Skip to main content

The Zodiac of Paris – Jed Z. Buchwald and Diane Greco Josefowicz ***

Many years ago there was a wonderful picture book for adults called Motel of the Mysteries (see at and Its premise was that a post-apocalyptic future civilization dug up a 20th century motel and treated it as the Victorians treated Egyptian discoveries (it’s no coincidence that this was the Toot ‘n Come On motel). I can’t remember a lot of it in detail (I lost my copy around the time I left university) but it included a careful interpretation of the religious significance of the strip of paper placed around the toilet seat to show it had been cleaned.
What really came across in that book was how easy it was to apply wild speculation in interpreting archaeological finds. Where this is pretty rare now, The Zodiac of Paris tells of a similar situation happening for real in Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic France, when a number of ‘zodiacs’ from Dendera and elsewhere in Egypt were subjected to the most amazing range of interpretations.
This is a chunky book, and not the easiest read imaginable (I find it odd that one of the authors teaches writing, as this sometimes reads like a dull academic history) – but there is lots of meat in it. The two main themes that I found fascinating were what was going on in France in the Napoleonic era (something that just doesn’t get taught in UK schools), and the attempts by the experts of the period – sometimes big names in science or maths like Fourier – to make sense of the fascinating ‘zodiacs’ discovered in a number of temples.
These zodiacs, particularly the circular one from Dendera pictured on the front of the book, which was hacked from the temple ceiling and taken back to Paris, caused quite an uproar. Part of the problem – and one of the most fascinating parts of the book given modern outbreaks of anti-Darwinism from Creationists – was that the religious authorities were appalled that some savants suggested that the zodiacs could be used to show the age of their construction, from various positions of solstices and the like. Some of the dates calculated were earlier than the date assumed for Noah’s flood (or even creation itself) from Biblical analysis, and this was not popular in some quarters.
After hearing of all sorts of interpretations and even a play based on what the zodiac meant, we still aren’t absolutely certain today just what the zodiacs were intended to be, but the feeling seems to be that they aren’t projections of actual layouts of the sky at a particular date, but rather collections of images of astronomical symbols (they certainly look a jumbled mess to the untutored eye), which give no information at all about dating. Certainly when you read through the arguments put by the scholars of the time, they are often extremely far fetched, requiring huge assumptions about what was meant by the makers of the zodiacs. The interpretation is anything but obvious, not helped by this book, which isn’t at all clear in its explanations of the various astronomical and geometric assumptions being made by the French scholars.
In terms of what it gives you, it’s an excellent and fascinating book, but the way it is written means it’s often quite hard work to get to that information, with far too much unnecessary historical detail alongside insufficient explanation of the science. To be fair, this may well have been the authors’ intent, but it could have been better given the interest in ancient Egyptian astronomical knowledge and the fascinating parallels with modern Creationist arguments against scientific dating.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg


Popular posts from this blog

Models of the Mind - Grace Lindsay *****

This is a remarkable book. When Ernest Rutherford made his infamous remark about science being either physics or stamp collecting, it was, of course, an exaggeration. Yet it was based on a point - biology in particular was primarily about collecting information on what happened rather than explaining at a fundamental level why it happened. This book shows how biologists, in collaboration with physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists, have moved on the science of the brain to model some of its underlying mechanisms. Grace Lindsay is careful to emphasise the very real difference between physical and biological problems. Most systems studied by physics are a lot simpler than biological systems, making it easier to make effective mathematical and computational models. But despite this, huge progress has been made drawing on tools and techniques developed for physics and computing to get a better picture of the mechanisms of the brain. In the book we see this from two directions

The Ten Equations that Rule the World - David Sumpter ****

David Sumpter makes it clear in this book that a couple of handfuls of equations have a huge influence on our everyday lives. I needed an equation too to give this book a star rating - I’ve never had one where there was such a divergence of feeling about it. I wanted to give it five stars for the exposition of the power and importance of these equations and just two stars for an aspect of the way that Sumpter did it. The fact that the outcome of applying my star balancing equation was four stars emphasises how good the content is. What we have here is ten key equations from applied mathematics. (Strictly, nine, as the tenth isn’t really an equation, it’s the programmer’s favourite ‘If… then…’ - though as a programmer I was always more an ‘If… then… else…’ fan.) Those equations range from the magnificent one behind Bayesian statistics and the predictive power of logistic regression to the method of determining confidence intervals and the kind of influencer matrix so beloved of social m

How to Read Numbers - Tom Chivers and David Chivers *****

This is one of my favourite kinds of book - it takes on the way statistics are presented to us, points out flaws and pitfalls, and gives clear guidance on how to do it better. The Chivers brothers' book isn't particularly new in doing this - for example, Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot did something similar in the excellent 2007 title The Tiger that Isn't - but it's good to have an up-to-date take on the subject, and How to Read Numbers gives us both some excellent new examples and highlights errors that are more common now. The relatively slim title (and that's a good thing) takes the reader through a whole host of things that can go wrong. So, for example, they explore the dangers of anecdotal evidence, tell of study samples that are too small or badly selected, explore the easily misunderstood meaning of 'statistical significance', consider confounders, effect size, absolute versus relative risk, rankings, cherry picking and more. This is all done i