A
REVIEW OF:
ROLF
FURULI: PERSIAN CHRONOLOGY AND THE LENGTH
OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE OF THE JEWS (OSLO: ROLF FURULI a/s, 2003)
© Carl Olof Jonsson, Göteborg, Sweden, 2009
Review
of chapters 5-10:
Can
the Persian Chronology be Revised? – Rolf Furuli’s
“Response to Jonsson” Examined
Rolf Furuli’s book Persian Chronology and the Length of the
Babylonian Exile of the Jews was first published in 2003 as volume I of his two volumes on ancient chronology. As the title of
the book shows, the volume deals with two questions: (1) the Persian chronology, and (2) the length of the Jewish exile in Babylonia. The second question
is discussed in the first four chapters of the book, and a review of these
chapters by this author was published on this web site in 2003. A review of
Furuli’s discussion of the first question, however, the Persian chronology, has
been published elsewhere, viz., in the British interdisciplinary journal Chronology & Catastrophism Review
[C&CR]: “Can the Persian Chronology be Revised? –
Part I” (C&CR 2006, pp. 25-40), and “Can the Persian Chronology be Revised?
– Part II: The Reign of Artaxerxes I” (C&CR 2007, pp. 38-57).
The basic reason for Rolf
Furuli’s attempt to revise the Persian chronology is the Watch Tower Society’s
exposition of the “seventy weeks [of years],” or 490 years, of Daniel 9:24-27.
Based on Nehemiah 2:1f., it reckons this 490-year
period from the 20th year of Artaxerxes I to 36 CE, the supposed
expiring date of the 70th “year-week,” in the middle of which the
Messiah was to be “cut off” according to Daniel 9:26, 27. This application,
however, requires that the 20th year of Artaxerxes I is dated to 455
BCE instead of 445. This is an old idea that can be traced back to the noted
theologian Denis Petau, better known as Dionysius Petavius, who first presented
it in a work published in 1627 (De
Doctrina Temporum, Vol. 2).
The discovery and
interpretation of the many thousands of cuneiform tablets dated to the Persian
period have made this application untenable. The evidence against the theory
has been constantly increasing ever since the study of these tablets started
about the middle of the 19th century. The overwhelming burden of
evidence against the 455 BCE date available today has caused the Watch Tower
Society and its apologists insurmountable problems. As
there is no evidence that speaks in favor
of the date, their defence of the date has been limited to attempts to
undermine the evidence that speaks against
it.
In order to move the 20th
year of Artaxerxes I from 445 back to 455 BCE, it has been necessary to
increase the length of his reign from 41 to 51 years. This pushes back the
first year of his reign from 464 to 474 BCE. It also moves all the previous
dates 10 years backwards. The 21-year reign of his predecessor, Xerxes, for
example, is moved back from 485-465 to 495-475 BCE. It would also move the date
for the fall of Babylon, 539 BCE, back to 549 BCE. But as the 539 BCE date is
indispensible for the chronology of the Watch Tower Society, the solution has
been to create a co-regency somewhere after 539.
Furuli’s variant of the co-regency theory implies a two-step solution. Furuli
not only lengthens the reign of Artaxerxes I to 51 years (which as stated moves
the reign of his predecessor Xerxes 10 years backwards), but he also moves the
reign of Darius I (521-486 BCE) one year forward (to 520-485). In this way
Furuli creates a co-regency of 11 years between Darius I and his son and
successor Xerxes:
|
Persian Ruler: |
The traditional chronology: |
Furuli’s “Oslo Chronology”: |
|
Darius I |
36 years: 521 – 486 |
36 years: 520 – 485 |
|
Xerxes I |
21 years: 485 – 465 |
with Darius, 11 years: 495 – 485 + sole rule, 10 years: 484 – 475 |
|
Artaxerxes I |
41 years: 464 – 424 |
51 years: 474 – 424 |
That such chronological
rearrangements are untenable was demonstrated in my two-part review in C&CR
mentioned above. Anybody interested in reading this review may contact me for
an email copy.
In an attempt to defend his variant
of the Watchtower chronology (the “Oslo Chronology”), Rolf Furuli wrote a
response to my review that was published in the C&CR issue of 2009:
“Studies in Persian Chronology – A Response to Jonsson” (pp. 30-39). In this
10-page response Furuli explains that “space prevents” him from “dealing with
every argument” I presented (p. 38). Actually, he has avoided discussing most
of the evidence I presented and has chosen to focus almost entirely on trying
to undermine the strength of the astronomical tablets from the period.
Furuli’s
approach to my two-part review
Rolf Furuli starts his
“Response to Jonsson” by claiming that “Jonsson bases his arguments and
conclusions on secondary sources, that is, on the conclusions drawn by different
scholars who have studied the original documents.” (Furuli, p. 30) What does he
mean by this?
Furuli has repeatedly claimed
that, in contrast to himself, I have not studied ancient languages and have
therefore been forced to use translations
of the original tablets by leading authorities on cuneiform, Akkadian, and the
astronomical cuneiform tablets, authorities like Abraham J. Sachs, Hermann
Hunger, Christopher Walker, John Steele, and others. To Furuli this means
turning to “secondary sources.”
But firstly, Rolf Furuli knows nothing about my studies and knowledge
of ancient languages.
Secondly, Furuli’s own
knowledge of cuneiform, Akkadian, and ancient Babylonian astronomy is far from sufficient,
as has been demonstrated, time and again, by the critical examinations of the
works and articles he has written on the subject so far. His discussions have
been shown – not only by me but also by several other scholars – to bristle
with serious mistakes, page after page.
Thirdly, all the
quotations from the astronomical cuneiform tablets in his 10-page “Response to
Jonsson” are literally quoted from the translations in the ADT volumes of
Abraham Sachs and Hermann Hunger. (ADT = Astronomical
Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Vols. I, II,
III, V, and VI.) Thus, as Furuli regards these translations as
“secondary sources,” he is just as
dependent on “secondary sources” as he claims that I am!
Fourthly, if a scholar who
is an authority on cuneiform and the Akkadian language and who has spent most
of his adult life on studying ancient astronomical tablets written in that
language is to be regarded a secondary
source, what are we to say about Rolf Furuli himself, who is neither an
authority on cuneiform and Akkadian, nor on the Babylonian astronomical
tablets? Can he even be regarded a secondary
source? As he so far has not contributed anything that increases our
understanding of the Akkadian language, our understanding of Babylonian
astronomy, or our understanding of the astronomical cuneiform tablets, can he
be regarded as a useful source at all?
And fifthly, if we have questions about how a certain passage in a
Babylonian astronomical tablet is to be understood and translated, to whom should
we turn? To a leading authority on such texts, or to Rolf Furuli, who is no expert on such tablets, and whose agenda is well known
to most of us? The answer is obvious.
When the evidence is
overwhelming, a scholar is entitled to draw a definite conclusion. I had to do this 35 years ago when I, as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses,
after much research and resistance, finally felt forced to open my mind to the
enormous burden of evidence I had found against the Watch Tower Society’s
chronology and to accept the unpleasant facts. In an earlier article in
C&CR Furuli points out how important it is, not least for a scholar, to
take a “balanced approach” and to be “open-minded.” (“Open-Mindedness and
Ancient Chronology,” C&CR 2007, pp. 36, 37) But to emphasize this matter-of-course is one thing; to be such a scholar is another. It is
well known to many of the readers of Furuli’s works that he has spent all his
adult life on defending the chronologically based claims and dogmas of a
religious sect. It seems rather odd, therefore, when he in his 10-page
“Response to Jonsson” stoops to using ad
hominem arguments by describing me as “categorical”, “dogmatic” and
“sectarian.” Not until he begins to take a “balanced approach” to the Watch
Tower Society’s chronology, by openly admitting and pointing out its serious
weaknesses and problems, will he prove himself to be an open-minded,
non-dogmatic and non-sectarian scholar. So far, however, he has never openly
criticized the Watch Tower Society’s chronology, the corner-stone of its
sectarian claim to be “God’s sole channel on earth.”
Furuli’s
“Response to Jonsson” critically examined
My two-part review of Furuli’s
discussion of the Persian chronology covers 36 pages in all. About six of these
pages (about 17% of my discussion) are devoted to a discussion of astronomical
tablets that establish the absolute chronology for the reigns of Darius I,
Xerxes, and Artaxerxes I. I used four tablets:
(1) LBAT 1393 (translated as No. 54 in ADT V),
dated to the reign of Darius I.
(2) LBAT 1419 (No. 4 in ADT V), with one entry
dated to year 21 of Xerxes (465/464 BCE).
(3) VAT 5047 (No. -453 in ADT I),
dated to year 11 of Artaxerxes I (454/453 BCE).
(4) LBAT 1387+1388+1486 (No. 56 in ADT V), mainly
dated to the reign of Artaxerxes I.
As stated earlier, Furuli in
his “Response to Jonsson” focuses almost entirely on the astronomical cuneiform
tablets. In addition to the four tablets I used, however, Furuli also
discusses three other astronomical tablets:
(5) Strm Kambys 400 (No. 55 in ADT V), dated to
year 7 of Cambyses.
(6) W 20030/142 (No. -463 in
ADT I). Regnal year missing.
(7) BM 33478 (No. -440 in ADT
I). Regnal year damaged.
I did not use any of these
three tablets, for the following reasons:
• The first tablet (5), which
is dated to year 7 of Cambyses (523/522 BCE), is one of the most problematic
astronomical tablets. It is not just a later copy. As scholars point out, it
contains a mixture of observations, predictions, and perhaps retro-calculations
added by the later copyist. In addition, it also contains a lot of errors and
contradictions. (See GTR4, pp. 86, 87)
• On the second tablet (6) both
the royal name and the regnal year are missing. Even if the astronomical
observations recorded on it may be safely dated to year 464 BCE, it does not
establish this as the first year (or 11th, according to Furuli) of
Artaxerxes I. It is, therefore, useless for chronological purposes.
• The third tablet (7),
finally, is dated to a king named Artaxerxes. The regnal year is partially
broken. Hunger tentatively dated it to the 24th year of Artaxerxes I
(441 BCE), but he admitted that both the date and the identity of the king are
problematic. (ADT I, p. 61) The problems were solved a few years later by
Johannes Koch, who demonstrated that the tablet belonged to the 23rd
year of Artaxerxes II, 382/381 BCE. (Archiv
für Orientforschung 1991/2, pp. 101-103) This conclusion was later, in 1993
and 1998, supported by R. J. van der Spek. (Achaemenid
History XI, ed. by M. Brosius & A. Kuhrt, 1998, p. 240) The earlier
dating of the tablet to Artaxerxes I, then, had to be abandoned. As it belonged
to a period I did not discuss in my two-part review, I did not use it.
Nearly half of Furuli’s
discussion of the astronomical tablets is devoted to these three tablets,
despite their poor quality, and he tries to use them in support of his “Oslo
Chronology.” (C&CR 2009, pp. 31-37) In a lengthy discussion of no. (7) above (BM
33478 = No. -440 in ADT I), for example, he argues that it should be dated to
the 10th year of Artaxerxes I, which he dates to 465/464 BCE.
(C&CR 2009, pp. 34-37) There is nothing in the text that supports this.
Besides, Furuli does not seem to be aware of Koch’s and van der Spek’s redating
of the tablet. A revealing analysis of Furuli’s treatment of this tablet by Ann
O’Maly is available on the web:
Because none of these three tablets, and the last two in particular, can be used to establish
the absolute chronology of the period I discussed, I did not use them. If
Furuli’s use of them is meant to be part of his “Response to Jonsson,” he has
completely missed the target as I found no reason to discuss any of them.
Furuli’s discussion of the
four tablets that I did use is completely misleading throughout. With respect
to one of the tablets I used, number (3)
above (VAT 5047), dated to year 11 of Artaxerxes, I challenged Furuli to
find one year during the Persian era other than 454 BCE with positions that
fully match the pattern of lunar and planetary positions recorded on the
tablet. (C&CR 2007, p. 44) Furuli did not take up the gauntlet. Instead he
tries to undermine the quality of the
positions, claiming that of the positions on the tablet “4 are wrong and 2
are correct” and that the tablet, therefore, “probably contains
retro-calculations” instead of observations. (C&CR 2009, p. 33) However, a
detailed study of the positions by the aid of a modern astroprogram proves that
the problem is not the quality of the
positions, but the quality of
Furuli’s examination of the positions. At least 5 of the 6 positions may be
shown to be correct, while the 6th is problematic. As it is recorded
twice, with slightly different readings, at two different places on the tablet
(in col. iv, line 2´ and on the upper edge, line 3),
this may indicate a scribal or copyist error. Anyway, my challenge still
stands.
Furuli’s treatment of the
other three tablets I used is of the same poor quality. Of
no. (1) above
(LBAT 1393) he erroneously claims that “11 positions are wrong, 4 are possibly
correct, and 1 is correct.” Again, this indicates to him that “the many wrong
positions on this tablet really suggest retro-calculation” rather than
observation. (C&CR 2009, p. 32) Of no. (2) above
(LBAT 1419), he admits that the record dated to the last year of
Xerxes perfectly fits 465 BCE, but argues,
mistakenly, that it also perfectly fits 475. (C&CR 2009, pp. 35, 36) And of no. (4) above (LBAT 1387+1388+1486) he claims that, of 43 positions
of Venus related to one king, 32 positions are wrong, 5 correct, and 6 possibly
correct. Unfortunately, Furuli’s conclusion that the “74% wrong positions can
hardly represent observations, but are most likely retro-calculations, made on
the basis of a scheme containing errors” is based on the same poor quality of
examination that characterizes his treatment of the other tablets.
It would require a very long
and tiresome exposition to present astronomical examinations of all the
observations recorded on the four tablets. The examination of just one of the
four tablets as an example – LBAT 1393 – will be sufficient to show how
erroneous Furuli’s claims really are. As even this will probably be a rather
boring experience to most readers, the results have been summarized in a
surveyable table at the end of the discussion.
The
astronomical cuneiform tablet LBAT 1393 (No. 54 in ADT V)
The astronomical tablet LBAT 1393, transliterated and translated by Abraham Sachs and
Hermann Hunger and published as No. 54 in ADT V, pp. 158-165, records
observations of the planet Jupiter arranged in 12-year cycles. The observations
were made in the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius I. The tablet was
briefly discussed by me on pages 28-29 of Chronology
& Catastrophism Review (C&CR) 2006, where it was demonstrated that
it punctuates Rolf Furuli’s so-called “Oslo Chronology” for the reign of Darius
I. My discussion of this tablet is criticized by Rolf Furuli in C&CR 2009
on page 32, where he states that the tablet records “many wrong positions,”
claiming that he has “found that 11 positions are wrong, 4 are possibly correct
(15), and 1 is correct.” He does not tell which of the 16 positions he feels
are wrong and why, but he suggests that the reason for the supposed erroneous
astronomical positions is that they “most likely represent retro-calculations
and not real observations.”
Is this correct? A close
examination of the observations demonstrates that Furuli’s claims are totally
groundless.
Entries
that are useless for dating purposes
Some entries on the tablet are
severely damaged, and in all but one of them the regnal years are lost. These
entries, therefore, are useless for dating purposes. Only a brief description
of them will be necessary:
The obverse:
Columns I´ and II´ of the
obverse are broken and missing. Column III´ contains six lines with text, but
much of the text is damaged, and both the royal name and the regnal years are
lost. Although the two preserved observations (one giving the position of Jupiter,
the other the date of its last appearance) fit years 512 and 511 BCE, they
cannot be used to prove that these were years 10 and 11 of the reign of Darius
I.
Column IV´ contains four lines
with text, and year number “23” is visible in line 2´. If this refers to year
23 of Darius I, it would correspond to 499 BCE in the traditional chronology.
Records of two observations, dated to months III and VI, are preserved on lines
2´- 4´, but as the text is partially damaged and difficult to interpret, I did
not use them in my discussion.
The reverse:
The text in column I´ on the
reverse is lost in lines 1´, 2´, and 9´. The remaining six lines are partially
damaged, but the two observations recorded may be dated to year 526 BCE. The
first entry in column II´ contains a partially legible text in lines 1´-3´ and
10´, with two observations that may be dated to 515 BCE. However, as both royal
name and regnal years are missing in both of these entries, I did not use any
of the four observations in my discussion of the tablet.
Entries
that are usable for dating purposes
The remaining parts of the
reverse record observations of Jupiter dated to years 8, 19, 20, 31, and 32 of
an unnamed king, who may safely be identified as Darius I. The details given
for the 13 observations fit no other king. None of these observations can be
proven to be wrong, so Furuli’s claim is demonstrably false. In the following
the 13 observations will be briefly examined, one by one, with the help of two
modern astroprograms, SkyMap Pro 11.04 and PLSV (“Planetary, Lunar, and Stellar
Visibility”, available free on the web from Alcyone Software).
The second entry in column II´
of the reverse (lines 11´-17´) contains both year number and month and day
numbers. As also most of the text is preserved, it is possible to check and
date the observations recorded:
Reverse, column II´, lines
11´-12´a:
“(Year) 8. … Month III, …the 4th,
last appearance in Gemini.”
In the traditional chronology,
year 8 of Darius I began in the Spring of 514 BCE. The 4th day of
month III of that year corresponds to May 28/29 (evening to evening) in the
Julian calendar. The PLSV program shows that the last visibility of Jupiter in
this year could be observed on May 29 after sunset, and the SkyMap program confirms
that Jupiter at that time was in Gemini. The tablet, however, shows that the
Babylonian astronomer observed the last appearance (in Gemini) in the previous
evening, on May 28 after sunset. The difference of one day between the modern
calculation and the ancient observation is not problematic. For a number of
reasons – weather conditions, uncertainties in the arcus visionis, variations in the planetary magnitude, atmospheric
effects and other observational circumstances – the Babylonian observations of
the first and last visibility of a planet could often differ by one, two, or
more days from the technically more exact first and last visibility established
by the aid of modern methods and computations. (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,
p. 177.) In consideration of this, the observation recorded on the tablet is in
excellent agreement with modern computations.
Reverse, column II´, lines
12´b-13´:
[Year 8 cont.]
“Month IV, … the 3rd, first appearance 5°
in front of Cancer.”
Day 3 of month IV in 514 BCE corresponds to June 26/27 in the Julian calendar. According to the PLSV program the first visibility of Jupiter in this year could be seen before sunrise on June 27, just as stated on the tablet. At that time Jupiter was “in front of”, that is, west of, the constellation of Cancer. It is not clear what the distance, 5°, refers to. No specific star is mentioned, and the reference to a whole constellation is very general. The Babylonian boundaries of the constellations at that time were not identical to those recognized today. Furuli correctly points out that “today, it is difficult to know what was then believed to be the exact end or front of a constellation.” (C&CR 2009, p. 32) The SkyMap program shows that Jupiter at that time was about 18.5° “in front of” the center of Cancer. Further, Jupiter was much closer to the constellation of Gemini than to Cancer, and it would have been more natural for the Babylonian scholars, therefore, to give the distance to the bright star β Geminorum, about 7° according to modern calculations. It is possible that the position of Jupiter was calculated on this occasion rather than observed, perhaps due to bad weather. This would explain why a whole constellation instead of a specific star is used as reference. It is also interesting to note that the Babylonian scholars, when they divided the zodiac into 12 signs of 30° each, began the zodiacal sign Cancer with β Geminorum! (Hermann Hunger and David Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia, Brill, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 1999, p. 150) It is not very likely, however, that this division had been done already in the late 6th century BCE. Due to the above-mentioned uncertainties it cannot be claimed that the position given on the tablet is wrong.
Reverse, column II´, lines 16´
and 17´:
[Year 8 cont.]
“Month VIII, … the 7th, it became stationary in [….].”
The date – year 8, month VIII,
day 7 – corresponds to 25/26 October, 514 BCE. The name of the constellation at
the end is lost, but Cancer is the only alternative on this date. The SkyMap
program shows that Jupiter became stationary in Cancer about 25/26 October and
then began to turn back west again.
Reverse, column III´ line 5´:
The entry in the first four
lines of column III´ is damaged and the regnal year is missing, so even if it
were possible to date the observation, it would not be of much help
chronologically. The next entry on lines 5´ to 12´, however, is dated to year
19 and records four datable observations. The first one is described in line
5´:
“(Year) 19. Month III, … the 6th,
first appearance behind the Chariot.”
Day 6, month III, year 19 of
Darius I corresponded to May 29/30, 503 BCE in the Julian calendar. “Chariot”
was the Babylonian name for the northern part of Taurus, to which belonged, for
example, the stars β Tauri and ζ Tauri. (Hermann Hunger and David
Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia,
Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill, 1999, p. 271) According to the PLSV program the
first appearance of Jupiter could be seen in the morning before sunrise on May
31, 503 BCE. This is one day after it was observed by the Babylonian
astronomer. His early observation is not impossible, however, as the distance
between the rise of Jupiter and sunrise in the morning of May 30 was about 46
minutes, which is nearly the same as that in the morning of May 31, when it was
about 47 minutes – a difference of just about one minute.
As the Chariot, the northern
part of Taurus, rose above the eastern horizon before Jupiter, the Babylonian observer concluded that Jupiter was
behind (= east of) the Chariot. β Tauri, the bright star at the north-eastern end of
the Chariot, for example, rose at
Reverse, column III´, lines 7´
and 8´:
[Year 19
cont.] “Month VI2, … the 10th, it became
stationary behind γ Geminorum;
the xth, it moved back to the west. ”
Year 19, month VI2
(the second Ululu), day 10, corresponds to 28/29 September, 503 BCE in the
Julian calendar. The SkyMap program confirms that in the morning of September
29 before sunrise Jupiter had become stationary in the constellation of
Geminorum. After a few days – the text is somewhat damaged and the day number
is illegible (thus “the xth”) – it could be seen moving “back to the west.” The
only problem is the position given Jupiter here as being behind γ Geminorum. At the stationary point Jupiter was almost
exactly to the north of this star and only slightly behind it – provided that
the ecliptic was used as the co-ordinate axis, which seems to have been the
usual practice in most cases. Anyway, this is a small problem as the record is
not very specific, with no distance to the star being given. To claim that the
position recorded on the tablet is wrong, therefore, would certainly be going
too far.
Reverse, column III´, line 9´:
[Year 19
cont.] “Month VIII
… the 9th, acronychal rising.”
Acronychal rising refers to
the situation when a heavenly body rises in the east at the time the sun sets
in the west. This happened with Jupiter on the 9th of month VIII in
year 19, according to our tablet. The date given corresponds to 25/26 November,
503 BCE, in the Julian calendar. The SkyMap shows that at sunset at 19:59 on
November 25, Jupiter had just begun to rise in the east, at 19:57. The
observation recorded, therefore, is confirmed by modern calculations.
Reverse, column III´, lines
11´, 12´:
[Year 19
cont.] “Month X,
… the 12th or 13th, it became stationary …
the Chariot.”
Month X, on day 12 or 13 of year
19, corresponds to January 25/26 or 26/27 of year 502 BCE. The observation is
confirmed by the astroprogram. Jupiter, which had approached the northern part
of Taurus (= the Chariot) from the east, had reached its stationary point
behind Taurus in about January 25-27, 502 BC. A few days later it began to move
slowly eastwards again.
Reverse, column III´, lines
13´-16´:
“(Year) 20.
… Month III, the 20th, [….] first appearance [….] the bright star of
Gemini (β Gem); it (Jupiter)
was bright.”
The date – month III, day 20
of year 20 – corresponds to July 1/2, 502 BCE. The PLSV program confirms that
the first visibility of Jupiter occurred in the morning of July 1 before
sunrise. For some reason – perhaps bad weather - the Babylonian astronomer did
not observe it until next morning on July 2. As discussed earlier, a deviation
of one, two, or a few more days is a fully acceptable difference between modern
computations and ancient observations. At the time of observation Jupiter was
about 5.5° behind (southeast, to be more precise) of β Geminorum. The fact
that Jupiter on that day rose as much as about 54 minutes before sunrise
probably explains why it was stated to be “bright” at its rising. Further, this
also confirms that the observation was a real one, since a planet’s
‘brightness’ wouldn’t have been possible to retro-calculate.
Reverse, column III´, line
17´:
[Year 20
cont.] “Month V, … the 27th, it
entered Praesepe.”
The date (month V, day 27,
year 20) corresponds to 5/6 September, 502 BCE. Praesepe is an open star
cluster between γ Cancer and δ Cancer, and the astroprogram shows
that Jupiter’s position was almost exactly between these two stars in the
morning of September 6 before sunrise.
The first two lines of column
IV´ of the reverse are damaged. Months XI and XII are mentioned in line 1.
There is one observation recorded in line 2´ – “The 25th, last
appearance in Aries. [….]” – but as the year number is missing, it cannot be
dated with any certainty and has to be ignored.
Reverse, column IV´, line 3´:
“(Year) 31.
Month II, … the 25th, first appearance in
the Chariot [….]”
Year 31 of Darius I began in
the Spring of 491 BCE in the traditional chronology. Month II, day 25,
corresponds to 4/5 June. The PLSV program shows that the first visibility of
Jupiter that year occurred in the morning of June 5 before sunrise, and the
SkyMap program shows that Jupiter at that time was at the eastern end of the
Chariot, the northern part of Taurus. Both the date of the first appearance of
Jupiter and its position are in full agreement with those recorded on the
tablet.
Reverse, column IV´, lines 5´
and 6´:
[Year 31
cont.] “Month VI, … the 28th, it
became stationary in Gemini; it moved back to the west.”
The date – month VI, day 28 –
corresponds to 3/4 October, 491 BCE. As shown by the astroprogram, in the
morning of October 4 Jupiter had become stationary in Gemini. A few days later
it could be seen moving back to the west again, just as stated on the tablet.
Furuli does not believe that the Babylonian astronomers could determine the
stationary point almost to the day, because “Jupiter moves slowly (only about
30° each year in relation to the stars).” (Furuli, p. 32) He claims that the
translation “became stationary in Gemini” is “misleading” because “Jupiter had
been in Gemini for more than two months already and would still be there two
months later.” (Furuli, p. 38, note 16) To indicate that the
Babylonian astronomers believed that Jupiter “was stationary” in Gemini for
several months is a serious mistake. They observed its slow movement
regularly and closely and were able to determine almost to the day when it came
to a halt and began its retrograde motion. The observation recorded on the
tablet is an example of this. Furuli is quite simply wrong.
Reverse, column IV´, lines
9´-11´:
(Year) 32, …
Month III, … on the 10th or 11th, last appearance 6
cubits behind Gemini.”
The date corresponds to 7/8 or
8/9 June, 490 BCE. The PLSV program confirms that the last visibility of
Jupiter occurred in the evening of June 7 after sunset, which is in agreement
with the tablet. True, Jupiter was behind (east of) Gemini on both days
suggested, but it is difficult to understand how the distance – 6 cubits (12°)
– was measured. Jupiter was closer to the nearest stars in Gemini (about 2
cubits behind δ Geminorum, for example, and less than 4 cubits behind
λ Geminorum). But as no star is mentioned, only the constellation, the
reference is non-specific. It could simply be the distance to the center of
Gemini.
Reverse, column IV´, lines 11´
and 12´:
[Year 32
cont.] “Month IV, … the 9th, [first
appearance] 5° in front of [….]”
Month IV, day 9, corresponds
to 6/7 July, 490 BCE, in the Julian calendar. The restoration “[first
appearance]” is certain, as the last appearance of Jupiter had occurred in the
previous month (see above). The PLSV program shows that the first visibility of
Jupiter in 490 BCE occurred in the morning of July 5 before sunrise. According to
the tablet, however, the planet was not observed until two days later, in the
morning of July 7 before sunrise, when it could be observed about 5°-6° in
front of Cancer. As pointed out earlier, the difference of two days is no
problem. Bad weather or other circumstances evidently prevented the observation
of the first appearance for a couple of days.
Jupiter
observations and modern calculations – summary table:
|
Date of Darius I |
Tablet LBAT 1393 |
Modern calculation |
Agreement |
|
Year 8,
III, 04 = May 28/29, 514 BCE |
“last
appearance in Gemini” |
Last
appearance in Gemini on May 29 after sunset |
Yes |
|
Year 8, IV, 03 =
June 26/27, 514 |
“first
appearance 5° in front of Cancer” |
First
appearance in front of Cancer on June 27 before sunrise |
Yes,
but the distance is non-specific |
|
Year 8, VIII, 07 = Oct. 25/26, 514 |
“became stationary in [….].” |
Jupiter
became stationary in Cancer about Oct. 25/26 |
Yes |
|
Year
19, III, 06 = May 29/30, 503 |
“first
appearance behind the Chariot” |
First
appearance behind the Chariot on May 31 before sunrise |
Yes |
|
Year 19, VI2, 10 = Sept. 28/29, 503 |
“it
became stationary behind γ Geminorum; the xth, it moved back to the
west” |
Stationary
north of and slightly behind γ Geminorum on Sept. 29 before sunrise;
then it moved back west |
Yes,
but the position “behind” is questionable |
|
Year 19, VIII, 09 = Nov. 25/26, 503 |
“acronychal
rising” |
Jupiter
began rising in the east at sunset on Nov. 25 |
Yes |
|
Year 19, X, 12-13 = Jan. 25/26-26/27, 502 |
“it
became stationary … the Chariot” |
Jupiter
reached its stationary point behind the Chariot ca. Jan. 25-27 |
Yes |
|
Year 20, III, 20 = July 1/2, 502 |
“first
appearance [….] the bright star of Gemini (β Gem); it (Jupiter) was bright” |
The
first visibility of Jupiter occurred on July 1 before sunrise (1 day earlier)
|
Yes |
|
Year 20, V, 27 =
Sept. 5/6, 502 |
“it
entered Praesepe” |
Jupiter
was in Praesepe on Sept. 6 before sunrise |
Yes |
|
Year 31, II, 25 = June 4/5, 491 |
“first
appearance in the Chariot” |
The
first visibility occurred on June 5 before sunrise in the Chariot |
Yes |
|
Year 31, VI, 28 = Oct. 3/4, 491 |
“it became
stationary in Gemini; it moved back to the west” |
Jupiter
was stationary in Gemini on Oct. 4 before sunrise; it then moved west |
Yes |
|
Year 32, III, 10-11 = June 7/8-8/9, 490 |
“last
appearance 6 cubits behind Gemini” |
The last
visibility occurred behind Gemini on June 7 after sunset |
Yes,
but the distance is non-specific |
|
Year 32, IV, 09 = July 6/7, 490 |
“[first
appearance] 5° in front of [….]” |
The first
visibility occurred on July 5 before sunrise (2 days earlier); 5°-6° in front
of Cancer |
Yes |
The examination of the
observations recorded on LBAT 1393 (= BM 36823, transliterated and translated
as No. 54 in ADT V) shows that 13 of the observations with a preserved regnal
year are legible and specific enough to be datable. By the aid of modern
astroprograms it has been demonstrated that 10 of these observations are fully
correct, while some questions remain with respect to the non-specific distances given for two observations and the position “behind” is questionable for
another observation. Other details given for these three observations are fully
correct, however. It may be added that the results of the examination above have
also been checked and confirmed by other scholars. Furuli’s claim, that “11
positions are wrong, 4 are possibly correct, and 1 is correct,” has been
demonstrated to be completely groundless. The problem is how Furuli can have
arrived at a conclusion that is so totally wrong.
Furuli’s examination of other
tablets in his “Response to Jonsson” proves to be just as disastrous. Most of
the observations and positions on the tablets I used that he classifies as
“wrong” turn out, on a close examination, to be correct. The real problem,
therefore, is not the quality of the positions recorded on the tablets, but the
quality of Furuli’s own examination of these positions. The problem seems to be
either that (1) Furuli is unable to handle a modern astroprogram properly, or
that (2) his understanding of ancient Babylonian astronomy is insufficient, or,
most probably, (3) both.