Talk:Astrological age

Unreferenced Material

This topic has been the dumping ground for numerous unreferenced material. Some unreferenced material remains on this topic and will be removed in due course. Nevertheless, any additional editing on this topic requires verification - " Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Terry MacKinnell (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• unless notification of doubtful edits are discussed in this DISCUSSION page first then they will be reversed unless sufficient verifiable and referenced support is provided for the edits, which was not provided for all the edits on 8 Jan 2009. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• religious insights into the astrological ages and ongoing edits on religious insights tend to not have references to reliable sources. These will be removed. References to the Bible in most incidences are incorrect as they depend upon someone's interpretation or POV. Unless such POV comes from a relaible published source it has no place here Terry MacKinnell (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a lot of stuff in this article has to go - I highly doubt that references could be provided for much of the article's content. ClovisPt (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have been aware of this problem and had been hoping that new referenced and encyclopedic material would be added, and that unreferenced POV would be deleted - but new material of the correct calibre has been slow in coming. As you have correctly done, some material definitely needs to be culled Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• yet another example of unreferenced material - what is the source for:

"The beginning of the four astrological ages of the historical period are marked with their zodiac symbols: the Age of Taurus from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age, the Age of Aries from the Middle Bronze Age to Classical Antiquity, the Age of Pisces from Late Antiquity to the present, and the Age of Aquarius beginning in the mid 3rd millennium.]]" Furthermore this figure of the north celestial pole is taking to prominent a position for such a tangential piece of information about the astrological ages. It WILL be removed or moved somewhere appropriate. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope it is uncontroversial when I state that this article is a giant mess and needs determined cleanup. I just find it dubious that the one thing which is very simple and verifiable, i.e. the precession of the equinoxes, should be the object of your scepticism. The "astrologial ages" refers to the precession of the equinoxes along the zodiac. I don't know what could be more "appropriate" than a diagram showing the precession of the vernal equinox along the zodiac. As I have already stated here, seeing that "astrological age" is only a fancy term for precession of the equinoxes, it may be best to just merge this into precession of the equinoxes. --dab (𒁳) 14:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• you have very strong opinions about the astrological ages but wikipedia is not about strong opinions, it is about verifiable information sourced from reliable sources. I don't have any scepticism about precession of the equinoxes and in fact have been studying the topic for over 20 years. Your diagram would be ideal for the topic if the information you provided with it was referenced and preferably there was some context for the diagram. The fact that precession can be measured along the ecliptic AND the celestial poles would probably need some explanation if placed in this topic. However this topic is about the astrological ages, details about precession of the equinoxes should be placed in that topic, with only some incidental information about precession in the astrological ages topic.

• Re your: "astrological age" is only a fancy term for precession of the equinoxes, it may be best to just merge this into precession of the equinoxes

The astrological ages interpret precession of the equinoxes from an astrological perspective. I am sure that the astronomers that support the precession of the equinoxes topic would be horrified if their topic was invaded by astrology. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Re "The apparent position of the sun in one of the constellations of the zodiac at the time of the vernal equinox on Earth, determines the current astrological age. The Sun currently rises in spring in Aquarius, as determined by traditional astrology, or Pisces, as determined by astronomy, in either case it is very close to the boundary between the two signs."

Apart from the fact no external refeence to a reliable source is quoted, your paragraph makes out that the sun's position at the vernal equinox determines the current astrological age as a fact, while if you read the topic in full, this is one approach to determining the astrological ages and is already adequately covered in the topic. Terry Macro (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

