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

Statement of belief: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17 KJV)

Created 5927_[(*??*)]02 04 2031 [2015-05-23]

Analyzing BM 33066

Cambyses’ Clay Tablet

Re the 7^th Year of His Reign

Abstract:

Based upon the results of my initial assessment of BM 33066 for purposes of determining all possible real time scenarios corresponding to this record of astronomical observations, and having found one and one only viable scenario, I am now able to begin my detailed analysis of this astronomical record in earnest:

Obverse

1 Year 7 of Kambyses.[1] (the 1st[2] of which was identical with)

the 30th (of the preceding month, sunset to moonset:) 23º.

2 Month 1º. the 1st[3] the moon became visible:

3 1 bēru sunset to moonset.[4]

4 Night of the 13th:[5] ~~moonrise to sunset: at…~~ [Moon at sunset:[6] / TOL©] 9° [4½º / TOL©].[7]

5 The 13th.[8] moonset to sunrise: 2º 20’.[9]

6 Night of the 14th:[10] sunset to moonrise: 8º 20’.[11]

7 The 14th,[12] sunrise to moonset: 7º 40’.[13]

8 The 27th:[14] (moonrise[15] to sunrise:) at[16] ~~16º~~ [17] [8°.[18] TOL©]

9 Month II, (the 1st [19] of which was identical with) the :30th[20]

(of the Preceding month: sunset to moonset:) 23º.[21]

10 The 13th.[22] moonset to sunrise: 8º 20’.[23]

11 Night of the 14th.[24] ~~moonrise to sunset:~~ [Moon at sunset: / TOL©] 1º.[25]

12 The 14th.[26] sunrise to moonset: 1º 40’.

13 Night of the 15th,[27] sunset to moonrise: 14º 30’.

14 The 27th, [28] ~~(moonrise~~[29] ~~to sunrise:)~~ [Old Moon observation to sunrise] 21º.[30]

15 Month 3º,[31] (the 1st[32] of which was identical with) the 30th[33]

(of the preceding month, sunset to moonset:) 18º 30’.

16 Night of the 14th.[34] moonrise to sunset:[35] 9º 30’.[36]

17 The 14th,[37] moonset to sunrise: 4º.[38]

18 Night of the 15th,[39] sunset to moonrise: 5º.

19 The 15th,[40] sunrise to moonset: 8º 30’.

20 The 27th,[41] (moonrise to sunrise:)[42] 15º.

21 Month 4º, the 1st[43] (of which followed the 30th[44] of the

preceding month, sunset to moonset:) 27º.[45]

22 The 13th,[46] moonset to sunrise: 11º.[47]

23 Night of the 14th.[48] moonrise to sunset:[49] 4º.[50]

24 The 14th.[51] sunrise to moonset: 4º.[52]

25 Night of the 15th. [53] sunset to moonrise: 8º 30’.

26 The 27th, [54] (moonrise to sunrise:)[55] 15º.

1 Month 5º, (the 1st of which was identical with} the 30th[56]

(of the preceding month, sunset to moonset:) 10+[x]º.

2 The 14th, [moonset to sunrise:] 3º 30’.

3 Night of the 13th, [moonrise to sunset:][57] 2º

20+[x]’.

4 The 15th, sunrise to moonset: 1 Io.

5 Night of the 16th. sunset [to moonrise:) 7º 30’.

6 The 27th, (moonrise to sunrise:)[58] 22º 30’.

7 Month 6º, the 1st[59] {of which followed the 30th of the

preceding month, sunset to moonset:) 15º 40’.[60]

8 The 13th,[61] moonset to sunrise: 11º.

9 The 14th, sunrise to moonset: 4º.[62]

10 Night of the 15th. moonrise to sunset:[63] 1º 20’.

11 Night of the 16th. sunset to moonrise: 8º 40’.

12 The 28th, (moonrise to sunrise:)[64] 15º.

13 Month 7º,[65] the 1st (of which followed the 30th of the

preceding month, sunset to moonset:) 16º 40’.[66]

14 The 13th, moonset to sunrise: 6º 30’.

15 Night of the 14th. moonrise to sunset:[67] 7º 30’.

16 The 14th, sunrise to moonset: 12º.

17 Night of the 15th. sunset to moonrise: 3º.

18 The 26th, (moonrise to sunrise:)[68] 22º.

19 Month 8º,[69] (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th

(of the preceding month. sunset to moonset:) 12º 40’.

