Talk:Astrological age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Astrology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dubiosity about Gemini dubiosity[edit]

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)

Just to add my 2 cents, the Dispilio Tablet and the Tărtăria tablets have been dated well into the Geminian age. Whether the scribblings on them are actual writing remains controversial however. Tai Ferret (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

A more viable alternative[edit]

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 Some selected international suppliers: Amazon USA -> Barnes & Noble USA -> 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[edit]

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 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Error in "The sub-periods of ages"[edit]

The Navamsa is not a zodiac of nine signs, as the author states, but a method of calculating a horoscope according to the ninth harmonic. See or see the work of Addey /wiki/John_Addey_(astrologer) for this distinction. Harmonic charts use the same 12 sign zodiac but recalculate placement of planets in those signs in a way similar to 'base' counting (in this case using base 9 instead of base 1 for the navamsa). (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont't agree with Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's application of the navamsa but that what she includes in her book. Basically she is just saying that she divides each sign into nine parts, not that there are only nine signs. Her view is included as there is no consensus about how to approach the astrological ages. Terry Macro (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete list of past ages[edit]

First off, I am not a "believer" in astrology at all. It may not be relevant to the Article, but I thought I should get it of the way nevertheless.

Now, there are 12 Zodiac signs, and the Article only takes the past ages as far back as the Age of Leo. Seeing as the Age of Pisces is the current and second-to-last age (the Age of Aquarius being the immediately future and final age), wasn't there (seeing as the Article only lists as far back as the Age of Leo) a Prehistoric Age of Virgo before that, Age of Libra before that, Age of Scorpio before that, Age of Sagittarius before that, and finally in reverse order the very 1st age was the Age of Capricorn? Is the reason that these ages are too Prehistoric and that the Article limits past ages to at least the cusp of Recorded History if not quite into it (so, Recorded History and very late Prehistory)? If that is why, perhaps we should add a "Prehistoric ages" Section for ages before the Age of Leo. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I think that the section begins with the Leo age because that is the furthest back in history that any correlation to historical events have been published. Coincidentally the Leo age kind of coincides with the beginning of the Holocene Era - our current era so it is kind of appropriate. BTW, many "non believers" in astrology refer to the ages from the perspective of archeo-astronomy or cultural astronomy. Terry Macro (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The Holocene is an Epoch, not an Era. The current Era is the Cenozoic, which began in c. 65 million BC. Anyway, why not have a separate Prehistoric Ages Section as long as we explain that the Age of Capricorn (the very 1st Age) up through the Age of Virgo were Pre-Holocene? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No problem at all if you can find the material.Terry Macro (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

only Christianity ?[edit]

in the text about the Age of Pisces there is only a reference to Christian culture. But Christianity is not the only culture reflecting the Age of Pisces. For instance, Islam is also very close to Pisces values and ideas. Christianity and Islam are the two major cultures or interpretations of this Age. But we can easily find other similar ideas in other countries and cultures around the world, although they didnt form a different religion, the ideas are there. (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • what you say is very true but you still need to find a reliable reference(s)to support this assertion. The Pisces age spawned two major religions (the twin fish archetype) and under examination, Islam seems more Pisces than Christianity. Terry Macro (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Aries Ram Names[edit]

I am not an expert in astrology, but I have had training in linguistics. The section on the age of Aries says that an attribute of the age is that there where many names with ram in them and that the battering ram was used to great effect. The connection of course being that the ram is the symbol of Aries. This connection is very strange given that ram is an English word of Germanic origin, and battering ram is the English name for it. This section in fact only makes sense to someone who only speaks English. That section needs complete revision by someone who knows about astrology and can come up with something less spurious than coincidental phonetic similarities between a few people's names and the name of an animal and the term for something that knocks down gates in a language that was not to be spoken for another 1000-3000 years. -sandy (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, it's up there with Herbert W. Armstrong and British Israelism. In fact, you know that astrology is silly, right? Why tilt at one tiny windmill? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
the "ram" linguistics is not referenced and therefore should not be included anyway as it looks like WP:OR. I did a lot of work on this topic some years ago but I think I ran out of steam before i got to that section. However, FYI, a 'battering ram' conforms to an archetype belonging to Aries irregardless of the actual name given to the device, however I could not find any reference to it in any text. Terry Macro (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Age of pisces overview is not what it should be.[edit]

The age of pisces overview as the "age of deception" is highly dubious and doesnt seem to be grounded in any evidence but general superstition of governing forces, which hardly makes this age any different from any other. the source is questionable, and the statement cannot be considered as based on any academic grounds.

this is what is currently says: The Age of Pisces could be called the “Age of Deception”. Some of the keywords symbolizing Pisces are: deception, illusion, hidden, misled, confusion, fraudulent schemes, fantasy world, secrets, false, fake, mysteries, drugs/alcohol and on the positive side, kind, intuitive, and gentle. It rules the arts and humanities. You can see the “deception” and “illusion” in every aspect of your life; appearance, finances, communication, your home, entertainment, health, the foods you consume, drugs, government, and religion.

  • the relevant issue is it has no reference and you certainly could delete this even though on astrological grounds, I would agree with the statement. From memory, it was a fairly recent addition. This topic needs to be improved by having reasonably reliable sources for all statements etc. Terry Macro (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This page is extremely dubious, lacks references in many places, and includes more personal opinions than facts.[edit]

I agree. There are plenty of books that can provide reasonable insights in all the areas included in this topic. All statements etc should cite reliable sources with the understanding that reliable sources for this topic is not limited to academic sources due to the paucity of academic sources in many areas. Terry Macro (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

footnote missing text[edit]

There is a footnote with name=age that is missing text, resulting in "Cite error: The named reference age was invoked but never defined". Paul2520 (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)