What we do know of the date of this chart is mainly secured by the historical record of its planetary positions. So to use one of the dates that is widely agreed on, but then alter the planetary positions to ones that are less fitting with those recorded seems illogical to me. (I suppose this criticism applies more to Anthony Louis?s attempt to get Mars out of Gemini and into Taurus, despite the fact that the historical descriptions of the chart note the placement of Mars in Gemini). Having manipulated this chart myself, from many angles and types of zodiac, it doesn't seem possible to get a better match of the recorded planetary positions using a sidereal zodiac rather than a tropical one. Either way we have the problem of some planets being a few degrees adrift, but overall the tropical zodiac allows the better match.

A couple of years ago I gave a lecture on this chart in Italy ? building in a lot of arguments made by Ibrahim Allawi, in the paper recommended by Astroart. I remain very impressed by certain elements of Allawi?s paper, and like the point he makes about the determination of the ascendant; however, his comments on the historical record of the planetary positions seem to have been taken up as authoritative recently, even though there are several obvious errors in his account of Al-Biruni?s record, as shown in his table on p.65. Having been (and still being) completely open-minded in terms of sources and zodiacs, I would say that the best historical source of the data remains that recorded in Al Biruni?s Chronology of Ancient Nations ? an English translation is available from Paulo Silva?s Astrologia Medieval site on this link (the date and chart are given on pp.262-3):
http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/tabel ... ations.pdf

Allawi claims that Al Biruni only has the year right ?but errs in fixing the day?, which (Allawi says) equates to 23rd July 762 [JC]. But it doesn?t, Al Biruni reports the date as being 23rd Tammuz, year of Alexandri 1074, which equates to 30 July 762 JC, as noted by Pingree in at least two of his papers. Allawi says the correct date should be 31 July 762 (BC), based on the older report of Ibn Faqih; and since he argues that the (few) planetary positions we have from Ibn Faqih appear to match this (Mercury and Saturn are clearly wrongly reported, whilst the Moon and Mars are omitted); he concludes that we should treat this date as the correct one. He leaves the implication that Al Biruni?s version of the chart is unreliable and about 7 days off the correct date.

I don?t see how his argument deserves the weight it has been given. When the omissions and obvious mistakes in Ibn Faqih?s text are ignored, both historical authors give more or less the same positions, and note the same degree and minute for the Sun. The historical variance of this one day might be nothing more than the historical convention of beginning dates by sunrise (Greeks and Romans = 31st) or sunset (Arabs = 30th). It?s important to bear in mind that all astrologers aim to record the date and time that best matches the planetary positions according to their own calendrical systems. Al Biruni?s reported figures (if we ignore Allawi?s flawed account of them), are actually very close to what we generate with modern software in the equivalent Gregorian calendar date of 3rd August 762. A time of around 3:30pm LMT Baghdad gives 6 Sag rising, and the Moon ? at 14 Libra ? is then close to the 19 Libra actually reported by Al Biruni; not the 29 Libra, that Allawi says he reports. This mistake, which is now widely reproduced by astrologers, appears to be based on Allawi simply assuming a date rather than checking Al Biruni?s recorded positions carefully, and astrologer's following Allawi's lead.

I agree with Allawi?s assumption that Al Biruni had access to Ibn Faqih?s reported planetary positions. He had better access than we do; and what we have left of it is pretty useless, except for the fact that some elements of it confirm the reliability of what has been reported by Al Biruni.

Therese, what I like about your chart is that it has the Moon close to the position reported by Al Biruni, and Mars in Gemini as it should be - I could be persuaded except the Sun is too far adrift from its reported position.
I argue that one of the motivating factors for the selection of this date, is that the accessional chart of Caliph Al Mansur, the founder of Baghdad, has Jupiter at 9 degrees Aries (so the Sun-Jupiter trine in the foundation chart creates a grand trine with Jupiter in the accessional chart for its ruler). The two main historical sources agree in telling us the Sun should be at 8.10 Leo, and I think that position has to be a pivotal one for setting the chart because it?s unlikely that computational differences would generate an error of more than a degree or two on that. Using a tropical zodiac for the time I mentioned on 3rd August 762 (GC) places the Sun at 9.48 Leo according to modern software; not exact, but close enough in a chart that fits very well with the rest of Al Biruni?s reported positions.

i have been following this thread with interest as well. thanks deb for the informative post which brought new information that i was unfamiliar with. here is a chart cast to replicate what i understand from debs post. i will change it, if it needs to be changed. thanks.


screen shot

I just looked in on the Skyscript forum after being away for some time as there was no activity on the sidereal topics. I'm involved with Christmas guests and activities at this time, but it might be best to copy part of a post I wrote earlier since this topic hasn't been current:

"....We know that the Persian sidereal zodiac was set in the year 564. The zero point was ten minutes east of Zeta Piscium. Since I use Krishnamurti tables, this is a difference of 3 degrees 53 minutes from the Krishnamurti zero Aries point. If we take the 2:40 pm foundation position of Jupiter (in the Krishnamurti zodiac) at 2 Sag 15, and add 3 degrees 53 minutes, the result is 6? 08' Sagittarius."

