Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mtunx!whuts!whutt!mls
From: mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON)
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Re: Digression
Message-ID: <3077@whutt.UUCP>
Date: 19 Apr 88 15:26:08 GMT
References: <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP+ <2790@gryphon.CTS.COM> <1221@uop.edu> <5101@aw.sei.cmu.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23
Summary: yes, it's hellenistic

In article <5101@aw.sei.cmu.edu+, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
+ In article <3060@whutt.UUCP> mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON) writes:
+ 
+ >Yep, and those who are enthused about astrology generally attribute its
+ >origins to ancient (like, millenially B.C.) Egypt.
+ 
+ Ah, but if we assume that the astrological zodiac originally bore
+ some resemblence to the actual stars, then its origin can be guessed
+ pretty well.  When was Aries really March 22 .. April 21?  In about
+ 200 BC, give or take a couple of centuries.  That would make it a
+ piece of Hellenistic syncretism (which sounds likely to me, I confess)

You have it reasonably well pegged.  First evidence of anything much like
what we call astrology (as distinct from Mesopotamian omen reading) is from
shortly after 300 B.C., and it developed rapidly from there.  See Otto
Neugebauer's works (titles escape me at the moment, but anything of his
is interesting.)

-- 
Michael L. Siemon
contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories
ihnp4!mhuxu!mls
standard disclaimer