Vic DiCara wrote: That I can't tell you which academics believe this or that doesn't mean I have not done research.

Right, what I meant was it would be worthwhile to study what has been written on the subject by academics precisely because like you they have also studied the subject, but unlike you they have systematically put forth that study in a way that allows for peer review and for others to critically examine the work - there would be references, relations to other work done by other academics and so on and it allows a reader to actually independently take that work and evaluate it in relation to the rest of the work out there. It's hard to do that with something like this because you don't really draw many references but make many conclusions without expanding or letting us go through your rationale. That's all I meant. I agree with Konrad in a way who says if this is just your opinions then I guess nobody can really say much about that. But because this is a summary or rendition of something historical it just helps the audience to refer to why you're saying what you're saying. When you said that "some people" say that the sidereal zodiac was used in Babylon it felt a little bit odd to me, because it connoted a sense that this is widely disputed with some people saying this and some people saying that when in fact it's fairly widely understood that the zodiac was at least originally measured sidereally.

But what I find is definition of tropical measurements in ancient texts, alongside definitions of sidereal measurements.

Right, but maybe I confused the premise of your research here because it seemed to me that you were going much further than saying this and suggesting instead that a tropical reckoning was used for the zodiac signs much earlier than I undersatsnd we can say for any surety. One of the problems we have with these ancient sources from Babylon is that we are left inferring much from what is there because we don't really have much in the way of explanation.

So we do have evidence of a solar year with there appearing to be the equinoxes and solstices in the centre of the sign - the question is now more about whether this was, say, used primarily agriculturally for example, or chiefly as a prognostication or an astrological tool? What about the asterisms? What about after the developement of an equal 12 sign zodiac? Further complicating the problem is that we cannot tell whether they knew about precession so we have to face three possibilities:
A) They were using sidereal measurements to measure tropical effects
B) They were noting the equinoxes and solstices for some calendrical purpose outside of a stellar astrological foundation
C) Some combination of the above

The problem is really that we don't know and this is the crux of the debate. As a tropical astrology the tropical symbolism and approach makes sense to me for a variety of reasons and the sidereal measurements are therefore a matter of mnemonic or measuring convenience because they were chiefly measuring something of tropical significance whilst I still believe that they didn't fully differentiate them because they didn't know of precession so threw in a whole host of sidereal considerations in one melting pot. Maybe this is what you're saying too. Sidereal astrologers will of course disagree, and the point is that ultimately right now each side sees enough of evidence to find their position at the very least compelling.

But to return to my earlier point about references and citing academia, a part of the problem is making a bigger conclusion than I think we can say for sure. It's one thing to say that they measured things of a tropical nature and they did so siderally but it's another thing to imagine that the 12 fold zodiac was only momentarily sidereal and then was basically tropical - not only does it contradict the idea you laid before of a time period in which the tropical zodiac was aligned to the centre of the months (which seems to be earlier than the 12 equal sidereal signs) but I really personally do not feel we can make that conclusion based on the evidence we have. But instead you allude to some additional evidence that I must not be grasping and unfortuantely you don't provide that evdience

There is evidence of the Babylonians and others using a 12-fold zodiac in sidereal context during a relatively short transition period where the focus shifted from the older systems based on multifold sidereal divisions to the newer systems based on the 12-fold tropical system

What do you have in mind?

There I disagree.

Why? Even by your own logic this should be a natural conclusion. If you recognise that tthe babylonians had a calendrical system in which the equnoxes and solstices were in the middle of the signs and then by the time of the records we have more surety of it was at 10? sidereal Aries and later 5 and so on, it's surely evident that by Hipparchus it becomes obvious that one might recognise this drift in equinox against the sidereal point and want to affix it for that reason. Why else call it Aries? By Geminos we see clear evidence (2 centuries before Ptolemy but after Hipparchus) that the Greeks employed a system of tropical measurement which explicitly affixed the zodaic to 0 Aries but again explicitly highlight this as being different to the system of the Babylonians who place the equinox in the first few degrees of Aries. Surely it is precisely because of a recognition of apparent sidereal phenomena (keep in mind we have to imagine at this time that the stars themselves were the things coming out of synch, not the equinox).

I don't see those fingerprints, what are they?

