© Terry MacKinnell 2008 All Rights Reserved
The most commonly stated myth about the Aquarian age is that it commenced in the 1960’s or ’70s. Blogs from one end of the world to the other repeatedly discuss the arrival of the Aquarian age in those rebellious and drug fuelled times. Just because the musical Hair proclaimed that `this is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius…’ does not make it so. If all the people in the world jumped up and down in unison declaring this is the beginning of the Age of Aquarius, Aquarius could not care less, even if everyone sang it in key!
When it comes to the Aquarian age, astrologers want to eat their cake and keep it. The most common statement on the subject, from those few research astrologers that examine the ages, is that the previous age, the Age of Pisces, arrived with the birth of Jesus Christ. Pisces is the sign of two fish. Since early times Christians preferred the fish symbol for Christianity, so astrologers behave like Homer Simpson and say d’oh – `Jesus must have started the Pisces age’.
However if Jesus commenced the Pisces age, the earliest the Aquarian age can arrive is around 2150. Why? Because the cycle of ages takes approximately 26,000 years to make one revolution. In the approx. 26,000 years cycle each age appears for approximately 2150 years each. Therefore if the Pisces age commenced with Jesus then the Aquarian age cannot commence before approx. 2150.
The problem with the Aquarian age arriving in the middle of the 22nd century is how to explain all the Aquarian developments in the world today. Such Aquarian developments include electricity, computers, flight, space travel and democracy. What do these have to do with the Pisces age?
To get around this awkward question the solution is easy – just state that we are approaching the cusp of the Pisces and Aquarian ages, and at the cusp there is a blurring of the two influences. Unfortunately no experienced astrologer to my knowledge has ever experienced cusps. Cusps are an urban myth popular with those members of the general public with a little knowledge of astrology and with novice astrologers who do not know any better. In over three decades of studying astrology, I have never encountered a factual explanation of cusps that justify their existence nor heard from any experienced astrologer that cusps have any validity.
The above is a good demonstration of irrationality at work. When no justification for the arrival of the Aquarian age before 2150 can be supplied, astrologers have invented a solution that no one has proved or can substantiate. In past times this is called `building your house on sand rather than rock’. The house is going to fall down if built upon the sand. Cusps are made of sand.
What else is sand here? Something very simple and totally overlooked. There is no doubt that Christianity has a relationship with Pisces. Pisces shares the fish symbol with Christianity and Pisces is also associated with mysticism and mystical religions, and religions based on salvation. But the BIG question is, why should the Pisces age begin with the arrival of the avatar of Western culture? Who said that ages must begin with a famous person? What about Buddha, why could not the Pisces age be already in place when Buddha appear around six centuries earlier?
The whole mess of an Aquarian age not arriving before 2150 is dependent on the unsubstantiated assumption that Jesus began the Pisces age. When I have confronted some astrologers about this anomaly their eyes turn blank and their aura recedes because astrologers are not accustomed to think about the ages in general and the Aquarian age in particular. Astrologers are deep thinkers, but not when it comes to the ages. The ages is that one area in astrology where astrologers can dream up all manner of unsubstantiated nonsense and pretend it is true. If this is how astrologers behave, no wonder the urban myths on the Aquarian age are in lala land.
If the Aquarian age arrived say at 1970, then the Pisces age should have arrived at around 181 BC (1970 AD – 2150 = 181 BC). What happened around 181 BC to indicate a major historical shift in gears? Nothing! There is no reason to believe that the Pisces age arrived around 181 BC. However this does not mean that 181 BC was not in the Pisces age.
The upshot of all this is that from a simplistic and obvious point of view the Age of Aquarius has arrived. What have ipods, cell phones, large-screen LCD TVs, super-jumbo jets, Facebook and blogs got to do with Pisces? What astrologers have failed to recognise here is that unless astrology ‘works’ it is useless. Unless the ages ‘work’ why even refer to them. If the evidence suggests that the Aquarian age has arrived, why not investigate this to discover the real truth about the ages in general and the Age of Aquarius in particular? Why not look at the evidence and avoid the idle and unfounded speculation?
If the Aquarian age has arrived – when did it arrive? This is the Holy Grail amongst researchers in this field. All I have presented here is two practical points:
-
Firstly the Aquarian age did not arrive in the 1960’s or ’70’s.
-
The Aquarian age is obviously here – so when did it arrive?
The Eight Most Popular Posts for Further Investigation
The Age of Aquarius for Dummies
An Age Old Mistake That Still Haunts Astrologers
SCORPIO – the Sign of the Times …. Revisited – Part 1
Females, Women and Feminists in the Age of Aquarius
Generational Astrology – Introduction (Part 1)
Gemini’s Role in our Modern World (or Battle of the Brains)
Demystifying the Aquarian Age 
Just thought I’d drop a note saying brilliant blog, thanks, keep up the good work.
