http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
BABYLONIAN ASTRONOMY REASSESSED

Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology. David Brown (Styx
Publications, Groningen, 2000). Pp. xii + 322. Hfl . 180.

Open virtually any general history of astronomy and one will almost
invariably find a few pages at the beginning purporting to describe
"Babylonian" astronomy (frequently in a brief chapter entitled "pre-Greek"
(read "pre-Scientific") astronomy or the like). After some remarks
concerning the supposed observational nature of early Babylonian astronomy
there will follow a description of the mathematical astronomy of the
Seleucid period, as deciphered by Epping, Kugler, Neugebauer, and others.
Perhaps we will even be told that the development of this mathematical
astronomy represents the first appearance of true science, as opposed to
simple observation and cataloguing.

Scholars working in the field have always, of course, realized that there
was much more to Mesopotamian astronomy than just the mathematical
astronomy of the Seleucid period. A tradition of celestial divination
stretches back to at least the Old Babylonian period (early second
millennium B.C.), and there exist extensive records of observations from
the last seven or eight centuries B.C.

Nevertheless, the various different facets of Mesopotamian astronomy and
astrology have, by and large, been studied in isolation from one another,
often by scholars brought up in different fields (history of science v.
Assyriology). In this book, David Brown attempts to write a comprehensive
history of Mesopotamian astronomy and astrology, stressing that all of the
material is part of the same scribal tradition.

Furthermore, he proposes a major revision to the way that scholars have
understood the development of astronomy and astrology in Mesopotamia.
Brown's central thesis is that there occurred a "revolution of wisdom" in
the eighth and seventh centuries B.C., a change from a paradigm based on
divination to one where the accurate prediction of celestial phenomena
became important.  He contends that all of the extant texts that are
believed to have originally been written before the eighth century B.C.
fit into a paradigm that had no interest in predicting celestial events,
and that we should see the period schemes, intercalation rules, etc.
found, for example, in Enuma Anu Ellil and MUL.APIN as being aspects of
celestial divination, not primitive or inaccurate astronomy. After the
mid-seventh century B.C., all of the extant texts, including the
observational records, and the late texts of mathematical astronomy,
derive from a paradigm where the goal was to predict celestial phenomena
accurately (say to one day). The period of transition between these two
paradigms he places as the eighth and seventh centuries B.C., during the
last years of the Assyrian Empire. There exist from this period many
hundreds of texts containing the correspondence between the Assyrian king
and a group of scholars in his employ. These texts have recently been
re-edited by Hermann Hunger and Simo Parpola as part of the State Archives
of Assyria series and form the basis for much of Brown's study. 

After a general introduction, the first chapter of Brown's book provides a
detailed discussion of the Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian scholars who wrote
the texts he will be studying. One important conclusion reached in this
chapter is that at any one time there were many scholars working for the
king, all trying to keep in his favour. It is the competition inherent
within this "divination industry" that Brown believes led to the
revolution of wisdom taking place.

The second chapter contains the results of a detailed study -- the first
of its kind -- into the names of the planets (including the Sun and Moon)
in cuneiform. This is a highly interesting piece of work, especially
Brown's division of the various names a planet may take as being due to
one of the following associations: basic (a planet and a deity),
theological (which required knowledge of the Mesopotamian gods), learned
(one that could only have been drawn by an expert in celestial
divination), observational (simply drawn from the appearance of the
heavenly body), or symbolic (an association made with a generally
recognized representation of a god). 

This is not the place to give a detailed review of this highly
Assyriological section of the book, but I would like to make one comment.
Under "Mercury" (p. 67), Brown writes "Si}tu `Jumping' no doubt reflects
the varying length between Mercury's appearances and non-appearances. Its
origin is observational". This explanation is possible, but I would note
that the variation in the length of the synodic arc of Mars is of
comparable magnitude to that of Mercury. However, around the beginning of
Scorpio, Mercury does not appear as an evening-star, and at the beginning
of Taurus, it does not appear as a morning-star. This is due to the highly
negative latitude of the planet in these sections of the zodiac, combined
with the fact that the ecliptic is only slightly inclined to the horizon
at those times. Thus, every now and again, Mercury skips an appearance.
Could it be this skipping an appearance that was the observational basis
for the name? [1]

Enuma Anu Ellil holds central place among texts of Mesopotamian celestial
divination. Its date of compilation is not known, but it must have been
before c. 750 B.C., and elements of it at least go back to Old Babylonian
times. Aside from a few odd tablets, most notably the so-called
"astrolabes" and the "Babylonian Diviner's Manual", the main other text to
deal with celestial matters from before c. 750 B.C. is the two tablet
series MUL.APIN.

Whereas Enuma Anu Ellil has generally been regarded by modern scholars as
an astrological work (the planetary period schemes and the lunar tables on
Tablet 14 being seen as astronomical material that has somehow been
incorporated into the series for no sound reason), MUL.APIN has usually
been described as astronomical, since it contains star lists,
intercalation schemes, planetary periods, etc. (notwithstanding the fact
that it also contains some omens). However, Brown proposes that we should
see both of these texts in the same light: as tools of the celestial
diviner. They are prime examples of what he has called the "EAE paradigm",
a set of beliefs that did not include an awareness of the fact that some
celestial phenomena are predictable to a high degree of accuracy.

Central to Brown's argument for the existence of an EAE paradigm is his
interpretation of the early period schemes, "those parts of the cuneiform
astrological astronomical texts that have, for the most part, been quoted
out of context in an effort to demonstrate the existence of a predictive
astronomy before the late period"  (p. 113). For example, a ratio of 2:1
for the longest to the shortest night accompanies a 360-day year in a
simple arithmetical scheme.

As has been well known for many years, this 2:1 ratio far exceeds the true
variation between summer and winter night lengths for the latitude of the
Mesopotamian region. Neugebauer and others have tried to explain the
ratio's inaccuracy by postulating that the 2:1 ratio did not refer to the
different lengths of time, but to the different weights of water in a
waterclock of such design that the ratio in terms of time corresponds
better to reality.

However, more recent textual evidence (as well as failed attempts to
reconstruct a waterclock that would produce such a discrepancy between
weight of water and time passed)  has shown that the 2:1 ratio did indeed
refer to time. So how can we explain such an astronomically inaccurate
ratio? Brown's answer is simply that the 2:1 ratio was not meant to be
astronomically accurate. It is just a mathematical scheme, reflecting with
simple numbers the fact that night lengths vary throughout the year.

Similarly, Brown elegantly shows that the so called
"Pleiaden-Schaltregel", which says that when the Moon is in conjunction
with the Pleiades on the 3rd of nisannu it is necessary to add an extra
month to the year, is based upon nothing more than the simple rule of
thumb that to keep the lunar calendar in step with the solar year, one
must intercalate once every three years. In essence, Brown argues -- I
believe correctly -- that all of the early period schemes, etc., are no
more than basic mathematical manipulations of simple numbers, and were not
meant to be astronomically accurate.

Here we come to the more controversial part of Brown's proposed EAE
paradigm.  He believes that the motivation behind these early period
schemes was divination.

Specifically, he argues that they were used to represent an "ideal" state
of the universe against which observations could be judged. If an
observation agreed with the ideal scheme, it boded well; if it disagreed,
then it boded ill. In other words, the purpose of these period schemes was
to produce anomalies which could be considered ominous. This fits in with
how Brown sees the development of other celestial omens. These omens were
not (in general) based upon empirical experience, upon some connection
being made between a celestial observation and an event taking place on
Earth.

Instead they were developed through the application of a strict code.
Thus, "celestial divination was an invention, a deliberate encoding of the
sky, justified by the assumption that the powers which manipulated the
heavens would be so good as to leave messages there" (p. 112). By and
large, Brown's interpretation of the early period schemes, etc. as being
anomaly producing for divination, is an interesting and attractive
hypothesis.

