Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Solar and lunar observations at Istanbul in the 1570s

  • Published:
Archive for History of Exact Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

From the early ninth century until about eight centuries later, the Middle East witnessed a series of both simple and systematic astronomical observations for the purpose of testing contemporary astronomical tables and deriving the fundamental solar, lunar, and planetary parameters. Of them, the extensive observations of lunar eclipses available before 1000 AD for testing the ephemeredes computed from the astronomical tables are in a relatively sharp contrast to the twelve lunar observations that are pertained to the four extant accounts of the measurements of the basic parameters of Ptolemaic lunar model. The last of them are Taqī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ma‘rūf’s (1526–1585) trio of lunar eclipses observed from Istanbul, Cairo, and Thessalonica in 1576–1577 and documented in chapter 2 of book 5 of his famous work, Sidrat muntaha al-afkar fī malakūt al-falak al-dawwār (The Lotus Tree in the Seventh Heaven of Reflection). In this article, we provide a detailed analysis of the accuracy of his solar (1577–1579) and lunar observations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The two interesting cases are Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Wābkanawī’s (1254?–after 1316) test of the times and longitudes computed from the Īlkhānī zīj for four conjunctions of Jupiter with Saturn in 1286 and 1305–1306 against observations and his observation of the annular eclipse of 30 January 1283 (see Mozaffari 2009, 2013a, b, pp. 239–240; about the curious situation of annular solar eclipses in the medieval astronomy, especially see Mozaffari 2014b. The Īlkhānī zīj is the formal product of the early period of the activities in the Maragha observatory, northwestern Iran, \(c\). 1259–1271, under the directorship of Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (1201–1274); about it, see Kennedy 1956, pp. 161–2 and Samsó et al. 2001, p. 46) and Abraham Zacut’s observation of the occultation of Venus by the Moon on 24 July 1476 (see Goldstein and Chabás 1999). For the previous studies about the role observation and its relation to theory in the medieval astronomy, see, e.g., Hartner (1977), Goldstein (1985a, (1988), Saliba (1994). For the astronomers referred to here, see DSB, NDSB, BEA, \(EI_{2}\), Sezgin (1978), and Rosenfeld and İhsanoğlu (2003).

  2. On Islamic astronomical tables, see Kennedy (1956) and Samsó et al. (2001); these two main sources of the knowledge of Islamic astronomical tables, the so-called zījes, are followed by a new comprehensive survey that is currently prepared by Benno Van Dalen.

  3. Ibn Yūnus, L: pp. 108–109; Caussin de Perceval (1804), p. 155. The date given in the text is “Wednesday, 30 Rajab 250 Hijra” (= 6 September 864) and “21 Murdād 238 Yazdigird” which is the equivalent of Monday, 5 September 869. The year in the latter date is evidently incorrect and should be 233 (on 5 September 869, Jupiter and Regulus were over \(125^{\circ }\) apart).

  4. Ibn Yūnus, pp. 108–109, Caussin de Perceval (1804), pp. 155, 157. The date given in the text is “Sunday, 6 Ramaḍān 250 H” (= 11 October 864) and “7 Mihr 233 Y” (= 22 October 864). The first date is in error, simply because 11 October 864 was a Wednesday. Moreover, in the report it is stated: “Aḥmad b. ‘Abd-Allāh [Ḥabash] said: ‘[...] at daybreak (ṭulū‘ al-fajr; i.e. the start of the morning twilight), I saw Venus and Mars being close to (associated with) each other (mutalā ṣiqayn) in [the zodiacal sign] Virgo, as if the two were one star”’; at the mentioned time on 22 October 864, the two planets were less than \(5'\) apart while 11 days earlier they were about \(6^{\circ }\) apart. Cf. Caussin de Perceval (1804), p. 156.

  5. These are summarized and analysed in Mozaffari (2013c). For the solar meridian altitude observations, see Said and Stephenson (1995), Newton (1972) which deals specifically with the solar data recorded by Bīrūnī.

