Our duty is to believe that for which we have sufficient evidence
and to suspend judgment when we have not. - John Lubbock
"The origin of AD dating is not verifiable before the 11th century
(with the exception of some manuscripts that have never been
scientifically). Thus, there is no place in the 1st millennium
historians or chronologists would have kept a complete
record of the
years AD 1-1000..." - Gunnar Heinsohn
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
2021 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 the existing 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, salt increase in the Dead Sea, 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 is 1291 instead of 2021, how would
that change things for you? 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. Life was more
tenuous, harsh and short, and the focus was much more on survival than it is today,
at least in Western societies..
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 just previous to or in their lives.
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
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.
Also,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" (assumed) ancient dates, and they don't verify anything but the
hidden or soft corruption in scientific circles. The records that have been
kept are incomplete, some documents are known to be outright fabrications or forgeries, and some of the dates, such as
birthdates, have been fudged by
kings and popes for egoistic or political reasons to fall on the century or
millennium change. 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 quasi-support 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. Strata don't get frisky and
decide to migrate upwards for more fresh air!
Cultures have dozens of particular aspects, forms, and styles, such as
coins, culinary and eating utensils, artificial lighting apparatus,
clothes, shoes, needles, 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, and 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. And yet,
mainstream archaeology does not recognize the wide area cometary
disaster and doesn't use this reference strata effectively.
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! Get used to, in
your mind, to subtracting this number from the "accepted" date.
See the meticulously researched articles by Gunnar Heinsohn at:
Here is another of the MANY pieces that militate for a drastically
shortened 1st millennium.
Evidence indicates that Britannia, like other Roman provinces, was devastated by a catastrophe.
"Many [British] building sequences appear to terminate in the 2nd and
3rd centuries. […] The latest Roman levels are sealed by deposits of
dark coloured loam, commonly called the ‘dark earth’ (formerly ‘black
earth’). In the London area the ‘dark earth’ generally appears as a dark
grey, rather silty loam with various inclusions, especially building
material. The deposit is usually without stratification and homogeneous
in appearance, It can be one meter ore more in thickness. […] The
evidence suggests that truncation of late Roman stratification is linked
to the process of ‘dark earth’ formation” (Yule, B. (1990), "The ‘dark
earth’ and Late Roman London”, in Antiquity: A Review of World
Archaeology, Bd. 64, Nr. 244, September, 620-628;
And so, quoting an email from Gunnar Heinsohn:
"Kate Wiles (Senior Editor at History Today Magazine) wondered, in
2016, about the absence of material Anglo-Saxon archaeological
finds. She has contrasted that state of affairs with written sources.
"Anglo-Saxon England was peopled with learned men and women, highly
educated in Latin and English, who circulated and read Classical
texts as well as composing their own. […] There survives a large
corpus of literature showing a deep understanding of the physical
and the metaphysical […]. Charters show that laws, administration
and learning were not just for an educated elite. Laypeople were
involved in the ceremonies and had documents created for them: land
grants, wills, dispute settlements. […] The coinage across the
period shows an elaborate and controlled economy. This was a
well-managed society not given to lawlessness and chaos. […] They
drew influence from Classical art and developed their own distinct
artistic styles. […] They had trade routes stretching across the
known world and were familiar with and able to buy spices, pigments
and cloth from thousands of miles away (many manuscripts use a blue
pigment made from lapis lazuli, brought from Afghanistan). […] The
English church was in close contact with Rome, with correspondence
travelling back and forth; new bishops would be sent to Rome to
collect the pallium; and King Alfred visited the city as a young
boy” (Wiles 2016).
The point being made so artfully above is that the written record and
the (mis)dated archaeology don't match and are incredibly incompatible.
How would you like to get used to referring to the current year as
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.
Another major implication is that our so called scholar experts may
be just as wrong in so many other fields where subjective factors play a
big role. This should NOT actually be shocking.
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.