Re: Wikipedia reservations on 763 BCE eclipse dating.

"Digger" <p.dunn1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

"Lars Wilson" <siaxares@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

An interesting quote from the above article in Wikipedia:

Why on earth are you even bothering to LOOK at Wikipedia?

This is hardly a reputable source of scholarly information. If you have
found something on Wikipedia that you disagree with, just bloody change it
like everybody else does!

Indeed Wikipedia sometimes quotes marginal sources, but it also is a great
source for less mainstream propaganda. It's like anything else, there are
gems among the stones and you have to separate them. But discounting
everything reported by Wikipedia is simply immature.

In this case, what is pertinent is that Wikipedia documents the general
reservation of the 763 BCE event as being accurate since, indeed, it is
dated in an exceptional rather than customary way. That FACT remains
pertinent and Wikipedia confirms that others have noticed this. So in that
way Wikipedia is a good reference, even though their conclusions are a bit
off. They reflect apparently what someone had presumed based upon the
VAT4956, which indeed does demonstrate the consistent practice by 568 BCE to
date the year after the equinox. However, more direct documents from the
period demonstrate some years began prior to the equinox.

Bottom line is, the practice was "optional" enough so that this eclipse
could be substituted for a month 3 event. For that, we are grateful,
otherwise, this critical reference might have been destroyed if it didn't
find an optional place in the revised chronology.

But as I noted, these eclipses are in the context of a much more important
astronomical phenomenon, where you had three eclipses occur in the same
location in a row. The third eclipse is more likely the predicted eclipse,
and, of course, 709 BCE would have been the customarily dated month 3 for
this series of eclipses. So if other factors, such as the removal of 56
fake years from the Greek Period added by Xenophon prevails, then there is
already a primary eclipse match-up waiting in 709 BCE to date the Assyrian

What is additionally relevant is that when the Assyrian Period is reduced 54
years by the 709 BCE eclipse, then suddenly the RC14 dating from Rehov
aligns perfectly with that dating. The RC14 dating from Rehov dates as
highest probability c. 871 BCE. The 763 BCE eclipse points to 925 BCE, but
the 709 BCE eclipse points 54 years later to 871 BCE. So there are two
reasons to redate to 709 BCE or at least consider revisionism as an
explanation for this potential discrepancy between science and the current
timeline. In the meantime, the Biblical timeline is inconclusive since the
range does include 871 BCE. Biblical timeline theories cover a 127-year
range, the lastest dating Shishak's invasion in 871 BCE, the earliest in 993

Lars Wilson