MiphamFan wrote:
This is Bronkhurst's hypothesis but the actual situation was likely more complicated than that.
"Māgadha" might have been called barbaric by Brahmin histories, but archaeology and Buddhist (and Jain) accounts show that it was highly developed and the main center of the Second Urbanization. The northwest was less developed than Māgadha.
I think second thoughts about Bronkhorst's thesis are warranted. There wasn't really a "centre" of the second urbanisation - it happened throughout the central Ganges Valley. A number of wall city-states grew up. In the early Upaniṣads, which Bronkhorst places after early Buddhism (wrongly I think), the centre is Kosala. Bronkhorst's alternative timeline has found few takers in academia as far as I know. Early Buddhist texts have Kosala as a major player - they defeat Magadha in a war, for example. In addition there is Kasi (Varanasi). The dominance of Magadha occurs only after Buddhism has spread throughout North India. Probably Avanti and Gandhara were also burgeoning at the time, although as you say they reached a peak a bit later. On the other hand Pāniṇi operated in Gandhāra ca. 4th century BCE suggesting it was then, as it later became famous for, a centre of learning if not commerce with Iran via the Khyber Pass. The
Arthśāstra was written about the same time in the Kuru region, suggesting a sophisticated approach to statecraft amongst the Kurus (and note that the Kosalan kings employ Brahmin advisors). Orissa was a holdout against Magadha and thus must have been a substantial presence. If we ignore Bronkhorst's revision of history, which I am minded to do, then Kosala was the dominant centre of the Central Ganges Valley until Magadha over-ran them some time after the advent of Buddhism. The Central Region area really ought to be called Greater Kosala until it is replaced by the Mauryan Empire under Chandragupta.
On the other hand as Bronkhorst notes, and as discussed also by Geoffrey Samuels (in a better and more accessible book
The Origins of Yoga & Tantra), and also by Michael Witzel in several publications, the physical evidence shows two cultures - judging by their pottery styles. According to Deshpande the two cultures may also have been divided by east/west dialectal variations. The distinction between Greater Kosala and the Kurus has archaeological evidence behind it. The differences are wiped out only by the rise of Mauryans. And of course on the margins are all the little tribes such as the Sakyas, Mallas, Vajji etc many of whom may have originated in Iran and settled in the area sometime in the mid 9th century BCE. Some of them appear to have had substantial settlements. The second urbanisation occurs amongst people who share a material culture, and possibly a language or set of closely related dialects.
The Vedic text that criticises the lands east of the conjunction of the Ganga and Yamuna is the
Śatapatha-Brāhamaṇa (13.8.1.5). I'm not sure of the exact dates, but it certainly predates the second urbanisation. At the time those criticisms were written, there may have been little in the way of civilisation in the Central Ganges Valley. In addition the comments are partly based on perceptions of cultural differences like the shape of funerary monuments: the Kuru Brahmins preferred square, while in the East they made round mounds (the predecessors of stūpas). In addition the Buddhist texts are aware of Brahmins from the west who have distinctive religious practices, e.g. "The Brahmins from the western region--who have water pots and lotus garlands, who ritually bathe, and tend the [sacred] fires--they take the dead out, call their name, and cause them to enter heaven." (brāhmaṇā, bhante, pacchā bhūmakā kāmaṇḍalukā sevālamālikā udakorohakā aggiparicārakā. Te mataṃ kālaṅkataṃ uyyāpenti nāma saññāpenti nāma saggaṃ nāma okkāmenti. S iv.312).
