I
received several emails and FB messages about
the recent news that an astronomer in Minnesota, Parke
Kunkle, has stated that astrologers do not have the
zodiac signs properly placed in the sky. Here are my
thoughts on this:
1. This idea is not new and astrologers already know
about it. There are many zodiacs: there is the tropical
zodiac which is the main one in use in the western
world, the sidereal zodiac which is usually preferred
by astrologers in India, and there are also various
attempts at a constellational zodiac. There
was also a zodiac of 18 signs in ancient Babylonia
and there
is another ancient zodiac of 27 signs, known as nakshatras,
which is used mostly by astrologers in India.
The
astronomer Parke Kunkle is suggesting that
a kind of constellational
zodiac is the true zodiac that the original
Babylonian astrologers devised and it has been misunderstood
in modern times. There is no historical evidence
to support
Mr. Kunkle's idea. There is evidence that
suggests that in the earliest development of astrology
the zodiac signs were understood to be based on the
seasons just as they are today in western astrology.
See the note at
the bottom of this article for
an example of text from the earliest extant astrological
writings which suggests
that zodiac signs are related to the seasons. Note
that Kunkle gives various
dates for entry of the Sun into the constellational
signs
but these are rather arbitrary because the
zodiacal constellations have gaps and overlaps between
them
and one can also devise a constellational
zodiac with varying numbers of signs and not necessarily
13 as
Mr. Kunkle suggests.
2. The 27 nakshatras are arguably the best zodiac
that has a close association with star groups and constellations
and is a more reasonable choice than Kunkle's suggested
13 zodiac signs. For an example of an excellent astrological
analysis based on nakshatras see
http://astrosoftware.com/Nakshatra.htm and to see modern renditions of imagery for the 27
nakshatras see http://astrosoftware.com/nakshatrasymbol.htm
3. Anyone
can call himself or herself an astrologer. There
are no standards or requirements for becoming an
astrologer. Consequently many "astrologers" understand
very little about astronomy, the history of astrology,
or even advanced methods of astrological interpretation.
Do not be surprised if some astrologers do not offer
a coherent and educated response to Mr. Kunkle's
statements regarding zodiac signs.
4. Of most concern to me about this news item is the
poor scholarship of Mr. Kunkle. Universities turn out
many thousands of graduates and the vast majority of
them, in my opinion, are well-trained and understand
the importance of basing statements on careful scholarship,
especially if they have a graduate level degree as
Mr. Kunkle has. However, there are rare exceptions
and Mr. Kunkle’s pronouncements regarding zodiac
signs are an example of this.
I
suggest that universities require 1 credit hour of
training in academic ethics
to help ensure that statements made authoritatively
by M.S., M.A., and Ph.D. graduates are responsible
and ethical to help prevent the rare but serious
cases of incredibly poor scholarship as exemplified
by Mr.
Kunkle. Historical research clearly indicates that
astrology as we know it was originally formulated
around 500 BC to 100 BC (probably over less than
200 years
within this time range) based on Babylonian omens
and conceptual paradigms, and at this time the sidereal
zodia cand tropical zodiac were very similar and
both are quite different from a constellational
zodiac such as the one that Kunkle suggests.
Kunkle’s
statements regarding the historical basis of astrology
are very flawed and are an embarrassment to people
like me who hold in very high regard the high standards
of scholarship and excellence that normally are maintained
at upper level universities and colleges and by the
graduates of these educational institutions. He makes
a suggestion regarding “new” information
on the nature of zodiac signs that is already part
of the basic knowledge of any certified astrologer. 5. In astrology there has been a growing movement
over the past several decades for astrologers to see
astrology as a form of divination or psychological/mythological
language that is not capable of providing factual information
but rather provides meaning or understanding only.
These are rather abstract ideas compared to the simpler
notion that the stars incline human behavior in particular
directions and also affect human personality in clearly
observable and measurable ways. Some of these astrologers
are not so completely different from astronomers in
their skepticism of the ability of astrology to provide
definitive and measurable effects. How many times have
you heard that Mercury is retrograde so communication
is bad or no wonder this person travels a lot because
he is a Sagittarian? Some of these astrologers believe
that statements like this should not be made because
astrology is not capable of providing this kind of
objective information.
6. There are also approaches to astrology that do not
use zodiac signs at all. For example, there is
an approach to astrology known as cosmobiology that
became popular in the 1980’s and is still practiced
and some cosmobiologists do not use zodiac signs.
