The Dark Ages of the Eastern Mediterranean

history channel egypt Egyptologists have been stubborn that the 30 lines of Egypt took after one behind the other with no crevice in the course of events between these lords. Is there any verifiable proof that backings the thought that Egypt did not have a Pharaoh from 1200 B.C. to 900 B.C.? Consider the way that for all intents and purposes each country in the Eastern Mediterranean experienced some dim age, some period without a record of its history amid this time. History specialists assert that antiquated Greece experienced a dull age from twelfth to the eighth century B.C. between the Mycenean and Archaic Greek developments. The Hittites seemed to have a dull age from the thirteenth to the tenth century B.C. Indeed, even the Assyrians seemed to have a dull age of one hundred years from 1000-900 B.C. So if all these neighboring countries of Egypt encountered a dim age period amid this time is there any valid reason why egypt shouldn't?

history channel egypt Additionally consider that the Greeks suggested a dim period of Egypt also. Greek mythology specifies a ruler of Egypt, Proteus, who got to be lord of Egypt after a period where Egypt did not have a lord for five eras (Reference: Greek Mythology Link, creator Carlos Parada. On the off chance that we expect an era was a time of 60 years then five eras would be 300 years; surely a probability. So who is Proteus lord of Egypt? As indicated by Greek mythology Proteus was lord of Egypt amid the Trojan War when Paris, ruler of Troy, arrived at the shores of Egypt with his hostage Helen. Obviously Paris had hijacked Helen, the ruler of Sparta. This is the episode that started the Trojan War. Herodotus additionally specifies Proteus in his book The Histories with respect to his part in the Trojan War. On the off chance that Proteus is the lord of Egypt amid the Trojan War and in light of the fact that he is the ruler toward the end of the 300 year time of quiet in Egyptian history then the Trojan War more likely than not happened exceptionally close to 900 B.C. as indicated by the Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate Chronology. Since it was the Mycenean Greeks that attacked Troy then it is extremely conceivable there was a slow transform from the Mycenean to the Archaic Greek progress over a time of one hundred years (900-800 B.C.) This basically implies there was no dull age in antiquated Greece as has been so strongly contended by Peter James in his book Centuries of Darkness.

history channel egypt So where is the insertion point for this 300 year time of quiet in the Conventional Egyptian Chronology? Since this period happens some place in time between the twentieth and 21st lines of antiquated Egypt then the primary lord after this 300 year time of quiet should be in one of these lines. Likewise the main effective ruler in Egypt in 300 years would most likely make some declaration or decree that would exhibit that Egypt at the end of the day was in control of its own fate.

I trust the period from Ramesses VI until Ramesses XI meets every one of the requirements of the missing 300 years. Little was recorded about Ramesses VII, VIII or IX. As indicated by Herodotus the following lord to succeed Proteus was a ruler named Rhampsinutus (numerous students of history trust this is the Greek rendering for a lord named Ramesses). So which Ramesses would it say it was? I trust he was Ramessses XI. Herodotus expresses that Rhampsinutus had an "inconceivable fortune in silver" bigger than any ruler of Egypt before him. The main two Pharoahs in Egypt's history that had silver caskets that have been found were Psusennes of the 21st line and Shoshenq I of the 23rd line. This is critical in light of the fact that I trust this is confirmation that Ramessess XI fits better as a ruler of the 21st tradition as opposed to the twentieth line.