Bharat Rakshak

The position we endorse is that of V. S. Sukthankar, who in 1942 dismissed the “‘Analytical Theory’ of the origin and the character of the Mahābhārata” (Sukthankar 1957, 11), and the Critical Edition, which shows that the archetype—that is, the latest common ancestor of all extant manuscripts reconstructed using an objective and mechanical method—contained many episodes that the German critics termed “Brahmanic” interpolations. We acknowledged our debt to Sukthankar and the editors of the Critical Edition in the Acknowledgments.

Sukthankar attributes it to Joseph Dahlmann, and, via him, to the Indian tradition. “There is thus no question whatsoever of an ‘epic core’ that had become gradually incrusted with didactic accretions, an idea which is nothing more than a phantasy, just an obsession of the modern critic. The poem is, as Indian tradition has always implied, a conscious product of literary art (kāvya) of the highest order, with a pronounced unity of conception, aim, and treatment” (Sukthankar 1957, 20).

We cite from a recent review: “These approaches [the “analytic” and “synthetic”] reflect divergent perspectives on the Mbh, either as a composite text that grew over centuries with contributions by diverse authors of differing views, producing a text with little unity (the analytic approach), vs. as a unified text with a coherent meaning due to composition according to a plan (the synthetic approach). These two approaches are often seen in the history of Mbh studies. This vital point has been in dispute for over a century: Was the Mbh composed over centuries by numerous contributors or in a short period with an agreed-upon design? […] If a single author in modern times [the reference is to Isaac Asimov] is capable of producing such an array of publications on an impressive range of topics totaling some 100,000 pages, we cannot rule out the possibility that a single author or small committee produced the Mbh. In any case, in the field of Mbh studies, received wisdom and assumptions about how this text was created are ripe for reconsideration” (Bruce M. Sullivan 2016a, 167, italics added).

Hiltebeitel and Sullivan have convincingly refuted this argument. Sullivan writes: “Some have assumed or
argued that the size of the Mahābhārata, the sheer number of words, is evidence of a long compositional
history—it would take a long time to write so much, perhaps 400 or 800 years. Some have assumed or argued
that the diversity of literary styles and religious ideas would require hundreds of years to be composed. These,
however, are assumptions rather than persuasive arguments. As a counter-example, I can cite Isaac Asimov,
who wrote some 500 books—on popular science, history, chess, and science fiction—while also serving as
professor of biochemistry at Boston University. I mention him not only because of the number of his many
works, but also their diversity: he published in all ten major categories of the Dewey Decimal System, so he was
not simply producing quickly written romance novels. Indeed, as another example, Alf Hiltebeitel has written
perhaps as much about the Mahābhārata as he credits Vyāsa’s committee with having accomplished! And
these are individuals working without contributions from committees” (Sullivan 2016b, 188–89). Leibniz’s
literary estate comprises 150,000–200,000 pages, written in Latin, French, and German (what a field day the
Indologists would have identifying “interpolations”). Edmund Husserl’s literary estate comprises 40,000 pages
in Gabelsberg stenography. Bertrand Russell’s literary estate includes 200 manuscripts; the complete archive
comprises 143 meters of textual and other materials. The Indologists appear unacquainted with the standard
of work expected in other fields.