7. My own approach to astrology is based on a complex
analysis of patterns formed by the arrangement of celestial
objects, especially planets. The system that I use
puts very little emphasis on zodiac signs and removing
zodiac signs entirely from the analysis based on this
system does not greatly affect the interpretation.
8. If astrology is capable of measurable effects,
they have not yet been discovered. Nothing in astrology
has been scientifically validated and, as mentioned
above, even some astrologers do not think this is possible.
I have conducted research that suggests that complex
patterns may have measurable effects but more research
is needed. My research may be more threatening to astrologers
than skeptics of astrology because little emphasis
is placed on the astrological factors that astrologers
normally use and the system is based on a sophisticated
pattern analysis that requires a different way of thinking
about astrology both philosophically and in practical
terms, and the research is directed towards finding
measurable effects and is quantitative in nature, and
some astrologers agree with non-believers in astrology
that quantitative research in astrology is a waste
of time. For more information on my research and perspectives
on astrology you can visit http://astrosoftware.com/AstrologyArticle.htm
* So
for all those who have asked
if their zodiac sign has changed, the answer
is no. The
zodiac signs are still the same.
The
news item on Mr. Kunkle’s insights into zodiac
signs does not shed any light on anything. However,
it might be helpful to keep in mind that the sidereal
zodiac used in Vedic astrology (astrology that evolved
in India and is still used today) is different from
the zodiac signs used in western astrology, and that
there are a great many ideas even among astrologers
on what astrology is, how astrology works, and what
astrology can do.
People
have different opinions about astrology and I think
we should be open-minded to different
possibilities. I have no problem with people who
may think that astrology is a science all the way
to people
who think that astrology is pseudo-science. I have
a problem, however, with poor scholarship. For
this reason, I think that the news item by Mr. Kunkle
is
not helpful.
Note: The following quote from Section
17 of Book 1 of the Tetrabiblos by Claudius Ptolemy
(translation by J. M. Ashmand. See http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/tabelas/Tetrabiblos.pdf for the text) indicates that Ptolemy associated the
rulership of hte zodiac signs with the seasons. This
text strongly suggests that the zodiac signs were understood
to be based on the seasons, i.e. a tropical zodiac
during the early development of astrology in Hellenistic
times, thus contradicting the basis of Kunkle's ideas.
Given below is the relevant part of Book1, section
17 of the Tetrabiblos:
"The
system of houses is of the folIowing nature.
Since of the twelve signs the most northern,
which
are closer than the others to our zenith and therefore
most productive of heat and of warmth are Cancer
and Leo, they assigned these to the greatest
and most powerful
heavenly bodies, that is, to the luminaries, as
houses, Leo, which is masculine, to the sun and
Cancer, feminine,
to the moon. In keeping with this they assumed
the semicircle from Leo to Capricorn to be solar
and that
from Aquarius to Cancer to be lunar, so that in
each of the semicircles One sign might be assigned
to each
of the five planets as its own, One bearing aspect
to the sun and the other to the moon, consistently
with the spheres of their motion and the peculiarities
of their natures. For to Saturn, in whose nature
cold prevails, as opposed to heat, and which
occupies the
orbit highest and farthest from the luminaries,
were assigned the signs opposite Cancer and Leo,
namely
Capricorn and Aquarius, with the additional reason
that these signs are cold and wintry, and further
that their diametrical aspect is not consistent
with beneficence.
To Jupiter, which is moderate and below Saturn's
sphere, were as signed the two signe next to
the foregoing,
windy and fecund, Sagittarius and Pisces, in triangular aspect
to the luminaries, which is a harmonious and
beneficent configuration. Next, to Mars, which
is dry
in nature and occupies a sphere under that of Jupiter,
there were assigned again the two signs, contiguous
to the former, Scorpio and Aries, having a similar
nature, and, agreeably to Mars' destructive and
inharmonious quality, in quartile aspect to the
luminaries. To Venus,
which is temperate and beneath Mars, were given
the next two signs, which are extremely fertile,
Libra
and Taurus. These preserve the harmony of the sextile
aspect; another reason is that this planet at most
is never more than two signs removed from the sun
in either direction. Finally, there were given
to Mercury,
which never is farther removed from the sun than
One sign in either direction and is beneath the
others
and closer in a way to both of the luminaries,
the remaining signs, Gemini and Virgo, which are
next to
the houses of the luminaries."
|