The Age of Aquarius has become an urban myth – especially in North America. As a result, many people express the opinion online that the Age of Aquarius arrived in the 1960s or 70s and many people even believe that the Age of Aquarius has come and gone already lasting only two decades, as they mistakenly believe that the appearance of the hippies and New Agers in the 1960s and 70s represented the Age of Aquarius. Many westerners are unaware of the Age of Aquarius or, if a baby boomer, have a feint memory of it being included in a song at the beginning of the musical production “Hair” first performed in the late 1960s.
INTRODUCTION to ASTROLOGERS
Very few astrologers have any real knowledge about the Age of Aquarius or the astrological ages in general as the average astrologer has gained their expertise in horoscopic astrology. Many incorrectly assume that because they are familiar with horoscopic astrology they automatically understand astrological ages as ages contain zodiacal signs that they are familiar with. Most of the astrological insights gained from the astrological insights are not gained directly from the zodiacal signs but through the structure associated with these signs – and this structure is very different compared to horosocpic astrology due to the glacial nature of movement of the astrological ages at only one degree every 72 years – something the transiting accomplishes in two hours. The ages are really icebergs.
Another major difference due to the glacial astrological ages is that the division of the ages into many types of sub-periods. Whereas in horoscopic astrology decanates (decans) are treated as a curiosity, if at all, the decans and twelve-fold division of the zodiacal signs really provide the majority of inflormation within the astrological ages. Focussing only upon an astrological age is like only focussing upon the sun-sign in personal astrology – an extremely limited perspective!
Another major difference is that the ages move backwards through the zodiac, and this has a major impact on how ages are structured compared to horoscopic astrology. This ‘retrograde’ progression of the 12 zodiacal signs is why the Age of Pisces is followed by the Age of Aquarius, and after Aquarius will be the Age of Capricorn. Almost 100% of astrologers agree on this point, but there is no consensus past this retrograde movement other than almost 100% of researchers use the calibration technique to measure the passage of the ages developed by the Ancient Greek astrologer and astronomer Hipparchus in the 2nd century BC.
Unfortunately for astrologers over the last few thousand years, this ancient calibration technique is incorrect as a method to calibrate the astrological ages, and its use by astrologers, for the equivalent of an age (approx. 2150 years), has prevented the development of any real understanding of the astrological ages other than at the most basic and elementary level. This misunderstanding is so major, that many astrologers find it difficult to comprehend that there is even a problem, because they have incorrectly assumed that the astrological lore handed down on the astrological ages is somehow sacrosanct or above questioning as many astrologers approach astrology as a religion rather than a science – even though science rejects astrology. Hipparchus, along with many ancient astrologers, is given a religious status making their pronouncements ‘sacrosanct’ and therefore beyound quenstioning. Hipparchus set up a system to calibrate the astrological ages, but he never provided any proof or even substantiation that his calibration technique was correct.
The rediscovery of the much older technique of calibrating the astrological ages based on the heliacal rising constellation has supported a totally new perspective of the astrological ages. The redefined astrological ages and their sub-periods provide relevant and valid predictions down to periods of time as small as five months. The calibration technique developed by Hipparchus may be irrelevant for the astrological ages, but accidentally or otherwise, it is a valid technique for determining a secondary aspect associated with the astrological ages which will be explained later. Any aspect of astronomy has the potential of providing an astrological insight.
For more details on comparing the correct astronomical approach to the astrological ages, compared to the incorrect approach developed approximately one ‘age’ ago, see An Age Old Mistake That Still Haunts Astrologers
The first and major misconception about the astrological ages is that ages are not like bricks in a wall. There is no Aries age, followed by a Pisces age, followed by the Aquarian age whereby the sign of the age is the dominant zodiacal player in the world. The correct perspective is that ages behave like waves, and each wave starts exactly at the beginning of its age, builds up a crescendo at the end of the age, and then like a tsunami, washes over the following age, and has far more potential to influence the period associated with the following age, then in its own age.
