--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --
> I don't understand this paragraph [by Narahari Achar]:
>
> ' It is universally acknowledged that Bha_ratam has one of the most
> ancient cultural traditions, which unlike the other ancient cultural
> traditions has been preserved continuously without a break even to
the
> present day.[1] Western Scholars, while grudgingly acknowledging
this
> unbroken tradition, have complained that Indians lack a sense of
> history and do not have a historical tradition. Therefore, they
> decided to write a history for Bha_ratam, which is based on their
own
> ideas of history.'>
> How can something at the same time be 'universally acknowledged' and
> disputed by Western Scholars?
>
>
> Torsten
>
That's a clever point, but not very interesting. In reading Hindu
AIT opponents, it is best to ignore the anti-Western tirades, their
own adaptation of Edward Said's anti-"orientalism", and focus on the
hard data. In the past I've seen some excellent archaeo-astronomical
work by Achar, but here I have the impression that he's made
consequential mistakes. At least at first reading.
In particular, the stellar configuration oat Bhishma's time of
death. According to the narrative, it took place shortly after
winter solstice. To apply this information, Achar says that in 3066
BC, the solstice fell on 13 January, while the desired configuration
materialized on 17 January. But the solstice always and by
definition falls on ca. 21 December. Hindus today celebrate Makar
Sankranti on 14 January because the Siddhantic calendar-makers have
confused the sidereal Zodiac (which moves at the rate of 1° per 71
years, i.e. the precession) with the tropical Zodiac, which is by
definition tied to the solstices. This means that the starting point
of sidereal Capricorn ("Makar Sankranti") has moved ca. 24 degrees
since the Siddhantic age, corresponding to over 24 days in the solar
year. For an astronomer to place winter solstice on ca. 14 January
is a strange mistake. So strange that I wonder if I haven't misread
his meaning in that passage.
A more clear-cut mistake pertains to the timing of the event in
Magha. TThis months is based on the location of the full moon (i.e.
opposite the sun) in the constellation named after its brightest
star, Magha, i.e. Regulus. This star passed the summer solstice (and
hence the sun opposite to it was at winter solstice) ca. 4300 years
ago, i.e. in ca. 2300 BC. In 3066 BC, it still had 11 degrees to go
before reaching the solstice. So, most of the month of Magha fell
before the solstice in 3066 BC. This certainly includes shukla
ashtami, i.e. the 8th day after the new moon that starts the month,
which falls in the early part of the month. Even if we have the
month of Magha start on the day of sun opposite Regulus (very
unlikely, but strictly we are not sure of the boundaries between the
constellations in those days), the 8th day still falls three days
before the solstice.
So, that pretty important part in his reconstruction is seriously
mistaken. The problem would be solved if Achar were to settle for
another one in his list of possible dates (with Saturn conjunct
Aldebaran and Mars turning retrograde before conjoining Antares),
viz. 1504 BC: that would fit at least these astronomical data. I'll
give it a closer reading and report back if I find anything of
importance.
Kind regards,
KE