Guest guest Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 At 02:52 AM 9/8/04 -0000, Andrew wrote: >Guinard writes:'... Their principal argument concerns the supposedly >historic precedent of a so-called sidereal Zodiac. That argument >usually calls to its support the beginning of the fifth tablet of the >cosmogenic tale 'Enuma Elish' [35]... created in the 2nd millenium B.C. >and recorded in a Babylonian version dating back to approximately 1200 >B.C.: 'He [Marduk] gave term to the year, defined its limits, [and], >for each of the twelve months, put in place three stars.' [36] I'm not an expert on what texts convinced Fagan of the validity of the sidereal zodiac, but I thought that this type of quote related only to stars rather than signs per se. From my reading it seems clear that the decans were used in Egypt strictly as timing devices and had no astrological significance until Hellenistic astrologers moved them into the 12 sign zodiac. India then adopted the decans, as evidenced from some very poorly translated and choppy references in early texts. >This >passage stipulates the association of only three stars with each of >the twelve months of the year, nothing more. Siderealists deduce from >that basis that there existed at that point in time a Zodiac divided >into decans based on sidereal constellations! I don't know if it's true that this is an important part of the foundation of the current western sidereal zodiac, but maybe someone else will correct me. >Now, in point of fact >all one has to hand here is a *marking by the calendar* of the rising >of stars in the 36 decans of 10 days duration (assimilated only much >later into Greco-Egyptian astrology) in the course of the secular >year. Yes, I agree with this. >Similar documents, the 'diagonal calendars,' have been found in >Egyptian tombs of the Middle Kingdom. The oldest of them dates back to >the beginning of the 21st century B.C. [37] Neugebauer has shown that >these constellations lie along a southern band rougly parallel to the >ecliptic. I have no argument with this. Neugebauer is a respected academic source in ancient methods of timing. [38] The theories of Cyril Fagan, an astrologer of Irish >origin and the instigator and inspiration for Western sidereal >astrology, are in part based on this error by Schnabel. [46]' I don't know if this is true--I mean I don't know how much of Fagan's theory is based on what Schnabel wrote. >Please see the entire essay I referenced in my initial post. I did go to the CURA site and started to read the essay, but Guinard is so very intellectual and uninspired. I didn't want to take the time and effort to plow through his rhetoric. >Note [47] >in the essay references David Pingree, 'Astronomy and Astrology in >India and Iran,' in Isis, vol. 54, no. 2, 1963. It is certainly >possible that the latest discoveries by Pingree were made well after >1963, and that Guinard is completely unaware of these discoveries, This may be true. Pingree's latest, which references numerous other texts was published in 1999 (Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia, Hunger and Pingree). There's also quite a good little book by Ulla Koch-Westenholz (Mesopotamian Astrology, 1995). Both of these books are very pricy (Pingree around $100 and KOch-Westenholz around $75), so it's understandable if Guinard hasn't seen them. >Please note that I am not posting this material in order to cast doubt >on the sidereal system: of the validity of the sidereal zodiac I have >no doubt whatsoever. I am just wondering how best to reply to these >arguments put forth by Guinard -- if indeed any argument would ever be >accepted by him. I'd advise him to read the article on my site for starters, and then try to find the above books and follow up on the references. Not an easy task. Ken Bowser also has some good articles on the web. I believe that Fagan did miss on some basics of the sidereal zodiac, mostly about its origin/timing, but also about the presumed importance of Aldebaran/Antares as zodiac marking stars. Thanks for the discussion! I'll check out the link you gave. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > Bowser also has some good articles on the web. I believe that Fagan did > miss on some basics of the sidereal zodiac, mostly about its origin/timing, > but also about the presumed importance of Aldebaran/Antares as zodiac > marking stars. Are there any links to these articles by Kenneth Bowser? I can't find them. I would like to read what he has to say. Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 Hi, Aldebaran, meaning " Follower " , i.e., following the first lunar mansion starting at 0* Taurus would presume some importance for that axis. Dark*Star ----------------------- Therese Hamilton wrote: > I believe that Fagan did > miss on some basics of the sidereal zodiac, mostly about its origin/timing, > but also about the presumed importance of Aldebaran/Antares as zodiac > marking stars. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.