The question is irrelevant: we never claimed that the Mahābhārata was written by a single author. It also
suffers from the fallacy of complex question. Franco either does not know our position or knowingly
misrepresents it. The Nay Science’s showed that for two hundred years the German Mahābhārata critics
neglected to read the Mahābhārata as it exists for a fantasy epic of their own devising (variously called the “Urepic,”
“oral epic,” “bardic epic,” “Kṣatriya epic,” “Aryan epic,” “Indo-Germanic epic,” “Bhārata epic,” “Pāṇḍava
Bhārata,” and so on). It argued that their reconstructions of various layers only revealed something about their
ideology, rather than contributing to objective historical research. Thus, critics from Christian Lassen to
Hermann Oldenberg read the Mahābhārata to find evidence of Aryans as well as to show that Brahman
“priests” had enslaved the free-spirited and heroic Aryans. The argument that German Indologists abetted
German nationalism is not new. Michael Dusche (2013, 31–54) shows how Friedrich Schlegel relaunched his
career by reimagining himself as a nationalist. The Nay Science lent precision to this argument by showing how
German nationalism was linked to the German interest in India: “German Indology thus sees itself not merely
as learning and collecting objective knowledge as in the case of natural sciences. It is more: the German
Indologist directly intervenes in history and changes it. On the one hand, Indians are to be shown to be at the
mercy of the tyranny of their misshapen, lecherous, and fantastical gods. Even more urgently, they are to be
shown as being subject to the tyranny of priestly authority. Texts need to be purified of Brahmanical
interpolations and metaphysical speculations. Freedom on a political and cultural level, in this idiom, can only
be secured when the task of securing texts coincides with purifying them. Thus, we have seen in the third
chapter the profuse enthusiasm with which German Indologists vied with each other to find excuses to dissect
the Gītā. If only Brahmanical and bhakti aspects were removed, Indians, as brethren in the world humanitarian
project, could stand up as good, free Kṣatriyas, interpreted here to mean as good Prussian soldiers. Or very
nearly so.

As explained in the preceding footnote, the Critical Edition does not use the German scholars’ “method”
(note the ambiguous use of “method” without a qualifier). Indeed, one reason Sukthankar undertook the
Critical Edition was to subject the German scholars’ theories of an original, heroic, Aryan oral epic to a critical
analysis. The Mahābhārata Critical Edition gave him the confidence to reject their views of the Mahābhārata
(see Sukthankar 1957 and see also Hiltebeitel 2001, 106–7). We dedicated The Nay Science to the BORI
editors in full awareness of Sukthankar’s historic achievement (see the Acknowledgments). We also defended
the edition at NS, 75n2: “With the completion of the Critical Edition of the Mahābhārata in 1966, the scope
for oral epic theory was further reduced. Completed on the basis of the rigorous principles of textual criticism,
the Critical Edition offered conclusive evidence that all extant Mahābhārata manuscripts were descendants of
a single written exemplar, and that this archetype contained elements such as the narration of the epic at a
sacrifice, the entire Bhagavadgītā, the Śāntiparvan including the highly theological Mokṣadharmaparvan—
precisely the elements considered by the defendants of oral epic theory to be ‘late’ and ‘Brahmanic.’ The
Critical Edition thus blew a hole not only in their theory of the epic’s genesis, but also in their theory of its
transfer in authority from Kṣatriya warriors to Brahman priests. Since then, their efforts have shifted to highly
complex theories dedicated to explaining how the archetype might have existed and still need not rule out the
existence of an older oral epic tradition such as Andreas Bigger’s nonsensical ‘normative redaction’
hypothesis.”

SriJoy wrote:

krisna wrote: Little too preachy. That's ok otherwise.

What science we know is like iceberg. Visible 10% rest unknown.
Empirical evidence and methodology is important but not complete science.

It is through that method and that method alone, do we get a 'complete theory' in a particular topic.
science what we know is basically-- verify if it is replicable . Not the best but that is what we have got now. it is changing.

Only Hinduism I repeat again only Hinduism with no malice against other religions has no problems with science since immemorial times.
Many ancient rishis were keen Observants of nature . Probably scientists of old.

yep. But that hinduism is dead/dying. What we have today, is copy-cat of Abrahamics, where its all about absolute belief in holy books and trying to make nebulous 'fortune-teller language' fit into science.

it depends on who and how one looks at it. if it is trash it falls by wayside- this has happened in the evolution of Indian way of doing things.
The statement is not verifiable by facts. Indians do not have absolute belief in holy books.

Even today many seers swamijis etc of Hinduism are probably of social sciences variety or something similar types.

Maybe 1 in a thousand. Rest are all con-artists, promising things or claiming things they cannot prove or deliver on. Same with every religion, because whether you are a Christian minister faith-healing or hindu swami, there is a vested interest in peddling BS, conning people and making money off of them.

again your way of seeing things. not verifiable by facts .