  6. Bīrunī, al-Qānūn al-mas‘ūdī VII.5: (1954–6), vol. 2, p. 779. The other value is 5;3\(^{\circ }\) as observed by Ibn Yūnus (see King 1999, pp. 502–503).

  7. About the observatories founded on in the medieval Islamic period, Sayılı ([1960] 1988) is still the only available study, although some of his argumentations and conclusions should be treated with caution; e.g. in the case of the latter period of the Maragha observatory, see some critical remarks in Mozaffari and Zotti (2013), pp. 61–62.

  8. About Muḥyī al-Dīn, especially see Saliba (1983, (1985, (1986) and Mozaffari (2014a). A monograph about his unique contribution to observational and practical astronomy at the Maragha observatory on the basis of a thorough analysis of his documented observations in the Talkhī ṣ al-majis ṭī (Compendium of the Almagest) is being prepared by one of us (SMM).

  9. See King and Gingerich (1982).

  10. In his detailed commentary on Ulugh Beg’s Zīj, ‘Alī Qūshčī (d. 1474), one of the contributors of this work, says nothing as to the details of the astronomical observations at Samarqand. This source is, of course, invaluable for checking the parameter values deduced from the tables in that zīj. Much less emphasis in the secondary, modern literature has been put on the parameter values underlying the tables in this work; the eccentricity of Venus is a good example: the majority of the early Islamic astronomers including al-Battānī and Ibn Yūnus, influenced by Indian astronomy, took the eccentricity of this planet to be equal to that of the sun (i.e. the earth). Although some astronomers like Bīrūnī and ‘Abd-al-Raḥmān al-Khāzinī (fl. the first half of the twelfth century) kept the Ptolemaic distinction of the eccentricity of Venus from that of the sun, this idea did not disappear completely in the Middle Eastern branch of Islamic astronomy until the foundation of the Maragha observatory, as it can be traced back in some zījes until the mid-thirteenth century (e.g. in Muntakhab al-Dīn al-Yazdī’s Manẓūm zīj, “Versified zīj” written in Yazd, central Iran, ca. 1252, f. 46v). Nevertheless, it can be found prevalently in the Western branch of Islamic astronomy (Spain and northwestern Africa) in the latter periods (e.g. in the zīj of Ibn al-Bannā of Marrakech, d. 1321; see Samsó and Millás 1998, pp. 265, n. 19, 266) and was transmitted to the late medieval Latin and Jewish astronomy (e.g. cf. Swerdlow 1977, p. 205; Goldstein 1985b, p. 113; Chabás and Goldstein 1994, p. 33; Goldstein and Chabás 1999, p. 188; Goldstein 2003, pp. 160–161; Chabás and Goldstein 2003, pp. 253–254; Chabás 2004, p. 188; Chabás and Goldstein 2009, p. 34). By this idea, the double eccentricity of the planet (i.e. the distance of the equant point from the earth) remain larger than 2 (the radius of the orbit \(=\) 60). But, the geocentric eccentricity of Venus approximately remains equal to about 1.74 in the past two millennia. The maximum equation of centre of Venus in Ulugh Beg’s Zīj (P1: fol. 144r; P2: fol. 161v) is equal to 1;39,19\(^{\circ }\) which corresponds to a double eccentricity of 1.73, in agreement with the value 0;52 Qūshčī gives for the half of it (N: pp. 273–4, PN: f. 241v). An analysis of medieval values for the orbital elements of Venus is being prepared by one of us (SMM).

  11. He has the value 22;52 for the radius of the epicycle of Mercury (Ptolemy: 22;30 in the Almagest and 22;15 in the Planetary Hypotheses) and 43;28 for that of Venus (Ptolemy: 43;10) if the radius of the geocentric orbit of the epicycle centre, the deferent, is taken as 60 arbitrary units. These values are derived from the maximum value for the epicyclic equation of these planets at mean distance as tabulated in Ibn Yūnus’s zīj, i.e. 22;24\(^{\circ }\) and 46;25\(^{\circ }\), respectively, for Mercury and Venus (Ibn Yūnus, L: pp. 121, 190, 192; Caussin de Perceval 1804, p. 221).

  12. He observed some conjunctions of the inferior planets with each other (e.g. the morning of 22 June 985; modern: the evening of 18 June 985), with stars (e.g. Venus and Regulus: one hour after sunset in Cairo on 23 June 990; modern: about 3 h after midnight on 24 June 990), and with the other planets (e.g. Venus and Saturn: half an hour before the sunrise in Cairo on 20 January 988; modern: about two hours before the sunrise in Cairo on the given date); see Ibn Yūnus, Zīj, L: pp. 113–114; Caussin de Perceval (1804), pp. 179–184.

  13. The results of the researches by Prof. F. R. Stephenson and his colleagues on medieval Islamic eclipses reports are summarized in Stephenson (1997), chapters 12 and 13 and Steele (2000), chapter 4.

  14. What follows is based upon Stephenson (1997), pp. 476–493 and Steele (2000), pp. 107–124.

  15. Nallino ([1899–1907] 1969), vol. 3, p. 87. After this, al-Battānī concentrates on the determination of the sun’s distance to the earth; see Swerdlow (1972).

  16. The radius of the lunar orbit, the inclined eccentric deferent, is taken as 60 arbitrary units. These two values are derived, respectively, from the maximum values given for the first inequality of the moon by al-Kamālī in his Ashrafī zīj, ff. 49r and 229v–230r: 5;8\(^{\circ }\) and 4;51\(^{\circ }\). Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Maghribī adopts Ibn al-A‘lam’s lunar equations in his first zīj, Tāj al-azyāj (Crown of the zījes), compiled in Damascus before his joining to the Maragha observatory (see Dorce 2002–3, p. 203; 2003, pp. 127, 184).

  17. A main factor appears to be the fair agreement between the computed and observed results, as a good number of such accounts scattered in the late Islamic zījes testify; in them, an astronomer explains his computation of the circumstances and parameters of an eclipse and then usually claims that they were in agreement with observation, which can easily be checked by aid of modern data. For example, in his ‘Alā’ī zīj [preserved in a unique copy in India, Hyderabad, Salar Jung Library, no. H17; see Dalen (2004)] on pp. 32–35, Farīd al-Dīn Abu al-Ḥasan ‘Alī b. ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Fahhād of Shirwān or Bākū (both cities now in Azerbaijan, the latter north to the first) presents at length his computation of the parameters of a solar and a lunar eclipse that were to take place, respectively, in the conjunction and opposition about the month Shawwāl of the year 571 H/April–May 1176. For the solar eclipse (which occurred on 11 April 1176), he computes the ecliptic longitude at the instant of the apparent conjunction (i.e. the topocentric longitude of the sun and moon in the maximum phase of the eclipse) as

    figure a

    \(= 27;32^{\circ }\), the time of mid-eclipse as about \(T\) = 4;40 h before noon, and its magnitude as 11;46 digits (the diameter of the solar disc is taken as 12 digits). He then states that he observed this eclipse and found its circumstances in agreement with the computed results. It is not precisely known whether the place of observation was Bakū or Shirwān; for the first, the modern values are:

    figure b

    \(= 27;56^{\circ }\), \(T = 8{:}18\) MLT, and magnitude 0.996. For the lunar eclipse (which occurred on 25 April 1176), he gives the longitude of the moon at the instant of the mid-eclipse as about

    figure c

    \(=\) 222;31\(^{\circ }\), \(T = 3;53\) h after sunset, and magnitude 6;51 digits (the diameter of the lunar disc is taken as 12 digits); the modern values are:

