Aries/Taurus and zodiac beginning

[Guest guest]

At 01:03 AM 11/24/03 -0800, Juan wrote:

 

>You are presuming that you " now " have the facts...

 

We have recent translations of Mesopotamian star texts which give notations

of how many degrees before or after certain stars a zodiac sign begins. For

example the beginning of the sign of Cancer is noted to be 'with normal

star 12, Beta Gemini.' (Pollux) (Hunger and Pingree, ASTRAL SCIENCES IN

MESOPOTAMIA, p. 150)

 

The Krishnamurti position of this star is 29 deg 28 min Gemini. The

Fagan-Bradley position is 28 deg 29 min Gemini.

 

Aldebaran and Antares are NOT mentioned in relation to the signs of the

zodiac. Nevertheless, Cyril Fagan is to be greatly commended for getting

their positions in the zodiac approximately correct.

 

Libra is mentioned as beginning 2 degrees after Normal Star 23, alpha

Virginis (Spica). That puts Spica at 28 degrees of Virgo in Mesopotamia.

(122 to 110 BCE)

 

Their measurments weren't precise, because if you work out the notations of

where the zodiac signs begin, there's a bit of sliding: so many minutes or

degrees 'around' a certain star in some cases. Anyone could make an equally

good case for the Fagan-Bradley, Krishnamurti or Lahiri zodiacs. It's

rather remarkable that the discrepancy between these zodiacs is so

small--less than a degree. For most practical purposes, it matters not at

all which of these sidereal zodiac an astrologer chooses to use.

 

Juan wrote:

>As you mentioned... " India never had a 12 sign

> zodiac until it was imported from the west " .

>Was what they had begin with " taurus " ?

 

They had the 28 lunar asterisms which began with the Pleaides. These were

groups of stars in the sky very unequally spaced with spaces between them.

Indian scholars today admit that their most ancient texts have no reference

to a 12 sign zodiac.

 

>David Pingree may be great at what he does... Would I

>trust his work to be better than any other theroist's

 

Divid Pingree isn't a theorist. He translates and studies ancient tablets

and texts relating to the planets, stars and zodiac. He's a university

scholar and internationally recognized as a noted specialist in his field.

Perhaps THE most noted specialist.

 

Certainly he's the best known among astrologers because he translates

astronomical and astrological texts. We owe him a great debt in helping us

understand the origin of the zodiac. His latest book was published in 1999,

so his latest work was unknown to Fagan and Gleadow.

 

Juan wrote:

>Tamsyn Barton, who wrote Ancient Astrology writes,

> " the earliest evidence we have to consider in fact

>comes from Mesopotamia. " Ms. Barton was the winner

>of the Routledge Ancient History Prize for 1993.

>Determining what astrology was and when it was

>created/discovered is a continuing evolutionary

>education.

 

Yes, I have ANCIENT ASTROLOGY. She agrees with Pingree about the evidence

from Mesopotamia.

 

Juan wrote:

>17 Constellations along the ecliptic. No Aires!

 

The 'Hired Man' was Aries. This is interesting because today people with

prominent planets in Aries often work with their hands. Mars is a physical

planet.

 

Therese wrote:

>> Fagan did blunder in relation to the zodiac once

>> beginning from Taurus.

>

Juan wrote:

>Let me remind you that on this point we disagree.

>

>Therese wrote:

>> This is evident from recent translations of Mesopotamian texts.

 

This point about the beginning of the zodiac is important historically.

Maybe we can discuss it later. It's a puzzle, however, if siderealists

don't want to accept the more recent translations of scholars who study

Mesopotamian tablets. It's kind of like throwing water in the faces of

these specialists.

 

I expect if Cyril Fagan were alive today, he'd pay these scholars the honor

of accepting their discoveries and revise his own beliefs and conjectures.

Fagan was a scholar himself and as such, had to remain open minded. We

honor your memory, Cyril!

 

Sincerely,

Therese