Dear Scholars,

The following is a response to the ‘feedback’of Prof. R N Iyengar (RNI) on my article :

The Mahabharata War : its date on the basis of Astronomical References

Chapter 7 in Origin of Indian Civilization (Ed) Bal Ram Singh ISBN 13: 78-81-246-0560-8

First published in India in 2010 DK Printworld (P) Ltd, New Delhi, India.

This ‘feedback’ is nothing but a scathing attack on my article and it gives me an opportunity to defend my case in front of this august body. RNI attacks the data, the methodology, the supporting evidence and the conclusions of the paper. He accuses me of ‘text torturing and distortion’, hints at a hidden agenda ‘upholding the doctrine that the date of the Mahabharata war should match with the Siddhantic Kaliyuga start of 3102 BCE’. He appears to be very rational and dispassionate, but in reality RNI attempts to destroy my credibility completely. This is not the first time the learned professor has aired criticisms, but this is the first time in this forum and has brought in some new points in addition to repeating some of the same old criticisms of his earlier attacks in other forums. My response this time may not satisfy RNI nor stop his attacks, but at least this forum will see my side of the argument and then come to a judgement.

The purpose of my paper as indicated by the title is to arrive at a possible date for the Mahabharata (MB) war on the basis of astronomical information contained in the epic. This is to be supported by display of sky maps of various dates generated by computer software called the Planetarium software. As RNI himself remarks a working knowledge of elementary astronomy is all that is required to view sky maps a given site and time of one’s choice (of course, within certain limits of the software). Combined with an elementary concepts of jyotisha such as tithi, nakshatra equinoxes, solstices, eclipses, conjunctions and pro and retrograde motion, one can investigate and enjoy the astronomical lore hidden in the ancient texts. It may be pointed out that I was among the first to discover and apply this tool to study ancient Indian astronomy and to date texts such as the shatapatha brahmana nearly 15 years ago in several well documented publications such as Indian Journal of History of Science, Annals of BORI, among others. I have also discussed in great detail the limitations of using the eclipse data in simulations with the Planetarium software in several publications.

I will first respond to the newer points in RNI’s comments and take up his older criticisms later. He makes light of the fact that he himself uses some of the same data, (shani at Rohini, angaraka performed vakra motion before Jyeshtha, a lunar eclipse and a solar eclipse) same tools ( planetarium software) but arrives at a date of 1478( ± 1) BCE for the MB war. He opens with the statement that the weakness of my paper is the absence of textual criticism to first establish the reliability or otherwise of the data used as input to the software. This in his opinion leads to assumptions which are later asserted as proved or demonstrated and leaves a trail which becomes ‘glaringly evident when the author assumes in the Bhishmaparvan of MB planets to be comet apparitions whenever the text is found to be inconvenient for

his thesis (emphasis by me)’. He lays the foundation for the latest points of his criticism with the following:

One of his interpretative basis is contained in his claim “…astronomical references in the BhishmaParva

and the Udyoga Parva……form a very consistent set and in the context of omens as indicating impending

calamities, agree closely with the tradition of omens in Atharvaveda and its Parishishthas. By the latter

he means the Atharvaveda-parishishtha (AVP) which he quotes in many places without critical analysis,

under the assumption that it is more ancient than the epic MB.

But, AVP contains statements which were possible only in the last centuries of the first millennium BCE. It

does not have any chapter or verses known as yuddhalalakshanam. The only yuddha or war that AVP

knows is chapter 51 named grahayuddham referring to conjunction and circling of planets among

themselves. There is also a portent of bidala-uluka-yuddha, i.e. skirmish between cats and owls (AVP

64.6.9). The table presented as a comparison between MB and AVP can hardly be taken as textual

analysis.

RNI reproduces the verse (64.5.7) from AVP that I have quoted, and declares that this verse is in no way specific to predicting war. Further he asserts that verses (61.1.4) and (61.1.6) are about clouds and rainfall, have nothing to do with war and are in no way relevant for interpreting the astronomy of the Epic.

He refers to the third citation from eclipses AVP(53.5. 1-2) and makes some disparaging comment about the citation being incomplete and declares that it is an omen for fire accidents and not a portent for great war among kings. Thus the use of AVP is worthless in his opinion.

