Skyscript Astrology Forum

Thanks for these notices. I have just left a question for Curtis in a thread he has open about his software.

Update: after a lot of head-scratching, I figured out how to set up the custom zodiac feature in Janus. Pankajdubey - I wonder how flexible you are in reading round charts as well as square charts? Because my eyes are so unused to them, I find it very difficult to get meaning out of square charts. I'm sure I must be an oddity, but I wanted to get a modern reproduction of the chart in a format that I'm used to.

I'll post the chart in a new post now.

I'm posting three versions of the chart.

The first - the one I think is the most instructive of what the astrologers involved considered - is a hand drawn chart based on the historically reported positions; the sources being Al Biruni's Chronology, (pp.262-3), the details given of Ibn al-Faqih's version in Allawi's paper, pp.63-63), and Pingree's report of the position of Saturn (?The Fragments of the Works of Al-Faz?r??, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2 1970; p.104).
Note the comments I made earlier about Allawi giving incorrect details about the chart presented by Al Biruni, (in his table on p.65). However, on p.63, Allawi's paper shows a graphic of the untranslated chart as it appears in Al Biruni's manuscript. Although most of this is meaningless to me, I can see that it records the position of a planet in Aries - obviously the source for Pingree's record that Saturn should be at 26.40 Aries. Sachau's English translation of the chart doesn't show any position for Saturn, and the corresponding area of this chart is empty, so it seems pretty clear that it was omitted by mistake.
Modern charts show Jupiter and Mercury as retrograde, but the historical reports don't mention this. Both were stationing and turning direct, so I presume the astrologers of the time would have considered them to be in this notable state rather than retrograde. Other than those SD notations (in red) this chart only shows information given in historical reports.

This chart makes a lot more sense to me astrologically than any modern chart based on computer recalculation. The most important electional principle for the foundation of a city is to have the Moon well placed and witnessed by all the other planets (a planet without aspect to the Moon indicates a lack of resources according to that planet's signification (Hephaistio, III.7 - and thanks to Ben Dykes for drawing that comment to my attention when he was working on the text). The astrologers would not want the Moon at the end of its sign, voc or about to enter its sign of fall. At this position the Moon's next aspect is the square to the MC-ruler Mercury, which is stationary and powerfully placed on the nodes, in the Moon's own sign so the Moon is able to commit its dispostion to it. Allawi has pointed out (p.65 and 69) how "the newborn Moon is in maximum latitude, almost perpendicular to the line of the lunar nodes" and how this was built into architectural design, with symbols of "two dragons which menace the new-born child symbol of the new Moon" - his suggestion is that they represent "that the new born moon has mastered the two dragons".

I have also noticed important correspondences with other relevant historical charts - for example, the Moon in this chart corresponds with the midheaven in the accession chart of its founder Al Mansur, which also has a Jupiter-Venus conjunction (at 7-8? Aries), connecting to the Jupiter-Sun trine of this chart (so creating a grand tine between the two charts). One of the points often missed in the discussion of this chart, is that it would not have been cast without taking into account the important themes of other charts. We know, for example, that Libra was an important sign for the Abbassid caliphs, because Masha'allah recorded it as the ascending sign of the prophet Muhammad (Allawi p.64).

Below is the closest computer generated match, based on the sidereal zodiac and the revati ayanamsha, (I created this by following Therese's recommendation to add 3?53 to the Krishnamurti ayanamsha). The correspondence of the positions is closer than anything I've seen published elsewhere. Allowing for rounded calculations, less exact latitude and longitude, and the possibility of small errors in the tables, it shows that the astrologers were not nearly as erroneous as we sometimes assume them to be. (In my opinion, the astrologers who worked on this chart were masters of their craft, so if there are mistakes, it is probably down to copyist errors or limitations of our understanding rather than theirs.)
Incidentally, I have shown the chart as calculated by Alchabitius semi-arc houses. We know that Masha'allah used a combination of whole sign and some kind of quadrant system (what he referred to as "by counting" or "by division"). I don't know what he used for "division" but there is very little difference between the cusps generated by the Porphyry or Achabitius semi-arc system, the two most likely candidates. We don't know what, if anything was made of the house positions in this chart, but I figured its easy enough for astrologers who follow the whole sign system to just look at the signs, to note what he might have judged "by counting", so added the quadrant houses for an extra convenience.

Below is the chart cast for the same time according to the tropical zodiac:
I've never liked the position of Saturn in this chart, and it always struck me as odd that astrologers make a lot about the placement of Mars, but don't question the fact that the Moon is at the end of its sign and about to make an out of sign opposition to Saturn which completes as the Moon moves into its sign of fall. This thread has been very informative for me in many ways and I've now obviously reverted from my previous opinion that the tropical zodiac makes the best fit with the historical reports. Clearly, the revati chart has less computational difference. Although there's not a lot of disagreement between the two charts, I've got a lot out of being able to verify the sign position of Saturn - at least to my own satisfaction at this time (I'm still open to revising if new information comes to light!).

I have a couple of quick posts to make in the forum, then I'm likely to be offline for a few days - so best wishes to all for a great 2014!

Hi Deb,

I am just so happy that you are using terms like Revati Ayanamsha.

Eating with hands and becoming vegetarian could be next

Happy new year to you and the forumites.

PD

Oh that is funny (but true! - I would be impressed with myself, except I'm not yet entirely sure that I know what I'm talking about ).

Many thanks for these charts, Deb, and your discussion. These charts will go into my hard copy file on Baghdad.

As for the Indian square charts, I've been using Jyotish for many years, and I never could get my head around the square charts. I re-draw all of them in traditional western circular format. The two Jyotish programs I have offer the circular chart option, and some Jyotish books published in India by Indian authors now include circular chart diagrams.

So as Jyotish makes its way into western countries, circular charts and western concepts are making their way to India. Jyotish would likely have a greater impact in the west if its practitioners and teachers would default to western type diagrams. To those unfamiliar with square charts the normal reaction is the "deer in the headlights" syndrome. Combine that with sidereal planetary positions, and only the brave can make the adjustment. (Or perhaps those who have reincarnated from India!)

deb,
a few comments. which is it july 30(aug 3rd other calendar), or july 31st (aug 4th other calendar)? you mention the july 30th or aug 3rd date in your post on page 1 of this thread, but july 31 or aug 4th in your post here today on page 4. both posts are included below.. the reason this is important has to do with your comments on the position of the moon and just what it is, or isn't applying to.

regarding modern calculations, on solar fire one has the option of creating a wider window of time for stationary planets. i use a window of 6 days.. mercury and jupiter are either 1-3 approx days prior to an exact stationary direct phase in the baghdad inception chart.. they show in the chart i offered on page 1 as S for stationary.

Deb wrote: 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.

Deb wrote: Modern charts show Jupiter and Mercury as retrograde, but the historical reports don't mention this. Both were stationing and turning direct, so I presume the astrologers of the time would have considered them to be in this notable state rather than retrograde. Other than those SD notations (in red) this chart only shows information given in historical reports.

Below is the chart cast for the same time according to the tropical zodiac:

I've never liked the position of Saturn in this chart, and it always struck me as odd that astrologers make a lot about the placement of Mars, but don't question the fact that the Moon is at the end of its sign and about to make an out of sign opposition to Saturn which completes as the Moon moves into its sign of fall. This thread has been very informative for me in many ways and I've now obviously reverted from my previous opinion that the tropical zodiac makes the best fit with the historical reports. Clearly, the revati chart has less computational difference. Although there's not a lot of disagreement between the two charts, I've got a lot out of being able to verify the sign position of Saturn - at least to my own satisfaction at this time (I'm still open to revising if new information comes to light!).

I have a couple of quick posts to make in the forum, then I'm likely to be offline for a few days - so best wishes to all for a great 2014!

Deb wrote:I have a quick question I'd appreciate some feedback on. I'd like to ask some astrological software producers y gave the bibliographic to incorporate this ayanamsha in future software updates - which will make it a lot easier for traditional astrologers to recreate chart examples from Mahasallah and others who used the Z?j al-Sh?h. What should it be called? Juan - in the Swiss Ephemeris article - refers to it as the "Greek-Arabic-Hindu ayanamsha" - is that a sensible term of reference, or has anyone seen it referred to by other names?

Just a few clarifications from memory for the moment --I`m in a hurry and haven't read the other posts yet.

The Swiss Ephemeris explanations were written by Dieter Koch, not by Juan Revilla who simply provided the bibliographic reference on which it is based. In that explanation, Dieter called the A.D. 564 fiducial "Sasanian" --which I think is correct but I haven't heard of it referred by that name before. This zero point is the one used by the Toledan Tables as well as the Tables of Al-Kwarismi and the "Zij-Al-Shah" on which they are based. The last according to Kenedy and Pingree were the ones used by Masha-allah.

Those tables are sidereal and their fiducial is not a fixed star but a particularly significant historical date. Raymond Mercier (see reference in the SE docs) explains its rationale in detail, all of which I summarized years ago and recently reposted in this forum.

Therefore in order to calculate sidereal positions using this fiducial one simply has to use the "Sasanian" ayanamsa implemented in the Swiss Ephemeris (as well as in Riyal) almost 10 years ago.

The detailed arguments postulated by Mercier to explain the 564 AD zero point, as well as my historical notes on the modern reconstruction of the chart of Baghdad can be read here:

THE HOROSCOPE OF BAGHDAD
historical, astronomical, and astrological notes
http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/posts ... ghdad.html

Juan

Revati ayanamsa as shown in Delphic Oracle 7:
I have a rather large screen and reduced the image size. This results in a font that appears smaller than it really is.

Hi James

Let me clear up the confusion of the date, because I agree it is important.

My original argument (which is unchanged) is that Allawi makes one of his many errors where he says

"Biruni's version, July 23, 762, is correct in fixing the year but errs in fixing the day. Ibn Faqih's version, July 31 is correct".

This has helped to generate abandonment of Al Biruni's positions with the assumption that his chart was dated seven days off what it should be (along with other implications that Al Biruni is not to be trusted). Almost all of Allawi's references to Al Biruni's reported chart are faulty, and have unfortunately been reproduced by many others since. We need to disregard everything Allawi tells us of it and check Al Biruni's manuscript and the verification given by David Pingree, who obviously had access to the original manuscript as well as Sachau's English translation of it. In at least two of his papers Pingree tells us that the Julian calendar equivalent of Al Biruni's date is 30th July, not 23rd July as Allawi suggests. So we have a 1 day difference between the report of Al Biruni and that of Ibn al-Faqih. We shouldn't dismiss one or the other of these possibilities because of the discrepancy that can creep in when one author gives the date in the Alexandian calendar, the other the Arabic calendar, one may be counting days from sunrise, the other from sunset, and there are many other reasons why a historically reported date might fall one day off when we make conversions between calendar many centuries later. What matters is that where al-Faqih's figures - as reported by Allawi - are not to be dismissed as faulty, they give the same results as those published by Al Biruni. So when making a modern date (and time) equivalent of the chart, we need to be led by the astronomical positions recorded, and decide the date on this basis.

As an aside, I feel quite strongly that the modern date equivalent should show the modern date - in the Gregorian calendar that we use today. I have no idea why the Julian date of this chart is the one that gets reported so often (its not as if it was originally cast in that now redundant calendar). I have seen many astrologers report the date of this chart as 31 July without explaining (as Allawi fails to explain) that this is the Julian calendar date.

I argue that Al Biruni's figures have to be put first and foremost, as the only reasonably informative record of the positions that we have. Where my argument has changed, is that originally I couldn't see how any of the popular modern methods of sidereal calculation came close enough to those figures, so I assumed - as did Therese, and as did Pingree, and Tuckerman who made the calculations that Allawi reports too, that Al Biruni may have converted to a tropical zodiac (in which case al Faqih must have done the same since his figures agree with Al Biruni). If we use a tropical zodiac the best match for the 19? Moon position Al Biruni actually reported - rather than the 29? position Allawi says he reports, is 30 July in the Julian Calendar, 3rd August in Gregorian calendar.

Here is what Pingree reports of the positions, which he compares with the computed tropical positions - from his ?Fragments of the Works of Al-Faz?r??, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1970; p.104.
Because I believe that Al Biruni should be trusted, I originally supported this view. The eye-opener for me was when Therese suggested adding the 3?53 adjustment to the sidereal figures to bring the chart in line with the historical zodiac in use at that time. Doing that, we get a really good match between Al Biruni's figures and the positions for the same time on the 31st July - there is much less computational difference overall. So now we have positions that agree well and make a lot of sense, on a date that is historically appropriate, using something similar to the approach we know was taken at that time.

