Discussion on the paper
Chronology of theVedic Ryis
An Archaeoastronomical Approach
BIN. Narahari Achar
Published in Vedic Venues; Voll, 2012, pp. 28-75
RN. Iyengar
General
The stated aim of the paper under discussion is to arrive at a
consistent chronology for Vedic India based on astronomical
methods. Such an effort, even though not new, is welcome
since the importance of archaeoastronomy in understanding,
ancient India has not been fully realized by historians
‘The paper also interprets many astronomical verses in the
Mahabharata (MB) in a peculiar fashion to propose a high
chronology of 3067 BCE for the MB war. Prof. BN Achar (abby:
BNA) criticizes mainstream western writers on the subject for
their bias in delineating ancient Indian chronology. This
criticism by the author, a Professor of Physics in a western
university puts a heavy responsibility on him to maintain
objectivity and rigour at the highest level of scientific analysis
in interpreting the ancient Sanskrit texts.
It is true that mainstream historians have ignored the
analysis of sky pictures contained in ancient Vedic and other
‘Sanskrit texts, As BNA points out, this indifference on the part
of historians is due to the prevalent concept of the so called
Aryans entering the Indian subcontinent from outside around
1500 BCE. Having said so it should also be pointed out that
archaeoastronomy alone cannot be the final deciding factor in
fixing ancient dates, It is necessary to demonstrate
(CHRONOLOGY OF VEDIC RgIS: AN AKCHAEOASTAONOMICAL APPROACH 79
unambiguous physical correlation between the texts and the
artifacts dug out from the geographical locations from where
the astronomical observations are stated to have been done. In
the well known MB sites the oldest cultural layers can be
stretched to ¢ 1500 BCE but nothing older than this date (Lal
1950-52)
Another point to be noted here is that with the easy
availability of computers anyone can use a varicty of
planetarium software to print out sky pictures of the past.
Familiarity and working knowledge of Astronomy is sufficient
to use the software. This is certainly a powerful tool for
historians, But the fact remains this is only a tool and the
derived result cannot be treated as primary evidence without
further justification. Texts under scrutiny here are not
astronomical in a modern sense, There is considerable
ambiguity in interpreting the basic data that forms the input to
the planetarium software. Hence translation of the Sanskrit texts
and dispassionate presentation of the sky data contained therein
are more important even if they tum out to be uncertain. The
basic weakness of the present paper lies in the absence of textual
criticism to first establish the reliability or otherwise of the data
that is used as input to the software. This has led to a series of
assumptions which are later asserted as proved or
demonstrated. This is glaringly evident when the author
assumes, in the bhigma-parvan of MB, planets to be comet
apparitions wherever the text is found to be inconvenient for
his thesis. In a serious research on ancient astronomy some
assumptions may be necessary as a way forward. But any such
study is expected to report sensitivity of the final results to the
assumptions made. Here a few points touching upon the present
paper and a companion article that is heavily used by the author
on the dating of MB are discussed (Achar 2010).
Vedanga Jyotisa (VJ)
BNA argues for altering the identification of some of the
naks,atras of VJ, from the ones that are popular in the literature,7
80 / VEDIC VENUES
It is possible star names and their position during the siddhantic
period might have been somewhat different from the ones
mentioned in the VJ period. But the verifiable celestial
reference is from the siddhantic period only. In the case of VJ,
it is Varaha-mihira’s statement that once previously the solstice
was at dhanistha that has led to taking this to be B-Delphini
‘The ancient star list has 27 or 28 naks.atras, which are situated
within a visible star group. The name given to a star group is
generally meaningful in depicting the geometric shape or some
other characteristic of the visible celestial objects. It is well
known that hasta stands for five stars in the form of a hand
Shifting this from the constellation Corvus, which looks like
an outstretched palm, to Virgo is of doubtful validity, The
Taittiriya Brahmana (1.5.2.2) describes the cosmic figure of
Naksatriya Prajapati with his hand identified as the group of
five stars called hasta. BNA accepts that VJ has its origin in
antecedent texts but takes unwarranted liberties with the
mystical aspects of Vedic astronomy.
Again BNA shifts star svar, the heart of the above cosmic
figure, from Arcturus the fourth brightest star of magnitude
-0.04 in the visible sky, to m-Hydra a nondescript star of
‘magnitude 3.25 without considering the picturesque references
that characterize svati in Vedic texts. The original name of this
star was nistyd and the Tai. Br. (1.5.2) recommends marriage
under this asterism so that the bride remains dear to her parents
and does not return from her husband's house. Very aptly the
meaning of this word is ‘kept out, staying away’. Indeed nistya,
far away in the north identified well with a- Bootes (Arcturus)
was noted to be a special star by Vedic people. As is known to
modern astronomy this has large proper motion and is
continuously moving southwards. This fact had been noted
by Vedic seers and very appropriately Tai, Br. (3.1.4.13)
celebrating this star offers: vayave svaha, nistydyai svaha,
Kamacaraya svahd. Wind as the deity (vayu) could blow this
star nisty@ and it could move as it desired (kamacara). The
‘CHRONOLOGY OF VEDIC RIS: AN ARCHABOASTRONOMICAL APPROACH / BI
later more popular name svati directly alludes to the motion of
this star across the sky. This word is coined from the root ata-
saxatya-gate; i.e. ata-continuous-motion, The word is derived
as svenaiva atatiti svatik, one who could move on its own
(Deva 1822). The Nighantu of Yaska also upholds this, since
atati is listed under gatikarma. Ramayana echoes this
beautifully in the kiskindha-kanda (67.20);
bhavisyati hi me panthah svateh pantha ivambare||
“My path will be like the path of svati in the sky.”
