Skyscript Astrology Forum

Skyscript Forum Suggestions

I’ve been thinking that much of the zodiac controversy (different opinions about what subjects and charts should be posted where) has to do with the long time period (many centuries) covered in the Traditional & Ancient Forum: that is, all the way from early Hellenistic astrology through at least to William Lilly’s time. Sidereal astrology was alive and well among various astrologers through the Arabic period, so it is eliminating half of astrological history to regulate posts that reference the sidereal zodiac for the earlier time period.

In Traditional Astrology for Today (pages 7-9), Ben Dykes lists the Arabic period as ca. 750 to ca. 950. Beginning 1100 AD (page 10) Ben Dykes begins the astrological Medieval Latin West. By that time astrology in the west was entirely tropical. Doesn’t it make sense that this later time period should be separated from earlier periods which ended with the Arabic period when it comes to discussion of zodiacs? There is no need to breathe even a mention of the sidereal zodiac once the Arabic period is left behind.

Skyscript seems to be currently in a state of limbo as so many posters have left and moderation is changing. But if Skyscript continues, it seems that these two main historical periods should have separate topic forums: Early Classical (Hellenistic through Arabic) and the Later Traditional period which includes the Medieval Latin West (Abraham ibn Ezra and Guido Bonatti) through the Renaissance and early modern astrology (1400s - 1600s) which includes the pivotal and all important William Lilly.

With this historical period separation there wouldn’t need to be any zodiac controversy. The early classical period could include both sidereal and tropical subjects while the later traditional period in the west would be entirely tropical. There have been so many new translations in recent years that the picture of astrological history has drastically changed from what we knew before. It seems that Skyscript has to change accordingly.

Perhaps the book by Robert Powell, as well as his interview to this book, will help to better understand the two "Zodiaks". There will be enough information to clear up the misunderstandings.

https://youtu.be/5dsbTXRG8iE
https://www.thalia.at/shop/home/artikel ... 34529.html

The Babylonian Zodiac
Robert Powell, Ph.D.
Abstract: This paper outlines the historical background of the ancient sidereal zodiac of the Babylonians. Sidereal means "of the stars". Both the ancient Babylonian zodiac and the modern astronomical zodiac are sidereal, i.e., defined in relation to the stars belonging to the zodiacal belt. Whereas the Babylonian zodiac comprised twelve equal constellations, each 30 degrees in length, the astronomical zodiac is made up of twelve unequal-length constellations. Following the definition of the Greek astronomer Hipparchus (second century B.C.), where 30-degree constellational divisions are called signs, the constellations of the Babylonian zodiac were also zodiacal signs. In the ancient Babylonian zodiac each of the zodiacal signs/constellations were 30 degrees long. This paper considers the historical background to the sidereal zodiac of the Babylonians and how the signs/constellations of the Babylonian zodiac were defined in relation to 1st magnitude stars belonging to the zodiacal belt. A subsequent paper "Greek Star Catalogs and the Modern Astronomical Zodiac" explores the origin of the modern astronomical zodiac.
Key words: Aldebaran-Antares axis; ancient astrology; ancient astronomical observations; ancient mathematical astronomy; Babylonian star catalog; constellations; cuneiform texts; ecliptic; fiducial axis; fixed stars; history of the zodiac; mul-APIN; normal stars; zodiac; zodiacal belt; zodiacal signs.

Therese

My personal view is that these terms modern and traditional are really only broad directions to help differentiate ideas (more so than time periods). That said, I personally would be happy to broadly lump anything prior to, say, the kind of thinking that emerged from Alan Leo etc. onwards as being traditional.

That said, each moderator sets the rules of the forum that they moderate according to their own set of standards and ideas - they have their own autonomy in that way. It's certainly the case that Tom, the moderator of this forum, has been against including sidereal charts. This does make some sense (putting aside practical problems of communicating which chart is which when discussing one), especially as, for the most part, the resurgence of western sidereal charts is a modern phenomena, and authentically sidereal charts in the past really petered out by the medieval period.

At the moment we have a dedicated place for sidereal charts, however, this discussion took place some years ago, and with the resurgence of Hellenistic approaches to the tradition of astrology, and the fact that many of those astrologers in ancient times employed a sidereal zodiac (or, just as likely, a mix and match of sidereal and tropical thinking), perhaps Tom has or will change his position on this.

