Hi Therese ... Here's a few link to a 2007 post that mentions Masha'allah, sidereal, and Raman ... not sure if it's the one you were thinking of.

And a link (on archive.org) to the page it points to that was on Rob Hand's site in 2007.

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed May 14, 2025 3:26 pm If you have been following my work, you may have read the book that the title of this thread refers to, in which I mention my objections to the term 'western astrology'. In my opinion there is no western tradition of astrology, in any meaningful sense, until the early modern period. The astrology that I do would have seemed quite familiar to a medieval Persian astrologer, but that style in itself contains elements derived both from India and directly from the Hellenistic world. There are no 'pure' astrological lineages, nor any real east/west divide; rather, as Pingree said, the transmission of astrology progressed 'in appropriate circles'.

It's been quite a few years since I read the book that the title of this thread refers to. ; )

This deserves a topic all its own, but I will be brief.
All intellectual traditions are, of course, products of cross-cultural exchange, and no lineage is ever “pure.” Yet by recognizing Western astrology as a historically identifiable tradition. We trace a thread: from Alexandria’s synthesis of Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek thought; through Persian and Arabic custodianship in the early medieval period; into the Latin-language translations that fueled university curricula and courtly practice after the 12th century; onward through Renaissance printing houses where astrological treatises proliferated. Though fragmented in the modern era, that thread still continues and, one might say, has a strand or two added due to the rediscovery of ancient texts. Acknowledging this cumbersome continuum reminds us that today’s astrology—as eclectic as it is—has been a conversation nearly two millennia old, one that has continually adapted while preserving its foundational core: signs, planets, and houses.

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed May 14, 2025 3:26 pm In my opinion, the ayanāṃśa question can't be divorced from the overall calculation of planetary longitudes, where we all (presumably) use modern values rather than, say, the Perpetual Tables or a medieval zīj. I vaguely recalled an old but interesting paper by Therese Hamilton where she found modern recalculation of longitudes with the Krishnamurti ayanāṃśa often to be the best match for longitudes given in Babylonian tablets, and after some searching I found it here. If memory serves, I have also seen a similar comparison (by Therese or someone else) based on early Arabic-language charts, perhaps from Māshāʾallāh. Sorry to be so vague, but this is just from memory; perhaps someone else knows what I mean and can give the reference.

It's hard to tell if it's a similar comparison, but that's why I mentioned Raymond Mercier in my prior post. He concludes that multiple ancient astronomical traditions—Greek, Indian, Persian, and Arabic—converged on a sidereal zero point located just east of Zeta Piscium, likely originating with Hipparchus.

This is a topic that truly deserves its own discussion too, but I’ll try to keep things concise—though it may warrant deeper treatment at another time.

If the only ephemeris available has already been calculated using a specific ayanāṃśa, then naturally one must work within that framework. For modern times, I must respectfully disagree with the notion that ayanāṃśa is merely a by-product of which ephemeris one uses. Fundamentally, ayanāṃśa is a matter of defining the zero point of the zodiac—it's a question of zodiacal convention, not a computational artifact. Starting from a tropical ephemeris , the ayanāṃśa remains an entirely independent parameter. It specifies how the tropical vernal equinox is projected onto the sidereal framework. Conflating this distinction risks confusing (a) an astronomical data source with (b) a zodiacal calibration method—two fundamentally different layers of analysis.

Setting aside, for the moment, the question of Hellenistic sidereal values, Hamilton’s work suggesting that the Krishnamurti ayanāṃśa aligns closely with the handful of recorded longitudes on five tablets in surviving Babylonian horoscopes is certainly interesting. But this alignment does not settle the matter. While her conclusion may appear pragmatically justified by numerical fit, though clearly unintentional, she inadvertently implies a historical continuity that has not been established. The observational limitations of Babylonian astronomy, combined with the fragmentary nature of the surviving data, make it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions. Moreover, agreement with a few isolated texts does not make the Krishnamurti ayanāṃśa a universal or historically authoritative choice. Within the same context, the Fagan/Bradley fares almost as well, and if more Babylonian horoscopes are uncovered, it may indeed perform as well or better than Krishnamurti ayanamsa.

