The Early Knowledge of the Precession of the Equinoxes
Here is an interesting comment from a fascinating article by Walter O. Moeller in "Marks, Names and Numbers" (Hommages a Maarten J. Vermaseren
, v. 1, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978; pp. 819-20):
...In their book Hamlet's Mill (Boston, 1969), Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend have taken the position that the Precession [of the Equinoxes] was known at its scientifically accurate rate in the late Neolithic period (ca 4,000 B.C.)—that is, the world did not have to wait for Hipparchus to discover the phenomenon and for Newton to determine the exact length of the Great Year. Although one cannot accept their claim that the Precession is the main source of world myth, it can be admitted that some myth may have developed from its knowledge. Without a doubt, however, the early knowledge of the accurate length of the Great Year largely explains the persistence of certain numbers in the ancient traditions. This is especially true of 2,160, which is the number of years needed for the equinox to pass through one constellation of the zodiac. That is, 2,160 years is one zodiacal age.
Here and in Hamlet's Mill
we can see strong evidence that the precession was known ages before its purported "discovery" by Hipparchus, as I also contended in Christ Con and elsewhere, providing the evidence from Santillana and Dechend, et al. I maintain that the myths themselves - such as the prevalence during the Age of Taurus of the bull motif - demonstrate this fact. Moeller's numerological studies add much to this thesis.
Moreover, I agree with Moeller's claim that some
myth may have been based on the precession - a very significant amount, in fact - but that other factors were also at the basis of ancient astrotheology, including, of course, the sun. I presume Moeller would concur, since he discusses solar symbolism as predicated upon much numerological representation in antiquity.
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt
? Try it - you'll like it: