Age of the Rigveda
Prof. Makkhan Lal
The date of the Rigveda and Vedic literature has formed the subject of a keen and protracted controversy. Max Mueller, who was the first to deal with the question of the antiquity of Sanskrit literature, based his calculations on the story of Vararuchi Katyayana, narrated in the Kathasaritsagar of Somadeva, written in the 12th century A.D. He identified this Vararuchi with the Minister of Nandas and dated him to the 4th century B.C. He further identified with this Vararuchi Katyayana for the sage Katyayana who composed a large number of sutras, though Mueller had no basis for all these calculations and identifications. Following these identifications, Max Mueller concluded that:
“as an experiment, therefore, though as no more than experiments, we propose to fix the years 600 and 200 B.C. as the limit of that age during which the Brahmanical literature was carried on in the strange style of sutras.”1
After having fixed the date of the sutras, Max Mueller proceeded to date the Brahmanas and the Vedas. He opined that “it would seem impossible to bring within a shorter space than 200 years. Of course this is merely conjectural.” However, this conjecture later turned out to be deadly because it started being followed as a dogma. The result of this conjecture was that the Brahmanas were assigned a date bracket of 800-600 B.C. with the remark that, “although it is more likely that hereafter these limits will have to be extended.”2 Mueller further writes:
“If we assign but 200 years to the Mantra period, from 800 to 1000 B.C., and an equal number to Chhanda period, from 1000 to 1200 B.C., we can do so only under the supposition that during the early periods of history, growth of human mind was more luxuriant than in later times.”3
Max Mueller, indeed, was generous in giving 200 years for each period because “it would seem impossible to bring the whole within a shorter space than 200 years. Of course this is conjectural.” But at the same time he was cautious enough to add that, “these limits will have to be extended.”
At this point, let us see what literature Max Mueller is considering that was composed over a period of 600 years. Vedic literature consists of three successive classes of literary creations. Some of these still exist, while many others have been completely lost forever. These three classes are:
1. The Vedas: A collection of hymns, prayers, charms, litanies and sacrificial formulas. There are four Vedas, namely:
1. Rigveda – a collection of hymns
2. Samveda – a collection of songs mostly taken from the Rigveda
3. Yajurveda – a collection of sacrificial formulas
4. Atharvaveda – a collection of spells and charms
The Vedas form the earliest segment of Vedic literature and amongst the Vedas, the Rigveda is the oldest.
2. The Brahmanas: These are prose texts containing detailed explanations of Vedic hymns, their applications, stories of their origin, etc. In a way, these carry comments on rituals and philosophies.
3. Aranyakas and Upanishads: These are partly included in or attached to the Brahmanas, and partly exist as separate works. They embody philosophical meditations of hermits and ascetics on the soul, God, the world, etc.
The Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the Upanishads are attached to one or the other of these four Vedas.
Although the hymns are attributed to rishis, pious Hindus have always had faith in their divine origin. Thus, the Vedas are called apaurusheya (not created by man) and nitya (eternal), while the rishis are known as inspired seers who received the mantras from the supreme deity.
Since Max Mueller repeatedly affirms his faith in the stories of Genesis and the chronology given by Bishop Usher, he was therefore, obliged to accommodate the whole Indian literature within the time-frame provided by Usher. Some contemporary Sanskritists like M.A. Winternitz, T. Goldstrucker, H.H. Wilson and W.D. Whiney objected to this whole methodology of Mueller and the dates assigned by him to Sanskrit literature. Goldstrucker wrote:
“Neither is there a single reason to account for his allotting 200 years to the first of periods, nor for his doubling this amount of time in the case of Sutra period…The whole foundation of Muller’s date rests on the authority of Somadeva … [who] narrated his tales in the twelve centuries after Christ [and]would not be a little surprised to learn that ‘a European point of view’ raises ‘ghost story’ of his to the dignity of a historical document.”4
H.H. Wilson, aghast at Max Muller’s formulations of dates, wrote:
“We must confess that we are disposed to look upon this limit (of 200 years for the Brahmanas) as much too brief for the establishment of an elaborate ritual, for the appropriation of all the spiritual authority of the Brahmans, for the distinctions of races or the institutions of caste, and for the mysticism and speculation of the Aranyakas or Upanishads: a period of five centuries would not seem to be too protracted for such a complete remodeling of the primitive system and its wide dissemination through all those parts of India where the Brahmans have spread.”
