I believe the dated events of conventional human history from before the Renaissance are annually wrong -- but sequentially correct. It's a long story as to how certain influential publishers of five centuries ago created the conventional human historical timeline -- so, if you have time, check out the preface page of my Spirit of Atlantis book project and read how human history can be measured, not in thousands of years -- but only in centuries.
Well, according to the conventional A.D. calendar, 2,002 years has elapsed since the birth of Christ. My research suggest the radical idea of only about 700 years has elapsed since the birth of Christ. Or if your using Adam as a reference point in time, we exist about 1004 years after. If one wants to use the first Olympiad as a reference date to measure historical time, my data suggest 894 years has taken place since then.
What I can't measure at this time is the historical year span of human activity before the Biblical Flood -- which took place about nine centuries ago. I can only speculate that several centuries -- and perhaps even several millenniums existed before some other reference date in time that could mark the beginning of human activity on Earth.
Check out the following links regarding my historical research regarding ancient calendars:
Yes, it seems absolutely impossible that the conventional records of human history from before the Renaissance can be retranslated and compressed into about five centuries -- but my new calendar data suggest it. Keep reading my research in how the dates of conventional history were incorrectly packaged and published during the Renaissance and perhaps you will see through the last five centuries of other historians repeating each other as to how the first five centuries took place. It's a long, long story…
Regarding the decimal value of zero in multiplying centuries to millenniums -- well, again, it's a long story in how certain influential historians -- together with publishers, could have made decimal errors in inflating the true annual value of the Middle Ages.
My new calendar data is layered with many theoretical "ifs" -- which when understood in sequence, should link together and reveal a radical, yet plausible, way of seeing human history.
The only unsure section of history I can't retranslate is the antediluvian time period from before the Biblical Flood. All event dates after the flood have been assigned dates by historians which can be retranslated into smaller units using numerical formulas I have developed over the years.
You might ask, why would I want to retranslate and compress the dates of the conventional timeline? Well, in trying to date the destruction of the Atlantean Maritime Kingdom, I had to understand how conventional human history was packaged during the early printing era. Overtime, I came to learn how early solar and lunar calendars worked and discovered certain event dates that could be used to navigate through human history.
For centuries historians have been pushing event dates farther back in time because, when compared to geological time, recorded human history is a very small moment in time and to find or discover a human event date that reaches back into prehistory seems to give some historians comfort. However, I found comfort in realizing how historians have been "buffering" event dates with years that never existed -- thus revealing a much smaller timeline record of human history.
Trying to cram a thousand years of conventional human history into a century or so is perhaps the most controversial concept within my Spirit of Atlantis book project. Defining when the Middle Ages began and when they ended is also somewhat controversial.
Because the time period of the Middle Ages does not have a specific start date or an exact end date, the time value of 120 years in one of my early research computations is also approximate. In fact, one new calendar theory dates the Middle Ages from the last Olympiad of 393 A.D. to the discovery of the New World in 1492 A.D. -- or about a eleven hundred years total.
However, because the original Olympiads were only an annual event and not a four year event, 393 A.D. can be retranslated to only about 98 years after the birth of Christ. And because the birth of Christ can be dated to about 3761 months after Adam -- or about 304 years, then 393 A.D. equals about 402 years after Adam. Based on the idea that some civil or religious historians were keeping an annual record of time from the birth of Adam, the last Olympiad took place some four centuries after Adam -- not Christ.
Now, if important and influential publishers during the Renaissance mistakenly inserted the thousand value letter "M" in front of certain original event dates relating to the first Patriarch while translating Roman numerals into modern numbers, the time value of a thousand years can be subtracted from the conventional timeline count. This view suggest only about a century can be accounted for between the last Olympiad and the discovery of the New World by the Europeans.
So, after adding these theoretical timeline views together, only about five centuries existed between Adam and the beginning of the Modern Era of the last five centuries.
Regarding the historical makeup of non-European cultures, their chronological histories have been modified to fit into the conventional A.D. timeline by Western publishers for five centuries. And although many aspects of these cultures show many generations of intellectual development, the users of the Latin Alphabet and their Atlantean ancestors have perhaps the oldest chronology dating to Neolithic times.
Well, your not the first -- nor will you be the last, to disagree with my new timeline theories.
