RABMEC, J. A. Giannini (7/25/2012)





          The Introduction indicated that there were two things to be accomplished in this work.  First was to find the common kernel of truth in the mythical stories of the five cultures, and place them in the context of a datable timeline; and, second was to extend datable history back in time to the beginning by reconciling the oldest body of knowledge with some verifiable supporting evidence.  We examine three periods: 1) the time of oral and most ancient events, 2) the time of the mythological kings; and 3) the time of historical records. 


          Here, Section 5.1 presents the source tradition synthesized from the oral traditions - satisfying our first goal.  Next, Sections 5.2 and 5.3 present the physical evidence supporting the dating of the mythological kings and events - satisfying our second goal.  And, finally, in Section 5.4, the most ancient events, the mythological period and the historic period are tied together to produce the fully resolved RABMEC.


          5.1 A Synthesized Ancient Source Tradition


          5.2 Supporting The New 2638 BC Date For The First Egyptian Pharaoh


          5.3 Supporting The Previously Undated 5538 BC Anno Mundi Event And The New 3113 BC Biblical Flood Date


          5.4 Tying It All Together - The Fully Resolved RABMEC


          5.5  References for Section 5


          Return to The Table of Contents


          Return to Preface





          5.1 A Synthesized Ancient Source Tradition

          We speculate that all of the five cultures have a common source for their traditions that was lost over time.  Differences in the primitive people that were exposed to this common source resulted in their varying evolution of the surviving traditions.  By combining the different pictures and focusing on the common elements, we can synthesize the most likely elements of the earliest source, including the origin stories and the mythological period dating.  Note that this synthesis is not intended as a comparison of the religious beliefs of the modern evolution of the ancient ideas.  The same ancient words may have totally different meanings in the current interpretation by the different religions.  The intention here is to compare the ancient words in the different traditions to show commonality in expression in the ancient times and synthesize a possible source tradition for all of the cultures.


          The concepts of the beginning bear many common ideas across the five cultures.  The Hindu and Chinese traditions share the more mystic writings, spending more time discussing the mysterious beginning of the creator "god".  (Technically, the Chinese Tao is not really a god but it is the source as is the creator god of the other traditions.)  The Hebrew, Egyptian and Sumerian traditions, on the other hand, seem more accomplishment oriented, detailing the chronology (though not calibrated to BC date) of the creation events.  It is very possible that this latter group, in the beginning, also had a body of mystic writing that did not survive; and, that the former group has accomplishment-oriented writings that are not easily available. 


          There is some hint of the mystic beginning of the creator god in the Hebrew and Egyptian traditions.  Since these, as well as much of the Chinese and Hindu traditions, likely came from the Sumerians because of their places in the Sumerian empire, we speculate here that the mystical concepts were precepts transferred from the Sumerian conquerors. 


          Comparing the common elements produces a synthesized picture of the earliest beliefs.  (The references include the culture - Sum, Egy, Heb, Hin, Chi, and the section - verse.)  One synthesis goes as follows.


Before the beginning there was a void (Chi, 3.7.4, 3.7.5; Heb,; Hin, 3.6.1-3).  The void was made up of the primeval sea or water with no distinguishable variation or identifiable matter (Chi, 3.7.4; Heb,; Hin, 3.6.1-3).  It was murky and dark.  It was the motionless fabric of space, and, eternally unchanging, that is, time had not yet begun.  Then, hidden by the darkness of non-   understanding, something mysteriously formed in the darkness of the void (Chi, 3.7.1; Hin, 3.6.1-3).  It raised itself up from out of the fabric of space; and, it took on being and entered the realm of existence (Chi, 3.7.4 and 3.7.7 ; Egy, 3.4.1-4; Hin, 3.6..1-6).  The thing that gave it existence was going from being motionless to being continuously in motion (Chi, 3.7.2; Egy, 3.4.1-12).  


          (Modern cosmology cannot predict the nature of space and time before the Big Bang event that is the beginning of this universe.  Thus, this murky dark fabric and the origin of the force that began the change are both mysteries from before the beginning - even to today's science.  We postulate here that one can view the picture of the pre-Big Bang fabric of space as a 3-D network of strings extending infinitely in all directions.  Silent and still, there is no manifestation, no matter.  Plucking the string brings matter into existence.  Vibrations on the string, like standing wave, are seen as solid matter - one interpretation of the Chinese concept of motion on the motionless).


