The effect of the Earth's rotational motion

When eclipses from a slightly more distant past are examined, even great shortcomings can be noticed in them.

There are three different reasons for this. The first is that, despite NASA’s assurances, there may still be some pretty significant flaw in the way they calculate.

Another option is that in ancient times something significant has happened in history that causes retrospective disturbances in the measurement of time for that time.

The third option is that there are unknown large gaps in researchers' knowledge of the course of history.

This dissertation assumes that NASA has made quite the right calculations for the location of the solar eclipses.

Let's look at that second option. And has anything special happened in history in relation to this? Such a significant event is mentioned in the Bible in 2 Kings 20, verses 9-11, where it is said, somewhat indirectly, that 'the shadow moved back 10 steps'. This happened when Hezekiah was king of Judah. What happened in practice at that time that caused the shadow to move is a matter of some conjecture. However, many have considered it very possible that the earth rotated backwards somewhat.

Another possibility would be that an object that made the shadow moved.

The fact that we are investigating an event beyond the comprehension of such a person (which can therefore be described as a "miracle") should come as no surprise to those who, in their own words, "believe in nothing". This is because this book is literally looking at things through pure science. Pure science does not ignore the fact that there may be things in the universe that humans cannot quite understand straight away. If, on the other hand, pure science were to be ignored and things considered from a purely human perspective, then the possibility of such events would be ignored. Those who think it is impossible to imagine that the Earth could have spun backwards cannot deny the existence of powerful 'disturbances': many recorded eclipses cannot be properly found if strict scientific criteria are used. On the other hand, they themselves can 'believe' in things that are completely beyond human comprehension, such as giant 'black holes' in space.

In any case, the undersigned is not qualified enough to question how well NASA scientists know their job. In dealing with this very special event, the author does so because he himself wants to know if there are eclipses recorded in ancient times when strict conditions are applied to them without compromising the research conducted by NASA.

Effect on gravity of earth

Many may, however, raise interesting questions about how such a rapid cessation and reversal of the Earth’s rotation, stopping again and again from spinning in the right direction, could affect life on earth. Finnish physicist Timo Suvanto has studied and considered this issue.

He states: "At the equator man feels 0.3% lighter than he would feel if the Earth did not rotate." This means that the Earth's gravity would feel 0.3% higher if the Earth stopped rotating. A greater impact would be made by his following assessment: “If the rotation of the earth suddenly ceased. . . an observer on the equator would take off like an alder spear with everything else loose at a speed of 1700 km/h when the factor of celestial body presses the brake to stop the earth's rotation.” This would be quite a catastrophe, that would remove the ground-work for the theory I put forward that this could have happened.

However, this latter theory of physicist Suvanto is a rounded figure, not mathematically calculated. It is based on the assumption that the Earth's rotational speed on its axis - the highest at the equator - is about 1670 km/h. The Earth's sense of stagnation is also influenced by the Earth's gravitational pull and the atmosphere. In order for loose objects on the Earth (including people outside) to 'continue their journey' at that speed of 1670 km/h when the Earth's rotation stops, the Earth's gravity would also have to be greatly reduced. However, this does not happen, but the earth starts to hold on "tighter" to all movable objects. So how does the Earth's atmosphere work?

The atmosphere around us is constantly in the same motion as we humans, as it “rotates” with the earth at a speed of 1670 kilometers per hour. This thing illustrates how enormous the force of gravity of earth be. In addition, it helps to understand how much force air currents have, as the wind blows (i.e., air moves) in which direction it wants, regardless of the direction in which the earth is rotating. When the rotation of the earth stops, under the influence of gravity this movement of the atmosphere stops at some point, on what kind of schedule, apparently no one has calculated it. In any case, the atmosphere would cause very high air resistance, so that the lightest items might hover for only a short distance.

This matter may not have been seriously studied by physicists for what effects the earth could have.
However, physicist Timo Suvanto also takes into account the fact that things are in good control, continuing with a bit of humor, accompanied by:

“It doesn’t have to be just fiction, though. At least not if we believe the Old Testament and the book of Joshua . . . As is well known, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and far from wise. The latter feature would probably be of use here . . . . . stopping the rotation of the Earth. After all, no one tells you to do it as an emergency brake, but by lightly pedaling or turning the brake lever. What kind of mechanism does the Earth brake happen now. ” (Timo Suvanto's blog can be found at blogspot.com)

The British science and technology magazine BBC Science Focus covers this same issue in a little more detail on its website.16-1

In any case, it can be observed that the cessation of the Earth's rotation or the sudden start of its rotation "backwards" would have devastating effects if only the ensuing reactions under normal natural laws were taken into account. Thus, the possibility of such a hypothesis inevitably involves the confidence that the Supreme, who in this way treats the earth as he sees fit as if it were a small and light object like a tennis ball, could do so in a controlled manner so that no harm would occur. Such a controlled operation could be said to be another miracle related to this.

Theoretical options

Let us make a theoretical dissertation on this on the basis of the option related to the rotation of that country.

If we assume that the earth rotated backwards, that ‘10 steps’ could not answer for 10 hours. About a big change would have meant moving to a different time of day. The Bible does not mention going back in time to night. First, a table related to this.

The Jews used to divide the day into four periods. So they may well have also divided the hour into four or more short periods.

Let's assume a few options in the table here.

Parts

 of an 

hour.   CHA Total time

10.         15°      1 hour

–            17°      1 h. 8 min.

8           18,75º  1 h. 15 min.

6             25°      1 h. 40 min.

4.           37,5°    2,5 hours

3.           50°       3 h. 20 min.

2.           75°       5 hours

In this theoretical paper on probability, we use the transition according to those alternatives before the year 732 BCE. solar- and lunar eclipses.

Let's clarify the table a bit. Here, one hour is estimated to be 15 degrees.

Parts of Hour 10:
The length of each “step” is about 6 minutes.
Parts of an hour 8:
Each "stage" is about 7,5 min long.
Parts of an hour 6:
Each "stage" is approx. 10 min.
Parts of Hour 4:
The length of each “step” is about 15 minutes.
Parts of Hour 3:
The length of each “step” is about 20 minutes.
Parts of Hour 2:
The length of each “step” is about 30 minutes

Sure, that change time could have been anything else, but these already provide some guidance if that transition actually took place. That five-hour transition could be pretty much the maximum that could fit the narrative described.

When these eclipse changes have been studied, it has been done in the following way: A new locality has been added to the Stellarium program, named e.g., ‘17 Babylon ’. It is marked with E27° and parts. This is 17 degrees west of the Babylonian location, which is E44° and parts. The same has been done for many of the other locations and alternative changes listed above.

This publication uses the abbreviation 'CHA' for this change in longitude (see page 15).

References

16-1 sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/the-thought-experiment-
what-would-happen-if-the-earth-stopped-spinning

Solar eclipses of Ashur- Dan III and Shimbar-Shipak

 Here we make a few probability calculations based on the estimates in the previous chapter.

Solar eclipse 791 BCE.

We can observe an interesting observation. We compare different options and find that a CHA 25° would be best suited for this solar eclipse. Even CHA 28º could also work well for this.

If we use a CHA 50° change, the eclipse will decrease almost the same as it would without a change, as can be seen by comparing the image in the chapter “Strange distractions in eclipses” with the image in the next section. This is because, according to NASA's calculation, the moon's shadow passed a slant across the Mediterranean from southern Italy.
So if we use this 791 BC eclipse, then we would have to assume roughly that CHA 25° change.
If CHA 17° were used, it would also be quite opaque for this eclipse.

Solar eclipse 809 BCE. and 824 BCE.

Let's take a slightly different test for this. The eclipses are moved only CHA 17°, i.e. about 1 hour and 8 minutes east. When we apply such a small change , we can highlight the year 809 BCE. used by the NCUSES solar eclipse.

It was also very cover when using this change. This would seem to support this solar eclipse applied by the NCUSES from the very beginning.
Somewhat surprisingly, there is also a third option that can be applied, the total solar eclipse on April 2nd, 824 BCE. Using a slightly longer CHA 19º change, this was perfectly reflected in Babylon. More on this in the next chapter.

Solar eclipses 1063 BCE. and 1078 BCE.

This year 1063 BCE. the solar eclipse takes place in the early morning.
Some have suggested applying this solar eclipse to the 7th year of Shimbar-Shipak's reign.
In this option, you also have to apply another "black hole", which is related to the gap in the information related to history. Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this is related to the fact that the Babylonian year at that time would have started on May 5th, i.e. April 25th, according to the Gregorian calendar. That would have been more than a month after the vernal equinox.
On May 20th 1078 BCE. there was a solar eclipse, which would have been the most occulting using CHA 15° change. This is clearly the best option. In relation to that, you have to use an even bigger "black hole", because the chronology of Babylonia and Assyria would have to be extended by 15 years. Accordingly, they would have to be brought into harmony with Egyptian chronology at an earlier time.

In this second edition of this treatise, this, in 1078 BCE., is a new feature to have been the primary application of the solar eclipse.

Results

 Here are now as many as three different possibilities for the so-called. “Scientific chronology”. But the exact magnitude of the change in the position of the earth is not known, it can be between 16-20°. Group them by the symbols A, B and C in the order of their change.
Let’s now summarize all three of these in the table on the next. 
This table specifies the solar eclipses to be used for each option.
A slightly peculiar result can be observed regarding the year 791 BCE. If we were to stick to the current general understanding of the reigns of the Assyrian kings (that is, the lengths of the reigns of the kings would not be changed very much), we would have to state that there probably was no solar eclipse during the reign of Shimbar-Shipak.

References 

17-1 archive.org/stream/assyrianeponymca00 
smitiala#page/190/mode/1up
17-2 journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/ 1359970?
journalCode=jcs

The reign of Shalmaneser III

 Shalmaneser III was an Assyrian king who has caused interest among scholars. A remarkable archeological find has survived from his time, which has been given a simple name, the Black Obelisk.

Chronology of Tyre

The Bible tells us that King Solomon of Israel made an agreement with King Hiram of Tyre to supply him with cedar trees for the temple. In addition, Hiram's workers are said to have made several metal vessels that came to the temple.18-1 The historian Josephus also tells about the history of Tyre and includes a list of the kings of Tyre. He quotes this information from the writings of Menander of Ephesus. This Menander was evidently a Jew, but his writings relating to this have been lost. For this reason, this writing of Josephus is considered secondary information, because the original documents he used have been lost.18-2

There is some interesting information associated with this information, which is why it cannot be completely ignored. 

Scholars say that the related events in the chronology of Tyre between the reigns of Hiram and Pygmalion have been confirmed from three sources, the Bible account, the account of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III and the writings of the Roman historian Pompeius Trogus.18-3

However, there seems to be one slightly peculiar feature related to this.

The events coincide with the reign of Pygmalion, King of Tyre. His sister Dido is said to have fled from her brother and founded the Carthaginian city of Carthage.

This is said to have happened in the 7th year of Pygmalion's reign. The historian Menander, quoted by Josephus, says that this took place 155 years after the accession of Hiram and 143 years after Solomon began building the temple.18-4 When the chronology of Tyre is timed in this way, it is found that this 7th year of Pygmalion dates from 891 BCE. As will be noted later, there was an error of about five years in this Menander calculation, that 1st period was apparently about 160 years rather than 155 years.

But there may also be another error in this Tyrian chronology, which is not so significant. It would seem that the reign of Hiram I was much longer than Menander's estimate, because in the Bible it is said that he supplied cedar wood to David for the construction of the palace. It may be that this palace was built well before the end of David's reign.18-5 David is described as having walked 'on the roof of the king's palace' even before Solomon was born.18-6 David probably built his palace sometime in the 1060s BCE. However, this fact creates a new problem, as Hiram I would have ruled for at least about 60 years. In this thesis, a new assumption is made.

With the word 'you', Solomon did not necessarily mean Hiram personally,18-5 but the kingdom of Tyre. In this treatise, King ’Hiram Unknown’, whose reign ended in 1059 BCE., has been added to the chronology of Tyre.

The king of Tyre mentioned by Menander, Balazeros II, is thought to be the same as the Ba'li-ma-An-zer (or Baal-Eser II) whom Shalmaneser III says was king of Tyre his 18th year of reign.18-7 If Menander's list is applied to this point, then the reign of this king of Tyre would end in 907 BCE. If we look at the earlier mentions in the NCUSES, we find that the reign of Shalmaneser III would not begin until 904 BCE. There seems to be a clear contradiction here. Could it be a mistake in the chronology of Tyre? Let's look at it a little more closely.

King Ethbaal of Tyre

The Bible tells us that Ahab, King of Israel, married Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, King of Tyre.18-8 According to this study, Ahab's reign began in 940 BCE., while Ethbaal's reign lasted from 944-913 BCE. It therefore seems that there are no major errors in Tyre's chronology at this point. The list at the end of this thesis shows that the reign of Baal-Ezer II ended in 907 BCE., but it seems that there may be at least a five-year error in Tyre's chronology at that point, when compared with the reign of Shalmaneser III and the reign of Jehu, king of Israel.

Both Baal-Ezer II and Jehu were involved with Shalmaneser III in his 18th year of reign.

In this thesis, it is considered appropriate to apply the year 1078 BCE. that came up earlier solar eclipse. This inscription of Shalmaneser III is currently such an archaeological find that would speak strongly in favor of its application. It seems that for some researchers, arranging the chronologies to suit it while keeping the biblical history in place seems too challenging and maybe also theoretical, so it is generally not considered probable. To apply it, they would obviously need more archaeological evidence. Another piece of information related to this may be surprising. It seems that according to scholars, one of the biggest reasons for displacing biblical chronology seems to be solar and lunar eclipses (some of which have already been discussed in previous chapters), which they have erroneously applied to Assyrian and Babylonian chronology.

In this treatise, it is considered likely that Shalmaneser III became king much earlier, around 919 BCE.

Another feature related to chronology should also be taken into account here, namely the way in which the timing of the Syrian kings affects it.

King Hazael of Syria

These books of the Bible's Kings also tell about Hazael becoming king of Syria.18-9 The exact time of the beginning of his reign cannot be deduced from the Bible's account, but it happened in about 910 BCE.

Shalmaneser III fought against Hazael in his 18th regnal year, but failed to conquer Syria.18-10 It seems that Hazael's reign ended without violence after he ruled for about 45 years.18-11 If we take that estimate from the beginning of his reign, it seems to have ended in approximately 865 BCE. Hazael is said to have been at war with Israel as long as Israel's king Jehoahaz lived.18-12 Jehoahaz's reign ended, according to the Bible's chronology, around 859 BCE.

Previously, a theoretical assessment of how in 791 BCE. was mentioned. the solar eclipse that occurred could somehow fit into the history of Assyria.18-13 However, this timing of Hazael's reign almost completely eliminates that option, as the 18th year of Shalmaneser III's reign would date to 869 BCE. This would mean that the Assyrian chronology would have to be extended more than usual.

Hadadezer, king of Syria

The Black Obelisk, commissioned by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III, reveals another piece of information that points to a discrepancy between the old chronology and the biblical history. Salmanasar says that in his 6th year of the reign, the Syrian king Hadadezer and some other kings joined forces to fight against Assyria18-10 and he fought against this Syrian king even in the 11th year of his reign. This Hadadezer or Ben-Hadad ('son of Hadad') was the king of Syria before the aforementioned Hazael and his reign ended around 910-909 BCE.

In this treatise, that 6th year of Shalmaneser III's reign roughly falls in 914 BCE.

This is another archeological piece of information that supports that 1078 BCE. should be applied from the solar eclipse to the 7th year of the Babylonian king Shimbar-Shipak's reign.

Moving the chronology in this way is a new feature in this new edition of this thesis and can be a surprising situation. However, this shifting of the Assyrian chronology in this way is supported by the history of Israel, the Syrian chronology, the chronology of Tyre and the solar eclipse of 1078 BCE.

A brief summary can therefore be made of how simple it is to justify dating the beginning of Shalmaneser III's reign to approximately 919 BCE. and moving Babylonian chronology at this point as far back:

1. Solar eclipse on May 20th, 1078 BCE.

2. The history of Israel, to which the Bible's chronology is applied, and how the history of Syria overlaps with it.

3. The overlap of the reign of Salmanasar III with the history of Syria.

4. Overlapping reigns of Assyrian and Babylonian kings.

It can also be observed that in 1078 BCE. the solar eclipse that took place is the only one that adequately covers this time stream. It may be noted that the only equally covering solar eclipse was in May 1012 BCE., but that is several decades too late, given all the evidence previously presented.

Extending the chronology

Here we notice the benefit of the hist ppmory of the Bible when studying history. If the Bible did not say anything about how the history of Syria overlaps with the history of Israel, organizing the chronology of Assyria and Babylonia could be much more challenging.

Extending the Assyrian chronology further may seem awkward. It could be assumed to be related to a periodbefore the reign of Ashur-Dan III, as there may be a strong temptation to apply the solar eclipse of 809 BCE. to the 9th year of the reign of Ashur-Dan III. In contrast, in the Babylonian chronology, such an extension may seem easier.

Instead, Babylonian chronology supports such an extension.It could be assumed to be related to a period before the reign of Ashur-Dan III, as there may be a strong temptation to apply the solar eclipse of 809 BCE. to the 9th year of the reign of Ahur-Dan III. In contrast, in the Babylonian chronology, such an extension may seem easier.

But let's think about these things without thinking about what would feel most comfortable. Then it is discovered that the Assyrian chronology could be extended by applying the solar eclipse of April 2nd, 824 BCE. to the 9th year of the reign of Ashur-Dan III. This would pose two problems: 1. The calendar would have rolled back by about two months in that year. 2. the combined reigns of Pulu and Tiglath-Pileser III would be longer than usual, about 54 years.

Earlier, in the 20th and 21th centuries BCE. and even hundreds of years later, such a large backward drift of the calendar was quite common. It can be seen in the EAE cuneiform inscriptions related to that time, which will be discussed in a little more detail later. Such a large backward movement of the calendar may seem very rare even in the 8th century BCE. Could it be possible? Let's do a little math.

During one year, the calendar goes back 11 days. In three years, the calendar runs backwards already 33 days, it seems that in the Neo-Babylonian time, one extra month was added to the year every three years. In the past, however, this addition of a month to the calendar could sometimes take place with a longer delay. Just a five-year break in that matter would move the calendar back 55 days. Such a break may have been possible during that time. It can be assumed that at the beginning of April 824 BCE. the solar eclipse that occurred was not so impossible that it could not be applied to the 9th year of the reign of Ashur-Dan III. So, this new edition applies this option because it allows the Assyrian chronology to be more accurate.

This is 254 years later than the solar eclipse in the 7th year of the reign of Shimbar-Shipak in 1078 BCE. In the old chronology, the difference between the reigns of these kings (7th year of Shimbar-Shipak - 9th year of Ashur-Dan III) is the same.

Secondly, the preface told us that, according to the historian Josephus, King Pul of Assyria reigned for 36 years. Applying this to the solar eclipse of 824 BCE., the length of Pul's reign is precisely 36 years. It may be interesting to note that the latter can only be possible if the reigns of Shalmaneser V, Sargon II and Sennacherib are to be overlapped, as they are in this new edition.

In the NCUSES, Marduk-zapik-sumi I's reign has been considerably shortened to make the chronology fit 1060 BCE. to the solar eclipse. In this edition of the treatise, the Babylonian chronology is put in place when the length of his reign is extended to the more commonly used 36 years.

Salmanasar III's reign cannot be determined with certainty to the exact year. It could have started around 920 BCE. at the earliest. This definition is because King Jehu of Israel, whose reign began about 905 BCE., sent tribute to Shalmaneser III in his 18th year.

And his reign could have started no later than around 917 BCE. This is because he was at war with King Hadadezer of Syria in his 11th year of reign. King Jehoram of Israel was at war with Hazael, the next king of Syria, around 905 BCE.18-14

Scholars have generally taken a negative view of the use of biblical chronology as a scientific source. However, the eclipse of the sun in the 7th year of the reign of the Babylonian king Shimbar-Shipak provides more support for the biblical chronology than the current old chronology.

References 

18-1 The Bible, 1. Kings 5:1, 6

18-2 Flavius Josephus: Against Apion Book I, 154-160

18-3 William H. Barnes, Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel, p. 31

18-4 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menander_of_Ephesus

18-5 The Bible, 1. Book of Chronicle 14:1; 2. Chronicle 2:3

18-6 The Bible, 2. Samuel 11:2

18-7Fuad Safar: A Further Text of Shalmaneser III from Assur, Sumer 7, p. 19.

18-8 The Bible, 1. Kings 16:30-1

18-9 The Bible, 2. Kings 8:7-15

18-10 www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/meso/obelisk.html

18-11 www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsMiddEast/SyriaDamascus.htm

18-12 The Bible, 2. Kings 13: 3, 22

18-13 Look subtitle ‘Shalmaneser III and Adad-nirari III’, p. 

18-14 The Bible, 2. Kings 8:29

_________________________________

Shalmaneser III      919-884 BCE.

Shamsi-Adad V       884-871 BCE.

Adad-nirari III        871-843 BCE.

Shalmaneset IV      843-833 BCE.

Ashur-Dan III         833-815 BCE.

Ashur-nirari V       815-805 BCE.

Pulu                         804-768 BCE.

Tiglat-Pileser III    768-750 BCE.

________________________________

Solar eclipse during the accession year of Sin-Eribam

 Assyria's early list of eponym reads as follows.

’In the eponymy of Dadiya, king Šamši-Adad was born.’

’In the eponymy of Puzur-Ištar, a solar eclipse happened; death of Aminum.’19-1

The time is determined by the fact that the solar eclipse occurred a year after the birth of Shamsi-Adad I. Further information has been obtained in this dissertation that this eclipse was probably observed in Mari of the Syria.

Scientists generally estimate that this solar eclipse would have occurred in 1838 BCE. In the past, scholars have also suggested it in the summer of 1833 BCE. solar eclipse, which is also applied in the NCUSES.

From the above-mentioned list of eponym, it can be concluded that this solar eclipse occurred during the 24th reign of reign of King Naram-Suen. Naram-Suen is estimated to have ruled for 44 or 54 years. However, the length of his reign is uncertain. Some scholars estimate it to have been only 15 years. This treatise applies this short option to the length of his reign. This assumption brings with it a new assessment of this solar eclipse. According to it, it would have happened in the 4th year of the reign of Puzur-Ashur III. However, there are many shortcomings from that time.

Secondly, this may be further complicated by the fact that several different chronological models are used for that ancient period, the most common of which is the so-called "medium chronology", also referred to in this thesis as the "general chronology".

This thesis also examines the short and ultra low chronology.

Some of the related alternative solar eclipses can already be identified by their timing, whether they can be applied to a short or general chronology.

Solar eclipse of Joshua

Israeli scholars of Hebrew are of the opinion that a eclipse occurred during the battle of Joshua in the Bible.19-2 If so, can the eclipse be found? And did something else happen at the same time? The Bible says that "the sun did not hurry to set for about a whole day". This gives the impression that the earth's rotation stopped for several hours. Let's do a check calculation based on this.

But first we need to know at what point in history the conquest of Canaan under Joshua took place.

Since these are only events described in the Bible, it is wisest to use biblical timing for it. According to it, Joshua began the conquest of the land of Canaan in 1473 BCE.

Here you have to take into account that the time zone has already been changed to CHA 17°, but it needs to be changed a lot more. It is assumed that the “whole day” mentioned in the description of the event in that report meant a period of about 6-8 hours. We change the time zone 137°, ie 9 hours and 8 minutes west, time zone 137°, ie 9 hours and 8 minutes west.

On July 22nd 1472 BCE. there was a solar eclipse. With that change, it can be seen directly over Israel. Subtracting the "change in the days of Hezekiah" CHA 17° from that number of degrees, there would have been a 120° "delay" in the days of Joshua, meaning the earth's rotation stopped for about 8 hours.

The mention “the moon remained in the valley of Ayalon” and the sun was “above Gideon” may give the impression that the sun and the moon were in different directions. However, this interpretation presupposes that Joshua and his forces fought that battle in the terrain between the valley of Ayalon and Gibeon. When we look at the terrain of that area a little more closely, we find that it is a very difficult mountain terrain. In addition, the distance between those places was only about 10 kilometers. The Canaanites had fled to the area from Gibeon where the battle had begun.

Indeed, scholars of biblical history generally assume that the Canaanites and Joshua and his army circled that mountain north of it and were west of the valley of Ayalon. If this assumption by the researchers is true, it could add an interesting nuance to that account. The sun and moon would have been in the same direction. This is pretty amazing information, for how very small the sickle of the moon could have been observed near the sun if we assumed that there was no solar eclipse? Thus, under this assumption, that the site of observation was to the west of the Ayalon Valley could strongly indicate the likelihood of solar eclipse. Another important piece of information in this regard is that the sun was east or southeast of the point of observation.

That latter assumption is problematic. Described above in the summer of 1472 BCE. the solar eclipse would have appeared at that change at about 16:20 above Gibeon. In other words, the sun would have been southwest of the place of observation at that time.

Thus, if we were to use this solar eclipse, it would be assumed that the mentions of Gibeon and the Valley of Ayalon in it are illustrative and are not intended to assess the direction in which the sun and moon were at that time. Instead, they illustrate the place where that battle took place. Gibeon was the starting point of the battle and the battle had moved to the vicinity of the valley of Ayalon.

Another detail could relate to the mention of "the moon remained in place" until that battle was over for the victory of the Israelites. If this literally happened, the moon stopped in its orbit and remained between the earth and the sun all the time the earth's rotation was stopped. This, in turn, could cause a particular distortion in the ancient movements of the moon preceding that event. Even if there had been the 137º change in the Earth's rotation, the change in the Moon's orbit would only be 120º using the longitude of the Earth's surface. However, it is uncertain how the event of the time of Hezekiah, King of Judah, would have affected the moon's movements. It may be that it did not change it, but it did change the position of the Moon over the Earth by 17º. Some calculation may be in order here. According to this, in the case of lunar eclipses, there would be a difference of 8 hours, or 120º, in how the counters designed for this purpose count it.

Instead, there would be a difference of just over 9 hours in the position of the earth. This would seem that a 137º change would also have to be made at the location of the lunar eclipses so that the eclipse would settle at the point on the earth where it occurred. However, there is a small oddity involved. As mentioned above, the position of the moon in relation to the earth remained constant at the same time as there were major changes in the rotation of the earth. So this causes an error of 8 or 9 hours to the time. Although only the CHA 17º change should be made to the position of the moon in relation to the position of the earth (because the moon stopped in its orbit for about 8 hours), the calculator makes an 8-hour error at this point in the position of the lunar eclipse, because it naturally does not count that stoppage of the moon.

Here, however, it should be noted that with respect to this solar eclipse, the maximum change in the position of the earth could have been about 142°. Even then, it would have been very coverage. Mentioned this in 1472 BCE. there has been an solar eclipse of the only thing that could suit the time of that struggle.

At present, however, it may not be possible to say with absolute certainty whether there was an solar eclipse at that time and whether the Earth's rotation stopped. The main source of uncertainty for this could be the double eclipse of Babylonia, which will be considered later.

What if the movement of the earth did not stop in the days of Joshua, but only the change of Hezekiah CHA 17º took place? Although the Supreme can perform all kinds of miracles, those descriptions of this event are truly special if nothing different happened in the movements of the moon and earth.

Naturally, this also influenced the way in which time should be measured. The day mentioned above, July 22nd 1472 BCE., was about 32 hours long.

Solar eclipse 1843 BCE. and 1827 BCE.

Applying an estimated CHA 142° change during the time of Shamsi-Adad I, it can be seen that on January 6th 1843 BCE. there was a total solar eclipse. This is also much better suited for its timing.

Using this solar eclipse, Shamsi-Adad I would have become king of Assyria in 1822 BCE. Another suitable option was August 16th, 1827 BCE. when using general chronology. This may be very much too late, as the reign of Shamsi-Adad I would not have ended until 1761 BCE.

There is a problem with this option that conflicts with the purpose of this thesis. In this treatise, the Bible's chronology is used as an aid to the extent that the timing of events is told in it. This option would cause the beginning of the Akkadian kingdom to move even to the 24th century BCE, an assumption not supported by the Bible's chronology.

Solar eclipse 1786 BCE.

Using a long 137° change and a short chronology, this December 9th, 1786 BCE. had been a solar eclipse seems to be the only possible one. It was well visible in Mari in Syria and also as far as Babylon.

No solar eclipse is found for the short chronology if only the short 17º change is used.

Since according to current knowledge, the Assyrian king Ishme-Dagan I only ruled for about 11 years, it may also slightly affect the length of the Assyrian chronology.

There seems to be a great need for shortening it, as will be shown later. The chronology of Old Assyria would be correct if there were enough such reductions of more than ten years to the length of the reigns.

Solar eclipses 1746 BCE. and 1735 BCE.

Applying the same CHA 137º displacement, in a ultra low chronology we find two very covering solar eclipses every 11 years.

The first was a very good annular solar eclipse on October 19th, 1746 BCE. Another good option is March 25th, 1735 BCE. a total solar eclipse occurred.

The latter option was significantly better in terms of coverage. Nevertheless, in this treatise, the year 1746 BCE. is applied to this, as it fits better with the following estimate of the researchers.

Zimri-Lim's attack on Mari

This is accompanied by an event that can be used to time the aforementioned solar eclipse quite accurately.

This concerns the change of power that occurred in the history of the ancient kingdom of Mari.

Shamsi-Adad I had installed his son Yasmah-Adad as king of Mari after defeating the Lim dynasty there.

However, Zimri-Lim managed to escape from Shamsi-Adad's attack. According to the general estimate of scholars, immediately after the death of Shamsi-Adad I, Zimri-Lim attacked Mari and violently became its king.19-3

It can be well estimated that this could have happened within a year after Shamsi-Adad's end of reign.

And can the date of Zimri-Lim's reign be ascertained?

This seems to be influenced by the time when the Babylonian king Hammurabi defeated the king of Larsa, Rim-Sin I, and became the king of Larsa himself. He is said, apparently in that same year, to have robbed Mari, although Mari had surrendered without a fight. At this point Zimri-Lim disappears from history.19-4 Scholars generally estimate that his reign ended about a year after the destruction of Larsa. This would have been 11 years before the end of Hammurabi's reign.

This treatise tries to follow the Assyrian limmu list from that time as well as possible. From this it can be calculated that the solar eclipse discussed in this chapter occurred 66 years before the death of Shamsi-Adad I.

Based on this, a slightly simpler calculation can be made, i.e. this solar eclipse should be found 50 years before the start of Hammurabi's reign. If you want to look at the Babylonian 1st dynasty king list, then it would have been the 2nd year of King Sabium’s reign. It can also be said to be the accession year of Larsa’s king Sin Eribam.

Based on that, a calculation can be made on how well these solar eclipses in this chapter can be found in different alternative chronologies. Let's make it a small table.

Here these are reviewed according to chronology, row 1 means middle chronology, row 2 short chronology and row 3 means ultra low chronology. Those mentions of "Short/Long CHA" options refer to whether the roughly 8-hour change in Joshua's time is applied when calculating the time of solar eclipses, or only the shorter shift that occurred during King Hezekiah's time.

First of all, let's note the feature that in the short chronology, there is no solar eclipse from a time that could fit this point in history. It is unlikely that Zimri-Lim would have waited several years after the death of Shamsi-Adad I before attacking Mari.

In common chronology, the difference is two years (the January 1843 BCE. eclipse occurred in a calendar year that had begun in the spring of 1844 BCE.). Clearly, the ultra low chronology with a long offset, where the eclipse is found in the year in which it is calculated to have occurred, seems the best. Which of these options is ultimately the better one will only become clear later when we look at the solar and lunar eclipses of the Ur III dynasty.

Instead, the year 1847 BCE. when applied, the time difference is 5 years and 1753 BCE.E in this case the time difference is 7 years. Such long time differences wseeaken their suitability. The latter is also affected by the drawback that the solar eclipse of the Babylonian king Shimbar-Shipak cannot be found with such a large change, even more than CHA 25º.

Instead, in March 1744 BCE. had been a solar eclipse was perhaps a little too late. The length of Zimri-Lim's reign should be shortened by about 2 years from how its length is currently estimated.

Lunar eclipse of Mari

Clay tablet HC-A.25-115 tells of a lunar eclipse that occurred during the time of the king's servant Asqudum.

The Eponym of Asqudum has also been associated with the timing of this lunar eclipse.19-5 The Eponym in question was 64 years after the solar eclipse mentioned in the Assyrian limmu list.19-6 It can be noted that this Eponym of Asqudum was at most two years before the end of Shamsi-Adad I's reign. However, Asqudum served as the king's astrologer for several years and finally for eight years as an advisor to King Zimri-Lim.19-7 It is likely that Asqudum wrote the attached letter before he became the king's advisor. A related discovery was made in Mari.19-5

In ancient times, lunar eclipses were generally considered to be a bad omen for a certain king. That feature is also examined here.

In between, let's take a small table of when the last two kings of Mari reigned, so that we can better understand the course of that time.

In this table, the different chronologies are listed in the same way as what was said a little earlier.

If it is estimated that the lunar eclipse described here occurred at the earliest in the year of Asqudum's Eponym, the alternatives for it are the following periods: 1780-1770 BCE., 1722-1706 BCE. and 1682-1674 BCE.

Let's make an estimate that this lunar eclipse was total.

There is one alternative to the middle chronology, the lunar eclipse on June 19th, 1777 BCE. This would be two years before King Yashman-Adad of Mar fell. There are two options for a short chronology. On November 14th, 1720 BCE. there was a lunar eclipse. This dates to the same year as the end of the reign of Shamsi-Adad I, but it already targets roughly the 10th month of the year. The second is the lunar eclipse of June 22nd, 1712 BCE., a year before Yashman-Adad fell. However, this short cchronology has the previously mentioned drawback.

A ultra low chronology includes a lunar eclipse in the spring of 1679 BCE., March 21th. This happened in the same year that Yashman-Adad fell and Zimri-Lim took the kingship.

References

19-1 ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4943651/

19-2 academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/58/5/ 5.39/4159289

19-3 academia.edu/70208929/The_Epic_of_Zim_Lim

19-4 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimri-Lim

19-5 Boris Banjevic: Ancient eclipses and dating the fall of Babylon, p. 253

19-6 livius.org/articles/concept/limmu/limmu-list-middle-bronze-age/

19-7 pure.uva.nl/ws/files/2086877/151010_Astronomical_ Fine_tuning.pdf s. 158

Solar eclipse of Mursili II

 Chapter 17 already revealed the effect on Babylonian chronology of the solar eclipse applied to the history of Assyria. The change would also affect the chronology of Egypt and thus of the Hittites.

The solar eclipse that took place during Mursili II is important when the chronology of Egypt is timed to its rightful place.

Date of Mursili II's reign

As one finds out how the chronology of the Hittites overlaps with the chronology of Egypt, this solar eclipse can also be used to help put the chronology of Egypt in its proper place. The NCUSES addressed this and outlines the main points:

“King Suppiluliuma I was well into Egypt, and Amarna sent a letter to Pharaoh Ekhnaton.21-1 It is clear that Suppiluliuma I had also been in correspondence with Pharaoh Amenhotep III, the father of Ekhnaton.”

”It is noteworthy that archeology says that the reign of Suppiluliuma I, the predecessor of Mursili II, ended fairly soon after the death of an unnamed pharaoh.”21-2

“[Suppiluliuma] has been estimated to have ruled for 22 years.21-3 In the current old chronology, his reign is estimated to have ended about two years after the death of Pharaoh Tutankhamun. This seems to be an erroneous estimate, as Ekhnaton and Tutankhamun seem to have ruled for a total of at least 25 years.21-4 Given the short reign of Smenkhare and the years that Suppiluliuma I ruled at the same time as Pharaoh Amenhotep III, he should have ruled for at least about 30 years.”

Based on this, the NCUSES concludes that Suppiluliuma I died fairly soon after the death of Pharaoh Ekhnaton.

When considering CHA 50° and CHA 25° changes HERE, it should be noted that the year 791 BCE. has been applied to both solar eclipse in the history of Assyria. This also affects the timing of the chronology of Egypt and the Hittites.

Indeed, major problems can be observed in finding suitable solar eclipses for a given period of time. An important date from which the eclipse of Mursili II should be found when applying the year 791 BCE. the solar eclipse of Assyrian history, is the years 1349-1342 BCE.(if it is assumed that the length of the reigns of the kings remained approximately the same as in the old

chronology) However, no eclipses can be found during that time.

Solar eclipse 1340 BCE.

This solar eclipse was discussed earlier in Chapter 14.

This solar eclipse of January 8th, 1340 BCE., was seen as complete in northeastern Anatolia, even if a CHA 25° were applied. This would be appropriate, at least in some way, since the reign of Ekhnaton could have begun as early as 1368 BCE.

However, he would have ruled for an estimated four years at the same time as Burna-Buriash II. This estimate is based on the fact this is used the Assyrian solar eclipse of year 791 BCE. The chronology of Babylon is over-lapping with chronology of Assyria. That four years may be a little too short.

Solar eclipses 1328 BCE. and 1352 BCE.

The October 17th, 1328 BCE. there was an solar eclipse that appeared almost total in northeastern Anatolia when a CHA 25° change was applied. In this alternative, the reign of Ekhnaton would have ended around 1338 BCE. or 1340 BCE., if we consider the possible reign of Neferneferuaten.

According to this method of calculation, the reign of Ekhnaton would have begun in 1356-1354 BCE. It is noted that on August 15th, 1352 BCE. the solar eclipse that would have occurred would have been well visible in Egypt even with this CHA 25°. That could suit his 4th year of reign. The problem with applying these is that the chronology of Babylonia and Assyria would have to be shortened extra, as the reign of Burna-Burialish II would have ended about 8 years before the beginning of the reign of Ekhnaton. Thus, this is considered unlikely, even in 1352 BCE. the solar eclipse that occurred is the earliest that can be applied to the reign of Ekhnaton.

