A previous post, “The Ironic Accuracy of the Venus Tablets Middle Chronology Model,” discussed the reasons that prove the Venus tablets of Ammi-şaduqa Middle Chronology assignment of the Babylonian Amorite Dynasty is the correct model, including the triple astronomical anchoring of Assyrian King Šamši Adad I’s reign. Nevertheless, in one aspect, the Middle Chronology model is wrong, and the Ultra-Low Chronology is right. How is that possible?
The advocates of the High, Middle, Low, and Ultra-Low Chronological models agree on one point. Almost without exception, those scholars think the conventional dating of the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty is correct. That perspective assigns the start of the Amarna letters corpus to circa 1360 BCE. Scholars base that understanding on three unsubstantiated assumptions: 1) Eighteenth Dynasty Sothic dates corroborate its conventional timeframe, 2) radiocarbon dates approximately agree with Sothic dating, and 3) the Assyrian King List (AKL) is complete, skipping no years, from the Amarna Period through the Neo-Assyrian Era.
All three premises fail under scrutiny. 1) The Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty used a separate (Theban) calendar system; Sothic dates from that period do not directly link to the later Menophres calendar adopted in the late Nineteenth Dynasty. 2) Two sets of radiocarbon dates from Egypt contradict each other. Those from Lower Egypt are generally closer to the International Calibration Curve (IntCal), whereas conventionalists mistakenly believe that the Upper and Middle Egyptian carbon-14 readings reflect IntCal. Nevertheless, carbon-14 levels in ancient artifacts from those regions are too high, making their dates appear roughly a century too young. 3) Since the first and second premises fail, no corroboration exists that the AKL is without gaps. Conversely, the more accurate Babylonian chronological records, reflected in distanzangabens, reveal a century is missing from the AKL. Furthermore, multiple reliable astronomical records verify that conclusion. Consequently, the Amarna Period was over a century earlier than the conventional understanding.
Although the Middle Chronology model has accurate absolute dates for the Babylonian Amorite Dynasty, the Ultra-Low model is best for the relative chronology between the Hammurabi-Šamši-Adad-I synchronism and the Amarna Period. Because of the widespread but false belief in the accuracy of the conventional dating of the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty and the Amarna Period, the scholars who support the other Venus Tablets models must find ways to lengthen that period to justify their viewpoints. The Middle Chronology model correctly assigns the start of the Amorite Dynasty King Hammurabi to 1792 BCE, whereas the Ultra-Low model puts it around 1696 BCE. In other words, Middle Chronology advocates believe the interim period is about 432 years. In contrast, those who trust the Ultra-Low timeline understand that this period was around 336 years. The latter group observes that the changes in ceramic typologies do not justify such an extended interim. In this regard, the Ultra-Low Chronology is far closer to accuracy than the Middle Chronology.
Unfortunately, the Assyrian and Babylonian king lists are deficient from the latter part of the Amorite Dynasty to the Amarna Period. Moreover, compilers of the Babylonian Kassite King List inserted an extra century due to contemporary Kassite tribes in Mesopotamia, each with its own leader. Nevertheless, Chapter 5 of The Six Pillars (forthcoming) reveals how we can reconstruct the Assyrian timeline reliably and precisely. That publication’s Appendix D shows how the Babylon Kassite timeline of the same period is approximately restorable with generational estimates and international synchronisms.
The conclusion is that the Middle Chronology model accurately determines the absolute dates of the Babylonian Amorite Dynasty. Nevertheless, it incorrectly extends the period after the end of that dynasty to the Amarna Period by more than a century. Of the various Venus Tablet models, The Ultra-Low Chronology has the best relative timeline estimate of that interim period. It correctly states the Amarna Period began only a century and a few decades after the fall of the Amorite Dynasty.
Thus, both the Middle and Ultra-Low Chronological models are half right.
3 comments