Surely its the very names and divisions of constellations into an equal 12 fold system to begin with is the biggest hand smudge (much less finger print) of the sidereal foundation at the heart of at least its mnemonic attributions, with very few exceptions. The sky was envisioned sidereally at a time when precession was not understood, or at least we have no evidence of their understanding it. So the constellations are the thing which derive our divisions into an equal named zodiac we more or less keep today. We also have attributions in the earliest hellenistic authors to parts of this or that sign which have various qualities because of either how the constelaltions of the same name appear (whether this or that sign rises head first and so on) as well as being stormy or cloudy or dim or so on - clearly references to an observational system which therefore can only be sidereal.

What I see are rulerships, elements, modes and even the sizes and number of the divisions having nothing to do with stars and everything to do with the sun's relation to the equator (sometimes also the Moon's relation to the sun, in the case of the number and size).

I have to disagree with you. Rulerships appear not to have a huge amount to do with a tropical division explicitly. The orbital periods of the planets in relation to a geocentric position give rise to the domicile rulership - the problem is that despite what Ptolemy would have us believe, the logic for explicitly associating them with the tropical signs may not make much sense. By his logic Gemini ought to be ruled by the Moon and Leo the sun. It isn't the case. Instead what we could notice is that at some we have the Thema Mundi in which the horoscope of the world is imagind and it has Cancer rising.

Now it's perfectly sound to imagine that for whatever reason Cancer rises (we cannot jump to any conclusions on that), once we have this we can now place the rulerships spreading outward from here such that the first and second house contain the luminaries. LIkewise for the cardinal points - in this system the equal/whole sign associations of the angles are the points of turning (the cardinal points) which they would be astronomically.

Now the next problem is the issue of the triplicities which we have at least some evidence for in the Babylonian tradition. For all we know these are merely geometric distinctions but I don't see anything particularly tropical in symbolism here so I'd love to known what you have in mind here.

It has nothing to do with stars, and the year is best measured by the length of shadow (tropical).

But having nothing to do with the stars doesn't suddenly mean it has something to do with a tropical zodiac!? The best we can say is that a synodic period of the moon more closely matches 12 signs per year than a sidereal measurement. But is this the same as imagining that the 12 months per year match the zodiac - in my opinion no, because from one year to another whilst there will be more or less 12, they will not each subsequent year "start" from the same point on the ecliptic.

The fact that it is 12-fold (not 18, 28 or 36) is what betrays it as luni-solar and not stellar.

But again, this doesn't mean it points to a tropical zodiac as you yourself defined it. It just means they recognise months for example or something for agricultural or seasonal reasons. I'm not saying they *didn't* use it astrologically but all our evidence shows the zodiac emerging in the Mesopotamian region - we would have to rewrite history as instead saying that the tropical zodiac emerged in India and moved west to Mesopotamia, but we not only have no evidence of this, we have evidence to the contrary.


I hope you take my points here in the spirit of wanting to improve better communication and discussion of the zodiacs - as I mentioned on my thread in response to Ken Bowser on the sidereal zodiac, there's been ultimately too much of what I at least see as confusion or misinformation on the issue of the zodiacs. I'm a tropical astrologer and am happy to have anyone promote a tropical approach, but I think we need to keep the reality of the sidereal measurements in context and not overstate the case for tropical.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Hipparchus and Geminos were astronomer/mathematicians, and it has often been suggested that Ptolemy himself didn?t practice astrology. In biographies Ptolemy is noted as a mathematician, geographer and astronomer, though astrology is often included in his legacy. Academics frequently try to avoid mentioning astrology as linked in any way to Ptolemy.

I think this is a very weak argument Therese. There is no indication that there existed an astronomical understanding of the zodiac as used by mathematicians and astronomers and then a whole separate one used by astrologers. Geminos is a brilliant resource precisely because he is conveying the astronomy and astrology of his day and he explicitly highlights in disagreement areas where things contradict or differ from various traditiotns which gives us unique insight into the culture of astrology of the time. By highlighting that at this time 0 Aries as used as the start of the zodiac he also highlights that this differs from the Babylonians. Whether or not Geminos was an astrologer, we should imagine that this was not invented by Geminos himself nor that there's a distinction between some mathematical Aries and some astrological Aries. Aries was aries.

However, at this time in antiquity stars were still considered to be part of the 12 signs of either zodiac. Quoting from Geminos (my italics):

I'm not sure what you're saying, because Geminos is not concluding what you are - namely he's not saying that the signs are composed of stars, but rather they are named for the star constellations that contained them during his time. Well, ye, but who would disagree with that? I'm not sure what relevance you're drawing from that.

In fact the very quotes you highlight seem to actively contradict the point you seem to be trying to make, Geminos goes out of his way instead to differentiate the signs from the constellations of the same name and shows how the two differ.

Paul wrote:

In fact the very quotes you highlight seem to actively contradict the point you seem to be trying to make, Geminos goes out of his way instead to differentiate the signs from the constellations of the same name and shows how the two differ.

Paul, I think you misunderstand my point, which is that at the time when the spring equinox began to be aligned with zero Aries, forming the tropical zodiac, there was still reference to the constellations and stars as a backdrop for the (tropical) signs. Geminos didn't begin his discussion of the equinox alignment as an abstract mathematical principle apart from mention of the constellations. I wasn't saying that the constellations themselves defined the position of the equinox. (Then later Geminos discusses the importance of key stars.)

Now at a time when the tropical offset from the constellations is very large, we are seeing concepts such as David Roell placed before us in "Astrology Under Your Feet." That is, that the tropical zodiac is an earth-Sun relationship and has nothing to do with the sky (stars and constellations) as such. As we have lists of star longitudes from the Hellenistic period, we know that major stars were still considered an important part of astrological delineation. Now fixed stars are more or less a separate auxiliary study rather than part of a sky backdrop for tropical signs.

Thus, the rationale for those who promote "tropical Vedic" is that the lunar mansions/nakshatras are the 'sky' component, and the equinoctial zodiac is the earth-Sun component. (If I am understanding this correctly.)

India's solution is different as the 12 sign zodiac has been harmonized with the original nakshatras. So certain areas of the constellations become part of the interpretation for signs of the zodiac, particularly for the Moon. Traditionally we don't have an interpretation for 'Moon in Aries.' Instead we have 'Moon in Ashvini' or 'Moon in Bharani,' etc. Modern astrologers are beginning to adapt the influence of nakshatras to the Ascendant, Sun and planets as well as the Moon.

Western sidereal astrology has lost much of its star and constellational meaning as the emphasis is almost solely on the nature of planets. This astrology is mainly concerned with the return of planets to their 'true' sidereal position in relation to the sky. The majority of sidereal astrologers in the west today were first trained in tropical astrology. Most have decamped from western sidereal as too dry and mathematical, and instead have embraced India's astrology and its still vibrant relationship to the sky, stars and constellations.

I think it best to carefully read Geminos' quotes again, and consider the perspective in antiquity as compared to the modern emphasis in tropical practice. Particularly note Geminos here:

1. On the Circle of the Signs

The circle of the signs is divided into 12 parts, and each of the sections is designated both by the common term ?twelfth-part? and by a particular name taken from the stars that it contains and by which each sign is formed.

So we can't simply state that Geminos used a tropical zodiac without qualifying that statement with his description of that zodiac.

Paul wrote:Right, what I meant was it would be worthwhile to study what has been written on the subject by academics precisely because like you they have also studied the subject, but unlike you they have systematically put forth that study in a way that allows for peer review and for others to critically examine the work - there would be references, relations to other work done by other academics and so on and it allows a reader to actually independently take that work and evaluate it in relation to the rest of the work out there.

There are plenty of sources cited in my article. Maybe not as many as you would like, or not of the type you are used to.

Paul wrote:When you said that "some people" say that the sidereal zodiac was used in Babylon it felt a little bit odd to me, because it connoted a sense that this is widely disputed with some people saying this and some people saying that when in fact it's fairly widely understood that the zodiac was at least originally measured sidereally.

I corrected the "some people" thing because, I agree, it is most people, not some people.

I myself do not agree. The 12-fold zodiac is essentially non-stellar. It is then projected onto the stars to show its relevance to the stellar systems. So, yes, it was originally "projected" onto the stars. But was not originally "measured" by the stars. It was measured by non-stellar phenomenon: the ideal year divided by ideal months.

Paul wrote:I have to disagree with you. Rulerships appear not to have a huge amount to do with a tropical division explicitly. The orbital periods of the planets in relation to a geocentric position give rise to the domicile rulership - the problem is that despite what Ptolemy would have us believe, the logic for explicitly associating them with the tropical signs may not make much sense. By his logic Gemini ought to be ruled by the Moon and Leo the sun

The planets consider not only the compass direction but also the elemental nature of the signs, so the Sun vastly prefers leo over cancer, and the moon vastly prefers cancer over gemini.

Paul wrote:Now the next problem is the issue of the triplicities which we have at least some evidence for in the Babylonian tradition. For all we know these are merely geometric distinctions but I don't see anything particularly tropical in symbolism here so I'd love to known what you have in mind here.

Elements are associated to cardinal directions. East is fire (sunrise), west is air (sunset and relaxation). South is earth. North is water. The four cardinal points have these elments, and distribute them by trine to the rest.

Paul wrote:But again, this doesn't mean it points to a tropical zodiac as you yourself defined it. It just means they recognise months for example or something for agricultural or seasonal reasons.

That it is 12 equal divisions shows that its not sidereal. That it is measured by the ebb and flow of light and shadow shows that it is tropical.

Paul wrote:All our evidence shows the zodiac emerging in the Mesopotamian region

What I am saying is that they had their 12-fold equal divisions, and their 18 unequal constellations, and they had their correlation between the two. It took a while to figure out that the correlation is not permanent. And then it took a while to figure out what to do about that.

Another interesting thing I'm saying is that, while in the mediterranean area they decided to go with tropical achors, in India they didn't - because their 27 constellations were too important to them, and, in particular, the systems that had developed linking the two were too compelling and important. So in India we have a strange dichotomy where we have tropical definitions of the zodiac very explicit and clear, yet in practice the use of a sidereal zodiac.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Paul, I think you misunderstand my point...I wasn't saying that the constellations themselves defined the position of the equinox. (Then later Geminos discusses the importance of key stars.)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

I think I might well be misunderstanding you. You said "However, at this time in antiquity stars were still considered to be part of the 12 signs of either zodiac. Quoting from Geminos (my italics)" - I guess I may be misunderstanding what you mean by part. If you mean that the sign is composed of the stars then I would disagree, and I don't think Geminos is saying this. If you mean instead that the stars are measured or positioned in the sign, then I can follow that.

That is, that the tropical zodiac is an earth-Sun relationship and has nothing to do with the sky

Well I agree that the tropical zodiac is an earth-Sun relationship and I'm sympathetic to the idea that it's not a sky centred relationship, but whereas several years ago I might have gone along with this, I think increasingly that we simply cannot separate the sky from all of this. After all, the Sun, for a start, is imagined as being located in the sky, and of course the ecliptic and the tropical points might actually be reimagined as being the relationship with earth and the ecliptic as a whole - which encompasses something which obviously includes and indeed can be described by the Sun's apparent path, but which is more than the Sun. With that in mind, the tropical zodiac whilst it's much more earth-focused than the sidereal, is still quite sky based. I was thinking about this recently and how the tropical zodiac can be imagined as existing along the horizon, and we have the antiscia points and so on and how in some ways the idea of an embodied or earthed sky is really what the tropical zodiac is describing, in some way it brings the sky down to earth, as above so below.

Thus, the rationale for those who promote "tropical Vedic" is that the lunar mansions/nakshatras are the 'sky' component, and the equinoctial zodiac is the earth-Sun component. (If I am understanding this correctly.)

Ah right, okay, I didn't realise this.

Western sidereal astrology has lost much of its star and constellational meaning as the emphasis is almost solely on the nature of planets. This astrology is mainly concerned with the return of planets to their 'true' sidereal position in relation to the sky.

I don't have much exposure to western sidereal astrology except that it seems more less identical to western tropical astrology but with a different zodiac. Maybe that's too simplistic.

I think it best to carefully read Geminos' quotes again, and consider the perspective in antiquity as compared to the modern emphasis in tropical practice. Particularly note Geminos here

I originally read Geminos several years and only recently re-read it cover to cover so it's still pretty fresh in my mind. I think I may have simply misunderstood what it was you were saying - I wasn't sure if you were imagining a zodiac chiefly composed of stars but, almost by coincidence, started at 0 Aries (almost like a sidereal zodiac with an ayanamsha of 0) but I think I understand that you're just acknowledging that tropical or not, a sidereal component was always still important.

