Re: #1759
There is much more to Furuli's thesis than the use of a astro program because Furuli has dealt with the primary source materials firts hand rather than relying on orthodox tyransaltions which is the practice of Jonsson. Furuli told me by phone last night that he in fact is revising his First volume and he has used a astro program which viondicates 455 BCE.
And I'm trying to tell you, Neil, he DOESN'T vindicate 455 BCE at all (or 607 BCE). I've been using his own premises and his own dates based on his understanding of the source materials to check one of the key tablets mentioned in his article that he thinks should be dated to 465/4 BCE - the one I talked about above, BM 33478 - and he still gets positions wrong! If his data are screwed, so will his hypothesis be. If he includes this in his revisions for Vol. 1, he'll look even more inept to the scholarly community!
But I can tell you are one of those who has taken Furuli's research at face value without verifying his claims for yourself. I'll start a separate thread and show you what I mean about the above tablet. Give me a day or so and I'll put something together. Then when you get the article, you'll be able to follow along and see for yourself.