But is it true?  Unfortunately, in my view we just do not know. Certainly
there is evidence in support of Brown's idea in the "Diviner's Manual" and
some of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian letters and reports, and the
few extant texts presumed to have been originally written before c. 750
B.C. appear to fit in with this interpretation, but with so little early
material preserved, it must be questioned how much we can really know
about this period of Mesopotamian astronomy and astrology.

After the "Revolution of Wisdom", Brown claims that Mesopotamian astrology
astronomy entered a new paradigm, the "Prediction of Celestial Phenomena
(PCP) paradigm", which incorporated for the first time methods for
predicting certain celestial phenomena to a high degree of accuracy. All
of the so-called Non-Mathematical Astronomical-Astrological Texts (NMAATs)
and Mathematical Astronomical-Astrological Texts (MAATs) of the last
centuries of the first millennium B.C. fall into this category. This
includes the observational texts such as the Astronomical Diaries, texts
for making non-mathematical predictions such as the Goal-Year Texts, as
well as the texts of mathematical astronomy such as those published by
Neugebauer in his Astronomical cuneiform texts (ACT).

Thus, Brown moves away from dividing the ACT type texts and the
non-mathematical material, correctly rejecting claims that the former is
"scientifi c" and the latter not, and noting that it was the same scribes
who wrote each type of text. He stresses that in their principal methods
and goals, the texts of the PCP paradigm were, by and large, a
continuation of those of the EAE paradigm, but these methods were
embellished and directed towards accurately predicting certain celestial
phenomena, and did not form ideal anomaly-producing schemes.

Much of Chapter 4 of the book consists of a description of the various
different types of astronomical-astrological texts from the late period,
what celestial phenomena were predicted, and the methods by which this was
done. This provides a very useful overview of the late material, and I was
particularly pleased to read Brown's comment regarding the fact that
various different methods for predicting a particular phenomena were in
use at the same time, but that they were all considered equally
legitimate; the pluralistic nature of late Babylonian astronomy has all
too frequently been passed over in silence. 

However, there are a few errors in Brown's discussion. For example, on p.
165 he seems to suggest that the Goal-Year Texts contained predictions for
a coming "goal-year"; in fact they contain collections of (mainly)
observational data that could be used in making predictions for that year.

When describing the observations and predictions of eclipses, he calls the
large compilation of eclipse records LBAT 1414, 1415+, 1419 the "Saros
Canon", whereas this name is usually given to LBAT 1428 which contains
only the dates of eclipse possibilities given by a simple theoretical
scheme. The record of the eclipse in 317 B.C. discussed on p. 190 is
recorded on LBAT 1414 not LBAT 1413. The translation of LBAT 1414: 1f on
p. 201 should read "110, Year 1 of Ukin-zer (731 BC), month I, (an
eclipse) which passes by at 60 (US) after Sunrise".2

In order to claim that the PCP paradigm already existed in the period c.  
750­612 B.C., Brown draws much of his evidence from the predictions of
eclipses in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian letters and reports. To
substantiate his claim, he contends that he needs only to show that the
Scholars were attempting to predict in advance the month and possibly the
day and time of an eclipse.

Although this is evidently not always the case, there are several examples
that confirm this was generally true, and so his main argument that
attempts were being made to make accurate predictions (whether or not they
were successful) in the seventh century B.C. is proven. Brown then
discusses the possible methods by which the eclipses may have been
predicted. The Scholars clearly realized that sometimes an eclipse was
possible 5 months after another eclipse possibility, sometimes 6 months.

The letter LABS 71 proves this, although Brown is probably wrong in his
interpretation of the line "[...] 4 months there was a watch in month VIII
and now in month IX we will (again) keep watch". The number 4 is badly
damaged, and collation indicates that a reading of 5 is quite possible.3
Thus we should probably understand this passage to mean a watch was kept 5
and 6 months after another eclipse possibility.

