Centuries of Darkness

by Peter James, Colin Renfrew (Foreword)

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.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient, Archaeology

434 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1991

About the author

Peter James is a British author and historian specialising in ancient history and archaeology of the Eastern Mediterranean region. He graduated in ancient history and archeology at the University of Birmingham (England) and does postgraduate research at University College London.

James has advanced several controversial theories about the chronology of Mediterranean civilizations, the Middle East, and Egypt. His theories are not generally accepted by mainstream historians or Egyptologists.

In his best known work, Centuries of Darkness, he challenges the traditional chronology of mainstream archaeology. In particular, he advances the idea that the Greek Dark Ages never occurred, arising solely from a misreading of key elements of Egyptian history. This theory is in part a revision of Immanuel Velikovsky's Revised Chronology. Ongoing criticism and discussion of the evidence is listed on the authors' own website.[1]

In The Sunken Kingdom: The Atlantis Mystery Solved, James hypothesizes about the location of Atlantis. By first claiming that references to mythological Tartarus by Plato were in fact meant to identify a Lydian king by the name of Tantalus, he goes on to identify Atlantis with a hypothetical lost temple city called Tantalis, corresponding to modern-day Manisa in Turkey.

Reviews

[Joy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Peter James and his co-writers recognize that the time line of the ancient middle east is off, but they have settled on an elimination of 250 "dark" years to bring everything into a line that satisfies them. The first two-thirds of the book is spent proving that the conventional theory is too confused to work. Because they are set on demonstrating the confusion, those sections are hard for a layman to follow. The main thing they succeeded in convincing me of is that it's impossible to assign exact dates to anything in prehistory; it can be nothing but guessing.

[Chris Bland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Centuries of Darkness makes a powerful case for over-turning the traditional chronology of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean and Middle East, and the subsequent assumed Greek and other Dark Ages.

Please see my blog for a longer version of this review http://www.shouldersofgiants.com.au/2...

I picked this up randomly in a second-hand bookshop, as I do with most books. One the one hand, theories and scholarship that challenge the status quo are always appealing, but on the other hand I’m also wary of unsubstantiated crank history as well (aliens built the pyramids, Queen Elizabeth I wrote Shakespeare etc). Immediately in this book’s favour was a foreword from no less than Colin Renfrew, who I knew originally as the author of my first year archaeology textbook and had latterly enjoyed a number of his other works, so I decided it was worth purchasing.

Published in 1990, I also wanted to verify how the theory stated in here had developed since that time, and was pleased to find the author maintains a website where the debate continues to the present day. In the foreword, Professor Renfrew endorses the general scholarship of the book, and its convincing destruction of the accepted chronology, though he stops short of endorsing their final conclusions, which are that much of the dating of Bronze Age events, all of which are interlinked, are far too old, or ‘high’ to use the academic parlance, and they can be brought forward by about 250 years, eliminating much of the Greek and other Dark Ages.

This is an academic work which can be read by a general reader with an interest in the topic, but you shouldn’t expect a popular history. The bulk of the book works systematically through the individual chronologies of the different interlocking regions, from Italy to Nubia to Mesopotamia. They provide a heavily cited and detailed analysis of the dating methodologies employed, exposing numerous inconsistencies by working their way through the main research and evidence in each case. While some elements of this can be a little dry if you’re not familiar with the key academics and details of the debate, which I am not. But what I found fascinating is the surprising Procrustean ‘hand-waves’ that other experts have used to make the facts fit their theory rather than the other way around. Explanations of artifacts appearing hundreds of years out of context have been explained away as prized imported heirlooms, and cultures and writing systems have been supposed to have lain dormant for hundreds of years of illiteracy before being suddenly revived almost unchanged. It is the exposition of these fallacies that I find the most convincing. In their place the author offers a far simpler explanation, which I have learned is almost always the right one.

Read more at http://www.shouldersofgiants.com.au/2...

