4. This exercise has proven that the exact dates for the heliacal risings of stars - which are dependent on where precession has moved the seasons - is irrelevant for the connections between stars and glyphs. We can try to read the glyphs without concern for when the text was composed. Not so, however, if the glyphs should also indicate where the 'corners' (solstices and equinoxes) are in relation to the stars (and the glyphs). Today (i.e. according to my old astronomy book) the June solstice coincides with the time when χ² and ν Orionis are rising heliacally, but 72 years earlier these stars must have risen earlier, at June 20:
And also autumn equinox (north of the equator) would have to move 1 glyph ahead (because at that time the stars were rising 1 day earlier in the year):
I have picked out only one star per glyph to save space. Their colours are defined (by me) from the colours of the glyph labels. But should not the 'nose' of the Raven (Minkar) had been at autumn equinox (normally September 22)? Such questions would become relevant to ask if we think the precise positions of the solstices and the equinoxes are documented in the text. In addition to the cardinal points defined by solstices and equinoxes we would also have to consider those 24 time lines of the year which are determined by the right ascension hours, e.g. the 12h position:
Day 180 from spring equinox could at the time when the G text was created have been at Rei instead of at the preceding glyph. But we have no firm evidence to suggest the G text is documenting the exact locations of solstices, equinoxes, or right ascension hours. We had better leave such questions aside for the moment and instead rather concentrate on which stars are to be read in the glyphs. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
