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 the82 / 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 the84 / 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. Those88 / 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 an90 / 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) DetResponse 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) itself94 / 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 in96 / 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