Were 460 years added to the official chronology?

[axj]

What seems to me to be clear at this moment is the problem of the eruption of Vesuvius and the burying of Pompeii and Herculaneum. We should be able to rely on the hard evidence of the ice cores, yes? If so, then we have to delete the 'history' between the claimed date of 79 AD and the later confirmed (by ice cores) date. But it might not be that easy. There may have been things going on elsewhere at a different time that were set up as 'retroactive continuity.'

There was recently this study on exactly this topic:

No evidence for tephra in Greenland from the historic eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE: implications for geochronology and paleoclimatology​

Abstract
Volcanic fallout in polar ice sheets provides important opportunities to date and correlate ice-core records as well as to investigate the environmental impacts of eruptions. Only the geochemical characterization of volcanic ash (tephra) embedded in the ice strata can confirm the source of the eruption, however, and is a requisite if historical eruption ages are to be used as valid chronological checks on annual ice layer counting. Here we report the investigation of ash particles in a Greenland ice core that are associated with a volcanic sulfuric acid layer previously attributed to the 79 CE eruption of Vesuvius. Major and trace element composition of the particles indicates that the tephra does not derive from Vesuvius but most likely originates from an unidentified eruption in the Aleutian arc. Using ash dispersal modeling, we find that only an eruption large enough to include stratospheric injection is likely to account for the sizable (24–85 µm) ash particles observed in the Greenland ice at this time. Despite its likely explosivity, this event does not appear to have triggered significant climate perturbations, unlike some other large extratropical eruptions. In light of a recent re-evaluation of the Greenland ice-core chronologies, our findings further challenge the previous assignation of this volcanic event to 79 CE. We highlight the need for the revised Common Era ice-core chronology to be formally accepted by the wider ice-core and climate modeling communities in order to ensure robust age linkages to precisely dated historical and paleoclimate proxy records.

No evidence for tephra in Greenland from the historic eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE: implications for geochronology and paleoclimatology

Abstract. Volcanic fallout in polar ice sheets provides important opportunities to date and correlate ice-core records as well as to investigate the environmental impacts of eruptions. Only the geochemical characterization of volcanic ash (tephra) embedded in the ice strata can confirm the...

cp.copernicus.org

Ice cores and maybe tree rings might be the best way to establish an actual chronology and prove that there are 300-400 years too many in the last two millenia.

 

[luc]

I have been thinking about this lately as well, as I read a book about the Christianization of Europe during the early Middle Ages. I think I detected some clues in there that support the "time added" story, but it would be a HUGE mess sorting all that out. The author is extremely familiar with a huge amount of literature on these topics, but I noticed he relies almost exclusively on secondary sources. So you would have to go to those, and then to the primary sources, and see what, if any of it, holds and what it means.

We have a whole narrative in place, with all those emperors, Germanic kings and tribes and groups, what they did when, etc., that would have to be untangled. Makes you throw your hands up in despair. But it's still interesting to look even at the "official story" under the premise that there was a major cataclycm in the 6th century ending Rome, and then a dark age where people, including pockets of Romanized survivors in Germany and Gaul, were trying to survive and deal with what happened spiritually/religiously.

After reading the book, I asked Chat GPT some general questions just for fun, which didn't really help:

"Give a brief chronology on how Christianity spread in the Roman Empire, and subsequently in Gaul and among the German tribes"

ChatGPT:​

Christianity's spread within the Roman Empire and beyond was a complex process shaped by various social, political, and cultural factors. Here's a brief chronology:

1st Century CE: The Beginnings​

• 33 CE: After the crucifixion of Jesus, his disciples, particularly Peter and Paul, began spreading his teachings. Christianity initially spread among Jewish communities in Jerusalem and surrounding regions.
• 40s-60s CE: Paul's missionary journeys took him across the Eastern Roman Empire, including Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome itself. Paul's epistles helped to establish and support early Christian communities.

2nd and 3rd Centuries: Growth Despite Persecution​

• Early 2nd Century: Christianity began to spread more widely across the Roman Empire, including in major cities like Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. Despite periodic persecutions, the religion attracted converts from various social strata, including slaves, women, and soldiers.
• Mid-3rd Century: The Christian population grew significantly, though they continued to face persecution, especially under emperors like Decius and Diocletian.

4th Century: Official Recognition and Expansion​

• 313 CE: The Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, granting Christians the freedom to worship openly and ending official state persecution.
• 325 CE: The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine, establishing foundational Christian doctrine and further integrating Christianity into Roman imperial culture.
• 380 CE: Theodosius I declared Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica, leading to the suppression of pagan practices and the further spread of Christianity throughout the Empire.

5th Century: Spread to Gaul and Among Germanic Tribes​

• Late 4th - Early 5th Century: Christianity spread to Gaul (modern France) through Roman influence. Bishops like Martin of Tours played a significant role in converting the local population.
• 410 CE: The sack of Rome by the Visigoths under Alaric, who were Arian Christians, demonstrated that Christianity had also spread among the Germanic tribes, though in a different form from Roman orthodoxy.
• 496 CE: The Frankish king Clovis I converted to Catholic Christianity, marking the beginning of widespread Christianization among the Frankish and other Germanic tribes in what is now France and Germany. This conversion was politically motivated, aligning the Franks with the Roman Church and other Christian powers.

6th Century Onward: Consolidation and Missionary Activity​

• 6th Century: Missionary efforts by figures like St. Columbanus and St. Boniface further spread Christianity among the Germanic tribes in areas like present-day Germany and the British Isles.
• By 600 CE: Most of the Germanic tribes in Gaul and along the Rhine had converted to Christianity, either through Catholic or Arian traditions, with the Catholic faith eventually predominating.

This chronology outlines the broad stages of Christianity's spread within the Roman Empire, into Gaul, and among the Germanic tribes, marking its transition from a persecuted sect to the dominant religion of Western Europe.

What sources exist for the spread of Christianity in the 3rd century?

ChatGPT:​

The spread of Christianity in the 3rd century is documented through various types of sources, including writings by early Christian authors, church orders, inscriptions, and external accounts from Roman and other sources. Here’s an overview of the primary types of sources available:

1. Writings of Early Christian Authors​

• Church Fathers: Prominent early Christian theologians and leaders wrote extensively during this period. These writings provide insights into the beliefs, practices, and spread of Christianity.
  • Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 CE): A North African theologian, Tertullian’s works, such as Apologeticus and De Praescriptione Haereticorum, discuss the state of Christianity and its growth, particularly in North Africa and Rome.
  • Origen (c. 184 – c. 253 CE): A theologian from Alexandria, Origen’s extensive writings, including Contra Celsum, provide a defense of Christianity and give insight into its expansion and the challenges it faced.
  • Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200 – 258 CE): His letters and treatises, like De Unitate Ecclesiae, offer a glimpse into the organizational structure of the Church and its development during a period of persecution.

2. Ecclesiastical Orders and Canons​

• Didascalia Apostolorum: This 3rd-century church order from Syria outlines Christian practices and church governance, reflecting the spread of Christian communities and their efforts to maintain order.
• Apostolic Tradition (attributed to Hippolytus): Although its exact date is debated, this text from the early 3rd century describes Christian liturgy and practices, illustrating the structured nature of Christian worship and its spread within the Empire.

3. Epigraphic Evidence​

• Inscriptions: Christian inscriptions, often found in catacombs or on graves, offer evidence of the presence and growth of Christian communities in various regions. These inscriptions can indicate the geographic spread and social diversity of early Christians.
• Christian Symbols: Symbols like the ichthys (fish) and the Chi-Rho began appearing in inscriptions and artifacts during the 3rd century, suggesting a growing public Christian identity.

4. Roman Legal and Administrative Texts​

• Imperial Edicts and Legal Documents: Documents such as the Rescript of Emperor Decius (249-251 CE), which ordered a universal sacrifice to the Roman gods, and the Libelli (certificates of sacrifice) provide context for the persecution of Christians and their response, indicating the religion's presence across the Empire.
• Accounts of Persecution: Official records and later hagiographies describe the persecution of Christians under emperors like Decius and Valerian, indirectly indicating the spread and impact of Christianity.