The text of AVP that I have quoted from was edited by Ram Kumar Rai who rendered the text of AVP, originally edited by by Bolling and Negelein, into Devanagari and provided a Hindi snippet at the beginning of each chapter. He also added at the end a uddharanasuchi and a shabdanukramanika. As far as I know, it is likely to be the only text on AVP available in India. Probably none of the original manuscripts is available in India. RNI must have seen the same text as I have.

A scanned copy of contents of the chapter 64 in AVP below clearly shows that this is a Vedic tradition as it is according to the teachings of the Rishis Angira and Ushana. In particular the section AVP (64. 5.6)- AVP( 64.6.1), containing six verses, is clearly labeled Yuddhasuchaka lakshana, signs indicating war. A scanned copy of these verses is also displayed. The verse (64.5.7) falls in this range and is practically identical to the verse from Bhishmaparva as discussed in my paper.

Thus AVP (64.5.7) is very pertinent to predicting war. The next three verses that I quote in my paper are about pariveshas(halos). They are AVP (61.1.14), (61.1.15) and (61.1.16). Due an inadvertent typo they were labeled as (61.1.4), (61.1.15) and (61.1.15), but the quoted verses are textually correct. A scan of these verses is given below.

RNI asserts that these verses are about rainfall and in no way pertain to the astronomy of the epic. It is true that they appear to be about rainfall. However, according to Rai, pariveshas can also be indicative of war.

Rai states at the beginning of Chapter 63, Nakshatra grahotpata lakshanam that a more useful heading for this chapter would have been Pariveshalakshanam and that pariveshas (halos) can also be indicative of war as expressly stated in AVP( 63.2.4).

This negates the comment of RNI that pariveshas have nothing to do with war. I would like to point out that Rai has interpreted ‘Shastra’ to mean yuddha (war) in all the verses quoted. This is important for the citation from AVP (53.5.1-2) about eclipses. “tamrobhavati shastraya” ….that the coppery color indicates war.

The dotted line was used not for indicating missing words, but only to draw attention to words that are identical in both AVP and MB (the quotation was not from a manuscript but a printed text). It is clear therefore that all the quotations from AVP are about indicators of war and are practically identical to those in MB.

The text of AVP we have today may be a text later than the MB, but it contains the teachings of the ancient sages. A glimpse of this may help understand the text of MB. But it does not mean that I have assumed that the available text of AVP is older than MB. I have used MW Dictionary to understand the various meanings of the word graha, in interpreting the verses from MB, but not because I assume that MW Dictionary is more ancient than the epic.

It is disappointing that the Professor at the Center for Ancient History and Culture has resorted to the same techniques as those used by some of the scholars of the Indology fame from Whitney to Witzel. He first denies the evidence, ridicules and then throws a red herring. RNI can quote the title Utpatalakshana for chapter 64 of AVP, but miss the subtitle “Yuddhasuchaka lakshana” for the section AVP(64.5.6-6.1), and emphatically deny that there are any verses in AVP to indicate war. He asserts that the only war known is grahayuddha. But I have shown that all these references are about real war. The remarks regarding AVP as not containing accented mantras and referring to a foreign currency dinara and the allusion to the skirmish between cats and owls can bring the house down if they were made by a comedian. Seriously the date of AVP is immaterial. It does contain the teachings of ancient Vedic sages and thus helps to understand the verses in MB, just as the use of MW Dictionary can help to clarify the meaning of some word. The date of the MB war is determined from the elements found in the epic itself and not by the date of AVP or Brihatsamhita . These and other points in RNI’s feedback will be addressed in due course.

Regards

Narahari Achar

Response to RNI’s Feedback:Part II

Dear Scholars,

This is the continuation of my response to RNI’s feedback on my article in the book “Origin of Indian Civilization.” In the previous part, I had argued that one can understand the ‘astronomical (rather astrological) references in MB from the demonstrated evidence in AVP for omens indicating war in the form of halos around the sun and the moon and that this is a Vedic tradition going back to the teachings of Angira and ushana and furthermore, the actual date ascribed to the extant text of AVP is not a factor. In this post I will address the other points raised by RNI. These are not new but had been raised (and responded to) earlier, but this time the points are expressed in six paragraphs copiously mixed with spicy comments. The polemics are so pervasive as to even obscure the main points. These points arise mainly in connection with the astronomical references in Udyogaparva and Bhishmaparva and can be broadly classified into two groups, those concerned with genuine astronomical events as such and those concerned primarily with interpretation of certain terms such as graha.

The problem of the meaning of the words arises in the Bhishmaparva in the context of omens. As discussed in my paper in BORI i the astronomical references in this parva occur mainly in four separate segments:

(a) Shlokas (20-23) of chapter 2: Vyaasa impresses upon Dhritaraashtra that there is an imminent war; these have already been discussed in the first part of my response to RNI.

(b) the second segment (2.32) ; (c) shlokas (3. 11-17) ; and (d) shlokas (3. 24-29). These will be addressed below.

Regarding the ‘astronomical’ events, RNI says:

“BNA assumes that Karna was able to predict a forthcoming solar eclipse. What is the basis for this ad

hoc assumption? Further he takes that this was near star jyeshtha which is nowhere mentioned to be

so in MB. The argument of BNA that there was a lunar eclipse on kārtika-pūrnimā and a solar eclipse

in jyeshthā star is an extrapolation in the realm of possibility but not attested by the MB text. Figure

4 is supposed to represent a solar eclipse on 14th October 3067 BCE. But was this visible in

Kurukshetra? Similarly Fig.8 is claimed to represent a lunar eclipse on 29th September of the same

year. One has to just believe the author for this assertion. Results obtained from other planetarium

software do not support the author’s claim. These and such other issues casting doubts on the results

of the author have been raised earlier also (Chandra Hari 2003). But BNA has remained reluctant to

subject his results to alternate methods of computations which are openly available to anyone

seriously interested in scientific archaeoastronomy.”

Krishna starts from Upaplavya nagara on his mission of peace on the day of Revati nakshatra in the month of Kartika at the maitri muhurta. This much is uncontested statement from Udyogaparva in MB. (“maître muhurte….kaumudemaasi…revatyaam” MB (V. 81.6-7) The dotted line is just for picking out only the relevant words, not that the text is missing!). He arrives at Hastinapura on the day of Bharani, thus he is in Hastinapura on Kartika Pornima (on which day the Moon is near Krittika).

He leaves Hastinapura on the day of Uttaraphalguni and he is accompanied by Karna. The phase of the moon is just about third quarter(Krishna ashtami). It is on that day that Krishna utters the famous shloka:

“saptamachchaapi divasaad amaavaasyaa bhavishyati

Sangraamo yujyataam tasyaam tamaahuh shakradevataam” MB (V.140.18)

He is referring to the upcoming ammavaasya in seven days and the adhidevata of the nakshatra is Indra. So he is referring to Jyeshtha nakshatra. One can also count seven nakshatras from uttaraphalguni to arrive at Jyeshtha for the new moon day. There cannot be any doubt as to the New Moon day at Jyeshtha. It is also then that Karna says

“somasya lakshma vyaavrittam raahurarkamupeshyati” MB(V. 141.10)

“somasya lakshma vyaavrittam” is generally taken to referring to a lunar eclipse, which had taken place on the kartika pornima, a few days before. A very similar statement occurs in Bhishma parva, when Vyaasa says “alakshe prabhayaahinam paurnamaasiimcha kaartikiim” MB(VI. 2. 23). Clearly this refers to the lunar eclipse on the full moon of Kaartika. Then Karna says ‘raahurarkamupeshyati’ meaning that there is going to be a solar eclipse , which can happen only on the new moon day and the coming New moon day is Jyeshtha amaavaasya. That there was a lunar eclipse on Kaartika Pornima followed by a solar eclipse at Jyeshtha nakshatra is thus well attested by the text of MB. RNI’s comment about making an ad hoc assumption about the ability of Karna to predict a solar eclipse (which is only possible with modern astronomical calculations, by implication) is clearly off the mark. Karna was not using any omens to predict the eclipse, knowledge of soros cycles was long prevalent thousands of years before the Greek discovery as attested by the stones of StoneHenge. The solar eclipse is the omen Karna is talking about. There was a lunar eclipse on Kartika pornima and it was followed by a solar eclipse at Jyeshtha. In my opinion, this is fully attested by the text in MB, just quoted. RNI does not accept this.

