Colonial Indology and the Blunder of Sir William Jones

 By Ranajit Pal.


T. A. Phelps [i] has recently claimed that the 19th century Colonial Government of India actively supported the forger Dr. A. A. Führer and attempted to falsify history. D. Chakrabarti [ii] and N. Lahiri [iii] have also focused on some failings of colonial Indology but overlook the most serious one, namely, the so-called discovery of Megasthenes’ Palibothra at Patna. The absence of  the relics of any Maurya or Nanda king at Patna and the attendant discovery of Asoka’s inscribed statues at Kanganhalli in Karnataka, clearly disprove Jones.

Piggott and Barua on Chandragupta of Patna

The Seleucid embassy of Megasthenes to the court of Sandrokottos or Chandragupta Maurya at Palimbothra (Pataliputra) offered the first synchronism that linked India's past to sober history and freed it from the anachronic Puranic legends. But where was Palibothra? Jones identified it with Patna but in 1793 this was rejected by Rennell [iv] who had selected Patna before Jones, but opted for Kanauj. Archaeology was unknown in Jones’ day but later scholars have failed to scrutinise his idea in the light of later developments.

The eminent pre-historian Stuart Piggott playfully envisioned [v] Chandragupta crowned on the Harappān ruins but missed that this was in fact true. The ‘tantalizing uncertainties’ of Indology noted by R. S. Tripathi, A. L. Basham, D. D. Kosambi, V. Smith and others are due to Jones’ error that has also ruined the chronological basis of Indology. R. Thapar notes the absence of Asoka’s Edicts at Patna [vi] but is silent on the absence of relics of any Maurya or Nanda at Patna. On the other hand B. M. Barua rejected Jones’ story on Chandragupta [vii]. Kulke [viii] and Rothermund take a similar view,  

Not much is known about the antecedents of Chandragupta Maurya, but it is said that he began his military career by fighting against the outposts which Alexander had left along the river Indus. How he managed to get from there to Magadha and how he seized power from the last Nanda emperor remains obscure.


F. R. Allchin’s proposal for more digging at Patna has not been taken  seriously due to a general view that this would be tantamount to flogging a dead horse.

Herodotus Versus Jones  

That Jones was wrong is also indicated by Herodotus report which shows that tribes under Cyrus were the Mahabharata clans. This shows that the centre of India was far to the west,

The rest of the Persian tribes are the following: the Panthialaeans, the Derusiaeans, the Germanians, who are engaged in husbandry; the Daans, the Mardians, the Dropicans, and the Sagartians, who are nomads. (Herodotus, I, 125)

 The Panthialaeans were clearly the Panchalas and the Derusiaeans were the Druhyus. Furthermore, the Sagartians were the people of King Sagara who seem to be linked to Sogar in the Gulf area which was India. The Dropicans echo Drupada. Gotama appears to have been a Daan or Dana. His father was Suddhodana and all his uncles had Dana-names. Al-beruni wrote that his name was Buddho-Dana [ix]. Herodotus’ crucial data exposes the fraud of Nepalese archaeology [x] and shifts the focus to Eastern Iran, Afghanistan, Sindh, Punjab, Haryana and Gujarat. A. D. H. Bivar’s view that the tablets shed no light on the geography of India, [xi] is a false prognosis that illustrates how seriously Indian history has been distorted by Jones’ error and Fuhrer’s fraud.

The Dissenting Voices of N. G. L. Hammond and A. Ghosh

The eminent archaeologist A. Ghosh [xii] flatly stated that Jones’ idea has no archaeological basis. Prof. N. G. L. Hammond, discoverer of Vergina, was aware of the ascendancy of the North-West in the early era and stated that ‘Patna is too far east’ to be a Palibothra [xiii]. H. C. Raychaudhuri and B. N. Mukherjee [xiv] also note the primacy of the North-West. J. M. Carbon [xv] agrees with Hammond (Carbon 2006). The Australian Indologist I. Mabbett also blames the foundations of Indian history [xvi].  

