Abstract
Until the end of the last century the little that was known of Mesopotamian astronomy came from scattered references to the “Chaldaeans,” portrayed as mystical astrologers in the works of Greek authors such as Strabo and Diodorus Siculus and the Old Testament,1 and from the small number of observations contained in Ptolemy’s Almagest which he describes as having been observed in Babylon. However, after the archaeological exploration of Assyria and Babylonia by Austin Henry Layard and others which began in the 1840s, original cuneiform records have come to light that have transformed this image.2 Not only were celestial events used for divination in Mesopotamia, they were also systematically observed and recorded in Babylon from around the middle of the eighth century BC,3 and by the fourth century BC mathematical schemes had been developed that allowed various astronomical phenomena such as the appearance and disappearance of the planets and the time-intervals between successive oppositions and conjunctions of the sun and moon to be calculated.4 Babylonian astronomy was to have a profound and long lasting legacy: Greek, Indian, Islamic, and even Medieval European astronomy all drew on its influence.5
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See Neugebauer (1975: 607–614).
For a general history of the excavations and the recovery of the cuneiform texts, see Larsen (1996) and Budge (1925). Details of the recovery of the astronomical and astrological tablets are given by Neugebauer (1957: 53–70).
There is no firm evidence for similar long-term systematic observational programmes in the other Mesopotamian cities. However, during the eighth and seventh centuries BC, reports of astronomical observations and their astrological interpretations were regularly sent to the Assyrian kings in Nineveh.
Aaboe (1974) has described this final type of astronomy as “scientific,” that is “a mathematical description of celestial phenomena capable of yielding numerical predictions that can be tested against observations.”
For a general overview of the legacy of Babylonian astronomy in other cultures, see Pingree (1998) and Neugebauer (1963). For the records of Babylonian astronomical observations in Ptolemy’s Almagest, see Chapter 3. On the transmission of Babylonian mathematical astronomy to Greece, see Toomer (1988) and Jones (1991, 1993), and to India, see Pingree (1973, 1987).
Or, at least, near-original texts, as a number were obviously copied in antiquity by the Babylonian scribes. However, they are still only, say, second or third generation copies. By contrast, the writings from ancient China were written on perishable materials, and so we only possess late copies of the works that have gone through the copying process, with all of its inherent problems of corruption to the text, many times.
For a survey of the Enūma Anu Enlil series, see Weidner (1944a, 1944b, 1956, 1969) and KochWestenholz (1995). So far, the tablets concerned with lunar eclipses have been edited by Rochberg-Halton (1987, 1988), parts of those dealing with the planetary omens by Reiner & Pingree (1975, 1981, 1998), and those containing solar omens by van Soldt (1995).
The Venus Tablet has been published by Reiner & Pingree (1975).
For example, Langdon & Fotheringham (1928), Weir (1972), Huber et al. (1982), and Gasche et al. (1998) .
For a discussion of empiricism in the omen texts, see Rochberg (1999a).
Lambert (1975), Horowitz (1998).
MUL.APIN has been edited by Hunger & Pingree (1989).
It should be noted that although works such as Enūma Anu Enlil and MUL.APIN were written well before this time, they are mainly preserved in copies made during this later period.
This is a revised version of his earlier edition, Parpola (1970). See also his commentary, Parpola (1983). In the following discussions, the Letters are denoted by their LABS number in Parpola (1993). For a table of concordances with museum numbers, see Parpola (1993: 408–412).
This replaces the earlier edition by Thompson (1900). In the following discussions, the Reports are denoted by their ARAK number in Hunger (1992). For a table of concordances with museum numbers, see Hunger (1992: 374–379).
Hunger (1992: xvi).
The dates proposed by Parpola (1983) for many of the texts can not be justified. See, for example, de Meis & Hunger (1998) and Brown (1999b).
Reade (1986). 19 Sachs (1948).
In the following discussions, I will denote texts published in Neugebauer (1955) by their ACT number, and texts listed in Sachs (1955) by their LBAT number. LBAT numbers preceded by one star refer to tablets listed in Sachs (1955), but for which copies have not been published. Double starred LBAT numbers refer to texts listed in Sachs (1955) which have been published elsewhere — predominantly in Epping (1889), Kugler (1900, 1907, 1909, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1924), and Kugler & Schaumberger (1935). Texts not catalogued in either LBAT or ACT will be denoted by their museum numbers. Where joins have been made to previously catalogued fragmentary tablets, these are denoted by plusses. For lists of concordances between ACT, LBAT and museum numbers, see Neugebauer (1955: 453–459) and Sachs (1955: xi—lvi).
The term NMAT was coined by Aaboe (1980). 22 See, for example, the translation of Toomer (1984: 116).
Brinkman (1968: 227).
Hallo (1988).
The distribution of years with at least one dated Diary fragment is shown graphically in Figure 2 of Sachs (1974). Although a small number of additional Diary fragments have subsequently been dated, these would not significantly alter this figure.
These definitions are based upon those of Sachs & Hunger (1988: 20).
The Normal Stars are a group of bright stars located close to the ecliptic that were used as reference points in the sky. For a list of the Babylonian Normal Stars, see Sachs & Hunger (1988: 17–19).
Neugebauer (1947b, 1948). 29 Sachs (1952b).
Although Hunger (1999) has noted that there are a small number of cases where the observations recorded in the Goal-Year texts do not correspond exactly with the descriptions given in the Diaries, he has plausibly suggested that these Goal-Year texts drew on other Diaries than the ones that happen to be preserved, as there are cases where parallel Diaries give slightly different accounts of the same event.
See Sachs (1948: 283, 1955: xxv) and van der Waerden (1974: 108–110).
For BM 45728, see Kugler (1907: 45–48) and P. Huber in van der Waerden (1974: 107). For BM 41004, see Neugebauer & Sachs (1967: 200–208).
For this text, see Gadd (1967) and Hunger (1969).
However, Huber (1973) has edited most of the eclipse records found in the Goal-Year texts, together with many from the Diaries and the Eclipse Texts.
It should be noted that in many cases the records have obviously been reworded to give entries within a compilation uniform style.
Sachs (1976).
Sachs (1952a).
For references to additional texts, most of which have been published by Aaboe, Neugebauer, and Sachs, see Neugebauer (1975).
BM 40094, published by Aaboe (1969).
BM 34083 = ACT 53. 41 See, for example, Sachs & Hunger (1988: 25).
de Kuyper (1993).
Oppenheim (1969).
BOR 4, 132; CT 49, 144; and CT 49, 186. See, most recently, van der Spek (1985) and Rochberg (1999b). An earlier discussion is given by McEwan (1981: 17–21).
Translated rather ambiguously as “astrologer” by van der Spek (1985) and McEwan (1981).
CT 49, 144, Rev. 23; trans. van der Spek (1985: 552).
See Rochberg (1999b).
See Section 2.3.1 below.
Oates (1986: 143).
Reade (1986).
For details, see Figure 2 of Britton (1993).
For similar techniques of dating astronomical papyri, see Jones (1999: v.1 47–55), and horoscopes, see Neugebauer& van Hoesen (1959: 1–2).
The Babylonian unit of time was the uš. As there were 360 Uš in one day, it is customary to render Uš as “degree” or ° in translations. See Section 2.4 below for further details.
The tablets have been dated at the request of Prof. H. Hunger for their publication in Sachs & Hunger (1999). In all cases, I have worked from his translations of the texts. Further de ta i ls are given in this volume.
This criterion is due to Muller (1975), and is a conservative estimate.
Steele, Stephenson & Morrison (1997).
This map was kindly prepared by Mrs. Pauline Russell and Prof. F. Richard Stephenson of the Department of Physics, University of Durham.
See, for example, the instances quoted by Beaulieu & Britton (1994: 77).
LABS 347; trans. Parpola (1993: 282).
See, for example, Beaulieu & Britton (1994) and Brown & Linsenn (1999).
Watches are found, for example, in the omen series Enūma Anu Enlil, see Rochberg-Halton (1988: 44–47); and in the letters and reports sent to the Assyrian king, see Parpola (1993) and Hunger (1992).
Neugebauer (1941). 65 Stephenson & Fatoohi (1994).
Thureau-Dangin (1937).
Oppenheim (1974).
Although there exist tables which have been interpreted as referring to measuring time by use of a gnomon, devices such as this could not have been used during the night. 69 See Brown, Fermor, & Walker (1999) for a general discussion of clepsydras in Mesopotamia.
M UL. AP I N has been published by Hunger & Pingree (1989), and the relevant parts of Enūma Anu Enlil by Al-Rawi & George (1992).
I.NAM.giš.hur.an.ki.a has been published by Livingstone (1986).
This is mainly due to the surface tension of the water preventing the clock from fully emptying. For the experimental evidence of this statement, see Brown, Fermor, & Walker (1999), and for a theoretical argument, see Høyrup (1998).
Historia, II, 109; trans. de Sélincourt (1979: 169).
Fotheringham’s reconstruction of the Ivory Prism was published by Langdon (1935), and also discussed by Smith (1969). Fotheringham’s interest in the Ivory Prism was in the possibility of its use in the eclipse records reported by Ptolemy in his Almagest, and so I will defer further discussion of it until Chapter 3.
Of course, a seasonal hour is simply a quarter of a watch, but I do not think it was ever extensively used as a unit of time in its own right.
Neugebauer & Sachs (1967).
Sachs sent this manuscript to F. R. Stephenson, who generously made it available to me.
The lunar six data recorded on LBAT 1431 have previously been investigated by Stephenson (1974) who found evidence for systematic clock drifts in the measurement of each of the individual lunar six. He concluded that the Babylonian astronomers may have used a slightly different clock, possibly labeled for the purpose, to measure each of the six intervals.
The lunar six measurements may be divided into three groups: those said to have been measured using the term muš, those said to have been not seen using the term NU PAP, and those that have no comment attached. Unless there is some mention of bad weather in the record, I have assumed that the timings in the third category were measured. This may have caused some predicted material to be included in the analysis, but as there is no significant change in the result if this group is ignored, it would appear that, on the whole, these do indeed represent measured lunar six values.
