Questions for Ken Bowser

[Guest guest]

At 09:05 AM 3/15/03 -0800, Ken Bowser wrote:

>

>The modern archaeological research Fagan referred to is

>primarily Epping's work, Astronomisches Aus Babylon (1889) and

>the articles he wrote for Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie with Johann

>Strassmaier between 1890 and 1893, all seminal works. Not less

>important were the many works of F.X. Kugler primarily

>Babylonische Mondrechnung (1900), Sternkunde Und Sterdienst in

>Babel (1907 through 1935) completed by Joseph Schaumberger

>S.J.after Kugler's death.

 

Ken, thanks for your posts, which are well worth saving. (Are you writing

that book--or books-- yet?)

 

My sky program (Starry Night) shows a completely dark Moon on 1st Nisan of

April 3, 786 and a very slim sliver on the 4th. Moon's age was .9 on the

3rd. I think Ed may be right about the Moon not being visible on the 3rd.

But that's not what I'm asking about here.

 

I am still puzzled about the Aldebaran or SVP fiducial, since the scholars

I'm aware of apparently haven't considered that specific sidereal zodiac. I

don't have the references you listed above, so is there a way you can be

specific about this particular fiducial? I mean the exact quotes indicating

that Aldebaran was placed at 15 Taurus? (Or whatever measurements are given

by those scholars that would indicate that position for Aldebaran.) Yes, I

realize that Aldebaran and the SVP are not the same thing.

 

I tend to agree with Rob Hand who says at the end of 'On the Invariance of

the Topical Zodiac (1997?):'

 

" This (the zodiacal question) is a question that we will have to solve for

ourselves. An appeal to history will not work. "

 

By agreeing with Rob, I mean that maybe it was true that the ancients used

the Aldebaran fiducial and maybe it's not true. But it's up to US, NOW here

in the 21st century, to find some way to show that this or some other

fiducial is the true sidereal marker. We have the computer science to do

just this. Is anyone working on it? And what research approach would you take?

 

Logically, Spica would make more sense as a fiducial because it has such

small latitude. Of course Antares is good too, Aldebaran less so.

 

I don't think it works to simply parrot Fagan and Bradley regarding the

starting point of the sidereal zodiac. A sidereal zodiac is a sidereal

zodiac. Any one of the current ones will work for return charts. The sign

ingress charts have never been tested, have they?...I mean tested with

another sidereal zodiac or two? And these ingress charts tend to be complex

in interpretation. They're not all that clear. Matthew Quellas has said

that the solstice (and/or equinox--I don't have his letter at hand) charts

also seem to work in some ways. I agree. Theoretically they should be valid.

 

Another question, Ken. Did you ever reply to Rob's 'Invariance?' If so, I'd

certainly like to have a copy of your rejoinder.

 

I'm busy today, so will digest the rest of your post this evening. I

appreciate you taking the time to continue this discussion.

 

Respectfully,

Therese