Because so many archaeological works have been calibrated to the conventional A.D. timeline, many sites and their true annual count in history have been compromised. For example, since the Pyramids in Egypt do not have any printed dates on them, scientist have used many scientific methods of developing a theoretical date in recorded history of when they were built. These scientific methods include techniques in typologically dating or matching artifacts with soil layers and the Carbon-14 isotope decay process of dating the wooden artifacts found within nearby tombs.
Since typological dating techniques rely on artifacts that match to similar artifacts from other sources which have been dated by earlier historians to fit the conventional A.D. timeline, the historical date of the Pyramids in Egypt -- not to mention many ancient "finds", are dated to a theoretical timeline invented by publishers during the Renaissance.
Regarding the Carbon-14 isotope decay technique, as I've stated in my research work at my website, this method is only a half a century old and has many correction tables in defining artifact dates within and beyond a thousand years ago. These correction tables, which rely on many variables in the decay process, have been created and adjusted to fit the conventional A.D. timeline so much that the sequence data may be correct -- but the annual time count data beyond about a thousand years ago is not. All C-14 dates beyond about a thousand years are based on trends of the isotope decay theory, which is only a theory -- not fact.
Cross-referenced with Dendrochronology -- or tree-ring dating, C-14 may be quite a good method in dating artifacts as far back as a thousand years ago -- providing that similar artifacts and their placement in the conventional A.D. timeline does skew the data.
Regarding the city of Troy, the original site probably dates to antediluvian times which places the date beyond a thousand -- or perhaps even several thousand years ago. According to my studies and even conventional anthropological studies, early humans of the Neolithic Age have roamed the earth for at least ten thousand years or so. Perhaps the city of Troy was a colonial outpost of the Atlantean Maritime Kingdom in the eastern Mediterranean realm.
Thank you for your quote from Albert Einstein -- I need all the heart I can take. It's been tough trying to untangle five centuries of conventional historical publications regarding anthropological concepts and the subject of Atlantis.
Yes, my historical views are extremely radical -- and they do take a huge bite out of the conventional timeline, but that's what is needed to solve history's greatest mystery.
Since the conventional timeline of history does not include the reality of Atlantis, either the subject of Atlantis -- or the conventional timeline of history is based on false data. I have chosen the path in fixing the latter so that not only Atlantis will rise out of the centuries of misunderstanding what it was or where it is, but when it was lost in time. Atlantis is truly rising…
I'm glad your happy in helping others to learn the true annual timeline of history. To understand history is to want to teach and share your understanding of history.
The problem with understanding conventional history from before the Renaissance is that the dates are not absolute -- they are based on a fabricated outline of human events born in an age of isolated historical knowledge that have been repackaged by modern historical scientist who have never questioned the source of how conventional history was first published.
In my mind, the only general absolute thing about the conventional timeline is the sequence of historical events. Modern methods of sequencing artifacts within historical time are very good in that respect.
Yes, the Thera explosion story is a relatively undisputable prehistoric volcanic eruption event that may have taken place during the antediluvian age when the kingdoms of early man built colonial communities throughout the Eastern Mediterranean realm.
I believe it was some four decades ago that a book entitled VOYAGE TO ATLANTIS linked the idea of the Thera explosion story to the subject of Atlantis -- wherein 900 years from the time of Solon in c.600 B.C. to the destruction of Atlantis in c.1500 B.C. was a more plausible concept instead of the notable 9,000 year statement believed recorded by Plato.
The book is a record of much archeological work within the Thera volcano island area -- and it set the standard of modern scientific theories regarding Atlantis.
However, most every respectable historical theory regarding prehistoric dates has to conform to the conventional timeline or it will likely be rejected by modern historians. Because the conventional timeline is restricted to what I believe is a false timeline foundation formula created by publishers over five centuries ago, my unconventional chronological theories are indeed a radical departure from the conventional dating formulas and therefore have been ignored by modern historians.
Since I have developed new dating concepts that includes plausible scientific views that maintains the sequence of dated events within conventional history, modern historians should at least review my chronological theories before they reject them.
Again, I have much to say regarding how modern methods of dating archeological sites and ancient artifacts have been modified to fit the conventional timeline over the years. Check out the INTERVIEWS WITH THE AUTHOR entries at my Spirit of Atlantis website and read the arguments of Reporter 3 wherein I respond with views that challenge the conventional timeline of human history.
