Archaeologists use the current Assyrian timeline for their dating of
certain
events, such as ****shak's invasion in 925 BCE. They do not use
archaeological dating to date that event. Archaeology, though, points to
dating in the late 9th century for that event. But archaeologists are
trapped by the Assyrian dating since it is FIXED by an eclipse dated to
763
BCE. So it is pertinent to consider alternatives.
In this case, my position is that the only reason this eclipse was
mentioned
in the eponym annals in the first place was because it was an unusual
event,
a special event, that spilled over into a major social and civil event. A
regular eclipse would not have. But a PREDICTED eclipse would have.
This is significant because the 763 BCE eclipse was part of an extremely
RARE pattern of eclipses that were, indeed actually predictable.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4653/709.gif
(predictable solar eclipse series)
Now here's the quick of it--my posts are WAY too long. In order to
predict
an eclipse, it must have a pattern established. To establish a pattern
you
need at least two eclipses upon which to predict another. That is
precisely
what this pattern of eclipses have in common. They were all 54 years an 1
month apart and 11 degrees apart farther north. That means, quite
simply,
if you experienced the location of one of these eclipses in it's totality,
you could actually predict both TIME and LOCATION of the next eclipse, and
go there and experience another total eclipse track.
Basically in terms of Assyria, they experienced three major eclipses. One
in 817 BCE that was partial to them covering the lower half of the sun.
Then in 763 BCE a total eclipse where they experienced the total eclipse
track, 54 years and 1 month later. This would have been enough
information
for them to at lease presume that in 54 years and 1 month another eclipse
11
degrees farther north would again occur. It is also possible that a
young
astronomer who experienced that major total eclipse in 763 BCE was still
alive in 709 BCE and announced and journeyed to experience this
predictable
eclipse. In Assyria, they simply would have known in advance the eclipse
would have happened and it would have still been a great triumph!
someone
who was say 30 in 763 BCE would have been 84 in 709 BCE.
It would have been an incredible feat! That's because usually eclipses
don't follow this pattern. But this rare series indeed did. Thus the 709
BCE eclipse, predicted based on the 817 and 763 BCE eclipses would have
been
a major social and civic event! That would have made it worthy of being
recorded in the civil annual eponym as a major event for that year.
The 763 BCE eclipse, besides not having the presumption of being
predictable, at least not in Assyria, who may have needed to experience
the
pattern of the 817 and 763 BCE eclipse before being able to predict the
709
BCE, also is not dated per the custom for this time in Assyria, when the
year began after the equinox. Sure sometimes the year began with the
first
FULL moon after the equinox at times, but by far the first NEW MOON after
the equinox was the norm.
This option, though, fortunately helps us. Because when the timeline was
adjuted by Xenophon during the Greek Period, adding 58 fake years to the
timeline, then it pushed all dating back 56-58 years during the Babylonian
and Assyrian Periods. In the meantime, astronomical text references were
destroyed. But some which coincidentally were duplicated in the revised
chronology were left on the books. That would be the case here. The 709
BCE eclipse which occurred during the customary third month on July 17,
709
BCE, could be moved to 763 BCE and matched to the third month if the year
began before the equinox. That's what we have here. Two eclipses,
normally 54 years and 1 month apart, which by dating methology could both
be
dated to month 3. Therefore, there was no reason to erase this reference
out of the records since the 56-57 year expansion was very close to the
54-year adjustment of this eclipse. So now, using the 709 BCE eclipse,
which was not likely the predicted eclipse, but being part of the
"pattern"
for prediction got used to date the entire Assyrian Period which is the
chronology the archaeologists now use.
But it is clear, now that archaeoogy has gotten so good at dating things,
that the events connected with this timeline which is 54 years too early
based on the Greek Period revisions, are too early. David is too early in
1010-970 BCE. Solomon is too early in 970-930 BCE. ****shak is too early
in
925 BCE. Solomon's buildings are dated to the early 9th century BCE
(900-875 BCE). Some archaeologists thus suppose that the Bible writers
have invented Solomon since it is clear the archaeology does not sup****t a
time of opulence where he is currently dated. However, Solomon does just
fine when dated 54 years later. In fact, RC14 dating that dates
short-lived grains found at the time of the destruction of Rehov point to
a
highest "relative probability" for that dating to between 874-867BCE, with
a
mid-range 95.4% probability date of 871 BCE. That is precisely the
dating
for ****shak you'd get when the correct 709 BCE eclipse event is used to
date
the Assyrian Period.
What is funny and interesting, is lots of professional and well-trained
archaeologists are trying their dangdest to figure out how to legitimize
925
BCE or somehow combine the dating evidence with the archaeological data,
but
they can't. It's because it's the wrong date and the wrong timeline. But
the right timeline based upon 709 BCE gives a perfect archaeological
match.
The question now is: HOW LONG will it take archaeologists to figure out
Xenophon added 58 years of fake history of the Greek Period and that's why
925 doesn't work?
Based upon the density of responses I've already seen here, I think it
will
be a while. It's like David Rohl, a nice enough guy, and Egyptologist.
But
he decided he would not deal with issues earlier than 664 BCE. Because he
presumes that is an absolute and very established date. But it's not.
Anything based on the current timeline and that 763 BCE eclipse is 54
years
too early. It's just that simple. But Rohl will not self-correct to
reality because he has cut himself off from the evidence and information
he
needs to make the correction.
For some reason, archaeologists pretend they are 100% archaeology and zero
history, but they use a historical reference for their *****sments, the
current Assyrian timeline. That is when they introduce an error into
archaeology. There is a perfectly clear choice to simply date ****shak to
871 BCE here. A strong indication to down-date David to 850 BCE past the
Philistine pottery Era, or Solomon to the early 9th century which matches
the age of those palaces. But they don't do that. Why? Because they are
bamboozled by ASTRONOMY!! That 763 BCE eclipse seems so scientific to
them,
they don't know there are other options; better options.
So what to do? NOTHING. Those of us who actually are more expert in
history, astronomy and chronology than the current field of
archaeologists,
simply make our own comparisons with the archaeological evidence, paying
zero attention to *****sments based on the erroneous timeline used by
archaelogists. We use the 709 BCE dating for the Assyrian Period and
thus dating ****shak's invasion to 871 BCE, compare that to the latest RC14
dating for that event. And guess what? It's a perfect match! Why
wouldn't it be if the astronomy is correct and the RC14 dating is worth
it's
reputation? Of course it matches!
In the meantime, do you realize that not even NASA knows about this
predictable eclipse pattern. They are still telling people the
Babylonians
and Assyrians and even early Greeks had no ability whatsoever to predict a
solar eclipse. Which brings us to one more point. The famous eclipse
mentioned by Herodotus that caused the Lydian-Median peace agreement.
Now this is KEY. Why? Because this eclipse not only predicted the DATE
but
also the specific location of that eclipse. It was predicted to occur
over
Ionia. That means Thales, who studied astronomy in Egypt for 7 years,
learned about this eclipse including the location. That underscores that
the Assyrians understood both the DATE AND LOCATION as well. If the
knowledge of a predictable eclipse was only for the date, then Thales
could
not have predicted the LOCATION of that eclipse. Of course, the original
dating for that eclipse was during the 2-year sole ruler****p of
"Labynetus"
(Nabonidus). That means per the corrected chronology between 480-478 BCE.
We located an eclipse that went directly over Ionia in early 478 BCE,
which
would have been in year 2 of Nabonidus.
The question is, was there another eclipse 54 years an 1 month earlier 11
degrees to the south? And if so who saw it? Guess what? Sure was!!! In
532 BCE an eclipse occurred in EGYPT, precisely where Thales did his
studies. So the Egyptians must have known from observing in their own
land
this eclipse, the LOCATION of the next eclipse in the series and they
pegged
it to occur in Ionia. This was Thales' own home territory. So, of
course,
he would have "warned them" (H*****odus' words!) about it. Thus this
eclipse
proves the Assyrians not only understood the dating of the predictable
eclipses but also the LOCATION. The 532 BCE and 478BCE eclipses, 54
years and 1 month apart also are the precise distance of the
817-763-709BCE
series of eclipses! Thus this is how Thales actually predicted his
eclipse!
http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/thalesx.html
Of course, obviously, where Thales eclipse is dated now in 585 BCE is not
during the reign of Nabonidus, but that's another story. The VAT4956 is
used to date the true reign of Nabonidus. But the fact that the 585BCE
also
didn't occur in Ionia nor was predictable (i.e. the previous eclipse 54
years 1 month earlier was not observable in the Near East or Egypt) proves
it's the wrong eclipse.
So just for the record, the Thales eclipse has been correctly dated to its
original time and, indeed, it was a predictable eclipse and predictable by
the EXACT predictable pattern that occurred in Assyria that got recorded
in
the eponym.
FASCINATING. Well, at least to those awake. Annoying to those who are
sleep and who love to sleep with their eyes closed and with ear muffs on
to
make sure they hear absolutely nothing new.
Lars Wilson
|