You're right however that the moderators have been somewhat quiet and moderators have changed on this site, and this may happen again in the future as moderators wish to step away from the site either temporarily or indefinitely and so we should never imagine these situations to be set in stone. I've been pretty chaotic in my own engagement here on skyscript too.

I think, personally, the reality is that there is no traditional astrology as much as, say, traditional astrologies, so for me these terms are really just big umbrella categories to help differentiate a general approach to chart reading you can roughly lump together, rather than anything too strict on time period.

Like all generalisations terms like 'traditional' , ''classical'' etc have their limitations. If we call it the tradition ''western'' we have the difficulty that the tradition evolved in locations like SW Asia and North Africa before arriving in medieval Europe.

However, there are a few broad areas on techniques I think we can agree some consensus on of what a traditional approach may involve:

1 The traditional domicile rulership system
2 Multiple dignities not just domicile and exaltation rulers
3 Inclusion of predictive techniques such as primary directions, solar returns, profections and other time lord techniques.
4 Inclusion of traditional techniques such as antiscia, fixed stars, lots.
5 Use of solar phase (rejected by Morin)
6 Use of planetary sect

1 Exclusion of 20th century techniques such as asteroids, centaurs, sabian symbols, midpoints, Vertex, Black Moon Lilith.
2 Exclusion of outer planets, and Kuiper belt objects.
3 Exclusion of the modern approach to house meanings which links an understanding of houses to a zodiac sign ie 1st =Aries, 2nd =Taurus etc.
4 Exclusion of aspect ''orbs'' derived from the type of aspect involved rather than the planet.
5 Exclusion of non-Ptolemaic aspects. Although this breaks down somewhat following Kepler with early modern figures like Placidus and Morin.
6 Exclusion of modern house systems such as Koch, Topocentric,

On the zodiac question I never shared Tom's outright objection to sidereal charts here. It needs to be stated that many issues that crop up here are purely historical anyway and the choice of zodiac is not directly relevant. Where techniques are being discussed in practical terms I think the initial poster should be permitted to post in their chosen zodiac.

But...as a moderator of many years I have become very conscious of the practical difficulties mixing the two zodiacs together in one thread can pose. Whether intentional or not it can often begin to look rather competitive with one person seeking to demonstrate the validity of their choice of zodiac over the other. So for consistency and to avoid zodiac squabbles I have encouraged a policy on the mundane forum recently that the original poster determines the zodiac discussing a particular technique. Its rather like the line on the horary forum whether the posters choice of house system (Regiomonatanus, Placidus, Porphyry, Alcabitius etc) dictates the delineation.

A second issue that the entry of sidereal charts can introduce is that inevitably some new posters may think Indian astrology meets that definition and is acceptable on this forum. I do feel we need to hold the line against this development. We already have a separate Indian forum. I think its important that there is a space to discuss (for want of better terminology) Eurasian traditional astrology outside India.

If we were to split the forum I have long favoured a page which is purely historical with another dealing with traditional techniques.

If we do involve sidereal charts here I believe the sidereal forum should be closed down or a separate tropical only forum created. The original reason for creating an exclusively sidereal forum was because sidereal charts were not allowed on the Traditional forum. So if we do incorporate sidereal charts I think it would mean Siderealists would effectively have free reign all over Skyscript (excluding the horary forum?) but tropicalists would be excluded from two forums (sidereal and Indian).

Mark

Paul wrote:

I think, personally, the reality is that there is no traditional astrology as much as, say, traditional astrologies, so for me these terms are really just big umbrella categories to help differentiate a general approach to chart reading you can roughly lump together, rather than anything too strict on time period.

It's interesting that both "classical" and "traditional" are new terms for astrologers. Neither of those terms are to be found in Nicholas DeVore's Encyclopedia of Astrology (1947). But the Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology (1977) says of Classical/Traditional: "According to most astrologers, astrology as it was practiced from about the time of Ptolemy (second century A.D. to about the 16th century." (p. 71) This seems to be the understanding when the forum topics on Skyscript were set up.

But I think it's true that (as Paul indicated) now we don't have simply "traditional" astrology. We have a number of distinct astrologies that simply calling them traditional is rather like saying that the various cultures of the world are simply "human" cultures. We now have a very distinct complete and intact Hellenistic astrology as so wonderfully presented in Chiris Brennan's Hellenistic Astrology (2017). We have an entirely new (to us) and detailed Persian astrology in the Arabic period from Benjamin Dykes which grew from Hellenistic roots but with many new features. This astrology happened to combine both tropical and sidereal tables which were available at the time.

I have some wonderful material from Robert Schmidt from 1998 when he had an early Internet forum. He compared house meanings from Hellenistic times through Bonatti. He frequently states of Bonatti, “Bonatti again shows great elaboration over Hellenistic delineations.??? So with Bonatti there is another important shift in astrological concepts, and this was when astrology in Europe and America had become wholly tropical. Even the Persian Al biruni (1029 A.D.) was unaware of a fixed stellar zodiac. Benjamin Dykes calls this period which includes Bonatti “the Medieval Latin West??? (ca. 1100-1400s AD)

To make things even more complicated, there really isn’t any “sidereal??? astrology (unless you’re James Eshelman who claims that the only true sidereal astrology is Fagan’s Sidereal system with a capital ‘S’). There is a sidereal zodiac, but India’s astrology (for example) is founded on a solid Hellenistic and Persio-Arabic base.

And recent research has shown that India’s Tajika (solar return) system comes straight out of Persian astrology (Abu Ma’shar) and even includes Egyptian bounds, Hellenistic decan faces, and the Joys of planets. So in a way it could even be called artificial to separate India’s astrology from systems that developed in Europe.

If Skyscript continues, I’m not sure how this could all be arranged, but forums such as “traditional??? and “sidereal??? don’t seem so relevant anymore. I do feel, however, that there should be a separate forum for Indian astrology (Jyotish) as this often includes Sanskrit terms that most don't understand. (Not "Indian and Asian," simply Indian (Jyotish).

Mark wrote:

If we do involve sidereal charts here I believe the sidereal forum should be closed down or a separate tropical only forum created. The original reason for creating an exclusively sidereal forum was because sidereal charts were not allowed on the Traditional forum. So if we do incorporate sidereal charts I think it would mean Siderealists would effectively have free reign all over Skyscript (excluding the horary forum?) but tropicalists would be excluded from two forums (sidereal and Indian).

Actually on the sidereal forum we've had all kinds of mixes, tropical posts and techniques, Indian techniques, one poster who uses the tropical zodiac with Indian techniques.

From my perspective what seems the most logical is to follow the history of the zodiacs: A Hellenistic/Arabic forum (tropical and sidereal) and a Medieval/Renaissance forum (tropical only). It seems to me that this would be the least confusing for students. This would give a secure place to post for students and astrologers who don't want anything to do with the sidereal zodiac. Shouldn't we be trying to accurately reflect our historical periods as to how astrology was actually used? This would be educational as well as an accurate historical use of astrology and the zodiacs. Of course this would be a more academic type of approach to forums.

If the sidereal forum remained, it could still be a place to discuss miscellaneous sidereal topics that don't fit anywhere else. The sidereal and Indian forums have already intermixed, but this doesn't seem to bother anyone. Keeping the sidereal forum also leaves the door open for posts related to the modern Fagan sidereal school.

There are actually very few posters who use the sidereal zodiac. I don't think we need to worry about sidereal posters overrunning various forums!! For myself, I don't even visit most Skyscript forums, but many times I've wanted to post comments on the traditional forum (as Martin Gansten has), but couldn't due to the zodiac restrictions. My interest in the history of astrology mostly goes through the Arabic period, so I wouldn't be visiting a Medieval/Renaissance forum either.

Hi Mark,

That's a really good summary of the differences between 'traditional' and 'modern' astrology overall.

Mark wrote:Like all generalisations terms like 'traditional' , ''classical'' etc have their limitations. If we call it the tradition ''western'' we have the difficulty that the tradition evolved in locations like SW Asia and North Africa before arriving in medieval Europe.

Indeed, and the same applies to so-called western alchemy, TEM (traditional European medicine) etc. Those are all misnomers, strictly speaking, or let's say, simplifications for the sake of convenience.

My only objection to the distinctions you are making regards the highlighted statement below:

However, there are a few broad areas on techniques I think we can agree some consensus on of what a traditional approach may involve:

1 The traditional domicile rulership system
2 Multiple dignities not just domicile and exaltation rulers
3 Inclusion of predictive techniques such as primary directions, solar returns, profections and other time lord techniques.
4 Inclusion of traditional techniques such as antiscia, fixed stars, lots.
5 Use of solar phase (rejected by Morin)
6 Use of planetary sect

1 Exclusion of 20th century techniques such as asteroids, centaurs, sabian symbols, midpoints, Vertex, Black Moon Lilith.
2 Exclusion of outer planets, and Kuiper belt objects.
3 Exclusion of the modern approach to house meanings which links an understanding of houses to a zodiac sign ie 1st =Aries, 2nd =Taurus etc.