20 The 13th, moonset to sunrise: 15º.

21 The 14th, sunrise to moonset: 5º.

22 Night of the 15th. moonrise to sunset:[70] 1º.

23 Night of the 16th. sunset to moonrise: 14º.

24 The 26th, (moonrise to sunrise:)[71] 26º.

(the following paragraph extends over cols. 2º and 3º)

25 Month 12º the 1st[72] (of which followed the 30th of the

preceding month, sunset to moonset:)19º.[73]

Night of the 13th, moonrise to sunset:[74] [x]+1º 30’.

26 The 13th, moonset to sunrise: 5º 20’. Night of the 14th.

sunset to moonrise: 3º.

27 The 14th, sunrise to moonset: 5º 40’. The 27th,

(moonrise to sunrise:)[75] 21º.

III

1 The 1[3th, moonset to sunrise: ....]

2 Night of the l|4th. moonrise to sunset:[76] ....]

3 The 14th, [sunrise to moonset:] 5º.

4 Night of the 15th, [sunset to moonrise:] 10º 20’.

5 The 27th, (moonrise to sunrise:)[77] 24º.

6 Month 11º, the 1st[78] (of which followed the 30th of the

preceding month, sunset to moonset:) 22º.

7 Night of the 13th, moonrise to sunset:[79] 17º 20’.

8 The 13th, moonset to sunrise: 4º 40’.[80]

9 Night of the 14th, sunset to moonrise: 1º 40’.

10 The 14th, sunrise to moonset: 7º.

11 The 27th, (moonrise to sunrise:)[81] 17º.

12 Month 12º, (the 1st[82] of which was identical with) the 30th

(of the preceding month. sunset to moonset:) 15º 30’.[83]

13 The 12th, moonset to sunrise: 10º 30’.

14 Night of the 13th, moonrise to sunset:[84] 5º 20’.

15 The 13th, there was no "moonset to sunrise"

or "sunrise to moonset".

16 Night of the 14th, sunset to moonrise: 10º.

17 The 25thsle, (moonrise to sunrise:)[85] 23º: the 27th,

(moonrise to sunrise:)[86] 12º.

Right edge

1’ [....]....

2’ [(Mercury’s) ....] first appearance ....

3’ [....] last appearance in the east in the

4’ [rear’] foot of Leo.

5’ [.... first appearance] in the west in ….

(break)

1’’ [....]....[....]

2’’ [....]....[....]

3’’ Month XII, the 19th, last appearance in the west.

4’’ in the Ribbon of the Fishes.

Reverse

1 Year 7, month 5º, the 22nd,[87]

Jupiter’s last appearance in front of Virgo.[88]

2 Month 6º, the 22nd,[89]

first appearance behind Virgo.[90]

Month 10º, the 27th,[91]

it became stationary in front of Libra.[92]

Month 12º was intercalary.[93]

3 Year 8, month 2º, the 25th,[94]

it became stationary in the area of Virgo.[95]

Month 6º, the 4th,[96]

last appearance behind [the Sun as a temporary reference star of… /TOL©] Libra.[97]

4 Year 7, month 3º, the 10th.[98]

Venus last appearance in the west in the beginning of Leo.[99]

Month 3º, the 27th,[100]

5 first appearance in the east in the area of Cancer.[101]

Month 12º, the 7th,[102]

last appearance in the east in the area of Pisces.[103]

Month XII was intercalary.[104]

6 Year 8, month 1º, the 13th,[105]

first appearance in the west in the area of the Chariot.[106]

7 Year 7, month 6º, the 3rd.[107]

Saturn’s last appearance in the area of Virgo.[108]

Month 7º, the 13th,[109]

first appearance behind Virgo.[110]

Month 12º was intercalary. [111]

8 Year 8, month 5º,[112] the 29th,[113] last appearance.[114]

9 Year 7, month 2º, the 28th, [115]

Mars last appearance in front of Gemini.[116]

10 Month 6º, the 13th,[117] first appearance in [together with[118] / TOL©] the foot of Leo.

Month 12º was intercalary.[119]

Year 8, month 5º,[120] the 12th,[121] it became stationary.[122]

11 Year 9, month 2º, the 9th,[123] last appearance behind α Leonis.[124]

12 Year 7, month 7º, the 1st,[125]

the moon became visible 3 cubits behind Mercury.[126]

Month 6º, the 24th,[127] Venus was 1+[x cubits’ |[128] above Mars.

