In a recent paper Sule et al. (Astronomical Notes, vol. 332 (2011), 655) argued that an early 17th-century Indian mural of the constellation Sagittarius with a dragon-headed tail indicated that the bright supernova of 1604 was also sighted by Indian astronomers. In this paper it will be shown that this identification is based on a misunderstanding of traditional Islamic astrological iconography and that the claim that the mural represents an early 17th-century Indian sighting of the supernova of 1604 has to be rejected.

In late antiquity and throughout the middle ages, the positions of stars on the celestial sphere were obtained from the star catalogue of Ptolemaios. A catalogue based on new measurements appeared in 1437, with positions by Ulugh Beg, and magnitudes from the 10th-century astronomer al-Sufi. We provide machine-readable versions of these two star catalogues, based on the editions by Toomer (1998) and Knobel (1917), and determine their accuracies by comparison with the modern Hipparcos Catalogue. The magnitudes in the catalogues correlate well with modern visual magnitudes; the indication `faint' by Ptolemaios is found to correspond to his magnitudes 5 and 6. Gaussian fits to the error distributions in longitude / latitude give widths sigma ~ 27 arcmin / 23 arcmin in the range |Delta lambda, Delta beta|<50 arcmin for Ptolemaios and sigma ~ 22 arcmin /18 arcmin in Ulugh Beg. Fits to the range |Delta lambda, Delta beta|<100 arcmin gives 10-15 per cent larger widths, showing that the error distributions are broader than gaussians. The fraction of stars with positions wrong by more than 150 arcmin is about 2 per cent for Ptolemaios and 0.1 per cent in Ulugh Beg; the numbers of unidentified stars are 1 in Ptolemaios and 3 in Ulugh Beg. These numbers testify to the excellent quality of both star catalogues (as edited by Toomer and Knobel).

De Houtman in 1603, Kepler in 1627 and Halley in 1679 published the earliest modern catalogues of the southern sky. We provide machine-readable versions of these catalogues, make some comparisons between them, and briefly discuss their accuracy on the basis of comparison with data from the modern Hipparcos Catalogue. We also compare our results for De Houtman with those by Knobel (1917) finding good overall agreement. About half of the about 200 new stars (with respect to Ptolemaios) added by De Houtman are in twelve new constellations, half in old constellations like Centaurus, Lupus and Argo. The right ascensions and declinations given by De Houtman have error distributions with widths of about 40 arcmin, the longitudes and latitudes given by Kepler have error distributions with widths of about 45 arcmin. Halley improves on this by more than an order of magnitude to widths of about 3 arcmin, and all entries in his catalogue can be identified. The measurement errors of Halley are due to a systematic deviation of his sextant (increasing with angle to 2 arcmin at 60 degrees) and random errors of 0.7 arcmin. The position errors in the catalogue of Halley are dominated by the position errors in the reference stars, which he took from Brahe.

Tycho Brahe completed his catalogue with the positions and magnitudes of 1004 fixed stars in 1598. This catalogue circulated in manuscript form. Brahe edited a shorter version with 777 stars, printed in 1602, and Kepler edited the full catalogue of 1004 stars, printed in 1627. We provide machine-readable versions of the three versions of the catalogue, describe the differences between them and briefly discuss their accuracy on the basis of comparison with modern data from the Hipparcos Catalogue. We also compare our results with earlier analyses by Dreyer (1916) and Rawlins (1993), finding good overall agreement. The magnitudes given by Brahe correlate well with modern values, his longitudes and latitudes have error distributions with widths of about 2 arcmin, with excess numbers of stars with larger errors (as compared to Gaussian distributions), in particular for the faintest stars. Errors in positions larger than 10 arcmin, which comprise about 15 per cent of the entries, are likely due to computing or copying errors.

The catalogue by Johannes Hevelius with the positions and magnitudes of 1564 entries was published by his wife Elisabeth Koopman in 1690. We provide a machine-readable version of the catalogue, and briefly discuss its accuracy on the basis of comparison with data from the modern Hipparcos Catalogue. We compare our results with an earlier analysis by Rybka (1984), finding good overall agreement. The magnitudes given by Hevelius correlate well with modern values. The accuracy of his position measurements is similar to that of Brahe, with sigma=2 arcmin for with more errors larger than 5 arcmin than expected for a Gaussian distribution. The position accuracy decreases slowly with magnitude. The fraction of stars with position errors larger than a degree is 1.5 per cent, rather smaller than the fraction of 5 per cent in the star catalogue of Brahe.