What's the history of the zodiac and personal horoscopes?

Question

My online research has shown that some constellations found in the modern Western zodiac date back 2000-4000 years whereas the personal horoscope, or using the stars to determine personality traits and a person's future, did not develop till medieval times, much after the development of the zodiac constellations.

But does anyone know exactly when each of the groups of stars associated with the signs of the modern zodiac were identified and how that sits in relation to the chronological development of ideas about Zodiac signs and personality?

In other words, what came first: (a) people notice that lots of people born in November act like a scorpion and therefore that pattern is found in the sky and called Scorpio or (b) the Scorpio zodiac constellation is developed for other reasons and then people born in November are said to have scorpion-like qualities? (Scorpio's just an example here.) I believe it's (b) but my husband won't believe it can't be (a) until he see exact dates.

I think I need to clarify. I don't care whether the zodiac or horoscopes "work" or are "real." I want to know the history. No one needs to convince me about the Bible, what I should believe, or why astrology doesn't work. I already believe it doesn't work.

What I want to know is very specific: (a) did attributes of people born at a certain time cause the zodiac constellations to be named that way? Or (b) vice versa: did the final names and constellation shapes of the zodiac come first and then people born under that sign were later believed to have traits of that sign.

A scenario of how the former could occur is this: in some town, townsfolk notice all children born in November tend to grow up to be sarcastic and say stinging words so they propagate the belief that those people are like scorpions. This belief spreads through Europe and therefore, somehow, the constellation that month is dubbed Scorpio.

So, what happened, historically: scenario A or B?

Answer 1

People love to study each other, behaviors, actions, reactions; all these similarities and differences were recorded and study until a system was created to catorgorize and organize human behaviors and traits to the patterns of planets and star systems. I feel the horoscopes dont have definite truths, but they offer an opportunity for an individual to do some self-reflection and realizations. "Am i like this, am i really like that . . .?" Only you know your deepest thoughts and intentions.

Answer 2

What you may be looking for is something about constellations. The primary reason is to find certain star. The modern names are of course based on Roman myths and differed in other cultures and times.

But the idea of let's say Libras being more balanced than others. This is an attempt to validate a pseudoscience. If it does not fit make it fit. Making stereotypes is one thing astrology excels.

There is also "Asterism” It is a variety that deals only with certain fixed stars even in non-zodiac constellations and ignoring the Sun and planets. This is due to most stars being variable in their brightness.

"The stars have larger agendas in which the preocccupations of human pettiness do not figure"
"Unweaving The Rainbow" Richard Dawkins

Answer 3

It dates BC! Thousands of years ago.

The Zodiac":

From the Greek "zoe" (animal, life) and "diskos" (wheel), means "the wheel of life", or "the parade of animals". There are 12 "signs", one for each month, without any scientific basis, not even any common sense, but some Astrologers set up, also arbitrarily, 8, 14, or 24... Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces..

"The Horoscope":

from the Greek, means "scope of the hour". It is determined with the geographical spot at birth and the date and hour of delivery, to council the future, weather or not conditions are deemed favorable to pursuit a business transaction, a career, an airplane trip, a marriage, etc...

The bible (this is how old it is, this is the Old test written thousands of years ago)

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. (Deut 8:10-12)

For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you. (Jer 29:8)

Stand now with your enchantments and the multitude of your sorceries, in which you have labored from your youth; perhaps you will be able to profit, perhaps you will prevail. You are wearied in the multitude of your counsels; let now the astrologers, the stargazers, and the monthly prognosticators stand up and save you from what shall come upon you. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame. (Isaiah 47:12-14)

Answer 4

You know, the study of the stars go back into prehistory. It was ancient's man television. They watched the skies like we watch TV. If you find info, it's just going to be someone's guess. You might think from my name that I have some connection to the Zodiac but, alas, no. My father did believe in UFOs. Your 1st answer is sorta correct but it might better describe the tarot which I like to play more. Heaven is in the stars and in your eyes.

Answer 5

history zodiac personal horoscopes

Answer 6

Astrology, once the domain of Babylonian magicians and Himalayan gurus, and arrived in the 20th-century suburbs. You see zodiac names on belt buckles and bumper stickers and medallions. You hear horoscope hypes in the top ten records. Zodiac magazines, charms, earrings, bracelets, patches, potholders, license-plate holders, calendars, and other assorted rubble sell like never before.

So far, no problem. Everyone enjoys a harmless fad, if it doesn’t go too far.

Unless. Unless you start to believe that it’s something more than a fad. For the plain facts are that astrology is—

A. An ancient form of magic.

B. Absolutely without objective evidence or scientific support.

C. A rotten way to make life’s decisions.

D. Satan’s counterfeit for real prophecy.

E. All of the above. (<---)

Astrology books are full of scientific-sounding nonsense and claims that it is an authentic science or an art. Daily horoscope articles are filled with broad generalities so that what is said about Pisces could be true for everyone who has ever lived. Meanwhile, astrologers have found that astrology fans and their money are soon parted. Paraphrasing P. T. Barnum, “There’s an astrology fan (sucker) born every minute.”

But let’s get down to some specifics.

1. Astrology is based on the idea that the Earth is at the center of space, with the sun, moon, planets, and stars revolving around it. If astrology worked under those false ideas, why does it now work under a completely different concept?

2. There is a slight wobble in the Earth’s axis, which has moved the starting point of spring (scientists call it the vernal equinox) out of its ancient position in Aries and almost through Pisces. The astrologers tell us that the sun is in Aries when in fact it has left Aries and is getting close to Aquarius. How then does Aries still influence people?

3. Astrologers claim that the only constellations of stars that influence our lives enough to matter are the 12 constellations of the zodiac, through which the sun, moon, and planets appear to pass. Why so? Orion has brighter stars than the constellations of the zodiac and is closer to the path of the sun, moon, and planets than large parts of many zodiac signs.

4. Astrologers tell us that there are 12 signs of the zodiac. But many star atlases show 13 constellations along the path of the sun, moon, and planets. (The 13th constellation is Ophiuchus, the Serpent Bearer.) Why do Sagittarius and Scorpio influence our lives, but not Ophiuchus?

5. The constellation Leo the Lion is supposed to cause some people to act like a lion: proud, kingly, as one in authority. What if the ancients had named that group of stars Lulu the Lamb? Would those stars then make people timid?

6. Astrologers claim that the sign of the zodiac that is rising over the horizon at the moment of your birth is vitally important in determining your whole future. Why that sign? Why not the one directly overhead at the time or the one just setting? How does the ascendant sign manage to cancel out the influence of the other zodiac signs that are nearby?

7. People at or near the poles have the sun above the horizon for up to six months at a time. The moon remains in the sky for two weeks nonstop. Some planets are above the horizon for months at a time without setting. Shouldn’t people born in northern Finland or southern Argentina (in latitudes approaching the poles) be drastically different from other people since they live where such unusual circumstances occur?

8. The ancients knew nothing of Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto but were supposedly able to make accurate horoscopes anyway. In those days Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto apparently had no influence on people’s lives. Why then do most astrologers today include these planets in their horoscopes?

9. And what of asteroids? Astrologers do not plot the location of such bodies on their horoscopes. Yet most of the asteroids in our solar system exert far more gravitational influence upon the Earth and its people than even the nearest stars. How can astrologers overlook bodies up to 500 miles in diameter so close to the Earth?

10. Then there’s Pluto. At great distance from the Earth, this tiny (former) planet nonetheless is said to have great influence on the fate of humans on faraway Earth. If Pluto can influence us, why not the moons of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, all of which are closer to Earth and many of which are larger than Pluto? How can astrologers omit the influence of these bodies from their horoscopes?

11. Astrologers tell us that light radiations from distant stars and planets influence the decisions we make. But the stars near the horizon are weaker than those overhead, having more atmosphere to pass through. Why then is the weaker light of the ascendant sign on the horizon more important in our lives than the stronger light of signs overhead?

12. And what of light curved by Earth’s atmosphere and gravity? In the morning the sun, moon, or planets might be seen as if in the ascendant house above the horizon when in fact they are still below the horizon in the zone of another house. How could an astrologer be accurate if he charted the sun in one house above the horizon (the all-important ascendant zone) when it was actually below the horizon in a different house?

13. It is obvious that the sun and moon exert a great influence on life on Earth, as with the tides, for instance. Taken separately, either the sun or the moon has more influence on tides than all planets and stars combined. Why then don’t horoscope charts give vastly greater consideration to the influence of the sun and the moon?

14. The Milky Way galaxy runs through the constellations Gemini and Sagittarius. With billions more fairly close stars in these two constellations than in the other signs of the zodiac, why are Gemini and Sagittarius considered by astrologers to have pretty much the same degree of influence as the other signs?

15. If gravitational influences from distant stars and planets are so important, wouldn’t major sources of gravity variations on Earth influence one’s horoscope? Wouldn’t people near the great Mesabi iron ore deposit in Minnesota be more influenced by the Mesabi than by the very faint and vastly distant stars in the sign of Pisces?

16. And if radiation from distant stars can impel a person to a given fate, what of the folks near the atomic test site in Nevada? Were they born under the sign of the mushroom?

17. Or consider the consequences of walking on the moon! Since the moon supposedly has a vast influence on people’s destinies at 239,000 miles distance, shouldn’t Neil Armstrong have turned into a 'lunar-moonchild' from having walked on the moon?

18. Then we have the problem of identical twins. Twins born minutes apart will have almost identical horoscopes and supposedly almost identical influences from the stars. Why then are some twins so dissimilar in temperament, interests, and achievements?

19. And what about babies born in hospital delivery rooms where no light of sun, moon, planets, or stars can penetrate? And doesn’t each doctor, nurse, table, chair, wall, bed, or vase of flowers exert more gravitational influence on the newborn babe than all the stars in the ascendant sign combined? Could it be that a baby is actually born under the sign of Oscar the Obstetrician?

20. For that matter, why do the stars choose the moment of birth as the time to decree a baby’s future? Would it not be more helpful if the stars were watching as the genes and chromosomes were sorting out the newly conceived child’s eye color, sex, and dimples?

21. Which brings us to the matter of actual changes that have occurred in recent history. For example, today we have far fewer infant deaths than in times past. Is this because of the influence of stars and planets, houses and horoscopes? Or is it the result of hard work by dedicated scientists and doctors?

22. And what of those scientists and doctors? How many professors of astronomy, medicine, chemistry, and physics believe in horoscopes and astrology? Why is it that the best-educated people find astrology to be a silly myth?

23. In every attempt to verify it as a true science, astrology has failed. Whether by astronomers, physicists, psychologists, demographers, or even astrologers in controlled tests using the scientific method, astrology has failed. The cases of correct predictions are no more than might have occurred from shrewd guesswork. Why, after thousands of years of trying, can horoscope experts produce not one reliable piece of evidence to support their claims?