This is a spin off from this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/182714/4/Hubby-is-Researching-607
Background
For the past three years, Carl Jonsson has been critiquing Rolf Furuli's 'Oslo' Chronology in an interdisciplinary journal called Chronology and Catastrophism Review. The latest 2009 edition contains an article by Furuli attempting to defend his point of view and answer Jonsson's criticisms.
Within the article, Furuli tries to re-date one of the problematic astronomical diaries (BM 33478) listed in Sachs and Hunger's Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts, Vol. I. He claims it fits 465/4 BCE which should be the 10th year of Artaxerxes I under his chronological scheme. If the astronomical positions on this diary really do fit that year, it would help vindicate the 'Oslo'/WTS notion that Artaxerxes' 20th year was 455 BCE instead of the established 445 BCE.
This diary had been assigned to the year 441/0 BCE (-440) in ADT I, but Sachs and Hunger acknowledged it didn't fit that year well at all. However, they couldn't find a better match at that time. Not too long after ADT I was published, renowned scholars J. Koch, and later R.J. van der Spek, re-examined the diary and, based on the astronomical and historical information contained on it, reassigned it to the year 382/1 BCE - the 23rd year of Artaxerxes II.
In contrast, Furuli believes that the astronomical positions support his year of 465/4 BCE. He says he searched for better matches in all the 3 Kings Artaxerxes' regnal years, but couldn't find any apart from 465/4 BCE.
So do the celestial data on this tablet fit the year 465/4 BCE (-464/3) as claimed in Chronology & Catastrophism Review 2009, p. 34-5? Furuli's dates and suppositions are being used in the tables. I'm using SkyViewCafé (SVC) online to compare results.
Results comparison
Obv.' Lines 1, 2: Month VII ... Night of the 6th, last part of the night, Venus was above alpha Vir[ginis].
Furuli's date | Furuli's results | SVC's results | Do the results agree? | Do SVC's results agree with tablet? |
Sept. 24, -464 (465 BCE), a.m. [1] | "On the 24th September, at 07:00 [UT] [2] , Venus was 3º above Spica (α Virginis)" | Venus - d. (declination) 5º55'; Spica - d. 2º 24'. Venus was 3.5º above Spica, although the tablet doesn't give a specific measurement | Yes | Yes |
Obv.' Line 3: [.... the moon was] 2/3 cubit behind delta Capricorni, it was set to its northern horn.
It's worth mentioning here that ADT I's transliteration for the beginning of line 3 is, "[.... GE 6 8 ? SAG GE 6 sin]" or "[.... Night of the 8th ? , beginning of the night, the moon], and there was a query about the '8.' J. Koch [3] says the date should be corrected to a '9' and this is the date Furuli uses.
Furuli's date | Furuli's results | SVC's results | Do the results agree? | Do SVC's results agree with tablet? |
Sept. 26, -464 (465 BCE), p.m. | "... the fit is perfect, because 2/3 cubit is 1º 20' and the moon was 1º 21' behind Deneb Algedi ... at 18:20 [UT]." | Moon - RA (right ascension) 19h 56m; delta Cap - RA 19h 24m. Therefore, moon was about 32m = 8º or 4 cubits behind delta Cap. | No | No |
Obv.' Line 5: Night of the 17th, last part of the night, the moon was 1 + x cubits in front of zeta Tauri.
Inexplicably, Furuli adds "(M1)" after zeta Tauri. M1 is the Crab Nebula which, astronomers believe, is the result of a supernova that occurred in 1054 CE. It can only be seen through a telescope and most definitely is not synonymous with zeta Tauri. Naturally, M1 would have been unknown to the Babylonians so why he uses it as a positional reference point is a complete mystery to me.
Furuli's date | Furuli's results | SVC's results | Do the results agree? | Do SVC's results agree with tablet? |
October 5, -464 (465 BCE), a.m. | "On 6 [sic] October, at 04:00 [UT] [4] , the moon was 2º 23' (1 cubit and 9 fingers) in front of ζ Tauri (M1)." | Moon - RA 3h 24.5m; zeta Tau - RA 3h 15m. The moon was 2º 23' behind (not in front of) zeta Tau | No | No |
'Rev. line 2': [....] was balanced 6 fingers [above/below] [5] delta Cancri.
The tablet is broken and the details on the reverse jump to the intercalary Month XII (XII 2 ). It was deduced that the missing object at the beginning of the line must be Saturn (see 'Rev. line 3' below and also Koch's article referenced in note 3). However, Saturn was nowhere near Cancer in 465/4 BCE so Furuli believes 'the Moon' should be restored at the beginning of the line.
Furuli's date | Furuli's results | SVC's results | Do the results agree? | Do SVC's results agree with tablet? |
March 21, -463 (464 BCE), p.m. | "... on day 8 of this month, at 17:06 [UT], the Moon was 16' above Asellus Australis. Six fingers equal 15', so the fit is perfect." | Moon - d. 19º 43'; RA 6h 43m; delta Cnc - d. 23º 39'; RA 6h 19m; The moon was nearly 4º below (not above) and 6º behind delta Cnc. | No | Inaccurate |
'Rev. line 3': At that time, Jupiter was in Leo; Venus and Mercury were in Taurus; Saturn was in Cancer.
It's common in the astronomical diaries to have a summary of rough planetary positions at the end of a month, and this is what we have here. However, Furuli chooses to compare the middle of the month - around April 2, 464 BCE [6] . The results are as follows:
Furuli's results | SVC's results | Do the results agree? | Do SVC's results agree with tablet? |
"Jupiter was in Leo" | Jupiter was in Leo | Yes | Yes |
"Venus ... in Taurus" | Venus was behind Taurus ('the Bull') and nearer what was known as 'the reins of the Chariot' | Possibly | Possibly |
"Mercury ... in Taurus" | Mercury was very close to the Pleiades, designated by the Babylonians as a separate constellation - 'MUL.MUL' or 'the Bristle' and was not counted as 'the Bull' | In modern terms, Yes. In ancient terms, No | No |
"Saturn was in Virgo and not in Cancer" | Saturn was in Virgo, not in Cancer | Yes | No |
To summarize:
Furuli's results conflict with SkyViewCafé's in 3 out of 8 times. More importantly, SkyViewCafé's results conflict in some way with the tablet's details in all except 2 clear cases and 1 possible agreement. In other words, 5 out of 8 details are mismatches with 465/4 BCE.
When we consider, in examining this tablet, how Furuli hasn't used first lunar visibility as a criterion to start the month, has apparently deviated from the very chronological scheme he is trying to propose, makes mistakes in calculating positions and where the true positions don't fit with those on the tablet, it should become evident that Furuli's claims of a 465/4 BCE match for BM 33478 are without any foundation whatsoever.
Notes
[1] Furuli begins Month VII at first lunar visibility on the evening of September 18 which would make 'night of the 6th' September 23/24. However, according to the calculations of three sets of experts, Parker & Dubberstein, Anderlic/Firneis and Lange/Swerdlow, first lunar visibility would occur the evening after on September 19. Thus Furuli began the new month a day early.
Not only that, but working from Furuli's premises and using his chronological scheme, I reconstructed the Month I dates from 523 BCE (Cambyses' Year 7) to 423 BCE (Darius II's Year 1). Under this scheme, Month I of 465 BCE should begin at sunset April 23 and therefore Month VII should begin at sunset October 18. Thus Furuli appears to have broken with his own scheme and started Months I and VII a month early.
[2] Furuli is using Universal Time (or GMT). The local time in Babylon is 3 hours ahead of UT or GMT, contrary to his endnote [9] on p.38 where he says "Babylonian time is three hours behind GMT." Therefore, it has to be noted that 07:00 UT corresponds to 10:00 Local Time, i.e. broad daylight when Venus and the stars were no longer visible. The reason why Furuli chooses broad daylight to compare night-time positions is a complete mystery to me.
[3] 'Zu einigen astronomischen "Diaries",'Archiv für Orientforschung 38/39, (1991/2), p.102.
[4] Again, the tablet gives night-time positions and yet Furuli chooses to compare them with daytime positions. 04:00 UT is 07:00 Local Time (sunrise was 05:57 LT).
[5] It appears the scribe accidently missed out a word.
[6] Furuli says "2nd April 463" but it's obviously another typo.