Ancient Middle Eastern chronology is complex and involves many data types from various empires, kingdoms, and regions. While interpreting that data, researchers assume that a widely accepted model (conventional chronology) is the starting point for understanding the available information. The problem is that the scholars who originated the traditional viewpoint have primarily based it on unsubstantiated assumptions.
When that is the case for any popular set of conventions, the resulting model might be substantially incorrect despite its wide acceptance. The human desire for recognition and to be part of a ‘tribe’ results in additional motives to conform to traditions without question. Moreover, people usually believe what their trusted authority figures have taught them. Since textbooks, university professors, and even Wikipedia are often relatively harmonious in presenting incorrect dates for ancient events and kings’ ruling periods, students frequently accept that these expert sources must be correct. When they later consider additional data, due to confirmation bias, they tend to accept those that conform to what they have previously learned and reject those that contradict their beliefs. Unfortunately, the second millennium BCE Middle Eastern chronology has some serious errors that result from this unquestioning adherence to customary ideas.
How did these incorrect understandings originate? Much of the data seemingly fits these conventions because many parts of the relative timelines are essentially accurate. Thus, they correctly understand the number of years between many historical events but misunderstand their absolute dates. Moreover, some conventional first millennium BCE historical dates are exact and absolute, leading people to believe earlier assigned dates are also correct. Consequently, when a piece of data, such as an astronomical record, does not fit the traditionally assigned period, they assume that information is somehow erroneous, and they reject it or try to adjust it to conform to conventions.
The problem is that there are large numbers of these supposedly aberrant records. When considered individually, it is easy to assume they are outliers. However, when a single publication collects them together along with all other relevant information, as The Six Pillars does, it becomes apparent that many aspects of the conventional model are wrong. In fact, their assignments of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian timelines in the second half of the second millennium BCE are over a century after the actual dates. That is why the accurate Middle Chronology model of the Babylonian Amorite Dynasty is incompatible with the so-called “Egyptian Historical Chronology.”
Although these data points that contradict traditions are numerous, they still constitute only a tiny minority of the overall data corpus. Therefore, they only occasionally arise during research, making it easy for the investigator to assume the datum is the problem, not the model. So, scholars reject legitimate and vital records one by one. This process is like putting a frog in a pot of lukewarm water and gradually heating it. The amphibian does not notice the slow change in warmth and does not jump out. Eventually, the water cooks the frog. Similarly, the scholarly rejection of data that should serve as warning flags has ‘cooked’ the conventional understanding of ancient chronology, making much of it unreliable and contrary to common sense.
The examples illustrating these rejections are too numerous to enumerate thoroughly. Previous posts on this website have already discussed some of them. The following post will consider some of the more outstanding examples.
The best way to avoid making this kind of mistake regarding the conventional chronology is by asking oneself a few questions: 1) How sure am I that this traditional model is irrefutable? 2) Is it possible that this seemingly contradictory record is correct, and I should accept it at face value? 3) Are other “outliers” harmonious with this datum, and if so, might they lead to a better model?
Ancient scribes indeed miscopied and altered many records, and some compilers mistakenly combined data sources while trying to reconstruct historical timelines. Nevertheless, carefully weighing the value of ancient documents and modern scientific information might lead to better chronological insights. Thus, keeping an open mind and utilizing critical and lateral thinking are crucial to progress in this field.
One comment