01-17-2006, 10:58 AM
astronomical evidence in the AIT debate
From: "Koenraad Elst" <elst.koenraad@pandora.be>
Date: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:27 am
Subject: astronomical evidence in the AIT debate elst.koenraad@pandora.be
Send Email
Remove Author | Ban Author
Friends,
To make good on my promise to dig up an instance of a consequential
misunderstanding of astronomy by the dominant school of Indian history, and by
Prof. Witzel in particular, I reread his paper on the Pleiades and the Bears
(EJVS 5.2). He mentions correctly that the Great Bear was always visible (i.e.
with its lowest point still above the horizon) at the Delhi latitude during the
Vedic period, but that larger and larger parts of it would rise and set as the
observer moves south from Delhi. So far, so good. But further down, he
incorrectly asserts just the opposite:
"During the Indo-Iranian period, the
'bears' (RkSAH) were not, of course, always visible in the night sky
and rise from a partial position below the horizon (especially if we
think of a BMAC or of a still more northern location): that would not
be possible even for most of the Panjab, and is only possible South of
Delhi, below c. 30* N."
He locates the "Indo-Iranian" ancestors of the Vedic people in Bactria, 37°N, or
even more north (coming from Russia, remember), and at those latitudes, the
Great Bear was and is *always* above the horizon, contrary to what Witzel claims
here. By contrast, the "always visible in the night sky" does *not* apply to
more southerly regions, such as those south of Delhi, again contrary to what he
says. The closer you get to the equator, the more stars rise and set; at the
equator, all stars rise and set and are above the horizon exactly half the time;
at the poles, no stars ever rise or set (except due to their own movement,
unrelated to the earth's motions, over months or years in the case of planets,
and over millions of years in the case of fixed stars), with the equatorial
stars all remaining at the horizon.
The argument about the dependence of the Great Bear's seeming motion on the
observer's latitude is important within the invasionist hypothesis that the
Vedic poets (and likewise later even the astronomer who wrote the Vedanga
Jyotisha) retained descriptions of astronomical sightings from their ancestors
(in this case about the rising and setting of rthe Great Bear) declaiming
ancestral observations which they themselves had never seen and failing to
describe the actual observations of their own eyes. An instance of special
pleading against which Occam's Razor must be applied.
Witzel also leans heavily on Pingree, whose argument against the astronomical
chronology is surprisingly weak. Thus, on Krttika's "never swerving from the
east", he states that except for Krttika, there were also other constellation on
the equator, thus rising due east. As if that were to invalidate that Krttika,
too, was on the equator, indicating a date of 2400 BC. It also so happens that
Krttika stood out as a favourite marker of the new year in many cultures, from
the Chinese to the Maori.
A second instance. I have the impression that Witzel misunderstands the term
"heliacal rising": "That means
the Pleiades were rising in the east at nightfall at fall equinox,
while the sun rises against their background at the spring equinox
(heliacal rising at vernal equinox)."
When "the Pleiades were rising in the east at nightfall at fall equinox", i.e.
in opposition to the setting sun, it means the sun was at 0° Libra and the
Pleiades at 0° Aries, and the Pleiades were visible all night long, setting when
the sun rose. It does indeed follow that six months later, at spring equinox,
"the sun rises against their background", or as they say: the sun was in
conjunction with the Pleiades (making them invisible). However, that is not the
meaning of "heliacal rising". This term refers to the moment when a star
becomes visible again after having been in conjunction with the sun and hence
invisible. In practice, this means you can see the star rise in the east just
before dawn and just before the stars become invisible under the powerful
daylight. How many days after the conjunction it happens, depends on the
latitude of the observer, but it should be at least two weeks or about 15°.
This means that the Pleiades at 0° Aries were conjunct the sun on 21 March but
had their heliacal rising on ca. 5 April, with the sun at ca. 15° Aries, two
weeks *after* the vernal equinox.
For another example of an astronomical misunderstanding in the orthodox school,
in a reply to my only-ever intervention on the Indo-Eurasian Research list
(#2229), one Arvind Vyas (same one as on this list?) wrote (#2234):
>One of the issues that most Vedic astronomy based chronologist as
well as the opponents have ignored so far is they have based their
calculations from India. This is true that the locations that are
mentioned in RV are of greater Punjab and Eastern Afganistan. The Location of
Delhi (which is used by most of the chronologists) is
roughly on the south-eastern side of the geography of RV (...). Though, I have
not analyzed the dates
on Panchang software like Dr. N. Achar etc., I would like to point
out a plain fact - as we would move north the chronology would
become lower. The revised astronomical chronology based on the
higher northern latitudes with clubbed with the evidences of
domistication of horse could perhaps give a better date for RV
without voilating the Astronomical data of RV and Brahmanas etc. As
the movement of Aryans have a general direction of from North-West
to South East many chronological gaps could be shrunk (due to
movement in south from nothern locales) based on the astronomical
data in later texts. (...) To resolve this one has to work what if the
observations were made say from Kabul or Sri Nagar or a location in Sagodia???<<
This is simply incorrect. While some astronomical observations do indeed change
with latitude (e.g. whether a star remains above the horizon 24 hours rather
than rising & setting, or how long day and night are at summer solstice), the
precession puts the same zodiacal degree against the same star regardless of the
observer's position on earth. And it is the precession on which the entire
astronomical chronology is based.
All this confirms my view that the attempt to reconcile the astronomical data
with a low chronology for Vedic literature is so far clumsy and unconvincing.
However, we should not leave it at that and cry victory, as too many Hindus tend
to do. What we need to do now is to write a complete survey of all the
astronomical evidence. I've made a start with the astronomy chapter in my
Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, also available on the voiceofdharma
website. But we have improve on that. Prof. Narahari Achar has written some
fine papers on separate instances of astronomical evidence, but I look to
professionals like him to write out a complete summa. Does anyone else feel
called?
KE
From: "Koenraad Elst" <elst.koenraad@pandora.be>
Date: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:27 am
Subject: astronomical evidence in the AIT debate elst.koenraad@pandora.be
Send Email
Remove Author | Ban Author
Friends,
To make good on my promise to dig up an instance of a consequential
misunderstanding of astronomy by the dominant school of Indian history, and by
Prof. Witzel in particular, I reread his paper on the Pleiades and the Bears
(EJVS 5.2). He mentions correctly that the Great Bear was always visible (i.e.
with its lowest point still above the horizon) at the Delhi latitude during the
Vedic period, but that larger and larger parts of it would rise and set as the
observer moves south from Delhi. So far, so good. But further down, he
incorrectly asserts just the opposite:
"During the Indo-Iranian period, the
'bears' (RkSAH) were not, of course, always visible in the night sky
and rise from a partial position below the horizon (especially if we
think of a BMAC or of a still more northern location): that would not
be possible even for most of the Panjab, and is only possible South of
Delhi, below c. 30* N."
He locates the "Indo-Iranian" ancestors of the Vedic people in Bactria, 37°N, or
even more north (coming from Russia, remember), and at those latitudes, the
Great Bear was and is *always* above the horizon, contrary to what Witzel claims
here. By contrast, the "always visible in the night sky" does *not* apply to
more southerly regions, such as those south of Delhi, again contrary to what he
says. The closer you get to the equator, the more stars rise and set; at the
equator, all stars rise and set and are above the horizon exactly half the time;
at the poles, no stars ever rise or set (except due to their own movement,
unrelated to the earth's motions, over months or years in the case of planets,
and over millions of years in the case of fixed stars), with the equatorial
stars all remaining at the horizon.
The argument about the dependence of the Great Bear's seeming motion on the
observer's latitude is important within the invasionist hypothesis that the
Vedic poets (and likewise later even the astronomer who wrote the Vedanga
Jyotisha) retained descriptions of astronomical sightings from their ancestors
(in this case about the rising and setting of rthe Great Bear) declaiming
ancestral observations which they themselves had never seen and failing to
describe the actual observations of their own eyes. An instance of special
pleading against which Occam's Razor must be applied.
Witzel also leans heavily on Pingree, whose argument against the astronomical
chronology is surprisingly weak. Thus, on Krttika's "never swerving from the
east", he states that except for Krttika, there were also other constellation on
the equator, thus rising due east. As if that were to invalidate that Krttika,
too, was on the equator, indicating a date of 2400 BC. It also so happens that
Krttika stood out as a favourite marker of the new year in many cultures, from
the Chinese to the Maori.
A second instance. I have the impression that Witzel misunderstands the term
"heliacal rising": "That means
the Pleiades were rising in the east at nightfall at fall equinox,
while the sun rises against their background at the spring equinox
(heliacal rising at vernal equinox)."
When "the Pleiades were rising in the east at nightfall at fall equinox", i.e.
in opposition to the setting sun, it means the sun was at 0° Libra and the
Pleiades at 0° Aries, and the Pleiades were visible all night long, setting when
the sun rose. It does indeed follow that six months later, at spring equinox,
"the sun rises against their background", or as they say: the sun was in
conjunction with the Pleiades (making them invisible). However, that is not the
meaning of "heliacal rising". This term refers to the moment when a star
becomes visible again after having been in conjunction with the sun and hence
invisible. In practice, this means you can see the star rise in the east just
before dawn and just before the stars become invisible under the powerful
daylight. How many days after the conjunction it happens, depends on the
latitude of the observer, but it should be at least two weeks or about 15°.
This means that the Pleiades at 0° Aries were conjunct the sun on 21 March but
had their heliacal rising on ca. 5 April, with the sun at ca. 15° Aries, two
weeks *after* the vernal equinox.
For another example of an astronomical misunderstanding in the orthodox school,
in a reply to my only-ever intervention on the Indo-Eurasian Research list
(#2229), one Arvind Vyas (same one as on this list?) wrote (#2234):
>One of the issues that most Vedic astronomy based chronologist as
well as the opponents have ignored so far is they have based their
calculations from India. This is true that the locations that are
mentioned in RV are of greater Punjab and Eastern Afganistan. The Location of
Delhi (which is used by most of the chronologists) is
roughly on the south-eastern side of the geography of RV (...). Though, I have
not analyzed the dates
on Panchang software like Dr. N. Achar etc., I would like to point
out a plain fact - as we would move north the chronology would
become lower. The revised astronomical chronology based on the
higher northern latitudes with clubbed with the evidences of
domistication of horse could perhaps give a better date for RV
without voilating the Astronomical data of RV and Brahmanas etc. As
the movement of Aryans have a general direction of from North-West
to South East many chronological gaps could be shrunk (due to
movement in south from nothern locales) based on the astronomical
data in later texts. (...) To resolve this one has to work what if the
observations were made say from Kabul or Sri Nagar or a location in Sagodia???<<
This is simply incorrect. While some astronomical observations do indeed change
with latitude (e.g. whether a star remains above the horizon 24 hours rather
than rising & setting, or how long day and night are at summer solstice), the
precession puts the same zodiacal degree against the same star regardless of the
observer's position on earth. And it is the precession on which the entire
astronomical chronology is based.
All this confirms my view that the attempt to reconcile the astronomical data
with a low chronology for Vedic literature is so far clumsy and unconvincing.
However, we should not leave it at that and cry victory, as too many Hindus tend
to do. What we need to do now is to write a complete survey of all the
astronomical evidence. I've made a start with the astronomy chapter in my
Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, also available on the voiceofdharma
website. But we have improve on that. Prof. Narahari Achar has written some
fine papers on separate instances of astronomical evidence, but I look to
professionals like him to write out a complete summa. Does anyone else feel
called?
KE