ul
study of the Mahabharata by Muir in his "Sanskrit Texts" (vol. I. pp.
390,480 and 482). It may be conclusively proven on the authority of the
Mahabharata that the Yavanas (of whom India, as alleged, knew nothing
before the days of Alexander!) belong to those tribes of Kshatriyas who,
in consequence of their non-communication with, and in some cases
rejection by, the Brahmins, had become from twice-born, "Vrishalas,"--
i.e., outcasts (Mahabharata Anusasanaparvam, vv. 2103 F.): "Sakah
Yavana-Kambojas tastah kshattriya jatayah Vrishalatvam parigatah
Brahmananam adarsana. Dravidas cha Kalindas cha Pulindas chapy Usinarah
Kalisarpa Mahishakas tastah kshattriya jatayah," &c. &c. The same
reference may be found in verses 2158-9. The Mahabharata shows the
Yavanas descended from Turvasu--once upon a time Kshatriya, subsequently
degraded into Vrishala. Harivamsa shows when and how the Yavanas were
excommunicated. It may be inferred from the account therein contained
of the expedition against Ayodhya by the Yavanas, and the subsequent
proceedings of Sagara, that the Yavanas were, previous to the date of
the expedition, Kshatriyas subject to the government of the powerful
monarchs who reigned at Ayodhya. But on account of their having
rebelled against their sovereign, and attacked his capital, they were
excommunicated by Sagara who successfully drove them out of Ayodhya, at
the suggestion of Vasishtha who was the chief minister and guru of
Sagara's father. The only trouble in connecting the Pelasgians with,
and tracing their origin to, the Kshatriyas of Rajputana, is created by
the Orientalist who constructs a fanciful chronology, based on no proof,
and showing only unfamiliarity with the world's real history, and with
Indian history even within historical periods.

The value of that chronology--which places virtually the "primitive
Indo-Germanic-period" before the ancient Vedic period (!)--may, in
conclusion, be illustrated by an example. Rough as may be the
calculations offered, it is impossible to go deeper into any subject of
this class within the narrow limits prescribed, and without recourse to
data not generally accessible. In the words of Prof. Max Muller:--"The
Code of Manu is almost the only work in Sanskrit literature which, as
yet, has not been assailed by those who doubt the antiquity of
everything Indian. No historian has disputed its claim to that early
date which had from the first been assigned to it