Lars Wilson
2008-01-15 21:04:27 UTC
ARCHAEOLOGY: Archaeology uses historical timeline for their comparisons.
Some have posed that it is actually secular. Dating pottery is done in line
with the timeline but the timeline is adjusted in line with the pottery.
What came first? The chicken or the egg.
FIXED ASSYRIAN TIMELINE: Archaeology uses RC14 dating, pottery assemblage
and other methods to try and date ancient sites. But that is only done for
periods earlier than the Assyrian Period. When the Assyrian Period begins,
based upon a continuous history based upon the Assyrian eponym list, then
the chronology is no longer based on RC14 dating or pottery influences but
totally on astronomy. Fixed dating based upon the assignment to a single
eclipse in 763 BCE. Fixing the Assyrian Period to an eclipse is not
"archaeology" but a historical and an astronomy issue.
SHOWDOWN: RC14 AND CONVENTIONAL TIMELINE: But now the science has gotten so
incredibly good with "absolute" dating that there is now a conflict between
the absolute dating for the Assyrian Period based on the 763 BCE eclipse and
the RC14 dating focus from Tel-Rehov that is linked to Shishak's invasion
dated by that eclipse to 925 BCE when the RC14 is pointing to a date 54
years later in 871 BCE. Of note, the 763 BCE has always been under
criticism anyway, such as this Wikipaedia dig, suggesting the 763 BCE
eclipse is misdated by a month:
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"
At any rate, the 763 BCE eclipse is in the midst of possibly one of the
rarest natural predictable solar eclipse cycles that ever occurred. Nothing
I've seen has been published on how often this phenoma occurs, but this rare
predictable eclipse series did occur during this time of astronomical
observation in Assyria, Assyria experiencing three of of these eclipses in a
major way: 817 BCE, 763 BCE and 709BCE.
Here is a graphic of the rare series of symmetrical and thus predictal solar
eclipses that ancient astronomy expert, the late Otto Neugebauer, didn't
realize even existed. But then, computerized astroprograms have only
recently been invented. Even NASA is yet acknowleding this incredibly rare
pattern.
Loading Image...
Poit being though, eclipses at this time occurred in Assyria every 54 years
and 1 month apart, and 11 degrees apart. The dating of the eclipse is
month 3, the month of Simanu. But ancient cultures sometimes would begin
the year before the equinox and sometimes after. That is, sometimes the
year would be set when the first FULL MOON occured closely after the spring
equinox, and other times only when the NEW MOON occurred after the spring
equinox. The more standard practice in Assyria at this time was the
latter. However, it creates a circumstantial opportunity for dating this
eclipse. That is, if you mix the methods and use the Full Moon method to
date one eclipse in the series and the New Moon method to date the following
eclipse, then you can date two eclipses in this 54-year-1-month pattern to
the same month! That is what we have here. Both the 763 BCE eclipse and
the 709 BCE eclipse can be dated to the month of Simanu.
Therefore, it is quite easy to reduce the Assyrian Period, astronomically
speaking, down by exactly 54 years. When that occurs, the 925 BCE dating
for Shishak's invasion, now in contradiction with the RC14 evidence, moves
to 871 BCE, which is in precise agreement with the RC14 evidence.
Done.
And what about the problem with the Neo-Babylonian timeline? No problem
since the VAT4956 provides us with the original dating for year 37 of
Nebuchadnezzar, carefully hidden in this Seleucid Period texts when all the
original astronomical texts were being destroyed. So we do actually have a
direct reference to the precise original chronology. The VAT4956 reduces
the NB Period by 57 years, which compensates for the 54-year reduction
needed by adjusting to the 709 BCE eclipse. So all is well.
The correction of the rest of the timeline is a concern for historical
scholars and chronologists and of little concern to archaeologists, so they
needn't concern themselves, at least not in SCI.ARCHAEOLOGY about the
details of those later revisions since it's all "historical" anyway
basically, save for some archaeological evidence at Persepolis that has long
suggested the Persian Period was too long.
But focussing back on SCIENCE and ARCHAEOLOGY, which is RC14 dating, which
is pure SCIENCE, and the correct archaeological context for the discovery of
this sample from city IV at Rehov, there is absolutely no problem with
adjusting the Assyrian Period down 54 years so that Shishak's invasion can
be dated precisely in line with the RC14 focus date from Rehov. In fact, it
is an amazingly precise alignment.
EGYPIAN ADJUSTMENT: As noted, archaeology basically uses RC14 and pottery
assemblage to date everything prior to the Assyrian Period, so one wonders
how this would affect the Egyptian timeline if you move Solomon and David
down by 54 years? The answer is NOT AT ALL! How so?
Well, take for instance the fall of Jericho by the Israelites,
archaeologically dated by Kathleen Kenyon to 1350-1325 BCE:
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."
WITH OR WITHOUT WALLS: !!!
Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho
And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:
"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a
trace remains."
When Shishak's invasion is dated to c. 871 BCE, year 39 of Solomon, his 4th
year falls in 906 BCE, which dates the Exodus to 1386 BCE. That in turn
dates the fall of Jericho to 1346 BCE, 40 years later. As you can see,
1346 BCE is within the range Kenyon has already archaeologically established
for the Israelite overthrow of Jericho.
Meaning? Meaning ZERO IMPACT!!! The current Egyptian timeline, at least
for the LBA-MBA Period is perfectly in sync with the RC14-adusted dated for
Shishak's invasion in c. 871 BCE!!!
The final result is a very harmonious and archaeologically consistent
timeline, directly supported now by the most advanced metholody using RC14,
with little problem adjusting the Assyrian Period astrochronologically,
assigning that eclipse to 709 BCE, which apparently was the original eclipse
in this rare series anyway, as it would have been the obviously PREDICTED
ECLIPSE, likely the first ever predicted solar eclipse in ancient history,
made possible by the pattern established by the first two eclipses in
Assyria in 817 and 763 BCE, which were equidistant to the 709 BCE eclipse,
and likely why this event spilled over into the civil register.
WHY WOULD ARCHAEOLOGISTS RESIST THIS LOGICAL AND ACADEMIC ADVANCEMENT SINCE
THEY DON'T CLAIM TO BE HISTORICAL EXPERTS?
You tell me?
Lars Wilson
Some have posed that it is actually secular. Dating pottery is done in line
with the timeline but the timeline is adjusted in line with the pottery.
What came first? The chicken or the egg.
FIXED ASSYRIAN TIMELINE: Archaeology uses RC14 dating, pottery assemblage
and other methods to try and date ancient sites. But that is only done for
periods earlier than the Assyrian Period. When the Assyrian Period begins,
based upon a continuous history based upon the Assyrian eponym list, then
the chronology is no longer based on RC14 dating or pottery influences but
totally on astronomy. Fixed dating based upon the assignment to a single
eclipse in 763 BCE. Fixing the Assyrian Period to an eclipse is not
"archaeology" but a historical and an astronomy issue.
SHOWDOWN: RC14 AND CONVENTIONAL TIMELINE: But now the science has gotten so
incredibly good with "absolute" dating that there is now a conflict between
the absolute dating for the Assyrian Period based on the 763 BCE eclipse and
the RC14 dating focus from Tel-Rehov that is linked to Shishak's invasion
dated by that eclipse to 925 BCE when the RC14 is pointing to a date 54
years later in 871 BCE. Of note, the 763 BCE has always been under
criticism anyway, such as this Wikipaedia dig, suggesting the 763 BCE
eclipse is misdated by a month:
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"
At any rate, the 763 BCE eclipse is in the midst of possibly one of the
rarest natural predictable solar eclipse cycles that ever occurred. Nothing
I've seen has been published on how often this phenoma occurs, but this rare
predictable eclipse series did occur during this time of astronomical
observation in Assyria, Assyria experiencing three of of these eclipses in a
major way: 817 BCE, 763 BCE and 709BCE.
Here is a graphic of the rare series of symmetrical and thus predictal solar
eclipses that ancient astronomy expert, the late Otto Neugebauer, didn't
realize even existed. But then, computerized astroprograms have only
recently been invented. Even NASA is yet acknowleding this incredibly rare
pattern.
Loading Image...
Poit being though, eclipses at this time occurred in Assyria every 54 years
and 1 month apart, and 11 degrees apart. The dating of the eclipse is
month 3, the month of Simanu. But ancient cultures sometimes would begin
the year before the equinox and sometimes after. That is, sometimes the
year would be set when the first FULL MOON occured closely after the spring
equinox, and other times only when the NEW MOON occurred after the spring
equinox. The more standard practice in Assyria at this time was the
latter. However, it creates a circumstantial opportunity for dating this
eclipse. That is, if you mix the methods and use the Full Moon method to
date one eclipse in the series and the New Moon method to date the following
eclipse, then you can date two eclipses in this 54-year-1-month pattern to
the same month! That is what we have here. Both the 763 BCE eclipse and
the 709 BCE eclipse can be dated to the month of Simanu.
Therefore, it is quite easy to reduce the Assyrian Period, astronomically
speaking, down by exactly 54 years. When that occurs, the 925 BCE dating
for Shishak's invasion, now in contradiction with the RC14 evidence, moves
to 871 BCE, which is in precise agreement with the RC14 evidence.
Done.
And what about the problem with the Neo-Babylonian timeline? No problem
since the VAT4956 provides us with the original dating for year 37 of
Nebuchadnezzar, carefully hidden in this Seleucid Period texts when all the
original astronomical texts were being destroyed. So we do actually have a
direct reference to the precise original chronology. The VAT4956 reduces
the NB Period by 57 years, which compensates for the 54-year reduction
needed by adjusting to the 709 BCE eclipse. So all is well.
The correction of the rest of the timeline is a concern for historical
scholars and chronologists and of little concern to archaeologists, so they
needn't concern themselves, at least not in SCI.ARCHAEOLOGY about the
details of those later revisions since it's all "historical" anyway
basically, save for some archaeological evidence at Persepolis that has long
suggested the Persian Period was too long.
But focussing back on SCIENCE and ARCHAEOLOGY, which is RC14 dating, which
is pure SCIENCE, and the correct archaeological context for the discovery of
this sample from city IV at Rehov, there is absolutely no problem with
adjusting the Assyrian Period down 54 years so that Shishak's invasion can
be dated precisely in line with the RC14 focus date from Rehov. In fact, it
is an amazingly precise alignment.
EGYPIAN ADJUSTMENT: As noted, archaeology basically uses RC14 and pottery
assemblage to date everything prior to the Assyrian Period, so one wonders
how this would affect the Egyptian timeline if you move Solomon and David
down by 54 years? The answer is NOT AT ALL! How so?
Well, take for instance the fall of Jericho by the Israelites,
archaeologically dated by Kathleen Kenyon to 1350-1325 BCE:
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."
WITH OR WITHOUT WALLS: !!!
Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho
And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:
"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a
trace remains."
When Shishak's invasion is dated to c. 871 BCE, year 39 of Solomon, his 4th
year falls in 906 BCE, which dates the Exodus to 1386 BCE. That in turn
dates the fall of Jericho to 1346 BCE, 40 years later. As you can see,
1346 BCE is within the range Kenyon has already archaeologically established
for the Israelite overthrow of Jericho.
Meaning? Meaning ZERO IMPACT!!! The current Egyptian timeline, at least
for the LBA-MBA Period is perfectly in sync with the RC14-adusted dated for
Shishak's invasion in c. 871 BCE!!!
The final result is a very harmonious and archaeologically consistent
timeline, directly supported now by the most advanced metholody using RC14,
with little problem adjusting the Assyrian Period astrochronologically,
assigning that eclipse to 709 BCE, which apparently was the original eclipse
in this rare series anyway, as it would have been the obviously PREDICTED
ECLIPSE, likely the first ever predicted solar eclipse in ancient history,
made possible by the pattern established by the first two eclipses in
Assyria in 817 and 763 BCE, which were equidistant to the 709 BCE eclipse,
and likely why this event spilled over into the civil register.
WHY WOULD ARCHAEOLOGISTS RESIST THIS LOGICAL AND ACADEMIC ADVANCEMENT SINCE
THEY DON'T CLAIM TO BE HISTORICAL EXPERTS?
You tell me?
Lars Wilson
