That is why I said 'hazily'. And if you can understand it, the reason is this:
"According to the sacrificial terminology the 4th day before Vishuvan or the central day of the yearly satra is called the Abhijit day. “In the sixth month,” observes Dr. Haug, “there are three Abhiplava, shalahas (six days’s periods) and one Prishthya shalaha. This makes up the first 24 days of the sixth month. The following days are thus enumerated: the Abhijit day, the three svarasaman days and the Vishuvan, or the central day which stands quite apart.” Thus if we exclude the Vishuvan day, as standing apart by itself, this gives us four days, and with the two days — Atiratra and Chaturvimsha — which are taken up by the initial ceremonies of the satra, we make up the shalaha wanted to complete the six months. The Abhijit day thus falls on the fourth day before the Vishuvan.
Now if Abhijit day be supposed to be named after the Nakshatra of that name (i.e., when the sun is in Abhijit) then the Vishuvan, or the autumnal equinox must fall four days — or as the sun travels over about 1° of the ecliptic each day, 4°— after the asterism of Abhijit; and it can be shown by astronomical calculation that, with Aditi or Punarvasu at the vernal equinox to commence the sacrifice, we get nearly the same result. In the Surya Siddhanta (viii. 3 table) the longitude of Punarvasu is said to be 93°, while that of Abhijit is 266° 40', that is in other words, Abhijit would be about 6° behind the autumnal equinox or Vishuvan, if we suppose the vernal equinox to exactly coincide with Punarvasu. With the vernal equinox in Punarvasu there is again no other Nakshatra nearer to or at the autumnal equinox to mark the Vishuvan day.
We can, therefore, now understand why Abhijit, which is so far away from the ecliptic, should have been included in the old list of the Nakshatras. It marked the approach of the Vishuvan in the primitive sacrificial calendar, but when it ceased to be used for that purpose owing to the falling back of seasons, it was naturally dropped from the list of the Nakshatras, as it was far away from the Zodiac. If Bentley's suggestion about Mula and Jyeshtha be correct, this must have been done at the time when the vernal equinox was in Orion. But be that as it may, it will, I think, be clear from the above that the position of the Abhijit day in the sacrificial literature fully supports the tradition about Aditi, the presiding deity of Punarvasu having discovered the commencement of the sacrifice. Aditi at this time must have also separated the Devayana from the Pitriyana and thus may have been appropriately called the mother of the Devas ( Rig. x. 72. 5).; If was from her that the Adityas were born (Rig. x. 72. 8; Shat, Br. iii. 1. 3. 2.), or the sun commenced his yearly course."
B.G.Tilak, "Orion or the Researches into the Antiquity of Vedas" (Page 215)
Why do you keep reposting Tilak's work? There is only one reference to the word Punarvasu in Rig Veda and that does not mean a star. So what is the "hazy" reference of the star Punarvasu that you are claiming.
Did Vedic people (including Rig Veda) know about the stars? Yes, certainly they did. But to blatantly claim:
1) That the star is mentioned in Rig Veda
2) That the hymn was talking about the star and Into-European movement
3) That the Vedic people were not able to see the stars in India in that age and so they must have been in Arctic
These things classify as "intellectually dishonest" arguments.