Solar eclipse 1360 BCE. and 1375 BCE.

The July 15th, 1360 BCE. there was a solar eclipse that was well visible in northeastern Anatolia using the CHA 17° change. The NCUSES applies this eclipse.

The advantage of this application is that it is timed at a good time close to midday. The downside of this new edition is its poor fit with the Babylonian and Assyrian chronology.

On May 3rd 1375 BCE. there was also a solar eclipse, which was visible in north-eastern Anatolia. It had the disadvantage of occurring early in the morning.

The very good thing about this is that this would fit well with the previously mentioned 1078 BCE. to the solar eclipse and to the history of Assyria and Syria. This also brings liveliness to other parts of the chronology. An alternative chronology has been added to this treatise, in which the Babylonian and Assyrian chronologies have been shortened so that 1360 BCE. can be used. from the solar eclipse that occurred to the reign of Mursili II. (However, this shortening is mostly theoretical. The author does not have exact information whether chronologies can be shortened, and if so, at what point the shortening should be implemented.)

Tutankhamun and Ramesses II

Tutankhamun’s solar eclipse is an interpretation based on the burial of his servants. When the year 1340 BCE. applied earlier is applied. By the 10th year of Mursili II's reign, Tutankahmun's reign would have ended in about 1339 BCE. There are no good solar eclipses in it from that time. It would seem best in January 1340 BCE. solar eclipse occurred when subjected to the CHA 25° change and the Nile Delta as an observation point.

But if we apply the CHA 17° change, then the August 1352 BCE. eclipse would have been visible in Egypt.

That would have been eight years after the end of Tutankhamun's reign, if we apply 1360 BCE. This would have been 1360 BCE. in the 10th year of Mursili II's reign.

And is there an solar eclipse that fits the estimated lifetime of Ramesses II servants? If his reign would have Begun around 1329 BCE., when an attempt was made to apply the CHA 25° change described above.

Applying the CHA 25° change, the solar eclipse of February 10th 1286 BCE. would have been very coverage.

If the CHA 17° change were used, then the December 1332 BCE. eclipse could be used. That would have been the 12th year of the reign of Ramses II according to this

new edition, using 1375 BCE. as above.

The solar eclipse of Ugarit 

Take for this point the solar eclipse of the city of Ugarit in Syria, which is one of the earliest ancient mentions of solar eclipses.

This has been applied for several years in May 1375 BCE. solar eclipse that occurred. This has recently been updated to March 5th, 1223 BCE. solar eclipse that occurred. The reason for this is the text mentioned in the description of this solar eclipse, which is estimated to refer to the planet Mars. This means that the planet Mars was visible to the naked eye during the solar eclipse.

In this treatise, April 16th, 1178 BCE. is applied to this, solar eclipse that occurred. At that time, no less than four planets, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars and Venus, were visible during the solar eclipse. This also fits better with the Ajaru-month in which this eclipse is described to have occurred.21-5 An CHA 18º change has been used here to apply this solar eclipse.

If the researchers have correctly interpreted the mention of the planet Mars in the description of this solar eclipse, this solar eclipse can provide additional information about ancient events. It tells how much the earth rotated backwards during the time of King Hezekiah of Judah.

The solar eclipse had to be complete so that the planet Mars could be seen with the naked eye quite close to the sun. In this solar eclipse, a change of CHA 19º and CHA 20º is best suited for it. The CHA 18º used here is the shortest change suitable for this, but in that the full phase of the solar eclipse was visible in Ugarit for only a short time.

References

21-1 touregypt.net/amarna11.htm

21-2 Bill Price: Tutankhamun: Egypt's most famous Pharaoh AmarnaLetters.pdf

21-3 ancient.eu/Suppiluliuma_I/

21-4 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Dynasty_of _Egypt

21-5 forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2018/03/05/people-recorded-a-total-solar-eclipse-for-the-first-time-3241-years-ago/?sh=2ca95e47a55e

The double eclipses of Akkad

 In what way, then, could these great findings in the previous chapters affect the study of long-term history?

In the very distant history, the time zone can move up to 9 hours east.

As already mentioned somewhere, there are preserved mentions of ancient lunar eclipses, which occurred e.g.

During the reign of Ur. They must take into account the position of the moon during the lunar eclipse. For example, in a case where NASA's counter shows that the lunar eclipse was best seen over Europe and the Middle East, it may be very likely that that lunar eclipse was not visible in the Middle East during that distant time. In contrast, lunar eclipses, which seem to have been well seen in the United States, were well visible in the Middle East.

However, let's begin by looking at a pair of eclipses that some researchers have suggested fit into distant history.

The double eclipse of the month of Sabatu

One double eclipse that has been suggested here occurred in February 1659 BCE. At that time there was a lunar eclipse on February 9th and two weeks later there was a solar eclipse.25-1 How convincing is that pair of eclipses? First, the note involved is not necessarily real-time, but was written a few years, maybe even decades later.

An ancient inscription related to this tells of the fall of Babylon by Mursili I, king of the Hittites.

When the eclipses are examined more closely, it can be noticed that that solar eclipse was of poor quality. Its quality does not meet the high criteria presented in this dissertation. The author experienced an almost similar solar eclipse in Finland in June 2021 and it really cannot be seen with the naked eye in any way. This is a matter of weight here. In order for the solar eclipse to be noticeable in nature, it had to be of very good quality.

It can also be observed that the lunar eclipse that occurred two weeks earlier was of low quality, but perhaps still sufficient. Therefore, in this treatise, these eclipses are not considered conclusive evidence in any way.

However, scholars generally assume that the double eclipse in question occurred shortly before the fall of the Babylonian 1st Dynasty.

This might make you wonder, when exactly did that double eclipse happen? Have researchers had any misconceptions about its timing?

It is time to take a closer look at what the archaeological texts tell us about this double eclipse. This second eclipse is described in the clay tablet EAE 20-XI.

 "If an eclipse occurs on the 14th day of Shabatu

 (month XI), and the god, in his eclipse, becomes dark

 on the side south above, and

 clears on the side west below; the north wind

 [blows, and] in the dawn watch [the eclipse] 

 begins, and he (the moon) is seen with the sun.

 His horns bend [toward] the sky. His entire 

 shurinnu was not obscured, but disappeared.

 On the 28th [day] you observe [the moon

 god] and an eclipse is close by; it begins and 

 makes full [its time]; it (the shurinnu) will

 show you the eclipse. Observe his eclipse,

 [that of] the god who in his eclipse beach

 visible and disappeared, and bear in mind

 the north wind. — The prediction is given

 for Babylon: the destruction of Babylon is

 near. The king to whom Enlil said “yes”, his

 people will be scattered. His reign will end . . .

 [Ur] will take away from there [the hegemony

 of] Babylon. Ur will take supremacy over

 Babylon. If [night elapses] while the god is

 in eclipse: [floods] will come [in the rivers],

 rains in the sky, the harvest will be a success,

 good fortune will occur."25-2

Scholars often stop quoting this description with the text “the destruction of Babylon is near”. However, the mention of Ur at the end of the description may be surprising.

In this treatise, a completely new conclusion is presented about the timing of this double eclipse. Probably, the previous clay tablet inscription does not refer to the Babylonian 1st dynasty. The reason for this is that there is no double eclipse in the month of Sabatu that could fit it. This second eclipse is not found even if the time zone change presented in this treatise is applied in some way.

This treatise considers it likely that this double eclipse occurred during or near the Ur III dynasty. How then is the mention of Babylon in it to be understood?

The city of Babylon was part of the ancient Akkadian Empire from the days of Sargon. If the biblical Nimrod is a different person from Sargon of Akkad, then Babylon existed before the kingdom of Sargon, since it is said to have been the "beginning of Nimrod's kingdom".25-3

According to this treatise, the last king of the Akkadian kingdom had fallen about 15 or 18 years before the beginning of the Ur III dynasty, depending on which chronology is applied. Akkad is thought to have fallen after the defeat of the Gutians. On this basis, it may be that Uruk's forces conquered Babylon.

What then is to be understood from the mention on the clay tablet that Ur received the kingdom? It does not mean the beginning of the Ur III dynasty, but what the clay tablet says: they conquered the city of Babylon. This may suggest that the Ur III dynasty, or other soldiers who were active in the city of Ur, extended their empire into ancient Babylon.

Let's take a closer look at the description of that double eclipse. The mentions of 'south' and 'west' may give the impression that this happened early in the morning (if it said 'north' and not 'west', one would assume the moon was in the west). When the moon sets, the moon and the sun manage to appear for a while at the same time as the sun rises.

The options listed below all use the long CHA 137º change. The following chapter will explain why it is not considered necessary to examine the old chronology in this context.

Double eclipse 2049 BCE. This double eclipse took place in February. The lunar eclipse was on February 1st and the solar eclipse was on February 15th. This lunar eclipse took place in the late morning, it was still quite weak in its coverage when the moon was setting. The solar eclipse could be seen in Nineveh, where it was quite obscure. However, it was at its best in the northern parts of Turkey and Armenia. The moon and the sun were briefly visible at the same time as the moon set.

One problem with this observation is that we do not currently know the exact location from which this observation was made. This double eclipse of 2049 BCE. may have occurred at a time when the Akkadian Empire was still standing. In that case, it could be at the end of the reign of one of the Akkadian kings, if a ultra low chronology is applied.

Double eclipse 1995 BCE. At that time, such a double eclipse took place during the month of Sabatu. This double eclipse will also be considered in the next chapter.