We must use the ancient Persian zodiac tables (which were sidereal) to obtain the positions mentioned in the old documents. Those tables give us the required six degrees of Sagittarius for the Ascendant and Jupiter. However for modern transits and return charts we can use our modern calculations as the old Persian zodiac is no longer in use. To see the degrees as they were calculated when the foundation chart was chosen (give or take a few minutes), we add 3? 53' to our modern Krishnamurti positions. [Edited to correct a 10 minute error, 43' to 53']

We know that Masha'Allah used sidereal tables. One reference for this is on page 16 of Benjamin Dykes' Persian Nativities, Volume 1: Masha'allah and Abu'ali.

Of course, it is Christmas, and not a good time to pursue this matter now. I also hope to pick this up again later when I have more time to explore certain points. Thank you for the reference you gave. There are various reasons why I wish we knew more about the use of the Zij al-Shabirjar tables, because it is obvious that these must have been used. And yet no modern sidereal method is able to recreate the reported results, and the few figures that we can rely upon from Al Faqih best agree with the (tropical) planetary positions recorded by Al Biruni. This is very odd to me.

I am not trying to close down any argument, BTW; but wondering why it is that when Masha'allah gives a whole series of ingress charts for great conjunctions and the accession of a long line of rulers, the planetary positions in those charts also appear to make the best correspondence to a tropical system. There is no doubt that the major influence of the astrological technique employed was Persian. I have even wondered whether there was some kind of 'dual' reference system going on, where fixed star (or maybe fixed stars and superior planet positions) were gained by sidereal reference but the Sun and inferior planet positions were derived tropically. (I don't know if this is complete nonsense, but I have noticed a pattern over many charts of the Sun position agreeing better with tropical reference whilst Saturn's position agrees better with sidereal reference). If anyone can help to make sense of this I would be very interested. Ultimately, my interest in the Baghdad chart is not to prove or disprove any zodiac, or to try to 'correct' any of the recorded positions, but to understand what the astrologers of the time made of this chart astrologically, so we can better understand what it represented to them symbolically.

I do have another point to make (about the placement of Saturn) but the full reason for my interest in this positions deserves a bigger post than I can make at the moment. For now let me say that the sidereal position of Saturn in Aries would make a lot more sense to me than its tropical placement in Taurus. But Al Faqih clearly misplaced it and Al Biruni omitted reference to it - perhaps because he could see that at some point, someone recorded its position incorrectly. David Pingree says that Al Biruni recorded it as being in the 27th degree of Aries. The reference he gave was to the English translation of Al Biruni, which I referenced and linked to earlier. So this puzzles me - where did Pingree get that position of Saturn from, because it is not in the source he referenced. I wonder whether he saw it in the original untranslated manuscript. This seems likely but unless/until it can be verified, the only recorded position of Saturn I have seen is Al Faqih's 1.40 Aries - assumed to be an erroneous record of its tropical position, in the same degree of Taurus.

Thanks for posting the chart James. I notice Al Biruni's positions are not actually given in this thread, so include them below:

Saturn: [26.40 Aries - according to Pingree*]
Jupiter: ? Sagittarius
Mars: 2.50 Gemini
Sun: 8.10 Leo
Venus: 29 Gemini
Mercury: 25.07 Cancer
Moon: 19.10 Libra

* Pingree, D., ?The Fragments of the Works of Al-Faz?r??, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2 1970; p.104.

Deb wrote:There is no doubt that the major influence of the astrological technique employed was Persian. I have even wondered whether there was some kind of 'dual' reference system going on, where fixed star (or maybe fixed stars and superior planet positions) were gained by sidereal reference but the Sun and inferior planet positions were derived tropically. (I don't know if this is complete nonsense, but I have noticed a pattern over many charts of the Sun position agreeing better with tropical reference whilst Saturn's position agrees better with sidereal reference). If anyone can help to make sense of this I would be very interested.

