94Astronomical Dating of the Sumerian Tablets

Let us conclude our book on the astronomical dating of the Egyptian zodiacs with the following remark: not even one date that was obtained for the Egyptian zodiacs, agrees with the conventional chronology of Egypt. In fact all these dates strongly contradict the Scaliger version of chronology of Egypt.

In the context of the astronomical dating, a question arises in connection to the so called Sumerian Tablets, which are considered to be even more ancient than the Egyptian zodiacs. How the obtained for the Egyptian zodiacs dates agree with the dating of the Sumerian Tablets? It is commonly believed that the Sumerian Tablets were dated astronomically and, in fact, their dates confirm the correctness of Scaliger's chronology (see [179] and [178]). Is it really so?

We looked at the fundamental publication [179] of the Sumerian Astronomical Tablets, which contains English translations of several hundreds tablets. These tablets are dated from 652 B.C. to 165 A.D.

On the Sumerian tablets one finds descriptions of the planets and their locations among the zodiacal constellations. That simply means — they contain horoscopes. In the book [179], there is listed a large number of the dates, presumably obtained through the astronomical computations from the horoscopes on the tablets.

Let us point out that according to the published in [179] Sumerian tablets, there is not even one complete horoscopes described there. In order to expect a unique date during the historical time interval, a complete horoscope is required. However, all the Sumerian horoscopes are partial. In many cases, they simply talk about three or four planets only. Such horoscopes, as our readers can easily verify using the program HOROS, will produce a multitude of dates — in almost every century. With such a collection of choices, it is always possible to find a desired date belonging to the "expected" time interval, i.e. the epoch postulated by Scaliger's chronology. It is very difficult to consider this dating as a proof that Scaliger's chronology is correct.

In addition, on many Sumerian tablets some of the names of planets are missing. Sometimes thy are omitted, or there is simply a reference to a "certain" planet only. In such cases we can only guess what was the planet, which the ancient Sumerians had in mind. In particular, such "guesses" can be conveniently made based on the "requirements" related to Scaliger's chronology. It is clear that any chronology could be supported by this type of astronomical dating. Let us point out, that these datings based on "guessing" have nothing to do with the independent astronomical dating.

In summary, the dates associated by historians with the Sumerian tablets have nothing to do with their astronomical contents. Strangely, the astronomical data is ignored exactly in the case of those tablets, which contain more or less complete horoscopes. It is probably disturbing for historians that these horoscopes refuse to confirm the epochs postulated by them.

Let us present an example — the tablet No 418 (see Figure 9.2) related to the 5th year of Darius II:2

"The date ... adopted here is based on the planetary statements (Jupiter was in Leo, Venus and Mercury were in Taurus, Saturn was in Cancer). ... This date is unfortunately not confirmed by the few remaining observation,s. ... To make things worse, Venus was unvisible on VII 6, while she is reported as morning star on that date in obv. 2. In obv .3, the remark about the "northern horn" shows that the moon is to be restored at the beginning of the line; unfortunately ... moon had a latitude at about +3o when passing S Capri-corni which has a latitude of less then -2o. ...In view of this conflicting evidence the text should be used with caution; . . . "

One can see from the above citation how incompatible is the astronomical data described in the tablets with the dates associated with them according to Scaliger's chronology. In fact, the "precision" of these astronomical verifications can hardly be called satisfactory. Notice that in the tablet No. 418 there was described a horoscope composed of only four planet: Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury and Venus. With such incomplete horoscope usually one can associate a lot of dates, from which usually it is easy to choose the date that is the most "convienient." Nevertheless, in this "convienient" solution Venus turned out to be invisible contrary to the statement made in the Sumerian tablet. In addition, on the table No. 418, there was even more precise astronomical information describing the location of the Moon with respect to the star s Capricorni. Here again, the confirmation of the Scaliger date couldn't be obtained.

In general, it follows clearly form the work [179] that the astronomical "dating" of the Sumerian Tablets provides no confirmation for the correctness of Scaliger's chronology. In fact, these tablets call for an independent dating according to scientific requirements based on their astronomical content. However, it is doubtful that such astronomical dating is possible at all. The available

Figure 9.2: The Sumerian Tablet No. 418. (Taken from [179])

Figure 9.2: The Sumerian Tablet No. 418. (Taken from [179])

in [179] descriptions of the astronomical events on the Sumerian Tablets are not precise enough to produce a set of unique solutions. The dates obtained for the tablets are always multiple and scattered all over the historical time interval.

Of course, there is also another problem. How well the contemporary translators of the Sumerian Tablets understand the astronomical terminology used by "ancient" Sumerians. It is also possible that the true astronomical meaning of the Sumerian Tablets is completely different than it is portrayed by the specialist in this area.

Was this article helpful?

0 0
The Illustrated Key To The Tarot

The Illustrated Key To The Tarot

The pathology of the poet says that the undevout astronomer is mad the pathology of the very plain man says that the genius is mad and between these extremes, which stand for ten thousand analogous excesses, the sovereign reason takes the part of a moderator and does what it can. I do not think that there is a pathology of the occult dedications, but about their extravagances no one can question, and it is not less difficult than thankless to act as a moderator regarding them.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment