Thread by @JoeAgneya

'Atri's Total solar Eclipse'- The problems with using stand-alone Astronomy for dating texts.

Scientist Dr S. Balakrishna has done great work in studying astronomical references in Vedic texts. But very few such references give us single and exact dates.
vedicastronomy.net/deltat_retroda…

"O Sūrya, when the Asura Svarbhanu, pierced thee through and through with darkness.."
- RV V.XL.5

Problem one- We are assuming here that the eclipse witnessed by Atri Bhauma was indeed a 'Total' one and not 'near total'/annular or 'partial'. This has major implication on dating.

Kaushitaki Brahmana 24.4 elaborates and declares that it happened three days before autumnal equinox.

Which brings us to Prob TWO- The KB is posterior to the Aitareya & hence also to the Early Rig Veda. Without establishing the time gap, we assume the information is valid.

Note- RV and the Brahmanas are trustworthy texts in remarkable states of preservation. Contemporary information they give are usually TRUE. But here the KB is NOT giving contemporary information and we dont know how far, if at all, removed Kaushitakins are from Atri's time.

Proceeding with three assumptions that the eclipse was Total, that testimony of the Kausitakins is valid and that Atri lived on 25 deg N latitude, let us see the locations of TSE's satisfying our assumptions obtained by Annalas DeltaT model calculation for the period 5000-1000BCE

Brings us to problem THREE. We obtain MULTIPLE DATES for which ALL the assumptions are true. Further, different models give different dates! We grapple to explain why any one date on one model is better than another.

Stephenson model- 1131BC,1476, 1522 ,2676, 4286 & 4965 BC

Stephenson Model for 100% totality and 3 days to equinox narrows down only to 1131BC and 1522 BC

Meeus’s Delta T Model- Only 4677 BC for strict requirement of 100% and 3 days.

All known DT models give us five dates- 1131BC, 1522 BC, 3439 BC, 4202 BC and 4647 BC qualifies.

Brings us to problem FOUR- Subjectivity. Dr Balakrishna himself admits that he is biased to the date 4647 BC. I myself am biased to 2676 BCE. Some others, no doubt would prefer a date in excess of 12,000 BCE! But that wont do. How do we solve it?

By independent verification of the dates from other disciplines. Whichever date or century has the support from the empirical sciences will be declared winner. In other words, the date for which the relevant disciplines converge in consensus.