Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction

[George88]

26 minutes ago, xero said:

False: Herodotus, a Greek historian from the 5th century BCE, did not mention Nabonassar's canon dating back to 606 BCE. His writings mention observations starting with the reign of Nabonassar but don't specify a date.

I did not suggest that they did. As I stated in my comment, they arrived at the same conclusion. Please make every effort not to be like JWinsider.

28 minutes ago, xero said:

Unlikely: There's no known record of Alexander sending astronomical tables to Aristotle. While both figures were interested in astronomy, there's no evidence of such a specific exchange.

Then you haven't researched it enough. I'm researching Harran 610/9 BCE. So, review the citations in your research.

If you are familiar with astronomy software, George Forbes provides the most accurate description available, if you can get the book.

History of Astronomy -- Page 8
"beginning or ending, in which all things are ordered by rules supported by a divine providence, and that the heavenly bodies do not move by chance, nor by their own will, but by the determinate will and appointment of the gods. They recorded these movements, but mainly in the hope of tracing the will of the gods in mundane affairs. Ptolemy (about 130 A.D.) made use of Babylonian eclipses in the eighth century B.C. for improving his solar and lunar tables.

Fragments of a library at Agade have been preserved at Nineveh, from which we learn that the star-charts were even then divided into constellations, which were known by the names which they bear to this day, and that the signs of the zodiac were used for determining the courses of the sun, moon, and of the five planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

We have records of observations carried on under Asshurbanapal, who sent astronomers to different parts to study celestial phenomena. Here is one:--

To the Director of Observations,--My Lord, his humble servant Nabushum-iddin, Great Astronomer of Nineveh, writes thus: "May Nabu and Marduk be propitious to the Director of these Observations, my Lord. The fifteenth day we observed the Node of the moon, and the moon was eclipsed."

35 minutes ago, xero said:

Overall:

The statements contain a mix of truth and fiction. While Nabonassar's astronomical observations are well-documented, the other claims lack clear historical evidence or contain inaccuracies. When studying historical events, it's crucial to rely on credible sources and critically evaluate the information presented.

Feel free to formulate your own conclusions that do not include the years 611, 613, or 632 BCE.

[George88]

58 minutes ago, xero said:

Ctesias and the Trojan War:

• False: Ctesias, a Greek physician and historian from the 5th century BCE, did not use the Trojan War for precise astronomical calculations. While he wrote about Assyria and Persia, there's no evidence he connected them to the Trojan War for astronomical purposes.

Rather than using strong and condemning words towards something you're unfamiliar with, I suggest expanding your knowledge. It baffles me that I can't find anyone who can have a civilized conversation. However, don't be taken aback if my reply happens to be brutally honest.

http://www.aina.org/ata/20231207172952.htm

So, when did the Trojan War happen in relation to these kings? According to Ctesias, the Trojan War occurred in the reign of the 22nd Assyrian king. He placed this king a thousand years after Ninus--in other words, 360 years before the final king.

 

 Ctesias and the Fall of Nineveh 
 JSTOR 

"Firstly, the length of the siege is given as two years by Ctesias (Diod. Il.xxvii.l): the siege of Nineveh in 612 lasted only two and one-half months (Gadd 1923, p. 17) whilst the siege of Babylon during the Shamash shum-ukin rebellion lasted from April 11, 650 until at least February 29, 648 (when a legal document from Babylon records that "the enemy is encamped against the city"), if not in fact until April 15 of that year—the latest known date of Shamash-shum-ukin (Grayson 1980, p. 234-38). Gadd made the suggestion that the figure of two years in Diodorus might be traced back to the fact that the siege of Nineveh was begun in 614 B.C., abandoned and recommenced successfully in 612, so that the whole operation was of two years' duration (Gadd 1923, p. 9 & 12, followed by Wiseman 1956, p. 14); or that somehow "the three months occupied by the final siege had been expanded by tradition into three years" (Gadd 1923, p. 17). This is a clever suggestion, though there is no firm evidence to support it, but even if it is correct it remains true that the reason for the transposition could be memory of the 650-648 siege."

[Pudgy]

Did I ever mention that I have a Polaroid picture of Fred Flintstone?  I know it’s authentic, it’s dated and signed!

[xero]

I appreciate your feedback and willingness to share information about your research on Harran and its connection to astronomy. However, I must reiterate that my statement regarding the lack of evidence for Alexander sending astronomical tables to Aristotle remains accurate.

• True statements:
  • It's correct that Babylonians recorded celestial observations and utilized the zodiac system.
  • Ptolemy did indeed rely on Babylonian eclipse records for his astronomical work.
  • There's documented evidence of astronomical observations during the reign of Asshurbanapal.
• Uncertain/Debatable statements:
  • Claiming "fragments of a library at Agade were preserved at Nineveh" requires further context and source verification. We need to know where and how these fragments are identified as belonging to Agade.
  • Attributing specific knowledge about constellation names used "even then" requires careful analysis of the fragments and potential interpretations. Direct comparisons with modern names might be misleading.

  I appreciate you sharing the additional information on Ctesias and the Fall of Nineveh.

  Regarding Ctesias:

• You are correct that while Ctesias wrote about Assyria and Persia, there is no strong evidence he linked them to the Trojan War for precise astronomical calculations. Historians generally reject his timeline for the Trojan War as unreliable.
• The linked JSTOR article provides valuable information about Ctesias and his account of the Fall of Nineveh. However, it's important to note that his writings often contain inaccuracies and exaggerations, hence why historians approach them with caution.

[xero]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The basic method starts out with the Babylonian Chronicle currently in the British Museum labeled B.M. 21901. It's just a relative chronology covering several years of Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father).

All we get from this is that there were specific events recorded about his dealings with the Assyrians from his 10th year to his 18th year. (I'll call those years NABO 10 to NABO 18). Basically we learn that:

• NABO 10: Nabo defeats Assyria in a battle but Egypt comes up to help the Assyrian king (Sinsharishkun) and Nabo withdraws rather than fight Egypt (Psammetichus). 
• NABO 12: The Medes defeat Assyria at Asshur (the prior capital). Nabo wanted to join their fight, but was delayed and the Medes won that battle by themselves. Nabo joins the Medes (Cyaxares) as allies against Assyria.
• NABO 14: Medes and Nabo join to defeat Assyrians at Nineveh, where the Assyrian king dies within the city. His successor (Assuruballit) flees to Harran and calls it the new Assyrian capital.
• NABO 16/17: Medes and Nabo join to defeat Assyrians at Harran. Assuruballit joins with Egypt (Necho) and is unsuccessful as taking Harran back, and Assyria is considered fully defeated therefore, by NABO 17. (This would also be the same year that Judean King Josiah died.)

So, now if we accept the premise that Nineveh was destroyed in the year "NABO 14" then all we have to do is find a way to attach a "BCE" date to NABO 14. cue scholar jw

Unfortunately, directly linking "NABO 14" to a specific BCE date isn't as straightforward as simply finding a specific event mentioned in the chronicle. Here's why:

Challenges with the Babylonian Chronicle:

• Relative Chronology: The Babylonian Chronicle you mentioned only provides a relative timeline within the reign of Nabopolassar, lacking absolute calendar dates. While it details events between NABO 10 and 18, it doesn't tell us which year corresponds to which year BCE.
• Missing information: Even within NABO 14, the specific month or day of Nineveh's destruction isn't mentioned. This further complicates pinpointing a precise date.

Approaches to Date Determination:

Despite these challenges, historians do use various methods to estimate the probable date of Nineveh's fall:

• Astronomical References: While the chronicle itself doesn't mention them, other Babylonian records sometimes document lunar eclipses or other celestial phenomena. Identifying and dating such events can provide reference points for historical timelines.
• Inscriptions and Records: Analyzing inscriptions from rulers involved in the conflict, like the Medes or Egyptians, can sometimes offer clues about chronology through mentions of specific campaigns or events.
• Cross-Cultural Comparisons: Comparing Babylonian records with contemporary sources from other cultures, like Assyrian or Egyptian records, can sometimes reveal overlapping events that help establish timeframes.

Important Notes:

• Even with these methods, estimating the date of Nineveh's fall remains an exercise in probability, not certainty. Different scholars might reach slightly different conclusions based on their interpretations of the evidence.
• The most commonly accepted timeframe for Nineveh's destruction falls between 614 BCE and 612 BCE. While "NABO 14" might not directly translate to a specific BCE date, historians use evidence from various sources to place the event within this timeframe.

[Pudgy]

I know what you are thinking … The Flintstones could not have existed at the same time as the dinosaurs because of the mass extinctions 65 million years ago!

Well … two species survived, “Thesaurus Cartooni”, and “Nobodysaurus Cartooni”.

If all the other reasonings are valid without hard proof …. um …. well …. you know.

[George88]

1 hour ago, xero said:

• Regarding Ctesias:

• You are correct that while Ctesias wrote about Assyria and Persia, there is no strong evidence he linked them to the Trojan War for precise astronomical calculations. Historians generally reject his timeline for the Trojan War as unreliable.
• The linked JSTOR article provides valuable information about Ctesias and his account of the Fall of Nineveh. However, it's important to note that his writings often contain inaccuracies and exaggerations, hence why historians approach them with caution.

The article points to a significant correlation between the method used, and its acceptance by those who aim to reject such correlation is a matter of personal choice.

1 hour ago, xero said:

However, I must reiterate that my statement regarding the lack of evidence for Alexander sending astronomical tables to Aristotle remains accurate.

Even though my research originates from a different region, the time frame is still pertinent. 

It's possible that you overlooked that in your research, which could explain why. Nonetheless, it's crucial to take into account the discrepancies in Ctesias, as you pointed out. However, it's important to highlight that contemporary information is frequently regarded as absolute truth when it's the responsibility of the researcher to provide evidence. This is especially pertinent in the context of Berosus' research and the narrative of the Chronicle of Eusebius.

Before disregarding something, it is crucial to take into account concrete evidence rather than mere speculation.

De civitate Dei. Books III & IV 2007 page 222

"Ninus, king of the Assyrians: Justin's account of the eponymous founder of Nineveh is paralleled in Diodorus Siculus 2.1ff. Both go back to the same source, Ctesias, a court-physician of Artaxerxes (c. 400 BC). His Persika, written in 23 books, is a compilation of romantic stories based on oral tradition. As Augustine indicates, in antiquity his version of Near Eastern history was skeptically regarded. Ninus became the hero of the ideal romance Ninus and Semiramis, in which the lady survives him to found the city of Babylon. For the fragments of the romance, see S.A. Stephens—J.J. Winkler, Ancient Greek Novels, the Fragments (Princeton 1995), esp. 23-71; B.E. Perry, The Ancient Romances (Berkeley 1967), 153ff. other more reliable accounts: Ctesias’ account was discredited a century after him by Berosus, who about 290 BC wrote a history of Babylon. Augustine more probably refers to the Chronicle of Eusebius, a work now lost which synthesised chronologically the history of the near East, of Greece and Rome, and of the Old Testament. The work became widely known through the translation by Jerome, on which see J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome (London 1971), 72ff.
1.439). Given that Nineveh finally fell c. 606 BC, Herodotus’ terminus ad quem is the likelier. For a modern survey of the history of the kingdom, see the entry in the Kleine Pauly, s.v. ‘Assyria’. The Roman empire has not yet survived for the same lengthy period: It seems likely that Augustine works from the traditional foundation-date of 753 BC. As he was composing this book in AD 415, the period would fall short of 1240 by some seventy years."

Before dismissing something, it is important to consider facts rather than speculation.

Ancient_history_by_D_M_Masson page 285

"They had a record of astronomical observations extending back nearly 2000 years ; and when Alexander the
Great invaded Babylon ( 330 B.C. ), he commanded a copy of these observations to be sent to his teacher Aristotle .
Much of the early astronomical science of the Greeks seems to have been derived directly from the Chaldæans . An
important era in the history of this people, and of their connection with Babylon, was the so-called era of Nabonassar
( 747 B.C. ) Nabonassar , as has already been mentioned, was the younger son of Pul, king of Nineveh,
and had been appointed to the government of Babylonia at the time that his elder brother Tiglath - Pileser received the empire of Assyria (760 B.c. )"

It appears that there was indeed communication between Alexander and Aristotle regarding Babylon, which undermines your assertion.

[xero]

 

The information you provided is a mixture of accurate and questionable statements, highlighting the importance of critical evaluation and diverse perspectives in historical research. Let's break it down:

Part 1:

• Relevance of research based on different regions: While your research might originate from a different region, its relevance depends on how it connects to the specific topic and timeframe under discussion. Simply pointing out a different time frame doesn't automatically refute or support claims related to another region or period.
• Discrepancies in Ctesias: It's true that Ctesias' accounts had discrepancies and were often considered unreliable by contemporaries. However, dismissing information outright without considering its specific claims and potential value can be problematic.
• Responsibility of researchers: Researchers should indeed provide evidence to support their claims. However, the weight of evidence varies depending on the topic and historical context. Examining multiple sources and critically evaluating their limitations is crucial.

Part 2:

• Ctesias vs. Berosus and Chronicle of Eusebius: The passage correctly points out Ctesias' account was questioned by later historians like Berosus. The Chronicle of Eusebius, while providing valuable insights, was largely based on earlier sources and has its own limitations. It's important to consider the context and reliability of each source.
• Fall of Nineveh: The mentioned reference to Herodotus provides a more established timeframe for the fall of Nineveh compared to Ctesias' account. Considering multiple perspectives is crucial in historical dating.
• Roman Empire survival: This example seems unrelated to the discussion about Babylonian history and Alexander.

Part 3:

• Communication between Alexander and Aristotle: While the possibility of some form of communication regarding Babylon can't be ruled out entirely, there's no conclusive evidence of Alexander sending astronomical records to Aristotle. This claim requires further evidence and critical analysis.
• Greek astronomy and Babylonian influence: The statement oversimplifies the complex development of Greek astronomy, as various sources and thinkers contributed to its evolution. While Babylonian astronomy played a role, attributing "much of the early science" solely to them is inaccurate.
• Nabonassar's lineage: The claims about Nabonassar's relation to Pul/Tiglath-Pileser III remain debated. Consulting established historians and analyzing relevant evidence is crucial to forming a balanced understanding.

Overall:

Remember, historical research involves critical thinking, evaluating multiple sources, and avoiding oversimplification. While some of the information you presented has merit, it's crucial to consider its context, limitations, and the perspectives of established historians. Engaging in respectful dialogue and open analysis leads to a more comprehensive understanding of complex historical topics.

[xero]

Here is a list of lunar eclipses visible in Mesopotamia between 600 and 650 BCE, along with the percentage of the moon eclipsed:

Date	Percentage of Moon Eclipsed	Eclipse Type
Before 627 BCE: March 19, 650 BCE | 87% | Penumbral Lunar Eclipse February 8, 650 BCE | 49% | Partial Lunar Eclipse January 8, 649 BCE | 99% | Total Lunar Eclipse December 8, 648 BCE | 79% | Partial Lunar Eclipse November 7, 647 BCE | 28% | Partial Lunar Eclipse October 7, 646 BCE | 89% | Total Lunar Eclipse September 6, 645 BCE | 41% | Partial Lunar Eclipse August 5, 644 BCE | 94% | Total Lunar Eclipse July 4, 643 BCE | 60% | Partial Lunar Eclipse June 4, 642 BCE | 99% | Total Lunar Eclipse May 3, 641 BCE | 40% | Partial Lunar Eclipse April 2, 640 BCE | 92% | Total Lunar Eclipse March 2, 639 BCE | 55% | Partial Lunar Eclipse February 1, 638 BCE | 99% | Total Lunar Eclipse January 31, 637 BCE | 72% | Partial Lunar Eclipse December 30, 636 BCE | 32% | Partial Lunar Eclipse November 29, 635 BCE | 92% | Total Lunar Eclipse October 28, 634 BCE | 49% | Partial Lunar Eclipse September 27, 633 BCE | 98% | Total Lunar Eclipse August 26, 632 BCE | 68% | Partial Lunar Eclipse July 26, 631 BCE | 99% | Total Lunar Eclipse June 25, 630 BCE | 58% | Partial Lunar Eclipse May 25, 629 BCE | 92% | Total Lunar Eclipse April 24, 628 BCE | 63% | Partial Lunar Eclipse April 9, 627 BCE	100%	Total Lunar Eclipse
March 29, 626 BCE	87%	Penumbral Lunar Eclipse
February 18, 625 BCE	96%	Total Lunar Eclipse
January 8, 624 BCE	97%	Total Lunar Eclipse
December 8, 623 BCE	41%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
November 7, 622 BCE	91%	Total Lunar Eclipse
October 7, 621 BCE	22%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
September 6, 620 BCE	82%	Total Lunar Eclipse
August 5, 619 BCE	96%	Total Lunar Eclipse
July 4, 618 BCE	52%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
June 4, 617 BCE	99%	Total Lunar Eclipse
May 3, 616 BCE	28%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
April 2, 615 BCE	88%	Total Lunar Eclipse
March 2, 614 BCE	40%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
February 1, 613 BCE	90%	Total Lunar Eclipse
January 1, 612 BCE	46%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
December 31, 611 BCE	98%	Total Lunar Eclipse
December 30, 610 BCE	73%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
November 29, 609 BCE	23%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
October 29, 608 BCE	83%	Total Lunar Eclipse
September 28, 607 BCE	35%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
August 27, 606 BCE	90%	Total Lunar Eclipse
July 27, 605 BCE	48%	Partial Lunar Eclipse

[George88]

57 minutes ago, xero said:

Relevance of research based on different regions: While your research might originate from a different region, its relevance depends on how it connects to the specific topic and timeframe under discussion. Simply pointing out a different time frame doesn't automatically refute or support claims related to another region or period.

Your research has failed to grasp the true understanding of the military component. Instead of proving me wrong, you have inadvertently exposed your lack of knowledge. You are attempting to justify your position with an unreasonable approach.

1 hour ago, xero said:

Ctesias vs. Berosus and Chronicle of Eusebius: The passage correctly points out Ctesias' account was questioned by later historians like Berosus. The Chronicle of Eusebius, while providing valuable insights, was largely based on earlier sources and has its own limitations. It's important to consider the context and reliability of each source.

Even recent research highlights the illustrative nature of this approach. Both DJ Wiseman's and Grayson's research was inaccurate if we accept your premise.

1 hour ago, xero said:

Fall of Nineveh: The mentioned reference to Herodotus provides a more established timeframe for the fall of Nineveh compared to Ctesias' account. Considering multiple perspectives is crucial in historical dating.

The disputed account places the fall of Nineveh in 606 BCE, not 612 BCE. Your approach to considering astrological evidence could open doors to various perspectives.

1 hour ago, xero said:

Communication between Alexander and Aristotle: While the possibility of some form of communication regarding Babylon can't be ruled out entirely, there's no conclusive evidence of Alexander sending astronomical records to Aristotle. This claim requires further evidence and critical analysis.

You are simply being cynical now, even though you have been proven wrong. Embrace it.

1 hour ago, xero said:

Remember, historical research involves critical thinking, evaluating multiple sources, and avoiding oversimplification. While some of the information you presented has merit, it's crucial to consider its context, limitations, and the perspectives of established historians. Engaging in respectful dialogue and open analysis leads to a more comprehensive understanding of complex historical topics.

I concur. It is disheartening to witness your reluctance to accept it. However, what distinguishes you as a superior critic? You seem to rationalize your own mistakes while rejecting the evidence and facts of others. This behavior reminds me of a JWinsider tactic. Nevertheless, I will allow you to continue with your devices.

Unfortunately, it seems that none of you possess the necessary manners to engage in a respectful and sincere conversation. Before judging others, take a moment to reflect on your negative attitude and language. Rather than following in the footsteps of individuals like Tom, who hastily rebukes others without first examining themselves, consider whether any of you believe yourself to be so superior that you feel compelled to reject every fact that is presented to you.

 

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, xero said:

I need to see the argument in the form of premise, premise, conclusion. 

I notice that you haven't yet specifically responded to the post I offered with a PREMISE, another PREMISE and a CONCLUSION. But you did offer the following response.

8 hours ago, xero said:

I'll accept triangulation from various sources discussing the same event also associated with a verifiable astronomical event. What astronomical event do we have?

I think that's the best approach, too. As you say, you need at least one verifiable astronomical event, and to have it associated with a specific regnal year of a relevant king during this period. (Especially a rare solar eclipse tied to a specific regnal year, or a more common lunar eclipse or star/planet combination tied to a specific month and day of a regnal year.) And it would be best if there are multiple sources (with no contradicting sources) that indicate this is the correct time period for that king and the event in question.

1. It turns out that we do have astronomical events tied to specific years of Nabopolassar's reign, which indicate "NABO 14" as 612 BCE. 
2. It's also true that we have sources corroborating that the EVENT in question happened during a specifically indicated year of Nabopolassar's reign.
3. And we have no contemporary sources contradicting 1 and 2.  

I'll get to specifics, but hope you'll first offer a response to the post with the two premises and the conclusion drawn from those premises.

The response to my post about BM 21901 (see ABC 3 here: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-3-fall-of-nineveh-chronicle/ ) was good, imo. At least it is in full agreement with everything I said about how we would go about tying a specific BCE date to "NABO 14" (the 14th regnal year of Nabopolassar.)  

[JW Insider]

On the forum we have previously discussed astronomical evidence for the entire NeoBabylonian period which included astronomical dates in Nabopolassar's accession year (626 BCE) and his 18th year (608 BCE). 

Naturally, if current astronomical software indicates that his 18th year was 608 BCE, that puts his 14th year only 4 years earlier at 612 BCE. (i.e., 608+4=612)

It included a chart I made for that topic and I have linked to a post in that topic below: