Evidence of a Break in Civilizations due to the
Dating of the the Flood?
According to the Ussher chronology, the Flood was in 2348 BC.
Bishop James Ussher used biblical genealogies to calculate that the universe and
the creation took place in 4004 B.C.
When we examine Old Testament chronologies, we
can date the Flood as most likely occurring between 2500 B.C. and 3400 B.C.-
depending on our choice of the Masoretic Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint of
the Old Testament, respectively.
The most practical choice to get a close date for the flood is the
beginning of construction of King Solomon's Temple. Here it gives us a precise
date, "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after
the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year
of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second
month, that he began to build the house of the LORD." (1 Kings 6:1).
Now to find out what date the temple was built, we know an absolute date of
the destruction of the Temple. This took place between 588-586 B.C. by
King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon depends on which authority you reference, but
either one it is for certain that it happen during this two year time frame
If we add up the reigns of the kings of Judah from Solomon from his fourth
year to Zedekiah we come up with 429 years
||4th year of his reign
builds temple reigns 36 more years
|| 17 years
| 3. Abijah
|| 3 years
| 4 Asa
|| 41 years
| 5. Jehoshaphat
|| 25 years
| 6. Jehoram
|| 8 years
| 7. Ahaziah
|| 1 years
| 8. Athaliah
|| 6 years
| 9. Joash
|| 40 years
| 10. Amaziah
|| 29 years
| 11. Uzziah (Azariah)
|| 52 years
| 12. Jotham
|| 16 years
| 13. Ahaz
|| 16 years
| 14. Hezekiah
|| 29 years
| 15. Manasseh
|| 55 years
| 16. Amon
|| 2 years
| 17. Josiah
|| 31 years
| 18. Jehoahaz
|| 3 mo
| 19. Jehoiakim
|| 11 years
| 20. Jehoiachin
|| 3 mos
| 22. Zedekiah
|| 11 years-Temple destroyed
from 2 kings 25:2
But co-regencies shorten the length of the total reigns of the Kings of
Judah. Some were not sole reigns but co-reigns which shorten the over all
The reign of each king is given by the length of the reign and by the
beginning of the reign as it compares to the regnal year of the ruling king in
the opposite kingdom. The years do not add up at first sight, but if we accept
the existence of the following three scenarios, then we can resolve the
- Reigns can overlap
- Sons can have co-regencies with their father
- The length of the reign can be counted from the beginning of the first
official year or from the start of the co-regency
Co-regencies are shown using a ’stepped’ line rather than a
straight line. For example, Asa reigned over Judah on his own until 873 B.C.
when Jehoshaphat joined him. Three years later, Asa died and Jehoshaphat
continued to reign on his own.
Taking all the data, with the co-regencies of the Kings of
Judah, including the 36 years of Solomon's reign when he began the temple
building, it comes out to 381 Years.
From the Destruction of the 1st Temple between 588-586 B.C. and we add 381
years to Solomon Commencing to build the Temple the year is between
So 480 years from 971-969 gives us the date of the Exodus which is 1451-1449
Judges 11:26. In this passage
Jephthah tells the king of Ammon that Israel had been living in the land for 300
years prior to the beginning of the Ammonite oppression. Although we do not know
precisely when the Ammonite oppression began, it had to have been sometime
around 1100 BC (Davis 2008: 153; Ray 2005: 99; Steinmann 2005: 499), placing the
Conquest at ca. 1400 BC and the Exodus in the mid-15th century BC.
This is where we should begin our calculations. We've
developed the intervals between various events; so we simply add those intervals
to the known BC dates. For example:
(Temple Start) + 480 = (Exodus Date)
969 BC + 480 = 1449 BC
(Exodus Date ) + 430 = (Egypt's Entry)
1449 BC + 430 = 1879 BC
(Egypt's Entry) + 130 = (Jacob's birth)
1879 BC + 130 = 2009 BC
(Jacob's Birth) + (Isaac's Beget Interval) = (Isaac's Birth date)
2009 BC + 60 = 2069 BC
Abraham was 100 years old when he had Isaac Gen 17-21 (2069 B.C.)
Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran for Canaan (Gen 12:4) (2094
*Note: "Haran was certainly the eldest son of
Terah, and he appears to have been born when Terah was about seventy years
of age, and his birth was followed in successive periods with those of Nahor
his second, and Abram his youngest son. Many have been greatly puzzled with
the account here, supposing because Abram is mentioned first, that therefore
he was the eldest son of Terah: but he is only put first by way of dignity.
An in stance of this we have already seen, Gen 5:32, where Noah is
represented as having Shem, Ham, and Japheth in this order of succession;
whereas it is evident from other scriptures that Shem was the youngest son
[Gen 10:21], who for dignity is named first, as Abram is here; and Japheth
the eldest, named last, as Haran is here. Terah died two hundred and five
years old, Gen 11:32 [see Acts 7:4]; then Abram departed from Haran when
seventy-five years old, Gen 12:4; therefore Abram was born, not when his
father Terah was seventy, but when he was one hundred and thirty." (Clarkes
Terah had Abraham in the year (2169 B.C.)
Terah was born 130 years before (2299 B.C.)
Nahor live 29 years and begot Terah (Gen 11:24) His birth was (2328 B.C.)
Serug 30 years and begot Nahor (Gen 11:22) His birth ( 2358 B.C.)
Reu lived 32 years and begot Serug (Gen 11:20) his birth ( 2390 B.C.)
Peleg lived 30 years and begot Reu (Gen 1118) his birth ( 2420 B.C.)
Eber lived 34 years and begot Peleg (Gen 11:16) his birth ( 2454 B.C.)
Salah lived 30 years and begot Eber (Gen 11:14) his birth ( 2484 B.C.)
Arphaxad lived 35 years and begot Salah (Gen 11:12) his birth ( 2519
Shem live 100 years and begot Arphaxad (Gen 11:10) his birth ( 2619
Two years before his birth was the flood (Gen 11:10) Flood ( 2621 B.C.).
Critics however have observed that Ussher’s timeline between
Noah’s flood and Abraham seems too short (see From Noah to Abraham to Moses:
Evidence of Genealogical Gaps in Mosaic Literature, Part 1, Daniel J.
Dyke, MDiv, MTh).
Note on Genealogies* It’s important to note that the Bible was written in the
context of ancient Near Eastern thought, which focuses on function rather
than form. Biblical Hebrew is a flexible, contextual language that tends to
be more subjective than determinative. The mathematical precision
characteristic of Western thinking was not innate to the biblical authors;
they were more interested in telling a story. Still, the problem isn’t the
Bible but rather modern translations and uninformed interpretations
of the Bible.
The key to timeline calculations is the meaning of the Hebrew word yālad,
commonly translated “begat” (KJV) or “became the father of” (NIV, NASB).
Scholars who attempt to calculate a timeline assume yālad implies a
parent/child relationship, and this assumption is reflected in English
translations of genealogical passages. However, analysis of yālad’s full
range of meaning demonstrates that this assumption is a significant
oversimplification of the word’s meaning.
As Old Testament scholar William Henry Green observed, “Amram and Jochebed were
not the immediate parents, but the ancestors of Aaron and Moses.” Hence, yālad as used in Exodus 6:20, Numbers 26:59, and 1 Chronicles 6:3, 23:13
means Moses is a descendant, not a son, of Amram and Jochebed—proving a
gap in Moses’ genealogical records. (William Henry Green, “Primeval Chronology,”
Bibliotheca Sacra (April 1890): 293.).
When names are intentionally left out of a genealogy, it is referred to as
“telescoping.” In a telescoped genealogy only the highlights are given,
usually the names of the most important and relevant people. As an example, if
we were to telescope “Abraham was the father of Isaac, who was the father of
Jacob,” it might read in Hebrew, “Abraham was the father [ab] of Jacob”
(e.g. Genesis 28:13). In English, this telescoped genealogy would be considered
erroneous and should read “grandfather” instead. In Hebrew (and similarly for
Greek), this telescoped genealogy would be perfectly true and acceptable because
there is no separate word for grandfather in Hebrew and the word “father”
(ab) includes the meaning grandfather.
Typically when a genealogy is telescoped, the number of names is
reduced to an aesthetically pleasing number (usually 10 or a
multiple of 7); less important names are omitted until that number
is reached. For example, the genealogy of Genesis 4:17–18 contains 7
names. The genealogies in Genesis 5:3–32; 11:10–26; and Ruth 4:18–22
all have 10 names each. The genealogy of the nations (Genesis
10:2–29; 1 Chronicles 1:5–23) contains 70 names. Matthew arranged
his genealogy (Matthew 1:2–17) into 3 groups of 14 names each. There
are 14 names from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile, and
14 from the exile to Jesus Christ. To get the groups of 14, Matthew
omitted at least 4 names (see below) and counted Jeconiah’s name
twice. (See Table 1, Matthew’s Genealogy.) Matthew clearly indicates
in his gospel that that arrangement was intentional (Matthew 1:17).
Whereas Matthew’s genealogy is broken into sections, Luke’s
genealogy (Luke 3:23–38) is given as a single list. Luke has 14
names from Abraham to David, 21 from David to the exile, and 21 from
the exile to Jesus Christ (in contrast to Matthew’s 14 names each).
Luke also has an additional 21 names from Abraham back to Adam. (See
Table 2, Luke’s Genealogy.)
While modern genealogies are generally
intended to be complete, most biblical genealogies are
telescoped. Based on the above discussion and biblical examples, we
can see that the telescoping of genealogies was a fairly common
practice in ancient times. Such telescoping is perfectly acceptable
and literal (based on Hebrew word usage)—even if it may be
disconcerting to modern readers.
Now early Jewish writers claim that Adam was created 5000 years
from the time of Christ. Josephus declares that history covered
5,000 years (Antiquities preface 3; Against Apion
1.1). He further writes that the time from the “origin of mankind”
to the death of Moses was a little short of 3,000 years (Against
Apion 1.8). An additional 2,000 years was said to have passed
from Moses to his own day (Antiquities preface 3; Against
Apion 1.7). This is 1000 years longer that what Ussher purposed.
Ussher said that the flood occurred in 2348 BC. Obviously too
short. Taking into consideration all the above-the gaps in the
genealogies, The early Jewish writers etc... The flood took place around 3000 B.C.
"A Universal Flood: 3000 BC" by David Livingston, Ph.D
The experiences of Gilgamesh,
coupled with the Sumerian King List (in which he is mentioned), suggest a Flood
date close to 3000 BC.
The Flood Occurred 5000 Years Ago
- C14 is not useful in dating before 5000
B.C. according to the discoverer of the method.
- River deltas suggest a recent (ca. 3000
- All written history begins ca. 3000 BC.
- Foundations of cities began then.
- Families of mankind began then.
Genealogies date back to it.
- A 10,000 BC (or earlier) flood wreaks
havoc with genealogies.
- There is no record of a 10,000 BC flood
in ANY of the literature.
- The Gilgamesh Epic (and other epics) fit
well into a 3000 BC date.
- The biblical account did not derive from
other literature. It is eyewitness testimony.
- It is clear from the biblical account
that there was a universal flood about 3000 BC
From Halley's Bible Handbook pp.77-80 Break in
Civilization around 3000B.C.
The Flood Deposit at Ur
These traditions of the Flood,
though mixed with polytheism and some evident myth, show that the Flood had
become a fixed fact in the memory of the early inhabitants of Babylonia. And
now, within the last few years, an Actual Layer of Mud, evidently deposited by
the Flood, has been found in three separate places: Ur, which was 12 miles from
the traditional site of the Garden of Eden; at Fara, traditional home of Noah,
60 miles further up the river; and at Kish, a suburb of Babylon, 100 miles still
further up the river; and, possibly, also at a fourth place, Nineveh, 300 miles
still further up the river (see page 80).
At Ur, city of Abraham, the
Joint Expedition of the University Museum of Pennsylvania and the British
Museum, under the leadership of Dr. C. L. Woolley, found (1929), near the bottom
of the Ur mounds, underneath several strata of human occupation, a great bed of
solid water-laid clay 8 feet thick without admixture of human relic, with yet
the ruins of another city buried beneath it. Dr. Woolley said that 8 feet of
sediment implied a very great depth and a long period of water, that it could
not have been put there by any ordinary overflow of the rivers, but only by some
such vast inundation as the Biblical Flood. The civilization underneath the
flood layer was so different from that above it that it indicated to Dr. Woolley
"a sudden and terrific break in the continuity of history." (See Woolley's "Ur
of the Chaldees.")
Woolley's cross-section of Pit F showing the four basic levels. (1)
(lowest) Ubaid pottery mixed with heavily burnt domestic building; just prior to
(2) an alluvial deposit with no sherds or signs of occupation (some graves of
later date were dug into this layer); above that (3) a deep level of pottery
debris and a number of kilns, indicating that the abandon area was used as a
pottery factory during the Uruk period; above that (4) Early Dynastic domestic
The Flood Deposit at Kish
Kish (Ukheimer, El-Ohemer,
Uhaimir), on the cast edge of Babylon, on a bed of the Euphrates which is now
dry, was said, on the tablets, to have been first city rebuilt after Flood.
The Field museum-Oxford University Joint
expedition, under the direction of Dr. Stephen Langdon, found (1928-29) a bed of
clean water-laid clay, in the lower strata of the ruins of Kish, 5 feet thick,
indicating a flood of vast proportions. In the center of Fig. 19 the flood layer
is located just above the wall ruins. It contained no objects of any kind.
Underneath it the relies represented an entirely different type of culture.
Among the relics found was a four-wheeled Chariot, the wheels made of wood and
copper nails, with the skeletons of the animals that drew it. (See "Field
Museum-Oxford University Expedition to Kish," by Henry Field, Leaflet 28.)
The Flood Deposit at Fara
Fara (Shuruppak, Sukkurru), home
of the Babylonian Noah, about half way between Babylon and Ur. Once on the
Euphrates, now 40 miles to the east. A low-lying group of mounds, beaten by the
sands of the desert. Excavated (1931), by Dr. Eric Schmidt, of the University Museum of Pennsylvania.
He found the remains of three cities: the top one, contemporaneous with the 3rd
Ur dynasty (see page 87); the middle city, Early Sumerian; and the bottom city,
The Flood Layer was between the middle city and
the bottom city. It consisted of yellow dirt, a mixture of sand and clay,
definitely alluvial, water-laid, solid earth, without relics of human
occupation, as illustrated in Figure 21. Underneath the flood deposit was a
layer of charcoal and ashes, a dark colored culture refuse which may have been
wall remains, painted pottery, skeletons, cylinder seals, stamp seals, pots,
pans and vessels. Figure 20 shows Dr. Schmidt's men digging underneath the flood
deposit. (See "University Museum Journal," September, 1931.)
At Nineveh Also
In "Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology," Vol. XX, pages
134-35, PI 73, M. E. L. Mallowan, director of the British Museum Excavations at
Nineveh (193?-33), describing the sinking of a pit in the Great Mound, through
90 feet from the top to virgin soil, states that 70 feet of the 90 represented
five pre-historic strata of occupation, and that about half-way down, between
the 2nd and 3rd strata from the bottom, there was a stratum some 8 feet thick
consisting of Alternate layers of viscous mud and riverine sand with
13 distinct rises in level, which in his opinion, indicated a series of severe
pluvial seasons. There was a distinct difference between the pottery under the
wet layer, and that above it.
1. The fact of a vast flood covering the whole area of
early civilization is established by the 8 foot layer of silt which cuts
through the "culture levels" of all the Euphrates Valley sites.
2. Sumerian "King Lists" from Lower Mesopotamia retain
the tradition of a Deluge. Phrases such as, "then the Flood swept over the
earth" . . . "after the Flood," occur.
3. A Sumerian tablet of 2000 b.c. gives a full account of a
Flood. One man is saved by the intervention of the gods, in a huge boat.
4. The Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh is based on this
story, but is much more fully developed. The text again comes from the
library of Ashurbanipal. The story in this poem is strikingly similar to the
5. Resemblances are factual: (i) Both accounts hold that
the Deluge was a divine judgment on human transgression. (ii) That one man
was warned and delivered by the device of a ship. (iii) Both accounts
similarly describe the physical causes though the Bible account is more
cataclysmic in its description. (iv) Both accounts speak of a mountain
resting place, and two birds, the second of which fails to return. (v) Both
accounts speak of worship by the survivor and blessing upon him.
6. The differences are moral, spiritual and vital: (i)
The idea of God in the two accounts is vastly different-a noble conception
of a righteous God against a crude polytheism. (ii) The notion of sin is
different. Jehovah judges outrageous sin, but not in caprice, and with
regard for the just.
7. Fact lies behind both accounts. In the Bible that fact is recorded with
restraint and noble theological and ethical contents while the Babylonian
account preserves a core only of the truth encrusted with myth and superstition
and robbed of much of its moral content. Neither account derives from the other.
The Genesis Flood Whitcomb and Morris pp.393-396
Origin of Postdiluvian Civilizations
In the last analysis, the only really reliable recorder of time
is man himself! In any kind of natural process that might be used to determine
past time, there is always the possibility that the rates may have changed as
well as uncertainty regarding its initial condition. It is absolutely impossible
to know beyond question that such and such a formation or deposit has an age of
so many years, unless that age is supported by reliable human records of some
And it is, therefore, highly significant that no truly verified
archaeological datings antedate the time of about 3000 B.C. or even later.
Larger dates are of course frequently ascribed to various localities and
cultures, but they are always based on radiocarbon or other geological methods
rather than written human records. There are numerous extant chronologies that
have been handed down from various ancient peoples, and it is bound to be
significant that none of them yield acceptable evidence that the histories of
these or other peoples antedate the Biblical date for the Deluge.
The Bible pictures the dispersal of post-diluvian man from the
geographical areas implied also by archaeology and secular history. The most
ancient peoples leaving historical records were, of course, the inhabitants of
the Tigris-Euphrates valley, the Nile Valley of Egypt, and other near-Eastern
areas. This correlates perfectly with the Bible records, which picture the
centrifugal movement of tribes out from the first kingdom of Babylon (Babel,
The archaeological testimony is confirmed further by
botanical studies. A systematic agriculture was, of course, necessary for the
existence of stable and civilized communities and so would be one of the best
indices of the beginnings of post-diluvian cultures. The following from a Danish
scientist is therefore significant:
Thus, we may conclude from present distribution studies that
the cradle of Old World plant husbandry stood within the general area
of the arc constituted by the western foothills of the Zagros Mountains
(Iraq-Iran), the Taurus (southern Turkey), and the Galilean uplands (northern
Palestine), in which the two wild prototypes occur together. We may conclude,
further, that wheat played a more dominant role than barley in the advent of
plant husbandry in the Old World."'
It is remarkable how many different lines of evidence of a
historical nature point back to a time around 3000 B. C. as dating the beginning
of true civilization. There have been theories and speculations about earlier
periods, but nothing concrete. With reference to Egypt, H. R. Hall, the
We think that the First Dynasty began not before 3400 and not
much later than 3200 B.C. . . . A. Scharff, however, would bring the date down
to about 3000 B.C.; and it must be admitted that his arguments are good, and
that at any.-rate it is more probable that the date of the First Dynasty is
later than 3400 B.C. than earlier .'
Even this date is very questionable, as it is based mainly upon
the king-lists of Manetho, an Egyptian priest of about 250 B.C., whose work has not been preserved except in a few inaccurate
quotations in other ancient writings. As George A. Barton, of the University of
Pennsylvania pointed out long ago:
"The number of years assigned to each king, and consequently
the length of time covered by the dynasties, differ in these two copies, so
that, while the work of Manetho forms the backbone of our chronology, it gives
us no absolutely reliable chronology. It is for this reason that the
chronological schemes of modern scholars have differed so widely."
Other scholars think that some of Manetho's lists may actually represent
simultaneous dynasties in upper and lower Egypt, which would still further
reduce the date of the beginning of the period. The length of the pre-Dynastic
period is quite unknown, but there is no necessary reason to regard it as more
than a few centuries at most.
In Babylonia, the earliest peoples leaving written monuments
were the Sumerians, who were later displaced by the Semitic Babylonians. These
people likewise are dated about this time.
Dr. Samuel Noah Kramer, Research Professor of Assyriology at the
University of Pennsylvania says:
"The dates of Sumer's early history have always been
surrounded with uncertainty, and they have not been satisfactorily settled by
tests with the new method of radiocarbon dating. . . . Be that as it may, it
seems that the people called Sumerians did not arrive in the region until nearly
The Egyptians and Babylonians were presumably of Hamitic and
Semitic derivation, as were most of the other tribes who settled in Africa and
Asia. The Japhetic peoples, on the other hand, according to the Table of Nations
of Genesis 10 (which Dr. William Foxwell Albright regards as "an astonishingly
accurate document"'), migrated largely into Europe, where they became the
so-called Aryan peoples, peoples of the language stocks known as Indo-European.
