A critical review of Rolf Furuli’s 2^nd volume on chronology:

Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology. Volume II of Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible (Oslo: Awatu Publishers, 2007)

Part II:  The Saturn Tablet BM 76738 + BM 76813

© Carl Olof Jonsson, Göteborg, Sweden, March 2008

The Saturn Tablet consists of two broken pieces, BM 76738 + BM 76813. It contains a list of last and first appearances of Saturn for a period of 14 successive years, namely, the first 14 years of the Babylonian king Kandalanu, whose 22 years of reign is generally dated to 647 – 626 BCE. As the examination below will demonstrate, the Saturn Tablet alone is sufficient for establishing the absolute chronology of the first 14 years of his reign. Every attempt by the Watchtower Society and its apologists to add 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian chronology is effectively blocked by this tablet.

The Watchtower apologist Rolf Furuli in Oslo, Norway, strains every nerve to get rid of the evidence provided by this tablet in his new volume on chronology, Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology (Oslo: Awatu Publishers, 2007). The Watchtower Society’s chronology, renamed by Furuli the “Oslo Chronology”, requires that Nebuchadnezzar’s 18^th year, in which he desolated Jerusalem, is dated to 607 instead of 587 BCE. This would also move his father Nabopolassar’s 21-year reign 20 years backwards in time, from 625-605 to 645-625. As the Saturn Tablet definitely blocks any change of this kind, it has to be reinterpreted in some way. Furuli has realized that he cannot simply wave it away as unreliable, as he does with so many other uncomfortable astronomical tablets.

To overcome this problem Furuli tries to argue that Nabopolassar and Kandalanu is one and the same person. (Furuli, chapter 12, pp. 193-209) This idea will be discussed in some detail at the end of this article, but one of the problems with it is that the first year of Kandalanu is fixed to 647 BCE, not to 645 as is required by Furuli’s variant of the Watchtower chronology (the “Oslo Chronology”). To “solve” this problem, Furuli argues that there may have been not one but two years of interregnum before the reign of Nabopolassar. He also speculates that “a scribe could have reckoned his first regnal year one or two years before it actually started”! (Furuli, p. 340) He ends up lowering the first year of Nabopolassar/Kandalanu one year, from 647 to 646, claiming that the observations on the Saturn Tablet may be applied to this lowered reign. He believes his table E.2 on pp. 338-9 supports this. However, as will be demonstrated in the discussion below, there is no evidence whatsoever in support of these peculiar ideas. His table bristles with serious mistakes from beginning to end.

The Planet Saturn has a revolution of c. 29.46 years, which means that it returns to the same place among the stars at the same time of the year after twice 29.46 or nearly 59 years. Due to the revolution of the earth round the sun, Saturn disappears behind the sun for a few weeks and reappears again at regular intervals of 378.09 days. This means that its last and first visibility occurs only once a year at most, each year close to 13 days later in a solar year of 365.2422 days, and close to 24 days later in a lunar year of 354.3672 days (12 months of 29.5306 days), except, of course, in years with an intercalary month.

EXAMINATION OF THE ENTRIES FOR THE FIRST 7 YEARS (14 LINES)

On the above-mentioned tablet each year is covered by two lines, one for the last and one for the first visibility of the planet. The tablet, then, contains 2 x 14 = 28 lines. As lines 3 and 4 are clearly dated to the 2^nd year, the damaged and illegible sign for the year number in lines 1 and 2 obviously refers to the 1^st year of king Kandalanu.

The text of lines 1 and 2:

1´    [Year 1 of Kand]alanu, ´month´ […, day …, last appearance.]

2´    [Year 1, mont]h 4, day 24, in fro[nt of … the Crab, first appearance.]

Comments:

As is seen, the last and first visibility of Saturn is dated to year, month, and day in the lunar calendar of the Babylonians. As the Babylonian lunar months began in the evening of the first visibility of the moon after conjunction, there are two mutually independent cycles that can be combined to test the correctness of the chronology: the lunar first visibility cycle of 29.53 days, and the Saturn visibility cycle of 378.09 days. 57 Saturn cycles of 378.09 days make almost exactly 59 solar years. As explained by C. B. F. Walker, the translator of the tablet:

“A complete cycle of Saturn phenomena in relation to the stars takes 59 years. But when that cycle has to be fitted to the lunar calendar of 29 or 30 days then identical cycles recur at intervals of rather more than 17 centuries. Thus there is no difficulty in determining the date of the present text.” – C. B. F. Walker, “Babylonian Observations of Saturn during the Reign of Kandalanu,” in N. M. Swerdlow (ed.), Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination (Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: 1999), p. 63. Emphasis added. (Walker’s article, with picture, is available on the web:  http://www.caeno.org/_Eponym/pdf/Walker_Saturn%20in%20Kandalanu%20reign.pdf.)

