Topic sources vary /check them out (Amizaduga texts)

[Elijah]

Amizaduga's archeological texts

Important information regarding Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is in many languages and each one has different information on the topics. In a Google search on Ammizaduqa
I came across GERMAN Wikipedia, and it also had a translation button. The information for the tablets was not the same. Do undertsand that the Venus dates are on several tablets and as copies these tablets are not the same or exact. Another reason is not just because of being a copy of copies, but because as Venus repeats near the same dates decades later, the dates do drift and shift so that a copyist might change the dates to fit his current reality. Thus if you look up anything in Wikipedia, you may wish to value what other language Wikipedia's have posted on your topic. Hope this is helpful in YOUR researches as it is in mine.
Richard

[Elijah]

Done with Venus dates.
Next step is lunar dates.

The Venus dates are actually the least we should dispute. (Though no dispute of anything is really solid nor can force the world.) The tablets are year 2400 to prove Adam is 4025 BC and that Hindu and Greeks and Mayan used the tablets to believe they were year 3600 for a Hindu 5500 BC Adam and Greek 5200 BC Adam and Mayan 5370 BC Adam.

The important factor of the Venus dates is being lunar calendar and as such they determine the development of our lunar knowledge which is a more difficult cycle pattern than the main planets. Thus the German Wikipedia claims a lunar pattern where Amizaduga's 21 years have only 6 intercalary months. This is very odd because the insertion should be 7 in 19 years or 9 in 25 years, thus expecting for 21 years to see 7 or 8 intercalary months. The texts only show II Elulu, they do not show a II Adaru, but the German text of Wikipedia decides this following order. As you can see I added the count of months between their dates to show you some are Adar not Elul, and I also always include Julian dates. Though for lunar dates the scholars like to stick to Gregorian seasonal to beleive these ancients held to seasons, the astronomy programs of the whole world use Julian dates, thus it is important to use both, rather than confuse by having only one form Julian or Gregorian and mistakenly cross systems. I always put Julian first such as Oct 26 = Oct 12 thought it is a good idea to put Oct 26 = G.Oct 12.

Year   Nisanu 1                      Tašritu 1      
1645 BC   Apr 18 = Apr 4  -6m       Oct 12 = Sep 28  -6m   
1644 BC   Apr 7 = Mar 24  -6m       Oct  2 = Sep 18  -7m  II Adaru
1643 BC   Apr 26 = Apr 12  -6m         Oct 20 = Oct 6  -6m
1642 BC   Apr 16 = Apr   2   -6m         Oct 10 = Sep 26  -6m
1641 BC   Apr   5 = Mar 22  -7m (II Elulu)   Oct 29 = Oct 15  -6m
1640 BC   Apr 23 = Apr   9  -6m               Oct 17 = Oct 3  -6m
1639 BC   Apr 13 = Mar 30  -6m              Oct  6 = Sep 22  -6m
1638 BC   Apr 3 = Mar 20  -6m             Sep 25 = Sep 11  -7m II Adar
1637 BC   Apr 21 = Apr 7  -6m             Oct 13 = Sep 29  -6m
1636 BC   Apr   9 = Mar 26  -7m (II Elulu) Nov 2 = Oct 19  -6m
1635 BC   Apr 28 = Apr 14  -6m                 Oct 19 = Oct 6  -6m
1634 BC   Apr 17 = Apr   3  -6m              Oct 11 = Sep 27  -6m
1633 BC   Apr   5 = Mar 22  -7m (II Elulu)   Oct 29 = Oct 15  -6m
1632 BC   Apr 24 = Apr 10  -6m               Oct 19 = Oct   5  -6m
1631 BC   Apr 14 = Mar 31  -6m               Oct  8 = Sep 24 -6m   
1630 BC   Apr   3 = Mar 20  -6m              Sep 27 = Sep 13 -6m
1629 BC   Mar 23 = Mar 9   -7m  (II Elulu) Oct 15 = Oct 1

This does not line up with the lunar dates of Venus
published by Fotheringham that I supplied in English Wikipedia and here in BAS. But there are OTHER tablets
of Amizaduga's dates.

