587/607 Question... (page 3)

scholar

AnnOMaly

Would you give the reference or provide the source for your criticism of Furuli's methodology ?

scholar JW

AnnOMaly

Would you give the reference or provide the source for your criticism of Furuli's methodology ?

It can be pieced together using PD's list of intercalary months as attested by contract tablets for Nebuchadnezzar's regnal years, a good astroprogram, and common sense. Oh and a well-read, astronomy-minded friend helps too.

Basic fact: May is too late to begin a Babylonian new year - ever.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Your reply is still rather vague as your claim does not appear to have any relevance to Furuli's methodology. Where is it the case that Furuli or critics of 586/587 BCE have dated the Babylonian year from May ? It appears that you have invented a 'red herring' in this case.

scholar JW

AnnOMaly

Furuli, in his analysis of VAT 4956 in his Vol. 2, believes the lunar positions best fit 588/7 (being in his view the real 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar). Depending on the mood he was in at the time, Nisan 1 588 began May 1 (p.296) or May 2 (p.312 table) or May 3 (p.312 top paragraph).

justhuman

nice question

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 523

I note your observation regarding the tables but if it is really a problem for you then you should write to Furuli as seek an explanation. Perhaps it is simply the case is that is where the data leads because on p.312, the table also shows that Nisan 1 on April 22 for 568.

scholar JW

AnnOMaly

As I said, May is too late to begin the Babylonian new year and he plays about with the date of Nisan 1 588, not sticking to one day. It's not so much a problem for me personally, but is a huge problem for his case, since all his figures are based on faulty dates and are therefore invalidated. The added problem is that Furuli sometimes gives the daytime co-ordinates for celestial positions when they wouldn't have been observed. One example is Simanu 1 (p.315) which Furuli equates with May 30. But the given co-ordinates are for about 4pm local time - way before sunset (approx. 7.05pm).

His new year date for 568 is correct.

I'll consider writing him, but this all should have been checked before the book went to print. It's too late now.

scholar

AnnOMaly

I am no expert in Calendation but my instinct tells me that you do not understand the fact that calenders do not correspond exactly over time but any such correspondence between say the Babylonian and Gregorian calenders needs to synchronized by means of a intercalary month. I have consulted the charts in Babylonian Chronology by Parker and Dubberstein and I note that there is no fixed date in the Julian Calender with the Babylonian Calender for Nisanu 1. Furuli's tabulated data result from his deciphering and interpreting of the astronomical data from the clay tablets in question so the propblem may not be that of Furuli but the scibes.

At any rate you should write to Furuli and even though the books are published there are always future editions where corrections are noted and even Jonsson has had to make corrections for his now current fourth edition.

scholar JW

AnnOMaly

I am no expert in Calendation but my instinct tells me that you do not understand the fact that calenders do not correspond exactly over time but any such correspondence between say the Babylonian and Gregorian calenders needs to synchronized by means of a intercalary month. I have consulted the charts in Babylonian Chronology by Parker and Dubberstein and I note that there is no fixed date in the Julian Calender with the Babylonian Calender for Nisanu 1.

I think you mean the lunar year has to be synchronized with the solar year by inserting intercalary months. Therefore as you say, there is no fixed Gregorian (or indeed Julian) date for Nisan 1. I'm no expert either but I, too, know that much! Yet the whole point of intercalary months was to keep the months in line with the seasons. New year has to start reasonably close to the vernal equinox, even though the Babylonians at that time used other methods to determine whether a leap year was necessary or not. May is too late to begin a new year - period - even taking into account the 2nd Adar mentioned in VAT 4956. Check PD and see whether any Nisan 1 fell in May.

Furuli's tabulated data result from his deciphering and interpreting of the astronomical data from the clay tablets in question so the propblem may not be that of Furuli but the scibes.

Furuli's tabulated data, unfortunately I fear, result not from problems with the tablet, but his own miscalculations and, dare I say, 'fuzzying' of the details. Some of his Day 1s are BEFORE conjunction (you'll be aware that Day 1 of any month occurs with the sighting of the new moon crescent after conjunction). And those calculations he made in the daytime - they certainly cannot be blamed on the scribes!

At any rate you should write to Furuli and even though the books are published there are always future editions where corrections are noted

These errors are just the tip of the iceberg, so I doubt there'll be a 2nd edition. He'd be better starting over.

Alleymom

Scholar wrote:

I have consulted the charts in Babylonian Chronology by Parker and Dubberstein and I note that there is no fixed date in the Julian Calender with the Babylonian Calender for Nisanu 1.

Hi, Neil --

It's good to see you posting. I have not been very active on the board for quite some time due to health problems.

If I might clarify something, of course there is no "fixed date" for Nisanu 1. The point that AnnOMaly has been making is that the Babylonian new year always started in March or April, and never as late as May (which is too far past the the vernal equinox).

Rolf Furuli has come up with a chronology which has the Babylonian new year (Nisanu 1) falling in May in 588 BCE. This is too late for the new year.

Also, he gives three different dates for Nisanu 1, 588: May 1, May 2, and May 3. Obviously, this is an error. (There are other places in his charts where he has sloppy errors. For instance, on page 318 he gives Sabatu 1, 587 as 2/22. But on the next page, he has Sabatu 6, 587 as 2/26.)

Here is a list of the dates on which Nisanu 1 fell from 626 BCE to 530 BCE. Note that the date is always in March or April, and never as late as May.

626 BCE = 4 April BCE
625 = 23 March
624 = 13 March
623 = 1 April
622 = 21 March
621 = 10 March
620 = 29 March
619 = 18 March
618 = 6 April
617 = 25 March
616 = 14 March
615 = 2 April
614 = 23 March
613 = 10 April
612 = 30 March
611 = 20 March
610 = 8 April
609 = 27 March
608 = 16 March
607 = 5 March
606 = 24 March
605 = 11 April
604 = 1 April
603 = 21 March
602 = 9 April
601 = 29 March
600 = 18 March
599 = 5 April
598 = 26 March
597 = 12 April
596 = 2 April
595 = 21 April
594 = 11 April
593 = 29 April
592 = 18 April
591 = 7 April
590 = 26 April
589= 14 April
588 = 3 April
587 = 22 April
586 = 12 April
585 = 1 April
584 = 21 March
583 = 9 April
582 = 29 March
581 = 16 April
580 = 6 April
579 = 25 March
578 = 13 April
577 = 2 April
576 = 21 April
575 = 11 April
574 = 31 March
573 = 18 April
572 = 7 April
571 = 25 April
570 = 15 April
569 = 3 April
568 = 22 April
567 = 12 April
566 = 1 April
565 = 21 March
564 = 10 March
563 = 28 March
562 = 16 April
561 = 5 April
560 = 25 March
559 = 13 April
558 = 3 April
557 = 22 March
556 = 10 April
555 = 30 March
554 = 18 April
553 = 6 April
552 = 25 April
551 = 15 April
550 = 4 April
549 = 22 April
548 = 12 April
547 = 1 April
546 = 21 March
545 = 8 April
544 = 28 March
543 = 16 April
542 = 5 April
541 = 25 March
540 = 13 April
539 = 3 April
538 = 23 March
537 = 11 March
536 = 30 March
535 = 17 April
534 = 7 April
533 = 27 March
532 = 15 April
531 = 4 April
530 = 25 March

Regards,
Marjorie [edited for a numerical typo]

587/607 Question...

Share this