Haniiman says that his path will be unobstructed like that of
star svari in the sky. Such elegant observational scientific
naturalism that is present in the ancient texts need not be traded
away for some trivial arguments on what Vedic people might
have observed based on artificial screen shots coming out of
computer software. Contrary to the claims of the author n-Hya
is not at all brighter than the Vedic svati identified as a-Bootes.
‘The argument that the stars proposed by BNA are nearer
the ecliptic, than the traditionally accepted ones, cannot be @
strong reason. In the first place no ancient text says that
naksatras are to be neat the ecliptic. They are used as reference
to indicate the position of Moon and hence what matters
is whether in the spatial distribution of the lunar locus as
observed from the earth the concerned star, with the exception
of nistya (svati) for reasons already described above, can have
fa position, Surely with the declination of the moon swinging
from -29 to +29 degrees, dhanistha of VJ identified as
B-Delphini cannot be treated as out of bounds. Abhyankar
(1991) had already argued, with better logic, for identifying
dhanistha with B-Aqr. Recently Gondhalekar (2012) has
thoroughly studied the question of Vedic chronology and the
identification of the first star of VJ. He proposes the yogatara
of the éravisthas to be a-Delphini. In either case the date of VI
hovers around 1100-1400 BCE. No compelling and credible
reasons have been presented by BNA to change the82 / vepie VENUES
identification of Vedic Sravistha (dhanistha) from B-Del to
8-Cap and consequently to push back the date of VJ from
1400 BCE to c 1800 BCE.
Mahabharata
Even though the paper is stated to be about dating Vedic
seers, considerable space is devoted by the author to argue a
high chronology for the Epic. From the way the astronomical
observations of MB are selectively interpreted by BNA, for
getting the data for his planetarium software, one gets the
feeling that he is determined to show somehow that the
traditional belief of c 3100 BCE is correct for the MB war.
One of his interpretational basis is contained in his claim
astronomical references in the Bhisma Parva and the
Udyoga Parva....form a very consistent set and in the context
of omens as indicating impending calamities, agree closely
with the tradition of omens in Atharvaveda and its Parisistas”.
By the latter he means the Azharvaveda-parisista (AVP) which
he quotes in many places without critical analysis, under the
assumption that it is older than the epie MB. AVP contains
statements which were possible only in the last centuries of
the first millennium BCE. It does not have any chapter or verses
known as yuddhalaksanam. The only yuddha or war that AVP
knows is chapter 51 named grahayuddham referring to
conjunction and circling of planets among themselves. There
is also a portent of bidala-uliika-yuddha i.e. skirmish between
@ cat and an owl (AVP 64.6.9). The table presented as a
comparison between MB and AVP can hardly be taken as serious
textual analysis. Some details are considered here so that the
lay reader is not misled by the table presented in support of the
approach of BNA for analyzing MB astronomy.
Chapter 64 in AVP is titled uiparalaksanam (Character of
Anomalies) and has nothing specially to do with wars, The
original verse of AVP cited by the author is
carke abhraparighadinam pariveso arkacandrayol |
(aksdtohitavarnatvam sarvesam ca vicarayam|| AVP (64.5.7)
‘HKONOLOGY OF VEDIC ys! AN ARCHAFOASTRONOMICAL APPRONCH 83
loudy and weapon-like halos in the sun; lacquer red colour
of sun and moon would be worrisome to everyone.’
‘The verse is in no way specific to “predicting war” as
claimed by the author. His quotations on parives.a which are
not given in full in his paper are;
snigdhesu parivesesu catursvetesu niirada|
ssandhyiiyam ara varnesu vrstio tesvabhinirdiget|| (AVP61.1.4)
ada, in the above four types of coloured and sharp halos
rainfall should be forecast in the evening.”
rihivyim rajavamsyanare mahad bhayam upasthisar|
lokaksayakaram vidyad yadi devo na varsati|| _ (AVP61.1 16)
“If it does not rain great fear is in store for the royal families on
earth. It is to be known that there will be depletion of the world
(i.e. large scale death).”
‘The above verses are about clouds and rainfall. The last
line above makes it clear that if it does not rain, it creates great
fear among the people and the royal families. Verse before
and after the above in Chapter 61 of AVP are also about clouds
and rainfall. In no way these are relevant for interpreting the
astronomy of the Epic
The third citation from AVP is about eclipses, which the
author quotes partially.
{amro bhavati Sastraya rikso bhavati mrtyavel
bahvikaras te bhiitanam ghorarn janayate jvaram ||
dhimavarno"gnivaryo va grémesu nagaresu va
agnyutpdtan grhasthndm karotiha mahagrahal|| AVP (53.5.1-2)
“The mega-grasper (Rahu the eclipse causer) turns red for
(portending) weaponry, turns harsh for (portending) death.
Assumption of many forms produces high fever among people.
Taking the colour of smoke or of fire, Rahu produces fire
accidents for householders in the villages or in the cities.”
In the companion paper on MB (Achar 2010), a dotted line
is shown for the last line of the second verse above, as if the
text is missing in the original manuscript of AVP. Actually the84 / VEDIC VENUES
text is fully available and it is no portent for a great war among
kings but an omen for fire accidents among householders.
‘There is nothing to show any special correspondence between
MB and the AVP. It is disappointing to see the author seeking,
support from AVP a late text which presupposes MB, as it knows
itihiisa (AVP 1.15.1; 68.2.62) as available to the society already.
What was the itthdsa to which AVP pays obeisance if it was
not MB? Disciples of Vyasa namely, Jaimini, Vaisampayana,
Paila were known to AVP (43.4.14-17). AVP also pays respects
to Panini by name. One may argue that like several other texts
AVP may contain old and also later information in a layered
fashion. But definitely it is not an accented text with mantras
and hence cannot claim Vedic authority like the Samhita and
the Brahmana texts. Even MB is traditionally known to have at
least three layers. Hence to argue for the dating of MB with the
help of a text that got fixed very late is to put the cart before
the horse, The AVP text prescribes a foreign currency, the
golden dindra to be given away during religious rites:
tato mandaliko raja dinaranam gavaim Satam|
pranamya Sraddhaya tasmai dadyad uddhara mam ith (AVP 36.26.3)
“Then the tutelary king should respectfully give a hundred
dindras and cows (to the guru) saying, please uplift me.”
‘Thus it is obvious AVP should be assigned to the last few
centuries of the first millennium BCE, prior to c100 CE when
Kushans, with dindra as their currency, were ruling in the
northwestern part of India.
Now let us look at how BNA handles MB data. He accuses,
this writer of making ad hoc hypotheses in dating the MB
statements. This criticism of BNA refers to the MB dating of
1493-1443 BCE demonstrated by this writer by reconciling
the two conflicting positions of Saturn to be statements
separated by a fourteen or fifteen year interval between the
gambling episode and the war (Iyengar 2003). But BNA has
no qualms in taking Sanaiscara as Saturn in one place (MB
V.141.7) but as a comet a few verses later in the same book.
[CHRONOLOGY OF VEDIC RSIS: AN ARCHABOASTRONOMICAL APPROACH / 85
His main effort is to somehow interpret conflicting, statements
about planets as referring to comets. He claims “Vyasa leaves
no doubt to the fact that in bhiymaparvan, the word graha
refers to a comet.....” That BNA is writing without evidence
will be clear to any one who takes the trouble to read the original
text. In the bhismaparvan the word graha appears some twenty
times. Since the word is a genetic one, it could be used to refer
to comets. But it is not exclusively reserved for comets as
claimed. In the bhismaparvan (3.29) quoted by BNA, the word
refers to Sun and Moon. In (13.40) it refers to Rahu, the eclipse
ccauser. In (17.2) seven grahas are mentioned, which obviously
cannot all be taken to be comets. In (96.35-36) the grahas are
said to five in number and affecting Sun and Moon, About the
nomenclature of comets, BNA likes to take support from
‘Varaha-mihira, even though for the star dhanisthd he does not
siddhantic statements. Varaha in the Brhat-samhita on
Ketucara clearly says he is borrowing his information from
Garga, Parasara, Asita and Devala. So what is the relevance of
comets of Byhat-samhita for the astronomy of MB? It is true
that ancient writers describe some groups of comets or
meteorites as grahaputrah (planet-children). This has been
mentioned by Pardsara, Garga and others as discussed in the
works of Variha, Utpala and Ballila-sena (lyengar 2008).
Hence siiryaputra might mean a comet in MB instead of Saturn
as understood in the later tradition. But the statement “...he
also refers to the comets by the name of the parent planets,
i.e, Jupiter to indicate the comet son of Jupiter” is a figment of
imagination. The difficulties of BNA are clearly with the
position of Jupiter and Saturn said to be near visakha. The
relevant verses are
‘grahau tamrarunaSikhaw prajvataniaviva sthitau)
‘saptarsindm udarandm samavacchadya vai prabhm| |
‘samvatsarasthayinan ca grahau prajvalitavubhau|
visakhayoh samipasthaw brhaspatisanaiscarau |
“Two grahas with coppery-red tufts are stationed, as if burning,
having masked the brightness of the Saptarsi (U.Major)86 / VEDIC VENUES
constellation. Also the two shining year-long-static grahas
namely brhaspati and Sanaiscara ate located near the (two)
visakha stars.”
The first half-verse which is quoted by BNA, could refer
to comet bodies as claimed, But these were near U. Major in
the northern sky as can be understood from the context in
second half which the learned author conveniently forgets to
quote. His claim of Jupiter and Satur being names of comets
in the second verse above is negated as these two objects are
‘qualified as being year-long stationary near the ecliptic stars
visakha. These two celestial objects brhaspati and Sanaiseara
are said to be bright and shining. This does not in any way
‘mean Vyasa intends them to be comets of that name.
The further specious claim of BNA is that the purported
usage of denoting the son by the name of the father “....is
quite according to Sanskrit grammar”. If it is so, the author
should have supported his claim with justifications from an
authoritative text on Sanskrit grammar. In the absence of such
support his statement is just a piece of empty rhetoric. The
author adds the phrase “son of” in front of every planet the
position of which proves inconvenient to his preconceived
chronology. This type of wishful translation is as good as
deriding the original composer of the Epic for lack of
vocabulary. Similar is the author's dismissal that star Dhruva
‘mentioned to be drifting during the MB war cannot refer to the
Polestar. BNA gives no reason for ignoring this astronomical
statement. Is it because he knows that a-Draconis was the
Polestar during 3200-2400 BCE and its movement as recorded
in MB would assign the latter to a date later than 2400 BCE?
Eclipses in MB
‘There are many statements about eclipses, not all of which
might have been real. However, those mentioned by the main
characters as observed can not be overlooked without strong
reasons. There is mention of a solar eclipse in the sabhaparvan
(79.29) when Pandavas leave for the forest. This eclipse is
‘CHRONOLOGY OF VEDIC RSIS: AN ARCHAEOASTRONOMICAL APPROACH / 87
confirmed by Dhrtarastra in the next chapter of the same
parvan (80.23). This is ignored by BNA without giving any
reason.
BNA assumes that Kanna was able to predict a forthcoming
solar eclipse. What is the basis for this ad hoc assumption?
Further he takes that this was near star jyesthd which is nowhere
mentioned to be so in MB. The argument of BNA that there
was a lunar eclipse on kartika-piirnima and a solar eclipse in
ivestha star is an extrapolation in the realm of possibility but
not attested by the MB text. Fig 4 in the paper is supposed to
represent a solar eclipse on 14th October 3067 BCE. But was
this visible in Kuruksetra? Similarly Fig.8 in his companion
Paper is claimed to represent a lunar eclipse on 29th September
of the same year. One has to just believe the author for this
assertion. Results obtained from other planetarium software
do not support the author’s claims. These and such other issues
casting doubts on the results of the author have been raised
earlier also (Hari 2003), But BNA remains reluctant to subject
his results to alternate methods of computations which are
openly available to anyone seriously interested in scientific
archaeoastronomy.
“Astronomy is an observational science” is a statement
made by the author. Any observation will have errors and hence
it is necessary to find out how sensitive the final result is to the
various assumptions done. The author claims that his results
are consistent with the text. What is meant by consistency?
The author does not define this nor state a criterion against
which his consistency can be verified. Textual criticism and
the Indian tradition of astronomy about MB statements are
irrelevant to the author. For example, Bhattotpala (9th-10th
Cent.) the celebrated commentator on the Brhat-samhita takes
that the eclipse duo mentioned in MB occurred in the thirteenth
(interealary) month; not at thirteen day interval. With difficult
planetary positions being ignored whimsically as comets, the
principle followed is simple and clear. Following such a method,
of course, any date can be demonstrated for the MB war. Those88 / VEDIC VENUES
who crave for modern scientific analysis to show that the
traditional Kaliyuga start was in 3102 BCE will initially feel
clated, till they realize that a heavy price has to be paid by
distorting planets to be comets on the bizarre claim that
lenoting the son by the name of the father” is as per Sanskrit
grammar, Other than this inspired imagination of the author
there is no authority for taking Vyasa’s planets to be comets.
An offshoot of this is the anticlimax that his result of 3067
BCE for the MB war depends solely on imputing convoluted
and spurious meanings to well attested usages of Sanskrit words.
Hence the hard work of the author is an example to show that
fa straight forward reading of the text does not lead to 3067
BCE for the MB war.
Chronology of the Rgveda
The tenth section of the paper is about the so called
astronomy based chronology of the Rgveda. High sounding
as the claim is, there is nothing new and original that the author
hhas contributed to our understanding of the dates of RV books.
It is well accepted that the available RV text is not
chronologically ordered. It is also generally conceded that the
first and the tenth books are later than the other eight books.
‘The ninth book is a collection of hymns by various seers
belonging to different families. From the remaining family
books, it is easy to infer that the original Rsis and their family
members have composed the hymns probably in successive
generations, Thus the hidden timeline in the Reveda is arranged
approximately generation wise within the family books.
Notwithstanding the title of the paper the author avoids
presenting any chronology table of the Rsis or their families.
‘The author is generally very economical in referring to
contributions from past authors in deciphering Vedic
astronomical statements. He summarily dismisses an important
work of Sengupta in one sentence: “Our interpretation is that
the legend refers to the vernal equinox, with the Dog Star (Sirius)
at the vernal equinox and is illustrated in Figure 8." The author
does not think it necessary to justify his interpretation in any
(CHRONOLOGY OF VEDIC RSIS: AN ARCHAEOASTRONOMICAL APPROACH 89
manner, Added to this highly opinionated approach is the use
of his own personalized identification of naks.atras (e.g.
mygasiras with -Tau instead of 2-Ori), which can push back
the dates conveniently by centuries. Hence, there is nothing, to
discuss about the high chronology BNA arrives at by
overtaking Tilak and Jacobi. This is followed by a short
paragraph with the claim that since the Satapatha Brahmana
belongs to c 3000 BCE and names Pariksit and Janamejaya
appear in this Vedic text, this becomes an independent check
‘on his purported MB war date of 3067 BCE. The author either
revels in circular arguments or is not aware that the above
proper names appear also in the genealogy of ancestors of
Pandavas in the Epic itself (Adiparvan: Ch 89-90).
‘Summary
Broadly three topics are touched upon by the author in
article to different levels of details, He first makes a case for a
new idemtification of Veuie wakyatras. His identification of svat
with n-Hydra, instead of the presently accepted a-Bootes, is
not credible, Unless a coherent chronological link is established
between his identifications and the later siddhantic period
naksatra positions, shifting the date of Vedanga Jyotisa to 1800
BCE will not be acceptable as a chronological marker. Till
such time the author comes out with the above connections
based on objective textual evidences the date of ¢ 1400 BCE
will remain the mainstream date of VJ and Sravis/ah will be
identified with star B-Delphini
It may be pointed out here that the Yajurvedic people
(Taittiriya Aranyaka 11.19.1) knew the constellation Sisumara
(Draco) in the northern sky consisting of fourteen stars (Iyengar
2011). This had Dhruva the Polestar at its tail end. It can be
easily demonstrated that this Dhruva was o-Draconis or
Thuban, the Polestar during 3200-2400 BCE. Since Taittiriya
texts know the Rgveda, their knowledge of the Polestar
evidently upholds dating of the Rgveda to a period earlier than
3200 BCE. However the Maitrayaniya Aranyaka of the
Yajurveda mentions the movement of Dhruva as an90 / VEDIC VENUES
observation. This would have been possible only after 2000
BCE, So also, the MB statement about the movement of Dhruva
‘would have been possible only in the second millennium BCE
but not earlier.
To arrive at the author's MB war date of 3067 BCE one has
to firmly believe that ends justify the means, because several
untenable assumptions are necessary as described by the author
himself, It has to be first assumed that Karna _was able to predict
solar eclipses based on portents.[Only one planet namely, Saturn
near star rohini. (Aldebaran) sighted by Karna and Krsna in
the udyogaparvan has to be taken as a real observation.
Even though Karna meant that Mars was visible near star
aniiradha after having retrograded under jyestha, it has to
be taken to mean that on the conversation night it was well
past aniiradha. This special pleading, not voiced by the
author, is essential since as per the planetarium software
results shown, Mars would have been near star Sravard.\,
Beyond ihe above concession, according to the author, ail
other planets mentioned by Vyasa are to be treated as comets
carrying the name of planets. Following the author, unless
the planets angdraka, (Mars in retrograde near star magh@),
Sukra, Sanaiscara, byhaspati in the bhiyma-parvan are
assumed to be comets, the above date cannot be arrived at
‘The original text itself unambiguously refers to two or three
comets or such apparitions in the sky. Hence, the approach
of the author leads the reader to reckon with a formidable
array of ten or more comets simultaneously appearing at
the time of the war. Prof. Achar, after taking planets to be
comets, feels no scientific compulsion to discuss the possibility
and/or probability of a swarm of comets occupying the night
sky around the purported date of 3067 BCE from the
perspectives of modern Astrophysics.
In conclusion, those who passionately hold on to the
doctrine that the MB war date should match with the siddhantic
astronomical Kaliyuga start of 3102 BCE, will have to
unconditionally subscribe to the author's approach of text
torturing and distortion. Others will easily infer that the naked
(CHRONOLOGY OF VEDIC RSIS: AN ARCHAEOASTRONOMICAL APPROACH OL
eye astronomical observations mentioned in MB do not
historically belong to 3067 BCE.
Bibliography
Lal, B.B. 1950-52 “Excavation at Hastinapura and other
Explorations in the Upper Ganga and
Sutlej Basins’ in Ancient India, Bull
Arch. Survey of Ind. No.10 &11,
(-15D),
Achar, B.N. 2010 “The Mahabharata War: its Date on the
basis of Astronomical References’ in
gh (ed), Origin of Indian
Cwilization; N. Delhi, DK Print World.
1, Radhakanta. 1822 Sabdakalpadrumam, Vol. 5, Calcutta,
Jain Publ. (www.dli.ernet.in)
Abhyankar,K.D. 1991 ‘Misidentification of some Indian
Naksatras’, Ind. J. Hist. Sci. 26.1,
(0-10).
