Decans and Hora ̄s,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 26 (1963) 223–254; Idem, The
Thousands of Abu ̄ Ma’shar (1968); Idem, “Indian Influence on Sassanian and Early Islamic Astronomy
and Astrology,” The Journal of Oriental Research, 34–35 (1973) 118–126; Idem, “The Greek Influence
on Early Islamic Mathematical Astronomy,” JAOS 93, 1 (1973) 32–43; Idem (1978) 2.251–252; GAS 6
(1978) 109–110, 7 (1979) 71–72, 81–86, 139–151; A. Warburg, La rinascita del paganesimo antico
(1980) 253–257; Pingree (1989) 227–230, 237; Ch. Burnett and A. al-Hamdi, “Za ̄da ̄nfarru ̄kh
al-Andarzaghar on Anniversary Horoscopes. Edition and Translation,” Zeitschrift für Geschichte der
arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaften 7 (1991–1992) 294–399; Ph. Gignoux and A. Tafazzoli, Anthologie de
Za ̄dspram (1993) 96–99; P. Kunitzsch, “The Chapter on the Fixed Stars in Zara ̄dusht’s Kita ̄b
al-mawa ̄l ̄ıd,” Zeitschrift für Geschichte der arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaften 8 (1993) 241–249, esp. 241;
Ch. Burnett and D.E. Pingree, The Liber Aristotilis of Hugo of Santalla (1997) 151, 196; D.E. Pingree,
From Astral Omens to Astrology. From Babylon to B ̄ıka ̄ner (1997); Antonio Panaino, Tessere il cielo (1998)
38 – 40, 211–212; E. Raffaelli, L’Oroscopo del mondo (2001).
Antonio PanainoPaio ̄nios of Ephesos (350 – 300 BCE)
Architect, credited by V (7.pr.16) with completing (together with De ̄me ̄trios,
a temple-slave) the archaic Temple of Artemis at Ephesos (begun by K and
M), and with building (together with D M) the Temple of
Apollo at Mile ̄tos (at Didyma, begun ca 300 BCE). These accomplishments can be resolved
chronologically only if Vitruuius intended by “completion” of the Artemision its recon-
struction after destruction by fire in 356 BCE. S (14.1.23) assigns the reconstructed
Artemision to Kheirokrate ̄s (sc. Deinokrate ̄s?). Both temples were Ionic, very large in scale,
and required lengthy construction, probably with a series of architects.
Svenson-Ebers (1996) 100–102; BNP 10 (2007) 335 (#2), C. Höcker; KLA 2.174–175, A. Bammer.
Margaret M. Miles
Paita ̄mahasiddha ̄nta (ca 425 CE?)
The Paita ̄mahasiddha ̄nta or “Treatise of Brahma ̄ (Pita ̄maha),” known as the Paita ̄mahasiddha ̄nta
of the Vis.n.udharmottarapura ̄n.a to distinguish it from similarly-named works, appears to
be the inspiration for much of the classical siddha ̄nta tradition in Indian mathematical
astronomy. The siddha ̄nta is a standard treatise format that explains universal computations
for all significant astronomical phenomena. The core siddha ̄ntas of the two earliest major
schools or paks.as of Indian astronomy (upon which the later schools are based) – namely,
the A ̄ryabhat. ̄ıya of A ̄
(ca 500 CE) in the A ̄ryapaks.a and the Bra ̄hmasphut.asiddha ̄nta
of Brahmagupta (628 CE) in the Bra ̄hmapaks.a – both claim to follow a treatise of Brahma ̄.
Similarities in content strongly indicate this Paita ̄mahasiddha ̄nta as the treatise referred to in
both cases. It is considered to be the founding text of the Bra ̄hmapaks.a, although its original
version has long been lost.
Based on the dates of the siddha ̄ntas it inspired and some of the parameters it uses,
the Paita ̄mahasiddha ̄nta is thought to have been composed in the early 5th c. CE. It was
incompletely absorbed into a large non-astronomical collection called the Vis.n.udharmot-
tarapura ̄n.a, probably in the 7th c. Fragmented and corrupt, especially in its technical details,
this surviving version preserves its original format of a dialogue between the sage Bhr.gu and
the god Brahma ̄, who instructs the sage in astronomy.
The extant form of the Paita ̄mahasiddha ̄nta still contains many of the basic features of
PAIO ̄NIOS OF EPHESOS