SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1309.2758

Dating the fall of Babylon and Ur thanks to Astronomical Events

Abstract

The traditional date of 1595 BCE for the destruction of Babylon by the Hittite king Mursili I is accepted by most historians for many years despite notable controversies. This pivotal date is considered crucial to the various calculations of the early chronology of the ancient Near East. According to the Venus Tablet (Enuma Anu Enlil 63) which describes the rising and setting of Venus during the reign of Ammisaduqa, there are only 4 possibilities implying 4 dates for the destruction of Ur (1912, 1944, 2004, 2064 BCE) but a tablet of astronomical omens (Enuma Anu Enlil 20,21) mentions a lunar eclipse, dated 14/III/48, at the end of the reign of Shulgi and a lunar eclipse, dated 14/XII/24, at the end of the reign of Ibbi-Sin. Over the period 2200-1850 BCE there are only 3 pairs of eclipses, spaced by 42 years, matching the description of astronomical omens but only 1 agreeing with the previous 4 dates. The second way to check the date for the fall of Babylon is to rebuild the chronology of this period thanks to synchronisms dated by astronomy from Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Israelite chronologies which provide synchronisms that can be dated independently. The Mesopotamian chronology of this period is reconstructed using the number of Assyrian eponyms (1 a year) and the length of Babylonian reigns combined with the set of synchronisms among Assyrian and Babylonian kings in Annals. During the reign of Assur-dan I (1179-1133) eponyms began on 1 Nisan instead of 1 Sippu, but Assyrian lunar years without intercalation remained the norm until Tiglath-pileser I. As the Babylonian year began on 1st Nisan (just after the spring equinox), Assyrian years coincided with Babylonian lunar years with intercalation, thus the period between Assur-dan I and Tiglath-pileser I was therefore transitional. Owing to the Babylonian chronology and synchronisms it is possible to date other chronologies.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Gérard Gertoux. 2013-09-11. Dating the fall of Babylon and Ur thanks to Astronomical Events. https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.2758

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Scientific Promise

Scientists constantly face decisions about what lines of research to pursue. This Element introduces the philosophical debate about scientific pursuitworthiness. It explains how it can be rational to pursue a theory even if the theory is less well supported than its rivals, and it discusses existing philosophical frameworks for guiding pursuit decisions. The Element also develops a new perspective. Existing accounts focus predominantly on theories, while experiments are largely neglected. This is an important shortcoming. Theoretical promise depends on experimental promise, and experimental promise raises questions of its own. Drawing on the epistemology of experimentation, the Element advances an account of experimental pursuitworthiness. It is argued that such pursuitworthiness depends on experimental virtues like a clear signal and simplicity of design. Moreover, the kinds of uncertainty that constrain the assessment of scientific pursuits are examined. Finally, the Element highlights open questions in the philosophy of scientific pursuitworthiness.

physics.hist-ph

Is Black Hole Evaporation Prediction Friendly?

Manchak and Weatherall (2018) formulate the black hole information paradox as a failure of predictability in black hole evaporation spacetimes, diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I offer a strategy for resolving this paradox. I argue that failures of predictability in black hole evaporation are not well diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I then consider two weakenings of global hyperbolicity: prediction and retrodiction friendliness, the failure of which could ground a new paradox. However, deidealized black hole evaporation models can be prediction and retrodiction friendly. Therefore, the information paradox cannot be based upon failures of global hyperbolicity, nor either retrodiction or prediction unfriendliness.

physics.hist-ph

The Crab Nebula progenitor: recovering the 1054 AD supernova event as galactic Gamma-ray burst

In 1054 AD a daytime star appeared in the constellation of Taurus, for three weeks, and it was reported in various sources from Europe to China/Japan: it was one of the few documented galactic supernovae of the last two millenia. This paradigm has been established about sixty years ago, as the comprehension of the physics of supernovae progressed with enough observational data. The Gamma-ray bursts were discovered in the same period, but only in the past few years have their observations become daily and their distances have been fully understood as cosmological. After the explosion, the exponential decay of the luminosity in gamma-rays and X-rays has been followed with telescopes onboard dedicated satellites. Also the exponential decay of the afterglow's optical and radio frequencies have been observed with the largest optical and radio telescopes. Within the binary-driven hypernova framework, successful in explaining all the observed phases of the Gamma-ray bursts, the universal exponential decay can be extended to 1000 years after the burst, to account for the present values of Gamma and X-rays as well as optical and radio frequencies of the Crab Nebula. Both the daytime visibility of the burst, and the simultaneous radiation plagues appeared in Constantinople and Cairo is a strong evidence of the presence of Gamma-rays in the lower atmosphere, coming from the same source originating the Crab nebula. The association to the daytime visibility of that star and the following plague meets exactly the etymology of the word dis-aster, bad star.

physics.hist-ph