154 G. Tliibaut— Babylonian Origin of the Lunar Zodiac . [No. 4, 
nfiru (Libra). The Babylonian names of tbe twelve constellations of 
the zodiac are given in Epping’s work, p. 149, ( cf . also the discussion 
of these names by Strassmaier, pp. 170-173), and a second rectified list 
is furnished in the Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie for December 1892, 
p. 223. We may also compare on this point Professor Hommel’s paper 
under discussion, pp. 610-12; and Professor Jensen’s ‘ Kosmologie der 
Babylonier ,’ pp. 57-95 and 495-501. 
According to the results arrived at by these scholars, the Babylonian 
names of the zodiacal constellations agree, on the whole, with the Greek 
ones; the most striking exception being that, in the place of Cancer, the 
Babylonians have a term Bulukku which is said to mean a ‘ spindle.’ 
And there seems no longer to prevail any doubt that the solar zodiac, 
with its twelve signs, was first invented by the Babylonians, and em¬ 
ployed by them from a very early period. The need, therefore, which, 
in the case of other nations, supplied the chief reason for the estab¬ 
lishment of a lunar zodiac, viz., the need of some subdivision of the 
zodiac into parts to which the motions of the heavenly bodies could be 
referred, did, as far as we can see back, not exist for the Babylonians, 
who already possessed a subdivision of the zodiac into twelve parts. 
A comparison of the designations of the Babylonian normal stars 
with the names of the lunar stations among the Arabs, Hindus, and 
Chinese, suggests similar conclusions. The names of these latter point 
throughout to an independent series of asterisms, i.e., the name of each 
station indicates a star or group of stars, considered to constitute an 
independent whole by itself, not forming part of a larger group or 
constellation. We must modify this general statement with reference 
to those Arab and Hindu stations which, by their designations, as ‘ first ’ 
and ‘ second,’ or ‘ earlier ’ and ‘ later,’ are shewn to have been viewed as 
parts of one more extensive constellation. But this qualification does not 
affect the contrast which the lunar mansions of the three nations form, 
in this respect, to the series of Babylonian normal stars. For it is clear 1 
that by far the greater number of the names of those stars point 
to the fact that the stars were viewed as belonging to one or other 
of the twelve zodiacal constellations. We have the head of the Ram, 
the mouth of the Twins, the head of the Lion, the tail of the 
Lion, the hind-foot of the Lion, the anterior bull of the Virgin, the 
‘ messenger ’ (?) of the Virgin, the Balance, the head of the Scorpion, 
the horn of the Goat-fish, the head of the Pourer (of water; Aquarius), 
the foot of the Pourer; the head of the Fish. A few stars only have 
special names not directly pointing to any connexion of theirs with the 
1 I here have to accept the interpretations of the Babylonian names given by 
Professor Hommel. 
