Temple Dedication and Construction Texts of the Ancient Near East with Elapsed Years: Implications for Long Duration Chronologies

May combine two claims.

Currently, seven known published texts from Mesopotamia note elapsed years connected to temple dedication, with two of these texts containing overlapping information authored by the same king.

“Currently, seven known published texts from Mesopotamia note elapsed years connected to temple dedication, with two of these texts containing overlapping information authored by the same king.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

These temple construction and dedication texts document a king or kings involved in the construction, reconstruction, or remembrance of a temple, a deity with whom the temple was connected, the location of the temple, and the specific number of years elapsed between construction or dedication and another significant cultural or religious event.

“These temple construction and dedication texts document a king or kings involved in the construction, reconstruction, or remembrance of a temple, a deity with whom the temple was connected, the location of the temple, and the specific number of years elapsed between construction or dedication and another significant cultural or religious event.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

This type of text, although scarce, has a widespread geographic distribution throughout the ancient Near East from Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Phoenicia, and Israel.

“This type of text, although scarce, has a widespread geographic distribution throughout the ancient Near East from Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Phoenicia, and Israel.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Hundreds of inscriptions about temple construction, dedication, rededication, and commemoration have been recovered from the ruins of the ancient world and can be classified as a category of text or inscription.

“certainly, hundreds of inscriptions about temple construction, dedication, rededication, and commemoration have been recovered from the ruins of the ancient world and can be classified as a category of text or inscription.”

May combine two claims.

Known examples come from Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Phoenicia, and Israel, spanning the 13th to the 2nd centuries BC, along with a text from ancient Rome that was likely influenced by this practice.

“Known examples come from Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Phoenicia, and Israel, spanning the 13th to the 2nd centuries BC, along with a text from ancient Rome that was likely influenced by this practice.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Numbers of generations were specified as such when the writers chose to communicate chronological data via generations.

“Additionally, numbers of generations were specified as such when the writers chose to communicate chronological data via generations.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

There is a variant in the Septuagint that reads 440th year, but this variant is not present in all Septuagint manuscripts, with others reading 480th year.

“There is a variant found in the Septuagint that reads 440th year.However, this variant is not present in all Septuagint manuscripts, with others reading 480th year.”

May combine two claims.

A text of Nabonidus similar to the Sippar Cylinder, addressing the Ebarra temple of Shamash, counts from the 10th year of his reign, notes 52 years elapsed from Nebuchadnezzar II's actions, and records 700 years between Hammurabi's temple construction and the time of Burnaburiash.

“A text of Nabonidus similar to the Sippar Cylinder, also addressing the Ebarra temple of Shamash reconstruction and dedication, differs in that it counts from the 10th year of his reign and notes that 52 years had elapsed from the actions of Nebuchadnezzar II in addition to recording 700 years between the temple construction by Hammurabi and the time of Burnaburiash”

• cites Langdon 1916 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites BM 104738Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Other ancient cultures, such as the Hittites, Philistines, Urartu, Elam, and Achaemenid Persia, also created temple dedication inscriptions that inserted types of chronological markers, but either these cultures did not record elapsed years between temple related past events in this type of text, or examples of this have not yet been discovered or published.

“Other ancient cultures, such as the Hittites, Philistines, Urartu, Elam, and Achaemenid Persia, also created temple dedication inscriptions that inserted types of chronological markers, but either these cultures did not record elapsed years between temple related past events in this type of text, or examples of this have not yet been discovered or published.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The Hebrew Bible text reports that in the 4th regnal year of Solomon, the king began to build the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem, and that this was the 480th year since the Israelites departed Egypt.

“This text reports that in the 4th regnal year of Solomon, the king began to build the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem, and that this was the 480th year since the Israelites departed Egypt (1 Kings 6:1).”

• cites 1 Kings 6:1Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The ruins of the temple of Seth at Avaris are known archaeologically and have been excavated near the location of the ancient harbor, with the establishment of this temple dated to the 14th Dynasty and more specifically around 1700-1680 BC.

“The ruins of this temple of Seth at Avaris are known archaeologically and have been excavated near the location of the ancient harbor, with the establishment of this temple dated to the 14th Dynasty and more specifically around 1700-1680 BC”

• cites Bietak and Forstner-Muller 2008, pp. 28-50Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Bietak 2015, pp. 17-37 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In the Esarhaddon Prism, Shalmaneser I oversaw a temple rebuild that was supposedly 434 years following that of Shamshi-Adad I.

“Next, Shalmaneser I oversaw a temple rebuild that was supposedly 434 years following that of Shamshi-Adad I.”

May combine two claims.

The Sippar Cylinder also claims that Nabonidus rebuilt a temple to Anunitu and mentions Shagarakti-Shuriash son of Kudur-Enlil supposedly being 800 years before his time.

“This text, however, also claims that Nabonidus rebuilt a temple to Anunitu and mentions Shagarakti-Shuriash son of Kudur-Enlil supposedly being 800 years before his time.”

May combine two claims.

Both Nabonidus texts mention Sippar rather than Babylon proper, the capital of the empire, in contrast to the geographic focus of similar texts from other cultures which were usually associated with the capital city.

“Both texts mention Sippar rather than Babylon proper, the capital of the empire, in contrast to the geographic focus of similar texts from other cultures which were usually associated with the capital city.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Between the event associated with Erishum I and the construction by Shamshi-Adad I, 159 years supposedly passed, according to the Shalmaneser I text.

“Between the event associated with Erishum I and the construction by Shamshi-Adad I, 159 years supposedly passed, according to the text.”

• cites Grayson 1987, p. 189Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

From Assyria, five examples of temple dedication and construction texts using long duration years are known from the 13th century BC to the 7th century BC, in addition to a similar and earlier temple dedication text that instead employed a specific number of generations rather than years.

“From Assyria, five examples of temple dedication and construction texts using long duration years are known from the 13th century BC to the 7th century BC, in addition to a similar and earlier temple dedication text that instead employed a specific number of generations rather than years.”

May combine two claims.

In the Year 400 Stela, Horemheb is nowhere mentioned or depicted, while Ramesses II is pictured on the stele with his cartouche and Seti I is also pictured honoring Seth and mentioned on the stele.

“In the Year 400 Stela, Horemheb is nowhere mentioned or depicted, while Ramesses II is pictured on the stele with his cartouche and Seti I is also pictured honoring Seth and mentioned on the stele.”

May combine two claims.

A text of Nabonidus similar to the Sippar Cylinder, also addressing the Ebarra temple of Shamash reconstruction and dedication, counts from the 10th year of his reign and notes that 52 years had elapsed from the actions of Nebuchadnezzar II in addition to recording 700 years between the temple construction by Hammurabi and the time of Burnaburiash.

“A text of Nabonidus similar to the Sippar Cylinder, also addressing the Ebarra temple of Shamash reconstruction and dedication, differs in that it counts from the 10th year of his reign and notes that 52 years had elapsed from the actions of Nebuchadnezzar II in addition to recording 700 years between the temple construction by Hammurabi and the time of Burnaburiash”

• cites Langdon 1916, pp. 110-16 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites BM 104738Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

If there is an error in the elapsed years between Shamshi-Adad I and Shalmaneser I, it is only a miniscule 0.9% or five years, and well within an acceptable margin of error.

“If there is an error in elapsed years, it is only a miniscule 0.9% or five years, and well within an acceptable margin of error.”

May combine two claims.

The Ba'al-shamem Inscription (KAI 18) recounts the construction of a monument, shrine, or temple dedicated to Ba'al-shamem by Abd'ilim, noting dedication in year 180 of the Lord of Kings and year 143 of the people of Tyre.

“The Ba'al-shamem Inscription (KAI 18) recounts the construction of a monument, shrine, or temple dedicated to the deity Ba'al-shamem by Abd'ilim, noting that this dedication was made in year 180 of the Lord of Kings and year 143 of the people of Tyre”

• cites Donner and Rölig 1966Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Clermont-Ganneau 1895Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Temple dedication and commemoration texts have also been found in Egypt, but only one currently known example includes elapsed years between a temple commemoration and another historical event.

“Temple dedication and commemoration texts have also been found in Egypt, but only one currently known example includes elapsed years between a temple commemoration and another historical event.”

May combine two claims.

The inscribed brass tablet was made for a shrine to Concord, originally intended to be a temple, and stated that the shrine was dedicated 203 years after the consecration of the Jupiter Optimus Maximus temple and 449 years after the foundation of Rome.

“This inscription was made for a shrine to Concord, originally intended to be a temple, and the text stated that the shrine was dedicated 203 years after the consecration of the Jupiter Optimus Maximus temple and 449 years after the foundation of Rome”

• cites Pliny, Naturalis Historia 33.5-6Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

There is no surviving dedication text using long duration elapsed years from the 6th century BC Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus construction, but there is a record of an inscribed brass tablet mentioning the number of years since that temple was consecrated.

“There is no surviving dedication text using long duration elapsed years from this 6th century BC temple construction, but there is record of an inscribed brass tablet mentioning the number of years since that temple was consecrated.”

• cites Pliny, Naturalis Historia 33.5-6Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The two particular Ishtar temples at Assur referred to in the Tukulti-Ninurta I text are known archaeologically, designated as Temple D and Temple A, and fit the archaeological periods of Ilu-Shumma and Tukulti-Ninurta I.

“The two particular Ishtar temples at Assur referred to in this text are known archaeologically, designated as Temple D and Temple A, and fit the archaeological periods of Ilu-Shumma and Tukulti-Ninurta I”

• cites Bär 2003Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Schmitt 2012Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Meinhold 2009Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The renovations of the temple in Jerusalem by Jehoash mentioned in the 23rd year of his reign situate the renovations at a specific point in time, but the number of years since the original building of the temple are not stated in the immediate context.

“Therenovations of the temple in Jerusalem by Jehoash mentioned in the 23rd year of his reign situate the renovations at a specific point in time, but the number of years since the original building of the temple are not stated in the immediate context (2 Kings 12:4-18).”

• cites 2 Kings 12:4-18Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Based on numerous year figures for various periods in the Hebrew Bible, there have been possibilities presented for calculating 479 years between the temple dedication of Solomon and the Exodus.

“Based on numerous year figures for various periods of time in the Hebrew Bible, there have been possibilities presented for calculating 479 years between the temple dedication of Solomon and the Exodus (e.g., Van Bekkum 2022, p. 46).”

• cites Van Bekkum 2022 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Another restoration of the temple in Jerusalem by Josiah is recorded as occurring in the 18th year of his reign, but the total number of years since the original construction of the temple are not noted.

“Another restoration of the temple in Jerusalem by Josiah is recorded as occurring in the 18th year of his reign, but once again the total number of years since the original construction of the temple are not noted (2 Kings 22:3-23:23).”

• cites 2 Kings 22:3-23:23Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Other publications referring to ancient texts about temple dedication, rededication, or commemoration in connection with chronological issues have usually done so as a side note to debates about broader chronological issues in the context of Distanzangaben, but the usefulness of these types of temple dedication texts and their mentions of elapsed years for discovering the correct years of ancient

“Other publications referring to ancient texts that relate to the dedication, rededication, or commemoration of a temple in connection with chronological issues have usually done so as a side note to debates about broader chronological issues in the context of Distanzangaben (long-period time spans), but the usefulness of these types of temple dedication texts and their mentions of elapsed years”

• cites Mahieu 2021, pp. 67-85 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Van Wyk 2017, pp. 114-40Not checked — no full text of the source
• cites Blum 2012, pp. 291-316Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

There are around 1500 temples mentioned in the known ancient texts of Mesopotamia, yet only a small fraction of these temples have preserved dedication texts.

“For example, there are around 1500 temples mentioned in the known ancient texts of Mesopotamia, yet only a small fraction of these temples have preserved dedication texts”

• cites George 1993, pp. 63-171Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The similarity in content, style, and objective among these texts indicates a shared tradition and allows grouping them into a distinctive category.

“Although the texts originate from differing religious, cultural, and geographic contexts and were recorded on various mediums, the similarity in content, style, and objective indicates a shared tradition and allows the grouping of these texts into a distinctive category.”

May combine two claims.

The analysis of temple dedication, rededication, or commemoration texts from the ancient world suggests that these texts mentioned historical events that connect the temples to a particular ruler and year, along with a specific number of elapsed years between the events that are recorded as actual solar years and can be corroborated by external archaeological and historical data.

“The analysis of temple dedication, rededication, or commemoration texts from the ancient world suggests that these texts mentioned historical events that connect the temples to a particular ruler and year, along with a specific number of elapsed years between the events that are recorded as actual solar years and can be corroborated by external archaeological and historical data.”

May combine two claims.

Investigation of these texts alongside king lists and temples reveals that temple construction and dedication texts of the ancient Near East that included mention of elapsed years provide valuable, detailed, and accurate information that can be used to identify the existence of ancient temples in time, corroborate periods of kingship or other important events, and contribute to understanding a方法

“Investigation of these texts alongside king lists and temples reveals that temple construction and dedication texts of the ancient Near East that included mention of elapsed years provide valuable, detailed, and accurate information that can be used to identify the existence of ancient temples in time, corroborate periods of kingship or other important events, and contribute to understanding a”

May combine two claims.

If Puzur-Asshur came to power in ca.2025 BC and Shamshi-Adad I began his reign in 1808 BC, then the seven generations would represent a total of 217 years or 31 years each.

“If Puzur-Asshur came to power in ca.2025 BC and Shamshi-Adad I began his reign in 1808 BC, then those seven generations would represent a total of 217 years or 31 years each.”

May combine two claims.

The shorter duration of elapsed years in the fragmentary Middle Assyrian inscription provides another example showing that elapsed years in these types of texts were meant to be read as real solar years and were recorded with a high degree of accuracy.

“The duration of elapsed years in this instance is shorter than other Assyrian temple construction or dedication texts, but nonetheless it clearly provides another example showing that the elapsed years in these types of texts were meant to be read as real solar years and were recorded with a high degree of accuracy.”

May combine two claims.

The exact date of the commemoration on the Year 400 Stela seems to be near the end of the reign of Seti I, or possibly but less likely early in the reign of Ramesses II when the stele was commissioned, as both Seti I and Ramesses II are depicted on the stele.

“The exact date of the commemoration, while not specified, seems to be near the end of the reign of Seti I, or possibly but less likely early in the reign of Ramesses II when the stele was commissioned, as both Seti I and Ramesses II are depicted on the stele.”

May combine two claims.

None of the known examples used purely symbolic years or intended to communicate numbers of generations when specifying years elapsed.

“Significantly, none of the known examples used purely symbolic years or intended to communicate numbers of generations when specifying years elapsed.”

May combine two claims.

The date of the Ba'al-shamem inscription is about 132 BC, with a total of 180 elapsed years between the earliest event and the dedication.

“The era of the people of Tyre began in 275 BC when the city became a republic, and thus the date of the inscription to Ba'alshamem would have been about 132 BC, with a total of 180 elapsed years between the earliest event and the dedication.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The era of the people of Tyre began in 275 BC when the city became a republic.

May combine two claims.

Josephus also postulated 1020 years from Abraham leaving Mesopotamia to the temple dedication, but this has mathematical and textual conflicts with his prior 592-year calculation.

“Josephus also postulated a total of 1020 years from Abraham leaving Mesopotamia to the time of the temple dedication, but this has mathematical and textual conflicts with his prior 592 years calculation.”

May combine two claims.

The temple dedication with elapsed years referring to an important past event follows the conventions of similar ancient Near Eastern temple construction and dedication texts with long duration year information, and it connects to the capital city of Jerusalem, similar to Assyrian, Egyptian, and Roman examples.

“However, the temple dedication with elapsed years referring to an important past event follows the conventions of similar ancient Near Eastern temple construction and dedication texts with long duration year information, and it connects to the capital city of Jerusalem, similar to the Assyrian, Egyptian, and Roman examples with their connections to capital cities.”

May combine two claims.

The 52-year period from the 10th year of Nabonidus to Nebuchadnezzar II's work on the temple is accurate and agrees with the previously discussed cylinder of Nabonidus.

“The period of 52 years from the 10th year of Nabonidus to the time when Nebuchadnezzar II worked on the temple is accurate and in agreement with the previously discussed cylinder of Nabonidus.”

May combine two claims.

Nabonidus may have either rounded up to 800 years with an error of 5%, or his calculations were in error by as much as 11.9% if using the Short Chronology.

“Therefore, Nabonidus may have either rounded up to 800 years with an error of 5%, or his calculations were in error by as much as 11.9% if using the Short Chronology.”

May combine two claims.

Although the specific year of the founding of the temple cannot be established with absolute certainty and debates about the exact regnal dates of Seti I persist, the margin of error for the long duration 400 years would be extremely small at about 3% to 5%.

“Although the specific year of the founding of the temple cannot be established with absolute certainty at this time, and debates about the exact regnal dates of Seti I persist, the margin of error for the long duration 400 years would be extremely small at about 3% to 5%.”

May combine two claims.

Josephus claimed 240 years from the Solomon temple dedication to the building of Tyre, which appears mistaken in light of historical and archaeological data about Tyre.

“Josephus then claimed a figure of 240 years from the Solomon temple dedication to the building of Tyre, which appears mistaken in light of historical and archaeological data about Tyre.”

May combine two claims.

The elapsed time of 700 years between Hammurabi and Burnaburiash presents difficulties; unless it is an egregious error, it cannot be a reference to either Burna-Buriash I or Burna-Buriash II.

“However, the elapsed time of 700 years between Hammurabi and Burnaburiash presents difficulties.Unless this calculation of 700 years is an egregious error, it cannot be a reference to either Burna-Buriash I or Burna-Buriash II.”

May combine two claims.

The 4th year of Solomon is calculated to be approximately 967 BC, counting from the termination of his reign around 931 BC, and is a widely accepted general date despite debates about slight refinements.

“The 4th year of Solomon has been calculated to be situated in approximately 967 BC, counting from the termination of his reign around 931 BC, and is a widely accepted general date even if debates continue about slight refinements to the chronology”

• cites Thiele 1983Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Green 1978 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The Esarhaddon Prism can be shown as completely correct for at least two of its three long duration periods, with a possible textual error for the third or a calculation error of about 13.7%.

“This temple dedication and rededication text, which includes three different periods of long duration elapsed years, can be shown as completely correct for at least two of the three, with a possible textual error for the third or a calculation error of about 13.7%.”

May combine two claims.

641 years after the reign of Shamshi-Adad I falls precisely into the reign of Ashur-Dan I, verifying the Tiglath-Pileser I text as using precise, real years.

“Indeed, 641 years after the reign of Shamshi-Adad I falls precisely into the reign of Ashur-Dan I, and yet another Assyrian long duration temple text can be verified as using precise, real years to communicate the time in between religiously significant events.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Another relevant text from the Roman Republic may also be included for comparison since the temple dates back to the 6th century BC and an associated 4th century BC dedication inscription likely has roots in this tradition of the ancient Near East.

“Another relevant text from the Roman Republic may also be included for comparison since the temple dates back to the 6th century BC and an associated 4th century BC dedication inscription likely has roots in this tradition of the ancient Near East.”

May combine two claims.

The Ba'al-shamem inscription, despite differing slightly in format from other ancient Near Eastern examples, communicates accurate chronological information, correct recording of the number of years, and reference to past historical events.

“The format of this Phoenician dedication text differs slightly from the other ancient Near Eastern examples, but the inscription is still concerned with and communicates accurate chronological information, correct recording of the number of years, and reference to past historical events.”

May combine two claims.

The parallel examples from Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Levant refute the idea of purely symbolic years in temple construction and dedication texts, and demonstrate that the intent of the authors was to relay an accurate number of years even if errors in calculations were made, while one cited example from Mesopotamia demonstrates that generations were specified when intended.

“On the contrary, the parallel examples from Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Levant refute the idea of purely symbolic years in temple construction and dedication texts, and instead demonstrate that the intent of the authors was to relay an accurate number of years even if errors in calculations were made, while one cited example from Mesopotamia demonstrates that generations were specified when in”

May combine two claims.

Although the Babylonian texts of Nabonidus contain one unverifiable timespan and one instance of a perplexingly large number, these inaccuracies are outliers when viewed alongside all cases, and the extant examples from other kingdoms display an astonishing level of reliability for such long periods when verification by external chronological data is possible.

“Although the Babylonian texts of Nabonidus contain one unverifiable timespan and one instance of a perplexingly large number, these inaccuracies are the outliers when viewed alongside all cases, and the extant examples from other kingdoms display an astonishing level of reliability for such long periods of time when verification by external chronological data is possible.”

May combine two claims.

The relative rarity of long duration elapsed years in temple texts indicates their importance and historical significance, while cryptic symbolic years or ambiguous generations contributes nothing beneficial to the original audience.

“Further, the relative rarity of long duration elapsed years in temple texts indicates their importance and historical significance, while cryptic symbolic years or ambiguous generations contributes nothing beneficial to the original audience.”

May combine two claims.

Nabonidus had access to many Neo-Babylonian records, and it is unlikely that he would have made an error with the short period of 45 years.

“Nabonidus had access to many Neo-Babylonian records, and it is unlikely that he would have made an error with this short period of time.”

May combine two claims.

The long duration year total of 400 years on the Year 400 Stela seems to be at least 95% correct, and its intent was to reflect the total number of actual years between the founding of the temple and its later commemoration in the 19th Dynasty rather than a purely symbolic number.

“Thus, the long duration year total of 400 years on the stele seems to be at least 95% correct, and it is clear that its intent was to reflect the total number of actual years between the founding of the temple and its later commemoration in the 19th Dynasty rather than a purely symbolic number.”

May combine two claims.

The seven generations of elapsed time in the Shamshi-Adad I inscription is plausible since it fits historical reconstructions and indicates that the elapsed time could be understood as intending a real rather than figurative calculation, though the imprecision necessitates a tentative conclusion about total years.

“Although the seven generations of elapsed time noted in the inscription is plausible since it fits historical reconstructions and indicates that the elapsed time could be understood as intending a real rather than figurative calculation, the imprecision also necessitates a tentative conclusion about total years in this particular case.”

May combine two claims.

800 years prior to Nabonidus would be no later than approximately 1340 BC, but the reign of Shagarakti-Shuriash is placed ca.1245 BC (Short Chronology) or around 1300 BC (Middle Chronology).

“Yet, 800 years prior to Nabonidus would be no later than approximately 1340 BC, but the reign of Shagarakti-Shuriash is placed ca.1245 BC (Short Chronology) or around 1300 BC (Middle Chronology).”

May combine two claims.

The elapsed time between the temple work by Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon, stated as 580 years, fits perfectly between the reign of Shalmaneser I ca.1273-1244 BC and the restoration in the first year of Esarhaddon ca.681 BC.

“Finally, the elapsed time between the temple work by Shalmaneser I and Esarhaddon (ca.681-669 BC) was stated as 580 years, a number of years which fits perfectly between the reign of Shalmaneser I ca.1273-1244 BC and the restoration in the first year of Esarhaddon ca.681 BC.”

May combine two claims.

Although the 3200-year figure is wrong, the other instances of elapsed years recorded by Nabonidus demonstrate that his intent was to give real numbers of years, at least roughly accurate, but he was probably hampered by unavailability of the necessary data.

“Although this particular long duration figure is wrong, the other instances of elapsed years recorded by Nabonidus demonstrate that his intent was to give real numbers of years, at least roughly accurate, but he was probably hampered by unavailability of the necessary data.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: There was no set of available records and lists that would have allowed Nabonidus to reconstruct a viable chronology going back to the time of Naram-Sin.

May combine two claims.

The third long duration year span in the Sippar Cylinder, mentioning Naram-Sin and a 3200 year period, is perplexing and completely erroneous.

“The third long duration year span in this text, mentioning Naram-Sin and a 3200 year period, is perplexing and completely erroneous.”

May combine two claims.

If the temple was dedicated around 1700-1680 BC, and the commemoration of this temple occurred 400 years later, then it would be expected that the king mentioned on the Year 400 Stela would be Seti I, who was in power until around 1280 BC.

“If the temple was dedicated around 1700-1680 BC, and the commemoration of this temple occurred 400 years later, then it would be expected that the king mentioned on the Year 400 Stela would be Seti I, who was in power until around 1280 BC.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The 700 years could have been intended as the period between Hammurabi and an unknown king named Burnaburiash perhaps in early Dynasty E, or alternatively an error by Nabonidus, but the data are insufficient to make a definitive determination.

“While the 700 years could have been intended as the period between Hammurabi and an unknown king named Burnaburiash perhaps in early Dynasty E, or alternatively an error by Nabonidus, the data are insufficient to make a definitive determination.”

May combine two claims.

The long duration year number in the Tukulti-Ninurta I text reflects a real and accurate number of solar years that is confirmed by Assyrian king lists and archaeological remains of the Ishtar temple phases at Assur, rather than being in error by centuries, symbolic, or figurative.

“Rather than in error by centuries, symbolic, or figurative, this long duration year number reflects a real and accurate number of solar years that is confirmed by Assyrian king lists and archaeological remains of the Ishtar temple phases at Assur.”

May combine two claims.

The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome was dedicated in ca.509 BC while Horatius was consul, just after the transition from the Roman Kingdom to the Roman Republic.

