The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c17.161

v1.c17.161

The origin of the Nakshatras has formed the subject of most lively controversy: it is clear that the Vedic Indians knew very little about astronomy, for it is extremely doubtful whether the planets were known at all in the Brāhmaṇa period. But it is not impossible that, even at this epoch, the Nakshatras could have been discovered, for the achievement is a rude one. The question is, however, complicated by the existence of the Arabian Manāzil and the Chinese Sieou. The Manāzil are better chosen as lunar mansions than the Indian Nakshatras: borrowing on the part of India from Arabia cannot be proved in view of the late date of the Arabian evidence, while the superiority of the Arabian system seems to make it improbable that it should have been derived from India. The Chinese evidence is early enough to allow of borrowing; and the dependence of India on China has been maintained by Biot and de Saussure; but the difficulties in the way of this view are really insuperable. It remains therefore as the most plausible view that the Nakshatras are derived from Babylon, though direct proof of the existence of the Nakshatras there has yet to be discovered.