zodiac by June 16, 50 B.C. and Mercury by August 12, 50 B.C.42. The difference between these two dates is about two months, what is relatively long time taking into account that Mars is a fast moving planet and Mercury is even faster than Mars. During the indicated by Cauville time Mercury actually had traveled through two full zodiac constellations. However, Cauville "cleverly" neglects to discuss the positions of all the other planets from the zodiac, which by chance are different for the indicated dates. Let us indicate that the decoding, which was used for this dating, places Venus and Mercury on the opposite sides of the zodiac, what is astronomically impossible. In addition, the symbols of the Sun and Moon are interpreted, for some unknown reason, as the signs of the solar and lunar eclipses43. Assume for a second that these two symbols indeed were correctly recognized as eclipses and consider their implications on the dating of the zodiac. In her book, she suggested two candidates for the date of the lunar eclipse: April 1, 52 B.C. (maximal phase at 21:21 GMT) and September 25, 52 B.C. (maximal phase 22:56 GMT)44. But, these two ellipses are not full and in fact similar eclipses are quite common and happen almost every year, so it is not surprising that S. Cauville was able to find not only one, but two such eclipses. Notice, that there is no connection between the dates for Mars and Mercury and for the lunar eclipses. Regarding the solar eclipse, she found the eclipse on March 7, 50 B.C. at 11:10 GMT, which was supposed to be almost full in Denderah. With the help of the astronomical software Turbo Sky we found that this eclipse in the Nile region was only partial and didn't cause any significant darkening of the sky. The trace of the maximal phase of this eclipse was 100 km to the West from Nile, and therefore from Denderah as well. Again, there is no connection with the dates of lunar eclipses. The few year proximity of all the suggested dates can not be considered as any kind of a proof for any approximate date. Taking into account the above observations, it is impossible to claim that the dates arount the year 50 B.C., which were found by Cauville, are not related to any kind of a particular astronomical event. It is clear that these dates represent absolutely nothing exceptional from the astronomical point of view. In fact, it is possible to find such a sequence of astronomical situations in any arbitrary historical epoch. However, we should point out that there was no justification for the interpretation of any symbol on the Round zodiac as an eclipse sign.
It is not possible to discuss all the mistakes and flaws related to the astronomical analysis of the Round zodiac contained in . For example, the same symbols are sometimes considered as planets and another time as non-zodiacal constellations45. Cauville's wrong identification of Venus on the Round zodiac, is a repetition of Brugsch's mistaken identification of this planet, which was discovered and corrected by N.A. Morozov46.
There can be only one conclusion, that the whole analysis presented in this book confirms again, that in the pre-assumed by Egyptologists time interval there is no solution for the Round zodiac. We refer all the interested readers to the books  and  for more information on this subject.
Was this article helpful?
The pathology of the poet says that the undevout astronomer is mad the pathology of the very plain man says that the genius is mad and between these extremes, which stand for ten thousand analogous excesses, the sovereign reason takes the part of a moderator and does what it can. I do not think that there is a pathology of the occult dedications, but about their extravagances no one can question, and it is not less difficult than thankless to act as a moderator regarding them.