SriJoy wrote:

Your views on why you are right and why others are wrong matter less than a fart in a hurricane. If that is a problem its yours and yours alone.

Same applies to you.

SriJoy wrote: Its a matter of context. In a website (this one), with a few thousand members (max), being in minority or majority opinion is irrelevant. But i hope you take your own advice on 'rightness' and see that you are acting like every expert is wrong regarding your belief-based theories about India's past, with zero shred of evidence to back it up and as a result, end up regurgitating nonsense that not a single professional in the field of history will back up your nonsense.

SriJoy wrote: Hence i put a Mahabharata-like war at the end of IVC, because logic says, when civilization collapses and people are displaced, it has a larger probability of civilization-wide strife/war, than a petty family succession dispute.

Discussion
Presence of foraminifera throughout the core section indicates marine sedimentation throughout6, 30. To allow
for fine-grained marine sedimentation at ~18ka30, when the eustatic sea level in the Arabian Sea was below 100m
relative to present level31, 32, the Dhordo site must have been uplifted significantly since then. GRK is largely compressional
and uplift of ca. 5m is recorded for a marine sedimentary sequence on Khadir Island in the last 500
years5 , so uplift at Dhordo is not surprising.

JE Menon wrote:Nilesh, can you please put that in plain English for the less geologically literate amongst us (including myself, mainly I suspect). How does it bolster your case boss?

The Nd and Sr isotopic composition of sediments from our Dhordo core site in the Great Rann of Kachchh suggests
that a large Himalayan or Sub-Himalayan Saraswati-like river may have discharged into the Arabian Sea
until 10 ka.

Indus-derived sediment accelerated the infilling of GRK after ~6 ka when the Indus delta started to
grow.

ShauryaT wrote:A_Gupta: Thanks. I have no qualms in saying after reading much of the BORI translations that this vast corpus of knowledge is synthetic or rather I would say congruent in nature, at least to a layman. The critical edition has accomplished this. E.g: Excluding popular stories like Ganesha writing the MBH text or Krishna to the rescue of Draupadi at vastra haran.

It will take some time to settle the debate on dates and time frames or the composers or the actual occurrence of the events. But, one thing we should do. Weed out western or western influenced DIE scholarship from this debate. This thread should not give any space to the arguments from these biased sources, unless the westerner is white only in color but Orange within, like David Frawley.

"If you date the Mahabharata war in 5000 BCE, how do you correspond it to a thriving Saraswati River during that time ? Also the lack of violent depictions in Indus-Saraswati civilisation does not corroborate with a great war taking place. Since you are dating the war , you need to take into the hard geological facts as well"

For the first question, you will have to read my books (both of them) and blogs. River Sarasvati has relevance for Rigveda, Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Regarding your second question, why limit to only geology. I have researched in the areas of hydrology, geology, geophysics, anthropology, astronomy (additional evidence), oceanography, paleontology, genetics, genealogies of Rishis/sages, genealogies of kings of Ikshwaku and Bharata dynasties, Seismology, domestication of animals and agriculture, ancient medical case studies and more...and all of these corroborate well not only for my 5561 BCE timeline of Mahabharata or 12209 BCE timeline of Ramayana, but also specific limits, 5561 BCE or before, I have assigned for the specific Mandalas of Rigveda.

Cheers!

SriJoy wrote:^^
Genealogically, it is impossible for Mahabharata war to be >5561 BCE. All Puranas are emphatic for the number of years between Parikshit and Mahapadma Nanda and the latter is garanteed to be between late 400s/early 300s BCE. For Mahabharata to be >5561 BCE , Mahapadma Nanda has to be 2000 BCE or even more ancient. Which is pretty much impossible thanks to Ashokan pillars.

Also, dates of 12000 BC for Ramayana is absurd, since that would make it the longest unaltered story transmitted in human consciousness by a factor of 8,000 years, if not longer. Quite a tall claim for a Smriti literature.
Not to mention, the conditions described in Ramayana have no evidence of occurring as early as 12,000 BCE anywhere in the world.

