202.
-----------
Thus it appears to be pretty well proved that in ascribing chronological
dates to Indian antiquities, Anglo-Indian as well as European
archeologists are often guilty of the most ridiculous anachronisms.
That, in fine, they have been hitherto furnishing History with an
arithmetical mean, while ignorant, in nearly every case, of its first
term! Nevertheless, the Asiatic student is invited to verify and
correct his dates by the flickering light of this chronological
will-o-the-wisp. Nay, nay. Surely "An English F.T.S." would never
expect us in matters demanding the minutest exactness to trust to such
Western beacons! And he will, perhaps, permit us to hold to our own
views, since we know that our dates are neither conjectural nor liable
to modifications. Where even such veteran archeologists as General
Cunningham do not seem above suspicion, and are openly denounced by
their colleagues, palaeography seems to hardly deserve the name of exact
science. This busy antiquarian has been repeatedly denounced by Prof.
Weber and others for his indiscriminate acceptance of that Samvat era.
Pages:
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483