Studies in Babylonian lunar theory: part III. The introduction of the uniform zodiac
Studies in Babylonian lunar theory: part III. The introduction of the uniform zodiac
复制标题
巴比伦月球理论研究：第三部分。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. P. Britton
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. P. Britton
本文是对被称为A系统和B系统的巴比伦数学月球理论的多部分研究中的第三部分。第一部分(Britton，AHES 61：83-145,2007)阐述了在公元前4世纪早期建立A系统月球理论时所完成的分离月球和太阳异常对合点间隔的影响所需的经验元素的发展。通过建立一个成功的理论来描述A系统中由于月球异常引起的变化及其随后在B系统中的适应，来检验这种分离的完成。本论文研究了统一黄道十二宫的引入，这是任何描述取决于合子位置的变化的理论所必需的。它涉及三个问题：(1)根据所有可用的证据，描述巴比伦恒星经度和现代热带经度之间差异的表达式Δλ*−=C−1.3828°Y中的常量项的量级是多少？(2)什么因素支配着巴比伦恒星黄道相对于固定恒星的位置？(3)统一黄道带是什么时候引入的？对于第一个问题，它发现C=3.20°±0.1°，与Huber(Centaurus 5：192-208,1958)估计的3.08°几乎没有什么不同，基本上证实了Huber从更少的数据中获得的结果。对于第二种情况，它表明，容纳组成金牛座的三个星座将黄道十二宫的位置限制在3°以内，而在突出的正常恒星之间测量的间隔中，半符号倍数的突出导致了不可抗拒的选择。最后，它发现十二生肖是在−408和−397之间引入的，可能是在−400之后的几年内引入的。
This paper is the third of a multi-part examination of the Babylonian mathematical lunar theories known as Systems A and B. Part I (Britton, AHES 61:83–145, 2007) addressed the development of the empirical elements needed to separate the effects of lunar and solar anomaly on the intervals between syzygies, accomplished in the construction of the System A lunar theory early in the fourth century B.C. Part II (Britton, AHES 63:357–431, 2009) examines the accomplishment of this separation by the construction of a successful theory depicting the variations due to lunar anomaly in System A and its subsequent adaptation in System B. The present paper examines the introduction of the uniform zodiac, necessary for any theory depicting variations depending on the position of syzygy. It addresses three questions: (1) In light of all available evidence, what is the magnitude of the constant term in the expression Δλ* = C − 1.3828°Y, describing the difference between the Babylonian sidereal longitudes and modern tropical longitudes? (2) What considerations governed the placement of the Babylonian sidereal zodiac relative to the fixed stars? (3) When was the uniform zodiac introduced? To the first question it finds C = 3.20° ± 0.1°, scarcely different from Huber’s (Centaurus 5:192–208, 1958) estimate of 3.08°, essentially confirming Huber’s result obtained from much less data. For the second it shows that accommodating the three asterisms comprising Taurus limited the placement of the zodiac to within 3°, while the prominence of half sign multiples among the measured intervals between prominent Normal Stars led irresistibly to the choice adopted. Finally, it finds that the zodiac was introduced between −408 and −397 and probably within a very few years of −400.