13 Month 7º,[129] the 23rd, [130] last part of the night.

Jupiter was 3 cubits above the moon.[131]

14 Month 7º, the 29th,[132] last part of the night,

Venus on the north side [came near] 2 fingers to Jupiter.

15 Month 7º, the 12th,[133] Saturn was 1 cubit ~~in front of~~ [behind / TOL©] Jupiter.[134]

16 Month 7º,[135] the 11th,[136] Mars came near to Jupiter 2 fingers.

17 Month 8º,[137] the 2nd,[138] Saturn passed 8 fingers above Venus.

18 Month 10º, the 5th,[139] Mercury was ½ cubit behind Venus.[140]

19 Year 7, month 4º, night of the 14th,[141] 1 ⅔ bēru[142] after sunset[143].

20 the moon made a ~~total~~[144] eclipse,[145]

a little remained: the north wind blew.[146]

21 Month 10º, night of the 14th,[147]

when 2 ½ bēru [148] remained to sunrise [149].

22 the moon made a ~~total~~[150] eclipse:[151] the south and north winds blew[152] in it.

Comments and donations freely accepted at:

Tree of Life^©

c/o General Delivery

Nora [near SE-713 01]

Sweden Republic^© in Adamah Republic^©

eMail: TreeOfLifeTime@gmail.com

The TLT© PowerPoint Presentation “The Star of Bethlehem in 16-15 BCE”

Comments and donations freely accepted at:

Tree of Life^©

c/o General Delivery

Nora [near SE-713 01]

Sweden Republic^© in Adamah Republic^©

eMail: TreeOfLifeTime@gmail.com

The GateWays into Tree of Life Chronology Forums^©

The GateWays into Tree of Life Chronology^©

The GateWays of Entry into the Tree of Life Time Chronology Touching upon the Book of Daniel

[1] Year 7 began at sunset on April 6, 523 BCE [using SNB, my Starry Night Backyard software, set on the Uruk horizon:] Sunset: 18:14:42; moonset: 20:08:15; lag: 113 min 33 sec; illum.: 4.29%.

[Using SNB, my Starry Night Backyard software, set on the Baghdad horizon on April 5, 523 BCE:] Sunset: 18:19:59; moonset: 19:06:23; lag: 46 min 24 sec; illum.: 0.81%.

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] The day beginning at sunset April 6, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #9.

[3] The day beginning at sunset April 6, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #9.

[4] As seen under footnote 1, the lag time between sunset and moonset was 113 min 33 sec, or just short of 2 hours. Accordingly, we seem to be provided with a definition of ‘1 bēru’ = 113 min 33 sec, or else 2 hours.

[5] The day beginning at sunset April 18, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #9.

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

[7] The day beginning at sunset April 18, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #9.

At the time of Moonrise on 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 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 the point of sunset, I realize that this must be a measurement pertaining to the Moon at the time of sunset (as opposed to a measurement of the Sun at moonrise.) Accordingly, at the time of sunset on 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 [18 minutes after sunset] the corresponding measurement would have been 9°, I find this a bit difficult to account for. 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, which certainly would fit this event as it happened per SNB?!

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 the reason for the inaccuracy, especially in comparison to a measurement of time between two exact and easily observed events occurring at the exact point on the horizon?!!!

[8] The day beginning at sunset April 18, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #9.

[9] My SNB Baghdad horizon:

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

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

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 April 19, 523 BCE, and that line 7 applies to April 20, 523 BCE.

Angular separation at the Uruk horizon:

At the time of moonset on 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..

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 April 6, 523 BCE, that is, the time of the Aviv New Moon.

[10] The day beginning at sunset April 19, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #9.

[11] At the time of the Uruk horizon sunset on 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.)

[12] The day beginning at sunset April 19, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #9.

[13] At the time of the Uruk horizon sunrise on 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’) was 5° 7’ 41” above the moonset horizon.

[14] The day beginning at sunset May 2, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #9.

[15] Please cf. the sister notation of footnote 29 and a more correct translation of the words translated “(moonrise to sunrise:),” that is, “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]”

[16] 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…”

[17] At the time of the Uruk horizon moonrise (center point of Moon, and first sliver of Moon becoming potentially visible) on 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 7 line 4 obv.!

[18] 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.

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

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

[20] The day beginning at sunset May 5, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #9.

[21] 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”.

[22] The day beginning at sunset May 17, 523 BCE. Cf. footnotes ##19, 21, and 23.

[23] As re lines 4-7 obv, so also the language of lines 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 May 18, 523 BCE Baghdad time zone [= “May 18 13:47” UT.]) That is, the first morning, “the 14^th day” after astronomical full moon was 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 May 5, 523 BCE:

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

SNB Uruk horizon 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 (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.

[24] The day beginning at sunset May 18, 523 BCE. Cf. footnotes ##19, 21, and 23.

[25] 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!

[26] The day beginning at sunset May 18, 523 BCE. Cf. footnotes ##19, 21, and 23.

[27] The day beginning at sunset May 19, 523 BCE. Cf. footnotes ##19, 21, and 23.

[28] The day beginning at sunset May 31, 523 BCE. Cf. footnotes ##19, 21, and 23.

[29] Please cf. footnote 30 for the basis of this footnote! Also please consider footnote 25 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.

[30] 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.

[31] The 3^rd Moon of year 7 began with the New Moon June 3, 523 BCE [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!

[32] The day beginning at sunset June 3, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #31.

[33] The day beginning at sunset June 3, 523 BCE. Cf. footnotes ##19, 21, and 23.

[34] The day beginning at sunset June 16, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #31.

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

[36] 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.!:)

[37] The day beginning at sunset June 16, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #31.

[38]

[39] The day beginning at sunset June 17, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #31.

[40] The day beginning at sunset June 17, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #31.

[41] The day beginning at sunset June 29, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #31.

[42] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 29 of line I:14 obv.!

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

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

Confirmation of sunset 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.!

[44] The day beginning at sunset July 2, 523 BCE. Cf. footnote #31.

[45] 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!

[46] The day beginning at sunset July 15, 523 BCE. Cf. line I:21 obv.!

[47] 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.

[48] The day beginning at sunset July 16, 523 BCE. Cf. line I:21 obv.!

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

[50] 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…!

[51] The day beginning at sunset July 16, 523 BCE. Cf. line I:21 obv.!

[52]

[53] The day beginning at sunset July 17, 523 BCE. Cf. line I:21 obv.!

[54] The day beginning at sunset July 29, 523 BCE. Cf. line I:21 obv.!

[55] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 29 of line I:1° obv.!

[56] The day beginning at sunset August 1, 523 BCE. Cf. line I:21 obv.!

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

[58] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 29 of line I:14 obv.!

[59] The New Moon day of Moon 6 year 7 began at sunset on August 31, 523 BCE. [SNB Baghdad horizon August 30, 523 BCE New Moon: Sunset: 18:30:52; moonset: 18:50:38; lag: 19 min 46 sec; illum.: 1.64%.] For confirmation of this exact date, please cf. line II:7 obv.!

[60] Angular separation at the 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 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 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, August 31, 523 BCE certainly is the date corresponding to the recorded New Moon observation.

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

[62]

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

[64] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 29 of line I:14 obv.!

[65] The day beginning at sunset on September 29, 523 BCE. [SNB Baghdad horizon September 29, 523 BCE New Moon: Sunset: 17:59:51; moonset: 18:25:40; lag: 25 min 49 sec; illum.: 2.96%.]

[66] Angular separation at 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 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 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, 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, 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.

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

[68] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 29 of line I:14 obv.!

[69] 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 121 and 122 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”.]

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

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

[71] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 29 of line I:14 obv.!

[72] Beginning at sunset Feb 25, 522 BCE.

[73] 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 67!

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!

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

[75] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 29 of line I:14 obv.!

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

[77] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 29 of line I:14 obv.!

[78] Moon 11 began on January 13+, 510 BCE [Jan 13, 510 BCE sunset: 17:16:38; moonset: 18:41:57; lag: 86 min 19 sec; illum.: 3.21%.]

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

[80]

[81] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 29 of line I:14 obv.!

[82] Beginning at sunset March 14, 521 BCE.

[83] 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.)

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

[85] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 29 of line I:14 obv.!

[86] My preferred translation is “[Old Moon observation to sunrise.]” Re the obvious [mis-]translation “(moonrise to sunrise:)” please cf. footnote 29 of line I:14 obv.!

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

[88] 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 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 August 1, 523 BCE [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 [August 30, 523 BCE sunset: 18:38:13; moonset: 18:56:39; lag: 18 min 26 sec; illum.: 1.66%.] (cf. Espenak’s tables.)

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

[90] The 22^nd day of Moon 6 began at sunset 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 reverse 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!

[91] The 27^th day of month 10 began at sunset Jan 23, 522 BCE.

Given that the eclipse recorded in lines 21-22, and which took place in the evening hours of 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 Jan 23, 522 BCE, and that the 1^st day began at sunset on December 28, 523 BCE.

SNB Baghdad horizon December 28, 523 BCE: Sunset: 17:05:32; moonset: 19:05:12; lag: 119 min 40 sec; illum.: 4.93%. (Dec 27, 523 BCE: Sunset: 17:05:01; moonset: 18:08:37; lag: 63 min 36 sec; illum.: 1.58%. Inclement weather? Cf. obverse II lines 19-25 and the absence of any New Moon observations for months 9 and 10 of year 7! The 11^th New Moon is recorded at obverse III line 6.)

[92]

[93]

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

[95] 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%.]

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

[97] 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 85!

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

[99] 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!

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

[101] 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.”

[102] Beginning at sunset March 3, 522 BCE. Cf. line II:25 obv..

[103] 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!

[104] 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 90!

[105] Beginning at sunset on May 7+, 522 BCE. The 1st 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 aviv was not recognized as being ripe at the time of the March 26, 522 BCE New Moon!

[106] “The Chariot:” The “charioteers” of Auriga! Not to be confused with the Chinese constellation Chariot, aka Corvus, which is located adjacent to Virgo.

This notation of the astronomer identifies the 1^st Moon of 522 BCE as beginning April 24+, 522 BCE, because one month earlier, on the 13^th day (April 8, 522 BCE) of the Moon beginning on 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!)

[107] The 3rd day of Moon 6 began at sunset September 2, 523 BCE. For confirmation of exact date please cf. line II:7 obv.!

[108] 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.

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

Moon 7 began on September 29+, 523 BCE [SNB Baghdad horizon 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.

[110] 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, September 14, 523 BCE.

[111] 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 90!

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

That is, the 1st 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%.]

[113] Beginning at sunset on May 22, 522 BCE.

[114] I have no idea of the significance of this observation. After becoming visible later and later day by day, in the evening twilight, Saturn remained visible all night until it set behind the horizon well before the time of first dawn.

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

[116] 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.

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

[118] 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.

[119] 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 90!

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

That is, the 1st 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%.]

[121] Beginning at sunset on May 3, 522 BCE.

[122] I do not find the significance or meaning of this notation? Unless it has something to do with Mars being the last and only luminary visible on the morning sky? But that should not have been a unique event separating it from the days before or after so far as I perceive by means of SNB.

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

The New Moon of Moon 2, year 9, began at sunset May 12+, 521 BCE [SNB Baghdad horizon May 12, 521 BCE: Sunset: 18:44:17; moonset: 19:41:50; lag: 57 min 33 sec; illum.: 1.03%.]

[124] 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.

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

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

[126] 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, 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 Sept 30, 523 BCE, the Moon was 25° 50’ 04” behind Mercury at sunset! That is, Sept 29, 523 BCE provides 1 cubit = 4.92°, whereas Sept 30, 523 BCE would provide 1 cubit = 8.6°, which is not consistent with the other cubit notations on BM 33066.

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

[128] Per SNB I find Venus 6° 40’ 09” above Mars on 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.’

[129] Moon 7 began on September 29, 523 BCE [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.

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

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

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

[132] The 29^th day of Moon 7 began at sunset October 27, 523 BCE. Moon 7 began on September 29, 523 BCE [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.

SNB makes it clear that, before dawn on 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 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, 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 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 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 September 29, and 2) the ‘finger’ measurement used by the original astronomer making this notation was 1 finger = 18’±.

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

Moon 7 began on September 29+ [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.

[134] On 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 123! On the next day, 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.

[135] Moon 7 began on September 29, 523 BCE [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.

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

Moon 7 began on September 29, 523 BCE [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.

On 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 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 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’.

[137] Moon 8 began at sunset October ~~(29 or)~~ 30, 523 BCE [Oct 28, 523 BCE sunset: 17:24:12; moonset: 17:31:19; lag: 06 min 07 sec; illum.: 1.02%.] Cf. footnote 122 for exact date of New Moon 8 recognition!

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

On the morning of 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 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 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 Oct 31, 523 BCE (not from the day prior.) Cf. footnote 121!

Per SNB Saturn faded into the light of dawn at 06:01:16 on 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!!

[139] The 5^th day of Moon 10 year 7 was the day beginning at sunset Jan 1, 522 BCE.

That is, given that the eclipse recorded in lines 21-22, and which took place in the evening hours of 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 Jan 1, 522 BCE, and that the 1^st day of month 10 began at sunset on December 28, 523 BCE.

[140] Per SNB, at the time when Mercury was fading into the dawn light on Jan 2, 522 BCE, Mercury was 2° 20’ 40” behind Venus, and the two of them were the last luminaries visible except for the Sun.

Per this astronomer’s usage, if correctly translated, 1 cubit = 4° 41’ 20” (±1° 10’ 20”; cf. my calculations.) This is quite different from the cubit found in VAT 4956.

[141] On 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 July 3, 523 BCE, which is when it was first likely to be visible [Baghdad horizon on July 3, 523 sunset: 19:11:25; moonset: 20:47:05; lag: 95 min 40 sec; illum.: 5.20%. (July 2, 523 BCE sunset: 19:11:15 ; moonset: 19:58:50; lag: 47 min 35 sec ; illum.: 1.07%.)]

[142] The word transcribed “bēru” is sometimes translated “double hours,” but this seems to be a questionable translation (cf. also footnotes 132 and 133:)

Appearance of the penumbral eclipse shadow (if at all visible!) at 1 hours 40 minutes after sunset July 16, 523 BCE: 20:51:00.

Appearance of the eclipse at 3 hours 20 minutes after sunset July 16, 523 BCE: 22:31:05.

[143] SNB July 16, 523 BCE sunset: 19:11:05 (cf. footnote 129.)

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

[145] The partial (53.15%) eclipse of July 17, 523 BCE: SNB July 16, 523 BCE sunset: 19:11:05; beginning of penumbral shadow: 20:44:00 (1hr 33min after sunset;) beginning of umbral shadow: 22:12:00 (3hrs 01 min after sunset;) maximum partial eclipse: 23:24:00 (4hrs 13 min after sunset;) end of umbral shadow: 00:45:00; end of penumbral shadow: 02:13:00; sunrise: 04:55:03.

[146] 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).”

[147] Beginning at sunset Sat January 10, 522 BCE.

[148] If, as suggested by others, “2½ double hours” = 5 hours before sunrise: 02:13:52, then this is 40 min prior to the beginning of the visible part of the eclipse and the beginning of the umbral shadow. On the other hand, 04:45:00, 2½ hours before sunrise, is in the middle of the total eclipse. Cf. footnote #135.

[149] Baghdad horizon SNB Jan 11, 522 BCE sunrise: 07:13:52. Cf. footnote #135.

[150] 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 128! 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 this link and under lines 46 & 48 in this link.

[151] The total eclipse of January 10, 522 BCE. Baghdad horizon SNB Jan 10-11, 522 BCE events: Sunset: 17:14:14; 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; end of penumbral shadow: 07:15:00; sunrise: 07:13:52; moonset: 07:23:22.

[152] Re the cuneiform words translated “the south and north winds blew”, please cf. footnote#130.