The Venus Tablets: A Fresh Approach

See Rawlinson Henry C. Sir , The cuneiform inscriptions of Western Asia, iii (London, 1870). Tablet K 160, which gives most of the text, was published under the title, “Tables of the movements of the planet Venus and their influences”. Other tablets, filling in the gaps in the sequence, were published over the next few years.

For Solution 1977–1956 b.c., see Kugler F. X. , Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, Assyriologische, Astronomische und Astralmythologische Untersuchungen, II Buch, Teil II, Heft I (Münster, 1912), 257–311: “Die ältensten Venus-Tafeln und das Alter der I Dynastie von Babel.” For Solution 1809–1788 b.c., see Weidner E. , “Studien zur Assyrisch-Babylonischen Chronologie und Geschichte auf Grund Neuer Funde”, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, xx/IV (Leipzig, 1917). For Solution 1801–1780 b.c., see Kugler F. X. , Von Moses bis Paulus (Münster, 1922), 497–501. For Solution 1857–1836 b.c., see Thureau-Dangin F. , “La Chronologie des trois premières dynasties Babyloniennes”, Revue d'Assyriologie, xxiv (1927), 181–98. For Solution 1921–1900 b.c., see Langdon S. Fotheringham J. K. and Schoch C. , The Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga (London, 1928).

Weidner , op. cit., announced that an astronomical examination of the Venus Tablets would appear shortly, from which it would appear that the most probable date for the First Babylonian Dynasty lay 168 years later than Kugler's date. In a later paper, “Die Könige von Assyrien, neue chronologische Dokumente aus Assur”, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, xxvi/II (Leipzig, 1921), 41, he stated that this was the joint work of himself and Neugebauer P. V. . Unfortunately, his manuscript was lost in the German revolution of 1918 (see Schnabel Paul , “Zur astronomischen Fixierung der altbabylonischen Chronologie mittels der Venustafeln der Ammizaduga-Zeit”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, Neue Folge, Band 2 (= Band 36) (Berlin and Leipzig, 1925), 113.

Smith Sidney , Alalakh and chronology (London, 1940).

Ungnad A. , “Die Venustafeln und das neunte Jahr Samsuilunas”, Mitteilungen Altorientalische Gesellschaft, xiii, Heft 3 (1940).

Sidersky D. , “Nouvelle Étude sur la chronologie de la dynastie Hammurapienne”, Revue d'Assyriologie, xxxvii (1940), 45–54.

Cornelius F. , “Berossus und die Altorientalische Chronologie”, Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, xxxv (1942), 1–16; idem, “Die Venusdaten des Ammiṣaduqa”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xlviii (1944), 146–51.

van der Waerden B. L. , “Die Berechnung der ersten und letzten Sichtbarkeit von Mond und Planeten und die Venustafeln des Ammiṣaduqa”, Berichte der mathematischphysischen Klasse der Sachsischen Akademie der Leipzig, xciv (1942), 23–56; idem, “On Babylonian astronomy, I: The Venus Tablets of Ammiṣaduqa”, Ex oriente lux, x (1945–48), 414–24; idem, Die Anfange der Astronomie (Groningen, 1965); idem (with contributions by Peter Huber), Science awakening, ii: The birth of astronomy (Leiden, 1974).

Rowton M. B. , “The date of Hammurabi”, Journal of Near Eastern studies, xvii (1958), 97–111. Radio-carbon dating (p. 97) is as follows: (i) A piece of charcoal taken from a roof beam of an Ur III dynasty house in Nippur gives the date c. 1759 b.c.±106 for the accession year of Hammurabi ( Libby W. F. , Radio-carbon dating (2nd edn, Chicago, 1955), 81–82, no. C-752); (ii) Remains of reed mats from the Urnammu Ziqqurat in Urak gave the date c. 1581 b.c.±133 for the accession year of Hammurabi ( Münnich K. O. , “Heidelberg natural radiocarbon measurements, I”, Science, cxxvi, no. 3266 (August 1957), 194–9; sample no. H 141-120/166 (p. 198). On p. 194 Münnich suggests that where the statistical error is less than 100 years (in this case, 85 years), ±100 should be taken when the figures are to be compared with historical dates. Rowton has increased this to ±133 to allow for uncertainty in the date of the building). The accession year of Hammurabi would be 1847 b.c. if Ammiṣaduqa came to the throne in 1702 b.c. Other alternative Hammurabi dates are 1792 b.c., 1784 b.c., and 1728 b.c. They correspond to the dates 1646 b.c., 1638 b.c. and 1582 b.c. for Ammiṣaduqa's Year 1. The two radio-carbon dates interlap from 1714 b.c. to 1651 b.c., and the nearest Hammurabi date is 1728 b.c. The first radio-carbon date by itself would fit in with all four solutions.

van der Waerden , “On Babylonian astronomy, I”, 421–4.