Then he questions the sky maps from Planetarium software for Sept 29, 3067 BCE and for Oct 14, 3067 BCE. He says that the Lunar eclipse is an assertion and asks whether the solar eclipse was visible at Kurukshetra. When eclipse calculations for times long gone by are made, the positions of the Sun, the Moon and the earth are determined by solving certain equations with codes extrapolating over long periods of time. For visibility calculations accurate knowledge of a certain quantity called DeltaT(= difference between what is called Terrestrial Time and Universal Time) is essential. However, when calculations are extrapolated to BCE years, there is an uncertainty in Delta T itself. In 1500 BCE, Delta T is about 10 hours, but the uncertainty is about 2.7 hours. When extrapolated to 3000 BCE, the values of Delta T range from 18.3 hours to 27.3 hours, the uncertainty grows to 9 hours in the estimates of Delta T. As a consequence, the location of the eclipse becomes uncertain. This uncertainty is inherent in any calculation and cannot be avoided. There is no way one can definitely answer ‘is this eclipse visible?’ without pointing to the uncertainty. The implications are obvious when the maximum duration of a total solar eclipse is little over 7 minutes at any location but the uncertainty is several hours. Again in 1500 BCE, the situation is somewhat better, but still one cannot be certain about the visibility of

an eclipse at a given location. RNI knows all this, but he still raises the question whether the solar eclipse on Oct 14, 3067 BCE was actually visible at Kurukshetra. All that the calculations can do is to show that an eclipse occurred, which will be certain, but leave the question of visibility unanswered.

Further, RNI says

“Only one planet namely, Saturn near star rohini (Aldebaran) sighted by Karna and Krishna in the

udyogaparvan has to be taken as a real observation. Even though Karna meant that Mars was visible

near star anūrādhā after having retrograded under Jyeshtha, it has to be taken to mean that on the

conversation night it was well past anūrādhā. This special pleading, not voiced by the author, is

essential since as per the planetarium software results shown, Mars would have been near star

śravana and invisible to Karna and Krishna on the night of 8th October 3067 BCE.”

RNI also accepts the planetary position of Saturn near rohini and Mars becoming retrograde near Jyeshtha in his own paper. But his interpretation that (i)Karna meant that Mars was visible near anuuraadha after having retrograded under jyeshtha and that (ii) according to the software Mars is near shravana and invisible to Karna and Krishna on the night of October 8, 3067 BCE are both astronomically wrong.

For, on Oct. 8, 3067 BCE the Sun is shown to be near Anuuraadhaa in the skymap (the Sun has to reach Jyeshtha in seven days). If Mars were also near Anuuraadhaa, Mars would be in conjunction with the Sun. Mars would be ‘asta’ and would not be visible at all. Now, Mars is in fact near shravana as shown by the software on October 8, 3067 BCE, rises at 11:23 am, sets at 9:45 pm at Delhi. The Sun sets at 6:35 pm, so Mars would be visible on that night, as an evening star, contrary to RNI’s assertion.

Chandrahari, whom RNI cites also had made similar remarks about the occurrence and visibility of eclipses and about the retrograde motion of Mars. The astronomical impossibility of his statements had also been pointed out earlier.

Next I will address the issue of interpreting the word graha. This mainly concerns the references of segment (c). RNI says:

BNA has no qualms in taking śanaiścara as Saturn in one place (MB V.141.7) but as a comet a few

verses later in the same book. His main effort is to somehow interpret conflicting statements about

planets as referring to comets. He claims “Vyāsa leaves no doubt to the fact that in bhīs%%%%maparvan,

the word graha refers to a comet……” That BNA is writing without evidence will be clear to any one

taking the trouble to read the original text. In the bhīs%%%%maparvan the word graha appears some

twenty times. Since the word is a generic one, it could be used to refer to comets. But it is not

exclusively reserved for comets as claimed. In the bhīs%%%%maparvan (3.29) quoted by BNA, the word

refers to Sun and Moon. In (13.40) it refers to Rāhu, the eclipse causer. In (17.2) seven grahas are

mentioned, which obviously cannot all be taken to be comets. In (96.35-36) the grahas are said to five

in number and affecting Sun and Moon. About the nomenclature of comets, BNA likes to take support

from Varāha-mihira. Varāha in the Br%%%%hat-samhitā on Ketucāra clearly says he is borrowing his

information from Garga, Parāśara, Asita and Devala. So what is the relevance of comets of Br%%%%hat-