    figure d

    \(=\) 221;59\(^{\circ }\), \(T\,=\,\)22:34 MLT (sunset: 18:53 MLT), and magnitude 0.673. In both cases, the computed longitudes are of errors of about 1/2\(^{\circ }\); the computed magnitude of the solar eclipse and the time of the lunar counterpart are of good accuracy. Such accuracies are not entirely matters of coincidence, since similar instances can be traced back in medieval Islamic astronomy (a notable case may be Wābkanawī’s calculation of the circumstances of the annular solar eclipse of 30 January 1283; see note 1 above). Rather, this reflects our lack of knowledge about the quantitative precision of some Islamic zījes that were the fruits of undertaking the difficult task of continuous observations and derivations of parameters of Ptolemaic models, and the fact that if Ptolemaic models were quantified anew by the re-measurement of its fundamental parameters, it would be probable to predict eclipses with precisions within an hour, one degree in longitude, and one digit in magnitude. Wābkanawī replaced al-Fahhād’s computations and eclipses by his calculation of the solar eclipses of 5 July 1293 and 28 October 1296 (for latitude of Tabriz, northwestern Iran) and the lunar eclipse of 30 May 1295 when he taught al-Fahhād’s Zīj to Gregory Chioniades (\(c\). 1240–1320) who translated it into Greek (see Pingree 1985, p. 352f). For a brief review of the other cases of the calculations of circumstances of eclipses, see Mozaffari (2013d), pp. 313–314.

  18. Bīrūnī (1954–6), vol. 2, pp. 740–743. These eclipses are nos. 07224, 07225, and 07227 in the NASA’s Five Millennium Catalog of Lunar Eclipses (hereafter, 5MCLE). For the analysis of Bīrūnī’s observations, see Said and Stephenson (1997), pp. 45–46; Stephenson (1997), pp. 491–492.

  19. Mozaffari (2014a), pp. 72–74. The eclipses nos. 07878, 07897, and 07907 in 5MCLE.

  20. Kāshī, IO: ff. 4r–6r, P: pp. 24–28. The eclipses nos. 08220, 08221, and 08222 in 5MCLE. See Mozaffari (2013d), pp. 318–322.

  21. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: ff. 42r–43r. The eclipses nos. 08610, 08611, and 08612 in 5MCLE.

  22. King (2004/5), vol. 1, p. 64.

  23. For the illustration of the instruments of the Istanbul observatory, see Sezgin and Neubauer (2010), vol. 2, pp. 53–61.

  24. Almagest IX.7 and XI.7: Toomer (1998), pp. 452–3, 541.

  25. See B. V. Dalen’s entry Ta’rīkh (date, chronology) in \(EI_{2}\), vol. 10, pp. 259, 261.

  26. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 22v.

  27. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 17v (on the right margin).

  28. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 17v (on the right margin).

  29. See al-Bīrūnī (1967), pp. 61–64; Kennedy (1973), pp. 34–38.

  30. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 17v; also, see King (2004/5), vol. 1, pp. 57, 116, 123, 133, 151.

  31. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 35r.

  32. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 36r.

  33. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 36r.

  34. See Said and Stephenson (1995).

  35. Note that this corresponds to a mean solar year computed between the two vernal equinoxes in the period from 140 to 1579; the true value for such conception of the solar year in this period is 365;14,32,5 days.

  36. About this, see Mozaffari (2013c), pp. 323–324.

  37. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: ff. 36r–v (cf. also, Tekeli 1962, 2008). It is somewhat strange that in his later zīj (Kharīdat, B: ff. 28r–v.), Taqī al-Dīn comes back to Ulugh Beg’s value for the solar eccentricity, since the maximum tabular value for the solar equation of centre in this work is given as \(1.9315^{\circ }\), corresponding to \(e\approx 2;1,20\) (see Mozaffari 2013c, p. 326, Table 3, no. 13).

  38. For the technical discussion on this topic, see Mozaffari (2013c), Part 2.

  39. See Mozaffari (2013c), p. 399–400.

  40. See Mozaffari (2013c), p. 393, 397.

  41. See Brahe 1913–29, Opera Omnia, vol. 2, pp. 19–28; Dreyer (1890), p. 333; Moesgaard (1975), pp. 85–89; Thoren and Christianson (1990), p. 223–224; Swerdlow (2010), p. 155.

  42. The vacant places only indicate the glorying titles Taqī al-Dīn ascribes to Sa‘d al-Dīn Efendī.

  43. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 42r.

  44. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 2v.

  45. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: ff. 41v, 42v. The report of this eclipse is given both on ff. 41v and 42v; the only extra data in the second report are the perceptible duration of the eclipse

  46. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 42v.

  47. Ben-Zaken (2010), especially pp. 21–24.

  48. See Neugebauer (1975), vol. 1, pp. 86–87.

  49. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat V.7.8: K: f. 48r.

  50. See Seemann (1929), pp. 72–81; Mozaffari and Zotti (2012), p. 403.

  51. Steele (2000), pp. 112–124.

  52. See above, note 19.

  53. It was probably a Chinese clepsydra brought to the Maragha observatory by Chinese astronomers; see Mozaffari (2013b), p. 257; (2013d), p. 317; (2014a), p. 103.

  54. See above, note 20.

  55. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 90r; see Sezgin and Neubauer (2010), vol. 3, pp. 118–122.

  56. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 41v.

  57. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 17v.

  58. Taqī al-Dīn, Sidrat, K: f. 41v.

  59. See King (2004/5), vol. 1, p. 449–450.

  60. Steele (2000), p. 139–150.

  61. Steele (2000), p. 151–154.

  62. Almagest V.14: Toomer (1998), p. 254.

  63. See Mozaffari (2013d), p. 317; 2014a, p. 73, note 20.

  64. His specific signature on f. 1r of the only surviving copy of Talkhīṣ is identical to that found on f. 1r of the Leiden MS. of Ibn Yūnus’ Ḥākimī zīj which Taqī al-Dīn possessed of, too. He also left some comment on al-Maghribī’s work (e.g. on f. 50v).

References

  • Bearman, P., Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W.P. Heinrichs. 1960–2005. [\(EI_{2}\):] Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edn., 12 vols., Leiden: Brill.

  • Ben-Zaken, A. 2010. Cross-cultural scientific exchanges in the Eastern Mediterranean, 1560–1660. Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • al-Bīrūnī, Abū al-Rayḥān. 1954–6. al-Qānūn al-mas‘ūdī (Mas‘ūdīc canons), 3 vols., Hyderabad: Osmania Bureau.

  • al-Bīrūnī, Abū al-Rayḥān. 1967. Taḥdīd nahayāt al-amākin li-taṣḥīḥ masāfāt al-masākin (Determination of the coordinates of positions for the correction of distances between cities), Ali, J. (En. tr.), Beirut.

  • Brahe, T. 1913–29. Tychonis Brahe Dani Opera Omnia, Dreyer, J. L. E. (ed.), 15 vols., Copenhagen: Libraria Gyldendaliana.

  • Caussin de Perceval, J.-J.-A. 1804. Le livre de la grande table hakémite, Observée par le Sheikh, ebn Iounis. Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque nationale 7: 16–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabás, J., and B.R. Goldstein. 1994. Andalusian astronomy: al-Zīj al-Muqtabis of Ibn al-Kammād. Archives for the History of Exact Sciences 48: 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chabás, J., and B.R. Goldstein. 2003. The Alfonsine tables of Toledo. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chabás, J. 2004. Astronomy for the court in the early sixteenth century, Alfonso de Córdoba and his Tabule Astronomice Elisabeth Regine. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 58: 183–217.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chabás, J., and B.R. Goldstein. 2009. The astronomical tables of Giovanni Bianchini. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalen, B.V. 2004. The Zīj-i Naṣirī by Maḥmūd ibn Umar: the earliest Indian Zij and its relation to the ‘Alā’ī Zīj. In: Charles Burnet et al. Studies in the history of the exact sciences in honour of David Pingree, 825–862. Leiden: Brill.

  • Dorce, C. 2002–3. The Tāj al-azyāj of Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Maghribī (d. 1283): methods of computation. Suhayl 3: 193–212.

  • Dorce, C. 2003. El Tāŷ al-azyāŷ de Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Maghribī, in: Anuari de Filologia, vol. 25, Secció B, Número 5, Barcelona: University of Barcelona.

  • Dreyer, J.L.E. 1890. Tycho Brahe: A picture of scientific life and work in the sixteenth century. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farīd al-Dīn Abu al-Ḥasan ‘Alī b. ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Fahhād al-Shirwānī or al-Bākū’ī, Zīj al-‘Alā’ī, MS. India, Salar Jung, no. H17.

  • Gillipsie, C.C. et al. (ed.). 1970–1980. [DSB:] Dictionary of scientific biography, 16 vols., New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

  • Goldstein, B.R. 1985a. Theory and observation in ancient and medieval astronomy. London: Variorum Reprints.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, B.R. 1985b. The astronomy of Levi ben Gerson (1288–1344), a critical edition of chapters 1–20 with translation and commentary. New York: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, B.R. 1988. A new set of fourteenth century planetary observations. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 132: 371–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, B.R., and J. Chabás. 1999. An occultation of venus observed by Abraham Zacut in 1476. Journal for the History of Astronomy 30: 187–200.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, B.R. 2003. An anonymous Zij in Hebrew For 1400 A.d.: A preliminary report. Archives for the History of Exact Sciences 57: 151–171.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hartner, Willy. 1977. The role of observations in ancient and medieval astronomy. Journal for the History of Astronomy 8: 1–11.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hockey, T. et al. (ed.). 2007. [BEA:] The biographical encyclopedia of astronomers, Berlin: Springer.

  • Ibn Yūnus, ‘Alī b. ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Aḥmad, Zīj al-kabīr al-Ḥākimī, MS. L: Leiden, no. Or. 143.

  • al-Kamālī, Muḥammad b. ’Abī ‘Abd-Allāh Sanjar (Sayf-i munajjim), Ashrafī zīj, MS. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, no. 1488.

  • al-Kāshī, Jamshīd Ghiyāth al-Dīn, Khāqānī zīj, MS. IO: London: India Office, no. 430, MS. P: Iran: Parliament Library, no. 6198.

  • Kennedy, E.S. 1956. A survey of Islamic astronomical tables. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 46: 123–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, E.S. 1973. A commentary upon Bīrūnī’s Kitāb Taḥdīd al-Amākin. Beirut: American University of Beirut.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D. 2004/5. In synchrony with the heavens; Studies in astronomical timekeeping and instrumentation in medieval Islamic civilization, 2 vols., Leiden-Boston: Brill.

  • King, D., and O. Gingerich. 1982. Some astronomical observations from thirteenth-century Egypt. Journal for the History of Astronomy 13: 121–128.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • King, D. 1999. Aspects of fatimid astronomy: From hard-core mathematical astronomy to architectural orientations in cairo. In L’Égypte Fatimide: son art et son histoire—Actes du colloqie organisé à Paris les 28, 29 et 30 mai 1998, ed. M. Barrucand, 497–517. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koertge, N. 2008. [NDSB:] New Dictionary of scientific biography, 8 vols., Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

  • al-Maghribī, Mūḥyī al-Dīn, Adwār al-anwār, MS. M: Iran, Mashhad, Holy Shrine Library, no. 332; MS. CB: Ireland, Dublin, Chester Beatty, no. 3665.

  • al-Maghribī, Mūḥyī al-Dīn, Talkhīṣ al-majisṭī, MS. Leiden: Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 110.

