This article expands upon issues with Egyptian timelines, ancient sources, archeology, dendrochronology, and radiocarbon dating. The primary source for this article is . This is a brief introduction to some issues with chronology.
“The worst difficulty is the total absence of a reliable system of chronology. …the different systems of modern scholars lack any solid foundation and date…” – The International Cyclopaedia: A Compendium of Human Knowledge, Volume 5 [p.295-296]
The dating of Egyptian timelines is the first issue with chronology which is brought up by Fomenko.
Some of the German datings he gives for the reign of King Menes vary as follows:
Bunsen – 3,623 BC
Lepsius – 3,892 BC
Lauth – 4,157 BC
Unger – 5,613 BC
Boeckh – 5,702 BC
As can be seen above, Menes’ reign has been dated by these men as recently as 3,623 BC (5,642 years ago) and as late as 5,702BC (7,721 years ago). This provides a 2,079 year difference in a timescale of now 7,721 years. These years account for 26.9 percent of the whole scale, being 2,079 years out of 7,721.
Is this difference the case amongst the datings of other scholars? The difference above pales in comparison to the following. Below is a list that contains the dates for Menes’ reign given by French scholars:
Palmer – 2224 BC
Wilkinson – 2320 BC
Andrzejewsky – 2850 BC
Meyer – 3180 BC
Chabas – 4000 BC
Mariette – 5004 BC
Champollion – 5867 BC
As can be seen above, Menes’ reign has been dated by these men as recently as 2,224BC (4,243 years ago) and as late as 5,867BC (7,886 years ago). This provides a 3,642 year margin in a timescale of now 7,886 years. This margin accounts for over 45 percent of the whole scale, being 2,224 years out of 7,721. The margin of leeway for when the reign may have been is hardly conclusive.
Conclusions; this is an obvious problem for chronology. The academically accepted dates may be based upon sketchy premises. The error margins are noticeably large for gaging a precise date.
The second issue with chronology that we discuss is the dating of “ancient” sources. These ‘post-“dark age”‘ sources may not be as legitimate as some believe. The majority of manuscripts appear during the Renaissance. In this section, we discuss the works of Tacitus and Cicero.
Hochart and Ross suggested in the second half of the 19th century that Poggio was the true author of Tacitus’ book, ‘History’. However, Fomenko does note that they believe Tacitus’ book to be only a partial forgery. Poggio is famous in some circles for “rediscovering and recovering” a great number of manuscripts. Sadly, for those interested in the history of these manuscripts, there is a considerable lack of information regarding how Poggio had acquired them.
According to Fomenko, there was an uprise of interest in Cicero in the 1400s. Reportedly, in 1420, Gasparino Barzizza had decided to “fill the gaps” of Cicero for the “sake of consequentiality”. Luckily for Barzizza, a “complete text of all the rhetorical works of Cicero” was discovered in an Italian town named Lodi around the same time that he had set out on his quest to complete the works of Cicero. It is reported that Barzizza and his students quickly obtained the manuscript, translated the ancient text, and produced a readable copy. This is the copy on which today’s copies are based. The reason why nobody has gone back to make new translations of the “complete text of all the rhetorical works of Cicero” may be due to the fact that the manuscript was returned to Lodi where it disappeared. There has been no trace of it since 1428.
It can may be assumed that when Barzizza set out on his quest to “fill the gaps” that the complete text had not yet been discovered. If we assume that the complete text was discovered in 1420, the same year Barzizza set out, then we may lay the claim that this newly discovered document was known for 8 years before it disappears back into the abyss to never be seen again. Could this manuscript have been a hoax that was created to give more legitimacy to Barzizza’s personal works? Perhaps it truly was a copy of Cicero’s complete texts, authored by someone who at one point had a complete collection of Cicero’s originals or copies? I may expand upon these questions in a later publication.
The last detail that I will mention pertaining to Cicero is about his name. The consonant root of ‘Cicero’ is ‘TsTsR’. It just so happens that the consonant root of the Arabic reading of ‘Barzizza’ is similar, being ‘TsTsRB’.