For this also breaks down somewhat with Lilly, and indeed even before him, with some of the Arabic astrologers treating the zodiac and the wheel of houses as equivalents in certain contexts.

Moreover, I believe that the correspondences between the two frameworks are implied clearly enough in the classical sources; they are not the result of later projection of one upon the other.

It is certainly true that the classical texts don't make too much mention of said correspondences, but then again, their strength lies not exactly in systematic treatment of fundamentals. That's more a feature of our modern-day text-books.

4 Exclusion of aspect ''orbs'' derived from the type of aspect involved rather than the planet.
5 Exclusion of non-Ptolemaic aspects. Although this breaks down somewhat following Kepler with early modern figures like Placidus and Morin.
6 Exclusion of modern house systems such as Koch, Topocentric,

On the zodiac question I never shared Tom's outright objection to sidereal charts here. It needs to be stated that many issues that crop up here are purely historical anyway and the choice of zodiac is not directly relevant. Where techniques are being discussed in practical terms I think the initial poster should be permitted to post in their chosen zodiac.

But...as a moderator of many years I have become very conscious of the practical difficulties mixing the two zodiacs together in one thread can pose. Whether intentional or not it can often begin to look rather competitive with one person seeking to demonstrate the validity of their choice of zodiac over the other. So for consistency and to avoid zodiac squabbles I have encouraged a policy on the mundane forum recently that the original poster determines the zodiac discussing a particular technique. Its rather like the line on the horary forum whether the posters choice of house system (Regiomonatanus, Placidus, Porphyry, Alcabitius etc) dictates the delineation.

A second issue that the entry of sidereal charts can introduce is that inevitably some new posters may think Indian astrology meets that definition and is acceptable on this forum. I do feel we need to hold the line against this development. We already have a separate Indian forum. I think its important that there is a space to discuss (for want of better terminology) Eurasian traditional astrology outside India.

If we were to split the forum I have long favoured a page which is purely historical with another dealing with traditional techniques.

If we do involve sidereal charts here I believe the sidereal forum should be closed down or a separate tropical only forum created. The original reason for creating an exclusively sidereal forum was because sidereal charts were not allowed on the Traditional forum. So if we do incorporate sidereal charts I think it would mean Siderealists would effectively have free reign all over Skyscript (excluding the horary forum?) but tropicalists would be excluded from two forums (sidereal and Indian).

Mark

.

Those are all valid objections, in my view.

Michael

Hi Michael,

That's a really good summary of the differences between 'traditional' and 'modern' astrology overall.

Thank you. It was just what came to mind on the spot.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

My only objection to the distinctions you are making regards the highlighted statement below:

Mark wrote:

3 Exclusion of the modern approach to house meanings which links an understanding of houses to a zodiac sign ie 1st =Aries, 2nd =Taurus etc.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

For this also breaks down somewhat with Lilly, and indeed even before him, with some of the Arabic astrologers treating the zodiac and the wheel of houses as equivalents in certain contexts.

Moreover, I believe that the correspondences between the two frameworks are implied clearly enough in the classical sources; they are not the result of later projection of one upon the other.

It is certainly true that the classical texts don't make too much mention of said correspondences, but then again, their strength lies not exactly in systematic treatment of fundamentals. That's more a feature of our modern-day text-books.

I wrote my comments rather hastily and on reflection what I was really driving at was the modern 20th century development sometimes typified as the 'astrological alphabet' applied to houses. It suggests a tripartite linkage between houses, signs and planetary rulers. Hence The 2nd house/Taurus/Venus are all linked together. That is why modern astrologers often see Venus as the planet connected to money. We get other modern house associations such as the Mother is the 4th house (Cancer), the 8th house is about sex (Scorpio) or the 12th house is about spirituality (Pisces).

As Deborah Houlding pointed out in her brilliant and pioneering book 'Houses: Temples of The Sky'' there was no connection between the original meaning of the houses and signs in ancient astrology. And indeed this could be applied right to the end of the traditional era.

