Go to H & P - II

MUL.APIN 9

MUL.APIN:
An Astronomical
Compendium
in Cuneiform
 

MUL.APIN
Tablet Nr. 86378
British Museum

MUL.APIN
An Astronomical Compendium in Cuneiform
by Hunger & Pingree

Below: Comments to that article
by Andis Kaulins

Other writers besides Papke on the MUL.APIN cuneiform tablets
have been van der Waarden and Hunger & Pingree (H & P).

Hunger & Pingree,
"MUL.APIN: An Astronomical Compendium in Cuneiform",
Archiv fuer Orientforschung, Beiheft 24, 1989,
Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Soehne; Horn, Austria-3580.
Hunger and Pingree did not know of Werner Papke's The Stars of Babylon
published in that same year (1989), but do refer to his 1978 work
Werner Papke, "Die Keilschriftserie MUL.APIN",
Dokument wissenschaftlicher Astronomie im 3. Jahrtausend, Tuebingen, 1978.

Some of their writings are available and can be clicked below:

Hermann Hunger, David Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia
Syed Nomanul Haq, D. Pingree, Names, Natures and Things
(some later Arabic wisdom is shown to trace back to Aristotle)

HOW OLD IS THE
ASTRONOMICAL SYSTEM
USE IN MUL.APIN ?

Hunger and Pingree themselves note that it was
van der Waarden who first proposed the theory
that the MUL.APIN applied to a time period circa 1000 BC,
(which Hunger and Pingree accept, contrary to Papke),

but then, based on Papke's observations
and some new one's of his own,
van der Waarden CHANGED his mind to a date of 2340 BC
and accepted Papke's conclusions later (1984).

The writings by B.L. van der Waarden are :
1) "Babylonian Astronomy II. The Thirty-Six Stars",
JNES 8 (1949) 6-26
JNES = Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Chicago).
2) "Babylonian Astronomy III. Astronomical Computations",
JNES 10 (1954), 20-34
3) "Die Anfaenge der Astronomie", Groningen (1966)
4) "Greek Astronomical Calendars I. The Parapegma ofEuctemon,"
AHES 29 (1984) 101-114.
(AHES = Archives for the History of the Exact Sciences)

Although the arguments of Hunger and Pingree are understandable,
“their” date of ca. 1000 BC for MUL.APIN astronomy
can be regarded as clearly erroneous and ca. one Sothic Year
of 1460 years removed from the correct date. Indeed, the evidence shows that later changes were made by scribes for later Babylonian tablet copies.
The copied tablets are younger, their astronomy far older.

Even Hunger and Pingree themselves admit that "two" sets
of data seem to be combined in the known MUL.APIN tablets.

 Moreover, one of their arguments - that cuneiform texts in
2300 BC like this are not known - is not persuasive. It begs the
question - presuming the very thing to be proven - and is irrelevant
for the dating of the astronomy. An elementary rule of evidence.

More important is Papke's account that Kallisthenes,
an officer of Alexander the Great, had sent
astronomical data of the Babylonians back to his uncle Aristotle,
stating they were exactly 1903 years old.

Such an exact date is already quite remarkable,
probably pointing to some round number of calculation.
Alexander the Great's life  is today dated erroneously to 356-323 BC
whereas correct is 39 years prior to that, i.e. a life from 395 to 361 BC.,
which puts Alexander in Babylon in 370 BC
and this plus 1903 years of age gives 2300 BC.
as the round number reference date.

Papke argues that the cuneiform tablets go back to a SYSTEM
"created" exactly in 2340 BC - and he is without doubt correct.
See the New Chronology.

As Hunger and Pingree correctly note: "the composition of some
of the relevant texts can be dated to earlier periods...the sources for
certain sections of MUL.APIN can be considered earlier than extant
exemplars of MUL.APIN".

Papke handles these matters masterfully in his book,
Die Sterne von Babylon, in pages 237-276, pointing out that
the crucial error was initially made by Epping, Kugler, and
Fotheringham in their identification of KAK.SI.SA with Sirius
(an identification which van der Waarden first followed,
before changing his mind) - whereas the Seleucid texts state
explicitly that KAK.SI.SA and BAN are separated by 20 days
in rising - so that KAK.SI.SA can not originally have been Sirius.
(AK: Rather, you have 20 x 72 years = ca. 1440 years
of precessional heliacal rising separation.)

Moreover, as Papke cogently argues, since KAK.SI.SA was a
lance or spear, you had to have a star at the end of the lance
(otherwise you just have Sirius alone) - and this can only be Procyon.

Although Hunger & Pingree concur with Papke's recognition that
"groups" of stars are  often intended, they also criticize Papke's
use of the "first" rising stars of these constellations for chronology,
stars which are however regarded to be the "normal" stars of these
constellations in later Babylonian texts (Seleucid texts).
Rather, they want to stick to stars initially identified  by van der
Waarden - ignoring that van Waarden later changed his mind.

Hunger and Pingree thus incorrectly criticize van Waarden's
subsequent and Papke's consistent use of the star Procyon
rising as KAK.SI.SA (alpha Canis Minor).

If Papke correctly has identified KAK.SI.SA as originally being
Procyon, then the original MUL.APIN series MUST date to
2340 BC. Moreover, we have further support for Papke. 

 I refer here again to the Papyrus of Ebers by which the
Pharaohs made a  Gregorian type of calendar reform, in which
a calibration of 9 viz. 10 days was made between Procyon (as the
"original" first star of the first of Epiphi) and Sirius (as the
subsequent star of the first of Mesori under the calendar reform).

As noted in Column II lines 42 and 43 of MUL.APIN, the rising
of  KAK.SI.SA was on the 15th of Du'uzu, i.e. the "beginning"
of a calendric month, just as the 15th of Nisannu began the year,
being 15 days removed from the actual astronomical year,
starting  at the 1st of Nisannu. This was the case in 2340 BC,
as Papke beautifully proves. Precession had taken its toll since
the 4th millennium  BC, the start of this calendric system.

Since 9 viz. 10 days of calendar reform equal about 9 viz. 10 degrees
of the 360-arc of heaven, and since one degree of precession occurs
every 72 years, then 72 years x 9 degrees of precession = 648 years
and 72 years x 10 degrees of precession = 720 years, so that Papke's
correct date of 2340 BC minus 648 years or 720 years
gives us a date of about 1600 BC, right around the current dating of the
reign of Amenophis (Amenhotep), from which the Papyrus of Ebers stems.

Hunger and Pingree also challenge Papke's observation
that the 2340 BC  MUL.APIN observations were made at Babylon.
Rather they suggest an observation point ca. 1000 BC at 36
degrees north latitude, i.e. in Assyria. Both Papke as well as
Hunger & Pingree could be right.

The initial observations could stem from Babylon in 2340 BC
and the amending observations could have been made
later in Assyria when the tablets were copied, to adapt to
an astronomical heavens which had been changed by
precession over more than a thousand years

This would explain the problem that some of the texts
talk about the equinoxes and solstices taking place on the
15th of the XII, III, VI, and IX months whereas others say
that they fall on the 15th of the months I, IV, VII and XII.

It might appear from the one-month shift that 29 viz. 30 x 72
precessional years had passed from the date of origin
of the first tablets to the copy date, but we must suppose that
the 9 viz. 10 day calendric reform of Amenophis applied to all
of the fertile crescent, so that only 20 x 72 precessional years
(i.e. 29 minus 9) had actually passed or 1440 viz 1460 years,
i.e. one Sothic year, so that tablets from 2340 BC in Babylon
would have been copied in ca. 900 BC in Assyria,
as Hunger & Pingree allege.

 In this manner,
I suggest both Papke AND Hunger and Pingree are correct.

 We have to do here with the calibration of data
1440 viz. 1460 years apart.
This eliminates all arguments.
Below, click to go to H & P II.

For great star collectibles from the Franklin Mint click: