David Pingree on Vedic Astronomy

[Guest guest]

Vedic Astronomy of David Pingree

 

What is the opinion of the list members on the following quote, since

David Pingree's works are quoted approvingly by several Indologists?

 

*********

QUOTE

 

"One rather disturbing aspect of Pingree's method must be pointed

out. He first introduces a notion very tentatively as a suggestion.

He repeats the same in a number of articles, each time asserting a

little more and exaggerating a little more, without a shred of

further evidence. Finally, his statement looks like it is based in

well established facts. For example, (a) about the concept of tithi:

he says in his 1963 article, "it seems likely that the Indians

borrowed the concept from Mesopotamia, though the exact origin of

tithi still remains obscure." He repeats in several articles that the

Indians borrowed the concept of tithi. Finally, what was "a concept

whose origin still remains obscure" in 1963, becomes in his 1978

article, "tithi, a Mesopotamian concept"; (b) about the age of

Vedanga Jyotish: in his 1963 article, it was "probably composed in

the fifth century BC"; in the 1973 article it had changed o "probably

between the fifth and fourth century BC", but in the 1978 article it

is declared as "fourth century B.C."; © finally, the Pingree

hypothesis that is being refuted in the present paper: it was

introduced as a hypothesis in 1963, as just a "plausible guess"; this

hypothesis had changed to the status of a theory in 1973, by what he

calls "hypothetical reconstruction", with the assertion that "some

elements of early Indian astronomy being derived from Mesopotamia".

The assertion had changed from mere "some elements of early Indian

astronomy" to the "whole system of Lagadha being not indigenous to

India" in his 1978 article. What was just a `plausible guess' arrived

at by `hypothetical reconstruction' has, now-a-days, he declares in

every article, "since most fundamental concepts of astronomy in India

can be traced to Mesopotamia…."

 

UNQUOTE

 

Reference:

Note 16 on p. 108 of ACHAR, B. N. Narahari; `On the Vedic Origin of

Ancient Mathematical Astronomy of India'; Journal of Studies on

Ancient India, vol. 2, nos. 2-4 (1998), 95 - 108

 

********

 

Sincerely,

 

Vishal

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, VAgarwalV@c... wrote:

> Vedic Astronomy of David Pingree

> [...] (a) about the concept of tithi:

> he says in his 1963 article, "it seems likely that the Indians

> borrowed the concept from Mesopotamia, though the exact origin of

> tithi still remains obscure." He repeats in several articles that

the

> Indians borrowed the concept of tithi. Finally, what was "a concept

> whose origin still remains obscure" in 1963, becomes in his 1978

> article, "tithi, a Mesopotamian concept";

 

N. J. Allen, Hinduism as Indo-European,

p. 26, Aryan and Non-Aryan in India, HUP, 1999

"It would be wrong to leave the impression that

comparativists only identify I-E material in Indian

history by demonstrating the three- or four-

functional 'signature'. Many exceptions come to mind:

Dumezil on figures such as Yama and Suurya whom

he does not relate to a function, **Sergent (1997: 340-3)

on astronomy**, Vielle (1997) on warrior heroes."

 

This tells that Bernard Sergent (Genese de l'Inde, p. 340-3)

discusses that astronomy (and its daughter, astrology)

does not play a role among incoming Aryans.

 

>From early 1960s to 2000, possibly the knowledge about

ancient Mesopotamian astronomy have increased, and

Pingree uses the accumulated data?

The Indus valley findings where fish representing

stars (Parpola discusses about 'miin' - fish as well as

star in dravidian), and the relation between IVC and

Mesopotomian religion-astronomy.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan