Chapter III: Part I: I (1)

THE ACCADIAN CALENDAR

[Reprinted from the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archæology, January 1892_]

Epping and Strassmaier, in their book _Astronomisches aus Babylon_, have lately translated three small documents, originally inscribed on clay tablets in the second century B.C. From these tablets, we learn that the Babylonians of the above date possessed a very advanced knowledge of the science of astronomy. Into the question of the extent of that knowledge we need not here enter further than to say that it enabled the Babylonian astronomers to draw up almanacs for the ensuing year; almanacs in which the eclipses of the sun and moon, and the times of the new and full moon, were accurately noted, as also the positions of the planets throughout the year. These positions were indicated by the nearness of the planet in question to some star in the vicinity of the ecliptic, and the ecliptic was portioned off into twelve groups, coinciding very closely in position and extent with the twelve divisions of the Zodiac as we now know them.

As to the calendar or mode of reckoning the year, we find that the order and names of the twelve months were as follows: Nisannu (or Nisan), Airu, Simannu, Dûzu, Abu, Ulûlu, Tischritu, Arah-samna, Kislimu, Tebitu, Šabâtu, Adaru.

Of these months Ulûlu and Adaru could be doubled as Ulûlu Sami (the second Elul), and Adaru Arki (the last Adar). The Babylonian years were soli-lunar: that is to say, the year of twelve lunar months, containing three hundred and fifty-four days, was bound to the solar year of three hundred and sixty-five days by intercalating, as occasion required, a thirteenth month.

Out of every eleven years there were seven with twelve months, and four with thirteen months. The first day of the year being, like some of our church festivals, dependent on the time of the new moon, was “moveable” (_schwankende_). The year, according to the tablets before Epping and Strassmaier, “_began with Nisan, hence in the spring_.”[1]

[1] “Was den Anfang des Jahres betrifft, so haben wir schon gezeigt,
das die seleucidische Aera, wie sie in unseren drei Tafeln vorliegt,
ihre Jahre mit dem Nisan, also im Frühjahr begann.” (Epping and
Strassmaier, _Astronomisches aus Babylon_, p. 181).

This is a sketch of the Babylonian calendar in the second century B.C., as drawn from the work of the two learned Germans above-named.

Now we find in the British Museum a great number of trade documents which, according to the Catalogue, “cover a period of over two thousand years.” There are “tablets of the time of Rim-sin, Ḫammurabi, and Samsu-iluna; tablets of the time of the Assyrian supremacy, of the time of the native kings, and of the time of the Persian supremacy; tablets of the times of the Seleucidæ, and the Arsacidæ.”[2]

[2] See _Guide to the Nimroud Central Saloon_, B.M., 1886. The dates
of the rulers mentioned are as follows:--

Rim-sin, about 2,300 B.C.

Ḫammurabi, about 2,200 B.C.

Samsu-iluna, about 2,100 B.C.

Assyrian supremacy from about 1275 to 609 B.C.

The latest tablet in the collection is dated, according to the
Catalogue, 93 B.C.

These documents are all dated in such and such a month of such and such a year of some king’s reign; the months are the same (at first under their earlier Accadian names[3]) as those we find in the almanacs translated by Epping and Strassmaier, and we meet in them, and in other historical inscriptions, with the intercalary months, the second Elul, and the second Adar. It would seem, then, that it was the same calendar, worked in the same way, that held its place through these two thousand years.[4]

[3] ASSYRIAN. ACCADIAN MONTH NAMES, AND TRANSLATIONS.

1. Ni’sannu, { _Sara_ (or _Bar_) _zig-gar_ (“the
{ sacrifice of righteousness”).
2. Airu, _Khar-sidi_ (“the propitious bull”).
3. ’Sivanu, _or_ Tsivan,{ _Mun-ga_ (“of bricks”), and _Kas_ (“the
{ twins”).
4. Duzu, _Su kul-na_ (“seizer of seed”).
5. Abu, _Ab ab-gar_ (“fire that makes fire”).
6. Ulûlu, _Ki Gingir-na_ (“the errand of Istar”).
7. Tasritu, _Tul-cu_ (“the holy altar”).
8. Arahk-samna (“the }
8th month”), } _Apin-am-a_ (“the bull-like founder?”).
9. Cisilivu, _or_ } _Gan ganna_ (“the very cloudy”).
Cuzallu, }
10. Dharbitu, _Abba uddu_ (“the father of light”).
11. Šabahu, _As a-an_ (“abundance of rain”).
12. Addaru, _Se-ki-sil_ (“sowing of seed”).
13. Arakh-makru (“the }
incidental month”), } _Se-dir_ (“dark [month] of sowing”).

--_Records of the Past_, vol. i. p. 166.

[4] As evidence of the antiquity of a fixed calendrical method
of counting the year, and of a method closely resembling, if not
identical with, that used in the latest periods of Babylonian
history, the importance and trustworthiness of these documents can
scarcely be over-rated. They were inscribed on soft clay (which was
afterwards baked either by sun or fire), many of them four thousand
years ago. No correction or erasure can have been made in them since
that date. A translation of one of these tablets as given at p. 75
in the _Guide to the Nimroud Central Saloon_, is here given as an
example of the style of many others.

“No. 3. Tablet and outer case inscribed with a deed of partnership or
brotherhood between Sini-Innanna and Iriba^{m}-Sin.

“Tablet. Ṣini-Innanna and Iriba^{m}-Sin made brotherhood; they
took a judge for the ratification, and went down to the temple of
the sun-god, and he answered the people thus in the temple of the
sun-god: ‘They must give Arda-luštâmar-Šamaš and Antu-lišlimam, the
property of Iraba^{m}-šin, and Ârdu-ibšînan and Antu-am-anna-lamazi,
the property of Ṣini-Innanna.’ He proclaimed [also] in the temple
of the sun-god and the moon-god: ‘Brother shall be kind to brother;
brother shall not be evil towards, shall not injure, brother; and
brother shall not harbour any angry thought as to anything about
which a brother has disputed.’

“They have invoked the name of Innannaki, Utu, Marduk,
Lugal-ki-ušuna, and the name of Ḫammurabi [Kîmta-rapaštu] the king.”

Here follow the names of eight witnesses. The translation of the
inscription on the outer case is much to the same purpose, and need
not here be quoted; the names of nine witnesses are appended to it.
The _Guide_ continues, after some other explanations, as follows:

“The whole of the first paragraph (except a few ideographs) is in
Semitic Babylonian. The invocation is in Akkadian. The list of
‘witnesses,’ again, is in Semitic Babylonian, _and the date in
Akkadian_.... The tablet is dated in the same way as the other
documents of this class: ‘Month Adar of the year when Ḫammurabi the
king made (images of) Innanna and Nanâ.’”

But, further, there are astrological works copied for the library of Assurbanipal from ancient Babylonian originals. The compilation of many of these originals is placed by scholars in the reign of Sargon of Accad,[5] at the remote date of 3,800 B.C.

[5] Sargon I. of Accad was of Semitic race. He was established
as ruler in the city of Accad, and there reigned over a great
non-Semitic race, in ancient cuneiform inscriptions styled the
_Accadai_ (Accadians). This word, as scholars tell us, carried the
meaning of “highlanders,” or “mountaineers.” From this fact it is
inferred they were not indigenous to the low plain surrounding the
city of Accad, to which they gave their name. Their language contains
few words for the productions of the almost tropical climate of
Babylonia, but it shows familiarity with those of higher latitudes.
At the time when Sargon, either by peaceful or warlike arts, was
established as ruler over the Accadians, they were already a very
highly civilized people. They possessed a literature of their own,
which embraced a wide variety of subjects. The learning of the
Accadians was highly esteemed, and translations into the Semitic
language were made of important religious and scientific Accadian
works. These works, down to the latest days of Babylonian power,
were preserved and venerated, and many copies of them were made and
preserved in public libraries in Babylonia and Assyria.

The Accadian after Sargon’s date gradually dropped out of general
use, and became a “learned” language, holding amongst Babylonians and
Assyrians much the same position as Latin and Greek amongst Europeans.

In these ancient astrological works, the same calendar referred to in the trade documents, and in the late Babylonian almanacs, appears to obtain. We find in them the same year of twelve lunar months, reinforced at intervals by a thirteenth intercalated month, and, which is very important, the order of the months is always the same. Nisan (Accadian Barzig-gar), everywhere appears as “the first month,” and is distinctly stated to be “the beginning of the year.”[6]

[6] See _Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, 1874.
Paper entitled, _The Astronomy and Astrology of the Babylonians_,
Prof. Sayce, p. 258, W.A.I. iii. 60.

As early as the year 1874, Professor Sayce pointed out that there was good reason for supposing that the twelve Babylonian months corresponded to the twelve divisions of the Zodiac. At page 161 of his Paper, _The Astronomy and Astrology of the Babylonians_, we read: “Now a slight inspection of the calendar will show that the Accadian months derived their names from the signs of the Zodiac.”

He then proceeds to discuss and compare the meanings of the Accadian and Semitic month names, and to point out those in which a reference to the Zodiac might most clearly be traced.

That the constellations of the Zodiac were from a remote age recognized by the dwellers in Mesopotamia is scarcely to be doubted. We find on the boundary stones in the British Museum _representations_ of several of their figures. The Bull, the Tortoise (in lieu of the Crab), a female figure with wings, the Scorpion, the Archer, and the Goat-fish, are all portrayed, not only on boundary stones, but also on cylinder seals and gems.

Again, in the old astrological works, we find _mention_ of the Scorpion “Gir-tab,” and of the Goat-fish “Muna-xa,” and as planets are said to “approach to,” and “linger in,” the stars of Gir-tab and of Muna-xa, it may well be supposed that they were the Zodiacal constellations still represented under the forms of Scorpion and Goat-fish.

Out of the many star-groups mentioned in the old tablets, only a few have as yet been certainly identified with their modern equivalents. As to the identity of others, we may guess. For instance, when it is said “Mercury[7] lingered in the constellation Gula,” we may guess that Gula represents Aquarius, which sign in the Epping and Strassmaier tablets figures as “Gu.”

[7] _Infra_, p. 47, note.

From all these sources of information, we gather that the twelve divisions of the ecliptic had been mapped out at the time the astrological works were drawn up, and that some (at least) of these divisions corresponded exactly to those now represented on celestial globes.

The suggestion, therefore, put forward by Professor Sayce and other scholars, that the twelve Accadian months corresponded to the twelve constellations of the Zodiac, and that we may trace a resemblance in some instances between the name of the month in the old Accadian language and the constellation into which the sun at that time of the year entered, is not in itself improbable.

The following months are those in which this resemblance is very striking:

1st month, Bar zig-gar (“the sacrifice of righteousness”), Aries.

2nd month, Khar-sidi (“the propitious bull”), Taurus.

3rd month (sometimes called) Kas (“the Twins”), Gemini.

6th month, Ki Gingir-na (“the errand of Istar”), Virgo.

We know from the Epping and Strassmaier tablets as a matter of fact, that the months and the constellations of the Zodiac _did_ in the second century, B.C., correspond with each other in order and sequence as above suggested, and if further research should establish the fact that they so corresponded in Sargon’s time, then as we find Nisan (Bar zig-gar) throughout all these ages holding the place of “first month,” and marking “the beginning of the year,” it will necessarily follow that the Accadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian calendars dealt with a _sidereal_ and not a _tropical_ year.

Ours is a _tropical_ year, that is to say, according to the Julian calendar (afterwards amended by Pope Gregory) it is bound to the _seasons_, and its months maintain a constant relation to the four great divisions of the ecliptic, _i.e._ the solstices and the equinoxes. The winter solstice always falls about the 22nd of December, the spring equinox about the 21st of March, the summer solstice about the 21st of June, and the autumnal equinox about the 23rd of September.

But (as has been suggested) the Accadian year was a _sidereal_ year, and its months maintained a constant relation to the twelve _star-marked_ divisions of the ecliptic, or, as they are called, the constellations of the Zodiac. Nisan always corresponded (as closely as a lunar month might) to the time during which the sun traversed the constellation Aries; Airu to the time during which it traversed the constellation Taurus; and so on through the twelve months of the year.

The equinoctial points are, however, always, though slowly, changing their position amongst the twelve constellations of the ecliptic. The months, therefore, which in 3,800 B.C., and still in the second century B.C., corresponded to the same star-groups, as above noted, must have held in different ages very different positions in regard to the four great divisions or _seasons_ of the year.

We find in the tablets translated by Epping and Strassmaier the year “_beginning with Nisan, hence in the spring_,” and this seems a more or less natural season from which to count the year; but when, taking the precession of the equinoxes into account, we find that the year in Ḫammurabi’s time (2,200 B.C.) must have commenced one month, and in Sargon’s time (3,800 B.C.) two months before the spring equinox, we feel surprised and perplexed to find that the year must then have begun without any reference to the seasons--the four great and most easily observed divisions of the ecliptic.

It is difficult to imagine that the astronomers who so skilfully divided the ecliptic into its twelve parts, and who originated the wonderful Accadian calendar--a calendar so well thought out that, as we have seen reason to believe, it resisted all the shocks of time for nearly four thousand years--it is difficult to imagine that such astronomers should have taken no note of the four prominent divisions of the year and of the ecliptic, _i.e._ the solstices and the equinoxes.

FIG. 1.

FIG. 2.

The first and last months of the Accadian, sidereal, year, compared with the months of the Gregorian, tropical, year: at 6,000 B.C. and at 600 A.D.

[_To face p. 13._]

There is, however, a way to account for this anomaly, or, rather, there is a supposition which, if adopted, will allow these astronomers of old to have taken note, not only of the _months_, but also of the _seasons_ of the year, when first they drew up their mighty scheme.

Let us suppose that the calendar which, as we may learn from the astrological tablets, was already in Sargon’s time a well known and venerated institution, had been originally drawn up at a date much earlier than Sargon’s, when the first month (Bar zig-gar), was not the first _spring_ month, but when it was the first _winter_ month of the year. This date (see Plate I., fig. 1) would have been about 6,000 B.C.; for then the sun entered the constellation Aries at the _winter solstice_--a season equally well, if not better suited than the spring equinox to hold the first place in the calendar.[8] Under this supposition, it would no longer be difficult to imagine why the ancient Accadian astronomers should have chosen Aries as the first constellation of the Zodiac, and Nisan (Bar zig-gar) as the first month, and the “beginning of the year.”

[8] After this paper had appeared in the _Proceedings of the Society
of Biblical Archæology_, a corroboration of this opinion occurred to
the writer’s mind, suggested by a further study of the month names in
the Accadian calendar. It is as follows:--

The twelfth month is named “sowing of seed.” Seed may be and is,
sown in many latitudes in _spring_, and also in _winter_ time.
“Sowing of seed” might therefore describe a month at the ending of
an equinoctial or of a solstitial year: but the thirteenth (_i.e._
the occasionally intercalated) month is named that of “dark sowing.”
This epithet _dark_, added to the “sowing” of the twelfth month, very
plainly points to a solstitial or midwinter ending of the year.

The thirteenth month in a luni-solar year, whose beginning should be
bound to the vernal equinox, must always cover some of the concluding
days of March and some of the first days of April; and those days
are certainly much _lighter, not darker_ than those of the preceding
month, covering parts of February and March, whereas, the thirteenth
intercalary month in a luni-solar year, whose beginning should be
bound to the winter solstice, must always cover the concluding days
of December and those at the beginning of January; and might well be
distinguished by the epithet _dark_, not only from the days of the
preceding month, but indeed from those of any other month of the year
(see Plate I., figs. 1, 2.)

It is of interest here to note that this insistence in Accadian
month nomenclature on the darkness of the thirteenth month, tends to
confirm the already formed opinion of scholars, that the Accadians
were not indigenous to Babylonia, but had descended into it from more
northern latitudes, where darkness is a more marked concomitant of
winter than in the nearly tropical latitude of Babylonia.

Nor need we throw discredit on the early calendar makers 6,000 B.C., if we take for granted that they were not acquainted with the fact that slowly but inevitably the seasons must change their position amongst the stars, and that, not knowing this, they believed that in making the _beginning of the year_ dependent on the sun’s entry into the _constellation Aries_, they were also binding it to the _season of the winter solstice_.

As centuries rolled by, however, and slowly the stars of Aries receded from the winter solstice, Bar zig-gar was no longer the first month in the sense of being the first winter month. Still, the authority of the originators of the calendar held sway; provision had been only made for counting the year as a sidereal year; and Bar zig-gar, or the month in which the sun entered Aries, was still called the first month, and looked on as the beginning of the year.

To carry out the reformation of any long established calendar is, we know, not a trifling undertaking. Even on secular grounds, any proposed reform encounters strong opposition. But the calendar in Babylonia was not only a civil, it was also a religious, institution. Its origin was attributed to the Creator, and as the work of the Creator, it is described in one of the old Babylonian tablets.[9]

[9] _Records of the Past._ New series. Vol. i. p. 145.

“For each of the twelve months HE fixed three stars” (or groups of stars). “From the day when the year issues forth to the close.”[10]

[10] In modern works we find the terms “useless,” “fanciful,” and
“inconvenient,” applied to the Zodiac and its constellations; and for
regulating a tropical year the constellations _are_ “useless” and
“inconvenient,” but the theory that the reckoning of the year and all
its religious festivals depended on the observance of the Zodiacal
star-groups, would help to account for the widely spread veneration
in which they were held throughout so many ages and by so many
nations.

The astronomical and astrological texts drawn up for Sargon of Accad are entitled “The Illumination of Bel,”[11] and still as late as the second century B.C., all Babylonian almanacs bore the heading: “At the command of my Lord Bel and my Lady Beltis, a decree.”[12] Thus it was, we may suppose, that under the protection of the gods the Accadian calendar continued unchanged throughout all the changing ages.

[11] _Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, 1874, pp.
150, 151.

[12] Epping and Strassmaier, _Astronomisches aus Babylon_, p. 161.
(_Auf Geheiss von Bel und Beltis meiner Herrin, eine Entscheidung._)

But during all the ages the winter solstice moved on steadily through almost a quarter of the great circle of the ecliptic,[13] and in the second century B.C., the _spring equinox_ was not far from the same point of the star-marked ecliptic where the _winter solstice_ had been when first the calendar-makers had “fixed” the constellations “for the twelve months from the day when the year issues forth to the close,” and we who now read the almanacs drawn up at that late period of Babylonian history are not (as has been said above) surprised to find the year “_beginning with Nisan, hence in the spring_.” (See Plate I., fig. 2.)

[13] This moving of the equinoctial point through a _quarter_ of the
great circle may perhaps explain the tradition to which Syncellus
twice alludes, once when he states that Eusebius was aware of the
Greek opinion that many ages, or rather myriads of years had passed
since the creation of the world, _during the mythical retrograde
movement of the Zodiac, from the beginning of Aries, and its return
again to the same point_ (_Chronographia_, p. 17.)

And again at p. 52, he refers to “the return of the Zodiac to its
original position, according to the stories of the Greeks and
Egyptians, that is to say, the revolution from one point back again
to the same point, which is the first minute of the first division
of the equinoctial sign of the Zodiac, which is called κριος (Aries)
by them, as has been stated in the _Genica_ of Hermes and in the
Cyrannid books.”

He goes on to say that this is the ground of the chronological
division of Claudius Ptolemy.

Jean Silvain Bailly, speaking of the Indian Zodiac, the beginning of
which is placed by the Brahmins at the first point of Aries, suggests
that a similar tradition may have prevailed amongst the Indians and
other ancient nations to account for the pre-eminence so generally
accorded to Aries. He says:

“Mais pourquoi ont-ils choisi cette constellation pour la première?
Il est évident que c’est une affaire de préjugé et de superstition;
le choix du premier point dans un cercle est arbitraire. Ils auront
été décidés par quelque ancienne tradition, telle par example que
celle que Muradi rapporte d’après Albumassar et deux anciens livres
égyptiens, où on lisoit que le monde avoit été renouvellé après le
déluge lorsque le soleil étoit au 1° du bélier, régulus étant dans
le colure des solstices. D’Herbelot ne parle point de régulus; mais
il dit que selon Albumassar les sept planètes étoient en conjonction
au premier point du bélier lors de la création du monde. Cette
tradition, sans doute fabuleuse, qui venoit des mêmes préjugés que
celle de Bérose, étoit asiatique. Elle a pu suffire, ou telle autre
du même genre, pour fonder la préférence que les brames, ou les
anciens en général, ont donnée à la constellation du bélier, en
l’établissant la première de leur zodiaque. Ils ont cru que ce point
du zodiaque étoit une source de renouvellement, et ils ont dit que
le zodiaque et l’année se renouvelloient au même point où le monde
s’étoit régénéré.” (Bailly, _Histoire de l’Astronomie Ancienne_, pp.
482, 483.)

The propositions contained in this Paper are these:--

I. The Accadian year was counted as a sidereal year.

II. The Accadian calendar was first thought out and originated at a date not later than 6,000 B.C.

The first proposition is founded on the opinion, long ago expressed by many Oriental scholars, that the Accadian months corresponded in very early ages with the constellations of the Zodiac, Nisan--the month during which the sun was in conjunction with the constellation Aries--holding the first place then, as also in the latest times of Babylonian history, and, presumably, through the intervening period.

But even if the first proposition is granted, the second, it must be confessed, is only an opinion based on the unlikelihood that the old Accadian and sidereal year, otherwise so skilfully dealt with in the calendar, should have begun, in what would appear to be a haphazard manner, at no definite season of the year.

It may seem that too much weight has been attached in this Paper to what can only be called a guess; but where there is so much that we desire to know, and so little as yet absolutely known of the early history of astronomy, the temptation to make such guesses is great.

It is to their earliest heroes and to their gods that the ancient heathen nations attributed the invention of astronomy, and amongst the Jews also, according to Josephus, the children of Seth were looked upon as being the first teachers of the science.[14]

[14] _Antiquitates Judaicæ_, I. 2, § 3.

Modern astronomers often speak in general terms of their science as having existed in a “hoar antiquity,” and in “prehistoric times.” But questions as to when, and where it took its rise, are still unanswered. During the last hundred years these questions have been keenly discussed. Babylon, Egypt, Greece, India, and China, have each been claimed as “the cradle” of the science. Some few writers (and prominent amongst them Jean Silvain Bailly, a brilliant scholar and an eminent astronomer) have contended for the view that not by any one nation were the chief advances in astronomy made, but that before the great races of mankind separated from the parent stock, and spread themselves over the globe, the phenomena of astronomy had been closely observed, and scientific methods for measuring time had been adopted. Bailly speaks of “une astronomie perfectionnée,” of which only “les débris” are to be met with in possession of the civilized races of antiquity. He claims an antediluvian race as the originators of astronomic science.

It may seem a bold suggestion to place the formation of the calendar at a date so high as 6,000 B.C., a date exceeding as it does by 2,000 years that given to us in the margin of our Bibles for the story of the fall of man and his expulsion from Eden. It was in following Archbishop Usher’s calculations that the date of 4,004 was adopted and placed, where it still remains, in our English Bibles. But the difficulty of determining the early dates of Bible history has always been felt to be very great, and “it is quite possible to believe that Genesis gives us no certain data for pronouncing on the time of man’s existence on the earth.”[15] Scholars, in basing their calculations on the authority of Scripture, have arrived at very different conclusions. Some only demand 3,616, others 6,984 years, as required from Scriptural sources for “the years of the world to the birth of Christ.”[16]

[15] Introduction to the Pentateuch, by E. Harold Browne, D.D.,
Bishop of Ely. Holy Bible, with Commentary, edited by F. C. Cook,
M.A., Canon of Exeter.

[16] The following extracts are taken from the Preface to _An
Universal History from the Earliest Account of Time to the Present:
Compiled from Original Authors [Etc.]. Dublin: Printed by Edward Bate
for the Editors: M,DCC,XLIV._

They are interesting as showing that even before archæological
research had extended the limits of ancient history, as it has done
during the last fifty years, many biblical scholars assigned a far
higher date than Archbishop Usher’s 4,004 years for the history of
Adam’s race on earth.

P. lxv. _et seq._: “So that on a strict view and due examination
of the antiquities of nations, and the records that have been left
us, those of the Jews, exclusive of their divine authority, will
evidently appear to be the most certain and authentick.... However
it must be confessed that there is no certain uniformity in the
Jewish computation, and that the several copies of their records,
_viz._, the Hebrew, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Septuagint differ
very much from one another.... This variety of computations hath
left room for Chronologers to enlarge or contract the space of time
betwixt the flood and the birth of Christ, by adhering to one copy
rather than another; or by rejecting or retaining the whole numbers,
or the particulars, just as it suited their humour of making the
Sacred History agree with the Prophane; or otherwise of reducing the
Prophane to the Sacred, and as the disagreement among the heathen
writers is great also, and every author hath followed the historian
he liked best, hence a wide difference hath arisen amongst modern
Chronologers as appears by the various computations ... which we here
give as collected by Strauchius, Chevreau, and others. It would be
endless as well as unnecessary here to examine into the particular
causes of this great difference amongst authors, every one still
pretending to ground his system on the authority of the Scripture.

A Table of the years of the world to the birth of Christ, according
to the computations of several chronologers.

Alphonsus, King of Castile, in Muller’s Tables 6,984
The same, in Strauchius 6,484 9 months
Onuphrius Panvinius 6,310
Suidas 6,000
Lactantius, Philastrius 5,801
Nicephorus 5,700
Clemens Alexandrinus 5,624
The author of the Fasti Siculi 5,608 9 months
Isaac Vossius, and the Greeks 5,598
Etc. etc.” „

It will be seen that the earlier of these dates leads us back to an even more remote age than that in which, if the theory here proposed is a true one, the marvellous achievement of the formation of a scientific sidereal calendar was accomplished.

To attribute to the dwellers in Eden or to their immediate descendants intellectual gifts that should enable them to perfect so grand a scheme, does certainly not contradict the story of the fall, but rather may open up for us fresh lines of thought, when we read of that transgression in which the pride of intellect played so important a part.

II

THE CONSTELLATION ARIES

[Reprinted from the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archæology_, _March 1893_]

In the January number of the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_ for last year, under the title _The Accadian Calendar_, two propositions were advanced:--

I. The Accadian year was counted as a sidereal year.

II. The Accadian calendar was first thought out and originated at a date not later than 6,000 B.C.

The fact that the sun’s entry into the constellation Aries appears to have marked through many millenniums the beginning of the Accadian year, was cited in support of the first proposition, and the fact that the sun’s entry into Aries coincided about 6,000 B.C. with the winter solstice, was relied on to support the probability of the second proposition, namely, that at the above date the calendar, which so honoured the inconspicuous constellation Aries, was first drawn up.

If we now find this inconspicuous part of the heavens equally honoured by several nations in very ancient times, we shall be led to think either that these nations, independently of each other, happened to observe and mark out the sun’s annual course through the heavens at exactly the same date, and therefore chose the same point as marking the winter solstice; or we must suppose that they derived their calendar and knowledge of the Zodiac from observations originally made by some _one_ civilized race.

The Brahmins of India claim a high antiquity for the science of astronomy in their country, and their observations and calculations profess to date back to the fourth millennium B.C. The names of the Indian constellations are preserved to us in the Sanscrit language, and these names are, so to speak, identical with those that we use at the present day when we speak of the figures of the Zodiac. Many scholars of to-day believe that only after Alexander’s conquests in India did the knowledge of the twelve-fold division of the Zodiac penetrate into that country. Some, on the other hand, maintain the opposite opinion, namely, “that the names of the signs can be proved to have existed in India at as early a period as in any other country.”[17]

[17] V. p. 90.

Jean Silvain Bailly, whose opinions as to the antiquity of the science of astronomy have been already quoted in the foregoing Paper, in his work on the history of ancient astronomy, speaking of the Brahmins of India, the initial point of whose Zodiac is at the first star in the constellation Aries, writes as follows:[18]--

“Mais pourquoi ont-ils choisi cette constellation pour la première?
Il est évident que c’est une affaire de préjugé et de superstition;
le choix du premier point dans un cercle est arbitraire. Ils auront
été décidés par quelque ancienne tradition.”

[18] The initial point of the Hindu Zodiac (see Plate III.) is about
9½ degrees to the west of the boundary line of the constellation
Aries, as it is drawn on our celestial globes. One foot of Aries,
however, extends beyond the boundary line, and touches a line drawn
through the initial point of the Hindu Zodiac and the poles of the
ecliptic. At page 132, the question of the date of the fixation of
this initial point is discussed, and a high antiquity for it is
claimed. There are many considerations which may lead us to the
opinion that not only in India, but amongst the ancients generally,
the first degree of the constellation coincided with the Hindu
initial point, and not with the boundary line of the constellation,
as it is now drawn. Greek and Latin authors, writing in the first
century B.C., speak of the solstitial and equinoctial colures, as
being “at the eighth degree of the Zodiac,” and these statements,
which have caused modern commentators much perplexity (see _Handbuch
der Klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft_; _Zeitrechnung der Griechen
und Römer_, Unger), may be easily explained, if we realize that they,
in all likelihood, counted the degrees of the Zodiac from the same
initial point as that in use amongst Hindu astronomers, which in the
first century B.C. was eight degrees to the west of the equinoctial
point.

Dupuis, writing at nearly the same date as Bailly, about a hundred years ago, and in conflict with him on many points relating to the Zodiac, was also struck by the choice of this same inconspicuous point in the great circle of the ecliptic, not only by the Brahmins of India, but also by other ancient nations. He further explains that the difference in the choice of initial point by the Chinese, and by the other nations, is only an apparent, and not a real difference. On the wonderful agreement shown by so many nations, in their choice of the stars by which they marked the beginning of their Zodiacs, Dupuis relied to support his views concerning the unity of the astronomical and religious myths of all nations.

At the end of his work, _Mémoire Explicatif du Zodiaque_, Dupuis gives in a diagram several Zodiacs in concentric circles; some divided into twelve, some into twenty-seven or twenty-eight parts. He represents the colures by a cross which quarters these concentric Zodiacs, and speaking of the twenty-seven- and twenty-eight-fold divisions, he observes as follows:

“On remarque d’abord, que ces divers systèmes lunaires, tirés de
l’Astronomie de différens peuples, s’accordent tous à placer dans
les cases correspondantes à-peu-près les mêmes étoiles. Il suffit,
pour s’en assurer, de comparer les étoiles designées dans la même
case de la division de chaque peuple. On remarque aussi qu’ils ont
pris tous, excepté les Chinois, les mêmes étoiles, pour point initial
de la division, savoir, celles de la tête du Bélier. Les Chinois,
au contraire, ont fixé le point initial dans la partie du ciel
diamétralement opposée, vers les pieds de la Vierge et près l’Epi”
(p. 4).

Dupuis’ arguments, drawn from the choice by several nations of the first division of Aries as the initial point of the Zodiac and year, are of equal cogency in support of a calendar such as he suggests, drawn up more than 12,000 B.C., for a year beginning at the _autumn equinox_; or for a calendar, as suggested in this Paper, drawn up about 6,000 B.C., and dealing with a year beginning at the _winter solstice_; and it may be claimed that the facts brought to light by the study of the ancient Accadian calendar, while greatly strengthening the ground for Dupuis’ opinion concerning the early acceptance by many nations of the stars of Aries as a mark for the beginning of the year in prehistoric times, seem more in favour of the first month of that year having been counted from the _winter solstice_ than from the _autumn equinox_.

Quotations from authors like Bailly and Dupuis may seem nowadays somewhat out of date; for though they were amongst the foremost scholars of their time, they were necessarily ignorant of all the archæological discoveries that have succeeded each other with such rapidity during the last century. Unless, therefore, the brilliant guesses and astronomical speculations of these writers can find confirmation in the results of modern researches, their theories may well be disregarded. But it seems to me that many of their theories are meeting with such confirmation.

Turning first to some of the facts which archæology has taught us regarding the ancient Egyptians, it will be interesting to see if there are any indications in their astronomy or mythology of honour paid to the constellation Aries in connexion with the progress of the sun and moon through the figures of the Zodiac.

It is true that the acquaintance of the ancient Egyptians with these figures is a matter still in dispute, and the various methods of counting the year followed by them also present great difficulties to scholars. It is, however, admitted that they were a people much given to the observation and worship of the heavenly bodies, and that their astronomy and mythology were very closely interwoven with each other.

In the time of the Middle Empire, it seems, the months in the civil year were not counted as lunar months, but as months of thirty days each. The year was not counted as a sidereal year, but as one of three hundred and sixty days--twelve months of thirty days--with five days added at the end of each year to bring up the number to three hundred and sixty-five days. No attention was paid to the odd hours and minutes over and above the three hundred and sixty-five days, which are occupied by the sun in completing his annual course.

Mr Griffiths has remarked in the number of the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_ for March 1892, that the hieroglyph for month points to an _originally_ lunar month, and I would suggest that the star under the first crescent seems to point also to a month originally counted sidereally, _i.e._, dependent upon the conjunction of the sun and moon in some particular star-group of the ecliptic. As a matter of fact, the Egyptians made use not only of a civil year such as has been above described, but also of a sidereal year, counted from the heliacal rising of Sirius, and it is perhaps possible that the months in this sidereal year were counted as lunar months, and the year treated as soli-lunar and sidereal.

In these two Egyptian _calendars_--so far as they are at present understood--no reference to the constellation Aries seems to be discernible. The agricultural importance of the season of the summer solstice in Egypt, coinciding as it does with the rising of the Nile, may have induced calendar-makers at some very early date to re-arrange the order of the year, so as to make it begin at the _summer_ rather than the _winter_ solstice--the season, as it is contended in these Papers, originally chosen 6,000 B.C. by astronomers in a more northern latitude than that of Egypt as the starting-point of a year sidereally marked by the conjunction of the sun with the constellation Aries.

But if we turn to the Egyptian _mythology_, the importance of the Ram, or rather of the head of the Ram, as it is revealed in the monuments, and in the pictorial art of the ancient Egyptians, must continually strike the student of Egyptian symbolism.

Amen, the great god of the Theban triad (Amen, Maut, and Chons), is sometimes represented as ram-headed--his boat and his sceptre are always adorned with a ram’s head, and the great temple to him, in conjunction with the sun, _i.e._ to Amen-Ra, is approached through an avenue of gigantic ram-headed sphinxes, and this is also the case as regards the temple of Chons--the moon-god--at right angles, and in close proximity, to the great temple of Amen-Ra.

Scholars tell us that Horus, Isis, and Osiris,--the Memphian triad--symbolized the _diurnal_ motion of the sun and other heavenly bodies, and it need not appear improbable that the great Theban triad, Amen, Maut, and Chons, should have originally symbolized the _annual_ course of those same bodies through the constellations of the Zodiac. This would account for the prominence of the Ram in connexion with the worship of this triad--the Ram, which, as I have argued, in many countries, and possibly in Egypt also, marked the first division of the Zodiac and year.

A prayer to Amen is translated by G. Maspero in the April number for 1891 of the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_;[19] from this translation it would appear that Amen is implored to bring the calendar into touch with the real seasons of the year. If Amen represented a sidereally marked point in the yearly course of the sun, such a prayer might suitably have been addressed to him by the Egyptians.

[19] “Il ne me reste plus qu’à donner la traduction suivie du texte
(Papyrus Anastasi, iv., p. 10. L 1-5), dont je viens d’expliquer le
sens et le développement littéraire.

“Viens à moi, Amon, me délivrer de l’année fâcheuse, où le dieu Shou
(Shou était, à l’époque des Ramessides et plus tard, le dieu du
soleil solstitial, du soleil d’été, comme Brugsch l’a montré fort
ingénieusement) ne se lève plus, où vient l’hiver où était l’été,
où les mois s’en vont hors leur place, où les heures se brouillent,
où les grands t’appellent, ô Amon, où les petits te cherchent, où
ceux même qui sont encore dans les bras de leur nourrice, ceux-là
(crient): ‘Donne les souffles!’--Amon trouve Amon écoute, Amon est le
sain devant qui marchent les souffles agréables; il me donne d’être
comme l’aile du vautour, comme la palette chargée des discours des
Esprits pour les bergers dans les champs, pour les laveurs sur la
berge, pour les garde-chasse qui sortent au territoire des gazelles
afin de lacer (le gibier).”

M. Maspero states that the latter lines of the text are injured and
difficult to decipher or to understand.

The great temple to Amen-Ra at Thebes, approached, as has been stated above, through an avenue of ram-headed sphinxes, is oriented to the setting sun of the season so important to Egyptians, that of the summer solstice, and this fact strengthens the opinion that Amen was considered to be a god in some way presiding over the course of the year and its right measurement. It is true that this orientation of his temple precluded the possibility of the light from any star of the constellation Aries ever shining into the shrine of the god; but it is perhaps possible that the ceremony of “the great feast-day of Amon Father,” described by Ebers, may have been devised by the votaries of Amen as a means whereby they could honour the god, as one presiding over the most propitious season of the year, and also recall the sidereal connexion of the god of the year with the, from times immemorial highly reverenced, constellation Aries.

At pp. 277 and 278 of _Egypt, Descriptive, Historical, and Picturesque_, vol. ii., Ebers, having referred to some figures represented on the walls of a Memnonium in the Nekropolis erected by Rameses II., exactly opposite to the Great Temple of Karnak, observes:--

“Of these figures the inscription says:--‘As they approach the king
their arms are filled with choice produce and stores, and all the
good things that the earth brings forth are gathered by them to add
to the joy on the great feast-day of Amon, the father.’”

“These words refer to the great ‘feast of the Valley’ (_heb en-ant_),
when, on the 29th day of the second month of the inundation, the
statue of Amon was brought forth from the sanctuary with much
magnificence and solemnity, and conveyed across the Nile to the
Nekropolis, that the god might there offer sacrifices to his
ancestors in the other world. The priests of the house of Seti
received the procession with the splendid bark Sam, the most sacred
of all the vessels that were preserved in the temple of Karnak:
in this the statue of the god was placed, and borne first to the
Memnonium of Seti, and then round about the Nekropolis, preceded
by a crowd of temple servants, who strewed the way with sand. The
solemnities ended with a grand nocturnal spectacle, on the great
sacred lake of which traces may still be seen to the extreme south of
the Nekropolis.

“The Egyptian religion prescribed to all its followers that they
should visit the tombs of their dead and bring offerings, in grateful
remembrance of their parents and forefathers; and as, day after day,
millions of suns had gone to rest--as men do--behind the realm of
tombs in the Libyan hills, the god himself was brought to do honour
to his departed ancestry, and to sacrifice to them.”

The rising of the Nile in Egypt coincides very closely with the season of the _summer solstice_. At the date of Rameses II.--a date not yet unanimously agreed on by scholars, but which may be safely placed between 1,400 and 1,100 B.C.--the sun at the season of the _summer solstice_ was in the constellation Cancer (see Plate II.), and two months later its place in the ecliptic was a few degrees to the west of a point exactly opposed to the first stars of Aries and to the initial point of the Indian Zodiac. On the evening, therefore, of the 29th day of the second month of the inundation, when the sun had now sunk behind the Libyan hills, and daylight had faded sufficiently to allow them to show their light,[20] the first stars of Aries rose above the eastern horizon, and at midnight attained to the southern meridian.

[20] When the sun is about 7° below the western horizon, stars in the
opposite quarter of the heavens begin to be visible.

Relating to “the Feast-day of Amon, the Father.”

Position of sun on first of fixed Thoth varied by about one degree in two hundred years.

[_To face p. 36._]

Thus at the season of all the year, when Aries specially dominated the ecliptic, the statue of the god Amen was, as we learn, brought out of his dark temple shrine and carried in procession to the Nekropolis, from whence the constellation Aries--not hidden by obstructing walls and columns--was fully visible; and there honour was done and sacrifice offered to “Amon Father.”

But it may be said that we should understand “the second month of the inundation” to refer to the second month of the Egyptian sidereal year counted from the 1st Thoth (fixed) and marked by the heliacal rising of Sirius. At the date of Rameses the beginning of this sidereal year fell, as may be proved, a fortnight after the _summer solstice_ (see Plate II.), and still on the 29th of the second month of this sidereal year the stars of Aries might be seen rising in the east--no longer only its first stars, but nearly the whole constellation then becoming visible--and at about midnight its brightest stars, α and β Arietis, culminated on the meridian. Whether, therefore, the “Feast of the Valley” was held at the end of the second month of the actual inundation, or of the second month of the sidereal year, the stars of Aries presided over its “nocturnal” solemnities.

Some scholars claim, however, that all Egyptian festivals were swept round through the seasons, and the stars that marked those seasons, in the course of fourteen or fifteen hundred years, inasmuch as they were firmly bound to the _vague_ calendrical year of 365 days. If this was indeed so, it would be difficult to imagine that Seti I. or Rameses II. could have established the festival in question as in any way connected with honour to be paid to the constellation Aries; for though during the reign of Seti, and perhaps during the early part of that of Rameses, the vague and fixed years coincided more or less closely (see Plate II.), yet before the death of Rameses they were already so far apart that the 1st Thoth (vague) fell, not a fortnight later than the summer solstice, but about a fortnight earlier; and therefore on the 29th day of the second month of the vague year the stars of Aries would not have risen until long after sunset, nor would any one of them have culminated on the meridian at midnight.

If now we turn our attention of the temple of Amen-Ra at Aboo Simbel, we may observe that, unlike that to the same god at Karnak, it is not oriented to any definite _season_ of the year. The rising sun shines into it now, and must always have shone into the Holy of Holies of that rock-hewn temple on the morning of a day somewhat more than two months distant from the winter solstice, and somewhat less than a month before the season of the spring equinox, namely, on the morning of the 26th February (Gregorian).[21]

[21] “I was fortunate in seeing another wonderful thing during my
visit to Aboo Simbel. The great temple is dedicated to Amen-Ra, the
sun-god, and on two days in the year the sun is said to rise at such
a point that it sends a beam of light through both halls till it
falls on the shrine itself in the very Holy of Holies. Many theories
are based on the orientation of the temples, and Captain Johnston
wished to find on which day in the spring of the year the phenomenon
took place; so he took his instruments, and we all went up to the
temple before dawn. It was the 26th February. The great hall, with
its eight Osiride pillars, was wrapped in semi-darkness. Still darker
were the inner hall and shrine. Behind the altar sat the four gods,
Amen, Horus, Ptah, and Rameses himself, now deified. All the East was
a deep rosy flush; then that paled, and a hard white light filled the
sky. Clearer and whiter it grew, till, with a sudden joyous rush, the
sun swung up over the low ridge of hill, and in an instant, like an
arrow from the bow of Phœbus Apollo, one level shaft of light pierced
the great hall and fell in living glory straight upon the shrine
itself.”--A. F. [Extract from the _Pall Mall Gazette_, 20th April,
1892.]

The sun now (1893 A.D.) is, at the season named, in the constellation Aquarius; but if we calculate back to a date anywhere between 1,400 and 1,100 B.C., we shall find (see Plate III.) that when Rameses II. dedicated this temple to Amen-Ra, the sun when it penetrated into the shrine of the temple at Aboo Simbel was in conjunction with the first stars of the constellation _Aries_, and this fact must, it would seem, encourage us to adopt the opinion put forward above concerning the desire of Rameses II. to honour that constellation in connexion with the god Amen.

Relating to the Orientation of a Temple to Amon-Ra.

[_To face p. 40._]

It would seem then that there are indications in the mythology and in the history of the Egyptians, of honour paid to the constellation Aries, and as we further study the records of antiquity, now within our reach, it will, I believe, become evident that not only the Egyptians, but also all the great civilized nations of the East, had traditions of a year beginning when the sun and moon entered the constellation Aries--such a year as that in use amongst the Babylonians during their long existence as a nation, and such as that which is used by the Hindus in India to this present day.