In this alternative, the lunar eclipse occurred on March 5th and the solar eclipse two weeks later. This lunar eclipse was in the morning when the moon was setting, which makes it not the best possible. In the description above, the eclipse is said to have 'ended in the west'. In the lunar eclipse of this option, its end could not be seen, as the moon set while it was eclipsed. When the moon set, the moon was between west and southwest. In this option, however, the moon and the sun have time to appear at the same time for a few minutes when the moon sets.

Double eclipse 1898 BCE. If the calendar had flowed far back, then this option could also come into question.

In this option, the lunar eclipse started in the evening and ended around 01.00. the solar eclipse happened in the morning. The moon was mostly in the south during the lunar eclipse. However, in this option, after the lunar eclipse, the moon was not visible at the same time as the sun when the moon was setting. The moon would have been visible together with the sun only a day later, which would have been normal, since more than a day had already passed since the time of the full moon. If this mention in the description could have such interpretations, then this or the next option could be good.

Double eclipse 1843 BCE. The lunar eclipse was on January 4th, in this option too the lunar eclipse had time to start at the end of the previous day. In this option, the lunar eclipse ended around 01.30. The moon was in the south and southwest at the time of the lunar eclipse, which fits this description. The solar eclipse took place on January 19th in the afternoon. In this option too, the moon was not visible at the same time as the sun.

However, it appears that there was another double eclipse later in Babylon that has received less attention.

The double eclipse of the month of Simanu

The clay tablet RMA 272 contains some interesting details about the phenomena of the starry sky, which the old chronology is completely unable to trace. In it, line 12 mentions a person named Bel-usežib who wrote down the related information. He is estimated to have been a contemporary of King Esarhaddon,25-4 so it is likely that his writing is a copy. Researchers have somewhat applied this to April 1532 BCE. to the double eclipse.

Starting from line r7, a few notable mentions appear, saying:

 "(line r7) An eclipse of the moon and sun in Sivan (III)

 will take place. ”

 “(line r13) The nobles of Akkad whom the king your

 father had appointed, destroyed Babylon and carried off

 the property of Babylon; ” 

 "(line r9) These signs are of bad fortune for Akkad, for

 the kings of the Westland and of Akkad; and now, in this

 month of Kislev

 (IX), an eclipse will take place. Kislev (IX) is the month of ..., and Jupiter will stand in its

 eclipse;”25-5

This would seem to clearly mention that there was a double eclipse during the month of Sivan or Simanu.

There are a few of these double eclipses in the month of Simanu. However, it is rarer that such a double eclipse would fall close to the end of a king or a ruling family or dynasty.

This statement may be a little surprising. It talks about the plundering of Babylon, nothing is mentioned about the change of power that happened. This suggests that the conquerors of Babylon had something else in mind than conquering it so that they could rule there. Could this be related to the end of the Babylonian 1st Dynasty, as Some researchers assume?

In connection with the mention of this solar eclipse, we are told about another lunar eclipse that happened in the month of Kislev. It corresponds to the Babylonian month of Kislimu, which was the 9th month in November-December. It mentions the planet Jupiter. It is uncertain how long it was between this lunar eclipse and the double eclipse. I'll look at the options available for this.

But who would have been the 'Akkadian nobles' mentioned in line r13? However, it seems very likely that they were the kind of people who lived quite close to the ancient city of Babylon. Second, they or their leaders had some sort of higher official status, it wasn't just a robbery spree by criminals.

Double eclipse 1514 BCE. When using a long CHA 137º, a somewhat surprising result is found. May 10th, 1514 BCE. there was a total eclipse of the sun, which appeared very coverage. If the biggest estimate, CHA 142°, is applied to the change in the Earth's position, this would have been total seen in Babylon. Two weeks earlier, on April 25th, there was a lunar eclipse with about 50% coverage. In a way, this time can be estimated to correspond to the month of Simanu.

When looking for a double eclipse of Simanu, one should find a lunar eclipse where Jupiter was relatively close to the moon when the lunar eclipse occurred.

However, a suitable lunar eclipse is not found until September 7th, 1502 BCE. In it Jupiter was within a few cubits of the moon.

The good thing about this option would be that it dates to the end of the Babylonian 1st Dynasty. The downside would also be that in 1502 BCE. the calendar would have slipped back up to three months.

Double Eclipse 2057 BCE. In this case, there was a lunar eclipse on June 25th and a solar eclipse on July 10th. In December of the following year, there was a total lunar eclipse, when Jupiter was close to the moon. The notable weakness of this is that in June 2057 BCE. the previous lunar eclipse was weak in coverage, estimated at around 15%. Since at that time the calendar could often have rolled back several months, these months do not necessarily correspond exactly to the months of Simanu and Kislimu.

Double eclipse 2035 BCE. At that time, such a lunar eclipse took place in April-May. This may correspond to the ancient month of Simanu.The solar eclipse was on May 10th and the lunar eclipse two weeks before that.

The following year, in October 2034 BCE. there was a total lunar eclipse on the evening of October 8th. At that time, the distance of Jupiter from the moon was approximately the same as in the earlier option in 1502 BCE.

The downside of this could be that the eclipse was not directly over Babylon, but was a little further south, over Saudi Arabia. However, we currently do not know the exact location of its observation, nor the exact scale of how many solar eclipses should be moved to match the original observation. This could be seen, especially in the ancient city of Uruk, in the brightness of a good annular eclipse.

The better side of this option is that the calendar had flowed back only about two months during the month of Kislimu.

This would also reveal that the fall of the Akkadian Empire was by Uruk and Ur. Probably 'Nobles of Akkad' means exactly these. This paper applies this 2035 BCE. double eclipse to this observation.

Double eclipse 1532 BCE. When looking for eclipses with a short CHA 17º, a good double eclipse is found in April 1532 BCE. At that time, on April 29th, there was a total solar eclipse. Two weeks earlier there was a good quality lunar eclipse.

However, the lunar eclipse, where Jupiter was described as being close to the moon, already happened on September 16th, 1549 BCE.

The upside of this may be that this double eclipse could have occurred a year before the destruction of the Babylonian 1st dynasty as it is dated in the short chronology.

The big downside to this is that Jupiter was close to the moon long before the penumbral eclipse. Another very big drawback is that when you fill in the short CHA 17º, you can't find a suitable solar eclipse from the old Assyrian period for the short chronology, as discussed earlier.

Double eclipse 1478 BCE. If it were considered that the earth has remained stable in its movements all along, then Babylon had a good double eclipse that year. However, it is uncertain whether the old chronology can be applied back from 1472 BCE. Another drawback to this is that you cannot find a lunar eclipse within a reasonable time where Jupiter was close to the moon at the time of the lunar eclipse.

Double eclipse 881 BCE. In this case, the lunar eclipse occurred on the morning of April 17th, and the solar eclipse was on the morning of May 1st. This solar eclipse is found using a short CHA 17º. The problem with this is that the lunar eclipse of the month of Kislimu, when Jupiter was close to the moon, is not found in the near ones.

Double eclipse 791 BCE. This is connected to the already familiar solar eclipse on June 24th. There was a lunar eclipse two weeks earlier, but it only happened with 26% coverage. In the Kislimu month of the same year, there was a good-quality lunar eclipse on December 4th.

At that time, however, Jupiter was far away in the constellation of Aquarius. As a reminder, we repeat here:

For this to be good, Jupiter would have had to be close to the moon during this lunar eclipse.

Summary

The above may even offer a completely new perspective on these two Babylonian double eclipses.

Based on the above, in February 2049 BCE. The previous meridian eclipse seems at this moment to be the only suitable alternative to the meridian eclipse of the month of Sabatu, despite the shortcomings associated with it. However, the biggest flaw with this may be only apparent: We don't know where the viewer was when they saw the associated solar eclipse.

Looking at all those double eclipses of the month of Simanu that have been found, the best option is in 2035 BCE. the second eclipse occurred, because it was sufficiently covering and the lunar eclipse of the month of Kislimu is close to a double eclipse. This treatise applies this option while extending the Akkadian chronology from its end by one year.

References

25-1 owlapps.net/owlapps_apps/articles?id=154847&lang=en

25-2 Emil Khalisi: The Double eclipse at the Downfall of Old  Babylon pp. 3,4

25-3 Bible, genesis 10:10

25-4 webspace.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/babylon/ babybibl_tupsaru.htm

25-5 oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/corpus, SAA 8/chr 22 502

Timing of the Ur III dynasty

 

Solar eclipse of Shulgi

Quite remarkable is the brief mention of Shulgi’s poem describing his war against Gutium. The researcher describes it:

‘During the battle, there was an eclipse of the sun. It was possibly preceded by the lunar eclipse, but the part of the text is damaged.’26-1

If such a double eclipse occurred, it was very significant and there may not be very many.

Lunar eclipses of the Ur III dynasty

During the Ur III dynasty, two historical lunar eclipses occurred. The first of these dates back to the end of Shulgi’s reign. When studying these eclipses, it should be taken into account that at around this early time, the Julian calendar already shows a remarkably large error.

Second, the lunar calendar used may have flowed far back.

The researcher says of the first lunar eclipse:

‘The lunar omen comes from the early part of the Dynasty of Ur III; it is generally thought to mark the end of the reign of Shulgi. The eclipse takes place on the 14th day of the 3rd month, beginning in the first watch in the east, and ending in the west at the beginning of the second watch.’26-1

Another mention of the lunar eclipse relates to the near end of the Ur III dynasty, the reign of Ibbi-Suen. There are several options for this as well.

