The Case for the Lower Middle Chronology

Different manuscripts of the eponym list disagree slightly, are imperfectly preserved, and breaks in communication during winter between Aššur and Anatolia introduce a 0-5 year error potential in the REL.

“These include the fact that different manuscripts of the eponym list disagree slightly, and are imperfectly preserved, and that there are breaks in communication during winter between Aššur and Anatolia, all of which allow for varying reconstructions of the sequence and introduce a 0–5 year error potential [5, 8–11].”

This calls into question existing work on Mesopotamian chronology which has used such dates as part of assessments or arguments.

“This calls into question existing work on Mesopotamian chronology which has used such dates as part of assessments or arguments (e.g. [5, 9–12, 15]).”

Our findings directly and independently support some recent analyses of the textual and astronomical records arguing for the Middle Chronology or Low-Middle Chronology as the only coherent solution(s) for Old Babylonian chronology and history.

“Our findings directly and independently support some recent analyses of the textual and astronomical records arguing for the Middle Chronology or Low-Middle Chronology as the only coherent solution(s) for Old Babylonian chronology and history [5, 9–11, 15].”

By separating the two fires, the tie between the REL sequence and the astronomical data (eclipses, Venus tablets), intercalations, and potentially the suggested link between a major volcanic dust veil and northern hemisphere tree-ring growth anomalies 1628-1627 BCE and poor atmospheric observation conditions in Mesopotamian records is retained.

“More importantly, by separating the two fires, we retain the tie between the REL sequence and the astronomical data (eclipses, Venus tablets), intercalations [5, 8–11, 15] and even potentially the suggested link between a major volcanic dust veil and several northern hemisphere tree-ring growth anomalies 1628–1627 BCE and poor atmospheric observation conditions as evident in Mesopotamian records [”

The new robust evidence finds the same Middle or Low-Middle Mesopotamian Chronology solutions are most likely, but on a more rigorous basis.

“Hence, although previous arguments using the now replaced tree-ring-based dates (e.g. [5, 9–11, 15]) are inherently invalid in this strict respect, it turns out that the new, robust, evidence nonetheless finds the same Middle or Low-Middle Mesopotamian Chronology solutions are most likely but on a more rigorous basis.”

The only Mesopotamian chronological schemes potentially compatible with the wiggle-match are the High Middle or (especially) Low Middle Chronologies.

“The only Mesopotamian chronological schemes20 potentially compatible with the wiggle-match are the High Middle or (especially) Low Middle Chronologies (which are only 8 calendar years apart)18,19,21,28–31.”