The Mirage of City-names

Migrating people often found cities bearing the names of famous cities of their old habitat. The fond name of York, once the ecclesiastical capital of northern England, is echoed in the names of four U.S. cities including New York. This is a timeless phenomenon. E. A. Speiser noted that Sumerian city-names echo earlier city-names of Elam. Curiously this elementary notion has escaped the notice of most archaeologists and historians. G. Fussman [xvii] notes the bleak historical and chronological scenario and stresses the role of migration but is also not conscious of the geographical parallax,

… history of northern India from the death of Asoka to the first inroads of the Moslem armies is still imperfectly known. About its social history we can only state that new peoples kept coming from Iran and Central Asia and were, in course of time, integrated into an Indian social organization about which we have very little incontrovertible data… The political history of northern India still consists of bare list of names, with an often unsure relative chronology and a still more unsure absolute chronology.


        Names like Konarak, Kohnouj, Puri, Katak, Multan, etc. show that Karman and West Baluchistan were in Hiduŝ

  Like Jones, Cunningham and other colonial Indologists, D. Chakrabarti and Thapar are totally unaware that Mauryan India included a large part of modern Iran and was very different from British India or the India as seen by Hsűan Tsang who came about a thousand years later.

Ranke’s Warning and Hsűan Tsang’s India

Historians, cautioned Ranke, should root out forgeries and falsifications from the records and test documents on the basis of their internal consistency and that with other documents originating from the same period. They have to stick to primary sources which are coeval and lay less stress on later secondary sources. In plain defiance, archaeologists like Martin Carver and D. Chakrabarti boldly justify Jones' decrepit theory of Palibothra on the basis of the Chinese records written about a thousand years later. This ignores the fact that Mauryan India was very different from Hsűan Tsang’s India. The large influx of peoples from Iran and Central Asia pointed out by Fussman must have altered Indian geography.

A. Ghosh regretted that Cunningham’s identifications of ancient cities were mainly based on the Chinese records and were in no instance confirmed by excavated artifacts or inscriptions. After arriving in India the Hindus and Buddhists of Iran (Nagas) must have founded cities echoing the older Iranian city-names like Kanauj, Gaya etc. S. R. Das and Debala Mitra were also strongly critical of Cunningham’s method.

 Jones missed that Panini’s link with the Nandas implies that Magadha was in the North and due to his mistake Chandragupta and the Nandas were expelled from archaeology. D. Chakrabarti notes the profusion of 3rd century BC texts [xviii] but is silent on the ominous lack of Chandragupta’s texts or relics. L. M. Joshi and Debala Mitra hold that the earliest vestiges at Gaya, the so-called site of enlightenment of Gotama, are of the 1st century BC. The same is true of Kapilavastu or Nalanda. Phelps’ exposé on Fuhrer shows that the whole gamut of Nepalese archaeology is suspect. Vincent Smith noted that no building of Harsha’s era exists at Kanauj. His remark on the endless disputes on Kapilavastu is a silent reminder of Fuhrer’s transgression [xix],

...the mystery of Kapilavastu will continue for many years to be the sport of unverified conjecture.’


The bleak archaeological scenario at Rajgir is described by Debala Mitra [xx] (Mitra 1971). In the Jones-Cunningham theory Buddhism rose in the Gangetic valley but this has no archaeological proof. Niharranjan Ray [xxi] (Ray 1967) sums up succinctly,

The fact remains therefore that we have no examples extant of either sculpture or architecture that can definitely be labelled chronologically as pre-Mauryan or perhaps even as pre-Asokan.

No original Buddhist text is known from modern India. Buddhism was basically an urban phenomenon but surprisingly Sir Mortimer Wheeler [xxii] (1968), dean of sub-continental archaeology, asserted that urbanism in the Gangetic valley cannot be traced before Bindusara. Barring the mortal remains of Gotama which came from the North-West, no pre-Asokan Buddhist relic is known.

The Chronological Chaos  

Sir Charles Eliot noted [xxiii] (Eliot 1962) that the monks who spread Buddhism to China and Central Asia were from the north-west, not eastern India or Nepal. This mistake has nearly ruined the fabric of Indian history by throwing all the crucial dates into disarray. About the tantalizing uncertainties in Indian history he wrote ( Eliot xxxx, 51),

We can hardly imagine doubt as to the century in which Shakespeare or Virgil lived, yet when I first studied Sanskrit the greatest of Indian dramatists, Kalidasa, was supposed to have lived about 50 B.C.. His date is not yet fixed with unanimity but it is now generally placed in the fifth or sixth century A.D..

This chronological chaos naturally affects the value of literature as a record of the development of thought. We are in danger of moving in a vicious circle: of assigning ideas to an epoch because they occur in a certain book, while at the same time we fix the date of the book in virtue of the ideas which it contains.

The famous American Sanskritist W. D. Whitney (Whitney 1889) remarks [xxiv] candidly

“All dates given in Indian literary history are pins set up to be bowled down again”.

An identical opinion is expressed by another famous Indologist, M. Winternitz, [xxv],

'In this ocean of uncertainty there are only a few fixed points.'

This is the appalling heritage of Jones. The countless chronological and archaeological problems point to a systemic failure and call for an outright rejection of the ideas of Jones and Cunningham. Dr. Spooner wrote in 1915 that Gotama and Chandragupta were from Iran but this was rejected due to a predilection for Jones. Jones had no idea of the crucial importance of Kanauj. In his History of Hindostan, the British historian Dow identified Sandrocottos with Sinsarchund who, according to Firista, ruled from Kanauj. Hoary figures like Visvamitra and Gadhi are from Kanauj yet, as Vincent Smith noted, Kanauj in modern India is not a very ancient city. There must have been an earlier Kanauj in the north-west. E. A. Speiser asserted that many Sumerian city-names echo earlier cities in Elam. This is due to migration but its effect on city-names was lost on Jones and Cunningham. Al-beruni gave the vital information that Zoroaster drove the Buddhists to the east which led to the rise of cities in modern India echoing older city-names in Iran-Baluchistan. Zoroaster appears to be Devadatta of the Indian texts [xxvi]. 190)

Leaving aside archaeology, even a proper analysis of the texts disproves Jones who overlooked key geographical issues. The Kasika, a commentary on Panini’s grammar, cites Apara Pataliputra which appears to be a reference to a city in the North-West. Pataliputra was also called Kusumapura which matches Gulaskherd or Gulaskhand (Gul=Kusuma) near Kohnouj in Karman.

India of the East and India of the West and Megasthenes  

The central plank of Jones’ theory is Megasthenes’ Indica which is the most detailed western report on India. The work has long been lost and is known from quotations in later authors like Strabo, Arrian, Diodorus and others. Much has been written about its credulous and inexact nature which is partly true but it has also been very fancifully interpreted. The fault is not of Jones alone. B. N. Mukherji (1996) notes that Xenophon’s India did not include the East yet misses that the same can be true of  Megasthenes’ Indica which was written a few years later. It has to be noted that Megasthenes does not refer to the eastern cities [xxvii].

Magadha of Panini was in the North-West but sometime after Asoka, the Patna area also became Magadha and this concurrent existence of an  India of the East and an India of the West caused untold confusion among western writers. The great geographer Strabo branded the writers on India as a set of liars of whom only a few managed now and then to stammer out some words of truth. It is even likely that ‘India’ comprised non-contiguous areas [xxviii].

Megasthenes’ Palibothra was on the Ganges yet Strabo wrote flatly that the Greeks `have seldom made a voyage as far as the Ganges' which agrees with the lack of Greek artifacts at Patna. Sir W. W. Tarn also wrote that the Ganges was unknown to the Greco-Macedonians under Alexander. Strabo missed that many Iranian cities had Indian-names and that terms like ‘India’, ‘Magadha’, ‘Ganges’ etc. denoted different geographical entities [xxix] in different era. India of the 4th century BC reached up to southeast Iran. This was known to Vincent Smith. Eliot wrote with a clear vision,  

Our geographical and political phraseology about India and Persia obscures the fact that in many periods the frontier between the two countries was uncertain or not drawn as now.

 As quoted by Arrian [xxx] (Indica, chap. X), Megasthenes’ text on Palimbothra is,

The largest city in India, named Palimbothra, is in the land of the Prasians, where is the confluence of the river Erannoboas and the Ganges, which is the greatest of the rivers…  

To an observer untutored in Jones’ theory, the Prasii or Pharrasii (Curtius) may appear to be the Persians, and Erannoboas has a distinct ring of Iran but Jones’ tale about Hiranyabahu mesmerized all and Palibothra was placed in the East. More importantly, the terms Palibothra and Prasii are not attested in the Sanskrit or Prakrit texts which indicates that these were extraneous.

