[This
article was written and put somewhere on the internet, I think with the help of
Dr S Kalyanaraman, sometime in 2009, in reply to a criticism of my chronology
by Prof. B.N. Narahari Achar in an article printed in 2009. I just realized it
is important that I upload it on my blogspot for the record]
An
article or paper, entitled “An
examination of the chronology of ṚgVeda based on astronomical references using
Planetarium Software”, by B. N. Narahari Achar has very recently been
published on the Internet. The title expresses in a nutshell the aim and scope
of the article.
At
the very outset, Achar makes it clear that his article is a response to the
internal and absolute chronology of the Rigveda postulated in my recent book “The Rigveda and the Avesta ― the Final
Evidence” (Aditya Prakashan, November 2008, New Delhi):
“Recently Talageri has published an absolute chronology of ṚgVeda based
on his analysis of ṚgVeda and Avesta. He has also established a relative
chronology for different maṇḍala-s
(Books) of the ṚgVeda. It will be interesting to examine this chronology in the
light of the chronology based on astronomical methods using Planetarium
software”. [Following this, Achar notes that I have dated the Early books
VI, III, VII at 3400-2600 BCE, the Middle books IV, II at 2600-2200 BCE, and
the Late books V, I, VIII, IX, X at 2200-1400 BCE].
After
this introduction, Achar proceeds to present his chronology based on
astronomical methods, and finally concludes his article as follows:
“The dates derived from astronomical references span a range from 7000
BCE-2200 BCE. The references are derived from almost all the books of ṚgVeda.
These dates are consistent with the dates of Mahabharata war derived on the
basis of astronomical references and Planetarium software by this author.
However, the range of dates for ṚgVeda based on astronomical references and
verified by Planetarium software does not agree with either the relative or
absolute chronology proposed by Talageri”.
In short: both, my relative chronology as
well as my absolute chronology for the Rigveda, are disproved by the evidence
of the astronomical references in the Rigveda verified by Planetarium software.
The
use of “astronomical” evidence in the dating of the Vedic period has always
been very popular in Hindu and Indian circles, and although I have my views on
this matter, I have refrained from expressing them since I have a genuine
respect for many of the writers, including Achar, who use astronomy in their
analyses. However, this article by Achar directly refers to my own chronology
and it becomes necessary for me to make my views clear. Achar’s article represents
just the tip of the iceberg so far as this “astronomical” dating goes. There
is, for example, an active Hindu scholar in Pune who claims to have accurately
dated to the exact day no fewer than
68 events in the Mahābhārata by astronomical methods: his date for the actual
Mahābhārata war is more than two thousand years earlier than the date proposed
by most other Hindu scholars (including Achar) ― he places it in the sixth
millennium BCE. As another rational Indian writer wryly put to me in a private
mail, these scholars are able to accurately date, to the year, month and day,
the exact moment when Rāma crossed his garden, bent down towards a rose bush
(assuming rose bushes enter into the Rāmāyaṇa scenario), plucked a rose, and
smelt it. I have no doubt at all that Achar is a more serious scholar than this
extreme example would suggest, but this “astronomy” business has gone very far in derailing other more serious and rational
methods of chronological analysis, and I think it is time one takes a hard look
at the whole subject.
I.
Achar’s Examination of the Astronomical References in the Rigveda and His
Conclusions Thereof.
Achar
examines five main astronomical references in the Rigveda: the legend of the ṛbhus, the legend of vrṣākapi, the legend of maṇḍūkas, the legend of Yama and his dogs, and the solar eclipse
associated with the sage Atri. He
also presents nine different diagrams (or sky-map figures) depicting the map of
the sky on different dates associated with these five legends as well as with
the occurrence of the vernal equinox in kṛttikā,
ārdrā and punarvasu.
The
legend of the ṛbhus: Achar points out that the ṛbhus occur in 11 hymns. According to
him, the three ṛbhus represent the
three seasons (of the lunar year of 354 days) at the end of which they take
rest for 12 days in the house of the sun. And they are awakened from their
sleep by the hound. Tilak interprets this legend as referring to the time when
the year commenced with the equinox in Canis Major. Achar (using Planetarium
software) depicts the sky-map of this position (Figure 9: occurrence of
autumnal equinox at Canis Major in 7240 BCE). Sengupta, however, interprets
this as referring to the heliacal rising of Canis Major after the summer
solstice. Achar depicts the sky-map of this position (Figure 5: heliacal rising
of Canis Major after the summer solstice in 2770 BCE).
The
legend of vrṣākapi: Tilak concludes that the legend of
vrṣākapi in hymn X.86 of the
Rigveda represents the sun at vernal equinox when the Dog Star started the
equinoctial year. It is not clear which Figure depicts the sky-map of this
position (Is it Figure 9, which I have connected above with Tilak’s
interpretation of the ṛbhus?).
The
legend of maṇḍūkas: The frog-hymn, VII.103, is
interpreted by Jacobi as referring to the beginning of the year in the rainy
season, which starts after the summer solstice. The first month was bhādrapada, the full moon near the
nakṣatra proṣṭhapada, with summer
solstice occurring in the uttaraphālguṇī
nakṣatra. Achar further informs us that Law says the summer solstice in uttaraphālguṇī corresponds to vernal
equinox in mṛgaśiras. Achar depicts
the sky-map of this position (Figure 1: equinox at mṛgaśiras in 4240 BCE, if mṛgaśiras
is identified as zeta tau; and Figure 2: equinox at mṛgaśiras in 3820 BCE, if mṛgaśiras
is identified as beta tau).
