Dear Rumen Kolev,
I would like to reply to specific parts of your posts of November 27 and 29. To begin, the research of Kugler and Huber is old and somewhat out of date. We now have programs that can compute exact planetary positions and compare these longitudes to those given in ancient texts. The "fixed Babylonian zodiac" that you refer to places Aldebaran and Antares at 15 degrees of Taurus and Scorpio, and Spica at 29 degrees of Virgo.
However, as I have pointed out in a previous post above, and as Dimityr Kojuharov also posted under Babylonian Astrology (the Sidereal vs. Tropical topic, 18 May 2009) we know that the planetary positions taken from ancient texts align more closely with Spica at 30 degrees of Virgo rather than the 29 degree position in your "Babylonian fixed zodiac." (Today known as the Fagan-Bradley sidereal zodiac.) Dimityr Kojuharov quotes Nick Kollerstrom:
"....It seemed to me that Neugebauer [Greek Horoscopes] was not well able to reach a conclusion as to what zodiac framework was in the use in these charts-merely because computing these things was so much harder then than it is today. About one-fifth of his charts have zodiac longitudes specified for the planets and have reliable-known times for which they were cast. I took these, and also two or three others I managed to glean from other sources, and plotted their ayanamsa against the year of their composition, as shown in the diagram below.
'The graph shows that in the 1st century AD, planetary longitudes were about 3 degrees greater than would be expected if they were using the tropical zodiac, while in the 5th century they were 2 degrees less than would be expected from using the tropical zodiac.
"Siderealists such as Cyril Fagan argued that the ancients used a star -zodiac defined by Aldebaran at 15 degrees Taurus, and this ayanamsa is shown by the line in the graph with triangles on it. It doesn't fit. Instead, a line taking Spica as 30 degrees Virgo (sidereal) goes quite nicely through the data..."viewtopic.php?f=35&t=139
So I ask: If the "fixed Babylonian zodiac" was universally accepted, why isn't this reflected in recorded longitudes taken from ancient horoscopes?
There are some questions about the star longitudes from your November 27 post:
(1) Aldebaran: Although the LH 25 text specifically states (under Taurus) that "the brilliant star of Orion" is opposite Antares placed in the 15th degree of Scorpio, you have changed this Orion star to Aldebaran in Taurus. Further on the text states "In the 16th degree and 6 minutes there rises the brilliant star of the Hyades, of the nature of Mars and Venus." As Rob Hand points out in a footnote, this star is Aldebaran.
(2) You have placed Altair in Taurus, which must be an error as Altair is in Capricorn. I didn't find a star in LH 25 with the longitude of 6:36, so perhaps that must be on another page and not under Taurus.
You state: "The precision is around one degree." This isn't close enough to give support for a precise zodiac, especially since the majority of star longitudes in LH25 are much closer to the Krishnamurti/Lahiri values. However, that fact seems strictly to be a coincidence. You have pointed out that "....there are several star positions computed by adding 3 d. 26 min. to the positions in Ptolemy"....and then...."These positions though are few. Hubner, the scholar expert on paranatellonta, even thinks that these are paranatellonta."
In fact, the great majority of star longitudes in LH 25 are converted from Ptolemy's tables by adding 3 deg 26 min. I remembered that I had a copy of Gerd Hrassoff's "The History of Ptolemy's Star Catalogue" which has lists of Ptolemy's stars. Every star is listed in an appendix, but I worked with a shorter table labled "Gundel's List of Hipparchan Stars."
I counted 29 star longitudes in LH 25 (not including those listed as "co-rising" as I remember in counting...). There are 15 stars on Gundel;s list that are also in LH25. Every one of these stars longitudes were obtained by adding 3 deg 26 min to Ptolemy's positions. There is no reason that this conversion doesn't also apply to the remaining 14 stars in LH 25. (I can check Ptolemy's tables, but have to dig out the 14 stars from the complete list of 1022.)
I don't believe we have any real evidence that a very precise "Babylonian fixed zodiac" existed that was used by most or all astrologers. The evidence is that the ancient zodiac was surely sidereal, but the beginnings of signs were imprecise, perhaps within a range of 1 degree 30 minutes. The most precise longitudes of stars were tropical and computed from Ptolemy's tables. We know that these tables were in error, so the "precise" star longitudes are also in error by today's measurements. In LH 25 we have what on the surface appears to be a dead on match for the Krishnamurti/Lahiri zodiacs (with the exception of a few stars such as Antares), but we know this is only an illusion since the stars are tropical longitudes adjusted from Ptolemy's tables.
As usual, because this post was pasted from a word processor, I cannot add italics and bold fonts as I would like. When I try the text jumps all over the place and doesn't allow editing.