J 55 
1891'.] G. Thibauf —Babylonian Origin of the Lunar Zodiac. 
zodiacal constellations; so, e.g., pidnn (Aldebaran) and sarrn (Regains). 
The Babylonian nomenclature of the stars near tbe Ecliptic thus 
seems, on the whole, to have been faithfully reproduced by the Greek 
Astronomers, who have special names for some few of the most conspi¬ 
cuous stars, while the great majority are simply referred to their places 
in the zodiacal constellations. 
In spite of the preceding reflections, which tend to shew that the 
Babylonian series of normal stars, and the lunar zodiacs of the three 
nations, differ in general character, it might be maintained that the 
Babylonians had for some reason or other singled out a certain number 
of — let us say, twenty-four — ecliptical stars or asterisms, which series 
was later on borrowed by the other nations and variously adapted to 
their own purposes. This, in fact, is, as explained above, the thesis ad¬ 
vocated by Professor Hommel. We, therefore, must now examine in 
detail the steps of his argumentation. 
That the normal stars of the Babylonians — whether 31 or 33 or 
36; or in fact any approximate number — may without much difficulty 
be arranged, as is done by Professor Hommel, in a series of twenty- 
four members has been admitted before. But it app*3ars very much 
more doubtful whether we can follow Professor Hommel in the second 
step of his argumentation, viz., the attempt to show that, also, the differ¬ 
ent lunar zodiacs in their primitive form comprised twenty-four sta¬ 
tions only. We will no longer dwell on the circumstance of a zodiac of 
twenty-four stations not being a lunar one at all ; for the originally lunar 
character of the zodiacs under discussion might be called into question. 
But what positive evidence is there for any of the three zodiacs con¬ 
cerned ever having comprised less than twenty-eight or twenty-seven 
members ?—Professor Hommel does not attempt to show that the 
Chinese originally acknowledged twenty-four stations only; following 
G. Schlegel, he merely remarks (Note 5, p. 606), that a and /3 Pegasi, 
and y Pegasi and d Andromedae, which constitute the two sieu Tsclii 
and Pi originally formed one station only. 1 
Concerning the Arab and Hindu Stations, Professor Hommel thinks, 
as shown above, that there are reasons for singling out four of them as 
later additions, and further conjectures that the addition was independ- 
1 We need not, of course, with reference to the point under discussion, pay 
attention to J. B. Biot’s opinion that the Chinese Stations were originally twenty- 
four only, to which four more were added, at about 1100 B. C. For that opinion 
has long been shown to have no historical foundation whatever ; and would, even 
if found to be true, hardly help to confirm Professor Hommel’s views, since the 
four stations which Biot declares to be later additions (viz., Nu, Oey, Lieou and Ti), 
are all included in Professor Hommel’s hypothetical original series. 