The
legend of Yama and his two dogs:
The reference in X.14, which refers to the spirit passing between the
two-spotted, four-eyed, dogs of Yama, is, according to Sengupta, actually a reference
to the two stars α-Canis Minoris and α-Canis Majoris, and the hymn refers to a
time when the two stars crossed the meridian at the same time. Achar depicts
the sky-map of this position (Figure 6: two dog-stars point to south pole in
4350 BCE).
The
legend of the solar eclipse observed by Atri: A solar eclipse is associated with Atri, and
described in hymn V.40. Sengupta determines the date of this eclipse to
be July 26, 3928 BCE. Achar depicts the sky-map of the position of the stars at
this time (Figure 7: solar eclipse at uttaraphālguṇī,
3928 BCE).
Other
positions of the stars referred to in the Rigveda: Achar depicts some more sky-maps
of other positions referred to in the Rigveda (Figure 3: equinox at punarvasu in 5700 BCE; Figure 4: equinox
at ārdrā on May 4, 5440 BCE; Figure 8: equinox at kṛttikā in 2220 BCE).
Thus,
as Achar points out in his conclusion, the range of dates derived by him range
from 7000 BCE-2200 BCE.
II. An Examination of
Achar’s Conclusions.
Achar
examines the hymns of the Rigveda, pinpoints various astronomical references in
these hymns “derived from almost all the books of Ṛgveda”, derives a range of
dates (cutting across the different books) for these references ranging from 7000
BCE-2200 BCE, and “verifies” these dates using Planetarium software. In the
process, he claims to have disproved both the relative (internal) and absolute
chronology given in my book.
An
examination of his article, however, does not seem to substantiate this claim:
1.
The very first fact is that the Rigveda does not contain a single definite reference, to the positions of the stars in the sky
at any particular point of time, which could be useful in deriving any absolute
date: not only is there no actual reference whatsoever to any equinox at any of the stars or constellations
named by Achar, but even the very stars and constellations or nakṣatras named
by him (kṛttikā, ārdrā, proṣṭhapada, uttaraphālguṇī, mṛgaśiras and punarvasu)
are not mentioned even once not only in the hymns cited by him but anywhere at all in the whole of the
Rigveda (though the last named word, in its literal sense, occurs as an epithet
of Indra and Soma in one verse). Nor does the word bhādrapada occur even once in the whole of the Rigveda. How then
does Achar (or, for that matter, do any of his predecessors, Tilak, Jacobi, Law
or Sengupta) derive such definite and concrete dates from specific astronomical
positions?
An
examination of the references given by him would illustrate their methodology.
We can first take up, for example, the solar eclipse referred to in hymn V.40,
so accurately dated by Sengupta to July 28, 3928 BCE. An examination of this
nine-verse hymn shows that it is indeed a reference to an eclipse: after four
verses in praise of Indra (which make no mention of this eclipse), the fifth
verse informs us that a demon named Svarbhānu pierced the sun and plunged a
bewildered world into darkness. The next four verses are in praise of Atri who
is said to have discovered the sun concealed in gloom and, with the power of
his prayers, restored it back in the sky, a feat that none but he had the power
to do.
The
reference is certainly to an eclipse; but there is not a single word in the entire hymn which gives even the faintest clue of any kind which could
enable anyone to pinpoint the exact date of this eclipse, whether it took place
in 5000 BCE or 4000 BCE or 3000 BCE or 2000 BCE or 1000 BCE; later dates can be
safely excluded only because even the most skeptical western scholar would not
date this hymn later than 1000 BCE. It is just a poetic (and family-biased)
description of an eclipse, period!
And
yet Sengupta not only manages to pinpoint the exact date to July 28, 3928 BCE,
but Achar even “verifies” this date with that most infallible of modern testing
equipment: computer software! It would have been helpful if Achar had explained
to less knowledgeable readers (a) the particular distinguishing characteristics
of the eclipse which took place on July 28, 3928 BCE, which immediately set out
this eclipse as distinct and different from the thousands of other eclipses
before and since, and (b) the particular words and phrases in hymn V.40
which describe these characteristics in clear and unambiguous terms so that
there can be no doubt that the hymn refers to this particular eclipse. However,
no such information is given.
Likewise,
hymn VII.103 is only a description of the frogs greeting the first
arrival of the monsoons after the blazing heat of a pre-monsoon summer. The hymn is generally treated as a
good-humoured (see the last verse which praises the frogs, or the Brahmins that
the frogs represent in the hymn) satire on the priests, but it could have
deeper philosophical meanings or ritual significance. However, this hymn also provides no clue
whatsoever to indicate that it refers to the first-monsoon-shower of a
particular year rather than to a first-monsoon-shower in general. Yet, scholars
like Jacobi and Law, on the basis of serious discussions, involving
astronomical terms nowhere used or hinted at in the actual hymn under
discussion, manage to pinpoint the exact year or astronomical era to which the
hymn “refers”.
Similarly,
the interpretation of the ṛbhus as
the three seasons (of the lunar year of 354 days) is perfectly plausible. But,
again, there is nothing, in the different hymns which refer to the ṛbhus, which can tell us that it refers
to the lunar year of a particular year or astronomical era. Nevertheless, Tilak
interprets this legend as referring to the time when the year commenced with
the equinox in Canis Major. The arbitrariness of the interpretation is shown by
the fact that Sengupta interprets this same
“astronomical reference” as referring to the heliacal rising of Canis Major
after the summer solstice.
The
other two references given by Achar do not represent references to simple
natural phenomena like the three earlier references above (which refer to an eclipse, a first-shower of the monsoons, and the three main Indian seasons
of a lunar year). But they are as
“astronomically” ambiguous as the earlier ones:
The
vrṣākapi hymn X.86, as Achar
admits, is difficult to interpret. It contains so many cryptic phrases that a
determined interpreter could give it any meaning he desired with the help of
all kinds of “symbolic” interpretations; but, even so, it is extremely difficult
to interpret it as a reference to a particular configuration of the stars at a
particular point of time. But this does not prevent Tilak from giving it a
definite chronological twist, and concluding definitely (on the basis of a
reference in X.86.4 to a dog chasing a boar and seizing it by the ear)
that vrṣākapi in the hymn represents
the sun at vernal equinox when the Dog Star started the equinoctial year.
The
reference, in hymn X.14, to the departed soul moving across the pathway
towards the land of the Fathers in the company of the two dogs of Yama (the Sārameyas), is interpreted by Sengupta
as a reference to the two stars α-Canis Minoris and α-Canis Majoris, and the
hymn is therefore interpreted as a reference to a time when the two stars
crossed the meridian at the same time.
The
key to both these interpretations is the interpretation of any reference to a
dog in the Rigveda as a reference to the Dog Star Canis Majoris, and any
reference to two dogs as a reference to the two stars Canis Majoris and Canis
Minoris. These interpretations fail to note that the identification of these
stars as dogs is a feature of western astronomy (Latin canis = dog). Did
ancient Indian astronomers also identify these stars as dogs; and, if so, what
is the evidence that they did so as far back as the Rigvedic period? Even
assuming, for the purpose of argument, that they did do so, these
interpretations involve a chain of assumptions: first, that the composers of
the Rigveda identified these stars as dogs; second, that any reference to a dog
or dogs in the hymns is automatically a reference to these stars; and third,
that any assumed reference to these stars, or to any other star, is
automatically an astronomical statement to the effect that that star started
the equinoctial year or something of a similar nature. On this basis, Achar
presents us with a number of diagrams or sky-maps “verifying” the chronological
conclusions of these scholars arrived at on the basis of “analyses” of such
“astronomical” references in the Rigveda.
The
western scholars obsessively see “non-Aryans”, and conflicts between “Aryan”
invaders and “non-Aryan” natives, symbolically represented in every word and
phrase in the Rigveda (see TALAGERI 2000:338-362). In the process, one of the
many important things (which prove their interpretations wrong) that they
ignore is that many of the native Indian “non-Aryans”, that they identify in
the mythology of the Rigveda, are found, with similar names and functions, in
the Indo-European mythologies of distant Europe, and many of the “conflicts”
between the “Aryan” invaders and the “non-Aryan” natives within India, so
identified by them, are similarly represented in those distant
mythologies.
In
a similar manner, the “astronomical” interpretations of these Indian scholars
ignore the presence of the same “astronomical” features in the mythologies of
other nations: a) In the Avesta (Vendidad 13.9, 19.30), two dogs guard the
bridge over which the dead must go to reach paradise. This is almost identical
to the Rigvedic myth. b) In Greek mythology, Hermes (identified as a name cognate to Saramā and Sārameya), who
was depicted by the ancient Greeks in the form of a dog, is in charge of
conducting the souls of the dead to the Underworld (Hades), and the gates of
Hades are guarded by a three-headed dog Kerberus
or Cerberus (identified as a name
cognate to Śarvara, the name of one
of the two dogs of Yama, the Sārameyas).
c) In Nordic mythology (Baldrsdraumar 2.7-3.4), a dog stands guard on the road
to Hel (the Underworld). d) In Egyptian mythology, Anubis, the God of the dead,
is depicted as having the head of a canine species (the jackal), and is
accompanied by a fleet of dogs who conduct the soul of the dead to the
Underworld. e) In the Aztec mythology of Mexico
and Central America, the soul of the dead, on
its way to the Underworld, has to cross a river guarded by a yellow dog. Are
all these myths also related to astronomical positions of the Dog Star at
specific points of time in the remote past? Obviously, what we have here is the
diffusion of mythological ideas, or perhaps a natural universal association of
the dog, and of canine species in general, with the phenomenon of death (note
the common belief that dogs start howling when they sense the approach of
Death), and nothing more. It is only the obsession with discovering
“astronomical” references in the ancient texts which gives these ordinary
references such special meanings.