Recent linguistic studies have indicated that these languages radiated from a
common center, probably in central Europe. Dr. Paul Thieme, Professor of
Sanskrit and Comparative Philology at Yale, in discussing this evidence, says:
"Indo-European, I conjecture, was spoken on the Baltic coast
of Germany late in the fourth millennium B.C. Since our oldest documents of
Indo-European daughter languages (in Asia Minor and India) date from the second
millennium B.C., the end of the fourth millennium would be a likely time anyhow.
A thousand or 1500 years are a time sufficiently long for the development of the
changes that distinguish our oldest Sanskrit speech form from what we construct
Since the above date was based somewhat heavily on geopaleontological data,
it is likely that it is too high even as it stands.
Studies of ancient agricultures in Europe, based mainly on pollen analyses
and radiocarbon datings, point to similar conclusions:
"The main results of the age determinations is that the oldest
agricultures in Switzerland (Older Cortaillod culture) and in Denmark (younger
Ertebolle culture and A-earthen vessel) started almost simultaneously, about
2740-90 B.C. and 2620-80 B.C., respectively."
The same story could be repeated at other places if space
permitted. For example, in China, the earliest historical cultures date from
somewhat later than this time. The anthropologist, Ralph Linton, says:
"The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any
probability is 2250 B.C., based on an astronomical reference in the Book of
The worldwide testimony of trustworthy, recorded, history is
therefore that such history begins about 3000 B.C. and not substantially
earlier. This is indeed surpassingly strange if men actually have been living
throughout the world for many tens or hundreds of thousands of years! But on the
other hand, if the Biblical records are true, then this is of course exactly the
historical evidence we would expect to find. And it is pertinent to mention, in
passing, the worldwide incidence of flood legends, which we have discussed in an
earlier chapter. It is not at all unreasonable to conclude that the clear
testimony of all recorded human history points back to the stark reality of the
great world Deluge, which remade the world in the days of Noah.
Edmund Schulman: "Bristlecone Pine, Oldest Living Thing," National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 113, March 1958, p.
Hans Helback: "Domestication of Food
Plants in the Old World," Science, Vol. 130, August 14, 1959, p. 365.
H. R. Hall: Article, "Egypt: Archaeology"
in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956, p. 37, Vol. 8.
George A. Barton: Archaeology and the
Bible (Philadelphia, American Sunday School Union, 1941), p. 11
S. N. Kramer: "The Sumerians,"
Scientific American, Vol. 197, October 1957, ~~. 72.
W. F. Albright: "Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands," article in Young's
Analyt1(ul Concordance, (New York, Funk & Wagnals, 1955), p. 30.
Paul Thieme: "The Indo-European
Language," Scientific American, Vol. 199, October 1958, p. 74.
J. Troels-Smith: "Neolithic Period in
Switzerland and Denmark," Science, Vol. 124, Nov. 2, 1956, p. 879.
Ralph Linton: The Tree of Culture (New
York, Alfred A. Knopf Publishing Company, 1955), p. 520.
A period of duration undetermined as yet of course lies between the
Flood, the dispersion at Babel, and these beginnings of recorded history. See
Appendix II, pp. 474-489.
David Rohl Adds...Legend; The Genesis of Civilization,
Until fairly recently we knew very little about the traditions of the Meso-American
civilization of the Mayans because their written language had not been
completely deciphered. We now discover that they were exceptional record keepers
who had developed an historical calendar going back several thousand years.
It is therefore of considerable interest to me to know that the date of their
cataclysmic flood is given as 3113 BC." This fits with the latest possible date
we have come up with for the Sumerian flood based on the King List, glyptic art,
literature and archaeology of early Mesopotamia. It may turn out to be the
exact date we have been looking for, but the consequence of accepting this
absolute date would be to reduce the length of the Uruk, Jemdet Nasr and Early
Dynastic I and II periods to just seven hundred and sixty-five years. This may
just be possible and would fit very well with the chronological scheme and
history of pre-dynastic Egypt which forms the third part of this book.
more added soon...