5. Pagan and Non-Christian Sources​

• Porphyry (c. 234 – c. 305 CE): A philosopher and critic of Christianity, Porphyry’s works, though mostly lost, are known to have addressed the growth of Christianity, reflecting its spread and the reaction it provoked in traditional Roman society.
• Celsus: Though Celsus wrote in the 2nd century, Origen’s response to his work (Contra Celsum) in the 3rd century provides insights into the criticisms Christianity faced and the arguments used to defend its expansion.

6. Archaeological Evidence​

• Catacombs: The catacombs of Rome, with their Christian burials and artwork, are significant archaeological evidence of the Christian presence and community practices during the 3rd century.
• Early Christian Churches: Some of the earliest church buildings date to the 3rd century, providing physical evidence of established Christian communities.

These sources collectively contribute to our understanding of how Christianity spread during the 3rd century, despite the challenges it faced, and how it established itself across different regions of the Roman Empire.

Have some of these archeological findings been carbon-dated?

ChatGPT:​

Yes, some archaeological findings related to early Christianity, including those from catacombs, burial sites, and early church structures, have been analyzed using radiocarbon dating, although this method is not universally applied to all such artifacts.

Radiocarbon Dating of Christian Archaeological Sites:​

1. Catacombs:
   • Roman Catacombs: While the primary dating of the catacombs is usually done through epigraphic evidence (inscriptions) and historical records, some organic materials (such as wooden coffins, textile fragments, or bones) have been subjected to radiocarbon dating. This helps corroborate historical timelines and confirm the age of certain burials.
   • St. Peter's Basilica: The bones believed to be those of St. Peter were found under the basilica and subjected to analysis, including radiocarbon dating. These findings are part of the broader effort to authenticate relics and burials associated with early Christian figures.
2. Early Christian Churches:
   • Dura-Europos Church: Located in Syria and considered one of the oldest known Christian church buildings, some of the organic remains and possibly building materials might have been dated using radiocarbon dating, though much of the dating relies on historical stratigraphy and associated artifacts.
   • Cemeteries and Graves: Organic materials from Christian graves, such as wood, textiles, and human remains, have been subjected to radiocarbon dating in various sites across the Roman Empire. These findings help to establish the timeframe of Christian use of the sites, particularly in regions where written records are sparse.

Challenges in Radiocarbon Dating Christian Artifacts:​

• Contamination: Radiocarbon dating can be challenging when artifacts have been contaminated by later materials or have undergone conservation processes that introduce new carbon sources.
• Precision: While radiocarbon dating can provide a date range, it often needs to be corroborated with other dating methods or historical records to achieve a precise chronological placement.
• Selectivity: Not all sites or artifacts are subjected to radiocarbon dating due to preservation concerns, the nature of the material (e.g., inorganic materials like stone), or the availability of other, more precise dating methods (like dendrochronology).

Examples of Radiocarbon Dating in Christian Contexts:​

• Shroud of Turin: Although controversial and later debated, the Shroud of Turin, a relic purported to be the burial cloth of Jesus, underwent radiocarbon dating, which dated it to the medieval period, demonstrating how such dating methods are applied in Christian archaeology.
• Early Christian Textiles: In Egypt and other regions, Christian textiles from burial sites have been radiocarbon-dated to understand the timeline of Christian practices in these areas.

In conclusion, while radiocarbon dating has been applied to some early Christian archaeological findings, it is typically used in conjunction with other dating methods and historical analysis to provide a fuller picture of the timing and spread of Christianity.

 

[axj]

In carbon dating, the largest difference between the expected (calibrated) results and the actual results can be found for the years 600 AD to 1000 AD (which is 1000 BP to 1400 BP), even according to Wikipedia. They call it a "significant departure from a linear relationship between radiocarbon age and calendar age":

Variations in the calibration curve can lead to very different resulting calendar year ranges for samples with different radiocarbon ages. The graph to the right shows the part of the INTCAL13 calibration curve from 1000 BP to 1400 BP, a range in which there are significant departures from a linear relationship between radiocarbon age and calendar age.

