From: S. Kalyanaraman
Message: 17683
Date: 2003-01-16
Here are more excerpts from Kazanas� article in the Journal of Indo-European Studies. Dr. Narahari Achar�s paper in the Bangalore colloquium which updates his earlier observations and establishes a date for Mahabharata which is consistent with almost all observed astronomical events recorded in the text itself, is at http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/colloquium/colloquium01.htm
The excerpts are presented in two segments: archaeoastronomy and Preservation Principle in Philology, an incisive insight of Kazanas.
Kalyanaraman
Excerpted from Kazanas, 2002: http://drriley.mypcr.com/05Kazanas.pdf
The first paper (of Achar) (1999, published in EJVS 5-2) dealt with a reference in S�atapatha Br. II,1,2,2-3 to the effect that the Kr.ttika_s/Pleiades are fixed in and do not swerve from the east�If the Bra_hman.a wanted to say something else, it would have done so. As for the use of �iron� � this objection will not stand. The Vedic texts (other than the RV) do mention a �swarthy metal� s�ya_ma or ka_rs.n.a_-/kr.s.n.a_-/yasa but there are no references to smelting or other processing of this metal, only to the metal in contrast to other metals (Vedic Index). Since iron objects were found from 2600 in Harappan sites, Afghanistan and Baluchistan (Possehl and Gullapalli 1999: 159-161), it is not remarkable that these texts should mention this metal�This �swarthy metal� could be blackened copper: to harden copper, the metal is heated up (but below smelting point), then left to cool down without use of water and this blackens the copper, not with soot that can be wiped off; a similar effect is produced by oxidation with various sulfides (Hughes and Row, 1982: 92,187). Thus the verse AV XI 3,7 speaks of flesh ma_msa being s�ya_ma �swarthy metal� and blood lohita being lohita �red copper�; since the r.s.is probably knew that flesh is produced from and maintained by blood, the correspondence is quite apt � reddish copper for blood and (processed) black copper for flesh�Consequently I see no reason to doubt Achar�s results.
I see no reason to doubt Achar�s second paper (2000) regarding the date of Jyotis.a Veda_nga. Here evidence is provided that an astronomical reference in this text is not of a date c. 400 as some western scholars think, nor of c. 1300 as others claim (identifying the star Dhanis.t.ha with Beta Delphini) but c. 1800, when Dhanis.t.ha, now identified with Delta Capricorn, receives sun and moon together for the winter solstice (Achar 2000: 177)�the astronomical observations could have been recorded c. 1800 and the text retouched later. However, as the Indians preserved in ancient times so much of their lore through oral traditions, they could have preserved the late-epic style for many centuries.
We now come to the epic Mahabharata and Achar�s third paper (2001). In this, Achar examined some astronomical references in Bks III, V and XIII of the MB�the exat year for the great war of the Bharatas on the basis of all these data was 3067�The ancient Indian tradition of the Pura_n.as and astronomers was fairly correct in placing the onset of the Kali Yuga at 3102 and the Bharata war 35 years earlier�The medieval Kashmiri historian Kalhana (and his tradition), of course, seems to have been quite right in setting the previous cycle at 3067 (Elst 1999: 104)�obviously, there is much work ahead for the younger indologists. As Leach said, the old chronologies and matters of style and so on will have to be scrapped and a new framework established. On the basis of the astronomical data the initial core of the MB belongs to the early 3rd millennium; the epic developed and grew in length in the subsequent 1000 years, when, c. 1800, perhaps, a new change of style, language and rearrangement of contents took place leading to the final form in the last centuries BCE�Naturally it is good to have confirmation from archaeoastronomy since heaven does not lie. (pp. 21-23).
The Preservation Principle (PP, for short)
In a 2001 paper I presented the Table of Deities that follows�The IE branches examined were Vedic, Avestan, Hittite, Greek, Roman, Slavonic, Baltic, Germanic and Celtic; also some evidence from the Mitanni and the Kassites in the Near East�I examined the various deities starting with the Vedic ones then moving westward. If I were to start with any other branch, I would soon need to shift to a different one and then another, because very few names of non-Vedic gods have correspondences in the other branches.
Agni: Ht. Agnis, Rs. Ogon�
Aryaman: Mon Are-mene�
As�vin: Celtic Epona
Bhaga: Kassite Bugas
Dyaus: Ht. Dsiu-s
Indra: Ht Inar(a)
Marut-as: Kassite Maruttas�
Apa_m Napa_t: Roman Neptunus
Parjanya: Slavic Penunu_
R.bhu: Germanic Elf OSlavic. Rabu
Su_rya: Kassite S�uryas�
Us.as: Roman Aurora
Varun.a Mitanni Uruwna
Va_stos.pati: Roman Vesta
Yama: Scandinavian Ymir, AvestanYima
�There are many more motifs that have been preserved in Vedic as against other individual branches. In fact there is hardly a major motif common in two or more of the other branches that is not found in the RV (full discussion, Kazanas 2001c, 2001d).
The all-inclusiveness of Vedic is all too apparent and quite remarkable. Greek and Germanic managed to preserve only half as many deities as Vedic�This situation can arise only from loss of memory of the significance of the mythological-religious figure over a long period of time because of lengthy geographical movement and/or absorption of new elements (sometimes forcibly, perhaps, through subjection) from other culture(s)�This then I call the Preservation Principle or PP hereafter: the people or culture that has preserved most ceteris paribus has moved least.
The all-inclusiveness of the RV in the realm of mythology is also observable in the sphere of poetics. There is hardly a major poetic device in the various IE branches that is not present in the RV. A significant aspect, for example, is that in early Greek poetry (epics of Homer and Hesiod, and some epigraphic material) the fairly strict syllabic metre (the hexameter with its dactylic, iambic and other variants) is preponderant with only traces of alliteration; in Germanic poetry alliteration prevails while the syllabic metre is very loose: both are present in the RV (Kazanas 2001d)�Of the Vedic poetic art Watkisn writes: �The language of India from its earliest documentation in the Rigveda has raised the art of the phonetic figure to what many would consider its highest form� (Watkins 2001: 109).
�The language of India from its earliest documentation in the Rigveda�: in this sphere too the PP operates most profoundly. Burrow, whose The Sanskrit Language (1973) is still the authority in this field, says: �Vedic is a language which in most respects is more archaic and less altered from original Indo-European than any other member of the family� (34); he also states that root nouns, �very much in decline in the earliest recorded Indo-European languages�, are preserved better in Sanskrit, and later adds, �Chiefly owing to its antiquity the Sanskrit language is more readily analyzable, and its roots more easily separable from accretionary elements than� any other IE language� (123, 289). Nobody, as far as I know, has even attempted to dispute this and the presence of dialectical variants and innovations or erosions and losses in Vedic (and Sanskrit) does nto invalidate Burrow�s judgement. Vedic is superior also in respect of its inner organic cohesion: from roots dha_tu by simple and fairly regular processes are generated primary (kr.t-) and secondary (taddhita-) derivatives in nominal and verbal forms. This organic cohesion of Sanskrit is another example of the PP, confirming that the IAs moved very little or not at all.
Another aspect of the organic cohesion and the PP deserves a look. Consider the word �son� and its cognates in other IE languages. Apart from Skt. Su_nu, it appears in Germanic branches with the stem sun- (also O Norse sonr)�Av. Hunu�The stems for �sow�, which are generally accepted on philological grounds as cognates of the forms of �son�, also have widespread incidence; Germanic su_ (gu, L su_s, Av hu- etc. Curiously, in no language do we find other cognates, nouns or verbs, nor an explanation of the relation between �son� and �sow�; apart from late developments the two words hang isolated. Sanskrit provides both a plausible explanation and several cognates. Skt. Su_nu �son� is a derivative from root su_ > su_te �beget�; this is quite a regular formation, as with root gr.dh > gr.dhnu �eager, greedy� or root bha_ > bha_nu �shining-one, sun�, etc�Perhaps philologists better qualified and equipped than myself will turn their attention to this aspect of language as much as to the isoglosses, uncertain loanwords and conjectural PIE asterisk forms. I am well aware that there are cognations in IE branches exclusive off Sanskrit, particularly the common words in the languages of North-West Europe�No other IE branch preserves so much of the PIE inheritance as the Vedic tradition; and a cursory glance in Baldi 1983 or any other similar study will demonstrate that the Vedic language itself suffered far fewer losses (Kazanas 2000: 87-90)�
On the basis of the foregone discussion, I think it is as certain as can be in present circumstances that the IAs are indigenous and that the bulk of RV was composed in the 4th millennium, before the rise of the IVC, while some of it may be far older.
From Kazanas, JIES, Vol. 30, Nos. 3 and 4, Fall/Winter 2002, pp. 21-30.