Once the mysterious one formed, the work of creation began.  Thru the act of desire (or speaking the names in the mind) the rules of the nature of existence were fixed (Egy, 3.4.1-14; Hin, 3.6.2); and manifestations (the 10,000 things) were raised up out of the fabric of space and brought into existence (Chi, 3.7.1; Hin, 3.6.1-4; Sum, 3.3.1; Egy, 3.4.1-6).  Creation began with the Breath (Chi, 3.7.5; Heb,; Egy, 3.4.1-8).  The Breath brought heat and light (Hin, 3.6.1-3,5; Heb,  It was the impulse to the motionless that separated the unity (Hin, 3.6.1-5; Chi, 3.7.5, 3.7.3, Egy 3.4.1-22) - the light from dark, the motion from the motionless, matter from the fabric of space.  In the creation of the 10,000 things, first came the One, that brought forth the Two, that became the Three (forces) (Chi 3.7.3, Egy, 3.4.1-26).  This ended era 1.


          (The Breath could be viewed as the Big Bang event (see Section 3.1) which represents the beginning of the universe as we know it.  The event can be ascribed to the date 14,003,776,827.2 BC - the Hindu cycle K=1, m=4 (see Appendix E; and Hin, 4.4), and the end of biblical Day 1 (see Heb,  As depicted in the Standard Model, it marks the start of both the creation of matter that fills the universe, and, the beginning of time.  We suggest here that the heat and light represent the transfer of potential energy in the fabric of space to kinetic energy, the continuous vibration motion that is matter.  Polarization in the fabric gave the power to form matter.  Immediately following the Big Bang, in modern cosmology, the unified force experienced a symmetry breaking event giving two forces (the strong and the electro-weak) which then experienced another symmetry breaking resulting in the three forces we recognize today (the strong, the weak and the electromagnetic).  All of these events were realized within the first 10-6 seconds (see Section 3.1).  With these three forces, the building blocks that we know as the elementary particles began coming into being, and with them, all matter is formed.)


Once the three were created, the growing existence began to organize itself - separating the waters of matter (stars) from the sea of the fabric of space.  This ended era 2. 

Then the earth was formed (Sum, 3.3.1; Heb,; Egy, 3.4.1-26; Hin, 3.6.2), and vegetation filled the earth (Heb,; Sum, 3.3.2).  This ended era 3.


          (This period spans the biblical Day 2 - ending 2,333,962,804.5 BC - and Day 3 - ending 388,993,800.8 BC which correspond to the Hindu cycle K=3, y=915, A4; and K=4, y=365, A4 respectively.  By the end of Day 4 the dramatic extinction took place.)


When there fell on them their moment through plant-like clouds, (the comet came and the sky darkened and the earth  fell cold.  When the sky cleared the sun, moon and stars appeared again (Egy, 3.4.1 - 36; Heb, - 14; Sum 3.3.2).  This ended era 4. 

The warm earth then brought forth all kinds of creatures (Egy, 3.4.1 - 38; Heb, - 20; Sum 3.3.2).  This ended era 5. 

Then the larger bests came to be, and then  man was brought forth thru the laws of nature (Egy, 3.4.1 - 41; Heb, - 26; Sum 3.3.3), raised from the clay of the earth (Heb, - 7; Chi, 3.7.6).  This ended era 6.  

When he first appeared, man wore no garments and ate and drank like the animals (Sum, 3.3.3)  After a time he was given the names and a purpose to tend the earth (Heb, - 15; Sum 3.3.3; Hin, 3.6.4).   


          (This describes the mass extinction that blackened the sky with hydrocarbons and dust for a time before clearing to reveal the sun again.  It corresponds to the end of biblical Day 4 - ending 64,832,300,1 BC - and Day 5 - ending 10,805,383.4 BC; which corresponds to the Hindu cycle K=4, y=440, A4 - a time of destruction; and K=4, y=453, A1 - a time of growth.  As time progressed, the species of Man evolved from an animal like state - ending biblical Day 6 - 1,800,897.2 BC, corresponding to the Hindu K=4, y=455, A2 - until he achieved language and intelligence with a purpose - into biblical Day 7.)


          The synthesized source tradition represents the oral and most ancient events in the RABMEC.  This story of the beginning thru the attainment of intelligence, demonstrated by the unified synthesis of a source mythology of the creation, is dated with the Hebrew (Section 4.3) and Hindu (Section 4.4) time calibration.  The dating of this time satisfies our first goal. 


          We now move on the physical evidence related to the pre-history portion of the RABMEC that deals with the mythological flood and the beginning of the Egyptian world age (the Anno Mundi) events, which will satisfy our second goal.  In Section 2, we established the historic portion of the RABMEC by correlating the Sumerian, Egyptian and Hebrew kings' lists and concurrent events.  That portion of the timeline extends from the birth of Jesus (6 BC RABMEC), back thru the first historic Egyptian pharaoh Menes (2638 BC RABMEC) and finally ending with the earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, and their first historical king Unzi (4169 BC RABMEC). 


          Dating the mythological portion of the RABMEC that was developed in Section 4 requires establishing the believability of two dates.  First, we need the date of the end of the mythological period, i.e., the beginning of the reign of Menes, the first historical Egyptian pharaoh.  Second, we need the date of the beginning of the mythological period, i.e., the Anno Mundi event known as the beginning of the world according to the Egyptians.  The evidence to support the believability of those events is now presented.



          Return to Top





          5.2 Supporting The New 2638 BC Date For The First Egyptian Pharaoh


          Dating current events is a well-ordered process that, today, is referenced to the event about 2000 years ago known as the birth of Jesus Christ.  The event marked the beginning of the year 1 AD (anno Domini); and, all events prior to that were declared year BC (before Christ).  Alterations to the calendar in medieval times maintained the nomenclature, but, actually shifted the date of the pivotal event to about 6 BC (the date accepted by the RABMEC).  Political correctness has renamed BC to BCE (before the current era), and AD to CE (the current era), resolving the obvious inconsistency of Christ being born 6 years before his birth.  (Note that throughout this work, the BC nomenclature is used.) 


          Using a reference so far back provides a timeline that is both relatively consistent, as well as, absolutely calibrated from a global perspective.  This convenient state of affairs however was not available in the ancient world. 


          Without a common more ancient time reference (global or even relatively local from state to state), events were dated relative to a particular king; and, the order of the kings on any one list was not necessarily consistent with any other list, making a consistent line from the beginning difficult to achieve.  As a result, for example, the date of the reign of the first Egyptian king Menes (relative to the calibrated AD-BC timeline) is a puzzle of comparisons and judgments about the lengths of reigns in the line and the order of the real kings (as opposed to the co-regents or petty kings of other cities). 


          In Section 2, the RABMEC was constructed (using comparisons and judgments) resulting in a date for Menes of 2638 BC RABMEC, but, comparisons with earlier dating efforts were not made there.  This section now makes those comparisons to show where the RABMEC agrees with other efforts and where it differs.


          Earlier dating efforts consisted of comparing written records and making inter-culture comparisons; but, the process is plagued with inconsistencies and incompleteness.  The most ancient surviving evidence for the king line comes from Manetho's kings lists (Ref. 1), compiled in the third century BC but, it is not totally trusted.  Later attempts to reconstruct the kings' chronology blend monument inscriptions and other recorded lists, and a small number of astronomical observations associated with the named kings(Ref. 2, and Ref. 3) from the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom periods (~2200 - 900 BC).  Such events are not well retrospectively predicted after so long a time relative to the present, because many were cyclic in nature allowing for several possible time sequences, resulting in large uncertainties in the estimated dates.  Estimates from the 18th and 19th century (AD) for the beginning of the first dynasty (i.e., Menes) ranged from 5869 BC to 3623 BC (Ref. 1, p. LIV).   


          More modern dating efforts (from the 1940's on) combine these historically based techniques with radiocarbon dating to produce a better date estimate.  Radiocarbon dating (Ref. 4) is a two-step process: first, measuring the ratio


                                        A = 14C/(12C + 13C)


in a wood sample, and then, calibrating the radiocarbon years to calendar years.  The 14C is a radioactive isotope of carbon with an atomic weight of 14, and 12C and 13C are stable isotopes with atomic weights 12 and 13 respectively. 


          The dating technique is based on principle that 14C is continuously being formed in the atmosphere at a constant ration A = A0, and then enters the plants and animals through the food chain or respiration at that same ratio throughout life.  With death, no new carbon is ingested; and the 14C begins to decay, while the other two isotopes do not, allowing the value of A to deviate from A0.  At some time later, the latest value of A is measured in a sample; and the radiocarbon years or age of that sample is determined according to the relation


                                        t = -t ln(A/A0)


where t is the measured radioactive decay half-life of the 14C isotope. 


