The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

Furuli’s Second Book 507
intercalary months from each year with such months. The question marks in Kandalanu’s
column 2 indicate that it cannot be determined whether the intercalary month in
Kandalanu’s year 2 was a second Ululu or a second Addaru. For his year “13/14” Walker’s
list adds: “yr 13 12b or yr 14 6b”.
KANDALANU
Year U or A No. of tablets
2 (?) 1
5 U 2
8 U 1
10 A 2
13/14 (?) 1
19 U 5
22 x) U 1
x) Kan 22 = Npl acc.
NABOPOLASSAR
Year U or A No. of tablets
2 A 3
5 U 3
7 A 4
10 U 5
12 A 4
15 U 4
18 xx) U 5
20 A 8
xx) PD’s year 19 is erroneous. See Kennedy,
JCS 1986, p. 211.
The tables are based on an unpublished list worked out by C. B. F. Walker. My copy is dated
March 18, 1996. Walker’s list also shows an intercalary Addaru II for year 1 of
Nabopolassar, based on D. A. Kennedy’s list in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 38, 1986, p.
179, T.1.14 and p. 222. But after collation in 1990 Walker told me that the royal name is
Nabonidus, not Nabopolassar as stated in Kennedy’s list. (Letter Walker-Jonsson, Nov. 13,
1990) Walker simply forgot to remove this tablet from his own list.
As the tables show, the two kings had only one clearly dated intercalary month in common:
the Ululu II in year 5. If the intercalary month in year 2 of Kandalanu was an Addaru II, this
would raise the number to two. But still, most of the intercalary months in the two reigns
disagree. This fact in itself definitely disproves Furuli’s theory that the two kings were
identical.