Radiocarbon calibration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[axj]

Here is another smoking gun for the phantom years, in addition to the evidence based on Augustus being born on an equinox:

Anatolius of Alexandria recorded in the 3rd century AD that the spring equinox at his time was on March 19th and not on March 21st. This is important because the Gregorian calendar reform rests on the wrong claim that the spring equinox was on March 21st in 325 AD during the Council of Nicaea, which is why they cut only 10 days.

However, the fact that the equinox already deviated 2 days back in the 3rd century shows that the deviation by 10 days in the 16th century started all the way back at the beginning of the Julian calendar in 45 BC (not in 325 AD). This deviation of 10 days took about 1200-1300 years starting from 45 BC (beginning of the Julian calendar), meaning that the actual date of the "16th" century (when the 10 days were cut) was really the 12th, 13th or 14th century.

This is the article presenting the evidence:

Are there any observations of the vernal equinox around the Nicaea council or before? For this we have to rely on the oldest texts available which acknowledge the Julian calendar.

Anatolius of Alexandria (dead 283) relates in his "Paschal Canon" to the Julian calendar and says:

"... with respect to the day of Easter, that attention must be given not only to the course of the moon and the transit of the equinox, but also to the passage (transcensum) of the sun ...

There is, then, in the first year, the new moon of the first month, which is the beginning of every cycle of nineteen years, on the six and twentieth day of the month called by the Egyptians Phamenoth. But, according to the months of the Macedonians, it is on the two-and-twentieth day of Dystrus. And, as the Romans would say, it is on the eleventh day before the Kalends of April. Now the sun is found on the said six-and-twentieth day of Phamenoth, not only as having mounted to the first segment, but as already passing the fourth day in it. And this segment they are accustomed to call the first dodecatemorion (twelfth part), and the equinox, and the beginning of months, and the head of the cycle, and the starting-point of the course of the planets. And the segment before this they call the last of the months, and the twelfth segment, and the last dodecatemorion, and the end of the circuit of the planets. And for this reason, also, we maintain that those who place the first month in it, and who determine the fourteenth day of the Paschal season by it, make no trivial or common blunder."

Alden Mosshammer's (ref.1) and our interpretation of what Anatolius says is that Easter may not be celebrated before the vernal equinox has passed, and that the nominal day for the vernal equinox is March 22. And that at this date the sun already has passed the equinox astronomically with four days, meaning that the astronomical equinox was on March 19 in the late 3rd century AD.

This interpretation of Anatolius' statements presupposes that somebody living near his time, or he himself, has determined the date for the vernal equinox experimentally. This is not at all impossible, as Anatolius had been a scholar in Alexandria and had expert knowledge in astronomy (ref.1, p.130):

"Eusebius says that Anatolius was an Alexandrian by birth and one of the most eminent scholars of the time. He excelled in mathematics, astronomy, physical science, philosophy, and rhetoric. At the invitation of his fellow citizens, he founded a school of Aristotelian philosophy at Alexandria."

If the vernal equinox was astronomically on March 19 in the late 3rd century AD, it was on March 21 or 22 when the Julian calendar was introduced about 300 years before. Several scientists have noted the brisance of this fact and concluded accordingly that Anatolius must have erred. There is also a latin version of Anatolius' Paschal Canon, mentioning March 25 instead of March 22 for the vernal equinox. This version is regarded as a 7th century forgery.

If we assume that Anatolius has not erred, the vernal equinox was astronomically on March 19 also at the Nicaea Council in 325, only a few years after Anatolius' death. As the vernal equinox was astronomically on March 11 in 1582, there are only eight days offset between the two observations. This equals 1026 years if we multiply 8 with 128.2 which is the number of years per one day offset (see above).

However, the nominal difference between the date for the Gregorian reform and Nicaea is instead 1257 years (see above). This means that the historical time line between 325 and 1582 counts 231 "phantom" years too much.

Note: The calculation of the size of the calendar error is only a very rough estimation as the offset increases with one day every 128 years. So the close compliance of the 231 phantom years with our 232 postulated years is only a chimera.

The Gregorian calendar reform – Cybis Dendrochronology

Note that a Latin translation from the 7th century was a confirmed forgery which tried to cover up the real date of the equinox at the time of Anatolius in the 3rd century. This suggests that the phantom years hoax may have started no later than the 7th century, though I think the time of Charlemagne (crowned in exactly 800 AD) is also a good candidate for the beginning of the hoax.

The calculation of the phantom years at the end of the article (231 years) is a lower end estimate. There may have been another one day difference for the equinox between Anatolius (died in 283 AD) and the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) - and one more day means up to 128 more phantom years (231+128=359 years).

 

[axj]

NASA table of eclipse maps

NASA Technical Publication TP-2006-214141

This is part of NASA's official eclipse home page. It contains information on the Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses.

eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov

This seems to be another potential line of inquiry. The calculated eclipse dates and locations cannot line up with historical eclipse observations if hundreds of years were added in the first millenium AD.

It may even be possible to find out how many years exactly were added - if we can match historically observed eclipses from the first millenium and before to the actual year when they happened (according to NASA calculations).

I think that the NASA data should be correct, since it is relatively easy to check with astronomy software.

 

[mkrnhr]

On the subject of historical eclipses, I remember reading some time ago this entry from the malagabay blog that some here know: Heinsohn and The Eclipse Record so maybe there is something there to investigate indeed.

 

[Myeong In]

This seems to be another potential line of inquiry. The calculated eclipse dates and locations cannot line up with historical eclipse observations if hundreds of years were added in the first millenium AD.

It may even be possible to find out how many years exactly were added - if we can match historically observed eclipses from the first millenium and before to the actual year when they happened (according to NASA calculations).

I think that the NASA data should be correct, since it is relatively easy to check with astronomy software.

I don't know how useful is the data as we don't know how do they compute the table. It seems that the data are attuned to the historical observations. I tried AD 59 AD 71 and AD 939 solar eclipse and they can be all found.

As Fomenko in his book New chronology, explaining why a mathematician is interested in figuring out the chronology, he is surprise that the equation of lunar motion theory becomes so complicated when dueling with the data from 8 to 10 century. The complexity of the equation reduced when certain data points are dropped.

And in the article Heinsohn and The Eclipse Record, it is suggested the problematic data are from 700 to 1300.

 

[axj]

I don't know how useful is the data as we don't know how do they compute the table. It seems that the data are attuned to the historical observations.

Yes, the historical variations in the Earth rotation speed (called delta T) are deducted from ancient eclipse observations to some degree. But it seems that the error should not be too large, even going back 2000 years - probably on the order of a few degrees longitude miscalculation for ancient eclipses.

The current calculations of the historical Earth spin variations have resulted in the claim that the Earth started spinning much more slowly around the 8-12th centuries. This is most likely not a coincidence, considering that the phantom years are placed right before the 8-12th centuries. Though "much more slowly" is also relative since we are talking about millisecond variations per year.

I have been studying the ancient eclipses this week and trying to find matches 200-500 years "earlier". There is quite a lot to report, but it seems that about 245 years (+-15 years) were added as phantom years. The accumulated 2-3 days error from the Julian calendar only gave a rough estimate of 200-400 years.

 

[BHelmet]

A big question and potential spammer (lol sometimes spell check makes unintentional jokes! Spanner) in the works might be to ask what impact time line manipulation has on the geophysical data points and/or the relationship between historical events and those geophysical solar system events. Bottom line: I don’t think we know. (Unless the C’s are asked) But I wouldn’t assume they are independent of each other.

 

[axj]

what impact time line manipulation has on the geophysical data points

I considered 4D timeline manipulation or something similar too when I came across a few ancient solar eclipses where the exact date was written down (which matches perfectly with the "official" calculated date of that solar eclipse).

Pliny the Elder's total solar eclipse from April 30, 59 AD is a good example. He supposedly wrote that the eclipse happened "on the day before the calends of May" (=day before May 1st). The date and location are so specific that there is literally no other solar eclipse on April 30 in that location for thousands of years.

Though an older translation I saw only said "the eclipse chanced before the calends of May" (no "day before"), which is a two-week period between mid-April and April 30. And for that period there are other solar eclipses there 200-400 years later.

