144 
G. Thibaut— Babylonian Origin of the Lunar Zodiac. [No. 4, 
On the Hypothesis of the Babylonian Origin of the so-called Lunar Zodiac —> 
By G. Thibaut. 
That the lunar zodiac, or system of lunar mansions, which we find in 
use since an early time among several Asiatic nations, notably the 
Arabs, Hindus and Chinese, had originally been established in Babylon, 
was a conjecture, first thrown out by Professor A. Weber . 1 Direct 
proofs of such a zodiac having been recognised by the Chaldean astrono¬ 
mers were, indeed, not given by that scholar. A few facts were quoted 
which seemed to lend some countenance to the hypothesis in question ; 
but that these facts had by themselves little proving force was admitted 
by the author of the hypothesis himself. That, under these circum¬ 
stances, the hypothesis was put forth at all, was due to the conviction 
that the striking similarities displayed by the lunar zodiacs of the three 
nations mentioned, could be satisfactorily accounted for, only on the 
assumption of there having been a true historical connexion between 
them, while, at the same time, difficulties of various kinds seemed to 
preclude the assumption of the zodiac having been first devised by one 
of the three nations, and later on, borrowed by the other two. It thus 
presented itself as a not unlikely way out of the difficulty, to assign the 
invention of the lunar zodiac to the centrally situated Babylon, which, 
moreover, was known to have been one of the earliest seats of astro¬ 
nomical observation and speculation, and to suppose that from thence 
were derived at a very early period the different lunar zodiacs posi¬ 
tively known to us. 
Viewed in this way, the hypothesis was indeed by no means des¬ 
titute of plausibility. It did not enter into conflict with any known 
facts, and seemed to offer openings for the removal of certain difficulties 
which attached themselves to other theories. Hence it was, if not 
adopted, at least referred to as not improbable by several competent 
enquirers. That others again, less cautious, and perhaps less fully 
acquainted with the intricate character of the evidence, proceeded to 
1 See Weber’s History of Indian Literature (first German Edition, 1852, p. 21), 
and the first of his Essays on the Nakshatras, 1860, passim . 
