It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

And the winner is...."the middle chronology"

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Its been problematic for years, knowing Mesopotamian history could be out of step with the dates,

source


For several decades, scholars have debated discrepancies in chronological schemes for this period that were up to 150 years or more apart.

The previous inconsistencies in the timeline for ancient Mesopotamia stem from incomplete text records preserved on clay tablets, and existing, proposed and debated chronologies from other sources including partial astronomical records, archaeological materials such as ceramics, a tree-ring growth anomaly in Turkey originally thought to be caused by a volcanic eruption, and dates derived from radiocarbon dating. The multiple and often conflicting timelines have vexed historians and other scholars for a century.


background



Due to the sparsity of sources throughout the "Dark Age", the history of the Near Eastern Bronze Age down to the end of the Third Babylonian Dynasty is a "floating chronology". In other words, it fits together internally as a "relative chronology" but not as an "absolute chronology".

The major schools of thought on the length of the Dark Age are separated by 56 or 64 years. This is because the key source for their dates is the Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa and the visibility of Venus has a 56/64[clarification needed] year cycle. More recent work by Vahe Gurzadyan has suggested that the fundamental 8-year cycle of Venus is a better metric.[1] (see update in [2]) There have been other attempts to anchor the chronology using records of eclipses and other methods, but they are not yet widely supported. The alternative major chronologies are defined by the date of the 8th year of the reign of Ammisaduqa, king of Babylon. This choice then defines the reign of Hammurabi.

Many recent textbooks on the archaeology and history of the ancient Near East use the middle chronology.[3][4][5][6][7] The middle chronology currently still has strong academic supporters. The alternative "high" and "ultra-low"[1] chronologies are clear minority views. There are also some scholars who discount the validity of the Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa entirely



and the winner is
source



In mainstream scholarship alone, Manning said, "there are five major scholarly positions and possibilities -- the so-called ultra-high, high, middle, low and ultra-low or new chronologies, based on various assumptions and fragmentary evidence. These cover some 200 years of time. This is useless for any real comparison or history. Our work demonstrates that only the middle chronology is possible, and the likely range of debate left is about eight years,

This puts Ammisaduqa Year 8 at 1638 BC
and Hammurabi's reign 1792–1750 BC,
or you could say that the year he died the Hyksos invaded Egypt
or as he died the Vedic period began






posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk


The multiple and often conflicting timelines have vexed historians and other scholars for a century.

The written record lies, tree rings and carbon dating, not so much. Never trust 'texts' to tell us the truth. In fact trust them to tell the victors side, exclusively.

Empires will always say, we didn't do that.
edit on 24-7-2016 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Excellent thread - let's see how this plays out in the future. I would note that it's in PLOS1 and not being presented in one of the major journals for Assyriology. It needs to be trotted out at a conference or two.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: Marduk

Excellent thread - let's see how this plays out in the future. I would note that it's in PLOS1 and not being presented in one of the major journals for Assyriology. It needs to be trotted out at a conference or two.


So lets play a game
Sargon of Akkad ruled 2340–2284 BC, who was his counterpart in Egypt at that time



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: Marduk

Excellent thread - let's see how this plays out in the future. I would note that it's in PLOS1 and not being presented in one of the major journals for Assyriology. It needs to be trotted out at a conference or two.


So lets play a game
Sargon of Akkad ruled 2340–2284 BC, who was his counterpart in Egypt at that time

Pepi I, inventor of Pepsi-Cola.

Harte



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Anyone else want to chip in with Rulers of other cultures at that time



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
Anyone else want to chip in with Rulers of other cultures at that time

Nope. Note that it's understood chronologies can be off by a number of years. So it might be Pepi I for some of the time, but it could also be Userkare, Merenre, and a little of Teti.

I stand by my statement that it needs to go full force at a conference or two, against people who can really fact-check it and not non-Near East scholars like me. I can admire the work but leave it to those with decades of research and better knowledge to confirm or tear down.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Marduk
Anyone else want to chip in with Rulers of other cultures at that time

Nope. Note that it's understood chronologies can be off by a number of years. So it might be Pepi I for some of the time, but it could also be Userkare, Merenre, and a little of Teti.

I stand by my statement that it needs to go full force at a conference or two, against people who can really fact-check it and not non-Near East scholars like me. I can admire the work but leave it to those with decades of research and better knowledge to confirm or tear down.


You want to fact check the absolute science that delivered this result, to a chronology that was already 95% in agreement with the middle chronology anyway. This isn't news Byrd, its been a long time coming, there's nothing dodgy about the science, there's certainly nothing about the science that a near east scholar would be able to confirm or deny, they're historians not scientists. We are talking about Tree-ring dating and radiocarbon research here, done at Cornell universty, not the claims someone has made without proof...


Actually thinking about it there is an expert who should know if this is true or not, Stuart Manning, the Goldwin Smith Professor of Classical Archaeology and director of the Cornell Tree-Ring Laboratory, no wait a minute, he was the guy who led the research team

Did you actually read the linked source...
edit on 31-7-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

I'm more of a believer in the ultra-short chronology. Let's just say it fits my religion's timeline far better, and other research I have read as well. If just one thing is used as an anchor point that is incorrect, that throws off EVERYTHING. I believe a good example of that is the middle chronology.

edit on 1-8-2016 by kef33890 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
How long did the Sumerian kings live for,wasn't it hundreds of years? Mmm,must have been related to Noah,now there's a conspiracy boys.....I know nothing of history but sounds like a cool story brother. Large grains of salt.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: kef33890
a reply to: Marduk

I'm more of a believer in the ultra-short chronology. Let's just say it fits my religion's timeline far better, and other research I have read as well. If just one thing is used as an anchor point that is incorrect, that throws off EVERYTHING. I believe a good example of that is the middle chronology.


Well your religious timeline is clearly wrong then, what, not enough time for the Great flood of Noah. The guy didn't exist



originally posted by: hiddenNZ
How long did the Sumerian kings live for,wasn't it hundreds of years? Mmm,must have been related to Noah,now there's a conspiracy boys.....I know nothing of history but sounds like a cool story brother. Large grains of salt.

This has nothing to do with the Weld Blundell prism, or religious scripture, thanks for playing

edit on 1-8-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk
Dendrochronology is a very powerful tool, both for dating purposes and for telling us what is going on environmentally.

When you can pin down the chronology in one region it hepls nail down the chronologies of neighboring regions.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Marduk
Anyone else want to chip in with Rulers of other cultures at that time

Nope. Note that it's understood chronologies can be off by a number of years. So it might be Pepi I for some of the time, but it could also be Userkare, Merenre, and a little of Teti.

A little Teti is better than no teti at all.
Anything more than a mouthful is a waste anyway.

Harte




top topics



 
8

log in

join