The story begins with an innocuous ‘sounding’ statement which is neither an assertion not claimed to be a speculation.
This is how all Indology nonsense begins….
And what I am going to quote is not some ignorant thinking from 17 or 18 or 19th Century but from 21st Century.
Professor Hans Henrich Hock writes (original paper written in 2000 CE) and published as a chapter in a book “Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History’ (2005).
“Was intercalation used on a yearly basis? That is, were the months entirely
lunar (consisting of 27 or 28 days), and the thirteenth month was inserted
every year? If so, at what point in the cycle was it inserted? If this was not
the case – as suggested by the fact that  mentions six sixtwelve
months for the course of the sun – at what yearly intervals were intercalary
months inserted, and what, therefore, was the number of days per month (the
Vedic texts range between 27 and 35 days)? Given a rough correlation of
1 day1 or 72 years of precession, the difference between 27 and 35 days,
that is 8 days, would translate into a variation in time depth of 576 years.”
This erroneous and utterly ridiculous assertion is repeated ad-infinitum by AIT Nazis and AIT Sepoys. I have encountered it firsthand on many forums where this foolishness is quoted and re-quoted as established wisdom, anytime a subject of dating of a specific text or specific event is being investigated, especially via Archeo-Astronomy.
To make it worse, there is additional confusion between ‘magnitude of error’ and ‘probability of error’. We will ignore this last issue only in order to avoid further digression.
The quoted passage above(and arguments therein) is provided without any references (!). I want readers to guess the reason. The statement is deliberately vague and non-committal. Interestingly the conclusion (variation in time depth of 576 years) is firm.
The fun begins….
To be continued…