Rafael Gil Brand: On the Origin of the Tropical Zodiac, in: Journal of Anomalistics, Vol. 2 (2002), S. 264-270 - The tropical division of the zodiac goes back to Euktemon. He defined already in the 5th century B.C. the equinoxes and solstices as beginnings of the signs Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn. Euktemon does not seem to have been concerned with astrology, but he equated the Chaldean zodiacal signs with the months of his solar calendar oriented to the equinoxes. This definition of the zodiac was adopted by Greek astronomers such as Kallipos and Hipparchos. This tropical division of Greek astronomers may have been adopted from the Babylonians, insofar as they used a system that indicated the rising times of twelve sections of the ecliptic

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) = Rafael Gil Brand: Die tropische Einteilung des Tierkreises geht auf Euktemon zurück. Er definierte schon im 5.Jahrhundert v.Chr. die Äquinoktien und Solstitien als Anfänge der Zeichen Widder, Krebs, Waage und Steinbock. Euktemon scheint sich nicht mit Astrologie beschäftigt zu haben, hat aber die chaldäischen Tierkreiszeichen mit den Monaten seines an den Äquinoktien orientierten Sonnenkalenders gleichgesetzt. Diese Definition des Tierkreises wurde von griechischen Astronomen wie Kallipos und Hipparchos übernommen. Diese tropische Einteilung griechischer Astronomen ist möglicherweise von den Babyloniern übernommen worden, insofern diese ein System benutzten, das die Aufstiegszeiten von zwölf Abschnitten der Ekliptik anzeigte.

https://www.anomalistik.de/images/pdf/z ... _brand.pdf

Hipparchus - In Arati et Eudoxi Phaenomena commentariorum libri tres. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1894 -

From this, then, it is clear that he places the turning points in the beginnings, one in the beginning of Cancer, the other in the beginning of Capricorn (Hipparchus 1894: 131 f.):

I take here the points of the turns and the equinoxes as the beginnings of the signs set (Hipparchus 1894: 49).

Also by the old mathematicians, if not by all, at least by most, the ecliptic was divided in this way (Hipparchos 1894: 133).

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Hipparchus - In Arati et Eudoxi Phaenomena commentariorum libri tres. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1894

Hieraus geht also hervor, dass er die Wendepunkte in die Anfänge setzt, den einen in den Anfang des Krebses, den anderen in den Anfang des Steinbocks (Hipparch 1894: 131 f.):

Ich nehme hierbei die Punkte der Wenden und der Tag- und Nachtgleichen als die Anfänge der Zeichen gesetzt (Hipparchos 1894: 49).

Auch von den alten Mathematikern, wenn nicht von allen, so doch von den meisten, war die Ekliptik auf diese Weise geteilt (Hipparchos 1894: 133).

Prof. Dr. Nick Campion writes in his:

A History of Western Astrology - Volume I - Page 81 this:

https://talk.vonabisw.de/Campion/Campion81.jpeg

volkerschendel wrote:Euktemon does not seem to have been concerned with astrology, but he equated the Chaldean zodiacal signs with the months of his solar calendar oriented to the equinoxes.

I think the part underlined here (by me) is crucial. 'Tropical' and 'sidereal' are not necessarily the best descriptors when dealing with contexts where precession was not well understood, but the equations of 0 Aries with the equinox ('the tropical zodiac') and with a point removed from the equinox have co-existed for a very long time, typically distributed in precisely this way: those interested mainly in calendrical issues used the former, while those casting horoscopes used the latter. As recently discussed by Philipp Nothaft (here), the distinction was still recognized by some European astrological authors in the late Middle ages.

Dear Martin,

thanks for the feedback. - I prefer to follow the research of Prof. Campion and therefore I agree that we disagree on this topic.

There isn't really anything to (dis)agree on, as the page from Nick Campion's book that you refer to bears out what I just said:

Tables of moon positions from the fourth to second centuries BCE locate the spring equinox at 8° or 10° Aries rather than at 0° Aries as it does [sic] in later Western astrology.

