|
|
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An extremely interesting book to be studied objectively, February 16, 2005
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.
|
by DAVID M. ROHL
by James D. Long
by Roger Henry
See all 12 books citing this book
