Full context:   But what justifies the division of the Zodiac into twelve equal sections? Kepler pointed out the arbitrariness of this configuration and called into question any natural relationship between the elements (cf. infra) and the "triangles" formed by the Zodiacal signs. What is usually invoked as an explanation is the approximate synchronization of the lunar cycle within the year, as well as the relative arithmetical ease offered by use of twelve in the duodecimal division of the circle of 360°, and it is likely that these things may have induced astronomers of the period to favor the number twelve. However, the much earlier existence of the 12 months of the calendar and those of the predictions associated with them (particularly in the series of astrological predictions ENUMA ANU ENLIL -- or more precisely, ENUMA ANU ENLIL EA -, but also in other texts such as the "monthly" series IQQUR IPUSH) may have been a key factor in this development. So, even if the astrological meanings were assigned at a later date to the Zodiacal signs, a matrix-based (and duodecimal) logic existed long before the introduction of the astronomical Zodiac. And matrix-based reason, rather than "mathematical reason," must have presided at the birth of the astronomical Zodiac. The fact that the Zodiacal signs emerged from a relatively late selection from among the lunar constellations disqualifies the interpretation of the signs as based on the myths associated with those constellations, which also come from various epochs. The matrix-based nature of the Zodiacal structure requires the creation of a homogenous semantics, independent of these cultural variables.