The review of my book “Mahabharata 3136 BCE: Validation of the Traditional Date” by Mr. Come Carpentier de Gourdon, published in India Foundation Chintan Blog can be read here:
https://chintan.indiafoundation.in/articles/mahabharata-3136-bce-validation-of-the-traditional-date/
Mr. Come’s subject knowledge in astronomy, cosmology and Hindu texts was palpable at every line of his review. I was simply elated reading his views on the three issues that are central to my book both for dumping the other works that have used astronomy simulator and for the right grasp of the not-so-hidden evidence of the meteor hit and the location of Krishna's Dwaraka.
Those three issues of critical
importance articulated by him are listed below along with the chapter numbers:
1. The non-feasibility of the use
of astronomy simulators for dating (Ch 1 and 2)
2. The meteor-hit (Ch 10 and 11)
3. Location of Krishna's Dwaraka and causes for its submergence (Ch. 18)
(For easy navigation of my book, I would suggest the readers to read the 3rdchapter to know about Yuga-s and the 4th chapter, about epigraphic evidence. Introduction and Epilogue are must-reads. The rest are little technical)
However, I have a different pick on two points he raised in the last paragraph which I shared with him through email. They are about the Puranic list of kings and the drying up of the river Saraswati.
First, the Puranas are not treated on par with the Itihasa-s, for, the latter are exact accounts (“it happened thus”) while the Purana-s are NOT taken at face value completely, particularly for historical purposes. The Puranic list of kings is not primary evidence but must be supported by other evidences such as epigraphy. With no clarity about methodology of dating, many Indic scholars have causally attempted to fit in Puranic list with the Mahabharata date.
Second, none who have worked on the hydrology of Sarasvati thought about the etymological idea conveyed that the river had sprung from a 'saras' - a pond or a tank and not in the glacier of the Himalayas. The river had shifted its source three times which can be detected from the texts - a saras, near Kuruskshetra and far away beyond Prayagraj (Triveni Sangama). In my opinion, the origin at saras was already lost during the Mahabharata period. Perhaps that made Balarama curious to know from where else the river emerged. The annual return of Sibrian cranes at Shashayana in the Mahabharata - perhaps the former location of Bharatpur Sanctuary must have had a branch of Saraswati running over there and joining Yamuna whose path can be located at Prayagraj. Bharatpur is also an un-checked location. Like this many might have been there. But to use it for dating a specific historical year of the war cannot be primary evidence which I have explained under the caption "Other Evidences" in the 2nd chapter of the book.
For further reference: The location of Shashayana on the river Saraswati where cranes annually returned even during the Mahabharata period: (DOC) Annual migration of Siberian cranes to River Sarasvatī | Dr. Jayasree Saranathan - Academia.edu
On the probable location of the
Saras from which the river Saraswati descended: (DOC) Harappan was Vedic but Tamil
was not Dravidian: A critical evaluation of Iravatham Mahadevan's works. | Dr.
Jayasree Saranathan - Academia.edu (from p.27 to 30)
