VAT 4956 - a transcription of its Translation and Comments

[1] These revisions were prompted by an email that I received from a certain “Ann OMaly”on “Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:11 AM.”

Praise the Lord of Hosts, Yahweh Elohim, the Creator of the Universe, who orchestrates events like these!

[2] These additional revisions were prompted by a 2^nd email that was sent to me by my new friend Ann O’Maly on “Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:36 PM.”

Praise the Lord of Hosts, Yahweh Elohim, the Creator of the Universe, who orchestrates events like these!

[3] [All quotes are from the original translation, by, as best I can tell, Neugebauer P V and Weidner E F, of the cuneiform tablet unless otherwise indicated:]

"Remarks on Translation

“The terminology used in the diaries is rigid and very condensed. The order of items recorded is also to a large extent fixed. Because of the repetitive character of these texts, the scribes apparently, tried to reduce as much as possible the number of words they had to write.

“In translating I have tried to imitate this style by using a similarly rigid terminology. Unfortunately, the almost exclusively logographic writing of the diaries frequently makes it impossible to determine whether the Akkadian text consisted of sentences or asyndetic sequences of nouns. Where this can be decided with the help of one of the rare sylabie writings. I have of course translated accordingly. But more often I had to choose some fixed translation which may not be syntactically equivalent to the Akkadian hidden by the logograms. In addition, several statements which are very short in cuneiform had to be translated by longer expressions to convey the meaning without creating a new artificial terminology. The way in which the diaries indicate the length of a month can serve as an example. This length can be 29 or 30 days. [We shall notice that this is a false assumption so far as this tablet is concerned, that is, as even the very first month is proven to have been reckoned as 31 days! / ToL ©] The diaries are arranged in sections each of which deals with a single month. Each section begins with the name of the month; after the name, a "1" indicates that the preceding month had 30 days; [Apparently this must be corrected to “30 days or more” / ToL ©] a "30", that it had only 29 days, [Apparently this must be corrected to “29 days or less” / ToL ©] in which case the next month begins with a "1st" day: if a month has only 29 days [or less / ToL ©], its successor begins, so to speak, already on the "30th" day [etc. / ToL ©] which would have been theoretically possible for the preceding month. In order to make this visible in the translation, I have formulated sentences which contain the words "the 1st" or "the 30th" (which are all that is written in the text), and at the same time clearly state the situation: Month X, the 1st (of which followed the 30th of the preceding month), or: Month X, (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding month)." (Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, p. 38)

[4] The day beginning at sunset April 22, 568 BCE. (A primary anchor point for this date is the events of the 14th day. However, given the additional information that the lag between sunset to moonset is readable as any number between 14 and 18 (cf. Ann O’Maly Obv. line 1; search terms: “ “ittanmar 14” ”, “ “comes to 14” ,”) while seeing that my Starry Night Backyard astronomy software is giving me 15° from the top of the Moon (which will set last) to the point on the horizon where it will set, I find that April 22, 568 BCE may be considered confirmed and sustained. Said 15° corresponds to 65+ minutes per SNB, that is, from the point where the Sun is first touching the horizon (18:27:52; per my SNB astronomy software) until the last of the Moon is being potentially visible (19:33:37; lag: 65min 45 sec; illumination: 1.70%.)

[5] Cf. the italic blue font text in footnote #3 and my bracketed comments thereto.

[6] Nebuchadnezzar’s 37^th year began at sunset April 22, 568 BCE (-567:)

Per ADT I (Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia,) p. 17-19 (= p. 7-9 of the pdf copy,) the references for words like “behind,” “in front of,” etc. are a set of “Normal Stars.”

Four “Normal Stars” are listed in ADT I for the constellation Taurus:

1) “MÚL MÚL” (= “η Tauri” = “The Bristle” = Alcyone = one of the stars in the Pleiades;)

2) “is le₁₀“ (= “α Tauri” = “The Jaw of the Bull” = Aldebaran.) Aldebaran is not part of the star cluster named Hyades (cf. Wikipedia;)

3) “ŠUR GIGIR šá SI” (= “β Tauri” = “The Northern (variable star) of the Chariot”;) and

4) “ŠUR GIGIR šá ULÚ” (= “ζ Tauri” = “The Southern (variable star) of the Chariot”.)

These four stars are the four brightest stars of the constellation Taurus. Seeing that none of these four “Normal Stars” are a part of Hyades, and that the literal translation of the Akkadian words, “GÙ-AN” or “GU₄-AN” (on VAT 4956 Obv. line 1) are “the Bull of Heaven,” [GU₄= “Ajjaru” (= month #2 [Notice: The Sun was located in the constellation Taurus every year at that time during that month, i.e. from around April 15-May 24, whereas at this day and age it is located in Taurus from about May 14-June 22!;] cf. Table 2.2 in ADT I) = ”The Bull;” and AN = “heaven, sky, god, rain,”] I fail to see any basis for the translation “Hyades” as found for Obv. line 1 of the tablet per Ann O’Maly’s work (under “[p. 34.]”) However, Ann O’Maly, while apparently giving reference to each and all of said four stars, is referencing Weidner in stating:

“For the Babylonians, Taurus falls into three parts. The Pleiades are called ^kakkabZappu “Star (κατ’ έζοχήν)” Rev. 6, 13)³, the Hyades GÚ-AN “Bull of Heaven” Obv. 1; Rev. 6)⁴ and β + ζ Tauri Narkaptu “Chariot” (Rev. 6).⁵ ”

Footnote 3: “Cf. Weidner, Alter und Bedeutung der babylonischen Astronomie, p. 19, note 2.”

Footnote 4: “Probably to be read as alû in the Semitic (cf. Delitzsch, Handwörterbuch, p. 60; Meissner, Seltene assyr. Ideogramme, No 4040); but also cf. [The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, Vol.] II R[awlinson] 49, 3, line 45.“

Footnote 5: “Cf. Weidner passim p.51f.”

That much given, it seems certain enough that Ann O’Maly et.al. are identifying Hyades with Aldebaran, which was the one and only star visible in front of the New Moon observed and recorded on Obv. 1. [I do not find the reference to “Rev. 6” helpful towards resolving whether or not Aldebaran is indeed the one and only “Bull of Heaven” = “GÚ-AN.” Nevertheless, Obv. 1 should be sufficient by itself in order to confirm that Ann O’Maly et.al. are identifying Aldebaran with “the Bull of Heaven!”]

Considering also the fact that Aldebaran was the one and only star being visible in front of the setting Moon on April 22, 568 BCE, I find it clear that, although Aldebaran is not specifically being identified upon Obv. l.1 of VAT 4956, it is the one and only “Normal Star” that could have been referenced, but then only as a representative for the constellation Taurus, “the Bull of Heaven.” The translation for the Babylonian name provided (in the list in ADT I,) for “is le₁₀ ,” is “the Jaw of the Bull,” and the modern name listed is “α Tauri,” that is, Aldebaran. However, I do not see “is le10” upon the transliteration of VAT 4956. The next star within the constellation of Taurus to become visible would have been θ Taurii, but it is likely that the New Moon crest was at that time becoming invisible. Accordingly, I conclude that, on this occasion, Aldebaran was being used by the astronomer as a representative of the Bull of Heaven: Thus the words translated “behind the Bull of Heaven.”

All of the words and Comments pertaining to line 1, obverse, now make sense to me in terms of April 22, 568 BCE. Yet, this requires that this 1^st month is reckoned as having 31 lunar days… (!) To me this is not too strange when considering also the likelihood of a relatively recent pole shift catastrophe around the first part of the 7^th century BCE.

Indeed, I find good evidence that in the year beginning in the fall of 699 BCE there was a pole shift such that the crust of the Earth slid 150°, pole towards pole, within a matter of 72 hours. I find the timing of said pole shift consistent with the record of 2 Kings 20:11 and Isaiah 38:8 while the detailed positions of the poles before and after the last three pole shifts have been established by Charles Hapgood et.al.. For more details, please cf. this link!

Although I have not found support for the exact year of the last one of a series of interplanetary catastrophes in the ninth through seventh centuries BCE suggested by Immanuel Velikovsky’s works, the mechanism of action he proposes remains an interesting one.

Indeed, if there was a worldwide planetary catastrophe at that time, how would the people then living best go about learning the ropes of the newly established paths of the heavens, if not by a strict following of actually observed new moons etc. while avoiding as much as possible any assumptions of their own, such as for instance a default New Moon on the 30^th of any lunar month upon inclement weather etc.?

I believe that these considerations also find support in the words of line 8, obverse: “the moon became visible…it was thick…,”that is, while recognizing also the translator’s Remarks on Translation as quoted above and his added words within parenthesis in line 8. I suppose the chief objection to a 31 day long Month I in that year is the translation “Month III… the 30^th” on line 12 obverse. However, if the corresponding Akkadian word is understood as carrying the meaning “something not yet perfected,” as in the 30^th day being the day prior to a complete and perfect 30 day long month, then it wouldn’t matter if the new moon crescent was first seen at the beginning of the 29^th day or at the beginning of the 30^th day and that objection would then be resolved! Consider also the perfection commonly associated with the triangle and the associated numbers 3, 30, etc..!

Re the words “the moon became visible behind the Bull of Heaven…:” At first it seemed to me that that would indicate that the moon was behind the prominent horn of the Bull of Heaven and that, from studying the details of “VAT 4956” in comparison with Starry Night Backyard software, the first observations of the first New Moon crescent seemed to have occurred one day later than I would have anticipated from the NASA Phases of the Moon tables, and from my prior studies of current comparable observations from the horizon of the Holy Land. (Cf. e.g. footnotes ##31 and 32.)

However, upon my discovery of a firm basis (cf. footnote #20) for establishing the beginning of month #1 on the evening of April 22, I came to realize that the use of that Akkadian word, translated ‘behind,’ as used in line 12, obverse, (cf. footnote #58,) makes most sense when applying it, whatever Akkadian word it may be, relative to the “normal star” as suggested in ADT I.

[Had the evening of April 23, 568 BCE been the beginning of month #1 - as I used to believe prior to having a viable understanding of the event recorded for the 14^th day of this 1^st month - then one might consider why the proximity between the New Moon and Venus is not being recorded also on this clay tablet, thus, the absence of such a record re Venus also becomes evidence against April 23 as constituting the beginning of month #1. However, even that argument may be countered by the fact of missing words due to the tablet being broken at that point…]

That the dates used in the tablet began at sunset is confirmed by the order of the relative statements in line 3 of the cuneiform tablet: “Night of the 9^th…, beginning of the night, the moon stood 1 cubit in front of β Virginia. The 9^th.the sun in the west (was surrounded) by a halo,” that is, the darkness of the evening and night preceding the subsequent day are all part of the same 9^th day.

[7] See the translator’s Comments re Obverse, line 1: ”1: The last sign visible can be any number from 14 to 18.” - This Comment becomes meaningful upon realizing that the distance between the Moon and the Sun at the time between “[sunset and moonset]” on April 22, 568 BCE was 14°+! That is, yet another piece of evidence against April 23 being day one of the month, obviously so, because on April 23 the corresponding distance was 26°+!

Ann O’Maly in her work is exchanging VAT 4956’s record in terms of degrees for minutes. Certainly, that distance could not have been measured at the time of sunset, that is, before the New Moon could even be visualized. Measuring the time from sunset to moonset should be much more doable, though one may question the astronomer’s ability to observe the New Moon until it actually hid behind the horizon, that is, not just disappeared in the haze over the horizon. What I seem to find is, however, that the measurements recorded do correspond quite accurately with my Starry Night Backyard astronomy software measurements upon measuring from the front end of the setting or rising sun until the last of the Moon is being seen. It would have been an easy, and quite accurate, way of measuring said distance by means of measuring the time first and then converting it to degrees. Thus, Ann O’Maly’s use of time rather than degrees may well represent a more primary measurement. Nevertheless, doing so is a matter of reverse translation, which by its nature makes it more distant from the original than would a direct literal translation of the record as it stands.

[8] “The Swallow” corresponds to the southern Fish within Pisces (that is, the fish pointing towards the right, west) extending even unto ε Pegasi. Cf. these illustrations of “the Swallow:” 1, 2, 3, and 4…

Cf. “the great Swallow” as referenced in Wikipedia under Pisces: “Pisces originates from some composition of the Babylonian constellations Šinunutu₄ "the great swallow" in current western Pisces, and Anunitum the Lady of the Heaven, at the place of the northern fish.” An earlier edition of the Wikipedia entry read: “According to J. H. Rogers the fish symbol originates from some composition of the Babylonian constellations Zibatti-meš (maybe Šinunutu₄ "the great swallow" in current eastern Pisces) and KU₆ ("the fish, Ea", Piscis Austrinus).”

In addition, Wikipedia provides us with the transliterated version of the Babylonian cuneiform name “The Great Swallow”: “^MULŠÍM.MAḪ šinūnūtu "The Great Swallow" (SW Pisces and Epsilon Pegasi.)” Obviously, in VAT 4956 we find a much abbreviated form of this in the form of simply “ŠÍM.”

I do not find anything in the ADT I list of Normal Stars corresponding to “the Swallow” or to any of the Akkadian words I see in the transcription of VAT 4956. However, the sequence of events described in lines 19’ and 20’ on the reverse of the tablet seems quite instructive in defining a certain portion of “the band,” or the wing?, of the Swallow!

[9] How often is Saturn in the Swallow?

Stepping monthly forwards in time from Mars -596; and next April 23, -567, I find that once having left this celestial area Saturn does not return until January, -537 and after that not until March, -508, then May -479, i.e. every 30 years or so. Cf. footnotes #42 and #60 and notice the absence of concurrent events competing with the record in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37^th year of reign! And that’s looking at only three of these twenty-one celestial events!

“A complete cycle of Saturn phenomena in relation to the stars takes 59 years. But when that cycle has to be fitted to the lunar calendar of 29 or 30 days then identical cycles recur at intervals of rather more than 17 centuries. Thus there is no difficulty in determining the date of the present text… [p. 63]

“The Babylonian calendar was luni-solar with an additional “intercalary” month being added on average 7 times in 19 years to bring the lunar and solar cycles into line. In the seventh century B.C. the later “Metonic” pattern of regular intercalations was not yet in place and it is a matter of interest to establish in which years the intercalary months were inserted.

“The synodic period of Saturn is 378.09 days. Hence phenomena recur about 24 days later in the Babylonian calendar than in the previous year (Schoch [1928], 109).” (Swerdlow, N. M., Editor, Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination, Chapter 3 by C. B. F. Walker, Babylonian Observations of Saturn during the Reign of Kandalanu, p. 63, 69.)

What exactly is “the Swallow”?

“The Swallow was actually composed of a portion of Pisces together with epsilon Pegasi” (http://www.maverickscience.com/History/Retrocalculations/retrocalculations.html.)

“SIM.MAH = shinunutu: "The Swallow"; Western fish of Pisces” (http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/outside/starlog.html.)

“MUL.SIM.MAH [sim.mah] (The "Great Swallow (SW Pisces [+ epsilon Pegasi);" later to be one of the 12 ecliptic constellations.) (Greek zodiac: Pisces (the Fish).)” (http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gtosiris/page9a.html)

[10] The day beginning at sunset April 23, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor point for this date is the 14th day events and more… cf. footnote #4.)

[11] The day beginning at sunset April 24, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor point for this date is the 14th day events and more… cf. footnote #4.)

[12] I am seeing Mars as the first luminary, close to the Moon, lighting up in the twilight after sunset. The orthogonal distance, as measured along the celestial equator, between the Moon and Mars was at that time 1° 59’ 03”. This corresponds to 1 cubit = 0.992°±0.248° (or at most ±0.496°,) corresponding to 1 cubit = between 0.744° and 1.240° (or at most 1 cubit = between 0.496° and 1.488°.)

The orthogonal distance, as measured along the celestial equator, between the Moon and Wasat= δ Gemini was at that time 3° 10’ 48”. This corresponds to 1 cubit = 1.590°±0.398° (or at most ±0.795°,) corresponding to 1 cubit = between 1.193° and 1.988° (or at most 1 cubit = between 0.795° and 2.385°.)

Measured along direction of stars moving across the night sky (cf. line #11 of the obv[erse side of the claytable where a distance of “1 cubit” is being most precisely defined,] and also line #3 obv. re direction of measurement) the Moon was about 2 cubits, i.e. about 3° in front of δ Gemini. Looking at the “normal stars” listed in ADT I, I find it curious that the star closest to the ecliptic, one of the brighter and more prominent of the Gemini constellation, δ Gemini or Wasat, is not listed among the “normal stars.” Nevertheless, on that particular evening of the 3^rd, April 24^th, 568 BCE, the one star most likely to be referenced as being located 2 cubits behind the Moon, measured along the direction of the sky’s movement, at the time of oncoming darkness, is none other than δ Gemini, i.e. Wasat! (More at this link…)

[13] The day beginning at sunset April 30, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor point for this date is the 14th day events and more… cf. footnote #4.)

[14] The day beginning at sunset April 29, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor point for this date is the 14th day events and more… cf. footnote #4.)

Seeing that the words on line 3 do not fit the reality that I find on my Starry Night Backyard astronomy software, my challenge is to correctly identify and ascertain the identity of that error. Is the translator correct in assuming that the error is an original “[scribal] error,” or else, is the error in the eyes of the translator? If the latter, then what part(s) of line 3 is/are in error? I believe the best approach is to fall back upon the original Akkadian cuneiform to the best of my ability:

“9 SAG GE₆1 KÚŠ sin ina IGI ^mul^xGÍR ár ša UR-A GUB”

Taking the Akkadian at face value I find as follows:

1. “9” = ”the 9th;”

2. “SAG” = ”head, top, chief, upper part, beginning, the best; ”

3. “GE₆” = ”night, dark, black;”

4. ”1” = “1;”

5. “KÚŠ” = ”skin, hide, leather, parchment, peel, overlay.” However, upon these astronomical tablets this word is consistently used together with a number and translated as “x cubit(s;)”

6. “sin” = “Moon;”

7. “ina” = “in the, of, in;”

8. “IGI” = “eye, first, front, behold, recognize, see, witness, inspect, reverse/opposite”

9. “ ^mul^x ” = “star;”

10. ”GÍR” = ”foot;”

11. ”ár” = ”after, behind;”

12. ”ša” = ”that;”

13. ”UR-A” = ”Leo,” (cf. ADT I;)

14. ”GUB” = ”stood there.”

Corresponding to “SAG GE₆” (cf. items ## 2 & 3 above) in her work Ann O’Maly provides: “rêš mûši = beginning of the night (onset of complete darkness…)” while identifying also several other similar terms for other parts of the day and night.

Next, comparing the above with my findings per my Starry Night Backyard astronomy software, I find that beginning shortly before midnight April 30, 568 BCE the Moon was < 1 cubit in front of γ Virginia (Please cf. obv. l. 14, footnote #62, for another observation in confirmation of this star identification!) When γ Virginia was first becoming visible in the evening of April 30, 568 BCE, the Moon was < 2 cubits in front of γ Virginia. Accordingly, if the numbers are always to be rounded up to the nearest integer, then “SAG GE6” = “rêš mûši” permits an understanding of these quoted words in terms of the time period between the end of twilight and midnight. A less precise or a different rounding method would allow a definition of those same Akkadian words more closely tied to the end of twilight at which time γ Virginia was first becoming visible.

[Seeing that ADT I provides a different name for γ Virginia than that which is being used in line 3, could be due to that other name being misidentified with this star, e.g. because of too long a cubit having been utilized in the identification process, but the real reason needs to be ascertained by a more close review of that identification process. Another explanation could be in terms of different descriptors being used for one and the same star under differing circumstances…]

Nevertheless, having now analyzed both the words and the events on the sky, let’s see if the pieces of the puzzle will fit a better translation than the one given that did not fit the facts:

“the 9th [“9,”] before midnight [“SAG GE₆”] the Moon was 1 cubit [“1 KÚŠ sin”] in front of [“ina IGI”] the star [“^mul^x “; which is] the tail [“GÍR”] at the end of [“ár”] that [“ša“] Leonis [“UR-A”] stood there [“GUB.”] ”

Seeing that I do indeed now have a perfect fit between all the pieces of this puzzle, I can simplify the above words in two ways, depending upon which method of rounding that was being used by the astronomer:

1. “the 9th, before midnight, the Moon was 1 cubit [< 1 cubit (1.22°)] in front of the star, which is the tail at the end of that Leonis, stood there;” or else

2. “the 9th, at the end of twilight, the Moon was 1 cubit [< 2 cubits (2.44°)] in front of the star, which is the tail at the end of that Leonis, and which stood there.”