          Another factor probably misled Jones – the Ganga. Chandragupta’s Suganga palace is known from the records. The Ganga was, and still is, a central element of Hindu culture - but even this is amenable to a deeper study. Ganga is not cited in the RigVeda and legend has it that it was a celestial river brought to the earth by Bhagiratha. Thus there  may have been an earlier Ganga in the north-west. Curtius wrote that the Ganges flows into the Arabian sea. The Greeks used the form Gange and the names Gang, Kang, etc. are found in Seistan. The VYSKs of Kang [xxxi] (Herzfeld 1948) may be the Vishakhas (Shakas?) of the Indian texts. Chandragupta’s grandfather is named as Shakuni in the Rajatarangini. No river of Seistan matches the Greek reports on Ganga which was a great river but these reports are second hand and the ecosystem of Seistan was different in the ancient era. During Alexander’s time it was a fertile land known as the granary of Iran.

Manu, Rama, Magan and Magadha

The forcible eviction of Magadha threw history into disarray. Sadly even after two centuries of research, Indologists have failed to realise that this relic of Colonial Indology has banished not only Chandragupta and the Nandas, but also Rama and Manu from history proper. B. N. Mukherjee notes the primacy of the North-West but misses that Magadha was in this area. Kulke and Rothermund (1990 57) also have no idea about greater India. As the dental consonants were often nasalised by the Elamites, it follows that Magan was a variant of Magadha. Rama of Valmiki must have been Ram-Sin (Rim-Sin) of Larsa [xxxii] who is said to be  from the Magan area in the Sumerian records [xxxiii] (Oates, 1979). Prof. Sukumar Sen also linked Rama with Iran. The name Magadha is found in the Iranian king-name Machatas (Marlow’s Tamburlane) and common Iranian names like Mucaddum and Mogadham.

The Greeks did not refer to Magadha but to the Chinese Magadha was almost synonymous with India. This has a deep-seated history. The Indus civilization was Magadha. ‘Mah-gud’ in Sumerian means ‘great bull’ which agrees with the Sanskrit ‘Maha-Uksha’ or Melukhkha [xxxiv], the name of the Indus cities. After the fall of the Indus cities in the mid-2nd millennium BC there was a westward exodus which shows that after this era Magadha was in the north-west. As Magadha is first cited in an Asokan Edict in Rajasthan, far from Bihar, there is no warrant to link it to the Patna area before this period.

R. Thapar observed that Dilmun included Gujerat. It was cited together with Magan and Melukhkha which shows that these three states were allied. Dilmun, Magan and Melukhkha was greater India or Indo-Iran. A great king of Dilmun, Magan and Melukhkha was Manu or Mannu of Magan[xxxv] (Hammond 1971,) who ruled in the 3rd millennium BC. Owing to Jonesian delusions S. Ratnagar[xxxvi] (1981, 39) dismisses Manu. Historians have run from pillar to post in search of the Nandas but have missed that Darius II was No(n)thos. In the Babylonian texts Artaxerexes-III was named Ni(n)din. The Sisunagas of Magadha were the Susinaks of Magan Kakavarnas may be related to the Kak kings of Elam. Seth wrote that Sasigupta could be Chandragupta, (Sashi=Chandra) but Raychaudhuri denied this[xxxvii]. Sisicottus may be an echo of Sisunaga. L. B. Keny linked the Nagas to the Gulf area.  

Alexander the Great in the Indian Royal Palace  

The final nail in the coffin of Jones’ unsound hypothesis is put by the history of Alexander’s voyage. His return through the Gedrosian desert, though there were safer routes, has bewildered all. Unaware of the location of Palibothra E. Badian and P. Green have ascribed this to his growing megalomania but this is baseless - the Gedrosian voyage was a military campaign to defeat Moeris of Pattala who, like Sandrocottos, was once an ally but revolted later.