“The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, located on the Capitoline Hill in Rome, was dedicated in ca.509 BC while Horatius was consul, just after the transition from the Roman Kingdom to the Roman Republic”

• cites Livy 1912Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1939Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The Year 400 Stela's repetition of fours using 4th day, 4th month, year 400 does not necessitate that all or some of the figures are fabricated or only symbolic; rather, the commemoration day or inscription was probably purposely chosen for a date with reduplicating fours for additional significance.

“That the stele contains the repetition of fours using 4th day, 4th month, year 400 does not necessitate that all of the figures or some of the figures are fabricated or only symbolic.Rather, the commemoration day or inscription was probably purposely chosen for a date with reduplicating fours for additional significance.”

May combine two claims.

The Shamshi-Adad and Ishme-Dagan mentioned in the Tiglath-Pileser I text must refer to Shamshi-Adad I and his son Ishme-Dagan I, further supported by the architecture of the excavated temple.

“The text mentions a Shamshi-Adad and a Ishme-Dagan, which must be referring to Shamshi-Adad I and his son Ishme-Dagan I, further supported in that this period also fits the architecture of the excavated temple in question”

• cites Reade 2001, p. 4 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The period of 52 years from the 10th year of Nabonidus to the time when Nebuchadnezzar II worked on the temple is accurate and in agreement with the previously discussed cylinder of Nabonidus.

“The period of 52 years from the 10th year of Nabonidus to the time when Nebuchadnezzar II worked on the temple is accurate and in agreement with the previously discussed cylinder of Nabonidus.”

May combine two claims.

Regardless of shifts by a few years or even several years in each direction, the elapsed years in temple dedication texts were not only intended to be understood as real years, but in instances where they can be evaluated by external data, the vast majority of duration year figures have been demonstrated to be remarkably accurate.

“Regardless of shifts by a few years or even several years in each direction, it is apparent that the elapsed years in temple dedication texts were not only intended to be understood as real years, but in instances where they are able to be evaluated by external data, the vast majority of duration year figures have been demonstrated to be remarkably accurate.”

May combine two claims.

Temple construction and dedication accounts that reference a specific number of years elapsed since a significant past event are known from sources spanning Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Phoenicia, Israel, and Rome between the 13th century BC and the 2nd century BC, demonstrating that the practice was widespread both geographically and chronologically.

“Temple construction and dedication accounts that reference a specific number of years that have elapsed since a significant past event are known from sources spanning Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Phoenicia, Israel, and even Rome between the 13th century BC and the 2nd century BC, demonstrating that the practice was widespread both geographically and chronologically (Table 1).”

May combine two claims.

The 800-year figure indicates that either Nabonidus was not concerned with relaying an exact number of elapsed years, or he lacked sufficient records to make a more precise calculation back over seven centuries.

“This indicates that either Nabonidus was not concerned with relaying an exact number of elapsed years, or he lacked sufficient records that would allow him or his officials to make a more precise calculation back in time over seven centuries.”

May combine two claims.

The inscription on the Year 400 Stela was ordered by Ramesses II who memorialized the event, but refers to his predecessor and father Seti I whose name reflected the deity Seth and was probably the king honoring the deity.

“The inscription was ordered by Ramesses II who memorialized the event, but refers to his predecessor and father Seti I whose name reflected the deity Seth and was probably the king honoring the deity.”

May combine two claims.

Based on the characteristics of this type of ceremonial text from the ancient Near East, the authorial intent of the Solomon temple dedication text appears to be that 479 years elapsed between the departure from Egypt and the 4th year of Solomon in approximately 967 BC, situating the earlier event around 1446 BC, even if this cannot be conclusively established through archaeological data.

“Thus, based on the characteristics of this type of ceremonial text from the ancient Near East, the authorial intent of the Solomon temple dedication text likewise also appears to be that 479 years supposedly elapsed between the departure from Egypt and the 4th year of Solomon in approximately 967 BC, situating the earlier event and beginning point in the dedication to around 1446 BC, even if this”

May combine two claims.

Josephus's commentary about the period between the Solomon temple dedication and the Exodus refers to no ancient source, does not relay an independent witness to the much earlier temple dedication text, and appears to be merely a result of his speculation based on erroneous chronological methodology.

“Unfortunately, the commentary of Josephus from the 1st century AD about the period between the temple dedication of Solomon and the Exodus refers to no ancient source, does not relay an independent witness to the much earlier temple dedication text, and appears to be merely a result of his speculation based on erroneous chronological methodology.”