Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello Michael,

This might be completely irrelevant and way off the mark in answering your question but regarding 24 sectors around the zodiac I wonder if this might originally go back to Mesopotamian rising and setting non-zodiacal constellations similar to the decans?

I came across a section in an ancient historical text describing Chaldean astrology which got me curious. In particular Diodorus Siculus (90BCE-30BCE) in his Bibliotheca Historica. Regarding Chaldean astral beliefs he states:

Beyond the circle of the zodiac they designate twenty-four other stars, of which one half, they say, are situated in the northern parts and one half in the southern, and of these those which are visible they assign to the world of the living, allow those which are invisible they regard as being adjacent to the dead, and so they call them "Judges of the Universe''.

Mark

very quick comment - planetary hours.. i don't know if there is a connection, but 24 sectors reminds me of 24 hours.. how was that integrated in the distant past? when did someone come up with the concept of an hour? it might have some connection or not.

James_M wrote:

very quick comment - planetary hours.. i don't know if there is a connection, but 24 sectors reminds me of 24 hours.. how was that integrated in the distant past? when did someone come up with the concept of an hour? it might have some connection or not.

Yes. This kind of connection was already discussed earlier in the thread.

I had been wondering about the origin of planetary hour rulers and an association with the rising time of certain constellations at night. That would fit the idea that half the constellations were invisible. Alternatively, this might refer to the heliacal rising of certain constellations spread over the year. This might have centred on certain bright stars rather than full constellations.

Either explanation would be somewhat similar to the 36 Egyptian decans. But I haven't heard of Mesopotamian astrology utilising such a concept. Still, I am not really knowledgeable enough on the topic to reach any conclusions on this. Probably best to hold off on any further wild speculation until some reliable sources can be checked out.

Mark

The 24 stars either side of a 12-star central belt sound like the Paths of Anu, Enlil and Ea. They were 3 sets of 12 constellations - one north, one south, one east - that heliacally rose in each month of the year according to Astrolabe B. They did not treat the zodiacal belt exclusively as the central belt however - the paths were based upon either Declination or Azimuth depending on which modern scholar you read.

Thanks Konrad,

I guess Diodorus Siculus (90BCE-30BCE) could have seeking to summarise the Mesopotamian cosmology through a rather distorted Greek lens. In particular the ancient Babylonian MUL.APIN division of the sky into the so called 'Three Stars Each' lists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUL.APIN

I was under the impression the Babylonians stopped working with this system about 300BC? Still, Diodorus Siculus could be recounting a distorted Greek cultural transmission of the idea.

Mark

Well according to Rumen Kolev's most recent research, the Astrolabe B predates MUL.APIN and contains the constellational calendar revolving around the Paths I mentioned.

I don't know about the Greek author you mentioned, I was referrng to your comment:

I wonder if this might originally go back to Mesopotamian rising and setting non-zodiacal constellations similar to the decans?

The Astrolabe lists the rising of constellations only and the number 36 comes from the 3 rising in each of the 12 months. Kolev likens these to the 36 Hermetic Overseers in his book.

Konrad wrote:

The Astrolabe lists the rising of constellations only and the number 36 comes from the 3 rising in each of the 12 months. Kolev likens these to the 36 Hermetic Overseers in his book.

Thanks for sharing this.

I suppose I should buy Kolev's new book out of curiousity alone. Apparently its only available from his website?

I confess to being sceptical about some of the theories of Rumen Kolev. His proposed chronology is totally at odds with just about every academic who has written on this material since WWII. I acknowledge he is a brilliant mathematician and programmer. However, he seems to lack any solid academic qualifications in this area. Does he even read the Mesopotamian languages? Last time I read him he was relying on largely German academics from the early 20th century. The movement called Panbabylonianism.

http://members.westnet.com.au/gary-davi ... age9e.html

Mark

Mark wrote:Konrad wrote:

The Astrolabe lists the rising of constellations only and the number 36 comes from the 3 rising in each of the 12 months. Kolev likens these to the 36 Hermetic Overseers in his book.

Thanks for sharing this.

I suppose I should buy Kolev's new book out of curiousity alone. Apparently its only available from his website?

I confess to being sceptical about some of the theories of Rumen Kolev. His proposed chronology is totally at odds with just about every academic who has written on this material since WWII. I acknowledge he is a brilliant mathematician and programmer. However, he seems to lack any solid academic qualifications in this area. Does he even read the Mesopotamian languages? Last time I read him he was relying on largely German academics from the early 20th century. The movement called Panbabylonianism.

http://members.westnet.com.au/gary-davi ... age9e.html

Mark

I've read this attack on his person before, and I have also read Rumen's response. I guess you just have to read the research itself and make up your own mind. The Astrolabe book contains more than just the research on the Astrolabe, it also has some stuff on MUL.APIN and some interesting things on the Dodekatemoiria tables. I got the book from him personally, but it was available on a website somewhere, though I can't remember which.

Mark, I hope you are not assuming that academic qualifications are some sort of guarantor of truth? I see nothing wrong with standing opposed to the self-perpetuating beliefs of a group of mutually-appointed authorities if we can show our reasoning and our evidence. I suppose this Astrolabe book is an attempt at just that.

Rumen does read the Mesopotamian languages as well as Latin and Greek. He is also open to discussing his work via e-mail should you wish to contact him.

Konrad wrote:

I've read this attack on his person before,

Hi Konrad,

'Attack' seems a little strong to describe my comments. I am not trying to write off the man. I just have doubts about independent researchers who more or less dismiss what every leading academic in the field has said.

Konrad wrote:

and I have also read Rumen's response.

I guess everyone has a right to reply in the face of such criticism. I am interested in his take on things.

Konrad wrote:

I guess you just have to read the research itself and make up your own mind. The Astrolabe book contains more than just the research on the Astrolabe, it also has some stuff on MUL.APIN and some interesting things on the Dodekatemoiria tables. I got the book from him personally, but it was available on a website somewhere, though I can't remember which.

Well I agree one needs to do Rumen the Kolev the basic courtesy of reading and contemplating his research. However, I do have to put it in context beside other important books and articles I have by David Pingree, Hermann Hunger, Francesca Rochberg, Ulla Koch-Westenholz, Erica Reiner, and David Brown.

Konrad wrote:

Mark, I hope you are not assuming that academic qualifications are some sort of guarantor of truth?

No. But it does indicate a methodological training. The self taught often have basic gaps in their knowledge. I would have a lot more respect for Rumen Kolev if he wasn't so dismissive of other good serious scholarship out there.

Very Happy I see nothing wrong with standing opposed to the self-perpetuating beliefs of a group of mutually-appointed authorities if we can show our reasoning and our evidence.

Who exactly do you have in mind Konrad? I dont recognise this representation of people like Francesca Rochberg. She is not part of some academic conspiracy. She has simply devoted her life to studying the subject. Her research into Babylonian Horoscopes has actually challenged the ideas of earlier academics like David Pingree.

Konrad wrote:

Rumen does read the Mesopotamian languages as well as Latin and Greek

Ok. This is self study in the Mesopotamian languages? I am not dismissing independent researchers. Gavin White has done some excellent work. However, I dont see him dismissing all the contemporary scholarship out there.

Konrad wrote:

He is also open to discussing his work via e-mail should you wish to contact him.

Well I think I best read his book first!

Thanks

Mark

Mark, I meant the attack of Gary Thompson, not you!

I'm not Kolev's advocate, and I don't know that much about him. I do whole-heartedly advocate self-study though, so I don't see it as being a hinderance towards finding conclusions that are as close to the truth as they can be.

Who exactly do you have in mind Konrad? I dont recognise this representation of people like Francesca Rochberg. She is not part of some academic conspiracy. She has simply devoted her life to studying the subject. Her research into Babylonian Horoscopes has actually challenged the ideas of earlier academics like David Pingree.

Yes, I am aware of her. I don't want to speak ill of the dead, so I won't make my thoughts on particular research known in this format. Maybe another time in person.

Anyway, we should get back to the topic of Michael's we are disrupting.