Curiously nearly eighteen months after defeating Porus, Alexander celebrated (Arrian XXVIII) yet another victory over the Indians at Kohnouj in Carmania with fabulous mirth and abandon. Who were these Indians? Scholars have assumed this victory to be over Porus but this is false. As Vincent Smith pointed out, both Stephanus and Pliny indicate that Gedrosia and Carmania were in India. Bosworth [xxxviii] writes that the rejoicing took place near Khanu (also called Kohnouj) but knows nothing about the name. Moeris whom Alexander was chasing at Pattala must have been Chandragupta Maurya. This is the clearest proof of that Kohnouj was Kanauj which Dow and Rennell identified as Palibothra. Patel, a common surname in Gujerat may be an echo of Pataliputra in the North-West. Badian and Green attributed the week-long revelry to the King’s degeneration but had no idea that Alexander was celebrating his victory over the mighty Prasii. Justin wrote that Alexander had defeated the Prasii.

Aelian's report that the Indian Royal Palace was more magnificent than those at Susa and Ecbatana can be judiciously interpreted to indicate that Palibothra was in the same vicinity, i.e. Iran-Baluchistan. The Palace in Carmania where Alexander celebrated his victory over the Indians must have been the Indian Royal Palace mentioned by Aelian. Marco Polo also wrote about a Palace in this area. 

Non-Jonesian Indology  

Once Jones’ theory is rejected, Cunningham’s view that Buddhism was born in Eastern India becomes baseless. Gotama can be seen to belong to Seistan- Afghanistan which was within greater India. Hsuan Tsang wrote that Bhallika who first offered food to Gotama after enlightenment, brought Buddhism to Balkh. This indicates that, like Bhallika, Gotama was also a man of Seistan-Afghanistan area. The ascendancy of Afghanistan and Gandhara in Buddhism is shown by the 3rd century BC stupa at Swat (Butkara) and the monastery at Takht-I Bahl (1st cent. AD). By far the largest number of Buddha images are from this area, not the east where one should expect them in Jones’ theory. In fact Gotama was the same as Gomata of the Behistun record who was a namesake and a contemporary. H. Bechert’s argument that Gotama belonged to a later era does not seem to hold water.

Pliny stated that the Indus formed two islands, a very large one called Prasiane and a smaller one called Patala which leaves no doubts regarding the location of Prasiane. Darius’ reference to  the ‘Hidus’ is usually taken to be the Indus area but it may also have included southeast Iran. A Magadha in the North-west implies that Anga, Vanga, and Kalinga were also in the same vicinity. Anga appears to be Seistan-Baluchistan. Daranj (Zaranj) in Seistan appears to be Dvara-Anga. ‘Dvara’ in Sanskrit means Gate and this may be related to ancient Der in Elam, Dwarkan in Magan and the ‘Persian Gates’.

Mohenjodaro may be Maha-Anga-Dvara. Raghu’s victory over Vanga shows that there was an early Vanga in the North. Kar-Kasi (the city of Kasi) of the Assyrians was the early Kashi of the North-West. Portus Macedonum cited by the Greeks seems to have been a Magadhan Port in the Gulf. The place-name Sagara (Sogar) is also found in this area. Names like Kosala, Lanka, Anga, Vanga, Kalinga etc. arrived in modern India later. Three Kalingas are cited in the texts. H. D. Sankalia (1971) and others have shown that Lanka of Ravana was not Sri Lanka. Simhala was called Sangara and the Egyptian texts speak of a Sangara in the Gulf area [xxxix]. Bandar-i Lengeh in the Gulf echoes Lanka. Hsuan Tsang refers to a Lanka in Persia.

Gwadur in Baluchistan, where caves dating back to over two thousand years in the foothills of Koh-i-batil have been discovered recently, may be Gayadvara. Isidore of Charax (1st cent. BC) knew a king Goaisos [xl] (Tarn 1951, 481) who was his contemporary. Goaisos was a king of western Gaya which has an echo in modern Goa. The name Palibothra was probably Pali-Bhadra or the city of the Bhadras. Toynbee remarked that the Bhadras were intruders from the North. Tarn wrote about Batrasasave of the Omani which reminds one of Bhadrasva of the Indian texts. Kohnouj stands at the confluence of two rivers –Amanis and Halil. Amanis or Yomanis may be an earlier Yamuna.

Reworking the geography of ancient India is a daunting task yet it is likely to open up new vistas of research in the history of not only Indo-Iran but the whole of the ancient East. Iranian scholars have justly celebrated the Bronze Age finds at Djiroft (Dvaravati?) near Kohnouj but seem to forget that even in the 4th century BC there were Indians in this area. This area was probably the early Kamboja of the Indian texts. The present author noted the importance of the Jiroft area before Majidjadeh and others, 64). At a later date Kamboja became the Afghanistan area. Yaska linked the language of Kamboja to Iran. According to D. C. Sircar [xli] (Sircar, 1971) the ancient Kambojas lived in various settlements in the wide area between Iran and Punjab.

Cunningham’s geography cannot be scrapped but pertains to a later age. After the Asokan era the Bihar area did become Magadha and modern Benares became Kasi. Only the map of the Indus lands as outlined by A. D. H. Bivar [xlii] is useless in the accounts of Gotama and Chandragupta.

[i] Phelps, T.A. Lumbini On Trial: The Untold Story,

[ii] Chakrabarti, D. K., ‘Colonial Indology and identity’, Antiquity, 74(2000): 667-71.

[iii] Lahiri N., ‘Archaeology and identity in colonial India’, Antiquity, 74(2000): 687-92.

[iv] Mukherjee, S. N., Sir William Jones, A Study of Eighteenth Century British Attitudes to India, Cambridge University Press, 1968, p. 97.

[v] ‘Perhaps it would be too much to say that Chandragupta Maurya and his dynasty were the ghosts of the Harappā Empire sitting crowned on the ruins thereof, or to claim, in Toynbee’s phrase, that the Harappā kingdom was ‘apparented’ to the Mauryas’. Piggott, S., Prehistoric India, Harmondsworth,1950, p.288.

[vi] Thapar’s claim, “The identification of Pataliputra is certain”, is based on Waddell's findings of 1903 which are a travesty of scientific approach and contrasts sharply with Ghosh’ cautious methodology. Thapar, R., Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Oxford University Press, 1961.

[vii] ‘To me Chandragupta was a man of the Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila. His early education, military training and alliances were all in that part of India. He added the whole of the province of Gandhara and the surrounding tribal state (Punjab and N.W. frontier province) to the growing Magadha empire together with the territories ceded to him by Seleukus’. Barua, B.M. Indian Culture, 1934, vol. X, p.34.

[viii] Kulke, H. & Rothermund, D., A History of India, London, 1990, p. 61. In page p. 57 the authors write, ‘The meteoric rise of Magadha within the lifetime of two generations has remained an enigma to all historians who have tried to explain the origins of ancient India’s first empire. The main problem is not the sudden emergence of a successful dynasty – history is replete with such stories – but the fact that a vast empire of hitherto unprecedented dimension was born at the periphery of the Gangetic civilisation without any recognizable period of gestation. Historians who believe in the theory of diffusion of imperial state formation from a center in Western Asia point to the fact that the rise of Magadha closely paralleled the Persian conquest of Northwestern India.

[ix] His father was a Dana (Suddhodana) and all his uncles were also Danas: Amit(r)o-dana, Dhoto-dana, Sukko-dana and Sukkho-dana.

[x] The Fraud of Lumbini by Dr. A. Fuhrer has recently been discussed by

[xi]So far as India is concerned, the Fortifications Tablets attest an active and substantial traffic, though they shed no light on the geography of that province”. Cambridge Ancient History, vol. iv, Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, p. 205.

[xii] “Facts about Pataliputra are mainly known from non-archaeological sources”. Ghosh, A., The City in Early Historical India, Simla 1972, p. 76

[xiii] ‘Your personal knowledge of the terrain makes your views especially valuable and I agree that Patna is too far East’, Hammond, N.G.L., Private communication (2000).

[xiv] “Xenophon (c. 430- 354 BC) referred to an ‘Indian King’ as ‘a very wealthy man’ in his idealized biography, Kouro Paideia (Cyropaedia) (III,ii,25)…. Moreover, the term ‘India’ denoted at that time only the lower Indus country”. Mukherjee, B.N. ed. Political History of Ancient India, O.U. P. 1996, p. 579.

[xv] Carbon, J. M. Scholia Reviews, .

[xvi] “The foundations of our knowledge of ancient Indian history are still weak, and conventional assumptions about fundamental features of chronology and political geography are still liable to radical revision from time to time. Mabbett, I., ‘Dhanyakataka’, in South Asia, vol. XV1, No. 2(Dec. 1993), p.21.

[xvii] G. Fussman, ‘Southern Bactria and Northern India before Islam’, J.A.O.S. vol. xxx, 1996.

