History in india

[Midas]

I've recently began reading quite a bit about indina for a while now. I came across this in a book i started a couple days ago. Which has confirmed my view on Indian history
"not a single document from any royal archive has been preserved for the period covered in this book" ( the period he is talking about is all of premodern india)

for a long time now ive been trying to find something on Indian history but nothing comes up. Thats when it dawned on me that there is basically no recorded Indian history before the Muslims and even then it only really begins with the mughals who came to power in the 1500s. To put it into perspective we know more about the han dynasty (200b.c -200 a.d) then we do all of premodern india before the mughals put together . It's why you never hear about Indian history the way you do about the chiense dynasties. I also suspect that india was even more commonly decentralized than we assume. Consdier the fact that the largest hindu and buddhist temples are from southeast Asia. Nothing in India comes even remotely close to what the southeast asian empires which were much smaller built.

 

[Idilinaa]

The Chinese are most unique group from historical written aspect, because they maintained the most extensive continuous written documentation of history not seen anywhere else and it partly had to do with their system of governance, i am not sure how much of it was destroyed during the great leap forward, but i know a lot of monuments and heritage was lost sadly. Some of it survived in Taiwan when the nationalist government fled there.

India was complete opposite in every respect, they had the lack of historical tradition not found in anywhere else. I am not sure it was because India was decentralized, there are temples/monuments and inscriptions left by Hindu kingdoms and dynasties. Could be part of the reason though. i think it was because it is always argued that Hinduism had no sense of history. So it was their religion and culture really.

The first real historical book or manuscript written on India's history is by a Muslim Alburuni called Tarikh Al-Hind in year 1030 and even he was skeptical about historical and chronological Sense of the Hindus, which according to him was invariably replaced by ‘Tale- telling’

It was argued that it was the ideological and mental culture of Hindu's that created that dearth of historical sense. Even here i suspect that this is an inaccurate framing, i believe that that they just had a difference sense of writing history, it was more of religious art form rather than scientific endeavor. So most of their works act like semi-quasi history blurred between historical facts and myths and legends.

I think their biggest setback was not being able to separate religious mythology from factual inquiry, like the way Roman and Greek historians could at times when writing history.

 

[Midas]

The Chinese are most unique group from historical written aspect, because they maintained the most extensive continuous written documentation of history not seen anywhere else and it partly had to do with their system of governance, i am not sure how much of it was destroyed during the great leap forward, but i know a lot of monuments and heritage was lost sadly. Some of it survived in Taiwan when the nationalist government fled there.

India was complete opposite in every respect, they had the lack of historical tradition not found in anywhere else. I am not sure it was because India was decentralized, there are temples/monuments and inscriptions left by Hindu kingdoms and dynasties. Could be part of the reason though. i think it was because it is always argued that Hinduism had no sense of history. So it was their religion and culture really.

The first real historical book or manuscript written on India's history is by a Muslim Alburuni called Tarikh Al-Hind in year 1030 and even he was skeptical about historical and chronological Sense of the Hindus, which according to him was invariably replaced by ‘Tale- telling’

It was argued that it was the ideological and mental culture of Hindu's that created that dearth of historical sense. Even here i suspect that this is an inaccurate framing, i believe that that they just had a difference sense of writing history, it was more of religious art form rather than scientific endeavor. So most of their works act like semi-quasi history blurred between historical facts and myths and legends.

I think their biggest setback was not being able to separate religious mythology from factual inquiry, like the way Roman and Greek historians could at times when writing history.

Yeah chinese record are so extensive it's mindboggling even chinese chinese after 200 a.d and before the next tamg dynasty. Has hundred of volumes primary sources historical records. Not including literary stuff.

Even the Muslims sources before the mughals in the 1500 are mainly a handful of court chronicles . Which while very useful keep in mind how massive india was and how a lot of it wasn't under full muslim control before the mughals. It's thanks to inscriptions and some poems that we even know the names of the dynasties and some of the kings the years they ruled. But beyond that, there is literally nothing it's an empty void. That's why if you try to look into Indian history, like 90% of is focused on the mughals and beyond.

 

[Idilinaa]

I also suspect that india was even more commonly decentralized than we assume. Consdier the fact that the largest hindu and buddhist temples are from southeast Asia. Nothing in India comes even remotely close to what the southeast asian empires which were much smaller built.

I haven't looked far into this but perhaps you are right there are even Burmese Historical Chronicles the earliest written down in 13th century-18th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_chronicles

Before this they were just small settlements and seperate city states, which are only known through archeology.

And they are Hindu and Buddist as well.

 

[Idilinaa]

Yeah chinese record are so extensive it's mindboggling even chinese chinese after 200 a.d and before the next tamg dynasty. Has hundred of volumes primary sources historical records. Not including literary stuff.

Even the Muslims sources before the mughals in the 1500 are mainly a handful of court chronicles . Which while very useful keep in mind how massive india was and how a lot of it wasn't under full muslim control before the mughals. It's thanks to inscriptions and some poems that we even know the names of the dynasties and some of the kings the years they ruled. But beyond that, there is literally nothing it's an empty void. That's why if you try to look into Indian history, like 90% of is focused on the mughals and beyond.

There was a Jstor article i read a while back ago that i vaguely remember, it was going through how and why Chinese in comparison to India has such an extensive written history. I'll try to find it again it went into the Chinese dynastic rule system and fluid shift between rulership, and how scribes and historians were free to write what they wanted basically unaffected by the government and the shifts leadership.

Even their neighbors have just handful of documents and texts historians rely on to understand certain early periods and most often times they rely on Chinese sources to know more about them. Before the 8th century they are all Chinese sources.

 

[Midas]

I haven't looked far into this but perhaps you are right there are even Burmese Historical Chronicles the earliest written down in 13th century-18th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_chronicles

Before this they were just small settlements and seperate city states, which are only known through archeology.

And they are Hindu and Buddist as well.

Theu literrtaly found thosuands of bamboo stick administrative documents in an ancient well from the qin dynasty . The gap is unreal

 

[Midas]

There was a Jstor article i read a while back ago that i vaguely remember, it was going through how and why Chinese in comparison to India has such an extensive written history. I'll try to find it again it went into the Chinese dynastic rule system and fluid shift between rulership, and how scribes and historians were free to write what they wanted basically unaffected by the government and the shifts leadership.

Even their neighbors have just handful of documents and texts historians rely on to understand certain early periods and most often times they rely on Chinese sources to know more about them. Before the 8th century they are all Chinese sources.

Yeah that's tue but southeast asia is much smaller and developed way later. But they have one thing they beat both india and china . Which is the size of their monumental architecture. Especially compared to China .

There is suprsingly very little ancient Chinese architecture that survived . Like there is nothing on the scale of what you see in europe and the middle east. Even india has way more massive anicnet temples than the Chinese do. The oldest stuff in china is really like a few hundred years old at best. I suspect this is due to them mainly not building with stone . There is also no massive old buildings in china at all.