I’m not so sure the Aquarian Age is ‘obviously’ here. If you’re relying just on the visual and experiential evidence of technology, you may have fallen victim to the same pre-judgment you say others have committed.
Is it possible there was/is a sub-period within the Piscean Age that one could identify as ‘Aquarius’ and thus you have a possible reason for the nature and extent of the current technology?
I rather like your notion in Aquarian Myths that the mid-22nd Century will be the advent of the Aquarian Age, if the Age can be measured from the 1st Century BCE. These sub-periods can be aligned with duodenary analyses of the 30 degrees in the sign, equivalent to about 180 years each.
I think the Aquarian Period of Pisces began in the late 18th century with the advent of ‘modernism’, capitalism, modern democracy, political revolutions, industrialism, etc. and ended with the end of cultural ‘modernism’. Wtih Post-modernism I think we see all of the messages and trends of the whole Piscean Age, whether in geopolitics, art, science, culture, or whatever, and this great summation of the Age, complete with the same old geopolitical conflicts over the last 2 millenia, will not end until 2160 or thereabouts.
So, we DO see evidence of Aquarius in the culture, but it’s not the PRIMARY driving energy quite yet… The Piscean ‘faith-based’ energy is still driving the collective consciousness. When THAT changes, then I’ll agree we are in the Age of Aquarius.
Gary L.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You are correct that if I judged the arrival of the Age of Aquarius purely on the superficial examples of technology, flight, computers etc I would be falling for the same pre-judgement I am saying others have committed.
The only reason I make such definite comments about the arrival of the Aquarian age, is that like you, I principally work with the sub-periods of ages. I don’t believe anyone can determine the start of any age, including the Age of Aquarius, without recourse to sub-periods. My rectification of the Aquarian age is based on rectifying the sub-periods. My work with the sub-periods has given me a firm date (plus or minus 15 months) for the arrival of the Aquarian age
I intend to do a posting on sub-periods some time soon, as the sub-periods of ages is what is missing in the huge gulf between the urban myths of the Aquarian age and the type of research undertaken by astrologers and archeo-astronomers in this field. In fact the umbilical cord between the urban myths of the Aquarian age, as shown in a diverse number of blogs, and the people who dedicate time to research the ages is either broken or extremely thin. This is one of the reasons I have commenced blogging in the general domain.
I think I have come across your work before. From memory you use an Aries to Pisces sub-period structure for each age while I use the less popular dwadasamsa sub-period structure applied geometrically. This means that the sub-periods of each age are also retrograde (like their parent ages) and that the last sub-period in each age is the same as the age. Therefore in the Aquarian age, the first sub-age is Capricorn, followed by Sagittarius, Scorpio, Libra and so on until the Aquarian sub-age. Rather than go into detail at this point, I intend to post a significant amount of material on this subject ASAP.
It is always good to hear from a fellow researcher of the ages and I look forward to hearing from you again.
I think you are absolutely right when you suggest that the Pisces age had already started by the year 181 BC. The question should be, what changes occurred prior to this date “to indicate a major historical shift in gears?”
In the first chapter of Karen Armstrong’s book “History of God” she writes about the period 800 to 200 BC called the Axial Age. During this period in all the major regions of the civilized world and operating independently of each other, people created new ideologies that reflected the changing economic and social conditions.
During this 600 year period Taoism and Confucianism began in China, Buddhism in India, philosophical rationalism of Plato in Europe, and in Iran and Israel Zoroaster and the Hebrew prophets respectively evolved different versions of Monotheism.
A change in ages does not occur with a specific date or rigid line of demarcation. But rather requires a gradual and longer period of transition. Longer than we have imagined. Do you think it might take 500 or 600 years for an Age to completely change?
Beginning with the first new influences affecting change from what has been for much more than a thousand years and not ending until all the new influences have moved front and center into human consciousness and the old way of being has completely disappeared. When the new consciousness has fully emerged from the old, we can expect it to endure for more than a thousand years before it reaches a peak and then spends another thousand years in decline before being affected by new influences from the next new age. It is important to look at the dynamics of the 25,800 year cycle of changing Ages
What I am trying to say is that if we look at the Axial Age as an example of changing Ages we could add 2150 years to 200 BC coming to 1950 as the point in the middle of the changing ages.A 600 year period of time (1650 to 2250) in the 25,800 year cycle of changing Ages.
Earthcentered, your comments are extremely perceptive. I have already included the Axial Age referenced to Karen Armstrong in my research and draft of my book on the ages.
However I arrive at a slightly different bandwidth for the change of the ages compared to your analysis unless I understood you incorrectly. The beginning of the Axial age is 800 BC (according to Karen Armstrong) and if we add 2150 years (800 BC + 2150 = 1350 AD) we get 1350 AD. Therefore the possible bandwidth for the arrival of the next age (ie the Aquarian age) is 1350 AD – 1950 AD.
Re your “Do you think it might take 500 or 600 years for an Age to completely change”. This involves a lot more than the question insinuates so I will keep to the main point as I intend to cover this topic in this blog in the foreseeable future (it requires some explanation).
Basically my research indicates that an age appears at a clearly defined point. Once an age appears it begins promoting its themes. Its like a new government. When a new government takes power it inherits all the old government policies and laws. Slowly the new government enacts new laws and slowly over a period of years the new government stamps its left wing, centre or right wing policies on the laws and policies that are passed. Therefore when the Aquarian age arrives, the strongest influence is from the previous age. So in the case of the Age of Aquarius, upon its arrival the strongest influence is still Pisces, and Pisces will remain strong for a long time until Aquarius slowly wrest control away from Pisces. This is one reason why the New Age movement is Pisces orientated – it is still a projection of the Pisces energy from the previois Pisces age.
The way to spot a new age is not to count the thematic archetypes present at the time aligned to the new age, as these tend to be mostly aligned to the previous age, but to spot the new emergent themes that then go on to expand and get entrenched over the coming centuries and millennia. The trees may be electricity, computer, flight and democracy – but when did these seeds get planted?
So thank you for your most perceptive comments and I hope I get more input from you in the future. This is real research as opposed to propogating the myths of the ages without examining the fineprint.
Maybe we are in the Age of Space?, the time between these two:)
[…] As absurd as this all sounds, the astrology of the Age of Aquarius does support the growing influence of the amorphous New Age movement in the world over the coming one and a half centuries. The reason why is not directly due to the Age of Aquarius, but the Scorpio sub-age within the Age of Aquarius. The Age of Aquarius has twelve sub-ages, and the Scorpio sub-age arrived in 1792, reached its culmination point in 1960s and 70s and fans out its influence to at least 2148. This is why the 1960s and 70s was such a revolutionary period as Scorpio is a sign of revolution (see The Aquarian age did not begin in the 1960’s or ’70s) […]
[…] to the Age of Aquarius. For many people the 1960s and 70s was the Age of Aquarius (see The Aquarian age did not begin in the 1960’s or ’70s). I decided to have a look at the relationship between US presidents and the generational […]
[…] As absurd as this all sounds, the astrology of the Age of Aquarius does support the growing influence of the amorphous New Age movement in the world over the coming one and a half centuries. The reason why is not directly due to the Age of Aquarius, but the Scorpio sub-age within the Age of Aquarius. The Age of Aquarius has twelve sub-ages, and the Scorpio sub-age arrived in 1791, reached its culmination point in 1960s and 70s and fans out its influence to at least 2148. This is why the 1960s and 70s was such a revolutionary period as Scorpio is a sign of revolution (see The Aquarian age did not begin in the 1960’s or ’70s) […]
[…] The Aquarian age did not begin in the 1960’s or ’70s […]
[…] The Aquarian age did not begin in the 1960’s or ’70s […]
[…] The Aquarian age did not begin in the 1960’s or ’70s […]
[…] The Aquarian age did not begin in the 1960’s or ’70s […]
[…] The Aquarian age did not begin in the 1960’s or ’70s […]
this is just the sort of analysis i had been seeking out. i agree there is a lot of bad information out there. that you support the idea that the change in ages occur at discrete points indicates having found someone worth listening to. it is akin to modal concepts as in with sound, frequency, period. the sine wave winds down gradually, but it crosses zero at a clearly defined point
what interests me is whether the equal division of the zodiac into twelve equal houses is akin to the 12 tone equal temperament that has dominated music since the 1800’s. this lets octaves scale properly and allows one to play and modulate in any key, but it does this by shifting the locations of all other intervals by a small amount such that they no longer correspond to simple integer relationships
it would seem to me that astrological ages and especially any sub ages would correspond more with the latter, such as 3/2, rather than a 1.498307 decimal value, as one would find in the just intervals of the harmonic series. thoughts?
Unfortunately, my exposure to music and associated theory is negligible, but what you are broaching upon is possibly harmonics. You should read John Addey’s “Harmonics in Astrology”?
[…] Did the Age of Aquarius begin in the ’60s […]
I agree that the age of Aquarius has not begun. The Bible mentions a man carrying a pitcher of water and that we should follow him into the house. 2150 A.D. seems like an appropriate date for the Age of Aquarius. I’d Imagine that Aquarius being a fixed attribute will bring in a global age of tyranny, surveillance and overreach in the fields of bio-metrics. It’s also interesting to note that in the future, around this time (22nd AD +) drinking water is suppose to be in extreme scarcity, except for places like Brazil. It could bring forth a new series of conflicts over water akin to oil. I think Global dictatorship along with water scarcity could make the state a new religion or clean water a type of God figure.
You cannot agree with me that ‘the age of Aquarius has not begun’ because my research continually confirms that it arrived over 500 years ago in 1433 AD. It doesn’t matter what the Bible says as the Bible is not a book on astrology. Your comment is typical of why the astrological ages remain mired in nonesense and delusions that people dream up.