:dubious: :dubious: Is your “hypothesis” affected at all by reading post #12 in which it is pointed out, on the basis of solid factual evidence from the textual record in Akkadian and Greek, that:
astrology actually had its origins much later, in a historical era as a means of making predictions about the fate of states and regions, NOT individuals, and that individual nativities were a subsequent offshoot of that?
Did you maybe stop reading post #12 at the word “genethlialogy”? To restate the basic points in conventional “prehistoric” dialect:
ASTROLOGY MUCH LATER THAN WRITING—NO PREHISTORIC ASTROLOGY
EARLY ASTROLOGY TELL FORTUNES OF CITIES, NOT PERSONS
ASTROLOGY ABOUT “SEASON IN WHICH ONE WAS BORN” INVENTED AFTERWARDS
YOUR “HYPOTHESIS” COMPLETE BULLSHIT
Well, they would start by asking historians of science what information we have about the early development of astrology along with astronomy as a historical phenomenon.
When it was explained to them that the concept of individual nativities, that is astrological predictions about individuals based on the astronomical situation at the time of their birth, developed from a different form of astrology in a historical period long after the end of prehistory, then they would realize that their hypothesis is completely untenable and needs to be discarded.
If that’s your hypothesis, you have to start by showing that actual personality traits varied depending on the season in which one was born. If you can’t show that first, then your hypothesis is untestable.
I doubt that genethlialogy was spontaneously and instantly created. I suggest that maybe some of its origins may be found in much older traditions and folklore.
But you first require evidence for a phenomenon that demands explanation. OP hasn’t even met that hurdle. You don’t need a hypothesis if there’s nothing to explain. That’s like (say) proposing a mechanism for how homeopathy works.
That’s what makes this difficult. It would be almost impossible to recreate the conditions in which prehistoric human societies lived in order to test this in real time. And even if we could recreate those conditions, it might be considered child abuse. Where can we find factual evidence to refute or support my claim? Maybe we could observe species similar to humans. However, most mammals, especially those that live in areas with extreme seasonal variations, only reproduce at certain times of the year.
Yeah maybe…maybe not. What would be a good way to determine if this is already known?
Well, you could read the previously-cited The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture by Francesca Rochberg. That might shed some light on possible precursor beliefs.
Just now, I spent a few seconds to run Find on the Births sections of Wikipedia’s pages for January 10 and July 10. The former had 23 instances of the string “football;” the latter 24. (Some footballers’ lines had the string appear twice but those could be easily filtered out.)
Of course we’re still left with the problem OldGuy mentioned: January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere. But the whole question complicates if it’s birth climate rather than birth date that is of interest.
I’m not sure why you are going on about “extreme seasonal variations.” It’s already been pointed out that astrology originated in the Middle East, an area without extreme seasonal variations, at least of the kind you seem to be talking about. Even if you postulate that there were prehistoric antecedents in the area (despite the lack of any evidence for such), these cultures also wouldn’t have experienced extreme seasonal variation. If such a correlation existed, one would expect it to be noticed by cultures in the Arctic and northern parts of the Temperate Zone, rather than in the Middle East.
Your claim is fully refuted by the factual evidence mentioned in my previous posts in this thread.
Predictive astrology did not originate in a prehistoric period, and was not initially concerned with birth horoscopes of random individuals.
Individual horoscopic astrology was a later development beginning around 2-2.5K years ago, most likely in response to a very specific set of historical circumstances in Mesopotamia.
Please stop pulling speculations about prehistory out of your ass when their supposed relevance to the origins of astrology has already been debunked.
Nobody claims it was. Instead, it was developed about 2-2.5K years ago, apparently as a variant of an earlier kind of astrological prediction about states, not individuals.
We have cuneiform texts surviving from this period, in the original clay tablets. We can see the relation between the divinatory traditions of state-temple astrological predictions and the subsequent individual horoscopes. (See, for example, Babylonian Horoscopes, also by Rochberg.) We don’t have to make up speculations about prehistoric beliefs in order to understand how this happened.
And I’m explaining to you why your suggestion is very implausible, based on known historical data.
I wouldn’t call it scientific, but I have studied it for decades, and have found empirically, that people have guessed my sign from the way I look, and I have done so also.
I have also noticed particular traits (Virgos are critical, Leos like attention, etc).
But its not scientific.
If all you had was a very primitive shelter and a campfire, I suspect that you would consider some of the seasonal variations in the Middle East to be extreme, especially if you had to live that way every day. Even in the Middle East it gets cold enough to get hypothermia in the winter and heat stroke in the summer. Kiribati, on the other hand, … .
Also, ancient peoples sometimes moved around a lot and probably took their folklore and traditions with them.
You’re really reaching here. Your original hypothesis described “extreme seasonal variation.” Why should this belief have developed in an area with much less seasonal variation than areas farther north?
Again you’re reaching (also known as “making stuff up”). As far as I know, the ancestors of the cultures that developed astrology did not migrate into the area from farther north.
Although you profess to be looking for scientific explanations, none of your proposals and arguments bear the least relation to the scientific method. “It could happen!” is not a scientific argument.
Just so you know, I am taking your suggestion to consult the Rochberg text seriously. But you haven’t convinced me yet. Unfortunately, I can only find the first 16 pages online for free. Maybe I will go to the public library this weekend.
Indeed. When it comes to astrology, I like to point out this demostration that James Randi conducted. (He handed out “customized astrological profiles” to students in a college class, and every student felt that the profiles described them well. Then, he revealed that everyone got the exact same profile.)
If all you’re trying to do is figure out how specific “folklore” traditions of nativity omens might have partly influenced genethlialogical canons, that’s quite different from trying to build a speculative foundational “scientific basis for astrology” out of guessed-at prehistoric beliefs.
As repeatedly noted, the conceptual basis for birth-horoscope astrology was rooted in astrology about a different form of prediction. The early horoscopes are much more specific about the astronomical configuration associated with a nativity moment (e.g., the zodiacal sign and “house” of the moment of birth) than the vague “seasonal” patterns you were trying to postulate as their ultimate source. So your original broader hypothesis about prehistoric origins of a possible “scientific basis for astrology” still won’t fly.
But the predicted characteristics or “apodoses” associated with a particular “protosis” or horoscope configuration can come from a wide variety of omen traditions, largely the earlier forms of divination. Again, Babylonian Horoscopes has a lot of information about this.
What you’d have to do if you wanted to test even this more limited and reasonable hypothesis is the following:
Find detailed evidence about a genuinely prehistoric tradition of nativity omens. Either (a) from a currently existing traditional society that you can plausibly infer maintains a living tradition of such omens dating from prehistoric times that share their ancestry with the Babylonian birth omens (and good luck with that), or else (b) from a very ancient textual record that you can plausibly infer descends from prehistory, and likewise is connected to the Babylonian birth omens.
Find some close parallels between these presumed prehistoric nativity omens and the recorded apodoses or predictions in the early horoscopes, both Babylonian and early Greek (see Greek Horoscopes by Neugebauer and Van Hoesen, for example). If you find, for instance, an apodosis of the form “then the individual will have only one hand and will never marry” in both the “prehistoric” and historic corpora, that’s pretty specific and plausibly suggests that the later version is directly descended from the earlier.
Trace back the historic version of the omen prediction as far as you can in more ancient forms of Babylonian divination, such as extispicy manuals and general omen collections. (There’s a mass of sources on this, though nowhere near exhaustive: start with, e.g., the works of A.L. Oppenheim and Erica Reiner.)
Come up with a plausible scenario of historical transmission of this omen tradition from the “prehistoric” source you’re reconstructing down to the earliest traces of the historically attested version.
And then you’ll have a publishable paper, which will make an interesting contribution.
In any case, though, you’ll just have to give up on the idea that association of such omens with specific astronomical phenomena like seasons might constitute a “scientific basis” for the predictions of birth-horoscope astrology. You can’t get from prehistoric astronomical/meteorological understanding to the highly specific horoscope configurations of urban-civilization predictive astrology in any consistent way that meaningfully preserves the protosis-apodosis relationship.
I never used the term “extreme seasonal variation” in my original hypothesis. I only used the term “sharp contrast between summer and winter.” I only used the term “extreme” when talking about mammals other than humans in a subsequent post.
Isn’t one of the first stages of a scientific investigation is to gather facts and evidence? I only presented this problem as a proposition. I never claimed that it was true or false. I only posted it in hopes that other posters might have some ideas about how to gather facts and evidence.
Sometimes Dopers are a bit too knee-jerk on the skepticism. Just because the word “astrology” gets mentioned doesn’t mean the OP doesn’t have a good point. There are a number of studies linking temperament to birth season. It’s a pretty fricking far leap from the results of the studies to astrology though.
