The reason signs are named after constellations?

1
Are there any sources that explain why the zodiac signs are named after the constellations?

My hunch is that it's because at the time zodiac systems were invented, many of the fixed stars in all twelve constellations lie within their respective 30-degree segments.

It's just something that intrigues me. At the time of Ptolemy we had like, what, 48 known constellations? Yet, it is these twelve constellation names that were selected...were they selected at random? I prefer to think not. :lala

Maybe I just like zebra thinking? :mrgreen:
Interested in Hellenistic astrology? Visit my blog.

The appearance changes, but the essence remains.

4
Martin Gansten wrote:The twelve equal signs were named in Babylon, long before Ptolemy's (and Hipparchus') tropical zodiac. They were named after the chief constellations falling within them. (Many constellations lie outside the zodiac.)
Interesting. Is there an old source that lists these chief constellations?

So my hunch is right then. Most of the fixed stars making up the constellations were inside their respective zodiacal signs at the time the equally sized zodiac was created.


Konrad wrote:I'd also add that these constellations all lie on the Ecliptic.
I see, sounds intuitive.



As I anticipated, the people who would respond are sidereal astrologers. Maybe I should have posted this in the sidereal forum as I originally intended.
Interested in Hellenistic astrology? Visit my blog.

The appearance changes, but the essence remains.

5
Well, Rumen Kolev theorises that the 12 equal divisons of the Eclitptc is the result of the imposition of the Mesopotamian Ideal Year of 12 months of 30 days onto the starry sky. The Ideal Year is outlined in the Mesopotamian text MUL.APIN and places the Equinox in the middle of the month, not the beginning as the Ptolemaic Tropical measurement does.

6
Larxene wrote: As I anticipated, the people who would respond are sidereal astrologers. Maybe I should have posted this in the sidereal forum as I originally intended.
i didn't see the post til now or i would have commented pointing out what konrad already has. those 12 constellations lie on the path of the ecliptic..

the 2nd quote konrad gives from rumen kolev also makes a lot of sense.. it motivated me to see why the months were named as they were. here is a link discussing this - http://www.pantheon.org/miscellaneous/o ... onths.html

7
Larxene wrote:As I anticipated, the people who would respond are sidereal astrologers. Maybe I should have posted this in the sidereal forum as I originally intended.
No, I think this is the right forum for most questions on the history of astrology -- and like it or not, sidereal definitions of the zodiac are at least as ancient and traditional as tropical definitions. I for one identify more as a traditional astrologer than a sidereal one: that is to say, I have more in common with astrologers who embrace traditional techniques and perspectives but a tropical zodiac than with astrologers who use a sidereal zodiac but whose outlook is essentially modern.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

8
Martin wrote:
I for one identify more as a traditional astrologer than a sidereal one: that is to say, I have more in common with astrologers who embrace traditional techniques and perspectives but a tropical zodiac than with astrologers who use a sidereal zodiac but whose outlook is essentially modern.
Martin, it would be helpful to readers if you could elaborate a little on a "sidereal outlook that is essentially modern." Also, what sources or authors would you recommend for those new to traditional perspectives and techniques?
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

9
Hi Larxene,

Excuse me for not answering any quicker; it's not because your topic would be intrinsically sidereal in nature. I simply didn't find the time due to some "real life issues". :)

Regarding the question of whether the earliest types of zodiac were tropically or sidereally oriented, you will find this article by Robert Hand very revealing, I believe:
http://cura.free.fr/quinq/01hand.html

Hi Konrad,
The Ideal Year is outlined in the Mesopotamian text MUL.APIN and places the Equinox in the middle of the month, not the beginning as the Ptolemaic Tropical measurement does.
As you can read in the article linked above, it seems that there was already a Tropical zodiac in use at the same time.

Also, there are early examples of Greek astronomers explicitly employing it.

Hand's article highlights that we cannot hope to solve the problem of which zodiac is the "authentic" one based on a historical survey.
Last edited by Michael Sternbach on Fri Jun 06, 2014 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

10
Therese Hamilton wrote:Martin, it would be helpful to readers if you could elaborate a little on a "sidereal outlook that is essentially modern." Also, what sources or authors would you recommend for those new to traditional perspectives and techniques?
Honestly, I'd recommend everything that's been translated from Greek, Latin and Arabic so far. It's not a huge corpus. I won't try to define the 'modern outlook' here, but I think most of us know modern astrology when we see it. Basically, it's the sort of astrology that completely dominated in the west from the late 19th to the late 20th century.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

11
*bangs head on the wall*

Okay, it seems I've opened a can of worms. I did not intend to invite a tropical vs. sidereal conversation, but it seems to have created that effect. I can be sued for negligence! :)

Anyway, my thought was that because the sidereal practitioners tend to study more sources pertaining to the fixed stars than their tropical counterparts, they are more likely to come across information on the constellation-sign relation.



Alright, so these constellations are on the ecliptic. Martin, do you know any historical sources that details the "chief constellations" present around the time the equally sized zodiac was created? Were there only 12 of these?
Interested in Hellenistic astrology? Visit my blog.

The appearance changes, but the essence remains.

12
Larxene, please see this related link:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7423

However, that topic doesn't cover the Mesopotamian evolution from the 17 constellations in the path of the Moon to the 12 sign zodiac of 30 degree signs. This is covered in a number of texts for which Martin probably has the references. (I have the references, but for various reasons including spring allergies, can't look them up at the moment.)

P.S. I just found this article, which looks very comprehensive. The 12 sign zodiac is discussed on page 23. The entire article can be printed.

Origin of the Ancient Constellations: the Mesopotamian Traditions

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... lassic=YES
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm