Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd
From: todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack)
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Re: Digression
Message-ID: <1439@uop.edu>
Date: 21 Apr 88 20:07:01 GMT
References: <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP+ <2790@gryphon.CTS.COM> <1221@uop.edu> <3077@whutt.UUCP>
Organization: Uop Ethernet Gateway to Mayhem
Lines: 30
Summary: not so

In article <3077@whutt.UUCP>, mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON) writes:
> In article <5101@aw.sei.cmu.edu+, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
> + In article <3060@whutt.UUCP> mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON) writes:

> + 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

You must remember that the original Zodaic did not contain all it does
today.. and hence you must look at what was the oldest record.. and
its intent.

> 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.)

Not so, the usage goes back to the times of several thousand B.C.

If I must, I will have to go home and start posting from my rather
unusual library of science, psuedo-science, archaeology, history,

etc. etc..


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ uop!todd@uunet.uu.net                                               + 
+                 cogent!uop!todd@lll-winken.arpa                     + 
+                                 {backbone}!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd  + 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------