We take both of these mentions here in succession, as scholars say these may date close to the end of the reign of these said kings. Applying this assumption, these two lunar eclipse would become a pair of eclipse with a time difference of about 42 years. The researcher says about the second lunar eclipse:

‘The following lunar omen marks the end of the Dynasty of Ur III. The eclipse is therefore attributed to Ibbi-sın, the last king of the dynasty – – – The eclipse takes place on the 14th day of the 12th month, beginning in the south during the evening watch, eventually clearing during the morning watch in the north.’26-1

There are two important features in these descriptions of lunar eclipses that are important to consider.

The first of these eclipses occurred in the evening, the latter occurred in the morning. This feature of lunar eclipses greatly reduces the number of possible observations.

Another additional feature is the Direction of the Air, where the moon was at the time of the lunar eclipse. The moon eclipse of Shulgi mentions east and west, while the eclipse of Ibbi-Suen mentions south and north. These directions of the air clearly cannot mean the location of the moon, but describe the lunar eclipse itself.

It is good for us to remember that in a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the earth obscures the moon from the left to the right. In connection with the lunar eclipse of Shulgi, the left side of the moon is said to have been to the east.

From this it can be concluded that the moon was approximately to the south. It should also be noted here that apparently only four main air directions were used in those situations.

Because Ur is so south, the orbit of the moon can sometimes also pass north of Ur. In such a situation, the left side of the moon would be in the west and not in the east. Second, the moon could sometimes rise even between the north and northeast. So it didn’t always make it to the south during the evening. It remains to be seen whether these properties of the lunar orbit affect the suitability of the found lunar eclipse pairs.

In the case of the lunar eclipse of Ibbi-suen, the left side of the moon was in the south, which again suggests that the moon was approximately in the west at that time.

However, a small question mark may remain in the air to hover, as in Chapter 19 a matter related to the lunar orbit came to light when looking at the events of Joshua’s time near Gideon. The event can also give the impression that the moon stopped in its orbit for as long as the rotation of the earth stopped. If this happens, there may be minor problems in calculating the lunar orbit, especially in cases where the lunar orbit runs diagonally from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemis-phere, or vice versa. Since the moon's rotation time would be about 8 hours behind the correct time in that case, there could be some difference in the times of moonrise and moonset.

In addition, it is possible that that change in the time zone would have some effect on the point in which the moon was when the eclipse occurred. However, this paper is forced to use NASA's calculations in this regard.

It would be desirable, of course, for someone to be enthusiastic about making a counter that would take into account possible discrepancies in the movements of the earth and the moon in 732 BCE. and 1472 BCE.

First, let's review eclipses based on current understanding.

1. PART:

Old chronology

Here we found based on current practice, which that the Earth's position has remained the same.

It can be noted that there are very few alternative eclipses for this option during the Ur III dynasty.

Double eclipse of Shulgi

Shulgi's double eclipse is not found satisfactorily enough. However, there are a few alternative double eclipses, in addition to the individual solar eclipses presented in the tables.

But first, let's take an example of how researchers have applied this double eclipse. Some researchers have even proposed a date as early as May 2138 BCE. On 9th May there was an annular solar eclipse and two weeks later there was a lunar eclipse.26-2

However, this solar eclipse occurred around 01.40 UTC, the sun had not yet risen in Mesopotamia. It was visible in what is now city of Islamabad in Pakistan early in the morning and progressed diagonally further north, so that it was also visible in the territory of present-day Russia, where the city of Irkutsk is now located. The lunar eclipse, on the other hand, would have appeared early in the evening in what is now Iraq.

Double eclipse 1997 BCE.

However, it appears that one double eclipse can be found in the table above, which as such could be a poor fit for Shulgi’s double eclipse. This is October 4th 1997 BCE. solar eclipse and subsequent lunar eclipse. Here, however, there are several weaknesses. First, the solar eclipse was not directly above what is now Iraqi territory, but a little further south. However, it appeared quite coverage in the above of the ancient city of Ur. The lunar eclipse on October 18th, on the other hand, was weak, with only 18% of the lunar surface shadowed. There is also another problem related to this, which may be even bigger than these.

The king Shulgi's and at the end of the reign of Ibbi-Suen's, the last king of Ur III dynasties, a lunar eclipse has been described. The biggest problem may be that those lunar eclipses have been accurately described. At the end of Shulgi's reign, in the third month of the year, there was a lunar eclipse. During that lunar eclipse, the moon was about to the south, so it happened late at evening. At the end of Ibbi-Suen’s reign, the twelfth month of the year, there was a lunar eclipse. It happened at dawn with the moon about to the west.

In practice, it could be said that these two lunar eclipses cannot be found, as the Ur III dynasty would have to be drastically extended, as the lunar eclipse of Ibbi-Suen would not be found until the early 1918 BCE. Also, Shulgi's lunar eclipse would not be found until 1969 BCE., his term would have to be extended by three years.

So there are a great many grievances in this double eclipse that together make it highly questionable.

Double eclipse 1917 BCE.

The June 24th, 1917 BCE. there was an annular solar eclipse directly above the city of Ur and two weeks later there was a lunar eclipse with 32% coverage. However, this was far too late to fit into the current chronologies made for the 1st dynasty of Babylonia and the dynasty of Larsan, which began at the end of the Ur III dynasty.

Searching for a lunar eclipse pair

Let's take lunar eclipses here in accordance with the previously discussed condition. So these conditions were as follows.

1. Shulgi's lunar eclipse occurred in the evening when the moon was approximately in south.

2. The Ibbi-Suen lunar eclipse took place in the morning when the moon was approximately in the west.

Using the old chronology assumption, how many such lunar eclipses occurred?

This issue has been reviewed here over a wide range of time. This is because the exact location of the ancient months is not completely certain.

This is affected, first of all, by using the Julian calendar when scheduling them. It 'moves' the date more than two weeks later than the current Gregorian calendar. Secondly, this is related to how careful the ancient people were.

An extra, 13th month had to be added to the ancient calendar every three years or so to keep the calendar on point. If they was careless here, the calendar could at worst slip back several months.

Lunar eclipse pairs found

Of these, there are four lunar eclipse pairs.

Lunar eclipse pair I. The earliest option is May 15th, 2064 BCE. and March 14th, 2023 BCE. were lunar eclipses. This is the only one of these that would fit into a middle chronology. The notable problem with this is that Shulgi's double eclipse is nowhere to be found.

Lunar eclipse pair II. Lunar eclipse on July 18th, 2002 BCE. and March 27th, 1959 BCE. This can also be complicated by the fact that Shulgi's double eclipse is not found. Another major problem is its poor fit with the Larsa dynasty. About the suitability of chronologies in more detail in the 30th chapter.

Lunar eclipse pair III. The lunar eclipse of June 16th, 1991 BCE. and February 23rd, 1948 BCE. The weakness of this option is that the double eclipse of Shulgi in 1997 BCE. would only date to his 42nd year of reign.

Lunar eclipse pair IV. The lunar eclipse of July 7th, 1917 BCE. and March 17th, 1874 BCE. This would fit a super short chronology. Here's the same puzzle as before, Shulgi's double eclipse can't be found.

2. PART:

Long CHA 137º

This calculation uses the assumption that a long CHA 137º change would have to be applied to both lunar and solar eclipses during that time.

Since the time of the eclipses is noted in these lists, a short word is mentioned about it. This CHA 137º change uses the address 432 Highway 17336 in Louisiana, USA.

When the Earth is rotated that far back, ancient Ur would have been pretty much exactly at that highway. Even though that scale becomes more accurate when calculating east and west longitude (E46º – 137º = W91º), the current time zones on Earth are not necessarily evenly distributed in 15º wide slices. That address in question is about a hundred meters from the exact location reported to the city of Uri (N30°57′42 E46°06′18) when applying that change in the Earth's position. Because of this, the marked times are partially indicative, especially in this long CHA 137º change, which uses US Central Time.26-3

Double eclipse of Shulgi Let's start by tabulating these double eclipses of Shulgi, which are found at three times that fit the chronology models used. These are mentioned in the list in italics.

We find that the last options on this list are exceptionally late.

 In this thesis, this is clearly considered too early an option. Therefore, its other applicability is not investigated.

Double eclipse 2035 BCE.

There was a good lunar eclipse on April 24th in 2035 BCE., which was well visible in Ur. Two weeks after that there was a solar eclipse. The problem with this seems to be that the Ur III dynasty dates to such a time that it does not fit into a short or middle chronology, as it would end approxima-tely in 1968 BCE.

Double eclipse 2026 BCE.

There was a total solar eclipse on May 1st, which was well visible in Ur. Two weeks later, there was a lunar eclipse. The problem with this is that the lunar eclipses to the end of the reigns of Shulgi and Ibbi-Suen will not be found within a reasonable time.

Double eclipse 1995 BCE.

We don’t know exactly where Shulgi was at the time during the fight, when he noticed that solar eclipse.

However, detecting it emphasizes that it must have been a very coverage eclipse.

If this double eclipse were applied, this options above would place Shulgi in a short chronology of reign. In 1995 BCE. the solar eclipse can be applied to the 23rd year of Shulgi’s reign, which is why it is significant.26-4

Although this is a rare eclipse pair, its compatibility is also influenced by other lunar eclipses in Ur, which are reviewed on the following pages.

It was revealed in the previous chapter that this seems to be the only alternative to the double eclipse during the month of Subartu, which was considered a bad omen for Babylon.

What if there were no double eclipses, what good individual solar eclipses can be found? There was also a small table above. In addition, in 1917 BCE., 1895 BCE. and 1866 BCE. there was a solar eclipse that was very visible in Ur.

Double eclipse 1979 BCE.

