http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Astronomical Dating

The chronology placing the date for the destruction of Jerusalem in 587
BCE is derived from records which have come down to us in the form of
clay tablets, the majority of which are documents made during the
Seleucid period (4th century BCE). Many of these documents make
reference to astronomical events, such as eclipses of the sun and moon,
which are numbered to the years of various kings; however, the accuracy
of the year numbers (and in some cases the king so named) in these
documents is of a questionable nature.

In fact, contemporaneous astronomical texts, sufficient to construct an
accurate chronology for the period in question, are wanting. It is very
likely that such contemporaneous texts were also lacking in the Seleucid
period as well, which is the reason why the historians of that period
would have compiled documents in an attempt to construct a chronology
thought to address the earlier period.

In addition to the information presented on the clay tablets from the
Seleucid period, several astronomical events are listed in the canon of
the first century astronomer Claudius Ptolemy. Ptolemy's canon contains
astronomical events which are aligned with certain year numbers for
specific kings who ruled in the earlier period. However, out of all the
eclipse data that Ptolemy provides only one extant document matches the
eclipse and year number with the data listed in his canon, and that is a
copy made during the Seleucid period dealing with an eclipse in the
seventh year of Kambyses.

Furthermore, it has been mathematically proven that Ptolemy's method of
calculation could not have yielded the dates for many of the eclipses
that he listed in his canon. Thus, Ptolemy fabricated much of the
information that he presented in order to align the astronomical
information with what was then the popular chronology. (The mathematical
proof that Ptolemy fabricated his data can be obtained from Robert R.
Newton's /The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy/, published by The Johns Hopkins
University Press, ISBN 0-8018-1990-3.)

Some believe that Ptolemy received his data from Hipparchus, who is
thought to have transferred data into the Egyptian system from records
"brought over" from Babylon, which had been transferred into the Greek
system developed by Kallippos; yet there is uncertainty concerning which
Greek calendar Hipparchus used in his works. It must also be noted that
Hipparchus, from whom Ptolemy might have obtained some of his data, is
suspected of having obtained his information base by working backward
from the results he expected. This would mean that Hipparchus was
working only with astronomical records made in a later period, and that
he assigned a king's year number based on the opinion popular in his time.

Moreover, Ptolemy produced a list of Babylonian kings with the lengths
of their reigns. His numbers agree with those of Berossus, who was a
Babylonian priest during the Seleucid period. For this reason many
believe that Ptolemy obtained his historical information from sources
dating from the Seleucid period and not from contemporaneous Babylonian
manuscripts. This was also the opinion of Edwin Thiele, who states:
"Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical
purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers
of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning
of their reigns, but it was a device which made possible the correct
allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical
data which were then available."-/The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew
Kings/, page 293.

From this it can be seen that the year numbers for the Babylonian kings,
which Ptolemy listed in conjunction with the astronomical data in his
canon, were based on records available in the Seleucid period; and
although the astronomical data may be somewhat accurate, the accuracy of
the year numbers is questionable. Additionally, several sources prior to
the time of Ptolemy give different numbers for the lengths of the
Babylonian kings.

Surprisingly, astronomical records from the Seleucid period differ
radically from astronomical texts contained in /Enuma Anu Enlil/ (a
document containing astrological reports to Assyrian kings from Babylon
and Assyria). The earlier records are rarely dated to the year of a king
as they were written primarily for astrological purposes. Some of the
records contain eclipse predictions, which either came about as
predicted or did not occur ("passed by"). From this we can conclude that
the early Babylonians had some empirical knowledge of astronomical
events; but the records do not indicate that they used this knowledge to
establish a chronology, that practice was taken up by astronomers in the
Seleucid period who were far more proficient in calculating eclipses.
This fact is evident when one compares records from the two different
periods. Thus, astronomers in the Seleucid period were able to produce
tables of ancient eclipses, to which they assigned year numbers based on
king lists available at that time. Thus, the alignments between year
numbers and eclipses were only accurate to the extent that their king
lists were correct. Missing one interregnum at any point would
invalidate their whole chronology prior to the interregnum.

According to the conventional chronology, Nabonassar ascended the throne
in 6 February, 747 BCE. Ptolemy (or one of his predecessors) would have
had no trouble picking an eclipse for what was thought to be the
ascension year of Nabonassar; then it would have been a simple matter to
construct a chronology from that date by aligning eclipse records with
year numbers based on king lists available at that time. Ptolemy also
listed the dates for the eclipses in the first and second years of
Merodach-Baladan as 19 March, 721 BCE, 8 March, 720 BCE and 1 September,
720 BCE. Nevertheless, Newton concluded that Ptolemy may have fabricated
both the eclipse in the first year and the late eclipse in the second
year. He also concluded that Ptolemy definitely fabricated the early
eclipse in the second year; and, as was previously demonstrated, is it
uncertain that the year numbers assigned to these eclipses are accurate.
Ptolemy lists the eclipse in the fifth year of Nabopolassar as occurring
on 22 April, 621, but this is another eclipse that Newton concluded was
fabricated, and, once again, there can be no certainty about the year
number. Ptolemy also stated that this eclipse had a magnitude of 3.0,
yet it appears in Oppolzer's canon as only 1.6.

