Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 2:50 pm
Hello Deb,
Deb wrote:
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:
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:
Deb wrote:
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:
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.I don't think it is so controversial nowadays,
Deb wrote:
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.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.
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:
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.The opinion of Ernst Weidner is not something that I would consider to be uninformed.
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:
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....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.
Deb wrote:
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.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.
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.
