SATURN TABLET INVESTIGATION: I made some comments about the Saturn tablet before, but have since rechecked this reference. It wasn't what I had thought before. But I did discover the reference is a month off! And also you can find text-correct references in the 59-year interval for both years of 640BCE and 581BCE, except for some reason both references are a month off as best I can tell.
Basically the Saturn text gives the positions of Saturn in month 6 and month 7. In the sixth month it is "behind the furrow" and in the seventh month it is "between" the furrow and the Balance, meaning between the end of Virgo's leg that makes up a "furrow" pattern (a trench) and the constellation of Libra, which is a scale.
Now in both years Saturn does travel from behind the furrow to a position halfway between the two constellations within a month, but it does so in months 7 and 8, not 6 and 7. So there is something wrong with this text.
SPECULATION: Now there are several possibilities that we consider in this situation where the VAT4956 confirms for us that there was a conspiracy during the Seleucid Period to manipulate astronomical texts, and the DIARIES of the VAT4956 and SK400 were just a device to try and "hide in plain sight" secret references to the original chronology. So when we find other texts. The texts themselves prove that fake astronomical texts were being created that lined up with the fake chronology though. So that is our first consideration when there is any astronomical text that lines up with the fake chronology. One of the first questions is when was the text created? The final revisions didn't come into effect until after Xenophon made those revisions just prior to the death of Artaxerxes II in 358BCE, who is the king who employed him to make the Greek revisions. So no text representing specifically the revised chronology can be dated prior to 358BCE, and likely must be dated at the same time or later than when the VAT4956 was created, which is known to have been created during the Seleucid Period. So that's the first question. One way to determine this is to see if the writing style is that typical of the later period or if it's written in the old Akkadian style. IF it turns out that it is a Seleucid Period "copy" then we can just dismiss it immediately as a fake text that was revised.
However, there were coincidentally some original astronomical references that worked marginally well with the revised chronology. In which case, it would have been ideal to leave that reference in the original form to help authenticate that the revised chronology is actually true and correct. This covers references like the Assyrian eponym eclipse, a solar eclipse that happens in Simanu (month 3). The eclipse reference is not specific (i.e. total, partial, etc.), only that it occurs in the third month, and apparently was considered a major event of the year for some reason. But it turns out that the 56-57 year discrepancy between the revised and original chronology from the NB Period, allows for an eclipse normally dated to month 2 but optionally dated to 3, 54 years and 1 month earlier than the original one in 709BCE, could be used as a substitute eclipse. That's why the normally-dated month 2 eclipse in 763BCE is used and it is the most significant ancient reference for this period because it fixes the entire Assyrian Period!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC"June 15, 763 BC - A solar eclipse at this date (in month Sivan) is used to fix the chronology of the Ancient Near East. However, it should be noted that it requires Nisan 1 to fall on March 20, 763 BC, which was 8 to 9 days before the vernal equinox (March 28/29 at that time) and Babylonians never started their calendar year before the spring equinox. Main article: Assyrian eclipse"
Thus if the text is actually contemporary with the 640-581BCE dating, then what we look for is a comparison of that text and the text-match with the original potential year vs the fabricated year. That will take more research. But as I noted, since the observations are clearly off by one month in both potential years when Saturn was in these positions, this looks like not only a revised text but possibly a cryptic double-dating text. That is, like the VAT4956 and the SK400, which were designed to have some references clearly fit the revised chronology, they hide more specific references to the original chronology. So that is another potential for looking at any astronomical text that first appears to agree with the revised chronology, since often it will have a clue that points to the original chronology. Thus the fact that this reference is a month off might suggest a secret ploy by those who were assigned to revise the text to cause the text to be technically invalidated because it is not accurate to the correct month.
Now it is not apparent to me at this stage how that might tell us when the original dating was, other than the obvious option of dating the reference to 581BCE, which works out for the 8th year of Kalandanu for the original chrnology with just a 2-year adjustment, which is easily accommodated by the 2-year overlap of the reign of Nabonidus with Nebuchadnezzar. Meaning, that might have been one of the revisions as well to make this adjustment for the Satan tablet. At any rate, it could just be a means to disqualify this text on its face since the dating is incorrect. But we know at this point, at least, that it must have originated during the Seleucid Period since the astronomical reference itself is not accurate.
Now of interest in all this, is that during my research of the 763BCE eclipse it was discovered that the Assyrians from ancient times always began their new year after the equinox. This was in effect during the rule of Bar-Sagale. But the last two Assyrian kings for some reason did start to begin the year before the equinox. But this was changed back to the original standard of after the equinox once the NB Period began. This period during the reign of Babylonian King Kalanadu would have been during this one short segment of time when the Assyrians were beginning the year before the equinox. Meaning that if this was done in Babylon as well, then the actual events occurring one month later is correct. That is months 6 and 7 become months 7 and 8 when you begin the year one month earlier. So the positions of Saturn one month apart that match months 7 and 8 (vs 6 and 7) presumably came from an original reference for the position of Saturn.
Furuli claims generally that something about this seems to have been "calculated" or predicted, suggesting an adjustment was made later on to make this reference match an earlier consistent sequence. Of note, a pattern of eclipses known to the Assyrians was the solar eclipses that occurred every 54 years and one month later. I'm now wondering if someone during the Seleucid Period thought this principal should be applied to Saturn. Thus moving the original reference which occurs in months 7 and 8 in 581BCE, was moved back in time 59 years + 1 month, so that it gets dated to months 6 and 7 in the revised text, only they didn't realize that same pattern did not apply to Saturn and the moon's position was essentially the same for months 7 and 8 in 640BCE as a match to 481BCE. So they miscalculated this.
If Furuli actually saw the texts himself, then he could confirm a few things, including the writing style. Further he may not be aware of the problem with this reference not being astronomically correct for the position of Saturn and the precise month. Furthermore, those using the Saturn text, like O. Jonsson, note that it was said that matching this precisely to the month would mean a match that couldn't be duplicated in over 17 centuries! Well that certainly is not true! You get a text match of "behind the furror and between the furrow and Libra" for both years in the 59-year cycle of 640 and 581BCE.
The quote from GTR3 says from F. Walker:
"A complete cycle of Saturn phenonmena in relation to the stars takes 59 years. But when that cycle has to be fitted to the lunar calendar of 29 or 30 dyas then identical cycles recur at intervals of rather more than 17 centuries. Thus there is no difficulty in determining the date of the present text." (Page 170, GTR3)
Now this may be astronomically correct, but it is not accurate for this reference, because the reference to the specific position of Saturn, i.e. behind the furror and between the furrow and Libra, is general enough to accurately describe Saturn's position for both years in this 59-year cycle in question, 640 and 681BCE. This can be demonstrated quite easily with an astronomy program.
I didn't have time to do all the charts for the dates one might want to look at but this is quickie showing that Saturn's position one month described as "behind the furrow" for one month and "between" meaning half-way between or equally between the furrow of Virgo and Libra (the Balance) is accurate for 581BCE, which is in the 59-year cycle after 640BCE where that text is being promoted as dating year 8 of Kalanadu. Saturn is in similar positions in 640BCE, so both years would qualify as matching this reference, with no real superiority over one year or the other. This contradicts the quote by Jonsson, used for dramatic effect, that a match would not occur in over "17 centuries."
To put this in perspective, an astronomer could say that no eclipse occurs in exactly the same time and place on the Earth in over 10,000 years! Well that might be true. But if you have a text reference that just gives "an eclipse in month 3", without saying exactly if it was total or partial, just that it was seen in that month, then that could apply to a lot of potential eclipses! That's why we can move the eclipse in the eponym list from 763BCE to 709BCE because the nature of the eclipse is not stated and both events can be dated to month 3. Same here. The position of Saturn is not specific. It doesn't say it was exactly say 1 cubit behind the furrorw, it just says "behind", which qualifies for a range of positions where Saturn is closer to that star reference than any other. As noted, when it gets to be halfway between two points of reference, with no preference, it simply indicates it is "between" the two points of reference as in the case of the second reference noted. So when the reference is nonspecific like this, you can see it can easily fit two possible years, which is how the revisionists sometimes included original references they had that worked out well for both chronologies. For this period the difference in the chronology was about 56-57 years, so the 59-year adjustment was neglible; it only meant a two-year adjustment somewhere in the reigns of one of the kings. 2 years were either added to the end of the rule of Kalanadu or more likely added to the reign of Nabopolassar, whose actual rulership years is in question. For instance, Sir Isaac Newton has Nebuchadnezzar ruling for two years before he becomes sole ruler. That's interesting but it suggests a two-year contradiction in the records.
If you didn't follow that, here's another explanation. If 581BCE was the original year 8 of Kalanadu and they wanted to move a Saturn reference to match the new chronology, which is 57 years now earlier, to do that, they have to move it 2 more years farther back, expanding that period so that the 59-year cycle matches to 640BCE. That's not that much of a problem, since they only need to expand either the rule of Kalandu by 2 years or that of the king following him, Nabopolassar by 2 years. Apparently they added 2 years to the rule of Nabopalassar to make up for the 59-year move-back. That 2-year discpreancy between the end of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar was always there.
Here are your graphics. This demonstrates how technical all this is, and why you can't just take someone's word for a reference working out for only a single date. It is more complex than that, especially if it is representing the wrong date. Usually we find complications on a closer look just like we are now. Not that I've finished my investigation, but this is what I have so far.
Again, the above shows that the text reference for the positions of Saturn work in 581BCE, 59 years after where they say the Saturn Text only works for one date in "17 centuries". Plus since this match in 581BCE as well as in 640BCE both occur in months 7 and 8 rather than 6 and 7 per the text, there is obviously a problem. This does initially suggest as Furuli said, that someone in later times was guessing and predicting, and perhaps thought the month should be changed to one month earlier as they had done with solar eclipses and lunar eclipses in the exeligmos pattern (54 years 1 month) well known to the Babylonians and Assyrians, and actually, a basis for the Thales eclipse prediction! See: http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/thalesx.html
JCanon
