Ancient solar eclipses and ancient chronlogies

[Pekux]

The boys recommed change this topic

here Specluations 

Trust, this is wrong topic this subject, but maybe moderators does not accept the rest.

I am did study ancient solar eclipeses, how they fit together with ancient chronologies.

I is not can tell very large, so not to be interpreted as advertising. I want to make this thesis known, not to advertise something.

But i can part my study so a liitle bit.

• Solar ecplise  13 October 1504 BC. > This was queen Hatshepsutin's 15th regnal year.
• Solar eclipse 12 May 1384 BC > This was pharao Akhenaten's 4th regnal year.
• Solar eclipse 15 July 1360 BC > This was Mursili II, king of Hittie, 10th regnal year
• Solar eclipse 30 December 1332 BC > This was pharao Seti I's 9th regnal year.
• Solar eclipse - 30 May 1060 BC or 30 June 1052 BC > This was Shimbar-Shipak's 7th regnal year
• Solar eclipse  26 December 987 BC > This was pharao Shoshenq I.s 17th regnal year
• Solar eclipse, 2 June 911 BC > This was pharaos Osorkon II's 22nd regnal year.
• Lunar eclipse 23 February 887 Bc > This was pharao Takelot II´s 15th regnal year.
• Solar eclipse 24 April 788 BC - 13 June 809 BC > Ashur-Dan III 9th regnal year is  many options.
• Lunar eclipse 1 September 739 Bc > This was Sargon II´s 6th regnal year
• Solar eclipse  19 October 704 BC > This was Esarhaddon´s first regnal year
• Solar eclipse, 10 October 695 BC > This was Esarhaddon 10th regnal year
• Solar eclipese 30 September 610 BC > This was pharao Psmatik III´s 7th regnal year ( and probable solar eclipse of Cyaxares)

King Tiglath-Pileser III reigned 770-752 BC.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Pekux

[Pekux]

Ps. This is not speculations, this is research. 

New observation:

Jane Sellers: The Death of Gods in Ancient Egypt, 2007, p.273:

Quote

In 1063 BC Egypt experienced its next total eclipse. In the chpater ´Broad Hall of the Two Truths’ it has been conjectured that this eclipse over Thebes could have played a detemining role in the surprising assumption of power by Pinudjem I, a High Priest of Amun. The time was the Twenty Fisrt Dynasty, a time when Egypt was ruled by a ´dyarchy.’ Using Kitchen´s alternative chronology for this period, Smendes I was ruler in the north, and High Priest of Amun, Piankh, was succeeded by Amemnisu in 1063 BC, the year of computer predicted totality.

This can be speculation of Kenneth Kitchen.  But this my new chronology's on timeline this solar eclipse can be 9th May 1112 BC or 29. April 1111 BC. Maybe is interesting to, that this my study Pinudjem I "reigned" at High Priest of Amun about 1111 BC - 1073 BC.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Pekux

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Pekux said:

Ps. This is not speculations, this is research. 

!

Moderator Note

Then do a better job of explaing what you wish to discuss. This is a discussion forum. Not your blog.

 

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Pekux said:

I am did study ancient solar eclipeses, how they fit together with ancient chronologies.

I is not can tell very large, so not to be interpreted as advertising. I want to make this thesis known, not to advertise something.

Let's try and sort out the basics. 

Are you saying that:

a. the dates of these various rulers need to be changed?

b. the dates of eclipses are wrong?

If we can clarify that, maybe we can make some progress.

[Pekux]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Let's try and sort out the basics. 

Are you saying that:

a. the dates of these various rulers need to be changed?

b. the dates of eclipses are wrong?

If we can clarify that, maybe we can make some progress.

Hi

Answer is a 

Solar eclipses is Ok. Example:Shimbar-Shipak, king of Babylon. His reign 1025-1008 BC on current chronology. His 7th regnal year was solar eclipse, this is not found from 1019 BC. It mean: Shimbar-Shipak is not reigned 1025-1008 BC. This is simple, consistent conclusion.

Same conclusion is with Esarhaddon's reign: solar eclipse is not found Tishritu month 680 BC. This solar ecplise found 19th October 704 BC, Esarhaddon reigned 704-693 BC  Babylonia's king. (705-693 BC Assyria's king) 

Ps. One to some detailed information from Mursili II:

Solar eclipse in the 10th regnal year of Mursili II. In the current chronology, it occurred in 1312 BC, and other alternatives to the current chronology cannot be applied. However, this is connected to some detailed information. Archaeology reports that Mursili II's predecessor, Suppiluliuma I died soon after the death of an unnamed Pharaoh. According to the current chronology, Suppiluliuma I died in 1322 BC, while Pharaoh Tutankhamun died in 1324 BC. This two-year difference in their death dates is somewhat contradictory to the archaeological discovery mentioned above. 

Edited January 14, 2019 by Pekux

[Strange]

On 1/14/2019 at 4:43 PM, Pekux said:

Answer is a 

I assumed that was the case. But I just wanted to highlight that you never said that.

That is the first problem.

The second problem is that you need to provide references to support what you say, for example:

On 1/14/2019 at 4:43 PM, Pekux said:

Example:Shimbar-Shipak, king of Babylon. His reign 1025-1008 BC on current chronology. His 7th regnal year was solar eclipse, this is not found from 1019 BC. It mean: Shimbar-Shipak is not reigned 1025-1008 BC.

You need to provide references for:

1. The reign of Shimbar-Shipak being 1025-1008 BC

2. A solar eclipse in his 7th regnal year

3. The dates of solar eclipses around that period

These need to be specific, not just a link to a website (and certainly not a suggestion to use Google). For example, you need to quote the relevant sentences that provide the relevant information.

I have no disagreement with your claims because I know nothing of the relevant history and you have not provided enough information to disagree with. I am just trying to explain what you need to do to make your case.

But, as this has nothing to do with science, you might want to find a history or archaeology forum to discuss this. I have not noticed that anyone here has a significant knowledge of ancient history.

Good luck.

 

[Pekux]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

I assumed that was the case. But I just wanted to highlight that you never said that.

That is the first problem.

The second problem is that you need to provide references to support what you say, for example:

You need to provide references for:

1. The reign of Shimbar-Shipak being 1025-1008 BC

2. A solar eclipse in his 7th regnal year

3. The dates of solar eclipses around that period

These need to be specific, not just a link to a website (and certainly not a suggestion to use Google). For example, you need to quote the relevant sentences that provide the relevant information.

I have no disagreement with your claims because I know nothing of the relevant history and you have not provided enough information to disagree with. I am just trying to explain what you need to do to make your case.

But, as this has nothing to do with science, you might want to find a history or archaeology forum to discuss this. I have not noticed that anyone here has a significant knowledge of ancient history.

Good luck.

 

Thanks. I start with this (finnish text from my facebook site):

Alkusoittoa hiukan. Nykyinen Babylonian, Assyrian ja Egyptin kronologia ei kovinkaan paljoa huomioi muinoin havaittuja auringonpimennyksiä. Netissä on tosin pidetty ”suurta ääntä” yhdestä (vain yhdestä), jonka ”tieteellinen nimi” on Assyrian auringonpimennys. Tosin on korostettu kuunpimennyksiä, joita babylonialaiset astrologit kirjasivat ylös. Osa tutkijoista on kuitenkin sitä mieltä, että nämä kuunpimennykset kirjattiin ylös satoja vuosia myöhemmin kuin ne tapahtuivat. Niimpä joudutaan valinnan eteen: 
1. Hyväksytään babylonian astrologien kuunpimenykset ja järjestellääm kronologia niiden mukaan (kuten on nykyisin käytössä olevassa kronologiassa). Sen seurauksena on kuitenkin jouduttu hylkäämään tai ”olankohautuksella” sivuuttamaan lukuisat maininnat auringonpimennyksistä.
2. Hyväksytään auringonpimennykset ja järjestellään koronologia niiden mukaan. Sen seurauksena joudutaan hylkäämään babylonian astrologien ylöskirjaamat kuunpimennykset.
Tämä uusi tutkielma osoittaa, että on hyvät perusteet soveltaa tätä jälkimmäistä vaihtoehtoa.

What this translation to english?  Maybe you can try use eg. google translation.... sorry.

 I try translate, idea is this:

1. Accept  lunar eclipses of babylonian astrologies and arrange chronology with they.This option effect: now has been abandon or ignore many solar eclipses.

2. Accept solar eclipses and arrange chronology with they. This option effect: must ababdon lunar eclipses of babylonian astrolgies.

Shimbar-Sipak:

Current chronology can try use solar eclipse 11 July 1015 BC. But this alone is not enough, one must take the whole into consideration. Because solar eclipse of  Esarhaddon's first regnal year is not found close enough, it also affects reign of Shimbar-Shipak.