The remaining errors are presumably due to the inherent inaccuracies of the clepsydras used for the measurements.
See Section 4.3 below.
See Hunger & Pingree (1989: 57–67 & 141–144).
For these texts, see Schaumberger (1952, 1955) and Horowitz (1994).
For an alternative interpretation of the values given in Uš, see Brown (1999a).
Lanfranchi & Parpola (1990: no. 249).
The first discussion of this terminology was, I believe, by Kugler (1900b). More recently, see Sachs & Hunger (1988: 23).
I will discuss this aspect of the Eclipse Texts in Section 2.8 below. A fuller description of the structure of the Eclipse Texts is given in my contribution to Sachs & Hunger (1999).
Contrary to the statement by Rochberg-Halton (1989b: 148).
These remarks concern not only factors such as clouds that may have affected the observation, but also wind directions which play an important role in the astrological interpretation of the eclipse.
BM 36736 has been published by Rochberg-Halton (1984).
It is trivial to note that, of course, not all of the observed accounts will include all of the items I have discussed here, and furthermore that many reports are only partially preserved.
Unfortunately, due to the vagaries of preservation, there is only a small amount of overlap between years contained on dated Diaries, and those on the dated Almanacs or Normal Star Almanacs. See Hunger (1999).
The similarity of the records is even clearer when one considers the texts themselves. LBAT **1059, Obv. 13: 29 1 2 ME ana šamáš AN-KU 1 0 šamáš; LBAT 1151, Obv. 6’ : 29 2 KASGAL-BU ME ana šamáš AN-KU10 fa[más].
Rochberg (1998: 40).
A few more reports from this period make reference to ziqpu-stars, but are too damaged to be analysed.
The results are reported in Fermor & Steele (1999).
In particular he found that with a spout made of steel tubing of bore about 0.68mm and length l 0mm, and a head of water 236mm, the time taken to discharge a fixed weight of water increased by only 6% over the temperature range 30 ° C to 10°C. See Fermor & Steele (1999).
Sachs (1974).
In his discussion of whether the ziqpu-star timings of eclipses can be used to determine ΔT, Stephenson (1997b: 185) incorrectly dates the observation on 12 July 178 BC to 1 August 188 BC. This is based upon an incorrect reading of the date (SE 124 instead of SE 134) in the copy of LBAT 1439 published by Sachs (1955). The eclipse of 12 July 178 BC was only penumbral and so Stephenson remarks that this is the only known ancient or medieval report of a penumbral eclipse. However, this remark should now be discounted based upon the improved reading of LBAT 1439 by Sachs & Hunger (1999).
The identification of stars is a notoriously difficult procedure, and can often not be achieved with full confidence. See, for example, the different identifications proposed by Reiner & Pingree (1981) and Koch (1989). I have accepted the identification of the ziqpu-stars by Sachs and Hunger (1988, 1989, 1996, 1999). 101 See Section 2.4 above. 102 See Section 4.4 below.
See, for example, Horowitz (1998: 196–198). I thank C. B. F. Walker for bringing this point to my attention.
For a more detailed study of eclipse prediction in Mesopotamia, see Steele (1999a).
Koch-Westenholz (1995: 105).
See Kugler & Schaumberger (1935: 251), and Rochberg-Halton (1988: 41) whose translation I have largely followed.
More generally, this time interval is a very complicated function dependent upon the moon’s longitude and latitude, its velocity, and several other factors. See Neugebauer (1957: 107–110) and Brack-Bernsen & Schmidt (1994).
Of course, the definition of the beginning of the Saros period is arbitrary, and the distribution could equally well be 7–8–7–8–8, 8–7–8–8–7, 7–8–8–7–8 or 8–8–7–8–7. The last distribution is that found by Aaboe (1972) from a theoretical analysis of equally spaced eclipse possibilities.
In other words, with an eclipse possibility that was a multiple of 223 synodic months before or after the eclipse 6 February 747 Bc.
Steele (1999a). 111 Unfortunately, the Diaries for the months on which these eclipses would have been recorded are either missing or damaged and so we do not know exactly which unpredicted eclipses were seen.
These texts have been published by Aaboe, Britton, Henderson, Neugebauer, & Sachs (1991).
The suggestion by Britton (1993) that the distribution of eclipse possibilities on the Saros Canon represents the scheme that was used to make the predictions of eclipses for the Diaries, and, consequently, that there must have been a reform to the way the Saros was applied from the earlier scheme represented on LBAT *1414 etc. in about 527 BC, can be discounted as the Saros Canon would not predict all of the eclipse possibilities found in the NMAT sources during the period it covers.
For a detailed discussion of these various schemes, see Steele (1999a).
I follow the terminology established by Neugebauer (1955) in discussing these texts.
Aaboe & Henderson (1975).
For a detailed discussion of the methods of predicting eclipses using Systems A and B, see Neugebauer (1945, 1955: 41–85, 1975: 474–539).
See Section 2.2 above.
See Steele (1999a).
Sachs & Hunger (1998: 25).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Steele, J.M. (2000). Mesopotamia. In: Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astronomers. Archimedes, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9528-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9528-5_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5454-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9528-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive