MEDITERRANEAN BRONZE AGE

Ended c. 950 BC after the Trojan War

CENTURIES OF DARKNESS, BY PETER JAMES

https://www.centuries.co.uk/faq.htm

REVIEW 1

After tracing the development of Old World chronology, James and his colleagues review archaeological evidence and the lack of it from the Dark Age, the centuries-long period at the end of the Late Bronze Age…. They include a wide geographical area--as far east as Iran and south to Nubia. Challenging the accepted Egyptian chronology, they argue for lower dates, which would instead put the end of the Late Bronze Age around 950 B.C., thus essentially eliminating the so-called Dark Age. The authors have done a masterful job of drawing together an enormous range of evidence; their conclusion is persuasive. Their challenge to Egyptian chronology cannot be ignored, and Egyptologists will have to address the flaws that they demonstrate.

REVIEW 2

Deciphering the clues from papyri and pottery, he and his team of experts search layer by layer through the excavated treasures of a vast area from Spain to Iran and from Denmark to Sudan, until they reach Egypt, the root of the labyrinthine riddle. It is here that they unearth 250 years of ‘ghost history’ {i.e. nonexistent}.

Centuries of Darkness Table of Contents

Acknowledgments xi
Foreword by Colin Renfrew xiii
Preface xvii
The Evolution of Old World Chronology 1
To the Pillars of Heracles 27
Beware the Greeks Bearing Gifts 56
The Dark Age Mysteries of Greece 68
The Foundations of Geometric Chronology 95
Redating the Hittite Empire 113
Cyprus, Ceramics and Controversy 142
Biblical Archaeology Without Egypt 162
The Empty Years of Nubian History 204
Egypt: The Centre of the Problem 220
Riddles of Mesopotamian Archaeology 261
The Exaggeration of Antiquity 291
The End of the Dark Ages? 311
A1: Dendrochronology and Radiocarbon Dating 321
A2: Greek and Roman Theories on Ancient Chronology 326
A3: The ‘Venus Tablets’ of Ammizaduga and the dating of the 1st Dynasty of Babylon 335
A4: Synchronisms between Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Hittites during the Late Bronze Age 340
Notes and references 345
Bibliography 395
Index 427

Fifteen Frequently Asked Questions

ERUPTION OF THERA VOLCANO & THE EXODUS

Q4: Where does CoD {Centuries of Darkness} stand with the scientific dating for the explosion of Thera which is raising, rather than lowering, Bronze Age chronology?

"{When} a thorough search measuring the sulphuric acid from each year {was} undertaken, {the formerly noticed} 1620s BC 'event' ceased to be special. Similar peaks of sulphuric acid are now known to exist in the 16th, 15th, 14th and 13th centuries (Zielinski et al. 1994)! Any of these (for example those from the ice-core years 1594, 1454, 1327 and 1284) might represent the Thera eruption. Worse still, small particles of volcanic ejecta have now been found in one of the very ice-levels from Greenland. Analysis has shown that their chemical composition does not match that of Thera (Zielinski & Germani 1998a). ... {T}here is no longer any 'scientific' consensus on the high dating. Indeed, the direct evidence from the Greenland ice-cores suggests that the c. 1628 BC event should not be linked with the explosion of Thera, but with that of an unidentified volcano."

{Note, 1454 BC is close to the date 1446 BC that David Rohl assigns to the Exodus. It's very possible that the Thera eruption was responsible for the ten plagues of Egypt just before the Exodus. It's also very possible that the Jupiter moon, Io, {which may have caused the fall of fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah at the earlier time of Abraham and Lot c. 1700 BC, because brimstone means sulfur and Io has a lot of sulfur}, or another moon or asteroid later caused the waters of the Reed Sea to open near the beginning of the Exodus in c. 1446 BC, allowing the Israelites to cross.}

SOLOMON RULED ISAREL c. 950-930 A.D.

Q9: How valid is the statement that CoD makes nonsense of Biblical history by placing King David in the middle of the reign of Ramesses II?

The statement is completely invalid, as CoD does not place David in the middle of Ramesses' reign. ... The dates for King David are dependent on those for his successor King Solomon. Ancient historians agree that the reign of Solomon ended c. 930 BC, but hardly any (except uncritical fundamentalists and Kitchen) accept the schematic biblical figure of 40 years apiece for the reigns of Solomon and David. Forty years for both reigns together would be more realistic. This - on our chronology - would place the unification of Israel under Saul and David during the last years of Ramesses II and the reign of his successor Merenptah. It is generally acknowledged that the armies of Egypt were indeed sitting idle during the last years of Ramesses II, while Merenptah, though he campaigned in southern Palestine, ruled a much reduced territory. Ramesses III later described this time as the "empty years" when there was chaos in the Egyptian empire. We should also remember that the heartland of Israel was the hill country in the interior, in which the Egyptians showed no great interest. Their imperial ambitions in Palestine were largely restricted to controlling the rich cities of the coastal area and the Jezreel Valley. Through most of the Late Bronze Age the hill country was something of a backwater unaffected by the Egyptian comings and goings through the more economically important parts of Canaan. It is significant that the first (and only) reference to Israel in Egyptian records occurs in a stela of Merenptah which celebrates the troubles afflicting neighbouring countries. One enigmatic line, which has exercised scholarly imagination for decades, states that "Israel is laid waste, his seed is not". It is generally thought to mean that Merenptah claimed to have bested Israel in a military conflict. But a more literal translation might be safer, with the "seed" referring to grain. As it was a standard Egyptian tactic to destroy the fields and trees of enemies and rebels, it seems that Merenptah was boasting about his raids on Israelite fields. In the CoD chronology, the famine said to have occurred during the reign of David (2 Samuel 21:1) may reflect these circumstances. In the same text Merenptah states that he conquered the Canaanite city of Gezer, a fact which can provide us with an invaluable synchronism. According to the Bible an unnamed Egyptian Pharaoh became the father-in-law of Solomon. As a dowry Solomon received the city of Gezer, which this Pharaoh had recently conquered (1 Kings 9:16). In the CoD model he must be Merenptah, who presumably effected a rapprochement with Israel sometime after his raids. During the reign of Solomon Egypt was clearly friendly towards Israel, a policy which was reversed again after Solomon's death."

PHILISTINES IN PALESTINE MAYBE SINCE THE EXODUS

Q10: If the Philistines arrived in Canaan in the time of Ramesses III, whom CoD makes a contemporary of King Solomon, how could they have fought his predecessors Saul and David as mentioned in the Old Testament?

“Quite simply we dispute the idea that the Philistines first appeared in Canaan during the reign of Ramesses III. ... When the Philistines (Plst) and their confederates transgressed the "borders" of Egypt in the years 5 and 8 of Ramesses III, his scribes always referred to them using the traditional terms for "Asiatics" (a geographical rather than ethnic term). Moreover, Ramesses III's inscriptions specifically mention the towns and orchards of the Plst - which stands clearly against the idea that they were all new arrivals from elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Many Plst must have already been settled in southern Palestine. These points, originally stressed by Alessandra Nibbi (1975), have since been echoed in the work of other scholars including Peter James ..., Phoenician archaeologist Patricia Bikai (1992) and classicist Bob Drews (1993, 52-3). ... {T}here is a growing school of thought which regards the so-called 'Sea Peoples' invasion as having been overstated. This, while it does not rule out new settlements of peoples from Cyprus and the Aegean at the transition from the Late Bronze to Iron Ages, does stress that the Plst were already an entity in coastal Palestine before the reign of Ramesses III. On the archaeological side, while the Philistines adopted the latest Aegean-style pottery at the beginning of the Iron Age (Monochrome 'Philistine Ware'), this cannot be taken as proof that they had only just arrived; it may only reflect new settlers that had joined them. In our archaeological model Philistine presence during the Late Bronze Age is reflected by, among other things, the 'Bichrome Painted' pottery (thought to be Cypriot in origin) of the coastal region. The 'foreignness' of the Philistines, as perceived by the Hebrews, who always distinguished them from the Canaanites, springs from their long-standing relationship with Cyprus and the Aegean {area of northeastern Mediterranean} - a relationship that continued in the Iron Age but had its origins much earlier. There is, therefore, no conflict between the idea that Saul and David fought the Philistines before the reign of Ramesses III, since Philistines were already present in Palestine. Incidentally, this would also mean that at least some of the biblical references to Philistines in earlier times - e.g. those at the time of the Israelite Conquest/Settlement - need not be 'anachronistic', as the conventional chronology assumes them to be.”

Warrior of the Shardana

(Centre {above is}) A warrior of the Shardana, one of the mysterious 'Sea Peoples', as depicted on Egyptian reliefs conventionally {mis}dated to the 13th and 12th centuries BC. … (Right and left) Bronze figurines from Sardinia, usually dated to the 9th-7th centuries BC. {These are likely the same people of the 900s BC and later, the Shardana having likely named the island of Sardinia.}

Q1: Hasn't Egyptian chronology, which CoD challenges, been firmly fixed by 'Sothic' astronomical dating?

No. Sothic dating has been discredited.

Q2: Can Radiocarbon Dating prove CoD right or wrong?

It likely will, once proper methodology is adopted for the period and locations in question, i.e. the Bronze to Iron Age in the Near East and Mediterranean.

Q3: Do the results from the developing dendrochronology for Anatolia agree or disagree with CoD?

Properly determined results agree, though few have been done.

Q5: Has Professor Kenneth Kitchen shown that the CoD restructuring of Egyptian chronology is impossible?

"In his response Kitchen (1991b) failed to take up our challenge. So, in a final rejoinder (James 1991) we noted: Kenneth Kitchen appears to have conceded the major point of his initial review. In our reply we challenged Professor Kitchen to produce hard evidence that the 21st and 22nd Egyptian Dynasties were successive rather than overlapping. Since he failed to respond, we can only assume he was unable to do so, replying on different matters entirely."

Q6: Egyptologists say that they can retrocalculate, by means of 'dead reckoning', from securely dated later dynasties back through the Third Intermediate Period to the New Kingdom. Is this true?

No.

Q7: But how can you dispute the obvious similarity between the names Shoshenq and Shishak?

"Apart from the fact that both individuals were Pharaohs who campaigned in Palestine, there is absolutely no match between the accounts given of Shoshenq I and Shishak in the respective Egyptian and biblical records."

Q8: Is it true that the conventional chronology of Egypt is supported and proved to be correct by its synchronisms with the chronology of Mesopotamia?

No.

Q11: Have any valid criticisms been levelled at CoD which the authors have not been able to answer?

No.

Q12: Is there any truth in the rumour that scholars have fabricated or falsified evidence in order to disprove CoD?

Yes.

Q13: Have any of the conclusions in CoD been accepted by other archaeologists and ancient historians?

Yes.

Q14: Why has CoD not been generally accepted as the correct chronology for the ancient world?

It is a well-known alternative, but mainstream inertia has not been overcome as yet.

Q15: Is there a single test that can be done to prove or disprove CoD?

"Having said that, and as most archaeologists accept the primacy of radiocarbon dating, an extensive series of fresh C14 results should by itself go a long way to resolving whether we are right in lowering the end of the Bronze Age by as much as 250 years. But, to achieve this kind of chronological 'fine tuning' - though revolutionary in archaeological terms - far more than the usual handful of determinations would be needed. An adequate test of CoD should involve a new suite of well-chosen samples, short-lived and from secure contexts, each divided into three parts and sent to as many laboratories. Radiocarbon labs are normally informed of the expected archaeological date of submitted material, but in this case 'blind testing' should be followed. The samples must range between a number of different sites, thus providing further control. Were such a programme to be undertaken, we are confident that the results will clearly be discrepant with the conventional chronology but in harmony with that in CoD."

TROJAN WAR ENDED C. 940 BC

Recent Developments (centuries.co.uk)

Eratosthenes and the date of the Fall of Troy (Kokkinos 2009b), {is} arguing that the ‘original’ date for Troy reckoned by the earliest Greek chronographers was c. 940 BC.

BABYLONIAN & PERSIAN CONQUESTS OF JUDAH

Short Persian Empire Archaeological Evidence From Peter James Book Centuries Of Darkness

The Babylonian captivity of the Israelites occurred after c. 450 BC.

The Persian Empire only lasted from c. 352-331 BC.