Babylinian constellation boundaries

I computed the Babylon conquest by Alexander the Great as having taken
place between September 7, 331 and October 7, 331. I was informed by
Jona Lendering on

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexande...ander_t40.html

that that conquest is usually dated 21 or 22 October 331, being
equivalent, according to Hunger 1988 vol. I p179, with the 14th of the
VII month.

The point is here that in the end of the VIth month, Venus was in Leo,
and that IMHO no more than 20 or 21 days can have elapsed between that
Venus-in-Leo observance and the conquest involved. Placing Skymap on
October 1, 331, (everything Julian) reveals that Venus was in Virgo,
according to our constellation boundaries.

Who knows something of the Babylonian boundaries?

Regards,

http://ourworld compuserve.nl/johnverbeek01/ (click Paper (Al)exander
III 3)

wrote:

I computed the Babylon conquest by Alexander the Great as having taken
place between September 7, 331 and October 7, 331. I was informed by
Jona Lendering on

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexande...ander_t40.html

that that conquest is usually dated 21 or 22 October 331, being
equivalent, according to Hunger 1988 vol. I p179, with the 14th of the
VII month.

The point is here that in the end of the VIth month, Venus was in Leo,
and that IMHO no more than 20 or 21 days can have elapsed between that
Venus-in-Leo observance and the conquest involved. Placing Skymap on
October 1, 331, (everything Julian) reveals that Venus was in Virgo,
according to our constellation boundaries.

Who knows something of the Babylonian boundaries?


The Babylonians didn't have strict constellation boundaries. The
positions of the planets as given in the summary at the end of
each month refer to the signs, not the constellations.

See Sachs/Hunger: "Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from
Babylonia", Vol I, p. 25:
"At the end of each monthly paragraph, we find a summary of the
positions and phenomena of the planets. If a planet moved from
one zodiacal sign into another in the course of the month, this
is expressed by: "planet X was in sign A, at the end of the month
in sign B". [...]"

Of course you first have to figure out where the Babylonians
put the zero point of the signs before you can use that infor-
mation for more than just a general indication of the planet's
position.

But where is the problem? The Diary says that at the end of month
VI Venus was in Virgo. The calculation shows that around October 1
Venus was indeed in (the constellation and presumably also in the
sign) Virgo.
Alexander entered Babylon on the 14th day of the following month VII
which began with the first sighting of the lunar crescent after
the New Moon of Oct 5. So October 21 or 22 sounds quite reasonable.

Bye,
Thomas

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Schmidt e-mail:

The Babylonians didn't have strict constellation boundaries. The
positions of the planets as given in the summary at the end of
each month refer to the signs, not the constellations.
See Sachs/Hunger: "Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from
Babylonia", Vol I, p. 25:
"At the end of each monthly paragraph, we find a summary of the
positions and phenomena of the planets. If a planet moved from
one zodiacal sign into another in the course of the month, this
is expressed by: "planet X was in sign A, at the end of the month
in sign B". [...]"

I see a mistake of mine, viz. that the the Babylonians are speaking
of signs, not of cnstellations.

Of course you first have to figure out where the Babylonians
put the zero point of the signs before you can use that infor-
mation for more than just a general indication of the planet's
position

Agreed.
..
But where is the problem? The Diary says that at the end of month
VI Venus was in Virgo.

No, it says Venus was in Leo.

The calculation shows that around October 1
Venus was indeed in (the constellation and presumably also in the
sign) Virgo.

Alexander entered Babylon on the 14th day of the following month VII
which began with the first sighting of the lunar crescent after
the New Moon of Oct 5. So October 21 or 22 sounds quite reasonable.

It does indeed, but it contradicts Venus still being in Leo at the end
of month VI if (1) contstellations in stead of signs were applicable
and (2) our contstelation boundaries were applicable.

But thank you for your reply. I have something to think of.

Regards,

http://ourworld.compuserve.nl/johnverbeek01/

wrote:

But where is the problem? The Diary says that at the end of month
VI Venus was in Virgo.

No, it says Venus was in Leo.

I don't have volume I of Sachs/Hunger's edition of the Diaries at
hand, but if the citation given in
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexande...ander_t40.html
is correct, the summary for month VI in the Diary says

"Venus was in Leo, at the end of the month in Virgo"

which seems to indicate clearly that during part of the month
Venus was in Leo, but by the end of the month it had progressed
into Virgo.

Bye,
Thomas

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Schmidt e-mail:

Thomas,

I don't have volume I of Sachs/Hunger's edition of the Diaries at
hand, but if the citation given in
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexande...ander_t40.html
is correct, the summary for month VI in the Diary says

"Venus was in Leo, at the end of the month in Virgo"

Very stupid of mine! :-) I omitted the second phrase. Everyone is right. Thank you!

Regards,

John-Charles.

http://ourworld.compuserve.nl/johnverbeek01/