Jacoby was not only more realistic in his assessment, but also very forthcoming. He writes:
“It is easy to see that this estimate [i.e. two hundred years] is far below the minimum of the possible period, during which in India a department of literature could take its rise, reach perfection, become obsolete and die out, to give place finally to a thoroughly new departure. For a Brahmana, for example, could only be widely spread by being learned by heart by a gradually extending circle of Brahmanas, and with the size of the country this would certainly demand a long time. Every man, who learned such a work became, so to say, a copy of it…. But several of such works successively take the place of their predecessors, before the entire class of works in question becomes obsolete. I maintain that a minimum of the thousand years must rather be taken for such a process, which in the conditions that prevailed in ancient India was of necessity a very slow one, especially when we take into the consideration that in historical times the literature of classical period remain for more than a thousand years unaltered.”5
Winternitz also felt that since, “all the external evidence fails, we are compelled to rely on the evidence out of the history of Indian literature itself, for the age of the Veda…. We cannot, however, explain the development of the whole of this great literature, if we assume as late a date as round about 1200 or 1500 B.C. as its starting point. We shall probably have to date the beginning of this development about 2000 or 2500 B.C.”6
Realizing the problems created by his dating of the Vedic literature by an arbitrary and callous method, Max Mueller subsequently wrote:
“I need hardly say that I agree with almost every word of my critics. I have repeatedly dwelt on the merely hypothetical character of the dates, which I have ventured to assign the first periods of Vedic literature. All I have claimed for them has been that they are the minimum dates, and that the literary production of each period which either still exist or which formally existed could hardly be accounted for within shorter limits of time than those suggested. Like most Sanskrit scholars, I feel that 200 years are scarcely sufficient to account for the growth of the poetry and religion ascribed to the khandas period.”7
Nearly at the fag end of his long and highly productive career, Max Mueller eventually acknowledged the arbitrariness of his method in the following most amazing words:
“If we now ask how we can fix the dates of these periods, it is quite clear that we cannot hope to fix a terminum a qua, whether the Vedic hymns were composed [in] 1000 or 2000 or 3000 B.C., no power on earth will ever determine.”8
In fact, five years after writing the above confessional statement, Max Mueller was quite happy to accept 3000 B.C. as the date for the Rigveda. This change in his attitude came about due to the discovery of two Babylonian ideographs that had to be pronounced ‘Sindhu’. This suggested that the Babylonians knew the river Sindhu and, by extension, the Indo-Aryan people.9
Dispite the evidence to the contrary, it has become a common practice among the Western and the Marxist scholars to stick to the period of 1200 to 1000 B.C. as the date of the Rigveda. It has become much more fashionable now due to obvious reasons. After the discovery of several similarities between the Harappan and Vedic civilizations, the meaning of ‘secularism’ is being taken to absurd limits.
Besides the horse, the presence of which has been overwhelmingly attested on the Harappan sites, another archaeological material that can help in fixing the date of Vedic corpus is the occurrence of iron in the archaeological context. In the Rigveda we find the term ‘ayas’ which has been interpreted as the general expression for metal. From this we cannot say if the iron was known to Rigvedic people. Iron finds its first mention in the AtharvaVeda10 and then again in Satapatha Brahmana11 as ‘krishna ayas’. The antiquity of iron in India till about 10 years ago could go only up to 1300 B.C., but the recent excavations at the archaeological sites like Raja Nal-ka-Tila, Dadupur, Malhar and several other sites in the middle Ganga plains. have yielded evidence of the regular use of iron from around 1800 B.C.12 Considering the fact that most of the iron tools found in the excavations are of fairly advanced type and the iron is of very good quality, it must have taken a few centuries of learning the iron processing to reach that stage. Even if we discount this for the time being take just the cogent radio-carbon dates it is firm for around 1800 B.C. for the Ganga plains.
If we accept the view propounded by R.S. Sharma and other Marxist historians that the expansion of the settlements towards the east is indicated in a legend of Satapatha Brahmana – Videgh Madhava’s migration from the Saraswati region, crossing of Sadanira (modern Gandak river)13, the eastern boundary of Kosala and coming to the land of Videh (modern Tirahut in Bihar) – the date of the Satapatha Brahmana has to be around 2000 B.C. After all, was the Satapatha Brahmana not dated by R.S. Sharma to 800 B.C. on the basis of the reference to iron in it and the archeological date for iron known then and the antiquity of the human settlements in the middle Ganga plains.? Now, when the antiquity of iron and the human settlements have gone back to at least 1800 B.C. by what logic can hold back the date of Satapatha Brahmana to 800 B.C. and unhook it from iron tag?
However, the antiquity of iron in Uttar Pradesh is not in isolation. We are aware that at Mundigak, iron was found to have been in use around 2600 B.C.14; at Said Qila Tepe ‘ferrous lumps’ in 2700-2300 B.C.15; at Lothal in 2500-1800 B.C.16 context, and at the Kotelai graveyard in Swat valley in 1800 B.C.17
In view of the fact that the date of regular settlements and the use of iron in eastern U.P. and Bihar goes back to nearly 2000 B.C. or even earlier, the date of Shatapatha Brahmana can easily be accepted to be around 2000 B.C. On this ground, the dating of the Rigveda between 4500 B.C. and 3000 B.C. should not surprise anyone.
Sanskritists have held prolonged discussions to fix the date of the Vedic literature on the basis of the astronomical data contained therein. Winternitz notes that when “Harman Jacoby attempted to date the Vedic literature back to the third millennium B.C. on the grounds of astronomical calculations, scholars raised a great outcry at such heretical procedure…. Strange to say it has been quite forgotten on what precarious footing stood the “opinion prevailing hitherto”, which was so zealously defended.”18
Thus, Evangelists were alarmed at an alternative approach which could finally prove that both Bishop Usher’s chronology and the whole Genesis story were wrong. After all, most of the Evangelists and British Sanskritists were working hard to prove precisely that Indian Sanskrit literature was an aid to the Biblical stories. But not all scholars were so committed to the Evangelical mission and objectives. Much before the advent of Max Mueller, French astronomer Jean-Sylvain Bailly in his work, Histoire de l’astronomie Ancienne et Moderne, wrote, “These tables [astronomical tables] of Brahmanas are perhaps five or six thousand years old.”19 This was vehemently opposed and the ground of opposition was the Genesis. John Bentley wrote:
“If we are to believe in the antiquity of Hindu books, as he would wish us, then the Mosaic account is all a fable, or a fiction.”20
So much at stake over the antiquity of Sanskrit literature!
However, almost a century later, in 1884, Bal Gangadhar Tilak21 and Harman Jacoby,22 totally oblivious of each other’s efforts at the initial stages, claimed independently a higher antiquity for the Vedic literature on the basis of the astronomical evidence. George Buehler, the famous epigraphist, agreed with the conclusions arrived at independently by Tilak and Jacoby.23 In 1985, almost 100 years after Tilak’s and Jocoby’s conclusions, the Indian National Science Academy (one of the most respected science academies in the world) published a volume, History of Astronomy in India, wherein the Harappan civilization and the Brahmana period are correlated, and the Rigveda is dated to about 7th millennium B.C.24
The astronomical calculations are based on the position of equinoxes as given in the Vedas. Since we know the speed of the movements of the earth and the equinoxes (vernal and autumnal), in view of their relative positions today, the age of the Vedas can be calculated. On the basis of the astronomical data in the Vedas and the Brahmanas, Tilak, Jacoby and Buhler reached the conclusion that the Rigveda is 4500 to 3000 years old. S.B. Dikshit also reached the same conclusion.25 More recently, Filliozat has also supported the views of these noted scholars.26 Indian astronomer, Gorakh Prasad, commented on the whole issue thus:
“If we exclude the possibility of every astronomical notice in Vedic literature being a record of ancient tradition, which is extremely unlikely, we can say that there is strong astronomical evidence that Vedas are older than 2500 B.C. They might be as old as 4000 B.C.”27
In 1953 P.V. Kane, the famous author of the History of Dharmashastra and honoured with Bharat Ratna (the highest civilian award of the Country) for his contributions to the numerous fields concerning Sanskrit, delivered sixteenth Presidential Address to the Indian History Congress at Waltair (now Vishakhapatanam). In this address Kane discussed several issues related to the dating of Rigveda, Aryans and the Harappan civilization. He took up the dating of Rigveda. It may be mentioned that part of Avesta has close affinity to some of the Rigvedic hymns. Avesta has been dated to 800 B.C. by some scholars and therefore, according to those scholars Rigveda cannot be dated much earlier. Talking of philological basis of the dating and it being fixed on the basis of Avesta Kane says:
“The philological argument is quite unreliable; different languages continue to keep intact or develop or change their form and structure in varying period of time. Supposing the date assigned to the Avesta is correct (about which I have great doubts) that is no conclusive reason fro assigning the same date to a similar language cultivated in a different country and in different environment.”28
On the question of the date of Rigveda Kane gives far more importance to the astronomical data in the Rigveda and the Vedic literature. Astronomical data discussed by Kane in his Presidential Address can be summarised as follows:
In a way what P.V. Kane, one of the greatest authority on Vedic and Sanskrit literature, is suggesting is that the Vedic literature has evolved over a period of 6000B.C. to 3000 B.C. On Max Mueller’s chronology of the Rigveda, based on philological evidence, Kane says:
“The cumulative effect of the above-mentioned astronomical observations should far outweigh the purely conjectural and subjective argument of Max-Muller and the so-called philological analogy derived from the supposed date of the Avesta.”29
The astronomical observations and the dates calculated on that basis yield a far more reliable date than the mere speculations made by Max Mueller and his followers. On purely academic grounds, one fails to understand that if even today one is able to calculate correctly the movement of stars and planets and the time eclipses on the basis of Vedic astronomy, then how one can not reach the near-correct date of Rigveda on the basis of the positions of stars given in the Brahmanas and the Rigveda?
Besides astronomical data used for dating of the Rigveda, the evidence of the Sulvasutras in the context of the origin of geometry is very important for the dating of the Rigveda. We are well aware that Sulvasutras, which are the part of Srautsutras, tell us how to make the vedicas for yajnas. On the Sulvasutras, Vibhuti Bhushan Datta30 and Seidenberg31 have done extensive and authentic work, which throws considerable light in fixing a date for the Rigveda. Spending decades on researching the origin and development of Mathematics, Algebra, Geometry, and looking at the evidence from the ancient world – Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mesopatamia, India China, etc.—Seidenberg concludes: “To summarise the argument, the elements of ancient geometry found in Egypt and Babylonia stem from a ritual system of the kind described in Sulvasutras.”32
Most of the scholars working in the field, totally unaffected with the Aryan controversy and the date of Rigveda and its implications, agree with the conclusions arrived at by Seidenberg. According to Seidenberg, Babylonian Geometry belongs to 1960-1600 B.C. and that of Egyptian to 2050-1800. From this point of view it is clear that the Sulvasutras must have been completed much before 2000 B.C. N.S. Rajaram, a renowned mathematician and consultant to prestigious organization like the NASA, has not only done extensive studies but also followed up Seidenberg and Dutt’s researches. Rajaram thinks that the impact of the Sulvasutras can be seen in the structures of even the old Kingdom of Egypt. He writes, “The connection between the mastaba of Egypt’s Old Kingdom and the smasana-cit altar (with its associated rituals) in Baudhayana’s Sulba point to the possibility that the Kalpasutras must have been in existence by 2700 [B.C.E.].”33 Rajaram does not agree with the view that Shatapatha Brahmana and Ashvalayana Grihasutra belongs to two different periods. He thinks that both belong to the Sutra period. Using a large body of astronomical and mathematical evidence, Rajaram thinks that Ashvalayana Grihasutras must have been completed by 3000 B.C. He thinks that the Surta period is from 3000 B.C. to 2150 B.C. during which Shatapatha Brahmana, Asvalayana, Baudhayana, Apstambha, and the Katyayana Sutras were completed. Though to the shorter chronology group these dates may appear very old and look very old, no one has so far challenged the evidence and the conclusions arrived at by Rajaram.