As a result I no longer feel there should be ambiguity about the date - the chart speaks for itself. The modern equivalent is 4 August 762 GC (or 31 July JC).

Hi Curtis

Thanks for posting the chart with the Revai ayanamsha. I see the positions are close, but not as close as the one I generated by creating a custom zodiac based on making the conversion from the modern Krishnamurti to a zeta Pisces zodiac - Therese quotes reference to Surya Siddhanta for star measurements in 560 AD (see here). Having read a great deal about this zero date (until my head aches), I'm now noticing how much conjecture still remains about the principle employed in tables now lost to us, and which 'corrected' version of the tables the astrologers of that time were likely to have used.

Juan - thank you for commenting. You say you haven't read the thread, so perhaps you are not aware of how the references you make to Al Biruni - based on the Allawi paper - are unreliable. I see the positions you report are also close to the ones shown in the diagram above - but again the fit does not work so well, and I'm not convinced of the logic of using the tropical zodiac to calculate the ascendant whilst using sidereal positions for the planets - on the other hand; it's not something I'd quibble over, or close my mind to.

I'm going to order Curtis's software, which I believes gives the ability to calculate by the revati and Sassanian ayanamsha, and continue to compare historical charts agaqinst the results of this "custom zodiac". (I no longer know what to call this "custom zodiac" - but note the relevancy of Konrad's post above, where he says "I was just about to point this out: Sassanian is the one closest to Krishnamurti +3deg53. If I remember it correctly, it is about 7 minutes out")

All three look promising for the results they create, and the differences between them are not great, but I think more work needs to be done, and more historical charts need to be checked to the degree that this one has been examined, before deciding which gives the best ability to recreate the charts of the astrologers of this period.

Islamic day is counted from Magrib to Magrib(ie Sunset to Sunset), so the saturday 2.40PM is actually Friday for the muslims and that is auspicious.

http://www.islamhelpline.net/node/7867

but according to this site:

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/hijri.htm

Month Jumada 1-5, Day 4,AH 145 is Gregorian July 31,762 AD it's Julian day equivalent is 1999590.

Can anyone check the accuracy of this site.It is the Institute of Oriental studies,Zurich website.This site very specifically calls it Gregorian.

It could be the 4 day advance of days(adjusting for Gregorian) then 3 degree 40 min deduction by Revati Ayanamsha adjustment confusing the issue.

Lastly, is it true that Caliph al-Munsur had the Indian astronomical text Surya Siddhanta translated into Arabic around 760 ADbecause they were getting pre-occupied by predicting the time of crescent moon.

PD

Deb wrote:This has helped to generate abandonment of Al Biruni's positions with the assumption that his chart was dated seven days off what it should be (along with other implications that Al Biruni is not to be trusted). Almost all of Allawi's references to Al Biruni's reported chart are faulty, and have unfortunately been reproduced by many others since. We need to disregard everything Allawi tells us of it and check Al Biruni's manuscript and the verification given by David Pingree, who obviously had access to the original manuscript as well as Sachau's English translation of it. In at least two of his papers Pingree tells us that the Julian calendar equivalent of Al Biruni's date is 30th July, not 23rd July as Allawi suggests.

In his "Chronology of the Ancient Nations" Biruni places the beginning of the building of Baghdad on the 23rd day of the month of Tammuz, which to this day is generally associated with the month of July.

Allawi is saying that Biruni mentions the wrong date, not that Biruni's chart is made for that date. He is assuming --correctly in my opinion-- that Biruni copied the actual chart from an unknown source but failed to give the correct date for it.

I personally feel that the argument about the different dates is quite irrelevant because we already have the chart itself.

As an aside, I feel quite strongly that the modern date equivalent should show the modern date - in the Gregorian calendar that we use today. I have no idea why the Julian date of this chart is the one that gets reported so often (its not as if it was originally cast in that now redundant calendar). I have seen many astrologers report the date of this chart as 31 July without explaining (as Allawi fails to explain) that this is the Julian calendar date.

It is the standard accepted practice among historians to provide historical dates prior to 1582 in the julian calendar.

Juan