I didn't see this topic in the forum, and I finally found the article where I first read about it: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_16.htm

Here is a sort of summary of the article (a mix of paraphrasing and copying from the article):

The earliest historians started out detailing the events of a very small area over a very short period of time, ie the reign of one king over a single city-state. Historical accounts grew more expansive over time. Medieval texts for example might chronicle a large country over a century or two. During the 16th and 17th centuries, historians realized that all the had was a huge pile of disconnected accounts, little bits and pieces of history that had no relation to each other. Their task then was to take all these tidbits and assemble from them a grand unified time line containing all known historical accounts of the entire world.

This of course was no small task. Many historical accounts were not dated, or used an unknown or archaic system of dating. Most were simply a sequence of events. It's amazing that this task was accomplished at all, and even more amazing that it was done by a small group of people almost 400 years ago and has not had major modifications since. The official historical chronology, presently commonly acknowledged, was originated by the Italian theologian and scientist I. Scaliger (1540-1609). He determined the exact dates of the most important historical events like the Peloponnesian War, Trojan War, founding of Rome, etc., but did not prove his dates. His followers continued this work and it is commonly accepted that the official chronology was given its final shape by D. Petavius (1583-1652).

This is the history that you and I have been taught in school. This is the history that everyone knows to be true, but is it? (lol@dramatic effect...) A lot of historians and scientists have raised very serious questions about this time line. For example, in the conventional time line, Ptolemy (astronomer, philosopher, a historian himself, etc.), lived during the first and second century. However, the analysis of the vast amount of the astronomical information contained in his star catalog, the "Almagest", proved that the only possible time of creation of this catalog was from 7th to 13th century AD, which is at least 500 years later. Despite this revelation, children in school are still being taught that he was born in the first century (if they learn about him at all).

Then other disturbing things were noticed. History seemed to repeat itself. Not just in the general sense of wars and territorial expansion, but in a very specific sense. Here I need to point everyone towards the attached image which illustrates an example. The picture shows the reign of kings through the Holy Roman-German Empire and through the Jewish Kingdom according to the bible. Though these nations existed hundreds of years apart (according to conventional theory), in terms of the number rulers in each "dynasty" and the number of years that each king reigned, they are almost mirror images of each other. In both cases, the first king reigned for a recorded 17 years. Both of those kings were followed by a king that ruled for 3 years. After that, a king ruled for 37 years in one case and 35 year in the other. The next king in one country then ruled for 23 years, corresponding to the 24 year rule of the next king in the other country. This trend of almost identical rules continues until the fall of the empires. How could it be that the histories of these two countries are so similar? And what's more is that coincidences like this are seen over and over again across the world and throughout history.

Thus began the work on the New Chronology. The New Chronology is a "brand new" world history time line, the culmination of 80 years of work by various historians and scientists using the latest discoveries in mathematics, astronomy, linguistics, philology and geology. To finally get to the point of all this, and greatly simplifying the conclusions, if you were to suppose that the two nations in the above example were actually one and the same, but with names and other minor details changed, you could grab those two points on the time line and pull them together until they overlap, thus shortening the time line as a whole. But won't this jumble everything up and cause a lot of contradictions between historical texts??? Surprisingly the answer is no. While some events are shifted about, for the most part any seeming contradictions resolve themselves as more of the mistaken repetitions are overlapped and the time line is collapsed. When you combine this repetition removal with the application of the latest scientific advancements to archeology, what you get is a new world time line which is more consistent than the currently used one, but which could be young as only 700 years (as opposed to 6,000-7,000 years for the current one).

Ok, anyone heard about this? Thoughts, contradictions, contributions?

Hmmm. So you're using history to refute history? rofl Good point though

Well, since you asked, yes, I have a thought.

It's complete rubbish, that's what.

You use Ptolemy as an example. Why do you pretend that other people that knew Ptolemy didn't write about him in other materials that were dated?

One thing by one guy that wasn't dated and suddenly we're supposed to believe the Bible's King's lists?

Ptolemy produced an entire line of Kings of Egypt.

What utter tripe.

I gotta find another forum.

The Avignon Papacy produced thousands of dated documents. Same for most of the kings in that stupid list of the Holy Roman Empire.

Next lunatic please....

