Site Section Links
Our duty is to believe that for which we have sufficient evidence
The Doubtful AD/CE Chronology
Given the well known ambiguities of the exact year of the birth of Christ, surely we know within a handful the number of years that have transpired since that mark in time. We have settled on the number of 2017 and "can't" be wrong by more than four years. We are assured that the Jews, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Romans, the Mayans, the Vatican, et al, have all kept annual records that sync up well enough; and that there are ancient CE*. site specific records of lunar and solar eclipses that can be accurately retro-calculated that have verified our schema. On top of these two major underpinnings−historians and museum curators poring over thousand of documents and related artifacts in dozens of cultures and arranging them in dated sequence, and the scientific retro-calculations of eclipses−we have diligent dendro-chronologists working to build a complete, overlapping chain of tree ring patterns going back past two thousand years. And we have radiometric dating, more specifically for the later few hundred years, C14 dating. There are also other approaches that can shed some light here and there (examples: Niagara Falls erosion rate, SW Whidbey Island bluff erosion rate, ice core layers, et al.)
So, what's the problem? Well, there IS a HUGE problem, but first let's set some context.
To start with, the importance of keeping a careful chronological record of year counts for the ancient people is vastly overrated. The motivation was hardly there at all. Think about it. Even in our culture where most are educated and aware of historical developments, such as the founding of the nation, the World Wars, etc., how does the number of the year affect your life? For example, if you found out that the correct CE number for the year was 1287 instead of 2017, how would that change things? It is marginally important for me to know that the Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution came about approximately 230 years ago, but the exact dates for these developments are only good for game show quizzes. We all naturally tend to default to a "relative-to-current time" mentality for past events.
In times previous to the recent modern era, the daily, routine demands of life were much more onerous and oppressive.
It WAS important to keep track of the seasons and days within each year for agricultural activities and concerns, and for heating fuel supplies, etc., but not to have an infallible system to chronicle the number of years. What good does that do? From what event do you start, who do you trust to do it, who do you appoint, and what difference does it make? Everybody kept track of time in a more subjective way, relating to recently important men and events in their lives or just previous.
Given the sorry−and scary−state of the current political and religious world, the rampant global disunity and hypocrisy, and the long unrequited wait for the expected resolution by Christendom, it is excusable and even sensible or pressing to challenge the existing theologies of the existing religions.
Given the obvious evidence for widespread catastrophe easily visible in the surface geological formations, and the extensive work of the catastrophic mythologists in reconstructing the actual astral catastrophic events the ancients were so obsessed with, we can see that the prevailing conceptions of the earth's earlier history need to be drastically revised.
Given that catastrophic biologists, geologists, paleontologists and archaeologists have reinterpreted the various layers and strata to show that the earth has had a violent past with stages of life development, it is incumbent on us to look for a larger picture.
Given the overwhelming evidence for electricity being the explanation for how comets, stars, nebulae, and galaxies work, and the careful reformulation by the Electric Universe theorists, we can have a more credible cosmology than what is being taught in our institutions.
Isn't that MORE than enough for us to challenge on our way to the truth? After the solar system planetary rearrangements were finished and the basic framework for our physical environment settled into stability, haven't the civilizations and societies at least been able to keep simple, accurate records for the number of years since?
Apparently not! It turns out that both BCE AND CE chronology are rat nests that have HUGE PROBLEMS AND ANOMALIES. Even just focusing on CE chronology, EVERY single aspect mentioned above supporting the accepted chronology turns out to be just another lily pad in the pond that won't hold the weight when we rely upon it. Not only is radiometric dating based upon untenable assumptions, but has been shown over and over again to be wildly unreliable.
There are many challengers to the validity of dendro-chronology, and here is what professor Gunnar Heinsohn has to say about it:
"But what about dendro-chronology? It may become a powerful dating tool. So far, there never was a true blind test to research whether Antiquity, Late Antiquity, and the Early Middle Ages really existed in a chronological sequence. In such a test only one person would know what tree-slices distributed to, let us say, half a dozen laboratories come from a beam taken from a building labeled Antique or from a building labeled Late Antique or from a building labeled Early Medieval. The scientists would receive no hint whatsoever what period is "expected" for the wooden specimen that arrived at their institute. The author seriously hopes that such a test of the validity of dendro-chronology will not be postponed forever."
Professor Heinsohn is being his usual gracious self, and being very mild in his words here, but we can predict there NEVER will be such a test because it would expose the whole enterprise for the pretentious fraud that it is.
Upon investigation, it has been discovered that the vaunted computer eclipse retro-calculation programs are not pristine astronomical mathematical formulations but are internally referential or calibrated to "known" ancient dates, and they don't verify anything but the soft corruption in scientific circles. And the records that have been kept are incomplete, some documents are known to be outright fabrications and forgeries, and some of the dates have been fudged by kings and popes for egoistic or political reasons. And dendro-chronology is a morass of sample indeterminacies, "statistical options" and subjective assumptions and or decisions as to pattern matching. You can cobble together the current system and we have it, but is it reliable?
In a word, in all of the above, the fudgeable subjective factors overwhelm the objective factors, and invalidate the results.
But to get right down to cases, the origin date of any undated document or artifact, etc., can be changed upon the whim of a human decision because dating assignations can be easily changed. But what CANNOT be changed is the order of the archaeological strata and the content or lack thereof. Except in special−and irrelevant−cases, what lies on top has to be more recent than what lies below.
Cultures have dozens of particular aspects, forms, and styles, such as coins, culinary and eating utensils, artificial lighting apparati, clothes, shoes, boats and ships, furniture, icons, artwork, ornaments, weapons, storage containers, wheels, architecture and elements (both religious and residential), metallurgy, tools, glasswork, beads, clasps and fasteners, pins and combs, games, burial procedures, etc., that give a distinctive and trustworthy fingerprint. These cannot be changed overnight or without leaving evidence of the transition.
It turns out that there is a substantial layer of sand, gravel, muck that covers much of Europe that was no doubt laid down by a cometary catastrophe which destroyed much of the civilized world at that time. This layer is devoid of artifacts, and can be used as a wide area reference to sync up the different cultures of the continent.
It also turns out that from dozens of different archaeological studies the "modern" chronologists have probably inserted duplicate or contemporary cultural time sequences and made them contiguous instead of overlapping. The best estimate for the number of padded or phantom years in the "accepted" CE chronology is a whopping 730!
See the articles by Gunnar Heinsohn at: http://www.q-mag.org/topics.html#RtCPPF1T
How would you like to get used to referring to the current year as 1287 AD?
BUT, even if you consider this to be true and that the padding took place in the first millennium, does it make any real difference? Well, for one thing, it destroys the credibility of any "Christian" or Biblical chronological prophetic schemes applying to our time. And it is a remarkable reminder that often we don't know what we think we know when we have JUST consented to know.
Maybe it is time to get used to the idea that the really solid ground is internal, and relates to our intrinsic rationality, logic, reason, our built in epistemological and metaphysical principles.
* BCE stands for Before Christian Era, and CE for Christian Era and is roughly comparable to the AD designation, the time after the birth of Christ.