ANCIENT ASTRONOMY EVENTS LIMIT CORRECTED TIMELINE OPTIONS
Just looking down the road here, as we see the Greek Period imploding upon
itself. It should be noted that while we can speculate to try to
harmonize
some of the discrepancies, like making Plato's mother a reasonable age for
having her children, the actual TIMELINE options are quite narrow and
specific.
In other words, when certain events were associated with an eclipse, it
made
it difficult to simply move that dating around to any other year of
choice.
It had to be aligned with another eclipse. Particularly during the Greek
Period there was also the problem of the Olympic cycle. Olympics occurred
every 4 years. So rearranging the timeline had to be done with that
limitation as well. As a result, the original timeline becomes nearly
the
only other alternative for kind of corrected timeline. Actually, it
boiils
down to three primary and two secondary events, that in turn all have to
be
coordinated with the new timeline. Here they are:
PRIMARY:
1. A solar eclipse beginning the Peloponnesian War is specifically
described. It must be intense enough in Greece so that the stars come out
yet a small crescent remains. This is more specific than if the ecilpse
was
total. This eclipse also must occur in the 1st year of the Olympic
cycle.
It must also be at a time when Plato is an adult, meaning sometime after
408
BCE when he was at least 20 years of age.
2. The VAT4956 now is a key text dating the Babylonian Period. It has
over 70 references matched by planetary, solar and lunar observations all
clearly pointing to 568 BCE, year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. It is
dismissible,
however, because it is not a contem****ary do***ent of the NB Period, but
was
a "copy" created during the Seleucid Period. Fortunately, the creators
included two references to 511 BCE in the text, which is presumed to be a
reference to the original dating. So once we get to correcting the
Neo-Babylonian Period, there is already a reference in place we have to
coordinate or dismiss, even though the combined reference itself, the
cryptic 511 BCE dating combined with the "politically correct" dating of
568
BCE, simultaneously dismisses 568 BCE and installs 511 BCE as the original
dating. So even if one remotely presumes there is going to be
complications redating the Neo-Babylonian Period, it will have to be
problems with 511 BCE and not dismissing 568 BCE, which is essentially
already dismissed. So right off the bat, if #1 turns out to have
extremely
limited choices, it would have to be coordinated with year 37 of
Nebuchadnezzar in 511 BCE, just because we already have a specific second
astronomical reference for the dating of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.
3. The Assyrian Eponym solar eclipse that occurs in month 3. The
discrepancy of 56 years from the Greek Period means relocating an eclipse
close to 56 years later than the current eclipse dated to 763 BCE. That
is
a short interval for a second eclipse occurring in the same location and
the
same month. Bottom, there is just one candidate. The 709 BCE eclipse,
which was a better candidate than the 763 BCE eclipse anyway, since it
occurs in the context of the year beginning after the spring equinox, not
before as the substitute eclipse of 763 BCE.
Bottom line is, you've already got a secondary timeline in place to deal
with.
SECONDARY REFERENCES:
These are the secondary, supplemental eclipse events that can be looked at
to help stabilize the alternative timeline.
1. The THALES ECLIPSE event. This must have actually happened since
Thales
did become famous. Once this eclipse is redated, it will affect the
dating
of Solon, Polycrates, and Pythagoras, all connected historically, to a
later
period. The Thales eclipse is another specific event for an eclipse that
not only has to be predictable based upon Egyptian astronomical records,
but
by location over Ionia, and it must occur during the reign of Nabonidus.
Nabonidus only ruled for two years from Babylon before turning over direct
ruler****p to his son, Balshazzar. So while supplementally an eclipse
event
might not be ruled out during the latter part of his rule, the spontaneous
context would be an eclipse limited to that two-year period. That's a
tall
order. Note that the current event dated to 585 BCE does not occur
during
the reign of Nabonidus -- 585 BCE is currently year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar
II.
2. Herodotus claims an eclipse during the very beginning of spring
occurred
when Xerxes began his invasion. Again, we are dealing with a specific
time
for an eclipse but also one that has to fall in an Olympic year. That
limits the op****tunity for a match-up. In addition, it has to be
coordinated with the Peloponnesian War eclipse, since the 30-year peace
agreement falls in year 10 of the PPW, dating Xerxes' invasion 30 years
earlier. Note, no such spring-time eclipse occurs in the current dating
for this event in 480 BCE.
SUMMARY: Once the Greek Period falls, the original timelime immediately
locks into place by astronomical text references. Our only observation is
noting whether they self contradict or not. Do they? Let's look. This
will be quick and painless. We simply work backwards from the Greek
Period
back to the Assyrian Period.
1. The PPW eclipse, occuring in the 1st year of the Olympic cycle with an
eclipse after 408 BCE when Plato would have been at least 20 years old and
close enough to Athens for the stars to come out but that would leave a
small crescent of the sun remaining is a perfect match for 1/18/402 BCE.
That would date the Peloponnesian War to 403 BCE when Plato was 25.
CHECK!
But this requires Xerxes' invasion to occur in 424 BCE.
2. As per above, once the PPW is set in 403 BCE, Xerxes' invasion has to
occur in 424 BCE, when per Herodotus, there was an eclipse occuring at the
very beginning of spring. 424 BCE also must be an Olympic year. Indeed
an
eclipse occurs on March 21, 424 BCE and 424 BCE seen in Persia and is an
Olympic year. CHECK!
We do have to fill in some chronology here at this point. Our link is the
death of Darius at the Battle of Marathon which must match his 6th year
and
the completion of the Jewish temple the following year in Adar, 22 years
after the building begins in the 1st of Cyrus. Marathon is 10 years
earlier than Salamis so it must be dated to 434 BCE with the temple
completed early the next year in 433 BCE. 22 years earlier would date the
1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE.
We have to now go from here to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. We do this
thanks to Josephus who at Ant. 11.1.1 establish a 70-year interval from
the
1st of Cyrus to the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the year of the last
de****tation of the Jews off their land. That means year 23 of
Nebuchadnezzar falls in 525 BCE, and his year 37 must thus fall in 511
BCE.
That dating has to match one of the two dates in the VAT4956 for year 37
of
Nebuchadnezzar.
3. Of course, one of the two dates in the VAT4956 is 511 BCE. So that
reference is harmonized.
4. To date the Thales eclipse based on 455 BCE, we calculate the
beginning
of the rule of Nabonidus. Cyrus conquers Astyages in the 6th year of
Nabonidus, 20 years before becoming king at Babylon and releasing those
captive in Babylon to return to their homeland, including the Jews,
therefore, year 6 of Nabonidus 20 years earlier than 455 BCE is 475 BCE.
That means he began his rule in 480/479 BCE. We now have to find a
predictable eclipse that occurs over Ionia within the 2-year period of
480/479 to 479/478 BCE. There is an eclipse that occurs over Ionia in
February of 402 BCE, which would be near the end of year 2 of Nabonidus.
But was it predictable?
http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/thalesx.html
Yes! Turns out it matches an eclipse in Egypt in 532 BCE, 54 years and 1
month earlier that could have predicted the 478 BCE eclipse in Ionia,
based
on the predictable eclipse series that occurred over Assyria in
817-763-709
BCE. These eclipses are 54 years and 1 month apart and approximately 11
degrees apart latitudinally, progressing farther north. The distance is
comparable with the distance between Egypt and Ionia. Of course, Thales
did a 7-year astronomy apprentice****p in Egypt. He encouraged Pythagoras
to do the same thing. Thales also knew Solon. That places all of them
as
contem****aries with Nabonidus and Cyrus, which is the context of Solon and
Croesus in connection with Cyrus. Pythagoras would not have died until
the
battle of Marathon in 434 BCE, 48 years after Thales became famous for
predicting that eclipse. Again, the 585 BCE eclipse assignment does not
work since it does not fall during the reign of Nabonidus, nor is it
predictable by the Assyrian predictable eclipse method since the 585 BCE
eclipse is not part of that predictable pattern.
5. Finally, that just leaves the only other choice for the Assyrian
eponym
eclipse, which has to be dated around 56 years later than the current
dating
in 763 BCE. It must be in month 3. The normal month three for Simanu,
of
course, was always going to point to the July 18, 709 BCE eclipse since
this
is when it normally would have been dated when the year begins after the
sprnig equinox. That is not the case for the 763 BCE which can date that
event alternatively to month three if the year begins early as was an
alternative, but exceptional custom. But you see, these ecilpses were
rare
since they were part of a rare eclipse cycle that occurred in the same
location 54 years and 1 month later, 11 degrees more north. So you had
an
option in this case to date either the 763 BCE or 709 BCE eclipses both in
month 3 if you wished. Ordinarily, though, the 763 BCE eclipse on June
15th
would have been dated in month 2. Fortunaetely, the option of
substituting
this original reference now serves to correct the timeline for us. If it
didn't fit well with the displaced 56 years then it likely would have been
erased off the record like so many other eclipses likely had to be.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4653/709.gif
(predictable
solar
eclipse series)
So all the pertinent eclipse events as above fall right in line and
immediately SELF-CORRECT, as it were.
BONUS ECLIPSE COORDINATION: Finally, just because eclipses provide
"absolute" dates, there is 1 bonus eclipse that is not corrected, but that
does coordinate perfectly with the 709 BCE eclipse. That is the
application
of the KTU 1.78 eclipse. This is a highly cir***stantial eclipse
application, but that currently David Rohl uses to date year 12 of
Akhenaten. He uses a 1013 BCE eclipse for his timeline but the
conventional
dating for that event is 1375 BCE. If so then year 1 of Akhenaten falls
in
1386 BCE. This is noted since 1386 BCE is the date of the Exodus when you
use the 709 BCE eclipse. Basically, 925 BCE is the date for ****shak's
invasion in year 39 of Solomon when the 763 BCE eclipse is used. This
drops down to 871 BCE for the 709 BCE eclipse. That means year 4 of
Solomon
falls in 906 BCE and 480 years earlier is the Exodus in 1386 BCE. So
whether coincidentally or incorrectly, there is a potential "bonus"
astronomical reference that does not contradict the corrected timeline.
Whether one considers it as sup****ting it or not depends on how much
weight
you put on this eclipse reference. But it does give you the same dating
specific to the absolute same year as does the 709 BCE eclipse.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONFIRMATION: Finally, the archaeological interest here is
the confirmation of these events based upon archaeological dating
comparison, which has gotten quite specific. The buildings by Solomon are
dated to the "early 9th century" without question, which is where
Solomon's
rule would fall by this correction, specifically 910-870 BCE. There is
also no conflict with the advent of David corrected to 950-910 BCE with
the
end of the Philistine pottery period, now dated "well into the 10th
century
BCE" as noted by Israel Finkelstein. David's appearance in 950 BCE
dovetails quite nicely with the end of the Philistine pottery period. And
finally, the most specific dating now available that we have linked to a
historical event is the RC14 dating of the cereal found at the destructive
level City IV at Rehov, which points to the mid-range date of 871 BCE for
that event. That is precisely where both the KTU 1.78 and the 709 BCE
eclipses point to year 39 of Solomon. Finally, when the Exodus falls in
1386 BCE then Jericho falls in 1356 BCE, and that is precisely when
Kathleen
Kenyon dates the fall of Jericho by the Israelites. Allow me to quote her
directly since some claim she never says this:
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is
a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."
Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho
And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:
"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a
trace remains."
SUMMARY: The archaeological dating from the 18th Dynasty time and the
fall
of Jericho by the Israelites down through the time of ****shak's invasion
in
871 BCE dated by RC14 and harmonizing with Solomon's reign in the early
9th
century BCE are in complete sync with the corrected secular timeline based
upon five strategically coordinated astronomical events from ancient
history, three from the Greek Period, one from the NB Period and one from
the Assyrian Period, supplemented by the KTU 1.78 eclipse that remains
unchanged from the 18th Dynasty Period dating the 1st of Akhenaten to 1386
BCE, the year of the Exodus. This is the ONLY PERIOD OF CONCERN for
comparing "archaeology" and "history" since from the Assyrian Period
forward, archaeologists drop their RC14 and shovels and just use the
historical timeline. Therefore, there is no archaeological vs historical
contradiction at all any more as far as the general timeline is concerned
once the Greek Period is corrected.
NASA UPDATES: Right now NASA thinks there never was any predictable solar
eclipse pattern, so they are behind the times on that. And they also
misrepresent the "Xerxes eclipse" listing an eclipse in 480 BCE in October
as the match to that eclipse when the historical record clearly states
this
eclipse occurs at the very beginning of spring when Xerxes was still at
Sardis, not in October, long after Xerxes had crossed over into Attica.
Lars
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
|
