Talk:Canon of Kings

Time Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astrology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Relationship to Common Era

The canon itself may be accurate, but what is the basis of mapping it to the Common Era? The canon ends in 160, Ptolemy died in 168. Anno Domini dating was first used in 525. There is a gap of almost 4 centuries. How do we know we have counted these years correctly? -- Petri Krohn 07:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The methods of cross-checking the dates of events, lengths of reigns, évents that happened or didn't happen in the same year etc...those such methods at the disposal of modern scholars are a lot better than what the monk Dionysus had on his hands. For instance:

-astronomical events (eclipses and conjunctions) whose dates can be calculated with total certainty, down to the hour, and which are mentioned in ancient sources, pinning down a given year in the reign of a king, a war, etc

-inscriptions on coins and marble, which sometimes date an event to year n of the rule of king/emperor X.

-lists of other people than sovereigns: Roman consuls, bishops, Germanic kings etc.

-agreement between different sources: there are probably several ancient sources stating that Constantine the Great ruled 24/25 years (depending on counting of incomplete years) as Augustus (emperor)

There weren't lots of historians around in the 5th and 6th century, still fewer whose books have survived in full, but there are quite enough fixed marker dates (things we know to have occurred in this or that year CE) and assured lengths of reigns to make sure that there weren't a couple years "lost in the river" to us. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

If the Canon of Kings is so accurate then what about the disagreement between this and Assyrian chronology? The Babylonian Chronicle states that Nineveh fell in Nabopolassar's (612BCE according to Ptolemy) but historians also say the ninth year of Assyrian king Assur-dan III is 763BC and if we count forward from that year using eponym and king lists etc we can get as far as 668BCE (start of Ashurbanipal's reign) but things get confusing after that. Encyclopædia Britannica (1959 edition, Vol. 2, page 569) gives Ashurbanipal's reign as 668-625 B.C.E. Then, on page 851 of the same volume, the reign is given as 669-630 B.C.E. In volume 5 of the same edition, page 655, it lists this same reign as "668-638(?)." 1965 edition says "669-630 or 626." (Vol. 2, page 573) A History of Israel, John Bright, 1964 says 633. Ancient Iraq, Georges Roux, 1964 says 631. 1962 Interpreter's Dictionary: 629. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, D. D. Luckenbill, 1926: 626. And of course there are different dates for Ashurbanipal's likely successor Ashur-etillu-ilani and Sin-shar-ishkun (apparently the king at the time of Nineveh's fall) - dated tablets have been found only up to his seventh year, but to fit Ptolemy we have to extend his reign longer than that. 81.101.135.195 (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The later years of Ashurbanipal are confused, but I don't see what that has to do with anything, since Ashurbanipal does not appear in the Canon of Kings. The mysterious Kandalanu does, and he was probably not the same person as Ashurbanipal. john k (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about it being verified against independent sources? I thought it was the only surviving information about Babylonian records that we have, so how can it possibly be confirmed? 81.101.135.195 (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not the only surviving information about Babylonian records that we have. john k (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]