Indic chronology

Whether posited as an invasion by or migration of Aryans, these variant forms—of an into-India hypothesis (supposed movement into India around the second millennium BCE)—are underpinned by one constant: the consequence that the earliest forms of Vedic culture and Sanskrit are not indigenous to India. Written in 2017, this paper examines, in three dimensions, whether such a hypothesis, given its startling consequence to Indic history, can remain a preserve of only one domain (linguistics) before demonstrating not only an absence of proof for such a consequence, amongst other related questions, in key Indic texts through a study of the terms ārya and drāviḍa but also specific problematics in the development of this hypothesis in historical linguistics.

The mammoth significance of the Mahābhārata to Indic Chronology is readily seen in the copious scholarship dedicated not only to examining its epoch but also in particular to dating of river Sarasvatī. While there are several works studying Sarasvatī in the earliest Sanskrit texts and drawing inferences and arguments from textual evidence to address critical issues plaguing early Indic chronology, a similar effort—to comprehensively document, from 89000+ verses of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) critical edition of the Mahābhārata and analyse it in its context to draw inferences that could be of relevance to early Indic chronology—forms the crux of this paper. The authors’ work consists of a database of 222 verses of Sarasvatī from the BORI critical edition of the Mahābhārata. This database enables study of the qualifiers associated with the river, including vitality, an especially crucial factor when considered with the geographical markers associated with it, thus providing a framework against which contemporary scientific research draws greater perspective. We particularly look at the verses that indicate vitality of the river in the light of scientific evidence from fields including geology, geomorphology, geohydrology to explore the possibility of a terminus ante quem for the textual material. The authors believe that their database, when  combined with the parameter of geographical coordinates, fills an important place in textual analysis of the epic with regards to the timeline of the Sarasvatī itself, and by extension the chronology of the events of the Mahābhārata.


---Update 01 (added on July 17, 2019)---
1. It appears that the link in footnote 7  -- "PALAEOCHANNELS OF NORTH WEST INDIA: REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT: REPORT OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE TO REVIEW AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON PALAEOCHANNELS (October 15, 2016) http://cgwb.gov.in/Ground-Water/Final%20print%20version_Palaeochannel%20Expert%20Committee_15thOct2016.pdf. Accessed on Feb 01 2019" -- did not work when accessed around 1000 hrs (+8 GMT) on July 17, 2019.

2. Here is a link to the same report, from web.archive.org (Internet Archive Wayback Machine): https://web.archive.org/web/20180623004815/http://cgwb.gov.in/Ground-Water/Final%20print%20version_Palaeochannel%20Expert%20Committee_15thOct2016.pdf
--- End of Update 01---

The parinirvāṇa of Gautama Buddha is a milestone of singular consequence in Indic chronology, serving as the landmark for dating most events which compose the timeline of our history. In this paper, the authors use astronomical methods to comprehensively compile, analyse, define constraints and determine the unique solution which meets the criteria considered for the most probable year for the death of Buddha. Subsequently, in light of recent archaeological evidence, not only do we demonstrate how key archaeology-related conclusions in Heinz Bechert edited 'When did the Buddha live?' are acutely less tenable in 2018, but also deduce and propose a terminus ante quem (546 B.C.) for Buddha's death. Thereafter, in the philology section, through a critical synoptic analysis we identify problematics that, in our assessment, vitiate the so-called corrected long chronology, short chronology and Bechert's proposal. We believe this paper addresses a crucial void in the post-1995 literature pertaining to Buddha's chronological epoch in being perhaps the first substantive critical assessment of some aspects of the Bechert volume, from an Indic lens, underpinned by a scientific approach.

Note: This paper is a fuller, more comprehensive — with more exhaustive data and analysis — version of this paper: https://www.academia.edu/38794701/The_B_of_ABC_of_Indian_chronology_Dating_Buddhas_Parinirv%C4%81%E1%B9%87a_A_critique_of_Heinz_Becherts_echo_chamber.

The parinirvāṇa of Gautama Buddha is a milestone of singular consequence in Indic chronology, serving as the landmark for dating most events which compose the timeline of our history. In this paper, the authors use astronomical methods to comprehensively compile, analyse, define constraints and determine the unique solution which meets the criteria considered for the most probable year for the death of Buddha. Subsequently, in light of recent archaeological evidence, not only do we demonstrate how key archaeology-related conclusions in Heinz Bechert edited 'When did the Buddha live?' are acutely less tenable in 2019, but also deduce and propose a terminus ante quem (546 B.C.) for Buddha's death. Thereafter, in the philology section, through a critical synoptic analysis we identify problematics that, in our assessment, vitiate the so-called corrected long chronology, short chronology and Bechert's proposal. We believe this paper addresses a crucial void in the post-1995 literature pertaining to Buddha's chronological epoch in being perhaps the first substantive critical assessment of some aspects of the Bechert volume, from an Indic lens, underpinned by a scientific approach.

The mammoth significance of the Mahābhārata to Indic Chronology is readily seen in the copious scholarship dedicated not only to examining its epoch but also in particular to dating of river Sarasvatī. While there are several works studying Sarasvatī in the earliest Sanskrit texts and drawing inferences and arguments from textual evidence to address critical issues plaguing early Indic chronology, a similar effort—to comprehensively document, from 89000+ verses of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) critical edition of the Mahābhārata and analyse it in its context to draw inferences that could be of relevance to early Indic chronology—forms the crux of this paper. The authors’ work consists of a database of 222 verses of Sarasvatī from the BORI critical edition of the Mahābhārata. This database enables study of the qualifiers associated with the river, including vitality, an especially crucial factor when considered with the geographical markers associated with it, thus providing a framework against which contemporary scientific research draws greater perspective. We particularly look at the verses that indicate vitality of the river in the light of scientific evidence from fields including geology, geomorphology, geohydrology to explore the possibility of a terminus ante quem for the textual material. The authors believe that their database, when  combined with the parameter of geographical coordinates, fills an important place in textual analysis of the epic with regards to the timeline of the Sarasvatī itself, and by extension the chronology of the events of the Mahābhārata.

Whether posited as an invasion by or migration of Aryans, these variant forms—of an into-India hypothesis (supposed movement into India around the second millennium BCE)—are underpinned by one constant: the consequence that the earliest forms of Vedic culture and Sanskrit are not indigenous to India. Written in 2017, this paper examines, in three dimensions, whether such a hypothesis, given its startling consequence to Indic history, can remain a preserve of only one domain (linguistics) before demonstrating not only an absence of proof for such a consequence, amongst other related questions, in key Indic texts through a study of the terms ārya and drāviḍa but also specific problematics in the development of this hypothesis in historical linguistics.

The parinirvāṇa of Gautama Buddha is a milestone of singular consequence in Indic chronology, serving as the landmark for dating most events which compose the timeline of our history. In this paper, the authors use astronomical methods to comprehensively compile, analyse, define constraints and determine the unique solution which meets the criteria considered for the most probable year for the death of Buddha. Subsequently, in light of recent archaeological evidence, not only do we demonstrate how key archaeology-related conclusions in Heinz Bechert edited 'When did the Buddha live?' are acutely less tenable in 2019, but also deduce and propose a terminus ante quem (546 B.C.) for Buddha's death. Thereafter, in the philology section, through a critical synoptic analysis we identify problematics that, in our assessment, vitiate the so-called corrected long chronology, short chronology and Bechert's proposal. We believe this paper addresses a crucial void in the post-1995 literature pertaining to Buddha's chronological epoch in being perhaps the first substantive critical assessment of some aspects of the Bechert volume, from an Indic lens, underpinned by a scientific approach.