References for pseudoscience? Whatever. I was trying to clarify the concept, you rv like its vandalism, the intro is still vague, mission accomplished Robogun (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki to my knowledge does not discriminate aginst `pseudoscience'. You should try and clarify what you are saying and with correct referencing etc i am sure no one will object. Terry Macro (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is loaded with unreferenced material, as well as self-referenced material (circular references), it is the epitome of confusion and ambiguity, which is how we know we are on an arcane topic and not discussing science or anything that can be settled or verified in any way shape or form. Robogun (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I for one agree to most of your points. Wiki is not a scientific journal and therefore covers all subject matter including arcane topics as you say. However there are numerous book references including academic book references (eg Hamlet's Mill by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend.) Many academics contribute to this field and are call archeo-astronomers (or archeoastronomers, cultural astronomers etc)and some are referenced in this topic. While the article may be 'the epitome of confusion and ambiguity' has a lot of validity, you should have seen it a couple of years ago. One of the reasons why it was such a mess was that all and sundry were adding unreferenced material. I did not pick your edit up for its relative worth or otherwise, merely that you provided no relaiable reference to back up your statement. If we don't apply this rule, how will the article improve? As an editor, why don't you suggest some changes? Terry Macro (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

While it's nice that there are more sources now, some of the sources used do not appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS. In particular, these all appear to be self-published:

• http://elsaglover.netfirms.com/the_aquarian_age.htm
• http://www.geocities.com/astrologyages/astrologicalage.htm
• http://www.yeatsvision.com/GreatYear.html
• http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/sphinx.html
• http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_9
• Albert Amao, "Aquarian Age & The Andean Prophecy",AuthorHouse ("AuthorHouse" appears to be a vanity press with no editorial oversight.[1] Their own website calls it "self-publishing".)

A good start might be cutting out poorly-sources like these.   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a difficult decision to decide what should or should not be cut out and I am not willing to make this judgement at this time of their appropriateness in light of WP:RS and will leave this decision to other editors. However I do not support the immediate removal of Albert Amao, "Aquarian Age & The Andean Prophecy" due to: "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't know if Albert Amao has been previously published etc. Terry Macro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

I see no sign that Amao is an established expert on the topic of astrological ages.   Will Beback  talk  19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Major Cleanup and Organization Needed

This article contains a lot of information, but it is haphazardly written. Much of its behemoth contents are both disorganized and redundant, and the stylistic approaches used reflect spoken word more than encyclopedic record. I recommend a full rewrite using a scratch page as an editorial sandbox.

Chinagreenelvis (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with your comment, as this topic is a dog's breakfeast of information. I did a major overhaul of about 50% of the content over a year ago but I was aware at the time of the issue you have raised. Provided in any rewrite it keeps and expands its citations and neutral stance I am in agreement. I would certainly be interested in being involved in any rewrite, tho my time this year is in short surply due to many other committments. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Albert Amao has two other books: "The New Age reflections" and "Beyond Conventional Wisdom." which can be verify in Amazon.com. Mr Amao has long experience in Astrology, he has taught Astrology for many years to college graduate students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.197.7 (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

From memory references to Albert Amao on this topic or the age of aquarius were rejected by another editor as they were self-published books. However you could certainly attempt an edit using the material, or discuss on this page first to ensure all the Wiki protocols are met. Terry Macro (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

External links

Astrological ages

• The Grand Ages
• The Astrological Great Year
• Astrological Age
• Precession of the Equinoxes
• Precession of the Earth's Axis
• Platonic Month
• Alternative View of the Astrological Ages
• The Dawn of Aquarius - From the Piscean Age to the Aquarian

Age of Aquarius

• Rosicrucian Age of Aquarius
• New Age of Aquarius by Jamis Lopez
• The Aquarian Age by Elsa M Glover
• Shepherd Simpson: The Age of Aquarius
• Shepherd Simpson: Searching for a New Age..
• Sepp Rothwangl: Considerations About the Start of the Age of Aquarius
• TheAQUARIANproject.Net
• The Age of Pisces and the Age of Aquarius
• CESNUR 2006 International Conference - Globalisation or Aquarius: Are 'we' talking from the same thing?
• Demystifying the Aquarian Age
• Drawing Down the Fire of the Gods: Reflections on the Leo/Aquarius Axis by Ray Grasse
• Zeitgeist the movie

