Hello Deb,

I don't think it is so controversial nowadays,

I am not so sure. I think you would struggle to put together a list of contemporary scholars supporting that view. However, that may be partly because the whole of notion of being a supporter of any of the elements of Pan-Babylonism is still seen as academic suicide.

Deb wrote:

Neugebauer and Sachs were great, but this is a little like quoting David Pingree ? the opinion of these ?experts? is always worth considering, but their own ideas changed over time and they were not correct on all points. When we are looking at the development of concepts within the period of pre-history, it is hard to prove or disprove anything definitively. The opinion of Ernst Weidner is not something that I would consider to be uninformed.

It does seem to me academic opinion often works like a dialectic. The Pan-Babylonists were the dominant view in the 19th century up until about WWI. Then scholars like Kugler, Neugebauer and Sachs challenged all the fundamental tenets of their view. This has probably led to an over-reaction and a rather defensive, conservative attitude to anything suggested by Pan-Babylonian scholarship was wrong. Some of the more enterprising scholars today like Finnish authority Simo Parpola do seem more open to re-examining the evidence. Although he is not an academic authority , I find it most interesting that Gavin White's research contained in his book Babylonian Star-lore, does favour the idea that the ancient Babylonians had a knowledge of precession.

Maybe with a new generation of scholars the pendulum may swing back to a more sympathetic view of ancient Babylonian knowledge of precession. Its certainly not there yet though. In terms of contemporary scholarship I would stick to my statement that the Pan-Babylonian view on precession is still controversial and largely excluded or dismissed from contemporary academic discussion.

We see a similar shifting change in attitudes to Ancient Egypt. In the 19th century the British astronomer Norman Lockyer suggested in his book ?The Dawn of Astronomy? that many Egyptian temples and Pyramids were aligned to fixed stars and solsticial and equinoctial points. However, his findings were largely condemned and /or rejected by 20th century archaeologists working in Egyptology as some of his chronology was inaccurate. Reflecting this prevailing attitude Otto Neugebauer wrote the definitive series of books on the Ancient Egyptian decans while rejecting all ideas of site alignments to fixed stars. Only in the last few years has this issue been re-opened by the research of the Spanish archeoastronomer J.A. Belmonte which has confirmed the basic thesis of Lockyer was actually correct.

Despite his excellent scholarship the conservatism of Neugebauer has recently been criticized by Belmonte. He has suggested Neugebauer?s influential opinions effectively held back understanding in this area for decades. Of course those reading the works of Robert Bauval have probably surmised this long ago. Its an interesting insight into the conservatism and prevailing ?fashions? in academic opinion.

Its true the best scholars like Pingree were always reviewing and changing their views in the light of new evidence and perspectives. However, it seems to me much scholarship develops strong pre-conceptions that prevent them exploring areas outside their basic perspective. I can't remember who said it but it was suggested something to the effect that new ideas in science progess more by funerals than academics engaging with new ideas!

Deb wrote:

The opinion of Ernst Weidner is not something that I would consider to be uninformed.

That is a fair point. Actually his name crops up frequently in bibliographies of other scholars in this area to this day. The label Pan-Babyloninism is a little to simplistic and masks differences between Weidner and some other earlier writers whose ideas were left rather discredited by Kugler?s life-long reaseach.

I know many of the Pan-Babylonists clung to the notion of an ancient 12 constellation zodiac (of equal divisions) developed by the Babylonians. The general view of scholarship today is that the development of the 12-constellation zodiac does not appear anywhere until its origin in Babylonia circa 700 BCE.. The development of the equally divided 12-constellation zodiac does not appear until after the start of the Persian Period in Babylonia (circa 500 BCE). I dont know where Weidner stood on this issue. Maybe Wolgang can elucidate on this point for us?

Moreover, I do not read German. Wolfgang has a valid point that it is a distinct asset to read German as much of the most important scholarship around ancient Babylonia has only been available in German.

The quote from Garry Thompson also needs to be seen in the context of an amateur astronomer who is clearly hostile to astrology and any notions that precession may have been understood before Hipparchus.

Deb wrote:

...and there seems to be some respect for the view that the principle of precession may have been understood by the ancient civilisations, and is suggested in the alignment of their temples.

That?s a rather different point and not one I have an issue with. I was questioning the notion that the ancient Babylonians had a precise understanding of the mechanism of precession by 1200 BC. I am certainly open to the idea that many societies may have had some degree of generalised understanding of the principle.

Deb wrote:

One of the books I would recommend (presently out of print but about to be re-issued) is The Death of Gods in Ancient Egypt by Jane Sellars. This is an information-packed, and very reputable survey of the evidence to support this theme. Unfortunately I leant my copy to Sue Toohey just before her untimely death, so I am waiting for the reprint to get a new copy myself.

I am unclear from Amazon if the new book has been issued or not. I have the original version. Yes it is an interesting and well researched book.

Its worth mentioning here that J.A. Belmonte is planning to publish a book this year entitled 'In Search of Cosmic Order' which sets out much of his research team findings on site alignments linked to fixed stars (esp Sirius , Canopus and certain circumpolar stars) and Equinoxes/Solstices. This is the first orthodox academic research to look at site alignments across Egypt since the work of Norman Lockyer in the 19th century. Belmonte also ties these observations into aspects of Egyptian religion and star-lore. Here is a video link to Belmonte's recent presentation on this topic at the Astronomical Union Conference in January this year:

http://canalc2.u-strasbg.fr/video.asp?l ... Video=8328

For anyone interested in this kind of research another excellent book is The Secret of the Incas by Dr William Sullivan. The following is from a review on Amazon:

Secrets of the Incas explores the baffling and tragic vulnerability of the Inca empire and comes to a startling conclusion: the Spanish had appeared at precisely the right place and at just the right time to fulfil an ancient, astronomically based prophecy of doom.
This conclusion is the result of two decades of research by American scholar Dr William Sullivan into the sophisticated astronomical knowledge of the Incas and how they encrypted this in their myths. Secrets of the Incas presents completely new evidence taken from an Inca myth. In this, Dr William Sullivan believes, lies the key to the basis of the old man's prophecy and, indeed, to the formation of the Inca empire itself. This myth is nothing less than a dire warning of an impending precessional event that, to the Incas, predicted future ruin.
The 'gate' or 'bridge' to the land of the ancestors - that is, the rising of the December solstice Sun with the Milky Way - was about to be washed away. Drawing on their ancient mythological database, the Incas reasoned - from the principle 'as above, so below' - that loss of contact with the ancestors, upon which their religious beliefs were founded, would mean their way of life would be destroyed on Earth.
It was this prophecy that stirred the first Inca emperor to action: if time was merciless, it had to be stopped. So the entire Inca empire, which was less than a century old when the Spanish arrived, became involved in an attempt at cosmic regulation - to change the course of the stars by changing the course of human history on Earth: 'as below, so above.'
William Sullivan decodes the myths of the Incas to reveal an astoundingly precise record of astronomical events. The Incas accepted their fate as written in the stars.

MarkC wrote: For anyone interested in this kind of research another excellent book is The Secret of the Incas by Dr William Sullivan.

While I have read the book and do like it, there is the issue of his reliance on the thesis of Hamlet's Mill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet%27s_Mill), which is not currently acceptable by academia, though I also have read and liked that book.

Hello Gabe,

While I have read the book and do like it, there is the issue of his reliance on the thesis of Hamlet's Mill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet%27s_Mill), which is not currently acceptable by academia, though I also have read and liked that book.

True but Sullivan's academic credentials in this field are impeccable. He is in a totally different frame from the kind of wild speculations you find in books by authors like Graham Hancock.

While Hamlets Mill has been criticised a lot its interesting that many researchers seem to find inspiration in the book to follow up its basic thesis. In short the notion that mythology can reveal knowledge about the process of precession. I seem to recall Jane B Sellars references this book too and Bernadette Brady relies on it heavily in her book on fixed stars. I think books like The Death of Gods in Ancient Egypt and The Secret of The Incas need to assessed on their own merits.

I wasn't aware the Incas not putting up a struggle due to this superstition was contentious. I'm recalling being told this about 30yrs ago at school, so I'm a bit puzzled here.

Probably whilst studying Shaffer's Royal Hunt of the Sun for A level English.

Hello Mark,

MarkC wrote:True but Sullivan's academic credentials in this field are impeccable. He is in a totally different frame from the kind of wild speculations you find in books by authors like Graham Hancock.

Oh I'd agree, Hancock is there to sell his books to the gullible New Age crowd. Of course, the interesting books don't get so well touted.

