Dichotomy of the Year-count

Historical 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.

This 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 into oblivion.

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. 


But who should have had a motivation to manipulate the year-count?

HEK 06/2009