For example, though the world has been in the Age of Aquarius for a number of centuries, the influence from the previous Pisces age is stronger than the influence from the current Age of Aquarius, especially in the first half of the Age of Aquarius. In many ways, instead of calling the current age, the Age of Aquarius, it is more accurate to call it the Pisces-Aquarius age, which will be followed by the Aquarius-Capricorn age. If you want to experience the Aquarius age in full swing, you will need to be reincarnated in the first half of the Capricorn age commencing around 3581AD, where the influence from Aquarius will be at its strongest. In the meantime, because we are in the first half of the Age of Aquarius, the world is primarily dealing with the archetypal associations of the sign Pisces, while Aquarius is the new kid on the block. This is why our (Aquarian) modern technological world with some elements of basic or immature democracy remains mired in (Pisces) medievalism, belief systems and religious outlooks. [see The Myth of Modernity ] Many astrologers have written about their belief that the world is at the cusp of the Pisces and Aquarius ages due to their valid observations that both Pisces and aquarius archetypes are very strong in the world at present. What is not known is that the world is ALWAYS on the cusp of ages!
Another major misconception that people have about the astrological ages, is that the astrological ages are way overrated. For example, the astrological ages are approximately 2150 years each, and taking into account their overflow period over the following age, the zodiacal influence associated with any astrological age is at least 2150 x 2 years = 4300 years. Therefore, it is necessary to find common threads that can extend for over 4 millennia – and such a thread is indeed thin.
I have discovered that the sub-periods of the astrological ages are more potent and readily identifiable compared to the parent age. For example, each age has 12 sub-ages, and at the level of sub-ages, the most influential sub-age is currently the Scorpio sub-age and overflow (1791 – 1970 – 2149) which combines the Scorpio sub-age (1791 – 1970) with its overflow upon the Libra sub-age (1970 – 2149), but Scorpio is the key or more dominant sign for at least the first half of the Libra sub-age. Sub-ages, and especially sub-age decans (of almost 60 years each), are even easier to identify and correlate to historical events compared to the thin archetypal commonality underlying the massive ages.
Currently the world is in the Gemini sub-age decan and overflow (1970 – 2029 – 2088), and if you are having trouble seeing the growth of a major communications revolution since the 1970s, and the long term deterioration in ethics in the public arena – then you are obviously living on another planet. Gemini will peak between the years of 2029 to 2044 so our cell phones and devices remain in the Model-T Ford stage of development! (For more details, see Gemini’s Role in our Modern World (or Battle of the Brains) for more details).
Twelvefold division (dwadasamsa)
The astrological ages are based on a slow 26,000 year revolution of the Earth’s axis due to the Earth behaving like a spinning top, and it wobbles like a spinning top. It takes around 26,000 for one rotation of a wobble. Divide 26,000 years by 12 and the result is 12 astrological ages of some 2150 years each.
The easiest way to conceptualize the astrological ages in general is to picture an onion with its multi-layers. The outer layer is the age, and within this outer layer, the next layer contains 12 sub-ages. Below the sub-age layer is the micro-age layer, and there are 12 micro-ages in each sub-age. The next layer under the micro-ages is nano-ages, and there are 12 nano-ages in every micro-age as Table 1 demonstrates:
In the same way that the ages pass through the zodiacal signs in reverse order, so do the sub-periods – but what determines the order of these sub-periods?
Let’s take the Age of Aquarius for example. It has 12 sub-ages. Most astrologers who have researched the astrological ages over the last century believe that when sub-ages are applied to the ages that each age commences with an Aries sub-age, followed by Taurus, Gemini and so on until Pisces. This approach is another reason why astrologers have not ‘cracked’ the ages. Over 2,000 years ago the Ancient Greeks also divided the zodiacal signs into 12 equal parts, and the approach they took is that the first sub-period is always the same sign as the parent period, and then the following sub-periods follow in natural order. For example the sign Aquarius, when divided into 12 sub-signs, commences with Aquarius, followed by Pisces, Aries, Taurus and so on until Capricorn – the twelfth sub-sign of Aquarius. This system made its way to India and the Indian astrologers called this twelvefold division system – ‘dwadasamsa’ (often abbreviated in the West as dwad). This form of sign sub-division seems to have got lost in western astrology over the millennia, but was retained by the Vedic astrologers as a relevant technique, thus the name assigned to this technique is a Hindu word for a Hellenistic technique.
The dwadasamsa division of Aquarius begins with Aquarius, followed by Pisces, Aries, Taurus and so on until it ends with Capricorn, but this does not mean the Age of Aquarius begins with an Aquarius sub-age – it actually begins with the Capricorn sub-age. This is because in the same way the astrological ages appear in reverse order, when the world passes through the Age of Pisces and enters the Age of Aquarius, it is actually entering the sign Aquarius at its end (not its beginning). When the world leaves the Age of Pisces, it is leaving the sign Pisces at its beginning. It is conceptually important to differentiate between a zodiacal sign and an astrological age.
Tables 2 and 3 displays the difference when comparing the junction of the signs Aquarius and Pisces using sub- signs (dwads) to the junction of the Pisces and Aquarius ages using sub-ages:
|| end of the sign Aquarius||| beginning of the sign Pisces|
|| Libra||Scorpio||| Sag||| Cap||| Pisces||| Aries||| Taur||| Gem|
|| end of the Pisces age||| beginning of the Aquarius age|
|| Gem||| Taur||| Aries|||Pisces||| Cap||| Sag||| Scor||Libra|
Note: Table 3 is the mirror image of Table 2.
The above structure of sub-ages in reverse order to their normal progression through the signs is called the geometric application of dwads. Of all the sub-age approaches astrologers have commonly used in their research, the one they resisted the most was the correct geometric application, and the one they preferred is furthest from the truth – having each age begin with the sub-age of Aries, followed by Taurus, Gemini and so on. Who said there is not humor in astrology!
The approximate length of the ages, sub-ages, micro-ages and nano-ages are displayed in Table 4:
All these sub-periods based on the twelve-fold division of a sign can also be grouped into groups of four called decanates (decans) with three decans per sign.
Table 5 displays the sign Aquarius with its 12 sub-periods and three decans:
|The zodiacal sign of Aquarius|
|Aquarius decan||Gemini decan||Libra decan|
Table 5 – the 12 sub-signs of Aquarius grouped within the three decans of Aquarius
Notice that each decan is an Air sign like its parent sign (Aquarius) and that each decan also begins with the same sub-sign. For example the Gemini decan also starts with the Gemini sub-sign.
Table 6 will now show the same concept of decans applied to the Age of Aquarius (in a geometric or chronological fashion).
|Age of Aquarius|
|Libra age-decan||Gemini age-decan||Aquarius age-decan|
This same approach applies to the breakdown of sub-ages into 12 micro-ages and three sub-age decans, similarly with micro-ages and nano-ages.
Notice in Table 6 that each age-decan ends with a sub-age of the same sign and that the Age of Aquarius ends with the Aquarius age-decan and Aquarius sub-age. This phenomenon applies to all ages and sub-periods. This means that the emphasis in each age, sub-age, micro-age etc. is at their chronological end compared to their beginning. When an age (or any sub-period) commences, it begins at its weakest point and slowly builds up momentum reaching its peak of energy at its very end. Therefore at the end of the Pisces age, Pisces is at full power and this momentum does not just disappear when the age changes to Aquarius. This momentum continues on into the Age of Aquarius like a tsunami while Aquarius behaves like the new weakling kid on the block and no match for Pisces. This is called the Overflow Effect.
Research over many years clearly shows that the influences associated with an age (or any sub-period) are far stronger in the following period compared to its own period (almost twice as strong). It is far better to conceptualize each age (or any sub-period) as a wave, and at any time there are two waves strongly influencing the world at each layer of the onion, never one. So while the world is currently in the Age of Aquarius, the influence from the previous Age of Pisces is stronger than Aquarius, and both interface to create the modern world – a world with high technology but powerful religious influences and irrational belief systems about nearly everything. The following illustration displays this dual nature:
- the Age of Aquarius but the influence from the Age of Pisces is stronger
- the Libra sub-age but the influence from the Scorpio sub-age is stronger
- the Gemini micro-age but the influence from the Cancer micro-age is stronger, but only until June 2021. (The period December 2014 until June 2022 is the strongest period for the Cancer micro-age and overflow (2000 – 2014 – 2029) and Cancer represents the common people and populace leaders (who are primarily orientated towards the common people), and a general lack of leadership because Cancer is opposite Capricorn, the sign of leaders and strategic planning.)
There are two ways of naming periods due to the interface of the two waves that apply to every ring of the onion. Let’s take the Age of Aquarius in the 21st century. We can describe this time in one of three ways:
- The Age of Aquarius
- The Pisces age overflow
- The Pisces-Aquarius age
I use all three styles depending on what I am examining. Whenever I use the binary term as shown in point three above, the first name always refers to the earlier period. Therefore, currently the world is in:
- the Pisces-Aquarius Age
- the Scorpio-Libra sub-age
- the Cancer-Gemini micro-age
WHEN DID THE AGE OF AQUARIUS DAWN?
The details of how I originally rectified the start of the Age of Aquarius are available in my book The Dawning in Appendix C:The Rectification of the Aquarian Age, but also avaiklable online The Rectification of the Aquarian Age . Suffice to say at this point, it is only in to the 15th century around 1433 AD that all the sub-ages, micro-ages, nano-ages and their respective decans plus overflows show compelling correlations to historical events down to 5 month periods (nano-age decans) that I can confidently say the Age of Aquarius arrived in 1433 (though late 1432 cannot be totally ruled out). Furthermore, the 15th century start for an age is supported by historians. Even Wikipedia states that in traditional historiography, modernity arrived in the 15th century as the following extract states:
“Early modernity: 1500–1789 (or 1453–1789 in traditional historiography)”
Tables 7a displays ages with age decans and sub-ages while Table 7b displays the first four sub-ages in the Age of Aquarius with their respective micro-ages (but no binary terms or overflow periods). This table is not the latest version and so some dates are incoorect from one to a few decades. Click here for the latest Ephemeris
The basic or core structure of the ages and sub-periods are established by the geometric application of dwads as described above. However, another structure can be derived from the core ages and their sub-periods that provide great utilitarian value. This alternate structure is based on the intersection of waves. Each age (and sub-period) is a wave. When a new period start, its power is weak and it gradually build up its momentum until its end then washes over the following period. But at which point does the growing period overtake the influence of the previous period. For example, when does the growing power of the current Age of Aquarius overtake the Pisces tsunami from the previous Age of Pisces? The answer is the midway point. Midway through the Age of Aquarius is 2503 AD. Past this point the Pisces age overflow continues, but is either subordinate to Aquarius or only equal in strength (my research is suggesting that they are more likley to be equal).
A similar situation occurred with the Pisces age which had its own tussle with Aries an age before, and around 360 AD Pisces overtook Aries and became the dominant sign. Therefore from 360 AD to 2503 AD Pisces is found first in the Aries-Pisces age (713 BC – 1433 AD) then in the Pisces-Aquarius age (1433 AD – 3581 AD). But between 360 AD and 2503 AD Pisces is the king pin, and so this period is labelled the ‘Pisces quasi age’. The same approach can be taken with sub-ages, micro-ages, nano-ages and their respective decans to produce quasi sub-ages, quasi micro-ages and quasi nano-ages plus quasi decans associated with all these sub-periods.
Note: the Pisces quasi-age, (and all other quasi-ages), is closely aligned to the ‘traditional’ period of time assigned to the Age of Pisces based on Hipparchus’ Vernal Point method of calibrating the ages if we ignore the Jesus red-herring. However most astrology books have the Age of Pisces commencing with Jesus despite the fact there was absolutely no justification for doing so based on Vernal Point method developed by Hipparchus to calibrate the ages. Therefore the Vernal Point method of calibration developed by Hipparchus an age ago is symbolically relatively accurate for calibrating the quasi-ages, but not the real ages.
The following is the quasi-period perspective for 2020:
Pisces quasi-age (360 – 2503 AD)
Libra quasi-age decan (1791 – 2507)
Scorpio quasi sub-age (1880 – 2059)
Gemini quasi sub-age decan (2000 – 2059)
Cancer quasi micro-age (2007 – 2022)
Aquarius quasi micro-age decan (2017 – 2022)
Table 8 displays the quasi-ages ephemeris followed by the quasi age-decans in Table 9:
One of the unique quirks of ages is that each astrological age commences with a sub-age of the following age. The Age of Aquarius (1433 – 3581) commenced with the Capricorn sub-age (1433 – 1612) as a preview to the Capricorn age (3581 – 5728). Another unique circumstance applies to age-decans. Each age-decan has a quasi-age decan – for example, the Libra age-decan and overflow (1433 – 2149 – 2865) has as its Libra quasi age-decan (1791 – 2507). Every quasi age-decan commences with a micro-age of the same sign. The same arrangement applies to quasi sub-age decans and all smaller periods associated with quasi decans be they age-decans, sub-age decans, micro-age decans or nano-age decans. This quirk in macro-astrology fortifies the role of quasi periods meaning that each quasi period based on a decan arrives with a ‘punch’. Any quasi period based on an age or twelve-fold division commences its quasi period with a sub-period of the opposite sign.
The Four Quarters
The end result of resorting to quasi-periods is that it creates a situation with the ages and their sub-periods analogous to the four quarters of the monthly lunation cycle. Let’s take the Pisces age and overflow (713 BC – 1433 AD – 3581 AD) which can also be called the Pisces era with the understanding that ‘era’ refers to an age plus its overflow. In the Pisces era there are two distinct periods – the Pisces age (713 BC – 1433 AD) and the Pisces age overflow (1433 – 3581 AD) but each of these two period can be dissected at their respective mid-way point aligned to the Pisces quasi-age (360 AD – 2503 AD) as Table 10 displays:
The superimposition of the Pisces quasi-age on the Pisces age and overflow creates four stages roughly equivalent to the four stages of the lunation cycle. The most powerful stage is always stage 3. The weakest stage is always stage 1. Stages 2 and 4 are about the same. These stages and especially their borders provide concise and significant historical correlations.
Let’s take Ancient Rome as an example. The village of Rome was settled within a few years of 713 BC, very near the beginning of the Pisces age (and Pisces era and Aries age overflow). Rome was the empire of the Aries-Pisces age. Its final collapse occurred within a few decades after the end of the Pisces age in 1433 when Constantinople, the capital of the old Eastern Roman Empire, fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 AD. What happened at the midway point in 360 AD? It was in this century that the Roman Empire split into two parts – the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. This was the time the Aries quasi-age came to an end and the Pisces quasi-age arrived. Aries is a mono sign while Pisces is a key dual sign, and like the two Pisces fish, the formerly united Roman Empire split into two. In less than 100 years Rome was sacked and defeated a number of times and the Western Roman Empire came to a virtual end, but the Eastern Roman Empire continued slightly past the end of the Pisces age in 1433 AD.
Though these quasi periods provide great insight on the flow of energy in ages and sub-periods, they always remain subordinate to the ages. The Roman Empire may have significantly split into two with the arrival of the Pisces quasi age at the midpoint of the Pisces era, but Ancient Rome existed well before this point and the Eastern Roman Empire survived well past this point. Even the Western Roman Empire survived for a few centuries past the midway point. For example, the Western Roman Empire senate survived until somewhere between 603 and 630 AD.
In summary, the basic structure of the astrological ages involves the following key points:
- each age has 12 sub-ages with this process repeating itself as we drill down into micro-ages and nano-ages
- Sub-periods can be grouped together into decans with three decans per period
- All ages and the sub-periods appear in reverse of their ‘normal’ order
- All twelvefold sub-periods are organized in the dwadasamsa system
- Each period (age, age-decan, sub-age etc.), excluding quasi-periods, are stronger after their actual period in what is called the overflow effect.
- When an age plus its overflow period are combined, it creates an era. The world is currently in the Pisces era (and still fighting over religion).
- Quasi-periods are derived from the core structure and the quasi-period associated with any age, age-decan, sub-age etc., always commences at the exact middle of the age, age-decan, sub-age etc.
The Seven Most Popular Posts for Further Investigation
Further resources from Terry MacKinnell
(Also available from many online booksellers)
AUSTRALIA & NZ
AUTHOR signed-copies available for immediate delivery
Softcover $30 (plus $9.50 postage)
Hardcover $50 (plus $9.50 postage)
For a general understanding of the state of play of the astrological ages and the Age of Aquarius, see Wikipedia:
 Modernity. Wikipedia, Retrieved January 25, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modernity&oldid=643880028
 “Roman Senate.” Wikipedia, 27 Feb. 2012. Web. 7 Mar. 2012.