A visitor (to my blog) wrote..
“I think the accuracy of this debate is not so important, we know that the battle of Kurukshetra had to occur after the constitution of the Vedas and before the Sarasvati river was dried. That is, between 3000 and 2000 BC probably. It’s enough for me until to appear new and better evidences.”
The visitor was writing in the context of my article below..
Your assumption for the timing of Mahabharata is indeed on the right footing, in your words…i.e. “after the constitution of the Vedas and before the Sarasvati river dried up”
On the other hand, your quoted timeline and its context —of 3000 BCE and 2000 BCE is confusing. It is not clear from your writing if you are referring to this time (3000 BCE/2000 BCE) for the drying up of river Sarasvati or for the constitution of Vedas.
In any case, you missed many points that make this exercise (to try to debunk a theory/proposal and then FAIL or SUCCEED in the endeavor. Either way, there is progress.
(1) There, already, is much (NEW) evidence from various disciplines of knowledge that point towards 5561 BCE (as opposed to any date after 4500 BCE) for the timing of Mahabharata War.
(2) The process of science is that of (a) begin with a problem (b) propose a bold theory to solve the problem (c) compare evidence against the consequences of a theory proposed (d) rational criticism of (c). The debate does take place, but it is inconsequential in the absence of deductive logic.
(3) One may be happy with any status quo and that is just fine. It is critical to recognize that such person has already retired from the pursuit of truth.
(4) It is also important to recognize that two parties (The Joy of being DEBUNKED) have not arrived at their conclusions using scientific methods. One has flavor of agenda for a specific date (3067 BCE) just because someone else had proposed (although not corroborated) in the past. The other has flavor of beginning research in deductive fashion, from the scratch, i.e. without any foundations (of course it takes Newton’s theory and Lagrange’s corrections and NASA data as reasonably accurate). This makes the latter theory (visual astronomy observation) that leads to 5561 BCE a refutable theory (and proposal). That is its strength. Of course this very fact is lost on many.
(5) And lastly, this is not a voting game. What you or I are comfortable with (and agree with) is not enough.