The modern program used here for finding the last and first visibility of Saturn and the first visibility of the Moon (the latter is compared with the computations of Peter Huber used by C. B. F. Walker) is Planetary, Lunar, and Stellar Visibility 3, available at the following site:

http://www.alcyone.de/PVis/english/ProgramPVis.htm

As explained in the introduction to the program, exact dating of ancient visibility phenomena is not possible. While the margin of uncertainty in the calculations of the first visibility of the moon is no more than one day, it can be several days for some planets due to uncertainties in the arcus visionis, variations in the planetary magnitude, atmospheric effects, weather and other observational circumstances. For a detailed discussion of the uncertainties involved, see Teije de Jong, “Early Babylonian Observations of Saturn: Astronomical Considerations,” in J. M. Steele and Annette Imhausen (eds.), Under One Sky. Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002), pp.175-192.

These factors “may introduce an uncertainty of up to five days in the predicted dates.” (Teije de Jong, op. cit., p. 177) A deviation of up to five days between modern calculations and the ancient observations of the visibility of planets in the period we are dealing with lies within the margin of uncertainty. It does not prove that our chronology for Kandalanu is wrong. Nor does it indicate that the ancient cuneiform records on the Saturn tablet are based on backward calculations instead of observations, as claimed by Rolf Furuli. A greater difference, however, of 6 days or more, would show that something is wrong.

YEAR 1 = 647 BCE IN THE TRADITIONAL CHRONOLOGY:

Lines 1 and 2:  For 647 BCE – the date established for the 1^st regnal year of Kandalanu – the program shows that the last visibility of Saturn took place in the evening of June 14 and the first visibility in the morning of July 18. The Babylonian date in line 1 for the last visibility is damaged and illegible. The date in line 2 for the first visibility of Saturn, however, is stated to be month 4, day 24 in the Babylonian lunar calendar which, therefore, should correspond to July 18 in the Julian calendar. Does this Julian date synchronize with the lunar calendar date as stated on the tablet? As the Babylonian lunar months began in the evening of the first lunar visibility, we should expect to find that the 24^th day before July 18 fell on or close to a day of first lunar visibility. The 24^th day before July 18 brings us back to the morning of June 25, 647 BCE as day 1 of the 4^th Babylonian month. As the Babylonian day began in the evening of the previous day, the evening of June 24 should be the time of the first visibility of the moon after conjunction. And our program shows that this day was indeed the day of first lunar visibility: both the Julian date for Saturn’s first visibility and the stated Babylonian lunar calendar date are in harmony.

YEAR 1 IN FURULI’S CHRONOLOGY = 646 BCE:

In his revised chronology, Furuli not only claims that Kandalanu was just another name for Nabopolassar. He also moves the 1^st year from 647 to 646 BCE. How does this redating of the 1^st regnal year tally with the ancient record and modern computations? Could it be that C. B. F. Walker is wrong in stating that the dated Saturn phenomena recorded on the tablet recur on the same date in the Babylonian lunar calendar only after more than 17 centuries?

Line 2:  In 646 BCE the first visibility of Saturn occurred in the morning of July 31. If this was the 24^th day of the Babylonian month 4 as the text says, the 1^st day of that month would be the 24^th day before July 31. This brings us to the 8^th of July, and the previous evening of July 7 would be a day of first lunar visibility – if Furuli’s alternative date for regnal year 1 is correct.

But it does not fit. According to the program, the day of first lunar visibility before July 31 in 646 was July 13, not July 7. This is a deviation of 6 days, which is too much. The very first entry on the tablet contradicts Furuli’s revised chronology.

The text of lines 3 and 4:

3´    [Ye]ar 2, month 4, day 10+[x, …, last appearance.]

4´    [Year 2, mon]th 5, broken, in the head of the Lion, first appearance; not [observed?.]

Comments:

YEAR 2 = 646 BCE:

Line 3:  As is seen, both dates are damaged. But if the 2^nd regnal year was 646, as is conventionally held, the last visibility of Saturn that year occurred in the evening of June 28. According to the program, the previous first lunar visibility occurred in the evening of June 13, which thus corresponded to the 1^st day of the Babylonian month 4. The last Saturn visibility on June 28, then, would be month 4, day 16 (= the damaged “day 10+”) in the Babylonian calendar.

Line 4:  As stated above, the first visibility of Saturn in 646 occurred in the morning July 31 and the previous first lunar visibility fell in the evening of July 13. If July 13 was the 1^st day of month 5 in the lunar calendar, July 31 should have been day 18 (the “broken” day number) in the lunar calendar.

We cannot know for sure if these restorations of the damaged day numbers are quite correct, but there is nothing in the text that contradicts them.

Saturn is stated to have been “in the head of the Lion [SAG UR-A]”, which “in the Diaries from -380 onward … designates ε Leonis.” (Walker, op. cit., p. 72) My astro-program shows that Saturn at this time was almost on the same ecliptic longitude (104.5^o) as ε Leonis (104.0^o), but its latitude was about 9^o below (south of) the star. If the restoration of the last part of the line is correct (“not [observed?]”), the position was not observed but had to be calculated by the Babylonian scholar. This would explain the inexact latitudinal position.

FURULI:  YEAR 2 = 645 BCE:

Line 3:  “Year 2” in Furuli’s revised chronology is 645 BCE. The last visibility of Saturn in 645 fell according to our program in the evening of July 10 and the previous first lunar visibility occurred in the evening of July 1. As July 1 was day 1 in the lunar calendar, July 10 would have been lunar day 10. The damaged day number of the text (“10+”), however, shows that more than 10 days had passed from day 1 until the last visibility of Saturn. If the restored day number was “16” as argued above, this would be a deviation of 6 days from the true date.

Line 4:  The first visibility of Saturn in 645 took place in the morning of August 12. If that was day 18 of month 5 in the lunar calendar (as argued above), the previous first lunar visibility in the evening of lunar day 1 would have occurred in the evening of July 25. But the program shows that the first lunar visibility occurred in the evening of July 31. If the restored day number, 18, is correct, this is a deviation of 7 days. Besides, the position of Saturn does not tally with the text, either. While the difference in latitude between Saturn and ε Leonis was the same as in the previous year (about 9^o), the ecliptic longitude of Saturn in the morning of August 12 was 117.5^o, which was 12.5^o behind (east of) the star (104.0^o). This alone shows that Furuli’s alternative date for “year 2” is impossible.

The text of lines 5 and 6:

5´    [Ye]ar 3, month 4, day 7, [last appearance.]

6´    [Year 3] month 5, day 16, in the Lion behind the King (= α Leonis), [first appearance]; 

       ´high´.

Comments:

YEAR 3 = 645 BCE:

Line 5:  As is seen, the Babylonian months and days for both last and first appearances are preserved. The date established for year 3 of Kandalanu is 645 BCE. As stated above, the last visibility of Saturn in that year occurred according to our program in the evening of July 10 and the first lunar visibility occurred in the evening of July 1. As July 1 was day 1 in the lunar calendar, “day 7” in the text would be July 7. However, the program dates the last visibility of Saturn to July 10, so there is a deviation of 3 days, which is not good but acceptable for the reasons explained earlier. The Babylonian astronomer(s) observed Saturn for the last time on day 7, although its actual disappearance did not occur until 3 days later.

Line 6:  According to the program, the first visibility of Saturn in 645 occurred in the morning of August 12, while the previous first lunar visibility took place on July 31 after sunset. If day 1 in the lunar calendar began in the evening of July 31, the recorded observation of Saturn on “day 16” must have occurred in the morning of August 16. The program, however, dates the first visibility of Saturn 4 days earlier, in the morning of August 12. This deviation is great but may be explained. In fact, the reason seems to be given by the Babylonian observer himself by his adding of the sign for the word NIM, “high,” at the end of the line. The word indicates that the planet Saturn at the day of observation was already so high above the horizon that the actual reappearance had occurred some days before “day 16” but had not been observed at that time, perhaps due to the weather. C. B. F. Walker explains:

“NIM, high: this term indicates that when first observed the planet was higher above the horizon than normal for first visibility, leading to the conclusion that theoretical first visibility had  taken place a day or two earlier, but had not been observed. See Huber (1982), 12-13.” – Walker, op. cit. (1999), p. 74.

Teije de Jong points out that of the 28 records on the tablet “7 records are unreadable or incomplete because of textual damage, while 6 records are unreliable according to the professional annotations of the [Babylonian] observer (‘not observed’, ‘computed’ or ‘high’, i.e. visibility occurred a few days late, presumably because of cloudy skies on the expected day of first visibility).” – T. de Jong, op. cit., p. 178. Emphasis added.  

