Dichotomy of the Year-countHistorical
tradition is based on the assumption that the chronology of the ancient
times has been in general reconstructed accurately - by the humanists of the early 17th century under J. J. Scaliger. On the basis of today's year-count, of course. This view has been disproved by Isaak
Newton for ancient Greece. Newtons today little known criticism on chronology had faced severe disagreement at his times.
The usual chronology is based on the tacit assumption that the Common Era year numbers of our times are referring to the year of the Birth of Christ, and that therefore the epochs CE and AD are identical.
Scientific evidence for the validity of this assumtion is missing to
this day: In fact the linkage of historical records with modern
measured data always requires auxiliary assumptions. Moreover, in the
records of history, there is a statistically unexpectable number of
similar events, separated by some three hundred years.
now offers the key for an explanation: As it appears, the years were
recorded with respect to two different epochs. Newton and the later
critics of chronology matched the recorded events accurately against
today's year-count, showing the resulting contradictions. They were
wrong, however, when they concluded that dark epochs within history
were free of real events. The traditional chronology, on the other
side, had recorded widely accurate numbers, overlooking until
today that the records refer to two different epoch-years across the
antique times. So some epochs were recorded twice, while others sunk
Shifted by three centuries are most references of the antique
times: The year-count after the foundation of Rome and the Greek
Olymics. Not affected was the late Babylonian Empire, the Old Testament
and the time of the Persian Wars in Greece. Dark centuries emerged,
where the two different count systems met.