BM 33066 - Cambysis 7th to 9th year astronomy clay tablet

[1] Year 7 began at sunset Sun April 6, 523 BCE. Cf. line 2 obv!

Based upon the face and format of this astronomical record, it is clear that the originator of the record was using the Babylonian calendar, and beginning each year with month number one (cf. the numbered months within each numbered year within the sequence of lines upon this clay tablet!)

[2] In line 1 obv I recognize the first three ideographs, which mean ‘year’ , ‘7’, and ‘1’ , respectively, that is, referencing, as best I can tell, year 7 of Cambyses and the beginning of that year. I recognize nothing in the remainder of line 1 obv meaning either ’30,’ ’23,’ or any other number. If the 1^st was identical with the 30^th day, I would expect a ’30,’ not a ‘1.’ And if either line 1 or line 2 obverse was referencing anything in terms of “sunset to moonset: x°,” then I would find no reason for duplicating that information in line 3 obv. In line I:2 obv there is a ’30,’ however this “30,” to me, is a clear reference to the 30^th day of month XII, the day prior to the day already identified as Month 1, day 1, that is, the day 1 following the 30^th of the preceding month.

Accordingly, I find a correction of this translation being in order, while also necessary in order to meet the proper arrangement between columns “II” and “I”. That is, the proper order between lines II:25-27 obv and column I, which lines II:25-27 fit only the astronomical realities of month XII year 6!:

[Obsoleted after my recognition that only the bottom section (lines II:25-27 obv) of column II precedes column I: Accordingly, I find a correction being in order, while also necessary in order to meet the proper arrangement between columns “II” and “I”. That is, the proper order between the three columns must necessarily be III, II, I, not the other way around! This order is in good agreement with the typical Hebrew right to left writing, which also seems to dominate most law related literature.]

[3] Day 1 Month 1 year 7 began at sunset Sunday April 6, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #12.

SNB [my Starry Night Backyard software] April 6, 523 BCE New Moon at the Uruk horizon: Sunset: 18:14:42; moonset: 20:08:15; lag: 113 min 33 sec; illum.: 4.29%.

[SNB Baghdad horizon April 5, 523 BCE New Moon data: Sunset: 18:19:59; moonset: 19:06:23; lag: 46 min 24 sec; illum.: 0.81%.]

[4] Day 30 month XII year 6 began at sunset Sat April 5, 523 BCE. Cf. lines ##II:25-27!

That is, lines II:25-27 obv is a notation re the month prior to the beginning of year 7 of Kambyses, while the top portion of column II constitutes the continuation of column I!

[That is, in contradistinction to the arrangement and pattern used on the much older astronomical clay tablet known as BM 32312, which columns, on one side of BM 32312, were mis-numbered by Sachs and Hunger. Please cf. footnotes ## 35 and 41 of my analysis of BM 32312!]

[Obsoleted after my recognition that only the bottom section (lines II:25-27 obv) of column II precedes column I: That is, column II ends with the Moon prior to the beginning of year 7 of Kambyses, and is not a continuation of column I! This follows the same arrangement and pattern as was actually used on the much older astronomical clay tablet known as BM 32312, which columns were likewise mis-numbered by Sachs and Hunger. Please cf. footnotes ## 35 and 41 of my analysis of BM 32312!]

[5] The transcription of line I:2 reads: .

The third ideogram is and is found also in some of the lines pertaining to Month 12 of year 6 and year 7 within BM33066 (lines II:25 obv, 2, 7, and 10 rev,) that is, with two exceptions (line III:12 obv, and line 5 rev.) Within BM33066 this ideogram is not found in connection with Month 12 year 8 (line 3”:Right edge.)

In Sternkunde and Sterndienst in Babel, Franz Xaver Kugler S.J. translated as “II. Adaru,” and, in line with that, the English translation that I found on the web used the translation “Month 12° was intercalary.”

Seeing that no two subsequent years can likely have an intercalary month, it should be obvious that said translations must necessarily be in error. Seeing that the particulars of Hebrew and Scriptural time reckoning is not well known or understood among scholars, these errors are understandable.

As best I can tell, signifies that barley in the stage of aviv had been found, which is the Scriptural requirement before the next month can be reckoned as Moon #1, i.e. Abib or Nissan. Accordingly, is typically found in connection with a notation re Month 12. In contradistinction to that, in line I:2 obv we find in a notation at the very beginning of Month 1. Why is that? Well, considering the fact that the day portion of Sun April 6, 523 BCE was the last day of month XII, that is, following the time when the observations and recordings of the astronomical notations had already been completed, it only makes sense for the scribe to make his notation re aviv having been found prior to the end of month XII, in his notation following his astronomy related observations at the sunset of Sunday April 6. That is, following the completion of his notations pertaining to either the evening or the morning astronomy related observations touching on the day beginning at sunset Sat April 5, 523 BCE). Another reason for this is that report re aviv having been found during that last day of month XII may not have reached the scribe making these notations until the time when he had already begun his recording re the first day of the next month.

Accordingly, I find that a better translation of line I:2 () is “Month 1 / day 1 / aviv / day 30 / seen,” that is “Abib 1: Aviv had been found on the 30^th [which was the Babylonian day ending at sunset Sun April 6, 523 BCE.]” Thusly:

[6] Hallelujah! After my comprehensive and most successful analysis of the ideogram I have discovered that in this line, line I:3 obv, the ideogram is almost certainly a scribal error or a transcription error. The reason for the (scribal) error is anyone’s guess, but likely causes are e.g. that this line is not the first line of the month, nor the line where the date of the New Moon is given. However, a transcription error is also possible considering the difference between the corresponding ideograms in line I:3 obv and line I:7 obv . In line I:3 obv the highlighted arrow seems to be horizontal in contradistinction to all other instances (lines I:12, 19, 24; II:9, 16, 21, 27; III:10, 15) of this ideogram within BM33066, all of which have an oblique arrow as in line I:7 obv. However, if this is indeed an error of transcription, then why is this ideogram found no place else within BM33066 where the New Moon event is recorded?

Nowhere else in this clay tablet is being used in association with the New Moon. Except for line I:3 obv, within BM33066, is used exclusively with observations dated between the 13^th and the 15^th of the month, which AM observations as recorded pertain to the relationship between the fading of the 4^th luminary etc. vs moonset. Cf. footnote #127 for detailed definitions of this ideogram and three other ideograms.

Accordingly, I am now able to read and understand this line as follows:

[Obsolete image – after learning a more correct definition of :

[]

Or, in plain English: “[The time between the first observation of the New Moon crescent and moonset: / TOL©] 1 bēru [=1/6 of the time between sunrise and sunset. Corresponding to 31.1°±5.2° from the Moon’s point of setting behind the horizon. / TOL©]”

As seen under footnote 1, the lag time between sunset and moonset was 113 min 33 sec, or just short of 2 hours.

As discovered from an analysis (cf. my Excel file: CalculationsReConfidenceInterval.xls) of lines 19 and 21 rev, the bēru is defined as 1/6 of the time between sunrise and sunset. [Using the time between the last AM 3 fixed stars and the first PM 3 fixed stars leads to impossible results and is therefore not valid!]

Accordingly, “1 bēru”on April 6, 523 BCE corresponds to 2 hrs 4 min 15 sec military time, which, in turn, corresponds to 31.1°±5.2° angular separation between the New Moon crescent when first observed and between its point of setting behind the horizon.

[Obsolete – upon discovering the exact and verifiable definition of ‘beru’ as available from an analysis of lines 19 and 21 rev: Accordingly, we seem to be provided with a definition of ‘1 bēru’ = 113 min 33 sec, or else 2 hours.

[Obsolete – upon discovering the exact definition of the ideogram. Cf. remainder of this footnote!:

[I read line 3 obv as follows:

[Or, in plain English: “At [the time when the New Moon became visible there remained] 1 bēru [until] moonset.” The measurements associated with the translated English words “sunset to moonset: x° “ are not measurements tied to sunset per se, but when first seen the New Moon’s angular separation from the expected point of moonset over the horizon can be measured (e.g. degrees,) and then translated into a measure of time (e.g. bēru!)]

Applying the findings re the ideograph (the last ideogram at the end of lines I:3 and I:7 obv,) I find that (re line I:3 obv,) on my SNB software, Venus was visible all day and, counting the Earth and the Sun, at least 3 luminaries were visible all day and either the New Moon or Jupiter would have been the 4^th visible luminary. Seeing that this situation does not allow for the use of for this day’s notation per my best definition thus far, I conclude that most likely Venus and Jupiter were in fact not visible to the astronomer before the New Moon became the 3^rd luminary on the sky (after Sun and Earth.) In other words, the use of in line I:3 obv is an astronomical statement re the invisibility of Venus and Jupiter prior to the New Moon being seen at 1 bēru, that is at 31.1°±5.2° angular separation above its point of setting over the Uruk horizon. (If that is not so, then further modifications need to be added to my current definition of.)

Alternatively, if the clause of the definition re the exclusion of all planets, the Moon, and the Sun from the count, then this event must be timed to the 3^rd fixed star (Arcturus) being lit (after Sirius and Canopus.) At that time I find the Moon at 24° 06’ (27 MAMSL) and at 24° 14’ (479 MAMSL.) Seeing that this value is slightly outside of my chosen confidence interval for the bēru unit (31.1°-5.2°=25.9°,) though still no doubt possible (re the notation on line I:3 obv,) I tend to favor the first alternative outlined above.

[Obsolete – upon discovering that the Earth when lit by the Sun is reckoned among the 3 luminaries (cf. below!:) Applying the findings re the ideograph (at the end of lines I:3 and I:7 obv,) I find that the 4^th over all luminary (Jupiter; the others being Sun, Moon, and Venus) lightening up on the late afternoon SNB Uruk sky corresponds to the New Moon being located at 37° 46’. However, if the New Moon was in fact itself the 4^th luminary being visualized by the astronomer, then this could well have occurred when the Moon was at 31.1°±5.2° angular separation (that is, as discussed above; Notice that 31.1+5.2=36.3=36° 20’ is close enough to allow also for the last said Jupiter 4^th luminary option, that is, with the New Moon being seen before that as the 3^rd luminary on the sky!) That is, the next luminary (Sirius; after Jupiter and the New Moon, and while Venus and the Sun were both visible) being lit on the late afternoon sky did not show up on my SNB sky until the Moon was at 26° 55’. (Although this number too is within the given range, it cannot apply, seeing that if the Moon was not yet visible it could obviously not be measured.)]

Accordingly, based upon these findings from line I:3 obv and from line I:7 obv, I find apparently good reasons for defining the ideograph as a reference to an event at the time when no more than 3 luminaries (as further identified below!) were first visible on the entire visible hemisphere.

However, testing this definition on line I:12 obv at first does not seem to work even by a stretch (at the time the Moon is at 1° 40’, no luminary besides the Moon and Earth is visible; Earth, Moon, Mercury, and Vega [the 4^th] were the first visible luminaries. Same for Esagila. Using the first rays of the sunrise gives a value within 20’ however, and if somehow the observer had access to an observation point at 479 meters above sea level (MAMSL,) we have an exact fit at sunset, and, if Earth is included in the count [consider the Earth being lit up by the sunshine!,] then at that point the Sun appeared as the 3^rd luminary, thus potentially validating the above definition of mine!)

Testing my above definition against line I:19 obv gives results very similar to those of line I:12 obv. That is, a perfect fit if the observer was located at 479 MAMSL and counting the Moon, the Sun, and the Earth as three luminaries. At 27 MAMSL the Moon was at 13’ off from the recorded observation, which is probably close enough to be acceptable as such, that is, even without resorting to a higher observation point.

Next in line to test is line I:24, which at 27 MAMSL gives us a value that is 31’ off target (3° 29’.) At 479 MAMSL I find a much better fit at 3° 46’ (less than 14’ off the 4° target.)

Next is line II:16, which at 27 MAMSL at sunset gives us no more than 9° 9’, which is almost 3° off the 12° target. At 12° and 27 MAMSL on my SNB sky I see 4 fixed stars (Sirius, Capella, Arcturus, and Canopus) plus the Moon, Venus and Jupiter, altogether 7 luminaries. At 479 MAMSL at sunset I get 9° 26’. At 12° the luminaries are the same as at 27 MAMSL. At 27 MAMSL and at the time when no more than 3 fixed stars (Sirius, Canopus, Arcturus, Capella are the last 4 fixed stars) plus Venus and Jupiter, the Moon is at 11° 56’. At 479 MAMSL I find the Moon at the exact 12° 00’ target! At both altitudes the Moon, Venus, Jupiter, and Sirius are all being seen on my SNB sky until past sunrise and by that time the Moon is well below 9°. I conclude that, if my definition is otherwise correct, when the Moon’s elevation cannot be measured (after moonset) at the time when there are no more than altogether 3 luminaries, then the count must be limited to 3 fixed stars, that is, while excluding the Sun, the Moon, and all planets from the count.

Next is line II:21 obv: At 27 MAMSL and at the time when Procyon (the 4^th last luminary, excluding Rigil Kentaurus, which was just rising and which was at that time below 25’ above the horizon) faded into the dawn (leaving Sirius, Capella, and Arcturus,) the Moon was at 5° 40’ above its setting point. That is, 40’ off the 5° target. At 479 MAMSL I find the Moon at 5° 46’. Not making any such exclusions, I find the last 4 fixed stars being (Sirius, Arcturus, Rigil Kentaurus, and Vega (Vega fading first of these 4 at less than 25’ above the horizon.)) At that point I find the Moon bull’s eye at exactly 5° 00’ (479 MAMSL,) while at 4° 52’ (27 MAMSL.)

Next is line II:27 obv: At this time I find the Moon, Vega, and Arcturus being the 3 luminaries left after Saturn fades just prior to setting behind the horizon. At this point I find the Moon at 5° 49’ (479 MAMSL) and at 5° 43’ (27 MAMSL.) That’s close to bull’s eye (5° 40’) for both altitudes. Notice: This notation confirms my prior modified definition re how to count the last 3 luminaries! That is, no reason to exclude even the stars visible quite near the horizon!

Next is line III:10 obv: Here I find the Moon, Venus, and Jupiter being the last 3 luminaries after Arcturus fades into dawn. At that point I find the Moon at 7° 29’ (27 MAMSL) and at 7° 37’ (479 MAMSL.) [Moon at sunrise is way off at 4° 58’!]

Next is line III:15 obv: At dawn as the stars were fading into the light and diminishing in numbers, Spica was the 4^th last fixed star to disappear, thus leaving Arcturus, Vega, and Altair, as the last 3 fixed stars. At that time the Moon was at 3° 35’ 28” (27 MAMSL) and at 3° 43’ 31” (479 MAMSL.) In addition, at that time, the Moon, Jupiter, and Venus were visible when the last (Arcturus) of the fixed stars disappeared, thus again leaving 3 luminaries in the sky (Moon, Jupiter, and Venus.) At that time the Moon was at 1° 14’ (27 MAMSL) and at 1° 22’ 48” (479 MAMSL.) At the time when Venus rose above the horizon in the east, the Moon, Jupiter, Arcturus, Vega and Altair were all visible in the west. The Moon set (06:19:17) before sunrise (06:23:20.) This unusual notation may have been mistranslated? Perhaps these events were not visible due to inclement weather? At the very least, I am unclear as to the significance of this notation! At least the original cuneiform seems clear and distinct:

Seems I’ve tested all instances ofwithin BM33066, and that I’ve been able to find a reasonably consistent working definition for this interesting cuneiform ideogram (cf. all the bold italicized text within this footnote!).

Praise the Lord of Hosts, my Maker and Redeemer!

[7] Day 13 month 1 began at sunset Fri April 18, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #12.

[8] I am not quite sure why ‘barley’ would be mentioned on the 13^th, but consider this: Per the priestly temple system instituted by king David of Israel, the priests were serving 8 days at a time, beginning on a 7^th day Shabbat and ending on a 7^th day Shabbat. The Omer sacrifice, i.e. the Waving of the Sheaf, was to be brought on the morrow of the 7^th day Shabbat within the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which took place from the 15^th day to the 21^st day of the month. Accordingly, the priests for this particular week of the Feast of Unleavened Bread in 523 BCE would have entered their service on the 13^th day of Month 1, and it would have made sense for them to bring with them barley for this particular purpose, though it was not to be used until the subsequent Shabbat, the 20^th day of month 1, 523 BCE. However, seeing that the ideogram for ‘barley’ is found also on the 15^th day and on the 27^th day seems to indicate that, if this is indeed a reference to barley, then it may not be a reference primarily to the fresh new harvest, but to the old barley from the prior year, and which barley may well have been needed for baking the unleavened bread to be used from the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened bread, that is, from the 15^th day through the 21^st day of the month. That is, the barley from the new harvest was to be used from the morning of the 7^th Day Shabbat within the Feast, which Shabbat in 523 BCE, fell out on day 20 of month 1. Seeing that day 27 month 1 is also a 7^th day Shabbat, I can only guess that this could signify the end of the service of the priestly team which was responsible for the 2^nd and last part of that year’s Feast of Unleavened Bread…

Seeing also that this ‘barley’ ideograph is found only in month XII (line II:1 obv,) month I (lines I:2, 4, 6, and 8 obv,) and month X (line 22 rev,) seems to me to be an indication that it does indeed pertain to barley in some way, month X being perhaps a reference to the time when barley was sown? I also notice that all of these instances of the ‘barley’ ideograms, except line I:1 obv, are associated with a 7^th day Shabbat notation! In the line I:1 obv setting, it may be worth noticing that the priests (?) responsible for these astronomy observations on BM33066 should have assigned that New Moon of line I:2 obv to month 13, Adar II, had barley in the aviv stage not been found by the 30^th of the prior month. Thus the importance of the ‘barley’ notation in line I:2 obv!

Accordingly, line I:4 obv:

[9] On the Eastern sky on April 18, 523 BCE, the 4^th luminary became visible (Saturn; after Jupiter, the Moon, and Arcturus [plus an additional 6 fixed stars on the western sky]) at the time when the Moon was at 8° 34’ 32” over its point of rising. [Even closer to the target 9°, I find the 5^th luminary, Acrux, at which time the Moon was at 8° 44’ 25”.] The 4^th over all luminary became visible (Arcturus; following the Jupiter-Venus pair, the Moon, and Sirius) when the Moon was at 7° 00’ 44”. This finding seems to suggest that at times the observer limited himself to the events on the darker half of the sky.

[Obsolete – In recognition of the importance of the 4^th luminary:

[Not "moonrise to sunset:," but "[Moon at twilight (3 fixed stars visible:)]." Please cf. line I:11 obv (including footnotes!) Furthermore…

[At the time of Moonrise on Thu April 17, 523 BCE at Uruk the angle of separation between 1) the Sun and the sunset horizon location was 18° 55’ 41”, and 2) the Sun and the horizon vertically below was 16° 1’ 4”.

[At the time of Moonrise on Fri April 18, 523 BCE at Uruk the angle of separation between 1) the Sun and the sunset horizon location was 4° 41’ 51”. After considering the fact that this event is dated on the new day beginning at sunset (18:21:17,) it occurs to me that this is more likely a measurement pertaining to the Moon at the time of sunset (as opposed to a measurement of the Sun at moonrise (18:01:52.) Accordingly, at the time of sunset on Fri April 18, 523 BCE at Uruk the angle of separation between 1) the Moon and the moonrise horizon location was 4° 15’ 58” plus 17’ 46” = 4° 33’ 44”. Seeing that not until 18 minutes later [i.e. 18 min after sunset + 18 min between moonrise and sunset] the corresponding measurement would have been 9°, I find an unresolved problem. The number () seen in the cuneiform transcript (page 231, line 4, col. 1) is certainly 9 (; shorthand for ) and not 4 ( or ) or 5 (.) That is, unless the horizontal arrow at the beginning of that ideograph () is an indication that the abbreviated symbol for 9 is supposed to be cut in half, bisected (,) that is, 4.5? Is this the solution to my problem re this event?!

[Or, perhaps if the astronomer was a novice just learning, it might have taken him a little time to make this as an actual measurement between the Moon and the moonrise horizon location? As such a measurement may well be fraught with problems such as finding the proper point at the horizon etc., this could have been a reason for an inaccuracy, especially in comparison to a measurement of time between two exact and easily observed events occurring at the exact point on the horizon?!!!

[History of reasoning – mostly obsolete; replaced by the subsequent paragraph: At the time when the first three fixed stars (Sirius, Canopus, and Arcturus) became visible over my SNB Uruk horizon (18:30:49) the Moon had risen to 6° 46’. Not until (18:40:08) did the Moon rise to 9°, but by that time I count 8 fixed stars, 3 planets, and the Moon on my SNB evening sky. Nevertheless, most of those 12 luminaries are on the western half of the sky, while no more than 2 fixed stars (Arcturus and Acrux) and 2 planets (Jupiter and Saturn,) and the Moon are visible on the Eastern sky. Could that be the solution to the dilemma of this notation? If so, the 3^rd fixed star on the Eastern sky became visible at 18:41:08 at which time the Moon was at 9° 15’. After all, per traditional Jewish reckoning the end of the Sabbath is when “three stars” become visible on the sky. And, obviously, such a definition could be used by anyone for good purposes.]

[Obsolete – Upon recognizing the importance of the 4^th luminary:

[My prior rendering of line I:4 obv: “~~moonrise to sunset:~~^{Footnote #}^{Error!
Bookmark not defined.} [Moon at twilight: / TOL©] at 9°.”

[]

[10] Cf. the use of the ideograph as defined under footnote #127, and as also commented upon under the footnotes of lines I:4, 11, 16, 23; II:10, 15, 22; III:14!

[11] Day 13 month 1 began at sunset Fri April 18, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #12.

[12] The English translation ““2° 20’ “ is an error. The original cuneiform and the transcript both show a very clear “2° 30’:“

Towards a consistent definition of : Testing three different observation points:

At Uruk (27 MAMSL,) when the Sun was at 2° 30’ from its point of rising over the horizon, the Moon was at 32’ beyond its point of setting on the horizon. When the Moon was at 2° 30’ (leading edge) prior to its point of setting on the horizon, I see Shaula, the 4^th last luminary on the Western sky, fading 50 sec prior (leaving the Moon, Antares, and Arcturus [plus Vega, Altair, and Deneb near zenith, and Fomalhaut and Capella in the east.]) When Shaula faded, I find the Moon (leading edge) at 2° 34’. When the Moon was at 2° 30’ (trailing edge) prior to its point of setting on the horizon, I see Deneb, the easternmost of the zenith stars, fading after 34 sec (leaving the Moon, Antares, and Arcturus [plus Vega, and Altair near zenith, and Fomalhaut and Capella in the east.])

At Uruk (729 MAMSL,) when the Sun was at 2° 30’ from its point of rising over the horizon, the Moon was at 20’ beyond its point of setting on the horizon. When the Moon was at 2° 30’ (leading edge) prior to its point of setting on the horizon, I see Shaula, the 4^th last luminary on the Western sky, fading 50 sec prior (leaving the Moon, Antares, and Arcturus [plus Vega, Altair, and Deneb near zenith, and Fomalhaut and Capella in the east.]) When Shaula faded, I find the Moon (leading edge) at 2° 40’. [Solar adjustment angle: 18’ 35”] When the Moon was at 2° 30’ (trailing edge) prior to its point of setting on the horizon, I see Deneb, the easternmost of the zenith stars, within 5 sec prior (leaving the Moon, Antares, and Arcturus [plus Vega, and Altair near zenith, and Fomalhaut and Capella in the east.])

At Esagila, when the Sun was at 2° 30’ from its point of rising over the horizon, the Moon was at 46’ 29” beyond its point of setting on the horizon. When the Moon was at 2° 30’ (leading edge) prior to its point of setting on the horizon, I see Shaula, the 4^th last luminary on the Western sky, fading after 1 sec (leaving the Moon, Antares, and Arcturus [plus Vega, Altair, and Deneb near zenith, and Fomalhaut and Capella in the east.]) When Shaula faded, I find the Moon (leading edge) at 2° 30’. [Lunar adjustment angle: 18’] When the Moon was at 2° 30’ (trailing edge) prior to its point of setting on the horizon, I see Deneb, the easternmost of the zenith stars, after 58 sec (leaving the Moon, Antares, and Arcturus [plus Vega, and Altair near zenith, and Fomalhaut and Capella in the east.])

Considerations: Among the above testing results, I find the Uruk 479 MAMSL re the fading of one of the zenith stars being quite interesting. That is, because using a zenith star would seem to be one of the most consistent tools for measuring from day to day. However, the differences between the above three observation points can hardly be considered large enough to be considered certain in distinguishing one from the other. Using the leading edge of the Moon as setting time (as suggested by my initial testing of line I:10 obv,) may seem unusual and unexpected, but would have the advantage of correlating to the leading edge of sunrise. However. if sunrise is not the tool being used, than that would be a moot point. My prior testing of line I:10 obv seemed to favor using the leading edge of the Moon vs the first rays of sunrise, but the above results do not seem to favor that definition of . On the contrary, after doing the above tests against line I:10 obv I quickly find that using any 3 luminary measurement tool is totally out of the window, and, furthermore, that my previously suggested hypothesis of using the leading edge of the Moon suffered from too high a reliance of my ability to get an exact angle between the Sun and the sunrise point on the horizon (earlier line I:10 obv measurement vs the current measurement above.) In consequence of that, I find that the most likely definition of is in terms of the trailing edge of the Moon vs the leading edge of the Sun and the first rays of sunshine. Furthermore, along those lines, and in consequence of the above testing results, I find, confirmed by and from several other notations within, that the most likely observation point is Uruk at 479++ MAMSL.

[Obsolete – upon discovering the translation error “2° 20’ “ vs the original “2° 30’:”

[My prior version of line I:5 obv: “The 13th. moonset to sunrise: 2º 20’.”

[“At the time when the Moon was at 2° 20’ before its setting point on the horizon, I find 7 luminaries (the Moon, Antares, Arcturus, Vega, and Altair in the west, Capella in NE, and Fomalhaut in SSE) on the visible hemisphere. Fading order: Fomalhaut (05:09:18,) Antares (05:10:26,) Altar (05:13:06,) the Moon (05:18:54,) Capella (05:19:38,) Vega (05:20:12,) and Arcturus (05:20:52.)

[My SNB Baghdad horizon:

[Fri April 18, 523 BCE moonset: 04:51:47; sunrise: 05:35:36;

[Sat April 19, 523 BCE moonset: 05:20:45; sunrise: 05:34:16; and,

[Sun April 20, 523 BCE sunrise: 05:32:56; moonset: 05:52:10.

[Based upon the language of lines 5 and 7 obv, I conclude that line 5 obv applies to the dawn of Sat April 19, 523 BCE, and that line 7 applies to the dawn of Sun April 20, 523 BCE.

[Angular separation at the Uruk horizon:

[At the time of moonset on Sat April 19, 523 BCE, the Sun was 3° 8’ 32” below the Uruk sunrise horizon point (and 2° 46’ 37” below the Uruk horizon,) and (since the radius of the Sun was 16’) the top edge of the Sun was 2° 52’ 32” (or 2° 30’ 37”) below the horizon. This agrees well with the 2° 20’ notation of this line, i.e. line 5 obv..

[Alternatively, at the time when the Moon was 2° 20’ from its point of setting at the Uruk horizon, I see only 4 fixed stars (Arcturus, Vega, Altair, and Antares) on the western sky where the Moon was setting. Very much the same findings apply also to Esagila. Accordingly this measurement may well be defined as ‘moon at twilight (4 fixed stars on the dark half of the sky.’) Then again, not counting the two stars near zenith, there were 3 luminaries (the Moon, Arcturus, and Antares) visible in the East at the time when the Moon was at 2° 20’.

[Angular separation at the Baghdad horizon:

[At the time of sunrise on April 19, 523 BCE, the Moon was 2° 50’ below the horizon, and the last edge of the Moon was 2° 35’ below the horizon. This agrees well with the 2° 20’ notation of line 5 obv., this line.

[At the time of sunrise on April 20, 523 BCE, the Moon was 3° 27’ 44” above the horizon.]

Accordingly, day 1 Moon 1 year 7 began at sunset Sun April 6, 523 BCE, that is, the time of the Aviv New Moon.

[13] Day 14 month 1 began at sunset Sat April 19, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #12.

[14] Using sunset as the reference time, my SNB software finds the Moon at 8° 23’ 26” below its point of rising over the Uruk 27 MAMSL horizon. Alternatively, using the 4^th luminary (Sirius, after the Sun, Earth, the Jupiter-Venus pair) as the reference, then my SNB software finds the Moon at 8° 59’ 52”. Else, if Sirius was not visible until later, and/or preceded by Halley’s comet as the 4^th luminary [Halley’s Comet is ruled out! (cf. footnotes ##89, and 104!,)] closer to sunset, then a measurement close to the recorded 8° 20’ may be reasonable?

Reviewing all the within lines ending with the ideogram . (Lines I:6, 13, 18, 25; II:11, 17, 23, 26; III:[4,] 9, 16):

1. Line I:6 – Sunset only; precise: 8° 20’ vs. 8° 23’. [Sat, Year 7, Moon 1, Day 14]

2. Line I:13 – Sirius, the 4^th luminary (pre-sunset;) precise: 14° 30’ vs 14° 15’ or 14° 30’. (Sunset Moon off at 13° 30’.) [Mon, Moon 2]

3. Line I:18 (corrected from 5° to 7°) – 7 minutes 17 seconds pre-sunset; precise 7° vs 7° by definition. (Sunset Moon off at 5° 45’. 4^th luminary off at 3° 27’ 55”.) [Tue, Moon 3]

[Line I:18 (as transcribed, 5°) – Venus’ setting (3 mins 25 secs post-sunset;) precise: 5° vs 5° 00’ 27”. (Sunset Moon off at 5° 45’. 4^th luminary off at 3° 27’ 55”.)]

4. Line I:25 – 8± minutes pre-sunset; precise: 8° 30’ vs. 8° 30’ by definition. (Sunset Moon off at 6° 57’ 29”. 4^th luminary off at 4° 07’ 47”.) [Thu, Moon 4]

5. Line II:11 – 6± minutes pre-sunset; precise: 8° 40’ vs. 8° 40’ by definition. (Sunset Moon off at 7° 20’ 28”. 4^th luminary off at 2° 22’ 30”.) [Mon, Moon 6]

6. Line II:17 – Sunset only; precise (within 30 seconds:) 3° vs 3° 7’ 55”. (The 4^th luminary off at 0° 32’ 07” below its point of rising over the horizon.) [Tue, Year 7, Moon 7, Day 15]

7. Line II:23 – 8± minutes pre-sunset; precise: 14° vs. 14° by definition. (Sunset Moon off at 12° 7’ 25”.) [Thu, Moon 8]

8. Line II:26 – Sirius, the 4^th luminary (2 minutes 24 seconds pre-sunset;) precise: 3° vs 3° 00’ 02”. (Sunset Moon off at 2° 23’ 27”.) [Thu, Year 6, Moon 12, Day 14]

9. Line III:9 – Sunset only; precise: 1° 40’ vs 1° 55’ 45”. (Sirius, the 4^th luminary, 2 min 21 seconds pre-sunset finds the Moon off at 2° 26’ 42”.) [Sun, Moon 11]

10. Line III:16 (corrected to 11°) – Sunset only; precise 11° vs 11° 00’ 15”. (4^th luminary off at 8° 31’ 40”. Sirius, 2 minutes 21 seconds pre-sunset, off at 11° 30’ 35”.) [Mon, Year 7, Moon 12, Day 14]

[Line III:16 (as transcribed - 10°) – Canopus, the 2^nd luminary (5 min 39 seconds post-sunset;) precise 10° vs 10°. (Sunset Moon off at 11° 00’ 15”. 4^th luminary off at 8° 31’ 40”. Sirius, 2 minutes 21 seconds pre-sunset, off at 11° 30’ 35”.)]

Considerations and summary:

Out of the ten instances of this use of at the end of a line, I find 4 instances of sunset only being the time of the recorded Moon position. In addition there are (3 [before correction of line III:16] or) 4 instances of sunset only less 6-8 minutes (pre-sunset.) Sirius, as the 4^th luminary, is being twice (2) used as the reference time. However, on one instance (line III:9,) sunset alone is given preference over Sirius, the 4^th luminary! Sunset only is being preferentially used on Scriptural Feast Days (lines I:6; II:17; III:16 (but not II:26,) cf. Leviticus 23:5, 34; Esther 9:21) but Sirius is also once used on Adar 14 (line II:26 (but not line III:16,) cf. Esther 9:21,) but sunset only is also being used once on a non-Scriptural day (line III:9.) The afterthought necessary for these considerations alerted me to the errors of transcription within lines I:18 and III:16.

[Obsolete – Replaced by the above paragraphs: At the time of the Uruk horizon sunset on Sat April 19, 523 BCE the Moon was 8° 37’ 19” below the moonrise horizon (7° 30’ 35” below the horizon,) and, accordingly, the top edge of the Moon (the radius of the Moon being 15’) was 8° 22’ 19” below the moonrise horizon (7° 15’ 35” below the horizon.)]

[15] Day 14 month 1 began at sunset Sat April 19, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #12.

[16] At the time of the Uruk horizon sunrise on Sun April 20, 523 BCE the Moon was 4° 52’ 41” above the moonset horizon, and, accordingly, the trailing edge of the Moon (the radius of the Moon being 15’, which when considering the oblique line of travel across the horizon comes to ~ 20’) was 5° 12’ 41” above the moonset horizon.

However, at the time when the Moon was 7° 40’ above its point of setting on the horizon, there were only 3 luminaries (the Moon in WSW, Vega, and Arcturus) visible on my SNB sky, all of them on the western, the darkest, half of the sky. When Arcturus faded into dawn, the Moon was at 7° 25’. At the time when a 4^th luminary (Altair) on the western sky faded, the Moon was at 9°, and at the time when the 4^th luminary over all (Capella; in NE) faded, the Moon was at 7° 40’.

Accordingly, the definition of must refer to all visible luminaries on the entire visible hemisphere.

Please cf. line I:3 obv footnote #6 for more re the definition of and re this line I:7 obv in particular!

[My prior – now obsolete - rendering and links of this line I:7 obv: “The 14th, sunrise to moonset: 7º 40’”

[17] Day 27 month 1 began at sunset Fri May 2, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #12.

[18] Please cf. the sister notation of footnote 35 and a more correct translation of the words translated “(moonrise to sunrise:),” that is, “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]”

[19] The English word “at…” in this setting is similar to line 4 obv.! Upon looking at the corresponding transcript of the cuneiform text (,) and after a similar ideogram used in line 4 obv. (,) I find that a more likely correct translation must be “half of…” or “a bisection of…,” that is, in this context, not “16°,” but “half of 16°,” “8°,” or possibly “a fraction of 16° ” or “less than 16°.” Considering the apparent exactness of this particular notation, as correlated with the facts as available thanks to my SNB software, I would favor the more exact translation, that is, in terms of “half of…”

[20] At the time of the Uruk horizon moonrise (center point of Moon, and first sliver of Moon becoming potentially visible) on Sat May 3, 523 BCE the Sun was 15° 21’ 58” below the sunrise horizon, and, accordingly, the leading edge of the Sun (the radius of the Sun being 16’) was 15° 5’ 58” below the sunrise horizon. However, the more likely correct translation is, not “16°,” but “8°.” For details, please cf. footnote 9 line 4 obv.!

[21] Re the SNB view available under the link: The Old Moon was most likely first observed at the point above the horizon where it is seen in said SNB view. At that point in time the distance from the leading top edge of the Sun to the sunrise horizon would be as indicated in said view.

[22] Day 1 of Month II began at sunset Mon May 5, 523 BCE.

[SNB for the Uruk horizon on Mon May 5, 523 BCE: Sunset: 18:31:13; moonset: 20:11:46; lag: 100 min 33 sec; illum.: 3.05%.]

[23] The day beginning at sunset Mon May 5, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #12.

[24] Angular separation: Sun-Moon: 19° 9’; Sun before Moon: 16° 56’; Moon to moonset horizon point: 22° 8’ 33”; trailing edge of Moon (Lunar diameter being 33’ at the time) to moonset horizon point; 22° 25’ 3”.

[25] Day 13 month 2 began at sunset Sat May 17, 523 BCE. Cf. footnotes ##22, 24, and 26.

[26] Pursuing the exact conditions for the notated measurements: At the time the trailing edge of the Moonset, the Sun was 7° 29’ 40” before the firsts rays of sunshine would raise above the Uruk horizon (479 MAMSL). Conversely, at the time when the Sun was 8° 20’ 00” before the firsts rays of sunshine would raise above the Uruk horizon, I find the leading edge of the Moon at ~3’ above its setting point (479 MAMSL.) When the leading edge of the Moon first touched the horizon, I find the Sun at 8° 20’ 14” (Uruk at 479 MAMSL,) and at 8° 20’ 00” (Uruk at 27 MAMSL,) but the precision is not enough for a significant distinction between those two last measurements. However, testing this as a definition for does not agree well with the finer measurement of line I:5 obv and is probably not valid…

Towards a consistent definition of : Testing three different observation points (as previously tested against line I:5 obv:)

At Uruk (27 MAMSL,) when the Sun was at 8° 20’ from its point of rising over the horizon, I find the leading edge of Moon at 11’ beyond its point of setting on the horizon and 22’ before the trailing edge of the Moon set. When the Moon was at 8° 20’ (leading edge) prior to its point of setting on the horizon, I see… a host of stars and further testing (against the hypotheses suggested by line I:5 obv) superfluous.

Cf. line I:5 obv and footnote 12 for the remainder of the pursuit of the definition of !