Gondhalekar, P. 2011 “Possible Chronological Markers in the
Vedic Texts’, Ind. J. Hist. Sci, 46.1
(1-22),
Iyengar, R.N. 2003 “Internal Consistency of Eel
Planetary Positions
Mahabharata’, Ind. J Hist. Sei., 38.2,
(77-115).
Iyengar, R.N. 2008 ‘Archaic Astronomy of Pardsara and
Vrddha Garga’, Ind. J. Hist. Sci. 43.1,
27,
Hari, Chandra K. 2003 ‘Date of the Mahabharata War-
A Review of some Recent Studi
Kamath (ed) The Date of the
Mahabharata War Based on
Astronomical Data, Bangalore, The
Mythic Society, (117-143).
Tyengar, R.N. 2011 ‘Dhruva the Ancient Indian Polestar
Fixity, Rotation and Movement’ Ind,
J. Hist. Sci., 46.1, (23-39)
DetResponse to Discussion of the paper
Chronology of theVedic Rsis
An Archaeoastronomical Approach
BN. Narahari Achar
Vedic Venues; Vol.1, 2012, pp. 28-75
Discussion by R.N. Iyengar (RNID)
Response by B.N. Narahari Achar
‘The discussion by Prof. RNI purports to be an impassionate
evaluation of above paper, But the comments by RNI appear
to be based on misunderstanding, misconception, and
misrepresentation and are often quite misleading. He discusses
the above paper under the broad headings of Vedaiga
Jyotiya, Mahabharata and the chronology of rgveda.
Responses to his comments are provided under the same
broad headings.
1. Vedaiiga Jyotisa (VJ)
Iyengar’s main criticism is about the date of VJ 1800 BCE
given by the author (Achar, 2000a) based on the scheme of
identification of the Vedic naksatra-s also proposed by him
(Achar, 2002,2003). RNI takes issue with the identification of
Dhanistha with 8-Cap and in particular with the identification
of svati with m-Hyd. He gives an argument why swati should
be identified with a-Boo and not with n-Hyd quoting part of an
anuvika from Tai. Br. (3.1.4.13) and following it with the
description of an episode from Ramayana. His argument is
based on both a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation,
but a brief account of the background would not be out of
place. It was about a dozen years ago that a new tool in the
form of Planetarium software had become available, This
software could display at the touch of a mouse the view of the
Oe
(CHRONOLOGY OF VEDIC RYIS: AN ARCHAEOASTRONOMICAL APPROACH 93
sky at any place and at any time and could be used for
investigating the astronomy of Vedic times (Achar 1999). It
became clear that it was necessary to understand the
foundation of the astronomical knowledge in the Vedas and
dispel many of the misconceptions that enveloped the issues,
Thus it was shown (Achar,1998) that VJ (used as a generic
name for both rg- and yajus- versions), the oldest text (rather a
manual) on astronomy, was based in the Vedas and not
imported from Babylon or some other country, all the
naksatra-s were known to RV in opposition to the view that
only a few of them were known in RV, but the full list became
known only in Tai. Sam, Tai. Br. Ath. V. and later texts. The
author was also dissatisfied with the identification of the
naksatras with the names of stars in a modem catalog, hence
began the work to produce a new list of identification. In the
scheme proposed by the author, the identification agrees with
the traditional list, given by the Calendar Reform
‘Committec(Saha and Lahiri, 1959) in all cases except six, the
new six were chosen by the author because they were closer to
the ecliptic and in many cases brighter. The premise was that
the naksatras were used as markers in the sky for the motion
of the Moon and the Sun along the ecliptic, they had to be
close to the ecliptic and be bright. The whole point wasthat
fresh start from an independent point of view for the
identification without being bogged down with the Siddhanta-
8 and the baggage that came with it. It was also shown that the
naming of months in the eaitradi scheme (Achar,2000b ) was
also traced to rgveda.
RNI is mistaken when he says,
“In the ease of VJ, it is Varaha-Mihira’s statement that once
Previously the solstice was at Dhanisthd that has led to taking this,
to be B-Delphini”.
‘There are two independent issues here: (i) Solstice at
Dhanistha (ii) identification of Dhanistha with -Del, Varaha-
Mihira has little to do with either of these issues. VJ/(6) itself94 / VEDIC VENUES
declares “prapadyete Sravis(adau siryacandramasay udak”
referring to the beginning of the uttarayana when both the sun
and the moon are in Sravisfa, an older name for Dhanistha.
