The Introduction
The historical traditions of western ancient kingdoms like Greece, Persia, Egypt, Assyria and Sumeria have arguably evolved over a long period from origins of great antiquity. The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey and the traditional historical records like the Zoroastrian Shahnamah, the genealogical lists of ancient Egyptian royal dynasties, the kings list of Sumeria and the Hebrew Bible of Jews undoubtedly provide a tantalizing glimpse of western historical traditions.
Truly speaking, Homer was the first historian of the west, who narrated the historical events in verse, though eminent historians have had a biased view about his epics. Isaac Newton studied the Greek historical sources for the chronology and expressed his doubt that; “The Greek Antiquities are full of poetical fictions, because the Greeks wrote nothing in prose, before the conquest of Asia by Cyrus the Persian. Then Pherecydes Scyrius and Cadmus Milesius introduced the writing in Prose.”1
Apparently, Isaac Newton ridiculously argued that the Greek history written in poetry is fiction and the Greek history written in prose is trustworthy. In fact, the discovery of the archaeological site of Troy not only debunks the scepticism of Doubting Thomases (eminent historians) but also clearly establishes the historicity of the legends about the ancient city of Troy.
Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon and Ctesias were the earliest Greek historians after Homer. Though Herodotus mainly presented the historical account of the Greco-Persian wars but he also narrated the ancient traditions, politics and cultural conflicts in Greece, Persia and Egypt etc., in his book “The Histories”. Thucydides criticized Herodotus for inserting some fables into his historical narrative and insisted on his writing only the factual narrative. Traditionally, ancient historians of the world inserted fables to make the historical narrative more interesting to the common people. Herodotus also followed the same tradition but this does not mean that Herodotus had concocted the historical narratives. Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Jews also had the tradition of recording their own chronological history. Starting from the time of Alexander, many historians like Ptolemy I, Berossus, Manetho, Polybius, Diodorus, Pliny, Strabo, Plutarch, Arrian, Tacitus and Eucebius etc. had contributed a lot towards preserving the chronological history of ancient western kingdoms. Berossus wrote on the chronological history of Babylon, whereas Manetho presented the chronological history of Egypt.
Evidently, all ancient western kingdoms had a tradition of multigenerational recordkeeping of the chronological history. Seemingly,
ancient Greeks referred to the epoch of Atlantis’s submersion for the chronological records. Since the fall of Troy city was also an epochal historical event, the Greeks used that epoch also for recording the chronology. Thereafter, the epoch of Olympiad and the era of Alexandria came into popular use. Ancient Egyptians referred to the date of King Menes of the first dynasty as an epoch for recording the chronology. Later, they started using a calendar of Sothic cycle (1461 years) for recording the dates. The Sumerians traditionally preserved their chronological list of kings. Later, the epoch of Nabonassarian era had been popularly used in Babylon. The Jews used the epoch of Exodus, the first and second temple periods for recording their chronology. The Roman traditions referred to the epoch of the founding of Rome city, the Augustan era, the Diocletian era and the era of the Martyrs. Numerous ancient western historians had followed above mentioned epochs and presented the chronological history. None of these historians ever questioned or disputed the authenticity of the traditional chronology based on the well-established epochs of eras. Greece, Egypt, Babylon and Persia were following the traditional chronology till the 18th century.
Traditionally, the Christians followed the Easter computus. The Irish Christians prepared their Easter computus in the cycle of 84 (14) years in the astronomical epoch of 1 BCE which became an epoch for recording the history of Anglo-Saxons. Gradually, the Christians of England mistakenly started believing that the incarnation of Jesus Christ took place in 1 BCE- 1 CE. Though the epoch of the Christian era (1 CE) came into regular use since the 9th and 10th centuries, the popular era of the Martyrs was still in vogue till the 15th century CE. The last reference of the era of the Martyrs is dated in the year 1132 (1415 CE). Thus, the epoch of the Christian era (1 CE) has replaced the era of the Martyrs in the 16th century CE. This is how an astronomical epoch of 1 CE had been transformed into a historical epoch.
There was no academic dispute about the traditional chronological history of western ancient kingdoms till the 16th century. When the Christian era had replaced the era of Martyrs in the 16th century, the historians of the 16th and 17th centuries were faced with the inconsistencies in the chronology for the first time. Thus, the modern research on the chronological history of the Western civilisations has commenced in the 17th century. James Ussher (1581-1656 CE), the Archbishop of Ireland, has proposed the Biblical chronology starting from the date of creation in 4004 BCE. He assumed the birth of Jesus in the year of death of the King Herod in 4 BCE and speculated based on the Biblical references that the date of creation to have been at midday on 23rd Oct 4004 BCE. He calculated the date of Alexander in 323 BCE and the date of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE. John Lightfoot also presented the same chronology in
1642 CE.
In fact, Jesuit scholars had an obsession to present the timeline of human history based on the biblical book of Genesis. Many scholars
like Venerable Bede, Joseph Scaliger and Johannes Kepler proposed the date of creation around 3952 BCE, 3949 BCE and 3992 BCE respectively.
Issac Newton was the first who extensively worked on reconciliation of the chronologies of ancient western kingdoms and wrote a book titled “The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended – A Short Chronicle from the first Memory of Things in europe to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great” which was published by John Conduitt in 1728 CE. Evidently, Issac Newton was under the hypnotic influence of the Ussher-Lightfoot chronology but he revised the date of creation from 4004 BCE to 4000 BCE and the date of Jesus Christ from 4 BCE to 1 CE. He drastically revised the traditional timelines of various ancient civilisations. He contracted the Greek chronology by five hundred years and the Egyptian chronology by thousand years because he found that the traditional chronology of Greece and Egypt is not consistent with reference to the Christian chronology i.e. Ussher-Lightfoot chronology. Though Issac Newton promoted the rational and radical approach in resolving the chronological complexities in history but unfortunately, he failed to apply the same approach in critical examination of the Ussher-Lightfoot chronology because he was born and brought up with the blind faith in the fictitious epoch of 1 CE.
The publication of Newton’s book on the chronology of ancient kingdoms in 1728 CE had unleashed a storm of controversy. Gradually, the chronological controversies have been forced to surrender to the domination of the Christian chronology presented by Newton and his ilk. The chronological history of Persia, Egypt, Babylonia, Greece, Israel, Syria and Rome is closely interlinked with the chronology of the Achaemenid Empire of Persia. Therefore, the historians unanimously agreed upon the timeline of the Achaemenid Empire to be the sheet anchor of the chronological history. Since there are some chronological errors or inconsistencies in the traditional account given in the Jewish sources and the Christian sources, the historians have accepted the chronology of the Achaemenid Empire given by Ptolemy as secular and authentic. According to Ptolemy, Cyrus, the founder of the Achaemenid Empire, ascended the throne in the year 210 of the Nabonassarian era. Though historians have established the Ptolemaic chronology as secular but they fixed the epoch of the Nabonassarian era in 747 BCE based on the non-secular epoch of the Christian era (1 CE). Thus, the so-called secular chronology of the world is basically a communal chronology that supports and promotes the fictitious epoch of 1 CE.
It’s an irony that despite the fact that all western historians and their followers worked for 300 years for establishing a rational chronology of the world history but they failed to get rid of the hypnotic influence of the Christian chronology. This is the reason why numerous chronological inconsistencies still persist in the world history. There is a genuine need to dehypnotize the world historians from the Christian chronology so that we can truly establish a rational chronology of the world history.
I have established in the forthcoming chapters that the epoch of the Christian era (1 CE) is simply fictitious as it being an astronomical epoch and not historical. Therefore, it cannot deserve to be the sheet anchor for arriving at the chronological history of the world. Interestingly, Newton and later western historians had reconstructed the chronology of the world based on the fictitious epoch of the Christian era and declared their methodology as rational and secular but none of these historians had ever produced an iota of evidence to establish the historicity of the epoch of the Christian era. Though they were very rational while critically examining the evidence for arriving at the chronology but they were extremely childish in their approach while examining the historicity of the Christian era. They fixed the dates of Alexander, Julius Caesar and Augustus based on the fictitious epoch of the Christian era and ridiculously assumed the historical date of Jesus Christ in 1 CE. It is totally irrational to establish the epochs of various ancient eras of the world based on a sheet anchor which cannot be independently established. Only independently verifiable historical epochs can qualify to be the sheet anchors of chronology. Moreover, most of the epochs of ancient western eras like the Nabonassarian era, the Olympiad era, the era of the founding of Rome city, the era of Alexandria and the Augustan era etc. came into popular use before the birth of Jesus Christ.
