Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

BABYLONIAN PLANETARY THEORY AND THE HELIOCENTRIC

CONCEPT

I. PERIOD RELATIONS, PARAMETERS, AND PLANETARY THEORIES

OVERVIEW
Although the numerical methods and parameters found in the Babylonian Astronomical
Procedure texts and Ephemerides of the Seleucid Era [310 B.C. - 75 A.D.] have been described
in some detail, notably by Neugebauer (1955),1 (1975), 2 Van der Waerden (1974) 3 and others, it
is far from certain whether the extant material represents the state of Babylonian astronomy per
se, or merely scattered remnants of a larger corpus of knowledge. Moreover, what has been
reclaimed can hardly be considered sequential or self-explanatory, while base-60 notation,
unusual terminology, little-known phenomena and proclamations concerning the lack of a fictive
model for Babylonian astronomy all prevent easy assimilation of the details. Then again, the
information that has come down to us is itself scattered and fragmentary, ranging from earlier
"Omens" through the detailed astronomical cuneiform texts of the Seleucid Era. In the latter
context results exist in the form of "ephemerides" and at least part of the methodology is
described (albeit in condensed form) in a number of related "procedure" texts, though none are
particularly simple in the first place nor necessarily complete in the second. The recovery of the
Babylonian astronomical cuneiform texts is also relatively recent (late 19th century onwards) as
is the current understanding of their contents--an understanding unfortunately complicated by
the necessary inclusion of Babylonian methodology within long-established time frames and the
perceived flow of Greek astronomical thought. But while admiring Babylonian methodology most
commentators nevertheless appear unwilling to grant that the Babylonians really understood
what they were doing, or that they ever proceeded to determine a fictive planetary model. It is
true (as far as is known) that the Babylonians did not use trignometrical methods in their
astronomy, but then again neither did they confine their treatment of the planets to mean
circular motion, or use auxiliary devices to reinforce unsupportable geocentric premises either.
But there may be more sides to this issue in any event. We can hardly claim to know what exact
prerogatives produced the known remnants of Babylonian astronomy from the Seleucid Era, and
moreover, as evidenced by mathematical cuneiform texts of the Old Babylonian Period [1900-
1650 BCE] Babylonian mathematics had already reached a remarkably high level some 1500
year earlier. Unfortunately there are no astronomical texts from the earlier period comparable to
those of the Seleucid Era, but there is little doubt that a sufficiently high level of mathematics
was already in place. Thus there are considerable gaps--gaps during which time who knows
what manner of investigations were carried out and what conclusions were reached, held,
discarded and also perhaps passed down. Unfortunately, short of the recovery of further texts it
is likely that we will never know, but nevertheless we can at least examine Babylonian
astronomy in terms of its own distinctive successes in accounting for regular variations in both
luni-solar and planetary motion.

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 1 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

Fig. 1. The Seleucid Era and Later Planetary Theories

With the above in mind one of the main purposes of the present paper is to simplify matters
wherever possible, and like it or not, the simplest way to achieve this gaol is to treat Babylonian
methodology from a fictive heliocentric viewpoint. And indeed why not? This is surely a perfectly
reasonable premise for the period in question. After all, it includes the time of Aristarchus of
Samos, and moreover, it is also generally accepted that single, modified period relations of
Babylonian origin provide the underlying bases for the later and diverse planetary planetary
models proposed by Ptolemy, Al-Bitruji and Copernicus. But while the latter all employed
uniform circular motion and auxiliary devices of one sort or another to account for variations in
planetary velocity, the Babylonians for their part appear to have determined fundamental period
relationships subsequently applied in numerical schemes concerned with fixed, mean and
varying orbital motion. This said, it is not the intention here to give a detailed comparative
analysis of the later applications, but rather point out that there are distinct and critical
differences between the latter and the more extensive corpus of Babylonian planetary period
relations. There no doubt remain champions of the status quo who will dutifully insist that
Babylonian methodology represents mere counting and that their approach to planetary motion
was entirely non-fictive. However, it is safe to suggest that none could explain how the
Babylonians were able to differentiate the sidereal, anomalistic and draconic months from the
synodic month by simple counting. Why stress luni-solar parameters when discussing
Babylonian planetary theory and the heliocentric concept? Simply stated, the two are
inextricably linked--not merely because of the fundamental units of time applied in Babylonian
astronomy (days, tithi, mean synodic months and years) but also the inescapable fact that only
the synodic month is directly observable. All the rest must be deduced, and this could hardly had
been accomplished without applied conceptual reasoning and understanding--an understanding
that would reasonably include planetary motion, though it need not have developed in precisely
this way. In one sense the very simplicity of Babylonian methodology is itself misleading; but
their concern with characteristic synodic phenomena leads naturally enough to an awareness of

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 2 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

varying planetary motion, along with an understanding of the apparent retrogradations,

stationary points and dates of appearance and disappearance, etc. And after gathering
extensive sets of planetary period relations and generating various schemes to account for
successive synodic phenomena and variations in velocity, it seems highly unlikely that the
Babylonians managed to do so without developing a fictive model of any kind.

PERIOD RELATIONS
Apart from the terminology and notation, the extant planetary material of the Seleucid Era
supplies reasonably straightforward procedures that are both instructive and informative. For
example, for the three superior planets the Babylonians appear to have determined final
planetary period relationships based on pairs of integer periods (called here T1 and T2) close to
the mean sidereal period (or multiples thereof) with corresponding numbers of synodic periods
and small, convenient corrections for longitude of opposite sign. In the case of Jupiter,
Babylonian period relationships of 12 Years, 71 years, 83 Years, 95 years, 166 years and 261
years result in a final integer period relation of 427 years to which correspond 391 mean
synodic arcs and 36 sidereal revolutions .4 The inter-relationship between the initial pair and the
final 427-year period for Jupiter is shown in Table 1, the essence of a letter to the Editor of ISIS
5
published 26 years ago in 1977 in an unsuccessful bid to not only "close the circle" with
respect to Babylonian orbits, but also to raise the issue of the heliocentric nature of Babylonian
astronomy itself.

Table.1 Babylonian Period Relations and the 427-year Period for Jupiter

Here the Babylonian 12-year and 71-year period relations are clearly intermediate in nature with
positive and negative corrections for longitude that permit the generation of all the rest en route
to the disarmingly simple 427-year final period (for the Babylonian application and use of this
result see below). In this context the Babylonian period relations for 12 and 71 years (T1 and T2
respectively) represent an initial set, with neither one capable of generating particularly accurate
results. Here the 71-year period corresponds to slightly less than 6 sidereal periods and 65
mean synodic arcs, i.e., six sidereal revolutions less a small correction; for the latter the
Babylonians used two sets for both the fast and slow segments of the orbit, i.e.,

71 years corresponds to 6 x 360 - 5;00 degrees, 65 mean synodic periods/mean

synodic arcs
71 years corresponds to 6 x 360 - 4;50 degrees, 65 mean synodic periods/mean
synodic arcs

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 3 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

The historical significance of the above is seen in its similarity to the single period relationship
for Jupiter utilized in Ptolemy's geocentric planetary model, i.e.,

71 Years - 4;54 days = 6 x 360 - 4;50 degrees = 65 Cycles (Anomaly) 7

Moreover, although applied to the heliocentric concept, a similar variant was used in turn by
Nicholas Copernicus, i.e.,

(71 Years - 5;54,13 days = 6 x 360 - 5;42,32 degrees = 65 Rotations in parallax 8 )

while a further close variant was applied by Al-Bitruji. Without going into greater detail, for Mars
the Babylonian initial and final periods with attendant small corrections for longitude of opposite
sign (six sets) appear to have been: T1 = 47 years, T2 = 79 years for a final integer relationship
of: 284 years, 133 mean synodic periods and 151 sidereal periods.
For Saturn the corresponding periods appear to have been T1 = 29 years, T2 = 59 years,
leading in turn to a final integer period relationship of 265 Years, 256 mean synodic periods and
9 sidereal revolutions.
Nevertheless, instead of the 284-year and 265-year final periods, all three later planetary
theories used modified variants of the 79-year and 59-year T2 periods alone for Mars and
Saturn respectively while further Babylonian periods appear to have been applied for the two
inferior planets. Thus there exist three quite different fictive planetary models--two geocentric
and one heliocentric--based on similar, fractional and quite possibly misunderstood period
relations of undoubted Babylonian origin.

At first acquaintance one might think that the 71-year period relation used by Ptolemy
represents a refined and superior approach, but detailed examination reveals that this is not
necessarily the case. In fact, instead of contriving to fit an inflexible geocentric framework and
uniform circular motion to varying orbital motion and sequential synodic phenomena, the
Babylonians delineated the latter with remarkable clarity and simplicity. Simple, yes, but hardly
mindless or non-fictive. The planets do indeed move with varying velocity and the various
synodic motions (i.e., relative motion as observed from Earth) do indeed exhibit apparent
stationary points, apparent retrograde motions, along with first and last appearances in the east
and the west as Earth moves around the Sun. The operative word here, of course, is "apparent"
since to "save the phenomena" the successful accounting of the apparent motions of the
planets is of paramount importance. Thus the method applied by Ptolemy wins hands down?
Hardly; for none of Ptolemy's impressive looking planetary period relations produce the claimed
motions in either longitude or anomaly, as Robert R. Newton pointed out in 1977 in The Crime of
Claudius Ptolemy 9 and other related works. 10, 11
Given to the sixth sexagesimal place and long touted as the epitome of accuracy, Ptolemy's
daily planetary velocities in fact diverge from the stated values at or beyond the fourth
sexagesimal place. Small errors? Perhaps, but hardly insignificant. If the phenomena cannot be
saved by the data, then Ptolemy's geocentric model cannot be upheld either, never mind its
fundamentally incorrect nature, its contrived use of uniform circular motion and cumbersome
auxiliary devices. Nor is it a question of the precise value of the year used by Ptolemy in his
period relations either. Simply stated, there is no one single value for the year that will
simultaneously correct the deviations in the cited velocities.
Why the difference between the Babylonian and later applications? A complex question, no
doubt, but one can suggest a number of factors that may have played their various roles, not
least of all the intrusion of religious dogma on the scientific process and the fact that the later
applications were all inherited, partial data, whereas the Babylonians were themselves the
originators and the collators of the original material.

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 4 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

Frankly, one might have hoped that Newton's detailed analysis (one of the few original works on
the subject since Al-Bitruji's earlier criticisms12 ) might have helped generate fresh interest in
Babylonian methodology, but unfortunately the subject still remains largely overshadowed by
the Ptolemaic system, despite the latter's clear inaccuracies, fundamentally incorrect premises
and dubious heritage. As for the earlier Babylonian approach, even a brief acquaintance with
the parameters and the methodology should serve to raise a number of questions, not least of
all how the notion that Babylonian astronomy lacked of a fictive planetary theory ever arose, let
alone how it came to take root.

II. LUNI-SOLAR PARAMETERS AND PRECESSION

One of the fundamental units of time and motion applied in Babylonian astronomy appears to
have been the mean synodic month of 29;31,50,8,20 days. 13 This accurate Babylonian constant
(29.53059413 days; modern estimate: 29.53059027) is applied to mean and varying orbital
velocities in both planetary and luni-solar contexts. The latter includes further attested
Babylonian months, e.g., the mean sidereal month of 27;19,18 days (27.3216667),14 the
anomalistic month of 27;33,16,20 days (27.5545370) 15 and the draconic month of 27;12,43,56
days (27.21220370) 16 in complex numerical contexts concerned largely with the 223-month
Saros eclipse cycle. But the real significance of the inclusion of both the synodic and sidereal
months in this context lies firstly in their difference, which for the mean values provides the
mean motion of Earth and an implicit Babylonian sidereal year of 365.25646981 days (modern
sidereal year: 365.25635674 days).
Although the implicit value for the sidereal year mentioned above is not attested in the
Babylonian material, a year of 365;14,44,51 days (365.24579166) is nevertheless mentioned in
a lunar procedure text. 17 The calendaric year on the other hand was obtained from a 19-year,
235 mean synodic month relationship (365.24682220 days) while the conveniently rounded year
of 12;22,8 mean synodic months (365.26063766 days) appears to have been more generally
employed in astronomical contexts. But apart from Hartner's obliquely asserted Babylonian
estimate for annual precession of approximately 45 seconds of arc,18 it is not generally
acknowledged that the Babylonians differentiated between the tropical and sidereal years at all.
However, the latter Babylonian pair could also represent convenient approximations that are
greater than their modern equivalents by 0.43% and 0.46% respectively. As a consequence,
they implicitly maintain the correct relationship between the two types of years with a difference
that yields an excellent value for annual precession of slightly more than 49 seconds of arc. And
indeed why not; with the heliocentric concept deduced and firmly in place all manner of details
could be investigated and over time amply refined.
But like much of the extant material, the various lengths of the "year" in Babylonian astronomy
deserve more than casual consideration. The rounded Babylonian estimate for year of 12;22,8
mean synodic months is almost certainly one of convenience but it nevertheless has subtle
underpinnings with 360 degrees of motion (solar or terrestrial) corresponding to a mean monthly
progress of 29;06,19,00,55,37,24,... degrees. This may be compared to the mean monthly arc
of 29;6,19,20 degrees 19 utilized in a Babylonian System B variable velocity function that
increased and decreased between minimum and maximum monthly arcs of m = 28;10,39,40
degrees and M = 30;1,59,20 degrees respectively. The division of 360 degrees by the mean
value (29;06,19,20) results in a year of 12;22,7,51,54,7,4,..months (365.2595295509 days) with
a corresponding mean daily velocity of 0;59,8,9,43,22,7,. degrees. Abbreviated at the fifth
sexagesimal place (from "22" to "20"), the latter produces a corresponding year of
365.2595305603 days (the modern anomalistic year is 365.259641204 days). This daily
parameter may also have been employed in a daily System B velocity function determined by

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 5 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

parameter may also have been employed in a daily System B velocity function determined by
Aaboe 20 from a fragmentary set of undated solar longitudes which apparently increased and
decreased by 0;00,01,43,42,13,20 (0.0004801097) degrees per day . Although unattested, the
resulting extrema for a mean daily velocity (u) of 0;59,8,9,43,20 degrees per day would have had
a maximum daily velocity (M) = 1;01,45,59,24,50 degrees and minimum daily velocity (m) of
0;56,30,20,01,50 degrees respectively.

III. THE CLIMATE OF THE TIME

Just why the notion that Babylonian astronomers possessed no fictive planetary model of their
own persists is unclear, especially since the variable velocity functions used to account for the
motions of the Sun (or Earth), Moon and the three known superior planets suggest that the
Babylonians were at least half right in their approach to planetary motion. Moreover, the various
Babylonian schemes employed to concurrently describe the uninterrupted synodic arc in terms
of forward motion, stationary points and retrogradations prove on further examination to be more
than sufficient to "save the phenomena." Nor should this be any real surprise given the "definite
opinion" of Seleucus (ca. 150 B.C.) on this matter as recorded by Plutarch (On the Face in the
Moon's Orb):

Did Plato put the Earth in motion as he did the sun, the moon and the five planets which he
called 'the instruments of time' on account of their turnings, and was it necessary to conceive
that the Earth ... was not represented as being (merely) held together and at rest but as
turning and revolving, as Aristarchus and Seleucus afterwards maintained that it did, the
former of whom stated this as only a hypothesis, the latter as a definite opinion? (emphasis
added)

The attested subdivision of integer multiples of 360 degrees of uninterrupted sidereal motion by
the number of synodic occurrences in the final Babylonian period relationships result in the
determination of the mean synodic arcs. But such subdivisions can hardly take place without
respect to a center if they are to have any meaning whatsoever. As a consequence, it is natural
and necessary to ask whether a common center can be found in Babylonian astronomy, and if
so, where the common center might lie. Furthermore, if a possibly out-of-context fraction of the
Babylonian material sufficed to provide the frameworks for the later planetary theories of
Ptolemy, Al-Bitruji, and Copernicus, then what would have prevented the Babylonians - the
originators, observers, and collators of extended sets of periods and related data - from
developing a fictive planetary model of their own? Babylonian methodology clearly involved both
sidereal and synodic motion, and although the latter was subdivided into "characteristic
phenomena" rarely applied in modern astronomy the concept is nevertheless useful and logical
in both its execution and its outcome.

Moreover, even the simplest Babylonian treatment of varying synodic velocity involved the division of
360 degrees of sidereal motion into "Fast" and "Slow" arcs while Babylonian varying velocity functions
(System B) are obviously quite sophisticated, especially in the case of Jupiter, with the line of apsides
and mean velocity defined to one degree. The corresponding maximum, mean, and minimum synodic
velocities for Jupiter were determined to be 38;02 degrees, 33;08,45 degrees and 28;15,30 degrees
respectively, with a rate of change of velocity that was understood to increase (or decrease, depending on
location) by 1;48 degrees per synodic cycle. Although the available information for Saturn and Mars is
less extensive, it is now known that the Babylonians determined System B functions for both. Given the
relatively high eccentricity, swift motion and proximity to Earth, this was no mean achievement in the
case of Mars. Although conjectural, it also appears possible that System B was similarly determined for
Mercury (as deduced from ACT 816, pp. 425-428; for further details see the Methodology below).

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 6 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

IV. BABYLONIAN PERIOD RELATIONS

As noted earlier, the Babylonian fundamental period relationships for the three superior planets
appear to have depended on the selection of two integer periods (T1 and T2) close to mean
sidereal periods (or multiples) for which small, convenient corrections for longitude of opposite
sign were determined. The frame of reference for these corrections was provided by some 33
"normal" or "Goal-Year" Stars distributed along and around the ecliptic. The details are found in
the "Goal-Year" Texts 21 while intriguing atypical examples that include latitude provide further
insights.22

The key period relations for Jupiter are given in Section 1 of ACT 813 (translator: A. Sachs): 23

Compute for the whole zodiac (or: for each sign) according to the day and the velocity. In 12
years you add 4;10, in 1,11 years you subtract 5, in 7,7 years the longitude (returns) to its
original longitude

The Babylonians possessed two sets of initial corrections assigned to the fast and the slow
synodic arcs; the second correction in longitude given above (5;00 degrees) concerns the
former; for the slow arc the correction was the 4;50 degrees above in association with the 71-
year period relation. The full set of periods for Jupiter are given in ACT 813, Section 20 24
namely intervals of 12, 71, 83, 95, 166, 261 and 427 years (7,7) leading to a final integer period
relationship to which corresponded 36 sidereal revolutions, 391 synodic periods, and a total
sidereal motion for the 427-year interval of 36 x 360 degrees (3,36,0) with the mean
synodic arc of 33;8,45 degrees as explicitly stated in ACT 813, Section 21:

"[7,7, years (corresponds to) 6,31 appearances ] 36 rotations, 3,36,0 motion. 33,8,[4]5 (is the)
mean value of the longitudes."

or more simply in decimal notation and general terms:

427 years corresponds to 391 mean synodic appearances, 36 sidereal revolutions, 12,960
degrees total sidereal progress, and 33;8,45 degrees (rounded) for the mean synodic arc.

In Neugebauer's terminology (ACT, pp. 282-283), the relationship is expressed as: N Years = II
synodic "appearances" and Z sidereal "rotations" of 360 degrees, although the use of "rotation"
in this context is fundamentally inappropriate since the latter undoubtedly represent sidereal
revolutions. Nor can there be any doubt that for the above to have any meaning the sidereal
revolutions in question must represent closed orbits, thus the revolutions must necessarily take
place with respect to a specific centre, as indeed must the mean synodic arc for it to have any
meaning whatsoever. To which may also be added the attested Babylonian awareness to within
one degree of what we today recognize to be the line of apsides, along with the location of the
line that corresponded to the mean values. At which point one begins to suspect that
Neugebauer's claim that the Babylonians never possessed a fictive approach to planetary
motion was not only premature, but also likely erroneous.

To continue, the mean synodic arcs for both Jupiter and Mars were apparently rounded at the
third sexagesimal place (in the present case 33;8,45 rounded from: Z x 360 / II =
33;8,44,48,29,...degrees). It is generally understood that the number of mean synodic arcs (II)
can be obtained from the relation: II = N - Z. The determination of the Final, or "long" babylonian
period is therefore simply an intermediate step to firstly obtain mean values. The next steps

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 7 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

concern the detemination of the variable velocities and the variable times according to
Babylonian System A or System B methodology.

Expressed in tithis and synodic months the synodic times for System B were also derived
according to the convoluted method provided in Section 2 of Jupiter text ACT 812 25 involving
thirtieths of the mean synodic month (tithis) and the Babylonian year of 12;22,8 mean synodic
months (371;4 r ) split into two constants, k1 = 12 months (360 r ) and k2 = 11;4 r. Because the
time required to travel one degree was taken to be 371;4/360 degrees = 1;1,50,40 r/o
(Neugebauer, ACT, p.286 and p.393) the time for the mean synodic arc (u) would be:
u(1;1,50,40) plus one year, or as explicitly given in Section 2 of ACT 812 , [u + u(0;1,50,40)
+11;4 r +12 months]. This multiplicative process could have been applied each time the synodic
arcs changed, but instead the segment [u(0;1,50,40)] was combined with k2 (11;4 r ) to form a
fundamental constant (k3) which was added to both the mean and the varying synodic arcs with
(presumably) acceptable marginal deviations in the results. Dividing by 30 and combining with
k1 produces synodic times expressed in mean synodic months, i.e., u = 33;8,45 degrees, k3 =
u(0;1,50,40)+11;4 = 12;5,8,8,20 r therefore the mean synodic time for Jupiter is obtained from
[{(u+k3)/30}+k1]= 13;30,27,46,16,40 months.

Fragments of Section 1 of ACT 812, however, mention the total number of synodic arcs (391)
and the value "13,30,27,46," (a parameter of far-reaching significance that Neugebauer found
to be "completely dark" even though he was only one step from it in Section 2 of the same text;
see ACT, pp.392-393). This parameter in fact indicates that the mean synodic time can be
derived simply and directly from the fundamental period relationship for Jupiter, i.e., from the
relation: N = 427 Years, II = 391 mean synodic arcs, Z = 36 revolutions, resulting in 427 x
12;22,8 / 391 = 13;30,27,45,52,.. mean synodic months. Rounded at the third sexagesimal
place this gives the value stated in Section 1 of ACT 812 of 13;30,27,46.

On checking further the method proves to be readily applicable to all the final Babylonian
period relations, i.e.,

SATURN: 265 Years, 256 Mean Synodic Arcs, 9 Sidereal Revolutions

Mean Synodic Arc = 9 x 360 / 256 = 12;39,22,30 Degrees
Mean Synodic Time = 265 x 12;22, 8 / 256 = 12;48,13,26,15 Months

JUPITER: 427 Years, 391 Mean Synodic Arcs, 36 Sidereal Revolutions

Mean Synodic Arc = 36 x 360 / 391 = 33;08,45 Degrees (rounded)
Mean Synodic Time = 427 x 12;22, 8 / 391 = 13;30,27,46 Months (rounded)

MARS: 284 Years, 133 Mean Synodic Arcs, 151 Sidereal Revolutions
Mean Synodic Arc = (151 x 360 / 133) - 360 = 48;43,18,30 Degrees (rounded)
Mean Synodic Time= 284 x 12;22, 8 / 133 = 26;24,42,20,45 Months (rounded)

VENUS: 1151 Years, 720 Mean Synodic Arcs ( and 1871 sidereal revolutions )
Mean Synodic Arc = 1151 x 360 / 720 = 575:30 Degrees
1151 x 12;22, 8 / 720 = 19;46,22,57,20 Months

MERCURY: 46 Years, 145 Mean Synodic Arcs ( and 191 sidereal revolutions )
Mean Synodic Arc = 46 x 360 / 145 = 114;12,24,49,40 Degrees (rounded)
46 x 12;22, 8 / 145 = 3; 55,26,7,30 Months (rounded)

Section 1 of ACT 812 thus provides a simple, straight-forward method for obtaining the mean

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 8 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

synodic periods expressed in mean synodic months, whereas the alternative method in Section
2 provides the basis for both the mean and varying synodic parameters with the inclusion of the
synodic arcs. Both are fundamental (if not primary) methods associated with the Babylonian
approach to mean and varying planetary motion, yet Neugebauer was nevertheless unable to
come to terms with the given constant in the first section, nor (for whatever reason) did he carry
the methodology to its logical and necessary conclusion in the second.
Such fundamental deficiencies combined with Neugebauer's "linear" arithmetical approach to
closed orbits, substitution of "rotations" for orbital revolutions, and not least of all, his failure to
deduce an obvious System B for Mars from readily available data in procedure texts such as
ACT 811 suggest that however erudite and qualified Neugebauer may have been, he was not
particularly well-acquainted with the fundamental framework, and thus far from justified in his
assertions that Babylonian astronomers possessed no cinematic approach to planetary motion.
Moreover, in spite of the wealth of technical details in his 1955 opus Astronomical Cuneiform
Texts, it is likely that his non-cinematic, non-model approach sadly rendered the Babylonian
material largely unreadable on one hand and hardly worth reading on the other. Thus few
uncommitted astronomers probably ever bothered to read the work, while the majority of those
that did likely preferred to take Neugebauer's word rather than try to understand convoluted
details discussed in base-60 without a cinematic model of any kind. Nevertheless, as it now
stands, I would suggest that the cinematic, heliocentric nature of Babylonian astronomy was in
reality self-evident ever since the publication of Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, at least for
anyone who cared to tackle the material with sufficient industry and an open, inquiring mind.

IVb. BABYLONIAN "CHARACTERISTIC PHENOMENA"

The Babylonian use of "characteristic" synodic phenomena appears to have been largely
minimized and generally misunderstood by most modern commentators for reasons that are far
from clear. It is certainly true that the phenomena in question are not generally treated by
modern astronomers, but even so there are aspects of the methodology that require careful
consideration--not least of all the twin components provided firstly by the diurnal axial rotation of
Earth about its axis from west to east, and secondly--also from west to east--the annual
revolution of Earth itself. "East" and "west" are therefore loaded terms, but they are
nevertheless perfectly understandable in the Babylonian context, especially from the heliocentric
viewpoint, as indeed are all the Babylonian synodic phenomena. Take, for example, the
following description of the motion of Jupiter with elliptical planetary orbits viewed from above
with both Jupiter and Earth moving "concentrically" around the Sun from west to east roughly in
the same plane.

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 9 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

Fig. 2. The relative sidereal motions of Earth and Jupiter

According to the procedures outlined in Sections 30 and 31 of ACT 813, a lengthy Babylonian
procedure text for Jupiter, starting with Jupiter positioned at 90 degrees and Earth at 257
degrees (say), as faster moving Earth continues to move away from Jupiter there will eventually
be a "Last Appearance (i.e., last visibility) in the West" for Jupiter when this planet becomes
obscured from view, i.e., when Earth moves "behind" the Sun. The next time Jupiter will become
visible will be the "First Appearance in the East" (after a further 29 days of motion by Earth) as
Earth swings around the Sun and Jupiter becomes visible once again as it rises on the eastern
horizon on one specific date (i.e., the helical rising). Next, as Earth continues to gain on Jupiter,
it will reach a position (the "First Stationary Point") whereafter Jupiter will appear to move
"backwards" and then reach opposition when Jupiter, Earth and Sun are in line. Further
progress takes Earth to the "second Stationary Point" after which Jupiter's forward motion will
apparently resume. Lastly, continuing to move away from Jupiter, Earth will once again reach a
point in the orbit when Jupiter finally disappears from view, i.e., the "Last Appearance in the
West" is reached again, and so on into the next cycle. All of which is perfectly understandable in
heliocentric terms and almost meaningless without.
It is not certain whether sequential observations of this kind necessarily resulted in the
Babylonian determination of the 12 and 71 year periods and ultimately the fundamental period
relationship for Jupiter of 427 years with its 36 sidereal periods and 391 "First appearances in
the East." But one thing seems clear enough; carrying out continued observations of successive
synodic phenomena around the complete orbit of a planet against the background provided by
the "goal-year" and other stellar reference points would naturally lead to an awareness of the

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 10 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

faster, slower and mean orbital velocities and also where they were located. Thus it is not that
difficult to envisage how the Babylonian were able to determine varying orbital velocity, the
range between extrema, the rate of change and even the location of the line of apsides. Nor is it
hard to see that in doing so and also coming to terms with the apparent retrogradation and
stationary points, that the Babylonians had no need whatsoever for auxiliary devices. Their
approach may have been a simple one, but it was the simplicity of Occam's Razor nevertheless,
as the following detailed example shows:

Fig. 3. The relative sidereal/synodic motions of Earth and Jupiter for the medium synodic
arc.

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 11 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

SYNODIC MOTION
Referring to Figure 3, the elliptical orbits of Earth and Jupiter are displayed on a 360 degree
sidereal reference frame with Jupiter initially at the 90 degrees at the point that corresponds to
the synodic velocity of 34;30 degrees and Earth initially at 257 degrees. Fixed sidereal velocities
of one degree per tithi for Earth and a velocity Vk = 34;30/405r = 0;5,6,40 degrees per tithi for
Jupiter produce the positions for the Babylonian "characteristic" phenomena over one complete
synodic cycle for Jupiter and the specific synodic arc in question. The example may perhaps
shed some light on the puzzling statement found in ACT 814 (Sect. 2, L9): "for the first station it
is high, for the second station it is low" in so much as the synodic velocity that started at 34;30
degrees falls to almost 34 degrees by the time the second stationary point is reached. Needless
to say, the above also shows that such phenomena as stationary points and retrograde motion
are clearly apparent and it is undoubtedly direct orbital motion that is under consideration
throughout. Thus for mean values, because of the fundamental period relationship for Jupiter,
the Mean synodic arc (u) = (Z x 360)/II and Mean synodic time = (N x 12;22,8)/II, unit time per
degree is therefore obtained from:

(N x 12;22,8)/(Zx360) = N/Z(1;1,50,40). r/o

In the case of Jupiter, this parameter (unit time per degree) is: (427/36)(1;1,50,40) r/o =
12;13,32,46,40 r/o or 12.0344361337...days per degree, which is unquestionably the sidereal
motion of Earth for each degree of Jupiter's sidereal motion. Moreover, Babylonian
fundamental period relations for Mars and Saturn also produce corresponding times for the
motion of Earth.
For example, from the full Babylonian period relationship for Saturn of 265 years, 256 mean
synodic arcs and 9 periods of revolution, the mean synodic arc of 9 x 360 / 256 =12;39,22,30
degrees Saturn takes 12;48,13,26,15 months and thus the planet moves 0;2,0,30,11,42,...
degrees per day. Thus dividing the latter into one sidereal revolution of 360 degrees results in
10,754;53,47,35,41,... (10,754. 89655...) days to complete one mean sidereal period. The
further division of this total by the number of days in the standard 12;22,8-month Babylonian
year next produces 29;26,40 (29.444* years), the attested Babylonian mean sidereal period for
the planet in question.
On the other hand, the Babylonian fundamental period relationships for the two inferior planets
(Mercury and Venus) provide only the number of years (N) and the number of synodic
occurrences (II). This would seem to be one of the two the major factors which have hitherto
mitigated against a fictive understanding of the Babylonian approach to planetary motion; the
other is the apparent motion of the Sun in both planetary and luni-solar contexts. Yet these two
factors are necessarily related and the motion of the sun in Babylonian astronomy need be no
more indicative of Babylonian theoretical basis than is our own retention of solar motion for
computational convenience (i.e., the slow, mean, and fast sun applied to the equation of time,
etc). Thus, as Zombeck (1993) explains in a modern astronomical treatise on the motion of the
moon: 26