‘The identification of the so called yogataras of the Siddhantas
with stars of modern star catalog was done by modern
scholars, who first converted the ecliptic coordinates of the
said yogataras (found in Siddhantas)to equatorial
coordinates, extrapolated these coordinates from about 500
CE to 1900 CE (say) and then compared with the coordinates
Of the stars listed in a modern catalog (epoch 1900) to produce
a list of stars whose coordinates give the best agreement, The
author felt that this involved unnecessary errors in conversion,
extrapolation and identification. After all the Vedic people
observed the sky and noted the bright stars as markers for the
path of the sun and the moon. The author proposed to observe
the sky as the Vedic seers did (but by simulation with the
planetarium software). Contrary to what RNI opines that no
ancient text says that naksatras are to be near the ecliptic,
RV says in (X.85.2)
“atho naksatranamesamupasthe soma ahitah” and in (V.51. 15)
“svasti panthamanu carema siiryaeandramasaviva” and in
Reva
“svasti pathye revafi”, it is obvious that the reference is to
the ecliptic, the path of the Sun and the Moon and that revadt is
in the path. The identification of the naksatras was carried out
by the author assuming that -Tau (Pleiades) corresponded to
Krittika,and by simulation with the Planetarium software of
hundreds of New moons and Full moons at the time when
Krittika was on the celestial equator. There would be
absolutely no confusion about the relative positions of the
sun and the moon on these days and noting where they
occurred and identifying the brightest star as
corresponding to the naksatra of the day. The usual
constellation shapes were tured off leaving only the stars and
the ecliptic and the equator visible on the screen (planets, of
course were left alone). This procedure would have
‘CHRONOLOGY OF VEDIC RIS: AN ARCHAROASTRONOMICAL APPROACH 95
approximated the actual observations by the sages. 3-Cap that
is identified with Dhanisfha is both brighter (magnitude 2.81)
and closer to the ecliptic (at an angular separation 1°24 ) than
‘o-Agr (mag 2.93 and at 11°) and f-Del. (mag 3.76 and at 34°
from the Ecliptic). The scheme of identification proposed by
the author also resolved a long standing controversy about
Deva- and yama naksatra s. The details can be seen in (Achat,
2003a). The author stands by the identification scheme he
proposed.
RNI's discussion of svati and its identification with a-Boo
appears to be based on both an astronomical misconception
and a misrepresentation of a Vedic reading. It is true that
a-Boo has a large proper motion, and it is possible that the
Vedic seers might have noted it, But it is nothing like the path
that Hanuman is describing, the one that spans across the sky.
For, at the rate of 2 seconds of are per year in proper motion, it
would take about 1800 years for the star to cover an angular
separation of 1*, the distance covered by the Sun in one day
along the ecliptic. For that matter, Rohint (Aldebaran) also has
‘a proper motion only slightly less than that of a-Boo, and
would take some 2000 years to cover 1°. At the level of the
Astronomy based on the Celestial Sphere, the stars are
considered fixed in their positions in the sky and proper
motion is hardly a factor, The observed apparent motion of the
stars is due to (j) rotation of the Earth (from West to East) and
the revolution of the earth around the Sun, As a result most
heavenly bodies appear to rise in the East move across the sky
and set in the West (referred to as the Diurnal motion). This
path spans across the sky and applies to the sun, moon, planets
and stars, every day. The Sun appears to move along the
Ecliptic at 1° per day, completing the circle in one year,
because of the revolution of the earth around the Sun. The
Moon does the same (but because of its revolution around the
earth) in about a month, covering about 13° per day. The
‘moon's path is inclined to the ecliptic by about 5°, intersecting
the ecliptic at two points, the Nodes. All this deliberation in96 / VEDIC VENUES
‘clementary astronomy is necessary to clarify what appear to be
two misconceptions in RNI’s argument,
When Hanuman says, “svateh pantha ivambare”, he is
referring not to the proper motion but to the daily motion of the
star, RNI’s argument does not fly. Again when RNI says that
Moon’s declination changes from -29° to +29°, this is true
because the Moon's orbit is inclined to the ecliptic by about 5°
and the Sun's declination changes from -23.5° to +23.5° , but
this has nothing to do with and cannot change the fact that
B-Del remains quite far from the ecliptic and is not a very
bright star either. The star map below for Aug 21, 2013 in
figure 1 shows the Full Moon, the ecliptic and the equator.
B-Del is farther and much dimmer than &-Cap or B-Aqr. B-Del
was much farther from the ecliptic in Vedic days. a-Del was
even farther.
As to the mantras that RNI quotes only in part from
Tai. Br. (3.1.4.13), the anuvaka begins with “vayurva
Fig. 1 Starmap for August 21, 2013 CE,
Full moon at Dhanistha
‘CHIRONOLOGY OF VEDIC RGIS AN ARCHABOASTRONOMICAL APPROACH 97
akamayata | kamacaramesu lokesvabhi jayeyamiti | sa
etadvayavenistyayai grstyai dugdham payo niravapat | tato
vai sa kamicdramesu lokesvabhyajayat | kamacarariha va
egulokesvabhijayati | ya etena havisa yajate | ya w
cainadevam veda | sotra juhoti | vayave svaha | nistyayai
svaha | kamacaraya svaha | abhijityai svaha it i\\”
This anuvaka is concerned with the thirteenth unit of the
ritual naksatresfi, addressed to svati-, whose presiding deity is
wayu. At one time vayu desired that he should be able to move
at will in these worlds. So he performed a ritual offering milk
as the dravya, and attained his goal. So the yajamana who is
performing the ritual, will also attain the same goal, namely,
the ability to move freely in this world. The mantras, vayave
svaha etc. are the y@jya mantras, ie., the formula mantras to
be recited while the offering is made to the fire. kimacdraya
svaha refers to the goal to be attained by the yajamdna (the
person on whose behalf the ritual is performed), and in no way
alludes to the proper motion of the star. Incidentally, in the
naksatresfi, there is one such anuvaka for each naksatra,
accompanied by a story of the presiding deity of the star,
desiring some goal, performs a ritual, making some specific
offerings. The suggestion is that whosoever is performing the
ritual in this world also will attain the same goal by performing
the ritual with offerings made according to essentially the
same formula, first offering to the deity, next to the
nakgatra(which represents the deity), next with the desired
‘goal in mind, etc.
2. Mahabharata
‘The astronomical references pertinent to the war occur
mainly in udyoga and Bhigmaparvas.
‘The points raised by RNI in connection with the
astronomical references can be broadly classified into two
groups, those concerned with genuine astronomical events as
such, and those concerned primarily with interpretation of
certain terms such as graha,98 / VEDIC VENUES
The following comment by RNI pertains to udyogaparva.
“BNA assumes that Karza was able to predict a
forthcoming solar eclipse. What is the basis for this ad hoc
assumption? Further he takes that this was near star jyestha
is nowhere mentioned to be so in MB. The argument
of BNA that there was a lunar eclipse on kartika paurnimd
and a solar eclipse in jyestha star is an extrapolation in the
realm of possibility but not attested by the MB text. Figure 4
is supposed to represent a solar eclipse on 14th October
3067 BCE. But was this visible in Kuruksetra? Similarly
Fig in his companion paper is claimed to represent a lunar
eclipse on 29th September of the same year. One has to just
believe the author for this assertion. Results obtained from
other planetarium software do not support the author’s
claim. These and such other issues casting doubts on the
results of the author have been raised earlier also (Chandra
Hari 2003), But BNA has remained reluctant to subject his
results to alternate methods of computations which are
openly available to anyone seriously interested in scientific
archaeoastronomy.”
Krsna starts from Upaplavya nagara on his mission of
peace on the day of Revati naksatra in the month of Kartika at
the maitri muhiirta. This much is uncontested statement from
Udyogaparva in MB. (“maitre muhiirte.... kaumudemasi...
revatyam” MB (V. 81.6-7) The dotted line is just for picking
out only the relevant words, not that the text is missing!)
He arrives at Hastinapura on the day of Bharani, thus Kryna
is in Hastinapura on Kartika Paurgimd.
Krgpa leaves Hastinapura on the day of Uttaraphalgunt
and he is accompanied by Karna. The phase of the moon is
just about third quarter (Krsha asfam). It is on that day that
Krsna utters the famous Soka:
“saptamachchapi divasad amavasya bhavisyati
Sangrimo yujyatiam tasyam tamahul Sakradevatim”
MB (V.140.18)
(CHRONOLOGY OF VEDIC RIS: AN ARCHAEOASTRONOMICAL APPROACH 99)
He is referring to the upcoming amavasya in seven days
and the adhidevata of the naksatra is Indra. So he is referring
to Jyestha naksatra. There cannot be any doubt as to the New
Moon day at Jyesfha. It is also then that Karna says
“somasya laksma vyavrttam rahurarkamupesyati”
MB(V. 141.10)
“somasya lakyma vyavrttam” is generally taken to
referring to a lunar eclipse, which had taken place on the
Kartika paurnima, a few days before. A very similar statement
occurs in Bhigma parva, when Vyasa says “alakse
prabhayahinam pauraamasimca kartikim” MB(VI. 2. 23).
Clearly this refers to the lunar eclipse on the full moon of
Kartika. Then Karna says ‘rahurarkamupesyati’ meaning
that there is going to be a solar eclipse, which can happen only
on the new moon day and the coming New moon day is
Jyestha amavasya. That there was a lunar eclipse on Kartika
Paurnima followed by a solar eclipse at Jyeyfiat is thus well
attested by the text of MB.
RNI's comment about making an ad hoc assumption about
the ability of Karna to predict a solar eclipse (which is only
possible with modern astronomical calculations, by
implication) is clearly off the mark. Karna was not using any
‘omens to predict the eclipse, but was describing the lunar and
solar eclipses as the omens indicative of destruction. The
knowledge of soros cycles was long prevalent thousands of
years before the Greek discovery as attested by the stones of
Stonetienge. There was a lunar eclipse on Kartika Paurnimda
and it was followed by a solar eclipse at Jyes¢ha and this is
fully attested by the text in MB, just quoted. RNI refuses to
accept this.
Then RNI questions the sky maps from Planetarium
software for Sept 29, 3067 BCE and for Oct 14, 3067 BCE.
He says that the Lunar eclipse is an assertion and asks whether
the solar eclipse was visible at Kurukgetra. When eclipse