SACHS/HUNGER VAT4956 misrep cited
- From: "Larry Wilson" <misha_linword@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:12:00 GMT
The VAT4956 is a key text that is used in confirming the current dating for
year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 568BCE. But because of modern astronomy
programs that have reexamined the text, it was discovered that Abraham Sachs
and Hermann Hunger, who did the translation and translitation of this text
and many other ancient Babylonian astronomical texts may have biasedly
misrepresented what was in the text. This has been brought to the attention
of the British (UK) Museum and nothing so far officially has been done about
correcting it for some reason.
The issue involves Line 18 where the text was broken off but a clear
reference to some planet being immediately below the "bright star behind the
Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A), this star reference also being
found in Line 14. Sachs/Hunger inserted "the moon" as the missing planet
here. But the moon was far way from Virgo on the 15th of Sivan, having been
noted near this star on the 5th (Line 14).
A mistake? Perhaps. But this becomes a bit troubling since for Line 3
Sachs/Hunger notes "an error for the 8th" where the text mentions the 9th of
the month and thus a lunar mismatch for the lunar location for that date.
This means Sachs/Hunger did, indeed, compare the actual lunar locations for
references in the text. So one wonders why they did not note, even if they
believed this was a reference to the moon in Line 18 that this was an "error
of 10 days!"? Without making this comment it would seem that "the moon"
was the correct reference for time and location for Line 18.
Which brings us to observation #2. If the moon was not the correct
reference here for the 15th of Sivan in Virgo, then would this be applicable
to another other planet in this position on that date? The answer is "Yes"!
On the 15th, as plain as day, Venus was immediately below beta-Virginis on
this date, and obviously the reference in the text. So one wonders how
could Sachs/Hunger have confused the moon as being in Virgo still 10 days
off and at the same time miss that Venus was the obvious reference?
One explanation might be bias and politics. How so? Because Venus was the
only planet in Virgo on the 15th and specifically immediately below
beta-Virginis, which thus *defines* beta-Virginis as the "bright star behind
the Lion's foot. That means in this particular text, the Rear Foot of the
Lion would be the natural rear foot of Leo, sigma-Leonis (GIR ar sa UR-A).
The "Rear Foot of the Lion" is referenced in Line 3, only Sachs/Hunger note
that this is a reference to "beta-Virginis." That means for Lines 14 and
18, Sachs/Hunger were assigning the "bright star _behind_ the Lion's Foot"
to the star next in line after beta-Virginis, which was eta-Virginis. This,
of course, contradicts the text's references! Of note, the original
reference for the "Rear Foot of the Lion" was the rear foot of Leo in
earlier texts, but later during the Seleucid Era the "Rear Foot of the Lion"
became a new reference for beta-Virginis. This is likely the references
Sachs/Hunger were ascribing to. But this is contradicted clearly by Line
18 which references Venus below the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot"
establishing in this particular text, the old references were being applied
and not the new.
Had Sachs/Hunger left this place blank, it would have been a red flag to
simply look up which planet was in this position on that date and when it
was discovered it was Venus, it would have been clear that the "Rear Foot of
the Lion" reference in Line 3 was sigma-Leonis and not beta-Virginis as
Sachs/Hunger claimed. Inserting "the moon" in that position without any
reference to any "error of ten days" was less of a focus than leaving it
blank.
At any rate, the British Museum along with Hunger were informed of this
error and neither have since officially corrected it, though they did
acknowledge the obvious error. It certainly doesn't speak well for the
British Museum that they are covering for their colleagues on this one, but
when truth and scientific accuracy don't follow the same course as
"political correctness" usually the crowd follows whatever path the money
takes. It also proves that everyone in the end are human, even the
"experts" so doing your own research still remains the best way to establish
truth and accuracy sometimes.
Larry
.
- Prev by Date: Re: A joke being called a "charter"
- Next by Date: Re: Douggie's revised Fantasy
- Previous by thread: value of relics?
- Next by thread: junk
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
