Title: The Zodiac and Early Astronomy
Authors: Dewdney, S. H.
Journal: Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 25 (1931): 400-408. Provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data Section.
Dewdney begins with a discussion of the precession of the equinoxes. His hope is that if the original zodiacal seasons can be determined, it would also allow us to determine their time origin. We cannot rely on physical evidence to date the origins of the zodiac, because the physical evidence has simply not survived. The famous Denerah zodiac of Egypt, for example, dates at the earliest to 1300 BCE.
Indirect evidence, however, is provided by the zodiacal symbols themselves ( ♈ ♉ ♊ ♋ ♌ ♍ ♎ ♏ ♐ ♑ ♒ ♓ ), where the author thinks we can detect something of an evolution over time. The author sees Semitic, Egyptian and Greek elements at work, spread out over time, and he prefers the Babylonian origin, building on the legacy of Sumerian astronomy.
To establish the time period, he first focuses on what we call Capricorn (represented as half-goat and half-fish, the "Goat-Fish" of the Babylonians), Aquarius, and Pisces as belonging "to a great celestial sea occupying a quarter of the heavens" (406), with Libra as a balance suggesting the balance of the autumnal equinox. He links that celestial sea to the weather on earth: "The aqueous constellations suggest connection with an extensive rainy season such as visits the Indus and Ganges valleys in the track of the monsoons." For Libra to be in that position suggests an origin around 2000 BCE (407).
As for the vernal equinox, he contends that this was in Taurus (the "Steer of Heaven" of the Babylonians), and he notes that the "earliest recorded name for the zodiac is Pidnush Shame = The Furrow of Heaven, ploughed by the Bull of Light" (407). For Taurus to coincide with the vernal equinox would mean a time period between 2000 BCE and 4000 BCE, "probably about 2900 BCE" (408).
I'm not sure that we can ever be certain with this precarious interpretation of the symbols (i.e. contending that a "sea in heaven" corresponds to rain on earth), and the author himself confesses ignorance more than anything else in his closing sentences: "The zodiacal problem has been as yet practically untouched, in spite of the rich and varied field of research it offers and the historical challenge it presents. Until it is dealt with adequately our knowledge of early astronomy will remain a blank" (408). I wonder what progress has been made in the 80 years since this article was written!
Regardless of the author's inability to provide dates for the development of the zodiac, I found the information presented in this paper to be fascinating. I had no idea that we knew so little of just where the symbols of the zodiac come from, and I am impressed by the shared signs among the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks. You can see the shared signs laid out clearly in a handy chart in the Wikipedia article about the Zodiac.
In the same way that many people are surprised that the names for the letters of the Greek alphabet are not Greek at all but Semitic, reflecting the Semitic origin of the alphabet (compare Greek alpha and Hebrew alef, Greek beta and Hebrew bet, etc.), I was surprised to learn not just that the science of the zodiac comes from Babylon, but the actual signs and symbols themselves also come from Sumerian and Babylonian culture. So, while people today might think they know nothing at all about Babylonian culture, they actually do... because they know the signs of the zodiac! We may given those signs Latin names now, but their origins are neither Roman nor Greek, but more ancient, reaching back into ancient Mesopotamia and the cultures of Sumer and Babylon.
The image below shows Capricorn, the goat-fish, in stained glass from England, circa 1400 (Wikimedia Commons):
No comments:
Post a Comment