Skyscript Astrology Forum

Deb wrote:Yes, that is a significant point to make. It seems more and more that all evidence points to the vernal point being originally placed in the centre of the zodiac signs, since the oldest sources refer to it being placed in the 15th degree, and the antiscia relationships and references such as Virgo spanning two seasons make sense of this too. But definitely there was a schematic desire to have the zodiac quartered by the equinoxes and solstices - the identification of which was the first necessary step in the development of the zodiac, and to have Aries represent its starting point because of the association with the vernal point at that time.

Moreover, placing the vernal point exactly in the middle of Aries strongly suggests that the Zodiac was in fact devised with the equinoxes and solstices in mind, despite the 15? offset.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Deb wrote:Yes, that is a significant point to make. It seems more and more that all evidence points to the vernal point being originally placed in the centre of the zodiac signs, since the oldest sources refer to it being placed in the 15th degree, and the antiscia relationships and references such as Virgo spanning two seasons make sense of this too. But definitely there was a schematic desire to have the zodiac quartered by the equinoxes and solstices - the identification of which was the first necessary step in the development of the zodiac, and to have Aries represent its starting point because of the association with the vernal point at that time.

Moreover, placing the vernal point exactly in the middle of Aries strongly suggests that the Zodiac was in fact devised with the equinoxes and solstices in mind, despite the 15? offset.

You'll have to explain that one to me, Michael. The earliest system I know of that placed the Equinox in the middle of anything was MUL.APIN, but this was a calendrical system, not a measurement of longitude. The Babylonians used a division of the starry sky to measure their planetary longitudes. When looking at Babylonian astrological reports, I haven't seen any reference to "Jupiter at the 12th day of Nisan" for instance, but many for "Jupiter at the 12th degree of Aries" as a contrast. And this is definitely a Sidereal Aries based around Aldebaran marking the middle of Taurus, as Martin has already pointed out. If the Babylonians conceived of their zodiac as being based around the VP falling in the middle of Aries, why then did they recalculate the VP to 10 then 8 Aries relative to Aldebaran? There are omens talking of planets making appearances, disappearances etc. in certain months of the year but no conflating of month and zodiacal sign.

If the Babylonians conceived of their zodiac as being based around the VP falling in the middle of Aries, why then did they recalculate the VP to 10 then 8 Aries relative to Aldebaran? There are omens talking of planets making appearances, disappearances etc. in certain months of the year but no conflating of month and zodiacal sign.

Are you talking about the period where reference was made to the Mul Apin Konrad? Because we do have fairly clear evidence of the zodiac signs being correlated with the months of the year from around the 7th century BC onwards, and the evidence is considered to show that reliably in tablets dated between 6th and 4th century BC. This is the period in which the tropical zodiac was developed.

The early accounts of both Manilius and Geminos describe older schemes which align equinoxes and solstices with the middles rather than beginnings of the signs. We see this in Geminos?s antiscia demonstration (II.27) and Manilius?s seasonal accounts of quadruplicities: ?at the middle of the Virgin summer on one side ceases and autumn on the other begins? (II.175); and ?summer comes with the Twins, autumn with the Virgin, winter begins with the Archer, spring with the Fishes? (II.265).

If you have a copy of Goold's translation of Manilius's Astronomica, his introductory pages lxxxi-lxxxiv are worth reading for the accounts of how the earliest authorities such as Eudoxus placed the vernal point at 15 Aries, although the ancient account of Aratus placed it at the first (Aratus may have been the controversial "authority" that Manilius refers to, where he displays a sense of novelty that someone even places it at the first degree). What these varying references mean exactly is still subject to debate, because the principles embedded into sign-meanings are dependent on the scheme relating to the seasonal effects that we expect of the tropical zodiac. Goold's suggestion is that Hipparchus may have played a hand in modifying the constellation outlines, which could of course have been done for the purpose of creating a sidereal frame of reference that allowed the tropical zodiac to be placed among the visible stars.

Deb wrote:

If the Babylonians conceived of their zodiac as being based around the VP falling in the middle of Aries, why then did they recalculate the VP to 10 then 8 Aries relative to Aldebaran? There are omens talking of planets making appearances, disappearances etc. in certain months of the year but no conflating of month and zodiacal sign.

Are you talking about the period where reference was made to the Mul Apin Konrad? Because we do have fairly clear evidence of the zodiac signs being correlated with the months of the year from around the 7th century BC onwards, and the evidence is considered to show that reliably in tablets dated between 6th and 4th century BC. This is the period in which the tropical zodiac was developed.

Deb,

Can you explain your first question further?

The early accounts of both Manilius and Geminos describe older schemes which align equinoxes and solstices with the middles rather than beginnings of the signs. We see this in Geminos?s antiscia demonstration (II.27) and Manilius?s seasonal accounts of quadruplicities: ?at the middle of the Virgin summer on one side ceases and autumn on the other begins? (II.175); and ?summer comes with the Twins, autumn with the Virgin, winter begins with the Archer, spring with the Fishes? (II.265).

If you have a copy of Goold's translation of Manilius's Astronomica, his introductory pages lxxxi-lxxxiv are worth reading for the accounts of how the earliest authorities such as Eudoxus placed the vernal point at 15 Aries, although the ancient account of Aratus placed it at the first (Aratus may have been the controversial "authority" that Manilius refers to, where he displays a sense of novelty that someone even places it at the first degree). What these varying references mean exactly is still subject to debate, because the principles embedded into sign-meanings are dependent on the scheme relating to the seasonal effects that we expect of the tropical zodiac. Goold's suggestion is that Hipparchus may have played a hand in modifying the constellation outlines, which could of course have been done for the purpose of creating a sidereal frame of reference that allowed the tropical zodiac to be placed among the visible stars.

Yes, I know of the mentions made of this alternate Tropical measurement, they match the scheme found in MUL.APIN. Thanks for the references anyway.

I'm just confused myself by your comment "There are omens talking of planets making appearances, disappearances etc. in certain months of the year but no conflating of month and zodiacal sign.", when we know that there are zodiac-sign and calendar month associations from the 7th century onwards; hence I wondered if you meant your comment to apply to the period before that only? Otherwise it doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

I just want to make a really small point here.

Francesca Rochberg in at least one of her books (I can find a reference if needed) mentions the connection between the observation of the rising of Sirius with the computation of the summer solstice, which occurs on the 15th day of the month. If we link signs to months, then we can consider that the middle of a sign/month corresponds to the cardinal points of the year.

There's another reference (again I'll find a reference if needed), in which it is postulated that from these cycles and knowledge of the 19 year return, that actually the Babylonians didn't observe solstices etc., but rather computed them.

Now I don't know from memory how far back all this is going or the timeline. I mention it more as a point which someone else, more knowledgeable on this, can take up if indeed it's even relevant.

But it may mean that knowing, at one point, the solstice occurred in the middle of the month, which is in turn linked to a sign, and that the Babylonians actually didn't observe solstices once they knew how to compute them, that the solstice was always meant to be understood as the middle of the fourth sign.

(I appreciate I don't have references, I can get them if needed but only if anyone is actually interested)

In addition, Martin Gansten made an interesting point recently:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8679

Martin Gansten wrote: (As an aside, the Greek fascination with this sort of pattern -- similar rising and setting times, etc -- predates the astrological use of the tropical zodiac, as reflected in one or two places in the Tetrabiblos, where it is clear that Ptolemy has taken over techniques originating in a zodiac that had the solstice/equinox points in the middle of their respective signs.)

Deb wrote:I'm just confused myself by your comment "There are omens talking of planets making appearances, disappearances etc. in certain months of the year but no conflating of month and zodiacal sign.", when we know that there are zodiac-sign and calendar month associations from the 7th century onwards; hence I wondered if you meant your comment to apply to the period before that only? Otherwise it doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Right. By that I meant the omens mentioning the months are based upon the Babylonian lunisolar calendar, not the Sidereal signs wearing the name of a month. That the zodiac developed from the ideal year found in MUL.APIN is obvious. However, this doesn't mean that the zodiac was "devised with the equinoxes and solstices in mind" as Michael said. I say this for two reasons: first, as has already been mentioned, the Babylonians recalculated the Vernal Point in Sidereal longitude and not the other way around. Obviously, this suggests the backdrop of the stars was the yardstick. Second, the zodiacal measurements we have from the Babylonians as mentioned in their astrological reports are taken with reference to the position of a star (calculated by Kugler as being Aldebaran) and not the Vernal Point or the name of a month. The association of months with signs (and I think they saw it in that order, not signs with months) wasn't really my point.

Paul - that's the point that I would make myself, that at the time the zodiac was developed the equinoxes and solstices fell approximately in the middle of the 'tidied up' constellations, but the addition I would make is that every reference we have of the use of the zodiac (which was not labelled tropical or sidereal but simply known as the zodiac) expects it to be based upon the ecliptic and associated with the solstices and equinoxes. The placement of these in the middle of the signs needn't suggest a pre-dating of the tropical zodiac, just a different origination of it: signs did not begin at these points but held them at their centres. This is how the scheme is said by Hipparchus (Commentary I 1.15) to be described in the 5th century BC work of Eudoxus of Cnidus - "Eudoxus made the division thus, so that these points [solstices] are the middles of Cancer and Capricorn".

Konrad wrote:

Michael Sternbach wrote:Moreover, placing the vernal point exactly in the middle of Aries strongly suggests that the Zodiac was in fact devised with the equinoxes and solstices in mind, despite the 15? offset.

You'll have to explain that one to me, Michael. The earliest system I know of that placed the Equinox in the middle of anything was MUL.APIN, but this was a calendrical system, not a measurement of longitude. The Babylonians used a division of the starry sky to measure their planetary longitudes. When looking at Babylonian astrological reports, I haven't seen any reference to "Jupiter at the 12th day of Nisan" for instance, but many for "Jupiter at the 12th degree of Aries" as a contrast.
And this is definitely a Sidereal Aries based around Aldebaran marking the middle of Taurus, as Martin has already pointed out. If the Babylonians conceived of their zodiac as being based around the VP falling in the middle of Aries, why then did they recalculate the VP to 10 then 8 Aries relative to Aldebaran? There are omens talking of planets making appearances, disappearances etc. in certain months of the year but no conflating of month and zodiacal sign.

The thing is that the VP at 15? Aries seems to be the oldest approach. Is it coincidental that it landed right there?

Maybe this was changed later when some astrologers insisted on a sidereal zodiac based on Aldebaran and the Four Pillars, respectively. (Maybe that was you in an earlier incarnation, Konrad?)

This topic also brings to mind the way some astrologers set the ASC in the middle of the first Equal house, which may be based on a similar line of thinking like the ancient Babylonians had.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Konrad wrote:

Michael Sternbach wrote:Moreover, placing the vernal point exactly in the middle of Aries strongly suggests that the Zodiac was in fact devised with the equinoxes and solstices in mind, despite the 15? offset.

You'll have to explain that one to me, Michael. The earliest system I know of that placed the Equinox in the middle of anything was MUL.APIN, but this was a calendrical system, not a measurement of longitude. The Babylonians used a division of the starry sky to measure their planetary longitudes. When looking at Babylonian astrological reports, I haven't seen any reference to "Jupiter at the 12th day of Nisan" for instance, but many for "Jupiter at the 12th degree of Aries" as a contrast.
And this is definitely a Sidereal Aries based around Aldebaran marking the middle of Taurus, as Martin has already pointed out. If the Babylonians conceived of their zodiac as being based around the VP falling in the middle of Aries, why then did they recalculate the VP to 10 then 8 Aries relative to Aldebaran? There are omens talking of planets making appearances, disappearances etc. in certain months of the year but no conflating of month and zodiacal sign.

The thing is that the VP at 15? Aries seems to be the oldest approach. Is it coincidental that it landed right there?

Maybe this was changed later when some astrologers insisted on a sidereal zodiac based on Aldebaran and the Four Pillars, respectively. (Maybe that was you in an earlier incarnation, Konrad?)

This topic also brings to mind the way some astrologers set the ASC in the middle of the first Equal house, which may be based on a similar line of thinking like the ancient Babylonians had.

Michael, I'm not seeing a pertinent point in your post here, so unless you actually have something to add, I will leave it there with you.

Just as a point of interest, Geminos, who wrote around the 2nd century BC, reports that all Greek astronomers placed the commencement of the zodiac at the first degree of Aries, although the Chaldeans at that time had it displaced by 8 degrees. The editors say that the placement of it at 0? followed the convention of Hipparchus, so this is why Aratus, though an ancient author does the same. So whatever was happening, attendance to the problem of precession was established well before the time of Ptolemy.

Konrad, I am not looking to dismiss your valid points.

From a star list in Hunger and Pingree's Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia (Brill, 1999):

The star list below makes it clear that the signs of the zodiac in Mesopotamia were measured in relation to various fixed stars, the Normal Stars. My notes below include the current positions of the relevant stars and don't take into consideration any small proper motion that might have occurred over the centuries. I have compared the Fagan-Bradley (F-B) positions with the Krishnamurti (K) degrees because there are 59 minutes between the two, which rounds off nicely to one degree.

Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia
THE NORMAL STARS

Page 148:
"The Normal Stars are stars near the ecliptic, about 30 in number, whose "conjunctions" with the Moon and the planets are recorded in the Diaries and in the Normal Star Almanacs..."

Page 150:
"A study by Huber [1958] of some Almanacs and Normal Star Almanacs of -122/1 to -110/09 demonstrated the following beginnings of the zodiacal signs to be in use at that time:" (Here I have excerpted a few stars from the list; TH)

Beginning of Gemini: "30 minutes before or after Normal Star 7" (zeta Tauri, Al Hecka)

Today's positions: K= 1? 01 Gemini; F-B= 0? 02 Gemini (A near perfect fit for F-B)

Beginning of Cancer: "With Normal Star #12" (Beta Gemini, Pollux)

Today's positions: K= 29? 28 Gemini; F-B= 28? 29 Gemini (K is within approximately half a degree.)

Beginning of Libra: "ca. 2 degrees after Normal Star 23" (Alpha Virginis, Spica)

(This puts Spica at 28 degrees of Virgo rather than the 29 degrees claimed by western siderealists or zero Libra as used in India.)

Beginning of Aquarius: "35 minutes before or after Normal Star 32" (Delta Capricorn, Deneb Algedi)

Today's positions: K= 29? 47 Capricorn; F-B=28? 48 Capricorn (K is close to zero degrees of Aquarius.)