Given how we know that the current media is fake news and today's academia has been bought off by large corporate interests how much different is today from the past? Perhaps it's something that some of our readers will find interesting to read. It's not presented as something we endorse but it is an interesting idea that resonates with archeological finds.
One of the interesting things that this theory suggests is modern day "Jerusalem" in Occupied Palestine is not the original Jerusalem. Apparently, the status of Al Quds in the 1990s proves that it was not the large city that would have been required to service pilgrims! Something to think about in relation to the Balfour Declaration and all that Oil and Gas!
This Article veers away from traditional Islam and onto the work of A.T.Fomenko & G.V.Nosovskiy who have put forward a new theory about the Chronology of Western History. This is an extract from Chapter 9. "HOW IT WAS IN REALITY THE EPOCH OF THE XIX CENTURY and a handy pdf file is included.
"There is a long tradition of doubt in the accuracy of today's accepted version. Let us name just a few of the scientists who criticised the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius and who thought that the true chronology of ancient times was fundamentally different.
De Arcilla – XVI century, the professor of the University of Salamanca. The information about his research is vague. It is only known that de Arcilla argued that 'ancient' history was invented in the Middle Ages [1v].
Isaac Newton (1643-1727) – the great English scientist, mathematician and physicist. He studied chronology for many years. Published a large manuscript 'The chronology of ancient kingdoms amended' [1v].
Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) – the important French scientist, the author of a great many manuscripts on philology, theology, history, archaeology and numismatics. The director of the French Royal Library. Wrote a number of books on chronology in which he strongly criticized the entire structure of the Scaligerian chronology. According to him the majority of the 'ancient monuments' were made significantly later or are even forgeries.
Petr Nikiforovich Krekshin (1684-1763) – personal secretary of Peter I the Great. He wrote a book in which he criticized the version of the Roman History recognised today. At the time of Krekshin it was still 'very fresh' and was not perceived as something obvious [4v2], ch.2:30.
Robert Baldauf – a German philologist of the second half of the XIX – early XX cc. Private docent at the University of Basel. The author of the book 'History and Criticism' in four volumes. Based on philological grounds, he came to the conclusion that the monuments of 'ancient' literature have much later origin than it is believed and were created in the Middle Ages [1v].
Edwin Johnson (1842-1901) – the English historian. In his work he strongly criticized the Scaligerian chronology. He believed that it should be significantly shortened [1v].
Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854 – 1946) – outstanding Russian scientist-polymath. Created a breakthrough in research on chronology. Launched an extensive critique of Scaligerain chronology and history. Proposed the ideas of several new scientific methods of analysis of chronology [1v], ch.1.
Wilhelm Kammeyer (the end of the XIX century – 1959) German scientist and a lawyer. Developed methods to determine the authenticity of the old official documents. He discovered that almost all the classical and early Mediaeval Western-European documents were the later fakes or copies. Arrived at a conclusion about the falsification of the ancient and Mediaeval history. Wrote a number of books on this subject.
Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) – Doctor- psychoanalyst. He was born in Russia and lived and worked in Russia, England, Palestine, Germany and the USA. He wrote a number of books on the subject of ancient history, where relying on the research conducted by N.A.Morozov (but not citing him anywhere) he pointed out some contradictions in the history. Attempted to explain them by using the 'theory of catastrophism'. In the West he is considered to be the founder of the critical school in chronology. However, fundamentally I.Velikovsky was trying to protect the Scaligerian chronology from too many major reconstructions. The fact that in Western Europe I.Velikovsky's work on history was known better than significantly earlier and more profound works by N.A.Morozov, impeded the development of the New Chronology in the West.
To summarise, the inconsistency of the Scaligerian chronology was clearly indicated by the scientists of the XVII-XIX cc. A thesis on the falsification of the classical texts and ancient monuments was formulated. But no one except N.A.Morozov could find a way to build the correct chronology. Even he failed in creating it. His version turned out to be half baked and inherited a number of significant errors of the chronology of Scaliger-Petavius.
For more information about the New Chronology go to: http://chronologia.org/en There are a number of free pdf volumes available at the Internet Archive.
