Hello
I don't find the hypothesis of an equal division of the terms (5x6?) to be plausible for several reasons:
- all the traditional Babylonian/Hellenistic/so-called"Egyptian" terms use unequal ones;
- as Geoffrey says, the recently discovered tablet does apparently give degree values, implying that these were not all the same;
- the Indian equivalent of the terms, the trimsamsa/D30, which is referred to in some Indian texts as coming from "Greek masters", uses an unequal division; a simple 5x6? division would just be a harmonic 5th division (which is already used for other purposes) with unusual rulerships.
Incidentally, having checked, the Indian trimsamsa has nothing particularly to do with death, but with "misfortunes, setbacks, sudden mishaps, moral defects" etc. So it is interesting that if the Indian values 55875 are applied to Ptolemy's "Chaldean" terms, the totals are lowest for the benefics, highest for the malefics (Ju 66 ? Ve 69 ? Me 72 ? Ma ? 75 ? Sa 78)
Graham

Good morning,

As there was frequent and intensive travel in antiquity, i shall leave debates concerning 'who was first' to those more interested and qualified than yours truly to conduct them. It is also conceivable that persons entirely separate discover similar astrological techniques nearly simultaneously, resembling for example the independent development of infinitesimal calculus by Dr iur. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Sir Isaac Newton.

Mr Fox's technical description of 'circumambulation of the Ascendant through the bounds' above is in my humble experience quite correct. Such techniques are indeed forms of primary directions and are examples of dynamic predictive applications and delineations of the confines. There are also static ones. For example, if in a given figure Ar?s is posited in the confines of Herm?s, His basic expression and manifestation will differ from that were He in the confines of Zeus.

Since very few contemporary 'astrologers' agree neither on the underlying basic systems (ex. gr. tropical zodiac of the northern hemisphere or an equal-sign 'sidereal' zodiac [which?] mentioned by Mr Fox) nor on the applicable scientific testing methods, ex. gr. sufficient sample size, nor even IF astrology is accessible to scientific methods, astrological testing is fraught with difficulties.

Regulus Astrology, mostly but not exclusively (ex. gr. use of secondarily directed solar arcs) applying Mediaeval and Renaissance astrological techniques, frequently demonstrated in his 810-page book A Rectification Manual: The American Presidency the uses of confines and directing them, attaching considerable importance thereto. He concluded that the 'Egyptian' confines 'work better' than the Ptolemaic ones and recommended the use of the former. However, he neither tested the Chaldaean confines given in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos nor of course the simplified 'Babylonian' confines proposed above. He also stated that the sample size is not yet sufficient and that therefore further tests are required before arriving at a definite conclusion on 'Egyptian vs. Ptolemaic'.

Obviously, if the simplified Chaldaean confines do not function statically, they will hardly function dynamically according to the principle that what is not potentially in a root chart will not actualise later. Moreover, in our times of purported or assumed 'rugged individualism' many if not most astrologers apparently also tend to forget that mundane factors almost always prevail over individual horoscopic ones.

The astrology software Morinus Traditional until now offers a choice between Egyptian and Ptolemaic confines, both customisable. Alas, neither editable Chaldaean confines, nor a separate editable custom set, nor a Day-Night option are as yet included.

My approach will primarily be to compare static confines placements between 'simplified Chaldaean' and Egyptian confines, as the latter are included in nearly all software packages, are the most used and recommended by authors old and new. To make this work easier i intend to write a table of the differences by sign and degree between the two. If so desired, i could publish the table here at the Forum.

Secondarily, my intent is to compare results dynamically in various predictive techniques, bearing in mind that such techniques in my humble opinion and experience should always be used in close connexion to the root chart, a principle that renders scientific tests in astrology even more difficult. A planet who is a weak, afflicted 'lamb' in the root chart will quite rarely, if at all, become a hyperactive, victorious 'Lion' in primary directions or time lord techniques. This helps explain why so many astronomical-astrological events pass apparently without effects on many individuals.

Best regards,

lihin

Lihin writes

The astrology software Morinus Traditional until now offers a choice between Egyptian and Ptolemaic confines, both customisable. Alas, neither editable Chaldaean confines, nor a separate editable custom set, nor a Day-Night option are as yet included.

In fact, in "Morinus" you can easily customise the Ptolemaic terms with the sequence and degree values of the Ptolemaic "Chaldean" ones (or with the sequence of Geoffrey's tablets, for that matter). You would, it is true, have to re-customise the order of Saturn and Mercury before working on a chart of different sect.
It is thus fairly easy to compare so-caled "Egyptian" and so-called "Chaldean" terms using "Morinus".
[As an aside, since you place a question mark, and though this is not the place to discuss this matter, the nearest "standard" ayanamsa to the one I find best (empirically and theoretically) is "Babylon Kugler 3", giving a slightly smaller offset from tropical than with Lahiri and Krishnamurti.]
Graham

Good afternoon,

Here is a link to the paper on the, alas damaged, Babylonian tablets and on the confines in general:

A New Discovery of a Component of Greek Astrology in Babylonian Tablets: The ?Terms? Alexander Jones and John M. Steele

To me it looks quite difficult to determine whether the confines were of equal length, although, indeed, why should degrees be mentioned at all if the confines were of equal length. As the authors point out, two kinds of numbering were used and authors were not consistent in their counting of degrees, ex. gr. from 0 - 60' as '1' or '0'. Even taking the largest possible value from the translated text, we see a maximum of 8 degrees in item 16, BM 36628+36817+37197, confines of Mars. However, that subset contains six items with Mars twice.

As an alternative one could perhaps consider 'combined Chaldaean confines' as set out above but 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4. This would vary only in the order Saturn - Mercury in half of the signs from Ptolemy's separate day and night models.

Best regards,

lihin

PS In my humble opinion the many equal-sign 'sidereal' zodiacs are approximations of the unequal astronomical constellations, seeking to maintain much of their symbolism, whilst the tropical zodiacs (northern and southern hemispheres) are conceptually and symbolically separate from the astronomical constellations. But this is off topic here.

Hello
Yes, this is the paper to which Geoffrey (and subsequently myself) had referred. I had neglected to provide the link.
What I would like to know, and which is not apparent in this paper at least to a lay reader, is whether there is any evidence in the tablets that the order of rows (i. e. the signs) definitely starts with Aries. Could there at some stage have been a confusion with Leo (the symbolically and symetrically logical place to start, ephemeral locations of the equinox aside)? And as Giuseppe Bezza points out (in a link recently provided by Margherita), the triplicities, on which the terms seem to be largely based, are themselves best explained by a reasoning which gives priority to the fixed sign of each triplicity.
I notice that the first row of Ptolemy's "Chaldean" sequence (diurnal version) is the same as the Leo row of the so-called "Egyptian" one, and as the Leo row of the sequence on the tablets, while the "Aries" row of the tablets is equivalent to a nocturnal sequence of "Aries" or "Leo" in the "Chaldean" system.
Do the tablets specifically and legibly indicate the signs?
Many thanks for any help.
Graham
[p.s. as you say, this is off topic, but I would not in fact consider a sidereal zodiac based on approximations of the unequal constellations to be valid - the tropicalist John Addey rightly pointed out in the 70s ("Harmonics in Astrology" p.200) that fixed stars are not satisfactory bases on which to divide up the ecliptic: "It is much more likely that such effects are generated from the point where two great circles intersect or from some kindred factor identifiable in astronomy [...] The tropical points 0? Aries and 0? Libra ... must be the most likely choice. A second such pair of points would be the intersection of the ecliptic with the plane of the galaxy" (determined by the US Naval Observatory to be at 270?, or 0? Cap tropical, on 27/10/1998). In any case, what is NOT off topic, I feel, is that we must, in examining such issues as the terms, at least remain open to the fact that we don't really know whether the "Ancients" were working sidereally or tropically, whether they were fully aware of the difference or thought it mattered, since the vernal point was in early Aries anyway when many of them were working.]

Good evening,

The coherence of the decreasing number of degrees (8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 per sign) in Ptolemy's text on the Chaldaean confines seems to be:

A) emphasis placed on the elemental triangle ruler of the sign in the confines that also rise first;

B) decreasing emphasis placed on confines of following elemental triangle rulers;

C) symmetry between the halves of the sign, 15 degrees each.

There is, however, asymmetry in the degrees allotted to the elements with Air received twice as many as Fire, Earth and Water. This asymmetry might be mitigated by including all seven planets as in one scheme of Vettius Valens. On the other hand, 30 / 7 is an irrational number.

Ptolemy wrote neither that the Chaldaean confines did not 'work' nor that they were wrong. He attempted, however, to include the 'greater years of the planets' in his own scheme, with mitigated success.

If one combines the diurnal and nocturnal versions of the Chaldaean bounds according to active (day) and passive (night) signs, the planetary totals are:

Zeus 72
Aphrodit? 75
Kronos 72
Herm?s 72
Ar?s 69

Can anyone reference astronomical underpinnings of the 'greater years of the planets' exhibited in the totals of the Egyptian confines?

Best regards,

lihin

PS Off topic. There are astrological authors who present mundane and natal astrology based on the unequal astronomical constellations. Perhaps i shall open another thread on this subject with an example from natal astrology.