1894.] G. Thibaut— Babylonian Origin of the Lunar Zodiac. 159 
risings indicated to them tbe different seasons; while the Babylonians 
had a series of stars, to which they referred the motions of the planets. 
In addition, we may allow, that the normal stars of the Babylonians 
may — following certain indications given by their nomenclature—be 
combined in a number of groups, let us say, twenty-four, as Professor 
Hotnmel thinks. The question then is whether the similarity of the 
two series of asterisms extends so far as to render it more probable 
that the two series go back to one and the same original, than that they 
were formed independently. ISTow it is clear that people, bent on estab¬ 
lishing on the one hand, a series of what we may call luni-solar Man¬ 
sions, and on the other hand, Astronomers wishing to select a series of 
stars to which the places of the planets can be referred, work under 
conditions from which the partial identity of the stars or star-groups 
selected follows with absolute necessity. In both cases, asterisms had 
to be selected which lay within the track of sun, moon, or planets, i.e 
asterisms lying on, or not far from, the Ecliptic. It, therefore, was in each 
case inevitable that specially brilliant stars which had the required 
position should be included within the Series. To this class belong a 
Tauri ( ALDebaran ; pidnii) ; a Leonis ( al-Gabba ; sarra) ; a Virginis 
(as-Simdk ; nabu ardati) ; a Scorpionis (al-Kalb ; habrud) ; all of them 
stars of the first magnitude, and either on, or quite close to, the Ecliptic. 
The presence of these stars in two series, of course, proves nothing 
whatever as to their historical inter-dependence. 
The same remark may safely be extended to certain well-defined 
and conspicuous groups of stars which lie close to the Ecliptic, 
even if they do not contain stars of the first magnitude. To this 
class belong the Pleiades (al-turayyd ; timinnu) ; a and fi Geminoruni 
( ad-dira ; t id a mi ), a conspicuous pair of stars of the second magnitude ; 
and perhaps also, a and /3 Librae, two stars of the third magnitude, 
one of which lies on the Ecliptic. These groups also could not be 
omitted by any one who in selecting asterisms was bound to follow 
the track of sun, moon, and planets. In order to be convinced that 
two zodiacs are historically connected, we require to meet with coin¬ 
cidences of an altogether different kind, viz., with coincidences in cases 
where the absence of coincidence would not be surprising or possibly 
even a priori probable. This point may be well illustrated by reference 
to the lunar zodiacs of the Arabs, Hindus and Chinese. What has, one 
may ask, driven the majority of scholars who have given that subject 
their attention, to the conclusion that those three zodiacs have not been 
formed independently of one other ? In the first place, no doubt, the 
mere fact that they comprise each twenty-eight or twenty-seven mem¬ 
bers, and are thus marked out as lunar zodiacs. This circumstance 
J. i. 21 
