Guidelines

If conventional history no longer applies, what does? This question is very difficult to answer. Chronological criticism is still at an early stage, and the various participants in the debate are by no means in agreement about what should be regarded as certain and what should be called into question. The last centuries of our history have, of course, on the whole been handed down or written down credibly. However, it is difficult to prove where invented or falsified history ends and credible history begins. Most of the contributors publishing on Chronologie-Kritik – not necessarily all of them – generally share the following views:

Timeline

Since around 1500 of the Christian era – roughly speaking, since Charles V. and Albrecht Dürer – our history has been handed down in a reasonably credible manner; individual dates can and should be questioned, but the general sequence of events is probably correct.

The 15th century – the emergence of the science of astronomy in Europe, the printing press, the Portuguese voyages of discovery, etc. – is more or less correctly recorded, but the dates have been backdated, so much caution is required here. All events prior to the 15th century have been established and dated late, and may or may not have taken place in one way or another – or at all. A large number of figures – kings, church leaders, scholars – were invented later. The development of cultures before the 15th century was much faster than is generally assumed.

Catastrophes

Frequent cosmic catastrophes have had a decisive influence on the development of the earth and must be included in our geological models.

Several catastrophes have occurred in recent human history, roughly speaking in the last two or three millennia, and explain cultural developments, although knowledge of these incisions was later deliberately suppressed.

Methodology

A scientific methodology is applied that incorporates, critically examines and correlates all existing sources and evidence – written records, archaeological finds, stratigraphy, numismatics, oral tradition that continues today.

Every claim must be substantiated and explained in detail; forgeries or misinterpretations must be able to be proven as such – using logic and the available data – whereby we rely on earlier scientific findings, but re-evaluate them from a critical point of view.

A simple statistical finding of similarity when comparing different eras or dynasties is not sufficient to draw far-reaching conclusions. The dating methods of conventional science – C-14, dendrochronology, thermoluminescence etc. – cannot be adopted uncritically, as they were calibrated on artefacts that were dated on the basis of conventional historical tradition. They are therefore contaminated from the ground up and cannot be considered absolute. And how far have we come? Read the Introduction to Chronological Criticism and the preliminary result.