Such
obsessions result in an inability to see anything otherwise than through the
particular glasses worn by the interpreting scholar. In my second book, I have
shown (TALAGERI 2000:420-424), with one Rigvedic event as an illustration, how
the historical Dāśarājña battle is converted by the western scholars into a
battle between Aryan invaders and non-Aryan natives, by Dr. Ambedkar into a
battle between Shudra kings and Kshatriya kings, by Bhagwan Singh into a
skirmish between a Harappan merchant and river pirates, by Sethna into a battle
between the good and the bad spiritual forces in man’s inner self, by Arya
Samaj scholars actually into a sermon on the qualities and duties of an ideal
king, and by Tilak into a symbolic representation of “the annual fight between light and darkness as conceived by the
inhabitants of a place [in the arctic region] where a summer of ten months was followed by a long winter night of two
months” ( TILAK 1903:346).
In
a sense, Lokmanya Tilak must be regarded as the pioneer of this school of
“astronomical” interpretations of innocent phrases in the Vedic texts. He was
also the pioneer of a similar and related school of “arctic” interpretations of
similar innocent phrases in the ancient Indian texts. The utter inanity and
preposterousness of his “arctic” interpretations have been brought out in my
second book (TALAGERI 2000:379-382). But, while the enthusiastic votaries of
his “astronomical” school today are not at all enthusiastic about his “arctic”
interpretations, it appears that the same kind of logic is behind both the
schools of interpretation pioneered by him: general phenomena are picked up and
transformed into area-specific or time-specific phenomena, and momentous
conclusions reached on their basis. Thus, Tilak first interprets Mitra and
Varuna as representations of the two sides (day and night) of the solar day,
then he takes a giant leap into the dark and rhetorically “proves” that they
actually refer not to the two halves of the solar day of 24 hours but to the
two halves of the solar year. Likewise, he discusses Vedic verses which refer
to long nights or which refer to the arrival of the dawn, and then rhetorically
“proves” that they refer not to the ordinary night and dawn known to us but to
the months-long night and the days-long dawn of the arctic; and all this, in
turn, then “proves” that the hymns and verses in question were either composed
in the arctic areas or else represent arctic “memories”. In a similar way, his
“astronomical” interpretations (and those of other astronomers of his school)
largely depend on transforming general natural events of everyday or periodic
occurence into special natural events relating to specific points of time in
the remote past.
2.
An important aspect of this “astronomical” evidence presented for the antiquity
of the ancient Indian texts is its claims or pretensions to its scientific-ness. This is not astrology, which has at least as many
skeptics as it has adherents, this is astronomy:
a precise science! And now, in recent times, particularly in the writings of
Achar, this astronomy is represented by the latest and most modern,
sophisticated and scientific means of investigation and analysis: computer software! The title of Achar’s
article tells us that this is “An
Examination …. using Planetarium
Software”, and the article starts out by telling us that he will be
examining my chronology “in the light of
the chronology based on astronomical methods using Planetarium software”
and ends by assuring us that what he has presented us with is “the range of dates for ṚgVeda based on
astronomical references and verified by Planetarium software”. Little
wonder that it gives the impression of rock-solid credibility.
However,
what are these dates “verified” by this Planetarium software? Achar tells us
that the “dates derived from
astronomical references span a range from 7000 BCE-2200 BCE”, and that it
is these dates which are “verified by
Planetarium software”. But a date can be “verified” only when you already
have that date in front of you. In the case of all the references given by
Achar, the dates in front of us are not dates mentioned or found in the Rigveda
itself: they are dates proposed by earlier scholars such as Tilak, Jacobi, Law
and Sengupta, based on astronomical calculations of certain specific positions
of the stars and constellations and of certain equinoctial positions. As
Planetarium Software is based on those same scientific rules of astronomical
calculations on which those scholars based their
calculations, naturally this software can only “verify” their dates. If we
manually add a row of figures correctly
on a piece of paper using ordinary arithmetical laws of addition, and then
verify the total on a calculator or computer, naturally the calculator or computer will “verify” the total figure
arrived at manually. But this does not “verify” that the individual figures
totaled together were genuine or factual figures.
In
this case, no one need doubt that the sky-map diagrams shown by Achar genuinely
represent the positions of the stars and constellations, and the celestial
phenomena, that they claim to represent: thus Figure 7 perhaps “verifies” what
Sengupta had shown by astronomical calculations made without necessarily using
computer software ― that an eclipse took place in 3928 BCE. But how does it
verify the genuineness of Sengupta’s claim that this eclipse is referred to in
the Rigvedic hymn V.40? Likewise Figure 6 may “verify” what Sengupta had
shown by his astronomical calculations ― that the two Dog Stars crossed the
meridian at the same time in 4350 BCE. But how does it verify that the Rigvedic
hymn X.14 refers to this position of the stars?
As
we saw, not one of the “astronomical”
references given by Achar is actually found in the Rigveda. All the references
given are references to ordinary periodic phenomena which are given
extraordinary “astronomical” significance not warranted by the actual hymns
themselves. Achar, in the text of his article, does not specify as to which of
the nine sky-map diagrams or Figures given by him refers to which of the
Rigvedic references given by him; and the reader is often left groping in the
dark as to which verses of the Rigveda, according to Achar, are represented in
his Figures 3, 4 and 8 (which refer to the occurrence of the vernal equinox in punarvasu, ārdrā and kṛttikā).
Achar
is also impartial in his “verification” of the “astronomical” references, found
by himself and his predecessors, in the Rigveda. Having concluded that the
“legend” of the maṇḍūkas in the
Rigveda VII.103 refers to a period of time when there was vernal equinox
in mṛgaśiras, Achar “verifies” the
date with his Planetarium Software. But two different dates have been proposed
for the same “event”: 4240 BCE if mṛgaśiras
is zeta tau (Figure 1), and 3820 BCE if mṛgaśiras
is beta tau (Figure 2). Achar’s software “verifies” both these dates as equally valid!
Likewise,
when two scholars interpret an “astronomical” reference in the Rigveda
differently, and the two interpretations naturally yield two different dates,
the software “verifies” both the
dates as correct for the same reference: Figure 9 shows the occurrence of
autumnal equinox at Canis Major in 7240 BCE (in accordance with Tilak’s
interpretation of the legend of the ṛbhus
as referring to the time when the year commenced with the equinox in Canis
Major ― unless I am wrong in correlating Figure 9 with Tilak’s interpretation)
and Figure 5 shows the heliacal rising of Canis Major after the summer solstice
in 2770 BCE (in accordance with Sengupta’s interpretation of the legend)!
3.
Does this mean that astronomy has no role to play in the dating of ancient
Indian texts and events? Obviously not: astronomy is a science, and any genuine astronomical evidence can always
play a definitive ― perhaps even a conclusive ― role in solving certain
chronological problems. But the key word here is genuine evidence: phrases and verses picked up selectively from the
texts and given a special “astronomical” meaning (which, in the process would
also attribute certain specific astronomical knowledge, as well as the usage of
certain cryptic terminology, to the ancient composers of those phrases or
verses) cannot be used to arrive at momentous chronological conclusions. If the
ancients had things of astronomical significance to say, surely they would have
expressed them in reasonably straight terms, and not left only cryptic phrases
for future generations to decipher!
And
the dates yielded by the “astronomical” analyses of different verses should
reveal a consistent chronological pattern. But it does not seem to trouble
Achar that the dates as “verified” by him, for these “astronomical” references
in the Rigveda, fall into a chaotic jumble with no fixed or logical order or
pattern for the different books of the Rigveda. As he tells us, the dates cut
across the different books of the Rigveda: “These dates are derived from almost all the books of Ṛgveda”.
Apparently, it does not matter which verse in which book yields which date, as
long as all the dates yielded go back into the remote past.
Nevertheless,
he actually claims to find some consistency in his dates: “These dates are consistent with date of Mahabharata war derived on the
basis of astronomical references and planetarium software by the author”.
His dates for the Rigvedic references range “from 7000 BCE-2200 BCE”, and his date for the Mahābhārata war falls
in the late fourth millennium BCE. In what way are these dates “consistent”
with each other: did the Mahābhārata war take place right in the middle of the
period of composition of the Rigveda? Again, it is clear that here we have once
more the principle that all dates going back into the remote past (which
includes any and every date between 2000 or 2500 BCE to 10000 BCE), for ancient
Indian texts and events, are “consistent” with each other, regardless of
whether or not they show a logical order or pattern.
Achar
finds that the chronology for the Rigvedic references, with dates ranging “from 7000 BCE-2200 BCE”, derived by him
with the help of the most sophisticated and scientific computer software, “does not agree with either the relative or
absolute chronology proposed by Talageri” ― and, therefore that my
chronology for the Rigveda is wrong.
We
have just examined the credibility of Achar’s chronology. Now for an
examination of the credibility of my
chronology:
III. My Internal and
Relative/Absolute Chronology for the Rigveda.
Achar
claims that the chronology for the Rigveda derived from his astronomical
investigations “does not agree with
either the relative or absolute chronology proposed by Talageri”, or, in
other words, that my relative chronology and absolute chronology for the
Rigveda are wrong. By “relative” here, it appears he may be referring to the internal chronology for the different
books of the Rigveda given in my book, since he stresses the fact that his
dates cut across the different books of the Rigveda without exhibiting a
particular order or pattern. Hence, it will be pertinent to examine the
correctness of my internal chronology and my absolute chronology for the
Rigveda.
1.
Internal Chronology: I have
shown in my books that the ten books of the Rigveda were composed in the
following order: 6,3,7,4,2,5,8,9,10 (with parts of book 1 spanning the periods
of composition of books 4,2,5,8,9,10); and that they were composed as follows:
books 6,3,7 in the Early Rigvedic period, books 4,2 in the Middle Rigvedic period,
and books 5,1,8,9,10 in the Late Rigvedic period (the hymns of book 1 having
been given their final form in the Late Rigvedic period, this book must be
included in that period).
Michael
Witzel, in his review of my earlier book, writes: “the composition of the RV occurred in complex layers ― not in the tidy
sequential patterns imagined by Talageri” (WITZEL 2001:§1). Achar seems to
hold similar views ― that the different books of the Rigveda were not composed
in any sequential order but in sporadic spurts of composition which cut across
the different books of the Rigveda.
Now,
in any analysis of the internal chronology of the Rigveda, the division of the
1028 hymns into 10 books should prima
facie have been taken as suggestive of the possibility that the different
books were composed in different periods rather than that they represent mixed
collections with no reference to period of composition. This possibility could
have been abandoned if the data indicated otherwise, but the data, far from
suggesting otherwise, massively reinforces it in every possible way.
