Let there be light

"Centuries of Darkness" (CoD) is a controversial work of archaeology, published in various editions 1991-93 but long out of print. The fact that CoD still has a website, shows that somebody somewhere was impressed...or took strong offence.

Small wonder, since CoD is a work of chronological revisionism, a genre usually associated with Immanuel Velikovsky, regarded by the scientific establishment as the crank to end all cranks (or simply as crackpot). His ideas about celestial mechanics were even more "out there" than his revisions of ancient Egyptian history. Another best-selling author of revisionist works is David Rohl, who claims to have found the Garden of Eden somewhere in Iran (I always assumed it was in Bahrain). I admit a certain involuntary fascination with Rohl, but not with his alma mater Velikovsky.

But what about CoD?

Fortunately, it turns out that CoD is a solidly argued work of scholarship. It could be wrong, it could be right and it's apparently still upheld by a minority only. However, it cannot be dispensed with by a "guilt by association" argument featuring poor Velikovsky. Personally, I veer strongly towards the opinion that Peter James and his collaborators might be right!

CoD argues that the standard chronology of the ancient world is too long. By lowering the chronology with about 200 years, a long list of archaeological anomalies and absurdities can be solved, virtually at one stroke. Essentially, James argues that the "dark ages" between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age never really happened - these centuries are "dark", not because of any general collapse of ancient civilization, but because they don't even exist! CoD points out the curious fact that in region after region, the material culture of the Early Iron Age was remarkably similar to that of the Late Bronze Age. This makes no sense, if two centuries of general collapse intervened between the two periods. Apparently, art historians have long been extremely puzzled by the similarities between art and sculpture between Late Bronze and Early Iron. An even more curious problem is that *no* material remains from the dark ages have been found at some sites, or that the only remains were tombs, but no residence houses. James reviews various "official" explanations and finds them all wanting. Sometimes, the official scenario borders the absurd - thus, the Nubians are supposed to have abandoned their large towns, become nomads, and then recreated pretty much the same high culture centuries later?!

Of particular interest is the chapter on Biblical archaeology. It's "common knowledge" these days that Joshua's siege of Jericho never happened, that archaeologist haven't found any evidence for the opulence of King Solomon, and that most of the Old Testament historical narratives before the time of Ahab are therefore not to be relied upon. However, if about 200 years are cut from the standard chronology, much of the Biblical scenario suddenly makes sense. The "Canaanite" Bronze Age levels would then belong to Solomon's time, and several other anomalies would also be cleared up. Thus, it's widely believed that the Egyptian ruler Shishak, who according to the Bible attacked Jerusalem around 925 BC, is identical with Shoshenq I, known from Egyptian sources. However, Shoshenq's surviving records suggests that he attacked the Negev and Israel, not Judah and Jerusalem. In the Bible, by contrast, the northern kingdom of Israel is Shishak's ally. James identifies Shishak with Ramses III.

I found another anomaly more intriguing. There are similarities between The Great Hymn to Aten and Psalm 104, and the Book of Psalms is in general believed to resemble a certain kind of Egyptian poetry. The problem, of course, is that the hymn to Aten was composed during the 14th century BC, while King David - to whom the Psalms are traditionally attributed - would have lived about three centuries later. However, if Egyptian chronology has been artificially stretched by several centuries, the gap between the Egyptian psalms and the Biblical psalms suddenly becomes more bridgeable. It also becomes more interesting, since the hymn to Aten is attributed to Akhenaten, the heretical pharaoh who tried to impose a monotheistic cult on his Egyptian subjects. Sounds familiar?

One thing that surprised me when reading CoD is how dependent all Near East and European chronology is on the Egyptian ditto. Greek, Phoenician, Hittite, Roman and even Central and North European chronologies are based on the belief that the Egyptian dates are largely correct. Egyptian or Egyptian-inspired objects have been found far outside Egypt. The Egyptian chronology is founded on so-called "Sothic" dating (Sothis was the Egyptian name for the star Sirius). One of the Egyptian calendars was based on the heliacal rise of this particular star, and for various reasons to complex to mention in a short review, Egyptologists believe they can date Egyptian history in a very exact manner due to this calendar and its "Sothic cycles". This seemingly exact chronology has been superimposed on the rest of the ancient world as well, creating the illusion of a 200-year long "dark age" from Greece in the north to Nubia in the south. (I wonder what CoD would mean for Scandinavian chronology - many rock carvings from the Bronze Age look Egyptian or East Mediterranean.)

Twenty years after its publication, "Centuries of Darkness" has still not converted the majority of archaeologists, but if and when a reappraisal of ancient chronology is made, I believe ideas identical with or similar to its conclusions will become a necessary starting point for the discussions.

Oh, did I mention that the book proves parts of the Bible? ;-)