Outlines of the Proto-Historic Chronology of Western Asia - With Some Historic Chronology of Ancient India Appended To It

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

A.Balakrishna Pillai, in true terms was the totality of a versatile genius. His brilliance had engaged in the spheres of Journalism, Literary Criticism and Painting. Later on he realised that attempts focussed on those fields alone are not capable for creating appreciable changes in human mind. The very realisation led him to serious type of historic research. The task he had undertaken as a part of his historic research for the sake of human emancipation at the present age was to untie the ancestry and find and establish that the basic sources of human kind are one and same.

Balakrishna Pillai had formed his own historic vision for the execution of this task. He chose 'Proto-history' for his research. History in general, bases on emperical knowledge whereas Proto-history finds its source in speculative knowledge. For this purpose, traditions, customs and myths of various provinces were critically analysed knowing the basics of the languages like Sumerian, Hittite and Semetic as an inevitable for such researches which he acquired depending on scholars like Hommel. By self-effort he was acquainted with 'Kalpaganitha.'

Excavations conducted from Danube to Hoang Ho and Nile to Sindhu has exposed the remains of many ancient cultures. Surprisingly these cultures were similar to one another.

An impartial seeker of the facts of history who, after making a comparative study of ancient myths and legends, traditions and institutions and institutions of the races of the old world, proceeds to place the results of his studies side by side with the results of the latest archaeological excavations in Asia, Egypt and eastern Europe, could not avoid coming to the conclusion that these ancient myths and traditions are fundamentally corroborated by the results of these excavations, and that they must have had a common origin in Western Asia. To reach this conclusion he must be really impartial, in the sense that he must not be affected by four baneful doctrines of the modern world, viz, the infallibility of science and the scientific method, the absolute superiority of the moderns over the ancients in the matter of the appurtenances of civilisation, and nationality, with its corollaries that each nation is superior in civilisation to, and more ancient in origin than all the others, and that each nation's civilisation is self-born and owes nothing to the civilisations of others who merely have copied their own culture. The latest discoveries of the physical sciences and of archaeological excavations, and the growing cosmopolitan spirit of the world of this age necessitated by the progress of technical science have rudely shaken the foundations of the three doctrines mentioned above, this latest of affairs will pave the way for the birth of the new "unscientific" ethnologists like Sir. J.G. Frazer and by "unscientific" historians like F.E. Pargiter. And with the emergence of this science of a cosmopolitan proto-history, the sectional treatment of history, which had disastrous political consequences, like the great wars, the Hindu- Muslim problem of India, the Jewish problem etcetera of the present day, and which, fortunately, had been challenged by the "unscientific" historian H.G.Wells, will retire into the limbo of the past. This new scientific attitude will teach the modern nations the necessity of mutual tolerance and co-operation by showing them the common origin of most of their ancient traditions, and by convincing them of the fundamental falsehood of theories like that of superior races like the Aryans formulated by the "Scientific" Max Muller and his followers like Roth, Bergaine, Pichel, Keith and Macdonald who, even now, hold the reins of historical research in most of the universities of the world, which have become, in the worlds of Professor L.Hogbern of Aberdeen "lying- in hospitals" for moribund theories.