To
begin with, the western academic scholars themselves (see TALAGERI 2008:132-135
for details) have classified the books of the Rigveda into two groups: the
family books (2-7) and the non-family books (1, 8-10), and testified, on the
basis of their own analyses, that the family books were composed and compiled
before the non-family books. Further, they have detached book 5 from the other
family books and concluded that it agrees with the non-family books rather than
with the other family books. By their analysis, the books of the Rigveda can be
classified into three categories: the earlier
family books (2-4, 6-7), the later
family book (5), and the later
non-family books (1, 8-10). This fully agrees with my own classification into
Early books (6,3,7), Middle (4,2) and Late books (5,1,8,9,10); except that the
Early and Middle books are clubbed together in one category in the western
classification, and the internal order within the groups is not analyzed. [In
sum, we get four categories: Early family books 6,3,7; Middle family books 4,2;
Late family book 5; and Late non-family books 1,8,9,10]
It
will be seen that every analysis of the data reinforces this classification:
An
analysis of the (ancestor-descendant) relationships between the composers of
the hymns establishes the chronological order 6,3,7,4,2,5,8,9,10 (1 alongside
4-10) (TALAGERI 2000:37-50).
An
analysis of the references within the hymns to earlier or contemporaneous
composers (TALAGERI 2000:53-58) and to the kings and (non-composer) ṛṣis mentioned within the hymns
(TALAGERI 2000:59-65) confirms the above chronological order.
An
analysis of the (adherence to “purity” of the) family identity of the composers
of the individual books (TALAGERI 2000:50-52) confirms the exactitude of the
above chronological order, with a steady progression in dilution of the family
identity of the composers from book 6 (in which every single hymn and verse is
composed by composers belonging to one branch of one family) to book 10 (where
every single family has hymns, and a large number of hymns are by composers who
are either unaffiliated to any family or whose family is unidentifiable).
An
analysis of the system of ascriptions of hymns to composers (TALAGERI
2000:52-53) shows a quantum change from the Early and Middle books (6,3,7,4,2),
where hymns are composed by descendant ṛṣis
in the name of their ancestor ṛṣis,
to the Late Books (5,1,8,9,10), where hymns are composed by ṛṣis in their own names.
An
analysis of a large category of personal name types shared in common by the
Rigveda with the Avesta and the Mitanni (TALAGERI 2008:20-43) shows a
fundamental distinction between the Early and Middle books on the one hand and
the Late books on the other, with these name-types being found in 386 hymns in
the Late books (and in all other post-Rigvedic texts), but found in the Early
and Middle books in only 8 hymns which have been classified by the western
academic scholars as Late or interpolated hymns within these books.
An
analysis of another category of personal names shared by the Rigveda with the
Avesta (TALAGERI 2008:16-20, 47-48) shows a fundamental distinction between the
Early books on the one hand and the Middle and Late books on the other, with
these names being found in 60 hymns in the Middle books and in 63 hymns in the
Late books (and in all other post-Rigvedic texts), but completely missing in
the Early books.
An
analysis of the geographical names and terms in the Rigveda (TALAGERI
2000:94-136, TALAGERI 2008:81-129) shows a progression from east to west, with
the eastern names found distributed throughout the Rigveda and the western
names appearing in the books in chronological progression. And again, these
names (found in all other post-Rigvedic texts) reinforce the above
chronological order: the Indus and rivers to
its west are found named in the Middle and Late books, but are missing in the
Early books. The names of western animals, places, mountains and lakes are
found in the Late non-family books, but are missing in the family books (Early,
Middle and Late).
An
analysis of other important and historically significant words (TALAGERI 2008:
48-49, 189-200) again reinforces the above chronological order: for example,
spoked wheels, or spokes, invented in the late third millennium BCE, and camels
and donkeys, domesticated in Central Asia around the same time, are found in
the Late books, but missing in the Early and Middle books.
An
analysis of the meters used in the composition of the hymns of the Rigveda
(TALAGERI 2008:54-80) again reinforces the above chronological order. The
dimetric meters used in the Rigveda clearly developed from each other in the
following order: gāyatrī (8+8+8), anuṣṭubh (8+8+8+8), pankti (8+8+8+8+8),
mahāpankti (8+8+8+8+8+8) and dimeter śakvarī (8+8+8+8+8+8+8). Gāyatrī and
anuṣṭubh are found throughout the Rigveda; pankti is found in the Late (family
and non-family) books, but missing in the Early and Middle books; mahāpankti
and dimeter śakvarī are found in the Late non-family books, and are missing in
the family books (Early, Middle and Late).
An
analysis of the sacred numerical formulae in the Rigveda (HOPKINS 1896b) shows
that the use of certain numbers, in sacred numerical formulae used as phrases
in the hymns, is commonly found in the Late books, but missing in the Early and
Middle books.
A
detailed and path-breaking analysis (HOPKINS 1896a) shows large categories of
words found in the Late books (1,8,9,10, and often 5), but missing in the Early
(6,3,7) and Middle books (4,2) except in a few stray hymns classified by the
western academic scholars as Late or interpolated hymns within these books.
These include such categories as words pertaining to ploughing or to other
paraphernalia of agriculture, words associated with certain occupations and
technologies (and even with what could be interpreted as the earliest
references to the castes), words where the r
is replaced by l (playoga and pulu for prayoga and puru), a very large number of personal
names (not having to do with the name types, common to the Rigveda, Avesta and
Mitanni records, analyzed by me), various suffixes and prefixes used in the
formation of compound words, certain mythical or socio-religious concepts
(Sūrya as an Āditya, Indra identified with the Sun, the discus as a weapon of
Indra and the three-edged or three-pointed form of this weapon, etc), various
grammatical forms (cases of the resolution of the vowel in the genitive plural
of ā stems, some transition forms common in later literature, the Epic
weakening of the perfect stem, the adverb adas,
etc.), particular categories of words (Soma epithets like madacyuta, madintara/madintama, the names of the most
prominent meters used in the Rigveda, etc.), certain stylistic peculiarities
(the use of reduplicated compounds like mahāmaha,
calācala, the use of alliteration,
the excessive use of comparatives and superlatives, etc.), and many, many more.
Also, Hopkins
notes many words which are used in one sense in the earlier books, and in a
different sense in the later books: words like muni, tīrtha, vaiśvānara, hita, etc., or which are only used as adjectives in the earlier
books, but figure as names in the later books (he cites śaviṣṭha, svarṇara, durgaha, prajāpatin, adhrigu as
examples) [note also words like atri,
kutsa and auśija (TALAGERI 2000:79-88), which have a different sense in the
earlier books as against the later books, and even the word trita, which is a name in the later
books but occurs once with the meaning “third” in book 6].
The
evidence in support of the chronological order 6,3,7,4,2,5,(1),8,9,10, given in
my book, and most especially for the division into Early, Middle and Late
books, is too massive, overwhelming and uni-directional to be dismissed on the
basis of dates derived by any “astronomical” analysis of references in the
Rigveda, even were we to ignore the fact
that these references are actually fictitious or non-existent ones as we saw
above. In fact, the very fact that his methods give Achar a range of dates
which cut across the different books should lead him to radically rethink the
validity of his approach and conclusions.
2.
Relative/Absolute Chronology:
Achar notes that I have dated the Early books 6,3,7 at 3400-2600 BCE, the
Middle books 4,2 at 2600-2200 BCE, and the Late books 5,1,8,9,10 at 2200-1400
BCE, and he finds this incompatible with the dates for the Rigveda derived by
him on the basis of astronomical references in the Rigveda, which range “from 7000 BCE-2200 BCE”.
Even
without reference to Achar’s “astronomical” dates, I feel that perhaps some
clarifications are due on my part with regard to my dates for the three periods
of the Rigveda:
1.
In the first place, I had given more or less the same range of dates in my
second book (TALAGERI 2000:75-78): i.e. I had categorically stated that “by a conservative
estimate, the total period of composition of the Rigveda must have covered
a period of at least two millenniums”.
As I have always stood for a date in the mid-second millennium BCE as most
likely for the Mahābhārata war (see TALAGERI 1993:), this automatically
indicated a range of dates 3500-1500 BCE
or so.
But
this was my estimate: I had no means
of proving my dates, and nor did I foresee at the time that I would be proving
anything in the foreseeable future. And I felt my dates could err on the conservative side: that the earlier
dates could possibly go even further back in time than 3500 BCE. But this was also an estimate and could be
wrong. Either way, I knew I was in no position, then, to justify or defend my views.
However,
my analysis (in my third book, TALAGERI 2008:1-201) of the names and culture
common to the Rigveda, the Avesta and the Mitanni records conclusively showed
that this culture, in West Asia, already represented the remnants or residual elements
(as western scholars like Mallory and Witzel put it) of a long dead ancestral culture, while in India it was
the culture of the Late books and
hymns of the Rigveda, which was preceded by the earlier culture of the Middle
and Early books of the Rigveda whose
geographical data showed them to be composed in the areas to the east of the
Sarasvatī river within India. In short, the ancestors of the Mitanni kings of West Asia, and of the Kassite
kings before them, were emigrants from India
during the Late Rigvedic period (i.e. during the period of the Late books and
hymns).
As
the Mitanni kingdom, in
parts of Syria and Iraq, flourished from around 1500 BCE or so, and
the Kassites were known two centuries before them in around the same areas, the
Vedic ancestors of these Mitanni
and Kassite kings must have left India at the very latest by the last centuries of the third millennium
BCE. So what I have proved in my third book is only about the Late Rigvedic period: I have
conclusively shown that the Late
Rigvedic period was in progress as early as the last centuries of the third
millennium BCE.
But
this still does not tell us anything about when this Late Rigvedic period started, or what range of dates we should
assign to the Middle Rigvedic period
which preceded the Late Rigvedic period, and to the Early Rigvedic period which preceded both. We can still only estimate all these earlier dates, and my
earlier estimates still hold good (and still as conservative ones).
2.
Can the above situation be coordinated with the general Indian claim that the
Mahābhārata war took place around 3100 BCE, and that the Rigveda was also
completed by then: that the Late Rigvedic period therefore extends backwards
far beyond 3100 BCE, and that the ancestors of the Mitanni and Kassite kings
migrated westwards some time after the war (anytime between 3100 BCE and 2000
BCE), while the culture of the Late Rigvedic period continued to remain the
culture of northernmost India for over a millennium after the completion of the
Rigveda in 3100 BCE? This would be a pleasant idea, but it would require a
great deal of stretching of the facts and a great many wishful assumptions:
Just
as the Mitanni records reasonably prove that the beginnings of the Late Rigvedic period can not be later than 2000 BCE, there are other
opposing factors which reasonably prove that the ending of the Late Rigvedic period can not be before 2000 BCE: the references to spoked wheels (which were
invented in the last centuries of the third millennium BCE) and to domesticated
camels and donkeys (also found domesticated in Central Asia at around the same
time), all of which appear in the Late
books and hymns of the Rigveda. It would be impossible for a Rigveda completed
around 3100 BCE to refer to spokes, camels or donkeys. Also, the sudden rise of
numerous personal names ending in -aśva
and –ratha, found in the Late books
and hymns (but missing in the Early and Middle books) and in the Avesta and the
Mitanni-Kassite records, also testifies to the new culture of the
spoked-wheeled chariot. It cannot even be argued that the references to spokes,
camels and donkeys, and to personal names ending in -aśva and –ratha, may be
post-Rigvedic interpolations into a Rigveda actually completed in 3100 BCE, not
only because it would be pointless quibbling against the facts and data, but
because these words are distributed too smoothly over the different Late books of
the Rigveda, and too integral a part of the books, to be interpolations; also, if they had been interpolations, they would have been interpolated into hymns in the Early and Middle books as well.
Even
otherwise, the cultural atmosphere of the Mahābhārata is also one rich in horse-driven
chariots with spoked wheels, which would be natural in 1500 BCE but not in 3100
BCE. Also, it may be noted that the only notable name of an actual Mahābhārata
character (excluding mythical persons like Yayātī and his sons) mentioned in
the Rigveda is Śantanu, the grandfather of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Paṇḍu, who appears
in a hymn composed by his brother Devāpī in book 10, the last and latest book
of the Rigveda. This confirms that the Mahābhārata took place at a time
subsequent to the invention of spokes and the domestication of the camel and
donkey (all of which appear in all the earlier Late books). Therefore, the
date for the Mahābhārata war and for the completion of the Rigveda must be
placed in the mid-second-millennium BCE rather than in the late fourth
millennium BCE.
3.
The Late Rigvedic period was in progress at the turn of the third-second
millennium BCE, but it can only be a matter of speculation as to when this Late period started and the
earlier or Middle Rigvedic period
ended. The beginnings of the Early Rigvedic period would therefore be
a matter of the most pure speculation of all, at least from the point of view
of textual evidence. All that can be definitely said is that the beginnings
of the Early Rigvedic period must go far back beyond the second half of the
third millennium BCE, since it was still the Late Rigvedic period which must have been in progress throughout
most or the whole of this half-millennium. How far back can only be a
matter of speculation, but my
estimate is that extremely early dates like 7000 BCE or even 5000 BCE, while
not impossible dates, are not very likely ones. If someone can prove me wrong
with convincing or even feasible evidence, even astronomical (but convincing
astronomical) evidence, I will be really happy. But mere wishful thinking can
not take the place of data and logic.
As
to when the Late period started, all
that can be said is that the Late books of the Rigveda can be again divided
into three groups: book 5 is undoubtedly the oldest of the Late books, and
stands out from the rest in being a family book, in having the pankti meter (but not yet the mahāpankti and śakvarī), and in being still unacquainted with western animals,
places, lakes and mountains. Book 10 is undoubtedly the latest, being
distinguished from all the other nine books in countless ways. And books 1,8,9
form a group between these two books. The only question now is: did the
ancestors of the Mitanni
kings migrate from India
during the period of composition of book 5, or the period of books1-8-9, or the
period of book 10? In effect, the later,
within the Late period, they migrated from India, the further back from 2000
BCE the Late period can be speculated to have started. But even if they left in
the earliest of the three periods, the period of book 5, the starting point of
the Late Rigvedic period still goes back beyond 2000 BCE at the latest. [The rare name Indrota, common to the Mitanni records and book 8, however, would indicate that the Mitanni left well after the period of book 8, and this pushes the beginnings of the Late Rigvedic period much further back].
4.
Another important point which must be clarified here is the relative position
of the other Vedic texts (the other Samhitās, the Brāhmaṇas, the Āraṇyakas, the
Upaniṣads and the Sūtras) vis-à-vis the Rigveda in terms of their period of
composition. If the Rigveda was completed by 1400 BCE or so, does this mean
that the other texts follow each other in a chronological line after 1400 BCE?
Assuming
that this is so would be wrong. There is nothing to indicate that the periods
of the different texts are mutually exclusive. While the points of completion
of the different texts may indeed be in line with their hitherto accepted
chronological order, there is no reason to believe that the entire bodies (so
to say) of the different texts were necessarily composed in mutually exclusive
periods. The composition of the oldest texts in most of these categories may
already have started at different points of time in the Late Rigvedic period,
along with the composition of the hymns in the Late books of the Rigveda: it is only that the Rigveda was preserved with much greater care and exactitude than the other texts and therefore the Late books preserved older linguistic forms than the other Vedic texts. The
exact chronological details must await detailed investigation, including an
examination of genuine astronomical details or data which may be available in
these texts.