If I follow the translator’s lead in applying the verb ‘stood’ to the Moon, rather than to the star, then I get:

1. “the 9th, before midnight, the Moon stood 1 cubit [< 1 cubit (1.22°)] in front of the star, which is the tail at the end of that Leonis;” or else

2. “the 9th, at the end of twilight, the Moon stood 1 cubit [< 2 cubits (2.44°)] in front of the star, which is the tail at the end of that Leonis.”

Lastly, by substituting the name ‘γ Virginia’ for “the star, which is the tail at the end of that Leonis,” I obtain:

1. “the 9th, before midnight, the Moon stood 1 cubit [< 1 cubit (1.22°)] in front of γ Virginia;” or else

2. “the 9th, at the end of twilight, the Moon stood 1 cubit [< 2 cubits (2.44°)] in front of γ Virginia.”

Without presently committing myself to either one or the other of these two translations, if I allow myself to use the English term ‘beginning of the night’ as a reference to the time period between the end of twilight and midnight, I may now correct the original translator’s translation by simply 1) striking his words “(error for : 8th)” and exchanging the letter “β” for the letter “γ.”

Accordingly, I find that this comment, “(error for: 8th,)” (which I presume is the original translator’s own comment) is an error in the eyes of the beholder. That is, the translator’s error is being based upon a traditionally accepted name of a certain “Normal Star,” cf. ADT I. To me, this is a most typical example of how we tend towards giving preference to our own current schools of thought, to our own traditional teaching, over and above that which should always remain primary, that is, the first hand witness of the ancient clay tablet itself. Upon recognizing this error, I am now able to identify the Akkadian behind the (mis-)translation “β Virginia” as referencing γ Virgo, one of the stars of Virgo closest to the ecliptic and the 2^nd brightest stars of Virgo as being located 1 cubit behind the Moon on the 9^th day, April 30, -567. What more needs be said besides that the ruler and direction is relative to the movement of the sky?!...

[15] Please cf. footnote #14 before reading the remainder of this footnote (which is rendered somewhat superfluous by said footnote #14! Nevertheless…

Per the ADT I list of Normal Stars:

“In order to give the position of the moon and the planets a number of stars close to the ecliptic are used for reference. These have been called "Normalsterne" by Epping14, and the term has remained in use ever since.”

The Babylonian term for “β Virginis” is “GÌR ár šá A”; translated “the rear foot of the Lion.” Corresponding to that, on the VAT 4956 transliteration, I see a similar, yet different, term “GÌR ár šá UR-A GUB.” Looking at the artist’s conception of the constellation Virgo, as available on my Starry Night Backyard software, it would make sense for me to perceive those Akkadian words as referencing γ Virgo, i.e. Porrima, and the end of the Lion’s tail (when in a normal stretched out position) and not the Lion’s rear foot, β Virgo, i.e. Denebola. Furthermore, β Virgo, Denebola, is much further from the ecliptic than is γ Virgo, Porrima. Thus the former star (β Virgo, Denebola) seems a less likely choice than does the latter (γ Virgo, Porrima) for being a Normal Star used in this setting. This assumption is being confirmed by the VAT 4956 record on line 14, as noted also in footnote #64!

So far as I can see, on my Starry Night Backyard software, on April 30, 568 BCE, day 9, the Moon is trailing behind β Virginis, the angular separation between them being 11° 26’ at 7:23 PM at about the time when β Virginis first became visible in the sky. On April 29, day 8, the two of them were traveling side by side (angular separation 3° 43’,) the center of the Moon being about 1° 00’ ahead of β Virginis and the diameter of the moon being about 2° 00’. Thus, if the translator’s assumption were to be correct, then, if the correct distance is measured center to center, then 1 cubit = 1°.

Per ADT I the matter of direction of measurement is controversial, which to me means that it is not clearly understood as yet and thus open to other solutions:

“These formulations give the impression that the distances between the moon and the Normal Stars were measured in the direction of the cardinal points. It has also been argued, however, that they were equivalent to our longitude and latitude. O. Neugebauer 28 considers the latter assumption impossible according to his investigations of conjunctions between Normal Stars and planets. It remains to be seen whether this question can be solved in some way; for reasons already stated above (p. 7), I did not think it appropriate to embark on such an investigation.”

Ann O’Maly seems to have found 1 cubit to correspond to 2°, which would fit the above if the distance measured is the front of the moon relative to the front of β Virginis in the direction of travel.

If 1 cubit = 2° then I find that, in the direction of the moving sky, on April 30, 568 BCE, day 9, the center of the Moon was 1 cubit in front of Porrima, i.e. γ Virginis.

My preferred conclusion would then be that VAT 4956 is correct, but that the translator is mistaking the reference star. However, given that, per ADT I, γ Virginis is another reference star with the Babylonian name “DELE šá IGI ABSIN” this conclusion may seem questionable, since that name is much different from that seen on the tablet.

[Historical memo of prior considerations, now obsolete, at least in my mind!: Thus, in the end it seems that the translator’s comment re an error may not be entirely impossible?

I notice also that the very next sentence seems to indicate the beginning of a new day’s entry, “The 9^th…,” however the associated observation pertains to the latter light portion of the day when the sun is seen in the west. Thus, it seems only natural for the scribe of the tablet to add “The 9^th” following the last prior date given as “Night of the 9^th.”

Once again, please cf. also footnote #14 above!

[16] The day beginning at sunset April 30, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor point for this date is the 14th day events and more… cf. footnote #4.)

[17] The day beginning at sunset May 2, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor point for this date is the 14th day events and more… cf. footnote #4.)

[18] Because an acronychal rising occurs at sunset, and because oncoming darkness of the night is the time when the date of the month changes from one to the next, it is only natural that the observer records this acronychal rising of Jupiter on May 3, -567 as occurring either on the 11^th, May 2, or on the 12^th, May 3. The fact that the 11^th is being referenced along with the 12^th in this instance only further emphasizes the conclusions arrived at re the most excellent viewing locality that must have been used by the observer of the events on the sky recorded on VAT 4956! Cf. foot note #20 below!

[19] The day beginning at sunset May 3, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor point for this date is the 14th day events and more… cf. footnote #4.)

[20] Based upon my confirmed understanding re the events recorded for the 14^th on this line 4, obverse, that is, the 14^th certainly beginning with the evening of May 5, I am now prepared to draw some valuable conclusions re the statement “12^th. Jupiter’s acronychal rising:”

It follows that the 12^th is certainly beginning with May 3, 568 BCE. I notice that while having my Starry Night Backyard set for a viewing locality at Baghdad and 3 meters elevation and a flat horizon, the sunset on May 3, 568 BCE is at 6:38 PM, while the rising of Jupiter is 10 minutes later (sic!) at 6:48 PM. This obviously means that for this observation to be truly an exact “acronychal rising” the viewing location of the observer relative the above said viewing location must have been quite excellent, perhaps elevated on a high mountain peak and with no obstructions at either the east or the west horizons! This fact is important to be aware of when interpreting this clay tablet!

[21] The day beginning at sunset May 5, 568 BCE; accordingly, this observation was made at sunrise May 6, 568 BCE.

Having finally discovered for myself that the meaning of the phrase “one god was seen with the other: sunrise to moonset: x°” (cf. line 17 of the obverse, and line 16 of the reverse side of the tablet) is a precise description for the first appearance of the rising sun while the full moon is still visible above the horizon, and the angular distance that the moon has yet to travel towards the horizon before setting, I now have a very powerful tool for confirming the precise date for the beginning of the prior New Moon.

Given that said phrase is being used for the 14 day of Month 1, it follows that day 1 of Month 1 began on April 22, 568 BCE.

[Here is a brief review of my meanderings – that is, something that fooled me for a while - while on the path to learning this item re “one god was seen with the other: sunrise to moonset: x°: ”At sunset May 5 Jupiter was positioned below the moon while the two of them were rising above the eastern horizon, getting ever closer one to the other through the night, until setting together below the western horizon at the point of closest encounter (being situated 4.0 degrees from one another between “sunrise and moonset”) near sunrise the following morning, May 6. (Cf. line 16 of the reverse side: “one god was seen with the other…”) On the evening of May 6 the two of them could again be seen rising above the horizon while distancing one from the other… For a while I fooled myself into thinking that this must be considered confirmed evidence that the phrase “one god was seen with the other: sunrise to moonset: x°” was a reference to any combination of the sun, the moon, or planets… But, in the end, and not finding any such thing fitting line 17 obverse, I had to keep on searching for another solution...]

[22] Re “4°:”

Per SNB on May 6, 568 BCE, Baghdad horizon: Sunrise: 05:13:20; moonset: 05:28:49; lag: 15 min 29 sec. [(((15*60)+29)/(24*60*60))*360° = 3.87° ≈ 4°; An instance of a number being rounded up to the nearest higher integer.]

Re the phrase “sunrise to moonset: x°…”

Cf. also the somewhat similar phrases used in lines 11 & 12 and the corresponding footnotes #55 & 58; and also the very similar phrases in line 17 obverse and line 16’ reverse! Notice the 30’ precision in said lines 17 and 16’!

Re the whereabouts of the astronomer’s observation point:

Perhaps this precision relative to the horizon may help us in determining the point of observation, that is, by considering a higher vantage point of the observer? Let’s consider the nearest tall mountains some 150 miles (200 km) east of Baghdad! The tallest among the closest group of mountains is Kuh-e Manasht, aka. Manisht Mt., which is 2,620 meters (8,596 ft. at latitude 33° 41.4605’ N and longitude 46° 27.3728’ E per Google Earth) above sea level (cf. this link!,) or possibly the even taller Milagawan Mt. located another 47 km to the SW (2,773 meter, or 9094 ft, at latitude 33° 23.577' N and longitude 46° 46.870' E per Google Earth.) Unfortunately, I discovered what seems to be a bug in my older version of SNB, which hinders my pursuing this avenue presently… Cf. this link!

[23] The day beginning at sunset May 6, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor point for this date is the 14th day events and more… cf. footnote #4.)

[24] The day beginning at sunset May 7, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor point for this date is the 14th day events and more… cf. footnote #4.)

[25] On the 16^th, May 7, 568 BCE, the first star being seen near Venus at sunset is Pollux, β Gemini, which is traveling side by side with Venus at this time. A little later κ Gemini, Al Kirkab, became visible between the two and much closer to Venus. Also Mars is seen close by. Any of those may have been referenced upon the missing portion of the tablet at this point…

[26] The day beginning at sunset May 11, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor point for this date is the 14th day events and more… cf. footnote #4.)

[27] See the translator’s Comments re Obverse, line 5: “5: UGU-ME occurs also in rev. 16’ and 19’. It cannot designate a part of the day (as suggested by P.V.Neubebauer and E.Weidner) because in rev. 16 it appears during the night as well as during daytime. It is rather another weather phenomenon. Mentioned side by side with rain.” Cf. also Ann O’Maly’s work re Obv. line 5!

[28] The day beginning at sunset March 31, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor point for this date is the 14^th day of Month I events, and more… cf. footnote #4.) Without providing her basis for her claim Ann O’Maly states: “From the present text [VAT 4956] we can also derive the important fact that the 36th year of Nebuchadnezzar (-568/67) was a leap year with a second Adar…,” that is, per Ann O’Maly, “month XII” is a mistranslation (cf. Ann O’Maly’s comments re Obv. line 6.)

[29] The day beginning at sunset May 19, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor point for this date is the 14th day events and more… cf. footnote #4.)

[30] The day beginning at sunset May 23, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor points for this date are the 3^rd and 5^th day events of this month.)

Notice: Given the very precise observations provided in line #4, re the 14^th day and the “4°,” and in line #10, re Mars and Praesepe, I find that the 1^st month was being reckoned as having 31 days! That is, the 2^nd month began with the evening of May 23, 568 BCE, thus the translator’s interpretations re these particulars must be in error, as follows:

1. “Month II, the 1^st (of which followed the ~~30^th~~ 31^st of the preceding month…)” (line 8, obverse;)

2. “II 0=I 30 31 May ~~21/22~~ 22/23” (cf. Calendar entry)

3. “Month III, {the 1^stof which was identical with} the ~~30^th~~ 29^th (of the preceding month)” (line 12, obverse;)

4. “III 0=II 29 28 Jun 19/20” (cf. Calendar entry)

I see no other reason for this fact other than inclement weather at the end of the 1^st month and there being no convention introduced at this time such as would have, by default, established the beginning of the new month at the end of the 30^th day regardless.

Nonetheless, it may certainly be evidence also of a degree of uncertainty at the time, possibly in consequence of relatively recent interplanetary catastrophes near the beginning of the 7^th century BCE as also suggested in the books “Worlds in Collision,” “Earth in Upheaval,” and “Ages in Chaos” by Immanuel Velikovsky. (More at this link…)

[31] What does “while the sun stood there” mean (cf. lines 6’ & 12’ reverse?) Does it mean that the New Moon crescent became visible while the sun was still visible above the horizon at sunset? This would seem likely, especially considering the added comment “there was earthshine,” which I interpret to mean that the dark part of the moon was visible (after sunset) due to the reflected light from the earth. This would indicate also that the atmospheric conditions for visualizing the moon were very good. The statement “it was thick,” presumably referencing a large Moon (re “thick,” cf. also lines 12 obverse and footnotes #6 above, and #33 below!,) but may, particularly in this instance, be also a reference to a wide crescent, that is, considering that this is the 31^st day of the 1^st month! The preceding lines of the cuneiform tablet, lines 4 through 6, seems to indicate that the weather was not the best, thus it is very possible that no observation was possible on the preceding night, that is, even at the end of the 30^th day of the month. Thus, this month seems to have begun one day later than it could have, had the weather allowed… or had there been a 30^th day default, as is now commonly being practiced – yet, what basis do we have for an assumption of a like practice at that time???!

[32] On May 23, 568 BCE, the day when the New Moon crescent was first actually observed (cf. the statement “The 3^rd, Mars entered Praesepe. The 5^th, it went out (of it).,” [Ann O’Maly conveniently ignores those quoted words entirely in her comments, presumably because of the obvious fact that this data do not fit her doctrine re the default maximum of 30 days in any given month… That is she is giving priority to traditional teaching over and above the primary witness of the contemporary record.]) I notice that the New Moon crescent is located almost exactly 4 cubits below Venus! That is, 4º 10’ 14” angular separation between Venus and the crest of the New Moon. Thus, once more confirming a very small cubit, which is certainly less than 1.30º, that is, lest the measurement would have been recorded as 5º+:

If 1 cubit = 2° or less (1.3°-1.5° per my best estimation,) then the Akkadian behind the translation “β Geminorum” should be identified with Venus, which was certainly the only thing visible on the sky in the direction of the sun and the moon at that time before sunset! The moon was then positioned straight below Venus. (The angular separation, center to center, between the two of them was at that time 3° 53’ 17”. The corresponding measurement along the line of travel would be very slightly less than the angular separation. Based upon this measurement it would follow that 1 cubit = 0.97°.) However, if the measurement is from Venus to the distant edge of the Moon, that is, to the visible New Moon crescent, then the angular separation is 4° 10’ 42” and 1 cubit = 1.045°±0.131 (or at most ±0.261,) which corresponds to 1 cubit = between 0.914° and 1.176° (or at most between 0.784° and 1.306°.) (Or, if 1 cubit = 1.22°, then 4º 10’ 42” = 3.425 cubits, which number the astronomer rounded up to an even 4 cubits. Re 1 cubit = 1.22°, please cf. line 11 obv. & footnote #50!)

Comparing this value also with the accepted name for ρ Leonis, which Akkadian name means “the small star which is 4 cubits behind the king,” I find that the distance between those two luminaries is 6º 24’ 19”, which measurement is compatible with 1.20º < 1 cubit <2.00º. That is, 1.20º corresponding to 3.00 cubits, and 2.00º corresponding to 5.00 cubits. It follows, that, if 1 cubit ≈ 1.22º, then the rounding method used by the astronomers at that time would be such that any angular measurement between celestial luminaries is being rounded up to the next integer.

Ann O’Maly is suggesting that, on May 23, 568 BCE, based upon a 2.0° cubit, that “4 cubits below β ~~Berninorum~~ Geminorum” [cf. this link! :,) ] would fit “Pollux (beta Gem[ini])” but that requires a different definition of the word ‘below’ than I’m seeing elsewhere in VAT 4956, and also I find it very doubtful that Pollux “became visible while the sun stood there,” that is, along with the moon, both of them becoming visible before sunset – as seems to be the most natural way of understanding the translated words “the moon became visible while the sun stood there, 4 cubits below β ~~Berninorum~~ Geminorum.”

Upon once again closely considering the matter of which object the astronomer was actually looking at and recording in this instance, and seeing that:

1. The customary, and expected, reference in terms of “sunset to moonset: xº ” seems to be missing, while replaced instead with a reference to a prominent luminary on the sky.

- Notice that the “4 cubits” is far less than the height of the Moon above the horizon on any of the days when it was potentially visible: May 22, 568 BCE (24º+) and May 23, 568 BCE (38º+.)

- For May 21, 568 BCE, SNB provides, over the Baghdad horizon: Sunset: 18:47:11; moonset: 19:34:00; lag: 46 min 49 sec; illum.: 0.87%. Rarely, if ever is the New Moon being visible at such low illumination [although the very last New Moon report of 2014-03-31 – which was most definitely a record! - came very close indeed at 0.92% illumination and a lag of 53 min 0 sec!] At any rate, even if the New Moon would have been visible on May 21, 568 BCE, it would have still been well beyond the “4 cubits” above the horizon, and it would have happened at the end of the 29th day of the prior month, not at the end of the 30th or 31st! Besides “cubits” is not the qualifier typically being used for that measurement of the moon above the horizon.

2. the objects above described, β Geminorum, as conventionally named, do not seem a perfect fit with that which I can observe using my own Starry Night Backyard astronomy software;

3. the fact that the original cuneiform script on this part of Obv. line 8 seems to use more descriptive words than the usually abbreviated names for the luminaries; and

4. the fact that later generations tend to forget the meaning of words that are more commonly used only as names…

Well, I find cause for pausing and for considering whether the Akkadian words “šap MUL_x KUR EGIR ša MAŠ TAB GAL IGI” are not better translated in terms of descriptive words such as “the bowl [“šap;”of the faint New Moon crescent sealing the beginning of the new month] was conquered, outshone [“KUR,” the Moon] and delayed, from its rear [“EGIR,”] by that [“ša”] serpent [“MAŠ;” the fiery Venus] that doubles [“TAB;” crescent formed,] as a bowl, and which was growing, filling up, spilling over, and outshining in its grandeur [“GAL;” other luminaries that would have otherwise] been visible [“IGI;” that is, outshining in like manner as does the Moon as it too is filling,]” that is, while not translating those words in terms of any particular name.

[Historical note – The following text used to begin this footnote due to a flawed transcription of mine: Besides the β Berninorum of the constellation Coma Berenices, found at zenith of the sky at this time, angular separation from the moon = 62 degrees plus, I have not been able to identify anything named “Berninorum,” nor have I been able to identify anything located “4 cubits above,” relative to either the sun or the moon on May 22, -567. However, on the following day, May 23, 568 BCE, the day when the New Moon crescent was …]

[33] Perhaps ”thick” means ’large’ as in relatively close to Earth? Cf. footnote #57 below!

[34] Cf. footnote #31 above!

[35] Re the Saturn translation:

The ideogram “IGI,” translated “front,” has been variously translated in different settings, for instance as “eye, first, front, behold, recognize, see, witness, inspect, reverse/opposite.” Considering the actual position of Saturn on May 23, 568 BCE the word “front” would seem appropriate only if pertaining to δ or ε Piscium. The ideogram “ŠIM-MAH” or “SIM-MAH,” translated “Swallow” is usually understood as a reference to the ancient Babylonian constellation “the Great Swallow.” I find nothing in the Akkadian Dictionary on “ŠIM” but searching for “SIM” I find “sieved.” Searching “MAH” provides “exalted, of high rank, important.” I would find it interesting to see a comprehensive list of the ideogram “” for comparison with the corresponding astronomical relationships. In the meantime, a safer translation than “front” in this setting would be “seen,” that is, “Saturn was seen in the Swallow.”

