Ninsianna And Ramesside Star Observations Michael G.Reade Comparison of the Egyptian Ramesside Star tables with the Babylonian (Ammizaduga) Venus tablets suggests that both relate to the same celestial disturbance. Integration of the information recorded on both leads to recognition of a discontinuity in the precession of the equinoxes of about 2 months (= 60° displacement in longitude of the vernal equinox) and a suggestion as to how 4 and 8 year 'festival' cycles could have originated. In PEOPLES OF THE SEA, footnote No.3 on p.236, Dr Velikovsky cites the most modern figure for the synodic period of Venus as 2919.57/5 = 583.914 days. The figure given in ASTROPHYSICAL QUANTITIES (Allen 1973) is 583.92 days. Assuming 583.92 days and a modern tropical year of 365.2422 years, the average synodic period of Venus can be stated as 1.59872 years (modern Earth years). If the spin rate of the Earth should change, without any simultaneous effect on the orbit of the Earth, the length (or "absolute duration") of the day would change but not the length of the year. If the spin rate of the Earth became such that the year was only 360 days long, the orbits of the Earth and Venus being otherwise unchanged, the synodic period of Venus would therefore become 1.59872 x 360 = 575.54 days [A]. It is, of course, unlikely that the spin rate of the Earth could be changed without at least some side effects, particularly affecting the length of the year and the precise position (on the Earth's orbit) of the vernal equinox, but this figure (575.5 days) can serve as a first approximation for the synodic period of Venus in a 360 day year era. The accompanying table shows the data recorded on the Ninsianna (or 'Ammizaduga') tablets, as interpreted by Lynn E.Rose and Raymond C.Vaughan in KRONOS (1976-1980) but re-arranged in day number form. These tablets essentially record a count of days, rather than a count of years, though months are also mentioned; the years are clearly only crudely adjusted by means of occasional intercalary months. The original data suggests that all months were precisely 30 days long; had there been occasional months of 29 days, as is commonly expected, the scribes would presumably have recorded that an invisibility endured for "x" days, rather than "x" months and "y" days which they actually wrote. Invisibilities Computed dates of conjunction Event Month & day Day Nos. Duration Day No. Month & day Sequence 1 XI,15-XI,18 15-18 (3) 16.5 XI,16 A (Inf.) 2 VIII,II-X,19 281-349 (68) 305.2 IX,5 B (sup.) 3 VI,23-VII,13 593-613 (20) 594.0 VI,24 C (inf.) 4 IV, 2-IV, 3 872-933 (61) 882.8 IV, 14 D (sup.) 5a II,2-II,18 1172-1188 (16) 1171.5 II,1 E (inf.) 5b IX,24-XI,28 1404-1468 (64) 1460.2 XI,20 A (sup.) 6 VIII,28-IX,1 1738-1741 (3) 1749.0 IX,9 B (inf.) 7 V,21-VIII,2 2001-2072 (71) 2037.8 VI,28 C (sup.) 8a IV,25-V,2 2335-2342 (7) 2326.5 IV,16 D (inf.) 8b XI,25-III,4 2545-2644 (99) 2615.2 II,5 E (sup.) 9 III,ll-XII,15 2651-2925 (274) 2904.0 XI,24 A (inf.) 10 VIII,10-X,16 3160-3226 (66) 3192.8 IX,13 B (sup.) 11 VI,26-VII*,7 3476-3487 (11) 3481.5 VII*,1 C (inf.) 12 I,8-VI,25 3698-3865 (167) 3773.9 III,24 D (sup.) 13a II,5-II,12 4085-4092 (7) 4066.25 I,16 E (inf.) 13b IX,20-XI,21 4310-4371 (61) 4358.6 XI,8 A (sup.) 14 VII,21-VIII,28 4611-4648 (37) 4651.0 IX,1 B (inf.) 15 V,20-VIII,5 4910-4985 (75) 4943.4 VI,23 C (sup.) 16a IV,5-IV,20 5225-5240 (15) 5235.8 IV,16 D (inf.) 16b XII,25-III,2 5485-5552 (67) 5528.1 II,8 E (sup.) 17 XII,ll-XII,15 5831-5835 (4) 5820.5 XI,30 A (inf.) 18 (data missing) - 6112.9 IX,23 B (sup.) 19 VII*,2-VII*,17 6392-6407 (15) 6405.3 VII*,15 C (inf.) 20 III,25-VI,24 6685-6774 (89) 6697.6 IV, 8 D (sup.) 21a I,27-II,3 6987-6993 (6) 6990.0 I,30 E (inf.) 21b X,28-XII,28 7258-7318 (60) 7282.4 XI,22 A (sup.) 22 (data incomplete) (Event 1-11: 577.5 day synodic period. Event 11-22: 584.75 day synodic period) Caption to table Columns 2 and 4 of this table show the data recorded on the Ninsianna tablets, as interpreted by Lynn E.Rose and Raymond C. Vaughan (corrected up to and including their KRONOS 1980 publication). Notes. The count of day numbers starts from 1 Sabat (= XI, 1) in Year 1. The event number is always the same as the year number. "Invisibilities" include both the day of disappearance and the day of re-appearance but "duration" omits one of these days. IVhen the month is marked with an asterisk, the year is one of 13 months (VIII* = "Second Ulul"). If everything had been normal and the calendar perfectly adjusted, every fifth conjunction would have occurred on (almost) the same calendar date; note, for instance, that the conjunctions marked "A" always occur in Month XI. Note also that events 6 & 14 occur