Return to The Table of Contents
COMPARISON OF THE RYAN AND PITTMAN FLOOD DATA
WITH THE EXPECTED ANNO MUNDI DATE OF THE RABMEC TIMELINE
The RABMEC (1) chronology provides a modification of the traditional biblical chronology which is based on the genealogies of the Hebrew patriarchs and kings in the Bible. However, it is well known that the historical record offers little support for the derived dates of the notable events.
The traditional chronology assumes a Babylonian Exile length of 70 years as stated in Jeremiah’s prophesy. Instead, RABMEC uses Daniel’s prophesy, "a time, times, and a half" to produce a long Exile length. It determines the Exile length based on comparisons of biblical kings and events with named Babylonian and Egyptian kings.
One consequence of this change is that RABMEC pushes the beginning of the Exile to the time of Nebuchadnezzar I rather than the second of that name as is traditionally assumed.This pushes the biblical Flood back about 1000 years from the traditional date to 3113 BC.
Another consequence is that, with the modified alignment of the Egyptian, Babylonian and Hebrew kings, we arrive at a new date for the first Egyptian king Menes that is more recent than the traditional date (2, 3). With this new calibration, a date for the Anno Mundi event (the Egyptian beginning of the world) is determined using the 2900 years before Menes as indicated by Eratosthenes (4).
The Ryan and Pittman flood event data (5, 6, 7) provides the data for comparison with the expected Anno Mundi date. However, the straight forward king alignment method that was used does not adequately account for the uncertainty in the derived date for Menes.
To account for this uncertainty, Eratosthenes’ kings list was considered. In Eratosthenes’ list, there are well recognizable kings associated with the beginning of the 4th, 6th, and 12th dynasties – in addition to Menes who begins the 1st dynasty. The 4th dynasty begins with his 10th king in 3231 AM – 331 years after Menes. The 6th dynasty begins with his 15th king in 3314 – 414 years after Menes. And the 12th dynasty begins with his 32nd king in 3742 AM – 842 years after Menes.
RABMEC provides historically-based calibrated dates for these kings. So, extrapolating back from the calibrated dates for the 4th, 6th and 12th dynasty gives a set of dates for Menes. Adding 842 years to the 12th dynasty RABMEC date produces the first date in the set. Adding 414 years to the dates of the 6th dynasty king produces the second date in the set. Adding 331 years to the dates of the 4th dynasty gives a third date. And, of course, there is the date for the 1st dynasty for the fourth date. The average of the four Menes dates gives the fifth date. (Waddell (8) is another example of an historically-based dating for Menes. He only provides a date for Menes as the beginning of the 1st dynasty.)
Counting back 2900 years from Menes as indicated by Eratosthenes places the Anno Mundi event for each date in the set. The figure shows that all of the dates in the RABMEC set for Menes (as well as, Waddell’s date for Menes) fall within the spread of the Ryan and Pittman flood event data. This indicates that the Ryan and Pittman event could be considered as the Anno Mundi event.
Further, the confluence of the Anno Mundi and the Ryan and Pitman events suggests there may be some additional insight gained about the identity and date of Menes. We now present the different accounts of Menes date and identity, and consider how they could be resolved. Remember that James concluded that Narmer was the most likely individual identified with Menes.
Recall that Waddell identified Menes as Manis-Tissu, the son of Sargon the Great. (According to him, Sargon the Great of Mesopotamia was the last of the pre-dynastic (Sumerian) kings in Egypt. He was preceded by his father (Ro, ~2765 BCE) and his grandfather (Khelm, ~2780 BCE)). Waddell determined Manis began his reign ~2704 BCE and was succeeded by his son Narmer in ~2640 BCE. Note that both dates are well within the bounds of the Ryan and Pittman event propagated forward 2900 years. Note too that the RABMEC dates for Menes (and Narmer) are also well within the data bounds - not just the 1st dynasty date but also the extrapolated dates from the 4th, 6th and 12th dynasties.
Suppose as Waddell suggests that Manis began his rebellion against his father in Egypt and was identified by the Egyptians as Menes. Assuming Manis' campaign was a long one, it is not hard to believe he was joined by his son Narmer. Further, as legend indicates, when Menes (a.k.a. Manis) was carried off, Narmer would have carried on the fight in his father's name – possibly even assuming the name Menes.
This could account for the carved slate palettes commemorating Narmer's battle for the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt. And it could explain why there is no tomb or other indication of Narmer's predecessor. As such, Narmer would have gained renown as the unifier of Egypt under the name of Menes.
Finally, at the end of the long campaign the unification could have come to a close with Narmer crowned as the first king Menes. As determined by Waddell, Narmer began his reign in 2640 BCE - which is within the bounds of the Ryan and Pittmen data when propagated forward 2900 years.
This scenario shows how it might be possible to view Menes as both father and son. One could see Menes – the father – beginning (his unification campaign) at a date consistent with the Anno Mundi data. And one could see Menes – the son – as completing the unification and being crowned at a date also consistent with Anno Mundi data.
Such speculation, though interesting, is not likely to be verified any time soon. However, it offers food-for-thought on an earliest part of Egyptian tradition and history.
J.A. Giannini, Revised
Ancient Biblical and Mid-East Chronology (RABMEC) Timeline, Chapter 2
2 J.A. Giannini, Revised Ancient Biblical and Mid-East Chronology (RABMEC) Timeline, Appendix B www.jagnetbooks.org (2012)
3 J.A. Giannini, Revised Ancient Biblical and Mid-East Chronology (RABMEC) Timeline, Chapter 5.2 www.jagnetbooks.org (2012)
4 Budge, E.A.W. The Book of the Kings of Egypt Part One, Facsimile of 1908 Edition (USA: Kessinger Publications) , LXXIII.
5 W. Ryan and W. Pitman, Noah's Flood, the New Discoveries about the Event That Changed History, Simon and Shuster, (1998)
6 According to Ryan and Pittman, the Black Sea flood event was the result of a breach in the ice dam separating the ocean from the fresh water lake. This event was likely the result of sudden but prolonged climate change. According to Oppenheimer (5, page 355) at around this time, there were several major eruptions that would have had a global impact. Among them are: 5480 BCE, Kikai, Ryuku Islands (Me 7.2); 5677 BCE, Mazama, Oregon (Me 7.1); 6000 BCE, Menengai, Kenya (Me 6.9).
7 J.A. Giannini, Revised Ancient Biblical and Mid-East Chronology (RABMEC) Timeline, Chapter 5.3 www.jagnetbooks.org (2012)
8 Waddell, L.A. Egyptian Civilization Its Sumerian Origin and Real Chronology, Facsimile of 1929 Edition (USA: Kessinger Publications), 32-59, 76-82.
Return to Top