The thing is, even if all existing copies of Pliny's work were modified to include that specific date, it was supposedly not possible to calculate the date and location of a solar eclipse until the early 18th century. Ancient astronomers were apparently only able to calculate the date of eclipses, but not where exactly they would be.

So there was no way that the April 30, 59 AD solar eclipse date and location could have been known in the 1st millenium AD to be included in forgeries - unless some secret societies were able to do these calculations or if there was some kind 4D STS involvement.

The easiest explanation is that the phrase "before the calends of May" was changed to "on the fay before the calends of May" in more recent translations. But there are a few other ancient eclipses (around 2000 years ago) where the exact dates were given and which exactly match the official calculations.

 

[BHelmet]

The waters are murky, and I am pretty sure I don't have a clue, but we have this idea that planetary movement is a kind of local time clock. (I am not really thinking about forgeries, but if 4D STS are in charge of forgeries and the timeline, they should be able to do whatever they want with it)

If timeline manipulation is ongoing, how would we even be aware of it? It seems that we are not.

What does time line manipulation do to the clock? (planetary movement) Anything? It sounds like the assumption is that jacking with the human earthly timeline happens outside of the physical movement of the outer planets? Does it? I don't think we know. I think this is a key question. Are planetary movements static and time manipulation just happens perceptually here on earth locally? Or something else?

IOW, maybe there was an eclipse on April 30, 59 AD

1. What if April 30, 59 AD wasn't really April 30, 59 AD? What if it was 200-400 years later? or...
2. What if April 30, 59 AD WAS April 30, 59 AD but the timeline was changed after that eclipse date?
3. Is it even possible to figure it out?
4. LOL and what if the eclipse date was July 47 star date 3094.6 and the time line manipulation then made it April 30, 59 AD (JK)

The C's said we have no clue about the implications of this, implying that the implications are huge.
So, these are big questions worthy of asking, IMO.

 

[axj]

Also, a reminder from the August 2022 session:

(Joe) Can I ask a question? Ya know the 480 years that we assume were added to the timeline? Were they all added after Caesar's death?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) Were they all added after Caesar's death up until the 540 AD cataclysm, or were some added afterwards in the Dark Ages?

A: 2 major chunks. They can be identified by duplicate histories.

Though the 2-3 extra days that accumulated in the Julian calendar point towards no more than 350-400 added phantom years and at least 200-250 years. (128 years per extra day)

 

[BHelmet]

So, any thoughts on the 2 chunks and their respective lengths? The above seems to indicate that Caesar's death was not necessarily around the years between 0 to 79AD, but later. Anyway, as I review the historical narratives, there seem to be so many repetitions in the narrative I can't see straight. Eg, 100 years war period and overlap with other periods of wars...I can't make it fit though unless 100 years war was collapsed into a couple other war periods...but then which is "real" of the overlapping periods? So what if the 100 years war period was equal to the Italian wars plus the 30 years war? (durations add up to about the same) Grasping at straws.

 

[axj]

The above seems to indicate that Caesar's death was not necessarily around the years between 0 to 79AD, but later.

We even have the linguistic problem of whether something happened "later" or "earlier" due to the added phantom centuries. Do we keep the current year 2024 and by removing 200-400 years designate a new year zero (moving it up from the 3rd-5th centuries BC)? Or do we keep the current year zero and adjust everything around it, making what we have now the 16th, 17th or 18th century?

Also, Caesar supposedly lived from 100 BC to 44 BC and removing the phantom years would indeed mean that he lived 200-400 years closer to our time.

One of the most confusing parts is that everything between the two chunks of added phantom years will be off from our time by less years (equal to the number of added phantom years in the "second chunk") than what came before all the added phantom years, or before the "first chunk". Even explaining it is a challenge.

So first, one chunk of phantom years is added sometime between "45 BC" and "540 AD", which means that everything after that first chunk is off from our time only by the number of phantom years of the second chunk that was added sometime after "540 AD" (Dark Ages). While everything before Caesar's death would be off by the full number of phantom years from both the first and second chunk.

 

[BHelmet]

Well said, exactly my thoughts.