If the actual but unobserved first reappearance of Saturn had occurred “a few days” earlier than day 16 in the lunar calendar, the difference of 4 days would be reduced by a couple of days or more.

The position of Saturn in the morning of observation (August 16, 645) is stated to be “in the Lion behind the King (= α Leonis)”, which is correct: The planet was 5^o behind (east of) α Leonis.

FURULI:  YEAR 3 = 644 BCE:

Line 5:  “Year 3” in Furuli’s revised chronology is 644 BCE. The last visibility of Saturn in 644 took place in the evening of July 24, while, according to our program, the first lunar visibility prior to that date occurred in the evening of July 20. If lunar day 1 began in the evening of July 20, the last visibility of Saturn on day 7 in the lunar calendar should have occurred in the evening of July 26, 2 days later than shown by the program. This deviation would have been acceptable had it not been for the date of the first visibility of Saturn in the same year.  

Line 6:  The first visibility of Saturn in 644 occurred in the morning of August 25, while the first lunar visibility before that date occurred in the evening of August 19.  If the latter date was lunar day 1, the first visibility of Saturn in the morning of lunar “day 16” would have occurred on September 4. This is 10 days later than shown by the program. As the word “high” at the end of the line indicates that the actual reappearance of Saturn occurred 2 or 3 days prior to lunar day 16, as argued above, this would still create a difference of 7 or 8 days. This once again shows that 644 BCE is an impossible alternative for Kandalanu’s “Year 3”.

It is true that Saturn at this time was “in the Lion behind the King (= α Leonis)”, but at a very long distance from the star:  nearly 18^o east of α Leonis and just in front of σ Leonis.

The text of lines 7 and 8:

7´    [Year] ´4´, at the end of month 4, last appearance; (because of) cloud not observed.

8´    [Year 4, month 6?], day [x], in the middle of the Lion, first appearance; high.

Comments:

YEAR 4 = 644 BCE:

Line 7:  Year 4 corresponds to year 644 in the traditional chronology. As stated above, the last visibility of Saturn this year occurred in the evening of July 24, and the first lunar visibility prior to that date occurred in the evening of July 20. Although the latter date was lunar day 1, it was not lunar day 1 of month 4 but of month 5. So we have to move back to the previous first lunar visibility in the evening of June 21. The “end” of this month 29 or 30 days later would take us to July 19 or 20. One of these two dates corresponds to “the end of month 4” according to the text. This would be 4 or 5 days before the actual disappearance of Saturn in the evening of July 24. The reason for this difference is explained in the same line to be bad weather: “(because of) cloud not observed.” As the event could not be observed, it had to be calculated.

Line 8:  The first visibility of Saturn in 644 occurred on August 25. Unfortunately, the text on the tablet is so damaged at this place that neither month nor day numbers are readable. The only information in line 8 that can be checked by modern computations, therefore, is the position of Saturn, “in the middle of the Lion” (ina MURUB₄ UR-A). Its position in the morning of August 25 was c. 1.3^o in front of (west of) σ Leo. Although today that is at the rear of the constellation of Leo, the Babylonians also included β Virginis as a part of Leo, calling it GÌR ár šá A, “The rear foot of the Lion.” (A. Sachs/H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia [= ADT], Vol. I, 1988, p. 18) Saturn, then, was well within Leo, although not quite in the middle. But as C. B. F. Walker comments, “in all probability ina MURUB₄ UR-A simply means within the constellation Leo.” (Walker, op. cit., 1999, p. 72)

FURULI:  YEAR 4 = 643 BCE:

Line 7:  “Year 4” in Furuli’s revised chronology is 643 BCE. According to the program the last visibility of Saturn in 643 took place in the evening of August 5 and the previous first lunar visibility occurred in the evening of July 10. If July 10 was the 1^st day of month 4 in the lunar calendar, the end of that month 29 or 30 days later would fall in the evening of August 7 or 8. That would be 2 or 3 days after the last visibility of Saturn. As the event could not be observed but had to be calculated by the Babylonian astronomers, this would have been acceptable had it not been for the recorded position of Saturn in the next line.

Line 8:  The first visibility of Saturn in 643 occurred in the morning of September 6. As stated above, the damaged and unreadable date on the tablet is useless. What about the position of Saturn “in the middle of the Lion” which, as we saw, fitted year 644? Does it also fit year 643? No, it does not. On September 6 in 643 Saturn had moved away from Leo into Virgo, 3.3^o behind (east of) β Virginis. Again, Furuli’s revised chronology disagrees with the tablet.

The text of lines 9 and 10:

  9´    [Year 5], month 5, day 23, last appearance. 

10´    [Year 5], at the end of month 6, first appearance; intercalary Ululu.

Comments:

YEAR 5 = 643 BCE:

Line 9:  Year 5 corresponds to year 643 in the conventional chronology. As stated above, the last visibility of Saturn this year occurred in the evening of August 5 and the previous first lunar visibility occurred in the evening of July 10. Thus, if lunar day 1 began in the evening of July 10, “day 23” in the text would have begun in the evening of August 1. This is 4 days earlier for the last visibility of Saturn than shown by the program, indicating that the actual last appearance of Saturn occurred a few days later than it could be observed for the last time by the Babylonian astronomers (perhaps due to bad weather).

Line 10:  As stated above, the first visibility of Saturn in 643 took place in the morning of September 6, which would correspond to “the end of month 6” as stated on the tablet. The beginning of the 6^th month 29 or 30 days earlier, then, would have been in the evening of August 7 or 8. And the program confirms that the first lunar visibility occurred in the evening of August 8 – an excellent fit!

FURULI:  YEAR 5 = 642 BCE:

Line 9:  Year 5 in Furuli’s revised chronology is 642 BCE. The last visibility of Saturn in 642 took place in the evening of August 18 according to the program (August 17 according to the table of C. B. F. Walker, op. cit., p. 66). The previous first lunar visibility took place in the evening of July 28. If the latter was day 1 in lunar month 5, “day 23” would have been August 19. The difference is 1 (or 2) days, which is quite acceptable. But if this shall have any real value as evidence, the first visibility, too, must fit.

Line 10:  The first visibility of Saturn in 642 occurred in the morning of September 19 (day 18 in Walker’s table). The previous first lunar visibility occurred, according to the program, on the evening of August 27. As that was lunar day 1, the “end of month 6” 29 or 30 days later would have been September 24 or 25. The first visibility of Saturn would have been in the next morning on September 25 or 26, that is, 6 or 7 (7 or 8) days after the actual event on September 19 (or 18) as shown by the program. As this is beyond the marginal of uncertainty, it is unacceptable. Furuli’s revised chronology is once again disproved.

The text of lines 11 and 12:

11´    Year 6, month 5, day 20, last appearance. 

12´    [Year 6], month 6, day 22, behind ´the rear foot of’ the Lion (= β Virginis), behind

          AN.GÚ.ME.MAR, first appearance.

Comments:

YEAR 6 = 642 BCE:

Line 11:  The 6^th year of Kandalanu is dated to 642 BCE. The last visibility of Saturn that year occurred in the evening of August 18 (August 17 in Walker’s table). The previous first lunar visibility took place in the evening of July 28. If this was lunar day 1, “day 20” of month 5 would have begun in the evening of August 16. This is only 2 days before the date of the program (August 18) and 1 day before the date in Walker’s table (August 17).

Line 12:  As stated above, the first visibility of Saturn in 642 occurred in the morning of September 19 (day 18 in Walker’s table), and the first lunar visibility prior to this date took place in the evening of August 27. If lunar day 1 began in the evening of August 27, “day 22” of month 6 began in the evening of September 17, with the first visibility of Saturn occurring in the next morning of September 18. The deviation from the date of the program and from Walker’s table is 1 and 0 days, respectively.

 The text says that Saturn at this time was “behind ´the rear foot of’ the Lion (= β Virginis)”. It is true that the Saturn was behind (east of) it, but it was far behind the star, c. 15.6^o, and it was even 2.2^o behind γ Virginis. It seems that the scribe mixed up the two stars. The reason may be the fact that Saturn was also very close to and in line with Mercury and Jupiter, so the observer may have had difficulties in identifying the faint star in the immediate vicinity of the three planets. (See also Walker’s comments, op. cit., p. 73.)

FURULI:  YEAR 6 = 641 BCE:

Line 11:  Year 6 in Furuli’s revised chronology is 641 BCE. The last visibility of Saturn in 641 took place in the evening of August 29, and the previous first lunar visibility on August 15 according to the program. If this was day 1 of lunar month 5, “day 20” of that month would have begun in the evening of September 3, a difference of 5 days from that given by the program for the last visibility of Saturn.

Line 12:  The first visibility of Saturn in 641 took place in the morning of September 30 (Walker, September 29). The previous first lunar visibility took place in the evening of September 14 according to the program. If lunar day 1 began in the evening that day, “day 22” must have begun in the evening of October 5, with the first visibility of Saturn taking place in the next morning on October 6. That is 5 (or 6) days later than shown by the program (and Walker’s table).

Still worse, Saturn was neither “behind ´the rear foot of’ the Lion (= β Virginis)” as stated in the text, nor in the vicinity of γ Virginis. It was on almost exactly the same ecliptic longitude as α Virginis (167.2^o) and only 4^o above (north of) it, but more than 14^o behind γ Virginis and over 28^o behind β Virginis! This clearly disagrees with the position recorded on the tablet and refutes the year 641 as being year 6 of Kandalanu.

The text of lines 13 and 14:

13´    Year 7, month 6, day 10+(x), last appearance. 

14´    [Year 7], month 7, day 15, ´in front of´ the Furrow (α+ Virginis), first appearance.

Comments:

YEAR 7 = 641 BCE:

 Line 13:  The 7^th year of Kandalanu is dated to 641 BCE. As stated above, the last visibility of Saturn that year took place in the evening of August 29, with the first lunar visibility prior to that date taking place in the evening of August 15. The day number is damaged, but is evidently higher than 10. If August 15 was day 1 in the lunar calendar, the evening of August 29 would correspond to the beginning of Babylonian day 15 of month 6. We cannot know for sure, of course, that this is the correct restoration of the damaged day number, but there is nothing that speaks against it.

Line 14:  As stated above, the first visibility of Saturn in 641 took place in the morning of September 30 (Walker, September 29). The previous first lunar visibility took place in the evening of September 14. With that as the beginning of lunar day 1, “day 15” (of month 7) must have begun in the evening of September 28, with the first visibility of Saturn taking place in the next morning on September 29. The difference from the date given by the program (and Walker’s table) is 1 (or 0) days.

The position of Saturn at its first visibility on September 29 was according to the tablet “´in front of´ the Furrow (α+ Virginis)”. As explained above, the astro-program shows that Saturn at this time was almost exactly on the same ecliptic longitude as α Virginis (167.2^o) and only 4^o above (north of) it. Thus it was not ´in front of´ it, as the text seems to say. However, the text is somewhat damaged at this point and to show this Walker has put the words “in front of” (ina IGI) within half brackets (something like ⌐ in front of ¬). Perhaps the damaged sign could also be restored as “above” (⌐ above ¬)? If this is possible, the problem would be solved.

Another possibility is that Venus and Saturn were confused. Venus, in fact, was 8^o “in front of” (= west of) α Virginis at this time.

FURULI:  YEAR 7 = 640 BCE:

Line 13:  Year 7 in Furuli’s revised chronology is 640 BCE. The last visibility of Saturn in 640 occurred in the evening of September 10, and the previous first lunar visibility in the evening of September 3 according to the program. This would make the distance from the 1^st of the lunar month 6 (September 3) to the last visibility of Saturn (September 10) only 7 days.

This conflicts with the tablet, which shows that more than 10 days (“10+[x]”) separated the two events.

Line 14:  The program shows that in 640 BCE the first visibility of Saturn occurred in the morning of October 12 (Walker, October 10). The previous first lunar visibility took place in the evening of October 3. If that was the beginning of day 1 in the lunar calendar, “day 15” of month 7 would have begun in the evening of October 17, with the first visibility of Saturn occurring in the next morning on October 18. But this was 6 days after the date given by the program (October 12) and 8 days after Walker’s date (October 10). This deviation excludes year 640 as the 7^th year of Kandalanu.

The position of Saturn is given on the tablet as “´in front of´ the Furrow (α+ Virginis)”, which also seems to conflict with Furuli’s alternative chronology. Its position on October 12 and 10 (and still on October 18) in 640 was about 12^o behind α Virginis, not in front of, above, or below the star. But as the signs are somewhat damaged here, this position is not decisive.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Above the entries for the first seven years of Kandalanu have been examined. This is half of the entries on the tablet which covers 14 years in all. It is not necessary to tire out the reader with a detailed discussion of the remaining entries. The results for the whole period are presented in the two tables below. The tables show the results only for the entries with fully preserved dates (15 out of the 28 lines). The first table shows how these records tally with the traditional chronology, and the second table shows how they tally with Furuli’s revised dates.

In the “Deviation” column the results of C. B. F. Walker are given within parenthesis (W+/-).

                                                                        TABLE 1
                            THE SATURN TABLET AND THE TRADITIONAL CHRONOLOGY

Comments:  The deviations in all cases where the dates are preserved lie all within the margin of uncertainty, at most 5 days according to the web program, and even less according to Peter Huber’s calculations used by C. B. F. Walker. Where the positions of Saturn are given and the text is undamaged, the positions are correct except in one case (year 6 = 642 BCE), where the observer/scribe seems to have mistaken β Virginis for γ Virginis.

                                                                     TABLE 2
                                                    FURULI’S “OSLO CHRONOLOGY”

Comments:  6 of the 15 deviations are outside the margin of uncertainty. The positions of Saturn do not fit, either. Of the 8 years in which the recorded positions are legible, 7 are clearly in conflict with the tablet, and the 8^th may be wrong, too. This is “year 7” in Furuli’s chronology, and the recorded position is slightly damaged and may partly have been misread.

In year 12 Saturn should have been “at the beginning of Pabilsag [= Sagittarius + part of Ophiuchus]”. This fits year 636 BCE, but not 635 (Furuli’s date for year 12). As the study of the astronomical tablets has shown, the western part of Pabilsag included θ Ophiuchus, which was thus “at the beginning of Pabilsag”. (A summary of the examination of the Babylonian constellations and the stars attached to them by the Babylonian astronomers is included in a separate Appendix in Hermann Hunger & David Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia [Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill, 1999], pp. 271-277.)

In 635, however, Saturn had moved away from Ophiuchus altogether to about the middle of Pabilsag. In year 13 Saturn should have been “in the middle of Pabilsag”. This fits year 635 BCE, but in 634 (Furuli’s date for year 13) Saturn had moved away also from the middle of Pabilsag and was close to the eastern end of Pabilsag.

The conclusion is that Furuli’s attempt to move the reign of Kandalanu one year forward cannot be upheld astronomically. His revised chronology is demonstrably wrong.

So what about Furuli’s attempt to identify Kandalanu with Nabopolassar?

WAS KANDALANU ANOTHER NAME FOR NABOPOLASSAR?

Furuli’s “Oslo/Watchtower Chronology” requires that twenty years are added to the Neo-Babylonian chronology somewhere after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. This, of course, would not only move the reign of Nebuchadnezzar twenty years backwards. It would also move the 21-year reign of his father Nabopolassar twenty years backwards, from 625-605 BCE to 645-625. As stated earlier, such changes are totally blocked by a number of astronomical tablets, including the Saturn Tablet. To overcome this problem, Furuli argues that Nabopolassar was no other than Kandalanu himself! In note 66 on page 56 he says:

“In the Akitu Chronicle we find a description of the years 16-20 of Samas-šuma-ukin. Then in line 24 we read ‘arki ^mKan-da-la-nu’ (traditionally translated ‘after Kandalanu’) followed by ‘in the accession year of Nabopolassar.’ The Akkadian phrase that is translated as ‘after Kandalanu’ can also be translated as ‘thereafter Kandalanu’; thus we get ‘thereafter Kandalanu, in the accession year of Nabopolassar.’ The phrase can also mean ‘this other Kandalanu’ in contrast to some previous Kandalanu. In both cases, Kandalanu can be equated with Nabopolassar.”

Thus Furuli not only claims that Kandalanu was Nabopolassar, but he also tries to argue that the phrase arki Kandalanu refers to his accession year. In arguing this Furuli ignores the fact that two other cuneiform texts use the same phrase, arki Kandalanu, not for his accession year but for a continuing artificial count of his reign after his death! As discussed earlier, the last of these tablets is dated to shattu 22^kam arki Kandalanu, i.e., “year 22 after Kandalanu.” – J. A. Brinkman & J. A. Kennedy, op. cit., p. 49. This alone invalidates Furuli’s argument. On page 16 of the same article Brinkman and Kennedy give some other, earlier examples of this posthumous dating method. See also the comments by Grant Frame in Babylonia 689-627 B.C. A Political History (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1992), pp. 287, 288.

A second problem with Furuli’s identification is that Kandalanu’s posthumous “22^nd” year was a year of unrest, when several pretenders to the throne fought for power. The Uruk King List gives 21 years to Kandalanu and assigns the next year to two Assyrian pretenders, Sin-shum-lishir and Sin-shar-ishkun. (GTR4, pp. 105-107) Similarly, the Babylonian King List A, which covers the period from the first dynasty of Babylon to the beginning of the Chaldean Dynasty, shows that Kandalanu was followed by Sin-shum-lishir. Unfortunately the list breaks at this point, but it seems likely that it also mentioned Sin-shar-ishkun. – D. O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie, Vol. VI (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), p. 93.