[Spencer Clevenger · Rating 5 out of 5]

To paraphrase scientists, the simplest theory is usually the right one. If so, Mr. James must be right. Before reading this book I had accepted the conventional scholarly view of a long Greek Dark Age. However, as I read his book I realized I had unconsciously understood that premise to be unlikely. How does a people disappear for 250 years (except for one house being built at Lefkandi) and suddenly reappear as if time had stood still?

This book clearly challenges conventional views of chronology. It does so in a very compelling manner. If he is right, David and Solomon were contemporaries of Ramses and lived in the wealthier Bronze Age. Given the fabled wealth of Solomon that makes more sense then him living in the poor Iron Age that followed. Another result is that Homer lived much closer to the time of the Trojan War. Given the strong correlation between Troy of myth and history, that should not be a surprise.

In my book Greek Mythic History I explored what the myths themselves say. While Greek writers consistently exaggerate the timelines of their own past - the genealogies they preserve clearly support Peter James' view. I can not recommend this book enough for people trying to understand the Bronze Age history of cultures around the Mediterranean.

[Margaret Walker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Think your history textbook is right? Think again.

The chief benefit of this illuminating volume is to dissect the very tenuous chronology our understanding of prehistory is based on, and to demonstrate the maxim that to challenge the status quo gets you nowhere fast.

In the 33 years since Centuries of Darkness tried to explain to the world this unpleasant truth, nothing has changed. Archaeologists, Egyptologists and historians still argue and abuse each other, and the most influential still win. Furthermore, if they want to, they will wipe you and your theories off the map. Just look at Marija Gimbutas, scorned and rejected, dead 30 years and only now has her work been vindicated.

Your best armour for the fight is to be British and male but being rich from a rich country will also bolster your opinion in the eyes of the academic world. The opinions of the countries where the archaeological finds actually come from are rarely considered. This is why the British Museum is stocked with stolen goods and why, whenever they deign to give any of them back, their belated generosity hits the headlines, as recently happened when they returned artefacts to the Australian aborigines. The titbit I heard mouthed by some British aristocrat that Britain didn’t need to return the Parthenon marbles because, being in the British Museum, they now belonged to The World had me hurling souvlakis at the television.

Perhaps I should read the rest of the book before shooting off on any more tangents?

[Jim Long · Rating 4 out of 5]

Five scholars offer an innovative and long overdue revision of the Egyptian Chronology.

[Monty Milne · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was at school with one of the co authors. I recall a picnic I shared with him, when we were both schoolboys many years ago. He reclined, handsome and languid, on a river bank, whilst sipping fine white burgundy with our Art Master (of beloved memory). So I was disposed to like this book because of ancient and personal associations. In fact, it is a revolutionary work, though it is demanding and requires close reading. The thesis - that the standard chronology of the ancient world is seriously flawed - is very convincingly argued. Twenty years ago, when it was first published, the authors no doubt expected that continuing results in fields such as carbon dating and dendrochronology would confirm (or disprove) their thesis: unfortunately, this has not occurred, and the debate still rages. I think it is fair to say that most scholars now agree that there are serious problems with the conventional chronology of the ancient world, but - for a variety of reasons - most are still reluctant to accept the thesis of the authors (which is basically to move everything a couple of centuries closer to our own time, so that the "centuries of darkness" - the ancient dark ages - simply disappear, as they only existed due to chronological miscalculation).

I should add that the authors only want to adjust things prior to about 700 BC, so we don't have to worry (as one facetious reviewer did) that the Battle of Hastings took place in the 1366, or that the Battle of Waterloo has yet to happen...

There is a very good website created by the authors which gives some information about the contemporary status of the debate. This makes it clear that while the majority of scholars still embrace conventional chronology - more or less - there is an increasingly large minority who are disposed to accept many of the contentions of the authors. For anyone who has fought in spirit before the walls of Troy, or imagined Solomon in all his glory, there is much food for reflection that events such as these may well have happened closer to our time than we once thought.