Abstract.The present paper is an attempt to describe the observational practices behind a large and homogeneous body of Babylonian observation reports involving planets and certain bright stars near the ecliptic (“Normal Stars”). The reports in question are the only precise positional observations of planets in the Babylonian texts, and while we do not know their original purpose, they may have had a part in the development of predictive models for planetary phenomena in the second half of the first millennium B.C. (...) The paper is organized according to the following topics: (I) Sections 1–3 review the format of the observations and the texts in which they are found; (II) Sections 4–6 discuss the composition of the Normal Star list; (III) Sections 7–8 concern the orientation of the reported celestial directions from star to planet; (IV) Sect. 9 concerns the relationship between the reported distances and the actual angular distances between planet and star; and (V) Sect. 10 discusses the reports of planetary stations, which are the most common reports giving precise locations of planets when they are not near their closest approach to stars, and draws some brief general conclusions about the utility of the Babylonian observations for estimating planetary longitudes and calibrating models in antiquity. (shrink)

This paper is the third of a multi-part examination of the Babylonian mathematical lunar theories known as Systems A and B. Part I (Britton, AHES 61:83–145, 2007) addressed the development of the empirical elements needed to separate the effects of lunar and solar anomaly on the intervals between syzygies, accomplished in the construction of the System A lunar theory early in the fourth century B.C. Part II (Britton, AHES 63:357–431, 2009) examines the accomplishment of this separation by the construction of (...) a successful theory depicting the variations due to lunar anomaly in System A and its subsequent adaptation in System B. The present paper examines the introduction of the uniform zodiac, necessary for any theory depicting variations depending on the position of syzygy. It addresses three questions: (1) In light of all available evidence, what is the magnitude of the constant term in the expression Δλ* = C − 1.3828°Y, describing the difference between the Babylonian sidereal longitudes and modern tropical longitudes? (2) What considerations governed the placement of the Babylonian sidereal zodiac relative to the fixed stars? (3) When was the uniform zodiac introduced? To the first question it finds C = 3.20° ± 0.1°, scarcely different from Huber’s (Centaurus 5:192–208, 1958) estimate of 3.08°, essentially confirming Huber’s result obtained from much less data. For the second it shows that accommodating the three asterisms comprising Taurus limited the placement of the zodiac to within 3°, while the prominence of half sign multiples among the measured intervals between prominent Normal Stars led irresistibly to the choice adopted. Finally, it finds that the zodiac was introduced between −408 and −397 and probably within a very few years of −400. (shrink)