Joe Baker
Re: KEL G reconstructed
Wed May 16, 2018 06:57

Hi Anonymouse

Time, Narrative, and the Old Assyrian Trade, by Edward Stratford ... Calibrated dendrochronology favors UMC. The author favors an 1845 BC eclipse.

Stratford gives as the source for him saying the “Calibrated dendrochronology favours the UMC”, as the 2016 paper Integrated Tree-Ring-Radiocarbon High-Resolution Timeframe to Resolve Earlier Second Millennium BCE Mesopotamian Chronology by Sturt W. Manning, Carol B. Griggs, Brita Lorentzen, Gojko Barjamovic, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Bernd Kromer and Eva Maria Wild, which you can download from

However these author’s conclusion is somewhat different. They say, “Therefore, although our evidence does not allow a firm decision between the Middle and Low-Middle Chronologies – which are only 8 calendar years apart – we observe that the Low-Middle Chronology offers perhaps the best overall accommodation and compromise among all the evidence from both the dendro-14C side and the text-archaeology-astronomy side”.

Manning et. al. accept the Low Middle Chronology date of 1768/5 for the death of Samsi-Addu (as I do) and since Barjamovic is part author they favour the incorrect REL dates for limus which leads to 1838/7 as the date for the MEC eclipse. (Note Barjamovic originally accepted the High Middle Chronology date of 1776/5 for the death of Samsi-Addu and so placed the MEC eclipse as the one at 1846/5). Manning et. al. say that the “conspicuous partial eclipse in 1838 BCE which matches exactly with the Low-Middle chronology date for REL 127”. Problem here is that it does not “exactly” match for if Samsi-Addu died in REL 197, that is in 1768/5, then the eclipse of (their) REL 127 falls in 1838/7. However this limu year began in the winter of 1838/7, yet the partial eclipse occurred in the spring of 1838 some 6 months before the limu year began.

But that does not disqualifies their Low Middle Chronology conclusion because it (the dendrochronological data from Sarıkaya and the Venus astronomical data) is based on events that occurred after the break in KEL G. If one accepts the Günbattı/Nahm (and my) interpretation of the break in KEL G, then the eclipse is that of 1833 (in the 1834/3 limu year).

How do we know that the Column I continues onto the bottom edge of KEL G and not rather return to the top of Column II and then the bottom edge left side followed by bottom edge right side?

Scribal tradition. The only unusual thing about the layout of KEL G is that on the reverse side, column III is on the left and column IV is on the right which is opposite to what one normally sees. However, as usual, we would expect (right) column I to extend over and onto its bottom edge and (left) column II to extend over and onto its bottom edge. That your view is incorrect can be seen on the reverse side, which follows normal practice. Here (right) column III (as expected) extends over and onto its lower edge and (left) column IV extends over and onto its lower edge (and not as you want whereby column III and Column IV end at their bottom and the left side of the lower edge follows on from (right) column IV).

Regards Joe

  • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Mon May 14 10:42
    Thanks Joe, I get the point on what fits and does not fit. After quite a bit of reading, I have concluded that I should simply specify where the gap is and grey it out in the chronology. The eye skip ... more
    • Re: KEL G reconstructed — Joe Baker, Wed May 16 06:57
      • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Fri May 18 09:48
        Hi Joe, Fattening the space of 4 names does seem to be a bit excessive inviting ad hoc arguments for explanation. I see space in my theory to leave MEC E un-emmended, unless you know something about... more
        • Re: KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Sat May 19 05:12
          Hi Anonymouse unless you know something about equating Haya-malik to Ani-malik that I don't. Let me say from the start – I have little to no knowledge of Sumerian and Akkadian - only what I hear... more
          • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Sat May 19 18:56
            //Not only do I omit this Šalim-Aššur but he is also omitted by all recent commentators. Šalim-Aššur son of Uṣranum has multiple attestations at Mari while Šalim-Aššur son of Šalimanum only... more
            • Re: KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Sun May 20 21:31
              Hi Anonymous //... while Šalim-Aššur son of Šalimanum only occurs once . This is taken to be a scribal error ...// So this is charged to a scribal error in MEC E. No. The initial lines of MEC E... more
              • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Sun May 27 14:30
                According to post;article=15335;search_term=Ebla #15335 MEC B ends with the same two eponyms as the AKL. Is this post not representing MEC B... more
                • Re: KEL G reconstructedJoe Baker, Sun May 27 19:21
                  Hi Anonymous According to post … 15335 MEC B ends with the same two eponyms as the AKL. Is this post not representing MEC B correctly? Boris‘ post clearly places these last two within [parenthesis],... more
                  • Re: KEL G reconstructedAnonymous, Sun May 27 21:38
                    Yes, it appears I got screwed up by nested [ ]. For now it would be good if you just post an abstract and reference. I was looking all over for a MEC analysis. It seems you used to be able to get one ... more
Click here to receive daily updates