Konrad wrote:

Mark, I meant the attack of Gary Thompson, not you!

Oh yes he is quite hostile. That applies to astrologers in general. I see Rumen Kolev has put up his defence in writing on his website:

http://www.babylonianastrology.com/inde ... &Itemid=33

Now back to the thread topic!

Mark

Mark wrote: Apr 13, 2014 7:39 pm

This might be completely irrelevant and way off the mark in answering your question but regarding 24 sectors around the zodiac I wonder if this might originally go back to Mesopotamian rising and setting non-zodiacal constellations similar to the decans?

I came across a section in an ancient historical text describing Chaldean astrology which got me curious. In particular Diodorus Siculus (90BCE-30BCE) in his Bibliotheca Historica. Regarding Chaldean astral beliefs he states:

Quote:
Beyond the circle of the zodiac they designate twenty-four other stars, of which one half, they say, are situated in the northern parts and one half in the southern, and of these those which are visible they assign to the world of the living, allow those which are invisible they regard as being adjacent to the dead, and so they call them "Judges of the Universe''.

Hi Mark,

Your contribution is neither off the mark (no pun intended) nor irrelevant!

Not only am I interested in anything that somehow pertains to a 24-sector zodiac, your comment also caused me to re-read what Franz Boll had to say about Diodorus ("Aus der Offenbarung Johannis", Teubner, 1914, p. 35 ff.).

Boll believed that the ascension of the Mesopotamians' 24 stars marked the hours of the day. He further connected this with a gnostic text, the Testamentum Adami, in which all the hours of the days are under the influence of higher entities.

According to Boll, Diodorus meant 24 stars that are rising with zodiacal constallations (paranatellonta) ? not stars that themselves belong to the zodiac. ? I am not sure if the original text leaves this totally unambiguous, though.

Somewhere else Boll wrote that, prior to creating the zodiac, the Babylonians divided the equator into twelve sectors (30? each) and named them according to nearby star constellations, thereby marking the twelve Babylonian double-hours of one day (Sphaera, p. 319). This is the origin of the dodekaoros. As I mentioned before, the double-hour was still known to the ancient Greeks and was also called hora.

Later this principle and some of these constellations were used for designing the zodiac with its twelve signs as equivalents to the twelve months.

By this, we start seeing how closely the 12 or 24 hours of the day and the 12 or 24 sectors of the zodiac are related to each other right from the start!

As an aside, I wonder if the division of the equator may have anything to do with the origin of the houses?

James wrote: Apr 14, 2014 4:48 am

very quick comment - planetary hours.. i don't know if there is a connection, but 24 sectors reminds me of 24 hours.. how was that integrated in the distant past? when did someone come up with the concept of an hour? it might have some connection or not.

Hi James,

My reply to Mark already contained some information that ties in with your post also. However, I don't know if or exactly how the planetary hour rulers could fit into the picture. But regarding this, I do find Mark's remarks (no pun intended) worth considering:

Mark wrote: Apr 14, 2014 6:18 am

I had been wondering about the origin of planetary hour rulers and an association with the rising time of certain constellations at night. That would fit the idea that half the constellations were invisible. Alternatively, this might refer to the heliacal rising of certain constellations spread over the year. This might have centred on certain bright stars rather than full constellations.

These thoughts are quite remarkable, Mark... (alright, pun intended). Don't hesitate to further elaborate your ?wild speculations?!

Mark wrote: Apr 14, 2014 6:18 am

Either explanation would be somewhat similar to the 36 Egyptian decans. But I haven't heard of Mesopotamian astrology utilising such a concept.

Talking about a possible connection to the decans, according to Boll, the dodekaoros indeed had its origin in the Babylonian circle of twelve double-hours (as I wrote above).

What Konrad wrote is interesting as well in this context:

Konrad wrote: Apr 14, 2014 11:55 am

The Astrolabe lists the rising of constellations only and the number 36 comes from the 3 rising in each of the 12 months. Kolev likens these to the 36 Hermetic Overseers in his book.

Thanks, all of you.

Michael