While reading some articles on the Matrix software site I came across an article by one, A.W. Chadbourn regarding "Sunset charts."
Supposedly, this is Chaldean and instead of using a birth time, you use the time of sunset on the birth day and you cast the chart using an equal house system.
I tried it and everything was either a cupola degrees or minutes off from a regular placidus chart except now my rising sign was scorpio which it would have to be if I am a Taurus, as opposed to my regular capricorn rising sign.
Anyone have any comments about this as to validity, etc. Here is the original article:
http://www.astrologysoftware.com/resour ... D=15&orig=

Supposedly, this is Chaldean and instead of using a birth time, you use the time of sunset on the birth day and you cast the chart using an equal house system.

I would put emphasis on the "supposedly". What we know about chaldean astrology is very, very little, but they most certainly didn?t use horoscopic astrology. Probably didn?t use natal astrology also.

In my opinion is one more adept of sun sign astrology trying to justify his choice by claiming to be found a "secret and ancient technique". We usually have them proposing sun rising charts, but the difference is little.

I always wonder if proponents of sun sign astrology think that ancient astrologers were just stupid to put so much emphasis on the ascendent (which is very hard to find) if it could be so easily substituted by the sun.

oh, well

Hello James and Yuzuru,

I concur with Yuzuru on this. We must remember that the Chaldeans, ancient Jews, ancient arabs (even in Muslim Calendar today), the day starts at sunset (not sunrise). This coupled with the fact that the Chaldeans didn't do Horoscopic astrology (and probably not even natal as was practiced later; they were more into the astrology of kings plus mundane astrology), they would have charted the stars/planets according to important astronomical events such as the begining of the day (sunset chart not sunrise because the day starts at sunset). I presume that they charted the daily configurations of the stars/planets at the beginning of the day (at sunset) and the delineation of this chart applies to events/births for the "day" following the sunset (until the next sunset). They would also have done charts for the whole synodic month at the beginning of the month (lunation probably new moon). They would also have charted the lunar mansions,...

The sunset chart would then apply for the whole day (sunset to sunset) and hence, is only a general description of natives born within that "day". This further supports that they were probably doing more of mundane work with these charts (rather than natal).

I did tinker with this sunset chart a long time ago. It seems to work (generally) for natal work within that day (sunset to sunset) when it is coupled with the paran stars i.e. we check the planetary paran relationship with any significant fixed stars at sunset. But this applies to all births on the same day (sunset to sunset). To make it more specific, the planet that has a paran relationship with an important fixed star must be strongly posited in the natal chart.

For mundane work however, it might give us more spatial-temporal specific chart to work with. We usually start with the synodic 20 year Jupiter-Saturn cycle chart. Then we move to revolution of the world (i.e. Aries ingress) chart to make it more spatial-temporal specific. We then plot the lunation charts to make it even more spatial-temporal specific. Lastly, we plot the sunset chart (if you?re a Chaldean) or sunrise chart (if you?re a modern astrologer) to make it more spatial and temporal specific. These mundane charts are then delineated accordingly and they are ?effective? within their periods (one year, one month and one day).

Interesting post Astrojin, but I just want to clarify one of the points that is being made in this thread:

This coupled with the fact that the Chaldeans didn't do Horoscopic astrology (and probably not even natal as was practiced later; they were more into the astrology of kings plus mundane astrology),

Even though we have only discovered a small number of Babylonian horoscopes, we do know that in the later period at least, the Babylonians did practice natal astrology, and they are credited with passing their knowledge of this technique to the Greeks after the invasions of Alexander. The earliest horoscope we know of is dated to 410 BC. Remember that a lack of surviving horoscopes before this date doesn?t tell us that they weren?t drawing natal charts before then ? all this tells us for certain is that they definitely were recording natal charts for individuals by the 5th century BC.
Kidenus and Berossus, from Babylon, are two of the most important names who are remembered for migrating, setting up the earliest schools of astrology in Greece, and communicating knowledge of their astronomical and astrological techiques.

Hi Deb,

I was under the impression that horoscopic astrology is exclusively Hellenistic (probably due to my recent readings on Hellenistic materials). When I mentioned that the Chaldeans did not do natal astrology, I meant that they did not do natal astrology as we do it today (or as the Hellensitic astrologers do with their so called Horoscopic astrology later). I am sure that they must have done some form of natal astrology but it seemed to have lost its appeal following the appearance of horoscopic astrology...

Perhaps we would be able to learn more of this so called Babylonian astrology if more of their tablets are being discovered or excavated? Ars Longa Vita Brevis!

Mr. Chadbourne has expanded his ideas into a full book: "Ancient Whispers from Chaldea."

I possess a copy. I?m trying not to be impolite?..

Lets just say it was a major disappointment.

The author is a siderealist astrologer in the tradition of Cyril. Fagan. Unfortunately, he lacks Cyril Fagan?s enthusiasm for investigating his sources. The bibliography of this book says it all. A tiny number of books actually discussing Mesopotamian astrology. The author is clearly of the school of thought that if you lack the relevant answers you can just make them up.

If you really want to a decent introduction to what we know about Mesopotamian astrology I recommend starting with Michael Baigent Book 'From the Omens of Babylon'. You can then follow that up with more academic works like those of Francesca Rochberg such as ?Babylonian Horoscopes? and 'Heavenly Writing: Divination and Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture''.

Nevertheless, one thing to be said for sunset and sunrise charts is that they give you a clearer notion of where planets are in terms of planetary phase in relation to the Sun. This idea is being picked up here on this thread on the ACT Astrology forum:
http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5

Thank you all for your erudite posts.

And thank you MarkC for letting me know of your review of the Sunset book. I was so intrigued, I was about to spend $39.95 for a CD explanation of the system. I have changed my mind and will use the $39.95 to fill the gas tank of my truck.