The lead author of the new research, Associate Prof Chris Clarkson, from the University of Queensland, said: "We have managed to establish a new age for first occupation in Australia and pushed it back by about 18,000 years beyond what was the previous established age of about 47,000 years."

What dating techniques did the new research use?

Radiocarbon dating was used on charcoal samples but this has a limit of about 50,000 years.

To go beyond that, the team used the method of optically stimulated luminescence (OSL).

It is used on buried material, measuring the time that has elapsed since mineral grains were last exposed to sunlight. It was used to date some 28,500 individual grains of sand.

This led to a far more accurate timeframe than was previously known.

So what artefacts were discovered?

The rare artefacts found in the dense lowest layer of the Madjedbebe shelter indicate an "innovative and dynamic early Aboriginal occupation of Australia", Assoc Prof Clarkson told the BBC.

"We found these beautiful ground stone-edge axes with grooves at one end where the handle would have been attached with resin," he said.

The team found pieces of reflective art minerals such as mica wrapped around ground ochre, along with a slab covered in red ochre that was mixed with mica.

"It really tells us that people were heavily into artistic activity," Associate Prof Clarkson said.

The time of arrival of people in Australia is an unresolved question. It is relevant to debates about when modern humans first dispersed out of Africa and when their descendants incorporated genetic material from Neanderthals, Denisovans and possibly other hominins. Humans have also been implicated in the extinction of Australia’s megafauna. Here we report the results of new excavations conducted at Madjedbebe, a rock shelter in northern Australia. Artefacts in primary depositional context are concentrated in three dense bands, with the stratigraphic integrity of the deposit demonstrated by artefact refits and by optical dating and other analyses of the sediments. Human occupation began around 65,000 years ago, with a distinctive stone tool assemblage including grinding stones, ground ochres, reflective additives and
ground-edge hatchet heads. This evidence sets a new minimum age for the arrival of humans in Australia, the dispersal of modern humans out of Africa, and the subsequent interactions of modern humans with Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Until now, researchers believed farming was "invented" some 12,000 years ago in the Cradle of Civilization -- Iraq, the Levant, parts of Turkey and Iran -- an area that was home to some of the earliest known human civilizations. A new discovery by an international collaboration of researchers from Tel Aviv University, Harvard University, Bar-Ilan University, and the University of Haifa offers the first evidence that trial plant cultivation began far earlier -- some 23,000 years ago.

The study focuses on the discovery of the first weed species at the site of a sedentary human camp on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. It was published in PLOS ONE and led by Prof. Ehud Weiss of Bar-Ilan University in collaboration with Prof. Marcelo Sternberg of the Department of Molecular Biology and Ecology of Plants at TAU's Faculty of Life Sciences and Prof. Ofer Bar-Yosef of Harvard University, among other colleagues.

"While full-scale agriculture did not develop until much later, our study shows that trial cultivation began far earlier than previously believed, and gives us reason to rethink our ancestors' capabilities," said Prof. Sternberg. "Those early ancestors were more clever and more skilled than we knew."

"Because weeds thrive in cultivated fields and disturbed soils, a significant presence of weeds in archaeobotanical assemblages retrieved from Neolithic sites and settlements of later age is widely considered an indicator of systematic cultivation," according to the study.

The site bears the remains of six shelters and a particularly rich assemblage of plants. Upon retrieving and examining approximately 150,000 plant specimens, the researchers determined that early humans there had gathered over 140 species of plants. These included 13 known weeds mixed with edible cereals, such as wild emmer, wild barley, and wild oats.

The researchers found a grinding slab -- a stone tool with which cereal starch granules were extracted -- as well as a distribution of seeds around this tool, reflecting that the cereal grains were processed for consumption. The large number of cereals showing specific kinds of scars on their seeds indicate the likelihood of those cereals growing in fields, and the presence of sickle blades indicates that these humans deliberately planned the harvest of cereal.