In October 1979 BCE. there was a double eclipse. In it, October 15th, 1979 BCE. there had been a partial solar eclipse in Ur, but it was nevertheless very coverage. In terms of opacity, it roughly corresponded to the usual annular solar eclipse. This solar eclipse was seen as total, for example, in what is now Romania. From there, the shadow of the moon passed obliquely to the southeast, so that the solar eclipse was total visible above Saudi Arabia to the west of the present-day city of Hafi Al-Batin. 

However, what should be mentioned earlier should be taken into account here. The exact magnitude of the change in the position of the earth is unknown. If it was at this point the estimated maximum, 142°, then this solar eclipse would have appeared total in the ancient city of Ur. Two weeks later, on October 29th, there was a lunar eclipse.

A problem with this could be that the lunar eclipse was not very coverage.

Lunar eclipse pairs found

There are up to five lunar eclipse pairs for this.

However, in some cases, the timing of the lunar eclipses does not fit properly with the mentioned night watches.

Lunar Eclipse Pair 1. Here Shulgi's lunar eclipse occurred in June 2038 BCE. and the Ibbi-Suen lunar eclipse on the morning of March 5th, 1995 BCE. However, this Ibbi-Suen lunar eclipse was very late, after five in the morning. Another shortcoming is that Shulgi's double eclipse is not found.

Lunar eclipse pair 2 Related to this are the lunar eclipses of June 5th, 1990 BCE. and February 22nd, 1948 BCE. The problem with this is that Shulgi's double eclipse is not found at the right point, year’s 2015 BCE. at close range.

Lunar Eclipse Pair 3. Here the Shulgi Lunar Eclipse occurred on July 17th, 1983 BCE. and the Ibbi-Suen lunar eclipse on April 6th, 1941 BCE. There is also a suitable alternative for the Ibbi-Suen lunar eclipse a year later, March 26th, 1940 BCE. This problem is similar to the previous one. Shulgi's total eclipse is not found in 2008 BCE. at close range.

Lunar Eclipse Pair 4. In this option, Shulgi's lunar eclipse is found on July 17th, 1973 BCE. and the Ibbi-Suen lunar eclipse was on March 6th, 1930 BCE. This-option is supported by Shulgi's double eclipse found in 1995 BCE., his 23rd regnal year.

Lunar eclipse pair 5. This is a bit unusual, as lunar eclipses occur at slightly different times. This includes the lunar eclipses of July 8th, 1955 BCE. and March 5th, 1911 BCE. o Januaryr 3rd, 1908 BCE.

The downside of this is that the length of the Ur III dynasty may have to be extended a bit. Lunar eclipse 1911 BCE. was not so near morning as one might suppose. It started around 22:40 local time and ended the night around 2:00. However, this started during the 'evening shift' and ended during the 'morning shift'. If this lunar eclipse proves too weak, another option for this is in January 1908 BCE. there was a lunar eclipse.

3. PART:

Short CHA 17º

A review of this short transit may be expected to be interesting, as it was accompanied by a good double eclipse in 1532 BCE., although it had other flaws.

However, it can be noticed that there are very few suitable lunar eclipses for this.

Double eclipse 2013 BCE.

In this CHA 17º alternative change, there is, some what sur-prisingly, one pair of Shulgi’s double eclipse that fit a short chronology. Very obscure is the solar eclipse of March 8th, 2013 BCE. On the early morning of February 23rd, there was a total lunar eclipse. Some kind of problem with this lunar eclipse may be that the moon had time to set before the eclipse was at its best. Here one would have to assume that a smaller initial phase of eclipse was observed about half an hour before the moon was set. It can be seen that this is weaker than in 1995 BCE. double eclipse occurred. However, there is one special feature associated with that solar eclipse: it also occurred 23 years after the rise of Shulgi. A somewhat weaker double eclipse can be found from October 1997 BCE., where the eclipse was on the 4th day and the lunar eclipse on the 18th.

One lunar eclipse pair

There is one eclipse pair here, where the Shulgi lunar eclipse occurred on April 15th, 1988 BCE. and the Ibbi-Suen lunar eclipse on February 23rd, 1948 BCE. However, the biggest downside of this lunar eclipse pair will be that Ibbi-Suen's lunar eclipse was two years before the end of his reign.

Another minor drawback is that in 1988 BCE. the calendar would have slipped back about 2.5 months.

Using this lunar eclipse pair, the 2013 BCE. described above the double eclipse would fall in the 23rd year of Shulgi's reign.

However, there is a problem with this, which will be explained a little later, when a summary of all these options is made.

4. PART:

Summary

Above came a somewhat surprising result. When the eclipse pair that best suits the history of the Ur III dynasty is applied, it may also be that then the ultra low chronology would have to be used.

Let's briefly look at their compatibility with each other and also at some of the events of the time. Earlier in Chapter 19 there was a lunar eclipse that occurred during the reign of King Zimri-Lim of Mari. According to a ultra low chronology, it occurred at the end of the reign of Zimri-Lim's predecessor, Yasmah-Adad.

In addition, this study is naturally affected by the change in the time zone beyond 9 hours, which makes it easier to find "missing eclipses".

A series of three lunar eclipses?

However, this may be accompanied by a third lunar eclipse. At the end of the reign of Utu-hengal, the king of Uruk, who ruled Uruk V just before the establishment of the Ur III dynasty, there may have been a lunar eclipse. If this were to happen, we would know a series of three lunar eclipses that occurred in chronological order as follows:

1. and 2. time difference of eclipses 64-67 years

2. and 3. time difference of eclipses 40-45 years

1. and 3. time difference of eclipses 106-109 years

So this can be tried to test if such a series of three eclipses can be found by using all the lunar eclipse series presented in this chapter. In this list, these extreme options may be somewhat unlikely, as they would require a lunar eclipse to occur several years before the end of a king's reign.

When an alternative suitable for a short chronology is used, it is noted that there are two suitable alternatives.

Using a long CHA 137º change, the beginning of the Ur III dynasty would date to approximately 2036 BCE. In that alternative, the lunar eclipse of Utu-hengal is found on June, 2037 15th BCE.

For a ultra low chronology, July 2020 BCE. is fine a lunar eclipse occurred.

On the other hand, if we look at the aforementioned CHA 17º change, we notice an almost equally good result. In that alternative, the Ur III dynasty would have started appro-ximately in 2054 BCE. The Utu-hengal’s total lunar eclipse would be found on June 16th, 2056 BCE.

Middle Chronology

Although this middle chronology is the most common one that scholars always tend to apply, apparently due to the seemingly compact list of the Assyrian chronology, it has to be abandoned.

Shulgi's double eclipse is not found in it.

Short Chronology

This could be an interesting option. This is found when using the long CHA 137º change Shulgi's double eclipse 1995 BCE. and lunar eclipse pair nro 4. There are a few small problems with this interpretation.

The double eclipses of the Babylonian month of Sabatu and Simanu no longer present problems for the application of chronology.

However, there are two problems with the application of a short chronology. The first of these has come to light when examining the solar eclipse of ancient Assyria. The second is the aforementioned double eclipse of Shulgi, in which the solar and lunar eclipses are placed in the wrong order. According to research, a solar eclipse should precede a lunar eclipse.

This problem with Shulgi's double eclipse is also accentuated when a short CHA 17º is used.

Ultra Low Chronology

The result of this treatise on this matter may be almost shocking to some researchers. Neither of the options mentioned above, middle- and short chronology, seems like it would be very farfetched to apply them.

Some of the readers have also noticed that some of the double eclipses of Shulgi presented in this chapter are "backwards" in terms of how they are estimated to have happened. This is because scientists generally believe that the solar eclipse came first and two weeks after that there was a lunar eclipse. This double eclipse is thus found "right" in October 1979 BCE., this would have occurred 23 years after Shulgi's rise to power.

This option is applied here to a ultra low chronology due to the good quality double eclipse of Shulgi. If it were to be applied, then the beginning of the Akkadian kingdom would move to approximately 2215 BCE.

Three things speak for this option. The solar eclipse of Old Assyria is found at the best possible time, which one would expect it to be when comparing the chronologies of Assyria, Babylonia and Mari.

Second, Shulgi's double eclipse presented in this chapter is in the correct sequence.

Thirdly, the 'Babylonian double eclipses', which caused a lot of discussion and wonder among researchers (due to their difficulty in finding them), can be found at a suitable point. They date to the end of the reigns of certain Akkadian kings.

Applying this may seem to introduce major problems as to how the chronology of Old Assyria could be shortened sufficiently. The need to shorten it may be up to 120 years between 1680-1420 BCE. This is because applying the ultra low chronology moves Shamsi-Adad I's reign 96 years later than the current general assumption. But on the other hand, the reign of Eriba-Adad I can be moved 34 years earlier.

Elam’s king Cedorlaomer

The Bible tells us that Kedorlaomer, king of Elam, attacked with the other kings in the towns near the present-day Jordan and took the kings of that area and the inhabitants of the cities captive (Bible, Genesis, chapter 14). According to biblical chronology, this happened around 1935 BCE.

Archeological data tells of only one similar king of Elam from that time. This king was Kindattu. He attacked Ur and captured its last king Ibbi-Suen.26-5 If we apply the assumption of the previous paragraphs that this could have happened in 1930 BCE. (according to the short chronology), it seems very possible that Kindattu was Kedorlaomer. However, it is not impossible that Kindattu ruled for a longer time and would have been in power in the 1940s BCE. and as late as 1911 BCE. if a ultra low chronology is applied.

References

26-1 Boris Banjevic: Ancient eclipses and dating the fall of Babylon, p. 253

26-2 Tenzin Gyurme: The Flower of Life and the History of Meta-Physics, p. 242

26-3 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Time_Zone

26-4 mytodayshoroscope.com/solar-eclipse/

26-5 books.google.fi/books?

id=mc4cfzkRVj4C&pg=PA142&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false