BigLuna
Thanks, Mindy. Beautifully put.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Genesis of Exaltations
dadsnook2000
If I remember correctly
If I remember correctly, Cyril Fagan (astrologer, historian, Egyptologist) and Brigidair Firbrace worked out the hieroglyphic language and pictograms of the sky maps at one of the ancient temples in Egypt (which were correlated with other sites) and calculated out those ancient skies to determine the positions of the planet exaltations. This was centuries before any mention of a Tropical Zodiac or written records of precession were in existence. I'll try to find those references and collaborating authors.
The bottom line is that only "sidereal" reference frameworks existed then in those very long-ago times. People saw the sky, saw the stars and used them accordingly. Fagan and Glasgow go on to correlate the names and meanings of the fixed stars and their helical positions at specific times of the year to show that those stars were marker stars for calendar events in the ancient world.
It is only in the latter Greek period that the shift of stars relative to their former use of civil events/dates came into question. This coincided with the growing awareness and use of math and measuring devices that permitted the Aries Point and the subject of the seasonal zodiac to be raised, examined and advocated. Prior to this point in time, it was all sidereal. The exalt positions of long ago by sign/degree/location do not agree with present day Tropical sign/degree positions.
Before that position can be advocated, one would have to make a strong case using math, historical and computer skills/knowledge to explain how a jump from one reference frame to another reference frame was justified, especially since the original reference frame is still there to be seen. Or, one would have to use present day Tropical Zodiac mathematics and philosophy to construct a model of some sort that would cause the planets to seemingly take on emphasized attributes relative to the Aries Point. Either approach is daunting. I choose to stick with the record as literally carved in stone, recorded on parchment and translated and corroborated by many intellectuals over time. Dave
If I remember correctly, Cyril Fagan (astrologer, historian, Egyptologist) and Brigidair Firbrace worked out the hieroglyphic language and pictograms of the sky maps at one of the ancient temples in Egypt (which were correlated with other sites) and calculated out those ancient skies to determine the positions of the planet exaltations. This was centuries before any mention of a Tropical Zodiac or written records of precession were in existence. I'll try to find those references and collaborating authors.
The bottom line is that only "sidereal" reference frameworks existed then in those very long-ago times. People saw the sky, saw the stars and used them accordingly. Fagan and Glasgow go on to correlate the names and meanings of the fixed stars and their helical positions at specific times of the year to show that those stars were marker stars for calendar events in the ancient world.
It is only in the latter Greek period that the shift of stars relative to their former use of civil events/dates came into question. This coincided with the growing awareness and use of math and measuring devices that permitted the Aries Point and the subject of the seasonal zodiac to be raised, examined and advocated. Prior to this point in time, it was all sidereal. The exalt positions of long ago by sign/degree/location do not agree with present day Tropical sign/degree positions.
Before that position can be advocated, one would have to make a strong case using math, historical and computer skills/knowledge to explain how a jump from one reference frame to another reference frame was justified, especially since the original reference frame is still there to be seen. Or, one would have to use present day Tropical Zodiac mathematics and philosophy to construct a model of some sort that would cause the planets to seemingly take on emphasized attributes relative to the Aries Point. Either approach is daunting. I choose to stick with the record as literally carved in stone, recorded on parchment and translated and corroborated by many intellectuals over time. Dave
Minderwiz
My point isn't that the reference framework was a Tropical Zodiac - it wasn't. Neither was it 'only' a Sidereal framework I'm aware that there's an argument that the Babylonians were aware of precession over a thousand years before Hipparchus but even if that were true (and it may well be) we are still dealing with situation in which the March equinox occured in Aries. When the equal sign zodiac was developed the March equinox was in the first 10 degrees of Aries. At that time no one distinguished between sidereal and tropical, as Dave says. It's also very probable that it was actually believed that the March equinox was fixed in Aries for all time (both past, present and future). In such a situation can we really insist that actions are in a sidereal, rather than an equinoctial framework, when the people concerned had no conception of a distinction or difference?
Of course marker stars would be used for calendar purposes, but the calendar was largely determined by equinoxes or solstices. For many calendars (including the Babylonian) that link with the equinox or solstice is still the vital thing, they haven't shifted the calendar to keep in contact with certain star positions.
Yes, Dave is right to say that the exaltations were almost certainly established pre-Tropical Zodiac (in the sense of a Zodiac measured from the Equinox) but the were established in a Zodiac which was both sidereal and seasonal it was not just sidereal 'only'. Of these two components of the conjoined zodiacs (which we can see they were with hindsight) which was Astrologically the most important? I can't answer that, nor can Dave - history suggests Tropical in the West and Vedic in India, so there's no definitive answer to that one.
Dave is also right, in a previous post in this thread, to point out that the exaltations were originally linked to specific degrees, I don't know of any definitive explanation of the origin of these degrees, either by Tropical or Sidereally based Astroogers. I think it's a question of 'Watch this space' and for people like Dave and me, that's what makes Astrology so enthralling.
Of course marker stars would be used for calendar purposes, but the calendar was largely determined by equinoxes or solstices. For many calendars (including the Babylonian) that link with the equinox or solstice is still the vital thing, they haven't shifted the calendar to keep in contact with certain star positions.
Yes, Dave is right to say that the exaltations were almost certainly established pre-Tropical Zodiac (in the sense of a Zodiac measured from the Equinox) but the were established in a Zodiac which was both sidereal and seasonal it was not just sidereal 'only'. Of these two components of the conjoined zodiacs (which we can see they were with hindsight) which was Astrologically the most important? I can't answer that, nor can Dave - history suggests Tropical in the West and Vedic in India, so there's no definitive answer to that one.
Dave is also right, in a previous post in this thread, to point out that the exaltations were originally linked to specific degrees, I don't know of any definitive explanation of the origin of these degrees, either by Tropical or Sidereally based Astroogers. I think it's a question of 'Watch this space' and for people like Dave and me, that's what makes Astrology so enthralling.
