Researchers have not yet reached a consensus on second-millennium BCE Middle Eastern chronology. Although several other nations and peoples occupied that region, most of that era’s available chronological information comes from Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt.
This website introduces a new approach that results in exact dates for much of the timelines of these three nations for most of that millennium. Many investigators have erroneously claimed they have established “absolute dates” for that period. (However, one popular Venus Tablets model for much of the second millennium BCE Babylonian Amorite Dynasty is correct and exact to the year, explained in more detail below.) Nevertheless, their uncomprehensive methods typically focus on only one data type, such as king list information, radiocarbon dates, archaeological data, ceramic typologies, or a single astronomical record. Usually, their new models are only minor variations of the traditional (or conventional) understanding.
All these data sources are essential. Nevertheless, none of these approaches is entirely reliable on its own. For example, many people (even scientists) accept radiocarbon dating as an almost exact scientific method. However, they do not understand the limitations of this technique and the factors that can cause significant local variations in carbon-14 levels. Uncalibrated Middle Eastern radiocarbon dates from the first and second millennia BCE have regional offsets that range from approximately +100 to -100 years!
One serious problem with the hypothetical conventional chronological models is their authors have failed to examine ancient astronomical dates comprehensively. Scholars recognize that an accurately interpreted astronomical record, when linked with king list information, can lead to an absolute date, i.e., a specific Julian calendar date for that event and potentially for a regnal year of the ruling king. Unfortunately, researchers reject the authenticity of these observations when they do not match the conventional model; alternatively, they reinterpret the details of the astronomical record to force it to fit their traditions.
Two such second-millennium BCE records are relatively unambiguous and datable in the Babylonian timeline; each represents a once-in-several-centuries event. Furthermore, the king list and regnal period data precisely agree with the timing between them. Although these astronomical dates do not conform to traditional interpretations, they generally agree with almost all available data of other types.
With a model based on these two foundational cornerstones, all the other recorded ancient astronomical events easily fall into place. If this paradigm were wrong, that agreement would be impossible. Although much of the Middle East has regional radiocarbon offsets, that divergence in several areas is relatively minor. Radiocarbon-dated materials from these regions (with some exceptions) also agree with this model, as do the related dendrochronological information and the artifacts associated with this tree-ring data. The name of this new paradigm is “The Astronomical Chronology.”
Two crucial issues regarding the second millennium BCE Middle Eastern chronology are: 1) Which one of the timeline models derived from the Venus Tablets of Ammī-şaduqa is correct? 2) When did the gigantic and catastrophic eruption on the Minoan island of Thera (Santorini) occur? An exhaustive consideration of historical and scientific information provides definitive answers to both questions.
When combined with Egyptian historical data, the exact year, month, and day of the Thera explosive event are identifiable. (Spoiler alert!) It happened on 10 September 1650 BCE. The Astronomical Chronology proves that the eruption occurred during the reign of the first king of the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty, Ahmose I. Moreover, this new paradigm demonstrates with absolutely dated Assyrian and Babylonian synchronisms with the Amarna Period, an Amarna Period astronomical anchor, and multiple Eighteenth Dynasty astronomical links that his reign was more than a century earlier than the conventional understanding.
This website will also introduce proof of these claims. Daniel Penuel Benjamin has written two books. The title of one of these works is The Six Pillars of Second Millennium BCE Middle Eastern Chronology, Volume I of The Astronomical Chronology. This website will post the first 54 pages within a few months. These pages include “General Introduction to The Astronomical Chronology,” “Introduction to The Six Pillars of Second Millennium BCE Middle Eastern Chronology,” and Chapter 1, “Fundamental Fallacies of the Conventional Chronology.” Once the proofreaders and editors have finished, the almost 600-page book will be available for sale. Researching and writing these books have required more than 13 years. (We are making every effort to keep the selling price affordable.)
The Six Pillars establishes the essentially absolute timeline of seven centuries of Assyrian history. It also proves an equal period in the Babylonian timeline (with the regnal period dates of one middle century a little less precise). Similarly, it establishes three centuries of absolute Egyptian chronology. Subsequent volumes of The Astronomical Chronology will elucidate earlier and later periods. The chart above illustrates that each of the Six Pillars is a multilayered network of evidence, and they are all chronologically interrelated. The internal agreement between those layers of evidence and the harmony between the Six Pillars would be impossible if this new paradigm were incorrect.
The second publication is a free e-book we plan to release in 2024. Its name is Scientific Explanations for Radiocarbon Offsets at Astronomically Dated Sites, Volume I. The local radiocarbon offset is quantifiable when a Middle Eastern archaeological site meets three criteria: 1) The Six Pillars and related historical information have identified the probable timing of events associated with an archaeological site, 2) the artifacts discovered in a stratum at that site are relatable to specific datable events or kings’ reigns, 3) enough radiocarbon-dated samples from that same layer are available to compare with the astronomically linked timeline. The scientific explanations for these offsets are primarily theoretical. However, to the extent that these ideas are testable, interested scientists can perform experiments to verify or disprove these theories.