Multiple astronomical anchors and other scientific data demonstrate that the Middle Chronology model of the Venus Tablets of Ammi-şaduqa during Hammurabi’s Amorite Dynasty is accurate, and its absolute chronology of that period is precisely aligned with the Julian calendar timeframe. That dynasty ended in 1595 BCE. However, as discussed in a previous post, the relative chronology of the Ultra-Low Venus Tablets Model is more accurate between Hammurabi’s era and the Amarna Period. How is that possible?
The Middle Chronology assigns about four centuries to this interim period, whereas the Ultra-Low Chronology model indicates it was only approximately three centuries. Although both are essentially half-right, the fundamental problem is that both models place the Amarna Period over a century too late. Middle Chronologists can accurately account for the Amorite Dynasty’s absolute chronology from the start of Hammurabi’s rule in 1792 BCE through 1595. They insert the extra century between the Amorite Dynasty and the Amarna Period. How do they rationalize the expansion of that period?
As it turns out, some of the data seemingly justifies their conclusion. Nevertheless, closer examinations of their contentions prove them false. Their efforts to telescope this interim from one century to two involves the timelines of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, and Ḫatti (the Hittites). (Perhaps a later post will consider Hittite chronology.) As previously discussed, they base their expansion of the Egyptian timeline on the mistaken premise that the Egyptians had only one calendar system and that Sothic dates indicate the approximate temporal differences between those observations. The reality is that the Egyptian Twelfth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynasties involved four primary calendar systems that differed from each other.
Pharaoh Thutmose III’s “Annals” inscribed in the Temple of Amun at Karnak record his military campaigns from his Years 23 through 42. Those Annals often describe his invasions of “Naharin,” meaning eastern Syria and western Mesopotamia. Moreover, those records stated that “tribute” (gifts) arrived from Aššur (Assyria), Babylon, and Ḫatti, often in the year following one of those excursions into Naharin.
One advantage to having astronomically based timelines is that synchronisms emerge that make a lot of sense. The Six Pillars proves the absolute Julian calendar timeframes of the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty and seven centuries of Assyrian chronology. Moreover, the approximate Babylonian timeline (and the ruling period of one Hittite king) during the century after Amorite rule is almost precisely datable through various clues. Thus, all the contemporary monarchs who sent those gifts are identifiable. For example, The Assyrian king who sent presents to Thutmose III in the Egyptian king’s Year 24 was Puzur-Aššur III (AKL #61). Why? The kingdom of Mitanni (Naharin) was becoming an increasing threat to its neighbors during that period, and the Assyrian monarch was likely seeking support.
False clues about the Babylonian timeline come from the Synchronic King List. It was an early joint Assyrian-Babylonian effort to reconstruct their chronological histories during the reign of seventh-century Assyrian king Aššurbanipal. It mistakenly listed most of the supposedly contemporary kings. Their primary method was to align their king lists, counting backward from their time without accounting for errors. In contrast, the earlier Synchronic Chronicle was a compilation of contemporary Assyrian and Babylonian kings and synchronous events involving both nations. Its reliable details state that Assyrian Puzur-Aššur III and Babylonian Burna-Buriaš I were contemporary kings. Thus, we get a three-way synchronism between Thutmose III and these two Mesopotamian rulers.
Additional Assyrian and Babylonian international synchronisms provide further clues to reconstruct their timelines. The Assyrian King List is missing a couple of regnal periods during this period (#65 & 66), but as previously discussed, the sum of their reign lengths cannot have been more than a few years. The Six Pillars, Chapter 5, provides a precise total.
During the Amarna Period, these three kingdoms’ rulers ascended to their thrones within one year. The Egyptian timeline between Thutmose III’s Year 24 and Amenhotep IV’s first year is only 101 years. Thus, the interim between the reigns of Burna-Buriaš I and Amarna Period Burna-Buriaš II was less than a century.
Therefore, the evidence is clear that Burna-Buriaš II’s predecessor, Amarna Period King Kadášman-Enlil I, began his reign only about a century after the end of the Amorite Dynasty. Thus, from Hammurabi’s coronation to Kadášman-Enlil I’s was only about 300 years.