DirkCampbell said
So no-one has mentioned Peter James’ book Centuries of Darkness in this thread? That was my question.
You can tell us about it.
It is not at the county college libraries in the ex-burbs.
It is not at the county libraries in the ex-burbs.
It is at the Dallas Public Library. It might be at SMU, I did not check.
How about Suppiluliuma? I like that one.
Steefen said
You can tell us about it.
Well I just did, briefly. The book advances the case that standard chronology is based on a misreading of the Egyptian king lists, among other things (including the Shishak/Sheshonk correlation). This necessitates an approximately 200-year period for which there are no archaeological finds in the eastern Mediterranean, leading to the hypothesis of a complete collapse of civilisation, for which there is no hard evidence. Full background if you’re interested on James’s website ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Peter James. Centuries of Darkness (CoD); 1991
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 [died 1203 BCE; 19th Dynasty] 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.
Erik Hornung. History of Ancient Egypt: An Introduction; 1978 German Edition; 1999 English Edition
Under Siamun (978-960 BCE; 21st Dynasty), the ruling house at Tanis felt strong enough to conduct an active foreign policy once again. A successful campaign led to the conquest of the Philistine city of Gezer…
Steefen
Centuries of Darkness would have to discuss or have information about moving Merenptah 19th Dynasty to the time of Siamun (21st Dynasty).
Virtually all the tombs in the valley were cleared out in antiquity. Some had been partially robbed during the New Kingdom, but all were systematically denuded of their contents in the 21st dynasty, in an effort to protect the royal mummies and to recycle the rich funerary goods back into the royal treasury.
Encyclopaedia Britannica entry for “Valley of the Kings,”
How could all of the eastern mediterranean civilisations have gone down for 200 years – right, all of them – for exactly the same time period? It makes no sense. What does make more sense is Peter James’ hypothesis that classical dating based on a generally accepted but faulty interpretation of the Egyptian king lists is wrong. There was no collapse.
DirkCampbell said
How could all of the eastern mediterranean civilisations have gone down for 200 years – right, all of them – for exactly the same time period? It makes no sense. What does make more sense is Peter James’ hypothesis that classical dating based on a generally accepted but faulty interpretation of the Egyptian king lists is wrong. There was no collapse.
Makes no sense perhaps but it’s hard to argue with the archeological record. And it wasn’t as nearly as tidy as all that. Greece did not really recover for nearly a thousand years. Some areas never recovered. You should read Cline’s book. Amusingly enough I attended the presentation recorded on the video, in Bethesda, Maryland at a lecture series sponsored by the National Capital Skeptics organization.
The Bronze Age “collapse” seems to have been the perfect storm, culturally, militarily, economically, and yes , environmentally! You can’t help but wonder what “might have been” had this pre-classical Mediterranean civilization prospered. And of course you can’t help but wonder if it could happen again? (One likes to hope we’ve passed a certain threshold where another Dark Age would be impossible but who knows?)
Stephen said
Makes no sense perhaps but it’s hard to argue with the archeological record. And it wasn’t as nearly as tidy as all that. Greece did not really recover for nearly a thousand years. Some areas never recovered. You should read Cline’s book. Amusingly enough I attended the presentation recorded on the video, in Bethesda, Maryland at a lecture series sponsored by the National Capital Skeptics organization.
The Bronze Age “collapse” seems to have been the perfect storm, culturally, militarily, economically, and yes , environmentally! You can’t help but wonder what “might have been” had this pre-classical Mediterranean civilization prospered. And of course you can’t help but wonder if it could happen again? (One likes to hope we’ve passed a certain threshold where another Dark Age would be impossible but who knows?)
I’ve seen Cline’s video and he accepts standard archeology. The thing you have to question is what standard archaeology is based on. We can’t know how old some things are. Pottery, for example, can’t be carbon dated. Archeologists know what type of pottery there was in certain areas of the world in a rough time period but that’s very imprecise. Take Stonehenge, that’s in my part of the world. ‘Beaker People’ pottery is found in and around the site. So archeologists conclude the Beaker People built Stonehenge. No, you can’t conclude that! There is no necessary correlation between what you find in the earth around a monument and the date of the monument’s construction. Standard archeology makes all sorts of a priori assumptions based on this kind of thinking. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but doesn’t mean it’s true either. Sometimes we have to question the a priori assumptions.
Oh and another point. Standard Egyptologists refuted Robert Schoch’s dating of the Sphinx as far earlier than dynastic Egypt because they said there is no evidence that there were any civilisations capable of megalithic building prior to dynastic Egypt. Then Gobekli Tepe proved them wrong. Carbon dating shows that Gobekli Tepe was filled in around 9000 BCE and must have been built far earlier. Standard archeology is not always reliable.
Well “standard” archeology is standard because it is the consensus of the folks in the field who have the expertise. Of course there are disagreements and blank spaces on our maps but every question must be addressed on a case by case basis. Wholesale attacks on “standard” archeology are very odd and tend to preface fringe conspiracy theories. Just for the record, the marvelous discovery of Göbekli Tepe was accomplished using the techniques of “standard” archeology and dated using those same methods. And there are other ways to date pottery than carbon dating that are very accurate.
As far as the so-called “Bronze Age collapse” the literature about this subject is vast. Many questions remain but there is no substitute for reading the books.
Stephen said
Well “standard” archeology is standard because it is the consensus of the folks in the field who have the expertise. Of course there are disagreements and blank spaces on our maps but every question must be addressed on a case by case basis. Wholesale attacks on “standard” archeology are very odd and tend to preface fringe conspiracy theories. Just for the record, the marvelous discovery of Göbekli Tepe was accomplished using the techniques of “standard” archeology and dated using those same methods. And there are other ways to date pottery than carbon dating that are very accurate.As far as the so-called “Bronze Age collapse” the literature about this subject is vast. Many questions remain but there is no substitute for reading the books.
This is an even more interesting subject than historical criticism of Christianity, fascinating though that may be. Can we start a new topic? How were the H blocks of Puma Punku carved with exact precision in granite? According to standard archeology?
DirkCampbell said
This is an even more interesting subject than historical criticism of Christianity, fascinating though that may be. Can we start a new topic? How were the H blocks of Puma Punku carved with exact precision in granite? According to standard archeology?
Yes, start a new topic somewhere else in this member forum instead of getting off topic here.
Thank you.
I’m not sure we need to open another topic because it really isn’t the subject of this forum. Let me just say that although the ancients were much less technologically advanced as we are they were no less intelligent. There is no evidence that these ancient monuments were created by any methods not available to the contemporary human cultures.
This might throw a monkey wrench into lining things up with the Bible. Years were added, differently, to various translations, usually making the first 4000 years of creation end in 164 BCE. So now it seems lining up bible chrono with archeological chrono is futile, is it not?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
FocusMyView said
This might throw a monkey wrench into lining things up with the Bible. Years were added, differently, to various translations, usually making the first 4000 years of creation end in 164 BCE. So now it seems lining up bible chrono with archeological chrono is futile, is it not?** you do not have permission to see this link **
No.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)