          The dating method assumes: 1) that the atmospheric concentration of 14C does not change over time, 2) that 14C intake ends with the death of the life form, and 3) 14C concentrations in the dead plant or animal changes only by radioactive decay of the 14C already in the system.  These assumptions are not strictly correct for a variety of reasons, one of which is that A0 does change with time (e.g., during times of high volcanic activity which may, in fact, be a relatively local rather than a global effect).  To address these problems, calibrations are applied to the computed radiocarbon age. 


          One common method of obtaining a calibration curve is to count tree rings (ideally one ring for every year of life of the tree) of very long lived trees and compare the number of rings to the radiocarbon date for a specimen.  Two things are noted about the calibration curves.  We know, for example, that the bristlecone pine of the White Mountains of California can live for up to 4000 years providing calibration date for that far back.  First, the farther back in time one goes, the larger the absolute calibration correction (difference between radiocarbon age and calendar year) becomes; and, second, the farther back in time one goes, the larger the uncertainty in the absolute calibration correction becomes (translating into uncertainty in the corrected calendar year).  In addition, other things that can contribute to calendar date uncertainty.  These include the variability of the carbon isotope in the wood sample, and wood reuse.  Wood reuse refers to the fact that later kings sometimes reused older tombs.  This obscures the real date of the current occupant by confusing it with the original occupant.  Typically, the resulting uncertainty in calendar year at ancient times is accepted as about 100 to 200 years. 


          Table 5.1 shows the comparisons of the RABMEC with some previous dating efforts.  Five samples of other dating are shown with the published year and the difference between the RABMEC and the referenced work in parentheses.  Back through the sixth dynasty, the difference between the RABMEC and all of the previous efforts is relatively small, on average ~50 years.  This is well within the dating uncertainty limits. 


          Even thru the chaotic times of the Middle Kingdom (MK) the differences are not unusually large compared to the accepted date uncertainty.  As expected, there is a larger difference for the earlier dynasties.  



Table 5.1   Comparison of the RABMEC BC dates for the historic Egyptian dynasties with previous dating efforts.  ED indicates the Early Dynastic period (dynasties 1-2); OK is the Old Kingdom (3-6); MK is the Middle Kingdom (7-17); NK is the New Kingdom (18-24); LP is the Late Period (25-30); and EP is the Estate Period (31).  The blank fields indicate unavailable data.  The numbers in ( ) indicate the difference between the RABMEC date and the referenced data.  The last row indicates the average difference for the dynasties 6 thru 31. 



Appendix B


Ref. 6


Ref.  7


Ref. 8


Ref.  9


Ref. 2

ED 1


2703 (-65)

3100 (-462)

3100 (-462)





2522 (-38)


2890 (-406)



OK 3


2493 (-39)


2686 (-232)

2592 (-138)

2691-2675 (-221)




2613 (-232)

2613 (-232)

2543 (-161)

2649-2583 (-129)





2345 (-91)

2305 (-51)

2423-2335 (-81)

MK 7-8




2181 (-91)






2160 (-126)

2160 (-126)

2009 (+25)

2064-2019 (0)




1900 (-1)

1885 (+14)

1939 (-40)

1998-1952 (-53)





1795 (-56)






1652 (-97)

1650 (-95)



NK 18



1567 (-115)

1550 (-98)

1539 (-87)

1570-1544 (-92)





1295 (-51)


1313-1290 (-46)





1186 (-47)


1202-1176 (-37)




1069 (-46)

1069 (-46)







945 (-36)



LP 25




747 (-18)






656 (-9)

664 (-17)







525 (+3)







404 (0)







380 (-2)



EP 31



331 (+10)

342 (-1)



avg. diff.

dyn 6-31









          Columns 4-6 are based on the traditional long-lived wood samples for their dating; while, column 7 used a novel short-lived plant sampling technique with a claimed precision of 76 years for the Old Kingdom results, 53 years for the Middle Kingdom, and 24 years for the New Kingdom.  The column 7 results are the 95% confidence limits of the analysis; and the difference of the RABMEC was from the nearest date.  The zero difference for the 9-11 dynasties indicates the RABMEC date is within the confidence limits for the reference. 


          The largest difference for the group comes from the 18th dynasty in the New Kingdom, which seems to be a particularly problematic time.  The date is generally placed at 1550 BC (which is within the 100-year uncertainty to the RABMEC date).  However, the beginning of the 18th dynasty is considered to be an especially difficult time(5). 


          An enormous volcanic eruption of Mt. Santorini in the Aegean is related in time to the dynasty.  There are two alternate dates for the eruption: in one, precise radiocarbon dating places it between 1710 and 1600 BC (Ref. 10), and in the other historical dating places it between 1575 and 1480 BC (Ref. 11).  Further, Beitak (Ref. 11) showed a close date relation between the eruption and the beginning of the 18th dynasty at 1530 to 1480 BC.  The date difference (at best 180 to 70 years) shows a troubling disparity between the two results that is not fully explained.  However, Ramsey's improved analysis technique (Ref. 2) places the beginning of the 18th dynasty at 1570 to 1544 BC (see Table 4.1, column 7), within 14 years of the historical estimate of Beitak at the closest dates.  It is interesting that Ramsey's estimate is older than Beitak's, while the RABMEC's is younger by 28 years.  It is clear that proper sampling association and precision in dating, along with the best available calibration, may still be leaving something unconsidered given the continued ambiguity.    


          As we progress farther back into the Old Kingdom (dynasties 3-6), the difference between the RABMEC and the other estimates is shown to grow from 51-91 years for the 6th dynasty to 138-232 years by the 3rd dynasty; but here again, the difference is close to, or well within, the dating uncertainty limits.  It is interesting to note that the other older historical estimate of Waddell (Table 4.1, column 2) is close in agreement with the RABMEC, at 39 years. 


          We note here that high precision (sample to sample agreement - the 76 years claimed in Reference 2 for the column 7 data) is not necessarily the same as improved accuracy uncertainty (difference from truth, which is the 100-200 years uncertainty for the traditional radiocarbon technique).  Of course, the 76 years precision may actually translate into 76 year accuracy in this case.  Still, one has to ask if sampling assignment or an otherwise unexplained trend in the calibration is causing the radiocarbon dates to diverge more with the more ancient dates.  In the case of the 18th dynasty, the agreement between the two techniques did seem to improve, but the actual truth of the estimates is still not undeniably certain.


          We have finally reached the Early Dynastic Period (dynasties 1 and 2) and the search for Menes' date.  James (Ref. 8, and Table 4.1, column 7) notes that virtually nothing is known of Menes (the first king).  The only exceptions are Manetho's reference in the kings' list, and a comment that legend tells of Menes being carried away by the hippopotamus and he perished.  Waddell indicates that his research supports the idea that Menes was lost at sea which would account for the uncertainty in the whereabouts of his physical remains.  Under these circumstances, identifying the apparent earliest remains of those in the king line, and finding proper sampling association to combine with the historical lists is all-important.  


          There are two sources of comparison with the RABMEC here.  The radiocarbon dates (columns 4 and 5) that agree on c.3100 BC, a 462 year difference from the RABMEC, and Waddell's early historic estimate that differs by only 65 years.  The increasing difference between the radiocarbon dates and the RABMEC continue to be troubling.  However, there is another possible source of enlightenment found in the historical kings lists.  


          Eratosthenes, in the late second millennium, constructed a list of Egyptian kings that ends early in the 13th dynasty (though no dynasty assignment was made).  An unambiguous entry for a king that is recognized as the first of the 6th dynasty is recorded as beginning his reign 414 years after Menes.  If one accepts the RABMEC date for that king (2254 BC RABMEC), then Eratosthenes would have Menes beginning his reign in 2668 BC, just 30 years earlier than the RABMEC date. 


          Given that Eratosthenes was reconstructing his kings list some 4000 years closer to the political situation in Egypt than modern chronologists, and only ~1000 years from Menes, it seems reasonable that his estimates for Menes have some merit.  (Further consideration for his estimate is discussed in the next section (5.3)).  However, given the approximate concurrence of the historical estimates, even though the radiocarbon date for Menes is so different, the RABMEC maintains that reasonable support for the 2638 BC RABMEC date exists.



          Return to Top





          5.3 Supporting The Previously Undated 5538 BC Anno Mundi Event And The New 3113 BC Biblical Flood Date  


          Ancient legends all over the world speak of a great flood and the beginning of world ages.  Some speak of them as being the same event or repeated events of the same importance.  The Bible tells the story of the flood of Noah (Ref. 12, Ref. 13).  The Sumerians tell the story of the flood of Ut-napishtim (Ref. 14) and record it in their Kings List (Ref. 6, p. 533).  The resolved RABMEC shows that these two events occurred at the same time, in 3113 BC RABMEC.  Coincidentally, the Mayans, on the other side of the world, describe the beginning of the new world age that was accompanied by a great flood in 3113 BC  (Ref. 15), at the same time as the biblical and Sumerian floods, though that's another story. 


          The Egyptians do not have a flood legend.  However, in his Histories, Herodotus (Ref. 16) tells of the Egyptian priests that told of repeated great floods where only those in the right place at the time survived; though, though he does not allude to timing or an association with the biblical flood.  However, in their Kings' Lists, both Eratosthenes (Ref. 1, p LXXIII) and the Sothis (Ref. 1, p LXXV) list Menes' reign relative to the beginning of the world (Anno Mundi), though there is no indication of what that event is. 


          Two questions immediately come to mind.  First, is the Anno Mundi event related in any way to the biblical flood; and second, is there any physical evidence to support the biblical flood or the Anno Mundi event.  We begin with the biblical flood.


          5.3.1  The Biblical Flood Event


          The actual date (and fact) of the Flood is a matter of some conjecture.  Within the religious framework, the reality of the Noah Flood is accepted as a matter of faith and no visible scientific evidence is required to support it (giving a Flood date, based on the extremely large ages of Adam's line, of ~2294 BC and a creation date of 3950 BC).  However, within the scientific framework, the historical reality of the Noah flood has long been debated due to a lack of supporting data. 


          In 1929, Leonard Wooley found evidence of a great flood deposit beneath his excavations at Ur (Ref. 17).  The broad area of the deposits indicated a locally global extent to the flood given the mobility and experiences of the inhabitants of the region at the time.  The earliest dating was 3500-3800 BC, while re-evaluation by Langdom and Watelin reduced the date to 3300 BC.  In addition, Max Mallowan, in a more northern area, observed evidence of flood deposits dated to ~2900 BC.  It is interesting to note that, unlike the ~2294 BC Noah flood year of the standard timeline, the date of 3113 BC RABMEC for the biblical flood falls within the range of the evidence of Wooley's excavation.  There is, however, further scientific evidence of another massive flood in ancient times.


          5.3.2  The Anno Mundi Event


          In 1997, two marine geologists, W. Ryan and W. Pitman (Ref. 18), developed a hypothesis based on sea floor measurement in and around the Black Sea that a biblical-type flood event occurred.  The event was the result of a major thaw from the last Ice Age freeze (c. 25,000 years ago) which broke through a land dam at Gibraltar.  This flooded the Bosporus and filled the Black Sea, raising its level over 350 feet to its present level.  It also changed the body of water from a fresh water lake to a salt-water sea connected to the Atlantic Ocean. 


          Dating of five large sample sets placed the event between 7580 and 7470 BP (before the present) which calibrated to 5630 - 5520 BC.  Since the RABMEC resolved the flood date to 3113 BC RABMEC, the Ryan and Pittman flood event could not be that same event.  This takes us back to our other question of the physical evidence for the Egyptian beginning of the world (the Anno Mundi event). 


          According to Eratosthenes, the Anno Mundi occurred 2900 years before Menes.  Since the RABMEC resolved the date of Menes as 2638 BC RABMEC, the Anno Mundi event occurred in 5538 BC RABMEC which is within the date range of the Ryan and Pitman flood data (i.e., the five sample sets include: 5550 BC, 5630 BC, 5560 BC, 5560 BC and 5520 BC for an average of 5564 BC.)  This implies that the Ryan and Pittman flood event is the event identified by the Egyptians as the Anno Mundi beginning of the world.



          Return to Top





          5.4 Tying It All Together - The Fully Resolved RABMEC


          We now come to the end of our exploration into the past.  We have addressed all of the issues relating to the new RABMEC.  Thus, it seems appropriate, here, to tie up loose ends and summarize the pivotal events.


          The RABMEC begins with the prime reference point of the current calendar, the birth of Christ, which even in the Standard TimeLine (STL) is before 1 AD, i.e., ~6 BC which is the date the RABMEC accepts.  Judgments and inter-culture comparisons made in this work allow for divergences between the RABMEC and the STL as we go farther into the past where date uncertainties grow and king orders within the different lines are confused at times. 


          Moving back from 6 BC RABMEC, the next pivotal point is the besieging of Jerusalem.  The STL declares it was in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II in 606 BC.  The RABMEC however claims it was Nebuchadnezzar, the first of that name, in 1204 BC RABMEC, based on the nearly identical names in the lists and time spacing of the kings around the two Nebuchadnezzar's; and the fact that either grouping around the first of that name or the second of that name satisfied the inter-cultural relationships.  So, at this point, the RABMEC has added ~600 years to the timeline compared to the STL.   


          Moving back again, the next point is the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt. The STL finds the pharaoh was Phiops, in 2666 BC RABMEC, rather than Ramesses II in 1496 BC.  Further, the RABMEC identifies the namesakes of the two treasure cites mentioned in the story.  The first, Pithom was named for Phiops, where the apparent name difference is achieved by simple consonant shifts and vowel changes which were in general not expressed.  The second city Ramesses was named for Rimush the son of Sargon I and governor of the divided Egypt just before the independence and unification under Menes (called Manishtushu and Sargon's other son).  In the STL, Ramesses II is the one namesake; but the second namesake has no identifiable candidate.  The RABMEC is now almost 1200 years longer than the STL.


          This brings us to the last historical event, the first Egyptian pharaoh, Menes that the RABMEC places at 2638 BC RABMEC.  The STL locates him at c.3100 BC, combining both historical and radiocarbon data, and the difference is not resolved at this time.  At this point, however, the STL has now expanded to 462 years longer than the RABMEC.


          The second part of the RABMEC is the dating of what is considered mythological events and kings; and, which the STL cannot date.  There are two pivotal points in the RABMEC: the biblical flood, and the Anno Mundi event - the beginning of the world according to the Egyptians. 


          The traditional flood date is ~2294 BC, but there is no physical evidence to support that date, so the flood is considered to be allegorical.  However, the RABMEC places the flood at 3113 BC RABMEC, which is supported by the locally global flood deposits originally discovered by Wooley in 1929, and, dated ~2900 - 3500 BC. 


          For the Anno Mundi event, the STL has no date or speculated date.  The RABMEC dates the event at 5538 BC RABMEC which closely aligns with the Ryan and Pittman flood event at ~5557 BC; and further, it is right where Eratosthenes claimed it would be in relation to Menes - thus further supporting the Menes-Anno Mundi date relationship and the 2538 BC RABMEC Menes date.


          The final RABMEC accomplishment was showing a mathematical relationship between the biblical creation days and physical events in the pre-human era (i.e., the geological past) which has not been done before. 


          The total accomplishment for the RABMEC can be succinctly stated as providing a continuously connected timeline from 6 BC RABMEC back thru the Anno Mundi 5538 BC RABMEC event (equivalent to creation day 9.2, i.e., 3 days after the work of creation ended), and finally back to the beginning of the universe as we know it at ~14 billion years ago (the end of creation day 1) - satisfying the stated goals of this work.  Table 5.2 provides a list of selected events on the RABMEC, with the STL dates indicated.  Appendix E provides a more inclusive list.  So what hasn't been done?


          The Wooley excavation showed locally global flood deposits in the mid-east region that date to near the RABMEC flood date of 3113 BC RABMEC.  We also note here that the Mayan beginning of the last world age occurred in the same year, and likely had a flood that was locally global to them.  The implication of this is that if there can be found flood deposits for that event, and if other locally global flood events can be found in other regions, then the true global nature of the biblical flood can be considered a reality even if there is no evidence that the earth was uniformly covered in water.  Pursuing this idea was not part of this exploration into the past, and is left to some future study. 

Another issue that was not considered was the extreme ages of the pre-flood Hebrews since they did not represent critical timing or pivotal events in the development of the RABMEC.  Therefore, the extreme age question is left to the devices and initiative of other studies.

The other issue not considered has to do with how the makers of the oldest oral tradition (like the creation stories) knew what happened when there were no humans there to see it.  This is an issue of spiritual inspiration and is left to future studies.


          Having summarized what was accomplished in the RABMEC, and mentioning what was not addressed, this work is now completed for the reader's consideration.


It Is Finished


Table 5.2.  RABMEC timeline compared with dated physical and historic events.  The STL date is indicated when it exists.


