Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [ANE-2] Re: Low Iron II chronology debate

Expand Messages
  • David Hall
    To L. Wilson: What eclipse record are you referring to? Ptolemy was supposed to have recorded an eclipse from the records of Merodach-Baladan c. 719 according
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 17 1:35 PM
      To L. Wilson:

      What eclipse record are you referring to?

      Ptolemy was supposed to have recorded an eclipse from the records of Merodach-Baladan c. 719 according to Evetts (1892); another from the time of Nabopolassar in the seventh century and another from the time of of Cyrus in the sixth century.

      Sennacherib of Nineveh was supposed to have conquered Merodach-Baladan of Babylon c. 704 according to George Smith, I realize that these dates were decided more than a hundred years ago.

      From, History of Sennacherib by George Smith (1878) based on his translations from the Bellino Cylinder, Cylinder B, fragments from Cylinders C & D, numerous bull inscriptions, Taylor Cylinder, and various epigraphs). See also Ancient History from the Monuments, Assyria from the Earliest Times to the Fall of Nineveh, George Smith, 1875.

      More recently Joan Oates published Babylon in 1979 & 1986, and listed the regnal years of Merodach Baladan II as ruling twice, once from 721-710 and a second time during 703 not in conflict with dates published more than 100 years earlier cited above.

      David Q. Hall
      d.q.hall@...


      siaxares <lars1950@...> wrote:
      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Graham Hagens" <rgrhagens@...> wrote:
      >
      > For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and
      who may
      > not yet have perused "The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating" (eds. Levy
      & Higham,
      > Equinox, 2005):
      > Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have
      reached a
      > compromise.
      > The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE
      range for
      > the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the
      lower
      > end of the range.
      > Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition which
      probably
      > didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway.
      >
      > Graham Hagems

      I must say, I don't quite understand this! That's because the actual
      graphic CHART showing the radiocarbon dating forms a very specific
      POINT, like a pyramid aimed at a specific time just before 870BCE!!
      It's not a RANGE but a very, very clear POINT!

      http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Chapter15%20Bayesian%
      20Analysis%20Tel%20Rehov%20-%20Bruins%20et%20al.pdf#search=%22rehov%
      20radiocarbon%22

      The actual graphic for level IV at Rehov is located above. If you
      can't paste this, just Google "Rehov radiocarbon" and it will show up
      under:

      The Groningen Radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov

      There is a definite PEAK pointing to 875-870BCE!

      When the Assyrian Period is correctly redated by the 709BCE eclipse
      (vs 763BCE, which does not occur in month 3!) then Shishak's invasion
      gets downdated by 54 years from 925 to 871BCE; precisely where the
      radiocarbon dating is pointing the most.

      The result is, that Shishak's invasion is quite accurately dated by
      the Rehov sample to 871BCE, and since this level is associated with
      the palace level/destructive level for both Megiddo and Jezeel, it
      proves that Solomon built the palaces at both these sites, both
      destroyed by Shishak in 871BCE, which by the way, was during the
      reign of Solomon during a 7-year co-rulership between Rehoboam and
      Solomon, not recognized generally by archaeologists when making
      comparisons with the Shishak inscription (compare 2 Chron 12:1,6).

      >
      L. Wilson
      Astrochronologist






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.