The nature of the sources of the Babylonian chronicles remains a matter of controversy even after decades of occasional discussion. Here statistical evidence is presented that the sources of the chronicles dealing with political events up to the time recorded in Chron. 2 were astrological texts. The number of coincidences between exact dates in the examined chronicles and an adannu of 30 days after ominous planetary events is compared to the number that can be expected in a random sample of dates between 750-600. The null-hypothesis that the number of coincidences found in the chronicle sample is random could be rejected at a safe p < 0.02. The long-sought "common source" of the late Babylonian chronicles dealing with the eighth and seventh centuries was therefore in all probability a corpus of astrological texts. Chronicles dealing with later times were compiled from texts of a different nature. This shift from one kind of source texts to another makes a diachronically differentiated approach in the evaluation of the information contained in individual chronicles imperative. The design of the proposed test necessitates a sound basis for finding the possible Julian equivalents of Babylonian dates. A reanalysis of New Year's dates inferred from eclipse data in LBAT 1413-1417 and of New Year's dates between 626-539 is therefore presented in the first part of this paper. An average beginning of the year two weeks before equinox is demonstrated to be probable only until 730. From that time to the end of Nabopolassar's reign a constant ratio of ∼7 intercalations per 19 years was maintained, which kept the average Babylonian New Year's date a few days before equinox. Only at the turn to the sixth century can a second shift to even later dates be demonstrated.
The regular serial publication of the Society, issued quarterly, is the Journal of the American Oriental Society. The first volume, published in 1843-49, set the tone for all time in the broad scope of subject matter and the solidity of its scholarship. It included studies of Arab music, of Persian cuneiform, and of Buddhism in India, and brought to a wide audience the then novel theories of Pierre E. Du Ponceau, assailing the doctrine of the "ideographic" character of the Chinese script. From that year to the present day, the Journal has brought to the world of scholarship the results of the advanced researches of the most distinguished American Orientalists, specialists in the literatures and civilizations of the Near East, North Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Inner Asia, the Far East and the Islamic World. The pages of the Journal are always open to original and interesting contributions from scholars. To assure competent and impartial appraisal of the scholarly level of the material submitted for publication, the editorial staff is composed of recognized scholars in each of the major areas served by the Society. Membership in the AOS includes an annual subscription to the Journal.
The American Oriental Society is the oldest learned society in the United States devoted to a particular field of scholarship. The Society was founded in 1842, preceded only by such distinguished organizations of general scope as the American Philosophical Society (1743), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1780), and the American Antiquarian Society (1812). From the beginning its aims have been humanistic. The encouragement of basic research in the languages and literatures of Asia has always been central in its tradition. This tradition has come to include such subjects as philology, literary criticism, textual criticism, paleography, epigraphy, linguistics, biography, archaeology, and the history of the intellectual and imaginative aspects of Oriental civilizations, especially of philosophy, religion, folklore and art. The scope of the Society's purpose is not limited by temporal boundaries: All sincere students of man and his works in Asia, at whatever period of history are welcomed to membership.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
Journal of the American Oriental Society
© 2000 American Oriental Society