Ancient calendars and constellations

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.”

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.

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.”

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]

“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]

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.

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.)

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]

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]

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.