It would be natural but impractical to describe the motion of the moon in heliocentric
coordinates. In the method used here to determine the position of the moon we shall
consider that both the Sun and the Moon are in orbit about Earth. The position of the Sun
was calculated in Section 2.1 under this assumption, and we shall use these calculations to
correct the mean orbital elements of the moon for solar perturbations. (emphases supplied)

With respect to the planets, from a distinctly fictive heliocentric viewpoint, the sidereal motion of
an outer superior planet provides the synodic arc, while the sidereal motion of the inner planet
(Earth) supplies the unit of time. In the case of the inferior planets, from the same heliocentric

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 12 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

viewpoint, Earth is now the outer planet, therefore its motion provides both the synodic arc and
the synodic time, which renders the numbers of sidereal periods for Mercury and Venus
completely superfluous. In other words, the number of years (N) in the period relationships for
the latter pair is also the number of revolutions (Z) of Earth. Even though the Babylonian
treatment of planetary phenomena pertains to synodic rather sidereal velocity, on further
examination the approach is nonetheless found to represent direct, forward sidereal motion per
unit time. Finally, with Earth in motion, the relations: 12;22, 8 / 360 = 1;1,50,40 r/oand N x 12;22,
8 / II apply consistently to the known Babylonian fundamental period relations, as shown with
largely decimal values for simplicity in the following table:

Synodic Synodic Synodic Degrees per

PLANET N Z II T = N/Z
Arc T1 T2 day
SATURN 265 9 256 29.444444 12.65625 12.80373 378.10183 0;02,00,11,30,42
JUPITER 427 36 391 11.861111 33.14578 13.50771 398.89077 0;04,59,08,29,37
MARS 284 151 133 1.8807947 408.72180 26.41176 779.95505 0;31,26,31,01,24
VENUS 1151 1871 720 0.6151791 575.50000 19.77304 583.90971 0;59,08,09,04,37
Mercury 46 190 144 0.2421053 115.00000 3.95117 116.68048 0;59,08,09,04,37
1
Mercury 46 191 145 0.2408377 114.20690 3.92392 115.87579 0;59,08,09,04,37
2
Mercury 848 3521 2673 0.2408407 114.20875 3.92399 115.87767 0;59,08,09,04,37
a
Mercury 388 1611 1223 0.2408442 114.21096 3.92406 115.87991 0;59,08,09,04,37
b
Mercury 480 1993 1513 0.2408430 114.21018 3.92404 115.87912 0;59,08,09,04,37
b2
Mercury 217 901 684 0.2408435 114.21053 3.92405 115.87947 0;59,08,09,04,37
d

Notes:
N = The number of years in the final integer period relation.
Z = The corresponding number of mean sidereal periods, i.e., sidereal revolutions.
II = The corresponding number of mean synodic arcs/mean synodic periods.
Synodic T1: Mean synodic time expressed in mean synodic months (decimal).
Synodic T2: Mean synodic time expressed in days (decimal).
The mean synodic arc for Mars is given in full; the applied value is the excess over 360
degrees.
The applied value of the mean synodic month is the Babylonian standard value of
29;31,50,8,20 days
The corresponding sidereal periods for the two inferior planets (in parenthesis) are implicit.
For a more accurate set of hypothetical period relations for VENUS see Appendix B.

METHODOLOGY.
The periods and velocities in the table are determined from the integer elements of the
fundamental relationships (N, Z and II). The mean synodic arcs for Jupiter and Mars were
rounded by the Babylonians from 33;8,44,48,29,. to 33;8,45 degrees for the former, and further

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 13 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

reduced for the latter to the excess over one revolution, i.e., 408;43,18,29,46,27,.. minus 360 to
48;43,18,30 degrees. The complete synodic arc and synodic period for Mars still provide the
correct motion for Earth in degrees per day. The standard unit of time in all cases is the
Babylonian year of 12;22,8 mean synodic months treated as the time required for Earth to
complete one sidereal revolution of 360 degrees. This corresponds to the daily motion of Earth
of 0;59,8,9,04,36,59,.degrees associated with the period relationships for the two inferior planets
as explained above. The sidereal periods for the latter pair are implicit in the relationships, and
although not required they may be obtained from the relation ( Z = N + II ), i.e.,:

Number of Sidereal Revolutions (Z) = Number of Years (N) + Number of Synodic Periods (II)

The period relationships for Mercury concern either the general statement (2) "145 phenomena
of the same kind in 46 years," or specific observational phenomena given in ACT (pp.283-288),
i.e., from the following:

( a ) "2673 appearances as a morning star" ( First visibility in the east )

( b ) "1223 disappearances as a morning star" ( Last visibility in the east )
(b2) "1513 appearances as an evening star" ( First visibility in the west )
( d ) "684 disappearances as an evening star" ( Last visibility in the west )

The less accurate Mercury (1) relationship from ACT 816 appears to represent a pedagogical
simplification associated with the determination of a "System B" type variable velocity function.
In this case the extremal velocities would be m = 97;00 degrees and M = 133;00 degrees; with
the same value for the difference d, the extremal velocities for the 46-year/145 arc relationship
would in turn be: 96;04,54,49,4 degrees and 132;19,54,49,40 degrees respectively.
It may be remarked that none of the final data for Mercury and Venus necessarily reflect
observational periods per se, any more than do those of the superior planets. In fact it seem
possible that the entire corpus of planetary relations based on the T1-T2 pairings could have
been generated over perhaps a century or less, though this need not be taken as indicative of
the comparative newness of Babylonian astronomy on one hand or the limits of their inquiries on
the other. They are simply fragments of what have come down to us. How extensive was
Babylonian astronomy? How far back in time did it extend and what else remains? Short of
additional material these questions may remain unanswered, although there are undoubtedly
intriguing aspects that still defy explanation, especially a strangely ignored mathematical
problem concerning a trapezoid that occurs in Jupiter procedure texts ACT 813 and ACT 817,
along with still unknown corrections and parameters in the luni-solar texts.

SUMMARY
Whether one accepts what has been discussed here or not, it should at least be recognized that

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 14 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

complex issues arising from precession, the various types of months, and the definition of the
"year" merely represent the luni-solar component of Babylonian astronomy while further
questions arise from the limited number and uneven distribution of the planetary texts published
in ACT and elsewhere. In fact, there would appear to be sufficient gaps and uncorrelated
parameters to suggest that Babylonian astronomy was almost certainly more developed than is
normally assumed. Included in this latter group are unexplained parameters and operations in
the planetary texts and unknown corrections for both the solar velocity 27 and the zodiac 28 in the
lunar material. One might also consider the implications of the extensive range of the
Babylonian period relations, synodic phenomena in association with varying, direct, and
retrograde velocity, closed orbits, lines of apsides, and not least of all, the aforementioned
trapezoid in the astronomical procedure texts for Jupiter. 29

Finally, all of the periods and velocities discussed above can be applied to the motion of Earth
from one consistent heliocentric viewpoint.

Given the undoubted awareness of accurate sidereal periods for the superior planets, implicit
sidereal periods for the inferior planets, accurate sidereal, synodic, draconic, and anomalistic
months, and varying velocity functions for the planets, sun, and moon - all readily understood in
terms of a cohesive framework - it seems reasonable to conclude that the Babylonians almost
certainly possessed a well-developed, fictive heliocentric planetary model by at least 250 BCE,
and quite possibly much earlier.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Babylonian Mathematics and Sexagesimal Notion: Comments and a few examples.

REFERENCES
1. Neugebauer, O. Astronomical Cuneiform Texts , (Lund Humphreys, 3 Vols, London, 1955).
2. Neugebauer, O. A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1975).
3. Van der Waerden, B. Science Awakening II The Birth of astronomy, with contributions by
Peter Huber (Oxford University Press, New York, 1975).
4. Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, Ed. O. Neugebauer (Lund Humphreys, London, 1955)404.
5. Harris, J. Letter to the Editor of ISIS, Vol. 68, No.245, December 1977:626-617.
6. Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, Ed. O. Neugebauer (Lund Humphreys, London, 1955)414.
7. Manitius, K. Ptolemaus Handbuch Der Astronomie , (B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1963)100.
8. Duncan, A. On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, (Barnes and Noble, New York,
1976) 235-236.
9. Newton, R. The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy , (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
and London, 1977).
10. Newton, R. The Origins of Ptolemy's Astronomical Parameters (Technical Report No. 4,
Center for Archaeoastronomy, College Park, Maryland, 1982).
11. Newton, R. The Origins of Ptolemy's Astronomical Tables ( Technical Report No. 5,
Center for Archaeoastronomy, College Park, Maryland, 1985).
12. Goldstein, B. Al-Bitruji: On the Principles of Astronomy, (Yale University Press, New
Haven London, 1971)
13. ACT 210, Section 3, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, (Lund Humphreys, London, 1955)
271-273.
14. Op. cit., p. 272.

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 15 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

15. Neugebauer, O. A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin,

1975) 503.
16. Op. cit., p.518.
17. ACT 210, Section 3, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, (Lund Humphreys, London, 1955)
272.
18. Hartner, W. "The Young Avestan Calendar and the Antecedents of Precession," JHA, Vol X
(1979) 1-22.
19. Neugebauer, O. Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, (Lund Humphreys, London, 1955) 70.
20. Aaboe, A. "A Seleucid Table of Daily Solar (?) Positions," Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol.
18 (1964) 34.
21. Sachs, A. "The Goal-Year Texts," Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 2 (1948).
22. Neugebauer, O, and A. Sachs. "Some Atypical Astronomical Cuneiform Texts I," Journal of
Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 21 (1967) 183-218.
23. ACT 813, Section 1, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, (Lund Humphreys, London,
1955):403-404.
24. ACT 813 , Section 20, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, (Lund Humphreys, London,
1955):414-415
25. ACT 812, Section 2, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, (Lund Humphreys, London,
1955):393-394.
26. Zombeck, M. Astronomical Formulas, Section 2.2, MATHCAD Electronic Books, (MathSoft
Inc., 1993.).
27. ACT 200, Sections 7 and 9, Astronomical cuneiform Texts , (Lund Humphreys, London,
1955) 193-195, 198.
28. ACT 202, Section 2, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, (Lund Humphreys, London, 1955)
242-244.
29. ACT 813, Section 5, Lines 1-4, ACT 817, Section 4, Lines 1-12, Astronomical Cuneiform
Texts, 405; 430-431.

Copyright © 1997. John N. Harris, M.A.(CMNS). Last updated July 3, 2003.

APPENDIX A: HYPOTHETICAL BABYLONIAN PLANETARY PARAMETERS FOR

URANUS
APPENDIX B: HYPOTHETICAL PERIOD RELATIONS FOR THE INFERIOR PLANETS
Mailto: john_harris@telus.net

Return to Spira Solaris

APPENDIX A
HYPOTHETICAL BABYLONIAN PARAMETERS FOR URANUS
THE NAKED-EYE VISIBILITY OF URANUS
Preliminary Remarks:

1. Discovered fortuitously by William Herschel with the aid of a telescope in 1781, URANUS is
without question visible to the naked eye 1, 2 ,3
2. As Wagner [1991] has pointed out, it is in fact surprising that the planet was not detected in
antiquity. 4

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 16 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

3. Babylonian astronomers - long skilled in observing planetary risings and settings etc., would
have been prime candidates for the incidental discovery of a faint (but visible) outer planet moving
in essentially the same orbital plane as Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
4. If detected, Uranus could well have been subjected to the same Babylonian procedures adopted
for the three attested superior planets, leading to the eventual determination of the corresponding
planetary parameters.
5. Hypothetical Babylonian parameters for Uranus are provided below for comparison with values
that may be encountered in the future.

I. MEAN VALUES
As discussed in detail above, the final Babylonian fundamental period relationships for the three known
superior planets appear to have depended on two initial integer periods (T1 and T2) thaty are close to the
mean sidereal periods (or multiples thereof) for which small, convenient corrections for longitude of
opposite sign were determined; leading in turn to the final integer period when the corrections
completely cancel out.
for example, (using Neugebauer's terminology from ACT, pp.282-283), the relationship for Jupiter was
expressed as: N Years = II synodic "appearances" and Z sidereal "rotations" of 360 degrees, but in so
much as the mean synodic arcs for both Jupiter and Mars were rounded at the third sexagesimal place,
and that of Saturn was exact. (265 Years = 256 synodic appearances and 9 sidereal revolutions; mean
synodic arc u = 9 x 360 / 256 = 12;39,22,30 degrees) is would appear that both accurate and rounded
values were applied. Either way, however,what will be required in the case of Uranus are initally the two
periods T1 and T2 (with attendant corrections in longitude) that will provide the final integer relationship
Tn. Thus, based on a period of revolution of Uranus of approximately 84 years, for example, the initial
pairs of periods with the requisite corrections in longitude leading to the final period relation can be
suggested:

T1 = 81 Years, = 80 synodic arcs and 1 sidereal revolution of 360 degrees -10;00 degrees
T2 = 85 Years, = 84 synodic arcs and 1 sidereal revolution of 360 degrees + 7;30 degrees

leading to a final integer period relationship for Uranus of Fn = 583 years as follows:

T1 = 81 Years, 80 synodic arcs, 1 revolution of 360 degrees - 10;00 Degrees

T2 = 85 Years, 84 synodic arcs, 1 revolution of 360 degrees + 7;30 Degrees
T3 = 166 Years, 164 synodic arcs, 2 revolutions of 360 degrees - 2;30 degrees (T1 + T2)
T4 = 251 Years, 248 synodic arcs, 3 revolutions of 360 degrees + 5;00 degrees (T2 + T3)
T5 = 417 Years, 412 synodic arcs, 5 revolutions of 360 degrees + 2.30 degrees (T3 + T4)
FN = 583 Years, 576 synodic arcs, 7 revolutions of 360 degrees with 0;00 degrees
correction (T3 + T5)

and, according to standard methodology, the hypothetical mean values for Uranus based on a final period
Fn of 583 years would be in turn:

Mean Sidereal Period = N/Z = 583/7 = 83.28571428 Years

Mean Synodic Period = N/II = 583/576 = 1.01215277 Years
Mean Synodic Period (months) = 583 x 12;22,8 Months / 576 = 12;31,9,8,20 Mean
Synodic Months
Mean Synodic Arc (u) = N x 360 / II = 7 x 360 / 576 = 4;22,30 degrees

ADDITIONAL OPTIONS
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 17 van 24
Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

Other possibilities include final period relations of:

a. 249 years (3 sidereal revolutions)

b. 420 years (5 sidereal revolutions)
c.. 565 years (7 sidereal revolutions)
d. 586 years (7 sidereal revolutions)
e. 587 years (7 sidereal revolutions)
f. 589 years (7 sidereal revolutions)

with intermediate periods, corrections, and mean parameters as follows:

f. N = 589 Years, Z = 7, II = 582, T = 84.14285... Years, u = 4;19,47,37,43,...

T1 = 82 Years (360 - 9;10)
T2 = 85 Years (360+ 3;40)

e. N = 587 Years, Z = 7, II = 580, T = 83.85714... Years, u = 4;20,41,22,45,...

T1 = 81 Years (360 - 12;15)
T2 = 85 Years (360+ 4;54)

d. N = 586 Years, Z = 7, II = 579, T = 83.71428... Years, u = 4;21,08,23,37,...

T1 = 83 Years (360 - 3;00)
T2 = 84 Years (360+ 1;12)

c. N = 565 Years, Z = 7, II = 559, T = 80.71428... Years, u = 4;30,58,03,52,...

T1 = 80 Years (360 - 3;10)
T2 = 81 Years (360+ 1;16)

b. N = 420 Years, Z = 5, II = 415, T = 84 Years, u = 4;20,14,27,28,...

T1 = 81 Years (360 - 12;45)
T2 = 86 Years (360 + 8;30)

a. N = 249 Years, Z = 3, II = 246, T = 83 Years, u = 4;23,24,52,40,...

T1 = 81 Years (360 - 8;40)
T2 = 84 Years (360 +4;20)

NOTES : The selection of the above periods was partly influenced by 589 and 83-year Jupiter period relations in
Babylonian "Goal-Year" texts ( the latter period is also the sum of Jupiter T1 = 12 years and Jupiter T2 = 71 years). The
corrections for the 583-year period are based on information in a lunar text (ACT 210, Section 2) found in a line
preceding the possible mention of the 265-year fundamental period for Saturn. The fragmentary condition of the section
and the absence of a second correction make this already insecure data doubtful; the resulting 583-year period
nevertheless provides a convenient mean synodic arc of 4;22,30 degrees, which is more in keeping with mean values
derived by the Babylonians for Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The less likely data based on a 565-year final period (7 sidereal
revolutions; mean synodic arc: 4;30,58,3,52,..) owes its origins to the unexplained occurrence of the number "4 31" found
in an early Babylonian text concerned with "omens" associated with a cryptic reference to a moving "star" in the
constellation of Pisces, i.e., "If the Fish Star approaches the Acre Star..." with the latter considered to be in the adjacent
constellation Pegasus.

II. HYPOTHETICAL SYSTEM A PARAMETERS FOR URANUS

Based on modern aphelion and perihelion distances, Babylonian System A synodic arcs for Uranus might
perhaps center around 4;20 degrees for the mean value with 4;2 degrees and 4;40 degrees for "Slow" and
"Fast" arcs distributed over 200 and 160 degrees respectively, i.e., as applied in the case of Saturn. Or
alternatively, around 4;00 and 5;00 degrees with a corresponding mean synodic arc (u) closer to 4;30

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 18 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

degrees, etc. Finally, for a mean synodic arc of precisley 4;31 degrees the corresponding times for
various approximations would be:

1. 12;31,26,39,41,20 months (k = 11,12,19,50,40)

2. 12;31,26,40 months for k = 11;12,20 r
3. 12;31,26 months for k = 11;12 r.

III. HYPOTHETICAL SYSTEM B VELOCITIES FOR URANUS

BASIS: THE 583-YEAR INTEGER PERIOD RELATIONSHIP FOR URANUS:
N = 583 YEARS, II = 576 SYNODIC ARCS, Z = 7 SIDEREAL REVOLUTIONS

P = Number of mean synodic arcs per sidereal revolution = 360/u

T = Sidereal Period = P + 1
d = Increase/decrease in velocity (degrees) and time (tithi) per synodic arc = 0;1,10
Amplitude of Synodic Arcs = 1/2Pd = 0;48 (1/4Pd = 0;24)
m = Minimum Synodic Arc: ( u - 1/4Pd) = 3;58,30 degrees
u = Mean Synodic Arc: [(7 x 360 )/576] = 4;22,30 degrees
M = Maximum Synodic Arc (u +1/4Pd) = 4;46,30 degrees

The 583-year period is used here for simplicity. The attested determination of the mean synodic arc (u)
from the division of the total sidereal motion by the number of synodic arcs in the final relationship
would be followed by the derivation of the parameters of a "linear zigzag" function given above and
below. The difference, d = 0;1,10 is on the high side, but closer to the approximate 9 : 1 ratios of the
Mars : Jupiter and the Jupiter : Saturn differences. Values for this parameter might range from 0;40 to
perhaps 0;1,20. (note: The derivation of the extremal velocities follows the procedure suggested by the
remnants of Section 1 of Jupiter procedure text ACT 812 )

IV. HYPOTHETICAL SYSTEM B TIMES FOR URANUS

(a) SYNODIC FACTORS IN TITHIS (Synodic Arc + k3 = Synodic Arc + 11;12,4,10, r

Abbreviated value: +11;12 r )

(m) = 15;10,51,40 r Minimum Synodic Arc (abbreviated value: 15;10,30 )

(u ) = 15;34,34,10 r Mean Synodic Arc (abbreviated value: 15;34,30 )
(M) = 15;58,16,40 r Maximum Synodic Arc (abbreviated value: 15;58,30 )

(b) SYNODIC PERIODS (MONTHS) [ IV (a) Values/30 + 12 Mean Synodic months]

(m) = 12;30,21,43,20 mean synodic months

(u ) = 12;31,9,8,20 mean synodic months (369.699569 days)
(M) = 12;31,56,33,20 mean synodic months

The synodic times in tithis and mean synodic months were derived according to the method given in
Section 2 of Jupiter text ACT 812 (Neugebauer, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, Lund Humphreys,
London 1955:393). The mean synodic time for Uranus is also obtainable from the final integer
relationship and the methodology indicated in Section 1 of the same text, i.e., the mean synodic time is
accordingly:

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 19 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

583 x 12;22,8 / 576 = 12;31,9,8,20 mean synodic months (of 29;31,50,8,20 days).

V. THE SELEUCID ERA

The Seleucid Era - a Babylonian astronomical era of unknown significance - begins with Month 0, Year
0 in April 310 BC (311 BCE). As it so happened, Uranus was occluded three times by Jupiter around this
time, i.e., on September 23, 312 BCE, January 2, 311 BCE ( Uranus at opposition and nearly at its
brightest, M = +5.4 ) and April 29, 311 BCE, i.e., April 310 B.C. Those with astronomical software can
observe from the location of Babylon (Iraq: 44 25E, 32 33N) the positions of both planets, the
perceptible parallax exhibited by Uranus with respect to Jupiter between the dates given and the planet's
later motion (at its brightest) along the ecliptic through the constellation of Leo.

SUMMARY
Firstly, because of the relatively low visual magnitudes of Uranus it is possible that even if sighted, the
orbit could not be completely determined.
Secondly, although no unambiguous references to an additional planet are apparent in the historical
record, there nevertheless remain enigmatic statements and parameters of unknown significance in both
earlier Babylonian material and the astronomical cuneiform texts of the Seleucid Era. Complex issues
arising from "precession", the various types of months, and the definition of the "year" represent merely
the luni-solar component of Babylonian astronomy. Others issues arise from the limited number and
uneven distribution of the extant planetary texts. In fact, sufficient gaps and uncorrelated parameters
remain to suggest that Babylonian astronomy was quite likely more developed than is normally assumed.
Until the matters outlined above and at end of the parent paper are addressed more adequately, it would
surely be premature to dismiss the capabilities of Babylonian astronomers, or their possible naked-eye
detection of Uranus, conventional wisdom and the status quo notwithstanding.

APPENDIX B
HYPOTHETICAL PERIOD RELATIONS FOR VENUS AND MERCURY
B1: VENUS
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
In general, it may be assumed that shorter Babylonian period relationships will provide less accurate
mean values than those obtained from F, the Final (and exact) integer period relationship determined
from the initial T1 and T2 periods, e.g.,

F= 284 Years, 133 Mean Synodic Arcs, 151 Orbital Revolutions [MARS]
F= 427 Years, 391 Mean Synodic Arcs, 36 Orbital Revolutions [JUPITER]
F= 265 Years, 256 Mean Synodic Arcs, 9 Orbital Revolutions [SATURN]
F= 583 Years, 576 Mean Synodic Arcs, 7 Orbital Revolutions [URANUS(?)]

However, for Mercury and Venus no corresponding T1 and T2 periods are readily apparent; furthermore,
in the case of Venus the 1151-year relationship yields a relatively poor value for the mean synodic
period. Nor, for that matter, does the corresponding mean synodic arc inspire confidence, being simply
one half of the period itself (i.e., 1151*360/720 = 1151/2 = 575;30 degrees). The latter may well be a

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 20 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

working value, and a convenient one at that, but with a length of 1151 years for the final integer period
one might reasonably have expected more accurate results. Recalling, however, the key period relations
for Jupiter provided in Section 1 of ACT 813 (see above) 23

"Compute for the whole zodiac (or: for each sign) according to the day and the velocity.
In 12 years you add 4;10, in 1,11 years you subtract 5, in 7,7 years the longitude (returns) to
its original longitude."
(In 12 years you add 4;10 degrees, in 71 years you subtract 5 degrees, in 427 years the
longitude returns to its original longitude)

and the expansion that produced the attested period relation for Jupiter of:

427 years, 391 mean synodic arcs and 36 sidereal revolutions:

Table.1 Babylonian Period Relations and the 427-year Long Period for Jupiter

one could do little more than hope that additional periods for Venus and Mercury might eventually come to
light from newly recovered cuneiform tablets etc., and failing this, other historical sources.

THE 243-YEAR PERIOD I

In the latter category, for example, there is the interval of 243 years mentioned in the following cryptic footnote
by George Burges (1876:171):

. . . . the ratio of 243 to 256 is to that of 3 5 to 4 4; especially if we bear in mind what is stated by
Plutarch,
De Anim., Procreat. ii, p. 1028, B., respecting Lucifer (Venus) being represented by 243, and the Sun by
729.
(George Burges, The Works of Plato, George Bell and Sons, London, 1876:171) 10

THE 8-YEAR PERIOD

Although it may seem an unnecessary elaboration "the ratio of 243 to 256 is to that of 35 to 44 " may
also be restated as: "the ratio of 243 to 256 is to that of 35 to 28 ", but apart from the well-known
Venus/Fibonacci relationship of 5 synodic periods, 8 years and 13 orbital revolutions, little in the way of
additional understanding follows. But this is numerology in any case, is it not? Possibly, but more likely

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 21 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

methodology, and highly condensed methodology at that. But in any event, the parent work itself is
found in "The Treatise of Timaeus the Locrian" in Burge's The Works of Plato (1876) whereas initial
references to the number "243" occur in a distinctly "Pythagorean" context, i.e., in a footnote to Burge's
own SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE to (yet another extension) "The Notes of Batteaux." However, since we
are not so much concerned here with Pythagorean tenets as the determination of fundamental period
relations for Venus the latter subject is perhaps best left for a more specialized treatment at another time.
Nevertheless, it might still be unwise to "criticize without light."

THE 251-YEAR PERIOD ; ADDITIONAL COMPLEXITIES

So far so good, though merely the 8-year Venus cycle with its 5 corresponding synodic periods and 13
corresponding orbital revolutions, and an obscure historical reference to an interval of 243 years. What
next? As far as my own efforts were concerned, nothing at all. It was in fact the Internet that supplied the
answer, providing both intermediate periods T1, T2 as well as F, the final"long" integer relationship in
one neat, detailed package. The source in question, however, dealt with matters far more difficult than
the present historical asterisk, namely the complexities that arise from the analysis of the transits of
Venus carried out by Karl-Heinz and Uwe Homan. For present purposes, however, the following periods
discussed in detail by the latter ( VENUS TRANSITS AND PRECESSION, May 31, 2004):

A preliminary analysis of the Venus Transit Data has shown that the Earth must go around
the Sun 360 degrees in a tropical year, contrary to current lunisolar precession theory. The
fact remains and the evidence suggests that the observed transit cycles reflect a more
accurate correlation between the periods of 251 tropical years and 408 orbits of Venus
around the Sun, than 243 and 395 respectively.
This paper examines what appears to be a pattern of resonance between Venus transit cycles,
the mean synodic period and the time interval of the 360-degree tropical year based on
Earth's non-precessing axis of rotation relative to the position of the Sun. .... A complete
360-degree cycle occurs after 157 mean synodic periods, or exactly 251 tropical years and
408 orbits of Venus.
( Uwe Homan, The Sirius Research Group, May 31, 2004; emphases suppplied)

plus the 5, 152 and 157 Venus synodic periods and corresponding 13, 395 and 408 orbital periods applied
in an earlier paper (TRANSITS OF VENUS VS NASA'S ASTRONOMICAL DATA, April 21, 2004) provide
all that is necessary. In these modern contexts the latter sets are discussed in detail with respect to both
the tropical year and the sidereal year with far-reaching implications; in our present historical context,
however, all six periods may simply be used directly after the manner adopted for Jupiter, i.e.,
hypothetically:

"In 8 years you add 1;26, In 243 years you subtract 1;26.
In 251 years the longitude (returns) to its original longitude."

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 22 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

Table 2. Hypothetical Babylonian Period Relations for Venus

Final Period F = 251 years, 157 mean synodic arcs ( 408 orbital revolutions )

In Table 2 t he longitude corrections of 1;26 degrees are conveniently truncated from the more accurate value
of 1;26,3,20,47,48,..(1.434262948.. degrees); the positive correction the excess over 360 degrees after 8 years,
the negative correction the amount less than 360 degrees after 243 years.These corrections necessarily involve
the annual orbital motions of Earth and Venus, the latter value being 585;10, 45,25,5,58,33,( 585.179282868.
degrees from the 251-year relationship, i.e., from 408 x 360 / 251).
Finally, though not to be confused with the modern complexities that attend this matter, the mean synodic
period for Venus (based on the Babylonian year of 12;22,8 mean synodic months) can be otained from the
final period as before, i.e.,

251 x 12;22,8 / 157 = 19;46,28,4,35,9, (19.774465676...) mean synodic months, or simpler still:
19;46,30 months.

B2: MERCURY
13-YEAR AND 33-YEAR PERIODS
Although a similar situation exists for Mercury, i.e., no attested T1 and T2 periods or related Final
Period (F), the available material for this planet is nevertheless more extensive. However, remaining with
the better known 46-year period that has come down to us in various planetary theories (e.g., those of
Ptolemy, Al-Bitruji, and Copernicus) the methodology applied in the case of Venus -- apart from the
reversed polarity of the paired corrections -- remains virtually unchanged, i.e.,

"In 13 years you subtract 7;50, In 33 years you add 7;50.

In 46 years the longitude (returns) to its original longitude."

Table 3. Hypothetical Babylonian Period Relations for Mercury

Final Period F = 46 years, 145 mean synodic arcs ( 191 orbital revolutions )

Here again the longitude corrections (7;50 degrees in this instance; to two sexagesimal places perhaps: 7;49,30
) are simplified variants of more accurate values obtainable from the 46-year final relationship ( i.e.,
7;49,33,54,46,57, ..., 7.826086956 .. degrees) and the combined annual orbital motions of both Earth (360
degrees) and Mercury (1494;46,57,23,28,41,44, ... degrees, etc.). In this case, however, the negative correction
is the amount less than 360 degrees for T1 (13 years) and the positive correction the excess for T2 (33 years).
Based on the final 46-year integer relation the mean synodic period will accordingly be:

46 x 12;22,8 / 145 = 3;55,26,7,30 months (3;55,26,7,26,53,47..) or more approximately, 3;55,30 months.

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 23 van 24

Babylonian Planetary Theory and the Heliocentric Concept 27/02/11 18:05

REFERENCES [ APPENDICES A and B ]

1. Moore, Patrick.Naked Eye Astronomy, W.W. Norton, New York, 1965
2. Webb, Rev. T.W. Celestial Objects for Common Telescopes, Dover, New York, 1962:221.
3. Levy, D H. THE SKY - A User's Guide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1991:134.
4. Wagner, Jeffrey K. Introduction to the Solar System, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Orlando 1991.
5. ACT 813, Section 1, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts, (Lund Humphreys, London, 1955..
6. Horowitz, W. "Two New Ziqpu-Star Texts and Stellar Circles,"Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol 46,
1994.
8. Gadd, J. "Omens Expressed as Numbers," Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol 21.1967.
9. Van Der Waerden, B. Science Awakening II, Oxford University Press, New York, 1974.
10 Burges, George. The Works of Plato: A new Literal Verson, George Bell and Sons, London, 1876.

Added July 3, 2004.

Mailto: john_harris@telus.net

Return to Spira Solaris

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html Pagina 24 van 24