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided has a long list of links to avoid, including blogs and other self-published sites along with those that are excessively commercial or which contain "unverifiable research". Many of these links seem to violate one or another of those. Furthermore, we already have an article on Age of Aquarius, so any worthwhile links on that specific topic should probably go there instead. (See a parallel discussion on that talk page, Talk:Age of Aquarius#External links).   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

History

Shouldn't this article contain an explanation as to who, where and when started this whole Astrological Age business? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.241.121 (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely - are you prepared to do the research? Terry Macro (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. Terry Macro (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Done.--Oneiros (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Message to 188.80.3.129

No problems with your three recent edits. I am a player in the field and over the years i have done a lot of editing on this subject. Anyone can see my involvement in the subject from my user page and discussions in these talk pages. My editing on this subject is to keep a neutral point of view and foster a diversity of opinions and views provided they are not based on POV or unreliable sources - which definitely means website references are inappropriate otherwise we could fill volumes on all the divergent POVs found on the web re astrological ages. Unfortunately this subject, and other similar subjects such as the New Age etc, are prone to a huge number of edits with unreliable sources and editors POV. The reference to my article is not a self-published article - it was published by the International Society of Astrological Researchers (ISAR). If you think the section 'Alternative approach to calibrating precession' is not well sourced and inappropriate lets have an editorial discussion about it and remove it if the editorial consensus is against it. I am definitely not into suppressing views divergent to my own on the subject. Due to my extensive interest in the subject over the last 2 decades i have been exposed to many views on the astrological ages and i could probably write a book exclusively on all these mostly mutually exclusive views. Because Wiki is an encyclopedia and because there is no definitive approach to the subject it is important to show these divergent views provided they have appropriate sources. A lot of the material on this subject still does not meet reliable standards of which some you have recently deleted (appropriately). I would have deleted a lot of the material two years ago but I was leaving a period of grace.

I have added the following sections over the years on this subject:

• Contentious aspects of the astrological ages
• Consensus approach to the astrological ages
• Are ages equal or of variable lengths based on the zodiacal constellations?
• Age cusps
• Other opinions on the astrological ages
• The sub-periods of ages
• Aries to Pisces sub-periods
• Dwadasamsa sub-periods
• Sub-period direction (forward or retrograde?)
• New, alternative, and fringe theories

Originally there were a lot more entries on the 'New, alternative, and fringe theories' section but apart from 'Alternative approach to calibrating precession' all the other theories have slowly been deleted by other editors due to their lack of references to usually any hard copy sources. There should definitely be some more material in this section. For example Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet in 'The Gnostic Circle' shows a deep level of research into the subject yet her research on the astrological ages does not yet appear in Wiki in this topic.

To improve the quality of this topic, and to prevent every enthusiastic editor promoting their POV about the ages it would seem that at a minimum the material must first be referenced and secondly references to some hard copy (except if it is a 'reliable' online encyclopedia such as Wiki). Terry Macro (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, thank you for the attention and effort you have devoted to clarify this situation, by expounding your point of view, dear Terry Macro. Although your words truly appear to be highly reasonable and i do agree with what you purpose to do, they do not resonate, from my viewpoint, with your own recent editing practice, which at the time, under the circumstances, it appeared to carry the standards of WP:COI (thus, causing my somewhat harsh subsequent intervention): by your action of reverting the reference earlier provided to a work (book) with several editions, in English (since 1910) and foreign languages in a large number of countries, when detailed reference of one of those editions (hard copy) was fully provided (here), along with a link to the Internet Archive (not any unrealiable or inappropriate website), so that anyone could verify its authenticity and in order to sustain, at least partially, the related specific account, as requested.

When there is a fascinating subject such as this one, the Astrological ages, voluntarly ignored by the so-called current mainstream (that is, the current paradigm of a society enslaved by the materialist-reductionist ideology), a subject where "so many issues are contentious or disputed" (as the article states), it is only logical that multiple point of views -- MPOV -- must be embraced and references to each provided based upon publications of either astrology professionals with recognized career (such as yourself), and/or recognized-recognizable organizations or schools: this was not the case in your mentioned previous practice, since the reference provided was related to a recognized astrologer (List_of_astrologers#H) founder of the perhaps oldest active school of Astrology worldwide (cf. Astrological organizations), not that per se alone both these "credentials" may mean any closer proximity to Truth, but at least they bear the weight of: Credibility (since fully 'reliable' sources on this subject are yet to be seen; or as you, dear Terry Macro, put it "there is no definitive approach to the subject" yet...).

All in all, it is not my intention to provide a "diversity of opinions and views" (indeed agreeing with you: mostly mutually exclusive), neither it is my aim to exhaustively work on this article, as both the spare time and knowledge, at this point, are insuficient to present an unifying view of the subject, as i would like to. Nevertheless, i may casually present, as possible, referenced-sourced data on the particular POV (within the MPOV article) that i believe, upon my passion and ... dedication too to this subject, to be able to lead toward the coming unified view of the Ages.

Wishing that your work, and the work of other akin professionals, if conducted with true devotion on this particular field, may be blessed with the most enlightening experiences, my friend, and then that you may freely (that gratis) share your findings with us all ("freely ye have received, freely give"). Sincerely yours, --188.80.23.1 (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• If folks are considering an overhaul of the article, please note that there are several sources used that don't meet the requirements of WP:V. I compiled a list in #Unreferenced Material above. That was last year and it looks like they are still in the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

While i'll agree the inclusion of such material in the article needs to be revised, there are a few things, that though to be removed meanwhile, may be useful for a later occasion. As an example, the webpage http://elsaglover.netfirms.com/the_aquarian_age.htm is the online edition of a book witten, hard copy (amazon.com), by a North-American professor of physics (PhD; a paper) with background in astrology provided at TRF, and in such book format it is reasonable, from my viewpoint, that it may become a reference to the article, IF needed at a later occasion, due to some of its contents. Btw, the website is not self-published, the author deceased in 26th June 2003 and the site was build, as a tribute, by her friends. --188.81.136.129 (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• 188.80.3.159, we are basically in agreement. Why don't you propose your edit here on the Talk page and see if we can get agreement. There remains a lot of material poorly referenced on this topic as Beback mentions but the percentage of poorly referenced material is about 1/3 of what it was a few years ago - it was a real dog's breakfast! The problem of removing poorly referenced material is that it cuts out large sections of relevant ideas - even if they are mainly fringe theories. However from the academic viewpoint, the whole topic is a fringe theory. Therefore i am not advocating the deletion of material just because it is currently poorly referenced, but new material should be properly referenced to slowly improve the quality of the article. I think this topic should display the huge diversity of opinion on the astrological ages. The more new material added to the topic that is properly referenced the more we can remove the poorly referenced material. I have added a lot of material that i personally disagree with but the information satisfies Wiki's guidelines.. Terry Macro (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i believe we are. At the moment i have not any major edit that i would like to insert into the article as it is; there was a minor edition i had in mind but you have already done it meanwhile here, though i am inclined have to complement it with a reference of the mentioned (ommited) school...

Maybe we may do some collaborative work, if you don't mind, to try to get a first-class informative article. However, there are a few basic tenets-guidelines, apart from Wiki that i would purpose to be agreed upon before any major edits due to this specific subject that, as you well stated "from the academic viewpoint, the whole topic is a fringe theory", though not all academic schools are so abhored by the subject (cf. Western Esotericism (academic field), astrology included).

no battery lol See you. --188.81.136.129 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Great, though I am interested in knowing the details of the "few basic tenets-guidelines, apart from Wiki that i would purpose to be agreed upon". When i did a major overhaul of the topic a few years ago there was little collaboration at the time and i felt like i was working in a vacuum. I finally ran out of oomph to do more with this topic though a lot more needs to be done as you suggest. I look forward to seeing your proposals or looking at your actual edits. i don't think it necessary to review in advance any of your proposed edits on this Talk page if they are properly sourced. The more diverse details included on the astrological ages the better and you probably have a very different outlook than me on the subject which is good for the topic. I don't know the Wiki policy re online versions of books but I cannot see a problem with such an approach unless any other editor has some relevant input. We can always ask Beback who, in my experience, is a walking encyclopedia on Wiki policies and guidelines.Terry Macro (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, i believe i am able to understand what you mean; let me assure you i can see that you have brought a wide range of pertinent material into the article, which is necessary for a full-fledge article able to cover the current human still limited knowledge on this subject. As a side note, there is no "vacuum", that is, void Space (thus current physics community terms it now as false vacuum, with vacuum energy filled with "virtual particles", being the source of peculiar effects, such as Van der Waals force, Casimir effect; terminologies that come "as expressions of our ignorance" (scientificamerican.com) about the whole crystalline phenomena yet be unveiled...); but indeed, when dealing into this subject of the Ages, one may be looking far deeper in the so-called "vacuum" (literally) than it may be realized at the moment. Well, returning to the topic, my earlier expression "apart from Wiki" meant not to ignore or bypass Wikipedia's guidelines, but trying to come up with reasonable strategies in order to find a different approach to the subjec, obviously without incurring in WP:OR, in order that we can attempt to present the contents in a logical clarifying manner to our readers, allowing them to get a grasp of the basic idea for their own evaluation and even subsequent research (taking not Wikipedia or any particular author as the definitive word, that is, avoiding dogma). Being Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- a most valuable arena ("place or scene where forces contend or events unfold") of knowlegde where we, collectively, can make the difference, imho :) -- the contributions, to this approach as well to the contents, of Beback experience and other users constructive input is welcome and a must. It is all for the moment; see you soon. --Elaither (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I look forward to your proposal(s) and edits. Remember there is an External Links section to this topic that you can link to an external source (including a website) if that source can directly facilitate someone learning about the topic. The topic of the astrological ages is interesting inasmuch as though there is very little agreement on most aspect of the ages, there remains a 'mainstream' approach to the ages which is reflected in various texts. Therefore most of the topic needs to be devoted to the mainstream view to maintain neutrality. One anomaly we shall have to address is Fringe Theories. When i originally set this up there were a number of fringe theories included, but most fringe theories do not seem to make it into texts or research papers etc and so no suitable references were provided. Subsequently they were progressively deleted by various editors. This left only my fringe theory. Unless we can include some other fringe theories we shall have to delete fringe theories altogether, including my section as it no longer represents the range of fringe theories that exist on the topic. Terry Macro (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Age start quotes

I note that this article has suffered some vandalism since I last checked and several of the age-starting references have been deleted. I have added the Heindel-Rosicrucian start date for the start date of the Age of Pisces back in. The same site has their other age start dates. (89.240.97.138 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)).

Dubiosity about Gemini dubiosity

Someone else doubted the following "Age of Gemini" (6450-4300 BC) statements:

• "writing developed" ― No! First attested usage of a sumerian proto-cuneiform occurred c:a 3500 BC, and first precursors to egyptian proto-hieroglyphs in the next few 100 years or so.
• "polytheistic Gods first occurred now" ― is virtually impossible to state.

Now, are we really intending this Astrological ages article to be a factual history theory, or should we instead try to collect the various claims from sources out there? Me myself is regarding astrology as wild-run systemism without (attested) reality foundation, and when reading the article, I'm much more interested what people believe, not so much what I know to be true/false/unknown.

I propose the age descriptions are taken as individual beliefs, that must be sourced, rather than factual reality claims. The "[dubious - discuss]" tags should instead be "[citation needed]":s, and the article should be more written like "X believes[1]", "Y believes[2]", etc.. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It really does not matter if the age descriptions are beliefs or facts - provided they are adequately sourced. You are quite right with your comments on writing not fitting into the Gemini age (though many astrological books state this as fact) - but the polytheistic religions are on more solid grounds. I have definitely seen reliable sources to support that argument but if it is not reliably sourced here in this topic then you have every right to delete if if you want to. Terry Macro (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A more viable alternative

Here's part of a recent correspondence that is pertinent to this page. It's an alternative view, or competing paradigm, that IMO is worthy of mention.

I think the current idea of the ages goes counter to astrology and is a damaging error that has mired the relationship between astrologers and astronomers. I've written about it before and plan to do a detailed article on it someday.

In astrology, the signs are the main reference frame, not the constellations. There is huge confusion over the astrological ages that the current, view, promoted and fueled by anti-astrology "skeptics," will never resolve. The vernal equinox should not be thought as moving backward through the constellations, but the stars move forward through the signs. For example Algol is currently at 27 Taurus 07 (in the signs!), but of course it is moving forward through the signs, just like everything else that isn't moving retrograde. Without this key relativistic realization regarding signs (ecliptic longitude), the whole issue becomes a loaded trap that defies reason.

The signs have a natural symmetry, but the constellations don't. The stars are just celestial bodies that move slowly, even wrt each other. The constellations are losing their shapes and will cease to "exist." But they do have a physical connection to the galactic center and the galaxy is symmetrical within a physical plane. The galactic center was known among the Mayans observers as a highly significant place and has been linked to the great year ages.

The gc has been in Sagittarius for the past 2000 years. This age marked the domination of religion in everyday life (particularly the "middle ages" right in the center of the age; the world was explored; long distance communications was developed; sailing and flight were developed; the world shrank and cultures clashed. Before that, going back to 2000 BCE, was the Scorpionic age when ideas about death, burial, reincarnation, public wealth, taxes, debt instruments, and related scorpionic concerns dominated everyday life. Before that, the Libran age, justice and punishment, law and treaty, writing, math, commerce, fair exchange, and trading. Before that, Virgoan age, agriculture with irrigation, crop rotation, fertilizers, livestock breeding. I could go on, but I'm sure others would be more interested in making the associations than me.

The next age is Capricorn, where we must globally conserve resources, recycle, and do more with less. The argument that we've been in the Age of Pisces because the fish was a Christian symbol is extremely weak and highly offensive. The point is I don't like to see the current concept of ages developed any further because it will become harder to dismantle and set things right. Ken McRitchie (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken, the galactic centre spends about 5 1/2 million years in each sign. I believe the gc is currently in the last few degrees of Sagittarius. Most reserachers into the astrological ages do not use the actual zodiacal constellations as the reference point, but the sideral zodiac overlayed onto the constellations - which is what the Greeks did almost 2,500 years ago. I agree with you that the current concept of ages is extremely weak. You may be interested in a new book on the astrological ages that I believe addresses all or most of your points:

THE DAWNING Shedding New Light on the Astrological Ages by Terry MacKinnell

A new book on the astrological ages is now available at most major online book websites and some leading book stores. This book is the result of research that commenced in earnest in 1987, and three years of writing, reviewing and editing. The book is a mixture of styles as I have tried to make the subject matter palatable to the interested general public, academics, archeo-astronomers as well as astrologers. It includes over 700 endnotes, but the style is more narrative or journalistic than academic.

The crux of the book revolves around three salient issues associated with the astrological ages. Firstly, when the ancient Greek astronomer-astrologer Hipparchus discovered precession of the equinoxes, he applied his newly invented Vernal Point as the fiduciary reference point for the astrological ages, and astrologers have used this technique for over 2,000 years. Hipparchus failed to take into account that the zodiacal constellations were much older than Ancient Greek culture. The earliest widely used method of calibrating the zodiacal constellations is the heliacal rising (and sometimes setting) constellation. I am much indebted to Rumen Kolev’s insights into ancient astronomy techniques for my understanding of the heliacal rising methodology. The difference in timing of the astrological ages based on the heliacal method is to bring forward all ages by over 1,000 years. The constellation of Aquarius has been the heliacal rising constellation at the Vernal Equinox for many centuries.

Secondly, most historians state that the Modern World arrived in or around the 15th century CE. Thirdly, my analysis of the start of the Age of Aquarius provides a small time-frame in the 15th century when the Aquarian age could have arrived – 1433 CE or up to two years earlier. This analysis is based upon utilizing sub-periods of the ages based on decanates and dwadasamsa (a current Vedic technique that was also employed in the ancient western arena of astrology). All three approaches strongly focus upon the 15th century as the arrival date of the Age of Aquarius.

To ensure the book remained approachable by the general public, most of the serious theory associated with the astrological ages is relegated to the appendices. Appendix B is focused upon mainstream historians perspective upon eras and ages, and the beginning of the Modern World around the 15th century. Appendix C is focused upon a the rectification method employed to provide such an accurate date for the arrival of the Aquarian age.

THE DAWNING Shedding New Light on the Astrological Ages is in two parts. Part 1 reviews the astrological ages since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch (commencing c.12,000 BCE). Part 2 reviews the age-decans mainly from the beginning of Ancient Egypt onwards. Part 2 also includes a final speculative chapter “Outline of the Future” based on extrapolating the research insights on previous ages and age-decans into the future.

Note: the book is available in ebook, paperback and hardback formats - 396 pages Signed author copies will be available shortly from www.macro-astrology.com Some selected international suppliers: Amazon USA -> http://www.amazon.com/Dawning-Terry-MacKinnell/dp/1456882538/ref=sr_1_1_title_0_main?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310702197&sr=1-1 Barnes & Noble USA -> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dawning-terry-mackinnell/1100382077?ean=9781456882532&itm=1&usri=mackinnell Amazon UK Amazon France Amazon Germany etc Terry Macro (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Terry, unless everything I've read is mistaken, the statement "the galactic centre spends about 5 1/2 million years in each sign" is not correct. The GC moves forward through the signs at the same rate as the local stars do. All the sources I've seen say this and I have never seen a source that states otherwise. For example radio source Sagittarius A, believed to be a super massive black hole, is thought to be at the center, see Galactic Center. The GC is in the constellation Sagittarius and does not move into other constellations in order to maintain a position in the signs for 5-1/2 million years. The GC moves, along with the "fixed" stars, because precession is a phenomenon local to the Earth.

The differences between the zodiac and constellations and the history of how it all happened are well known and well documented, though the public seems easily confused about it. I haven't read it yet, but I expect The Dawning is a good source for these historical details.

I am not suggesting that one view should exclude all other views, but just that alternative documented views should also be presented. I'm working on other articles, but I will try to put something together on this. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I mistook your concept of the Galactic Centre. The arms of our galaxy take 5.5 x 12 million years for one cycle. Of course the location of the GC should be included in the astro ages if you can find a reliable source - though it may need its own topic. You may have better input on this than me as i have not seen any reliable references to date on the GC. I work from the principal that any astronomical occurence, event or cycle has the potential to have an astrological correlation.

BTW, most research astrologers do not refer to the zodiacal constellations but rather the superimposed sidereal zodiac of 12 x 30 degree signs. The Ancient Greeks were the first to superimpose a tidy sidereal zodiac upon the constellations which the Vedic astrologers use to this day (and which 2,000 years of use confirms the sidereal zodiac's viability). Therefore there is the same symmetry with the sidereal zodiac as with the tropical zodiac. My understanding of the sidereal constellations is that they were always symbolic, and never meant to be taken literally. Terry Macro (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

past vs future

The current artice on astrological ages only informs us up untill the aquarian age. Surely if this age business is taken seriously as it should, someone could be qualified enough to write something about the capricornian, sagitarian, scorpian etc ages of humanity. Talking about Jericho only has so much use; if these things are to be taken seriously enough to write about, someone could write knowledgably about them. Links to seperate ages in the article are now referred to the article on astrological ages in general, which is a poorly illustrated article. it would be helpfull to have a companion in honest research amongst ordinary seekers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.72.139 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)