samhitā for the astronomy of MB? It is true that ancient writers describe some groups of comets or

meteorites as grahaputrāh%%%% (planet-children). Hence sūryaputra might mean a comet in MB instead

of Saturn as in later traditions. But the statement “…he also refers to the comets by the name of the

parent planets, i.e., Jupiter to indicate the comet son of Jupiter” is a figment of imagination. The

difficulties of BNA are clearly with the position of Jupiter and Saturn said to be near viśākha. The

relevant verses are

grahau tāmrārun%%%%aśikhau prajvalantāviva sthitau|

saptar%%%%s%%%%īn%%%%ām udārān%%%%ām samavacchādya vai prabhām||

samvatsarasthāyinau ca grahau prajvalitāvubhau |

viśākhayoh%%%% samīpasthau br%%%%haspatiśanaiścarau||

The first half-verse which is quoted by BNA, could refer to comet bodies as claimed. But these were

near U. Major in the northern sky as can be understood from the context in second half which the

learned author conveniently forgets to quote. His claim of Jupiter and Saturn being names of comets

in the second verse above is negated as these two objects are qualified as being year-long stationary

near the ecliptic stars viśākha. These two celestial objects br%%%%haspati and śanaiścara are said to be

bright and shining. This does not in any way mean Vyāsa intends them to be comets of that name.

The meaning of the words can be recognized by the context and by lakshanaa vriti- (one of the three abhidhaa, lakshanaa and vyanjanaa), whenever there is ‘obstruction to the principal meaning’, mukhyaarthabaadha. The principal meaning for graha is planet. Shanaishchara is near rohini according to MB(V. 141.7) (udyogaparva, Karna Krishna samvaada) and MB( VI.2.32) (Bhishmaparva, Vyaasa Dhritaraashtra samvaada). If one were to take Shanaishchara also to be at vishaakha, this would result in an astronomical absurdity. Thus there is mukhyaarthabaadha. Hence by lakshanaa the indicative meaning comet has to be accepted. RNI concedes that the reference to comets applies only for the first half of the shloka just quoted. He argues that the second half of the shloka refers to a phenomenon near Ursa Major and asserts that it does not refer to the Jupiter and Saturn, brihaspatishanaishcharau. A little reflection would show all the words from grahau taamraarunashikhau…..all the way through brihaspashanaishcharau in the four padas quoted are in dvivachana and hence must be epithets of brihaspatishanaishcharau and hence mean the pair of comets of the same name. The second pada of the shloka simply describes the brightness of these comets in comparison and not some unspecified phenomenon at U. major.

Contrary to what RNI says, it is not at all claimed that graha is exclusively reserved for comets. It is only when there is mukhyaarthabaadha that lakshanaa requires the meaning comet to be used. The relevance of Brihatsamhita is precisely that Varaahamihira borrows his information in ketuchaara from Garga, Paraashara, Asita and Devala. All these are well known characters in MB, and recognized as experts in jyotisha. The claim is that the same information is also reflected in the accounts of Vyaasa. Twelve specific names (shveta, dhumaketu, mahagraha, parusha, paavaka, dhuuma, lohitaanga, shyaama,ghora, dhruvaketu, tiivra and paavakaprabha) used by Vyaasa can be found in Varaahamihira.

RNI adds:

“ The further specious claim of BNA is that the purported usage of denoting the son by the name of

the father “….is quite according to Sanskrit grammar”. If it is so, the author should have supported his

claim with justifications from an authoritative text on Sanskrit grammar. In the absence of such

support his statement is just a piece of empty rhetoric. The author adds the phrase “son of” in front of

every planet the position of which proves inconvenient to his preconceived chronology. This type of

wishful translation is as good as deriding the original composer of the Epic for lack of vocabulary.”

