Origin of Saptarshi Cycle and Its Implications

Saptarshi Cycle is often mentioned in ancient Indian literature when dealing with chronological tables.

The paper ‘Saptarshi’s visit to different Nakshatras: Subtle effect of Earth’s precession’ by Aniket Sule, Mayank Vahia , Hrishikesh Joglekar, Sudha Bhujle deals with the origin of this cycle.

As Sule et al point out, the so called ‘Saptarshi Cycle’ is a non-existent one as far as astronomy is concerned. They have pin pointed the origin of this idea to the period 2200 – 2100 BCE (the period of Mature Harappan). Keeping their findings in mind, we try to map out the possible period of Puranic literature and the period of Mahabharata. We also take into account the fact that Puranas are multi layered texts and that the earliest date of the compilation of Purana cannot be found on the basis of Saptarshi Cycle.


The most famous statements found in the Puranas and Brhat Samhita etc regarding the Saptarshi cycle is that Emperor Yudhishtira ruled on the earth when the Saptarshi were in Magha. In Vishnu Purana, it is claimed that Parikshit is a contemporary of the author and that the Saptarshi were in Magha during that period..

In the paper cited above, it is shown that Saptarshi were in Magha (Regulus) during 300(+ / - 25) BCE. It is also shown that Saptarshi were in the adjacent stars of Magha (considered by some to be a part of ‘Magha’ division) from about 1000 BCE itself.

Now that we know the period when Saptarshi were in Magha, shall we say that the period of Emperor Yudhishtira must be the first millennium BCE. Such a claim would be questionable and entirely baseless due to the following reasons:

Vishnu Purana ( IV.24.104) states that between Parikshit and Nanda, 1500 years passed (the correction made by Pargiter is accepted as it is in keeping with the periods of various dynasties specified in IV.23 and IV.24).
IV.24.112 of Vishnu Purana states that when the Saptarshi were in Purvashada, Nandas ruled (The periods given for various Maghada Kings in IV.23.13 and IV.24.8&19 show a difference of 1500 years between Parikshit and Nanda. But the present verse gives only 1000 years as the difference as there are only 10 nakshatras from Magha to Purvashada. I think that the correct reading must be ‘Purva Bhadhra(pada)’/'Purva Proshta').
We can understand, from the above two points, that the chapters IV.23 and IV.24 were written a long time after the Mahabharata War and even the period of Nanda.
The royal chronicles are recorded on the basis of Saptarshi Cycle (in the Puranas) to enable easy remembrance of the time line and period of the various dynasties.
Therefore, the only thing we can be somewhat sure about is that the above mentioned chapters must have been written when the Saptarshi were in Magha.
The author specifically states so in Vishnu Purana IV.24.106 when he says that during the reign of Parikshit, the Saptarshi were in Magha. It has to be noted that in IV.20.52-53, the author claims to live in the period of Parikshit.
We also know that the Saptarshi Cycle is astronomically impossible and hence, we can say that during the composition of these chapters, the Saptarshi must have been in Magha or else the author would not have elaborated on it very much. Neither would he have tried to give the exact nakshatra period during which Nanda(Mahapadma) ruled. Because the Saptarshi have never visited the Purvashada/Purvabhadra anytime in the past 10,000 years.


On the basis of the above mentioned issues, we try to find out the basis on which the nakshatra periods of Parikshit and Nanda have been arrived at.


On the basis of the above points, we consider that the author must have arrived at the nakshatra period of Emperors Yudhishtira and Parikshit by back calculation providing a nakshatra for every 100 or so years. There is no other way in which the author could have made the statements regarding the nakshatra periods.
The only possibility is that the author had, based on the periods of various kings provided by the chronicles which he had used, estimated the time of Parikshit to be some 27 odd centuries before his time and hence, concluded that the Saptarshi were in Magha during the period of Emperor Parikshit.
Similarly, with the prior knowledge that some 1500 years (or 1015 according to some) had passed between Parikshit and Nanda, he must have calculated the Nakshatra period of Nanda.
The above points also point out how the anomaly between the traditional date and that provided by Kalhana for the period of Emperor Yudhishtira could have occurred.
Being based on unscientific assumptions, the determination of Saptarshi Cycle’s exact nakshatra during a period became a very confusing issue and the opinions of the astronomers varied as shown by Al-Beruni (Chapter 44 of Al-Beruni’s India).
Hence, we may conclude that Saptarshi Cycle was used for chronological purposes as it allowed the Puranic editors to give different names to each century and enabled them to easily remember the time line and period of various dynasties. Therefore, to give these nakshatra positions undue importance (like claiming that Parikshit ruled when the Saptarshi were ‘literally’ in Magha and that Nanda ruled when they ‘were in’ Purvashada/Purvabhadra) would lead us nowhere. In short, the data relating to the nakshatra positions in the Saptarshi Cycle cannot be treated as an ‘astronomical proof’ in any manner to determine the date of the Mahabharata or the different dynasties.

P.S. Asko Parpola has claimed that the ‘fish signs’ found at IVC refer to the Saptarshi. On the basis of the paper cited above, we conclude that it is highly probable. The idea of the 100 year nakshatra period could have been formed only during the Mature Harappan period as shown in that paper.

But Parpola identifies the IVC as Dravidian. He interprets the fish sign as referring to star based on the fact that ‘meen’ in Tamil means both fish and star.

On the basis of the above identification, shall we say that the IVC is definitely Dravidian?? The answer will be ‘No’. Because even in the Rgveda, the night sky has been compared to the ocean (But I don’t subscribe to Prof Witzel’s ridiculous theory that the Vedic people did not know the real ‘samudra’). Such comparison/identification is purely metaphorical. Being so, the Vedic people could easily compare the stars of the sky to the fishes of the ocean just as the Dravidians could use ‘fish sign’ for star based on the common word ‘meen’. Hence, one need not consider the identification (which is highly probable) made by Parpola to be a definite proof for the IVC being Dravidian.