In consequence of the definition thus far obtained for (cf. line I:5 obv!:) At the time when the trailing edge of the Moon set at Uruk (479 MAMSL,) I find the Sun at 8° 11’ 22” (which closest 1/3 of a degree is 8° 20’.)

Other considerations:

As re lines I:4-7 obv, so also the language of lines I:10-15 define the exact day of the month – as well as showing the point of the astronomical full moon (during the 14^th day.) That is, the date given (“the 14^th ”) as reckoned from the New Moon is correlated to the astronomical full moon (at 16:47 on Sun May 18, 5 23 BCE Baghdad time zone [= “May 18 13:47” UT.]) That is, the first morning, “the 14^th day” after astronomical full moon was Mon May 19, 523 BCE. Accordingly, the 1^st day of the 2^nd Moon year 7 began 13 days prior to May 18, which was Mon May 5, 523 BCE:

SNB Uruk horizon Sun May 18, 523 BCE: Moonset: 4:26:19; sunrise: 04:59:55; sunset: 18:39:17; moonrise: 18:47:12.

SNB Uruk horizon Mon May 19, 523 BCE: Sunrise: 04:59:07; moonset: 5:04:59; sunset: 18:39:56; moonrise: 18:43:29.

Thus, my findings re line 9 obv are confirmed, and it is safe to begin correlating the given separation angles “8º 20’ ” to the dates of the Julian calendar (Sat May 17, 523 BCE:) 8° 36’ 21”, and, for the leading edge of the Sun: 8º 20’ 51”. Notice: This measurement must have been based on a timer combined with two sky observations, that is, measuring the time from moonset to sunrise.

[27] Day 14 month 2 began at sunset Sun May 18, 523 BCE. Cf. footnotes ##22, 24, and 26.

[28] Cf. the use of the ideograph as also commented upon under the footnotes of lines I:4, 11, 16, 23; II:10, 15, 22; III:14!

[29] After studying the ideograms and , and after learning of the general importance of the shift from 3 to 4 luminaries, and vice versa, I find that on this date, May 18, 523 BCE, at the time when I find the Moon, on my SNB Uruk 27 MAMSL sky, at exactly 1° ahead of its point of rising over the horizon, there are altogether 8 luminaries visible on the sky (the Moon, Arcturus, Rigil Kentaurus, and Vega on the eastern sky; Jupiter, Venus, Sirius, and Capella on the western sky.) At the time when the 4^th overall luminary became visible (Arcturus; after the Jupiter-Venus pair, the Moon, and Sirius) the Moon was at 0° 35’ 00” (0° 47’ 23” at Uruk 500 MAMSL). Limiting my count to the eastern sky, I find the 4^th luminary (Vega, after the Moon, Arcturus, and Rigil Kentaurus) becoming visible when the Moon was at 0° 46’ 34” (0° 56‘ 12” at Uruk 500 MAMSL; 0° 34’ 04” and at Esagila.)

Accordingly, as in line I:4 obv, I find better values when limiting my observations to the darker, eastern half of the sky, but, in contradistinction to the values in line I:4 obv, my findings for lines I:11 obv are acceptable also for the over all 4^th luminary observation.

[Obsolete – in view of my findings re the priority of the 3^rd/4^th luminary timing:

[My prior rendering of line I:11 obv: “~~moonrise to sunset:~~^{Footnote #}^{Error! Bookmark not defined.} [Moon at sunset: / TOL©] 1º.”

[Here is an interesting one! According to the notation on the record as translated, the moonrise should have taken place prior to sunset, not after, but that does not seem to be possible, at least not as observed from Uruk (1° 45’ 9” – 15.5’ = 1° 29’ 39” below horizon!) So what about Esagila (1° 56’ 29” – 15.5’ = 1° 40’ 59” below horizon!?) Hmmm, much the same thing! If the observations would have been done from an elevation of 3000+ meters at Esagila, yes, this would have worked, but such was not the case as best I can tell. However seeing that the numbers of the angle agree with the notation, I conclude that there is an error here. Most likely in the translation? Looking at the cuneiform transcript (page 231,) I see the last ideogram being indeed the one usually (compare the last ideogram on each of lines 4, 11, 16, and 23) associated with the translation “moonrise to sunset,” but who is to say that the true definition of that ideogram is not something other than “moonrise to sunset?” That is, by comparing the first and the last cuneiform ideogram of line 13 obv (,) I find one and the same ideogram () being translated first as “Night of” and then as “sunset to moonrise!” Perhaps a more correct translation of the last ideogram of line 11 obv would be “at [the exact point of] sunset” while the first and last ideograms of line 13 would be “just after sunset?” After all, if the event [“moonrise to sunset”] took place prior to sunset, then it should have been dated as an event of the day beginning on the prior night, but it is not! The corresponding angular separation fits perfectly (indicating the angular separation between the Moon and the horizon above, and then using the same measurement along the line of travel on the sky: 1° 38’ 26”. Correcting for the radius of the Moon [15’] I obtain 1° 23’ 26” ~= 1°! I am reminded that this measurement must be based upon the measure of time between two easily visible events on the sky.

[Alternatively, is it possible that this has something to do with the bending of light that is occurring near the horizon? If the Sun and the Moon both were to appear a little larger, as they usually do at such times, could they then have been seen together??? Reportedly not! Then again, how much of the apparent size of a luminary vs the distance to it is built into my SNB software? After double-checking, I find that the apparent size of the Moon as displayed in SNB is built in, that is, the difference in size between perigee and apogee is accounted for!]

[30] The day beginning at sunset Sun May 18, 523 BCE. Cf. footnotes ##22, 24, and 26.

[31] Please cf. line I:3 obv footnote #6 for more re the definition of and re this line I:12 obv in particular!

[My prior – now obsolete - rendering and links of this line I:12 obv: “The 14th. sunrise to moonset: 1º 40’.”

[32] The day beginning at sunset Mon May 19, 523 BCE. Cf. footnotes ##22, 24, and 26.

[33] If sunset were to be the reference point, then, per my SNB software, the angular separation between the front end of the Moon and its point of rising above the horizon was 13° 30’. If the 4^th luminary (Sirius, after the Sun, Earth, and the Jupiter-Venus pair) was the reference point, then, per my SNB software, the angular separation between the front end of the Moon and its point of rising above the horizon was 14° 15’, and the angular separation between the center of the Moon and its point of rising above the horizon was 14° 30’. Halley’s comet may have become less luminous at this time [Halley’s Comet is ruled out! (cf. footnotes ##89, and 104!,)] but may well have been seen one month earlier as possibly indicated by the measurements recorded within?

[34] The day beginning at sunset Sat May 31, 523 BCE. Cf. footnotes ##22, 24, and 26.

[35] Please cf. footnote 36 for the basis of this footnote! Also please consider footnote 29 on line 11 obv re the necessary meaning of the related cuneiform ideogram mistranslated as “moonrise to sunset” etc.!

Accordingly, it seems necessary that the translation of the corresponding ideogram of this line must also be improved upon and corrected. Rather than “moonrise to sunrise” I would, at the outset, suggest something on the order of “Old Moon observation to sunrise.” Upon studying the transcript of the cuneiform the answer is immediate and obvious. There is no cuneiform in line 14 () besides the numbers “27” () and “21” (!) Everything else is the translator’s explanatory notations. As such, for most clarity said words of the translator should have been put within brackets rather than within parenthesis. That is, per current usage of the English language.

[36] Here is an interesting observation to consider: If the actual rising of the Moon would have been observable, and if the Sun’s position could have been observed at that time, the actual measurement of the angular separation would have been 35° 27’ 22”, but that is not possible! The Old Moon is as difficult to observe as the New Moon, and it seems obvious that the measurement is neither a direct measurement between the Sun and the Moon nor is it a measurement based upon the actual moonrise, but is an observation based upon the measurement of time between the actual observation of two separate events: 1) The time when the Old Moon sliver was first observed, and 2) the observed sunrise. Accordingly, the time corresponding to the notated “21°,” was likely reckoned from the time when the Old Moon was first observed.

[37] The 3^rd Moon of year 7 began with the New Moon Tue June 3, 523 BCE [Tue June 3, 523 BCE sunset: 18:58:43; moonset: 20:19:51; lag: 81 min 8 sec; illum.: 2.01%.] For confirmation of this exact date, please cf. line 4 rev., where a certain observation of Venus could not possibly have occurred one day later!

[38] Day 1 month 3 began at sunset Tue June 3, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #37.

[39] Day 1 month 3 began at sunset Tue June 3, 523 BCE. Cf. footnotes ##22, 24, and 26.

[40] The day beginning at sunset Mon June 16, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #37.

[41] Cf. the use of the ideograph as also commented upon under the footnotes of lines I:4, 11, 16, 23; II:10, 15, 22; III:14!

[42] The 4^th luminary becoming visible on my SNB Uruk 27 MAMSL sky is Arcturus (after the Jupiter-Venus pair, the Moon, and Mercury.) The Moon is at that time at 7° 30’ 38”. If only the eastern sky is reckoned, then Antares is the 4^th luminary (after the Moon, Vega, and Altair) on my SNB Uruk 27 MAMSL sky. At that time the Moon is at 10° 00’ 11”, but if either Rigil Kentaurus or Arcturus, both of which are close to the eastern hemisphere boundary, is being reckoned, then Altair is the 4^th luminary visible at the time when the Moon is at 9° 30’ 23”. This result seems to confirm that, so far as , that is, the sign indicating the evening before the night of the astronomical full Moon, is concerned, sometimes only the eastern horizon is being used for reckoning the 4^th luminary being lit.

Accordingly, I revise my former transcription & translation to read:

[Obsolete – in consequence of my new understanding of the importance of the 4^th luminary:

[My prior rendering of line I:16 obv: “moonrise to sunset:^{Footnote #}^{Error! Bookmark not defined.} 9º 30’.”

[The value as translated is almost exactly twice that which is shown by my Starry Night Backyard astronomy software, i.e. 9° 30’ rather than 4° 45’. Being reminded of the similar problem I had with line 4 obv., I thought that perhaps a transcriptionist has missed transcribing the cuneiform arrow that indicated that the attached number should be bisected? Cf. lines ## 4 and 8 re the mistranslation “at…,” which, as best I can tell, indicated “half of…”

[Indeed, when I study the original BM33066 I find that the transcription is almost certainly in error. To interpret the cuneiform as Strassmaier did (cf. the first image below,) requires the assumption that the cuneiform ideograms are almost impossibly crowded, even to the point of being illegible. Please compare the two images below and I believe you will agree with me that my TOL© translation is much more clear, distinct, and obvious. True, the ideograph at the beginning of the line () is usually interpreted as ‘Night of,’ and ‘14’ is usually represented by a different ideograph (,) but ‘4’ ,per the Assyrian Languages Dictionary, may be represented by either or , so it stands to reason that ‘14’ may be represented by either or .

[

[Please compare the second ideograph above (line 16 obv.) with the 4^th and 5^th of 6 ideographs below (line 4 obv.!:)

[]

[43] Day 14 month 3 began at sunset Mon June 16, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #37.

[44]

[Obsolete: My prior version of line I:17 obv: “The 14th, moonset to sunrise: 4º.”]

After finding a more specific definition of (cf. line I:5 obv!,) I find that when the trailing edge of the Moon set at Uruk (479+ MAMSL) on June 17, 523 BCE, the Sun was at an angular distance from the point of (leading edge) sunrise of 2° 40’. At Uruk (27 MAMSL) 3’ 0’. At Esagila: 3° 5’.

Interestingly, the 4° notation (re the Sun; at sunrise no luminary besides the Sun and Earth was visible) would fit exactly with the fading of the 4^th luminary (Betelgeuse; leaving Capella, Vega, and the soon to set Moon.)

Unfortunately, applying such criteria to e.g. line I:10 obv and the May 18, 523 BCE event, I find the 4^th luminary fading (Altair; leaving Vega, Capella, and Mercury) at the point when the Sun is at 4° 24’ 11”, which is 4° off the notation 8° 20’ target. (At the time of this May 18, 523 BCE moonset, I see more than 20 luminaries on my SNB sky.)

Testing this 4^th luminary against the line I:5 obv notation, I find the setting Moon being the 4^th luminary (leaving Arcturus, Capella, and Vega.) That is, in support of the above suggested criteria!

The line I:22 obv notation of July 16, 523 BCE is similar to line I:10 obv in that at moonset a host of stars are still visible. The 4^th last luminary fading is Capella (leaving Venus, Vega, and Sirius,) at which time I find my SNB Moon at 6° 6’ 58” beyond its trailing edge setting point. At the July 16, 523 BCE moonset I find the SNB Sun at 8° 59’ 49”, which is still 2° off the notation 11° target. At the slightly more northerly Esagila observation point, I find only marginal improvement with the Sun at 9° 10’ 22”. At Uruk 531 MAMSL I find the Sun at 8° 40’ 35”, but seeing that at sunrise there are 4 luminaries visible (Venus, Sirius, Sun, and Earth,) and that the 4^th last luminary (Sirius) does not fade until the Moon is at 9° 12’ 02”. At Uruk 27 MAMSL, I find the 4^th last luminary (Sirius; leaving Venus, Sun, and Earth) fading when the Moon is at 9° 23’ 56”. At Esagila, I find the 4^th last luminary (Sirius; leaving Venus, Sun, and Earth) fading when the Moon is at 9° 23’ 43”. On my SNB sky Venus does not fade all day, but I would imagine that Sirius could be visible at Uruk for a little longer than indicated by my SNB software, thus accounting for the remaining 1° 36’ 4” that Uruk 27 MAMSL is still off from our 11° target?

The line II:8 obv notation, dated Sept 13, 523 BCE, also finds the setting Moon with a host of visible stars. The corresponding Uruk 27 MAMSL Sun is at that point in time at 12° 45’ before its sunrise point, and the Uruk 531m MAMSL Sun is at 11° 50’ 53”. Interestingly, Mercury, as the 4^th last pre sunrise luminary fades on my SNB Uruk 531 MAMSL sky 1 second (50 seconds at 27 MAMSL) prior to the leading edge sunrise (leaving Venus, Jupiter, and Sirius.) For Uruk 27 MAMSL Mercury’s fading puts the Moon at 11° 34’ 55” post moonset. At Esagila the time difference is 52 secs, putting the Moon at 11° 25’ 26”. Post sunrise there is yet another potential 4^th luminary fading (Jupiter; leaving Sun, Earth, and Venus,) but the potential fading of Jupiter may be difficult to tell, that is, given its closeness to the Sun. Compare my comments above re the similar event recorded in line I:22!

The line II:14 obv notation, dated Oct 13, 523 BCE, likewise finds the setting Moon with numerous stars. I find the corresponding Uruk 27 MAMSL Sun (leading edge) at that point in time at 6° 12’ 46” (5° 44’ 51” at Uruk 531 MAMSL; and 6° 10’ 44” at Esagila.) The 4^th last pre-sunrise fading luminary is Canopus (leaving Venus, Jupiter, and Sirius.) At that point I find the Moon 4° 45’ 07” past its trailing edge setting point. The 4^th last post-sunset luminary is Jupiter (leaving Sun, Earth, and Venus.) At the point when Jupiter fades on my SNB sky I find the Moon 17° 07’ 11” past its point of setting (regardless of my SNB light pollution setting!) At the point when Sirius (the 5^th last post-sunset luminary) fades on my SNB sky I find the Moon 6° 30’ 33” (Uruk 27 MAMSL; 6° 18’ 20” at Uruk 531 MAMSL; and 6° 22’ 37” at Esagila) past its point of setting. Canopus, the otherwise 6^th post-sunrise last luminary, was a pre-sunset luminary! This situation leaves me with the impression that Jupiter (the king of heaven) and Venus (the queen of heaven) may be treated as one luminary, thus making Sirius in effect the 4^th last fading post-sunrise luminary.

The line II:20 obv notation, dated Nov 11, 523 BCE, finds the setting Moon with numerous stars. I find the corresponding Uruk 27 MAMSL Sun (leading edge) at 13° 53’ 31” (13° 23’ 57” at Uruk 531 MAMSL; and 13° 38’ 53” at Esagila.) The 4^th last pre-sunrise fading luminary is Arcturus (leaving Venus, Jupiter, and Sirius,) or, if Venus and Jupiter were to be reckoned as one?, Capella (leaving Venus, Jupiter, Sirius, and Arcturus.) The 4^th last post-sunrise fading luminary, counting Venus and Jupiter as one, is Sirius (leaving Sun, Earth, and the pair Venus and Jupiter.) At that point I find the Moon 14° 31’ 29” (Uruk 27 MAMSL; 13° 45’ 55” at Uruk 531 MAMSL, and 13° 36’ 42” at Esagila) past its point of setting. At the point of Jupiter’s fading (leaving Venus, Sun, and Earth) I find the Moon at 25° 17’ 31”.

The line II:25 obv notation, dated March 19, 523 BCE, at the time of trailing edge moonset, finds the trailing edge setting Sun at 12° 17’ 21” (Uruk 27 MAMSL; 12° 39’ 36” at Uruk 531 MAMSL; and 12° 10’ 34” at Esagila.) At the time the 4^th pre-sunset luminary was becoming visible (Sirius; together with Sun, Earth, and the Jupiter-Venus pair) I find the Moon 11° 11’ 01” (Uruk 27 MAMSL; 11° 18’ 58” at Uruk 531 MAMSL; and 11° 04’ 45” at Esagila) past its leading edge rising.

The line II:26 obv notation, dated March 20, 523 BCE, finds the setting Moon with 7 other luminaries remaining (Arcturus, Vega, Saturn, Altair, Antares, Fomalhaut, and Spica.) I find the corresponding leading edge Sun at 5° 24’ 44” (Uruk 27 MAMSL; 5° 03’ 58” at Uruk 531 MAMSL; and 5° 26’ 13” at Esagila.) The 4^th last pre-sunrise luminary Altair (leaving Vega, Arcturus, and Saturn) faded when the Moon was only 1° 00’ below its point of setting. At the time when the last pre-sunset luminary faded (Arcturus) no other luminary was visible. Neither did any additional luminaries become visible shortly after sunrise. Accordingly, the only measurable option beyond the above said (within this paragraph) was sunrise (with its two luminaries: Sun, and the sunlit Earth.)

The line III:8 obv notation, dated Feb 8, 522 BCE, finds the setting Moon with 6 other luminaries remaining (Vega, Altair, Arcturus, Rigil Kentaurus, Saturn, and the Jupiter-Venus pair.) I find the corresponding Sun at 5° 00’ 12” (Uruk 27 MAMSL; 4° 32’ 27” at Uruk 531 MAMSL; 4° 55’ 34” at Esagila.) The 4^th last pre-sunrise fading luminary was Vega (followed closely by the setting Rigil Kentaurus, and then Arcturus, leaving only the Jupiter-Venus pair until well after sunrise (adding a 3^rd and/or 4^th luminary in addition to Sun and Earth.)

The line III:13 obv notation, dated March 9, 522 BCE, finds the setting Moon with a host of stars. I find the corresponding Uruk 27 MAMSL Sun at that time 10° 20’ 20” before its point of rising. At the time of the 4^th last fading pre-sunrise luminary (Saturn; leaving the Jupiter-Venus pair, Vega, and Arcturus as the last fading star at a time when the Moon was at 7° 22’ 48”) the Moon was at 6° 28’ 27” beyond its point of setting. Thus, I find the Sun and the lit Earth forming a perfected threesome together with the Jupiter-Venus pair at sunrise…

Lastly there is the line III:15 obv notation, dated March 10, 522 BCE, which finds the setting Moon alone with the Jupiter-Venus pair and the Sun at 1° 14’ 04” before its point of rising.

Conclusion – Additional criteria for the definition of :

Based upon the above said (within this footnote,) I find that, provided the Moon is one among the last 4 luminaries, the beginning of the event is the fading or setting of the 4^th last (overall) luminary, and the end of the is the rising of the Sun. If moonset is prior to the last 4 luminaries, then the end of the is the fading or setting of the 4^th last post-sunset luminary (including Sun, Earth, and all others except that Venus and Jupiter may be treated as one luminary [cf. the above said re l. II:14,]) or else, if there is no useful post-sunset luminary fading, then the 4^th last pre-sunset luminary fading is being used, unless that event is too close to moonset and/or too far from sunrise [cf. the above said re l. II:26,])

[45] Day 15 month 3 began at sunset Tue June 17, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #37.

[46] Using sunset 18:56:28 as the reference gives me a SNB Moon at 5° 44’ 55” before its point of rising over the Uruk 27 MAMSL. Alternatively, using the 4^th luminary (Rigil-Kentaurus, after the Jupiter-Venus pair, Mercury, and Arcturus) gives me a SNB Moon at 3° 27’ 55”. (Using Arcturus gives me 3° 33’44”.) Using Mercury (after Jupiter and Venus separately gives me 5° 45’ 28”. If Halley’s comet [Halley’s Comet is ruled out! (cf. footnotes ##89, and 104!,)] or some other unknown luminary was observed as the 4^th luminary at the time of Venus’ setting (after Jupiter, Venus, and Mercury) gives me 5° 00’ 27”. Or perhaps the setting of Venus, at 18:59:53, 3 minutes 25 seconds post-sunset, would be reckoned as a 4^th luminary, or otherwise significant, event (after Jupiter, Venus, and Mercury???)

Considering the fact that 5°, as transcribed, provides me with a one of a kind post-sunset notation, and the fact that BM33066, so far as this ideogram is concerned, seems a bit fuzzy while suggesting a (7) or a (8) rather than a (5,) I believe that this is an instance of a mis-transcription of 5° vs a corrected 7°, which occurred at 18:49:11, 7 minutes 17 seconds pre-sunset. This finding agrees well with my analysis of lines I:25; II:11, 23 (cf. footnote #14 for details!:)

[47] Day 15 month 3 began at sunset Tue June 17, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #37.

[48] Please cf. line I:3 obv footnote #6 for more re the definition of and re this line I:19 obv in particular!

[My prior – now obsolete - rendering and links of this line I:19 obv: “The 15th, sunrise to moonset: 8º 30’.”

[49] Day 27 month 3 began at sunset Sun June 29, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #37.

[50] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 35 of line I:14 obv.!

[51] NewMoon day, month 4, began at sunset Thu July 3, 523 BCE.

[Baghdad horizon on Thu July 3, 523 sunset: 19:11:25; moonset: 20:47:05; lag: 95 min 40 sec; illum.: 5.20%. (Wed July 2, 523 BCE sunset: 19:11:15 ; moonset: 19:58:50; lag: 47 min 35 sec ; illum.: 1.07%.)]

Confirmation of sunset Thu July 3, 523 BCE being the beginning of New Moon day #4 is found in the eclipse observations recorded in lines 19 and 20 rev.!

[52] Day 30 month 3 began at sunset Wed July 2, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #37.

[53] Considering the Super-Moon size (33’ diameter) and the high degree of illumination (4.71%) it is not surprising that this New Moon was seen 23 minutes before sunset. That is, as indicated by the notation “27° ” as opposed to SNB’s 22° at sunset!

[54] Day 13 month 4 began at sunset Tue July 15, 523 BCE. Cf. line I:21 obv.!

[55] Seeing that these measurements are based upon observations of luminaries over the horizon, I now realize that this larger than expected angle of separation may well be due to the disappearing of the Moon while it had yet a little ways to go before setting over a flat horizon such as that of SNB. That is, thus giving a longer time and a larger degree notation between the disappearance of the Moon and the rising of the Sun.

[56] Day 14 month 4 began at sunset Wed July 16, 523 BCE. Cf. line I:21 obv.!

[57] Cf. the use of the ideograph as also commented upon under the footnotes of lines I:4, 11, 16, 23; II:10, 15, 22; III:14!

[58] The 4^th overall luminary being lit was Rigil Kentaurus (after Jupiter, the Moon, and Arcturus) at which time I find the Moon on my SNB sky at 4° 30’ 31” (at Uruk 27 MAMSL; 4° 38’ 47” at Uruk 500 MAMSL; and 4° 30’ 25” at Esagila.) If only the eastern sky is being considered then the 4^th luminary visible is Deneb (after the Moon, Altair, and Vega.) The Moon at that time is at 7° 37’ 51”.

Line I:23 obv:

Seems correctly transcribed and translated… Well, close enough, skipping the minutes…

[Obsolete – in view of my learning of the importance of the 4^th luminary:

[My prior rendering of line I:23 obv: “moonrise to sunset:^{Footnote #}^{Error! Bookmark not defined.} 4º.”

[At the outset I had no idea as to why this angle, “4° ” could be twice as large as that shown by my SNB, which seemed to make it utterly impossible for this angle to be more than 2° for either Uruk or Esagila… I was comparing the ideographs translated as “4° ” as seen as the 3^rd and 2^nd ideographs on the following two lines (lines I:23 and I:24 obv) respectively, with…

the 2^nd ideograph on line II:9 obv…

and with the 2^nd ideograph on line III:8 obv…,

both of which last two ideographs seem to have a distinctly different appearance from the first mentioned two ideographs on lines I:23 and I:24. Accordingly, I was considering whether the ideographs of lines I:23 and I:24 wouldn’t better be translated in terms of perhaps(??) meaning “astronomy: the path of a heavenly body,” that is, as indicating somehow that the Moon had passed the point of the astronomical fullmoon…

[And that’s as far as I’ve gotten thus far…!]

[59] Day 14 month 4 began at sunset Wed July 16, 523 BCE. Cf. line I:21 obv.!

[60] Please cf. line I:3 obv footnote #6 for more re the definition of and re this line I:24 obv in particular!

[Obsolete – upon discovering a likely definition of the ideogram :

[My prior – now obsolete - rendering and links of this line I:24 obv: “The 14th. sunrise to moonset: 4º.”

[]

[61] Day 15 month 4 began at sunset Thu July 17, 523 BCE. Cf. line I:21 obv.!

[62] At sunset 19:01:04 July 17, 523 BCE SNB gives me the Moon at 6° 57’ 29” before its point of rising above the horizon at Uruk 27 MAMSL. To get the recorded 8° 30’ (18:53:04±) I have to go back to 8 minutes prior to sunset, which leaves me identically the same luminaries as at sunset, i.e. the Sun, Earth, and Jupiter. If Halley’s comet was at that time very bright it could have served as the 4^th luminary at that pre-sunset point? [Halley’s Comet is ruled out! (cf. footnotes ##89, and 104!,)] Other than that, and barring an unknown pre-sunset ghost player, the 4^th luminary was Vega (after Jupiter, Arcturus, and Rigil Kentaurus,) 11 minutes 40 seconds post-sunset, at which time I find the SNB Moon at 4° 07’ 47”.

[63] Day 27 month 4 began at sunset Tue July 29, 523 BCE. Cf. line I:21 obv.!

[64] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 35 of line I:1° obv.!

[65] If the top section of column II of BM 33066 is a continuation of column I, then Month 5 began on Fri August 1, 523 BCE.[SNB Uruk horizon Fri August 1, 523 BCE: Sunset: 18:55:28; moonset: 19:48:47; lag: 53 min 19 sec; illum.: 3.27%.]

[66] Day 1 of Moon 5 year 7 New Moon began at sunset on Fri August 1, 523 BCE.

[67] Day 30 Month 4 began at sunset Fri August 1, 523 BCE. Cf. line I:21 obv.!

[68] x = 3.

[69] Day 14 of Moon 5 year 7 New Moon began at sunset on Thu August 14, 523 BCE.

[70] Day 15 of Moon 5 year 7 New Moon began at sunset on Fri August 15, 523 BCE.

[71] This is an obvious typo. The cuneiform transcript clearly shows “15.”

[72] Not "moonrise to sunset:," but "[Moon at sunset:]." Please cf. line I:11 obv (including footnotes!)

[73] The only explanation for the difference between my SNB numbers and the clay tablet numbers that I can think of offhand is that there was a 4 minute delay between those two observations?

[74] Day 15 of Moon 5 year 7 New Moon began at sunset on Fri August 15, 523 BCE.

[75] Day 16 of Moon 5 year 7 New Moon began at sunset on Sat August 16, 523 BCE.

[76] Seems to me that making this a ‘7’ () rather than a ‘6’ () is a bit of wishful thinking, that is, while also being less of a fit to the SNB representation, which I find being rather closer to ‘6° ’ than even to ‘6° 30’.

[77] Day 27 of Moon 5 year 7 New Moon began at sunset on Wed August 27, 523 BCE.

[78] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 35 of line I:14 obv.!

[79] The New Moon day of Moon 6 year 7 began at sunset on Sun August 31, 523 BCE.

[SNB Baghdad horizon August Sat 30, 523 BCE New Moon: Sunset: 18:30:52; moonset: 18:50:38; lag: 19 min 46 sec; illum.: 1.64%. SNB Uruk horizon Sat August 30, 523 BCE New Moon: Sunset: 18:30:52; moonset: 18:51:16; lag: 20 min 24 sec; illum.: 1.65%.] For confirmation of this exact date, please cf. line 7 rev.!

[Obsoleted tests while trying to identify order between the clay tablet columns: The New Moon day of Moon 10 year 6 began at sunset on January 7, 523 BCE. [SNB Uruk horizon January 7, 523 BCE New Moon: Sunset: 17:11:41; moonset: 18:19:19; lag: 67 min 38 sec; illum.: 1.72%.] Angular separation: Moon to moonset horizon: 15° 40’ 38”.

[The New Moon day of Moon 6 year 6 began at sunset on September 11, 524 BCE. [SNB Uruk horizon September 10, 524 BCE New Moon: Sunset: 18:17:56; moonset: 18:45:25; lag: 27 min 29 sec; illum.: 2.28%.] ]

[80] Day 30 of Moon 5 year 7 New Moon began at sunset on Sat August 30, 523 BCE.

[81] Angular separation at the Sat August 30, 523 BCE sunset: Sun-Moon: 14° 32’; Sun before Moon: 10°50’; Moon to moonset horizon point at sunset: 4° 53’. Angular separation at the Sun August 31, 523 BCE sunset: Sun-Moon: 26° 59’; Sun before Moon: 20°41’; Moon to moonset horizon point at sunset: 12° 42’.

Notice: Obviously the astronomer was not have been able observe the Sat August 30, 523 BCE New Moon with its impossibly short lag time!

As seen also elsewhere within BM 33066, the astronomer sometimes recorded one of these angular distances, sometimes another… sometimes apparently in error while getting these measurements confused? So also in this instance: It would seem that the intended measurement is a measure of time between sunset and moonset, as in ‘lag time,’ not primarily a measure between the Sun and the Moon. Or, at least, the fact is that the “sunset to moonset…” measurements sometimes pertain to the distance between the Moon and the Moon set horizon, while at other times they pertain to the separation between the Sun and the Moon along their line of travel.

Accordingly, Sun August 31, 523 BCE certainly is the date corresponding to the recorded New Moon observation.

[82] The 13th day of Moon 6 year 7 began at sunset Fri September 12, 523 BCE. For confirmation of this exact date please cf. line II:7 obv.!

[Obsoleted after testing while analyzing the order or the clay tablet columns:The 13th day of Moon 10 year 6 began at sunset January 19, 523 BCE.

[The 13th day of Moon 6 year 6 began at sunset September 23, 524 BCE.]

[83] The 14th day of Moon 6 year 7 began at sunset Sat September 13, 523 BCE. For confirmation of this exact date please cf. line II:7 obv.!

[84] Please cf. line I:3 obv footnote #6 for more re the definition of and re this line II:9 obv in particular!

[Obsolete – upon discovering a likely definition of the ideogram :

[My prior – now obsolete - rendering and links of this line II:9 obv: “The 14th, sunrise to moonset: 4º.”

[The ideograph near the middle of the above image is quite clearly a ‘4’ (,) yet my SNB does not seem willing to allow me more than a maximum of ‘2’ at the time of sunrise. True, if I count sunrise from 2° prior to sunrise, then I may get 4° for the Moon to set, but does not seem a very likely scenario, does it?]

[85] The 15th day of Moon 6 year 7 began at sunset Sun September 14, 523 BCE. For confirmation of this exact date please cf. line II:7 obv.!

[86] Cf. the use of the ideograph as also commented upon under the footnotes of lines I:4, 11, 16, 23; II:10, 15, 22; III:14!

[87] The 4^th luminary being lit on the eastern SNB sky was Deneb (at Uruk 27 MAMSL; after the Moon, Altair, and Fomalhaut.) At that time the Moon was at 6° 00’ 19”. The 4^th overall luminary was Altair (at Uruk 27 MAMSL; after the Moon, Arcturus, and Vega.) At that time the Moon was at 4° 48’ 07”. Conversely, when the Moon was at 1° 20’, I find no other luminaries on the entire sky. At sunset the Moon was at 0° 27’ 09”. The 2^nd luminary (after the Moon) was Arcturus, at which time the Moon was at 2° 55’ 56”.

The transcription seems to agree with the original, and if so the translation should be correct. So where is the error?:

[Obsolete – In consequence of learning about the importance of the 4^th luminary:

[My prior rendering of line II:10 obv: “moonrise to sunset:^{Footnote #}^{Error! Bookmark not defined.} 1º 20’.”

[Some observations seem to be impossible for any location in the Babylon area unless one considers the possibility of having access to an high altitude observation point of about 1000 meter. For instance, if they had built a 1000 meter tower at Uruk, then the notation of line II:10 obv would fit nicely, and if they had built a 2273 meter tower at Uruk then the notation of line II:9 would fit nicely. However, lines II:9 and 10 do not find a common altitude at Uruk where both would fit. Perhaps I could find a mountain top somewhere in the area that would fit all of these astronomical notations?]

[88] The 16th day of Moon 6 year 7 began at sunset Mon September 15, 523 BCE. For confirmation of this exact date please cf. line II:7 obv.!

[89] At sunset 18:12:11, my SNB Moon is at 7° 20’ 28”. The recorded 8° 40’ 54” (18:06:11) position is obtained six minutes prior to sunset. I find the Sun 1° 00’ above the horizon at that time, and nothing besides the Sun and Earth on the sky in the interim. Halley’s Comet set behind the western horizon 59 minutes prior to sunset, which rules out Halley’s Comet as a likely ghost player so far as these recorded observations are concerned. Cf. my prior considerations re Halley’s comet within the lines ending with the ideogram. The 4^th luminary, Antares (after Arcturus, Vega, and Altair) lit up at 18:32:25, 20 minutes 14 seconds post-sunset, at which time my SNB Moon is found at 2° 22’ 30”.

[90] The 26th day of Moon 6 year 7 began at sunset Thu September 25, 523 BCE. For confirmation of this exact date please cf. footnote 91 (re the 26) and line II:7 obv. (re the New Moon!)

[91]As seen within the marked area of the image below, the date (“28”) section of line II:12 is quite worn and next to impossible to decipher. Based upon the “15” of the section following, as compared to SNB and the fact that the Old Moon sliver would be next to impossible to see before sunset, I find it necessary to conclude that the date is 26, or less likely 27, and not 28:

[92] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 35 of line I:14 obv.!

[93] Moon 7 began on Mon September 29, 523 BCE [SNB Baghdad horizon Mon Sept 29, 523 BCE sunset: 17:59:51; moonset: 18:25:44; lag: 25 min 53 sec; illum.: 2.96%.]

Mon September 29, 523 BCE is the exact date fully confirmed by the notations found in lines 12-16 reverse, most especially from the lines re cubit measurements of the Moon.

[94] Day 1 Moon 7 year 7 began at sunset on Mon September 29, 523 BCE.

For confirmation of the exact date of the New Moon please cf. lines 12-16 rev, most especially the notations re the cubit measurements of the Moon.

[95] The 30th day of Moon 6 year 7 began at sunset Mon September 29, 523 BCE. For confirmation of this exact date please cf. line II:7 obv.!

[96] Angular separation at Mon September 29, 523 BCE sunset: Sun-Moon: 19° 34’; Sun before Moon: 15°40’; Moon before moonset horizon point at sunset: 6° 02’. Angular separation at Tue September 30, 523 BCE sunset: Sun-Moon: 31° 06’; Sun before Moon: 24°44’; Moon to moonset horizon point at sunset: 13° 16’.

Notice: Apparently the astronomer was able to observe this New Moon in spite of its very short lag time! Is this an indication of another observation point than that of Baghdad? The record low lag time within my file “NewMoons as seen from Israel.xls” between 2002-07-11 and 2011-03-06 was 31 min 21 sec. The difference being 5 min 28 sec represents no more than 126 kilometers or 78 miles in an easterly direction (1hr=15° => 1°=4min.) Indeed, finding that SNB’s default longitude for Baghdad is 44° 22.002’ E while the two chief astronomical centers were Esagila (32° 32’ 00.87”N 44° 25’ 18.48” E 159ft) and Beit Resh at Uruk (31° 19’ 21.52”N 45° 38’ 12.09” E 89ft,) That is, the distance between Esagila and Uruk-Beit Resh is 110 miles, or 70 miles / 114km west-east separation. I find that said low lag time is, at least partially, accounted for by correcting my exact location of observation to Uruk… probably mostly because it is located a litter further to the south. Then again, who is to say that at that time they did not use a telescope or similar device or even having that much sharper vision? Thus SNB for the Uruk horizon on Mon Sept 29, 523 BCE provides: Sunset: 17:54:41; moonset: 18:22:45; lag: 28 min 4 sec; illum.: 2.94%. Angular separation at Uruk at sunset: Sun-Moon: 19° 30’; Sun in front of Moon: 15° 01’; Moon to moonset horizon: 6° 38’.

Additionally, it would make some sense for the observatories to use observers at both locations while recording the best available data, that is, to cover for inclement weather etc.?