However, one can appreciate the reluctance to accept the older dates for the Rigveda by scholars professing the Christian faith and writing the history of India from that point of view; but it is well nigh impossible to understand why our Marxist historians, who are never tired of eulogizing the scientific approach and the scientific history, are averse to looking into the matter through as near perfect a science as astronomy. And why on the converse, they are tirelessly harping on the speculations and hallucinations coloured by various considerations. Commenting on the importance and validity of the astronomical dating of the Rigveda, Edwin Bryant says:
“The possibility of the Vedic texts being pre-Harappan [i.e. pre 3200 B.C.] has to confront chronological issues. Some of the astronomical proposals – particularly that of the Krittika, as well as the specific information of the chronologically later Jyotisa Vedanga – do not detract from the possibility of the Rigveda existing at a time far earlier than the figure given in textbooks…. In my opinion, here is the crux of the matter. If the texts are accepted as being older than the date presently assigned to them, or if the Indo-Aryan language at least is accepted as being older, then much of the evidence supporting Aryan migrations can be brought into question. Here, again, the decipherment of the script will prove decisive. Since the recent discovery suggests that the script could go back to 3500 B.C.E. (and providing that it encapsulates the same language throughout), an Indo-Aryan decipherment will radically alter the entire indo-European homeland-locating landscape, not the just the proto-history of the subcontinent.”34
The reluctance of Western scholars and Indian Marxist historians to discuss and pursue the line of astronomical dating is well explained by Bryant in the following passage:
“Everything hinges on the date of the Vedas. Indispensable support for the Indigenous position would result if the possibility of a much greater antiquity for the Vedic corpus could be convincingly demonstrated. Indeed, as I have noted in previous chapters, the Indigenous case actually loses plausibility unless such antiquity can be demonstrated. On the other hand, if, as some Indigenous Aryanists would have it, the Rigveda is a thousand or more years older than the date of 1500 B.C.E.… a variety of issues will be affected. Since the Vedic horizons are solidly situated in the Northwest of the subcontinent, a much stronger case could be made supporting an Indo-Aryan presence in, or coexistence with, the Indus Valley Civilization, which shares much of the same horizons in approximately 2500-1900 B.C.E. The whole horse argument becomes less compelling whilst those promoting the Sarasvati evidence become vindicated. In addition, there would be very strong grounds for would-be decipherers to approach the script as containing an Indo-Aryan language.
“If the Rigveda is at least a millennium older….[then] the possibility of Dravidian and/or Munda and/or unknown linguistic influences on Vedic Sanskrit being the result of the speakers of these languages intruding on an Indo-Aryan-speaking area after the other languages had already left, as opposed to vice-versa, become a much more serious considerations. Moreover, the relationship between Vedic and Prot-Indo-European would need to be reconsidered. Any proposal associating the overland trajectory of the Indo-Aryan with the Andronovo culture, a southern Iranian route, or any post-Harappan culture in the sub-continent loses value. For these and other reasons, a much older date for the Veda is foundational to the Indigenous position.”35
So much at stake! How can a theory, so assiduously built over a period of 200 years for so many reasons – religious, ideological, political, racial, and so on – be abandoned just to assign an older date to a book which had put the very core of Christianity in question?! How can the hard labour put in by 19th and early 20th century’s ‘great Sanskritists’ and ‘Indologists’ be declared wrong! It may be a good idea to take a last look at what these ‘great’ scholars had to say about the Vedas and other Sanskrit literature. I shall illustrate it with the help of Max Mueller alone. In his A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (1860, reprinted in 1978), Mueller writes:
“No one would have supposed that at so early a period, and in so primitive a state of society, there could have risen a literature (the Vedas) which for pedantry and downright absurdity can hardly be matched anywhere… The general character of these works is marked by shallow and insipid grandiloquence, by priestly conceit, and antiquarian pedantry… These works deserve to be studied as the physician studies the twiddles of idiots, and the ravings of a madman.”36
At another place, a series of lectures, Max Muller says of the Vedas:
“Large number of the Vedic hymns are childish in the extreme: tedious, low, commonplace… I remind you again that the Veda contains a great deal of what is childish and foolish.”37
“My object in quoting these passages is simple to show the lowest level of Vedic thought. In no other literature do we find a record of the world’s real childhood to be compared with that of the Veda. It is easy to call these utterances Childish and absurd. They are childish and absurd.”38
Compare the above utterances of Max Mueller with the paragraph quoted below, from the very same series of lectures from which the above two quotations have been taken:
“There are some portions of the Bible which, I believe, most Christians would not be sorry to miss. But that is nothing in comparison to the absurd and even revolting stories occurring in Sanskrit books which are called sacred. In that respect it is quite true that there is no comparison between our own sacred book, the New Testament, and the Sacred Books of the East.
“It would be simply dishonest on my part were I to hide my conviction that the religion taught by Christ, and free as yet from all ecclesiastical fences and entrenchments, is the best, the purest and the truest religion the world has ever seen.” 39
Max Mueller is so drunk on his newly acquired status and scholarship that he does not hesitate even terming Sayana, a 14th-century sage and the last commentator on the Vedas, as absurd, while the world of Sanskrit scholarship accepts that Sayana was the last in the line of great seers. Max Muller writes:
“It was soon found out, however, that highly useful, nay indispensable, as the traditional interpretation of Sayana might be, it was in many places quite impossible to follow him, because the true meaning was too clear, and that adopted by Sayana too absurd.”40
Notes and References
1. Max Mueller, 1859, A History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 218, (reprinted in 1968, Varanasi).
2. ibid., p. 395.
3. ibid., p. 525.
4. T. Goldstrucker, 1860, Panini, pp. 80-91, (reprinted in 1965, Varanasi).
5. H.H. Wilson, 1860, ‘Max Muller’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature’, Edinburgh Review, Vol. 112, p.376.
52a. H. Jacoby, 1884, ‘Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Vedischen Chronologie’ Nachrichten von der Konigl Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, pp. 105-15; ‘On the Antiquity of Vedic Culture’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, pp. 721-26; ‘On the Antiquity of Vedic Culture’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, pp. 456-67.
6. M.A. Winternitz, 1907, History of Indian Literature, p. 310, (reprinted in 1962, Calcutta).
7. Max Mueller,.
8. ibid. p. 91.
9. Max Mueller, 1887, Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas, p.87, (reprinted in 1985, Delhi).
10. AtharvaVeda. 11.3.7; 9.5.4.
11. Shatapatha Brahmana.
12. R. Tewari, ‘The Origin of iron-working in India: new evidence from the central Ganga Plains and the Eastern Vindyas, pp. 536-45, Se also Pragdhara, Vol. 7, pp. 77-95; Vol. 8, pp. 99-105; Vol. 10, pp. 69-98; Vol. 12, pp. 99-116; Vol. 14.
13. R.S. Sharma, Ancient India: A Textbook for class XI, pp. 77-83, NCERT, New Delhi; See also R.S. Sharma, 1983, Material Culture and Social Formations in the Ganga Plains, New Delhi.
14. G.L. Possehl, 1999, ‘Early Iron Age in South Asia’, pp. 153-77, In V. Piggott (ed.), The Archaeometallurgy of Asian world, Philadelphia.
16. S.R. Rao, 1985, Lothal, Vol. II, New Delhi.
17. G.L. Possehl, 1999, ‘Early Iron Age in South Asia’, pp. 153-77, In V. Piggott (ed.), The Archaeometallurgy of Asian world, Philadelphia
18. M.A. Winternitz , 1907, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 256, (reprinted in 1962), Calcutta.
19. J. Sylvain Bailley, 1805, Histoire de l’astronomie ancienne et moderne, p. 53, Paris (reprinted in 1977)
20. J. Bentley, 1825, A Historical View of the Hindu Astronomy, p. xxvii, (reprinted in 1981, Delhi)
21. B. G. Tilak, 1925, The Orion, Poona, See also B.G. Tilak, 1925, Vedic Chronology and Vedanga Jyotish, Poona.
22. H. Jacoby, 1909, ‘On the antiquity of Vedic culture’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, pp. 221-226; and 1910, On the antiquity of Vedic culture’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, pp.456-467.
23. G. Buehler, 1884, ‘Note of Professor Jacobi’s Age of the Veda and on Professoe Tilak’s Orion’, Indian Antiquary, Vol. 23, pp. 238-49
24. History of Astronomy in India, 1985, Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi.
25. S.B. Dikshit, 1885, ‘The Age of Satapatha Brahmana’ Indian Antiquary, Vol. 24, pp. 245-46.
26. J. Filliozat, 1969, ‘Notes on Ancient Iranian and Indian astronomy’, Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Research Iinstitute, Vol. 45, pp. 100-135.
27. Gorakh Prasad, 1935, ‘Astronomical evidence on the Age of the Vedas’ Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol. 21, pp. 121-36.
28. P.V. Kane, 1953, ‘Presidential Address’ Indian History Congress: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Session, p.10
29. Ibid. p.11.
30. B.V. Datta, 1932, The Science of Sulva: A Study in the Early Hindu Geometry, Calcutta.
31. A. Seidenberg, 1962, ‘The ritual origin of geometry’ Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 1, pp. 448-527; A. Seidenberg, 1978, ‘The origin of mathematics’ Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 18, pp. 301-42.
32. A. Seidenberg, 1962, ‘The ritual origin of geometry’ Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 1, p. 515.
33. N.S. Rajaram and D. Frawley, 1995, Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization, p. 89, Quebec.
34. Edwin Bryant, 2001, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, p. 301, Oxford.
35. ibid. pp. 238-39.
36. Max Mueller, 1860, A History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 389 (reprinted in 1978, New Delhi.
37. Max Mueller, 1890, Physical Religion, London, (reprinted in 1979, New Delhi).
38. ibid. pp. 102.
39. ibid, p. 127.
40. ibid, p. 102.