From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2000 #51 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Sunday, February 20 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 051 RE: ane khazanu/vassals? ane FW: Hab/piru-hebrews ane Informations about ane IE ruling class in Babylon? ane Cc: Aegeanet@acpub.duke.edu ane khazanu/vassals? RE: ane khazanu/vassals? ane ArchArt news Re: ane Informations about Re: ane IE ruling class in Babylon? ane Location of tA-NTr ane chronology Re: ane chronology ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 10:20:41 +0100 From: Niels Peter Lemche Subject: RE: ane khazanu/vassals? Liverani has it, said work p. 265: It is EA 1:89-92: in Liverani's translation: 'put my chariots amid the chariots of the chazanu /the Syro-Palestinian kinglets): you did not see them separately (achitam). You caused them to be brought to the presence of the country (all) alike, in order that they be not seen separately'. For the meaning of the term cf. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, vol 6, p. 163-5, mentioning that the term has been in use since UR III, and denotes 'chief magistrate of a twon, of a quarter of a larger city, a village or large estate -- mayor, burgomaster, headman'. Moran, in his translation of the passage uses the usual translation in the Amarna letters 'mayor'. Since it has been in regular use since Ur III and seems to be Akkadian, there is no reason to see why it should be etymologically related to kaltum etc. NPL > -----Original Message----- > From: nyokabi@kingcon.com [SMTP:nyokabi@kingcon.com] > Sent: Saturday, 19 February, 2000 05:51 > To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu > Subject: ane khazanu/vassals? > > > Stuart Tyson Smith writing in the Cambridge Archae. J. 7, 1997, p > 302 quotes Liverani 1990, p 264-266, quoting Kadashman-Enlil's > letter to Egypt (EA # ? K-E I to Amenhotep III?), complaining that > the Pharaoh "put my chariots amid the chariots of the Khazanu." > Smith explains after Khazanu "(Egypt's Syro-Palestinian vassals). > > I thought I had read all the Kashshite Amarna letters, and I don't > remember this term Khazanu. Has it usually in the past been > "translated" in this Amarna context? Is this an Akkadian term? > From what base , from a Syr-Palest. geog name? an ethnic name? > a common noun meaning vassals? Or is this an Akkadian rendering > of the Egyptian term Kh3su/ foreign lands, but with a Hurrian? W. Semitic? > -an- suffix? > > Does anyone have the Liverani to know if he uses Khazanu, and what > it derives from, if he comments on it? > > And could this term possibly have any connection with kaltum/ > vassal? as in Khazu/Khastiu>Kaltu(m)? (cf Kupper, "Zimri Lim et > ses vasseaux" in Fst. Garelli). > > Thanks in advance for any clues - > > E. Adams > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 12:18:13 +0100 From: Niels Peter Lemche Subject: ane FW: Hab/piru-hebrews > A while ago, while another thread was running on B-Hebrew, it was argued, > based on an article published in the 1950s by R. Borger, that any > linguistic relationship between hab/piru and Hebrews must be excluded in > advance because pf the presence of a long second vowel (I believe that it > was the second), that would never disappear in a transmission from > Akkadian to Hebrew (it is accepted by some but, e.g. rejected by Bottéro > in RLA IV). This is serious matters and would, seems it, put and end to a > discussion that has lasted for more than a hundred years and wasted much > ink and paper. > > The Akkadian reading of Hapi/biru is somewhat part of the discussion, some > scholars maintaining that it is habiru, other that it is hapiru. In RLA > IV, 14 ff. Jean Bottéro is of the opinion that based on Middle Assyrian > evidence, the only possible way to transcripe the word is habiru. Be that > what it is, and the matter has never been totally settled, we can return > to hab/piru and ask: Which vowel is long? Some scholars transcribe it with > a long first vowel, some with a long second, and some with a long third > vowel, amongh whom we may cound Oswald Loretz in his major monograph > devoted to the question (Habiru--Hebräer; BZAW, 160; Berlin 1984). The > Akkadian seems never to write the second syllable with more than a simple > BI or PÌ, sometimes BIR or PÌR, never e.g. pi-i-ir, or bi-i-ir. It is all > a bit confusing so I would like to send out the signal, and will crosspost > it also to B-Hebrew in order to invite comments. > > As Loretz is not really interested in an easy identification between the > Hab/piru and the biblical Hebrews, I ask people to forget the historical > issues and only address the linguistic ones. > > NPL > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:37:07 -0000 From: "Massimo Montanari" Subject: ane Informations about Dear listmembers, I'm looking for a good software to create bibliography, references database, ecc. I ask you advice. Thanks Regard Massimo Montanari m.montanari@mclink.it Bazzano (BO) - ITALY ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:04:01 +0100 From: "Bjarte Kaldhol" Subject: ane IE ruling class in Babylon? Ian Hutchesson wrote: "Such a notion of marginalization of prior population is a little too simplistic for it seems normal in such situations that there is also a fair amount of cultural overlay and mixing, ie sizable percentages of the earlier population simply gets absorbed into the new state of affairs. (This is the case in eastern Anatolia, Mitanni and Babylon in where Indo-European cultures became the ruling classes of the "native" populations.)" I just wonder what this parenthesis means. Were "sizeable percentages of the earlier population" absorbed into an Indo-European ruling class in Mitanni and Babylon? When did this happen? Who were these Indo-Europeans who "absorbed" the earlier Hurrian, Kassite and Semitic speaking population, and what became of them later? Regarding the population of Cilicia at the end of the second millennium, it was mostly of mixed Luwian and Hurrian descent, and its culture and religion was strongly Hurrianized. Regards, Bjarte Kaldhol ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 12:40:15 -0500 From: Robert Drews Subject: ane Cc: Aegeanet@acpub.duke.edu (Subscribers to both lists, please excuse cross-posting) I am sorry to see that Joseph and Maria Shaw are planning to retire next year, and am very distressed to learn that the University of Toronto is not planning to replace them. The Shaws' excavations at Kommos, and their publications of what they found, have contributed enormously to our knowledge of the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. The University of Toronto should be immensely proud of this and of them, but the decision "not to replace" suggests that too few people at Toronto know or care enough about what the Shaws have accomplished to make sure that their work is continued. If that is the case, it would be the same story that could be told in many universities in Europe, Canada and the U.S.: an Aegean archaeologist, an Egyptologist, Assyriologist, or Mycenologist, although managing over a lifetime to achieve an "international reputation" or at least to be valued by fellow-specialists far and wide, seldom has colleagues in his or her own department who can fully appreciate what the specialist is doing or has done. The Shaws, I note, held an appointment in the Department of Fine Art, and although I may be dead wrong my suspicion would be that few of the Fine Art faculty at Toronto could have been so appreciative of the Shaws' work as are those of us who teach thousands of miles from Toronto, but who have a serious interest in prehistoric Crete. A scholar interested in the pre-classical world might be tucked away in any number of departments: departments of anthropology, classics, fine arts, history, linguistics, or religion. Our one common denominator seems to be that we are on the fringe of what the rest of our department is doing. That may not be the case in departments of archaeology, but departments of archaeology are and will continue to be so rare that they will hardly be a big part of the problem's solution. What is needed is a department with a declared intersest in the whole of the ancient world, and so a department of much greater breadth than is typically found in a classics department. Anyone who holds an academic appointment and who subscribes to Aegeanet or to ANE should favor at his or her institution the creation or evolution of a "department of ancient studies," vel sim. I am trying to push this idea at Vanderbilt, in my Department of Classical Studies, and a dream-come-true has been the joint appointment of Jack Sasson, whose initial appointment at Vanderbilt was in the Graduate Department of Religion. Of course it's very difficult for a department to evolve into something else, or to change its stripes, and much preaching will be required to push existing departments and configurations in this direction. At a university with strong departmental structures it makes a lot of sense for all scholars who are interested in antiquity, in whatever department they now happen to find themselves, to get together and begin talking about a new structure, and about organizing a single department, whether called "ancient studies" or something equally broad. I think that University administrators will tend to be open to the idea, but the key certainly will be the cooperation and goodwill of people in classics and in Biblical studies. Unless we find bigger umbrellas, I'm afraid that too often specialists in the pre-classical period will be marginalized, and not replaced when they retire. Robert Drews Professor of Classics and History Vanderbilt University (for spring of 2000, Department of Classical Studies, University of Richmond) Robert.Drews@Vanderbilt.edu Rdrews@Richmond.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 12:51:03 -0500 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane khazanu/vassals? Thanks to N P Lemche for waking me up to the fact that my enigmatic Khazanu was simply Akkadian Hazanu/ mayor! I actually woke up at 4 am and knew that my question was a dumb one, but couldn't figure out why in that state between sleeping and waking. Now I see that is about when you were writing over in Denmark - one day we really won't need e mail! It was the capital letter Kh- in my notebook (for which I don't know if I am to blame or S.T.Smith!) which made me think it was some kind of proper noun derived from an ON or an ethnic term. But come to think of it, isn't this a little odd that Kadashman Enlil referred to the "kinglets" of the Levant as "mayors"? No wonder Smith and Liverani used it untranslated. Just think, K-E had a slew of Hazanus under his authority in Karduniash, but they were fairly low down in the hierarchy, after all those $akkanakku, $aknu, bel-pihati, bel-biti, people in effect ruling provinces and not just cities and towns. Is this usual in the Amarna letters, that these rulers in the Levant who are calling themselves "Kings" should be referred to as "mayors"? Or is this just a reflection of the miffed mood the Kashshite Great King was in? Is it meant as a deliberate insult to the Canaanites, who in his eyes, are no more "kings" than his own hazanus are? Is it meant to exaggerate the insult he has received by this action on Pharoah's part? This sounds like something Liverani would have picked up on if it's not the usual terminology! And is Hazanu ever used in KINGI-URI in the sense of "vassal," i.e. someone who was once an independent ruler, instead of an appointed official mayor? cf CAD's mention of a possible synonym as "headman", replete with its colonial connotations! Even under the British system of indirect rule, a chief was still a chief, while a headman would be an appointed official, i.e. part of an alternate system of direct rule. To call a chief a headman would be an insult! Thanks again, E. Adams ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:46:56 +0100 From: Niels Peter Lemche Subject: RE: ane khazanu/vassals? > But come to think of it, isn't this a little odd that Kadashman > Enlil referred to the "kinglets" of the Levant as "mayors"? > Thanks again, > E. Adams > I suppose that the old explanation that it was the Egyptians who choose that term in order to call the local vassals anything important. By using hazana they probably intended to convey the meaning to the petty kings of Phoenicia and Palestine that they were subordinate to the Egyptian emissaries, something many of the letters from Palestine show was actually the case. The Babylonian colleague of Pharaoh used the term that was diplomatically acceptable. So, in the eyes of the Egyptians the petty kings of Palestine were not even vassals (a term they probably did not understand) but simply low ranking officials. Liverani wrote a splendid article about the differences of political ideas between the Syro-Palestian petty kings and their Egyptian overlords, it was published in Revue Assyriologique 61, 1967, pp. 1-18: 'Contrasti e confluenze di concezioni politiche nell'età di El-Amarna'. We must hope that it will some day be translated into English. I, however, think that the theme is also the subject of an analysis in his Prestige and Interest, although I cannot remember the exact place and always thought the RA article the best explanation. NPL > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:09:51 +0100 From: "Giovanni Lattanzi" Subject: ane ArchArt news ArchArt news Dear listmembers, i'd like to inform you that on ArchArt are now available new sections dedicated to: # Albania (Butrint, etc.) # Piceni (italic population. There is a big exhibit that was in display in Germany last dec 99 - feb 2000, and now coming back to Italy) all the best artifacts and the most important sites. # Umbria (Carsuale and Terni necropolis) www.archart.it Best greetings Giovanni Lattanzi ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:43:01 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Informations about Massimo Montanari wrote: > > Dear listmembers, > I'm looking for a good software to create bibliography, references database, > ecc. > I ask you advice. Try Papyrus. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:10:30 +0100 From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: ane IE ruling class in Babylon? At 17.04 19/02/00 +0100, Bjarte Kaldhol wrote: > >Ian Hutchesson wrote: > >"Such a notion of marginalization of prior population is a little too >simplistic for it seems normal in such situations that there is also a fair >amount of cultural overlay and mixing, ie sizable percentages of the >earlier population simply gets absorbed into the new state of affairs. >(This is the case in eastern Anatolia, Mitanni and Babylon in where >Indo-European cultures became the ruling classes of the "native" >populations.)" > >I just wonder what this parenthesis means. Were "sizeable percentages of >the earlier population" absorbed into an Indo-European ruling class in >Mitanni and Babylon? When did this happen? Who were these Indo-Europeans >who "absorbed" the earlier Hurrian, I don't know when the domination of the Hurrian population by Indo-European elements took place, but the onomasticon is strongly Indo-European. The horse and chariot technology is also Indo-European -- even the language to deal with it. Have you got reason to believe that the elite of Mitanni weren't Indo-European? >Kassite Here I'm on shakier memory, but aren't the Kassites themselves also bearers of Indo-European culture? (Further stretch: isn't Shurya of the Kassites the same sun god as Surya of the RigVeda? Aren't other Kassite gods found in Indo-European cultures?) >and Semitic speaking population, and what became of them later? [+crap filter] The situation in Greece seems to have been different from the other examples (if the relationship is in fact comparable): if there remained an Anatolian component in the Greek peninsula, it was of a much smaller entity than in the other situations and no obvious traces are to be noticed. The Kassites tended to absorb the host culture rather than vice versa. [-crap filter] Cheers, Ian >Regarding the population of Cilicia at the end of the second millennium, it >was mostly of mixed Luwian and Hurrian descent, and its culture and >religion was strongly Hurrianized. Ian Hutchesson mc2499@mclink.it http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/histreli.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:21:31 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Th=E9r=E8se?= Ghembaza Subject: ane Location of tA-NTr Dear Friends, Firstly I would like to know if there were another citations of tA-NTr before the reign of Thutmosis III. Because in my mind the particular locations of tA-NTr both at the North (Syria) and the south of Egypt (Nubia) seem to me to correspond to the areas on which reigned Kamose (17D). Indeed as he was probably born in Chemnis (Achmin) and his principal military activity was in the desert, possibly he was later considered as the god Min himself (as well as god Seth). Thanking you for any information and opinion Thérèse Ghembaza Paris, France ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:01:00 -0500 From: "A D burns" Subject: ane chronology Dear Sir; There is a fatal flaw in the method to calculate the "anchor dates" for the accepted Assyrian, Babylonian,Persian and Judah/Israel chrorologies. The Assyrian Eponym Canon is dated incorrectly--the dates are off by 54 years. If you read Thiele --his lone "known" date in the Assyrian Chronology is the eclipse of the 10th year of Asher-Dan lll. The eclipse of Bur Sagle was not in 763 BC. This eclipse is the key to dating the Assyrian Eponym Canon. I know that everyone accepts the 763 BC dating.Therefore, no one even questions the date. It is none-the-less incorrect. In chronological circles research is poisoned by having the wrong eclipse date assigned to the Bur-Sagle (10th Year of Asher-Dan III) eponym In this year the Assyrians recorded that an eclipse of the sun occurred. This is the only eclipse in the eponym list and is dated in 763 BC; however, the proper date is 709 BC.. Eclipses occur in cycles --the 18 year and 10 or 11 day cycle is called a saros cycle, three saros cycles make one (1) exeligmos cycle--when the eclipse viewed 54 years and 31 or 32 days earlier is repeated (or viewed ) at the same locations as 54 years earlier it is not just 54 years later but also 31 or 32 days later. The 31 or 32 days are important These data from the Assyrian eponym Canon record that the eclipse occurred in the 3rd month- - -the accepted date is June 15, 763 BC. while the 763 BC eclipse was visible in Ninevah -in 763 the date June 15 is the last day of the 2nd month. The proper date for the eclipse recorded in the Assyrian records is the occurrence in 709 BC. --the July 17,709 BC eclipse was in the 3rd month -the last day of the 3rd month. ...............All solar eclipses occur on the last day of a lunar cycle. July 17 is late for the last day of the third month--but due to the intercalation of the calendar this is true. I thought that I might share the information that follows with you in hope that you or someone you know might be interested in how dates are"set" by chronologists. And, I might add, chronologists and historians have done a poor job of calculating the proper dates in antiquity--by mis-applying the astronomical data that are available. Since you are interested in Astronomy and history--and possibly ancient Mesopotamian history --I offer the following: Eclipses re-occur in regular cycles : There is the saros cycle of 18 years and 10 or 11 days-- and three saros cycles equal the longer exeligmos cycle ( of 54 years and 31 or 32 days). When an eclipse occurs --it re-occurs in the next saros occurrence (after 18 yrs+10 or 11 days)--120 degrees west -from where it last was visible. then in the third saros occurrence(360 degrees from when it first occurred - --that is at the same longitude and only 6 degrees difference in latitude)- we have an exeligmos occurrence in the cycle. THE ECLIPSE CHRONOLOGISTS DON'T KNOW ABOUT There is an eclipse that no one knows about --or even suspects that it was an eclipse that caused the effect of a shadow being moved back 10 degrees- and therefore have never connected the Biblical story to an astronomical event. It involves refraction of light (shadow) by ten(10) degrees exactly It is the famous story of the sundial moving back by 10 degrees in the 14th year of Hezekiah. THE EVENT (ECLIPSE) is when the shadow went back by 10 degrees.It was simply the law of refraction of light. This can be readily demonstrated and repeated In the evening (at about sunset) as the light comes in the west facing window and casts a shadow from the pencil that you have set up in a perpendicular fashion --you then should eclipse that general light source with your body --moving across the window .At the moment that the light illuminating the pencil is "eclipsed" you should notice the shadow moving in the direction back toward the side from which it was eclipsed. The room would need to be darkened--that is maybe the other windows blocked and all lamps and other light sources extinguished. Another way to demonstrate the shadow being refracted--is to start with a darkened room-- then with a general light source (a lamp with the shade off) eclipse the light source from illuminating the object (pencil?) and witness the shadow move. What happened in the 14th year of Hezekiah was that--as the sun set - -there was an eclipse. The shadow-{-of Jachin and Boaz(the two columns at the outer porch)} was cast to the east on to the steps leading to the solar altar which was on top of the wall. In the late fall the shadows are 6 to 7 times the height of the object casting the shadow.The refraction of 10 degrees is measurable and is exactly10 degrees each time.--Mark the original shadow -then the refracted shadow > > > > > > --measure with a protractor--it is always 10 degrees. Ahaz had the altar of burnt offering moved to the north --and had a solar roof altar erected to the east of the temple. The steps to the solar roof altar were the recipient of the shadow from Jachin and Boaz (the two columns) each day but more especially in the late fall and winter.(longer shadows) THE ONLY DATE POSSIBLE is 11-11-660 BC. On this date at sunset there was an eclipse of the sun and the sun set while eclipsed - the shadow was then due east. Most of all the "experts" place the date of the 14th of Hezekiah in about 714 BC --note the 54 years.(54 years is the length of one exeligmos cycle)that is to say, this period of chronology is off by about 54 years. In 714 BC there was an eclipse--but at 2 PM --therefore no shadow on the steps---the eclipse of 714 BC cannot be the correct one. But because your academic fellows don't know about eclipses and refraction of shadow - and have *never* connected this event with astronomy(-this is something that no one ever told them about --and it is in no book) there are none of your contemporaries who are aware of this. The only *research* that most do is to read what someone else has written. My only interest is to share --and let the world know something important. This; however, will shake the chronological world. *There is a connection of Shalmanessar II with David King of Israel--this can only be reconciled with a properly dated Assyrian Eponym Canon. *One of the keys to the chronology of the period is the parallel Macedonian kingdom--the parallel Macedonian chronology shows how about 50 years was added to the Persian chronology--and I add, incorrectly. A few more "mistakes" that everyone believes--but they are still false. 1. All chronologists insist that the Israel king at the battle of Karkar was Ahab--it was, however: -- Jehohaz. 2. Nearly (if not all) identify the Israel King that paid tribute in the18th year of Shalmanessar lll --- as Jehu --when the true identity was Jehoash. Laua (or lauua ) is not Jehu but Jehoash.(yhowach)-- (YAWA)(YAUUA) double "u" is w (in the Assyrian --it is LAUUA --interpreted wrongly as Jehu---- the correct transliteration of "lauua" is "Jauua" which in Hebrew is Jehoash. 3. There is an eclipse that no one knows about. The Identifying mark is the refraction of light by *exactly* 10 degrees No one has even speculated as to WHY the shadow reversed. The eclipse occurred at sunset --the date 11-11-660 BC --the 14th of Hezekiah. THE ONLY DATE POSSIBLE-check it out. I will share my evidence with you--if you request. THERE IS ANOTHER CYCLE OF ASTRONOMICAL OCCURRENCES There are the double dated papyri from the colony at Elephantine. Many of these documents are dated in two dating systems -- they are dated in either Persian or Jewish months and days-- AND they are double dated in Egyptian dates (months and days). The dating on these papyri *repeat * in a 50 year cycle. Which is to say --if one would calculate the Egyptian date given in the papyri and find the year when the Egyptian date coincides with the Persian Date -The coinciding repeats in a 50 year cycle. Again the chronologists in the past have set the dates of the Persian Kings in the wrong cycle. I will give just two examples ----both in the 4th year of Darius ll. Kraeling 7 --the 1st of Tishri is the same as the 1st day of Epiphi. This is true on Oct 2, 420 BC It is ALSO true on the correct date of Sept 20, 370 BC (Sept 19/20 Jewish) AP 20---also in the 4th year of Darius ll-- The 1st of Elul is the same as the 1st of Payni. This is true in 420 BC--Sept 2 This is also true on August 20, 370 BC What we have is two different Papyri --both referring to the same year and giving us two consecutive Jewish months that coincide with two consecutive Egyptian months. And this occurred not once but twice --50 years apart. Chronologists think that they have the proper date --because the two calendars coincide --but they have "set" the date 50 years too soon for the Elephantine Papyri. In the- Papyri from the Jewish colony of Elephantine-22 of the papyrus documents record with double dates --both Egyptian and Persian dates during the reign of Persian kings. There are two calendar systems involved. The Egyptians had a 365 day calendar and the people at Elephantine used a lunar calendar as well --which is tied to the new moons . But for now let us look at some other examples: 1. Kraeling #3 --has the Egyptian date Payni 9 being the same as the Persian date of Elul 7 in the 28th year of Artexerxes 1st. 2. Kraeling #1--has the Egyptian date of Phamenoth 25 being equal with the Persian date of Sivan 20 in the 14th year of Artexerxes 1st. While the dates coincide in the years accepted by Assyrio-chronologists the phenomenon of the Egyptian and Persian coinciding--repeats 50 years > later And (of course) the double dated papyri --covering the reigns of Darius 1st, Xerxes, Artexerxes, Darius 2nd, and Artexerxes 2nd tie the dates of Judah, Israel, Babylon and Persia together. 3. The papyrus document designated AP 14 concerns the 25th year of Artexerxes 1st ---Of course he was the King in whose reign was the decree to return and build Jerusalem (see Daniel 9:25) and--How important could the years of his reign be?----------------------------- -In the 25th of Artexerxes 1st --Pachons 19 (Egyptian date) is the same as Ab 14(Persian date) This is true in Aug 14/15, 390 BC. There is , as we have previously discussed, the long cycle of eclipses (exeligmos cycle) where eclipses repeat at the same place on earth in a cycle of 54 years and 31 or 32 days. That is to say that the eclipse that is" THE ANCHOR DATE "of Assyrian chronology 15 June 763 BC--was repeated on 17 July in 709 BC-- The experts chose the wrong occurrence in the cycle --and now no one will even challenge the dogma of 763 being the proper date. Even if 709 is correct --it is too hard to change the text books or challenge Dr. Edwin Thiele's hypothesis--and all others who blindly follow along. While the above statement might seem self-serving ---the fact is that there is little original thinking and/or research (most of what people call research is reading what others have written on a subject-- and one "expert" seeking the approval from his fellow "expert" - its-publish or perish. Looking up a subject in an encyclopaedia or quoting archaic thinking is not research. . All eclipses from the Assyrian eclipse in the 10th year of Asher- Dan lll to the eclipse in the 7th year of Cambysis (should be 469 BC) to the eclipses in the reign of Darius (20 and 31st years --which by the way are the 20th and 31st years- Egyptian years -not the Persian years) down to but not including the Eclipse before the battle of Arbela When Alexander defeated the Persian King --Darius lll-- Are "set" in the wrong occurrence in the cycle (54 years too soon). Most people are not even aware that eclipses repeat. Chronology, by accepting dating using an occurrence of eclipses in the wrong cycle or the wrong dates from the double dated papyri--,have shortened the Judah chronology by about 50 years and lengthened the Persian chronology by the same 50 years. And done violence to the synchronism of the king lists of Judah and Israel. All problems in the synchronism of the Judah King list with the Israel king list vanish --with the proper dates of the contemporary kingdoms (Assyria , Babylon and Persia). Please contact me to see how easy the synchronism is--unless you apply the proper dates and see for yourself. The refraction of the shadow in the 14th of Hezekiah is THE KEY to developing a proper chronology.(this "sets" the true dates of Sargon) Shadows are formed according to the laws of rectilinear propagation-- the eclipse (at sunset) caused the shadow to "go back" by exactly 10 degrees. This is not a repeatable event (in history)--while there was a repeat of the eclipse in the exeligmos cycle (714 and 660 BC)-----> only the 660 BC occurrence is at sunset-the 714 occurrence was at 2 PM. Andy Burns> > > > P. S. When something new is brought to light (and it is true) there is a rocky road to acceptance. !st --there is rejection--no one ever thought that before 2nd--anger and hostility--if he won't go away we'll have to do him in 3rd--is acceptance--truth is now so evident and everyone can see it. I know that for you to accept this --and share this information with your academic fellows---you would have to change some long held views. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 19:46:47 +1300 From: "Don Mills" Subject: Re: ane chronology On Sunday, February 20, 2000 at 3:01 PM (New Zealand time), A D burns wrote: | There is a fatal flaw in the method to calculate the "anchor dates" for the | accepted | Assyrian, Babylonian,Persian and Judah/Israel chrorologies. | The Assyrian Eponym Canon is dated incorrectly--the dates are off by 54 | years. | If you read Thiele --his lone "known" date in the Assyrian Chronology is | the eclipse | of the 10th year of Asher-Dan lll. The eclipse of Bur Sagle was not in 763 | BC. This eclipse is the key to dating the Assyrian Eponym Canon. | I know that everyone accepts the 763 BC dating.Therefore, no one | even questions the date. It is none-the-less incorrect. I do not wish to comment on the remainder of Mr Burns' posting, though it contains some interesting (if overstated) propositions. However, I wish to draw to the attention of the list the following information regarding the dating of eclipses in ancient times, which to my mind potentially invalidates much work done to date on ancient eclipses such as that referred to above (and which has implications also for the use of Sothic and lunar dates). (This information was posted earlier today on another list; apologies to those who see it twice.) New Scientist for 30 January 1999 (see http://www.newscientist.com/search/wholesiteresults.jsp?qu=Babylon&Search.x= 9&Search.y=7) had an article very relevant to this issue. The article header reads, "Modern calculations put the eclipse track of 15 April 136 BC over the island of Mallorca, but it was seen over Babylon. The discrepancy is equivalent to 3.25 hours," which in geographical terms results in a displacement westward by 48.8 degrees, or 4,000 km (2,500 miles) westward, as compared with retrocalculations by modern computers. Unfortunately, the full article is not present on-line (nice map, though), but I have the paper copy, which explains the discrepancy as due to the continuous slowing of the Earth's rotation. Having studied about 300 ancient eclipse reports, mostly Babylonian, Chinese, European, and Arab, Richard Stephenson (U. Durham) and Leslie Morrison (formerly Royal Greenwich Observatory) have been able to compute an average rotational slowing of 1.7 milliseconds a century, oscillating between 1.4 and 2.0 milliseconds per century over roughly 1000-year intervals. If these results are correct, any retrocalculation of any astronomical phenomenon that fails to take them into account will arrive at conclusions that are badly astray from the truth. If any members of this list, for example, are using computer software to reproduce the ancient skies, it might be interesting for you to see where they place the "Mallorca" eclipse -- or alternatively, to see whether they show a total solar eclipse in Babylon at 8:45 am on 15 April 136 BC. The New Scientist article provides a reference that some may wish to follow up: "*Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation* by Richard Stephenson (Cambridge University Press)". Regards ================================= Don Mills Wellington, New Zealand ================================= ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2000 #51 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html