Hello Ermione,

>>Unreliable. Jean Richer was not a Hellenistic scholar.<<
What does that have to do with whether he is right or not?

>>He was quite open that his viewpoint arose from "intuitive insight/perception." Some of his ideas actually came to him in his dreams about Apollo.<<
So is that a bad thing?

>>Part of the problem is his argument for a system of zodiacal projection being established circa 800 BCE. Needless to say there is no evidence that an evenly divided 12-constellation division of the ecliptic had been invented by the Babylonians at that date.<<
Is this the real problem? Isn’t it the difficulty in making accurate geodetic calculations at this early age?

He is very convincing in showing there was a strong astrological relation between the building of ancient Hellenic sanctuaries, art on temples, even war equipment – shields etc with certain animals that we today recognize as being related to the zodiac. Some problems with his theory are:
1) He uses many reference points like Delphi, Sardeis, Ammonion(Siwa), Delos, etc., so it’s easier for a certain site’s data to agree with a certain constellation.
2) Some of his distance relations have a strong degree of error. One of them is the Delphi, Sardeis, Ammonion, isosceles triangle in the cover page. I checked it out with Google Earth.
3) Some of his alignments also don’t work out. For example the alignment of Epicurean Apollo temple at Vassai is toward North and Delphi has an azimuth of 24 degrees from Vassai.

Actually there is a very old, very accurate and very advanced geodetic code in Hellas that spans out to cover all of Europe and beyond.

>>Could you give the exact link, please?<<
Sorry here it is:

[en.wikipedia.org]





BR Ogygos