Centuries Of Darkness [Paperback]

Peter James (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 1, 1993

he authors of this text, originally published in England in 1991, are young scholars who present no less than a "chronological revolution." 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 c.1200 B.C. 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. For students of ancient history and archaeology.

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

The authors of this text, originally published in England in 1991, are young scholars who present no less than a "chronological revolution." 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 c.1200 B.C. 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. For students of ancient history and archaeology.
- Joan Gartland, Detroit P.L., Detroit, Mich.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Product Details

• Paperback: 434 pages
• Publisher: Rutgers University Press (March 1, 1993)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0813519519
• ISBN-13: 978-0813519517
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6 x 1.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #973,744 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

25 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A challenge to archaeological groupthink, June 13, 2000

By 

[e-mail] (Springfield, Illinois) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Centuries Of Darkness (Paperback)

James does an excellent job of confronting the problem of chronology in archaeology and ancient history. Is our understanding of the ancient world hopelessly confused because of a confused chronology? James looks at research on the entire ancient Mediterranean, comparing building and pottery finds, writings, and artwork, and the dating techniques used to place them in context. As others--from Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, 1952) to David Rohl (Pharaohs and Kings, 1997)--have argued, James sees the source of the problem in Egyptology. The dates calculated for the reigns of certain pharaohs and dynasties have been used as the foundation on which to cross-date finds throughout the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean. If this foundation is rotten, it throws the chronology of the rest of the ancient world into chaos.

This is a scholarly book, and its very thoroughness makes it a rather dry and seemingly repetitive read. This is mainly because the same kinds of errors have been made or borrowed in all the studies--Greek, Hittite, Egyptian, Israelite, etc.--that James critiques. Still, it is an excellent reference work for anyone trying to understand where our studies of ancient history went wrong and where they need to be corrected.

16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Centuries of Darkness, April 5, 2000

By 

Marc Carlson - See all my reviews

This review is from: Centuries Of Darkness (Hardcover)

Centuries of Darkness is, to me, an unusual work, in that the authors seem to be serious historians, who are still willing to stand up and point out the emperor's got no clothes. In this case, the emperor is the convoluted house of cards made up of middle eastern chronology which has been developing, in good faith, for over a century, and the fact that there appear to be flaws in this structure. The descriptions of these flaws and their suggestions for ways to handle them are well presented, even if they are not all immeadiately compelling. In short, this work is truly nutritious food for thought, and well worth the time to read it.

14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An extremely interesting book to be studied objectively, February 16, 2005

By 

David Oldacre (Sutton, Quebec) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Centuries of darkness : a challenge to the conventional chronology of Old World archaeology (Hardcover)

As a student of history who is very interested in knowing more about the collapse of Late Bronze Age civilizations, I bought this book as a companion to several other books I have on the subject. Despite its controversial theme, it was a well written and interesting book to read which I found hard to put down. The basic theme, of course, is that throughout the ancient Mediterranean, Greece, Egypt, and the Near East, the dating of these civilizations is almost uniformly based upon the generally accepted chronology of Egypt; and that it is this dependency has created a 250 year gap - a Dark Age - between the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age.

Using the evidence provided by respected scholars, Peter James and his team have documented in 13 chapters, the details of some 100 or so dating disputes, which arise from detailed evidence of continuity in western and southern Europe, in Greece, Anatolia, Cyprus, Palestine, Nubia, and Mesopotamia; and which if considered alone without the synchronisms with Egypt, would make it hard to see how there could have been such a 250 year gap. The lengthy chapter on Egypt develops the position that the astronomical Sothic Dating premise from which the Egyptian chronology was originally developed, is so badly flawed that it must be rejected. Coupled with the fact that the accuracy of radiocarbon dating in this period is problematical, and has tended to be used in a selective manner, the authors argue for a reversion to the dating theories developed by the scholars of the earlier 20th century before the Sothic dating theory was first developed. At one stroke, this would remove most of the major dating inconsistencies which have occurred over the past 100 years or so, and also incidentally show that the biblical description of King Solomon's wealth would be reflected in the Late Bronze rather than the early Iron Age.,

After my first read through, I decided to read the book a second time, and in doing so to avoid being distracted by the pervasive theme of the book. I found that the important thing to do was to concentrate, instead, on the descriptions of the archaeological evidence and the difference of opinions between the scholars, and to take the time to check out the detailed notes and extensive bibliography. I found that there were many sites on the Web where I could find out more about the various references and the scholars involved. I also looked at the Centuries of Darkness website itself which is also worth reading, and provides considerable detail of the reactions of the academic world since the book was first published in 1991. Naturally, there has been a lot of hostility towards the theory presented here, but also some very interesting and perceptive comments. My search for follow up reaction on the book came up with only meagre results, so it seems that the theory has either been rejected out of hand, or is simply being ignored in the hope it will go away.

That would be a pity, because the authors have argued their case well, and they have certainly shown that dating theories have often only been developed from intelligent guesses, and/or unattested or unverifiable assumptions. The evidence they have presented comes from the findings of highly respected scholars, and the authors have avoided the trap of building an alternative theory based on speculative hypotheses. In fact, the final chapter provides only a brief outline of their alternative theory, which points out the problems that would be solved if it were to be adopted. I suppose that in the real world of academia it will take a whole new generation of scholars with nothing to lose, who will determine whether the evidence here presented is worthy of reconsideration.

The most valuable thing about this book to me, is that it provided an excellent survey of the state of archaeology during the last half of the 2nd millennium BC and the first half of the 1st millennium BC. I now have a much better understanding about the archaeological sites of importance in the various regions, the scholars involved in obtaining and interpreting the evidence from these sites, and the assumptions that have been made in their attempts to develop an absolute chronology. The plates, figures, tables, and maps were very helpful, as were the four appendices dealing with the complex problems of radiocarbon dating, the ancient theories of chronology, and synchronisms between Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Hittites. It has also identified for me new areas of study in places such as Sardinia, Malta, Nubia, and Elam in Iran, which I know little about.

In summary, I am very happy that I bought the book, and I do recommend it to other readers. The time I spent on it was well worth it. I believe that the authors have made a strong case for the development an absolute chronology which will be considerably firmer than the current one, and one which can be supported by as much use of interdisciplinary evidence as possible,. I also think that this case is strong enough for the academic community to seriously examine the observations of these authors rather than to reject them out of hand.