However, there is one exception to this and that is the medical associations of the houses. From the medieval period onwards the body parts associated with zodiac signs do seem to get linked to houses. The zodiac link to body parts originates with the 'zodiac man' dating back to Babylonian astrology. You have no doubt seen representations of this with Aries ruling the head down to Pisces ruling the feet.

Still, this exception doesn't equate to what modern astrologers like Zip Dobyns or Howard Sasportas wrote about houses. In her book Deborah Houlding explained the problematic nature of the modern view of houses. This presents the houses as a spiritual evolutionary journey (like the signs) but paradoxically in this system we encounter by zodiacal order death (8th house) before we reach the pinnacle of our career (10th house). Its self evident studying hellenistic astrology that the relationship of houses to the ascendant and the diurnal/primary motion of the Sun/planets were key elements in how house meanings developed. The polarity of opposing houses also seems to have been a factor in the development of house meanings.

So I stick to my overall position of wanting to avoid modern delineation of houses on the traditional forum.

Mark

Mark wrote:

As Deborah Houlding pointed out in her brilliant and pioneering book 'Houses: Temples of The Sky'' there was no connection between the original meaning of the houses and signs in ancient astrology. And indeed this could be applied right to the end of the traditional era.

However, there is one exception to this and that is the medical associations of the houses. From the medieval period onwards the body parts associated with zodiac signs do seem to get linked to houses. The zodiac link to body parts originates with the 'zodiac man' dating back to Babylonian astrology. You have no doubt seen representations of this with Aries ruling the head down to Pisces ruling the feet.

Amen to Deborah Houlding's wonderful book, and to the points above. If there was a required reading list for astrologers, Deborah's book should be at the top of the list along with Benjamin Dykes' Traditional Astrology for Today: An Introduction (2011).

Therese wrote:

It's interesting that both "classical" and "traditional" are new terms for astrologers. Neither of those terms are to be found in Nicholas DeVore's Encyclopedia of Astrology (1947). But the Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology (1977) says of Classical/Traditional: "According to most astrologers, astrology as it was practiced from about the time of Ptolemy (second century A.D. to about the 16th century." (p. 71) This seems to be the understanding when the forum topics on Skyscript were set up.

I am not sure DeVore's or the Lorousse Encyclopedia of Astrology has that much relevance nowadays as they were both writing before the revival of a myriad of ancient, medieval and renaissance texts came to light since the mid-1980s.

Over the years discussion here has certainly dated back earlier than Ptolemy to the origins of Hellenistic astrology and to even older Babylonian astrology. In terms of the end the traditional phase and the adoption of a more recognisably modern astrology discussion has taken us right up to the end of the 19th century.

Therese wrote:

But I think it's true that (as Paul indicated) now we don't have simply "traditional" astrology. We have a number of distinct astrologies that simply calling them traditional is rather like saying that the various cultures of the world are simply "human" cultures. We now have a very distinct complete and intact Hellenistic astrology as so wonderfully presented in Chiris Brennan's Hellenistic Astrology (2017). We have an entirely new (to us) and detailed Persian astrology in the Arabic period from Benjamin Dykes which grew from Hellenistic roots but with many new features. This astrology happened to combine both tropical and sidereal tables which were available at the time.

One could of course divide the forums into distinct silos. For example, ancient astrology, Perso-Arabic-Jewish astrology, Latin Medieval, and Early Modern/Renaissance astrology. No one could credibly support the idea of an immutable 'tradition' stemming over 2000 years. However, I think its actually useful to incorporate discussion of the development of astrology over this whole period. Seeing the connections can be very enlightening. At the moment for example I am in a study group examining Sahl's work. Having studied both renaissance and Hellenistic astrology before the striking thing about Perso-Arabic astrology is that it incorporated much of the earlier Hellenistic astrology. But it also made some changes and these went on to influence the Latin medieval and renaissance astrology of Europe. This knowledge informs our understanding when we examine the texts of later astrologers like Guido Bonatti or William Lilly.

I prefer to see the development of astrology like a rich tapestry of ideas held together by some common assumptions and techniques. These go to make us all inheritors of a 'tradition' rather than a succession of separate, and distinct traditions. Surely, certain notions became lost or redefined along the way. However, the basic notions remained the same.

If I had to boil this all down to just one fundamental difference between a traditional and modern approach it would be the use of outer planets as domicile rulers. I believe this took astrological technique across both a theoretical and practical rubicon from which there was no return or reconciliation with the past. But as cited above when we discuss this issue in terms of practical techniques rather than broad theoretical ideas we find much to link the astrologers of the past across various historical periods.