Historical Event

Corresponding Physical Event


Pre Human Period

14 BY

created light - end biblical Day 1

Big Bang (14 BY)


2.3 BY


separated waters - end Day 2

1st galaxy formation to earliest land masses of earth (~13 BY - ~2 BY)

388.9 MY

dry land and seas formed, vegetation covers earth - end Day 3

super continents form (~1 BY)

large ocean basins form (~300 MY)

64.8 MY

placed sun, moon & stars in heavens

- end Day 4

impact & extinction of dinosaurs (65 MY)

then sky cleared and re-speciation began

10.8 MY

large swarms of creatures - end Day 5

first modern species and early mammals

1.8 MY

every living creature and beasts

 & Man - end Day 6

modern mammals, primates

early man (~2.5 MY)


post creation - Day 7-9

Homo Sapiens ~250,000 yrs

modern man ~150,000 yrs

1st language ~40,000 yrs, agriculture ~10,000


Mythical Period





Beginning of world age by Egyptians

Egyptian God I dynasty (511 yrs)


5) Osiris & Isis (83) 

Ryan and Pittman flood event (~5557 BC)


Greek Orthodox calendar begins

object of Upper Kingdom moon worshipers






Egyptian God II dynasty (858 yrs)

1) Zeus (80) (= Greek god)

5) Apollo (100) (= Greek god)

6) Herakles (60) (=Greek Hercules)

7) Anubis (68) 





object of Lower Kingdom Anu worshipers


Egyptian God III dynasty (1056  yrs)

1st Sumerian king Unzu = Adam

~3500 STL


unification of Egyptian Osiris and Anu cults


biblical FLOOD

Egyptian Demi-Gods dyn. (475 yrs)

Wooley locally global flood deposits (2900 -3500 BC). STL ~2300 BC.


Historic Period


start of Jewish calendar



1st Egyptian king Menes

STL 3100 BC


Exodus during Phiops reign

STL 1496 BC during Ramesses II reign


Jerusalem besieged by Nebuchadnezzar I

STL 606 BC Nebuchadnezzar II


Cyrus rebuilds temple -665 yrs exile

STL 536 BC after 70 yrs exile


birth of Christ




          Return to Top





          5.5 References for Section 5


1 E.A.W. Budge, The Book of the Kings of Egypt Part One, Kegan, Paul, Trench, Thubner & Co., London (1908), Kessinger Pub. reprint

2 J.N. Lockyer, The Dawn of Astronomy, Cassell and Company, London (1894)

3 C.B. Ramsey, et. al., Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt, Science, vol 328, p1554 (2010)

4 S. Bowman, Radiocarbon Dating, Univ. of CA Press/British Museum, Berkeley (1990)

5 H.J. Bruins, Dating Pharaonic Egypt, Science, vol 328, p1498 (2010)

6 L.A. Waddell, Makers of Civilization in Race and History, London (1929), (Kessinger Pub. reprint)

7 A. Cotterall ed., Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, Penguin Books, NY (1980)

8 T.G.H. James, A Short History of Ancient Egypt, The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD (1995)

9 E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton, Eds., Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Brill, Leiden, Netherlands (2006)

10 S.W. Manning et al., Science, vol. 312, p565 (2006)

11 M. Beitak, F. Hoflmayer, in The Synchronisation of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC III, Varlag, Vienna, p23-33 (2007)

12 The Holy Bible, King James Version, Thomas Nelson Pub. (1990), Genesis 6:

13 S.H. Hooke, Middle Eastern Mythology, Dover Pub., Mineola, NY (2004), p.103

14 S. Dalley ed., Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK (2000), p.109

15 R.J. Sharer and L.P. Traxler, The Ancient Maya, 6th ed., Stanford Univ. Press, Standord, CA (2006) p.114; and D. Douglas, The Mayan Prophecy 2012, Fall River Press, NY (2009) p.80

16 Herodatus, The Histories, Penguin Books, NY (2003)

17 L. Wooley, and P.R.S. Moorey, Ur of the Chaldees: A Revised and Updated Edition of Sir Leonard Wooley's Excavations at Ur, Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY (1982)

18 W. Ryan and W. Pitman, Noah's Flood, The New Discoveries About The Event That Changed History, Simon and Shuster, (1998); and re-analysis in Science, 20 February 1998, p. 1132 that increased the date by about 800 years and is still discounted by the orthodox community.




          Return to Top