[xviii] Allchin, F.R., The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia, ed. Cambridge University Press, 1995.

[xix] Smith, V., Kapilavastu in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. VII, p. 661.

[xx] Exposed Buddhist monuments are scanty, partly due to gradual decay and denudations and mostly on account of inadequate excavations. Most sites mentioned in the Buddhist texts have been located with the help of directions and distances given by Chinese pilgrims, but the identifications are not always beyond doubt.” Mitra, D., Buddhist Monuments, Sahitya Samsad,1971, p.61.

[xxi] Ray, N., Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, ed. Nilakanta Sastri, Delhi, 1967, p.346.

[xxii] And as far as architecture, in the time of the Buddha there was so far as we know, little or nothing to which the term `monumental' can be truthfully applied. The stalwart fortifications which intermittently outlined the vast site of sixth-century Rajgir, in the hills south of Patna, are rough and random masonry, with no hint of refinement. At about the same time, the houses of Hastinapura on the upper Ganges and Kausambi on the lower Jumna were becoming solid and tolerably civilized, but again with no suspicion of architectural sophistication; always with the proviso that the non-survival of domestic timber-work may have impoverished our evidence’. Wheeler, R.E.M., Flames over Persepolis, 1968, p.129.

[xxiii] Sir Charles Eliot stated that the Buddhist deity Amitabha is Iranian in origin. Eliot, C., Hinduism and Buddhism, London, 1962, part III, p. 449. Vol. III, p.220

[xxiv] Whitney, W. D., Sanskrit Grammar, Leipzig, 1889.

[xxv] Winternitz contrasted the enthusiasm of W. Jones with the hard-headed sobriety of Colebrooke, who continued the work of Jones and became the real founder of Indian philiology and archaeology. Winternitz, M., History of Indian Literature, vol.1, Ibid. p.10.

[xxvi] Jones, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta Supreme Court, greatly loved India. His founding of the Asiatic Society and his discourse on Sakuntala are landmarks but his  ‘discovery’ of Palibothra at Patna created a havoc in world history. Pal R., Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander, New Delhi, 2002. Pal, R. An Altar of Alexander now standing near Delhi, Scholia vol. xv (2006).

[xxvii] Raychaudhuri refers to Rhys-Davids’ remark that Megasthenes possessed very little critical judgment and was misled by wrong information from others.

[xxviii] Korotayev, A., Orientalia, vol. 63, 1994, p. 64.

[xxix] ‘The statement that in 190AD Pantaenus found Indians who were Christians depends upon the interpretation to be given to the vague word "India" in a notice of Eusebius, which may with more probability be assigned to South Arabia’. Keith, A. B., 'Indian Mythology’,1916, p.175.

[xxx] Arrian, Anabasis, ed. Hamilton, J.R., Harmondsworth, 1971

[xxxi] Herzfeld, E., Zoroaster and his Men. Princeton, 1948

[xxxii] Pal R., Gotama Buddha in Mesopotamia, Toho Shuppan, Osaka, 1995. p. 129

[xxxiii] Oates Joan, Babylon, Thames & Hudson, London, 1979, p. 77.

[xxxiv] Pal R., Gotama Buddha in West Asia, ABORI, 1997, Vol. 77, p.

[xxxv] Hammond, N. G. L., Edwards, I. E. S., Gadd, C. J., ed., Cambridge Ancient History, 1971, vol. 1, Pt. II. p. 445

[xxxvi] Ratnagar, S., Encounters, The Westerly Trade of the Harappa civilization, OUP, 1981

[xxxvii] Raychaudhuri, H.C. Political History of Ancient India,

[xxxviii] Bosworth, A.B., Conquest And Empire,  Cambridge University Press, 1993. p. 150  

[xxxix] Pal R., Meru, Lanka and Simhala, Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental Res. Inst., 1995, Vol. 75.

[xl] Tarn, W.W., The Greeks in Bactria and India, Cambridge, 1951, p. 481

[xli] Sirkar, D. C., Studies In The Geography Of Ancient And Medieval India, Delhi, 1971, p. 100.

[xlii] Bivar, A. D. H., The Indus Lands in the “Cambridge Ancient History”, vol. 4, ed. J. Boardman, N. G. L. Hammond,  D.M. Lewis, M. Ostwald, 1988, p. 194.