Because of the apparent confidence of some of scholars in their
predictions, Brown suggests that they were probably using the Saros cycle
of 223 synodic months.  Perhaps they were, but I do not believe this
expression of confidence provides sufficient evidence to make such a
claim.

Brown concludes his book with a discussion of the factors that may have
been responsible for the "Revolution of Wisdom" in the eighth and seventh
centuries B.C.  Chief among them seems to have been the demands placed
upon the Scholars by the Sargonid kings of the Neo-Assyrian period,
demands that included protection from the evil signified by the omens
through rituals (and a ritual is of course easier to perform if one has
advance warning of when an omen may occur so that preparations may be
made), and which created competition between the individual Scholars.

In an attempt to place Mesopotamian astronomy-astrology in the mainstream
of history of science debate, Brown tries -- with some success -- to
reconstruct its underlying philosophy. Perhaps for this reason, he frames
his thesis in the language of Kuhn, and claims that his "Revolution of
Wisdom" displays many of the characteristics of the Kuhnian model,
although he does not argue for the model's general validity. By and large
this seems to me to be a plausible hypothesis.

Can it be any more than an hypothesis, however? Brown provides convincing
evidence that there was a change in the practice of astronomy-astrology
between the period schemes, etc., found in Enuma Anu Ellil and MUL.APIN
and those of the later mathematical ACT type texts.

He also shows that attempts were being made by the Neo-Assyrian and
Neo-Babylonian Scholars to predict accurately celestial phenomena. The
question is, therefore, whether Enuma Anu Ellil, MUL.APIN and similar
texts fully reflect the astronomy and astrology of the period before c.
750 B.C. Very few original documents containing celestial material are
preserved from before this date; most texts survive in late copies only.
By definition, therefore, they are the texts that somebody thought were
worth preserving.

Were there other texts that portray a different kind of astronomy that
were outside of this tradition, and that are now lost?4 And did the way
texts like MUL.APIN were used in the late period differ from how they were
originally used?

One group of texts not discussed in detail by Brown, but which seem
relevant to his argument, are the late astrological tablets that contain
the dodekatemoria and kalendertexte numerical schemes. These schemes
associate each degree of the zodiac (or day of the schematic 360-day year)
with another position given by a simple numerical relation, apparently so
that the scribe could have twice as much information to interpret
astrologically. The dodekatemoria seems to be based upon a schematic
representation of the moon's motion. Thus, although the scheme itself is
similar to many of those found in Brown's EAE paradigm, it was not used to
produce anomalies from the moon's ideal motion. This supports Brown's
argument for a continuity of methods -- but not uses -- from the EAE to
the PCP paradigms.

In conclusion, this is a highly thought-provoking book which attempts, for
the first time, to uncover a consistent philosophical aspect to the study
of the heavens in Mesopotamia. In this the author has by and large been
successful, although there are a few points on which I disagree, most
importantly in his premise that every text must fit into a certain
underlying philosophical/methodological package. Nevertheless, this book
marks a significant contribution to the study of Mesopotamian astronomy
and astrology.

University of Durham

JOHN M. STEELE

REFERENCES

1. In this context I note the possible reading of GU4-UD.MES as sa}atu
"left-out, missing lines", cited in CAD S/I, p. 95.

2.  On the number 110 at the beginning of this eclipse report, see now J.
M.  Steele, "A simple function for the lenth of the saros in Babylonian
astronomy", in J. M. Steele and A.  Imhaesen (eds), Under one sky:
Astronomy and mathematics in the ancient Near East (Münster, forthcoming).

3. See J. M. Steele, "Eclipse prediction in Mesopotamia", Archive for
history of exact science, liv (2000), 421­54, note 19.

4. Brown does acknowledge this point on p. 221 but, whilst I accept his
arguments against it, I would still urge a little more caution in
describing the situation before c. 750 B.C.