From: Juha Savolainen
Message: 24221
Date: 2003-07-07
Hi Piotr,
Although it is not really acceptable to discuss moderation except via direct email (hence my apologies for presenting my view publicly), I take (from the phrasing of your comment) that you would not necessarily object to a comment from a participant in this discussion. At least, not if the comment included something that would be relevant for discussions closer to the regular stream of the Indo-European Forum. Anyway, as I first challenged Kalyanaraman�s confident assertions about the Great Battle having taken place 3067 B.C. (and have challenged repeatedly Kalyanaraman�s equally confident assertions on the Saraswati issue), maybe I can offer this comment as a way of explaining my running commentary on Kalyanaram�s concerns.
The Vedic tradition, including the dating of this tradition, is indisputably an important topic in IE studies. And discussing the dating potential of "Mahabharata�s" astronomical references clearly fills the bill, too. But making use of ancient astronomical (real, putative, alleged or imagined) observations is a very tricky and technical business that demands detailed knowledge both of the ancient sources and of positional astronomy. Anybody who thinks that (real, alleged etc.) ancient astronomical observations can provide an easy way to date past events or processes should follow for a while, say, the intense debates on the Babylonian observations (Venus data, Old Babylonian month-lengths, Ur III month-lengths, Ur eclipses, Akkad eclipses etc.). And yet we are dealing here with a tradition that certainly was based on a systematic and professional observation of the heavens, particularly in the later stages of Mesopotamian history. But there is no scholarly unanimity on the precise meaning of these records (as Peter J. Huber says of the evidence, �None of them is fully trustworthy�) and it is very doubtful whether these observations can provide a truly independent basis for building up a reliable and coherent chronology for ancient Mesopotamia.
Given the tricky nature of the old observations (or rather, what purport to be ancient reports of such observations), our methodological preference in chronological matters should be in favour of scientific observations and measurements that can be checked and rechecked here and now. After all, we can always demand that our contemporaries (as part of the modern and scientific "world of precision") should write a public and scientifically revealing report of their methods and results, but taking the ancients for task is much more difficult...That is the reason why I personally put a lot of hope in dendrochronology, high-precision C14 measurements, ice-core research etc. in areas where more traditional approaches in chronology are insufficient to resolve the problems. Of course, putting such methods in use is never entirely free from problems either. All serious study of the past is "inferring to the best explanation/account in the light of all our best data" and all scientific research demands good scientific and scholarly judgement, but with well-developed contemporary scientific techniques we are at least on a firmer ground.
Given these methodological preferences, I responded to Kalyanaraman�s claims by pointing out the glaring discrepancy between his claims and the (now robust-looking) archaeological data. I accept that Kalyanaraman is in his rights when defending the credibility of Achar�s case, but it was not my intention to invite a prolonged discussion on Achar�s case for dating "the Great Battle" at 3067 B.C. Sensible discussion on the particulars of the matter presuppose very detailed knowledge both of the Vedic tradition and the positional astronomy and I do not think that I am the only one who would and should confess substantial lacunae in both. But then, neither of these competences were necessary for my methodological reminder.
Given the technical and (for most IEF participants, a highly esoteric) nature of the details of Vedic astronomy, some other forum indeed seems more appropriate for continuing the discussion on it than this forum.
Best regards, Juha
06-07-03 10:44, wtsdv wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "S.Kalyanaraman" <kalyan97@...>
> wrote:
>> Conclusion
>> The year of the astronomical events in MahAbhArata is
>> conclusively shown to be 3067 BCE.
>
> However Chandra Hari concludes differently. See his
> post to the Indian Civilization list below.
See also Anand Sharan's replies on the same list. However, let the topic
be discussed there by people who know sufficiently much about the text
of the Mahabharata _and_ astronomy. Some of us are members of
IndianCivilization and can follow the debate there; the others are
probably uninterested in the whole thing.
Piotr
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.