Brihatsamhita is relevant in this context also. The point is that the ancient astronomers named certain groups of comets as grahaputras , i.e., sons of planets. This is also the modern practice of referring to comets, for example, low period comets the Aphelia of whose orbits( farthest points of approach to the Sun) lie within the orbit of Saturn are referred to as belonging to Saturn family. Those comets whose Aphelia lie within the orbit of Jupiter are referred to as belonging to the Jupiter family. Thus sons of Jupiter , in the terminology of ancient Indian astronomers would refer to this group of comets. At times, these comets are referred to not as sons of Brihaspati, but simply as Brihaspati. The meaning can be recognized by context and by lakshanaa. This interpretation is also given by Mohan Guptaii , who says, “at times these comets, sons of Saturn, Jupiter, or Venus have been referred to not as their sons but simply as Brihaspatih (Jupiter), Shanaishcharah (Saturn), or shukrah(Venus) which can be recognized by context and the meaning becomes clear by lakshanaa vriti”. This is no deriding of the great Vyaasa, but appreciating the wisdom of the sage in preserving the information.

That there were probably many instances of impact of unusually large number of comets and asteroids in the past have been discussed by scholars like Korbes, Napier, Verschuur and others in several workshops conducted by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies. RNI himself has contributed to the field.

Of course, the word graha has its principal meaning in segment (d), (shloka (3.29)), where the context is the occurrence of solar and lunar eclipses.

Finally, RNI says:

“ In conclusion, those who passionately hold on to the doctrine that the MB war date should match

with the siddhāntic astronomical Kaliyuga start of 3102 BCE, will have to unconditionally subscribe to

the author’s approach of text torturing and distortion. Others will easily infer that whatever may be

the real date of Krishna and MB war, the naked eye astronomical observations mentioned in MB do

not historically belong to 3067 BCE.”

It will be interesting to add a historical note. When I first started on this project of dating the Mahabharata war using the planetarium software, the computer facilities and the software capabilities were meager by today’s standards. I could project the view of the sky, but only the part above the horizon and little much else. I started out using the tool as just a discriminating device. I chose a set of data mainly from the Udyogaparva alone (lunar eclipse on kartika pornima, solar eclipse at Jyeshtha, Saturn at Rohini, Mars retrograde near Jyeshtha ) , Krishna’s journey on revati, Kartika masa, Karna’s ride with Krishna on Uttaraphalguni; added Bhishma’s expiry on the maagha shuddha ashtami after winter solstice. These were my benchmark astro-facts. They were chosen as the benchmark, because they were most specific, least controversial and very close to the war itself. If in any year these occurred, it would be a possible year. If not, that date could be rejected. I did not use any data from Bhishmaparva, which I thought was too controversial, for all scholars had rejected the data as astronomically inconsistent, contradictory and confusing. I chose as test dates the dates given by the works of Kochar, Sidharth, Sengupta and

Raghavan, because they were astrophysicists or mathematicians and Sanskrit scholars and also because these dates represent the spread and principal anchor points regarding the date of the war. I found only Raghavan’s date (3067 BCE) agreeing with the benchmark data and none of the others. I reported this findingiii very cautiously at the International Conference on the Mahabharata held at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada in May 2001. I had no axe to grind and I would have accepted any other date from many authors that I actually tested, but did not report. I felt convinced that 3067 BCE would be the most possible date from the astro-data of the Epic. The next few years I spent in trying to understand the references in Bhishma parva and saw the consistency and a unique solution to the problem of the date of the war. I have not resorted to ‘text torturing and distortion’ as accused by RNI, but have tried to find samanvaya with lakshana,etc.

RNI himself accepts two of the important planetary configurations, Shani at Rohini, and Angaraka going vakri nearJyeshtha. If he accepts a lunar eclipse on Kartika Pornima or a solar eclipse at Jyeshtha, then he cannot escape the unique solution to the problem of the date of the war. His date 1478 BCE fails the benchmark test data.

I have placed my arguments in front of this forum. 3067 BCE uniquely satisfies the astro-data of MB.

Regards

Narahari Achar

i B. N. Narahari Achar, “On Astronomical references in Vyaasa-Dhritaraashtra samvaada in the Bhishmaparvan of

Mahaabhaarata”Annals of BORI, LXXXIV (2003)pp13-22. ii Mohan Gupta, “The Date of the Mahabharata war Puranic and Astronomical evidence” in Mahabharata the end

of an Era (yuganta), (ed) Ajay Mitra Shastri, Aryan Books International, New Delhi (2004) pp 41-57. iii B. N. Narahari Achar, ‘Planetarium Software and the date of the Mahabharata War’ in The Mahabharata: What is

not here is no where else,(ed) T. S. Rukmani, Munshiram Mohanlal Publishers, New Delhi (2005) pp 247-263.