The Babylonian astronomical tablets of the eighth century provide exact data, according to which the longest day at Babylon was equal to 14 hours 24 minutes, whereas the modern determination is 14 hours 10 minutes and 54 seconds.
"The difference between the two figures is too great to be attributable to refraction, which makes the sun still visible over the horizon after it has set. Thus, the greater length of the day corresponds to latitude 34° 57', and points to a place 2/2° further to the north; we stand therefore before a strange riddle [vor einem merkwiirdigen Ratsel]. One tries to decide: either the tablets of System II do not originate from Babylon [though referring to Babylon], or this city actually was situated far [farther] to the north, about 35° away from the equator."ie 13 J. N. Lockyer, The Dawn of Astronomy (1894), p. 62; cf. M. Cantor, Vor-lesungen iiber Geschichte der Mathematik (2nd ed.. 1894), p. 91. Laplace made efforts to find an explanation for these figures.
14 Kugler, Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, I, 226-227.
15 A gnomon (277 feet high), built by Toscanelli in 1468, during the Renaissance, for the cathedral in Florence, shows midday to within half a second. R. Wolf, Handbuch der Astronomie (1890-1893), n. 164.
16 Kugler, Die babylonische Mondrechnung: Zwei Systeme der Chaldaer iiber den Lauf des Mondes und der Sonne (1900), p. 80.
316 WORLDS IN COLLISION
robin-bobin
Since the computations of the astronomical tablets did refer to Babylon, there is a possible solution that Babylon was situated at a latitude of 35° from the equator, much farther to the north than the ruins of this city.
Claudius Ptolemy, who, in his Almagest, made computation for contemporaneous and ancient Babylon, arrived at two different estimates of the longest day at that city, and consequently of the latitude at which it was located,17 one of his estimates being practically of the present-day value, the other coinciding with the figure of the ancient Babylonian tables, 14 hours 24 minutes.
The Arabian medieval scholar Arzachel computed from ancient codices that in more ancient times Babylon was situated at a latitude of 35° 0' from the equator, while in later times it was situated more to the south. Johannes Kepler drew attention to this calculation of Arzachel and to the fact that between ancient and modern Babylon there was a difference in latitude.18
Thus Ptolemy, and likewise Arzachel, computed that in historical times Babylon was situated at latitude 35°. Modern scholars arrived at identical results on the basis of ancient Babylonian computations. "This much, therefore, is certain: our tables [System II, and I also], and the astronomers mentioned as well, point to a place about 35° north latitude. Is it possible that they were mistaken by 2° to 2M°? This is scarcely believable." 19
As there was but one Babylon, its location, at some historical time, at 35° north latitude signifies that at the longitude of Babylon the earth since then has turned toward the south, and the direction of the polar axis, or its geographical location, or both, have undergone displacement.
Some of the classic authors knew that the earth had changed its position and had turned toward the south; not all of them, however,
17 Ptolemy, Almagest, Bk. 13 (ed. Halma); Bk. 4, Chap. 10; also idem, Geography, Bk. 8, Chap.
20. Cf. Kugler, Die babijlonische Mondrechnung, p. 81; also Cantor, Vorlesungen iiber Geschichte der Mathematik, pp. 82 ff.
18 J. Kepler, Astronomi opera omnia (ed. C. Frisch), VI (1866), 557: "Et quia altitudinem poli veteri Babyl. assignat 35° 0', novae 30° 31'."
19 Kugler, Die babylonische Mondrechnung, p. 81.
WORLDS IN COLLISION 317
were aware of the real cause of this perturbation. Diogenes Laertius repeated the teaching of Leucippus: "The earth was bent or inclined towards the south because the northern regions grew rigid and inflexible by the snowy and cold weather which ensued thereon."20 The same idea is found in Plutarch, who quoted the teaching of Democritus: "The northern regions were ill temperate, but the southern were well; whereby the latter becoming fruitful, waxed greater, and, by an overweight, preponderated and inclined the whole that way." 21 Empedocles, quoted by Plutarch, taught that the north was bent from its former position, whereupon the northern regions were elevated and the southern depressed. Anaxagoras taught that the pole received a turn and that the world became inclined toward the south.
As we have seen, Seneca in Thyestes correctly ascribed the displacement of the pole to a cosmic catastrophe.
Temples and Obelisks
In classic authors references can be found to the fact that the temples of the ancient world were built facing the rising sun.1 Orientation toward the sun is, at the same time, orientation toward the visible planets, as all of them travel through the signs of the zodiac or in the ecliptic. The sun changes the point of its rising and setting from one day to another, and the ecliptic makes a corresponding slow swing from one solstice to another. Therefore, for the purposes of accurate observation of whether the terrestrial pole shifted in a sudden way, it was necessary to build the temple observatories, not simply facing the east and the west, but with a device that would permit checking the position of the sun on the days of the vernal and autumnal equinoxes, when the sun rises exactly in the east and sets exactly in the west.
20 This is a translation by Whiston in his New Theory of the Earth. The modern version of L. D.
Hicks differs greatly.
robin-bobin
21 Plutarch, "What Is the Cause of the World's Inclination?" in Vol. HI of Morals (transl. revised by W. Goodwin).
1 Plutarch, Lives, "Life of Numa": "Temples face the east and the sun."
318 WORLDS IN COLLISION
The Tractate Erubin of the Jerusalem Talmud 2 records "the surprising fact"3 that the Temple of Jerusalem was so built that on the two equinoctial days the first ray of the rising sun shone directly through the eastern gate; the eastern gate was kept closed during the year, but was opened on these two days for this very purpose. The first ray of the equinoctial sun shone through the eastern gate and into the very heart of the Temple.4 There was no sun worship in this arrangement; it was dictated by the events of the past, when the position of the earth, in relation to the rising and setting points of the sun, was moved in world catastrophes. The fall equinox was observed as New Year's day. This ceremony with the equinoctial sun was old. The Babylonian temples, also, had "the gate of the rising sun" and "the gate of the setting sun."5 With the growing belief that there would be no more changes in the world system, a belief expressed also by Deutero-Isaiah (66 : 22), the eastern gate of the Jerusalem Temple was closed forever: it will be opened in Messianic times.
Although unaware of these ancient practices and literary references to the orientation of the temples, a writer of the end of the nineteenth century came to the conclusion that the temples of the ancient world faced the sunrise.6 He found considerable evidence in the position of temples, but he wondered also that there were deliberate changes in the orientation of the foundations of some older temples. "The many changes in direction of the foundations at Eleusis revealed by the French excavations were so very striking and suggestive" that the author asked "whether there was possible astronomical origin for the direction of the temple and the various changes in direction." 7
Further investigation by other authors revealed the fact that gen-
2 Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Erubin V, 22c.
8 J. Morgenstern, "The Book of the Covenant," Hebrew Union College Annual, V, 1927, p. 45-4 Morgenstern, 'The Gates of Righteousness," Hebrew Union College Annual, VII, 1929.
B Winckler, Keilinschnftliche Bibliothek, III, Part 2 (1890), p. 73.