MarkC wrote: While Hamlets Mill has been criticised a lot its interesting that many researchers seem to find inspiration in the book to follow up its basic thesis. In short the notion that mythology can reveal knowledge about the process of precession.

While the idea that precession was known among ancient civilizations is important in the book, IIRC it is more focused on the idea that all of world mythology was encoded in the same fashion, i.e. animals are constellations, people, gods, etc. are the planets, and locations and geographical references are other astronomical phenomena, like the example in Incas that the river is the Milky Way, again IIRC, it's been 5 or 6 years since I read those books. All this posits that there was a 'worldwide' ur-civilization from which all others are descended, or maybe one heck of a transmission of this information worldwide. Not the craziest idea, IMO, since about 50-60K years ago, the worldwide human (homo sapiens, at least) population was all located in a portion of northern Africa.

That precession was known earlier then currently posited isn't that crazy either, all it takes is observation over a few centuries and a means of recording the information; a Neolithic tribe could do it, as long as they didn't get wiped out by a few bad seasons or some other tribe. Like everything else, this knowledge was probably discovered, lost, discovered again, lost again, over and over again across the millenia.

That Death Gods book seems definitely worth a read.

trevor wrote:I wasn't aware the Incas not putting up a struggle due to this superstition was contentious. I'm recalling being told this about 30yrs ago at school, so I'm a bit puzzled here.

Actually the Inca fought the Spanish for about, what, 50 years? Maybe you're puzzled for some other reason ...

GR wrote:

trevor wrote:I wasn't aware the Incas not putting up a struggle due to this superstition was contentious. I'm recalling being told this about 30yrs ago at school, so I'm a bit puzzled here.

Actually the Inca fought the Spanish for about, what, 50 years? Maybe you're puzzled for some other reason ...

I am even more puzzled now, are you saying Sullivan is wrong and I was misled (if my memory is correct) 30yrs ago?

AFAIK Sullivan doesn't mention it, but again it's not the point of his book. You probably got the usual condensed-to-the-point-of-misinformation that is usual for general youth education throughout the world.

GR wrote:AFAIK Sullivan doesn't mention it, but again it's not the point of his book. You probably got the usual condensed-to-the-point-of-misinformation that is usual for general youth education throughout the world.

From Mark's quote

''William Sullivan decodes the myths of the Incas to reveal an astoundingly precise record of astronomical events. The Incas accepted their fate as written in the stars''.

This last sentence is what I recall being told 30 or so yrs ago, so Sullivan is 'evidencing' this in 1996 about 15yrs later, but the review reads as though this is breaking news at the time.

It looks to me, just going over to wikipedia, that they did put up something of a struggle it's not as simple as 'oh look there's a Spanish soldier that's it then as our monumental alignments predicted ' However I also recall this from the Shaffer play, or discussions surrounding it, that they fought but underneath was this resignation to their fate. At the time the norm was to spend a term (10 weeks) on a book/play so was this condensed or not, depends on your definition.

You say you have read the Sullivan book so is the Amazon review misleading and/or do you think this astro-archao narrative is erroneous as regards the Incas? I'm struggling to follow your thinking here.

Hello Mark,

MarkC wrote: The development of the equally divided 12-constellation zodiac does not appear until after the start of the Persian Period in Babylonia (circa 500 BCE). I dont know where Weidner stood on this issue. Maybe Wolgang can elucidate on this point for us?

In the same book of Weidner (Ernst F. Weidner
"Alter und Bedeutung der babylonischen Astronomie und Astrallehre, nebst Studien ?ber Fixsternhimmel und Kalender"
Leipzig 1914) is a discussion about the right association from babyl. names of fix stars to the known fix stars. Weidner is writing, that he could look to a previous unknown table, which shows the twelves sign of the zodiac (but not complete) in Nov. 1913. He could indicate side by side virgo (a winged maiden with ear of corn) Libra and Scorpio. The Symbols base on wide parallel, vertical lines. To every Symbol belongs exact 30 lines, then it is following a small space in between, and then starts a new series.....
This means for him the 12 KAS-GID with the 30 U?, which is dividing the ecliptic...... The conclusion are, that the tables is from the beginning of the first (Jahrtausend) -1000. Not earlier than -900.
-800 is not possible because the fix-star Librae would be wrong in this time, and this fix-star is also marked in the picture, by the sixth line in the symbol of Libra.
Also concede the text with certitude, that the babylonian Astronomer used an Armillarsph?re, because the mensuration is one time from west to east and otherwise from east to west.
The basis of this part in the book is an old text called Nuppur-Text, where Kugler and Weider take different positions. The question is ( this text is about -2000, dated because of old-babylonian signs!) if it is possible from this text, - or better, are the facts in this text so precise or exact, that it is possible to consider significant astronomical cognizanses (Knowledge) from the Old Babylonian in the time (Age) about -2000.

Wolfgang

Hello Gabe,

While the idea that precession was known among ancient civilizations is important in the book, IIRC it is more focused on the idea that all of world mythology was encoded in the same fashion, i.e. animals are constellations, people, gods, etc. are the planets, and locations and geographical references are other astronomical phenomena, like the example in Incas that the river is the Milky Way, again IIRC, it's been 5 or 6 years since I read those books. All this posits that there was a 'worldwide' ur-civilization from which all others are descended, or maybe one heck of a transmission of this information worldwide. Not the craziest idea, IMO, since about 50-60K years ago, the worldwide human (homo sapiens, at least) population was all located in a portion of northern Africa.

Its been a few years since I read the book too and you are convincing me I better re-read it! I hadn't really got the impression he was emphasizing a global dissemination of the same images. The chapter that really struck me was actually about Paleolithic and Neolithic cultures and how their astral beliefs was originally integral to their hunting and gathering lifestyle.

Thus today the South African Bushmen regard the star Canopus as highly auspicious and call it the the 'Ant-Egg Star ' due to the time of appearance in the year when Ant-Eggs are readily available. Similarly, for the Tswana people , the stars of Orion's sword were `dintsa le Dikolobe', three dogs chasing the three pigs of Orion's belt. Warthogs have their litters while Orion is prominent in the sky-frequently litters of three. The Pleiades, named Khuseti or Khunuseh by the Bushmen tribe called the Khoikhoi, are called the rainstars. Their appearance indicates the rainy season is near and thus the beginning of a new year. Its interesting how so many many cultues have this same association connected to the Pleiades.

This is probably one of the strongest arguments for a 'global dissemination' theory. There was obviously a lot of cultural interaction and inevitable sharing of ideas but this theory is a bit too grand and simplistic for my liking.

The Moon would also have formed a basic marker of the months against the backdrop of fixed stars. I could go on but the point is obvious enough. .

One can imagine how the whole year was mapped out like that in the sky with the stars forming an original calendar and weather prediction system. Equally, animals that were hunted would have times of the year linked to them by star-lore. As far as I can see this kind of calendrical star-lore was the origin of all later zodiacs

This is not only a plausible theory. Its the the reality of what researchers have found studying hunter-gatherer cultures like the Southern African Bushmen and Aboriginal Australians today. When we get to the Neolithic and farming we see a sophistication of the calendar to account for the agricultural lifestyle.

Of course not everything had such an immediately practical application in terms of star-lore. Pre-Industrial, paleolithic cultures saw much more of a holistic connection between their spiritual beliefs and nature, including the sky, around them. Even today in cultures such as the Dogon, in Mali, spiritual beliefs permeate how the night sky is perceived and the astronomical cycle interpreted. Clearly, for ancient cultures animals were not just food. They saw a deep spiritual connection to the game hunted and entered into shamanistic rituals to obtain the consent and protection of the spirit realm.

_____________________________________________________________

Anyway, whatever happened to the hellenistic zodiac? I guess I have digressed a bit........

Anyone with some comments relating to the earlier part of this thread please feel welcome to come back in too.

Hi Wolgang,

The basis of this part in the book is an old text called Nuppur-Text, where Kugler and Weider take different positions. The question is ( this text is about -2000, dated because of old-babylonian signs!) if it is possible from this text, - or better, are the facts in this text so precise or exact, that it is possible to consider significant astronomical cognizanses (Knowledge) from the Old Babylonian in the time (Age) about -2000.

However, it seems to be Kugler's view that most modern scholars seem to accept as correct. Would you disagree? Certainly the Austrian scholar Hermann Hunger doesn't seem to support Weidner's position on such an early zodiac as far as I can determine. I also believe the Finnish scholar Simo Parpola writes about this period today. What are his conclusions about the origin of the zodiac?

Mark