I have been checking the Geographical locations mentioned in the Mahabharata to validate (already validated, I am cross checking).
In this search I stumbled into an article which had indicated the exact spot where Indraprastha was built in Delhi.
It is the Purana Qila, The Old Fort of Humayun,
The Fort was mentioned by Abdul Fazil in Ain-I-Akbari.
“A book called the Ain-I-Akbari by Abul Fazl was written in the sixteenth century during the region of the Mughal emperor Akbar. It says that Indraprastha, the capital of the Pandavas, the heroes of the Mahabharata story, was located at the spot where Humayun built his fort. In fact, till the end of the nineteenth century, there was a village called Indarpat (which sounds very similar to ‘Indraprastha’) inside the fort. Was ancient Indraprastha located here? This is a question that is difficult to answer with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no.’
Archaeologists carried out excavations at the Purana Qila from the 1950’s to the 1970’s. they were interested in finding out how old this site was, and to find out whether or not it could be identified with ancient Indraprastha. The excavations showed that the Purana Qila was indeed a very old site. Archaeologists found that the settlement had many phases dating from about the fourth century B.C. (or earlier) to the nineteenth century A.D.. Pieces of old pottery known as Painted Grey Ware (PGW for short) were also found here and there, and this suggested that people may have lived at some spot in or around the Purana Qila from about 1000 B.C. onwards.
Why don’t we know for sure whether ancient Indraprastha was located on the spot where the Purana Qila stands?
There are several reasons for this. First of all, we are not sure whether the Mahabharata is purely a legend, or whether it is a legend based on events that actually happened. Secondly, even in some of the events and people mentioned in the story were real, the evidence from the excavations at the Purana Qila really doesn’t tell us about these events or people. What is does tell us is that there was a very old settlement at or near the Purana Qila perhaps from about 1000 B.C. onwards.’
The article goes on to state that it can not confirmed as,
1.We are not sure whether Mahabharata was a fact,
2.There are more layers to be analyzed and
3.The Purana Qila records do not ell us about the people of Mahabharata,( other than the mention by Abdul Fazil.
As to point number 1, The Mahabharata is validated based on the various sites spread throughout the country and in fact in Sri Lanka as well
Please read my posts on these, filed under Hinduism.
So this argument is no longer valid.
2. No doubt the job is difficult to analyze the layers.It needs effort.
As to the fact that there is no mention of the people of Mahabharata in Purana Qila information, you do not expect the invaders to record the conquered nation’s History.
One should be thankful to Abdul fazil for mentioning this fact in Ain_I_Akbari.
“Here is a table showing the seven layers or periods identified by archaeologists at the Purana Qila. Different sorts of artifacts were found at the different levels. Remember that the older layers are found at the bottom of a site, and the upper layers are more recent. Think of these archaeological levels as different floors in a seven-storeyed building. As you travel in a lift from the ground floor to the seventh floor, you are traveling forward in time, from earlier to more recent periods..
- Ancient Rome Indraprastha Infographic. (ramanan50.wordpress.com)
- Mahabharata Proof Three Cities 39 Sites (ramanan50.wordpress.com)
- Krishna’s Dwaraka Remains Photo Essay (ramanan50.wordpress.com)