Subject: Re: [HM] Indian astronomy and mathematics
From: Kim Plofker (Kim_Plofker@Brown.edu)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2000 - 23:45:39 EST
Milo Gardner said:
> Kim's citation of The Journal for the History of Astronomy, Pingree
> and Neugebauer may be of interest to Dinesh. Having read this
> journal, and reading its back issues, Pingree and Neugebauer
> 'debated' for 17 years. I use the word 'debate' advisedly,
> since Neugebauer 'forced' Pingree to issue a 'public apolopy'
> on a point that Neugebauer had to retract in 1989.
>
> Neugebauer had taken a pro-Hellene position, one base on
> 'feelings' and NOT fact, and therefore a 1989 acceptance
> of Pingree's 1972 point was finally submitted.
Milo, would you provide specific references for this "apology" and
"retraction"? I have looked through the back issues of the _JHA_
and found no evidence there of such a "debate" in 1972 or in 1989;
Pingree did publish there in 1972 a paper on "Precession and Trepidation
in Indian Astronomy", but I had not heard that this sparked a controversy
with Neugebauer, his friend and colleague until the latter's death in
early 1990. Any further information would be appreciated.
Dinesh Maheshwari said in another post:
> An interesting chronological marker is the solar-eclipse described
> in RgVeda 5:40:5-9. It is described as a central, non-total eclipse
> which took place on the afternoon on the Kurukshetra meridian on a
> given day after summer solstice. The interesting thing about this
> event, vis-a-vis an argument, is that it does not involve measuring
> angles, there is no scope of error, and it involves the Sun, the
> identification of which can not be questioned for any reason at all
> by the "conservative school" . There is only one day that satisfies
> that condition described - 26th July 3928BC.
Well, here is what .Rgveda 5:40:5--9 says (with apologies for my
"typewriter diacriticals"):
yat tv=a s=urya suvarbh=anus tamas=avidhyad =asura.h |
ak.setravid yath=a mughdho bhuvan=ani ad=idhayu.h ||
suvarbh=anor adha yad indra m=ay=a avo divo vartam=an=a av=ahan |
g=u.lha.m s=urya.m tamas=apavratena tur=iye.na brahman=avindad atri.h ||
m=a m=am ima.m tava santam atra irasy=a drugdho bhiyas=a ni g=ar=it |
tuvam mitro asi satyar=adh=as tau meh=avata.m varu.na's ca r=aj=a ||
gr=av.no brahm=a yuyuj=ana.h saparyan k=iri.n=a dev=an namasopa'sik.san |
atri.h s=uryasya divi cak.sur =adh=at suvarbh=anor apa m=ay=a aghuk.sat ||
ya.m vai s=urya.m suvarbh=anus tamas=avidhyad =asura.h |
atrayas tam anv avindan nahi anye a'saknuvan ||
And here is the most straightforward translation of the Sanskrit
that I can manage:
"When the Asura [a type of superhuman being, usually translated "demon"]
Svarbhanu smote you, Sun, with darkness, all creatures seemed like one
stunned and not knowing where he is. Indra, when you struck down
Svarbhanu's magic spread beneath the sky, [the seer] Atri by
his fourth sacred prayer found the Sun hidden in darkness. Atri, I am yours,
let not the oppressor in anger consume me with fear. You are [the god]
Mitra, giving true blessings; may both [you] and [the god] King Varuna
help [me]. The Brahman Atri, setting the [Soma-]pressing stones, serving
the gods with homage and praise, set the Sun's eye in the sky and
eradicated the magic of Svarbhanu. The Sun whom the Asura Svarbhanu
had smitten with darkness, the Atris found him again; none other
could do so."
Nobody that I know of has ever questioned that this refers to a solar
eclipse. What the "conservative school" maintains is that the best
interpretation of this hymn is that it refers to a general mythologized
idea of an eclipse, with an Asura using magic arts to obscure the Sun
and a divine seer using pious devotion to counteract the magic. If anyone
prefers to interpret such a hymn as a technical observational record of
a specific astronomical event, fine; all the "conservative school" claims
is that, looking at the overt meaning of the text and the available
historical data, that's not the most plausible interpretation.
And here I'd like to propose a new ground rule for this discussion
if it's to continue: namely, that when anybody makes a statement to
the effect that "such-and-such a Sanskrit text says so-and-so," they
must support that with not only a specific chapter-and-verse citation but
a direct literal translation of the Sanskrit (and the Sanskrit itself, if
possible). If we are to provide any real information to the interested
non-Indologists on the list (and many of them have been kind enough to
say that the discussion is helpful---thanks!), we should make it as
easy as possible for them to see what the texts actually say, so they
can make up their own minds about their significance. The listmembers
who discuss excerpts from French and German texts generally follow
this rule of displaying the evidence openly, and I think we should do
the same.
> Now, the "conservative school" has taken the approach of throwing
> out all the astronomical datings, and not just for VJ, as being
> either backcalculations or that it is not a valid evidence without
> giving proof for their claims that the constellations were not
> considered the same in ancient times. Doesn't this remind you of
> the game in the court room were the lawyers, faced with an
> unfavourable evidence, try to reduce the witness' credibility by
> smearing the character of the person. That is to say, at best this
> sounds as an excuse.
Again, I think that this is not entirely fair. Nobody (among modern
scholars at least, with apologies once more for the racist bigotry of some
earlier Orientalists) is attempting to "smear the character" of Vedic
Indians in any way. It doesn't seem to me insulting to suggest that
astronomical references in Vedic hymns and rituals, like those in
the religious texts of other ancient civilizations, are concerned with
general religious themes of prayer, praise, and the divine order, rather
than with technically precise records of observations in a complex
astronomical system. That is not at all to imply that ancient Indians
were in any way mentally "incapable" of doing complex astronomy. It
simply reflects the belief that if indeed Sanskrit speakers had been
recording astronomical observations with a high degree of precision in
North India from 4000--3000 BCE onwards, we should see much, much more
evidence of this than scattered statements in religious texts. We
should find remains of their _pre-Harappan_ cities, their inscriptions,
their textual tradition explicitly devoted to discussing astronomical
models, measurement systems, and compilations of observations, and a
voluminous exegetical tradition of all these features continuing into
later times. As it is, applying astronomically elaborate interpretations
to the scant textual evidence we do have seems more anachronistic than
revelatory.
With best wishes,
Kim Plofker
Department of History of Mathematics
Brown University
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Feb 16 2000 - 20:57:31 EST