Rowton , “The date of Hammurabi”.

Cambridge ancient history, 3rd edn, i (Cambridge, 1970), 232.

Weir John D. , The Venus Tablets of Ammizaduqa (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, xxix; Istanbul Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 1972).

Reiner Erica , in collaboration with David Pingree, The Venus Tablet of Ammiṣaduqa (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica: Babylonian planetary omens, Part 1 (Malibu, 1975)).

Schnabel Paul , who wrote articles on Babylonian astronomy in the 'twenties, found a ‘second Ulul’ month attested on some tablet or other. Having identified it as belonging to Ammiṣaduqa's 14th year, he passed that information on to Fotheringham J. K. . Since his source is unpublished, it cannot be identified and checked. However, it is possible to suggest what may have happened. Ammiṣaduqa's 14th year has a date-formula which records the “Year Ammiṣaduqa, the king, brought into Enamtila great copper altars with [representations] of mountains and streams”. This is very similar to the date-formula of Samsuiluna's 8th year, which reads “Year Samsuiluna, the king, erected royal copper representations of a mountain and streams, which bring plenty and abundance”. The 8th year of Samsuiluna does have an attested ‘second Ulul’ month. Schnabel may have seen one of Samsuiluna's tablets which was, presumably, partly defaced. He could have wrongly identified it as belonging to Ammiṣaduqa. In the circumstances, it seems reasonable to reject the suspect intercalary month of Year 14. In this investigation, Year 14 is taken to be a normal twelve-month year.

There are, of course, some Venus Tablet observations which could have had nothing at all to do with Ammiṣaduqa. An alternative version of Year 6, for example, with its data as VIII 28 and IX 3, may have come from Ammiditana's 35th year. Similarly, Year 19 may preserve data from another source, as yet unidentified. However, the recorded rising date of Year 19 is so close to what we would have expected the setting date to be, as to suggest a scribal error rather than borrowing from another source.

Huber Peter J. , “Early cuneiform evidence for the existence of the planet Venus”, in Scientists confront Velikovsky, ed. by Goldsmith Donald (Ithaca, N.Y., and London, 1977), 117–44, p. 143.

The values of the arcus visionis at present in use were originally determined by Carl Schoch and published by the University Observatory, Oxford, in 1924. van der Waerden accepted them with the proviso that they would be subject to revision when research could be carried out on the Seleucid observations, which had not then been published. However, Huber's investigation has shown them to be accurate (ibid., 134).

This information was first made public in Huber's review of my book (Bibliotheca orientalis, xxxi (1974), 86–88, p. 87).

Huber , op. cit. (ref. 16), 128, quoting Kammenhuber A. , Die Arier im Vorderen Orient (Heidelberg, 1968), 40.

Huber , op. cit. (ref. 16), 136. Huber gives the clock-time error±0·5 days. Since then he has studied Muller's Paul M. analysis of ancient and modern eclipses (“An analysis of the ancient astronomical observations with the implications for geophysics and cosmology”, Ph.D. thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1975), and this work now leads him to believe that the clock-time error for Ammiṣaduqa's time could be rather less than ±0·1 days.

There are now six attested thirty-day months whose regal years are not known. They are: 13 or 17+a XII BM 78592. 13 or 17+a XIIb BM 81096, BM 78459. 17+d III BM 81097. 17+d X YOS, 65 (MLC 1517). 17+a XI VS, vii, 133 = HG 1265. 17+a XII VS, vii, 139 = HG 640.

Reiner and Pingree (p. 21) state that Omen 11 (i.e. ‘first invisibility’ of Year 9) contains “an egregious error”, and should be dated XII 11 instead of III 11.

Ibid.

I did, of course, detect a modification of the Venus orbit when working with Solution 1646–1625 b.c. (see my The Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga, 62–78). However, my computed data were based on latitude 34°N; data based on latitude 32°·5N might not lead to that conclusion.

To establish the cause beyond dispute would probably involve taking a theodolite to the top of the temple-tower at Babylon, and preparing an accurate chart of the surrounding sky-line. Then the positions of the planet in the sky at the times of setting and rising would have to be calculated and plotted on the chart. That would show whether or not Venus was below a mountain peak.