Re the Mercury translation:

Re the translation “Mercury, which had set, was not visible” [“GU₄-UD šá ŠÚ NU IGI,”] considering the questionable value of a record of a non-observation, might perhaps be better translated in terms of “Mercury [“GU₄-UD”] that [“šá”]was seen [“IGI”] in conjunction [“NU”] with sunset [“ŠÚ.”]”

Mercury, which was on the opposite side of the Sun was at that time very bright. Per my SNB software it would have been potentially visible from 17:57:38 until it set at 18:58:51!

How often is Saturn in the Swallow?

What exactly is “the Swallow”?

“The Swallow was actually composed of a portion of Pisces together with epsilon Pegasi” (http://www.maverickscience.com/History/Retrocalculations/retrocalculations.html.)

“SIM.MAH = shinunutu: "The Swallow"; Western fish of Pisces” (http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/outside/starlog.html.)

[36] The day beginning at sunset May 23, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor points for this date are the 3^rd and 5^th day events of this month.)

[37] Re the translation “all day [….] stood […. In front] of Venus to the west” and the meaning of “kal U₄ [. . . . ina IGI] dele-bat ana ŠÙ GUB” or “kal úmu [ ] DIL-BAT ana ŠU illak:”

The translation “the west” corresponds to the ideogram “ŠÙ,” which is a word most closely associated with “sunset.”

Ann O’Maly is associating the word “ŠU” in this setting with “Venus… greatest elongation from the Sun….” This may seem sensible given that on May 23 and 24, 568 BCE Venus was approaching the apex of its height above the horizon which, more exactly, occurred around June 6, 568 BCE. However, if so, I would suggest that, in this setting, said apex would be more closely associated with the ideogram “GUB” than with “ŠU”.

Nevertheless, considering that the words under consideration are given in an association with an all-day event, where a “thick” New Moon crescent had been observed on the prior evening, and considering also that my SNB software shows Venus and the New Moon as visible throughout the light portion of May 24, 568 BCE, I believe that a better translation may be in terms of “all day [“kal U4”] [[the Moon]… was seen with “ina IGI”] Venus [“dele-bat”] until [“ana”] the sunset [“ŠÙ”] stood [“GUB.”]”

[38] The day beginning at sunset May 24, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor points for this date are the 3^rd and 5^th day events of this month.)

[39] The day beginning at sunset May 25, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor points for this date are the 3^rd and 5^th day events of this month.)

It follows that the 1^st day of the 2^nd month began with the evening of May 23, 568 BCE. Notice: This means that there were necessarily 31 days being reckoned for the 1^st month, and also that the 30^th was not being used as an automatic default in case of inclement weather! Cf. also the Calendar at the bottom of the page!

I find this being evidence for a degree of uncertainty at the time, possibly in consequence of relatively recent interplanetary catastrophes near the beginning of the 7^th century BCE as also suggested the data shared in the books “Worlds in Collision,” “Earth in Upheaval,” and “Ages in Chaos” by Immanuel Velikovsky.

[40] See the translator’s Comments re Obverse, line 10: “10: ALLA is used here not for the whole zodiacal constellation Cancer but only for Praesepe since Mars can pass through it within two days. As was remarked by P.V.Neugebauer and E.Weidner.”

These observations re Mars vs. Praesepe serve as a most definite and exact anchor point re Month #2, in line #10 of the cuneiform tablet: “The 3^rd, Mars entered Praesepe. The 5^th, it went out (of it).” These recorded observations were made in the evenings after the sunsets defining the beginning of the corresponding days, i.e. “The 3^rd“ and “The 5^th” of the 2^nd month.

[41] Praesepe, aka. the Beehive Cluster (cf. Wikipedia.)

[42] How often does Mars pass across Praesepe?

Trailing Mars forwards in time I find the following sequence: May 9-11, -597; April 14-16, -595…; May 25, -567; May 4-7, -565; April 8, -563; September 12-14, -562; August 18-20, -560…; June 29-30, -539; June 10-12, -537…; May 22, 535…; July 15, -509; June 25-26, -507…; August 19-20, -481; July 29-31, -479… Cf. footnotes #9 above and #60 below and notice the absence of concurrent events competing with the record in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37^th year of reign! And that’s looking at only three of these twenty-one celestial events!

(For further reference re the identification of Praesepe, please cf. e.g.: http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m044.html

and http://www.nexstarsite.com/NexStar50/NexStar50EncyclopediaSignori.pdf.)

[43] The day beginning at sunset May 27, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor points for this date are the 3^rd and 5^th day events of this month.)

It follows that the 1^st day of the 2^nd month began with the evening of May 23, 568 BCE. Notice: This means that there were necessarily 31 days being reckoned for the 1^st month, and also that the 30^th was not being used as an automatic default in case of inclement weather! Cf. also the Calendar at the bottom of the page!

I find this being evidence for a degree of uncertainty at the time, possibly in consequence of relatively recent interplanetary catastrophes near the beginning of the 7^th century BCE as also suggested in the books “Worlds in Collision,” “Earth in Upheaval,” and “Ages in Chaos” by Immanuel Velikovsky.

[44] The day beginning at sunset June 1, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor points for this date are the 3^rd and 5^th day events of this month.)

[45] Please notice the sequence of links from 1 to 7 showing Mercury rising (sic!) out of the Little Twin constellation and in pursuit of Venus, which is likewise rising - from day to day – towards their highest point above the horizon! Notice, however, that (per SNB) the brightest star in the Little Twin constellation (δ Gemini) [which is also the first star (within the entire Twin constellation) showing up in front of Mercury (in the direction of travel)] is first showing up when it is 1°+ above the western horizon, that is, only 5 min 22 sec before it set behind the horizon.

More at this link…

[Historical note in the nature of three finger pointing back to me!!!: Obvious translation error: Nothing ‘rises’ in the west! Mercury was only visible in the west and was setting. On the 10^th day, i.e. the evening of June 1, 568 BCE, Mercury is seen as setting behind the Normal Star of Gemini, i.e. δ Gemini or Wasat, which is the star of the constellation Gemini closest to the ecliptic.]

[46] “MAŠ-TAB” is the name associated with “the Great Twins.” “TAB” means “double, to begin, start,” corresponding to the Hebrew word “ketz” meaning “cut-off,” as in the “cut-off and beginning” of the new year. “Little” is a translation of the ideogram “TUR.” Re the three parts of the Twin constellation, please cf. Ann O’Maly’s work!

[47] The day beginning at sunset June 6, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor points for this date are the 3^rd and 5^th day events of this month.)

[48] The day beginning at sunset June 9, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor points for this date are the 3^rd and 5^th day events of this month.)

[49] See the translator’s Comments re Obverse, line 11: “11: A translation “was balanced” for LAL was proposed by A. Sachs. This expression seems to occur mostly (but not only) in those cases where both celestial bodies compared have the same longitude. It is restricted to the oldest diaries preserved so far. It probably went out of use because it was redundant: if no difference in longitude was mentioned one could conclude that there was none. – siv may be a mistake for the missing sign KUR “moonrise to sunrise.”

[50] Venus located 1 cubit 4 fingers = 1° 25’ 26” above α Leonis, Regulus. Given that, per ADT I, 1 finger = 1/24 cubit, this exact measurement provides a most excellent definition for the relationship between angular distance and cubits/fingers: 1 cubit = 1.220°±0.022° (or at most ±0.044°; that is 1 cubit = between 1.198° and 1.242° (or at most between 1.176° and 1.264°;)) 1 finger = 0.051 degrees or 3.05 minutes; 1 degree = 0.82 cubits=20 fingers; 1 minute = 0.0137 cubits or 0.328 fingers. (More at this link…)

[51] The day beginning at sunset June 17, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor points for this date are the 3^rd and 5^th day events of this month.)

[52] Notice that this calculated value of “23°” fits a potential observation on the 25^th day (the day beginning at sunset June 16, 568 BCE), not the 26^th(the day beginning at sunset June 17, 568 BCE)! On the 26^th day the record states: “I did not observe the moon.” Apparently, the observer made an error in his calculations and missed the expected observation by one day, such that when he looked for it on day 26 (June 18, 568 BCE,) the moon was too close to the sun for him to see it! Very possibly, this error was due to the delayed beginning of the month, which made month I 31 days long.

[53] Cf. footnote #52 above! Apparently the observer remained unaware of the delayed reckoning of the month, i.e. the reckoning that gave month I 31 days. In consequence he missed this anticipated observation of day 26 by one day and was unable to see the moon, which at that time was too close to the sun to be seen. Possibly this fact is being reflected also in the notations for the first day observations of months #2 (“Month II, the 1^st”) and month #3 (“Month III, the 30^th”,) regardless of all else?!!!

Perhaps the immediate reason for the error of the observer is to be found in his note of line 7 obverse: “Coughing and a little risutu-disease [….,]” that is, the observer was sick enough to miss one day in his reckoning… What he himself attributed his error to is anybody’s guess! So is any potential attempt of his to cover up, or explain to himself and/or others, the reason for his error. Quite possibly he never recognized that the error was his own… If so, typically human behavior! Perhaps too, the explanation was part of the lost last portion of line 7 obverse?

[Historical note – My prior reasoning: The 23deg – 11deg = 12 deg difference between actual and calculated, as here evidenced could well be an indication of relatively recent prior interplanetary catastrophes! For isn’t it true that, if that was indeed the case, then such calculations would most likely be based upon past, but no longer current, behavior of the moon? And, if so, then the observer’s calculations, based as they were upon now obsoleted thinking, would consistently be off target when compared to actual observations, wouldn’t they? Indeed, what better incentive could there have been for a careful restudy of the heavens… and of producing a record such as VAT 4956?!!!]

[54] The day beginning at sunset June 18, 568 BCE. (Primary anchor points for this date are the 3^rd and 5^th day events of this month.)

[55] Re the translator’s note re line 11 obverse: Could it be that the Akkadian KUR (cf. line 8 obv. under the link!) is a word pertaining to an actual observation, while the word found on the tablet, siv, is a different Akkadian word pertaining to theoretical calculation based upon prior experiences??? Cf. VAT 4956 transcript: Line #8 re KUR and line #11 re siv.

[56] The day beginning at sunset June 20, 568 BCE. (The 15^th day of this 3^rd month constitutes the primary anchor point for this 3^rd month.)

[57] I don’t know what “thick” may mean in this setting??? Possibly that the Moon was very large, that is relatively close to Earth? Cf. line #8 and footnote #33! Given that there was a total solar eclipse on June 20, 568 BCE, I find that on the NASA solar eclipse page the ‘Eclipse Magnitude,’ which corresponds to the lunar diameter/solar diameter ratio, was quite large, 1.0659, I find support for the Akkadian word translated “thick” quite possibly referencing the apparent size of the moon.

[58] It is obvious from the context that the phrase “sunset to moonset: 20°” indicates that at the time of sunset the Moon was trailing the Sun with an angular distance of “20°.” Cf. the link and also the related phrases found in lines ## 4, 11, 12, 17 obverse, and 5, 8, 12, & 16 on the reverse side of the tablet!

[59] Line 13 obverse is confirmation that line 12 is indeed June 20, 568 BCE and not June 21. The angular distance between Romulus and Mars at the time when Mars was first becoming visible was 7° 25’ 05” and between Romulus and Mercury is 7° 39’ 39”. Measured along the line of travel (i.e. along the celestial latitude) the distance was, when Mars was first becoming visible in the twilight, 7° 06’ 11”, and at the time Mars set, 7° 03’ 20”, which then gives us 1 cubit = 1.776°±0.222° (or at most ±0.444,) and 1 cubit = 1.764°±0.220° (or at most ±0.441,) respectively, that is, combining we get 1 cubit = between 1.544° and 1.998°. In other words, dividing the angular separation by 4 cubits gives us, if 4 is considered a number rounded down to the nearest integer, that is, anything less than 5 cubits, then 1 cubit >= 1.544°, which should be compared to our results for line 11 and footnote #50 where we arrived at 1 cubit = at most between 1.176° and 1.264°, which latter value for the cubit should probably be considered the more accurate number considering the more precise measurement, that is, “1 cubit 4 fingers.”

[60] How often is Jupiter in Scorpius?

I found the following occasions when tracing Jupiter in Starry Night Backyard software: June -579; June -567; November -556; November -544; October -532; October -520; September -508; May -496; July -484; November -473; i.e. every 12 years or so. Cf. footnotes #9 and #42 above and notice the absence of concurrent events competing with the record in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37^th year of reign! And that’s looking at only three of these twenty-one plus celestial events!

[61] Notice (but cf. the next paragraph!) that at the time when Regulus (α Leonis,) a Normal Star for the Lion, first became visible over the darkening evening sky, Venus was located an equal distance (12º 26’) from Regulus as was of the Moon (12º 53’ on the opposite side of Regulus,) thus the words of the tablet: “Venus was in the west opposite α Leonis.”

Alternatively, and probably more correctly, especially considering the meaning of “KUN” (BecomingOne) or “zibbati” (Ann O’Maly, p. 31,) the reference is to Venus standing opposite to the rump of Leonis (as represented by δ Leonis, which was located on roughly the same celestial longitude as Venus at that time.) [Although the copy of BecomingOne’s translation was not clear enough for me to distinguish the ‘δ’ from ‘α’ or from ‘{},’ ‘δ’ now seems the most likely contender.]

[62] See the translator’s Comments re Obverse, line 13: “13: One is inclined to regard åer+tam DIB as an equivalent of and NIM DIB. But this is rendered uncertain by the occurrence of the latter expression in line 14 and elsewhere: in addition, ana berti is expected.”

[63] The day beginning at sunset June 24, 568 BCE. (The 15^th day constitutes the primary anchor point for this 3^rd month.)

[64] Comparing 1) line 3 obverse and footnote #15 above and the Akkadian words translated “β Virginia” with 2) this line 14 and the words translated “the bright star of the end of the Lion’s foot,” I find that the record on VAT 4956 indicates that the very same star is being referenced in both of those lines, that is, Porrima (γ Virginia.) Apparently the ancients considered the star Porrima the end of the tail of the Lion. As seen by the artwork of the Lion and the Lion’s coiled tail relative to Porrima upon this sky map, this situation is quite well described by the words of the tablet, if the original Akkadian words are understood in terms of ‘the bright star of the end of the Lion’s tail!’

[65] The day beginning at sunset June 25, 568 BCE. (The 15^th day constitutes the primary anchor point for this 3^rd month.)

[66] Cf. footnote #62.

[67] The day beginning at sunset June 27, 568 BCE. (The 15^th day constitutes the primary anchor point for this 3^rd month.)

[68] β Libra, Zubeneschamali, is the northernmost star in Libra.

Shortly after 6 PM on June 27, 568 BCE the Moon was passing [towards the left in the picture] between the ecliptic and β Libra, at which point the Moon was also at its closest point below β Libra. The angular separation between the Moon and β Libra was at that closest point 3° 24’ 23” after which it gradually grew larger…

Accordingly, said angular separation being the least possible, as observed on that evening, I obtain 1 cubit = 1.363°±0.136° (or at most ±0.273°.) That gives us 1 cubit = between 1.227° and 1.499° (or at most between 1.090° and 1.636°.) Which agrees very well indeed with my results elsewhere within VAT4956.

Seeing that this measurement was observable only at the time during twilight when β Libra was first becoming visible, I can also conclude that the words translated “first part of the night” must necessarily include that point in time when a certain star is first becoming visible during twilight. To me that is an important definition to know! Cf. the historical memo before vs. the cubit assessments of others before me!

[Historical note in memo of older considerations: The angular distance, center to center, between β Librae and the Moon on June 27, 568 BCE was, per Starry Night Backyard, 4° 18’ 28”, which gives us 1 cubit = 2.03°. However, if we measure the distance from edge to edge, then the distance is 4° 03’ 40”, which gives us 1 cubit = 1.62° (1.35° [3.0 cubits] - 1.48° [2.75 cubits] - 1.62° [2.5 cubits] - 1.80° [2.25 cubits] - 2.03° [2.0 cubits,]) which agrees with my findings elsewhere in VAT 4956. Similarly if the distance is measured as the distance below the celestial North Pole, 3° 59’ 00”, then 1 cubit = 1.59° (1.33° [3.0 cubits] - 1.45° [2.75 cubits] - 1.59° [2.5 cubits] - 1.77° [2.25 cubits] - 1.99° [2.0 cubits;] and to the edge of the Moon, 3° 46’ 00”, then 1 cubit = 1.51° (1.26° [3.0 cubits] - 1.37° [2.75 cubits] - 1.51° [2.5 cubits] - 1.67° [2.25 cubits] - 1.88° [2.0 cubits.])

[This particular record, along with others, seems to indicate a practice of rounding down from the next higher value of precision (re cubits) being used in the given value… (But this requires additional confirmation and study…)]

[69] The day beginning at sunset June 28, 568 BCE. (The 15^th day constitutes the primary anchor point for this 3^rd month.)

[70] Reviewing this event, I find no real certain contender for the object of the 1 cubit measurement. If the translation “in front of…” is correct, then I find the best contender being ν Scorpii, which was located 1 cubit = 1.2° behind the front edge of the Moon at about 11 PM on June 28, 568 BCE. However, seeing that the Akkadian words, transliterated “ina pân” or “ina IGI,” means “before, in the presence of” or “seen, etc.,” (cf. footnotes ##8 and 35!) there are also other smaller stars at the distance of 1 cubit that could be considered. Perhaps a comet or other celestial event could be considered???

[Historical memo of prior considerations: “1 cubit in front of…” Well, it seems to me as though the choice of reference star is typically the first adjacent visible star at nightfall, which is also a Normal Star, that is, a star close to the ecliptic. That being considered, it seems most likely that the missing reference star at this point is Graffias, β1 Scorpii.

[Measuring from the front of the moon, in the direction of travel upon the sky, towards the position of Graffias the distance is approximately 1 cubit or 1.7°.]

[71] Per the VAT 4956 transliteration found in Ann O’Maly’s work, the cuneiform provides ‘8’, not ‘9.’ Nothing to that effect is indicated in the transliteration provided at BecomingOne, only ‘9’ is given. I do not know why?

The day beginning at sunset June 28, 568 BCE. (The 15^th day constitutes the primary anchor point for this 3^rd month.)

[72] Notice: The summer solstice in 568 BCE occurred on June 29, 568 BCE, at 2PM. Due to our movement around our galaxy it gradually changes such that it is currently happening around June 21 each year!

[73] The day beginning at sunset June 29, 568 BCE. (The 15^th day constitutes the primary anchor point for this 3^rd month.)

[74] Having established for myself that the cuneiform behind the words “was balanced” are best understood in terms of “an orthogonal measurement” between two luminaries relative to the celestial longitudes or latitudes, I may now focus upon the measurement “3 ½ cubits.” Finding the angular separation between the lower edge of the Moon and Antares being 5° 42’ 11” I may now deduce that 1 cubit = 1.629°±0.116° (or at most ±0.233°.) However, knowing the resemblance between the cuneiforms for 3 vs. 4 while seeing also that 1.6°± is a considerably larger cubit than what I am seeing elsewhere within VAT 4956, I suspect that the original recording on the clay tablet is 4 ½ and not 3 ½. If the correct measurement is 4 ½ cubits, then this observation provides that 1 cubit = 1.267°±0.070° (or at most ±0.141°.) That is, 1 cubit = between 1.197° and 1.337° (or at most between 1.126° and 1.408°,) which agrees perfectly well with my findings elsewhere within VAT 4956.

[Historical note in memo of prior considerations: Indeed, the moon was “balanced” almost straight above α Scorpii, aka. Antares, at 1:10 AM, when Antares was setting below the western horizon. But that is by no means the “first part of the night,” and so far as I can tell the distance then was about 6 cubits, that is, about 7.8° angular distance… More likely, to me, is 24 Ochiuchi, which was indeed located 3.5 cubits, i.e. 5.0°, straight below the moon and which became visible around 8:28 PM on June 29, 568 BCE! 24 Ochiuchi is the star in that area that is closest to the ecliptic and the one lightening up first at nightfall of the two, but its very close contender is 26 Ochiuchi, which in some respects may be a more likely candidate?

[If, on the other hand I consider “balanced” meaning something quite different than straight above or below a given reference, perhaps, in this case, in terms of “balanced across Jupiter,” that is, given the 7:36 PM scenario when only the three of them were visible in that area of the sky? In that case I find the Moon being located about 5° 45’ closer to the celestial North Pole and about 4° 45’ higher above the horizon than Antares, α Scorpii. Perhaps these measurements may help me better understand the term ‘above?’

[Well, 5° 45’ would correspond to 1 cubit = 1.64° (1.92° [3.0 cubits] - 1.77° [3.25 cubits] - 1.64° [3.5 cubits] - 1.53° [3.75 cubits] - 1.44° [4.0 cubits,]) while 4° 45’ would correspond to 1 cubit = 1.36° (1.58° [3.0 cubits] - 1.46° [3.25 cubits] - 1.36° [3.5 cubits] - 1.27° [3.75 cubits] - 1.19° [4.0 cubits.]) Accordingly, and based upon my prior, more exact finding (cf. footnote #50) re the length of the cubit, I find that the word ‘above’ in this setting is much more likely a reference to the horizon of the Earth, than a reference to the celestial North and South Poles. For an apparently different application of the word ‘above’ please cf. footnote #76 below.]

[75] The day beginning at sunset July 1, 568 BCE. (The 15^th day constitutes the primary anchor point for this 3^rd month.)

[76] I do not know why?, but Ann O’Maly, and her VAT 4956 cuneiform transliteration, is providing a blank “[ ]” where BecomingOne is providing “[LUGAL . . . . ,]” that is, α Leonis aka. Regulus. Nevertheless…

The angular separation, center to center, between Mars and α Leonis, at the time when Mars first became visible on July 1, 568 BCE was 0° 57’ 41”. Having recognized that ‘above’ is to be understood in terms of the orthogonal distance between two luminaries as measured along the celestial longitude, the corresponding measurement is 0° 55’ 19”, which gives me 1 cubit = 1.383°±0.346 (or at most ±0.691°,) which corresponds to 1 cubit = between 1.037° and 1.729° (or at most between 0.691° and 2.074°.)

[Historical note in memory of past considerations: It appears from this sentence that ‘above’ is not a reference to the horizon, but is a reference to the south pole of the sky, or else, Mars is being referenced as being ever so slightly “above,” that is, higher over the horizon, than was α Leonis, that is, while the ‘above’ is not associated with the “2/3 cubit” measurement. The latter would indicate as a more correct translation something on the order of “Mars was 2/3 cubits away from and slightly above [α Leonis….]” For an apparently different application of the word ‘above’ please cf. footnote #74 above!

[In this instance then, I find that the word ‘above’ is most likely a reference to the celestial North and South Poles.]

[77] The day beginning at sunset July 4, 568 BCE. (This 15^th day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 3^rd month.) It follows that the beginning of the 1^st day of the 3^rd month is ascertained to the evening of June 20, 568 BCE.

[78] As may be seen from the linked sky map the moon is indeed very close to 7° 30’ above the western horizon at sunrise!

[79] This partial lunar eclipse had its maximum at 1:52 PM, Babylonian local time, and was therefore not visible from the Babylonian horizon. Cf. these NASA links: 1) Data table, 2) diagram, 3) Key to terms used, e.g. TD, Dynamical Time for the event maximum, which UT time must be corrected by the number of seconds listed under ΔT, that is TD- ΔT=UT. Then add 3:00 hrs to UT for local time in Babylon. An easier way of finding the timing for eclipses is by looking in the NASA Phases of the Moon table, where the UT time is given for each event.

[80] “The moon…” may be an error for “Venus…” (cf. footnote #81 below!) If correct, then this part of the record pertains to an observation on day 16 of month III [July 5, 568 BCE.] More at this link…

[81] I’ve found three good contenders for this incompletely recorded event:

1) “[…. The moon was be…]” is quite possibly the translator’s error for what could be “[…. Venus was be…]”

“Obv. 18 [ … sha]p MULxKUR sha TIL GÌ[R UR.A ...] is in the translation, according to the astronomical finding, to be amended ..[... Venus was be]low ...', not ..[... the moon was be]low the bright star at the end of the [Lion's] foot [....]', whereby the contradiction is also resolved that the moon was said to have been observed twice near the same fixed star, here beta Virginis, within the same Babylonian month, see Obv. 14 (III 5 = 23. June -567) with Obv. 18 (III [16] = 5. July -567).” – J. Koch, JCS 49, 1997, page 84, footnote 7 [translated from the German]. More at this link…

[Historical note - (An error of mine based upon my astro-software being set such that the moon was being enlarged on the screen view. There was no eclipse visible from that horizon!:) Notice this one!!!: This is a rather perfect description of a quite brief, very unique, event at sunset, where the Moon, while almost eclipsing the Sun, is no doubt contributing to an unusually quick darkness such that both the moon and the brightest star, Regulus, aka. Alpha Lionis, are becoming visible while very close to the sun!!! A very notable event indeed!!! This event happened at about 7:15 PM on July 18, 568 BCE, that is, on the 29^th day of the 3^rd month!]

2) This may be part of the description of the New Moon crescent observation of Month IV, in which case this may be a reference to July 19, 568 BCE and the star Denebola.

3) Learning from the star, Porrima, which is almost certainly being referenced at least twice above (cf. footnotes #15 and #64 above!) on VAT 4956, this is a very similar description, “the bright star at the end of the [Lion’s| foot.” If Porrima is indeed the star here being referenced, then this is an event that happened on July 21, 568 BCE, that is, on, most likely, the 3^rd day of the 4^th month.

[82] The day beginning at sunset February 1, 567 BCE. (Given the preciseness of the New Moon observation on line 5’,

the 1^st day of Month XI constitutes a reliable primary anchor point for this 10^th month.)

[83] Seeing that Venus was not visible in the evening it is clear that this observation pertains to the morning of February 2, 567 BCE.

As measured orthogonally along the longitude, when last visible at dawn, on the morning of February 2, Venus and β Capricorni were separated by 4° 08’ 39”, corresponding to 1 cubit = 1.658°±0.166° (or at most ±0.332°) corresponding to 1 cubit = between 1.492° and 1.823° (or at most between 1.326° and 1.989°.)

Seeing that this provides a considerably longer cubit than found elsewhere within VAT 4956, it may be of interest to consider also the corresponding measurements pertaining to the adjoining days: So doing, I find that placing the observation on February 3, 567 BCE would have resulted in an even longer cubit… A February 1, 567 BCE observation would have been slightly better, but not much. That is, as measured orthogonally along the longitude, on the morning of February 1 Venus and β Capricorni were separated by 4° 04’ 46”, corresponding to 1 cubit = 1.632°±0.163° (or at most ±0.326°) corresponding to 1 cubit = between 1.469° and 1.795° (or at most between 1.305° and 1.958°.)

Seeing that the cuneiforms for ‘2’ and ‘3’ are sufficiently similar for being misread, I would consider the possibility that the correct reading of this observation should be 3 ½ cubits. If so, then I obtain 1 cubit = 1.184°±0.085° (or at most ±0.169°) corresponding to 1 cubit = between 1.099° and 1.269° (or at most between 1.015° and 1.353°.)

In her work Ann O’Maly identifies β Capricorni by the name ‘the middle star of Capricorn’s horn.’

[84] Considering the differences between the VAT 4956 transliterations being used by BecomingOne and by Ann O’Maly, I find it significant to notice in particular the different numbers provided for this line 4’, that is, ‘2(b)’ and ‘4(b)’ vs. ’12 KA’ and ’60 KA.’ Cf. also the corresponding translations and comments provided by BecomingOne and by Ann O’Maly…

[85] The day beginning at sunset February 12, 567 BCE. (This 1^st day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 11^th month.)

[86] I find a bit of an inconsistency in this report: Elsewhere within VAT 4956 these measurements seem to be consistent with the distance as measured between the front end of the Sun and the latter edge of the visible portion of the Moon. That is as observed by timing the sunset and the moonset. However, in this instance such a measurement would be 16° 03’ 09”.

I find a possible explanation for the difference between that measurement, and between the recorded measurement of 14° 30’, being that, on this occasion, the measurement was done by means of an actual measurement of the observed lunar crescent and the horizon. That is, along the celestial latitude. (That is, in contradistinction to making the measurement by means of measuring the time between the Sun’s front end touching the horizon and the Moon’s last visibility over a flat horizon.) Seeing that the difference between these two measures is much too small, this inconsistency cannot be corrected by looking for an observation on the day before or after.

[Historical note in memo of past considerations: On February 12, 567 BCE at sunset, the angular separation between the sun and the moon was 15° 50’ 16”, measured along the ecliptic, however, the distance between the sun and the moon, as measured above the horizon, was 14° 30’. Is this an important reference for how to measure this distance?]

[87] See the translator’s Comments re Reverse of clay tablet, line 5’: “5’: The “elbow of Sagittarius” was identified as the cluster of stars around π Sagittarii by P.V.Neugebauer. op.cit. 50f.”

Per Wikipedia “π Sagittarii” is the same as Albaldah.

At the time of Albadah’s last visibility in the morning of the 1^st = February 13, 567 BCE the orthogonal distance, as measured along the celestial equator, between Jupiter and Albaldah was 1° 33’ 46”. This corresponds to 1 cubit = 1.563°±0.781° (or at most ±1.563°,) corresponding to 1 cubit = between 0.781° and 2.344° (or at most 1 cubit = between 0° and 3.126°.)

[Historical note in memo of past considerations: In the morning of the 1^st = February 13, 567 BCE Jupiter and Albaldah were separated as follows: 1) Measured along the ecliptic: 1° 42’ 50”, 2) measured along the line of travel: 1° 27’ 08”, and 3) angular separation: 2° 20’ 09”. (As may be noted the measurement along the line of travel is most consistent with my prior calculations of the length of the cubit.)]

[88] The day beginning at sunset February 15, 567 BCE. (The 1^st day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 11^th month.)