As seen also elsewhere within BM 33066, the astronomer sometimes recorded one of these angular distances, sometimes another… sometimes apparently in error while getting these measurements confused? So also in this instance: It would seem that the intended measurement corresponds to a measure of time between sunset and moonset, that is, lag time, not primarily a measure between the Sun and the Moon. Or, at least, the fact is that the “sunset to moonset…” measurements sometimes pertain to the distance between the Moon and the Moon set horizon, while at other times they pertain to the separation between the Sun and the Moon along their line of travel… and that the measurements do not seem to be very precise. Most likely because the New Moon is not very clearly seen for very long, and its setting time based upon observation alone, and at the time of sunset, can be only an estimate at best.

At any rate, the presumed “error of the scribe,” is not large enough to allow for the New Moon falling on another day, before or after. And… Perhaps that is the point intended by the astronomer and his notation?!! Accordingly, Mon September 29, 523 BCE certainly is the date corresponding to the recorded New Moon observation for Moon 7.

[Testing a possible? Jerusalem New Moon connection: Sep 29, 523 BCE sunset at the Jerusalem horizon: 17:38:03; moonset: 18:06:36; lag: 28 min 33 sec; illum.: 3.05%. The SNB Jerusalem horizon sunset at 17:38:03on Sep 29, 523 BCE angular separation: Between Sun and Moon: 19° 51’ 19”; Sun before Moon: 14° 44’ 57”; Distance between Moon and moonset horizon: 6° 48’ 59”.

[Result: I do not see any significant differences helping to resolve the problems I seem to have with harmonizing all the notations…]

In the end, Mon September 29, 523 BCE is the date fully confirmed by the notations found in lines 12-16 reverse, most especially from the lines re cubit measurements of the Moon.

[97] The 13th day of Moon 7 year 7 began at sunset Sun October 12, 523 BCE.

The notations on lines II:13-15, 17-19 obv establishes the New Moon of Moon 7 year 7 to Tue September 30, 523 BCE, that is, in contradistinction to the notations for the same month found in lines 12-16 rev!...

Apparently, the dates of the observations notated for the Moon per lines II:13-18 obv do not agree with the dates of the observations notated for the same month per lines 12-16 rev. That is, the notations on the obverse are obviously based upon a New Moon observation on Tue September 30, whereas the notations on the reverse are based upon an extremely short lag time New Moon observation on Mon September 29. I see no certain reason for this discrepancy, but perhaps the fact that the notations on the reverse of BM 33066, which pertain to planetary relationships, whereas the notations on the obverse of BM 33066 pertain exclusively to lunar observations, is an indication that those two sets of observations were made by different astronomers and perhaps also at different locations? Please cf. the similar situation re Moon 10 year 7 as reflected per footnote 143!

[98] The 14th day of Moon 7 year 7 began at sunset Mon October 13, 523 BCE. Please cf. footnote 97 for the exact – but discordant – New Moon notations pertaining to this 7^th month!

[99] Cf. the use of the ideograph as also commented upon under the footnotes of lines I:4, 11, 16, 23; II:10, 15, 22; III:14!

[100] The 4^th luminary that becomes visible on my SNB Uruk 27 MAMSL eastern sky is Deneb. At that time the Moon is 11° 11’32” above its leading edge point of rising over the horizon. The overall 4^th luminary that becomes visible is Vega (after the Moon, Mercury, and Arcturus,) at the time the Moon is at 8° 20’ 25” (at Uruk 27 MAMSL; 8° 30’ 07” at Uruk 500 MAMSL.) The 3^rd overall luminary to lit was Arcturus, at which time the Moon was at 8° 12’ 09”. When Mercury, the 2^nd overall luminary became visible, I find the Moon at 6° 44’ 20” (6° 54’ 6” at Uruk 500 MAMSL; and 6° 52’ 05” at Esagila) above its point of rising.

From the above, and based upon the original clay tablet it is obvious that the Strassmaier’s transcription is in error by mistaking a as a . My understanding is as follows:

[Obsolete – In consequence of my recognition of the importance of the 4^th luminary:

[My prior rendering of line II:15 obv: “moonrise to sunset:^{Footnote #}^{Error! Bookmark not defined.} ~~7º 30’~~ [5° 30’ / TOL©.]”

[The highlighted portion in the below image has been transcribed in terms of ‘7’ (.) However, based upon the astronomical facts (5° 30’) (as well as upon the cuneiform image itself!,) the correct transcription must be in terms of ‘5’ ([conventional] or [atypical rendering,]) not in terms of ‘7!’ And certainly not in terms of Sun October 12, BCE and an earlier New Moon of Mon September 29, 523 BCE!

[]

[101] The 14th day of Moon 7 year 7 began at sunset Mon October 13, 523 BCE. Please cf. footnote 97 for the exact – but discordant – New Moon notations pertaining to this 7^th month!

[102] Please cf. line I:3 obv footnote #6 for more re the definition of and re this line II:16 obv in particular!

[Obsolete – upon discovering a likely definition of the ideogram :

[My prior – now obsolete - rendering and links of this line II:16 obv: “The 14th, sunrise to moonset: 12º.”

[I do not find a good explanation for this discrepancy between the 9° of the SNB facts and between the rather clear ‘12’ of BM 33066.]

[103] The 15th day of Moon 7 year 7 began at sunset Tue October 14, 523 BCE. Please cf. footnote 97 for the exact – but discordant – New Moon notations pertaining to this 7^th month!

[104] At sunset on Oct 14, 523 BCE I find nothing on the sky besides the Sun and Earth, and Halley’s Comet is far behind the horizon. [Halley’s Comet is ruled out! (cf. footnotes ##89, and 104!)] The sunset Moon at the Uruk 27 MAMSL sunset is found at 3° 7’ 55”. 30 seconds after sunset I find the Moon at 3° 00’. The first luminary, which I find almost 4 minutes after sunset, is Mercury. The 4^th luminary was Capella (after Mercury, Arcturus, and Vega,) with the Moon at 0° 32’ 07”.

[105] The 26th day of Moon 7 year 7 began at sunset Sat October 25, 523 BCE. Please cf. footnote 97 for the exact – but discordant – New Moon notations pertaining to this 7^th month!

[106] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 35 of line I:14 obv.!

[107] Moon 8 year 7 began at sunset on Wed October 29, 523 BCE.

[Wed Oct 29, 523 BCE SNB sunset at the Uruk horizon: 17:20:14; moonset: 18:09:43; lag: 49 min 29 sec; illum.: 3.78%. Angle between Moon and moonset horizon at sunset: 11° 0’.]

[Obsolete: Moon 8 year 6 began at sunset on October 11, 524 BCE.

[Oct 9, 524 BCE SNB sunset at the Uruk horizon: 17:42:04; moonset: 17:42:09; lag: 0 min 5 sec; illum.: 0.71%. Angle between Moon and moonset horizon at sunset: 0° 0’] [Oct 10, 524 BCE SNB sunset at the Uruk horizon: 17:40:52; moonset: 18:11:53; lag: 31 min 1 sec; illum.: 3.04%. Angle between Moon and moonset horizon at sunset: 7° 20’.] [Oct 11, 524 BCE SNB sunset at the Uruk horizon: 17:39:40; moonset: 18:44:44; lag: 65 min 4 sec; illum.: 7.11%. Angle between Moon and moonset horizon at sunset: 15°.]

[Obsolete – Fit for New Moon but not for remainder of the month: Moon 8 year 6 began at sunset on November 9, 524 BCE [Nov 8, 524 BCE SNB sunset at the Uruk horizon: 17:11:13; moonset: 17:21:48; lag: 10 min 35 sec; illum.: 0.99%. Angle between Moon and moonset horizon at sunset: 2° 20’]

[Corresponding line II:19 and 20 obv. text and links: “sunset to moonset:) 12º 40’” and “moonset to sunrise: ~~15º~~ [3° 15’. / TOL©]”

[Obsolete no fit test object: Moon 11 year 6 began at sunset on February 5, 523 BCE [Feb 5, 523 BCE SNB sunset at the Uruk horizon: 17:36:11; moonset: 19:11:50; lag: 95 min 39 sec; illum.: 3.08%.]

[Obsolete in view of the recognition of this column being placed in time prior to column I, though apparently a fit all by itself: Moon 8 began at sunset on October ~~(29 or)~~ 30, 523 BCE [Oct 28, 523 BCE sunset at the Baghdad horizon: 17:24:12; moonset: 17:31:19; lag: 06 min 07 sec; illum.: 1.02%.] Cf. footnotes 243 and 244 for exact date of New Moon 8 recognition!

[SNB angular separation at sunset 17:20:02 on Oct 29, 523 BCE at the Uruk horizon: Between Sun and Moon: 22° 04’ 31”; Sun before Moon: 18° 17’ 44”; Distance between Moon and moonset horizon: 10° 59’ 59”.

[Testing a possible? Jerusalem New Moon connection: Oct 28, 523 BCE sunset at the Jerusalem horizon: 17:04:08; moonset: 17:13:58; lag: 09 min 50 sec; illum.: 1.07%. The SNB Jerusalem horizon sunset at 17:03:08 on Oct 29, 523 BCE angular separation: Between Sun and Moon: 22° 24’ 13”; Sun before Moon: 18° 38’ 06”; Distance between Moon and moonset horizon: 11° 15 29”.]

[Corresponding line links: “sunset to moonset:) 12º 40’.”

[Result: I do not see any significant differences helping to resolve the problems I seem to have with harmonizing all the notations…]

[108] The 1st day of Moon 8 year 7 began at sunset Wed October 29, 523 BCE.

[Obsolete – Fit for New Moon but not for remainder of the month: Day 1 Moon 8 year 6 New Moon began at sunset on November 9, 524 BCE.

[Day 1 Moon 8 year 6 New Moon began at sunset on October 11, 524 BCE.

[Corresponding links of line 19: “sunset to moonset:) 12º 40’.”

[109] The 30th day of Moon 7 year 7 began at sunset Wed October 29, 523 BCE. Please cf. footnote 97 for the exact – but discordant – New Moon notations pertaining to this 7^th month!

[110] The 13th day of Moon 8 year 7 began at sunset Mon November 10, 523 BCE.

[111]

[Obsolete after much testing until discovery of proper order of columns etc.: If November 21, 524 BCE was indeed the day of this observation, then this notation may well represent a rare scribal error, that is, such that the scribe read part of his own writing twice, that is the “ = ” portion of line II:20 obv. That is, first in terms of and then in terms of :

]

[112] The 14th day of Moon 8 year 7 began at sunset Tue November 11, 523 BCE.

[113] Please cf. line I:3 obv footnote #6 for more re the definition of and re this line II:21 obv in particular!

[Obsolete – upon discovering a likely definition of the ideogram :

[My prior – now obsolete - rendering and links of this line II:21 obv: “The 14th, sunrise to moonset: 5º [2°. / TOL©.]”

[The highlighted area has been transcribed in terms of a ‘5’(,) but is obviously not a clear or typical , or is it? Considering the SNB evidence of the correct reading in terms of ‘2+,’ until I find a better explanation, I will conclude that this cuneiform inscription is a scribal typo of sorts, intended somehow to be read in terms of ‘2’? Perhaps, as usual, the error is in the eyes of the beholder, me? Perhaps the translator’s “sunset,” within the term “sunrise to moonset” is not pointing to sunrise, but the a certain point prior to that, say the point in time when less than three luminaries are visible on the sky, or even the point in time when the last fixed star is no longer visible? Cf. footnote 139!

[]

[114] The 15th day of Moon 8 year 7 began at sunset Wed November 12, 523 BCE.

[115] Cf. the use of the ideograph as also commented upon under the footnotes of lines I:4, 11, 16, 23; II:10, 15, 22; III:14!

[116] The 4^th luminary (after the Moon, Mercury, and Vega) to become visible on my SNB sky is Capella, at which time the Moon is 2° 32’ 16” (Uruk 27 MAMSL; 2° 42’ 58” at Uruk 500 MAMSL) above its point of rising over the horizon. When Vega was lit, the Moon was at 2° 24’ 29” (Uruk 27 MAMSL; 2° 34’ 11” at Uruk 500 MAMSL.) When Mercury became visible the Moon was at 1° 22’ 23” (Uruk 27 MAMSL; 1° 31’ 56” at Uruk 500 MAMSL. At sunset I find the Moon at 0° 10’ 00” before moonrise (at Uruk 27 MAMSL; 0° 8’ 9” after leading edge moonrise at Uruk 500 MAMSL.)

Based on the above, and on the original BM33066 I revise Strassmaier’s to a (if not then ??,) as follows:

[My prior rendering of line II:22 obv: “Night of the 15th. moonrise to sunset:^Footnote
#^{Error! Bookmark not
defined.} 1º.”]

[117] The 16th day of Moon 8 year 7 began at sunset Thu November 13, 523 BCE.

[118] At sunset 17:07:48 Nov 13, 523 BCE I find nothing on the sky besides the Sun and Earth, and the Moon is at 12° 7’ 25” below its point of rising above the horizon. 8± minutes prior to sunset I find the SNB Moon at the recorded 14° and the SNB sky shows nothing besides the Sun and Earth. At that point in time I find the Sun 1° 20’ 36” above the horizon.

[119] The 26th day of Moon 8 year 7 began at sunset Sun November 23, 523 BCE.

[120] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 35 of line I:14 obv.!

[121] Compare line II:24 obv with “Month 12° was intercalary” of line 2, 5, 7, and 10 rev ! That is, in contradistinction to “Month 12° “, i.e. of line 5 rev, and [where means Month 12 Day 19 as originally translated, and not likely Month 13, i.e. not likely in terms of being a variant of , ‘extended,’ nor of , ‘barley’ or of , to cut. Cf. , ‘Adar; Month barley’ and , which last ideograph may have been (?) the basis for translating in terms of “was intercalary.” However, perhaps said last ideograph is better understood in terms of a short, single Adar as in or else in terms of aviv having been found, and cut, in Month 12, Adar (not Adar II !)] of line 3” Right edge.

Notice the unexpected!: If indeed means “Adar II,” then Year 6 and year 7 both got a 13^th intercalary month! This does not seem likely! Nor does it agree with the notations of line 10 rev re Mars becoming stationary, which is a very powerful astronomical fact! It seems to me these facts all point to our error being discovered in terms of “Month 1” of line 6 rev being a scribal – or even a transcriber’s – error for “Month 2” ( or .) After all, dating something in terms of a recent past year or ditto month is not unheard of. Add to that the similarities between the ideograms of the two first lunar months! Looking closely at this BM33066 ideograph I find it possible to perceive at least the vertical needle as two separate needles…

It follows that must be reinterpreted in terms of a short single Adar month, and thus also that neither year 6 or year 7 had an Adar II!

Obsolete – test failed on line II:27b obv: Testing the notations of this month in terms of Month 13 year 7: SNB Uruk horizon March 26, 522 BCE: Sunset: 18:08:33; moonset: 19:20:37; lag: 72 min 04 sec; illum.: 1.91%; Moon to moonset horizon at sunset: 17° 41’ 15”.

[122] Day 1 month 12 year 6 began at sunset Fri March 7, 523 BCE.

[Obsolete: Not a working option: Beginning at sunset Feb 25, 522 BCE.]

[123] Day 30 month 11 year 6 began at sunset Thu March 6, 523 BCE.

[124] After much wrestling with mostly “Month 6” and “Month 12” of this column (per the within original translation into English of this BM 33066) and after being reminded of my prior discovery from BM 32312, which Sachs and Hunger had mixed up the numbering of the columns, I have proven to myself that the last three lines of column II is immediately preceding the month at the top of column I. Please cf. footnotes ## 35 and 41 of my analysis of BM 32312!

[Obsolete: Not a working option: SNB Baghdad horizon (on Feb 24, 522 BCE: Sunset: 17:52:52; moonset: 18:39:33; lag: 46 min 41 sec; illum.: 0.79%, and) on Feb 25, 522 BCE: Sunset: 17:53:58; moonset: 19:37:11; lag: 103 min 13 sec; illum.: 3.59%; Angular Sun-Moon distance: 21° 00’ 18’’; but the Moon was 19° behind the Sun, while at sunset the Moon had yet 25° to travel before moonset! Cf. line III:12 obv and footnote Error! Bookmark not defined.!

[Seems to me that the astronomer should have recorded this distance as 25° and not as 19°… But we all makes mistakes at times – so also whomever made this original BM 33066 record!]

[The obsolete last section of line II:25: “sunset to moonset:)19º.”

[125] The 13^th day began at sunset Wed March 19, 523 BCE.

[126] Not "moonrise to sunset:," but "[Moon at sunset:]." Please cf. line I:11 obv (including footnotes!)

[127] Apparently there is an original scribal error at the end of line II:25 obv of BM 33066 (which error [using instead of ] has been caught and corrected also by prior translators. The sequence of dated events does not allow for any other date or time of day, and the exact correlation with the associated astronomical events as viewed on SNB etc. confirms this time and date, that is, the dawn of March 20, 522 BCE:

For comparison, and for the sake of completion (re the following four ideograms as regularly found at the end of certain daily notations on BM 33066:)

: Morning relationships between “sunrise” and moonset. That is, from the time of the fading of the 4^th luminary, etc. defining the end of the light portion of the first half (=the dark portion) of the 24+ hour day. Cf. lines I:[3 – used as “sunset” and moonset; i.e. probably a scribal error? or a transcription error? (cf. footnote #6,)] 7, 12, 19, 24; II:4, 9, 16, 21, 27; III:[3,] 10, 15.

: Indicating an event identifying the very first beginning of a new day (as indicated variously by 1. a point in time 6-8 minutes prior to sunset, 2. by the time Sirius became visible (usually 2 min 21 seconds prior to sunset,) or 3. by sunset only. Sunset only is being consistently used on Scripture Feast days. Nevertheless, Sirius is also being used on Day 14, Month 12, year 6 [but not year 7! But the events in the book of Esther did not begin until some 40 years following the events recorded on BM33066! 49 years exactly from the 12^th Moon 522 BCE until the 12^th Moon 474 BCE, when the Jews were saved from Haman’s evil design!

]) Cf. my analysis in footnote 14!

Evening events (between “sunset” and moonrise, etc., that is,) at the beginning of the new 24+ hour day (defined by the overlapping dark and light portions of any 24+ hour day. Cf. the Hebrew behind Genesis 1:5, meaning “and the darkness and the lightness is one day.” Notice, there could not have been any twilight portion, as in the word ‘evening,’ before light was created, that is, before light, or electromagnetic waves in any form, existed!) Cf. lines I:6, 13, 18, 25; II:11, 17, 23, 26; III:[4,] 9, 16.

: [Morning relationships between moonset and “sunrise.” That is, from moonset until the fading of the 4^th] last [luminary, etc. defining the end of the first half (=the dark portion) of the 24+ hr day.] Cf lines I:5, 10, 17, 22; II:[2,] 8, 14, 20, 25, 26; III:[1,] 8, 13, [omitted in 15.]

: [An evening twilight event: [The (waxing or waning) full Moon’s position] at the beginning of the new 24+ hour day. That is, the Moon’s angular separation from its point of rising over the horizon at the time when the 4^th luminary became visible on the evening sky, etc., which event highlights the end of the light portion of the prior 24+ hour day and the beginning of the dark portion of the oncoming 24+ hour day.] Cf. lines I:4, 11, 16, 23; II:[3.] 10, 15, 22, [25 (only as corrected;)] III:[2, 7,] 14.

