Some of the problems with Furuli's analysis of VAT 4956's lunar data have already been discussed here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/145519/1.ashx
The Saturn tablet dated to Kandalanu's reign (Appendix E, pp. 329-343)
Logical and ‘scientific methodology’ applied here? You decide.
Furuli thinks this tablet could be referring to Nabopolassar's reign. This stems from the fact that the king’s name is damaged and Furuli proposes an alternate reading of the damaged sign(s).
"Because I open for the possibility that the king mentioned on the tablet can be either Kandalanu or Nabopolassar, I list first and last visibility in the years of Kandalanu according to the traditional chronology, and also for one year later, in order to try to apply the information to Nabopolassar." – p. 338.
OK, Let’s examine the comparison table on p.338-9 …
Wait. Why is Furuli’s year 2 of Nabopolassar 645? All three of his alternate chronological schemes put Nabopolassar's accession year to 646 BCE (see pp. 221, 230, 232). Therefore, Nabopolassar’s year 1 would be 645, and his year 2 would be 644, and so on. And the Julian dates seem to be off too …
Forget the table for now. "Let us now look carefully at all the data." (p.340) and skip to the conclusions …
It is then we are told more of the premises used in compiling the comparison table.
He believes that "there is quite a lot of evidence indicating that Kandalanu and Nabopolassar are one and the same person" (p.340), which he has addressed in chapter 12.
When considering the Saturn tablet’s data, he curiously makes Nabopolassar's accession year 648 BCE (so year 1 = 647, year 2 = 646, year 3 = 645 etc.). He explains why:
"The consequence of point 2) [the bit quoted above about Kandalanu and Nabopolassar being the same - Ann] is that Nabopolassar reigned during the period that is believed to be covered by the tablet. First and last visibility of Saturn do not fit the regnal years of Nabopolassar as they are presented in this book. But because there seems to have been an interregnum before Nabopolassar, a scribe could have reckoned his first regnal year one or two years before it actually started. If the one who wrote the tablet overlooked the two years without king, he would have reckoned 647 as Nabopolassar's first year, the very year that is Kandalanu's first year according to the traditional chronology. In that case the years 1-14 of Saturn observations would equal regnal years 1-14 of Nabopolassar" - p. 340 (my emphasis).
Hmm. After admitting that the tablet’s data don’t fit Nabopolassar’s regnal years under the three alternate chronologies already proposed, Furuli supposes that a scribe writing the tablet might have had a brainstorm and decided to extend the years of Nabopolassar's reign backwards a couple years to before he was even king!
Okay, let’s run with this idea …. So, why are the regnal years on the comparison table still out? Comparison table says year 2 = 645, 3 = 644, etc., while Furuli’s scribe says year 2 = 646, 3 = 645, etc.
A mystery. Leave that for now and continue reading …
Only then
, scattered about on p. 341, do we find two more key factors as to why the comparison table made no sense. Firstly,"We also find my calculations, based on the assumption that the accession year of Nabopolassar was counted as his first regnal year, and that the tablet covers years 1-14 of Nabopolassar, with 646 B.C.E. as year 1.*" (my emphasis)
"[footnote]* There seem to be two years before Nabopolassar without a king where Nabopolassar had some power. This could cause different views as to which year was his accession year, and that could again cause some to count his traditional accession year as his first year of reign."
Ah ha! So there may have been other brainstorming scribes who decided to dispense with the customary accession-year system of reckoning kings’ reigns, and switch to a non-accession method in this one king’s case. This is the imaginary situation Furuli bases his comparison table on.
Secondly,
"One problem with the scheme of Walker [against whose traditional scheme Furuli’s comparisons are made – A], if I have understood him correctly, is that year V of Kandalanu begins on 12 March. This is before the vernal equinox, and four other years begin before this event as well. We cannot exclude the possibility that a year could begin before the vernal equinox, but that is not likely. In the scheme used for Nabopolassar all the years begin after the vernal equinox."
Oh that explains why the Julian dates are off (again - they were off for the alternate dating of VAT 4956’s lunar positions too). Despite Parker and Dubberstein’s standard work showing that Babylonian new years in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE frequently began before the vernal equinox (March 27/28, Julian date), Furuli maintains that such an event was ‘not likely.’
Also, it’s worth noting that year 5 of Kandalanu, according to Walker, begins on March 14 (not 12, which was before the new moon crescent could be sighted), and that there are not ‘four other years’ beginning before the vernal equinox, but six (years 2, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 13). Walker’s full article can be found at http://www.caeno.org/_Eponym/pdf/Walker_Saturn%20in%20Kandalanu%20reign.pdf
Bottom line:
The basis for Furuli’s ‘scientific’ approach when comparing the traditional understanding of the Saturn tablet with a new one, is to ignore the three alternate chronologies already postulated in his book (and where, each time, Nabopolassar’s accession year is assigned to 646 BCE), and to manipulate a new, unlikely, fourth regnal year scheme just for Nabopolassar and just for this tablet.