the break-up of the Harappan empiredue to natural causes around 2200-1900 BC.

"Generally our findings have beenaccepted,"

said Rao (Ibidem).

8.4.1 Thesis

: "There are a few who think that the date 1700-1800 BC that we haveassigned is not in consonance with the traditional date of 3102 BC. But so far as thearchaeological evidence from on shore and off-shore excavations andthermoluminescence dating is concerned Kushastali with its late Harappan relics wherethe first Dwaraka was built may be assigned to 1700 BC and the town on the mainlandmay be slightly later," Rao said. "Although traditional date of 3102 BC cannot be confirmedby available evidence, it is better to explore deeper waters of Bet Dwaraka," (Rao 1999)This last opinion shall discuses more later."There is one other possibility. In Bet Dwaraka there are the mudflats. We are notable to dig because you hit water at an early depth and neither diving nor excavations arepossible." (Idem) Archaeological excavations show that modern Dwaraka is the seventhsettlement of the name on this site. It is now generally accepted that the earlier cities havebeen, at various times, swallowed by the sea. Interestingly, the only ancient temple forMatsya, Vishnu's incarnation at the time of the great flood, is to be found at Sankhodharain Bet Dwaraka. The structures and stone anchors lying under the sea indicate large shipsbeing anchored out at sea while smaller boats carried men and cargo up the river asvisualized in this artist's impression of the harbor of ancient Dwaraka. Madhav Acharyatoo

favors the later dates."

There is a difference in the geographic areas as well as the time frame of theSaraswati civilization that is wholly Vedic, and the setting of the

Mahâbhârata

hesaid

. According to him, while the Saraswati-or the Harappan-civilisation centres onthe Saptasindhu rivers (the Indus, the Saraswati and the five rivers that make upPunjab), the

Mahâbhârata

has the Ganga and the Yamuna, besides the Kurukshetraarea in Haryana, as the backdrop

. "

The earliest habitation in the Ganga-Yamunaregion does not go back beyond 1200-1100 BC, and in Mathura and the

Mahâbhârata

sites there is no evidence of earlier inhabitation."

(Acharya in STBM 2014)

8.4.2 Anti-thesis

: The date arguments notwithstanding, there can be no denying theimportance of Rao's findings. Others researchers, view Rao's discoveries as confirmationof their theories that the

Mahâbhârata

belongs to a much earlier period. Low zinc brassproduced at Lothal in 2300-2000 BC is similar in composition to that found in artifacts likethis bronze bell excavated at Dwaraka. Also, a stone mould compares favorably withsimilar mould found in Lothal and other towns from Shindu Culture. The second reasoncited is that Krishna of the

Mahâbhârata

and the archaeology of his Dwaraka must fit thepicture of the region and society portrayed in the ancient texts, better fits in the earlyHarappan (3000 BC) period than the post Harappan period favored by Rao and someothers. Especially since some of the artifacts recovered from the sea-bed show a strongaffinity with West Asia, especially the Kassite empire of Babylon. The third reason is themismatch between the political situation described in the

Mahâbhârata

and the picturegiven by post-Harappan archaeology.

There can be little doubt that Krishna was afigure in late Vedic period,

(See Rao in STBM 2014) According to

TheMahâbhârata,

Krishna's links were with the Kurus, the Panchalas and Mathura, all in the Vedic heartlandto the north. "

Just as there is no denying the Kassite influences on Rao's Dwaraka,there is no denying the historic Vedic link between the Purus (or Kurus) and the

Académica. Journal de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades del Dharma College Internacional. Vol IV. Año 2019

Sabha Parva

text of the

Mahâbhârata

period, said Rao,who identifies Bet Dwaraka with Antardvipa of the epic.

"The word dvipa as used in the

Mahâbhârata

often conveys the sense of any land between two rivers or two waters,although it is also used for a continent,

" said Rao. Also,

"the fort wall and submergedwalls in the sea confirm the appellation

Varidurga

, citadel in the water, given toDwaraka in the

Mahâbhârata

assignable to 1800-1600 BC and another as

Mahakaccha sah pa

, conveying the sense of "sea (or sea god) king (or ruler) protect"-an appeal to the seagod for protection. A similar appeal has been in a seal inscription from Mohenjo Daro.

Académica. Journal de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades del Dharma College Internacional. Vol IV. Año 2019

7. What really happened to Dwaraka?

The rise in the sea-level in Dwaraka is a scientific truth. Studies have proved that thesea considerably and suddenly rose to submerge the city.

Harivamsa

(Opus cit) According to him, the clue to the existence of ancient Dwaraka near the modern

Académica. Journal de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades del Dharma College Internacional. Vol IV. Año 2019

8. Discussion of Date problems

The mainstream chronological model based in Max Müeller ideas says that

Rig-Veda

Mahâbhârata

andrelated texts starting from the 5th century B C., until the later compilation of the

Purânas

Currently, some researchers change the word with

―migration

and others s

uggest both ―migration

-invasion

, others ―

from outside andinside or both? However, there are scholars, more Archeologists, like Jim Shafer thatdemonstrates how:

u of that period… What was theory became unquestioned

Académica. Journal de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades del Dharma College Internacional. Vol IV. Año 2019

There are others examples that demonstrated the same, like Jonathan MarkKenoyer:

There is in fact no archeological or literary evidence of invasion during this period of

Indus civilization‘s decline. Concurrent theories take into account main factors that

Sruti Smriti

vedic

–

puranic literature, since 1500BC to later, is very easy quote scholars that disclosed how is groundless. Max Muller wasone of the first to reject his own paradigm: "

Whether the Vedic hymns were composedin the 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 B. C., there is no power on earth that willdetermine it. (

Müeller, 1899: 35) Similar statements by himself appear in two other od histexts.. (Müeller, 1883: 21; Müeller, 1869: 163).

In this respect S. Piggot revealed:

The American Sankristist W. D. Whitney wrote: ―

All dates in India literary

history are pint set up to be bowled again…

For most part is still the case

(Cit inWinterniz 1972; 27). Therefore, Moris Winterniz pointed out:

It is remarkable, however, how strong the power of suggestion is even in science.

Max Müeller‘s hypothetical and purely arbitrary determination of the Vedic epochs, in

the course of the years, received more and more dignity in the character of ascientifically proven fact, without any new argument or actual proof been added(Idem).

8.3 The official date of 10

BC for

Krishna’s and

Mahâbhârata

epoch is based in thedating of Buddha Siddharta in 500 BC. Other arguments in establishing the antiquity ofKrishna

’s

times is exemplified by the calculation offered by the critics Colebrook andWilson. According to them, the

Bhâgavatam

Indika,

where he mentions king

Sandrakutus,

Maurya‘s gra

ndson, King Asoka Maurya, who was identified like a Asoka converted toBuddhism, that financing its expansion and organizing its councils, and who was deemed

Académica. Journal de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades del Dharma College Internacional. Vol IV. Año 2019

to have lived in the 2nd century BC. Thus the Battle of

Mahâbhâtara

tatah iti ayamkaler abda-sahasra-dvitiye gate vyaktah.

(

Krishna-sandarbha

Sandrakutus

. Another problem is that the two kings mentioned by the Greekhistorian as preceding and succeeding

Sandrakutus

were

Xandramas

and

Sandrocyptus

Chamdramas

Xandramas

, and

Samudragupta

Sandrocyptus

Srîmad-Bhâgavatam

. Other example of erroneous calculations is thefollow argument:

(of Kuruksetra); and the event must have taken place between that date and 1000 BC.

(Cit in Gambirananda 1984)

Nb.

objective: “So far, I'm afraid I could not respond.”

conducted

on underwater structures, stone anchors and other finds,based on the recent exploration in the adjoining areas of Dwaraka

Admittedly, there is notsuch dispute about the general area of Krishna's kingdom.

“

The dating of Rao's materialwas done, not by archaeologists, but by scientists at the Physical Research Lab,and that cannot be disbelieved. So it is definitely ancient Dwaraka

," said Dr. M.

Académica. Journal de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades del Dharma College Internacional. Vol IV. Año 2019

Acharya (Rao Opus cit). But in terms of time, Rao's explorations place Krishna and the

Mahâbhârata

in the post-Harappan period or after the break-up of the Harappan empiredue to natural causes around 2200-1900 BC.

"Generally our findings have beenaccepted,"

said Rao (Ibidem).

8.4.1 Thesis

favors the later dates."

There is a difference in the geographic areas as well as the time frame of theSaraswati civilization that is wholly Vedic, and the setting of the

Mahâbhârata

hesaid

. According to him, while the Saraswati-or the Harappan-civilisation centres onthe Saptasindhu rivers (the Indus, the Saraswati and the five rivers that make upPunjab), the

Mahâbhârata

has the Ganga and the Yamuna, besides the Kurukshetraarea in Haryana, as the backdrop

. "

The earliest habitation in the Ganga-Yamunaregion does not go back beyond 1200-1100 BC, and in Mathura and the

Mahâbhârata

sites there is no evidence of earlier inhabitation."

(Acharya in STBM 2014)

8.4.2 Anti-thesis

: The date arguments notwithstanding, there can be no denying theimportance of Rao's findings. Others researchers, view Rao's discoveries as confirmationof their theories that the

Mahâbhârata