earlier than computed whilst event 8a, 13a and 17 occur later than computed, suggesting orbital irregularities which are not adequately embraced by the over-simple style of computation adopted here (see text). An excellent prima facie indication of spin rate change is obtained from analysis of the average synodic periods shown on either side of event 11, a synodic period being measured as the interval between consecutive 'short' invisibilities (= inferior conjunctions of Venus). From event 1 to event 11, the average synodic period based on the 'disappearances' is (3476-15)/6 = 576.83 days. The corresponding period based on the 're-appearances' is (3487-18)/6 =578.17 days. Thus, the grand average for the combined disappearances is (576.83 + 578.17)/2 = 577.50 days. From event 11 to event 21a, the corresponding averages are (6987-3476)/6 =585.17 and (6993-3487)/6 = 584.33 days, or 584.75 days for the grand average. That is, the average synodic periods for Venus indicated by the Ninsianna tablets are 2 days longer than would have been expected for a 360 day year during the 10 years prior to event 11 and 0.8 days longer than would have been expected for a 365.25 day year during the 10 years subsequent to event 11. A less satisfactory result is unfortunately obtained from analysis to either side of event 8a (a synodic period of 580.5 days prior to event 8a and a synodic period of 581.4 days subsequent to event 8a). If the scenario presented below is accepted, however, event 8a would have occurred right at the height of the celestial disturbance indicated by the Ramesside star tables and so could well have been displaced. Note also that the "computed date" of this conjunction, included in the table, is about 12 days earlier than the "observed date". I actually think it probable that the principal change of spin rate occurred at or about the time of event 8a, rather than at the time of event 11, but the full justification for this assumption will only emerge slowly, in the course of discussion of some more of the detail recorded on the tablets. The observed intervals between the recorded conjunctions can, of course, be analysed in many more ways than those so far examined and it is admittedly questionable whether the apparent changes of synodic period are necessarily significant. fJItimately, one would probably have to rely on some form of statistical analysis if there were no evidence forthcoming from other sources (as there is, but there should be more to come yet). We are in any case doubtfully ready for full statistical analysis of the data, even were no other evidence expected, one of the additional complications being that individual synodic periods can deviate from the average even when there is no catastrophe to add to the confusion. The fact that there are alternate 'short' and 'long' invisibilities in the Ninsianna observations (that is, if one allows the abnormally long invisibility of event 9 to be an exception) means that Venus must already have been an inner planet at this era. Given this state of affairs, the average synodic periods would have been longer than expected if the Earth were closer to the Sun than expected [B] or if Venus were further from the Sun than expected, but the divergence from modern orbits appears only to be slight. Some potential further types of orbital irregularity were reviewed by Rose & Vaughan in their article "Analysis of the Babylonian Observations of Venus" (KRONOS II:2) but it should be observed that, in England at least, Venus can sometimes be seen with the naked eye when the Sun is a degree or two above the horizon and that this has the effect of sabotaging some of their more elegant predicted patterns of invisibility [C]. It should, of course, also be observed that the present "computed dates of conjunction" are essentially only a first approximation, deriving from the rather crude analysis of average synodic periods given above. It ought to be possible to take the analysis rather further at some time and derive a closer approximation to the reality of what actually occurred, but for this one must probably develop Rose and Vaughan's styles of orbit analysis rather further. The principal contention of the present writer is that the year of the Ramesside tables corresponds, to the nearest month or two, with year 8 of the Ninsianna observations. Particularly during the first half of the Ramesside (Egyptian) year, the stars were obviously easily seen and identified. Babylonian year 9 suggests a time of appalling visibility, when it might not have been possible to compile detailed star tables at all from direct observation. The Ramesside tables start to go to pieces - many observations missed, identification of individual stars often very questionable - in the first half of Month 7 of their year (Babylonian year 8). This is followed by a better spell but from Month 10 onwards the proportion of doubtful observations becomes very high, until Month 12 there are almost no reliable observations at all. (Note: There are potential explanations of the trouble in Month 7 which are not connected with visibility; these are cited in the article "Ramesside Star Tables", published in SISR IV, 2/3, along with independent evidence that these tables relate to a year in which the spin rate of the Earth was being accelerated [D]). As already mentioned, the Ninsianna tablets suggest that Year 8 (Babylonian) could well have been the last one in which reasonably reliable observation of the stars was possible, Year 9 being a near "black-out". Conditions were already improving again in Year 10 but they were still not fully back to normal when the Ninsianna records cease in Year 21. There incidentally appears also to be a foretaste of things to come in Years 3 and 5, when invisibility at inferior conjunction was somewhat longer than expected (though not necessarily longer than the permissible extremes of deviation from average under normal conditions, as to which see Appendix 1). There is also a potential 3 to 4 year cycle of waxings and wanings of the degree of disturbance in the 12 years following the principal upset, but a study of the full implications of these anomalies must probably await the more thorough analysis of the available data which should some day prove feasible. The circumstance that the Babylonian intercalary months only appear after Years 8-10 is also suggestive. The Ramesside star tables, as well as indicating a change in the spin rate of the Earth, suggest that a succession of intercalary months would have been required to bring the calendar back into line with the seasons after the events of Years 8-10. The Ramesside tables plainly illustrate the text: "Winter is come in summer, the months are reversed, the hours in confusion". The present analysis does not suggest any omission or mix-recording of intercalary months on the Babylonian tablets; however, quite the contrary, and this is in itself rich in consequences, for the Ramesside tables also contain an as yet uncited anomaly, namely that they show the stars as repeatedly rising earlier than expected, yet by the end of the year they have suffered a drift in right ascension which is in the wrong direction for it to be attributable to this cause. The only possible explanation appears to be that there was a "precessional jump" - that is, a discontinuity in the precession of the equinoxes - which resulted in a more or less abrupt shift in the position of the vernal equinox, such as is forecast as a side effect of a "Tippe-Top" type precessional disturbance (Warlow 1978). The magnitude of the jump is not easy to assess from the Ramesside tables themselves, as the effects of axis tilt and spin rate acceleration are not easily separable with any degree of certainty. The jump will certainly be greater than the 1 hour which is indicated by the diagram which accompanies the "Ramesside Star Tables" article (SISR IV:2/3), as this diagram does not take the spin acceleration component into account at all, and it does also appear to be more than the additional 20 minutes or so which might be found appropriate for a change from a 360 day year to a 365.25 day one (from the average slopes of the "star tracks" which are included on the diagram). If we were to go by the markings on the water clock of Amunhotep III (cited in Appendix V of the SISR Ramesside article), we would expect a "jump" of 4 hours R.A. (=2 calendar months) and if we accept the proposed parallelism of the Ninsianna and the Ramesside records, we would also expect about 4 hours R.A. (from the adoption of two intercalary months, though the computed dates of conjunction can also be applied so as at least partly to correct this intercalation, which is clearly a not unreasonable one). It will also be well known that Dr Velikovsky has cited a possible 1 month jump in the precession of the equinoxes during this era (SISR III:2, 40; in KRONOS III:2, 21 he wrote "more than a month"). It should be noted that all the data so far quoted indicate the jump as being a 'backward' one, bringing the vernal equinox 'back' to its present day position (that is, its present day position after correction for the known precessional drift since 750 B.C.). Immediately prior to this jump, the vernal equinox would have been in a position which it would not be expected to reach before about A.D. 3500 in the ordinary way, so that it is a near certainty that there will also have been one or more further such 'jumps' in the opposite direction, which must have occurred at some time prior to the present incident but subsequent to the Phaeton one (subsequent to the Phaeton incident because otherwise the standard method of dating the time when the presently visible constellations were first listed and named would have produced an answer of 3000-4000 A.D.). The missing jumps presumably occurred in the course of the Exodus and Joshua catastrophes, detailed recording of which in Egypt may well have been inhibited by the Hyksos presence. If the suggested precessional jump of approx. 4 hours R.A. (or, better, approx. 60° longitude) can be accepted as 'real', and not just a house of cards built up on a number of interlocking but otherwise none too well secured foundations, there will, of course, be a whole number of consequences affecting the dating (and even the sequence) of the earlier catastrophes. It is also worth noting that the table accompanying the present article indicates rather plainly that the 'jump' was not actually concentrated into a single short period of time but was spread over a period of years. It may even not have reached final completion by Year 22 but it seems advisable to try to consolidate the present foundations before attempting to build on them too extensively. It should perhaps also be noted that this interpretation of the evidence is consistent with Dr Velikovsky's claim that the Mars disturbances actually spread themselves over a period of 70 to 90 years. For the present, therefore, whilst it may not yet be fully proven, it seems enough to suggest that there is at least a promising case for claiming that Year 8 of the Ninsianna (Ammizaduga) records and the year of the Ramesside tables are one and the same. Anyone intending to process this analysis further would probably do well to bear in mind that we have yet to establish a firm cause for the emphasis on four year cycles in the ancient world (e.g. the interval between Olympiads; some other such cycles have also been identified by Dr Velikovsky in his PEOPLES OF THE SEA, pp.239-241). One would expect there to be something about every fifth conjunction between Venus and the Sun which would mark it as 'different' from the others. Though not readily recognisable from the present records, the most promising point of departure appears to be that every fifth conjunction recurs in the same part of the sky, as seen from Earth (subject to a 'drift' of 0.25/0.3 degrees - or days - per year, which the Egyptians seem to have tried to suppress by obstinately counting 365 days per year instead of 365.25). 'Fifth conjunctions' are alternately inferior and superior conjunctions, so that every other one is markedly different in character (though occurring in the same region of the sky), thus eliminating any confusion as to which is the 'principal' one in any 8 year period and which the 'half-time' one. A hypothesis worth testing is that the re-appearance of Venus after a long invisibility in a potentially 'dangerous' area of the sky would be a cause for thanksgiving or rejoicing. If Venus had disappeared whilst heading in the general direction of Orion or Sirius, for instance, there could well have been general unease. If the celebration was associated with intercessionary prayers or sacrifices, however, it would more probably have been timed to coincide with the disappearance of Venus than with its re-appearance, or even with a date when re-appearance was sufficiently overdue to give cause for alarm (e.g. after 70 days of disappearance if the analogy with the behaviour of Sirius was recognised, as further discussed below). It is probably also worth noting that Homer, both in the ILIAD and the ODYSSEY, repeatedly associates organised games with funeral rites; the well known foundation of the Olympic Games, for instance, could well be related to the suspected demise of Orion, Sirius or Venus, maybe all of them. As the present writer is no authority on classical literature, it is hoped that these notes may stimulate others to turn up some parallels of this sort. If the time difference between the start of the Babylonian year and the start of the Egyptian year can be established with any degree of certainty, the Ninsianna tablets can offer some further guidance as to which were the "critical" invisibilities of Venus. If, for instance, the Babylonian year was identical with the Egyptian one, it is clear that the conjunctions marked "A" in our table would satisfy the requirement that Venus should appear to threaten interference with Sirius and/or Orion. The start of the Egyptian year is generally agreed to have been marked by the heliacal rising of Sirius. These "A" conjunctions all occur in Month Xl (Babylonian), or about 40 days before the heliacal rising of Sirius if the Egyptian and Babylonian years are synchronous. Sirius would be invisible at this time and was conventionally regarded by the Egyptians as dwelling 70 days in the "Duat" (the underworld) immediately prior to heliacal rising. This 70 day period is very similar to the normal 'long invisibility' of Venus and stems from the same cause - a slow passage of the star or planet through the same area of the sky as the Sun; Sirius is 'overtaking' the Sun at a steady rate of about 1 degree per day, but Venus is 'slipping back' by comparison with the Sun at a rate of about 0.26 degrees per day when approaching superior conjunction. At every second "A" conjunction, therefore, Venus could well have been seen as threatening the safe rising of Sirius (and/or Orion), an event which would have been expected some 50-70 days after the moment when Venus disappeared into the Sun. Venus is, of course, lost to sight some time before the actual moment of conjunction, so that the intervals cited here are necessarily only approximate. They could vary within quite wide limits if there was actually a minor displacement of the Babylonian calendar, relative to the Egyptian one. If Venus and Sirius did disappear more or less simultaneously, however, one on either side of the Sun and both heading into it, a superstitious people could well have feared the worst. It seems reasonable to suppose that event 9 would have been the most frightening one, at least for priest-astronomers who knew what to expect, for what should have been a short invisibility of 3 to 4 days actually turned out to endure for 274 days. Event 9 is one of these "A" conjunctions; if it occurred in Month Xl, event 8b would have occurred in Month 11 of the same year [E] and event 8a in Month IV of the preceding year, which ties in very satisfactorily with our proposed synchronisation of event 8a with the conspicuous celestial disturbance of Months 3-5 of the Ramesside year. It may be noted in passing that Venus is nowadays headed to pass well clear to the north of both Orion and Sirius, though only about 10 degrees to the north of the "head and shoulders" of Orion. It was therefore quite probably Orion, as the embodiment of Osiris, whom the ancients saw as being in need of protection from Venus. It could also be significant that Egyptian texts not infrequently refer to Sirius as "the protector of Orion", though this role for Sirius would seem more appropriate in an age when the world was 'upside down', when Sirius appeared above Orion instead of below it (as it does at present, at least for a northern hemisphere observer [F]). For the sake of completeness, it is also worth observing that Venus passes three times through this area of sky, without untoward incident of any kind, after each 'critical conjunction' before disappearing again at the fourth such passage. Evidence that the Babylonian year started with the rising of Sirius, as in the Egyptian system, can be found in SCIENCE AWAKENING II - THE BIRTH OF ASTRONOMY (Van der Waerden, 1974) but the same work does also include alternative evidence of its starting with the vernal equinox. It must also be observed that the Ninsianna tablets themselves can hardly be construed as indicating that event 9 centred on Month Xl. Event 9 is actually shown as extending over a 9 month period, with Month Xl coming almost at the end of it (i.e. Venus disappeared much earlier than expected on this occasion). The priests would probably have been aware that the proper 'short' invisibility of Venus was due in Month Xl of this year but there was obviously little or nothing in the sky at the time itself which would have confirmed any expectation of this sort. It must also be observed that a 'short' invisibility is actually associated with inferior conjunction, not the superior conjunction at which Venus is seen to move back against the Sun; Venus actually overtakes the Sun with remarkable rapidity at inferior conjunction. Event 9 may well also throw some light on the Mexican superstition that Venus is at its most dangerous immediately after inferior conjunction (Thompson, 1974). There must obviously still be some misgiving as to whether the present interpretation is correct in every detail. One of these incidents - event 8a, 8b or 9 - very probably triggered off the calendar revision which later came to be associated with the "era of Nabonassar", the "founding of Rome" and/or the "first Olympiad", but it appears to be difficult to postulate any viable combination of circumstances other than the one detailed above if the suggested parallelism between Egyptian and Babylonian records is accepted and if a potential threat to Orion or Sirius is seen as the key indicator. Maybe it was only as a result of a 'post-mortem' analysis that a calendar revision came to be based on event 9; one cannot help suspecting that event 8b would have marked 'the last straw' for the people who actually witnessed these events, though subsequent armchair analysis could well have resulted in official recognition of event 9 as marking the ultimate manifestation of divine displeasure. This 'scenario' may well have to remain tentative and provisional for the present. In the absence of corroboration from other independent sources, it appears doubtfully possible ever to prove that any particular sequence of conjunctions was necessarily more significant than any other. The present account has also made no mention of Mars, which one would have expected to play a prominent part in noteworthy celestial events of this era. To this extent, at least, the account is almost certainly still incomplete. The obvious first investigatory step - that of superimposing a computed sequence of Mars oppositions (at 768.8 and 779.9 day intervals) on the figures of cols.3&5 of our table - has not as yet yielded any very promising correlations; a similar comparison with the synodic period of Mars, as viewed from Venus (329.1 and 333.9 Earth days, on the basis of modern sidereal periods), has fared no better and it could be that the present records ante-date the 'activation' of Mars, even if they may still mark its original cause. Nevertheless, the proposed scenario does seem to offer a potentially useful illustration of how 4 and 8 year cycles of celestial events could have been built up, also a surprisingly detailed model against which other evidence can be tested. If synchronism of the Babylonian and Egyptian years should be proved illusory, it principally only results in displacement of the "A" conjunction from event 9 to one of the others, as could even be welcome, event 9 itself being too diffuse an event to make it a very satisfactory foundation stone for a revision of the calendar. If the calendar revision only came some time later, however, as seems probable, most of the objections to seeing event 9 as the original critical one lose their point and the case for seeing parallelism between the Babylonian and the Ramesside records is strengthened. It also starts to look increasingly probable that the celestial disturbance recorded here will have been commemorated on monuments erected in other parts of the ancient world as well [G]. Notes: [A] Compare with the 575.5 days cited in Chapter XVIII, stanza 76, of Dr. G. Thibaut's translation of the PANCHASIDDHANTIKA of Varaha Mihira (c. 550 AD, see article in SISR V:2). [B] As had already been tentatively suggested, on a basis of independent evidence, in the PANCHASIDDHANTIKA article of SISR V:2. The fact that the difference between the observed and the computed synodic periods is greater before Event 8A than after it also supports the suggestion that the Solar System may have a tendency to expand its dimensions in the course of a catastrophe. [C] This derives from the claim made on p.l3 of KRONOS II:2, as follows: "For Venus to be visible in the sky, the Sun must be roughly five and three-quarters degrees, or more, below the horizon. The sky will then be dark enough for Venus, if it is above the horizon, to be seen." Reference back to the authors has elicited the information that they intended this claim to apply only to periods shortly before or shortly after a conjunction (whether inferior or superior), when it would be at least approximately true. Even the five and threequarters degrees figure is distinctly shaky, however, as it derives from observations which were apparently uncorrected for refraction. A major re-think of the whole claim appears to be called for. [D] Increasing familiarity with the Ramesside data suggests that these tables were probably compiled at the water clock factory in Egypt, rather than at a more exclusively theological establishment. Staff engaged in calibrating water clocks would have been positively taught to disregard planets. [E] Event 8B started in Year 8 but centred on Year 9. [F] See WORKSHOP Issue No.7 (Vol.2, No.2, Nov. 1979), "The Antiquity of the Egyptian Decans", for a depiction of Orion both right side up and upside down . [G] See article "Probable Invisibilities of Venus at the time of the Supposed Spin Rate Acceleration of the Earth", published in WORKSHOP 5:2 (1982/83). The present article was first prepared about 4 years before the 1982/83 one, which essentially derives from it. Appendix I There is a hope of eventually being able to make some further progress with this analysis, on a basis of the natural variation in the behaviour of Venus from cycle to cycle. P.J.Huber has given a brief summary of the early work of B.L.van der Waerden on the subject, on pp. l l and 85 of his paper "Astronomical Dating of Babylon I and Ur II" (OCCASIONAL PAPERS ON THE NEAR EAST, Vol.l, Issue 4, published 1982 by Undena Publications, California, and reviewed in SISR V:4, pp.l25-126). For full detail, however, Huber refers the reader to B.L.van der Waerden, "Die Berechnung der ersten und letzten Sichtbarkeit von Mond und Planeten und die Venustafeln des Ammisaduqa", BERICHTE DER MATH.-PHYS. KLASSE DER SACHSISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN ZU LEIPZIG, Bd.94 (1943) 23-56. Preliminary inspection of this work (a copy of which has been kindly provided by Professor Lynn Rose) reveals that van der Waerden sees the invisibility of Venus at inferior conjunction as varying periodically between about 1 day and 19 days (and, at superior conjunction, between 55 days and 70 days). It also transpires, however, that his computation is distinctly sensitive both to the Arcus visionis assumed for Venus (itself variable from time to time) and the latitude of the observer, so that major re-computation will be called for before this most useful work can be applied as generally as is desirable. Currently (April 1986), it seems clear that the two month displacement of the vernal equinox cited in the present paper was only ephemeral. There was a maximum displacement somewhere around the time of Event 9, but after that the displacement reduced and probably vanished entirely (though not till after Event 21B). It also appears unlikely that there was any significant displacement of the vernal equinox prior to Event 8A. The later work fully confirms the synchronism between year 8 of the tablets and the year of the Ramesside star tables. The epoch of these events currently appears to be 810-840 BC, but further cross-checking is both desirable and possible; ultimately, the dates of each event could be determinable to the nearest day (by the Julian calendar, adjusted as necessary to accomodate years with an abnormal number of days), but the task of narrowing down the possibilities is a long and a slow one which may well not be completed for a year or two yet. Bibliography: C.W.Allen: ASTROPHYSICAL QUANTITIES, 3rd Edition, Athlone Press, 1973 M.G.Reade: SISR IV:2/3, pp.41-53, 1979/80 ("The Ramesside Star Tables") SISR V:2, pp.51-54, 1980/81 ("An Introduction to the Evidence of the PANCHASIDDHANTIKA") WORKSHOP 2:2 (Issue No.7), pp.2-6, 1979 ("The Antiquity of the Egyptian Decans") WORKSHOP 5:2, pp.5-9, 1982/83 ("Probable Visibilities of Venus at the time of the Supposed Spin Rate Acceleration of the Earth"). L.E.Rose & R.C.Vaughan: PENSEE IVR III, pp.l8-22, 1973 ("Babylonian Observations of Venus") PENSEE IVR V, pp.39-40, 1973 (letter) KRONOS II:2, pp.3-26, 1976 ("Analysis of the Babylonian observations of Venus") KRONOS III:2, pp.142-143, 1977 ("Addenda & Corrigenda") KRONOS V:3, pp.51-54, 1980 ("Ninsianna Update") >KRONOS VIII:1, pp.15-37, 1982 ("The Listing by Months: An Ancient Study of the Disappearances of Venus") J.E.S. Thompson: PHIL.TRANS R.SOC.LOND., A 276, 87, 1974. B. L. Van der Waerden: SCIENCE AWAKENING II - THE BIRTH OF ASTRONOMY, Noordhoff International Publishing, 1974 P. Warlow: JOURNAL OF PHYSICS A, Math.& Gen., 11, 10, 2107-2130, October 1978, reprinted in SISR III:4, pp.l00-112, 1979 ("Geomagnetic Reversals?") Contact Register of Members and their Interests Members have in the past expressed the wish to be able to exchange ideas directly with each other; several years ago an attempt was made to establish a list of those who would like to correspond with others, but the right questions were not asked and the results were never properly evaluated. Birgit Liesching has now volunteered to make a fresh attempt at gathering the relevant information, compiling a list, and sending it to those who respond. If you are interested in participating in this venture please write to: Miss B.C.Liesching 98/2 Chausee de Charleroi B 1060 Brussels, Belgium Please state languages spoken, profession, and special interests in the interdisciplinary fields, e.g. Ancient History Chronology Archaeology Egyptology Old Testament Mythology Geology Evolution Astronomy Dating Methods Origin of Religions Others ? If you have had books, papers or articles published on interdisciplinary subjects please give details. \cdrom\pubs\journals\workshop\w1986no1\08star.htm