As we critically examine the chronology of Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Greece, Persia, Rome and China in the forthcoming chapters, it becomes evident that the entire chronology of world history has been brought forward by ~660 years. The European historians of the 17th and 18th centuries faithfully assumed the historicity of the fictitious epoch of 1 CE and distorted the chronology of entire world. I have conclusively established that the epoch of 1 BCE-1 CE is just a fictitious astronomical epoch of the Irish cycle of 84 (14) years and the epoch of the 12th cycle of 532 years as propounded by Annianus of Alexandria. The Christians of England mistakenly started believing from the 8th century CE that Jesus Christ incarnated in 1BCE-1 CE due to the confusion between the epoch of Anno Incarnatione Domini, i.e., Irish computus of Easter Sunday computus (1 BCE) and the epoch of Anno Incarnatione (660 BCE). Seemingly, there was a controversy about the exact epoch of Anno Incarnatione in the 9th and 10th centuries CE because Abul Fazal says that “the commencement of their year (the epoch of the Christian era), some take to be the entry of the sun in Capricorn; others, from the 8th degree of the same”.2 Though, there is a controversy about the historicity of Jesus Christ, it is nothing but an ideological propaganda by atheists. In reality, Jesus Christ was undoubtedly a historical person. He was born on 10th Jan 660 BCE and probably crucified on 1st Apr 629 BCE.
I have comprehensively studied the entire epigraphic evidence archaeo-astronomically and refixed the various epochs of ancient Indian eras in my book titled “The Chronology of India: From Mahabharata to Medieval Era”. I have conclusively established that the chronology of India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Burma, Cambodia and Java has been brought forward by 661 years because the historians mistakenly considered the epoch of the Saka era (583 BCE) and the Sakanta era (78 CE) as identical and fixed the epoch of the Saka era in 78 CE. Moreover, ancient Jain historians (2nd century CE onwards) mistakenly identified King Chandragupta of Ujjain, the disciple of Bhadrabahu I with the Maurya King Chandragupta which led to a chronological illusion that Buddha and Mahavira were the contemporaries. This mistaken contemporaneity of Buddha and Mahavira led to additional chronological error of 660 years. Thus, the date of Buddha’s nirvana has been brought forward from 1864 BCE to 544 BCE by reducing 1320 years and modern historians have further reduced the chronology of 61 years by fixing the date of Buddha’s nirvana in 483 BCE. Evidently, the chronology of India, Sri Lanka and Burma has suffered the loss of the chronology of 1381 years.
Seemingly, the epoch of Anno Mundi in the later Jewish tradition had been brought forward by ~165 years. This is the reason why Jewish chronology is still struggling with the missing ~165 years. Similarly, historians wrongly concluded that the Sothic cycle of Egypt commenced in 2781 BCE considering the heliacal rising of Sirius. I have established that the Sothic cycle commenced in 3605 BCE and the mid-night rising of Sirius on 2nd Nov 3605 BCE was the epoch. Thus, historians brought forward the chronology of ancient Egypt by 824 years. It is evident that the date of Jesus’ birth has been brought forward from 660 BCE to 1 BCE-1CE which led to the missing 660 years in the chronology of world history. Jewish and Egyptian chronologies suffered additional missing ~165 years before the epoch of Nabonassarian era. The Roman Chronology has also been brought forward by 660 years but historians mistakenly considered the epochs of the Diocletian era and the era of Martyrs as identical which reduced the gap of missing years by 361 years. Thus, the Roman chronology has only the missing years of ~300 years after 284 CE. This is the reason why Heribert Illig proposed the “Phantom time hypothesis” in 1991. Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz has rightly observed that “Between Antiquity (1 AD) and the Renaissance (1500 AD) historians count approximately 300 years too many in their chronology. The Roman emperor Augustus really lived 1700 years ago, instead of the conventionally assumed 2000 years.”3 Therefore, Illig has concluded that a phantom period of approximately 300 years has been inserted between 600 CE and 900 CE. One of the best examples is the Chapel of Aachen (800 CE), which seems to come approximately 300 years too early. Many evidences indicate that the Chapel of Aachen is a building of the 11th century CE. Illig has also pointed out many inconsistencies in the Roman chronology.
In fact, Heribert Illig is right. I have established that the epoch of the Diocletian era commenced in 77 BCE as recorded in Ain-i-Akbari by Abul Fazl.4 Since the epoch of the Augustan era has been brought forward by 660 years from 685 BCE to 25 BCE, the epoch of the Diocletian era outght to be fixed 660 years later around 584 CE but historians have wrongly fixed the epoch of the Diocletian era in 284 CE 300 years earlier. Evidently, this error in the epoch of the Diocletian era led to the phantom time hypothesis of 300 years. Actually, there was a gap of 361 years between the epoch of the Diocletian era and the era of Martyrs. If we fix the epoch of the Diocletian era in 584 CE then the epoch of Martyrs’ era will be in 945 CE which would be too late in the chronology. Therefore, modern historians have concocted that the epoch of the Diocletian era and the era of Martyrs are identical without any evidence. There are numerous Paparus records of Egypt which refer to the different years in the epochs of the Diocletian era and the Martyr’s era.5 Evidently, the Diocletian era and the Martyr’s era are not identical. If we correct these errors in the Roman chronology, we can successfully reconcile the inconsistencies pointed out by the phantom time hypothesis. It is extremely important to note in the Roman chronology that there is a gap of 361 years between the epoch of the Diocletian era and the epoch of the era of Martyrs. The Diocletian era commenced in 77 BCE whereas the Martyrs’ era commenced in 284 CE.
Modern research on the chronological history of the Western civilisations began in the 17th century. James Ussher, the Archbishop of
Ireland, has proposed the chronology starting from the date of creation in 4004 BCE. Issac Newton wrote “The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms” in 1728 CE under the hypnotic influence of the Ussher chronology. I have logically established in this book that the epoch of the Christian era (1 CE) is a fictitious epoch. I have critically and independently examined the entire evidence and established the true epochs of various ancient eras of the world without referring to the epoch of the Christian era. Thereafter, I have arrived the date of Jesus Christ based on the epochs of other eras because I have not found any evidence which can independently be verified to establish the date of Jesus. In this process, I have discovered that there is an error of ~660 years in the chronological history of the world and an error of ~825 years in the Egyptian chronology. Therefore, the epoch of the Christian era (1 CE) does not deserve to be sheet anchor of world chronology.
I have rationally attempted to explore the true chronology of the world and tried to resolve the chronological inconsistency of ~660 years. I have explained with the help of facts that the complete chronology of the western kingdoms from ancient times to the fall of Byzantine Roman Empire. If we correct these chronological errors as discussed, all chronic problems of the chronology of the world history can be satisfactorily resolved. I hope the learned readers will critically examine the facts to evaluate my research in resolving the chronological mysteries and contribute further in establishing the authentic chronology of the world history.
In fact, the eminent historians of the western world have mistakenly assumed a fictitious epoch of the Christian era (1 CE) as the sheet anchor and reconciled the chronology of entire world history in contrast to the traditional chronology of ancient civilisations. Needless to say, it resulted in numerous irresolvable chronological problems. I would challenge the world historians to arrive the chronology from Hammurabi to Augustus without blindly presuming the date of Jesus’ birth in 1 CE. The archaeoastronomical evidence of Venus Tablet can independently and accurately establish the date of King Ammisaduqa, the fifth successor of Hammurabi which would qualify to be the true sheet anchor of the chronology of ancient western kingdoms.