[89] I see nothing suggesting itself that corresponds to the words “Venus was balanced ½ cubit below (sic) Capricorn.” Whomever entered the “(sic)” apparently felt likewise…

The closest luminary I find to a fit the record is 42 Capricornii, which was the last adjacent star to Venus being visible at dawn that morning. The orthogonal distance along the celestial longitude when last visible (per SNB) was 0° 21’ 33”. But that provides quite a poor fit per our findings for the cubit length elsewhere within VAT 4956: I.e. 1 cubit = 0.718°±0.359° (or at most ±0.718°,) corresponding to 1 cubit = between 0.359° and 1.078° (or at most 1 cubit = between 0° and 1.437°.)

[90] The day beginning at sunset February 17, 567 BCE. (The 1^st day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 11^th month.)

[91] “The Chariot” = Auriga” (??; cf. Wikipedia!) However, Ann O’Maly, Weidner, et.al. are defining the Chariot as “β + ζ Tauri Narkaptu “Chariot” (cf. footnote #6!) Both of these definitions fit this halo of the Moon. Re halos, cf. footnote #111!

[92] Obviously day 11 of the month; the day beginning at sunset February 22, 567 BCE. (The 1^st day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 11^th month.) Re the halo, cf. footnote #111!

[93] Although the Moon should have been visible before sunrise on February 25, the “17°,” indicates a date most consistent with February 26, 567 BCE, i.e. the day beginning at sunset February 25, 567 BCE; i.e. day 14 of the month. (The 1^st day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 11^th month.)

[94] The day beginning at sunset February 15, 567 BCE. (The 1^st day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 11^th month.)

[95] The day beginning at sunset February 26, 567 BCE. (The 1^st day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 11^th month.)

[96] The day beginning at sunset February 27, 567 BCE. (The 1^st day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 11^th month.)

[97] The day beginning at sunset March 1, 567 BCE. (The 1^st day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 11^th month.)

[98] The day beginning at sunset March 5, 567 BCE. (The 1^st day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 11^th month.)

[99] The day beginning at sunset March 6, 567 BCE. (The 1^st day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 11^th month.)

[100] Too many unknowns!: I don’t know how to fit this rather strange sounding translation upon the sky?

[101] The day beginning at sunset March 3, 567 BCE. (The 1^st day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 11^th month.)

[102] The day beginning at sunset March 14, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[103] The day beginning at sunset March 14, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[104] The day beginning at sunset March 15, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[105] The orthogonal distance, as measured along the celestial longitude, between the Moon and η Taurii=Alcyone was 6° 52’ 08”. This corresponds to 1 cubit = 1.717°±0.215° (or at most ±0.429°,) corresponding to 1 cubit = between 1.503° and 1.932° (or at most 1 cubit = between 1.288° and 2.147°.)

Another alternative?:The orthogonal distance, as measured along the celestial longitude, between the Moon and ε Taurii=Ain=Oculus Borealis was 4° 09’ 03”. This corresponds to 1 cubit = 1.038°±0.130° (or at most ±0.259°,) corresponding to 1 cubit = between 0.908° and 1.167° (or at most 1 cubit = between 0.778° and 1.297°.)

A third alternative?:The orthogonal distance, as measured along the celestial longitude, between the Moon and 37 Taurii was 5° 36’ 16”. This corresponds to 1 cubit = 1.401°±0.175° (or at most ±0.350°,) corresponding to 1 cubit = between 1.226° and 1.576° (or at most 1 cubit = between 1.051° and 1.751°.)

[106] The day beginning at sunset March 16, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[107] See the translator’s Comments re Reverse of clay tablet, line 13’: “13’: in the broken part at the end of the line. A reference to the moon being close to the Normal Star α Tauri is expected.”

[108] The day beginning at sunset March 14, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[109] The day beginning at sunset March 18, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[110] The day beginning at sunset March 19, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[111] The day beginning at sunset March 20, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[112] Notice re the size of lunar halos: The radius of inner edge of a lunar halo is 22º or 23º. In this instance we find α Leonis at <19º from the Moon and Praesepe at <5º. Cf. line 6’, line 7’, and Assurbanipal’s astronomical observations from 654/653 BCE (BM 32312,) footnote at Col. iii, line 5’!

[113] See the translator’s Comments re Reverse of clay tablet, line 15’: “15’: The broken star name must have been α Leonis.”

[114] The day beginning at sunset March 23, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[115] The day beginning at sunset March 24, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[116] The day beginning at sunset March 25, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month…)

[117] The day beginning at sunset March 25, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 12^th month.) It follows that the beginning of the 1^st day of the 12^th month is ascertained to the evening of March 14, 567 BCE, which is also the first anticipated date of visibility per the NASA Phases of the Moon tables.

[118] [A bit of history re my road to discovery: Re “one god was seen with the other: sunrise to moonset: 1° 30’:” Initially I was being fooled by these facts of coincidence: (Cf. Obv[erse,] line 4, including also footnote #22!) Here we have Saturn, Venus, and Mercury in close encounter one with the others; shortly after rising above the horizon at 5:15 AM on March 27, 567 BCE Saturn was located 1° 36’ from Mercury and 1° 39’ from Venus. That would have tied the 12^th day of the 12^th Moon to the day beginning at sunset March 26 and thus also the 1^st day of the 12^th Moon to the evening of March 15, 567 BCE. Per the NASA Phases of the Moon tables the New Moon crescent would have been visible on March 14, the weather allowing. Considering the frequency of inclement weather in the winter, it certainly would not have been beyond reason to accept then March 15, 567 BCE as a confirmation for such a flawed assumption of mine, would it?!!! Thus, it pays to be persistent and to humbly pursue any further obstacle… Which I did…]

[119] See the translator’s Comments re Reverse of clay tablet, line 17’: “17’: According to computation. Saturn has to be restored at the end of the line.”

[120] If I am reading this correctly, the day beginning at sunset March 28, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day constitutes a primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[121] It seems to me as though the distances to Venus and Mercury have been mixed up??? If this conclusion is correct??, then it follows that 1 finger is 6-7.5 minutes or .10 - .13 degrees. Also that 1 cubit = 2.4-3.0 degrees. That does not fit my prior findings… Probably a misunderstood of mine…

Without giving her support for so doing, Ann O’Maly has resolved this problem by exchanging “3 S[I]” (= “3 fingers”) for “2/3 Ú” (=“2/3 cubit.”) [That is, I am not sure I understand the basis for the many differences I am seeing between the transliterations use by BecomingOne and between Ann O’Maly’s work.] Comparing the cuneiforms for “SI” (cf. ‘SI; finger,’ ‘finger,’) and “KÚŠ” (cf. ‘ KÚŠ; cubit, forearm,’ ‘aslu; cubit,’ ‘UŠ; stadium,’ ‘MA.DA; cf. 'finger',’) I do see a slight resemblance between primarily ‘MA.DA,’ and ‘ finger’ but nothing conclusive, most especially seeing that I do not positively know what the cuneiforms look like on VAT4956…

A word re the Babylonian ‘cubit’ being referenced in the Akkadian Dictionary: Comparing said “6 fingers” vs. said “2/3 cubit” I certainly find a much greater compatibility between the recorded distances of this line vs the corresponding angular separation provided by my SNB astronomy software when using 1 cubit = 24 fingers, than I do if using 1 cubit = 30 fingers. Accordingly, I find no reason to disagree with the 1/24 relationship being used by most other students of these astronomy clay tablets.

Ann O’Maly’s solution results in 1 cubit =1.17° ±0.29° ([i.e. between 0.88° and 1.46°] or at most ±0.58° [i.e. between 0.59° and 1.75°]; and 1 finger = 0.0455° = 2.73’±0.23’ (or at most ±0.45’.) This agrees well with my prior findings (cf. footnote #50!)

Also this particular event is totally incompatible with ‘balanced’ meaning orthogonal to the horizon seen by the observer. But neither is it compatible with being a reference unto two luminaries being located along a common celestial longitude. However, I do find it compatible with being a reference to two luminaries on either side of a third luminary, that is, in a horizontal direction parallel to the observer’s horizon, or else just in terms of “two luminaries being located on either side a third (whether in terms of the horizon or along the celestial equator!) That is, while the words ‘above’ and ‘below’ are giving reference to a measurement along the celestial longitude! Looking at the cuneiform word behind ‘LAL,’ however, I believe the answer to this question might easily be perceived in terms of anything being measured by means of an orthogonal tool, for instance, when measuring the distance between any two luminaries along the line of the celestial longitude!

[122] “The bright star” here referenced can be none other than λ Aquarii. “2/3 cubits” vs. 1° 3’ 32” gives me 1 cubit = 1.59°±0.40° ([i.e. between 1.19° and 1.99°] or at most ±0.79° [i.e. between 0.8° and 2.38°]) degrees. Combining the three observations recorded on line 18’ gives me 1 cubit = between 1.19° and 1.46° (and certainly between 0.80° and 1.75°.) Cf. Ann O’Maly’s comments re λ Aquarii and re the commonly accepted length of the cubit.

[123] The day beginning at sunset April 3, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[124] The day beginning at sunset April 2, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[125] Re “the Swallow:” Cf. Obv[erse,] line 2.

[126] The day beginning at sunset April 8, 567 BCE. (The 1^st and the 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[127] The day beginning at sunset April 8, 567 BCE. (The 12^th day events constitute the primary anchor point for this 12^th month.)

[128] The day beginning at sunset April 13 (or possibly 14,) 567 BCE [cf. the 31 days of the 1^st month of year 37; line 8 obverse side.] (The events of the 12^th day of the preceding 12^th month constitute the primary anchor point for this 1^st day of the 1^st month.)

[129] Transcribed out of vat4956translit.htm.

[130] Please cf. my comment re KUR and siv under footnote #55!

[131] Day #1 began with the evening April 22.

[132] My corrections: Day #1 began with the evening May 23.

[133] My corrections: Day #1 began with the evening June 20.

[134] Day #1 began with the evening March 14.

[135] My corrections: This entry of the translator is inconsistent with his own introductory Remarks on Translation and his corresponding specific phraseology as used for line 1, lower edge. Thus, Day #1 began with the evening April 13, 567 BCE.