Conclusions: these are problems for chronology. The origins of allegedly ancient documents are sketchy. The two ancient authors identified above share significant counterparts that lived in the 14th-15th centuries which could be the real “ancient authors”.
The third issue with chronology that we discuss is archeology. The current methods are greatly based upon the chronology created by Scaliger (which has been shown to be highly inaccurate). This issue is somewhat self-explanatory but I will briefly expand upon it anyways;
From our primary source for this article (0), we find reports of a barrow that was examined and dated with precision to the epoch of the 9th-12th century. To the surprise of the examiners, scattered amongst the bones, they found coins from the 1800s. This may be due to the fact that sometimes the archeological methods are not as precise as some may believe them to be. A barrow from the 1800s was dated to the epoch between the 800s and 1100s, incorrectly dating it by 700 to 1000 years. This is a barrow that is less than 200 years old that has been dated to be 700 to 1000 years old because of methods that are based upon a faulty chronology.
Another example from our primary source is the excavation of a different barrows. The examiners were sure that they had been analyzing a barrow from the Bronze Age (22) until ceramics from the 1700s monkey-wrenched their find. These ceramics were found inside the barrow that were sealed inside along with everything else. It is reported that the only reason this barrow was dated to the Bronze Age is because it had an absence of Iron and steel artifacts. If we refer to the Near East Bronze Age datings from (22), we can see that the Bronze Age is considered to be between the years around 3300BC to 1200BC. This means that this borrow from the 1700s was misdated by around 2900 to 5000 years. This was a misdating of around 3000 years on a barrows less than 300 years old.
Conclusions; this is an obvious problem for chronology. The current archeological dating methods seem to be poorly designed. These very methods can sometimes give dates that are five to ten times older than the object being dated (300 year old barrow dated to 3000 years old).
The fourth issue with chronology is dendrochronology. Dendrochronology (23) is a modern method of dating that claims to be able to independently date artifacts based on information from trees. This method, along with the archeological method, relies upon the faulty chronology of Scaliger. According to (23), the current span of dating into the past is a bit over 11,000 years. According to (0), which is arguably much more likely, the current span of dating is closer to around 1,000 years. There are many issues with dendrochronology identified in (24). This method is affected by many things of which we have no way of knowing about and the precision of the dating is dependent on the collations of the scale being used. In other words, it is sketchy.
Conclusion; this is an issue for chronology. Dendrochronology can be unreliable. It is dependent on a chronology which is established; where if dates of the chronology are moved, the scale of dendrochronology will move.
The fifth and final issue with chronology which we discuss is radiocarbon dating. As with dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating is also subject to a plethora of influences of which we currently have no way of determining. Also similar to dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating can be unreliable for datings beyond 1000 years old. As with the archeological mishaps, radiocarbon dating can also lead to errors in dating exceed the age of the object by ten times.
This first example is a castle that is known to have been built 738 years ago. After examining the results of a test upon a sample from this castle, it was determined that this castle was actually 7,370 years old. This is ten years shy of exactly 10 times the actual age of the building.
The second example is of seals that had just been shot and then radiocarbon dated. The seal which had just been shot by the hunters proved to be 1.300 years old, according to the radiocarbon dating methods. This is an exponentially greater age of dating than the actual age of the object. These same seals were mummified for thirty years and then related. This time they proved to be 4,600 years old. This is well over ten times older than the actual age of the animals. The thirty year difference in dating is equivalent to 3,300 years in the results, again, well over 10 times the actual time that has passed.
Conclusion; this is an issue for chronology. Radiocarbon dating can be unreliable. This method, along with other methods, are sometimes dependent upon a chronology which has already been established.
Egyptian timelines, ancient sources, archeology, dendrochronology, and radiocarbon dating all can present issues in establishing chronology.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
Buy Ctruth t-shirts, hoodies, and more at:
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
Support Ctruth directly by donating @
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~