[Elijah]

Doing a Google search you will find that the Amizaduga's texts are in the German Wikipedia. As such they are not a mere translation of the English category, but stand totally on their own, submitted and contributed by Germans. This is important because most books on Sumerian astronomy will be found to be German, taking the lead. American astronomy tends to come from Chicago Oriental Institute. (Then there is British to consider too.)

The contribution in German Wikipedia is not without error.
I do not know if German Wikipedia got its Amizaduga lunar dates from what I posted in English Wikipedia. They agree in Venus inferior rising that in 1642 BC the rise was on Ayar 11 on Gregorian May 11. However, this makes Ayar 1 on May 1 so that a 30-day Nisan 1 begins on Oct 3 not the Oct 2 they list as Nisan 1 in their lunar chart. I will say that Ayar 11 might be May 10 (not my May 11) for the following reason.
(Mistakes can be embarrasing, like the time my brother and I returned on the cruise ferry from Cancun to the cruise ship and as it got cloudy a woman said yes there is the eclipse. My brother rammed me with his elbow with hysterical grinning because my Voyager program when zoomed out looks like the moon covers the sun when it doesnt, and I had told the cruise director there would be an eclipse that i had printed out on paper... impossible because it was Dec 1996 when the nodes were in spring /autumn and I had caught my error after he made an announcement on the cruise TV. OK OK I look like a big mouth trumpeteer.)

Firstly, I will state that my own contribution of 1646-1625 BC is not from Sewell, but my personal conversion from photocopy I have of Fotheringham based on the formula of Gregorian 1921-1901 BC leap day requires +17 to obtain Julian, then subtract 243 years to obtain the same Julian date for Venus (so I did not calculate Venus, however I could look up and print the astronomy program times for such Venus if you request such as 1920 /1677 BC and 1918 /1675 BC, etc). Then the next 32 years have 8 leap days, and a drift day of 583.92 day Venus, so 9 days is subtracted, and as Gregorian then 14 days subtracted. Thus the lunar dates i present (comparable to Sewell) is not based on moon at all of 1646-1625 BC, but based on Venus. They could be a day off of lunar dates. Example, for inferior rising Venus on Tishri 15 in 1644 BC, this does not mean the lunar date could be Tishri 14 or 16, but rather my conversion of Fotheringham places it on Gregorian Oct 3, and the lunar Tishri 1 presented in German Wikipedia would place Tishri 15 on Gregorian Oct 2.

HOWEVER, be ware, German Wikipedia claims its New Light (new crescents) are 2-3 days after conjunction, and the Voyager astronomy program proves the German Wikipedia dates are mostly exact conjunction dates of absent moon.

AND lastly, German Wikipedia does not have the correct Nisan and Tishri to match Venus conjunctions. Firstly, English Wikipedia claims we assume the lunar dates to be fixed 19-year cycle. Perhaps fixed to spring, but there is no fixed pattern. The texts clearly show some years of text have two consecutive years with an extra intercalary month. Specifically year 5 having superior conjunction from Kislev 27 to Shebat 30 (month 9 to 11) in the months that German wikipedia require to be Tebet 27 to Adar 30 (month 10 to 12). No system for 2000 years has had two 13-month years in succession. The moon does not do this; accumulation takes 2-3 years. Year 13 and year 21 (8 year cycle) does list this conjunction as Tebet to Adar. This particular error (whether German Wikipedia, or actual error of king Amizaduga) requires Amizaduga to have intercalary Elulu before Tishri 1642 BC (GW does not), until 1641 BC where GW has intercalary Elulu and Amizaduga does not. The layout of Nisan and Tishri by German Wikipedia does have only 6 extra months in a span of 19 years (the known fixed calendar claimed by Jews back to Adam 3761 BC, and other religions claiming back to Noah and Flood, and specifically claimed in these tablets therefore fails to prove the known 7 months per 19 years).

=== THIS DOES NOT MEAN AMIZADUGA IS NOT 1646-1625 BC MARKING ADAM'S YEAR 2400 to disprove evolution. We have all chronologies in the world who use these tablets as year 3600 of Adam (Noah's 1344 after a Flood of year 2256), and 2400 to their year that expected Armageddon or christ or kingdom in year 6000 (these four dates i.e. Adam /Flood /3600 /6000 being different in every chronology) prove that they were descent of one family tree of Noah and before him Adam knowing the world to have only one true genesis for all current races and nations. ====

The explanation is the error creeped in after the originals, but most are not slip-up errors, but rather drift of Venus in later centuries causing a scribe to think he was correcting an error instead of actually creating an error by his supposed correction. In 120 years (64+56) Venus will drift 30 leap days from a Tebet 27 back to a Kislev 27. Thus such an error in the record of 1642 BC can occur perhaps in a 1522 BC copy of the text as Venus dates repeat. Or perhaps 275 years later in 1367 BC if Tebet 27 is the same as 1642 BC, and then 120 years later changed to Kislev 27 in 1247 BC. (unconfirmed analogy only).

Our resurrection of all humans after Armageddon unveils all the millions of people who thought they corrected the whole world and instead took the major lead in going astray. Thus the German Wikipedia avoids this issue (such as this one superior conjunction) of inconsistent  dates by laying out its lunar dates of Amizaduga from inferior rising to inferior rising dates, ignoring the preceding Venus set of these inferiors, and ignoring the superior conjunction dates to see if there is consistency. They wisely incorporate both Nisan and Tishri to determine whether an extra month would be the preceding Adar or preceding Elul, (Nisan new years fall between Tishri intercalary points) but then why ignore the other half of Venus which is superior dates between inferior dates! As my desire to learn and research, I then find the material of these scholars for me to learn from and in doing so then I like Moses in Egyptian schools of the highest then see the errors, once I grasp the knowledge. (My apology, yes there are some things that take me forever to see; it was just a couple years ago that I now realize that pi is not 22/7, but i had thought it was on the mere premise that 22/7 is an unending decimal that does not repeat itself and so is pi. Important when understanding that the great pyramid was built by rolling a stone with a cubit radius.)

[turanclancath]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_(15th_century_BC)

Yes Eliah.
Agree completely.

For instance compare Wiki in English about the Battle of Megiddo by Thutmoses III 1457  with the  Dutch, German, French , Italian and Spanish wiki about this.

Just click on the left column  Francais or Deutsch etc.

Only in the English ( American I guess  ) you see that Thut.3 had an light  cavalry of mounted archers known as haibwr
i copy /paste it here.

:

-----------------------------------------------------

With his infantry and the light cavalry of mounted bowmen known as haibrw or the horsemen going by the side of the mountains to take out any scouts that might be posted and leaving the road to the main force of chariots he moved in quickly

-------------------------------------------------------

in the other Wiki.s  no ( because the Assyrians started with this  much later .)

In the sources  no ,niente  , only that  horse had to walk after horse on the narrow  path.


see sources in translation

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Account_of_the_Battle_of_Megiddo

and

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/the_battle_of_megiddo.htm




in military literature you read  that the Hyksos introduced the composite bow and war chariot   and that the bowmen were standing in the chariots.
the word for this kind of soldiers was haibwr ( interpreted as Habiru  etc ).

and an army on march had the chariots in bagage trains so only at the verge of battle they were put together.
So indeed horse after horse and nop mounted archers on horse back.
yes in the chariots thats ok

 After all This !!! is my trade as an historian lecuring  at university.
The ars interpretandi and source criticism.!!!!

And how  dangerous it is  to  read in sources what isnt there.

 therefore I think I copy/paste it also in your  How to read a text.
Because Source Criticism intern/extern  is very important.
By the way in the Middle Ages ( my period by  university training )
there were at least 5 ways of reading/interpretation of  a bible text.
Litteral , symbolic  etc.

The Song of Songs ( Shier ha Sjierim)
is an exellent   model for demonstrating his.

Bu th that is another posting