The new study offers evidence that early humans clearly functioned with a basic knowledge of agriculture and, perhaps more importantly, exhibited foresight and extensive agricultural planning far earlier than previously believed.

Weeds are currently present in a wide range of ecosystems worldwide. Although the beginning of their evolution is largely unknown, researchers assumed that they developed in tandem with cultivation since the appearance of agricultural habitats some 12,000 years ago. These rapidly-evolving plants invaded the human disturbed areas and thrived in the new habitat. Here we present unprecedented new findings of the presence of “proto-weeds” and small-scale trial cultivation in Ohalo II, a 23,000-year-old hunter-gatherers' sedentary camp on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, Israel. We examined the plant remains retrieved from the site (ca. 150,000 specimens), placing particular emphasis on the search for evidence of plant cultivation by Ohalo II people and the presence of weed species. The archaeobotanically-rich plant assemblage demonstrates extensive human gathering of over 140 plant species and food preparation by grinding wild wheat and barley. Among these, we identified 13 well-known current weeds mixed with numerous seeds of wild emmer, barley, and oat. This collection provides the earliest evidence of a human-disturbed environment—at least 11 millennia before the onset of agriculture—that provided the conditions for the development of "proto-weeds", a prerequisite for weed evolution. Finally, we suggest that their presence indicates the earliest, small-scale attempt to cultivate wild cereals seen in the archaeological record.

Abstract

When and where cereal cultivation and domestication took place in the Near East are still matters of debate. This quantitative analysis, using confocal microscopy to study “sickle gloss” texture on flint tools used for cereal harvesting, shows that wild cereals were most probably cultivated during the 13th millennium BP in the Middle Euphrates. At that moment, a local and continuous process of cereal domestication began to unfold in this region of the Northern Levant, lasting for over 3 millennia and culminating at the end of the 10th millennium BP. Thus, our research provides a new method for investigating the origins of agriculture, while the data gathered allow us to support the hypothesis of early cereal cultivation during the Younger Dryas and the protracted model of plant domestication, pointing to the Middle Euphrates as one region where this process occurred.

Jarita wrote:The challenge is that there is a sub conscious biblical limit in most of our minds where nothing civilizational can exist beyond 5000 years ago and we are constrained by that linearity.
Given the limitations of carbon dating why can human civilization not be cyclical - destroyed again and rising? That might explain the Ramayana and it's times where we might have had agriculture and human advancement of a different flavor and where homo sapiens lived with other human sub species - Hanuman belonged to the Vanar sub specie.

https://www.ancienthistorylists.com/peo ... ted-earth/

- but on no grounds - mythological, traditional or historical- can the honour of such a high antiquity be admitted.

ramana wrote:So there is ancient DNA i.e. Neanderthal and Denisovian. Genome analysis has show these genes in modern humans.

However there is a concept called 'archaic' genes which are older than the ancient genes.

Recent papers (yet to be published) indicate ~70% probability that archaic genes are in human genome.

Recent archaeological finds of Homo Naledi and the skeletal remains in North Africa push back the date to 300,000 years before present.

SriJoy wrote: As i said multiple times- when one analyzes genome of food grains to their wild counterparts, dates emerge for their divergence sequence. those dates have some wiggle room- for e.g., 9500 BC COULD be as early as 11,000 BC (but still not in India, as India is not native land of wheat,barley,millet or rice) but not significantly prior to that.
Only way to support Ramayana or any settled civilization much prior to these dates, one needs to find genetic evidence of domestication of any food crop prior to 9500 BC. Or else, the concept of food surplus leading to urbanism does not occur.

2. Western academia has long-since moved past the '5000 BC terminus post quem' of world history because of nebulous biblical calculations. hence academia acknowledge existence of cultures much prior to 5000 BC - such as Mehrgarh culture or Bhirrana culture or Ubaid period Mesopotamia.

3. Vanar doesn't have to mean different species of mankind. Kazanas once made an interesting observation when i spoke to him, saying Vanar could be 'Van nara', meaning 'forest men', which over time got contracted into Vanar and applied to monkeys instead.

SriJoy wrote:

krisna wrote:
please avoid using these terms in certain sciences which cannot be replicated and final verdict is still not sealed
By using these terms you are pretty much dogmatic with not much interest in searching for truth.

I don't think you understand.
Ashokan pillars, by themselves, decisively tie Ashoka to 270-240 BC period. this is because some of the pillars talk about Ashoka's missionary missions, along with names of several kings in west Asia and Egypt, independently verified in the same range. Do you realize, how precise a dating is, if an inscription names 4 seprate rulers and we find the same 4 separate rulers existing during each other's reign via independent evidence ? This is as close to a 'historical anchor' one can come to, unless you wish to argue that 4 rulers with same names ruling 4 different nations during each other's reign can happen multiple times.the final verdict on datng Ashoka is sealed. Finito.

We also know from every single source of literature that Mahapadma Nanda was the founder of the dynasty before the Mauryas. Now, we also know for a fact that Ashoka is preceded by 2 rulers of Maurya dynasty ( Bindusara & Chandragupta), who are immediately preceded by the Nanda dynasty. We know for a fact that Mahapadma Nanda was founder of Nanda dynasty and he had 10 successors. the historical consensus is that Nanda dynasty didn't have 11 successive rulers but most of the 10 rulers succeeding Mahapadma ruled concurrently. We also see such an example for Kakavarna Kalashoka's multiple sons ruling concurrently.


Either way, even if we were to assume Mahapadma's successors were one after the other and making an extremely unlikely assumption that ALL Nanda rulers ruled for average of 30 years, we end up with Mahapadma Nanda at around 650 BC. Which, genealogically again puts Mahabharata war at <2000 BC.

So as i said, genealogically, we cannot support a 5000 BC date for Mahabharata war according to the Puranas. Whichever way you slice it and dice it, Puranas are emphatic for the number of years between Parikshit and Mahapadma. And since Ashokan pillars are the best established anchor for Indian history (and compares very favorably to other anchors in world history dating), there is no chance that Mahapadma was >3000 BC, something that would be absolutely essential to argue Mahabharata = 5000 BC date. Unless of course, you have another source of evidence for genealogically dating Mahapadma relative to Parikshit, strong enough to trash all the Puranas.


As for your bolded part : Its already been discussed here. there is zero evidence of agriculture or urban culture ANYWHERE in the world for 12,000 BC.
Genetic research has placed domestication of rice, wheat, barley and millet all in the 9500 -7000 BC range. So its also a zero chance of Ramayana occurring before agriculture existed, unless of course, you can find genetic evidence of a food domestication event prior to 12,000 BC.

It is dogmatic to hold a view despite having no evidence, just because it comes from one's favorite book/religion. How is it dogmatic to hold a view that is supported by evidence/reject a view that is a big fat zero in terms of evidence and be open to change ?!

SriJoy wrote:
I believe the core of the events, not that there is anything divine or divine angle to it. Certain things for example , *are* pretty accurate. One of them is when did Ashoka rule. the answer may vary for a year or two or atmost a decade, but its as fixed as it can get without direct historical date-keeping.

SriJoy wrote:

shiv wrote: I have highlighted the key words.

If you look at all the conclusions about dates that have been made by linguists and "historians" LOL

The dated for the Vedas varies by 500-1000 years

The dates for Panini - by your own estimate varies by a century or so

The Aihole inscription carved in stone dated the Mahabharata to 3102 BC - which is 2000 years earlier than your estimate and 2000 years later than Nilesh's estimate

It is when dates can be variable and "adjusted" this way or that way to suit a story by a few years, decades centuries or millenniums and then declared dogmatically to be "as fixed as dates can get" - the final story is complete rubbish, or absolute truth depending on what one chooses to believe. Of course if you choose not to believe your own story on the grounds that you do not go by belief then that is a different issue

Completely irrelevant to Ashoka's dating.

<blah blah>

I will challenge you or anyone