When did Mahabharata happen

Ok people since all of us here are sure that Mahabharata is a historical event and not some work of fiction so now my next question is when did Mahabharata actually happened and what were the exaggerations in the narration

As per the Puranic scriptures and the Kaliyuga calendar, the events would have taken place around 50 years before the start of Kaliyuga. The Kaliyuga calendar has started around 3052 BCE, making the time of Mahabharata war around 3102 BCE. This however is way too long a timeline to be true.

Firstly this would mean that Mahabharata war happened nearly at the time when Indus valley civilization was at its peak. Had that been the case then we would have got at least some mentions of Mahabharata in IVC carvings. Although we can not completely discredit the mentions there since we haven't been able to decipher the script but there should have been some paintings, engraving of the war in it, especially since that would have been the regions ruled by Jaidrath (Sindh--Harrapa and Mohan JoDaro), Krishna's descendants (Gujarat- Lothal)

Secondly Srimad Bhagwatam and the texts from various literatures in South have a list of of kings who succeeded the king of Mahabharata era in their kingdom till the ancient known times, however the number of kings mentioned are not so high that they could indicate an unbroken chain flood 3000+ years.

Going by these details the time of Mahabharata should be approximately 1600-1700BCE.

This date however would again mean that the entry of Aryans into India would be coincide with IVC. That might not be improbable but still not very acceptable either since none of ancient texts mention about the ancient Indian texts

The Western historians generally claim this time frame to be 900-1100BC while Indian historians push it further back by around 200 years.

This time frame however would mean that there is only around 500 years between Mahabharata and Mahavira Jain/Buddha, but the 18th Tirthankar was Krishna's friend, so there are 6 Tirthankars in 500 years, could that be possible?

Aside even if we take 1100BC as the time for Mahabharata, then is 18 akshauni Sena possible?? It would mean nearly 40lakh people?? Was the population in India so much back then than 40 lakh soldiers could have participated??

Would request this views

One valid scientific clue to assess the timeline is Sarasvati river. Balrama describes Sarasvati present but not as strong as before and drying up at several places during his pilgrimage of the river during the war.

As per geologists the saraswati river was flowing strong around 6000BCE till 4000BCE, when plate techtonic shifts cut of the water supply of the river from its source glacier near Kailash in Himalayas. Then it became dependent on monsoons and rain and eventually dried up. This process would have taken olace between 4000 to 3000 BCE

Hence 3102 BCE looks okay to me as time of Krishna death

And war in the previous years

Somehow, I have trouble taking either Vyasa or Valmiki seriously when it comes to numbers. They tend to only speak in superlatives - be it Rama ruling from 10k/11k years or Vyasa's quantification of akshaunis. Or even the number of years of any event, or people's ages

My suggestion to you would be go by science and not by the numbers noted in text. In the prior thread I mentioned archaeology and DNA.

Rakhigarhi findings were carbon dated to 2800 to 2300 BC. Since the DNA showed no evidence of Steppe gene which is present in later Indians, then invasion/migration happened later which led to the Vedic civilization.

Secondly, Iron Age had clearly started. While numbers can be easily fudged, iron was either used not not used. There is no fudging THAT. This puts the date closer to 2000 BC.

@Chili, I believe Gagga-Hakkra tectonic problems came toward 2500 to 1500 BC, not earlier. This would coincide well with iron use mentioned in text.

Whatever i read on ghagra hakkar mentions around 4000 BCE for the mega geological event. Its named the meghalayan geological stage which started the period of large droughts around 4200 BCE. These are based on study of rocks in caves of meghalaya.

This event is also acxepted as major cause of civikizational disruptions by scholars globally

Hey somehow I missed the responses

Originally posted by: Chiillii

One valid scientific clue to assess the timeline is Sarasvati river. Balrama describes Sarasvati present but not as strong as before and drying up at several places during his pilgrimage of the river during the war.

As per geologists the saraswati river was flowing strong around 6000BCE till 4000BCE, when plate techtonic shifts cut of the water supply of the river from its source glacier near Kailash in Himalayas. Then it became dependent on monsoons and rain and eventually dried up. This process would have taken olace between 4000 to 3000 BCE

Hence 3102 BCE looks okay to me as time of Krishna death

And war in the previous years

Well the river didn't vanish immidiately after the plate tectonics. It was affected by the movement but a big River like Saraswati needs time to completely vanish maybe more than a thousand years so this date could actually be pushed ahead by at least one thousand years.

Secondly we can't be sure that Saraswati mention by Balram isn't an interpolation. That probably was such a big episode in their history (the people who lived before Christ) that it somehow made its place in almost every Puranik and Dharmik texts. Saraswati didn't play much important role in Mahabharata either

Although your point is very valid but this couldn't be considered a conclusive evidence, especially when other things don't add up going by the said date unless we push back the end of IVC by 1500 years and claim that Iron age in India started earlier than it did in the rest of the world. Both these things seems more of an emotional attachment to me

Would however like to hear your opinion on my points and also if there is any evidence about it

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Somehow, I have trouble taking either Vyasa or Valmiki seriously when it comes to numbers. They tend to only speak in superlatives - be it Rama ruling from 10k/11k years or Vyasa's quantification of akshaunis. Or even the number of years of any event, or people's ages

Yes the numbers are either exaggeration or reduction, we had discussed that Abhimanyu couldn't be just 16 nor Arjun could have had Gandeev for 33 years till time of Virat war.

18 akshauni would not even have been the total male population in India around 2000BCE or even around 1000BCE.

If 18 akshauni is true then war date can't be before 500BCE and that too assuming nearly every second man of the country fought this war

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

My suggestion to you would be go by science and not by the numbers noted in text. In the prior thread I mentioned archaeology and DNA.

Rakhigarhi findings were carbon dated to 2800 to 2300 BC. Since the DNA showed no evidence of Steppe gene which is present in later Indians, then invasion/migration happened later which led to the Vedic civilization.

Secondly, Iron Age had clearly started. While numbers can be easily fudged, iron was either used not not used. There is no fudging THAT. This puts the date closer to 2000 BC.

@Chili, I believe Gagga-Hakkra tectonic problems came toward 2500 to 1500 BC, not earlier. This would coincide well with iron use mentioned in text.

I had read the report you shared really very insightful. Actually I didn't know about the Rakhigiri findings and used to think grey pottery as the only deciding factor.

Going by your numbers if Invasion/migration happened around 2200 BCE(after Rakhigiri), then probably we can attribute the war to approximately 1600BCE because there is much difference between the Vedic age,(considering it to match with the entry into India) and the society at Mahabharata.

Even I think 1500-1600 BCE could be the most probable time for the war, it also matches with the list of kings of Magadh, Manipur and Pandya that we have.

However this date will definitely mean that 18 akshauni is an exaggeration, no way there could be such huge population back then. 4 million wouldn't even have been the total population of India back then.

If 18 akshauni which is repeatedly mentioned is wrong then I don't think we should take any number seriously

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Whatever i read on ghagra hakkar mentions around 4000 BCE for the mega geological event. Its named the meghalayan geological stage which started the period of large droughts around 4200 BCE. These are based on study of rocks in caves of meghalaya.

This event is also acxepted as major cause of civikizational disruptions by scholars globally

Hey thanks for this information. Could you share some link about this