Shri Phadnis has written an excellent blog article
in which he analyzed, very meticulously, combined implication of 3 observations of Mahabharata text.
(1) Jyestha Amawasya as the first day of War
(2) Krishna Shishtayee beginning at the end of Sharad season (and at the beginning or before Hemant season).
(3) Above two occurring in such a way so that still the implied date (year) falls within the Epoch of Arundhati ( 11091 BCE – 4508 BCE).
After exploring, meticulously, numerous scenarios, Shri Phadnis reached, correctly, the conclusion that 3 observations/conditions above can not be satisfied for ANY given year.
This is indeed a great achievement. Thus anyone arguing for conciliation of above 3 conditions has onus to bring out his/her own solution, before rejecting theories and proposals of other researchers who have indeed proposed alternate solutions.
(For example, I have shown that first observation (timing of Krishna Shisthayee at the end of Sharad season conflicts with not only Epoch of Arundhati, but also with numerous other observations, including but NOT LIMTIED to observations related to Bhishma Nirvana, .e.g. Duration + start/stop points of Balarama’s Tirthayatra)
One must realize that if EOA is true, then the statement of Krishna beginning his peace mission at the end of Sharad season can not be valid. In addition, war starting on Jyestha Amawasya can not be valid if one has to also accept duration and other details of Balarama Tirthayatra.
In effect, these observations are conflicting/contradictory in nature and a valid theory has to overcome them.
I did let Shri Phadnis know that I think his simulation of various scenarios to test above observations was not at all futile. This is because his work/simulations/conclusions will prove (and has proved) a (metaphorical) slap to those Mahabharata researchers who have taken the slippery path of hand waving and explaining away!
This is what I wrote, to Shri Phadnis, in response to his above blog article…
You have nailed it.
Similar ‘apparently futile’ problems can be shown to exist with Balarama Tirthayatra (duration, nakshatra).
I said ‘apparently futile’, because I do not consider these attempts as ‘waste’ at all.
This gets into ‘degree of testability’ and ‘degree of corroborability’ and such. Will elaborate some other time.
Of course, you realized this dilemma or futility, because you were able to see the argument behind AV observation and resulting Epoch of Arundhati.
I receive numerous emails (too tiring, in fact), many of them asking what so and so MBH researcher thinks of my AV observation and resulting Epoch of Arundhati. In short, readers are curious to know response of EMINENT Mahabharata researchers.
The reality is that most of the Mahabharata researchers (alive) know of my AV observation work and resulting Epoch of Arundhati.
Their responses unfortunately fall into only two categories (so far)
(1) मूग गिळून गप्प (keep mum)
(2) कुल्याला पाय लावून पळाले (run like hell)