Recent Posts
Bihari kangers gtfih
l22Wpg
No.319838
I have heard that most native castes/clans of bihar like rajputs, bhumihars, brahmins, yadavs, kurmis, etc dont have traceable ancestry to the maurya emperors.
Apparently, most of these group migrated to bihar after the mauryas fell, and current bihar is an administrative division which just happens to be the place where the mauryan empire where based in and whose current inhabitants cannot claim mauryas as their own.
Is this true?
Ftq/L4
No.319843
>>319838(OP)
No one knows who are descendants of mauryas. They all faded into oblivion over time. Its a very old empire.
Ftq/L4
No.319846
>>319838(OP)
>current inhabitants cannot claim mauryas as their own.
Why? It was based in magadha. Current inhabitants are definitely descendants of maghadans.
k6H60v
No.319849
Banned again
Wbs6zx
No.319876
>>319838(OP)
Theres literally no caste who can be traced that back
wF9Hnd
No.319877
>>319838(OP)
>>319843
We didn't even know Mauryans existed before Brits discovered Ashoka's stupas and through they were mythical kings like Vikramaditya and Ram. How do you suppose we can reliablly find their ancestry in this situation?
Most Kangers never considered Mauryas a significant ancestry to claim, most of them were focused on claiming ancestry from Suryavanshis or Chandravanshis and iirc, Magadha emperors were considered non cucktriyan outsiders iirc, so even if some of them descended from them in reality, I don't think records of it might be removed because no one wants to claim they descended from Magadha emperors.
F56g9q
No.319983
>>319877
>We didn't even know Mauryans existed before Brits discovered Ashoka's stupas
We did. We just didn't know of them as Maurya empire.
F56g9q
No.319985
>>319843
Marathas are. There were also mori descended clans in rajasthan and Gujarat called little mauryas.
Ftq/L4
No.319994
>>319985
No evidence whatsoever. Its all pajeet fanfic for kanging based on phonetic similarities between words. Average pajeet is too low iq to do genuine historiography.
l22Wpg
No.319999
>>319994
A branch of the mauryas ruled konkan as late as 6th century ce
It is probable that they went on to become marathas
Ftq/L4
No.320008
>>319877
There were texts like rajataringini that made brief references to ashoka so we did have them in indian historical record although not in very great detail. Much of the information came from buddhist sources which is understandable given how they were patrons of buddhism ashoka onwards. The only thing brits did was deciphering ashoka's edicts.
Ftq/L4
No.320012
>>319999
>probable
>went on to become marathas
Its far fetched conclusion. They ruled much of subcon, should every successive dynasty be believed to be their descendants?
