How were the Itihasas percieved by ancient Indians?

Joined Feb 2022
1,261 Posts | 679+
Macedonia
In hindi Itihas means history and Mahabharata and Ramayana are generally considered history by Hindus. In Sanskrit it has a slightly different meaning. There it means "so indeed it was".

So did the ancient Indians(before 1000AD) perceived Itihasas differently and if yes then when did Itihas began to be considered history?
 
Joined Oct 2012
3,562 Posts | 807+
Z
In hindi Itihas means history and Mahabharata and Ramayana are generally considered history by Hindus. In Sanskrit it has a slightly different meaning. There it means "so indeed it was".

So did the ancient Indians(before 1000AD) perceived Itihasas differently and if yes then when did Itihas began to be considered history?

There was no concept of "history" in ancient India, as we would understand it. Indians did not care about keeping detailed historical records or writing comprehensive works of history. Itihaas is the closest thing to "history" in the Indian context, and that is why the modern Hindi word for history is itihaas. Ancient Indians likely considered the Epics to be "real", not mere symbolism or allegorical stories like modern Hindus might believe. There was no distinction between history and mythology in the Indian mind; both came under the label of itihaas.

There were only three civilizations in human history that put a high emphasis on writing detailed works of history and had a historiographical tradition in pre-modern times. Those are the Western civilization (including its offshoots), Islamic civilization, and East Asian civilization. In India, historiography begins with the Islamic conquests, as Muslim historians began writing about the progress of Islamic armies in the subcontinent and the states that they established. Before the Islamic period, the best literary sources for the historian are not itihaas literature, but charita biographical literature written about the lives of particular kings by contemporary court poets. For example, we have more detailed information on the Chalukya emperor Vikramaditya VI thanks to the Vikramankadevacharita written by the Kashmiri poet Bilhana, who was staying at the Chalukya court in South India. Similarly, we know relatively more about Harsha than most other Indian kings thanks to Banabhatta's Harshacharita. But it never occurred to any pre-modern Indian to even make a compilation of charitas and attempt to write a detailed narrative or chronicle of Indian history. The closest we have to such a thing would be Kalhana's Rajatarangini for the history of Kashmir, but quite frankly this work can only be described as paltry when compared to something like Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings (a monumental work of universal history consisting of thousands of pages and dozens of volumes, covering the history of the early Islamic civilization in great detail).
 
Joined Feb 2022
1,261 Posts | 679+
Macedonia
There was no concept of "history" in ancient India, as we would understand it. Indians did not care about keeping detailed historical records or writing comprehensive works of history. Itihaas is the closest thing to "history" in the Indian context, and that is why the modern Hindi word for history is itihaas. Ancient Indians likely considered the Epics to be "real", not mere symbolism or allegorical stories like modern Hindus might believe. There was no distinction between history and mythology in the Indian mind; both came under the label of itihaas.
So did they thought Mahabharata and Ramayana was real and it happened as it was written?

Plus weren't there Buddhist and Jains who recorded history?
There were only three civilizations in human history that put a high emphasis on writing detailed works of history and had a historiographical tradition in pre-modern times. Those are the Western civilization (including its offshoots), Islamic civilization, and East Asian civilization.
Didn't the ancient Egyptians also used to record history?
In India, historiography begins with the Islamic conquests, as Muslim historians began writing about the progress of Islamic armies in the subcontinent and the states that they established. Before the Islamic period, the best literary sources for the historian are not itihaas literature, but charita biographical literature written about the lives of particular kings by contemporary court poets. For example, we have more detailed information on the Chalukya emperor Vikramaditya VI thanks to the Vikramankadevacharita written by the Kashmiri poet Bilhana, who was staying at the Chalukya court in South India. Similarly, we know relatively more about Harsha than most other Indian kings thanks to Banabhatta's Harshacharita. But it never occurred to any pre-modern Indian to even make a compilation of charitas and attempt to write a detailed narrative or chronicle of Indian history. The closest we have to such a thing would be Kalhana's Rajatarangini for the history of Kashmir, but quite frankly this work can only be described as paltry when compared to something like Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings (a monumental work of universal history consisting of thousands of pages and dozens of volumes, covering the history of the early Islamic civilization in great detail).
Why do you think it was a case? Was did greek and chinese wrote history but Indians didn't?

Plus aren't Tabari's work a bit fantastical?
 
Joined Jun 2014
8,371 Posts | 1,168+
New Delhi, India
So did the ancient Indians(before 1000AD) perceived Itihasas differently and if yes then when did Itihas began to be considered history?
Indigenous Indians had their stories about their deities. They believed them to be true. Ramayana and Mahabharata were the important two. They were given verse form by later Sanskrit scholars. Theist Hindus believe the Puranas to be true. But there always have been people, then (Charvaks) and now, who took them just as fairy tales.
 
Joined Jun 2014
8,371 Posts | 1,168+
New Delhi, India
Plus weren't there Buddhist and Jains who recorded history?
Was did greek and chinese wrote history but Indians didn't?
Yes, Buddhists and Jains were more interested in history, many a times to show Hinduism as the reason for their decline.
For Indians the Purana stories were about social conduct and not about actual history. Different focus.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top