So if we rename the forum what to rename it? I suggest Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Techniques. I actually, prefer the term ''early modern'' to ''renaissance'' as its more precise for later astrologers like Morin or Lilly but it does make the title very long.

Therese wrote:

And recent research has shown that India’s Tajika (solar return) system comes straight out of Persian astrology (Abu Ma’shar) and even includes Egyptian bounds, Hellenistic decan faces, and the Joys of planets. So in a way it could even be called artificial to separate India’s astrology from systems that developed in Europe.

Perso-Arabic astrology was the bedrock of what went on to influence the reintroduction of astrology into western Europe. In contrast while it certainly had an influence in India becoming known as the Tajika tradition its main impact seems to have been in the adoption of solar return charts in India. Mainstream Jyotish retained many completely different techniques.
It also the case that Perso-Arabic astrology went to China where its texts were translated. Where do we draw the line? I'm glad we at least agree that Indian or Jyotish astrology needs its own separate forum.

Indian and Asian was to incorporate room for the discussion some indigeneous astrological ideas from South-East Asia. There is already a separate forum for Chinese astrology. As I recall Martin Gansten was quite comfortable with the term Indian astrology and he much preferred it to the very prevalent ''Vedic''.

Mark

Mark wrote:

One could of course divide the forums into distinct silos. For example, ancient astrology, Perso-Arabic-Jewish astrology, Latin Medieval, and Early Modern/Renaissance astrology. No one could credibly support the idea of an immutable 'tradition' stemming over 2000 years. However, I think its actually useful to incorporate discussion of the development of astrology over this whole period. Seeing the connections can be very enlightening.

At the moment for example I am in a study group examining Sahl's work. Having studied both renaissance and Hellenistic astrology before the striking thing about Perso-Arabic astrology is that it incorporated much of the earlier Hellenistic astrology. But it also made some changes and these went on to influence the Latin medieval and renaissance astrology of Europe. This knowledge informs our understanding when we examine the texts of later astrologers like Guido Bonatti or William Lilly.

Thinking about the development and expansion of concepts through the centuries, I have to agree that it does seem best to keep the entire long period of time under one roof, so to speak. Also with different forums, it would be confusing to students as to under what forum questions should be posted. That said, to restrict sidereal zodiac posts is eliminating a large segment of astrological practice and giving a one-sided view of history. I think we have a good opportunity here for communication and comparison of astrological issues. The 21st century isn’t the time for “your view against my view.???

I’m not sure how conferences work in Great Britain, but here in the United States our large conferences include tracks for tropical, western sidereal, Indian, (even Chinese and Meso American) and even those can be broken down into smaller topic segments. I think we need to get away from the either/or viewpoint and recognize instead that there is an opportunity for communication and sharing among astrologers.

In academic circles, based on study and research, contrasting opinions happen all the time. But disagreement (even outright heated argument) is recognized as part of the process: the development and expansion of knowledge. Disagreement is no problem if discussion is kept to astrological concepts rather than personal egos.

Why be concerned if different astrologers have strong opinions of what is best or correct? Go along for the ride and recognize differences in personalities and preferences, but keep to the astrology rather than personal egos. If there is censorship, it should be directed toward personal attacks toward others, not the choice of zodiacs.

We do need to keep the sidereal forum as many conversations and posts there don't relate to Traditional astrology, but, cover diverse topics sometimes related to India's astrology or the western sidereal (Fagan) school. Also there is no restriction against tropical posts on the sidereal forum simply because the title happens to be sidereal.

If moderators favor the tropical zodiac, then why not keep the topics tropical as they are, but have a separate forum (similar to the one set aside for Sidereal and Indian and Asian) only for Traditional techniques which historically have been used in both zodiacs?

Mark wrote:

So if we rename the forum what to rename it? I suggest Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Techniques. I actually, prefer the term ''early modern'' to ''renaissance'' as its more precise for later astrologers like Morin or Lilly but it does make the title very long.

To keep it short: What about "Ancient Through 17th Century." or "Hellenistic Through 17th Century." This places the cutoff with Morin and William Lilly. I think the term "early modern" might invite asteroids and trans-Saturnian planet posts and other 18th century+ ideas. (Uranus was discovered in the 18th century, so a 17th century cutoff date eliminates Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.)