  • Moesgaard, K.P. 1975. Tychonian observations, perfect numbers, and the date of creation: Longomontanus’s solar and precessional theories. Journal for the History of Astronomy 6: 84–99.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mozaffari, S.M. 2009. Wābkanawī’s and the first scientific observation of an annular eclipse. The observatory 129: 144–146. It should be read accompanied with Mozaffari, S. Mohammad, 2010. Wābkanawī’s annular eclipse. The Observatory 130: 39–40.

  • Mozaffari, S.M. 2013a. Historical annular solar eclipses. Journal of British Astronomical Association 123: 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozaffari, S.M. 2013b. Wābkanawī’s prediction and calculations of the annular solar eclipse of 30 January 1283. Historia Mathematica 40: 235–261.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mozaffari, S. M. 2013c. Limitations of methods: The accuracy of the values measured for the Earth’s/Sun’s orbital elements in the Middle East, A.D. 800 and 1500. Journal for the history of astronomy 44, Part 1: issue 3, pp. 313–336, Part 2: issue 4, pp. 389–411.

  • Mozaffari, S.M. 2013d. Eclipses in the middle East from the late medieval Islamic to the early modern period; Part I: The observations of six lunar eclipses from the late medieval Islamic period. Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage 16: 312–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozaffari, S.M. 2014a. Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Maghribī’s lunar measurements at the Maragha observatory. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 68: 67–120.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mozaffari, S.M. 2014b. A case study of how natural phenomena were justified in medieval science: The situation of annular eclipses in medieval astronomy. Science in Context 27: 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mozaffari, S.M., and G. Zotti. 2012. Ghāzān Khān’s astronomical innovations at Marāgha observatory. Journal of American Oriental Society 132: 395–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mozaffari, S.M., and G. Zotti. 2013. The observational instruments at the Maragha observatory after AD 1300. Suhayl 12: 45–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muntakhab al-Dīn al-Yazdī, Manẓūm Zīj, MS. Iran, Mashhad University, Theology Faculty, no. 674.

  • Nallino, C.A. (Ed.), [1899-1907] 1969. Al-Battani sive Albatenii Opus Astronomicum. Publicazioni del Reale osservatorio di Brera in Milano. n. XL, pte. I-III, Mediolani Insubrum, Milan. The Reprint of Nallino’s edition: Minerva, Frankfurt, 1969.

  • Neugebauer, O. 1975. A history of ancient mathematical astronomy. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, R.R. 1972. The Earth’s acceleration as deduced from al-Bīrūnī’s solar data. Memoirs of Royal Astronomical Society 76: 99–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pingree, D. (ed.). 1985. Astronomical works of Gregory Chioniades, vol. 1: Zīj al-‘Alā’ī, Amsterdam: Gieben.

  • Qūshčī, ‘Alī b. Muḥammad, Sharḥ-i Zīj-i Ulugh Beg (Commentary on the Zīj of Ulugh Beg), MSS. N: Iran, National Library, no. 20127–5, P: Iran, Parliament Library, no. 6375/1, PN: USA, Rare Book & Manuscript Library of University of Pennsylvania, no. LJS 400.

  • Rosenfeld, B.A., İhsanoğlu, E. 2003. Mathematicians, astronomers, and other scholars of Islamic civilization and their Works (7th-19th c.), Istanbul: IRCICA.

  • Said, S.S., and F.R. Stephenson. 1995. Precision of medieval Islamic measurements of solar altitudes and equinox times. Journal for the History of Astronomy 26: 117–132.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Said, S.S., and F.R. Stephenson. 1997. Solar and lunar eclipse measurements by medieval Muslim astronomers, II: Observations. Journal for the History of Astronomy 28: 29–48.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Saliba, G. 1983. An observational notebook of a thirteenth-century astronomer. ISIS, 74: 388–401. Repr. Saliba 1994, pp. 163–176.

  • Saliba, G. 1985. Solar observations at Maragha observatory. Journal for the History of Astronomy, 16: 113–122. Repr. Saliba 1994, pp. 177–186.

  • Saliba, G. 1986. The determination of new planetary parameters at the Maragha observatory. Centaurus 29: 249–271. Repr. Saliba 1994, pp. 208–230.