Paul wrote:

I think I may have simply misunderstood what it was you were saying - I wasn't sure if you were imagining a zodiac chiefly composed of stars but, almost by coincidence, started at 0 Aries (almost like a sidereal zodiac with an ayanamsha of 0) but I think I understand that you're just acknowledging that tropical or not, a sidereal component was always still important.

Yes, that is what I am saying: That tropical or not, a sidereal component was important in the time period when the equinox began to be used as the zero Aries point. And by 'sidereal component' I mean the visible stars and constellations. This is also what I mean by 'sky.' Thus in tropical reckoning the sky itself continues to change, and if the stars and constellations have any influence at all when using the tropical zodiac, then logically the signs have to continually reflect these changing meanings.

India has nicely eliminated what might have been a sky problem by aligning the nakshatras (star groups or lunar mansions) with the 12 signs themselves. It's really a very interesting study to see how specific star groups show through in the signs in the birth charts of individuals and mundane events.

Then we might ask, "What happens to these lunar mansion effects when using the tropical zodiac?" (I term 'nakshatras' lunar mansions because we now have an equal division of 27 mansions rather than specific stars that long ago were identified as the nakshatra stars. In some cases these are no longer aligned.) Obviously in the tropical zodiac we can no longer consider the actual (possible) effect of the stars and constellations that were originally aligned with signs measured from the equinox.

I do see this as a major problem for tropical astrology, so I can understand why David Roell stated that the tropical zodiac is limited to an earth-Sun relationship without any relationship to the sky (stars and constellations).

Traditionally, of course, India gives an overall interpretation to each of the lunar mansions. The question remains (assuming these interpretations have some validity) whether in practice there is a general influence extending throughout the longitude range of each mansion, or if only specific stars have effects. In this case the same stellar influence would show through in tropical charts, but would continue to shift with the centuries.

Therese Hamilton wrote:Paul wrote:

I think I may have simply misunderstood what it was you were saying - I wasn't sure if you were imagining a zodiac chiefly composed of stars but, almost by coincidence, started at 0 Aries (almost like a sidereal zodiac with an ayanamsha of 0) but I think I understand that you're just acknowledging that tropical or not, a sidereal component was always still important.

Yes, that is what I am saying: That tropical or not, a sidereal component was important in the time period when the equinox began to be used as the zero Aries point. And by 'sidereal component' I mean the visible stars and constellations. This is also what I mean by 'sky.' Thus in tropical reckoning the sky itself continues to change, and if the stars and constellations have any influence at all when using the tropical zodiac, then logically the signs have to continually reflect these changing meanings.

India has nicely eliminated what might have been a sky problem by aligning the nakshatras (star groups or lunar mansions) with the 12 signs themselves. It's really a very interesting study to see how specific star groups show through in the signs in the birth charts of individuals and mundane events.

Then we might ask, "What happens to these lunar mansion effects when using the tropical zodiac?" (I term 'nakshatras' lunar mansions because we now have an equal division of 27 mansions rather than specific stars that long ago were identified as the nakshatra stars. In some cases these are no longer aligned.) Obviously in the tropical zodiac we can no longer consider the actual (possible) effect of the stars and constellations that were originally aligned with signs measured from the equinox.

I do see this as a major problem for tropical astrology, so I can understand why David Roell stated that the tropical zodiac is limited to an earth-Sun relationship without any relationship to the sky (stars and constellations).

Traditionally, of course, India gives an overall interpretation to each of the lunar mansions. The question remains (assuming these interpretations have some validity) whether in practice there is a general influence extending throughout the longitude range of each mansion, or if only specific stars have effects. In this case the same stellar influence would show through in tropical charts, but would continue to shift with the centuries.

I don't have any problem with ascribing influences to specific fixed stars (as they do hold true in practice) while using a tropical zodiac. I don't see the archetype of a sign as having something to do with the stars that happen to be in that sector of the ecliptic currently. The stars and the (tropical) zodiac are simply two different frames of reference in my understanding.