Another document used to support the popular chronology is known as BM
32312, which describes the positions of Mercury, Saturn and Mars datable
to 652 BCE. The document also mentions a battle which took place between
the Assyrians and Babylonians at Hirit on the 27th day of an unknown
month. Because the name of the king and the year number are broken off
from the tablet some conclude that this document cannot be a copy made
in a later period. Another document, BM 86379, known as the "Akitu
Chronicle," mentions a battle at Hirit on the 27th day of Adar in the
16th year of Shamashshumaukin. Based on the assumption that both
documents speak of the same battle at Hirit on the 27th day, many
conclude that BM 32312 assigns the 16th year of Shamashshumaukin to 652
BCE. The "Akitu Chronicle," however, when considered in the light of
another document, BM 96273, known as the "Shamashshumaukin Chronicle,"
reveals an anachronism that would establish 652 BCE as the 16th year of
Kandalanu! (See artilce on "The Akitu Chronoicle.")

VAT 4956 is one more document often cited to support the popular
chronology. It is alleged to be a copy made during the Seleucid period,
which lists many astronomical events from 568 BCE that are assigned to
the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzer. There is, however, no evidence to
support the claim that Nebuchadnezzer's 37th year occurred in 568 BCE
from any contemporaneous documents. Thus, no one can exclude the
possibility that this document was nothing more than a fabrication,
compiled during the Seleucid period, possibly from a badly damaged
tablet that lacked the name and the year of the king.

Yet another document considered a pillar in the conventional chronology
is BM 76738 + 76813, known as the "Saturn Tablet," which contains
observations of the planet Saturn datable from 647 - 627 BCE. The name
of the planet Saturn does not appear in the text, and the name of the
king is restored (from only a few traces in the first line) to
Kandalanu. The data found on the document is thought to have been
extracted from /Enuma Anu Enlil/ and aligned with the year numbers for
Kandalanu. A mark on the tablet indicates that the scribe was copying
from a broken tablet. As with a previous example, this document was
copied at a later period from an earlier document, which contained data
extracted from /Enuma Anu Enlil/, that had been aligned with year
numbers for Kandalanu (?) for the purpose of constructing a
chronological scheme based on the assumption that year numbers from
Kandalanu's reign should be synchronized with the extracted data.

A similar, but somewhat older document, Tablet 63 of /Enuma Anu Enlil/,
known as "The Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa," contains observations of the
planet Venus, for which several dates have been proposed - 1702, 1646,
1582 and 1419 BCE. Only the most recent date, 1419 BCE, aligns with the
smallest percentage of error, 8 percent, with calculations that meet the
requirements for the data found in the text. While the percentages of
error for the two dates which align more closely with the popular
chronology, 1646 and 1582 BCE, are 44 and 28 percent respectively!

The Assyrian Eponym List contains an entry in the 9th year of Ashurdan,
in the eponym of Bur-Sagale, which notes that "the sun had an eclipse."
This eclipse is often placed in 763 BCE according to the popular
chronology; however, the eclipse of 809 BCE aligns perfectly with the
chronology derived from the Biblical record, which places the fall of
Jerusalem in 608 BCE prior to a full 70 years' desolation.

Herodotus reported an eclipse of the sun at the sceen of the battle
between Lydia and Media. According to the chronology which places the
fall of Jerusalem in 586 or 587 BCE that eclipse had to have occurred in
585 BCE. Yet the eclipse in 635 BCE was adequate enough to produce
noticeable darkness, which would have provided a portent sufficient to
end the war as recorded by Herodotus. (See artilce on "The Lydian-Median
War.")

A translation of the text of the Ugarit Eclipse Tablet reads, "was put
to shame the day of the new moon of Hiyyaru entering in of the sun
gatekeeper of her Rashap." Some understand the wording of the text to
mean that an eclipse of the sun occurred at sunset by reading, "The day
of the new moon of Hiyyaru was put to shame (at the) going down of the
sun, her gatekeeper (was) Rashap." But two separate clauses are
intended; the first, "The day of the new moon of Hiyyaru was put to
shame," and the second, "(at the) going down of the sun her gatekeeper
(was) Rashap." In the Hebrew (a Canaanite language similar to Ugaritic)
Rashap means "flame;" thus, Rashap is a participle/noun meaning flaming
one, which meets the discription of the planet Mars. The solar eclipse
of 20 May, 1078 BCE began at 7:40 AM (local time), it was almost total
at 9:00 AM and ended at 10:45 AM. The eclipse would have produced
darkness such that bright stars would have been visible at Lon 35:37 deg
E and Lat 35:47 deg N (Ugarit). The sun set with Mars becoming visible.
The Ugarit Eclipse Tablet was found in a room next to the palace entry
way of King Nikmaddu (II) bearing evidence of having been in a fire.
Rohl notes that the date of the fire, which destroyed half of the palace
of Nikmaddu (II), is determined by an entry in the Amarna letters
recording a message to Akhenaten from the King of Tyre; other entries
indicate that Akhenaten received word of the fire just after the death
of Amenhotep (III) when Nikmaddu (II) ruled Ugarit. He further
synchronizes the reign of Akhenaten, after an exhaustive analysis, with
the death of Saul at Gilboa. Thus, the eclipse in 1078 BCE aligns
perfectly with the Biblical chronology placing the beginning of David's
reign 80 years before the division of the kingdom in 998 BCE. (David and
Solomon reigned 40 years each.)

The Biblical chronology aligns nicely with the astronomical data found
in /Enuma Anu Enlil/. Several examples can be cited. (See article
"Astronomical Records from Ancient Assyria.")

Placing the return of the Jews from exile in 538 BCE, allowing for a
full 70 years' desolation of the land and using the total of the reigns
of the kings of Judah, which is 390 years, I have constructed the
Biblical chronology set forth on my charts. In addition to listing the
reigns of the kings of Judah, I have also synchronized them with the
reigns of the kings of Israel, Assyria, Babylon and Egypt.

/Back <998-538.html>/