Very very briefly, as time is limited: not nonsense at all, and others have noted it too, in print. A voice at the back of my head says there may be something about this in Rob Hand's translation of Masha'allah's On Reception, but I haven't the time to check. Perhaps later...

Thanks for making that quick point Martin. I might be a while before I can get back to this topic myself - but I hope the discussion can continue to delve into various points over time. I see no rush; the chart has been around a long time!

A new wrinkle has appeared. According to B. Suryanarain Rao (B.V. Raman's grandfather), the zodiac measured from "zeta Pisces" is actually measured from xi Pisces which is termed "Reveti." Rao references Surya Siddhanta for star measurements in 560 AD. Xi Pisces is given as 359 deg 50 min. Xi Pisces is close to the ecliptic. Zeta Pisces is some degrees south near Alrisha. (knot or cord of the fishes) It seems that confusion is piled upon confusion when trying to re-create ancient zodiacs.

So far the contemporary zodiac that comes closest to Masha'allah's positions in On Reception is the Raman/Yukteswar zodiac, but that zodiac does not agree with the stars measured from xi Pisces as given in Rao's books. There seems to be little doubt that the zodiac that made its way to India had similar roots to the tables Masha'allah used for the charts in On Reception.

To be further edited as time allows.

Deb wrote:
The two main historical sources agree in telling us the Sun should be at 8.10 Leo, and I think that position has to be a pivotal one for setting the chart because it's unlikely that computational differences would generate an error of more than a degree or two on that...

8.08 Leo is what we get when we make the conversion from the modern Krishnamurti to a zeta Pisces zodiac. (4Leo15 + 3.53) I had said earlier that the conversion was 3.43, but it's actually 3.53. (My calculation error)

I'm not a historical expert on what various writers have said. I merely set charts for the date generally agreed on: July 31, 762.

There are various reasons why I wish we knew more about the use of the Zij al-Shabirjar tables, because it is obvious that these must have been used. And yet no modern sidereal method is able to recreate the reported results....

Deb, I'm not sure what you mean that no modern sidereal method can recreate the reported results. All we have to do is make the necessary correction to a zodiac that begins with zeta Pisces. It's true, however, that none of our contemporary zodiacs place zeta Pisces as the initial point. Perhaps that is what you meant.

I am not trying to close down any argument, BTW; but wondering why it is that when Masha'allah gives a whole series of ingress charts for great conjunctions and the accession of a long line of rulers, the planetary positions in those charts also appear to make the best correspondence to a tropical system.

I have a copy of The Astrological History of Masha'allah (E. S. Kennedy and David Pingree). I offer these quotes while not completely understanding the mathematics:

"...It is only to be determined whether the solar year employed is tropical or sidereal. Ibn Hibinta's statement that Masha'allah used the Zij all-Shah and an annual excess of revolution equivalent to 93;15 degrees would indicate that it is sidereal; for the Zij employs and the parameter implies a year-length of 6,5;15,32,30d.

"One can confirm this result by examining the dates of the last eleven horoscopes in the series (the exact day depends upon the position of the Moon) and subtracting the longitudes of the Sun according to Masha'allah--all, of course, are Aries zero degrees--from the computed longitudes."

[There follows a table from 320 AD to 338 where the Sun progresses from +1 to +6 from the equinox.] (page 75)

From Appendix 2 (computations):
"From these figures it is clear that Masha'allah used the Zij al-Shah of Anushirwan in computing these horoscopes." (p. 142)

The Astrological History of Masha'allah, translated by E.S. Kennedy ad David Pingress, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1971.

There is no doubt that the major influence of the astrological technique employed was Persian. I have even wondered whether there was some kind of 'dual' reference system going on, where fixed star (or maybe fixed stars and superior planet positions) were gained by sidereal reference but the Sun and inferior planet positions were derived tropically.

This question appears to be answered by examining the six horoscopes in Masha'allah's On Reception. The short answer is that the Sun and inferior planets positions are also sidereal, at least in that text. I am experimenting with formatting tables so they can be moved into Skyscript.

Another interesting point of discussion is why the star tables (nakshatra stars) in B. Suryanarain Rao's books differ from where they would be placed in the Raman sidereal zodiac. We can, of course, precisely place the initial point of Raman's zodiac.

I do have another point to make (about the placement of Saturn) but the full reason for my interest in this positions deserves a bigger post than I can make at the moment. For now let me say that the sidereal position of Saturn in Aries would make a lot more sense to me than its tropical placement in Taurus...David Pingree says that Al Biruni recorded it as being in the 27th degree of Aries. The reference he gave was to the English translation of Al Biruni, which I referenced and linked to earlier. So this puzzles me - where did Pingree get that position of Saturn from...

Of course I have no idea of the source of that degree, but correcting for the zeta Pisces zodiac, Saturn is in Aries 28?48'.

Thanks for posting the chart James. I notice Al Biruni's positions are not actually given in this thread, so include them below:

I'll note below the converted zeta Pisces positions after those positions.

26.40 Saturn: [26.40 Aries - according to Pingree*]
28.48 Aries, zeta Pisces

?????Sagittarius Jupiter:Sagittarius
6.08 Sagittarius, zeta Pisces

2.50 Gemini, Mars
4.17 Gemini, zeta Pisces

8.10 Leo, Sun
8.08 Leo, zeta Pisces

29 Gemini, Venus
30.05 Gemini (Cancer) zeta Pisces

25.07 Cancer, Mercury
24.16 Cancer, zeta Pisces

19.10 Libra, Moon
24.59 Libra, zeta Pisces

I think we tend to forget that this was long before the age of computers and the printing press. Everything had to be calculated and copied by hand. Isn't it a little unreasonable to expect very precise positions to the minute, and sometimes even to the precise degree? It may be doubtful that laborious hourly interpolation was attempted from existing tables except perhaps in extreme cases. This is why it's rather amazing that such small differences exist between Masha'allah's positions in On Reception and those of the Raman zodiac. But that is another post.

This is getting very interesting Therese. I have family over today so will need to come back and re-read when I can focus better, but for a quick point - can you give the zeta Pisces position for the Moon; this seems to be missing from the list at the end of your post.

Of course I agree with your last comment, but there a great deal of value in understanding how historical charts were cast, and being able to reconstitute charts with as much reliability as possible. The information that comes out of this exercise might help us to add flesh to other charts recorded by Masha allah, where only partial details are recorded. That would be very exciting.

Therese Hamilton wrote:I have a copy of The Astrological History of Masha'allah (E. S. Kennedy and David Pingree). I offer these quotes while not completely understanding the mathematics:

"...It is only to be determined whether the solar year employed is tropical or sidereal. Ibn Hibinta's statement that Masha'allah used the Zij all-Shah and an annual excess of revolution equivalent to 93;15 degrees would indicate that it is sidereal; for the Zij employs and the parameter implies a year-length of 6,5;15,32,30d.

A traditional method for finding the correct time of an annual revolution is to add a certain constant value to the epoch for each year (in the case of nativities, the time of birth is the epoch). In the notation 6,5;15,32,30, each figure represents a unit 60 times greater than the following, the 5 being days. So the entire number represents 6 units of 60 days + 5 single days + 15 sixtieth-parts of a single day + 32 sixtieth-parts of a sixtieth-part + 30 sixtieth-parts of a sixtieth-part of a sixtieth-part (!). This is a more cumbersome way of saying 365 days 6 hours 13 minutes, or 365.2590278 days.

This is clearly an approximate value for the sidereal year, which is some 20 minutes longer than a tropical year due to precession (the tropical year is a little less than 365.25 days, the sidereal year is a little more). The Liber Aristotilis gives a very similar value (6,5;15,30, or 365 days 6 hours 12 minutes), as do Indian Tajika authors (6,5;15,31,30, or 365 days 6 hours 12 minutes 36 seconds). The modern value is around 365 days 6 hours 9 minutes 10 seconds.

If the time comprising a fraction of a day (15,32,30) is expressed as degrees of right ascension, we get 93.25 or 93 degrees 15 minutes.

Thanks so much for clearing that up Martin - I think most of us would have been left pretty clueless on the meaning of that without your explanation!

Theresa, ignore what I wrote in my last post - obviously I can work out the Moon position myself from what you gave in the earlier chart. I'm checking the computational differences of the new figures - they look very promising. I expect to post again later with some questions you and Martin might be able (and hopefully willing) to help me with.

I corrected my post with the Moon's position, Deb. Thanks for pointing out the omission. The Moon would be at 24.59 Libra in the zeta Pisces zodiac. But those tables were not perfect as is obvious from Masha'allah's positions. They are closer than the tropical values, however.

Another family member is arriving today. I'm getting too old for visitors! Only those of us in the older generation seem to own houses where others can visit.

I've been looking at planetary positions in Astrological History. This is indeed becoming interesting! When I first photocopied that book....must have been in the 1970s...I didn't fully understand the calculations and the value of the book.

Many thanks for your helpful explanation, Martin.