Any serious effort to understand Babylonian horoscopes must begin with the sidereal framework they actually used—not one retrofitted from later or unrelated traditions. A remarkable convergence of sidereal zero points was proposed independently by F. X. Kugler (c. 1900), later codified by Peter Huber (1958), and further refined by Britton. Fagan’s independent work, along with Bradley’s 1957 adjustments, closely corroborated the positions established by Kugler and Huber. As a side note, Huber’s 1958 publication postdates both Fagan’s 1950 book and Bradley’s refinements, suggesting that his contribution was more a confirmation and formal codification than a source of influence on their earlier determinations. All these sources—Kugler, Huber, Britton, and Fagan/Bradley—indicate a sidereal zero point where Spica (Chitrā) stood at approximately 29° Virgo, offering compelling evidence for a star-based reference system deeply embedded in Mesopotamian astronomical practice.

The Krishnamurti ayanāṃśa, though numerically close to Fagan/Bradley, derives from a variant calibration of Spica’s (Chitrā) position at approximately 30Virgo. While modern astrologers are free to adopt whatever ayanāṃśa best serves their predictive or philosophical needs, historical reconstruction demands a more rigorous standard. When studying ancient systems like Babylonian astrology, we must privilege the internal logic and attested reference points of the original tradition. Only then can we avoid the circularity of validating modern constructs with modern tools—and preserve the interpretive integrity of the sources we seek to understand. Rochberg’s Babylonian Horoscopes (1998) operates entirely within this framework established by Kugler and Huber.

The Krishnamurti ayanāṃśa has gained popularity within and without its own modern Indian framework—but that success should not be mistaken for historical relevance. Babylonian horoscopy operated under a different sidereal logic, shaped by distinct observational practices, cultural assumptions, and astronomical goals.

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed May 14, 2025 3:26 pm I don't think there is a value in adhering to ancient (or medieval) astronomical/mathematical models as such. Doing so could land us in some very odd positions (trepidation, anyone?). For instance, Vettius Valens explicitly supports the Babylonian definition of 0° Aries as located 8° prior to the equinox, which he clearly regards as a fixed value. This is neither Ptolemy's tropical zodiac nor a sidereal definition in the modern sense, because Valens didn't understand precession. But I'm not aware of any modern Hellenistic-style astrologers actually using Valens' preferred zodiac when applying his techniques.

First, modern Western sidereal astrology does not rely on ancient or medieval astronomical models per se but instead uses a rigorously reconstructed sidereal framework based on a convergence of derived values by Huber, Britton, and Fagan/Bradley, aligning the zodiac with observable sidereal fixed star positions. The contemporary sidereal zodiac used by Western astrologers—sometimes called the "Fagan-Bradley" or "Western sidereal" system—derives its ayanāṃśa not from any arbitrary tradition

Respectfully, invoking Valens here feels like a non sequitur—it doesn’t advance our conversation. Valens' use of a zodiac starting 8° before the vernal equinox is historically interesting, but it isn't relevant since I was speaking of Mercier's findings. I agree it is ultimately anachronistic for modern use. His conception predates a functional understanding of axial precession and the trepidation model.

So while Valens’ texts are rich in technique, we don’t need to adopt his cosmology wholesale—especially not his zodiacal framework. The sidereal zodiac in modern Western sidereal astrology is anchored in astronomical precision, not in outdated assumptions.

Asterion wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 8:21 pm Yet by recognizing Western astrology as a historically identifiable tradition. We trace a thread: from Alexandria’s synthesis of Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek thought; through Persian and Arabic custodianship in the early medieval period; into the Latin-language translations that fueled university curricula and courtly practice after the 12th century; onward through Renaissance printing houses where astrological treatises proliferated.

Yes, and all the while avoiding any mention of India, which was certainly part of the historical transmission of astrology. That's half my point about 'western astrology' being a misnomer. The other half is that Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia and the Arabic-speaking world are not normally considered 'western' in historical contexts outside astrology.

Perhaps my point regarding ayanāṃśa and planetary computations wasn't entirely clear. What I meant was that they combine to produce the actual planetary longitudes used by astrologers in casting charts. I wasn't suggesting (and neither, I am sure, was Therese) that the Babylonians were using modern computational models in conjunction with Krishnamurti ayanāṃśa; I just wanted to point out that applying the Fagan-Bradley value to modern-era planetary computations won't necessarily yield the longitudes found in Babylonian texts, etc. Put differently, there seems to be little reason to cling religiously to the exact ayanāṃśa implied by Babylonian practice when Babylonian planetary longitudes were often several degrees out for other reasons. The same applies to other ancient and medieval sources. That is why I feel that the starting point of the zodiac (that is, the ayanāṃśa) is ultimately an astrological concept that needs to be determined by astrological arguments. Personally, I have experimented with both Babylonian and Sassanian values (because I do tend naturally towards the feeling that, as Robert Zoller used to say, the old ways are the good ways), but I keep coming back to Krishnamurti as the best-performing one.

While modern astrologers are free to adopt whatever ayanāṃśa best serves their predictive or philosophical needs, historical reconstruction demands a more rigorous standard. When studying ancient systems like Babylonian astrology, we must privilege the internal logic and attested reference points of the original tradition.

I couldn't agree more. But I wasn't suggesting a novel historical reconstruction, I was responding to your original question of why, in my own astrological practice, I am 'using a "modern" Indian ayanamsa rather than one of the historical Western ones'.

First, modern Western sidereal astrology does not rely on ancient or medieval astronomical models per se [...]

I'm not at all sure how this is relevant to our discussion. I have barely a nodding acquaintance with the modern western sidereal school and haven't mentioned it at all, nor did you in posing your question.

Respectfully, invoking Valens here feels like a non sequitur—it doesn’t advance our conversation.

Equally respectfully, I disagree. My point was that Valens' techniques can be studied and applied without the need to adopt his definition of 0° Aries, and that the same applies to ancient and medieval techniques described by authors who used definitions closer to Babylonian or Sassanian ones.

Jane wrote:

Hi Therese ... Here's a few link to a 2007 post that mentions Masha'allah, sidereal, and Raman ... not sure if it's the one you were thinking of.

Thank you, Jane, but I didn't join Skyscript until 2011. (What kind of search did you do to get this 2007 post?) But that post was interesting because Papretis and I used to be on-line friends. I don't remember how I came to realize the match of planetary positions between the Raman zodiac and those in On Reception.

I see that I have a hard copy of a letter with tables I sent to Rob Hand in July of 1998 pointing out this similarity. Hand's On Reception was published in 1998, and he seemed to be unfamiliar with the Raman ayanamsa as he only compared Masha'allah's longitudes of planets with the tropical and Fagan-Allen positions.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Mon May 19, 2025 6:23 pm Thank you, Jane, but I didn't join Skyscript until 2011. (What kind of search did you do to get this 2007 post?)

Hi Therese ... I think used "Masha'allah sidereal raman". You can get to an advanced search page (it shows up at the bottom of a returned search), that might help with a more specific search.

as i have mentioned before - skyscript search feature is broken and doesn't include many years 2010 to 2020.. for some strange reason posts from 2007 and further back are accessible but not a whack of them in the middle years.. peace out..

james_m wrote: Mon May 19, 2025 11:20 pm as i have mentioned before - skyscript search feature is broken and doesn't include many years 2010 to 2020.. for some strange reason posts from 2007 and further back are accessible but not a whack of them in the middle years.. peace out..

Hi James…yes, I’ve found the same although if you search on the author name usung the Advanced Search Page you can find posts from 2011, etc. Example, here’s one of yours: viewtopic.php?p=67780#p67780

Martin Gansten wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 11:44 pm Yes, and all the while avoiding any mention of India, which was certainly part of the historical transmission of astrology. That's half my point about 'western astrology' being a misnomer. The other half is that Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia and the Arabic-speaking world are not normally considered 'western' in historical contexts outside astrology.