I read the Nature article link and found it interesting. The quest to absolutely date ancient history using modern scientific methods can reveal the true age of prehistoric events and how such events relate to modern history. By better understanding the true event dates of ancient history, one can better understand the historical makeup of our modern age.
In defining the absolute dates of prehistoric events, any collective data base is divided into two parts -- the time sequencing aspect of the data and the correlation of the data to a timeline. It's the latter part that I have a big problem with respect to conventional history.
For example, if a modern dendrochronolgy lab uncovers tree-ring count data that suggest a building timber from an archeological site can be sequenced to some three thousand years ago -- does that necessarily mean the building was built a thousand years before the birth of Christ? I think not -- because to me the data suggest that maybe the site can be dated to a year date from today, but not from a timeline based on an outline of history created during the early Renaissance.
For five centuries historians have been weaving new event date records into the conventional A.D. / B.C. timeline so much that modern historical scientist have only either to choose to stay with the conventional timeline formula and perhaps make small changes in event dates -- or to challenge the very foundation of how human history was first published during the early printing era. Perhaps other historical scientist will join me in my quest to explore new theories in understanding true history.
Regarding my Interviews at my website, there are currently twenty interviews that span over five years -- which can take some time to read. As a fellow historian, feel free to take the time to better understand my new timeline argument. It takes time to understand time.
You have an interesting open attitude in defining the parameters of chronological time -- that is to say you apparently believe the timely measurement of human history is always in a state of flux and depends on the motives of who measures it. I like a good open attitude -- especially regarding the historical measurement of time.
I also like some resemblance of historical order. My new historical timeline of human history contains theoretical conclusions that took years to compile. Any timeline theory needs reference event dates to help sequence the data. Whether it is Christ, Adam or the first Olympiad event, these event dates give order to human history.
In my research, I have tried not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" -- I have kept the sequence of events within conventional history so that other historians can at least follow the general development of early civilizations and the annual direction from ancient times to the here and now.
Only time will tell if I'm on the right track. I'm happy to share my theories -- even if they draw more naysayers than collaborators.
I'm not sure, but I think Franz was referring to the conventional A.D. / B.C. timeline. We all have our specific understanding of ancient history -- Franz, where in time do you think history is falsely recorded?
When people pass down event situations from generation to generation with no date references, it will be the historians that will date the events.
The same reasons the BC timeline is incorrect is the same reasons the AD timeline is incorrect -- historians of the early printing era took it upon themselves to package history. They did the best they could with what they had at the time -- however, the time has come to correct their mistakes.
Yes, the rules of timeline keeping and teaching history should change because mistakes where made long ago -- and if for no better reason than to review how history was packaged during the early Renaissance.
I didn't mean to start an argument over how the conventional timeline is incorrect, but over time I could not stand by while the conventional timeline kept ignoring the historical reality of Atlantis. Perhaps my new timeline theories can uncover the truth about both Atlantis and human history.
Yes -- it is a "wow" kind of thing to realize just how bloated conventional history is. And yes, it is and will always be hard to sway the masses that have been raised on a diet of annual dates from an exaggerated timeline. It seems that every history book currently published will forever be against my new timeline concept. The odds are currently against me in my quest to shine new light on human history -- however, I can not ignore certain facts that have been overlooked by other historians.
Even I still don't completely know all the details as to how to completely recalibrate the annual dates of conventional history into the truth -- but I'm farther along than I was some years ago. One has to digest my new timeline theories in sections to better understand the whole complex subject of historical timekeeping. The data is too overwhelming to fully comprehend during one read.
I have divided ancient history into two period sections -- the Biblical and Greco-Roman eras. And then there is the timeline argument as to how long was the historical period that fell between the fall of the Greco-Roman era and the Renaissance. All total are three historical period sections that are annually compressed into about five centuries.
It's a very long story -- keep reading my new timeline theory data. Perhaps it will bring more "wows" during further reads. It's nice to know that somebody else other than I can see through centuries of historical records and grasp the concept of true timekeeping.
Well, yes -- if your are annually measuring back to some geological event from today. However, us humans like to pick a person or human event from which to measure annual time.
Since Biblical times human history has been annually measured from the first Patriarch named Adam or Jesus Christ -- but because of certain alphanumerical and mathematical translation problems that were created during the first mass printing of books some five centuries ago, the recorded timeline became greatly inflated without apparently historian noticing them. Then five centuries went by and other historians built upon the false annual foundation of recorded history and that's why we have the very popular, but greatly exaggerated conventional timeline of history.
During the four-hundred year period of European colonialism following the Renaissance, the "western" BC / AD interpretation of recorded human history superceded any local cultural timeline because those in governmental authority established the official way history was kept. Thus, any local cultural timeline of human history that was discovered by the colonial powers -- such as New World cultural history or Oriental cultural history, needed to "fit into" the BC /AD conventional timeline or was ignored.
Yes, it is going to take a LOT of evidence that will conclusively prove conventional history is annually incorrect. And I'm just one person trying to prove it -- I'm up against great odds I know. But I also can't ignore certain facts as to how conventional history was incorrectly packaged in books some five centuries ago by publishers that misunderstood earlier historical data.
And I have compiled a lot of historical and numerical evidence at my Spirit of Atlantis website that some may consider as proof.
I'm really not advocating some great historical conspiracy with my new timeline theory -- it‘s just that no other historian has had a need to question conventional history like I have. My need to question conventional history came from my need to date the maritime kingdom of Atlantis. And since Atlantis is not part of conventional history, something was wrong with conventional history -- and as it turned out, in a very big way.
I believe historians of the early Renaissance did the best they could with the available data -- however, because the need to package history in books was greater than the need to verify popular historical timeline theories of the day -- together with the lack of a general historical knowledge of global human history, the foundation of time was laid incorrectly. The time has come to correct these historical timeline mistakes.
Any apocalyptic followers interested in a new timeline that undermines conventional history will be greatly outnumbered by numerologist who believe in order and may enjoy the challenge of having to rewrite many history books.
Many genealogical records that date beyond five centuries ago would be extremely hard -- if not impossible, to verify. So much literature has been recorded based on theoretical data as to who and when was born beyond five centuries ago that I find it hard to seriously believe.
The genealogy of the Popes and Roman Emperors are good examples. If my new timeline theory about how conventional history was created by scholars during the Renaissance is true, then the book publishers of the time needed names to fill the long stretch of time between Christ and Columbus. Such Pope or Emperor names may have or may not have ever existed -- but in the end, before the publishing deadline, there was a list of names to follow.
Once published, other publishers followed and thus became conventional history based on a list human names. Throw in some genealogical data written by more historians who may have egotistical links to important historical characters, and you have a timeline that get personal. To challenge some aspects of the conventional timeline is to personally challenge some genealogy -- and that can get really controversial.
Anyway, I have a lot to say about the true make up of ancient and Medieval history -- and I've probably already have said it in my SOA book project. Keep reading and discover the many views as to when Atlantis existed.
The reality of it is that the historical evidence was manipulated and incorrectly formulated so long ago that nobody today apparently cares to rock the boat of ancient history. Yes, I make a lot of explanations -- and it will take a lot of explaining to justify the real annual timeline of human history.
Discarding the calendar mistakes created by earlier historians is not easy-- especially when it is much easier for modern historians to just go with the flow of the conventional timeline. After all, look at all the historical "evidence" regarding ancient history that have been written and published in the last five centuries. The odds are against me, but that fact doesn't make my historical theories wrong or irrelevant.
Ig -- Thanks for your input. Yes, you are correct in pointing out how each generation takes for granted the historical records of their ancestors without verification. Nowadays, modern historians have the time and resources to verify historical information, but that was not the case five centuries ago.
I have much to say regarding the true Mayan Calendar subject. Like my other theories, it will take some time to understand how and why I believe the Mayan Civilization used a seven-day count formula before the Toltec invasion changed their time counting ways. Check out the Mayan Calendar subject links under the FORGOTTEN POST-DILUVIAN MAYAN CALENDAR area from the Preface page at my Spirit of Atlantis website for more details as to how I believe the Maya kept annual time.
Sm -- Your not alone in your belief in the timeline of conventional history. Perhaps you need a break in your conventional understanding of history -- so, I'm giving you a break. Keep reading the data at my SOA website as to why I would challenge the conventional timeline, and perhaps you may also see a whole new way of understanding human history.
Return to the Homepage site