Talk:Mursili's eclipse

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Eclipses task force.

Ancient Near East

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Somebody needs to check the Paul Astrom reference -- according to NASA's map [1] the 1308 eclipse didn't even come near Anatolia (meaning, it would have been partial, not annular). Probably the sun might have risen partially obscured, that might have been noticed, and 4 years after the 1312 eclipse, people may have watched the sun with suspicion, still the 1312 date seems vasty more likely. Another point is, however, that the eclipse may have been "moved" retrospectively to align with the campaign, this sort of thing is frequent in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, lots of eclipses there have no historical counterpart. dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the eclipse was moved. In the earlier years of Mursili's annal, he's preparing to attack Uhha-Ziti of Arzawa. A meteor streaks out of the sky and crashes into Apasas, where Uhha-Ziti was staying. Why did Mursili not insert the solar portent then? -Zimriel|t 15:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly the eclipse is not mentioned in the Annals, but in the fragmentary text KUB 14.4 = CTH 70; can anyone check please? Thanks, Federico Rocchi [14 May 2007].

Something's wrong here. The NASA map gives dates that are both one year later than those in the article (i.e., 1307 instead of 1308 BC) -155.42.196.23 (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's because NASA uses the Julian calendar for dates prior to 1582; the Julian calendar has no year zero. Historians are requested to add a year when encountering NASA dates.--Subwoofer (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with Julian calendar, it's just a more convenient way for astronomers to calculate if they introduce a year zero: Year_zero#Astronomical_notation. --Proofreader (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian calendar?

I removed this note - doesn't make any sense to me. Who would give Julian calendar dates before the Julian calendar was invented?! It can only be a reconstructed date from the Gregorian calendar. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the dates given are in the Julian calendar; this means that the 24 June eclipse was shortly before, not after, summer solstice of 1312 BC.

Other dates

In The Solar Omen of Musili II, Peter J. Huber, Journal of theAmerican Oriental Society, Oct-Dec, 2001 the dates of March 13 1334 BCE and January 9 1339 BCE are proposed. Also in Ancient Astronomical Observations and Near Eastern Chronology, W.A. Mitchel, JACF Vol 3, 1990, some ultra-low chronology dates are proposed. That later paper is availble at http://www.newchronology.org/cgi-bin/somsid.cgi?session=1216316815&page=html/volumes/03

Ploversegg (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)ploversegg[reply]

The eclipse is not mentioned in the Annals of Mursili.

Despite what it says at the beginning of the article, the eclipse is not mentioned in the Annals of Mursili. It is actually reported in a prayer text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mursili's eclipse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060118033939/http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEatlas/SEatlas-2/SEatlas-1319.GIF to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEatlas/SEatlas-2/SEatlas-1319.GIF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]