Jayarava wrote:I've posted a detailed review of the original article from the journal Antiquity on my blog.
Jayarava wrote:sukhamanveti wrote:Now it looks as though one of the older chronologies may have been vindicated.
I've responded to the headlines below and also in depth on my blog. But no there is nothing in the report that reflects on any of the chronologies for the Buddha despite how it is being reported. Indeed the evidence in the original article is pretty thin and has been interpreted with a clear bias and really we can say has been misrepresented as bearing on the dates of the Buddha.
Thank you for the informative review and for clarifying the significance of the find, Jayarava.