Skip to content
Browse articles

Astronomical Evidence on the Age of the Rgveda

Vol. 37 · No. 1March - 1961pp. 73–100English

Summary

Astronomical Evidence on the Age of the Rgveda forms the supplement to this issue and explores how references to solstices, equinoxes and lunar phases in Vedic texts might help date the Rigveda. Dr. Narendra Nath Law reviews the arguments of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Hermann Jacobi, who believed that passages in the Rigveda and Brahmanas recorded astronomical observations from as early as 4500 BCE. He outlines Theodor Thibaut’s criticism of their work and presents translations of key ritual passages from the Taittiriya Samhita and the Tandya Brahmana describing when year‑long sacrifices should begin. Law discusses the interpretations offered by Tilak and Jacobi, such as identifying the nakṣatra Phalguni with the year’s “mouth” and dating the start of the year to various full moons. He then analyses whether the data support a solar year beginning at the vernal equinox, the summer solstice or other points. The article evaluates the precession of the equinoxes and the shifting positions of constellations over millennia, synthesising calculations from various scholars. Law concludes that while astronomical clues in Vedic literature suggest that certain observations were made when the full moon was near specific stars, the evidence does not permit a precise determination of the Rigveda’s age. He cautions against taking mythological statements as literal astronomical records and stresses the uncertainties inherent in reconstructing ancient skywatching. The paper thus provides an exhaustive survey of past scholarship and contributes a balanced assessment to the long‑standing debate on the chronology of the Rigveda.

AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.

Conclusion

After weighing the astronomical arguments of Tilak, Jacobi and their critics, the article concludes that Vedic ritual passages hint at observations of seasonal cycles but cannot yield a definitive date for the Rigveda. The author emphasises that precession calculations are sensitive to assumptions about calendars and that mythological imagery should not be over‑interpreted. The study thus calls for cautious use of astronomical evidence in textual chronology.

Key passages

Chosen by AI from the article's text. Each one is checked word for word against the text before it is shown.

  • “No\w Krittikas marked the vernal equinox, and Maghas the summer solstice, at about 2350 B.C,, and this, therefore, 15 the time at which we must suppose the Taittiriya-Samhita and similar works to have been composed.”

Works cited in this article

  1. The Orion
  2. On the Date of the Rigveda
  3. Taittirīya Samhitā
  4. Tandya Brāhmaṇa
  5. Kauśītaki-Brāhmaṇa

Discussed in this article

AI guide

Discuss this record

Ask about the article, its topics, issue context, selected passages, or reading strategy.

Start with the record

I can unpack the summary, turn it into study questions, explain a selected passage, or compare it with the other articles in this issue.

Original PDF

Inline viewer

Checking source PDF

The viewer will load here if the archive file is reachable.