Harte

Gawd Almighty.

"I don't know much about history or historiography, but by gum, I know enough to prove it's all one big lie. If you don't know much either. And don't ask many questions. And don't try to find out more."

--Jaylemurph

A great deal of what we think we know was written by people with very limited resources and no access to much technology that we today take for granted. A single man can hold only so much information and use it effectively. A 16th century researcher will be very limited in his access to and knowledge of the original evidence available.

Why shouldn't there be extensive errors throughout much of the record? This isn't to say everything should be tossed out and we start from scratch but certainly "facts" that can't stand scrutiny or contradict other evidence or known facts should be set aside.

We should strive for truth not dogma. There's nothing to lose and there seems absolutely no doubt that we'll find support for at least some of traditional accounts.

The conspiracy claims of some of the wackos here aside, this is what actual historians do. That the wackos claim historians don't (and even work against this purpose) just shows the profound, deliberate ignorance of these people.

--Jaylemurph

I have little doubt that this is generally true.

But we all take a great deal as a given and it would hardly be surprising if some
of these givens can't stand up to 21st century knowledge or technology. Perhaps
even some minor changes in the accepted understanding of the past can result in
major changes in other areas.

Cladking,

Did you know that recent C14 dating of part of an olive tree found under the ancient ash at Santorini showed that the Thera explosion apparently occurred a hundred years earlier than they had once thought?

Last I checked, there are many dates from ancient times - involving many different cultures around the Med. - being revisited based on this single piece of information.

Harte

Oh I get it! When you connect the dots it makes a Christmas tree. So it must be the catholic church at it again.

What a fool I've been not to have noticed such an obvious clue!

I bet Howard West caught it - prolly read about it in his heliographs.

Welcome to the board, Seriously. Seriously!

Harte

Apparently this what the Aurthors such as, Micheal Tsarion, Jordan Maxwell, David Icke, Zachiriya Sitchin and others do to promote and make thier books more intresting.

Harte, I wrote a big long response to your response, and then realized there's probably no reason to post it. If you're still around and would like to hear it then I will post it, otherwise I'll refrain.

Instead, I'll respond to one of jaylemurph's posts.



N.A. Morozov, Anatoly T. Fomenko, G.V. Nosovskij, and V.V. Kalashnikov would like to have a word with you. I think they may take offense with you calling them wackos. Their theories arose from the fact that some historical accounts did not hold up under scrutiny when using modern techniques.

There would'nt be a huge number of contradiction's to begin with. That they are pretty much the same, is a result of the cycle's. Where history seems to repeat itself. If you were to overlap them as you suggested, most memory's of the seperate{but the same} time line{which is an illusion}, along with changes in the geography, and memory's of the inhabitant's, down to what we call the races involved, would seem as if they had never changed at all.

This tie's in with the memory's people have of when the "present" was much different from the one we all know. Yet the same moment in what we call time/space.

Of course, as everything in today's world is up for discussion, people will think what they want, but i like your train of thought on it, good post

Well, you certainly got some people heated over this lol. Honestly, I think it's pretty interesting. I would like to hear more about it (as long as it is backed by credible sources [what is credible??]), but I'm not sure I'm ready to jump on the bandwagon. I'm not sold on the idea, however, it makes sense that human beings would make errors involving historical time-lines and the like. Human beings have perfected the art of messing up. Once again, however, we will probably all be long dead and they still won't know the truth, they will still be trying to figure it all out, and they'll still be arguing over the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.

Christmas tree... LOLZ It made me laugh. Good point.

Industry7,

Post what you want.

Just stop claiming that Rome never existed and that if it did, the Romans didn't know what day/month/year it was.

Or, don't. But be prepared to show why.

Plus, remember, you did ask for opinions. Don't whine when you get what you ask for.

Harte

They are wackos. Thier work has already been discredited and refuted soundly. The disregard whatever doesn't fit their algorythmic models including correlating radiometric and dendrochronologic dates, actual astronomy and well dated written sources that completely contradict them. Nobody actually takes these guys seriously.

History and archeology are studied using 21st century knowledge and technology. They are not a static discipline but always growing and developing with new ideas and finds. It is best not to place too much credit with sensationalist claims usually made for a few mins in the spotlight and some book sales.