The following is a bit verbose, but I think, as you noted, we may be speaking somewhat past each other.

In contemporary scholarship, most historians who use the term Western astrology do so with full awareness of its multicultural roots, as I do here. They do not deny the essential contributions of India, Babylon, Egypt, Persia, and the Arabic-speaking world to the development and transmission of astrological knowledge. Rather, the term refers to a particular lineage of theory and practice that took shape in the Greco-Roman world, was further developed in the context of medieval Latin and Arabic scholarship, and was eventually codified and disseminated through Renaissance printing into early modern Europe.

In this sense, Western astrology refers not to a strict geographical designation but to a historically continuous intellectual and institutional tradition. This includes Alexandrian syncretism, medieval universities, and courtly patronage, as well as conceptual foundations such as Platonic and Aristotelian cosmology, the Ptolemaic planetary model, etc.

Indian astrology (Jyotiṣa) represents its own deeply rooted and continuous tradition. While there were occasional points of exchange—particularly during the early medieval period—the Greek–Latin–Arabic transmission that shaped European astrology developed largely in parallel with, rather than as a direct continuation of, the Sanskrit-based tradition. For this reason, historians tracing the development of astrology in medieval and Renaissance Europe appropriately focus on the Latin-language texts and commentaries that circulated in that milieu.

To abandon the term Western astrology would be to lose a useful label for describing the specific constellation of doctrines, methods, and institutional settings that shaped astrology as it developed in European contexts. Acknowledging the vital early roles of India and the broader Near East does not diminish the value of referring to Western astrology as a distinct and coherent historical tradition.

Martin Gansten wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 11:44 pmPerhaps my point regarding ayanāṃśa and planetary computations wasn't entirely clear. What I meant was that they combine to produce the actual planetary longitudes used by astrologers in casting charts. I wasn't suggesting (and neither, I am sure, was Therese) that the Babylonians were using modern computational models in conjunction with Krishnamurti ayanāṃśa; I just wanted to point out that applying the Fagan-Bradley value to modern-era planetary computations won't necessarily yield the longitudes found in Babylonian texts, etc....

That's fair. It is certainly true that the longitudes recorded in Babylonian or early Indian sources often do not align with modern ephemerides due to the observational and computational limitations of the time, including different reference points and simplifications in the models they used.

However, my original aim wasn’t to endorse any particular ayanāṃśa on purely historical grounds, but rather to trace the intellectual lineage of the so-called “Babylonian ayanamsa” and its relation to Fagan-Bradley. Debates over Fagan-Bradley versus Krishnamurti—or experiments with Babylonian and Sassanian values—rightly belong to the realm of astrological technique, which is an empirical inquiry into which systems yield the most accurate or meaningful results for practitioners today. That’s a different question than how the structure of the system emerged historically.

Martin Gansten wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 11:44 pmI wasn't suggesting a novel historical reconstruction, I was responding to your original question of why, in my own astrological practice, I am 'using a "modern" Indian ayanamsa rather than one of the historical Western ones'.

I appreciate that in your own practice you’ve found value in using a modern Indian ayanāṃśa, such as Krishnamurti, and I reiterate the freedom of practitioners to work within whatever framework best suits their aims—philosophically, spiritually, or empirically.

However, once Hamilton’s paper is brought into the conversation, which is entirely dependent on Rochberg’s Babylonian Horoscopes (1998), that aims at understanding how ancient astrologers perceived and calibrated the heavens—we’re dealing with a different set of criteria. In such a context, we are obliged to interpret those systems using the standards and assumptions of their own time.

Asterion wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 8:21 pmFirst, modern Western sidereal astrology does not rely on ancient or medieval astronomical models per se [...]

Martin Gansten wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 11:44 pmI'm not at all sure how this is relevant to our discussion. I have barely a nodding acquaintance with the modern western sidereal school and haven't mentioned it at all, nor did you in posing your question.

Fair enough—I allowed my argument to expand beyond the immediate topic for a moment.

Martin Gansten wrote: Sat May 17, 2025 11:44 pm Equally respectfully, I disagree. My point was that Valens' techniques can be studied and applied without the need to adopt his definition of 0° Aries, and that the same applies to ancient and medieval techniques described by authors who used definitions closer to Babylonian or Sassanian ones.

It seems there was a misunderstanding. An earlier point in my reply had been missed: “So while Valens’ texts are rich in technique, we don’t need to adopt his cosmology wholesale—especially not his zodiacal framework.” In fact, what I was really saying is that we’re in full agreement: Valens’ methods can be studied, tested, and applied without committing to his specific definition of 0° Aries or the tropical framework he may have assumed.

Asterion wrote: Fri May 23, 2025 10:32 pm In contemporary scholarship, most historians who use the term Western astrology do so with full awareness of its multicultural roots, as I do here.

Actually, I would dispute that. Most western historians of astrology have only a vague idea (sometimes next to no idea) of the role that India has played in the transmission of astrology, largely due to their inability to read Sanskrit. This creates a vicious circle, as the lack of knowledge regarding Indian influences in turn leads to a lack of incentive to learn Sanskrit and access those textual sources. (I state this without any intention of disparaging the excellent work that these colleagues, many of whom I know personally, do in their respective fields.)

The notable exception was David Pingree, who naturally wasn't right about everything, but who took the trouble of learning a number of languages in order to study the diffusion of astrology from several angles. The quotation I alluded to earlier was taken from his 1989 paper 'Classical and Byzantine Astrology in Sassanian Persia':

In fact, what is wrong about Abū Maʿshar’s history is that it is too simple, representing the transmission as being linear when in fact the celestial sciences were constantly being transmitted in appropriate circles, revolving back and forth between the peoples whom he mentions. In this paper I intend to explore some new evidence relevant to the question of the extent of scientific intercourse among Indians, Greeks, Persians, Byzantines, Syrians, Arabs, and Western barbarians. In the course of this investigation I hope to exemplify how, in the area of astrology as well as in other domains, the medieval tradition has surprising things to reveal to us about our classical Greek heritage, and incidentally to demonstrate that Paul Lemerle, in his eminently intelligent Le premier humanisme byzantin, did not do full justice to the Orient in trying to determine the origins of the revival of Byzantine scholarship in the ninth century.

In other words, I consider the notion that there is a 'particular lineage of theory and practice that took shape in the Greco-Roman world, was further developed in the context of medieval Latin and Arabic scholarship, and was eventually codified and disseminated through Renaissance printing into early modern Europe' to be flawed. The astrology that was practised in Europe up to the early modern period was essentially Arabic astrology (even when translated into Latin and, in a few cases, Hebrew), and that Arabic synthesis contained elements from Persian, Greek, Syrian, and Indian sources.

It is true that there are distinct cultural/regional and historical styles of astrology (incidentally, that is true within the Indian subcontinent as well), but if we take Hellenistic Egypt (where horoscopic astrology began) as our point of departure, it is a very moot point whether the Sanskrit tradition is further removed from those roots than European Renaissance astrology is. In some respects the former may be closer, and in others, the latter.

To abandon the term Western astrology would be to lose a useful label for describing the specific constellation of doctrines, methods, and institutional settings that shaped astrology as it developed in European contexts.

If the term is applied exclusively to the tradition as it developed in Latin Europe, I agree that it can be a useful shorthand. But it is in fact commonly used as an umbrella term for all forms of horoscopic astrology except the Indian, that is, simply to edit India out of the historical record (for reasons indicated above). Not only is that simplistic and inaccurate, it also makes the term 'western astrology' so broad as to be virtually meaningless.

With regard to ayanāṃśa, you could say that what I do is the inverse of the modern western sidereal school, which attempts to reconstruct the most ancient definition of the starting point of the zodiac while applying mostly modern astrological techniques to that zodiac. I'm more interested in understanding and applying ancient/medieval astrological techniques while remaining open with regard to the precise definition of the zodiacal zero point (which, in my opinion, goes hand in hand with precise planetary computations, and which has been differently defined over the ages anyway).