  • Saliba, G. 1994. A history of Arabic astronomy: Planetary theories during the golden age of Islam. New York: New York University.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Samsó, J. and E. Millás. 1998. The computation of planetary longitudes in the zīj of Ibn al-Bannā, Arabic Science and Philosophy 8, pp. 259–286; reprinted in Samsó, J., Astronomy and Astrology in al-Andalus and the Maghrib, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007, Trace VIII.

  • Samsó, J., D.A. King, and B.R. Goldstein. 2001. Astronomical handbooks and tables from the Islamic World (750–1900): An Interim Report. Suhayl 2: 9–105.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sayılı, A. [1960] 1988. The observatory in Islam, 2nd edn., Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.

  • Seemann, H.J. 1929. Die Instrumente der Sternwarte zu Marāgha nach den Mitteilungen von al-‘Urḍī. in Sitzungsberichte der Physikalisch-medizinischen Sozietät zu Erlangen, Oskar Schulz (ed.) 60 (1928), pp. 15–126, Erlangen: Kommissionsverlag von Max Mencke, 1929.

  • Sezgin, F. 1978. Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, Band VI: Astronomie bis ca. 430 H., Leiden: Brill.

  • Sezgin, F., and E. Neubauer. 2010. Science and technology in Islam, vol. 5. Frankfurt: Institut für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, J. 2000a. Observations and predictions of eclipse times by early astronomers. Dordrecht: Kluwer, reprinted by Springer.

  • Stephenson, F.R. 1997. Historical eclipses and Earth’s rotation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Swerdlow, N.M. 1972. Al-Battānī’s determination of the solar distance. Centaurus 17: 97–105.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Swerdlow, N.M. 1977. A summary of the derivation of the parameters in commentariolus from the Alfonsine tables. Centaurus 21: 201–213.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Swerdlow, N.M. 2010. Tycho, Longomontanus, and Kepler on Ptolemy’s solar observations and theory, precession of the equinoxes, and obliquity of the ecliptic. In Ptolemy in perspective (Archimedes, 23), ed. A. Jones, 151–202. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taqī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ma‘rūf, Kharīdat al-durar wa jarīdat al-fikar (The non-bored pearls and the arrangement of ideas), MS. B: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, no. Ahlwardt 5699 \(=\) WE. 193.

  • Taqī al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ma‘rūf, Sidrat muntaha al-afkar fī malakūt al-falak al-dawwār (The Lotus Tree in the Seventh Heaven of Reflection), MS. K: Istanbul, Kandilli Observatory, no. 208/1 (up to f. 48v).

  • Tekeli, S. 1962. Solar Parameters and Certain Observational Methods of Taqī al Dīn and Tycho Brahe. Ithaca 26 VIII-2 IX, Paris: Hermann, vol. 2, pp. 623–6.

  • Tekeli, S. 2008. Taqī al-Dīn. In Encyclopaedia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-Western cultures, ed. H. Selin, 2080–2081. Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thoren, V.E., and J.R. Christianson. 1990. The lord of Uraniborg: A biography of Tycho Brahe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toomer, G.J. (ed.). 1998. Ptolemy’s almagest. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ulugh Beg, Sulṭānī Zīj, MS. P1: Iran, Parliament Library, no. 72; MS. P2: Iran, Parliament Library, no. 6027.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We owe a debt of gratitude to Benno Van Dalen (Germany), Julio Samsó (Spain), and F. Richard Stephenson (England) for their kind help.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha, Maragha, Iran

    S. Mohammad Mozaffari

  2. Department of Egyptology and Assyriology, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

    John M. Steele

Authors
  1. S. Mohammad Mozaffari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John M. Steele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John M. Steele.

Additional information

Communicated by: George Saliba.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mozaffari, S.M., Steele, J.M. Solar and lunar observations at Istanbul in the 1570s. Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 69, 343–362 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-015-0153-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-015-0153-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation