A year has passed since publishing the post “Why an Astronomical Chronological Model Can Be Irrefutable.” That short article discusses the importance of corroborating evidence that verifies the accuracy of an astronomical model and how The Six Pillars (forthcoming) overcomes any possible misinterpretations of the historical and chronological data related to astronomical records and allusions.
People often say the three most important rules of establishing a successful business are “location, location, location.” Similarly, the three rules of successfully establishing a correct absolute astronomical model are “verification, verification, verification.”
Many intelligent researchers have studied one aspect of ancient chronology, such as an individual astronomical record, and built an entire chronological model around it while modifying the conventional understanding as little as possible. The two obvious problems with this approach are 1) those scholars offered no verification that their modern interpretation of that celestial observation was correct, and 2) their assumption that the conventional chronology is approximately accurate might be wrong.
The Six Pillars takes a unique approach. First, it considers reasons that suggest the conventional understanding of the second millennium BCE Middle Eastern chronology might be a century too late. Second, it builds a model of the relative Babylonian chronology of the second half of the second millennium BCE with theoretical answers to questions about inter-dynastic interregnums and mixed-number regnal periods based solely on the practices of ancient historians. Third, it attempts to fit that relative chronological timeline to two dated astronomical records describing unusual and rare events. Moreover, these documents seemingly describe observations that fit the timeline a century earlier than the conventional understanding. Since the interim between the regnal-year dated observations is the same in the Babylonian relative timeline as between the theoretically absolute astronomical dates, these two lines of evidence probably verify each other. So far, so good. However, that is not enough confirmation to be certain beyond doubt that this model is correct.
Fourth, The Six Pillars tests this model with other astronomical records from the same period. As it turned out, this correct model made it possible to deduce a systematic method for interpreting Babylonian kudurru astronomical reliefs. Fifth, narrow tree rings strongly correlated with severe droughts and famines in historical data, which made it possible to anchor the floating Aegean Dendrochronology Master Index timeline to the astronomical records with known interim periods from king list data. These two separate lines of evidence independently verified the overall model was precisely accurate and absolute, and they proved the deductions about interregnums and mixed-number regnal periods.
Radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, and related artifacts seemingly verified the Babylonian Middle Chronology model of the Venus Tablets when extrapolated back to Hammurabi’s reign and his Assyrian contemporary Šamši-Adad I. Three eponym-dated astronomical records from the Assyrian’s reign (a solar eclipse and two astronomically related festivals) are harmonious with each other, and they precisely fit the Middle Chronology. Thus, they independently establish the absolute dates of these two kings’ ruling periods and further verify the Middle Chronology model.
Sixth, distanzangabens (anciently recorded interval calculations) bridge over a problematic part of the Assyrian King List. This method resulted in specific dates for two wars between the Assyrians and Babylonians. The Babylonian absolute timeline described above identified the identical dates for these wars. Seventh, Neo-Babylonian distanzangabens also agree almost precisely with this timeframe.
Eighth, astronomical reliefs originating in the same years as the two wars portray celestial events that fit the dates.
Ninth and tenth, these independently established Assyrian and Babylonian timelines agree with the internal chronology of the Amarna letters; recorded water shortages and droughts align with narrow rings in the Aegean Dendrochronology.
Eleventh, the alignment of the triple synchronism between the reigns of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian kings harmonize with Egyptian Sothic and lunar dates. Twelfth, this astronomical anchoring of the Egyptian timeline harmonizes with high-magnitude solar eclipses that their monuments allude to and with a Hittite record of an eclipse.
Thirteenth and fourteenth, this placement of the Eighteenth Dynasty causes Ahmose I’s record of a disastrous flood to align with scientific data related to the Thera eruption and the end of the Fifteenth Dynasty.
Thus, fourteen independent and semi-independent lines of evidence harmonize and validate each other. This degree of corroboration leaves no doubt that these timelines are essentially absolute, with no more than minor errors.
One comment