The 21-year reign of Nabopolassar, however, was not followed by a period of unrest and war in Babylonia. On the contrary the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 shows that the transfer of power from Nabopolassar to his son and successor Nebuchadnezzar was peaceful and without problems. That part of the chronicle says:

“For twenty-one years Nabopolassar ruled Babylon. On the eighth day of the month Ab he died. In the month of Elul Nebuchadnezzar (II) returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month he ascended the royal throne in Babylon.” (Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 1975, pp. 99, 100; cf. GTR4, p. 102)

At the death of Nabopolassar in 605 BCE the Assyrian empire was gone, so no Assyrian kings existed that could try to take over the power in Babylonia after his death. The political events following the death of Kandalanu and the death of Nabopolassar were wholly different, which once again prove that the two kings cannot have been identicial.

Finally, the intercalary months known from the reigns of the two kings do not agree either, which would have been the case if the two royal names referred to the same king. In the tables below “U” means “Ululu II” (the second 6th month), and “A” means “Addaru II” (the second 12th month). The third column gives the number of tablets with attested intercalary months from each year with such months. The question marks in Kandalanu’s column 2 indicate that it cannot be determined whether the intercalary month in Kandalanu’s year 2 was a second Ululu or a second Addaru. For his year “13/14” Walker’s list adds: “yr 13 12b or yr 14 6b”.

The tables are based on an unpublished list worked out by C. B. F. Walker. My copy is dated March 18, 1996. Walker’s list also shows an intercalary Addaru II for year 1 of Nabopolassar, based on D. A. Kennedy’s list in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 38, 1986, p. 179, T.1.14 and p. 222. But after collation in 1990 Walker told me that the royal name is Nabonidus, not Nabopolassar as stated in Kennedy’s list. (Letter Walker-Jonsson, Nov. 13, 1990) Walker simply forgot to remove this tablet from his own list.

As the tables show, the two kings had only one clearly dated intercalary month in common: the Ululu II in year 5. If the intercalary month in year 2 of Kandalanu was an Addaru II, this would raise the number to two. But still, most of the intercalary months in the two reigns disagree. This fact in itself definitely disproves Furuli’s theory that the two kings were identical.

In summary, the discussion above has demonstrated that Furuli’s revised chronology for Kandalanu and Nabopolassar is astronomically and historically untenable and has to be rejected.

ADDENDUM TO MY REVIEW PART II:  THE SATURN TABLET BM 76738+76813

As discussed above, Rolf Furuli tries to overcome the evidence presented by the Saturn Tablet from the reign of Kandalanu by arguing that Kandalanu was identical with Nabopolassar. This idea has already been refuted above. But one of the arguments used by Furuli was not dealt with. On pages 329-331 of his Vol. 2 Furuli questions Chris Walker’s restoration of the royal name in line 1, obverse, as “(Kand)alanu”. (C. B. F. Walker, “Babylonian Observations of Saturn During the Reign of Kandalanu,” in N. M. Swerdlow (ed.), Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination, London: The MIT Press, 1999, pp. 61-76) Walker restores/transliterates/translates line 1 as follows:

1´      [MU 1-KAM kan-d)a-⌐la-nu ITU¬-[x U₄ x-KAM ŠÚ]

1´      [Year 1 of Kand]alanu, ⌐month¬ […, day …, last appearance.]

Furuli, however, claims that (the sign for) nu in line 1 “looks more like [the sign for] pap” and argues:

“If the sign of line 1 is pap, the name of the king could be ^dAG.IBILA.PAP (Nabopolassar) rather than Kan-da-la-nu. The space of the piece that is broken away in line 1 and the small part of the sign visible before the sign pap or nu corroborate both names.” (Furuli, p. 331)

Is this correct? Can Furuli’s “observations” be trusted? One of my correspondents forwarded Furuli’s statements to a professional Assyriologist and expert on cuneiform, Dr. Jon Taylor at the British Museum, and asked him to check line 1´ on the original tablet. In an email dated August 28, 2008, Dr. Taylor answered:

“Dear … ,

with broken text it is always a little difficult to make definitive statements. The traces do let me say the following, however: 

1)  the last sign of the name is a perfectly good NU; one can compare the other examples of NU in this text. It does not fit the traces one would normally expect for PAP.

2)  the previous sign does fit the traces of LA. It does not fit the traces of IBILA.

Given the above, Kandalanu is the most reasonable reading. I can’t imagine of a writing that would allow a reading Nabopolassar.

Best wishes,

Jon”