(This isn't Nick's own research, of course; he's not an Assyriologist, and the book is a broad historical overview. But that's just by the way.)

Dear Martin,

with

"I prefer to follow the research of Prof. Campion" I did not mean the one linked page. But you can probably ask him directly if my interpretation of his work is correct.

In the disagreement I agree to is my whole approach to the available research on the History of Astrology included which we can talk about on zoom privately.

It would take up too much time in a forum like this. - I stand by my analysis that the tropical Zodiak has been the basis for the practising Astrologers in Antiquity and after long before Ptolemy - and that was my starting point, because astroart claimed that Ptomely was the one starting with the application of the tropical zodiak. - All I wanted is to falsify this narrative - which I did.

We have both supplied the community with enough material to find a personal opinion on this topic, so I see no need, to elaborate more on this topic.

But I would be interested in Your opinion about my working hypothesis:

"The first documented house-system in Antiquity is the Quadrant House System of Manilius".

s.Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hübner - Universität Münster - Die Dodekatropos des Manilius (Manil. 2, 856 - 970) (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur: Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse)

https://www.youtube.com/@kosmologie-mik ... 663/videos

The relevant thread is here

https://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/view ... hp?t=11950

Best Wishes
Volker

For people with a lot of free time here some additional material:

Prof. Dr. Glenn Perry's Lecture in India
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGVxe27 ... index=5and

Chris Brennan response
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP5gLTgFYaQ

and the reply of Prof. Perry - Open Letter to the Astrological Community…
Are We Free to Discuss Astrology’s Real Problems?

https://aaperry.com/the-two-zodiac-prob ... -problems/

With that I rest my case.

About Prof. Dr. Glenn Perry - Professional astrologer since 1975.

Board member 1997-2018 of International Society for Astrological Research (ISAR). Served as ISAR’s Vice President, Ethics Chair, and Research Director. - Vice President of the 2002 United Astrology Conference (UAC) Board. - Graduate of Saybrook Institute with a Doctorate in Psychology/Consciousness Studies. Graduate of Lone Mountain College (1979) with an M.A. in Psychology/Marriage & Family Therapy. - Recipient of Thuss Award at Saybrook Institute for outstanding writing. Recipient of International Astrologer’s Award for best article 1995-1998. - Founder and Director of The Academy of AstroPsychology (2012-Present) - Core faculty at Nodoor Academy of Astrology in Beijing China (2013-Present), and adjunct faculty at AstroArt Astrology School, Istanbul Turkey (2016). - Adjunct professor at the California Institute of Integral Studies 1997-2000. Taught graduate classes in psychological astrology. - Publisher-editor of The Journal of AstroPsychology (1988-1994).


My interviews with Prof. Perry:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... q4heNjQedo

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... 1Iz09OrQrD

Prof. Perry's Homepage:
https://aaperry.com

His essay

"Astro-Fundamentalism - An Ongoing Challenge"

https://aaperry.com/astro-fundamentalism/

may generate some opposition here and there I suppose.

Hi again Volker,

Just briefly, as I'm travelling (again):

volkerschendel wrote:I stand by my analysis that the tropical Zodiak has been the basis for the practising Astrologers in Antiquity and after long before Ptolemy - and that was my starting point, because astroart claimed that Ptomely was the one starting with the application of the tropical zodiak. - All I wanted is to falsify this narrative - which I did.

I don't think you did, if you are really talking about astrologers. Both frames of reference existed in antiquity, but the 'equinox = 0 Aries' one wasn't typically used in the context of horoscopy. Ptolemy as an exception in that regard, and we don't know if he was a practising astrologer at all (in the sense of actually casting horoscopes for people). Even if he was, I think it's fair to say, based on his literary output, that he was a mathematician, astronomer and 'science writer' first.

I agree to disagree and again:"With that I rest my case" and now the Jury is out to deliberate.