History of Ancient india, since Lord Krishna days & Lord Rama Days, Mahabharat Ramayan etc, is part of recorded history, based on evidences i.e ancient inscriptions coins etc and ofcourse it is not mythology.
Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata contain historical layers, and that inscriptions/coins/archaeology provide real evidence)
The epics — the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa — are not pure fable but contain layers that reflect historical people, places, social structures and memories. Several kinds of material evidence (inscriptions, coins, archaeological sites, underwater finds, and literary cross-references in non-epic sources) indicate that names, cults and some places associated with epic figures had real historical presence over many centuries. At the same time, how that evidence is interpreted—dating, association with specific epic narratives, and extent of historicity—remains contested among scholars.
Key pieces of evidence often cited:-
Inscriptions referring to Vāsudeva / Krishna and related cults
Example: The Heliodorus pillar (Besnagar) contains an inscription recording that a Greek ambassador, Heliodorus, dedicated a Garuda pillar as a devotee of Vāsudeva (a form of Krishna). This is direct epigraphic evidence that a Krishna-centred cult existed in central India by the 2nd century BCE. It shows continuity of names/ideas that later appear in epic tradition — not the epic events themselves, but social and religious facts referenced in the texts.
Numismatic and iconographic material
Coins and early coins/metalwork from the Indo-Greek and early historic periods sometimes carry imagery or names (Vāsudeva, Balarāma motifs) that scholars read as evidence for cultic veneration of figures named in the epics. Such coins show that the epic figures had cultural presence in material culture by the early historic era. (See surveys of Dasavatāra and Vasudeva imagery on coins.) (Mintage World)
Archaeology at places associated with the epics (Ayodhya, Dwarka, Bet Dwarka, etc.)
Ayodhya: ASI excavations (2003) reported structural remains, cultural layers, and finds that some interpret as temple-related remains beneath later structures; the excavation and the report have become focal points in debates about the Ramayana’s historicity and in legal/political processes. Critics question methods, dating, and interpretation; supporters see the digs as corroborating long local traditions.
Dwarka / Bet Dwarka: Marine and shore archaeology (work led in part by S. R. Rao and later teams) recovered submerged structural remains, stone anchors and pottery; some marine archaeologists have dated aspects of the site to very early times and argued the remains are consistent with a large early port/settlement — proponents connect this with tradition of Krishna’s city. Skeptics emphasize problems with stratigraphic control, dating precision and equating a submerged settlement with the epic city described in the text.
Epigraphic and literary cross-references in other traditions
References to epic names and heroes appear in Buddhist, Jain and classical Indian inscriptions and literature — indicating that characters like Krishna and Rama were part of shared cultural memory long before modern times. That doesn’t prove every detail of the narratives, but it shows their deep antiquity in South Asian cultural life.
Why serious scholars remain cautious (and why that’s important)
Texts are composite and multilayered. The epics were composed, edited and reworked over centuries; names or episodes may be ancient while narrative specifics are later accretions.
Association ≠ proof of narrative historicity. Finding an early “Krishna cult” or a Bronze/Iron Age urban site in the same region as a textual place does not by itself prove the epic’s full storyline. Robust historical claims need stratified dating, clear context and converging evidence.
Methodological rigor and peer review matter. Several high-profile claims have been challenged on the basis of poor stratigraphic control, ambiguous radiocarbon contexts, or politically driven interpretations. Good archaeology separates data (what was found, where, in which layer) from narrative.
Broadly speaking, historians and archaeologists fall into different interpretive camps — some prioritize sceptical, methodologically strict readings (and warn against politicized claims), while others are more open to linking textual memory with material evidence. Labeling one side “leftist” simplifies a complex scholarly debate that includes archaeologists, epigraphists, numismatists, and historians from many ideological backgrounds. The debate often has more to do with method (what counts as proof) than with simple partisan denial. There are, however, documented cases where politics influenced archaeology or public presentation of findings — this is a real problem and scholars on all sides have criticized politicization of the discipline.
A responsible research & public-engagement programme (concrete, constructive steps)
If the goal is to establish that epic narratives reflect historical realities, here’s a rigorous plan that would produce defensible results and reduce accusations of bias:
Interdisciplinary teams: archaeologists, epigraphists, numismatists, textual scholars (Sanskrit/Prakrit), paleoecologists, marine archaeologists, geneticists and statisticians.
Open, published protocols for excavation and sampling: pre-registered research design, open data, and independent radiocarbon labs. Avoids accusations of cherry-picking.
Multiple lines of independent dating: radiocarbon on short-lived samples, OSL for sediments, archaeomagnetic where applicable, and careful contextual numismatic dating.
Careful epigraphic linkage: inscriptions that mention names (e.g., Vāsudeva) must be dated and contextually linked to finds; avoid leaping from a name on a pillar to a specific narrative event.
Underwater archaeology standards: clear sampling of marine sediments, stratigraphy, and secure dating for submerged structures (anchors, pottery, biofacts).
Public data portals: put finds, photos, stratigraphic logs, radiocarbon dates and interpretations in an open repository for peer review.
Independent replication: allow other teams to re-excavate or test samples (as happens in good science).
Historiographical transparency: clearly state where textual tradition ends and material inference begins—this is crucial for public trust.
Suggested framing for an essay or public piece (three short paragraphs you can use)
Start with solid anchors. Cite indisputable items such as the Heliodorus pillar as evidence that names and cults tied to epic heroes existed in historical times — this shows continuity between texts and material culture.
Then show the archaeological landscape. Summarize marine finds at Dwarka and the ASI Ayodhya report, but immediately add that interpretation and dating are contested; that does not negate the finds but requires careful science.
Finish with a research agenda. Argue that rather than arguing from certainty or denying the finds, we should promote high-quality interdisciplinary research, open data and peer review so the question of epic historicity can move from ideology to evidence.
Recommended primary/critical reading (to link or append)
Heliodorus pillar / epigraphy summaries (see standard epigraphical references and encyclopaedia entries)
ASI Ayodhya excavation report (2003) — the primary excavation report used in court and public debates.
Marine archaeology reports on Dwarka / Bet Dwarka (S.R. Rao and later work; NIO summaries/peer literature).
Critical assessments and opinion pieces discussing the limits of archaeology for proving epic narratives
Scholarly articles on how archaeology has been used in legal and political contexts (e.g., SAGE article on Ayodhya and archaeology in court).
To sum up
Enough evidence like inscriptions, coins, archaeological remains, prove that, the epics are literal ancient history.” →. Material evidence can confirm places, cults and socioeconomic reality that correspond to elements of the narratives without proving all narrative claims.
“Scholars deny everything for ideological reasons.” → Some scholars are skeptical because methodological standards require stronger chains of evidence; others have political motives — both issues exist; the right remedy is transparent methods and open data, not ad hominem labeling.