Notice that in lines I:8, 14, 20, 26; II:6, 12, 18, 24, 27; III:[5,] 11, 17 (x2) there is no ideogram being used for relationships between moonrise and “sunrise”.

Neither is any ideogram being used for relationships between “sunset” and moonset. Cf. lines I:1, 3, 9, 15, 21; II:1, 7, 13, 19, 25; III:[6,] 12.

[Accordingly, every obverse line is included and accounted for.]

[128] The 13^th day began at sunset Wed March 19, 523 BCE.

Obsolete – test failed on line II:27b obv: Testing the notations of this month in terms of Month 13 year 7: Day 13 Moon 13 year 7 began at sunset April 7, 522 BCE. Angular separation moonset to sunrise: 5° 37’.

[129] The 14^th day began at sunset Thu March 20, 523 BCE.

Obsolete – test failed on line II:27b obv: Testing the notations of this month in terms of Month 13 year 7: Day 14 Moon 13 year 7 began at sunset April 8, 522 BCE. Angular separation exact sunset to moonrise: 4° 46’. Angular separation from time of first 3 visible fixed stars: 2’ 33”.

[130] At sunset 18:05:18 March 20, 523 BCE I find on my SNB Uruk 27 MAMSL sky the Sun, Earth, Venus, Jupiter, and Sirius were visible, and the Moon was 2° 23’ 27” below its point of rising over the horizon. Sirius lit up at 18:02:54, 2 min 24 seconds prior to sunset, at which time the Moon was at 3° 00’ 02”.

[Obsolete upon learning more re the 4^th luminary etc.:

[Last prior version of last half of line II:26 obv: “Night of the 14^th, sunset to moonrise: 3º [2° / TOL©.]”

[The last half of line II:26 with the ideograph translated “3° “ within the rectangle. As the area is quite worn and illegible, and based upon the astronomical facts as displayed by SNB, I believe “2° “ or even “2° 10’ ” is a better translation of the original cuneiform script: [

[As may be expected, the sunset to moonrise angle gets even smaller when counting from the time of first three visible luminaries to moonrise: 1° 10’.]

[131] The 14^th day began at sunset Thu March 20, 523 BCE.

Obsolete – test failed on line II:27b obv: Testing the notations of this month in terms of Month 13 year 7: Day 14 Moon 13 year 7 began at sunset April 8, 522 BCE. Angular separation exact sunrise to moonset: 3° 06’. Angular separation from time of last 2 visible fixed stars plus Moon: 5° 40’.

[132] Please cf. line I:3 obv footnote #6 for more re the definition of and re this line II:27 obv in particular!

[Obsolete – upon discovering a likely definition of the ideogram :

[My prior – now obsolete - rendering and links of this line II:27 obv: “The 14th, sunrise to moonset: 5º 40’ The 27th, (moonrise to sunrise:) 21º.”

[

[This last line of column II is very worn and almost illegible. The section within the rectangle contains the ideographs translated “5° 40’,” but I might suggest that a more correct reading could be “2° 30’.”

[However, after realizing that these notations are likely based upon the time of three luminaries in the sky, and not actual sunset, I find that 5° 40’ does indeed fit with the time when 2 stars, Saturn, and the Moon were the only remaining luminaries on the SNB sky.]

[133] The 27^th day began at sunset Wed April 2, 523 BCE.

Obsolete – test failed on line II:27b obv: Testing the notations of this month in terms of Month 13 year 7: Day 27 Moon 13 year 7 began at sunset April 21, 522 BCE. Angular separation exact moonrise to sunrise: 18° 18’. Angular separation from time of last 2 visible fixed stars plus Moon: 15° 44’. That is, NOT 21°! Failed test! [Month 13 year 6 remains the winner.]

[134] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 35 of line I:14 obv.!

[135] Day 13 Moon 10 year 7 began at sunset Thu Jan 8, 522 BCE. For confirmation of this exact date, please cf. lines III:3.

[SNB Sat Dec 27, 523 BCE sunset at the Uruk horizon: 17:04:43; moonset: 18:08:05; lag: 63 min 22 sec; illum.: 1.58%. Angle between Moon and moonset horizon at sunset: 14° 30’ 12”.[

That the astronomer of line III:1-6 obv (as well as all of the rest of the obverse of BM 33066) made his first observation on Sat Dec 27, 523 BCE (and not [cf. footnotes 97 and 143!] on Sun Dec 28 as per the astronomer that made the notation on line 18 rev) is confirmed best by the notation on line III:5-6.

[136] Day 14 Moon 10 year 7 began at sunset Fri Jan 9, 522 BCE. Cf. footnote 135!

[137] Not "moonrise to sunset:," but "[Moon at sunset:]." Please cf. line I:11 obv (including footnotes!)

[138] Day 14 Moon 10 year 7 began at sunset Fri Jan 9, 522 BCE. Cf. footnote 135!

[139] Why is there a 3° discrepancy between the SNB sunrise to moonset 2°, and between the line III:3 notation “5°,” which seem sustained both by the transcript () and by the cuneiform inscription?:

Perhaps sunrise per se was not the defining event? Perhaps sunrise was defined in term of how many stars were still visible in the sky? Or in terms of the time when the last luminary (e.g. Mercury) besides Venus was visible? Please cf. line II:21 obv and footnote 113!!!

[140] Day 15 Moon 10 year 7 began at sunset Sat Jan 10, 522 BCE. Cf. footnote 135!

[141] Day 27 Moon 10 year 7 began at sunset Thu Jan 22, 522 BCE. Cf. footnote 135!

[142] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 35 of line I:14 obv.!

[143] The English translation “24° “ does not seem possible in view of the SNB representation, which does not allow 24°, not even 20°, between moonrise and sunrise! The discrepancy cannot be due to a later New Moon observation (e.g. as per the notation of line 18 rev; cf. footnote 246 and the similar discrepancy between the obverse and between the reverse notations of BM 33066 as reflected by footnote 97!,) because on the next morning this Old Moon could not possibly be visible with an illumination of only 0.60%. The transcript () seems to agree with the original cuneiform:

Considering the poor visibility of the Old Moon and the SNB representation of this event, I believe the error lies in the English translation. The ideographs may be translated in terms, not only of ‘24’, but also in terms of two separate ideographs, that is, in terms of and , that is in terms of 10° 15’, which I believe is the most sensible translation of this notation.

[144] SNB Jan 26, 522 BCE at the Uruk horizon: Sunset: 17:26:46; moonset: 18:49:46; lag: 83 min 0 sec; illum.: 2.24%. Angle between Moon and moonset horizon at sunset: 19° 46’ 03”, or, from the time of first observation: “22°.”

[145] Day 1 Moon 11 year 7 began at sunset Mon Jan 26, 522 BCE.

[146] Day 30 Moon 10 year 7 began at sunset Sun Jan 25, 522 BCE. Cf. footnote 135!

[147] Day 13 Moon 11 year 7 began at sunset Sat Feb 7, 522 BCE.

[148] Not "moonrise to sunset:," but "[Moon at sunset:]." Please cf. line I:11 obv (including footnotes!)

[149] The “17° 20’ “ notation agrees well with a sunset defined by the first three luminaries visible on the sky, in this instance 1) the Moon, 2) Rigel, and 3) Sirius.

[150] Day 13 Moon 11 year 7 began at sunset Sat Feb 7, 522 BCE.

[151] In this instance I find an immediate and perfect fit between the SNB reproduction, the translation, the transcription, and BM33066!:

[152] Day 14 Moon 11 year 7 began at sunset Sun Feb 8, 522 BCE.

[153] At sunset 5:37:40 Feb, 522 BCE I find, on my SNB sky, the Sun, Earth, Mercury, and Sirius, and the Moon was at 1° 55’ 45” below its point of rising above the horizon. Sirius, the 4^th luminary (after Sun, Earth, and Mercury,) lit up at 5:35:19, 2 min 21 secs prior to sunset, at which time the Moon was at 2° 26’ 42”. When the Moon was at 1° 40’ (and less,) I find only Sirius and Mercury (at 0° 35’ 07”.)

[154] Day 14 Moon 11 year 7 began at sunset Sun Feb 8, 522 BCE.

[155] This “7° “ notation fits perfectly with the last three luminaries visible at the time of “sunrise,” that is, 1) the Moon, 2) Jupiter, and 3) Venus, none other that I see!

Please cf. line I:3 obv footnote #6 for more re the definition of and re this line III:10 obv in particular!

[My prior – now obsolete - rendering and links of this line III:10 obv: “The 14th, sunrise to moonset: 7º.”

[156] Day 27 Moon 11 year 7 began at sunset Sat Feb 21, 522 BCE.

[157] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 35 of line I:14 obv.!

[158] I see no possible solution for the “17° “ notation. However, I find the cuneiform behind the transcribed being a bit fuzzy and, most especially in view of the SNB evidence, more likely intended as a “13° ” notation.

[159] SNB Tue Feb 24, 522 BCE at the Uruk horizon: Sunset: 17:49:55; moonset: 18:35:00; lag: 45 min 05 sec; illum.: 0.78%. Angular separation between Moon and moonset horizon at sunset: 11° 22’ 23”, or, from the time of first observation: “15° 30’.”

As difficult as this observation may seem, apparently – per the notation of line III:12 obv, as per the original English translation used - it happened on Tue Feb 24, 522 BCE!

However, some, perhaps all?, of the notations for Month 12 do not seem to be a good fit, perhaps most especially this is true for line III:16, which line seems to agree much better with a New Moon beginning on Wed Feb 25, 522 BCE. Accordingly, I will test that hypothesis also…

[160] Day 1 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Tue Feb 25, 522 BCE.

Alternatively: Day 1 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Wed Feb 24, 522 BCE.

[161] Line III:12 original transcript:vs the original:

That is:

Based 1) upon my SNB representation of the sky, and 2) upon a Feb 25 New Moon and better internal harmony within lines III:12-17, I suggest a transcript in terms of , that is, Adar – 1^st - 25° 30’ as based upon the following reading:

[162] Day 30 Moon 11 year 7 began at sunset Tue Feb 24, 522 BCE.

[163] A perfect fit when understood in terms of a Wed Feb 25, 522 BCE New Moon!

[Obsolete – In terms of a Feb 24, 522 BCE New Moon: “sunset to moonset:) 15º 30’.”

[Obsolete test from my attempts to find the proper column arrangement: SNB Baghdad horizon on March 14, 521 BCE: Sunset: 18:06:23; moonset: 19:06:23; lag: 60 min 00 sec; illum.: 1.31%; Angular Sun-Moon distance: 21° 00’ 18’’; angular Moon to moonset horizon point at sunset: 14° 42’ (+ 30’ for lunar radius.)]

[164] Day 12 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Sat Mar 8, 522 BCE. Alternatively:

Day 12 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Sun Mar 7, 522 BCE.

[165] A perfect fit when understood in terms of a Wed Feb 25, 522 BCE New Moon!

[Obsolete – In terms of a Feb 24, 522 BCE New Moon:In this instance I find at least four luminaries 17 minutes after the point after moonset when the Sun had approached the sunrise horizon by 10° 30’. Not exactly a perfect fit…]

[The corresponding links: “moonset to sunrise: 10º 30’.”

[166] Day 13 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Sun Mar 9, 522 BCE. Alternatively:

Day 13 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Mon Mar 8, 522 BCE.

[167] Cf. the use of the ideograph as also commented upon under the footnotes of lines I:4, 11, 16, 23; II:10, 15, 22; III:14!

[168] Not "moonrise to sunset:," but "[Moon at sunset:]." Please cf. line I:11 obv (including footnotes!)

[169] The 4^th luminary to lit up on my SNB sky is Arcturus (after the Moon, Sirius, and Canopus,) at which time the Moon is at 6° 43’12” (Uruk 27 MAMSL; 6° 48’ 41” at Uruk 500 MAMSL.) At the time Canopus (the 3^rd luminary) lit up the Moon was at 5° 28’ 21” (Uruk 27 MAMSL; 5° 48’ 53” at Uruk 500 MAMSL.) Why the 3^rd and not the 4^th? Impatience? Or perhaps Mercury lit up in reality prior to my SNB sky?

I understand line III:14 obv as follows:

[Obsolete – In consequence of my recognizing the importance of the 4^th luminary. My prior rendering of line II:14 obv: “Night of the 13th, moonrise to sunset: 5º 20’.”

[A perfect fit when understood in terms of a Wed Feb 25, 522 BCE New Moon: 4° 12’ (at the exact time when the last rays of the sun are lost behind my SNB flat horizon) is good enough to confirm this observation. However, when this notation is understood in terms of sunset being the point in time when three luminaries ( 1. The Moon, 2. Sirius, and 3. Canopus) became visible on the evening sky, then a perfect 5° 20’ score is obtained!]

[Obsolete comment – though still valid: I find no fit when understood in terms of a Feb 24, 522 BCE New Moon…

[Corresponding line 14 link: “moonrise to sunset”]

[170] Day 13 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Sun Mar 9, 522 BCE. Alternatively:

Day 13 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Mon Mar 8, 522 BCE.

[171] Please cf. line I:3 obv footnote #6 for more re the definition of and re the events pertaining to this line III:15 obv in particular!

[Obsolete – upon discovering a likely definition of the ideogram :

[My prior – now obsolete - rendering and links of this line III:15 obv: “The 13th, there was no "moonset to sunrise" or "sunrise to moonset".”

An interesting perfect fit – pertaining to a Wed Feb 25, 522 BCE New Moon!: At the time when the Moon set there were only two visible luminaries left on the morning sky (Venus and Jupiter,) that is, the definition for “sunrise” was being satisfied by the Moon setting behind the horizon. Thus there was no time, zero, nada, between sunrise and moonset! Yet, if the last SNB rays of the Sun disc is being used as the definition, then there was about 1° 10’ difference between Moonset and sunrise or vice versa.

[172] Day 14 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Mon Mar 10, 522 BCE. Alternatively:

Day 14 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Tue Mar 9, 522 BCE.

[173] Examining BM33066 more closely, I find a probable transcription error, 10° vs 11°, i.e. vs :

Accordingly, at sunset 5:59:12 March 10, 522 BCE, on my SNB Uruk 27 MAMSL sky, I find only the Sun, Earth, and Sirius visible. The Moon at sunset was at 11° 00’ 15”. Sirius lit up at 5:56:51, 2 minutes 21 secs prior to sunset, at which time I find the Moon at 11° 30’ 35”.

When the Moon is at the transcribed 10°, I find nothing besides Sirius and Canopus on the SNB sky. When the 4^th luminary, Capella (after Sirius, Arcturus, and Canopus) lit up, I find the Moon at 8° 31’ 40”.

[Obsolete – in view of the above said: Another most interesting and perfectly exact notation – pertaining to a New Moon of Wed Feb 25, 522 BCE!: If this “sunset” is defined in terms of two (not yet three) visible fixed stars (in this case Sirius and Canopus,) at that point in time there was yet exactly 10° until moonrise.

[174] Day 25 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Fri Mar 21, 522 BCE. Alternatively:

Day 25 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Sat Mar 20, 522 BCE.

[175] The letters “^sle” are inherited from the English translation available under this link. I have no idea what they mean, but considering that the prior letters “th” are not upper case, as they are elsewhere, I believe the “^sle” letters represent a computer typo?

[176] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 35 of line I:14 obv.!

[177] The day 25 Old Moon notations pertaining to a Wed Feb 25, 522 BCE New Moon fits nicely:

At the time of the first sliver of the Old Moon rising above the SNB flat horizon the Sun had yet 28° 42’ before the first rays of the Sun disc were visible above the horizon. A more likely point in time pertaining to the sliver of the Old Moon being seen corresponds to the notation of 23°.

Likewise, at the time of the first sliver of the day 27 Old Moon rising above the SNB flat horizon the Sun had yet 13° 8’ before the first rays of the Sun disc were visible above the horizon. A more likely point in time pertaining to the sliver of the Old Moon being seen corresponds to the notation of 12°. If the “sunset” is defined in terms of three luminaries remaining on the sky (this time the Moon, Jupiter, and Arcturus,) the corresponding timed distance between the first observation of the Old Moon and sunset becomes 10° 8’

[Obsolete – re a Feb 24, 522 BCE New Moon vs line 17 links: “23º: the 27th, (moonrise to sunrise:) 12º.”]

[178] Day 27 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Sun Mar 23, 522 BCE. Alternatively:

Day 27 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Mon Mar 22, 522 BCE.

[179] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 35 of line I:14 obv.!

[180] Day 5 Moon 5 year 7 began at sunset Wed Aug 5, 522 BCE.

Wed Aug 5, 522 BCE is the time which I see on my SNB Uruk horizon upon which Mercury’s first appearance in the east prior to the notations of lines 3’ and 4’: Right edge.

[181] Day 3 Moon 6 year 7 began at sunset Wed Sept 2, 522 BCE.

This is the most likely, almost certain, date pertaining to the notation on lines 3’ and 4’: Right edge, because that is the only time that Mercury was visible/located in the rear foot of Leo within the time period of BM33066, and between Sept 523 BCE and the event notated in lines 3” and 4”: Right edge, that is, Thu Mar 3, 521 BCE.

[182] Day 16 Moon 11 year 7 began on Sat Jan 30, 521 BCE.

[183] The notation on line 5’: Right edge, by the translated word “in,” seems to indicate that this first appearance of Mercury occurred together with a marking star of some constellation. However, over my SNB Uruk horizon I first see Mercury becoming visible and setting in the west on Fri January 22, 521 BCE before any stars are visible. Only on Fri January 29, 521 BCE do I see any star being visible prior to Mercury’s setting, and the first time I see any star associated with a constellation, Pegasus, is on January 30, 521 BCE.

[184] Day 1 Moon 12 year 8 began at sunset Sun February 14, 521 BCE. [SNB Uruk horizon Sat Feb 13, 521 BCE New Moon: Sunset: 17:41:27; moonset: 18:25:03; lag: 43 min 36 sec; illum.: 0.71%.]

Accordingly, Day 19 Moon 12 year 8 began at sunset Thu March 3, 521 BCE. At that time, Mercury was indeed in the Ribbon of the Fishes. However, on Thu March 3, 521 BCE, Mercury was too low on the horizon to be visible over the SNB Uruk horizon. Mercury was last visible over the SNB Uruk horizon on Sun Feb 28, 521 BCE, but by the time Mercury became visible and before set behind the horizon no Pisces star was yet visible. The last appearance of Mercury together with a Pisces star occurred on Sat Feb 27, 521 BCE, which day was Day 14, Moon XII, year 8. (The situation at Esagila was slightly worse.)

My view of the Right edge of BM33066 is not optimal (the photo angle being bad,) and although “19” may seem a possible reading, I cannot rule out a “14,” which would agree much better with my SNB findings. Indeed, considering the fact that only in year 8 (not in year 7) month 12 did Mercury’s last appearance take place in Pisces, I conclude that “14” (or less) must be the correct reading of this ideogram. The absence of any ideogram beyond a plain for Adar, month 12, as found in the notations pertaining to year 6 and 7, seems to confirm that year 8 had an intercalary month.

[Obsolete - upon discovering that “month 1° “ is an error for “month 2: Day 19 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset March 14, 522 BCE.

[The earliest verified date of BM33066 is Month XIII year 6 and the latest verified date on BM33066 is Month 2 year 9.

[Day 19 Moon 12 year 7 began at sunset Mar 14, 522 BCE (Although the Sun set in Pisces, Mercury did not become visible to the SNB naked eye until after the Sun and Pisces had set. Mercury was then visible with the stars of Aries. Mercury remained visible over my SNB Uruk horizon also on the subsequent evening, and even until Mar 17, 522 BCE before disappearing behind the horizon.) Alternatively:

[Day 19 Moon 12 year 6 began at sunset Feb 23, 523 BCE (in Pisces in the west, but set before sunset very close [1° 21’ 25”] to the sun, though, per SNB, visible 46’ above the horizon with weak binoculars.)

[It follows from the above that the notation on line 3” Right edge is indeed correctly understood as pertaining to Mercury and to Day 19 Month XII year 7. That is, while line 4” pertains to the Sun at sunset?, or else that, in those days, the Ribbon of Pisces was differently defined than per current belief.]

[185] The 19^th day of Moon 12 year 8 began at sunset Thu March 3, 521 BCE.

[186] The 22^nd day of Moon 5 began at sunset Fri August 22, 523 BCE.

[187] This was the very day when Jupiter passed Gamma Virgo!

The term ‘Virgo’ is a reference to Gamma Virgo, Porrima (It is not a reference to either the constellation Virgo, nor to Alpha Virgo, Spica. Cf. my Initial Review article!)

Per the Jupiter record of lines 1-3, the 22^nd day of Moon 5 must precede Jupiter’s passing of Porrima, Gamma Virgo, on Fri August 22, 523 BCE, while the 22^nd day of Moon 6 must fall subsequent to said date. Moon 5 year 7 began with the New Moon Fri August 1, 523 BCE [Fri August 1 sunset: 19:04:39; moonset: 19:56:06; lag: 51 min 27 sec; illum.: 3.30%,] and Moon 6 year seven began with the New Moon August 31+, 523 BCE [Sat August 30, 523 BCE sunset: 18:38:13; moonset: 18:56:39; lag: 18 min 26 sec; illum.: 1.66%.] (cf. Espenak’s tables.)

[188] The 22^nd day of Moon 6 began at sunset Sun September 21, 523 BCE. Cf. line II:7 obv.!

[189] The 22^nd day of Moon 6 began at sunset Sun September 21+, 523 BCE, which is when Jupiter and Porrima became visible together on the morning horizon.

Notice: These two observations of Jupiter in Moons 5 and 6, when taken together, makes lines 1-2 rev a statement re the visibility – while evidence also of an actual firsthand observation - of the setting star Porrima over the western horizon. Cf. Jupiter’s visibility over the eastern horizon at much the same altitude!

[190] The 27^th day of month 10 began at sunset Thu Jan 22, 522 BCE.

Given that the eclipse recorded in lines 21-22, and which took place in the morning hours of Sat Jan 10, 522 BCE, are dated to the 14^th day of month 10, it follows that the 27^th day of month 10 began at sunset Thu Jan 22, 522 BCE, and that the 1^st day began at sunset on Sat December 27, 523 BCE.

SNB Baghdad horizon Sat Dec 27, 523 BCE: Sunset: 17:05:01; moonset: 18:08:37; lag: 63 min 36 sec; illum.: 1.58.

[191] On the morning of Fri Jan 23, 522 BCE Jupiter was leaving its stationary point which point was reached on Wed Jan 21, 522 BCE.

[192] Cf. footnote 121!

[193] Beginning at sunset Thu June 18+, 522 BCE.

[194] Recognizing that there was no intercalary 13^th Moon between these two observations of Jupiter’s stationary points, the second observation took place on Tue May 19, 522 BCE, at which time Jupiter was closing up on its ultimate stationary point. [I.e. corresponding to the New Moon that was first visible on April (Fri 24 or) Sat 25, 522 BCE. SNB at the Baghdad horizon on April 24, 522 BCE: Sunset: 18:31:45; moonset: 19:23:51; lag: 52 min 6 sec; illum.: 0.89%.]

[Obsolete - upon discovering that “month 1° “ is an error for “month 2: Because there was an intercalary month 13 (which fact is confirmed by Venus’ position as recorded in line 6 rev!) between these two observations of Jupiter’s stationary points, this observation can be dated no earlier than June 18, 522 BCE. At this time Jupiter was leaving its stationary point and was almost 1 degree distant from said stationary point. [The 2^nd New Moon of May 24, 522 BCE: SNB at the Baghdad horizon on May 24, 522 BCE: Sunset: 18:51:58; moonset: 20:28:36; lag: 96 min 38 sec; illum.: 2.95%.]

[If there would have been no intercalary 13^th Moon between these two observations of Jupiter’s stationary points, then the second observation would have taken place on May 19, 522 BCE, the earliest day possible for the 25 day of that Moon, at which time Jupiter was closing up on its ultimate stationary point. [I.e. corresponding to the New Moon that was first visible on April (24 or) 25, 522 BCE. SNB at the Baghdad horizon on April 24, 522 BCE: Sunset: 18:31:45; moonset: 19:23:51; lag: 52 min 6 sec; illum.: 0.89%.]]

[195] The day beginning at sunset Wed October 21+, 522 BCE. [SNB Baghdad horizon Sun October 18, 522 BCE New Moon: Sunset: 17:35:50; moonset: 18:14:08; lag: 38 min 18 sec; illum.: 3.27%.]

[196] The only luminaries visible at this time on the evening sky before Jupiter set behind the horizon were Jupiter and the Sun. The Sun was the only visible star within the constellation Libra at this time, and while Jupiter was located in front of beta Libra, Zubeneschmali, while indeed behind alpha Libra, Zubenelgenubi, neither one of which stars were likely visible on the evening sky, the Sun was indeed located behind both behind Jupiter and behind every possible reference star of Libra.

Accordingly, I find that the translation must be modified accordingly. Cf. the similar reference to the Sun as a reference star as per footnote 200!

[197] Day 10 of Moon 3 of year 7 began at sunset Thu June 12, 523 BCE. The 3^rd Moon of year 7 began with the New Moon Tue June 3, 523 BCE [SNB for the Baghdad horizon on Tue June 3, 523 BCE: Sunset: 18:58:43; moonset: 20:19:51; lag: 81 min 8 sec; illum.: 2.01%.]

[198] Seems we have a problem here: Venus is in front of Cancer, not [immediately in front of] Leo! However, seeing that the first star visible with Venus on the evening sky was Regulus, alpha Leo, this… makes much sense!

[199] Day 27 of Moon 3 of year 7 began at sunset Sun June 29, 523 BCE.

[200] Seems that here too we may have a problem?! Venus is in the area of Gemini, NOT in Cancer. However, the Sun is in Cancer. Perhaps this is an error in translation?... Or else a correct answer may be found in recognizing that the Sun too is a star and that the Sun was, at that time, in Cancer! Indeed, as represented by my astronomy software, SNB, Venus was visible even following sunrise!... And, more than likely it was seen for a while before sunrise… together with the Gemini reference stars! Cf. a similar type of solar reference in line 4 rev!

To me, these two unique and unexpected Venus notations seems powerful evidence of the astronomer’s actual first hand observation of these events, that is, as opposed to mere theoretical calculations… as some seem to suggest.”

[201] Day 7 month 12 year 7 began at sunset Tue March 3, 522 BCE. Cf. line II:25 obv..

[202] By the time Venus rose above the dawn horizon no stars were visible. The first and only star that became visible with Venus above the eastern morning horizon with Venus was… the Sun! This astronomer used the Sun frequently as a reference star for various constellations. Cf. lines 3, 4, and 5 rev!

[203] Cf. footnote 121!

[204]

[Obsolete - upon discovering that “month 1° “ is an error for “month 2:”Proof for the insertion of an intercalary Moon is found by comparing line 6 rev with lines 1 and 2 rev, that is, with all of the year 7 events. Cf. footnote 207!]

[205] This scribal or transcriptionist error is made obvious by the astronomical facts made clear first and foremost by the notations of line 6 rev and of line 10 rev!

Accordingly, Day 13, Moon 2 began at sunset Wed May 6+, 522 BCE. The 2^nd New Moon was first visible on April (Fri 24 or) Sat 25, 522 BCE. [SNB at the Baghdad horizon on Fri April 24, 522 BCE: Sunset: 18:31:45; moonset: 19:23:51; lag: 52 min 6 sec; illum.: 0.89%.]

[Obsolete - upon discovering that “month 1° “ is an error for “month 2: Beginning at sunset on May 7+, 522 BCE. The ~~1^st~~ 2^nd [cf. footnote 121!] New Moon was first visible on April (24 or) 25, 522 BCE. [SNB at the Baghdad horizon on April 24, 522 BCE: Sunset: 18:31:45; moonset: 19:23:51; lag: 52 min 6 sec; illum.: 0.89%.]

[If there had been no intercalary 13^th Moon, then this observation would have been dated as beginning at sunset on April 9, 522 BCE. [SNB at the Baghdad horizon on March 26, 522 BCE: Sunset: 18:13:38; moonset: 19:28:18; lag: 74 min 40 sec; illum.: 1.93%.]]

Notice: This is evidence that the barley was ~~not~~ recognized as being in the stage of aviv at the time of the Thu March 26, 522 BCE New Moon!

[206] Day 13, Moon 2, year 8 began at sunset Wed May 6+, 522 BCE.

[207] “The Chariot:” The “charioteers” of Auriga! Not to be confused with the Chinese constellation Chariot, aka Corvus, which is located adjacent to Virgo. Beta Tauri and Zeta Tauri are listed as the Northern and Southern (Variable star) of the Chariot, respectively, in the list of “Normal Stars” on page 7 of Sachs and Hunger’s Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia.

This notation of the astronomer identifies the ~~1^st~~ 2^nd [cf. footnote 121!] Moon of 522 BCE as beginning Fri April 24+, 522 BCE, because one month earlier, on the 13^th day (Wed April 8, 522 BCE) of the Moon beginning on Thu March 26, 522 BCE, Venus was 1) too close to (and still approaching!) the Sun, and not in the neighborhood of the Chariot (whether interpreted in terms of Auriga or in terms of Corvus!)

[208] The 3rd day of Moon 6 began at sunset Tue September 2, 523 BCE. For additional confirmation of the exact date of the New Moon of this month, please cf. line II:7 obv.!

[209] Notice that, although Spica, alpha Virgo, was still above the SNB flat horizon, it was not visible on the day following the recorded observation. This holds true for both the Esagila/Baghdad and the Beth Resh/Uruk observatory locations. Accordingly, this observation is confirmation of the exactly dated New Moon observation on Sun August 31, 523 BCE.

[210] Day 13 of Moon 7 began at sunset Sat October 11, 523 BCE.

Moon 7 began on Mon September 29+, 523 BCE [SNB Baghdad horizon Mon Sept 29, 523 BCE sunset: 17:59:51; moonset: 18:25:44; lag: 25 min 53 sec; illum.: 2.96%.]

Mon September 29, 523 BCE is the exact date fully confirmed by the notations found in lines 12-16 reverse, most especially from the lines re cubit measurements of the Moon.

[211] The significance of this observation is not entirely clear to me. It may pertain to the time of Porrima, beta Virgo, the prime reference star of Virgo, fading on the morning sky while other stars were yet visible within Virgo, or it may pertain to the last Virgo star, Spica, alpha Virgo fading? Although tempting, it is not likely a mistake for Jupiter’s passing Spica, which event did not take place until three days later, Sun September 14, 523 BCE.

[212] Cf. footnote 121!

[213]

[214] The ~~1^st~~ 2^nd Moon of year 8 is defined by the Venus observation recorded in line 6 rev.

That is, the ~~1^st~~ 2^nd New Moon was first visible on April (Fri 24 or) Sat 25, 522 BCE. [SNB at the Baghdad horizon on Fri April 24, 522 BCE: Sunset: 18:31:45; moonset: 19:23:51; lag: 52 min 6 sec; illum.: 0.89%.]

[215] Because there clearly was no intercalary month of year 7: The 5^th New Moon of year 8 on the SNB Uruk horizon became visible on Tue July 21+, 522 BCE: Sunset: 19:00:10; moonset: 19:28:17; lag: 28 min 7 sec; illum.: 1.03%.] Line 10 rev makes a Tue July 21, 522 BCE observation most likely. Cf. footnote 227 for details re the astronomer’s visual acuity!]

[Obsolete - upon discovering that “month 1° “ is an error for “month 2:The 5^th New Moon of year 8 on the SNB Uruk horizon became visible on August 20, 522 BCE: Sunset: 18:41:17; moonset: 19:19:25; lag: 38 min 8 sec; illum.: 3.42%.]

[Alternatively, if there was no intercalary month of year 7: The 5^th New Moon of year 8 on the SNB Uruk horizon became visible on July 21+, 522 BCE: Sunset: 19:00:10; moonset: 19:28:17; lag: 28 min 7 sec; illum.: 1.03%.] Line 10 rev makes a July 21, 522 BCE observation most likely. Cf. footnote 227 for details re the astronomer’s visual acuity!

[The 5^th New Moon of year 8 on the SNB Uruk horizon became visible on August 20, 522 BCE: Sunset: 18:41:17; moonset: 19:19:25; lag: 38 min 8 sec; illum.: 3.42%.]

[216] Day 29 Month 5 year 8 began at sunset Tue Aug 18, 522 BCE.

[Obsolete - upon discovering that “month 1° “ is an error for “month 2: Day 29 Month 5 year 8 began at sunset Sep 17+, 522 BCE.

[Alternatively, if there was no intercalary month of year 7:

[Day 29 Month 5 year 8 began at sunset Tue Aug 18, 522 BCE.]

[217] ~~If there~~ Recognizing that there was no intercalary month in year 7: When Saturn first became visible on the SNB sky, besides Jupiter and Venus there were only three other luminaries visible: Arcturus, Altair, and Vega.

Significance?: “Last appearance” of the day? - At the time when Saturn first became visible on the evening sky, besides Jupiter and Venus, only three other luminaries were visible on the entire SNB sky, that is, Arcturus, Altair, and Vega. However, seeing much the same thing on the evenings before and after Aug 18, 522 BCE, I fail to see the significance of this observation.

[Obsolete - upon discovering that “month 1° “ is an error for “month 2: Re intercalary month of year 7 alternative:

[On the evening sky of Sept 17, 522 BCE Saturn became visible 4° 41’ 51” over the SNB Uruk horizon. Likewise, on the next evening, Sept 18, 522 Saturn became visible 4° 11’ 22” over the SNB Uruk horizon, and, on the next evening, Sept 19, 522 Saturn became visible 3° 42’ 00” over the SNB Uruk horizon.

[At Esagila, on the evening sky of Sept 17, 522 BCE Saturn became visible 4° 30’ 49” over the SNB Esagila horizon. That is, not much difference from the Uruk horizon.]

[218] Day 28 of Moon 2 of year 7 began at sunset Sun June 1, 523 BCE. The 3^rd Moon of year 7 began with the New Moon Tue June 3, 523 BCE [SNB for the Uruk horizon on Mon May 5, 523 BCE: Sunset: 18:31:13; moonset: 20:11:46; lag: 100 min 33 sec; illum.: 3.05%.]

[219] Most interesting and unexpected notation! Here the words “in front of” point to the time of setting, not to the position relative to the coordinate grid of the sky as per the usual frame of reference. Seems to me this astronomer is feeling free to play with the words and definition of terms.

[220] The 13^th day of Moon 6 began at sunset Fri September 12, 523 BCE. Cf. line II:7 obv.!

[221] In the Hebrew language – which likely had similarities with the language used by the cuneiform scribes – the preposition ‘beta-‘ means ‘in’ or ‘with’ etc..

I am uncertain as to the meaning of this notation, but… Per SNB, at the time Mars was fading into the light of the dawn, the only visible star still remaining on the sky was Regulus, alpha Leonis. About 4 minutes before Mars’ fading, Denebola, beta Leonis, commonly associated with ‘the foot of the Lion” faded away, which star was then the only star closer to Mars than Regulus.

[222] Cf. footnote 121!

[223]

[224] The ~~1^st~~ 2^nd Moon of year 8 is defined by the Venus observation recorded in line 6 rev.

[225] Because there clearly was no intercalary month of year 7: The 5^th New Moon of year 8 on the SNB Uruk horizon became visible on Tue July 21+, 522 BCE: Sunset: 19:00:10; moonset: 19:28:17; lag: 28 min 7 sec; illum.: 1.03%.] Line 10 rev makes a Tue July 21, 522 BCE observation most likely. Cf. footnote 227 for details re the astronomer’s visual acuity!]

I do not find any evidence that there is an error in the transcription or in the translation of the cuneiform ideograph “month 5” (highlighted) of line 10 rev on the original tablet:

Comparing with line II:1 obv,:

with line 1 rev,:

and with line 8 rev:

I find no basis for seeing any significant differences between those ideographs. Nor do I find any reason for reading the above ideograph in terms of “month 4,” as found on line I:21 obv,:

and on line 19 rev:

[226] Day 12 Month 5 year 8 began at sunset Sat August 1+, 522 BCE.

[Obsolete - upon discovering that “month 1° “ is an error for “month 2: Day 12 Month 5 year 8 began at sunset August 31+, 522 BCE, or, if there was no intercalary month in year 7, Day 12 Month 5 year 8 began at sunset August 1+, 522 BCE.]

[227] On Wed August 5, 522 BCE between 10 PM and 11 PM Mars reached the exact stationary point.

On Sat August 1, 522 BCE Mars reached a point on the sky within 7’ 31” (6’ 51” in the direction of travel) of said exact stationary point, corresponding to a visual acuity of the astronomer of 3’ 14” (2’ 57” in the direction of travel) if this observation was done on Sun August 2, 522 BCE. However, seeing that said visual acuity is close to the same (But not in the direction of travel!; cf. below, the paragraph beginning with “On July 31…!”) whether the observation was done on Sat August 1 or on Sun August 2, 522 BCE, it seems likely, or at least possible, that the observation was done on Sat August 1, 522 BCE. It follows [i.e. from the very similar distances that Mars traveled from day to day] that the New Moon was possibly observed on Tue July 21, 522 BCE. It also follows from line 10 rev, that is, from the date re Mars becoming stationary, unless “month 5” is an error for “month 4” (which seems unlikely unless it is an error of the original scribe of BM33066 (or else a transcription error;) cf. footnote 225 for details re the original ideograph!,) that there was no intercalary month in year 7!

On Sun August 2, 522 BCE reached a point on the sky within 4’ 45” (3’ 54” in the direction of travel) of said exact stationary point.

On Fri July 31, 522 BCE Mars reached a point on the sky within 10’ 46” (10’ 39” in the direction of travel) of said exact stationary point, corresponding to a visual acuity of the astronomer of 3’ 15” (3’ 48” in the direction of travel; [3’ 48” = 10’ 39” – 6’ 51” etc.]) if this observation was done on August 1, 522 BCE.

[228] Recognizing that there was no intercalary Moon in either year 6 or year 7, there must have been an intercalary Adar II at the end of year 8, which fact certainly agrees well with said intercalary Moon beginning with the New Moon of Mon March 14+, 521 BCE.

Accordingly, (and regardless of which one of year 6, 7, or 8 that had an Adar II!) the New Moon of Moon 2, year 9, began at sunset Sat May 12+, 521 BCE [SNB Baghdad horizon Sat May 12, 521 BCE: Sunset: 18:44:17; moonset: 19:41:50; lag: 57 min 33 sec; illum.: 1.03%.]

[229] The day beginning at sunset May (Sat 21 or) Sun 22, 521 BCE.

[230] The only significance I see in this notation is that one of the two last stars to fade into the light of dawn before Mars faded, was Regulus, alpha Leonis.

[231] Day 1 Moon 7 year 7 began at sunset Mon Sept 29, 523 BCE! This observation clinches this fact, that is, the exact dating of Moon 7 year 7!

Moon 7 began on Mon September 29, 523 BCE [Mon Sept 29, 523 BCE sunset: 17:59:51; moonset: 18:25:44; lag: 25 min 53 sec; illum.: 2.96%.]

[232] This is a most remarkable observation! Mercury and the Moon both becoming visible so close to the Sun, so close to the horizon (Mercury to horizon at sunset: 7’ 10”; Moon behind Mercury: 14° 45’ 42”; Moon to moonset horizon: 6° 29’ 16”,) and so close to sunset (17:58:32!) Given the cubit definitions provided by means of lines 15 and 18 rev, Mon Sept 29, 523 BCE is necessarily the correct date for this observation, since otherwise the cubit measurement does not fit any of the other cubit notations. That is, on Tue Sept 30, 523 BCE, the Moon was 25° 50’ 04” behind Mercury at sunset! That is, Mon Sept 29, 523 BCE provides 1 cubit = 4.92°, whereas Tue Sept 30, 523 BCE would provide 1 cubit = 8.6°, which is not consistent with the other cubit notations on BM 33066.

[233] The 24^th day of Moon 6 began at sunset Tue September 23, 523 BCE. Cf. line II:7 obv.!

[234] Per SNB I find Venus 6° 40’ 09” above Mars on Tue Sept 23, 523 BCE. Per the available definitions of the cubit (lines 12, 13, 15, and 18) 1 cubit = 4° ±. Accordingly, I would expect this apparently damaged notation restorable to ‘1½ cubits.’

[235] Moon 7 began on Mon September 29, 523 BCE [Sept 29, 523 BCE sunset: 17:59:51; moonset: 18:25:44; lag: 25 min 53 sec; illum.: 2.96%.]

Mon September 29, 523 BCE is the exact date fully confirmed by the notations found in lines 12-16 reverse, most especially from the lines re cubit measurements of the Moon.

[236] Day 23 Moon 7 year 7 began at sunset Tue Oct 21, 523 BCE! This is the second observation that clinches this fact!

Moon 7 began on Mon September 29, 523 BCE [Mon Sept 29, 523 BCE sunset: 17:59:51; moonset: 18:25:44; lag: 25 min 53 sec; illum.: 2.96%.]

[237] On early dawn on Wed Oct 22, 523 BCE I find Jupiter 8° 28’ 42” below! the Moon. On Thu Oct 23, 523 BCE I find Jupiter only 3° 29’ 50” below the Moon. Thus, once again (cf. line 12 rev!) I find the Mon 29 Sept, 523 BCE New Moon observation confirmed.

[238] The 29^th day of Moon 7 began at sunset Mon October 27, 523 BCE. Moon 7 began on Mon September 29, 523 BCE [Mon Sept 29, 523 BCE sunset: 17:59:51; moonset: 18:25:44; lag: 25 min 53 sec; illum.: 2.96%.]

Mon September 29, 523 BCE is the exact date fully confirmed by the notations found in lines 12-16 reverse, most especially from the lines re cubit measurements of the Moon.

SNB makes it clear that, before dawn on Tue October 28, 523 BCE, Venus did approach it closest passage (on the north side) of Jupiter. The distance between Venus and Jupiter, as observed at, or shortly before or after sunrise, is given as 2 fingers. This should be helpful towards finding a definition of the angular distance ‘finger:’

Seeing that most or, probably, all of the astronomer’s recorded observations were done at the time of twilight at or before sunrise or at or after sunset, I see little reason for considering deep night – much less daylight - observations anymore.

In particular, this event, per the notation of the astronomer, was not observable for very long. On Tue Oct 28, 523 BCE Venus and Jupiter rose in the east at 03:14 (angular distance 44’ 11”,) the last luminaries visible at sunrise (angular distance 39’ 19”,) and set in the west at 15:43 (angular distance 30’ 44”, but not visible in the daylight.) Per SNB the two planets may have been visible after sunrise until 07:09:07 (angular distance between planets: 37’ 49”; angular distance between planetary paths on the evening sky: 36’ 13”.) Accordingly, the measured distance between Venus and Jupiter, 2 fingers, is most likely representing said 37’ 44” (and nothing less.)

Accordingly, I find that, 1 finger = 36’/2 = 18’±. This measurement agrees perfectly with my results from analyzing the event I see recorded in line 16. However, that definition does not seem to agree with my prior much smaller definition, that is, as used by the more ancient astronomer making the notations for VAT 4956, which other astronomer was also using a different definition for the cubit. I believe these differences must be accepted as representing the different languages of different time, place, and persons.

If this notation of the astronomer was to pertain to the following morning, Wed October 29, 523 BCE, then the distance between Venus and Jupiter grew by no more than 5’ from the time of rising to the time last seen after sunrise, that is, from <43’ (at the time Venus rose above the horizon) to <48’ (at sunrise.) (At no time did Venus and Jupiter come closer to one another than 30’ 40” during this passage, but, at any rate, that portion of the passage was certainly not visible after sunset of October 29, 523 BCE!)

A better, and more likely, ‘finger’ measurement is the measurement between the apparent lines of travel along the evening sky. That is, on Wed Oct 29, 523 BCE at the time last visible per SNB: Angular distance between planets: 49’ 43”; angular distance between planetary paths on the evening sky: 14’ 03”.

Accordingly, if this notation were to pertain to the morning of Wed October 29, 523 BCE (if the New Moon of this Moon would have been suffering from inclement weather) then this notation provides for us the following definition of 1 finger (as used by this astronomer.) That is, 1 finger = 14’/2 = 7’±. However, that definition does not agree with the measurement provided per line 14. Additionally, it does not agree with my prior definition, that is, as used by the more ancient astronomer making the notations for VAT 4956.

I conclude that 1) the New Moon of Moon 7 was more than likely seen on Mon September 29, and 2) the ‘finger’ measurement used by the original astronomer making this notation was 1 finger = 18’±.

[239] The 12^th day of Moon 7 began at sunset Fri October 10, 523 BCE.

Moon 7 began on Mon September 29+ [Sept 29, 523 BCE sunset: 17:59:51; moonset: 18:25:44; lag: 25 min 53 sec; illum.: 2.96%.]

Mon September 29, 523 BCE is the exact date fully confirmed by the notations found in lines 12-16 reverse, most especially from the lines re cubit measurements of the Moon.

[240] On Fri Oct 10, 523 BCE, per SNB, I find Jupiter 5° 17’ 59” in front of Saturn, not the other way around. This notation gives me a definition for 1 cubit = 5° 17’ 59”, which agrees with the cubit definition obtained from line 18 rev.. Cf. footnote 245! On the next day, Sat Oct 11, 523 BCE, Jupiter was 5° 13’ 09” in front of Saturn, which distance is still within the definition for cubit per line 18 rev. Accordingly, this particular observation does not allow me to further narrow down either the day of the New Moon or the definition of cubit.

[241] Moon 7 began on Mon September 29, 523 BCE [Mon Sept 29, 523 BCE sunset: 17:59:51; moonset: 18:25:44; lag: 25 min 53 sec; illum.: 2.96%.]

September 29, 523 BCE is the exact date fully confirmed by the notations found in lines 12-16 reverse, most especially from the lines re cubit measurements of the Moon.

[242] The 11^th day of Moon 7 began at sunset Thu October 9, 523 BCE.

Moon 7 began on Mon September 29, 523 BCE [Mon Sept 29, 523 BCE sunset: 17:59:51; moonset: 18:25:44; lag: 25 min 53 sec; illum.: 2.96%.]

Mon September 29, 523 BCE is the exact date fully confirmed by the notations found in lines 12-16 reverse, most especially from the lines re cubit measurements of the Moon.

On Thu Oct 9, 523 BCE (Mars and) Jupiter rose at 04:11:00 (angular distance: 2° 07’ 31”,) were visible until 05:32:44 (angular distance between the planets: 2° 05’ 59”; angular distance between the planetary paths: 36’ 36”.)

On Fri Oct 10, 523 BCE (Mars and) Jupiter rose at 04:07:33 (angular distance: 1° 40’ 37”,) were visible until 05:33:33 (angular distance between the planets: 1° 39’ 00”; angular distance between the planetary paths: 30’ 03”.)

At their closest visible approach, on Tue Oct 14, 523 BCE (Mars and) Jupiter were visible until 05:36:54 (angular distance between the planets: 15’ 23”; angular distance between the planetary paths: 14’ 23”.)

Accordingly, comparing also this notation of line 16 to the notation on line 14, I find the most likely reference being to the distance between the apparent paths of the two planets along their line of traveling upon the evening skies from evening to evening. That is, “2 fingers” being a reference to the 36’ 36” measurement, or, less likely, to the 30’ 03” measurement. That is 1 finger = 36’/2 = 18’.

[243] Moon 8 began at sunset October ~~(29 or)~~ 30, 523 BCE [Thu Oct 28, 523 BCE sunset: 17:24:12; moonset: 17:31:19; lag: 06 min 07 sec; illum.: 1.02%.] Cf. footnote 244 for exact date of New Moon 8 recognition!

[244] The 2^nd day of Moon 8 began at sunset October ~~(30 or)~~ 31, 523 BCE.

On the morning of Fri Oct 31, 523 BCE Saturn and Venus rose at 03:21:07. At that point Saturn had still a good distance to go before passing Venus.

On the morning of Sat Nov 1, 523 BCE Saturn and Venus rose shortly before 03:21:07. At that point Saturn had just passed Venus.

On the morning of Sun Nov 2, 523 BCE Saturn and Venus rose shortly before 03:21:07. At that point Saturn had passed Venus.

Based on the above said, it seems obvious that the New Moon of Moon 8 was reckoned from the sunset of Fri Oct 31, 523 BCE (not from the day prior.) Cf. footnote 243!

Per SNB Saturn faded into the light of dawn at 06:01:16 on Sat Nov 1, 523 BCE. Angular separation at that time: Between the planets: 33’ 40”; between the apparent lines of travel on the morning sky: 33’ 04”.

Unfortunately, the astronomer’s notation as translated, “8 fingers,” does not seem to agree with my definition of ‘1 finger’ as discovered in lines 14 and 16 reverse. That is, in this instance 1 finger = 33’/8 = 4’±. As best I can determine, this must be a problem related to the translation of the cuneiform script? That is, a problem yet to be resolved!!

[245] The 5^th day of Moon 10 year 7 was the day beginning at sunset Wed Dec 31, 523 BCE.

That is, given that the eclipse recorded in lines 21-22, and which took place in the morning hours of Sat Jan 10, 522 BCE, are dated to the 14^th day of month 10, it follows that the 5^th day of month 10 began at sunset Wed Dec 31, 523 BCE, and that the 1^st day of month 10 began at sunset on Sat December 27, 523 BCE.

SNB Baghdad horizon Sat Dec 27, 523 BCE: Sunset: 17:05:01; moonset: 18:08:37; lag: 63 min 36 sec; illum.: 1.58%.

[246] Per SNB, at the time when Mercury was fading into the dawn light on Thu Jan 1, 522 BCE, Mercury was 2° 17’ 16” behind Venus, and the two of them were the last luminaries visible except for Jupiter.

Per this astronomer’s usage, if correctly translated, 1 cubit = 4° 34’ 32” (±1° 8’ 38”; cf. my calculations.) This is quite different from the cubit found in VAT 4956.

[247] Day 14 Month 4 year 7 began at sunset Wed July 16, 523 BCE.

Local Baghdad time at 22:12:00 is when this eclipse (umbral shadow) began covering the lunar disc.

Given that this happened on the 14^th day of the lunar month, it follows that the New Moon was reckoned as beginning on Thu July 3, 523 BCE, which is when it was first likely to be visible [Baghdad horizon on Thu July 3, 523 sunset: 19:11:25; moonset: 20:47:05; lag: 95 min 40 sec; illum.: 5.20%. (Wed July 2, 523 BCE sunset: 19:11:15 ; moonset: 19:58:50; lag: 47 min 35 sec ; illum.: 1.07%.)]

[248] The word transcribed “bēru” is sometimes translated “double hours,” but this seems to be a questionable translation (cf. also footnotes 254 and 255:)

Appearance of the penumbral eclipse shadow (if at all visible!) beginning at 20:45, that is, at 1 hours 44 minutes after Uruk sunset (19:01:14) Wed July 16, 523 BCE. Very first beginning at 20:45, which is 1 hour 32 minutes after the appearance of the first three fixed stars at 19:12:56 July 16, 523 BCE.

Appearance after Uruk sunset (at 19:01:14 Wed July 16, 523 BCE:) The eclipse at 3 hours 20 minutes (at 22:21:14.)

Appearance of the Moon following the appearance of the first three fixed stars at 19:12:56 Wed July 16, 523 BCE: The very first of the umbral eclipse shadow at 22:15 PM (after 3 hour 2 minutes,) and then the appearance at 3 hours and 20 minutes (at 22:32:56).

Comparing the bēru of lines 19 rev and 21 rev, I realize something seems to be askew here. Realizing that line 19 rev pertains to July 16, which is in the middle of the summer, while the other pertain to January 9, which is in the middle of the winter, I come to remember that in ancient times the hour was not of constant length, but was defined in terms of 1/12 of the time between sunrise and sunset, or possibly in terms of that portion of twilight when a certain number of luminaries were visible. Accordingly, I will test this insight upon said two lunar eclipses:

Line 19 rev: Wed July 16, 523 BCE SNB Uruk horizon: Sunrise: 04:54:10; Sunset: 19:01:14; Time between sunrise and sunset: 14hrs 7min 4 sec. Last 3 fixed stars in AM: 04:41:48 (Vega, Sirius, and Capella;) First 3 fixed stars in PM: 19:12:56; Time between last 3 AM stars and first 3 PM stars: 14hrs 31min 8sec.

Line 21 rev: Fri January 9, 522 BCE SNB Uruk horizon: Sunrise: 07:04:05; Sunset: 17:13:00; Time between sunrise and sunset: 10hrs 8min 55 sec. Last 3 fixed stars in AM: 06:52:00; First 3 fixed stars in PM: 17:25:48 (Vega, Sirius, and Capella;) Time between last 3 AM stars and first 3 PM stars: 10hrs 33min 48sec.

Success! Cf. my Excel file (CalculationsReConfidenceInterval.xls) for calculations! My results indicates that the bēru is based upon the exact sunrise and sunset hour (which time period is divided by 6 bērus, i.e. 6 ‘double hours;’ not on three stars or luminaries,) and the recorded time differences (in bēru) re the specified event is then based upon the same exact sunrise or sunset hour. Interestingly, the bēru time, as notated, gives us a very narrow window for when these two eclipses are first being observed. That is, the Jan 10, 522 BCE eclipse was first observed sometime between the very first occlusion and 13 min 24 seconds thereafter, whereas the July 16, 523 BCE eclipse was first observed no earlier than 22 min 1 sec after the very first occlusion.

[249] SNB Wed July 16, 523 BCE sunset: 19:11:05 (cf. footnote 251.)

[250] The word “total” must be a mistranslation… As evidenced also by the words following: “a little remained…”

[251] The partial (53.15%) eclipse of Thu July 17, 523 BCE: SNB Wed July 16, 523 BCE Uruk sunset: 19:01:14; beginning of penumbral shadow: 20:44:00 (1hr 42min 46sec after sunset; 1hr 31min 4sec after 3 stars;) beginning of umbral shadow: 22:12:00 (3hrs 10 min 46sec after sunset;) maximum partial eclipse: 23:24:00 (4hrs 22min 46sec after sunset;) end of umbral shadow: 00:45:00; end of penumbral shadow: 02:13:00; sunrise: 04:55:03.

[252] Please note that the cuneiform word translated “the north wind blew” is probably better translated in terms of “stood.” Cf. my discussion at footnote 59 under this link. Considering these facts, a better translation would perhaps have been in terms of “the moon made an eclipse, but a little remained visible when the eclipse was at its maximum (stood).”

[253] Beginning at sunset Fri January 9, 522 BCE.

[254] If, as suggested by others, “2½ double hours” = 5 hours (02:04:12) before sunrise (07:04:12,) then this is 51 min prior to the beginning of the visible part of the eclipse and the beginning of the umbral shadow (at 02:55 AM,) but only 6 minutes after the beginning of the penumbral shadow (01:58 AM.) On the other hand, at 04:34:12, 2½ hours before sunrise, is in the middle of the total eclipse. Cf. footnote #257.

The Moon, Jupiter, Venus, and Mercury were the last luminaries visible on the morning sky at 06:54:21, which was at 10 minutes before sunrise. Arcturus, Vega, and Rigil Kentaurus were the last three visible fixed stars until Vega faded at 06:52:00, which was 12 minutes before sunrise.

[255] Uruk horizon SNB Sat Jan 10, 522 BCE sunrise: 07:04:12. Cf. footnote #257.

[256] If ‘total’ is a bad translation in line 20 rev, then it can not be correct here either? That is, in spite of the fact that this eclipse was indeed a total eclipse! Cf. footnote 250! The fact is, the cuneiform words in lines 20 and 22 rev, translated “the moon made a total eclipse,” are identical!: . Cf. the cuneiform transcripts available under page 232, lines 46 & 48 under this link.

[257] The total eclipse of Sat January 10, 522 BCE. Uruk horizon SNB Jan 9-10, 522 BCE events: Sunset: 17:12:59; beginning of penumbral shadow: 01:58:00; beginning of umbral shadow: 02:55:00; beginning of total eclipse (blood Moon:) 03:46:00; end of total eclipse: 05:27:00; end of umbral shadow: 06:18:00; sunrise: 07:04:12; moonset: 07:13:22; end of penumbral shadow: not visible: ~ 07:15:00.

[258] Re the cuneiform words translated “the south and north winds blew”, please cf. footnote#252.