Scientific nature

To question the view of our history as fundamentally as is proposed here requires a great deal of rethinking. It cannot be surprising that many voices rise up to dismiss the ideas expressed in the context of chronology criticism as ‘pseudo-scientific’ or esoteric.

There are, of course, many sites on the internet that put forward imaginative and often religiously inclined ideas about world history, and some even take up ideas that partly overlap with those presented here. Revising Chronology, however, has nothing to do with such visions, and limits itself to purely scientific debates in which only those theoretic principles, methods and assumptions are included on which our conventional view of history is based. In other words, there is no mention of aliens here and no spiritual postulates are put forward. This is only a critical analysis of what we already know, with the help of source research, stratigraphy, geology, philological and art historical analysis, physics and astrophysics and other methods that have always been used by archaeologists and historians. .

Revising Chronology is essentially no different from conventional historical scholarship. It just goes further, questioning things that have previously been accepted as consensus and examining details that are usually accepted as obvious or credible – putting long-accepted opinions on the gold scale again.

In this sense, it is not only perfectly scientific to declare all the tombstones of the Visigoths to be forged or later misclassified, or to regard all the documents of the Middle Ages as later made-up works; it is even more scientific to do so than to believe in good faith that some of this material is genuine. One must not forget that the most respected medieval scholars in the last two centuries have had to reject the vast majority of known documents and stones as forgeries; only a small number could find its way into the textbooks as genuine. To examine all these items again critically and to ask what proves their authenticity and what speaks against it is undoubtedly a scientific approach.

Of course, this work must be done without prejudice, and without fear of touching a glorious past, be it a Visigothic empire, be it Charlemagne. If the result is that whole periods of time are remaining without any historical evidence, then there is no other solution than to turn to the chronology of our past and to question what it is actually based on. If the answer turns out to be that it is based on religious and ideological writings that were obviously written to secure the power claims of their principals, then it is time to take a thorough examination of our entire historiography.

Methodology

• A scientific methodology is used that incorporates, critically examines and relates all available sources and evidence -written tradition, ground finds, stratigraphy, numismatics, oral tradition continuing today.
• Every claim must be substantiated and explained in detail; falsifications or misinterpretations must be proven as such -using logic and the available data-, relying on earlier scientific findings, but re-evaluating them from a critical point of view.
• A simple statistical similarity finding when comparing different epochs 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, since they were calibrated on findings that were dated on the basis of conventional historical tradition. In this respect, they are contaminated from scratch and cannot be considered absolute.

Since this work is based on a meticulous analysis of the details – this is the only way to detect the cracks in our conventional edifice of thought – a larger amount of reading must of course be mastered. Our site aims to contribute to facilitating this resolution; therefore, as many contributions as possible are made available to the reader here, even though these contributions often represent quite different stages of thinking on a subject and may sometimes contradict each other. As in all branches of science, no conclusion is final – it is valid only until it is disproved or replaced by a better one.