J894.] G. Thibaut —Babylonian Origin of the Lunar Zodia'c. 153 
the ecliptic, dividing the course of sun, moon, and planets into a num¬ 
ber of parts. These sub-divisions may be viewed either as abstract 
fractional parts of the ecliptic, irrespective of any stars or asterisms ; 
or else they may be conceived as marked by certain stars or groups 
of stars. In ancient Arabic literature the latter aspect prevails on the 
whole; the different seasons of the year are discerned and distinguished 
according to the successive risings of the stars or groups of stars that 
mark the stations. But at the same time there are other passages 
which refer to the moon or sun as being within a station, and in which 
therefore the character of the stations as sub-divisions of the ecliptic 
appears very clearly. In Sanskrit literature the nakshatras came at a 
very early period to be prevailingly viewed as subdivisions of the path 
of the moon and sun, although the more sensuous character of the sta- 
tions as asterisms was by no means forgotten. 
Among the Chinese finally the sieu although defined by groups of 
stars are generally used only as subdivisions of the ecliptic : they in 
fact hold in Chinese astronomy a position strictly analogous to that of 
the signs of the zodiac among Western nations. It is true that in one 
point the Chinese zodiac has preserved a more unmistakable mark of 
its origin than the zodiacs of the more Western nations, viz., in the 
inequality of extent of the twenty-eight sieu . For this inequality can 
be explained only by the fact that the twenty-eight subdivisions of the 
ecliptic were made to correspond to twenty-eight groups of stars of, 
naturally, unequal extent. 
It thus appears that Arabs, Hindus, and Chinese alike used 
the stations of their lunar zodiacs in the same way as we use 
the signs of our zodiac, i.e., as subdivisions of the sphere, and there¬ 
by of the path of sun, moon and planets. If, therefore, the lunar 
zodiacs of those three nations were mere adaptations of an original 
Babylonian zodiac of twenty-four or more asterisms, we should 
expect that also the asterisms constituting that Babylonian zodiac 
should have been employed for the purpose of subdividing the 
ecliptic into as many parts, to which the motions of sun, moon and 
planets are referred. But, as an examination of the Babylonian 
planetary tablets teaches, this is by no means the case. As stated above, 
those tablets when intending to fix the position of a planet with accu¬ 
racy, refer it to one of the normal stars. When on the other hand the 
Babylonian astronomers could not—-or else did not care to—-define the 
place of a planet very exactly, they merely say in which of the twelve 
zodiacal constellations it was at the time. The tablets say, e.g., that 
on the evening of the 4th Airu—122, Mercury heliacally set in te-te 
(Taurus); and that on the 8th Tishritu—310, Mars heliacally rose in 
