> Witzel whom I 'm ready to believe more than any astrogrpher or
astrographer
> explains that this date of 3102BC is an invention of Va:ra:hamihira
circa
> 500 AD,
> on the basis of a back-calculation.
> This datation is therefore worthless.
> Arnaud
> =========
Mr. Arnaud
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/ait/ch22.htm
"Back-calculation of planetary positions is a highly complex affair
requiring knowledge of a number of physical laws, universal constants
and actual measurements of densities, diameters and distances. Though
Brahminical astronomy was remarkably sophisticated for its time, it
could only back-calculate planetary position of the presumed Vedic age
with an inaccuracy margin of at least several degrees of arc. With
our modern knowledge, it is easy to determine what the actual
positions were, and what the results of back-calculations with the
Brahminical formulae would have been, e.g.:"
"That Hindu astronomical lore about ancient times cannot be based on
later back-calculation, was also argued by Playfair�s contemporary,
the French astronomer jean-Sylvain Bailly: �The motions of the stars
calculated by the Hindus before some 4500 years vary not even a single
minute from the [modem] tables of Cassini and Meyer. The Indian
tables give the same annual variation of the moon as that discovered
by Tycho Brahe - a variation unknown to the school of Alexandria and
also the Arabs.�6"
BTW, the astronomical date poses no problem for Renfrew's theory which
you support.
M. Kelkar