Analysis and Criticism: 3067 BCE as year of Mahabharata War (Part 1 of 10)

Prof. Narahari Achar (~2000) employs the following scheme to justify date for MBH War proposed by Prof. Srinivas Raghavan (1969).

(1) Achar assumes equinox at Jyestha.

Nilesh comment: MBH text provides no basis whatsoever for ‘equinox at Jyeshtha’. If it did, Achar could have simply used this argument to falsify dates proposed by Kochhar (955 BC) and Siddharth (1311 BC), Since timing of equinox at Jyestha was near 3000 BC +/- 500 Years. This range of 500 years is only to account for visual astronomers/calendrics to make note of change. Otherwise there is no confusion related to timing of equinox (fall) at Jyestha.

Summary: NO basis to assume equinox at Jyeshtha per MBH text.

(2) Achar claims that there are ~150 astonomy observations/references in the MBH text. However for mysterious reasons, he only claims to have employed (note -NOT validated, just employed) about 12 references (by his count) in verifying so called 3067 BC as the year of MBH War.

Here is his justification for going from ~150 to 12.

– He speculates that many of these ~150+ astronomy observations are ‘astrological’ in nature. However he neither offers which of these references are ‘astrological’ according to him, nor offers an illustration and no criteria how to distinguish between ‘astronomical’ and ‘astrological’ observations.

– He speculates that many of these could be interpolations. Again does not offer speific references and criteria to distinguish between factual/original and interpolated observations.

– He states that majority of astronomy observations appear in Udyoga and Bhishma parva.

– He claims that he selected 40 of these ~150 observations. He does not state which 40 observations he is referring to.

– He claims astronomy observations he did not include (150-40) is due to
(a) repeated observations (no details)
(b) observations of generic nature referring to time, moon, Paksha, month etc.
(c) not directly connected with war
(d) purely astrological in nature

– He reduces number of observations from 40, further down to 12 (his count)

Nilesh comment: A theory/proposal that claims to have based on astronmy observations from MBH text must/should able to corroborate ‘ALL’ astronomy observations of MBH text. In a scientific investigation of this kind, all astronomy observations (related to time, paksha, month, War) should be listed. It is ok for one to make an argument for ‘astrological’ ‘repeated observations’ or ‘not connected to war’. However such arguments should be specific to a given observation and must be backed by additional evidence…at a minimum.. researcher’s own justification, rationale, other supporting references and so on.

to be continued….


One thought on “Analysis and Criticism: 3067 BCE as year of Mahabharata War (Part 1 of 10)

  1. Pingback: Heavy Bakwas & Bogus Astronomy | Nilesh Nilkanth Oak

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s